Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 61 / Thursday, March 30, 1995 / Notices 16507

operational expenses such as

equipment, overhead, and support staff.

As reflected in item 12 below, the

burden hours attributable to the

collection by the universe of

respondents is estimated to be 3,500

hours. It is estimated that the cost to

plans to complete the collection will

range from $20 to $25 per hour.

Therefore, the estimated aggregate cost

to respondents is approximately $70,000

to $87,500 in the first year, and $49,000

to $61,250 in succeeding years.

12. Provide estimates of the burden of

the collection of information including

both recordkeeping and reporting

requirements. The statement should:

• Provide number of respondents,

frequency of response, annual burden,

and an explanation of how the burden

was estimated. Unless directed to do so,

agencies should not make special

surveys to obtain information on which

to base burden estimates. Consultation

with a sample of potential respondents

is desirable. If the burden on

respondents is expected to vary widely

because of differences in activity, size or

complexity, show the range of estimated

burden and explain the reasons for the

variance.

An estimated 10,000 delinquent

employee benefit plan administrators

are expected to file under the Program

in the first year, and an estimated 7,000

filings are expected in subsequent years.

Participation in the Program is

voluntary, and filing under the Program

would not be necessary more often than

annually, and most participants would

probably participate one time only. The

annual burden per filing is estimated to

be approximately 21 minutes, based on

a pilot pretest of not more than nine

people from both Federal employment

and the private sector. The burden on

respondents is not expected to vary

widely because of differences in

activity, size or complexity.

• If the request for approval is for

more than one form, provide separate

burden estimates for each form for

which approval is sought and aggregate

the burdens on the Paperwork

Reduction Act Submission form. If only

one form is submitted, you need not

duplicate the information entered on the

Paperwork Reduction Act Submission

form.

Not applicable.

13. For amendments to existing

collections, explain reasons for changes

in burden, including the need for any

increase.

Not applicable.

14. For collections of information

whose results are planned to be

published, outline plans for tabulation

and publication. Address any complex

analytical techniques that will be used.

Provide the time schedule for the entire

project, including beginning and ending

dates of the collection of information,

completion of report, publication dates,

and other actions.

The Form 5500 Series collection, and

by extension, this DFVC Program

collection, are not a collection of

information for statistical use. Once

collected, however, the information is

available to the Department and the

public, and it is used for purposes other

than enforcement and disclosure.

[FR Doc. 95–7742 Filed 3–29–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–22–M

Evaluation of the Summer Youth

Employment and Training Program

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Labor.

ACTION: Expedited review under the

Paperwork Reduction Act.

SUMMARY: The Employment and

Training Administration, Department of

Labor, in carrying out its responsibilities

under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44

U.S.C. Chapter 35, 5 CFR 1320 (53 FR

16618, May 10, 1988)), is submitting a

study to examine the range of practices

currently being used in the Summer

Youth Employment and Training

Administration (SYETP) to deliver

educational services. It will assess the

quality of training and evaluate

contributions to the educational

deficiencies of participants.

DATES: The Employment and Training

Administration has requested an

expedited review of this submission

under the Paperwork Reduction Act;

this Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) review has been requested to be

completed by April 14, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Comments and questions regarding the

Evaluation of the SYETP should be

directed to Mr. Kenneth A. Mills,

Departmental Clearance Officer, Office

of Information Resource Management

Policy, U.S. Department of Labor, 200

Constitution Avenue NW., Room N–

1301, Washington, DC 20210, (202) 219–

5095.

Comments should also be sent to

OMB, Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk

Officer for ETA, NEOB Room 10235,

Washington, DC 20503, (202) 395–7316.

Any member of the public who wants

to comment on the information

collection request which has been

submitted to OMB should advise Mr.

Mills of this intent at the earliest

possible date.

Average Burden Hours/Minutes Per

Response: 113 minutes

Frequency of Response: One time

Number of Respondents: 9,115

Total Annual Burden Hours: 17,167

hours

Total Annual Responses: 9,115

Affected Public: Individuals or

households; Non-for-profit

institutions; State, Local or Tribal

Government

Respondents Obligation to Reply:

Voluntary

Signed at Washington, DC, this 24th day of

March 1995.

Kenneth A. Mills,

Departmental Clearance Officer.

I. Introduction

This document represents a request

for approval of the data collection

protocols to be used in the Evaluation

of the Summer Youth Employment and

Training Program, being conducted by

Social Policy Research Associates (SPR)

and Brandeis University’s Center for

Human Resources, under contract to the

U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). The

study uses qualitative (case study) and

quantitative data collection and analysis

methods to examine training practices

being used in the Summer Youth

Employment and Training Program

(SYETP), Title II–B of JTPA. The

Introduction to this document provides

a brief overview of the study and its

purposes, and it discusses the data

collection procedures and analysis

plans. Subsequent sections respond to

the Office of Management and Budget’s

(OMB) specific instructions for

justification and address issues related

to the collection of information using

statistical methods.

Background

Funded under Title II–B of the Job

Training Partnership Act, SYETP has its

origins in a thirty-year federal

commitment to create summer jobs for

disadvantaged youth. However,

developments in recent years have as

well affirmed an emphasis on providing

educational services. For example,

amendments to Title II–B enacted in

1986 enumerated the enhancement of

basic educational skills and

encouragement of school completion as

explicit goals of the program. Further,

SDAs were required to assess the

reading and mathematics skill levels of

SYETP participants and to provide

remedial and basic education services

where appropriate. Subsequent DOL

issuances reinforced the educational

emphasis of the Summer Youth program

and encouraged efforts to link work and

learning.
16508 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 61 / Thursday, March 30, 1995 / Notices

Purposes of the Study

The changing focus of SYETP raises

questions about the proper role of the

program’s educational component and

the feasibility of diagnosing and

meaningfully redressing the basic skills

deficiencies of large numbers of youth

within the compressed time frame of the

summer program. Thus, the objectives

of the evaluation are to examine the

range of practices currently being used

to deliver educational services, explain

variation in service designs, assess the

quality of training being provided, and

evaluate its ability to meet the needs of

participants and make significant

contributions to their educational

deficiencies. Ultimately the study will

enable DOL to gauge the adequacy of

services currently being provided,

identify areas of weakness and,

conversely, service designs that appear

especially efficacious, and provide

leadership and technical assistance to

improve training practices.

