DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 375 292 CE 067 449

TITLE Coordination of Job Training Partnership Act andOccupational Education: The Goal- -More EffectiveServices.

INSTITUTION Nevada State Council on Occupational Education,Carson City.

PUB DATE May 93NOTE 26p.; Document contains small print.PUB TYPE Reports Research/Technical (143)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS *Cooperative Planning; *Coordination; Educational

Cooperation; Educational Legislation; EducationalPlanning; Federal Legislation; Federal Programs; *JobTraining; Partnerships in Education; PostsecondaryEducation; Public Policy; Secondary Education;*Statewide Planning; *Vocational Education

IDENTIFIERS *Job Training Partnership Act 1982; *Nevada

ABSTRACTIn December 1991, the Nevada Workforce Group and

Nevada Workforce Agencies (NWA) were formed in an effort toexpand/improve joint planning and collaboration between occupationaleducation (OE) and job training (JT) throughout Nevada. The NWAconsists of the directors, administrators, or designatedrepresentatives of 13 state agencies involved in OE/JT. In August1992, the NWA undertook a project to assess and extend/improve thecoordination of Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) and OE programsin Nevada. Ten points related to enhancing coordination werediscussed at six meetings between the NWA and local partners at threesites in northern, southern, and rural Nevada. It was concluded thatNevada's lack of a comprehensive policy for work force developmenthas resulted in fragmented OE/JT efforts largely supported by federalfunds. The following actions were recommended: Nevada should developa structured policy recognizing the need for OE/JT providers to shareresponsibility for work force development and directing statefinancial contributions accordingly; the legislative support andstate appropriations needed to support coordination should beidentified and reported annually; and local recipients of OE/JTPAshould submit reports justifying their use of federal funds andsummarizing local coordination efforts and activities. (MN)

***********************************************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

***********************************************************************

tb

Points of view or opinions stated in thisdocument do not necessarily representofficial OERI position or policy.

.\U.S. EPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Odic t Educational Research and ImprovementED ATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION

CENTER (ERIC)This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it.

Minor changes have been made toimprove reproduction quality.

-PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC).-

Nevada Council On Occupational Education

Eric Beyer, PresidentIndustry

Jeanne Jones, First Vice-PresidentSmall Business/State JTCC

Floyd 'Wayne' Grimes, Second Vice-PresidentLabor

Charlene Rogerson, Second Vice-PresidentSpecial Populations

Claudette Enus, Past PresidentIndustry

Douglas Burris Elsie DoserPostsecondary Postsecondary

Fred Davis Kathleen FrosiniBusiness Secondary

Denny MartindaleBusiness

John MathewsAgriculture

Cliff McClainPostsecondary

Michael L. Rask,Executive Director

Rose Mary Johnson,AdministrativeAssistant

Phillip 'Pancho' WilliamsLabor

COORDINA7ION OF JOB TRAININg PARTNERSHIP AC7

AND OCCUPA7IONAL EDUCA7ION:

7HE goAL - MORE EFFECTIVE SERVICES

PAepahed By

The Nevada Council on Occupationat Education

In Rehponhe 7o

The Caat D. Pankin4 Vocationa.1 and Applied 7echnotogyEducation Act o, 1990, Section 112, (d)(10)(4)(i)

May 1993

4

COORDINATION OF JOB TRAINING PARTNERSHIP ACT

AND OCCUPATIONAL EDUCATION:

THE GOAL - MORE EFFECTIVE SERVICES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION Page 1

COORDINATION Page 3

COMMENDATIONS Page 17

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Page 18

GENERAL REFERENCES Page 20

5

COORDINATION REPORT

Introduction

The Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology ActAmendments of 1990, Section 112 (d)(10)(A)(1), requires the StateCouncil on Vocational Education to evaluate at least every twoyears "the extent to which vocational education, employment andtraining programs in the State represent a consistent,integrated, and coordinated approach to meeting the economicneeds of the State". The charge given State Councils is morecomplicated than one first perceives. In order to fully respondto the mandate, each Council must first establish the parametersof the evaluation.

Nevada, like many other western rural states, isexperiencing a significant growth in both population andemployment. Clark County (Las Vegas) is currently one of thefastest growing urban communities in America. While the fourmajor growth areas, Washoe, Elko, Douglas and Clark counties, areexperiencing significant increases, the rural counties of theState remain static. The econ97aic needs of Nevada are perceivedvery differently based upon the area from which one originates.Generalizations relating to occnpational education and employmentand training, for the most part, are based upon the aggregateneeds of the State.

