[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 14 (Monday, January 22, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1672-1683]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-660]
[[Page 1671]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Department of Education
_______________________________________________________________________
34 CFR Part 379
Projects With Industry; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 14 / Monday, January 22, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 1672]]
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Part 379
RIN 1820-AB33
Projects With Industry
AGENCY: Education.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary proposes to amend the regulations governing the
Projects With Industry (PWI) program (34 CFR Part 379). The PWI program
is authorized by section 621 of the Rehabilitation Act, as amended (the
Act). The purpose of the PWI program is to create and expand job and
career opportunities for individuals with disabilities in the
competitive labor market by establishing partnerships between program
grantees and private industry to provide job training, job placement,
and career advancement activities. The Secretary is proposing to change
the regulations governing this program in order to clarify statutory
intent, reduce grantee burden, address certain implementation problems,
and enhance project accountability.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 22, 1996.
ADDRESSES: All comments concerning these proposed regulations should be
addressed to Fredric K. Schroeder, Commissioner, Rehabilitation
Services Administration, U.S. Department of Education, 600 Independence
Avenue, S.W., Room 3028, Mary E. Switzer Building, Washington, D.C.
20202-2531. Comments may also be sent through the Internet to ``PWI--
Regs@ed.gov''.
To ensure that public comments have maximum effect on the
development of the final regulations, the Department urges that each
comment clearly identify the specific section or sections of the
regulations that the comment addresses and that comments be in the same
order as the regulations.
Comments that concern information collection requirements must be
sent to the Office of Management and Budget at the address listed in
the Paperwork Reduction Act section of this preamble. A copy of those
comments may also be sent to the Department representative named in
this section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas E. Finch, U.S. Department of
Education, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Room 3315, Mary E. Switzer
Building, Washington, D.C. 20202-2575. Telephone: (202) 205-8292.
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:
Overview of Proposed Changes
The Secretary proposes to revise these regulations in order to
clarify statutory intent, reduce grantee burden, address demonstrated
problems in program administration, and clarify certain program
requirements. For example, some of the proposed changes would reduce
burden by eliminating unnecessary non-statutory requirements,
particularly non-statutory provisions in current regulations in
Secs. 379.42 through 379.45 relating to grant agreement and on-the-job
training requirements.
Other changes are being proposed to address demonstrated problems
in the PWI program. For example, the Secretary believes that the
program's defining feature, partnership with industry, has not received
sufficient emphasis in the program regulations. The present
regulations, most notably the selection criteria for new grant awards
and the compliance indicators, do not adequately emphasize partnership
with industry. To address this, the Secretary is proposing new
selection criteria that would add a separate criterion focusing on the
extent to which a project has established a working partnership with
private industry. In addition, the Secretary is soliciting public
comment on whether the compliance indicators require revision in order
to assess projects' partnership with industry.
The Secretary also proposes in certain instances to add clarifying
language, even if no specific changes to the regulatory text are being
proposed. The Secretary has added several explanatory notes to clarify
certain requirements that have been misunderstood by some grantees in
the past. Following the relevant sections, the Secretary has added
explanatory notes to clarify the State vocational rehabilitation (VR)
agency's role in the eligibility determination process in Sec. 379.3,
the grantee matching requirements in Sec. 379.40, and the compliance
indicator reporting requirements in Sec. 379.54.
The Secretary is proposing only one change to the compliance
indicators in this notice of proposed rulemaking, but is inviting
public comment on how to improve all of the indicators. To better focus
public comment, the preamble contains a list of issues pertaining to
the current compliance indicators and invites comment on each of them.
Section-by-Section Summary of Proposed Changes
The following is a section-by-section summary of major changes
proposed in this notice of proposed rulemaking.
In Sec. 379.2, the Secretary proposes to remove the
reference to ``agreement'' and substitute the term ``grant.'' This
terminology change would be made to enhance clarity. In Sec. 379.2(a),
the Secretary proposes to add ``nonprofit agencies and organizations''
as eligible applicants to clarify that these entities are also eligible
to apply for funding under this program. The Secretary also proposes,
for purposes of clarity, to relocate from Sec. 379.31(a) to
Sec. 379.2(b) the statutory requirement in section 621(e)(2) of the Act
that new awards be made to projects proposing to serve individuals in
geographic areas that are unserved or underserved by the PWI program.
The Secretary believes this requirement would be more logically placed
in Sec. 379.2(b) because it is a condition of eligibility for a new
award and not a factor in evaluating a grant application. The Secretary
is not proposing to define in regulations ``unserved'' or
``underserved.'' Each applicant has the flexibility in its application
to describe how the proposed project area is either unserved (e.g.,
there are currently no PWI projects in the geographic area) or
underserved (e.g., there are one or more PWI projects in the geographic
area, but the need for PWI services is not fully met) by the PWI
program.
The Secretary proposes to add a note following Sec. 379.3
to clarify the precise role of the State VR agency in the eligibility
determination process. This note would state that a PWI project makes
an interim determination of eligibility for project services and that
this determination becomes final within 60 days if the State vocational
rehabilitation unit does not make a determination that it is
inappropriate. The note would also clarify that in those instances when
an individual has already been determined eligible for vocational
rehabilitation services under section 102(a) of the Act, the individual
can be presumed to meet the definition of ``individual with a
disability'' for eligibility purposes under the PWI program.
In Sec. 379.5, the Secretary proposes to conform the
definitions of ``competitive employment'' and ``placement'' with
changes being proposed in the regulations governing The State
Vocational Rehabilitation Services Program in 34 CFR Part 361. The
definition of ``competitive employment'' would be revised to add the
requirement
[[Page 1673]]
that work be performed in an integrated setting and to clarify the
current requirement that individuals must be compensated at or above
the minimum wage but not less than the prevailing wage for the same or
similar work performed by non-disabled individuals in the local
community. The definition of ``placement'' would be revised to require
that an individual maintain employment for the duration of the
employer's probationary period or, in the absence of an established
period, at least 90 days. Current regulations provide that a placement
does not occur until competitive employment has been maintained for 60
days.
The proposed regulations would also add a definition of
``integrated setting,'' as it is used in the definition of
``competitive employment.'' ``Integrated setting'' would be defined to
mean ``a setting typically found in the community in which individuals
with disabilities have the opportunity to interact on a regular basis
with non-disabled individuals other than non-disabled individuals who
are providing services to them.''
The Secretary also proposes adding to this section definitions of
``job readiness training'' and ``job training.'' ``Job readiness
training'' would include training in job-seeking skills, training in
the preparation of resumes or job applications, training in
interviewing skills, participating in a job club, or other related
activities that may assist an individual to secure competitive
employment. Job readiness training is an authorized activity under the
PWI program; however, it must be distinguished from the job training
component required of PWI projects. Therefore, the Secretary is also
proposing to add a definition of ``job training'' that would require
projects to provide, or ensure the provision of, one or more of the
following activities prior to placement (as that term is defined in
Sec. 379.5(b)(7)): occupational skills training, on-the-job training,
workplace training combined with related instruction, job skill
upgrading and retraining, training to enhance basic work skills and
workplace competencies, or on-site job coaching.
The Secretary wants to ensure that all projects have an
identifiable training component and that the training provided by
projects focuses on imparting the skills needed for employment and
career advancement in the competitive labor market, as the statute
intends. The Secretary is concerned that the findings of some PWI on-
site compliance reviews conducted by the Department indicated that
certain grantees conducting programs of national scope failed to
provide this type of training. In addition, other findings indicated
that some grantees provided training that primarily taught job-seeking
skills and resume-writing. Although job readiness training is
authorized under this program, the Secretary does not believe that this
type of training alone meets the statutory requirement that projects
provide job training to prepare individuals with disabilities for
employment in the competitive labor market.
