INFORMATION TO USERS

This was produced from a copy o f a document sent to us for microfilming. While the
most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document
have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material
submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand
markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction.
1. The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document
photographed is “Missing Page(s)” . If it was possible to obtain the missing
page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages.
This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating
adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an
indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of
movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete
copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a
good image of the page in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo­
graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning”
the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer
of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with
small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again-beginning
below the first row and continuing on until complete.
4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by
xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and
tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our
Dissertations Customer Services Department.
5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we
have filmed the best available copy.

University
Micrdfilms
International
3 0 0 N. Z E E B ROA D, A N N A R B O R , Ml 4 8 1 0 6
18 B E D F O R D ROW, L O N D O N WC1 R 4 E J , E N G L A N D

8117242

JACKSON, RICHARD ALFRED
A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF THE PARTICIPATION OF PUBLIC
COMMUNITY AND JUNIOR COLLEGES IN MICHIGAN UNDER THE
COMPREHENSIVE EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ACT DURING FISCAL
YEAR 1978 § 1979
Michigan State University

University
Microfilms
International

300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106

PH.D.

1981

PLEASE NOTE:

In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy.
Problems encountered with this docum ent have been identified here with a check mark V .

1.

Glossy photographs or p a g e s ______

2.

Colored illustrations, paper or print______

3.

Photographs with dark background______

4.

Illustrations are poor c o p y ______

5.

Pages with black marks, not original copy______

6.

Print show s through a s there is text on both sides of p ag e______

7.

Indistinct, broken or small print on several p ag es

8.

Print ex ceed s margin requirem ents______

9.

Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine______

10.

Computer printout pages with indistinct print______

11.

P ag e(s)____________ lacking when material received, and not available from school or
author.

12.

P ag e(s)____________ seem to be missing in numbering only a s text follows.

13.
14.
15.

^

Two p ag es num bered___________ . Text follows.
Curling and wrinkled p a g e s ______
Other____________________________________________ ______ ___________________

University
Microfilms

International

A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF THE PARTICIPATION OF
PUBLIC COMMUNITY AND JUNIOR COLLEGES IN MICHIGAN
UNDER THE COMPREHENSIVE EMPLOYMENT
AND TRAINING ACT DURING
FISCAL Y E A R 1978 & 1979
By
Richard A. Jackson

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Administration & Higher Education
1981

ABSTRACT
. A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF THE PARTICIPATION OF
PUBLIC COMMUNITY AND JUNIOR COLLEGES IN MICHIGAN
UNDER THE COMPREHENSIVE EMPLOYMENT
AND TRAINING ACT DURING
FISCAL YEAR 1978 & 1979
By
Richard A. Jackson
Body of Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the extent
of Public Community and Junior Colleges participation in
Michigan in programs and activities under the Comprehensive
Employment and Training Act (CETA) during fiscal year 1978
and 1979.
This study was undertaken to (a) identify the various
ways Michigan Public Community & Junior Colleges have been
involved in the planning, administration,
these programs,

and delivery of

(b) determine the extent of their partic­

ipation in terms of funding levels, grants received, program
involvement,

and the number of participants served, and

(c) to describe selected model programs underway in Michigan.
The methodology involved a survey questionnaire to each
(33) of the s t a t e s ’ regular and balance of state prime spon­
sors.

Those returning the survey (78.8%) received a follow-up

interview for additional information and clarification.

Richard A. Jackson

Analysis of the data produced the following findings:
Advisory Planning Council Participation
Community colleges participated in the advisory process
of sixteen (61.5%,) of the prime sponsor areas responding to
the survey.

The highest level of participation was by local

school districts during both years of the survey period.
The community college representative was usually a
third level administrator or higher and in one case was a
community college president.
Programs and Activities
Classroom training activities were conducted by community
colleges in twenty <76.9%) prime sponsor areas.

Classroom

training was also deemed the most appropriate activity for
community colleges over other activities,

i.e. Public Service

Employment, Work Experience, and Career Exploration.
Community colleges were selected to provide services
usually because of their Program Quality and Geographic
Location rather than cost or the level of cooperation received
from the institution.
Grant Levels and Participants
Community colleges received just over three million
dollars during each year of the study to conduct Title I
authorized activities.

This represented approximately

4.8% of the total funds available.

The lowest level re­

ceived was for Title II, III, or VI activities which generally
ranged less than one percent of the available funds.

Richard A. Jackson

Overall, community colleges received $4.9 million in FY 78
and $7.1 million in FY 79 under CETA.
These institutions served 2,726 participants in FY 78
and 3,053 in FY 79.

This dissertation is dedicated to
MY PARENTS
for their sacrifice, their love, their encouragement
and their support throughout
my life.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to express my sincere appreciation to
Dr. T. Harry McKinney for his expertise and tireless efforts
as chairman of the committee.
This acknowledgement and appreciation is especially
extended to Dr. George Ferns, Dr. Daniel Kruger, and Dr.
Max Raines, whose interest, insight, and guidance has been
invaluable and along with that of the chairman provided
direction for this study.
A well deserved thanks is expressed to my typist,
Becky Eldredge, for her patience, skill, and her countless
hours of assistance throughout this investigation.
To my daughters, Lynelle and Nicole, I can only
express a fathers' appreciation for their love and
understanding during this undertaking.
Finally,

to my wife, Lola, who tolerated my many

moods and provided the much needed encouragement to
continue on, I can only express my thanks, my appreciation,
and my love -- forever.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF

T A B L E S ........................................ vii

LIST OF

F I G U R E S ......................................... ix

LIST OF

A P P E N D I C E S ....................................... x

Chapter
I

INTRODUCTION ...................................

1

Purpose of the S t u d y ............................ 3
Background of the S t u d y ......................... 4
Statement of the P r o b l e m ........................ 10
Significance of the Study........................ 11
A s s u m p t i o n s ..................................... 11
Limitations of the S t u d y ........................ 12
D e f i n i t i o n s ..................................... 13
Title D e s i g n a t i o n ...............................19
Overview of the Dissertation..................... 20
II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .

21

Occupational Education and the
Community College
.......................... 21
Employment and Training P r o g r a m s .............. 25
Related Study and Research
................... 28
Summary............................................31
III

M E T H O D O L O G Y ..................................... 32
Population........................................ 32
S a m p l e ............................................33
I n s t r u m e n t a t i o n .................................. 34
D e v e l o p m e n t .................................. 34
D e s c r i p t i o n .................................. 35
Data Collection Procedure........................ 36
Type of Information...............................37
Analysis of the Q u e s t i o n n a i r e ..................37
Program D e s c r i p t i o n s ........................... 38

IV

ANALYSIS OF THE D A T A ........................... 39
Advisory Council Participation ................
Council Member Selection ...................
iv

40
40

Chapter

Page
Educational Agency Participation . . .
42
Voting Privileges .............
. . .
43
Administrative Position Within
the C o l l e g e ............................ 45
Participation Rating ...................
46
Programs and A c t i v i t i e s ...................... 48
Types of P r o g r a m s ......................... 49
Appropriate College Activities.
. . .
51
Sole Source Selection...................... 54
Reasons for Selection...................... 56
Factors Influencing the Competitiveness
.............
58
of Community Colleges
Classroom Training by Course/
O c c u p a t i o n ............................ 62
Grant Levels and Participant Data . . . .
63
Prime Sponsor Grants To Community
Colleges................................ 63
Participant D a t a ......................... 72
Advisory Council Participation and
Funding Relationship ...................
79
Selected Model Program Descriptions
. . .
81
Grand Rapids Junior College................81
Northwestern Michigan College . . . .
85
Lansing Community College
.............
88

V

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS .

92

Statement of the P r o b l e m ...................... 92
. 92
Purpose of the S t u d y ................ ...
Scope of the S t u d y ............................ 93
L i m i t a t i o n s ................................... 94
M e t h o d o l o g y ................................... 94
Findings From the Survey Questionnaire
and I n t e r v i e w ............................ 96
Advisory Council Participation.
. . .
96
Educational Agency Participation . . .
96
Administrative Position of College
Representatives
...................
97
Participation Rating ...................
98
Types of Programs
...................... 98
Appropriate Community College Activities
99
Sole Source Selection...................... 99
Reasons for Selection..................... 100
Factors Influencing the Competitiveness
of Community Colleges
............. 100
Classroom Training by Course/Description 102
Prime Sponsor Grants to Community

v

Chapter

Page
Participant Levels .......................... 103
Advisory Council Participation and
Funding Relationship ................... 104
Findings of the Model P r o g r a m s ................105
C o n c l u s i o n s .................................. 106
R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s ............................... 110
Future Studies
............................. 113

A P P E N D I C E S ............................................... 114
BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................... 147

LIST OF TABLES

Table

Page

1

Summary of Return of Questionnaire .

34

2

The Method of Selecting CETA Advisory
Council Members
.............................

41

Educational Agency Participation on
Advisory Councils by Year ...................

42

Community Colleges Participation as Voting
or Non-Voting Members on Prime Sponsor
Advisory Councils by Year ...................

44

Position of Community College Representative
to the Prime Sponsor Advisory Council by
Y e a r ..........................................

46

Prime Sponsor Rating of the Participation
of the Community College Representatives .

47

Prime Sponsors Programs and Activities
Provided Through Community Colleges by Year .

49

Prime Sponsor Perceptions of the Appropriate­
ness of Selected Activities and Programs
for Community Colleges ......................

52

Were programs, activities, or services
available through the community college
also available through other delivery agents?

55

Reasons for Selecting the Community College
to Provide Classroom or Individual Referral
Training.......................................

57

Factors Making the Community College a
Competitive or Preferred Delivery Agency
for Training and Employment Programs

59

Factors Having a Negative Impact on the
Community College as a Competitive or
Preferred Delivery Agency ...................

59

3
4

5

6
7

8

9

10

11

12

vii

Table

Page

13

A Comparison of Prime Sponsor Funds
Available and Awards to Community
Colleges on a Statewide Basis by
Title and Y e a r .................................. 65

14

Prime Sponsor Grants to Community Colleges by
Activity Title During FY 78 and FY 79
. . .68

15

Participants Served in Prime Sponsor Programs
At Community Colleges by Type of Activity
and Fiscal Y e a r .............................. 73

16

A Prime Sponsor Comparison of Advisory
Council Participation and Community College
Funding by Range and Y e a r .................... 80

viii

LIST OF FIGURES
Page

Figure
1.
2.
3.

Grand Rapids Junior College
Administrative Relationships

84

Northwestern Michigan College
Administrative Relationships

87

Lansing Community College
Administrative Relationships

90

ix

LIST OF APPENDICES

Page
Appendix A
1 - Labor Department Appropriations
FY 1963 - 1979
. . . .

114

2 - National Comprehensive Employment
and Training Act Appropriations
FY 1978 and FY 1979
.

115

3 - Michigan Comprehensive Employment and
Training Act Appropriations
FY 1978 and FY 1979
.

116

Appendix B
1 - Comprehensive Employment and
Training Act Activity Title
.................
Comparison

117

2 - A Summary of the Comprehensive
Employment and Training Act of
1973, P.L. 93-203

118

3 - A Summary of the Comprehensive
Employment and Training Act
Amendments of 1978, P.L. 95-524

121

Appendix C
1 - Michigan Regular and Balance of
State CETA Prime Sponsors
FY 1978 and FY 1979
.

124

2 - Map of Michigan Regular Prime
Sponsor Jurisdictions.

129

3 - Map of Michigan Balance of State
Prime Sponsor Jurisdictions

130

x

Page
Appendix D
1 - Survey I n s t r u m e n t ............................ 131
2 - Cover Letter for Survey
I n s t r u m e n t ................................ 143
3 - Follow-up Letter for
Survey Instrument......................... 144
Appendix E
Legal Citation:
Prime Sponsors
Planning Councils

145

CHAPTER 1
f

INTRODUCTION

Over the past two decades, two phenonema have occurred
with national societal impact.

First,

the public community

and junior college, hereinafter referred to as community
colleges, has experienced a massive growth and expansion and
has become a major institution providing educational
opportunities, employment and skills development, and
related community services.

Secondly, there has evolved a

considerable federal commitment to providing vocational
training, occupational assistance, and employment opportun­
ities to members of American society for whom it is deemed
appropriate, necessary, and who have little chance of
becoming employed without such assistance.
Predictably,

the two have worked together as the

philosophy and operating practices of the public community
college tended to be consistent with the intent and purpose
of the national manpower development effort.

1

Research of

Harris

1

and Magnum

2

indicates that federal manpower pro­

grams of the sixties and early seventies contributed in no
small way to the growth and development of public
community colleges.

Many were able to establish new

occupational programs, expand existing ones, acquire
equipment and instructional materials as well as hire
staff under many of these programs.
Yet, through the mid-seventies of this century, the
public community college faced many new challenges.
Enrollments were beginning to level off after a sustained
period of growth.

The American economy was unstable,

experiencing both inflation and an economic recession.
Conscription into the military had ended and many who
viewed and used community colleges attendance as a way to
avoid induction into the armed services no longer sought
this course.

The age of majority was lowered from twenty-

one (21) to eighteen (18) and, as a result, many young
adults moved directly from secondary school into the work
place or other social or non-social pursuits during that
age period which had been used for

postsecondary schooling.

^Sam Harris Associates Ltd. , A. Comparative Study of
fflTA Institutional Training in Community Colleges, Public
Vocational Schools and Private Institutions, National
Technical Information Service, Springfield,
VA, 1973.
o

Garth Magnum, The Total Impact of Manpower Programs:
a Four-City Case Study, Volume I, Olympus Research Corp.,
U. S . Department of Commerce, National Technical Information
Service,
Springfield,
VA, 1971, p. 65,

3
Finally, there were major legislative changes in the focus
and the delivery of the federal government's national
(Manpower) employment and training programs.
In late 1973, the Congress approved and the President
signed the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act of
3
1973.
This Act created a new decentralized and decatego­
rized delivery system of employment and training programs.
Unlike those centralized and categorical manpower programs
of the sixties which had been a part of the public community
college growth period, and administered at the federal level,
these new programs,

fiscal resources, and priorities were

controlled and administered by local and state elected
officials including mayors, county executives, and Governors.
Purpose of the Study
This study has three purposes:

(1) to identify the

various ways public community colleges in Michigan have
been involved in employment and training efforts under the
Comprehensive Employment and Training Act delivery system;
(2) to determine the extent of their participation in terms
of funding levels, program involvement, and the number of
persons served; and (3) to describe selected models
successfully used by the public community colleges in
Michigan in providing employment and training services under
the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act.

3

United States Congress, Comprehensive Employment and
Training Act of 1973, Public Law 93-203, 93rd Congress, 1973.

Background of the Study
According to Monroe^, no educational institution has
been the subject of more discussions, predictions, and glow­
ing pronouncements than the community college.

The rapid

growth of the community college serves to illustrate and
confirm the faith people have in it and its continuing
ability to maximize opportunities for its enrollees.

One

of the most convincing arguments of the worth of the public
community college system is the fact that it has been so
widely accepted throughout the nation.
While not without its detractors,

including Lynes^ who

describes the community college as a "second rate place for
second rate kids," and Jencks

who suggests it is a place

for the dullwitted or uninterested majority, the community
college has become an accepted member of the public educa­
tion system structure.
Most of the development and expansion of public
community colleges has taken place since 1960.
was caused by a series of factors including:
demands of business,

This growth
(1) the

industry, and government for technically

r

Charles R. Monroe, Profile of the Community College,
Jossey Bass, San Fransisco^ F972, p. TT.
^R. Lynes, How Good are the Junior Colleges? Harpers,
November, 1966, p. 59.
Christopher Jencks and D. Riesman, The Academic
Revolution, Doubleday, Garden City, 1968, p. 488.

5
trained individuals,

(2) the enactment of the Vocational

Education Act of 1963, which provided federal assistance to
postsecondary vocational education institutions, and (3) the
passage of legislation in many States mandating community
colleges to offer vocational-technical education.^
Philosophically,

the public community college had its

origin in the egalitarian concern for extending educational
opportunities to a broader segment of the population while
maintaining preparatory programs for university level
studies.

The public community college has performed its

role as a link between the high school and the four-year
institution very well as evidenced by its general accept­
ance by society as a central part of the education community.
However, to be truly representative of the community, the
postsecondary institution must also include the countless
other members of the community in search of self definition
who must be served if the institution is to become a truly
community enterprise.

This population includes, among

others, the unemployed, the underemployed, the high school
dropout, the returning veteran, displaced homemakers, women,
and the handicapped.
The State of Michigan has become a leader in the
development and expansion of the public community college
concept.

Since it's beginning in 1914 with the establish­

ment of the Grand Rapids Junior College, Michigan now rates
7th nationally in its number of public community - junior
^Monroe,

O jd .

C i t . , p. 17

Q
colleges with twenty-nine such institutions.
According to the Michigan Department of Education, the
comprehensive community college concept implemented in
Michigan is founded upon three basic elements:

(1) equal

access to educational institutions for all persons in the
community,

(2) the removal of geographic and economic

barriers which prohibit persons from benefiting from the
services, and (3) the reasonable opportunity for the
individual to discover and develop his or her talent at low
q

cost.

In addition, there has evolved a perspective and

function of community services to which the state's public
community

colleges generally adhere.

As evidence mounted that community colleges had come of
age, the federal government increased its availability of
special program assistance, categorical financial aid and
other subsidies aimed at the Community and Junior C o l l e g e . ^
These national programs included several student financial
assistance programs, the Manpower Development and Training
Act of 1962, the aforementioned Vocational Education Act of
1963, the Higher Education Act of 1965, and others.

The

Vocational Education Act Amendments of 1968 specified that
Q

Interview with James C. Homan, Higher Education
Consultant, Michigan Department of Education, Lansing,
Michigan, August, 1979.
^Michigan Department of Education, Statewide Community
College Services, Lansing, 1978, p. 2.
^Monroe, 0j>. C i t ., p. 17.

15 percent of the money for vocational education was to go
to public community colleges and that 15 percent additional
money was to be used in support of education for the disadvan­
taged."^

The bulk of the latter would find its way to the

community college.
Schaefer and Kaufman

12

accurately noted that at the

same time trends were acting to encourage the growth and
development of community colleges, various other forces
were focusing the attention of the nation on those individ­
uals who were not equipped to assume productive roles in the
labor force.

Some of these were workers who had been dis­

placed by technological changes, while others were victims
of poverty, of poor educational achievement and had neither
skills nor the personal habits required for employment.
These included many women entering or re-entering the labor
force who were in need of training, upgrading, or employment
assistance.
During the early and mid-seventies, large numbers of
out-of-school youth and young adults were also willing to
work but found themselves without the technical and employ­
ability skills to be competitive in securing employment.
On the average, nearly 3.4 million persons in the 16 - 24
^ U n i t e d States Congress, Vocational Education Amendments of 1968, Public Law 88-210 Amendments, 90th Congress,
1968.
TO

C. J. Schaefer, and J. J. Kaufman, New Directions for
Vocational Education, Heath Lexington, Lexington, Mass.,
1971, p. 2l.

age cohort were unemployed during 1976.
Magnum

14

13

Adams and

estimate that the actual number experiencing some

unemployment during the period may be twice that number.
While a number of factors influence and contribute to u n ­
employment,

the longitudinal studies by Parnes and Kohen'*''

indicate that when training and preparation is tailored to
the needs of labor market and the individual unemployment
is reduced, earnings are increased, and these gains are
substantial and lasting.
As the new federal leadership moved into nlace under
the Nixon administration,

there was increased criticism

of former President Johnson's Great Society programs and
their centralized and categorized approach in addressing
the nations social, economic, and employment problems.