Nevada has become increasingly successful in luring businessrelocation and expansion into the State. The Reno Chamber ofCommerce identifies the Nevada tax structure as the number onereason for business relocation. At the same time theavailability of trained and employment-ready population has beena detractor from economic development initiatives. In the NevadaCouncil on Occupational Education report titled, An Analysis ofthe Adequacy and Effectiveness of the Job Training PartnershipAct and Occupational Education Programs in Nevada dated April1993, the Council found the systems to be incapable of meetingthe need for new 'and replacement employees given the currentdemand. The current systems produce approximately 6,800 trainedindividuals and the 1993 demand was projected to be over 22,000*.At full capacity, the current education and training system inNevada can meet less than one-third (1/3) of the current Stateneed for new and replacement employees.

* (Nevada Council on Occupational Education, An Analysisof the Adequacy and Effectiveness of the Job TrainingPartnership Act and Occupational Education Programs inNevada, April 1993, p. 5)

1

6

Since the early 1980's Nevada has strived to expand theeconomic base of the State. The key to expansion was and isbusiness and industry diversification. If Nevada is to maintainits very favorable tax environment (in 1989 Nevada had the thirdlowest tax rate in America), it must increase the statewideeconomic base while at the same time increasing the State's grossState product and tax base.

Currently, Nevada is importing the majority of the skilledlabor to meet current labor demand. The population flow fromoutside of Nevada has contributed significantly to the State'spopulation growth and the demand for public services. Nevada isunable to effectively train its young people for high skill jobs,forcing them to migrate to areas where skill competition is lessdemanding, or to pursue training outside the State.

In order to meet the economic needs of the State, jobtraining and occupational education must meet the needs ofcurrent and future employers for trained and productiveemployees. To meet the needs of the State in a governmentalsense, the current demand for employees must be met by educating,training, or retraining the State's current residents. Tocontinue the flow of skilled employees from outside the Statewill only result in ever increased demand for already overburdened public services.

Three key words govern the mandate given to each StateCouncil; "consistent, integrated and coordinated approach to meetthe economic needs of the State". For 15 years the NevadaCouncil on Occupational Education has evaluated and reported uponthe State's ability to meet its own manpower needs. Since 1986the Council has observed and commented on and maderecommendations regarding coordination of services for workforcedevelopment. Public job training in Nevada has for the past 15years been funded solely by Federal appropriation. First,through the Manpower Development and Training Act, then theComprehensive Employment and Training Act, and now the JobTraining Partnership Act. Nevada has never contributedsignificantly to the training or retraining of its sociallydependent population except through the community college system.

Nevada has relied heavily on the Federal vocationaleducation appropriations to bring change and expansion tosecondary and postsecondary occupational programs. Beyond a verysmall general operational appropriation, Nevada makes nocontinuing contribution to occupational education programimprovement or support for program expansion or innovation.

Being dependent solely upon federal funds for "training" andoccupational educalion designated funds, operations of programshave remained di ctly separated under the authority of thegoverning agencit nd boards. Programmatically, integration hasnot occurred in ada and will not occur due to the authoritiesestablished in State statutes for operations. There being no

State funds appropriated specifically for programs andconsidering the autonomy of operations granted each agency, stateboard and local board of education. it is unlikely integrationwill occur on a broad basis. The one shining exception to thehistory of programs in Nevada has been through the Job TrainingPartnership Act 82 setaside for education and the use of Carl D.Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act, toattack specific population problems through integrated use offunds and establishment of programs. The success of the SingleParent and Displaced Homemaker Centers has served as a model forjoint effort.

Coordination

In May of 1992, the Council issued a report titled, CreatingGreater Incentives for Joint Planning and Collaboration BetweenOccupational Education and Job Training. The report was aneffort to bring about the establishment of an administratorscoordination group to give leadership to cooperative effortsamong agencies. The Council submitted the following endorsementsand recommendations:

ENDORSEMENT 1

"Responding to the ever increasing call of businessand industry involvement in reports likeAmerica 2000, and the purposes of the JTPA and theCarl D. Perkins Act, the Nevada Council endorses thecontinuance of the State Job Training PartnershipCoordinating Council, Private Industry Councils,State Technical Committees, and the State Council onVocational Education. This structure was created byCongress to provide for third party (private sector)assessment, recommendations, and reporting for theimprovement of programs.

