46984 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 174 / Friday, September 8, 1995 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Office of Vocational and Adult

Education; School-to-Work

Opportunities; Local Partnership

Grants; Application Procedures

AGENCIES: Employment and Training

Administration, Department of Labor;

Office of Vocational and Adult

Education, Department of Education.

ACTION: Notice of availability of funds,

solicitation for grant application (SGA),

an administrative cost cap, a definition

of administrative costs, and final

selection criteria for School-to-Work

Opportunities Local Partnership Grants.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the

fiscal year (FY) competition for Local

Partnership Grants authorized under

Title III of the School-to-Work

Opportunities Act of 1994 (the Act).

This notice contains all of the necessary

information and forms needed to apply

for grant funding in FY 1995. The

Departments also establish final

selection criteria to be used in

evaluating applications submitted under

the Local Partnership Grants

competition in FY 1995 and in

succeeding years. The Departments also

establish a definition for the term

‘‘administrative costs,’’ as well as a 10

percent cap on administrative costs

incurred by local partnerships receiving

grants under Title III of the Act.

DATES: Applications for grant awards

will be accepted commencing

September 8, 1995. The closing date for

receipt of applications is November 7,

1995, at 2 p.m. (Eastern time) at the

following address. Telefacsimile (FAX)

applications will NOT be accepted.

ADDRESSES: Applications must be

mailed to: U.S. Department of

Education, Application Control Center,

Attention: CFDA #278C, Washington,

D.C. 20202–4725.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Maria Kniesler, National School-toWork Office. Telephone: (202) 401–

6222. (This is not a toll-free number).

Individuals who use a

telecommunications device for the deaf

(TDD) may call the Federal Information

Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339

between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern time,

Monday through Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Section A. Background

The Departments of Labor and

Education are reserving funds

appropriated for FY 1995 under Pub. L.

103–329 (the Act) for a competition for

Local Partnership Grants authorized

under Title III of the Act. In accordance

with the authority provided in section 5

of the Act, the Departments have

determined that the administrative

provisions contained in the Education

Department General Administrative

Regulations (EDGAR) at 34 CFR Parts

74, 75, 77, 79, 80, 82, 85 and 86, will

apply to grants awarded to local

partnerships under this competition.

This notice contains a definition of

the term ‘‘administrative costs,’’ a 10

percent cap on administrative costs

incurred by local partnerships receiving

grants under Title III, and the selection

criteria that will be used in evaluating

applications submitted in response to

this year’s competition, and all of the

other necessary information and forms

needed to apply for grant funding.

Section B. Purpose

Under this competition, the

Departments will award grants to local

partnerships that have built a sound

planning and development base for their

school-to-work programs, to begin

implementation of School-to-Work

Opportunities initiatives that will

become part of statewide School-toWork Opportunities systems. These

local initiatives will offer young

Americans access to programs designed

to prepare them for first jobs in highskill, high-wage careers, and to increase

their opportunities for further education

and training.

Section C. Application Process

1. Eligible Applicants

A local entity that meets the

definition of ‘‘local partnership’’ in

section 4(11) of the Act, is eligible to

apply for a Local Partnership Grant.

However, local partnerships that are

located in the eight States that were

awarded School-to-Work Opportunities

State Implementation Grants in 1994 are

not eligible to apply for a Local

Partnership Grant under this

competition. These eight States are:

Maine, Massachusetts, New York, New

Jersey, Kentucky, Wisconsin, Michigan,

and Oregon. In addition, it should be

noted that local partnerships located in

States that are slated to receive Schoolto-Work Opportunities State

Implementation Grants in 1995 are

eligible to apply for grants under this

competition.

As defined in the Act, an eligible

partnership must include employers,

representatives of local educational

agencies and local postsecondary

educational institutions (including

representatives of area vocational

education schools, where applicable),

local educators, representatives of labor

organizations or nonmanagerial

employee representatives, and students.

Other entities appropriate to effective

implementation of a local School-toWork Opportunities initiative should

also be included in the partnership.

Under section 302(a) of the Act a local

partnership is eligible to receive only

one (1) Local Partnership Grant.

2. State Comments

The local partnership must submit its

application to the State for review and

comment before submitting the

application to the Departments, in

accordance with section 303(a) of the

Act. The application should be

submitted to the State’s School-to-Work

Contact. A list of State School-to-Work

Contacts is included in Appendix D of

this notice. The Departments expect that

the State School-to-Work Contact will

provide all members of the State Schoolto-Work Partnership listed in section

213(b)(4)(A)-(K) of the Act, an

opportunity to review and comment on

the local partnership’s application.

Of particular importance to the

Departments are each State’s comments

on the consistency of the local

partnership’s planned activities with the

State’s plan for a comprehensive

statewide School-to-Work Opportunities

system and the relationship of any

proposed activities with other local

plans, especially if the grant applicant is

not specifically identified as a local

partnership within the State system.

In accordance with section 305 of the

Act, if a State has an approved State

School-to-Work Opportunities plan, the

State must confirm that the plan

submitted by the local partnership is in

accordance with the State plan. The

application from the local partnership

must contain this confirmation.

Section 303(b)(1) of the Act requires

each State to review and comment on a

local partnership’s application within

30 days from the date on which the

State receives the application from the

local partnership. Therefore, even

though applicants have 60 days to apply

for a Local Partnership Grant under this

notice, they must provide their

application to their State in time for the

State to have at least 30 days before the

due date to review and comment on

their application.

Furthermore, under section 303(c)(2)

of the Act, the State’s comments must be

included in the local partnership’s

application. However, if the State does

not provide review and comment within

the 30-day time period described above,

the local partnership may submit the
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 174 / Friday, September 8, 1995 / Notices 46985

application without State comment. In

such a case, the local partnership

should provide proof that the State

received a copy of the local

partnership’s application at least 30

days prior to the application due date.

3. Period of Performance

The period of performance for Local

Partnership Grants is twelve months

from the date of award by the

Departments.

4. Option to Extend

Local Partnership Grants may be

extended up to four additional years,

but not beyond the second year of a

School-to-Work Opportunities State

Implementation Grant for the State in

which the partnership is located.

Extensions will be based upon

availability of funds and the progress of

the local partnership towards its

objectives as approved in its application

and will be subject to the annual

approval of the Secretaries of Labor and

Education (the Secretaries). It is likely

that the amount of Federal funds, if any,

that are awarded to local partnerships

under this notice in subsequent years

will decrease.

5. Available Funds

Approximately $15 million is

available for this competition.

6. Estimated Range of Awards

The amount of an award under this

competition will depend upon the

scope, quality, and comprehensiveness

of the proposed initiative and the

relative size of the community to be

served by the local partnership.

The Departments expect that first-year

grant amounts will be about $200,000

for areas with populations under

250,000; $200,000 to $300,000 for areas

with populations of 250,000 to 499,999;

$300,000 to $500,000 for areas with

populations of 500,000 to 749,999;

$500,000 to $700,000 for areas with

populations of 750,000 to 999,999;

$700,000 to $1,000,000 for areas with

populations of 1,000,000 to 1,499,999;

and upwards of $1,500,000 for areas

with populations of 1,500,000 or more.

These ranges are provided to assist

applicants in developing plans. The

exact amounts awarded may exceed or

be less than the amounts reflected in

these ranges.

7. Estimated Number of Awards

The Departments expect to award 25–

35 grants under this competition.

Note: The Departments are not bound by

any estimates in this notice.

8. Reporting Requirements/Deliverables

(a) Reporting Requirements

The local partnership will be

required, at a minimum, to submit—

• Quarterly Financial Reports (SF

269–A);

• Quarterly Narrative Progress

Reports;

• An Annual Continuation

Application package, if appropriate,

including—

• A revised SF–524 and renewed

Assurances and Certifications;

• A narrative report describing

progress toward stated goals, and

identifying goals and objectives for the

coming year;

• Annual financial reports (ED Form

524B, and SF 269);

• Budget Information for Upcoming

Years;

• An Annual Performance Report

providing data on performance

measures; and

• A close-out report at the end of the

grant.

