[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
PUTTING AMERICA BACK TO WORK: REFORMING THE NATION'S WORKFORCE
INVESTMENT SYSTEM
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION
AND WORKFORCE TRAINING
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
AND THE WORKFORCE
U.S. House of Representatives
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 26, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-5
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce
Available via the World Wide Web:
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=education
or
Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
78-989 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman
Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin George Miller, California,
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Senior Democratic Member
California Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey
Joe Wilson, South Carolina Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Virginia
Tom Price, Georgia Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Kenny Marchant, Texas Carolyn McCarthy, New York
Duncan Hunter, California John F. Tierney, Massachusetts
David P. Roe, Tennessee Rush Holt, New Jersey
Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania Susan A. Davis, California
Tim Walberg, Michigan Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Matt Salmon, Arizona Timothy H. Bishop, New York
Brett Guthrie, Kentucky David Loebsack, Iowa
Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee Joe Courtney, Connecticut
Todd Rokita, Indiana Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio
Larry Bucshon, Indiana Jared Polis, Colorado
Trey Gowdy, South Carolina Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania Northern Mariana Islands
Martha Roby, Alabama John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky
Joseph J. Heck, Nevada Frederica S. Wilson, Florida
Susan W. Brooks, Indiana Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon
Richard Hudson, North Carolina
Luke Messer, Indiana
Barrett Karr, Staff Director
Jody Calemine, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE TRAINING
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina, Chairwoman
Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin Ruben Hinojosa, Texas,
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Ranking Minority Member
California John F. Tierney, Massachusetts
Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania Timothy H. Bishop, New York
Tim Walberg, Michigan John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky
Matt Salmon, Arizona Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon
Brett Guthrie, Kentucky Carolyn McCarthy, New York
Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania Rush Holt, New Jersey
Joseph J. Heck, Nevada Susan A. Davis, California
Susan W. Brooks, Indiana David Loebsack, Iowa
Richard Hudson, North Carolina
Luke Messer, Indiana
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on February 26, 2013................................ 1
Statement of Members:
Foxx, Hon. Virginia, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Higher
Education and Workforce Training........................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Hinojosa, Hon. Ruben, ranking minority member, Subcommittee
on Higher Education and Workforce Training................. 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Tierney, Hon. John F., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Massachusetts, prepared statement of.............. 7
Statement of Witnesses:
Gustafson, Todd, executive director, Michigan Works! Berrien-
Cass-Van Buren............................................. 22
Prepared statement of.................................... 25
Hart, Chris, IV, president and CEO, Workforce Florida Inc.... 9
Prepared statement of.................................... 11
Holzer, Harry J., professor of public policy, Georgetown
Public Policy Institute.................................... 20
Prepared statement of.................................... 21
Ralls, Dr. R. Scott, president, North Carolina Community
College System............................................. 16
Prepared statement of.................................... 18
Additional Submissions:
Mrs. Foxx, questions submitted for the record to:
Mr. Gustafson............................................ 61
Mr. Hart................................................. 61
Dr. Ralls................................................ 62
Mr. Gustafson, response to questions submitted for the record 63
Mr. Hart, response to questions submitted for the record..... 66
Mr. Hinojosa, Workforce Stakeholders Group statement on
reforming job training programs in America................. 54
Hudson, Hon. Richard, a Representative in Congress from the
State of North Carolina, questions submitted for the record
to Dr. Ralls............................................... 62
Dr. Ralls, response to questions submitted for the record.... 66
Mr. Tierney, letter, dated February 21, 2013, from the
Association of Farmworker Opportunity Programs............. 7
PUTTING AMERICA BACK TO WORK:
REFORMING THE NATION'S
WORKFORCE INVESTMENT SYSTEM
----------
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training
Committee on Education and the Workforce
Washington, DC
----------
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in
room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Virginia Foxx
[chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Foxx, Walberg, Salmon, Guthrie,
Heck, Brooks, Hudson, Messer, Hinojosa, Tierney, Bishop,
Yarmuth, Bonamici, McCarthy, Holt, Davis, and Loebsack.
Also present: Representative Kline.
Staff present: Katherine Bathgate, Deputy Press Secretary;
James Bergeron, Director of Education and Human Services
Policy; Casey Buboltz, Coalitions and Member Services
Coordinator; Lindsay Fryer, Professional Staff Member; Rosemary
Lahasky, Professional Staff Member; Nancy Locke, Chief Clerk/
Assistant to the General Counsel; Brian Newell, Deputy
Communications Director; Krisann Pearce, General Counsel; Emily
Slack, Legislative Assistant; Alissa Strawcutter, Deputy Clerk;
Brad Thomas, Senior Education Policy Advisor; Aaron Albright,
Minority Communications Director for Labor; Mary Alfred,
Minority Fellow, Labor; Tylease Alli, Minority Clerk/Intern and
Fellow Coordinator; Meg Benner, Minority Education Policy
Advisor; John D'Elia, Minority Labor Policy Assoociate; Livia
Lam, Minority Senior Labor Policy Advisor; Brian Levin,
Minority Deputy Press Secretary/New Media Coordinator; Megan
O'Reilly, Minority General Counsel; and Michele Varnhagen,
Minority Chief Policy Advisor/Labor Policy Director.
Chairwoman Foxx. Good morning. A quorum being present, the
subcommittee will come to order. Welcome to the first hearing
of the Higher Education and Workforce Training Subcommittee in
the 113th Congress. I would like to welcome our members and
thank our witnesses for being with us today.
We begin the new Congress addressing a familiar challenge.
Over the last 2 years, the committee has taken a close look at
the realities of a broken workforce development system.
Just yesterday, North Carolina's Greensboro News & Record
drew attention to the problem of potentially thousands of well-
paying manufacturing, construction, engineering, and nursing
jobs sitting vacant in North Carolina because there is a
shortage of qualified applicants.
Employers from across the country are reporting the same;
that there are jobs available, but not enough skilled workers
to fill them. Individuals desperate for work but in need of
additional learning to compete for these jobs must first
navigate a maze of rules and programs before they can access
the skills and education they need.
Meanwhile, the hands of state and local officials are tied
by excessive mandates and red tape. In an economy that is
constantly changing, the federal government has made it more
difficult for workforce investment leaders to address the
priorities of their communities.
Finally, taxpayer dollars are supporting too many
bureaucrats and not enough workers. The federal government now
spends $18 billion a year on myriad employment and training
services, yet it can't tell the hardworking taxpayers who
provide that $18 billion whether they are earning a good return
on their investment.
To illustrate the size of the problem, the poster to my
left represents our current workforce development system; more
than fifty programs spread across nine federal agencies. Caught
in the center of this mess is a worker who has lost his or her
job. This individual is eager to learn a new skill or trade and
is even more eager to return to work.
If this worker manages to navigate the workforce
development system, data shows it is unlikely he or she will
complete the program or access the tools actually needed to get
a job in the community. Nearly two million individuals
participated in some form of service authorized under the
Workforce Investment Act, but only 14 percent finished the
instruction.
Fewer than half of those who received employment assistance
such as job searches and resume writing were able to find work.
With such a hefty price tag, we must demand better results on
behalf of those seeking jobs and the taxpayers footing the bill
for this federal maze.
Today's workforce development system is failing workers,
employers, and taxpayers. Instead of a dynamic network of
employment support, we have a massive bureaucracy that stifles
innovation and wastes resources. As a result, employers cannot
hire a skilled workforce, workers are stranded in unemployment,
and our ability to grow and prosper as a nation is diminished.
The need to fundamentally change the status quo has never
been greater. President Obama said last year that it was
quote--``time to turn our unemployment system into a
reemployment system.'' That is precisely what the Supporting
Knowledge and Investing in Lifelong Skills Act will do.
The first step toward an effective workforce development
system is to reign in the federal bureaucracy. The SKILLS Act
eliminates and streamlines dozens of ineffective and
duplicative programs. The bill replaces these programs with a
new Workforce Investment Fund, providing states a more
efficient resource to deliver the support their workforce
needs.
The President has urged Congress to cut through the maze of
confusing programs and create one program for individuals to
find the help they need. Republicans support that effort, and
in fact, the SKILLS Act is the only proposal that moves us
toward the President's goal.
We had a quote up there a second ago, and I hope everyone
had a chance to see it. While streamlining the federal role is
important, we must also empower our job creators, state
leaders, and local officials.
Doing so means changing the way workforce investment boards
operate. These boards are responsible for policies and
oversight of employment and training services, yet the federal
government dictates who must serve on the boards.
The SKILLS Act increases the number of employer
representatives and allows state and local leaders to determine
the rest. Despite some critics' claims, the legislation does
not prohibit any stakeholder, including unions, from serving on
a workforce investment board.
However, Washington will no longer be in the business of
picking winners and losers in this regard. It is up to state
and local officials to decide who best represents their
communities.
These are just some of the positive reforms in the SKILLS
Act. I expect we will discuss others throughout the hearing,
including how the bill encourages greater collaboration with
community colleges and promotes accountability over the use of
taxpayer dollars.
No doubt we will also have a lively debate. I welcome that
debate and also welcome the opportunity to advance commonsense
reforms that will fix a broken workforce development system and
serve the best interests of our country. It is time to be bold
with how we prepare today's workers to compete and succeed in
this new economy.
Again, I would like to thank our witnesses for joining us,
and I will now recognize my distinguished colleague, Ruben
Hinojosa, the senior Democrat member of the subcommittee for
his opening remarks.
[The statement of Chairwoman Foxx follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Virginia Foxx, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training
Good morning and welcome to the first hearing of the Higher
Education and Workforce Training Subcommittee in the 113th Congress.
I'd like to welcome our members and thank our witnesses for being with
us today.
We begin the new Congress addressing a familiar challenge. Over the
last two years, the committee has taken a close look at the realities
of a broken workforce development system.
Just yesterday, North Carolina's Greensboro News & Record drew
attention to the problem of potentially thousands of well-paying
manufacturing, construction, engineering, and nursing jobs sitting
vacant in my state because there is a shortage of qualified applicants.
Employers from across the country are reporting the same: that there
are jobs available, but not enough skilled workers to fill them.
Individuals desperate for work but in need of additional learning to
compete for these jobs must first navigate a maze of rules and programs
before they can access the skills and education they need.
Meanwhile, the hands of state and local officials are tied by
excessive mandates and red tape. In an economy that is constantly
changing, the federal government has made it more difficult for
workforce investment leaders to address the priorities of their
communities.
Finally, taxpayer dollars are supporting too many bureaucrats and
not enough workers. The federal government now spends $18 billion a
year on myriad employment and training services, yet it can't tell the
American people whether they are earning a good return on their
investment.
To illustrate the size of the problem, the poster to my left
represents our current workforce development system--more than fifty
programs spread across nine federal agencies. Caught in the center of
this mess is a worker who has lost his or her job. This individual is
eager to learn a new skill or trade, and is even more eager to return
to work.
If this worker manages to navigate the workforce development
system, data shows it is unlikely they will complete their program or
access the tools actually needed to get a job in their community.
Nearly two millions individuals participated in some form of service
authorized under the Workforce Investment Act, but only 14 percent
finished the instruction. Less than half of those who received
employment assistance such as job searches and resume writing were able
to find work. With such a hefty price tag, we must demand better
results on behalf of those seeking jobs and the taxpayers footing the
bill for this federal maze.
Today's workforce development system is failing workers, employers,
and taxpayers. Instead of a dynamic network of employment support, we
have a massive bureaucracy that stifles innovation and wastes
resources. As a result, employers cannot hire a skilled workforce,
workers are stranded in unemployment, and our ability to grow and
prosper as a nation is diminished.
The need to fundamentally change the status quo has never been
greater. President Obama said last year that it was ``time to turn our
unemployment system into a reemployment system.'' That is precisely
what the Supporting Knowledge and Investing in Lifelong Skills Act will
do.
The first step toward an effective workforce development system is
to rein in the federal bureaucracy. The SKILLS Act eliminates and
streamlines dozens of ineffective and duplicative programs. The bill
replaces these programs with a new Workforce Investment Fund, providing
states a single resource to deliver the support their workforce needs.
The president has urged Congress to cut through the confusing maze
of programs and create one program for individuals to find the help
they need. Republicans support that effort, and in fact, the SKILLS Act
is the only proposal that moves us toward the president's goal.
While streamlining the federal role is important, we must also
empower our job creators, state leaders, and local officials. Doing so
means changing the way workforce investment boards operate. These
boards are responsible for policies and oversight of employment and
training services, yet the federal government dictates who must serve
on the boards.
The SKILLS Act increases the number of employer representatives and
allows state and local leaders to determine the rest. Despite some
critics' claims, the legislation does not prohibit any stakeholder--
including unions--from serving on a workforce investment board.
However, Washington will no longer be in the business of picking
winners and losers. It is up to state and local officials to decide who
best represents their communities.
These are just some of the positive reforms in the SKILLS Act. I
expect we will discuss others throughout the hearing, including how the
bill encourages greater collaboration with community colleges and
promotes accountability over the use of taxpayer dollars.
No doubt we will also have a lively debate. I welcome that debate
and also welcome the opportunity to advance commonsense reforms that
will fix a broken workforce development system and serve the best
interests of our country. It is time to be bold with how we prepare
today's workers to compete and succeed in this new economy.
Again, I'd like to thank our witnesses for joining us, and I will
now recognize my distinguished colleague Ruben Hinojosa, the senior
Democratic member of the subcommittee, for his opening remarks.
______
Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx.
As ranking member of the subcommittee, I have always
believed that putting America back to work must be a top
priority for Congress and the nation.
I have served 16 years on this committee, and I was on the
committee when we did the first reauthorization that I
participated in, in 1998. If you do your math in your head, you
will see that it was 14 years ago. So this is where I differ
from our chair. I don't believe that Workforce Investment Act
is broken.
I think what needs repair is Congress; that we have tried
to reauthorize the act 6 years later as we are supposed to,
2004 we had just moved into a new century, and we are working
with a WIA, an act that was passed 14 years ago and needs,
definitely needs to be updated and we have tried that and not
once, not twice, but three times, and it just seems that both
parties have been so divided that we have not seen our way
clear to do the job as we are expected to.
While the economy has moved in the right direction, adding
more than 5.3 million private sector jobs during this last 3
years with investments made in the 2009 recovery act there are
still millions of Americans who need Congress and their help to
access good jobs and careers to improve their lives.
During the 12-month period ending September 30, 2012, WIA
programs provided services to 32.8 million people as well as
hundreds of thousands of employers across the country according
to the U.S. Department of Labor.
Today, our current public workforce and adult education
system provides an invaluable range of services including
education, occupational skills training, career counseling, job
search assistance, adult education, and English language,
literacy, and Civics education as well as job placement
services to populations with unique barriers to employment.
These populations include migrant and seasonal farm
workers, Native Americans, people with disabilities, veterans,
older workers, people who are homeless, low-income youth, low-
skilled workers, English language learners, women seeking
nontraditional employment opportunities, and others.
While we know that there are millions of Americans out
there, who are still having a difficult time accessing good
jobs in this economy, we also know that there are a substantial
number of jobs in healthcare, in advanced manufacturing, in
high-growth industries and sectors that are left unfilled
because employers require specialized skills for these
positions in this 21st century.
In the 113th Congress, my hope is that we can work in a
bipartisan manner to reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act,
WIA, and modernize our public workforce and adult education
system.
Most recently, I was proud to reintroduce the Workforce
Investment Act of 2013 with my colleague, Representative John
Tierney, the lead sponsor of the bill, as well as Ranking
Member George Miller.
The Democratic bill which streamlined and improved
workforce program services while expanding career pathways,
sector partnerships, regional approaches, and other innovative
practices will bolster the role of community colleges in job
training--something that I really believe in--develop a 21st-
century system for adult education literacy and workplace
services, and engage our nation's youth through multiple
pathways to success.
It will create competitive employment services and
opportunities for individuals with disabilities and improve
accountability and transparency through performance measures
and reporting. In addition, this bill would strengthen rather
than eliminate the priority, low-skilled, and low-income adults
under WIA.
Finally, I understand that my Republican colleagues and
friends propose to eliminate and consolidate 35 WIA programs
through the introduction of the SKILLS Act.
While I remain optimistic that we on this committee can
work through some of our differences to reauthorize the act, I
do not support the elimination or consolidation of federal
programs. This approach would only serve to weaken our current
WIA system.
With that, Madame Chair, I look forward to hearing from
today's panel of distinguished witnesses on how to improve our
nation's public workforce and adult education system. Thank
you.
[The statement of Mr. Hinojosa follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ruben Hinojosa, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training
Chairwoman Foxx, as Ranking Member of this Subcommittee, I have
always believed that putting America back to work must be a top
priority for Congress and the nation. While the economy has moved in
the right direction, adding more than 5.3 million private-sector jobs
in the last three years with investments made in the 2009 Recovery Act,
there are still millions of Americans who need Congress' help to access
good jobs and careers to improve their lives.
In the 12 month period ending September 30, 2012, WIA programs
provided services to 32.8 million people as well as hundreds of
thousands of employers across the country, according to the U.S.
Department of Labor.
Today, our current public workforce and adult education system
provides an invaluable range of services, including education,
occupational skills training, career counseling, job search assistance,
adult education and English Language literacy and civics education, and
job placement services to populations with unique barriers to
employment.
These populations include migrant and seasonal farmworkers, Native
Americans, people with disabilities, veterans, older workers, people
who are homeless, low-income youth, low-skilled workers, English
Learners, women seeking non-traditional employment opportunities, and
others.
While we know that there are millions of Americans out there who
are still having a difficult time accessing good jobs in this economy,
we also know that there are a substantial number of jobs in health
care, advanced manufacturing, and in high-growth industries and sectors
that are left unfilled because employers require specialized skills for
these positions.
In the 113th Congress, my hope is that we can work in a bipartisan
manner to reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) and modernize
our public workforce and adult education system.
Most recently, I was proud to reintroduce the Workforce Investment
Act of 2013, with my colleague Representative John Tierney, the lead
sponsor of the bill, and Ranking Member George Miller.
The Democratic Bill would streamline and improve workforce program
services, while expanding career pathways, sector partnerships,
regional approaches and other innovative practices; bolster the role of
community colleges in job training; develop a 21st century system for
adult education literacy and workplace services; engage our nation's
youth through multiple pathways to success; create competitive
employment services and opportunities for individuals with
disabilities; and improve accountability and transparency through
performance measures and reporting.
In addition, the Democratic bill would strengthen, rather than
eliminate, the priority for low-skilled and low-income adults under
WIA.
Finally, I understand that my Republican colleagues propose to
eliminate and consolidate 35 WIA programs through the introduction of
the SKILLS Act.
While I remain optimistic that we on this committee can work
through some of our differences to reauthorize the Act, I do not
support the elimination and consolidation of federal programs. This
approach would only serve to weaken our current WIA system.
With that, I look forward to hearing from today's panel of
distinguished witnesses on how to improve our nation's public workforce
and adult education system.
Thank you.
______
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Hinojosa.
Mr. Tierney. Madame Chairwoman.
Chairwoman Foxx. Yes, Mr. Tierney.
Mr. Tierney. May I ask for unanimous consent to enter upon
the record an opening statement just to place on the record.
[The statement of Mr. Tierney follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John F. Tierney, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Massachusetts
Thank you, Madame Chairwoman.
I was disappointed with how the Education and Workforce Committee
proceeded with WIA reauthorization last Congress. This Committee
advanced a bitterly partisan bill. Not one Democrat supported it during
the Committee mark--up. Dozens of outside groups--including the AARP,
the Adult Literacy Council, the Voc-Rehab Administrators, the National
Council on Aging, the National Urban League, the United Way, and
others--voiced concerns about or objections to the Republican bill.
A real opportunity to work together and come up with a bipartisan
product was missed.
During the legislative hearing on the Republican bill, I asked the
witnesses whether it could be improved by aspects of the Democratic
bill that I and Reps. Hinojosa and Miller filed. I plan to ask that
same question again today. Every witness--including the ones invited by
the Republicans--agreed that our bill could improve their bill.
Unfortunately, no effort was made to make it a bipartisan process.
During last year's Committee's mark-up of the Republican bill, Mr.
McKean said that ``bipartisanship is the responsibility of the
majority.''
He's right. That was last June. 7 months, and 1 election have
passed since then--yet here we are again.
The latest iteration of the Chairwoman's WIA bill--which was
announced last week but filed yesterday--continues to prioritize
repeal, consolidation, and block granting over everything else. Just
look at their press release on the bill! The first point they mention
is how many programs their bill eliminates, as if that's the best and
only measure for strengthening and modernizing the existing system. It
isn't.
There is no evidence to support that the kind of arbitrary
consolidation proposed by Chairwoman Foxx's bill will make the
workforce system more coordinated or better integrated.
In fact, what seems more likely is that certain populations--such
as youth, women, low--income adults, the disabled, and others with
barriers to employment--will not receive the same level of service as
they have had under current law. Let's take farmworkers as one example.
Farmworkers are a hard-to-serve population who are mobile and who often
have language barriers and unique educational challenges. The
Farmworker Program is one of the dozens eliminated by Chairwoman Foxx's
bill. So how can farmworkers across this country expect to be served?
Again, it is disappointing that Chairwoman Foxx and Republican
Leadership on this Committee chose not to engage in a constructive
dialogue on how we can make this a bipartisan process just as it was in
1998 when WIA became law. It is particularly unfortunate given that our
areas of agreement on WIA should outnumber our areas of disagreement.
The millions of workers looking for jobs and the millions of employers
searching for qualified candidates deserve better.
I look forward to the witnesses' testimony and thank Chairwoman
Foxx for giving me an opportunity to make an opening statement.
______
Chairwoman Foxx. Without objection.
Mr. Tierney. And may I ask unanimous consent to place on
the record a letter from the Association of Farmworker
Opportunity Programs dated February 21, 2013?
[The information follows:]
February 21, 2013.
Hon. George Miller, Ranking Member,
Committee on Education and the Workforce, U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Ranking Member Miller: Migrant and seasonal farmworkers are
among the nation's most vulnerable in the current employment and
economic climate. The Workforce Investment Act of 2013 you introduced
with Representatives John Tierney (D-MA) and Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX)
takes a positive step forward by continuing to invest in the National
Farmworker Jobs Program, a targeted and fiscally responsible national
job training program. The Association of Farmworker Opportunity
Programs (AFOP) applauds this effort to ensure the most vulnerable
Americans, like our nation's farmworkers, have access to the tailored
education and training they need to attain good, self- and family-
sustaining jobs.