Conceptual Framework

Guiding the data collection and

analysis efforts are a client-level model

of high quality educational services and

a system-level model of factors that

determine training practices. The clientlevel model of training quality,

presented in Exhibit I, depicts how

clients flow through the SYETP

program, the quality indicators for each

type of service that the program

provides, and the intended

consequences of high-quality services

for youth. Steps identified in this model

are:

• Recruitment, assessment, and

service planning practices. Quality

indicators associated with this phase of

service delivery include whether

programs have a clear strategy for which

youth should be targeted and effective

procedures to recruit them, whether

they conduct a comprehensive

assessment of youths’ skills and

interests, and whether the assessment

results are used to develop an

individualized service strategy tailored

to the skills and interests of each

participant.

• Providing effective educational

services, either through classroom or

work-based instruction. Quality

indicators for both training content and

instructional methods are identified in

the exhibit, including whether the

training objectives are well-specified,

whether they promote the educational

skills needed in the workplace, whether

training is provided in a functional

context, whether participants’ progress

is documented, whether there are ample

opportunities to learn, and whether the

style of instruction promotes active

learning that is adaptive to the needs of

individual participants.

• Providing linkages with continuing

educational activities, to sustain and

build on learning gains.

In contrast to the client-level model,

the system-level model, shown in

Exhibit II, is intended as a casual (rather

than a temporal) model and identifies

factors that influence service delivery,

including those that facilitate or impede

the development of high-quality

educational services. The far right box

of this model contains the elements of

high-quality SYETP educational

services that were described in the

client-level model. The exhibit

schematically identifies aspects of

Federal and State policies and the local

environment that can affect an SDA’s

program design, and it shows how

design decisions and educational

provider characteristics, in turn, affect

the quality of educational services

provided. Specifically, it identifies:

• Federal, State, and local influences

on programs’ designs, including federal

Title II–B policies, other Federal

initiatives and policies, State JTPA and

educational policies, and characteristics

of local youth and of the local area.

• SDA design factors, including

program goals, target groups, and

service delivery arrangements.

• Attributes of the service providers

who deliver educational services to

participants, including the types of

institutions, their history, objectives,

and funding sources.

Questions for the Evaluation

The preceding conceptual frameworks

give rise to a number of specific

questions to be investigated in the

project. These include issues relating to

the design of services at the SDA level,

the design of services at the level of the

educational provider, and the quality

and impact of educational services.

• The design of SYETP at the SDA

level.

—What general objectives have SDAs

established for their Title II–B

programs? What specific objectives (in

terms of skills to be conveyed,

benchmarks to be achieved) have been

established for the Title II–B

educational components?

—Do programs identify priority client

groups? If so, what target groups have

they established? Who makes those

decisions, and how and why were

they made?

—What types of providers are used by

the SDA for educational instruction?

How were these providers selected

and why were they selected?

—How are other services, including

supportive services and stipends,

used in the summer youth program?

How are these services used to

support educational and other goals

for the program?

—What linkages has the SDA

established between its Titles II–B

and II–C programs?

—What ‘‘front-end’’ and ‘‘back-end’’

linkages has the SDA established with

public schools? Who instigated these

linkages and who maintains them?

Are the linkages formal or informal?

—What role have federal and state

policies and local influences played

in the SDA’s design decisions? How

have these policies been perceived

and implemented?

• The design of SYETP at the

provider level

—What types of organizations provide

educational instruction? What

objectives have been established for

their programs?

—Why did the provider decide to

participate in the summer youth

program and how was it selected?

—What objectives has the provider

established for its educational

program? What skills (e.g., basic

skills, SCANS skills) is it endeavoring

to teach? Is it attempting to link

learning and work?

—What service design is it using to meet

these objectives? Who developed the

design and why? Was the design

established explicitly for the summer

youth educational program?

—How are educational services

sequenced? How was the curriculum

developed?

—How did it recruit and train its staff?

—How have the SDA’s objectives for the

summer youth educational program

been communicated to the service

provider and how have they been

acted upon?

—What role has the SDA played in

designing the provider’s educational

services, including its content and

method of delivery? How does the

SDA monitor the services that are

being provided and how does it

suggest changes?

—How does the provider’s design reflect

other elements of the local context,

including the needs of the

community, the characteristics of

youth in the area, and the

characteristics of the school district?

• The quality and impact of

educational services

—What procedures are used by SDAs to

recruit youth for the summer

program? Do recruitment methods

correspond to their targeting goals?

—How is the participant’s initial

assessment conducted and how is
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 61 / Thursday, March 30, 1995 / Notices 16509

1 Dollar allocations for the Summer Youth

program were used in the fourth stratum, because

the number of participants receiving educational

instruction is not available for these SDAs.

subsequent progress assessed and

documented?

—How are individual service plans

developed? Are the service plans truly

individualized to the needs, skills,

and interests of each participant?

Does the youth play an active role in

formulating the service plan? Are the

resulting goals clear and ambitious

(without being unrealistic)?

—Does the educational instruction that

is being provided have well-specified

objectives? Do the objectives indicate

skills to be acquired (rather than

knowledge to be learned)?

—Does the instruction emphasize skills

needed in the workplace? Are the

skills taught in a functional context?

—Does the instruction promote active

learning and training for transfer?

—Is instruction adaptive and provided

by capable and caring adults who

view their role as a ‘‘facilitator’’?

—Have linkages been established to

provide feedback to schools or other

programs serving the youth?

—What implications do service provider

characteristics and design decisions

have for the quality of educational

services?

—What implications does participation

in SYETP, in general, have for

stabilizing or improving academic or

other achievements, promoting school

completion, and increasing the

motivation to learn?

—What implications do alternative

designs for delivering educational

services (e.g., provider characteristics,

the locus on instruction) have for

these same youth outcomes?

Study Design

To address the research questions

identified above, this study uses two

evaluation components—a process

study and a client-level study of

outcomes.

