[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]