[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
REMOVING INEFFICIENCIES IN THE NATION'S JOB TRAINING PROGRAMS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION
AND WORKFORCE TRAINING
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
AND THE WORKFORCE
U.S. House of Representatives
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MAY 11, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-21
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce
Available via the World Wide Web:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html
or
Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
66-132 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman
Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin George Miller, California,
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Senior Democratic Member
California Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Judy Biggert, Illinois Donald M. Payne, New Jersey
Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey
Joe Wilson, South Carolina Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Virginia
Duncan Hunter, California Lynn C. Woolsey, California
David P. Roe, Tennessee Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania Carolyn McCarthy, New York
Tim Walberg, Michigan John F. Tierney, Massachusetts
Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio
Richard L. Hanna, New York David Wu, Oregon
Todd Rokita, Indiana Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Larry Bucshon, Indiana Susan A. Davis, California
Trey Gowdy, South Carolina Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania Timothy H. Bishop, New York
Kristi L. Noem, South Dakota David Loebsack, Iowa
Martha Roby, Alabama Mazie K. Hirono, Hawaii
Joseph J. Heck, Nevada
Dennis A. Ross, Florida
Mike Kelly, Pennsylvania
[Vacant]
Barrett Karr, Staff Director
Jody Calemine, Minority Staff Director
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE TRAINING
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina, Chairwoman
John Kline, Minnesota Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin Ranking Minority Member
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, John F. Tierney, Massachusetts
California David Wu, Oregon
Judy Biggert, Illinois Timothy H. Bishop, New York
Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey
David P. Roe, Tennessee Susan A. Davis, California
Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Richard L. Hanna, New York David Loebsack, Iowa
Larry Bucshon, Indiana George Miller, California
Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania
Joseph J. Heck, Nevada
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on May 11, 2011..................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Foxx, Hon. Virginia, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Higher
Education and Workforce Training........................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Hinojosa, Hon. Ruben, ranking member, Subcommittee on Higher
Education and Workforce Training........................... 17
Prepared statement of.................................... 18
Additional statements submitted for the record:
The American Society for Clinical Pathology.......... 3
Conway, Maureen, executive director, Economic
Opportunities Program, the Aspen Institute......... 5
Holzer, Harry J., professor of public policy,
Georgetown University; institute fellow, Urban
Institute.......................................... 7
Kuriansky, Joan, executive director, Wider
Opportunities for Women............................ 10
Tierney, Hon. John F., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Massachusetts, submission for the record:
Twomey, John, on behalf of the National Workforce
Association, prepared statement of..................... 13
Statement of Witnesses:
Ganzglass, Evelyn, director, Workforce Development Center for
Law and Social Policy...................................... 25
Prepared statement of.................................... 26
Royal, Bert ``Van,'' owner/broker, Magnolia Point Realty, K&V
Investment Group, Inc., chairman, WorkSource............... 34
Prepared statement of.................................... 36
Sherrill, Andrew, Director for Education, Workforce, and
Income Security, U.S. Government Accountability Office..... 19
Prepared statement of.................................... 21
Temple, Larry, executive director, Texas Workforce Commission 21
Prepared statement of.................................... 23
REMOVING INEFFICIENCIES IN THE
NATION'S JOB TRAINING PROGRAMS
----------
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training
Committee on Education and the Workforce
Washington, DC
----------
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:08 a.m., in
room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Virginia Foxx
[Chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Foxx, Petri, Platts, Thompson,
Bucshon, Hinojosa, Tierney, and Bishop.
Staff Present: Katherine Bathgate, Press Assistant/New
Media Coordinator; James Bergeron, Director of Education and
Human Services Policy; Casey Buboltz, Coalitions and Member
Services Coordinator; Heather Couri, Deputy Director of
Education and Human Services Policy; Jimmy Hopper, Legislative
Assistant; Barrett Karr, Staff Director; Rosemary Lahasky,
Professional Staff Member; Brian Melnyk, Legislative Assistant;
Krisann Pearce, General Counsel; Alex Sollberger,
Communications Director; Linda Stevens, Chief Clerk/Assistant
to the General Counsel; Alissa Strawcutter, Deputy Clerk;
Joseph Wheeler, Professional Staff Member; Aaron Albright,
Minority Communications Director for Labor; Tylease Alli,
Minority Hearing Clerk; Jody Calemine, Minority Staff Director;
Celine McNicholas, Minority Labor Counsel; Megan O'Reilly,
Minority General Counsel; Julie Peller, Minority Deputy Staff
Director; Meredith Regine, Minority Labor Policy Associate;
Laura Schifter, Minority Senior Education and Disability
Advisor; and Michele, Varnhagen, Minority Chief Policy Advisor
and Labor Policy Director.
Chairwoman Foxx. Good morning. A quorum now being present,
the subcommittee will come to order. Welcome to the
Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training.
I would like to thank our witnesses for joining us today.
We look forward to your testimony.
Today's hearing will review ways we can make federal job
training programs more efficient and effective. Such programs
are critical to fostering a competitive workforce and assisting
unemployed citizens. However, serious concerns about program
fragmentation and potential duplication exist that could result
in significant waste.
A recent Government Accountability Office report identified
47 separate job training programs administered by 9 federal
agencies. Of those 47 programs, the GAO found 44 overlap with
at least one other program. Considering the $18 billion price
tag attached to these programs, a comprehensive review to
identify ways we can reduce costs, consolidate programs, and
improve services is vital.
In the coming months, Congress will take steps to
reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act which was passed more
than a decade ago to reform the nation's federal job training,
unemployment, and adult education and vocational rehabilitation
programs. WIA has helped integrate federal and State employment
and training programs by requiring services be provided through
a one-stop delivery system. However, as the GAO report
illustrates, there are still areas where overlapping programs
or services could be further consolidated and improved.
A number of States have taken it upon themselves to
streamline State workforce and welfare agencies that administer
federally funded programs. For example, Utah established State
Department of Workforce Services by merging 6 agencies that
administered 23 employment and training programs. Texas
consolidated 28 employment and training programs from 10
separate agencies to create the Texas Workforce Commission.
Additionally, Florida established the Agency for Workforce
Innovation by merging State workforce programs with employment
and training initiatives administered by the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families program.
In each of these instances, States reported such
consolidation efforts reduced costs, simplified delivery,
improved efficiency, and heightened the quality of services
provided to program recipients. As we work to revitalize our
economy in the wake of the recent recession, we must encourage
a robust and responsive job training system that helps American
workers effectively compete in the 12th century workplace. This
committee is dedicated to improving job training opportunities
by streamlining unnecessary bureaucracy, eliminating
duplicative programs, fostering economic development, and
encouraging the creation of high-skill and high-wage
opportunities for workers in the global economy.
We look forward to hearing your thoughts on modernizing
federal job training programs and gaining your perspective on
what should be done in Washington to ensure workers are
prepared better.
[The statement of Chairwoman Foxx follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Virginia Foxx, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training
A quorum being present, the Subcommittee will come to order.
Good morning, and welcome to the Subcommittee on Higher Education
and Workforce Training. I'd like to thank our witnesses for joining us
today. We look forward to your testimony.
Today's hearing will review ways we can make federal job training
programs more efficient and effective. Such programs are critical to
fostering a competitive workforce and assisting unemployed citizens.
However, serious concerns about program fragmentation and potential
duplication exist that could result in significant waste.
A recent Government Accountability Report identified 47 separate
job training programs administered by 9 federal agencies. Of those 47
programs, the GAO found 44 overlap with at least one other program.
Considering the 18 billion dollar price tag attached to these programs,
a comprehensive review to identify ways we can reduce costs,
consolidate programs, and improve services is vital.
In the coming months, Congress will take steps to reauthorize the
Workforce Investment Act, which was passed more than a decade ago to
reform the nation's federal job training, unemployment, adult education
and vocational rehabilitation programs. WIA has helped integrate
federal and state employment and training programs by requiring
services be provided through a `one stop' delivery system. However, as
the GAO report illustrates, there are still areas where overlapping
programs or services could be further consolidated and improved.
A number of states have taken it upon themselves to streamline
state workforce and welfare agencies that administer federally-funded
programs. For example, Utah established the State Department of
Workforce Services by merging 6 agencies that administered 23
employment and training programs. Texas consolidated 28 employment and
training programs from 10 separate agencies to create the Texas
Workforce Commission. Additionally, Florida established the Agency for
Workforce Innovation by merging state workforce programs with
employment and training initiatives administered by the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families program.
In each of these instances, states reported such consolidation
efforts reduced costs, simplified delivery, improved efficiency, and
heightened the quality of services provided to program recipients.
As we work to revitalize our economy in the wake of the recent
recession, we must encourage a robust and responsive job training
system that helps American workers effectively compete in the 21st
century workplace. This Committee is dedicated to improving job
training opportunities by streamlining unnecessary bureaucracy,
eliminating duplicative programs, fostering economic development and
encouraging the creation of high-skill and high-wage opportunities for
workers in the global economy.
We look forward to hearing your thoughts on modernizing federal job
training programs and gaining your perspective on what should be done
in Washington to ensure workers are better prepared. I would now like
to recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Ruben Hinojosa, for his opening
remarks.
______
Chairwoman Foxx. We are waiting for Mr. Hinojosa, and I
will recognize him later for his opening remarks, and we will
proceed with the testimony of the witnesses who are here.
Pursuant to Committee rule 7(c), all subcommittee members
will be permitted to submit written statements to be included
in the permanent hearing record.
Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for
14 days to allow statements, questions for the record, and
other extraneous material referenced during the hearing to be
submitted in the official hearing record.
[Additional submissions of Mr. Hinojosa follow:]
Prepared Statement of the American Society for Clinical Pathology
Chairman Foxx and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, the
American Society for Clinical Pathology (ASCP) thanks the Subcommittee
on Higher Education and Workforce Training for the opportunity to
comment for the record on the status of the laboratory healthcare
workforce and the continuing need to train laboratory professionals to
fill the multitude of available jobs nationwide.
ASCP is requesting reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act
(WIA), with specific provisions to support two and four year training
programs in laboratory medicine. Designed to consolidate, coordinate,
and improve employment training, literacy, and vocational
rehabilitation programs in the United States, WIA represents the best
possible mechanism to alleviate the shortage of qualified laboratory
personnel, creating a strong healthcare workforce skilled to meet the
health needs of an aging population as ``baby boomers'' age and need
additional medical tests.
Clinical laboratory testing plays an essential role in the delivery
of quality health care. America's medical laboratory professionals
perform the tests that provide physicians, nurses, and other health
care providers with objective information that is needed to prevent,
diagnose, treat, and manage disease. It is estimated that laboratory
data have an impact on 60-80 percent of medical decisions and treatment
regimens. The contributions laboratory professionals make to patient
care cannot be overstated. However, there remains a shortage of
qualified personnel to perform these essential tasks.
The laboratory personnel shortage hampers the ability of
pathologists and clinical laboratories to meet the increasing patient
testing demands that are a result of an aging population and an
evolving health care system. Solutions to this crisis need to be
devised to protect our nation's public health.
Laboratory medicine is unique, not only because of its science and
impact upon the larger society but also because in the wake of the
current economic climate, where companies and industries are falling
prey to tough decisions that boil down to dollars and cents, the
laboratory offers a rare opportunity where jobs do exist.
There are medical laboratory science jobs available nationwide. The
Department of Labor's Occupational Handbook for 2010-2011, lists
clinical laboratory scientists as a highly promising career, with
``rapid job growth and excellent job opportunities'' and describes an
appealing career, with an attractive pay scale and employers waiting to
hire. In addition, the December 6, 2010 issue of U.S. News and World
Report listed Lab Technician among the top 50 ``Best Careers for
2011.'' However, the news from the laboratory front is not as
favorable. Despite job openings, there remains a shortage of qualified
laboratory professionals, marked in large part to an insufficient
number of qualified trained personnel to fill available slots. Many
laboratory professionals are retiring, training programs are closing
and there exist an extreme need to feel the gap between the supply and
demand for qualified laboratorians.