The Process Study

The process study uses a series of

‘‘nested’’ qualitative case studies to

examine the design and operation of

SYETP services at 30 SDAs nationwide

and approximately 3 educational

providers at each of these SDAs (up to

90 providers total). The data collection

activities will consist of a review of

plans for the Summer Program as well

as 4-day on-site visits to each selected

SDA and its associated providers,

during which time researchers will meet

with SDA and provider administrators

and staff, classroom instructors, and

worksite supervisors, and they will

observe educational instruction. While

on site, researchers also will conduct 1

focus group with approximately 5–6

youth participants at each educational

provider visited and review case files

for 2 youths at each provider. Follow-up

telephone discussions also will be

conducted with youths selected for the

case file reviews and with their parents

and school counselors to learn of

retrospective impressions of and

satisfaction with the SYETP experience

and perceived impacts on subsequent

achievements and behaviors in school.

Selecting the Sample

As part of the study, samples are

being drawn of 30 SDAs and up to 3

educational activities in each SDA (or

90 total). To ensure that the resulting

sample will be nationally

representative, the 30 SDAs are being

selected using stratified random

sampling. In selecting the sample, all

SDAs nationwide are being assigned to

one of 4 strata. The first 3 of these

groups are defined according to the

percent of their Summer Youth

participants who receive educational

instruction, with the first stratum

consisting of those SDAs with percents

between 1% and 41%, the second

between 42% and 73%, and the third

between 73% and 100%. These cutoffs

were chosen so that approximately

equal numbers of youths receiving

educational instruction are in each of

the three strata. The 4th stratum consists

of those SDAs for whom information on

the number of participants in

educational instruction is not available.

Within each strata, SDAs were

sampled with the odds of selection

proportionate to the number of

participants being served,1 so that the

resulting sample of SDAs is

approximately self-weighting.

Because this study is intended to

describe and compare the effectiveness

of a wide variety of approaches to

building the educational skills of SYETP

participants, educational providers are

selected within each of the 30 SDAs

using purposive selection methods.

Specifically, all educational providers

used by these SDAs are to be

categorized according to their:

• Content emphasis (e.g., basic skills

only; SCANS foundation skills and/or

competencies; or other academic

subjects, such as science, history, or art).

• Locus of educational instruction

(e.g., classroom-based, work-based, or

both).

• Type of provider (e.g., SDA;

secondary school, other educational

institution such as community college

or technical college, or other).

• Targeted participants (e.g., 14–15

year olds, 16–18 year olds, other target

groups).

Providers are being selected to ensure

the diversity of the sample (both within

the SDA and across all 30 SDAs) with

respect to these dimensions.

Data Collection

The field protocols, or topic guides,

developed for this process study are

designed to guide the data collection

activities. These protocols will permit

site visitors to tailor discussions and

observations on a standardized set of

issues to the particular context of each

case study SDA and sampled

educational activity. The following

topic guides have been developed and

are submitted for OMB’s review:

• SDA Guide #1 includes the topics to

be covered in discussions with SDA

policy, planning, and administrative

staff, including those relating to the

goals, design, and management of the

Summer Program.

• SDA Guide #2 includes the

discussion topics to be used with SDA

staff responsible for direct operation or

oversight of client recruitment,

assessment, service planning, and case

management services for Title II–B

participants.

• Program Guide #1 includes the

topics to be covered in discussions with

administrators of the selected

educational activity, staff that

participated in the planning and

development of the detailed curriculum,

and supervisors responsible for hiring,

training, and overseeing instructors/

work site supervisors involved in

educational activities.

• Program Guide #2 includes the

topics to be used in discussions about

the classroom-based learning approach

with classroom instructors or other staff

whose primary responsibility is to

support learning in a classroom or

individual study setting (e.g., tutors,

educational resource staff).

• Program Guide #3 includes the

topics to be used in discussions with

work project coordinators and worksite

supervisors who are involved in workbased learning. This guide includes

topics for projects using the 100% workbased learning approach as well as

topics for staff involved in work

activities that are closely coordinated

with classroom-based learning.

• Program Guide #4 is a guide for

structured observations of educational

activities.

• Program Guide #5 is a guide for

structured review of curriculum

materials.

• Client Guide #1 describes the topics

to be addressed in focus group
16510 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 61 / Thursday, March 30, 1995 / Notices

discussions with approximately 5 youth

participating in each selected

educational activity.

• Client Guide #2 will be used to

extract relevant information for the case

history sample from the participants’

written case files at the SDA or

provider.

• Client Follow-Up Guide describes

the topics to be discussed with selected

youth participants (i.e., those selected

for the case file review) several months

after their Summer Program’s

participation has ended.

• Parent/Guardian Guide will guide

the issues to be addressed with these

youths’ parent or guardian during the

follow-up period.

• Counselor Guide describes the

topics to be addressed with the youths’

secondary school counselors during the

school year following the youths’

summer participation.

Data Analysis

The analysis of the case studies will

begin with a within-site explanatory

analysis. This task will consist of

bringing to bear the data that has been

collected to arrive at a comprehensive

picture of the practices in each of the

SDAs and service providers that were

selected for the study and how they

have contributed to the needs of the

participants. A particular objective will

be to uncover especially innovative

practices, with an eye to understanding

how they were implemented and what

makes them work so well.

The next step will consist of cross-site

comparisons to synthesize the findings.

This analysis will clarify further the

unique procedures that programs adopt

to deliver high quality training in a

variety of environments and arrive at an

understanding of commonalities and

differences between programs and how

these are related to effective practices.

Client-Level Study of Outcomes

In addition to collecting and

analyzing information from the case

studies about program practices, this

study also will gather and analyze

quantitative information for a sample of

approximately 1,800 youths who

participate in the Summer Program in

1994 and an additional 4,000 youths

who participate in the 1995. By

compiling and analyzing information for

a sample of participants on the services

that were received and the outcomes

that were obtained, the study will draw

inferences regarding the relative efficacy

of various service design and delivery

methods.