16

Many of the programs initiated during this era, which
had significant impact on the growth and development of
community colleges, were soon to be completely restructured
or abandoned.

The three most notable were the Manpower

13

U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Admin­
istration, Employment & Training Report of the_President.
Washington, D. C . , U.S. Department of Labor, 1979, p. 226.
^ A r v i l V. Adams and Garth L. Magnum, The Lingering
Crisis of Youth Unemployment, W.E. Upjohn Institute for
Employment Research, Kalamazoo, Michigan, 1978, p. 1.

15

Herbert S. Parnes, and Andrew I. Kohen, "Labor
Market Experience of Noncollege Youth," From School to W o r k :
Improving the Transition, National Commission for Manpower
Policy, Washington, D.C., 1976, p. 80.

16

Sar A. Levitan and Robert Taggart, The Promise of
Greatness, Harvard University, Cambridge, 1976,
p. 47.

Development and Training Act of 1962 which provided funds
through State Education Agencies for occupational training
programs;

the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, which

provided many community and school based programs delivered
through the community college; and the Emergency Employment
Act of 1971, which provided public employment opportunities
in local, county, and state level organizations including
public community colleges.

In their place would evolve a

new program delivery approach which would consolidate the
authority for employment and training programs in the hands
of local officials under the politicly popular banner of
revenue - sharing.
This new approach under the Comprehensive Employment
and Training Act of 1973 (CETA) reorganized the federal
manpower delivery system from a categorical and centralized
authority mechanism to one of decentralized local control.
Under this new system, hundreds of millions of dollars
(Appendix

A ) in federal funds were in control of local

chief elected officials.

It became their responsibility to

plan and provide employment and training services for the
disadvantaged,

the underemployed, and the unemployed

residents of their communities.

Community colleges who had

previously conducted programs and provided services under
the Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962, the
Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, and the Emergency Employ­
ment Act of 1971, now turned to local elected officials for

10
continued support of these important training and employ­
ment activities.

This approach represented the first major

change in the delivery of manpower services since their
beginning in the early sixties.
Statement of the Problem
The basic problem addressed in this study is the lack
of information about the types and levels of participation
of public community colleges in Michigan under the Compre­
hensive Employment and Training Act.
The interdisciplinary nature of employment and training
programs easily lends them to research from a variety of
interests.

Economists,

social scientists, and various other

researchers have all done considerable work on the costs,
impact, and effectiveness of these types of programs.

Yet,

while the public community colleges are generally presumed
to be major participants in federal employment programs,
there has been little research to empirically determine just
what role these institutions have played.
Commissioned works by the American Association of
Community and Junior Colleges'^ and the National Center for
Vocational Education

18

have been useful in providing general

■^Claire Olson, Community and Junior Colleges and the
Comprehensive Employment & Training Act:
Participation and
Recommendations for Improvement. American Association of
Community and Junior Colleges, Washington,D.C., 1978.

18

David W. Stevens, The Coordination of Vocational
Education Programs with CETA. Information Services No. 151,
National Center for Vocational Education, Columbus, OH., 1979.

11
information on CETA and community colleges.

However, there

appears to be a lack of detailed research and information on
how community colleges have been involved under CETA, at
what levels, or how successful their efforts have been.
Significance of the Study
The findings of this study should:

(1) present

empirical evidence of the level of community college
participation in the largest employment and training pro­
gram ever initiated by this nation,

(2) be particularly

useful to state and national policy makers as well as
community college administrators and local CETA prime
sponsors in planning, targeting at delivery systems, and
making other program delivery decisions,

(3) encourage

community college administrators to re-assess their
fundamental goals, purposes and activities in addressing
the problems of the economically disadvantaged,
employed, the underemployed,

the u n ­

(4) encourage other researchers

to look at the impact of CETA on community colleges from a
multi-state, regional, or national perspective.
Assumptions
In conducting this investigation, the following
assumptions will be made relative to CETA prime sponsors
and community colleges:
1.

That all prime sponsors surveyed have direct
access to at least one public community college.

12
2.

That all public community colleges are aware of
the CETA federal manpower program and its ability
to provide employment and training services.

3.

That all public community colleges are both
interested in and capable of providing education,
employment,

training, and other related services

to CETA prime sponsors and program participants.
4.

That neither prime sponsors nor community colleges
have any legal, philosophical, or operational
policies or procedures that would prohibit their
cooperation and collaboration.

5.

That all prime sponsors have attempted to inform
the college or colleges in their respective juris­
dictional areas of the programs and the employment
and training opportunities available under this Act
and of the appropriate procedures for participation.

Overall,

it is assumed that there is a positive

attitude toward the role of the federal employment and
training effort and that the CETA system of local control
would make it attractive and relatively easy for the
community college to participate.
Limitations of the Study
Several areas and activities are outside the scope
of this study.
1.

They include:

Direct or special grants from sources other than
designated prime sponsors or balance of state

13
consortiums such as those awarded by the U.S.
Department of Labor or the National Commission
on Employment Policy.
2.

Activities prior to the beginning of fiscal year
1978 or after the beginning of fiscal year 1980.

3.

The impact or amount of non-CETA funds used to
provide match or assistance, e.g. Direct Student
Aid, State Aid, or similar Federal Assistance.

4.

Special funds or projects authorized under the
Economic Stimulus Program for activities other
than employment,

training, or related CETA

occupational services.
Definitions
1.

Advisory Council - A group of community members
from the prime sponsors jurisdictional area
representing specific sector, institutions, or
agencies who advise the prime sponsor on various
aspects of the priorities, funding levels, deliv­
ery and operation of local employment and training
programs.

This council may also be termed the

prime sponsor planning council so defined under
Section 109 of the act.
2.

Allocation - The distribution of funds according
to a formula prescribed by law.

3.

Balance of State - The 56 county area within the

14
jurisdiction of the State which is not included
in the comprehensive employment and training
plans of another prime sponsor.

The State of

Michigan acts as the prime sponsor in this area.
4.

Career Exploration - Any assistance provided
relative to exploring, assessing, or identifying
personal skills, occupational interests,

and/or

perspective employment opportunity.
5.

Classroom Training - Training of the type nor­
mally conducted in an institutional setting, in­
cluding vocational education, and designed to
provide individuals with the technical skills
and information required to perform a specific
job or group of jobs.

It may also include train­

ing designed to enhance the employability of
individuals by upgrading basic skills, through
the provisions of courses such as remedial
education, training in the primary language of
persons with limited English-speaking ability,
or English-as-a-second language training.
6.

Class-size Training - Classroom training of a
group of participants, usually 15 persons or more,
under a single grant or contract.

This type of

training is done on a full-time, 30-40 hour week
basis.

15
7.

Counseling and Guidance - Any intake, orientation,
career assessment or assistance provided urogram
participants under the CETA program.

8.

Economically Disadvantaged - A person who:

(1) re­

ceives (or is a member of a family that receives)
cash payment under a federal, state, or local
welfare program;

(2) one who had a family income

during the six month period prior to application
for the program involved, which would have qual­
ified that family for cash welfare payments;
(3) is a foster child on behalf of whom State or
local government payments are made;

(4) in cases

permitted by regulations of the Secretary, is a
handicapped individual living at home,

(or) is

an individual who is institutionalized or re­
ceiving services in, (or) is a client of, a
sheltered workshop, prison, hospital,

(or) is in

community care.
9.

Individual Referral Training - Training provided
on an individual grant where each participant is
referred to training on a scholarship-like basis.

10.

Job Placement - Assistance and/or payment in
securing full-time or part-time employment in the
public or private sector.

16
11.

Occupational Education - Occupational/technical
training or re-training which is given in schools
or classes (including field or laboratory work and
remedial or related academic and technical instruc­
tions incident thereto).

This training is con­

ducted as part of a program designed to prepare
individuals for employment in occupations which
are specified by regulations not to be generally
considered professional or which requires a
baccalaureate or higher degree.

The term in­

cludes vocational guidance and counseling (indi­
vidually or through group instruction) in connection
with such training or for the purpose of facil­
itating occupational choices, instruction related
to the occupation for which the students are in
training and instruction necessary for students
to benefit from such training.
12.

On-the-Job Training - Training in the private or
public sector given to a participant,

who has

been hired first by the employer, while he or

she

is engaged in productive work which provides know­
ledge or skills essential to the full and adequate
performance of the job.
13.

Prime Sponsor - 1) a state; 2) a unit of general
local government which has a population of 100,000

17
or more persons on the basis of the most satis­
factory current data available to the Department
of Labor (i.e., a city or county);

(3) a consor­

tium of such units of general local government.
Each prime sponsor establishes an organization
for the purpose of administering CETA programs.
14.

Prime Sponsor Area - The geographic area of
services under the jurisdiction of a single Prime
Sponsor or a Prime Sponsor Consortium.

^•5*

Proj ect - A definable task or group of related
tasks which will be 1) completed within a set
period of time; 2) has a public service objective;
3) will result in specific project or accomplish­
ment; 4) and would otherwise not be done with
existing funds.

16.

Public Assistance - Federal, State, or local
government cash payments for which eligibility
is determined by a need or income test.

17.

Public Service Employment - Includes work in areas
such as environmental quality, health care,
education, child care, public safety, crime pre­
vention and control, prisoner rehabilitation,
transportation, recreation, maintenance of parks,
street, housing and neighborhood improvements,

18
rural development, conservation, beautification,
veterans outreach and other fields of human
betterment and community improvement.
18.

Recipient - Any person, organization, unit

of

government, corporation, or other entity receiving
federal assistance under the Comprehensive Employ­
ment and Training Act; whether directly from the
Secretary, or through a recipient by sub-grant,
contract,
19.

sub-contract, agreement, or otherwise.

Supportive Services - Those services which are
designed to contribute to the employability of
participants,

improve or enhance their employment

opportunities, and facilitate movement into
permanent employment which would not be sub­
sidized under CETA.
20.

Underemployed Person - 1) Those who are working
part-time but are seeking full-time work; 2) those
who work full-time but their wages are below
either a) the poverty level established by the
Federal Office of Management and Budget, or
b) 70 percent of the lower living standard income.

21.

Unemployed Person - Persons who are without jobs,
and who want and are available for work.

This

19
definition does not apply where there are supple­
mental allocation formulas involved.
22.

Unit of General Local Government - Any city,
municipality,

county, township, parish, village,

or other general purpose political subdivision
which has the power to levy taxes and spend funds.
23.

Vocational Center (Area) - A specialized school
used exclusively or principally for the provision
of vocational education and preparation for
employment.

24.

Work Experience - A short-term and/or part-time
work assignment with a public employer or private
nonprofit employing agency.

It is for persons who

have either never worked or who have not been
working for an extended period of time, such as
students, youth in transition from school to
employment, youth with no definite employment
goals, chronically unemployed, retired persons,
handicapped individuals, residents of institutions,
and older workers.
Title Designation
The CETA program authorization, which was to lapse
October 1, 1978, was extended by the Comprehensive Employ­
ment and Training Act Amendments of 1978.

These amendments

20
made structural changes in the outline and activity title
number system of the act.
For the purpose of the study, the original title number­
ing system of the 1973 act will be used.

A comparative

outline of both the CETA Act of 1973 and the CETA Amend­
ments of 1978 as well as a title by title summary of each
appears in the appendix.

(Appendix B ) .

Overview of the Dissertation
The following pages of the study are divided into
four chapters.

In Chapter II, the pertinent literature

is reviewed under three categories:
Junior College,

(1) the Community -

(2) employment and training programs, and

(3) related research.

In Chapter III is presented the

design of the study including a description of the data,
procedures of analysis, and the method of selection of
the model programs.

In Chapter IV, the results of the

survey and its analysis are reported, and the program
models presented.

In Chapter V is presented the summary

findings and conclusions.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

A review of the pertinent literature presented in this
chapter is directed at examining:

(1) the commitment and

development of occupational education in the community
colleges,

(2) Federal employment and training programs and

their implication for the community colleges; and (3) the
related investigations and other research.
Occupational Education and the Community College
Throughout their evolution, community colleges have
been characterized by a willingness to recognize and provide
for the changing educational needs of the community and its
population.

Social changes as well as technological

changes in American society aeem to have had the greatest
impact on these changing needs as they effect the community
college.
Cross

19

distinctive

identifies the two prominent social forces
to the community college as:

(1) the demand of

an increasing egalitarian society for the democratization

^ P a t r i c i a K. Cross, "The Quiet Revolution," The
Research Reporter, Volume 4, No. 3, Berkeley, CA, Center
for Research and Development in Higher Education, 1969.
21

22
of higher education; and (2) the need of a technological
society for a better educated citizenry.
Thornton

20

expands

on that position noting that the

three most obvious manifestations are:

(1) the growth in

population which is doubling every thirty to thirty-five
years with a resultant change in age distribution;

(2) the

emergence of new patterns of employment characterized by an
increase in white collar and service occupations over those
providing goods, and (3) a rise in the average level of
schooling which generally translates into higher lifetime
earnings.

His conclusions are supported by later work of

the U.S. Department of Labor.
Ogilvie and Raines

22

21

concluded that the basic community -

junior college philosophy involves a commitment to change.
A community's educational needs tomorrow will differ in
many ways from that of today and that rigid commitments will
thwart an institutions efforts to meet the educational needs
of the community it is dedicated to serve.
The expansion in enrollment over the ten year period
ending in 1971 is illustrative of the community college's
growth and its ability to change and adapt to the needs of

20

James W. Thornton, The Community Junior College,
John Wiley and Sons, Inc. , New York, 1972, p. T5".
21

Occupational Outlook Handbook, (1976-77 Edition),
U.S. Department of Labor Bulletin No. 1875, Washington D . C . ,
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976, p. 15.
22

William K. Ogilvie and Max R. Raines, Perspective on
the Community - Junior College, Appleton-Century-Crofts,
New York, 1971, p . TT

23
the community.

Palinchak

23

cites that during this period

community colleges grew more than 200 percent with Michigan's
enrollment pattern illustrative

of a national trend which

places half of all first-time college students in community
colleges.
During this same period, community colleges began to
place increased emphasis on occupational education as a
primary function of the institution which may, in part,
account for the rapid growth.

Ogilvie

first 60-odd years of its existence,

0/

notes that in the

the two-year community

college had not achieved the goals proposed for it in the
area of occupational education.
Merson

26

Studies by Shannon

25

and

in the early sixties indicate that most community

colleges had made little effort to develop occupational
programs characteristic of a comprehensive community college.
Venn

27

states that there were large gaps in the availability

of occupational programs in two-year colleges.

Less than a

quarter of all junior college students were enrolled in

Robert S. Palinchak, The Evolution of the Community
College, The Scarecrow Press, Metuchen, N.J., 1973, p. 125.
^Ogilvie,

0j>. C i t ., p. 260.

25

Gail Shannon, "Terminal Programs in the Public
Junior College," Educational Research Bulletin, Ohio
University, Volume 32, No. T~. 1963, p p . 1 - 10.
26

Thomas B. Merson, "Directors in Community College
Occupational & Technical Education." Proceedings Annual
Community College Conference, Northern Illinois Univ., 1964.
27

Grant Venn, Man, Education and Work:
Postsecondary
Vocational & Technical Education. Washington: American
Council on Education, 1964, p. T4.

24
organized occupational curricula in the early sixties.
John Gardner

28

recognized the dilemma of values in

his famed treatise on excellence:
We must learn to honor excellence, indeed
demand it, in every socially accepted
human activity, however humble the activity,
and to scorn shoddiness, however exalted
the activity.
An excellent plumber is
infinitely more admirable than an in­
competent philosopher, and the society
which scorns excellence in plumbing
and tolerates shoddiness in philosophy
because philosophy is an exalted activity
will have neither good plumbers nor good
philosophers, and neither its pipes nor
its theories will hold water.
Ogilvie

29

notes it was the federal government that

provided the monetary and vocal support to further the
development of occupational programs in the community
colleges.

Federal initiatives including the Manpower

Development and Training Act of 1962, the Vocational
Education Act of 1963, and the Vocational Education
Amendments of 1968 gave the impetus to community colleges
by requiring that training be focused at gainful employment
as the goal of vocational education.

Palinchak's observa-

tions two years later support this position.

30

The responses of the community colleges to these
occupational programs and the needs of their respective
28

John W. Gardner, Excellence, New York:
Publishers, New York, 1961.
^Ogilvie,

0£. C i t . , p. 260.

■^Palinchak, 0£, Cit., p. 167.

Harper & Row

25
communities is summarized in John Walsh's statement that
"The Junior College is properly positioned educationally
astride the pulse line of the community it serves, it is
properly positioned educationally and philosophically to
make a major contribution to the Manpower development
movement."

31

Finally, President Richard M. Nixon in his

Congressional Message of March 19, 1970 said:
Critical manpower shortages exist in the
United States in many skilled occupational
fields such as policy and fire science,
environmental technology, and medical
paraprofessionals. Community colleges and
similar institutions have the potential
to provide programs to train persons in
these manpower-deficient fields.
Special
training like this typically costs more
than general education and required out­
side support.
The literature indicates that two factors:

(1) a

philosophical commitment to adapt to community needs, and
(2)

support from the federal sector to provide the intensive,

often expensive, occupational programs guided the develop­
ment of Occupational Education in the Community College.
Employment and Training Programs
The early sixties marked the beginning of a series of
new employment and training programs aimed at improving the
skill levels, employability, and employment opportunities of
31

John P. Walsh, "Manpower Development:
A Junior College
Responsibility," Junior College Journal, Vol. 32, May, 1964.
"^Richard M. Nixon, (President1s) Higher Education
Message to Congress, March"! 1970.

26
various segments of the population.

Throughout the sixteen

year period from 1962 to 1978, seven major national employ­
ment and training programs were implemented, many of which
were available for community college participation and
direct involvement.
Presented here is a brief chronological review of some
of the major federal employment and training programs.
They illustrate some of the options available to community
colleges as well as the evolution of these programs.
The Manpower Development and Training Act (MDTA)

33

was

the first major effort of the sixties to train and retrain
unemployed workers,

Initiated in 1962 to serve those dis­

placed by technological change,

it was reoriented during

the mid-sixties to provide training and other employment
services to assist the unskilled and undereducated.
^/

The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964

offered a number

of programs targeted at the economically poor including the
Neighborhood Youth Corps, which provided work and limited
training opportunities to in-school and out-of-school youth;
the Job Corps, focusing on intensive remedial education and
occupational skill development in a residential setting; and
the Work Experience and Training Program, offering employment
opportunities for the poor and adult education for those
33

United States Congress, Manpower Development & Training
Act of 1962, as amended, Public Law 87-415, 87th Congress, 1962.
*3

/

________________________ , Economic Opportunity Act of
1964, Public Law 88-452, 88th Congress, 1964.

27
without the verbal and quantitative skills needed for
employment.
The Concentrated Employment Program of 1967"^ provided
block grants to community groups for comprehensive attacks
on employment problems including the removal of such barriers
as the lack of education or appropriate occupational skills
training.

During that same year, the Social Security
O fi

Administration Work Incentive Program
train and place welfare recipients.

was implemented to
Public institutions,

including community colleges, were used to train persons
and private firms were subsidized to hire the disadvantaged.
The next year the Vocational Rehabilitation Act was extended
to provide similar services to the certifiable physically
handicapped.

