[Federal Register: April 6, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 67)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 18213-18220]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06ap00-9]
[[Page 18213]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part IX
Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
34 CFR Part 379
Projects With Industry; Final Rule
[[Page 18214]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Part 379
RIN 1820-AB45
Projects With Industry
AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services,
Education.
ACTION: Final regulations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary amends the regulations governing the Projects
With Industry (PWI) program to clarify statutory intent and to enhance
program accountability.
DATES: These regulations are effective May 8, 2000.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas E. Finch, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3315, Mary E. Switzer
Building, Washington, DC 20202-2575. Telephone: (202) 205-8292. If you
use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the
Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an
alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer
diskette) on request to the contact person named in the preceding
paragraph.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 22, 1996, we published a notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the PWI program in the Federal
Register (61 FR 1672) inviting comments on changes needed to improve
the PWI program's compliance indicators. We used the comments received
in response to that NPRM, comments provided by participants in focus
group meetings held by the Rehabilitation Services Administration
(RSA), a June 1994 report on the PWI program prepared for the
Department by the Research Triangle Institute, and RSA's analysis of
grantee performance on the current PWI compliance indicators to develop
revisions to the PWI compliance indicators.
On June 23, 1998, we published an NPRM for the PWI program in the
Federal Register (63 FR 34218) proposing revisions to the PWI
compliance indicators. On pages 34218 through 34221 of the June 23,
1998, NPRM, we discussed the major changes proposed in that document to
improve project performance, enhance project accountability, better
reflect statutory intent, and reduce grantee burden. These proposed
changes included the following:
* Amending Sec. 379.21(a)(4) to require an applicant to
include in its application a description of the factors that justify
the project's projected average cost per placement.
* Amending Sec. 379.50 to eliminate the minimum composite
scoring system for all proposed compliance indicators and replace it
with minimum performance levels on all proposed compliance indicators.
We also proposed the requirement that grantees attain at least the
minimum performance level on each of the compliance indicators to be
eligible for continuation funding.
* Amending Sec. 379.51 and Sec. 379.52 to eliminate both the
performance ranges within each proposed compliance indicator and the
minimum composite scoring system for all proposed compliance
indicators. We proposed replacing these with the requirement that
grantees attain at least the minimum performance level on each of the
compliance indicators.
* Amending Sec. 379.53 to replace the nine compliance
indicators with five proposed compliance indicators.
* Amending Sec. 379.54 to reflect the change from composite
scoring to a pass/fail system.
In addition to the proposed changes, we also stated that we
proposed to collect data from PWI projects on ``change in earnings''
and ``job retention'' for individuals who receive services. We stated
our intention to use this data to determine the need for--(a) Any
revision to the performance level for the ``Change in earnings''
compliance indicator or to the compliance indicator itself; and (b)
developing a compliance indicator, and appropriate performance level to
measure job retention for individuals who receive PWI services.
In response to public comment, we have made several changes in
these final regulations from what was proposed in the June 23, 1998,
NPRM. The final regulations--(1) Require that each grant application
include a projected average cost per placement for the project
(Sec. 379.21(c)); (2) require a project to pass the two ``primary''
compliance indicators and any two of the three ``secondary'' compliance
indicators to receive a continuation award (Sec. 379.50); (3) designate
two compliance indicators as ``primary'' and three compliance
indicators as ``secondary'' (Sec. 379.51(b) and (c)); and (4) change
the minimum performance levels for three of the compliance indicators
(Sec. 379.53(a)(1)--Placement rate; Sec. 379.53(a)(2)--Change in
earnings; and Sec. 379.53(b)(3)--Average cost per placement). A more
detailed description of these and other changes to the regulations is
contained in the ``Analysis of Comments and Changes'' section of this
preamble.
Analysis of Comments and Changes
In response to our invitation in the June 23, 1998, NPRM, 108
parties submitted comments on the proposed regulations. Most commenters
addressed more than one issue regarding the proposed regulations. We
reviewed all comments and carefully considered these comments in the
development of the final regulations. Major issues raised by the
commenters are discussed under the section of the final regulations to
which they pertain. We do not specifically discuss in this preamble:
(1) The technical changes to the PWI regulations (published in the
Federal Register on September 1, 1999 (64 FR 48052)) to implement the
1998 Amendments to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (1998 Amendments),
which are in title IV of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA),
Pub. L. 105-220 (enacted August 7, 1998); (2) changes suggested by
commenters but that the law does not authorize us to make under the
applicable statutory authority; and (3) other minor changes. We also
wish to point out that the technical changes we made to the PWI
regulations to implement the 1998 Amendments included substantial
changes to Sec. 379.21 from what we proposed in the June 23, 1998,
NPRM. In these final regulations, we made several additional changes to
Sec. 379.21 beyond the technical changes we made on September 1, 1999.