AFOP is a national non-profit federation of non-profit and public
agencies that operate the National Farmworker Jobs Program authorized
under the Workforce Investment Act at Title I, Section 167. The thread
that binds the Association is the concept that training and education
can provide the launching pad to a better and more stable life for the
workers who plant, tend, and harvest the crops that Americans consume
at their tables.
Migrant and seasonal farmworkers are an exceptionally
hard-to-serve population with unique barriers that the traditional
universal access model would not be able to effectively serve.
Typically, farmworkers face language barriers; severe poverty; and very
low math and literacy rates, with an average education level of just
seventh to eighth grade.
Farmworkers are an extremely mobile population. Due to the
nature of farm work, it is imperative that bills seeking to reauthorize
or update the Workforce Investment Act preserve the NFJP as a national
program. It is unrealistic for Congress to expect governors to serve
people who only work briefly in their state and then move elsewhere.
The NFJP, is a proven-effective federal job training program
operated by 52 non-profit and public agencies that specialize in
providing education and training to migrant and seasonal farmworkers.
NFJP participants train for high-demand, high-growth work both in and
outside of agriculture. AFOP's member agencies that are awarded the
competitive grants provided by the U.S. Department of Labor typically
place over 80% of job-training farmworker customers into good jobs with
benefits.
The services AFOP members provide are integral to the agriculture
industry's success and, consequently, the country's pursuit of job
creation and economic stability. Again, we appreciate your commitment
to making smart federal investments in programs that educate and train
our nation's farmworkers for skills U.S. businesses need.
Sincerely,
Jesus Gamboa,
President.
Daniel Sheehan,
Executive Director.
______
Chairwoman Foxx. Without objection.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you.
Chairwoman Foxx. Again, I would like to thank our witnesses
for joining us.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 7C, all subcommittee members
will be permitted to submit written statements to be included
in the permanent hearing record. And without objection, the
hearing record will remain open for 14 days to allow
statements, questions for the record, and other extraneous
material referenced during the hearing to be submitted in the
official hearing record.
It is now my pleasure to introduce our distinguished panel
of witnesses.
Mr. Chris Hart is president and CEO of Workforce Florida,
Inc., the nonprofit, public-private organization charged with
policy-setting and oversight of Florida's workforce system.
Dr. Scott Ralls is the seventh president of the North
Carolina Community College System, which is one of the largest
systems of higher education in the United States, and is
internationally recognized for its programs to foster economic
and workforce development.
Dr. Harry Holzer serves as a professor of public policy at
the Georgetown Public Policy Institute and is a faculty
director--and is faculty director of the Georgetown Center on
Poverty, Inequality, and Public Policy.
Dr. Todd Gustafson serves as the executive director of
Michigan Works!, Berrien-Cass-Van Buren, one of the 25
workforce development boards in the state of Michigan.
Before I recognize you to provide your testimony, let me
briefly explain our lighting system. You will have 5 minutes to
present your testimony. When you begin, the light in front of
you will turn green. When 1 minute is left, the light will turn
yellow. When your time has expired, the light will turn red.
At that point, I ask you to wrap up your remarks as best as
you are able. After you have testified, members will each have
5 minutes to ask questions of the panel.
I now recognize Mr. Hart for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF CHRIS HART, PRESIDENT AND CEO,
WORKFORCE FLORIDA, INC.
Mr. Hart. Thank you.
Good morning, Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member Hinojosa, and
other distinguished members of this subcommittee.
My name is Chris Hart and I have the privilege of serving
as the president and CEO of Workforce Florida Inc., the
Statewide Workforce Investment Board of the Nation's fourth
largest state.
Simply put, Workforce Florida's mission is to help
Floridians enter, remain, and advance in the workforce by
ensuring they have the skills at the right time to meet the
needs of the marketplace. We believe the SKILLS Act will help
us achieve this mission.
I commend this subcommittee and the House leadership for
making the continued transformation of our nation's workforce
development system into one that is increasingly flexible,
responsive, and innovative a leading priority.
The SKILLS Act proposes a market-driven approach to talent
development designed to prepare individuals seeking employment
for the jobs of today and the jobs of tomorrow whether that
person currently relies on the social safety net, is seeking
skills upgrade training, or looking to advance within an
emerging industry.
The SKILLS Act consolidates the existing job training
programs that support similar activities, work readiness,
training, and placement into a single workforce investment
system.
The SKILLS Act rightly focuses on creating a talent supply
system with the funding flexibility to partner with businesses
to ensure they can design training and education opportunities
for new and existing employees giving workers the ability to
sharpen their skills, increase their productivity, and earning
potential, and advance their careers.
This consolidation of programs and funding should result in
a reduction of the administrative burden currently imposed on
the one-stop career center staff by eliminating cost
allocations between programs as well as a tracking and
reporting redundancies.
The SKILLS Act proposes important changes that facilitate
regional alignment of markets and resources rather than forcing
the acceptance of the status quo. It also strengthens the
authority of governors to designate the boundaries of workforce
areas. We agree, and support these provisions.
The flexibility in state and local board appointments is
another welcomed change proposed in the SKILLS Act and
increasing the business representation will only improve our
alignment with market needs.
In Florida, we have found that volunteer board members who
come from businesses of all sizes and stages bring with them a
wealth of experience that helps us shape policies with keen
focus on reducing red tape, forging strategic partnerships,
higher return on investment, and pursuit of greater
efficiencies and effectiveness.
The SKILLS Act strengthens the link between employment and
training. We agree that in order to shrink the gap between
skills demanded and skills supplied, we must have market
relevant training and education.
However, Florida asks that the subcommittee strongly
consider allowing for the greatest amount of flexibility with
how this training is delivered.
The SKILLS Act requires regional workforce boards to
reserve a percentage of funds for training activities. Florida
imposes a similar requirement on regional workforce boards
although the amount of the reserve is set by law with the
ability to reduce the reserve if circumstances warrant.
From Florida's experience, the reserve requirement
reinforces the state's commitment to training our workforce to
meet market needs as long as the type of training is not
limited.
Qualified training in Florida ranges from classroom and
Internet-based training to on-the-job training and customized
training delivered by businesses.
The SKILLS Act calls for unified planning and common shared
goals. It focuses on performance over process and continuous
evaluation of systems and procedures in an effort to become
more efficient and effective with each passing year. Florida
agrees.
Today, businesses and their jobs go where the talent is.
Creating a modern and responsive national talent delivery
system that supports job creation and retention is possible
only if we continue to remove barriers allowing state and local
workforce entities greater flexibility to better align
priorities, services, and programs as well as leverage
resources with educational systems. In doing so, a strong focus
must remain on engaging workers at every stage of their career.
In conclusion, we are proud of our past success resulting
from our efforts to optimize both the federal and state
landmark laws. We believe it has contributed to Florida's track
record of recognition as a national model for innovation.
However, we are greatly encouraged, Madame Chair, that the
SKILLS Act will allow our state and others to accelerate
innovative, market responsive strategies for even higher
performance and results aimed at improving our nations talent
competitiveness.
Chairwoman Foxx, this concludes my remarks. I want to again
thank you for the opportunity to testify before this
subcommittee on an issue vitally important to American
innovation and commerce.
[The statement of Mr. Hart follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chris Hart IV, President and CEO,
Workforce Florida Inc.
Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member Hinojosa, and other distinguished
members of this Subcommittee: I am Chris Hart IV and I have the
privilege of serving as the president and CEO of Workforce Florida
Inc., the Statewide Workforce Investment Board for the nation's fourth
most-populous state. Workforce Florida's mission is to develop the
state's business climate by designing and implementing strategies that
help Floridians enter, remain and advance in the workforce becoming
more highly skilled and successful, benefiting Florida business and the
entire state. While I have served as Workforce Florida's president
since November 2007, I have been fortunate throughout my career to hold
other executive, appointed and elected positions in Florida that
similarly have greatly influenced my testimony today. I have served as
the interim director of the Governor's Office of Tourism, Trade and
Economic Development; senior vice president of external affairs and
investor relations at Enterprise Florida Inc. (the public-private
partnership that is the principal statewide economic development
organization); co-founder of a Tampa Bay-based software and classified
advertising small business; a member of the inaugural Workforce Florida
Board of Directors; and a member of the Florida House of
Representatives.
I am honored to join you today to offer testimony in support of
reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) and,
particularly, the Supporting Knowledge and Investing in Lifelong Skills
(SKILLS) Act. The proposed SKILLS Act, at its very core, is about
maintaining our nation's global economic leadership and accelerating
economic progress for Americans by focusing on jobs and a modern talent
delivery system that produces skilled and knowledgeable workers. The
Act equips states to better attract, retain and create jobs by serving
three primary customers: businesses, workers and job seekers. In 1998,
WIA provided Florida with the opportunity to build a modern workforce
system, now, 15 years later, new reauthorization legislation is vitally
needed to better position our state and nation by supporting those who
create jobs--entrepreneurs and businesses--with a skilled and
competitive workforce. Given the rapid and profound changes in our
nation's economy, brought forward by the Great Recession, innovation
and increased global competition, action is necessary. Our nation must
better anticipate and respond to the needs of business, educate and
train workers in market-relevant skills and competencies, help job
seekers enter and advance in the workforce, and empower state and
regional leaders to be problem solvers, creative and resource-
efficient.
I commend this Subcommittee and the House leadership for making the
continued transformation of our nation's workforce development system
into one that is increasingly flexible, responsive and innovative a
leading priority. The talent supply challenges confronting our nation
at home and the global competition abroad require that we leverage and
maximize resources ensuring the most efficient and effective use of our
public workforce investment to address the talent needs of employers
today and tomorrow, bolstering growth and sustainability of jobs and
our economy. To assist your efforts, my remarks today focus on three
primary areas:
Further streamlining and better integrating federal
programs as well as eliminating bureaucratic barriers to market-driven
employment and training services.
Enhancing opportunities for flexibility for state and
regional leadership, with an emphasis on performance, to further
transform workforce investment to address existing and emerging
economic needs.
Strengthening talent development by cultivating strategic
partnerships, especially with education, to improve lifelong learning.
A Roadmap for Innovation
When I was in the Florida House of Representatives in 2000, I
sponsored the Workforce Innovation Act. Our goals in Florida--then and
today--reflect many of the primary objectives of the SKILLS Act.
First, you want to consolidate the existing job training programs
that support similar activities (work readiness, training and
placement) into a single workforce investment system. Connecting job
seekers with employers and helping Americans get to work remains a
clear and central focus of the Act.
You also want to take a market-driven approach to talent
development designed to prepare individuals seeking employment for the
jobs of today--and the jobs of tomorrow--whether that person currently
relies on the social safety net, is seeking skills upgrade training or
looking to advance within an emerging industry.
The SKILLS Act also rightly focuses on creating a talent supply
system with the funding flexibility to partner with businesses to
ensure they can design training and education opportunities for new and
existing employees giving workers the ability to sharpen their skills,
increase their productivity and earning potential, and advance their
careers.
With our nation at a crossroad, Florida's experience--forged by
more than a decade of business-led, public and private collaboration to
drive market-relevant strategies and workforce investment--offers a
roadmap for preparing job seekers, workers and businesses to compete
and advance in an increasingly knowledge-based economy.
Streamlining, Integrating Programs and Services--Florida as a leader
Florida boldly seized the opportunity created by WIA for a
customer-focused and business-directed workforce development system
with its enactment of the Workforce Innovation Act of 2000. An
overarching priority was restructuring the fractured system we had then
to create a more integrated and comprehensive system--nimble enough to
respond to local and statewide demands, economic shifts and strategic
priorities with clear and consistent business involvement, strong state
leadership and local decision-making.
We are proud of the success resulting from our efforts to optimize
both the federal and state landmark laws, which has contributed to
Florida's track record of recognition as a national model for
innovation. Among recent accolades influenced by our state's strong
workforce system outcomes, Florida ranks:
No. 1 for its talent pipeline in the third annual
Enterprising States report by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the
National Chamber Foundation. Enterprising States highlights initiatives
and strategies that all 50 states are employing to remain competitive,
restore jobs and drive economic growth.
No. 2 in an annual Best States for Business survey by
Chief Executive magazine, which examines feedback from more than 500
CEOs to assess how each state fares on factors, including workforce
quality, that are most essential for a business-friendly environment.
In the Top-3 for five consecutive years in CNBC's annual
America's Top States for Business, which examines 10 different
categories to measure each state's ability to attract business
including workforce quality and availability.
In Florida, the 24 regional workforce boards direct nearly 100 One-
Stop Career Centers that connect job seekers, workers and businesses
with employment and training services. Consistent with federal law,
Florida's One-Stop Career Centers provide access to services offered by
nearly a dozen state agencies that determine eligibility for and
provide:
Adult Job Placement and Training
Unemployment Insurance
Vocational Rehabilitation Services
Transitional Services to Assist Job Seekers with Moving
from Welfare to Work
Veterans Employment and Training
Florida's system successfully uses the One-Stop model effectively
and encourages regional workforce boards to access other resources or
partner with other programs to make services available to job seekers,
workers and businesses. These services or programs are co-located both
physically and through website linkages.
Through local decision-making and, in some cases, state policy,
many of Florida's One-Stop Career Centers already offer access to
resources or programs the SKILLS Act proposes to consolidate, supported
by a single Workforce Investment Fund. Under the Act, special
populations will continue to be served by the One-Stop Career Centers,
as the state and regional plans must detail the strategies for
continuing such services.
This consolidation of programs and funding should result in a
reduction of the administrative burden currently imposed on One-Stop
Career Center staff by eliminating cost allocations between programs as
well as tracking and reporting redundancies. Efficiencies created
through this universal approach empower those closest to the customers
to determine the most effective services needed to achieve the best
outcomes.
It is our hope this Act also would clarify a federal policy that
has hindered our state's flexibility to deliver services and further
reduce administrative costs. While there is no direct federal statutory
mandate in the Wagner-Peyser Act requiring state merit staff to deliver
services, the U.S. Department of Labor has denied Florida's waiver
requests from this regulation since 2007. This requirement has limited
Florida's ability to cross-train staff across programs, removing from
our purview management decisions best left to the state and local
levels.
Flexibility Linked with Performance
The workforce system envisioned in the SKILLS Act strengthens the
link between employment and training. We agree that in order to shrink
the gap between skills demanded and skills supplied, we must have
market-relevant training and education; however, Florida asks that the
Subcommittee strongly consider allowing for the greatest amount of
flexibility with how this training is delivered.
The SKILLS Act requires regional workforce boards to reserve a
percentage of funds for training activities. Florida imposes a similar
requirement on regional workforce boards, although the amount of the
reserve is set by law, with the ability to reduce the reserve if
circumstances warrant. From Florida's experience, the reserve
requirement reinforces the state's commitment to training our workforce
to meet market needs, as long as the type of training is not limited.
Qualified training in Florida ranges from classroom and Internet-based
training to On-the-Job Training and customized training delivered by
businesses.
The SKILLS Act calls for unified planning and common shared goals,
it focuses on performance over process and continuous evaluation of
systems and procedures in an effort to become more efficient and
effective with each passing year. Florida agrees.
Even as we work to link job seekers to employment and businesses to
a pipeline of work-ready talent, as well as making training available
to close the skills gap, Florida has and continues to underscore the
importance of performance and outcomes. In addition to tracking and
reporting federally required common measures such as entered
employment, average earnings and youth placement or education and
skills training gains, Florida continues to place an intense focus on
the development of other management and performance measurement tools--
with more current data--that allow our state to drive stronger outcomes
and track progress on shared state and local goals.
One example is the Daily and Monthly Job Placement Reports, which
were created by the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, in
conjunction with Workforce Florida, to support system measurement,
management and service improvements aimed at helping Floridians find
jobs. These reports were launched in November 2011 in response to
Governor Rick Scott's call for improved performance measurements to
support economic recovery and growth. Regional workforce boards are
assigned a ranking based on their job-placement performance, taking
into account a number of factors. Those factors include the number of
job seekers who gain employment after being assisted by a One- Stop
Career Center or via the Employ Florida Marketplace job-matching
website at EmployFlorida.com, Florida's comprehensive labor exchange
tool; the number of available job openings in each region; and the
number of people receiving unemployment compensation, known in Florida
as reemployment assistance benefits, who find employment after
receiving workforce services. An individual who receives employment and
training assistance through a One-Stop Career Center or the Employ
Florida Marketplace and finds a job within 180 days is deemed a
placement and may be reported by a regional workforce board.
Last year, Florida's regional workforce boards assisted more than
426,000 people who found jobs including more than 111,000 people who
had received unemployment compensation--or reemployment assistance--
payments. The statewide goal for 2013 is 600,000 placements.
Our relentless focus on job placements, at both the state and local
levels, continues to invigorate our efforts to connect job seekers and
employers and to generate creative solutions. In the Tampa Bay-area,
the Pasco Hernando Workforce Board, frequently ranked among the Top 10
boards for job placements, has found success through the board's focus
on continuous enhancements to customer service and its Monday-Saturday
Employment Support Center, a call center that links job seekers with
employers seeking to hire. Polk Works, the regional workforce board
that serves Polk County in Central Florida, has launched a Race to
Place initiative, which is gaining momentum, new employer partners and
communitywide support for its goal of assisting 10,000 Polk County
residents with finding a job by June 30, 2013.
Additionally, Florida has worked closely with the public and
private sectors to identify statewide workforce and economic
indicators. These indicators are vetted with regional and statewide
collaborative partners. This work has led to better integrated
strategies in workforce, education and economic development. Today,
independent strategic plans across state and local entities are built
using common measures. In Florida's State Strategic Workforce Plan,
strategic goals are aligned with federal programmatic requirements,
common measures and priorities of the Governor and Florida Legislature.
Performance reporting systems and dashboards serve as tools to measure
progress and align partnerships among regional workforce boards,
educational entities and the Florida Chamber of Commerce.
The regional workforce boards, and the communities they serve,
represent a significant competitive advantage as we strive to grow
Florida's economy.
The SKILLS Act proposes important changes that facilitate regional
alignment of markets and resources rather than forcing the acceptance
of the status quo. It also strengthens the authority of governors to
designate the boundaries of workforce areas.
With Florida's shared vision, mission, strategic planning and
common goals, Workforce Florida is now collaborating with the Florida
College System, the State University System, the Florida Department of
Transportation, Regional Planning Councils, Enterprise Florida and the
Florida Chamber of Commerce at a level necessitating the review of
relationships, policies, procedures, project management protocols and,
yes, geographical boundaries in order to build the nation's most
efficient and effective state system.
The flexibility in state and local board appointments is another
welcome change proposed in the SKILLS Act--and increasing the business
representation will only improve our alignment with market needs. In
Florida, we have found that volunteer board members who come from
businesses of all sizes and stages bring with them a wealth of
experience that help us shape policies with a keen focus on reducing
red tape, forging strategic partnerships, measuring return on
investment and pursuing greater efficiencies.
The proposed funding level of 15 percent for the Governor's Reserve
would enable Florida to continue to invest in innovative initiatives
that respond to statewide economic development priorities and address
the workforce needs of special populations such as at-risk youth,
individuals with disabilities, veterans and other workers with
challenges to employment.
Strengthening Talent Development and Lifelong Learning through
Partnerships
Today, businesses--and their jobs--go where the talent is. Creating
a modern and responsive national talent development system that
supports job creation and retention is possible only if we continue to
remove barriers allowing state and local workforce entities and
educational systems to leverage resources and better align priorities,
services and programs. In doing so, a strong focus must remain on
engaging workers at every stage of their career.
In Florida and across the nation, traditional silos that impede the
development and implementation of seamless talent solutions aimed at
maximizing the assets of workforce and education partners as a true,
talent supply and delivery system are stifling our competitiveness. The
SKILLS Act addresses critical areas for improving talent development
and service delivery by providing enhanced opportunities to more
effectively confront skills gap challenges by, among other things,
facilitating greater collaboration with community colleges, building
basic literacy and math skills into employment activities and
encouraging stronger alignment of regional resources among workforce,
education, economic development and industry.
All three areas remain major priorities for Florida where we have a
strategic focus on addressing the challenges of getting Floridians back
to work, while also advancing opportunities to diversify our state's
economy through a more highly skilled and competitive workforce for
sectors targeted for economic development such as homeland security and
defense, logistics and distribution, and aviation and aerospace, along
with infrastructure industries like transportation, water resources,
energy, broadband and healthcare.
Florida's 28 state and community colleges have been and continue to
be important allies in modernizing and creating a responsive talent
supply and delivery system in our state. These institutions are
recognized for being able to respond quickly to marketplace needs and
just-in-time training required to keep businesses and their workers
competitive. A specific provision in the SKILLS Act that we strongly
support allows regional workforce boards to contract with community
colleges to provide training to large groups of participants instead of
on an individual basis. This approach, which generates efficiencies, is
exemplified through a strong partnership between Workforce Connection--
the Florida regional workforce board that serves Citrus, Levy and
Marion counties--and Central Florida Community College. Faced with a
high unemployment rate of 10 percent on average in 2012 in two of the
three counties it serves and 9.5 percent in the other, and a loss of
jobs in the manufacturing and financial sectors, Workforce Connection
has developed a partnership with its community college to provide
training to large groups of participants in common but critical skill
areas rather than a more limited, less efficient one-on-one approach to
training.
Another noteworthy example of seamless collaboration to meet
industry demands is a unique, aligned approach among multiple state
colleges to serve businesses creating jobs in manufacturing--a high-
value industry essential to innovation. St. Petersburg College is the
lead recipient of a $15 million, multi- year Trade Adjustment
Assistance Program grant awarded last fall that will enable 12 state
colleges to focus on training resulting in the attainment of industry-
recognized credentials and opportunities for On-the-Job Training,
internships and job placements facilitated through regional workforce
boards. The entire seamless workforce, education and economic
development project is under the direct guidance of the Manufacturers
Association of Florida and colleges are linked with regional
manufacturing associations in their respective communities.
