DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 369 465 JC 940 300

AUTHOR Eissa, DebbieTITLE GAIN in the Community Colleges: A Report on the

1992-93 Survey on GAIN Participants and Funding.INSTITUTION California Community Colleges, Sacramento. Office of

the Chancellor.PUB DATE Mar 94NOTE 21p.

PUB TYPE Reports Research/Technical (143)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Agency Role; *Community Colleges; *Educational

Finance; Grants; Minority Groups; Questionnaires;*School Demography; School Funds; Social Services;State Aid; *Student Needs; Two Year Colleges; TwoYear College Students; *Vocational Education; WelfareAgencies; *Welfare Services

IDENTIFIERS California Community Colleges; *Greater Avenues forIndependence

.ABSTRACTCalifornia's Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN)

program is designed to provide-education, job training, and supportservices to help welfare recipients enter the workforce. As part ofan effort to monitor the California ComMunity Colleges' (CCC's) GAINeffort, the Office of the Chancellor conducted a 'study of GAINstudent characteristics, program services, and financial data for the1992-93 academic and fiscal year. Surveys were sent to all 107 CCC'sin May 1993 and revenues were calculated from college apportionmentreports. Results of the study, based on responses from 79 colleges,included the following: (1) overall, the responding colleges reporteda total of 18,827 GAIN students attending classes, an 11% declinefrom the 21,091 students reported for 1991-92; (2).the 11% declinebccurred primarily in six districts due to fewer student referralsfrom county agencies; (3) overall, the college GAIN studentpopulation was 74.8% female and 67.2% non-white; (4) the non-whitestudent population grew slightly from 1991-92 due to an increase inHispanic students, despite small decreases in American Indian, Asian,Pacific Islander, African-American, and Filipino GAIN studentpopulations; (5) 59.2% of the students participated in the GAIN basiceducation program, while moderate decreases were registered for thevocational training and self-initiated components; (6) the two mainsources of funding for GAIN programs were the State's General Fundand local contracts and grants; and (7) total GAIN revenues were down$37.3 million from $43.9 million in 1991-92. Tables of studentprofiles and funding types by college district and the legislativedefinitions of GAIN services are appended. (MAB)

,***********************************************************************

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

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

!:7

GAIN IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGES/)

A Report on the 1992-93 Survey onen GAIN Participants and Funding

March 1994

Prepared by

Debbie Eissa, GAIN AnalystStudent Services DivisionChancellor's OfficeCalifornia Community Colleges1107 Ninth StreetSacramento, CA 95814-3607

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

C. Anderson

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

2

CaliforniaCommunityColleges

U.S. DEPARTMENT Of EDUCATIONOrrice of Educational Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

Xrhis document has been reproduced aseceived from the person or organization

originating itMinor changes have been made to improvereproduction Qulity

Points of view or opinions stated in this docurnent do not necessarily represent officialOERI position or policy

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Nature and Scope of the Survey 1

Summary of 1992-93 Data and Comparison to Prior Years 1

GAIN Student Profile 1

Type of GAIN Instruction 3

Statewide Revenue for GAIN 4

GAIN Services Provided by Colleges Under Contract 6

Program Trends 7

Appendix A

Table 1-1992-93 GAIN Student Profile by District

Table 2-1992-93 GAIN Student Contact Types by District

Table 3-1992-93 GAIN Contract Funds by District

Table 4-1992-93 GAIN Contract Funds by District Ranked by Total Funds

Table 5-Funded Additional GAIN prEs at Period 2

Appendix B

Legislative Definitions of GAIN Services(Excerpted from AB 2580)

GAIN IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGES

A Report on the 1992-93 Survey on GAIN Participants and Funding

Nature and Scope of the Survey

Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) is California's welfare reform program, createdin 1985. It provides education, job training and support service's to help welfare recipientsenter the workforce. California's GAIN program is now part of the national Job Oppor-tunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) program created by the federal Family Support Act of1988. The original GAIN legislation was modified by AB 312 in 1990 to meet federalstandards and to make other changes.

Four state agencies and their local counterparts, as well as private organizations, provideservices to GAIN participants. (See Appendix B for a list of services in the program.)County welfare departments and other agencies also may contract directly with colleges foradditional services, such as vocational assessment of clients.

The law requires the Chancellor's Office to help monitor the college GAIN effort and toprovide technical assistance to local staff charged with implementing the program. Thisannual survey fills part of that role. It collects statewide data on GAIN student charac-teristics that are not currently available in a comprehenbive fashion from other sources.Furthermore, it is our only statewide source of information about the type and value ofcontracts that community colleges hold for providing specific GAIN services.

The current report summarizes information about GAIN in the California CommunityColleges for the 1992-93 academic and fiscal year. We mailed the survey in May of 1993; 79of the 107 California Community Colleges responded. In addition to the survey information,we include revenues calculated from community college apportionment reports to provide amore complete picture of GAIN funding.

