-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/e15c6c9a9a0ac8a9c948d8045933475a.pdf
75354602af3ee2c9a6b2485268aedb2b
PDF Text
Text
iNTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO:
BE1HANY LITTLE
FROM:
DAVID AMBROZ
. SUBJECT:
1HE FOSTER CARE CRISIS: 20,000 MORE SOCIAL WORKERS INIATIVE '
OVERBURDENED SOCIAL WORKERS: PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS
By federal law, states that participate in Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) must
provide foster care. States receive matching funds amounting to approXimately half of the families,
because these children would have qualified for AFDC had they remained in the ~ome. According
to the Child Welfare League of America, state and localities continue to fund about 65 percent of all
foster care. While some states directly administer Foster Care/Child Welfare, nearly one third
delegate this authority to their counties, including the states with the largest caseloads -- California,
Pennsylvania, and New York. In 1995, $4.5 billio represented aboht97 percent of all federal
funding targeted to child welfare and protection, . duclidg foster care: Under N-B of the Social.
Security Act, states are eligible for case
and placerrient activities. Title N-B
appropriations increased. 88 percent from' 1983 t
_ t . trend is not expected,' to desist. The
~ederal government's role in Fo~er Care has been ssential in e progr.Un's success, ~. can further ,
mfluence the future of a struggling program.
'~~v~
1 t..ta1d?
crcS.J-.
~I~~ \qq
I
.
~f -'"
. Federal law requires the provision of dir~ct child welfare service to children and families, but total
cost of these services generally cannot he suppOlted with federal funds designated for foster care
alone. The available state funds have been stretched to the limit to increasing demands from other
activities.' The increasing competing demands have' disabled states to :guarantee that child welfare
services are sufficient to meet needs. Statistics cany out the fact that many youth in Child Protective
S,ervices continue to be victims of abuse even in the custody of the st~te. Taken from abusive or
neglectful families and placed in abusive or neglectful foster homes, :foster youth are effectively
abandoned by the state. In designing a progran:l to aid abused children, ,social workers are our front
line fighters. Their relationship, supervision, and friendship with a youth can be the key to a
successful child. However, these front-line workers are unable to meet ,the growing demands as the
number of foster youth grows, and the number of social workers stagnates or declines in most areas
in proportion.
!
l.ow
faJ
Overburdened and underpaid, social workers are unable to effectively imonitor and work with the
children they supervise. In addressing similar problems, federal government has acted to address
social ills like crime and failing public education with programs aimed at increasing teachers and
community police' organizations. With the continued apathy toward the crisis, 100,000 more police
officers may not be enough. Consider the following statistics: Of the 2:5,0 '0 young people that age
out of the foster care system when they reach age 18, only 50% will gr~ ate high school. A mere
11 % will continue on to college, and only 4% will graduate from colleg . Within two to four years,
25% will be, or have been, homeless, 50% are unemployed, and 60% of e women have given birth.
Perhaps the most daunting statistic, studies indicate that 40 t 70 % of ~ e homeless population was
in foster care at some point in their lives, Without the su ort foster y.0u need: from CPS or the
government, many foster youth will end up in jail, on welfar or on the ~reets.
fA- W'~~?
~ MuY~L ~~~
~ "uo1/~etY-F~
CX~~
o
�.. ~' .' r
I
~
·0
·0
e
o
a..
:J:
~
m
z
::;
f2
(.)
:z
::;
�,+I .
Action Plan
In tackling the issue of too few social workers the government can also address in an immediate
fashion other effects oia failing system. T9.beginwith, there are too f~w social workers to deal with
a growing number of foster youth. The simple answer to this is to require states to reduce caseloads,
but at the same time increase funding for new social workers and incre~e their pay.
• Reduce caseloads over the next five years by half. The federal government will provide funds to
do this and increase the salaries of the average social worker by $10,000. How much will this.
::>..
I
cost.
' .
The Child Welfare League of America recommends that for providers of out-of-home services the
number of children per caseload should be 12 to 15: Currently there are approximately 520,000 out
of-home needing foster youth. Additionally, 90 percent of states reported social worker recruiting
and retaining caseworkers as the major problem second only to the growth in the number of foster
youth. In some jurisdictions caseloads have reached 100 cases per caseworker. With 75 percent of
the growth happening in foster youth populations ,occurring in urban areas between 1983 and 1992,
New York serves as an example of the problem, with a 75 percent turnover rate for social workers.
.
chil~
~~~ f~~~ations,
In. 1996, starting salary for caseworkers in
welfare, includinJ
assessments, and intake, ranged from $18,826 to $37,908. Specifically/for social workers that have
more responsibilities than investigations was $25,173. The average sa)ary for casework supervisors
was $).1-;65~-irthe 32 reporting states. According to the Child Welfare League of America, there
were(47 ~Q9..9.Jull time PESitionfilled in Public'Child Welfare Agencies in 1996,.of which 34,178 were
dirett.service positions. And m,e average caseload..fot;' foster ~~as-28.JJ~ .Decreasing
the average caseload to e recOmmenaea12to-1~OUla require an almost 50 percent total
reduction. Enabling this step would require an increase in the number of child welfare workers that
provide direct services to foster youth.
:J '
i
To calculate the cost o{employing 20,000 new direct service providing child welfare workers, we can
determine the highest possible cost by using the high average salaries as a base. Additionally, to
address retention we need to increase their pay by $5,000', which will increase the average pay to
$35,173. The total approximate cost of this dual effort is $774,350,000, If we were to increase pay by
$10,000, and still add the 20,000 new child welfare workers, the i approximate cost would be
$1,0450240,000. An alternate route could take one on at a time. First, focusing on hiring the
additional 20,000 child. welfare workers, and then increasing average pay. However, both fronts must
eventually be addressed in order to make a serious reform effort. The cost can be defrayed over a
time period to be set by states or the federal government.
i
In return for the commitment to increase child welfare workers, the federal government can request ~
that states contribute to the preparation of foster youth by waiving tuition at state schoolS:;-'(/\
Massachusetts has recendy began waiving tui?9n ~t state schools f~r foster you~,. or former fosters '
youth that have been adopted. The program IS esttmated to cost a lime over a million to ensure that
all qualified foster youth have access. . Recognizing the importance ~of education, ensuring acce~
would be a major step toward the preparation of foster youth for adulthood. As part of this effort, d
recent legislation incorporated into the independent living funding act! ~nables stat~ to keep former d Ir
fosteryoutI: enrolled in medical in
ce prog~ ~e in school, call1fe ~Umed, and required_c?
0
to access this new money.
~~
~ ~
~J0
.
~ ~~
;Z ~ S
~
~ ~
d~ ~ ~: ~ d ~ ~~d ~ L}
cl
g 8E3!
t
�Guaranteeing foster youth access to higher education does not preclude preparation. The digital
divide is exacerbated by the extreme poverty and mobility common to this group. Placing a:
computer in each foster home would benefit not on1y the foster child, :but also the foster family that
has opened its home to foster children. According to a recent reporj: by CASA, there are 140,000
licensed foster care homes nationally. At a cost of $900 for a new computer per household, would
cost $126,000,000. This is a high cost estimate considering the possibilities for bulk and government
discounts, used computer acquisition, and government hand-me-down~.
,
.
' .
I
Enabling the states to increase social workers with federal funds, reqOiring tuition grants for foster
youth and adopted foster youth, and extending health coverage to these youth will contribute to a
decrease in the need for 100,000 new community police officers ..
3
�... NOyeSlber 11,1999 -- Fact Sheet on ... 100 Thousand High-Quality Teachers
.
I
http://www.ed.gov/PressReleasesiI 1-1999/wh-1II la.html
1999 White House Education Press Releases and Statements
THE WHITE HGUSE
Office of the Press
For Immediate Release
November
II, 1999
PRESIDENT CLINTON ANNOUNCES AGREEMENT
ON PLAN TO HIRE 100,000 HIGH-QUALITY TEACHERS TO REDUCE CLASS
SIZE
November 11, 1999
AGREEMENT PRESERVES PRESIDENT'S PLAN TO HIRE 100,000 TEACHERS OVER 6
YEARS TO REDUCE CLASS SIZE
- Yesterday, Congressional leaders and the White Hous.e reached an agreement in principle that will
preserve the President's plan to hire 100,000 teachers over the next 6 years to reduce class size in the
early grades.
- The agreement provides at least $1.3 billion in FY 2000, a 10% increase from $1.2 billion in FY 1999.
- The Education Department estimates that communities are using the funds from last year's agreement
to hire more than 29;000 teachers and reduce the average class size for 1.7 million children from 23
down to 18. With this new agreement, communities will be able to keep those 29,000 teachers and hire
more; and stay on track to hire 100,000 teachers to reduce class size in the early grades to a nationwide
average of 18 by. the year 2005.
v
AGREEMENT PROVIDES FOR MORE TEACHERS AND BETTER TEACHERS
- The agreement ensures that all teachers hired under the class size program must be fully qualified.
Teachers must be certified in their state or have completed an alternative route to certification, must have
a baccalaureate degree; and must know the subjects they're teaching and demonstrate the skills to teach
them.
- School districts can spend up to 25% ofthe funds on training existing teachers, testing new teachers,
and providing high-quality professional development to ensure that all teachers have the knowledge and
skills to teach effectively.
- School districts with an exceptionally high percentage (more than 10%) of uncertified elementary
school teachers have the flexibility to use additional funds to help those teacher~ meet certification
standards in time for the 2001-02 school year.
AGREEMENT PROVIDES LOCAL FLEXIBILITY FOR TEACHER TRAINING, NOT
BLOCK GRANTS AND VOUCHERS
- Republicans abandoned their plan to tum the President's class size reduction program into a block
grant. The agreement guarantees that funds must be used primarily to recruit, hire,· and train teachers to
reduce class size in the early grades.
- The bill the President vetoed did not guarantee a single dollar for class size reduction, and would even
have allowed school districts to use the money for vouchers. Under the agreement, taxpay~r dollars will
go for smaller classes in public schools, not vouchers to private schools.
lof2
7/26/20003:13 PM
�• Noye.mber 11, 1999 -- Fact Sheet on...lOO Thousand High-Quality Teachers
http://www.ed.gov/PressReleases/11-1999/wh-lllla.html
- Because the purpose of the program is smaller classes with qualified teachers, the agreement gives
school districts the option to spend up to 25% of the funds on teacher training and testing of new
teachers. This is an increase from 15% last year.
AGREEMENT PRESERVES OTHER KEY ELEMENTS OF PRESIDENT'S PLAN
- The agreement preserves existing provisions to target funds to high-poverty communities, with '80% of
funds allocated on the basis ofpoverty and 20% on the basis of population. This will ensure that children
who stand to gain the most from smaller classes and better teachers will get them.
- The agreement continues to provide communities with flexibility to tailor class size reduction efforts to
meet local needs and priorities.
- The agreement strengthens provisions to hold schools and districts accountable for results by reporting
. .
to parents on progress in reducing class size with fully qualified teachers.
END
-###
E
Last Updated -- November 15, 1999, (mjj)
20f2
7126/20003:13 PM
�INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO:
BElHANY LITTLE
FROM:
DAVID AMBROZ·
SUBJECT:
TIlE FOSTER CARE CRlSIS; 20,000 MORE SOCIAL WORKERS INIATIVE
OVERBURDENED SOCIAL WORKERS: PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS
By federal law, states that participate in Aid to Families. with Dependent Children (AFDC) must
provide foster care. States receive matching funds amounting to approximately half of the families,
because these children would have qualified for AFDC had they remained in the home .. According
to the Child Welfare League of America, state and localities continue to fund about 65 percent of all
foster care. While some states directly administer Foster Care/Child Welfare, nearly one third
delegate this authority to their counties, including the states with the largest caseloads -- California,
Pennsylvania, and New York In 1995, $4.5 billion represented about 97 percent of all federal
funding targeted to child welfare and protection, including foster care. Under IV-B of the Social
Security Act, states are eligible for case management and placement activities. The federal
government's .role in Foster Care. has been essential in the program's success, and can further
influence the future of a struggling program.
Federal law requires the provision o~hild welfare service to children and families, but total
cost of these services generally cannot e supported with federal funds designated for foster care
alone. The available state funds have been stretched to the limit to increasing demands from other
activities. The increasing competing demands have disabled states to guarantee thai child welfare
services are sufficient to meet needs. Statistics carry out the fact that many youth ill Child Protective
Services continue to be victims of abuse even in the custody of the state. Taken from abusive or
neglectful families and placed in abusive or neglectful foster homes, foster youth are effectively
abandoned by the state. In designing a program to aid abused children, social workers are our front
line fighters. Their relationship, supervision, and friendship with a youth can be the key to a
successful child. However, these front-line workers are unable to meet the growing demands as the
number of foster youth grows, and the number of social workers stagnates or declines in most areas
in proportion.
Overburdened and underpaid, social workers are unable to effectively monitor and work with the
children they-supervise. In addressing similar problems, federal government has acted to address
social ills like crime and failing public education with programs aimed at increasing teachers and
community police organizations. With the continued apathy toward the crisis, 100,000 more police
officers may not be enough. Consider the following statistics: Of the 25,000 young people that age
out of the. foster care system when they reach age 18, only 50% will graduate high schooL A mere
11% will continue on to college, and only 4% will graduate from college. Within two to four years,
18% will have been incarcerated, 25% will be, or have been, homeless, 50% are unemployed, and
60% of the women have given birth. Perhaps the most daunting statistic, studies indicaFe that 40 to
70 % of the homeless population was in foster care at some point in their lives. Without the support
foster youth need from CPS or the government, many foster youth will end up in jail, on welfare, or
on the streets.
.
�Action Plan
In tackling the issue of too few social workers the government can also address in an iriunediate
fashion other effects of a failing system. To begin with, there are too few social workers to deal with
a growing number of foster youth. The sim Ie answer to this is to require states 1Q reduce caseloads,
( but at the same time increase funding or new SOCI wor ers all illcrease tneitpa~""""'"--""""'"
~
•
.
"
Reduce case10ads over the next five years by half. The federal government will provide'funds to
do this and increase the salaries of the average social worker by $10,000. How much will this
cost?
"
.
