document resume ce 069 365 - eric · 2014. 7. 18. · document resume ed 383 933 ce 069 365 title...

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 383 933 CE 069 365

TITLE Coordination of Vocational Education and JTPA for aCompetitive Workforce.

INSTITUTION Illinois State Council on Vocational Education,Springfield.

PUB DATE 94NOTE 36p.; Prepared by J. M. Onstott & Associates.PUB TYPE Reports Evaluative/Feasibility (142)

EDRS PRICE MFOI/PCO2 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Cooperative Programs; *Coordination; Federal

Legislation; Federal Programs; Information Transfer;*Job Training; Postsecondary Education; *ProgramEffectiveness; Program Evaluation; SecondaryEducation; State Programs; Statewide Planning;*Vocational Education

IDENTIFIERS *Illinois; *Job Training Partnership Act 1982

ABSTRACTThe Illinois Council on Vocational Education surveyed

by mail 186 educational and Job Training Partnership ACT (JTPA)representatives to evaluate the coordination between the state'svocational education system and its job training system. The responserate was 51 percent. Findings indicated that the majority of theservice delivery area (SDA) directors for the JTPA programs eitherhad no opinion on the adequacy and effectiveness of the Perkins'Section 2 programs in Illinois or gave them low ratings. The majorityof respondents from the regional delivery systems rated theimprovement and expansion of JTPA programs below average. Both theJTPA and vocational education respondents rated the effectiveness ofcoordination as mediocre in increasing program goals, yet both groupsviewed coordination as a whole above average. They agreed in thefollowing areas: which barriers limit coordination; conferences orin-person contact as the best information exchange and coordinationmethods; the need for more cross-training of staff members andprofessional training; and the goal of improving human development.The only activity perceived to be highly effective in coordinationplanning and reducing duplication at the local level wasparticipation in coordination agreements. Statewide, regional, andlocal conferences, seminars, and workshops on coordination topics andcommunication between private industry councils and educationalinstitutions in the SDA w, .e recommended. (YLB)

************************************************************************ Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made* from the original document. *

*******************************************.?1***************************

Cf O6'' ED 383 933

t; Aft $A

ttk41

tAt.ti% :4 Zi\N \Mt

tt. % iN1N4 ttNtti '4 V \,VAX. * 1\1\ VAtVAV\ it At V

Illinois Council on Vocational Education

Coordination of Vocational Education and JTPAfor a

Competitive Workforce

1994 .

Prepared by

J. M. Onstott & Associates, Inc.

Illinois Council on Vocational Education100 North First Street, 100 Alzina Building

Springfield, Illinois 62702Phone: 217/782-2892 FAX: 217/785-1218

3

ICoVE MEMBERS

HARTZEL L. BLACKVice PresidentEconomic Developmentand Correctional EducationSoutheastern Illinois CollegeHarrisburg, Illinois

PATRICK T. DERRYExecutive Vice PresidentHeader Die & Tool, Inc.Rockford, Illinois

DAVID A. EZELLGeneral ManagerSchnuck Markets, Inc.Bloomington, Illinois

CHARLES GREGORYBusiness Representative/Vice PresidentUnited Food and Commercial WorkersLocal #881Collinsville, Illinois

DR. JACK HILL*PresidentShawnee Community CollegeUl lin, Illinois

JEFFREY D. MAYSVice President, Human Resource PolicyIllinois State Chamber of CommerceChicago, Illinois

RONALD C. MOREHEAD*Illinois AFL-CIO ManpowerAssistance ProgramBloomington, Illinois

BARBARA OILSCHLAGERTrustee, College of Lake County

System Coordinator, Lake County AreaVocational SystemGrayslake, Illinois

FRANK RAUSACALF & Associates

Sterling, Illinois

GORDON L. ROPPRural Affairs Liaison

Secretary of StateBloomington, Illinois

VALEE L. SALONEExecutive Director

Nia-Comprehensive Center forDevelopmental Disabilities

Chicago, Illinois

MARY BETH STINE*System Director

Clay-Jasper-Richland-North WayneRegional Vocational System

Flora, Illinois

KATHIE WOMACKSpecial Populations Coordinator

Quad-City/Tri-County To Tech RegionsRock Island, Illinois

PETER JOHNSONExecutive Director

*Committee Members

CONTENTS

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMSEXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ConclusionsRecommendations

Final ReportCoordination of Vocational Education and JTPA

for a Competitive Workforce (1994)

vi

iv

OVERVIEW 1METHODOLOGY 1

SECTION ONEQUESTION ONE 2

Observations, Conclusions, Recommendations 3QUESTION TWO 5

Observations, Conclusions, Recommendations 5QUESTIONS THREE AND FOUR 7

Observations, Conclusions, Recommendations 7QUESTION FIVE 8

Observations, Conclusions, Recommendations 9QUESTION SIX 10

Observations, Conclusions, Recommendations 11QUESTION SEVEN 12

Observations, Conclusions, Recommendations 12QUESTIONS EIGHT - ELEVEN 14

Observations, Conclusions, Recommendations 14QUESTIONS TWELVE AND THIRTEEN 16

Observations, Conclusions, Recommendations 17QUESTION FOURTEEN 17

Observations, Conclusions, Recommendations 17SECTION TWO

QUESTION ONE 19Observations, Conclusions, Recommendations 19

QUESTION TWO 19Observations, Conclusions, Recommendations 19

QUESTION THREE 20Observations, Conclusions, Recommendations 20

QUESTION FOUR 21Observations, Conclusions, Recommendations 21

QUESTION FIVE 22Observations, Conclusions, Recommendations 22

QUESTION SIX 23Observations, Conclusions, Recommendations 24

QUESTION SEVEN 25Observations, Conclusions, Recommendations 25

QUESTIONS EIGHT - TEN 25Observations, Conclusions, Recommendations 26

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS

ICCB Illinois Community College Board

ICoVE Illinois Council on Vocational Education

IDCCA Illinois Department of Commerce and Community Affairs

ISBE Illinois State Board of Education

IJTCC Illinois Job Training Coordinating Council

JTCC Job Training Coordinating Council

JTPA Job Training Partnership Act

LEOs Local Elected Officials

OJT On-the-Job Training

PIC Private Industry Council

RDS Regional Delivery System

SDA Service Delivery Area

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Illinois Council on Vocational Education ( ICoVE) was authorized and established under theVocational Education Act of 1963 and subsequently under the Carl D. Perkins Vocational andTechnical Education Act (PL 101-392, 1990). In addition, the State of Illinois must designate aCouncil on Vocational Education as a condition of receiving federal funds appropriated throughthe Perkins programs.