Summary of 1992-93 Data and Comparison to Prior Years

GAIN Student Profile

GAIN participants in community colleges enroll in college courses under an active personalcontract with the county welfare department to receive GAIN services. For survey pur-poses, we asked colleges to report a cumulative, unduplicated count ofall GAIN participantswho enroll at any time during the 1992-93 academic year, even if they left the GAIN pro-gram before the year ended. Seventy-nine colleges reported a total of 18,827 studentsattending classes (refer to Figure 1). This is an 11 percent, or 2,264 participant decline fromthe reported 21,091 students attending in 1991-92.

4- 1 -

2 A Report on the 1992-93 GAIN Survey

FIGURE 1Comparison of GAIN Student Profile

1991-92 1992-93

,

---Number ofstudents

% of studentswith known

characteristics

-Number ofstudents

% of studentswith known

characteristics

Total Students,

21,091 --- 18,827

Ethnicity,

American Indian 370 1.9 289 1.6Asian, Pacific Islander 3,349 17.0 2,988 16.8African-American 4,195 21.3 3,554 20.0White 6,861 34.8 5,852 32.8Hispanic 4,623 23.4 4,827 27.0Filipino . 127 0.6 96 .5Other 206 1.0 231 1.3Unknown 1,360 (6.4(4 ) --- 990 (5.2%) ----...

Gender-

Female 14,085 74.4 13,551 . 74.8Male 5,106 25.6 4,567 25.2Unknown 1,180 (5.6'4 ) --- 709 (3.7'4 1 ---.

Age at college entry .

Less than 20 years 548 3.3 1,035 6.0 .

20-24 years 2,452 14.6 2,946 17.025-29 years 3,054 18.2 3,892 22.530-34 yeers 3,854 22.9 3,903 22.535-39 years 3,353 20.0 2,605 15.040 + years 3,543 21.1 2,932 17.0Unknown 4,287 (20.3%) --- 1,514 (8%) ---

Type of GAIN instruction ' -

Basic education 7,305 53.4 9,562 59.2Post-assessment training 3,623 26.6 3,623 22.4Self-initiated program 2,759 20.2 2,971 18.4Unknown 7,404 (35.1%) --- 2,671 (14.2%) ---

Source: Chancellor's Office 1991-92 and 1992-93 GAIN surveys. Percentages may not add up to 100% due torounding.

The 11 percent decline in GAIN students reported for 1992-93 occurred primarily in six dis-tricts. These six districts reported that the drop in GAIN student participation was duemainly to less student referrals from the counties. In addition, in one college, the basicskills/general educational development (GED) program moved from the college to the K-12adult education program. Another college had a large number of students who hadcompleted their educational goals and since left.

Colleges also were able to tell us the ethnic background, gender, and age of most of thesestudents (refer to Figure 1). The GAIN program continues to serve large numbers of stu-dents who traditionally have been underrepresented in higher education, including womenand ethnic minorities. Overall, the 1992-93 community college GAIN student population

A Report on the 1992-93 GAIN Survey 3

was 74.8 percent female and 67.2 percent non-white for those whose characteristics wereknown. The small percentage growth in non-white students in 1992-93 in comparison with1991-92, is due to an increase in the percentage of Hispanic students being served. Therewere small percentage decreases in the American Indian, Asian, Pacific Islander, African-American, and Filipino student population served in 1992-93 compared with 1991-92.

Overall, GAIN students served in the community colleges in 1992.93 were younger than thestudents served in 1991-92 for those whose characteristics were known. Forty-five and one-half percent of GAIN students were under 29 years of age in 1992-93, compared with 35.8percent in 1991-92.

Type of GAIN Instruction

GAIN participants in community colleges generally enroll under one of three types of per-- sonal contracts for GAIN instruction: a basic education contract, in which students attendadult basic education (ABE), general educational development (GED) or English-as-a-second-language (ESL); a post-assessment training contract for vocational education ortraining; or a self-initiated program (SIP) contract for students who enroll in college prior toactive participation in GAIN.

Figure 1 displays the proportion of students in the three contract types, for those withknown information. More than one-half of the students, 59.2 percent, participated in GAINbasic education in 1992-93, an increase from 53.4 percent in 1991-92. In turn, there weremoderate decreases in the percentage of students who had post-assessment contracts andself-initiated program contracts from 26.5 percent and 20.2 percent in 1991-92, to 22.4 and18.4 percent in 1992-93. Appendix A, Table 2, displays a district-by-district comparison ofthe three types of instruction for GAIN participants.

he survey data for 1992-93 shows that colleges are better able to identify the type of GAINinstruction in which students participate. The percentage of type of instruction that wasunknown decreased from 35.1 percent in 1991-92 to 14.2 percent in 1992-93. This isprobably due to more effective GAIN tracking and reporting systems for students and bettercoordination with the Management Information System (MIS) in the colleges.

Figure 2 illustrates the breadth of instruction for college GAIN students from a differentangle. It displays units of full-time equivalent students (FTES) generated by GAIN stu-dents, based on the amount of time spent by students in instruction. The proportion of FTESproduced from basic skills classes decreased from 37 percent in 1991-92 to 32.2 percent in1992-93. Compared with 1991-92, there was in increase in the amount of non-credit basicskills ingtruction and a decrease in basic skills credit instruction in 1992-93. Overall how-ever, GAIN continues to be primarily a non-basic skills instructional program (67.8 percent)in terms of overall classroom time.