RECOMMENDATION 1

After researching the recommendations made by theNevada State Council on the effectiveness ofcoordination between the Job Training PartnershipAct (JTPA) and vocational education since 1981,the Nevada Council supports the concept of a HumanResource Investment Council (HRIC) composed of thestate level administrators of:

A. The Carl D. Perkins Vocational and AppliedTechnology Education Act

B. The Job Training Partnership ActC. The Adult Education ActD. The WagnerPeyser Act

3

8

E. Title IV of the Social Security Act (JOBS)F. Section 6 of the Food Stamp Act of 1977G. The Higher Education ActH. The Elementary and Secondary Education ActI. The Emergency Immigrant Education ActJ. The Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act

The HRIC should be chaired by the Governor or theGovernor's designee, not eligible underadministrative categories. Each member of theHRIC should be authorized to expend funds fromtheir state administrative set-aside to supportthe operational costs of the HRIC.

RECOMMENDATION 2

It shall be the responsibility of the HRIC todevelop and monitor a Coordination Plan. TheCoordination Plan will be developed by the HRIC,and therefore, those individuals administrativelycapable of making change in each of the relatedprogram plans and/or contracts.

The Coordination Plan should include the following:

A. The HRIC shall develop a written cooperativeagreement for use with participating agenciesgoverning authorities;

B. A description of all common participant goals(i.e. job placement, career exploration,placement services, etc.) for all federallysupported human resource development efforts;

C. A description of current activities conductedregardless of funding source(s);

D. Where common goals exist and program standardsare established, uniform definitions of programparticipant eligibility shall be used when likesources of funds are available to serve suchparticipants;

E. Development of a granting process within thestate which will guarantee common distributionof grant proposal information;

F. A priority for funding of programs thatdemonstrate operations in support of multiplefunding sources; and

G. Development of an evaluation process whichshould be used to evaluate programs thathave been coordinated with the HRIC."

The need to coordinate services extends well beyond theprogrammatic operations of Job Training and OccupationalEducation. Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) administratorshave been required to coordinate planning and services with many

of the agencies cited for participation. Barbara Weinberg,Director of the Nevada Job Training Office, noted that the mostsuccessful coordination has arisen from client necessity and theinability of one agency to finance full service. Mandatedcoordination will, in fact, result in documentation ofactivities, but it is the effort to provide meaningful serviceswith highly limited financial resources which will result in truecoordination.

Federal policy and legislation, existing and proposed, willresult in an ever increasing linkage between job training, asadministered by the Department of Labor, and vocationaleducation, administered by the Department of Education. Currentregulatory efforts and administrative policy have driven JTPAyouth programs to expanded summer efforts, reducing year-roundefforts and requiring the academic programs to be provided by thepublic school system.

The State Council strongly endorses recent initiativesundertaken to foster expanded coordination in Nevada. Theorganization of the Nevada Workforce Group is a credit to each ofthe agencies who contribute to the overall effectiveness ofworkforce preparation in Nevada.

The development and operation of the Nevada Workforce Groupis central to the Council's assessment of coordination. Thepreliminary report prepared on the first year of operations hasbeen included in this report for clarity.

A Statewide Initiative For Coordination - In December of1991, Nevada Governor, Bob Miller, convened a group to discussstrategies to enhance the equality of Nevada's workforce. Theindividuals were representatives of boards and councils whichbecame known as the Nevada Workforce Group (NWG), and theadministrators of agencies which are identified as the NevadaWorkforce Agencies (NWA).

Chairs of the following boards and councils arerepresented in the Nevada Workforce Group (NWG):

Commission on EconomicDevelopmentState Board of EducationEmployment SecurityAdvisory CouncilState Job TrainingCoordinating CouncilVocational RehabilitationAdvisory Board

State Industrial InsuranceSystem Board of Directors

5

Lt. Gov. Sue WagnerCarley Sullivan

Paul Haves

Jessie Emmett

Kathy Ferguson

Rabbi Mel Hecht

0

University and CommunityCollege System Board ofRegentsState Welfare Board

Carolyn SparksGigi Hay Chisel

Directors, administrators or their designees of thefollowing State agencies are represented in theNevada Workforce Agencies (NWA):

Department of DataProcessing

Commission on EconomicDevelopment

Department of EducationEmployment SecurityDepartmentState Job Training OfficeState Library and ArchivesState Occupational InformationCoordinating Committee