The Child Welfare Le~~tca reco~ends that for p~o'\l:iders ofout-of-home services the
number of children pe c;seh=~:mld be ~Currently there are approximately 520,000 out
of-home needing foster youth. Additionally, 90 percent of states reported social worker recruiting
and retaining caseworkers as the major problem second only to the growth in the number oHoster
youth. In some jurisdictions caseloads have reached 100 cases per caseworker. With 75 percent of
the growth happening in foster youth populations occurring in urban areas between 1983 and 1992,
New York serves as an example of the problem, with a 75 percent turnover rate for social workers.
In 1996, starting salruy for caseworkers in child welfare, including those who do investigations,
assessments, and intake, ranged from $18,826 to $37,908,:. Specifically for social workers that have
more responsibilities than investigation?was $25,173. The average salruy for casework supervisors
was $31,654 in the 32 reporting states. According to the Child Welfare League of Ame~ca, there
were 47, 099fu1l time position filled in Public Child Welfare Agencies in 1996, of~ch 34,178 were
direct service positions. And the a~erage caseload for foster care placements w~This number
is misleading because while caseloads in some rural settings have reached low numbers, in some
jurisdictions, caseloads have reached 100 cases per caseworker. Decreasing the average c').seload to
the recommended 15 to 20 would require an ,almost 50 percent total reduction from the national
average. Enabling this step would require an increase in the' number of child welfare workers that
provide direct services to foster youth.
WV6~
tisDe.:)
k'tAtS
'(v\ffk..<") "))
< .'
Within California, Illin~is, Michigan, New York ~d Texas there were 208,011 foster children in late
1993. Of which New York and California accounted for 70 percent. In examining the incredible ,~,A-:. ~dl'
growth in foste~ youth populatio?s in these stat~s, it is important to ~ote that when researchers ,l.!~ 'tIC"{I. ..,' <jt\::g"
separated the ptunruy urban, area ill each of the ftve states, theydetennmed that 75 percent of the' '~IN\ '
taseloa~ growth ~etween 1983 and 1992 occurred in urban are~s. New York City and C~ca~o were S ( 1",vJ..))
responSible for virtually all of the, foster care caseload growth ill New York State and IllinOIS. Both 'j..:::!9
urban areas experience a tripling of their foster care populations. These new child welfare workers
'CJ«... ~ \
could be targeted to the counties that have theehighest average caseload, which will most likely be in
({)1jII\\f""
\ ~1\:)
urban areas. To avoid efforts to fu~ge caseload average data in order to gain funds, ~e federal ~ ~
. n
government could look at the trends ill these areas, and assess the expected outcome of growth vs.
._
the actual or reported.
W~
To calculate the cost of employing 20,000 new direct service providing child welfare workers, wecan
detennine the highest possible cost by using the high average salaries as a base. Additionally, to
address retention we need to increase their pay by $5,000, which will increase the average pay to
$35,173. The total approximate cost of this dual effort is $774,350,000. If we were to increase pay by
$10,000, and still add the 20,000 new child welfare ,workers, the approximate cost would be
- 2
�$1,04j.Q240,000. An alternate route could take one on at a time. First, focusing on hiring the
additional 20,000 child welfare workers, and then increasing average pay. However, both fronts must
eventually be addressed in order to make a serious reform effort. The cost can be defrayed over a
time period to be set by states or the federal government.
In return for the commitment to increase child welfare workers, the federal government can request
that states contribute to the preparation of foster youth by waiving tuition at state schools.
Massachusetts has recentl be an waiving tuition at state schools for foster youth, or former foster
yoiltJ:i at have been ado ted.
rogram is estimll~bc~li¢e:§Vei"a-:rnillion to ensure that
all qiiiu.Jie foster youth have access, .Recognizing the importance of ~ation, ensmmgaccess
woUlo bea major step toward the preparation of foster youth for adulthood.. As part of this effort,
recent legislation incotporated into the independent living funding act enables states to keep former
foster youth enrolled in medical insurance programs while in school, can be reaffirmed, and required
to access this new money.
Guaranteeing foster youth access to higher education does not preclude preparation. The digital
divide is exacerbated by the extreme poverty and mobility common to this group. Placing a
computer in each foster home would benefit not only the foster child, but also the foster family that
has opened its home to foster children. According to a recent report by CASA, there are 140,000
licensed foster care homes nationally. At a cost of $900 for a new computer per household, would
cost $126,000,000. This is a high cost estimate considering the possibilities for bulk and government
discounts, used computer acquisition, and government hand-me-downs.
Enabling the states to increase social workers with federal funds, requiring tuition grants for foster
youth and adopted fqster youth, and extending health coverage to these youth will combine to
address many of the negative outcomes of the current CPS. By increasing the number of child·
welfare workers, thereby decreasing caseloads, foster families can receive the support and attention
d decrease the attrition rate for f
from the foster child's social worker. This su 0
families. In a similar fashion, a decrease in caseload size ould increase e retentlon rate or so
"ti""',...u.,~,--Fewef' eases"translates mto 'le;s"7tTe'ss, and~es me-saIarymoreC'OmparamerO'the"w6rk
~The ability for child welfare workers to develop relauonsfiips WlfFi"fosfer youihSliOuld
mean that they can be better advocates for the youth's interests, and participate in a more meaningful
manner in his/her development and recuperation.
3
�,,,", Class-Size Reduction
f
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESEIClassSize/
·:.~jdQriCei:
. ·'-w-. "--or_:
. .' i '.
:l~";:~~;( .•...
.
Contact:
Phone:(202) 260-8228
Fax: (202) 260-8969
class size@ed.gov.
The Class-Size Reduction Program is an initiative to help schools improve student learning by hiring
additional, highly qualified teachers so thatchildren - especially those in the early elementary grades
- can attend smaller classes.
A growing body of research demonstrates that students attending small classes in the early grades make
more rapid educational progress than students in larger classes, and that these achievement gains persist
well after students move on to larger classes in later grades.
School districts are currently receiving funds - a total of $1.3 billion
that will enable them to
recruit, hire, and train new teachers for the 2000-2001 school year. This is just the first installment of an
initiative that is anticipated to provide $12.4 billion over 7 years to help schools hire 100,000 new
teachers and reduce class size in the early grades to a nationwide average of 18.
Schools are:
• Recruiting, hiring, and training new teachers, especially for the early elementary grades .
•~~romoting high-quality teaching and providing professional development opportunities for their
teachers.
.
• Pr~paring to issue public "report cards" to inform parents and communities about progress in
red~cing class size and improving student achievement.
Early Implementation Reports that school districts and States are submitting show that districts are
hiring thousands of teachers with these funds andjn many cases are supplementing the funds to hire
additional teachers. These teachers are being placed primarily in grades one through three and class sizes
are being reduced significantly as a result.
.
Children will: .
• Receive more personal attention in smaller classes;
• Acquire a solid foundation for further learning; and
.
• Learn to read independently and well by the end of the third grade.
How are grants awarded?
. Starting on July 3, 2000, the Department of Education sent Class-Size Reduction funds to all States, the
10f2
7/26/20003:16 PM
�http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/ClassSize/
Class-Size Reduction
,
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Outlying Areas, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The amount of
each allocation is based on the formula contained in either Title I or Title II of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, whichever would result in the larger amount for the State or entity.
School districts apply directly to their States for sub grants. Through the formula for school district
grants, funds are targeted to high poverty communities, but most districts will receive awards.
Applicant Information I Early Implementation Reports I Guidance I Legislation I Q & A I Research I Other Links .
OESE
~~t; Home
. tl
~
This page last modified July 20, 2000 (~g)
20f2
7126/20003:16 PM
�.
.
. , Class Size Reduction - Questions & Answers
http://www.ed.gov/oflices/OESE/ClassSize/general.html
Class-Size Reduction
General Qs&As
1. How will the Administration's first investment in the Class-Size Reduction initiative help
reach the goal of hiring 100,000 new teachers?
The Administration is committed to providing funding to hire 100,000 teachers over the next
seven years - approximately $7.3 billion over five years ($12 billion over seven years) within the
context of a balanced budget. Last year, the federal government began acting on this commitment
by appropriating $1.2 billion dollars to help states hire approximately 30,000 teachers this fall.
This year the Administration's budget request for fiscal year 2000 includes another $1.4 billion for
the class-size reduction initiative.
'
2. How will the money be distributed? Will this money reach the children who need it most?
Each state has received a formula allocation based on the greater amount of either the State's share
of Title I or Eisenhower State Grant funds. Within states, money will be distributed to districts
using a formula, 80% based on Census poverty data and 20% based on student enrollment.
Targeting the majority of federal funds toward high need districts is an important part of the
program, because the benefits of smaller class sizes have been shown to be greatest among poor
and minority children. Research on Project STAR in Tennessee and Wisconsin's SAGE program
have shown that smaller class sizes can go a long way toward closing the achievement gap
between this nation's white and minority children.
Also, the recently released study of California's effort to reduce class size found that California's
lack of such targeting led to disproportionate drains of teacher quality and other resources in
schools that have large numbers ofhigh poverty or minority students. The Administration IS
current program, and proposed continuation oJit, both prevents and helps reverse the difficulty
inner city and high poverty schools have in hiring and keeping the best teachers.
3. Do class-size reduction efforts really affect student achievement?
The Tennessee Project STAR (Student/Teacher Achievement Ratio) study has consistently
demonstrated that reducing class sizes in the early grades to fewer than 18 students significantly
increases children's reading and mathematics scores. These gains are particularly significant
among economically disadvantaged students and minority students. The Project STAR results
have been confirmed by researchers studying Wisconsin's SAGE (Student Achievement Guarantee
in Education) Program, and in the CSR Research Consortium's early analysis of the California
class-size reduction reform effort. As in Project STAR, students participating in the SAGE
class-size reduction effort outperformed their counterparts in larger classrooms on standardized
tests. These benefits were strongest among African-American students who had larger gains than
their white counterparts, again suggesting that reduced class sizes may be an effective measure for
closing the "achievement gap" between black and white students. Follow-up studies released this
year ofthe Project STAR study show that students who start out in smaller classes get an
academic advantage that stays with them through high school graduation, and are more likely to
prepare for college by taking advanced placement courses. These benefits remained especially
significant for disadvantaged students and minority students.
4. What about the recent report on the California Class-Size Reduction Initiative? Don't those
results show that reducing class 'size does not necessarily improve student achievement?
Even based on the results of only one year of.smaller classes, California has seen gains in student
achievement - across ethnic groups, income groups and language ability - as a result of reducing
class sizes. However, researchers suggest that these gains could have been greater had more of the
resourc~s gone to districts serving more poor and minority students and to ensuring that all
children received instruction from high quality, certified teachers. The current Class-Size
Reduction Program, and the Administration's proposal to extend it, targets federal funds to high
10f4
7/26120003:40 PM
�'w
Class Size Reduction - Questions & Answers
http://www .ed.gov1oflices/O ESE/ClassSizelgeneral.html
poverty districts and provides funds to strengthen teacher quality. California's experience
demonstrates the need to improve teacher quality while reducing class sizes, and to maintain a
separate funding stream dedicated to reducing class size in targeted schools.
5. Why is the Administration's program focused on grades 1-3? Wouldn't our money be better
spent if it were focused on just kindergarten students or spread across all grades?
Research has shown significant differences in achievement among students who attended small
classes for one, two, three or four years. More importantly, researchers found that students need to
receive instruction in small class rooms for at least three years in order to sustain maximum
academic benefits of small classes in the early grades through later grades. The advantages of
attending a small class from kindergarten through third grades translate into receiving an
additional six months to fourteen months of schooling. Research shows that targeting funds
towards the early grades is the most effective way to reduce class sizes in order to produce and
sustain academic gains throughout a student's educational career.
6. How will this initiative ensure that students in these smaller classes have qualified teachers?
(What good are smaller classes if schools have to hire unqualified teachers to teach them?)
Teacher quality is critical and efforts to promote high quality professional development and
alternative teacher recruitment strategies must go hand-in-hand with reducing class sizes in grades
1-3 to 18 or fewer students. When combined with small classes, research suggests that high
quality teachers will enhance student achievement. That is why the program requires districts to
hire certified teachers and specifically enables LEAs to use 15% of Class-Size Reduction funds to
improve teacher quality. These activities could include training teachers in proven practices such·
as those identified in the National Academy of Sciences report, Preventing Reading Difficulties in
Young Children, and in effective practices for teaching small classes; testing new teachers before
they are hired; and providing more rigorous support systems for beginning teachers.
.
While many states have begun work to reduce class sizes, these efforts should be paired with
promoting professional development and teacher quality improvement. North Carolina, for
example, instituted a class-size reduction plan in 1993, and was named by Education Week this
year as the top state in efforts to improve teacher quality. Oklahoma, which has mandated that
class sizes drop to below 20 students, is improving teacher quality through strong mentor and
teacher preparation programs.
7. Most school administrators agree that they'd like to lower class size, but they cannot find
teachers to fill classrooms now. Where will the new teachers come from?
We recognize that getting well-trained teachers into all classrooms is a problem in many areas,
and this initiative does a number of things to help address this problem.
Working conditions are as great an issue for teachers as for any other workers in America. Smaller
classes change a school's learning environment and can provide a substantial positive incentive for
teachers, including former teachers and prospective teachers considering the profession, to enter
and remain in the field. This stands to have a particularly great effect for new teachers, 22% of
whom currently leave the profession within the first three years. In Wisconsin, Tennessee and
California, teachers in small classes have said that they are able to provide students with more
individual attention and spend more time actively teaching and less time dealing with discipline
and classroom behavior issues.
In addition, this initiative will be phased in over seven years so that there will not be a large hiring
requirement at one time. California's rapid implementation of class-size reduction coincided with a
decline in overall preparation of its teacher workforce. The rate of teachers in California with
emergency credentials increased statewide, and rose ten-fold in high-poverty schools because of
these schools' inability to compete for better-qualified teachers. By phasing in the initiative over
seven years, schools and school districts are allowed the appropriate planning time that is crucial
20f4
7/26/20003:40 PM
�.
Class Size Reduction - Questions & Answers
.'
http://www .ed.govloflices/OESE/ClassSizelgeneral.html
whenever new staff are being recruited, trained and hired.