4 A Report on the 1992-93 GAIN Survey

FIGURE 2Total Basic Skills/Other Credit/Noncredit GAIN FrES

1991-92 and 1992-93

Noncredit9.5%

MEM..

Credit27.5%

Noncredit5.2%

111/=11

1991-92Total GAIN FITS: 12,891.34

Credit

Basic Skills FITS

III Other rrEs

57 8% 1992-93Total GAIN FITS: 11,335.68

199142FITS

1992-93FITS

Total Basic Skills FTES 4,758 37 3,646 32.2Total Other rrEs 8,133 63 7,690 67.8Total Credit FTES 10,290 85.3 8,797 77.6Total Noncredit FITS 2,601 14.7 2,539 22.4

Statewide Revenue for GAIN

A variety of fiscal resources support GAIN in community colleges. There are two maincategories of revenue: apportionment monies from the State's General Fund (and matchingdollars from the federal JOBS program), which are allocated to districts based on the FTESgenerated by students; and monies garnered through local contracts and grants specificallyfor GAIN or GAIN-related costs.

Figure 3 displays overall community college GAIN revenues for fiscal years 1991-92 and1992-93. Total revenues for 1992-93 were $37.3 million, down -from $43.9 million in1991-92. (These are revenues generated by, or available for, GAIN participants; tbey do notnecessarily reflect actual costs.) Apportionment revenues (the shaded portion of Figure 3)decreased by $5 million from $34.6 million in 1991-92 to $29.6 million in 1992-93.

"Regular" GAIN FrES is generated by GAIN students that are under the district's fundablegrowth cap and the GAIN maintenance-of-effort (MOE). "Additional" GAIN FTES aresupplemental monies available to districts for GAIN FrEs above their enrollment cap andthe MOE. During 1992-93, the "additional" GAIN FTES funding decreased from $11.2million in 1991-92 to $9.8 million. The decline in funding is because some districts wereunable to meet their MOE either from lack of referrals or a lack of growth. Other collegeshave experienced a decrease in general student enrollments pushing them below their CAP,thereby making them ineligible for "additional" GAIN prEs.

A Report on the 1992-93 GAIN Survey 5

FIGURE 3College GAIN Revenues and Contracts _

1991-92 and 1992-93

1991-92

(In millions, rounded to nearest tenth )

Certified Additional I33.6% $14.7M

GAIN ADA*

1,

OtherContracts

0.4%

ApportionmentRevenues

1992-93

Certified AdditionalGAIN VMS

26.3% $9.8MGAIN Services

Contracts4.41% $1.9M

* Of the $14.7 million:tal $9.2 million was allowed.(b) $2 million was funded and

scheduled for later allocation.(c) $3.5 million was unfunded.

......_Exces6sgstigoaracts I

JTPA 8%-50%Contracts

10% $3.7M

0.9% $0.3M ri3% $1.1M

Other Contracts GAIN ServicesContracts

The unshaded portion of Figure 3 represents college contracts specifically earmarked forGAIN students and associated costs. These contracts fall into four main categories:(1) GAIN excess costs contracts, in which county welfare departments pay colleges forcertain "over and above" expenses related to GAIN clients, such as reporting of students'progress; (2) GAIN service contracts, in which colleges contract to provide GAIN services,such as vocational assessment on behalf of the county; (3) Job Training Partnership Act(JTPA) 8%-50% contracts, where colleges provide basic education instruction under con-tract to local JTPA service delivery areas (SDAs); and (4) other contracts specifically nego-tiated for GAIN, such as the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology EducationAct (VATEA) projects, grants from local service organizations, etc. In 1992-93, 48 collegesin 42 districts held one or more of these contracts (see Appendix A, Tables 3 and 4). Totalcontract revenues for GAIN decreased by $1.6 million from $9.3 million in 1991-92, to $7.7million in 1992-93.

6 A Report on the 1992-93 GAIN Survey

GAIN Services Provided by Colleges Under Contract

The law requires counties to provide an array of services to GAIN participants. These areroughly grouped into job services (job placement, employment counseling, job search, etc.),and education and training (assessment, basic education, vocational education, supportservices, etc.). Many colleges contract to provide one or more of these services as well asadditional services (funded as excess costs) that may be necessary for GAIN students, suchas special academic advising, attendance monitoring, etc.

We asked colleges to report the type of services they provided under contract exclusively for,or on behalf of, GAIN clients. The data in Figure 4 indicates that fewer colleges receivedGAIN-specific contracts in 1992-93. The total number of colleges with one or more contractsdecreased from 52 to 48 campuses. This year's survey, as did last year's, indicated the mostfrequent GAIN-specific contract in community colleges is the excess cost contract, presentat thirty-one colleges in the state (refer to Figure 4). GAIN serviCes contracts fell from 23 to18 campuses or 22 percent, followed by a decrease in the number ofJTPA 8%-50% contractsfrom 29 to 25 campuses, a 14 percent decline.. As in previous surveys, vocational assessmentis the most frequently contracted service under GAIN service contracts, provided in 11 of 18colleges holding such contracts. It is interesting to note that other contracts (Figure 4)increased to 8 this year. Services provided from other contract funds ranged frommonitoring and reporting GAIN students, to vocational educational assessment, and ESLinstruction.

