UREAP Comment on President's WIA Reauthorization Proposal

Comment on the Bush Administration's "Proposed WIA Reauthorization Approach"
Submitted to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce
By the Utah Reauthorization Project (UREAP) on February 27, 2003

Dear Chairman Boehner and Committee Members,

The Utah Reauthorization Project (UREAP) appreciates this opportunity to convey some of our ideas regarding Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Reauthorization. We include herein our reactions to President Bush's proposal, insofar as details are available to us at this time, imagining that this is where discussion is likely to start. UREAP's official membership includes entities with a broad variety of experience and expertise and has statewide coverage. Over 400 people receive information through an email list and a website (http://www.slcap.org/UREAP/ureap.htm) and, in turn, share it with others in their organizations. Input into UREAP's activities, including this comment, is accomplished via the email list and monthly meetings.

WIA reauthorization is a matter of great concern to Utah. Utah is one of the few states that has reorganized its administrative structure to offer both TANF and many WIA services under the same roof--the Utah Department of Workforce Services. Utah was also one of the first states to implement WIA. Our comments will follow the same topical format as the President's "Proposed WIA Reauthorization Approach" document that is available at the Department of Labor, Education and Training Administration website. As additional detail and legislation become available, we will comment further.

Governance

The President's proposal addresses shortcomings in WIA governance and operations that have appeared since its passage in 1998. Utah has been granted a waiver to operate one statewide Service Delivery System whereby our State Council makes policy, and our eight Regional Councils play advisory or supportive roles to the State Council.

UREAP agrees that membership in the State Workforce Investment Boards (SWIBs) should be reduced in order to operate more efficiently. We agree with the provision to eliminate the requirement that a majority of members must represent the business sector. We would further suggest eliminating the mandate that the Chair be a business person. We believe that SWIBs should elect their own Chair from among their full membership so that leadership and merit are recognized and the vision to serve both employers and job seekers is acknowledged.

The list of Mandatory Partners in the current law needs to be re-examined, as the President has suggested, and a balance between the needs of the participating parties established. SWIBs set policies and priorities, consequently, they should adhere to democratic processes and represent the needs of the entire community insofar as is possible. Common ground is achieved through research and debate. This process needs to be encouraged.

The role of each state's Governor is prominent in the President's proposal, which is appropriate. Governors still have great influence in appointing members to the SWIB and determining the outcome of their State Youth Councils. We also agree that reducing the planning cycle from five to two years is a positive reform.

We are concerned about the Administration's intention to eliminate the requirement for Youth Councils. We understand that part of the motivation for this change is uncertainty that Youth Councils have had a positive impact in some states, as well as charges by some that, especially in rural areas, their membership may include the same people who sit on other youth-focused boards and committees and therefore may appear duplicative. However, the original inspiration for Youth Councils in the 1998 WIA law is sound. The intent--that each state and locality is to bring together the best minds to work towards positive outcomes for youth--is timely and vitally important. Given this and noting that in most states Youth Councils have been in existence for only two years, we recommend that the President withhold judgment on the matter of Youth Councils until more time has passed so that an informed assessment can be made. If there is great determination to reduce Youth Councils to a state option in accordance with the Administration's proposal, we recommend that each state be required in its state plan to indicate their intention to retain their Youth Councils or to name alternative state and local entities that will carry out the functions of Youth Councils as defined in the WIA law in their stead.

Additionally, we are troubled with the proposal to remove public sector representatives from the Local Workforce Investment Boards, even given that they will still be connected through Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs). The missions of public sector programs are different from that of business and their full and equitable participation in setting public policy should be continued. Their presence and participation helps to create an important balance. On the other hand, we appreciate the emphasis the President places on community-based organizations in policy setting. This proposed change will add an important perspective.

