[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
STRENGTHENING WIOA: IMPROVING
OUTCOMES FOR JOBSEEKERS, EMPLOYERS,
AND TAXPAYERS
=======================================================================
HEARING
Before The
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION
AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
of the
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE
WORKFORCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, SEPTEMBER 20, 2023
__________
Serial No. 118-23
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via: edworkforce.house.gov or www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
55-799 PDF WASHINGTON : 2024
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina, Chairwoman
JOE WILSON, South Carolina ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia
GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania Ranking Member
TIM WALBERG, Michigan RAUL M. GRIJALVA, Arizona
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN,
RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia Northern Mariana Islands
JIM BANKS, Indiana FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
JAMES COMER, Kentucky SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania MARK TAKANO, California
BURGESS OWENS, Utah ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina
BOB GOOD, Virginia MARK DeSAULNIER, California
LISA McCLAIN, Michigan DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey
MARY MILLER, Illinois PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
MICHELLE STEEL, California SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
RON ESTES, Kansas LUCY McBATH, Georgia
JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut
KEVIN KILEY, California ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota
AARON BEAN, Florida HALEY M. STEVENS, Michigan
ERIC BURLISON, Missouri TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ, New Mexico
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas KATHY E. MANNING, North Carolina
JOHN JAMES, Michigan FRANK J. MRVAN, Indiana
LORI CHAVEZ-DeREMER, Oregon JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York
BRANDON WILLIAMS, New York
ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana
Cyrus Artz, Staff Director
Veronique Pluviose, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
BURGESS OWENS, Utah, Chairman
GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania FREDERICA WILSON, Florida,
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin Ranking Member
ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York MARK TAKANO, California
JIM BANKS, Indiana PRAMILA, JAYAPAL, Washington
LLOYD SMUCKER,Pennsylvania TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ, New Mexico
BOB GOOD, Virginia KATHY E. MANNING, North Carolina
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas LUCY McBATH, Georgia
JOHN JAMES, Michigan RAUL M. GRIJALVA, Arizona,
LORI CHAVEZ-DeREMER, Oregon JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN,
BRANDON WILLIAMS, New York Northern Mariana Islands
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
ALMA ADAMS, North Carolina
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on September 20, 2023............................... 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Owens, Hon. Burgess, Chairman, Subcommittee on Higher
Education and Workforce Development........................ 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Wilson, Hon. Frederica, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Higher Education and Workforce Development................. 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
WITNESSES
Sanders, Scott B., President and Chief Executive Officer,
National Association of State Workforce Agencies........... 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 11
Conrad-Bradshaw, Rya, Vice President, Corporate Markets,
Cengage Group.............................................. 20
Prepared statement of.................................... 22
Beasley, Roderick ``Rick'', Executive Director, South Florida
Workforce Investment Board................................. 27
Prepared statement of.................................... 29
Bishop, Mason M., Nonresident Fellow, American Enterprise
Institute.................................................. 33
Prepared statement of.................................... 36
ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS
Chairman Owens:
Letter dated September 20, 2023 from the Littler
WorkPlace Policy Institute............................. 47
Letter dated September 20, 2023 from the Society for
Human Resource Management.............................. 50
Letter dated September 26, 2023 from the National Retail
Federation............................................. 52
Bonamici, Hon. Suzanne, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon:
Letter dated September 20, 2023 from the American
Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.... 70
Sablan, Hon. Gregorio Kilili Camacho, a Representative in
Congress from the Northern Mariana Islands:
Statement for the Record................................. 79
STRENGTHENING WIOA: IMPROVING
OUTCOMES FOR JOBSEEKERS, EMPLOYERS,
AND TAXPAYERS
----------
Wednesday, September 20, 2023
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce
Development,
Committee on Education and The Workforce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:20 a.m.,
House Rayburn Office Building, Room 2175, Hon. Burgess Owens
[Chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Owens, Thompson, Grothman,
Stefanik, Smucker, Good, Moran, Foxx, Wilson, Takano, Manning,
Bonamici, and Scott.
Also present: Walberg.
Staff present: Cyrus Artz, Staff Director; Nick Barley,
Deputy Communications Director; Mindy Barry, General Counsel;
Hans Bjontegard, Legislative Assistant; Isabel Foster, Press
Assistant; Daniel Fuenzalida, Staff Assistant; Sheila Havenner,
Director of Information Technology; Paxton Henderson, Intern;
Amy Raaf Jones, Director of Education and Human Services
Policy; Marek Laco, Professional Staff Member; Georgie
Littlefair, Clerk; Hannah Matesic, Deputy Staff Director; Audra
McGeorge, Communications Director; Gabriella Pistone, Overisght
Legislative Assistant; Rebecca Powell, Staff Assistant; Brad
Thomas, Deputy Director of Education and Human Services Policy;
Maura Williams, Director of Operations; Savoy Adams, Minority
Intern; Nekea Brown, Minority Director of Operations; Ilana
Brunner, Minority General Counsel; Scott Estrada, Minority
Professional Staff; Stephanie Lalle, Minority Communications
Director; Raiyana Malone, Minority Press Secretary; Kevin
McDermott, Minority Director of Labor Policy; Shyann McDonald,
Minority Staff Assistant; Kota Mizutani, Minority Deputy
Communication Director; Veronique Pluviose, Minority Staff
Director; Clinton Spencer IV, Minority Staff Assistant.
Chairman Owens. The Subcommittee on Higher Education
Workforce Development will come to order. I note that a quorum
is present. Without objection, the Chair is recognized to call
a recess at any time. Welcome to today's hearing on
Strengthening the Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act.
WIOA was enacted in 2014 by a split Federal Government,
democrats controlled the Senate and the White House while the
Republicans controlled the House. At the time, WIOA was a
strong step in the right direction. It finally consolidated and
attached established Federal workforce programs with six
primary indicators of performance, to ensure accountability to
the taxpayer.
As we fast forward to today, unfortunately, the lingering
problems of unemployment and skilled worker shortages is still
persistent. The composition of the Federal Government might
mirror that of 2014, but the workforce system today in 2023 is
facing greater challenges to equip job seekers with in demand
skills.
In July 2014, the United States has 4.8 million unfilled
jobs. In July of this year there were 8.8 million unfilled
jobs. An increase of 4 million. Further, the labor force
participation rate has not improved since WIOA was first
enacted. To distract from this harsh reality, some point to the
unemployment rate. The reality is though that the employment
rate paints an incomplete picture of the American workforce.
The real story is that too many young, discouraged men and
women have been forced out, and are now sitting on the
sidelines of our economy. I see a number of bipartisan common-
sense changes that this Committee can make to WIOA to bring
these dislocated workers back into the fold.
To implement meaningful reform, this Committees north star
has been maximizing outcomes for job seekers and employers. We
must also improve outcomes by cutting back wasteful inefficient
bureaucracy. We hear from employers across the country that
they do not participate in WIOA due to its time consuming
burdens.
Overly prescriptive requirements stifle flexibility and
efficiency. Instead, WIOA should focus on developing where it
matters the most. For instance, WIOA contains approximately
75,000 eligible skill development programs, yet the lack of
performance data for most programs means job seekers and
employers are left guessing which programs are valuable.
The committee should also look into potential reforms
regarding the accountability mechanisms enshrined in WIOA. The
inability to obtain workforce performance data is just one
issue, but even when data is available, the present system
fails to enforce accountability measures.
To date WIOA still implements according to a lax transition
standard meant to ease the state's administrative burdens,
while adjusting to the 2014 law. Nearly 10 years later the
Department of Labor has not fully implemented WIOA's
accountability, meaning every State is considered a performance
success, despite our workforce malaise.
Finally, reform can improve outcomes for job seekers and
employers by encouraging innovation. The provisions of the
present law that expressly prohibits states from adapting and
innovating to the rapidly changing economy. This could be an
easy bipartisan fix, deregulating the key areas, like allowing
states to restructure how they can make services available to
job seekers and employers will help them unleash the American
workforce, allowing the innovators to have skin in the game to
innovate.
Job seekers, employers, and communities in our country wins
big time. The American economy is an incredible with potential,
however, it is abundantly clear this Committee needs to
reevaluate and reform various aspects of WIOA to build on that
potential by cutting bureaucracy, developing accountability and
encouraging innovation we can ensure a brighter promising
future for America's workforce. With that, I yield to the
Ranking Member for her opening statement.
[The Statement of Chairman Owens follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Wilson. Thank you. Thank you so much Chairman Owens,
and thank you to the witnesses for your testimoneys today, and
welcome. Thanks to the investment made by congressional
democrats and the Biden administration, the past 2 years were
the first and second largest job growth years in American
history.
American history. Without a doubt, this has been monumental
for American workers for their families, and for the economy.
In fact, our economy has added more than 13 million jobs since
President Biden took office. According to the Economic Policy
Institute low wage workers have experienced the fastest real
wage growth seen since during any business cycle peak since
1979.
This historic growth was made possible by the American
Rescue Plan, the Inflation Reduction Act, and the work of
democrats to build the economy from the bottom up and middle
out. These laws secured historic investments to help vulnerable
workers, accelerate economic growth and lower the costs for
everyday families.
Democrats remain focused on building the economy from the
bottom up, and in the middle out. To build on this progress, we
can help Americans access and benefit from these new job
opportunities by fully investing in our workforce system,
reducing barriers for underserved workers, and improving the
quality of job opportunities.
If we want to improve outcomes for job seekers, employers,
and taxpayers, we must put serious money behind the Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act, while simultaneously holding
training, providers and workforce boards accountable. Young
people, workers forced out of their jobs, and justice involved
individuals are counting on us to work together to improve the
workforce system, and to meet the demands of the millions of
new high skill, high wage jobs.
With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back, and I look forward to a
productive discussion. Thank you.
[The Statement of Ranking Member Wilson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Owens. Thank you. Pursuant to Committee Rule 8-C,
all members who wish to insert written statements into the
record may do so by submitting them to the Committee Clerk
electronically in Microsoft Word format by 5 p.m., 14 days
after the date of this hearing, which is October 4, 2023.
Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for
14 days such that such statements and material referenced
during the hearing will be submitted for the official record
hearing. I now turn to introduce our four distinguished
witnesses.
First witness is Mr. Scott B. Sanders, who is the President
and CEO of the National Association of State Workforce Agencies
located here in Washington, DC.
Our second witness is Ms. Rya Conrad-Bradshaw, who is the
Vice President of Corporate Markets for the Cengage Group,
which is in Boston, Massachusetts.