In 1986, the State Job Training Coordinating Council, which sets policy and has oversightresponsibility for the state's JTPA funds, established a policy that the JTPA 8%-50% fundswere limited to covering the costs of GAIN, ABE, GED, or ESL. During program year1992-93, 17 of the 25 colleges provided all three types of instruction. Beginning with fiscalyear 1993-94, the JTPA 8%-50% funds can be used for GAIN "concurrent enrollment." Thismeans that JTPA 8%-50% contracts will be able to fund GAIN services, which in addition toABE, GED, and/or ESL, include a number of GAIN services such as vocational training,pre-employment preparation, educational services, On-the-Job Training, etc.

The 1991-92 survey asked community colleges to identify contracts they held that servedGAIN students but served other students as well. We omitted reporting on "Contracts NotLimited to Servicesfor GAIN Clients" in this survey, because campus information on GAINparticipant access to and participation in other contract resources is not generally trackedor easily identified and therefore the data reported in the survey is incomplete.

A Report on the 1992-93 GAIN Survey 7

FIGURE 4Number of Colleges with GAIN-Specific Contracts

1991-92 and 1992-93

Number of Colleges

60

50

4029

30

20

10

o

2532

1991-92 III 1992-93 M

31

18

JTPA 8%-50% ExcessCosts

GAINServices

5248

One or MoreContracts

Program Trends

The 1992-93 survey data indicates a second year trend of declining GAIN studentparticipation in the community colleges. The colleges reported an 11 percent decrease inGAIN participants and a $1.4 million decline in "additional" GAIN FTES funding. Most ofthis declinels due to fewer referrals by county welfare offices to the community colleges andan emphasis on moving participants through the GAIN program at a faster pace.

Overall, the survey data also continues some of the trends of the previous years. The GAINprogram continues to serve large numbers of students who traditionally have beenunderrepresented in higher education, including women and ethnic minorities. The GAINstudent population was 74.8 percent female and 67.2 percent non-white. Compared with1991-92, the GAIN program in the community colleges in 1992-93 served a largerpercentage of Hispanic students and a larger percentage of younger students.

1993-1994 will be the last year that we will be collecting comprehensive survey data fromthe community colleges to produce this annual report. Beginning in Fall, 1995, we will beutilizing data from the automated community college Management Information System(MIS). We will also be able to report outcome data on GAIN participants including unitsattempted and completed, grade point average, and degrees and certificates awarded. Thisyear, we will be matching data from MIS with the data reported in the paper survey tocorrect any discrepancies in the information reported. Consequently, it is crucial thatcampus GAIN program coordinators work closely with their MIS staff to ensure thatcomplete and accurate GAIN program and participant data is collected and reportedthrough MIS.

1 0

8 A Report on the 1992-93 GAIN Survey

Over the next few years, we expect continued policy initiatives at both the state and federallevel designed to make the GAIN program into a more fast-track employment program. Inthe future, we can expect a trend towards referrals to more short-term training programsespecially those offered concurrently with basic education instruction. Also, the trend maybe towards more open-entry, open-exit courses, courses that meet more hours a day but lesshours overall, special strategies to improve classroom attendance, more computer assisted'instruction, and curriculum that integrates basic skills, life skills, and job skills.Community colleges will continue to be an important provider of educational services to theextent that they can adapt their programs and courses to meet the needs of the GAINparticipants and the changing profile of the program.

APPENDIX A

DISTRICT-LEVEL TABLES

12

ETHNICITY

BL

AC

K H

MI

Igig

i:iN

g11:

;::::N

RE

NC

ingi

HP&

VIM

OT

HIR

MK

MA

LIGENDER

MA

LE

Iiiii

nEM

IIII

I.U

ML

IM*

24.2

425

28

AGE

31-3

4

1813

1.E

19::

33-3

1M

D+

UN

KMarkt

TO

TA

LA

lA

WP1

AL

LA

N H

AN

CO

CK

317

311

2713

214

04

025

265

1076

87SI

$7IT

=30

74

769

190

111

313

205

102

IIII

I22

2320

611

4119

9C

ER

RIT

OS

04

217

24II

21

1385

8C

HA

BO

T -

1A

S PO

SIT

104

11

5738

4I

50

102

2I

327

1926

259

C. A

AT

VE

Y51

$6

1612

412

621

24

4044

979

31SO

113

124

8271

27C

OA

ST27

5.