The Secretary proposes to add a definition of ``career advancement
services'' in order to clarify the meaning of this statutorily required
activity that must be a part of each project's program of services. The
proposed definition would define ``career advancement services'' to
mean ``services that develop specific job skills beyond those required
by the position currently held by an individual with a disability to
assist the individual to compete for a promotion or achieve an advanced
position in the same field.''
Section 379.10 would be amended to clarify that all
grantees must conduct all of the activities required under section
621(a)(2) of the Act and listed in this section. The Secretary does not
believe the wording in the current regulations is as clear on this
point as it could be.
The Secretary is proposing to add a note under this section to
clarify how grantees can meet the requirements of Sec. 379.10(a), which
requires each grantee to provide job training in a realistic work
setting for individuals served by the project. The Secretary believes
that projects should have maximum flexibility in determining the
precise form of their job training component, but believes that the job
training provided must be designed to develop skills that will lead to
participants' success in obtaining, retaining, and advancing in
competitive employment. The proposed note explains that grantees would
have the option of providing job training directly to project
participants or by ensuring the provision of that training by other
entities through cooperative arrangements while the individual is
participating in the project. Job training would be provided as
appropriate to the needs of each individual served by the project. The
Secretary does not intend that each project participant necessarily
receive job training, but that job training be available and accessible
to those individuals who need it to achieve competitive employment.
However, the Secretary expects that a sizeable number of project
participants would need and receive some type of job training.
The Secretary proposes a new Subpart C, containing
information about how to apply for a grant award (proposed Sec. 379.20)
and proposed new application content requirements (proposed
Sec. 379.21). The new application content section would better reflect
statutory requirements, would closely parallel proposed new selection
criteria, and would eliminate unnecessary non-statutory grant agreement
requirements contained in current Secs. 379.42 through 379.45. Section
621(e)(1)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commissioner of the
Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) to establish any
application content requirements that may be necessary.
In order to better assess whether an application meets the
statutory requirements of the program (and also to better evaluate an
application according to the proposed new selection criteria), the
Secretary proposes to require more specific information in the
application. Significant new elements of the grant application, all of
which stem from statutory provisions, would be as follows:
Section 379.21(a)(1), description of the proposed job training and
identification of need for the job training to be provided. As
discussed previously, the Secretary believes the training provided by
some projects does not meet the requirements of sections 621(a)(1) and
(a)(2) of the Act. The Secretary also believes that, consistent with
the statute, training should be developed in conjunction with private
industry and should be linked to identified local labor market
opportunities. The proposed regulations would, therefore, require
applicants to describe the job training, as defined in proposed
Sec. 379.5(b)(5), that they intend to provide and to demonstrate that
the training to be provided meets local labor market needs.
Section 379.21(a)(2) and 379.21(a)(3), description of the
involvement of private industry. The Secretary proposes to require
these descriptions to ensure that there is adequate private industry
involvement in all phases of the project and to ensure that the
statutorily required Business Advisory Council (BAC) is involved in all
relevant project activities.
Section 379.21(a)(4), explanation of how the geographic area the
applicant proposes to serve qualifies as an unserved or underserved
area. The Secretary proposes to require information to enable the
Department to determine that all applicants meet this eligibility
requirement.
[[Page 1674]]
In addition to adding certain requirements, the Secretary proposes
to simplify and clarify the information and assurances applicants must
provide under the current regulations. In the current regulations,
these requirements are located in multiple sections (Secs. 379.42
through 379.45). The Secretary proposes to repeal most of these
provisions, which contain longstanding, primarily non-statutory grant
agreement requirements, and place the few remaining statutory
requirements in new Sec. 379.21. For example, the description of the
annual evaluation plan, required under section 621(a)(5) of the Act and
Sec. 379.43(k) of the present regulations, would be moved to this
section with the proposed addition that the applicant's evaluation plan
include the capacity for collecting data required to establish
compliance with the performance indicators in Subpart F of the
regulations. Current requirements in Sec. 379.43(h) and (i), which
require a project to provide equitable compensation and working
conditions for the individuals with disabilities it places in
employment, would also be located in new Sec. 379.21.
The proposed new application content provisions would be mandatory
for all applicants. In accordance with 34 CFR 75.216(c), the Secretary
would not evaluate any application that does not contain all of the
information required under proposed Sec. 379.21.
The Secretary proposes to replace the selection criteria
in Sec. 379.30 with new selection criteria. The Secretary believes the
current selection criteria do not adequately reflect the statutory
purposes and certain key requirements of the program, particularly the
requirements relating to job training and partnership with industry,
and thus do not facilitate selection of the best applications. The
Secretary believes the proposed criteria are better tailored to the
unique aspects of the program. The proposed criteria in many instances
parallel proposed application content requirements and are designed to
evaluate the quality and extent of that information. For example, the
Secretary proposes to establish in Sec. 379.30(a) a criterion entitled
``Extent of need for the project'' that would be used to assess the
extent to which the applicant's proposed job training meets the
requirements and needs of the local labor market by preparing
individuals for jobs for which there is a demand. This criterion, which
would be weighted 20 points, parallels the application content
requirement dealing with job training in proposed Sec. 379.21(a)(1).
Another proposed new criterion in Sec. 379.30(b) entitled
``Partnership with industry'' would be used to evaluate the extent of
the proposed project's collaboration with private industry in all
aspects of program operations as well as the role of the BAC in
identifying job and career opportunities and developing appropriate job
training programs. This criterion, which would be weighted 25 points,
would track proposed application content requirements in
Sec. 379.21(a)(2) and (a)(3).
There are other significant changes in the proposed new selection
criteria. The Secretary proposes a new ``Project design and plan of
operation for achieving competitive employment outcomes'' criterion in
Sec. 379.30(c), which incorporates some elements of the present
``Project design'' criterion. The proposed criterion would be used to
assess applicants on project design issues (e.g., goals and objectives,
proposed activities, and methods and strategies to achieve competitive
employment outcomes for project participants) and would also examine
the extent to which the proposed management of the project would
further the execution of the proposed design. The Secretary believes
the proposed criterion would better enable the selection of projects
that, in addition to being well-conceived, have a high probability of
successful implementation. A maximum of 25 points would be allocated to
this criterion. The Secretary also proposes to make the criterion on
``Project evaluation'' in Sec. 379.30(f) more specific to the
evaluation mechanisms used in the PWI program. The revised criterion
would examine the applicant's proposed evaluation plan with respect to
its capacity for evaluating project operations and outcomes and for
generating data needed to meet the annual program evaluation and
compliance indicator requirements. This criterion would also evaluate
the extent of involvement of the BAC in evaluating the project's job
training, placement, and career advancement activities.
Following Sec. 379.40, the Secretary proposes to add a
note to clarify the program matching requirements, which have been
misinterpreted by some grantees to mean 20 percent of the Federal grant
rather than 20 percent of total project costs. The note would also
specify that cash or in-kind contributions, or a combination of the
two, may be used to meet this requirement. It would also cross-
reference applicable provisions in the Education Department General
Administrative Regulations (EDGAR).
Section 379.41 would be amended to specifically include
job readiness training, job training, and placement activities as
allowable project costs. In addition, the section would be amended to
update cross-references to the allowable costs provisions in EDGAR and
to remove bonding fees and liability and insurance premiums from the
list of program-specific allowable costs. Bonding and insurance costs
are expressly allowable under EDGAR and do not need to be particularly
identified in these program regulations.
A new Sec. 379.42 would be added to the regulations to
specify, in a single section, all of the requirements (both statutory
and EDGAR-based) that a grantee must meet in order to receive a
continuation award under the PWI program. These requirements include--
(1) making substantial progress toward meeting the objectives in its
approved application in accordance with 34 CFR 75.253(a)(2) of EDGAR;
(2) submitting all performance and financial reports required by 34 CFR
75.118 of EDGAR; and (3) submitting data in accordance with section
621(f)(4) of the Act and proposed Sec. 379.54 showing that it has met
the program compliance indicators. In addition, proposed Sec. 379.42
would specify two additional conditions that must be met before the
Secretary can make a continuation award: Congress must appropriate
sufficient funds under the program and continuation of the project must
be in the best interest of the Federal Government.
