[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT:
IDEAS TO IMPROVE THE
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION,
LIFELONG LEARNING, AND COMPETITIVENESS
COMMITTEE ON
EDUCATION AND LABOR
U.S. House of Representatives
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JULY 26, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-58
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor
Available on the Internet:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
36-739 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 200?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR
GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan, Vice Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman California,
Donald M. Payne, New Jersey Ranking Minority Member
Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin
Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Virginia Peter Hoekstra, Michigan
Lynn C. Woolsey, California Michael N. Castle, Delaware
Ruben Hinojosa, Texas Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Carolyn McCarthy, New York Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan
John F. Tierney, Massachusetts Judy Biggert, Illinois
Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania
David Wu, Oregon Ric Keller, Florida
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Joe Wilson, South Carolina
Susan A. Davis, California John Kline, Minnesota
Danny K. Davis, Illinois Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Kenny Marchant, Texas
Timothy H. Bishop, New York Tom Price, Georgia
Linda T. Sanchez, California Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Charles W. Boustany, Jr.,
Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania Louisiana
David Loebsack, Iowa Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Mazie Hirono, Hawaii John R. ``Randy'' Kuhl, Jr., New
Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania York
John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky Rob Bishop, Utah
Phil Hare, Illinois David Davis, Tennessee
Yvette D. Clarke, New York Timothy Walberg, Michigan
Joe Courtney, Connecticut Dean Heller, Nevada
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director
Vic Klatt, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION,
LIFELONG LEARNING, AND COMPETITIVENESS
RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas, Chairman
George Miller, California Ric Keller, Florida,
John F. Tierney, Massachusetts Ranking Minority Member
David Wu, Oregon Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin
Timothy H. Bishop, New York Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky John R. ``Randy'' Kuhl, Jr., New
Joe Courtney, Connecticut York
Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey Timothy Walberg, Michigan
Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Virginia Michael N. Castle, Delaware
Susan A. Davis, California Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Danny K. Davis, Illinois Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan
Mazie Hirono, Hawaii Judy Biggert, Illinois
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 26, 2007.................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Altmire, Hon. Jason, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Pennsylvania, prepared statement of............... 72
Hinojosa, Hon. Ruben, Chairman, Subcommittee on Higher
Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness.......... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Additional submissions:
Prepared statement of the United States Conference of
Mayors............................................. 55
Prepared statement of Ray Uhalde, director, Workforce
Development Strategies Group, National Center on
Education and the Economy.......................... 63
Prepared statement of the National Association of
Counties (NACo).................................... 73
Prepared statement of the National Organization for
Competency Assurance (NOCA)........................ 76
Prepared statement of Susan Rees, director of
national programs and policy, Wider Opportunities
for Women.......................................... 84
Prepared statement of the National Network for
Women's Employment................................. 87
Keller, Hon. Ric, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on
Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness... 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Additional submission: prepared statement of Gary J.
Earl, president, CEO, Workforce Central Florida........ 44
Statement of Witnesses:
Butler, Beth, disability and accommodation consultant,
Wachovia Corp.............................................. 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Responses to questions for the record.................... 92
Carbone, Joseph M., president & CEO, the WorkPlace, Inc...... 28
Prepared statement of.................................... 30
Petit, Mason, employment and training counselor, Washington
State Employment Security, on behalf of the American
Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
(AFSCME)................................................... 19
Prepared statement of.................................... 20
Additional submission: prepared statement of the American
Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial
Organizations (AFL-CIO)................................ 49
Randolph, Kathleen, president, Partners for Workforce
Solutions, Inc............................................. 32
Prepared statement of.................................... 34
Twomey, John, president, National Workforce Association...... 12
Prepared statement of.................................... 13
Ware, Charles, chair, National Association of State Workforce
Board Chairs, on behalf of the National Governors
Association................................................ 23
Prepared statement of.................................... 25
Responses to questions for the record.................... 93
THE WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT:
IDEAS TO IMPROVE THE
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM
----------
Thursday, July 26, 2007
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Higher Education,
Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness
Committee on Education and Labor
Washington, DC
----------
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in
Room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ruben Hinojosa
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Hinojosa, Tierney, Wu, Bishop of
New York, Yarmuth, Scott, Davis of Illinois, Keller, Petri,
Souder, Ehlers, and McKeon.
Staff present: Tylease Alli, Hearing Clerk; Michael Gaffin,
Staff Assistant, Labor; Lamont Ivey, Staff Assistant,
Education; Brian Kennedy, General Counsel; Ricardo Martinez,
Policy Advisor, Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong
Learning and Competitiveness; Rachel Racusen, Deputy
Communications Director; Michele Varnhagen, Labor Policy
Director; James Bergeron, Minority Deputy Director of Education
and Human Services Policy; Kathryn Bruns, Minority Legislative
Assistant; Kirsten Duncan, Minority Professional Staff Member;
Victor Klatt, Minority Staff Director; Susan Ross, Minority
Director of Education and Human Services Policy; Linda Stevens,
Minority Chief Clerk/Assistant to the General Counsel; and
Sally Stroup, Minority Deputy Staff Director.
Chairman Hinojosa [presiding]. A quorum is present. The
hearing of the subcommittee will come to order.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 12(a), any member may submit an
opening statement in writing which will be made part of the
permanent record.
I now recognize myself, followed by the ranking member, for
an opening statement.
Welcome. Welcome to the second hearing on the
reauthorization of Workforce Investment Act of the Subcommittee
on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning and Competitiveness.
Our ability to compete in a global marketplace is directly
tied to the capacity of our workforce. It is essential that we
take this opportunity of the reauthorization of the Workforce
Investment Act to prepare for the challenges ahead.
With the retirements of the baby boom generation, we are
facing an exodus of highly skilled, highly educated individuals
from the workforce.
The workforce development system for the 21st century must
find ways to maximize ongoing participation from older workers
who want to continue working.
Our system must also value and develop the talents of all
of its workers, especially those with disabilities.
The return on investment in reducing or eliminating the
need for public assistance and enabling a person with
disabilities to fully participate in the workplace and in their
communities is enormous.
Today, our vocational and rehabilitation services programs
are strained beyond their capacity. There are long and growing
waiting lists for services. We need to make sure that the V.R.
system is equipped to handle the increased demand.
Our workforce system must also be integrated with our
education system. We also know that our future workforce will
increasingly come from minority communities. Forty-two percent
of our public school children are racial or ethnicity
minorities.
We are not equipping these young people for the demands of
a knowledge-based economy. Nearly half of our black and
Hispanic students fail to graduate from high school. Without
this basic credential, their future contributions to the
workforce will be limited.
Finally, our system must be successful in building skills
for the many adults who have low levels of literacy and lack a
high school credential.
Many of these individuals work very hard but struggle to
support themselves and their families. We must invest in
building their skills if we are going to have a competitive
economy.
The Workforce Investment Act created a new and
comprehensive workforce investment system designed to change
our employment--and training services are delivered.
At our first hearing we took a broad look at the
implementation of the 1998 law and what areas need to be
strengthened.
Today at this hearing, we will take a closer look at the
implementation of the programs authorized under Workforce
Investment Act from individual, local, regional, and state
perspectives.
I am eager to hear the witnesses' testimony and
recommendations on how we can improve the workforce development
system in a way that positions both employers and employees for
the future.
As we look to make improvements to the Workforce Investment
Act, we must never lose sight of our obligation to ensure that
the programs serve those with the greatest needs.
I would like to thank the witnesses for joining us today.
Now I would like to yield to the senior Republican on the
subcommittee, my friend and colleague, Congressman Ric Keller
of Florida, for his opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hinojosa follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ruben Hinojosa, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Higher Education, Lifelone Learning, and Competitiveness
Good Morning. Welcome to the second hearing on the reauthorization
of the Workforce Investment Act of Subcommittee on Higher Education
Lifelong Learning and Competitiveness.
Our ability to compete in a global marketplace is directly tied to
the capacity of our workforce. It is essential that we take this
opportunity of the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act to
prepare for the challenges ahead.
With the retirements of the baby boom generation, we are facing an
exodus of highly skilled, highly educated individuals from the
workforce. A workforce development system for the 21st century must
find ways to maximize on-going participation from older workers who
want to continue working.
Our system must also value and develop the talents of all workers--
especially those with disabilities. The return on investment in
reducing or eliminating the need for public assistance and enabling a
person with disabilities to fully participate in the work place and in
their communities is enormous. Today, our vocational and rehabilitation
services programs are strained beyond their capacity. There are long
and growing waiting lists for services. We need to make sure that the
VR system is equipped to handle the increased demand.
Our workforce system must also be integrated with our education
system. We also know that our future workforce will increasingly come
from minority communities. 42 percent of our public school children are
racial or ethnicity minorities. We are not equipping these young people
for the demands of a knowledge-based economy. Nearly half of our black
and Hispanic students fail to graduate from high school. Without this
basic credential, their future contributions to the workforce will be
limited.
Finally our system must be successful in building skills for the
many adults who have low levels of literacy and lack a high school
credential. Many of these individuals work very hard but struggle to
support themselves and their families. We must invest in building their
skills if we are going to have a competitive economy.
The Workforce Investment Act created a new and comprehensive
workforce investment system designed to change how employment and
training services are delivered. At our first hearing, we took a broad
look at the implementation of the 1998 law and what areas need to be
strengthened .
Today we will take closer look at the implementation of the
programs authorized under Workforce Investment Act from individual,
local, regional, and state perspectives. I am eager to hear the
witnesses' testimony and recommendations on how we can improve the
workforce development system in a way that positions both employers and
employees for the future. As we look to make improvements to the
Workforce Investment Act, we must never lose sight of our obligation to
ensure that the programs serve those with the greatest needs.
I would like to thank the witnesses for joining us today. Now I
would like to yield to the senior republican on the subcommittee,
Congressman Ric Keller of Florida, for his opening statement.
______
Mr. Keller. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And good morning to all our witnesses and all of you here
today.
I want to thank the chairman for holding today's hearing on
the Workforce Investment Act, also called WIA, in an effort to
prepare us to reauthorize this important law.
This is the second hearing that we have had on this
important subject. I look forward to working with our chairman
and all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in this effort
in a bipartisan manner. And based on the conversations that we
have had so far, I think that is going to be possible.
The Workforce Investment Act is the nation's primary
assistance for unemployed and underemployed workers. Prior to
Congress' 1998 WIA reforms, the nation's job training system
was somewhat fragmented, duplicative and overlapping at times.
WIA now integrates employment and training services at the
local level in a more unified workforce development system.
I have seen that firsthand down in Orlando through the One-
Stop centers in my district which are run through the Workforce
Central Florida organization headed by a guy named Gary Earl,
who serves as their president and CEO.
I am pleased that later today our chairman will be asking
unanimous consent to put Mr. Earl's testimony into the official
Congressional Record along with a couple other people's
testimony, so my colleagues will have that to look at.
But I can tell you how innovative it is. In my particular
area, for example, I have joined with Mr. Earl and Workforce
Central Florida to take an R.V. to rural parts of my district
that normally wouldn't have the chance to meet with someone
like a congressman, senator or the head of Workforce Central
Florida.
And we pull up and let them know we are there, and right
there we provide them a list of jobs in their area that they
can apply for. We give them job training options. We tell them
that we will help prepare their resumes and give them tips on
job interviewing skills.
And it has been very well received, and I look forward to
fostering that kind of local innovative work by our local
workforce agencies throughout the country.
These agencies frequently, not just in Orlando, have been
able to provide folks with job training, job counseling, and
labor market information to help them get back on their feet.
I want to close just by thanking today's panel of witnesses
for being here. I look forward to hearing what you think about
the existing law, both the benefits and the challenges, and
also what your recommendations are for the future to see how we
can take a good law and make it even better.
So thank you much for being here, and I will yield back the
balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Keller follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ric Keller, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness
Good morning. Thank you Mr. Chairman, for holding today's hearing
on the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) in an effort to help us prepare
to reauthorize the law. I look forward to working with you and my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle in this effort. Judging from the
conversations that we have had, I feel confident that we will make
good, bipartisan progress on this bill.
The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) is the nation's primary
assistance for unemployed and underemployed workers. Prior to
Congress's 1998 WIA reforms, the nation's job training system was
fragmented, duplicative and overlapping, and did not serve either job
seekers or employers well. WIA now integrates employment and training
services at the local level in a more unified workforce development
system.
Through the Workforce development system, job seekers have access
to job training, job counseling, and labor market information to help
them get back on their feet. Since the 1998 reforms, WIA has
dramatically improved the nations formerly disjointed workforce
development programs. I look forward to continued success of WIA and to
further improvements for American job seekers.
I would like to thank today's panel of witnesses for being here to
discuss the law's successes and challenges, as well as their potential
recommendations for improvement. It is clear there is still room for
improvement, and I look forward to working with all of you during this
process. I would also like to formally submit for the official record,
the testimony of the Gary Earl, the President and CEO of Workforce
Central Florida. Workforce Central Florida is the Orlando area's
leading permanent placement agency and offers employment solutions to
the community through its one stop centers and other innovative
resources. While he could not be here, I think you will all find Gary's
testimony to be both insightful and pertinent to our discussion today.
I yield back.
______
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you for your statement.
I want to add my experience in that when I came in 1996, we
had the opportunity to rewrite this workforce act, and we
changed from a private industry council to the Workforce
Solutions, what we call Workforce Solutions in my region.
The Workforce Investment Act was a new way of thinking and
organizing. And coming from an area that had had three decades
of double-digit unemployment rates, where we trained
individuals for jobs that we hoped they would be able to find,
we changed that completely to this new system.
And I am pleased to tell you that it has worked. It has
worked, and we have had a single digit unemployment rate now
the last 3 years. So I am pleased to be able to have this
opportunity to be chair of this committee and to see how we can
reauthorize this act and make it even stronger.
And areas like ours, Ric's and mine, that have rural areas
that we represent are anxious to see how we can improve it.
Now I am pleased to be able to start with the
introductions, and the first person I would like to introduce
is Ms. Beth Butler, who serves as a vice president of
employment compliance with Wachovia corporate headquarters in
Charlotte, North Carolina.
Prior to her current position, she was a senior litigation
consultant where she managed charges of employment
discrimination for all lines of business. Beth has also served
as vice chairman of the Alabama State Rehabilitation Council.
She brings a unique perspective to the dialogue on
employment, since she is wife and mother and attorney who
happens to have a disability. Legally blind since birth, Beth
uses ZoomText software and other assistive technology to
achieve her success at Wachovia bank system.
She has a bachelor's degree in foreign language from West
Virginia University as well as a J.D. from Cumberland School of
Law at Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama.
And I am looking forward to your testimony.
Also with us today is Mr. John Twomey, who has been the
executive director of the New York Association of Training and
Employment Professionals since January of 1987.
From 1976 to 1986, John directly administered youth and
adult employment and training programs in the Bronx, New York
City. He has received awards recognizing him for his excellent
programs involving both youth as well as adult employment
training programs.
Today he will also represent the National Workforce
Association. John holds a bachelor's degree in communications
from Fordham University in New York City.
Mr. Charles Ware is the CEO of the Wyoming Contractors
Association and has served in that position for 11 years.
He also serves as the CEO of WCA's McMurray Training Center
and is director of its Construction Careers Foundation, a
501(c)(3) foundation charged to develop and support education
and training careers for Wyoming's construction and energy
industries.
Charles was appointed by the Governor's Workforce
Development Council in 1999 and since 2001 has been their
chairman. He also serves as chair of the National State
Workforce Board Association. Today he will represent the
National Governors Association.
He holds a bachelor of arts from Santa Clara University and
a master of arts degree from San Jose State University.
Mr. Mason Petit's career of public service begins with a
military service in the Vietnam era. He has worked for various
states and local government agencies since then and continues
today with the Washington State Employment Security Department,
where he is an employment counselor in the WIA unit,
specializing in the Federal Trade Act program.
His duties include finding retraining and educational
opportunities for dislocated workers whose jobs have been lost
overseas as a result of international trade agreements under
GAAP and under NAFTA.
He has been an active member of the Washington State
Employees Union Local number 1221. And today he will also
represent the American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees, the AFL-CIO.
Mr. Joseph M. Carbone is the president and CEO of the
Workplace Incorporated, Southwestern Connecticut's Workforce
Development Board.
His organization serves more than 22,000 people and over
200 businesses a year in a 20-town region, bridging Fairfield
and New Haven Counties.
Joe is a champion for regional workforce and economic
development initiatives such as WIRED, a very important program
in the Department of Labor.
Mr. Carbone has worked in the private sector with Textron
and the Allied Signal Corporation. Joe has a bachelor of
science in economics from Quinnipiac University and lives in
New Haven.
Welcome.
Now it gives me great pleasure to yield to Congressman
Souder from Indiana, who will present our next witness.
Mr. Souder. I thank the chairman.
In Fort Wayne, Indiana, we are proud to still--in northeast
Indiana, my congressional district has the highest percent
manufacturing left in the United States--highest congressional
district.
We have done that through innovation, innovation,
innovation. We went from SEDA to JTPA when Senator Dan Quayle
authored the Job Training Partnership Act with WIA, because
when we lost 12,000 manufacturing jobs from Harvester, 10,000
from G.E. in a city that has African-Americans, Hispanics, now
thousands of refugees from Burma, Bosnia, Darfur, it requires
innovation.
And the flexibility and innovation that has occurred in
Indiana over the last 20 years has a lot helped this happen.
And Governor Daniels, working with Kathleen Randolph and others
throughout our state, has led to this.
Kathleen is president and CEO of Partners for Workplace
Solutions, the agency contracted by the Northeast Indiana
Regional Workplace Board to oversee and develop workplace
systems.
She has spent her career in community workforce and
economic development. Prior to her present position, she was an
independent consultant developing and executing projects for
public and private foundations across the country.
She co-authored publications on youth and trusteeship,
public service and civic leadership.
Kathleen has developed and implemented several DOL
demonstration projects; most notably, Lifelong Learning
Accounts, Career Advancement Accounts and the president's Faith
and Community-Based Initiative, which received recognition by
the U.S. Department of Labor as a promising practice.
She holds a B.S. degree in human resources development and
an M.S. in public administration. She is a certified youth
development professional and is a certified master trainer in
facility and lives in Fort Wayne, Indiana. It is a great honor
to introduce her today.
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you.
I am pleased to welcome one of our members and the ranking
member of the Education and Labor Committee, the gentleman from
California, Congressman Buck McKeon.
Thank you for joining us this morning.
Now we will start with our first presenter, Ms. Butler.
You may start.
STATEMENT OF BETH BUTLER, DISABILITY AND ACCOMMODATIONS
CONSULTANT, WACHOVIA CORP.
Ms. Butler. Thank you. It is a pleasure to be here. Thank
you, Chairman Hinojosa, Ranking Member Keller and members of
the committee, for inviting me to be here with you on this, the
17th anniversary of the signing of the Americans With
Disabilities Act, to share with you how the programs under the
rehabilitation act continue to have a positive impact on my
life.
My life's journey began at age 4 when I was diagnosed with
hypoplasia of the optic nerve, which is simply an
underdeveloped optic nerve. My parents were encouraged early on
to take me home and treat me no differently than my two older
sisters, who were fully sighted.
And I applaud my parents, because that is exactly what they
did. I remained in public schools through elementary school,
middle school, high school, went to college, and went on to law
school as well.
And now, as a contributing member of corporate America, I
believe that it is that foundation that was laid by my parents
early on through their encouragement and their unfailing love
and support that laid the foundation to which I owe much of my
success today.
Vocational Rehabilitation Services and the Florida Division
of Blind Services specifically was the first agency that I was
introduced to as early as third grade.
They attended the school. Probably once or twice a week a
vocational specialist met with me and began to show me how to
touch type on a large print typewriter. And that allowed me to
type my papers in large print, making them easier for me to
see.
Large-print textbooks were also provided through high
school. And as the workload began to increase my junior year in
high school, I was given my first CCTV, which is an assistive
technology device that Vocational Rehabilitation Services
provides, magnifying my books and other periodicals and things
like that.
So that followed me all the way my 4 years through college,
and when I graduated from college I decided to sit for the law
school entrance exam, and did that.
That was provided to me in large print. Again,
accessibility was critical for me to be successful. These
programs provided those types of opportunities for me.
I went on to pursue the American dream and achieve the J.D.
from Cumberland School of Law in Birmingham, Alabama, at
Samford University.
And then V.R. was there yet again to make that transition
from the educational realm into the competitive workforce. And
they provided me with a computer with large print software, as
you mentioned, the ZoomText, other assistive technology devices
that would enable me to be productive in a legal library--
perhaps not at home--able to have access to the assistive
technology devices there.
The support that I received from my qualified vocational
rehabilitation counselors was immeasurable through this
process.
Now, as a wife, as a mother, as a contributing member of
corporate America at Wachovia Corporation, working as vice
president in employment compliance, and being able to
contribute and put back into society and the community tax
dollars and contribute in that way, it is a perfect example of
the return on investment that this program demonstrates.
And I just am extremely supportive of the programs. Through
my own experiences, I now, as a professional, am able to
leverage those partnerships through the national vocational
rehabilitation network so that our Wachovia employees have an
opportunity to leverage those services in our footprint that
goes across the U.S., including California, Florida, obviously
North Carolina, Texas.
So these programs are absolutely critical to the work that
we do. As we look at the men and women returning to our
workforce, service men and women that will be coming back into
our workforce, again, these programs are going to provide the
unique support, the individualized support and services, that
can make individuals with disabilities aspire and have the
dreams and achieve those opportunities, as I was given the
opportunity as well.
Thank you so much for your time, again, the invitation, and
we appreciate your continued support in these programs. Thank
you.
[The statement of Ms. Butler follows:]
Prepared Statement of Beth Butler, Disability and Accommodation
Consultant, Wachovia Corp.
Chairman Hinojosa, Ranking Member Keller and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to be with you today on the
17th Anniversary of the signing of the Americans With Disabilities Act
(ADA) to discuss how the programs under the Rehabilitation Act continue
to have a positive impact on my life.
My name is Beth Butler and it is my pleasure to be with you today
to discuss a program that has assisted me immeasurably in my journey
through public education, beginning in elementary school, continuing in
middle school, high school, college, law school and now as a
contributing member of corporate America as Vice President of
Employment Compliance at Wachovia Corporation, where I work as the
Disability and Accommodations Consultant.
About Wachovia
Wachovia is the fourth largest bank holding company in the United
States with 3,400 Financial Centers in 21 States, including Texas,
Florida and California. I am proud to be with Wachovia, which was
ranked in 2007 among the Nation's ``Top 10 Companies for People with
Disabilities'' by DiversityInc. Magazine.
Wachovia is committed to being an inclusive company where people
are treated fairly, recognized for their individuality, promoted based
on performance and encouraged to reach their full potential.
Wachovia also remains committed to supporting all individuals with
disabilities, including our military servicemen and women as they
transition back into the workforce, as well as individuals with
disabilities from diverse backgrounds who come to the Vocational
Rehabilitation (VR) program for the excellent supports and services
that they receive from qualified rehabilitation counselors and other
qualified staff.
As you may know, a National Memorandum of Understanding between VR
and the Veterans Administration has facilitated meaningful
collaboration between these two entities, benefiting both our returning
veterans and their employers. Wachovia's Recruiting Division has
created a recruiting strategy to specifically attract military talent
and, in 2005, Wachovia received the Secretary of Defense Freedom
Award--the military's highest honor for a civilian employer--for its
support of our National Guard and Reserves. Military Spouse Magazine
also recently ranked Wachovia 5th on its list of the Nation's ``Top
Military Spouse Friendly Employers.''
Vocational rehabilitation is a life-long journey
My life's journey began in Florida at age four when I was diagnosed
with congenital Hypoplasia (underdevelopment) of the Optic Nerve. My
doctor challenged my parents early on to treat me no differently than
my two older sisters who were fully sighted. My parents did exactly
that. As a child I remained in public school participating in various
activities including softball, both slow pitch and fast pitch, in high
school I marched in the band, was captain of the dance team and played
basketball. Through it all, I never once heard my parents utter the
words ``You can't do that because you are legally blind.'' Through
their unfailing love, support, and encouragement a foundation was laid
that would set the stage for my future successes.
As a young person with a disability, I was introduced to Florida's
Division of Blind Services in third grade. I met once a week with my
qualified rehabilitation specialist who taught me to touch type on a
large print typewriter. This allowed me to type my papers in the
classroom making them easier for me to read. In high school my
textbooks were provided in large print and as my workload increased my
junior year, VR introduced me to my first CCTV that would later follow
me through my four years of college. I also remember taking a large
print ACT and other standardized exams in the public school system.
Upon completing my Bachelor's degree in foreign language at West
Virginia University, I decided to sit for the law school entrance exam
and again received the exam in large print. VR support continued as I
sought to fulfill the American Dream and achieved a JD from Cumberland
School of Law at Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama, which VR
helped to finance. Following completion of law school, VR remained
committed to my success, ensuring that I had a computer with large
print software and other assistive technology that allowed me to enter
a competitive workforce with confidence.
Now fourteen years later, I am a wife, a mother and a contributing
member of corporate America. While my needs have changed, VR's
commitment to my success has not.
When my job began to require more travel, I contacted VR, and
through their qualified staff, obtained a monocular that provides me
with added confidence on business trips as I maneuver through
unfamiliar airports and hotels in cities across the U.S. At Wachovia,
we believe that we are at our best when employees are fully engaged
with their families, their friends, and their communities. My monocular
assisted me in more fully engaging with my son who began to realize
that while I may have been attending his special musical programs at
school, I was not able to see him waving at me from the stage. My
monocular now allows me to see my son's beaming face, smiling and
waving at his mommy sitting in the audience. Now when he says, ``Mommy,
did you see me?'' I can honestly say, ``Yes, buddy, I saw you.''
Clearly, a relationship with VR is a lifelong journey. My
relationship with VR remains strong. As an HR professional, I now
collaborate with the National VR-Business Network to ensure other
business leaders and people with disabilities have access to the same
valued resource that can turn dreams and aspirations into reality.
As far as a return on investment, I am the ultimate return on
investment and now remain committed to helping others live the American
Dream in achieving a quality education, supporting a family, having a
career, owning a home and living independently and inclusively in the
community. I understand that the return on investment in Alabama, one
of the VR programs I was served by, is $20.69 for every dollar invested
in my rehabilitation. From a banking and finance perspective, that is
an excellent return and a great investment of taxpayer dollars.
Recommendations to reauthorize vocational rehabilitation programs
On behalf of the National Rehabilitation Association (NRA), the
Council for State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation (CSAVR)
and myself as a consumer of the VR 2 program, I would like to bring
before the Committee a number of important issues to consider in the
reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act, including Title IV of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended.
Since I was served by theVR program, the number of individuals with
disabilities seeking the excellent services and supports offered by the
VR program has greatly increased. Currently, I am told that only 1 in
20 eligible individuals with disabilities is being served by the
program and, in some states, there are long waiting lists for services,
including as many as 9,000 individuals.
Over the past 4 years the number of seriously wounded warriors
alone returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan and seeking services
from both the VR program and the VA programs has overwhelmed the
Veterans Administration and impacted the number of eligible individuals
served by the VR program.
Like you, I have been reading the stories about how the VA is
having difficulty serving the numerous returning veterans who are
suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, a Disorder, which
unattended, can and has destroyed the quality of life for so many of
our veterans. Vocational Rehabilitation Counselors have the expertise
to assist individuals with traumatic brain injuries, spinal cord
injuries, and post traumatic stress disorder, in obtaining, retaining
or regaining employment, and State VR agencies in some states have been
asked by the VA to assist them in serving these individuals.
Another important consideration is the issue of aging and the
workforce. Many baby boomers will choose to, or in some cases must,
remain in the workforce. The greatest incident in an aging workforce
occurs with vision impairment, blindness, hearing loss and deafness.
Many of these disabilities qualify the older worker for services
provided under the VR program. Therefore, it is going to be critical
that Congress and employers alike recognize that additional funds are
needed not only to support the existing population, but to accommodate
the thousands of individuals with disabilities who will seek VR
services over the next several decades.
But the VR program over time has been stretched to its capacity.
Accordingly, we respectfully request that this Committee consider
additional funding for Title I of the VR program. More specifically, we
ask that you consider legislative language be included in the VR
reauthorization for an authorization of appropriations sufficient to
serve all eligible individuals with significant disabilities, who want
to work and become taxpaying citizens, including our returning
veterans.
Relatedly, it is imperative to retain qualified personnel in the
State VR agencies, some who are retiring and some who are leaving the
VR program for better-paying jobs. Many of the qualified rehabilitation
counselors in the State VR agencies hold Master's Degrees in
rehabilitation counseling and related rehabilitation fields and have
had years of experience in serving individuals with disabilities secure
or regain a career, including those with the most significant
disabilities.
One of the many hallmarks of the VR program, in addition to its
individualized services and supports, is its qualified rehabilitation
counselors and qualified rehabilitation personnel. We must maintain
this level of expertise in the VR program. In order to do that, we
respectfully request your consideration of a substantial increase in
funding for Title III of the Rehabilitation Act to maintain the level
of expertise that eligible individuals with disabilities have come to
expect--a level of expertise that our returning veterans with
disabilities deserve in recognition of the sacrifices they have made
for our country.
Transition services for students with disabilities are also
extremely important as they prepare to leave the educational system and
enter post-secondary education, training, or employment. We fully
support the Committee's recommendation that positive transition
outcomes for students with disabilities should be enhanced. That said,
without additional funding for this purpose, we are simply pitting
deserving adults with disabilities, including veterans, against
deserving students with disabilities, both of whom, if deemed eligible,
the VR program serves.
As funds to support the program become limited, it is imperative
that the Congress ensures that the funds dedicated to serving eligible
adults and students with disabilities not be diverted to other
populations. Accordingly, we respectfully request that the language
addressing the responsibilities of the VR program and more specifically
regarding the administration and operation of the VR program, be
strengthened to assure that the supervision of staff, eligibility
determinations, approval of the Individualized Plan for Employment
(IPE), documentation of case closure, development of the budget and
management of the program be the sole responsibility of the State VR
director.
Another very important issue for the Committee to consider in your
deliberations on the Rehabilitation Act is the importance of
maintaining the discrete funding for programs which complement Title I
of the Rehabilitation Act, including Projects With Industry (PWIs),
Supported Employment, Migrants and Seasonal Farm Workers and
Recreation. These important programs, which are accountable and
successful and can be found in Titles III and VI, respectively, of the
Rehabilitation Act should always maintain their discrete funding
streams. Consolidating these programs into Title I of the
Rehabilitation Act, which is tantamount to eliminating funding for
these complementary programs, would only increase the waiting lists for
VR services and further increase the unemployment rate of individuals
with disabilities.
It is also important to explain why maintaining the integrity of
the Office of the Commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services
Administration (RSA) in the U.S. Department of Education as a
Presidential appointment confirmed by the U.S. Senate is important to
individuals with disabilities.
The RSA is the principal office responsible for the programs
administered under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. It has
traditionally been the office that employs the greatest number of
individuals with disabilities and serves as a role model for other
federal and state agencies in hiring individuals with disabilities. It
is also an inspiration to a person with a disability to see another
individual with a disability employed at the highest levels of
government.
The closing of their Regional Offices almost two years ago has
already significantly diminished the RSA. With the closing came the
loss of significant numbers of staff with expertise in the VR program
for monitoring and for the provision of technical assistance services
to State VR agencies, consumers and others. Monitoring and the
provision of technical assistance are two enormously important
considerations in maintaining program accountability.
Congress's continued commitment to maintaining the integrity of the
Office of the Commissioner of RSA--many times an individual with a
significant disability--sends a clear message to individuals with
disabilities that it honors and supports their hard-won civil right to
be educated, pursue careers and live independently in the community.
Regarding the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act
(WIA), in which VR is a mandatory partner, we respectfully ask you to
consider authorizing a separate, fully-funded line item to pay for
infrastructure costs at one-stop centers, as opposed to having the
mandatory partners pay these costs.
The VR program has always paid its full share of expenses no matter
where the VR office is located. The VR program is currently paying
millions of dollars each year in costs associated with being co-located
at the one-stop centers. In addition, there are greater numbers of
persons with disabilities served in the VR program that never visit or
access a one-stop. Given that VR is already covering their costs in the
one-stop centers, we would recommend again an authorization for
appropriations for a line item for infrastructure funding rather than
tapping partners' scarce resources to serve individuals, other than
those with disabilities.
When a person with a visible disability comes to the one-stop
center for services and the center is co-located with VR, that
individual is sent to the VR office for services and the one-stop
center, in turn, counts that individual as being served by the one-
stop. Assuming the individual with a disability is deemed eligible for
services by the VR agency, VR provides and pays for the individualized
services and supports which include, but are not necessarily limited
to, career counseling, guidance and development, vocational evaluation,
job training by qualified rehabilitation counselors and career
placement.
Given this situation, we respectfully request that in the
reauthorization of the WIA that the Committee qualify what it means to
be ``served'' at the one-stops.
As an individual with a significant disability, I fully appreciate
the multiple barriers that individuals with disabilities face in
entering or re-entering the world of work, including physical and
programmatic accessibility to services, which in many instances is
lacking at the one-stop centers. State VR offices, some of which I
mentioned above, are co-located with the one-stops centers, and are
fully accessible, both physically and programmatically, and have the
qualified rehabilitation counselors and other qualified personnel in
place and the experience in serving individuals with disabilities,
including those with the most significant disabilities.
Turning to the issue of who serves on the State and local workforce
boards, we strongly encourage the Committee to consider having both the
State VR director of the General Agency and the State VR director of
the Blind Agency, in those states that have a separate State Agency for
the Blind, to serve on the local Workforce Investment Boards (WIBs). We
also support the State VR Directors being on the State Workforce
Investment Boards (SWIBs).
Because the VR program is a mandatory partner of the one-stop
centers and is paying millions of dollars to be co-located with the
centers, they must be at the table when the important decisions are
made regarding funding and the direction of services, to assure that
the interest of individuals with disabilities are adequately
represented and considered in the decision making process. To do less,
would be disrespectful to the millions of individuals who have been
served by the VR program over the years and to all individuals with
disabilities.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, for
allowing me to share my personal perspectives on the benefits of
programs under the Rehabilitation Act, and for allowing me to present
the views of VR organizations on reauthorization of the Workforce
Investment Act, including Title IV of the Rehabilitation Act. More
important, thank you for supporting me and all individuals with
disabilities who benefit from the VR program. Without the support of
Congress, the support of my parents, and the excellent services I
received from the VR program, I would not be here today.
______
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you, Ms. Butler. You are an
inspiration to many. I am part of a team that is working on
accessibility and affordability of higher education, and there
are so many stories of people who have challenges ahead of
them, but none as big as yours.
And what a wonderful role model you are, and we applaud
you. Thank you very much.
Now I ask Mr. Twomey.
STATEMENT OF JOHN TWOMEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NEW YORK
ASSOCIATION OF TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT PROFESSIONALS, ON BEHALF
OF THE NATIONAL WORKFORCE ASSOCIATION
Mr. Twomey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Keller,
distinguished members of the subcommittee.
Mr. McKeon, it is a pleasure to see you, sir.
I would like to begin my remarks by just thanking the
Congress for the work that was done in the Workforce Investment
Act of 1998. I think it was a visionary piece of legislation.
It changed 40 years of our federal workforce policy to a
demand-driven system with two customers, job seekers and
businesses. It allowed us really for the first time to do
incumbent worker training in a time when job skill requirements
are changing so rapidly.
I am here to report to you today that on the local level,
we have continued to make progress. It has only been, in my
state of New York, 7 years since we started this system. It is
a pretty big system change--to urge you to augment and improve
the act.
I do respectfully urge you to reauthorize WIA with a sense
of urgency for two reasons. The first reason is a big global
economic confluence of events, and time doesn't allow me to go
into that, but it is covered in pages three to six in my
testimony.
As the chairman in his opening statement noted, in the next
year we begin the exodus of baby boomers. We have demographic
shifts I think larger than most people realize.
The change in educational payoff is an opportunity but a
threat to our young people of color that are dropping out at
the frequency the chairman mentioned.