However, only one of these additional changes, which we mentioned
previously, was significant, and the others were very minor.
An analysis of the comments and the changes in the regulations
since publication of the June 23, 1998, NPRM follows.
Section 379.21(a)(7)--Grant Application Must Include a Description of
the Factors That Justify the Applicant's Projected Average Cost Per
Placement
Comments: Four commenters supported the requirement in proposed
Sec. 379.21(a)(4) that an application include a justification of the
project's proposed cost per placement.
Discussion: We have reviewed this section and wish to clarify that
it is the project's projected average cost per placement that must be
justified. This clarifying change makes the application requirement
consistent with the actual compliance indicator, which refers to the
project's ``actual average cost per placement.'' (Emphasis added.)
Changes: We have revised Sec. 379.21(a)(7)(proposed
Sec. 379.21(a)(4)) by changing the word ``proposed'' to ``projected''
and adding the word ``average'' to the phrase ``proposed cost
[[Page 18215]]
per placement'' so that the regulations now read ``projected average
cost per placement.''
Section 379.21(c)--Grant Application Must Include the Project's
Projected Average Cost Per Placement
Comments: None.
Discussion: Since publication of the June 23, 1998, NPRM, we have
reviewed this section and realized that the requirement to include in
an application the projected average cost per placement was only
implicit. The NPRM required that the grant application include a
description of the justification of the project's proposed cost per
placement. In addition, the NPRM proposed a minimum performance level
not to exceed 110 percent of the projected average cost per placement
in the grantee's application. Although this language implied that the
grantee's application should include the projected average cost per
placement so that the difference between the actual average cost per
placement and the projected average cost per placement could be
calculated, this requirement was not explicit anywhere in the NPRM. As
a result, we believed the language in the final regulations needed to
be clear and explicit that the applicant must include the projected
average cost per placement in its application. In addition, we believe
an applicant should understand that it must use the same method to
calculate the projected average cost per placement that we have always
used, which is to divide the sum of the total project costs (i.e.,
Federal dollar amount of the grant plus the total non-Federal
contributions) by the number of individuals the applicant projects in
its application will be served by the project. This method is described
in Instruction Number 8 of the ``Instructions for Completing the
Reporting Form for Projects With Industry Compliance Indicators and
Annual Evaluation Report'' that we mail to each recipient of a PWI
grant.
Changes: We have added a new paragraph (c) to Sec. 379.21 that
explicitly requires the applicant to include in its application the
projected average cost per placement for the proposed project, which
must be calculated by dividing the sum of the total project costs
(i.e., Federal dollar amount of the grant plus the total non-Federal
contributions) by the number of individuals the applicant projects in
its application will be served by the project.
Section 379.50--Requirements for Continuation Funding
Comments: Fifteen commenters opposed the requirement that grantees
meet minimum performance levels on all program compliance indicators to
receive continuation funding. A majority of these commenters objected
to the proposed requirement because they believed the composite scoring
method allowed for more flexibility in how projects achieve their
goals. Four of these commenters favored retaining the composite scoring
method because it allowed a project that excelled in one or more areas
to receive continuation funding even though it might be weak or unable
to attain the minimum performance level in one or more other areas.
Discussion: We agree with the comments favoring more flexibility
and have made changes to achieve a combination of flexibility and
accountability. Under the former composite scoring method, a PWI
project could receive zero points on as many as five of the nine
compliance indicators and still receive continuation funding. Because
this did not ensure the high level of performance and accountability we
expected of all PWI projects, we proposed the changes published in the
June 23, 1998, NPRM.
We have since reviewed available data to determine the effect on
PWI projects if they had been required to meet all of the five proposed
compliance indicators to receive continuation funding. The available
data indicated that, although most projects could have met most of the
minimum performance levels, a significant percentage of projects might
not have met all five of the proposed compliance indicators. These
projects would have failed to receive continuation funding under the
system proposed in the June 23, 1998, NPRM. After reviewing the data,
we believe the changes we have made combine the best features of the
minimum performance level approach and the composite scoring method.