A new Sec. 379.43 would also be added to the regulations
to require each program grantee to submit to the Secretary at a
specified time the data it is required to collect as part of the annual
evaluation of project operations mandated by section 621(a)(5) of the
Act. The proposed regulations would require that this information be
reported no later than 60 days after the end of each project year,
unless the Secretary authorizes a later submission date. The term
``project year'' is synonymous with the term ``budget period'' and in
this program covers a period that is concurrent with the Federal fiscal
year, i.e., October 1 through September 30.
The reporting requirements for the compliance indicators,
currently located in Sec. 379.46, would be relocated to a proposed new
Sec. 379.54 in Subpart F. Unnecessary references to fiscal year 1990,
the effective date of this requirement, would be deleted, and a
proposed date for submitting compliance indicator data would be added
to the regulations. The proposed date is either 60 days after the end
of the project year if the grantee submits data for the most recent
complete project
[[Page 1675]]
year as provided for in paragraph (a) of this section or 60 days after
the end of the first 6 months of the current project year if the
grantee avails itself of the option provided for in paragraph (b) of
this section--unless the Secretary authorizes a later date for
submission of the compliance indicator data. The Secretary would also
add a note following this section to clarify that meeting the
compliance indicators is a requirement for continuation funding in
years three through five of a PWI grant. Continuation funding in the
second year is not subject to meeting the indicators because data from
the first complete project year are not available until after the
second year award is made.
Section 379.53(c) concerning the performance indicator on
cost per placement would be amended to increase the average cost per
placement from $1600 or less to $2400 or less. The performance ranges
and the points assigned to each range would also be revised to reflect
8 points awarded for a range of $2001 to $2400, 17 points awarded for a
range of $1601 to $2000, and 25 points awarded for projects with an
average cost per placement of less than $1600.
These proposed changes reflect an overall 50 percent increase in
cost per placement as compared to the current performance indicator.
Concern has been expressed by current PWI grantees that the dollar
threshold for this indicator is too low. Grantees have advised that the
current level of $1,600 or less, that was set in 1986, is not realistic
given the inflationary costs of services, especially the cost of
services for individuals with severe disabilities. The Secretary is
proposing this as an interim change prior to a more extensive revision
of the evaluation standards and performance indicators for the program
as discussed in the following paragraphs.
Program Evaluation Standards and Compliance Indicators
At this time, the Secretary is not proposing any substantive
changes to the evaluation standards and performance measures for the
PWI program contained in Subpart F of these regulations, other than
proposing an increase in the cost per placement indicator. However, a
recent assessment of the program suggests a need for revised
performance indicators. The report, ``Assessment of Performance
Indicators for the Projects With Industry (PWI) Program,'' by Research
Triangle Institute (RTI) (June, 1994), suggests that changes are needed
not only in the performance indicators, but also in the scoring system
and in the quality assurance methods used to validate the data that are
reported. Based upon experience in administering this program, the
Secretary is also concerned about the implementation of these
performance indicators and agrees that changes may be needed.
In light of these concerns, the Secretary is particularly
interested in receiving public comments on the following issues to
assist the Department in determining what changes need to be made to
improve the evaluation standards and performance indicators.
Are the Current Evaluation Standards Appropriate for the PWI Program?
The current evaluation standards are included as an appendix to the
regulations in 34 CFR Part 379. The seven standards were developed in
response to a Congressional mandate in 1984 and address the broad
purposes and activities of the PWI program. Are these standards still
appropriate for the program? Should one or more of the standards be
revised or modified to better reflect the legislative intent of the
program in light of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992 (the 1992
Amendments)? For example, none of the standards addresses career
advancement activities that were mandated in the Amendments. Is a new
or revised standard needed to accommodate this change?
Should All of the Evaluation Standards Have Related Performance
Indicators?
At the present time, certain evaluation standards for the PWI
program do not have corresponding measures of performance. For example,
none of the current performance indicators relates to Standard 5,
regarding the project's advisory committee (i.e., BAC), or to Standard
6, regarding the project's relationships with other agencies and
organizations. Since the establishment of a project BAC and the
project's relationship with business and industry are important
statutory requirements for the PWI program, the Secretary is
considering the establishment of compliance indicators for these
standards. What, if any, would be appropriate indicators to measure
project performance with regard to the use of the project's BAC and the
project's relationship with business and industry?
What Changes Are Needed to the Overall Scoring System for the
Performance Indicators?
The RTI report raises concerns about the overall scoring system for
the performance indicators and notes that the minimum required
composite score of 70 is too low to ensure sufficiently high levels of
performance by PWI projects. In addition, the use of composite scores
allows projects to receive no points for as many as five of the nine
indicators yet still achieve a sufficiently high score to receive
continuation funding.
Are changes needed in the scoring system? For example, the
Secretary is considering the establishment of a minimum required score
for each performance indicator. Should the scoring system continue to
allocate points by performance ranges, or should a graduated points
allocation system be used instead? For example, under the indicator on
percentage of persons placed whose disabilities are severe, points
could be allocated for each percentage point over and above a minimum
performance level (i.e., 50 percent) rather than allocating a set
number of points for performing anywhere within an established
performance range--the approach now established under current
Sec. 379.53(h). In addition, should all indicators be considered of
equal importance, or should a scoring system be developed that
establishes different weights for various indicators depending on their
importance? Another possibility is the use of a combination of a
``pass-fail'' approach for certain critical indicators and point scores
on other indicators.
What Safeguards Should be in Place to Ensure the Validity and Accuracy
of Data Reported on the Performance Indicators?
Both RSA's findings in conducting on-site compliance reviews of PWI
projects and the RTI report have surfaced concerns about the ability of
many PWI projects to collect, maintain, and report accurate data to
substantiate performance on the indicators. What safeguards are
necessary to ensure that projects are collecting and reporting accurate
performance data to meet the indicators and receive continuation
funding?
What Specific Changes are Needed in the Current Performance Indicators?
Use of Projections
There are two indicators that measure the project's actual yearly
performance against its initial projections. The two indicators address
actual costs versus projected costs of placements and actual
performance versus projected placement rates. The RTI report points out
that the ``promise-performance'' approach is problematic and should be
reconsidered. This approach could
[[Page 1676]]
encourage projects to set unreasonably low goals in order to earn
additional points under the indicators for exceeding those goals.
Because of these issues, the Secretary is considering the elimination
of these two indicators. Is there a strong rationale for retaining the
current indicators that rely on projections, or should the performance
indicators measure only the project's actual achievements? Could these
indicators be revised to better focus on improvements or progress
toward goals and thereby create incentives for achieving meaningful
goals?
Cost Per Placement
As noted previously, the Secretary is proposing an interim increase
in the performance indicator for cost per placement from the current
threshold of $1600 or less to a proposed new threshold of $2400 or
less. If the Secretary decides to keep a measure relating to cost per
placement, is the proposed new dollar limit reasonable? Should the
indicator be modified in some other way? Should the cost per placement
threshold amount be adjusted for inflation over the life of a project?
An argument could be made that any indicator that assesses cost per
placement conflicts with the existing indicators that focus on serving
and placing individuals with severe disabilities. Such an indicator
could lead to ``creaming'' and encourage projects to focus on serving
individuals who need fewer services and are easier to place into
employment. Another issue is that projects may be deterred from
providing resource-intensive skills training if cost per placement (and
not job retention or career advancement) is an indicator.
If the Secretary were to eliminate this indicator, what would be an
appropriate performance measure regarding the efficient use of
resources to implement Standard 4 (Funds shall be used to achieve the
project's primary objective at minimum cost to the Federal Government)?