Selecting Participants for the Study

A key element of the overall research

design is to tie the results from the case

study observations of classroom

instruction and appraisals of training

quality to the analysis of participants’

outcomes. In this way, inferences can be

drawn regarding the relationship

between the training practices observed

in the field to the consequences of those

practices for the youth who receive

them. For this reason, participants

selected for the client-level study of

outcomes will be those whose SYETP

instruction was delivered by the service

providers whose practices were

observed on site. Specifically,

participants will be selected in the

following ways:

• Preliminary information received

from the 30 SDAs has led us to

determine that approximately 15 of

them require pre-tests and post-tests of

basic skills for all participants receiving

academic instruction. All youth served

in the summer of 1994 by the 3 selected

providers in these SDAs will be

included in the study. This will yield an

expected sample of approximately 1,800

respondents.

• The service providers visited for the

case studies in the 30 SDAs included in

the study will each be asked to

administer a common pre-test/post-test

in the summer of 1995, as well as a brief

instrument measuring self-esteem. All

youth served by these providers will be

included in the study. This will yield

approximately an additional 3,600

respondents.

• A randomly chosen sample of 400

youths not receiving educational

instruction also will be included in the

study as a comparison group.

Data Collection

The plan for the client-level study of

outcomes is based on the analysis of

information for the sampled participants

drawn from a variety of sources and

that, to a large degree, already exists.

Thus, the compilation of these data for

analysis purposes entails data gathering

at least as much as new data collection.

Specific data sources to be used are

these:

• The SDA’s MIS. Although the

specific types of information doubtless

will vary from one SDA to the next,

most SDAs’ MIS will include:

participant’s demographic and

background characteristics (e.g., race,

school status, gender), barriers to

employment (e.g., whether the youth is

a limited-English speaker or has a

disability), and summary information

about services received. SDAs will be

requested to transmit these data to the

contractor electronically (e.g., on data

diskette).

• SDA’s Client Files. Those SDAs

able to provide pre-test/post-test scores

for youth served in the summer of 1994

will forward those scores to the

contractor for data entry. All

participating SDAs will forward the

hard-copy pre-test/post-tests and selfesteem surveys of sampled participants

served in 1995 to the contractor for

scoring and keypunching.

• School Records. An important

objective of the study is to learn how

participants (at least those who are

students) fare in their subsequent

schooling. Outcomes of interest include

measures of academic achievement (e.g.,

grade-point-average), but also evidence

of behavioral problems (e.g., as

evidenced by absenteeism, suspensions/

expulsions). Thus, school record

information will be abstracted for

sampled summer 1995 youths who sign

and have their parents/guardians sign a

consent form.

Exhibit 3 summarizes the variables to

be measured from these sources.

Data Analysis

A preliminary analysis will be

conducted using SDA MIS data and pretest/post-test scores for the 1,800 youth

who participated in the summer

program in 1994, selected as described

above. A more comprehensive analysis

for a larger sample will be conducted

when school record data are collected,

for youths who participated in the

summer of 1995. Additional outcomes

to be examined with these data include:

self-esteem, school attendance, grade

completion, grade-point average, and

absenteeism. Two types of analysis will

be conducted:

• Descriptive analyses, which will

paint a picture of the characteristics of

persons receiving educational

instruction in the sampled programs,

the types of services received, and the

outcomes obtained.

• Explanatory analyses that will

examine the efficacy of alternative

service designs and delivery

mechanisms for subsequent outcomes.

Reporting

The project’s major deliverables

include:

• An Interim Report. This report will

detail the results of the process analysis,

describing results from the case studies

regarding how services are designed and

delivered. It also will include the

preliminary results from the study of

outcomes based on the data collected for

youth who participated in the summer

of 1994.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 61 / Thursday, March 30, 1995 / Notices 16511

• A Technical Assistance Guide

(TAG). The TAG will be a practitioner’s

guide describing effective practices in

the delivery of educational services,

focusing especially on how educational

instruction can be delivered in a

functional, work-related context.

• A Final Report. This report will

represent a summation of the study’s

findings and recommendations. As

such, it will include the content of the

Interim Report, combined with the

comprehensive results of the study of

outcomes.

II. Supporting Statement

A. Justification

1. Circumstances Making the Data

Collection Necessary

The Department of Labor (DOL) is

considering ways of improving the

educational component of the JTPA

Title II-B Summer Youth Employment

and Training program (SYETP), in

keeping with Secretary Reich’s ‘‘First

Jobs/New Jobs/Better Jobs’’ initiative. Its

objectives for SYETP are to improve the

program’s effectiveness in assisting

young people acquire strong workplace

foundation skills (including basic skills,

thinking skills, and interpersonal skills)

and gain an appreciation of the

inextricable connection between

learning and success in the workplace.

As part of its effort to foster program

improvements, DOL needs to obtain a

thorough understanding of educational

services currently being provided to

summer youth participants—including

how participants are assessed, the

curriculum being used, and how the

educational and work components of

SYETP are integrated—and identify

particularly efficacious practices.

As part of its response to Executive

Order No. 12862 requiring all Federal

agencies to develop customer service

standards, DOL also needs to know

participants’ views about the services

they received in SYETP, including their

service needs and how well the program

responded to those needs. This

information is critical to implementing

changes that can improve program

responsiveness.

2. Use of Information and Consequences

if Not Collected

The information being collected in

this study will be used to address these

objectives:

1. Describe variation in the design of

SYETP educational services across

service delivery areas (SDAs) and their

service providers, with respect to

general goals and objectives they have

established for the program, their

targeting decisions, assessment

procedures, specific skills being taught,

the locus of instruction, linkages

between work and learning, and

linkages with public schools and yeararound Title II–C JTPA services.

2. Describe variation in the quality of

educational services, including whether

assessments are comprehensive,

whether service strategies are

individualized to the needs and

interests of participants, whether the

participants are actively involved in

formulating the service plan, whether

educational instruction has wellspecified objectives relating to skills to

be acquired, whether skills are taught in

a functional context and emphasize

skills needed in the workplace, and

whether instruction is adaptive.

3. Identify factors that explain

variation in how educational services

are being designed and delivered, such

as federal policies, opportunities for

technical assistance and training, statelevel partnerships between JTPA and

the school system, and other local

influences.

4. Document consequences of

participation in SYETP educational

services, especially high quality

services, for participants’ skill levels,

subsequent academic achievement, and

school attendance and performance.

