17578 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 66 / Thursday, April 6, 1995 / Notices

December 29, 1987 through December

12, 1988. the audit revealed shortages in

the Respondent’s accountability of

controlled substances. These audit

results were confirmed by a second

audit conducted by DEA in 1989.

On November 22, 1989, a civil

complaint was filed in the United States

District Court for the District of

Maryland against Respondent, based on

the findings of the 1988 investigation.

Following a bench trial on June 15 and

16, 1992, the court found that

Respondent failed to comply with

recordkeeping requirements of the

Controlled Substances Act. On June 23,

1992, the court found Respondent liable

for civil penalties in the amount of

$24,000 for violations of 21 U.S.C.

827(a)(3) and 21 U.S.C. 842(a)(5). The

court’s decision was upheld by the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

on February 18, 1993.

In her opinion of June 7, 1994, Judge

Bittner noted that the Deputy

Administrator may revoke a DEA

Certificate of Registration and deny any

pending application for such

registration if he determines that the

continued registration would be

inconsistent with the public interest

pursuant to the following factors set

forth in 21 U.S.C. 823(f):

(1) The recommendation of the

appropriate State licensing board or

professional disciplinary authority.

(2) The applicant’s experience in

dispensing or conducting research with

respect to controlled substances.

(3) The applicant’s conviction record

under Federal or State laws relating to

the manufacture, distribution, or

dispensing of controlled substances.

(4) Compliance with applicable State,

Federal or local laws relating to

controlled substances.

(5) Such other conduct which may

threaten public health and safety.

Judge Bittner stated, as a threshold

matter, the Deputy Administrator may

properly rely on any one or a

combination of the five factors set forth

in Section 823(f) and give each factor

the weight he deems appropriate. See

Henry J. Schwartz, Jr., M.D., 54 FR

16422 (1989). She further stated that all

five factors under 21 U.S.C. 823(f) were

relevant in determining whether

Respondent’s continued registration

would be inconsistent with the public

interest.

Judge Bittner held that the evidence

provided by the Government clearly

established the shortages in

Respondent’s accountability of

controlled substances, and that,

although Respondent offered various

documents into evidence, none of them

offered any plausible or coherent

explanation for the discrepancies found

in the investigation. She further found

that the Respondent, throughout the

course of his previous litigation, as well

as the instant case, continuously had

been defensive, hostile, and

uncooperative and had insisted on

clouding the issues with tangential

arguments and rhetorical allegations of

political wrongdoing. Judge Bittner

concluded that Respondent currently

was not in a position to properly

discharge the obligations of a DEA

registrant, and, therefore, Respondent’s

continued registration would not be in

the public interest. The administrative

law judge recommended that

Respondent’s DEA Certificate of

Registration be revoked and any

pending applications should be denied.

The Deputy Administrator adopts the

opinion and recommended decision of

the administrative law judge in its

entirety. The Respondent’s Motion to

Remand and Reopen the Record is

denied. During the course of this

administrative hearing, Respondent put

forth extensive argument, raised

countless objections, and submitted

numerous motions in full support of his

cause. The Deputy Administrator does

not find any support for Respondent’s

contention, as outlined in his motion,

that his medical condition had a

deleterious effect on Respondent’s

ability to represent himself throughout

the course of this proceeding. This

matter has been fully and fairly litigated

and there is no need to relitigate this

case.

Based on the foregoing, the Deputy

Administrator of the Drug Enforcement

Administration, pursuant to the

authority invested in him by 21 U.S.C.

823 and 824, and 28 CFR 0.100(b) and

0.104 hereby orders that DEA Certificate

of Registration AT2444711, previously

issued to Ellis Turk, M.D. be, and it

hereby is, revoked, and that any

pending applications for registration be

denied. This orders is effective May 8,

1995.

Dated: March 30, 1995.

Stephen H. Greene,

Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–8403 Filed 4–5–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

Job Training Partnership Act: Dropout

Prevention

AGENCY: Employment and Training

Administration, Labor.

ACTION: Notice of availability of funds

and solicitation for grant application

(SGA).