I will turn to Ranking Member Wilson to introduce the
witness.
Ms. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have the honor of
introducing the next witness, Mr. Rick Beasley from the great
State of Florida. Mr. Beasley is the Executive Director of the
South Florida Workforce Investment Board, which serves as the
local workforce board for Miami-Dade County and Monroe County.
As Executive Director, Mr. Beasley strives to find solutions to
workforce issues paramount to my district's long-term economic
viability, and the economic mobility of its residents.
Thank you for agreeing to testify Mr. Beasley, and I yield
back to the Chairman.
Chairman Owens. Our final witness is Mr. Mason Bishop, who
is a Nonresident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute
here in Washington, DC.
I want to thank the witnesses here today and look forward
to your testimony. Pursuant to Committee rules, I would ask you
to each limit your oral presentation to a 5-minute summary of
your written statement. I would also like to remind the
witnesses to be aware of their responsibilities to provide
accurate information to the Subcommittee. I will first
recognize Mr. Sanders.
STATEMENT OF MR. SCOTT B. SANDERS, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF STATE WORKFORCE AGENCIES (NASWA), WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Sanders. Chairman Owens, Ranking Member Wilson, and
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here
today to testify on behalf of the National Association of State
Workforce Agencies of NASWA. The members of our nonpartisan
association are the State leaders and their agency staff of the
publicly funded workforce system, which implements the WIOA
career services and skills development programs, labor market
and information programs, and in many instances, other human
services programs.
Our members represent the 50 State workforce development
agencies, plus the agencies in the District of Columbia, Guam,
Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, four key opportunities to
strengthen the management, delivery and evaluation of WIOA
services are one, increase flexibility for states; two, sustain
staffing flexibility; three, strengthen alignment of workforce
programs with postsecondary education to support infrastructure
and industrial investments.
Four, improve performance measurements and other data
driven strategies. While NASWA members represent different
populations, economies and administrative structures, they
agree that increased flexibility is essential. Without such
flexibility, states will continue to face challenges in
developing and implementing innovative strategies to produce
short-term and longer term results.
Based upon their experiences from the field, NASWA members
have identified several areas in WIOA for improved State
flexibility. The areas for improved State flexibility are
expanding eligibility to incumbent workers who are at higher
risk of displacement, allowing the states to use funding across
adult dislocated workers, and youth programs, to better serve
their constituents based on the specific need and improving
options under youth programs to allow targeted delivery of
services.
Since the early 1990's, employment service or ES staffing
flexibility was used by states that demonstrated alternative
staffing models such as Colorado and Michigan. In 2022, the
U.S. Department of Labor reversed course by proposing a new
rule that would require State merit staff to deliver ES
services, which would potentially disrupt service delivery,
impose new costs, and create administrative burdens on the
workforce system.
Nearly all NASWA members urged the Subcommittee to support
ES staffing flexibility in WIOA, where they will exercise this
possibility or not.
To meet the goals Congress established in the bipartisan
Infrastructure Law, the Chips Act and the Inflation Reduction
Act, new partnerships should engage State workforce and
education systems, industries, community organizations and
others will be required to enable informed, strategic
decisions, and actions resulting in successful outcomes.
Federal agencies must work together to assure that State
agencies have a vital role at industry specific planning
tables, and support State agencies with the resources,
technical assistance and guidance to ensure the success of
historic infrastructure investments.
Since 2021, NASWA has supported the creation of multi-State
data collaboratives that currently are comprised of almost 30
states from the East, Midwest and South. These collaboratives
support State agencies to increase data quality and analytics,
and expand access to data and data sharing among workforce
system stakeholders.
To sustain these collaboratives, and expand them to the
remaining states, NASWA recommends adding infrastructure and
other industry partners to align resources that support
informed decisionmaking, making that go beyond producing just
basic State workforce data.
NASWA members fully support WIOA's vision for a strong and
transparent performance accountability system. For example, the
Subcommittee could one, streamline and improve performance
measures by updating indicators based on data currently
collected.
Two, make performance target negation process more cost
effective and having a department's proposed target first for
states use.
More immediately, NASWA recognizes the time pressure on the
Subcommittee to improve performance and accountability, and the
use of data to get the model right. NASWA offers to quickly
assemble a small group of State performance and technical
experts to help you and your staff determine how best to
improve WIOA performance accountability, including data use and
evaluation.
Chairman Owens, Ranking Member Wilson and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to share NASWA's
view about strengthening WIOA.
[The Statement of Mr. Sanders follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Owens. Thank you Mr. Sanders. I will now introduce
Ms. Conrad-Bradshaw.
STATEMENT OF MS. RYA CONRAD-BRADSHAW, VICE PRESIDENT, CORPORATE
MARKETS, CENGAGE GROUP, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
Ms. Conrad-Bradshaw. Chairman Owens, Ranking Member Wilson,
and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity
to be here today to share Cengage Group's perspective on ways
to strengthen and modernize the Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act.
My name is Rya Conrad-Bradshaw, and I serve as the Vice
President of Corporate Markets for the Cengage Group. Cengage
Group is one of the largest education technologies companies in
the world.
We provide quality digital products and services to
millions of students across the globe, with a mission to
connect education to employment. I lead our efforts with
employers to build talent pipelines and upscaling programs to
meet their high demand workforce needs.
I have spent the last dozen years working with higher
education, nonprofits and employers to create innovation
solutions, including more than 6 years at the industry-leading
workforce provider Year Up.
With major technology transformation in our economy, some
estimate that up to 40 percent of the workforce will need to
reskill over the next 3 years. At the same time there are
significant talent shortages in jobs critical to America's
economy, including more than 300,000 shortage in allied health,
and more than 600,000 in cybersecurity.
Given these shortages, our Nation must rethink the way in
which our workforce obtains and maintains the skills most in
demand by employers. As Congress begins to reauthorize WIOA, it
must align workforce investment with economic development.
In 2021, only 35 percent of those participating,
approximately 223,000 people received training services through
WIOA's adult dislocated worker and youth formula grant program.
If we want WIOA to serve more learners and meet the
economic imperative, the program must refocus its mission to
deliver these skills and competencies needed for the country's
most in demand jobs. One of the most important ways to address
this is to improve the eligible training provider list, which
is what I was asked to discuss specifically here today.
These lists are a critical tool for WIOA participants, and
employers to determine high quality, best in class providers.
According to a recent Harvard report, one of the biggest
challenges at the ETPL is that there are collectively more than
75,000 eligible programs for more than 7,000 providers in more
than 700 occupational fields.
The sheer size and scope of these lists make it hard for
participants and employers to navigate and find the right
program. Further, most eligible programs do not provide any
outcome data on all enrolled, despite the current law's
requirement.
A new DOL website designed to show performance information
by program shows that over 75 percent lack basic information on
completion, employment rates, median earnings and credentials
earned. This is in part due to the lack of consistent methods
of collecting data, as well as the cost, time and difficulty to
report on these outcomes.
I would like to lay out a few policy recommendations that I
would believe would improve the ETPL. First, Congress should
work with the U.S. Department of Labor to determine what
barriers exist when collecting and publishing data to ensure at
least a baseline of every eligible program's outcomes are made
public.
At a minimum, these outcomes should focus on completion
rates, expected earnings, and pass rates for industry
recognized credential attainment. Second, Federal, State and
local governments should facilitate access to centralized tools
to assist providers in obtaining accurate outcomes data.
Such tools would reduce bias in reporting metrics, defray
costs of collecting information, increase transparency, and
improve resource allocation to target programs that generate
results.
Third, states should be encouraged to work collectively to
recognize best in class providers across State lines, and
prioritize these programs that are employer sponsored,
particularly those where employers have financial skin in the
game, provide on the job work experience, or commit to
providing program completers an opportunity for employment.
Fourth, states should create probationary eligibility
pathways that allow for innovation and experimentation of new
programs and providers, which are able to keep up with the pace
of change.
Fifth, Congress should affirm multiple modalities,
including online and hybrid models, as long as they continue to
meet the outcome metrics requiredof all programs.
Finally, Congress should allow One Stop career staff the
ability to better coordinate Federal and State resources,
especially between Pell Grants, WIOA individual training
accounts, and other Federal workforce programs to allow for
more flexibility in covering the cost of workforce development
programs.
I would like to thank the Subcommittee for inviting me here
today. As you begin the reauthorization of WIOA, I urge you to
take a more demand led approach.
These systems must keep pace with industry and with
innovation, otherwise we risk further widening the wealth gap
in our society, and contributing to a less competitive position
in the global marketplace. Thank you.
[The Statement of Ms. Conrad-Bradshaw follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Owens. Thank you Ms. Conrad-Bradshaw. I would like
to now recognize Mr. Beasley.
STATEMENT OF MR. RICK BEASLEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SOUTH
FLORIDA WORKFORCE INVESTMENT BOARD (SFWIB), MIAMI, FLORIDA
Mr. Beasley. Chairman Owens, Ranking Member Ms. Wilson, and
distinguished members of the Subcommittee. My name is Roger
Beasley. I have the distinct pleasure to serve as the Executive
Director of the South Florida Workforce Investment Board, and
better known as Career Source South Florida.
We are the local workforce investment board that serves the
residents and businesses in MiamiDade and Monroe County. I
commend the Subcommittee and the House leadership for making
continuous transformation of our workforce development system
into one that increasingly is flexible, responsive and
innovative, and is a leading priority for this Committee.
The talent supply challenges confronting our Nation at
home, and global competition abroad, requires that we leverage
and maximize resources to ensure effective and efficient use of
a public workforce investment that addresses talent needs of
employers today and tomorrow, by bolstering growth and
sustainability of jobs in our economy.
As Congress considers reauthorization of the Workforce and
Innovation Act, it is my honor to highlight specific
programmatic and administrative areas that offer guidance to
support Congress in fulfilling its mission to increase
opportunities, enhance accountability, and reduce
administrative waste and improve outcomes for our Nation's
public workforce system.
As the largest workforce investment board in the State of
Florida, Career Source South Florida has implemented a number
of initiatives that expand employment training services to job
seekers by increasing economic mobility, implementing
recruitment and retention tools to address talent supply
shortage challenges that face our business community, and
design and launch on time, real time tools that evaluate the
performance outcomes, and also evaluate Federal compliance
requirements.
In my written testimony, you will find more information on
how we have focused on these critical areas to enhance outcomes
and connect South Floridians to meaningful and training
opportunities, as well as help employers find talent that they
need to compete and thrive.