Class-Size Reduction funds can also be used for recruitment. States in which the demand for
teachers is high could recruit in other states whose colleges of education produce more teachers
than are needed in the state. Districts can use these funds creatively to compete successfully for
highly qualified teachers and to support them through such activities as mentor programs.
The Administration also is proposing several ways to increase the pool ofteachers. These include:
• Continuing and expanding the popular and successful Troops to Teachers program to
include mid-career professionals who can add years of expertise in their fields to the
classroom.
• Establishing a National Job Ban!<: and Clearinghouse to help teachers and districts connect
to fill positions nationwide.
'. Removing roadblocks to recruitment, including increasing the portability of teachers'
credentials, pensions, and years of experience.
• Placing a priority on professional development proposals that support new teachers during
their first three years in the classroom.
We already know that over the next few years, U.S. schools will face the challenge of hiring
approximately 2.2 million teachers due to increasing enrollment, continued attrition and the
retirement of veteran teachers. This initiative would only increase that number by 4.5%, and
combined incentives built into the program, and current efforts at the federal and state level to
draw more teachers into the profession, would go a long way toward filling that need.
8. How can school districts hire new teachers without the certainty that federal funding will be
provided in future years? Will districts be left with no way to fund all ofthe new teachers
promised?
Last year, 'Congress made an historic commitment to parents to reduce class size by appropriating
$1.2 billion to hire 30,000 teachers. The Administration is fully committed to requesting funding
on a yearly basis, has requestc::d $1.4 billion for the next year's funding, and looks forward to
continued cooperation with Congress on this effort. Class size reduction is a critical piece of the
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and the Administration's
proposal- the Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999 - would provide States with
five years of support.
Because reducing class sizes in grades 1-3 will be a large effort, it requires a sustained
commitment from all of the local, state, and federal partners. The reauthorization proposal would
require a local match to help communities sustain their class-size reduction efforts, although this
matching requirement would not apply to school districts with poverty levels of greater than 50
percent. Experience shows that requiring recipients to corilmit their own resources can help ensure
that programs continue by giving them an investment in the success of the program.
9. Some states have already taken steps to reduce cla~s size. How will this initiative help them?
States like California, Indiana and Nevada that have taken a lead in reducing class size, and the
many other states that have joined the effort, can use these federal funds to expand their efforts
even further. Class-size reduction efforts in Tennessee, Wisconsin and California have been
studied extensively, and there is growing momentum across the nation. Other states-including
Florida, Iowa, North Carolina, Utah and Virginia, have initiated efforts-both voluntary and
mandatory-to reduce class sizes in the early grades. Alabama, Maryland and Minnesota have also
recently enacted legislation aimed at reducing class size.
Under the reauthorization proposal, states will be able to use these funds to supplement their
30f4
7/26/20003:40 PM
�Class Size Reduction - Questions & Answers
.
"
http://www.ed.gOYloffices/OESE/ClassSizelgeneral.html
efforts by: (1) making further class-size reductions in grades 1-3; (2) reducing class size in
kindergarten or other grades if class sizes in grades 1-3 are already at 18 or below; (3) carrying out
activities to improve teacher quality, including providing more and better professional
development for teachers, (4) targeting funds towards the highest need districts and students, and
(5) in the case of small districts that may not receive enough federal funds to hire an additional
teacher, combining the funding with other local, state, or federal money to hire a teacher.
10. Where will schools put new teachers and new classrooms? Many school buildings are
already overcrowded and pressed for space.
There are a number of issues that must be dealt with when reducing class size, including the
adequacy of facilities. Again, California made several mid-course adjustments in their class-size
reduction efforts, including changes to increase classroom space and improve facilities. Current
conditions cannot be allowed to continue. Congressman Rangel's "Public School Modernization
Act," which would leverage almost $25 billion in state and local School Modernization Bonds
over the next two years to help build and modernize up to 6,000 public schools, would help
address this· issue.
11. Why is the federal government getting involved in yet another local issue? It's the
responsibility of states and local school districts to reduce class size.
The federal government has played an essential role in strengthening education at various times of
critical need for our country. This class-size reduction initiative meets such a need, not by
encroaching on the primary state and local role in education, but by enhancing it. The initiative
does not dictate how teachers are hired, what they should teach, or how they should teach. Instead,
it creates opportunities for local communities to hire more and better teachers and to better support
those teachers so that they can improve educational achievement for all of our children.
Creating smaller classes with good teachers is an effort for local communities, states and the
federal government to work on together, as partners. Achieving this goal should not be narrowly
considered the responsibility of solely the COminunity, the state, or the federal government - it is a
national responsibility.
12. How do private schools participate in the class-size reduction initiative?
If a local school district chooses to use Class-Size Reduction funds for professional development
activities, the district must ensure that private school personnel participate equitably in those
activities. However, the ~quitable participationTequirement does not apply to other activities
under this program, and the funds may not be used to hire teachers for private schools.
Return to Questions and Answers
This page last modified September 3, 1999 (trtlils)
40f4
7/26120003:40 PM
�'"._t : '
....
~ ~ ~
~~~ ~.).'sl"\
\
c.e\u~"1
!\
';."
...
.: '
:>,
"
"
CLINTON LIBRARY PHOTOCOPY
�http://www.ed.gov/gearup/gustate.html
1999 GEAR UP State Grant Awards
ABOUT TIlE PROGRAM
RESOURCES
CONTACT US
1999 GEAR UP State Awards
Alaska
Alaska Department of Education
Contact: Bruce Johnson
907-465-8689
$1,227,994
California
Regents of the University of California
Contact: Dennis Galligani
510-987-9518
$4,997,828
Colorado
State of Colorado
Contact: Dr. Elaine Moretz
303-860-1422
$1,314,741
Connecticut
Connecticut Board of Governors/Statt:
Department of Higher Education
Contact: Arthur Poole
860-947-1833
$1,500,000
\
Indiana
$2,562,998
Maine
State of Maine, Dept. of Education
Contact: Pamela Gatcomb
207-287-5306
$1,186,400
Maryland
Maryland State Department of Education
Contact: Paula Despot
410-767-0514
$2,768,883
Massach usetts
Massachusetts Board of Higher Education
Contact: Jack Warner
617-727-7785
$2,000,000
Minnesota
Minnesota Higher Education Services
Office
Contact: Philip M. Lewenstein
651-642-0554
$1,500,000
Montana
lof3
State Student Assistance
Commission of Indiana
Contact: Floyd L Worley Jr.I Patricia Moss
317-233-2100
Montana Office of the Commissioner of
Higher Education
$1,947,790
7/26/200012:54 PM
�http://www.ed.gov/gearup/gustate.htrnl
1999 GEAR UP State Grant A wards
II Contact: Joyce Scott
406-444-6570
I
I
I
New Jersey Commission on Higher
Education
Contact: Dr. Angela C. Suchanic
609-292-2955
New Mexico Commission on Higher
Education
Contact: Bruce Hamlett
505-827-7383
New Jersey
New Mexico
----
$1,416,027
$1,031,000
..........
--
_._-
__ H.
....
..-
_...
._.
-
-_....._..._
New York State Higher Education Services
Corp.
Contact: Robert J Maurer
518-474-5592
New York
(
,
.,
---
..
$729,036
Ohio Board of Regents .
Contact: E. Garrison Walters
614-466-0885
$1,012,926
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State Regents for Higher
Education
Contact: Hans Brisch
405-524-9100
$3,369,600
Rhode Island
Rhode Island Office of Higher Education
Contact: RI Children's Crusade for Higher
Education, Mary Harrison, Exec. Dir.
401-854-5500
$1,220,118
South Carolina
South Carolina Commission on Higher
Education
Contact: T. Michael Raley
803-737-2271
I Ohio
I
I
I Vermont
•
Washington
I Wisconsin
I
Texas Education Agency
Contact: Evelyn LevskyHiatt
512-463-9455
$4,583,898
Vermont Student Assistance Corporation
Contact: Linda Shiller
802-655-9602
$1,125,901
State of Washington, Office of the
Governor
Contact: John F. McLain
360-753-7856
I Texas
20f3
. $1,865,219
$2,728,645
Wisconsin Department of Public
Instruction
Contact: Paul Sprag ins (414) 227-4413
$1,498,836
7/26/2000 12:54 PM
�http://www.ed.gov/gearup/gupartner.html
1999 'GEAR UP Partnership Awards
ABOUT THE PROGRAM
FUNDING
RESOURCES
CONTACT US
1999 GEAR UP Partnership Awards
Alabama
Gadsden
. $328,000
Alabama
Selma
Wallace Community College Selma
Contact: Ronda Westry
334-876-9259
$126,728
Arizona
Sacaton
Sacaton Elementary School Distr,ict
Contact: Dr. Leon Ben
520-562-3339
$191,200
Arizona
Tucson
Tucson Unified School District
Contact: Kristan Olsen
520-617-6060
$258,186
Arkansas
Harrison
North Arkansas College
Contact: Pamela Richiert
870-391-3135
Arkansas
Hot Springs
Garland County Community College
Contact: Dr. Linda Stumbaugh
501-760-4229
$502,610
California·
Bellflower
Bellflower Unified School District
Contact: Dennis Collier
562-920-1801
$390,063
California
Berkeley
"I Have a Dream Foundation-Oakland"
Contact: Martha C. Cook
510-548-7227
$219,430
California
Fresno
California State University, Fresno FDN
Contact: Alejandra Juarez
559-278-2271
$240,000
California
Fullerton
California State University, Fullerton
Contact: Silas Abrego
714-278-3221
$184,863
California
1 of 14
Gadsden State Community College
Contact: Brenda Crowe
256-549-8228
California State University, Hayward
$2,807,516
$70,168
7/26/2000 12:55 PM
�http://www.ed.gov/gearup/gupartner.html
1999 GEAR UP Partnership A wards
I Hayward
Foundation
Contact: Antonio Andrade
51 0~885-3008
California
La Jolla
University of California/Regents-Student
Educational Advancement
Contact: Loren C Thompson
619-534-3544
California
Long Beach
Long Beach Unified School District
Contact: Jerry E Stover
562-997-8307
California
Los Angeles
Cal State LA
Contact: David Godoy
323-343-3200
$416,764
$600,104
,
._._...
$476,007
1
1
California
Los Angeles
Los Angeles Unified School District
Contact: Anna Eleftheriou
323-256-2123
$444,
087
1
1
California
Los Angeles
Los Angeles Unified School District
Contact: Cheryl Mabey, Executive Director,
Project Grad Los Angeles
213-477-2576
California
Los Angeles
Los Angeles Unified School District - Office
ofthe Superintendent
Contact: Susan Bonoff
818-769-8510
$560,000
California
Northridge
California State University at Northridge
University Corporation
Contact: Warren Furumoto
818-677 -5207
$639,989
California
Redding
Shasta-Tehama Trinity Joint Community
College District
Contact: Victoria Hindes
530-225-3929
$222,154
California
Reedley
Reedley College .
Contact: Thomas Crow
559-638-3641
$2,022,145
$310,
707
1
1
California
Salinas
Hartnell College
Contact: Roland Montemayor
831-759-6075
$486,869
California
San Diego
San Diego State University
Contact: Ian Pump ian
619-594-7179
$398,363
1
California
San Francisco
2 of 14
San Francisco Unified School District
Contact: Susan Wong
1
1
$320,000 I
I
7126/200012:55 PM
�1999 GEAR UP Partnership Awards
I
http://www.ed.gov/gearup/gupartner.htmi
I
California
San Jose
415-241-6234
San Jose'State University
Contact: Xiaolu Hu
I 408-924-3668
!
$738,144
California
San Marcos
California State University, San Marcos
Contact: Carolina C Cardenas
760-750-4872
$320,000
California
San Marcos
Palomar Community College District
Contact: Lise S. Telson
760-744-1150
$440,000
California
Santa Ana
Santa Ana Unified School District
Contact: Roger L. Bratcher
714-558-5679
$760,345
California
Vallejo
Solano Community College
Contact: Stan Arterberry
707-864-7000 xt120
$120,000
California
Weed
College of the Siskiyous
Contact: Dee Hoffman Wills
530-938-5359
$143,594
Colorado
Boulder
Boulder Valley School District RE-2
Contact: Lori Canova
303-604-9070
I
Colorado
Greeley
I University of Northern Colorado
I
$49,600
$216,000
Contact: Ray Romero
970-351-1905
University of Connecticut, Office of
Sponsored Programs, U133
Contact: John C. Bennett, Jr
860-486-0752
$90,756
Federated States of
Micronesia
Kosrae
College of Micronesia - FSM Kosrae
Campus
Contact: Kalwin Kephas
691-370-3191
$354,438
Florida
Fort Lauderdale
Broward Community College
Contact: Hillary Fox
954-761-7588
$102,848
Florida
Fort Pierce
Indian River Community College
Contact: Jack Maxwell
561-462-4704
$541,103
School Board of Alachua County
Contact: Dr. Donna Orner
352-955-7529
$269,512
Connecticut
Storrs
i
I
I
I
I
!
Florida
Gainesville
30f14
7/26/200012:55 PM
�1999 GEAR UP Partnership Awards
http://www.ed.gov/gearup/gupartner.html
I
I'
I
Florida
Jacksonville
Duval, County Public Schools
Curriculum and Instructional Services
Contact: Patricia Cascone
904-390-2186
Florida
Lakeland
Southeastern College of the Assemblies of
God
Contact: James F. Ferrell
941-667-0740
$99,895.12
Florida
Miami
Florida International University Board of
Regents
Contact: Gustavo A. Roig
305-348-3700
$789,149
Florida
Miami
Florida International University Division
Sponsored Research
Contact: Lois Wolfe"Oreater Urban Education
Pact
305-919-5836
$647,920
$272,000
,
Florida
Orlando
East CampusNalencia Community College
Contact: Joyce Romano
407-299-5000
$354,400
Florida
Orlando
Valencia Comm College-Osceola Campus
Student Services
Contact: Joyce Romano
407-299-5000
$252,000
Florida
Orlando
West Campus of Valencia Community
College
Contact: Joyce Romano
407-299-5000
$267,200
[ Florida
Tampa
Georgia
Thomasville
I
<f:?4(), ~
University of South Florida
Contact: Jerome Lieberman
813-974-3785
Thomas College
Contact: Cynthia Drayton
912-226-1621
I
Georgia
Thomasville
Thomas College
Contact: Melanie Martin
912-226-1621
Georgia
Tifton
Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College
Educational Outreach and Youth
Connection
Contact: Vonda Doss
912-386-3815
$247,842
....
