Office of Vocational and Adult Education; School-to-Work Opportunities; Local Partnership Grants; Application Procedures

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-to-

Work 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-to-Work Opportunities systems. These local initiatives will

offer young Americans access to programs designed to prepare them for

first jobs in high-skill, 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 School-to-

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-to-Work 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 School-to-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

[[Page 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

[[Page 46986]]

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-to-Work

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-to-Work 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-to-Work 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

[[Page 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-to-Work

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 non-

personnel 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 work-based 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, high-wage 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, job-shadowing, 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

[[Page 46988]]

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 School-to-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, high-paying 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 school-based 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-to-Work 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-to-Work 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-to-Work 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-to-Work system, and

is able to provide feedback to the State on their system-building

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-to-Work

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

[[Page 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-to-Work 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

[[Page 46990]]

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-to-Work 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-to-Work 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 High-wage, 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 high-wage, 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 non-managerial 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 one-stop 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.

[[Page 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

School-to-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 high-quality 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-to-Work 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

community-based 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 system-building 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 School-based 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 work-based 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 school-based 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 work-related

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.

[[Page 46992]]

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

School-to-Work systems in rural areas. Bullet six under Criterion

1(B) states that the Departments are looking for effective

strategies for utilizing innovative technology-based 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

[[Page 46993]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN08SE95.007

[[Page 46994]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN08SE95.008

[[Page 46995]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN08SE95.009

[[Page 46996]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN08SE95.010

[[Page 46997]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN08SE95.011

[[Page 46998]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN08SE95.012

BILLING CODE 4000-01-C

[[Page 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

[[Page 47000]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN08SE95.013

[[Page 47001]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN08SE95.014

[[Page 47002]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN08SE95.015

[[Page 47003]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN08SE95.016

[[Page 47004]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN08SE95.017

[[Page 47005]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN08SE95.018

[[Page 47006]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN08SE95.019

[[Page 47007]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN08SE95.020

BILLING CODE 4000-01-C

[[Page 47008]]

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 School-to-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

[[Page 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 School-to-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, School-to-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