As an experienced workforce leader in workforce
development, it has been my privilege to work not only in
Florida, but also Missouri for the more than 24 years. I think
there are some clear areas and opportunities to continue to
improve our workforce system on the State, local and Federal
levels.
I appreciate this opportunity to highlight three areas that
I want to concentrate on. First, in reauthorizing WIOA,
Congress should authorize the Secretary of Labor to utilize
opportunity zones to eliminate barriers to determine WIOA
eligibility. As you all know, opportunity zones have been
designated as economic areas that are based on past census
data.
Some opportunity zones are in low-income neighborhoods and
cities, while others on rural areas, that geographically are
far from large concentrations of jobs and resources. Potential
WIOA participants who live in opportunity zones, should
automatically qualify for WIOA services.
The new eligibility standard would allow workforce
development boards to expand services in underserved
communities, eliminate eligibility barriers for job seekers,
and reduce administrative paperwork. In an effort to increase
participants and obtain training services, Congress may
establish individual training accounts, training goals, for the
use of WIOA funding.
Based on economic conditions of a local workforce area,
states should eliminate--I am sorry, states should implement
individual training account goals, and these goals would
establish percentages of how WIOA funding could be targeted for
training services.
Rest assured, the definition of reliable training
activities should include classroom training, on the job
training, apprenticeship models, customized training and
incumbent worker training as well as program costs that support
participants while they are in training, like case management,
support services and facility costs.
Finally, to address financial barriers to economic
mobility, Congress should promote the expansion of WIOA support
services to address issues regarding the benefits cliff.
Careers of South Florida provides support services to
participants to aid them in increasing economic self-
sufficiency through WIOA services, and then by adding emphasis
on adding benefits.
Excuse me, on adding emphasis on addressing benefits
cliffs, we help mitigate the loss of public benefits for
participants who are gaining new skills to qualify for better
paying jobs, but who are at risk of losing those safety net
benefits that remain essential on their path to self-
sufficiency.
As I conclude, I applaud this Committee's effort, and
commitment to hold hearings such as the one this morning, to
shine and highlight opportunities to improve our Nation's
public workforce system.
I look forward to the question and answer section, which
allows us a great opportunity to discuss actions and other
actions of Congress, and other workforce partners, that we take
to improve our public workforce system.
Chairman Owens, this concludes my remarks. I want to thank
you for the opportunity to testify before this Subcommittee on
the issue that is very vibrant and important for the American
innovation and commerce. When appropriate, I welcome the
questions from you and the Committee as well, thank you.
[The Statement of Mr. Beasley follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Owens. Thank you Mr. Beasley. I would like to now
recognize Mr. Bishop.
STATEMENT OF MR. MASON BISHOP, NONRESIDENT FELLOW, AMERICAN
ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Bishop. Chairman Owens, Ranking Member Wilson, and
members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to
provide testimony on improvements Congress can make to the
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act.
Early in my career I supported Governor Mike Leavitt in
negotiating and implementing the legislation that created the
Utah Department of Workforce Services, which still stands today
as the most integrated public workforce system in the country.
From 2001 to 2007, I served as Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Employment and Training during the George W. Bush
administration, where one of my responsibilities was developing
policies and improvements to the Workforce Investment Act, the
predecessor to WIOA.
I then had the opportunity to go back to Utah and serve as
Vice President for Institutional Advancement at Salt Lake
Community College, and since 2012 I have been a full-time
consultant. As part of my work, I see the challenges faced by
communities and families, seeking to improve economic
conditions.
The bureaucratic hurdles faced by workforce development and
education staff trying to address the reskilling, or upskilling
of workers, and the unnecessary complexities of a myriad of
Federal workforce and education programs. My testimony today
provides an outline of specific principles and opportunities to
improve WIOA, to meet our shared goals of upward mobility,
labor force attachment, and high wages, and business growth
through a skilled and productive workforce.
As part of my AEI work, I have issued a landscape study
report that documented the five decade history of Federal
involvement of funding employment and education programs. As
Congress has sought to address particular workforce and
educational challenges over the decades, it is layered program
upon program across multiple Federal agencies, often with the
very strict rules as to both who gets served, and more
importantly, how they get served.
This approach has led us to where we are today, a continual
acknowledgement and frustration that we are still not as
efficient and effective as we must be to bolster a skilled
workforce in the face of both domestic and global economic
challenges. WIOA reauthorization is an important step toward
improving this programming, and if we address three issues.
No. 1, excuse me, while workforce service delivery is
regional, Federal efforts to define roles for State and local
jurisdictions that serve proprietors has led to unmanageable
complexity. I often hear people say that workforce development
is local, but that's true in a very limited sense.
Starting with CEDA in the 1970's, the Federal Government
provided a direct linkage and relationship to local
communities, and that linkage remains today through WIOA Title
I. However, I point out that all the other program partners,
other than WIOA Title I, are delivered based upon what
Governors and states decide, including title II adult
education, Title III Wagner-Peyser Employment Services, and
Title IV vocational rehabilitation.
Perhaps the most egregious example of Federal overreach in
defining roles and responsibilities, is what Mr. Sanders
already talked about, the State merit staffing requirement,
where under Wagner-Peyser Employment Services, State employees
are mandated to provide employment services, while WIOA Title
I, the same exact services are being provided by local
employees. That is unmanageable.
No. 2, WIOA creates a governance structure that is too
prescriptive, and defines a single model and service delivery
structure for the entire country. Under WIOA we have the one
stop system, and while the idea of a one stop service delivery
system is important in theory and practice, narrowly defining
how the system should work across diverse communities, and
regional economies, incentivizes work arounds and stakeholders,
meeting basic and minimal requirements without shared ownership
of such one stop system.
Third, WIOA lacks tools and incentives for innovation and
performance improvements. Since COVID, I have been contacted by
numerous states wanting to understand the Utah model, and how
they can implement it. One state's workforce leadership told me
their Governor challenged him to be best in class, so they
conducted research into what is working.
What they found was Utah performed best across the several
factors that they developed for measuring best in class.
However, and I emphasize this, current WIOA law prohibits
states from implementing the Utah model, arguably the best
model we have in this country.
This is due to two factors. Starting with WIOA,
prescriptive requirements have been legislative that do not
comport to the key features of what we implemented in Utah. No.
2, WIOA lacks provisions that allow states to pilot alternative
approaches, or demonstrate improved performance through
innovative ideas and service delivery designs.
In my testimony I give areas of the Utah Model that are
specific and can answer questions, but I do want to end with
three things that I promote in my testimony. No. 1 is I believe
Congress should create an innovation demonstration authority in
legislation to allow states to innovate, and provide good
flexibility and ideas from the ground up.
No. 2, I believe we ought to allow for Federal funding
flexibility to promote efficient use of resources and
integration of related services across programs. No. 3, and I
give many examples, where we need to restructure WIOA to
promote modernized program governance, and performance-based
service delivery.
I will end by saying that I often like to say that we are
trying to operate in a mindful economy with programs that were
created and modeled from the New Deal and great society, and
they continue to do so. We must modernize this program and
provide the governance and service delivery, improvements and
flexibility that will allow innovation and new ideas. Thank
you.
[The Statement of Mr. Bishop follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Owens. Thank you Mr. Bishop. Under Committee Rule
9, I will now question witnesses under the 5-minute rule, and I
will begin the process. Mr. Bishop, I am proud of the success
that Utah has achieved by integrating a workforce services, and
I believe that all states should have the same opportunity to
pursue Utah's model.
That being said, I know there may be other innovative and
effective ways to administer workforce development programs,
however the current law, as you just mentioned, does not allow
other states to innovate to pursue a better outcome. Can you
explain how authorizing a demonstration authority under WIOA
might spur innovation at a State and local level?
Mr. Bishop. Yes. We learned in the 1990's that when we
provide states with opportunities for flexibility and
demonstration that can lead to better outcomes for individuals
who are low income, or needing jobs. What we believe is that we
do not know all the answers. Each State is different.
Florida is different than Utah. Florida, for instance, may
not want a single State area. They might want to have local
workforce boards, for instance. We do not know what each State
needs based upon what their constituents are, what their
businesses and industries are, and what is happening with this
technological economy that is rapidly changing.
What we do know is that we can no longer, in my opinion,
have a Federal workforce law that sets the rules of the game
for those that are trying to deliver services, and have the
same rules across the entire country because our economies and
our businesses, and our workers and our communities are so
varied and different that we believe let us let states and
local communities come up with the ideas that work best for
them in return for performance accountability, improving what
they can achieve with better outcomes with flexibility.
Chairman Owens. Thank you. Mr. Sanders, I like a point you
made earlier when you said we do not need to collect even more
performance related data. We need to focus on data that will be
used. In your experience, what data points are most relevant to
job seekers and employers?
Mr. Sanders. Obviously, appreciate the comment about
collecting more data for those who use it. We looked at the
PERL, you can see how many points of data we collect. I think
we need to work with the data we have. I think some of the
methodologies to look at collecting data are obviously on
earnings outcomes for individuals, even second quarter or
fourth quarter out.
Obviously, looking at both for the same individual because
individuals could leave and go to another job at that point. I
think the harder one is on the employer side, and figuring out
a metric that works for employers to get employers engaged, and
to make sure that you can demonstrate to them how you can
succeed, and them coming to the workforce system to actually
fulfill their labor and workforce.
Chairman Owens. Okay. Thank you. Ms. Conrad-Bradshaw, you
mentioned this engaged work with employees on skill to hire
programs, and emphasized the importance of promoting employer
sponsored programs in the WIOA system. From a student's
perspective, if they know that a job is waiting for them at the
end of their skills education program, what impact does that
have on their mindset, and their likelihood to persist and
complete the program?
Ms. Conrad-Bradshaw. Thank you for your leadership and your
question, Chairman Owens. In our work with employers we see
that employers having buy in in the system creates a really
different experience for learners. There is essentially skin in
the game on both sides, to know that learners will have better
outcomes when they know that a job, or the potential of a job
is available to them after a program.
Employer involvement also ensures that learner focused
outcomes are improved, and drive success of the program. At
Cengage Group we are innovating these skills to hire and talent
pipeline models with employers with high workforce demands,
particularly in healthcare, cybersecurity, and other high
demand industries, where employers will sponsor the education
of learners who through their success are able then to prove
their ability to do those jobs, and get hired by those
companies where we support the on the job and work based
component of this training.
We see them as a very successful model, and I have seen
them over my career as well.
Chairman Owens. Thank you so much for that. Without
objection, I would like to submit letters for the record from
Workforce Policy Institute, the Society for Human Resource
Management, and the National Retail Federation, each of which
discussed various ways in which the WIOA system could be
strengthened to better meet today's economy.
