Welcome and Introductions

After introductions, Garth Mangum distributed a piece he is working on, Utah's WIA Experience. He offered it to anyone interested in the history and development of job training in Utah. Shirley Weathers suggested Garth look at a study on the CLASP web site that could be helpful. Garth reported that some people have been getting help with college and graduate school.

Shirley noted that the teleconference with Mason Bishop would be the main event of this meeting and gave some background in advance of his call. She said Mason used to work for the Office of Family Support during the Single Parent Employment Demonstration days (1993-1996) and then moved to the new Department of Workforce Services (DWS) to do public relations work. He worked on policy with Helen Thatcher, as well. After his Utah experience, he went to work for the Department of Labor (DOL) and as Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Employment and Training Administration, he has been at the core of the WIA reauthorization process, taking responsibility for a number of provisions UREAP has been looking at.

WIA Reauthorization Update

Bill Walsh reported that H.R.1261 passed the House mostly along party line votes. Garth requested a comparison between UREAP positions and HR 1261. Shirley went through some high points: 1) UREAP is in agreement with the need to remove sequential eligibility for intensive and training services (Adult WIA) so the House has taken a good step. Per HR 1261, if a person is "unlikely" (instead of current language--"unable") to obtain "suitable" (rather than the implied "any" in the current law) employment, he/she can access intensive and training services. This language mitigates the "Work First" tone of the current law. She explained, however, that a better way would be to simply eliminate reference in the law to any kind of order of services, such that job seekers would be given access to whatever services are appropriate for their individual situation. It is hoped that HR1261 can be improved on in this regard. 2) HR 1261's provision to block grant/consolidate funding streams for Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Wagner-Peyser has been of concern to UREAP participants, primarily because the action can act as an effective precursor to reducing funding or reducing services to populations who have very real, but different services needs. The Administration gives better coordination as a reason. UREAP has taken the position that there are better, less risky ways, of doing that. 3) The Administration and House are anxious to funnel an inadequate supply of dollars for WIA Youth services to out-of-school youth and sees mandating that states dramatically reduce WIA-funded services to in-school youth as the way to do it. HR 1261 passed with a provision that WIA Youth services be offered only during out-of-school hours, as well. UREAP has taken a stand against this, calling for adequate funding for both groups, resisting a mandate on how states use these dollars, and urging commitment to drop-out prevention. 4) HR 1261 reduces emphasis for Youth Councils, making their existence or not a state option. 5) UREAP has asked Congress to establish a separate, dedicated funding stream for One-Stop infrastructure costs, fixing the omission in the current law that has wound up eating up WIA service dollars. HR 1261 gives Governors broad discretion to siphon federal funds from partner programs for infrastructure needs. 6) The Personal Re-employment Account (PRA) program was proposed by the Administration at a cost of $3.6 billion. UREAP called, instead, for adequate funding of the existing WIA programs, which have suffered cuts since 2002. The House dropped the PRA program from HR 1261 and $3.6 billion to fund them is gone. It is possible that PRAs will be a state option because the Administration is still pushing for the program.

Shirley said the bill is on the way to the Senate, although it is unclear whether DOL will submit a bill to that body or not. She also noted a very positive motion by Senator Maria Cantwell passed during the Senate Budget Resolution process to to restore WIA funding to 2002 levels.

Sarah Brenna reported that am NGA-sponsored a group,  National Association of State Liaisons for Workforce Development Partnerships, produced an issues paper. She briefly described six issues, including dealing with "fair and reasonable" mandatory contributions to One-Stop Infrastructure funding, powers of Governors, and state flexibility. She said that Utah's State Council sent a letter to Congress opposing PRAs as originally proposed.

UREAP staff distributed a draft comment to the Senate Employment, Safety and Training Subcommittee of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP). The HELP Committee has oversight on WIA Reauthorization. The Subcommittee will be holding a hearing on WIA reauthorization, reportedly sometime during the first half of June. Shirley presented the main points in the draft so far: 1) consolidated funding, 2) removing barriers to Intensive and Training Services, 3) simultaneous use of WIA and Pell Grants, 4) One-Stop infrastructure funding, 5) WIA Youth funding and state flexibility for its use, 5) Youth Councils, 6) continued partner membership on local councils, and 7) retention in Adult Education of the program's mission.

The group discussed issues around serving youth and directed staff to strengthen those recommendations.