Also in Florida where business is leading the way to improved
talent solutions, Workforce Florida has developed Target Industry
Cluster Task Forces to provide market perspective on developing a
world- class talent delivery system in key sectors. The chief
executives, who participate in these task forces, have emphasized that
building basic literacy and math skills is a critical need and
essential to workplace success. This linkage cannot be overlooked as an
underpinning to lifelong employment success. As a key component of the
SKILLS Act, the focus on these vital skills signals to business leaders
and owners across the nation that these building blocks of basic
literacy and math skills are universally viewed as a foundation for
improving the skills of our nation's workforce.
The global marketplace is as dynamic as it is diverse and regional
economies must continue to develop strategies and talent development
solutions that are based on more than the geographic designations of
training providers. There must be strong alignment to regional
economies and labor markets. The full spectrum of collaborative
partners that impact talent solutions must now include industry
clusters and employers and their specific talent needs, including
groups of occupations that meet multiple industry sector needs; talent
commuting patterns; existence of state colleges and universities,
especially research centers; economic development regions and
indigenous economic assets (e.g. ports, logistical centers and
infrastructure). In Northwest Florida with Workforce Florida's support,
a special skilled technician task force is just getting underway. Led
by industry executives in construction and energy, the Northwest
Florida Skilled Technician Project is facilitating an evaluation of
existing regional assets and building on those attributes to create a
new regional approach for world-class talent supply for skilled
technicians. With economic competitiveness as its primary driver, the
task force will gain a deeper understanding of skilled technician
workforce needs for Northwest Florida companies in the defense,
advanced manufacturing and energy sectors; create an education and
training assets inventory informed by a review of supply and demand
workforce analytics; and develop short-term and long-term
recommendations that transform the region by identifying opportunities
for skills improvement. By focusing increased attention on seamless
alignment within regional economies and labor markets, the SKILLS Act
will foster greater collaboration among workforce, education and
economic partners, like those participating in the Northwest Florida
Skilled Technician Project, to advance opportunities for businesses,
workers and job seekers to be globally competitive.
At the state level, Florida also is aligning talent needs within
public and private K-12 and higher education organizational structures
supported by increased integrated reporting systems. Mapping core
educational standards to higher education curricula and job demands by
occupational clusters has gained increased support. Greater attention
is placed on accountability of funding allocations to educational
providers with the resulting outcomes on job placements. Collaboration
among workforce and educational entities continues to grow. Innovative
programs based on proven performance to meet Florida's workforce and
economic needs have increased. Recognition of industry-recognized
licensure and credentials has gained importance in meeting job demands
and identifying opportunities to assist employees with job retention
and advancement.
In closing, Florida's vision, innovation and action provides a
roadmap for what our nation can accomplish through a better integrated
talent supply and delivery system. The SKILLS Act will allow our state
and others to accelerate innovative, market-responsive strategies for
even higher performance and results aimed at improving our nation's
talent competitiveness.
Chairwoman Foxx this concludes my remarks. I want to again thank
you for the opportunity to testify before this Subcommittee on an issue
vitally important to American innovation and commerce. I welcome any
questions you may have.
______
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Hart.
Mr. Hart. Thanks.
Chairwoman Foxx. You set a good standard here for the rest
of our folks.
Mr. Hart. Thank you.
Chairwoman Foxx. I would now recognize Dr. Ralls for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF DR. SCOTT RALLS, PRESIDENT,
NORTH CAROLINA COMMUNITY COLLEGES SYSTEM
Mr. Ralls. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member
Hinojosa, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify before you today.
Less than 2 weeks ago, the President was in Asheville,
North Carolina, the day after the State of the Union Address,
touring one of our state's newest advanced manufacturing
facilities, Linamar.
He was particularly taken with the story of his tour guide,
Jeff Brower, later nicknamed by the media as ``Jeff the
Machinist,'' who the President noted found opportunity at
Linamar after a decade in the trucking industry.
One year earlier, a North Carolinian named Jackie Bray sat
by the First Lady during the State of the Union address as the
President made note of her transition from the ranks of the
unemployed to a new job making gas turbines at Charlotte's
Siemens Energy Hub.
And a year earlier than that, Kathy Proctor of Winston-
Salem was referenced in one press account as the star of the
2011 State of the Union, for her ``that's me'' response when,
while sitting in the gallery, the President commented on her
journey from dislocated furniture worker into the new world of
biotechnology.
Each of these hard working North Carolinians experienced
very unique moments of recognition, but they also shared a
common experience available to thousands of North Carolinians
each year; the opportunity to gain new skills and a new career
through education and job training at one of our 58 community
colleges.
From the trucking industry to advanced manufacturing,
packaging to energy, furniture to biotechnology, the
opportunity to move from one sector of the economy to better
opportunities in another hinges on the access and opportunity
presented by education and advanced job training.
Unfortunately, as important as education and advanced job
training are to rebuilding our economy, the Workforce
Investment Act, our nation's primary federal program intended
to provide such education training, is simply not keeping up
with the needs of our employers or the men and women this
system was designed to serve.
This Act, which has not been reauthorized since 1998,
provides too few education and training opportunities, is
overly prescriptive and bureaucratic, and creates barriers to
aligning with other federal programs.
Making training a priority will mean dedicating additional
resources to it, no doubt a very difficult challenge in an
environment marked by the scarcity of resources. And that is
why it is also important that reauthorization of the Workforce
Investment Act streamline programs and limit administrative
overhead and enable state and local flexibility to design
systems that meet the legislative goals in the most effective
and efficient manner.
Simplifying the system and moving past the myriad of
multiple program titles and funding streams is a fundamental
step. At the state and local levels, these program streams
often lead to the same delivery sources, but require additional
administrative oversight, diverting dollars from valuable
direct services such as education and training.
That is why I believe it is past time to reauthorize and
reexamine the Workforce Investment Act in a way that addresses
each of these issues.
To that end, I am encouraged by legislation introduced by
you, Chairwoman Foxx and others on this committee, which
proposes many critical changes toward meeting these objectives.
In particular, I support provisions that place a renewed
emphasis on job training by requiring minimum amounts of
funding targeted toward education and training, that
restructures the cumbersome current sequence of services that
too often puts training at the end of the list and instead
ensure individuals will have the opportunity to receive
training immediately, allow local boards to contract directly
with community colleges for the provision of training designed
to serve large groups of individuals, and allow states to
streamline the eligibility of training providers, particularly
community colleges.
At the state level in North Carolina, simplifying and
streamlining has been the recent goal in creating a more
effective workforce delivery system. Previously separate
management structures for Wagner-Peyser and Workforce
Investment Act funds have been consolidated, new performance
measures across workforce programs are being created, alignment
between community college and public school Career Technical
Education pathways are being tightened, as well as pathways
between adult education and job training, and the State
Workforce Investment Board was reduced from 38 to 25 members
with particular emphasis placed on maintaining strong business-
based leadership.
Our new governor, Pat McCrory, is placing great emphasis on
closing the skills gap to better meet the needs of our citizens
who need employment and our businesses that need skilled
employees. The changes you have proposed will further this
goal.
In North Carolina, we have seen the benefits of
collaboration across workforce system providers and joint
efforts to increase opportunities for accelerated training in
demand occupations. When the recession hit North Carolina hard
in 2008, we began thinking hard about where the jobs would be
when recovery began and the skills training that could be
accelerated to trampoline folks back into the workplace.
We developed a training model that utilized in-demand
industry certifications, the ACT WorkKeys tools, and
employability skills training in areas like interviewing,
resume writing, time management, and communications.
Our accelerated training model continues at community
colleges across our state with support from the Workforce
Investment Act, and 3 weeks ago, I saw its practical benefits
in a very real and personal way.
I visited the Workforce Certification Academy operated by
Piedmont Community College at a small community center in the
rural town of Roxboro, North Carolina. There I met a woman
named Linda Weaver, a woman in her mid-50s, who shared a story
similar to Jeff, Jackie, and Kathy.
Linda had lost her job in the construction industry and was
facing homelessness. In her local newspaper, she read about the
accelerated manufacturing training program. Within months she
had gained her Certified Production Technology Certificate,
Gold-level Career Readiness Certificate, certifications
endorsed by the National Association of Manufactures, and
applied for a job.
Within this past year, she has received a $2/hour raise.
And that day, when she hugged my neck, she said to me, ``This
program saved my life.''
Madame Chair, Ranking Member Hinojosa, and members of the
subcommittee, I am hopeful that this Congress will have the
will and determination to finally achieve a reauthorization of
the Workforce Investment Act this year and in doing so, I
strongly urge that it be streamlined and improved so that job
training and community colleges are a more integral part of our
Nation's vitally important efforts to ensure that each and
every Linda, Jeff, Jackie, and Kathy out there have the
opportunity to receive the education and skills necessary to
get and keep a good job.
Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Ralls follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. R. Scott Ralls, President,
North Carolina Community College System
Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member Hinojosa, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you
today. My name is Scott Ralls, and I am President of the North Carolina
Community College System. This year, I also serve as Chair of the
National Council of State Directors of Community Colleges, and have
previously served as a president of a local North Carolina community
college and as the state administrator of federal workforce funds under
the then Job Training Partnership Act. I am also on the Board of
Directors of Rebuilding America's Middle Class (RAMC), a coalition
promoting the vital role community colleges play in serving Americans.
Less than two weeks ago, the President was in Asheville, North
Carolina, the day after the State of the Union Address, touring one of
our state's newest advanced manufacturing facilities, Linamar. He was
particularly taken with the story of his tour guide, Jeff Brower, later
nicknamed by the media as ``Jeff the Machinist,'' who the President
noted found opportunity at Linamar after a decade in the trucking
industry. One year earlier, a North Carolinian named Jackie Bray sat by
the First Lady during the State of the Union address as the President
made note of her transition from the ranks of the unemployed to a new
job making gas turbines at Charlotte's Siemens Energy Hub. And a year
earlier than that, Kathy Proctor of Winston-Salem was referenced in one
press account as the star of the 2011 State of the Union, for her
``that's me'' response when, while sitting in the gallery, the
President commented on her journey from dislocated furniture worker
into the new world of biotechnology.
Each of these hard working North Carolinians experienced very
unique moments of recognition, but they also shared a common experience
available to thousands of North Carolinians each year: the opportunity
to gain new skills and a new career through education and job training
at one of our 58 community colleges. From the trucking industry to
advanced manufacturing, packaging to energy, furniture to
biotechnology, the opportunity to move from one sector of the economy
to better opportunities in another hinges on the access and opportunity
presented by education and advanced job training.
Unfortunately, as important as education and advanced job training
are to rebuilding our economy, the Workforce Investment Act--our
nation's primary program intended to provide such training--is simply
not keeping up to the needs of our employers or the men and women this
system was designed to serve.
This Act, which has not been reauthorized since 1998, provides too
few training opportunities, is overly prescriptive and bureaucratic,
and creates barriers to aligning with other federal programs.
Making training a priority will mean dedicating additional
resources to it, no doubt a difficult challenge in an environment
marked by the scarcity of resources. That is why it is also important
that reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act streamlines
programs, limits administrative overhead, and enables state and local
flexibility to design systems that meet the legislative goals in the
most effective and efficient manner. Simplifying the system and moving
past the myriad of multiple program titles and funding streams is a
fundamental step. At the state and local levels, these different
program streams often lead to the same delivery sources, but require
additional administrative oversight, diverting dollars from valuable
direct services such as training.
That is why I believe it is past time to reauthorize and reexamine
the Workforce Investment Act in a way that addresses each of these
issues. To that end, I am encouraged by legislation introduced by you,
Chairwoman Foxx and others on this Committee, which proposes many
critical changes toward meeting these objectives.
In particular, we support provisions that:
Place a renewed emphasis on job training by requiring
minimum amounts of funding targeted toward training;
Restructure the cumbersome current sequence of services
that puts training at the end of the list and instead ensure
individuals will have the opportunity to receive training immediately;
Allow local boards to contract directly with community
colleges for the provision of training designed to serve large groups
of individuals;
Allow states to streamline the eligibility of training
providers, including community colleges; and,
Promote the development of educational pathways from high
school through postsecondary education with more ``on and off'' ramps
so students and transitioning workers can gain interim credentials with
real value in the labor market.
I'm also pleased your bill takes important steps toward
streamlining programs and eliminating overly prescriptive provisions
which have hampered the ability for states and local communities to
create the high performing workforce systems so desperately needed.
At the state level in North Carolina, simplifying and streamlining
has been the recent goal in creating a more effective workforce
delivery system. Previously separate management structures for Wagner-
Peyser and Workforce Investment Act funds have been consolidated, new
performance measures across workforce programs are being created,
alignment between community college and public school Career Technical
Education pathways are being tightened, and the State Workforce
Investment Board was reduced from 38 to 25 members with particular
emphasis placed on maintaining strong business-based leadership. Our
new governor, Pat McCrory, is placing great emphasis on closing the
skills gap to better meet the needs of our citizens who need employment
and our businesses that need skilled employees. The changes you have
proposed will further this goal and create more opportunity to
strengthen our state workforce system.
In North Carolina, we have seen the benefits of collaboration
across workforce system providers and joint efforts to increase
opportunities for accelerated training in demand occupations. When the
recession hit North Carolina hard in 2008, we began thinking hard about
where the jobs would be when recovery began and the skills training
that could be accelerated to trampoline folks back into the workforce
in less than six months. We developed a training model that combined
training for in-demand industry certifications, Career Readiness
Certifications using the ACT WorkKeys tools, and employability skills
training such as interviewing, resume writing, time management and
communications.
Our accelerated job training model continues at community colleges
across our state, and three weeks ago, I saw its practical benefits in
a very real and personal way. I visited the Workforce Certification
Academy operated by Piedmont Community College at a small community
center in the rural town of Roxboro, North Carolina. There I met Linda
Weaver, a woman in her mid-50s, who shared a story similar to Jeff,
Jackie and Kathy. Linda had lost her job in the construction industry
and was facing homelessness. In her local newspaper, she read about the
accelerated manufacturing training program and signed up. Within a
couple of months she had earned her Manufacturing Skills Standards
Council Certified Production Technician certificate endorsed by the
National Association of Manufacturers, a Gold-level Career Readiness
Certificate, and applied for a job. At first, she was kicked out of
initial employment consideration because of her credit history, and
that's when the program director jumped in to convince the local
manufacturer that with the skills Linda had demonstrated through her
competency-based certificates, they would be crazy not to hire her. So
they did, and one year later, she's doing great. She has even received
a $2 an hour raise. ``This program saved my life,'' she whispered to me
that day, as she hugged my neck.
Madam Chair, Ranking Member Hinojosa, and members of the
subcommittee, I am hopeful that this Congress will have the will and
determination to finally achieve a reauthorization of the Workforce
Investment Act this year.
In doing so, I strongly urge that it be streamlined and improved so
that job training and community colleges are a more integral part of
our nation's vitally important efforts to ensure that each and every
Linda, Jeff, Jackie, and Kathy out there have opportunity to receive
the education and skills necessary to get and keep a good job.
Thank you.
______
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you.
Dr. Holzer, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DR. HARRY HOLZER, PROFESSOR OF
PUBLIC POLICY, GEORGETOWN PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE
Mr. Holzer. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member
Hinojosa, and subcommittee members.
I would like to make four main points today. Point number
one; the need for effective education and workforce services
that would improve the skills of American workers and serve the
interests of workers, employers, and the economy has never been
greater than it is today. And I think none of us would disagree
with that claim.
But point number two, ironically, we continually invest
fewer resources in our workforce system over time to meet this
need, and we invest much less than do most other industrial
nations. Program consolidation and budget sequestration both
threaten to aggravate this disturbing trend.
By almost any measure total funding of the workforce
programs in the United States have fallen very dramatically
over time, much of it in the last decade. We have a $16
trillion economy and 150 million workers. Total workforce
expenditures now constitute only about 0.1 percent of GDP which
is less than what virtually any other industrialized country
spends on such services.
The capacity of our one-stop offices to meet and to provide
services to millions of workers under current budgets is
already strained, and longer-term training funded within the
system is virtually nonexistent.
And ongoing budget sequestration could severely exacerbate
this trend and consolidation will likely exacerbate it as well,
because consolidation is often used as a justification for
further budget-cutting in this area.
Point number three; consolidation of many small programs
into one clearly has some potential benefits in terms of
savings on administrative costs. It also has some potential
costs in terms of particular populations being less well-served
than they are today.
The recent report by the U.S. Government accountability
office does indicate that there are potential savings from
consolidating administrative structures on many small programs,
but the report also points out, and I think this is very
important, we currently have virtually no evidence on how large
these benefits of consolidation really are, and the report is
very clear about that.
Furthermore, the report also warns that merging programs
may make services less accessible to groups considered hard to
serve such as ex-offenders, disconnected youth, or many rural
residents. The adage, ``one size does not fit all,'' clearly
applies in this case. It is not clear that one program and one
funding stream fit all in this case.
Point number four. It is very important that we institute
reforms in our workforce system to better integrate and better
coordinate our nation's higher education programs with our
workforce systems and to make both of them more responsive to
the needs of the U.S. labor market and the economy, but a
simple consolidation of many programs into one with fewer
dollars attached does not necessarily help us achieve this
goal.
Our nation's career and technical education, higher
education, and workforce programs should operate together more
effectively to better enable workers to gain the credentials
valued by employers. Industry specific partnerships between
employers, service providers, and workforce agencies are a
proven way of achieving this goal and career pathways seem
critical as well.
Using data to inform students and educators of which
sectors and jobs are in high demand and enabling our education
and workforce systems to better meet this demand is very
important. In my view, the proposed Workforce Investment Act of
2013 contains several key provisions that would move us towards
achieving this goal.
It is much less clear to me that the SKILLS Act as
currently written would do so as well, especially with less
funding. Either way, these reforms should be the primary goal
of any workforce legislation, not simply consolidating and
cutting funding. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Holzer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Harry J. Holzer, Professor of Public Policy,
Georgetown Public Policy Institute
Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member Hinojosa and Subcommittee Members:
I am very pleased to be here today and to have the opportunity to
address important questions about the future of our nation's workforce
system. I'd like to make the following points:
1. The need for effective education and workforce services that
would improve the skills of American employees and thus serve the
interests of workers, employers, and the overall economy has never been
greater than it is today.
Having the educational levels and occupational training valued by
employers is clearly a precondition for any worker who wants to achieve
family-sustaining earnings in our current economy. But large
percentages of American workers lack such education and skills.\i\ The
fact that many millions of workers today suffer long-term unemployment
that further erodes their skills and labor market information (because
of the Great Recession) only exacerbates this problem. And, even with
today's high levels of unemployment, many employers seem to have
difficulty finding sufficiently skilled workers to fill vacant
jobs.\ii\ Employers who face or anticipate these difficulties have
incentives to create fewer jobs in America, and fewer good- paying ones
at that.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\i\ Claudia Goldin and Lawrence Katz, The Race Between Education
and Technology, Harvard University Press, 2008; Harry Holzer and Robert
Lerman, America's Forgotten Middle-Skill Jobs, The Workforce Alliance,
2007.
\ii\ Michael Elsby et al., ``The Labor Market in the Great
Recession,'' National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper, 2010;
Harry Holzer, Testimony before the Joint Economic Committee of
Congress, July 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Ironically, we continually invest fewer resources in workforce
services over time to meet this need, and we invest much less than do
most other industrial nations. Program consolidation and budget
sequestration both threaten to aggravate this disturbing trend.
By almost any measure, funding for workforce programs in the U.S.
has fallen dramatically over time, and especially in the past few
years. Such expenditures now constitute less than .1% of GDP, which is
less than what virtually any other industrialized country spends on
such services.\iii\ The capacity of our One-Stop offices to provide
needed services to millions of workers under current budgets is often
limited, and longer-term training funded within this system has become
almost nonexistent. An ongoing budget sequestration, which threatens to
further reduce discretionary spending of many kinds, could severely
exacerbate this trend; and consolidation might exacerbate it as well,
since it is often used as justification for cutting budget
appropriations in the workforce area.\iv\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\iii\ Chris O'Leary et al. eds., Job Training Policy in the United
States, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, 2004.
\iv\ For example, Budget Committee chair Rep. Paul Ryan frequently
uses consolidation as justification for cutting funding for WIA and
other workforce programs in his proposed federal budgets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Consolidation of many small employment and training programs
into one clearly has potential benefits, in terms of savings on
administrative costs, as well as potential costs, in terms of
particular populations being less well-served than they are today. Both
the benefits and costs of any approach to program consolidation should
be carefully considered before it is implemented.
As the recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office
(2011) indicated, there are potential savings that could be achieved by
consolidating administrative structures and colocating some workforce
services between the many small employment and training programs now in
existence.\v\ But the report also points out that we currently have
virtually no evidence on how large these potential benefits of
consolidation really are. Furthermore, merging such programs might make
services less accessible to many groups considered hard-to-serve, such
as ex-offenders or disconnected youth, than they are today. The adage
``one size does not fit all'' applies very strongly to different
demographic groups with different levels of skill deficiency and
different kinds of barriers to participation in the workforce, and it
is important that our programs recognize these differences and account
for them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\v\ Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Providing
Information on Colocating Services and Consolidating Administrative
Structures Could Promote Efficiencies. United States Government
Accountability Office, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. It is very important that we institute reforms to better
integrate and coordinate our nation's education programs with our
workforce systems, and make both more responsive to the needs of the
U.S. labor market and economy. But a simple consolidation of many
programs into one does not necessarily help us achieve this goal.\vi\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\vi\ For a new proposal to promote more such integration and
coordination see Harry Holzer, Raising Job Quality and Skills for
American Workers: Creating More-Effective Education and Workforce
Development Systems in the States, the Hamilton Project, Brookings
Institution, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our nation's career and technical education, higher education and
workforce programs should operate together to better enable workers to
gain the credentials valued by employers. Industry- specific
partnerships between employers, education providers and workforce
agencies are a proven way of achieving this goal, while the existence
of clear ``career pathways'' for students and workers to gain these
credentials seems critical as well. Using available data to inform
students and educators of which sectors and jobs are in high-demand,
and incenting our education and workforce agencies to better meet this
demand, is important as well. In my view, the proposed Workforce
Investment Act of 2013 contains several key provisions that would move
us towards achieving these goals, though it is less clear that the
recent consolidation proposals would do so as well. This should be the
primary goal of any new workforce legislation in the coming years.
______
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Dr. Holzer.