(b) Deliverables

The local partnership will be required

to—

• Provide information on best

practices and innovative school- and

work-based curricula suitable for

dissemination to States and other

stakeholders;

• Participate in two grantee meetings

per year sponsored by the National

School-to-Work Office;

• Act as a host to outside visitors who

are interested in developing and

implementing School-to-Work

Opportunities initiatives and to other

visitors interested in the replication,

adaptation or impact of successful

program elements; and

• Participate as needed in evaluation

and special data collection activities.

9. Application Transmittal Instructions

An application for an award must be

mailed or hand-delivered by the closing

date.

(A) Applications Delivered by Mail

An application sent by mail must be

addressed to the U.S. Department of

Education, Application Control Center,

Attention CFDA # 278C, 600

Independence Avenue, S.W.,

Washington, D.C 20202–4725.

An application must show proof of

mailing consisting of one of the

following:

• A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service

Postmark.

• A legible mail receipt with the date

of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal

Service.

• A dated shipping label, invoice, or

receipt from a commercial carrier.

• Any other proof of mailing

acceptable to the U.S. Secretary of

Education.

If an application is sent through the

U.S. Postal Service, the Secretary does

not accept either of the following as

proof of mailing:

• A private metered postmark.

• A mail receipt that is not dated by

the U.S. Postal Service.

An applicant should note that the

U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly

provide a dated postmark. Before

relying on this method, an applicant

should check with its local post office.

An applicant is encouraged to use

registered or at least first class mail.

Each late applicant will be notified that

its application will not be considered.

(B) Applications Delivered by Hand

An application that is hand-delivered

must be taken to the U.S. Department of

Education, Application Control Center,

Room 3633, Regional Office Building 3,

7th and D Streets SW., Washington, DC.

The Application Control Center will

accept hand-delivered applications

between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.

(Washington, DC time) daily, except

Saturdays, Sundays and Federal

Holidays.

Individuals delivering applications

must use the D Street entrance. Proper

identification is necessary in order to

enter the building.

In order for an application sent

through a courier service to be

considered timely, the courier service

must be in receipt of the application on

or before the closing date.

Section D. Organization and Content of

Applications

Applicants are encouraged to submit

an original and four copies of their

application. The Departments suggest

that the application be divided into five

distinct parts: budget and certifications,

abstract, State comments, program

narrative and appendices. To ensure a

comprehensive and expedient review,

the Departments strongly suggest that

applicants submit an application

formatted as seen below:

Table of Contents

I. Budget and Certifications

Part I should contain the Standard

Form SF 424, ‘‘Application for Federal

Assistance,’’ and SF 524, ‘‘Budget.’’ All

copies of the SF 424 must have original

signatures of the designated fiscal agent.

In addition, the budget should

include—on a separate page or pages—

a detailed cost breakout of each line

item on SF 524. All assurances and

certifications included in this notice
46986 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 174 / Friday, September 8, 1995 / Notices

should also be included in Part I of the

application.

II. Abstract

Part II should consist of a one-page

abstract summarizing the essential

components and key features of the

local partnership’s plan.

III. State Comments

Part III should contain the State’s

comments on the application. Details on

this section can be found under State

Comments heading of this notice.

IV. Program Narrative

Part IV should contain the application

narrative that demonstrates the

applicant’s plan and capabilities in

accordance with the selection criteria

contained in section F of this notice. In

order to assist applicants in the

preparation of their applications and to

facilitate expeditious evaluation by the

panel, applicants should describe their

proposed plan in light of each of the

selection criteria. No cost data or

reference to price should be included in

this part of the application. The

Departments strongly request that

applicants limit the program narrative

section to no more than 40 one-sided,

double-spaced pages.

V. Appendices

All applicable appendices, including

letters of support, resumes and

organizational charts, should be

included in this section. The

Departments recommend that all

appendix entries cross-reference the

applicable sections in the program

narrative.

Note: Applicants are advised that the peer

review panels evaluate each application

solely on the basis of the selection criteria

contained in this notice, and the School-toWork Opportunities Act. Appendices may be

used to provide supporting information.

However, in scoring applications, reviewers

are required to take into account only

information that is presented in the

application narrative, which must address

the selection criteria, and requirements of the

Act. Letters of support are welcome, but

applicants should be aware that support

letters contained in the application will

strengthen the application only if they

contain commitments that pertain to the

selection criteria.

Section E. Safeguards

The Departments will apply certain

safeguards, as required under section

601 of the Act, to School-to-Work

Opportunities programs funded under

this notice. The application must

include a brief assurance that the

following safeguards will be

implemented and maintained

throughout all program activities:

(a) No student shall displace any

currently employed worker (including a

partial displacement, such as a

reduction in the hours of non-overtime

work, wages, or employment benefits).

(b) No School-to-Work Opportunities

program shall impair existing contracts

for services or collective bargaining

agreements, and no program funded

under this notice shall be undertaken

without the written concurrence of the

labor organization and employer

concerned.

(c) No student shall be employed or

fill a job—

(1) When any other individual is on

temporary layoff, with the clear

possibility of recall, from the same or

any substantially equivalent job with

the participating employer; or

(2) When the employer has terminated

the employment of any regular

employee or otherwise reduced its

workforce with the intention of filling

the vacancy so created with the student.

(d) Students shall be provided with

adequate and safe equipment and safe

and healthful workplaces in conformity

with all health and safety requirements

of Federal, State, and local law.

(e) Nothing in the Act shall be

construed so as to modify or affect any

Federal or State law prohibiting

discrimination on the basis of race,

religion, color, ethnicity, national

origin, gender, age, or disability.

(f) Funds awarded under the Act shall

not be expended for wages of students

or workplace mentors.

(g) The grantee shall implement and

maintain such other safeguards as the

Secretaries may deem appropriate in

order to ensure that School-to-Work

Opportunities participants are afforded

adequate supervision by skilled adult

workers, or to otherwise further the

purposes of the Act.

Section F. Waivers

Under Title V of the Act the

Secretaries may waive certain Federal

requirements that impede the ability of

a State or local partnership to carry out

the purposes of the Act. Only local

partnerships in States with approved

School-to-Work Opportunities plans

may apply for waivers. A local

partnership that seeks a waiver should

contact its State School-to-Work Contact

to determine what documentation is

required and to whom it should be sent.

In May, 1995, the National School-toWork Opportunities Office issued a

document entitled ‘‘School-to-Work

Opportunities Waiver and Plan

Approval Process Questions and

Answers.’’ This document was sent to

every Governor and State School-toWork Contact. The document contains

answers to many of the questions that

localities may have when preparing

their waiver requests. Local

Partnerships interested in applying for

waivers should contact the National

School-to-Work Opportunities Office or

their State School-to-Work Contact for a

copy of the waivers document.

Section G. Bidders’ Conferences

Bidders’ Conferences for interested

School-to-Work Opportunities Local

Partnership representatives are

scheduled from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.,

on the dates and locations listed below:

• September 15, 1995, Bartle Hall,

13th and Broadway, Room 2210, Kansas

City, Missouri 64106.

• September 18, 1995, Jackson

Federal Building, 915 2nd Avenue,

North and South Auditorium, 4th Floor,

Seattle, Washington 98174.

Participants at the conferences will

receive a detailed description of the

School-to-Work Opportunities Act, and

the selection criteria and how they will

be applied, and will have the

opportunity to ask questions of Federal

School-to-Work officials.

All partnerships must preregister by

faxing the names and addresses of up to

three members of the local partnership

planning to attend, the name of the local

partnership, and a phone number to:

Kevin Shelton, Training and Technical

Assistance Corporation, 2409 18th, NW.,

Washington, DC; FAX #: (202) 408–

8282.

Questions regarding the solicitation

may be submitted in advance. If you are

unable to attend the Bidders’

Conference, but would like the

conference materials and a conference

transcript, submit your request via fax to

the fax number listed above. All

information must be submitted no later

than September 13, 1995. Conferees will

be sent a confirmation along with hotel

accommodation information once their

registration has been received.

