HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem #67 - Discussion ItemN
CITY OF. MIAMI, FLORIDA
IN I r+,,OFFICE MEMOAANCUM
Honorable Mayor and Members 11990 FILE
TO 'of the City Commission DATE :
Discussion: Service De-
SUBJECT livery Area Designation
for Job Training Services
FROM PIEFERENCES /
Cesar H. Odio ENCLOSURES City Commission Meeting
City Manager
Several months ago, staff in the Department of Community Development
began studying the feasibility of requesting designation of the City
of Miami as a service delivery area (SDA) for job training and
related services. This study was initiated as a result of reviewing
the U.S. Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources' Report on the
Job Training and Basic Skills Act. The report raised various issues
and concerns regarding how job training and related services are
delivered to disadvantaged City of Miami residents.
BACKGROUND
The City of Miami is currently part of SDA 24, the South Florida
Employment and Training Consortium (SFETC), which also includes the
cities of Miami Beach and Hialeah, Metropolitan Dade County, and
Monroe County. There are 23 other SDAs throughout the State of
Florida. SDAs are established to provide employment and training
services to economically disadvantaged persons using federal funds
from the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA). The JTPA legislation
provides for the establishment of SDAs by approving requests in
accordance with several criteria, which include ".any unit of general
local goverment with a population of 200,000 or more...." The SDA
designation being considered would be separate from the SFETC. The
Governor may redesignate SDAs every two years, and such a
predesignation must be made not later than four months before the
beginning of a program year. It is our understanding that the JTPA
program year begins in July; therefore, the designation would have to
be_made by March 1 of the year the designation would be effective.
The major issue which precipitated this consideration is whether the
City of Miami is well served as part of the SFETC. For several
years, I have been made aware of various concerns which all question
whether the needs of the City of Miami are being addressed by the
SFETC. While it is recognized that some City residents are being
served, there may be need to redirect resources where most needed;
however, as presently constituted, the City has only one vote on the
SFETC. Therefore, the major benefit to the City as a whole and as a
Memo ta: Honorable Mayor and Members 2
of the City Commission -
political jurisdiction in being designated an SDA, would be the
ability to directly control JTPA dollars which would come into the
City. It is not clear what the initial allocation in total dollars
would be; however, the major fact remains that control would be
vested with the City alone, and would enable the City to develop more
innovative methods of addressing the needs of Its populace (within
the parameters of -the JTPA legislation.)
LEGAL OPINION
I requested a legal opinion from our City Attorney on the legal
implications of the City receiving the designation and the
feasibility of proceeding with it. A copy of the City Attorney's
opinion is attached hereto as Attachment I. The opinion elaborates
on the requirements for requesting designation as an SDA, in addition
to the requirements for withdrawing from the SFETC. Basically, there
are no impediments to the City proceeding with requesting the
designation. Any liability derived during the time the City was part
of the SFECTC would remain for that period of time. It should be
noted that as a separate SDA, the .City would be liable for all- funds
received through JTPA, which is precisely the case with any other
federal entitlements and grants, i.e., Community Development Block
Grant.
SFETC ANALYSIS OF PROS AND CONS
I also requested an analysis, from the Executive Director of the
SFETC, of the pros and cons of such a designation from the
perspective of SDA 24. A copy of that analysis is attached hereto as
Attachment II. The analysis from the SFETC acknowledges that the
City would directly control JTPA dollars for which it is eliglble;
however, this is the only pro identified in the analysis. Five cons
are detailed which provide certain issues to consider, but with which
we largely disagree. Overall, the analysis fails to provide any
examples of cities which have functioned well as SDAs where another
SDA may exist. A gloomy picture of doom is painted in the analysis
which implies that other key organizations, i.e., School Board,
service providers, etc., would be so confused by two SDAs that all
that SDA 24 has established would be lost. This is clearly a
misstatement of facts.
NEXT STEP
Staff of the Department of Community Development are prepared to work
more closely with the U.S. Department of Labor and the State of
Florida to determine how much the City of Miami would reasonably
kN
expect to receive, and to develop an organizational plan for
administration of the SDA. It is important that prior to embarking
on. this step that the Commission's desires and concerns be addressed.
Should it be your will to proceed, t would recommend that the -initial
year of implementation be program year 1992. there is
sufficient time to. request the designation from the Governor for
program year 1991, and to withdraw from the SFETC by the end of the
current year, 1992 would provide sufficient time to comprenheneively
plan the -appropriate organizational structure, and to establish,.
appropriate linkages, and provide for an orderly phaseout from the
SFETC.
Attachments
r
ir
t
s
t
IMa
Cesar H . Od io
City Manager
Joige L. Fer andez
City Attorne
TTACHPfitNt t
GO
f A OPIDA REA 0 P 'M M . RANDUM
Rr}( ti',1"tafE September 25, 19g0 F�I.E MIA=9024
� U '"' "MENT
c? Legal Opinion:
Establishment of Service
Delivery Area for Job
''E°EAEtICES Training Programs
El IGLJSl!Q=_
You have requested a legal opinion on the following
question:
WHETHER THERE ARE ANY LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE CITY OF MIAMI WITHDRAWING
FROM THE SOUTH FLORIDA EMPLOYMENT AND
TRAININGCONSORTIUM AND RECEIVING THE
DESIGNATION OF SERVICE DELIVERY AREA (SDA)
FOR THE DELIVERY OF JOB TRAINING PROGRAMS.
The answer to the question is in the negative, subject to
certain conditions discussed below. It should be noted that this
opinion does not address whether it would be more efficacious for
the City, in terms of achieving the goals of the Job Training and
Basic Skills Act, to be designated an SDA. This issue is more
appropriately within the experience and expertise of the
Department of Community Development.
DISCUSSION
Present) the City of Miami along with Metropolitan Dade
y
County, the City of Hialeah, the City of Miami Beach, and Monroe
County, comprise the South Florida Employment and Training
Consortium (SFETC). The SFETC is one ofthe24 Service Delivery
Areas (SDA) established in the State of Florida for the purpose
of -providing employment and training services to the economically
disadvantaged using federal funds authorized by the Job Training
Partnership Act, 29 U.S.C.A. S1501 (1982). The Job Training
Partnership' Act was enacted to establish programs. to prepare
youth and.. 'adults facing serious barriers to employment for
I articipation in the labor force. This is accomplished by
providing services that result in increased employment and
earnings, increased educational and occupational skills, and
decreased welfare dependency. Such services improve the quality
i f
of the workforce and enhance productivity and competit veness o
the nation.
i
i
1'-
Ce'sar H. Odio Septembet ,25, 1990
City Manager Page -2-
There are no legal or administrative restrictions at the
state or federal level which prohibit the City. from withdrawing
from the SPETC.• The agreement that formed the SFETC.specifically
provides that :any party to -the agreement has the right to
withdraw from the SFETC, sub'ect� to the following conditions
which are set forth in paragraph 10 of the agreement and provide
as follows: -
a. That the Consortium by and through its
executive director .shall have received
written notice of the party's. intent to
withdraw no later than ninety (90) days
before the end of the current JTPA
fiscal year.
b. That the withdrawing party shall not -be
released from any financial or any other
obligations incurred by that party
during the current or prior fiscal
years.
The City of Miami can request to be an SDA pursuant to
Section 101 (a)(4)(A) of the Job Training Partnership Act, which
'd th 1-"th G h 11 I.b
prove es a e overnor s a approve any request o e a
service delivery area from . . . (i) any unit of general local
government with a population of 200,000 or more. However, the
City should be aware that the Governor is authorized to
redesignate service delivery areas, no more frequently than every
two (2) years and such redesignation shall be made no later than
four (4) months before the beginning of the program year. Also,
units of general local government (and combinations thereof),
business organizations, and other affected persons or
organizations will have an opportunity to comment on the proposed
designation of service delivery areas and can request revisions
thereof.
In the event the Governor denies the City's request to be
designated as an SDA, the City may appeal the decision to the
Secretary of Labor. The Secretary of Labor will make a final'
decision within (30) days after receipt of the appeal as to
whether the Governor's decision is contrary to the provisions of
the Job Training Partnership Act.
1.2
15 16
�
"i4,
Ce'3 H. bdib September -25, 1990
Cite Manager page -3
CONCLUSION
The City may withdraw from the SFSTC provided that notice is
given to the executive director of the Consortium ninety (90)
days before the end Of the current JTPA fiscal year. The City
will remain liable for any financial or legal obligation incurred.
during the current or prior fiscal year as a member of the SFSTC.
PREPARED BY:
Julie 0. Bru
Assistant City Attorney
JLF/JOB/pb/mv/M211
REVIEWED BY:
A.- QuIThn Jb es, II
Deputy Ci' Attorney,
SOUTH FLORIbA EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING CONSORTIUM
7720 N.W. 36th Street, Suite 300, Miami, Florida 33166 (305) 594.7615 • FAX 477.0113
EEMORANDUM
TO: Cesar
City Manager, ity of Miami
1'RUPi: Joseph Alf
Executive it ctor, S C
DAZE: August 7, 1990
SUBJECT: Transmital of Analysis Requested by the City of Miami.: "Should
.the City of Miami Request Designation as a Separate JTPA Service
Delivery Area? An Analysis of Pros and Cons"
At the request of the City of Miami, SFEI'C staff has prepared the attached
analysis of pros and cons of Miami requesting designation as a separate
Service Delivery Area under the Job Training Partnership Act. The paper
elaborates in some detail the following points:
On the "pro" side of the ledger is control over $5.8 million in JTPA
formula funding (and perhaps additional non -formula employment and training
finding to be sought on a competitive basis). That control will enable the
City, operating jointly with its PIC, to administer JTPA in ways that the
City's decision -makers will be in a position to define as being in the
interests of its constituency.
On the other side of the ledger, this gain in control must be weighed
against -several drawbacks to the reconfiguration:
Memo'$/7/90
Page 2.
3. The splitting of .one SDA into two would create duplicative
administrative systems, increase costs, reduce efficiency, increase
confusion among participants, employers, SDA and Service Provider
staff, and staff of county -wide or regional agencies with which
MA must interact daily.
4. The split would make it difficult if not Impossible to continue the
-
Stay -in -School Program in the six high schools that serve Miami
youth, at the very time the rest of the country is looking at the
—
Miami area to determine how to establish and operate this program
model.
5. The reconfiguration would dramatically impact Service Providers in
ways that would probably make it more difficult for them to
function, increasing their workloads without necessarily increasing
their funding, and inevitably reducing resources available to serve
participants.
The staff of SFEPC stands ready to provide whatever additional
assistance the City may request in considering its options and, and if
it should decide to become a separate SDA, in planning for a smooth
transition.
—
01.07.0469
t
3
Q
Y
l
II.2
ti.
N Ct�r
—;
SHOULD THE CITY OF 41 REQUEST DESIC,NATION AS A
MiA
SEPARATE n?A SERVICE DELIVERY ARFA?
AN ANALYSIS OF PROS AMID CONS
Prepared by..,
the Office of .the Director'
South:Florida Fiployment
and Training Consortium',
August 7, 1990
OR
a
As
:.4
9.1
s
3
'Aie City of Miami has advised the South Florida Employment and Training '
Consortium (SFM) that it is considering requesting designation as a
separate Job Training Partnership Act OITA) Service Delivery Area
(Stag). To assist the City in considering its options, S = staff was
asked to .prepare -an analysis of the key decision issues: The pros and
cobs of such a designation; the implications for the City of Miami and
the other jurisdictions which comprise SF=, and the approximate
allocation of JTPA funds the City of Miami would receive as a separate
SDA. (Exhibit A).
The analysis that follows was prepared based on the following:
° Discussions with JTPA professionals from the National Association
of Counties (NACO), the National Association of Private Industry
Councils (NAPIC), and the US Conference of Mayors.
• Discussions with JTPA professionals in cities, counties, S'DAs and
Private Industry Councils (PICs) around the country that have in
recent years considered and either acted an or rejected proposals
to reconfigure their city/county or multi -jurisdictional SDAs.
° Data provided by the State Job Training Coordinating Council
(S.TTCC) on the approximate JTPA allocations that would likely be
available to a reconfigured SDA 24 (SFETC without the City of
Miami) and SDA 25 (the City of Miami).
SFETC data on expenditures, applicants, enrollments, and service
providers, used to assess the impact of different SDA configuration
options on likely service levels available to residents within and
outside of the'City of Miami.
To enable City -staff to conduct its own analyses and further pursue
their concerns, exhibits provide the raw data used as a basis for the
quantitative analyses and mailing addresses and telephone numbers for
all contacts.
The analysis must be understood in the context of a highly fluid JTPA.
The JTPA Amendments are still in Congress and are continuing to undergo
changes. The precise parameters under which JTPA will function once
these Amendments go into effect are not clear. Consensus in Congress is
still lacking on disputed items such as the JTPA funding formula; the
elimination of several discrete JTPA programs including stand-alone
summer Work Experience programs for youth, older worker programs, and
Education Coordination Grants (Section 123 money); and the separation of
youth and adult funding into separate titles. SF= staff has been
closely following, the status of the Amendments, through reports in the
� 1 nt and Train Reporter and discussions with staff from NACO,
and the US teriiFe of Mayors. In addition, funding
allocations are likely to be substantially affected by 1990 census data,
once it becomes available, and no one at the State or federal level has
been able to provide any useful.assessments as to how the 1990 data may
affect JTPA allocations in the Dade/Monroe area. It should be
understood, then, that the analysis that follows is based on our
assessments of the best information we have been able to gather at this
particular point in time, and is therefore subject to change if and when
different information becomes available.
91--•
DECISION ISSUES
Discussions with JVA professionals suggest that reconfiguration
considerations revolve around five sets of issues:
1. Control: Who will control, how much funding, to target and
gWMsster in ways that serve an area's interests, and who will
define those interests?
2. Levels of Services: Will reconfiguration of an SDA increase the
1;v-el of services to residents of the area seeking the change?
3. Quality of Services: Will the ' reconfiguration enable
administrators to enhance the quality 'of the services made
available to the area's residents? ("Quality" is defined here in
relation to the mix of services, the quality of the training, the
calibre of the professionals, and the accessibility (location) of
training facilities.) In short, will the area's residents be
better served?
4. Coordination of Services: Will the reconfiguration contribute to,
or uicrease pro ems re ated to, coordination of services? If it
will create duplicative structures and increase problems related to
coordination of services, how can these be minimized in planning
for and implementing the changes in SDA structures?
5. Administrative Dollars: Will the reconfigured SLIP, have sufficient
ZEMstrative dollars to operate effectively and efficiently?
COhZ'M: WHO WILL CONTROL, HOW MUCH FUNDING, TO TARGET AVID ADMINISTER
IN WAYS THAT SERVE AN AREA'S INTb'RESTS, AMID WHO WILL DEFINE THOSE
INIMTSIS?
If the City of Miami withdraws from SFETC and becomes a separate SDA 25,
the City will be allocated JTPA funding under the funding formulas
specified in the legislation. For the Program Year that began July 1,
1990 and continues thr h June 30, 1991 (PY'90), this might have
amounted to approximately 5,797,508 in Title II -A, II-B, and Title III
funds. Exhibit B provides allocation data calculated by the S.TDCC staff
at the request of SFETC. The City of Miami allocations as SDA 25 would
be apppproximately $3,390,895 for Title II -A; $1,698,243 for Title II-B;
and 5708,370 for Title III.