Don Uchida raised a concern that HR 1261 reduces the Commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) from a Presidential appointee with the consent of the Senate to a Director appointed by the DOL Secretary. John Woeste said the Independent Living Center Directors he has contacted oppose this change.

Marty Blair reported that the Assistive Technology (AT) Act expires in 2004, but the President's 2004 budget contains no funding for AT. Congress and Administration officials are negotiating and a separate bill to reauthorize the AT Act could be run and later folded into WIA Reauthorization legislation. UREAP will keep an eye on this issue. Marty will keep in touch as he learns more.

Shirley said that additional input on the WIA comment is welcome over the next week. The UREAP comment will be finalized and submitted in advance of the hearing.

Teleconference with Mason Bishop, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Employment and Training Administration, Department of Labor

Mason began by inviting people in Utah to use him as a resource. He considers himself to be a Utahn and is open to questions and comments. He noted that he has been in contact with UREAP staff on several occasions and has visited the UREAP website. He said he is happy to give us the "straight scoop" as one of the lead negotiators on WIA reauthorization legislation.

He said that, in reading past UREAP summaries, he has seen evidence of some of the same misunderstandings about Administration intent in WIA proposals as are heard in Washington. One major area of misunderstanding is Infrastructure Funding. Utah is the most integrated system in the country, so it may not be clear here why this issue has even come up. However, many states are quite far behind and lack integration in their systems. The Administration is dedicated to integrating those systems better. One way to do that is to obtain partner participation in One-Stop Infrastructure funding; another way is to consolidate the Adult and Wagner-Peyser funding streams. By consolidating those funding streams, states will have greater flexibility to do what they need to do to integrate these programs. There is no need to have separate funding streams when both programs are both meant to do the same thing--to help people get jobs, good jobs. Likewise, he said the Administration has found fragmentation of the local One-Stop systems in many states, another barrier to integration. Under the current law, all of the various required partners are supposed to contribute to the local One-Stop operations through Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs), but if one doesn't want to play ball, they just don't kick in. In all too many cases, WIA is paying for the non-personnel costs of One-Stops. The intent of the law was not that this be a Department of Labor system where WIA or WIA and Wagner-Peyser pay all the costs. So the Administration proposed, and HR 1261 provided, a mechanism to ensure that this is taken out of the MOU process and bumped up to the State Board, of which the required partners are members. There they work with the Governor to develop the vision and define roles, after which the Governor makes a determination of how much the partners contribute. The State Board and Governor also develop together a certification process for One-Stops in terms of services and levels of services, along with providing infrastructure funding. Mason said that in no way will this approach take away program funds that go to services for people. And, as passed by the House, HR 1261 ensures that the Governor will take into consideration admin caps. For Voc Rehab, which doesn't have an admin cap, the law doesn't have an upper limit, but that was a decision by the House. The Administration proposal did cap VR's contribution at 3/4 of 1 percent. He said they believe strongly in the One-Stop Career Center system where all employment and training services come together at one point of access. In Utah, that's been addressed. In a lot of other states, it's not happening. The current law gives every opportunity to play the "turf" game and block the way it's supposed to work. The Administration has proposed these changes to make improvement in that direction of the way the system is supposed to work.

Mason said that another area the Administration feels very strongly about is consolidating Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Wagner-Peyser into one funding stream. The core services are the exact same thing so it makes no sense to have three funding streams. What the Administration wants is an Adult grant with first priority for unemployed and a secondary priority for low-income people. This will be good for Utah, it takes much less reporting and provides much more flexibility. Other states will find it the same.

Another part of the issue is how much of the money goes to the local areas and how much goes to the state, although Utah is unique by having a single Service Delivery Area so the issue is moot. The Administration proposed a 50/50 formula. The House imposed 50/50/50 where half of the funding that goes to the state must be used for core services, but the Governor has some authority to adjust depending on how those services are run in the state.

These are the two things the Administration feels the most strongly about and will continue to fight for in the Senate.

As for the Administration and HR 1261 with respect to WIA Youth, Mason explained that WIA is one of the few programs, if not the only program, that focuses on out-of-school youth. Carl Perkins and other programs are there to provide vocational services to youth in school, so that's the reason for that proposal. He acknowledged that there is disagreement about this. The House moved it to a 70/30 split. The Senate will probably try to go even further still. Mason predicted that the end result will be some movement beyond the current law of 30 percent out of school, even if it doesn't go as far as the Administration proposed. He suggested either 70/30 or 50/50.