Commission on PostsecondaryEducationRehabilitation Division,Department of Human ResourcesState Industrial InsuranceSystem

University and CommunityCollege System of Nevada

Welfare Division, Departmentof Human Resources

Office of the Governor(Ex Officio)

Karen Kavanau

Cecilia CoilingDr. Eugene Paslov

Stan JonesBarbara WeinbergJoan Kerschner

Valorie Hopkins

David Perlman

Steve Shaw,

Carl Swain

Doug Burris

Jackie Cheney

Coni Longero

Dr. Doug Burris, representing the University and CommunityCollege System was selected as the MIA's first chairman. The NWAmet throughout 1992 and established a process for coordinatingactivities at the State level. The NWA also developed, securedfunding for, and initiated a project to extend that coordinationto the local level, at which the frontline services to clientsare provided.

The purposes, objectives and operations of the NWG/NWA weredetailed in the document titled, Report to the Nevada WorkforceAgencies and the Nevada Workforce Group, January 1993 andprepared by Simon and Associates.

"The purpose of the Ylvada Workforce Agenciesis to provide a structure for interagencycoordination and to serve as liaisons fromthe agencies the members represent.

Both the Nevada Workforce Group and theNevada Workforce Agencies are voluntary,

6

11

advisory coalitions of individualrepresentatives working together; neither is anorganization itself.

Goal - The goal of the Nevada WorkforceGroup/Nevada Workforce Agencies is to enhancethe quality of Nevada's current and futureworkforce by improving service to clientele,including employers and employees, throughinteragency coordination.

Objectives - The following objectives wereadopted to further the stated goal:

- To increase knowledge regarding the humanresource development missions of relatedagencies,

- To increase knowledge regarding the clientsof related agencies.

- To establish procedures for ongoinginteraction.

- To determine long term ane short termcoordination priorities.

Operating Guidelines establish for the 'NWA -Membership:

- Initial members of NWA are the directors/administrators or their designees of thefollowing agencies:

Data Processing EducationEconomic Development Job TrainingEmployment Security LibraryWelfareRehabilitationState Industrial InsuranceUniversity and Community CollegeOccupational Information CoordinatingCommittee

(SOICC)

- The Office of the Governor is an ex officiomember of the NWA.

- New member agencies may be added asappropiate.

Meetings:

Regular meetings of the NWA will be held atleast bimonthly or as needed to achieve thegoals of the NWA during the organizationalyear (7/1/92-6/30/93).

The Nevada Workforce Group shall meet atleast annually to review the activities ofthe NWA.

Leadership:

The Chair of NWA serves an annual term from7/1 to 6/30 each year.

- The Chair rotates annually in alphabeticalorder by agency in the order listed under"Membership".

- The Vice Chair is a member following theChair on the Membership list.

The Vice Chair conducts meetings in theabsence of the Chair.

Ad Hoc Committees may be established asappropriate.

Philosophy:

- NWA is advisory and voluntary and operates byconsensus to promote effective, efficientservice to clients.

Project Development - Through a federal grantto the State Job Training Office, funds wereobtained to hire a consultant to coordinate theinitiation of the NWA's goals and.objectives ona statewide basis. The consulting firm ofSimon and Associates was selected by award ofbid, and discussions of the project scopebetween the consultant and the NWA were begunin August 1992.

The NWA determined that the project objectivescould most effectively be met by extending thecoordination already in place among Stateagency administrators to their localcounterparts in the northern, southern, andrural areas of the State. Each agencyadministrator selected local counterparts whowere to be invited, by a letter from GovernorMiller, to each of two local meetings.

3

Two meetings were held with each local areaagency group in northern Nevada, southernNevada and the outlying area as follows:

Reno October 5 and November 10, 1992Las Vegas October 6 and November 4, 1992Elko October 16, and November 12, 1992"

The meetings held by the NWA and the follow -up meetingsconducted at the local level were reported in the 1993 NevadaWork Group Summary.

"Present Level of Coordination - Examplesof effective coordination exist in all areasof the State and provide a strong foundationfor continued efforts in this regard. Whilethere may be comparable activities performedby different agencies throughout the State,they are often provided to differentpopulations or are different segments of broadtasks. Agencies demonstrated a strongwillingness to look at coordination wheneverthe possibility exists that comparableactivities are delivered to the samepopulations It should be noted that thisreport is a summary of future opportunities,and not a comprehensive audit of currentcoordination.