Local Partnership Grant Competition

Analysis of Comments and Changes

On May 25, 1995, the Departments of

Labor and Education published a notice

containing proposed selection criteria, a

10 percent cap on administrative costs,

and a definition of the term

‘‘administrative costs’’ for this

competition and competitions in

succeeding years in the Federal Register

(60 FR 27812–27814). In response to the

invitation to comment, 34 parties

submitted comments. An analysis of the

comments received in response to the

publication of that notice and of the

changes made to the selection criteria,

administrative cost cap, and definition
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 174 / Friday, September 8, 1995 / Notices 46987

since publication of the notice of

proposed selection criteria and

proposed definition, is published as an

appendix to this notice.

School-to-Work Local Partnership

Grants— Administrative Cost Cap

The Departments are applying the 10

percent cap on administrative costs

contained in section 215(b)(6) of the Act

to local partnerships receiving grants

directly under this competition. Section

215(b)(6) of the Act applies the 10

percent administrative cap to subgrants

received by local partnerships from a

State. The Departments have concluded

that applying the 10 percent cap to local

partnerships under Title III of the Act is

consistent with the Act’s intent and its

broader limitations on administrative

costs. Further, this limitation is

consistent with section 305 of Title III,

which requires conformity between

School-to-Work Opportunities plans of

local partnerships and State School-toWork Opportunities plans.

Definition

All definitions in the Act apply to

local School-to-Work Opportunities

systems funded under this and future

Local Partnership Grant competitions.

Since the Act does not contain a

definition of the term ‘‘administrative

costs’’ as used in section 217 of the Act,

the Departments will apply the

following definition to this and future

competitions for Local Partnership

Grants.

The term ‘‘administrative costs’’

means the activities of a local

partnership that are necessary for the

proper and efficient performance of its

duties under the Local Partnership

Grant pursuant to the School-to-Work

Opportunities Act and that are not

directly related to the provision of

services to participants or otherwise

allocable to the program’s allowable

activities listed in section 215(b)(4) and

section 215(c) of the Act. Administrative

costs may be either personnel or nonpersonnel costs, and may be either

direct and indirect. Costs of

administration include those costs that

are related to this grant in such

categories as—

A. Costs of salaries, wages, and

related costs of the grantee’s staff

engaged in—

• Overall system management, system

coordination, and general

administrative functions;

• Preparing program plans, budgets,

and schedules, as well as applicable

amendments;

• Monitoring of local initiatives, pilot

projects, subrecipients, and related

systems and processes;

• Procurement activities, including

the award of specific subgrants,

contracts, and purchase orders;

• Developing systems and

procedures, including management

information systems, for ensuring

compliance with the requirements

under the Act;

• Preparing reports and other

documents related to the Act; and

• Coordinating the resolution of audit

findings;

B. Costs for goods and services

required for administration of the

School-to-Work Opportunities system;

C. Costs of system-wide management

functions; and

D. Travel costs incurred for official

business in carrying out grants

management or administrative

activities.

Selection Criteria

Under the School-to-Work

Opportunities Local Partnership Grant

competition, the Departments will use

the following selection criteria in

evaluating applications and will utilize

a peer review process in which review

teams, including peers, will evaluate

applications using the selection criteria

and the associated point values. The

Departments will base final funding

decisions on the ranking of applications

as a result of the peer review, and such

other factors as replicability,

sustainability, innovation, geographic

balance, and diversity of system

approaches.

Selection Criterion 1: Comprehensive

Local School-to-Work Opportunities

System (40 Points)

Considerations: In applying this

criterion, reviewers will consider—

A. 20 Points. The extent to which the

partnership has designed a

comprehensive local School-to-Work

Opportunities plan that—

• Includes effective strategies for

integrating school-based and workbased learning, integrating academic

and vocational education, and

establishing linkages between secondary

and postsecondary education;

• Is likely to produce systemic change

that will have substantial impact on the

preparation of all students for a first job

in a high-skill, high-wage career and in

increasing their opportunities for further

learning;

• Ensures all students will have a full

range of options, including options for

higher education, additional training

and employment in high-skill, highwage jobs;

• Ensures coordination and

integration with existing school-to-work

programs, and with related programs

financed from State and private sources,

with funds available from Federal

education and training programs (such

as the Job Training Partnership Act and

the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and

Applied Technology Education Act);

and where applicable, communities

designated as Empowerment Zones or

Enhanced Enterprise Communities (EZ/

EEC);

• Serves a geographical area that

reflects the needs of the local labor

market, and is able to adjust to regional

structures that the State School-to-Work

Opportunities plan may identify; and

• Targets occupational clusters that

represent growing industries in the

partnership’s geographic area; and,

where applicable, demonstrates that the

clusters are included among the

occupational clusters being targeted by

the State School-to-Work Opportunities

system.

B. 20 Points. The extent to which the

partnership’s plan demonstrates its

capability to achieve the statutory

requirements and to effectively put in

place the system components in Title I

of the School-to-Work Opportunities

Act, including—

• A work-based learning component

that includes the statutory ‘‘mandatory

activities’’ and that contributes to the

transformation of workplaces into active

learning components of the education

system through an array of learning

experiences such as mentoring, jobshadowing, unpaid work experiences,

school-sponsored enterprises, and paid

work experiences;

• A school-based learning component

that provides students with high-level

academic and technical skills consistent

with academic standards that the State

establishes for all students, including,

where applicable, standards established

under the Goals 2000: Educate America

Act;

• A connecting activities component

to provide a functional link between

students’ school and work activities,

and between workplace partners,

educators, community organizations

and other appropriate entities;

• Effective processes for assessing

skills and knowledge required in career

majors, and issuing portable skill

certificates that are benchmarked to

high-quality standards such as those

States will establish under the Goals

2000: Educate America Act, and for

periodically assessing and collecting

information on student outcomes, as

well as a realistic strategy and timetable

for implementing the process in concert

with the State.

• A flexible School-to-Work

Opportunities system that allows

students participating in the local
46988 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 174 / Friday, September 8, 1995 / Notices

system to develop new career goals over

time, and to change career majors; and

• Effective strategies for: providing

staff development for teachers, worksite

mentors and other key personnel;

developing model curricula and

innovative instructional methodologies;

expanding career and academic

counseling in elementary and secondary

schools; and utilizing innovative

technology-based instructional

techniques.

Selection Criterion 2: Quality and

Effectiveness of the Local Partnership

(20 Points)

Considerations: In applying this

criterion, reviewers will refer to section

4(11) of the Act and consider—

• Whether the partnership’s plan

demonstrates an effective and

convincing strategy for continuing the

commitment of required partners and

other interested parties in the local

School-to-Work Opportunities system.

As defined by the Act, partners must

include employers, representatives of

local educational agencies and local

postsecondary educational institutions

(including representatives of area

vocational education schools, where

applicable), local educators (such as

teachers, counselors, or administrators),

representatives of labor organizations or

nonmanagerial employee

representatives, and students, and may

include other relevant stakeholders such

as those listed in section 4(11)(B) of the

Act, including employer organizations,

community-based organizations,

national trade associations working at

the local levels, industrial extension

centers, rehabilitation agencies and

organizations, registered apprenticeship

agencies, local vocational education

entities, proprietary institutions of

higher education, local government

agencies, parent organizations, teacher

organizations, vocational student

organizations, private industry councils

under JTPA, federally recognized Indian

tribes, Indian organizations, and Alaska

Native villages, and Native Hawaiian

entities.

• Whether the partnership’s plan

demonstrates an effective and

convincing strategy for continuing the

commitment of workplace partners and

other interested parties in the local

School-to-Work Opportunities system;

• The effectiveness of the

partnership’s plan to include private

sector representatives as joint partners

with educators in both the design and

the implementation of the local Schoolto-Work Opportunities system;

• The extent to which the local

partnership has developed strategies to

provide a range of opportunities for

workplace partners to participate in the

design and implementation of the local

School-to-Work Opportunities system,

including membership on councils and

partnerships; assistance in setting

standards, designing curricula, and

determining outcomes; providing

worksite experiences for teachers;

helping to recruit other employers; and

providing worksite learning activities

for students such as mentoring, job

shadowing, unpaid work experiences,

and paid work experiences;

• The extent to which the roles and

responsibilities of the key parties and

any other relevant stakeholders, are

clearly defined and are likely to produce

the desired changes in the way students

are prepared for the future.