0IN

356

30it

aI

108

167

2828

570

9733

CO

MPT

ON

205

116

8$

251

219

411

1529

5149

64C

OM

MA

CO

STA

213

339

053

212

146

167

460

-12

'46

3839

3139

DE

SER

TII

I4

2973

I5

1to

224

1424

2114

2316

WE

AT

HE

R R

IVE

RSI

55

397

II

I42

9$

3$

1516

40

FOO

TH

ILL

-DE

AN

ZA

254

240

3412

344

921

143

IS48

5465

4235

GA

VIL

AN

73I

a1

2144

03

667

213

1517

$7

11G

LE

ND

AL

E28

$1

127

135

122

17

II21

1St

164

3427

4743

IS40

IMPE

RIA

L32

$2

36

2129

2I

I24

$80

I25

56St

8791

KE

RN

495

231

7630

7$S

2I

141

481

365

25$

6233

677

LA

SSE

N3$

10

281

22$

II

28

111

$2

LO

NG

BE

AC

H72

111

140

334

1110

145

$0

S08

6315

9325

714

315

5SO

$L

OS

AN

GE

LE

S25

7417

011

2523

905

940

4223

2124

47

139

396

513

571

535

364

13L

OS

RIO

S61

1523

25II

I35

740

522

302

103

00

00

03M

AR

IN23

16

5$

21

' 13

10I

I2

44

67

5M

EN

DO

CIN

O-L

AK

E75

375

I1

6511

1I

1411

3117

11M

ER

CE

D75

86

393

4314

113

65

729

365

3024

1718

115

615

011

719

324

MIR

A C

OST

AII

.1

514

00

1I

I84

7I

433

3125

3e

MO

NT

ER

EY

38II

76

6I

I$

29$

1I

Ie

II

38M

T. S

AN

AN

TO

NIO

508

64$3

146

239

147

322

134

310

613

411

783

5465

MT

. SA

N .I

.V7I

NT

O49

21

332

$t

II

409

I2

HI

1213

II2

NA

PA V

AL

LE

Y0

2II

6614

II

Ias

94

2122

2415

7I

NO

RT

H O

RA

NG

E C

OU

498

311

$41

195

147

34

4096

IIS

115

III

139

3890

PAL

O V

ER

DE

83I

I3

1264

11

745

I13

1112

1911

118

IPA

SAD

EN

A25

24

2267

3952

I16

216

337

23

3236

4735

490

PER

AL

TA

102

2II

I0

142

114

141

33IS

2517

RA

NC

HO

SA

NT

IAG

O00

29

294

4713

330

12

1349

935

459

131

350

20R

ED

WO

OD

S18

66

11

913

II

487

19I

122

1928

2516

SAN

BE

RN

AR

DIN

O99

liI

I4

9991

55

as

SAN

DIE

GO

104

1329

351

420

395

156

211

7731

720

941

535

818

214

918

6SA

N F

RA

NC

ISC

O51

2$

I#

551

2.,

512

IIe

II

512

SAN

JO

AQ

UIN

DE

LT

A62

837

15 3

256

131

3013

774

143

152

2 235 4

19 2637

424

524

412

7$ 33

6574

7364

104

56O 7

SAN

JO

SE-E

VE

RG

RE

ESA

N L

UIS

OB

ISPO

CO

621

350

71

593

16

2214

13f

eSA

N M

AT

ZO

CO

UN

TY

117

312

3335

294

110

149

2229

3314

11SA

NT

A B

AR

BA

RA

181

325

$11

49I

1193

1$0

II5

1721

027

1SA

NT

A M

ON

ICA

42e

oI

542

42e

#I

II

I42

SEQ

UO

IAS

141

311

14

67SI

2I

311

129

14

2621

4825

161

SHA

STA

-TIC

HA

MA

-TR

I49

526

925

343

172

352

1011

5364

9611

283

57SI

ER

RA

792

715

165

145

116

1825

127

SISK

1YO

USI

41

540

145

41

935

21

SOL

AN

O C

OU

NT

Y95

15

3143

132

8411

53

II17

3522

$SO

NO

MA

CO

UN

lY47

521

3127

325

601

64

368

103

421

191

115

129

7446

STA

TE

CE

NT

ER

516

1679

8717

214

12

613

385

131

IS12

912

997

9154

VE

NT

UR

A C

OU

NT

Y25

I$

1620

59

ISS

1V

ICT

OR

VA

LL

EY

261

59

1714

098

I2

199

42I

21,

SO43

6935

49W

EST

KE

RN

822

073

71

I5

fa19

3II

2918

113

$W

EST

VA

LL

EY

-MIS

SI16

53

2835

5935

22

'1

143

2211

331

2939

3924

$Y

OSE

MIT

E12

75II

357

3440

921

81

1526

665

60I

7212

116

427

227

736

4I

YU

BA

445

1675

3207

1020

449

216

I42

148

145

163

113

62

VIA

TL

WIV

IL 1

U 1

AL

irM

gPe

RIN

I et

Kam

1.60

163lic

irom

mic

iimm

illitz

..,.

..

,

1314

2 Appendix A

Table 21992-93 GAIN Student Contract Types, by District*

:.

.