Examples of the existing coordination includecoordinated assessment among VocationalRehabilitation, Employment Security, SIIS,Department of Prisons, Parole and Probation andSchool Districts; coordination of activitiesbetween Economic Development groups, SchoolDistricts, Community Colleges and JTPA (JobTraining Partnership Act) agencies;coordination of training activities provided byJTPA and Welfare agencies; and many otherspecific examples of local programcoordination.

One of the most extensive coordination effortsat the local level will be the planned NucleusPlaza resource center in Las Vegas, whichorganizers hope will be a cooperative effortbetween Nevada Business Services (a JTPAagency), State Welfare, the Community Collegeof Southern Nevada, Nevada Employment SecurityDepartment, the Learning Center (a privatesector entity), Clark County Social ServicesDepartment and other agencies. The resourcecenter hopes to have some elements of theintake process coordinated.

9

14

Many obstacles to coordination currently exist.These include regulatory and funding sourcerequit.ements that mandate the same or a similaractivity to be done by different agencies inslightly different ways; technologicalincompatibilities; competition for limitedfunding; the time, effort and physicaldistances required for coordination in a

aituation of scarce resources; the differentuses of terminology from agency to agency; thevarious interpretations of authority amongagencies; and the existence of underlyingterritoriality.

Opportunities for Enhancing Coordination -There are essentially four levels ofinteragency coordination possible, listed inorder of increasing difficulty:

I. Coordination of Staff - Thisincludes activities such asinteragency meetings and taskforces, shared inservicetreinings, etc.

II. Coordination of Data and Information- This includes pooling or sharinginformation that multiple agenciesuse, with the goal of improvingservice to clients. This can bedone either electronically,verbally, or manually. Two majorobstacles to coordination of dataare technology and confidentialitylaws. Technological solutions arecostly but possible if theconfidentiality issues are resolved.New legislation is needed inNevada to clarify public agencies'capacity to share information onbehalf of a client. Questions whichmust be addressed include thefollowing: Is it the citizen'sdata or the government's? Doesgovernment have the right to sharecitizen data without the citizen'sspecific consent? What constitutesspecific consent, if it is required?What data is confidential and whatdata is not?

10

15

III. Coordination of Programs andServices - This includes suchactivities as one agency providingservices to clients of anotheragency by agreement, as well asdesigning programs and services ofdifferent agencies as an organizedcurriculum to better meet theclients' needs. It may also includecross-enrollment of clients in oneagency's programs for programs ofanother agency, or coordinatingresources such as space, equipmentand expertise in the delivery ofprograms and services.

IV. Coordination of Policies andProcedures - This includesanalyzing current and proposedpolicies and procedures toeliminate those which preventappropriate coordination amongagencies, where possible. Becausesome of those policies which inhibitcoordination are federal andtherefore outside the jurisdictionof the State, this task is along-term one.

Coordination at all four levels exists and canbe improved upon. Some coordination activitieswill necessarily be more difficult and takelonger than others, because they are moreresource - intensive or require action by othersoutside of State government.

All groups at the local level indicatedan interest in continuing to meet, andthey reported that the meetings hadenhanced their awareness of the missionsand services of other agencies and hadprovided ideas for improving services toclients through coordination. Staffing tosupport continued meetings, includingactivities such as distribution of meetingnotices and minutes, is an issue of concern tothe local groups, particularly in the outlyingareas. Any support that can be provided at theState level will be helpful in maintaining thelocal level meetings.

Sharing basic client information, perhapselectronically or through the use of shares

11

1.6

"face sheet" in the different agencyapplication processes, was identified as apriority for improving intake and referralservices to clients. Enhanced sharing ofconfidential client information it a highlycontroversial issue and will requireclarification by the Attorney General's Officeof the legal limits and requirements ofinteragency information exchange.Further, as stated above, new legislationwill be needed to effectively address thisopportunity to improve service.

Referral among the many agencies that mayserve a client already exists at varyinglevels of formality and effectiveness. Anopportunity to improve the effectiveness ofreferrals may come from strengtheningprocedures for giving feedback about theoutcome of the referral to the agency thatreferred the client initially.