Numbers Served
Based on the Government Performance and Results Act of 1994,
Federal programs are measuring the achievement of outputs and outcomes
and not processes. Given this focus, the Secretary is considering the
elimination of the current indicators relating to the percentage of
individuals with severe disabilities served and the percentage of
unemployed individuals served. Should these performance indicators be
retained, or should the indicators focus only on project outcomes such
as the number of individuals placed into employment and their earnings?
Should new indicators be developed for other project outputs such as
the number of project participants who complete a job training program,
as defined in proposed Sec. 379.5(b)(5)?
Change in Earnings
Projects can currently earn points under one performance indicator
for project participants who have an increase in earnings of at least
$75 per week above earnings reported at project entry. This performance
level appears to be too low since the indicators also encourage
projects to focus on serving individuals who are unemployed.
The Secretary wishes to maintain an indicator or indicators that
measure increase in earnings. Is the current level for an increase of
at least $75 per week too low? Should it be raised? Should the level be
raised to an amount that would equal or exceed the average amount of
support provided through Federal income maintenance and insurance
programs (i.e., Social Security Disability Insurance program or
Supplemental Security Income program), thus encouraging projects to
assist individuals to find jobs that would allow them to leave the
beneficiary rolls?
Would a more effective approach be to measure the average
percentage increase in wages rather than a set amount increase? If so,
should there be more than one indicator to allow a differentiation
between those project participants who were unemployed at project entry
versus those individuals who had some earnings at project entry? Should
the performance level (or levels) for such an indicator or indicators
be adjusted for economic conditions in the local project area? If so,
how could those adjustments be implemented?
Individuals Who Are Unemployed
Recent polls conducted by Lou Harris and Associates have found that
almost two-thirds of the individuals with disabilities in this country
are not employed. These findings support the program's current emphasis
on placing individuals with disabilities who are unemployed. The
current indicators focus on individuals who have not worked for a
period of at least six months prior to project entry. Is this period of
sufficient length, or should the projects be encouraged through this
indicator to serve individuals with longer-term unemployment (e.g.,
individuals who have been continuously unemployed for more than 1 year)
or individuals who have never been employed?
In lieu of an indicator that measures a specific time period of
unemployment, would it be more appropriate to use the average number of
months unemployed as a measure? For example, the number of months since
each project participant was last employed could be tallied, and the
average (mean) could be computed and reported for the performance
indicator. If such an approach were used, should the indicator also
include the average number of months since an individual was enrolled
full time in school to take into consideration those individuals making
the transition from school to work?
Should New Indicators Be Developed to Address Statutory Requirements in
the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992?
Career Advancement
The 1992 Amendments required grantees under the PWI program to
provide career advancement services to project participants. Should an
indicator or indicators be developed for measuring career advancement?
Would it be possible and appropriate to measure the number of project
participants who are placed in jobs that have career advancement
potential? Should the indicators measure the number of underemployed
individuals who are assisted by the PWI project to advance in
employment? If so, how could the scoring system balance such an
indicator against the indicator that focuses on placing individuals who
are unemployed? Would these indicators be at cross-purposes?
Long-Term Retention of Jobs
The 1992 Amendments require PWI projects to report on the number of
project participants who were terminated from project placements and
the duration of those placements. A clear outcome measure for the PWI
program would be that project participants maintain employment for a
longer period than the current regulatory requirement of 60 days. The
Secretary is considering the establishment of a performance indicator
related to long-term job retention for project participants beyond the
retention standard to achieve a placement under this program. What
would be an appropriate length of time for a job retention measure
following placement--six months, nine months, one year, or longer? How
can job retention be measured for those individuals placed in the
fourth and fifth years of a time-limited project?
The Secretary is particularly interested in comments on the above
issues and is also interested in
[[Page 1677]]
comments regarding any other concerns relating to the evaluation
standards and performance indicators for the PWI program.
Executive Order 12866
1. Assessment of Costs and Benefits
These proposed regulations have been reviewed in accordance with
Executive Order 12866. Under the terms of the order the Secretary has
assessed the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action.
The potential costs associated with the proposed regulations are
those resulting from statutory requirements and those determined by the
Secretary to be necessary for administering this program effectively
and efficiently. Burdens specifically associated with information
collection requirements, if any, are identified and explained elsewhere
in this preamble under the heading Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
In assessing the potential costs and benefits--both quantitative
and qualitative--of these proposed regulations, the Secretary has
determined that the benefits of the proposed regulations justify the
costs. A further discussion of the potential costs and benefits of
these proposed regulations is contained in the summary at the end of
this section of the preamble.
The Secretary has also determined that this regulatory action does
not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the
exercise of their governmental functions.
To assist the Department in complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Order 12866, the Secretary invites comment on
whether there may be further opportunities to reduce any potential
costs or increase potential benefits resulting from these proposed
regulations without impeding the effective and efficient administration
of the program.
Summary of potential benefits relative to potential costs of the
regulatory provisions discussed earlier in this preamble:
The Secretary believes the NPRM would substantially improve the PWI
program regulations and would yield substantial benefits in terms of
improved program management and accountability. As stated in the
supplementary information section of this preamble (particularly in the
sections entitled ``Overview of Proposed Changes'' and the ``Section-
By-Section Summary of Proposed Changes''), the Secretary believes the
proposed regulations better reflect the statute, reduce grantee burden
by removing unnecessary non-statutory requirements, and improve program
administration by clarifying frequently misunderstood program
requirements. The Secretary has determined that the potential benefits
of these proposed changes outweigh the potential costs to grantees. A
brief discussion of the benefits of these proposed regulations, and
cross-references to relevant portions of the Supplementary Information
section of the preamble, follow.
More Accurate Reflection of Statutory Requirements
The Secretary believes these proposed regulations better reflect
statutory intent, particularly with regard to the requirements for
partnership with industry and job training. The proposed regulations
include changes in the application content requirements (discussed in
the sections of the preamble that cover Subpart C) and selection
criteria (Sec. 379.30) in order to place more appropriate emphasis on
these features of the PWI program. These changed requirements could
entail some additional costs for applicants, in the form of additional
resources needed to prepare a grant application. However, the Secretary
believes that these costs would be more than offset by the benefit to
the PWI program--namely, the selection for funding of projects that
better reflect the requirements of the statute.
Reduction of Grantee Burden
As discussed in the ``Section-By-Section Summary'' (in particular
the part that describes the proposed Subpart C), the Secretary is
proposing to simplify and eliminate many of the existing application
requirements. These changes would reduce burden on grant applicants by
clarifying and reducing the application requirements. This reduction in
burden should more than offset the application requirements being added
by these proposed regulations.
Clarification of Program Requirements
The Secretary is proposing to add new definitions and revise
existing definitions of statutory terms in order to clarify their
meaning. These definitions are described in the part of the ``Section-
By-Section Summary'' pertaining to Sec. 379.5. For example, the
Secretary has added definitions of the terms ``career advancement
services'' and ``job training.'' The addition of these definitions may
be perceived as imposing additional costs on grantees, in that they
would establish specific requirements for previously undefined required
program activities. However, the Secretary believes these definitions
would allow for considerable grantee flexibility in project design,
while ensuring that projects fulfill the program's statutory intent. In
addition, the proposed definitions of ``placement'' and ``competitive
employment,'' which conform to the definitions being proposed for The
State Vocational Rehabilitation Services Program, would facilitate
coordination between the two programs.
As stated in the ``Overview of Proposed Changes'' section of the
preamble, in many parts of the proposed regulations the Secretary has
provided explanatory notes to clarify several program requirements that
have been misunderstood by some grantees in the past. The relevant
parts of the ``Section-By-Section Summary'' (specifically the parts
dealing with Secs. 379.3, 379.10, 379.40, and 379.54) describe the
rationale for the addition of each note. The Secretary believes these
notes will better elucidate program requirements and facilitate grantee
compliance with those requirements.
In addition, the proposed regulations replace confusing terminology
contained in the present regulations (see specifically the section of
the ``Section-By-Section Summary'' pertaining to Sec. 379.2).