The strongest argument in favor of the designation of the City as SDA 25
appears to be that approximately $5.8 million in JTPA funding will be.
controlled by the City and by a Private Indust Coon '1 (PIC whi h
ry ci ) c
must be established in accordance with the Act. Both the City and its
PIC would jointly determine how the approximately $5.8 million would be
expended, ,in compliance with the requirements of the JTPA legislation,
regulations, and related directives. Within these constraints,control
would rest with these entities in such decision areas as the client mix
to be served, the program mix of activities and services -to be funded,
the allocation of funding to service providers, the activities to be
Page 2
carried out by the SDA's own staff, and the policies to be in effect to
guide these activities. With this control, however the City would also
assume sole responsibility for its decisions, as well as a possible
increase in liability, while at the same time services to City residents
may be reduced.
With the control will go the responsibility to make decisions in a
manner that is in compliance with regulations and directives that care
from the federal and State level, and in this respect, the City is
likely to encounter the same difficulties SDA 24 is now experiencing in
attempting to make funding and policy decisions that will protect the
SDA, in a current national =A context of changing regulations and
amendments and an intense investigatory climate, and in a local context
of Service Providers who are already encountering difficulties in
complying with those nationally mandated changes.
With control will also come the liability for approximately $5.8 million
in JTPA funding. In the current intensive investigatory climate that
now surrounds JTPA nationally, and especially JTPA funding of OJT, these
liability considerations became matters of some consequence to City
decision -makers when disallowed costs must be repaid from non-JTPA
funds.
The level of services is also a key issue that the City must consider
because while control of $5.8 million in JTPA funding may seem
substantial compared to the total of approximately $1.3 million in JTPA
and other finding the City of Miami is receiving in PY' 90 as an SFETC
Service Provider, this must be weighed against the fact that more than
$5.8 in JTPA funding is now spent on City of Miami residents as part oT
SDA 24, and the creation of a new SDA 25 for the City of Miami will
result in a. net loss -of services, especially those targeted to at -risk
youth and Cuban and Haitian Entrants, as elaborated in what follows.
Finally, the City mast also. take into account that if the State's
calculations were done correctly, and if the State's position is correct
and SDA 24 would be considered a new SDA and therefore not entitled to
the protection of the funding hold harmless provision, and if the City
allocations were to be $5.8 million, the Dade/Monroe area taken as a
whole would receive the same PY'90 allocation of $19,447,273 which SDA
24 currently receives. This constant funding phenomenon was not always
true in other cases of reconfiguration. The Baltimore area SDAs split
apart partly because the allocations of the separate entities totalled
more than the area's allocation as a single SDA, and this was an
incentive to split up their consortiums. The State of Florida's
calculations for the South Florida area, however, do not suggest that.
there will be any change in total revenue to the area as a result of the
reconfiguration. (Exhibit B)
In sunraaU, the forego' analysis mests that the City will gain
aMitional control ram the recontiguration as a new SDA. This control.
to
labor marKer area.
a new riu gust be
'an decisions in E-
iU
constant overa
Page 3
LEVEL OF SERVICES : WILL REC WIGUSATION OF AN SDA INCREASE THE ZXVEL OF
SERVICES TO RESIDENTS OF THE AREA SEEKING THE CHANGE?
In twat instances where one jurisdiction in a mul.tijurisdictional SDA
has raised the issue of withdrawing, the central reason has been a
perception that services are not being distributed equitably and that
the area is not receiving its fair share of the available resources.
Analyses of the actual data have shown in some cases that the with-
drawing jurisdiction was correct in its perception, and that withdrawing
enabled the area that split off into its own SDA to target its full
allocation to its own residents. This was the case, for instance, in
Baltitmre, Maryland, and in Fulton County, Georgia. In other cases, the
data have shown the opposite: the City of Milwaukee, for instance,
learned that its residents were in fact receiving a disproportionately
high share of the total SDiA's resources and would in fact suffer a
severe reduction in services if it separated as an SDA and had only its
own JTPA allocation to target to its residents. Closer to home,. the
City of St. Petersburg came to a similar realization as did Monroe
County. In each case, the jurisdictions chose to remain in their
multijurisdictional SDAs to insure the maximum level of JTPA services to
its residents.
Exhibit C presents a comparable analysis for SFEPC service levels to
City of Miami residents. The data for the program year that ended June
30, 1990 show the following:
In all funding categories except three, the City of Miami's
residents have received a slightly higher share of total services
than the City's fair share based on the JTPA funding formula. The
three exceptions are the Stay -in -School Program for at -risk youth,
and the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (DHRS)
Cuban and'Haitian Entrant Program, where City residents have had a
disproportionately high share of total resources, and DHRS Project
Independence funding which has slightly under -served the City's
residents.
° In Title II -A (excluding Stay -in -School students), City of Miami
residents made up 33Z of the participants served by SDA 24 (1737
out of 5214), a slightly higher share of total resources than the
30.3% of the funds the City of Miami would be entitled to as a
separate SDA.
In the Title II-B Work Experience program (again excluding
Stay -in -School participants), City of Miami residents made up 31.52
of the participants (671 out of 2132), again a slightly higher
share of the total compared to the 30.3% of the funds the City.
would be entitled to as a separate SDA..
When we turn to the Stay -in -School Program, the picture is
particularly startling.. This is one of the largest programs SFEIC
operates. Us T!gO
the most current data, this program costs
approximately million a year, including Title II -A, II-B,
Department of Education, and JTPA Section 123 resources. (The JTPA
123 finds go directly from the State to Dade Canty Public Schools
and Miami -Dade Carmunity College, but in accordance with a plan of
Page 4
II.7
t ..
activities and expenditures developed by the SDA.) In the case of
this program, which serves at -risk youth who are -potential.
dropouts, 48% of the participants since 1986 (2,935 out of 6,148,
as elaborated in Sxhibit Ci4), and 45% of the current participants
(1220 out of 2701) are City of Miami residents.
The new Title III is essentially a new program in PY190. It is not
only considerably larger than the old Title III, but also now
targets much of .the same population with basically the same
training activities as what are currently provided under Title
11-A. Consequently, the best available data base for projecting
service levels under Title III is the current Title IIA profile of
services. Therefore, we could again estimate 33% of services going
to City of Miami residents, compared to the City's 30.3% of the
eligible population.
The pattern is similar even in the case of non -formula funding that
comes to SFETC as a result of competitive bids and/or contracts
with State agencies. The percentage of services going to City
residents under these contract is as follows:
JTPA Title I Older Workers 35%
DHRS Cuban and Haitian Entrants 45%
DHRS Refugee Cash Assistance 34%
° The only funding category that appears to even slightly under -serve
City of Miami residents is Project Independence funding under
contract from DHRS, which is used to supplement Title II -A Project
Independence funding. In the Project Independence category, only
281 of participants (132 of 476) were City residents.
The implication of the above for overall these titles and activities
would be that, all other things being equal, City of Miami residents
would lose services if the City were to withdraw from the Consortium and
become a separate SDA, and the loss would be particularly heavy in
services to at -risk youth and Cuban and Haitian Entrants as well. If
each SDA is able to serve only eligible residents within its own
borders as is the case now, SDA 25 would be able to serve fewer Miami
residents than would be served if Miami remained within SDA 24. The
current JTPA legislation specifies that "only eligible individuals
residing in the service delivery area may be served." If JTPA continues
to operate with this residence eligibility rule in effect, Miami
residents would be served by SDA 25 only, and SDA 25 would have less
JTPA funding available to spend on these residents than SDA 24 now
spends within the City under the current consortium configuration.
Exhibit D displays estimates of the size of the reduction of services in
each title, all other things being equal. The methodology used in
developing these estimates is provided in Appendix E. In summary, the
reductions would be as follows:
° In Title II A, 157 fewer Miami residents could be served, a 9%
reduction in services.
Page 5
II 8
° In Title II-B Work Experience, if this program were to continue
past June 1991, the change would be negligible: 25 fewer Mimi
residents could be served, a 4%, reduction. However, this program
is expected to end at the end of this program year and be replaced
by programs that will fund summer jobs for youth only if they are
part of a year-round model like the Stay -in -School Program. And it
is in just this program where City of Miami residents will be
suffering the severest cutbacks since a disproportionate share of
the youth served by the Stay -in -School Program live within the City
limits.
° In the Stay -in -School Program, 402 fewer at risk youth could be
served, a 33% reduction in services.
In Title III, the reduction might enx;unt to 39 fewer participants
receiving services, an 8% cut.
It is not entirely clear that the City would be able to'receive all
the contracted funding that now flows to SFETC from State agencies.
However, for purposes of this analyses, let us assume the City was
eligible to compete for all these awards and was successful in the
competitive bid process in securing 30.3% of what SFETC now
receives. The total SFEM now receives under such contracts is
$4 , 593 ,174 (Exhibit E) . If we assume that the City had access to
30.3% of that, or $1,391,732, there would still be significant
reductions in services to City residents, as f'oT�ows:
Title I: 20 fewer older workers would be served, a 13%
reduction in services.
DHRS Project
Independence: Conceivably, an additional 12 participants
could be served, but these 12 are already
included within the Title II -A figures
referenced above and in Tables 4 and 5.
DHRS Entrant
Program: 163 fewer Cuban and Haitian Entrants would be
served, a 33% cut.
DHRS RCA Program: 68 fewer refugees on cash assistance would be
served, a 12% decrease.
The loss of this non -formula funding, however, may become a moot
point if the JTPA Amendments eliminate Title I and if the City is
successful in securing DHRS funds at a percentage higher than the
30.3% used here.
In summary, across all funding,even if the City of Miami were to
successfully EcuEete to secure a slare o -competitive contract in
in addition to its tormula-based fimding, the cutbacks in services would
cmmmt to as m as 874 Fe-wer residents receivuig services, a tots
cutback of 16.4%.
The dollar implication of this reduction in services is estimated in
Exhibit E. The number of Miami residents who would no longer be served
is multiplied by the average cost per participant in that program. In
1.
total, even if the City were able to compete for and receive a 30.3;t
share of cotttpetitively awarded funds received by SFVC, the dollar value
of the expenditures that would no longer be spent on City residents but
would flow to SDA residents outside city limits is more than $1.5
million.
As a side note, the issue
of eligibility based on residence within an
SDA becomes a matter of some significance not only as this relates to
reduction of services but
also avoiding liability as an SDA. In the
City of Miami's own =A programs as a Service Provider for SDA 24, the
City could and -does serve anyone who lived within the SDA without being
restricted to serving City
of Miami residents. In PY'89, 46% of'its own
II -A participants (138 out
of 303) and 47% of its II-B Work Experience
participants (187 out of
396) lived outside the City's boundaries
(Exhibit F). If. the City
had served this same groin of participants
after 'it had been designated a separate SDA 25, the City could
conceivably be liable for
payback of approximately $260,820 in II -A
funds -and '$256,564 in II-B
funds. Clearly, the City would comply with
the eligibility guidelines
if it became SDA 25; however, it will become
essential for both SDA 24
and SDA 25 to carefully review and verify
addresses and insure that
only residents are served by the respective
SDAs.
In summary, the trade-off for the. CityVia' � control of $5.8 million
U-JTPA tundini is a siQ i cant reduction in services to its residents.
Whereas SFEIC has consistent.LY
served a cmsproportionateiy ni n snare oz
City residents in its
SDA-wide
programs, it a22ears
that the City will
e able
to serve only
those
who live within its
boundaries and that the
SFEI'C
will no longer
be able
to serve much
less over -serve city
residents.
From the
erspective
ot other Gansortium.
'uris ict ons
ere
will e a gain
in services, as resources that were previous
spent
insideitv`limits
will
now have to be
expended outside
QUALITY OF SERVICES: WILL THE RECONFIGURATION ENABLE ADMINISTRATORS TO
MMNCE THE QUALITY OF THE SERVICES MADE AVAILABLE TO THE AREA'S
RESIDENTS (WITH "QUALITY" DEFINED IN RELATION TO THE MIX OF SERVICES,
THE QUALITY OF THE TRAINING, THE CALIBRE OF THE PROFESSIONALS, OR THE
ACCESSIBILITY OF TRAIlQING FACILITIES)? IN SHORT, WILL THE AREA'S
RESIDENTS BE BETTER SERVED?
In some instances, jurisdictions withdraw from a multi -jurisdictional
SDA when they are unhappy with the services that the SDA makes available
to its residents. Fulton Caunty, Georgia, for instance, withdrew from a
multi -jurisdictional SDA and created its own program because it was
unhappy with the location of training facilities, requiring Fulton
County residents to travel to other counties to receive their training.
In SDA 24, however, a disproportionately high share of service providers
(41%) are located within the City's boundaries, so lack of accessibility
is not an issue.
The City will clearly need to use its own perception of current quality
of services to review the question, to arrive at its own assessment on
.
Page 7 11.10
/(_1
91-- 156.2.,
this decision issue. However, will the City use the same Service
Providers that are currently used by SDA 247 if so, will there be any
change in quality of services? If there is an interest in enhancing
quality without changing Service Providers, what dimensions of quality
will be improved and how will that be accomplished? Since quality -of -
training concerns are central to the national investigatory climate and
the national changes in regulations that are the cause of so much
distress among local Service Providers, how will the City, as an
independent SUA, address these concerns to the satisfaction of its
decision -makers and its Service Providers while still remaining in
coupliance with these national regulations and directives? What will
the City do to bring about the required shift from OJT to classroom
training; the required increase in targeting to welfare' recipients,
offenders, the handicapped, at -risk youth with low reading skills, and
others most in need of services; the transformation of JTPA into a basic
skills remediation system; and the required reductions in service
providers' administrative overhead? The answers to these questions rest
with the City's planners and decision -makers.
If we assume that the City will use the same network of Service
Providers now contracting with SDA 24 then there is no reason to
expect !any i icant net gains or losses on this issue. s ma
c e owever, the City chooses to operate JTPA through its own
sta wi out urine Service Providers. or chooses to use a ditterent
set of Service Providers.
COORDINATION OF SERVICES: WILL THE RECONFIGURATION COITMMUTE TO, OR
INCREASE PROBLEMS RELATED TO COORDINATION OF SERVICES? IF IT WILL
CREATE DUPLICATIVE STRUCTURES AND INCREASE PROBLDtS RELATED TO
COORDINATION OF SERVICES, HOW CAN THESE BE MINIMIZED IN PLANNING FOR AND
II'PLEMERrING THE CHANGES IN SDA STRUCTURES?
Generally, there are two sets of reasons why jurisdictions join together
to form multi -jurisdictional SDAs. Clearly, these need to be considered
when deciding whether or not it is advisable to withdraw from such a
consortium.
First, jurisdictions join together for service delivery in the interests
of administrative efficiency and to capitalize on economies of scale.
It is generally more efficient and economical in delivering one set of
services to run one intake system, one MIS, one financial system, one
contracting system, one monitoring system, one planning and evaluation
system, and to operate with one PIC than, to deliver the same services
through two, three or more parallel systems.
Discussions with SDA staff across the country make this point over and
over again. As separate SDAs, they have no choice but to operate
separately and each incur these costs. It is not only a problem for the
SDAs that lost the cost advantage of economies of scale. It is also a
problem for the other parties to the system. In cross -over areas,
participants are unclear where to get services, wind up at the wrong
intake center, and get turned off by the confusion. Contractors keep
bumping into each other in their outreach and recruitment efforts,
Page 8 II.11
% %
n-
'to
rear,
successfully recruiting a participant and then finding out they. can't
serve the participant because he/she lives in the other SDA, or he needs
a set of services that differ from the contract the Service Provider had
with the SDA that can serve this participant. A contractor serving both
SDAs has two sets of contracts, using two sets of forms, follows two
sets of procedures involving different interpretations of increasingly
burdensome and confusing regulations, and doubles his administrative
problems in tracking participants under two different contracts, and
billing two .different SDAs for payments. In short, splitting one SDA
into two simply increases the administrative work that is required
without any increase in administrative dollars and no net gain in
services or funding. The impact has to be a net decrease in actual
services for the area as a whole.