SUMMARY: All the information required

to submit a proposal is contained in the

announcement. The U.S. Department of

Labor (DOL), Employment and Training

Administration (ETA), announces the

availability of funds for demonstration

projects to replicate and formally

evaluate a successful model by the Ford

Foundation, known as the Quantum

Opportunities Project (QOP). The U.S.

Department of Education may also

provide funds for this demonstration.

The project is directed specifically

toward at-risk youth entering the ninth

grade. The objectives of the project are

to enable participants to complete high

school, and to improve their rate of

entering and succeeding in postsecondary education.

Initial grants of $200,000 will be made

to five local areas. Pending availability

of funds, these grants will be renewed

at the same level for three additional

years to cover the four years of high

school of participating students. To

receive these funds, local sites will need

to agree to participate in an evaluation

in which eligible youth will be

randomly assigned to receive or not to

receive QOP services.

These grants will be limited to service

delivery areas (SDAs) under the Job

Training Partnership Act (JTPA). To

apply for these grants, SDAs will need

to have the local public school district

as a co-applicant, and identify a

community-based organization (CBO) to

operate the demonstration. Matching

funds in the amount of $200,000 a year

will be required to operate a Quantum

Opportunity Project. Additionally, local

sites will need to commit to provide

summer jobs for QOP participants for

the three summers in which the

participants are in the program. This

demonstration is aimed at schools with

high dropout rates. Target schools will

need to have at least 40 percent fewer

graduating seniors in June of 1994 than

entering ninth graders in September of

1990 (For example, if a school had 300

entering ninth graders in September

1990, the graduating class in June of

1994 must have been 180 or fewer).

DATES: The closing date for receipt of

applications will be May 15, 1995 at

2:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) at the address

below.

ADDRESSES: Applications shall be

mailed to the U.S. Department of Labor,

Employment and Training

Administration, Division of Acquisition

and Assistance, Attention: Brenda M.

Banks, Reference: SGA/DAA 95–005,
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 66 / Thursday, April 6, 1995 / Notices 17579

Room S–4203, 200 Constitution Avenue

N.W., Washington D.C. 20210.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brenda Banks (202–219–7300) in the

Division of Acquisition and Assistance.

This is not a toll-free number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

announcement consists of four parts and

appendices. Part I describes the

authority and purpose of this

demonstration. Part II is the Statement

of Work (responsibilities of grantees).

Part III describes the application process

and guidelines for applying for these

grants. Part IV identifies and defines the

selection criteria which will be used in

reviewing and evaluating applications.

Appendix No. 1 provides a more

detailed description of the QOP

program. There is no separate

application package.

Part I. Background

A. Authority

Section 452 of the Job Training

Partnership Act authorizes the Secretary

of Labor to establish pilot and

demonstration programs.

B. Purpose of this Demonstration

There is a large and growing gap in

this country between the employment

and earnings of these individuals who

have dropped out of high school, those

that have graduated from high school

but have not gone on to college, and

those that have graduated from college.

In many inner-city high schools today,

over 50 percent of entering ninth

graders drop out of school prior to

graduation. Further, the proportion of

students from inner-city high schools

who go on to post-secondary education

remains very low.

The Ford Foundation has recently

announced the results of its Quantum

Opportunities Project (QOP)

demonstration. In this demonstration,

100 entering ninth graders in inner-city

high schools were joined together in

groups of 25 at four sites and assigned

to the same adult coordinator. The

students stayed with the same group

and adult counselor throughout their

four years of high school, receiving

basic skills remediation, participating in

group community service activities and

cultural enrichment and youth

development activities, visiting college

campuses, and ‘‘job shadowing’’

professionals. The students earned two

sets of stipends—one in cash and the

second reserved in an ‘‘opportunity

account’’ to be used for post-secondary

education.

Entering ninth graders were randomly

assigned to the QOP program, and a

control group was also followed. The

Ford Foundation evaluation of the

program showed that QOP had been

able to cut dropout rates in half and

double the college entrance rate of

participants.

Ideally, the development of new

approaches to serving youth occurs in

several stages—(1) an idea or model is

developed; (2) the idea is put into

practice at one site, and then perhaps at

a second site with some modifications;

(3) the model program is then pilottested at several sites; (4) the model

program then enters a demonstration

stage in which it is formally evaluated

using random assignment of program

applicants at several sites; and (5) if the

random-assignment evaluation results

come out positive, the model program is

replicated widely across the country.