ICoVE is charged with monitoring and evaluating the vocational and technical education andtraining programs in Illinois. An independent evaluation of the coordination between the state'svocational education system and its job training system must be undertaken every two years. Theevaluation's findings, recommendations and advice for improvements must be made to theGovernor, the Illinois State Board of Education, the Illinois Job Training Coordinating Council,and the Secretaries of Education and Labor. This report is filr the two-year period ending June1994.

With the increasing national and statewide emphasis on school-to-work programs and amovement toward Worker Adjustment Career Centers and One Stop Centers, the demand forincreased coordination and collaboration between the job training community and the educationalcommunity grows. The following summary of the major conclusions of the evaluation and plan ofaction in the form of recommendations outlines some proactive steps that can lead to thisincreased coordination and collaboration. A detailed review of the conclusions andrecommendations are in the full report.

CONCLUSIONS

1. The majority of the Service Delivery Area (SDA) directors for the Job Training Partnership Act(JTPA) programs either had "no opinion on the adequacy and effectiveness of Perkins' Section2 programs in Illinois" or gave them low ratings. The majority of respondents from theRegional Delivery Systems (RDSs) rated the improvement and expansion of JTPA programsbelow average. These responses indicate a lack of information of the performance of eachother's programs, a genuine dissatisfaction with each other's programs, turf issues, or allthree.

2. Both the JTPA and vocational education respondents rated the effectiveness of coordination asmediocre in increasing program goals, yet both groups viewed coordination, as a whole, aboveaverage, with the exception of the cooperation from state and local managers, who receivedvery positive ratings for their cooperative attitudes. They agree on the barriers which limitcoordination. They also concurred that information exchange and coordination occur best atconferences or in person.

3. Both the JTPA and vocational education respondents supported the need for more cross-training of staff members and professional training for JTPA staff members, teachers andschool administrators.

4. Both groups also shared the same goal of improving human development as well as agreementon six outcomes or successes for their programs.

5. The only activity perceived to be highly effective in coordination planning and reducingduplication at the local level was participation in coordination agreements.

6. A direct relationship exists between which educational entity is represented on the PrivateIndustry Council and who receives information from these PIC members.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. ICoVE, in conjunction with the Illinois State Board of Education, the Illinois CommunityCollege Board, the Illinois Department of Commerce and Community Affairs, the IllinoisEmployment Training Partnership and the Illinois Job Training Coordinating Council shouldsponsor statewide, regional, and local conferences, seminars, and workshops. Topics shouldinclude

exchange of information about Perkins and JTPA programs, performancerequirements, goals, objectives, and outcomes statewide and by region;effects of recently amended JTPA legislation and its revised regulations;projections on impact of "block grants" for the two systems;program to cross-train staff members;staff development training; anda forum on how to eliminate barriers to coordination.

2. The educational representative(s) for each PIC should communicate to the educationalinstitutions in the SDA. They should request that the PIC member(s) communicateinformation from PIC meetings with them including the PIC agenda.

3. The selection of educational representative(s) for the PIC should be broadened to includerepresentation of more educational institutions on the PIC in workforce development. Theeducational representative(s) should be made aware of the necessity to communicate PICmeeting information.

4. ICoVE should continue the biennial survey of the adequacy and effectiveness of coordinationbetween the vocational education institutions and JTPA programs in Illinois. ICoVE shouldexplore conducting this survey with IDCCA and producing a joint report.

vi

Final Report

Coordination of Vocational Education and JTPAfor a Competitive Workforce

1994

OVERVIEW

The Illinois Council on Vocational Education (ICoVE) was authorized and established under thE.Vocational Education Act of 1963 and subsequently under the Carl D. Perkins Vocational andTechnical Education Act (PL 101-392, 1990). In addition, the state of Illinois must designate aCouncil on Vocational Education as a condition of receiving federal funds appropriated throughthe Perkins programs.

ICoVE is charged with monitoring and evaluating the vocational and technical education andtraining programs in Illinois. An independent evaluation of the coordination between the state'svocational education system with its job training system must be undertaken every two years.The evaluation's findings, recommendations and advice for improvements must be made to theGovernor, the Illinois State Board of Education, the Illinois Job Training Coordinating Council,and the Secretaries of Education and Labor.

To fulfill this requirement, ICoVE surveyed the educational and JTPA representatives with a mailquestionnaire for the two-year period ending in June 1994. The objectives of this questionnaire.were:

1. To evaluate the extent to which vocational education, employment and training programs inthe state represent a consistent, integrated, and coordinated approach to meeting the economicneeds of the State;

2. To evaluate the vocational education program delivery system assisted under Perkins, and thejob training program delivery system assisted under the Job Training Partnership Act interms of such delivery systems' adequacy and effectiveness in achieving the purposes of each ofthese Acts; and,

3. To make recommendations on the adequacy and effectiveness of the coordination betweenvocational education and the Job Training Partnership Act programs.

METHODOLOGY

The questionnaire was mailed to 26 JTPA Service Delivery Area (SDA) directors with 15, or 58%,responding; 58 Private Industry Council (PIC) educational representatives with 26, or 45%responding; 62 Education for Employment Regional Delivery System (RDS) directors with 31, or50% responding; and 40 community college deans with 22, or 55% responding. Of the total 186questionnaires sent, 94 (51%) were completed and returned. The cover sheet requested that eachrespondent identify which of the four groups he or she represented, his or her title, and theService Delivery Area, Regional Delivery System, community college, or other organization withwhich he or she is affiliated.