The changes we have made are based on the belief that placing
individuals in competitive employment and increasing their earnings are
the two most important purposes of the PWI program. The newly
designated ``primary'' compliance indicators will measure how well a
PWI project achieves these dual goals. We believe that if a project is
unable to meet the minimum performance level for both of these two
compliance indicators, it should not receive a continuation award.
We believe the newly designated ``secondary'' compliance indicators
also are important for measuring the success of a PWI project. However,
we do not believe that the failure to meet any one of the ``secondary''
compliance indicators should cause an otherwise successful project to
lose its continuation funding. Therefore, we have determined that PWI
projects must meet only two of the three ``secondary'' compliance
indicators to receive continuation funding.
We believe that requiring PWI projects to meet only two of the
three ``secondary'' compliance indicators provides the necessary
flexibility to ensure that individuals without a significant disability
and individuals who were unemployed for shorter periods also will have
access to PWI services. Finally, this added flexibility will benefit
projects--(1) Designed to excel in meeting one ``secondary'' compliance
indicator (e.g., projects serving a high percentage of individuals with
significant disabilities) but which may have difficulty in meeting one
or both of the other ``secondary'' indicators; and (2) projects facing
a variety of economic and other factors that affect how much it costs
to provide services to individuals.
Changes: We have revised Sec. 379.50 to eliminate the proposed
requirement that a project meet the minimum performance levels on all
five compliance indicators to receive a continuation award. We also
have divided the proposed five compliance indicators into ``primary''
and ``secondary'' compliance indicators. ``Placement rate'' and
``Change in earnings'' are ``primary'' indicators. ``Percent placed who
have significant disabilities,'' ``Percent placed who were previously
unemployed,'' and ``Cost per placement'' are ``secondary'' indicators.
We have revised Sec. 379.50 to require that a grantee meet the minimum
performance levels of the two newly designated ``primary'' compliance
indicators and any two of the three newly designated ``secondary''
compliance indicators to receive continuation funding. This last change
makes proposed Sec. 379.52(c) incorrect. Therefore, we have deleted
Sec. 379.52(c).
Comments: Four commenters believed that eliminating the composite
scoring method (on which continuation funding was based) in the middle
of a grant period is unfair to existing grantees.
Discussion: We are sensitive to the concerns of commenters that
existing projects should not be unfairly penalized for grant proposals
that were produced under the previous compliance indicators. We also
recognize the need for a delay in the implementation of the indicators
and the need to allow projects the opportunity to negotiate changes to
their approved grant applications.
[[Page 18216]]
Changes: We have determined that implementation of the new
compliance indicators should begin on October 1, 2000. We also will
provide an existing project a one-time opportunity to negotiate, prior
to July 1, 2000, reasonable changes to the content of its approved
grant application, consistent with these regulations.
Section 379.51--What Are the Program Compliance Indicators?
Comments: One commenter recommended retaining two of the former
compliance indicators (``Percent of persons served whose disabilities
are significant'' and ``Percent of persons served who have been
unemployed for at least 6 months at the time of project entry'') in
addition to those we proposed.
Discussion: We believe that these two former compliance indicators
identified by the commenters should no longer be used to measure a
project's performance for the reasons given in the preamble to the June
23, 1998, NPRM. As we stated in that preamble, projects should be
judged on the extent to which they are successful in assisting
individuals to achieve competitive employment, including those with a
significant disability and those who have been unemployed at least 6
months prior to project entry. We believe that discontinuing the use of
these two compliance indicators places more focus on a project's actual
success in placing individuals in competitive employment, better
reflects the goals of the PWI program, and reduces grantee information
collection and reporting burden.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter proposed a new compliance indicator to
measure the active involvement of the Business Advisory Council (BAC)
in the structure and operation of a PWI project.
Discussion: The 1998 Amendments strengthened the role of the BACs
in PWI projects in the following ways: (1) The project's BAC must
include a representative of the appropriate designated State unit. (2)
The identification of job and career availability must be consistent
with the current and projected local employment opportunities
identified by the local workforce investment board for the community
under section 118(b)(1)(B) of WIA. (3) The BAC has the option to
prescribe either training programs or job placement programs in fields
related to the job and career availability it has identified. We
believe the most effective method of ensuring BAC involvement in a PWI
project is to monitor the extent to which a BAC complies with the
revised statutory requirements. The technical amendments to the PWI
regulations, including those made to Sec. 379.21(a)(1), are designed to
ensure BAC compliance with those statutory requirements.