This grant is part of stage (4) of this

process.

C. Demonstration Policy

1. Eligible Applicants. Eligible

applicants under this solicitation are

Service Delivery Areas (SDAs) under the

Job Training Partnership Act.

2. Funding. DOL expects to make

approximately five awards. It is

anticipated that individual grant awards

will be $200,000 for the first year of the

project.

3. Matching Requirements. In order to

receive a grant award, an applicant must

include a 100% match. These matching

funds can come from JTPA Title II-C,

Education for the Disadvantaged

School-Wide Programs (ESEA Title I),

general school district funds, local

foundations and private corporations, or

other sources.

4. Period of Performance/Options.

The period of performance for these

Grants will be twelve months from the

date of execution by the Government.

Pending satisfactory performance and

availability of funds, these awards will

be extended for an additional three

years (three one-year options). The idea

is to cover the entire four years of high

school of students served.

5. Eligible Participants. All entering

ninth graders who rank in the bottom

half of their class according to the

previous year’s grades will be eligible

for the QOP program, and then will be

randomly assigned to receive or not

receive QOP services.

6. Allowable activities. Grantees will

conduct activities consistent with the

QOP program described below.

7. Cost limitations. Demonstration

grants are not subject to the cost

limitations in JTPA Title II. However,

$50,000 to be used for the overall

program coordinator at each site should

be considered the administrative costs

for this demonstration.

Part II. Statement of Work

(Responsibilities of Grantees)

Applicants should take into account

the responsibilities listed below. The

local school system will be responsible

for identifying the target high schools

and students; the CBO will be

responsible for hiring the adult

coordinators; and the SDA will be

responsible for administering the Grant

and providing summer jobs for the

youth.

A. Identification of target high

schools. Target high schools should

have a rate of at least 40 percent of

entering ninth graders dropping out

before graduation to qualify for this

grant—that is, if the graduating class in

June of 1994 was 180 then the entering

9th grade class in September 1990 must

have been 300 or more. The target high

schools can be small or large, but they

should have a combined expected

enrollment of at least 560 entering ninth

graders this coming fall in order to

divide the class in half by grades from

the previous year, and then to provide

for two groups of 140 from the bottom

half for non-treatment and QOP

participation. The school district will

need to identify during the summer the

bottom half of the entering ninth graders

at these schools, as ranked by grades.

B. Develop and implement the QOP

model. The local QOP project shall be

comprised of the following features:

—Groups of 20 entering ninth graders

will be assigned to two half-time adult

counselors. Students will stay with

the same group and the same

counselors throughout their time in

high school.

—The QOP counselors will have office

space at the high schools.

—Each site will hire an overall

coordinator overseeing each of the

QOP counselors.

—QOP activities will include each year

250 hours educational enrichment;

250 hours of cultural and

development activities, including

visits to college campuses; and 250

hours of community service activities.

The educational enrichment activities

can occur either at the school or at a

separate CBO site.

—QOP students will be able to receive

up to $500 a year in stipends based

on attendance at program activities.

Counselors are responsible for

tracking and recording stipend-related

activities for those individuals in their

charge. The stipends for QOP

participants are to be put into a bank

account to used only for postsecondary educational expenses once

the individual completes (or leaves)

the QOP program.
17580 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 66 / Thursday, April 6, 1995 / Notices

—QOP students will receive summer

jobs during their three summers in

high schools. Offerors should be able

to identify the person within the SDA

who will be in charge of linking

school to summer work activities and

ensuring that each participant is

employed during the summer. The

jobs can be provided through JTPA

Title II–B if the students are eligible

for JTPA and if Congress continues

the Title II–B program; otherwise

summer jobs will need to be found for

the students. Preferably, jobs provided

to QOP participants should be at the

same worksite each summer, with

increasing levels of responsibility

each new year.

—The salaries of QOP counselors and

the overall site coordinator will

include incentives for keeping

students in the QOP program.

—Group cohesion will be emphasized

throughout the program. Students

cannot be dropped from the program,

even for non-attendance. An inactive

student can return to the group at any

time. Replacement students will not

be added.