I think our global competitors think they are in a fight. I
don't know we fully believe that yet. We have challenges to our
immigration policy, and not just the threat, which are real, of
offshoring but technological change.
The second reason is really in the act itself and is caused
by the fact that we are going on 5 years trying to get the
Workforce Investment Act reauthorized. As Mr. Keller mentioned,
this should be a very bipartisan piece of legislation.
A skilled, globally competitive workforce certainly is. And
although I recognize you are the authorizing subcommittee and
it is--this is going to sound a little bit like I am getting
into appropriations, the issue of definition of expenditure
versus obligation is more than a footnote.
Because we are not authorized, I just respectfully but
vigorously disagree with my colleagues in the U.S. Department
of Labor that the system is awash in unspent money.
I know you had Sigurd Nilsen of GAO here on June 28th in
the first hearing, and we agree completely with their findings
that the way the department is counting unspent money does not
reflect obligations. Mr. Nilsen also acknowledged that USDOL's
own office of inspector general said the same thing.
In my state of New York, from July 1st, 2001, to the
present, we received in WIA Title 1(b) funding $1,536,278,587.
And in that time period, we returned zero, not one penny, to
the federal treasury, because we spent that money as a
strategic investment in the time frames you, the Congress,
authorized in the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, 2 years at
the local level, 3 years at the state level.
Because we are not authorized, and money is so tight
because of the deficit and ongoing war in Iraq and Afghanistan,
the ongoing need to rebuild after Hurricane Katrina, the
funding that we need to meet the challenges our global
competitors fully embrace--we become a piggy bank for other
worthy programs.
And just July 19th, in the House appropriation bill, which
the National Workforce Association supports--we think it is a
good bill. But the recision in there, just in my state alone,
would reduce $28 million--the funding we have for absolutely
desperately needed services, even in a time of low
unemployment, our job churn is so great.
My other more detailed recommendations are in my written
testimony. I would like to thank you again for your leadership
and your vision in enacting the Workforce Investment Act of
1998.
I would like to urge you to reauthorize it with a sense of
urgency and thank you for the ability to appear before this
subcommittee today. Thanks.
[The statement of Mr. Twomey follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Twomey, President, National Workforce
Association
Introduction
Chairman Ruben E. Hinojosa, Mr. Keller and the other distinguished
members of this Subcommittee, my name is John Twomey, and I am the
president of the National Workforce Association (NWA). In my other
life, I am the CEO of New York's workforce association, NYATEP.
In my testimony today, I will discuss very briefly, from NWA's
perspective, why we believe it is critical to the country's
competitiveness that the Workforce Investment Act be reauthorized this
year. I will then discuss NWA's reauthorization positions related to
four key areas. We hope that this information will be helpful to the
Subcommittee as you develop your Reauthorization bill.
Before I begin my formal testimony, I would like to take this
opportunity to applaud this Committee and the Congress for your effort
in authoring the Workforce Investment Act (WIA). It was a significant
step to move from 40 years of supply-side federal workforce policy
focused only on the jobseeker, to adding a demand-driven employer
customer to a locally designed and delivered workforce investment
system.
As you hopefully prepare for reauthorization, I strongly urge that
you build upon the locally-driven, private sector-led vision that you
established in the Workforce Investment Act, taking care to make only
those changes to current law that strengthen the capacity of local
areas to build comprehensive and relevant workforce investment systems.
In this increasingly global and changing economy, preparing a
highly skilled workforce is the only way the United States can
successfully compete in the future. The National Workforce Association
believes that the establishment of a comprehensive workforce investment
system, overseen by strong local workforce boards with services
provided through a one-stop delivery infrastructure, was and continues
to be a visionary way to address the economic challenges we face as we
move further into the 21st Century.
NWA believes that we are at a pivotal time in the history of the
United States. On the one hand the challenges tearing at our labor
market have never been more severe, nor more dangerous to our standard
of living; yet, while our global competitors consciously and vigorously
invest in the skills of their workforces, the U. S. federal investment
in worker training continues to dangerously erode.
The Problem--Factors greatly affecting the U. S. labor market over
the coming years require urgent responses:
1. The impending baby boomer retirements
2. Huge shifts in the country's demographic composition
3. The greatly increased payoff on post-secondary education
4. What our global competitors are doing, that we are not doing
5. The effects of immigration, and immigration policy, on our
workforce
6. The direct relationship of technological advances to the loss of
low skilled jobs
The impending baby boomer retirements: The oldest baby boomer
turned 61 years old this year. According to the Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) in 2000, 13% of all U.S. workers were from the
generation before baby boomers, while a full 48% of the country's
workers were baby boomers. In other words, 61% of our workers were
boomers or the previous generation. BLS further predicts that in 2010,
these numbers will drastically drop to 3% pre-boomers and 37% boomers.
If BLS is correct, then over a 10 year period--but particularly
beginning in 2008, the United States will be looking to replace 21% of
its workforce from a decade earlier; a cadre that is generally well
skilled and has a good work ethic.
Some say this won't happen. ``Boomers love to work,'' or ``The
boomers haven't saved enough to retire''. Yet, entire physically
demanding industries are deeply dependent on baby boomers--nurses, or
electrical utility repairman, for example. Even those baby boomers that
continue to work may not be able to continue in the physically
demanding jobs they hold today. If this were a stand alone challenge,
it would be difficult to overcome but we could do it.
The magnitude of the demographic shift now underway: According to
the Census Bureau, in 2003, 73% of all U.S. workers were white non-
Hispanic. By 2050 the numbers change dramatically. In fact, by 2010,
just as the baby boomers start retiring, the shift is already well
underway.
USA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003 2010 2050
------------------------------------------------------------------------
White (non-Hispanic)................ 73% 65% 53%
Hispanic/Latino..................... 11% 16% 24%
Black............................... 12% 13% 14%
Asian............................... 5% 7% 11%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the large cohort of baby boomers leaves the workforce, we will
have to adjust to large cultural and demographic shifts also, in
addition to finding a way to better educate populations who currently
have a significant high school non-completion rate. While the African
American population numbers are relatively steady, and even though the
Asian numbers double, the real growth in the U. S. labor market is the
Hispanic/Latino cohort. In 2003, approximately 10% of the total
workforce, seven short years later Hispanics soar to one out of 6; and
by 2050, they will be one out of four workers.
In many states, this shift is similar but it is already greatly
accelerated. According to a recently released report by The National
Center for Public Policy and Higher Education entitled Measuring Up
2006, this dramatic demographic shift in my state, New York is
happening faster than nationally. This report says that for New York,
here are the actual demographic breakouts in 1980 and 2000, and the
projected numbers for 2020.
NEW YORK STATE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1980 2000 2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
White (non-Hispanic)................ 76% 64% 56%
All Minorities...................... 24% 36% 44%
African Americans................... 12% 15% 15%
Hispanics/Latinos................... 9% 15% 20%
Asian Americans..................... 0.2% 5% 10%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The increased payoff on educational attainment: This third factor
reflects a massive change that has taken place over the past 15 years.
By itself, it presents great challenges to how we provide every
American the skills they need to compete and thrive in this global
economy. Coupled with the boomer retirements and the demographic
shifts, this is where the enormity of what we must do to keep the
country competitive starts to become clear.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Policy
Foundation tabulation, at the conclusion of the recent ``boom'' years,
from 1992 to 2002, we ended up nationally with 400,000 fewer jobs that
high school dropouts could do. Shockingly, at the end of this 10-year
period, while there were 2.6 million new jobs created nationally for
those individuals with some post-secondary education, there were only
100,000 more jobs available to workers who had only a high school
degree or less.
At the end of this ten year period, there were 2.2 million new jobs
for those who completed a two-year community college education, or
twenty two times more than high school education only! Another 2.4
million new jobs were available to two-year technical college
graduates. And 6.4 million new jobs for four-year college completers
and those who attained graduate degrees.
In a nutshell, since 1992 we've seen the decline of jobs that
someone with only a high school degree or less could do. Jobs that
probably had a pension of some sort, and most likely provided the
worker's family with health insurance.
What our global competitors are doing that we are not doing: In
1999, the United States graduated 1.3 million four-year college
graduates. In 2005, we graduated slightly fewer than 1.3 million. China
in 1999, graduated 950,000 four-year college graduates. But by 2005,
China's college graduation rose to 2.5 million. This didn't happen
without significant new investment. While I recognize that you are an
Authorizing subcommittee, not the Appropriations subcommittee, I think
as you work to improve the workforce system, that investments our
competitors have been making underscore the urgency to reauthorize WIA
this year.
In 1970, the U.S. had the highest 4-year college completion rate in
the world; by the year 2000 we ranked # 7. In 1970, Ireland's college
graduation rate was 20%; today it is 48%, while ours is 39%. In
Ireland, this is part of their national effort to increase all
employees' competency levels called One Step Up. In Ireland higher
education is viewed as an investment not an expense, and the government
pays the tuition. In the U.S. one of our main financial aid programs
for poor students is Pell Grants, which have not been fully funded
since their inception in 1980. Before the FY 07 joint funding
resolution, the maximum Pell Grant had only been increased by $50 over
seven years. As education matters more and more, our competitors have
been increasing their investments, while we instead address other
difficult but competing priorities.
Immigration: According to the Center for Labor Market Studies at
Northeastern University, 43% of all labor market growth in the United
States over the past 5 years is due to immigration. In 1980, 7.9% of
our labor force was foreign born; by 2000 that number had jumped to
15.8%.
Our threat here is that many of our working immigrants lack the
literacy and educational levels to handle the large shift to new
Knowledge Worker jobs. This challenge, coupled with the others noted
above, leads us to believe that in fact the sum of this collective
threat to our competitiveness is greater than the individual parts.
Technological change: While much of the media attention focuses on
off shoring as cause of the turbulence in the U.S. labor market, in
fact off shoring has only caused 10% of job loss. 90% of job loss is
due to replacement of workers by technology. While technology boosts
productivity, replacing a receptionist with an automated phone response
system is one reason why high school-only jobs are disappearing.
Printing an airline boarding pass on your home computer translates to
fewer gate attendants at the USAir counter, jobs that had a pension and
family health insurance. EZ Pass on the New York State Thruway means
fewer human toll takers who probably maintained a middle class
lifestyle with only a high school credential. Registration kiosks at
the Hilton Hotel on Connecticut Ave in Washington D.C. check many
people into their rooms faster through touch screen choices of King
size or two double beds, smoking or non-smoking.
Since 1992, vast numbers of jobs have been lost through these
changes brought about by advances in technology. Our national challenge
is to increase the skill levels of current workers and our emerging
workforce, while replacing baby boomers, in such a way that those
workers don't instead create an increasing pool of unskilled workers
competing for ever-shrinking low skill/low wage jobs.
An important part of the solution--The Workforce Investment Act
One of our major weapons in this fight for global competitiveness
is the Workforce Investment Act. NWA believes that significant progress
has been made in every State in the short time WIA has been
implemented, but it is important that we reauthorize WIA and make
improvements so that it will be even stronger. In communities across
the country innovative programs and strategies have blossomed as a
result of the changed focus and flexibility provided in WIA to meet the
needs of business and local economies in workforce areas, as well as
the related needs of workers. As a result, we strongly believe that
modest changes, not a dramatic overhaul, are needed in reauthorization.
Reauthorization should result in necessary improvements and/or
``fixes,'' and in the removal of barriers to program integration and
innovation. Most importantly however, reauthorization should allow the
positive evolution that is underway at the state and local levels to
continue, building upon the private sector partnerships at the local
level. Let me make a few specific recommendations--
1. Authority of Local Workforce Boards (WIBs). In order to fulfill
the broad strategic vision Congress articulated with the passage of
WIA, NWA recommends that:
The private sector influence on the local WIBs should be
bolstered by requiring local WIB membership to include at least 60%
private sector representatives. Only public sector representatives with
optimum decision-making authority should be allowed to serve on WIBs.
Local WIBs should be appointed by local elected officials.
WIBs should be given greater direct control over resources
and programs beyond WIA I-B. The system should allow rural, isolated
and non-metropolitan areas of any state to have more discretion on how
services are delivered. This would allow these areas the flexibility to
respond to their particular labor market needs without being forced
into inappropriate ``one-size fits all'' approaches. WIBs should have
their own separate title in the Act, which would make clear to all that
their mission is broader than just (today's) WIA Title 1B.
WIA reauthorization should clarify the essential, pivotal
role that local boards are intended to play as conveners of key
stakeholders for the development of local/regional workforce and
economic strategies, and as brokers of training and related services,
resulting in a highly skilled workforce.
Monetary incentives should be provided to local Boards who
achieve exemplary results through innovative activities such as:
strategic plan development, community audits, partnership with economic
development entities, leveraging of local workforce and economic
development funds, identification and adoption of innovative business
strategies such as sectoral, incumbent worker, and career ladder
pathways. Incentives should be provided to local boards to work
regionally to address the comprehensive education, workforce, economic
and competitiveness needs of their regions.
2. One-Stop Delivery System. NWA agrees with the GAO that One-Stops
are reducing duplication and increasing cost efficiency of the Federal
workforce investment and partner programs. We further agree with the
GAO that businesses know one stop career centers exist, and businesses
have high customer satisfaction with one stop's services.
NWA recommends that One-Stops be authorized in a separate,
new title of WIA, to reinforce the fact that One-Stops are the primary
infrastructure through which to access services in a comprehensive
workforce investment system.
While no one envisioned in the late 1990's when WIA was
first being authorized the gigantic growth in broadband access to many
American's homes, we do not believe that physical one stop locations
can today be replaced by virtual one stops. In One Stops across this
country, jobseekers with weak or no computer literacy skills are
personally assisted as they apply for jobs at companies such as Home
Depot that only accept electronic applications.
One of the failed promises of the Workforce Investment Act
of 1998 is that the envisioned funding of one stop infrastructure by
the federal partner programs has largely failed to materialize. In many
cases, the cost of one stop infrastructure has been borne largely by
WIA Title 1B and Wagner Peyser. In this turbulent labor market
America's workers need the continued assistance and services of One
Stops, but NWA recognizes that overly relying on WIA Title 1B and
Wagner Peyser funding to support these One Stops has reduced the amount
of training that could otherwise have been provided.
Therefore, we believe that One Stop infrastructure funding
should be part of any WIA Reauthorization legislation. One Stop
Infrastructure funding is necessary for aligning all components of the
workforce development system. NWA recognizes the difficulty in
determining appropriate funding contributions to One Stop
infrastructure in this time of severe budget constraints, however, we
believe that securing and adequately funded One Stop infrastructure is
of great importance to providing access to American workers and
employers as envisioned in WIA.
Finally, any separate line item for One Stop
infrastructure funding must contain language protecting the Adult and
Dislocated Worker funding levels to ensure that infrastructure is not
funded at the expense of these needed formula funds.
3. Training. In order to fulfill the vision in WIA to build a
world-class workforce and strengthen U. S. businesses, training must be
available to both emerging and existing workers. The National Workforce
Association agrees with those organizations that think more training
should be provided, although we believe that addressing One Stop
infrastructure funding will be one important step in increasing the
number of workers trained.
USDOL has claimed that only 200,000 people a year are
trained under WIA. The National Workforce Association strongly disputes
these numbers. The GAO has found that over 400,000 people a year are
trained under WIA. But even GAO's numbers are lower than the actual
numbers of workers receiving training. One Stop Career Centers across
America are filled with workers engaged in skill enhancement activities
like two week crash courses in Microsoft Office. Under current law,
these activities, which the participating workers see as ``training'',
are not reported as training. They should be included in the definition
of training under WIA Reauthorization. One Stops across the country
also do what the original WIA legislation asked them to do, leverage
their limited funds. Yet workers who are referred from One Stops to
Pell funded training don't show up in the WIA count. This too should be
fixed in WIA Reauthorization. Finally, USDOL's numbers did not count
people who received training under the Governor's 15% funds. In my
state alone, thousands of people have been trained through strategic
use of this WIA funding.
If Congress decides to require that a set percentage of a
WIB's funds must be spent on training, then it is fair and essential
that skill enhancements and leveraged training count under that
requirement.
NWA strongly believes that WIA Reauthorization should
adopt a regression model for calculations of cost and wage gain
measures to reflect the local economy and characteristics of
populations receiving services. Failure to reinstate this regression
model that existed under WIA's predecessor legislation the Job Training
Partnership Act risks under-serving individuals with severe barriers to
employment.
Sectoral strategies which include career ladder approaches
to help people move toward self sufficiency have shown great promise
under WIA. They are best provided through contracted training, not
Individual Training Accounts (ITA's). NWA believes that ITA
requirements should be relaxed to allow contract training for sector
initiatives.
The employer match requirement for customized training
should be a decision of the local WIB, and factors such as the size of
the employer's business are important factors in that determination.
WIBs should be allowed to spend up to 10% of their Adult
and Dislocated Worker formula funds on incumbent worker training. This
flexibility is needed to both target key industry clusters as well as
to help move low wage workers up the career ladder. Performance
measures will need to be adjusted, since earnings will increase less
for an existing low wage worker than an unemployed worker who receives
training and is then placed into a job.
4. Expenditures vs. Obligations. Because no accurate assessment of
WIA spending can fairly rely on expenditures exclusively, WIA
reauthorization should require USDOL to utilize some combination of
expenditures, accrued expenditures, and legal obligations in
determining spending for the system. Congress may want to consider
using either ``accrued expenditures'' or ``legal obligations''
(encumbrances) in determining the redistribution of ``unspent'' funds,
in reports to Congress on spending levels, and in determining funding
recommendations. These terms must be clearly defined in the Act, and
DOL should be required to collect this information from states and
local areas, and should be required to utilize such data. Subsequently,
technical assistance should be promptly provided to States and local
workforce areas by USDOL. NWA's recommendations are consistent with the
recent GAO study and findings on expenditures and obligations.
While you are the Authorizing Committee, the failure to reauthorize
WIA has cost the workforce system millions of appropriated dollars
since USDOL continues to erroneously insist that there are large sums
of money not being spent. NWA strongly disagrees with USDOL's
conclusion, as well as their continued insistence on using a reporting
methodology that is not the one defined in the WIA legislation.
We respectfully point out that in his recent June 28th testimony
before this subcommittee, Sigurd Nilsen, of the Government
Accountability Office stated that:
USDOL's ``focus on expenditures without including
obligations overestimates the amount of funds available to provide
services at the local level.''
``The process used to determine states' available funds
considers only expenditures and does not take into account the role of
obligations in the current program structure. Our (GAO's) analysis of
Labor's data from program year 2003 and beyond indicates that states
are spending their WIA funds within the authorized 3 year period.''
``In fact, almost all program funds allocated in program
year 2003 were spent by states within 2 years.''
Finally, Nilsen said that USDOL's ``Office of the
Inspector General (OIG) recently concurred, noting that obligations
provide a more useful measure for assessing states' WIA funding status
if obligations accurately reflect legally committed funds, and are
consistently reported.''
In my home State of New York, from Program Year 01 (PY01) to PY 07
we received $1,536,278,587 in total WIA Title 1B funds. Every single
penny was spent within the timeframe Congress authorized. That's right,
New York State had zero funds recaptured. Yet based on this faulty
USDOL argument that the workforce system is awash with funds, the House
Appropriations Committee, July 11th, adopted a $335 Million dollar
Rescission to WIA funds. In my State, even though we spend every single
penny as Congress has directed us, we will have $28 million less to
provide critically needed training to our workers, if this rescission
stands.
NWA strongly urges you to address this issue this year. While our
global competitors increase their investments in an educated and highly
skilled workforce, failure to remove this fallacious argument risks WIA
becoming the piggybank for other worthy domestic programs at the very
time when we need to maximize our investment in our workforce.
Conclusion
For many years Workforce Development policy has been an area of
strong bipartisan agreement in the Congress. The National Workforce
Association believes that there are immense benefits to the workforce
development system that can be derived by fine-tuning WIA in
reauthorization. In these critical economic times, we hope that the
Committee on Education and Labor, and the House will build on WIA's
growing successes rather than making radical changes to a system that
has just begun to see major improvements. The Workforce Investment Act
has indeed moved the nation forward toward the goal of having a single,
comprehensive, and customer-friendly system where all American workers
and employers can receive the information and services they need to
succeed in today's rapidly changing labor market.
NWA stands ready to work with you and the committee staff as
reauthorization moves forward. Chairman Hinojosa, that concludes my
remarks. I want to thank you again for this opportunity to testify
before the Subcommittee. I welcome any questions that you may have.
______
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you very much, Mr. Twomey.
Now I call on Mr. Petit.
STATEMENT OF MASON A. PETIT, WASHINGTON STATE EMPLOYMENT
SECURITY, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE,
COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
Mr. Petit. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is Mason
Petit. I am a trade adjustment assistance counselor from
Spokane, Washington.
I am representing the Washington Federation of State
Employees and the American Federation of State, County, and
Municipal Employees. I appreciate appearing today and ask that
you include my full statement in the record.
Mr. Chairman, the present workforce system is seriously out
of balance. Federal leadership has shrunk in favor of
devolution. The voice of workers has been almost silenced. And
publicly administered systems have been neglected.
WIA has obscured the distinction between local WIA programs
and the state employment service. WIA no longer targets low-
income groups or requires any spending on training services.
All job seekers must first go through core services which
are similar to Wagner-Peyser labor exchange services. Core
services are becoming the only WIA service in some areas and
are beginning to fill in for the drastic decline in funding for
the statewide labor exchange system.
These factors have played out in my area. When I started at
the job service in 1978, we had a wide range of Wagner-Peyser
staff and resources. We marketed our services to employers and
industry specialists and worked personally with job seeker to
evaluate their skills and needs.
Today, we have only five employment specialists, compared
to 25 in the early 1980s, and no ability to work personally
with employers or develop industrial expertise.
Not all of our state employees are paid through Wagner-
Peyser, however. WIA has contracted with the state employment
service agency to provide public labor exchange services.
Until recently, our local WIA board funded two One-Stop
centers, WorkSource Spokane, a full-service public center
operated by the state employment service, and an affiliate
center run by a private non-profit, Career Path Services.
WorkSource Spokane referred all job-ready individuals to
the public labor exchange services provided through Wagner-
Peyser. For other job seekers, we developed an employment plan
and referred them to appropriate WIA-paid training.
In contrast, Career Path Services resisted referring WIA-
eligible job seekers to training and relied heavily on self-
help systems that can't help workers understand the full range
of available WIA services.
Career Path Services evolved into a publicly funded private
job placement operation that duplicated the employment service
work. Low cost and quick turnaround was the rule.
As of July 1, Career Path Services is managing all WIA-
funded services in Spokane County. Now, our WIA-funded state
employees in WorkSource Spokane can't provide workers the full
range of available services.
Money for training and support services has been
drastically reduced. We think Congress should clearly
distinguish the roles of various parts of the workforce system
so that the state employment service becomes the primary
provider of labor exchange services, allowing WIA to focus on
training and intensive services.
We urge you to require that at least half of WIA funds pay
for training and rebuild the Wagner-Peyser system as a strong
state and interstate system of publicly provided labor exchange
activities. Such a strategy would benefit both systems.
A publicly operated statewide labor exchange provides many
benefits. It is where unemployment insurance and TAA recipients
enter the workforce system. It provides WIA rapid response
services.
It develops and analyzes statewide labor information that
can help guide state, regional and local economic development
strategies and the content of effective training.
A statewide structure also has flexibility that local
programs don't have. It can shift staff around to respond to
emergencies and fill in gaps where resources are scarce or
don't exist.
For example, when the TAA caseload in the Spokane area
pushed 400, the state employment service provided resources for
two additional staff to help me while our needs lasted.
The state employment service also helped coordinate the
recruitment effort for the massive cleanup after the eruption
of Mount St. Helens, and Virginia conducted a similar shifting
of staff to northern Virginia after 9/11.
This structure could not have been patched together from
private or solely local sources at the last minute.
The public state operated labor exchange structure also is
important in rural states and rural parts of states, especially
for agricultural employers. Private companies prefer to work in
urban and suburban areas where the work is more profitable.
Despite the value of statewide public labor exchange, DOL
has proposed legislation and regulatory change to end it.
AFSCME strongly opposes DOL's attempt to end the public labor
exchange system and privatize publicly operated state agency
programs.
We believe that WIA and Wagner-Peyser should be
complementary, not competitive, parts of the same system.
Thank you for this opportunity to appear here today. We
look forward to working with you. And I would be happy to
answer any questions.
[The statement of Mr. Petit follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mason Petit, Employment and Training Counselor,
Washington State Employment Security, on Behalf the American Federation
of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)
Good morning Mr. Chairman, my name is Mason Petit. I am a trade
adjustment assistance counselor from Spokane, Washington. I'm here
representing the Washington Federation of State Employees (WFSE) and
the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
(AFSCME). We appreciate the opportunity to appear here today.
The AFL-CIO is submitting to the Committee a detailed statement for
the record with which we fully concur. I would like to use my time
today to emphasize several points. First, the workforce system is out
of balance and second, important parts of it have been neglected and
need to be revitalized.
The enactment of The Workforce Investment Act (WIA), along with its
administration by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), has accelerated a
process that began several decades ago. Federal leadership in workforce
policy has continued to shrink in favor of devolution; the voice of
workers has been almost silenced; the positive contributions that labor
unions make generally have been ignored; and publicly administered
systems have been neglected in favor of various publicly-funded but
privately-provided services.
There are many examples of this process. Among them are DOL's
elimination of American's Job Bank, the largest electronic listing of
job openings in the world with links to the job banks of all the states
and the web sites of private placement agencies; the marginalization of
organized labor in the workforce system; the defunding of the AFL-CIO's
Working for America's Institute which provided technical assistance to
local unions participating in federal workforce programs, the lack of
emphasis in workforce policy on training for good jobs, and the
distortion of the one-stop concept, which, in our view, has become a
mechanism for those wanting to merge programs, including large state
agency systems, together under the direction of local workforce boards
and, in many cases, of private companies.
DOL contends that WIA and the Wagner-Peyser state employment
service duplicate functions while others have criticized WIA for
providing very little training. In fact, there is some validity to both
assertions for a number of reasons.
Chronic underfunding of state Wagner-Peyser grants has led to a
serious deterioration in the capacity of the state public labor
exchange. WIA resources have declined steadily in recent years also.
These funding reductions exacerbated the tensions between the public
state agency systems and local WIA-funded, privately-provided
activities, as each have sought to survive in a hostile financial
environment. At the national level, this tension was most noticeable in
the debate about infrastructure funding in which organized labor, along
with most other stakeholders, has supported separate funding for local
one-stop operations instead of mandating a transfer of funds from state
agency programs.
Policy changes made when WIA was enacted also have contributed to
the current situation. WIA no longer has the low-income eligibility
targeting of previous employment and training programs and lacks the
requirement for 50 percent of the funds to be used for training
services. WIA also has a sequence of services requirement in which core
services, which are very similar to the Wagner-Peyser labor exchange
services must be provided to job seekers first. These policy changes
have helped to obscure the distinction between the local WIA programs
and state agency systems, especially the state employment service.
These factors have played out in my own state and city. When I
started work at the Job Service (the state employment service) in 1978
in the Wenatchee office, and later when I transferred to the Spokane
office where I now work, we had a wide range of staff and resources. We
had Job Service Representatives who went to employers to market our
services. This system was augmented by occupational specialists for
major occupational areas. They maintained relationships with area
employers and their human resource departments to provide direct
screening and referral services to them. They also were personally
familiar with many of the job seekers and their skills and provided
them with counseling, testing and other services. In addition, we
maintained relationships with local radio stations and television
stations and routinely announced jobs to the general public. All of
these relationships enabled us to serve both employers and job seekers
well.
The Labor Market and Economic Analysis (LMEA) branch of the
employment service provided further support for these services. It
developed and made available publications for both employers and job
seekers to further refine their needs and understandings of the
marketplace where they lived and statewide.
Over the years, however, this system of services was slowly picked
apart as resources declined. One of the first things to go was the
system of Job Service employer representatives. Then the occupational
specialist system was dismantled and replaced with generalists who
focused on serving job seekers but didn't have the relationships with
the employers. Today, we have only five employment specialists compared
to the 25 we had in the early 1980s.
Not all the state agency employees providing labor exchange
services have been paid through Wagner-Peyser funds in Washington
State. The Job Training Partnership Act system and now the WIA system
have contracted with the state employment service agency to provide
public labor exchange services.
Until very recently, the local WIA board in Spokane, the Workforce
Development Council (WDC), awarded funds to two one-stop centers which
competed for WIA funds: WorkSource Spokane, a full-service public
center operated by the local employment service office, and another
affiliate center run by a private non-profit organization, Career Path
Services.
Under WorkSource Spokane, WIA funds were used to hire state
employees to provide workforce services. WorkSource Spokane referred
all individuals with skills in demand in our labor market to the public
labor exchange provided through Wagner-Peyser. For WIA eligible
participants, we provided an employment plan that outlines a path
through WIA funded activities, including training. We referred all
individuals who could not return to work without retraining to three
different forms of WIA paid training: 1) short-term in-school
employment/vocational training; 2) long-term in-school employment/
vocational training; and 3) employer-based on-the-job training.
In contrast, Career Path Services resisted referring WIA eligible
job seekers to training, and, instead, enrolled as many individuals as
possible who did not need training. They relied heavily on self-help
systems that do not provide a clear understanding of the full range of
services available to eligible WIA participants. In this way, they
could report statistics showing large numbers of people enrolled,
``assisted'', and placed, all with low costs and quick turn around. As
a result, Career Path Services evolved into a publicly-funded private
job placement operation that duplicates much of the Wagner-Peyser
employment service work. Unique WIA services are not provided, and new
training is not explored.
As of July 1, 2007 Career Path Services has taken over management
of all WIA-funded services in Spokane County. Under their new protocol,
WIA-funded state employees in WorkSource Spokane no longer can provide
unemployed workers the full range of available services. Money for
training and support services has been drastically reduced.
AFSCME believes that it is important to separate out and clarify
the roles of various parts of the workforce system. In this regard, I
would call your attention to the following statement in the FY 2008
Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations bill:
``The Committee believes that the labor exchange activities
provided by state employment service agencies should be the primary
source of core services for local one-stop systems, thus freeing up
Workforce Investment Act funds to focus on intensive services and
training, and begins a process of restoring the capacity of the
Employment Service to provide this key labor exchange role through this
increase in state grants.''
We think there are appropriate statewide and local roles which can
compliment each other instead of competing with each other. We strongly
support the recommendation of the Appropriations Committee. We also
urge you to establish a requirement for at least 50 percent of WIA
funding to be used for training services and to rebuild the Wagner-
Peyser system as a strong state and interstate system of publicly-
provided labor exchange activities. Such a strategy will be mutually
beneficial to both systems.
A publicly-operated statewide labor exchange provides many
benefits. They include early interventions to provide rapid response
services when plants close; job matching and career counseling services
to workers, including those filing for unemployment insurance benefits
and trade adjustment assistance (TAA) with state unemployment insurance
agencies; the provision of a statewide information network to support
and guide local area workforce activities; information systems and
analysis that can help guide state, regional and local economic
development strategies and inform the design of effective training
programs in emerging industries and good jobs; and employer services,
especially for those that move into an area as part of an economic
development plan.
In addition, a statewide structure has flexibility that local
programs do not have, especially the ability to shift staff to
different parts of a state during emergencies and to work on a regional
and interstate basis. This flexibility allows states to fill in gaps
where resources are scarce or not available, including supplementing
veteran services and TAA support around a state when needed.
For example, because the TAA program does not provide funds for
case management, historically this responsibility has been assumed by
the Wagner-Peyser employment service as trade impacted workers file for
unemployment and TAA benefits. During the late 1990s and early 2000s,
the TAA caseload in the Spokane area pushed 400. The rest of the state
also experienced other layoffs as large companies like Boeing,
Weyerhauser, Georgia Pacific, Keytronic Corp., Seneca Foods, Columbia
Lighting, Bayliner/US Marine, Kaiser Aluminum, Agilent Technologies and
Telect laid off large numbers of workers. The statewide employment
service was able to move money to provide additional resources for
staffing where needed. I gained two additional staff members. As other
areas' needs increased and the Spokane area needs decreased, the
resources have shifted.
The statewide public labor exchange also plays an important role in
disasters. When Mt. St. Helens erupted in May 18, 1980, several
communities were particularly hard hit, including Moses Lake, Yakima,
Ellensburg and Spokane. Clean-up from this natural disaster took the
coordinated effort of many agencies. The Washington State Employment
Security Department used its Wagner-Peyser resources to help coordinate
the recruitment effort for the massive clean-up. As things returned to
normal, Employment Security re-deployed its resources back to their
original purpose. The state of Virginia conducted a similar shifting of
staff to the northern Virginia area after the 9/11 attacks. In neither
case could this structure have been patched together from private or
solely local sources at the last minute.
Some states, such as Ohio, have created a flexible workforce
trained in employment services, unemployment insurance, trade
adjustment assistance, labor market information and outreach services
that allows the state to provide more universal labor exchange services
capable of responding to emerging local needs. I, myself, am trained to
provide information in a variety of services. As a public employee in
our multiple services system, I have access to a robust database of
information, and can easily advise the unemployed worker about such
diverse topics as unemployment insurance, TAA benefits, placement
services, training options, services available in neighboring states,
financial aid, veterans' services, felon's services, Labor Market and
Economic Analysis (LMEA) and other specialty information not easily
accessed and interpreted by the public.
The public state-operated labor exchange structure is especially
important in rural states and rural parts of states, where local and
private placement companies are weak or non-existent. Private companies
tend to prefer operating in urban areas where opportunities to make
money are greater.
Rural employers, especially agricultural employers, need the state
public labor exchange to help them hire and retain farm workers. The
Migrant Seasonal Farm Worker (MSFW) program is supported, in part, by
Wagner-Peyser funding. Recently, the Washington state Wagner-Peyser
agency sent employment service counselors out to farms with laptop
computers to work with their employment needs. This activity is not
profitable for private providers and is, therefore, less attractive.
Despite the value of a statewide public labor exchange, however,
the administration has proposed legislation to block grant the state
employment service with WIA. When WIA reauthorization stalled, DOL last
winter proposed new Wagner-Peyser regulations to eliminate the
requirement for state civil services employees to administer the labor
exchange program. The effect would have been to create a state option
to block grant these programs or turn Wagner-Peyser funds over to
private contractors, both of which AFSCME has strongly opposed
throughout the legislative process.
AFSCME continues to strongly oppose attempts to block grant state
agency programs with local WIA programs, to privatize publicly operated
state agency programs, and to fund the WIA system through funding from
other programs.
In particular, I want to call your attention to the fact that
enactment of WIA reauthorization without codifying the current
regulatory requirement that the Wagner-Peyser system be publicly
operated and statewide will allow the administration to proceed with
its regulatory strategy to destroy this system. AFSCME would oppose any
legislation that does not reinforce the current public administration
policy.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, AFSCME believes it is counterproductive
for WIA and Wagner-Peyser to compete with each other. Wagner-Peyser
employment service public employees can serve and match job-ready
workers with employers seeking employees. WIA can help unemployed
workers who need additional services in order to compete in the labor
market. In this way, the two systems can mutually support each other.
Thank you for this opportunity to appear here today. We look
forward to working with you and I'd be happy to answer any questions.
______
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you.
Now I call on Charles Ware.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES WARE, CHAIR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE
WORKFORCE BOARD CHAIRS, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNORS
ASSOCIATION
Mr. Ware. Thank you to Ranking Member Keller, members of
the subcommittee. It is an honor to testify on behalf of the
National Governors Association on the reauthorization of the
Workforce Investment Act.
Just a few days ago, the nation's governors convened in
Traverse City, Michigan, a state confronted by economic
transformation, to discuss innovations.
As evident in Michigan and even my home state of Wyoming,
our nation's workforce has significantly changed since the
passage of WIA almost a decade ago.
Without bold reforms to WIA, our current workforce system
will struggle to equip American workers with the skills
necessary to remain competitive in the global economy.