I now recognize Mr. Gustafson for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF TODD GUSTAFSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
MICHIGAN WORKS! BERRIEN-CASS-VAN BUREN
Mr. Gustafson. Chairman Fox, Ranking Member Hinojosa, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify before the subcommittee today.
I am Todd Gustafson, and I am the executive director of
Michigan Works! Berrien-Cass-Van Buren, the Workforce
Investment Board serving the southwest corner of Michigan.
Our service region includes 278,000 people and covers both
rural and urban areas including Benton Harbor, one of the
poorest cities in the state of Michigan.
We are a market-driven organization where we strengthen
business. Our customer is the employer, which in turn has
enabled us to serve more people and to better assist job
seekers.
Our annual budget, which is diversified among the 41
different funding sources, ranges between $13 million and $16
million. Last year alone, we matched 3,100 jobseekers to jobs,
trained nearly 650 people, and raised over $3.5 million to
integrate with our federal funds.
Perhaps, most importantly, we pride ourselves on being
social entrepreneurs. Federally funded programs are the
foundation on which we build self-sustaining initiatives that
address our community's problems through an integrated approach
to business, workforce, and community development.
I applaud the members of the community for introducing
Workforce Investment Act, WIA, reauthorization legislation this
year. The time for action is now. The most recently introduced
SKILLS Act is a step in the right direction towards achieving
those objectives.
I have been asked to provide comments on some of those
proposed reform concepts. Number one; streamlining federal job
training programs. Eliminating and streamlining the existing 35
federally-funded workforce programs is vital to upgrading the
Nation's workforce system.
The system has to change and the system has to adapt as
other thriving industries and organizations have done. It is
equally important Congress has recognized streamlining begins
with them.
The practice of appropriating many new and siloed programs
fosters redundancies, increased costs, inhibits innovation, and
undermines outcomes.
Streamlining or consolidation, however, is not a new
concept. Take Michigan for example. Since the inception of WIA
in 1998, Michigan created a workforce system that combined or
integrated many federal funding sources such as Trade, WIA,
Employment Services, and even TANF.
Michigan's model has worked and has regularly outperformed
other states and including in the 17 performance measures of
WIA. We serve more businesses and often more individuals.
Taking this a step further to the local level, we have used
this model as an opportunity to further diversify our local
funding in order to make more significant strategic economic
impact.
Over the past 5 years we have, on average, raised nearly an
additional $3.5 million to integrate with our federal funding.
In fact, at one point, our local share of WIA money equated to
nearly 70 percent of our total budget.
After more integration and diversification it now accounts
for only about 35 percent. The difference though is our nearly
41 different funding sources are integrated to strategically
impact our region.
We have also seen important ancillary operational benefits
from this consolidation. We are able to more efficiently absorb
financial cuts or uncertainty, spread infrastructure costs
across multiple sources, and have increased fiscal
accountability and transparency.
Number two; strengthening the business engagement in
workforce investment boards. For boards to have the greatest
strategic impact and productivity they have to be business led
and be a manageable size. Locally run and accountable boards
governed by the end-user of the system, business, make the
system more responsive, innovative, and less bureaucratic.
Eliminating the 19 federal mandates on representation will
further strengthen business engagement. Requiring two-thirds of
board members to be employers will enhance the shift from a
supply-side design system to a demand-or market-driven system.
Three; creating a seamless workforce development system.
Redesignation, I understand, is potentially the most
controversial concept in the reform legislation. While it is
reasonable for states to have the ability to develop their own
workforce systems, it should not be at the expense of local
input. After all, the right to self-determination and being
locally responsive are two important aspects of the system's
strengths.
When a workforce investment board's service area prohibits
a regionalized economic growth strategy or is no longer optimal
because of contemporary labor market trends, then there
continue to be--there should be an equitable process between
the state and local boards to negotiate a service region.
Take, for example, our local community. When we explored
merging with our neighboring workforce board at one point, the
local business community and local elected officials determined
after further review that it made no sense, that the
communities were different, the focuses were different, and
ultimately, the missions of the organizations were different.
Some service regions many to be or should be altered or
redesignated. However, without collaborative process between
the state and locals, the potential to divide communities and
waste precious time, energy, and resources increases. It is
imperative there is an equitable redesignation process between
the locals and the states to minimize politics and service
disruption.
Finally, number four; requiring strategies that serve
various populations. Requiring strategies to serve various
populations is an important concept in the reform legislation.
Addressing it though starts with the workforce investment
boards being business-led and demanded-driven with the business
as the customer. These are the two first critical steps in
developing a strategy that best serves disadvantaged
populations.
Although we sometimes get pushback from our peers for being
demand-driven, we have actually done more to serve jobseekers,
matched them to jobs, trained them, and provided opportunities
to these disadvantaged populations.
Demand-driven is generally misunderstood as creaming only
the best and leaving behind the disadvantaged populations. That
is false. Being demand-driven starts with knowing what the
customer needs and finding people today and in the future who
match those evolving requirements.
But first, you have to know who the customer is. We don't
cream for our services or programming. We have actually
improved or added services and programming for jobseekers
especially disadvantaged people based on the gaps created by
the disconnect between our labor market demand and supply.
Again, thank you Madame Chairman for the opportunity to
speak before the committee.
[The statement of Mr. Gustafson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Todd Gustafson, Executive Director,
Michigan Works! Berrien-Cass-Van Buren
Chairman Foxx, Ranking Member Hinojosa, and Members of the
Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the
subcommittee. I am Todd Gustafson, and I am the Executive Director of
Michigan Works! Berrien-Cass-Van Buren, the workforce investment board
serving the southwest corner of Michigan.
Michigan Works! Berrien-Cass-Van Buren
Our mission is to serve as change agents to create solutions for
business, workforce and community challenges to promote the economic
vitality in the Southwestern Michigan region. Our service region
includes 278,000 people and covers both rural and urban areas,
including Benton Harbor, one of the poorest cities in the state of
Michigan. We are a market-driven organization where we strengthen
business. Our customer is the employer, which in turn has enabled us to
serve more people and better assist job seekers. Each year we serve
nearly 5,000 employers and over 20,000 job seekers. Our annual budget,
which is diversified amongst 41 different funding sources, ranges
between $13 and $16 million. Last year alone, we matched 3,100 job
seekers to jobs, trained nearly 650 people and raised $3.5 million to
integrate with our federal funds.
Perhaps most importantly, we pride ourselves on being social
entrepreneurs. Federally funded programs are the foundation on which
we've built self sustaining initiatives that address our communities'
problems through an integrated approach to business, workforce and
community development.
The Need for Reauthorization
I applaud the Members of the Committee for introducing Workforce
Investment Act (WIA) reauthorization legislation this year. As you are
aware, reauthorization is long overdue and while we politically
struggle to retool our workforce system global competitors, like China,
India and Brazil, who are heavily investing in their workforce, are
gaining a competitive advantage. The time for action is now.
If reauthorization is accomplished it will help provide U.S.
companies a competitive advantage in the global economy; enhance the
skills of the nation's workforce; reduce the budget deficit; and allow
for a more strategic, flexible and impactful use of limited resources.
The most recently introduced SKILLS Act is a step in the right
direction toward achieving those objectives. I've been asked to provide
comments on some of the proposed reform concepts in the SKILLS Act.
Streamlining Federal Job Training Programs
Eliminating and streamlining the existing 35 federally funded
workforce programs is vital to upgrading the nation's workforce system.
The system has to change. And the system has to adapt as other thriving
industries and organizations have done.
It's equally important Congress has recognized streamlining and
consolidation begins with them. The practice of appropriating many new
and siloed programs fosters redundancy, increases costs, inhibits
innovation and undermines outcomes.
Streamlining or consolidation, however, is not a new concept. Take
Michigan for example. At the inception of WIA in 1998, Michigan created
a workforce system where the multiple federally funded employment and
training related programs were consolidated at the local level. In
fact, Michigan's workforce system was one of the first systems in the
nation to integrate multiple programs, such as the Workforce Investment
Act, Employment Services (Wagner-Peyser), Trade Assistance Act, Food
Training and Employment (Food Stamps) and even Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (welfare) at the local level.
This delivery model has enhanced the workforce boards' operational
efficiency, increased fiscal transparency, and most importantly,
improved our impact with employers, job seekers and our local
economies. The states with disparate delivery systems often create
employer and job seeker confusion, dissatisfaction and little strategic
impact. Michigan's model has worked and has regularly outperformed
other states, including the WIA's 17 performance measures and in number
of businesses and individuals served.
Taking this a step further to the local level, we have used this
model as an opportunity to further diversify our local funding in order
to make a more significant strategic economic impact. Over the past
five years we have, on average, raised nearly an additional $3.5
million to integrate with our federal funding. In fact, at one point
our local share of WIA money equated to nearly 70% of our total budget.
After more integration and diversification it now accounts for only
about 35%. The difference though, is our nearly 41 different funding
sources, are integrated to strategically impact our region. We've also
seen important ancillary operational benefits from the consolidation.
We're able to more efficiently absorb financial cuts or uncertainty,
spread infrastructure costs across multiple sources and have increased
fiscal accountability and transparency.
Again, streamlining employment and training programs into a single
fund has already been done in places like Michigan. The model works. I
support the concept of creating an overarching Workforce Investment
Fund at the federal level. If done equitably with the interests and
needs of the states and the locals included in the design it can work.
And although the Michigan model works, continuous improvement via the
elimination and streamlining of funding streams at the federal level
will further benefit Michigan's workforce system.
Strengthening Business Engagement in Workforce Investment Boards
For boards to have the greatest strategic impact and productivity
they have to be business led and be a manageable size. Locally run and
accountable boards governed by the end-user of the system--business--
make the system more responsive, innovative and less bureaucratic.
Eliminating the 19 federal mandates on representation will further
strengthen business engagement. Requiring two-thirds of board members
to be employers will enhance the shift from a supply side designed
system to a demand or market driven system.
Mandating board representation stifles board member recruitment and
often forces the creation of large unmanageable and unengaged boards.
Eliminating mandates will also help attract higher caliber local
business and community leaders who otherwise feel disempowered and
ultimately uninterested among a large unfocused group. Smaller boards
are a best practice in both the private-for--profit and non-profit
sectors and should be applied to the government's workforce system.
The most highly functioning organizations are governed by boards
with quality, engaged leaders and are manageable in size and have
regular input from a diverse cross section of community leaders.
Create a Seamless Workforce Development System
Redesignation is potentially the most controversial concept in the
reform legislation. While it is reasonable for states to have the
ability to develop their own workforce systems, it should not be at the
expense of local input. Afterall, the right to ``self determination''
and being locally responsive are two important aspects of the system's
strengths.
When a workforce investment board's service area prohibits a
regionalized economic growth strategy or is no longer optimal because
of contemporary labor market trends, there should continue to be an
equitable process between the state and local board to negotiate a
service region.
Moreover, increasing governors' authority to dictate the boundaries
of workforce development service areas would undermine the intent of
the legislation to strengthen the system through business engagement.
It's the local business-led boards who best understand the dynamics of
their economy and generally, like the market, ignore politics. Cutting
these local leaders out of the process or reducing their influence
would potentially inject divisive politics, exactly at the time, when
local leaders should be focused on doing what's best for the local
economy.
Take for example, the region we serve. It's a three country area
with a population of 278,000 people. Our neighboring workforce board
serves an area with 314,000 people. Under current WIA legislation, the
governor has the ability, working with the locals, to redesignate our
service areas into one. Both politically and practically this may
appear to make sense and, in WIA, a process exists to make it happen.
Even though, we explored a potential merger, it was ultimately
determined, by our business-lead boards and local elected officials, it
wasn't a good idea. Although the regions are somewhat similar, the
needs of the communities within the greater region are different. Only
the locals could recognize that the two organizations had different
focuses, philosophies and missions. A merger would have detracted from
the work both organizations were doing.
Some service regions may need to be, or should be, altered or
redesignated.
However, without a collaborative process between the state and
locals the potential to divide communities and waste precious time,
energy and resources increases. Its imperative there is an equitable
redesignation process between locals and the states to minimize
politics and service disruption.
Require Strategies that Serve Various Populations
Requiring strategies to serve various populations is an important
concept in the reform legislation. Addressing it though, starts with
the workforce investment boards being business-led and demand driven
with business as the customer. These are the first two critical steps
in developing a strategy that best serves disadvantaged populations.
Although we sometimes get push back from our peers for being demand
driven, we've actually done more to serve, match to jobs, train and
provide opportunities to disadvantaged populations.
Demand driven is generally to be misunderstood as `creaming' only
the best or leaving behind disadvantaged populations. That's false.
Being demand driven starts with knowing what the customer needs and
finding people today and in the future to match those evolving
requirements. But first, you have to know who the customer is. We don't
`cream' for our services or programming. We've actually improved or
added services and programming for job seekers, especially
disadvantaged people, based on the gaps created by the disconnect
between our labor market demand and supply.
One of our highly encouraging examples is our Bridge Academy. This
is an alternative school we created cobbling together and streamlining
13 different public and private sector funding sources, including WIA.
We built it based on the recognition the at-risk youth we were serving
weren't prepared educationally or vocationally for the needs of
regional employers. We equip them with either a GED or High School
Diploma, vocational experience, work experience and ultimately a job.
As a result of this complex but important effort, we now have the
opportunity to really make significant transformation with the most in-
need populations and in the most challenging areas in our region.
Thank You
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee.
On behalf of Michigan Works! Berrien-Cass-Van Buren, including my board
chair and business owner, Jim Kadis, who is here, we thank you for the
opportunity to tell our story. We strongly believe in improving a
business-led, demand or market driven workforce system that encourages
and rewards innovation, efficiency, accountability and makes a
strategic regional impact. The concepts I commented on will undoubtedly
make our nation more globally competitive; enhance the skills of our
workforce; reduce the budget deficit; and make better use of our
limited resources.
______
Chairwoman Foxx. It is now time for members to ask
questions and normally the chair will start, but because I am
going to be here for the entire hearing and some members may
want to go other places, I am going to recognize other members
first.
I do want to make one point that I never miss the
opportunity to make, and the staff will be shaking their
heads--when I did my doctoral program at UNC Greensboro, I had
a wonderful professor who pointed out to people who used the
word training to apply to human beings that you train dogs and
you educate people.
I would like to say to all of you who use the word training
a great deal that you think about substituting education for
that word when possible because I feel pretty strongly about
that. I think we are working to educate people and not train
them because what we want them to be is lifelong learners and
if we do more educating rather than training I think that is
the direction in which we go.
So as I said, I never miss the opportunity to say that and
so, please think about that as you talk about this issue.
I would now like to recognize my distinguished colleague
from Michigan, Mr. Walberg.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Madame Chairman. And I wish my dad
had heard that dissertation on training. He wanted me to be
trained, but he also wanted me to be educated. I remember often
times him saying that education is a lifelong process. You will
never learn everything so learn how to learn.
But in the meantime, get a trade or a skill that for your
lifetime you can always fall back on if the education fails,
the training opportunity is there as well.
So I guess it is in perspective and I am glad, Madame
Chairman, that you have held this hearing today and have
forwarded the SKILLS Act idea because frankly in this day and
age and coming from Michigan as well, wrestling with the
challenges of a workforce that is shifting to a new and
different competition, global competition to have entities that
are concerned with meeting the needs of the real world today
and educating people for those real needs is huge.
Mr. Gustafson, it is good to see another Michigander who
fled the state for the recent snowstorm. Glad you are here. I
have had the pleasure in the last several weeks of meeting with
a number of your colleagues in Michigan Works! across my
district, Julie Montri of the Monroe chapter as well as Mike
Jones of the South-Central Michigan Works! program.
I have appreciated their emphasis on efficiency; updating
themselves to meet the needs that are in the field right now as
opposed to just moving forward with the same old same old.
As you know, Michigan's needs of the workforce employers'
vary greatly based upon the proximity, based upon geography,
based upon placement in our state. So I guess I would ask you
to review to some degree how would the SKILLS Act provide more
flexibility to Michigan Works! to serve the demands of both
employers and the jobseekers from Monroe to Marquette.
Mr. Gustafson. Thank you, Congressman. It is good to see
another Michigander. I think the SKILLS Act does provide the
flexibility that to some certain degree has been going on
already in Michigan especially with the streamlining of the
funds, which is so important at the operational level locally.
And many of us, but not all of us, have taken that a step
further to run our Michigan Works! like a business to where we
are integrating funds so we can better impact the employers,
our customer that we are serving, but the jobseekers as well.
So flexibility is very important. Does that answer your
question?
Mr. Walberg. Well, maybe a little bit more specifics.
Again, thinking of our state, which is I am sure were not
unlike a lot of other states. It is a changing, changing floor
plan that is there for our workforce.
Mr. Gustafson. As I mentioned to my testimony and in my
written testimony, we have recognized that the federal funding
that is provided to the locals is just a foundation and so what
we have done is gone out to attract additional resources as I
mentioned, 41 different funding streams, which is really
important and that has provided us the flexibility.
Now many of them have different rules and regulations and
it is very complex for the staff to manage, but at the end of
the day, we know that we are there for the community. So
anything that Congress can do to help us reduce the maze that
we talked about earlier will be extremely helpful at the local
level.
Creating a workforce investment fund like the SKILLS Act
does essentially helps create that one fund with less mandates
and restrictions and it actually will foster creativity which
we need to do, which we need at the local level in order to
make that labor exchange between the customer and job seekers.
Mr. Walberg. Okay. If you could expand on--in your
testimony you talked about the need for business involvement
with the workforce investment boards. Expand a bit on how the
SKILLS Act, as you have read it, would modify our current
system to give employers more of that contact and involvement.
Mr. Gustafson. Enhancing the business involvement in the
boards from 51 percent to two-thirds is really important
because the businesses are the key here. Also removing the 19
federal mandates on every partner to come to the table also
makes it more a manageable board.
Although those partners should still have input, I am not
sure the oversight and engagement of the board is necessary for
all of those different partners. If it is business led, they
know what their needs are. They can manage the board more
effectively, and so I think that is a really important point in
the legislation of the SKILLS Act; removing those 19 mandates,
making it more business led.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you.
Dr. Ralls, a number of great community colleges in my
district that provide services including to three of my kids.
I see my time has ended. Well, someone else will have to
ask that question. Thank you.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you.
Mr. Hinojosa, you are recognized.
Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you.
My first question is going to be to Dr. Ralls, but before I
ask the question, I couldn't help but listening to our chair
tell us about the difference between education and training.
I went to school at the University of Texas in Austin where
I got a BBA and an MBA and they taught me differently. They
taught me that we are in business to make a profit and you can
do that by raising revenues and reducing costs.
And I truly believe that football teams like those that we
produce at UT that have become national champions are trained
to do their job and be able to beat the opponents.
In business, I heard one of you say that local input is
very important and I believe in that, but I say that WIA is
responsible for helping train people for the jobs that are
available and that they do it well so that they can prosper.
As you, Dr. Ralls, may know, my bill, Workforce Investment
Act of 2013, would authorize a community college to career
fund, which is a new program proposed by President Obama last
year in 2012.
He said to us many times, ``We must do more with less,''
and that is what this program does. The fund would provide
competitive grants to community colleges working with
businesses and other workforce partners to build or expand
education and training programs for workers, including
disadvantaged individuals, to earn credentials and find
employment in high-growth industries such as healthcare and
advanced manufacturing.
Would the community colleges in North Carolina benefit from
a fund like this?
Mr. Ralls. Mr. Ranking Member, let me first begin by saying
I am a former community college president and I remember well
one year spending 23 percent of my equipment budget at a
community college to buy one CNC machine. I also work now with
58 community colleges and we have had to do more with less
serving 25 percent more students.
I am not against anything that would bring more resources
to America's community colleges, which I do personally believe
that the road to recovery in the United States is running right
through the middle of the community colleges in the United
States.
Mr. Hinojosa. I agree with you fully.
Mr. Ralls. That being said, I think that what I would hope
is that moving forward in terms of reauthorization and reforms
to the Workforce Investment Act would not be slowed by any
other efforts because I think what is integral to move forward
is that the community colleges in the United States, which I
think are at the front lines of workforce education, that they
would be an integrated and integral part of the workforce
system moving forward and not just a source of competitive
grants in the future.
Mr. Hinojosa. I agree with you, and I want to say that
President Obama gave us $2 billion for community colleges about
2 or 3 years ago and they did so well with it that he put in an
additional $8 billion for community colleges in his proposed
budget.
So I agree with you fully. I am going to have to ask
questions to try to get to all four of you. I thank you for
your response.
Dr. Holzer, finding--or rather, funding for federal job
training programs has been cut by more than 30 percent in the
past 10 years from $4.8 billion in 2002, to a smaller number of
$2.6 billion in 2013.
Of that amount, more than $1 billion in cuts just since
2010. So they have been drastic. To make matters worse,
critical employment and training programs stand to lose
billions more under the current threat of sequestration which
you mentioned.
Such cuts would result in dramatic reductions in training
for the unemployed and other disadvantaged workers and cutbacks
on services for employers seeking skilled workers. Can you
elaborate on your testimony and explain how consolidation and
budget sequestration could further reduce those financial
resources for individuals with employment barriers?
Mr. Holzer. I am happy to do so, and thank you for your
question. Very simply, sequestration will impose large cuts--if
it is ongoing--will impose large cuts on non-defense
discretionary spending. That will cut into many programs of
which this is just one prominent example, and it does seem to
me that consolidation is frequently used as justification for
cutting budgets.
Budget Committee Chair Ryan and many others have often
quoted the benefits of consolidation in arguing for further
reductions in these budgets. So it seems to me that that is
often the intent of these consolidations.
We hear a lot about the 40 plus programs and all the waste
in those programs. I regard that figure as a very misleading
because again, if one looks carefully at the GAO report, three
programs account for about 80 percent of all of those dollars;
WIA, TANF, and Voc/Rehab, and all of the other 40-plus are
really very, very small and involve very few dollars.
And with so few dollars spent, the amount of waste that is
alleged simply can't be that large. It also seems to me that
there is quite rigorous evaluation evidence that the current
WIA program is cost effective and I cite the research of
Professor Carolyn Heinrich at the University of Texas and
several of her colleagues who have done some very good research
indicating that core and intensive services at the current one-
stops as well as what is referred to as training in the
legislation appears to be cost-effective as well.