3

Each question was followed by a response format which listed the rating scores from 1 to 5,indicating lowest to highest ratings. Respondents expressed their opinions by circling the ratingscales and completing blanks where appropriate. Written comments on any of the questions werealso encouraged. Many of the questions also provided ratings for the present as well as forimprovement since 1991.

The questionnaire was divided into two sections with the first section completed by all fourgroups. The questions in the second section were identical except that the first part asked forresponses in relationship to JTPA programs, and the second partasked for responses inrelationship to vocational education.

QUESTIONS

Section One, Question One

1. How adequately and effectively has Illinois met Section 2 of the Carl D. Perkins VocationalEducation Act? It is the purpose of the Act to:

(1) assist the States to expand, improve, modernize, and develop quality vocationaleducation programs in order to meet the needs of the nation's existing and futureworkforce for marketable skills and to improve productivity and promote economicgrowth;

(2) assure that individuals who are inadequately served under vocational educationprograms are assured access to quality [individuals who are disadvantaged, who arehandicapped, men and women who are entering nontraditional occupations, adultswho are in need of training and retraining, individuals who are single parents orhomemakers, individuals with limited English proficiency, and individuals who areincarcerated in correctional institutions];

(3) promote greater cooperation between public agencies and the private sector inpreparing individuals for employment, in promoting the quality of vocationaleducation in the States, and in making the vocational system more responsive to thelabor market in the States;

(4) improve the academic foundations of vocational students and to aid in the applicationof newer technologies (including the use of computers) in terms of employment oroccupational goals;

(5) provide vocational education services to train, retrain, and upgrade employed andunemployed workers in new skills for which there is a demand in the State oremployment market;

(6) assist the most economically depressed areas of a State to raise employment andoccupational competencies of its citizens;

(7) assist the State to utilize a full range of supportive services, special programs, andguidance counseling and placement to achieve the basic purposes of this Act;

102

(8) improve the effectiveness of consumer and homemaking education and to reduce thelimiting effects of sex-role stereotyping of occupations, job skills, levels of competency,and careers; and

(9) authorize national programs designed to meet designated vocational education needsand to strengthen the vocational education research process.

OBSERVATIONS CONCLUSIONS

1. It should be noted that from 1.33% to 60% of the fifteenSDA respondents had "noopinion" on each of the ninequestions in the first part ofthis section.

1.1 The SDAs were the onlygroup to evaluate the state'sability to expand, improve,modernize, and developquality vocational educationprograms as less thanaverage currently and inregards to improvementssince 1991.

1.1

The high percentage of "no 1.opinion" from SDArepresentatives suggests alack of knowledge ofPerkins efforts in the stateby a significant number ofSDA personnel.

The community colleges'positive assessment of theimpact of vocationaleducational programs onunemployment may be dueto their greaterinvolvement withdislocated workersprograms, as compared toprograms for theeconomicallydisadvantaged.

1.1-9. The SDAs rated belowaverage seven of the nineareas regarding theadequacy and effectivenessof Illinois meeting thepurpose of the Perkins.These responses seem toindicate either a lack ofinformation on theperformance of programsoperated under Perkins ora genuine dissatisfactionwith the delivery andresults of these programs.

1.3

RECOMMENDATIONS

ICoVE, in conjunction withthe Illinois State Board ofEducation, the IllinoisCommunity College Board,the Illinois EmploymentTraining Partnership andthe Illinois Job TrainingCoordinating Councilshould sponsor statewideand/or regional seminarson Perkins and JTPAprograms that exist ineach region and theiroutcomes.

1.1-9. An additional telephone ormail survey of SDAsshould be undertaken todetermine the reasons fortheir poor ratings and lackof responses.

OBSERVATIONS

1.2 All four groups ofrepresentatives assessedaccess to quality vocationaleducation as above average,with the community collegeresponse significantly higherthan the other respondents.

1.3 The SDAs were the onlygroup which viewed thepromotion of greatercooperation between publicagencies and the privatesector as below average.

1.4 All four groups ofrepresentatives evaluated theimprovement of the academicfoundations of vocationalstudents as positive.

1.5 The SDA representativeswere the or 'y group to viewthe provisioii of vocationaleducation services to train,retrain, and upgradeemployed and unemployedworkers as less than averagecurrently and since 1991.

1.6 The SDA representativesrated the assistance to themost economically depressedareas of the state as verypoor, as they didimprovements since 1991.The community collegerepresentatives also gavepoor marks in this area forthe current period.

CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS

1.2 The agreement thatspecial populations haveaccessibility to vocationaleducation programs mayhave as much to do withthe American DisabilitiesAct as with coordination.

1.3 The SDA view of the lackof relevance of trainingand retraining to labormarket needs may reflectJTPA performancestandards with growingemphasis on training-related job placements

1.6 The SDA and communitycollege concerns about thelack of adequate assistanceto depressed areas inIllinois should beinvestigated for accuracy.

4

OBSERVATIONS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS

1.7 The SDA representatives alsorated the utilization of a fullrange of supportive servicesbelow average for the currentperiod, as well as forimprovement since 1991.

1.8 The SDA representativesrated the improvement of theeffectiveness of consumer andhomemaking education andthe reduction of limitingeffects of sex-rolestereotyping as belowaverage.

1.9 The SDA representativesrated the authorization ofnational programs designedto meet vocational educationneeds as below average. Boththe PIC and SDArepresentatives viewedimprovements since 1991 asbelow average.

2.

In terms of

QUESTIONS

Section One, Question Two

How adequately and effectively has Illinois met the Carl D. Perkins Vocation EducationAct

(1) The impact of program offerings on unemployment?(2) The accessibility of programs to special populations?(3) The relevance of training and retraining to labor market needs?(4) The improvement and expansion of programs to meet the state's workforce?(5) The promotion of economic growth?