" ""'"
, Guam
4 of 14
University of Guam
$279,905
7/26/2000 12:55 PM
�1999 GEAR UP Partnership Awards
http://www.ed.gov/gearup/gupartner.html
I Mangilao
I
Illinois
Chicago
M'"
•
____
Illinois
Chicago
I
I
The Board of Trustees of the University of
Illinois – Principals Scholars
Program
Contact: Lynette O'Neal
217-333-0234
Illinois
Champaign
.
Contact: Julia R. Sisson
671-735-2460
-
".M•••
_."."•••••_
Columbia College Chicago
Contact: Julie Simpson
312-344-7091
.__... .....-... _
..............
......_.... ....-..
Northeastern Illinois University Education Alliance
Contact: Wendy Stack
312-7j3-7330
"."
"
"
_'M'
'""-
_ ...·M_"
__..........
$192,000
$284,0441
_ ",_".M••M••
_M"
""_M"'M _
1
Chicago
$3,843,598
The Board of Trustees of the U.I.e.
Contact: Dr Diane Hodges/ John Long
312-996-8182
Illinois
Chicago
oo
$329,423
1
1
I South Illinois University at Edwardsville
Illinois
East St Louis
$240,000
East St . Louis Center
Contact: Patricia Harrison
618-482-6912
Illinois
Harvey
Harvey Public School District 152
Contact: Lela A. Bridges
708-333-0300
. $260,000 1
Illinois
Springfield
University of Illinois at Springfield
Contact: Nancy Fqrd
217-206-6576
$279,963
I
Illinois
Ullin
Indiana
Bloomington
I
1
Shawnee Community College
Contact: Tim Bellamey
618-634-2242
$185,
Indiana University
Contact: Dean William Harwood
812-855-4964
$182,
Gary Community School Corporation
Contact: Mary E. Guinn 219-881-5401
[ Indiana
Gary
069
1
174
1
$684,288 [
I
I Des Moines Independent Community School
Iowa
Des Moines
I
Kansas
Coffeyville
I
5 of 14
---
$169,600
District
Contact: Dr Ron Sallade
515-242-7890
Coffeyville Unified School District 445
Contact: Wesley S. Dreyer
316-252-6800
..._...._,,--_..
.M
. { ". . .o o. . . . .
"
,, ____
_
•• M • • • • • •" ••••••• _
•• M •••
O.
L__
II
$151,
027
1
I
7/26/2000 12:55 PM
�http://www.ed.gov/gearup/gupartner.htmI
1999 GEAR UP Partnership A wards
Kansas
Lawrence
University of Kansas
Contact: Maritza Machado-Williams
785-864-3971
$190,893
Kansas·
Lawrence
University of Kansas Center for Research,
Inc.
Contact: Ngondi Kamatuka
785-864-7440
$208,000
Kansas
Lawrence
University of Kansas Center for Research,
Inc.
Contact: Drs. Donald D. Deshler & Jean B.
Schumaker
785-864-4780
$383,606
'_nO
u ..
.......
~
Kansas
Manhattan
Kansas State University
Contact: Reginald McGowan
785-532-6497
$257,098
Kansas
Parsons
Labette Community College
Contact: Ronald J Fundis
316-421-6700
$248,000
1
$339, 993
1
$234,500
1
Wichita Public Schools/USD 259
Contact: Terry Behrendt
316-833-4052
Kansas
Wichita
Clinton County Board of Education
Contact: Paula Little
606-387-9772
Kentucky
Albany
I
,
I
Kentucky
Berea
Berea College
Contact: Dreama Gentry
606-986-9341
$325,431
Kentucky
Elizabethtown
Elizabethtown Community College
Contact: Lisa Addington
270-737-7897
$358,393
Kentucky
Hickman
Fulton County Schools
Contact: Jennifer Van Waes
502-762-3493
$370,344
Kentucky
Somerset
Pulaski County Public Schools
Contact: Virginia Hess
606-679-1123
Maine
Farmington
Maryland
Annapolis
60f14
.
University of Maine at Farmington
Contact: Doug Rawlings
207-778-7292
$159,554
Anne Arundel County Public Schools
Annapolis Middle School
Contact: Daniel McFarland
410-222-5310
$256,800
7/26/2000 12:55 PM
�1999 GEAR UP Partnership Awards
http://www ,ed.gOY1gearupl gupartner .html
.
Harford Community College
Contact: Katherine McGuire
410-836-4102
Maryland
Bel Air
,
$96,
818
1
1
Massachusetts
Boston
Boston Public Schools
Contact: Ann Coles
617-635-9685
Massachusetts
Boston
University of Massachusetts/Boston
Contact: Joan Becker
617-287-5840
$320,000
Massachusetts
Gardner
Mount Wachusett Community College
Contact: Daniel M. Asquino
978-632-6600
$360,000
Massachusetts
Lowell
University of Massachusetts Lowell
Contact: Linda Silka
978-934-4247
$554,400
Michigan
Benton Harbor
Lake Michigan College
Contact: Janice Varney
616-927-8170
Michigan
Mount Pleasant
Central Michigan University Institutional Diversity
Contact: David W Williams
517-774-3700
Michigan
Muskegon
Public Schools of the City of Muskegon
Contact: Linda Riepma
616-720-2039
$175,200
Michigan
Rochester
Oakland University
Contact: Lynn R. Hockenberger
248-370-4455
$270,063
Missouri
Columbia
The Curators of the University of Missouri
Contact: Dennis Kivlighan
573-882-5097
Missouri
Kansas City
Curators of the Univ. of Missouri
Contact: Linda J. Carter .
816-235-1163
$416,000
Missouri
St. Louis
Curators of the University of Missouri on
Behalf of the University of Missouri-St.
Louis
Contact: Patricia Simmons
314-516-5794
$223,989
$1,307,200
Office of
1
$382,967
$229,
1
1
352
1
1
F================"'" F=-"="""'============""==============~F==========~I
Minnesota
St. Olaf College
$240,000
Northfield
Contact: Janis Johnson
507-646-3780
.................................................._........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................11
.
7 of 14
7126/2000 12:55 PM
�http://www.ed.gov/gearup/gupartner.html
1999 GEAR UP Partnership Awards
Montana
Pablo
Salish Kootenai College
Contact: Heather Licht, SKC
406-675-4800
Nebraska
Omaha
Omaha Public Schools District Science Center-'Mann
Contact: William Lutz
402-557-3720
............
Nebraska
Winnebago
'MM_M
..
"
--_._-
$526,627
ML King
$3l3,600
,-"
$79,488
Little Priest Tribal College
Contact: Kathy Sanders
I 402-878-2380
I
New Jersey
Camden
Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
Contact: Gloria Bonilla-Santiago
609-225-6348
$129,600
New Jersey
Englewood
Englewood Public Schools Contact: Richard Segall
201-833-6185
$144,000
New Jersey
Newark
New Jersey Institute of Technology
Center for Pre-College Programs
Contact: Henry McCloud
973-596-5841
$144,000
New Mexico
Mora
La Jicarita Enterprise Community
Contact: Michael Rivera
505-387-2293
$380,250
New Mexico
Portales
Eastern New Mexico University
Contact: Karyl Lyne
505-562-2458 "
$208,435
New York
Binghamton "
Research Foundation of SUNY at
Binghamton - Office of Research and
Sponsored Programs
Contact: Linda Devitis
607 -777 -6770
$325,831
New York
Bronx
Research Foundation CUNY
Contact: Marietta Saravia-Shore
718-960-7869
New York
Bronx
New York
Buffalo
District
I Research Foundation of CUNY on Behalf of
$1,320,000
$100,000
Bronx Community College
"Contact: Ms. Casandra Levine
718-289-5184
DtyouviUe College
I Contact: Stacy A Slagor
$695,812
I 716-878-2728
J
II New York
80f14
.
I Adelphi University
$402,875
7/26/200012:55 PM
�http://www.ed.gov/gearup/gupartner.htm
1999 GEAR UP Partnership A wards
Garden City
I Contact: Devin Thornburg
.
516-877-3168
I
F==================
·Nassau Community College
New York
Contact: Marilyn Monroe
Garden City
516-572-9883
$377,196
St Johns University - Division of Special
and Opportunity Programs
Contact: Deborah Saldana
718-990-1476
New York
Jamaica
$232,494
IF================-·~F·-=··-============-================~P============~I
New York
Long Island City
LaGuardia Comm College
Affairs
Contact: M'shell Patterson
718-482-5049
New York
New York
New York University
Contact: Lamar P Miller
212-998-5138
New York
Staten Island
The College of Staten Island
Contact: Drs. James Sanders and Leonard
Ciaccio
718-982-2325
$240,000
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute·
Contact: Mark D. Smith
518-276-6272
$319,793
Appalachian State University
Contact: Susan McCracken
828-262-2291
$194,269
I Troy York
New
.
.
Academic
$1,519,988
$96,000
I
North Carolina
Boone
Halifax County Schools
Contact: Valerie Knight
I 252-583-5111
IF====================
Southwestern Community College
North Carolina
Contact: Dr Connie Haire
Syiva
828-586-4091
North Carolina
Halifax
Ohio
Akron
~
The University of Akron
Contact: A. Bradley McClain
. 330-972-6805
$797,623
$361,691
$271,722
I
IF===================~
Ohio
Cincinnati
$328,000
Ohio
Cleveland·
9 of 14
University of Cincinnati, Office of
Sponsored Programs
Contact: Lawrence Johnson
513-556-2322
Cuyahoga Community College
Contact: Louis Niro
216-987-4196
$312,000
7/26/200012:55 PM
�http://www.ed.gov/gearup/gupartner.html
1999 GEAR UP Partnership Awards
Lorain City Schools
Contact: Carol A. Hoffman
440-366-4670
Ohio
Lorain
$643,
246
1
1
Ohio
Portsmouth
Shawnee State University – Ohio
Appalachian Center Higher Education
Contact: Wayne F White, Executive Director
740-355-2299
Oklahoma
Ada
East Central University
Contact: Evelyn Martin
580-310-5758
Oklahoma
Checotah
Checotah Independent School District #19
Checotah Public Schools
Contact: Kathy Emerson
918-473-2239
$102,018
Oklahoma
Jay
Jay Independent School District #1
Contact: Cindy Weaver
918-253-4413
$160,451
Oklahoma
Locust Grove
Locust Grove Independent School District
#17
Contact: Glinna Fleming
918-479-5243
$143,171
$412,000
,
Oklahoma
Miami
$133,498
Oklahoma
Muskogee
Muskogee Independent School Distri~t #20
Contact: Derryl Venters
918-684-3700
$398,134
Oklahoma
Oklahoma City
Oklahoma City Public SchoolslDistrict 1-89
- Educational Services Division
Contact: Leroy Walser
405-297-6868
$2,944,091
Oklahoma
Stilwell
Stilwell Independent School District #25
Contact: Mary Fletcher
918-696-4228
Oklahoma
Tahlequah
Tahlequah Independent School District #35
Contact: Deborah Coley
918-458-4164
$157,543
Oklahoma
Tulsa
Tulsa County Independent School District
#1
Contact: Joe Birdwell
918-746-6523
$947,430
Pennsylvania
Glenside
1.0 of 14
Miami Public Schools
Contact: Loretta Robinson
918-542-8455
Beaver College - GatewaylACT 101
Contact: Dr. Doreen Loury
$127,792
I
7/26/2000 12:55 PM
�http://www.ed.gov/gearup/gupartner.htmI
.1999 GEAR UP Partnership Awards
215-572-4087
II
School District of Lancaster
Contact: Stacy Galiatsos
717-291-6149
Pennsylvania
Lancaster
I
II
I
$125,209 1
1
School District of Philadelphia
Contact: Mary Jane Clancy
215-875-3801
Pennsylvania
Philadelphia
.. .
_
....
_
••• n
...... ...
"
.M
..
-_.._ --.
"-,,._ _._...
_.
"',
$3,344,000
-_.",.._ .
....
-
Puerto Rico
Gurabo
Universidad del Turaco
Contact: Dennis Alicea-Rodriguez
787-743-7979
$306,000
Puerto Rico
Ponce
Pontifical Catholic University/Puerto Rico
Contact: Mary Owen
787-841-2000
$240,000
Puerto Rico
San Juan
Inter American University of Puerto Rico
Contact: Alma Z Martinez
787-284-1912
$429,492 1
1
Puerto Rico
San Juan
Inter American University of P. R.
Contact: Maria Y Perez
787-892-5400
$155,500
South Carolina
Beaufort
Technical College of the Low Country
Contact: Gail Quick, VP for Student and
College Development, TCL
843-525-8216
$110,000
South Carolina
Orangeburg
Claflin College
Contact: Gwendolyn B Phillips
803-535-5283
$200,000 1
Tennessee
Chattanooga
The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
Contact: Dr. Mary Tanner
423-755-4431
Tennessee
Dyersburg
Dyersburg State Community College
Contact: Douglas B. Tarpley
901-286-3346
Tennessee
Memphis
Memphis City Schools
Contact: Theresa Utley
901-325-5589
r
xas
Baytown
Texas
Brownsville
. 11 of 14
._.n............... _
......._
_
........
...
..
-_........
$214,369 1
$306,400 1
$641,874 1
Lee College
Contact: Dean Tom Sanders
281-425-6400
__ l
I
..
...._._._-_...
H.
_._.
_._
University of Texas/Brownsville & Texas
South most College
Contact: Dr. Margie Mancillas
956-548-6502
L
$4~5'3261
$1,391,396
712612000 12:55 PM
�1999 GEAR UPPaltneiship WWards
.,
http://www.ed.gov/gearup/gupartner.html
'\"*
i
EI Centro College
Contacf: Lisa Theriot
214-860-2263
$324,000
Texas Wonian's University
Contact: Rudy Rodriguez
940-898-3991
Texas
Dallas
$412,983
,
Texas
Denton
,.