37

The Emergency Employment Act of 1971

38

was the first

general public employment effort since the New Deal era of
the thirties.

It provided funds to state and local govern­

ments to hire the unemployed and place them in various
public and community service positions.

35

United States Congress, Economic Opportunity Act
Amendments of 1967, P.L. 90-222” 90th Congress, 1967.
36

_________________
,
1967, P.L. 90-248, 90th Congress! 1968".

Social Security Amendments of

37

_________________
,Vocational Rehabilitation
Amendments of 1968, P.L. 90-391” 90th Congress, 1968.
38

________> Emergency Employment Act of
1971, P .L. 92-54, 92nd Congress” 1971.

28
In 1973, the Comprehensive Employment and Training
Act

39

was enacted.

The Act consolidated the many programs

initiated under the Manpower Development and Training,
Economic Opportunity, and Emergency Employment Acts, into
a single federal grant to local governments which were to
distribute funds to less populated areas.

The aim was to

replace the previous panoply of separately funded, federally
designed and administered manpower programs with a flexible
locally-run system.
Local and state government units rather than the
various federal departments, became the primary decision
makers regarding the balance and mix of training and employ­
ment programming.

Further, these local and state govern­

ment units known as "Prime Sponsors" would now become the
primary provider of employment and training programs and the
administrator of the funds for community colleges and other
institutions and agencies to conduct these programs.
Related Study and Research
The first major attempt to ascertain the extent of
involvement of community colleges in employment and train­
ing programs was the Korim

study for the American Assoc­

iation of Community and Junior Colleges (AACJC).^

His

"^United States Congress, Op. Ci t ., 93rd Congress, 1973.
^ A n d r e w S. Korim, MDTA In Community Colleges, American
Association of Community & Junior Colleges, Washington D.C.,
1973.

29
findings indicated that of the 635 two-year colleges respond­
ing to the survey,

338 reported conducting occupational train­

ing programs under the Manpower Development and Training Act.
Of the 635 respondents, nearly 407. indicated that they did
not know enough about the possibilities for participation.
Some of the difficulty was attributed to confusion of
authority over the programs between the U.S. Department of
Labor and the U.S. Office of Education.

While overall program

authority rested with the Labor Department, some of the
operational responsibility for institutional training pro­
grams was transferred by letter of agreement to the Office
of Education.

Subsequent program guidelines and adminis­

trative procedures prescribed by both agencies often created
operational difficulties for some community colleges.
The findings of this AACJC study indicate that
Comprehensive Area Manpower Planning System (CAMPS),
which was integrated into the MDTA, made it easier for
community colleges to become involved in the employment and
training programs.

Under the CAMPS system, local councils

were formed to advise local level officials on the employ­
ment and training needs of their community.

It is this

local character of the advisory council that further
stimulated the basis for an effective linkage between
employment and training programs and community colleges.
A 1

A study by Olson
^Olson,

in 1977 of community colleges

0£. Cit. , 1977.

30
participation in CETA programs for the AACJC showed a
dramatic increase in participation and involvement.

Of

the 519 two-year colleges who responded, 478 or 86.67o
indicated they were participating in CETA at some level.
Over 49% of them were receiving yearly awards in excess
of $100,000.
The findings in her study indicated that those
institutions that were best informed about the program and
those having representatives on the local councils received
more funding.

While many colleges found that the CETA

administrative guidelines were confusing, institutions were
becoming better informed and adapting their delivery systems
to the needs of the community and the program.
While not directly related to community colleges par­
ticipation, studies by the United States Conference of
M a y o r s ^ and the Proaction I n stitute^ in 1978 examined
coordination between CETA and Postsecondary Vocational
Education.

Again, the key elements of knowledge, coor­

dination, and the ability to adapt to changing needs were
the leading indicators of a successful relationship at
institutional and state levels.

^ U n i t e d States Conference of Mayors, CETA-Vocational
Education Coordination A Status Report, Washington D.C., T979.
^ R o b e r t C. Muth, CETA Linkages with Postsecondary
Education, Proaction Institute, East Lansing,
W I , 1979.

31
Summary
The community colleges commitment to meet the changing
needs of the community and their ability to adapt to in­
fluences in the environment are significant factors in an
institutions'

level of success.

The literature and research

support the idea that change and adaptability are central
factors in community colleges participation in Federal
employment and training programs.

In addition, knowledge,

awareness, and cooperation with local officials have
dramatically increased the community colleges level of
participation overall.

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

In this era of constant change,

it is imperative

that each public community college attempt to meet the
career development and career preparation needs of its
community.

Throughout their growth, federal employment and

training programs have changed and become increasingly more
available to community colleges and more attractive to
these institutions.

How much so, as indicated previously,

is the focus of this study.
This chapter includes a description of:
research population and sample,
(3)

(1) the

(2) the survey instrument,

the procedures for collecting the data and information,

and (4) the procedures for analysis of the data.
Population
The population in this study is made up of 33 prime
sponsor jurisdictions,

22 of which are regular U.S. Depart­

ment of Labor designated prime sponsors and 11 of which are
under the balance of state and are designated by the Governor
of Michigan.

For the purpose of the study, both groups are

considered equal in that they:

32

33

1.

Are legally liable under the Comprehensive
Employment and Training Act for all activities
conducted under the Act.

2.

Must adhere to the same federal rules, regulations,
and guidelines.

3.

Must plan, administer, monitor, and evaluate
all programs and activities under the same
governance structure.

4.

Must have advisory groups with representatives
from specific populations, agencies, and
institutions.

5.

Receive funds to carry out the employment
activities authorized under the Act.

A complete listing of the survey population together
with the jurisdictional areas served may be found in
Appendix C.
Sample
All U.S. Department of Labor designated and Michigan
balance of state (B.O.S.) designated prime sponsors that
responded to the survey questionnaire constitute the
sample.

This number was 26, or 78.8% of the total.

It is

therefore assumed that the sample is adequately repre­
sentative of the total to be acceptable for the purpose
of the study.

(See Table 1).

34
Table 1.

Response Rate to the Survey Questionnaire

Mailed

Returned

Response
Rate

Survey Sample

N

N

Regular Prime Sponsors

22

19

57.6

Balance of State Prime
Sponsors

11

7

21.2

TOTAL

33

26

78.8

%

The study also included summaries of interviews held
at selected community colleges who had unique occupational
training programs.
INSTRUMENTATION
Development
A questionnaire was designed to examine the level of
community college participation in three broad areas:
(1) involvement in the planning process including council
and committee participation,

(2) level of funding received

for various employment and training programs, and (3) the
number of participants in each category of employment or
training program available through the prime sponsor.

The

primary source used to formulate the questions included
were:

(1) previous employment and training studies,

(2) the

program evaluation guides of the U.S. Department of Labor,
and (3) the literature concerning occupational programs.

35
A pilot survey group of five prime sponsors repre­
senting both regular and balance of state prime sponsor
regions, were asked to respond to test the original
questionnaire.

This pilot study was conducted to ascertain

any difficulties which might arise in interpreting the
questions and to add or delete any items which were deemed
important or insignificant to the purpose of the study.

un­

The

respondents were requested to make comments about the
questionnaire itself and about items they found to be vague,
ambiguous, or unrelated to the study.

Comments and sugges­

tions from the respondents to the pilot, as well as community
college personnel and others interested in the study resulted
in the final revision of the instrument.

(See Appendix D ) .

Description
The survey instrument was composed of two types of
questions:

(1) fixed-data items, and (2) open-ended items.

The fixed-data items provided specific information about the
resources available in prime sponsor jurisdictions and the
amount of resources received by community colleges from the
prime sponsors.

Further, these items revealed, by category,

the types of employment and training services available and
how many persons were served by community colleges.

These

questions gave greater uniformity of measurement and,
therefore, greater reliability by forcing respondents to

36
answer to specific response categories.

The disadvantage

of this limited response is that indepth information may
not be gained.

Therefore,

ended questions were added.

to gain more information, openThis type of question does not

put a restraint on the answers and expressions of the
respondents.

It was postulated that both types of questions

were needed to produce the desired information.
Data Collection Procedures
A letter emphasizing the importance of the study was
sent to each prime sponsor directly along with one copy of
the survey questionnaire.

(See Appendix

D

).

with the questionnaire and letter was a stamped,
addressed return envelope.

Included
self-

A follow-up letter was sent

subsequently to those individuals who had not responded by
the end of the first time period.

(See Appendix

D

).

A period of six weeks was given for a reply to the
first mailing of 33 survey questionnaires.

At the end of

that period, 18 (54.57o) completed questionnaires were
returned.
returns.

A follow-up request was mailed seeking additional
The total questionnaires returned were 26 (78.87.) .

Each prime sponsor director returning a questionnaire
was interviewed for the purpose of clarifying the responses
given or acquiring additional information to unanswered
questions on the survey.
The responses were tabulated for descriptive and
quantitative analysis.

The descriptive and quantitative

37
analyses are summarized in contingency tables by number and
percentage.
Three selected community colleges were randomly chosen
from the institutions with the highest levels of participa­
tion in classroom training and other direct service delivery
activities.

Interviews were then conducted at these

community colleges.
Non-structured interview questions were developed in a
manner that would provide information regarding:

(1) the

involvement of community college in the prime sponsor planning
process,

(2) the development of the CETA employment and

training program at the institution,

(3) the channels of

communication and relationships between the institution and
the prime sponsor, and (4) factors influencing the institu­
tions

participation and continuation in the program.

Type of Information
There are two kinds of information in this study:
(1) objective data from the prime sponsor survey question­
naire, and (2) the summarized descriptions of the three
model classroom training and direct service delivery
programs at the selected institutions.
Analysis of the Questionnaire
The objective data items and responses from each
questionnaire were numerically tabulated and include per­
centage calculations.

Tables were constructed to present a

38
descriptive report in terms of numerical values and per­
centages of the responses to the questionnaire items.
In that a majority of prime sponsors asked to
remain anonymous, every attempt has been made not to
specifically identify an individual prime sponsor or
community college.

In the case of the program descriptions,

each prime sponsor and community college agreed to open
disclosure of that information.
Program Description
The fundamental purpose of the community college as an
education institution is to provide instruction and training.
Successful efforts in meeting this primary function often
lead to other employment and training activities available
through the prime sponsor system including such administra­
tive functions as participant certification,
payments, and participant assessment

subsistence

It is therefore

assumed that a successful classroom training effort is the
first step toward participation in a wide range of other
activities.
The programs presented were selected on the basis of
their participant and funding levels in the areas of class­
room training.

The key administrators of the programs --

the Program Director and/or the Occupational Dean -- were
interviewed and that information is summarized into the
program description presented in the study.

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

The purposes of this study, as previously stated, were
(1) to examine the various ways Michigan public community
colleges have been involved in the national employment and
training effort under the Comprehensive Employment and
Training Act delivery system;

(2) to report these and other

findings on the degree of their participation in terms of
funding levels, program involvement, and the number of
persons served; and (3) to present successful approaches
used by community colleges in providing employment and
training services under the Comprehensive Employment and
Training Act.
Responses from the directors of CETA prime sponsor
areas were tabulated and the results are summarized in a
series of tables which are presented in terms of per­
centages, numerical values, and specific responses to the
survey.
Interviews at the selected community colleges were
conducted with the Deans of Occupational Education and/or
the classroom training program directors.

The results of

those interviews are presented in a general program
39

40
description including a chart illustrating the colleges'
organization relationship and the administrative relation­
ship with the local CETA prime sponsor.
The major headings for the data analysis which follow
are:

(1) advisory council participation;

activities information;

(2) program and

(3) selected program description;

and (4) summary.
Advisory Council Participation
In an attempt to ascertain the level of involvement by
public two-year colleges in the CETA advisory process,
several factors were considered for analysis.
factors are:

These

(1) the method of selecting CETA advisory

council members;

(2) the number of prime sponsors with

educational representatives from community colleges on their
advisory council;

(3) the areas where community colleges

have council voting privileges;

(4) the administrative

position of the community college representative to the
advisory council; and (5) a general rating of the community
college representatives' participation and performance as
a member of the council.

The data related to each of these

items are summarized in Tables 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 and
discussed in this section.
Council Member Selection
The Comprehensive Employment and Training Act does
not limit the number of persons or organizations who may

41
participate on the local advisory council.

It does, however,

spell out the specific population groups and agencies which
must be represented on the council.
Table 2 presents the responses given on the procedures
used to select council representatives.

The Comprehensive

Employment and Training Act requires that Vocational
Educational agencies and other education and training agencies
be represented.

A full text citation of this section of the

act appears as Appendix E .
Table 2.

The Method of Selecting .CETA Advisory Council
Members

Method
1)

Selected or appointed
specific persons

2)

By open solicitation
and/or public notice

Number

%

26

100.0

7

26.9

The response data in Table 2 indicate that each CETA
prime sponsor appointed representatives from the appropriate
groups or organizations as required by the act.
in addition,

However,

seven (7) prime sponsors or 26.97> responded

that they had advertised or solicited invitations from the
community at large for appointment to the council.

Open

solicitation would seem to afford a community college a
major opportunity to become a member of the primary ad­
visory body for the planning and delivery of local employment

42
and training services through CETA.

In five of the seven

cases where public notice or open solicitation was used,
community colleges were members of the council.
Educational Agency Participation
Table 3 illustrates the type of educational agencies,
including community colleges, represented on each advisory
council.
Table 3.

Educational Agency Participation on Advisory
Councils by Year

Prime Sponsor Advisory
Councils
N=26
Type of Educational
Agency

FY 78
N

%

FY 79
N

%

Local School District

20

76.9

18

69.2

Intermediate School District*

18

69.2

18

69.2

8

30.7

8

30.7

16

61.5

15

57.7

Private Occupational School

1

3.8

1

3.8

4-year Public College

4

15.4

4

19.2

4-year Private College

—

—

•

Area Vocational Center*
Community College

*I.S.D. and A.V.C. figures may represent a duplication
due to local administrative structure.

43
The data in Table 3 indicate that no single type of
educational agency participates on every prime sponsors'
council.

Local school districts have the highest level

of educational agency involvement.

Local public school

districts participated with 20 advisory councils (76.97,)
in FY 78 and 18 advisory councils (69.27,) in FY 79.

These

institutions were followed closely by Intermediate School
Districts which often serve as the operating agency for
Area Vocational Centers.

As a result of this relationship

between Intermediate Districts and Area Centers,

the data

for these two types of agencies may represent duplication.
Community colleges participated on the advisory councils
of 16 (61.57,) prime sponsors in FY 78 and 15 (57.77o) in
FY 79 as council members.

Additionally, these institutions

were involved in the planning process of 6 (23.07,) other
prime sponsors as consultants or served on special commit­
tees during each year.

This represents the highest level

of participation for any postsecondary institution and
remained relatively constant over the two-year period
studied.
Voting Privileges
Prime sponsor council participation may be limited to
an advisory basis only or may include full participation
together with voting privileges at the prime sponsors
discretion.

As a voting member, a representative has a

44
full and equal say in the balance and mix of employment and
training programs and activities, their funding levels, and
often, program approval or disapproval authority.

Table 4

represents the data on community college participation on
the prime sponsors councils as a voting member.
Table 4.

Community Colleges Participation as Voting or
Non-Voting Members on Prime Sponsor Advisory
Councils by Year

Prime Sponsor Advisory Councils
FY 78
Community College
Participation
Voting Advisory
Representatives
Non-voting Advisory
Representatives
TOTAL

N

FY 79
%

N

%

15

93.75

14

93.34

1

6.25

1

6.66

16

100.00

15

100.00

In all but one prime sponsor area, participation in­
cluded voting privileges across both years of the study.
One prime sponsor limited the community college repre­
sentatives participation to advisory but ex-officio.

The

potential for a conflict of interest was cited as the
primary reason for this limitation.
Nine prime sponsors representing 31% of those responding
indicated community colleges had not been a part of the

45
advisory process as council members.

The reasons given and

their frequency were (1) they had secured sufficient
participation from other educational agencies (6 prime
sponsors); (2) their internal policy discouraged appointing
service deliverers or subgrantee recipient institutions to
the council (2 prime sponsors); (3) the community college
was not a primary deliverer of service and therefore, was
not utilized in an advisory capacity (5 prime sponsors); or
(4) the community college had not indicated an interest or
volunteered to participate (4 prime sponsors).
Administrative Position Within the College
In prime sponsor areas where the community college
had an advisory council member,

the representative to the

council was, in most instances, a third level administrator
(Division Director, Chairman, etc.) or higher.

Table 5

presents data on the position of the council representatives
within the community college.

46

Table 5.

Position of Community College Representative to
the Prime Sponsor Advisory Council by Year

Prime Sponsor Advisory
Councils
FY 78
Position

N

President

1

Vice President/Dean

FY 79

7

N

7L

6. 25

1

6..67

8

50..00

7

46..66

Division Director/Chairman

5

31..25

5

33.,33

Grants Specialist

1

6 . 25

1

6..67

Other - Program Supervisor

1

6..25

1

6..67

16

100..00

15

100..00

TOTAL

In 1979 the participation level was reduced by one
from sixteen (16) to fifteen (15) prime sponsor councils.
The representative dropped was an Occupational Dean reducing
that category from 8 to 7.
Overall, the community college representative was
usually at a level within the institution's hierarchy to
afford him or her a broad knowledge of the college's
services, activities, and capabilities for participation in
all CETA authorized activities.

Participation ~Rating
Table 6 reflects an effort to determine the effective­
ness of the community college representative as a council

47
member.

Prime sponsors were asked to rate the performance

of the college representative on the basis of his/her
participation, enthusiasm, knowledge, willingness to serve,
and similar traits or characteristics which tended to reflect
on the college as well as the individual.

The range was from

Poor (1) to Excellent (5).
Table 6.

Prime Sponsor Rating of the Participation of the
Community College Representative

Prime Sponsor Rating
Point Scale and Level

N

%

Lower than 1.5

Poor

0

0

1.6 - 2.5

Low

0

0

2.6 - 3.5

Average

2

12.5

3.6 - 4.5

High

10

62.5

4

25.0

16

100.0

Higher than 4.5 Excellent
TOTAL

The data indicate that overall, prime sponsors are
very pleased with the community college representatives
participation and contribution on the planning council.
Several prime sponsors cited such factors as knowledge of
the needs of the community, willingness to serve, and
enthusiastic cooperation as reasons for their generally
high ratings.

A comparison of advisory council participation

48
by community colleges and the resultant funding levels is
presented later in this chapter.
PROGRAMS & ACTIVITIES
Reported in this section are the employment and
training programs and activities conducted at community
colleges during the two-year period.

The data and

information presented here are as complete as the question­
naire would allow.

In some instances, calculations were

made using other information from the questionnaire to
compile and/or verify the responses.
Included here also is the grant level and fiscal
information representing the amount of funds awarded to
community colleges.
While the Advisory Council Participation section
indicated that 16 community colleges participated in the
advisory council planning process during FY 78 and 15
colleges in FY 79, there was substantially greater partic­
ipation in the delivery of programs and activities during
those years.

Only three prime sponsor areas of the 26

responding to the questionnaire indicated that they had not
utilized the community colleges to provide some type of CETA
program or activity.

The remaining 23 (88.57,) had provided

employment and/or training services through at least one
public community college.
years of the study.

This was consistent across both

49
Types of Programs
Table 7 illustrates the types of programs and activities
prime sponsors provided through community colleges.
Table 7.