Returning to the question of why jurisdictions join together to form
multi -jurisdictional *SDAs, in addition to joining together in the
interests of administrative efficiency and economies of scale,
jurisdictions join together to maximize the effectiveness of
coordinating service delivery with other systems, that cross
jurisdictional boundaries. Whatever targeted population is to be served
under JTPA directives from the federal or State levels, the delivery
system that serves the population is organized on county -wide or
cross -county lines. This is trine for AFDC and Project Independence
recipients (DIALS), the handicapped (Vocational Rehabilitation), the
unemployed (Job Service), offenders (Corrections and Rehabilitation and
the court system), and at -risk youth (Dade County Public School).
Furthermore, the entire Dade Canty area is one labor market and one
media market.
Given this context, and the need to work with all of these systems on a
daily basis in order to provide JTPA services, two SDAs will have
duplicative, parallel initiatives in place to relate to these various
other systems, and each of these systems will be forced to relate to two
different SDAs. This is not likely to enhance either the efficiency or
effectiveness of the service delivery system.
Will employers try to make different deals with the two SDAs? Will
Service Providers make different arrangements with the two SDAs, and how
will State and federal monitors respond to different contract costs that
are supposedly based on the same financial information and the same
labor market requirements? Clearly, a great deal of coordination and
cooperation will be needed between the two SDAs to minirrdze these
problem. And media campaigns will need to be coordinated to minimize ,
confusion among employers and potential applicants.
One example of the kind of problem to be anticipated by the creation of.
SDA 25 is suggested by SDA 24's Stay -in -School Program. This program is
generally acknowledged to be one of the most successful programs JTPA
has operated locally, and is recognized nationally as one of the largest
and most effective dropout prevention programs in the country. Since
the JTPA amendments as presently written may eliminate stand-alone
Summer Work Experience programs and will permit only the combination of
year-round with summer services now found in this program, this program
is giving the Miami area recognition as being the model to follow
Page 9
II.12
91 - 156.
r
nationally. The progrmn has achieved a 93% retention rate over four
years in high school for at -risk poverty -level youth who were identified
by the school system as potential dropouts. Statistics on the programs
success with approximately 6,000 students enrolled for two to three or
more years since 1986 are displayed in Exhibit H. It should be noted
that approximately 48% of the approximately 6,000 students served since
1986 are residents of the City of Miami.
Since 1986, SFETC has spent approximately $14.4 million on this program;
95% of that ,sum has been JTPA funding. The current year's level of
expenditures for this program amounts to an additional $5.0 million, 97%
of which is JTPA funding.
If. the City becomes a separate. SDA, the City's high schools. and
residents, which make up 45% of the current program's enrollments will
be served by the new SDA 25. Will the City be able to spend more than
$2,400,000 'to maintain this program? Probably not, since it appears
that the JTPA Amendments will require SDAs to spend at least 50% of its
youth money on out -of -school youth, and if it were to spend another
$2,400,000 on out -of -school youth it will have relatively little JTPA
funding left to serve anyone except youth. Will the City drop the
program and be subject to questions about dropping a successful program?
Will the City operate but scale back the program?
What will the City and SFETC do at Miami Northwestern, Miami Edison,
Miami Jackson, Miami High, Coral Gables, and Miami Beach High Schools
where the school system's attendance boundaries have no relationship to
City boundaries and the attendance zones for all of these schools draw
from both City and County? This is a particularly compelling example of
the types of problems our area is likely to encounter if we divide into
two SDAs. Exhibit G shows the attendance boundaries for these six
schools as they relate to the City/Canty limits. These six schools
that straddle the boundary line have an annual slot allocation of 1800
students, each of whom may remain in the program for perhaps four years.
Of these 1800 students, 1218 live inside the City's limits and 582 live
outside. In the case of Edison, 63% are City residents, 37% live
outside the City; for Northwestern, the figures are almost the reverse:
341 live inside the City, 66% live outside; Miami Jackson's program
provides 74% of its services to City youth, 26% to those on the other
side of the boundary; in the case of Coral Gables High School, 81% of
the Stay -in -School students live within the City (mostly in Coconut
Grove); in the case of Miami Beach High School, 37% of the
Stay -in -School students are bussed in from the City (primarily from
Overtown); even Miami High's program is only 91% City, with another 9%
of the program's youth living on the other side of the boundary line.
How will the two SDAs handle the confusion?
Will both SDAs operate in these six high schools with overlapping staff?
Will one SDA operate the program with the other SDA buying slots on.a
slot purchase basis (which the law allows on a limited scale)? The
program costs approximately $1,980 per year per student. If SDA 24 were
to continue running the program and SDA 25 chose to purchase slots for
students at these schools, it might cost the City more than $2.4 million
for their participants in the six schools that straddle both SDAs. Will
Page 10
II.13
/r
the City commit to that level of services per year with each student
having a guaranteed slot in the program perhaps four or more years if
they stay in high school to graduate? If the City chooses not to
continue, does SF'E`operate the program but serve only students who
live outside the City limits?. The City and SFM would obviously need
to consider the impact of these decisions on Liberty City., Little Haiti,
Coconut Grove, and Overtown if this were to happen.
acsv%ri robe
A17MINISTRATIVE DOUJAR.S : WELL THE RECONFIMM SDA HAVE SUFFICIENT
AMEMSTRATIVE DOLLARS TO OPERATE EFFECTIVELY AND EFFICIENTLY?
SDAs around the country are currently planning for the implementation of
the JTPA Amendments vhi.ch are expected, to pass and be in effect by July
1, 1991.. One of the most significant changes in those Amendments is a
201 (still to be finalized) cost limitation on Administrative dollars
without the cushion of the fixed unit price performance based contracts
that had permitted all Service Provider costs to be charged to the
Training, as opposed to the Administrative, cost category.
Since JTPA administrative requirements are established by national and
State legislation, regulations, and directives, there are .a set of
administrative costs which any SDA must incur regardless of who is in
control and how they choose to operate.
° There is a requirement for an intake system, which is costly. The
State of Florida has permitted this cost to be charged to the
Training cost category. There is sane concern that future Federal
mandates may require this to be charged partially to Administration
in the future. If so, this will be a major problem for all SDAs.
° An 11IS system is required. It must conform to the State's
requirements and must be on line with the State system,
transmitting all required HIS data. MIS costs must be charged 100%
to Administration.
° A financial system is required for reporting to the State.
If the
SDA will, contract'with Service Providers, a r=ber of accountants
will be needed to manage financial activities and insure
that no'
audit liabilities are ilicurred. This financial system
and all
required auditing activities must be charged 100%
to
Administration.
° A contracting system will be needed if the SDA chooses to
contract,
with Service Providers. All personnel and other
expenses
associated with this contracting system must be charged
1002 to
administration.
Page 11
II.14�
9 1 ...
Planning activities are required to produce and Modify on an
ongoing basis the required .lob Training Platt. These costs mast be
charged 100% to Administration.
While a monitoring unit is not required as such, each SDA is
responsible for monitoring its program activities. Due to
identified problems and recommendations from the Dade County
Internal Auditor, SDA 24 has substantially expanded its monitoring
unit over the past year. If the City becomes a separate 5 1 and
chooses to establish a monitoring unit, the expenses incurred mast
be charged 1002 to administration.
° Each SDA is required to have an actively functioning PIC. All
costs associated with the PIC must be charged 100% to
Administration.
° And clearly, whatever administrative structure an SDA establishes,
its Director and others who administer particular units will be
chargeable 100% to Administration.
Given the above, how will an SDA stay in compliance with the impending
20% administrative cost limitation if it chooses to operate through
Service Providers? Let us assume for purposes of this analysis, that .a
Miami SDA 25 has $5.8 million in funding, and therefore up to $1,160,000
(20%) in Administrative dollars. Let us assume that the City determines
�. it can cover all required administrative expenses with half of the total
administrative dollars ($580,000) and will make the other half available
to its Service Providers. There are currently 16 JTPA Service Providers
located within and serving the City of Miami. If all 16 were funded,
and if allocations were divided evenly, that would provide fewer than
$37,000 in administrative dollars to each Service Provider. If the
number was reduced, that would provide more administrative dollars to
some agencies, but put others out of business. Which services should
remain? Who should be eliminated?
If some of these agencies were to provide services to both SDA 24 and
SDA 25 and allocate their costs across both sets of contracts, they
would also incur additional costs. They would be increasing their own
administrative costs by having to separately track and report on two
sets of contracts. The two SDAs would probably have different forms
and/or procedures that would further complicate program administration
for Service Providers. And, if they were to have contracts serving '
residents both inside and outside the City, they would need to open
additional offices outside the City limits to better serve the County
residents who live outside the City limits, further increasing their
costs. 1% o sets of offices would require two sets of supervisory
personnel whose costs would need to be charged, at least in part, to the
limited budget for administrative costs. The City will then need' to
deal with the same causes of distress from among its Service Providers
that are now creating concerns within SDA 24. All —of these additional
procedural problems and costs would further reduce the resources that
would be available for services to participants.
Page 12
II915 Z i
Leaving aside the'Service Provider concerns for a moment, could the City
administer its SDA within an administrative budget of only $580,000?
The answer is probably in the affirmative, especially if the City were
to use some of its own personnel, cost allocated between JTPA and other
City activities. Even in the absence of use of City staff who carry out
other functions, the funding might be sufficient, depending on pay
scales for an Executive Director and perhaps a second management -level
person, a planner, a finance unit of perhaps two to three accountants, -
one or two contracts officers, one or two monitors, two data
technicians, the hardware and software needed to meet the State MIS
requirements, and clerical support staff. The problem for
administrative cost, then, rmy not be whether the City can operate an
SDA, but rather what the implications of the administrative cost
limitation will be an its relationship to its Service Providers. And if
the City will not have the.administrative dollars needed for its Service
Providers, will it choose to operate JTPA training program through its
own staff? Will it choose to retain some but eliminate other Service
Providers? Will Service Providers be in any better position to survive
and operate JTPA programs under a reconfigured SDA 24 and SDA 25? Or
will they be in a worse position? And what will the consequences be for
insuring the effective delivery of services to local residents?
In , the City as SDA 25 would probably have en h Administrative
MI ars for its own staft. but will vrobabiv not have enoua
A=Lmstrative oo.iiars ror mare tnan a rew service rroviaers. ine
c vices to be made EEzs the 16 Service Providers, o now serve e
City s resi nts and who until now ve een tunded to a arQer or
CONCLUSIONS
What, then, can we conclude from this analysis? There are clearly both
pros and cons to be considered. On the "pro" side of the ledger is
control over $5.8 million in JTPA formula funding (and perhaps
additional non -formula employment and training funding to be sought on a
competitive basis). That control will enable the City, operating
jointly with its PIC, to administer JTPA in ways that the City's
decision -makers will be in a position to define as being in the
interests of its constituency.
On the other side of the ledger, this gain in control must be weighed
against several drawbacks to the reconfiguration:
1. There would be a substantial (16%) reduction in services, with
perhaps 874 fewer Miami residents receiving services and more than
$1.5 million in expenditures that have until now been spent on City.
residents flowing outward to those who live outside City limits.
Nearly half the reduction would impact the City's at -risk youth.
2. While there would be a reduction in services, quantitatively, there
is no reason to expect any significant gains (or losses) in the
quality of services.
3. The splitting of one SDA into two would create duplicative
Page 13
II.15 Z
91 _. 6.21
r
administrative systems, increase costs, reduce efficiency, increase
confusion among_ participants, employers, SUA and Service Provider
staff, and staff of county -wide or regional agencies with which
JTPA trust interact daily.
4. The split would make it difficult if not impossible to contit•rue the
Stay -in -School Program in the six high schools that serve Miami
youth, at the very time the rest of the country is looking at the
Miami: area to determine how to establish and operate this program
model.
5. The reconfiguration would dramatically iuppact Service Providers in
ways that would probably make it more difficult for them to
function, increasing their workloads without necessarily increasing
their funding, and inevitably reducing resources available to serve
participants.
The staff of SFETC stands ready to provide whatever additional
assistance the City may request in considering its options and, and if
it should decide to become a separate SDA, in planning for a smooth
transition.
01.07.0469
A: Correspondence from the City of Miami Requesting Analysis of
Pros and Cons of Miami Becoming Separate SDA
8, JTPA Allocation Data Received from State of Florida, with
Explanation of "Hold Harmless" Issues
C. Data on Level of Services to Miami Residents in'Each Program
Operated by SDA 24
D. Data Estimating Reduction of Services to Miami Residents if
Miami Becomes a Separate SDA
E. Data Estimating Dollar Value of Reduction of Services to
Miami Residents
F. Data on Participants Served by City of Miami JTPA II -A and
II-B Programs: Percentage Living Inside and Outside City
C Limits
G. Stay -in -School Program: Data on Percentage of City of Miami
Residents Served in Stay -in -School Program in Each of Six
Nigh Schools that Straddle City/County Line
H. Stay -in -School. Program Cumulative Statistics Since 1986
.T.' JTPA Telephone Survey Contacts'
r
�K
91
1
ut
�rtffiA:i H. ODli9 �,' .�': R 0. DOX 23010b
CITr MANAfiER\�. MII►M1, tLOA1bA D3la3-010[!
%. StSS-lS1C.ISl�.O
May 141 1990
mr. Joseph Alfano
"Executive Director
South Florida Employment and Training Consortium
7220 N.W. 36 Street
Miami, Florida 33166
bear -Mr. Alfanot
I aiu writing to advise you that the City of Miami is studying the
feasibility of requesting from the Governor designation as a
service delivery area- (SDA) separate from the South Florida
Employment and Training Consortium. My review of the U.S. Senate
Committee on Labor and Human Resources' Report on the Job
Training and Basic Skills Act, has raised various issues and
considerations regarding the delivery of job training.and related
services to disadvantaged City of Miami residents. Clearly, the =
legislative changes that are imminent will require the JTPA
.programs to expand the labor force by reaching and assisting
those currently not in the labor force. Therefore, the City of
Miami will be required to take a more proactive role to insure
that the Congressional intent is accomplished.
In order that our study be as comprehensive as possible, I am
requesting your analysis of the pros and cons of such a
designation, including what the implications would be for the
City of Miami and the other jurisdications which comprise the
South Florida Employment and Training Consortium. Also, based on
the current and/or proposed formula(s) for allocation of JTPA_
funds, how much could the City of Miami receive through each ;of
Ab
the JTPA titles.
-I have requested an analysis of the legal and other structural
implications from our City Attorney. Kindly advise me of when
your analysis can be completed, as I would like to present a
preliminary report to the City Commission in September 1990.
jI
<E
r-
f
Zia
91
i2
�-
Mr. Joseph Alfano
gxeoutive Director Consortium
South rlorida Employment and Training
I am generally
aware of the time frame which would be required to
1
request the designation from the Governor= therefore, am
requesting your cooperation in providing the analysis I have
requested in as timely a manner as possible.