The groups expressed interest in developing acommon method or methods of evaluating clientoutcomes statewide. A uniform definition ofwhat constitutes completing a program ofservice would be needed. Separate evaluationcrf.teria would probably be needed for each ofthe different categories of service providedby agencies, including information andreferral, income maintenance during job seekingand job training, and education and trainingservices.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

The local partners of the NWA were invited toexplore ten points of coordination, with thegoal of sharing ideas and informationthroughout the State and further supportinginteragency coordination. The following is a

summary of common themes of the discussions oneach of the points of coordination. A completesummary of the local discussions is availableas supporting material in the full report; itmust be noted that it is a report ofdiscussions, feelings and beliefs of theattendees, and is not edited for accuracy ofthose beliefs.

A. Development of procedures for local inter-agency working committees to meet/share/

12

p

coordinate/orient on a regularly scheduledbasis.

- All groups acknowledged the value of themeetings and indicated their intent tocontinue meeting. They all expressedthe need for administrative support toenable them to meet while continuing tobalance existing priorities.

B. Development of an overlay of availableclient education, training, employment andsupport services by type and location.

- Directories of service exist throughoutthe State; all local groups arecommitted to continuing to improve themas appropriate.

C. Identification of exemplary coordinationas well as opportunities for improvedcoordination.

- Many examples of excellent coordinationare found throughout the State.Agencies are to be commended for thelevel of coordination that exists, andall indicated their willingness tocontinue exploring additional avenues ofcoordination.

D. Review of intake processes, basic clientdata needs, and eligibility documentationrequirements.

- .Coordinating intake information andprocesses was acknowledged as a goalby all groups. Sharing of clientinformation is a necessary first step incoordinating intake processes, and thiswill require clarification by theAttorney General's Office of the legallimitations and requirements. Newlegislation will be needed to supportthis effort.

- The Nucleus Plaza resource center inLas Vegas hopes to have coordinatedintake. This pilot effort will providemuch-needed experience for expandingcoordinated intake to other areas of theState.

13

I8

E. Review of assessment processes and multi-agency acceptance and use.

- Coordination of assessment is currentlybeing done among VocationalRehabilitation, Employment Security,SIIS, the Department of Prisons, Paroleand Probation, School Districts andothers in some areas. Federallegislation will formalize multi-agency acceptance of assessments amongJTPA, Vocational Rehabilitation andSchool Districts.

F. Review of resource sharing, i.e., testingexpertise, labor market information,employment information.

- Information sharing is good for theavailable information. Interest existsin expanding labor market supply anddemand information. Information onspecific job opportunities is guardeddue to the competition among agenciesto find placements for their clientsin a tight job market.

Sharing of expertise occurs but isinformal.

G. Development of an effective referralmechanism.

- Referral is good and can be improved byformalizing feedback on the outcome ofthe referral to the referring agency.Groups in the north and south of theState are working on the development ofa common referral form to strengthen theprocess.

- An immediate avenue for improvingreferrals may be through increasedcross training of front-line workersto improve knowledge of the missions,services and basic eligibilityguidelines of other agencies.

H. Review of case management mechanisms toassure client access to all availableresources.

- Case management, in the sense of asingle worker assigned to coordinate all

14

19

possible services for a single client,does not exist, but through enhancementof referrals as mentioned above, thedesired objectives of case managementmay be achieved.

I. Development of a reporting mechanism toidentify service coordination.

- This was identified as a lower prioritygoal by all grcups, and would be an itemfor future discussions.

J. Development of a system for evaluation ofclient outcomes.

- All groups expressed an interest inimproving measurement of client outcomesand shared the difficulty of commonevaluation systems in the absence ofa definition of what constitutescompletion of a program of services.Additionally, tracking the clients ofthese agencies over time and geographyis a challenge in evaluating outcomes,as is the existence of conflictingevaluation requirements among differentagencies funded by the State and theFederal government. All groupsexpressed a willingness to continueworking on this objective and indicatedtheir desire to avoid creating anotherlayer of reporting requirements.

FUTURE AGENDA

At the State level, items identified whichmerit additional study and/or action includethe following:

Future Interagency Meetings - The NWA willcontinue to meet and has a formal structure inplace to expand its cooperative efforts. Inaddition, the NWA will continue to facilitatemeetings of the local counterparts. In somecases, local counterparts are Countydepartments, not reporting to State officials.The voluntary cooperation of these agencies hasbeen a significant component of the success oflocal coordination and should be encouraged.The NWA will also review proposed legislationduring the coming Legislative Session to ensure

15

20

1

that the goal of interagency coordination issupported.