C. Coordination of evaluation

activities. In conjunction with the

Department’s evaluation contractor, the

eligible entering ninth graders will be

randomly assigned during the first week

of school in September to one of two

groups, those who ‘‘enter’’ or ‘‘do not

enter’’ the QOP program. For example,

City A selects two high schools as its

target schools for this demonstration.

Each target high school has had a recent

dropout rate of over 40 percent, and

each is expecting an entering enrollment

of 300 ninth graders—a combined total

of 600 entering ninth graders. The

school district will identify the bottom

half of these entering ninth graders, or

300 youth. In turn, the school district

will work with the Department’s

evaluation contractor to randomly select

140 of the eligible youth who report the

first week of school to be part of the

QOP program. There will be no

eligibility requirement for the QOP

program other than being ranked in the

bottom half of the entering ninth grade

class.

D. Use of funds and matching

commitments. Grantees are required to

provide a $200,000 local match for each

year of the project. The $200,000 grant

and $200,000 matching funds are

expected to be sufficient to serve 140

youth at each site. These funds will

allow for hiring fourteen half-time adult

coordinators at $17,500 (salaries plus

fringe benefits included); stipends of

$500 a year to each youth; an overall

coordinator at $50,000 (salary plus

fringe benefits); with some funds left

over for other project activities.

Matching funds cannot be in-kind to

simply use existing school counselors.

JTPA Title II–C funds, Education for the

Disadvantaged School-Wide Programs

(ESEA, Title I) funds, local foundations,

and local corporations are all

appropriate sources for matching funds.

Compensatory education funds outside

of school-wide projects may not be an

appropriate source of matching funds,

because of possible conflict between

random assignment and statutory

requirements in these compensatory

education funds.

Applicants will note that there are

some differences between the QOP

model that will be implemented in this

demonstration and the original QOP

pilot project described in the Appendix

No. 1. The model that will be

implemented under this demonstration

will have 20 rather than 25 youth in

each group; it will not be restricted to

minority youth or youth in families

receiving welfare; and it does not

include cash stipends. Additional funds

may be made available to grantees at a

later time to provide cash.

E. Project Description. 1. Describe the

need for the QOP project in the target

high school or schools. What percentage

of youth who entered the 9th grade in

September of 1990 in these schools have

dropped out prior to graduation? (You

can simply show the number of entering

9th graders in September of 1990 and

the number of students graduating in

June of 1994). How many students are

expected to enter the 9th grade at these

schools this coming September? What is

the poverty rate of the neighborhoods

served by the schools? You may also

discuss other factors that may reflect

need, for example, teen pregnancy rates

and crime rates in the neighborhoods

served by the schools.

2. Describe your plan for

implementing the QOP program this

coming September. How will the 140

QOP slots be apportioned among the

target high schools that have been

identified? When during the summer

will you be able to provide a list of

entering ninth graders who rank in the

bottom half of their class? Who in the

school system will be responsible for

providing this list, and what is their

telephone number during the summer?

What community-based organization

(CBO) will carry out the QOP program?

How was this CBO selected? What is the

hiring plan of the CBO to make sure that

the overall coordinator and 14 half-time

counselors will be hired by September?

Can you provide examples of likely

candidates for these positions? What

physical space will be provided to the

counselors at the target high schools?

Who in the school system will be

responsible for overseeing the QOP

program? How will the school system

and the CBO coordinate services

provided under QOP? Describe the

SDA’s plans for providing summer jobs

for the youth.

3. Describe the matching funds that

will be provided.

Part III. Application Process

A. Submission of Proposals

An original and three (3) copies of the

proposal shall be submitted. The

proposal shall consist of two (2)

separate and distinct parts.

1. Cost Proposal. Part I shall contain

the cost proposal, consisting of the

following items: Standard Form SF 424,

‘‘Application for Federal Assistance’’

(Appendix No. 2) and the ‘‘Budget

Information’’ sheet (Appendix No. 3).

Also, the budget shall include on

separate page(s) a detailed breakout of

each line item on the budget sheet. The

Budget should provide for $200,000 in

grant funds and $200,000 in matching

funds.

2. Technical Proposal. The technical

proposal shall be limited to ten pages

(single-sided, single spaced). It should

include the ‘‘assurance’’ provided below

signed by the SDA director and the

superintendent of schools, and answers

to the three sets of questions and

requirements included under Part II,

Section E.