Since/aly,
Cesar H. Odio
City Manager
cc: Joaquin G. Avino, Dade County
Julio Martinez, City of Hialeah
Rob W. Parkins, City of Miami .Beach
Thomas W. Brown, Monroe County
TPA ALi D=0N DATA AND PtTIN W ISSUES
9= staff have provided SM staff with slightly different allocation approximations over
the past two ttrn►ths. Exhibits B-1, B-2 and B-3 provide what the SJ1'tijC staff believes to be the
best available approximations at this time. Also included in this Exhibit is correspondence
from the State bearing on the all-important "hold harmless" issue. Included are the fo loving:
o Exhibit B-4 is a May 21, 1990 memorandum from the SJTCC Director providing a prelibinary
Title II -A allocation calculation for the City at the slightly lower level of $3,120,066.
This memorandum provides caveats referencing the difficulties in accurately predicting the
final allocation.
The memorandum raises the critical issue of whether both SDA 25 and the reconstituted SDA
24 would be treated as "new' or whether only SDA 25 would be treated as "new" for funding
allocation purposes. The significance of this is that "old" SDAs are protected by a "90A
hold harmless provision" in JTFA, which means that an SDA carmot receive in any given year
less than 902 of its percentage share of cubstate allocations averaged over the previous
two funding years. While this could in no way change the funding allocation that would be
available to Miami (SDA 25), it would have a bearing on ha.• much the reconstituted SDA 24
and the other existing SDAs 1-23 would receive. If SDA 24 were considered "old" and was
protected by the "hold harmless", it would receive more than the $7,820,119 in Title II -A
funding that is shown in Table 1. For SDA 24 to receive more, SDAs 1-23 would have to
receive less funding than what they would otherwise receive. Therefore, if SDA 24 was
considere3--an "old" SDA and the hold harmless provision was applied, creation of a new
City of Mimi SDA 25 would reduce funding to all other SDAs in the State.
o Exhibit B-5 is a Title II -A allocation run prepared by the SJTCC which shows how much
money the area would receive if a 901 hold harmless was applied to SDAs 1-24, accepting
the interpretation that only SDA 25 is "Yew" and SDA 24 is an "old" SDA that is protected
by the "hold harmless" clause. This approach would provide more total funding to the
area: SDA's 25 allocation would not etangei however, SDA 24 would receive more at the
expense of SDAs•1-23 that would each receive less. Coaparison of Exhibit B-1 in the text
with Exhibit B-5 in this Appendix shows the funding differences, SDA by SDA.
o Exhibit B-6 is the cover page from the State sent to SFBPC wben SJTCC staff sent the
allocations to us via the fax maebine. The SJTCC indicated at that time that their
current interpretation is that both SDA 25 and the new SDA 24 would be considered "new,"
and the "hold harmless" would not apply. Therefore, total funding to the DadeiMxwoe area
will not increase and total funding to the rest of the State will mt decrease. (It
should be noted that the "hold harmless", even if it was to be applied, would have
increased funding to the area for only a short time, with the differential being reduced
-each year until it was eliminated altogether.)
o Exhibit B-7 is correspondence from the SJTCC received on August 3, 1990 explaining their
interpretation as to why both SDAs 24 and 25 would be considered "new" sad therefore the
"hold harmless" will not apply.
Exhibit B-8 is a Title II -A funding calculation for all 25 SDAs that includes projected
FY'91 allocations as well as FY'90. This table assumes no "hold harmless" for SDA 24. It
also assumes a slight increase in funding to the State as a whole, with each SDA getting
their fair share of that increase. For SDA 25. the increase amounts to $28,238.
02.07.69
i
•
tt
P**RAN MR 1"0 MA
TITIA 21-A ALL ATIONS Oita Nip SOAM 24
NO 29.
T"St MOVES A" NOT loot ACCVNArs AND
AS►AX82ST AN A►PNOXIMATION OP WHAT
THE PYyO AUA IKtIOM trDlILD it.
�
SbA
2% M VLO t41 ACCUAAAtS,-HOMLWIR, 501%
24 MOOLO PNOBABLt
8t L&M "AN IS SI MN.
� -
,
LABOR
UNEMPLOYtD
ICON
BfDA1
8DA
to"
TOW Rate
8HAR11
ALLOCATION
t
1
lSCAMBIA
113,032
7,293
6.S
2,207
72,454
.0290081
$1,719,651
t
2
OKALOOSA, S "A
101,567
6,561
6.S
1,990
97,200
.02SO973
$1,403,098
3
BAY, JACK.9ON
107,762
8,862
4.2
4,033
69,399
.039S026
$2,276,496
} 4
l.6`ON, OADSD"
53,99S
3,485
6.S
LOSS
67,113
.0183394
S1,064,333
S
ALACMA, COLUHbi
80,747
S,23S
6.S
1,601
101,469
.0277058
$1,638,130•
6
D"AL
264,031
17,086
6.S
S,20S
IS1,350
.0697791
$3,889,276
i
7
CLAY, a XMNS
76,492
409S7
6.S
I,SiS
6610so
.022S690•
$1,334,419
s
MARION. CITRus
106,943
6,90S
6.5
2,093
106,139
.0334211
$1,976,40S
i
9
VOLUSIA, tan
102.000
6,606
6.5
2,016
107,494
;0321371
$1,900,131
10
SCH11401N
66,872
4,344
6.S
1,33S
40,276
.0170184
$1,006,226
r
11
ORAMOE, OBCWXA
181,962
11,74S
6.S
3,SS7
141,S77
.CS0256S
$2,971,453
12
BRIVARO
7S,761
4,911
6.S
1,SO2
63,66S
.02S9691
$1,535,479
13
PASCO
83,796
S.416
6.S
1064S
S1.S73
.0213219
$1,260,674
14
HILLSBO
84,140
5,48S
6.S
11699
901894
.0294698
$1,683,296
IS
PINBLLAS
123,216
7,980
6.S
2,433
131,609
.0390601
$2,309,4S6
16
TAMPA
128,280
8,330
6.S
2,SGS
76,6SS
.032660S
$1,942,901
17
MAMASOTA
3J,630
2,217
6.6
1 704
68,803
.01S4623
$914,219
18
PO1.K, HICNLAMM
236,304
18,678
7.9
8,044
119,242
.07S4852
$4,463.119
1-
R
T`L11CIZ, MARTIN
139,910
10,366
7.6
4,270
S9,394
.0414023
$2,447,941
OLLILIt; CHANL
S9,SGS
3,916
6.6
1,236
47,490
.0179790
$1,063,022
21
LRt
37,S78
2,431
6.5
740
S4,747
.0138931
$821,441
22
PALM BEACH
32S,6S2
21,063
6.S
6,409
124,363
.072561S
_
$4,290,2S7 i
23
BNONARO
2S8,426
16,686
6.S
S,OS7
161,S02
.066000S
$3,902,330
24
OAOt, MOKNOX
602,000
37,170
6.2
10,060
280.134
.1322624
$7,820,119
2S
CITY OF MIAMI
204,7SO
14,866
7.3
S,652
98,001
.OS73SOS
$3,390,89S
STATLWIDB TOTALS
3,648,412
242,822
6.7
78,64S
$2,416,613
1
S9,12S,769 -
i
U/JN of P51 OZOff0116Ts l,Evec-
,gee
/i Of
�p0 eD,vS/ iyl�
The above calculation was received from Lee Ellzey of the SJTCC staff on
July 24, 1990. Note the S= comment about the "held harmless" level
and the State's judgment that both SDA 24 and SDA 25 would be considered
"new" and SDA 24 would not be protected by the "told harmless"
provision. For an explanation, and for other SJPCC calculations (for
PY'91 and for FV 90 if the "told harmless" were in effect), see Appendix
C.
Pi1031WM V*AA 1990 OTPA TIM 11-4 ALLOCATIONS M1TN A BtTPOTIM&ICAL •BDA 2$"
' ftn /1CVm5 ANB IM 100% hOtV ATC AM RRPR1:SM7 M APPROI:IMATION OF WHAT TIM fl90 ALlA=tI*A NISOLD BB.
PT it"
LABOR
O MPLOT2D
LCti011
BOA
SDA
/pact
Total
Rate
cKeedf
b1SAD
BMARt
ALLOCATION
1
RSCARBIA
113,032
7,293
6.S
2,207
72,454
60280927
$961,346
2
OS
OKALOA, 8 R06A
301,567
6.S61
6.4 '
1,990
S1,200
.0249268
S743073
3
my SACISON
107*761
61882
6.2
4,033
09,399
.0382440
$1,140,121
4
L=oM, CADS06N
S3,995
3,48S
6.S
L OSS
67,115
.0102163
$543,060
5
ALAMUA, COLUN81
60,747
5,235
6.S
1.601
101,469
.027S196
$620,415
6
DWAL
264,031
17,096
6.S
5,205
151,350
.06S3379
$1,947,645
7
CLAY, BT JOHNS
76,492
41997
6.5
I,S1S
66,030
.0219901
SGSS,268
8
MARIOR, CITRUS
106,943
6.905
6.S
2,093
106,139
.032SS39
$970,494
9
VOLUSIA, LAKE
102,000
6,606
6.S
2,016
107,494
.0339213
S9S11632
.30
BtN1100L%
66,672
4,344
6.S
1,33%
40.776
.0169041
S503,942
11
04tAN08, 06CSO47►
161,962
11,145
6.S
3,SS7
141,577
.0499199
$1,488,176
12
sALVARD
75,761
4,911
6.S
1,S02
63,68S
.0260494
$776,SS1
13
PASCO
83,796
51416
6.5
1,64S
S1.373
.0211787
$631,376
14
BILLS
04,140
5,48S
6.S
1,699
90,994
.0771613
5809,72E
IS
PINRLLAS
123.216
7,980
6.S
2,435
131.609
.0466SSO
$1.390,013
16
TM►A ' '•
126,260
6036
6.S
2.S6S
78.6SS
.032639B
$973,053
17
MANAWTA
33,630
2,217
6.6
704
".803
.0191060
S539.633
IB
POLK, Ml10RU►ROS.
236,306
10,678
7.9
6,044
119.242
.0749762
$2,235,239
39
BT LUCIB, MARTIN
_ 139,910
10.S66
7.6
4.270
59,394
.0401521
$1,196,976
20
COLL11m, MARL
59.565
3.916
6.6
-1,236
47,488
.0168911
$503,SSS
21
LVE
37,578
2.431
6.S
740
64,747
.0137998
$411.399
22
PALM BtACH
32S,6S2
21,063
6.S
6,409
124,363
.0720742
$2,149,666
23
BROHARD
259,426
16,686
6.S
S,0S7
161,SO2
.06SS572
S1.9S4,362
24
DAM. MONROE
602,000
37,170
6.2
10,080
288,134
.1313741
$3.916.S07
2S
CITT OF MIMI
204.750
14,866
7.3
S,652
98,001
.VS69GS4
S1,698.743
STATLVID8 TOTALS 3,64B,412 242,822 6.7 78,645 $2,438,613 1 29,811,859
STATE OF FLOPIU&
Y° STA`I<`!!'JOB 't`RAtNINC IfVA'1r'tNC COUNCIL
Wahmm, Florids
1161) MAttimet
r - Gtrvert�ot
August 3, 1990
Mr, Joseph Alfano, Executive Director
South Florida Employment and
Training Consortium
7220 N.W. 36th Street
Suite 300
Miami, FL 33166/1 , J-)
mulAret t CafIW
Chal"am
Based on your request, we have calculated what the allocation of JTPA Title III
(EDWAA) funds to SDAs would be if the City of Miami were to become another
SDA. Enclosed are spreadsheets that show what the allocation would be with
and without the additional SDA and based upon 60%. pass through or 80% pass
through to SDAs.
The allocation of EDWAA funds is based upon the seven factors listed at the top
of each of the spreadsheets. Four of the seven factors are based upon
unemployment data and the other three are factors which attempt to measure
economic decline in a community.
All of the allocation factors. are coded for counties and are not available for a city.
In calculating the amount of funds the City of Miami would receive, if it became an
(. SDA, we used the Census Share Disaggregation method to determine the relative
share of the data that is coded to Dade County. This methodology uses the
factor for the relative share of unemployed and labor force based upon the 1980
Census and applies that rate to current statistics. This is the methodology now
used to break out statistics for the City of Tampa from Hillsborough County.
Based upon the 1980 Census, the City of Miami had a .26944 share of the
number of unemployed in Dade County and a .2144 share of the number in the
labor force. The .26944 rate was used and applied against the data for Dade
County used in the EDWAA allocation formula.
hope these projections prove helpful to you and the City of Miami. Please
remember that these projections only represent our best approximation of what
the allocations would be if the City of Miami becomes a new SDA. Please let me
know if you have any questions. -
SincereI
Ken Baer,
Executive Director
KB/ml
The Addm bufl= Room 204 • 1320 Faecutive Center Drive T•t •ti•nae, Florida 32399-0690 - Phone 9W 1487.2730
0
II.24
91"'e 1
1
J
$
w
M
O
�i
h
N
V
i�r'
P
r
Y:
H
r
+O
N
r
•p_
d
N
iv
m
.N►•
•.fit-
a
�p
•O
A
•Qi•
.p
H
v,
n O
�1
�
2S
M
�vn�
6
P
N
��y
�i
a
•o
tVV
M
�~h
M
N
•o
fV��
�Mp
1Vr
r
N
k
f�
fV
!►
N
fV
N
F.
N
•
•
NN•
•
N/•
��yy
f�yy
•
NN•
NN
�Ny
NN
�ryy
a
•
��yy
•
•
�ry�y
��y
yp�•
•O
•O
•O
•O
•O
•O
•D
•O
•O
•0
�D
•O
•O
•O
•O
•�
•O
•O
O
NN
N
M
TA
N
N
Nr
N
N
N
N
N
M
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
M
M
M
J
.00
YP'••
00
•O
M
OO
O
r
r
f V
.C1
N.
P
3
O
V
J
P
•O ,
N
M'
N
�V
d
•0
r.
Mf
.
M
N
00
N.
.J
yNO�
►���pp
h
V
Cr,
.�tD
�O
vOi
.Np
�j
A
C;
O
O
N
N
v
O
N
O
N
V
N
V!
~
~
N
«
N
M
N
M
M
N
pp
y�
ee
n
A
V
h
•HI
P
MN1
y�
pp,
•op
p
r
N.
O
tlp
•0
N
N.
O
O
O
O
•O
P
C
a
M
w
O
f
A
N
O
H
P
O
.Npp
N
�Ppp
N
A
soP
~
M
N
N
A
�
M
N
M
'M
N
A
M
M
M
N
M
^
V
m
S'
Al
9
WE
P
•'
00
P
•O
N.
N
O
•D
N
O
VV%
V
OD
N
H
A.
P
N
V
SA
a
N
N
pOo
pp
{H/�
r
r
V�
N
V
H'•
fV
H
N.
.P..•
P
•O
V
O
•O
N
•O
tI�
P
1"';
A
O
V1 •
P
,
P
N
.=
�-
N
OS!
H
p
N
N.
•D
P
N
qNy
•O
V'�
•O
Vry
•0
�D
P
M
M
N
M
N
M
M
M
N
M
M
.H.{{
M
N
M
M
M
«
N
S
�
N
�
n
�
N
N
�
H
�
�
N
•NO
V�i
N
•D
/�.
P
•O
O
•O
M
W
P
.VT
H
ONO
e0
•O
•O
P
OD
f V
O
N.