Prime Sponsors Programs and Activities Provided
Through Community Colleges by Year

Prime Sponsors*
FY 78

FY 79

Programs and Activities
at Community Colleges

N

%

N

Classroom Training - Class-size

8

30.7

13

50.0

Classroom Training - Individual
Referral

18

69.2

20

76.9

Guidance and Counseling

9

34.6

20

76.9

On-the-Job Training

1

3.8

1

3.8

Career Exploration

4

15.3

3

11.5

Work Experience

6

23.0

6

23.0

12

46.1

13

50.0

Public Service Employment

%

*Percentages calculated based on all prime sponsors respond
ing to the survey questionnaire.
(N=26)
The data in Table 7 show, as expected, that most prime
sponsors (69.2% in FY 78 and 76.9% in FY 79) used community
colleges to provide individual referral type training.

This

type of training utilizes existing programs at the insti­
tution on a scholarship-like basis and generally provides
for the cost of tuition, books, fees, and supplies.

No

50
other special services are provided by the CETA program
beyond those available to all regularly enrolled students.
Eight (69.27.) prime sponsors in FY 78 and thirteen
(50.07.) in FY 79 provided specific class-size programs
through community colleges.

These programs involve a

special negotiated contract or a grant agreement and gener­
ally provide services or instruction different and more
intensive from those available in the colleges academic
or occupational program.
Guidance and Counseling and Career Exploration activ­
ities were significantly lower than the classroom training
efforts.

Barely a third of the respondents (34.67.

in

FY 78 and 30.77. in FY 79) provided these types of services
through community colleges.

Similarly, On-the-Job Training

and Work Experience activities were not directed toward or
provided through the community college.

Only one prime

sponsor reported using the community college to provide
On-the-Job Training.

Six prime sponsors (23.07.) conducted

Work Experience programs in community colleges.

The level

for both activities remained constant throughout the
period studied.
Conversely, about half (46.17. in FY 78 and 50.07, in
FY 79) of the prime sponsors reported providing public
service employment through the community college.

While

the specific occupational classification of the employees
was not reported, the structure of Public Service Employment

51
suggests that these participants were in entry or beginning
level positions and could include both instructional and
non-instructional job classifications.

While transition

from CETA subsidized employment to un-subsidized employment
is a specific goal of the program,

there is no legally

binding requirement that Public Service Employment partic­
ipants be transitioned into un-subsidized unemployment.
There is insufficient data to determine the number or
percentage of this cohort who made that transition.
Appropriate College Activities
Educational institutions are in the unique position
of being able to provide both training and employment
activities under the. federal employment and training pro­
gram.

Data in the previous table indicate that colleges

do well in providing classroom training and to a lesser
extent, provide public service employment at levels well
above the other activity categories.
Table 8 presents a summary of the activities and
programs respondents deemed most appropriate and least
appropriate for community colleges.

Since all the re­

spondents did not offer an opinion in every category, the
number offering no opinion is indicated and considered as
a potential or likely activity for community colleges.

52

Table 8.

Prime Sponsor Perceptions of the Appropriateness
of Selected Activities and Programs for Community
Colleges

Most
Appropriate
Activity
or Program

___________ N______ %

a. Classroom train­
ing, class-size

Least
Appropriate

No
Opinion

N_____ %

N

%

22

84.6

2

7.7

2

7.1

b. Classroom train­
ing , individual
referral

23

88.5

1

3.8

2

7.7

c. Guidance and
counseling

12

46.1

1

3.8

13

50.0

d. Career
Exploration

7

26.9

14

53.8

5

19.2

e. On-the-Job
Training

1

3.8

22

84.6

2

11.5

f. Work Experience

5

19.2

13

50.0

8

30.7

g. Public Service
Employment

7

26.9

6

23.0

13

50.0

N=26

53

In support of the data of the previous table, Table 8
indicates that the majority of the prime sponsors consider
classroom training - both class-size and individual referral
the logical and primary function of the community college in
relation to the prime sponsors employment and training
activities.

Twenty-three (88.5%) of the respondents

considered the individual referral method the most appro­
priate method within the two category classroom training
group.

Two prime sponsors representing 7. 7%> of those

responding felt that classroom size training was not an
appropriate activity for the two year college.

It was

indicated that high cost, scheduling difficulties, and a
lack of available facilities were the primary reasons for
this response.

One prime sponsor felt the individual

referral method was least appropriate because of the lack
of continuous monitoring of the students' progress and
difficulty in getting the school to submit required reports
in a timely manner.

Seven other prime sponsors indicated

a similar concern relative to reporting and student monitor­
ing.

However,

they did not rate the individual referral

method of training as least appropriate.

Each indicated

they attempted to find alternatives or requested waivers
from the United States Department of Labor.
Twelve prime sponsors (46.1%) responded that Guidance
and Counseling was an appropriate activity for the community
college.

However, only nine prime sponsors (34.67.)

54
utilized the two year college to provide that service in
FY 78 and eight (30.7%) in FY 79.

One respondent indicated

that this was least appropriate for the two year college and
thirteen (50.0%,) did not respond and are classified as no
opinion.
On-the-Job Training (OJT) is considered the least
appropriate activity for the community college.

One

respondent representing 3.8%, of the survey group indicated
OJT was appropriate, while twenty-two (84.6%,) of the re­
spondents stated it was the least appropriate activity.
Three prime sponsors (11.5%) are classified as no opinion
in this category.
Like On-the-Job Training, Work Experience was not
viewed as being appropriate for the community college.
Table 7 indicated that six respondents (23.0%,) had
utilized the community college to provide this activity and
that level remained constant through both years of the
study.

Data from Table 8 indicate that five prime sponsors

(19.2%) felt this was an appropriate activity while
thirteen (50.0%) indicated it least appropriate.

Eight

respondents (30.7%,) are classified as no opinion.
Sole Source Selection
Throughout the State of Michigan,

the availability and

number of training programs and subgrantee agencies capable
of providing employment and training services varies.

In

55
some areas, community colleges must compete with several
other agencies for CETA programs.

In others,

the community

college may be the only agency available to provide certain
types of employment and training services.

An attempt was

made to ascertain if the community college was utilized
because there was no other agency available to the prime
sponsor.

The "sole source" provisions of CETA permit the

direct selection of educational institutions to provide
education and training on a sole source basis rather than
by a competitive or bid process.

Table 9 presents the

prime sponsor responses.
Table 9.

Were programs, activities, or services
available through the community college
also available through other delivery agents?

Response

N .

Yes, other delivery agents were available

%

19

73.0

No, the college was the only choice

4

15.4

Limited programs were available

3

11.5

26

TOTAL

100.0%

Nineteen prime sponsors (73.0%) indicated that other
institutions or agencies were available to provide the
services or training in addition to the community college.
Local school districts and private occupational schools were
most often given as examples.

Community based organizations

56
(C.B.O.'s) and area vocational centers (A.V.C.'s) were the
least frequently mentioned options.
Four respondents (15.4%) indicated that the community
college was the only institution available.

This response

tends to indicate a general lack of programming options in
a given area or that the community college was the only
institution to respond to the request for training or
services.

Three prime sponsors offered no response to the

item.
Reasons for Selection
A significant number of the prime sponsors selected
community colleges over other agencies to provide class­
room training and individual referral classroom training.
Table 10 illustrates the reason given for selecting the
community college to provide this

programming activity.

57
Table 10.

Reasons for Selecting the Community College to
Provide Classroom or Individual Referral Training

Prime Sponsor Response
Reason for Selection

N

7o

Program Quality

15

65.2

Geographic Location

12

52.2

Cost

8

34.8

Only Program Available

4

17.4

Cooperation

3

13.0

N = 23
Program quality and geographic location were the most
frequently given responses as the reasons for selecting the
community college to provide both classroom and individual
referral training.

Included in program quality were such

descriptions as facilities,
reputation.

instructional staff, and program

Less than half the respondents identified cost

as a major reason for the selection.

Eight prime sponsors,

representing 34.8% of those responding to the item, and
30.6%, of those responding to the survey cited this as a
factor.
Four prime sponsors, representing 17.47c responding to
the item, indicated that the community college offered the
only program available.

Cooperation received the lowest

58
number of responses.

Only three prime sponsors representing

13.07o of those responding to the item and 11.5% of those
responding to the survey indicated that cooperation was the
reason for selecting community colleges to provide class­
room training or individual referral training.
Factors Influencing the Competitiveness of Community Colleges
In follow-up to the data and information of the previous
table, prime sponsors were asked to identify those factors
which made the community college a competitive or the
preferred delivery agency for employment and training services.
Additionally, respondents were asked to consider the recip­
rocal of that question and cite any factors which do not
place the college in a competitive position for these types
of programs and services.
Tables 11 and 12 present a summary of the prime sponsor
responses to those questions.

It should be noted that while

they were not requested to do so, respondents generally
confined their comments to classroom training activities
rather than employment programs and services.

All responses

are presented in the tables, however, the data under Employ­
ment programs which includes Public Service Employment, Onthe Job Training, and Work Experience,

should be viewed for

informational rather than statistical or comparative purposes.

59

Table 11.

Factors Making the Community College a
Competitive or Preferred Delivery Agency
for Training and Employment Programs

Classroom
Training
N
%

Factors
Program Quality

Employment
Programs
N
%
-

16

61.5

-

Geographic Location

9

34.6

2

7.7

Cost

7

26.9

1

3.8

Program Variety/Credit

6

23.1

-

-

Facilities & Equipment

6

23.1

-

-

Other Factors

6

23.1

2

7.7

No Response

2

7.7

22

84.6

Table 12.

Factors Having a Negative Impact on the Community
College as a Competitive or Preferred Delivery
Agency

Factors

Classroom
Training
N
%

Employment
Programs
II
%

Administrative Problems

7

26.9

4

15.4

Program Flexibility

7

26.9

1

3.8

Lack of Interest

7

26.9

1

3.8

Scheduling Problems

6

23.0

-

-

Other

5

19.2

-

-

No Negative Factors

6

23.0

-

-

No Response

5

19.2

22

84.6

60
Table 11 data under the category of classroom training
indicates that prime sponsors consider program quality as
the leading factor in making the community college a com­
petitive or preferred delivery agency.

Sixteen respondents

(61.5%) cited this characteristic of the college as a factor.
Nine prime sponsors

(34.6%,) indicated that the geographic

location of these institutions was an asset leading to their
preference as a delivery agency and seven (26.9%,) cited
program cost.

Six respondents (23.1%,) indicated that

program variety,

including the fact that "credit" in some

form was awarded for participation, and the facilities and
equipment of the community college were factors leading to
their preference for this type of institution.
Six prime sponsors (23.1%,) indicated other factors as
reasons for their preference.

Those included general

cooperation, the availability of student support services,
previous performance in training programs, and placement
assistance upon completion.
Prime sponsors generally did not respond to those
factors giving preference to the community college for
employment programs.

Twenty-two respondents

no response to this questionnaire item.

(84.6%) had

Those responding

cited geographic location (7.7%,) and program cost (3.8%)
as factors.

Two prime sponsors (7.7%,) indicated that the

community college wage scale was consistent with that

61
recommended under CETA and that they thought the college was
a good work experience site for CETA transitional employment
programs.
Table 12 data presents prime sponsor responses on those
factors having a negative impact on the community college.
Seven prime sponsors (26.97o) each cited administrative
problems,

the lack of program flexibility, and a general

lack of interest in serving the CETA target as factors
against using the community college as a delivery agent for
classroom training services.

The administrative problems

centered on the lack of timely reporting on student progress
and attendance.

Program flexibility was cited in the context

of the community colleges program structure which often
requires non-occupational courses as a part of a training
sequence, particularly for two-year degree programs.
Scheduling problems were cited by six (23.0%) respon­
dents.

This seemed to result from participants being denied

entry into certain programs in mid-year.
Five prime sponsors (19.27.) cited other factors which
included the inability of the college to track students,
the lack of open-entry and open-exit programs, and in two
cases, the prime sponsor indicated they did not know who
to contact at the institution for various services.

Six

prime sponsors (23.0%,) specifically responded that they
found no negative factors impacting the community college

62
and five (19.2%) offered no response.
As with the previous question, twenty-two prime
sponsors (84.67o) offered no response on Employment programs.
Of those responding, four (15.4%) cited administrative
problems and one (3.87.) cited both program flexibility and
lack of interest.
Classroom Training by Course/Occupation
An effort was made to determine in what community
college courses or occupational clusters CETA classroom
training participants were enrolled.

Only seven of the

respondents completed that section of the survey.
the follow-up visit,

During

three of the seven prime sponsors

indicated that they were unsure of the information provided
because (1) prime sponsors are not required to, and
generally do not, keep that type of data on each participant;
(2) prime sponsors tend to contract for a given number of
slots at a community college,

thereby allowing participants

access to all the colleges programs, rather than for a
specific course or occupational area;

(3) participants often

change their course or occupational interest after initial
enrollment,

consultation with college staff, or at a later

date; and (4) the level of detail was too specific and they
could not research their records to that degree.
While that information is deemed valuable in further
meeting the purposes of the study, due to the low frequency

63
of the response rate and the questionable nature of the
responses,

that item, which would have been reported here,

has been omitted.
GRANT LEVELS & PARTICIPANT DATA
Reported in this section

are data and information on

the amount of funds prime sponsors awarded community
colleges to provide various employment and training activ­
ities and the number of participants community colleges
served under selected activity titles during the study
period.
It is important to note that the data and information
presented are unaudited and represent only the prime spon­
sor response to the survey questionnaire and information
obtained during the follow-up visit at the prime sponsor
office.
Prime Sponsor Grants to Community Colleges
Each of the twenty-six prime sponsors responding to the
survey reported receiving funds to conduct emplpyment and
training programs under five major CETA activity titles.
Those titles were:
A.

Title I - Comprehensive Employment Services

B.

Title II - Public Service Employment

C.

Title IV - Youth Employment Training Programs and
the Youth Community Conservation Improvement Project

64

D.

Title IV - Summer Youth Programs

E.

Title VI - Public Service Employment

Additionally, prime sponsors received funds to con­
duct two national priority

programs.

The Help Through

Industry Retraining and Employment (HIRE) program

and

the Skill Training Improvement Program (STIP) were national
priority skills-training and employment development programs
conducted during fiscal year 1979.

Grants to provide these

activities were available to all institutions during that
year on a competitive basis including community colleges.
Table 13 presents an overall comparison of the '
total funds available to Michigan prime sponsors and the
amount of funds awarded statewide to public community
colleges by fiscal year.

Efforts were made to acquire this

data under the individual cost categories, i.e. Classroom
Training, Counseling and Guidance, Employment Assistance,
etc., however,

such information was not readily available

from prime sponsors and where it was attainable, the specific
awards were difficult to clearly separate into grant
categories.

Table 13.

A Comparison of Prime Sponsor Funds Available and Awards to Community
Colleges on a Statewide Basis by Title and Year

Fiscal
Year

Prime Sponsor
Funds
Available
$(000)

Number
Awarding
Grants
(N)

Grant Awards
to Community
Colleges
$(000)

Percentage
%

Title I

78
79

63,657.6
65,159.9

22
22

3,097.5
3,125.0

4.86
4.80

Title II

78
79

53,944.8
77,962.4

11
10

592.0
662.0

1.09
0.84

Title III1

78
79

32,756.3
36,063.2

8
7

224.6
375.0

0.69
1.03

Title VI

78
79

230,399.4
130,154.4

11
11

1,074.9
1,518.4

0.46
1.16

National^
Programs

78
79

5,805.8

5

1,458.0

25.11

1 - Includes all youth programs
2 - No program data for FY 78

66
Table 13 data illustrates that in spite of the level of
prime sponsor funds available,

community colleges received

a relatively low percentage overall.

Twenty-two respondents

indicated awarding grants to community colleges across both
years of the study and while the amount increased in FY 79
over FY 78, the percentage of the total funds available
decreased slightly from 4.86%. in FY 78 to 4.80% in FY 79.
Title II funds to prime sponsors also increased in
FY 79 over FY 78 as did the level of the grant awards to
community colleges from $592,000 in FY 78 to $662,000 in
FY 79.

However,

the number of respondents making awards

decreased by one in FY 79 and the percentage of funds re­
ceived by community colleges went from 1.09 in FY 78 to
0.84 in FY 79 indicating a substantial decrease overall in
percentage terms.
Title III programs, which included the Youth Community
Conservation Improvement Program, the Youth Employment
Training Program, and the Summer Youth Employment Program,
resulted in an increase in the level and percentage of
awards to community colleges in FY 79 over FY 78.

This came

in spite of a reduction by one from eight to seven prime
sponsors providing grants to community colleges to conduct
these programs.
Title VI funds available to prime sponsors decreased
sharply in FY 79 over FY 78.

Prime sponsors reported

receiving $230,399,400 in FY 78 and $130,154,400 in FY 79.

67
While the number of grants remained at eleven, grant
levels increased from $1,074,900 in FY 78 to $1,518,400 in
FY 79 and the percentages of funds community colleges received
went from 0.46 in FY 78 to 1.16 in FY 79.
The two national priority programs, Help Through Industry
Retraining and Employment (HIRE) and Skill Training Improve­
ment Program (STIP), were just beginning to get underway
in late FY 78.

Not all prime sponsors were eligible to

receive funds during that year.

The first year for which

information was available for all prime sponsors is FY 79.
The data shows that the national priority programs
significantly increased the community colleges level of
participation.

These institutions received over $1,458,000

in grant awards representing 25.11% of the total funds
available.

These programs provided training and retraining,

and upgrading for veterans and other special target groups.
Table 14 illustrates the amount of funds awarded
public community colleges by each individual prime sponsor
under each of the five major funding activity titles and
the two national priority programs.

Due to space limitations

and the limited number of responses,

the three youth pro­

grams - Youth Community Conservation Improvement Program,
Youth Employment and Training Program, and the Summer Youth
Employment programs are combined under the single heading of
Youth Programs.

Table 14.

Prime
Sponsor

Prime Sponsor Grants to Community Colleges by
Activity Title During FY 78 and FY 79.
(Thousands of Dollars)

Title
FY
I

A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
M.
Continued

Title
II =

Youth
Programs

Title
IV
300.0
480.0

78
79

527.0
469.0

15.0
25.0

44.0
23.0

78
79

545.0
465.0

30.0
46.0

0
0

78
79

45.6 251.0
45.0 224.5

80.0
62.0

National
Priority
Programs* Total
-

0

886.0
997.0

0

655.0
573.0
449.0
668.9

_

9.0
273 .7

143.4
125.7

0

0
0

813.0

420.0
1,252.6

227.6

402.5
629.6
364.0
364.0

78
79

420.0
439.0

0
0

0
0

78
79

329.0
330.0

0
0

3.5
2.0

70.0
70.0

78
79

200.0
200.0

50.0
50.0

14.0
14.0

100.0
100.0

0

78
79

264.0
242.0

66.0
0

27.0
18.0

0
0

12.0

357.0
272.0

78
79

172.4
187.4

8.0
11.0

24.1
9.9

34.9
39.4

5.4

239.4
253.1

78
79

60.0
70.0

20.0
20.0

0
0

100.0
80.0

0

180.0
170.0

78
79

60.3
59.9

5.0
0

1.0
11.0

109.0
111.3

0

175.3
182.2

78
79

78.0
15.0

0
0

92.0
0

0
0

0

170.0
15.0

78
79

18.2
24.6

73.2
68.5

0
0

41.6
0

78
79

0
0

64.0
47.0

0
0

49.0
0

—

_

0
_

0

133.0
93.1
113.0
47.0

69
Table 11 - cont'd.

Prime
Sponsor
N.
0.
P.