The following ‘‘assurance’’ should be

signed by the local SDA director and

superintendent of schools and included

in the technical proposal: ‘‘The service

delivery area (SDA) and school district

of lllll are applying for a

$200,000 a year grant under the

Department of Labor’s Quantum

Opportunities Project (QOP)

demonstration for entering ninth

graders. We understand that pending

availability of funds the demonstration

will continue throughout the 4 years of

high school of participating students.

We also understand that $200,000 a year

in matching funds are required for the

project, and QOP students will be

provided summer jobs for their three

summers in high school. We also

understand that participating in a

random assignment evaluation of the

program is a condition of award, and

that eligible entering ninth graders will

be randomly assigned to participate or

not participate in QOP.’’

lllllllllllllllllllll

SDA Director

lllllllllllllllllllll

School District Superintendent
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 66 / Thursday, April 6, 1995 / Notices 17581

B. Hand-Delivered Proposals

Proposals should be mailed at least

five (5) days prior to the closing date for

the receipt of applications. However, if

proposals are hand-delivered, they shall

be received at the designated place by

2 p.m., Eastern Time on the closing date

for receipt of applications. All overnight

mail will be considered to be handdelivered and must be received at the

designated place by the specified time

and closing date. Telegraphed and/or

faxed proposals will not be honored.

Failure to adhere to the above

instructions will be a basis for a

determination of non-responsiveness.

C. Late Proposals

Any proposal received at the office

designated in the solicitation after the

exact time specified for receipt will not

be considered unless it:

(1) was sent by the U.S. Postal Service

registered or certified mail not later than

the fifth calendar day before the date

specified for receipt of the application

(e.g., an offer submitted in response to

a solicitation requiring receipt of

applications by the 5th of May must

have been mailed by the 1st of May); or

(2) was sent by U.S. Postal Service

Express Mail Next Day Service—Post

Office to Addressee, not later than 5

p.m. at the place of mailing two working

days prior to the date specified for

receipt of proposals. The term ‘‘working

days’’ excludes weekends and U.S.

Federal holidays.

The only acceptable evidence to

establish the date of mailing of a late

proposal sent either by the U.S. Postal

Service registered or certified mail is the

U.S. postmark both on the envelope or

wrapper and on the original receipt

from the U.S. Postal Service. Both

postmarks must show a legible date or

the proposal shall be processed as if

mailed late. ‘‘Postmark’’ means a

printed, stamped, or otherwise placed

impression (exclusive of a postage meter

machine impression) that is readily

identifiable without further action as

having been supplied and affixed by

employees of the U.S. Postal Service on

the date of mailing. Therefore,

applicants should request the postal

clerk to place a legible hand

cancellation ‘‘bull’s eye’’ postmark on

both the receipt and the envelope or

wrapper.

The only acceptable evidence to

establish the date of mailing of a late

proposal sent by ‘‘Express Mail Next

Day Service—Post Office to Addressee’’

is the date entered by the post office

receiving clerk on the ‘‘Express Mail

Next Day Service—Post Office to

Addressee’’ label and the postmark on

both the envelope and wrapper and on

the original receipt from the U.S. Postal

Service. ‘‘Postmark’’ has the same

meaning as defined above. Therefore,

applicants should request the postal

clerk to place a legible hand

cancellation ‘‘bull’s eye’’ postmark on

both the receipt and the envelope or

wrapper.

F. Withdrawal of Proposals

Proposals may be withdrawn by

written notice or telegram (including

mailgram) received at any time before

award. Proposals may be withdrawn in

person or by an applicant or an

authorized representative thereof, if the

representative’s identity is made known

and the representative signs a receipt for

the proposal before a grant award is

executed.

Part IV. Rating Criteria for Award

Applicants are advised that the

selection of grantees for awards is to be

made after careful review by a panel.

Applicants are advised that discussions

may be necessary in order to clarify and

inconsistencies in their application. The

panel results are advisory in nature to

the Grant Officer. The Grant Officer will

make final awards based on what is in

the best interests of the Government as

determined by the Grant Officer. The

rating criteria for award are the

following:

1. Need in Target High Schools. This

corresponds to questions and

requirements raised in Part II, Section

E.1. The proposal should provide

information on the high schools,

including the overall enrollment at the

schools and the proportion of entering

ninth graders who graduate from the

school. The neighborhoods served by

the schools should be described. (30

points).