OD
N
V1
•O
rN�pp
•0Mv}
N
N
N
M
N
M
M
N
M
N
N
M
N
04
M
M
M
kvO
V7
06
.f
M
OD
N
N
H
M
f0
M
V�
Vft
O
•D
N
•D
^
r
r
V\
H
ID
N
.T
W
O
N
O
O
m
P'�
M
r
•p
r
O�
V
A
J
A
pN
O
V
A
pp
•
b
H
r
N•
N
ID
ryN
N
y�
pN
M
yA�
p
rp
��yp
N
V
H
O
M
O
r
N
N
A
. O
W.
V
t
V
N.
N�p
N
f V
N
r
.r
H
13
•1
O
N
..O/1
M
R
M
N
r'
M
N
�N�p.
N
O
M
.VOA
N
O^.
M
N
N,_
M
r
e�
w
-
N
N
M
4A
V
O
O
N-
"It
1t�
N.
N
w_
S
V%
M
•0
O
P
V
H
N
lot
r
O
J
V
N
•D
N.
N
V
O
r4i
4
r
P.
0,
N
N.
N.
M
- •O
N.
N
.�
v
N
•O
V�
M
•O
P
A
O
O
O
H
- •O
-: •O
H
V
M
r
H
P
U'•
P
N
yy��
N
P
S
OOpQ
V
v
O
[p.
N
•O
N.
.�
O
O
O
O
N
H
N
H
V
N
q
V\
-
H
fV
V
V'•
10
U%
•O
A
r
1p
O
H
Np
M
N.
O
N
V
P
P
00
V%tv
r
r
N
N
M
N
N
M
M
M
N
M
M
M
N
M
M
.��
M
M
r
N
M
h
V
N
�
yy
C
L
e
s�
-0
owl
y
-01
In
q
c
B
�_
o
%„
c
o
m
.T
e
O+
e+
u
!
A
++
i.
E
W
m
0
S
=
6
`m
..
..O
m
-_I
<
O
1.1
•r
N
O
6
t7
Z::..
�.G
Y+-
O
r
..
N
H
N
M
It
N
•p
N.
O
P
.H
N
N
N-
isp
<nQ
tcQ
<pp
tcp
toQ
!Cp
<GQ
<op
!np
!cQ
<Cp
tGp
tcp
!pp
KCQ
tpp
n!
iA
ptp
N
N
ppR
N
N
N
N
pRo
N
N
N
N'
N
f/l
N
ctO
N
nip
N
N
N
. N
iA
N�
N
N
N
.O
M
N
M
N
M
N
O�
N
•O
h
w
H
M
V
r
N
M
N
Y.
0
^1
<
?
N
!
d
�
n
W
W
N
O
M
F
W
"7
�
VVi
�
N
O
O
N
W
oc
z
w
M .
C
A
A
A
N
O
=
r
Li
i
o
15
V
N
AWL
M
e!
�
N
�
v
�
�
`�
�
r
fV
�
O
iV
N
•O
tT
N
•
•
j �
C
p:
•
N
N
r
1`^�1
O
N
y�ryr
M
} �
��p
C5
�
V
a�pD
P
v
•
c
A
�
�
�
�
!
Fr
J
f.
.f
.f
J
•
'
V h.
t
A
�
d
�
�
it
�
v
�
'
y
N
•
h
b
O
v
b
V
v
v
J
•Ot
A
v
N
V
!
V
N
N
•0
N
•O
•O
�n
•O
N
f±
iD
to
A
ti
A
N
►�
A
A
o
o o
fn
o
O
m
fo
p
o
M
N
d
N
�„
N
r
«
N
N
N
N
N
N
M M
M
M
N
M
M
M
N
«
N
M
«
�O
ti
I;
M
9
M
AA
N
M
M
M
r
N
N
•
N•V-
«
fM+'I
M
ti
«
d
fA�
N
N
.�pp
N
O
�p
N
N
N
yt
V
.}
N
V
M
N
N
ID
1H
N
O
•
V
O
fr
M
VMY
ti
soN
»
1NN
N
M
eHD
o
d
pp
P
N
O
po
4),
N
p.
N
App
pp.
•O
N
IA
�
n
M
M
`$
M
N
$
MM
N
J
N
N
N
H
M
/�.
M
P
M
•p
fV
N
ti
N
o
•O
N
�Ny
P
NN
M
yp�
N
«
p
pp
M
Np
N
IV
d
O
H
M
h
N
P
•O
M
O
Ifs
M
�-
•O
pp
1�
•D
�
p
A
N
so
�
v
•O
O
N
NInN
d
H
M
N
N
�Np
O
M
pp
O
N
H
do
•O
«
M
O•
N
P
f4
.amp
M
d
M
on
M
^
H
d
d
lR
V�Np
M
N
«
N
J
N
N
O
�'
r
«
N
4A
«
d
M.•►-•
.,gV
N
0P
N
P
N
p
N1
fV
M
N
h
O
D
P
d
JH^
NN
A
P
i
N
•
OP
yN
NN
N•Oh
d*
M
N
rvM
M
P r M N
•`O A J �
H N d
lot N
N
�pp Npp Mpp .`
r N V O
fNHo c
ry •O h
« M M
� e
6n N Y
i to •O N �
N %0 N O
N M 1f� H
o
M N
U% %C � Ho
MN�pp f� h
N N « N
N
Ip ! N O
O d PPV O
N N M N
pOp
N
�
P
N
N
V
¢1
«
N
M
r
N
If\
M
rD
�
Cy
••OO
p
IC
P
�
M
p'
M
tH
P
O
�O
�
M
N
M
VN1
-
co,
O
n
fV
O
r
N
«
N
v
a
N
H•
ti
'1
O
!ND
m
ED
�O
in
t
pp
N
pp
N
o
f�
oon
P
N
W
go
-�
m
h
so
sr�
N
.p
«
«
«
«
I
I
A
A
I
i
A
xj
I
r
3c
r
O
-
_
C
r
r
Oe
O
u
u
V NQQ
Npp
N
N,
Npp
f
a
}
�c
n
N
r V
u
q
^
do
! O
J
W
N
d
�
M C
W .
p C •+
N E L
.
w
V
z
N
V
�yy�
�
�'y'��♦
�
�
A
�
y�•
M1
�yy�•
F
�}i
Ih
•
�
i
F•f
V.�a
�
i
�
•
h
y♦
►•
•
�
yN�♦
�
i
� il'1
i ♦
�
���yyy•i
f"1
♦
•
•
r�
rYi
M1
�
�
ITt
rt
Mi
1+t
M
`�►
M
n
�+
'�
n
`�
�
�
�
Iw•
gy�pp.
+O
��pp
+O
1�fbtt
•p,
+D
�p
•O
.
gyp•
•D
�p
W
�p
+D
�p
�p
•O
lyt
�p
+O
IYt
�p
�p
•
.
.
06
•
Mt
gyp.
.
•
r•
t-
•+
N
•"
•;
•-
i-
i-
r
•O
•-
..
�
•O
.-
•D
•-
r-
yb�
N'
w
yD�
n1
y
N
yNK�I
N
rt
�
O
�yi
N
��yyi
N
i
3
a
N
i
•O
N
♦
•NO
N
i
�O
N
♦
rD
N
•
�O
•
•��Dyy
i
��yC
i
rNND
i
+�Dy
i
�•Oy
i
V!
M
\
•�Oy
♦
fyy�
♦
•O
M
♦
♦
I
•
•�Oy
i
+�Oy
spy,
M
N
M
N
M
N
N
N
N
N
N
N.
N
O
N
ii0
V
h
b
pp..
h
w
J
M
N
N
.-
In
V
N
r-
N
N
N
n
M
•D
N
«-
O•
%M
w
N
N
V
•+
d
�y
•O
rNr��
�O
V
apt
P
M
OO
r-
.yp�
•pp
1yp�
V
b
M
by
{dn
!`..
O
O
!�•'1
�Q
h.
CD
VM1
V+
P
M
Vb+
IN
ptp7
h
O
I
YNf
P
0
M
�Op
•O
-
3
40
�Ny,
•Oi
N
M
M
N
N
N
N
P
N
iNlt•
P
~
pp
�`
O
O
..pp
M
N
�/1
��p-
r-
b
+C
n
pV.
�Of
pN
.Nt
M
�
t
v
h
N
O•n
fN
yp�•
.qf•
d
OMD
N
�O
1p+1
I:
�D
f
O
-
W
N
M
M
M
�NQ
^
N
1n
«
h.
M
•-
M
N
M
`�
i
W
�bp
N
O
K�
N
N
M
M
NMM
O
N
•MO
oo
•O
M
M
Vt
O
N
•0
►.
V
�O
M
d
P
.-
O
N
V
P
N
V
A
pp
N
N
•0
O
a
M
IV
w
of
1OV
�
�
�
Lft•O
/.
•O
.�
N
MO"I
N
N
N
�
w
�
•0
�
A
�p
M
M
o♦
b
N
•D
N
�`
M
�-
M
d
M
�OMp
fpy
M
M
O
.�t0
�t
�
M
N
Vt
M
N
M
J
N
N
M
1H
N
OR
N
N
N
M
M
M
N
M
8
N
P
d
1�
•D
e�Dt
V
O
1V��
Mat
M01
�!
O
N
.D
CD
N
.a•�
V
pN
p
O
V
.Np
f�
f:
O
MO
A
.A}
O
N
P
ytl�
M
m
.D
P
b
'a
O
V+
O
P
N
.f
IID
J
W
1�It
P
C.
M
*AN
�Npp
N
N
M
M
N
N
�Mp
wyyi
tY
N
P
N
•0
M
A
N
Mf
N
N
N
P.
M
A
N
M
M
N
N
N
N
N
��VPpp
N
•O
O
v
N
v
Mt
•
VNi
M
�
V
•O
n
ti
.V/
q
f.
.^►
N
vOi
N
VMi
N
M
O
p.
P
•O
p
O
•D
M
N
V
V
P
M
"
perp,,
N
N
N
b
V
V
0N
^
N
A
b
Q
•O
M
rl
nNYMpt
•O
y��
•O
b
N.
CD
Q
O
yt
PP
P
wW
M
MO
J
x
O�
61
M1
It
P
GM
•O
M
IH
N
M
.Pp
m
Epp.
MM
t
1�
M
t
N
O
N
MNt
.
«
N
N
M
M
M
N
N
M
P
N
4
•O
IC
O
N
A
•MO
i�lt
ep
M
O
N
IN/t
larf
►NM
M
IaA
/0.1
_
V:
M
yP�
P
spy.
f►
�Np
f��p
A
•0
N
^
M
•O
so
P
MM�
pb
'
S
N
N
W
S
N
(per,
•-
I�
I+D`
f►�p
M
.T
•�D
ry.
O
A
P
Mt
M
M
M
M
M
M
vM
M
M
��pp
M
M
M
M
..Ppp
N
N
O
N
N
~
N
N
tv
N
G
r
pC•
'
61
WW
di
o
m
.,+
4t
<�
i�
76
w
N
M
V
N
•O
A
b
P
�w
.M-
«a-
pp
fV
w
N
N
�+y
N
N
p<
H
p<
ill
tpp
N
<pp
N
p<p
H
p<p
N
p<p
N
pRQ
N
<pp
N
p<p
N
p<p
N
tpp
N
pRp
N
<Q
N
ptp
il')
+pp<
N
p<p
H
p<p
i71
<C
Df
<
t
t
g
<
f•
<
8
GI
V
+
N
N
W
>
1.
iY
ua
w
N
0
A
A
A
N
4c
F•
21
u
�; j
6 �.4
� L
• Y t
�u
Uf
F
pp
4
�
O0-0
W
r a
H
t yL
N
O'
n
J
H
�1
u
Y
r h G
i-
t
W
u
�ip�
6•
Ni
M
�Np
`O
1�fy�•
N
IN
N
y�
N
TV
N
�Ny
M
•0
�"
♦
N
�y♦
N
M
w
.♦f�i
M
N
UN
in
•O
N
1
i
N
ul
MN
!�
V�
N
{/N�
p
i
N
fV
In
•..i
M
+►--
M
•
M
N
CM
�•�p♦
M
w
•�i
ry
M
fD
6
�bp
O
i�y,
M
+yt�
P
N
aN�
•O
M
1/!
�+1 w0
` R
N
A
1.
h
•O
h
A
h.
1.
P•
1.
/♦
f.
►♦
A
fC
•p
•O
�S
h
h
•O
�D
•D
N
.O
•O
•O
•O
�O
�D
.O
•O
�O
�D
.O
•O
N
•O
'4
N
N
N
•O
•O
F.
i♦
�fp
�.
�
l���pp
A
h
►�p♦p
�wp�
Ao
1.
P
r�
h
r_
r
r�
�•
N
P
P
P
P
P
N
N
N
N
1�►
V
•.
J
•
V
N
♦
dN
V
•
J
V
♦9•
M
i
•f
M
t
M
•
J
M
•
y
N.
V
M
J
M
•f
M
•
N
N
wi
M
NNN
(��y
N
M
a
V
M
s
J ti
N N
M
N
•y-
D.
iD
r
N
to
N
In
.t
M�
O
w
b
1I�
w•
O
h
P
N
+O
f0
M'1
h•
w
g
Co.
W�
.?
t-
N
�C1
N
•D V
Kt !D
pN
yp�•
V
yp��
•O
M♦}p�
pp..
P
N
>h
P
1�HMO
OV �1.y.
•pf
V
N
+w"
�0
O
M
P
ice+
IGG
b
M
N
c
O
m
m
f. fr
Yam`+
«
•p•��
f�
M
Y�1
N
�wp
N
♦�
O
M
•�
P
N
•P�
~
YN1
�D
~p
«
i
M
N
MA1
N
N
MIN
N
M
«
N
N
«
M
N
M
N
N
M
M M
A
M
�!
d
J
h
V
N
Un
N
O
N
•O
N
J
Q
�c
N
40
M
N
r
N
P
M
•O
•D
P
P
N
M
b
O
P4
N
O
N
M1
N
f�-
O
O�
fV
�-
.O
M1
a
Co,
M
V
V
•:
�^
••
A
p
HN
M
f1
N
fV
.O
O
M1
fn
b
O
♦V
w
J
b
O
V
fV
N
M
t�
w
N
IV
O
WN
in
!
N
M
M
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
M
f♦
�f
w
J
A
•0.
U9
N
!�
N
N
N
•.��
M�
•f
P
N
N
N
J
O
w
M
A
o
C
N
P
ti
w
O
N
N
N
A
N
A r
an N'f
O
'
N
♦p-
•
M
N
P
uN
N
W
b
•D
P
t�
N
M
M�
Q
M
�-
b
.p
M
N
O
N
w
10
.0
r
A
fV
�q
N
O
M
O
m
•O
w
•
y
.p
M
N
^
b
O]
•t
4�
N
N
W
V
N
N ♦t
M
N
M
«
«
N
N
M
N
N
N
M
N
M
N
N
M
N
N
M N
d
N
O
w
N
N
w
A
•p
A
M
M
M
P
O
J
•O
N
N
O
MM
^
O
w
N
11
M
't
pp
P
P
V!
�O -
J
M1
O A
sn
M
•Q
N
w
0
O
0
M
N
N
•0
M
fri
O
•t
A
0
V1
o
�O
yob
r�
gyp•
Q.
M
N w
N
ce
w
V
O
V
P
N
J
W
V
N
W%
P
W
v
.0,
O r
•0
M
•O
N
V
M
M
Y
«
O
N
N
M
Y�
M
Mp
10
-
w
O
M
P
N
.p
M
P
M
(•1
N
y1
M
N
N
A
N
•V� w
b
N
M
M
•t
�D
•0
J
•O
N
w
Ifs
O
Vpp1
O
.D
�D
M
r
N
O
.t
w
4
N
IN
N
•�
N
Iytf�
M
M
1►
If1
.0
N
UN
1yff�
P
. 1p+�
O M
V� ' V
pp
pP..