Change: None.
Section 379.52--How Is Grantee Performance Measured Using the
Compliance Indicators?
Comments: All but one of the commenters who addressed this section
of the regulations opposed the proposed requirement that a grantee pass
all of the proposed compliance indicators to qualify for continuation
funding. Some commenters believed that a pass/fail approach would
penalize projects that are unable, due to the individual
characteristics of the project or for reasons beyond the project's
control, to meet one or more of the proposed compliance indicators.
Some commenters expressed concern that an entire project could fail by
experiencing a temporary deficiency in one area even though the
project's performance and achievements are outstanding in all other
areas.
Discussion: For the reasons stated in the discussion to
Sec. 379.50, we believe the previous composite scoring system that
allowed a project to fail five of the nine compliance indicators and
yet receive continuation funding was detrimental both to the PWI
program and individuals served by the PWI program. We believe
deficiencies that would make a project ineligible to receive
continuation funding are adequately addressed through the provisions of
Sec. 379.54(c), which allow grantees to submit data from the first 6
months of the current budget period to demonstrate that a project's
performance has improved sufficiently to meet the minimum performance
level or levels.
Changes: None.
Section 379.53--What Are the Minimum Performance Levels for Each
Compliance Indicator?
(a) Placement Rate
Comments: Eleven commenters addressed the proposed requirement that
a minimum of 55 percent of individuals served by the project be placed
into competitive employment. Three of these commenters supported the
proposed compliance indicator, citing the importance of this indicator
in determining whether the overall purpose of the PWI program is being
met. Three commenters expressed concern that the 55 percent level of
compliance was too high and would adversely affect projects serving
large percentages of individuals with significant disabilities or other
individuals who are more difficult to place in employment. Two
commenters believed that the proposed compliance indicator failed to
consider local economic conditions and changes in those conditions that
are beyond the control of the project.
Discussion: As stated previously, we remain committed to
implementing compliance indicators for the PWI program that ensure
sufficiently high standards of performance and accountability in the
use and expenditure of Federal funds. We realize that increasing the
minimum performance on this indicator from 40 percent to 55 percent may
cause some difficulty for some projects. Therefore, we have decided to
phase in the new minimum performance level over a period of 5 years.
The minimum performance level for this indicator will be 50 percent for
fiscal year (FY) 2001, which is 5 percentage points lower than what we
proposed in the NPRM. This minimum performance level will increase to
55 percent by FY 2005. We believe that starting at a lower minimum
level than what we proposed and phasing in the higher minimum
performance level for the placement rate is warranted to help ensure
that otherwise effective projects do not fail this compliance indicator
because they serve individuals with significant disabilities or because
of the location of the project (e.g., rural areas). The 5 years should
be more than sufficient time to improve a project's performance, even
for those projects that serve individuals with significant disabilities
or that are in a location that makes it difficult to place individuals
(e.g., rural areas).
Changes: We have lowered the proposed minimum performance level for
the ``Placement rate'' indicator in Sec. 379.53(a)(1) from 55 percent
to 50 percent for FY 2001. However, we have established a phased-in
increase in the performance level as follows: 51 percent for FY 2002;
52 percent for FY 2003; 54 percent for FY 2004; and 55 percent for FY
2005.
(b) Change in Earnings
Comments: Sixty-six commenters expressed concern with the proposed
``Change in earnings'' indicator. Thirty-nine of the commenters, all
from the State of Maine, were opposed to the proposed compliance
indicator because they believe the $150 per week minimum increase in
earnings for an individual placed by the project is unfair to projects
operating in rural or poor States because the job market
[[Page 18217]]
consists mainly of small businesses that provide primarily part-time
employment. In addition, 17 of the commenters felt that the proposed
compliance indicator fails to consider those individuals seeking career
advancement who may not achieve an increase in earnings of $150.00 per
week. Nine of the commenters felt that the proposed performance level
discourages individuals from considering part-time work. One of the
commenters believed that the proposed threshold of 75 percent for
projects serving individuals in supported employment and projects
serving students working fewer than 30 hours per week in the ``Change
in earnings'' indicator is too high.