In the Senate, there will be a stakeholder meeting in June and they want to do a full Committee Mark-up by the July 4th break so as to move the bill to the Floor by the August recess. That will allow August, September, and October to conference it. The House moved very quickly and the Senate is trying to do the same.

Shirley noted that the Administration had indicated an intention to eliminate sequential eligibility and asked Mason if he thinks the House bill went far enough in that direction. Mason said the House bill used the Administration's language and that he feels as though it will accomplish the goal of giving flexibility to localities to determine which services are needed by people. He said that total elimination of the language around sequential eligibility was discussed internally and there was support for that; however others opposed the idea and the language in HR 1261 was the result.  He stressed that even so, if states want to move ahead and do what they want to do to serve people, even the language in the House bill will allow that to happen without problem. DWS and other state agencies can interpret the language fairly broadly and be alright. He said he didn't anticipate any stronger direction to states in federal regulations, although it is conceivable that the Senate could make a change that could restrict the flexibility the House bill allows. He noted that the Administration did not officially transmit a bill to the Senate, rather they provided some language with which to start and they won't know what the Senate wants to do until they come back with where the Senate will start. But as HR 1261 is written, states do not need to interpret [the eligibility provision] as strictly as they have under the current law. Shirley noted that the new language is an  improvement, even though UREAP would have supported the Administration's original plan.

Garth noted that under MDTA and CETA there were stipends, but that concept was lost with JTPA. He asked if there is a possibility of allowing a person enrolled in WIA to also receive a Pell grant. Mason said that this is a difficult question. In 1998, WIA said that Pell grant should be taken into consideration in eligibility for WIA funds. Then the Secondary School Pell grant reauthorization legislation provided the opposite--that other program eligibility should not be taken into consideration for Pell eligible people. But DOL's position is that Pell grant eligibility should be taken into consideration because of the need to stretch money to as many people as possible. WIA funds should be freed for those who are not Pell eligible. Garth asked if stipends, per se, could be brought back in. Mason said he doesn't see that happening. However, he said DOL is interested in enhancing the ITA concept so that an employers who, for example, would want to do incumbent worker training, could leverage private funds, Individual Training Accounts, etc.

Karen referenced the 50/50 split for funding, asking whether localities with high unemployment and poverty rates would be required to raise any kind of match to draw down its money. Mason said no, but went on to say that the idea is that the state would use its 50 percent to do core services, issue state funds to disadvantaged areas of the state, etc. That funding is supposed to be used as needed. In Utah, the point is moot because money comes to the single SDA.

John Woeste brought up the demotion of the RSA Commission from Commissioner to Director. He said IL Directors are very concerned because job title can have a great deal to do with who sits around the table when important decisions are made. Mason explained the organizational structure.  Mason said he understands that there are concerns, but he doesn't believe the change will diminish the stature of the office. He said the way it is now is organizationally awkward. Now, the Assistant Secretary of OSARSs is a presidential appointee confirmed by the Senate. He has two individuals under him who are approved by the White House with input from the Secretary of Education, plus a third person who directly reports to him, but who is a Presidential appointee approved by the Senate. The change will correct this, but without reducing the influence of the Commissioner.

Garth raised the issue of combining spending streams. While it may increase flexibility, this type of consolidation also gives encouragement to appropriate less money. Also, if Employment Services funding is combined with training, aren't we risking lessening money for training? Mason said that some think this is the way to go; others say it portends funding reduction. The Administration is looking at the policy side, not the appropriations side. There is no intent purely to give a way to cut. He said the FY 04 budget is the same as the FY 03 budget--no cuts are happening there. What will happen in FY 05, but the intent is not to consolidate in order to cut.

Bill said he hears that Personal Re-employment Accounts (PRAs) are now more along the lines of a state option. Are the dollar really gone? Mason related the history of PRAs, including the $3.6 billion proposed by the Administration and included in the House Budget Resolution, but not in the Senate's. That motivated the House to delete PRAs from HR 1261. Mason said he somewhat expected, during recent discussions over state revenue sharing, that the Administration would insist that part of the state revenue sharing would go into PRAs, but that didn't happen. He said he heard today that the President has every intention of continuing to push for them, though. There may be another legislative vehicle. However, in the WIA reauthorization process, PRAs appear likely to remain an available service delivery tool for states to implement. If that gets through, maybe there will be a scaled down demo in a couple of states. The White House will continue to push for these. There is a lot of high level support. The question is where the money would come from.