• The extent to which the partnership

demonstrates the capacity to build a

quality local School-to-Work

Opportunities system;

• Whether the partnership has

included methods for sustaining and

expanding the partnership, as the

program expands in scope and size.

Selection Criterion 3: Participation of

All Students (15 Points)

Considerations: In applying this

criterion, reviewers will refer to the

definition of the term ‘‘all students’’ in

section 4(2) of the Act, and consider—

• The extent to which the partnership

will implement effective strategies and

systems: to provide all students with

equal access to the full range of program

components specified in sections 102

through 104 of the Act and related

activities such as recruitment,

enrollment and placement activities;

and to ensure that all students have

meaningful opportunities to participate

in School-to-Work Opportunities

programs;

• Whether the partnership has

identified potential barriers to the

participation of any students, and the

degree to which it proposes effective

ways of overcoming these barriers;

• The degree to which the

partnership has developed realistic

goals and methods for assisting young

women to participate in School-to-Work

Opportunities programs leading to

employment in high-performance, highpaying jobs, including non-traditional

jobs;

• The partnership’s methods for

ensuring safe and healthy work

environments for students, including

strategies for encouraging school to

provide students with general

awareness training in occupational

safety and health as part of the schoolbased learning component, and for

encouraging workplace partners to

provide risk-specific training as part of

the work-based learning component, as

well the extent to which the partnership

has developed realistic goals to ensure

environments free from racial and

sexual harassment;

• The extent to which the

partnership’s plan provides for the

participation of a significant number or

percentage of students in School-toWork Opportunities activities listed

under Title I of the Act.

Selection Criterion 4: Collaboration

With State (15 Points)

Considerations: In applying this

criterion, reviewers will consider—

• The extent to which the local

partnership has effectively consulted

with its State School-to-Work

Opportunities Partnership, and has

established realistic methods for

ensuring consistency of its local

strategies with the statewide School-toWork Opportunities system being

developed by that State Partnership;

• Whether the local partnership has

developed a sound strategy for

integrating its plan, as necessary, with

the State plan for a statewide School-toWork Opportunities system;

• The extent to which the local

partnership has developed effective

processes through which it is able to

assist and collaborate with the State in

establishing the statewide School-toWork system, and is able to provide

feedback to the State on their systembuilding process.

• Whether the plan includes a

feasible workplan that describes the

steps that will be taken in order to make

the local system part of the State

School-to-Work Opportunities System,

including a timeline that includes major

planned objectives during the grant

period.

Selection Criterion 5: Management Plan

(10 Points)

Considerations: In applying this

criterion, reviewers will consider—

• The feasibility and effectiveness of

the partnership’s strategy for using other

resources, including private sector

resources, to maintain the system when

Federal resources under the School-toWork Opportunities Act are no longer

available.

• The extent to which the

partnership’s management plan

anticipates barriers to implementation

and proposes effective methods for

addressing barriers as they arise.

• Whether the plan includes feasible

measurable goals for the School-to-Work

Opportunities system, based on

performance outcomes established

under section 402 of the Act, and an

effective method for collecting
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 174 / Friday, September 8, 1995 / Notices 46989

information relevant to the local

partnership’s progress in meeting its

goals.

• Whether the plan includes a

regularly scheduled process for

improving or redesigning the School-toWork Opportunities system based on

performance outcomes established

under section 402 of the Act.

• The extent to which the resources

requested will be used to develop

information, products and ideas that

will assist other States and local

partnerships as they design and

implement local systems.

• The extent to which the partnership

will limit equipment and other

purchases in order to maximize the

amounts spent on delivery of services to

students.

Dated: September 1, 1995.

Tim Barnicle,

Assistant Secretary for Employment and

Training, Department of Labor.

Patricia McNeil,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Vocational and

Adult Education, Department of Education.

Appendix—Analysis of Comments and

Changes—Administrative Costs

10 Percent Cap on Administrative Costs

Comment: Eleven commenters suggested

that the proposed 10 percent cap on

administrative costs was too low. Several of

the commenters felt that the cap should be

set at a higher level, such as 15 percent or

20 percent. Other commenters felt that the

cap should be set on a flexible scale that

would fluctuate according to the size of the

grant award. Many commenters felt that the

10 percent cap on administrative costs would

ultimately undermine local efforts to build

and sustain a strong school-to-work

implementation effort, and that it would

sacrifice the quality and effectiveness of the

local partnerships. Finally, one commenter

felt that School-to-Work Opportunities

systems in rural areas would have an

especially difficult time being able to stay

within the 10 percent cap on administrative

costs.

Discussion: The Departments have

concluded that applying the 10 percent cap

to Title III grants awarded to local

partnerships is consistent with the Act’s

broader limitations on administrative costs,

with the 10 percent cap imposed on local

partnerships receiving School-to-Work

Opportunities subgrants from States, and

with section 305 of Title III, which requires

conformity between School-to-Work

Opportunities plans of local partnerships and

State School-to-Work Opportunities plans.

Changes: None.

Definition of Administrative Costs

Comment: Twelve commenters suggested

that changes be made to the definition of the

term ‘‘administrative costs.’’ Some of these

commenters felt that evaluation and

monitoring are functions so central to the

local partnerships’ ability to implement

systemic change that they should be

excluded from the definition of

administrative costs. One of these

commenters also felt that language should be

added that would specifically outline

allowable activities. Another commenter felt

that the definition of the term

‘‘administrative costs’’ under EDGAR should

be used.

Discussion: The Departments chose to

create a new definition of administrative

costs rather than use a generic definition

such as the one contained in EDGAR in order

to address the unique nature of the Act. This

definition was established as part of the 1995

School-to-Work Opportunities State

Implementation grant process. It should be

noted that activities that are directly related

to the provision of services to participants or

otherwise allocable to the program’s

allowable activities under the grant are not

defined as administrative costs. The

Departments believe that since the definition

specifically states that activities under

section 215(b)(4) and 215 of the Act are not

administrative costs, there is no need to

mention specific activities such as the

provision of technical assistance or

developing model curriculum. The

Departments believe that the independent

evaluation function is especially critical

because of the need for an ongoing process

of measuring system effectiveness and

therefore have not included it in the

definition of the term ‘‘administrative costs.’’

The Departments believe, however, that

monitoring and establishing compliance

systems are activities appropriately charged

to the administrative cost category.

Changes: None.

Equipment Cost as an Administrative Cost

Comment: Three commenters asked for

clarification as to whether equipment cost is

an administrative cost, especially in relation

to the last bullet point under selection

criterion 5, which asks reviewers to consider

the extent to which a local partnership will

limit equipment purchases in order to

maximize the amounts spent on direct

delivery of students.

Discussion: The Departments believe that

equipment purchased for the purpose of

administering the School-to-Work

Opportunities system is an administrative

cost, and therefore is subject to the 10

percent cap. However, equipment purchased

for classroom instructional use would not be

subject to the 10 percent cap.

Changes: None.

Suggested Changes to the Structure of the

Notice

Need to Include Sections of the Act in the

Notice

Comment: One commenter believed that

the selection criteria should more exactly

reiterate key components contained in the

Act in Title I, sections 101–104 (‘‘General

Program Requirements’’ and basic program

components).

Discussion: While the Departments concur

with the commenter on the importance of

these provisions, they do not believe it is

necessary to restate in the notice most of the

legislative language emphasized by the

commenter. The notice advises local

partnerships that applications must meet all

the requirements of the Act, reiterates that all

definitions in the Act apply to systems

funded under the Local Partnership Grant

competitions, and emphasizes, under

Criterion 1, the need for local partnership

plans to demonstrate consistency with all

statutory requirements and with all system

components in Title I of the Act. Therefore,

the Departments strongly encourage

applicants to refer to the Act as well as the

criteria in developing School-to-Work

Opportunities plans that reflect the full

intent of the law. The Departments wish to

assure the commenter that panelists

reviewing the applications are selected for

their understanding of the School-to-Work

Opportunities Act, are required to participate

in a carefully designed orientation, and will

be directed to score applications based on the

criteria, in conjunction with the requirements

of the Act.