2. Clarity of the Regulations
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations
that are easy to understand.
The Secretary invites comments on how to make these proposed
regulations easier to understand, including answers to questions such
as the following: (1) Are the requirements in the proposed regulations
clearly stated? (2) Do the regulations contain technical terms or other
wording that interferes with their clarity? (3) Does the format of the
regulations (grouping and order of sections, use of headings,
paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce their clarity? Would the regulations
be easier to understand if they were divided into more (but shorter)
sections? (A ``section'' is preceded by the symbol ``Sec. '' and a
numbered heading; for example, Sec. 379.10 What types of project
activities are required of each grantee under this program?) (4) Is the
description of the regulations in the Supplementary Information section
of this preamble helpful in understanding the regulations? How could
this description be more helpful in making the regulations easier to
understand? (5) What else could the Department do to
[[Page 1678]]
make the regulations easier to understand?
A copy of any comments that concern how the Department could make
these proposed regulations easier to understand should be sent to
Stanley M. Cohen, Regulations Quality Officer, U.S. Department of
Education, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W. (Room 5100, FB-10B),
Washington, D.C. 20202-2241.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
The Secretary certifies that these proposed regulations would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
The small entities that would be affected by these proposed
regulations are government, nonprofit, and for-profit agencies and
organizations that receive Federal funds under this program. However,
the regulations would not have a significant economic impact on these
entities because the regulations would not impose excessive regulatory
burdens or require unnecessary Federal supervision. The regulations
would impose minimal requirements to ensure the proper expenditure of
program funds.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Sections 379.20, 379.21, 379.30, 379.42, 379.43, 379.53, and 379.54
contain information collection requirements. As required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), the Department of
Education has submitted a copy of these sections to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for its review.
Collection of Information: Projects With Industry
These regulations would affect the following types of entities
eligible to apply for grants under the PWI program: for-profit and
nonprofit agencies or organizations with the capacity to create and
expand job and career opportunities for individuals with disabilities,
including designated State units, labor unions, employers, community
rehabilitation program providers, trade associations, and Indian tribes
and tribal organizations. These information collection requirements
would affect applicants for new awards and organizations and entities
already receiving assistance under the PWI program.
The Department needs to collect this information in order to
fulfill statutory requirements regarding the annual evaluation report
and compliance indicators (in sections 621(b)(3) and 621(f)(2) of the
Act, respectively). In addition, the Department must collect this
information in order to ensure the selection of projects for funding
that meet the statutory requirements of the PWI program.
All information is to be collected and reported once each year,
with the exception of that which is required of applicants for new
awards in Secs. 379.21 and 379.30. These sections require responses
from every organization or entity that applies for a new award under
the program. Annual reporting and recordkeeping burden for these
information collection and reporting requirements is estimated to
average 40 hours for each response for 411 respondents (310 applicants
and 101 grantees), including the time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data
needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
Thus, the total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden for this
collection is estimated to be 16,440 hours.
Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the
information collection requirements should direct them to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Room 10235, New Executive
Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20503; Attention: Laura Oliven.
The Department considers comments by the public on these proposed
collections of information in--
Evaluating whether the proposed collections of information
are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility;
Evaluating the accuracy of the Department's estimate of
the burden of the proposed collections of information, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
Minimizing the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting
electronic submission of responses.
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collections of
information contained in these proposed regulations between 30 and 60
days after publication of this document in the Federal Register.
Therefore, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect
if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. This does not affect
the deadline for the public to comment to the Department on the
proposed regulations.
Intergovernmental Review
This program is subject to the requirements of Executive Order
12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR Part 79. The objective of the
Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a
strengthened federalism by relying on processes developed by State and
local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal
financial assistance.
In accordance with the order, this document is intended to provide
early notification of the Department's specific plans and actions for
this program.
Invitation to Comment
Interested persons are invited to submit comments and
recommendations regarding these proposed regulations.
All comments submitted in response to these proposed regulations
will be available for public inspection, during and after the comment
period, in Room 3330, Mary E. Switzer Building, 330 C Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C., between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.
Assessment of Educational Impact
The Secretary particularly requests comments on whether the
proposed regulations in this document would require transmission of
information that is being gathered by or is available from any other
agency or authority of the United States.
List of Subjects in 34 CFR Part 379
Education, Grant programs--education, Grant programs--social
programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vocational
rehabilitation.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 84.234 Projects With
Industry.)
Dated: October 16, 1995.
Howard R. Moses,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services.
The Secretary proposes to amend Title 34 of the Code of Federal
Regulations by revising Part 379 to read as follows:
PART 379--PROJECTS WITH INDUSTRY
Subpart A--General
Sec.
379.1 What is the Projects With Industry program?
379.2 Who is eligible for a grant award under this program?
[[Page 1679]]
379.3 Who is eligible for services under this program?
379.4 What regulations apply?
379.5 What definitions apply?
Subpart B--What Kinds of Activities Does the Department of Education
Assist Under This Program?
379.10 What types of project activities are required of each
grantee under this program?
379.11 What additional types of project activities may be
authorized under this program?
Subpart C--How Does One Apply for an Award?
379.20 How does an eligible entity apply for an award?
379.21 What is the content of an application for an award?
Subpart D--How Does the Secretary Make a Grant?
379.30 What selection criteria does the Secretary use under this
program?
379.31 What other factors does the Secretary consider in reviewing
an application?
Subpart E--What Conditions Must Be Met by a Grantee?
379.40 What are the matching requirements?
379.41 What are allowable costs?
379.42 What are the requirements for a continuation award?
379.43 What are the additional reporting requirements?
Subpart F--What Compliance Indicator Requirements Must a Grantee Meet
To Receive Continuation Funding?
379.50 What are the compliance indicator requirements for
continuation funding?
379.51 What are the program compliance indicators?
379.52 How is grantee performance measured using the compliance
indicators?
379.53 What are the weights, minimum performance levels, and
performance ranges for each compliance indicator?
379.54 What are the reporting requirements for the compliance
indicators?
Appendix--Evaluation Standards
Authority: Sections 12(c) and 621 of the Act; 29 U.S.C. 711(c)
and 795g, unless otherwise noted.
Subpart A--General
Sec. 379.1 What is the Projects With Industry (PWI) program?
This program is designed to--
(a) Create and expand job and career opportunities for individuals
with disabilities in the competitive labor market by engaging the
talent and leadership of private industry as partners in the
rehabilitation process;
(b) Identify competitive job and career opportunities and the
skills needed to perform these jobs;
(c) Create practical settings for job readiness and job training
programs; and
(d) Provide job placements and career advancement.
(Authority: Section 621(a)(1) of the Act; 29 U.S.C. 795g(a)(1))
Sec. 379.2 Who is eligible for a grant award under this program?
(a) The Secretary may make a grant under this program to any--
(1) Community rehabilitation program provider;
(2) Designated State unit;
(3) Employer;
(4) Indian tribe or tribal organization;
(5) Labor Union;
(6) Nonprofit agency or organization;
(7) Trade association; or
(8) Other agency or organization with the capacity to create and
expand job and career opportunities for individuals with disabilities.
(b) New awards may be made only to those eligible entities
identified in paragraph (a) of this section that propose to serve
individuals with disabilities in States, portions of States, Indian
tribes, or tribal organizations that are currently unserved or
underserved by the PWI program.
(Authority: Section 621(a)(2) and 621(e)(2) of the Act; 29 U.S.C.
795g(a)(2) and 795g(e)(2))
Sec. 379.3 Who is eligible for services under this program?
(a) An individual is eligible for services under this program if
the appropriate State vocational rehabilitation unit determines the
individual to be an individual with a disability or an individual with
a severe disability, as defined in sections 7(8)(A) and 7(15)(A),
respectively, of the Act.