5. Document participants’ satisfaction

with the program, including their

assessment of the helpfulness of the

services they received.

If this information is not collected,

DOL will not have the information it

needs to evaluate how educational

services are being delivered or their

effectiveness, and thus it will not have

the necessary foundation for

implementing program improvements.

3. Considerations to Reduce Burden

The data collection activities have

been designed to minimize the burden

on respondents in four major ways.

First, pre-existing information will be

utilized wherever possible to minimize

the need for new data collection. These

pre-existing sources will include SDAs’

plans for their Title II–B programs, RFPs

and contracts written by SDAs to secure

the services of the direct providers of

educational instruction, data collected

as part of last summer’s study of SYETP,

test scores, information from school

records, and existing MIS data compiled

by SDAs about their participants’

characteristics, services, and outcomes.

These data sources can be forwarded to

the contractor with minimal burden to

SDA or school or provider staff and to

program participants. Where data

abstraction requires hand-coding (e.g.,

from school records), abstractors will be

compensated by the contractor.

Second, where feasible (and at least

with respect to the MIS data),

information will be transferred to the

contractor electronically (i.e., via

modem or data diskette), greatly

facilitating the data transmission

process.

Third, only data of direct relevance to

the goals of the study will be collected.

Fourth, much time on site will be

devoted to the unobtrusive observation

of educational instruction and the

review of written documents and

participants’ case files, and this too

should be minimally burdensome to

SDA and service provider staff or

participants.

4. Efforts to Identify Duplication

A study conducted of SYETP during

the summer of 1993 included 50 on-site

visits and a mail survey of all SDAs

(1205–0327, expired 12/93). However,

this data collection focused on general

operational issues, did not entail on-site

observations of classroom instruction to

characterize its quality and did not

attempt to study youth at any point

beyond their period of participation.

Additional information available

about SYETP comes from the SDAS’s

plans for their summer’s activities.

However, these documents provide no

information about how or how well the

plans are implemented, nor do they

allow an assessment of the instruction’s

quality or effectiveness, nor do they

speak to the participants’ satisfaction

with the services they received.

Finally, states are required to submit

annual reports providing aggregate

counts of participants served and their

characteristics (1205–0200, expires 7/

97). However, these simple summary

reports are useful for little more than

identifying the numbers of persons of

different ages and education levels who

were served.

5. Why Similar Information Cannot be

Used

Information from the sources

described above will be used to the

fullest extent possible in the study being

planned. Indeed, these data provide a

strong foundation to support the study

by providing essential background and

other information. However, DOL has

concluded, on the basis of the effort to

identify duplication, that these preexisting sources are not adequate to

characterize the quality or education

services, support an analysis of the

factors associated with high quality

services, describe the consequences of

participation in SYETP for subsequent

achievements, or document

participants’ satisfaction with the

program. Nor are they adequate,
16512 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 61 / Thursday, March 30, 1995 / Notices

2A separate PWR package will be submitted for

any burden associated with follow-up work done

after the first year.

consequently, to support DOL’s efforts

to foster program improvements.

6. Burden on Small Businesses

Some activities associated with this

study will involve the collection of data

from the administrators or staff of

organizations providing educational

instruction as part of SYETP, and some

of these entities may be small

businesses. However, as described

under #3, ‘‘Considerations to Reduce

Burden,’’ only information of direct

relevance to the study’s objectives will

be collected while on site. Secondly,

much on-site data collection to be

conducted at service providers will

involve the unobtrusive observation of

classroom instruction and the review of

client case files, and it will thus entail

minimal burden on the providers’

administrators or staff. Finally, as part

of the agreement allowing them to

deliver services under JTPA, providers

acknowledge DOL’s right to evaluate

and/or monitor their activities and

services.

7. Consequences of Less Frequent Data

Collection

The data collection activities

associated with this study will be

conducted one time only.

8. Collection Inconsistent With 5 CFR

1320.6

Data collection will be consistent with

5 CFR 1320.6.

9. Efforts to Consult With Persons

Outside the Agency

Responsibility for devising and

carrying out the data collection rests

with DOL’s contractor, Social Policy

Research Associates (SPR), and its

subcontractor, Brandeis University’s

Center for Human Resources. Key

personnel associated with these

institutions are nationally known

experts in evaluation research and have

in-depth knowledge of employment and

training programs in general and

Summer Youth programs in particular.

Additionally, the study team has

enlisted the aid of additional experts,

who are serving as consultants on the

project. Their advice was solicited

regarding the usefulness of the data

elements to be collected, the feasibility

of the data collection plan, and the

clarity of instructions. These

consultants are:

Ms. Nancy Bross, Public Policy Support,

1377 McLendon Ave., N.E., Atlanta,

Georgia 30307, (404) 581–9895

Ms. Lee Bruno, Consultant, 3106 Old

Largo Road, Upper Marlborough,

Maryland 20772, (301) 627–1415

Ms. Janice Hendrix, North Central

Indiana PIC, 36 West Fifth St., Suite

102–B, Peru, Indiana 46970, (317)

473–5571

Mr. Gill Ritt, Career Resource

Associates, 2932 Sumac Drive,

Atlanta, Georgia 30360, (404) 698–

8427

Mr. Kip Stottlemyer, Consultant, 1408

Milestone Drive, Collierville,

Tennessee 38017, (901) 854–1438

In addition, all the protocols guiding

the conversations with key respondents

have been pre-tested on not more than

9 respondents, and modifications to the

protocols were made on this basis where

it seemed appropriate.

10. Assurances of Confidentiality

The information to be collected will

be held strictly confidential and will be

used for research purposes only. To

ensure confidentiality, DOL will require

that the study team take the following

measures:

• Access to the data will be limited to

the contractor’s project team members

only.

• Reports to DOL will focus on

describing and analyzing the range of

service designs and training practices

that were observed and will not

associate a design or process with any

specific SDA or service provider, except

by way of providing an example of

exemplary practices, and then only with

the SDA’s approval.

• Reports to DOL that contain

individual vignettes based on the

experiences of participants will not

contain individual names or any other

identifying information.