The U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Bureau of Labor Statistics
estimates that there will be almost 11,000 laboratory technologist/
technician job openings annually through 2018. Unfortunately, the
programs preparing tomorrow's laboratory workforce train only about a
third of what is needed. Fewer than 5,000 individuals are graduating
each year from accredited training programs, that's 10,000 fewer lab
specialists than needed are being trained in the United States.
Over the last two decades, our nation's ability to train new
laboratory practitioners has deteriorated markedly and we have been
unable to meet the demand for their services. According to the National
Accrediting Agency for Clinical Laboratory Sciences (NAACLS), the
number of accredited medical laboratory technology programs, the
programs that train medical laboratory scientists and technicians,
dropped from 709 in 1975 to 229 in 2011. Right now, NAACLS reports that
seven medical laboratory scientist programs and 17 medical laboratory
technician programs across 20 states are at risk for closure this year.
Already the following schools fallen victim to budget cuts and were
forced to close. These included: Arizona State University; the
University of South Alabama; the University of Wisconsin, Madison;
Western Carolina University; and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
Despite the vital role that these programs play, they are
unfortunately expensive to run and require small classes taught by
qualified professionals. Hospitals, which traditionally conducted most
of the training, have shifted their resources and closed most of their
programs. Some state governments have determined that the programs are
too expensive to maintain because of small class size and the
investment in laboratory infrastructure needed to adequately train
students. States and schools have had to find other funding streams in
order to keep such valuable programs afloat.
In Minnesota, the state was able to use Department of Labor grant
money designated for workforce training. The state garnered two grants
under the Community Based Job Training Program, totaling approximately
five million dollars and partnered with a local educational institution
along with a health care system to build a cohesive structure that
naturally led from training to employment. The numbers tell the story
of this collaborative success:
During 2006-2008, 308 students graduated from Medical
Laboratory Technician (MLT) and Medical Laboratory Science (MLS)
programs.
During the period spanning 2009-2011, the number of
graduates from MLT and MLS programs rose to 423
From the initial period of 2006-2008 through the 2009-2011
cycle, there was an increase in the number of graduates; an increase of
115 graduates or an increased graduation rate of 137.4%
At San Jose State University federal stimulus dollars are being
used to help put a dent in a looming shortage of clinical lab
scientists and those in related fields. The university's Clinical
Laboratory Scientist Training Program, part of the Department of
Biological Sciences, won a $5 million grant through the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to train future health care
professionals. ``To fill the needs in California alone, we need to be
training 850 people a year,'' said Michael Sneary, professor and
chairman of the Department of Biological Sciences. ``At this point, we
are training 300.'' California is but a microcosm of a systematic
problem nationwide.
In California there are 34 clinical lab scientists for
every 100,000 Californians compared to the national rate of 54 such
workers for every 100,000 people. Vacancies of nearly one-third of the
jobs now occupied are predicted for coming years because the average
age of workers in the field is above 50, as possibly up to one-third of
staff could be lost to retirements over the next four or five years.
Minnesota and the San Jose programs are just two examples of the
synergy and partnership that other states could replicate as they seek
to resolve the disconnect between needed laboratory personnel and
available jobs. The missing link continues to be financial resources.
Congress has the authority to provide financial resources to make job
training a priority. Despite difficult economic times, investment in
our nation's future workforce is the key that will not only sustain the
laboratory but also the nation's economy.
Reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) remains
crucial; it is the piece of the puzzle that Congress can and needs to
fill in as the nation seeks to put together a qualified, marketable
workforce. It provides the best case scenario to stabilize our nation's
clinical education and training programs and fill long standing
vacancies with qualified laboratory professionals.
In reauthorizing the WIA, Congress should include provisions that
make institutions of higher learning partners in job creation
initiatives. This can be accomplished by including provisions in a
reauthorized WIA that make public institutions of higher education
automatically eligible as job-training providers. Provisions should be
included that designate medical laboratory personnel training programs
as one of a group of preferred programs where a large number of jobs
vacancies exist. Congress must close the gaps between workforce
training, adult basic education and postsecondary education to give
workers the skills and knowledge they need in today's economy.
As a nation, we continue to struggle to put our citizens to work.
There seems to be an inability to make the financial investment to put
America to work. In contrast, Minnesota, California and a small program
in Nevada have been lucky enough and resourceful enough to create a
cobblestone path from education to employment based from government
sources such as the WIA. What about the remaining 47 states? What about
the states that each Member of this Subcommittee represents? How will
your constituents have their laboratory needs met, if there are no
skilled professionals to read and understand the blood draws, the
biopsies, the pap smears? These creative approaches to funding needed
education in some sort of patchwork format grew out of necessity, it
should not however replace a national commitment to job training.
Investment in education and job training is the catalyst for building a
strong workforce that contributes to society and strengthens the
nation's economy. An investment in laboratory professions training is
the key to establishing a marketable workforce capable of providing
skills that bolster the health and well-being of a nation.
______
Prepared Statement of Maureen Conway, Executive Director,
Economic Opportunities Program, the Aspen Institute
Thank you Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member Hinojosa and members of
the subcommittee for allowing me to submit this written testimony on
behalf of the Aspen Institute's Economic Opportunities Program. For
over 20 years, the Aspen Institute's Economic Opportunities program has
investigated fields of practice that offer low-income Americans the
chance to participate fully in the American economy. Our work includes
investigations of promising approaches to helping Americans gain the
skills they need to find better jobs or to start businesses, providing
much needed income and opportunity for themselves and their families.
We have also examined opportunities to develop sustainable financial
products and educational strategies that can help these low-income
Americans better manage their income and assets, building a more
promising economic future. We believe all Americans deserve a chance to
both contribute to and benefit from our country's economic vibrancy.
Today, more than ever, it is critical for all capable workers to
develop and contribute their talents. We face many economic challenges
not only now, but as we look to the future. Consider the demographics
of our workforce. The proportion of our workforce that is 55 or older
is projected to double in the short space of 20 years, going from a
little over 12% in 1998 to nearly 25% in 2018.\1\ In addition, the
proportion of workers who are African American or Hispanic is expected
to grow over the coming years, while the proportion of workers who are
white will decline. The increasing diversity of our nation is in many
ways a strength. It is also unfortunately a reality that these minority
populations have disproportionately struggled in underperforming
schools, are low-income, and as a result often have low levels of
educational attainment. As the exigencies of economic competitiveness
require growth in the skills and abilities of the American workforce,
we need to ensure those workers remaining in the workforce--workers of
all ages and backgrounds--have the opportunity to develop skills that
are in demand in today's economy and to become full participants in our
nation's economic recovery and revitalization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Mitra Toosi, ``Labor Force Projections to 2018: Older Workers
Staying More Active'', Monthly Labor Review, US Bureau of Labor
Statistics: Washington DC, November 2009. (http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/
2009/11/art3full.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the mid-1990s, the Workforce Strategies Initiative at the
Aspen Institute (AspenWSI) \2\ has been studying and exploring
industry-specific or sectoral approaches to workforce development.
These strategies address problems confronting both individuals who need
better employment opportunities and companies that need skilled
workforces. Thus they are designed based on the specific needs of
employers and workers in local communities. Sector strategies are
implemented by a range of institutions and groups working
collaboratively, including community- and faith-based organizations,
business and industry groups, community and technical colleges,
Workforce Investment Boards, and others. Some of these partnerships
operate initiatives focused on one target industry in a specific
geographical region; others work simultaneously in a handful of
industry sectors; a few take a cross-regional or multi-site approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ AspenWSI is an initiative of the Economic Opportunities Program
(http://www.aspenwsi.org).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the years of our research we have confirmed that sector
strategies are effective in helping low-income workers find employment
and improve their earnings. We did some of the earliest outcome
research that documented employment and earnings gains achieved by
these programs. More recently we collaborated with Public/Private
Ventures on a study that employed an experimental design, looking at
three distinct sector initiatives, and we found significant impacts in
terms of employment and earnings.\3\ In 2010 we released reports
detailing extremely promising employment and education outcomes of
sector initiatives that are partnerships between nonprofits and
community colleges.\4\ In addition, while more difficult to study with
as rigorous a research design, we have also seen evidence that sector
programs can provide significant benefits to employer customers in
terms of reducing employment vacancy rates, lowering turnover,
enhancing productivity, improving customer satisfaction, and other
specific and highly valued business outcomes.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Sheila Maguire, Joshua Freely, Carol Clymer and Maureen Conway,
Job Training That Works: Findings from the Sectoral Employment Impact
Study, P/PV In Brief (Public/Private Ventures), May 2009, http://
www.ppv.org/ppv/publications/assets/294--publication.pdf. SEDLP
Research Report No. 3: Gaining Ground: The Labor Market Progress of
Participants of Sectoral Employment Development Programs, February
2002, http://www.aspenwsi.org/publicationdetailsdb.asp?pid=9
\4\ For detailed information on the employment and education
outcomes of participants of five sectoral initiatives operated in
partnership by nonprofit organizations and community colleges, see
http://www.aspenwsi.org/pubs-topic.asp#Ed.
\5\ The Aspen Institute, Workforce Strategies Initiative, Business
Value Assessment Examples, http://www.aspenwsi.org/WSIwork-
BVAexample.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the purposes of the committee's work in examining how to reduce
inefficiencies in our nation's workforce system, and in particular in
consideration of the issues posed by the existence of multiple federal
programs that provide resources for employment and training, it is
critical to distinguish between this type of highly effective program
and an employment and training ``program'' as defined by a federal
funding source. Sectoral programs are defined by the strategies they
pursue in working with local employers and with residents in their
community, and by the choices they make in terms of curricula used,
services offered, and other specific activities undertaken in order to
meet the needs of the industries and the job seekers they serve. In
contrast, federal programs generally have specific purposes, may define
eligible populations to be served, often outline eligible uses of funds
and may require reporting on specific activities, such as numbers
served, or accomplishments, such as number of trainees who found jobs
or experienced wage gains, but there is nonetheless scope within those
guidelines to make a variety of strategic choices. So while sectoral
programs often use (and need) federal funds, they cannot be accurately
characterized as a ``WIA program'' or a ``Wagner-Peyser program'' or a
``SNAP program''. A sectoral program may be supported by one or more
federal sources depending upon the needs of its industry and community,
and how these needs match up with federal priorities and criteria as
stated in the guidelines.
Indeed, rarely does a sector program rely on any single source of
funding, but rather a mix of funds from public and private funding
streams is pulled together to develop an operating budget that covers
the training and other services needed to serve participants and work
with employers effectively.\6\ Program leaders patch together an
operating budget from different sources for a variety of reasons. Below
are a few of the key reasons:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ For additional information describing how sector initiatives
finance their activities and services, please see: Aspen Institute,
Workforce Strategies, Update Issue 5: The Price of Persistence: How
Nonprofit-Community College Partnerships Manage and Blend Diverse
Funding Streams, February 2011, http://www.aspenwsi.org/
publicationdetailsdb.asp?pid=47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a) Participants meet different eligibility criteria for services.
Some meet income guidelines, others are TANF recipients, some are youth
and some live within designated zip codes. Quality sector programs,
however, are looking for candidates who have an interest in the
industry, meet specific industry criteria or aptitudes, and are likely
to benefit from the training and other services the program can offer.
b) Funding streams serve different purposes. For example some
funding can only be used to pay for training services, while other
funding streams allow expenditures on supportive services, such as
counseling and case management, transportation assistance, stipends or
other supports, that many lower-income workers need to stay in and
succeed in a training or education program. Other funding allows
resources to be dedicated to equipment acquisition or materials
purchases that allows training to be better tailored to an industry's
needs, etc. Thus a mix of funding is often needed in order for a
program to develop a complete package of services that address both
worker and industry needs.
c) Levels of federal funding from any one program vary dramatically
from year-to-year, and thus relying on any single funding source can be
very risky.
d) It is rare to find a single funding source that provides a
sufficient level of funding to support a quality program.