[The information of Mr. Owens follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Owens. I would now like to recognize the Ranking
Member for the purpose of questioning the witnesses. Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Beasley, we know
that these programs help the individual taking advantage of the
program. Can you say a word about how these programs benefit
the economy generally?
Mr. Beasley. Thank you for the question, Representative
Scott. Let me share with you as a workforce leader that
provides services in South Florida, our programs are designed
specifically to help our employers find talent. We have a role,
a model in our region, the only customer that we have is the
employer, and our job seekers.
Our role really is to rescale, retool that job seeker to
align the skills to meet the needs of the employer. Often times
we look at workforce development as a social service program,
and truly it is not. It is economic development. If we can
drive talent it helps grow that company, so that they can grow
their business.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. Typically how much do these programs
cost?
Mr. Beasley. In our programs we, last year, we invested
over 39 million dollars in our community. We placed over 7,000
folks, and we have a cost replacement roughly about $3,300.00.
We generate over 360 million dollars back into the community in
South Bay.
Mr. Scott. Now we know we have seen studies that showed
many families cannot come up with $400.00. If the workers had a
way to pay for these programs, could you provide more training?
We are considering, for example, the use of Pell Grants for job
training programs.
Mr. Beasley. In the workforce system, there is something of
a combination of how we leverage resources. The opportunity for
us to provide these dollars, again these are our community's
dollars, the public servants. We are here to ensure that they
are able to have access to these programs.
The general public has already paid for them through their
tax dollars. Our role is to be able to assist them and be able
to afford them the chance to get retrained, reskilled, and then
connect them to jobs.
Mr. Scott. If they had access to a Pell Grant they would be
able to--you would be able to train a lot more people in your
program. Is that right?
Mr. Beasley. Well, if they have access to the Pell Grant,
there is a way for us to leverage those resources. If Pell paid
the training first, we could then use those dollars to support
services to enhance that individual to complete their program.
Mr. Scott. Can you say a word about how important support
services, some call them wraparound service is?
Mr. Beasley. Support services are very vital, and as you
all know in this economy most working families are having
difficulties making ends meet. By utilizing support services,
it enables that individual to essentially complete the program,
but also it provides a safety net to allow them to reskill,
retool themselves to acquire additional jobs that pay more, but
it also helps them to be able to become self-sufficient, so
they are very vital to the success of the individual
completing.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. How can we enhance youth
opportunities, particularly summer jobs?
Mr. Beasley. Well one, Congressman, it would be great to
have additional resources, but more importantly, the
flexibility in our regulations allowing the expansion, as I
mentioned before, that any individual who lives in an
opportunity zone to become income eligible.
It allows us, as workforce board leaders, to target those
underserved populations, and offer them an opportunity to get
training. It would be more flexibility in terms of affording us
to have summer employment programs that enable us to provide
additional work based learning for those youth.
Mr. Scott. How can we expand those opportunities?
Mr. Beasley. How can we expand opportunities? Through
legislation, giving us the flexibility again, as I mentioned,
it is not just the resources. It is the flexibility to be able
to target those individuals, and not having barriers because of
income and eligibility guidelines that prevent us from really
working with those youth that really need it, particularly
those who are ex-offenders, youth offenders, of those who are
teen parents.
Allow us the ability to be able to work with them and use
our resources to help them.
Mr. Scott. You mentioned offenders. What can we do for
second chance opportunities, justice involved individuals,
those returning from prison?
Mr. Beasley. Well in our region we target individuals. If
you look at our data, Representative, 30 percent of my outcomes
are individuals who are ex-offenders. I can tell you 35 percent
of our positive outcomes are individuals who are welfare
recipients. About 50 percent of the individuals in total are
individuals who have a high school diploma or less.
Mr. Scott. How successful are you if they can get a job
they are much less likely to go back to prison?
Mr. Beasley. I have not calculated our recidivism rate, but
we work with organizations to prevent them from going back to
the institutions.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Owens. Thank you. I would like to now recognize
the full Committee Chair, Ms. Foxx.
Mrs. Foxx. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and I thank
our witnesses for their testimony, and their written testimony,
and the very specific kinds of recommendations that have been
made. Mr. Sanders, as you know, holding programs accountable
for their performance is a top priority of mine, and it is
frustrating that almost a decade after WIOA's enactment the
Departments of Labor and Education still have not fully
implemented the accountability provisions.
As we consider modifications to the six common indicators
of performance to better measure program successes, do you
agree that any updates should be based on data that the
workforce system is already collecting, to avoid additional
administrative burdens and allow for swift implementation?
Mr. Sanders. I wholeheartedly agree, Dr. Foxx, that we
should use the existing data we have. Obviously, it would
create additional stress on the whole system to come up with
the new metrics at this time. I think that would be the right
direction to look at what we have and create appropriate
measures.
Mrs. Foxx. Now remember I have limited time, so in my next
question do not give me the whole universe. What are some of
the challenges states face when using the statistical
adjustment model to negotiate their expected levels of
performance?
Mr. Sanders. I will make it short and sweet. Right now, I
feel as if it is a black box, when it comes to the way that the
calculations are made. The states do not have any insider
transparency as to how the numbers are calculated, and I think
it should be more transparent and an even playing field to come
up with what the metrics should be.
Mrs. Foxx. Do you believe reversing the negotiations
process so the Department suggests levels based on their
statistical model, and then states get a chance to respond and
counter with their own data, would reduce duplication of
effort, and helps states negotiate on a level playing field.
Mr. Sanders. I would agree with that as long as the
Department shares their basis and assumptions on how they come
up with the figures.
Mrs. Foxx. Great. Transparency is the other thing we are
looking for in everything that we do in this Committee. Ms.
Bradshaw, in your testimony you suggested states work together
to streamline the application process for high-quality
programs, so they can be available to learners across multiple
states.
Does this type of collaboration become easier if the
eligibility criteria are narrowed down to focus on program
performance?
Ms. Conrad-Bradshaw. Thank you, Representative Foxx for
your leadership over the past decade on these issues. The most
important outcomes are those that matter to the learner, and
program completion, and certification, job placement, and an
increase in projected wages.
Best in class providers are consistently meeting and
surpassing these performance targets, and these providers often
have strong employer partnerships that lead to full-time
employment. Congress should encourage states to work together
to streamline the process to get these quality providers as
many WIOA participants as possible.
Mrs. Foxx. Thank you very much. Mr. Bishop, WIOA created a
State funding mechanism for giving up the cost of operating the
one stop center among partner programs. However, it can only be
used after local boards try and fail to reach agreement.
What are the practical implications of forcing the WIOA
system and partner programs to negotiate to the point of
failure each year?
Mr. Bishop. I appreciate the question, and actually the
State infrastructure mechanism is something near and dear to my
heart because it was something I helped conceptualize when I
was at the Department of Labor, and it ended up in WIOA. I
actually think that the Department misinterpreted the statute
because the local memorandum says may, and they through
regulation, said that you had to fail before going to the
state--triggering the State infrastructure mechanism.
With that said, the idea behind the State infrastructure
mechanism was that we still have in too many communities, we do
not have a one stop system. We have a one stop system amongst
the Title I and Wagner Peyser programs, and then we have a
social services system where you go to get TANF of other
services. You have got a bulk rehab system in a location where
you go to get that.
The idea of the State infrastructure mechanisms is that
Governors will be able to take off the top of their State
allotments and pool those resources, then make sure that each
program has skin in the game, so to speak, and then comes
together at the local and the regional level to be able to
provide those services.
The problem right now, and I am working in West Virginia,
they literally spend months negotiating MOU every single year.
They have to negotiate the MOU, the cost allocation, the
partnership, contributions, they spend more time negotiating
MOUs than they do serving clients, literally in some cases.
Mrs. Foxx. Well that is certainly something we would like
to solve, and again I really appreciate the specific
recommendations that we have gotten from members of the panel
today, and we are definitely going to learn and improve. Learn
from what has not worked, and improve in every way that we
possibly can. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Owens. Thank you. I would like to now recognize
Ranking Member Ms. Wilson.
Ms. Wilson. Thank you Mr. Chair. Mr. Beasley, you mentioned
in your testimony the value of streamlining eligibility
requirements, specifically you called for automatically
qualifying residents in opportunity zones for WIOA services.
You claimed such an approach could expand services for
underserved communities and eliminate eligibility barriers for
job seekers.
Can you speak on those barriers you have seen for potential
WIOA participants? What are the eligibility requirements and
paperwork that is so burdensome?
Mr. Beasley. Thank you Congresswoman Wilson, for the
question. As I mentioned in my testimony, the use of
opportunity zones enables workforce boards the ability to if
approved, would allow us to quickly be able to make someone
income eligible, reduces the barriers.
How I feel, Congresswoman, is that the system has
individuals jump through a bunch of hoops. You have to prove--
poor people have to prove that they are poor to receive our
services, and if we had automatically eligibility, it would
enable us to provide services directly, and streamline that
process to get them into a program very quickly, into a
training program, or directly into placement.
For us, it minimizes the type of paperwork that we have to
collect, so that we can determine eligibility.
Ms. Wilson. The WIOA of 2022 bill that we passed in the
House last conference--Congress, we required the youth of self-
attestation for eligible youth to ease the enrollment process
for both the individual and the board. Do you think such a
process would minimize paperwork?
Mr. Beasley. Yes ma'am, as a matter of fact, we as a
workforce board have approved self-attestation policy. Self-
attestation allows a participation to self-certify eligibility
information when the ability to provide that information
becomes burdensome.
Self-attestation should also be used to allow for the
documentation. When there is a lack of resource or
documentation beyond self-attestation, it can delay the
process. For us, as a workforce system, it helps us be able to
get that individual into a program to help them become self-
sufficient.
Ms. Wilson. Okay. The topic of consolidation of workforce
boards has been a subject of discussion. Proponents argue that
consolidation can streamline operations, and reduce
inefficiencies, however, there are concerns about potential
drawbacks. Can you provide insights into the advantages and
disadvantages of using consolidation?
Mr. Beasley. Thank you for the question, again
Representative Wilson. I will share with you one of the
comments that other panelists have mentioned here is about data
access. Again, from the Federal side, it gives us an
opportunity to kind of streamline that piece to give clarity,
to provide data access to not only from the State level, but
for the local level.
It allows us to be more efficient. No. 2, when we actually
consolidate, I think somethings consolidation does provide some
benefits, and sometimes it also provides a way of preventing
some barriers in the local voice of how services can be
provided.
