Utah Reauthorization Project
P. O. Box 270090 Fruitland, UT 84027-0090
(435) 548-2630 FAX (435) 548-2438
wrw@ubtanet.com http://www.slcap.org/UREAP/ureap.htm

Comment on Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee's
Discussion Draft #3 of
Legislation to Reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act (WIA)

The Utah Reauthorization Project (UREAP) wishes to take this opportunity to convey our ideas regarding "Discussion Draft #3" of Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Reauthorization legislation that has been circulated by Committee staff. We applaud the Committee's bipartisan work on this important matter. UREAP's official membership includes 28 entities with a broad variety of experience and expertise and has statewide coverage (members and jurisdictions listed below). 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 colleagues. Input into UREAP's activities and communications is accomplished via the email list and monthly meetings.

We understand the bill is to be finalized soon and marked up before the end of September. We ask that you consider this comment as an addendum to the comment we submitted to the Committee last July (attached for your convenience and organized identically to the current comment), since the latter comment, although we believe it includes important information and rationale, predated the "Discussion Draft" process and therefore does not reflect a number of improvements that have been made.

Block Granting WIA Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Wagner-Peyser Funding Streams

At the beginning of the "Discussion Draft" period, UREAP understood that the Senate bill would not follow the lead of the Administration and HR 1261 in block granting WIA Adult, WIA Dislocated Worker, and Wagner-Peyser funding streams. While we do not see specific reference to that in the Discussion Drafts, we support that decision and hope we are correct in assuming that no specific language in the Senate bill is necessary to implement it, rather that those matters will be carried forward via the existing law. Our July comment provides further information on our reasons for opposing funding stream consolidation.

We therefore urge you to resist the inclusion in the Senate bill of any provision, such as in HR 1261, to block grant WIA Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Wegner-Peyser funding streams. We urge restoration of funding for these programs to FY 2002 levels.

Removing Barriers to Intensive and Training Services

As noted in our July comment, the primary objective of the Workforce Investment Act should be enabling displaced and disadvantaged people to obtain services and training to prepare themselves for employment at family-sustaining wages. The current sequential service configuration has stood in the way of this and is, in our view, one of the most serious problems with current WIA law. We are pleased to observe widespread and bipartisan efforts to correct the flaw. UREAP sees merit in language in both HR 1261 and the HELP Committee's Discussion Drafts #2 and #3 that move in the direction of providing access to an array of services, including training, on an individualized basis.

We are highly supportive of a change to the current law that eliminates the sequential eligibility provision and effects maximum flexibility in the delivery of core, intensive, and training services to unemployed, underemployed, and displaced workers. We support continued discussion of the most appropriate language to effect that result, stressing that the array of services must be available and accessible to individuals such that they are able to access what they need to obtain and retain good jobs with health care and other benefits and family-sustaining wages.

Allowing Low-Income, Non-TANF Job Seekers to Access Training Services

Thus far, we are disappointed to see a lack of recognition of the fact that many low-income, non-TANF individuals cannot realistically utilize many training resources without some type of stipend. If these individuals 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. Yet, HR 1261 and the "Discussion Drafts" retain the prohibition in the current law of receiving the benefits of both WIA training and Pell Grants (Sec. 134).

We again recommend that Senate WIA reauthorization legislation allow simultaneous use of WIA training and Pell Grants.

Funding for One-Stop Career Center Operations

One-Stop infrastructure funding has attracted a great deal of attention during WIA reauthorization discussions. Over the months since the release of the Administration's proposal, UREAP has consistently recommended the establishment of a separate, adequate funding stream for this purpose in order to avoid either depleting WIA funding or reducing available funding for partner programs. Since there seems little hope that our recommendation will be adopted, we believe that the approach taken in "Discussion Draft #3" is the most positive one we have seen thus far. As we understand it, the Draft creates two options whereby, first, local area partners may agree to an "alternative method" and describe it in agency memorandums of understanding by July 1, 2004. The more controversial "State Infrastructure Funding Mechanism" would only be implemented in cases where local area agreements are not made by the deadline, and it includes certain (in our view, excessive) limitations on percentages of federal funds that can be taken from certain partners. We expect that discussion of this area will continue as legislation is finalized and debated and we are encouraged to see a more measured approach than that contained in HR 1261.

We therefore support the positive direction on infrastructure funding over HR 1261 taken in "Discussion Draft #3" and encourage continued discussion involving the various partner entities.

Retaining the Current Focus on Youth

We were alarmed at the intention of HR 1261 to reduce the ability of states to continue to support vulnerable students who are still managing to stay in school (Sec. 111) and, therefore enthusiastically support the work of HELP committee members and staff to restore state flexibility.

We urge HELP Committee members to support the approach taken in "Discussion Draft #3" and work with their colleagues to protect this important gain on the Floor and in conference with the House. We also recommend that WIA reauthorization legislation authorize an increase in funding for Youth programs to increase attention to both in- and out-of-school youth.