One-Stop Career Center System

UREAP agrees with President Bush that WIA reauthorization should create a way to fund the cost of the One-Stop system. Failure in the current law to provide a means to support this centerpiece of the workforce investment system defined in WIA can only be considered an oversight. The seriousness of this omission is manifested by the acknowledged fact that many states have diverted funding to One-Stop operations that could and should have been used for training and other client services. We understand that a specific funding stream has not yet been advanced by the Administration, but UREAP favors the appropriation of funds--new money--expressly for the purpose of operating the One-Stop System. If Congress retains the requirement that states operate and maintain a One-Stop System in legislation reauthorizing WIA, it should ensure that funding is available so that states are able to do so without reducing their ability to fulfill the purposes of the Act. We believe a dedicated funding stream is preferable to mandating contributions by mandatory partners, a strategy that simply shifts the funding burden to additional entities, thereby resulting in reduced services to job-seekers offered by more or different agencies.

We also applaud the President's suggestion that WIA reauthorization should result in better linkages to a wide range of services to assist low-wage workers with career advancement opportunities through the One-Stop System. He has accurately named specifically the need for better linkages to financial work supports and to retention and advancement services. The programs and services that fall under these three categories form the foundation for self-sufficiency for low-skilled and low-wage workers, including, but not confined to, TANF enrollees and leavers. We can realistically view this as a three-legged stool. If this population is not facilitated in receiving whatever is needed in all three categories, their chances of success may be effectively blocked. Even in Utah, where TANF, Food Stamps, Child Care, and other forms of basic supports are offered under the same roof as employment services, there has been substantial concern that families' basic needs have been overlooked. The President and Congress are encouraged to send a clearer message to states that employment success is seen as predicated on the receipt of adequate support services, that the provision of work-preparation services to increase the chances that vulnerable workers will be able to keep jobs once they get them, and that access to activities and services that will maximimize the opportunity for low-wage workers to move forward until they are able to escape from poverty and truly support themselves and their families.

The President has also indicated the need for new approaches to remove barriers to serving targeted populations. In this regard, to the list of people with disabilities, migrant and seasonal farmworkers, and older workers, we would add Native Americans, who in Utah and many other states, are the poorest residents having the highest unemployment rates. We will watch eagerly for more details to indicate how it is hoped that existing barriers may be removed.

Comprehensive Services for Adults

UREAP counsels against the President's proposal to block grant WIA Adult, WIA Dislocated Worker, and Wagner-Peyser funding streams. As we understand it, consolidating of these three programs into a block grant is designed to facilitate transferability of funds and to increase collaboration and integration of services. Regarding transferability, we have not seen ample evidence that the 20 percent transferability in the current law is inadequate and it is certainly unclear why it would be necessary to jump from 40 percent suggested by the President for FY 2003 to 100 percent in FY 2004 (as would be created by a block grant) without first testing the results of a 40 percent transferability policy. We support measures that would increase collaboration and integration in this and and other service areas, but do not see block granting as an effective means of accomplishing that goal. It seems more likely that the salient effect will be to threaten reduced services to program areas that are already suffering cuts upon earlier cuts. Block granting also stands likely to reduce accountability for ensuring that various groups of vulnerable adults are served. For example, in the event of a dramatic economic event dislocating a large number of workers in a locality, how can we be assured that other unemployed persons such as TANF parents are not crowded out? We urge a more measured approach as a means to seek greater collaboration and request more information to justify increasing transferability among these programs.

The primary objective of the Workforce Investment Act should be enabling displaced and disadvantaged people to obtain training to prepare themselves for employment at family-sustaining wages. We are highly supportive of the President's recommendation concerning greater flexibility in the delivery of core, intensive, and training services. Equally welcome is a change that would allow concurrent delivery of services such as English as a Second Language and occupational training. A very clear switch in statutory language, from the current sequential service configuration to an approach where the individual is allowed to select from an array of services will correct one of the most serious problems with current WIA law. It has seemed entirely counterproductive to us that an individual such as a TANF parent accessing core services and found to lack, for example, adequate work skills and work-keeping skills would be prevented from moving directly to services that would correct those deficiencies. Even with less vulnerable job seekers, the lock-step approach does not work, but for low-skilled workers the result of the "Work-First" approach has too often been that they obtain a bad job, are counted as a "success," but fall far short of obtaining anything that would resemble the goals of the Act. Although current data collection requirements do not allow an understanding of how many low-income, low-skilled people receive job training and other work-preparation services, concern is widespread that there are very few. The President is clearly moving more in the direction of an individualized approach to service delivery that increases the chances that people will receive the help they need to be successful. This is very positive.