It is critical that in reviewing federal job training, we must be
clear and not confuse a funding stream with an actual program design on
the ground. To evaluate effectiveness, we must know more about what's
actually being done with the money. Based on our years of research, we
know that some approaches work, and we have learned a great deal about
how these effective programs operate. A critical challenge highlighted
in the GAO's report is that we do not know enough about what service
providers are doing with the money they receive and what they are
accomplishing.
We do know, however, that there are programs doing good and
valuable work that is supported through federal funding. For example,
in the study on which we collaborated with Public/Private Ventures, two
of the participating programs relied, in part, on Workforce Investment
Act funding.
The critical question then is how to ensure that federal dollars
are being used to build and support effective programming and we
believe that this is where federal investments should be focused. We
hope the committee will recognize the valuable contribution that
federal job training funds have made to addressing our nation's
employment and workforce skills challenges. We believe there is great
opportunity to build upon the effective work that has happened to date,
spreading effective practices and approaches to more communities and
supporting high quality job training programs for a variety of American
workers.
______
Prepared Statement of Harry J. Holzer, Professor of Public Policy,
Georgetown University and Institute Fellow, Urban Institute
I would like to share my thoughts on the Workforce Investment Act
(WIA), and particularly on the levels at which it should be funded, in
Fiscal Year 2012 and beyond. These thoughts reflect my nearly 30 years
of research and writing on these issues as a labor economist, including
a stint as Chief Economist of the U.S. Department of Labor.
There is little doubt among most labor market analysts that the
growth of education and skills among American workers has not kept up
with growth in the labor market demand for these skills in the past
three decades (Goldin and Katz, 2008). In order for productivity gains
to be widely shared among Americans, and for employers to be able to
fill vacant jobs with highly productive workers, the skill levels of
our workers will need to increase. And the skills that will be demanded
in the labor market are not only those represented by BA or more
advanced degrees from four-year colleges and universities, but also the
``middle skill'' categories in many sectors that include a wide range
of education and training credentials beyond high school (Holzer and
Lerman 2007; Holzer, 2010).
In order for the skills of American workers to rise in ways that
meet our labor market demands, we need an effective workforce
development system that is well-coordinated with our systems of
secondary and postsecondary education. On their own, and without
effective workforce programs, our institutions of higher education are
unlikely to generate workers with the skills needed to meet our labor
market needs. For one thing, the dropout rates at many such
institutions (especially community colleges) are extremely high; large
percentages of students leave without earning any kind of credential at
all (Bailey et al., 2005). And, among those who complete a degree or
certificate program, many do not attain good-paying jobs (Jacobson and
Mokher, 2009).
At least partly, these outcomes reflect the fact that many
institutions of higher education provide little in the way of career
counseling or labor market services for students that would effectively
point them towards good-paying jobs and careers (Jacobson and Mokher,
op. cit.; Soares, 2009). And, perhaps due to their previous levels of
education or their family situations, not all workers are able to
attend or succeed at institutions of higher education; instead, many
need some kind of job training that is targeted towards specific jobs
and sectors of the market that do not require as much in the way of
academic skills.\1\ Also, while employers could provide more on-the-job
training to meet their skill needs, there are many reasons for why they
often choose not to do so, especially for their non-professional and
non-managerial employees.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These alternatives include apprenticeship programs in
construction or other fields as well as a variety of certificate
programs in the health services and information technology. Programs
that train machinists and precision welders for advanced manufacturing
are also frequently offered in non-college settings.
\2\ Employers are often unwilling to invest in general training for
workers who might soon leave their firm or whose basic skills are
questionable. Also, imperfections in information and the capital
markets further constrain their ability or willingness to do so (Lerman
et al., 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For all these reasons, a strong workforce system remains critical
to maintaining a labor market in which skilled workers are well-matched
to the jobs that require and reward such skills. Jobseekers often need
assistance locating the best local jobs for which they are qualified;
they might need counseling about how best to upgrade their skills and
for what kinds of jobs and careers; and they might need funding for
such training. Training resources also need to be directed towards
sectors with good-paying jobs that are in high demand. Indeed, the
core, intensive and training services provided at One-Stop centers
around the country that are funded by WIA, especially Title I, do all
of these things.
Unfortunately, the overall resources that fund our workforce system
have declined dramatically over time, both in an absolute sense
(adjusted for inflation) and especially relative to the size of our
economy and workforce. Indeed, since 1980 WIA expenditures (compared to
its predecessor programs, CETA and JTPA) have fallen by as much as 90
percent, while our economy has doubled in size and our workforce has
grown by nearly half (Holzer, 2009). We now lag behind almost all other
industrial countries in the share of our GDP that we devote to such
efforts (O'Leary et al., 2004).
At the same time, the scope of employment services funded by WIA
has risen dramatically, as the services have become more universal and
the number of individuals receiving training has diminished. In fact,
in a nearly $15T economy with over 153 million workers, the roughly
$2.8B now available (in FY 2011) in Title I formula funds provides
about $18 per American worker--much too small a sum to greatly affect
the skills and employment outcomes of American workers in the
aggregate.
Our national unwillingness to sufficiently fund our workforce
system reflects, to some extent, a widespread belief that such
expenditures are wasteful or ineffective. But the literature based on
rigorous research of WIA programs does not bear out this point of view.
Indeed, the most rigorous studies of programs funded under WIA
(summarized in Heinrich and King, 2010) suggest that these modest
investments are quite cost-effective on an individual basis, generating
significantly higher earnings for those who receive them. This is
particularly true of ``sectoral'' programs that target growing
industries providing high-paying jobs, and often actively involve
employers in the process of training workers to fill their jobs
(Maguire et al., 2010; Roder and Elliott, 2011).
And the concerns that have been recently expressed over duplication
across federally-funded employment programs are quite overblown.
Estimates by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) show that,
while there are many employment and training programs scattered through
the federal budget, they generally target towards very small and
specific populations and expend very few resources in the aggregate.
Overall, the need for such services among American workers far
outstrips overall available funding.
Not all estimated training impacts have been as positive as they
can be, and therefore our workforce systems still need to evolve and
incorporate our growing understanding of what constitute ``best
practices.'' This is especially true for some of our least-skilled
workers and for out-of-school youth.\3\ Some of the most promising
models, like ``career pathways,'' need further development and rigorous
evaluation. Workforce development efforts also need to be better
integrated with the higher education and economic development programs
of states, though some have made considerable progress on this front in
recent years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ For instance, the most recent evaluations of the Job Corps show
positive and cost-effective impacts that tend to fade over time for
teens, though not for older youth (Schochet et al., 2008). Estimates of
the impacts of youth funding under the Job Training Partnership Act
(JTPA), the predecessor of WIA, were not positive (Orr et al., 1997),
though we know little about their impact under WIA. And recent
evaluations of training impacts for the hardest-to-serve populations
have generated mixed results (Bloom and Butler, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, these improvements will likely not occur in a system that
is effectively starved of needed resources. Instead, appropriate
incentives (through better and simpler performance measures on formula
funds) and technical assistance should be provided, along with the
resources, to make sure that such improvements occur. Workforce
innovations should be competitively funded and rigorously evaluated;
and this continuously growing body of knowledge should then inform our
workforce legislation and its funding of ``best practices'' in the
field.
An appropriately funded education and workforce system that
generates more knowledge about effective practices and adapts to labor
market changes over time is what we should aspire to build over time--
not with ill-informed budget cuts but with sensible program adjustments
and an adequate base of funding.
references
Bailey, Thomas et al. 2005. ``Graduation Rates, Student Goals, and
Measuring Community College Effectiveness.'' Community College
Research Center, Columbia University.
Bloom, Dan and David Butler. 2007. ``Overcoming Employment Barriers:
Strategies to Help the Hard-to-Employ.'' In H. Holzer and D.
Nightingale eds. Reshaping the American Workforce for a
Changing Economy. Washington DC: Urban Institute Press.
Goldin, Claudia and Lawrence Katz. 2008. The Race Between Education and
Technology. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Heinrich, Carolyn and Christopher King. 2010. ``How Effective are
Workforce Development Programs? Implications for U.S. Workforce
Policies in 2010 and Beyond.'' University of Texas at Austin,
October.
Holzer, Harry. 2010.''Is the Middle of the U.S. Job Market Really
Disappearing? Comments on the Polarization Hypothesis.''
Washington DC: Center for American Progress.
Holzer, Harry. 2009. ``Workforce Development Policies as an Antipoverty
Strategy: What do We Know? What Should We Do?'' In M. Cancian
and S. Danziger eds. Changing Poverty. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
Holzer, Harry and Robert Lerman. 2007. ``America's Forgotten Middle-
Skill Jobs: Education and Training Requirements for the Next
Decade and Beyond.'' Washington DC: The Workforce Alliance.
Jacobson, Louis and Christine Mokher. 2009. Pathways to Boosting the
Earnings of Low-Income Students by Increasing their Educational
Attainment. Arlington VA: CNA.
Lerman, Robert et al. 2004. ``The Scope of Employer-Provided Training
in the U.S.: Who, What, Where and How Much?'' In C. O'Leary et
al. eds. Job Training Policy in the United States. Kalamazoo
MI: W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
O'Leary, Christopher et al. 2004. ``Public Job Training: Experience and
Prospects.'' In C. O'Leary et al. eds. Job Training Policy in
the United States. Kalamazoo MI: W. E. Upjohn Institute for
Employment Research.
Orr, Larry et al. 1997. ``The Benefits and Costs of JTPA Title II-A
Programs.'' Journal of Human Resources.
Roder, Anne and Mark Elliott. 2011. A Promising Start: Year Up's
Initial Impacts on Low-Income Young Adults' Careers. New York:
Economic Mobility Corporation.
Schochet, Peter et al. 2008. ``Does Job Corps Work? Impact Findings
from the National Job Corps Study.'' American Economic Review.
December.
Soares, Louis. 2009. Working Learners: Education our Entire Workforce
for Success in the 21st Century. Washington DC: Center for
American Progress.
______
Prepared Statement of Joan Kuriansky, Executive Director,
Wider Opportunities for Women
Thank you Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member Hinojosa and members of
the subcommittee for allowing me to submit this written testimony. WOW
appreciates the opportunity to submit testimony about the efficiency
and effectiveness of the nation's workforce system. Wider Opportunities
for Women (WOW) is a nonprofit organization that works nationally to
build pathways to economic security for America's women and their
families. For more than 40 years, WOW has helped women learn to earn,
with programs emphasizing literacy, technical and nontraditional
skills, welfare-to-work transition, career development and retirement
security. Today, WOW is recognized nationally for its skills training
models, technical assistance and advocacy for women workers.
In January 2011, the Government Accountability Office released a
report analyzing the federal workforce education and training system.
The report findings are being distorted by some in a misdirected
attempt to exact substantial program cuts that will jeopardize both the
economic recovery and workers trying to achieve economic security. To
the contrary, cutting the very programs that have helped people find
new jobs is a short-sighted budget maneuver that will hurt recent
economic growth and ultimately put less money in the hands of
struggling families and ultimately the economy as a whole.
Jobs continue to be scarce with the number of working poor
increasing and their wage values continuing to fall in many jobs.\1\
The unemployment rate for women who maintain families are even higher
than the national average and the underemployment rate for workers with
less than a high school degree has risen. Millions of Americans who
work full-time cannot pay their basic living expenses let alone have
enough money to make investments in their future. These harsh realities
demonstrate the need for reinforcing the safety net for hard working
families facing hard times and supporting programs and policies that
contribute to moving families to economic security such as those
contained within the workforce system.
Education and Training Is An Effective Tool to Move Families to
Economic Security
GAO stated that ``federally funded employment and training programs
serve an important role in our society by helping job seekers enhance
their job skills, identify job opportunities, and obtain employment.''
\2\ Education pays; the more education one has the higher their
wages.\3\ ``Every additional level of education completed leads to
increased earnings and lower rates of unemployment.'' \4\
WIA has experienced a 234 percent increase in demand for services
over the past two years, and has risen to the challenge of assisting
millions of individuals annually to secure employment.\5\ As our
country continues to recover from the recession eliminating or even
reducing employment and training programs\6\ is a step that will
further harm both businesses and workers, not support them. Employer
associations like Deloitte Touche and the Manufacturing Institute have
been crying out for job training programs. Manufacturing employment has
shown signs of an unexpected recovery that is dependent to a
significant degree on access to a skilled workforce.
