95-95-22339. Office of Vocational and Adult Education; School-to-Work Opportunities; Local Partnership Grants; Application Procedures

[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 174 (Friday, September 8, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46984-47009]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-95-22339]




[[Page 46983]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part V





Department of Labor





_______________________________________________________________________



Employment and Training Administration



_______________________________________________________________________





Department of Education





_______________________________________________________________________



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

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

[[Page 46984]]


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


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

AGENCIES: Employment and Training Administration, Department of Labor; 
Office of Vocational and Adult Education, Department of Education.

ACTION: Notice of availability of funds, solicitation for grant 
application (SGA), an administrative cost cap, a definition of 
administrative costs, and final selection criteria for School-to-Work 
Opportunities Local Partnership Grants.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice announces the fiscal year (FY) competition for 
Local Partnership Grants authorized under Title III of the School-to-
Work Opportunities Act of 1994 (the Act). This notice contains all of 
the necessary information and forms needed to apply for grant funding 
in FY 1995. The Departments also establish final selection criteria to 
be used in evaluating applications submitted under the Local 
Partnership Grants competition in FY 1995 and in succeeding years. The 
Departments also establish a definition for the term ``administrative 
costs,'' as well as a 10 percent cap on administrative costs incurred 
by local partnerships receiving grants under Title III of the Act.

DATES: Applications for grant awards will be accepted commencing 
September 8, 1995. The closing date for receipt of applications is 
November 7, 1995, at 2 p.m. (Eastern time) at the following address. 
Telefacsimile (FAX) applications will NOT be accepted.

ADDRESSES: Applications must be mailed to: U.S. Department of 
Education, Application Control Center, Attention: CFDA #278C, 
Washington, D.C. 20202-4725.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maria Kniesler, National School-to-
Work Office. Telephone: [phone]. (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 #: [phone].
    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: [phone], 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: [phone] or 7623, Fax: [phone]

Arizona

Susan Leeper, School-to-Work Coordinator, Governor's Office of 
Community and Family Programs, 1700 West Washington, Room 320, 
Phoenix, AZ 85007, Telephone: [phone], Fax: [phone]

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: [phone], 
Fax: [phone]

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: [phone], Fax: 916-654-
5981

Colorado

Alaine Ginocchio, Governor's Office, 136 State Capitol, Denver, CO 
80203, Telephone: [phone], Fax: [phone]

Connecticut

Susan Vinkowski, Department of Education, Bureau of Applied 
Curriculum, Technology and Career Information, Middletown, CT 06457, 
Telephone: [phone], Fax: [phone]

Delaware

Dr. Nikki Castle, Executive Director, Delaware School-to-Work, 
Delaware Chamber of Commerce, 1201 N. Orange, Wilmington, DE 19801, 
Telephone: [phone], Fax: [phone]

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: [phone]

Florida

Michael Brawer, School-to-Work Program Coordinator, Department of 
Education, Florida Education Ctr., Room 1232, Tallahassee, FL 32399, 
Telephone: [phone], Fax: [phone]

Georgia

Gail Trapnell, GA School-to-Work Transition Project Administrator, 
148 International Blvd., NE, Suite 638, Atlanta, GA 30303, 
Telephone: [phone], Fax: [phone]

Idaho

Karen M. Fraley, Idaho School-to-Work, IBM Complex, 500 East 
Baybrook Court, Boise, ID 83706, Telephone: [phone]

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: [phone]

Indiana

Peggy O'Malley, Deputy Commissioner, Dept. of Workforce Development, 
Indiana Government Center South, SE302, 10 North Senate Avenue, 
Indianapolis, IN 46204, Telephone: [phone], Fax: [phone]

Iowa

Harriet Howell Custer, Administrator, Division of Community 
Colleges, Department of Education, Grimes State Office Building, Des 
Moines, IA 50319-0146, Telephone: [phone], Fax: [phone]

Hawaii

Kenneth Yamamoto, Assistant Superintendent, Department of Education, 
P.O. Box 2360, Honolulu, HI 96804, Telephone: [phone], 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: [phone]

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: [phone]

Louisiana

Chris W. Weaver, State Director, Secondary Vocational Education, 
P.O. Box 94064, Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9064, Telephone: [phone], 
Fax: [phone]

Maine

Christopher D. Lyons, Maine Department of Education, State House 
Station 23, Augusta, ME 04333, Telephone: [phone]

Massachusetts

John Niles, Executive Director, Massachusetts Office for, School-to-
Work Transition, 101 Summer Street, Boston, MA 02110, Telephone: 
617-451-5130, Fax: [phone]

Michigan

Tom Benton, Michigan Jobs Commission, Victor Office Center, 3rd 
Floor, 201 N. Washington Square, Lansing, MI 48913, Telephone: 517-
373-6432, Fax: [phone]

Minnesota

John W. Mercer or Thomas Berg, Department of Education, 550 Cedar 
Street, St. Paul, MN 55101, Telephone: [phone] or 282-6277, 
Fax: [phone]

