deliverers of services, give priority to community-based organizations which have demonstrated their effectiveness in providing a broad range of services to youth and in forging linkages within the community in order to better serve the employment needs of youth. An At the national level, there must be strong, effective linkages between the Department of Labor and the Department of Education to assure that the collaborative CETA/education approach will be successful. active, innovative interdepartmental council, with representation from private sector participants in youth employment initiatives (such as the National Collaboration for Youth), should be established. Two specific recommendations for new youth employment and training legislation are the following: There should be specific provisions to encourage the awarding of academic credit to youth participating An information distribution system should be developed for operators of youth programs and deliverers of youth services. The purpose of such a system would be to publicize and distribute instructive information on youth employment and training programs. For example, this would include information on academic credit programs as cited above, and guidelines on model programs and suggestions of innovative approaches to youth employment and training. As we move toward a combined school and CETA approach to youth employment and training, two major concerns arise. New youth legislation must contain provisions to allow for flexible funding of youth programs so that employment and training funding cycles can be coordinated with the local school-year calendar in order to better serve in-school youth. Secondly, Congress must assure that youth in need of services will not be denied assistance because local school desegregation problems have led to a curtailment of federal funds. The ideas which we have presented today have been developed cooperatively by people working professionally with youth in many organizations, in many different communities, and in many styles. We close by saying that we assume that services provided with federal funds will be targeted to those youth most in need and will include, among others, economically disadvantaged youth, minority youth, school drop-outs, teen-aged parents, handicapped youth, and young offenders. We believe that the needs of these young people must and should be a priority concern for our nation and that they require the combined efforts of us all to make any real, positive changes for the future. Mr. Chairman, the member organizations of the National Collaboration for Youth have served young people for over 100 years. As we enter the new decade of the 1980's, we recognize as a priority concern the serious employment problems which confront our nation's youth, and we pledge our efforts to continue serving youth in need. Chairman PERKINS. Thank you very much. Our next witness is Mr. Ron Passarelli, chairman of the Colorado Employment and Training Council. Go ahead, Mr. Passarelli. STATEMENT OF RONALD PASSARELLI, CHAIRPERSON, Mr. PASSARELLI. Mr. Chairman, committee members, good morning. I should like to preface my remarks this morning by acknowledging a gracious invitation extended to me by the Chair to testify on this most significant legislative issue. I should also like to say what a personal privilege it is for me to address this committee among whose members is my own home district's able representative, Mr. Kogovsek. By way of introduction, Mr. Chairman, I am Ronald Passarelli, currently the chair of the Colorado Employment and Training Council, the State advisory council established under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act to advise the Governor with regard to the quality of all vocational programs in Colorado, and mandated to encourage coordiation of these programs. I am an urban designer and planner by profession, and a former city councilman, so I have the advantage, if you will, of not being an advocate of any one of the bureaucratic constituencies likely to appear before you. Hopefully my testimony on the administration's youth initiative will be regarded as somewhat less biased than that of the experts. Yesterday I had the opportunity to review the testimony of Calvin Frazier, Colorado's Commissioner of Education, and I am pleased to confirm his generally optimistic feelings about the spirit of cooperation between CETA prime sponsors and educational agencies. In fact, I believe it is fair to add that most of Dr. Frazier's suggestions would be considered reasonable by the CETA system in Colorado. There are, of course, differences of emphasis and priorities when one looks at vocational programs for youth from the CETA perspective and the academic perspective. However, given the present stage of development of this initiative, I do not believe it would be appropriate to get into these more technical aspects. Moreover, Colorado's prime sponsors have not had time to make a detailed evaluation. There are, however, three pivotal issues that need attention. First, the governing structure for the initiatives, emphasizing effective, systemic coordination; Second, the means for effectively targeting the effort and funds to the disadvantaged; Third, a decision on whether individual emphasis is to be placed on the systematic vocational preparation of youth or on the education of youth. We in Colorado are committed to making coordination of CETA and other vocational agencies a reality. We are idealistic enough to believe that the language Congress has written into CETA, the Vocational