Workforce development programs work. In the last year at height of
the recession, WIA programs helped 4.3 million workers find employment
out of 8 million who entered the program. Hundreds of thousands more
enrolled in education and skill training through WIA, career and
technical education in community colleges and a variety of other job
training programs. Here in Washington, of the 278 women and men who
completed our Building Futures pre-apprenticeship construction program,
74% gained employment during the two years that ended April 31, 2011.
This program, has been supported by the Women in Apprenticeship and
Nontraditional Occupations (WANTO) program, administered by the Office
of Apprenticeship and Women's Bureau at DOL, and green jobs training
funds from the Recovery Act administered by the GSA.
Funding for Education and Training Programs Has Continued To Decrease
The GAO report states that ``In fiscal year 2009, 9 federal
agencies spent approximately $18 billion to administer 47 programs--an
increase of 3 programs and roughly $5 billion since our [GAO] 2003
report.\7\ This increase, as GAO importantly highlights, was temporary
resulting from American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA)
investments that are now no long longer available.
Funding for programs such as Workforce Investment Act (WIA) and
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) has gone down to their
pre-ARRA rates. These pre-ARRA rates are rates that have significantly
decreased over the years as neither has been reauthorized--WIA since
1998 and TANF since 2005. In fact, TANF funds have not been adjusted
since TANF was created in 1996.
Programs Provide Critical Services Targeted to Participants
Critics of workforce development programs were quick to highlight a
GAO finding there are 47 programs with significant overlap. However, a
more in-depth read of the GAO report\8\ provides further detail--the
vast majority of programs are provided through DOL and HHS and in fact,
76 percent of all funding and 91 percent of all participants identified
by the GAO are served through programs authorized under WIA.\9\
Programs funded outside of DOL and HHS are typically for specific
populations such as veterans or youth or for specialized industries
such as in the case of the Brownfield job training program under the
Environmental Protection Agency and; have broader goals such as the
employment and training services of TANF. Moreover, services provided
often differ in meaningful ways.'' \10\ For example, individuals within
a population group may be eligible for one program, but not another
because program eligibility criteria differ and overlapping programs
also have different objectives.\11\ HHS points out that some overlap is
appropriate and necessary so as not to exclude populations from
receiving certain services--this does not imply duplication.
As pointed out in the report, many of the programs critics point to
as wasteful or duplicative, in fact, have no overlap with any other
program and serve a unique population, such as the Brownfield Job
Training Cooperative Agreements program, the Senior Community Service
Employment Program, and the Women in Apprenticeship and Nontraditional
Occupations (WANTO) program. In fact, recent proposals would cut
SCSEP--a unique and vital program gives low-income, unemployed seniors
work experience that can be applied to post-retirement careers--almost
in half.
WANTO is the only job training specifically designed for girls and
women seeking to enter occupations where they are currently less than
25% of the workforce. These are occupations where they can earn 30% or
more than in jobs traditionally occupied with women who have less than
a 4-year degree. One example is the building trades where women are
currently less than 5% of the workforce. Others are in high-paying
technical occupations such as office machine repair where women make up
only 11% of the workforce and where the median weekly wage was $832 in
2009. WANTO is a small ($1 million), competitive grant program that
supports organizations that have staff with specific experience in
outreach, recruitment and career counseling to see the possibilities
these fields offer and to learn the specialized skills necessary to
succeed. WANTO tackles gender stereotyping, mentors women on the job,
and works with employers and labor unions to ensure that, once employed
in a nearly all-male workplace, they are able to remain in the job and
have a lifetime career.
Better System Alignment Does Not Equal Program Funding Cuts
The GAO report findings can inform decisions leading to improved
system alignment, a goal that we share along with those in Congress and
the Administration who are working to reauthorize the Workforce
Investment Act. The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
Committee is reportedly planning to introduce a bi-partisan proposal to
reauthorize WIA in the near future that would move toward better
alignment. Over the years, WOW has supported other reauthorization
bills that moved toward program alignment, including the use of a Self-
Sufficiency measure in goal setting and evaluation, as defined in the
Carl D. Perkins Act of 2006 the Green Job Act of 2007.
At the same time, the GAO report should not, be used to rationalize
further cuts in training services that currently are funded at 40
percent less than they were in 2002, adjusted for inflation. Research
shows that a stable funding structure is needed for One-Stop Career
Centers to be successful.'' \12\ Achieving the goal of streamlining
services must be done in a way that recognizes the realities of those
the program services. Streamlining can simultaneously afford states
flexibility to respond to local needs and should be achieved without
losing connection to other important supports needed such as those
needed by TANF enrollees. GAO highlights that factors, such as the
number of clients that any one-stop center can serve and one-stops'
proximity to clients, particularly in rural areas, could warrant having
multiple entities provide the same services.\13\ We need more
information about strategies and results of such initiatives to
understand how states and localities should undertake streamlining of
services and if such an undertaking would garner cost savings and
greater administrative efficiencies. Further, service alignment or
streamlining would take time to implement and not likely realize
financial benefits for some time. DOL and DHHS could begin by
disseminating information that could inform efforts recommended by GAO.
Currently, however, HHS lacks legal authority to mandate increased
TANF-WIA coordination to create incentives for such efforts.\14\
Program Outcomes Can Be Improved by Employing Practices Known To Work
Despite critiques that there is no program outcome data--the fact
is, we do have outcome data from the programs including entered
employment, employment retention, and wage gain or change. The
Department of Labor has inaugurated a rigorous evaluation program and
proposals have also been made in the context of WIA reauthorization.
Research entities such as MDRC, for example, have provided concrete
information on what makes an education and training program effective.
Their research showed that programs providing financial incentives to
supplement earnings in combination with services can promote employment
retention among low-wage workers. Low-wage workers often advance by
changing jobs and that matching individuals with jobs in particular
firms that pay higher wages can be an effective strategy to promote
advancement.\15\ Even more directly, data from Jobs for the Future show
that:
Employment and training services under the WIA Adult
Program generate significantly higher earnings and employment rates.
The impacts persist for several years resulting in a minimum 10 to 15
percent boost in annual earnings for disadvantaged adults, and return
$1.50 for every dollar invested by society.
Women's earnings are boosted by as much as 25 percent
($2400 annually) and men's earnings by 10 to 15 percent ($1700
annually) from the program's services.
Core and intensive counseling and job placement services
are cost effective, raising employment rates by 6 to 10 percent
quarterly; and training increases earnings by at least 10 percent, with
training most closely connected to employers (such as on-the-job and
sector-based training) creating returns of 15 to over 20 percent.\16\
Business Can Improve Their Partnership with the Workforce Development
System
Last year, WIA served 8 million jobseekers; over 4.3 million
secured jobs through the system; and hundreds of thousands of WIA
participants received training to prepare for new careers.\17\ Can
corporate America pick up the slack? They haven't. Business is a
partner within the workforce development system and is at the table to
assure its needs are met along with workers looking to improve their
financial status. Business and the workforce education and training
system could certainly do better to align programs and services to
ensure full mutual benefits are achieved--but simply put, government
programs fill in the gap when there is broad need.
The workforce system does provide vital services to employers,
including brokering training and helping employers find the skilled
workers they need to be competitive while matching workers to
employment.
Conclusion
Poverty is on the rise and is projected to increase in the coming
years as the country makes its way out of this recession. It is
essential that the foundation of our safety net is there for
individuals and families and that it provide the opportunity to improve
their economic security. We know that the path to self-sufficiency for
low income, low--skilled workers often requires career pathways that
lead to economically secure jobs. Eliminating education and training
opportunities that foster economic advancement is not the right path.
Indeed the GAO findings can be used as a guide for system
improvements. Its intent was not, nor should it be, used to rationalize
massive, arbitrary program cuts. Job training and education have been
proven to assist low-income working families increase their wages and
employers to build a skilled workforce. Those with a college degree, on
average, can earn twice as much as high school graduates.\18\ We still
have 13.7 million American workers unemployed. We must make smart
investments in spending that foster an educated workforce that can move
workers to economic security with the skills that are needed for a
strong economy.
REFERENCES
March 2011 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11318sp.pdf
Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs,
Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue
January 2011 http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-92
Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Providing Information on
Colocating Services and Consolidating Administrative Structures Could
Promote Efficiencies
National Skills Coalition: Federal Job Training Programs
are Meeting Critical Skilled Workforce Needs. http://
www.nationalskillscoalition.org/homepage-archive/nsc-responds-to-
coburn.html
ENDNOTES
\1\ U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Report
1027, A Profile of the Working Poor, 2009. Retrieved from the Internet
at http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2009.pdf on May 16, 2011; and Economic
Policy Institute. Entry Level Workers Face Lower Wages. August 24,
1999. Retrieved from the Internet at: http://www.epi.org/economic--
snapshots/entry/webfeatures--snapshots--archive--02171999/ on May 16,
2011
\2\ Government Accountability Office. Report to Congressional
Requesters. Multiple Employment And Training Programs: Providing
Information on Colocating Services and Consolidating Administrative
Structures Could Promote Efficiencies. January 2011. http://
www.gao.gov/new.items/d1192.pdf p 7
\3\ Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employment Projections. Education
Pays. http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep--chart--001.htm
\4\ Bureau of Labor Statistics. Job Outlook by Education, 2006-
2016. Fall 2008 http://www.bls.gov/opub/ooq/2008/fall/art01.pdf page 5
\5\ Statement of Raymond J. Uhalde Vice President, Jobs For The
Future. Before the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services,
Education and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations United
States House of Representatives http://appropriations.house.gov/--
files/040711TestimonyofRaymondUhaldeVPJobsfortheFuture.pdf
\6\ Government Accountability Office. Report to Congressional
Requesters. Multiple Employment And Training Programs: Providing
Information on Colocating Services and Consolidating Administrative
Structures Could Promote Efficiencies. January 2011. http://
www.gao.gov/new.items/d1192.pdf page 8. Employment and training
programs are defined by GAO as--a program that is specifically designed
to enhance the specific job skills of individuals in order to increase
their employability, identify job opportunities, and/or help job
seekers obtain employment.
\7\ Ibid page 2
\8\ Ibid--Figure 1 page 12
\9\ Statement of Raymond J. Uhalde Vice President, Jobs For The
Future. Before the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services,
Education and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations United
States House of Representatives http://appropriations.house.gov/--
files/040711TestimonyofRaymondUhaldeVPJobsfortheFuture.pdf Page 3
\10\ Government Accountability Office. Report to Congressional
Requesters. Multiple Employment And Training Programs: Providing
Information on Colocating Services and Consolidating Administrative
Structures Could Promote Efficiencies. January 2011. page 19
\11\ Ibid pages 22/23
\12\ The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government. The
Workforce Investment Act in Eight States, Burt S. Barnow, Johns Hopkins
University; Christopher T. King University of Texas at Austin. Prepared
for: U.S. Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration.
February 2005. http://www.rockinst.org/pdf/workforce--welfare--and--
social--services/2005-02-the--workforce--investment--act--in--eight--
states.pdf. Pages 13-14
\13\ Government Accountability Office. Report to Congressional
Requesters. Multiple Employment And Training Programs: Providing
Information on Colocating Services and Consolidating Administrative
Structures Could Promote Efficiencies. January 2011. page 2
\14\ Ibid page 101
\15\ MDRC. The Employment Retention and Advancement Project: How
Effective Are Different Approaches Aiming to Increase Employment
Retention and Advancement? Final Impacts for Twelve Models. April 2010.
http://www.mdrc.org/publications/558/execsum.pdf
\16\ Statement of Raymond J. Uhalde Vice President, Jobs For The
Future. Before the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services,
Education and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations United
States House of Representatives http://appropriations.house.gov/--
files/040711TestimonyofRaymondUhaldeVPJobsfortheFuture.pdf Page 3
\17\ Ibid
\18\ Georgetown University. Center on Education and the Workforce.