Q.
R.
S.
T.
U.
V.
W.
X.
Y.
Z.

TOTAL

Title
IV

National
Priority
Programs* Total

0
0

0
90.0

0

80.0
312.0

10.0
10.0

0
0

47.0
10.0

0

80.7
42.7

78 78.7
79 195.5

0
0

0
0

0
0

0

78.7
195.5

78 50.0
79 159.0

0
0

0
0

0
350.0

400.0

50.0
909.0

78
79

46.0
37.0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0

46.0
37.0

78
79

34.0
40.0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0

34.0
40.0

78
79

31.0
35.0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0

31.0
35.0

78
79

23.0
22.0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0

23.0
22.0

78
79

9.6
2.3

0
0

0
0

0
0

0

9.6
2.3

78
79

2.0
2.6

0
0

0
0

0
0

0

2.0
2.6

78
79

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0

0
0

78
79

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0

0
0

78
79

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0

FY

Title
I

Title
II

Youth
Programs

78
79

80.0
62.0

0
160.0

78
79

23.7
22.7

78 3,097. 5
79 3,125. 0

592.2
662.0

224.6
375.0

0
0

—

1,074.9
1,518.4 1,458.0

4,989.2
7,159.9

^Funding not available to all Prime Sponsors in FY 78.

70
The data in Table 14 indicates that community colleges
achieved the greatest success in securing prime sponsor CETA
funds to conduct activities under Title I.

This activity

title authorizes the broadest variety of services and is
aimed at providing skills training, employability develop­
ment services, and career assistance rather than direct
employment under CETA.

Twenty-three (23) of the twenty-

six (26) respondents provided grants to community colleges
during each year of the study.
Funding levels covered a broad range during both years
from a low of $7,600 to a high of $545,000 in FY 78 and a
low of $2,300 to a high of $469,000 during FY 79.

A

comparison between the two years indicates that the level
of Title I funds remained relatively constant with an over­
all increase of less than three percent (37.) in FY 79.
Seven prime sponsors awarded community colleges over
$100,000 in FY 78 and nine did so in FY 79.
Public Service Employment programs conducted under
Titles II and VI provided lower level grants to community
colleges overall, however,

the total award under each title

increased in FY 79 over FY 78.

The FY 78 range for

Title II

was $5,000 to $251,000 and $10,000 to $224,000 in FY 79.
Title VI PSE programs were funded at a substantially
higher level during both years with a FY 78 range of $34,900
to $300,000 and $10,000 to $480,000 in FY 79.

Five

sponsors made community college awards in excess of

prime
$100,000

71
under Title VI in FY 79.

This compares with only one in

excess of that figure for Title II in FY 78.
Included under the heading Youth Programs is the Title IV
Youth Employment Training Programs which was conducted in
community colleges by less than one-third of the prime
sponsors during both years of the study.

During FY 78,

eight (8) prime sponsors conducted programs totaling
$196,400 in grants to community colleges.

The range of

funding was from $1,000 to $92,000 with three prime spon­
sors awarding grants in excess of $25,000.
In FY 79, seven (7) prime sponsors awarded $349,000
to community colleges with one prime sponsor making a grant
in excess of $25,000.
None of the respondents provided funds to conduct
Youth Community Conservation Improvement Projects to
community colleges.

One prime sponsor provided a grant to

these institutions to conduct a Summer Youth Program during
each year of the study.

That grant was $18,000 in FY 78

and $2,600 in FY 79.
Two national priority programs, HIRE and STIP, were
available to all prime sponsors only during FY 79.

Five

prime sponsors awarded grants to community colleges under
these programs.

Three of the grants were comparatively

large - $227,600 and $400,000 - including one prime sponsor
awarding community colleges $813,000 under both programs.

72
The remaining two grants were $5,400 and $12,000.
Overall, prime sponsors awarded nearly five million
dollars to community colleges during fiscal year 1978.
Mainly as a result of the two national priority programs,
those awards increased to over seven million in fiscal year
1979.
Participant Data
Participant enrollment levels are reported based on the
type of activity, i.e. class-size training, work experience,
etc., rather than the CETA activity title (Title I, Title II,
etc.) under which it was funded.

This method permits a more

accurate identification of the specific type of employment
or training activity that persons were engaged in at the
community college.
The data is presented in Table 15 under the three
major headings of Classroom Training, Career Assistance,
and Employment Programs.

These are further sub-divided

into a total of seven specific activity areas.

Every

effort has been made to avoid duplication in reporting,
particularly where participants may have been involved in
more than one type of activity.

Table 15.

Participants Served in Prime Sponsor Programs at Community Colleges by
Type of Activity and Fiscal Year

Classroom
Training
Prime
Sponsor
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.

FY

C/S*

78
79

15
20

78
79

231
171

78
79
78
79

—

-

I/R*

-

30
30
25
36

349
418

78
79

74

78
79

Career
Assistance
G/C*

-

All
C/S

-

Employment
Programs

C/E*

-

-

All
I/R

5
50
_

-

-

137

200
200

9

All
C/T

4
6

78
79

100
127

10
26

All
C/T

w

78
79

155
143

7
9

All
C/T

_

-

_

—

TOTAL

25
49

40
69

13
21

274
222

39
48

69
134

-

349
534

5
5

515
470

10
10

12
18

226
243

1
10

1
8

112
171

13
17

3
5

178
174

_

-

-

PSE*

—

116

-

All
I/R

*See footnote at end of table

-

All
W k . Exp.

373
391

Continued

Wk?
OJT* Exp.

Table

15

- cont'd.

Career
Assistance

Classroom
Training
Prime
Sponsor

I.
J.
K.
L.
M.
N.
0.

P.

Continued

Employment
Programs

FY

C/S

I/R

G/C

C/E

OJT

Me.
Exp.

78
79

15

60
65

-

-

-

-

78
79

All
C/S - I/R

_

_

_

50

49
36

-

-

-

78
79

16
16

96
11

_

14

-

-

-

78
79

-

26
37

-

-

_

78
79

-

78
79

50
77

78
79

15
15

78
79

51
130

108
60

-

-

PSE

TOTAL

35
40

95
120

15
13

64
99

63
-

-

189
27

-

3
8

10
7

39
52

_

_

_

-

-

-

-

8
5

8
5

All
C/S - I/R

_

__

_

-

-

-

25

158
162

_

_

-

-

-

-

6
2

21
17

_

_

_

_

•

-

-

-

-

-

51
130

Table

15

- cont'd.

Classroom
Training
Prime
Sponsor
QR.
S.
T.
U.
V.

W.

X.

Continued

FY

C/S

I/R

78
79

50
122

.

78
79

28
22

78
79
78
79
78
79
78
79

-

-

-

_

__

-

23
22

All
I/R

-

16
9

—

2
3

_

_

__

-

_

—

—

-

-

-

TOTAL

a

50
170

_

_

—

_

_

_

35
40

_

_

184
158

-

—

—

—

.

_

—

-

-

_

-

—

—

—

_

-

m

PSE

-

-

_

Wk.
Exp.

OJT

48

-

All
I/R

-

C/E

Employment
Programs

m

184
158

78
79
78
79

G/C

-

35
40

-

Career
Assistance

_

—

—

-

28
22

23
22
16
9
2
3
-

-

Table

15

- cont'd.

Classroom
Training
Prime
Sponsor

FY

Y.

78
79

Z.

78
79

TOTAL

78
79

C/S

-

I/R

-

-

Employment
Programs

Career
Assistance
G/C

C/E

OJT

Wk.
Exp.

PSE

TOTAL

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1,262
1,603

1,042
939

141
6

14
116

95
143

172
246

2,726
3,053

C/S = Class-size training, I/R = Individual Referral Training, G/C = Guidance and
Counseling, C/E = Career Education, OJT = On-the-Job Training, Wk. Exp. = Work
Experience, PSE = Public Service Employment

77

Table 15 data on participant levels indicates that
prime sponsors provided classroom training through community
colleges at higher funding levels over any of the other CETA
activities during both years.

Over 2,300 participants

engaged in this CETA activity during FY 78.

The majority of

those participants were in class-size programs (1,262) and
engaged in a full time training activity as opposed to
individual referral programs which are often part-time.

Many

of the participants received Guidance and Counseling services
over and above that normally provided through the community
college both by special arrangement with the college or
through other institutions or agencies.
Two prime sponsors provided career education and career
development services to participants through community
colleges.

Guidance and Counseling was provided only to

those persons enrolled in classroom training activities.
Footnotes were used to identify which type of training this
activity was provided in the interest of space and format.
Overall, only 141 participants received specific career
development assistance.

All of these participants were

engaged in some other CETA activity, however,

the data does

not indicate which or if it was conducted at the community
college.

Two prime sponsors provided career development

services to work experience and individual referral class­
room training participants.

78
In the broad category of employment programs, on-thejob training was conducted at one community college during
each fiscal year.

Prime sponsor "K" provided a program with

14 participants in FY 78 and prime sponsor "D" conducted a
program with 116 participants during FY 79.
Community colleges received funds from six prime spon­
sors to conduct work experience programs in FY 78.
total participant level was 95 persons.

The

Prime sponsor "K"

had 63 persons in a work experience program.

The remaining

five prime sponsors conducting similar programs had enroll­
ments of 13 or less.

The highest participant level of any

single prime sponsor in FY 79 was 50 participants in a pro­
gram with prime sponsor "C".

During that year, the total

program level was 143 participants.
Public Service Employment was the largest type of
employment program conducted by community colleges.

This

type of activity provided direct employment for participants
without necessarily including training or a training plan.
Prime sponsors provided such training for 172 participants
in FY 78 and 246 in FY 79.

Most of these programs were

small with the largest in FY 78 having an enrollment of 39
and an average enrollment of 14 participants.

The PSE

program in community colleges was expended in FY 79 to a
total of 246 participants.

Thirteen prime sponsors conducted

these programs at community colleges and three had enroll­
ments of 40 participants or more.

The average across all

79
prime sponsors that year was 19.
Overall, prime sponsors served 2,726 participants in
programs contracted through community colleges in FY 78.
That number increased to 3,053 in FY 79, again in part due
to the HIRE and STIP national programs.
Advisory Council Participation and Funding Relationship
Two sections of the survey questionnaire were compared
and analyzed to establish the relationship between community
college participation on the prime sponsors advisory council
and the amount of funds these colleges were awarded.

Table 16

presents a comparison of the amount of funds awarded
community colleges where these institutions were involved
in the advisory process against those who were not.

The

table presents funding ranges rather than specific dollar
amounts by year.

Table 16.

A Prime Sponsor Comparison of Advisory Council
Participation and Community College Funding by
Range and Year

Community College
Grant Award
Range______

Prime Sponsor
Councils With
Community College
Participation

Prime Sponsor
Councils Without
Community College
Participation

FY 78

FY 79

FY 78

FY 79

N

N

N

N

12

12

1

1

75 - 100

1

1

2

0

50 - 75

1

0

2

0

25-50

1

1

0

4

0-25

1

1

5

6

TOTAL

16

15

10

11

$000

>100

N = 26
The data in Table 16 indicates that where community
colleges were involved in the prime sponsor delivery process,
these institutions received significantly higher funding
awards during both years of the study.

Twelve prime spon­

sors awarded grants to these colleges in excess of $100,000
during each year.

One prime sponsor awarded a grant of less

than $25,000 during each of the two years.
Where community colleges were not involved in the
advisory process, only one prime sponsor awarded a grant in
excess of $100,000.

Five prime sponsors made awards of

81
less than $25,000 in FY 78 and six in FY 79.

During FY 79,

ten prime sponsors made grants to community colleges of less
than $50,000 in jurisdictional areas where these institutions
were not represented on the advisory council.
SELECTED MODEL PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS
All but one of the prime sponsor respondents awarding
grants to community colleges indicated they had utilized
the college to provide classroom training.

Additionally,

prime sponsors indicated they felt that classroom training
was clearly the most appropriate activity for community
colleges.
While the level of funds awarded to community colleges
varied greatly, several prime sponsors consistently provided
these institutions comparatively large grants for classroom
training.

Presented here are the program descriptions of

three community colleges who, in terms of funding from prime
sponsors, have been among the most successful in the state.
Grand Rapids Junior College
Grand Rapids Junior College is a city-based, urbanoriented college with an average enrollment across both
years of the study of 12,000 full and part-time students.
The college is well established in the community and, in
addition to the city of Grand Rapids, serves a multi-county
prime sponsor jurisdictional area.

Although it has a separate

administrative structure, the college is closely aligned

82
to the Grand Rapids Public School District and retains many
of the linkages characteristic of a traditional K-14 educa­
tional system i.e., articulated programs, shared facilities,
etc.
The college appears to retain the "Junior College" title
for historic as well as provincial reasons and was a late
entry into the occupational training fields.

Today the

college offers a wide variety of occupational programs, many
of which trace their beginning to previous manpower programs
of the late sixties and early seventies.
According to college staff, technology and manufacturing
were

the rapidly growing industries in the metropolitan area

during the mid-seventies.

Unemployment in the area was at

an annual average of 7.87o during FY 1978.
Early in the CETA program era, the college elected to
develop an occupational training center designed primarily
to serve persons in need of full-time occupational training.
The smaller class-size programs of the pre-CETA employment
and training period were abolished and this new program
design was established.
The college purchased and renovated a 35,000 square
foot, fully accessible, single story, former economy depart­
ment store building.

The building was then remodeled into

a multi-occupational training program center.

Except in

rare instances, all CETA sponsored training in the trades
and technology areas is conducted at the Occupational
Training Center.

83

The center accomodates 90 persons at one time in 6
occupational programs including Auto Body, Auto Mechanics,
House Repair, Maintenance Mechanics, Production Machine
Operations, and Welding.
During the two years of the study, the center served
230 participants in FY 78 and 233 in FY 79.

The completion

rate for each year was 78% (FY 78) and 807, (FY 79) .

Across

both years of the study, the center had an average placement
rate of 947. for those persons completing training.

The

individual occupational areas vary in their length of training.
The average stay in these open entry - open exit programs is
approximately 33 weeks.
Most of the equipment needed for the center was already
available at the college.

Much of it had been secured by

the college under previous CETA or MDTA programs.
The facility under the colleges' administration has
become a full service employment and training center.
Students are referred directly to the center where they
are enrolled, receive counseling and guidance services, can
make arrangements on-site for special services,

i.e.

transportation assistance or child care, and receive their
training and education.

The facility is headed by a

Director who is responsible to the Dean of Occupational
Education and to the local CETA prime sponsor staff.
Figure 1 illustrates the Directors' line relationship.

84
Figure 1.

Grand Rapids Junior College Administrative
Relationship

Dean of
Occupational
Education

Training
Center
Director

CETA
Prime
Sponsor

Prime
Sponsor
Staff
Sub-Agents

= Direct Administrative Responsibility
= Formal Operational Responsibility
The Dean of Occupational Education has the overall
administrative responsibility for the CETA training pro­
grams at the college.

Administratively, the center

director reports directly to the dean.

There is, however,

an operational responsibility by the director to the prime
sponsors staff and sub-agents for reporting, coordination
of special services, allowance, and trainee stipend pay­
ments, etc.

According to the director, this operational

flexibility contributes significantly to the programs overall
success and allowing him to deal with situations immediately
and directly.
Neither the dean nor the director represent the Junior
College on the prime sponsor advisory council.

Both do

attend the council meetings as advocates of the college

85
as CETA program operators.

The Director of Program Develop­

ment represents the college as a formal member of the council
and represents both the college and its parent K-12 local
school district.
Northwestern Michigan College
With an average enrollmenc of 3,500 full time students,
Northwestern Michigan College, located in Traverse City, is
one of the state's smaller public two-year institutions.
It is also one of the few community colleges to have a
campus-based residence facility similar to that of a
baccalaureate institution.

The residence feature of the

college allows students to remain at the campus and because
of the large geographic area of this prime sponsor region,
campus residence is also available for CETA participants.
While the college is chartered as a community college, the
term community is omitted and the title is officially
Northwestern Michigan College.
Classroom training enrollment was 62 students in FY 78
and 132 students in FY 79.

Since the demand in no single

occupational area was sufficient to justify a class-size
program, all CETA training at Northwestern Michigan is con­
ducted on an individual referral basis.
Having experienced numerous problems with other employ­
ment and training programs which often led to high student
dropout rates, the college implemented a student advocacy

86
project

under CETA.

The purpose of this effort was to

reduce the barriers CETA participants face in orientation
and registration in the community college and in the
transition of becoming a full time student.
The project allows college personnel to take each
CETA participant from the referral agency and guide them
through the counseling, registration and course or program
selection process.

Additionally,

the advocacy project

maintains close contact with the student on a weekly basis.
This permits staff to identify potential problems at an
early stage and appropriate corrective action initiated.
The project consists of an on-site program director
and counseling personnel assigned to the project.

Funding

assistance is provided to support this personnel by the
prime sponsor.

In addition, these counselors have access

to a wide variety of other student assistance services
which are available to all students at the college.
Because of the training for employment emphasis of the
CETA program, most of the participants are enrolled in
programs of less than one years duration.

Participants are

permitted to engage in two-year programs where it is deemed
appropriate by the program personnel and the prime sponsor
or where no other opportunities are available.
The student advocacy project serves a secondary purpose
of providing both the prime sponsor and the college a central
source for information on the CETA program.

The advocacy

87
project director is responsible for all CETA related activ­
ities at the college including public service employment and
special projects in addition to the classroom training
activities.
The Dean of Occupational Education at the college is a
member of the prime sponsors advisory council representing
the college.

Unlike the aforementioned Junior College,

however, this dean has no direct administrative respon­
sibility for the CETA program at the college or the student
advocacy project.

These activities are under the admin­

istration of the Director of Student Services.

Figure 2

illustrates the administrative relationship between the
college and the prime sponsor.
Figure 2.

Northwestern Michigan College Administrative
Relationship

Director of
Student
Services

Director,
Student
Advocacy
Project
& Staff

Prime
Sponsor
and
Sub-Agents

= Direct Administrative Responsibility
= Formal Operational Responsibility

88

According to college staff, this organizational structure
has allowed the institution to participate fully in two
important aspects of the CETA/Prime Sponsor process.

First,

the college has been able to provide a wide variety of
services from a central source under the leadership of the
administrator whose responsibilities extend to all aspects
of student life in the institution.

Secondly,

it ostensibly

allows the college to provide a representative to the
advisory process without that representative being directly
involved in the program delivery process.
Lansing Community College
Lansing Community College (LCC), according to those
college staff interviewed, has grown in large proportion by
virtue of the assistance provided through the vocational
education and employment and training programs.

Originally

organized in the late fifties, the college was one of the
first in the state to participate in programs under the
Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962.

Since that

time, the college has been directly involved providing
services under each of the major federal level employment
and training programs.
It was reported that as CETA evolved,

the college was

well prepared and administratively organized to provide
employment oriented training and other services in a
flexible and comprehensive manner.

89

During the survey period, LCC provided occupational
training for five prime sponsors in addition to the Lansing
prime sponsor in whose jurisdictional area the institution
is located.

While the college had conducted class-size

programs in previous years, the entire CETA classroom train­
ing program during both years of the study was conducted in
an individual referral mode.

One of the most unique elements

of this community colleges program is its CETA Training and
Coordination Unit (CTCU).
Shortly after becoming involved with the CETA program,
the college recognized the need for a separate administrative
and coordinating structure to effectively accomodate the
number of CETA students attending the institution.