Discussion: We agree that the proposed ``Change in earnings''
compliance indicator needs to be restructured. The proposed ``Change in
earnings'' compliance indicator contained three categories of projects,
each of which had different performance levels. These categories were
projects in which at least 75 percent of individuals placed are placed
into supported employment, projects in which 75 percent of individuals
placed are students enrolled in secondary schools who work fewer than
30 hours per week, and all other projects. Under the proposed
regulations, the performance level for projects in the first two
categories (i.e., supported employment and students) required an
average increase in earnings of at least $100 per week. The proposed
level for all other projects was $150 per week.
Because many other projects (e.g., ``supported employment''
projects and those with secondary school students) may place a large
percentage of persons who need or choose to obtain part-time
employment, we believe combining the two proposed exceptions to this
performance level in the final regulations will simplify this
indicator. In addition, we believe lowering the proposed minimum level
of increase in earnings will be more fair to projects operating in
rural or poor States, make it easier for projects that serve
individuals seeking career advancement, and eliminate any undue penalty
to projects serving individuals who want to work part-time.
Changes: We have lowered the proposed minimum ``Change in
earnings'' performance level in Sec. 379.53(a)(2)(A) to $125 per week.
In addition, we have combined the two proposed exceptions to this
requirement into one exception now found in Sec. 379.53(a)(2)(B). The
``Change in earnings'' indicator in the final regulations has two
categories with different performance levels: (1) Projects in which at
least 75 percent of individuals placed in competitive employment are
working fewer than 30 hours per week (average increase in earnings of
$100.00 per week). (2) All other projects (average increase in earnings
of $125 per week). The revised compliance indicator requires that, if
at least 75 percent of the individuals placed by a project work fewer
than 30 hours per week, their minimum change in earnings must increase
by an average of at least $100 per week over earnings at the time of
project entry.
(c) Percent Placed Who Have Significant Disabilities
Comments: The two commenters who specifically addressed the
proposed ``Percent placed who have significant disabilities''
compliance indicator suggested that we consider increasing the
performance level for this indicator. One of these commenters felt that
PWI projects should move toward serving higher percentages of
individuals with significant disabilities, as is currently the practice
in State vocational rehabilitation (VR) programs.
Discussion: We do not believe that the proposed performance level
for the ``Percent placed who have significant disabilities'' compliance
indicator should be modified at this time. Title I of the
Rehabilitation Act requires a State VR agency to give priority to
serving those individuals with the most significant disabilities if it
cannot serve all eligible individuals. There is no similar requirement
in the PWI program's authorizing language. Although we are committed to
serving individuals with significant disabilities, we believe that
flexibility is needed to ensure that persons who are not ``individuals
with a significant disability'' also have access to PWI services.
We also intend to review on a periodic basis each project's
performance relative to the minimum performance level for all
compliance indicators. If warranted, we will adjust the performance
level for this compliance indicator, as well as all other compliance
indicators.
Changes: None.
(d) Percent Placed Who Were Previously Unemployed
Comments: Seven commenters addressed the proposed ``Percent placed
who were previously unemployed'' indicator. Six of the commenters
raised concerns that some projects may have difficulty meeting this
compliance indicator because they serve a number of individuals who are
already employed or who have performed temporary or seasonal work
within 6 months prior to entering the program. One of these commenters
expressed concern that the steady decrease in the percentage of
previously unemployed individuals who have entered this commenter's
project over the past 2 years makes it more difficult to achieve
compliance with this indicator.
Discussion: We believe that the proposed performance level for this
compliance indicator is already set at a level that will allow most
projects to serve a considerable number of individuals who are already
employed or who have performed temporary or seasonal work. In addition,
available data show that a large majority of projects already exceed
this compliance indicator by sizable margins. Therefore, we do not
believe that the performance level for this compliance indicator
requires modification.
Changes: None.
(e) Average Cost Per Placement
Comments: Fifty-seven commenters expressed concerns about the
``Average cost per placement'' indicator. Thirty-four of these
commenters were concerned that the proposed requirement will have an
adverse effect on existing projects, and they believed it would be
unfair to change rules in the middle of a project period. These
commenters also questioned whether projects would be allowed to
renegotiate the estimated ``cost per placement.'' Twenty-one commenters
believed that it would not be possible to predict, within a 10 percent
margin of error, the projected ``average cost per placement'' 6 years
into the future, as required at the time of application. Two commenters
stated that, because the cost of services varies significantly from
individual to individual, it is difficult to project costs in advance.