College is Still the Best Option. Retrieved from the Internet at:
http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/
college%20still%20best%20option.pdf page 3. on May 16, 2011.
______
[Additional submission of Mr. Tierney follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Twomey, on Behalf of the
National Workforce Association
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony on behalf of
the National Workforce Association (NWA) on Removing Inefficiencies in
the Nation's Job Training Programs.
In improving efficiencies in the nation's job training efforts, we
believe that Congress must consider these two immutable but competing
factors:
1. We are in an exceptionally difficult fiscal environment where
more than ever every single dollar must be wisely spent. We are
unlikely to see increased federal investment in the foreseeable future;
in fact we are likely to see some level of reduced funding for
workforce development. So doing more will require squeezing greater
efficiencies out of the multiple programs Congress has authorized over
the years.
2. At the same time, our global competitors have been increasing
their investments in education and workforce development. Our high
school completion rate lags well behind many of the other developed
nations in the OECD (Organization of Economic Cooperation and
Development). Our 15 year olds consistently score 23rd out of the 30
developed countries which whom we compete in today's global economy.
According to the U.S. Department of Education's National Assessment of
Adult Literacy Skills (NAALS, released January 2009), 14% of working
age Americans are in NAALS Level 1--either totally illiterate or at
best they can read one sentence. And our young people 25 to 34 have
slipped to 9th in the world in the percentage that have a postsecondary
degree. In fact, of all the developed countries, only in Germany and
the United States are young working age people less educated than their
parents.
For the above reasons the National Workforce Association believes
now is the time to better align and coordinate federal job training
efforts. During this fiscal crisis we must narrow the gap with our
global competitors, not risk it widening even further.
NWA's general observations-on The Government Accountability
Office's January 2011 report entitled
Multiple employment and training programs
Providing Information on Collocating Services and Consolidating
Administrative Structures Could Promote Efficiencies are as follows:
We agree with GAO that ``Federally funded employment and
training programs play an important role in helping job seekers obtain
employment.''
We also believe that the 47 programs listed in the report
were all authorized by Congress in a different time, to address real
problems facing specific target populations.
We respectfully point out that GAO found ``overlap'' not
``duplication''. Probably the best example of overlap as opposed to
duplication is in delivery of disabled veteran's programs and homeless
veteran's programs. Both initiatives have a strong job training
component and serve veterans; but obviously you would need to hire very
different staff expertise and embrace different strategies when dealing
with young men and women who bravely served their country and now
suffer post traumatic stress than a veteran who lost his or her legs to
an Improvised Explosive Device.
In the case of the above two programs merging them is not the
answer. NWA believes that they and all the federal job training
programs must be better aligned and coordinated.
We recognize that in undertaking efficiency improvement,
Congress must also overcome differing committee jurisdictions if the
goal is to be achieved. For example, while the Workforce Investment Act
and the Wagner Peyser Act's Employment Service fall under the
jurisdiction of the House Education and Workforce Committee, other
major initiatives like Trade Adjustment Assistance Act (TAA) and
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) are under the purview of
the Ways and Means Committee.
Funding considerations-In terms of the $18 Billion dollars and 47
separate programs, we would like to point out three facts:
1. The time period of GAO's examination covered the implementation
of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), and the $18
Billion GAO referenced was actually $12 Billion in a normal year. Make
no mistake this is a significant investment, but using an amount 50%
larger does distort today's discussion.
2. Of the 47 programs GAO considered, they found that 7 of the
programs received 77% of the federal investment. In reality, GAO
considered WIA Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Youth programs as three of
those seven. They are all WIA funds that run by formula through the
country's Local Workforce Investment Boards. In our minds then, 5
programs represent 77% of the funding.
Another way to look at this is to say the other 40 programs
represent only 23% of the total Federal funding, an average of less
than 0.6% of the total Federal investment per program. So one of the
great challenges is how to incorporate these small programs into an
identifiable, coordinated, private sector-led local workforce system.
3. GAO acknowledges that 77% of the total number of participants
served in all the 47 programs is served by either The Employment
Service or the Workforce Investment Act Adult program. While both of
these programs served over 1 million individuals a year, 7 programs
each reported serving less than 5,000 individuals. We think these
smaller programs must be integrated into local workforce systems. We
think this will save money and increase efficiency.
Performance
The National Workforce Association believes that the taxpayer is
entitled to know that all workforce development programs funded by the
federal government have real performance that is widely displayed and
readily available; and that achievement should be rewarded and failure
should have real negative consequences.
In addition we think that as WIA is reauthorized, or any of the
other job training programs are reauthorized, a Return On Investment
formula (ROI) should be included and required in each piece of
legislation. We think this has to be a national ROI formula, otherwise
it will be impossible to compare local ROI methodologies, no matter how
well thought out they are.
We believe that performance must be aligned. In order to do that
there must be common definitions across programs, so that the same
wording, like ``entered employment'' means the same thing to every
program operator.
The common measures should be required in all workforce programs
unless their specific mission leads to other explicit legislated
outcomes outside the common measures. Like most Americans we are
puzzled that GAO found three programs had no performance at all.
Of the 47 programs GAO examined only 31 had entered employment as a
goal. While it is possible that a program might have a mission of
enhancing a person's employability skills, we would argue that interim
performance metrics should be set and rewarded so that the providers of
that program are fully aware the ultimate goal is a job.
We also believe that as Congress works to align programs into a
coherent workforce system, there will be times where the goals of
longstanding programs must yield to today's difficult fiscal realities.
An example of this is the WIA Title II Adult Basic Education and
Family Literacy program. The goals of this program today are threefold:
1. Assist adults to become literate and obtain the knowledge and
skills necessary for employment and self-sufficiency.
2. Assist adults who are parents to obtain the educational skills
necessary to become full partners in the educational development of
their children.
3. Assist adults in the completion of a secondary school education.
While these are all worthy goals, we suggest that today's fiscal
constraints necessitate narrowing the focus to just Goals 1 and 3
(above). Title II is funded under a workforce development act, and we
believe the goal should be to increase employability leading to a job
and next a better job.
Finally, by instilling rigorous performance throughout all Federal
workforce development programs, we urge Congress to recognize that for
jobseekers with significant barriers to employment only having short-
term goals is unlikely to produce the skilled workers our employers
need to thrive.
Staying with Adult Education and Literacy provides a good example
of where today's performance is not correctly aligned with the largest
federal workforce program, WIA Adult's one stop career centers, and
employer needs. There should be an acknowledgment that in today's 21st
Century economy success is measured not by today's two grade literacy
improvement metric, but by rewarding interim achievement up to the
ultimate literacy goal of mastering the literacy proficiency required
by the local labor market.
For example, today an Adult Education provider who's intervention
helps a student move from a 2nd grade reading level to 4th grade level
obtains a positive performance outcome. But the labor market does not
reward a prospective employee with a 4th grade reading level with a
job. NWA thinks the provider should receive credit for this outcome,
but that that should be an incremental benchmark, and more work needs
to still be done to move beyond 4th grade level.
Leveraged training-The way that we currently count how many people
a program gets into training is woefully insufficient to really judge
how some of our major workforce development efforts are effectively
operating. An example is how the nation's 3,000 One Stop Career Centers
do placing jobseekers into training. That is what really happens, and
what gets reported.
What gets reported as entered into training is how many one stop
customers are placed into WIA-funded training.
What we don't measure or count is how many customers who come to
One Stop centers looking for a job are also placed into training that
is paid for by TANF, Vocational Rehabilitation, PELL grants at a
community college, or in a registered apprenticeship. While individual
workforce papers show this to be common and widespread, our official
performance metric make it appear the one stop system is much less
productive on the taxpayer's dime.
Reporting systems-Obviously, in this fiscal climate the emphasis
is-as it should be-on ways to do more with less; ways to save money,
not spend more money. NWA would be remiss; however, if we did not take
a minute to point out the terrible inefficiencies in today's
computerized reporting systems.
Imagine a citizen who desperately seeks employment. Because of
prolonged unemployment they are now receiving public assistance through
TANF. They also have low literacy levels and are getting help from the
local Literacy Volunteers organization. Because they have a learning
disability they are getting some assistance through a vocational
rehabilitation agency. Finally, a counselor in the one stop career
center has worked with this person on their resume, on job search
techniques, and prepared them for employment interviews.
As Congress authorized these four separate programs, to serve
people who meet narrow eligibility criteria, each resulted in the
creation of a separate reporting system. The people who worked with our
hypothetical jobseeker need to enter the data into four separate
reporting systems. So we find ourselves unable to get a complete
picture of what the federal investment has done.
In a time when Macy's or Wal-Mart can tell you the Saturday after
Black Friday's busy shopping day what each store did in sales, and what
the entire company did, we operate these programs with aging legacy
computer systems that don't help the accountability discussion. Fixing
this would require an initial increased investment but that would
quickly generate savings, better information, and the means to measure
performance.
Real Time Labor Market Information-Software exists that can guide
education, training, employment and reemployment efforts in almost real
time in local areas and in the regions. Today it has not been widely
adopted because of cost on an individual basis.
Using the buying power of the Federal workforce development
programs, Congress should explore obtaining and rolling out such
systems. Near real time labor market information enables the quick
development of needed training, and it would ensure we are training
people for jobs that really exist. At the same time this helps our
businesses get the workers with the skills they need to compete.
The role of the private sector-The National Workforce Association
believes that the vision of the Workforce Investment Act, that local
Workforce Investment Boards should be private sector-led is the right
one.
Training programs that are set up in a vacuum from local and
regional business needs cannot succeed. Yet many of the 47 federal
programs in the GAO report do not have this private sector-led
guidance; nor do they have business telling them what skills they
really need.
As Congress moves to align existing efforts, and require better
coordination we hope that the role of the private sector-led Workforce
Investment Boards will be enhanced. The current WIA legislation only
gives these WIBs direct oversight over 3 of the 47 listed programs: WIA
Adult, WIA Youth, and WIA Dislocated Worker.
We believe that these boards should have a broader role of federal
workforce development in their communities, and that their role as
neutral conveners should be specifically addressed in legislation.
Conclusion
The members of the National Workforce Association think that
today's crisis is an opportunity to improve, to transform how we do
business, and to innovate.
We stand ready to work with Congress in any way you think we can
help your efforts. Thank you again for the opportunity to provide this
testimony.
______
Chairwoman Foxx. It is now my pleasure to introduce our
distinguished panel of witnesses.
Dr. Andrew Sherrill is the Director for Education,
Workforce and Income Security at the U.S. Government
Accountability Office. His responsibilities include GAO's work
on employment and training programs and worker protection
issues. He was appointed to GAO's senior executive service in
2009.
Over his 20-year career at GAO, he has led teams in
producing reports for the Congress on a broad range of topics,
including workforce development, unemployment insurance, and
Workers Compensation programs. Dr. Sherrill also led GAO's
review of the use of Recovery Act funds for employment and
training programs.
Mr. Larry Temple is the Executive Director of the Texas
Workforce Commission, a State agency that has oversight of the
State's employment training, welfare reform, child care and
unemployment insurance programs. TWC delivers these services to
its 254 counties through a network of 29 local workforce
development boards. Mr. Temple serves as a member of the
State's P-16 Council, a member of the Texas Workforce
Investment Council, and the chairman of the newly formed Texas
Interagency Literacy Council.
Ms. Evelyn Ganzglass is the director of Workforce
Development at the Center for Law and Social Policy, and has
extensive experience in workforce development policy, education
economic development, and social service policy and programs.
Prior to joining the Center for Law and Social Policy, she
directed the Global Workforce in Transition Project at the
Educational Development Center, Inc., a U.S. agency for
International Development Global Initiative, to help developing
and transitioning countries respond to changing economic needs.
Before that, Mrs. Ganzglass worked for the National Governors
Association for more than 20 years.
Mr. Van Royal currently serves as the chairman of the First
Coast Workforce Development Board of Directors. With partners,
he is also the owner of Magnolia Point Realty, Inc., and K&V
Investment Group, Inc. Mr. Royal has served on the First Coast
Development Board since 1999 and chaired what is now the Youth
Council from 2001 to 2006. He is a native of Alva, Florida, and
graduated from Southern Methodist University with a Bachelor's
of business administration.