2. Development and Implementation

Plan. This corresponds to questions and

requirements raised in Section E.2 and

3. This criteria covers plans for

recruiting and hiring of the QOP

counselors and overall coordinator; the

availability of office space in the target

high schools for QOP coordinators; the

summer jobs that will be made available

to QOP students through JTPA Title II–

B; how jobs will be provided to QOP

students not income-eligible for JTPA;

the experience of the CBO in operating

programs for at-risk youth; and the

availability of matching funds. (70

points).

Signed at Washington, D.C., this 31st day

of March, 1995.

Janice E. Perry,

ETA Grant Officer.

Appendix 1 Description of Original QOP

Program

(Note: This Appendix is provided as

background information on the original QOP

program which the Ford Foundation funded.

As discussed above, the QOP model that sites

will be implementing under this grant

announcement differs in slight ways from the

original QOP program. Where differences

occur, applicants should follow the model

described in the main text of the grant

announcement rather than in this Appendix).

Quantum Opportunities Program: An

Overview

Background

The Quantum Opportunities Program

(QOP) was initiated as an experiment to test

whether impoverished young people could

make a ‘‘quantum leap’’ up the ladder of

opportunity if an intensive array of

coordinated services, coupled with a

sustained relationship with a peer group and

a caring adult, were offered to them over

their four years of high school.

The program also tested a system of

incentive payments for participants, staff and

delivery organizations to encourage

participation and retention in the program

and to provide some money for college,

technical training or other education upon

completion.

The program designer recognized that a

variety of education, training, employment,

development and service opportunities were

already available to poor teenage youth

through programs of government agencies

and nonprofit organizations. These, however,

were neither coordinated nor sequenced in a

continuum that recognized the

developmental needs of maturing youth.

Lacking coordination and continuity, their

cumulative impact was diluted.

The Quantum Opportunities Program

adopted an investment mentality. It tested

whether comprehensive services could be

sequenced effectively, whether a single

coordinator could broker services efficiently,

whether eligible youth would participate if

such opportunities were offered, and whether

this approach and these investments would

have a positive effect on the youth’s life

chances.

Purpose

The program’s aim was to assist minority

youth from solo-parent, welfare families in

poverty neighborhoods graduate from high

school and attend college. The Quantum

Opportunities Programs sought to rewrite the

future for these-at-risk teens.

Sites

The multi-faceted QOP model was

successfully implemented in four of the five

demonstration sites: Oklahoma City,

Philadelphia, Saginaw and San Antonio. The

delivery organizations were OIC affiliates—

community organizations offering a variety of

education, training and self-sufficiency

programs. Each also operated a ‘‘Learning
17582 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 66 / Thursday, April 6, 1995 / Notices

Opportunity Center’’ equipped with

computers, books and audiovisual equipment

and materials for self-paced and competencybased learning in academic, employability

and life skills.

There was variation among the four sites as

to how each operated the program. Two

negotiated with their local high schools to

schedule time in the school day. In one case,

a daily class period for participating students

was set up in each of the four school years.

This school time was used for group

meetings, discussions and development

activities; other program activities took place

outside of the school day in the community

organization. In the second site, the local

school provided a space for the program and

released students for daily meetings. Two

sites conducted the program entirely outside

of school hours and facilities.

Youth Eligibility

Participating students, the ‘‘Opportunity

Associates’’ were each:

• entering the 9th grade;

• attending a public high school in a

poverty neighborhood;

• a member of a racial minority; and

• from a solo-parent family receiving

welfare payments.

Recruitment

Each site enrolled 25 participants at the

start of the 1989–1990 school year:

1. The participating public high school

produced a list of all entering freshman

meeting the eligibility criteria.

2. From the list, 25 students were selected

at random for invitation to participate in the

program. Another 25 students were selected,

also at random, as a control group.

3. Selected students were contacted

through mailings, school counselors and

teachers, orientation meetings with parents

and students, home visits and peers.

4. All contacted students were

automatically enrolled. There was no

screening out or special selection.

