UREAP HR 27 Comment to Congressman Matheson

Text of Comment on HR 27, "Job Training Improvement Act"
Submitted to Congressman Matheson Prior to Debate on the House Floor
By the Utah Reauthorization Project (UREAP) on March 2, 2005

Dear Congressman Matheson:

The Utah Reauthorization Project (UREAP) appreciates this opportunity to convey our views on HR 27, "Job Training Improvement Act," being debated in the House today and tomorrow. UREAP's official membership includes 28 entities with a broad variety of experience and expertise and has statewide coverage (listed below). Over 400 people--private citizens, consumers of services, Utah legislators, public and private service providers, and others--receive information through an email list and a website (http://www.slcap.org/UREAP/ureap.htm) and, in turn, share it with others. Input into UREAP's activities and communications is accomplished via the email list and monthly meetings. This group has been working together since April 2001.

Indeed, many of the provisions of HR 27 are positive and will solve very real problems inherent in the Workforce Investment Act of 1998. Reauthorization provides an opportunity in this regard. However, there are a number of very troubling provisions in the bill and only one of the amendments we understand will be offered will address one of our concerns, if that amendment passes.

We have spoken with Emily Merchant and understand that your intention is to vote against the bill. We greatly appreciate that and we also thank you for asking Chairman Boehner and Representative Miller to request that an amendment pertaining to the WIA Plus Consolidated Grant Program be disallowed in the Rules Committee. It was great to see the effort to add WIA Plus staved off. For the record, here are our reasons for opposing the bill as it stands:

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 is justified by the Administration as a means to facilitate flexibility in the use of funds; however, there is already adequate opportunity in the current law. Most states have not maximized what is already available. States attempting to work with this relatively new system should be allowed to focus on fully implementing it. Continual change is disruptive and wasteful. We believe that a prerequisite for making drastic modifications should be clear evidence that a problem exists. We support measures that would increase collaboration and integration in this 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 have consistently recommended that HR 27 not include this or any other provision to block grant programs, and although we are pleased to learn that the "WIA Plus Consolidated Grant Program" proposed by the Administration will not be added to the bill, the above block grant provision is still included in the bill. This fact is one of the reasons we oppose HR 27. *

Personal Reemployment Accounts. HR 27 would establish Personal Reemployment Accounts (PRAs), intended to help people who have lost jobs and qualify for Unemployment Insurance (UI) to find new jobs more quickly than they otherwise might. UREAP greatly appreciates what we understand to be a message of commitment to the cause of helping unemployed people find work. However, when viewed in the context of HR 27 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—one that has not yet been tested. Existing WIA programs are already underfunded and the Administration’s FY2006 proposes even further cuts.

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. Simply opting to open a PRA does not mean that a job will be forthcoming. This could be very damaging to unemployed individuals and families.

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 the 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. The bill indicates that PRAs will have to be constantly monitored to ensure that disallowed expenses are identified and reimbursed.

* We have recommended that PRAs be deleted from HR 27--as they were from HR 1261 before its passage in 2003--but even though pilot programs authorized that year have not been evaluated for effectiveness, HR 27 still includes what we believe is a premature expansion of an unproven approach at the expense of other necessary services. This is another reason that we oppose the bill. *

Focus on In-School Youth. We have been alarmed at the intention of HR 27 (and its predecessor that passed during the 108th Congress) to reduce the ability of states to continue to support vulnerable students who are still managing to stay in school by restricting funding for in-school services to 30 percent. HR 27 reserves a portion of funds allotted to states to low-income youth, but this is not adequate to fund the important chance we have to prevent children from dropping out. 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 27 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. This 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 have urged 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 calls for 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 Administration and Congress should find a better way to send that message than to mandate that states turn away from in-school children.

* We urge you to support an amendment (#6) that we understand will be offered by Congressman Tierney during Floor consideration of HR 27. Adoption of this amendment would eliminate this flaw in the current bill by leaving provisions related to Youth as they are in the current law. However, we do not believe this goes far enough to warrant support of the bill. *

Youth Councils. Congressman Tierney's proposed amendment (#6) would address our concerns about changes HR 27 would make to provisions in the current law relating to Youth Councils, as well. 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 27 that would eliminate the requirement for Youth Councils 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.