Now I would like to recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Ruben
Hinojosa, for his comments.
Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx. I have to
apologize to you and the panel for being a little late, but
there were some unexpected things that occurred that kept me
from getting here. I am delighted to be able to participate
this morning. I am pleased we are having a hearing on the
critically important work of our nation's workforce and
training programs. I would like to thank our distinguished
panel of witnesses for joining us today.
While our economy is moving in the right direction, in my
congressional district and across our nation, millions of
American workers continue to struggle to find good jobs and
make ends meet. In order to thrive in today's workforce,
American workers, particularly those adults and youth who are
unemployed, dislocated, or disadvantaged, need education and
training, counseling, guidance, and support to secure family-
sustaining jobs, achieve their educational goals, and improve
their lives.
In part, today's hearing will focus on recent reports
released by the GAO on federal programs that provide some form
of employment and training services. In these reports, GAO has
recommended colocating and consolidating administrative
structures to avoid duplicating services.
In addition, the GAO recommended that the Secretaries of
Labor and HHS work together to develop and disseminate
information to encourage such efforts.
While my colleagues in Congress on the other side of the
aisle support the consolidation of administrative structures
and funding streams and argue that any savings should be
applied to the deficit, I believe that consolidation should be
used to improve the quality and accessibility of employment and
job training services.
If the process of colocating or consolidating programs
leads to a savings, I strongly believe that these resources
should be reinvested into our public workforce and adult
education system and be used to address the needs of those
workers who are hardest to serve. Those who are jobless,
desperately need our help to improve their lives.
In the Rio Grande Valley of deep south Texas, we have
waiting lists for adult education and employment and training
services, and are unable to meet the needs of our most
vulnerable workers and youth due to limited resources.
As ranking member of the Subcommittee on Higher Ed and
Workforce Training, reauthorizing and improving the Workforce
Investment Act, better know known as WIA, and adequately
funding our nation's public workforce and adult education
system are top priorities for me. In my view, our public
workforce and adult education system has been starved for far
too long.
It is my hope that we members of this committee can
identify areas of common ground and work in a bipartisan manner
to reauthorize WIA in this 112th Congress.
In closing, I believe, as the members of this committee, we
must address these issues in a comprehensive manner. It is not
enough to simply highlight the inefficiencies without assessing
the unmet needs of our most vulnerable workers and youth. In
many parts of our nation, American workers need the federal
government's assistance in acquiring the education, training,
counseling and guidance to reenter the workforce. I look
forward to working with the Secretary and my colleagues in both
the House and the Senate to reauthorize and improve WIA.
I thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Hinojosa.
[The statement of Mr. Hinojosa follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ruben Hinojosa, Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training
Thank you Chairwoman Foxx.
I am pleased that we are having a hearing on the critically
important work of our nation's employment and workforce training
programs. I would like to thank our distinguished panel of witnesses
for joining us today.
While our economy is moving in the right direction, in my
congressional district and across our nation, millions of American
workers continue to struggle to find good jobs and make ends meet.
In order to thrive in today's workforce, American workers,
particularly those adults and youth who are unemployed, dislocated, or
disadvantaged, need education and training, counseling, guidance, and
support to secure family-sustaining jobs, achieve their educational
goals, and improve their lives.
In part, today's hearing will focus on recent reports released by
GAO on federal programs that provide some form of employment and
training services. In these reports, GAO has recommended co-locating
and consolidating administrative structures to avoid duplicating
services.
In addition, the GAO recommended that the Secretaries of Labor and
HHS work together to develop and disseminate information to encourage
such efforts.
While my colleagues on the other side of the aisle support the
consolidation of administrative structures and funding streams and
argue that any savings should be applied to the deficit, I believe that
consolidation should be used to improve the quality and accessibility
of employment and job training services.
If the process of co-locating or consolidating programs leads to a
savings, I strongly believe that these resources should be reinvested
into our public workforce and adult education system and be used to
address the needs of those workers who are hardest to serve. Those who
are jobless desperately need our help to improve their lives.
In the Rio Grande Valley of South Texas, we have waiting lists for
adult education and employment and training services and are unable to
meet the needs of our most vulnerable workers and youth due to limited
resources.
As Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Higher Education and
Workforce Training, reauthorizing and improving the Workforce
Investment Act (WIA) and adequately funding our nation's public
workforce and adult education system are top priorities for me. In my
view, our public workforce and adult education system has been starved
for far too long.
It is my hope that we, the members of this committee, can identify
areas of common ground and work in a bipartisan manner to reauthorize
WIA in the 112th Congress.
Closing Statement
In closing, I believe that we, as the members of this committee,
must address these issues in a comprehensive manner. It's not enough to
simply highlight the inefficiencies without assessing the unmet needs
of our most vulnerable workers and youth. In many parts of our nation,
American workers need the federal government's assistance in acquiring
the education, training, and counseling and guidance to re-enter the
workforce.
We have an obligation to help them and put them on a path to good
jobs, careers, a high school diploma, higher education and ultimately
to a better life. Finally, jobs is the most important issue of today.
We must not lose sight of this and continue to strengthen and
adequately fund our nation's public workforce and adult education
system.
I look forward to working with the Secretary and my colleagues in
both the House and the Senate to reauthorize and improve WIA.
Thank you.
questions for the panelists
1. Question for Larry Temple, Executive Director of the Texas
Workforce Commission:
Mr. Temple, in Ms. Ganzglass' testimony, she points out that Adult
Education services reach about 2.4 million students out of a pool of 93
million adults with low basic skills who may be eligible for and need
these services to upgrade their skills. Those numbers are staggering.
In my own area, I know that there is a need for these literacy
services. How do you ensure in a consolidated system that individuals
like those in need of Adult Education receive the services they need?
2) Question for Mr. Temple, Executive Director, Texas Workforce
Commission:
Mr. Temple, when Texas consolidated the programs you discussed, can
you tell me if state workers were laid off in that consolidation?
3) Question for Andrew Sherrill, Director of Education, Workforce,
and Income Security Issues, GAO:
Mr. Sherrill, to be clear, GAO did not find any actual duplication
in its analysis of federal job training programs.
______
Chairwoman Foxx. Before I recognize each of you to provide
your testimony, let me briefly explain our lighting system. You
will each have 5 minutes to present your testimony. When you
begin, the light in front of you will turn green. When 1 minute
is left, the light will turn yellow. And when your time has
expired, the light will turn red, at which point I will ask you
to wrap up your remarks. After everyone has testified, members
will each have 5 minutes to ask questions of the panel.
I would now like to recognize Dr. Sherrill for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ANDREW SHERRILL, DIRECTOR FOR EDUCATION,
WORKFORCE, AND INCOME SECURITY, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY
OFFICE
Mr. Sherrill. Chairman Foxx, Ranking Member Hinojosa, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here
today to discuss the findings from our recent work on federal
employment and training programs.
GAO recently identified 47 federally funded employment and
training programs for fiscal year 2009, administered by nine
federal agencies which spent about $18 billion to provide
services; 44 of the programs overlap with at least one other
program, in that they provide at least one similar service to a
similar population. However, differences may exist in
eligibility, objectives, and service delivery.
While almost all of the 47 programs track multiple outcome
measures, little is known about program effectiveness. Since
2004, only five programs reported conducting an impact study,
and about half of the remaining programs have not had a
performance review of any kind.
My testimony today will focus on two areas where we
identified opportunities to promote greater efficiencies,
colocating services at the same physical location, and
consolidating administrative structures. Under the Workforce
Investment Act, 16 categories of programs must provide services
through one-stop centers in local areas. Other programs, such
as Temporary Assistance For Needy Families, are optional
partners. Mandatory partners may either be colocated at one-
stops or offer services through electronic linkages or
referrals.
In our 2007 study, we found that a typical one-stop center
in many States offered services for eight or nine required
programs on site, and some States had more programs on site.
While the WIA Adult and employment service programs were
generally colocated in one-stop centers, TANF employment and
training services were colocated to a lesser extent in 30
States. Colocated services can result in improved communication
among programs, improved delivery of services for clients, and
elimination of duplication. While colocating services does not
guarantee efficiency improvement, it affords a potential for
sharing services and cross-training staff, and may lead to the
consolidation of administrative systems such as IT.
Although the potential benefits of colocation are
recognized, implementation may pose challenges. For example,
while WIA requires certain programs to provide services through
the one-stop system, it does not provide additional funds to
support one-stop infrastructure. Programs are expected to share
the costs of developing and operating one-stop centers.
Increasing colocation could also prove difficult for other
reasons, such as limited available office space, proximity of
one-stops to clients, and differences in programs' client-
service philosophies.
The second area of opportunity for greater efficiencies is
consolidating administrative structures. Three of the largest
programs we examined--TANF, employment service, and WIA Adult--
maintain separate administrative structures to provide some of
the same services to low-income individuals.
However, Florida, Texas, and Utah have consolidated State
workforce and welfare agencies that administer these three
programs, among others. For example, Texas consolidated 28
employment and training programs from 10 agencies into one
agency. In Utah, the workforce agency administers the entire
TANF program. In Florida and Texas, the workforce agencies
administer only the part of TANF related to employment and
training. Officials from these three States told us that
consolidating agencies led to cost savings through the
reduction of staff and facilities.
For example, a Utah official said that the State reduced
the number of buildings in which employment and training
services were provided from 104 to 34. Texas privatized 3,000
full-time staff equivalents at the local level, which reduced
pension, retirement, and insurance costs previously associated
with these State positions.
Officials in the three States, however, could not provide a
dollar figure for the cost savings that resulted. But they told
us that the consolidation improved the quality of services. For
example, an official in Utah noted that consolidation allowed
employment counselors to cluster services that made sense for
the client, and allowed clients to experience seamless service
delivery.
Even with the benefits identified by State officials,
consolidation may have its challenges. An official in Utah
noted that the reorganization was time-consuming and costly,
and it took several years before any cost savings were
realized. In addition, when States consolidate their agencies,
they must still adhere to requirements that can differ by
program, such as reporting requirements and program performance
measures.
In conclusion, to the extent is that colocation and
consolidation would reduce administrative costs, funds could
potentially be available to serve more clients, or for other
purposes. While some States and localities have undertaken
potentially promising initiatives to achieve greater
administrative efficiencies, little information is available
about the strategies, challenges, and results of these
initiatives, so it is unclear the extent to which they could
serve as models. Moreover, little is known about whether
additional incentives may be needed. We recommended that the
Secretaries of Labor and HHS work together to develop and
disseminate information that could inform such efforts, and
they agreed to do so.
This concludes my prepared statement.
I would be happy to answer any questions.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you very much.
[The statement of Mr. Sherrill may be accessed at the
following Internet address:]
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11645t.pdf
------
Chairwoman Foxx. I would now like to recognize Mr. Temple
for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF LARRY TEMPLE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TEXAS WORKFORCE
COMMISSION
Mr. Temple. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx and Ranking Member
Hinojosa and distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank
you for allowing me to testify. I am honored to be before this
subcommittee and excited about being able to share with you
what we are doing in Texas.
A little background, as Dr. Sherrill said--and by the way,
three of the four of us went to college in Texas, and I think
Ms. Ganzglass would have liked to.
In 1995, the legislature created the Texas Workforce
Commission. And as Dr. Sherrill said, we took 28 different
programs dealing with work and supporting work and combined
them into the one agency. As one of my commissioners said, we
weren't given a lot of time. We had to build this airplane in
the air. We had to deliver services, help workforce boards come
up, and at the same time do all of the federal reporting and
things that went along with that. We weren't given any extra
money to do any of the IT or any of the new structure.
It took a while. As was said in Utah, it takes a year or 18
months for us to get to where we were. But of those programs, a
lot of them saved us a lot of money in being able to
consolidate because of the economies of scale. This was
certainly important for us in the rural areas of the State,
because a lot of the formula funding that we get, particularly
from the Department of Labor, is based on population and what-
not, so those areas were losing a lot of funding in that
formula, and these other programs that we were able to add
helped mitigate those costs.