Changes: None.

Distribution of Points

Comment: One commenter questioned the

distribution of points in this section, and

believed that Criterion 1 B, under

Comprehensive Local School-to-Work

Opportunities System, should receive more

weight than 20 out of 100 points. This

commenter also indicated that Criterion 3,

‘‘Participation of All Students,’’ should

receive more than 15 points. Another

commenter recommended making Criterion 3

a ‘‘threshold criterion’’. This commenter felt

that unless this component was adequately

addressed, no local partnership should be

considered for funding.

Discussion: In response to this comment,

the Departments gave careful consideration

to the distribution of points among the

selection criteria, and have concluded that

the distribution provided for in the notice

results in the most appropriate balance

among the criteria. The Departments are

committed to assisting partnerships develop

and implement school-to-work systems that

provide opportunities to all students, but

they do not agree that Criterion 3 should be

replaced with a threshold criterion or an

eligibility requirement, or that either of these

would be consistent with the Act. Criterion

3 requires that a partnership describe its

strategies for effectively ensuring

opportunities for all students to participate in

the school-to-work system, and to identify

ways of overcoming barriers to the

participation of any students. This criterion

now states that the partnership’s strategies

must address equal access to the full range

of components for all students. The

Departments again wish to emphasize that to

receive the maximum points for Criterion 3,

applicants must not neglect the needs of any

students, and must convincingly describe

how the School-to-Work Opportunities

system will provide the same options and

produce the same results for all participating

students, while recognizing that groups of

students have different needs and, therefore,

that specific strategies may be required for

the various groups listed in the definition of

‘‘all students.’’ Applications that fail to

address the critical needs of any category of
46990 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 174 / Friday, September 8, 1995 / Notices

student and fail to develop effective

strategies in response to identified student

barriers will not be as competitive as those

that have comprehensive and effective

strategies for all students. To be competitive,

partnerships that have not fully implemented

all components of the strategies devised for

all students should at least have established

a timetable for putting these components in

place within a reasonable period of time.

Changes: None.

Restructuring Criteria

Comments: Several commenters

recommended adding or restating key

concerns under several criteria, changing the

order of the bullets under a given criterion,

or moving bullets from under one criterion

heading to another. One commenter

suggested moving the first bullet under

Selection Criterion 3 concerning strategies for

ensuring that all students have effective and

meaningful opportunities to participate in

the local School-to-Work Opportunities

system to Selection Criterion 1(B). Another

commenter suggested reordering the bullets

under Selection Criterion 2 in order to

enhance the continuity of the section. This

commenter also felt that Selection Criterion

1(A) should be made a part of Selection

Criterion (2) since geographic coverage is

more closely related to the quality and

effectiveness of the local partnership.

Discussion: The Departments recognize

that there are certain key elements that have

a direct bearing on several aspects of local

School-to-Work Opportunities systems. The

notice has been carefully developed to weave

these issues throughout the notice while still

capturing the major points most germane to

each specific criterion. However, the

Departments do not believe it is always

necessary to restate these issues as bullet

points under multiple criteria. As discussed

in response to another comment, applicants

are encouraged to refer to the Act as well as

the notice in order to develop School-toWork Opportunities plans that fully

implement the law. In response to suggested

changes in sequence and placement, the

order of importance, or that a greater

percentage of the maximum points for that

criterion is to be assigned to any particular

bullet, all bullets under each selection

criterion will be duly considered by the

reviewers. The Departments again wish to

emphasize that all applications are subject to

a thorough review. Panelists are selected for

their expertise in school-to-work, receive a

thorough orientation, and are grouped in

carefully balanced teams representing a range

specializations and interests, to ensure that

decisions reflect the full intent of the Act.

Changes: None.

Selection Criterion 1: Comprehensive Local

School-to-Work Opportunities System (A)

Coordination and Integration With Existing

School-to-Work Programs

Comment: Four commenters felt that

language should be added that would ensure

coordination with Federal systems change

grants authorized under the Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). One

commenter felt that specific reference should

not be made to the Job Training Partnership

Act (JTPA) and the Carl D. Perkins

Vocational and Applied Technology

Education Act.

Discussion: Achieving comprehensive

reform will require local partnerships to

coordinate and integrate a great number and

variety of initiatives having training and

education related goals. The Departments

agree that the lessons learned from initiatives

and programs that are related to School-toWork should be incorporated in the local

partnership’s plan. The fourth bullet under

Selection Criterion 1(A) is intended to

encourage local partnerships to review the

many Federal, State and local programs and

initiatives and to develop plans for creating

mutually supportive strategies.

Changes: None.

Difficulty of Rural Areas in Targeting Highwage, High-skill Jobs

Comment: One commenter was concerned

that the emphasis placed throughout the

notice on high-wage, high-skill jobs would

favor urban partnerships over rural

partnerships, which may be unable to offer

paid work experiences or match metropolitan

pay schedules. This commenter pointed out

that rural communities have limited access to

such paid jobs due to geographic isolation,

slow economic growth, and comparatively

lower wages for most employees. The

commenter suggested that points be awarded

for plans developed by rural School-to-Work

consortia to allow employees to live in their

home community while commuting to highwage, high-skill jobs in neighboring

communities.

Discussion: The Departments are

committed to a fair and equitable review of

all applications, and recognize that, in order

to be successful, a local School-to-Work

system must respond to the needs and

conditions of the community for which it has

been developed. While the Departments

recognize the unique challenges faced by

rural areas, they do not feel that developing

School-to-Work systems tailored to rural

locations is incompatible with the emphasis

on preparing students for high-skill, high

wage jobs as given in the Act. They

encourage local partnerships in these areas to

design School-to-Work systems that enable

young people to explore as broad a range of

career options as possible, and develop the

skills to compete in a global economy,

wherever they ultimately reside and work.

The Departments are also interested in

applications that link innovative education

strategies with local workforce development

and economic development strategies. The

Departments wish to clarify that this

emphasis on high-wage, high-skill jobs

should not place rural partnerships at a

disadvantage, since reviewers rank each

application against the criteria, not against

other applications. While the notice will not

reserve specific points for rural strategies

such as the one suggested by the commenter,

reviewers will consider the quality of the

partnership’s plan in light of what is feasible

for that community, as described in the

application. Therefore, the extent to which

an application describes what is possible and

appropriate for the partnership, as well as the

partnership’s strategies to provide students

with opportunities to explore a range of

occupational clusters and acquire skills

relevant to high-wage, high-skill jobs, will

determine the number of points awarded.

Rural partnerships that present this

information thoroughly and convincingly

will score as highly against the criteria as

partnerships with a greater range of

opportunity due to higher concentrations of

business and industry.

Changes: None.

Selection Criterion 1: Comprehensive Local

School-to-Work Opportunities System (B)

Need to More Broadly Define Entities to be

Linked in the Connecting Activities

Component

Comments: Two commenters felt that this

criterion described the connecting activities

component too narrowly. The commenters

pointed out that, while building links with

employers (as highlighted in the third bullet)

is necessary to successful school-to-work

transitions, this group is not the only one that

must be linked in a successful system. The

commenters urged that this bullet be

broadened to emphasize the need for links

with all workplace partners, as well as

community organizations.

Discussion: The Departments agree with

the commenters that a successful connecting

activities component maintains a continuous

feedback loop between the school and work

communities, and that work communities

include labor organizations and nonmanagerial employees as well as employers.

The Departments also agree that the

connecting activities component should

assist students with access to a range of

support services, provided through entities

like community-based organizations and onestop career centers.

Changes: The third bullet of Selection

Criterion 1(B) has been changed to read: ‘‘A

connecting activities component to provide a

functional link between students’ school and

work activities, and between workplace

partners, educators, community

organizations and other appropriate entities.’’