A
.O
.O
aD
•O
V
P
�
NNp
M
M
M
M
•V-'
M
M.
$J
�.
Fri
N
N
N
M
P
fV
J
w
.�
w
Pi0
O
N
O
F.
MM
A".
w
N
J
P
�p
.0
p,
P._
A
O.
N
M
�p
•p
M.
vp.
•Nj y
S;
Nh
m
N
N
O
O
N
-
Q
w
f►-
/► _
. r
N
M
r
.6
Mt
M
d�
MNpp
M
O
M-
W•�N
N
w
M
• V
M•
fpp.:.
M,
N
M
P
����pppp
N
N
N
..p�ppp
M
Mt
M
w
N
M
►.
M
h
M
O
M�p
to
N
J
N,
J
N
M
M 'N
_e
a
r
•
1
i�
N
�
N
•
v ..
j
':
e
N
17
• 4
p
M
•
e
N
r
r
!''
O
.0..'
p
C
e
W
$`
m
..
<
F
m
u
�na°
s
w
o
w
w
N
Mp1
Vp
N
iCQ0
Ap
A
OP
�p
�p
�p
�p
�G
�p
�p
�p
A
P
rC
N
N
N
N J
p
to
O
O
N
O
O
C
O
O
O
C
O
G
C
C
G
G
O
c
st
A
A
Qi
N
V1
A
n
♦
•
M1
•
M
M
p�
N
o
N
�'n
N
N
'M
M
P
O
•^
N
r
�
N
N
N
N
to
w
o
;
4
M1
N
M
w
—
N
O
W
t
e0
P
!
M
N
hr-
r
N
♦
M
b
N
t•
.•pp
a
O•
•MT
�
w
V
M
M
W
v
pp
NNpp
O
M
N�
w
w
. N
!
O
C
~
u
u
N
•'
4i
3 �/
N
•
TATE OF FLOR14
STATE IDS `[°uVINC COORDtNATINC COtNCIL
t � 'i'a11�t, F1e>tida
• . ' '� rr .._ _ .--�_..- r--�- �_:..._--r.rrr�i.MY.YW-WY.IYIYI.�I- .._._.,. _... ..�.._... .......
aeb 4t�rtlntt '
Govtmor
X A M a R A M b ti M
Date: May 210 1000
To., Joseph Alfano, Executive Director, South Florida
Emplo ant and Training Consortium
From., Ken her, Executive Director
Subjoett Hypothetical JTPA Allocation for City of Miami
Per your telephone request of May 16, 1990, we have prepared
a hypothetical JTPA Title II -A allocation for the City of
Miami. The allocation is not 100 4 accurate due to the
inability to obtain "economically disadvantaged" data in a
timely manner. For this example, we projected the
economically disadvantaged population. The actual Numbers
of this population may be more or less which would result in
the allocation being higher or lower respectively.
_
If the*Governor .established an additional SDA by separating
the City of Miami from the existing SDA 24, there would be
—
the question of whether there will be just one new SDA or
would reconstituting SDA 24 qualify as a new SDA also? The
reason this question is so important is the element of "hold
harmless". If there is just one new SDA, SDA 24 would be
-
entitled to a hold harmless level of funding. (Hold
harmless funding is 90 % of the average of the two previous
funding years). If this decision would create two new SDAs,
then SDA 24 (minus the City of Miami)' would receive funding
without a hold harmless level.
At this time, we do not have the additional information
needed to project accurate funding levels for SDA 24 (minus
the City of Miami) for either example. As you may be aware,
we cannot simply extract the data for the City of Miami from
SDA 24 data for accurate projections. However, it t ha 'City
of Miami was to be designated as an additional SDA, an
epproximate projection of funding for JTPA Title II -A would
be $3,120,066 based on the Program Year 1990 data and state
funding level.
As the information needed becomes available to us, we will
provide you with projections for SDA 24 (minus the City of
Miami) and projections for EDWAA funding for each example.
s-f
• ir:
11.29
r,
j
r
y
PNOMAM Is" 1990 JTPA TITtt tr-A AIAAmttoof Wt?t1 A NIP02"tLICAL "SOA 25•
TMIl Fromm An MOT 10" ACCURAtt AND ""SSW" An APtR01IIMATtam or NMAT TNt P190 AUDCATION Mom W&
.
n1990
t.ABDR
uRCMPLottsO
scow
iJOA
SDA
Pon"
total
Rate
t:ce"
DIM
SHARE
ALLOMTION
i
ESCAMNA
113,032
7,293
6.S
2.207
72,454
.0267649
$1, M A93
2
OKALMSA, S ROSA
101,567
6,561
6.5
1.990
57,200
.0231191
$1,366,968
3
BAY, JACKSoo
107,761
is 62
6.2
4,033
69,399
.0361923
$2,175.375
4
LEOM, GADSDEN
53,995
3,405
6.5
1.055
67,115
.0166747
5997,720
5
ALACNUA, COLUKBI
90,747
5,23S
6.5
1,601
101,469
.0254930
S1,S07,293
6
DUVAL
264,031
17,086
6.S
5,205
1S11350
.060S259
$3,578,643
7
MAY, ST Jt'14KS
76,492
4.957
6.5
1,515
661050
.0225690
$1.334,412_
6
MARIOQ, CITRUS
106,943
6,90S
6.5
2,093
106,139
.0334211
$1,976,405
9
VOLUSIA,.Lux
102,000
61606
6.5
2,016
107,494
.0309913
$1,632,365
10
SBMINOLR
66,672
4.344
6.5
1,335
40,276
.0156591
$92S,S59
11
ORAICCE, OSCCEOL.A
181,962
11.743
6.5
3,S57
141,577
.046242S
$2,734,124
12
BREVARD
75,761
4,911
6.5
1,S02
63,685
.0259697
S1,S3S,479
13
PASCO
63,796
3,416
6.5
1164S
S1.S73
.0196109
$1.159,985
14
MILLSBOROOOR
84,140
S,485
6.S
11699
90.994
.0264698
$1,683,296
15
LL
PLNEAS
123,216
7,900
6.S
2,43S
131,609
.0359404
$2,12S.001
16
TWA
128,280
6,338
6.S
2,565
78,6S5
.031SSSO
$11865,716
17
MANASOTA
33,630
2.217
6.6
704
68,803
.01S4623
$914,219
18
FOLK. MICALANDS
236,306
18.676
7.9
9.044
119,242
.07S4S87
$4,461,SS6
19
ST LUCIE, MARTIN
139,910
10.566
7.6
4,270
59,394
.0414023
$2,447,941
20
COLLIER, GNARL
59,565
3,916
6.6
1,236
47,488
.0179790
$1,063,022
21
In
37,S78
2,431
6.5
740
54,747
.0126772
S761,377
22
PALM BEACH
32S,6S2
21,063
6.5
6,409
124,363
.0667661
$3,947,596
23
BROMARD
2S8,426
16,666
6.S
S.057
161,502
.0607291
63,S90.653
24
DAVE, HORROR
602,000
37.170
6.2
10,060
288,134
.176S419
$10,436,177
2S
CITY OF MIAMI
204,7SO
14,866
7.3
5,652
98,001
.OS27700
$3,120,066
STATSWtDt TOTALS 3,640,412 242,822 6.7 78,64S $2,418,613 1 59,12S,769
l -may/ w4l" f�,e .'�• ffSSU,7/N� �IiQ' .Zt /S ivcw ,"
('465VZZ
-----------------
JO+B TRAINING COORDINATING COUNCIL OF FLORIDA
PACT$ FAX
I
COVER SHEET
a
DATE.
PAX NUMBER:_3"' %%" /I.3
PROM:
NUMBER OF PAGES:
(Include Cover Page)
�Dv4Z) �
COMMENTS:
9v4p E �rc0� y /f /T
@hM j* Tnin'mg Cowdintting CiOmma 01 Fkrida
2012 OWK&I C006- BE
Flartman Building. Subs 304 —
Tallahaas, plwwa 323004m
, Tai�Ahon� 004/a87.2730 _
Fax 909/468,WS
$unFax 2T6•SQ4S
STATE OF FLORIPA
f STATE JOB TRAINING C VDINATING COUNCIL
€ Ta khasfe, T`ilerida
Bob Marawl
C�vert�at
August 3, 1990
Mr. Joseph Alfano, Executive Director
South Florida Employment and
Training Consortium
7220 N.W. 36th Street
Suite 300
Miami, FL 33166
Dear Mr. Alfano:
Manam c. C0111w
Chaim" —
rt
_,• � t.: it
i
This letter Is in response to your verbal request for an interpretation of whether or
not the 90% hold harmless rule under the JTPA Title 11-A funding allocation
formula would apply to SDA 24 If the City of Miami were to become a new SDA. I
and my staff have reviewed the law and regulations regarding the hold harmless
rule and have concluded that the rule would not apply in your situation.
The intent of the hold harmless rule is to protect existing SDAs from more than a —
10% reduction from the average of its allocation percentage for the previous two
years of the amount of JTPA II -A funds available to the state. The allocation
formula for JTPA Title II -A is based on the number of unemployed individuals
residing in areas of substantial unemployment and the number of economically
disadvantaged within the SDA. The rule would protect an existing SDA that
experiences greater economic prosperity than the rest of the SDAs (resulting in a
decrease in the number of unemployed and economically disadvantaged) from E
receiving more than a 10% reduction in the share of funds received. E
If the City of Miami left SDA 24 and was designated an SDA, you would in effect
have two new SDAs in Florida. SDA 24 would no longer be the same SDA based
on geography and population. Therefore it would be required to reorganize itself
Including executing new PIC and LEO agreements and modifying its Employment
and Training Plan. Because SDA 24 as it is now organized would no longer exist,
the -regulations governing the 90% hold harmless rule would not apply.
I trust this interpretation provides the guidance you are seeking relative to this
matter. Please let me know if I or any member of my staff can be of further
assistance.
Sincerel ,
Ken aer,
Executive Director
KB/mi
The Atkins Buildinx, Room 204 - 1320 Executive Ceuter Drive - Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0690 - P6oae 904 1487.2730
11,32
I
�
bQ
h
� �
dt
.a
at
b fILI
a
�
i a
�
b
�b
ti
W
Fy
1+ iC
� el
a
h
O
ti
It a
►Oi �
y
♦
h
•
K 1r
�
>•t h
q
7r
a
=O
•v
ggp
A
{�.
R
a p
ti
lot
K
O Q
w
14
M
4 lyi
A
lk
p
6
W
hnhpi.ie �+oMwwn �bhlhft�0 oe..r. ho
MhwOV+Yt •♦w�bMh•i .iAN+r4w oiwWh♦«.w
♦• t a t ♦♦ •♦ t♦♦ t t•• t a t a t♦ t i a
�F 0vetlAMh �1h �nr1 ♦f�f •OhM V N►t 1®Ihr U1h r1b
«�04ariA.rh as(riRttitr ..ah...wNrw+�� n K nbh
MKN KK hyN Nh NKKK M MN NNK
M
R O V �hbM hM+�V M� ♦iV�i••ww •th«rhO�M1
w
hAwn04 wQtihV1 hwhw h••h• Mtn"'w
e n• M w ♦• w h•� b h• � w 0♦ h h r e
�«,v•eb, �bov-•h QSwh♦h hM•.O 00
•.bhbna MRbpo�n boo• •V Vhw er.A
h ♦.hOV A MwwOwir� h V nw lb ft •Oeh !n
tAKKbbK NNMNNN NNNN N Nh NvMVfO
wbnn�•.b •1NM,Y1bM► ti+oee•.tvrV hbh•hb"1
R M1Nbh b hM1 M10 wti hheq V e .thblw• h
rh•nh V h•wvrM tt•V Ohh 0.lhwe�rvr
nwAwMh r♦.•rwn ONOr drNhne r
h+rrobA nwAown hbnAwn •Oehwe♦
• a • • t t • t t • • • • • •4► t • •N • • t
MKbNKK NNNNKN tAiAKK •N yN KN�sVI
hhhhV M1 O♦h.•pn W. %n be hwebC5w•.
h h♦ C O K• W. b M1 `! n w V! Mf O e
'10hwnh rM10 V Ad wn•h01z W ♦O V"V h
nh! vwh nw• V M1 •hn••♦r h.. rNtie
wvybbhv hhh�Oh •.It0�hM1b Oh�nV n�
Nhnrti V hnnrM�h hw0-1 •ratiftbnMl
000000 0000ao ooaQoo 0o0o0�0
. ......
♦ O w M w O O w• V h N " V w M1 n h ♦% P, " A;
r,OwrV in innwhwe hw0 m0♦ w•b Ono
•hn•.•n O•+•hM►b W• V V Oh n�hnMlrO
t•• t t• t t t t•• • t• t t ••• t
hhwftrr V V AQrn ..�Creew wh••�e r
h%nV VOM1 V 00♦•V irywnhbr h♦+ih Vew
rr rr M ti �• r �".h
h On#A; VM Mn4MRh M1w M1 M1•• OV a N
o wnin 0 �. w r.1W Q •w�►•eO• hnt.mhm-1
hwoo4eh i3OonNM+ vv•mho nwR.00v
ht-4 -4 ..rher a ••. V+10M+
M1M1hM1MM1 M1MMM5MiM W Mf N Mf bw V V M1MMhn
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
V V e V V V ie V V V V V V V V V V h R V V V V b h
wV
nZh W M1b hM10b ♦Nr V M10bh V bVrn.9V Or
beans M10�••� '+OS ^1rR VrVbh V
hM1b• h0 wwV new • •wnhv rook ft �e
• t t • . • . • t t t • t • t • t t • . .
hbbnMlh Vb♦�'� MfMhbhGoa h qo
.. .� -4 a.. (r r ON "
hh�.Nh•• hnOhh•.V bOV OOb OMfeDhb00
nvbw•n w• ►. V w••ten0 rbh M1hON
.I! .,I . . •w. Oewh hrhh V n w.nM1V �Oh
. .
nrhn0• i0bhbrN n•0-1 Awh.nbh10
r.00rlb14 hoo�oS� ebhhnn n%nnN C)Cb
r•tr h rr r -"ti h -% nh V h
04
to
1`i�1iit$ ; StOb MG titi 1p apbul
1000�iR0 �p? WOO a',a:a. s4 �L1.416400u
�+h«1♦41le fttoIk •1•M1v he wOrhn• n
rr
h
e
h
h
ry
♦
ei
iv
n
9 1..,
"t,Wlbl) 1.-1.
Analysis of Service La -_*Is to City of Miaiti Posidents in SOA 24
TOTAL
MIAMI
MIAMI RESIOENtS AS Y.
pf'OGP.pM
0WICIPA10S
MIOENts
OF TOTAL PAPTICIPANT5
Title IIA1 Excluding
5,214—/t
1�737 -le --
3'i.
_-- S------
-stay-in_5chool__-
Title 1181 Excluding
stay -in -School
21132
-r_.►__�rr YrwiYri.
671
_.rw+rrr.r rrrrYrrw
SIP.
..�.rYrrwrrwJ.r�.w..rrrarw-rr'
r_r+.Lrrirr_V_r.rrrr.Wrrr
St.ey_in school
2� 701
19220 ---45f
—w—_
Title III
--- -
1,451
479
33Y
Title 1
Older Workers
429
----------------
150
-- --
35x
---------+----w�--
-------------- --
DHR5 Cuban 6
Haitian Entrants
19001
494
452.