• The contractor’s project team

members will be trained in the

confidentiality requirements and

cautioned to use the data for research

purposes only.

11. Justification of Questions of a

Sensitive Nature

Two sources of data are potentially

sensitive. First, pre-tests and post-tests

will be administered to youth included

in the study. Second, school record

information will be abstracted for those

youth in the sample who participated in

the summer program of 1995 and who

return to school in the fall. These data

elements are imperative to examine

learning gains for those who receive

educational services and to examine if

SYETP participation is associated with

improved school performance.

However, for the most part these data

elements do not represent new data

collection activities. JTPA currently

requires that all summer youth be

administered a test of basic skills to

determine their need for basic skills

remediation, and many SDAs also

administer post-tests to document

learning gains.

Similarly, information about school

performance will be abstracted from

existing student files. Moreover, youths

and their parents/guardians will be

asked to sign a consent form before the

abstraction will be conducted. This form

will outline the objectives of the study

and ask the youth and his/her parent to

allow access to student records for

purposes of the evaluation. It will be

explained that participation in the study

is completely voluntary and that a

refusal to participate will not jeopardize

the youth’s receiving SYETP services.

12. Cost to the Federal Government and

to Respondents

The total estimate cost to the federal

government for the collection and

analysis of these data is $849,543.

Because the study will be conducted

over 3 years,2 the average per annum

cost is approximately $283,000. This

amount includes the costs of designing

the field protocols, performing the onsite visits and telephone follow-up,

recording observations from the site

visits, collecting the client-level data for

the study of outcomes, analyzing the

data, and preparing two reports on the

results (i.e., an Interim Report and a

Final Report) and a Technical

Assistance Guide (to disseminate

information on effective practices). The

method used to derive this figure

entailed a quantification of hours of

effort involved by each study team

member and included expenses for

materials and services (e.g.,

photocopying expenses and expenses

involved in binding the report).

The costs to respondents result only

from the time spent answering the

questions. Estimates of the time to

respond are presented below.

13. Estimate of Burden

Below is the estimate of the

respondent burden. Time estimates are

based on the pretest of the instruments

(for the topic guides to be used in the

process study) or from the use of the

instruments in previous studies (for the

pre-test/post-test and self-esteem

scales). It is anticipated that these will

be conducted within the next year and
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 61 / Thursday, March 30, 1995 / Notices 16513

the burden hours represent the first year

burden claimed. If follow-up activities

extend beyond one year, an Inventory

Correction Worksheet will be submitted.

Instruments Number of

respondents

Minutes per

respondent Total hours

SDA Guides for Discussions With:

1. Policy, Planning, and Administrator Staff ..................................................................................... 60 60 60

2. Recruitment, Service Planning, and Case Management Staff ..................................................... 60 45 45

Program Guides for Discussions With:

1. Program Administrators ................................................................................................................ 90 90 135

2. Classroom Instructors ................................................................................................................... 85 20 28

3. Work Project Coodinators ............................................................................................................. 10 20 3

Client Guides for:

1. Focus Group with Participants ..................................................................................................... 450 15 112

2. Participants, at Follow-up ............................................................................................................. 120 15 30

Guide for Discussions with Parents ......................................................................................................... 120 5 10

Guide for Discussions with Regular School Counselors ......................................................................... 120 15 30

Pre-test and Post-test of Participant’s Basic Skills (Workplace Literacy Test) ....................................... 4,000 240 16,000

Self-Esteem Instrument (Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale) ....................................................................... 4,000 10 667

Additional data collection to be used

in the project represents the abstraction

or review of existing information. There

are no respondents for these guides and

thus they entail minimal burden on

SDA or provider personnel or program

participants beyond copying documents

or data files and shipping them to the

contractor. Where hand-extraction of

information is required (e.g., from

student records , abstractors (SDA or

service provider personnel) will be

compensated.

14. Reason for Change in Burden

This is a new collection as reported in

ETA’s ICB (Information Collection

Budget). The first year’s burden of

17,120 hours is being submitted now.

An Inventory Correction Worksheet will

be submitted for any follow—up

activities in the out years.

15. Plans for Statistical Analysis

Data to be collected for this project for

the process study generally will not be

analyzed using qualitative research

methods, findings will be detailed in a

narrative, and their implications for

improving program quality will be

detailed.

Data collected for the study of

outcomes will be analyzed using

statistical methods to address these

research issues:

• What are the characteristics of

persons receiving educational services

in the Summer Youth program? Are

educational services targeted to those

who have a greater need for

remediation?

• What types of educational services

were provided? Specifically, in what

subject areas (e.g., math, reading, other

academic subjects, SCANS skills) was

instruction provided? With what

intensity?

• How does the intensity and nature

of the training received relate to

outcomes, including learning gains,

school attendance rates, grades in

school, rates of absenteeism, and

suspensions and expulsions? How do

the outcomes for youth who received

educational instruction compare to

those in the compoarison group?

• Data for this component of the

project will be compiled in various

phases:

• Phase I: Collect MIS and pre-test/

post-test data for sample members who

participated in the summer program in

1994. Collection of this information will

occur during the winter of 1995.

• Phase II: Collect MIS, pre-test/posttest, and self-esteem data for sample

members who participated in the

summer program in 1995. Collection of

this information will occur during the

winter of 1996.

• Phase III: Collect school record

information. These data will be

collected during the summer of 1996,

after the conclusions of the 1995–96

school year, so that school outcomes

measured for those who participated in

the 1995 summer program will reflect a

full school year.

Methods to be used in analyzing these

data will include univariate and

multivariate statistics. Specifically,

univariate distributions will be

calculated to describe the characteristics

of participants, their services, and their

outcomes. Cross-tabulations will be

used to examine the relationship

between variables. Multivariate

analyses, primarily regression analysis,

will be used to examine how various

participant characteristics and measures

of services received relate to outcomes.

The project’s major deliverables

include:

• An Interim Report. This report will

detail the results of the process analysis,

describing results from the case studies

regarding how services are designed and

delivered. It also will include the

preliminary results from the study of

outcomes based on the data collected for

youth who participated in the summer

of 1994. This report will be completed

at the end of the Summer of 1995.