OBSERVATIONS

2. In question 2, 40% to 53% ofthe 15 SDAs had no opinionin all five areas.

CONCLUSIONS

2. The high percentage of "noopinion" from the SDAsagain suggests lack ofinformation about ordissatisfaction with Perkinsprograms.

53

RECOMMENDATIONS

2.a Encourage both formaland informal exchange ofinformation aboutperformance requirementsand outcomes of Perkinsand JTPA programs.


2.1 With the exception of thecommunity colleges, whohighly rated the impact ofPerkins' program offerings onunemployment, the otherthree groups gave low marksto this question both for thecurrent period and forimprovements since 1991.The lowest ratings were fromthe SDAs.

2.2 All four groups viewed theaccessibility of programs tospecial populations positively;however, the vocationaleducation responses weresignificantly higher than theJTPA responses.

2.3 Regarding the relevance oftraining to labor marketneeds, the SDArepresentatives once againsplit from the other threegroups, rating this area belowaverage for the, currentperiod and since 1991.

2.4 All four groups rated theimprovement and expansionof programs positively for thecurrent period, but the JTPAgroups rated improvementsince 1991 below average.

2.5 The promotion of economicgrowth was viewed positivelyby all groups except the SDArepresentatives. Thecommunity colleges rated thisarea much higher than theothers.

2.1-5 The community colleges'positive assessment of theimpact of vocationaleducational programs onunemployment may be dueto their Small BusinessDevelopment Centers, aswell as greaterinvolvement withdislocated workersprograms as compared toeconomicallydisadvantaged programs.

2.2 The agreement thatspecial populations haveaccessibility to vocationaleducation programs mayhave as much to do withthe American DisabilitiesAct as with coordination.

2.3 SDAs' view of the lack ofrelevance of training andretraining to labor marketneeds may reflect JTPAperformance standardswith growing emphasis ontraining-related jobplacements.

6

RECOMMENDATIONS

2.b Encourage ISBE andDCCA to share Perkinsand JTPA informationwith one another and theirconstituencies.

QUESTIONS

Section One, Questions Three & Four

3. How adequately and effectively has JTPA met its stated purposes for Illinois?

4. How adequately and effectively has Illinois met the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA)

In terms of

(1) The impact of program offerings on unemployment?(2) The accessibility of programs to special populations?(3) The relevance of training and retraining to labor market needs?(4) The improvement and expansion of programs to meet the state's workforce?(5) The promotion of economic growth?

OBSERVATIONS

3. RDSs were the only group togive a below average rating tothe adequacy andeffectiveness of JTPA's statedpurpose in Illinois for boththe current period and forimprovements since 1991.

4. RDSs evaluated three of thefive questions in number fourbelow average.

4.1 RDSs evaluated the impact ofJTPA programs onunemployment as belowaverage, while the otherthree groups gave above-average ratings with thehighest ratings from theSDAs.

4.2 The ratings variedsignificantly in evaluatingJTPA's accessibility to specialpopulations. The PICs werebelow average, the SDAsevaluation well aboveaverage, and the vocationaleducation response aboveaverage.

CONCLUSIONS

3. The RDSs' low rating forJTPA's adequacy andeffectiveness indicates lackof information, genuinedissatisfaction, or turfissues.

4.1 RDSs have littleconfidence in JTPA'spositive impact onunemployment.

4.2 The PICs' low rating ofJTPA's access to specialpopulations suggests thatthey view the SDAs as"creaming* participants oras not having adequateprograms for specialpopulations, or PICs lackinformation in this area.

RECOMMENDATIONS

314. Increased communicationand information exchangebetween RDS and SDApersonnel should takeplace in a forum thatallows for honest, openexchange and debate.


4.3 All four groups ofrespondents gave positiveratings to the relevance ofJTPA's training programs tothe labor market needs.

4.4 The Regional DeliverySystem directors were theonly group to rate theimprovement and expansionof JTPA programs as belowaverage.

4.5 Interestingly, both the RDSsand the SDAs rated JTPA'spromotion of economicgrowth below average for thecurrent evaluation period.The total vocationaleducation response forimprovement since 1991 wasrated below average.

4.5 The view of both RDSs andSDAs that JTPA has littleimpact on economicgrowth may be based onthe reality that a singleprogram cannot have sucha major impact in acommunity, or it may befrustration with the lack ofemployment opportunitiesin some counties.

QUESTIONS

section One, Question Five

5. How adequately and effectively have the two Acts (Carl D. Perkins Vocational EducationAct and Job Training Partnership Act) been successful in coordinating and workingtogether in terms of increasing

(1) The impact of program offerings on unemployment?(2) The accessibility of programs to special populations?(3) The relevance of training and retraining to labor marker needs?(4) The improvement and expansion of programs to meet the state's workforce?(5) The promotion of economic growth?(6) The extent that secondary and postsecondary institutions are given the right of first

refusal to provide JTPA programs and services?

8

OBSERVATIONS

5. Question five, whichevaluates the coordinationbetween JTPA and vocationaleducation, had 33% to 53% ofthe SDA respondents givingno opinion for all 6 parts ofthis question; the SDAs whodid respond rated 4 of the 6questions in part five belowaverage.

5.1 Both the PICs and SDAsrated below averagecoordination's impact onprogram offerings to decreaseunemployment.

5.2 All four groups agreed thatcoordination has had apositive impact on theaccessibility of programs tospecial populations.

5.3 The SDA directors ratedbelow average coordinationincreasing the relevance oftraining and retraining tolabor market needs.

5.4 While the ratings of all 4groups were similarregarding the impactcoordination has on theimprovement and expansionof programs to meetstatewide workforce needs,the SDAs did rate it belowaverage.

CONCLUSIONS

5. With the exception ofhaving a positive impacton the accessibility ofprograms to specialpopulations, theeffectiveness ofcoordination is viewed byall four groups asmediocre.