(b) In making the determination under paragraph (a) of this
section, the State vocational rehabilitation unit shall rely on the
determination made by the recipient of the grant under which the
services are provided, to the extent that the determination is
appropriate, available, and consistent with the requirements of the
Act.
(c) If a State vocational rehabilitation unit does not notify a
recipient of a grant within 60 days that the determination of the
recipient is inappropriate, the recipient of the grant may consider the
individual to be eligible for services.
(Authority: Section 621(a)(3) of the Act; 29 U.S.C. 795g(a)(3))
Note: Under this program, the PWI grantee makes an initial or
preliminary determination that an individual is eligible for
services because the individual meets the definition of an
``individual with a disability'' or an ``individual with a severe
disability.'' The State vocational rehabilitation unit has a maximum
of 60 days to assess the appropriateness of the preliminary
determination. If the State vocational rehabilitation unit does not
decide that the preliminary eligibility determination is
inappropriate within this time period, the eligibility determination
becomes final. If an individual has already been determined eligible
for vocational rehabilitation services under section 102(a) of the
Act and is referred by the State vocational rehabilitation unit to
the PWI, the PWI grantee can presume that the individual is an
``individual with a disability'' under section 7(8)(A) of the Act.
The State vocational rehabilitation unit should provide
documentation of that eligibility to the PWI. If the State
vocational rehabilitation unit has determined that the eligible
individual also meets the definition of an ``individual with a
severe disability'' under section 7(15)(A) of the Act, the PWI
grantee should be advised of that determination and provided
appropriate documentation of that determination.
Sec. 379.4 What regulations apply?
The following regulations apply to the Projects With Industry
program:
(a) The regulations in this part 379; and
(b) The regulations in 34 CFR part 369, except for the regulations
in Secs. 369.30 and 369.31.
(Authority: Section 621 of the Act; 29 U.S.C. 795g)
Sec. 379.5 What definitions apply?
(a) The definitions in 34 CFR part 369 apply to this program.
(b) The following definitions also apply to this program:
(1) Career advancement services mean services that develop specific
job skills beyond those required by the position currently held by an
individual with a disability to assist the individual to compete for a
promotion or achieve an advanced position in the same field.
(2) Competitive employment, as the placement outcome under this
program, means work--
(i) In the competitive labor market that is performed on a full-
time or part-time basis in an integrated setting; and
(ii) For which an individual is compensated at or above the minimum
wage, but not less than the prevailing wage for the same or similar
work in the local community performed by individuals who are not
disabled.
(3) Integrated setting, as part of the definition of competitive
employment, means a setting typically found in the community in which
individuals with disabilities have the opportunity to interact on a
regular basis with non-disabled individuals other than non-disabled
individuals who are providing services to them.
(4) Job readiness training, as used in Sec. 379.41(a), means--
[[Page 1680]]
(i) Training in job-seeking skills;
(ii) Training in the preparation of resumes or job applications;
(iii) Training in interviewing skills;
(iv) Participating in a job club; or
(v) Other related activities that may assist an individual to
secure competitive employment.
(5) Job training, as used in this part, means one or more of the
following training activities provided prior to placement, as that term
is defined in Sec. 379.5(b)(7):
(i) Occupational skills training.
(ii) On-the-job training.
(iii) Workplace training combined with related instruction.
(iv) Job skill upgrading and retraining.
(v) Training to enhance basic work skills and workplace
competencies.
(vi) On-site job coaching.
(6) Person served means an individual for whom services by a PWI
project have been initiated with the objective that those services will
result in a placement in competitive employment.
(7) Placement means the attainment of competitive employment by a
person served by a PWI project who has successfully completed training
and maintained employment for the duration of the probationary period
established by the employer for its employees or, if the employer does
not have an established probationary period, for a period of at least
90 days.
(Authority: Sections 12(c) and 621 of the Act; 29 U.S.C. 711(c) and
795g)
Subpart B--What Kinds of Activities Does the Department of
Education Assist Under This Program?
Sec. 379.10 What types of project activities are required of each
grantee under this program?
Each grantee under the PWI program shall--
(a) Provide individuals with disabilities with job training in a
realistic work setting, as appropriate to the needs of each individual
served by the project, in order to prepare them for employment and
career advancement in the competitive labor market;
(b) Provide individuals with disabilities with job placement and
career advancement services;
(c) Provide individuals with disabilities with supportive services
that are necessary to permit them to maintain the employment and career
advancement for which they have received training under this program;
(d) To the extent appropriate, provide for--
(1) The development and modification of jobs and careers to
accommodate the special needs of the individuals with disabilities
being trained and employed under this program;
(2) The purchase and distribution of rehabilitation technology to
meet the needs of individuals with disabilities at job sites; and
(3) The modification of any facilities or equipment of the employer
that are to be used by individuals with disabilities under this
program; and
(e) Provide for the establishment of Business Advisory Councils
(BAC) comprised of representatives of private industry, business
concerns, organized labor, and individuals with disabilities and their
representatives who will identify job and career availability within
the community, the skills necessary to perform those jobs and careers,
and prescribe appropriate training programs.
Note: A PWI grantee can meet the requirements of Sec. 379.10(a)
by (1) directly providing job training to project participants, (2)
by ensuring the provision of this training through arrangements with
other entities, or (3) by a combination of both (1) and (2). The job
training provided must meet the definition of job training in
Sec. 379.5(b)(5) and must be provided as appropriate to the needs of
each individual served by the project. Although each individual
served by the project may not need job training, the Secretary
expects that each PWI project will have an identifiable job training
component that is available to those individuals who need it. In
order to meet the requirements of Sec. 379.10(a), the job training
must be provided while the individual is participating in the
project. Therefore, post-employment training provided by an employer
after placement by the PWI project, as defined in Sec. 379.5(b)(7),
would not meet this requirement. In addition, a project that
provides only job readiness training, as defined in
Sec. 379.5(b)(4), would not meet the requirements of Sec. 379.10(a).
(Authority: Section 621(a) of the Act; 29 U.S.C. 795g)
Sec. 379.11 What additional types of project activities may be
authorized under this program?
The Secretary may include, as part of grant agreements with
recipients under this program, authority for recipients to provide the
following types of technical assistance:
(a) Assisting employers in hiring individuals with disabilities.
(b) Improving or developing relationships between grant recipients
or prospective grant recipients and employers or organized labor.
(c) Assisting employers in understanding and meeting the
requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C.
12101 et seq.) as that Act relates to employment of individuals with
disabilities.
(Authority: Section 621(a) of the Act; 29 U.S.C. 795g)
Subpart C--How Does One Apply for an Award?
Sec. 379.20 How does an eligible entity apply for an award?
In order to apply for a grant, an eligible entity shall submit an
application to the Secretary in response to an application notice
published in the Federal Register.
(Authority: Section 621(e)(1)(B) of the Act; 29 U.S.C.
795g(e)(1)(B))
Sec. 379.21 What is the content of an application for an award?
(a) The grant application must include a description of--
(1) The proposed job training to prepare project participants for
specific jobs in the competitive labor market for which there is a need
in the geographic area to be served by the project, as identified by an
existing current labor market analysis or other needs assessment
conducted by the applicant in collaboration with private industry;
(2) The involvement of private industry in the design of the
proposed project and the manner in which the project will collaborate
with private industry in planning, implementing, and evaluating job
training, job placement, and career advancement activities;
(3) The responsibilities of the BAC and how it will interact with
the project in carrying out grant activities;
(4) The geographic area to be served by the project, including an
explanation of how the area is currently unserved or underserved by the
PWI program;
(5) A plan for evaluating annually the operation of the proposed
project, which, at a minimum, provides for collecting and submitting to
the Secretary the following information and any additional data needed
to determine compliance with the program compliance indicators
established in Subpart F:
(i) The numbers and types of individuals with disabilities served.
(ii) The types of services provided.
(iii) The sources of funding.
(iv) The percentage of resources committed to each type of service
provided.
(v) The extent to which the employment status and earning power of
individuals with disabilities changed following services.