We appreciate the President's interest in enhancing training choices available to WIA enrollees by assisting training providers to participate. Indeed, the current data collection requirements, although apparently reasonable and important, are burdensome to the point that many providers elect not to participate. This results in a limited array of providers for potential trainees. However, we do not believe that the Administration's proposed solution is the best way to respond to this problem. We fear that a strategy that would eliminate national standards pertinent to outcomes, along with information and data collection requirements exacerbates the existing major shortcoming of the current WIA law: an alarming shortage of outcome data. Moreover, to allow states full authority to develop standards and required information and data collection does not seem to achieve the stated result of easing provider participation in the system--unless a state responds by sacrificing standards and data. There must at least be a minimum set of information that all must collect to ensure accountability.

We propose a four-step process:

Current and applicant training providers will be required by the state WIA administering agency to submit credentials offered, program completion rates, the percentage of trainees who obtain unsubsidized employment, and wages received upon employment following training completion on their total trainee population over a recent, previous 12 month period, e.g., over the program's last fiscal year.
State and regional councils will approve (or disapprove) training providers on the basis of that information; those approved will be added to the list of available providers.
Thereafter, the same information as stated above, i.e., credentials offered, program completion rates, the percentage of trainees who obtain unsubsidized employment, and wages received upon employment following training completion, will be collected for each WIA-funded trainee and provided to the state WIA administering agency (as opposed to the current law requirement for these data to be provided on all provider trainees).
The state WIA administering agency will be required to perform appropriate UI matches on WIA participants and submit these data as is currently required, as well as monitor WIA trainee outcomes as a means of determining ongoing effectiveness of approved training providers for the WIA trainee population. It may also be necessary to revise confidentiality requirements under the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).

We believe this process would provide a solution to provider complaints about and resistance to data collection requirements in the current law which have the effect of jeopardizing trainee choice. It will do this without sacrificing accountability and the ability to learn what works and what does not work for WIA trainees from a state, local, and national perspective.

One additional suggestion we would advance at this point is that reauthorization allow joint use of WIA training and Pell Grants. The absence of stipends severely restricts the chances that low-income, non-TANF individuals can access training. If they were able to use Pell Grants for their support, they would be able to increase their skills and thereby increase their chances of achieving self-reliance.

A Targeted Approach to Serving Youth

We agree with President Bush that funds to assist Youth to be prepared for post-secondary education or employment are too limited. As we indicate elsewhere in this comment, WIA programs are, overall, underfunded. Given that children are the future, underfunding in Youth programs amounts to lost opportunity. However, mandating a shift of more of a pool of inadequate funds from one group of vulnerable children to another does not gain us anything, especially when states already have the flexibility to expend anywhere from a minimum of 30 percent to a maximum of 70 percent of their funds on out-of-school children. We are therefore alarmed at the Administration's proposal to withdraw the current flexibility states have to determine how to expend their money--on which group of at-risk youth, both of which need all the help we can give them. We therefore disagree with the proposed change.

To mandate that states focus on out-of-school youth at the expense of services to help at-risk youth who are still in school to stay there and to benefit from it is unwise, as well as unnecessarily takes away state control over an extremely local issue. Unlike Adult WIA programs, the WIA Youth program serves low-income children, ensuring that 100 percent of funding targets economically disadvantaged youth. If they are already out-of-school, any chance of helping them to avoid or escape from poverty lies with the provision of effective interventions and other services to help them become employable and employed. However, low-income children who are still in school may be at equal risk of failing to be able to attain economic self-sufficiency without special help. The task of keeping vulnerable children in school and learning should not and cannot be laid exclusively at the feet of educators who are already overburdened. Individualized attention needed to help at-risk children needs teamwork and it is our belief that education and WIA work well as partners in locating youth in need of additional services. If there is any place within WIA legislation that allows us to make an investment in prevention, continued focus on in-school youth is it. We cannot afford to assume that disadvantaged children who are still in school will stay there or that, without concerted support, they will learn the educational skills they will need while there. If it is thought that more focus is needed on out-of-school children than is currently being given, the Adminstration and Congress should find a better way to send that message than to mandate that states turn away from in-school children.