Education Acts, and other laws requiring these service delivery systems to interface are statements not only of your interest, but also of governmental commitment. We have been working to bring these to reality. Therefore, we are somewhat dismayed at the disjointed nature of the administration's proposal. We anticipated that the initiative would have required us to work even more closely together in joint planning and coordinated service delivery system. But it appears that this youth initiative is to be funded via two separate channels with little requirement for specific and mutual agreements between education and CETA. It appears that the administration, having considered the history of conflict, has decided to ignore the problem. We believe that that would be a step backward. We have in past years spent enormous Federal resources and energy in efforts to insure the coordination of services for particular populations. The expertise to serve youth is divided among many different agencies, including educational agencies, vocational agencies, CETA prime sponsors, youth service bureaus, et cetera. Each of these has had a responsibility in the past to serve youth and each on its own has been unsuccessful. The choice appears clear: Either design a new program which will bring these diverse skills and backgrounds together, or spend millions of dollars to repeat past failures. The proposed method in the new youth initiative is not particularly inventive. CETA and education agencies would be guaranteed funds by formula. Their areas of expertise are outlined and the funding for each is maintained separately and independent of the other. The coordinated delivery is the key aspect of this program which will make it different. Coordination is paramount to any effective means of dealing with this problem. You have already seen the results of efforts by these agencies operating independently. To assume that by giving more money, they will be more effective without requiring mutually reenforcing coordination is unfounded. What I think may help is a joint planning system. We should not have individual components to be worked out in cooperation between local educational agencies and prime sponsors, but really ought to require that the entire programs be designed mutually. In addition, I must endorse Dr. Frazier's point on the use of existing advisory councils, rather than the creation of new struc tures. Allow us to build on what we have to create an effective advisory structure, and hopefully consolidate the current groups for more progressive action. Third, we do not object to the establishment of national mandates or standards. We do believe local and State priorities should be permitted within such parameters to adjust to particular needs, such as youth with limited English ability, and particular labormarket conditions. Finally, given the relative autonomy of both prime sponsors and local educational agencies, you may find it advantageous to enhance the role of the State agencies in facilitating the development of priorities and facilitating negotiations at the local level. The Rocky Mountain Environmental and Energy Technology Center in Colorado is a case in point. This provided for the creation of occupational training opportunities on extremely costly and sophisticated equipment beyond the vocational education capacity. Most of the equipment is provided by industry. Industry commits job opportunities to meet its affirmative action goals. CETA and vocational education resources fill the gaps, including remedial education. Such programs require huge resources that often cannot be generated on a local basis. Through the State effort, seven prime sponsors have provided these opportunities to youth in their jurisdictions. My second major concern has to do with Federal mandates and atypically I am recommending that some of these be strengthened. The proposed initiative would allocate funds to inschool youth according to title I Elementary and Secondary Education Act methods. While we believe the program should be targeted to youth most in need, we are not sure the method used is appropriate. We believe the formula should be made more reflective of local realities; that the law should require recipients to explain how they will serve these groups in critical need, and that some funds must be set aside to the States to be used for those youth who are wards of the State. I have served previously on the Colorado Council on Criminal Justice, and while one can be critical of LEAA over the years, it has developed a process of establishing national priorities which must be addressed by State and local government. These priorities, such as the deinstitutionalization of status offenders, were not treated as options, nor were incentives provided to the States who chose to meet this need. Rather, States were simply required to develop a plan to alleviate the problem. It was made a condition of funding. Some issues of youth unemployment are so critical that they should be made national conditions. The local units of government should be allowed to create responsive and imaginative solutions, but they should be required to respond. In conclusion, I should reemphasize the need for cooperative delivery services. If the congressional decision is to require coordination between local educational agencies, CETA and vocational education on behalf of the disadvantaged, then those local level systems will have the legislative direction to develop new ways to integrate basic skills development, career education, work experi |