Last week the governors released 13 WIA recommendations
with the National Association of State Workforce Agencies and
the National Association of State Workforce Board Chairs that
would help states and local communities create efficient,
nimble and coordinated workforce systems.
The recommendations reflect four core principles that the
governors believe must be central to the WIA reauthorization.
One, to enhance program coordination and flexibility. Two,
align workforce education and economic development needs and
strengths. Three, improve training services. And four, reduce
administrative costs.
Let me point out two specific ways that the governors
believe that Congress can promote state workforce innovation.
First, Congress should provide governors with expanded WIA
funding flexibility and transferability. Funding flexibility is
critical to improve services, strengthen partnerships, target
resources to state and local needs and align workforce
programs.
Congress should eliminate the arbitrary requirements to
spend a percentage of youth funds on out-of-school or in-school
youth. Such constraints are outdated and out of touch with the
current high school reform efforts.
Encourage state innovation. Our economic strength depends
on the ability of each state to develop coordinated workforce
systems that support, train and prepare workers.
Congress should expand the U.S. Department of Labor's WIRED
initiative and create an additional competitive matching grant
program for states to plan and implement innovation in the
workforce systems.
Improve access to training. WIA must prepare workers for
high-skilled jobs. Congress can overcome the so-called sequence
of services by collapsing core and intensive services into one
new category of eligible allowable services.
Congress should also ensure that states can prioritize
additional populations to receive training services, such as
Wyoming did with our energy industry.
Congress should support the NGA/NASWA common measures
proposal to improve accountability and transparency.
The proposal streamlines the complex system of nearly 100
varying and incomparable performance measures into four
critical measures focused on customer outcomes, including
short-term and long-term employment rates, earnings and
credential completion.
Congress should also provide transitional financial support
to help states modernize their data systems.
Clarify and carry forward provisions and remove hurdles to
spend federal funds. States need the current flexibility to
carry forward WIA funds to provide training and promote
responsible fiscal management of WIA funds.
Congress should work to clarify the terminology regarding
carry-forward and obligations to help eliminate inaccurate
claims that states have unspent WIA funds.
Lastly, Congress should empower states and local
communities with tools to manage the burgeoning size of
federally mandated boards, provide governors with flexibility
to voluntarily transition from local to regional workforce
boards to better serve job seekers, maintain the grandfather
clause for state and local boards under the direction of
governors.
This check and balance of the grandfather clause will align
boards and economic needs and minimize administrative costs.
In conclusion, as my governor, Governor Freudenthal, would
say, if it is the right thing to do, then we are going to do
it.
In Wyoming, we trained over 1,000 people in drilling, truck
driving, heavy equipment and mobile crane operation for our
high-demand energy sector. Every graduate is guaranteed a
position with a major drilling company. The program is a win-
win situation.
However, the ability of my state and others to help job
seekers is constrained by the rigid constraints right now of
the current WIA. Governors stand ready to work with Congress to
ensure that our workers continue to lead the world into the
21st century.
Again, I thank you for the opportunity and can entertain
any questions.
[The statement of Mr. Ware follows:]
Prepared Statement of Charles Ware, Chair, National Association of
State Workforce Board Chairs, on Behalf of the National Governors
Association
Chairman Hinojosa, Ranking Member Keller, and members of the
Subcommittee I am Charles Ware and it is my honor to testify on behalf
of the National Governors Association regarding the reauthorization of
the Workforce Investment Act (WIA). I also have the privilege of
serving as the Chair of the National Association of State Workforce
Board Chairs.
It has been almost a decade since Congress passed the Workforce
Investment Act and overhauled workforce programs to become a ``one-
stop'' system. Today, new challenges confront our nation and our
economic position in the world. Without bold reforms to WIA, our
workforce system will struggle to equip American workers with the
skills necessary to remain competitive in the global economy. In fact,
our nation's workforce system must be able to prepare workers for jobs
that do not even exist today. Much is at stake in this reauthorization.
The Nation's Economy Has Changed
Just a few days ago, the nation's governors convened for the 99th
meeting of the National Governors Association in Traverse City,
Michigan--a state confronted by economic transformation--to discuss
innovation, education, and changing state economies. As evident in
Michigan, since the passage of WIA almost a decade ago much has changed
in our nation's workforce. The nation has moved from a manufacturing-
based economy to one that is service-based, connected to the larger
global marketplace, and heavily dependent on technology. Advances in
technology and trade have revolutionized the way companies do business.
Manufacturers in Michigan must compete with manufacturers in India,
China, and South America. What took 20 workers a full day to produce
just a generation ago can now be handled by a single worker with the
right machinery and a computer. Our economy has changed, and we must
change with it.
According to a recent nationwide public opinion poll conducted by
Dr. Frank Luntz for the nation's governors, 9 out of 10 Americans--
Democrats and Republicans alike--believe that if our nation fails to
innovate, our children and our economy will be left behind. And while
Americans believe we have the most innovative nation in the world at
the moment--ahead of China and Japan--they see America losing ground in
20 years.
To address these issues, our workforce programs must have enough
flexibility to meet the demands of a rapidly changing economy and a
highly-skilled labor force. The workforce system cannot be one-size-
fits-all programs with rigid regulations and prescribed service
delivery structures. Rather, the federal-state-local workforce system
must recognize the differences among states and communities, and thus
provide governors--working with local government, business, and labor--
the tools to design innovative, flexible, and nimble ways to meet a
variety of workers' needs.
Governors' Workforce Investment Act Recommendations
As Governor Freudenthal would say, ``If it's the right thing to do,
then we are going to do it.'' In my home state of Wyoming, energy
production is a major part of our economy and companies need skilled
labor. With the assistance of energy companies, the Wyoming Contractors
Association started a school in 2004 that provides workers the
professional and safety training they need to enter the industry. To
date, over 1,000 people have been trained in drilling, truck driving,
heavy equipment, and mobile crane operation--and every graduate is
guaranteed a position with one of the ten major drilling companies.
However, my states ability to help more workers is constrained by the
current limitations of WIA.
WIA gave governors the authority to initiate broad structural
reforms in their workforce development systems. With this authority,
governors made significant progress to restructure these systems and
strengthen the essential partnerships between federal, state, and local
governments and the private sector. Yet state-by-state experiences
reveal that many challenges remain, such as providing comprehensive,
highly integrated education, training, and employment services for
workers. In addition, states need help meeting reporting requirements,
coping with resource constraints, and fully engaging the business
community as partners. WIA needs to provide states with the tools to
respond to changing needs of workers and businesses.
To this end, Governors developed joint WIA recommendations with the
National Association of State Workforce Agencies (NASWA) and the
National Association of State Workforce Board Chairs (Chairs) to help
states and local communities create efficient, nimble, and coordinated
workforce systems. The recommendations build off the four core
principles that governors believe should be central to the WIA
reauthorization: (1) enhance program coordination and flexibility; (2)
align workforce, education, and economic development needs and
strengths; (3) enhance training services to workers while creating more
transparent accountability systems; and (4) reduce administrative
costs.
In the reauthorization of WIA, it is essential not to lose sight of
what is important--getting people training and a better job. The
federal government, notably the work of the House Education and Labor
Committee and this Subcommittee, can play a pivotal role to ensure the
economic position of our nation through the reauthorization of WIA and
adoption of the thirteen NGA-NASWA-Chairs WIA recommendations. Let me
point to several specific ways that Congress can support state
workforce innovation and best practices.
I. Enhance Program Coordination and Flexibility
Increase State Funding Flexibility: Governors and state leaders,
working with local leaders, are developing innovative workforce systems
to better respond to job seekers' needs, reduce fragmentation, promote
accountability, and better engage business. However, states will be
unable to achieve the true vision of WIA one-stops without additional
state funding flexibility and transferability. Such flexibility is
critical to enhance states' ability to help local leaders improve
services and strengthen partnerships, and to target resources to state
and local needs. Congress should provide governors with expanded WIA
funding flexibility and transferability, building upon existing
flexibility.
Eliminate Arbitrary Youth Funding Limitations: Across the nation,
governors are leading efforts to improve the rigor and relevance of our
nation's high schools. Despite this effort, in some communities
``dropout factories''--high schools that produce a large percentage of
high school dropouts--exist and must be reformed. WIA should not
require states to spend a certain percentage of funds on ``out-of-
school'' or ``in-school'' youth. Such a federal requirement is outdated
and out-of-touch with the needs of high school dropouts and current
ongoing high school reform efforts. The focus of ``youth funding''
should be to serve high-risk, basic skill deficient youth to prepare
them for future employment or education. Congress should eliminate the
requirement to spend a percentage of Youth funds on out-of-school or
in-school youth.
II. Align Workforce, Education, and Economic Development Needs and
Strengths
Encourage Innovation and Competitiveness:
In the 21st century, our economic strength will depend on the
ability of each state, and our nation as a whole, to develop a
coordinated and aligned workforce system that supports, trains, and
prepares skilled workers. The critical shortage of skilled workers in
areas of high demand is a significant employment issue that should be
addressed in the WIA reauthorization.
Congress should support and expand the U.S. Department of Labor's
Workforce Innovation in Regional Economic Development (WIRED)
initiative, which builds workforce partnerships between regions,
states, and businesses.
Congress should also support two competitive matching-grant
programs to Governors, funded out of the Secretary of Labor's set-aside
funds, to help states plan and create efficient workforce systems
aligned with statewide, regional, or sector specific education,
economic development, and business needs.
States would be required to contribute a non-federal match of 20%.
For more information, please review the NGA Innovation America: A
Partnership legislative proposal at http://www.nga.org/Files/pdf/
0702INNOVATIONPARTNERSHIP.PDF
III. Enhance Training Services to Workers while Creating More
Transparent Accountability
Eliminate Barriers for Workers to Access Training: During the last
reauthorization, WIA services focused on helping individuals secure a
job. Today, however, the focus of WIA must also help job seekers secure
a better job. Although ``core'' and ``intensive'' services are valuable
for many job seekers, current law requires states to spend limited
resources on these services before an individual can access training.
This so-called ``sequence of services'' impedes the delivery of
necessary services at the earliest possible time and should be
eliminated to ensure that job seekers and states have the flexibility
to expand access to training services quickly, effectively, and at a
lower cost. Training services are essential to help job seekers access
better jobs and remain competitive in the increasingly skilled
workforce. Congress can overcome this barrier by collapsing core and
intensive services into one new category of eligible, allowable
services. Congress should also eliminate ``intensive services'' from
the list of priority services under Section 134 (E) and adding ``or
other populations as identified by the state as priority to receive
training services.''
Expedite Use of Federal Funds through Sound State Fiscal Practices:
State law, not federal law, should govern state fiscal practices for
management of WIA funds. Unfortunately, a seemingly innocuous provision
in Section 191 of WIA allows state legislatures to approve, disapprove,
or even slow down gubernatorial use of federal WIA funds. This
provision needs to be removed to ensure that state laws governing the
disposition of federal funds can be followed and enforced. Congress
should eliminate Section 191 of WIA to ensure gubernatorial authority
to allocate federal funds in a timely manner. By eliminating Section
191, states that require governors to seek approval of state
legislatures would continue to be required to do so under existing
state law.
IV. Reduce Administrative Costs
Increase Accountability and Transparency through Common Measures: A
critical and unique component of the NGA-NASWA-Chairs WIA
recommendations is the development and use of common measures to
increase system-wide accountability and transparency, while
significantly decreasing administrative costs and inefficiencies.
Congress should support the NGA/NASWA Common Measures Proposal, which
streamlines the complex system of nearly 100 varying and incomparable
performance measures into four critical measures focused on customer
outcomes, including short-term and long-term employment rates,
earnings, and credential completion. Congress should also provide
transitional financial support to help states and locals modernize
their data systems and collection to achieve greater efficiencies.
Clarify State Carry Forward Provisions: States greatly appreciate
and need the current flexibility to carry forward WIA funds. This
flexibility is critical to provide training and promote responsible
fiscal management of WIA funds. Unfortunately, in the last few years,
the terminology around this provision may have created confusion that
led to inaccurate and uninformed claims that states have ``unspent
federal WIA funds.'' To alleviate this problem, Congress should work to
clarify the terminology regarding carry forward and obligations.
Manage Size of State and Local Boards:
Governors, state workforce administrators, and other state leaders
are concerned that the federally-mandated large state and local board
sizes are draining the workforce system of resources that would be
better spent helping job seekers. The burgeoning size of boards--local
boards can number as many as 70 or 80 individuals--should be managed
and streamlined to eliminate excessive administrative costs. In
addition, boards of this size are too large to provide effective and
meaningful oversight of the workforce system.
Congress can alleviate this by giving states the following options:
Local Boards: Provide governors with the flexibility to
voluntarily transition from local to regional workforce boards to
better serve job seekers with specific employment needs. The territory
of these new regional boards would be established by state boards and
local boards; the composition of the regional boards would be set and
negotiated by current local boards. However, the governor would have
the option to add additional members to the regional boards or local
boards if it is deemed necessary. Also, prohibit local boards from
establishing even more government funded bureaucracy through the
creation of ``councils for one-stop partners'' to advise the local
board; if such councils are viewed as necessary, such activities must
be paid for with local funds only.
Grandfather Clause: The grandfather clause may be
maintained for state and local boards, but such latitude should be at
the governor's discretion. This check-and-balance on the grandfather
clause will ensure that boards are aligned with economic interests,
administrative costs are minimized, and that states that prefer the
current design of their boards will not be required to waste time,
energy, and limited financial resources to create new boards.
State and Local Boards: The business majority for state
and local boards should be maintained to help ensure business
engagement in the WIA system. Governors should determine the
composition of their boards. WIA should not federally direct mandatory,
required, or minimum partners for state and local boards.
Conclusion
The strength of America is our citizens--their innovation,
creativity, and hard work. Our workforce system must be transformed to
support lifelong learning and restore our nation's competitive edge in
the 21st century global economy. Current and future workers should have
the opportunity to equip and reequip themselves for different careers
through training, education, and professional development.
The NGA-NASWA-Chairs WIA recommendations would give states the
ability to design workforce systems that enhance program coordination
and flexibility; align workforce, education, and economic development
needs and strengths; enhance training services to workers while
creating more transparent accountability systems; and reduce
administrative costs.
Governors stand ready to work with Congress and the Administration
to ensure that our workers and economy continue to lead the world in
the 21st century.
______
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you.
Now I call on the director of the Workplace, Incorporated,
in Bridgeport, Connecticut, Joe Carbone.
STATEMENT OF JOE CARBONE, DIRECTOR, WORKPLACE, INC.
Mr. Carbone. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
this opportunity to be here.
Workplace, Inc., is a private not-for-profit in
Connecticut, and we act as the WIA, you know, for the
southwestern district of our state. We are also a generation
two area for WIRED.
I am going to try to cover two or three items this morning
that through my 11 years' experience as president of the
Workplace have really come to kind of resonate in my mind.
And I am also going to try to touch on WIRED and to
establish how it is a partner as the world, as we go through a
movement to take our system to become a world-class actual
system for training and jobs.
Let me begin by kind of sharing what John said before, that
I think there was a lot of wisdom and, you know, perception in
the folks who were the makers of the Workforce Investment Act.
I think they foresaw the challenge and the trends that we
would be facing as the operators of today's job training
system.
I think they tried to establish many, many kinds of
numerous and innovative things that just made the old system
different or the new system different from the old system.
I think they tried to bring it into the free market kind of
a system with job training, and I think they tried to establish
who would be the ultimate entity that would be responsible for
the One-Stops.
They gave license to workforce investment boards to be
bigger than ever if they wished, to really become the
centerpiece of workforce development in their actual
communities. But I think they erred in one spot. They didn't
mandate this, by the way. They simply give you actual
permission for it.
I think the error was not dealing with the local delivery
system. Workforce boards are the operators, and when you look
at performance, you know, kinds of standards and measurements,
it is really the local delivery system that is charged with
either doing everything possible--administering the Workforce
Investment Act to the max or to the min--doing the most they
can do or doing the little that they could do.
If you can think of a map of America, there are some 630-
plus workforce investment boards. More than 100 of them have
budgets of under $1 million. You need to have critical mass.
If a workforce board is going to be the centerpiece of
workforce development in any community, they have got to have
size. They have got to have resources. They have got to have
staff. They have got to be committed to innovation.
And they have got to become the voice, the conveners and
the planning for workforce development for the entire
community. They don't carry a big stick. They can't make people
do what people don't want to do. They have to lead and they
have to create a consensus.
I would recommend to you that as you consider the
reauthorization questions that you look at setting some
standards for what should be the size of workforce investment
boards.
See, I don't think that any board should have a district of
less than one million people. I think if we did it, we would
very, very significantly reduce the number of boards. And
probably every board would start with the formula funding of
anywhere from $3 million to $4 million a year.
I think beyond that, you should set a minimum actual
expense from those fundings that can be dedicated to ITAs. A
previous speaker made mention of this. There are some districts
that don't spend anything on ITAs.
That is the fruit of our labor. That is where people who
need a specific training opportunity can actually go out and
have one.
So I think fewer workforce boards means bigger boards and
better boards. And I would hope that this committee would think
about that.
I think the One-Stop system, which is really the doorway to
the American workforce system, needs to be kind of developed so
that it can adapt to all the changes that several speakers
previous to me have made mention of.
It is a very different world today when it comes to job
training. We see businesses investing more and more each year.
It is part of a business becoming both, you know, competitive
and trying to establish dealing with their bottom line issues
by having a smart workforce.
The system has to adjust. There are four new constituents
that are coming into our system. They are immigrants. They are
low-wage workers. They are youth, the folks who are kind of the
victims of an issue with the achievement gaps. And they are the
older workers who are going to be leaving.
The One-Stops have to be prepared and ready for it. They
have to have actual kinds of credentials and other things that
they can offer.
WIRED is a partner in the workforce system. As we tried to
get these things occurring, WIRED can be the facilitator on a
local level to make sure that boards and communities have a
chance to come together as partners and think about the
workforce system, not have anything that can kind of hamstring
their ability to be innovative.
Part of my handouts today will show you that as a WIRED
district, we have incorporated two counties in neighboring New
York, Westchester and Putnam County, that have joined with the
workplace in Connecticut, and we have put our thoughts
together, and we have declared that we made each other better
if we work together, because we have got similar issues.
That kind of critical mass is the way to go in the future.
So I would hope you would consider these three matters as you
discuss the future of the Workforce Investment Act.
And thank you very much, and I look forward to questions.
[The statement of Mr. Carbone follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joseph M. Carbone, President & CEO, the
WorkPlace, Inc.
Summary:
As WIA reauthorization is being considered, I offer my viewpoint
that the local workforce delivery system is fundamentally flawed,
primarily due to the lack of scale of many WIB's. WIRED is the vehicle
I see that can correct this. Regional economies focused on Talent
Development can deliver better outcomes and better return on investment
than the many smaller local entities in place today. The WIRED model
can help transform America's Workforce System into a true competitive
edge for our workers, employers, and communities.
Key Points:
1. Developing Talent is a critical national priority, key to our
ongoing competitiveness.
2. America's Workforce System needs to adapt to new economic and
demographic realities. We need to invest in enhanced capacity of the
local delivery system to address the changing needs of businesses and
ongoing employability of our people.
3. The WIRED model provides an integrated approach built around
regional economies. It's the kind of investment we need, and it can
transform the workforce system if it's managed as an investment, not as
``WIA extended.''
4. Once transformed, the workforce system should operate as a
public/private partnership, with the local delivery system responsible
for moving people to a standard of readiness and businesses responsible
for ongoing skill & knowledge investments.
5. As we reinvent the workforce system, we need to create entities
that can grow the business, supplementing federal and state funding.
WIB's need to have the scale and the standing to be proactive, to
optimize the benefits to individuals, and to serve as valued resources
to businesses.
6. Our experience with WIRED, though still developing, points to
the potential for lasting impact through regionally-based investments
which transform the workforce system.
Key Points Explained:
1. Developing Talent is a critical national priority, key to our
ongoing competitiveness.
In our region, one of the most respected corporate
leaders, Michael Critelli, Executive Chairman of Pitney Bowes, recently
told a business audience that workforce has risen to the top of
business concerns, and that we have to ``notch up'' our efforts to
assure a supply of skilled workers.
From business organizations to policy makers to local
communities, preparing people to compete in the new economy is
receiving focus in the form of initiatives on educational achievement,
work readiness, retention, and recruiting.
2. America's Workforce System needs to adapt to new economic and
demographic realities. We need to invest in enhanced capacity of the
local delivery system to address the changing needs of businesses and
ongoing employability of our people.
Global--the flows of commerce and people are linked to the
global economy; jobs are increasingly fluid, as businesses seek the
best combination of skills and costs
Technological--rapid change, focus on productivity, all
workers need to keep pace
Sustained Talent Shortage--just emerging now, may last 20-
25 years
Boomer Exit--major transition of experience, expertise,
location, and numbers
Shift of Advantage--from employers to employees, market-
driven; self interest will require businesses to invest in human
capital and connect to lifelong learning
Rising Requirements--90% of the fastest growing jobs
require post-secondary education. Business, education, and workforce
entities will need to coordinate better and respond faster to meet the
needs of both youth and adults.
The local delivery system is charged with serving people
and businesses in this rapidly changing environment.
Yet many WIB's are too small to deliver meaningful impact
and lack the capacity to be effective advocates, resources, and
innovators. More than 100 WIB's have budgets of less than $1 million
(WIA funds--youth, adult and dislocated workers combined), lacking the
scale to be cost-effective and relevant.
America's Workforce System is fundamentally flawed, and we
are in danger of becoming irrelevant to our communities and of falling
behind our global competitors.
3. The WIRED model provides an integrated approach built around
regional economies. It's the kind of investment we need, and it can
transform the workforce system if it's managed as an investment, not as
``WIA extended.''
WIRED redefines our partnerships and our geographic
regions. It uses economic study to understand what the economic
generators are. It engages a community in a journey to determine how to
find the best possible providers.
This transformation through the WIRED model will be good
for communities and good for taxpayers.
The WIRED investment gives communities an opportunity to
do what businesses do--use investment dollars to become more
competitive. This requires different measures and standards vs. those
used to measure general operating funds.
Transformation of the workforce system will be
shortchanged if WIRED projects are measured only on operational
performance measures.
WIRED is a transition period, a force to shake up the
system. The new system will be comprised of fewer, bigger and better
WIB's operating more consistently as defined in WIA.
By consolidating funding streams, and leveraging the
resources of multiple agencies, WIRED investments provide more local
flexibility to implement strategic talent development plans.
4. Once transformed, the workforce system should operate as a
public/private partnership, with the local delivery system responsible
for moving people to a standard of readiness, and businesses
responsible for ongoing skill & knowledge investments.
Future WIB's and One-Stop's will work with employers to do
better planning, to develop talent pipelines, to invest in incumbent
worker training, and to reach out to nontraditional labor pools.
The new workforce system will be positioned to play a
pivotal role in ensuring lifelong employment readiness for people as
requirements and conditions change, and in facilitating business
investments in human capital and connections to lifelong learning.
The ``Tough Choices or Tough Times'' report is a call to
action, making a compelling case for transformation of the workforce
and education system.
5. As we reinvent the workforce system, we need to create entities
that can grow the business, supplementing federal and state funding.
WIB's need to have the scale and the standing to be proactive, to
optimize the benefits to individuals, and to serve as valued resources
to businesses.
WIB's need to be operated more like businesses and to be
more entrepreneurial in leveraging their resources. Whether through
fee-for-service initiatives or seeking private funding, WIB's should
constantly strive to generate the resources to serve more people.
Larger WIB's can operate with lower overhead and dedicate
more resources to training and direct services. Just as important, they
can be a more proactive community partner, at the table and respected
as a convener.
WIB's also need to be the voice of workforce development,
and they must earn respectability and credibility to do so.
6. Our experience with WIRED, though still developing, points to
the potential for lasting impact through regionally-based investments
which transform the workforce system.
Our key steps included asking fundamental questions: What
is the region? Who are the key stakeholders? Where is the economy
going? What are the opportunities and threats facing us? How prepared
is the current system to address these needs? How can the region's
talent become a magnet for economic growth?
When we concluded that our ``region'' should be expanded
beyond Southwestern Connecticut to include neighboring Westchester
County and Putnam County in New York, we chose to use our WIRED seed
money as an investment in cross-border collaboration. WIRED enables us
to bring higher-level leaders to the table and to engage in more
strategic endeavors.
We intend to use the WIRED process to transform our local
workforce system. This means taking a more strategic view of the
economy's talent needs on a regional basis. It means addressing all
populations, not just the unemployed or underemployed. It means
coordinating and scaling our workforce operations along regional lines.
And it means investing for the future, making responsible investments
in people earlier and at points which can make the difference between
lifelong self-sufficiency and lifelong under-performance.
Close
Since my first introduction to America's Workforce System when I
became President of The WorkPlace eleven years ago, I have come to
believe that a national system, well-funded, with incentives to
perform, and with a balance of short-term and long-term deliverables
has tremendous opportunity to contribute economically and socially to a
better society. My vision is for it to shift from safety net to
competitive edge. Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak
with you.
______
Chairman Hinojosa. Now I call on Ms. Kathleen Randolph.
STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN RANDOLPH, PRESIDENT, PARTNERS FOR
WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS, INC.
Ms. Randolph. Thank you. I am most pleased to be here.
As the committee considers reauthorization of the Workforce
Investment Act and is discussing innovations in workforce
development, certainly the things that are occurring in
northeast Indiana and in the state of Indiana are worthy of
consideration.
Over the last year, Indiana has innovated its workforce
development system through three major initiatives. In July of
2006, it established a statewide workforce investment board,
and it reorganized the state into 11 economic growth regions,
down from 16.
It also created regional workforce boards that serve each
region. These boards operate in much the same way as workforce
investment boards, but they are really operating in an advisory
capacity to the WIBs.
Historically, the WIBs in Indiana have had between 35 and
100 members. Our WIB in northeast had 45. This unwieldy number
created a condition that was nearly impossible to get business
accomplished.
Securing a quorum at any given meeting was an arduous
proposition, just bogging down the board's ability to meet its
responsibilities for overseeing the system and strategically
investing the public and private resources entrusted to it.
Plus, the composition of the old board included contract
service providers, causing conflict of interest issues. Nearly
one-third of our board had to recuse itself from discussion and
vote on significant matters, which again jeopardized effective
planning and decision making.
These challenges no longer exist. Our regional workforce
boards are small and nimble. Our board has 16 high-profile
leaders of business, economic development, community-based
organizations, education and labor.
Their knowledge and their expertise is foundational to
effective planning and oversight and investment. They operate
with efficiency and they operate as a business.
The second Indiana innovation is the strategic skills
initiative. It, in effect, forced our region to consider
workforce training needs and subsequently to transform our
programs and service delivery to a demand-driven process and to
strategically focus our WIA dollars to areas of greatest need.
SSI drove our transformation by increasing our capacity to
collect, analyze workforce and economic data, to monitor
economic trends and identify workforce skills gaps, to work
very closely with businesses and other key constituents
throughout our region, and to develop viable solutions aimed at
root causes of those regional issues.
After intense research and identification, northeast
Indiana competed with all of the other regions for state
funding to support our solutions.
We received $1,765,000 plus we leveraged an additional
$500,000 in local match to support projects that will result in
industry-recognized skill certifications that address shortages
in our high-growth, high-wage jobs.
We created and founded a fast-track nursing program, for
example. We recognized that our education service providers
were addressing our nursing shortage, but we also came to
understand that there is very low minority representation in
the nursing profession.
So our SSI-funded project targeted minorities into a
nursing program, established a special cohort for nursing
training for 48 minority individuals who will graduate into
full employment in hospitals, already placed.
We also established the Center of Excellence in Advanced
Manufacturing, since the lifeblood of northeast Indiana is
still manufacturing, with 26 percent of our base employment.
We know we are at risk in terms of the global economy for
these companies, and they must transform to technology-driven
production processes.
We established the Center of Excellence and within 18
months we will have trained and fully certified 110
individuals--45 percent of them are minorities--who are now
moving right into positions within those advanced manufacturing
companies.
Our regional workforce board is continuing to use that SSI
demand-driven process now to look at how it allocates all of
its resources. Our previous structure was cumbersome and
unwieldy, and when it came to WIA, our service providers were
justly criticized for creaming for customers who would ensure
meeting federal performance measures.
WIA and other resources were invested based largely on
anecdotal evidence of need, rather than by true data analysis
and engaging businesses in decision making.
The changes in our regional board structure, SSI and all of
our processes have led to dramatic innovation in our system. A
new model for system delivery in our WorkOnes will begin--or
has begun, actually, 4 weeks ago.
We anticipate a 400 percent increase in the number of
individuals who will be served in our system with WIA and a 65
percent decrease in the amount of money or cost per individual
served. We are leveraging additional funds to support
individuals, all the while improving our training programs.
So it is with that that I urge all of you to consider
reauthorization and funding of the Workforce Investment Act.
Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Randolph follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kathleen Randolph, President, Partners for
Workforce Solutions, Inc.
As Congress addresses reauthorization of the Workforce Investment
Act and recommendations to improve the overall effectiveness of job
training programs, innovations currently underway in the State of
Indiana are worthy of consideration.
In July 2006, Indiana implemented a comprehensive restructuring of
its workforce development system--it is now characterized by new,
higher profile and more accountable Regional Workforce Boards that
oversee all local workforce programs, and a new overall system designed
to move Indiana to a demand driven workforce system that effectively
serves employers and employees.
The new structure provides greater flexibility to the Regional
Workforce Boards, making the Northeast Indiana region better able to
address our unique, demand-driven issues. An important element of the
new board structure is that the boards now range in size from seven to
sixteen members. The Northeast Indiana Workforce Board is now composed
of sixteen high profile leaders of business, economic development,
education, labor, and community based organizations, each appointed by
locally elected officials. And, these board members now reflect the
region's high growth, high wage industries. Their knowledge and
understanding of these industry sectors is fundamental to effective
planning for workforce development in the region. In the past,
Indiana's Boards ranged in size from 35 to 100 members--Northeast
Indiana's board had 45 members. This unwieldy number created a
condition that was nearly impossible to get business accomplished.
Securing a quorum at any given meeting was an arduous proposition, thus
bogging down the board's ability to meet its responsibility for
overseeing the region's workforce system and strategically investing
the public and private dollars entrusted to it. In addition, the board
composition historically included contracted service providers, causing
conflict of interest issues. Nearly a third of our board members had to
recuse themselves from discussion and vote on significant matters,
which again jeopardized effective planning and decision making.
Through its Strategic Skills Initiative (SSI) Indiana Department of
Workforce Development, in effect, forced our region to consider its
training needs and subsequently transform its programs and service
delivery to a demand-driven process and to strategically focus our WIA
dollars in areas of greatest need. The SSI initiative drove our
region's transformation by enhancing our capacity to collect and
analyze workforce and economic data, to identify workforce trends and
skills gaps, to work closely with businesses and other key constituents
throughout the region, and to develop viable solutions aimed at the
root causes of regional issues. After an intensive research and
planning phase, Northeast Indiana received $1,768,000 in funds from the
state (in addition to our WIA formula funds), as well as more than
$500,000 in local matching funds, to implement sustainable projects
that will result in industry-recognized skills certifications that
address shortages in our high growth, high wage jobs. Examples and of
the SSI projects include:
Fast Track Nursing Program--SSI investigation revealed a
projected shortage of 220 RNs in the region's hospitals and indicated
that minorities are under-represented in this profession. We expect the
shortage to grow by 48 each year. The Fast Track Nursing program
targets minorities to enter the nursing profession and is training a
stand alone cohort of 48 students to obtain their RN degrees. Each
student is employed by a hospital at a maximum of twenty hours per
week, but receives full time benefits and works in an environment
supportive of their studies. Upon completion of their RN degree, they
move into nursing positions in their current place of employment.
Center of Excellence in Advanced Manufacturing--
Manufacturing is still the region's life blood, accounting for 26
percent of northeast Indiana's base employment. At risk due to global
competition, these companies must transform to technology driven
production processes. SSI established the Center of Excellence to train
and certify 110 workers in leading edge high tech manufacturing
processes. Certified workers further allow us to demonstrate to new or
expanding companies that the skilled workforce they need exists in the
region. These are just two examples of demand-driven strategies and
investments of public funds having impact on the region's economy.
Indiana Workforce Development and the Regional Workforce Board are
continuing to use the demand driven SSI process for investing local
formula dollars and to measure the investment's economic impact.
Northeast Indiana has fully embraced the state's new structure and
expectations. The previous structure was cumbersome and unwieldy. WIB
staff spent copious amounts of time managing board meetings and board
members rather than accomplishing the employment and training goals of
the Workforce Investment Act. The Board's Service Provider contractors
heavily screened individuals before registering them to receive WIA
services--our region was justly criticized for ``creaming'' for those
who would ensure meeting federal performance metrics. WIA and other
regional workforce resources were invested in projects and programs
that were based largely on anecdotal evidence of need, rather than
being driven by data analysis and truly engaging businesses in decision
making. And, the complexity of our former system was confusing to our
WIB board members, our education partners, and most certainly to our
business partners. This confounded our businesses and made them
reluctant to engage with the workforce system seeing it as
``government'' with many encumbrances.
In July, 2007, the Northeast Indiana Regional Workforce Board
launched a new model for service delivery in its One-Stop (WorkOne)
Career Centers. The model aims to reduce and, in many cases eliminate,
duplication while at the same time increasing the service quality and
the numbers of individuals served. The model is focused on enhancing
Hoosiers' skills in demand driven occupations. Even though jobs go
away--skills do not. Northeast Indiana's system is predicated on skills
improvement--each person entering the WorkOne Career Centers now has
the opportunity to know his skills, to enhance his skills and to get
the best job possible with his skills. The new model of service
delivery will dramatically increase the numbers served with WIA funds.
The total number of individuals registered and served through WIA in
2006 was 2,201. Already, within the first four weeks of the new service
delivery model, 1,095 were registered in WIA. Based on current
preliminary expenditure rates, estimates indicate that the cost per
participant in the new model (Program Year 2007) will be reduced by 65
percent compared to Program Year 2006.
Indiana's new structure, system and service delivery methodology
have allowed Northeast Indiana to transform to a demand-driven system
by gaining the confidence of individuals, businesses, local economic
development officials, and education and training partners throughout
the region. We've also gained significant alignment with economic
development. If asked, many of the regional partners would attest to
the Strategic Skills Initiative being the catalyst for this alignment.
The Northeast Indiana Regional Economic Development Plan, for example,
identified key growth industries targets for the region and made
workforce recommendations. The Regional Workforce Board is now tying
its resources to these targets; the Community College and Universities
are developing curricula to address the training and education needs of
business, extensive partnerships have been established between and
among organizations, and most importantly Hoosiers are tooling or
retooling their skills to meet the demands of high growth businesses--
all in the promise of enhancing the economic vitality of Northeast
Indiana.
The workforce innovations developed by the Indiana Department of
Workforce Development and now underway in the region are and will
continue to help Northeast Indiana regain its position as a great place
to work, live and do business.
______
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you. Thank you for your statement.
And I identify with that, because in my area we started an
allied health and nurse training center within our South Texas
Community College system.
We started with five students, and today we have 3,000 in
that college, in that--actually, the section for allied health
and nursing. There is a total of 17,000 students now in the
community college, but there is a great demand.
And you will be pleased to hear that 80 percent are
minority students, many who had jobs. They were underemployed,
making less than the national poverty level of $15,000. Minimum
wage produces about $10,000, $11,000 a year.
And we are producing large numbers of graduates with the
associate degrees in nursing, and it is making a huge
difference.
My first question is going to be for Ms. Butler.
You mentioned that the return on investment for your own
particular rehabilitation was quite high. At the same time, you
also spoke of long waiting lists for those clients seeking
vocational rehabilitation services.
Your testimony indicated that the V.R. program may not be
receiving the necessary services at the One-Stops. In addition,
the V.R. concerns may not be adequately addressed by the
current membership of the workforce investment boards.
How can we ensure that the One-Stops receive the necessary
services and how we can improve that portion--correct that
concern that you voiced?