A prime example, we are going through that process here in
Florida, and you have one particular region that is been
consolidated into a larger region. Often times the services in
that particular region may not be provided in the way that has
been provided before. Again, when we are looking at
deficiencies, there are ways that I would recommend that can
take place by having more automation in terms of the case
measurement systems that we have, that will reduce the amount
of work that local providers, the staff there, are in the
centers, that they have to do.
The other piece of streamlining the process in terms of
data, like our council mentioned here, but also encouraging our
states to have statewide contracts, a recruitment process. It
eliminates having those components within our workforce system,
and it helps us be able to serve more individuals if those
things were taking place.
Ms. Wilson. Thank you. As we explore ways to enhance the
effectiveness of individual training accounts within workforce
regions, we must have a robust evaluation process in place. Can
you share specific performance metrics, or key performance
indicators that you believe should be used to assess the
success of our ITAs?
Mr. Beasley. As our panelists have mentioned, to increase
the number of training vendors in our system is great. However,
I would encourage that this panel, this Committee, recommend in
terms of reauthorization, four components that we have
implemented in our workforce region, and we have had them in
place since 2010.
The first is a percentage of training participants that
successfully complete their training program. No. 2, a
percentage of training participants that obtain a credential,
or certification after they've completed the program. No. 3,
the percentage of training participants that obtain gainful
employment.
Then No. 4, a percentage of training participants who
gain--who obtain gainful employment, but within the field.
Those are the four criteria which we use in terms of our
contracts. If a training vendor's program does not successfully
complete those items, that program is automatically removed
from our training, our provider list.
Ms. Wilson. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Owens. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Thompson
from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Thompson. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much, and thank
you to all of our witnesses for being here today. As we have
heard in our hearing on WIOA earlier this year, there are a
number of areas that can be improved in the WIOA system. I
thought we did a pretty good job in 22, but we are always
looking to refine, and make improvements.
I am happy to see that each of our witnesses today has
offered concrete solutions to help us move forward. Looking
backward very quickly, for anyone, certainly Mr. Beasley, as
Executive Director of Workforce Investment Board, I think one
of the key changes improvements that we have made with WIOA,
was that we required a controlling interest on those boards.
I have to admit right up front, I am a recovering workforce
investment board member. That one of the changes was that 50
percent plus had to be individuals from the private sector. The
folks that were signing the front of a paycheck, not the back
of a paycheck, or being in line to receive the funding to
provide the employment in career and technical education.
Has that had a beneficial impact with having our boards
have more individuals from the private sector? The folks that
are the job creators? Any thoughts on that? I am just curious.
Mr. Bishop?
Mr. Bishop. I think it is important that they be 50 percent
plus 1, but I would say that I think it is often symbolic and
not real in terms of employer engagement. Having boards that
have majority employers does not mean that there is employer
engagement occurring.
It does not mean that employers, or the right employers are
invested in the system. Frankly, does not necessarily even mean
the right people for those companies are on the boards. What I
see often is that we talk about business led boards, and that
becomes a substitute for the hard work of rolling up sleeves,
and really achieving true sector partnerships and sector
strategies.
Really engaging businesses in a meaningful way that gets
them the skilled workforce they need. Additionally, it gets
back to my comments and why I continue to talk about the
governance structure, because we have so many built-in
inefficiencies, in my opinion, that we are not able to utilize
the resources effectively on behalf of businesses to get them
skilled workers, to be able to grow their businesses and
expand.
I see that continually in many, many states and locations.
Mr. Thompson. Right. Very good. Well, I do think, Mr.
Beasley, any reflections in your role as Executive Director?
Mr. Beasley. Thank you for the question, Representative
Thompson. I really think that having a business led board
really provides an impact for us. Like most boards in the State
of Florida and those that I used to oversee when I was the
State Director in Missouri, again what I am seeing in most
boards, they are engaging their business community, and not
just those on the board, but the Chambers of Commerce.
I myself, am a former Chairman of the Greater Miami Chamber
of Commerce, and so we are engaged with them as well as the
Beacon Council, which is our economic development arm. What I
am seeing in most boards that are engaged in the business
community, they are connecting with them to address the needs
of what businesses need in terms of a common supply.
Mr. Thompson. Right. That is important. This point is well
taken too. It cannot be symbolic. It cannot be a monthly
luncheon. They have got to be rolling their sleeves up, and so
a question for Ms. Conrad-Bradshaw.
Cengage has a unique perspective when we talk about
workforce development. As you noted you are at the intersection
of education employment, and I appreciate your emphasis on
focusing on reskilling workers due to the changing economic
landscape because we know that's happening all the time.
The rate of technology enhancement, right? As we focus on
filling the skills gaps in our workforce system, I think it is
important to focus on upscaling incumbent workers, investing in
the existing workforce ensures that workers can remain relevant
for today's rapidly changing economy.
Can you talk about the experiences Cengage has had in
upscaling incumbent workers?
Ms. Conrad-Bradshaw. Yes. We worked--thank you,
Representative Thompson for your question. We work closely with
employers to upskill their incoming populations, particularly
we see this in hospitals, but we also see this in large
businesses that we work with across the country, who are
particularly interested, and in cybersecurity, where they are
interested in their workforce having the most up to date
credentials, that are required either by the State and that
demonstrate the skills that they need.
Employers are making direct commitments to themselves, and
many of them do not always know how to even access the funding
that may be available to them, but this is a critical priority
to them.
Mr. Thompson. Here is my hope. Our U.S. workforce
participation is down, 62.8 percent, aging population is a part
of that. There are some other variables, so I would hope,
perhaps, in this upscaling we could provide skills incentives
for individuals to stay in the workforce longer because the
workforce--that is really the energy of the economic--American
economy, is having that workforce, thank you.
Chairman Owens. Thank you. I would like to now recognize
Mr. Takano of California.
Mr. Takano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just yesterday I met
with the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges to
discuss some of the most pressing issues facing students, and
their trajectories into the workforce. This hearing comes at a
perfect time, as we gear up for the reauthorization of WIOA.
One of the unique initiatives being spearheaded is the
California military articulation program, or MAP initiative,
which seeks to maximize credit for prior learning for veterans.
This initiative focuses on completion of transfer and career
attainment for veterans through granting credit for prior
learning in military training.
The goal here is to give veterans every single credit they
deserve for their previous work experience in the military.
Students who are awarded credit for prior learning are more
likely to complete a degree in contrast to their counterparts.
Furthermore, students who are awarded credit for prior learning
save an average of 9 to 14 months to earn a degree.
Students could save thousands of dollars on tuition, and
other related expenses, not to mention preserving their GI bill
for maybe graduate school or other learning. The savings are
substantial. I am proud to highlight the initial MAP initiative
begun at my own community college, Riverside Community College
in my own district.
Numerous veterans have been able to receive extensive
credit for their valuable work experience in the military. Now
the aim is to deploy MAP in all of the 116 community colleges
that currently span California, with the hopes of improving
access completion and transfer credits for military training.
Now Mr. Beasley, do enough veterans in this country receive
appropriate college credit upon enrolling in a college post-
service?
Mr. Beasley. Thank you for the question this morning,
Representative. I will share with you one of the items for us
is to expand prior learning assessments. Again, for those in
the military as well as working adults. The goal there again,
is to accelerate the skills, so that they can obtain
employment.
Mr. Takano. Generally, Mr. Beasley, do you believe that
enough veterans are receiving appropriate college credit
throughout the country? Is that your general impression, or
could we do better?
Mr. Beasley. Let me answer this way. We can do much better.
Mr. Takano. Great. Thank you. Mr. Beasley, in your
estimation do you believe that we should be providing veterans
with college credits for military training? Should we be doing
this?
Mr. Beasley. Yes I do. My father is a military man who
served for 27 years in the military.
Mr. Takano. Great, and what, if any, are the benefits that
would come along with providing college credits for training
and course work completed on active duty?
Mr. Beasley. Implementing prior learning assessments for
those in the military, it affords them to take the skills they
have learned on the job, and acquire college credit, which then
makes it more attractive to employers, and it upskills them to
provide the upskill, and allows us to be able to place them
much faster.
Mr. Takano. Do you believe there is value in granting
veterans credit for prior learning for their military
experience?
Mr. Beasley. Yes I do.
Mr. Takano. Now by creating an additional pipeline of
students that can join college programs on an expedited track,
the reality is that we would have college graduates enter the
workforce more quickly.
Mr. Beasley. Correct.
Mr. Takano. Now there are broad areas that may exist
alongside military service where we can recognize people's
lived experience, and potentially explore the notion of
expanding credit for prior learning, among other people in the
workforce beyond our military service members.
Do you believe that there are large groups of working
people for whom this could be true?
Mr. Beasley. Yes, sir.
Mr. Takano. For instance, childcare workers specifically,
could they benefit from such a program?
Mr. Beasley. Yes, sir.
Mr. Takano. What about homecare workers?
Mr. Beasley. Actually, I would say the gamut of all those
in various occupations will be able through prior learning
assessments, acquire upgraded and accelerated skills if they
were implemented.
Mr. Takano. These homecare workers that are getting paid to
take care of a family member, people that are taking care of
other folks, generally low paid. Do you believe that there is
from their experience they could be granted some amount of
credits by a community college, or a college, for their
experience, which would be more inviting for them to actually
upskill, and to increase their value in the workforce?
Mr. Beasley. Yes, sir. As a matter of fact, we have
implemented a teacher assistance program targeting individuals
who are already providing early learning education to our
youth, and provided them an opportunity to upskill their
grade--upskill their education.
Mr. Takano. Well thank you, Mr. Beasley, for your
responses. I yield back.
Chairman Owens. Thank you. I would like to now recognize
Mr. Grothman from Wisconsin.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you. Kind of amazing sitting here
listening to a bunch of Congressman decide how we should
micromanage these local programs. It kind of reminds you why
Federal Government ought to be not involved in all sorts of
things, and just send it back to the locals once and for all.
Just a general question. I just kind of wonder about this,
Mr. Bishop. What percentage of high school seniors you think
ought to enroll in a 4-year, 2 year leading to a 4-year
university, compared to the number that are doing it now?
Mr. Bishop. How many should enter a community college, a 2-
year and then a 4-year?
Mr. Grothman. Well, by community college I guess in
Wisconsin a community college is the gateway of a 4-year
college. How many should immediately upon graduation be working
toward a 4-year degree, and a 4-year institution? Compared to
the numbers who are?