The statewide activities that we are able to provide
through the Workforce Investment Act and the flexibility of the
TANF dollars have allowed us to do such things as curricula
development for renewable energy, STEM academies for at-risk
children, middle and high schools.
We have got a program that is very innovative, very
effective. It is the Texas Veterans Leadership Program, where
we have men and women who have served in Afghanistan and Iraq
who are providing peer-to-peer services, reemployment services
to their brothers and sisters who are returning who can
actually say, Yes, I know what you are going through because I
went through it as well.
These are all things we have been able to do with the
statewide activity dollars through the Workforce Investment
Act. As you are aware, the continuing resolution cuts those
dollars; but it is not savings at the federal level, it merely
moved it to the Department of Labor to the tune of $125 million
to do innovative grants for States. We would submit that this
is exactly the opposite of what we were hoping would come about
in the cuts.
We in Texas realize, and other States realize, that cuts
are necessary and we will have to do our part, but we would
like for the federal government to meet us in the middle and we
believe more flexibility--as Dr. Sherrill pointed out, there
are a lot of different plans and reports. These are just the
State plans for the five major programs, and they are over 700
pages. And that doesn't count the reports and annual reports
and the weekly program directions that we get from the federal
agencies. So the flexibility would be very helpful for us.
I look at our system sort of like an ATM. When I landed at
the airport last night, I needed cab fare, so I went to the
ATM. And I really don't care what it takes for my money to come
out from the Cattlemens Bank in Dripping Springs, Texas, just
as long as it comes out the front. That is the way we look at
it with our customers. They walk in the door, they shouldn't
have to worry about what is happening behind the scenes to fund
them.
To the degree that we have been able to integrate our
systems and consolidate these programs, that is our goal and
that is the way we deliver services.
That is not the case with us dealing at the federal level.
I don't have to take one cab ride, I have to take about five. I
have got four different agencies. Some of them have two
different offices that I have to deal with. So it is not a one-
stop shop for us when we come to D.C.
So consolidating these programs at the federal level would
certainly take time; but at a minimum, in the meantime, if you
could look at giving HHS or DOL or any of the other agencies
waiver authority so that we are able to deal with just one
entity and come up with some common delivery strategies.
So I thank you. I would welcome your visits to Texas to
visit one of our one-stops. We will host them in the valley,
Congressman Hinojosa. Thank you very much.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Temple.
[The statement of Mr. Temple follows:]
Prepared Statement of Larry Temple, Executive Director,
Texas Workforce Commission
Thank you Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member Hinojosa and
distinguished members of the subcommittee for allowing me to submit
this written testimony. I am honored to testify before the subcommittee
today.
Let me give you a little background on how the Texas Workforce
Commission and our service delivery model works in Texas. The Texas
Legislature, in 1995, enacted comprehensive workforce and welfare
reforms that envisioned a workforce system that was locally
controlled--like local school boards--to respond to local needs. The
law established a new agency, the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC),
merging 28 workforce development programs from 10 agencies. TWC was
charged with creating an integrated service delivery system under the
control of local workforce boards that plan, oversee, and evaluate
workforce education and training services for their area of the state.
The integrated service delivery system in place includes 28 local
workforce boards and 240 one-stop centers covering 254 counties. The 28
Boards build strong bonds between business, education, and job training
resulting in a strengthened economy to benefit everyone. The Boards
partner with community colleges, community based organizations,
economic development and education providers, as well as the local
chambers of commerce. Local flexibility with state oversight is the
Texas model, and it continues to serve Texans best.
Texas continues to offer exceptional services throughout the state
given limited financial resources. With unemployment at an all-time
high, we have served more customers (both job seekers and employers)
with less funding than in years past. Texas has a demand driven system.
We prioritize and coordinate training dollars to what employers tell us
their needs are (both present and future). We have identified six
industry clusters that represent the most return for our investment.
The six industry clusters include, advanced technologies and
manufacturing, aerospace and defense, biotechnology and life sciences,
information and computer technology, petroleum refining and chemical
products, and energy. At the state level through the use of Workforce
Investment Act (WIA) state set aside funds, we provide funding for the
development of training curriculum for wind, solar and nuclear energy
as well as biotech and advanced manufacturing. We also support STEM
Academies for middle and high school students with these funds.
Another very innovative and important initiative we fund with these
dollars is our Texas Veterans Leadership Program. This statewide
initiative provides peer to peer employment services to our warriors
returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. These young men and women are
outreached by someone that truly understands their challenges because
they too have been there. These are but a few of the innovative
initiatives being created by states utilizing these funds. Initiatives
that truly prove that states are the nation's labs of innovation.
However, through the Continuing Appropriations Act of 2011,
Washington has again decided what is best for states. As you know, the
Continuing Appropriations Act made cuts to WIA, but most significant
were cuts to the WIA Statewide Activity Fund. I believe an unintended
consequence of the CR was that it took funding from states instead of
creating budget savings. In fact, surprisingly, it created another
level of bureaucracy at the federal level by creating a $125 million
discretionary ``Workforce Innovation Fund'' for the Secretary of Labor
and all at the cost of services provided to job seekers and employers
by states. In addition, the President's 2012 budget proposal includes a
provision to not only continue this discretionary fund, but to increase
it to $300 million for a total of $425 million in new discretionary
funding at the federal level. Now states will have to once again do the
``mother may I'' routine with Washington to obtain funding for their
own ideas that heretofore were funded at the state level.
We understand at the state level that cuts are necessary and Texas
is willing to do our part, but we also need the federal government to
meet us in the middle. To mitigate the funding cuts and maximize
services, we ask that states be given the greatest amount of
flexibility in the use of federal dollars. Diverting dollars away from
states and creating another level of federal bureaucracy such as the
Workforce Innovation Fund is not our idea of flexibility.
Right now, we have a great opportunity before us to make sweeping
changes to the system, not only within the area of providing states
flexibility but also in the manner with which states and the federal
government interact. For example, the GAO's report highlighted Florida,
Utah, and Texas as the best practices of an integrated service model to
serve customers at one stops. What makes our model stand out is not
only the integration of services, but also that our customers have one
place to go for assistance, instead of a disjointed system that is
difficult to navigate.
Such is not the case for states at the federal level. Instead,
Texas' 5 big programs--Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Wagner-
Peyser Employment Services, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program,
Workforce Investment Act, and Child Care and Development Funds--are
administered by different federal agencies with each requiring separate
state plans, annual reports, monitoring, audits and reporting. The
duplication and overlap of all this paperwork costs taxpayers millions
of dollars every year. These are dollars that could be much better
spent providing employment and training to those in need of these
services. I have with me today examples of the different federal
reports required for each one of these programs which as you can see,
is quite a handful. For example, the WIA state plan is over 150 pages,
but collectively we are producing almost 700 pages of state plans for
the above mentioned programs. Finally, this multiple agency maze likely
serves the same population.
Let me share with you an example that I often use in describing the
larger point at hand. I call it the ATM example. For example, when I
landed last night I needed cash for the taxi. From a customer's
perspective, I don't know what all happens behind the scenes to get my
money from the Cattlemen's Bank in Dripping Springs, Texas to this ATM
in the DC airport. When we have a customer come into our one-stop they
do not need to, nor do they have to know what happens behind the scenes
for us to serve them. We are looking for this same efficiency and
flexibility from the federal government. And by the way, my taxi ride
is really a series of rides because I have to go to three different
federal agencies and four different office locations. Not exactly a
one-stop experience for states.
As I stated before, in 1995, we moved all state workforce programs
under the jurisdiction of TWC. We were able to co-locate these federal
programs dealing with workforce, but because of federal regulations,
consolidation was limited. In the short term, consolidating federal
workforce programs might not be possible. However, an alternative we
would like to see is a waiver process where states can deal with just
one federal agency that has authority over workforce programs. This
would allow states to be more efficient and more productive which is
even more important in light of budget cuts.
My final point is that we need to move to an outcome driven system
rather than a process driven system. We need to look closely at what
works and what does not. We understand accountability and we understand
that while the process is important--from the customer's perspective,
what is achieved at the end of the day is what constitutes the measure
of your work. Far too often these federal programs are measured by the
process, not the outcome.
As a result of our consolidation, this successful model has allowed
Texas to serve more people with less money and is far more convenient
for our customers, both job seekers and employers. We welcome your
interest in making the system more customer-friendly and stand ready to
assist you in any manner you deem necessary. Thank you for allowing me
the opportunity to submit this testimony. We welcome you to come to
Texas to see first-hand our model as well as tour our one-stops.
______
Chairwoman Foxx. You just brought up an irony I hadn't
thought about before. The federal government told those of you
at the local level to create one-stops, and the federal
government just ignores that advice for itself.
Thank you very much.
Ms. Ganzglass, I recognize you for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF EVELYN GANZGLASS, DIRECTOR, WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT,
CENTER FOR LAW AND SOCIAL POLICY, INC.
Ms. Ganzglass. Good morning, Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking
Member Hinojosa, and members of the subcommittee. I, too, want
to thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning.
First, I want to comment on the effectiveness of WIA and
other federally funded workforce programs. Even though the
results of experimental evaluations of WIA are not yet
available, several rigorous, quasi-experimental evaluations
conducted since the year 2000 have demonstrated the value of
training and workforce services, especially for disadvantaged
individuals, and we have provided a summary of that evidence in
the written testimony.
Second, in our view, overlap is not synonymous with
duplication. We believe that one size does not fit all, and
that it is beneficial to have specialized expertise and
capacity that can be brought to bear from multiple systems to
provide the appropriate mix of services needed to address the
unique needs of different employers and populations.
Many of the 47 or 49 programs identified by the GAO,
already administered through the public workforce system and
others, are accessible through the one-stop career centers.
Numerous States such as Florida and Texas have used different
approaches to make federally funded programs work together in
nonduplicative and mutually reinforcing ways. However,
variations in the breadth and nature of collaborations
nationwide suggest the federal government cannot mandate
meaningful collaboration if the leadership and will do not
exist at the State and local levels. Moreover, the fixed
infrastructure cost of physical colocation in one-stop centers
has created its own rigidities in the system.
For these reasons, we recommend that rather than
consolidating in a hands-off manner, as some have suggested,
Congress should take the following actions to promote a more
coherent and better utilization of resources.
Congress should align program goals and provide incentives
across programs to encourage and nurture stronger connections
between WIA and other programs to create multiple pathways to
postsecondary and career success for low-income adults,
dislocated workers and disadvantaged youth.
We recommend that Congress develop compatible performance
expectations and associated administrative requirements across
programs; or at least, through waivers, allow unified State and
local systems to operate under one set of performance
standards. Performance standards and related requirements have
proven to be major barriers to greater integration of efforts.
The most blatant example of such incompatible requirements are
different performance expectations and rules under which the
workforce and welfare-to-work systems operate.
We urge Congress to reduce the number of duplicative
reporting and accounting systems. This should be done by
agreeing on consistent definitions of units of service,
standards of data quality, and commonly agreed-upon cost
allocation methods of services funded through multiple sources.
Further, Congress should streamline and reduce the
paperwork burden associated with eligibility determination and
verification processes. According to a 2002 GAO survey of State
and local workforce boards, documenting eligibility has been
difficult to accomplish and resource-intensive. We urge
Congress to allow cross-system eligibility determination for
young people and families who have been determined eligible for
other means-tested programs that require families to be low
income.
Congress should focus on obligations rather than
expenditures in assessing fund availability. GAO has
consistently found that States are spending WIA funds within
authorized time frames, and has strongly stated that
obligations are a more useful measure than expenditures in
assessing WIA funding status. The amount of unexpended funds
may not reflect what States and localities actually have on
hand, because some portion of those funds may be tied up in
obligations for things such as long-term training, which, as we
know, is successful.
Finally, I would like to say that the system efficiency
could be enhanced by providing more consistent funding to
encourage States and local areas to plan wisely and well. The
recent history of funding the system in dribs and drabs incurs
its own administrative costs and inefficiencies, and it also
impairs the system's ability to manage at a time of heightened
demand for services.