Ms. Butler. That was just a great question, and I think
that there are a lot of responses that I would love to submit
that to you in writing.
I will say that I know that one of the return on
investments--numbers from the Alabama vocational rehabilitation
service--is one of the programs that I received services
through--is $20.69 for every dollar spent on my rehabilitation.
It doesn't take a banking expert to do the math there. That
is an incredible return on an investment and an excellent way
to spend taxpayers' dollars. So from that perspective, there is
absolutely the means in continuing the funding of these
vocational programs.
There are waiting lists, I know, in some states in excess
of 9,000 employees that are not being served, because again,
the capacity through the funding is stretched to the maximum.
And when we look at continuing to provide services to
individuals with disabilities--we have talked about aging
workers this morning, and again, our returning veterans,
service men and women, that will be coming back.
You may know that there was a national memorandum of
understanding signed by the vocational rehabilitation services
as well as with the Veterans Administration.
This to me is a perfect example of collaborative,
meaningful dialogue taking place to, again, ensure that our
returning veterans are going to be transitioned effectively
into America's workforce.
Chairman Hinojosa. Ms. Butler, if you could give us your
answers that you said would come in writing.
Ms. Butler. Absolutely.
Chairman Hinojosa. I would appreciate having them within
the next 2 weeks to make it a part of our record.
And know that we are experiencing--not experiencing,
rather, but we have finished with the Veterans Administration
on appropriations with the largest increase in funding for V.A.
And certainly, this would be one opportunity for us to try to
address that concern for the veterans that you pointed out.
And I now turn to Mr. Twomey.
We agree with you regarding the real growth in the U.S.
labor market cohort and that much of that, a big percentage of
it, is Hispanic. However, this community is over represented in
the lowest wage jobs and reflect the highest high school
dropout rates in the nation.
What ideas do the National Workforce Association have for
using WIA to help overcome these problems?
Mr. Twomey. That is a great question, Mr. Chairman. They
were very bright young people, but in that labor market, in
that time, in the mid 1970s, it was easier to get into the
labor market and move up the ladder.
I think the income disparity in this country now is really
reflected on the education, on haves and have-nots. So we have
our work cut out for us.
In my state, we are using $35 million in state money for a
separate summer youth employment program. Since 16-year-olds to
19-year-olds are only--only 38 percent of them are in the labor
market, how do they know the changes in the workforce?
I think that that was an unfortunate federal policy
decision when that happened to end that summer youth employment
program.
The second thing is labor market information. Young people
don't know, and their parents don't know, when they are in
junior high school what growth jobs are out there and what
sequence of courses you need to take in high school in order to
get them.
So having massive kids unemployed, at the same time we have
35,000 national vacancies in automobile technicians and
dealerships, ASE certified 35,000 vacancies across the country,
where the average pay with overtime is $80,000 a year. We can
do better than that.
And with your leadership with this bill, we will.
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you.
My time has expired, and I will yield time to our ranking
member, Congressman Keller.
Mr. Keller. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Ms. Butler, let me start with you, if I can. I think
your story is truly one of inspiration and success.
You mentioned that along the way on your path through law
school and now as a corporate executive that you were assisted
by various vocational rehabilitation services. You mentioned a
computer, for example.
How would a young lady today who was going to law school in
Alabama and ultimately wants to get in the corporate world know
that these services exist and know where to go?
Ms. Butler. That is a great question. Well, if the
individual works for Wachovia or comes to us through an
internship program, through, again, a national V.R. employment
network, we ensure that those services are made available.
I think that is the duty of the network, is that it puts a
V.R. professional, somebody that is certified, many of who have
master's education level degrees in rehabilitation services. It
gives them that direct contact in that state or city where they
sit.
And so that certainly would be one way.
Mr. Keller. What about the education example? If she just
gets accepted to Cumberland Law School in Alabama and she is
moving there from out of state, and she needs some help, do you
go to your guidance counselor at school, or how do you figure
that out, where to go?
Ms. Butler. There are disability services programs in many
universities.
Mr. Keller. Okay.
Ms. Butler. And those individuals have the relationships or
should have the relationships established with vocational
rehabilitation experts in their area.
Mr. Keller. Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Randolph, let me ask you a question. I was taking
notes, and I saw that in your area you had some 110 individuals
who were trained and now ready to go into the job market for
manufacturing jobs.
How did you go about working with the businesses to see
what their needs were in terms of what they needed students
trained, and if you trained them, would they hire them--that
sort of thing?
Ms. Randolph. We set up a regional consortium of advanced
manufacturers and talked with them specifically about what the
skills and capacities are that they needed, the technical
skills.
And we also used that nationally recognized ACT tool called
Work Keys. We did assessments of the individuals to make sure
that they had the baseline knowledge, foundational knowledge,
and then moved right into the training programs.
The training programs themselves were custom built by our
community college system.
Mr. Keller. All right. So give me an example of like what
would be a major manufacturer that hires a lot of people out of
this. What would they make?
Ms. Randolph. We don't have large manufacturers in our
area. We have lots of mid-sized to small manufacturers.
But a tool and die shop, for example, who is transforming
into an advanced process, technology-based process--we have one
company called Ottenweller who actually is a boutique
manufacturer.
They worked with us to develop the skills training
programs. We trained the individuals and they were guaranteed
employment on successful completion of their certifications,
moved right into employment in those companies.
Mr. Keller. So let me give you a hypothetical example, and
this may be--we will cover all the different ones. Let's say
that you have a manufacturer of stereo systems, and they
assemble various different parts.
Would you then go to that employer and say, ``Tell me the
widgets you need them trained on, tell the electric circuit
boards, we will get them trained, and then in return we hope
that you hire a certain amount of people from that training
program?''
Ms. Randolph. Precisely.
Mr. Keller. Okay. That seems to be a pretty good
partnership between the public and private sector. And have you
seen pretty good placement rates as a result of that?
Ms. Randolph. Excellent placement rates. Through SSI our
placement rates have catapulted. We have had 100 percent
placement in all of our SSI projects.
Mr. Keller. That is wonderful.
Mr. Twomey, I see that--I was taking notes from your
comments, and you want us to augment and improve this act with
a sense of urgency, is that right?
Mr. Twomey. That is correct.
Mr. Keller. If you had a magic wand, knowing that we are
not the appropriators but the authorizers here, and we could do
the top two improvements to make this act better, what would
you say those were?
Mr. Twomey. Well, I would say, one, as I said to the
chairman, we need to do a better job with labor market
information. It exists, but your previous question to Ms.
Butler was how do people find it.
Kids and parents don't find it. And workers who lose their
jobs and have to go to a complete new career need to know--we
need to make labor market information localized and more
visible.
Mr. Keller. Like more T.V. commercials, that sort of thing?
Mr. Twomey. Well, I think for young people we are going to
have to get them where they are. We are going to have to go
more Web site and, you know, find other ways to go forward, not
public service announcements at 4 o'clock in the morning.
Mr. Keller. My time is up, but what is your second
suggestion?
Mr. Twomey. Well, the second one would be, really, that we
need to change the definition of what is training. You know,
there has been a debate--you are not training enough people.
I have been in One-Stops all over this country. They are
packed with people who worked on a computer every day, but
maybe they worked in an auto parts store on proprietary
software. Now they are getting 2-week brush-up in Microsoft
Office.
Under the current law, that doesn't count as training. We
need to count leverage training. People in One-Stops are
referred and they are able to get Pell and further their
education. That doesn't count.
I suspect that the numbers of people trained are probably
five times what we are reporting, and we will need to be able
to do that and work on better common performance.
Mr. Keller. Thank you.
Mr. Yarmuth [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Keller.
Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I don't remember who it was, but somebody mentioned the
training of returning veterans. Who mentioned that? Whoever
mentioned veterans' problems--are veterans having problems
getting their old jobs back?
Ms. Butler. Not at our company, no. I will say this, that
the progress that we have made--we have been actually
recognized nationally for our military leave policies and
recently recognized by Military Spouse Magazine as well.
Mr. Scott. Well, that is your company, but generally,
particularly the Guard and Reserves who get activated and come
back, are they losing their jobs?
Ms. Butler. I am not able to answer that based on any
research that I have done. I would be happy to get back with
you and do some research on that if you would like.
Mr. Scott. Okay. Do we need to make any changes in the
Americans with Disabilities Act to make sure that people with
disabilities are not discriminated against, or is that bill
working okay?
Ms. Butler. I think there is always opportunity for
improvement, and I would be happy to share my comments around
that in writing as well.
Mr. Scott. Okay.
Can anybody comment on youth employment, whether or not
summer jobs and hiring teenagers is part of this picture?
Mr. Petit?
Mr. Petit. If you don't mind, in my area, we used to have a
summer youth employment and training program which was very
good. It was intended to introduce kids as young as 16 to the
working world. And in the past few years, that has not been
available.
But it resulted in kids at an early age understanding the
value of work and then when they got to the point of being able
to go to work had the basic underpinnings of what it takes to
be a good employee.
That is gone, and I would like to see a return to that.
Mr. Scott. Are there any studies to show that summer
employment and employment activities reduce the dropout rate?
Mr. Twomey?
Mr. Twomey. Dr. Andy Sum at the Center for Labor Market
Studies in Northeastern has done, in my opinion, the best work
on this issue in the country, and I will be happy, Congressman,
to follow up and get him to forward you some of it.
His studies are that that is an investment that continues
to pay benefits for many, many years.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. That would be very helpful.
In terms of services that are available in training people
for jobs, do you use career schools as part of the possible
services?
Mr. Petit?
Mr. Petit. Career schools--you mean like vocational
training?
Mr. Scott. Right.
Mr. Petit. Absolutely.
Mr. Scott. And how do you tell the good ones from the bad
ones? Because there is some out there that don't give you value
for the money, and others are as good as gold.
Mr. Petit. WIA law requires that there be consumer
information on the results, the outcomes, of these schools.
Mr. Scott. And the outcome is essentially placement rate?
Mr. Petit. It is essentially a placement rate. However,
there can be also included in that labor market--or that
information, information about the quality of training.
Mr. Scott. There is a provision in the Workforce Investment
Act that prohibits discrimination based on race, color, creed,
national origin or sex. Is there any reason why we ought to
change that? Anyone suggesting that we change that so that
people would be able to discriminate?
Let the record reflect that nobody is suggesting that we
change that.
Ms. Randolph, you are training 48 nurses. What are they
doing now? And can you give us a little background about where
they were and what kind of jobs they had and, based on your
training, what kind of jobs they will have?
Ms. Randolph. I am not sure the percentage, but a fair
number of them were certified nurse assistants, CNAs. But they
were disillusioned by that particular job, and so they were
looking to get additional training.
What is, I think, the backbone of the success of this
program is that we contacted our hospital systems, and because
these individuals showed promise, they were hired right into
the hospital system, and they were given a variety of jobs.
But they were only allowed to work 20 hours a week.
However, they were given also full-time benefits. And the
purpose was to make sure that they weren't spending too many
hours on a job and not enough hours on studies.
Then when they complete their R.N. degree and receive the
certification, they are moved right into a full-time nursing
position within that hospital.
Mr. Scott. Can you just say a word about what their salary
was before and what their salary would be after their training?
Ms. Randolph. Yes. Actually, most of them were in the range
of between $8 and $10 an hour before they started the program,
and when they conclude their program they will move into
positions that--the lowest is $18.50 an hour.
Mr. Yarmuth. Thank you, Mr. Scott.
Mr. Ware, I believe you wanted to make a comment. Would you
like to proceed?
Mr. Ware. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Scott, you asked the question earlier about
the credibility of vocational schools or career schools. I
started a school with my members in 2002. It is a private
sector non-profit school for heavy trades.
And we make an effort. We call every graduate that
graduates. Over the last 5 years, we have put 7,500 people
through classes. And we use somewhat of the common measures. I
can tell you that of the last 1,000 people that we have
trained, 100 percent have been placed.
They start at $21 an hour, 75 percent retention rate after
90 days, 68 percent after 180 days. So we can, in a sense,
verify the product that we are turning out.
Mr. Yarmuth. Thank you.
Mr. Souder?
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
I wanted to make a couple comments and finish with a few
questions. One is that in my congressional district we, in
fact, have many very large employers. G.M. has, I think,
2,300--the largest pickup plant in the world. Michelin,
Verizon, all employ more than 2,000.
But most of those jobs are union jobs, highly sought after,
very tough for new people to enter. And also, major company
policies let transfers come in and take those jobs from other
states.
So most of the innovation in WIA is going to occur in the
small-and mid-size. And then if an opening occurs in a bigger
company, they are trained and can move up.
And understanding and giving the flexibility for states to
adjust around their markets in that way--you are not
necessarily going to train people who go straight into highly
sought-after, high-paid jobs.
A second, and I think the biggest, challenge as we do this
is the changes as we have gone from SEDA to JTPA to WIA have
enabled us and the governors in particular who do this more
flexibility in how to meet changing challenges of the
workplace.
And to use that awful term ``creaming.'' The people who
lose a job are able to move to another job. The people who have
a lower-paying marginal job that could dip into the welfare
system in the sense of not having enough health insurance or
other types of things--getting them trained higher.
And we may have, combined with welfare to work, taken as
many as 50 percent in an area where there are jobs up into the
marketplace.
The question is how to deal with the harder ones who are
kind of left behind in that at the same time you do the
innovation that enables the market area to respond in a limited
source of funds, because it is much more expensive to deal with
the harder ones than the ones that you are retraining for the
marketplace or adjusting.
And my questions here--and I will start with my home
district first, with Ms. Randolph. And if you can't all get in
or want to add or do some checks, I think it would be very good
for the record.
I am hearing in the area--and it is one of the reasons we
are bringing in, like every place else, huge numbers of
illegals to try to meet the labor demands--is many of the
people can't meet drug and alcohol screening--not a federal
mandate. It is a local mandate for health and insurance reasons
as well as job performance reasons.
Is there in the linkages of the workforce program any type
of trigger that goes to drug and alcohol--and try to figure out
how to get to the substance?
Because it can be--as many as two-thirds to 90 percent of
the people being turned down at employers that I talked to
can't pass the basic screen or they don't show up when they
find out there is a screening, so many of them are dropping the
screening, depending on their insurance.
The second question is that we are all trying to deal with
language questions. I would be interested in any innovative
programs in trying to deal with language questions.
Our area, like many others, not only has Hispanic, but we
have all these refugee programs when they closed down the New
Haven plant. I don't know what you do with 400 people. I mean,
it was like probably at least 20 languages at that plant.
Another is--Congressman Davis has been a leader in this,
and I have worked with this. In Fort Wayne, we have a prison
reentry program that--many of the hardest to employ also have a
prison record.
How do you tackle that in the workforce development? And I
would be interested in any comments from Ms. Randolph and
anybody else who can comment during my time period.
Ms. Randolph. Well, let me just make a comment about the
prisoner reentry program. We have the Blue Jacket program,
which I believe you already are very aware of.
What has occurred, because these individuals have felony
records and are not able to get jobs because of policy in many
companies, there are some innovative companies that are
startups that are specifically employing them.
Then they have a good track record and a work history that
they can present to a potential new employer. So that is one of
the innovations that Blue Jacket, for example, has done.
We are working very closely with the prisoner reentry
program and seeking placements for individuals who have that
record and are finding that the most accept comes from those
startup companies who actually hire by purpose the returning
offender, giving them that second chance.
Mr. Carbone. I think that one of the values of a One-Stop
is that you would have all the services under one roof, at one
location, that anyone who walks through that door may need in
order to get to successful employment, be it people with
disabilities or be it others that, you know, you mentioned with
other forms of barriers to successful employment.
The services should be there at the One-Stop level.
Sometimes there are lots of other barriers that folks have, not
just not having skills or a career in sight, but lots of other
barriers that have to be dealt with in order to properly
prepare them and get them ready for the future.
Part of creating a base of companies that are friendly to
folks who are part of the reentry program takes leadership on
the part of the board to go out and drum up support, and even
the political leaders of the community, to help us, and
particularly with small-and mid-sized companies, to create this
sort of friendly hiring atmosphere, so that we can refer folks
who are part of the reentry program who have gone through our
testing process, who have gone through all the sort of other
agencies that can help to get them better prepared, and are now
ready for employment.
Most communities, and I think mine, you know, to some
extent as well--there is a limited number of companies that
want to talk to you. There are lots of startup companies. There
are lots of folks that employ folks that might be day laborers
or things of that sort that will help and will do that.
But if you are interested in getting them jobs that are
going to kind of nurture them for the years to come and
integrate them into the job market, I think, again, I get back
to that same point I made before.
If you have a larger board, and the board has more
resources, and the board is kind of respected, if not revered,
in the community, then I think you can get the level of
cooperation from all of the partners of that community to be
successful, regardless of the barriers that a person may have.
Just to better respond for a second to your first point, I
mentioned in my remarks that the One-Stops need change, that
the constituencies of service as unemployment continues to
diminish are going to change.
And it is going to mean that a lot of folks are going to
need a lot more time, a lot more services, to be successful.
And resources need to be dedicated accordingly.
But if the workforce board, again, has the community
colleges, your state universities and the institutions that
spend a lot more money than workforce boards do in job
training--if we are focused on a community consensus, a plan,
it can be totally full service.
So again, the leadership of the board--the larger board is
part of doing this part of our work a lot better.
Mr. Ware. Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment on that, if
I might?
Mr. Yarmuth. Sure, Mr. Ware.
Mr. Ware. Representative Souder, it is a great question,
and I see in what I am doing that the employer really has to
become more involved than he has in the past.
We have a 2.8 percent unemployment rate in Wyoming. That
means that people that we are coming to or are coming to us to
serve have suspended driver's licenses. I mean, we are really
at the lowest level. They have alcohol problems, et cetera.
And we can serve them, get them trained and into position,
so I think the employer, just because of the nature of the
workforce shortage, is going to have to take on more
responsibility than they have in the past.
And I give one example, Valerie Giddens, a single mom with
three kids, age 46 years old, has never been self-sustaining in
her life. We taught her how to drive a truck and become a Class
A driver.
She made $48,000 last year. She has insurance for herself
and her kids. She has bought a car, and she is looking at
buying a house. Great short story there.
It took 1.5 years of the employer working with her to get
her to that point. And the employer made the investment in that
person.
The other comment about language--you know, today, with all
of our technology, there are a lot of new processes to learn
the English language or the Spanish language much more quickly
than just opening a book and turning pages. Thank you.
Mr. Yarmuth. Thank you.
Before I recognize Mr. Bishop, I would like to ask
unanimous consent that three statements be submitted and
included in the record: the testimony of Gary Earl, the
president and CEO of Workforce Central Florida; the statement
of the AFL-CIO; and the statement of the United States
Conference of Mayors.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gary J. Earl, President, CEO, Workforce Central
Florida
Chairman Hinojosa, Ranking Minority Member Keller, and
distinguished members of this Subcommittee, I am Gary J. Earl,
President and CEO of Workforce Central Florida. Workforce Central
Florida is the Regional Workforce Investment Board under the current
Workforce Investment Act for the five County area surrounding Orlando,
Florida. We cover the areas of Orange, Seminole, Osceola, Lake and
Sumter Counties. We are a regional entity formed by combining the areas
of two previous Private Industry Councils and adding additional
counties from each of two other Councils, in order to achieve a
regional economic area that resembles the kind of regional entity
envisioned in much of recent discussion on the matter of what the right
size region might be. Our geographic footprint covers the areas of five
school districts, three community college districts, and at least seven
economic development organizations, and each and every one of those is
a valued partner to our enterprise. To give you some perspective,
Workforce Central Florida's WIA Adult allocation was larger than that
of nine states when we checked just a few months ago. At Workforce
Central Florida, We believe that to compete in the global economy of
the 21st Century, America, Florida, and our Region must maximize the
productive potential of all segments of its population and its
businesses.
As Background, I would like to share some of Florida's WIA history
with you. Florida's response to the challenges and opportunities
offered by the Workforce Investment Act, the amendments to the Wagner-
Peyser Act, and the enactment of the Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families Act were unique. Florida was an early implementation state in
the initial phases of WIA, having anticipated much of what was working
its way through Congress at the time as the new Workforce Investment
Act. After a long process of public hearings, stakeholder focus groups,
and so forth, in Florida's landmark Workforce Innovations Act of 2000,
the State Legislature established the State Workforce Board as the
policy and oversight body for all workforce development activity in
Florida, the Agency for Workforce Innovation as its administrative arm,
and the Regional Workforce Development Boards as the local planning and
oversight entity responsible for programs operated at the local level.
This followed several years of discussion and reorganization at the
state and local levels, as we adapted to the changes in federal
workforce legislation, the movement of welfare transition programs away
from a social service design to one of reemployment.
As I am sure you know, the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 was
built on five key principles: 1) streamlined services in a one-stop
environment, 2) customer choice, 3) universal access to all customers,
4) strengthened accountability, and 5) private sector authority. In the
Workforce Innovations Act of 2000 (FL), Florida adopted four more of
its own: 1) self-sufficiency and self-reliance, 2) performance
accountability, 3) privatization as a cornerstone of operations, and 4)
local governance by the private sector leadership. Further, the Florida
Senate Select Committee on Workforce Development identified several key
issues facing the economy of Florida that had direct implications for
the workforce Development system. They included, 1) disconnect between
the workforce system and the state's economic development strategy, 2)
insufficient number of potential employees with the technical or
professional skills to meet the needs of Florida's employers, 3)
insufficient number of potential employees with adequate literacy
skills, work ethic, and good work habits to meet the needs of Florida's
employers, 4) problems of welfare transition clients and other
``working poor'' Floridians, 5) employers' need for continual
enhancement of employee skills, 6) small business workforce needs, 7)
strategic, effective, and innovative use of workforce system resources,
and, 8) multiple, overlapping administrative structures.
Florida's Legislature concluded, in the preamble to Florida's
Workforce Innovations Act that, ``Florida's [local business]
communities have demonstrated in the Workforce * * * programs that they
have the energy, capacity, and the will to tackle some of society's
toughest challenges. The nexus between workforce challenges and
workforce solutions is in the [local business] community and, to the
greatest possible extent the authority to implement those solutions
should reside there, as well.'' We believe these actions were directly
attributable to the private sector leadership involved at both the
state and regional board levels. In Florida, the oversight delegated to
the private sector mandated in the Workforce Investment Act was
extended to all labor market exchange and welfare transition programs
as well.
Workforce Central Florida believes that Florida's Workforce
Development System stands out as a model for the rest of the country.
Very few states have their own laws on the subject of Workforce
Development and only a hand full have laws as comprehensive as that of
Florida. While functional consolidation of all programs related to
activities in the publicly funded labor market exchange systems is
still a topic of debate for the large portion of the country, Florida's
Workforce Innovation Act of 2000 did that to the extent allowed by
federal law.
The genius and the key to the success of Florida's system design
over the years in hitting performance goals, successfully navigating
welfare reform, responding to disasters, and tackling special charges
such as Florida Rebuilds (hurricane response) has been in the systems
recognition of the private sector leadership at the local level as the
``nexus'' of workforce development activity. Who better to establish
and maintain policy on labor market exchange than the local business
leaders who make up the consumer base of the services provided by the
system? The state law clearly established the state level
responsibilities as policy and enablement, and anticipated all
consolidated activities to be overseen at the local level by the
several regional Workforce Investment Boards.
Workforce Central Florida recently celebrated its tenth
anniversary. I would like to share with you some of our accomplishments
over that period. In the last ten years, Workforce Central Florida has:
Assisted over 38,676 employers recruit and hire,
Assisted over 38,676 employers recruit and hire,
Helped nearly 900,000 residents looking for work,
Provided over $14M in training scholarships to upgrade the
skills of Central Florida residents,
Awarded 44 college scholarships to youth,
Helped to reduce welfare roles by 80%, saving
approximately $35M/year in welfare expenditures,
Partnered with other agencies to help bring another $8.5M
in grants to our local area,
Reduced infrastructure from over 1 dozen offices to 5 one-
stop career centers; redirecting funds saved into other services,
Placed over 320,000 job seekers into jobs,
Helped over 9000 at risk youth stay in school,
Received over 55 local, state and national awards of
excellence,
Hosted over 1000 HR professionals and CEOs at our 3
workforce summits,
Provided outplacement services to area employers for over
32,000 individuals they had to lay off,
Partnered with school districts to provide ESOL to
hundreds of individuals who do not speak English, and
Directed over $100,000,000 to area organizations through
contracts for services.
During that ten year period, there were a number of events that we
consider significant milestones. I will list a few of them:
1996: New board seated in newly-configured 5 county region
1997: WAGES (welfare reform) launched Service delivery in One-Stop
began
1998: Teen pregnancy prevention kicked off
1st web site unveiled
1999: Local WAGES Board and CFJEP merged; WCF is new name
1st regional labor market study conducted
2000: Search for unrestricted resources becomes a priority of Board
One-Stop served over 65,000
2001: Workforce Watch e-newsletter began
Partnered with chambers to train businesses regarding services
President Bush visited our one-stop center after 9-1-1.
2002: Launch of Employed Worker Training as priority of Board
Board adopted policy that the employer is our customer
2003: 1st regional workforce summit held--275 attend
Board designated targeted industries, directing resources to those
industries in the area compatible with area's economic
development strategies
2004: Inaugural State of Workforce survey released
Mobile Express begins service
NEG response is implemented after hurricanes
2005: State and national recognition received for business and
healthcare models
Katrina came ashore; staff was sent to Mississippi
Won high performing region designation
Orange County Mayor's Job Fair held for Katrina victims in area
I relate these historical facts to make a central point. Workforce
Central Florida is a success story because the policies followed over
that time period were generated by an overwhelmingly private sector led
Board of Directors at the local level. I say overwhelmingly because we
have maintained a super majority across that period, not just the
required simple majority. Furthermore, we have maintained within our
own bylaws a definitional requirement for a quorum that requires not
just a majority of active Board members to be present to conduct
business, but an additional requirement that a majority of those
present must be private sector representatives. That is our corporate
culture. If we are to truly ensure that the ``investment'' in workforce
investment is to be an investment in our communities' comprehensive
economic development strategies, then all expenditures and practices at
the local region level must be overseen and managed by the local
regional Boards. In my view, this would necessarily extend even to
expenditures made under any form of Individual Training Accounts, or
any of the other several labels that have been suggested for the same
kind of activity. Without such local oversight, such expenditures have
no more accountability than FEMA credit cards and can hardly be called
``investments''. I would recommend to you without reservation, that as
you deliberate on improving our nation's workforce development system,
that you consider similar requirements regarding the private sector
leadership at both the local and state levels.
I would also like to take this opportunity to suggest a number of
other recommendations which I would, on behalf of my Board and
colleagues ask that you consider. As we look for ways to improve
services to our primary customers the employers we need to continue to
be able to identify and design program and service mixes that best fit
the needs of the local Workforce Boards business community. We must go
beyond ``continue'' to ``triage and blend'' the traditional State
managed workforce programs with and accompanying traditional local
workforce programs. One size rarely fits all therefore we recommend
exploring ways to customize, mix and blend services for the local
business communities. Therefore, we would ask that you: Allow Local
Regional Workforce Boards the authority to operate Incumbent Worker
Training (IWT). Include IWT as another arrow in the local workforce
quiver of services, continue to explore eliminating the 50% match
requirement for customized training, provide that services for business
should include targeted skill development for customized skill needs,
allow local Workforce Boards the authority to add performance criteria
for local training provider's eligibility, continue the prohibition of
listing On-the-Job Training providers (OJT) and customized training
providers from State Training Providers List, and we request that
scarce Youth formula dollars not be used to fund new youth programs
like the National Youth Challenge Grant and other future youth
programs. In fact, in recent years, the Department (USDOL) has engaged
in a good bit of discretionary grant-making in areas other than youth,
as well. Efforts to engage Faith-Based and Community-Based
Organizations are noteworthy; however, these activities have been
largely conducted with little or no notice to or coordination with
designated authorities at the state and local level. In the case of
some of the WIRED grantees, entities (which did not exist prior to the
grant) were formed specifically for that purpose without any
consultation and agreement by local elected officials; creating
questionable and unclear situations regarding accountability. Some
large national grants were given to companies offering wages so low
that such companies would not be considered for funding assistance by
local authorities at the local level. Discretionary activities of the
Department should be coordinated with local and state authorities, in
order to ensure that such activities enhance the economic strategies of
local areas.
Adequately funded One-Stop Infrastructure is critical to maximizing
the availability of training and retraining services, as well as
support services, for America's employers and workers. Although the
Workforce Investment Act mandates specific partners within the One-
Stops, partners are not required to pay their fair share and partners
often choose not to participate when they are pressed to pay.
Transportation is an issue in most of our regions, making it difficult
for customers to travel to the various partners' offices. The rising
costs of infrastructure, physical and electronic, are placing a strain
on the local workforce boards and their partners. More partners with a
mandate to share costs are needed to shoulder the infrastructure
burden. With declining funding and only limited financial support from
partners, many workforce boards have found it necessary to close One-
Stops. We would ask that you create an infrastructure funding mechanism
whereby States are required to determine and appropriate contributions
to the One-Stop infrastructure from WIA mandated partners, without
federally imposed caps on such contributions and/or establish a
separate, new authorization for One-Stop infrastructure funding that
brings together all partners with the needed resources to support a
comprehensive workforce system.
Regarding accountability, we would note that in our private sector
businesses, we expect to be held accountable for employee, customer
service, and bottom line performance. The public workforce development
system and its' local programs must also be held accountable, both
fiscally and programmatically. We support evaluation measures that make
sense for legislative purposes, as well as managerially meaningful for
local Boards. ``Accrued expenditures'' must be included in any
meaningful measurement system, as has been recommended by the GAO, for
several years now. We support efforts to target performance standards
under WIA that will help build a comprehensive, outcome oriented
national public workforce system, and we would hope that there is to be
room for locally developed measures, as well. We would recommend
caution with implementation of any measures that may cause unintended
consequences, such as a tendency to serve individuals who are most job-
ready.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, regarding GOVERNANCE, we
believe that legislation must ensure the continuation of strong,
locally-based, private sector business-led decision making process of
the current workforce investment system, the formation of workforce
regions from the local area up, not the top down, as this is
fundamental to a region's legitimacy at the local level, and the
appointment of local boards by local elected officials.
In the Workforce Investment Act, Congress struck a very delicate
balance between the authorities and responsibilities given to the
federal, state and local levels in the system. As an example, the Act
clearly gave the responsibility of certification of one-stop centers to
the local Workforce Investment Boards. It also left the oversight of
the Wagner-Peyser functions at the state level. Care needs to be taken
that the notion that the proper roles of the federal and state levels
are to enable the local WIBs, set direction and policy appropriate to
that level, and assure accountability, and that operational decision
making occurs at the local WIB level. The states should establish the
overall framework for service delivery in consultation with the local
areas. The final determination on service delivery mix should be made
at the local area, closest to the customer, not micro managed by the
state. There is a distinct difference between setting standards for
certification and conducting the actual certification within those
standards or guidelines. To assist in the clarity of the legislation,
we recommend the following items:
Retain the requirements that Chief Elected Officials and Local WIB
members be included on the State Board (retained from current
law).Local WIB members on the State Board provide a frontline view that
many of the appointed business seats and mandatory partner seats may
not have.
Focus the role of State boards on providing guidance to partner
programs on their appropriate roles and contributions to the One Stop
infrastructure. State boards need to be given tools to fully engage
partner programs such as the Vets and Vocational Rehabilitation
programs in the infrastructure of the One-Stop Centers. Many Centers do
not have co-location of these programs and even if they do they are
often not structurally a part of the One-Stop team.
Ensure that regional planning is conducted only after first
consulting with local boards and local elected officials; and regional
plans must incorporate the plans of each of the local areas within the
region. Regional plans should add value to and not be developed at the
expense of the local area's needs. While regional planning is necessary
for labor market and economic development information there are still
unique challenges to the local regions.
Streamline the membership requirements of local Board membership
without diluting the private sector representation. There are too many
mandated partners that do not bring strategic direction or policy
governance to the State and Local Board memberships. Board size and its
effect on a Board's ability to function is a serious issue,
particularly where the area covered by a given Board is large, entails
heavy time and travel demands on the volunteers, and as a result, makes
meetings difficult. The requirements for ``representatives'' should be
minimized wherever possible, but only in the context of and in
agreement with current requirements of the Act itself. Boards need to
continue to be driven by the private sector membership and eliminating
requirements for multiple seats for one-stop partners would enhance
business leadership. Perhaps a minimum requirement for representation
on the State Board of Regional Workforce Investment Boards' membership
would enhance coordination between the two. Specifically, at the local
level the reduction of requirement to have a representative of each of
the One-Stop Partners on the local board would help to reduce the size
of boards to a manageable level and would remove contractors from
sitting at the board table (as many do across the nation). Local Board
membership should be Business led with a strong (if not super) majority
and removing those who are representatives of Unemployment Compensation
or Trade Adjustment Act and other operational partners would foster the
environment of a demand-driven, pro-active workforce system.
I would add to these comments only one more in conclusion. It is
imperative that we ``get it right'', and therefore, proper deliberation
is necessary. However, it is, in my view, also (and perhaps more)
important that we get it sooner rather than later. We need
reauthorization now so we can move forward in ensuring our communities'
competitiveness as expediently as possible. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Keller,
and Members, I want to thank you for the opportunity to comment.
______
Prepared Statement of American Federation of Labor-Congress of
Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO)
Overview
More than ever, securing the future for working families depends on
having access to training and education, and then access to jobs that
pay well and have good benefits. Responding to the economic challenges
facing millions of unemployed, low-wage and disadvantaged workers, and
the need to retain and create decent jobs, is a daunting and urgent
task for our nation's workforce development system--but it must be the
primary task.
Globalization, outsourcing, technological change and mass layoffs
have created unprecedented turbulence in the labor market where workers
are increasingly faced with jobs that pay less and provide fewer
benefits. Changing jobs should not result in financial disaster for
families. The United States must do more to help workers manage these
transitions and the economic threats faced by working families. These
include specific labor market, education and training services that
will better match job seekers and employers, help U.S. workers access
training for good jobs and provide employers with skilled workers.
A Historical Perspective
In the depths of the Great Depression, over 70 years ago, the
federal government established an economic security system to aid in
economic recovery, provide help to unemployed workers and assure
stability in the labor market.
The Congress and the Roosevelt administration put into place a
federal-state system of public employment offices that were to be
universally available to employers and workers without charge or any
conditions. This was followed by the creation of the Unemployment
Insurance program whose benefits were to be paid through the public
employment offices. The relationship between the Employment Service and
Unemployment Insurance has prevailed ever since.
Since that time state Employment Security agency functions have
included Unemployment Insurance and Employment Service functions
including labor exchange; labor market research and information, and
the administration of worker adjustment programs such as the Trade
Adjustment Assistance program. In the post-World War II period the
state Employment Security system was asked to take on additional
responsibilities--providing special help to veterans and certifying
foreign workers by demonstrating that the admission of foreign workers
would not harm U.S. workers
Throughout the intervening years the workforce system has evolved
to respond to the various economic, social and political changes
affecting our nation. Starting in 1960s the federal government sought
to involve itself in worker training by creating direct federal
categorical grants programs as part of the ``War on Poverty.'' During
that period the institutional responsibility to provide training
services to the disadvantaged and unemployed was given to local
governments, non-profits and community agencies. In the 1970s workforce
training programs became highly decentralized and federal decision
making was transferred to state and local governments who were charged
with designing, developing and implementing workforce training.
The Comprehensive Employment and Training Act of 1973 (CETA)
created local advisory boards and later Private Industry Councils to
help oversee local programs. The Job Training Partnership Act of 1983
(JTPA) increased employer control over local training programs for
disadvantaged and dislocated workers.
As time went on federal job training programs began to compete for,
and displace, the resources of the state employment security system and
the process has continued to this day.
Reauthorizing The Workforce Investment Act
The Workforce Investment Act is the next iteration of the evolving
workforce system that began in the 1960s and it is an outgrowth of the
locally based structures established in as part of the anti-poverty
programs. As a result, governance is localized and dominated by
employers, delivery is often privatized and job training effectiveness
varies widely. One of the reasons why workforce training programs
always have to struggle for attention in the appropriations process is
that they can not produce evidence of effective training. This will
continue to be problematic as the system struggles for political and
financial support.