The

need for such a structure was accented by the fact that
students were coming from various prime sponsor areas, each
having a slightly different forms process and/or reporting
structure.

The institutions regular channels of enroll­

ment, counseling, and bookkeeping were not able to accomodate
the numbers of students or the prime sponsors information
requirements.
The CTCU assumes complete responsibility for a CETA
participant from the time of referral through termination
from the community college.

It is supervised by the Program

Director and a staff of counselors and clerical personnel.
The unit reports to the Dean of Student Services and has an
operational relationship to the local prime sponsor

90
(its primary funding source) and with each of the prime
sponsors referring to the community college.

Figure 3

illustrates this relationship.
Figure 3.

Lansing Community College Administrative
Relationships

Dean of
Student
Services

CETA
Coordination
and Training
Unit

Lansing
Prime
Sponsor

Lansing
Prime Sponsor
Staff and
Sub Agents

Other
Prime
Sponsor
Staff

= Direct Administrative Responsibility
= Formal Operational Responsibility
During the survey period, the college served approx­
imately four hundred (400) each year.

Three hundred (300)

participants were from the Lansing prime sponsor area and
the balance from other areas in the state.

To offset the

cost of this service, the CTCU places a surcharge on each
participant who is outside the Lansing prime sponsor area.
The charge is based on the number of credit hours a

91
participant takes and the period of time they are at the
community college and averages about twenty-six dollars per
term.
The CTCU assists in arranging for other financial
assistance for the student where necessary and provides
counseling and other student assistance services.

The

unit provides whatever reports are required by the prime
sponsor and follow-up services.
The college overall is decentralized and other
employment and training services such as PSE or special
programs are conducted through the appropriate dean,
department chairman, or personnel director.

The central

coordination point is the Director of Resource Development
who coordinates all CETA program activities and represents
the college as a member of the prime sponsors advisory
council.

CHAPTER V

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Statement of the Problem
The basic problem addressed in this study is the lack
of information about the types and levels of participation
of public community colleges in Michigan in the delivery of
programs and services under the Comprehensive Employment
and Training Act during FY 78 and FY 79.
Purpose of the Study
This study had three purposes:

(1) to identify the

various ways public community colleges in Michigan had been
involved in the employment and training efforts conducted
by CETA prime sponsors under the Comprehensive Employment
and Training Act;

(2) to determine and present the extent

of their participation in terms of funding levels, program
involvement, and the number of persons served; and (3) to
describe selected program models successfully used by the
public community colleges in providing employment and train­
ing services under the Comprehensive Employment and Training
Act during the two fiscal year period covered by the study.

92

93

Scope of the Study
The population of this study consisted of Michigan's
twenty-three (23) U.S. Department of Labor designated CETA
prime sponsors and eleven (11) Michigan Balance of State
prime sponsor consortiums designated by the Governor of
the state.
For the purpose of this study, both groups were
considered equal in that they:
1.

Are legally liable under the Comprehensive Employ­
ment and Training Act for all activities conducted
under the Act.

2.

Must adhere to the same federal rules, regulations,
and guidelines.

3.

Must plan, administer, monitor, and evaluate all
programs and activities under the same governance
structure.

4.

Must have advisory groups with representatives
from specific populations, agencies, and instit­
utions .

5.

Receive funds to carry out the employment activities
authorized under the Act.

From a secondary viewpoint, Michigan's twenty-nine (29)
public community colleges were indirectly involved in the
study.

Three of these colleges were the focus of an indepth

review as a result of their success in securing CETA funds
and the method in which they had adapted to the needs of

94
the CETA employment and training delivery system.
Limitations
This study is limited to the Michigan CETA activities
conducted during the 1978 and 1979 fiscal years.

It

further represents only those activities and programs
conducted by CETA prime sponsors under the specific funding
titles available to all of the states prime sponsors both
regular and balance of state.
The data and information presented represents nineteen
(19) regular and seven (7) balance of state prime sponsors
responding to the survey questionnaire.

This response rate

of 78.87, of the total Michigan prime sponsor population was
deemed sufficiently high for the purpose of this study.
The study makes no attempt to compare individual
prime sponsor or community college performance either in
terms of raw numbers or percentages.

The large number

of independent variables present in the funding, admin­
istration, operational, and reporting processes of both
prime sponsors and community colleges render such a
comparison impractical.
Methodology
The data and information in this study was collected
through the use of a survey questionnaire mailed to each of
the prime sponsor directors.

A second questionnaire was

mailed to those directors who had not responded after a

95
period of six weeks.
Those prime sponsors returning the questionnaire were
contacted and interviewed.

This process provided clarifying

information for the study and additional information in cases
where survey questions were unanswered.

The data and infor­

mation from the questionnaire was tabulated for descriptive
and quantitative analysis and summarized in contingency
tables by number and percentage.
In an effort to present a more descriptive study of
how community colleges were participating in these employ­
ment and training programs,

three models were presented.

Three community colleges were randomly selected from those
prime sponsor funded institutions with the highest levels
of participation in classroom training and other direct
service delivery activities.
Interviews were conducted with the Dean of Occupational
Education,

the CETA Program Director and/or other appropriate

college staff.

The purpose of these interviews was to gain

sufficient information to present the program description
including:

(1) the involvement of the college in the prime

sponsor planning process,

(2) the development of the CETA

employment and training program at the institution,

(3) the

channels of communication and relationships between the
institution and the prime sponsor, and (4) other factors
influencing the institutions participation in the program.

96

Findings From The Survey Questionnaire and Interview
Advisory Council Participation
All of the prime sponsors comply with the letter of the
CETA regulations by including a representative of Vocational
Education agencies and other education and training agencies
on the advisory council.

While the majority of the prime

sponsors tend to specifically select these representatives,
seven (7) or 26.97, of those responding used a public notice
or open invitation to these institutions to invite applicants.
Open invitation would seem to provide a major opportunity
for community colleges to become involved in the planning
and advisory process.

In the seven areas where this method

was used, community colleges were members of five prime
sponsor advisory councils during both years of the study.
Educational Agency Participation
As might be expected, local school districts are
represented on the majority of prime sponsor planning
councils.

These districts are closely followed in number

by Intermediate School Districts and then by community
colleges.

However, more than half the prime sponsors

reported community college representatives on their
advisory councils during both fiscal years.

Community

colleges are represented on a significantly larger number
of prime sponsor planning councils than are private

97
occupational schools or 4-year colleges either public or
private.
Nine prime sponsors reported they had no representative
of a community college during either year of the study.
The reasons given included (1) they had secured sufficient
participation from other educational agencies;

(2) their

internal policy discouraged appointing service deliverers
or sub-grantee institutions to the council;

(3) the

community college was not a primary deliverer of service
and therefore was not utilized in an advisory category; or
(4) the community college had not indicated an interest in
such participation.
Administrative Position of College Representatives
In those instances where community colleges were
represented, the representative was at a level within the
college organization to afford them a good understanding
of all the colleges potential for participation in a wide
variety of CETA activities.

In one case, the president of

the college was the advisory council representative.

Most

often, it was a second or third level administrative
official representing the college.

These included vice

presidents, deans, division directors, or department
chairmen.

The level of the representative was deemed an

important indicator of the colleges level of interest in
the advisory process and its commitment to the overall pro­
gram.

93
Participation Rating
Overall, prime sponsor directors seemed well pleased
by the participation of the college representative on the
advisory council as evidenced by their generally high rating
in response to this question.

Several of the respondents

left this item unanswered in the initial survey or requested
confidentiality in their response.

During the interview

process, however, these directors responded to the question
and offered considerable praise for the level and quality
of assistance provided by the college representative.
Prime sponsors reported that the college representative
was knowledgable about the resources available at the college,
the planning and administrative functions of the institution,
and such areas as vocational education programs, federal and
state student financial aid, social service, and vocational
rehabilitation programs.
Types of Programs
Classroom training, or more specifically, individual
referral classroom training, was provided by prime sponsors
at community colleges at comparable or higher levels than
any other single activity during both study years.

This

was deemed the most appropriate activity for the college and
the area in which the institution was most responsive.
Guidance and Counseling was provided by 76.9% of the prime
sponsors at those institutions during FY 79 which equaled
the percentage providing individual referral training.

99

During FY 79, prime sponsors increased their utilization
of these colleges to provide four of the seven major activ­
ities.

Increases were noted in both types of classroom

training, Guidance and Counseling, and Public Service
Employment levels.

Only one category, Career Exploration,

was reduced that year from the previous year.
Appropriate Community College Activities
Both forms of classroom training were considered the
most appropriate activity for community colleges.

VJhile

all prime sponsors did not use the college for this service,
they continue to think it the most appropriate.
Fifty percent (507.) of the respondents had no opinion
in regard to the appropriateness of Guidance and Counseling
or Public Service Employment.

While many indicated they had

used the college to provide these services, prime sponsors
were not sure it was an appropriate community college activ­
ity.

Overall, they felt Career Exploration, On-the-Job

Training, and Work Experience was the least appropriate
community college activity.

This may be due to the lack of

interest in these types of programs over the others expressed
by community colleges.
Sole Source Selection
In cases where community colleges were selected to
provide programs, the reason for their selection was not
generally because there was no other agency available to

100
provide this service.

Nineteen prime sponsors (73%) reported

that other delivery agencies were available to provide the
training or services available through the community college.
Three (3) prime sponsors or 11.57, indicated that other
programs were available on a limited basis and four (4)
representing 15.47. indicated that the college was the only
source available for certain activities or services.
Reasons for Selection
Program Quality, which includes such elements as
quality of staff, equipment,

facilities, placement history,

course content and objectives, was rated by 65.2% of the
prime sponsors as the reason for selecting the community
college to provide classroom training.

Geographic

location and program cost were the second and third highest
responses given by 52.2%, and 34.8% of the prime sponsors
respectively.

Cooperation received the lowest overall

ranking with only three (3) prime sponsors or 13.07,
responding that this was a factor in selecting the college
to provide this CETA type program.

The lack of a monitoring

system of student performance, poor reporting, and conflicts
with the college and CETA fiscal accounting system were
cited as the major reasons for this response.
Factors Influencing the Competitiveness of Community Colleges
The variety of programs offered through the community
colleges is singularly, by far, the most significant factor

ioi
in making this educational institution a preferred or com­
petitive delivery agency for classroom training services.
Most of the respondents (61.57o) rated this as the colleges
primary asset.

The geographic location, the comparative

program cost, overall program quality, the availability of
support services, and the facilities and equipment available
at the community college also are major factors in its
favor according to prime sponsors.

These findings are

consistent with those of the U.S. Conference of Mayors'
CETA/Vocational Education Report (November, 1979).
Respondents also indicated several factors against the
community college,
overall.

though to a significantly lesser degree

Administrative problems in program management and

reporting, program flexibility in the design of courses,
and a general lack of interest in serving CETA participants
were each rated by seven (26.970) prime sponsors as negative
factors.
Six prime sponsors (23,07.) indicated that course
availability and scheduling was a problem in the community
college.

The question of scheduling resulted in part from

comparisons to private occupational schools which often
modify course schedules to fit the participant, provide
accelerated curriculums and often offer an open-entry/
open-exit type of programming.

Community colleges, on the

other hand, have specific enrollment periods, operate on a
semester or term b a s i s , and often schedules courses on an

102
irregular basis or on a demand basis.
Classroom Training by Course/Description
Since the CETA system does not require prime sponsors
to maintain a record of the occupations in which training
is conducted, most of the prime sponsors did not maintain
and could not report this type of information.

Prime

sponsors indicated that although they have a priority
ranking of training and employment opportunities, they do
not generally attempt to control participants access to
available skill training programs.

In the case of a

community college with a wide variety of occupational
programs, prime sponsors may challenge the interest area of
a participant, however, a participant may enroll in any
program with the prime sponsors approval if there is a
reasonable expectation in the judgement of the prime
sponsor for employment upon completion.

The data which

would have been presented here is incomplete and generally
unavailable and therefore has been omitted.
Prime Sponsor Grants to Community Colleges
During both years of the study, prime sponsors awarded
community colleges an average of 3.1 million dollars for
Title I CETA activities.

While this title permits a broad

range of employment and training activities, most of these
funds provided classroom training and related educational
and employability development services rather than direct

103
employment.

Title II and Title IV activities which are

primarily Public Service Employment grants to community
colleges reached combined levels of $1.6 million in FY 78
and over $2.1 million in FY 79.
Youth programs under Title IV were funded by eight (8)
prime sponsors in FY 78 at a level of $224,000 and by
seven (7) prime sponsors at a level of $375,000 in FY 79.
National priority programs funded in FY 79 by five (5) nrime
sponsors at community colleges amounted to over 1.45 million
dollars.
The largest award to a community college for classroom
training was $545,000 in FY 78 and $469,000 to a different
college in FY 79.

Across both years of the study, six

prime sponsors made grants in excess of $500,000 to community
colleges.

The largest being 1.25 million dollars for all

programs under all titles.
National priority programs, including HIRE and STIP,
were in part responsible for this funding level in
three prime sponsor areas.

Three prime sponsors made no

grants to community colleges for any activities during
the study period.
Participant Levels
Community colleges provided classroom training for
2,304 persons in FY 78 and 2,542 persons in FY 79.

During

both years, the majority of participants were enrolled in

104
class-size programs.

Many of these participants received

guidance and counseling assistance and other support services
as a part of their training programs.
During FY 78, 281 participants were involved in
employment activities in community colleges with 172
persons enrolled under public service employment and 109
in work experience or on-the-job training programs.

In

FY 79, the total was 505 participants, with 246 public
service employment participants.

Public service employment

could be a major asset to these colleges, providing funds
for jobs and personnel at various employment levels within
the institution.

Career assistance services were provided

separately from other services to 141 participants in FY 78
and 6 participants in FY 79.

Generally these types of

services are provided in conjunction with some other
training or employment activity.
level of response.

This accounts for the low

Overall, in all activities, community

colleges provided services to 2,726 in FY 78 and 3,053 in
FY 79.
Advisory Council Participation and Funding Relationship
Community colleges participating in the prime sponsor
advisory process received significantly higher funds from
prime sponsors than those who were not involved in this
process.

In twelve prime sponsor areas where community

colleges were members of the advisory council, these colleges

105
received grant awards in excess of $100,000.
such prime sponsors made

Only two

awards of less than $50,000 during

both years of the study.
Where community colleges were not represented on the
advisory council, one prime sponsor made an award to these
colleges in excess of $100,000 in both years of the study.
Five prime sponsors made

awards to community colleges of

less than $50,000 in FY 78 and ten in FY 79.
Findings of the Model Programs
Each of the three programs was involved in the advisory
council process which afforded them an ooportunity to gain
knowledge and information important to their future program
participation.

The advisory council representative looked

not only at classroom training opportunities, but at the
total spectrum of CETA employment and training program
activities and their relationship to the community college.
The advisory council member was not the direct admin­
istrator of the college program under CETA.

While this

individual served as a member of the council, they were not
perceived as the program administrator by the prime sponsors.
Other college personnel were charged with the specific ad­
ministrative responsibility for any CETA programs or
activities.
The model programs presented are unique in that they
each have developed a method for adapting to the CETA prime
sponsor administrative requirements, developed methods to

106
provide student follow-up, and adapted procedures to comply
with the CETA/prime sponsor reporting processes.

These

operational and administrative procedures were improved by
having direct operational access to prime sponsor staff or
other sub-grantees involved with the participants.
The level of participant support services were also a
common factor in the three programs.

Each had developed a

method to provide or access needed student support services
on a timely basis.
Finally, each of the programs had implemented an
approach to providing services that was consistent with
employment and training programs.

These programs were

consistent with the colleges goal and priorities but
flexible enough to accomodate the needs of the participant
and the prime sponsor.
Conclusions
In general, it would appear that both prime sponsors
and community colleges in Michigan have successfully made
the transition to the CETA decentralized system of oroviding
employment and training programs.

There remain, however,

based on the findings, several barriers to full and increased
participation.
(1)

These include:

A need for increased program flexibility, both
on the part of the prime sponsor and the
community college.

Prime sponsors perceive

107
that community colleges have the where-with-all
and mandate to provide quality programs but are
often reluctant to serve their clientele.
Community colleges, on the other hand, express
the concern that the prime sponsor would compromise
program quality for the sake of expediency and
require significant changes in the colleges'
instructional, organizational, and administrative
systems.

Some of the areas of concern are:

attendance and record-keeping requirements,

full­

time training or training for the specific
occupation without the general courses which are
usually part of a colleges one or two-year program,
and class scheduling requirements which permit
only term or semester enrollment rather than an
open entry/open exit type of program design.

These

perceptions often result in impass.
While forced cooperation on the part of the Congress
is not entirely desirable, program incentives have
been successful in removing these types of barriers
and improving coordination.

This could be a factor

in improving the prime sponsor - community college
relationship.
(2)

Community colleges need to become increasingly
involved in the advisory and planning process of

108
CETA.

The work of Korim in 1973 and Olsen in 1977

support the findings of this study that community
colleges who are involved in the advisory process
characteristically received higher funding awards
and larger programs as a result of this involve­
ment.

The value of being in on the ground floor

cannot be underestimated.

This level of involve­

ment is a proven road to success in the CETA.
program.
(3)

Community .colleges need to re-think their
relationship to the employment and training
program/prime sponsor process.

Federal employ­

ment and training programs according to Harris and
Magnum have been a major factor in the growth of
these institutions.

Currently their level of

funding on a national scale exceeds all community
college oriented programs including postsecondary
financial aid.

If such a trend continues, these

colleges may be forced to turn to these sources
or local sources for additional funds.

The latter

may not be a happy prospect in this era of
Proposition 13 (California), Tisch Tax Proposal
(Michigan), Proposition 2% (Massachusetts), and
other public spending restraint measures.
Community colleges need to thoroughly study CETA
and other employment and training programs and

109
determine how these types of programs can best be
used by the institution to better serve the
community.
One approach may be for community colleges to expand
their traditional resource and program development
activities beyond postsecondary aid and student
financial aid programs and explore Community and
Economic development

options as well as Human

resource development, private sector and similar
program opportunities.
(4)

Finally,

it seems that many community colleges

are involved in the CETA programs in a variety of
activities at various levels of participation.
Yet there are several additional activities which
could be provided by the college.

Some of the

employment activities including work experience
and on-the-job training, as well as the career
oriented activities such as career exploration and
orientation could be given increased emphasis.
Prime sponsors seem unsure of the community
colleges role in this area.

Perhaps the community

college should assume a more aggressive leadership
position in addressing the employment and training
needs of the community it serves in this important
area.

110
Expanding training options such as cooperative
education, work experience and on-the-job training
programs as well as closer coordination between
business,

industry, labor, and the employment

and training sector could set the stage for greater
leadership and involvement on the part of the
community college.
Recommendations
The findings of this study taken in the context of
previous research,

the literature,

legislative history,

and college charter promise should provide helpful information
for those policy and decision makers in both the employment
and training and the community college sectors.

The following

recommendations should provide direction in some aspects.
1.

It would seem that community college leaders should
thoroughly review and understand the purposes,
goals, and intent of the national employment and
training effort and clearly articulate what role
they might play under this effort.

2.

It would seem that community college administrators
should identify the principal persons involved
in the advisory and administrative processes of
the CETA programs in their community and take
steps to become actively involved at all levels.

Ill
3.