RECOMMENDATIONS

5. The recently amendedJTPA legislation and itsrevised regulations havesignificantly changed someJTPA policy andrequirements. Informationon these changes should betransmitted to the PICsand vocational educationalinstitutions.Consideration should alsobe given to holdingregional or statewideworkshops to discuss thechanges and theirramifications.


5.5 The directors of both theSDAs and the RDSs rated thepromotion of economicgrowth through coordinationbelow average both for thecurrent period and forimprovements since 1991.

5.6 The representatives from thePICs, RDSs and communitycolleges all rated the extentto which secondary andpostsecondary institutionsare given the right of firstrefusal to provide JTPAprograms and services belowaverage.

5.6 Coordination in the area ofthe right of first refusalwas rated negatively byevery group except theSDAs. This result may bedue to the fact that theSDAs are required to havean open bidding processand suggests that thisrequirement may not beuniversally known in allareas.

QUESTIONS

Section One, Question Six

6. A variety of factors promote successful coordination of JTPA and vocational deliverysystems. How would you rate the following for your locality:

(1) The cooperative attitude of managers at state level?(2) The cooperative attitude of managers at local level?(3) The mutual needs and good of agencies, particularly related to serving clients

effectively?(4) The previous history of coordination?(5) The mechanisms to build consensus and resolve conflicts that may arise during

planning and implementation of coordination efforts?(6) The cross training of staff?(7) The joint planning among agencies?

10 3


6. The seven sections inquestion 6 examine thesuccess of the factors whichpromote successfulcoordination between the twosystems.

6.1 All four groups ofrespondents gave positiveratings to the cooperativeattitude of managers at thestate level.

6.2 All four groups gave verypositive ratings to thecooperative attitude ofmanagers at the local level.

6.3 The PIC, RDSs, andcommunity colleges all ratedthe effectiveness of themutual needs and good ofagencies in serving clientsquite highly. The SDAdirectors rated this factorsignificantly lower.

6.4 Three groups rated thehistory of coordination to beaverage with the RegionalDelivery System directorsrating it slightly belowaverage.

6.5 All four groups rated aboveaverage the mechanisms inplace to build consensus andresolve conflicts.

6.1,2 As a whole, coordinationwas viewed as just aboveaverage by all groups withthe exception of thecooperation from state andlocal managers inencouraging coordinationbetween the two programswho received higherratings. These individualsmay be perceived as moreneutral and, therefore,their efforts are givenmore validity.

6.3 The SDAs view thatconcern for the mutualgood of clients does notincrease coordination is aperception that should beexamined further.

6.1 State and local managersshould be encouraged tocontinue and expand theircoordination efforts.

6.2 A training program tocross-train staff membersshould be developed at thestate level and deliveredregionally or locally.


6.6 All four groups indicated thecross training of staffmembers was not adequate.

6.7 The JTPA responses ratedjoint planning amongagencies as below average,while the RDSs andcommunity colleges rated itabove average.

6.6 All four groups supportcross training of staffmembers.

QUESTIONS

Section One. Question Seven

7. Some agencies (SDAs - LEAs) have encountered barriers which have limited coordinationof JTPA and vocational programs. How would you rate the following for your locality:

(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)

The turf issues?The lack of knowledge of purposes and operation of other programs?The difference in program requirements, outcomes, and mandate interpretation?The different geographical boundaries of coordinating agencies?The incompatible procedures, forms, and/or management systems?The difficulty in working with staff from other agencies?The school schedule, such as semester-based vocational education programs, whichcannot easily adapt to JTPA training needs?

OBSERVATIONS

7. The seven parts of thisquestion evaluate thebarriers which have limitedcoordination of JTPA andvocational educationprograms. SDAs rated six ofthe seven barriers as seriousproblems.

7.1 Both the SDAs andcommunity colleges view turfissues as a serious problem.

CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 All respondents are awareof the barriers which limitcoordination and agree asto what they are. The onlyexception is geographicalboundaries which theSDAs alone view as abarrier.

12

7.a Since agreement exists onthe barriers tocoordination, the stateshould lead in presentingregional or local forumswhich would explore howto eliminate or reduce eachbarrier.

7.b Locally the PICs workingwith the RDSs shouldconsider forming a jointcommittee to explore waysto overcome these barriers.


7.2 While all four groups ratedthe lack of knowledge ofpurposes and operation of theother's programs about thesame, the JTPA responseindicated they view it as amore serious problem thandoes vocational education.

7.3 All four groups viewed thedifferences in programrequirements, outcomes, andmandate interpretations asserious problems tocoordination.

7.4 Only the SDA directorsindicate that differentgeographical boundariespresent a somewhat seriousproblem.

7.5 All four groups viewincompatible procedures,forms, and/or managementsystems as a serious problemto coordination.

7.6 While individual respondentsdisagreed, as a whole all fourgroups agreed that workingwith each other's staffmembers is not a seriousproblem.

7.7 The SDAs viewed schoolschedules, such as semester-based vocational educationprograms, as a barrier tocoordination.

7.3,5 The difference in programrequirements, outcomesand mandates results inincompatible procedures,forms and managementsystems. These are theonly barriers thatlegislation affects.However, betterunderstanding of eachother's programs is neededmore than legislativechanges.

13 C

QUESTIONS

Section One Questions Eight - Eleven

8. What is the title of the educational representative on your PIC?

9. Do you feel that the education representative on your PIC represents the educationalinstitutions in the SDA? If no, how could this be improved?

10. Has the education representative on your PIC communicated with all the educationalinstitutions in the SDA? How?

11. Have the educational institutions communicated with the PIC in their SDA? How?

OBSERVATIONS

8. The question requested thetitle of the educationalrepresentative on the PIC.The majority ofrepresentatives includedcommunity college vicepresidents, deans, anddirectors and regionalsuperintendents of schools.