District TOTAL 'BASIC. ED POST-A SIP INKNONWALLAN HANCOCK 317 103 134 79 1

BUTTE 307 131 128 48 0CERRITOS 93 0 0 93 0CHABOT - LAS POSITAS 104 0 74 30 0CHAFFEY 528 400 82 46 0COAST 275 212 47 16 0COMPTON 205 53 91 61 0CONTRA COSTA 213 0 0 0 213DESERT 111 111 0 0 0FEATHER RIVER 51 25 17 9 0

FOOTHILL-DE ANZA 254 0 152 102 0GAVILAN 73 2 8 30 33GLENDALE 285 200 20 65 0IMPERIAL 325 59 33 144 89KERN 495 115 34 83 263LASSEN 30 0 0 0 30LONG BEACH 721 388 233 100 0LOS ANGELES 2574 2227 227 121 0LOS RIOS 605 24 231 79 271

MARIN 23 0 0 0 23

MENDOCINO-LAKE 75 49 0 21 5MERCED 758 460 91 207 0MIRA COSTA 91 84 7 0 '0MONTEREY 38 31 3 0 4MT. SAN ANTONIO 564 116 51 384 13MT. SAN JACINTO 49 0 0 49 0NAPA VALLEY 94 7 83 4 0NORTH ORANGE COUNTY 498 387 64 47 0PALO VERDE 83 81 0 2 0PASADENA 202 109 0 93 0PERALTA 149 5 133 11 0RANCHO SANTIAGO 802 591 77 134 0REDWOODS 106 0 0 0 106SAN BERNARDINO 99 0 0 0 99SAN DIEGO 1494 1409 46 39 0SAN FRANCISCO 512 395 101 0 16SAN JOAQUIN DELTA 620 346 246 28 0SAN JOSE-EVERGREEN 372 117 128 122 5SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNT 62 0 0 0 62SAN MATEO COUNTY 117 1 91 17 8SANTA BARBARA 101 75 11 15 0SANTA MONICA 42 0 0 42 0SEQUOIAS 141 0 0 0 141SHASTA-TEHAMA-TRINIT 485 341 91 53 0SIERRA 79 I 44 34 0SISKIYOU 51 30 10 11 0SOLANO COUNTY 95 0 88 7 0SONOMA COUNTY 475 244 187 40 4STATE CENTER 516 0 142 374 0VENTURA COUNTY 25 0 25 0 0VICTOR VALLEY 261 261 0 0 0WEST KERN 82 37 28 16 1

WEST VALLEY-MISSION 165 14 88 50 13YOSEMITE 1270 0 0 0 1270YUBA 665 321 277 65 2

STATEWIDE TOTALS 18827 9562 3623 2971 2671Percent of Known 59.2 22.4 18.4

Colleses Out did not repon GAN students we omitted.Percentages Ire foe students with bereft contract types.

15

Table 31992-93 GAIN Contract Funds, by District*

District Exc ants JTPA8-50 SERVICES OTHER

ALLAN HANCOCK $25,448 $58,221BUTTE $19,500CERRITOS $15,000CHABOT - LAS POSITAS $28,700 $5,000CHAFFEY $25,994COAST $138,000 $57,707COMPTON $5,000 $96,046DESERT $50,700FEATHER RIVER $3,921 $2,880FOOTHILL-DE ANZA $58,000 $4,000GAVILAN $23,000GLENDALE $25,707 $92,228IMPERIAL $128,751KERN $4,530 $118,986LONG BEACH $36,000 $253,183LOS ANGELES $779,627 $1,276,930LOS RIOS $30,000MENDOC1NO-IAKE $10,350MERCED $261,777 $80,000MIRA COSTA $115,470 $39,953MT. SAN ANTONIO $25,500 $52,234 $34,959NAPA VALLEY $3,168NORTH ORANGE COUNTY $72,747 $147,346 $61,614PASADENA $30,500 $98,716PERALTA $165,076 $49,717RANCHO SANTIAGO $113,653 $312,607 $93,200SAN DIEGO $359,450 $116,280SAN FRANCISCO $130,051SAN JOAQUIN DELTA $109,036SAN JOSE-EVERGREEN $73,500SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY $43,110 $85,162 $58,038SANTA BARBARA $20,700 $25,148SEQUOIAS $48,840SHASTA-TEHAMA-TRINITY $50,000SISKIYOU $43,606 $4,660SONOMA COUNTY $99,326 $101,512STATE CENTER $270,000VENTURA COUNTY $69,583VICTOR VALLEY $48,000WEST KERN $22,048WEST VALLEY-MISSION $49,000 $23,000 $18,000YOSEMITE $119,104 $175,680 $185,855 $119,230YUBA $29,426 $71,907

grAnWIDE TOTALS $2.544X25 ; $72,161 s1,Osc,353 1345,34

2VTA.t..,

14300WA**000

:'13.4,1tf y,1

li9S4101'-IMO*

MOWSOK'

'32000SIMMS=S12051S1234$16

:IMMO$20$451

MACS

Si $5.423S11203

SIAMS281,1074129,116

,4214,1,35,30$0

$710633% 48% 14% 5% 100%

'These dots septum revenue generated, not *awl expenditures, for GAIN-speciftc contracts telly.

Distncts thst did not report GAIN contracts are omitted.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

!G

Appendix A 3

. 4 Appendix A

Table 41992-93 GAIN Contract Funds, by District,

Ranked by Total Funds*

District Exc Costs JTPA8-50 SERVICE OTHER Tora.., . .. ..