So the argument that the current system is completely
broken and that there is this massive waste of resources I
think doesn't hold up when one looks carefully at the numbers.
Interestingly, my colleagues here who spoke very
impressively about very fine activities going on in Florida and
Michigan and North Carolina, those things all do sound
impressive. I simply point out that that there was enough
flexibility within the current WIA system for all of those
things to occur.
I would also point out that a few years ago in Michigan,
there was a program called, ``No Worker Left Behind'' where
funds from many different pots were combined into one program,
and I was told that 150,000 workers were effectively trained,
and so there was sufficient flexibility in the system to
accomplish that. So to me, the issue is much less consolidation
but funding available.
Mr. Hinojosa. Our time has run out, Dr. Holzer, but I thank
you so much. Possibly you could give me something in more
detail because I think that you are hitting the nail on the
head, and I want to continue your thinking.
With that, Madame Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Holzer. Thank you.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you.
I recognize Mr. Guthrie.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman. I appreciate
that very much. I am pleased to be back on the committee and
one reason I was on before, left, and then came back is for
this issue.
My family has a manufacturing business. My dad worked for
Ford Motor Company in the town I grew up in when you were--my
senior year of high school. So at the end of my senior year,
one guy said this and it was absolutely true.
He said, ``You guys are all going to college. I know
somebody that has pull that can get me on at Ford and I will
make more money than you will.'' And that was absolutely a true
statement and a legitimate--for the most part--and a legitimate
economic decision for someone to make in my high school our
senior year. By May of our graduation, Ford announced they were
closing the plant.
The people who had skills were able to go somewhere else
and work and people who didn't--our town was devastated. So
this is something real important to me because I saw people
that I grew up with fathers--my father actually had worked his
way through the plant up into--worked his way through college
and he did it on his own. He did it at night and weekends so he
had some other decisions that he was able to make and started
his own manufacturing business.
So I just say that to say this. We needed tool and die
makers when we started. We needed industrial maintenance
people. We needed all of these others, and we found a whole
floor full of unskilled people who were very smart in high
school but nobody told them or they didn't figure it out until
they got into the workforce and so we partnered with the
community colleges to get them educated.
That is where our tool and die makers are today. They
started out working out working in the factory for the most
part; it is hard to hire one. You have to create them and there
are a lot of smart people that just didn't get the opportunity.
And so my question I guess to practitioners in the field,
the three of you that have--when somebody shows up you talk
about flexibility because all of us want to get more training
dollars to the worker to train them for jobs that people are
wanting to hire.
And so when we talk about more flexibility, do you have
examples of when somebody shows up or a group of employers show
up and say we need industrial maintenance people, which I am
sure you have heard that, do you have any manufacturing
anywhere near your facility you do?
Or where somebody shows up and you say, I am--you know, the
perfect course for action but the bureaucracy, the red tape,
what you have to do career counseling, you have got to do
resume training, you have got to do all of this before we can
even put you in a program.
So you are asking for flexibility. Could you give us
examples of where the lack of it has really delayed your
ability to implement or even cost money in terms of putting it
into the program to train--actually taking money away from
training because you had to follow red tape?
Since you are asking for the relief, it be--your--some
examples? All the three--I start with Mr. Hart--I guess--the
three of you who practice this----
Mr. Hart. Okay. Thank you, and I think specifics are always
helpful. So as we are looking at the flexibility of the fund,
let us put it this way. You are describing a marketplace and
marketplaces are dynamic. Global marketplaces are even more
dynamic. You all use budgets. We all use budgets and they all
have specific line items. This is no different.
So if you are using WIA and you have got your adult, your
dislocated worker, your youth, or if you are bringing in some
Wagner-Peyser dollars, or if you have TANF dollars or FSET, now
known as SNAP, all those fall under specific budget categories
and so if you maintain the silos rather than putting them into
one fund, you have to follow the prescriptions that you are
given.
Now there is some current funding flexibility, move some of
the funds around, but I don't think to the greatest degree
possible in terms of what we need to meet the market's needs.
So here is a specific. AO Precision is a company in Volusia
County. They need CNC machinists. They are working with our
community college it there in the area, Daytona State College,
as well as other training providers. We are agnostic as to
whether they would be public or private. We simply want to
ensure that the marketplace has what it needs.
They need immediately 40 or so CNC machinists. That is a
lot. They tell us that they can expand up to 141. We do not, in
that local area, have the funds necessary to meet that
business' needs given the funding restraints that we have.
Mr. Guthrie. The yellow light just came on. So we are only
going to get to your example it looks like.
Mr. Hart. Sorry.
Mr. Guthrie. So is it a lack--no--I want you to answer. Is
it the lack of--I know everybody can use more funds--or is it
the lack of being able to move your funds to accommodate that
need? Because I know exactly where--we are looking for CNC
people too those are well-paying up----
Mr. Hart. Right.
Mr. Guthrie. You can be in the middle class if you are a
CNC operator.
Mr. Hart. There is a lot of money out there. I believe that
we need a talent supply system.
Mr. Guthrie. So what prevented you from creating a program?
I mean why--in what we are doing here--what in the current law
prevented you from being able to fully do the program the way
you wanted to do it?
Mr. Hart. It is the prescription that comes down from the
feds for the use of certain funds for certain populations, for
certain uses of certain funds, for certain purposes. There is
some flexibility. I believe that there needs to be more in
order to meet the market's needs which we all agree----
Mr. Guthrie. I've got one point before the red light. So if
somebody worked for that company in an unskilled--say they were
a dock loader and they says, well I want to be a CNC operator
because they are probably pay twice as much as the dock loader,
can they go through your program or do they have to be
unemployed to go through your program?
Mr. Hart. Madame Chair, if I may?
We can get to them a couple of different ways. We can
either do employed worker training if they are existing or
incumbent worker training at the state level or they can come
through some of the other----
Mr. Guthrie. But it is easier if they got laid off from the
company and then came back to work for your program--is it
easier to----
Mr. Hart. No, no sir.
Mr. Guthrie. They can't----
Mr. Hart. Not necessarily, but if we have the funding
flexibility, then we can more readily meet the needs of that
person whether they be a dislocated worker, a recently
unemployed worker, or a current or existing worker.
Mr. Guthrie. Okay, thank you.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you.
Ms. Bonomici?
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Foxx and
Ranking Member Hinojosa for holding this hearing today, and to
the witnesses for informing us so much about the workforce
investment system in the country.
The 1st District in Oregon, which I am honored to represent
is the home to the Silicon Forest, it is like the Silicon
Valley only with trees. It is a cluster of high-tech firms and
businesses like Intel, Nike, and Genentech that employ,
thousands of workers in Oregon, but there are also a lot of
small businesses in the district that share the concern about
finding adequately skilled workers to fill their open jobs.
So there is a skills gap in Oregon like there is across the
country that is presenting a serious challenge for employers
and workforce investment systems alike.
Because of this skills gap, I am going to be reintroducing
the WISE Investment Act which addresses this skills gap on a
local level through a designated liaison who will strengthen
the relationship and work with workforce investment boards, the
business community, and community colleges to evaluate how the
services can be improved with the goal of eliminating that
skills gap.
So, Dr. Holzer, you spoke about the goals of the WISE
Investment Act in your testimony when you discussed the need
for education institutions and workforce systems to work
together so they are more responsive to the needs of the U.S.
labor market and the economy.
So our workforce investment system needs to be dynamic and
responsive to the needs of local employers and I think everyone
has testified to that and the WISE Investment Act would allow
them to do just that; innovation to improve, coordinate, and
streamline programs should be our first priority, not the
unproven strategy of simply consolidation.
So will you please expand on how consolidation of WIA
programs might negatively impact our ability to innovate and
improve workforce programs?
Mr. Holzer. Thank you for that question. Consolidation may
or may not work. As the GAO report points out, we have no
evidence one way or the other. It is likely that reducing some
administrative costs would free up a small amount of
resources--I indicate small because as I said, the vast
majority of funds spent are simply in these three programs
already that are combinable under the current system.
Consolidation threatens the performance of the system if it
is accompanied by significant budget cutting and that is what I
hear over and over again. Members of Congress arguing we don't
need as much money because we are now combining and
consolidating these 40-plus programs as if there were so many
dollars spent in the vast majority of those 40-plus programs
that we would be freeing up a lot of resources.
The facts, I think, contradict that point of view. I am a
strong supporter of community colleges working more closely
with the workforce system and being responsive to the labor
market and the demand side of the labor market.
I think there are many ways in which that responsiveness
doesn't exist right now. We send many millions of people
through community colleges who don't finish anything, don't
emerge with any credential recognized by industry and by
employers.
There are many reasons for that. I think part of it is that
our community colleges are so cut off from our workforce
agencies. A lot of those people attending would in fact benefit
greatly and would finish their degree programs if they had some
core services, some intensive counseling, some career
counseling, some testing, some access to labor market
information that could be much better analyzed at the state and
local level than it is today.
As I said, combining the different programs into one and
then cutting their budgets moves us no closer to that goal. In
fact, it makes it more difficult because of even fewer dollars.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you so much.
And I want to ask Dr. Ralls a question too. Before I went
to the University of Oregon and the University of Oregon Law
School, I spent 2 years at a community college, Lane Community
College in Eugene, and got a great education there as well.
So as a community college graduate, I am particularly
concerned about the SKILLS Act proposal to eliminate the
requirement that representatives from community colleges sit on
workforce investment boards. And I know, Dr. Ralls, in your
testimony you urge improving WIA so the job training and
community colleges are a more integral part of our Nation's
efforts in this regard.
So will you please elaborate a little bit on that statement
a talk about the positive contributions of community colleges
to local workforce investment programs, but particularly to
boards? Thank you.
Mr. Ralls. Well, I think our community colleges in North
Carolina serve on many of the boards throughout the state and
play very important role and our community colleges are an
integral part of our system in North Carolina.
I think across the United States, community colleges can
play a much more integrated role with the workforce system and
particularly the issue of skills training and workforce
education. As we talk about the need for new skills and up
skilling, one of the things we have to keep in mind is when we
look at our Workforce Investment Act system it is not just
about how many categories of program streams we have, it is
about how many people do we serve and what services do they
receive.
So for instance, one study in 2010 indicated I think that
you know in the two programs where you indicated there were 80
percent, the adult programs and the dislocated worker programs
approximately 13 percent of the WIA participants received some
form of skills training. So that is why I believe that it is
important for this system to move workforce education from the
bottom of the sequence of servicing list to the front.
That is why I believe it is important for workforce boards
to be able to directly contract with community colleges because
as we talk about a Workforce Investment Act that invests in
skills training, the truth is, the majority of participants who
are going through the Workforce Investment Act programs are not
receiving that very important service, particularly in the time
of a skills gap.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you so much and I see my time has
expired.
Thank you, Madame Chairwoman.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you.
Mr. Heck, Dr. Heck, you are recognized.
Mr. Heck. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman for holding the
hearing today and for including within the SKILLS Act language
which is from my bill from last Congress regarding the
workforce investment board structure and governance.
I want to thank the panel members for being here today and
I will say--I will start off--I am a little disappointed to
hear that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are
reluctant to embrace the President's call to quote ``Cut
through the maze of confusing training programs so that from
now on people have one program, one Web site, and one place to
go for all the information and help that they need,'' end
quote.
Now in the 112th Congress, we held a field hearing on this
issue out in my district, Nevada's 3rd District. Nevada has the
highest unemployment rate in the nation. I think we are tied
with Rhode Island now so I thank Rhode Island for helping us
out there.
And in part, that's due to the loss of about 70,000
construction jobs in our area because construction represented
about 12.5 percent of our workforce where the national average
is only about 5 percent.
So the question is how can we ensure state and local boards
focus on developing and strengthening the strategic
partnerships necessary to get the in-demand industries, with
in-demand industries, to make sure that we are preparing people
for the jobs that are and will be as opposed to the jobs that
were.
And I will start with you, Mr. Gustafson, if you would like
to take a crack at that.
Mr. Gustafson. Thanks, Congressman, for the question. Could
you repeat the last part again?
Mr. Heck. Yes. How do we strengthen the strategic
partnerships with in-demand industries to make sure that we are
preparing workers for the jobs that are and will be as opposed
to the jobs that were?
Mr. Gustafson. Well, I think that really could be led off
with the requirement for the boards to be demand-driven. It is
not just have a business representative on there but like we do
locally, businesses from the sectors in our region that are in
in-demand high-growth sectors. So it is not randomly taking a
business person out there.
Second, allowing for the flexibility for the local elected
officials to determine who else they want to put on the board
is really important because we have very strong relationships
with our community colleges and in fact, both community
colleges sit on our board.
However, some areas do not have that and it should be up to
the locals to determine whether they are on or not. By having
the board folks from in-demand high-growth sectors, we get
better intelligence on what is going on in that regional
economy and what their needs are, not only as specific business
owners but as a region and as a sector within that region.
Mr. Heck. Thank you.
Mr. Hart, anything to add on that?
Mr. Hart. Okay. Thank you very much. Great question. So I
think there's three ways that the boards can help at state and
regional levels and that is through Scan Focus Act.
They can help scan the marketplace. They can do that
through supply/demand gap analysis. They can look at customer
satisfaction survey index results from both what we call
infrastructure industries like our global trade logistics, our
energy, our water areas, or for us, our target industries
clusters like life sciences, financial services, IT, advanced
manufacturing.
And then working with target industry cluster task force
teams. We do that in Florida where we actually pull together C-
suite individuals to help us understand what is happening in
the marketplace today but even more importantly where they are
going in the future.
Then bringing all of that information combined back in to
work with all of our talent supply chain partners so that we
can work with our colleges, our universities, as well as the K-
12 system. That is what we are doing in Florida and it seems to
be working very well for us.
Mr. Heck. Dr. Ralls?
Mr. Ralls. I hate to sound like a broken record, but when
we are talking about new and emerging jobs that require new
skills, then you have to have some form of workforce education
and skills training, and in that regard I think that needs to
be a much more central part of the Workforce Investment Act
system than the data indicates that it is right now.
That means that education and training services cannot be
at the bottom of the list of a sequence of services. It must be
moved to the top and I think that is something that this bill
attempts to correct.
Mr. Heck. Thanks.
And Dr. Holzer, anything to add on how you think we can
strengthen those strategic partnerships?
Mr. Holzer. I agree, by the way, that I would like to see
more education and training provided within the system. Both
bills--The Workforce Act of 2013 also eliminates the sequence
of services. There really isn't any disagreement on that and I
agree with many of the comments that my colleagues here at the
table have made.
Again, I point out that they have been able to do a great
deal of that within the current framework of WIA and that
consolidating and cutting the funding will not improve their
ability to do so.
I think within the Workforce Act of 2013, there is a lot of
attention played to building sector partnerships using data
more effectively than that data is used now about where the
demand is, what are the growth sectors over the next several
years, and then building the career pathways and the industry
partnerships to meet that demand. So I think we all share that
goal.
Mr. Heck. Excellent. Well thank you, thank you all very
much for your answers.
And thank you, Madame Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Dr. Heck.
Mrs. McCarthy?
Mrs. McCarthy. Thank you, Madame Chair, and thank you for
having this hearing. I find it very interesting and to my
ranking member.
You know, listening to all of you on both sides of the
aisle, I don't see where we can't work together and come out
with a good bill. We are not that far apart. Many of us on this
committee were here in 1998. We did work together. We put
everything together, and yes, now we are here in the year 2013,
and it needs to be updated.
So I am having a hard time because I think everybody keeps
talking over each other and saying, you know, I am listening
to--certainly our community college is the most important thing
because they are on the local level and they see what is going
on.
They certainly work with all of our business people and
they meet all of the time so I particularly think that yes, we
have to go forward and hopefully we can work together through
this committee before we go to the full committee and come to
an agreement on what is going to work. Each state is different.
Each state is representing different manufacturing jobs,
which, by the way, are coming back. You know, and if you look
at China, which certainly for many, many years was a very
uneducated country, they spend--I can't remember the exact
amount but it is a heck of a lot more money than what we spend
for those workers.
And Dr. Holzer, you know, when you talk about all of the
different parts and the thing up there, there is a reason for
that, because there was a population out there that we are not
getting into the better jobs so we wanted to make sure that
that population could come into the workforce and improve their
lives. There are reasons for all of that being done.
So I will go to Mr. Gustafson, you know, when you talk
about making the board smaller and you know I can understand in
some smaller communities you might want to have that but
representation of whatever is in the community or in that part
of the state for the education, you have to hear those voices
and a lot of those voices do come from the community college
but they also come from the little small business and they also
come from the larger manufacturing.
I know on Long Island, right now, we are going in more into
a high-tech healthcare. Healthcare will probably take over Long
Island where we used to be the top manufacturer of military.
One of the problems that I found--and I am sure that you
are seeing that in the community college--we don't have enough
professors to teach everybody to go into the healthcare field.
That is a big issue.
So probably on that, I disagree. I think all you know
having--I have--you know, I have gone to meetings. We have 20
or 30 people. Yes they are probably an hour longer than what
they usually are, but the ideas are coming out from them and
that is where everybody comes together and says okay. These are
the things that work. So, please.
Mr. Gustafson. So thanks, Congresswoman. I don't disagree
with you in that there--but it should be a local decision on
who should be included in the board in addition to the business
folks because in some areas of the community, colleges, for
example, might have a different focus or partner in a different
way.
So it should be the local leaders who say yes, this is a
partner we want at the table rather than having someone in
Lansing--in Michigan or Washington, D.C. dictate to us locally
who should be at the table.
And I do agree that it is necessary, as do my board members
and my board chair is here who owns a manufacturing company,
they will be the first to say we need more input from the
community and we do need other partners at the table and we
don't want to do this or go at it alone.
Mrs. McCarthy. But I also think that is where the
flexibility comes in and I think that certainly from a number
of things that President Obama has done he is looking at that
flexibility. He talked about that. He has also talked very
strongly about consolidating a lot of the programs that aren't
working and I think we all can agree on that.
Dr. Holzer, when I talk about the investment that we make
for our workers versus India, China, some of the other
industrial nations, it is embarrassing, to be very honest with
you, what we invest.
Mr. Holzer. I agree with you. That again, the right way to
think about this is as a percent of GDP. We have a $16 trillion
GDP with 150 million workers. The total dollars, $18 billion in
the system, constitutes \1/10\th of one percent of that amount
relative to all other industrial countries--not even talking
about the--the brick nations, the newly emerging countries.
We should be more comparable with many industrialized
countries and they are spending more than we are spending and
even if you include the amount of money we spend on community
colleges, if you include Pell grants, A--that fact still holds,
and B--there is enormous waste within those systems too and we
do need to better align those systems, the community colleges,
the workforce agencies to break down those silos. It doesn't
seem to me that this consolidation that is described here today
helps accomplish that.
And I think many features and you know your opening
statement about there is a lot of overlap, there really is. And
as you read both bills, you see a lot of attention to measuring
in-demand industries and occupations in trying to make all of
the system more responsive to that.
I simply don't think we accomplish that by one more round
of cutting funds, which we have been doing continually now for
about 30 years.
Mrs. McCarthy. Thank you very much.
And thank you.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you.
Mrs. Brooks?
Mrs. Brooks. I represent Indiana's 5th District. Before
doing that I actually was a senior leader in our state's
community college system in Indiana, Ivy Tech Community
College. I also served on the state's workforce board and most
recently have visited with EmployIndy, the Indianapolis
workforce board.
I had not been involved in the workforce investment system
until I joined Ivy Tech in 2007, and I must share that it is
probably the most bureaucratic, most complicated system I have
ever seen in federal government, and I have been in federal
government in the past as a U.S. attorney.
My question is about how many of these billions of dollars
is actually getting to training. When you have state workforce
boards, local workforce boards, regional operators, one-stop
shops--at the very bottom on that chart or in the middle of
that chart was the worker, was the unemployed or, the you know,
undereducated and underemployed worker.
And with all of the programs that the various boards have
to administer, all of the reporting requirements, all of the
different funding streams, how can this SKILLS Act in your
opinion help to get the most bang for our buck to the worker
for training.
I think if the American people knew how little of each
dollar--and I am curious what you all think in your states; how
much of each dollar is actually going to train that worker, and
to educate, to Chairman Foxx's point, to educate that worker--
there are state employees, federal employees all administering
all of this, and of the number of back-office workers that have
to fill out all of the reports for the 47 programs is taking
away from the actual money going to that worker.
And so I am curious what your thoughts on this SKILLS Act--
how can we maximize the training dollars, the education dollars
going to that worker? And does this SKILLS Act get to that?
Does the new governance structure in this SKILLS Act get to
that? And you know, maybe we will start with Mr. Gustafson, who
deals with as a local--a local administrator, I have never seen
such a maze and a bureaucracy.
Mr. Gustafson. Thank you, Congresswoman. Can I just go
last? [Laughter.]
Yes, that is a concern of our local board and of me. The
amount of money that actually goes to the job seeker. And with
the maze of programs that we have mentioned here, we have done,
we have strived at the local level as much as we possibly can
to consolidate and get as much money possibly to the job seeker
service.
In fact, my board, which again I am advocating for local
control, my board has put a cap on us locally to say we are
going to spend 30, at least 35 percent, at least 35 percent of
our monies on training and that number seems small, but that is
expensive especially in working with our community partners.
Although a small number, that is only 35 percent of WIA's
money. We have then recognized, we need to get other monies
because the federal monies we have don't, there isn't enough
money to serve all of the population, so we have gone out and
attracted other monies.
What another concern of mine is, especially in the way the
system is structured, where you have the money that goes to the
states, the state takes their share of it then it gets down,
pass down to the locals, and the locals take their share of it,
then the locals pass it out to multiple contractors, and they
take their share it.
So by the end of the day, the job seeker or the customer in
this case aren't getting served as well as they can. So if we
can do anything and the one thing that the workforce investment
fund of this SKILLS Act does is it starts to reduce and provide
provisions to reduce that structure so it does get to the job
seeker.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you.
Any other states like to comment about percentage of
dollars actually getting to training? You mentioned 35 percent.
I commend you for that because some states I believe are as low
as 15, 20 percent of each dollar is actually going to training
and education.
Mr. Ralls. Data I have seen going to 2010 showed wide
variance actually as low as 2 percent of the participants and
up to 80 percent in terms of participating in training, which
is great variance in that regard.
