Comment on HR 1261, "Workforce Investment and Adult Education Act of 2002"
Submitted to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce
By the Utah Reauthorization Project (UREAP) on March 25, 2003

Dear Chairman Boehner, Congressman Miller, and Committee Members:

The Utah Reauthorization Project (UREAP) appreciates this opportunity to convey some of our ideas regarding Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Reauthorization. UREAP's official membership includes 28 entities with a broad variety of experience and expertise and has statewide coverage (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 others in their organizations. Input into UREAP's activities and communications is accomplished via the email list and monthly meetings.

We include herein our preliminary reactions to HR 1261 "Workforce Investment and Adult Education Act of 2003," soon to be before your Committee for mark-up. Indeed, many of the provisions of this bill are positive and will solve very real problems inherent in the Workforce Investment Act of 1998. Reauthorization provides an opportunity in this regard.  

Personal Reemployment Accounts

HR 1261 (Sec. 113) would establish a temporary program of 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, as well.

The concept of Personal Reemployment Accounts appears to have attractive aspects when viewed by itself (as in HR 444). UREAP greatly appreciates what we understand to be a message of commitment of to the cause of helping unemployed people find work and, by doing so, stimulating the economy. However, when viewed in the context of HR 2161 and the entire WIA system, it is important to address this proposed change as a funding issue, as well as an ambitious program change in its own right. Implementing the program established by HR 444 commits $3.6 billion to a new, largely untested program at a time when other WIA programs are already underfunded or suffering proposed funding cuts or both. We also do not see Personal Reemployment Accounts as the most effective way to stimulate the economy.

With regard to WIA programs that are being reduced or underfunded at a critical time in their development, we assert that . . .

We are also unsure that the proposed program will assist the target group in the most positive manner. We are concerned to learn that, once approved for a PRA, a person cannot access One-Stop services for a period of one year. Participants are not able to use payments to pay COBRA premiums; there may be other expenditures that should be allowable. 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 and simply opting to open a PRA does not mean that a job--or a bonus--will be forthcoming. This could be very damaging to unemployed individuals and families.

We are seeking more information about demonstrations based on this sort of approach and understand that the Department of Labor reads findings in a positive light. The Department notes that people eligible for reemployment bonuses have not tended to take lower paying jobs than they otherwise might, the fact that they do not tend to increase their earning power suggests that  the other announced intent of PRAs--allowing people more choice in obtaining training and career development--has not come to fruition. Additionally, demo results suggest that offering bonuses for finding a new job more quickly is not a practice that yields results in times of higher unemployment, the very circumstance the nation's unemployed now confront.

It is also important to understand that $3,000 per individual is a maximum ; the program design opens 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.

At a time when One-Stops would benefit greatly from continuing to refine their relatively new, existing programs and operations, the creation of the Personal Reemployment Accounts program will require a whole new round of infrastructure development that will divert attention from improving existing services. 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, but will have to be tracked separately. Retooling computer systems will be required, as well as building an entirely new infrastructure for PRAs. An evaluation must be conducted. The bill indicates that PRAs will have to be constantly monitored to ensure that disallowed expenses are identified and reimbursed. All of this must be done for a program that will only last for two years.

Finally, the establishment of a new program does not appear to us to be the best way to stimulate the economy, one of the stated goals of PRAs. Effective program implementation takes time, as well as resources. Some estimate that the first PRAs may not be opened until six months from the time legislation becomes effective. That may even be overly optimistic. And even then, PRAs may not help the specific segment of unemployed people who qualify for them because they do nothing to create jobs at this time of job shortage.