Mr. Bishop. Well, I can tell you that roughly 28 percent or
so of individuals in the United States have a bachelor's
degree. Most jobs do not, especially higher paying jobs now, do
not necessarily require a bachelor's degree. I am of the
opinion that we should be providing high school students with
much more direct career exploration and understanding.
I talk to community college students all the time, and we
have kids spinning their wheels from different courses to
different programs.
Mr. Grothman. Yes. If you just had to give me a wild guess.
We are not going to be quoting you here 10 years from today, of
all the kids who graduate from high school.
Mr. Bishop. How many need to be----
Mr. Grothman. How many should not go onto a 4-year college,
and how many should be looking at say a skill where you could
make more money and have more job security?
Mr. Bishop. I do not know, 70/30 skilled to college maybe.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. You are saying about 70 percent of the
people going to college, you are better off going to tech
school, or learning a skill?
Mr. Bishop. It depends what industry----
Mr. Grothman. You could be right. Other people feel that
way.
Mr. Bishop. This is a tough question.
Mr. Grothman. I would say more 50/50, but if you want to
say 70/30.
Mr. Bishop. Yes, 50/50 sounds like good number to me.
Mr. Grothman. Half should not be going.
Mr. Bishop. My biggest thing is I think people should have
the information and data exploration to be able to make the
choice that is best for that individual. That is my pick.
Mr. Grothman. Sorry for showing up a little late today. I
was over in the Budget hearing where we were passing a budget
resolution, and people keep pointing out that 22 percent of the
amount of money the Federal Government spends today is
borrowed. Right? We have kind of a frugal, by congressional
standards a very frugal agreement as far as the amount we are
spending next year, and we are going to drop the amount we are
spending next year compared to this year on discretionary
spending.
Nevertheless, obviously we are almost at the point of no
return as far as the amount we're borrowing. What do you think
about the idea of taking this whole WIOA thing and just
throwing it back on the states, and getting the Federal
bureaucracy out of it?
Mr. Bishop. I would say absolutely my opinion, again I will
say as somebody who turns 67 in 2034, the year social security
goes upside down, that I have always been kind of nervous about
how the budget scenario looks. I would say that I am absolutely
a fan of modifying the rules of the game with WIOA, and
allowing much more State innovation and flexibility, and I
think the more that Congress through reauthorization can get
rid of a lot of these rules, and allow for that flexibility.
Mr. Grothman. Things around here move glacially.
Mr. Bishop. Yes. I understand.
Mr. Grothman. They move glacially.
Mr. Bishop. Yes. I started working on WIOA reauthorization
in--
what is that? I am sorry.
Mr. Grothman. If you even think--do you really want the
reauthorization in--things around here move glacially.
Mr. Bishop. Yes.
Mr. Grothman. Do you really want Congress mucking around
with this at all? It will be a small miracle if anything comes
out of this Committee.
Mr. Bishop. I want Congress mucking around in it if they
will get rid of some of the things that are not working right
now, and are hamstringing----
Mr. Grothman. Congress does not get rid of anything. Ronald
Reagan said there is nothing, you know, more whatever. There is
nothing more permanent forever than a new Federal program. That
is not going to happen. Should we just clear this out, and you
can deal with it on a State by State basis?
Mr. Bishop. Let me answer it this way. I am a conservative.
I consider myself a very conservative individual, and I had to
ask myself when I started at the Department of Labor in 2001,
as a conservative, how can I be working in these programs?
I will tell you the answer I answered to myself. I think it
is probably the best answer I can give you, as I do believe,
and I have experienced over 20 years a number of individuals
for which there is a free market problem. Individuals impacted
by global trade go to Michigan.
When I had to go to Michigan and see 300 people had been
laid off because Whirlpool just ended up going to Mexico or
China, and having to look them in the eye, and they look at me
and say Mr. Bishop, what should I do now? I do believe there is
a role, a Federal role for funding employment and training and
education programs, but again a role that is targeted and that
frees up the states and local communities to be able to provide
those services to those vulnerable individuals.
I do believe there is a role for the Federal Government as
a conservative individual. That role that is being played now,
I do not agree with because I think it is so hamstring and so
inefficient that we are not actually able to serve the people
effectively who need these services, of which I think there is
a role to serve.
Mr. Grothman. I will ask the same question. Okay. That is
Okay. We are done, that is okay.
Chairman Owens. I would like to now recognize Ms. Manning.
Ms. Manning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Bishop
for that answer. I would like to talk a little bit about
wraparound services. I recently met with the economic
development leaders, one of--or actually two of my rural
counties in my district, to talk about workforce challenges
that their communities are facing.
Throughout our conversation, these leaders repeatedly
stressed the need for supportive services, in particular, they
talked about the need for childcare and transportation. They
emphasized that those were both hurdles to getting people into
the workforce who are not currently working.
We all know that WIOA's purpose is to help with those with
barriers to employment find success in the job market, but
there are currently calls to cap or eliminate funding for
exactly the kinds of supportive services that my constituents
need. Mr. Beasley, what can we be doing in Congress to help
address the need for supportive services, and in particular,
childcare and transportation, so that more workers,
particularly in rural areas, can participate in the workforce?
Mr. Beasley. Thank you for that question. Good morning to
you. Again, as I mentioned in my comments that Congress should
promote the expansion of supportive services to address again
those items, in terms of a benefits cliff. If we are looking at
supportive services, again childcare, transportation, and even
needs related payments, will assist our workers, our job
seekers to be able to give them a helping hand to complete the
program successfully, so they can get a job.
Then beyond that, to be able to assist them to become self-
sufficient.
Ms. Manning. Would cuts to those programs create more
hurdles for getting some of those workers into the workforce?
Mr. Beasley. Well when you say cuts to programs, again when
we are looking at the supportive services, and that is why I
made my comment in terms of when you look at ITAs, that again
providing the definition for training should include supportive
services, so that they are not cut because again, for someone
to successfully complete the program, wraparound services
become very important to the completion for the success of that
person to complete.
Ms. Manning. I also met with local community leaders and
police officers, to discuss the troubling trend of youth crime
rates. At risk youth across the Nation often face unique
challenges in developing the skills that will allow them to
enter the workforce.
Early exposure to work and economic opportunity can change
the trajectory of a young person's life, yet the current
republican budget would defund WIOA's youth job training
program, a critical program that helps prepare young people to
enter the workforce.
Mr. Beasley, can you talk a little bit about the positive
impact that youth oriented services have had on our
communities?
Mr. Beasley. Well, let me again thank you for the question.
I think we need to make a major investment in terms of our
future workforce. As you know, we have a challenge of
identifying skills, or talent for employers that need it. I
think if we make investment, you will see that if we provide
career exploration for the youth, it would help them acquire
the skills necessary to be able to get and obtain employment.
I will share with you we are working with an organization
called AAR, one of the largest maintenance repair organizations
in the country, and we have launched a free apprenticeship
program with them to build talent pipelines, and they
specifically target those at-risk youth to go into their
program. When you have employer like that that is committed to
serving individuals that have some barriers, it allows us as
workforce entities to be able to build talent to meet their
needs.
Ms. Manning. You also mentioned in your testimony the issue
of benefits cliffs.
Mr. Beasley. Right.
Ms. Manning. One of my nonprofit CEOs often talks about the
need for a benefits ramp, rather than a benefits cliff. How
would you address the benefits cliff issue?
Mr. Beasley. Again, thank you for that question. I actually
sit as a co-Chair in Miami-Dade County on a benefits cliff
committee that we have. One of the issues that we are facing is
that how do we help employers be able to maintain their
workers, but at the same time find a safety net to assist?
My recommendation to this Committee is this. The Federal
Reserve has been looking at this component for a number of
years, and they have, you know, provided kind of a study. If we
could have a sliding scale that could be implemented, that as
my salary is increased, that my benefits would then decrease by
the same amount.
That way I am not eliminated. It helps in terms of how
republicans look, in terms of eroding, getting rid of a safety
net. It also provides a way for that individual to gain, to
increase or gain from employment without the fear of losing
their benefits. A sliding scale would be my recommendation that
you all implement as my, again, my wages go up, that percentage
increase would decrease my benefits.
Ms. Manning. Thank you. My time is expired, I yield back.
Chairman Owens. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Smucker from
Pennsylvania.
Mr. Smucker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman for yielding and to
our witnesses for sharing their testimony today. This is one of
the issues I have a deep interest in. I talk to employers in my
district, workplace shortages are one of the key issues they
are faced with, and certainly we need individuals to engage in
the workforce.
We need their talent, and we need their skills. It helps
them to achieve their American dream, so we want to be sure
that this program is effectively serving the American workers
and their communities. Ms. Conrad-Bradshaw, a few questions
just for you based on what you're doing at your business.
I spoke with a technical college in my district, Thaddeus
Stevens, which is a great school who said they have been unable
to be added to the eligible trainer provider list, ETPL,
because the process in their mind was just simply too
complicated to warrant doing it.
I am wondering how you feel about the process. Do you think
it accurately examines program quality, or is it like just
making people jump through hoops? Do you think it works?
Ms. Conrad-Bradshaw. Thank you, Representative Smucker for
your question. I would say that I think what your technical
college is experiencing is relatively common for training
providers to access the eligible training provider list. What
we are advocating for is that there is a very clear focus on
program outcomes and program standards.
That for those programs that can demonstrate those
standards reliably, that there should be streamline process to
access the TPL.
Mr. Smucker. Do you think that would result in more high-
quality programs?
Ms. Conrad-Bradshaw. I do. I do believe that the
streamlining of the process will allow more high-quality
programs to one, access that, and also the transparency will
then be there for the learner, and employers, to know which
programs actually deliver results, right?
With so many programs on the list, it is hard for both of
those constituencies to determine which actually will deliver
results for both parties.
Mr. Smucker. Yes. One of the other areas I wanted to just
ask you about is I think it's really important that we have
employers involved in workforce development, in helping to
determine the needs that exist. I was a business owner myself
for many years.
I served on the Ways and Means Committee as well, and I
have introduced legislation called the U.S.A. Workforce Tax
Credit Act, that would create--actually create a tax credit for
employers who participate, who give contributions for
apprenticeship programs, for schools like Thaddeus Stevens, or
other programs, so that they create those kinds of
partnerships, and businesses are helping to develop the
programs.
I was interested in Cengage, like how do you map employer
demand? How do you ensure that you are building industry
relevant content? Are there things from your approach that we
should be learning in the workforce system?