Program Design

A youth developmental model was tested

in the Quantum Opportunities Program. The

program was organized in four cycles

spanning the four high school years,

including summers.

In each yearly cycle, the Opportunity

Associates attended high school and

participated in three activity components of

up to 250 hours each for a maximum of 750

hours per yearly cycle.

These activity components were organized

by an Opportunity Coordinator at each site.

The Coordinator both brokered and directly

delivered services in the three activity

components, which were:

Learning Opportunities—250 hours per

year of self-paced and competency based

basic skills and enrichment study outside of

regular school hours. Reading, writing, math,

science, and social studies were covered.

Opportunity Associates completed these

extra hours of learning in the existing OIC

Learning Opportunity Center in their

community.

Development Opportunities—250 hours

per year of cultural enrichment and personal

development. Students attended plays and

concerts, explored the visual arts, visited

museums and new locations, read and

discussed current affairs and the Great Books,

learned about their own rich history and

culture, dined in restaurants, and ‘‘job

shadowed’’ with professionals. Each

Opportunity Associate received a personal

subscription to Time Magazine. They learned

how to set goals, manage their time, and

choose behavior appropriate for varying

situations. They developed life skills needed

in the home, at work and in the marketplace.

They learned about themselves and how to

get along with others.

Service Opportunities—250 hours per year

of community service connected Opportunity

Associates to their communities and

provided opportunities to develop many of

the skills needed for work—reliability,

following through on tasks, and working

cooperatively. Service projects ranged from

tutoring elementary students, to

neighborhood cleanup, to volunteer work in

hospitals, nursing homes, libraries and

human service agencies.

Key Features

The critical elements of Quantum

Opportunities Program design were:

• Group cohesion—By design, each group

of 25 Opportunity Associates remained

constant through the four high school years.

Students could not be dropped from the

group, even for non-attendance. An inactive

student could return to the group at any time

over the four years; the promise of

opportunity was never withdrawn. New

students were not admitted to the group.

• Continuity with a caring adult—at each

site, the same Opportunity Coordinator was

to stay with the group for the four years.

(There was turnover in some test sites.)

• ‘‘Front line’’ accountability—Each

Opportunity Coordinator was responsible for

recruiting students, encouraging active

participation, brokering all service activities,

counseling students, communicating with

families, assisting with college financial aid

applications, and tracking activities.

Incentives

Financial incentives were structured to

encourage participation, completion and long

range planning. Opportunity Associates

received:

• an hourly stipend of $1.33 for each hour

of participation in the education,

development and service activities;

• a completion bonus of $100 for each

activity component completed during each of

the four yearly cycles, for a possible total of

$300 in bonuses, and;

• an Opportunity Account, created by

matching, on a dollar basis, all hourly

stipend and bonuses earned by the Associate

over the four years of the program. At the end

of the four years, the funds accrued in

Opportunity Accounts, including interest

earned, were available to Associates for

approved college, job and technical training,

or continuing education.

The Coordinator’s incentive payments, as

well as those to the OIC affiliate, were also

tied directly to participation hours and

completion rates. QOP Coordinators received

the same amount, and the delivery

organization received double the amount, of

the stipends and bonuses of their

Opportunity Associates.

Research

Brandeis University is evaluating the

program using a random assignment, control

group methodology. Progress during the

school years and post-program outcomes are

being compared for Opportunity Associates

and a matched group of people who did not

participate.

Early results are quite positive. The year

after expected high school graduation,

Opportunity Associates were more likely to

have graduated from high school, to have

enrolled in four-year colleges, to have

enrolled in any post-secondary education,

and to still plan college completion. They

were less likely to have dropped out, to have

become a solo parent or to have been

arrested.

Cost

The average cost per participant—covering

all costs—was $11,250 for the four years (half

the annual costs of prison). Two-fifths of this

cost was in direct payments to participants

in the form of stipends, bonuses and the

Opportunity Account.

BILLING CODE 4130–30–M
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 66 / Thursday, April 6, 1995 / Notices 17583
17584 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 66 / Thursday, April 6, 1995 / Notices
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 66 / Thursday, April 6, 1995 / Notices 17585

[FR Doc. 95–8477 Filed 4–5–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4130–30–C