-LOS ANGELES S779,627 S1,276,930 $206,557YOSEMITE S119,104 $175,680 $185,855 $119,230 s$4991.1,169,

RANCHO SANTIAGO $113,653 $312,607 $93,200 UMWSAN DIEGO $359,450 $116,280 $47,$*134MERCED $261,777 $80,000

--:.

LONG BEACH $36,000 $253,183NORTH ORANGE COUN $72,747 $147,346 $61,614STATE CENTER S270,000PERALTA $165,076 $49,717SONOMA COUNTY $99,326 $101,512 ,COAST $138,000 $57,707SAN LUIS OBISPO COU $43,110 $85,162 $58,038

.. ..

MIRA COSTA $115,470 $39,953SAN FRANCISCO $130,051

.

............o...,:.:: s:PASADENA $30,500 $98,716IMPERIAL $128,751

%

KERN $4,530 S118,986GLENDALE $25,707 $92,228MT. SAN ANTONIO $25,500 $52,234 $34,959 ' $112,693SAN JOAQUIN DELTA $109,036YUBA S29,426 $71,907 WitCOMPTON $5,000 $96,046 ...,.....,..WEST VALLEY-MISSIO $49,000 $23,000 $18,000 $90,..............

ALLAN HANCOCK $25,448 $58,221SAN JOSE-EVERGREEN $73,500VENTURA COUNTY S69,583 ' ,FOOTHILL-DE ANZA S58,000 $4,000 .

DESERT S50,700SHASTA-TEHAMA-TRI $50,000SEQUOIAS $48,840SISKIYOU $43,606 $4,660

. .VICTOR VALLEY $48,000SANTA BARBARA $20,700 $25,148

.

CHABOT - LAS POSITA $28,700 $5,000 .

% ...

LOS RIOS $30,000CHAFFEY $25,994GAVILAN $23,000

::: ,WEST KERN $22,048BUTrE $19,500CERRITOS $15,000MENDOCINO LAKE $10,350

...%:....:.%

FEATHER RIVER $3,921 $2,880 .

NAPA VALLEY $3,168NM4TxrvatWrrarAusL212taszmsrxo.am s;$34 -55V:07.0 : .:

33% a% 14% 3%'These NW represent maw, genersted, net Waal ezpenditures, for GAIN-specific minds oily.Districts that did est report GAIN contrects are omitted.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

iFJPVA rfOl T?.48 17

IN%

Appendix A 5

Table 5Funded Additional GAIN FTES at Period 2*

DISTRICT

CREDIT

FTES

NON-CREDIT

ITES

TOTAL

FIES'

TOTAL GAIN

FUNDING '

ALLAN HANCOCK 98.50 40.89 139.39 $351,740BARSTOW 5.23 0.30 5.26 $18,546BUTTE 86.08 8.67 100.01 S257,690CHAFFEY 142.13 6.29 148.42 $416,077COMPTON 48.52 0.06 48.58 $139,736FEATHER RIVER 8.61 0.04 8.65 831,117GLENDALE 21.51 1.35 22.86 863,628IMPERIAL 279.04 0.00 279.04 8798,629KERN 125.97 11.05 137.02 $388,774LOS ANGELES 493.48 27.59 521.07 81,443,196LOS RIOS 119.19 0.71 119.9 $335,451MERCED 297.46 72.11 369.57 $980,300MT. SAN ANTONIO 9.57 1.06 10.63 $28,511NAPA VALLEY 13.01 1.16 14.07 $39,342NORTH ORANGE COUNTY 20.91 1.37 22.28 $60,810RANCHO SANTIAGO 63.32 12.28 75.60 $199,222REDWOODS 16.09 0.38 16.47 $46,474SAN JOAQUIN DELTA 258.32 11 .00 269.32 8728,854SAN JOSE-EVERGREEN 159.15 0.59 159.74 $459,070SAN LUIS OBISPO 12.90 0.64 13.54 $37,990SAN MATEO 10.37 0.00 10.37 $29,494SANTA BARBARA 4.37 0.23 4.60 $12,788SOLANO 20.98 1.67 22.65 $62,426SONOMA COUNTY 76.26 31.59 107.85 $266,115STATE CENTER 222.66 3.47 226.13 $626,162VENTURA 23.32 0.54 23.86 $65,467VICTOR VALLEY 26.13 2.69 28.82 $79,036WEST KERN 17.62 0.32 17.94 . $64,882WEST VALLEY-MISSION 78.67 0.65 79.32 $226,601YOSEMITE 426.23 45.07 471.30 $1,275,435YUBA 92.60 0.75 93.35 $260,487

STATEWIDE TPTALS 3,21t20 - 24.52 340.74A 19,194,0$0Amouig of GAIN FTES that is above Maintenence of Effon (MOE) end CAP,

up to the level approved in the Mditional GAIN FIES application.