Ms. Conrad-Bradshaw. Yes. I appreciate, and Cengage works
really closely with employers as well as industry leading
associations to ensure that all the programs that we propose
are in high demand, and are growing, right, so they provide
real opportunity for learners.
Two, that the skills that we put into them, the skills
education that we put into those programs are really matching
exactly what employers need, and exactly what learners need in
order to pass those certifications that are required in many
professions these days.
We see that close collaboration happening at many levels of
the workforce, and we then also work with employers to not only
map those didactic portions, but also the on the job pieces, to
ensure that there is a smooth on the job transition. Those
types of programs that you were mentioning, apprenticeship and
tax credit, we believe that the increased opportunity of those
is going to benefit both employer and learners, and that
requires that sort of close collaboration to map not only the
skills, but also what does the demand projections look like
over time to make sure that those training providers are
mapping the number of people.
Mr. Smucker. Thank you. One more quick question, I am
sorry. This is all going to be to you.
Ms. Conrad-Bradshaw. Okay.
Mr. Smucker. I think that is all that I have time for, but
online options as a part of the workforce development, part of
WIOA programs. I think it is really important that we meet
people where they are. We ensure that people can have the
access to the program, and so you know, I was part of the later
to try to ensure that high-quality online options could be
available.
I mean it is a way a lot of people are learning today, and
I just wanted to get your thoughts on that.
Ms. Conrad-Bradshaw. I really appreciate the question. At
Cengage, we believe in student choice, and we believe that all
learners should have access to high-quality training and
upskilling. That it is critical to actually meeting our
Nation's demand.
The vast majority of students that we work with are often
times working multiple jobs, and so they access--we have
students signing into programs at 2 o'clock a.m. in order to
further their education, in order to further their career
access. Providing access to online and hybrid opportunities
that are going to be able to meet those learners where they are
is critical for both those learners, and for meeting the
economic imperative.
Mr. Smucker. Thank you.
Chairman Owens. Thank you. I would now like to recognize
Ms. Bonamici.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you Chairman, and Ranking Member, and
thank you to our witnesses. I am really glad we are having a
productive and bipartisan conversation about reauthorizing the
Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act. It was the first bill
signing I went to as a Member of Congress with Chairwoman Foxx,
and it is time.
It is time for reauthorization. For the last two
Congresses, including during the last reauthorization proposal,
I introduced two bipartisan, bicameral bills to develop
stronger industry and sector partnerships, provide support for
small and medium sized businesses to attract and retain
workers, and also increase worker's access to high-quality work
based learning and apprenticeship programs, as well as
wraparound services, that will increase the likelihood of
successful completion in a workforce development program.
I am hopeful that those bills, the Builds Act and Partners
Act will be considered during this Committee's bipartisan
negotiations. I want to followup on Representative Manning's
question to you Mr. Beasley. Basically, the same question I was
going to ask, so I am going to followup on it. About the
supportive services and how important they are.
They can include transportation, childcare, tools,
uniforms, et cetera. We really see these as crucial components
for equitable and successful workforce development, and again
help people complete the program that they are in.
I also want to ask how those services make a difference in
increasing diversity, and for example, jobs in the trades.
Getting people in who have historically been left behind. In my
home State of Oregon, we have an organization called Oregon
Tradeswomen, so we have a higher percentage of women in the
trades.
I have spoken with a lot of them, and they say these
programs changed their lives, not just for themselves, but for
their families. Increasing the number of people who might not
traditionally think of a job in the trades for example. We also
have an organization called Constructing Hope, a wonderful
organization.
They work primarily with men and women, who have been in
the criminal justice system, and they have a path to a good job
because they learned the skills. What support services are
important to people, particularly people who have not been
involved in trades or other similar jobs, what makes a
difference, and what will help them complete programs?
Mr. Beasley. Good morning, and thank you for the question.
I will share with you, Representative, that we as a workforce
brought here recently, actually expanded what we call our
supportive matrix. We found it is very valuable to do so. In
the past, I think we were able to award maybe $2,000.00. Now it
is up to $4,500.00.
Again, living in Miami, the cost of living is very
significant. Again, I cover well the Keys as well, Key West, so
again cost of living is significant. These programs really are
valuable to help in terms of childcare, in terms of needs
related to payment.
A participant who may be going through training may need
assistance with terms of housing and can use these dollars to
be able to assist them, so that they are not worried about
losing their home, but can concentrate on completing their
program, again for the tools.
Individuals who are coming through our programs, we assist
in terms of providing resources for the purchase of tools, and
so they become very valuable.
Ms. Bonamici. That increases the likelihood they will
complete the program.
Mr. Beasley. Complete--the likelihood of completing the
program, and that is going to be beneficial.
Ms. Bonamici. Absolutely. I have a little bit of time, so
Mr. Sanders, there is a tremendous value in having high-quality
data about workforce participation and program enrollment. Last
year, the GAO published a report that found challenges with
collecting and reporting data about enrollment in workforce
development programs.
They identified issues with data about students enrolled in
multiple programs for example. GAO's recommendation was for the
Department of Labor and Department of Education to improve data
coordination. This could be accomplished, for example, by
updating the statewide longitudinal data systems program, so in
addition to incorporating GAO's recommendations, what can
Congress do in the next reauthorization to improve data access
for State and local boards that increase the coordination
between Labor and Education, and the collection reporting of
data.
Mr. Sanders. Representative, thanks for your question. I
think one of the things is to make sure that the data being
used is qualified the same way. I think that is one of the
challenges we have in the workforce area when you go to
education, it is different.
I mean, I go back to the old days it was all a social
security number. Nowadays education does not use that. I think
we need to find a way to match it up. The beauty of these
multi-State data collaboratives that were set up, we have got
the ability through algorithms that is thrown over the wall,
match it up, and then you can analyze it.
You can look for unemployment insurance to re-employment.
You can look at credentials of value. That is the beauty of
having this not necessarily within the Federal Government, but
we can protect it outside, and states can look across State
lines, because so many states border population areas, and it
is a true ability to actually see what happens to individuals
who train and educate if they stay in your State, or if they go
across State lines.
Ms. Bonamici. Absolutely. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, as I
yield back, I would like to submit for the record a letter from
AFSCME, urging the Committee to recognize the contributions of
the Wagner-Peyser Employment Service to the workforce system,
and encouraging support for merit-based personnel as a
foundation of the employment service.
Mr. Good. Without objection.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
[The information of Ms. Bonamici follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Good. Thank you. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Ms. Conrad Bradshaw, in your testimony you mentioned that
223,000 people received training through WIOA's adult
dislocated worker and youth formula grants program. Given that
we spend nearly 3 billion on those programs annually, all of it
borrowed, by the way, do you think that is a good return on
investment?
It costs about $13,000.00 per person, but I will also add
that 109,000 actually completed the program, so using that
measurement it cost about $28,000.00 per person. Would you say
those are a good return on investment?
Ms. Conrad-Bradshaw. Thank you for your question. We
believe that there is an opportunity to increase funding spent
on educational services through WIOA in this authorization, by
streamlining a number of the administrative opportunities that
are at work.
The critical piece is how much are you actually spending on
training individuals? As you suggested, what is that return on
investment? Are we seeing through low-cost programs the ability
to actually achieve wage outcomes? Achieve those completion
outcomes? With that, then it would be I think the importance of
investing in the workforce is critical.
Mr. Good. Do you have thoughts on how we could better
leverage that current 3 billion that is been allocated, to have
a greater impact on more people, or to save taxpayer money if
it was not having a greater impact? How would you leverage that
3 billion dollars to have a greater impact? What would you
suggest?
Ms. Conrad-Bradshaw. We think that there is an opportunity
to increase the number that is spent on training itself, as
opposed to the administration of those services. While there is
significant need in the community for training, as you said, it
is not reaching nearly as many people as it could when there is
significant need in high demand areas.
In our written testimony, we have specific ideas about how
to streamline ETPL to decrease--to increase the efficiency of
that, and if there are other areas in how we might be able to
do that, we will be happy to get back with you on points.
Mr. Good. Well, since you mentioned ETPL, or eligible
training provider list, what reforms might you suggest that
would help those programs, or to ensure that only those
programs with a positive return on investment are eligible for
funding?
Ms. Conrad-Bradshaw. As we discussed, we think there is an
opportunity to publish data, that includes all of those
completion rates, and have a baseline of data on all of those
outcomes made public. This ensures that there is complete
transparency, both for the learner and employer, as well as for
you as the investors in that system.
We also believe that you can streamline the access to that
data through centralized tools, that really allow you to see
wage gains. We also believe that there can be State
coordination around high performing programs, so that that
reduces administration, and allows many states to recognize the
same high-performing programs that meet that baseline. To
dedicate certain funds to innovation and experimentation, to
meet the changing economy demands, particularly from already
high-performing programs, and employer led initiatives.
Mr. Good. Thank you Ms. Bishop, or excuse me, Ms. Conrad-
Bradshaw, sorry. I am thinking of Mr. Bishop there. Mr. Bishop,
as you probably know, WIOA has not been reauthorized since
2020, and yet along with hundreds of other Federal programs
that spend hundreds of billions of dollars, Congress continues
just to appropriate money that has not been authorized, in
other words, not taking the responsibility to properly assess,
justify these programs.
WIOA cost taxpayers in the range of 10 billions dollars the
last time it was authorized I should say, all of it again
borrowed, with the deficit that we have. In your testimony you
talked about financial integration of Federal resources, and
the term braiding. Can you explain more about what that means
to braid resources?
Mr. Bishop. Yes, and again, some of the other questions
around supportive services and youth programs, this becomes
really important because those kinds of services do not need to
be on the back of WIOA Title I if we have the ability to allow
states and local communities to better integrate, not only
their services, but their funding opportunities.
Again, what has happened in Utah is because we were able to
get approval in the 1990's of a cost allocation model that
allows Utah, we do not have to negotiate MOUs. In Utah, they
have a single cost allocation methodology for the entire State
where TANF and Title I, and vocational--all these funds are
coming to the Utah Department Workforce Services.
Then they are able to then utilize all of those funds on
behalf of a customer, depending on what that person's needs are
versus the normal system, which is a local board gets only the
Title 1. That is all they have control of, and then they have
to try to get the other partners to agree to help give a few
little breadcrumbs to help them out.
Again, I would emphasize that in most communities, I
guarantee almost every Representative on this Committee could
go to their communities, and there is not a one stop place you
go for workforce development. You have to go to at least three
different places if you're lucky, versus Utah, where you truly
go through one door.
There is a lot of inefficiencies that keep people from
being able to get the services that they are eligible for.