,~,
Texas
Denton
University of North Texas
Contact: James Poirot
940-565-2121
$317,863
Texas
Edinburg
Regional One Education Center
Contact: Dr. Sylvia R. Hatton
956-984-6001
$500,000 I
EI Paso Community College
Contact: Dr. Cecilia Cervantes
,
915-831-5001
Texas
El Paso
___,__"'_
II
". _____
"._.""m~
..""..""'..,_"'_""'"
-
""............... .....,,,,,._-_._........
----
"""""._--"
$490,749
"\
-
.........................." .......__..................
,-,--'" """""-"""-"""
The University of Texas at EI Paso
Outreach Programs
Contact: Sandra Braham
915-747-5149
$188,066
Texas
El Paso
Y sleta Independent School District
Contact: Barbara Trousdale
915-859-1613
$133,108
Texas
Houston
Houston Independent School District
Local Education Agency
Contact: Ada Cooper
713-892-6818
Texas
El Paso
I
.......M ....
-",
...."".
""""""''''''''''''''
$2,387,439
....__.
_
..........................."._._
Texas
Nacogdoches
Stephen F Austin State University
Department of Secondary Education and
Educational Leadership
Contact: Betty J Alford
409-468-2908
$522,839
Texas
Odessa
Odessa College
Contact: Hyta Folsom
915-335-6829
$239,273
Texas
San Antonio
University of Texas at San Antonio
Contact: Rene Cantu Jr.
210-458-2315
$360,500
--_..... .
Texas'
Waco
Texas
Weatherford
12 of 14
M •••
.'
--"
Baylor University
Contact: Cassie FindleylRosemary Townsend
254-710-4988
Weatherford College
Contact: Dr. Shirley Chenault
$1,156,375
$207,279
7/26/200012:55 PM
�http://www.ed.gov/gearup/gupartner.html
1999 GEAR UP 'Partnership Awards
817-598-6337
Utah
Blanding
San Juan School District
Contact: Patrick McDermott
435-678-1217
$168,459
Utah
Provo
Provo City School District
Contact: Nancy Passaretti
801-370-4609
$517,104
Virginia
Arlington
Arlington Public Schools
Contact: Katharine G. Panfil
703-228-7655
$356,216
Virginia
Newport News
Newport News Public Schools
Contact: Vanessa Whitaker
757-591-4924
$546,177
Virginia
Richmond
Richmond Public Schools
Contact: Arthur J Johnson
804-780-7658
$560,000
Washington
Lakewood
Pierce College
Contact: Cherry Tinker
253-964-6269
$202,468
Washington
Pasco
Columbia Basin College
Contact: Lynda Meyers
509-547-0511
$463,603
Washington
Renton
Renton School District #403
Contact: Jay Leviton
425-204-2310
$128, 178
1
1
Washington
Seattle
University of Washington Minority Affairs
Contact: Tom Colonnese
206-543-7453
Office of
$982,400
West Virginia
Fairmont
Fairmont State College
Contact: Denise Whittaker
304-367-4215
Wisconsin'
Eau Claire
University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire
Contact: Joseph C Hisrich
715-836:-4542
$212,000
Wisconsin
Milwaukee
Board of Regents of the University of
Wisconsin System
Contact: Gary Williams
414-229-5566
$765,611
Wisconsin
Milwaukee
Milwaukee Public Schools
Contact: Alan S Brown
414-475-8142
$2,351,200
'"
13 of 14
$855,344
712612000 12:55 PM
�1999 GEAR UP Partnership A wards
http://www.ed.gov/gearup/gupartner.html
"
I
I
Wyoming
Riverton
Central Wyoming College
Contact: Mohameed Waheed
307-855-2186
$401,606
Gear Up Home Page
This page last updated April 13, 2000 (~
14 of 14
7/26/200012:55 PM
�To: Bethany, Kendra
From: Randy
Re: GEAR UP, COPS, 100,000 Teachers
,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GEAR UP
In recognition of the need to provide a true opportunity to a quality education that all
children deserve, GEAR UP was signed into law as part of the Higher Education
Amendments of 1998 (Public Law 105-244). GEAR UP is designed to enable more
young Americans to stay in school, study hard, and take the right courses to go to college.
It is aimed at enabling low-income communities and States to create new or expanded
plans that strengthen their schools and provide educational opportunities for
low-income students. Based upon proven models, GEAR UP supports local schools,
community- based organizations, businesses, institutions of higher education, and States
to work together to help students and their parents gain needed knowledge, and
strengthen academic programs and student services in the schools. Through GEAR UP,
the U.S. Department of Education addresses the challenge to help more low-income
students become prepared academically and financially to enter into and succeed in
college.
GEAR UP offers two kinds of support~ Partnership and State Grants.
Partnership Grants are five year matching grants to increase college attendance rates
among low income youth popUlation. State Grants are also five year matching grants,
however, they are awarded to States to provide early.college awareness activities,
improved academic support infoffi1ation on paying for college, and scholarships for
participating students. The proposed programs must treat low income students as a
priority or work with a whole grade level of students in order to raise expectations for all
students.
Please see the attached documents for more detailed infoffi1ation on the different Grant
programs.
FY2000 Information
The Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2000 Funds GEAR UP at $200
Million:
At this level, GEAR UP Partnerships and State Grantees will provide services to more
than an estimated 482,000 disadvantaged students in the 2000-2001 school year. $153
million of the $200 million will go to fund continuation grants, making $47 million
available for new State and Partnership grants. This funding level will mean awarding
about 75 new partnership grants and approximately 6 new state grants in 2000, based on
FY1999.
GEAR UP Is Already Building Pathways to College for More than 250,000
Disadvantaged Youth: In August, President Clinton announced the first GEAR UP grants
to 21 states and 164 partnerships of colleges and middle schools across the country.
�These grants will serve more than 250,000 disadvantaged children, encouraging them to
have high expectations, stay in school, study hard, and take the right courses to go to
college. 43 states and territories received either a State or Partnership grant. GEAR UP
provides multi-year competitive grants to States and to local partnerships between
colleges, low-income middle schools and high schools, and at least two other
organizations, such as businesses, community based, religious, or parent organizations,
and student groups. The current GEAR UP partnerships involve more than 1,000
organizations, such as the YMCA, Boys and Girls Clubs, libraries, local chambers of
commerce, and individual companies such as Wal-Mart, Unisys, and Bell Atlantic.
www.ed.gov/gearup
COPS
Cities and counties across the nation are turning to community policing. Community
policing is a strategy that builds on fundamental policing practices with an emphasis on
crime prevention and lasting solutions to problems. It requires new resolve from citizens
and new thinking from police officers.
Community poliCing reduces crime and fear while restoring a sense of order. But it also
can rebuild the bond between citizens and government.
Police officers and sheriffs deputies, as public servants who interact with citizens on a
daily basis, have a unique opportunity to demonstrate the importance of citizen
involvement in the community. In tum, they realize that their authority and effectiveness
are linked di~ectly to the support they receive
from citiiens. When fully embraced, community policing is democracy at its
be~.
'
The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 authorized funds to
promote community policing and add 100,000 community policing officers to our
nation's streets. The U.S. Department of Justice created the Office of Community
Oriented Policing Services (COPS) to carry out this mission.
On May 12, 1999, the U.S. Department of Justice and COPS reached an important
milestone by funding the 100,000th officer ahead of schedule and under budget.
How the program works
Through grants and cooperative agreements to assist communities tackle crime and
disorder programs are the heart of the COPS program. Nearly $1 billion in grants and
training are awarded almost every year.
While most COPS grant funding is dedicated to hiring and redeploying community police
officers, the COPS Office also provides other assistance .. This includes initiatives to
foster partnerships, advance community government, and target specific crime problems
(such as domestic violence, methamphetamine production, and school-related crime).
Select any of the programs below to discover details on the myriad of COPS initiatives
that may be helpful to your efforts to promote community policing and fight crime.
�I.
..
Examples of COPS Programs
UHF -Universal Hiring Program
Purpose: To provide funding directly to local, state and tribal jurisdictions for salaries
and benefits of officers engaged in community policing. To assist law enforcement
agencies in partnering with their communities. To provide funding for the hiring of
additional community policing officers.
Overview: The Universal Hiring Program (UHP) was implemented immediately after
COPS FAST and COPS AHEAD and this grant incorporates both programs into one.
Therefore, UHP provides funding to all eligible communities, regardless of size, for, the
direct hire of police officers and sheriffs' deputies. The newly hired officers are deployed
into community policing or a ·comparable amount of veteran officers must be redeployed
into community policing in their place. Similar to the previous programs, UHF
funding constitutes 75 percent of an entry-level officer's salary and benefits or a total of
$75,000 per officer, whichever is less. Generally, departments contribute at least 25
percent in local matching funds, unless the grantee has requested a waiver of the local
match. UHP is a continuous program.
Announcement: There have been more than 48 announcement rounds for the Universal
Hiring Program since December 1995.
F1fnding: As of Ocotober 1999, approximately $6 billion was awarded to hire more than
103,000 officers.
Community PolicinglDomestic Violence FY 1998 (CPIDV)
Purpose: The COPS office promotes a philosophy that supports organizational strategies
to address the causes and reduce the fear of crime and social disorder through problem
solving tactics and community policing partnerships. In 1998, Congress appropriated .
approximately $12.5 million to create a new program entitled "Community Policing to
Combat Domestic Violence". Established pursuant to section 170 1(d) ofpart Q of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968.
The current COPS initiatives seek to provide a multi-pronged approach by funding
community policing/domestic violence test sites, training and research initiatives.
www.usdoj.gov/cops
Reducing Class Size Initiative
The Class-Size Reduction Program is an initiative to help schools improve student
learning by hiring additional, highly qualified teachers so that children
especially
those in the early elementary grades
can attend smaller classes.
A growing body of research demonstrates that students attending small classes in the
early grades make more rapid educational progress than students in larger classes, and
�..
that these achievement gains persist well after students move on to larger classes in later
grades .
. School districts are currently receiving funds
a total of $1.3 billion
that will enable
them to recruit, hire, and train new teachers for the 2000-2001 school year. This is just
the first installment of an initiative that is anticipated to provide $12.4 billion over 7 years
to help schools hire 100,000 new teachers and reduce class size in the early grades to a
nationwide average of 18..
Schools are:
eRecruiting, hiring, and training new teachers, especially for the early elementary grades.
ePromoting high-quality teaching and providing professional development opportunities
for their teachers.
ePreparing to issue public "report cards" to' info~ parents and communities about
progress in reducing class size and improving student achievement.
Early Implementation Reports that school districts and States are submitting show that
districts are hiring thousands of teachers with these funds and in many cases are
supplementing the funds to hire additional teachers. These teachers' are being placed
primarily in grades one through three and class sizes are being reduced significantly as a
result.
Children will:
eReceive more personal attention in smaller classes;
eAcquire a solid foundation for further learning
eLearn to read independently and well by the end of the third grade.
How are grants awarded?
"Starting on July 3, 2000, the Department of Education sent Class-Size Reduction funds to
all States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Outlying Areas, and the Bureau of
Indian Affairs. The amount of each allocation is based on the formula contained in either
Title I or Title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, whichever would
result in the larger amount for the State or entity.
School districts apply directly to their States for sub-grants. Through the formula for
school district grants, funds are targeted to high poverty communities, but most districts
will receive awards.
Attached is the President's press release regarding the new program.
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/ClassSize/
.
�LEVEL 1
1 OF 1 STORY
Copyright 1995 The Washington Post
The Washington Post
<=1>
View Related Topics
February 14,1995, Tuesday, Final Edition
SECTION: Editorial; Pg. A14
LENGTH: 527 words
HEADLINE: Block Grants for Crime?
BODY:
THE HOUSE moved yesterday to consideration of the last in the current series
of crime bills
a couple have been postponed until the spring -- promised in
the "Contract With America." This one has drawn the heaviest fire from the
administration, including a threat by President Clinton that he will veto the
measure if it passes in its current form. The bill would substantially change
the law enacted only last fall by eliminating three sets of grant programs:, $,
8.8 billion for hiring new police; $ 1 billion for drug courts; and $ 4 billion
for social programs of various sorts designed to prevent crime. In their stead,
the Republicans would authorize a $ 10 billion program of block grants to local
authorities to be used for the general purpose of reducing crime and improving
public safety. The president wants at least to preserve the mandatory funding of
what he says will be 100,000 new cops on the street.
When last year's bill was enacted, that 100,000 figure was cited as the most
important feature of the law. Almost immediately, though, it was challenged by
law enforcement experts and some local officials. In fact, the law created a
five-year matching program during which the federal government's share
diminished and eventually disappeared, leaving localities with the full cost of
maintaining the new officers. Since the maximum federal contribution could not
have exceeded $ 15,000 a year per new hire, the program would never have
supplied enough to pay salary, benefits, pensions and other costs, so the cities
would have had to come up with a lot of upfront money many say they don't have.
So put aside the 100,000 figure, and the issue boils ,down to whether
decisions about the expenditure of law enforcement dollars are best made locally
or nationally. There's a lot of hypocrisy in the debate, with Republicans, who
put all sorts of restrictions on the use of prison construction money, claiming
that local authorities should be given complet'e discretion here, and Democrats
citing horror stories about the misuse of Law Enforcement Assistance Act grants
made ,to communities 20 years ago, when they were in control of
Our sense is that the world won't end if local authorities are given more
flexibility. In some cities, like this one, the greatest need may not be \
additional police on the roster, but better equipment, specialized training or
'even midnight basketball. And if some towns don't have matching funds available,
what's wrong with letting them use federal funds for less expensive but still
effective programs rather than for costly hiring? It is true that any federal
grants program ought to be monitored for abuse and that some spending -- for the
purchase of aircraft, for example, or even for research
could be prohibited.
But if cities already have a drug court, as Washington does, and a fully staffed
police force, what's wrong with using federal funds for social workers in
juvenile'detention facilities, or for improving computer systems to track
parolees? " One hundred thousand cops" sounds good, but congressional failure
to include that mandate is not worth a presidential veto.
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
LOAD-DATE: February 14, 1995
�I,. GrantsiSection
.
http://www.usdoj.gov/cops/gpa/grant-prog/default.htm
~
ne,ws
& infDrmatlon
grantee
toolbox
commuaity
polk;ing Rlsooroe1i
I'medom of
information oot
COMMUNITY ORJENTf!D POLICING S!RVICES'
U.S. OEPARTMe,.r OF JUSTICE
Grants,Programs & Activities
Training and
Grants/Cooperative Ag reements
T£dtl1ical As);islancl.'!