(vi) The extent of capacity building activities, including
collaboration with business and industry and other organizations,
agencies, and institutions.
[[Page 1681]]
(vii) A comparison, if appropriate, of activities in prior years
with activities in the most recent year.
(viii) The number of project participants who were terminated from
project placements and the duration of those placements; and
(6) A description of the manner in which the project will address
the needs of individuals with disabilities from minority backgrounds,
as required by 34 CFR 369.21.
(b) The grant application must also include assurances from the
applicant that--
(1) The project will carry out all activities required in
Sec. 379.10;
(2) Individuals with disabilities who are placed by the project
will receive compensation at or above the minimum wage, but no less
than the prevailing wage for the same or similar work performed in the
local community by individuals who are not disabled;
(3) Individuals with disabilities who are placed by the project
will be given terms and benefits of employment equal to those that are
given to similarly situated co-workers and will not be segregated from
their co-workers; and
(4) The project will maintain any records required by the Secretary
and make those records available for monitoring and audit purposes.
(Authority: Sections 621(a)(4), 621(a)(5), 621(b), and 621(e)(1)(B)
of the Act; 29 U.S.C. 795g(a)(4), 795g(a)(5), 795g(b), and
795g(e)(1)(B))
Subpart D--How Does the Secretary Make a Grant?
Sec. 379.30 What selection criteria does the Secretary use under this
program?
The Secretary uses the following criteria to evaluate an
application:
(a) Extent of need for project (20 points). The Secretary reviews
each application to determine the extent to which the project meets
demonstrated needs. The Secretary looks for evidence that--
(1) The applicant has described an existing current labor market
analysis, or has performed in collaboration with private industry a
needs assessment, for the geographic area to be served that shows a
demand in the competitive labor market for the types of jobs for which
project participants will be trained; and
(2) The job training to be provided meets the identified needs of a
specific industry or industries in the geographic area to be served by
the project.
(b) Partnership with industry (25 points). The Secretary looks for
information that demonstrates--
(1) The extent of the project's collaboration with private industry
in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of job training,
placement, and career advancement activities; and
(2) The extent of participation of the BAC in the identification of
job and career opportunities, the skills necessary to perform the jobs
and careers identified, and the development of training programs
designed to develop these skills.
(c) Project design and plan of operation for achieving competitive
employment outcomes (25 points). The Secretary reviews each application
to determine--
(1) The extent to which the project goals and objectives for
achieving competitive employment outcomes for individuals with
disabilities to be served by the project are clearly stated and meet
the needs identified by the applicant and the purposes of the program;
(2) The extent to which the project provides for all services and
activities required under Sec. 379.10;
(3) The feasibility of proposed strategies and methods for
achieving project goals and objectives for competitive employment
outcomes for project participants;
(4) The extent to which project activities will be coordinated with
the State vocational rehabilitation unit and with other appropriate
community resources in order to ensure an adequate number of referrals
and a maximum use of comparable benefits and services;
(5) The extent to which the applicant's management plan will ensure
proper and efficient administration of the project; and
(6) Whether the applicant has proposed a realistic timeline for the
implementation of project activities to ensure timely accomplishment of
proposed goals and objectives to achieve competitive employment
outcomes for individuals with disabilities to be served by the project.
(d) Adequacy of resources and quality of key personnel (10 points).
The Secretary reviews each application to determine--
(1) The adequacy of the resources (including facilities, equipment,
and supplies) that the applicant plans to devote to the project;
(2) The quality of key personnel that will be involved in the
project, including--
(i) The qualifications of the project director;
(ii) The qualifications of each of the other key personnel to be
used in the project; and
(iii) The experience and training of key personnel in fields
related to the objectives and activities of the project; and
(3) The way the applicant plans to use its resources and personnel
to achieve the project's goals and objectives, including the time that
key personnel will commit to the project.
(e) Budget and cost effectiveness (10 points). The Secretary
reviews each application to determine the extent to which--
(1) The budget is adequate to support the project; and
(2) Costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives of the
project.
(f) Project evaluation (10 points). The Secretary reviews each
application to determine the quality of the proposed evaluation plan
with respect to--
(1) Evaluating project operations and outcomes;
(2) Involving the BAC in evaluating the project's job training,
placement, and career advancement activities;
(3) Meeting the annual evaluation reporting requirements in
Sec. 379.21(a)(7);
(4) Determining compliance with the indicators; and
(5) Addressing any deficiencies identified through project
evaluation.
(Authority: Sections 12(c) and 621 of the Act; 29 U.S.C. 711(c) and
795g)
Sec. 379.31 What other factors does the Secretary consider in
reviewing an application?
In addition to the selection criteria in Sec. 379.30, the
Secretary, in making awards under this program, considers--
(a) The equitable distribution of projects among the States; and
(b) The past performance of the applicant in carrying out a similar
PWI project under previously awarded grants, as indicated by factors
such as compliance with grant conditions, soundness of programmatic and
financial management practices, and meeting the requirements of Subpart
F.
(Authority: Sections 621(e)(2) and 621(f)(4) of the Act; 29 U.S.C.
795g(e)(2) and 795g(f)(4))
Subpart E--What Conditions Must Be Met by a Grantee?
Sec. 379.40 What are the matching requirements?
The Federal share may not be more than 80 percent of the total cost
of a project under this program.
(Authority: Section 621(c) of the Act; 29 U.S.C. 795g(c))
Note: (a) For example, if the total cost of a project is
$500,000, the Federal share would be no more than $400,000 and the
grantee's required minimum share (matching contribution) would be
$100,000 (provided in cash or through third party in-kind
contributions). The matching contribution is
[[Page 1682]]
based upon the total cost of the project, not on the amount of the
Federal grant award.
(b) The matching contribution must comply with the requirements
of 34 CFR 74.23 (for grantees that are institutions of higher
education, hospitals, or other nonprofit organizations) or 34 CFR
80.24 (for grantees that are State, local, or Indian tribal
governments). The term ``third party in-kind contributions'' is
defined in either 34 CFR 74.2 or 34 CFR 80.3, as applicable to the
type of grantee.
Sec. 379.41 What are allowable costs?
In addition to those costs that are allowable in accordance with 34
CFR 74.27 and 34 CFR 80.22, the following items are allowable costs
under this program:
(a) The costs of job readiness training, as defined in
Sec. 379.5(b)(4); job training, as defined in Sec. 379.5(b)(5); job
placement services; and related vocational rehabilitation services and
supportive rehabilitation services.
(b) Instruction and supervision of trainees.
(c) Training materials and supplies, including consumable
materials.
(d) Instructional aids.
(e) The purchase or modification of rehabilitation technology to
meet the needs of individuals with disabilities.
(f) Alteration and renovation appropriate and necessary to ensure
access to and use of buildings by persons with disabilities served by
the project.
(Authority: Sections 12(c) and 621 of the Act; 29 U.S.C. 711(c) and
795g))
Sec. 379.42 What are the requirements for a continuation award?
(a) A grantee that wants to receive a continuation award must--
(1) Comply with the provisions of 34 CFR 75.253(a), including
making substantial progress toward meeting the objectives in its
approved application and submitting all performance and financial
reports required by 34 CFR 75.118; and
(2) Submit data in accordance with Sec. 379.54 showing that it has
met the program compliance indicators established in Subpart F.
(b) In addition to the requirements in paragraph (a) of this
section, the following other conditions in 34 CFR 75.253(a) must be met
before the Secretary can make a continuation award:
(1) Congress must appropriate sufficient funds under the program.
(2) Continuation of the project must be in the best interest of the
Federal Government.
(Authority: Sections 12(c) and 621(f)(4) of the Act; 29 U.S.C.
711(c) and 795g(f)(4))
Sec. 379.43 What are the additional reporting requirements?
Each grantee shall submit the data from its annual evaluation of
project operations required under Sec. 379.21(a)(5) no later than 60
days after the end of each project year, unless the Secretary
authorizes a later submission date.