As we reconsider workforce training within the context of the
Workforce Investment Act we see a system where most of the attention
and resources are focused on governance and ``work-first'' policies at
the expense of training. While employer dominance has increased, the
voice of organized labor and community organizations has been
increasingly marginalized. The competition for resources coupled with
the emphasis on ``work-first'' strategies and core services delivered
through a one-stop infrastructure has created extraordinary tension
between state and locally based system.
This struggle to keep a statewide focus on programs including
Vocational Rehabilitation, Unemployment Insurance, Employment Service,
and Trade Adjustment Assistance is challenged by a workforce training
system that is dominated by local workforce boards. The inability to
reach consensus on WIA reauthorization over the last five years is
symptomatic of the inability of both sides to resolve the tensions
between state and local delivery systems and between the interests of
employers and the interest of workers.
We believe there are valuable roles for all parties in the
workforce system. At the center of the system must be a robust
employment security program that is able to provide labor exchange,
labor market information, counseling, case management and referral to
job training and job placement. We are not proposing that the
employment security system serve as a mechanism for providing training;
however we believe that system must serve as the primary entry point
into the system. The employment security system is not a replacement
for local training programs--rather these programs should work in
coordination with the labor exchange structure
During the five years that we have been debating the
reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act we have seen the Bush
Administration and the Labor Department try again and again to block
grant Wagner-Peyser Employment Service and WIA programs. The AFL-CIO
has consistently opposed these initiatives, including our strenuous
opposition to proposed regulations published last December that would
have essentially created a state option to block grant these programs.
We believe that organized labor has been marginalized--our
participation on WIA boards has been minimized, our input in the design
and development of training was eliminated in 1998 and we have been
engaged in a struggle to regain a strong voice in this system.
A Stable, Sustainable System
Our nation needs a renewed social compact between government,
employers and workers that creates a stable and sustainable employment
security system. This system would:
Provide unemployment benefits that replace the majority of
lost wages and cover more of the unemployed. It would extend
unemployment benefits well beyond the 26 weeks so that workers have
sufficient time to look for better paying jobs and get retraining.
Expand the public delivery system to support full
implementation of labor exchange, Unemployment Insurance and training
services staffed by trained professionals
Provide a guarantee of education and quality training for
unemployed workers as well as those seeking to upgrade skills that
ensure economic self-sufficiency. This requires a system that supports
labor-management partnerships in industry sectors that links training
to good jobs.
As economic hardship and uncertainty plague millions of workers, it
is particularly important that the Congress exert strong leadership to
ensure that our nation's workforce system helps workers rebuild their
lives, their families and their communities.
Just as working people and their unions fought for the good jobs we
have today, unions will continue to seek a strong voice in the
education, training and economic development systems in our states and
in our communities.
We believe that to work effectively, this system must be
universally available, publicly administered and fully funded. As the
voice of workers in the system unions can help transform WIA into an
instrument for developing high-wage, high-skill jobs, instead of a
revolving door of low-wage, low-skill jobs.
The labor movement is committed to strengthening the nation's
workforce development and job training infrastructure. We will continue
to oppose any effort to privatize our public delivery systems, and will
continue to support a central role for the State Employment Service in
providing labor exchange service and a federally supported Unemployment
Insurance system as key components of a comprehensive workforce
development system. The AFL-CIO will continue to advocate for funding
levels sufficient to meet the reemployment and retraining needs of all
American workers.
We will support coordination with and involvement of proven
providers--our nation's registered apprenticeship programs, community
colleges, and other post-secondary institutions as well as community-
based organizations--in delivering high-quality education and training.
We believe that workers' skill and career development needs must be
at the forefront of our nation's workforce development system. Public
workforce programs must build family-sustaining jobs that connect poor,
unemployed and underemployed workers to good jobs and career ladders,
and that support high-road companies that compete on the basis of skill
and innovation.
Specific Recommendations
1. Strengthen the Wagner-Peyser System
Wagner-Peyser Programs are fundamental to the U.S. labor market and
play a crucial role in the Unemployment Insurance program.
A comprehensive and well structured employment and training system
requires a strong robust public labor exchange. Private sector
intermediaries like temporary agencies are not concerned with helping
individuals facing barriers to employment or helping them move upward
in the labor market. Only a public institution, like the Employment
Service can take on this responsibility.
State Employment Service (ES) grants through the Wagner-Peyser Act
provide funds for a range of services to millions of workers looking
for jobs and millions of employers looking for workers. The Wagner-
Peyser Employment Service is financed from the UI Trust Fund because
the public employment service is used to ensure that UI claimants meet
the program's legal requirement to look for work, which is a core
element in determining UI benefit eligibility, and to provide job
matching services for claimants. The Social Security Act explicitly
authorizes appropriations from the UI Trust Fund for public employment
offices under the Wagner-Peyser Act for this reason.
More recently the 1998 Workforce Investment Act reaffirmed the
close connection of Wagner-Peyser employment services to the
unemployment insurance program by amending Section (3) of Wagner-Peyser
to require that the Secretary ``ensure, for individuals otherwise
eligible to receive unemployment compensation, the provision of
reemployment services and other activities in which the individuals are
required to participate to receive the compensation.''
Long term resource declines for the Wagner-Peyser program have
seriously degraded its capacity as a national/state labor exchange. For
example, The United States ranks last in spending on public employment
services as a percentage of GDP in an OECD survey of developed
countries.\1\ In addition, the shift to UI call centers and Internet
claims taking has substantially weakened the connection between the two
programs. There has been a steady decline in real terms for Wagner-
Peyser funding. To match the 1985 appropriation for Wagner-Peyser, the
Administration would have to request $1.4 billion, or twice as much as
the current appropriation for FY 2007.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Lippodlt, Douglas and Melvin Brody, ``Public Provision of
Employment Services in Selected OECD Countries: The Job Brokerage
Function. In Labor Exchange Policy in the United States, Balducchi,
Eberts and O'Leary.
\2\ Devereux, Greg. American Federation of State County and
Municipal Employees (AFSCME) ``Testimony before the Subcommittee on
Human Resources of the House Ways and Means Committee.'' May 4, 2006
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is more efficient and seamless for the same state system that
provides UI benefits to provide such services, as assessments, public
job search assistance and referral to other appropriate services, as
soon as a worker becomes unemployed as possible. Keeping these
functions with the same state agency that provides the benefits is more
efficient and effective because it allows for early intervention and
assistance.
A statewide public labor exchange system is a valuable component to
a broader workforce development system.
In addition to its role in the UI system, the Wagner-Peyser system
also is charged with making available universal labor exchange
services. Specifically, the Wagner-Peyser Act requires the Labor
Department to ``maintain[ing] a system for clearing labor between the
States''.
With job turnover and mobility much greater than in previous
decades, a strong and uniform system that can operate on a statewide
and interstate basis is necessary now more than ever. This is true not
only from the standpoint of the job seeker but also from the standpoint
of maintaining a high level of economic productivity. It would be
difficult if not impossible to achieve this with a collection of
private or local entities. Passing down dollars and driving policy
through multiple layers of and among multiple providers makes it
difficult to develop uniform policies and practices as called for under
Sec. 3 of the Wagner-Peyser Act.
In addition to the legal requirements in Wagner Peyser, the public
state labor exchange can provide the following benefits:
The development and use of labor market information (e.g.
information on state, regional, interstate and local economies) on a
uniform and systematic basis is more efficiently and equitably
accomplished on a statewide, if not national, basis instead of by a
multiplicity of local areas. This function can provide useful support
to local one-stops as well as a variety of private intermediaries.
A statewide information network for jobs and jobseekers
(either as a public job bank or linkages with private ones or a
combination of both) avoids costly duplication of information systems
by local areas. In addition, the free self-help services which are
available to both employers and jobseekers in local one-stop centers
depend on the infrastructure that state agencies have developed.
Privatizing this function could convert these self-help operations into
profit centers for private companies to begin charging both employers
and job seekers.
Statewide information systems can become a central
component of state, regional, and local economic development strategies
and can help inform the design of effective training programs focused
on emerging industries and good jobs.
Trained Wagner-Peyser staff can help job seekers who
cannot use advanced information tools and to refer them to more
specialized services. Evidence shows that ES services are of particular
value for low skilled minority workers.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Holzer, Harry. ``Labor Exchange Policy in the U.S.'' W. E.
Upjohn Institute, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A statewide structure provides flexibility that local
labor exchange entities do not have, including the ability to shift
staff to different parts of a state during emergencies, which Virginia
did after 9/11, and the ability to work on a regional and interstate
basis. This flexibility also has allowed Ohio to fill in gaps where
resources are scarce or not available, including supplementing veteran
services and TAA support around the state when needed. Ohio state staff
is trained in ES, UI, TAA, labor market information and outreach
services to employers, a flexible workforce that allows the state to
provide more universal labor exchange services that can respond to
emerging local needs.
The public state operated labor exchange structure is
especially important in rural states and rural parts of states, where
local and private placement companies are weak or non existent. Private
companies tend to prefer operating in urban areas where opportunities
to make money are greater. Employees in public agencies seek to serve
all jobseekers consistently and evenly.
Maintaining a public labor exchange subject to merit based
personnel standards, instead of using private contractors creates
accountability, equity and the ability to achieve statewide or federal
policy objectives
Merit-based (or civil service) system requirements were
applied to the Wagner-Peyser Act shortly after enactment. They are
designed to promote high quality service delivery by ensuring that
hiring and promotions are based on competence, and not affected by
nepotism, political connections and favoritism unrelated to job
qualifications. These standards also ensure impartial and unbiased
delivery of service, and not affected by favoritism or prejudice. As
such they are very different from the personnel policies of private
contractors whose primary obligation may be to maximize profit for
stockholders or who can hire and fire at will without any of the
restraints of merit standards.
Public administration provides important due process
protection for individuals who are receiving government benefits such
as UI, who might be subject to discrimination, and who expect the
privacy of confidential information. Consistently state employees point
out that they must serve any and everyone while private contractors
can, and do, pick and choose to whom they give the most attention.
A state/national public structure can help facilitate the
implementation of public policies. For example, with adequate staff, a
public labor exchange can be a useful tool for identifying and working
with employers with skill shortages, including those requesting
immigrant labor, guiding qualified jobseekers to them, and promoting
training in these occupations.
recommendation
Require states to use Wagner-Peyser funds for statewide
public labor exchange and labor market information.
Require that states use merit-based personnel systems to
implement Wagner-Peyser programs.
Increase Wagner-Peyser funding for the State Employment
Security programs to a level that is sufficient to carry out its labor
exchange, labor market research and information and related programs.
2. Address Infrastructure Funding
The use of WIA resources to focus on service integration, create
new one-stop facilities and bureaucracies, without any limitation, has
contributed substantially to the decline in training. This is despite
the fact that many WIA partner programs already contribute operating
funds to one-stop operations.
A number of infrastructure proposals would start the commingling of
funds from non-WIA programs. In doing so, they transform the original
one-stop idea of a better-coordinated workforce system into a mechanism
for reducing resources for and block granting these programs in the
future.
recommendation
Current law should be retained, or a separate WIA funding
stream should be created, for one-stop operations.
3. Rebalance the Interests of Employers and Workers:
Increase Labor Participation and Connect Training
to Good Jobs
a. increase labor participation
Organized labor brings a vitally important perspective to workforce
and economic development. This involvement is rooted in labor's
fundamental mission to create, sustain and expand opportunities for
good jobs and foster strong communities in which working families have
a voice.
Expanded organized labor participation will help to ensure that
funds are used to identify skill needs, develop relevant training
curricula, provide quality training and career pathways that lead to
good jobs and economic self-sufficiency. Unions also encourage
employers to invest more in training and education. Joint training
programs in the auto, steel, communications and health care sector have
significantly increased opportunities for career development for
workers and their families.
Unions who represent workers having skills in which training is
proposed should be fully consulted in the design and implementation of
training so that organized labor's unique knowledge of the local labor
market and industry skill needs will assure that WIA programs are of
high quality and proven results
The AFL-CIO Working for America Institute has been working with a
number of unions to establish high road partnerships with companies,
community organizations and the WIA system to provide workers with
education and training, opportunities for advancement and a commitment
to build their communities based on skill, innovation and an equitably
share prosperity.
recommendation
Require that unions who represent workers having skills in
which training is proposed should be fully consulted in the design and
implementation of training.
Increase labor representation on state and local workforce
investment boards so that a minimum of 15% of state and local board
membership comes from organized labor.
b. expand training and connect training to good jobs
A principal criticism of WIA has been the substantial decline in
actual training and the use of WIA for labor exchange services as a
result of the decline in Wagner-Peyser funding. Specifically WIA
reauthorization should ensure that Wagner Peyser funds are used for
labor exchange which will free up WIA funds for training
In regard to funding decisions, priority consideration should be
given to training programs of demonstrated effectiveness in helping
workers gain economic self-sufficiency, including joint labor-
management training programs.
The Congress should look to efforts in Great Britain where
employment and training programs involve key partnerships between the
Department for Education and Skills and British Trades Union Congress.
The British Government has established a Union Learning Fund that
provides support to Union Learning Representatives who are on the
frontline in workplace education and training providing outreach and
assistance to workers in accessing the workforce system. These
partnerships help workers develop new skills and careers and increases
productivity.
Union-involved education and training programs help to promote
employer's economic success and reflect a commitment to broad workforce
development. Union-sponsored education and training seek to create
worker-centered learning programs that build both a broad base of
worker's knowledge as well as specific fundamental occupational and
technical skills that underlie a range of jobs, in contrast to the
often narrow training offered by employers. Union programs connect
worker training, work organization and work processes in ways that help
workers and employers increase productivity and spread the benefits of
increased earnings equitably.
Unions can work particularly effectively with employers on a
sectoral basis addressing not only the workforce training needs, but
modernization and market development as well. Additionally, unions can
help set sector-based skill standards, assessment and certification
systems so that workers will have portable and marketable skills.
recommendation:
Training should be industry focused on available high-
growth, high-demand, high-wage occupations in qualified industries
through the one-stop delivery WIA training programs should be
coordinated with community colleges, employers and unions businesses
and labor organizations, and the one-stop system to meet the training
needs of qualified industries for new entrants, dislocated as well as
incumbent workers
At a minimum, 50% of adult and dislocated worker WIA
allotments should be used for training.
Priority consideration for funding should be given to
supporting sector skill alliances established through labor-management
partnerships that create high-wage, high-growth training and placement
opportunities.
4. Increase Funding
The AFL-CIO continues to be extremely concerned about the under-
funding of workforce training and employment security programs. At a
time when unemployment and poverty rates are still at unacceptable
levels, it does not make sense to cut programs that help workers get
back on their feet. The Administration's cuts have had significant and
deleterious effect on the workforce system's ability to provide
services to unemployed workers, those who are leaving public assistance
and those who are low income.
Comparative statistics from the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) set the total federal expenditures
for job training in 2000 at .04 percent of GDP. This level places the
United States in the bottom of OECD member nations in terms of
government spending on job training.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ O'Leary, Christopher, Straits, Robert and Stephen Wandner. U.S.
Job Training: Types, Participants and History. In Job Training Policy
in the United States. W.E. Upjohn Institute. 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
recommendation
Increase funding for the WIA adult, dislocated worker and
youth programs to a level that will ensure disadvantaged and dislocated
adults and at-risk youth receive the necessary adjustment and training
help they need.
5. Maintain and Expand Labor Standards and Worker
Protections
WIA labor standards and worker protections are an important
foundation of protection for participants and regular employees and
they should be preserved. It is important to expand these standards to
include assurances that employers who receive WIA subsidies abide by
``responsible contractor'' principles.
Employers who benefit from WIA resources should pay their workers
fair wages and benefits. These employers must also obey all labor laws,
provide training and job retention programs and remain neutral if their
workers try to organize a union. Employers who violate labor,
environmental, employment, health and safety or civil rights laws are
not entitled to receive OJT, customized training or other public
subsidies.
recommendation
Expand WIA labor standards to require that any employer
who benefits from WIA resources, including employers who receive on-
the-job training and customized training subsidies, abide by
responsible contractor policies.
6. Improve Services to Dislocated Workers
It is essential that the funding stream for dislocated workers be
adequately funded. States must involve organized labor organizations in
their rapid response programs and should support the creation of labor-
management mechanisms to help workers connect with federal and state
resources. Layoff aversion strategies such as employee buyouts should
be fully considered.
The definition of dislocated workers should be broad enough to
serve workers who may still be unemployed or underemployed some time
after their dislocation. In addition, skills upgrade programs that will
prepare dislocated workers for the new demands of their existing
industries should be allowed, rather than a strict interpretation of
the ``unlikely to return to their previous occupation or industry''
standard.
Consideration should be given to formula changes that would better
allocate funds to areas of high dislocation and to prevent dramatic
swings in funding that jeopardize program continuity.
recommendation
Implement improvements to the dislocated worker program
that will facilitate early intervention and layoff aversion, expand
Rapid Response, engage labor and management and address the needs of
those facing layoff as well as those experiencing layoff and provide
increased funding and funding stability to the program.
7. Link Performance Goals to Good Jobs
WIA funds should not be used to subsidize training and placement in
temporary, part-time work. WIA reauthorization must include a clear
commitment to economic self-sufficiency.
recommendation
WIA performance standards should be expanded to include
post-placement earnings gains, job retention as well as health care and
pension benefits.
8. Do Not Expand Waivers
Current WIA waivers should not be expanded. In fact Congress should
examine the effectiveness of the WIA waivers and work-flex authority
granted by the department of Labor. Particularly the Congress should
determine whether the WIA waivers and work-flex authority have
increased training quality and improved performance.
Additionally WIA funds should not be used to support capped
individual accounts that incentivize workers into taking lower paying
jobs and reduce the amount of support for quality training
recommendation
Current WIA waivers should not be expanded, nor should the
Administration or Congress seek broad waiver authority for other
federal programs.
Individual Training Accounts should not be an allowable
activity for youth programs and WIA funds cannot be used for capped
Personal Reemployment Accounts, Career Advancement Accounts or other
individual accounts.
Conclusion
As economic hardship and uncertainty plague millions of workers, it
is particularly important that the Congress exert strong leadership to
ensure that our nation's workforce system helps workers rebuild their
lives, their families and their communities. Our nation's employment
and training system has an important role to play in addressing the
challenges of economic insecurity.
However it is only part of the solution. Increasing the minimum
wage, responding to the challenges of trade and immigration and
reversing the decline of unionization are all important determinants of
economic security.
Just as working people and their unions fought for the good jobs we
have today, unions will continue to seek a strong voice in the
education, training and economic development systems in our states and
in our communities.
It is time for the Congress to take bold action to assure that
every worker has a right to employment security and every worker has a
right to be retrained for a new job and to be fully supported by a
strong government safety net.
______
Prepared Statement of the United States Conference of Mayors
Chairman Miller and members of the Committee, The United States
Conference of Mayors appreciates the opportunity to submit testimony on
the Reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998.
The United States Conference of Mayors is the official nonpartisan
organization of cities with populations of 30,000 or more. There are
1,139 such cities in the country today. Each city is represented in the
Conference by its chief elected official, the mayor.
The enactment of legislation reauthorizing the Workforce Investment
Act is of major importance to mayors at this critical time in our
nation's economy. Global competitiveness, long-term economic security
and the achievement of the American dream for all Americans depend
primarily on a highly skilled, highly productive, and flexible
workforce. The future prosperity of the United States and its cities
will depend upon educating all Americans to higher and ever-changing
standards. One way to achieve this is through a strong federally-
funded, locally-driven workforce system.
Mayors believe that it is imperative that all low-wage and
structurally employed workers have the chance to acquire these new
highly-valued skills; receive needed supports while they are upgrading
skills and changing careers; and have access to high quality help to
find good jobs that lead to self-sufficiency and will enable them to
support their families. Mayors also believe that we must find ways to
bring business, workers, researchers, economic developers,
entrepreneurs, K-16 and other education and training institutions, and
government together at the local level to identify and develop their
strengths and capacity for innovation.
Mayors and other chief local elected officials understand first
hand what needs to be done. The place where every U.S. citizen meets
the government is at the local level. Leaders at the local level are
held accountable by their residents. Mayors and local elected officials
are first to know of an economic downturn or upturn because of the
number of residents who tell them their concerns about or pride in
having and keeping a job. The economic health of a community and its
citizens--especially its workers--is the top priority for every mayor
and other local elected official.
In 1998, when Congress articulated its vision for the central
operations of the workforce system it funds through the Workforce
Investment Act, the legislation was crafted in close collaboration with
practitioners and public interest groups. Since then, that vision has
been implemented and built upon by mayors and chief elected officials,
in partnership with the local workforce investment boards they appoint.
Among the successes that have emerged from your investment over the
last several years are a robust One-Stop system to directly connect
local employers with the local employee base; a youth development
system that assists directly in helping young people make the
successful transition to the workforce; and innovations that have
resulted in the leveraging of millions of dollars to align workforce
development with economic development and education activities. From
the every day needs of residents, to the relocation of tens of
thousands of refugees in the weeks and months following the 2005
hurricanes, the local workforce system has been there to help connect
people to jobs using a broad range of tools and strategies.
As you consider WIA reauthorization this year, the Conference of
Mayors recommends the following to continue the evolution of the
nation's core workforce development system, with a specific focus on
governance and service delivery structures currently authorized in
Title I of WIA. We have listed them in order of priority:
Governance and Local Area Designation--The public workforce system
is charged with achieving two distinct objectives--assisting people in
finding employment and training them to upgrade their skills in order
to find employment.
An ideal workforce system is aligned to labor markets. Hiring
transactions are both local and regional. To be effective, the
workforce system must be positioned to work at those levels and led by
those who have the greatest interest in its success.
A local board led by business, appointed by the mayor and/or the
chief elected official in the area, is in the best position to create a
strategy and implement it based on the needs of the local/regional
economy. Local workforce development systems and strategies must be
shaped around the local/regional economies and must be responsive to
the key needs of employers. Simply put, without healthy cities and
local economies, regions cannot thrive. In the absence of thriving
regions, the nation cannot compete.
A reauthorization bill should ensure a continued strong, locally
based business-led workforce investment system; ensure the appointment
of local boards by mayors and other local elected officials; and
protect the designation of high-performing workforce areas to best
address the comprehensive education, workforce, economic and
competitiveness needs of the country.
Moreover, the bill should clarify the essential, pivotal role that
local boards play as conveners of key stakeholders for development and
alignment of local/regional workforce and economic strategies; and as
brokers of training and related services, resulting in a highly skilled
workforce.
Youth--The Conference of Mayors is committed to promoting the well-
being and positive development of the nation's youth. Mayors know that
early work experience provides educational and enrichment opportunities
leading to academic improvement for millions of disadvantaged youth,
and helps youth develop life skills and values that prepare them for
the challenges of adolescence and the responsibilities of adulthood.
By 2010, the largest segment of the nation's labor force will be
teens and young adults as 41 million new workers enter the workforce to
replace the 76 million retiring workers. Yet, the labor market for the
nation's teens has deteriorated considerably over the past several
years, and the overall teen employment rate in the past three years
(2004-2006) was the lowest in the past 60 years.
According to the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern
University, the 2007 summer jobs outlook for the nation's teens appears
to be worse than last year despite an improving national job market for
older adults. Also, according to the Center's research, last summer
only 7.11 million teens worked on average during the months of June-
August; and the number of employed teens would have been 8.63 million,
or 1.52 million higher, if the 2000 summer teen employment rate had
prevailed and 9.5 million, or 2.4 million higher if the summer 1989
employment rate had prevailed.
In the past decades, there has been strong bi-partisan support for
a summer jobs program for teens by the nation's mayors. Therefore, the
Conference urges the Committee to restore its long term commitment to a
strong summer jobs program, by continuing to include year round youth
activities in WIA reauthorization and ensuring that a separate summer
jobs program is part of WIA reauthorization.
In addition, The Conference of Mayors continues to support the
development of national programs that are designed to provide both in-
school and out-of-school youth, particularly youth in high poverty
communities, with increased opportunities to achieve success in the
workforce. The Conference strongly supports funding of these programs,
such as YouthBuild, but not at the expense of the formula program.
Training--While skill and labor shortages threaten economic growth
in the long-term, the current economic condition masks the challenge
before us. Even as the economy is demanding a more educated workforce,
several extraordinary forces are at play that will require new tools to
address. Baby boomers are retiring, and new workers do not have post-
secondary degrees at sufficient levels to replace even those who are
retiring. And vast numbers of new potential workers are immigrating to
America, but many lack the formal education necessary to support the
demand for a more knowledge-based workforce.
At the same time, America's workforce system must respond to both
recently laid off workers who need new jobs and often retooled skills,
and to businesses who need skilled workers.
Adequate resources for training are necessary to meet employers'
needs to attain and sustain economic strength. The WIA reauthorization
bill should continue to authorize training for low wage workers for
jobs that provide self-sufficiency; simplify training reporting
requirements; provide for local input on certification of training
providers; strongly encourage expanded access to training, and give
credit for the leveraging of resources, other than WIA, for training.
The Conference of Mayors strongly supports inclusion of language
that encourages the leveraging of resources for training, and urges the
Committee to identify further incentives and rewards for state and
local workforce investment systems that are successful in the
leveraging of additional resources, beyond those provided through the
WIA system, for training and other WIA services.
Finally, the Conference of Mayors recommends that the Committee
consider relaxation of the sequence of services language in WIA,
clarifying that intensive and training services may be provided as
determined appropriate, without major interventions or delays. The
Conference of Mayors strongly supports including provisions that
provide authority to local workforce areas to provide training to low
wage workers that leads to self-sufficiency, as defined locally. This
authority is essential to allow for continued intensive and training
services for the working poor for jobs that provide skill and wage
progression.
Expenditures and Administrative Cost Limits--Carryover was an
intentional spending strategy built into WIA as a planned management
tool to assure proper and consistent operation of the workforce system.
Since the WIA system must respond to economic events such as
unanticipated plant closings, mass layoffs, or disaster relief, some
funds must be held in reserve to enable immediate response.
The system also provides training for jobseekers that spans more
than a single Program Year--at the point in time when carryover is
determined (June 30 of each program year), many workers are midway
through training, which appears as ``carryover'' even though those
funds are already legally obligated.
The Conference of Mayors supports a requirement to reflect that
when determining the reallotment and reallocation of unspent funding in
WIA reauthorization, such determinations would be based on 30 percent
of unspent ``accrued expenditures'' or ``obligations'' as required in
current law. In addition, the Conference of Mayors believes that the
new spending requirements should not be imposed retroactively, but
should take effect the first Program Year after the date of enactment
of the reauthorization legislation.
The Conference of Mayors also strongly urges the Committee to
maintain the current function-based definition (from current DOL
regulations for WIA) and maintain the 10 percent cap on administrative
costs. This is very important to every local area, with broad
implications for the workforce investment system. The Conference worked
closely with DOL and the Inspector General's office at DOL in
developing the current regulations shortly after passage of the
original Act. The Conference believes that the definition of
administrative costs must be included in statute, rather than defined
through administrative or regulatory means.
Business Services, Alignment with Economic Development,
Encouragement for Innovation--A strong workforce system interfaces
effectively with its critical partners--including economic development
and educational entities, employers and business groups, employee
groups, and community and faith-based organizations. This means it must
be organized within a construct similar to those entities, and be
poised to work closely with them in order to leverage resources
effectively.
Mayors would like to see a bill that encourages innovation and
development of knowledge-based economies through alignment of workforce
development, economic development, adult and postsecondary education;
implementation of innovative services and strategies for meeting the
needs of business; and encouragement for the leveraging and flexible
use of private sector resources for meeting these goals.
One-Stop Infrastructure Funding--Securing an adequately funded One-
Stop infrastructure is of paramount importance to maximizing the
availability of adequate training and other important services to
American workers. The Conference of Mayors supports consideration of a
separate line item for such funding, with language protecting the Adult
and Dislocated Worker funding levels, ensuring that infrastructure is
not funded at the expense of formula funds.
Performance Standards--Workforce development efforts must
demonstrate accountability for results--for objective outcomes that can
be tracked, measured and evaluated. To truly be accountable for
results, workforce development system efforts must develop appropriate
measures for the outcomes we seek. Then, we must develop a data
tracking and reporting system that allows transparency--regardless of
whether the news is good or bad--with respect to the meeting of those
outcomes.
The Conference of Mayors supports the simplification of performance
standards under WIA, and the development of cross-program performance
measures that will help to build a comprehensive, outcome-oriented
workforce investment system across this nation.
The Conference of Mayors is concerned over the use of
``efficiency'' as a measure or reporting requirement, as this could
inadvertently result in serving only those who are most job-ready, and
to a decrease in more costly services, including training, for
individuals with the most serious barriers to employment.
The Conference supports the retention of customer satisfaction as a
required measure. Such measures are needed to ensure that the workforce
system serves both of its primary customers well--jobseekers and
businesses.
The Conference urges retention of skills attainment (i.e.,
employer-recognized credentials) as a measure to drive the system
toward the provision of training identified as necessary by employers,
and supports requiring that a regression model be used by States and
localities to develop performance standards. This correlates the
disparities of very low-income individuals being served with the cost
of being served.
Finally, The Conference of Mayors supports the strengthening of
language pertaining to the negotiation between states and local areas
on the establishment of local performance standards, to ensure that
this is truly a negotiation process in which local conditions are fully
taken into account.
In closing, The U.S. Conference of Mayors thanks the Committee for
the opportunity to represent the interests of mayors and their cities
on the importance of training our future workforce. In a dynamic world,
America's competitiveness depends on a world-class workforce with the
knowledge, skills and abilities necessary to be nimble in an ever-
changing economy. The nation's mayors understand that, as leaders of
urban centers at the heart of the nation's 361 metropolitan areas, they
have a critical and unique responsibility to insure the future
workforce is ready, willing and able to support our global leadership
in the 21st century.
______
Mr. Yarmuth. Mr. Bishop?
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ware, in your testimony, you suggest that WIA should
drop the distinction between out-of-school youth and in-school
youth in terms of funding, and you talk about how clearly high
schools must be reformed.
One of the things that we are concerned about both in this
committee and in the larger Education Committee is the
alarmingly high dropout rate in certain of our schools.
And so my question is to what extent can WIA funds either
currently--are they currently being used or could they be used
to assist in this high school reform effort?
We have had testimony before this committee really that
sort of the retention strategies that one would use in high
school are very similar to the retention strategies one would
use in higher education.
And at the risk of over-generalizing, the extent to which
students can see their efforts being related to their goals
contributes to retention.
So to what extent can WIA funds be used to assist in this
process?
Mr. Ware. Mr. Chairman, Representative Bishop, I will make
two comments, one that is coming off the NGA testimony, and one
more personal as I deal with the issues in my state as chairman
of the state workforce investment board.
The way that it has been set up now, to my understanding,
again, it is more siloed between where the monies can go. As we
look at a 30 percent, you know, dropout rate in high school
here in these recent years, that becomes blurred as to who is
in school and who is not in school.
The short answer is to have the flexibility for the
governors and the different workforce boards to be able to move
those monies to benefit those people.
My second point is more of a personal point, and that is we
only act from our heart. We don't act from our head. And our
youth, in a 30 percent dropout rate, is voting with their feet
that the school system as it is right now isn't meeting their
needs.
And that needs to be looked at. And I know in particular
Chairman Hinojosa is very strong on high school reform. Boy, if
I had that answer, you know, I would be a millionaire to that.
Mr. Bishop. Can you or anyone on the panel foresee
partnerships--Mr. Carbone--foresee partnerships that are
supported in part by WIA funding and support by local school
boards and in part by perhaps Perkins vocational and technical
education funds, so that you are all--because you used the term
that I was thinking of, this sort of siloed use of resources
and siloed assessment of problems.
Is there some synergy here that we could realize that could
be facilitated by how we do the reauthorization?
Mr. Carbone. I think there is, and I think the issue here
is that the dollars for youth that are appropriated from states
to workforce investment boards--you almost have to dedicate it
to out-of-school kids.
I mean, at the very least, at least kids that might be
potential dropouts have their local school boards to kind of
watch over them and try to help them to kind of avoid making
that big, big mistake.
But even more important is, I think the local workforce
boards have to help these kids who are at this potential for
dropping out understand the cost of dropping out. We are doing
it in several parts of my district.
We have got one school district in Bridgeport that has one
of the highest school dropout rates in the nation.
And one of the things we are doing is to try to help these
kids to understand there is a huge gap between kids who
complete high school and kids who don't, in terms of earnings
right out of high school, when they drop out or throughout a
lifetime, the rate of unemployment--trying to help them
understand how they are depriving themselves of opportunity if
they make this mess and drop out of school.
But again, I think it is a community problem. I think the
school districts and all the agencies of the community schools
and so on need to work together and use all resources.
And I think there is no group that is more important in
terms of getting resources than these kinds who have dropped
out of school, or these kids--and the school districts know who
they are--who are clearly potentials for dropping out of
school.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank the panel.
Ms. Butler, did you want to comment on that?
Ms. Butler. I did. We have had several comments about the
One-Stops in terms of a full service approach. And I think it
is important to point out the difference, I think, the paradigm
of the WIA One-Stop versus--and quite frankly, the
accessibility issue has to be put out there.
I mean, it has been my experience that the One-Stops are
not accessible. And you know, perhaps in some places they are,
but in areas that--the alternative formats and the information
around the training programs that we have talked about today--
those kinds of issues are not available.
And so what happens is these individuals are coming in with
disabilities and being referred to the vocational
rehabilitation programs who then are serving these individuals.
So I think there is a real struggle here in terms of the
infrastructure funding that goes from the V.R. program into
these One-Stops when, in fact, that money could be sent back to
the V.R. program where, again, that consumer is going to get
the services that they need.
So I would encourage the committee to look at the
accessibility issues at the One-Stops.
Mr. Bishop. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Yarmuth. Thank you, Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Davis?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And, Mr. Ware, I was just thinking that if I could ever be
in an environment where the unemployment rate was 2.8 percent
that it would be like manna from heaven.
But my questions--Mr. Twomey, you mentioned labor markets'
needs and how do we communicate those more effectively. What
are you finding to be the areas, for example, where there are
real opportunities for the types of individuals in many
instances that we are talking about who need the assistance of
a work board?
Mr. Twomey. Well, I returned last week. I was out of the
country in Argentina on vacation for 2 weeks. I came back.
I was a little jet lagged, but I went to speak to a school
superintendent and about 20 people, his senior team, and this
particular school district is in upstate New York.
And they are really--they read ``The World is Flat'' and
got religion on it and got to the point where within 6 months
they had a community meeting attended by 550 people to say,
``What do we do to prepare our kids for this global economy?''
And one of the first things they did is this coming
September they will now begin offering Mandarin Chinese as an
elective in the school.
But he asked me to go and talk about what is changing in
the labor market, because what we normally do in school right
now is--the guidance counselors are overworked. They have big
caseloads.
They spend all their time trying to get colleges to come
in, get kids to apply--gets to be January, get the kids'
parents to file their tax returns so they can fill out the
financial aid form.
We don't do labor market information there. We have to find
a vehicle to do that. The types of jobs that are unfilled--the
president of the Central Labor Council in Saratoga Springs, New
York, told me he gets calls every day from at least nine
companies desperate for people that can understand computerized
heating ventilation air conditioning control systems. They are
computerized solid-state electronics.
The guy said, ``It is not duct work. These are $90,000-a-
year jobs. We can't fill them.'' So we have this mismatch.
And I think that one of the really good things that
happened under WIA is that we have had very much success in
concentrating limited training money on sectoral growth areas,
high wage and building and career ladders to move people up,
get them more skills and help them move forward.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. So technology is a primary area
where there are opportunities?
Mr. Twomey. It is a primary area. It would be more
effective if two things happened--one, if there were a
regression model so you could take more risk.
Mr. Souder talked about ex-offenders reentry program.