Mississippi

Worth E. Haynes, Vocational and Technical Ed., Department of 
Education, P.O. Box 771, Jackson, MS 39205-0771, Fax: [phone]

Maryland

Lynne Gilli, Branch Chief of Career and Technology Services, 
Maryland State Dept. of Education, 200 W. Baltimore Street, 
Baltimore, MD 21201, Telephone: [phone], Fax: [phone]

Montana

Jane A. Karas, Office of the Commissioner of Education, 2500 
Broadway, Helena, MT 59620-3101, Telephone: [phone], Fax: 406-
444-1469

Nebraska

Darl Naumann, NE Dept. of Economic Development School-to-Work, P.O. 
Box 94666, Lincoln, NE 68509-4666, Telephone: [phone], 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: [phone], Telephone: [phone], Fax: [phone]

Missouri

Don Eisinger, Missouri Dept. of Elementary and Secondary Education, 
P.O. Box 480, Jefferson City, MO 65102, Telephone: [phone], 
Fax: [phone]

New Mexico

James Jimenez, Department of Finance and Administration, 180 Battaan 
Memorial Building, Santa Fe, NM 87503, Telephone: [phone], 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: [phone], Fax: [phone]

North Carolina

 Loretta Martin, Governor's Comm. on Workforce Preparedness, 116 
West Jones Street, Raleigh, NC 27603, Telephone: [phone], Fax: 
919-715-3974

[[Page 47009]]


New Hampshire

Stephen B. Bos, New Hampshire Job Training Council, 64 Old Suncook 
Road, Concord, NH 03301, Telephone: [phone], Fax: [phone]

New Jersey

Thomas Henry, Director, Office of STW Initiatives, New Jersey Dept. 
of Education, CN500, Trenton, NJ 08625-0550, Telephone: 609-633-
0665, Fax: [phone]

Oklahoma

Dr. Richard Makin, State Coordinator of School-to-Work, Department 
of Vocational-Technical Education, 1500 West Seventh Avenue, 
Stillwater, OK 74074-4364, Telephone: [phone], Fax: 405-743-
5541

Oregon

Bill Brady, Oregon Department of Education, 255 Capitol Street, NE, 
Salem, OR 97310, Telephone: [phone], ext. 327, Fax: 503-378-
5156

Pennsylvania

Jean Wolfe, Department of Education, 333 Market Street, Tenth Floor, 
Harrisburg, PA 17126-0333, Telephone: [phone], 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: [phone], Fax: [phone]

Ohio

Mary A. McCullough, Director, Ohio School-to-Work, 145 South Front 
Street, Columbus, OH 43215, Telephone: [phone] or 4631, Fax: 
614-466-5025

Rhode Island

Miriam Coleman, Dept. of Employment and Training, 101 Friendship 
Street, Providence, RI 02903-3740, Telephone: [phone], Fax: 
401-861-8030

or

Frank Santoro, Dept. of Elementary and Secondary Education, 22 Hayes 
Street, Providence, RI 02908, Telephone: [phone], Fax: 401-277-
2537

South Carolina

Bob Falls, Employment Security Commission, 1550 Gadsden Street, P.O. 
Box 995, Columbia, SC 29202, Telephone: [phone]

Puerto Rico

Agustin Marquez, Executive Director, School-to-Work, P.O. Box 
366955, San Juan, PR 00936-6955, Telephone: [phone] or 765-
3644, Fax: [phone] 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: [phone]

Texas

Ann Dorsey, Texas Council on Workforce and Economic Competitiveness, 
P.O. Box 2241, Austin, TX 78768-2241, Telephone: [phone], 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: [phone]

Vermont

Rich Tulikangas, Office of the Governor, 109 State Street, 
Montpelier, VT 05609, Telephone: [phone], Fax: [phone]

South Dakota

Mary Ellen Johnson, School-to-Work Coordinator, Department of Labor, 
700 Governors Drive, Pierre, SD 57501, Telephone: [phone], Fax: 
605-773-4211

Washington

Don Walgamott, Office of the Governor, 100 Insurance Building, 
Olympia, WA 98504-3113, Telephone: [phone], Fax: [phone]

West Virginia

David A. Mohr, Dept. of Education and the Arts, 1900 Kanawha Blvd., 
East, Charleston, WV, Telephone: [phone], Fax: [phone]

Wisconsin

Vicki Poole, Director, Governor's Office for Workforce Excellence, 
201 Washington Ave., Room 231, Madison, WI 53707, Telephone: 608-
266-0223, Fax: [phone]

 Wyoming

Marsha Price, School-to-Work Manager, 6106 Yellowstone Road, 
Cheyenne, WY 82009, Telephone: [phone], Fax: [phone]

Virginia

Randolph Beales, Office of the Secretary of Education, VA Business-
Education Partnership Program, 200-202 North 9th Street, Richmond, 
VA 23219, Telephone: [phone], Fax: [phone].

[FR Doc. 95-95-22339 Filed 9-7-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P