MRS Refugee
Cash Assistance
11670
574
34/
TOTAL
14,688
51325
36Y
/1 The ".S project Independence program is included in Title IIA.
Examining this program by itself shows that of the 476 OWS
participants, 132 or 28- resided within the City of Miami.
The basic approach used in all of these calculations was the folla.-tig:
1. For each program, 141S participant data were analyzed by the zip codes in which participants
lived. z
2. The City' boundaries were superimposed an a map of Dade County zip codes. Tt�e percentage
of each zip code that falls within City limits was estimated visually. Zhe percentages
used per zip code are as follows:
1001 within the City: 33125, 33126, 33127, 33128, 33129, 33130, 33131, 33132, 33133,
33135, 33136, 33137, 33145.
i
502 within the City: .33138, 33142, 33144, 33150
i
252 within the City: 33134 1
51 within the City 33147
These same percentages per zip code were applied in every analysis used in this paper. , —
3. The total mmber of participants who were residents of each of these zip codes was —
calculated for each category of funding.
4. The u ber of pa-rticipants per zip code was then multiplied by the percentage share of }.
that zip code that is within City limits. 3
5. The mnber of Mimmi residents was then totalled across all applicable zip codes.
6. This ribber of Miami residents in the program was then compared to. the total tnsnber of
participants served in,that .funding category for the program year, to arrive at the
percentage of services to Mimad residents.
I
6
The following data were used in the calculations:
0 Title 11-A: FY'89 data (July 1, 1989 - June 30, 1990) were used, as the most recent full
year of data available. To get an accurate picture that would not be skewed by the
Stay -in -School Program Which particularly overserves the City, and would further skew the —
analysis by giving duplicate counts of these students uft are funded under both Title I1-A _
and Title 11-B, the Stay -in -School students Were pulled out of both the II -A and 11-B
analyses mid were treated separately.
F
f
After removing Stay -in -School students, the balance was 5,214 participants in Title I1-A. _
Exhibit C4 shows the analysis of these 5,214 participants by zip code. The data show i
that out of a total of 5,214 II -A participants (excluding Stay -in -School students), 1,737
were Miami residents. This 1,737 is 33.0; of the total.
0 Title 11-B: Similarly, 1989 data were the most recent complete set of II-B data
available. Stay -in -School students were reanved from the analysis, leaving a balance of
2,132 Work Experience participants. Exhibit C-3 shows the analysis of these 2,132
participants by zip code. The data shoo, that out of a total of 2,132 II-B Work Experience
participants (excluding Stay -in -School students), 671 were City of Miami residents, and
this is 311 of the total.
o Stay -in -School: Our -rent Stay -in -School data show that a total of 2,701 participants are
enrolled intheprogram. Exhibit C-4 shows the analysis of these participants by zip
code. There are 1,220 Miami residents, Which is 45.01 of the 2,701 total.
o For Title in, there has been an enormous increase in funding under what is essentially a
new program this year. The program parameters are now so similar to Title II -A that the
most accurate estimates of Title III service levels appear to be developed by projecting
the 331 Title II -A service level for City of Miami residents on the PY'90 funding for the
tnxmber of participants to be served. These figures suggest that approximately 1,451 Title
III participants will be served. Using the 33.01, service level, we project that
approximately 479 will be City of Miami residents.
o For Title I Older Workers, FY'89 data were used as the most recent full year of data
available. Exhibit C-5 shows the analysis of these participants by zip code. There are
150 Miami residents, which is 352 of the 429 total.
o For the DHRS Cuban -Haitian Entrant Program, it was necessary to use FY'88 data since we
are still awaiting a copy of the FY'89 data tape from the State. We have no reason to
believe that services to City residents would be any different in FY'89 than was the case
in FY'88. Using the'data we had, Exhibit C-6 shows the analysis of these participants by
zip code. There were 1,269 Entrants served, of whom 574 (45:) lived within the Cite
limits. The zip code data were available in HIS, which aggregates data according to JTFA }
program years. DdiPS contracts Overlap JTPA program years. With additional time, the data
could have been separated by DkBiS program years; however, we have not reason to believe
the zip code profile would differ. According to the final SEEI report to DHRS for FY'88, l
1,091 Entrants were served in FY'88. The MIS data from the overlapping program years
provided a total of 1,262 Entrants served. To arrive at the appropriate figures, we used
the 451 produced by the zip code analysis of the percentage of the 1,262 Entrants (from
overlapping DHRS program) living in the City of Miami, and applied this 4526 to the 1,091, a
Which more accurately reflects the number of Entrants served in the PY' 88 DHRS Entrant
contract. This analysis yielded the figure used in Eid-dbit C-1, showing 494 Miami
residents served in the Entrant program. 3
o For the D1W RCA Program, the PY'89 data showed a total of 1,670 refugees served. As
shown in Exhibit C-7, 574 of these (342) were City residents. ,
o D40t.S Project Independence funding is used to supplement the JTPA Title II -A funding for
Project Independence contracts. These funds enable us to have longer OJT training periods
and higher wages. However, these funds serve the same participants already counted as
II -A participants. Therefore, to eliminate double counting, we have excluded these
participants from Exhibit C-1 and referenced them in a footnote only. }
To insure the completeness of this analysis, Exhibit C-8 proceeds to show services order
the Project Independence contracts. Of the 476 Project Independence participants served.
an P'Y'89, 132 were Miami residents, mid this is only 281 of the total. Since 33% of all
Title II A participants were Miami residents, and these Project Independence participants
are included in those numbers, this means that mainstream non -Project Independence (PI)
participants make up an even larger than 331 share of the non -PI II -A population.
02.07.69
F
Y
t
. LxHI�1TC�2
PY109 IME i1A PAR 100Atl'S W5101W, MININ 1NE MY OF f1IAN111
ty?'/27 �90
21A'CODE
PAPT1Ct;OAMS
SHAPE
TOTAL
33142
378
ISM
189
1sn
1:8
Sox
89
33136
IDS
5o:
53
33147
354
5x
18
33127
280
1C10x
280
3313F
120
104%
120
33126
11S
100x
I I S
33125
189
IW%
189
33136
113
100%
113
33128
90
100
90
33132
19
100
19
3a144
Sl
5Ux
26
33134
S4
2S
14
33135
167
100r:
16?
33130
119
1M%
119
33131
5
ICmz
5
33145
46
100'.
46
33129
12
1 COX
12
33133
E.5
107:
65
total........
21469
11737
SFETC served a total of 51214 participants in Title IIA during PY'89.
excluding the Stay-in-Schorl Program, which served an additional 3,300.
This table does not include there 3,3W students
11737 of these 51214 participants or 33:: lived within V-w City of Miami.
EXHIBIT.C-3
fit'69 TITLE I16 PARTICI"TS PESIGIW UITHIN THE CITY OF HIF911:
Q' ci rtiQ
—
f
syy
is
}
4..
_
2
(t(CUMULFITIYE PARTICIPF0415 SINCE 1986>)>
1
mCURREN1
CIPANIS5)>
HIGH SUM
CITY
RESIDENTS
i
TOTAL
NUMSEP OF CITY OF
MIAMI RESIDENTS
I
1
I&AL
NU-1bEk OF CITY OF
MIAMI RESIDENTS
MAL W&ES
six
i
208
168
90
HIALEAH
M4
!
128
0
59
HIALEAH-MIAMI LAKTS
Ox
i
126
0
►
56
0
Ox
331
0
368
0
MIAMI BEACH
3 N,
230
104
38
MIAMI CAROL City
0.9.
356
0
180
0
MIAMI CENTRAL.
357
0
1?6
MIAMI COAL PARK
252
0
88
MIAMI EDISON
6
11146
722
4?9
302
MIAMI JACKSON
74,11.1
11204
091
4?4
351
MIAMI SENIOP
91X
890
810
ast
319
MIAMI SPPINGS 159 0 74 0
MIAMI -N0PTHWE-.c;,tEQ,N 761 259 402 13?
TOTAL .................. 1 61148 20935 1 21701 11220
48 4sx
EXHIBIT C-5
PY'69 TITLE I PARTICIPANTS RESIDING WITHIN THE CITY OF MIAMI:
ZIP CODE PARTICIPANTS SHAPE TOTAL
SFETC served a total or 429 participants ir, Title I during P,"891
150 or these 429 participarstli, cc lived mithin elf City of Mi&&i.
211) taLE
PAKTICIPANtS
SHARE
--------- r....r.r.++.�—+.ram
TWA1.
rwc•.....w.�Y.rr�iwr"++a..ru.�i..+..—
104
100%
104
3312E,
69
IOUp
69
s312�'
42
1001
•42
33126
16
100,:
16
331 �9
2
IOU'.
2
33130
58
1 C►r�; S
58
33131
2
100%
2
3313�:
4
104::
4
331K;
13
1001:
13
33134
21
33135
90
1OU;:
90 '
33136
17
1OU::
17
33137
3U
10Ut:
30
3313E
4�
5U
24
3314c^
5'i
SU,:
30
33144
33
50%
17
33145
32
1001:
32
33147
3n
51'
2
331.50
29
Sol.
15
total........ 706
574
45::
SFETC served a total of 1f269 GHk9 sparticipbnts from July 19 1988 though June 30, 1989.
574 of thest,1,269 participants or 4S lived within tF.s City of Miami.
EXHIBIT C-1
PY169 MRS RCA PARTICIPANTS RESIDING WITHIN THE CITY OF MIAMI:
ZIP CUUE
P14!TICIPANTS
SHARE
TOTAL
33125
63
10U::
83
33126
85
1 Orr,:
65
33127
17
1 UU;:
17
3314^18
15
IOU::
15
33129
3
10U::
3
33130
73
IOU;:
73
33131
1
10Ut,
I
33132
2
IOU,:
2
33133
14
IOU::
14
33134
42
25
11
33135
146
1001-
146
33136
7
IOU%
7
33137
d
100,:
8
33138
3
50,:
2
33142
43
SU;:
22
33144
5U
5U;:
25
33145
56
IOU;:
56
33147
22?:
1
33150
6
3
tots ........ 676
574 34
SFETC served a total of 1,670 Participants in Opt DHP,S.4CA Prograa during PY189;
IS
574 of these 1VEi70 participants or 84% lived whin 0* Gity of Miboi.
h'
1w
t
EXHIBIT C-8
Fti"69 t1TLE 11H ppogel 11' tpENDENCE P(ftlC1PAN15 PE51DING u11H1N 111L C11Y V M1141.11:
SFE1C served a total of 476 participants in the Project 1ndapenderce Program during PY'89.
132 of these 476 participants or 28% lived within the City of Mani.
1w
t
EXHIBIT C-8
Fti"69 t1TLE 11H ppogel 11' tpENDENCE P(ftlC1PAN15 PE51DING u11H1N 111L C11Y V M1141.11:
SFE1C served a total of 476 participants in the Project 1ndapenderce Program during PY'89.
132 of these 476 participants or 28% lived within the City of Mani.
}
ix
} ,s
5L
r
q �'
t
FDi4
Estimated Reductions in Services to City of Miamd.
Residents tender a Separate SDA 25
Estiastod Reductions in Services to City of Missi Residents
Under a Separate SDA 25
PROGRAM
MIAM1 RESIDENTS
SERVED BY SFETC
NO. X
--�—•�—_r
NUMBER OF M MI
RESIDENTS �MIO
COULD BE SEWED
WITH ONLY Etn.3X
OF TOTAL FLIMOING
_ __..rrrwrrr__-.r
INCREASE,OR DECREASE
IN NUMBER OF MIAMI
RESIDENTS W 0 COULD
BE SERVED Iir SOP 25
err if.rr++rrr - ri.__
INCREASE OF MCP061
AS PERCENT OF
"WENT SERVICES TO
MIAMI RESIDENTS
rrrriarrx►_Yr'...'.. �:.— 'Y1►iiii.
r rrrrrr_r_—rrra.r_..�rra.r—rr
Wrrr.—wrw+._ra-.
rr_wrwarv�rww�.r-wr
wa.r_rr_r.w_rrw�:wr_.wrwrr—
Yw--.. .` -'�r:.Y_�r:....:..rr...r.
r_r_wr_rr_r—_—ii.rawa.r
TITLE IIA
.wr_—�wyr__i._rrrr..rirr
19737 33.W..
1,580
-157
-9.0/
TITLE I10 WORK EXPERIENCE
671 31.5;.,
646
_�wrrMrr�..Yrrr�
-25
�w �r✓•+u.+..rr�__
r.. r.....r.r_r�:i..
..__r_-.w___rrrr___r_�_—rrrrM
STAY -IN -SCHOOL
..r+r.—�r.�+�
11220 45.0i.
818
-402
r33.0•i
TITLE 11I
479 33.0V
440
-39
-8.164
TITLE I OLDER WORKERS
ISO 35.Ov
130
-20
-13.3%
----- ------------
OHRS ENTRANTS
494 45.V..�
331
-163
-33.0%..
DHRS RCA
574 34.4%
506
-68
-11.8X
TOTAL~_�_�-_�r
51325 Y 36.3Y.
41451
-874
-16. 4%
The basic approach used in these calculations was the following:
1. The data on services to Miami residents were taken from Exhibit C-1.
2. The number of Miami residents who could be served with only 30.3% of
the total funding was calculating by taking 30.3% of the total number
of participants served in each program, as displayed in Exhibit C-1.
3. The' reductions in services were calculating by subtracting: a) the
comberof residents who could be served with only 30.31 of the
funding, from b) the number of Miami residents now being served by -
SEEPC, and doing this for each category of funding. The reduction.
(i.e., the decrease in number of Miami residents who could be served)
was then calculated as,a percentage of the number of Miami residents
currently being served in that program.
To illustrate, for Title 11-A, 1,737 Miami residents are now being served.
Only 1,580 could be served if only 30.3% of the money was targetted to
Miami residents (1,580 is 30.3% of 5 214). The reduction in services is:,
157 fewer Miami participants being served (1737 - 1580 _ 157).` This ,is ,a
9.0% reduction of the current service level of 1,737).
02.07.69.6`
I1.40
,
Dollar Value of Estimated Reductions in services
to City of Miami Residents Under a Separate SDA 25
PROGRAM
CHANGE 1N
NUMBER OF AVERAGE DOLLAR VALUE OF
MIAMI RESIDENTS x PER PARTICIPANT _ CHANGE IN
SERVED COST SERVICE LEVEL
�-
TITLE IIA
-L57
f19890
- f296,730
TITLE IIB WE ~�-
-25
$1,372
- 4341300
STAY-IN-SCHOOI.
-402
$1,960
- f79S,960
TITLE III
-39
f1,807
- $709473
TITLE I OLDER WORKERS �~
-20
$2,098
- 141,960
ONRS- ENTRANTS -- r �w
-163
f1,760
- f2861880
OHRS _RCA
_-68�_�w
rt762
- f51,816
TOTAL�~--~--
--�-874~----Y
S 1 � 806
- f 1, 5789119
The basic approach used in all of these calculations was the following:
The data on reduced cambers of Miami residents who could be served were taken from Ediibit
D.
2. A per participant cost was calculated for each program by taking its total funding' and
dividing it by the ramber of participants served.
3. The dollar value of the reduction was then calculated for each program by multiplying its
per participant cost by the ramber of participants who would no longer be served.
To illustrate, for Title n-A, 157 fewer Miami residents would be served. The average per
participant cost for Title II -A was $1,890. Multiplying 157 participants by $1,890 per
participant gives us a dollar value of $296,730 attached to this reduction in services.