Mr. Good. Thank you for sharing the success story from Utah
that you have seen. Now, and I yield my time, and now I will
recognize Mr. Moran from Texas for 5 minutes.
Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Sanders, I want to
start with you, and then Mr. Bishop I am going to come to you
with a couple questions. Mr. Sanders, in your testimony, you
mentioned the need to give states more flexibility under the
WIOA youth programs, I also believe this is a very important
thing we need to do.
In my home State of Texas, as well as in 15 other states
the workforce boards are allowed to use the allotment of WIOA
youth program funding to go toward individual training accounts
for in school youth through a waiver from the Department of
Labor.
I believe that it is imperative to set the next generation
up for success in our communities, providing states with more
flexibility, as was mentioned, with their WIOA youth program
funding would allow states to have more power to invest in
youth faced barriers to education training and employment.
That is why I am working with the Committee currently to
ensure that all workforce development boards across the Nation
have this flexibility, as we look to reauthorize WIOA. Can you
provide, Mr. Sanders, more insight into how we can provide
additional flexibility in youth training programs, so that we
maximize our impact on surrounding communities?
Mr. Sanders. Thank you for your question, Representative.
Yes, I think one of the beauties of working with youth is you
need more tools in the toolbox, and I think this type of waiver
that states use, it gives them the ability to address
individuals that may be more rural, and do not have access
necessarily with their own school to have training.
It gives them the ability to find an alternative provider.
I think it will help individuals exit high school, and maybe
have a plan A and a plan A. Not a plan A and a plan B. I think
that is important for our youth that they make the right
decision, which ever way they go. I think those waivers would
pay off.
Mr. Moran. Great. I will note I see heads nodding across
the panel. Does anybody disagree with setting up these
individual training accounts for youth programs, and youth
training? It sounds like a pretty good idea to me.
It lets the local community, and in fact it lets the youth
help determine their future, and I am a big proponent of that.
Mr. Bishop, I want to come back to some things that you
mentioned earlier.
I hear over and over again, in fact I heard yesterday from
economic development leaders in my home State of Texas, in East
Texas, that a number of folks involved in economic development
and workforce centers, and others, oftentimes do not choose to
participate in WIOA programs because of the sheer magnitude of
the paperwork.
The regulatory burdens, the bureaucratic hurdles that go
along with that, I am curious have you heard the same things?
If so, what steps should we take during this reauthorization
process to cut out unnecessary paperwork, and reduce the
regulatory burdens?
Mr. Bishop. Yes, I appreciate the question. Thank you. It
is interesting to me to hear the questions about military
credit for prior learning in talking about the community
colleges, because to me one of the big weaknesses of the
current system is it is not connected to community colleges in
most communities.
We essentially have the community colleges doing their
work, the workforce boards doing their work, and never the two
shall meet in most places that I see. Truly, the same with
economic development as well. You sort of have the three legged
stool of economic development education workforce development.
The question is to what extent are those three legs of the
stool actually working together on behalf of businesses and
residents of those communities? I dare say that I think that
probably it is not working extremely well in many places,
unfortunately.
Much of that is because I think again, thematically as we
have talked about, is that the rules that are in WIOA,
especially around Title I are so strict, and so stringent, that
it makes it nearly impossible for people like Mr. Beasley and
others. I mean you have heard all of the details he has had to
weave his way around to try to make things work on behalf of
the people he serves.
Yes, I think you hear all the time. What essentially
happens in states is you get Governors and other State level
officials, who the system does not work, and so they are
creating their own end arounds. I talk about this in my
testimony. I have seen this over and over again. They create
their own funding mechanisms to pay for ITAs for youth, or
tuition for workforce programs.
They create their own different separate business boards or
councils. Yes, what happens is essentially, they say the system
does not really work, but there is not much I can do about it,
so I am going to create something through economic development
that does work.
Mr. Moran. Just to hit on that point again, and to echo, we
are looking at the Utah model, and that is a model that seems
to be working, but under current WIOA, is not something that we
can fund. What incentives for innovation, that is a phrase you
use in your testimony, should we be looking at to include in
the WIOA reauthorization?
Mr. Bishop. Yes. Again, it gets back to the demonstration
authority idea, and I do give some more specifics outside of
the demonstration authority, but the reason I believe so
strongly in the demonstration authority because in the 1990's,
I saw what allowing states to innovate around welfare reform,
and social assistance programs did, where we ended up with a
ground swell coming up to Congress, so that by 1996 we have
bipartisan Federal welfare reform with the Clinton
administration and a republican Congress.
I believe the same kind of bipartisan approach can occur in
workforce development. I do not think we have all the answers
for what works, community by community. We have a very diverse
country. I think the best thing we could do is allow for
demonstration authority to let Governors working with their
local officials, come forward to Congress, to the
administration and say this is what we would like to try. This
is what works for us.
In return, here is the improved performance we will seek as
a result of this flexibility. I think it is just a really
balanced and important approach.
Mr. Moran. Thanks to the witnesses. Mr. Chairman, I yield
back.
Chairman Owens. Thank you. I would like to recognize Mr.
Walberg.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
panel being here. I am sure I could have been here longer as
well, but appreciate your written testimoneys. Mr. Sanders, as
you indicated in your testimony, the employment service program
provides similar career services, such as job search
assistance, and labor market information, as the WIOA adult and
displaced, or dislocated worker programs.
How can the flexibility for states to choose the
appropriate staffing model for the employment service improve
program integration and reduce the duplication of effort across
programs?
Mr. Sanders. I think with the flexibility that I talk about
in my testimony it would give the states the ability to set up
the distribution network accordingly. I think one of the pieces
that is going to come down the pike with the advent, and the
onslaught of artificial intelligence coming our way, I think
states will ultimately have to adjust the way services are
delivered.
Having the flexibility to move staff around accordingly, I
think will yield in a better product for the job seekers that
are going to come through the system.
Mr. Walberg. Well in relation to states, and based on the
few states that have been allowed to operate on under this
flexibility, what are some impacts they have seen, particularly
when it comes to effectively serving job seekers.
Mr. Sanders. I think it gives them a better hands on
approach in both Colorado, Michigan and Massachusetts. They
have had that ability to be more flexible. This would go away
if the proposed rule were changed, and I think that is
something where they would not be able to deliver services on
the ground and in the field, and I think that could definitely
hurt the individuals in those states.
Mr. Walberg. Something to be considered seriously. Mr.
Sanders, the Department of Labor's 2022 proposed rule to
require State merit staff to deliver the employment service
program and the flexibility that all states currently receive
under DOL's 2020 rule, and pulls the rug out from under the
demonstration states, including Michigan, as you have mentioned
that have operated with staffing flexibility for decades.
You indicated that nearly all NASWA members support
staffing flexibility. I have heard from local workforce boards
in my district that are saying the same thing. If both the
State workforce agencies and local workforce boards, the folks
on the ground implementing WIOA, are clamoring for this
flexibility, why do you think the Biden administration is
proposing to end it?
Mr. Sanders. It was not really explained in the proposed
rule as to why they are making the change. It was something I
think states want that flexibility, and I think you let states
decide, and I think that is the direction we should be going.
Mr. Walberg. Especially since it is working, so your answer
is why change something you do not really understand, except to
gain more control?
Mr. Sanders. Right.
Mr. Walberg. By the Federal Government. Well, I hope it all
does not happen. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Owens. Thank you. We will now start our closing
remarks. I woud like to recognize Ms. Wilson for her remarks.
Ms. Wilson. Thank you Mr. Chair. Today's hearing helped set
the record straight on our progress to foster historic economic
growth, and invest in creating millions of new jobs across the
country. As we discussed today, one of the most important steps
we can take to build on this progress is to put serious money
behind the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act.
Now is not the time to cut funding for workforce
development even further. We must invest in expanding access to
skills, development for those who need it most, and ensuring
that workers and students have access to only the highest
quality opportunities. Thank you to all of our witnesses today,
for sharing their experiences.
As the Ranking Member of this Committee, I am especially
grateful that Mr. Rick Beasley could join us today to share the
great work he is doing with the South Florida Workforce
Investment Board. Under his strong leadership, the South
Florida Workforce Investment Board has thrived in its work to
support economic development and provide high-quality,
competitive and better paying jobs for workers.
Mr. Beasley is truly a force in workforce, and with that he
has been a long-time champion for job seekers and employers
alike. Thank you again, Mr. Beasley, I know you had to alter
your schedule, and thank you for your continued dedication, and
I look forward to continuing to work with you and with my
colleagues on the Committee, to strengthen our workforce system
on behalf of all Americans. I yield back.
Chairman Owens. Thank you, Ms. Wilson. I just want to say
sincerely thank you to each and every one of you guys. It has
been really refreshing to see the bipartisan solutions. Each
and everyone of you guys have the expertise in areas that you
have actually spent a lot of time in.
It is obvious you all have a passion for solutions, and I
appreciate that. It is well overdue. I also want to say that I
am very proud to be from the State of Utah. It is a State that
understands what collaboration is, what innovation is, what
thinking outside the box is, because we have an end game of
winning and make sure our citizens are provided the very best
in whatever we are trying to present.
That is exactly what we need to have here, collaboration. I
think it is shameful, to be honest with you, to see success in
one State, and it is illegal to export that success to other
states. It makes absolutely no sense, other than the fact that
that is the tradition D.C. bureaucracy.
We have people who are not only risk adverse, but
innovative reverse, inverse--adverse, and who would anyway,
they do not like innovation. We need to change that trajectory,
and this is how we get it done.
I think the last word we should ever hear here in this body
is a black box when it comes down to communication transparency
and innovation. The last thing we need. I just want to thank
you guys again because at the end of the day what we do here,
and I will say that I am excited about being part of the
conference, that truly is looking at being innovative in our
legislation.
The only way you can do that is you have to hear from
innovators. You guys think about this 24/7. You have decades of
experience, and why reinvent the wheel when you know what makes
the wheel spin correctly. We look forward to this. This is one
area again; I see a true bipartisan effort.
At the end of the day, 4 million unfilled jobs, those are
true people, they are real people, Americans, who are losing
their hopes and dreams, and we cannot afford to let that
happen. I look forward to having this continuous conversation.
I think we are going to get some things done because of the way
we are approaching as a body, and I look forward to getting
Americans back to work, so thank each and every one of you guys
for what you put in, and your time today that was spent with
us.
I would like to thank you guys as witnesses, for taking the
time to testify before the Subcommittee today. Without
objection, there being no further business, the Subcommittee
now stands adjourned.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Whereupon at 12:04 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.
[all]