Shirley asked for clarification on Mason's statement that the Administration is not going to send a bill to the Senate and whether Mason thinks the Senate will start with the House bill or current law. Mason said that they had not officially transmitted, but had provided technical assistance and provided language. Now Senate is developing its language. Senator Enzi is going to be the lead on the Republican side. He and Senator Gregg have said they want to have a discussion with Senators Murray and Kennedy to see if there is some agreement going into the Committee Mark. He expects to get some read in the next week on where we're at. He reiterated that the Senate started with the Administration's language, but they did not officially transmit. This was the way the Senate requested it to happen.

Shirley requested an explanation of the "efficiency measure," expressing concern that it could lead to creaming. Mason said that DOL is currently engaged in coming up with a much better performance measurement system. The bill puts forward common measures as part of that. The efficiency measure is just a unit cost, but the hope is that there can be a means to develop a methodology that will determine the efficiency of programs, while taking into account the populations, barriers, and things that various programs have to do. He knows people worry about this approach driving down to lower cost. But WIA programs hit extremes. Wagner-Peyser has a $40 unit cost and Job Corps has a $15,000 unit cost, yet Job Corps keeps getting funding increases because it can show actual outcomes. In the FY 05 budget process, as they move towards a performance and budgeting system,  Mason said they will look at national goals in terms of how many people are getting employed. For example, they will be able to say that if you put $100 million more into this program, it would buy you 100,000 more people employed, 200,000 people retaining their jobs, and so on. They are trying to use data to make better decisions around performance and budgeting. They want some level of comparison across programs. In the House bill, the Administration asked that they not make the efficiency measure subject to sanctioning, rather that sanctioning would occur only with the other measures. The House went along with that. He said that setting national goals is a pretty interesting proposition; government is not real sophisticated in the way national goals are developed.

Bill said that the proposed changes in performance measures for Adult Education are of particular concern. They appear to be out of synch with the mission of Adult Ed. Mason said this criticism is heard other places besides Utah, but that it is DOL's view that Adult Education programs are meant to give adults another opportunity to obtain skills they need to become employed. That means performance goals related to employment. The goal shouldn't be just about hoping someone learns how to read, rather it should be that someone, by virtue of participating in an Adult Education activity, becomes employed. Mason said there is discussion about this view and that of the Adult Education community in DC, as well. He said there is not always agreement there either, but the Administration is trying to get there. They're pushing the DOE hard toward applying the same measures as those proposed for WIA programs. It's a matter of what we should being doing for people--getting them connected to the labor force.

Don asked what the chances are of the Senate adopting a separate funding stream for One-Stop infrastructure. Mason said that the Democrats will push for it and the Administration will push against it. The Office of Management and Budget is not going to want a separate stream for infrasturure. The Administration will push for HR 1261, except that on VR, they will try to get the Senate to limit the amount from the state grant that could be taken to 3/4 of 1 percent. Again, this was not accomplished in the House bill, but that is what DOL wants for VR.

Bill noted that UREAP is preparing a comment for Senator Enzi's Subcommittee hearing and asked for the latest idea on a hearing date. Mason said he would know more in a day or so, but his latest information was June 10 or 12. Bill thanked Mason for keeping the communication lines open and for his information. Mason offered to have another teleconference at a later time. Bill asked if, by chance, Mason hears anything about TANF reauthorization. Mason said he has heard nothing and commented that it will be interesting if it ever moves.

Welfare Reform Reauthorization Update

Shirley reported that Robin Arnold-Williams had been unable to stay for the meeting, but that she had said earlier in the day that $10 billion dedicated to state fiscal relief as part of the tax package would leave Senate Finance Committee with less money to work with in considering welfare reform needs. She also said that there is a rumor that the Senate will start with the House TANF bill, rather than with the current law, as had been said originally. There is discussion about hours of participation and rates, but no consensus. Bipartisan staff are still not meeting together. As for timing, the Finance Committee Chair, Senator Chuck Grassley, had gone on record saying that there will be no downtime. If prescription drug legislation stalls, the Committee will move on to other things and welfare reform would be likely to come up sooner, under that scenario. It could even come up rather suddenly.

Shirley reported on an email UREAP staff sent to Jace Johnson, Senator Hatch's aide on welfare reform. In it, they provided information on three additional issues: 1) teen mothers, 2) Business Links legislation, and 3) Native American Welfare Reform Act. The text of the email will be posted at the UREAP website.

Announcements

The next UREAP meeting will be on Tuesday, June 24, 2003, 2:30 to 4:30 p.m., at Horizonte.