It would seem that appropriate persons at each
community college should thoroughly and critically
assess their institutions ability to meet the needs
of the unemployed, the handicapped,

the displaced

homemaker, and others in the community who are
traditionally the target populations for employ­
ment and training programs.

Such an assessment,

hopefully, will permit the college to determine
the state of affairs in the community and steps
it might take to improve the delivery of services
to these populations.
4.

It would seem that the local CETA administrator
should re-assess the viability of the community
college as an important deliverer of a wide
variety of employment and training services.
While the data may suggest that community colleges
are not interested in CETA, that lack of interest
may come from a lack of understanding of the
program.

Here the prime sponsor director may be

helpful.
5.

It would seem that the prime sponsor should examine
the funding opportunities available to the community
college and the possibilities of joint or jointly
funded programs to serve CETA eligible persons.
Some of these include federal and state vocational
education programs, social service and vocational

112
rehabilitation programs and student assistance
and financial aid programs.
6.

It would seem that persons in the highest levels
of each organization should discuss major policy
and operational issues rather than lower level
staff to determine policy, focus, and direction.
Discussions at this level may result in a broader
understanding of concerns, policy, and program
options on both sides and reduce the tendency
toward artificial turfdom program issues.

7.

It would seem that the Congress or high level
policy makers at the federal level should closely
examine the level of articulation between community
colleges and the federal employment and training
effort.

Similar action on the part of the Congress

has resulted in closer relationships between the
employment and training effort and local school
districts, the employment service, and vocational
education programs and may be helpful with
community colleges.
8.

It would seem that incentives for cooperation
and coordination between community colleges and
prime sponsors similar to those between prime
sponsors and local schools or prime sponsors and
bordering regions should be made a part of future
employment and training legislation.

113
These incentives may include a relaxation of
the sole source contracting provisions,

lower

matching requirements, fiscal incentives, or
coordination incentives.
Future Studies
1.

It is recommended that future studies be
conducted on a multi-state, regional, or national
scale to determine the type and level of community
college participation in CETA programs.

2.

It is recommended that future studies be conducted
comparing the involvement and participation of
local school districts and private occupational
schools in CETA programs.

3.

It is recommended that future studies be conducted
involving the coordination of other funding sources
with CETA in postsecondary institutions.

4.

It is recommended that future studies be conducted
to determine the number of participants receiving
a specific type of service under CETA, and in the
case of training, in what occupational area.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
Labor Department Appropriations
FY 1963 - 1979
National Comprehensive Employment
and Training Act Appropriations
FY 1978 and FY 1979
Michigan Comprehensive Employment
and Training Act Appropriations
FY 1978 and FY 1979

114
LABOR DEPARTMENT APPROPRIATIONS
FY 1963-1979
Manpower Development and Training Act, Economic Opportunity
Act, Emergency Employment Act, and Comprehensive Employment
and Training Act, Fiscal Years 1963-1979 (millions of dollars)

DOL Manpower Appropriations
Fiscal Year

MDTA

EOA

EEA

CETA

Total

1963

69.9

69.9

1964

130.0

130.0

1965

396.9

132.5

529.4

1966

399.6

577.8

977.4

1967

390.0

667.1

1,057.1

1968

398.5

745.7

1,144.2

1969

407.5

907.8

1,315.3

1970

705.8

753. 7

1,459.5

1971

867.2

761.8

1,629.0

1972

905.3

776.8

1,000.0

2,682.1

1973

719.6

831.6

1,250.0

2,801.2
2,015.6

2,265.6

1975

3,742.8

3,742.8

1976

5,741.8

5,741.8

597.6

597.6

1977

8,052.8

8,052.8

1978

10,142.5

10,142.5

1974

250.0

1976TQ1

Source:

Employment and Training Administration, U. S.
Department of Labor

^Transition quarter, July-September, 1976

115

NATIONAL
COMPREHENSIVE EMPLOYMENT & TRAINING ACT APPROPRIATIONS
FY 1978 & FY 1979
(millions of dollars)
Title

FY 1978

FY 1979

I

1,880.0

1,914.0

524.0

2,500.1

1,600.7

387. 3

IV

274.1

1,219.0

VI

3,179.0

3,415.9

595.0

706.2

8,052.8

10,142.5

II
III

Summer Youth
Total
Source:

Employment & Training Administration, U. S.
Department of Labor

116

MICHIGAN
COMPREHENSIVE EMPLOYMENT & TRAINING ACT APPROPRIATIONS
FY 1978 & FY 1979
(hundreds of dollars)
Title

FY 1978

FY 1979

I

77,140.7

80,067.7

II

51,584.1

118,366.7

III1

2,197.3

1,921.9

III2

446.4

20,371.5

IV

23,255.8

21,390.5

VI

242,746.4

195,169.5

33,727.2

31,466.8

431,097.9

468,754.6

Siammer Youth
Total
Source:

Bureau of Employment & Training, Michigan Department
of Labor

^"Includes Native American and Migrant Grants
?
Includes HIRE and STIP National Priority Programs

APPENDIX B
Comprehensive Employment and
Training Act Activity Title
Comparison
A Summary of the Comprehensive
Employment and Training Act of
1973, P.L. 93-203
A Summary of the Comprehensive
Employment and Training Act
Amendments of 1978, P.L. 95-524

COMPREHENSIVE EMPLOYMENT

& TRAINING ACT ACTIVITY TITLE COMPARISON

THE CETA ACT OF 1973

THE CETA AMENDMENTS OF 1978

TITLE I

- COMPREHENSIVE MANPOWER SERVICES

TITLE I

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

TITLE II

- PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM

TITLE II

COMPREHENSIVE EMPLOYMENT & TRAINING
SERVICES

TITLE III

- SPECIAL FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITIES
Part A - Financial Assistance Provisions
Part B - Services to Economically
Disadvantaged

Part A - Special Target Groups
Part B - Research, Training & Evaluation
Part C - Youth Employment Demonstration
Programs
TITLE IV

- JOB CORPS

TITLE V

- NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR MANPOWER
POLICY

TITLE VI

- EMERGENCY JOB PROGRAM

TITLE VII

- GENERAL PROVISIONS

TITLE VIII

- YOUNG ADULT CONSERVATION CORPS

Part C -Upgrading & Retraining Program
Part D -Transitional Employment
Opportunities for Economically
Disadvantaged
„ TT
TITLE II

SPECIAL FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITIES
Part A - Special National Programs &
Activities
Part B - Research, Training & Evaluation

TITLE IV

YOUTH PROGRAMS
Part A - Youth Employment Demonstration
Program
Part B -Job Corps
Part C -Summer Youth Programs

TITLE V

NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR EMPLOYMENT POLICY

TITLE VI

COUNTERCYCLICAL PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT
PROGRAM

TITLE VII

PRIVATE SECTOR OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE
ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED

TITLE VIII

YOUNG ADULT CONSERVATION CORPS

118

A SUMMARY OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE EMPLOYMENT & TRAINING ACT
OF 1973
P. L. 93-203
TITLE I
Establishes a program to provide comprehensive employ­
ment and training services such as the development and
creation of job opportunities, various training, education
and other services, e.g. outreach assessment, orientation,
counseling, institutional skill training, on-the-job train­
ing, supportive services, subsistence allowances and transi­
tional public service employment.

Special funds are

allocated to state vocational education agencies for staffing
and servicing state employment and training services councils,
and for provision of other statewide employment and training
services.
TITLE II
This Title is designed to counter joblessness by creating
opportunities for transitional employment in jobs providing
needed public services in areas with a 6.5 percent or greater
unemployment rate.

Title II funds may also be used to finance

Title I program activities.
TITLE III
This Title provides authorization for delivery of addi­
tional employment and training services to be directed toward

119
certain target groups in particular need of these services
such as native Americans, migrants, offenders, older workers,
and persons of limited English-speaking ability.
TITLE IV
This Title provides for continuation of the Job Corps
as a federally administered program, operated directly by
the U.S. Department of Labor.

The Job Corps establishes

residential and non-residential centers in which low income,
disadvantaged young men and women participate in intensive
programs of education, vocational training, work experience,
counseling and other activities.
TITLE V
This Title establishes a National Commission for Employ­
ment and Training Policy that is responsible for identifying
employment and training needs and goals of the nation, and
assessing the extent to which programs under CETA and related
acts represent a consistent, integrated and coordinated
approach to dealing with them.
TITLE VI
This Title establishes authority for a major temporary
program of emergency public service employment and training
for unemployed and under-employed persons, especially for
workers who have exhausted all unemployment compensation or
are not eligible to receive such benefits, and/or workers who
have been out of work for 15 weeks, or longer.

120
TITLE VII
This Title covers general provisions applicable to all
CETA programs, including labor standards governing work and
training, prohibition against political activities, non­
discrimination regulations, criminal provisions, records and
audits and reports.

121

A SUMMARY OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE EMPLOYMENT & TRAINING ACT
AMENDMENTS OF 1978
P. L. 95-524
TITLE I
This Title contains the general provisions applicable to
the Act.

It directs the Secretary of Labor to establish an

Office of Management Assistance to provide management services
to prime sponsors, and it contains specific time limitations
for participation in programs.
This Title also contains wage limitations for public
service employment.

Wages may not exceed $10,000 per year,

adjusted upward by the ratio that local wage rates bear to the
national average, but not to exceed twenty (20) percent of
the maximum $12,000.

Average wages in each prime sponsor

area may not exceed $7,200, adjusted by the same ratio.
TITLE II
This Title combines the former Title I (Comprehensive
Manpower Services) and Title II (Public Employment Programs)
into a single title aimed at the economically disadvantaged.
Programs include training, upgrading, retraining, educa­
tion, and other services and counter-structural public service
employment.
Public service employment must be entry level and com­
bined with training and supportive services, if available,

122
and the supplementation of wages is specifically prohibited.
Except for upgrading and retraining programs, all par­
ticipants must be economically disadvantaged and either
unemployed, underemployed, or in school.

Participants in

public service employment must be economically disadvantaged,
unemployed 15 or more weeks, or on welfare.
TITLE III
This Title contains special programs for persons who have
a particular disadvantage in the labor market, including
Native Americans, migrants and other seasonal farm workers,
the handicapped, women,

displaced homemakers, public assis­

tance recipients, and other special target groups.
TITLE IV
This Title contains the youth programs, including the
'Xouth Employment and Demonstration Projects Act of 1977, the
Job Corps, and the Summer Youth Employment Program.
TITLE V
This Title reconstitutes the National Commission on
Manpower Policy and renames it the National Commission for
Employment Policy.

Responsibilities of the Commission in­

clude the examination of national manpower issues, suggestions
on how to deal with those issues, and advising the Secretary
on national manpower issues.
TITLE VI
This Title provides for a countercyclical public service

123
employment program and authorizes funding of sufficient jobs
to employ twenty (20) percent of the population when unemploy­
ment exceeds four (4) percent, and twenty-five (25) percent
when the jobless rate exceeds seven (7) percent.
TITLE VII
This Title provides a demonstration program to test the
effectiveness of a variety of approaches to increase the
involvement of the business community in employment and train­
ing activities supported under this Act, and to increase the
private sector opportunities for economically disadvantaged
persons.
TITLE VIII
This Title authorizes the Young Adult Conservation Corps,
originally created under the Youth Employment and Demonstra­
tion Projects of 1977.

APPENDIX C
Michigan Regular and Balance
of State CETA Prime Sponsors
FY 1978 and FY 1979
Map of Michigan Regular Prime
Sponsor Jurisdictions
Map of Michigan Balance of
State Prime Sponsor Jurisdictions

124

Prime Sponsor

Director/Address

City of Ann Arbor

Harold Turner, Director
CETA Program
City of Ann Arbor
220 East Huron
Ann Arbor,
MI 48108
PH:
(313) 994-2970

Bay County

James W. McGowan, Director
CETA Program
311 Second Street
Washington Plaza
Bay City, MI 48706
PH:
(517) 892-4578

Berrien County

Weldon Burden, Director
CETA. Program
2160 M-139
Benton Harbor,
MI 49022
PH:
(616) 927-2476

Calhoun & Barry Counties

John M. Martinoff, Director
Mid Counties Employment and
Training Consortium
P.O. Box 1574
Battle Creek,
MI 49016
PH:
(616) 965-0521

City of Dearborn

Frederick D. Weiss, Director
CETA Program
4917 Schaefer
Suite 208
Dearborn, MI 43126
PH:
(313) 584-0040

City of Detroit

Ollie McKinney, Director
Manpower Department
903 W. Grand Boulevard
Detroit,
MI 48208
PH:
(313) 224-6071

Flint, Genesee, Lapeer,
Shiawassee Counties

Bruce A. Graebner, Director
CETA Program
Walter Reuther Learning Center
708 Root Street, Room 322
Flint, MI 48503
PH:
(313) 766-7390

125
Prime Sponsor

Director/Address

Grand Rapids, Allegan,
Kent, Ionia, Montcalm,
Gratiot Counties

Micki Pasteur, Exec. Director
Grand Rapids Area Employment &
Training Council
Peoples Building, Suite 400
60 Monroe, N.W.
Grand Rapids,
MI 49503
PH:
(616) 456-4069

Jackson, Hillsdale,
Lenawee Counties

Phyllis Way, Director
CETA Program
Region II Manpower Consortium
120 W. Michigan Avenue
Jackson,
MI 49201
PH:
(517) 788-4490

Kalamazoo County

Robert Straits
W.E. Upjohn Institute
Employment Management Division
438 West South Street
Kalamazoo,
MI 49007
PH:
(616) 349-1533

Lansing, Ingham, Eaton,
Clinton Counties

Michael Ouinn, Director
Lansing Tri-County Regional
Manpower Administration
1850 W. Mt. Hope Avenue
Lansing, MI 48910
PH:
(517) 487-0106

City of Livonia

James Andres
Program Administrator
Jackson School
32025 Lyndon
Livonia, MI 48154
PH:
(313) 522-8870

Macomb County

Edward J. Bonior, Director
Macomb County Community
Services Agency
59 North Walnut
Mt. Clemens,
MI 48043
PH:
(313) 469-5220

Monroe County

John Hayter, Director
CETA Program
1420 E. First Street
Monroe,
MI 48161
PH:
(313) 242-0218

126
Prime Sponsor

Director/Address

Muskegon, Oceana Counties

Paul Roy, Director
Employment & Training Department
953 E. Keating
Muskegon,
MI 49442
PH:
(616) 724-6381

Oakland County

Harold McKay, Manager
Employment & Training
140 S. Saginaw
Pontiac,
MI 48058
PH:
(313) 858-1033

Ottawa County

Gary Scholten, Director
CETA Program
12451 James Street
Holland,
Ml 49423
PH:
(616) 399-3355

Saginaw County

Dennis Brieske, Director
CETA Program
Saginaw County Courthouse
111 South Michigan Avenue
Saginaw,
MI 48602
PH:
(517)
793-4561

St. Clair County

Richard Bingham, Director
CETA Program
511 Fort St . , Suite 400
Port Huron,
MI 48060
PH:
(313) 987-4884

City of Warren

XJilliam E. Collin, Director
Dept, of Personnel Management
29500 Van Dyke Avenue
Warren,
MI 48093
PH:
(313) 574-4500

Washtenaw County

Patricia Bambery
CETA Coordinator
212 S . Fourth Avenue
Suite 8
Ann Arbor,
MI 48104
PH:
(313) 994-1640

Wayne County

Arthur M, Lewis, Director
Wayne County Office of Manpower
1600 David Stott Bldg.
1150 Griswold
Detroit,
MI 48226
PH:
(313) 224-7160

127

Prime Sponsor

Director/Address

BOS 1A

Price Banks, Director
Livingston County Department
of Internal Services
820 E. Grand River
Howell,
MI 48843
PH:
(517) 546-7450

BOS 3

Judy Haas, Director
Branch-St. Joseph Employment &
Training Consortium
36% Division Street
Coldwater,
MI 49036
PH:
(517) 279-8409

BOS 4

Carl Benedix, Director
Region IV Consortium
Cass County Service Building
R.R, #2, Hospital Street
Cassopolis,
MI 49031
PH:
(616) 445-8645

BOS 7A

Frank Lenard, Director
Thumb Area Consortium
c/o Hahn Real Estate Building
6240 West Main Street
Cass City,
MI 48726
PH:
(517) 872-3065

BOS 7B

Roberta Volker, Director
Region 7B Employment & Training
Consortium
1375 S. Clare
Harrison,
MI 48625
PH:
(517) 386-3864

BOS 8A

Paul Griffith, Director
West Central Michigan Employment
and Training Consortium
119 North Michigan
Big Rapids,
MI 49307
PH:
(616) 796-4891

BOS 9

Kurt Ries, Director
Northeast Michigan Manpower
Consortium
P.O. Box "G"
Onaway, MI 49765
PH:
(517) 733-8548

128
Prime Sponsor

Director/Address

BOS 10

Alton M. Shipstead, Director
Northwest Michigan Manpower
Consortium
531 South Union
Traverse City,
MI 49684
PH:
(616) 947-4780

BOS 11

Donald E. Walsh
E.U.P.
Employment & Training
Consortium
Urban Center, P.O. Box 717
408 Ashmun Street
Sault Ste. Marie, MI 49783
PH:
(906) 635-1752

BOS 12

Thomas Hazelwood, Director
Six-County Consortium for
Employment & Training
2415 First Avenue, North
Escanaba,
MI 49829
PH:
(906) 789-9732

BOS 13

James Saari, Director
Western U.P. Manpower Consortium
P.O. Box 370
Ironwood,
MI 49938
PH:
(906) 932-4059

129

STATE OF MICHIGAN
PRIME SPONSORS

9 0 Q IIIC

MACK

P M S O U l >SiA
OiMUVOW
I
ANTRIM

County Prims Sponsors
Bay, Berrien, Calhoun. Kalamazoo,
Macomb, Monroe. Oakland, Ot­
tawa. Saginaw. St. Clair, Wayne,
Washtenaw
I * 1Cities
Dearborn,Detroit,Livionia.Warren,
Ann Arbor
CONSORTIUMS:
Ift&fesgl Muskegon*-Oceana
Allegan.Ionia.Kent,Montcalm.Cityof
Grand Rapids*
vf Clinton, Eaton. Ingham*, CityofEast
Lansing and Lansing
i: ••• :lHillsdale-Jackson*, Lenawee
Flint*, Genesee. Lapeer, Shiawassee
i
iBalance of State
(Consisting of 56 Counties)

■O T S IC O .

MOWT*

KALKASKA CRAWFORD) OSCODA

ALAfNA

.