Sharing Client Information All agenciesagreed that servi.les to clients would beimproved by sharing more client information,and they are interested in exploring methodsfor sharing information, either manually orelectronically. Efforts to provide electroniclinkages were enthusiastically supported.

Further clarification is needed from theAttorney General's Office, however, regardingwhat information may be shared among agencies,under what circumstances, and what wouldconstitute an acceptable release ofinformation form for agencies to use in givingclients the opportunity to have theirinformation shared. Additionally, asmentioned, new legislation will be needed.

Interagency Referral Processes - The referralprocess is active in all areas of the State.All participants were committed to improvedreferral, and they identified that consistent,formal,fzed feedback to referring agenciesregarding the outcome of referrals was alow-cost opportunity for immediate improvementin the referral process.

Common Measures for Evaluating Client Outcomes- There is great interest in improving theevaluation of outcomes in all agencies.Further discussions will be needed to developccmmon definitions of what constitutescompletion of programs, what constitutes"training", and what constitutes a unit ofservice in each agency.

Policy and Procedure Review Programspecialists from each agency should meet toexplore ways to improve coordination inexisting and future policies and procedures intheir respective agencies."

16

21

The findings of the NWA vary little from previous findingsof the Council as it relates to existing coordination. The pasttheme of coordination has been informality and dependency onindividuals' willingness to work together, and the availabilityof time on the part of program administrators. The studyconducted by the NWA is the most exhaustive ever undertaken inNevada to define the current status of broad-based coordination,and to analyze the current barriers to greater efforts.

In the 1989 Biannual Report of the Nevada Council onOccupational Education, the assumption of duplication of effortand programs at the State level on the part of Federal agencieswas discussed. Like the findings of the NWA, the Council foundlittle duplication of effort between Job Training andOccupational Education. Where there was duplication, the clientsand students varied so greatly that what appears as duplicationof programs was necessary to service all the varied populationsdescribed in Federal law.

The efforts of the NWA represent a new beginning forcoordination in Nevada. In the 20-year history of the NevadaCouncil on Occupational Education, there has never been such aneffort to coordinate services. Nevada is a state heavilydependent upon Federal programs to meet the workforce needs ofthe State and the education and training needs of the residentsof the State. The Council believes that this most recent effortto coordinate what is largely federally supported programs, istruly motivated by an effort to make maximum use of very limitedresources geared toward preparing a viable workforce for Nevada.

Prior to the completion of the 1992 work of the NWA, theNevada Council on Occupational Education had undertaken a processto assess the extent and viability of coordination between JobTraining and Occupational Education. Survey and interviewinstruments were developed which paralleled the efforts of theNWA. Realizing the obvious duplication of effort in assessingthe status of coordination, the Council opted to follow up on theNWA initiative and to delay further study until the efforts atthe State and local levels could be assimilated.

COMMENDATIONS

1. THE NEVADA WORKFORCE GROUP AND NEVADA WORKFORCE AGENCIES ARETO BE COMMENDED FOR THEIR LANDMARK EFFORTS TO GIVE STATEWIDELEADERSHIP TO COORDINATION OF WORKFORCE PREPARATIONSERVICES.

2. ACKNOWLEDGING THEIR ALREADY HEAVY WORKLOAD, THE COUNCILGIVES SPECIAL COMMENDATION TO BARBARA WEINBERG, DIRECTOR,OF THE NEVADA JOB TRAINING OFFICE, DR. DOUG BURRIS, VICECHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM OFNEVADA, AND DR. KEITH RHEAULT, DIRECTOR OF THE

17

22

OCCUPATIONAL AND CONTINUING EDUCATION BRANCH OF THENEVADA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, FOR THEIR PERSONALLEADERSHIP TO THE EFFORTS OF THE NWA AND ITS SUPPORTACTIVITIES.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

FINDING 1

The State of Nevada workforce development has followedfederal legislation and the funds provided through thatlegislation has dictated State Workforce (Manpower) Policy.The absence of a uniform State policy for workforcepreparation has led the State to a focus on programs gearedto special needs populations, which are now the centralfocus of federal initiatives on education and training.The lack of a comprehensive policy for workforcedevelopment has resulted in a fragmented effort largelysupported by federal funds. Where State funds do exist,occupational education priorities always fall far belowacademic education priorities. There being no policyfor training, little or no State funds are considered forthis priority.