Obviously, if somebody is coming out of substance abuse or is
being released from the prison system, they are probably not
going to succeed at the same rate as someone without those
barriers.
We should adjust so people would be able to take more risk,
serve that population.
The second is just----
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Let me--because my time is going to
run, and I have got some other questions that I want to pursue.
Ms. Randolph, you mentioned as you were addressing
Representative Souder's question the difficulty of placing
individuals or assisting individuals who might have criminal
backgrounds.
What do you find to be the primary reason that employers
give for not being willing to hire these individuals?
Ms. Randolph. Well, I believe that one of the largest
reasons is a security issue in terms of--particularly if it is
a service industry, life sciences. There is always a concern
there.
But what I find more interesting is employers who tell us
that the recidivism rate for offenders is about 70 percent, and
that they feel as though if they hire this individual, the
individual is going to drop off the radar screen and----
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Of course, our experiences suggest
that if the individual has a job, then the recidivism rate----
Ms. Randolph. It reduces the recidivism----
Mr. Davis of Illinois [continuing]. Goes way down.
Ms. Randolph. Right.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
Ms. Randolph. It does, but it is not in their minds. They
are risk-averse.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. And this might be for anyone. Are
there things that we can really do that will seriously assist
this population group? I mean, what needs to change in a real
way?
Mr. Petit. In the last 3 years I have worked for a company
called Piner Human Services on a part-time basis, and we work
with people releasing back from the prison system into the
society.
One of the things that we have discovered is that, yes, the
recidivism rate is quite high--70 percent is probably correct.
With education, the recidivism rate reverses.
I think that one of the problems when people are released
from prisons is that they go back to their same old friends,
their same old neighborhoods and so on, and the associations
cause them to just go back into some of the same old habits.
When you go to school, you change associations. You change
habits. And you are associated with more positive people. This
is an important thing. And the recidivism rate is quite
dramatically impacted by that.
The other thing I would like to just touch on is the
comment about labor market and economic analysis. In Washington
state, the Wagner-Peyser system supports labor market and
economic analysis to the degree that we are--very high-quality
information comes out of our system that helps all levels, from
high school and all others, to make decisions that make sense.
So I really support the idea of strong labor market and
economic analysis.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I know that my time
has ended.
But let me just ask, if I could, is there anything that can
be done or included in this reauthorization that might
positively impact this situation that we are talking about?
Because the reality is that we are not really talking about
10 people or 20 people. Some states, of course, don't have much
of a problem. But we probably are talking about 5 million or 6
million people in this country who have that problem and that
need.
And in some communities, especially the large inner-city
areas of the country, it is enormous. So is there anything that
any of you see?
Mr. Ware. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Davis, I actually recruited at
a maximum security prison for these energy jobs, and we get a
few people to come through. And I agree with the numbers that
you have.
My short answer is maybe in this WIA reauthorization we
need to have some money set aside for a pilot program on a
state or national basis, because those numbers are large and
there really, in my opinion, are no clear answers as to how to
get those people really back to work.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much.
And, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your indulgence.
Mr. Yarmuth. Thank you, Mr. Davis.
Before I recognize myself, I would like to ask unanimous
consent that the statement of the National Center on Education
and the Economy be included in the record.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ray Uhalde, Director, Workforce Development
Strategies Group, National Center on Education and the Economy
Introduction
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to submit
testimony to the Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning,
and Competitiveness in support of reauthorization of the Workforce
Investment Act (WIA). I am Ray Uhalde, Director of the Workforce
Development Strategies Group at the National Center on Education and
the Economy (NCEE). Our organization conducts research, benchmarks best
practice, and provides advice and technical assistance to policymakers,
states, localities, and other stakeholders on building comprehensive
workforce development systems that meet the needs of America's workers,
jobseekers, and employers. In recent years our work has increasingly
focused on helping states and regions to align their workforce,
education, economic and community development activities and assets to
promote high growth, high wage, and high employment economies that
benefit all their citizenry.
Two years ago, NCEE formed a bipartisan New Commission on the
Skills of the American Workforce. Tough Choices or Tough Times, the
recent report of the New Commission, proposes a framework for a major
reorganization of the states' education and training systems for
children and adults. NCEE's Workforce Development Strategies Group
provided core staff support for the New Commission and developed the
adult workforce recommendations, including guaranteed adult education
to new standards, universal personal learning accounts, and regional
economic growth authorities responsible for the alignment of workforce
and economic development, adult and technical education activities to
support unified regional growth strategies. The New Commission believes
that reforms of this scope and magnitude ultimately will be necessary
if the standard of living for most Americans is to be maintained in a
rapidly changing and very competitive global economy.
But the urgent and immediate priority before this Committee is, in
my opinion, to enact a modest reauthorization of the Workforce
Investment Act this year. Reauthorization of WIA would demonstrate a
bipartisan reaffirmation by the Congress and the President of the vital
importance of the public workforce system for U.S. economic growth and
opportunity. Without reauthorization, the WIA system is needlessly
weakened and its funding will continue to decline, as is evidenced by
the nearly $700 million reduction in WIA's appropriations over the past
five years, and the $335 million rescission of WIA funds that was
included in the House Labor-HHS-Education FY 2008 Appropriations bill
passed last week. If last week's rescission were to be enacted, the WIA
system would experience real reductions in service to low-income youth
and adults, dislocated and incumbent workers. Funding that could have
been used to pay for the training of over 130,000 youth and adults
would be lost to the system forever. This at a time when the skills of
the American workforce have never been more important to both
individual and U.S. economic prosperity.
Both the House and Senate-passed reauthorization bills that were
passed last Congress redefined expectations for WIA system
expenditures--the concern cited as justification for the rescission
contained in this year's House appropriations bill. Reauthorization
legislation would address this issue fairly by shifting any
(statutorily defined) excess unexpended resources to states with
acceptable spending levels. Moreover, reauthorization would reinstate
Congressional confidence in and support for the programs authorized
under WIA that are so vital to U.S. competitiveness, economic equity,
and to sustaining and growing the middle class.
The balance of my testimony offers a brief review of the progress
we have seen in state and local workforce systems across the country in
carrying out the Congress' intent for the major reforms established in
the Workforce Investment Act. My testimony concludes with a few
recommendations for improvements to the WIA statute as a result of our
ongoing field work and proposals from our Tough Choices report.
WIA: the Intent, the Progress, and the Challenges
This Committee is well aware that in 1998, when the Workforce
Investment Act was developed, the new law was intended to enhance the
productivity and competitiveness of the nation and the quality of its
workforce in response to challenges brought on by demographic and
technological changes, international trade, and economic
restructuring--many of the challenges confronting us today. The Act
represented the first major reform of the nation's job training system
in over 15 years. With its enactment, states and local communities were
challenged to think expansively and to design and implement a customer-
focused, comprehensive delivery system that provides workers with
services and training to get and keep good jobs--and employers with
skilled workers. The intent was to fundamentally change the way
workforce development services were provided across the U.S. through:
Streamlining services. Multiple employment and training
programs and services integrated at the ``street level'' through the
One Stop career center delivery system so that the system as a whole is
coherent and accessible for individuals and businesses alike;
Empowering individuals. Development of a voucher-like
mechanism (Individual Training Accounts (ITAs)) for accessing training,
providing adults with choice in the selection of training based on up-
to-date labor market information and data on performance of education
and training institutions;
Universal access. Any individual who wants to advance his
or her career have access to the One Stop system and to core
employment-related information and job search services. Wagner-Peyser
Act services delivered as core services within the One Stop system;
Increased accountability. A strengthened performance
measurement system, requiring continuous improvement and holding State
and local workforce systems accountable for employment-related
measures, including customer satisfaction;
Strong role for local boards and the private sector. High
level, business-led state and local workforce investment boards (WIBs),
acting as ``boards of directors'', responsible (in partnership with
state and local officials, respectively) for strategic planning, policy
development, and oversight of workforce investment systems.
Establishment of a market-driven system, meeting the business and
economic development needs of states and local workforce areas--
recognizing two equally important customers--jobseekers and employers;
State and local flexibility. Increased State and local
flexibility and authority to design and implement comprehensive
workforce investment systems tailored to meet the needs of local and
regional labor markets; and
Improved youth programs. Linked more closely to local
labor market needs and community youth programs and services, and with
strong connections between academic and occupational learning.
These key reform principles guided the implementation of the Act
and have generally stood the test of time. As one would expect with a
system of ownership devolved to 50 states and over 600 local areas,
there is a considerable range in the quality of programs and degree of
reform initiated across a country as large and diverse as the United
States. Some states and localities have been slow to fully embrace the
opportunities for reform envisioned in WIA; their progress has been
retarded by real and sometimes self-inflicted obstacles such as
inadequate funding, conflicting statutory requirements, turf battles,
cultural blinders, and in some cases old-line bureaucracies that are
reluctant to change how they do business. In many cases, these programs
are simply ``managing the grant''; often quite competently, but with
limited vision and ability to help power economic growth and
opportunity for vulnerable workers in their communities. However, this
is only part of the story. Many states and local areas have seized the
reins and made tremendous strides; and there are numerous exemplary
programs throughout the country providing high quality services to
jobseekers and employers by using WIA as a platform for successfully
linking workforce development, economic development and postsecondary
education. Progress on some of these key reform principles is discussed
below.
One-Stop System. The WIA system, in partnership with State Job
Service agencies, currently provides a wide range of vital services to
over 15 million U.S. jobseekers and employers through its One-Stop
delivery system including:
Labor market information, job search assistance, guidance
and counseling to help jobseekers find the right jobs, and employers
find the right employees;
Transition assistance to dislocated workers;
Support services for individuals pursuing employment and
training;
Assistance for low-wage workers in search of career growth
opportunities in jobs that lead to self-sufficiency; and
Access to training for individuals in need of skills that
will enable them to find employment and progress in their careers.
Frankly Mr. Chairman, One Stop Career Centers are the most visible
evidence of reform the workforce investment system has achieved, and
the transformation from the old ``unemployment offices'' to customer-
centric, high-tech, high-class career centers is, in most places around
the country, stunning. My colleagues and I have visited hundreds of One
Stop centers over the years. The quality of service in centers in
Baltimore, Boston, Canton, Charleston, Dallas, Houston, Kansas City,
Lansing, Salt Lake City, and San Diego, for example, would rival any
private sector customer service operation. Workforce investment boards
often adopt creative strategies to give both job seekers and business
customers special, market-sensitive attention. The Northern Virginia
WIB (and its partners), for example, established a Center for Business
Planning and Development as an integral part of its Falls Church career
center to support emerging entrepreneurs and existing small businesses
in the region. New York City's Business Solutions Centers are another
example of the business side of One Stop centers. The Philadelphia WIB
established a special purpose One Stop focused on the health care
workforce as a component of its broader life sciences sector
initiative.
In these and many other communities and states, top level
leadership took advantage of the Workforce Investment Act to streamline
the delivery of workforce services. WIA took what was previously a
targeted collection of programs (focused primarily on economically
disadvantaged individuals and dislocated workers) and established an
employment and training system for all jobseekers and employers. WIA
removed some restrictive eligibility requirements, making all
individuals regardless of income or employment status eligible for
``core'' or front-end services through the One-Stop delivery system. By
loosening the eligibility requirements of the past, Congress intended
that the WIA system become more relevant for high skill/high wage
employers, as well as more easily aligned with business needs and
economic development efforts. These changes have provided significant
flexibility for the workforce investment system, helping it to
implement innovative strategies for meeting the needs of employers and
working with economic development stakeholders. Employers are now
recognized as important customers of the system, and in many states and
localities their skill demands drive the delivery system. This, in
turn, should result in better employment and earnings outcomes for job
seekers and trainees.
However, serious concerns have emerged in some areas. This
expansion of responsibilities coupled with reduced funding for Wagner-
Peyser employment services and WIA's supplementation of core services
like counseling and career guidance has resulted in a reduction in WIA-
funded training--and in some areas a reduction in services for low-
skilled individuals with multiple barriers to employment. There is no
question that with such an expanded array of services, particularly
when resources are diminishing, all system partners--state and local,
public and private--must work together, providing seamless services.
Training. With 15 million individuals served annually through the
One-Stop system, there is no question of the need for such an expanded
system. However, when Congress made the decision to expand the
responsibilities of the workforce system, it envisioned commensurate
increases in funding. Unfortunately, that has not happened. As
mentioned above, there has been a steady decline in WIA funding over
the past five years, and the era of tight budgets is expected to
continue in the foreseeable future.
Even with the decline in funding and the apparent decline of WIA
spending on training, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) found in
a recent study, that the WIA system spent over 40 percent of its
funding in FY 2003 on training, and this estimate did not take into
account funds used to pay for computer lab workshops in software
applications, basic keyboarding, computer skills training, and even
certain adult basic education classes offered through the One Stop
system. Nor did it appear to take into account training arranged by the
One Stop system but not paid for with WIA funds, which is belived to be
significant.
While many localities still devote a significant portion of their
WIA dollars to training, and many have sought to replace dwindling
resources for training with non-WIA funding, there is no question that
the WIA system's training services are seriously underfunded. When
combined with the fact that the adult education system in this country
is only serving 3 million of the over 40 million individuals in need of
adult basic education, literacy, and English language education in the
U.S., again due to a serious lack of funding, it becomes even more
apparent that the workforce investment system must become expert at
raising and leveraging resources, public and private.
Moreover, communities must become even more adept at bringing
partners together to identify the strengths, challenges, resources and
needs of their regions, enabling the collaborative building of
regional, knowledge-based innovation economies.
Ensuring Regional Competitiveness through Local Innovation, Business
Relevance, and Alignment of Workforce and Economic Development.
The Council on Competitiveness, a forum of American business,
university, and labor leaders collaborating for economic prosperity,
identified innovation as the single most important factor in
determining America's success through the 21st Century. The Council
urged the coming together of talent, investment, and infrastructure to
foster new innovation ``hot spots'' in regions across the U.S. than can
sustain jobs and wage growth. The U.S. Department of Labor has built on
the Council's work with its ambitious and promising WIRED initiative.
This call for innovation, creativity, and the alignment of
education, training, and economic development to power regional
economic strategies was an integral part of the Tough Choices or Tough
Times report and recommendations mentioned above. Why would an
essentially education report make recommendations on regional growth
strategies? For three reasons. First, we know that education and job
training do not create their own demand. While high skills through
higher quality education and training are clearly a necessary part of a
national strategy, they are not sufficient for America to maintain a
high and growing standard of living for all its citizenry. Just as
scissors are most effective with two blades, we need education and
training policies and practices on the supply side of the labor market
that are driven by growth policies and practices on the demand side
that encourage and reward more and better use of educated and skilled
labor. Second, while they are essential, we have also learned that
business-led workforce boards alone are an insufficient mechanism for
affecting a market-driven approach to workforce development. Approaches
like sectoral initiatives and industry partnerships are a more demand-
driven, market-sensitive method of carrying out the business of
workforce development. And third, we have learned that regional
strategies are critical to overall economic growth and prosperity, in
part because industry agglomerations do not respect political
geography. Regions are where supply chains, complementary industries,
networks of investors, university-based and other research efforts, and
skilled workers join forces to achieve the critical mass necessary to
stimulate economic activity and innovation. So while global supply
chains and international competition present a national challenge, it
is at the regional level where an important part of future U.S.
competitive success will be determined.
A growing number of local workforce investment boards are already
working to bring these key ingredients for innovation together at the
local and regional levels. The best WIBs are leading efforts in their
communities, convening partners, brokering services, leveraging
resources, identifying and following through on necessary actions to
develop their regional knowledge-based, economies. Often overlooked,
this brokering and convening function is a critical element for any
regional economic growth strategy. However, this level of leadership
does not yet exist in all areas of the country.
The statute also required that all states and local areas receiving
WIA funds engage in strategic planning, taking into account the labor
market and economic development needs of their regions. And a number of
provisions are intended to result in alignment with economic
development including:
Economic development representation on all state and local
WIBs;
A requirement that local boards coordinate workforce
investment activities with economic development strategies and develop
employer linkages;
A requirement that local boards provide ``connecting,
brokering, and coaching'' to promote participation of employers in the
workforce system and ensure the effective provision of services for
employers;
Clarification that states may use WIA funds to devise and
oversee strategies for: layoff aversion, incumbent worker training, and
linkages with economic development activities at the Federal, State,
and local levels, including business retention and recruitment
activities.
Since WIA's enacment, the workforce system has continued to improve
its services for businesses. In a survey of local WIBs conducted by the
National Association of Workforce Boards in recent years, of those
local areas responding, more than 80 percent reported engaging in
sectoral strategies to meet the needs of employers; 48 percent have
organized separate business service centers; and more than 55 percent
reported raising outside funds to support their business service
offerings. While caution should be exercised when viewing the survey,
as those reporting back may be more likely to engage in these more
progressive activities, the U.S. General Accounting Office also found
significant improvements in recognition and utilization of the
workforce system on the part of employers.
Local workforce boards are increasingly building their systems
around innovative initiatives designed for the regional delivery of
training, and for linking with economic development and education. The
important role of local boards in leading these efforts should be
appropriately recognized in any reauthorization.
Some of the workforce strategies showing great promise in recent
years include:
Sectoral initiatives that focus in depth on the workforce
needs of many employers in a specific industry;
Cluster-based approaches that promote the economic
development of hubs of related business activity by improving the
competitiveness of one or several specific industry sectors within the
cluster through a broad range of activities, of which workforce
training may be only one component;
Career ladder approaches to training that provide upward
mobility opportunities for low-skilled, low-wage workers;
Utilization of specialized intermediaries (labor market
organizers and partnerships, including joint labor-management training
programs, that help workforce systems to plan, convene, broker, and
organize the various critical components of labor market services in
ways that successfully connect the needs of jobseekers and employers);
Implementation of incumbent worker training to avert
layoffs, increase productivity, and increase regional competitiveness;
and
Other strategies that result in the leveraging of
resources, and the building of regional economies that benefit a wide
range of workers and employers, as well as strengthen regional tax
bases.
The U.S. workforce investment system must learn and build upon the
promising practices established in these and other successful
initiatives, as well as look for new ways to contribute to the
competitiveness of the workers and employers in the regions they serve.
Several private philanthropies have been instrumental in seeding and
promoting several of these innovations in workforce policy and
practice.
Some excellent examples of local areas that have taken an
aggressive approach to serving the needs of business, in addition to
those you are hearing from today, include:
The Delaware Valley Healthcare Council in Pennsylvania,
where the Philadelphia Workforce Investment Board (PWIB) and Southeast
Pennsylvania's four other WIBs convened representatives of the region's
life sciences industry to identify opportunities to redirect workers
who were anticipated to be dislocated as a result of September 11 into
life science careers;
The city of Boston that has uniquely parlayed its strong
economic resurgence--directing fees charged to developers building
within city limits into a new funding stream in support of workforce
development and job training.
The San Diego Workforce Partnership which joined in
collaboration with the San Diego and Imperial Counties Community
Colleges Association to establish the Workforce Alliance Project--
designed to foster a stronger dialogue between industry and education
and to focus on the ongoing challenge of educating and training San
Diegans to fill the high-demand, high-wage occupations that are shaping
their region's diverse economy;
Jacksonville, Florida, who you heard from at your prior
hearing, where their WIB worked with the regional economic development
authority to develop an incumbent worker training strategy that aligned
their targeted industries (including biotechnology, aerospace,
manufacturing, health services, and distribution) to provide just-in-
time, customized training that improved worker skills and productivity
and helped to stabilize the workforce. WorkSource paid on average 35
percent and the employer paid the other 65 percent of the costs for
training;
The North Central, Northwest, and West Central
Pennsylvania Workforce Investment Boards that joined with the Northwest
Industrial Resource Center that joined with their regional economic
development and manufacturing extension programs to form the
Manufacturing Education and Economic Network (MEEN) Industry
Partnership, designed to expand manufacturing in that rural region of
PA; and
McAllen, Texas, where the McAllen Economic Development
Corporation (MEDC), working with the local community college, the Lower
Rio Grande workforce investment board, and other partners have engaged
in a multi-year economic strategy to transform the Lower Rio Grande
region to a diversified economy that capitalizes on its geographic
position and its designation as a foreign trade zone to create jobs--
where overall, the strategy has been responsible for helping to attract
more than 500 employers and nearly 100,000 jobs to the region, along
with billions of dollars in private investment, and where companies
recruited to Reynosa are estimated to have a $3 billion annual
aggregate impact on the McAllen economy.
With such an expanded array of responsibilities and missions, at
the same time as federal resources are dwindling, there is no question
that the U.S. workforce investment system has been challenged. Many
insightful states and localities have thrived as the result of the
expanded authority vested under the WIA statute. Others have struggled
to change the culture of their programs--still figuring out how to
serve jobseekers (including those hardest-to-serve) and employers
equally and effectively. It has become increasingly apparent that
partnering and leveraging other resources for training and workforce
services will be essential in the future if the workforce investment
system is to survive and provide the kinds of services and outcomes
needed for U.S., state and regional competitiveness.
State Coordination, Regional Alignment, and Leadership. There has
been a lot of debate and controversy over the respective roles of
states and local workforce systems as reauthorization of WIA has been
considered. In truth, there are very important roles for both states
and local areas/regions in the implementation of effective workforce
development systems.
At the state and local levels, system integration, coordination,
regional alignment, and innovation varies. Some states such as Texas,
Florida, Michigan, Utah and others have enacted state laws that mandate
the integration or provision of a wide array of workforce services
through the One-Stop system, beyond that required by WIA. State
leadership in the area of system integration and functional alignment
of multiple programs has resulted in comprehensive service delivery
through the One-Stops in several states; increased resource sharing;
the leveraging of limited resources; the elimination of wasteful
duplication; and cohesive governance arrangements. Such integrated
service delivery also appears to encourage employer utilization of the
system due to reduced bureaucracy and more flexible funding.
Increasingly, states and local areas are recognizing the need to
align workforce development with regional economic development efforts.
The WIA statute encourages regional planning and service delivery by
providing Governors the authority to require local areas to join
together around true labor market or economic development regions,
regardless of local area designations, in planning and service delivery
efforts. The law even authorizes states to require shared regional
performance measures. The degree to which this authority has been used
however varies. While few states are requiring such regional
cooperation, an increasing number are using an incentive approach to
encourage regional collaboration.
States currently have at their disposal a significant portion of
WIA funding with which to encourage innovation, system integration,
regional alignment, and other positive behaviors. The degree to which
states have taken advantage of this very attractive ``carrot'' approach
to moving the system forward again varies significantly. States like
Illinois, Michigan, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania are using their state-
held monies to foster alignment with economic development priorities;
invest in regional initiatives designed around sector strategies; and
encourage innovative approaches to serving their hardest to serve
populations.
State examples of innovative uses of its state-held resources
include:
Oregon, where the Governor established the Employer
Workforce Training Fund (EWTF) supporting regional projects at over 100
companies that have resulted in training for more than 5,500 workers,
and the establishment of local Workforce Response Teams (WRTs),
proactive resource teams that provide a single point of contact, set
regional priorities for the use of funding, and control and award
grants to businesses;
Michigan, where the state has used its state-held money,
matched with philanthropic and private sector funds, to encourage the
development of Michigan's Regional Skills Alliances (MiRSAs), bringing
regional, industry-based partnerships among employers, education
institutions, training providers, economic development organizations,
and the public workforce system together to plan for and solve their
regions' workforce challenges in innovative ways;
Illinois, where the state has used state-held monies to
implement its Critical Skills Shortage Initiative (CSSI), an aggressive
strategy to connect economic development and workforce development to
meet the needs of Illinois' employers for skilled workers on a regional
basis;
Pennsylvania, where the Governor has provided funds,
ranging from $5000 to $150,000 to strengthen existing partnerships and
seed fund development of new partnerships in the Commonwealth's nine
targeted Industry Clusters; and
New York, where the State leveraged its workforce and
education systems with technology investments to create several career
ladder initiatives in key industry sectors including biotechnology and
nanotechnology.
Overall, the U.S. workforce investment system continues to meet its
statutory performance goals of raising the employment, retention,
earnings and skill levels of its participants, but its reach and impact
on individuals, businesses and communities has been limited most
importantly by a severe and growing shortfall of federal resources
compared to the Act's ambitious mission and purposes.
Recommendations for Reauthorization
As you consider reauthorization of WIA this year, we urge you to
begin by looking at both the House-passed and the Senate-passed bills
from last year. Had a bipartisan conference agreement been reached on
the two bills, and had that agreement been enacted, we believe that the
workforce investment system would be in a far stronger position at this
juncture.
Following are a few suggestions that we urge you to consider as you
develop a WIA reauthorization bill for this Congress.
Aligning Workforce and Economic Development.
Local Boards. Reauthorization should maintain the authority of
business-led local workforce investment boards, clarifying their
responsibility and allowable use of funds for:
Convening industry partners and system stakeholders;
Brokering partnerships, aligning missions, and developing
alliances; and
Leveraging resources
Regional Alignment/Innovation. Reauthorization should promote
innovation and the development of unified regional economic strategies
by requiring that a portion of state-held funds be used for incentives
and the provision of technical assistance to local areas for:
Regional alignment of workforce development, economic
development, adult and postsecondary education efforts (around true
labor markets);
Implementation of innovative services and strategies for
meeting the needs of regional employers and workers (e.g., sector and
industry cluster strategies, career ladder initiatives, utilization of
workforce intermediaries, incumbent worker training);
Identification and implementation of strategies for
leveraging flexible, alternative funding sources to support regional
workforce development activities.
Expanding Training Opportunities.
Reauthorization should promote expanded training opportunities by:
Retaining language in WIA that allows for training of low-
wage workers that leads to jobs providing self-sufficiency.
Giving credit (through performance measures or other
means) for the outcomes of individuals who access training through One
Stop Centers, even if such training is paid for with resources other
than WIA, as long as they receive other One Stop services.
Encouraging states and local areas to address the needs of
low skilled workers through career ladder or other progressive training
methods, particularly in sector or industry-cluster based initiatives
that support economic growth.
Relaxing the requirements for current WIA-authorized
Individual Training Accounts where a sectoral or industry-cluster-based
initiative warrants ``bundling'' such accounts to benefit a group of
workers.
Integrating Systems and Streamlining Services.
Reauthorization should further encourage integrated service
delivery of all appropriate workforce-related programs through the One-
Stop delivery system.
Relax requirements around the sequence of core, intensive,
and training services to provide greater flexibility to move customers
through the various components of the system according to their needs.
Authorize up to 100 percent transferability at the local
level between adult and dislocated worker funding.
Require co-location of One Stop Centers and Employment
Services offices.
Retain a separate, distinct youth funding stream, for both
in-school and out-of-school youth.
Strengthening Performance and Financial Accountability.
performance accountability
Adopt integrated performance measures similar to outcome
measures recommended in ``Integrated Performance Information for
Workforce Development: A Blueprint for States'' developed by Washington
State's Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board in
collaboration with the National Governors Association and a working
group including Florida, Michigan, Montana, Oregon and Texas.
Provide support for states and local areas to modernize
current data systems to cost-effectively collect and report performance
information.
Begin measurement with registration for core services,
allowing for interventions brokered through the One Stop Center,
whether or not paid by WIA funds.
Require use of a regression model to address concerns
about serving the hardest-to-serve populations.
financial accountability
Fairly hold States and local areas accountable for system
expenditures based upon accrued expenditures and allow a maximum
carryover of 30 percent of funds available.
Codifying the function-based definition of administrative
costs that is currently provided in the U.S. Department of Labor
regulations, similar to that used by business, and applying the
administrative cost limits to contracts for One Stop operations.
Adult Education Expansion.
Though 30 million Americans 16 years old and over are out of school
and without a high school credential, there are only enough federal and
state funds made available to serve about 3 million adults.
Reauthorization should consider amending Title II of WIA
(Adult Education and Literacy) so that the federal government would
provide free secondary education services to all adults who had
completed the 9th grade--an estimated 18 million individuals--to enable
them to pass state qualifying or high school equivalency examinations.
State and local resources would be focused on getting
adults who lack a 9th grade level of education and fluency in English
up to the point where they could take advantage of the federal program.
This is a recommendation of the New Commission on the Skills of the
American Workforce. When their report entitled, Tough Choices or Tough
Times was released, Chairmen Miller responded with a statement by
saying:
``The Commission's report offers some recommendations--from
providing a world class education to 3- and 4-year old students * * *
to offering free adult literacy classes for American workers--that
deserve serious consideration by the Congress next year as we seek to
preserve America's global economic leadership and to strengthen
America's middle class.''
My colleagues and I request that the Committee give this
recommendation the serious consideration the Chairman called for. It is
imperative that we as a nation make it possible for every American
worker to attain this basic education standard.
Not all eligible adults, of course, would take advantage of these
education opportunities. But for the millions who would, this important
amendment would enable those workers to attain a high school
credential, continue their postsecondary education and technical
training, and acquire further credentials and skills that will give
them a new lease on life, and make the economy as a whole more
productive.
Adult education often is overlooked as a tool for economic growth
because it has been isolated from people responsible for regional
economic growth and development. Consequently we undervalue and
underinvestment in adult education services, and this limits the
prosperity of millions of adult workers, companies, and communities as
a whole. I urge the Committee to change this result by amending WIA to
include at least initial steps that put into practice the Commission's
proposal.
Conclusion
The Workforce Development Strategies Group at NCEE strongly
supports enactment of WIA reauthorization this year. Therefore we urge
you to move legislation as early as possible this Congress. We thank
you for your hard work and dedication to these issues and look forward
to continuing to work with you on this vital legislation.
______
Mr. Yarmuth. Mr. Twomey, you talked in your statement about
the proposal for recision of $335 million that was made in the
Appropriations Committee, and you talked about the impact in
dollar terms on your district.
In terms of the level of services that that would reduce,
could you give us an idea of the impact of that type of
recision? I think you mentioned $20-something million in total
funding. How many people are we talking about?
Mr. Twomey. Well, first of all, that amendment that was
offered by Mr. Walsh. Mr. Walsh is a really good member, and
from the perspective of the National Workforce Association we
think the bill as passed is a very good bill, with the one
glaring exception of this recision.
I believe that Mr. Walsh took on face value--they needed
desperately an offset for a fine program, IDEA, and if there is
unspent money, there is unspent money. This is not unspent
money.
The scope of this--that $28 million in New York state this
year will translate into 88,223 fewer participants in the
workforce system. These are numbers from our state department
of labor. The research and statistics people are top-notch.
I can't imagine that Mr. Walsh himself knew that there
would be a reduction to WIBs in his district of almost $2.1
million, and 8,741 less people would be served. So I mean, the
magnitude is huge. And again, it is just because this ongoing
dispute about how you count it.
Let me just say this. When you pay your tuition, it doesn't
count till you pay it, even though the people are in there and
you set it aside for 2 years.
Mr. Yarmuth. On that question, I think the theory was that
there were these excess carry-overs and that therefore it was
money not being spent.
It is my understanding that the Department of Labor has the
power to reallocate funds that are carried over in any
particular area to others. Are you aware of any situation in
which that has occurred?
Mr. Twomey. In my oral testimony earlier, I said that in
the last 7 years New York State had $1.5 billion-plus----
Mr. Yarmuth. Right.
Mr. Twomey [continuing]. And in that time, we did get
reallocated funds. The total reallocated funds we received over
that 7-year period was, I think, $42,000.
Mr. Yarmuth. Can anyone else share their experiences who is
involved in this, where there were excess funds or you were the
beneficiary of any allocated excessive funds? No.
One of the things that--back in April we had a forum in my
district in Louisville, Kentucky on job development, and it was
based on the Kentuckiana Works, which is our One-Stop shop and
effort there.
One of the issues that came up during that session--we had
a lot of stakeholders at the meeting, probably 40 or 50
different people--was that there seemed to be a resistance to
including organized labor in any of these activities.
And, for instance, the carpenters union in my district had
built a multimillion-dollar training facility, and they were
kind of miffed that they were never called in to participate in
some of these activities, because they had both the capacity
and some of the networks to provide training and job
opportunities for people.
Is that a situation that you have found--and anyone can
address this--in your areas and whether you think that this is
a problem and something that we ought to encourage change in?
Mr. Carbone. That is not the way it is in my area. We have
two labor reps on my board of directors at the workplace.
And at the Connecticut Employment Training Commission,
which is the state WIB in Connecticut, the chairperson of the
state AFL-CIO is a member, and a very active member.
We actually have relationships with unions that do
apprenticeship programs in defense companies and other
companies in our region. They play an important role in helping
us to formulate policy.
So in terms of Connecticut--I can't speak for the rest of
the nation--I don't see that. As a matter of fact, our two
reps--one comes from AFL-CIO and the other is an appointment of
one of the mayors.
And we have found them to be a resource and of great
assistance in every one of our projects.
Mr. Yarmuth. Thank you.
Yes, Mr. Petit?
Mr. Petit. Thank you. In our area, the secretary-treasurer
of the Spokane Regional Labor Council sits on the Workforce
Development Council.
But one of the things that is kind of remarkable about our
system is that those labor representative from employment
security, or very system that receives these funds, are blocked
from appearing on these boards because of a perceived conflict
of interest.
I view that as a kind of wrong thinking, because we have
the expertise to be able to help direct the activity, and so I
would like to see some kind of additional emphasis placed on
including AFSCME particularly in those boards.
Mr. Yarmuth. Thank you very much, Mr. Petit.
That concludes the questioning, and I want to thank all the
witnesses. It has been very instructive and useful.
Members will have 14 days to submit any documentation for
the record.
And with that, I thank everyone and the meeting is
adjourned.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Altmire follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jason Altmire, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Pennsylvania
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing on how we can
improve the workforce development system through the reauthorization of
the Workforce Investment Act.
I am anxious to hear recommendations from today's witnesses about
how the Workforce Investment Act can be improved. As I mentioned in my
statement at our first hearing on the Workforce Investment Act, one
issue I am particularly interested in is how we can modify the
Workforce Investment Act to better serve the underemployed. I was
pleased to see that several of today's witnesses addressed this issue
in their written testimony and look forward to hearing them more fully
speak to this issue.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing and for
your leadership on this issue. I yield back the balance of my time.
______
[Additional submissions by Mr. Hinojosa follow:]
Prepared Statement of the National Association of Counties (NACo)
Chairman Hinojosa and members of the Subcommittee, the National
Association of Counties welcomes the opportunity to submit testimony on
the Workforce Investment Act: Ideas to Improve the Workforce
Development System.
The National Association of Counties (NACo) is the only national
organization representing county governments. NACo membership totals
over 2,200 counties comprising over 80 percent of the nation's
population. County officials across this country recognize the
importance and take seriously the accountability for overseeing
implementation of the Workforce Investment Act at the local level.
The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) is the only federally sponsored
program that is designed to address the broad range of worker needs
through a one-stop delivery system. The Workforce Investment Act
provides every worker with an entry point from which to access a wide
range of services from welfare to work to employment services to
assessment and training services.
Reauthorization of WIA legislation has been a work in progress for
several years. While both chambers of Congress approved legislation in
past congressional sessions no final agreement was ever reached before
adjournment. In the interim, local elected officials and workforce
boards have continued operating and developing workforce initiatives
funded via congressional appropriations. In the absence of WIA
reauthorization, congressional funding for such important workforce
programs has decreased over time, and credible workforce system data
collection has languished. Furthermore, attempts to dismantle the
congressional intent as a locally based, business-led workforce system
have occurred via state WIA plan updates and waivers requests.
NACo urges Congress to pass and finalize WIA reauthorization
legislation as soon as possible, to preserve the basic framework as a
locally based, business-led workforce investment system, and to improve
upon key issues such as funding, performance data/standards, and
training to further enhance the workforce system. Such improvements
will also assist with the ongoing efforts of local areas in moving the
system to the next level of workforce development initiatives, such as
industry clusters and sector initiatives recognizing the importance of
economic development in strengthening workforce development. It is
vital that WIA be reauthorized to maintain this nation's competitive
edge and to ensure a skilled workforce for jobseekers and businesses
alike.
This nation's workforce system is beginning and should continue to
focus on the two primary customers: the jobseekers and employers.