Providing All Students with a Full Range of

Options:

Comment: Four commenters suggested that

Selection Criteria 1 A and 3 be changed to

reflect the language in section 101(5) of the

Act regarding the partnership’s plan for

providing all students with equal access to

the full range of program components

(including the school-based and work-based

learning components) and related activities,

such as recruitment, enrollment, and

placement activities.

Discussion: The Departments agree with

the commenter on the importance of

emphasizing the need for strategies to

provide all students equal access to the full

range of program components, rather than

offering any student an abbreviated menu of

options.

Changes: The third bullet under Selection

Criterion 1(A) has been changed to recognize

the importance of all students having equal

access to a full range of options. An

additional reference has been added to bullet

6 under Selection Criterion 3.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 174 / Friday, September 8, 1995 / Notices 46991

Consistency with Other Initiatives

Comment: One commenter noted

references in the notice to the Goals 2000 and

Empowerment Zones/Enhanced Enterprise

Communities (EZ/EEC) initiatives, and

expressed concern that applications from

local partnerships in States not currently

participating in the Goals 2000 initiative

might be less competitive than applications

from partnerships in States that are.

Discussion: References in the notice to

these and other initiatives are intended to

stress the need for coordination of related

efforts in the areas of education reform,

workforce development, and economic

development. A major purpose of the Schoolto-Work initiative is to unify categorical

programs into coherent and comprehensive

systems, and to avoid duplication of effort

across various agencies and funding streams.

The EZ/EEC initiative, for which the

Department of Housing and Urban

Development and the Department of

Agriculture are the lead agencies, is an

economic development initiative targeting

urban and rural areas, with a major focus on

rebuilding inner cities. Partnerships are

funded against an approved strategic plan,

and all proposals include an education

component. Similarly, the Goals 2000:

Educate America Act provides a broad

vehicle for education reform supportive of

the objectives of School-to-Work. Where

these initiatives coincide at the local level, it

is important that they be coordinated.

However, participation in activities under

both Goals 2000 and School-to-Work is

strictly voluntary, and a State’s participation

in Goals 2000 is in no way a condition for

award of a School-to-Work Local Partnership

Grant. By including references to Goals 2000,

the Departments intend to emphasize the

need for local systems to incorporate highquality academic and skill standards

consistent with any standards developed by

the State as part of education reform or

restructuring, and for local partnership

activities to coincide with the State or

region’s overall vision for improving

education and employment opportunities.

Changes: None.

Selection Criterion 2: Quality and

Effectiveness of the Local Partnership

Key Stakeholders

Comment: Several commenters felt this

section focused too narrowly on the role of

employers, and did not adequately convey

the range of required partners and other

interested parties that are given in the Act.

Commenters were particularly concerned

about the comparative lack of emphasis on

union representatives and frontline workers,

teachers, and community-based organizations

as members of local partnerships. The

commenters felt that these groups should be

explicitly identified in this criterion, since

their involvement is as vital to system

development and implementation as that of

employers. Various suggestions were made as

to how the bullets under this criterion could

be amended to be more inclusive of key

stakeholders. One commenter noted that

students, also listed as required members of

local partnerships in the Act, are unlikely to

be involved as partners in decision-making,

and recommended specific language

emphasizing their participation.

Discussion: This criterion immediately

refers reviewers to the definitions of local

partners given in the Act. However, the

Departments agree that it would be useful to

list in Selection Criterion 2 all the parties

referred to in sections 4(11)(A) and (B). In

this way, the criterion will not appear to omit

any of the entities that have important

contributions to make to a comprehensive

local School-to-Work system. It is vitally

important to the success of local School-toWork systems that key local groups,

including those highlighted by the

commenters, be involved at every stage of

system development and implementation.

The Departments wish to emphasize that

only those applications that involve all key

parties substantively and continuously,

effectively incorporating their perspectives

and strengths in the system plan, will be

competitive.

Changes: The first bullet of Criterion 2 now

lists the required members of local

partnerships as given in section 4(11)(A) of

the Act, including representatives of

organized labor or nonmanagerial employees,

teachers, and students. This first bullet also

lists the examples of interested parties noted

in section 4(11)(B), including communitybased organizations. Subsequent bullets refer

to the lists given in the first bullet, and where

appropriate, the term ‘‘workplace partners’’

has been substituted for ‘‘employers’’.

Similar clarifications were included in the

final notice for the State Implementation

Grants competition.

Role of Private Industry Councils

Comment: Three commenters suggested

that it should not be necessary to form a new

local partnership when the Private Industry

Councils are able to perform the function.

They commented that not including the

Private Industry Councils would be

detrimental to the School-to-Work

Opportunities system.

Discussion: The Departments agree that the

Private Industry Councils, as established

under section 102 of the Job Training

Partnership Act, are key partners in the

School-to-Work Opportunities initiative. The

Departments believe that Private Industry

Councils can play many important roles in

local School-to-Work systems, and encourage

their participation in local partnerships.

However, in order to be eligible for a grant

under this notice, a local partnership must

include all of the entities included in section

4(11)(A) of the Act, and may include other

parties such as those listed in section

4(11)(B). The Departments believe that it is

up to each local community to determine

which parties are the most appropriate for

their local partnership, and that the Act is

structured in a way that allows them such

flexibility. The Departments believe that the

criteria as written adequately allow for the

inclusion of the Private Industry Councils in

local School-to-Work Opportunities systembuilding activities.

Changes: None.

Selection Criterion 3: Participation of All

Students

Define ‘‘All Students’’

Comment: Several commenters suggested

that a definition of the term ‘‘all students’’ be

added to the notice or that the specific

student categories be defined.

Discussion: Although all definitions and

requirements of the Act apply, the

Departments agree that it would be helpful to

remind applicants that the Act’s definition of

the term ‘‘all students’’ applies to this

competition.

Changes: A reference to the definition of

‘‘all students’’ in Section 4(2) of the Act has

been included in Criterion 3. Inclusion of

Safety Skills in the Work-based and Schoolbased Components.

Comment: One commenter recommended

that specific language be added to the first

and second bullets in this section, requiring

the acquisition of skills relating to safety as

elements of the school-based and work-based

learning components.

Discussion: The Departments strongly

agree that issues of health and safety are

important to any School-to-Work system. In

the fourth bullet under Criterion 3,

‘‘Participation of All Students,’’ reviewers

will consider the partnership’s methods for

ensuring safe and healthy work environments

for students. Many activities may be a part

of strategies for ensuring that students are

provided with such environments. The

Departments believe that work-based and

school-based modules that inform students of

safety issues, as well as their rights and

responsibilities at the workplace, are among

the methods that would appropriately

address this criterion. For example, the workbased component could include risk-specific

training for students participating in learning

experiences at the work site. Outcomes of

this training could include a student’s being

able to demonstrate an understanding of:

specific tasks or operations associated with

the learning experience that pose risks;

proper use of tools, devices, and equipment

provided to control identified risks;

procedures for responding to any potential

hazards the youth identifies; and procedures

for reporting illness and injury. The schoolbased learning component can provide

students with general awareness training in

occupational safety and health. Outcomes of

this training might include a student’s being

able to describe the general nature and types

of work-related health problems, describe the

risk factors associated with the most common

jobs held by young workers, describe the

concept of hazard control strategies and give

examples, list the jobs prohibited to young

workers by applicable local, State, and

Federal laws, and describe the procedures

and policies regarding the reporting of workrelated diseases and injuries.

Changes: While the Departments do not

believe it is appropriate for them to define

the strategies that all partnerships must use

to ensure safe and healthy work

environments, the fourth bullet has been

modified to clarify that these strategies

should include both the school-based and

work-based components, making the Local

Partnership notice consistent with the State

Implementation Grant notice published in

the Federal Register of May 18.
46992 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 174 / Friday, September 8, 1995 / Notices

Environments Free From Harassment

Comment: One commenter suggested that

partnerships be required to describe how

they will ensure that student environments

are free from racial and sexual harassment.

Discussion: The Departments agree with

the commenter on the importance of

provisions to ensure that School-to-Work

activities take place in atmospheres

conducive to learning, and free from racial

and sexual harassment. In response to public

comment, similar changes were made to the

State Implementation Grants notice

published in the Federal Register on May 18,

1995. Requiring reviewers to consider

whether applications present strategies for

harassment-free environments will

emphasize the importance of this issue and

ensure consistency between the

‘‘Participation of All Students’’ sections of

the Local Partnership and State notices.