CONCLUSIONS

8.-11.a A direct relationshipexists between who theeducationalrepresentative is on thePIC and who receivesinformation from PICmembers. Most of thePIC educationalrepresentatives wereidentified as beingaffiliated with thecommunity colleges or theregional superintendentof schools office. The PICmembers and thecommunity :lollegesbelieve these PICrepresentativescommunicate well withthe educationalcommunity while theRDSs disagreed. TheSDAs stated they did notknow if communicationtook place.

14

RECOMMENDATIONS

8-11.a. The educationalrepresentative(s) for eachPIC should communicateto the educationalinstitutions in the SDA.They should request thatthe PIC membercommunicate informationfrom PIC meetings withthem.


8.-11.b A direct relationship alsoexists between who is onthe PIC and the methodcommunication isreceived from the PICrepresentatives. Theindividuals in each groupwho receive informationfrom the educationalrepresentative wereasked to identify themethod(s) it was received.The two most commonmeans of communicatinginformation about PICmeetings are in person orin a general meeting.Newsletters and minuteswere used to a muchlesser degree. Thisindicates that the PICeducationalrepresentatives willcommunicate with thegroup they represent, butnot as effectively with therest of the educationcommunity.

9. From 75-84% of therespondents from the PICs,SDAs and communitycolleges rated therepresentation provided byeducational members on thePIC very high. Only 56% ofthe Regional Delivery Systemrespondents viewed thisrepresentation positively.

8-11.b/c. The selection ofeducationalrepresentative(s) for thePIC should be broadenedto include therepresentation 01 moreeducational institutionson the PIC in workforcedevelopment. Theeducationalrepresentative(s) shouldbe made aware of thenecessity tocommunicate PICmeeting information.


10. The degree to which the fourgroups viewed the PICeducation representative'scommunicating with all theeducational institutions inthe SDA was very mixed. Anear majority of the PIC andcommunity collegerespondents believed theydid. A near majority of theRegional Delivery Systemdirectors believed they didnot. A large majority of theSDA directors did not knowwhether they did or did notcommunicate with all theeducational institutions intheir SDA. Those whoanswered "yes" indicated themethod of communication.Most communication to allfour groups was done inperson during generalmeetings. Newsletters andminutes were used to a muchlesser degree.

11. The majority of all groupsstated that the educationalinstitutions communicatedwith the PIC in their SDA.However, 27-29% of the SDA,Regional Delivery System,and community collegerespondents did not knowwhether or notcommunication took place.

QUESTIONS

5ection One. Questions Twelve and Thirteen

12. Do you believe a professional training program for JTPA staff would be helpful?

13. Do you believe teacher and school administrators need to be more knowledgeable aboutJTPA?

16

OBSERVATIONS

12. A sizable majority of all fourgroups (95-65%) believe aprofessional training programfor JTPA staff would behelpful.

13. A sizable majority of all fourgroups (100-80%) also believeteachers and schooladministrators need to bemore knowledgeable al.-.911t.JTPA.

CONCLUSIONS

12-13 Consensus exists thatprofessional trainingneeds exist for JTPA staffmembers, as well as forteachers and schooladministrators.

RECOMMENDATIONS

12-13 With leadership fromDCCA, ISBE and ICCBand professional trainingprograms to inform theeducational communityand the JTPA communityabout each other'sprograms, goals,objectives, and outcomesshould be developed withthe local entities anddelivered either statewideor regionally.

QUESTIONS

Section One. Question Fourteen

14. ICoVE realizes that completing this survey has taken valuable time from you. Should weask Congress, as it reauthorizes the Carl Perkins Act, to change this CoVE mandate by

(1) Eliminating it as a requirement?(2) Lengthening the time between required reports?(3) Requiring it to be a joint report by CoVEs and JTCCs?(4) Only evaluating 8% programs?(5) Other suggestions:

OBSERVATIONS

14. The four parts to thisquestion examine ICoVE'sfederal mandate to evaluatethe coordination betweenvocational education andJTPA every two years.

CONCLUSIONS

14. Since all four groups concurthat the evaluation surveyand its report shouldcontinue and that the surveyshould evaluate more thanthe 8% programs, therespondents must believethe report has value and isworth their time tocomplete.

1704., J

RECOMMENDATIONS

14.a. ICoVE should continue thebiennial survey of theadequacy and effectivenessof coordination between thevocational educationinstitutions and JTPAprograms in Illinois.


14.1 All four groups indicated thatthis requirement should notbe eliminated. However, thecommunity colleges were theleast supportive with only56% wanting to retain theevaluation.

14.2 The vocational education andJTPA respondents split onwhether or not to lengthenthe time between requiredreports. Vocational educationsupported lengthening thetime requirements and JTPAdid not.

14.3 All four groups indicatedsupport to require the reportto be a joint report by CoVEsand JTCCs. However, thecommunity colleges split50/50 on this vote, and theRegional Delivery Systemsvoted 54% in favor and 46%against. Also, 42% of PICrespondents and 44% ofcommunity collegerespondents had no opinion.

14.4 A large majority of all fourgroups rejected the idea ofonly evaluating 8% programs.

14. The concurrence given to thereport's being a joint effortby CoVEs and JTCCs mightindicate a desire to see amore national perspective oncoordination.

18

RECOMMENDATIONS

14.b. ICoVE should explore a jointreport with the IJTCC.

SECTION TWO

Section Two is comprised of ten questions which evaluate the goals and delivery of vocationaleducation and JTPA.

QUESTIONS

Section Two, Question One

i. Goals. In reaching its goal, how much importance should JTPA/vocational educationprograms place on economic development and individual (or human) development?

OBSERVATIONS

1. While all four groups agreed that economic 1.development is above average in importance, allfour groups rated human development to bevery important.

CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS

The JTPA and vocational educationcommunity share the same goal of improvinghuman development. Therefore, thecoordination between the two groups shouldfocus its efforts on ways collaboration andcoordination can assist targeted groups intheir area.

QUESTIONS

Section Two. Question Two

2. Outcomes. How do you rate the following as they pertain to outcomes and successes ofJTPA/vocational programs in your Service Delivery Area/region?