(ompli<lnCll and
Monitllriog
Program Msi!$SMt!tl1
8. Poli4.)' SUIJport
Grants and cooperative agreements to assist communities
tackle crime an(j disorder programs are the heart of the COPS
program. Nearly $1 billion in grants and training are awarded
almost every year.
Re-lated Information
Current Funding
Oppoftu miles
Grant
While most COPS grant funding is dedicated to hirin~ and
redemOYinH community police officers, the COPS Olce also
provies 0 her assistance. This includes initiatives to foster
partnerships, advance community government, and target
specific crime problems (such as domestic violence.
methamphetamine production. and school-related crime).
Select any of the programs below to discover details on the
myriad of COPS initiatives that may be helpful to your efforts
to promote community policing and fight crime.
Hiring/Rei::leployment Grants·
Innovative Grants/Cooperative Agreements
Advancing Community Government Cooperative
.Agreements
.. International City/County Management Association (lCMA)
IlL National Association of Drug Courts
10f2
7/26/20004:25 PM
�, Grants,Section
http://www.usdoj.gov/cops/gpa/grantyrogldefault.htm
II! US Conference of Mayors
II! Community Safety Partnership
Conferences
ilia Beyond the Rhetoric
iii What Works: Research and Practice Conference
www.usdoj.gov/cops/gpa/grant.J>rogldefault.htm
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Community Oriented Pol
.
1100 Vermont Avenue, NW, Was
20530
514-2058
DOJ Response Center: 1 (800) 421-6770
Last updated: 04/03/00
20f2
7/26/20004:25 PM
�,
I
,
n order to officially begin your grant, you will need to review the Award Page and Conditions, sign the new
Award, Modified Award or Supplemental Award Page, and return it to:
"
,
COPS Universal Hiring Program
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS)
1100 Vermont Ave., NW
Washington. DC 20530
,
(For overnight delivery, please use 20005 as the zip code.)
You will be able to draw down grant funds after:
1: The COPS Office approves your budget.
2. You sign your Award Page or Modified Award Page and return it to the COPS Office.
3. After steps one and two are completed, you may access your grant funds through the PAPRS or LOCES systems.
See'Section II, "Accessing Grant Funds;" for more information.
, The Award Page is the one-page, double-sided document indicating your official grant funding amount, the
award number, the award date and the grant time period.
The Award Page also contains preprinted information of your law enforcement and government officials'
names and addresses. If this information is incorrect or has changed, please correct it on the correction page
attached to the Award Page.
Your grant number is in this format: 95-CF-WX-OOOO, 95-CC-WX-OOOO, 95-UL-WX-OOOO or 95-UM-WX-OOOO for
grants awarded in FY 1995; 96-UL-WX-OOOO or 96-UM-WX-OOOO for grants awarded in FY 1996; 97-UL-WX-OOOO
or 97-UM-WX-OOOO for grants awarded in FY 1997; and 98-UL-WX-OOO and 98-UM-WX-OOOO for grants awarded
in FY 1998. It is used for financial purposes and should be referred to when dealing with the Office of the
Comptroller.
Your ORl, number begins with your state abbreviation followed by numbers and/or letters. This number is
assigned by the Federal Bureau of Investigation for use in tracking information for the Uniform Crime Report.
The COPS Office tracks grant information based upon this ORI number.
11
�If you have any questions regarding your grant, please refer to your grant award
number or your agency's ORI number, and we will do our best to assist you.
What is a Modified Award?
In a small number of cases, a Modified Award Page may be included in this
mailing. The final grant amount on this document may differ from the estimated
amount on your original Award Page because the final gran~ amount is based
upon your approved budget. If you
receiving a Modified Award. take careful
note of the change between your estimated award amount on the original
document and the actual amount on the Modified Award. If you have any
questions about the modification. refer to your budget clearance memorandum.
If you still have questions. please contact your financial analyst. After you review
and understand this document, please sign. make a copy for your records and
mail the original back to the COPS Office with your payment selection sheet.
are
What is a Supplemental Award?
A Supplemental Grant Award is an addition to your existing COPS FAST.
AHEAD or UHP award. We use the same grant award number as was given
to you in the initial award and simply add money. officers and time to the
terms of the grant. For example. Hessville Police Department received a
COPS FAST grant award in 1995 of $75,000 for one officer. Their FAST grant
award number is 95-CF-WX-0001. Their FAST award start date was April 1,
1995. and their end date is March 31, 1998.
Hessville then filled out a one-page Universal Hiring Program application in
September 1995. This application requested new officers for 1996. In May of
1996. the COPS Office sent a notification letter to Hessville that it would be
receiving another officer through the Universal Hiring Program. In order to
streamline the administrative process for Hessville and the COPS Office. the
COPS Office simply added the money to the Original award. added one officer.
and added a year to the end date of the original FAST award. Now, under the
supplemental Universal Hiring Program, Hessville has a total of two officers
for $150,000. Their grant start date remains April 1. 1995. but now, their grant
end date is March 31, 1999.
12 .
Your award page gives your award
amount, award number, award
date and grant period. You must
sign and relUrn this document to
accept your COPS lIHP award.
�What are the benefits of the Supplemental Award rather than a new award?
Every time Hessville gets a new grant award, that award is accompanied by the administrative requirements
of quarterly Financial Status Reports and annual Progress Reports. When all of the officers are together on the
same grant award. then you can report on them all at once. rather than reporting multiple times..
When is my Supp~emental Award ,start date?
Refer to your UHP Supplemental Award document for this date. Your Supplemental Award may only provide
funding for those UHP officers who were hired after this date.
As a recipient of a Supplemental Grant Award, should I adhere.to the grant conditions under
my original COPS FAST/AHEAD award or my COPS Universal Hiring Program award?
We have written the grant conditions for your UHPaward so that they complement those of your FAST or
AHEAD award. Grant condition number two (2) for all supplemental awards clearly states:
Your agency remains subject to the same terms and conditions as were set forth in.the original FAST or AHEAD award.
The grant conditions are the terms listed on the back of your Award Page. By accepting this grant. you are entering
into an agreement with the U.S. Department ofJustice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS).
As part of that agreement. you agree to these 11 grant conditions (and possibly additional conditions specific to
your agency). The section that follows describes in detail each of the award conditions, their rationale and their
implications, It also addresses many commonly asked questions.
In special cases. a grant condition that your agency may receive will prevent draw down or access to your funds
until it is satisfied. For example. you will not be able to draw down funds 'until yourhudget receives final clearance.
If you receive an award with a budget special condition. your budget has not received final clearance. In those,
cases. you will receive notification in writing when your budget has been cleared. It should be clear to you
when you review the award page and any corresponding grant conditions which. if any. would prevent draw
downs until satisfied. However. if.you have any questions about these conditions. please call your grant advisor.
13
�Reasons for grant conditions
The requirements of your COPS Universal Hiring grant are established within:
• The Public Safety Partnership and Community Policing Act of 1994
under which the COPS Office was established; and
• Applicable rules. regulations and policies issued by the Department of
Justice. Office of Management and Budget (OMB). the General
Accounting Office (GAO) and the United States Treasury.
You may request copies of any source reference document from:
There are 11 grant conditions that
you agree to when you accept this
UHP. grant.
Office of Administration
Publication Unit. Room G 236
New Executive qffice Building
Washington. DC 20503
or COPS documents from either the COPS Office or the Office of the
Comptroller.
Review of grant conditions
1.
ALLOWABLE COSTS
The funding under this project is for the payment of SALARIES AND APPROVED
FRINGE BENEFITS for three years for sworn entry-level career law enforcement
officers. lateral transfers or rehired officers. Grant funds may not be applied to portions
of salaries above entry level. Rather. such amounts must be provided for by the grant
recipient. Overtime. training, weapons, communication equipment and vehicles
cannot be paid for with this funding.
Why This Condition: The COPS Universal Hiring Program is a program
that can fund only entry-level salaries and benefits for the hiring or rehiring of
career law enforcement officers. .
What You Should Do: Salaries covered by COPS grants must be reasonable
for the services rendered and paid to an officer appointed under the laws or
rules governing hiring by your agency. Salary payments must be based on
14
�payroll records supported by time and attendance records or the equivalent. The types of records you must
keep to document that you are following this grant condition are described in Section IV of this manual.
Fringe benefits may be paid if they are part of a reasonable compensation package offered to your employees
and if they fall within the categories authorized by the COPS Office which include FICA, Social Security, health
insurance, life insurance, vacation, sick leave, retirement, worker's compensation and unemployment insurance.
Equipment, overtime, training. uniforms, weapons, and such costs other than salaries and benefits are not
allowed. However, if you train your officers prior to swearing them in, grant funds may be applied to salaries
and benefits paid to the new officers during training. As long as you spend the funds on salary and benefits
that you documented in your budget summary and that were approved by your financial analyst. this condition
will be satisfied.
2.
FISCAL YEAR AND COGNIZANT FEDERAL AGENCY
Prior to withdrawal offunds under this award, the recipient must provide the Control Desk, Office of the Comptroller, with
the recipient organization s fiscal year and the name of the recipient organization s Cognizant Federal Agency.
Why This Condition: In order to ensure that your agency is in compliance with Federal audit requirements
and OMB regulations, the Office of the Comptroller and the Cognizant Feder"al Agencies must coordinate tracking
of all Federal funds awarded under grants. To accomplish this. we need yoV-r cooperation in gathering the infor
mation.
What You Should Do: This information was requested in the application form you submitted for COPS
Universal Hiring Program. In most cases this condition has been satisfied. However. if you did not provide this
information. your Cognizant Federal Agency is the Federal department or agency that provides you with the
most Federal money. It may have been assigned to your jurisdiction previously. If this is your first Federal grant.
your Cognizant Federal Agency is the U.S. Department ofJustice. Please contact your grant advisor if you have
any questions about the identity of your Cognizant Federal Agency.
3. SUPPLEMENTING, NOT SUPPLANTING
COPS Universal Hiring Program grant funds must be used to hire one or more new, additional career law enforcement
officers, beyond the number ofofficers that would be hired or employed by the grantee in the absence ofthe grant. Generally
speaking, in the case of a grantee starting a new law enforcement agency, the grantee must continue the level ofservice, if
any, previously proVided on a contract and utilize the grant funds to expand the level ofservice. Unless authorized in writ
ing by the COPS Office, grant funds may not be applied to the salary or benefits ofan officer hired by a grantee prior to
your Universal Hiring Grant award date.
15
�Why This Condition: The Public Safety Partnership and Community Policing Act of 1994 specifically states
that Federal funds under the COPS programs may not be used to supplant local or state funds which would be
spent on law enforcement purposes in the absence of the C<?PS grant.
What You Should Do: COPS Universal Hiring funds may not replace resources the grantee would have used
or had committed to use for law enforcerrient purposes without the grant. COPS funds are expected to increase
the grantee's force level above the number of funded (filled and vacant) sworn positions existing as of May 1.
1995, plus any additional funds added to the law enforcement budget for sworn officers since that date. The
Public Safety Partnership and Community PoliCing Act of 1994 specifically states that Federal funds under the
COPS programs are not used to supplant existing local or state funds. You may,· however, transfer a veteran
officer to the community policing position and use COPS funds to hire a new officer to replace the redeployed
veteran.
To meet this grant condition, you will need to ensure that:
• Each officer that you hire under COPS Universal Hiring is newly hired (after your Universal Hiring award
date or Supplemental Award start date, as may be applicable), unless an exception is authorized in writing
by the COPS Office Legal Division: Please contact the COPS Office Legal Division at (202) 514-3750 for further
information.
• The officer(s) that you are hiring brings your force to a number over and above your previously funded
sworn force.
• During the life of your grant, you must continue to hire as many new, locally-funded officers as you would
. have if you had not received your grant. (You may not cancel or postpone spending money in your budget
that is committed to hiring other new officers.)
• You must take positive and timely steps to fill any vacancies that were created on or after your grant award
date by retirement, reSignation or other reasons with new officers other than your COPS Universal Hiring
officer. Again, any exception must be authorized in writing by the COPS Office Legal Division.
• You do not reduce your locally funded baseline of sworn personnel as a result of receiving the COPS funding.
A "career law enforcement officer" is an officer hired on a permanent basis who is authorized by law or by a
state or local public agency to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection or investigation of violations of
criminal law.
4.
RETENTION
Your agency is expected to develop a plan to retain the positions funded by the COPS Universal Hiring
Program grant funds at the conclusion of the grant.
16
�!
Why This Condition: The Public Safety Partnership and Community Policing
Act of 1994 envisions that positions for officers should be maintained by locali
ties beyond the Federal funding period. The local match and the provision of a
decreasing Federal share were established to enable communities to adequately
plan for paying the salaries and benefits of the new officers without burdening
them with the full cost of hiring a new officer. It is up to your agency to
determine how the Federal share decreases from year to year. Please refer to
your application budget information sheet that you pro~ided to the COPS
Office to review your Federal/local share plan.
What You Should Do: Your retention plan, which must be submitted to the
COPS Office for review, should focus on maintaining the position beyond the
life of the grant, not continuing to employ the specific officer. If, for any
reason, the officer originally filling the position funded by the COPS Universal
Hiring Program grant leaves your department, it is anticipated that you will fill
the position with a new officer.
5.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY PLAN (EEOP)
For grants of $500,000 or more, the grantee acknowledges that Jailure to submit an
acceptable Equal Employment Opportunity Plan (if the grantee is reqUired to submit one
under 28 CFR 42.302) that is approved by the Office ofJustice Programs, Office for Civil
Rights, is a violation of its Assurances and Certifications and mew result in the suspen
sion of the draw down of funds. For grants under $500,000. the grantee must submit a
completed EEOP Certification form and return it. within 120 days ofthe grant award. to:
Office of Civil Rights
Office of Justice Programs
810 7th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20531
Why This Condition: The purpose ofan Equal Employment Opportunity Plan
(EEOP) is to ensure full and equal participation of men and women regardless of
race or national origin in the work force of the reCipient agency. EEOPs do not
impose quotas or hiring requirements. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOl) reg
ulations regarding the requirements for an EEOP for Federal grant recipients and
the required contents of the document are fully explained in 28 C.ER. 42.301~.