I do believe skills, workforce education should be at the
forefront of this system and I think simplification of the
system will make a difference because for instance, in our
system, we serve one out of every eight adults in our state.
We take particular pride in that we are the road to
opportunity for low income and working folks. And I suspect
that from all of the different categories and funding streams,
we have folks throughout our system in our different education
and training programs, but ultimately, we are going to have to
get more individuals into those opportunities to truly meet the
skills gap and I think provide individuals the opportunity that
the federal--the national workforce system can truly provide.
Mr. Hart. Thank you, Madame Chair.
Very, very quickly, yes ma'am. So I think through the state
plans, the unified plans we can ensure that whether it be the
state level, the local level, or our training providers that
when everybody takes a cut as Mr. Gustafson said, it is always
value add. So that will be value add, so that will be a value
add based on performance.
In our state, we have a something we call the 50 percent
ITA reserved requirement. That is for training dollars, but in
Florida, what we have done is we have ensured that that is not
simply classroom training. It can be online training, it can be
customized training, so that when we are talking about training
dollars to the system, those training dollars go to the
individuals and to the businesses that need it most.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you.
Dr. Holt?
Mr. Holt. I thank the chair.
I wanted to go through several questions. So I would ask
the response--I would ask the responders to be as quick as
possible. First of all, Mr. Holzer, in 10 or 15 seconds, do you
have at your fingertips some comparisons with other countries
in what is spent on public, publicly on training? What
percentage of GDP?
Mr. Holzer. I don't have them at my fingertips right now,
but I can cite them in the literature.
Mr. Holt. Please, please if you can provide those. Thanks.
You know, a lot of the debate here is about flexibility. I
think Mr. Holzer, you have, Dr. Holzer, you have made the point
that there already is a lot of flexibility. And I would add is
that the role of the federal government is not to just provide
money.
The reason we are in this is also to ensure fairness and to
correct inequalities so it is not just a matter of leaving a
bushel basket of money at the states.
You know, the local industries could do that. And we don't
want to provide so much flexibility that we only end up serving
powerful local interests or ignoring the difficult cases and
serving only the easy cases.
Let me ask all four of you quickly, looking at the four
laws, the existing one, the SKILLS Act, and the Tierney/
Hinojosa Bill, do any of them and do a good job looking at best
practice? And we have got 600 WIBs we have got lots of states
are doing this in different ways.
There already is some flexibility and we can argue whether
it is sufficient. How about identifying best practice and
communicating and replicating that.
Mr. Holzer. I will take a stab at it, I think.
Mr. Holt. Okay.
Mr. Holzer. If you look at the evaluation evidence, the
rigorous evaluation evidence, what is clear is that there is a
set of programs called sectorial programs where you target
funds towards sectors that are clearly growing in local and
state economies. You build partnerships between industry, the
workforce agencies, service providers to meet that demand, and
they work together.
That does seem to be the best practice. I would argue that
the Workforce Investment Act of 2013 probably pays more
attention and does more to encourage, even require, those
partnerships and paying attention to those data on sector than
any of the other efforts you have mentioned, and I think it is
much closely aligned with the evaluation----
Mr. Holt. Briefly, Mr. Hart or Dr. Ralls. Do any of these
bills do a better or worse job in identifying best practice?
Mr. Hart. Great question, Congressman Holt. I think the
SKILLS Act follows much of what Florida put together back in
2000 through the Workforce Innovation Act of 2000 and that is
where we have been able to consolidate many of those funds, all
around the mission of helping all Floridians enter, remain, and
advance.
Mr. Holt. That is not answering the question I am asking, I
don't think. Is it?
Mr. Hart. I think it is, Mr. Holt, because you asked for
best practice and we have had that act in place for----
Mr. Holt. A mechanism for identifying----
Mr. Hart [continuing]. For 13 years.
Mr. Holt [continuing]. Best practice.
Mr. Hart. I am sorry?
Mr. Holt. A mechanism for identifying and communicating
best practice and replicating it.
Mr. Hart. Oh, okay. Yes, absolutely. I think by having a
business-led board, that helps out a lot because the focus of
that business-led board will bring to both the state and of the
local----
Mr. Holt. The market will provide that.
Mr. Hart. The market definitely will provide for all
parties whether disadvantaged or otherwise.
Mr. Holt. Dr. Ralls.
Mr. Ralls. I truly can't speak to all the bills because I
have not read them, but what I can say is from our experience
in North Carolina, we do believe simplification is better.
And----
Mr. Holt. Okay.
Mr. Gustafson, have you read the bills?
Mr. Gustafson. I have not had a chance to read them.
Mr. Holt. Another question. We have talked about the role
of community colleges. What about local libraries? It
certainly--I have observed in New Jersey they are already
playing a big role. Should they be incorporated in,
legislatively, into the training employment program?
Let me take it in reverse order. Mr. Gustafson.
Mr. Gustafson. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Holt. Do you have any comments on that?
Mr. Gustafson. I would say the more mandates, the less
flexibility at the local level and we have a very good strong
partnership with our libraries. We do a lot of--provide a lot
of services through them, but if it was mandated and the
economy changed, we wouldn't have the flexibility to meet the--
be responsive to our local economy.
Mr. Holt. Dr. Holzer?
Mr. Hart. I would agree with that as well and----
Mr. Holt. Dr. Holzer, I am sorry.
Mr. Hart. Oh, sorry.
Mr. Holzer. I have no particular knowledge of that issue.
Mr. Holt. Okay.
Yes, Mr. Hart.
Mr. Hart. I would agree with Mr. Gustafson, and we do
incorporate the libraries at the local level.
Mr. Holt. Dr. Ralls.
Mr. Ralls. I believe libraries can play a very important
role particularly in the rural areas, but I think the local
boards are best to make that determination about how they play
given their area distinctions.
Mr. Holt. Just what I expected in the answers.
Thank you.
Chairwoman Foxx. Mr. Yarmouth?
Mr. Yarmouth. Thank you, Madame Chair.
Thank you all for your testimony, and I would agree with
many of the comments made before that it seems like in general,
we all want the same thing. We want programs that are
effective, that reach the most people, that help match skills
and education with the jobs that are available and will be
available, and also create innovation, which ultimately we all
want.
I have a couple of concerns about SKILLS Act and one has
been mentioned and that is the issue of basically I think the
balance of power on the workforce investment boards.
And while I understand, certainly, the need for business
community input, I would disagree with the characterization,
Mr. Gustafson, that this is, you want a demand-driven rather
than supply-driven because I would take the position that that
we are here to serve the citizens of the country not
necessarily the businesses.
And understanding that we rely to a certain extent or to a
great extent on employers to employ our citizens I think I
would kind of reflect on the Chair's comments about education
versus training and that subtle distinction and the idea that a
first grader today the odds are that 60 percent of the jobs
that the first grader entering school today will encounter
don't exist yet.
It indicates to me that we want that flexibility to educate
and prepare as much as to match people up, but that I think has
been explored enough.
My primary concern just with SKILLS Act is the idea of
block granting these funds to the state and I come from the
district that when you include the entire economic region in
the marketplace, employs about 30 percent of all of the people
who are employed in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
There is no way that we ever get 30 percent of any dollar
that comes to the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and this is
replicated of course across the country.
In our Northern Kentucky area the situation is reversed
where people in the Northern Kentucky area are part of the
Cincinnati economy as well. But I wonder and I will just throw
it out there, we are facing a political competition
essentially--we would be if we block granted all of these
programs to the states, and is that a concern that any of you
share that certain areas such as mine would be at a
disadvantage in terms of benefiting from that kind of the
structure?
Dr. Holzer?
Mr. Holzer. Well, in fact the GAO report, which again is
the report always cited in support of consolidation--says very
clearly that one of the great risks of the consolidation of the
block granting is that rural areas will be shortchanged in this
process and that rural areas often require more one-stops in
greater attention to services and many of the citizens in both
the rural and urban areas are often left out.
With all due respect to my colleague, and I think paying
attention to demand is very important and employers have to be
at the table, but when I took economics, I am taught that
supply as well as demand both matter. And when you look at the
supply side, when you look at groups that are often targeted by
some of these current efforts, dislocated workers, veterans,
disconnected youth, these are all groups that could easily be
lost in the shuffle in a program that simply block grants and
puts it purely at the discretion of local administrators of how
to spend the money.
These are not the groups, by the way, that often have a
great deal of power and political pull in any of these
locations and they are not the favorites of most employers.
So I think a balanced system that pays attention to
employers, but of the difficulties of these target populations,
that kind of balance, I think has to be preserved and block
granting doesn't necessarily do that.
Mr. Yarmouth. Thank you for that. I probably attend one or
two events a month involving our Workforce Investment Act
entity, Kentucky Works, and many of them are involving
disadvantaged youth employment for summer for young people and
many community organizations, and I am concerned about those
groups being deemphasized and getting lost in the shuffle here.
Mr. Hart.
Mr. Hart. Yes, sir. Great--I think it is a great question.
In the state of Florida, we are the fourth, soon to be third
largest state, 19th largest economy in the world, but a little-
known fact is of our 67 counties, 31 of them are rural.
And so that is a concern for us always and forever; how we
take care of those rural counties. And so in some cases, what
we have done with some of our state discretion is being able to
take up to say a 30 percent of the fund, block that out for a
6-month period of time and say that that will go to those rural
communities should they have a need over and above perhaps, you
know, what would have come through formula.
At the end of the 6 months though, we then have the ability
to pull that back in for general use throughout. There are
mechanisms where we can still maintain our flexibility at the
state and local levels but also respond very clearly to our own
particular and unique needs.
Mr. Yarmouth. I appreciate all those comments.
Thank you, Madame Chair.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you.
Mrs. Davis?
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Thank you, Madame Chair.
Thank you all for being here. I wonder if we could shift
for just a second to talk about veterans programs and the
extent to which you see integration. We keep talking
consolidation. I think integration obviously is critically
important.
I think, Dr. Holzer, you particularly mentioned that in
your fourth point. What do you see from what we are looking at
and talking about right now addresses the issue of licensing,
of certification, where people are moving from one skill set to
another not necessarily understanding or acknowledging or
appreciating the skills that they have and how we can do that
better?
I know that we are focusing on that as we are trying to
transition many of our service members today, but what do you
see in the proposals before us now that address that? Do they
address it in the way that you think provides the most
efficacious way of talking about this and really applying it?
Anyone want to respond? Dr. Holzer?
Mr. Holzer. I will take a crack at that. I think what you
have hit on a very important problem and all of us have talked
about the dynamic nature of the economy, the dynamic nature of
the labor market, the credentials that are valued in the market
today may not be the ones exactly that are driving the market
tomorrow.
We heard stunning stories at the depths of the great
recession in 2009 and 2010. There were welder shortages around
the country. Welding isn't necessarily rocket science. There
were thousands of unemployed welders, but they didn't have
exactly the skill set often sought by particular employers at
that time.
So you need a system that I think recognizes credentials,
measures credentials, rewards places that generate more of
those credentials that the market is rewarding, analyzing the
data on exactly what is in demand and what is not, and then
helps the locals and incense them to respond and provide those
credentials.
I think it is also important that the training we provide
has a strong general core, that it not be completely sector
specific so that when the demand shifts, that people can adjust
to that and that is hard to accomplish in any--but again,
consolidation doesn't address that at all.
Mrs. Davis. All right, yes. Anybody else? Because I think
we need to incentivize that and I guess, what I am looking for
in the system, if we are doing that.
And the other question that that really relates to it is
that the private sector is stepping up to the plate essentially
and providing the kind of apprenticeship programs that really
could take the workers that they have and necessarily upgrading
that skill set.
Mr. Gustafson. I think Congresswoman Davis, that is an
important issue and I am a veteran myself. And again, running a
local workforce board, we have vet reps co-stationed with the
one-stop.
Unfortunately because the structure is siloed from the
federal government to the state government to the locals--I, as
a veteran, and have a family of veterans, I am really
embarrassed by the way the system takes care of our veterans.
And frankly, I have little to no authority over that
ability and though they are co-located and we have a
partnership, often the right hand doesn't know what the left
hand is doing. Often the right hand, which is the veteran reps,
are doing their own thing and not in conjunction with the rest
of the workforce board and therefore, if you are a veteran and
you come through the wrong door, you get lost and that is a
shame.
Mrs. Davis. How does what we are talking about right now--I
mean, how does that address that problem?
Mr. Gustafson. I think in the workforce investment fund of
the SKILLS Act by consolidating, by streamlining some of these
funds and with all due respect to my colleague here, I disagree
with some of the notions because by streamlining it, and
structurally streamlining it, not just the funding stream, but
structurally streamlining it, then you have the better
opportunity operationally at the local level to serve the
population whether it is a veteran, at-risk youth, or whatever
the disbanded population may be.
Mrs. Davis. Anybody else want to focus on that because I
think, you know, it sounds good to say that we are either co-
locating or we are integrating that, but as you say, I don't
see it working either.
Mr. Gustafson. I see it happen every day that we are--that
veterans are getting lost in the system because of the way it
is structured.
Mr. Ralls. And I would carry that, if I may, to also
structuring of how we structure skills training with education
and a focus in our system on industry certification, third-
party credentials that are recognized by businesses and
licensor--one of the areas we have to pay attention to in
workforce development is our veterans that are coming back have
great skills and we can accelerate them into getting the
competency--or to getting the certifications without having to
go through the whole program.
And that is something that we are very focused on in North
Carolina, but it is something I think our entire workforce
system in how we structure and emphasize accelerated
opportunities will pay benefits to our veterans who already
bring great skills back when they are returning into the
private sector.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you all--go ahead.
Mr. Hart. Right--and if I may--so in Florida, we track how
many people have been placed in the year; 426,000 last year,
111,000 of those had been on unemployment, but we also track
the vets and that number is 32,561 and that is a good number.
It is a solid number, but I don't think it is as good as it
could be.
So I agree with what these gentlemen have said. If we have
the ability to cross train and integrate more fully through the
system, I think it will help us meet the needs of our vets
because you are right, they are unique, and in Florida, defense
and defense-related industries, that is our third largest
industry in our economy. It is huge.
Mrs. Davis. I would suggest too that we have a great deal
to learn about what is happening now in that arena and that the
Veteran Skills to Jobs Act can perhaps inform us about some of
these other programs. But we need to have a vehicle as well for
looking at some of the consolidation here to incentivize those,
whether it is hospitals, you know, or other industries that are
working in this area and have found some new ways to apply
their knowledge.
Thank you.
Chairwoman Foxx. I am going to recognize Mr. Tierney in
just a second, but Mrs. Davis, the staff has pointed out to me,
which might be helpful to you to know, that last year we
accepted an amendment to the bill that we had from the
Democrats to make sure that we could gather the data on
veterans and the consolidated programs.
So Mr. Tierney, if you are ready, I would like to recognize
you for 5 minutes.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you.
Good morning, gentlemen. Thank you very much. I am sorry
that I had to leave temporarily on that. I am sure that most of
the ground--at least I hear that most of the ground has already
been covered and everybody has made their case pretty well, but
I wanted to talk to Mr. Holzer just for a second and ask you to
expand a little bit on your testimony.
You said that one of the points that you had was that while
there might be savings on administrative cost of all of this
consolidation, there might be cost on the other hand to
particular populations that are being served today that might
not be under this consolidation. Would you expand on that
please?
Mr. Holzer. Well, one can simply go to the GAO report. The
GAO report says that very clearly. The GAO report is not a
ringing endorsement of consolidation. It says that there are
potential benefits and potential costs, and it emphasizes we
have virtually no evidence on any of these claims that very
substantial savings will result. We simply don't know.
And it is possible they would be substantial. It is
possible they wouldn't, and again they quote agency officials
as saying that the needs of different populations, different
clients, often do require different attention. It is not clear
that one program will meet all of those needs as carefully.
Again, even that claim is also both the benefits and the
costs, the information is very small, and therefore the
dramatic claims made about the benefits of consolidation
relative to the cost simply aren't supported by any evidence
that I have ever seen.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you. Well I do know the history of
consolidation and block granting has been cut, cut, cut and
some programs just get put aside depending on who is going to
put the emphasis where.
Dr. Ralls, let me ask you a second. On the community
college aspect of that, would you think that having a community
college representative on the workforce investment boards
locally would be a positive or a negative thing?
Mr. Ralls. I believe it is a positive thing. I believe what
is really positive is for us to be directly connected with the
employer community because with hitting targets, that is who we
are trying to hit in terms of moving folks into the private
sector.
I think we spend a lot of time worrying about who sits on
boards and how many funding streams we have and we need to
spend more time on how many overall people we serve and what
services they receive. And I think we may find we actually
serve more low income and all of the other folks we are trying
to help through that process.
Mr. Tierney. And I think you would have a better idea of
how all of those different types of people you are trying to
help than would some businesses, correct?
Mr. Ralls. Excuse me?
Mr. Tierney. I think that you, being the college president
or being somebody in community college, would have a better
idea of what populations you are serving or could be served
sometimes better than an employer might.
Mr. Ralls. I value our employer input greatly and what I
will tell you in each of our community colleges, we have
advisory boards for each of our programs. So what I would hate
to see is that employer input not be recognized because I think
it is a very important part of our work----
Mr. Tierney. Well, I think both bills recognize employer
input. I think the question is whether or not we recognize any
other input. Whether we think there is value for other
perspectives of stakeholders on that and if you had an entire
business representation on there I think you wouldn't have a
community college representative, you might not have anybody
that really reflects the interests of people that have a lot of
barriers; the disabled community or veterans or whether it is
just somebody has an English learning language barrier or
anything. Do you think those perspectives are important trying
to determine what a workforce investment board addresses?
Mr. Ralls. I think they are all important and I think
different people bring those perspectives from a variety of
different areas. I think what we have to try to get to is that
we don't become overly complicated.
As I mentioned in North Carolina, we had a 38-member
workforce investment board, which I sit on. It is now 25
members. Simplification is often a way we can serve more----
Mr. Tierney. Do you think that there is an issue with
oversimplification? If you don't have enough representation?
Enough perspectives?
Mr. Ralls. Could be, but I think we have yet to try that.
Mr. Tierney. I am not sure you want to try a bad thing,
right? We can always try somebody. Just put one point of view
on there and see how that goes.
Mr. Ralls. I am not someone who makes the assumption that
that is automatically a bad thing.
Mr. Tierney. Really? Okay, so if you had 100 percent of
disabled interest on the board, you think that would be a good
thing. If that is what we decided to do, one interest, one
perspective only.
Mr. Ralls. No.
Mr. Tierney. Okay. All right, thank you.
I yield back.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Tierney.
I would like to make a couple of comments, and then I do
have some questions I want to ask. I really appreciate Mrs.
McCarthy's comments about the fact that we ought to be able to
come up with a bill that all of us could support or most of us
could support. I am sorry she is not here, but she is my
neighbor down the hall. I am going to stop in and tell her
that.
I am going to ask that we get from Mr. Hart, Dr. Ralls, Mr.
Gustafson, and Dr. Holzer, if you have access to those, an
estimate of how much you would save in state and private
dollars from consolidations.
And I think, Dr. Holzer, you said that there have been
dramatic claims of savings made. I would like to see what you
are talking about because I haven't seen those. We certainly
haven't made those, and so if you have evidence of dramatic
claims of savings that have been made, I would like to see
those in writing.
I think that what we have here is a--it boils down to a
philosophy that either Washington knows best or locals know
best when it comes to these kinds of programs and that is
something I think we need to pursue a little bit more in terms
of getting the data that we need.
Also, Dr. Holzer, you mentioned that we have a $16 trillion
GDP, but we are spending very little on these programs. Well,
we also have a $16 trillion debt, and I think that it is very
important that we recognize that our debt now equals our GDP
and that we do everything that we possibly can to be good
stewards of hard-working taxpayers who are providing the money
for these programs.
It is people who are currently working who are paying a lot
in taxes to provide for these programs, which people who may
never have worked in the real world are making decisions on how
to spend.
Mr. Holzer. May I respond to that?
Chairwoman Foxx. Mr. Gustafson, we hear a lot of the
criticism that if a certain population does not have a
dedicated funding stream they will be forgotten. Do you agree
with that?
Mr. Gustafson. No, absolutely not. And in fact, Madame
Chairwoman, I have an example in my written testimony where we
understand who the customer is and we have actually added more
programs and services and have a great example for that, which
is what we call the Bridge Academy.
We wouldn't have created the Bridge Academy if we hadn't
known what the businesses' needs were and knowing that the
populations we were serving didn't have those skills.
So we put together the Bridge Academy in conjunction with
our local school districts, with private funders, with some of
the federal funding. We have 13 different funding sources for
this and as a result, we are serving a very disadvantaged
population of at-risk youth that have been kicked out or
dropped out of school.
And what we do is we get them either their GED, adult
literacy, high school diploma in some cases, and vocational
training, work experience, and then connect them to a job at
the end.
This was in our response to the demand, the demand, we
better, actually better serve the supply.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you.
Mr. Hart, in your written testimony, you discussed the need
to enhance opportunities for flexibility with an emphasis on
performance and certainly that is something we are very
concerned about.
What happens currently if a local area is not meeting its
performance metrics? What happens if a state does not meet its
performance metrics? And how can we ensure continuous
improvement in the system?
Mr. Hart. Okay, great question. At the state level, the
Governor holds me accountable and so you know, I talk to the
governor twice a week and it always starts with, ``Hey Chris,
Rick Scott here. How we doing?''
And specifically, he is talking about our daily job
placement, our monthly job placement, and our common measures.
And so he really looks to me and our board and our boards--he
knows how every single one of them are doing, as do I, as do
they, every single day and that is very important.
So what he is looking to all of us to do is ensure that we
can meet that performance whether we have to work with a
college, university, or a private training provider.
What happens at the local level if they do not meet that,
there could be a corrective action plan that is in place but
also we work very diligently with them to ensure that they are
meeting their performance objectives, which they have been
doing when you take a look at the state of Florida.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you very much. I am going to submit
to you in writing a question related to the employment service
merit staff and the consolidation of the functions of Wagner-
Peyzer Act into a single workforce investment fund and how this
is being responding--would be responded to in Florida. So I am
not going to over my time by asking that now and asking you to
give a response.
I want to thank again our distinguished panel of witnesses
for taking the time to testify before the subcommittee today. I
do think this has been a very enlightening hearing, and I again
appreciate all of my colleagues for being here and the
questions that they have asked.