The data used for each set of calculations were as follows,
o For Title II -A, the PY'89 revenue figure of S10,252,976 (base plus carryover plus other
revenue such as Project Independence) was used as the basis for the calculations. FY'89
Stay -in -School expenditures from Title II -A ($400,000) were subtracted from the
$10,252,976, giving a II -A balance of $9,852,976. This total was then divided by the II -A
5,214 participants served (excluding stay -in -School). The average per participant cost
produced by these calculations was $1,890.
o For Title n-B Work Experience, the II-B reverie based was segmented into Work Experience,
Stay -in -School, and overhead expenditures. This was done to insure that the higher costs
for Stay -in -School participants would rot skew this analysis and overstate the costs. The
per slot cost made available to FY'89 Work Experience Service Providers was $1,173. The
j total II-B overhead of was then divided across all II-B participants (Work Experience and
+ Stay -in- School) to get an average per participant charge for overhead. (Ian terms of
ij overhead, the two programs cost the same an a per participant basis.) The SFET1C overhead
per participant amomted to $199. The average per participant cost for Work Experience
was tines arrived at by adding together the slot cost made available to Service Providers
($1,173) and the SFEIC cost for that participant (8199), totalling $1,372.
II.41
r
6
t�
o for Stay -in -School, all PY'89 revenue was totalled, including funding from JTPA Title
11-A, Title 11-B, and Section 123 funding, plus Department of Education funding to StM
for Stay-in=School counselors, totalling approximately $5.0 trillion. This rLb was divided
by 2,525 which is the slot level at any one time. Clue 2,701 m=ent figure will reduce
to approximately 2,525 at the end of Ault when students who graduated from high school
this last June will complete their participation in SYM? and will leave the program.)
The most accurate per participant cost is arrived at by using the 2,525 figure. This
average cost figure is $1,980.
o For Title I11, we are using the FY'90 Title III allocation of $2,621,509 and divides this
by the total number of participants projected to be served in FY'90, which is 1,451.
Dividing the total cost of $2,621.509 by the 1,451 participants gives us an average per
participant cost of $1,807 for Title 111.
0 In addition to the above formula -based funding, SFETC received $4,593,174 in contract
funding, including the following: Title 1, Older Worker, $800,0001 DM Project
Independence Funding, $400,000i DM Haitian and Cuban Entrant funding, $1,920,0001 DHRS
RCA funding, $1,273,174; and Department of Education Stay -in -School funding, $200,000.
o For Title 1 Older Workers, the calculations are based on a contract amount of $800,000
plus an additional $100,000 of SFEIC funds used to supplemait the Title I contract. The
5900,000 total was then divided by the 429 participants served, to give us an average per
participant cost of $2,098.
o The DHRS Entrant calculations are based on FY'88 finding of $1,920,000, 1,091, the number
of Entrants served for the $1,920,000, as per the final report to MRS for that contract
period. This gave us an average cost per participant of $1,760.
o The DHRS RCA calculations are based on funding of $1,273,174, divided by the total of
1,670 refugees on cash assistance who were served. The average per participant cost was
$762. .
In determining the dollar values of the estimated reductions, Exhibit E starts with the reduced
�. muber of participants to be served in each program and multiplies this by the average per
participant cost, giving us the dollar value of the reduced services in each funding category.
02.07.69.8
PERCENT
TITLE IIA MIAANI
PERCENT
TITLE 116 MIAMI
TITLE 11A
SHARE WITHIN
IESIDENTS SERVED
TITLE Its
SHARE WITHIN
PESI0ENTS SEt"
ZIP CODE
!! PARTICIPANTS
CITY LIMITS
BY MIAMI PROGRAM
"V.TICIPANTS
CITY LIMITS
BY MIA111 PAUAAM
�i
3312S
!!
7
100x
7
i5
t00'i.
I5
33126
!!
4
100X
4
7
I OQ):
7
33127
1!
43
100Y.
43
35
t00::
3S .
3 3120
! !
17
1OD•i.
17
2
t00i
2
33129
! !
1
t00r/.
i
b
100::
0
3'3130
! !
B
100'/.
e
3
100::
3
33131
!!
1
1tvx
!
0
100%
0
33132
! !
2
IOD/
2
0
100::
0
33133
! !
S
t 007.
5
17
100i
17
33134
! !
0
25i
0
1
2511:
0
33135
!!
5
1MA
5
12
t00i
12
33136
!!
21
10011.1
21
37
tom
37
3313T
!!
11
IOU
11
9
IOU
9
33130
! !
10
sox
5
7
50::
4
33112
! !
40
50x
20
88
wx
44
33144
!!
1
5(rG
1
1
%1:
1
33145
!!
5
100/.
5
6
100;:
6
33147
! !
24
5.t
1
58
5i
3
33150
! !
15
SW.
6
27
50s:
14
220
165 54::
325
209 SU
participants tot- !!
ally outside City
!!
413
0/
0
71
0::
0
396
209
T')TAL.......... 0! 303 165
The City of Miami served • total of 303 participants in Title IIA during PY'e9.
V* (303-165) or 46✓ lived outside City of Mimi.
Ttw'City of Miami served a total of 3% participants in Title JIB during PY'E9.
1137 (396-209) or 47Y. lived outside City of Miami.
•
t
TI:43
x;.
r
3
4
t yg't�y
Stay -in -School Program
Analysis of stay -in -school Students
Per School by Zip Code
- Coral Gables High School
- Miami Beach High School
- Miami Edison High School
- Miami Jackson High School
- Miami Senior High School
- Miami Northwestern High School
�a
' IT G
l IA f J • 1,M.. - r�
••�.. ��J. I' .wY � I•. 1 l
PT
100.
MIAMI
•! r •"��..�^ AND VICINITY
nORIDA
E
Coral Gables Senior Attendance Zone
PY189 TITLE IIA S.I.S. PARTICIPANTS AT COrRFI. 6f6LES SENIOR HIM SCHOOL
RESIDING VITHIN THE CITY OF MIA7l:
081,031,90
ZIP CODE
pARTiCIPANTS SHARE TOTAL
3a12S
4
24
33126
24 100':
1
33127
1 1W.:
0
33128
0 1m
0
33129
0 100':
1
33130
1 100'•:
0
33131
0 107:
Cl
.33132
0 1CWT.-.
45
33133
45 100%
3
33134
13 25%
3
33135
3 1W%
0
33136
0 100%
0
33137
0 300':
0
331"
0 50•i
33142
0
0
33144
0 50'i
5
33145
S too/
0
33147
1 5z
0 50::
0
331 SO
total........
97
86
SMC uprkmW • total of 106 participants in the
IIA S.I.S. progra• at
Coral Gabl as 50nior Nigh School during PY'89
86 of thrrrs 106 Participants or 81Y. lived within the City of Misai.
,1�-•I _ --}—� I . -`..,� I .:. 1 � "' •tea
•f
i 1�•%'� •! ' �,•"•tee
t
MIAMI
•F AND VICINITY
t � �, IlOa1D �••
Miami Beach Senior Attendance Zone
■ PY'B9 TITLE UR S.1.5. FRRTICIPRMTS RT ItIRT11 OUCH MUM HIGH SCHOOL
RESIDING WITHIN THE CITY OF MIP111:
O6.'03r90
_ ZIP CODE PRRTICIPRNTS S+VK TOTFL
33125 1 1 DO': 1
33126 1 100'/. 1
33127 12 100i 12
3B120 i 100x 1
33129 0 1009. 0
33130 0 107i 0
33131 0 100i 0
33132 3 IOOY. 3
33133 0 t D)% 0
33134 0 25i 0
33135 0 1 CM 0
33136 19 100Y. 19
33137 6 100i 6
331 M 4 5rr; 2
33142 5 SO% 3
33144 0 50'11 0
33145 0 107/. 0
33147 3 5a 0
33150 6 W4 3
total........ 61 Sl
9TTC sawed a total of 137 pwticipanta in the IIR S.I.S. progra. at
Miami Beach Smior High sd I Bring PY'e19
51 of these 137 participants or 37r. Hurd within the City of Miami.
II.46
sue.
Y
i
3 •
E ` _
-i
st
t
1 —�L iT+; Mums `
• � � t�`i..J[� dUtA
iJ
MIAMI
AND VICINITY
' nouoA
T • 2 • •
E
Miami Edison Attendance Zone
PY189 TITLE IIR S.I.S. PARTICIPANTS AT MIAMI EDISON SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL
RES101146 WITHIN THE CITY OF MIAMI:
08N3.'90
21P CAGE PARTICIPANTS SHIRE TOTAL
33127 100 100;: 100
33130 1 1OW. 1
33136 2 100'.: 2
33137 43 IOW4 43
33138 48 W1. 24
33142 9 SOY. 5
33147 18 Ex 1
33150 92 50:: 46
total........ 313 222
SFETC served a total of 351 participants in Title IIR S.I.S. at
Miami Edison 54-mor High School during PY'89
222 of these 351 participants or 63% lived within the City of Miami.
IT .47
1.
S`j
1
• ���. ! 1 ����"' � � -sir= �•� Morn.
•� l:: ..� fir.. ---
ell
IN
such
!
MIAMI
AND VICINITY
RO ID Y
�1..i ='• r i ...
1 • 2 • 3 •
r
E
Miami Jackson Attendance Zone
PY109 TITLE IIA S.I.S. PARTICIPANTS RT MIAMI JRCKSON SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL
RESIDING YITHIN THE CITY OF MIAMI:
OB/03/90
ZIP CODE PARTICIPANTS SHARE TOTAL
33125 53 100;:
53
33126 2 100'/.
2
33127 161 100%
161
3312E 2 100;:
2
33129 0 100;:
0
33130 5 1001.1
5
33131 0 ]Ow.,
0
33132 4 100;:
4
33133 0 100;:
0
33134 0 25%
0
3313S 6 100;:
6
33136 72 10U;:
72
33137 16 100;:
16
33138 3 SOY.
2
33142 229 50;:
115
33144 0 SO;:
0
33145 0 lowl
0
33147 25 5z
1
33150 8 5W.
4
total........ SB6
443
SFETC served a total of 601 participants in Title IIR S.I.S. et
Masai Js*son Senior High School during PY109
443 of these 601 participants or 74% lived within tlw City or M►sai.
Sy
• II,48
y`
C ��J !� 1 i r
� � ..• w
• �YJl4.t
I F
'St ...
�'•i
•,
,r
...
Abu
6 ! E
1
10.6. �..
..... � -
�rr 1 •
aw`r .fir _ T
•
I �T'� 1' C i
�isti--�``T/1
.,
;�1� �_.�.�r,� ..' . .
AA Muni
r �t
MIAMI
t
..� AND VICINITY
• 2 •
3
E
loge=
Miami Senior Attendance Zone
PY'89 TITLE IIR S.I.S. PAIRTICIPANTS FIT MIAMI SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL
RESIOING WITHIN THE CITY OF MIAMI:
_
08iO3.-190
ZIP CODE PARTICIWS SHAPE TDIAL
33125 106 10 X
106
33126 5 100'i
5
33127 5 100'i
5
33128 4 IMA
4
—
33129 4 IOU6
4
33130 15 MO•i
15 P.
33131 0 fore/
0
33132 0 lOCri
0
33133 8 30U::
6
33134 4
33135 86 IOUY.
86
33136 70 100%
70
33137 � 1OU::
�
33138 2 SO/
1
33142 10 50::
5
33144 . .1 50x
l
33145 51 100::
SI
33147 8 5%
0
33150 2
total........ 385
367
SFETC served a total of 402 participants in Title IIH S.I.S. at
Miami Senior High Sd,001 during PY'89
367 of these 402 participants or 91X lived within
the City of Miami.
SY
II.49
• :� -- ,
• i -, h w+
•
P
:..,y ji Burn `
e
MIAMI
AND VICINITY
PLORIDA
1 2 • 7
1
E
Miami Northwestern Attendance Zone
PY'e9 TITLE IN S.I.S. PWTICIPAKTS AT WDRTMESTERN SINIOR HIGH SCHOOL
RESIDING WITHIN THE CITY OF MIAH1:
08/03/90
ZIP CODE PARTICIPANTS SHW..E TOTAL
33127
21
!00'/.
21
33133
4
1OOY.
4
33136
1
1OEW
1
33138
1
505:
1
33142
114
501/
57
33147
lie
Sy
6
33150
38
50%
19
total........
297
109
SFETC served a total of 317 participants in Title IIA S.I.S. at
Northwestern high School during PY'89
109 of these 317 participants or 31X lived within the City of hissi.
�Ai
u
M(kiIBTC H:
A.b
�11CAl�A:E�x�bF3 �
� ! ilAflrCAM:=11S:�IM �ssJI
0: 4:ci li.�ri9:w: 1►cia*� b N _
``yy99�'•''�� tl�Stl8�IR1CA�g,�gA Y381C
N $ _
r y rr yyyy
S iy
a
N � .
N �S:�w:r�R9wTx�i
S �b� S
i�
NI
L 44
,tf
1
y_ ,S
L ��x'
EXHIBIT I
i
JTPA TELEPHONE SURVEY CONTACTS
3
JTPA Public Interest Groups
Jerry McNeil
National Association of Counties (NACO)
440 First Street, N.W.
Washington, D,C. 20001
(202) 393-6226
Knight
.Robert
National Associ.ation of Private Industry Councils (NAPIC)
1201 NeW,York Avenue
Suite .880
Washingtono D.C.'20005
(202) 289-2950 .
Margaret McGilvy
US Conference of Mayors
Employment and Training Council
1520 Eye Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
(202) 293-7330
—
SDAs/PICs
ALABAMA
Birmingham/Jefferson County Job Training Consortium
Mr. Paul Hughes
Birmingham/Jefferson County Job Training Consortium
1015 Second Avenue, North
Sdi-te' 400, Berry Building
Birmingham'AL 35203
(205) 254-2405
CALIFORNIA
Alameda County Training and Employment Board
(Cities. Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, Dublin, Emeryville, Fremont,
Hayward;
Livermore, Newark, Piedmont, Piedmont, Pleasanton, San Leandro, Union City.
"-Counties: Alameda)
Mr: ' Robert Bl oom
Alameda County Training and Employment Board
22225 Foothill Blvd., Suite 2
= ,,
Hayward, CA 94541
(415) 670-5700
•
a d:
b
1 Y
91
X.
f{{
i
f.
Jq
77
i'
renge..Coggty Consortium
Ms. Jane O'Grady
Job Training Partnership Agency
4 1300'South Grand, Building 5
Santa Apia, CA 92705
(114) 567-7370
FLORIDA
Pinellas :County_(SDA 15).
Ms. Sarah Snyder
'Business and Industry Employment
Development Council, Inc.
-1245 N. Hercules Avenue
Clearwater, FL 34575
(813) 545-4511
GEORGIA
Andrea Harper
Georgia State JTPA
Georgia Department of Labor
Job Training Division
148 International Boulevard, N.E.
Suite 650
Atlanta,GA 30303
(404) 656-7392
Fulton County
Ms. -Liz Thomas
Fulton County Office of Community
Service and Job Training
142 Spring Street
r
Rich's'Pla,za'Level, Suite 34
''Atlanta`, GA`'30303
(404) 730-4751
Georgia' SDAs- 3 and 16
r=.
Ms. Mary Margaret Garrett
,r
Atlanta Regional Commission
100 Edgewood Avenue, NE Suite 1801
Atlanta, GA 30335
(404) 364-2590lo
3.
i-A
-
h �
i
k
..�
- -
41-