• A Technical Assistance Guide

(TAG). The TAG will be a practitioner’s

guide describing effective practices in

the delivery of educational services,

focusing especially on how educational

instruction can be delivered in a

functional, work-related context.

The TAG will be prepared in the

Spring of 1996.

• A Final Report. This report will

represent a summation of the study’s

findings and recommendations. As

such, it will include the content of the

Interim Report, combined with the

comprehensive results of the study of

outcomes. This report will be prepared

in the Spring of 1997.

B. Collection of Information Employing

Statistical Methods

This process study utilizes qualitative

case study data collection and analysis

methods. In terms of identifying

appropriate respondents in each local

site and analyzing case study data,

qualitative rather than statistical

methods will be used. Discussions of

estimation procedures and degree of

accuracy (power analysis) in

generalizing sample findings to the

universe of all potential respondents are

not applicable to the process study,

because findings will not be expressed

in quantitative terms.
16514 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 61 / Thursday, March 30, 1995 / Notices

3 Dollar allocations for the Summer Youth

program were used in the fourth stratum, because

the number of participants receiving educational

instruction is not available for these USAs.

The study of outcomes will employ

statistical methods, however. These

methods are described in the rest of this

section.

1. Potential Respondent Universe and

Sampling Methods

Approximately 625,000 youths can be

expected to participate in the Title II–

B program during each of the summers

of 1994 and 1995, if current levels of

funding are maintained. Of these, about

40%, or 250,000, will be receiving

educational services. These youth are

served by the nation’s approximately

640 service delivery areas (SDAs).

The youths to be included in the

study will be served by approximately

90 service providers used for

educational instruction in 30 SDAs that

were selected for examination in the

process study. To ensure that the

sample of SDAs is nationally

representative, the 30 SDAs are selected

using stratified random sampling. In

selecting the sample, all SDAs

nationwide are assigned to one of 4

strata. The first 3 of these groups are

defined according to the percent of their

Summer Youth participants that receive

educational instruction, with the first

stratum consisting of those SDAs with

percents between 1 % and 41%, the

second between 42% and 73%, and the

third between 74% and 100%. These

cutoffs were chosen so that

approximately equal numbers of youths

receiving educational instruction are in

each of these three strata. The 4th

stratum consists of those SDAs for

whom information of the number of

participants in educational instruction

is not available.

Approximately an equal number of

SDAs were drawn from each stratum

and, within each stratum, SDAs were

sampled with the odds of selection

proportionate to the number of

participants being served,3 so that the

resulting sample would be

approximately self-weighting. The

number of SDAs in each stratum and the

number selected for the study are shown

below.

Percent of the SDA’s

youths receiving educational instruction

Total

number of

SDAs

Number of

SDAs

in the

sample

Low: 1% to 41% ............... 273 8

Med. 42% to 73% ............. 132 8

High: 74% to 100% ........... 101 8

Information missing ........... 117 7

Because this study is intended to

describe and compare the effectiveness

of a wide variety of approaches to

building the educational skills of SYETP

participants, educational providers are

selected within each of the 30 SDAs

using purposive selection methods.

Specifically, all educational providers

used by these SDAs are to be

categorized according to their:

• Content emphasis (e.g., basic skills

only; SCANS foundation skills and/or

competencies; or other academic

subjects, such as science, history, or art).

• Locus of educational instruction

(e.g., classroom-based, work-based, or

both).

• Type of provider (e.g., SDA;

secondary school, other educational

institution such as community college

or technical college, or other).

• Targeted participants (e.g., 14–15

year olds, 16–18 year olds, other target

groups).

Providers are being selected to ensure

the diversity of the sample (both within

the SDA and across all 30 SDAs) with

respect to these dimensions.

Because most providers serve fairly

few youths, all youths served by the

selected providers during the summer of

1995 will generally be selected for the

study of outcomes. However, for large

providers (those serving more than

approximately 70 participants), youths

will be selected who attended classes

served by the instructors who were

observed by the site visitors, the 400

youth to be selected for the comparison

group will be selected randomly,

approximately 15 from each SDA.

Following the above procedures, an

approximately equal number of youths

will be selected from each SDA. MIS

data for each of these youth, should be

available without exception, as will pretest and post-test scores and the

measure of self-esteem. Similarly,

because SDAs typically require access to

school records as part of the assessment

process, we anticipate that high

percentages of sampled youths and their

parents/guardians will sign the consent

forms allowing the researchers’ access to

this information. At least an 80% rate of

cooperation is anticipated.

2. Procedures for the Collection of

Information

Sample Selection. As discussed

above, the sample has been drawn in a

two-stage process. First, a sample of

SDAs and their providers was chosen,

and next participants served by these

providers are selected, along with a

randomly chosen sample of participants

for the comparison group.

Degree of Accuracy. To meet DOL’s

objectives for the survey, the sample

size must be sufficient to allow reliable

estimation of relatively small

differences in outcomes across various

service strategies. Let us suppose that

the outcome variable is a percentage

(e.g., the percentage of participants who

complete their next grade level), that the

average of the outcome is 50%, that we

can explain 25% of the outcome’s

variation with all predictor variables

combined, and that 10% of the variance

in the educational components can be

explained by other control variables.

Under these circumstances, the sample

size to be used for this study would be

able to detect an approximately 3

percentage points difference in

outcomes across a dichotomous measure

of service (e.g., instruction is provided

in a functional context or not). Note that

these are generally fairly conservative

assumptions. For example, sample size

requirements would be less stringent if

the average of the outcome were either

higher or lower than 50%.

Estimation Procedures. As described

in Section A, Item 15, several estimation

techniques will be used. First, means

and univariate distributions will be

calculated to describe the sample.

Second, t-tests of means (for outcomes

measured on a continuous scale) and

chi-square tests (for categorical

variables) will be calculated to

determine whether outcomes vary

significantly for participants with

different characteristics (e.g., age) or

who received different services. Third,

multivariate analysis methods will be

used, with various measures of

outcomes as the dependent variable.

Independent variables will include

participant characteristics (e.g., age,

gender, pre-test scores) and measures of

the types of services received.

Ordinary least squares (OLS) will be

used as the estimation technique for

most of these multivariate models,

because of its desirable properties.