17
)
Your agency must develop awritten
plan to retain the UHP positions
after Federal funding has ended.
�What You Should Do: u.s. DO] regulations require you to prepare and maintain an EEOP if your organization:
(i) has· 50 or more employees; and
(ii) received a total of $25,000 or more in grants or subgrants; and
(iii) has 3 percent or more minorities in its service population. Even if there is less than 3 percent of minorities
in the service population, the DO] regulations require that the EEOP be written to focus on women.
Grantees that meet criteria (i) and (iii) above and received $500,000 or more or a total of $1 million in grant
funds during an IS-month period, are required to submit an EEOP to:
Office of Civil Rights
Office of Justice Programs
810 7th Street. NW
Washington, DC 20531
If you meet the above criteria but your grant is for less than $500,000 and you have received less than $1 million
in grant funds during an IS-month period, you need to complete and return the one-page COPS EEOP
Certification form within 120 days of your grant award to advise us whether you have an EEOP in effect or
whether you are exempt from this requirement. If you need help preparing an EEOP, please consult the Seven
Step Guide to Preparing an EEOP included in this award package.
6. REpORfS
.,
In order to assist the COPS Office in the monitoring of the award, your agency will be responsible for submitting annu
al Progress Reports and quarterly Financial Status Reports. As those reports become due, your grant advisor and finan
cial analyst will provide you with the forms and information necessary for compliance.
Why This Condition: The Public Safety Partnership and Community PoliCing Act of 1994 and other Federal
regulations and policies reqUire that financial assistance provided by the Federal gover:nment be monitored
carefully to ensure the proper use of Federal funds. In addition, the COPS Office seeks to document, on a continuing
basis. the progress of our programs and our grantees.
What You Should Do: This grant condition is to make you aware of your responsibilities in assisting us with
reporting requirements. These reports are discussed extensively in Section VI of this man·ual. To meet this condition,
you will be reques~ed to fill out one Program Progress Report per year and four Financial Status Reports per year.
18
�7. EXTENSIONS
Requests for extensions. without additional funding. of the grant award period should be submitted in writing to your
grant advisor no sooner than two years after the official start date of the award.
Why.This Condition: Under Federal regulations. requests to extend the grant period require prior approval.
Without an approved extension, your funding will be automatically stopped at the end of the grant period.
What You Should Do: In an effort to reduce the number of extensions during the grant period. the COPS
Office asks that you delay any request for an extension until you are well into your grant and are able to determine
accurately when you expect the grant to be over. When the COPS Office receives and approves your extension
request. we will ensure that you have continued access to your grant monies.
8.
CONTRACTS WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS
Officers funded under this grant may only be involved in activities or perform services that exclusively benefit your agency
and the population that it serves. If your agency contracts for its officers with another law enforcement agency. your
agency is responsible for ensuring that this arrangement is in compliance with the conditions of your grant.
Why This Condition: Occasionally. small towns enter into contracts with county or state law enforcement
agencies. When a small town decides to use its COPS Universal Hiring Program grant to contract for the services
of an officer from a local police department or sheriff's office. the small town must ensure that the activities of
the officer are in accordance with the terms. and conditions of its Universal Hiring Program grant.
What You Should Do: Any officer that has been funded under the COPS Universal Hiring Program cannot
be hired out by your agency to other agencies unless it will directly benefit the population that you serve. If
your department will contract with another department for the officer funded under this grant, you must
ensure that the contract is in accordance with the terms and conditions of your Universal Hiring Program grant.
9.
EVALUATION
The COPS Office may conduct national evaluations of the community policing activities of its grantees and other COPS
funded initiatives. The grantee agrees to cooperate with the evaluators.
Why This Condition: The Public Safety Partnershi p and Community PoliCing Act of 1994 states that evaluations
of the program may be carried out or commissioned by the Attorney General for the furtherance of the purposes
19
�of the Act. The CO PS Office plans to conduct evaluations to determine what programs are working, how programs
may be improved and why certain programs are working better than others.
Specifically, the COPS Office may assess the way in which you implement your community policing program.
In some jurisdictions, COPS staff or evaluators may study the effectiveness of funded programs, projects and
activities. Evaluators may collect information about the programs' effect on crime, victims of crime and the
quality of life in communities. In addition. they may ask questions about how residents feel about community
poliCing and how police feel about their work. This information will be useful to other communities and police
agencies across the country.
What You Should Do: When evaluations are undertaken, you may be contacted in writing with specific
requests for information. In general. evaluators may need to speak with individuals in your department,
observe activities of your department, and obtain written reports about and from your department. You will be
asked to facilitate any site visits and information-gathering activities. In addition. you will be asked to provide
. accurate and timely information about your grant activities.
10. GRANT OWNER'S MANUAL
The grantee agrees to abide by the terms, conditions imd regulations as found in the COPS Universal Hiring Program
Grant Owner s Manual.
. .
Why This Condition: This manual has been tailored to inform you of the poliCies, procedures and regulations
that apply to your grant. You will be responsible for the information and rules contained in this manuaL More
detailed gUidance can be requested through your grant advisor.
What You Should Do: Please read the entire COPS Universal Hiring Program Grant Owner's Manual carefully
prior to signing the grant Award Page. If you have any questions,please contact your grant advisor. When you
sign the Award Page, you should ensure that the proper reporting and financial systems are in place to satisfy
the requirements.
11. EMPLOYMENT ELIGIBILITY
The grantee agrees to complete and keep on file. as appropriate. an Immigration and Naturalization Service
. Employment Eligibility Verification Form (1-9). This form is to be used by recipients of Federal funds to verify
that persons are eligible to work in the United States.
20
�,
·
O
"
,·,Two KINDS OF SUPPORTARE'AvAllABlE:
'
.
<
..
,,- ~
,,~
I
,
PARTNERSHIP GRANTS'AND STATE.GRANTS
"
'
ver the years, one of the most important Federal 'roles in higher education has
been to improve access to college for all students. Yet, although the percentage
of low-income students enrolled in college has increased, the enrollment gap
between high and low-income students has not narrowed. According to a recent study
published by the U.S. Department of Education, Factors Related to College Enrollment,
1998. only 43 percent of children from low-income families enroll in college after high
school, compared to almost 83 percent of children from middle- and high-income
families.
Two r~asons for this persistent disparity in college enrollment rates are students' level
of academic preparedness and the quality of information students and parents have
about the cost of attending college and available financial aid. The fact is, low-income
students are significantly less likely than their more advantaged peers to enroll in key
college-preparatory courses during middle and high school years. And, low-income
parents are more likely to overestimate the cost of college and be less aware of
available financial assistance than more affluent parents.
Research tells us that a key strategy in combating these problems is to plant the seeds
of college aspirations and expectations in the minds of students and parents as early as
possible by providing the knowledge, support and programs needed to make these
dreams a reality. Recognizing the wisdom of early intervention, President Clinton and
tDe Congress, through the Higher Education Amendments of 1998, created GEAR UP
'and within GEAR UP two kinds of grants.
A Partnership Grant application must be submitted on behalf of a locally designed
Partnership between one or more local education agencies (LEA) or school districts and
one or more degree-granting institutions of .higher education (lHE), and at least two
.
other entities such as arts groups, businesses, religious groups, college student
organizations, State agencies, family organizations or parent groups. Each partner
should be carefully chosen for its potential to make substantive collaborative
contributions to a comprehensive program that will enable low-income students to stay
in school, take the right courses, make it past tough transitions, and go to college.
Generally, the LEA must act on behalf of at least one low-income school that has a
seventh grade and in which at least 50% of the school'S students are eligible for free or
reduced-priced lunch under the National School Lunch Act, as well as the secondary
schools that those students normally attend.
Applications must be submitted on behalf of the Partnership by a single Partnership
member that is prepared to meet the legal and administrative responsibilities of a U.S.
Department of Education grantee [34 CFR Parts 74,75,77,79,80,81,82,85 and 86].
This Partnership member will be the designated grant "Applicant" and will serve as the
, 5
�Partnership's Fiscal Agent. By Statute, the Partnership's Fiscal Agent, and therefore
the Applicant, must be either an LEA agency or an IHE. However, any member of the
Partnership may take the lead in identifying the partners, gaining their commitment,
organizing the effort, etc. In an appendix to the application, the applicant member must
submit the "Applicant Organization" and the appropriate "Partner Identification" forms
that summarize the commitments each Partnership member plans to make (these forms
.
.
are included at the end of this booklet). I
A strong Partnership is not necessarily a big Partnership or a Partnership with a long list
of blue-ribbon names. A strong Partnership is one in which a manageable number
of members have been carefully selected to accomplish specific objectives of the
proposed program and to act as a team. Most important are positive areas of service
rather than the demonstration of substantial availability of resources. A list of
Partnership members that clearly identifies the specific proposed contribution of each
partner and their commitments to the progr:am is encouraged.
Partnership Grants Must:
• Promote rigorous academic coursework based on college entrance requirements.
• Work with a whole grade-level of students in order to raise expectations for all
students.
• Start with students no later than the 7th grade in a school with a th grade, follow into
high school, and continue through high school graduation with comprehensive
services including mentoring, tutoring, counseling, and other activities such as after
school programs, summer academic and enrichment programs, and college visits ..
• Inform students and parents about college options and financial aid, including
providing students with a 21 sl Century Scholar Certificate - an early notification of
their eligibility for financial aid.
.
In 1999, 164 five-year Partnership grants were awarded with first year funding ranging
from $70,000.00 to $3,843,000.00 and averaging $460,000. The maximum annual
Federal contribution is $800.00 per student served.
The Governor of a State designates which State agency applies for and administers the
State grant, though a State may opt to have more than one entity deliver the services
and is encouraged to ensure strong collaboration between K-12 and higher education
6
�.
...
agencies. College preparation and awareness activities may be provided by service
providers such as community-based organizations, schools, institutions of higher
education, public and private agencies, nonprofit and philanthropic organizations,
businesses, institutions and agencies sponsoring programs authorized under subpart 4
of Part A of Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (the Leveraging Education
Assistance Partnership (LEAP) Program), and other organizations the State may deem
appropriate. State projects must include both an early intervention component, under
which a GEAR UP project provides early college awareness and preparation activities
. for participating students through comprehensive mentoring, counseling, outreach and
supportive services and a scholarship component, under which it establishes or
maintains a financial assistance program that awards scholarships to eligible students
so that they may attend institutions of higher education .
. States are encouraged to involve their top leadership in planning, coordinating, and
implementing GEAR UP State projects; to give appropriate attention to the State's
academic reforms and higher education standards, and make them an integral part of
the project's college readiness efforts; to use State, college, arid university resources
wisely, as part of the State~s project and in cooperation with the Partnership projects
within the State; and to demonstrate fiscal commitment beyond what is already being
spent on these kinds of activities.
Cooperation and commitment are just as much a part of a GEAR UP State project as a
Partnership project. Similarly, each participating organization in a State project will want
to be clear about its particular contribution and how that contribution will coordinate with
other related efforts and resources.
State Grants Must Include:
• a;An=early-=intefllefitiliih=eemponent; including early college awareness and preparation
activities through comprehensive mentoring, counseling, outreach, and supportive
services; academic counseling and support .
• ,Ik=scholarship=compenent, which· establishes or maintains a financial assistance
program of renewable scholarships for eligible GEAR UP students.
In 1999, 21 five-year State grants were awarded with first year funding ranging from
$1,000,000.00 to $5,000,000.00 and averaging $2,100,000. This year, the maximum
State grant will be $2,100,000.00 for each of five years.
7·
�artnership grants are competitive five-year matching grants that support early
intervention programs designed to raise the expectations of low-income students
and ensure that they are well prepared for college. The maximum annual Federal
contribution to a Partnership grant is $800.00. for each student directly served.
Generally, the Partnership's non-Federal contribution must at least match the Federal
contribution. That is, non-Federal match must at least equal 50% of the total five-year
project cost. This non-Federal match may be met through cash or in-kind contributions.
P
Any member of the Partnership may be the chief organizer of the project, but only the
institution of higher education orthe local education agency may act as the Fiscal Agent
for the Partnership grant. The Fiscal Agent also serves as the grant "Applicant" on
behalf of the Partnership.
A Partnership must use a whole-grade or "cohort" approach. That is, a Partnership
must provide services to aI/ students in the participating grade levels, rather than a
selected group of students. A cohort must start no later than the ih grade and services
must be provided to the cohort through the 1ih grade. Each cohort must include either:
. a) all the students in a particular grade level(s) at a participating school(s) that has a ih
grade and in which at least 50% of the students are eligible for 'free or reduced-price
lunch under the National School Lunch Act; or b) all the students in a particular grade
level(s) who reside in public housing, as defined in section 3(b)(1) of the United States
Housing Act of 1937.
The cohort approach requires that servicel:? 'must be provided to all students in a
participating grade level or "cohort" until that grade level moves on to the. next school
for example, moving from middle school to high school. New students at the same
grade level as the students in the GEAR UP cohort, who enroll in the school in which
the cohort began to receive services, must be considered a part of the cohort and
provided GEAR UP services as well. Those students who leave the cohort by
15
�transferring to a school that is not participating in GEAR UP, for example, may continue
to receive GEAR UP services, but are not require~ to be served.
Once the cohort moves on to another school (for example, moving from middle school
to high school), a GEAR UP project must continue to provide services to at least those
students in the cohort who attend participating secondary schools that enroll a
substantial majority of the students in the cohort. However, a GEAR UP project is not
required to follow all individual students regardless of which school they attend.
Partnership projects are required to provide early college preparation 'and awareness
services through comprehensive mentoring, counseling - including financial aid
counseling and information about opportunities for Federal financial aid, and activities
and information regarding fostering and improving parent involvement in preparing
students for college, college admissions and achievement tests, and college application
procedures - outreach, and supportive services for participating students.
EXAMPLES OF ACTIVITIES THAT MAY HELP SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF AN
EARLY INTERVENTION PROGRAM ARE:
• Providing a continuous system of mentoring, advising, counseling, and tutoring.
• Providing information about higher education options, required academic courses,
and financial aid.
• Ensuring student access to rigorous courses that help prepare them for college.
• Providing staff development such as training and in-service programs for teachers,
tutors, guidance counselors, and other school staff:
• Fostering parental involvement in preparing students for college.