Initial employmentRetention in employmentGetting a promotionWelfare reductionIncreased wagesContinuing to postsecondary educationCompleting secondary education

OBSERVATIONS CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS

2. From 27-35% of all PIC respondents had noopinion for all seven areas.

a. Initial employment was rated highly by thePIC, SDA, and community collegerespondents. Regional Delivery Systemdirectors rated this area slightly aboveaverage in importance.

2. The vocational education and JTPA systemsagree on the same six outcomes or successes fortheir programs. Therefore, coordination of effortsand collaboration on programs should focus onoutcomes both groups identify as successful.

19 2 7

OBSERVATIONS

b. Retention in employment was rated aboveaverage in importance by all four groups.

c. Getting a promotion was rated below average inimportance by the PIC and SDA respondents.The Regional Delivery Systems and communitycollege respondents rated this area slightlyabove average in importance.

d. Welfare reduction was rated above average byall four groups.

e. Increased wages was rated above average by allfour groups.

f. Continuing to postsecondary education wasrated well above average by every group exceptthe SDAs which rated it above average.

g. Completing secondary education was rated wellabove average by every group except theRegional Delivery System directors who rated itwell above average.


QUESTIONS

Section Two, Question Three

3. Outcomes. How do you rate the following as they pertain to the outcomes of theJTPA/vocational programs in your Service Delivery Area/region?

Improvement of basic skillsDevelopment of occupational/vocational skillsWork maturity skillsEmployability skillsJob search assistance

OBSERVATIONS

3. The PIC respondents had from 23-27% noopinion in four areas.

a. Improvement of basic skills was rated highby every group except the PIC respondents,who rated it above average.


3. Both the JTPA and vocational educationrespondents rated high or above average theoutcomes for basic skills, the development ofoccupational/vocational skills, and job searchassistance. The groups should build on thesemutual strengths and collaborate on theseprograms.

201')

e..5

OBSERVATIONS

b. Development of occupational/vocationalskills was rated very high by every groupexcept the PIC respondents who rated itabove average.

c. Work maturity skills were rated high byevery group except the PIC respondents whorated it average.

d. Employability skills were rated high byevery group except the PIC respondents whorated it average.

e. Job search assistance was rated high by theSDA directors and above average by theother three groups.


QUESTIONS

Section Two, Question Four

4. Instructional/Training Methods. For most JTPA/vocational education participants, howsuccessful are the following methods of providing training?

On-the-job training (OJT) without classroom instruction/trainingOn-the-job training with classroom instruction/trainingClassroom instruction/training without on-the-job training

OBSERVATIONS

4. F - all three areas 31-38% of PIC respondentshad no opinion.

a. OJT without classroom instruction wasrated average in success by the PIC andSDA respondents and below average by theRegional Delivery System and communitycollege respondents.

b. OJT with classroom instruction was ratedabove average by the PIC and SDArespondents and high by the RegionalDelivery System and community collegerespondents.

c. Classroom instruction/training without OJTwas rated above average by the SDA andcommunity college respondents and belowaverage by the PIC and Regional DeliverySystem respondents.


4. The community colleges and RDSs place littleconfidence in OJT without classroom instruction,while OJT with classroom instruction had theapproval of all four groups. The vocationaleducation system should collaborate with JTPAin establishing training/OJT programs with localbusinesses and labor unions.

21

QUESTIONS

Section Two, Question Five

5. JTPA Performance and Placement Standards.

(a) To what extent do performance standards affect recruitment of JTPA adultparticipants?

(b) To what extent do performance standards affect recruitment of JTPA youthparticipants?

5. Vocational Education Performance and Placement Standards.

(a) If vocational education reimbursement were based on performance standards (includingplacement in a job or continuing in education), would it affect recruitment?

(b) If vocational reimbursement for serving special (at-risk) populations were based onperformance standards (including placement in a job or continuing education), would itaffect the extent to which these populations were served?


5.a/b The PIC and SDA respondents differedsharply in their views of the effect ofperformance standards on recruitment forboth youth and adults. The PIC respondentsbelieve that 60% of the time performancestandards would always or usually affectadult recruitment and 15-45% of the timethey would always or usually affect youthrecruitment. PIC respondents also believe40% of the time standards would occasionallyaffect adult recruitment and 55% of the timethey would occasionally affect youthrecruitment. The SDA respondents believethat 53% of the time performance standardswould occasionally affect adult recruitmentand 27% of the time they would never affectadult recruitment. They also believe that40% of the time performance standardswould occasionally affect youth recruitmentand that 40% of the time they would neveraffect youth recruitment.

5.a/b The PIC educational representativesapparently believe that performancestandards cause the SDAs to "cream"participants in their recruiting efforts, whilethe SDAs disagree with this assessment. TheSDAs should consider presenting informationto the PIC and its committees on the numberof high-risk individuals they serve in order toprovide a basis for judging recruiting efforts.

22

OBSERVATIONS

5.a/b The Regional Delivery System and 5.a/bCommunity College respondents consideredhow recruitment of adults and youth wouldbe affected if vocational educationreimbursement were based on performancestandards including job placement orcontinuing in education. These tworespondents were much closer in theirviewpoints. The Regional Delivery Systt mrespondents believed that 66% of the timperformance standards would affect theirrecruitment of adults and 69% of the tim(they would affect their recruitment of youth.For the same categories the communitycollege respondents indicated 60% and 62%,respectively. The Regional Delivery Systemrespondents believed that 31% of the timeperformance standards would occasionallyaffect the recruitment of adults and 24% ofthe time occasionally affect the recruitmentof youth. The community college believedthe effect on recruitment would be 30%occasionally for adults, 33% for youth.


The RDSs and community colleges bothbelieve there is a direct correlation betweenperformance standards and "creaming" inrecruitment for participants. They mightdiscuss this issue with JTPA personnel todiscover why they feel performance standardsdo not have a significant impact onrecruitment.