Another commenter noted that the unemployment rate, which fluctuated
from a low of 5.8 percent to a high of 9.0 percent over a recent 5-year
grant period, had a significant impact on the cost per placement, and
that no one could have predicted these fluctuations. Three commenters
believed that projects will deny needed costly services to individuals
with significant disabilities to avoid exceeding the projections and
failing this compliance indicator.
Discussion: We agree with the commenters that the proposed
performance level for this compliance indicator needed more flexibility
and that the allowable difference between the projected and actual
average cost per placement needed to be increased. We believe that
allowing for a larger difference between the projected and
[[Page 18218]]
actual average cost per placement will provide for greater flexibility
in the types of services PWI projects provide. The available data
suggests that a substantially larger number of PWI projects will be
able to meet the performance level for this compliance indicator if the
allowable difference between the projected and actual average cost per
placement is greater than what we had proposed.
We also intend to review on a periodic basis each project's
performance relative to the minimum performance level on this
compliance indicator. If warranted, we will adjust the performance
level for this compliance indicator, as well as for any other
compliance indicator.
Changes: We have raised the allowable change between projected and
actual ``Average cost per placement'' in Sec. 379.53(b)(3) from 110
percent to 115 percent.
Goals 2000: Educate America Act
The Goals 2000: Educate America Act (Goals 2000) focuses the
Nation's education reform efforts on the eight National Education Goals
and provides a framework for meeting them. Goals 2000 promotes new
partnerships to strengthen schools and expands the Department's
capacities for helping communities to exchange ideas and obtain
information needed to achieve the goals.
These regulations address the National Education Goal that every
adult American will possess the knowledge and skills necessary to
compete in a global economy and exercise the rights and
responsibilities of citizenship. The regulations further the objectives
of this Goal by implementing a program that affords individuals with
disabilities opportunities for job training, job placement, placement
in competitive employment, and career advancement.
Executive Order 12866
We have reviewed these final regulations in accordance with
Executive Order 12866. Under the terms of the order, we have assessed
the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action.
The potential costs associated with the final regulations are those
costs resulting from statutory requirements and those costs we have
determined to be necessary for administering this program effectively
and efficiently.
In assessing the potential costs and benefits (both quantitative
and qualitative) of these final regulations, we have determined that
the benefits of the final regulations justify the costs.
We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly
interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of
their governmental functions.
Summary of Potential Costs and Benefits
We summarized the potential costs and benefits of these final
regulations in the preamble to the June 23, 1998, NPRM under the
heading ``Summary of potential costs and benefits.'' (63 FR 34218,
34221) We include additional discussion of potential costs and benefits
in the section of this preamble titled ``Analysis of Comments and
Changes.''
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 does not require you to respond
to a collection of information unless it displays a valid Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) control number. We display the valid OMB
control number assigned to the collection of information in these final
regulations at the end of the affected sections of the regulations.
Intergovernmental Review
This program is subject to the requirements of Executive Order
12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. The objective of the
Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a
strengthened federalism by relying on processes developed by State and
local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal
financial assistance. The order and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79
do not apply to federally recognized Indian tribes or tribal
organizations.
In accordance with the order, we intend this document to provide
early notification of the Department's specific plans and actions for
this program.
Assessment of Educational Impact
In the June 23, 1998, NPRM, we requested comments on whether the
proposed regulations would require transmission of information that any
other agency or authority of the United States gathers or makes
available. Based on the response to the June 23, 1998, NPRM and on our
review, we have determined that these final regulations do not require
transmission of information that any other agency or authority of the
United States gathers or makes available.
Electronic Access to This Document
You may view this document, as well as all other Department of
Education documents published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe
Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at either of the
following sites:
http://ocfo.ed.gov/fedreg.htm
http://www.ed.gov/news.html
To use the PDF you must have the Adobe Acrobat Reader Program with
Search, which is available free at either of the previous sites. If you
have questions about using the PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing
Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or, in the Washington, DC,
area at (202) 512-1530.
Note: The official version of this document is the document
published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the
official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal
Regulations is available on GPO Access at: http://
www.access.gpo.gov/nara/index.html.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 84.234 Projects With
Industry)
List of Subjects in 34 CFR Part 379
Education, Grant programs--education, Grant programs--social
programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vocational
rehabilitation.
Dated: January 27, 2000.
Judith E. Heumann,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Secretary amends
part 379 of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 379--PROJECTS WITH INDUSTRY
1. The authority citation for part 379 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Sections 12(c) and 621 of the Act; 29 U.S.C. 711(c)
and 795(g), unless otherwise noted.