• Providing personal counseling to students, family counseling, and home visits.
• Conducting early college training for partners.
• Providing for student and parent visits to college campuses.
• Operating summer and year-round programs at institutions of higher education
that provide exposure to college campuses and courses, and financial assistance
to cover summer costs of books, supplies, living expenses,' and personal
expenses.
• Providing school activities that promote student achievement and college
preparation.
• Assisting students in obtaining summer jobs, career mentoring, and academic
counseling.
.
• Providing skills assessments and tutoring and other services to improve academic
achievement.
i.
Providing services that are especially designed for limited English-proficient
.students.
• Providing summer instruction in remedial, developmental or supportive courses.
• Requiring each student to enter into an agreement to achieve certain academic
milestones in exchan e for tuition assistance.
16
�Each student in a GEAR UP project will receive, through the program, a "21 st Century
Scholar Certificate" from the Secretary of Education. These certificates will be
personalized and will indicate the amount of Federal financial aid for college that a
student may be eligible to receive. Grantees are responsible for personalizing the
certificates by adding the students' names, and distributing these certificates to GEAR
UP students. Grantees are encouraged to host a special event where students may
receive their certificates attended by families and community leaders.
Partnership projects must have a full-time coordinator or a part-time coordinator whose
primary responsibility is the GEAR UP project.
Each Partnership must ensure that its activities are coordinated with other GEAR UP
projects serving the same school district or State, as well as with other related Federal
and non-Federal programs. Applicants are encouraged to maximize the coordination of
their GEAR UP project with other GEAR UP projects and related programs.
Partnerships are encouraged to provide scholarships to students, but are not
required to do so. Partnerships may provide scholarships to participating GEAR
UP students in any of the following ways:
1. Through the Early Intervention Component: Scholarships that are directly related to
the GEAR UP early college preparation and awareness activities and that support
those activities may be provided with Federal funds or be counted towards the
Partnerships non-Federal match. These scholarships would not be subject to the
requirements of the "Scholarship Component" described above. Examples include:
requiring each student to enter into an agreement to achieve a number of academic
milestones in exchange for tuition assistance, or providing financial assistance for
tuition, housing, books and other expenses for a summer academic program.
2. Outside of the GEAR UP Project Budget: Scholarships that do not meet the
requirements of the "Scholarship Component" and are not directly tied to GEAR UP
l
early college preparation and awareness activities may be provided by Partnerships.
However, these scholarships may not be provided by Federal funds or counted
toward the non-Federal match, and should be considered activities outside the
budget of the GEAR UP Partnership project.
3. Through a "State grant-like" Scholarship Component: Like Partnership grants, State
GEAR UP grants are required to provide an early intervention program. Unlike
Partnerships, however, State grants are also required to include a "Scholarship
Component".
Scholarships that meet the requirements of the Scholarship
Component may be provided with Federai funds or counted toward the Partnership's
non-Federal match. The requirements of this Scholarship Component are specified
in the law and if a Partnership wishes to include such a component, it must abide by
the same requirements that apply to State grants, which are:
17
�.
.
• At least 50% of grant funds must be spent on the Scholarship Component.
• To receive a GEAR UP Scholarship, an eligible student must be less than 22
years of age at the time of first scholarship award; have received a secondary
diploma or its recognized equivalent on or after January 1, 1993; be enrolled or
accepted for enrollment in a program of undergraduate instruction at an
institution of higher education that is located within the State where the
Partnership resides (Exception - as an option, a "portable" scholarship program
may be offered that allows participating students to use their scholarships to
attend institutions of higher education outside of their State.); and have
successfully participated in the early intervention component of a GEAR UP or
National Early Intervention Scholarship and Partnership (NEISP) project or have
participated in a Federal TRIO Program.
• A priority must be placed on awarding scholarships to students eligible to receive
a Federal Pell Grant for the same academic yepr.
• Partnerships may determine the maximum amount of an eligible student's
scholarship, but the minimum amount of a scholarship must not be less than the
lesser of 75% of the average cost of attendance for an in-State student, in a four
year program of instruction, at a public institution in their State; or the maximum .
Federal Pell Grant for such a fiscal year.
18
�EXCEPTION TO THE 50% NON·FEDERAL MATCH
REQUIREMENT FOR PARTNERSHIP GRANTS
Under specific circumstances, an applicant may propose a non-Federal contribution of
less than 50%, but not less than 30% of the total cost of the project. The rationale for
this reduced match .is that there may be some school districts who are so
impoverished that their partners are unable to match the Federal contribution either in
cash or in:"kind. The Secretary provides this option only for Partnership Grant
applicants and only if all the factors under one of the following sets of conditions are
met:
Condition Set I:
• 75% of aI/ the students in the participating school(s) with a seventh grade in the
Partnership are eligible for free and reduced-priced lunch.
• 50% of all the students in the participating local education agency (LEA) in which
the participating school(s) is located are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.
• The participating LEA in which 50% of all the students are eligible for free or
reduced-price lunch is the Partnership's designated fiscal agent.
• .The Partnership has three or fewer IHEs as members.
OR
Condition Set II:
• 75% of all the students in the participating school(s) with a seventh grade in the
Partnership are eligible for free and reduced-priced lunch.
• 50% of all the students in the participating local education agency (LEA) in which
the participating school(s) is located are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.
• The PartnerShip's deSignated fiscal agent is a Historically Black College or
University (HBCU), a Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI), a Tribally Controlled
College or University (TCCU); a Native Hawaiian Serving Institution (NHSI) or an
Alaska Native Serving Institution (ANSI) under Title V or Part B of Title III or
section 316 or 317 of the HEA.
• The Partnership has three or fewer IHEs as members.
'\
/{ an applicant meets either of these sets of conditions, the minimum non-Federal
contribution of the Partnership may be less than 50% but not lower than 30% of the
total cost of the project.
NOTE: the rationale for this reduced minimum non-Federal contribution is to provide
those Partnerships that may lack the resources to meet the minimum 50% non
Federal contribution the ability to compete for a GEAR UP grant. Applicants that meet
the above cited criteria for this exception, but who have the resources (in cash and/or
in kind) to make the greater .non-Federal contribution, may not wish to propose a
reduced match if they are concerned that it may diminish the quality.of services they
can provide GEAR UP partiCipants.
The technical merit of submitted grant
applications will be based solely on the published review criteria.
19
�' "
,
,
"RtS~,.
,
,
-$_
t:
>
'STATEGRANTS-',
...
'
~
_
I)
.
A
'
_
tate GEAR UP grants are competitive five-year matching grants that must include
both an early intervention component and a scholarship component. Under
the early intervention component, the project will provide early college awareness
and preparation activities for participating students through comprehensive mentoring,
counseling, outreach, and supportive service. Under the scholarship component, the
project will establish or maintain
financial assistance program that awards
scholarships to eligible students so that they may attend an institution of higher
education. Although State grants have no minimum amount, for this year's competition
there is a $2.1 million annual maximum award. The non-Federal contribution. for these
grants must at least match the Federal contribution. That is, the non-Federal
contribution must equal at least 50% of the total five-year project cost. This non-Federal
match may be met through cash or in-kind contributions.
S
a
The Governor of a State designates which State agency applies for and administers the
State grant, even though a State may opt to have more than one entity deliver the
services.
College preparation and awareness activities may be provided by service providers
such as community based organizations, schools, institutions of higher education, public
and private agencies, nonprofit and philanthropic organizations, businesses, institutions
and agencies sponsoring programs authorized under subpart 4 of Part A of Title IV of
the Higher Education Act of 1965 (the Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnerships
(LEAP) Program), and other organizations the State may deem appropriate.
,
A State must target its early intervention services' to "priority students" or, if it chooses,
may use a whole-grade (cohort) approach.' A State that includes multiple projects in its
application may, if it wishes, use the "priority student" approach in some projects and
the cohort approach in others.
26
�States who target early intervention services to priority students must target students in
preschool through 1ih grade who are eligible:
1. To be counted under section 1124(c) of the Elementary and SecondarY
Education of 1965 (Title I);
2. For free or reduced-price meals under the National School Lunch Act; or
3. For assistance under. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF),
authorized by Title I of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996.
.
While such State projects must target their early intervention services on priority
students, they may also serve other students who are at risk of dropping out of school. .
A State that opts for a cohort must provide services to al/ students in the participating
grade levels at a school, rather than a selected group of students. A cohort must start
no later than the th grade and services must be provided to the students in the cohort
through the 12th grade. Each cohort must include either:
all the students in a
particular grade level(s) at a participating school(s) that has a 7 h grade and in which at
least 50% of the students are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch under the National
School Lunch Act; or b) all the students in a particular grade level(s) who reside in
public housing, as defined in section 3(b)(1) of·the United States Housing Act of 1937.
al
State grant applicants that choose to use the cohort approach must provide services to
all students in the participating "cohort" until that grade level moves on to the next
school - for example, moving from middle school to high school. New students at the
same grade level as the students in the GEAR UP cohort, who enroll in the school in
which the cohort began to receive services, must be considered a part of the cohort and
provided GEAR UP services· as well. Those students who leave the cohort by
transferring to a school that is not participating in GEAR UP, for example, may continue
to receive GEAR UP services, but are not required to be served.
.
Once the cohort moves on to another school (for example, moving from middle school
to high school), a GEAR UP project must continue to provide services to at least those
students in the cohort· that attend participating secondary schools that enroll a
substantial majority of the students in the cohort. However, a GEAR UP project is not
required to follow individual students regardless of which school they attend.
27
�To fulfill the early intervention component of a State GEAR UP grant, States are
required to provide early college preparation and awareness services through
comprehensive mentoring, counseling - including financial aid counseling and
information about opportunities for Federal financial aid; and activities and information
regarding fostering and improving parent involvement in preparing students for college,
college admissions and achievement tests, and college application procedures
outreach, and supportive services for participating students.
EXAMPLES OF ACTIVITIES THAT MAY HELP SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
EARLY INTERVENTION COMPONENT ARE:
• Providing a continuous system of mentoring, advising, counseling, and tutoring.
• Providing information about higher education options, required academic courses,
and financial aid.
• Ensuring student access to rigorous college preparatory courses.
• Providing staff development such as training and in-service programs for teachers,
tutors, guidance counselors, and other school staff.
(
• Organizing activities to foster parental involvement in preparing students for
college.
• Providing assistance in obtaining summer jobs, career mentoring, and academic
counseling.
• Providing personal counseling to students, family counseling, and home visits.
• Conducting early college awareness training for partners.
• Visiting college campuses.
• Operating summer and year-round programs at institutions of higher education
that provide exposure and orientation to college campuses and courses, and
providing financial assistance to cover summer costs for books, supplies, living
expenses, and personal expenses.
• Providing after school activities that promote student achievement and college
preparation.
• Administering skills assessments and providing tutoring and other services to
improve student achievement.
• Providing services that are specially designed for students of limited English
proficiency.
• Providing summer instruction in remedial, developmental, or supportive courses.
• Requiring each student to enter into an agreement to achieve certain academic
milestones in exchange for tuition assistance.
States are encouraged to emphasize in-school activities - to change the low
expectation culture that pervades some middle schools and high schools with large
numbers of low-income students - and supplement these activities with services that
strengthen the core program, such as after school and summer activities.
28
�.
To fulfill the scholarship component of a State GEAR UP grant, States are
required by law t~ provide scholarships to participating students in the following
ways:
• At least 50% of State grant funds must be spent on the Scholarship Component.
The Secretary may waive this percentage requirement if the grantee demonstrates
that it has anotlJer means of providing the students with financial assistance.
• To receive a GEAR UP Scholarship, an eligible student must be less than 22 years
of age at time of first scholarship award; have received a secondary school diploma
or its recognized equivalent on or after January 1, 1993; be enrolled or accepted for
enrollment in a program of undergraduate instruction at an institution of higher
education that is located within the State's boundaries. (Exception - the state has
the option of offering a "portable" scholarship program that allows the participating
students to use their scholarships to attend an institution of higheret;lucation outside
of their State); and have successfully partiCipated in the early intervention
cornponent of a GEAR UP or NEISP project or have participated in a Federal TRIO
Program.
• A priority must be placed on awarding scholarships to students eligible to receive a
Federal Pell Grant for the same academic year.
• Individual States may determine the maximum amount of an eligible student's
scholarship but the minimum amount of a scholarship must not be less than the
lesser of 75% of the average cost of attendance for an in-State student, in a four
year program of instruction, at public institutions in their State; or the maximum
Federal Pell Grant for suc,h fiscal year.
States are encouraged to involve their top leadership in planning, coordinating, and'
implementing GEAR UP State projects and to give appropriate attention to the State's
academic reforms and higher academic standards. Making the issues of school reform
and standards an integral part of the project's college readiness efforts; is essential. The
State grant should use State, college, and university resources wisely, as part of the
State's project, and hi cooperation with Partnership projects. Each partiCipating
organization in a GEAR UP State project will want to be clear about its particular
contribution and how that contribution will coordinate with other related efforts and
resources.
29
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Kendra Brooks - Subject Series
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Domestic Policy Council
Kendra Brooks
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
<a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/36031" target="_blank">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/647992" target="_blank">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Description
An account of the resource
The Kendra Brooks Subject Files contain correspondence, reports, articles, memos, and various printed material. Other documents include background information for education events and meetings. The files include material pertaining to charter schools, national testing, SAT preparation, school safety, school modernization/construction, affirmative action, Blue Ribbon Schools, class–size reduction, teacher quality, Limited English Proficiency (LEP), the White House Initiative on Education Excellence for Hispanic Americans, Tribal Colleges and Universities, Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU’s), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and Title 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
157 folders in 16 boxes
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Paper
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
[Education - GEAR UP/COPS/100,000 Teachers] [Gaining Early Awareness for Undergraduate Programs] [Community Oriented Policing]
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Domestic Policy Council
Kendra Brooks
Subject Files
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Box 3
<a href="http://clintonlibrary.gov/assets/Documents/Finding-Aids/Systematic/KendraBrookssubjectfile.pdf" target="_blank">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/647992" target="_blank">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Reproduction-Reference
Date Created
Date of creation of the resource.
1/17/2012
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
647992-gear-up-100000-teachers.pdf
647992