We understand that this Subcommittee has given approval for HR 444, "Back to Work Incentive Act," but we recommend that, in view of the greater value of using available dollars to first ensure that existing WIA programs are adequately funded, you amend HR 1261 to reduce the Personal Reemployment Accounts program to a demonstration to be operated and rigorously evaluated in a limited number of states to test their effectiveness under circumstances of job shortage. We recommend that, of the original $3.6 billion that would be freed up, existing WIA programs and services be made whole and inflation be funded. With any remaining funds, we recommend that additional weeks of UI be provided to those who have exhausted state and federal unemployment benefits or that eligibility for unemployment be expanded to cover additional groups, such as people who had unemployment insurance paid on their behalf, but who did not qualify for benefits because they only worked part-time or for short periods. Consideration should also be given to providing assistance to unemployed workers in paying COBRA premiums.

Youth Councils

We would caution against action at this time with regard to Youth Councils. Utah was also one of the first states to implement WIA. Even so, and given that many states did not implement WIA until 2000, the provision in HR 1261 that would eliminate the requirement for Youth Councils (Sec. 106) appears to short-circuit a provision that holds promise, even though perhaps not be fully developed at this time. We understand that part of the motivation for this change is uncertainty whether 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 and Utah, for one state, has a viable, effective Youth Council structure in place that is yielding positive results. 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.

We therefore recommend that no changes be made to the provision in the original WIA law requiring Youth Councils until more time has passed so that an informed assessment can be made--this provision in HR 1261 should be deleted. Alternatively, if there is, indeed, great determination to reduce Youth Councils to a state option, as put forward in HR 1261 and in accordance with the Administration's proposal, we recommend that, at least, each state be required in its state plan to indicate their intention to either retain their Youth Councils or to name, in their stead, alternative state and local entities that will carry out the functions of Youth Councils as defined in the WIA law.

Local Council Membership

Additionally, we are very troubled with the provision in the bill that would remove public sector representatives from the Local Workforce Investment Boards (Sec. 106). The missions of public sector programs are different from that of business and their expertise is distinct and pertinent.  Their presence and participation helps to create an important balance. Their full and equitable participation in setting public policy should be continued.

We therefore recommend  deletion of the provision in HR 1261 that would remove public sector representatives from the Local Workforce Investment Boards.

 Funding for One-Stop Career Center Operations

UREAP agrees with the sponsors of HR 1261 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. However, Congress 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. Mandating contributions by One-Stop partners, as HR 1261 does (Sec. 108), simply shifts the funding burden to additional entities, thereby resulting in reduced services to job-seekers offered by more or different agencies. We also note that the bill's solution to the dilemma of funding One-Stops presents a disincentive to additional potential One-Stop partners who another provision of the bill seeks to attract the Centers.

We therefore recommend that the funding mechanism for One-Stop Center Operations in HR 1261 be deleted and that instead, funding be diverted from that designated as available to fund Personal Reemployment Accounts.

Linkages to Supports for Low-Wage Workers and People with Disabilities
 
HR 1261 takes positive steps to encourage better linkages to a wide range of services to assist low-wage workers and people with disabilities with career advancement opportunities through the One-Stop System (Sec. 112). The programs and services that assist individuals and families to access financial work supports and retention and advancement services form the foundation for self-sufficiency for low-skilled and low-wage workers, including, but not confined to, people with disabilities and 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 basic needs have been sometimes overlooked. HR 1261 sends a clearer message to states than the current law 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.

UREAP supports provisions in HR 1261 that will create better linkages to supports for low-wage workers and people with disabilities.

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

UREAP counsels against block granting WIA Adult, WIA Dislocated Worker, and Wagner-Peyser funding streams. Consolidation of these three programs into a block grant was justified by the Administration as a means to facilitate transferability of funds and to increase collaboration and integration of services. This is an area of this newly implemented system that is best left as is until there is clear evidence that a problem exists. 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 effective or necessary as a 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, people with disabilities, migrant and seasonal farmworkers, immigrants, Native Americans not living on Reservations, and others are not crowded out?

We therefore urge a more measured approach as a means to seek greater collaboration and effectively answer the need for transferability among these programs and resolve any funding shortfalls that may motivate this move by diverting funding from that designated to be available to fund Personal Reemployment Accounts.