More importantly, though, we reiterate the need to devote more resources to services to support all vulnerable children. Below we suggest where we believe that money should be obtained.

Performance Accountability

While we wait to see the eight performance indicators the President will propose, we will take this opportunity to urge, through reauthorization, the implementation of a stronger, more comprehensive set of data collection requirements to enable Congress and the public to see what is occurring via the Workforce Investment Act system. We believe it is essential to include performance measures that will provide information about . . .

training and placement program outcomes and effectiveness for WIA participants. Please see our alternative, four-step process proposal above under the section entitled "Comprehensive Services for Adults."
all WIA participants. Currently states are not required to collect outcome data on clients who receive only core services, meaning that we cannot know anything about the number and types of services people receive nor the impact of these services on employment.
actual wages people receive after receiving various types of services. Currently, states must report on earnings as a comparison of those before and after services. A TANF parent who is unemployed upon entering the program and subsequently finds a minimum wage job would inflate outcome calculations in a way that would not accurate reflect success in terms of WIA goals of self-sufficiency.
the amount of money spent on each of core, intensive, and training services. Learning about what is working and how and what is not working seems to us to require the ability to know this. Right now, Congress and the public can only know the total amount spent on each population group, leaving us all with no information that would allow us to know how the money is spent and to what effect.
actual wages people receive after receiving training, as a specific service, compiled and aggregated by each state and made available nationally. This is needed to allow understanding of the overall success in providing training that meets the goals of WIA, as well as identifying best practices.
employer-sponsored, customized and on-the-job training for low-wage, incumbant workers. This kind of training is often the key for this group of employed people to move towards self-sufficiency, making it an important part of the workforce development strategy. For that reason, improving access to this kind of training is a goal of WIA. However, the current law does not require that states and localities report on the extent of its use. To understand how well this part of the system is working, data needs to be collected and reported. States and localities should be required to report on the number of participants. It would also be helpful to know whether trainees are employed or not at the time of the training so that their outcomes can be measured and assessed.

Personal Reemployment Accounts

The President proposes to establish Personal Reemployment Accounts (PRAs), a concept intended to help people who have lost jobs and qualify for Unemployment Insurance (UI) to find new jobs more quickly than they otherwise might. HR 444 "Back to Work Incentive Act" has been introduced to implement this idea. While UREAP greatly appreciates what we understand to be a commitment of $3.6 billion to the cause of helping people find work, we question whether this is the approach to take.

Is this the best use of money deemed available to develop the nation's workforce? Above, we asserted the short- and long-term wisdom of increasing funding for Youth WIA services. Additionally, we suggested that programs already established and One-Stop operations should be adequately and specifically funded before a new program is established that appears to single out rather arbitrarily one group of the unemployed for an infusion of new money. Given current budget realities and proposals, this new program will be created at the expense of TANF families, youth, people with disabilities, migrant and seasonal farm workers, and Native Americans, as well as of those who do not enjoy the benefits of UI or who may not be part of the UI system. There appears to be much agreement that implementation of an entirely new system, as WIA does, takes time to accomplish, yet almost immediately after its inception, funding has been cut on more than one occasion. The President's FY 2004 budget proposes additional reductions and no inflation adjustment. The proposal to block grant the Adult and Dislocated Worker programs and Wagner-Peyser activities can also be anticipated to result in reduced services for those groups and we worry most about the Adult portion where more, not less, is needed. Additionally, there is an acknowledged need to ensure that operations of the One-Stop Career Centers do not occur at the expense of training and other services--we have recommended that a separate funding mechanism be created to solve this problem. A central WIA goal is to help job seekers reach self-sufficiency. Of great benefit to individuals, families, and communities is to focus concerted efforts towards helping people who lack an employment history--either recent or of any kind, who have become unemployed without the ability to access UI, or who have special barriers. While devoting funding to help unemployed people who are most likely to find jobs on their own to do so more quickly is certainly not a negative goal, we strongly recommend that the first order of business for new money should be to make the various existing WIA programs whole, increase funding for Youth, fund inflation, and fund One-Stop operations in their own right.
Additional concerns arise from the fact that, once approved for a PRA, a person cannot access One-Stop services for a period of one year. First, there are not enough details to be able to know how that might negatively impact individuals and families, but it is certain that a careful effort will need to be made to ensure that people make an informed choice. The incentive of a cash bonus may be taken unwisely, simply because, for example, a bill needs to be paid. Once that is done, needed One-Stop services cannot be obtained. This could be very damaging to unemployed individuals and families.
We are seeking more information about demonstrations based on this sort of approach, but what we have heard to date suggests that they had less success, if any at all, at times of higher unemployment.
One-Stops are already overloaded trying to cope with the implementation of the elements of the current WIA law. The addition of a substantial new program such as PRA will add to the administrative burden by itself, but there will be ongoing complexities due to the fact that both One-Stop and PRA deal with some of the same services and funding streams such as child care and transportation. Retooling computer systems will be required, as well as building an entirely new infrastructure for PRAs. Continual administrative disruption, even when necessary and advisable, jeopardizes the effective delivery of services to customers in need of help.
We are also mindful that, although up to $3,000 could indeed be helpful to this group of unemployed people, the program design appears to us to open the door wide to the possibility that each individual could actually receive only a fraction of that amount. In each state at any given time, the pool of these people could rise dramatically or simply represent a large proportion of the total unemployed group, causing a reduction in the amount available to each person. The state also has the option to extend eligibility to additional people with a UI history, yet another way to increase number served that would reduce the amount received by each. This possibility makes the fact that PRA recipients are precluded from other One-Stop services for 12 months even more potentially detrimental.