Changes: Under the fourth bullet of

Criterion 3, reviewers will consider the

extent to which a partnership has developed

realistic goals to ensure environments free

from racial and sexual harassment, as well as

to guarantee safe and healthy work

environments.

Selection Criterion 4: Collaboration With

State

State Ability to Sustain Local Partnership

Comment: One commenter suggested that a

section be added to this criterion related to

the ability of the State School-to-Work

Opportunities system to sustain a local

partnership once Federal funding to that

local partnership has ended. The commenter

suggested that a long term sustainability plan

that would include the integration of a

variety of Federal, State, and local funding

streams should be included in this criterion.

Discussion: The Departments expect a State

School-to-Work Opportunities System to

sustain local partnerships funded under

section 302(a) of the Act once Federal

funding to that local partnership has ended.

However, the Departments are not in a

position to prescribe at what level the

partnership shall be sustained.

Changes: None.

Selection Criterion 5 Management Plan:

Evaluation

Comments: Three commenters suggested

that the bullets under Selection Criterion 1

and 4, regarding performance outcomes,

should be more specific. One commenter

suggested that language be added stating that

performance outcomes should include

measures of the extent to which special

populations are included. Two commenters

felt that it was important to require that both

individual and aggregate data be collected.

Discussion: The Departments believe that

States and local partnerships should have the

flexibility to design evaluations appropriate

to their own needs and goals and encourage

local partnerships to work closely with their

State when developing performance

outcomes and evaluation plans. Section 402

of the Act describes the overall framework

and emphasis of the performance

measurement and evaluation systems for the

School-to-Work Opportunities initiative.

Changes: None.

Limit on Equipment Purchases

Comment: One commenter felt that the

bullet point under Criterion 4 regarding the

limitation of equipment purchases would

keep rural partnerships from purchasing

distance learning equipment which can often

play a critical role in the implementation

School-to-Work Opportunities systems in

rural areas.

Discussion: The Departments agree that

distance learning technology can play a key

role in the implementation of local Schoolto-Work systems in rural areas. Bullet six

under Criterion 1(B) states that the

Departments are looking for effective

strategies for utilizing innovative technologybased instructional techniques such as

distance learning. However, applicants are

reminded that their overall goal should be to

maximize direct services to students.

Applicants proposing equipment purchases

such as distance learning systems should be

sure that such purchases clearly link back to

the overall purpose and design of the

proposed local School-to-Work Opportunities

system. Applicants should also be aware that

such purchases would be seen by the

Departments as one-time expenditures and

would not be refunded in any future years of

funding.

Changes: None.

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 174 / Friday, September 8, 1995 / Notices 46993
46994 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 174 / Friday, September 8, 1995 / Notices
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 174 / Friday, September 8, 1995 / Notices 46995
46996 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 174 / Friday, September 8, 1995 / Notices
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 174 / Friday, September 8, 1995 / Notices 46997
46998 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 174 / Friday, September 8, 1995 / Notices

BILLING CODE 4000–01–C
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 174 / Friday, September 8, 1995 / Notices 46999

Estimated Public Reporting Burden

Under terms of the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980, as amended, and

the regulations implementing that Act,

the Department of Education invites

comment on the public reporting

burden in this collection of information.

Public reporting burden for this

collection of information is estimated to

average 90 hours per response,

including the time for reviewing

instructions, searching existing data

sources, gathering and maintaining the

data needed, and completing and

reviewing the collection of information.

You may send comments regarding this

burden estimate or any other aspect of

this collection of information, including

suggestions for reducing this burden, to

the U.S. Department of Education,

Information Management and

Compliance Division, Washington, D.C.

20202–4651; and to the Office of

Management and Budget, Paperwork

Reduction Project 1830–0530,

Washington, D.C. 20503.

(Information collection approved

under OMB control number 1830–0530,

Expiration date: 6/30/98.)

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
47000 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 174 / Friday, September 8, 1995 / Notices
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 174 / Friday, September 8, 1995 / Notices 47001
47002 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 174 / Friday, September 8, 1995 / Notices
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 174 / Friday, September 8, 1995 / Notices 47003
47004 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 174 / Friday, September 8, 1995 / Notices
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 174 / Friday, September 8, 1995 / Notices 47005
47006 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 174 / Friday, September 8, 1995 / Notices
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 174 / Friday, September 8, 1995 / Notices 47007

BILLING CODE 4000–01–C
47008 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 174 / Friday, September 8, 1995 / Notices

School-to-Work State Contacts

Alabama

Stephen B. Franks, Department of Education,

50 N. Ripley St., Montgomery, AL

36130–3901, Telephone: 205–242–9111,

Fax: 205–242–0234

Alaska

Susan Doherty or Roxanne Sinz, Alaska

School-to-Work Project, c-o Unocal

Corporation, P.O. Box 196247,

Anchorage, AK 99519–6247, Telephone:

907–263–7638 or 7623, Fax: 907–263–

7698

Arizona

Susan Leeper, School-to-Work Coordinator,

Governor’s Office of Community and

Family Programs, 1700 West

Washington, Room 320, Phoenix, AZ

85007, Telephone: 602–542–3461, Fax:

602–542–3520

Arkansas

Mary Swoope, School-to-Work Coordinator,

Arkansas Department of Education,

Vocational and Technical, Education

Division, Three Capitol Mall, Little Rock,

AR 72201–1083, Telephone: 501–682–

1666, Fax: 501–682–1509

California

Robert J. Hotchkiss, Employment

Development Dept., Program and Policy

Development Branch, 800 Capitol Mall,

MIC88, P.O. Box 826880, Sacramento,

CA 94280–0001, Telephone: 916–654–

8656, Fax: 916–654–5981

Colorado

Alaine Ginocchio, Governor’s Office, 136

State Capitol, Denver, CO 80203,

Telephone: 303–866–2155, Fax: 303–

866–2003

Connecticut

Susan Vinkowski, Department of Education,

Bureau of Applied Curriculum,

Technology and Career Information,

Middletown, CT 06457, Telephone: 203–

638–4054, Fax: 203–638–4062

Delaware

Dr. Nikki Castle, Executive Director,

Delaware School-to-Work, Delaware

Chamber of Commerce, 1201 N. Orange,

Wilmington, DE 19801, Telephone: 302/

577–3762, Fax: 302–577–3281

District of Columbia

Dr. Deborah Evans, Executive Office of the

Mayor, 441 North 4th Street, NW, Suite

510S, Washington, D.C. 20001,

Telephone: 202–727–2578, Fax: 202–

727–3486

Florida

Michael Brawer, School-to-Work Program

Coordinator, Department of Education,

Florida Education Ctr., Room 1232,

Tallahassee, FL 32399, Telephone: 904–

488–7394, Fax: 904–487–0426

Georgia

Gail Trapnell, GA School-to-Work Transition

Project Administrator, 148 International

Blvd., NE, Suite 638, Atlanta, GA 30303,

Telephone: 404–657–6740, Fax: 404–

656–2683

Idaho

Karen M. Fraley, Idaho School-to-Work, IBM

Complex, 500 East Baybrook Court,

Boise, ID 83706, Telephone: 208–338–

8633

Illinois

Fran Beaumann, Dept. of Adult, Vocational

and Technical Education, 100 N. First

St., E–426, Springfield, IL 62777–0001,

Telephone: 217–782–4620, Fax: 217–

782–9224

Indiana

Peggy O’Malley, Deputy Commissioner, Dept.

of Workforce Development, Indiana

Government Center South, SE302, 10

North Senate Avenue, Indianapolis, IN

46204, Telephone: 317–232–1832, Fax:

317–233–4793

Iowa

Harriet Howell Custer, Administrator,

Division of Community Colleges,

Department of Education, Grimes State

Office Building, Des Moines, IA 50319–

0146, Telephone: 515–281–8260, Fax:

515–281–6544

Hawaii

Kenneth Yamamoto, Assistant

Superintendent, Department of

Education, P.O. Box 2360, Honolulu, HI

96804, Telephone: 808–586–3446, Fax:

808–586–3429

Kansas

Lee Droegemuller, Commissioner of

Education, Kansas State Board of

Education, 120 SE 10th Avenue, Topeka,

KS 66612–1182, Telephone: 913–296–

3202, Fax: 913–296–7933

Kentucky

Ruth Bunch or Beth Brinly, Office of Schoolto-Work, Berry Hill Annex, 700

Louisville Road, Frankfort, KY 40601,

Telephone: 502–564–5901, Fax: 502–

564–5904

Louisiana

Chris W. Weaver, State Director, Secondary

Vocational Education, P.O. Box 94064,

Baton Rouge, LA 70804–9064,

Telephone: 504–342–5173, Fax: 504–

342–2059

Maine

Christopher D. Lyons, Maine Department of

Education, State House Station 23,

Augusta, ME 04333, Telephone: 207–

287–5854

Massachusetts

John Niles, Executive Director, Massachusetts

Office for, School-to-Work Transition,

101 Summer Street, Boston, MA 02110,

Telephone: 617–451–5130, Fax: 617–

451–1291

Michigan

Tom Benton, Michigan Jobs Commission,

Victor Office Center, 3rd Floor, 201 N.

Washington Square, Lansing, MI 48913,

Telephone: 517–373–6432, Fax: 517–

373–8179

Minnesota

John W. Mercer or Thomas Berg, Department

of Education, 550 Cedar Street, St. Paul,

MN 55101, Telephone: 612–297–3115 or

282–6277, Fax: 612–297–7201

Mississippi

Worth E. Haynes, Vocational and Technical

Ed., Department of Education, P.O. Box

771, Jackson, MS 39205–0771, Fax: 207–

287–5894

Maryland

Lynne Gilli, Branch Chief of Career and

Technology Services, Maryland State

Dept. of Education, 200 W. Baltimore

Street, Baltimore, MD 21201, Telephone:

410–767–0170, Fax: 410–333–2099

Montana

Jane A. Karas, Office of the Commissioner of

Education, 2500 Broadway, Helena, MT

59620–3101, Telephone: 406–444–0316,

Fax: 406–444–1469

Nebraska

Darl Naumann, NE Dept. of Economic

Development School-to-Work, P.O. Box

94666, Lincoln, NE 68509–4666,

Telephone: 402–471–3741, Fax: 402–

471–3778

Nevada

Barbara Weinberg, Dept. of Employment,

Training and Rehabilitation, 400 W.

King, Suite 108, Carson City, NV 89710,

Telephone: 702–687–4310, Fax: 702–

687–8917, Telephone: 601–359–3089,

Fax: 601–359–2326

Missouri

Don Eisinger, Missouri Dept. of Elementary

and Secondary Education, P.O. Box 480,

Jefferson City, MO 65102, Telephone:

314–751–7563, Fax: 314–526–3897

New Mexico

James Jimenez, Department of Finance and

Administration, 180 Battaan Memorial

Building, Santa Fe, NM 87503,

Telephone: 505–827–4985, Fax: 505–

827–4984

New York

Johanna Duncan-Poitier, Assistant

Commissioner, New York State

Education Dept., 89 Washington Avenue,

Education Bldg., Rm 319EB, Albany, NY

12234, Telephone: 518–474–8892, Fax:

518–474–0319

North Carolina

Loretta Martin, Governor’s Comm. on

Workforce Preparedness, 116 West Jones

Street, Raleigh, NC 27603, Telephone:

919–715–3300, Fax: 919–715–3974
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 174 / Friday, September 8, 1995 / Notices 47009

New Hampshire

Stephen B. Bos, New Hampshire Job Training

Council, 64 Old Suncook Road, Concord,

NH 03301, Telephone: 603–228–9500,

Fax: 603–228–8557

New Jersey

Thomas Henry, Director, Office of STW

Initiatives, New Jersey Dept. of

Education, CN500, Trenton, NJ 08625–

0550, Telephone: 609–633–0665, Fax:

609–633–0568

Oklahoma

Dr. Richard Makin, State Coordinator of

School-to-Work, Department of

Vocational-Technical Education, 1500

West Seventh Avenue, Stillwater, OK

74074–4364, Telephone: 405–743–5434,

Fax: 405–743–5541

Oregon

Bill Brady, Oregon Department of Education,

255 Capitol Street, NE, Salem, OR 97310,

Telephone: 503–378–3584, ext. 327, Fax:

503–378–5156

Pennsylvania

Jean Wolfe, Department of Education, 333

Market Street, Tenth Floor, Harrisburg,

PA 17126–0333, Telephone: 717–787–

5820, Fax: 717–787–7222

North Dakota

Dean Monteith, Admin. for School-to-Work,

State Board for Vocational and Technical

Education, State Capitol, 15th Floor,

Bismarck, ND 58505, Telephone: 701–

328–3074, Fax: 701–328–1255

Ohio

Mary A. McCullough, Director, Ohio Schoolto-Work, 145 South Front Street,

Columbus, OH 43215, Telephone: 614–

728–4630 or 4631, Fax: 614–466–5025

Rhode Island

Miriam Coleman, Dept. of Employment and

Training, 101 Friendship Street,

Providence, RI 02903–3740, Telephone:

401–277–3930, Fax: 401–861–8030

or

Frank Santoro, Dept. of Elementary and

Secondary Education, 22 Hayes Street,

Providence, RI 02908, Telephone: 401–

277–2691, Fax: 401–277–2537

South Carolina

Bob Falls, Employment Security

Commission, 1550 Gadsden Street, P.O.

Box 995, Columbia, SC 29202,

Telephone: 803–737–0459

Puerto Rico

Agustin Marquez, Executive Director, Schoolto-Work, P.O. Box 366955, San Juan, PR

00936–6955, Telephone: 809–745–3478

or 765–3644, Fax: 809–745–3478 or 765–

3644

Tennessee

Russell Smith, Department of Education,

Division of Vocational and Technical

Education, Gateway Plaze Building, 4th

Floor, 710 Robertson Parkway, Nashville,

TN 37243–0383, Telephone: 615–532–

4725, Fax: 615–532–8226

Texas

Ann Dorsey, Texas Council on Workforce

and Economic Competitiveness, P.O. Box

2241, Austin, TX 78768–2241,

Telephone: 512–912–7150, Fax: 512–

912–7172

Utah

Robert Brems, Associate Superintendent,

Utah State Office of Education, 250 East

500 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84111,

Telephone: 801–538–7841, Fax: 801–

538–7868

Vermont

Rich Tulikangas, Office of the Governor, 109

State Street, Montpelier, VT 05609,

Telephone: 802–828–3326, Fax: 802–

828–3339

South Dakota

Mary Ellen Johnson, School-to-Work

Coordinator, Department of Labor, 700

Governors Drive, Pierre, SD 57501,

Telephone: 605–773–5017, Fax: 605–

773–4211

Washington

Don Walgamott, Office of the Governor, 100

Insurance Building, Olympia, WA

98504–3113, Telephone: 360–586–0828,

Fax: 360–586–8380

West Virginia

David A. Mohr, Dept. of Education and the

Arts, 1900 Kanawha Blvd., East,

Charleston, WV, Telephone: 304–558–

2440, Fax: 304–558–1311

Wisconsin

Vicki Poole, Director, Governor’s Office for

Workforce Excellence, 201 Washington

Ave., Room 231, Madison, WI 53707,

Telephone: 608–266–0223, Fax: 608–

261–6698

Wyoming

Marsha Price, School-to-Work Manager, 6106

Yellowstone Road, Cheyenne, WY

82009, Telephone: 307–632–4907, Fax:

307–637–7773

Virginia

Randolph Beales, Office of the Secretary of

Education, VA Business-Education

Partnership Program, 200–202 North 9th

Street, Richmond, VA 23219, Telephone:

804–692–0244, Fax: 804–692–0430.

[FR Doc. 95–95–22339 Filed 9–7–95; 8:45

am]

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P