Removing Barriers to Intensive and Training Services

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. HR 1261 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. A very clear switch in statutory language, from the current sequential service configuration to an approach where the individual is allowed to receive an array of services will correct one of the most serious problems with current WIA law (Sec. 112). Equally welcome is a change that would allow concurrent delivery of services such as English as a Second Language and occupational training. 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.

We are, therefore, highly supportive of HR 1261's provisions that will effect greater flexibility in the delivery of core, intensive, and training services, and applaud acknowledgment, via insertion of the word "suitable" before "employment," of the need for system goals to support work with out-of-poverty wages.

Facilitating an Array of Eligible Training Providers

We appreciate the sponsors' 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. Specifically, providers have been discouraged by the need for approved providers to maintain their approval by submitting outcome and other required data on all of their trainees and students, rather than just WIA participants. This has resulted in a limited array of providers for potential trainees.

We therefore support the bill's provision that would remove "all" from the data and data matches required of approved providers (Sec.122), while at the same time maintaining a minimum set of information that providers must collect to ensure accountability and facilitate understanding of effective training programs from at state, local, and national perspective .

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

HR 1261 continues the prohibition of receiving the benefits of both WIA training and Pell Grants (Sec. 134). The absence of stipends in the current law for WIA participants 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.

We therefore recommend that HR 1261 be amended to allow joint use of WIA training and Pell Grants.

Retaining the Current Focus on Youth

We are 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). President Bush justified his proposal to focus almost entirely on out-of-school youth by indicating that available funding was stretched too thin. HR 1261 at least reserves one third of funds alloted to states to low-income youth, but this is not adequate to fund the important chance we have to prevent children from dropping out. Children are the future. Underfunding youth programs amounts to lost opportunity. States currently 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. HR 1261 would 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 continue to benefit is unwise, as well as unnecessarily takes away state control over an extremely local issue. We therefore disagree with this provision of the bill and urge that language in the existing law be retained to continue to allow local discretion in this matter.

 Currently, 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 almost entirely 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, it is through continued focus on in-school youth. 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.

Most importantly, there is need to devote more resources to services to support all vulnerable children. We therefore  recommend that WIA Youth programs receive an increase in funding by diverting money from that designated as available to fund Personal Reemployment Accounts.

Performance Accountability

The WIA Law of 1998 left some serious gaps in data collection and which we believe, on preliminary study, HR 1261 takes strides towards filling. We must apologize to the Subcommittee for the fact that we have not yet fully understood the precise way the various changes in the bill will impact data collection needs. For the present, we will outline the types of data we believe are needed, but not addressed in the original law. Information is needed about . . .  

Title II: Adult Education

The importance of Adult Education and Literacy activities to people in need of services encompassed in the Workforce Investment Act is without question. Congress, in 1998, saw fit to signify that importance by incorporating the Adult Education Act into WIA as Title II and making Adult Education a mandatory partner. 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. Specifically, we question 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.

We recommend that a positive relationship between the WIA system and its partners, including the Adult Education system, be fostered by identifying common ground, but without disrupting the mission of any of the involved entities and without reducing funding for services to people.

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--implementing both programs at roughly the same time. As other states have found, bringing up each/both of these far-reaching laws in Utah has been tremendously challenging and, regardless of the improvements that may be promised to clients and customers when programs and services are fully functioning, dramatic changes in systems are unavoidably disruptive. We hope that before you cast your votes, all members of the Subcommittee have ample opportunity to learn from their constituents and the state agencies administering WIA programs and services the impact that some elements of HR 1261 can be expected to have on their ability to ensure continuity of service. We appreciate this opportunity to share our initial views on HR 1261. 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, (statewide)
Family Support and Children's Justice Center of Carbon and Emery Counties, Price
Housing Authority of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake City, (Salt Lake City)
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)
Multiple Sclerosis Society, Salt Lake City, (statewide)
New Hope Refugee and Multicultural Center, Salt Lake City, (Salt Lake City)
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)
Ute Tribe Social Services, Ft. Duchesne
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.