18

APPENDIX B

LEGISLATIVE DEFINITIONS OF GAIN SERVICESExcerpted from AB 2580

I 9

APPENDIX B

Legislative Definitions of GAIN Services(Excerpted from AB 2580)

Job Services

1. Job Club/Supervised Job Search

Consists of bosh of the following: Job search workshopswlach shall be group training sessions wherepartiespents lamvarious job finding skills. including training in basic,* seekingskills. job development lulls, job interviewingundemanding anployer sequin:mem sad expeciadons, and howto enhance self-esteem, self-image, and confidence

&manta job march, which shall include, but not belimited to. seems so phcoe blinks in a clean and well-lkalued plam,job orders, direct referrals to employe's, or other organisedmethods of seeking work which am corerseen, avowed, aidaideised by a grained employment rolosional.

2. Unsupervised Job Search

Individual seeks wad in his or her own way, and rnakepaiodic progress mons no less frequently than ever/ two weeksto the county welfare &pommy" or the agency canmaing withthat &penman.

3. Job Placement

Referrals to jobs, including but not limited to, those listed byanployas with ihe State Job Service

4. Job Development

Acrive assistance in seeking amploymau proonvVed to a=pant by a usinad araploymeni professional *sone

S. Employment Counselling

Counselling aimed at helping a person mach an informeddecision on an appropriale smOymat goal.

Support Services

6. TransportationCosts shall be paid for every petticipent to and from his or

her job or uaining assignmeith

7. Child Care

Pail And can shall be available so "my participate wish achild under 12 years of sge who seeds it in orda penicipais inthe proven composers so which he or she is aligned.

S. Ancillary Expenses

Include the eon abodes, tools,elothing, fess, aid otheroseessary eras of e week or ung wigwag.

9. Personal Counselling

Participant who has personal or funily probkms that wouldaffect the methane of the employment plan shall naive neasesutycounselling or therapy lo help luen or bar stsd his ot her tastilyadjust so as or her job Of wain assignment.

Education and Training Services

10. Initial Appraisal

banal roam supervised by the county wattage depanment(CWD) to collect information to determine appropriate panicipantcourscm includes mitigation. basic skills appiaisal (educationalamcies may conduct basic skills appraisal under contract soCWD) sod referral so spropriais 'duo-Waal and support soviets.

11. Assessment; Employment Development

A panicipent shall wat wids the amity welfare deperunanto ate the development of an employment plan. In developingshe employment plan pursuant to this subdivieion. the amity andthe psnicipant shall develop an usetsment a' the skills and nodsal the pamcipant, which shall include at least sU of the following:

(a) Tbepanicipthes wroth history, including a isiventoryof his ce her employrnem skills, knoMedge, and .

abilities.

(b) Th:cpatlenes educational barmy and resentcompeiency level.

(c) The pesticipenes need for omportive savices in orderto obtain the greaten baulk from employment sadtraining SWIM.

(41) The employment goals of the participant. and anevalueurn of the chanca for the achievement of thesegoals given the anent posanial skills a the participantaed the local labor market condition.

(e) A goal so be stained upon completion of the program,beading the period clams it MU take to achieve thisgoal, and the macula's available wider this roam forohs astainment chat gal. This assaimmt shall bedone by a person qualified by edumtion or amine*so plaids counselling, miasma, assessment, or careerplanning.

12. Adult basic education (ABE), GED

Pmanplorrom basie education, including madirs$, vaitingand atithasssie ammo for employment or job trainiog, includinghigh school psolicieicy.

13. English as s Second Language (ESL)

Inomesiso it English foe non-Foglish speaking participial.

14.L

Vmtional English as a Second Language(VES)Ineeneive annaction in English for non-English speaking

participants. ascedinseed with spaniel& natio.

15. Job Training (Short Term)

T11111616 inploeripadfsc job skins in a classroom oton-sits min.

16. Community College (Vocational) Education

Canmunity college education that rendes sufficientemployment skills Mining that tan seasonably be opened so Indto employmeet.

2 Appendix B

Legislative Definitions of GAIN Services (AB 2580) (Continued)

17. On-the-Job Training

Subsidized employment in which a paticipent ieceives jobskills training from an anployer on an actual job; cm besubeidized via giant diva:ice (See ban 19).

18. Pre-Employment Preparation (Short andLong Term")

Non-ulaeied week for a public or non-polit agency theprovides the panicipant with tither of the following:

(a) Basic pee-enyloyment preparirion, which shall provideweek behavior skills awl a refaence for fainmumbsidired employment.

BO Advanced preemployment preparation. which *allpiovide on-die-job athencanent dezisthig participantskills in a position misted so a panicipait's experience.trait& or education.

A shomerm pa-ernployment papaiation assignment shallbe for not longer than duet months.

A long-term pte-anployment pieparation usivenan shallnot exceed am year.

19. Grant DivIrsion (Subsklize Supported Workor Transitional Employment)

'Than diverdar subsidizes simposted work. traisitionalemployment. or on-the-job training. The recipient's cash grant, or&portion thereof. or the welfam grint savings flan anployment. isdiverted so the usnplayeru a wage *shady.

slupporied Work" is uansitioni4 work experience programin which an inannethery seivice madder offers knensive baskwining for kng-temi recipients Isidi hide or no employmanhistory ix reathetable

"Tramida EM111071WW is tritium and/or employmentin a wink sating emoted for sad* provided by in inteimediaryservice provider that offers asking and experience for participantswho have some routetable skins or a hisiory or employment.

21