Priorities for Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Reauthorization

Submitted to the Senate Subcommittee on Employment, Safety, and Training
by the Utah Reauthorization Project (UREAP) on June 15, 2003

Dear Chairman Enzi, Senator Murray, 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 (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 include herein our priority concerns and recommendations, particularly regarding provisions in HR 1261 "Workforce Investment and Adult Education Act of 2003," passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on May 8. While some of the provisions of this bill are positive and will solve very real problems in the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, a number of provisions are very troubling. We are hopeful that WIA reauthorization legislation considered and passed in the Senate will include more positive changes to the current law than the House was able to manage and will avoid flaws in the House bill. One of the greatest overall big picture disappointments with HR 1261 is a continuation of the recent trend of declining commitment to the nation's new workforce development system. For this reason, a major source of hope as the Senate considers this important legislative action is approval in the FY 2004 Budget Resolution of Senator Cantwell's amendment to restore funding to FY 2002 levels.

What follows is a series of discussions and recommendations pertaining to various issues and provisions, many of which are included in HR 1261.

Block Granting WIA Adult, Dislocated Worker, 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. However, we believe 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 of this measure will be to threaten reduced services to program areas that are already suffering cuts upon earlier cuts.

We are told by a Department of Labor spokesperson that the funding stream consolidation in HR 1261 is not designed to offer a means to reduce funding available to the three existing, separate programs. However, even if this is not the intention, no one who follows funding for social services and other programs can feel comfort that consolidation will not, in fact, facilitate that result. Additionally, block granting may risk a reduction in 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 by other unemployed groups with greater abilities to advocate for themselves?

We therefore urge the Subcommittee to resist the provision in HR 1261 to block grant WIA Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Wegner-Peyser funding streams and to restore funding for these three programs to FY 2002 levels. We also encourage a more measured approach to facilitate greater collaboration and to effectively answer whatever need there is for transferability among these programs.

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 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 take steps to 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 meeting 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, supportive of a change to the current law that will effect greater flexibility in the delivery of core, intensive, and training services. We believe the most effective means to do this would be language to the effect that core, intensive, and training services will be provided as appropriate to the needs of the individual WIA participant. A second option that offers substantial improvement over the current law is found in HR 1261 (Sec. 112) via insertion of the word "suitable" before "employment" and of the word "unlikely" instead of "unable."

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 for WIA participants in the current law severely restricts the chances that low-income, non-TANF individuals can access training, despite clear evidence of the positive outcomes for low-income workers and job seekers when they are able to do so. 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.

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

Funding for One-Stop Career Center Operations

UREAP agrees with the Administration and the House 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 fund operations without reducing their ability to fulfill the purposes of the Act. HR 1261 is not the solution. Failure to dedicate funding and, instead to pass on to Governors open-ended power and responsibility to extract federal funds from partner entities (Sec. 108), simply shifts the funding burden to additional entities. This will result 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 to the Centers.

We therefore recommend that the funding mechanism for One-Stop Center Operations in HR 1261 be deleted and that a separate funding stream be created for this purpose.

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).  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.

UREAP participants, including members of the State and local Workforce Councils, report effective partnerships between WIA youth services employment counselors and high school counselors. In one region of the state, the Mountainland DWS/Education Youth Services Partnership identifies and provides services to at-risk students. Through this model, the region is serving 320 children--67 percent are still in school and 33 percent are not. We are told that this partnership has been commended by the Department of Labor, Denver Office. Such important work in this and other states is based on the flexibility for states to determine their own approaches to serve this important group of children--including those still in school.

HR 1261, however, would force Utah to end to this approach by mandating that the state focus on out-of-school youth at the expense of services to at-risk youth who are still in school.  This, we believe, is unwise, as well as unnecessarily takes away state control over an extremely local issue. Although HR 1261 reserves one-third of funds allotted to states to low-income youth, this is not adequate to fund the important chance we have to prevent children from dropping out. 

If there is any place within WIA legislation that allows us to make an investment in prevention, it is through continued commitment to in-school youth. President Bush justified his proposal to focus almost entirely on out-of-school youth by indicating that available funding is stretched too thin. A Department of Labor spokesperson expanded by saying that, while educators provide drop-out prevention services to in-school youth, no program exists to serve youth who have already dropped out. 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 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 Administration and Congress should find a better way to send that message than by mandating that states turn their WIA services away from in-school children.

Children are the future. Underfunding youth programs amounts to lost opportunity. We therefore strongly disagree with this provision of the bill and urge that, in WIA reauthorization legislation in the Senate, language in the existing law be retained to continue to allow local discretion in this matter. Moreover, there is need to devote more resources to services to support all vulnerable children. We therefore 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. We think this action is premature and not in the best interests of state WIA efforts to address the needs of youth. Utah was 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 (Sec. 106) appears to short-circuit a provision that holds promise, even though perhaps not 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 the Senate legislation include no changes to the provision in the original WIA law requiring Youth Councils. More time will allow an informed assessment of the effectiveness of this provision to be made. Alternatively, if the Subcommittee shares some of the concerns about duplication expressed by the Administration, we recommend that, at least, each state be required in its state plan to indicate its intention to either retain its Youth Council or to name, in its stead, alternative state and local entities that will carry out the functions of Youth Councils as defined in the WIA law.

Local Council Membership

We are very troubled with the provision in the bill that would mandate the removal of public sector representatives from the Local Workforce Investment Boards (Sec. 106). First, the composition and organization of state and local workforce boards is most effectively determined at the state level, i.e., by the Governor. Second, 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 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. 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 either services or administration.

Title IV. Amendments to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973

Section 402 of HR 1261 proposes to change the appointment process for the Commissioner of the Rehabiliation 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 Rehabiliation Services and make the position a Secretarial appointment, rather than a presidential one.

A Department of Labor spokesperson reviewed the reason for this change with UREAP participants, citing a desire for better administrative balance within the Office structure. 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) considered this information, but remain concerned that this change will diminish the RSA Commissioner position, however unintentionally from the Administration's perspective.

We therefore recommend that Senate WIA reauthorization legislation retain current law on the appointment of the RSA Commissioner. 

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 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.

By 2003, our new workforce system is moving forward and struggling to meet the increased needs for services brought on by a declining economy and attendant higher unemployment, rising welfare caseloads, and state budget crisis. We mentioned earlier our enthusiasm for 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 the Subcommittee 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.

We hope that before you cast your votes, all members of the Subcommittee have ample opportunity to learn from constituents and WIA administrators about impacts that some elements of HR 1261 will have on their ability to ensure continuity of service. We appreciate this opportunity to share our views with you. 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.