ALCONA

G*Va M
no
«eanrn
«N »| I
I n tA
Sl i

m ason t

lA il

OSCJOLA 1

c la s s

. qlaommm i

MSCOSTA I ISA M U *

a rm a c

I MfOtANO
TUSCOLA

GRATIO”

SAARV

’Administrative Unit of Consortium
CAM

' ST .O SIPH i

tRANCH

-

-VINUStCN

SANILAC

130

BALANCE OF STATE
CONSORTIA

ONTQMAQOM

I

CHIPPfWA

3TS«GO
REGIONS
1A A
1
o*
*
7A *
7S *

POP.
85.9
142.1
113.7
131.6
290.1

8A □
9 •

121.9
116.0

11 ■
12 ☆

56.9
181.0

COUNTIES
Livingston
Barry,Branch, St.Joseph
Van Buren. Cass
Huron, Tuscola.Sanilac
Roscommon. Ogemaw,
Iosco,Clare.Arenac.
Isabella,Midland,
Gratiot
Mason. Lake.Osceola.
Newaygo. Mecosta
Cheboygan, PresqueIsle,
Otsego, Montmorency,
Alpena. Crawford
Oscoda.Alcona
Emmet. Charlevoix,
Antrim.Leelanau.
Benzie.Grand Traverse.
Kalkaska.Manistee.
Wexford. Missaukee
Luce.Chippewa.
Mackinac
Marquette,Alger,
Dickinson.Delta.
SchoolcrtaftMenominee
Houghton, Iron,Gogeoic,
Baraga, Keweenaw,
Ontonagon

— Population inThousands

3E C 00A

NfWAVOO ■ MCCOST*

ISAULAA I WiOONQ

* i*

a

njscouk

, a iM iU
Ot ta w a I

ir CLAIM

OAK LAMO
(ATOM

VA^AWRtM

*
/iM M N

CAM

•

CALHOUM

<MAMAIOO |

i
ST. uO liP H I

a AAMO* I

O i

o

i

MCMAM

, U A CO Utl

APPENDIX D
Survey Instrument
Cover Letter for Survey
Instrument
Follow-up Letter for
Survey Instrument

131
COMMUNITY COLLEGE PARTICIPATION IN CETA
EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING PROGRAMS
DURING FY 1978 & FY 1979
SURVEY INSTRUMENT
DIRECTIONS:

I.

The purpose of this survey is to determine
the extent and level of community and junior
college participation in your employment
and training activities and programs under
the Comprehensive Employment & Training
Act during FY 1978 and FY 1979.
Please
read and respond to the following questions
as frankly and honestly as you can.
Your
name is not required for this questionnaire.
If you have any questions, please contact
Richard Jackson by phone at (517) 373-3395
between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through
Friday.

PRIME SPONSOR INFORMATION
1.

Prime Sponsor Area

___

2.

Type of Jurisdiction

City ____

3.

Population of the jurisdictional area

4.

What were your final funding levels for the respective years and titles?

County

Consortium

FY 1978
Title I (Title II ABC)

BOS

FY 19 79

$_____________________________$_____________

Title I Vocational Education $_____________________

$_____

Title II PSE (Title II-D)

$______________________

$______

Title III YETP(Title IV)

$______________________

$______

Summer Youth Program

$______________________

$______

Title VI PSE

$

Skill Training Improvement
Program (STIP)
OTHER:

$___

$_____________
$

$_
$

132
5.

What types of activities did you provide and how many persons did
you serve by year and activity?
1978
ACTIVITY

1979
NUMBER OF PERSONS

______________

Classroom Training

_________

Counseling and G u i d a n c e ____________ _

________

Career Exploration____________ ______________

_________

Job Placement

____________ _________________ _________

On-The-Job Training

______________

Work Experience

_____________ _________________ _________

Public Service Employment

_______________

_________

_________

OTHER:

II.

ADVISORY COUNCIL INFORMATION
1.

How was your advisory coiincil membership selected?

2.

How many educational representatives were on your advisory council?
(1978) ________________

3.

(1979)________________________

What educational agencies did they represent?

(check each that apply)

1978
____

19 79
____

Intermediate School District_________________

____

Area Vocational Center

____

____

Community College

____

____

Private Occupational School

____

____

4-year public institution

____

____

4-year private institution______________ ____

____

Local educational agency

OTHER:

133
4.

Have community colleges been involved in the planning process?
(1978)

Yes _________

N o __________________ (1979)_Yes____________No

How? (e.g. Council members; consultants; special committee; etc.)

5.

Have community colleges had voting representatives on your advisory
councils?

6.

(1978)

Yes

No

(1979) Yes_____

No_____

What was the position of the representative from the community colleges(s)?
(check each that apply)

7.

1.

President ___________

4.

Personnel Director___________

2.

Vice President___________

5.

Grants Specialist____________

3.

Division Director/Chairman__________

6.

Other________________________

How would you rate the participation of the community college represen­
tative as a member of the advisory council considering such factors as:
meeting attendance, willingness to serve, discussion participation,
cooperation, recommendations, information resource, etc.?
Poor

8.

Low

Average

High

Excellent

If you have not had a representative from a community college on your
advisory council, please indicate the reason(s).

134

III.

PROGRAM AND ACTIVITIES INFORMATION
1.

Have you utilized community colleges to provide any programs,
services, or activities?
Yes___________ No

In 1978

In1979Y e s _________ No

Name of Community College

2.

Name of Community College

If you have utilized community colleges, please indicate the number of
persons served by year and program/activity.
Activity or Program

Persons Served
1978

1979

a) Classroom training - class-size______ ___________

___________

b) Classroom training - Individual
referral_______________________________ ___________

___________

c) Guidance and Counseling

_________

___________

d) Career exploration____________________ ___________

___________

e) On-the-Job Training___________________ ___________

___________

f) Work experience_______________________ _________ ______________________
g) Public Service Employment____________ _________ _
h) OTHER:

3.

___________

_____

Which of the above activities would you consider to be most appropriately
provided by the community colleges (please identify by letter)•
a
Comment:

b

c

d

e

f

g

h_____

135
4.

Which activities are least appropriate for community colleges?
a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Comment:

5.

Were the programs, activities, or services provided by the community
college also available through other program deliverers?
Yes __________________________

N o ____________________________

If yes, which deliverers (Local schools, private school, C.B.O., etc.)?

Comment:

6.

Why was the community college selected over other program deliverers
for these activities or programs?
ACTIVITY/PROGRAM

REASON

136
7.

What factors make the community college a competitive or a preferred
delivery agency? (e.g. More flexible; open entry-exit; programming variety.)
Activity

8.

Factors

What factors do not make the community college a competitive or
a preferred delivery agency? (e.g. lack of flexibility, lack of
interest, administrative or operational problems.)
Activity

Factors

137
9.

Identify the CETA enrollment levels by courses or occupational cluster
in which classroom training participants were enrolled in community
colleges.
Enrollment Levels
Course/Occupational
______ Cluster______
A.

Stenographer

___________

___________

General Office/Clerk Typist

____________

___________

OTHER:

General Business Occupations
General Merchandising
Retail Management
Business Machine Operator
Tellers/Banking
Stock - Inventory Clerks
OTHER:

C.

FY 1979

Secretarial Occupations

Bookkeeping

B.

FY 1978

Data Processing Occupations
Keypunch/Equipment Operators
Computer Programmer
Computer Operations/Repair
OTHER:

___

138
FY 19 78
D.

Service Occupations
Hotel/Motel/Resort Workers_______ ___________

__________

Cosmetology_______________________ __________

__________

Barbering_________________________ ___________

__________

Child Care - Guidance____________ ___________

__________

Education Worker (Aide)______________________

__________

Social Service Worker (Aide)

__________

OTHER:

E.

Health Occupations
Nurses Aide/Health Aide
Medical - Dental Assistant
Licensed Practical Nurse
Registered Nurse
General Health Occupations
OTHER:

F.

FY 1979

Food Service Occupations
Cook - Chef
Food Management
Waiter - Waitress
OTHER:

___________

139
FY 1978
G.

Trade and Industrial
Welding and Cutting

___________

_________

Machine Operations/Tool & Die

___________

_________

Auto Mechanics

___________

_________

Other Automotive/Diesel_________ ___________

_________

Building Trades/Carpentry_______ ___________

_________

Electrical Occupations

_________

__________

Graphic Arts/Photography________ ___________

_________

Aviation Occupations____________ __ ________

_________

OTHER:

H.

FY 19 79

Agriculture Occupations
Mechanics
Landscaping
Floriculture/Horticulture
OTHER:

140
IV-

GRANTS AND FISCAL INFORMATION
1.

From the funds available for each title, please indicate (rounded to
the nearest thousand) how much was spent by category overall and
of that amount, how much went to community colleges.

Include

Vocational Education funds under Title I.
TITLE I (TITLE II ABC)
FY 1978
Total
Community
Funds
College

Category

FY 1979
Total
Community
Funds
College

Classroom Training

$

$

$

$

Counseling and Guidance

$

$

$

$

Employment Assistance

$

$

$

$

On The Job Training

$

$

$

$

Work

$

$

$

$

Public Service Employment

$

$

$

$

OTHER:

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

Experience

TITLE II PSE ( TITLE II-D)
Total
Funds

Category

Community
College

Total
Funds

Community
College

Classroom Training

$

$

$

$

Counseling and Guidance

$

$

$

$

Employment Assistance

$

$

$

$

On The Job Training

$

$

$

$

Work Experience

$

$

$

$

Public Service Employment

$

$

$

$

OTHER:

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

141

TITLE III Y.E.T.P.

(TITLE IV)
FY
Total
Funds

Category

1978

FY 1979

Community
College

Total
Funds

Community
College

Classroom Training

$

$

$

$________

Counseling and Guidance

$

$

$

$________

Employment Assistance

$

$

$

$________

On The Job Training

$

$

$

$________

Work Experience

$

$

$

$________

Public Service Employment

$

$

$

$________

OTHER:

$

$

$

$________

$

$

$

$

TITLE III Y.C.C.I.P.

(TITLE IV)

Total
Funds

Category

Community
College

Total
Funds

Community
College

Classroom Training

$_

$_

$_

$________

Counseling and Guidance

$

$_

$.

$________

Employment assistance

$

$_

$_

$________

On The Job Training

$_

$_

$_

$________

Work Experience

$

$_

$_

$________

Public Service Employment

$

$_

$_

$________

OTHER: ____________________

$_

$_

$.

$________

$

$

$

$

SUMMER YOUTH PROGRAMS

FY 1978
Total
Funds

Category

FY 1979
Total
Funds

Community
College

Community
College

Classroom Training

$

$.

$

Counseling and Guidance

$

$_

$

Employment Assistance

$

$_

$

$.

On The Job Training

$

$_

$

$_

Work Experience

$

$_

$

$.

Public Service Employment

$

$_

$

$_

OTHER:

$

$_

$

$_

$

$

$

$

$_
’

$_

TITLE VI P.S.E.
Total
Funds

Category

Total
Funds

Community
College

Community
College

Classroom Training

$.

$________

Counseling and Guidance

$_

$________

$_

$.

Employment Assistance

$„

$________

$_

$.

On The Job Training

$_

$

$_

$_

Work Experience

$_

$________

$_

$_

Public Service Employment

$_

$________

$_

$.

OTHER:

$_

$________

$_

$_

$

$

$

$

143

SKILL TRAINING IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

FY 1979

FY 1978
Total
Funds

Category

H.

Total
Funds

Community
College

Community

Classroom Training

$

$

$

$

Counseling and Guidance

$

$

$

$

Employment Assistance

$

$

$

$

On The Job Training

$

$

$

$

Work Experience

$

$

$

$

Public Service Employment

$

$

$

$

OTHER:

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

OTHER:

Total
Funds

Category

Total
Funds

Community
College

Community
College

Classroom Training

$

$

$

$

Counseling and Guidance

$

$

$

$

Employment Assistance

$

$

$

$

On The Job Training

$

$

$

$

Work Experience

$

$

$

$

Public Service Employment

$

$

$

$

OTHER:

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

RECOMMENDATIONS
1.

What recommendations would you make to improve and/or increase the
level, quality, and delivery system of community colleges under CETA.

2.

Any additional comments.

Thank you for your time and assistance,

If you would like a copy

of the completed study, please complete the information below or
contact me by phone at (517) 373-3395.
NAME _________________________________________________________________
ADDRESS
CITY AND ZIP CODE

145
COVER LETTER FOR
SURVEY INSTRUMENT
3116 Fairway Court
Lansing, Michigan 48912

October 19, 1979

I am conducting a field-based research survey examining the par­
ticipation of Michigan's public Community and Junior Colleges in
prime sponsor administered CETA programs and activities.
The
purposes of the study are to (1) determine the level and manner
of involvement these educational institutions have had during a
two year period and (2) identify the unique models and programs at
these institutions.
The study will be the basis for my doctoral dissertation and provide
the Department of Education with information to improve the involve­
ment of these institutions in CETA programs and activities.
I realize prime sponsor directors receive many requests for in­
formation and surveys,
I would greatly appreciate it, however,
if you or a member of your staff would take the time to complete
the attached survey and return it to me not later than Friday,
November 9, 1979.
I will be conducting a series of interviews with selected prime
sponsors and community colleges as a follow-up to the survey and
will be happy to share with you findings from that effort.
If you
have any questions, please call me by phone at (517) 373-3395.
Thank you for your time and assistance.
Sincerely,

Richard A. Jackson

FOLLOW-UP LETTER
FOR
SURVEY INSTRUMENT
3116 Fairway Court
Lansing,
Michigan

48912

December 5, 1979

Mr. James McGowan, Director
Bay County Department of Public
Service Careers
301 - 2nd Street, P.O. Box 391
Bay City,
Michigan 48707
Dear Mr. McGowan:
I am writing in follow-up to the community college research survey
I mailed you on October 19, 1979.
In general, the response has
been excellent and I have started to compile and analyze the survey
results received from other prime sponsors and Balance of State
Consortiums.
I have not yet received your survey and I am anxiously
awaiting it to see how you have worked with Delta Community College
and/or other community colleges.
In case the original survey was misplaced, I am enclosing a second
copy.
I would appreciate receiving it as soon as possible so I
can complete this phase of the study.
If I can b e of any assistance, please don't hesitate to contact me
by phone at (517) 373-3395.
Thank you again for your time and assistance.
Sincerely,

Richard A. Jackson

enclosure

APPENDIX E
Legal Citation:
Prime
Sponsor Planning Councils

147

LEGAL CITATION
COMPREHENSIVE EMPLOYMENT & TRAINING ACT
OF 1978 AS AMENDED
P. L. 95-524
PRIME SPONSORS PLANNING COUNCILS
"SEC. 109.

(a) Each prime sponsor designated under section

101(c) shall establish a planning council.
"(b) Each planning council established under subsection
(a) shall consist of members who are representative of the
eligible population (including significant segments thereof),
organized labor, employees who are not represented by organized
labor, community-based organizations, the employment service,
veterans organizations, representatives of handicapped indi­
viduals, vocational education agencies, public assistance
agencies, other education and training agencies and institutions,
business,

labor, and, where appropriate, agricultural employers

and workers.
"(c) The prime sponsor shall appoint the members of
the planning council, designate a public member as chairperson
and furnish staff to provide professional, technical, and
clerical assistance to the council.
"(d) The planning council shall meet no less than 5 times
per year.

The meetings shall be publicly announced, and, to

the extent appropriate, open to and accessible to the general
public.

148
"(e) The council shall (1) participate in the development
of, and submit recommendations regarding, the prime sponsor's
comprehensive employment and training plan and the basic goals,
policies, and procedures of the prime sponsor's programs and
of other employment and training programs in the prime sponsor's
area;

(2) monitor, and provide for objective evaluation of,

employment and training programs conducted in such area; and
(3) provide for continuing analyses of the need for employment,
training, and related services in such area, including efforts
to reduce and eliminate artificial barriers to employment.
Special consideration shall be given to the recommendations
of the planning council, but any final decision with respect
to such recommendations shall be made by the prime sponsor."

BIBLIOGRAPHY

149

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, Arvil V . , and Magnum, Garth L. The Lingering Crisis
of Youth Unemployment. Kalamazoo:
W.E. Upjohn
Institute for Employment Research, 1978.
Cross, Patricia K.
"The Quiet Revolution." The Research
Reporter, Volume 4, No. 3, (1969). pp~ 1 - 4.
Gardner, John W.
1961.

"Excellence."

New York:

Harper and Row,

Harris, Sam
Associates Ltd.
A Comparative Study of MDTA
Institutional Training in Community Colleges.
Springfield: National Technical Information
Service, 1973.
Jencks, Christopher, and Riesman, D. The Academic
Revolution. Garden City:
Doubleday, 1968.
Korium, Andrew S. MDTA in Community Colleges. Washington:
American Association of Community and Junior
Colleges, 1973.
Levitan, Sar A., and Taggert, Robert.
The Promise of
Greatness. Cambridge:
Harvard University, 1976.
Lynes, R.
"How Good are the Junior Colleges?" Harpers,
1966, p. 59.
Magnum, Garth.
The Total Impact of Manpower Programs:
A Four-City Case Study. Springfield:
National
Technical InformationService, 1971.
Merson, Thomas B.
"Directions in Community College
Occupational & Technical Education." Proceedings:
Annual Community College Conference, Northern
Illinois University, 1964.
Michigan Department of Education.
Statewide Community
College Services. Lansing, 1978.
Monroe, Charles R.
Profile of the Community College.
San Fransiscol
Josey Bass, 1972.

150

Muth, C. Robert, CETA Linkages with Post-Secondary
Education"
East Lansing: Proaction Institute,
19TT.

Nixon, Richard M.
"Presidents Higher Education Message to
Congress." Washington D.C., March, 1976'.
Ogilvie, William K . , and Raines, Max R. Perspective On
the Community - Junior College. New Yhrk:
Appleton - Century - Crafts, 1971.
Olson, Claire.
Community and Junior Colleges and the
Comprehensive Employment and Training A c t :
Participation and Recommendations for Improvement.
Washington:
American Association of Community
and Junior Colleges, 1978.
Palinchak, Robert S. The Evolution of the Community
College. Metuchen:
The Scarecrow Press, 1973.
Parnes, Herbert S., and Kohen, Andrew I.
Experience of Noncollege Youth."
Work:
Improving the Transition.
Government Printing Office, 1976,

"Labor Market
From School to
Washington D.C.:
p. 80.

Schaefer, C.J., and Kaufman, J.J.
New Directions for
Vocational Education. Lexington:
Heath
Lexington, 1971.
Shannon, Gail.
"Terminal Programs in the Public Junior
College." Educational Research Bulletin, Volume 32,
No. 1, (1963), pp. 7 - 10.
Stevens, David W.
"The Coordination of Vocational
Education Programs with CETA." Columbus:
National Center for Vocational Education, 1979.
Thornton, James W.
The Community Junior College.
York:
John Wiley & Sons, 1972.

New

U.S. Conference of Mayors.
CETA - Vocational Education
Coordination:
A Status Report.
Washington D.C.,

VTPT.-----United States Congress.
Comprehensive Employment and
Training Act of 1973, Public Law 93-203, 93rd
Congress, 1973.
economic Opportunity
upportunity Act of 1964, Public Law
Economic
88-45T| 88th Congress, 1964.

151
Economic Opportunity Act Amendments of 1967,
Public Law 90-222, 90th Congress, 1967.

.

Emergency Employment Act of 1971, Public Law
WI-54” 92nd Congress, 1971.

_

_

.

___________ . Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962,
Pub1ic Law 87-415, 8/th Congress, 1962.
___________. Social Security Amendments of 1967,
Law 90-248', 90th Congress, 1968.

Public

Vocational Education Amendments of 1968.
Public "Law 88-210", 90th Congress, 197T:----___________. Vocational Rehabilitation Amendments of 1968,
Public Law 90-391, 90th Congress, 1968.
United States Department of Labor.
Employment & Training
Report of the President, Employment and training
Administration, Washington D.C., Government Printing
Office, 1979.
________ . Occupational Outlook Handbook (1976-77 Edition) ,
Bui1etin N o . 1875, Washington D .C ., Government
Printing Office, 1976.
Venn, Grant.
"Post Secondary Vocational Education," M a n ,
Education and W o r k , Washington D.C., American
Council on Education, 1964, p. 14.
Walsh, John P.
"Manpower Development: A Junior College
Responsibility." Junior College Journal,
Volume 32, May, 1964, p. 8"!