* This is another good reason to support Congressman Tierney's amendment. *

Funding for One-Stop Career Center Operations. UREAP agrees with the sponsors of HR 27 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. Reauthorization provides an opportunity to correct that. 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, we do not believe the answer is requiring mandatory contributions from already under-funded entities. Congress should ensure that funding is available so that states are able to operate their One-Stops without reducing their ability to fulfill the purposes of the Act. Mandating contributions by One-Stop partners, as HR 27 does, simply—and very unacceptably—reduces 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 have consistently recommended that the funding mechanism for One-Stop Center Operations in HR 27 be deleted and that instead, funding for One-Stop Center infrastructure be diverted from that designated as available to fund Personal Reemployment Accounts. There appears to be little inclination in either Chamber to develop a separate funding stream for this purpose, but we believe what the Senate proposed in 2003 is preferable to what HR 27 includes. *

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 27 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. However, we are concerned with language in HR 27. It says that before individuals are able to access intensive or training services they must be deemed “unlikely or unable to obtain suitable employment.” We believe this language will still prevent adequate access. It does not go far enough to open and expedite the pathway to jobs that pay an adequate wage.

* While we appreciate efforts in HR 27 to address the problem of sequential services in the current law, we have recommended that the House consider alternative language that will truly open up this system to provide services needed by each individual, and streamline the means by which employers can get their staffing needs met. *

Community-Based Job Training Grants. We are very uncomfortable with language added during mark-up to restrict eligible entities for Community Based Job Training grants to community colleges. This is counterproductive and promises to leave a sizable population with no options to meet their needs for basic educational skills and training. In Utah, many other educational and job training providers, such as the Horizonte Instruction & Training Center operated by the Salt Lake City School District, offer excellent training programs and serve targeted populations, such as adult refugees, that are not readily served in the Community Colleges or will be entirely screened out by entrance requirements and the unavailability of remediation offerings. Utah's Adult Education programs should be allowed to compete for these funds because their services are necessary for special adult populations. This is particularly critical in light of the fact that the President's Budget for Adult Education proposes a 63% cut.

* We understand that there will be no opportunity to rescind the restrictive language that was added to HR 27 in Committee, therefore, this new provision adds to the reasons we oppose HR 27. *

Allowing Low-Income, Non-TANF Job Seekers to Access Training Services. We are pleased that HR 27 requires that recipients of public assistance and other low-income individuals, including single parents, displaced homemakers, and pregnant single women be given priority for intensive and priority services when funding is limited. However, we predict that, without some type of stipend, low-income individuals who do not qualify for financial assistance such as the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program are highly unlikely to be able to take advantage of this helpful provision. 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 have consistently recommended that HR 27 be amended to allow joint use of WIA training and Pell Grants. *

Community Based Organizations on State Workforce Investment Boards. HR 27 eliminates the seat on State Workforce Investment Boards (SWIBs) held under current law by community-based organizations. In our view, this threatens to deny those Boards information and perspective they need to be able to serve large segments of the population needing services under the Act. We are relieved that CBO representation is still mandated on the local level, but it takes an integrated approach—on both the State and local levels—to effectively carry out the purposes of the Act that pertain to low-income people, dislocated workers not affiliated with labor unions, members of cultural and ethnic minority groups, people with disabilities, and people with limited English proficiency. Without SWIB members who understand and work on a regular basis with members of special populations the Act seeks to serve, their needs stand a good chance of being missed.

This elimination is particularly serious for Utah. We have only one local area under WIA—the state. Our local councils are merely advisory. Since Congress mandates One Stops, it is important to assure that all those impacted by the mandate have an equitable voice. Having an advisory voice, as compared to a policy voice, is not equitable.

* We have recommended that HR 27 be amended to retain representation for community based organizations on State Workforce Investment Boards as in the current law. This provision adds to our reasons for opposing HR 27. *

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. 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 have recommended deletion of the provision in HR 27 that would remove public sector representatives from the Local Workforce Investment Boards. *

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 in making changes that may conflict with the mission of, or otherwise jeopardize, the Adult Education system. Specifically, we oppose the assigning of 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 have consistently recommended 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. *

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. As other states have found, bringing up this law 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. Much has been learned in these early years of the Workforce Investment Act and we see the opportunity brought by the reauthorization process to build on that knowledge.

We appreciate your consideration of our persistent concerns with HR 27 as noted in this letter, the work you do for Utah, and compliment you on the knowledge and accessibility of your staff.

Sincerely,

Active Re-Entry, Price, (Eastern 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 Committee (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.