2. Section 379.21 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 379.21 What is the content of an application for an award?
(a) The grant application must include a description of--
(1) The responsibilities and membership of the BAC, consistent with
section 611(a)(2)(A) of the Act, and how it will interact with the
project in carrying out grant activities, including how the BAC will--
(i) Identify job and career availability within the community,
consistent with the current and projected local employment
opportunities identified by the local workforce investment board for
the community under section 118(b)(1)(B) of the Workforce Investment
Act of 1998;
(ii) Identify the skills necessary to perform the jobs and careers
identified; and
[[Page 18219]]
(iii) For individuals with disabilities in fields related to the
job and career availability identified under paragraph (a)(1)(i) of
this section, prescribe either--
(A) Training programs designed to develop appropriate job and
career skills; or
(B) Job placement programs designed to identify and develop job
placement and career advancement opportunities;
(2) How the project will provide job development, job placement,
and career advancement services to project participants;
(3) To the extent appropriate, how the project will provide for--
(i) Training in realistic work settings to prepare individuals with
disabilities for employment and career advancement in the competitive
market; and
(ii) To the extent practicable, the modification of any facilities
or equipment of the employer involved that are used primarily by
individuals with disabilities, except that a project will not be
required to provide for that modification if the modification is
required as a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990;
(4) How the project will provide individuals with disabilities with
support services that may be required to maintain the employment and
career advancement for which the individuals have received training
under this part;
(5) How the project will involve private industry in the design of
the proposed project and the manner in which the project will
collaborate with private industry in planning, implementing, and
evaluating job development, job placement, career advancement
activities, and, to the extent included as part of the activities to be
carried out by the project, job training activities;
(6) A plan to annually conduct a review and evaluation of the
operation of the proposed project in accordance with the program
compliance indicators and evaluation standards in Subpart F of this
part and, in conducting the review and evaluation, to collect data and
information of the type described in subparagraphs (A) through (C) of
section 101(a)(10) of the Act, as determined to be appropriate by the
Secretary;
(7) The factors that justify the applicant's projected average cost
per placement, including factors such as the project's objectives,
types of services, target population, and service area, and how these
factors affect the projection;
(8) The geographic area to be served by the project, including an
explanation of how the area is currently unserved or underserved by the
PWI program; and
(9) How the project will address the needs of individuals with
disabilities from minority backgrounds, as required by section 21(c) of
the Act.
(b) The grant application also must include assurances from the
applicant that--
(1) The project will carry out all activities required in
Sec. 379.10;
(2) Individuals with disabilities who are placed by the project
will receive compensation at or above the minimum wage, but not less
than the customary or usual wage paid by the employer for the same or
similar work performed by individuals who are not disabled;
(3) Individuals with disabilities who are placed by the project
will--
(i) Be given terms and benefits of employment equal to terms and
benefits that are given to similarly situated nondisabled co-workers;
and
(ii) Not be segregated from their co-workers;
(4) The project will maintain any records required by the Secretary
and make those records available for monitoring and audit purposes;
(5) The project will provide to the Secretary an annual evaluation
report of project operations as required in Sec. 379.21(a)(6) and will
submit reports in the form and detail and at the time required by the
Secretary; and
(6) The applicant will comply with any requirements necessary to
ensure the correctness and verification of those reports.
(c) The grant application also must include the projected average
cost per placement for the project, which must be calculated by
dividing the sum of the total project costs (i.e., Federal dollar
amount of the grant plus the total non-Federal contributions) by the
number of individuals the applicant projects in its application will be
served by the project.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 1820-0631)
(Authority: Section 611 of the Act; 29 U.S.C. 795)
3. Subpart F of part 379 is revised to read as follows:
Subpart F--What Compliance Indicator Requirements Must a Grantee
Meet To Receive Continuation Funding?
379.50 What are the requirements for continuation funding?
379.51 What are the program compliance indicators?
379.52 How is grantee performance measured using the compliance
indicators?
379.53 What are the minimum performance levels for each compliance
indicator?
379.54 What are the reporting requirements for the compliance
indicators?
Subpart F--What Compliance Indicator Requirements Must a Grantee
Meet To Receive Continuation Funding?
Sec. 379.50 What are the requirements for continuation funding?