(Authority: Sections 12(c) and 621 of the Act; 29 U.S.C. 711(c) and
795g)
Subpart F--What Compliance Indicator Requirements Must a Grantee
Meet to Receive Continuation Funding?
Sec. 379.50 What are the compliance indicator requirements for
continuation funding?
In order to receive a continuation award for the third or any
subsequent year of a PWI grant, a grantee must receive a minimum
composite score of at least 70 points on the program compliance
indicators contained in Sec. 379.53.
(Authority: Section 621(f)(4) of the Act; 29 U.S.C. 795g(f)(4))
Sec. 379.51 What are the program compliance indicators?
The program compliance indicators implement program evaluation
standards, which are contained in an appendix to this part, by
establishing minimum performance levels and performance ranges in
essential project areas to measure the effectiveness of individual
grantees.
(Authority: Sections 621(d)(1) and 621(f)(1) of the Act; 29 U.S.C.
795g(d)(1) and 795g(f)(1))
Sec. 379.52 How is grantee performance measured using the compliance
indicators?
(a) Each compliance indicator establishes a minimum performance
level.
(b) Each compliance indicator also establishes three performance
ranges with points assigned to each range. The higher the performance
range, the greater the number of points assigned to that range.
(c) If a grantee does not achieve the minimum performance level for
a compliance indicator, the grantee receives no points.
(d) If a grantee achieves or exceeds the minimum performance level,
the grantee receives the points assigned to the particular performance
range that corresponds to its actual level of performance.
(e) The maximum possible composite score that a grantee can receive
is 150 points.
(f) A grantee must receive a composite score of at least 70 points
to meet the evaluation standards and to qualify for continuation
funding.
(Authority: Section 621(f)(4) of the Act; 29 U.S.C. 795g(f)(4))
Sec. 379.53 What are the weights, minimum performance levels, and
performance ranges for each compliance indicator?
(a) Percent of persons served whose disabilities are severe. (3-10
points) A minimum of 50 percent of persons served by the project are
persons who have severe disabilities. The performance ranges and the
points assigned to each range are as follows:
(1) 50 percent to 59 percent--3 points.
(2) 60 percent to 75 percent--7 points.
(3) 76 percent or more--10 points.
(b) Percent of persons served who have been unemployed for at least
six months at the time of project entry. (5-15 points) A minimum of 50
percent of persons served by the project have been unemployed for at
least six months at the time of project entry. The performance ranges
and the points assigned to each range are as follows:
(1) 50 percent to 59 percent--5 points.
(2) 60 percent to 75 percent--10 points.
(3) 76 percent or more--15 points.
(c) Cost per placement. (8-25 points) The average cost per
placement of persons served by the project does not exceed $2400.00.
The performance ranges and the points assigned to each range are as
follows:
(1) $2001 to $2400--8 points.
(2) $1601 to $2000--17 points.
(3) Less than $1600--25 points.
(d) Projected cost per placement. (5-15 points) The actual average
cost per placement of persons served by the project does not exceed 140
percent of the projected average cost per placement in the grantee's
application. The performance ranges and the points assigned to each
range are as follows:
(1) 126 percent to 140 percent--5 points.
(2) 111 percent to 125 percent--10 points.
(3) 110 percent or less--15 points.
(e) Placement rate. (8-25 points) A minimum of 40 percent of
persons served by the project are placed in competitive employment. The
performance ranges and the points assigned to each range are as
follows:
(1) 40 percent to 49 percent--8 points.
(2) 50 percent to 69 percent--17 points.
(3) 70 percent or more--25 points.
(f) Projected placement rate. (5-15 points) The actual number of
persons served by the project who are placed into competitive
employment is at least 50 percent of the number of persons that the
grantee, in the grant application, projected would be placed. The
performance ranges and the points assigned to each range are as
follows:
[[Page 1683]]
(1) 50 percent to 74 percent--5 points.
(2) 75 percent to 94 percent--10 points.
(3) 95 percent or more--15 points.
(g) Change in earnings. (7-20 points) The earnings of persons
served by the project who are placed into competitive employment have
increased by an average of at least $75.00 a week over earnings at
project entry. The performance ranges and the points assigned to each
range are as follows:
(1) $75 to $124--7 points.
(2) $125 to $199--14 points.
(3) $200 or more--20 points.
(h) Percent placed who have severe disabilities. (3-10 points) At
least 50 percent of persons served by the project who are placed into
competitive employment are persons who have severe disabilities. The
performance ranges and the points assigned to each range are as
follows:
(1) 50 percent to 59 percent--3 points.
(2) 60 percent to 75 percent--7 points.
(3) 76 percent or more--10 points.
(i) Percent unemployed placed. (5-15 points) At least 50 percent of
persons served by the project who are placed into competitive
employment are persons who were unemployed for at least six months at
the time of project entry. The performance ranges and the points
assigned to each range are as follows:
(1) 50 percent to 59 percent--5 points.
(2) 60 percent to 75 percent--10 points.
(3) 76 percent or more--15 points.
(j) Summary chart of weights and performance ranges. The following
composite chart shows the weights assigned to the performance ranges
for each compliance indicator.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Performance
ranges--
Indicator --------------
(1) (2) (3)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Persons with severe disabilities served.................. 3 7 10
Unemployed served........................................ 5 10 15
Cost per placement....................................... 8 17 25
Projected cost per placement............................. 5 10 15
Placement rate........................................... 8 17 25
Projected placement rate................................. 5 10 15
Change in earnings....................................... 7 14 20
Percent placed who have severe disabilities.............. 3 7 10
Percent unemployed placed................................ 5 10 15
--------------
Total possible score................................ 49 102 150
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Authority: Section 621(f)(1) of the Act; 29 U.S.C. 795g(f)(1))
Sec. 379.54 What are the reporting requirements for the compliance
indicators?
(a) In order to receive continuation funding for the third or any
subsequent year of a PWI grant, each grantee must submit data for the
most recent complete project year no later than 60 days after the end
of that project year, unless the Secretary authorizes a later
submission date, in order for the Secretary to determine if the grantee
has met the program compliance indicators established in Subpart F.
(b) If the data for the most recent complete project year provided
under paragraph (a) of this section shows that a grantee has failed to
achieve the minimum composite score required in Sec. 379.52(f) to meet
the program compliance indicators, the grantee may, at its option,
submit data from the first 6 months of the current project year no
later than 60 days after the end of that 6-month period, unless the
Secretary authorizes a later submission date, to demonstrate that its
project performance has improved sufficiently to meet the minimum
composite score.
(Authority: Section 621(f)(2) of the Act; 29 U.S.C. 795g(f)(2))
Note: A grantee receives its second year of funding (or the
first continuation award) under this program before data from the
first complete project year is available. Data from the first
project year, however, must be submitted and is used (unless the
grantee exercises the option in paragraph (b) of this section) to
determine eligibility for the third year of funding (or the second
continuation award).
Appendix--Evaluation Standards
Standard 1: The primary objective of the project shall be to
assist individuals with disabilities to obtain competitive
employment. The activities carried out by the project shall support
the accomplishment of this objective.
Standard 2: The project shall serve individuals with
disabilities that impair their capacity to obtain competitive
employment. In selecting persons to receive services, priority shall
be given to individuals with severe disabilities.
Standard 3: The project shall ensure the provision of services
that will assist in the placement of persons with disabilities.
Standard 4: Funds shall be used to achieve the project's primary
objective at minimum cost to the Federal Government.
Standard 5: The project's advisory council shall provide policy
guidance and assistance in the conduct of the project.
Standard 6: Working relationships, including partnerships, shall
be established with agencies and organizations in order to expand
the project's capacity to meet its objectives.
Standard 7: The project shall obtain positive results in
assisting individuals with disabilities to obtain competitive
employment.
[FR Doc. 96-660 Filed 1-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