Youth Councils

HR 1261 mirrors the Administration's proposal to eliminate the requirement in the current WIA law that states convene Youth Councils and "Discussion Draft #3" follows suit. We think this action is premature and not in the best interests of state WIA efforts to address the needs of youth.

Local Council Membership

While additions in ""Discussion Draft #3" to required membership of Local Workforce Investment Boards (Sec. 106) are appropriate, we continue to be concerned with removal of public sector partners. We will reiterate our view that the missions of public sector programs are different from that of business and educational entities, and their expertise is distinct and pertinent. Their presence and participation on a par with other required members helps to create an important balance. Their full and equitable participation in setting public policy should be continued.

We therefore recommend that Senate WIA reauthorization legislation retain the provision in the current law that requires public sector representation on Local Workforce Investment Boards.

Title II: Adult Education

The importance of Adult Education and Literacy activities to people in need of services encompassed by the Workforce Investment Act is without question and we expect that results of bipartisan discussion of Title II are forthcoming. As we have noted in our July comment, it is critical during the reauthorization of WIA to make positive refinements, if needed, to the way Title II and the other Titles in WIA interface. Conversely, Congress should exercise caution against making changes that may conflict with the mission of or otherwise jeopardize the Adult Education system. We have questioned the wisdom of assigning performance measures to Adult Education--whose mission is raising skills and proficiency--that are traditional for an employment system such as placement in jobs, job retention, and increased wages. Yet there has been little opportunity for discussion of these issues in the process of WIA reauthorization thus far.

We await HELP Committee focus on Title II to enhance the relationship between the WIA system and its partners, including the Adult Education system. The goal should be identifying common ground and productive collaboration without disrupting the mission of any of the involved entities and without reducing funding for either services or administration.

Title IV. Amendments to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973

Likewise, we look forward for Title IV to be part of the bipartisan/public "Discussion Draft" process. To note one point, we have raised concerns about Section 402 of HR 1261, which proposes to change the appointment process for the Commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA). Current law requires that the Commissioner be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. HR 1261 would put the Commissioner in the Department of Education, instead of in the Office of the Secretary of Rehabilitation Services and make the position a Secretarial appointment, rather than a presidential one.

We will reiterate from our July comment that UREAP participants representing the Association for Independent Living in Utah (AILU), the Utah Statewide Living Council (USILC), and the Utah State Office of Rehabilitation (USOR) have considered this issue carefully and are concerned that this change will diminish the RSA Commissioner position, however unintentionally from the Administration's perspective.

We await HELP Committee focus on Title IV. In the meantime, we recommend that Senate WIA reauthorization legislation retain current law on the appointment of the RSA Commissioner.

The HELP Committee "Discussion Draft" process has been very useful and we see, as a result, some very positive provisions, including solutions to problems in HR 1261. As those writing the legislation continue their work, we request consideration of the following concerns with "Draft #3:"

• Sec. 101 - We are uncomfortable with sole reliance on the Federal Poverty Level as a measure of "low-income." The FPL is increasingly recognized as flawed for many reasons, including that it does not reflect variations in local economic conditions and costs of living. Congress should be looking for better measures to determine definitions and eligibility criteria for modern-day programs. We join the Workforce Alliance and others in suggesting that a more accurate measure is the "Family Economic Self-sufficiency" standard developed by Wider Opportunities for Women.
• Sec. 106 - We support adding a purpose relating to moving people to family-sustaining incomes or to economic self-sufficiency.
• Sec. 113 - We support adding individuals with Limited English Proficiency to the list of special populations State Plans must address.
• Sec. 121 - We support adding ESL to the list of activities that can be provided to adults.
• Sec. 122 - We support adding to performance measures: wages at placement, availability of employer-sponsored health care coverage, and vacation and sick leave benefits, and to compare earnings at 12 months after program participation with preprogram earnings.
• Sec. 122 - We support "Draft #3" criteria for Incentive Grants for States and Local Areas, especially expanding access to training and exemplary performance for hard-to-serve individuals.

Finally, we urge resistance to any form of the concept known in the Administration's Proposal as "Personal Reemployment Accounts." While we appreciate the concern for the targeted segment of the unemployed population, we oppose earmarking funding and services to such a segment at the expense of others in a downward funding trend such as that of the Workforce Investment Act.

As noted in our July comment, UREAP applauds the Cantwell amendment. This comes at a time when it is impossible to avoid dismay over the recent trend to under-funding, coupled with what appears to us to be unfounded, administratively burdensome tinkering with WIA programs. We urge you and your colleagues on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee to renew this nation's commitment to a sound workforce development system through positive changes and funding restorations and increases we have recommended in this communication. Likewise, we urge you to avoid measures that seek to "fix" what is not "broken" in the current law and the unnecessary, counterproductive disruptions they entail.

Utah Reauthorization Project members:

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.