We appreciate this opportunity to share our views on the President's proposal as it has been explained so far. We look forward to more detail on the above matters, as well as discussion of a number of items that have not yet been raised, such as TANF/WIA integration, additional One-Stop services, outreach, and the host of issues surrounding Title II and Title IV reauthorization. Much has been learned in these early years of the Workforce Investment Act and we are excited with the opportunity brought by the reauthorization process to build on that knowledge.

Sincerely,

Shirley Weathers and Bill Walsh, UREAP staff
Walsh & Weathers Research and Policy Studies
P. O. Box 270090
Fruitland, UT 84027-0090
(435) 548-2630
FAX: (435) 548-2438
wrw@ubtanet.com

for the Utah Reauthorization Project and its members:

Active Re-Entry, Price, (Southeastern Utah)
Box Elder Family Support Center, Brigham City, (Box Elder County)
Bringing Hope to Single Moms Foundation, Logan, (Cache and Box Elder Counties)
Community Action Services, Provo, (Utah, Wasatch, and Summit Counties)
Disabled Rights Action Coalition (DRAC), Salt Lake City, (Salt Lake County)
Family Support and Children's Justice Center of Carbon and Emery Counties, Price
International Rescue Committee, Salt Lake City, (statewide)
JEDI for Women, Salt Lake City, (statewide)
League of Women Voters of Salt Lake, Salt Lake City, (Salt Lake County)
Legislative Coalition for People with Disabilities Salt Lake City, (statewide)
Mental Health Association in Utah, Salt Lake City, (statewide)
Options for Independence, Logan, (Northern Utah)
Peace & Justice Commission, Catholic Diocese of Salt Lake, Salt Lake City, (statewide)
People Helping People, Salt Lake City, (Salt Lake County)
Salt Lake Community Action Program (SLCAP), Salt Lake City, (Salt Lake and Tooele Counties)
Tri-County Independent Living Center, Ogden (Weber, Davis, and Morgan Counties)
United Way Executive Directors Association (UWEDA), SLC, (Salt Lake County)
Utah Children, Salt Lake City, (statewide)
Utah Community Action Program Association (UCAPA), (statewide)
Utah Issues, Salt Lake City, (statewide)
Utahns Against Hunger, Salt Lake City, (statewide)
Valley Mental Health, Salt Lake City, (Salt Lake and Tooele Counties)
Walsh & Weathers Research and Policy Studies, Fruitland
Your Community Connection, Ogden, (Weber County)

For more information about UREAP, including correspondence with Utah's Congressional Delegation and other elected officials, we invite you to visit our website at www.slcap.org/UREAP/ureap.htm. There are also links to Utah research at that site.