Through One-Stops jobseekers receive assessments and skills upgrading,
and/or training at local community colleges, education agencies and at
community-based organizations through individual training accounts.
Employers are also utilizing the workforce development system to post
job openings, obtain referrals of people who may be eligible for the
jobs, and even interview potential candidates. They are also providing
input into the public-private partnership about the kinds of skills
that they need in their workplaces. This matching service between
employers and employees is critical to the success of the workforce
development system. As WIA continues to manifest itself as an economic
development program, employers should be more engaged in development of
a comprehensive workforce system.
County elected officials believe the Workforce Investment Act
system has worked well in providing core and intensive services to
America's workers, as well as training opportunities. There is still
room for improvement, particularly in the training arena. There are
simple ways to increase the numbers of workers receiving training and/
or actual better account for those already receiving training in WIA
reauthorization.
By design, workforce investment boards or WIBs have unprecedented
autonomy to develop and implement local initiatives, yet there is a
high degree of accountability to county commissioners for managing
finances and performance. Many of the local workforce boards across the
U.S., working in conjunction with their county commissioners and other
elected officials, have begun to move beyond the development and
oversight of the one-stop system. They are moving toward systemic
strategic workforce issues, including incumbent workers, industry
clusters, local primary and post-secondary education, transportation
systems, quality of life, regional marketing, housing, underemployment,
self-sufficiency and sustainable wages, literacy and life-long learning
systems. Below are recommendations to further improve upon WIA
legislation.
Local Authority
The local public-private partnership as established under the
Workforce Investment Act should be maintained. Decisions about how the
partnership should be implemented at the local level should be left to
local elected officials and local workforce boards in consultation with
states. The federal-state-local relationship established by the
Workforce Investment Act should be maintained to ensure that
appropriate planning and implementation authority and accountability
continues. WIA legislation should clarify the role that local boards
play as conveners of key stakeholders for the development of workforce
and economic development linkages and strategies, and brokers of
training and related services leading to a highly skilled workforce.
Appointment authority for the local workforce investment boards
should remain with chief local elected officials. The relative number
or percentage of private sector representatives on the local workforce
investment boards should be increased and the relative number or
percentage of public sector representatives, especially the mandatory
partners, should be reduced substantially. Representatives from these
public agencies may be asked to participate in meetings when issues
relevant to them arise; however, the decision-making authority on the
local workforce investment boards should rest with the private sector.
The structure and characteristics of the most successful boards include
very strong and independent private sector majority.
Represented by large and small private sector employers, state
officials, economic development agencies, organized labor, community
action agencies, and youth agencies, these boards operate in
partnership with county commissioners and have the ability to deliver
grass roots solutions to many issues.
NACo believes that the public-private partnership is represented by
the partnership that is forged between the local chief elected official
and his or her local workforce investment boards. Decisions made by
these two entities represent the public-private partnership at work.
Local one-stop centers should remain under the guidance and
jurisdiction of local chief elected officials and local workforce
investment boards, as provided for in current law. These one-stop
centers should be accountable to the local chief elected official for
all monies spent to prevent the misuse of public funds.
Local workforce investment area plans should be developed jointly
by the local chief elected official and the local workforce investment
board within broad policy and programmatic guidelines developed by the
governor and the state workforce investment boards. Local workforce
investment areas and states should be granted broad waiver authority to
creatively respond to the employment, economic development and welfare
issues confronting states and localities. Requests for waivers should
be developed jointly by local elected officials and workforce
investment boards, should be limited to the delivery of program
services and the allocation of funds to different activities and must
receive the approval of governors before they can be enacted.
Program Funding
One significant issue is sufficient funding for WIA programs, which
has decreased significantly without reauthorization. Most recently, the
House Appropriations Committee approved a $335 million rescission for
WIA funds for 2007. Such cuts are incomprehensible, considering the
importance of a highly educated and skilled workforce to this nation.
In recent years, there has been increasing pressure on the workforce
system to continue to do more with less. One-Stop systems across this
country are struggling now to just to maintain basic services to its
customers. Workforce boards (WIBs) are managing the funds responsibly,
obligating and spending allotments within the context of the three-year
planning and expenditure cycle for which the Act provides.
WIA reauthorization should include increased funding for formula
programs and a separate line item for One-Stop infrastructure costs.
Funding for infrastructure costs should not come at the expense of or
from cuts to formula funding.
If no increased funding is included for WIA or One-Stop
infrastructure, mandatory partners should be required to contribute
money to the system. These funds should be allotted to or collected by
the states and distributed to local areas based upon formulae used to
distribute program funds.
NACo also supports alignment of resources at the local level for
greater flexibility. Funds for adult, youth and dislocated workers
should be consolidated into a single block grant at the local level so
that local areas may determine the kinds of populations to serve based
upon need. This is especially important for rural areas that receive
limited WIA resources and prefer to consolidate funds to best serve all
populations in need.
Administrative Costs
Another potentially significant issue is Administrative Costs
definition. NACo supports maintaining the current function based
definition in the current regulations for WIA as well as the 10 percent
cap on administrative costs. The current definition should be added to
the WIA statute, to avoid potential modifications via administrative or
other regulatory means.
Performance Data/Simplified Measures
Accurate performance data collection and simplified performance
measures are also important to improving upon the success of the
workforce system. To date there is no reliable record of how many
individuals have been trained, placed in jobs, the rate of earnings for
these individuals or retention levels. The existing measures are not
reflective of the quality of services that are available to job seekers
and employers. Many local areas are tracking detailed performance data
such as training with leverage money, which is not reflected in
national statistics. Therefore, performance measures should be
simplified and universal for state and local areas, include credit or
bonus for leveraged training and include a regression model as
incentive to serve and track data for populations with significant
barriers to education and employment opportunities.
Training
While significant numbers of training is occurring as supported by
the U.S. General Accountability Office reports, more could be done to
increase and accurately count as well as increase training
opportunities. NACo supports increased training opportunities for
jobseekers that lead to self sufficiency. One change that could assist
in more training opportunities is the relaxation of the sequence of
services requirement. Individuals should have immediate access to core,
intensive and/or training services. Requirements that mandate
individuals receive core and intensive services first has delayed
progression to training for many customers. NACo supports granting
local One-Stop centers greater flexibility with regard to the provision
of services and utilization of training funds.
Significant training is being done in local areas with leveraged
funding from the private sector, foundation or educational
institutions. Local areas should be able to receive credit or bonus
towards training requirements/participation rates in WIA for such
training. An emphasis should also be placed on incumbent worker
training by allowing workforce boards to spend up to ten percent of
their Dislocated Workers and Adults formula funds, so that individuals
whose skills are becoming antiquated may obtain the appropriate
training to remain competitive in the job market.
Youth
The Workforce system should continue to serve in and out of school
youth ages 14-21, including youth aging out of foster care. Youth
programs for in and out of school youth should continue to be developed
by local workforce investment boards acting in consort with their local
chief elected officials. Funds for these programs should continue to be
allocated to local areas. They should be used in part to address the
needs of students making the transition from school to work and to
assist those students no longer in school develop the skills they need
to enter the world of work.
Innovation
The workforce investment system is developing into a continuum
beginning with primary education through post secondary education and
training, retraining and placement of the aged workforce and points in
between. The workforce system is promoting industries that lead to
local and regional economic growth and jobs that provide sustainable
employment.
By design, successful workforce investment boards have
unprecedented autonomy to develop and implement local initiatives.
Still, there is a high degree of accountability by county officials for
managing finances and performance. Local WIBs across the country have
created infrastructures that are quite capable of implementing a broad
array of initiatives. County officials and their appointed workforce
boards across the nation work diligently and tirelessly to integrate
and coordinate resources from multiple funding streams to fully develop
Congress's notion of a ``one-stop'' workforce delivery system.
Strong public-private sector partnerships have resulted in
innovative programs, increased precision and efficiency in the use of
workforce resources and a broader understanding of the core issues that
must be addressed to maintain of economic competitiveness. Examples of
issues and topics being addressed by workforce boards include: industry
clusters, local primary and post-secondary education, incumbent
workforce focus, transportation systems, quality of life, regional
marketing, housing, underemployment, self-sufficiency and sustainable
wages, literacy and life-long learning systems. To fully accomplish
these tasks, systems are and need to be developed to encourage broader
relationships between WIBs, and other state and federal organizations
along with the U.S. Department of Labor.
To enhance and promote further innovation in the workforce system,
WIA reauthorization legislation should include monetary incentives for
local workforce boards that achieve such model results through
innovative practices related to strategic planning, industry clusters
and sector initiatives, partnership linkages with economic development
as well as working on regional basis strategically and comprehensively
across education, workforce, and economic development to address
employment needs of these regions.
For the past three years NACo's Labor and Employment Steering
Committee has sponsored a Workforce Development--``Best Practices''
Symposium highlighting the innovation of local workforce boards to
share information and ``best practices'' with other locally elected
officials and workforce board staff. Attendees learn about innovative
practices that they can then incorporate into their local workforce
boards and areas. Such symposiums have been informative and well
received by locally elected officials and workforce development staff.
In conclusion, NACo believes that workforce development programs
represent an important tool for federal, state and local governments to
ensuring a competitive workforce today and in the future. The nation's
workforce system is well positioned to better address the needs of
jobseekers and businesses alike by incorporating the improvements
highlighted above in WIA reauthorization legislation.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Organization for Competency
Assurance (NOCA)
About the National Organization for Competency Assurance (NOCA)
NOCA, the oldest and largest organization representing
certification agencies, testing companies, consulting firms and
individuals involved in professional certification, was created in 1977
as the National Commission for Health Certifying Agencies (NCHCA) with
federal funding from the Department of Health and Human Services. Its
mission was to develop standards for quality certification in the
allied health fields and to accredit organizations that met those
standards. With the growing use of certification in other fields,
NCHCA's leaders recognized that what is essential for credible
certification of individuals in the healthcare sector is equally
essential for other sectors. With this vision, NCHCA evolved into the
National Organization for Competency Assurance. NOCA is a non-profit,
501(c)(3) organization, committed to serving the public interest by
ensuring adherence to standards that ensure the highest competence of
certification programs.
NOCA's membership is composed of more than 400 organizations
responsible for certifying specific skill sets and knowledge bases of
professions and occupations at the national and international level.
Through certification, NOCA members represent more than 6 million
individuals around the world and include certification programs of some
150 professions and occupations, including 60 healthcare professions.
NOCA members certify individual skills in fields as diverse as
construction, healthcare, automotive, and finance. A current roster of
NOCA members is included in the appendix.
NOCA also brings the expertise of its internationally recognized
accrediting arm, the National Commission for Certifying Agencies
(NCCA). NCCA uses a peer review process to evaluate adherence to its
standards by certification programs and grants accreditation to those
programs that have met those standards. These standards exceed the
requirements set forth by the American Psychological Association and
the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and thus help to
protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public. NCCA is the
national accreditation body that provides this service for private
certification organizations in all disciplines.
NOCA's mission is to promote excellence in competency assurance for
individuals in all occupations and professions. No other organization
has the presence in or commits the resources to the field of
certification. NOCA is proud of its position as the international
leader in competency assurance for certification programs, as well as
its role in promoting excellence in competency assurance for
practitioners in all occupations and professions.
What is Certification?
The certification of professional and occupational skill-sets
affirms a knowledge and experience base for practitioners in a
particular field, their employers, and the public at large.
Certification represents a declaration of a particular individual's
professional competence. In some professions certification is a
requirement for employment or practice. In all instances, certification
enhances the employability and career advancement of the individual
practitioner or employee.
Many organizations in today's competitive and challenging economy
have recognized their workforce as their most valuable asset. Likewise,
individuals, whether employed or self-employed, know that now more than
ever before they must acquire and maintain more comprehensive skill-
sets to ensure their own attractiveness and ability in the
workplace.\1\
The benefits of certification include:
Consumer confidence and safety through verification of
competence
Protecting the general public from incompetent and unfit
practitioners
Establishment of professional standards for individuals in
a particular field.
Assisting consumers in making informed decisions about
qualified providers
Assisting employers in making more informed hiring
decisions
A more productive and highly trained workforce for
employers
Data is available that underscores the value of certification in
numerous occupations. Research conducted by the American Board of
Nursing Specialties (ABNS) (a NOCA member) ``document[s] a high level
of agreement among certified nurses, non-certified nurses and nurse
managers that certification is greatly valued among nurses.'' \2\
Respondents to the ABNS survey revealed that some of the incentives
their employers offer to promote and recognize nursing certifications
include the reimbursement of exam fees, a listing of their credential
on nametags and/or business cards, and receiving reimbursement for
continuing education.\3\ Other surveys indicate that certification
results in higher wages for credentialed employees, as well as
bonuses.\4\
Occupational certification is in most instances an affordable
retraining option for many dislocated workers. A voluntary survey
conducted by NOCA in 2004 indicated the average cost of certification
tests is $350.\5\
Numerous occupations, such as doctors, nurses, accountants, and
physical therapists, require a license to practice the profession at
the state level. Certification is distinct from licensure in that it is
voluntary and frequently requires recertification to maintain the
currency of the credential. Recertification frequently takes the form
of continuing education and testing. Recertification provides a
reaffirmation of competency assurance by ensuring the certificant is up
to date with the latest training techniques, research and methods for a
particular field.
Many certification exams are so rigorous that states adopt the
certification exam for a certain occupation as the state licensure
exam. For example, to become a Licensed Professional Counselor in 49
states, a test candidate must achieve a passing score on the National
Counselor Examination (NCE), administered by the National Board for
Certified Counselors.\6\ Passage of the NCE earns the candidate the
National Certified Counselor (NCC) credential and the Licensed
Professional Counselor designation to engage in the practice of
counseling in most states. Some other examples include the state of
California requiring alcohol and drug counselors to be certified by an
NCCA accredited organization; the state of Massachusetts requiring
senior financial planners to be certified by a nationally recognized
accrediting body; and the state of Missouri requiring mid-wives to be
certified by an NCCA accredited organization.
The Importance of Accreditation
Accreditation provides third party oversight of a conformity
assessment system. NCCA accreditation provides a mechanism for
certification organizations to demonstrate to the profession it
represents and the general public it serves that its credentialing
program has been reviewed by a panel of impartial experts who have
determined that the certification program has met the stringent
standards of NCCA. NCCA accreditation provides certification programs
and many NOCA members with a way to answer the question, ``who reviewed
your certification program?'' a question often posed by members of an
occupation, employers, and sometimes, the courts.
An important part of the accreditation process is a review of a
certification body's enforcement mechanism. Most certification programs
have imposed a disciplinary system that requires certificants to adhere
to a Code of Ethics for a profession. Violations of the Code may be
reported by the public and reviewed by the credentialing body. If
necessary, suspensions or revocations of the credential may take place.
These self-enforcing mechanisms provide a further layer of protection
to consumers as well as a layer of accountability in a profession.
NOCA's Recommendations for Workforce Investment Act (WIA)
Reauthorization
NOCA recommends including information about occupational
certification and licensure opportunities as a core service available
through One-Stop employment and training career centers. NOCA also
recommends including certification and licensure in the scope of
training services offered through the One-Stop system.
Certification offers a meaningful and direct pathway to re-
employment for many individuals eligible for assistance through the
One-Stop system. Certification may be a part of the training for
specific job skills required in local markets. Including information
about the vast array of credentials available to job seekers when they
visit One-Stops is an excellent way to assist individuals in obtaining
new work and possibly better career opportunities. In many instances,
securing a voluntary credential will be the quickest and most effective
means for an individual to achieve re-employment.
In fact, career counselors who staff One-Stop Centers are certified
as Global Career Development Facilitators by the National Board for
Certified Counselors, a NOCA member and the largest certification
program for the counseling profession. These career development
professionals receive specialized training for working in career
development fields. The Career Development Facilitators certification
establishes minimum competency requirements to serve the dislocated
worker and requires adherence to a professional Code of Ethics.
We note the development of the CareerOneStop\7\ website by the
Department of Labor. This user-friendly website allows job seekers to
easily search for certification options in a number of different fields
and professions. NOCA recommends that Congress continue to encourage
the expansion of this valuable tool by providing adequate resources to
allow DOL to raise awareness about the site to workers as well as
career development professionals.
Certification programs whose prerequisites and requirements
displaced workers may quickly access would enable displaced workers to
move back into gainful employment and possibly enhanced career
opportunities. Certification of one's specialized skills learned from
years on the job may well be the quickest pathway to reemployment.
In many instances, an occupational certification does not require a
college degree. College is an expensive and time-consuming undertaking
which may not represent a viable alternative for many job seekers.
Persons who do not wish to pursue a college degree can pursue viable
and rewarding careers in such fields as medical transcription,
automotive mechanic, and medical assisting, among many others. These
professions, as well as others, can open up a rewarding career path
with excellent pay and opportunities for advancement for many
individuals. Examples of occupations not requiring a baccalaureate
degree include:
ASE-certified automotive technician. According to the National
Automotive Technicians Education Foundation, automotive technicians
receiving the ASE certification can earn $60,000 or more per year.
Positions such as automobile technician, autobody technician, truck
technician, and parts specialist are in high demand across the nation.
Medical transcriptionist. According to the American Association of
Medical Transcription, the volume of dictation requiring transcription
continues to grow; however, the availability of qualified medical
transcriptionists has not grown at the same rate. This is an excellent
career, offering a competitive annual salary. BLS statistics indicate
the mean annual wage in 2006 for a medical transcriptionist is
$30,660.\8\
These are just a small sampling of the occupations available to
dislocated workers, new workforce entrants, and others seeking
employment and living wages, who may choose not to go on to pursue a 2
or 4 year degree.
The certification industry is also recognizing the changing face of
the American workforce. While the United States has always been a
nation of immigrants, U.S. Census figures indicate that the number of
persons who speak a language other than English at home increased from
31.8 million in 1990 to 47 million in 2000.\9\ In addition, while some
immigrants enter the United States with high quality training and
education, others lack advanced skills and will need to obtain training
in order to advance in the workforce. Some persons are also entering
the workforce after becoming disabled or after long periods of
unemployment.
Certification bodies are adapting swiftly to meet the needs of
America's changing workforce. For example, many certification boards
are administering their coursework and examinations in languages other
than English. Credentialing examinations for numerous occupations are
now administered on a global scale. A 2006 survey of NOCA member
organizations revealed that over 50% of respondents administer their
exams in countries other than the United States and that 37% of
respondents translate their exams into languages other than
English.\10\
Certification bodies are also in full compliance with the Americans
with Disabilities Act, thus allowing persons with disabilities to earn
certifications with reasonable accommodation that does not compromise
the validity or reliability of the testing process.
NOCA also notes that the Office of Management and Budget announced
last year that it had instructed the Standard Occupational
Classification Revision Policy Commission (SOCRPC) to begin the review
and revision of the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC), last
updated in 2000, towards revision for 2010.\11\ In its proposal, SOCRPC
recommends eliminating from the factors evidencing an occupation the
existence of a national credentialing program. Yet a credentialing
program serving a specific competency or set of competencies can
confirm the existence of an emerging or maturing occupation, in many
instances far ahead of the SOC. While NOCA is aware that the SOC
revision process is a separate regulatory process not related to WIA
reauthorization, NOCA respectfully requests that the Subcommittee
review the decision by the SOCRPC to remove certification from the
SOC.\12\
Conclusion
Improving the prospects for reemployment and career opportunities
of displaced workers, as well as immigrant workers, represents the core
of the Workforce Investment Act. Most employers in today's competitive
and challenging economy have recognized that their workforce is their
most valuable asset. Likewise, individuals, whether employed or self-
employed, know that now more than ever before they must acquire and
maintain more comprehensive skill-sets to ensure their own
marketability and competence in the workplace. Certification represents
an excellent pathway to employment opportunities for workers in all
areas in the economy. It also serves as an important assurance for
employers and the general public that individuals have attained the
necessary skill sets to provide the services or carry out the scope of
their employment. We hope that the Subcommittee will recognize the
important role that certification has to play in the Workforce
Investment system.
Respectfully Submitted,
James Kendzel, Executive Director,
National Organization for Competency Assurance (NOCA).
appendix--noca organizational members
NOCA's Organizational Members consist of the following
associations, certifying organizations, customer groups, and government
agencies:
AACE International
Academy of Ambulatory Foot and Ankle Surgery
Academy for Certification of Vision Rehabilitation and Education
Professionals
Academy of Lactation Policy and Practice
Accrediting Bureau of Health Education Schools
Aerobics and Fitness Association of America
Alliance of Information and Referral Systems
American Academy of Health Care Providers in the Addictive Disorders
American Academy of Nurse Practitioners
American Academy of Micropigmentation
American Academy of Pain Management
American Academy of Wound Management
American Association for Medical Transcription
American Association for Respiratory Care
American Association of Clinical Coders and Auditors
American Association of Colleges of Nursing
American Association of Critical-Care Nurses Certification Corporation
American Association of Medical Assistants
American Association of Medical Audit Specialists
American Association of Physician Specialists
American Association of Poison Control Centers
American Board for Certification in Orthotics and Prosthetics, Inc.
American Board for Certification of Teacher Excellence, Inc.
American Board for Occupational Health Nurses
American Board of Cardiovascular Perfusion
American Board of General Dentistry
American Board of Industrial Hygiene
American Board of Lower Extremity Surgery
American Board of Multiple Specialties in Podiatry
American Board of Nursing Specialties
American Board of Opticianry
American Board of Pain Medicine
American Board of Registration of Electroencephalographic and Evoked
Potential Technologists, Inc.
American Board of Surgical Assistants
American Board of Transplant Coordinators
American Board of Veterinary Practitioners
American Certification Agency for Healthcare Professionals
American Chiropractic Board of Radiology
American Chiropractic Board of Sports Physicians
American Chiropractic Neurology Board
American Chiropractic Registry of Radiologic Technologists
American Clinical Board of Nutrition
American College of Sports Medicine
American College of Veterinary Ophthalmologists
American Construction Inspectors Association
American Council on Exercise
American Fitness Professionals and Associates
American Health Information Management Association
American Hospital Association Certification Center
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants
American Indoor Air Quality Council
American Manual Medicine Association
American Medical Massage Association
American Medical Technologists
American Midwifery Certification Board
American Nurses Credentialing Center Commission on Certification
American Occupational Therapy Association
American Optometric Association Commission on Paraoptometric
Certification
American Organization for Bodywork Therapies of Asia
American Physical Therapy Association
American Registry for Diagnostic Medical Sonographers
American Registry of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Technologists
The American Registry of Radiologic Technologists
American Society for Bariatric Surgery
American Society for Clinical Pathology
American Society of Anesthesia Technologists and Technicians
American Society of Military Comptrollers
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
American Staffing Association
American Veterinary Chiropractic Association, Inc.
American Veterinary Medical Association
APICS-The Association for Operations Management
Aquatic Exercise Association, Inc.
Architectural Woodwork Institute
Art Therapy Credentials Board
ASIS International
Association for Death Education and Counseling
Association for Investment Management and Research
Association of Christian Alcohol and Drug Counselors
Association of Government Accountants
Association of Regulatory Boards of Optometry
Association of Surgical Technologists, Inc.
Association of Water Technologies, Inc.
Axiom Resource Management, Inc.
Behavior Analyst Certification Board
Biofeedback Certification Institute of America
Board for Certification in Clinical Anaplastology
Board for Certification of Addiction Specialists
Board for Certification in Pedorthics
Board for Orthotist/Prosthetist Certification
Board of Canadian Registered Safety Professionals
Board of Certification for Emergency Nursing
Board of Certification in Professional Ergonomics
Board of Certification of Medical Illustrators
Board of Certified Safety Professionals
Board of Environmental, Health & Safety Auditor Certifications
Board of Pharmaceutical Specialties
Board of Registered Polysomnographic Technologists
Breining Institute
California Association for Alcohol and Drug Educators
California Association of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Counselors (CAADAC)
and the California Certification Board of Alcohol and Drug
Counselors (CCBADC)
California Association of Drinking Driver Treatment Programs
California Certifying Board for Medical Assistants
California-Nevada Section, American Water Works Association
California Water Environment Association
Canadian Alliance of Physiotherapy Regulators
Canadian Board for Respiratory Care, Inc.
Canadian Chiropractic Examining Board
Canadian Council of Professional Engineers
Canadian Nurses Association
Center for Credentialing and Education
Certification Board for Music Therapists
Certification Board for Radiology Practitioner Assistants
Certification Board for Sterile Processing and Distribution
Certification Board for Infection Control and Epidemiology
Certification of Disability Management Specialists Commission
Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards, Inc.
Certified Fund Raising Executive International
Certified General Accountants Association of Canada
Certified Mine Safety Professional Certification Board
Certifying Board for Dietary Managers
Chartered Realty Investor Society
College and Association of Registered Nurses of Alberta
College of Massage Therapists of Ontario
College of Medical Laboratory Technologists of Ontario
College of Medical Radiation Technologists of Ontario
College of Occupational Therapists of Ontario
College of Pharmacists of British Columbia
College of Physiotherapists of Ontario
College of Respiratory Therapists of Ontario
Commission for Case Manager Certification
Commission for Certification in Geriatric Pharmacy
Commission on Dietetic Registration of the American Dietetic
Association
Commission on Graduates of Foreign Nursing Schools
Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor Certification
Competency and Credentialing Institute
Convergys
The Cooper Institute
Council of Landscape Architectural Registration Boards
Council on Certification of Health, Environmental, and Safety
Technologists
Council on Certification of Nurse Anesthetists
Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation
Council on Professional Standards for Kinesiotherapy
Crane Operator Certification Authority
CFA Institute
CSI Global Education
Dental Assisting National Board
Department of Environment and Labor Province of Nova Scotia
Entertainment Technician Certification Program (ETCP-ESTA)
Esthetic Skin Institute
Examination Board of Professional Home Inspectors
Financial Planning Standards Board
Financial Planners Standards Council
Financial Planning Association of Australia
Florida Certification Board
Fundacao Luis Eduardo Magalhaes
Hand Therapy Certification Commission, Inc.
The Healing Oasis Wellness Center
Healthcare Compliance Certification Board
Healthcare Financial Management Association
Healtcare Information and Management Systems Society
Healthcare Quality Certification Board
Human Resource Certification Institute
Illinois Department of Financial & Professional Regulation
Infocomm International
International Medical University of Natural Education (IMUNE)
Indian Alcoholism Commission of California
Infusion Nurses Certification Corporation
Institute for Safety and Health Management
Institute of Certified Construction Financial Professionals
Institute of Certified Management Accountants
Institute of Hazardous Materials Management
Institute for Supply Management
International Accounts Payable Professionals, Inc.
International Air Filtration Certifiers Association
International Alliance for Fitness Professionals
International Association for Colon Hydrotherapy
International Association of Eating Disorders Professionals Association
International Association of Forensic Nurses
International Association of Healthcare Central Service Materiel
Management
International Board of Lactation Consultant Examiners
International Code Council
International Executive Housekeepers Association, Inc.
International Fitness Association
International Lactation Consultant Association
International Pilates Certification
International Society for Clinical Densitometry
International Society of Arboriculture
International Society for Performance Improvement
Irrigation Association
ISA, The Instrumentation, Systems, and Automation Society
Joint Commission on Allied Health Personnel in Ophthalmology
Kassian Dyck & Associates
Knowledge Assessment Calculator (formerly American Payroll Association)
Lamaze International
Liaison Council on Certification for the Surgical Technologist
Marketing Research Association
Medical Massage National Certification Board
Michigan Institute for Health Enhancement
NAA Education Institute
NAADAC-The Association for Addiction Professionals
National Academy of Sports Medicine
National Alliance Wound Care
National Assistant at Surgery Council
National Association of Medical Staff Services
National Association for Health Professionals
National Association of Boards of Pharmacy
National Association of Certified Valuation Analysts
National Association of College Stores
National Association of Federal Credit Unions
National Association of Forensic Counselors
National Association of Legal Assistants
National Association of Mortgage Brokers
National Association of Social Workers
National Association of State Contractors Licensing Agencies
National Asthma Educator Certification Board, Inc.
National Athletic Trainer's Association Board of Certification
National Board for Certification in Hearing Instrument Sciences
National Board for Certification of Hospice and Palliative Nurses
National Board for Certification of Orthopaedic Technologists
National Board for Certification in Occupational Therapy
National Board for Certification of Orthopedic Physician Assistants
National Board for Certified Counselors
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards
National Board for Respiratory Care
National Board of Certification for Community Association Managers,
Inc.
National Board of Chiropractic Examiners
National Board of Examiners in Optometry
National Board of Nutrition Support
National Board of Orthodontics, U.S.
National Board of Surgical Specialists
National Business Aviation Association
National Center for Competency Testing
National Certification Board for Diabetes Educators
National Certification Board for Therapeutic Massage and Body Work
National Certification Commission for Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine
National Certification Corporation for the Obstetric, Gynecologic, and
Neonatal Nursing Specialties
The National Commission for Health Education Credentialing
National Commission for Certification of Continuing Medical Education
Professionals
National Commission for the Certification of Crane Operators
National Concrete Masonry Association
National Contact Lens Examiners
National Council for Interior Design Qualification
National Council for Therapeutic Recreation Certification, Inc.
National Council of Architectural Registration Boards
National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying
National Council of State Boards of Nursing, Inc.
National Council on Strength and Fitness
National Credentialing Agency for Laboratory Personnel
National Dental Hygiene Certification Board
National Enrichment Teachers Association
National Examining Board of Ocularists
National Exercise Trainers Association (NETA)
National Exercise and Sports Trainers Association (NESTA)
National Federation of Professional Trainers
National Ground Water Association
National Healthcareer Association
National Institute for Automotive Service Excellence
National Institute for Certification in Engineering Technologies
National Institute for Metalworking Skills
National Kitchen and Bath Association
National League for Nursing
National Occupational Competency Testing Institute
National Paramedical for Technician and Assistants
National Recreation and Parks Association
National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians
National Registry of Food Safety Professionals
National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA) Certification
Commission
Natural Therapies Certification Board
Nephrology Nursing Certification Commission
North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners
North American Registry of Midwives
North Carolina Substance Abuse Practice Board
The Nuclear Medicine Technology Certification Board
Oncology Nursing Certification Corporation
Ontario College of Pharmacists
Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers
Ophthalmic Photographers' Society, Inc. Board of Certification
Pediatric Nursing Certification Board
Petrofac Training International
Pharmacy Examining Board of Canada
Pharmacy Technician Certification Board
Pilates Method Alliance, Inc.
Professional Golfers' Association of America
Professional Healthcare Institute of America
Professional Landcare Network
Professional Photographers of America
Psychiatric Rehabilitation Certification Program
Radiology Coding Certification Board
Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, Inc.
Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North
America
Rocky Mountain Masonry Institute
School Nutrition Association
Society of Actuaries
Society of American Foresters
Society of Cable Telecommunications Engineers
Society of Certified Senior Advisors
The Society of the Plastics Industry
Society of Tribologists and Lubrication Engineers
Software Engineering Institute
Southern California Crane and Hoisting Certification Program
Transportation Professional Certification Board, Inc.
UCSD-Center for Criminality Addiction Research, Training, and
Application (CCARTA)
Universal Public Purchasing Certification Council
U.S. Green Building Council
Veterinary Hospital Managers Association
The Wedding Planning Institute
Wound, Ostomy, and Continence Nurses Certification Board
endnotes
\1\ See also Su Bacon, ``Setting Strategy: Earning professional
credentials has many benefits for businesses.'' Kansas City Star (Jul.
2, 2007), available at http://www.kansascity.com/business/story/
174730.html.
\2\ Value of Certification Executive Summary. American Board of
Nursing Specialties (May 2006), 4. Available at http://
www.nursingcertification.org/pdf/executive--summary.pdf.
\3\ Ibid.
\4\ Poll Indicates Certified Workers Earn More, press release,
Sept. 5, 2003. Available at: http://www.noca.org/portals/0/
Poll%20results.doc. See also CertMag's 2006 Salary Survey. Available at
http://www.certmag.com/articles/templates/CM--gen--Article--
template.asp?articleid=2479&zoneid=223.
\5\ Average Certification Exam Fee Tops $350, press release, May
20, 2004. Available at: http://www.noca.org/portals/0/exam%20fee--
header.pdf.
\6\ The National Board for Certified Counselors (NBCC) is a member
organization of NOCA and is also accredited by the National Commission
for Certifying Agencies (NCCA).
\7\ http://www.careeronestop.org/
\8\ See http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes319094.htm.
\9\ See Hyon B. Shin with Rosalind Bruno, ``Language Use and
English-Speaking Ability: 2000.'' U.S. Census Bureau (Oct. 2003).
Available at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-29.pdf.
\10\ NOCA International Staff Summary Report. National Organization
for Competency Assurance (Oct. 20, 2006). Not available online.
\11\ See Federal Register, Vol. 71, No. 94, 16 May 2006, at 28536
\12\ NOCA submitted a letter to the SOCRPC protesting this change.
NOCA's comment letter is available at http://www.noca.org/portals/0/
SOCRPC-Response-Letter.pdf.
______
Prepared Statement of Susan Rees, Director of National Programs and
Policy, Wider Opportunities for Women
Wider Opportunities for Women is pleased that the subcommittee is
considering ways to improve the Workforce Investment Act which has been
pending reauthorization for over five years. WOW works nationally and
in its home community of Washington, DC, to achieve economic
independence and equality of opportunity for women and girls. Since
1964, WOW has trained more than 10,000 women for well-paid work in
programs emphasizing literacy, technical and nontraditional skills,
welfare-to-work and transition and career development goals.
The recommendations discussed here are based on WOW's experience
with more than 2,000 nonprofit organizations and Workforce Investment
Boards in 36 states that are part of our Family Economic Self-
Sufficiency Project (FESS). The Self-Sufficiency Standard \1\ uses
publicly available data from federal, state and private sources to
calculate on the cost of living for working families of different sizes
and ages of children, including food, health care and local and market
rates for child care, housing and transportation. Today, the Self-
Sufficiency Standard has been developed and is utilized in 35 states
and the District of Columbia. It has been drawn on by states and
national organizations and think tanks\2\ in their efforts to establish
a relevant and credible measure for policy development and program
decisions.
In 2003, WOW surveyed workforce boards across the nation to
identify best practices in the use of Self-Sufficiency Standards in
connection with workforce development.\3\ We conducted in-depth case
studies that show how Self-Sufficiency Standards are implemented to:
set high earnings goals for WIA participants,
counsel WIA customers about better paying career paths and
potential work supports,
employ effective sector strategies,
negotiate on-the-job training and customized training
contracts leading to self-sufficient jobs,
assess outcomes through data collection and benchmarking,
and
respond to community demographics.
A prime example of maximum use of the Self-Sufficiency Standard has
been by the Workforce Development Council of Seattle-King County, Wash,
which uses a combination of these strategies. This year Seattle-King
County reported that, of 415 customers who had zero household earned
income upon registration for WIA, 296, or 71 percent, exited at 100
percent or above the Self Sufficiency Standard. In King County, the
standard is $40,249 for a family of two adults, a preschooler and a
teenager. For an adult and two school aged children, it is $29,571.
It is from evidence such as this, as well as WOW's particular
expertise in promoting gender equity in federal workforce programs,
that we make the recommendations discussed below. Some were at least
partiallly addressed in the WIA reauthorization bill (S. 1021,
engrossed and passed as H.R. 27 in 2006).
Enable states and local WIBs to use WIA funds to calculate
and update Self-Sufficiency Standards.
Increasing WIA participants' self-sufficiency should be made a
prominent purpose of the Workforce Investment Act, and the calculation
and updating of standards should be a permissible use of funds.
Legislation should define self-sufficiency as the minimum income needs
of families, by family size, the number and ages of children in the
family and sub-state geographical considerations such as localized
costs of basic necessities as health and child care, housing and
transportation.
While Self-Sufficiency Standards exist in a majority of states,
many were calculated with non-WIA funds and most need to be updated. A
survey by WOW and the National Association of Workforce Boards in 2006
found that more than one-third of local boards that responded reported
using Self-Sufficiency Standards in various ways. One of the most
common is to integrate the standard in an on-line Self-Sufficiency
Calculator that enables One-Stop caseworkers, customers and the public
to determine what a self-sufficient income is for a particular family.