RECOMMENDATION I

THROUGH The LEADERSHIP OF THE NEVADA.WORKFORCE GROUPMEMBERS REPRESEN7INg 7hE S7A7E BOARD OT EDUCATION, NEVADAUNIVERSITY BOARD OF REGENTS AND THE STATE 70B TRAININGCOORDINATINg COMMITTEE, 70 7he gOVERNOR, 7hE STATE COUNCILON OCCUPATIONAL EDUCATION RECOMMENDS 7HE DEVELOPMENT OF ACOMPREHENSIVE POLICY FOR WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT IN NEVADA.The POLICY ESTABLISHED SHOULD RECOGNIZE ThE NEED TORCON7INUA7ION OF EACH AGENCY BASED UPON The UNIQUE PURPOSESFOR TheIR EXISTENCE BEYOND The COMMON ReSPONSIBILI7Y OFWORKFORCE DeVELOPNENT, AND PROVIDE A S7RUCTUReD POLICY WHICHWOULD DIREC7 FUTURE STATE FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS 70WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT:

FINDING 2

In order to effect major change in the delivery of workforcedevelopment services, some State Legislature changes will benecessary. An example of an area of concern as identified willbe clarification of public agencies' capacity to shareinformation on behalf of clients. Another may be the use ofState appropriated funds to be used as match for futuremulti-agency grants.

18

23

RECOMMENDATION 2

7HE S7A7E COUNCIL RECOMMENDS 70 7HE Nog 7HA7 CONSIDERATIONBE GIVEN 70 7HE SUBMISSION OF AN ANNILI.L PROGRESS REPOR770 7HE LEgISLA7IVE COUNSEL BUREAU. EACH ANNUAL REPORTSHOULD INCLUDE RECOMMENDA7IONS OF SUPPOR7 LegISLA7IONAND S7A7E APPROPRIA7IONS AS NEEDED.

FINDING 3

The success of the initiatives for coordination is heavilydependent upon the agencies represented on the NWAcontinuing their leadership to the local agencies.Periodically, the State agencies will need to reinforce thecoordination efforts of their local counterparts.Reporting of efforts to coordinate should become a regularpart of the process of making application for federal fundsprovided for occupational education and training.

RECOMMENDATION 3

7HE S7A7E COUNCIL ON OCCUPA7IONAL EDUCA7ION RECOMMENDS 707HE S7A7E BOARD FOR OCCUPA7IONAL EDUCA7ION AND 7HE STATE20B 7RAININg OFFICE 711A7 PERFORMANCE REPOR7S SUBMI77ED ByLOCAL RECIPIENTS IN 1US7IFICA7I0N 07 USE 07 FEDERAL FUNDSINCLUDE A SUMMARY 07 LOCAL EFFOR7S AND AC7IVITIES WHICHSERVE 7HE GOALS OF COORDINATION AS DESCRIBED By 7HE NEVADAWORK7ORCE GROUP.

19

24

GENERAL REFERENCES

Anonymous, Clinton s Labor Budget Shows Preference forYouth Training, Vocational Training News, CapitalPublications, Alexandria, Va., April 15, 1993.

Benson, Charles S., Order Amidst Complexity: TheStatue of Coordination Among Vocational Education, JobTraining Partnership Act, and Welfare-to-Work Programs,National Center for Research in Vocational Education,University of California, Berkeley, Ca., August 1990.

Nevada Council on Occupational Education, An Analysis ofthe Adequacy and Effectiveness of the Job TrainingPartnership Act and Occupational Education Programs inNevada, Carson City, Nv., April 1993.

Nevada Employment Security Department, Nevada OccupationalProjections, 1991-1996, NESD Employment Security Research,September 1992.

Simon, Katy, Executive Summary Report to the NevadaWorkforce Agencies and the Nevada Workforce Group,Simon and Associates, Reno, Nv., January 1993.

20

25

Nevada State Board of Education

Yvonne Shaw. PresidentSparks

Liliam Hickey, Vice PresidentLas. Vegas

Peggy Lear BowenCarson City

Frank BrownCarson City

Carley SullivanElko

William HanlonLas Vegas

Patricia KrajcechHenderson

Carol LenhartLas Vegas

Marianne LongLas Vegas

Steve StallworthLas Vegas

Terry Garcia-CahlanLas Vegas

Jill Van BuskirkLas Vegas

26