QUESTIONS

Section Two, Question Six

6. Planning and Coordinhtion. To what extent do you perceive JTPA/vocational educationusing the following activities or arrangements to coordinate planning and reduceduplication at the local level?

(a) Joint planning of JTPA education/vocational education (Perkins) funded activities(b) Review of grants/applications for JTPA/vocational education funding(c) Cress-representation on PICs and vocational advisory committees(d) Provide lists of needed training programs/Provide a list of programs to SDAs(e) Participate in coordination agreements, both formal and informal(0 Other (please specify)

23

OBSERVATIONS

6. For four of the five areas, 31 - 35% of the PICrespondents had no opinion.

a. All four groups of respondents viewed jointplanning as average in coordinatingplanning and reducing duplication.

b. All four groups viewed mutual review ofgrants and application as average incoordinating planning and reducingduplication.

c. Three of the four groups viewed cross-representation of PICs and vocationaladvisory committees as average incoordinating planning and reducingduplication. The Regional Delivery Systemrespondents found this activity belowaverage in effectiveness.

d. The PICs and SDAs viewed providing listsof needed training programs of averageeffectiveness in increasing planning andreducing duplication as did the RegionalDelivery System respondents. Thecommunity college representatives highlyrated this activity.

e. All four groups highly rated participation incoordination agreements for coordinatingplanning and reducing duplication.


6. The only activity perceived to be highly effectivein coordinating planning and reducingduplication at the local level was participation incoordination agreements. This result mightindicate that when coordination agreements arenegotiated and signed, everyone is clear as totheir respective roles and responsibilities.Whenever possible, collaborative activities shouldbe detailed in written agreements between JTPAand vocational education programs.

24

3 2

QUESTIONS

Section Two, Question Seven

7. Council Membership.

(a) Is there a JTPA representative on the vocational education advisory council? Is there avocational education represt .itative on the SDA's Private Industry Council?

(b) If yes, to what extent does the JTPA representative communicate vocational educationprograms, activities, etc., to the PIC? If yes, to what extent does the vocationaleducation representative communicate JTPA projects, activities, etc., to the vocationaleducation programs in the regional delivery system or community college districtsserved by the SDA?


7.a. Only 32% of the PIC and 14% of the SDArespondents know that a JTPA representative ison the vocational education advisory council.Fifty-three percent of the PIC respondents and50% of the SDA respondents stated that theydid not know, and 16% of the PIC and 36% ofthe SDA respondents know that there is not arepresentative. Forty-five percent of theRegional Delivery System and 60% of thecommunity college respondents know there is arepresentative on the PIC; 24% of the RegionalDelivery Systems and 25% of the communitycolleges state there is no representative on thePIC; and 31% of the Regional Delivery Systemsand 15% of the community college respondentsindicated that they do not know.

b. Those who answered "yes" to the above questionwere asked to what extent the representativescommunicate information from these meetings.All four groups indicated that they sometimesreceived the information.

7. The vocational education respondents are muchmore aware of their representation on PICs thanthe JTPA respondents are of their representationon vocational education advisory councils. Noindication was given in written comments byJTPA as to why this is so. RDSs should considerinforming the PICs and SDAs in their areas as towho represents them on the advisory council.

QUESTIONS

Section Two. Question Eight - Ten

8. Receiving Information. How does the JTPA community learn about the vocationaleducation activities, meetings, special services, and programs available? How does theRDS and/or community college learn about the JTPA/PIC activities, meetings, trainingslots needed, special services, and programs needed, etc.?

25

9. Communication. How does the JTPA community communicate with vocational educationproviders in the regional delivery system and community college district regarding thetraining services they are capable of providing vocational education? How does the RDSand/or community college communicate with the SDAs in the region or district regardingthe instructional/training services they are capable of providing for JTPA participants?

10. Quarterly Coordination Meetings. Have you attended an interagency quarterlycoordination meeting? If yes, how do you think it was helpful? If no, what topic would behelpful?


8. For the PIC, SDA and RDS respondents the twogreatest ways they received the aboveinformation was in person and at conferences.For the community college it was from PICeducational representatives and requests forproposals.

9. The greatest way all four groups learned abouteach other's training services and programs wasin person. The second greatest way for PIC andRegional Delivery System respondents was atconferences. The second greatest way for SDAsis through requests for proposals, and thesecond greatest way for community college isthrough their PIC representatives.

10. Of the respondents to the survey, those whosaid they had attended a quarterly coordinationmeetingwere 42% of the PIC, 67% of the SDAs,79% of the Regional Delivery Systems, and 62%of the community colleges.

AV \ 027DD497w-6

8./9. The greatest communication, coordination andinformation exchange occurs in person and atconferences. Requests for proposals alsoranked high as an effective means ofcommunication. The related state agencies, aswell as the local entities, should work togetherto develop and present informationalconferences at the state, regional and locallevels. An effort should also be made toencourage JTPA and vocational educationentities to invite one another to existingconferences.

10. The two groups seem to place importance onattendance at interagency quarterlycoordination meetings. This attendance shouldbe encouraged since there seems to be a directrelationship between attending meetings andcoordination efforts.

r14

26

ILLI

NO

IS C

OU

NC

ILO

N V

OC

AT

ION

AL

ED

UC

AT

ION

100

ALZ

INA

BU

ILD

ING

100

NO

RT

H F

IRS

T S

TR

EE

TS

PR

ING

FIE

LD. I

LLIN

OIS

627

02-5

186

217/

782-

2892

An

Arq

ued

Opp

orta

usity

/Affi

rNw

ntee

Aat

kos

insp

loye

rP

rinte

d by

the

Aut

horit

y of

the

Stu

n of

Illin

ois

Jww

199

6 4.

5M 7

84-9

9 N

o.49

7

1,71

,pr

inte

d on

',ro

b!. P

im0=

document resume ce 069 365 - eric · 2014. 7. 18. · document resume ed 383 933 ce 069 365 title...

Documents