Several of the calculators also allow the user to view occupations that
can lead to that income level, identify sources of education and
training for those skills, and see for which public benefits they
appear eligible to enable them to bridge the gap between an entry level
job and economic security for their families. Self-sufficiency
calculators are available in 9 states.\4\
Enable customers to take advantage of core, intensive or
job training services in any order, or at the same time, by eliminating
any language that can be construed to require a ``sequence of
services'' from core, to intensive, to training.
The decline of participation in job training has been well-noted
since WIA replaced JTPA. Instead of directing participants to services
defined in the ``negative,'' i.e. an inability to get a job without
more extensive training, WOW believes the decision should be based on
the individual's informed choice after career counseling and an
assessment of his or her skill requirements and competencies as well as
the kind of training and services that will enable him or her to attain
a job at self-sufficient wages. Such an approach will be of benefit not
only to unemployed workers but also to incumbent workers and employers
facing skill shortages.
Expand referral to and delivery of supportive services to
help all hard-to-serve-populations with barriers to employment,
including welfare recipients, survivors of domestic violence, displaced
homemakers, individuals seeking nontraditional training for their
gender, single parents, and recent immigrants with limited English
proficiency and ex-offenders.
Most members of hard-to-serve populations, almost by definition,
need special accommodation or specific work supports in order to fully
take advantage of educational and training services offered through
WIA. Nevertheless, WIASRD data show the number receiving supportive
services has declined from 24.2 percent of adult participants in 2000
to 19.1 percent in program year 2004-05. In 2004-05, only 21.2 percent
of women, 17.1 percent of persons with a disability, and 15.5 percent
of persons with a disability that was substantial were recorded as
receiving supportive services.
Many education and training providers with particular capacities to
work with hard-to-serve populations, such as the ability to deliver
child care or accommodate the nontraditional schedules of working
mothers, are discouraged from participating in the workforce
development system because of cash flow risks associated with the need
to fill a certain number of slots at all times with holders of
Individual Training Accounts. Reauthorizing legislation should clarify
that providers of on-the-job training, customized training or incumbent
worker training may be citified to receive funds by the state through
contracts as well as through ITA's.
Reauthorizing legislation should encourage One-Stops to adopt a
consumer-friendly approach to serving hard-to-serve populations, and
all customers, who may be incapable or uncomfortable using computerized
or text-based services. At a minimum, One-Stops should offer each
customer an initial, language-appropriate, in-person orientation to the
information and services available through the center. Because what is
measured is what is implemented, performance measures should include
outcomes for recipients of core services only and be reported by
special population category.
Reauthorizing legislation should specifically include as hard-to-
serve older workers (say over age 55), individuals within two years of
their TANF time limits, displaced homemakers and persons seeking
employment in nontraditional occupations, including computer science
and technology, as hard-to-serve populations whose employment and
training needs must be addressed in local plans.
Older workers, not historically thought of as a WIA target
population have been significantly underrepresented in the customer
base despite the growth of this population, their increasing need and
desire to continue working and the emerging recognition of employers
that they will need to accommodate older workers if they are to fill
their skilled workforce needs.
Another obstacle for older workers' participation in workforce
development is the incentive within WIA to achieve higher earnings for
system graduates. While we believe older workers, like everyone in the
system, should be helped to achieve self-sufficiency wages, older
workers who have income from a pension, Social Security and/or private
retirement accounts, may be best be helped by working part-time or in a
less demanding job that supplies the gap-filling income they need.
Adjustments for older workers with income from such sources would
mitigate this disincentive.
Require state WIBs to address in the state plan the
strategy that will be used to ensure that the workforce development
system is structured to ensure gender parity in all forms of skills
training.
Women and girls make up a majority of participants in WIA
programs--57 percent of adult programs; 52 percent of dislocated worker
programs; and 53.2 percent of youth programs. Nevertheless, the
training they receive is largely concentrated in lower paying service
and clerical fields. Compared to men, with the probable exception of
allied health professions, women receive very little training in higher
paying, traditionally male-dominated occupations. For example, WIASRD
records for April 2004 to March 2005 show 57.6 percent of males but
only 8.8 percent of women in training for the category ``installation,
repair, production, transportation and material moving.''
WIA, thus, tends to perpetuate at least one cause of women's wage
gap--occupational clustering. In a 2005 study, Jobs for the Future
identified the six occupational categories with the highest earnings
and growth potential open to workers with a two-year degree or less. Of
the six, four are heavily male dominated.\5\ For example, women are
only 33.2 percent of computer support specialists, who earn a median of
$43,660 annually, and 2.6 percent of electricians, $45,200.
(Conversely, male trainees could be shown through career counseling
that in they could receive training for the high-demand field of
nursing, where 93.4 percent of LPN's are women and whose average annual
wage is $35,580.\6\
States and local workforce boards should be encouraged to provide
technical assistance and information to One-Stop staff to on counsel
job seekers about high-wage/high demand jobs and nontraditional jobs
for their gender that can lead to self-sufficiency employment.
Workforce boards in Fresno, Cal., and Lancaster, Penn, for example,
have used self-sufficiency standards to guide their selection of target
occupations and job training providers, adopting policies that restrict
training funds to skills in high demand locally that pay self-
sufficient wages.
The Lancaster County Workforce Investment Board has focused its
training on seven industry sectors--health care, biotechnology,
agriculture and food processing, construction, communications, metals
and metal fabricating and automotive 00 that are considered ``gold
collar'' jobs requiring high skills and offering self-sufficient wages.
Seattle-King County, as mentioned above, uses a Self-Sufficiency
Calculator not only for career counseling to help a customer select
from among occupations that will lead to self-sufficiency, but also to
track individual performance by plugging into the WIB's on-line
database wages upon exit. The council has found such a measure more
meaningful than average wage gain or median wage upon exit.
The WIA system can and must be re-structured to meet the demand for
skilled workers in our nation's workforce, and at the same time serve
job seekers who face barriers in gaining access to employment that can
bring them economic security. Wider Opportunities for Women looks
forward to working with the committee as it improves our public
workforce development system.
endnotes
\1\ The Self-Sufficiency Standard was developed by Dr. Diana Pearce
of the University of Washington who at the time was Director of the
Women and Poverty project at WOW
\2\ For instance , the National Center on Children and Poverty has
drawn on the Self-Sufficiency Standard in the development of its matrix
presented today,
\3\ Reality Check: Promoting Self-Sufficiency in the Public
Workforce System, http://www.wowonline.org/wow/.
\4\ California, Indiana, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania,
Washington, Wyoming, the District of Columbia and Colorado (in
progress). See Appendix I for the website sites.
\5\ Susan R. Crandall and PhD, Surabhi Jain, ``New Directions in
Workforce Development: Do They Lead to Gains for Women?'' New England
Journal of Public Policy, spring 2007, p. 86, Crittenton Women's Union
www.liveworkthrive.org,
\6\ Bureau of Labor Statistics, Household Survey Data for 2005.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Network for Women's Employment
Dear Chairmen Miller and Hinojosa and Ranking Members McKeon and
Keller: On behalf of Women Work! The National Network for Women's
Employment, thank you for the opportunity to offer recommendations as
you renew efforts to complete the reauthorization of the Workforce
Investment Act (WIA).
Women Work! is the nation's largest network of employment and
training support programs for unemployed and underemployed women.
Located within diverse institutions that include community colleges,
YWCAs, Community Action Programs, faith-based organizations, and
community-based organizations, Women Work! programs serve more than
300,000 women in economic and employment transition each year. Since
1978, our network has assisted more than 10 million women to
successfully gain the skills they need to succeed in the workforce.
Despite progress over the last few decades, women in the United
States remain segregated in some of the lowest paying jobs in our
country.\1\ Nearly 15 million women in the U.S. earn less than $25,000
a year despite working in full-time, year-round jobs.\2\ Largely as a
result, one out of every 14 working women and one out of every five
working single mothers are poor.\3\
In PY 2004, nearly two-thirds of all adult WIA exiters were
women.\4\ As the nation's workforce development system, the Workforce
Investment Act can and should play an important role in advancing women
into high-wage work that allows them to support their families. Yet,
for many unemployed and underemployed women, WIA has not met this
commitment.
Women Work! believes that significant reforms are needed to ensure
that the workforce investment system can meet the needs of women who
face barriers on the road to economic security. We urge the Committee
to strongly consider the following recommendations to improve the
effectiveness of WIA at advancing economic opportunities for women:
Make moving low-income women, men and their families
toward self-sufficiency a priority for the workforce investment system.
Better address women's barriers to employment by: 1.)
promoting increased collaboration with organizations with expertise in
serving unemployed and underemployed women; and 2.) by equipping One-
Stop Centers to address the unique needs of hard-to-serve women.
Structure the workforce investment system to actively
provide opportunities for women to train for non-traditional
occupations and other high-skill, high-wage jobs.
Fulfill WIA's commitment to helping displaced homemakers
re-enter the workforce.
Ensure that all job seekers have access to child care,
transportation and other support services.
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide input and your
commitment to improve the skills of our nation's workforce.
Women Work! Recommendations
1.) Make moving low-income women, men and their families toward
self-sufficiency a priority for the workforce investment system.
When WIA replaced the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) in 1998,
it mandated a dramatic shift in the way that job training services are
delivered in the United States. Under WIA, federal workforce funds are
no longer exclusively targeted toward serving low-income adults.
Instead the workforce investment system is to provide universal access
to employment and training services. At the same time, federal funding
for job training and employment services has declined. As a result, the
system is expected to ``be all things to all people'', without the
necessary resources to do so. In many cases, the women and men who most
need skills training in order to achieve self-sufficiency have suffered
the consequences.
Single parents--the majority of whom are women and earn less than
$20,000 a year \5\--have especially lost out under WIA. Under JTPA in
1998, 43.7 percent of adults receiving training were single parents. In
the first year that WIA data was collected, this share fell by almost
10 percentage points, to 34.5 percent. In 2003, only 24.6 percent of
adults receiving training under WIA were single parents.\6\
Women Work! recommends the following changes to WIA to ensure a
focus on moving low-income women, men, and their families toward self-
sufficiency:
Eliminate the ``sequence of services'' requirement.
Rationale: When Congress authorized WIA, it stipulated that
different types of services (core, intensive, training) should be
provided to clients in a particular sequence, with the expectation that
clients would be eligible for the next, higher-cost form of service
only if they had failed to secure employment after receiving the lower-
cost services. Individuals must first receive core services to be
eligible for intensive services, and must receive both core and
intensive services to be eligible for training services.
Many States and local areas have interpreted WIA's ``sequence of
service'' requirement rigidly, creating additional barriers to
employment and training for women who struggle to navigate through the
requirements. One Women Work! member working at a community college in
the Midwest described her frustration with the way eligibility
requirements were implemented in her community: ``The One Stop makes
our participants jump through too many hoops. It is almost as if they
don't want to provide funding for participants to attend school. They
seem to make it very difficult for the participants to receive
services.'' \7\
Local WIA systems should be able to offer core, intensive, or
training services in a manner that best suits job seekers' needs. For
many unemployed and underemployed women--especially those with multiple
barriers to employment--a comprehensive assessment of aptitude,
interest and family income needs is the first step toward employment
and training services that lead to economic self-sufficiency.
Collect data on all WIA participants and require that WIA
performance measurement be adjusted for economic and demographic
characteristics and for known barriers to employment of the
participants served.
Rationale: WIA, unlike its predecessor JTPA, does not require that
performance measures for a local area be adjusted for economic and
demographic characteristics and for known barriers to employment of the
participants served.
In addition, States and local areas are not required to report on
all participants--only those who receive intensive and/or training
services. In 2004, GAO found that in one case only 5.5 percent of the
individuals who walked into the One-Stop were actually registered for
WIA and tracked for performance outcomes.\8\
As a result of both of these factors, ``cream skimming''
participants has become a practice widely reported throughout the
system. Caseworkers enroll participants who are most likely to achieve
desired outcomes (those who would have done very well without the
benefit of the program), rather than those most in need of skill
upgrades and other employment services in order to obtain work with
self-sufficiency wages.
To ensure that the workforce development system is serving those
who need extra help, as well as those who do not, data should be
collected on every participant. In addition, performance measurement
should be adjusted for economic and demographic characteristics and
known barriers to employment of the participants served.
Make the statutory priority for low-income job seekers
meaningful by: 1.) eliminating the stipulation that priority be given
only when funds are limited, and 2.) requiring States to include a
process that the state will use to ensure that local areas implement
the priority system for services in the State plan.
Rationale: While WIA established statutory priority that funds be
spent on intensive and training services for recipients of public
assistance and other low-income individuals when ``funds allocated to a
local * * * are limited'', the law is not clear on how this
prioritization must be implemented. Further, the significant drop in
services to low-income adults suggests that in many places, the
priority may not be being implemented at all. (Under the last year of
JTPA, 30.7 percent of adults served received public assistance and 96
percent were low income; in 2003 only 13.7 percent of adults served
under WIA received public assistance and only 68.4 percent served were
low income.\9\)
States should develop a process for monitoring local areas to
ensure that they comply with this provision and should describe this
process in the State plan. In addition, the stipulation that priority
only be given when funds are limited should be deleted.
2.) Better address women's barriers to employment by: 1.) promoting
increased collaboration with organizations with expertise in serving
unemployed and underemployed women; and 2.) by equipping One-Stop
Centers to address the unique needs of hard-to-serve women.
Many women who require new skills to get and keep good-paying jobs
experience unique and often complex barriers to training and
employment. Research demonstrates that reducing these barriers is
critical to improving employment and retention rates for women in
economic transition.\10\ If the workforce investment system is to
succeed in increasing the employment, retention and earnings of all job
seekers, the system must be able to address the needs of single
parents, single pregnant women, displaced homemakers and other women
with barriers to employment. An important piece of this solution will
be more effectively utilizing the thousands of local programs across
the country with expertise in supporting women as they enter, re-enter
and advance in work.
Women Work! recommends the following changes to WIA to better
address women's barriers to employment:
Require State and local plans to describe how community-
based organizations, services and agencies who work with women with
barriers to employment will be utilized to more effectively serve these
populations--including providing intensive and training services.
Rationale: Throughout the United States, thousands of local
programs already possess decades of experience in meeting the needs of
single parents, displaced homemakers and other women with barriers to
employment. The workforce investment system can best serve unemployed
and underemployed women by utilizing the expertise of these local
organizations.
Require that local board membership include
representatives with expertise in serving women with barriers to
employment, including single parents, displaced homemakers and women
training for nontraditional employment.
Rationale: Local boards play a substantial role in determining
policies for service delivery. Representatives with expertise in
serving single parents (including single pregnant women), displaced
homemakers and women training for nontraditional employment should be
included on the local WIB to ensure that the unique employment and
training needs of these populations are being addressed.
Allow training to be provided through Individual Training
Accounts (ITAs) or contract training.
Rationale: Current law unnecessarily discourages the use of
contract training by allowing it only as an exception to ITAs. However
many highly effective, specialized programs for single parents,
displaced homemakers and other hard-to-serve populations cannot assume
the cash-flow risks associated with voucher payment. As a result, many
women with barriers to employment cannot access employment and training
programs that would best suit their needs.
In order to ensure that States and local areas have maximum
flexibility to address barriers to employment and provide the most
appropriate type of training to program participants, WIA law should be
amended to allow for training to be provided through ITAs or contract
training, whenever necessary. Contract training should not be an
exception.
WIA law should also ensure that there is a fair and open process
for awarding contracts.
Require that core services be offered in a format that is
user-friendly and understandable to all One-Stop center customers.
Rationale: Many women with multiple barriers to employment--for
example, a displaced homemaker attempting to re-enter the workforce
with little to no computer skills--are unable to take advantage of
highly-automated, self-service One-Stop centers. At a minimum, centers
should offer each customer an immediate and language-appropriate in-
person group orientation to the information and services available at
the Center.
Require States to use statewide funds to provide technical
assistance to One-Stop operators on serving single parents, single
pregnant women, displaced homemakers, individuals training for
nontraditional employment and other hard-to-serve populations.
Rationale: In a national survey of women's service providers, over
60 percent of respondents reported that One-Stop service delivery to
women in economic transition was poor or only fair. A likely reason is
that One-Stop personnel lack the expertise and training necessary to
effectively serve women with barriers to employment. Mandating the
provision of technical assistance will help to ensure that the
workforce investment system is more responsive to the needs of these
populations.
Require local plans to describe how services will be
provided to single parents, single pregnant women, displaced
homemakers, individuals training for nontraditional employment and
other hard-to-serve populations, including the provision of outreach,
intake, assessments, service delivery and the training of One-Stop
staff.
Rationale: Local areas must be able to provide a range of outreach,
intake, assessment and other services to ensure that women with
barriers to employment are successful in increasing skills, obtaining
employment and achieving self-sufficiency.
3.) Structure the workforce investment system to actively provide
opportunities for women to train for non-traditional occupations and
other high-skill, high-wage jobs.
Increasing women's access to nontraditional jobs--which typically
offer wages that are 20 to 30 percent higher than jobs in which women
traditionally predominate\11\--is a compelling strategy for raising
women's incomes and advancing family economic self-sufficiency. Across
the United States, women remain segregated in low-wage service sector
occupations with limited benefits and opportunities for advancement,
while positions in the skilled trades and technology sector are left
unfilled. The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) should work to bridge this
gap.
To date, however, WIA has not made significant efforts to actively
inform women about opportunities in nontraditional jobs or to provide
women with assistance in pursuing these opportunities. According to
data submitted in PY 2004, only 2.9 percent of women adult exiters were
employed in nontraditional jobs in the quarter after exit.\12\ This is
a significant missed opportunity that can and should be corrected in
reauthorization.
Women Work! recommends the following changes to WIA to actively
provide opportunities for women to train for non-traditional
occupations:
Require States to use statewide funds to implement
programs that increase the number of individuals training for and
placed in nontraditional employment.
Rationale: Current law allows States to use statewide funds for
implementing programs to increase the number of individuals training
for and placed in non-traditional employment
(Sec. 134(a)(B)(3)(vi)(II). However, few States are taking advantage of
this opportunity. A 2002 GAO study on the workforce investment system
revealed that only one State, Vermont, spent over 10 percent of these
funds on implementing training programs for nontraditional
employment.\13\ States should be required to implement these programs.
Require that States use statewide funds for developing and
evaluating the effectiveness of strategies to ensure that employment
and training activities carried out under WIA are placing men and women
in jobs, education and training that lead to comparable pay.
Rationale: On average, wages for female exiters of WIA programs lag
behind wages for male exiters by about $1,000 per quarter. For example,
during PY2004 male exiters earned on average $5,842 in the fifth
quarter after exit, while female exiters earned on average $4,766 in
the fifth quarter after exit.\14\
While these discrepancies may not be caused by the workforce
investment system itself (indeed the pre-program gender wage difference
is slightly higher than the difference after exit), the system can and
should take a proactive approach toward increasing women exiters'
earnings. States should do so by working to ensure that employment and
training activities are placing men and women in jobs, education and
training that lead to comparable pay.
States should describe these strategies in their State plans and
should be required to evaluate and include information on these
strategies in their periodic State evaluation reports.
Require that employment statistics information provided at
One-Stop centers include information about non-traditional occupations
for women.
Rationale: Female job seekers are often unaware that nontraditional
jobs for women pay significantly better and offer more opportunities
for advancement. The current law requirement that One-Stop centers
provide employment statistics as part of core services
(Sec. 134(d)(2)(E)) should be expanded to require that One-Stop centers
provide information about high wage, high skill jobs that are
nontraditional for women. This should include information relating to
earnings, skill requirements and career ladders for such occupations.
4.) Fulfill WIA's commitment to helping displaced homemakers re-
enter the workforce.
Displaced homemakers--women seeking to re-enter the workforce after
time out caring for family members--continue to slip through the cracks
of the workforce development system. In 1998, Congress eliminated
funding set-asides for displaced homemakers in the Perkins Vocational
and Technical Education Act, intending that these populations would be
served through the new workforce investment system. However, this has
not been the case.
According to Census data, there are over 7.3 million women in the
United States whose primary job has been homemaking, but who have lost
their main source of income through divorce, separation, or
widowhood.\15\ Yet, over two-thirds of local boards using dislocated
worker funds report serving fewer than 25 displaced homemakers
annually.\16\ In PY2003, displaced homemakers comprised only 1.5
percent of the dislocated worker population provided with intensive or
training services under WIA.\17\
Women Work! recommends the following changes to WIA to fulfill its
commitment to helping displaced homemakers re-enter the workforce:
(See also recommendations for women with barriers to employment
under section 3 of this document.)
Require States to use statewide funds to implement
innovative programs for displaced homemakers.
Rationale: In order to improve services for women re-entering the
workforce, current law allows for the statewide development of
innovative programs for displaced homemakers (Sec. 134(a)(B)(3)(vi)(I).
However, few States are utilizing this opportunity. In 2002, the GAO
found that only one state--Virginia--was using more than 10 percent of
its set-aside funds to serve displaced homemakers.\18\ States should be
required to implement these programs.
Ensure that One-Stop centers can provide comprehensive
programs for displaced homemakers as part of intensive services.
Rationale: The most successful employment and training programs for
displaced homemakers are holistic, stress continuity of relationship
between caseworker and client and address the unique needs of women re-
entering the workforce after many years absence--for instance, how to
talk about skills gained in `non-paid' experiences; how to handle
interview questions about time out of the workforce; and how to
maximize transferable skills.
This change would ensure that One-Stop operators can develop or
contract for holistic programs that help clients who are displaced
homemakers succeed in training and employment.
Update the definition of displaced homemaker.
Rationale: The following definition aligns with the definition
included in the recently reauthorized Carl D. Perkins Career and
Technical Education Improvement Act of 2006. Comparable definitions
will facilitate better service delivery coordination between WIA and
the career and technical education system for displaced homemakers.
5.) Ensure that all job seekers have access to child care,
transportation and other critical support services.
Women in economic and employment transition are often prevented
from increasing skills, attaining stable employment and/or achieving
self-sufficiency because they lack adequate child care and/or
transportation, or have other critical needs. In a recent national
survey of service providers conducted by Women Work!, nearly 80 percent
of respondents said that lack of adequate child care often or very
often prevented women clients from succeeding in training programs.
Sixty-three percent said that lack of transportation to the training
site often or very often prevented success.
Although the One-Stop system was intended to address these needs by
coordinating the delivery and referral of supportive services, the
provision of child care, transportation and other critical assistance
is often inadequate for women job seekers.
Women Work! recommends the following changes to WIA to ensure that
all job seekers have access to child care, transportation and other
support services:
Allow local funds to be used to provide supportive
services to WIA participants, without restriction.
Rationale: Current law allows local funds to be spent on supportive
services only if the customer is unable to obtain them through other
programs. This provision--combined with the fact that current law
requires only that supportive service needs be assessed, but not
addressed--unnecessarily deters local WIBs from adequately meeting
women's needs for child care assistance, transportation assistance, and
other support services. In a national survey of local workforce boards,
43 percent reported that less than 10 percent of job seekers are
receiving WIA-funded supportive services.\19\
Require local plans to include descriptions of how One-
Stop centers will provide appropriate supportive services or provide
active referrals to appropriate supportive services.
Rationale: In the same national survey of workforce boards, 77
percent agreed that the process for supportive service referral and
delivery warranted improvement.\20\ Including supportive service
referral and provision as an element of the local plan ensures that
One-Stop centers develop adequate procedures to connect clients with
supportive services.
endnotes
\1\ Women's Bureau, United States Department of Labor, 20 Leading
Occupations of Employed Women. http://www.dol.gov/wb/factsheets/
20lead2006.htm.
\2\ U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2006 Annual
Social and Economic Supplement. Women Work! calculation.
\3\ U.S. Census Bureau, Income, Poverty and Health Insurance
Coverage in the United States, 2003. Detailed Tables and Historical
Tables for the Current Population Survey. http://www.census.gov/prod/
2004pubs/p60-226.pdf. Calculations by Legal Momentum, ``Reading Between
the Lines: Women's Poverty in the United States, 2005'' Legal Momentum,
September 2006. .
\4\ 2004 WIASRD Data Book, Social Policy Research Associates,
February 2, 2006.
\5\ Women Work! The National Network for Women's Employment, Chutes
and Ladders: The Search for Solid Ground for Women in the Workforce,
2005. Data taken from U.S. Census Bureau March 2003 Supplement to the
Current Population Survey.
\6\ Center for Law and Social Policy, Declining Share of Adults
Receiving Training Under WIA are Low-Income or Disadvantaged, December
14, 2005.
\7\ Electronic survey of Women Work! member organizations.
Administered March 14, 2007.
\8\ U.S. GAO, States and Local Areas Have Developed Strategies to
Assess Performance, but Labor Could Do More to Help, 2004.
\9\ Center for Law and Social Policy, Declining Share of Adults
Receiving Training Under WIA are Low-Income or Disadvantaged, December
14, 2005.
\10\ See, for instance The Women's Employment Study, http://
www.fordschool.umich.edu/research/poverty/wes/.
\11\ Women and Nontraditional Work, Wider Opportunities for Women,
2003. Calculations based on Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics data.
\12\ 2004 WIASRD Data Book, Social Policy Research Associates,
February 2, 2006.
\13\ U.S. GAO, Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance and
Revised Funding Formula Would Enhance Dislocated Worker Program,
February, 2002.
\14\ 2004 WIASRD Data Book, Social Policy Research Associates,
February 2, 2006.
\15\ Women Work! The National Network for Women's Employment,
Chutes and Ladders: The Search for Solid Ground for Women in the
Workforce, 2005. Data taken from U.S. Census Bureau March 2003
Supplement to the Current Population Survey.
\16\ Wider Opportunities for Women, What Local Workforce Boards Say
About Services for Women, 2003.
\17\ 2004 WIASRD Data Book, Social Policy Research Associates,
February 2, 2006.
\18\ U.S. GAO, Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance and
Revised Funding Formula Would Enhance Dislocated Worker Program,
February, 2002.
\19\ Wider Opportunities for Women, What Local Workforce Boards Say
About Services for Women, 2003.
\20\ Ibid.
______
[Responses to questions for the record from Ms. Butler
follow:]
August 9, 2007.
Hon. Ruben Hinojosa, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and
Competitiveness, Longworth House Office Building, Washington,
DC.
Dear Chairman Hinojosa: I am writing to submit the following
additional responses to questions asked of me during the July 26th
hearing on the Workforce Investment Act.
First, I want to again thank you and the Members of the
Subcommittee for inviting me to share my personal journey as a consumer
of the Vocational Rehabilitation Program on the 17th Anniversary of the
Signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
I was asked if compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act
could be improved and if the spirit of the law as Congress intended was
being fully recognized.
I believe compliance with the law could always be improved and
there are two specific items Congress could consider. First, while the
Workforce Investment Act was authorized nearly ten years ago, not all
one-stop career centers are fully accessible to individuals with
disabilities, particularly those with significant disabilities. My
visits to one-stop career centers have been quite disappointing. As a
person with low vision, I need magnification software to assist me in
reading a computer screen and large font on printed materials. The
information disseminated at the one-stop career centers simply was not
available in alternate formats such as large print or Braille.
While the staff appeared willing to assist me, they lacked the
necessary expertise in the services and supports available to assist a
person with a significant disability, like legal blindness in seeking
career opportunities and full inclusion into the community. In 2007
this reality is not something we should accept. The ``one size fits
all'' approach of the one-stop career centers denies the individual
with a disability the expertise of the qualified Vocational
Rehabilitation Counselor who can assist them in developing their
individual employment plan that considers their needs along with the
needs of business. Vocational Rehabilitation's holistic approach to
employment benefits the consumer with a disability, businesses and
America's workforce.
I respectfully request that Congress do all it can to insure that
all individuals with disabilities, including those with significant
disabilities, have full and equal access to the information and
services available to non-disabled members of the community at the one-
stop career centers.
Second, the Subcommittee's support of the recently introduced ADA
Restoration bills would assist in clarifying the Congressional intent
of the ADA. The Americans with Disabilities Act Restoration Act enjoys
bipartisan support and its passage is critical to the civil rights of
all individuals with disabilities.
Finally, pursuant to WIA, VR is a mandatory partner and contributes
millions of dollars to the one-stop career centers and given the
unmatched expertise and success of the VR Program, the State VR
Director of both the General VR Agency and the VR Agencies for the
Blind, where applicable, must have a strong presence on both the State
Workforce Investment Boards (SWIBs) and the local Workforce Investment
Boards (WIBs).
The State Workforce Investment Boards have responsibility for
development of the State Plan and continuous improvement of a statewide
system of activities that assure coordination and non-duplication among
the programs authorized under WIA. It was the intent of Congress that
the lead State Agency officials with responsibility for the programs
and activities of mandatory partners be voting members of the State
Workforce Boards. In order for VR services to have a significant impact
on workforce investment activities that could potentially increase the
employment, retention and earnings of persons with disabilities, both
the State VR Director and the Director of the State Agency for the
Blind, in States that have a separate State Agency for the Blind, must
be voting members of the State Workforce Investment Boards.
The Workforce Investment Act also requires Local Workforce
Investment Boards (WIBs) include representatives of local community-
based organizations, including organizations representing individuals
with disabilities and veterans. As a result of this requirement, many
local WIBs include representatives of the VR Program and individuals
with disabilities. It is imperative that individuals with the expertise
and experience in the VR Program be at the table when funding decisions
are made to ensure that the needs of individuals with disabilities have
authentic representation at the local level and that VR dollars are
spent on services and supports for individuals with disabilities and
not diverted to other populations.
I respectfully urge Congress to mandate that both the State VR
Director of the General Agency and the State VR Director of the State
Agency for the Blind (where applicable) serve on both the SWIBs and the
WIBs.
As your meaningful work on the Subcommittee progresses, I remain
available as a continued resource bringing with me my experiences as a
VR consumer and a contributing member of corporate America.
Sincerely,
Beth Butler,
Disability & Accommodations Consultant; VP, Employment Compliance,
Wachovia Corp.
______
[Responses to questions for the record from Mr. Ware
follow:]
Written Responses to Hearing Questions
On behalf of the nation's governors, thank you for the opportunity
to testify before the U.S. House Education and Labor, Subcommittee on
Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness on July 26,
2007 regarding the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act
(WIA). Included below are the National Governors Association's
responses to select questions asked during the hearing, which
supplement the testimony given by Charles Ware on behalf of NGA.
What can be done to support high school reform?
Across the nation, governors are leading efforts to improve the
rigor and relevance of our nation's high schools. Despite this effort,
in some communities ``dropout factories''--high schools that produce a
large percentage of high school dropouts--exist. To help states reform
these high schools and provide greater support to assist America's
youth, Congress should support several reforms.
First, Congress should eliminate the requirement to spend a
percentage of Youth funds on out-of-school or in-school youth. WIA
should not require states to spend a certain percentage of funds on
``out-of-school'' or ``in-school'' youth. Such a federal requirement is
outdated and out-of-touch with the needs of high school dropouts and
current ongoing high school reform efforts. The focus of ``youth
funding'' should be to serve high-risk, basic skill deficient youth to
prepare them for future employment or education, and an elimination of
the requirement allows Governors to direct funding to youth in their
states that need it the most.
Second, Congress should provide governors with expanded WIA funding
flexibility and transferability, building upon existing flexibility.
Governors and state leaders, working with local leaders, are developing
innovative workforce systems to better respond to job seekers' needs,
reduce fragmentation, promote accountability, and better engage
business. However, states will be unable to achieve the true vision of
WIA one-stops without additional state funding flexibility and
transferability. Such flexibility is critical to enhance states'
ability to help local leaders improve services and strengthen
partnerships, and to target resources to state and local needs.
Third, Congress should support the NGA/NASWA Common Measures
Proposal. The proposal streamlines the complex system of nearly 100
varying and incomparable performance measures into four critical
measures focused on customer outcomes, including short-term and long-
term employment rates, earnings, and credential completion. This use of
common measures will increase system-wide accountability and
transparency, while significantly decreasing administrative costs and
inefficiencies. These four changes will give states the ability to more
efficiently serve youth.
Finally, Congress should build upon governors' efforts to redesign
America's high schools as outlined in the NGA Innovation America: A
Partnership legislative proposal. The full document is attached for
your reference.
How can Congress help workers (including our returning veterans and
reformed prisoners) get better jobs?
In the 21st century, our economic strength will depend on the
ability of each state, and our nation as a whole, to develop a
coordinated and aligned workforce system that supports, trains, and
prepares skilled workers. With a large number of men and women in
America looking to get a better job, including those returning from
military service and offenders reentering the workforce, members of
Congress asked how states could better serve or help individuals
improve their skills so they can get a better job.
Training services are essential to help job seekers access better
jobs and remain competitive in the increasingly skilled workforce. In
order to allow job seekers to access the training that they need,
Congress should collapse core and intensive services into one new
category of eligible, allowable services, and eliminate ``intensive
services'' from the list of priority services under Section 134 (E) and
adding ``or other populations as identified by the state as priority to
receive training services.''
Although ``core'' and ``intensive'' services are valuable for many
job seekers, current law requires states to spend limited resources on
these services before an individual can access training. This so-called
``sequence of services'' impedes the delivery of necessary services at
the earliest possible time and should be eliminated to ensure that job
seekers and states have the flexibility to expand access to training
services quickly, effectively, and at a lower cost.
In order to break the cycle of recidivism for prisoners, offenders
should be given access to training and education obtain the skills
necessary to get a ``good'' or ``better'' job. Unfortunately, the
current ``sequence of services'' for workforce training means that
offenders attempting to reenter the workplace have to work their way
through a long and arduous array of required programs before they can
access training. These kinds of delays pose a challenge to all
populations, but could be particularly challenging for offenders.
Giving states the flexibility to allow customers to access the programs
they need by eliminating the ``sequence of services'' would remove this
roadblock to helping offenders reenter as upstanding members of
society.
In addition to providing training services for workers, the
critical shortage of skilled workers in areas of high demand is a
significant employment issue that Congress should address in the WIA
reauthorization. Congress should support and expand the U.S. Department
of Labor's Workforce Innovation in Regional Economic Development
(WIRED) initiative, which builds workforce partnerships between
regions, states, and businesses. Congress should also support two
competitive matching-grant programs to Governors, funded out of the
Secretary of Labor's set-aside funds, to help states plan and create
efficient workforce systems aligned with statewide, regional, or sector
specific education, economic development, and business needs. States
would be required to contribute a non-federal match of 20%.
What are your views on the proposed WIA rescission?
Finally, Governors would like to comment on the proposed $335
million rescission to WIA in the U.S. House Labor-HHS-Education
Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2008. Education and workforce
programs are top federal funding priorities for the nation's governors.
Governors support increases in the federal investment in key education
programs, as identified in their May 23, 2007 letter to Congress
(available at www.nga.org). In addition, Governors also support federal
investment in workforce programs. For this reason, governors are
concerned by the House's proposed $335 million rescission, which would
effectively change federal law for states to spend WIA funds and
adversely impact services to job seekers across the country.
As noted in the NGA testimony, states greatly appreciate and need
the current flexibility to carry forward WIA funds. This flexibility is
critical to provide training and promote responsible fiscal management
of WIA funds, as supported by a study from the National Association of
State Workforce Agencies (NASWA) shows that states are spending all but
one tenth of one percent of their WIA funds within the 3-year period.
The proposed rescission reclaims funds from the second and third years
of the three-year cycle that states have to spend WIA funds--one full
year before the spending deadline. The rescission would penalize states
for being fiscally responsible.
Altering the period in which states have to spend funds is a
fundamental change to the WIA law and should not be carried out through
the appropriations process. In addition, the terminology around this
provision may have created confusion over the last few years that have
led to inaccurate and uninformed claims that states have ``unspent
federal WIA funds.'' To alleviate this problem, Congress should work to
clarify the terminology regarding carry forward and obligations.
Thank you for the opportunity to make additional comments on the
reauthorization of WIA. If you have any additional questions, please do
not hesitate to contact us.
______
[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]