Mr. Hinojosa, do you have closing remarks?
Mr. Hinojosa. Yes, Madame Chair, I do.
I also want to echo the chair's first statement in closing.
I want to thank our panelists for sharing their views on how to
improve our nation's WIA system. I too found your presentations
to be very interesting, and I want to build on some of the
things I heard you say.
But I especially want to highlight a statement made by one
of our members of Congress on the other side of the aisle,
Congresswoman Susan Brooks from Indiana, who questioned the
amount of expenses that are being undertaken I guess, once the
money gets to the WIA board and I can say that from 2007 to
2010, I served as chairman of this committee, subcommittee.
We had hearings from west coast to east coast and often
times we found that 15 to 35 percent was all that was available
for training because the other was being spent by somebody
else.
So my recommendation is going to be that--and I will
personally do this. I will write a letter to the Office of
Management and Budget and ask them how much money would we save
over the next 10 years if we were to eliminate the middlemen.
As Congressional money that is put out, we will decide if
it is going to be $3 billion or $4 billion for training and
that we change that, eliminate the middleman. I did that in
higher education and they told us that we could save $96
billion over 10 years in higher ed by eliminating the middlemen
that used to be banks and a foundation. I won't name them but
just know that it was questioned and fought by lobbyists
representing those middlemen, but we did it. It became law.
Congress can give money directly to the colleges and
universities and they pay them for the cost of college
education and we have increased the numbers that are going to
community colleges and universities by over 28 percent since it
kicked in.
I believe, Madame Chair, that we should eliminate the
middlemen again. In this case it is going to be the state
government and the federal money would go to the community
colleges, and we will figure out the details on how that money
would be spent.
However, we want to make sure, as Susan said, that most of
the money, 60 to 65 percent be used for training and that we
cut back on these fixed expenses; in many cases they are
leasing buildings or buying buildings. Cut that out.
Find buildings that were paid for by taxpayers and let them
use that for a board meeting room for the workforce board. And
then for the training, instead of having so many places for the
trainees to go to, reduce those numbers. We did that in my
district in South Texas. We had 13 places. We cut it down to
six. It can be done.
And, possibly some of the training that is being done in
those particular buildings may have to be reduced so that more
money goes to training them for the jobs that they are going to
get, not just using computers and counseling and things like
that.
There have to be changes, but I like what Congresswoman
Maloney said and that is that both sides of our group here and
the education committee and the WIA, find a way to compromise
so that we can get a good piece of legislation out this year.
But I say eliminate the middlemen and that goes--and I will
be very blunt--eliminate the state government because we did
that. The banks just--for higher education--and the banks just
went bizarre. They didn't want to cut out because they were
making so much money.
But I can tell you, there are training groups out there
that are making so much money according to the hearings that we
had from west coast to east coast and it is happening today.
So, Madame Chair, with that close----
Mr. Tierney. With the gentleman yield, please?
Mr. Hinojosa. Yes, I will. I will yield to Congressman
Tierney.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you. I just want to make a point that
everybody seems to be enamored with the idea that we work
together yet nobody seems to be reaching out so that can
happen.
Madame Chairwoman, my understanding is that this hearing is
being held today and that your intention is to markup this bill
next week. If you liked what Mrs. McCarthy had to say, I am
wondering where is that period of time going to be in which
your folks and our folks sit down and try to actually discuss
what differences we might have and work out a compromise.
We went through this last year where the majority
essentially jammed their bill through the committee, jammed it
through the Floor, and off it went to limbo in the Senate. If
we are really serious about this, I would hope that you would
at least take a serious attempt at a period of time when the
two committees might sit down and try to work out some
differences and go forward otherwise I think I can be fairly
good prognosticator that you will jam it through next week, it
will be jammed through on the Floor, it will go sit in some
basket over in the Senate again.
Mr. Hinojosa. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Tierney.
I agree with you. I think we need time. We need time to get
this done in a bipartisan manner that is best for our country,
and I don't think that we need to jam it through and mark it up
next week because we are letting go of all of the information
that we collected from the years 2007 to 2010, which spoke
about limiting the amount of expenses and having a lot more
money like two-thirds of it, 60 to 65 percent for training. And
so I agree strongly and let the record show that we are asking
for additional time.
And with that, Madame chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Hinojosa.
Thank you, Mr. Tierney.
I, for the record, let me state that we--our staffs have
worked--have reached out to your staff very, very often. We
had----
Mr. Tierney. They must have done it by stealth, Madame
Chairwoman----
Chairwoman Foxx. We had our bill last year. We had a markup
on it. We allowed amendments to be offered. We will do the same
thing again this year. We are more than happy for you to make
amendments in the markup that we will have next week. I think I
have been very fair in the way we have handled this hearing and
the way we handled hearings last year.
And so, we welcome your amendments. I do find it
interesting that the bill that you all have introduced doesn't
include the points that Mr. Hinojosa has brought up here today,
and it doesn't agree with what the President has said that he
would like to see, which is a consolidation of the maze of
programs.
So I find that very interesting. I do want to say that
having served almost 7 years as the president of a community
college, I am a big fan of community colleges. I always have
been. I like the quote from Dr. Ralls, ``The road to recovery
runs through community colleges.''
Now, they are not perfect institutions. They don't offer
perfect programs, but I do think a lot can be done with
community colleges. Again, I want to point out that what the
President has said is exactly what we do in the SKILLS bill and
that is not done in the bill that our colleagues have
introduced.
Their bill does nothing to streamline or consolidate and I
do hope we will be able to get the data to show that this will
save money. I know that it will save money. I know it will save
money in North Carolina. I tried when I was in the North
Carolina State Senate to consolidate the programs and we knew
it was a big savings for the state.
I would like to say, Dr. Holzer, that you asserted many
times that consolidation is an excuse for cutting funding. We
have never said that. We cut no funding in this bill. What our
interest is, is in showing--is getting more money directly to
the skill seeker and the job seeker.
I love that title, job seeker, because that is what we want
to do and take the money out of the bureaucracy. And again,
having been there Dr. Holzer, I am quite aware of how this
money is being wasted.
I have called it high-priced welfare because we hire a lot
of government bureaucrats to administer programs and very
little gets done to actually serve the job seeker, the client,
the skill seeker, that person that we all say we want to help.
And I think on both sides of the aisle that should be the
focus.
I was a person who worked very hard with tech prep
programs, with making sure that people who came who were in the
high schools and the college that I served were getting college
credit. I agree with you. We need to do a lot more to get
higher education and workforce programs working together, and I
also agree very much that we need data to inform the public.
And I have no doubt in my mind that as we get the data
together to inform the public, that the public is going to be
on our side on this issue, that consolidation works. I think
the fact that those of you who are providing services to people
have worked the system the best that you can to provide those
services, have already shown us a way to do this, and I think
we simply need to do more and I believe that the wisdom of the
world is out there in the states, in the local communities, and
does not reside in Washington, D.C.
Our job is to do the best that we can to bolster what is
going on locally and in the states rather than to hinder that.
With that----
Mr. Hinojosa. Madame Chair, before you close, I ask
unanimous consent that this document that I was supposed to
have asked permission to get into the record, it is entitled
``Workforce Stakeholders Group Statement on Reforming Job-
Training Programs in America'' be entered into the permanent
record for today.
[The information follows:]
Workforce Stakeholders Group Statement on
Reforming Job Training Programs in America
Preamble
In the first decade of this millennium, our nation has faced
enormous tragedies, challenges, and changes that have diverted
policymakers from giving workforce development and skills attainment
the level of priority needed. As a result, a number of key Acts are due
or soon due to be reauthorized. These Acts include:
The Workforce Investment Act (WIA);
The Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act;
The Higher Education Act (HEA);
The Older Americans Act (OAA)
The Trade Adjustment Assistance Act (TAA); and
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program
(TANF).
Many of these laws authorize unique and important programs and
services to common populations; therefore, the Workforce Stakeholders
Group believes that the 113th Congress has a strong opportunity to:
Create a cohesive and broad workforce system that
leverages the unique strengths and resources that numerous systemic
components (see list below) bring to the table;
Remove the systemic barriers that allow people to fall
through the cracks and that prevent them from reaching their full
potential; and
Improve the productivity of business through the provision
of skilled, competitive, and motivated workers.
Components of the broad workforce system include:
The workforce system/WIA;
higher education;
career and technical education;
adult education;
veterans' programs;
law enforcement and corrections;
The Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program; and
supportive services such as housing and food assistance.
As our nation slowly recovers from the worst recession since the
Great Depression and unemployment stubbornly hovers at close to 8
percent, millions of people are seeking supports that will help them
meet basic needs. Many have turned to safety net programs for
assistance with housing, food, transportation, child care, and cash.
In addition to programs that provide support with such basic needs,
millions of people are also seeking skill-building and advancement
opportunities that will put them on a career path that leads to
financial stability and economic security. These include job training,
employment services, transitional jobs, vocational rehabilitation, and
education (alternative education, adult education, and postsecondary
education). Many unemployed, low-wage workers, or people in
transitional jobs need access to additional education and training
through a postsecondary institution. Some turn to Adult Education
programs to gain academic skills that high schools did not provide.
Many veterans turn to the Department of Veterans Affairs for benefits
and assistance in overcoming their employment challenges. People with
disabilities utilize vocational rehabilitation programming for help in
addressing their employment challenges. And millions more also turn to
the workforce system for help finding a job.
The Workforce Stakeholders Group agrees that systemic improvements
could be made to better promote cross-functional program collaboration
and systemic integration in order to increase investments in quality
services, resources, and training. The group believes that these goals
should be achieved by preserving important programs and systems with a
track record of success in providing a range of services to specific
populations with unique barriers to employment, including veterans;
people with disabilities; youth; older workers; people with a criminal
background; migrant and seasonal farmworkers; Native Americans; people
who are homeless; and women seeking non-traditional employment
opportunities, so that they can successfully gain the skills needed to
participate in one of the cornerstones of American society--the
workforce. Furthermore, the broader workforce system must ensure that
these special populations receive high quality career guidance,
education, skill training, supportive services and placement.
More specifically, individuals and organizations that are concerned
about workforce development and skills attainment, have been working
for a decade to enact many needed improvements through Workforce
Investment Act (WIA) reauthorization. Unfortunately, Congress has not
passed a bi-partisan WIA reauthorization bill, which has prevented
enactment and implementation of important improvements, while leaving
the system vulnerable to criticism and budget cuts.
Rather than rehashing old debates that have proven to be
unproductive and divisive, the Workforce Stakeholders Group believes we
should refocus our attention on the following question:
``What outcomes do we want from our workforce system, and what
elements are needed in order to put the system in a position to achieve
them in a constantly changing environment?''
The Workforce Stakeholders Group answers that question with the
following:
Desired Goals
The Workforce Stakeholders Group believes that Congress should
develop a blueprint that would create a comprehensive workforce system
that leverages the unique strengths and expertise of its systemic
components. Together, this broad workforce system should achieve the
following equally-important goals.
Serve Employers and Businesses: Businesses are most competitive
when they have access to a strong, agile, and skilled workforce. Such a
workforce includes workers who are prepared for the jobs that employers
seek to fill today, and have the ability to learn and build on those
foundational skills in order to perform the jobs of the future. The
comprehensive workforce system should connect businesses to workers who
have the job skills employers seek, or the ability to learn needed job-
specific skills on the job. In addition, the workforce system should
work with businesses to increase employment equity, improve job quality
and retention, and provide training and educational opportunities to
workers to ensure that workers remain current with industry
advancements.
Serve People: America's 143 million working people and its 12
million job seekers represent diverse groups with a variety of needs.
The comprehensive workforce system must use a holistic approach to
advance people along a continuum that leads to work opportunities,
career advancement, and economic and family stability. Depending upon
the person, the intensity and length of this journey will vary greatly.
The comprehensive workforce system should be prepared to assist people
whenever they seek its support.
Contribute to Building Stronger Families and Communities: America's
communities have the potential to be the engines of full national
economic recovery and growth. Realizing this potential requires
investments not only in places, but also in people. The federal
government makes a number of investments in the physical capital of
urban communities, including public housing and transportation
development. These initiatives have the potential to pay off not just
in terms of improved community resources, but also in terms of job
opportunities for local residents. But these opportunities are lost for
a large portion of urban residents--low-literacy, low-skilled adults in
particular--unless there are high-quality employment and training
services that prepare them for the jobs created by federal investments.
A comprehensive workforce system should better coordinate investments
we make in local communities with investments we make in the people who
live in those communities. The workforce system can help build stronger
and more stable communities by connecting workers to and qualifying
them for the best possible jobs, and helping businesses find the
skilled workers they need.
Needed Elements
The Workforce Stakeholders Group believes that the following mix of
elements and attributes is needed in order to achieve the goals
outlined above.
Integrated and collaborative: The Workforce Stakeholders Group
believes that the comprehensive workforce system should treat people
holistically and be collectively held accountable for ensuring that
people do not slip through the cracks between each unique component
that makes up the broad workforce system. Regardless of a service
seekers entry point into the broad workforce system, its individual
systemic components should have the capacity and motivation to ensure
that service seekers are connected to additional programs and services
that are outside the functional scope of any systemic component.
Furthermore, individual components of the broad workforce system should
have access to information and data needed to view service seekers
holistically rather than narrowly focusing attention only on the
specific symptoms that the component has the functional capacity to
address.
With this context, the group believes that the current dialogue
must shift from consolidation to promoting integration and
collaboration among existing resources and programs. The group is
concerned that a consolidated block grant would lack the sophistication
needed to appropriately direct resources to address unique target
populations' needs and challenges. Integrated programs, on the other
hand, would preserve population-specific resources where they are most
needed, and would likely result in cost-savings that could be
reinvested in proven workforce development and job training programs to
continue to build and sustain the strong and adaptable workforce needed
to keep America economically sound and competitive.
The reauthorization of programs such as WIA, CTE, HEA, TANF, and
TAA also presents an opportunity to encourage and strengthen
collaborative partnerships that leverage the infrastructures,
expertise, and resources of service providers, businesses and
employers, and stakeholders that serve common populations. Such
innovative approaches can serve to bridge the very supports and
programs administered by multiple federal agencies.
The current workforce system (WIA) is designed to provide services
and training that will quickly prepare consumers to obtain jobs that
employers are seeking to fill. Often serving people who are out of work
and needing immediate employment, it is frequently engaged in crisis
intervention. It is not designed or resourced to help consumers,
particularly individuals who are hardest to serve or people who have
been placed in jobs, yet need to obtain additional skills and
credentials that will help them to advance in their careers. Currently,
there are many workforce organizations engaged in successful
collaborative partnerships, particularly with educational institutions
like community colleges that can often provide training and industry-
recognized credentials in career and technical education programs. The
workforce system plays a key role in these partnerships because it
provides workers with information to navigate their local labor market
as well as with tools to be better prepared for jobs.
The Workforce Stakeholders Group believes that consumers could be
better served by promoting collaborative partnerships that provide
clear bridges between all the systems that serve common populations
such as those supported by the U.S. Departments Labor, Health and Human
Services, Education, Veterans Affairs, Justice, Housing and Urban
Development, and Agriculture. Furthermore, partnerships that engage
local community-based organizations and sector-based partnership in
this capacity leverage the additional resources, experience, and
infrastructures; allowing these additional resources to supplement
federal resources aimed at common populations.
By rewarding collaborative partnerships that are part of a holistic
approach that bridges systems, consumers would be better served than
through a program-specific approach that focuses only on the issues
that that fall within the scope of individual programs.
Accountability: While the comprehensive workforce system should be
collaborating and better leveraging one another's scarce resources to
achieve the goals outlined above, the Workforce Stakeholders Group
recognizes that each systemic component within the comprehensive
workforce system has its own specific performance outcomes that must be
achieved. To the greatest extent feasible, the group believes that
system-specific outcomes should align with and support the ultimate
goals of the comprehensive workforce system.
The accountability system for the broad workforce system should:
Provide data that is essential for efforts to overcome
disparities in employment and programmatic outcomes by reporting by
sub-population, including at least gender, race, ethnicity, disability
and age;
Ensure that people, regardless of the system they first
turn to for help, are successfully engaged and welcomed by the
system(s) that is/are best positioned to address individuals'
employment challenges.
Take into account individuals' unique employment
challenges in order to ensure that hard-to-serve populations are indeed
served, and that services are appropriate and meaningful.
Account for economic conditions in local labor markets and
individuals' characteristics when they enter programs.
Provide the comprehensive workforce system with the
capacity to collectively track individuals' interim successes along
their career and educational paths.
Employers indicate that it is difficult to find workers who are
qualified to perform the jobs they need to fill in order to maintain
productivity. Especially at a time when unemployment is high, it is
perplexing that millions of jobs are going unfilled. The comprehensive
broad workforce system should be held accountable for helping to close
the skills gap by working with businesses, industry, and employers to
ensure that incumbent and future workers are connected to resources
that will help them acquire the hard and soft skills employers seek.
Policymakers should also recognize the need to invest in and maintain a
data management capacity that allows the different systems within the
broader workforce system to improve alignment and foster
accountability.
Resources: Without sufficient resources, even the best-designed
system will fail to produce the desired outcomes that the system is
designed to achieve. The Workforce Stakeholders Group believes that
Congress should authorize resources based upon what is needed to train
and educate the workforce of the 21st century.
Despite federal disinvestments of more than 30 percent since 2002--
with more than $1 billion in cuts just since 2010--critical employment
and training programs stand to lose billions more under current
proposals to reduce the federal deficit. Such cuts are already having
an impact: a recent survey of workforce providers found that more than
three quarters expected to reduce training as a result of already
reduced funding levels, and nearly half believed they would have to cut
back on services for employers seeking skilled workers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program 2002\1\ 2013\2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WIA\3\............................ $4,801,217,456 $2,603,315,124
ABE............................... $738,907,137 $594,993,000
CTE............................... $1,643,307,607 $1,123,030,275
ES................................ $1,234,405,967 $700,841,901
TANF.............................. 16 billion 28% loss of value
due to
inflation\4\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All 2002 figures adjusted for inflation.
\2\ As enacted under the current continuing resolution (P.L. 112-175)
through March 27, 2013
\3\ Represents funding for WIA Title I Adult, Youth, and Dislocated
Worker programs
\4\ As calculated by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, http://
www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3534
Our nation's economy cannot function without a skilled workforce.
According to the Center on Education and the Workforce at the
Georgetown Public Policy Institute, by 2020 nearly two out of every
three U.S. jobs will require some postsecondary education and
training.\5\ Research suggests that the demand for workers with
postsecondary education is growing much faster than the supply, and by
2025 the U.S. will need 20 million more people with a postsecondary
degree or credential than our nation is currently on-track to
produce.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/
CTE.FiveWays.FullReport.pdf, pg. 2
\6\ http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/
undereducatedamerican.pdf, pg. 10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
America's workers depend on these education and training programs.
Last year, more than 9 million individuals received training and
related services through the federally-supported workforce investment
system--an increase of nearly 250 percent in just two years. Millions
more received training and employment services through youth, career
and technical education, adult education, vocational rehabilitation,
and veterans' programs that will help them pursue good jobs or further
postsecondary education.
Additional funding cuts would shut the door on these hard-working
individuals seeking employment, significantly limiting their access to
the skills and credentials needed to succeed in today's labor market.
It would stifle the ability of U.S. businesses to find the skilled
workforce they need to take advantage of new markets and emerging
economic opportunities, putting our nation at a competitive
disadvantage at a time when other countries are ramping up their own
investments in human capital.
The Workforce Stakeholders Group believes that the steady erosion
of funding for the workforce system must be reversed. While concerns
about the deficit may create a temptation to cut programs, in the long
term, we need to investment in the skills of America's workforce so
that more people can develop the market-ready skills to meet the needs
of U.S. industries and the larger U.S. economy now and in the future.
Special populations: The group strongly believes that programs that
aim to meet the special needs of certain populations must be a high
priority, properly resourced, and measured to ensure that special
populations have access to quality services that holistically address
their unique challenges. Therefore, the needs of special populations
must continue to be a priority. A consolidated block grant would lack
the sophistication needed to appropriately direct resources to address
unique target populations' needs and challenges.
Several programs were created with the intention of ensuring the
provision of services to specific populations that are unlikely to be
feasible in a general-population service setting. For example,
experience informs us that youth are typically better served in the
context of a youth-specific program rather than in a general program.
Other programs were created because a national program better
serves the target population. For example, migrant and seasonal
farmworkers are an extremely mobile population and it is unrealistic
for Congress to expect governors to serve people who only work briefly
in their states and then move elsewhere.
As Congress works to create a comprehensive workforce system, the
Workforce Stakeholders Group urges Congress to ensure that the system
is equipped and able to provide the right services and supports to help
people to overcome their unique and personal employment challenges.
Employers and Industry: The U.S. workforce system is often
criticized as a sum of disconnected parts, with worker training poorly
matched to industry demand, a lack of focus on industries that are the
most important to local economies, and duplicative business outreach
and workforce training services. A comprehensive workforce system will
better engage employers and industry at the local and regional level,
and ensure that workers are obtaining the skills and credentials
employers are seeking for job opening in local and regional economies.
Sector strategies respond to such criticisms. At the regional labor
market level, they are partnerships of employers in one industry that
bring together government, education, training, economic development,
labor, and community organizations to focus on the workforce needs of
their industry. At the state level, they are policies and investments
that support the development of local sector partnerships. A growing
body of evidence demonstrates their effectiveness for employers and
workers.
When employers find effective ways to work together with the public
education and training systems--particularly the small and midsized
firms that are increasingly responsible for U.S. job creation--they can
improve their profitability. In a survey of employers participating in
sector partnerships in Massachusetts, 41 percent reported reduced
turnover; 19 percent reported less rework on the job; 23 percent
reported fewer customer complaints; and 100 percent of the companies
said that participation in a sector partnership was valuable.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Cathryn, ``BEST Benefits''; Industry Partnerships in
Pennsylvania.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Workers also benefit from involvement in a sector partnership.
Navigating the education market to secure the knowledge-based skills
required in today's economy is as daunting as navigating the labor
market. Thousands of credentials exist, including full degrees, short-
term certificates, and professional licenses. Which ones do employers
accept? Which education and training programs are flexible enough to
allow working adults to complete them and obtain their credential?