However, OLS is inefficient when the

dependent variable is categorical (e.g.,

whether the next school grade was

completed). In these cases, logit analysis

will be used.

3. Methods to Maximize Response Rates

Most data to be used for the client

study represent pre-existing records

collected by SDAs and schools. For this

reason, response rates should be quite

high for all components of the data

collection. Potentially, however, some

participants or their parents may deny

the researchers access to school records.

To minimize this possibility, SDAs and

their service providers will be contacted

far in advance of the start of the 1995

summer program, and their cooperation

will be enlisted. Thus, when youth are
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 61 / Thursday, March 30, 1995 / Notices 16515

first enrolled in the program they can be

told immediately that they are being

asked to participate in the study and the

study’s importance can be explained

carefully to them.

4. Tests of Procedures

The data collection for the client-level

study involves no new survey or other

instruments. Therefore, no test of

procedures is deemed necessary.

5. Contractor and Individuals Consulted

The Department of Labor has

contracted with Social Policy Research

Associates (SPR) to design, conduct, and

analyze the study of outcomes. Key

personnel at SPR at Dr. Ronald

D’Amico, Dr. Katherine Dickinson, and

Mr. Richard West. They may be

contacted at: Social Policy Research

Associates, 200 Middlefield Road Suite

100, Menlo Park, CA 94025. Their

phone is (415) 617–8625.

[FR Doc. 95–7743 Filed 3–29–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–22–M

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND

SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice (95–026)]

NASA Advisory Council (NAC),

Minority Business Resource Advisory,

Committee; Meeting

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and

Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public

Law 92–463, as amended, the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration

announces a forthcoming meeting of the

NASA Advisory Council, Minority

Business Resource Advisory Committee.

DATES: April 26, 1995, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.

ADDRESSES: NASA, Langley Research

Center, Building 1219, Room 225,

Hampton, Virginia 23681–0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Ralph C. Thomas, III, Office of Small

and Disadvantaged Business Utilization,

National Aeronautics and Space

Administration Room 9K70, 300 E

Street SW, Washington, DC 20546, (202)

358–2088.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

meeting will be open to the public up

to the seating capacity of the room. The

agenda for the meeting is as follows:

—Call to Order

—Reading of Minutes

—Overview of Langley Research Center

SDB Program

—Report on Action Items from Last

Meeting

—Subcommittee Reports

—Update on NASA SDB Program

—Committee Goals for 1995

—Public Comment

—Adjournment

It is imperative that the meeting be

held on this date to accommodate the

scheduling priorities of the key

participants.

Dated: March 24, 1995.

Timothy M. Sullivan,

Advisory Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 95–7747 Filed 3–29–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7510–01–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 40–40–8027–MLA–3, ASLBP

No. 94–700–04–MLA–3]

Sequoyah Fuels Corp., (Source

Material License No. SUB–1010);

Notice of Hearing

March 24, 1995.

Notice is hereby given that the

Presiding Officer in this proceeding has

determined that there should be made

available an Opportunity for

Intervention in the on-going proceeding

which involves a license amendment

application of Sequoyah Fuels

Corporation for its facility at Gore,

Oklahoma. During the course of the

course of this proceeding, the Licensee

has proposed modifications to the

original license amendment application

dated May 6, 1994. Because the

modifications are significant, a new

opportunity for intervention is

warranted. The new amendment

application seeks to change the existing

structure of the Licensee’s management

team at its facility.

This proceeding is being conducted

under the Commission’s Informal

Hearing Procedures for Adjudications in

Materials and Operator Licensing

Proceedings, set forth in 10 CFR part 2,

subpart L. Further details appear in the

Statement of Considerations, Informal

Hearing Procedures for Materials

Licensing Adjudications, 54 Fed. Reg.

8269 (February 28, 1989). Documents

relating to this proceeding are available

for public inspection and copying at the

Commission’s Public Document Room,

Gelman Building, 2120 L St., N.W.,

Washington, D.C.

Sequoyah Fuels Corporation, Native

Americans for a Clean Environment

INACE) and The Cherokee Nation

(Nation) are parties to this proceeding.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.1205(i)(4),

any person whose interest may be

affected by this proceeding may, within

30 days of publication of this Notice,

file a petition for leave to intervene.

Such petition must identify (1) the

interest of the petitioner in the

proceeding, (2) how that interest may be

affected by he results of the proceeding,

with particular reference to the factors

set out in 10 CFR 2.1205(g), (3) the

petitioner’s areas of concern about the

licensing activity which must be

germane to the subject matter of the

proceeding, and (4) the circumstances

establishing that the petition is timely

and that the petitioner has the requisite

standing to intervene in the hearing.

Each petition must be submitted to

the Secretary of the Commission, ATTN:

Chief, Docketing and Service Branch,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, D.C. Copies should be

served upon the Presiding Officer; the

Special Assistant; the Assistant General

Counsel for Hearings and Enforcement;

and the Executive Director for

Operations, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555.

Copies should also be served on the

Licensee, through its attorney Maurice

Axelrad, Esq., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius,

1800 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

20036; Native Americans for a Clean

Environment, through its attorney Diane

Curran, Esq., c/o IEER, 6935 Laurel

Avenue, Suite 204, Takoma Park, MD

20912; and The Cherokee Nation,

through its attorney James Wilcoxen,

Esq., Wilcoxen & Wilcoxen, P.O. box

357, Muskogee, OK 74402–0357.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.1205(j)(2), any

party may file an answer to a petition

to intervene within 10 days of service of

such petition.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.1211(a), any

member of the public who is not a party

to this proceeding may make a written

statement in order to express his or her

views of the issues involved in this

license renewal proceeding. These

statements are not evidence and do not

become part of the decisional record

under 10 CFR 2.1251(c). Written

statements should be submitted to the

Secretary of the Commission, ATTN:

Chief, Docketing and Service Branch,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, D.C. 20555.

Rockville, Maryland, March 24, 1995.

James P. Gleason,

Presiding Officer, Administrative Judge.

[FR Doc. 95–7801 Filed 3–29–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD

Agency Forms Submitted for OMB

Review

Summary: In accordance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44