To receive a continuation award for the third or subsequent year of
the PWI grant, a grantee must--
(a) Adhere to the provisions of its approved application; and
(b) Meet the minimum performance levels on--
(1) The two ``primary'' program compliance indicators identified in
Sec. 379.51(b) and described in Sec. 379.53(a); and
(2) Any two of the three ``secondary'' compliance indicators
identified in Sec. 379.51(c) and described in Sec. 379.53(b).
(Authority: Section 611(f)(4) of the Act; 29 U.S.C. 795(f)(4))
Sec. 379.51 What are the program compliance indicators?
(a) General. The program compliance indicators implement program
evaluation standards, which are contained in an appendix to this part,
by establishing minimum performance levels in essential project areas
to measure the effectiveness of individual grantees.
(b) Primary compliance indicators. ``Placement rate'' and ``Change
in earnings'' are ``primary'' compliance indicators.
(c) Secondary compliance indicators. ``Percent placed who have
significant disabilities,'' ``Percent placed who were previously
unemployed,'' and ``Average cost per placement'' are ``secondary''
compliance indicators.
(Authority: Sections 611(d)(1) and 611(f)(1) of the Act; 29 U.S.C.
795(d)(1) and 795(f)(1))
Sec. 379.52 How is grantee performance measured using the compliance
indicators?
(a) Each compliance indicator establishes a minimum performance
level.
(b) If a grantee does not achieve the minimum performance level for
a compliance indicator, the grantee does not pass the compliance
indicator.
(Authority: Section 611(f)(1) of the Act; 26 U.S.C. 795(f)(1))
Sec. 379.53 What are the minimum performance levels for each
compliance indicator?
(a) Primary compliance indicators.
(1) Placement rate. The project places individuals it serves into
competitive employment as follows:
[[Page 18220]]
(i) No less than 50 percent during fiscal year (FY) 2001.
(ii) No less than 51 percent during FY 2002.
(iii) No less than 52 percent during FY 2003.
(iv) No less than 54 percent during FY 2004.
(v) No less than 55 percent during FY 2005 and any year thereafter.
(2) Change in earnings. (i) Except as provided in paragraph
(a)(2)(ii) of this section, the average earnings of all individuals who
are placed into competitive employment by the project increase by an
average of at least $125.00 a week over the average earnings of all
individuals at the time of project entry.
(ii) For projects in which at least 75 percent of individuals
placed into competitive employment are working fewer than 30 hours per
week, the average earnings of all individuals placed by the project
increase by an average of at least $100.00 a week over the average
earnings of all individuals at the time of project entry.
(b) Secondary compliance indicators.
(1) Percent placed who have significant disabilities. At least 50
percent of individuals who are placed into competitive employment are
individuals with significant disabilities.
(2) Percent placed who were previously unemployed. At least 50
percent of individuals who are placed into competitive employment are
individuals who were continuously unemployed for at least 6 months at
the time of project entry.
(3) Average cost per placement. The actual average cost per
placement does not exceed 115 percent of the projected average cost per
placement in the grantee's application.
(Authority: Section 611(f)(1) of the Act; 29 U.S.C. 795(f)(1))
Sec. 379.54 What are the reporting requirements for the compliance
indicators?
(a) To receive continuation funding for the third or any subsequent
year of a PWI grant, each grantee must submit to the Secretary data for
the most recent complete budget period no later than 60 days after the
end of that budget period, unless the Secretary authorizes a later
submission date. The Secretary uses this data to determine if the
grantee has met the program compliance indicators in this subpart F.
(b) A grantee may receive its second year of funding (or the first
continuation award) under this program before data from the first
complete budget period is available. However, to allow the Secretary to
determine whether the grantee is eligible for the third year of funding
(or the second continuation award), the grantee must submit data from
the first budget period in accordance with paragraph (a) of this
section.
(c) If the data for the most recent complete budget period provided
under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section show that a grantee has
failed to achieve the minimum performance levels, as required by
Sec. 379.50(b), the grantee may, at its option, submit data from the
first 6 months of the current budget period. The grantee must submit
this data no later than 60 days after the end of that 6-month period,
unless the Secretary authorizes a later submission date. The data must
demonstrate that the grantee's project performance has improved
sufficiently to meet the minimum performance levels required in
Sec. 379.50(b).
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 1820-0631)
(Authority: Section 611(f)(2) and 611(f)(4) of the Act; 29 U.S.C.
795(f)(2) and 795(f)(4))
[FR Doc. 00-8523 Filed 4-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P