Public sector programs serving industry and job seekers through a
sector partnership are better able to align the needs of employers with
the career paths of workers, and the results for employees are higher
wages and better jobs. A 2009 random-assignment evaluation of three
sector partnerships showed that worker participants earned
significantly more (18 percent more, or $4,500 over 24 months) than the
control group. The reason was that they were more likely to work,
worked more consistently, and worked in jobs with higher wages. They
also had higher-quality jobs, as measured by benefits such as health
insurance, paid vacation, and paid sick leave.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ http://www.ppv.org/ppv/publications/assets/325--publication.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Such outcomes help explain why an estimated 1,000 regional sector
partnerships are operating across the country, and more than 25 states
are exploring or implementing sector strategies as a way to address
industry needs through education and training programs.\9\ The
Workforce Stakeholders Group urges Congress to ensure a comprehensive
workforce system supports such best-practices to more effectively
engage employers and industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ http://www.sectorstrategies.org/library/2010/snapshot-state-
sector-activity
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry-Recognized Credentials and Certificates: The Workforce
Stakeholders Group believes that stackable, nationally portable,
industry-recognized competency-based skills credentials will help
connect employers to the workers they seek. In addition, the group
believes that the broad workforce system should be positioned to and
held accountable for addressing the needs of:
regional economies and key regional industries;
employers in key regional industries who need to hire for
middle-class jobs or for jobs in pathways to them; and
employers who want to improve the quality of their jobs.
This will use public resources most effectively and do the most to
make businesses competitive while bringing about the most financial
stability and economic security.
Labor Market Information: In order to achieve the goals outlined in
this statement, the broad workforce system will require quality real-
time labor market information that will allow stakeholders to identify
growing and/or high-demand occupations in regional labor markets, and
key industries that are connected to such growing and high-demand
occupations. Furthermore, in order to close the skills gap, information
is needed to identify under-served populations and prepare them for
regional employment opportunities.
Supportive Services: It is well known that people who lack stable
housing, reliable transportation, access to health care, and child care
are less likely to succeed in employment. Yet many people who turn to
the workforce system for help face these and other barriers to
employment.
Under current law, WIA funds may be used to provide supportive
services to people who are participating in core, intensive, training
or post-exit services; and are unable to obtain supportive services
through other programs that provide such services. Unfortunately, the
law creates barriers and disincentives to the provision of supportive
services. The Workforce Stakeholders Group believes that Congress
should acknowledge that the provision of supportive services is often
an important key for many people who seek to find jobs and succeed in
the workforce. Congress should ensure that the broad workforce system
has the capacity to directly enroll job seekers in supportive services
if they would benefit from them.
Governance and Infrastructure: The Workforce Stakeholders Group
understands that it has been difficult to resolve a number of state and
local governance and infrastructure issues. The group believes there is
an appropriate role for both state and local decision makers, and
therefore believes that authority should be shared between states and
local areas. In addition, the group believes that steps should be made
to ensure that decisions made take into account a number of key
economic and social attributes, including areas' industries, workers,
population demographics, and public and private resources. It is
important to recognize, however, that workers live at a local level,
businesses employ local workers, and the impact of long-term
unemployment are realized in the local community. Therefore, local
flexibility, including clear and significant roles for local elected
officials and local workforce boards, must be retained to allow the
system to adapt to the real needs of real employers and job seekers.
Conclusion
The reauthorization of WIA is an obvious immediate opportunity to
make needed improvements that will ensure that our workforce is
prepared for the jobs employers need them to perform today and
tomorrow. The group believes that wholesale consolidation of key
programs, as proposed in House legislation, H.R. 4297 (introduced
during the 112th Congress), would move workforce programming in the
wrong direction. Such a one-size-fits-all system risks becoming an
underfunded system that lacks the resources and sophistication needed
to meet the unique needs of certain individuals who must overcome
population-specific employment challenges.
As our nation is only beginning to emerge from the worst recession
since the Great Depression and ongoing global competition is a long-
term certainty, the Workforce Stakeholders Group has grave concerns
about proposals to dismantle the current workforce system. Such action
would only serve to divert attention from providing quality employment
services and job training to people who need job placement and
supports. Instead, time, attention and resources would be spent on the
implementation and rebuilding of a new workforce system. In other
words, it is not necessary or cost effective to tear down the whole
barn when it is just the roof that leaks.
As Congress begins again to look at the reauthorization of the
Workforce Investment Act, policymakers should keep in mind that WIA
programs have played a pivotal role in helping jobseekers and employers
rebound from the ``Great Recession.'' The latest quarterly reporting
data provided by the Department of Labor indicates that more than 8
million jobseekers have utilized WIA formula programs over the past
year (DOL, WIA system quarterly reports ending March 31, 2012), a
dramatic 291 percent increase over just four years ago (DOL, WIA system
quarterly report ending March 31, 2008). These most recent reporting
data does not include an additional 786,000 job seekers using targeted
WIA programming to help special populations with additional barriers to
employment.
The Workforce Stakeholders Group continues to stand ready to work
with policymakers to enact policies that will ensure that America's
workforce is again the most skilled, the most competitive, the most
productive, and the most adaptive workforce in the world.
about the workforce stakeholders group
The Workforce Stakeholders group includes a range of organizations
that are engaged in efforts to ensure that people served by the
workforce system and programs that support the workforce system:
Create a pipeline of qualified employees for business and
employers;
Find easy access to the services they need to help them
find jobs;
Have access to supports needed to advance in careers;
Receive quality services that help them overcome unique
challenges they face;
These organizations represent state and local policymakers and
program administrators, advocacy groups, service providers, and
technical assistance providers.
Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO & APALA
Education Fund
Association of Farmworker Opportunity Programs
Coalition of Labor Union Women
Corporate Voices for Working Families
Corporation for a Skilled Workforce
Council for Adult and Experiential Learning (CAEL)
Easter Seals
Goodwill Industries International
Insight Center for Community Economic Development
International Economic Development Council
Jobs for the Future
Legal Momentum
National Alliance for Partnerships in Equity
National College Transition Network at World Education
National Council of La Raza
National Council for Workforce Education
National Disability Rights Network
National League of Cities
National Skills Coalition
National Transitional Jobs Network
National Youth Employment Coalition
National Workforce Association
PHI--Quality Care through Quality Jobs
Proliteracy
Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law
Senior Service America
The Corps Network
United Way Worldwide
Wider Opportunities for Women
Workforce Learning Strategies
Young Invincibles
YouthBuild USA
______
Chairwoman Foxx. Without objection. There being no further
business----
Mr. Tierney. Chairwoman, there is a point you just
mentioned of how well and cordial you have run this meeting, I
would like just make a couple minutes of last remarks, if I
could.
Chairwoman Foxx. It is highly unusual for any member to do
that. It is up to the chair to make the closing remarks. We
would love to have your remarks in the record. Thank you, Mr.
Tierney.
Mr. Tierney. Well, you know Madame Chairwoman, I guess you
are just proving what I was saying earlier. There is no
apparent desire here to have a discussion about this bill and
what it talks about.
You have shut out the meeting. Apparently you must have
some place of very important to go; you can't spend 2 minutes,
but you haven't had a conversation. Your staffs haven't had a
conversation.
The things that Mr. Hinojosa talked about were in fact, and
are in fact in our bill, so apparently you haven't read that to
any great degree on that.
One hearing, no matter how cordial you run it, doesn't give
us a chance to look at your bill and our bill and see where
there might be room for compromise. One markup where you let us
present amendments, but then vote them down by party line
doesn't present itself as a way to talk through and compromise.
I think the most disturbing thing I heard you say was at
the end, your side would prevail. I don't think this is about
sides. I think the American public is sick of it being about
sides. And what the public would probably like to say is that
we get a final bill where all sides feel that they were dealt
with fairly and that the end product is something they can all
move forward on.
Getting 51 percent of the public to think that they were
listened to as opposed to getting a much larger percent of the
people feeling that they may not have gotten all they wanted
but they were heard and that a bill reflects a good compromise
that the whole country can get behind, that would I hope be the
decent goal on this.
The way that you have set it up for just this hearing and
just the markup next week, that clearly isn't an opportunity
for both parties to show the public that we are trying to make
a real serious effort of working out a bill that everybody can
get behind.
Mr. Hinojosa. Madame Chair----
Chairwoman Foxx. Let the record shows that Mr. Tierney----
Mr. Hinojosa [continuing]. I would strongly support your
idea of consolidation----
Chairwoman Foxx. Let the record show that Mr. Tierney got
his 2 minutes of time. There being no further business, the
subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Questions for the record and their responses follow:]
U.S. Congress,
Washington, DC, March 21, 2013.
Mr. Todd Gustafson, Executive Director,
Michigan Works! Berrien-Cass-Van Buren, 499 West Main Street, Benton
Harbor, MI 49022.
Dear Mr. Gustafson: Thank you for testifying before the
Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training at the hearing
entitled, ``Putting America Back to Work: Reforming the Nation's
Workforce Investment System,'' on Tuesday, February 26, 2013. I
appreciate your participation.
I have enclosed additional questions for inclusion in the final
hearing record. Please provide written responses no later than April 5,
2013. Responses should be sent to Rosemary Lahasky or Emily Slack of
the committee staff who can be contacted at (202) 225-6558.
Thank you again for your important contribution to the work of the
committee.
Sincerely,
Virginia Foxx, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training.
1. Please provide an estimate of how much savings in state and
private dollars could be attained from the consolidation of federal
workforce development programs and their administrative functions in
the state of Michigan.
2. Please provide some specific examples of where the lack of
flexibility in the current workforce investment system has impacted
local and state efforts to provide training services directly to job
seekers and workers.
______
U.S. Congress,
Washington, DC, March 21, 2013.
Mr. Chris Hart, President and CEO,
Workforce Florida Inc., 1580 Waldo Palmer Lane, Suite 1, Tallahassee,
FL 32308.
Dear Mr. Hart: Thank you for testifying before the Subcommittee on
Higher Education and Workforce Training at the hearing entitled,
``Putting America Back to Work: Reforming the Nation's Workforce
Investment System,'' on Tuesday, February 26, 2013. I appreciate your
participation.
I have enclosed additional questions for inclusion in the final
hearing record. Please provide written responses no later than April 5,
2013. Responses should be sent to Rosemary Lahasky or Emily Slack of
the committee staff who can be contacted at (202) 225-6558.
Thank you again for your important contribution to the work of the
committee.
Sincerely,
Virginia Foxx, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training.
1. Please provide an estimate of how much savings in state and
private dollars could be attained from the consolidation of federal
workforce development programs and their administrative functions in
the state of Florida.
2. In your testimony you discussed the fact that Employment Service
merit staff is hindering your state's flexibility to deliver services
and further reduce administrative costs. Why is this a hindrance to the
state of Florida, and what impact is it having on improving outcomes
for job seekers?
______
U.S. Congress,
Washington, DC, March 21, 2013.
Dr. R. Scott Ralls, President,
North Carolina Community College System, 200 West Jones Street,
Raleigh, NC 27603.
Dear Dr. Ralls: Thank you for testifying before the Subcommittee on
Higher Education and Workforce Training at the hearing entitled,
``Putting America Back to Work: Reforming the Nation's Workforce
Investment System,'' on Tuesday, February 26, 2013. I appreciate your
participation.
Enclosed are additional questions submitted by members of the
subcommittee after the hearing. Please provide written responses no
later than April 5, 2013 for inclusion in the final hearing record.
Responses should be sent to Rosemary Lahasky or Emily Slack of the
committee staff who can be contacted at (202) 225-6558.
Thank you again for your important contribution to the work of the
committee.
Sincerely,
Virginia Foxx, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training.
chairwoman virginia foxx (r-nc)
1. Please provide some specific examples of where the lack of
flexibility in the current workforce investment system has impacted
local and state efforts to provide training services directly to job
seekers and workers?
representative richard hudson (r-nc)
1. The Community College system in North Carolina is integral to
the success of many people who are out of work. What areas can you
identify that would allow for better communication between the job
creators' needs and the community?
2. What is the federal government doing right now that stands in
the way of the North Carolina Community College System doing what it is
exactly supposed to do?
3. How can the committee foster greater coordination and
collaboration among federal, and North Carolina state and local
workforce development programs, so that people like myself and our
newly elected Governor, Pat McCrory, can work more effectively
together?
______
[Response to questions submitted for the record follow:]
------
Mr. Hart's Response to Questions Submitted for the Record
Below are answers regarding Chris Hart's testimony on February 26
before the Higher Education and Workforce Training Subcommittee
entitled, ``Putting America Back to Work: Reforming the Nation's
Workforce Investment System.''
1. Please provide an estimate of how much savings in state and
private dollars could be attained from the consolidation of federal
workforce development programs and their administrative functions in
the state of Florida.
The savings are indeterminate, but positive, as it will allow the
most efficient use of available resources to address client needs.
Consolidated programs will allow both unused funding and underused
personnel (due to program restrictions) to be shifted to higher demand
services. In addition, consolidation will result in a reduction of the
administrative burden currently imposed on One-Stop Career Center staff
by eliminating the need for duplicative personnel systems and
eliminating other program management and reporting redundancies.
2. In your testimony you discussed the fact that Employment Service
merit staff is hindering your state's flexibility to deliver services
and further reduce administrative costs. Why is this a hindrance to the
state of Florida, and what impact is it having on improving outcomes
for job seekers?
The current restricted use of state merit staff employees is one of
the major barriers to integrated services and administration associated
with the multiple programs provided through the One-Stop Career
Centers. Federal regulations restrict the use of state merit based
staff to delivery of traditional labor exchange activities funded under
the Wagner-Peyser Act. Florida has made great strides in restructuring
its workforce service delivery system to move away from the
programmatic and financial ``silos'' inherent in a fragmented delivery
system and to achieve a truly integrated network of One-Stop Career
Centers and services. The removal of this restriction will allow the
state to more concretely integrate the delivery of services at its one-
stop centers. The goal of such integration is better coordinated
service delivery, which will result in better outcomes for job seekers.
This is consistent with the USDOL's recent charge to integrate
workforce system services. In addition, both WIA and Wagner-Peyser
funded One-Stop Career Center staff provide core services, which are
virtually indistinguishable as it relates to customer service. The
special status of merit staff creates challenges to all One-Stop Career
Center partners, to include morale and disciplinary problems due to
disparate wages, hours, benefits and other working conditions for One-
Stop staff who are essentially doing the same customer service work.
Finally, elimination of dual payroll, human resources and related costs
for maintaining two sets of overhead mechanisms will reduce overall
administrative expenditures, thereby freeing up funds for additional
services for employers and job seekers.
______
Raleigh, NC, April 5, 2013.
Hon. Virginia Foxx, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training, U.S. House of
Representatives, 2181 Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Representative Foxx: Thank you for the opportunity to testify
before the Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training in
February and for your introduction of the SKILLS Act. I am also very
appreciative that you and members of your committee are allowing for
more input regarding the needs of community colleges, as we have a
great opportunity to do much good for many of our citizens.
I have attached to this letter the responses to the questions I
received from you and Representative Hudson. If you need further
clarification to my comments or have more questions, please do not
hesitate to ask.
Again, thank you for this opportunity.
Sincerely,
R. Scott Ralls, President,
North Carolina Community College System.
chairwoman virginia foxx (r-nc)
1. Please provide some specific examples of where the lack of
flexibility in the current workforce investment system has impacted
local and state efforts to provide training services directly to job
seekers and workers?
Response
The areas where many community colleges have difficulty with the
Workforce Investment Act have been the limitations for contracting with
Workforce Boards for class-size or cohort training, and the sequencing
of services which can deemphasize job training as a workforce service
under WIA.
Compared to the previous Job Training Partnership Act, a major WIA
limitation is that it treats community colleges as just another
education and training vendor, and does not provide the flexibility for
direct contracting for the delivery of courses or full programs for
multiple WIA participants. There are several disadvantages to this
limitation. First, community colleges are typically closely engaged
with employers and work with employers to develop specific training
programs to meet their new hiring requirements. Consequently, if a
large employer needed welders, previous JTPA workforce legislation
would have allowed contracting whereby the college could develop a
welding program for a group of participants through a contractual
relationship with the Workforce Board. Under WIA, colleges may offer
programs with their own resources and WIA participants may enroll in
those programs and use their training vouchers to pay for their tuition
or fees, but there is not the same flexibility for course-based
contracting. This limits the occurrence of this valuable opportunity
for connecting system participants with specific training that may
provide coordinated, direct pathways to potential employment. The
SKILLS Act would correct this limitation of the current Workforce
Investment Act.
A second disadvantage of not having direct contracting is it limits
the opportunities of providing services for a cohort of WIA
participants. Our work on student success suggests the advantages of
working with cohorts or groups of students because they identify with
each other, develop relationships and in turn create their own mutual
support networks. With a cohort of students, different programs and
services can be organized collectively, such as our efforts in North
Carolina to provide coordinated workforce development opportunities for
students to gain an industry recognized credential, a career readiness
certification, and employability skills training.
Finally, the Workforce Investment Act places education and training
as the last potential intervention in a prescribed sequence of
prescribed services. This has the effect of deemphasizing education and
training as a workforce development service when the national skills
gap issues suggest it should be prioritized. We have run into issues
where Workforce Boards indicate that they do not have available
resources for education and training services for individual training
accounts when we believe it those services which would be most valuable
and should be prioritized. The SKILLS Act would also correct this
limitation of the current Workforce Investment Act.
representative richard hudson (r-nc)
1. The Community College System in North Carolina is integral to
the success of many people who are out of work. What areas can you
identify that would allow for better communication between the job
creators' needs and the community?
Response
In North Carolina as in other areas of the nation, community
colleges are uniquely positioned at the front lines of workforce
development and have direct contact with employers to meet their
workforce needs. For example, each of our educational programs at our
local colleges have employer advisory committees that meet regularly to
ensure that our course and program objectives are consistent with
employer demands. On a state basis, we also ensure employment
engagement on statewide program changes, such as our recent statewide
redesign of technical education programs or our current redesign of
math programs, where we include business representatives of key
industry sectors on the leadership teams for these statewide
initiatives. In North Carolina, our colleges are supported to provide
customized training for new and expanding employers, as well as
employers making new investments in technology, which means that they
not only know through data what job trends are occurring, but also have
an intimate understanding of what potential employment expansions are
being contemplated in their communities. Bottom line, community
colleges in North Carolina and throughout the nation are the front line
troops in addressing the skills gaps that limit economic recovery.
Current WIA legislation does not recognize this unique role played by
our nation's community colleges, in essence treating us like just
another training vendor.
Stronger more integrated data systems at the Federal level would
help in providing the type of information community colleges need, and
policymakers desire, in determining both areas where services need to
be targeted and the effectiveness of workforce interventions. For
instance, one of the areas Governor McCrory has expressed great
interest is measuring and incentivizing programs that lead to jobs.
However, it is problematic to do that because we do not have data
sources that allow us to determine employment in fields trained. Most
community college students work while in college, and our employment
numbers following program completion are in turn very, very high,
typically exceeding 95 percent. However, we are not able to delineate
whether employment is in the field for which they were trained which
limits accurate evaluation. We can discern what industry they may be
working in, but that cannot substitute for the field, because for
example, maintenance workers are employed in hospitals and hotels, and
information technology specialists are employed in manufacturing
companies. Bottom line, data limitations and access do create barriers
to analysis.
2. What is the federal government doing right now that stands in
the way of the North Carolina Community College System doing what it is
exactly supposed to do?
Response
Data indicates that community colleges have been the most effective
sector in keeping costs of college down and preventing the higher
education ``bubble.'' (For example, see data from the Delta Cost
Project). However, this also means that per student expenditures at
community colleges are vastly lower than those found at four-year
colleges and often even at public schools. This has impact,
particularly in providing programs needed in ``job driver'' areas such
as health care (i.e., nursing, radiography and dental assistants, etc.)
and technician programs (i.e., machining, maintenance, advanced
manufacturing, HVAC, etc.) that have high costs, require smaller class
sizes and where you have a middle-skills gap. The current WIA system
does not provide for support of resources to community colleges for
providing these needed programs. Tuition and fees, paid for through the
Individual Training Account vouchers that WIA participants receive,
support participation in community college programs, but frequently do
not cover the costs. This is particularly the case in low tuition
states like North Carolina, where tuition amounts to less than 25
percent of the cost of delivering the training. States that maintain
low tuition should be encouraged to maintain those low tuition rates,
with flexibility granted that allows them to use Federal funding to
support community college costs for equipment and instructors in high
cost areas where significant skill gaps exist. Otherwise, it creates a
perverse incentive for community colleges to increase their tuition
costs so that they can capture more of the actual costs of providing
education and training programs. It also means that under current WIA
funds can be used to support administrative overhead costs, when
perhaps they could be more effectively used by states to support the
costs of providing an effective training delivery network through their
community colleges, absent an increase in tuition and fees.
There seems to be increasing recognition at the Federal level of
the importance of investing in community college job training and
education as evidenced by the competitive grants made available through
the Department of Labor's Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College
Training Grant Program. However, this investment should be incorporated
into the nation's overall system for workforce development, not just
provided as a temporary, add-on competitive grant program that does not
reach the vast majority of community colleges.
3. How can the committee foster greater coordination and
collaboration among federal, and North Carolina state and local
workforce development programs, so that people like myself and our
newly elected Governor, Pat McCrory, can work more effectively
together?
Response
The committee should give greater credence to the role community
colleges play as part of state and local workforce systems, and
recognize them as such at the national level by deeming them as a
central part of the nation's workforce development system, not just as
another training vendor which essentially is what the Workforce
Investment Act currently does. The previous Job Training Partnership
Act was much better in recognizing the role of community colleges than
the Workforce Investment Act,. Under the current Workforce Investment
Act, there is too often a disconnect in too many places between
community colleges and workforce boards because the federal legislation
does not acknowledge nor really speak to the unique role played by
community colleges, other than in regards to board inclusion.
Consequently, when individuals at the Federal level refer to the
workforce system, they may or may not incorporate community colleges,
when at the state or local level, community colleges are almost always
central players in the workforce system. Resolving this disconnect at
the federal level with greater recognition of the national role of
community colleges in the nation's workforce development
infrastructure, I believe, would be an important first step in gaining
greater coordination and collaboration among federal, state and local
officials and workforce development programs.
______
[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]