Thank you again for allowing me to testify, and I would be
happy to answer any questions.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you very much.
[The statement of Ms. Ganzglass follows:]
Prepared Statement of Evelyn Ganzglass, Director,
Workforce Development Center for Law and Social Policy
Good morning Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member Hinojosa and Members
of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify about
improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the nation's workforce
system. CLASP is a nonprofit organization that develops and advocates
for policies at the federal, state and local levels that improve the
lives of low-income people.
In a recent report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
examined fragmentation, overlap and potential duplication in federally
funded workforce programs. We believe that Congress should take steps
to create a more coherent and effective workforce system. My testimony
will focus on three points:
1. As the subcommittee considers reforms and possible improvements,
it is important not to overlook the critical role that the nation's
workforce programs have played during the recession and will play as
the economy recovers.
2. Program overlap is not synonymous with program duplication.
3. There are actions that Congress can take to encourage greater
program alignment and increase the effectiveness of workforce programs.
1. The contribution of federally funded workforce programs
First, it is important to acknowledge the valuable contributions of
the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) and other federally funded workforce
programs described in the recent GAO report. At a time when nearly 14
million Americans are unemployed, workforce programs are helping those
out of work and the underemployed find jobs, prepare for jobs and build
skills for the future. These programs also are helping employers find
qualified workers as the nation recovers from the worst recession since
the end of World War II.
The programs authorized by WIA, though created during an economic
boom, have responded strongly and effectively during the recent
economic downturn. When the Great Recession struck, state and local
administrators responded with energy and tremendous spirit as the
workforce system responded to rising unemployment and economic
hardship. A summer youth employment program was implemented rapidly in
2009, ultimately reaching more than 355,000 disadvantaged youth. More
than 8 million individuals received services provided by WIA during
2009 and more than 4.3 million found jobs in a difficult labor market.
In 2008-2009, about two-thirds of adults and three-quarters of
dislocated workers who participated in training found jobs after
exiting the program, according to outcome measures tracked by the U.S.
Department of Labor.
Although the recent GAO report states that ``little is known about
the effectiveness'' of workforce programs, there is in fact growing
evidence that workforce programs are a good investment, especially for
disadvantaged individuals. Unlike federal performance accountability
systems that focus on outcomes, impact studies are designed to
determine whether the outcomes of a program or set of services are a
direct result of the intervention. As the GAO has reported, the results
of an experimental evaluation of WIA are not yet available; however,
several rigorous, quasi-experimental evaluations conducted since 2000
have demonstrated the value of training and workforce services. For
example, a 2011 evaluation of Washington State workforce programs
revealed that WIA services boost employment and earnings for adults,
dislocated workers and youth. A U.S. Department of Labor evaluation of
Youth Opportunity Grants, an important component of the WIA
legislation, found that these grants increased the employment rate
among blacks, teens, out-of-school youth, and native-born youths;
increased receipt of Pell Grants; and had a positive effect on the
hourly wages of women and teens.
Most evaluations tend to average out results from a wide range of
local approaches and consequently mask the success of promising
workforce strategies that are increasingly being used in the field and
are gaining wider recognition by the policy community. Some of the most
promising advances are the use of sector-focused workforce strategies
to meet the needs of employers and low-income, low-skilled individuals
and integrated education and training strategies that blend basic
skills instruction with occupational skills preparation. For example,
an experimental study of three sector-focused training programs found
positive impacts for low-income, disadvantaged workers and job seekers.
Participants in sector-based training programs earned 18 percent--about
$4,500--more than control group members during the two years of the
study.\1\
Most evaluations also tend to focus on a limited range of outcome
measures, especially employment and earnings gains for individual
participants. Yet, workforce programs are likely to generate a broader
set of benefits to individuals and society. For example, a growing body
of research suggests that investments in the adult workforce are likely
to pay off for the next generation: when mothers with a high school
education or less complete additional education and training, their
children have improved language and reading skills.\2\ As Christopher
T. King and Carolyn J. Heinrich write in a review of recent research,
``workforce investments produce widespread benefits for employers and
society as a whole. Returns are particularly remarkable given the
magnitude and intensity of workforce investments relative to the size
and complexity of the barriers they address.'' \3\ (See Appendix for a
full summary of research findings)
2. Program overlap is not synonymous with program duplication
The premise of some of the recent criticisms of employment and
training programs, drawing on findings of a recent GAO report, is that
there is unwarranted duplication of federally supported employment and
training programs and that reducing this duplication or consolidating
programs will increase the efficiency with which these services are
delivered.
In our view, duplication of effort is not a major problem in the
workforce development arena and we believe that consolidation will not
result in more efficient or effective utilization of resources. Overlap
is not the same as duplication. In fact, we believe that one size does
not fit all and that it is beneficial to have a number of delivery
systems with specialized expertise and capacity that can be drawn upon
to provide the appropriate mix of high- and low-intensity, specialized
and more general services to address the unique needs of different
populations seeking to enter and advance in the labor market. Program
duplication is not a major issue for the following reasons:
GAO acknowledged that even when the 47 employment and
training programs they identified do overlap, the services they provide
and the populations they serve may differ in meaningful ways.\4\ The
programs identified do, in fact, differ along these dimensions. For
example, the three largest programs (WIA, Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF) and Employment Service) provide services to
different segments of the population with different levels of intensity
of service.\5\ The Employment Service provides job search assistance
and job matching to all job seekers, typically through online access or
self-service resources. WIA provides three levels of services,
including intensive career navigation services such as skills
assessment and matching, counseling, and job search and training
services for individuals in need of individualized assistance with
employment and skill development. Local areas have considerable
discretion in whom to serve and how. TANF services vary widely by state
and can include job readiness, job search assistance, training and
community service or subsidized employment programs. Some of the
programs, such as the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program, were
created out of political necessity to compensate a subset of dislocated
workers who are negatively impacted by U.S. trade policy with a richer
set of services than can be provided to other job seekers at current
funding levels. We would welcome resources to extend the types of such
services provided through TAA to a broader population. Still other
programs are small discretionary grant programs that provide one-time
grants for special purposes to states or local areas on a competitive
basis.
Specialization is necessary and desirable to effectively
serve populations with different needs. Congress created targeted
programs to ensure that appropriate strategies are being used to
address the unique needs of certain populations such as veterans and
individuals with disabilities, who often require highly specialized
services and equipment that cannot easily be provided through general
services. Adult education programs are equipped to serve people with
limited English proficiency and low levels of literacy. Other programs
are designed to serve the unique circumstances of groups such as Native
Americans and farm workers.
Programs are significantly underfunded, rarely serve the
same people and together serve only a small fraction of individuals and
families in need of or eligible for services. Despite the fact that
some postsecondary education is increasingly needed to access
employment that pay family-sustaining wages, fifteen percent of U.S.
adults lack a high school diploma or GED, and another 30 percent have
only a high school diploma or its equivalent. Only a fraction of the
individuals with low basic skills or inadequate occupational skills
have access to education and training services. Adult Education
services reach about 2.4 million students among a pool of an estimated
93 million adults with low basic skills who may be eligible for and
need these services to upgrade their skills. The demand for adult
education services is growing nationwide, with waiting lists in at
least 49 states. Both the numbers of students and the waiting times
have doubled since 2008; in states with extremely high demand--Arizona,
Texas, and New York, for example--students can wait for one year or
longer for services.\6\ States report that some 160,000 people seeking
services cannot be served.\7\ In addition, a recent survey of local
workforce areas in Illinois found that a number of WIBs have
implemented waiting lists at program intake and for training services
because of limited funding.
Many of the programs included in the GAO list are, in
fact, administered through the public workforce system. Of the 47
programs identified by the GAO, just 3 programs--WIA's Adult and
Dislocated Worker programs and Wagner Peyser programs account for
nearly 80 percent of the 24 million people served by the federal
workforce development system.\8\ These services are generally
accessible through WIA one-stops; and together with the WIA Youth
program and TAA they are administered and delivered through a unified
system in many states.
States and local communities have used different
approaches to make federally funded programs work together in non-
duplicative ways. Looking specifically at connections between WIA and
TANF, which GAO found to be the fourth largest source of funding for
employment and training services in FY 2009, we find that at one end of
the coordination continuum is Utah, where the programs are fully
integrated into a seamless system that uses funding from WIA, from TANF
and from the SNAP Employment and Training program to provide the same
set of services to the extent allowable within funding streams to
eligible populations. TANF participation rates and WIA performance
standards apply to people served with these funding streams. The same
staff work with customers funded under all three programs, with their
time allocated to the appropriate programs depending upon whom they
actually serve. This approach allows the state to serve more workers
with employment and training services than they would with just WIA
funds.\9\ Although it minimizes administrative and overhead costs, it
is not a low-cost approach.
In the middle of the continuum are the many areas where the TANF
agency contracts with the Workforce Investment Board (WIB) to provide
some or all workforce services to TANF cash assistance recipients, but
they are served through specialized programs limited only to TANF
recipients, rather than through the programs offered to other job
seekers. For example, the state of Missouri requires that all
employment-related services for TANF cash assistance recipients be
housed within the Division of Workforce Development. However, in
practice, most of the local WIBs subcontract with community-based
organizations, such as Goodwill, whom they believe to have more
experience in serving low-income populations, to provide the services
to TANF recipients. These contracts can also provide for more
individualized and in-depth case management than the workforce agency
can offer most clients.\10\ And at the other end are areas where there
is little or no coordination between TANF and WIA agencies.
Many TANF and WIA agencies collaborated in recent years to provide
subsidized employment programs for low-income youth and parents using
the additional funding provided under the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA). In addition, New York State combined
discretionary ARRA funds with TANF funds to expand a career pathways
initiative targeted at public assistance recipients, TANF-eligible
young adults ages 18 to 24 and low-income adults who qualify for WIA
services.\11\ While this funding is now gone, many program
administrators indicate that this experience has reinvigorated the
relationships between the organizations and led to new interest in
partnering.\12\
It is important to note that we do not have evidence about whether
TANF recipients are connected to the workforce sooner, or obtain better
jobs, through services provided through the WIA system than through
stand-alone programs. During the early 2000s, both CLASP and the
Department of Health and Human Services undertook studies of WIA-TANF
integration, and both concluded that there was little basis on which to
claim that one model was superior.\13\
In particular, there is reasonable basis to be concerned that
individuals with significant or multiple barriers to employment may not
be well served in a system that has a universal service mandate, and
that is charged with providing employers with a ready-to-work
workforce. For this reason, CLASP does not believe that TANF should be
made a mandatory partner in the WIA one-stop system unless substantial
changes are made to WIA as part of that program's reauthorization to
ensure that TANF recipients are well served. While an integrated
approach is working well in some areas, we do not think that mandating
a partnership between unwilling agencies is likely to produce optimum
results.\14\
Therefore, rather than focusing on reducing duplication to
possibly--but not certainly--reduce administrative costs, we believe
that Congress should take steps to reduce unnecessary incompatibilities
among existing programs to make it easier for states and local areas to
coordinate the use of multiple funding streams to improve services for
both workers and employers. Such improvements would allow workforce
programs to make the best use of the very limited funds Congress has
chosen to devote to these programs.
3. Toward a more coherent and effective workforce system
Consolidation and use of vouchers for training services are two
strategies that are typically offered to address perceived program
duplication.
In our view simple consolidation is not the answer. Experience has
shown that block granting multiple funding streams is not an effective
strategy for achieving either greater efficiency or effectiveness in
service delivery. Because of the flexible nature of block grants, it is
often difficult to report clearly regarding who is being served, how
and to what result. This makes oversight difficult, and leaves block
grants with uncertain support.
Moreover, maintenance of effort requirements have a poor track
record. In practice, states often have the ability to substitute block
grant funds for existing state investments, reducing the total amount
of funding available and shifting costs from states to the federal
government.
High-need groups such as individuals with disabilities, veterans,
and workers with multiple barriers to employment are likely to be ill-
served under block grants, as they are more expensive to serve, and are
likely to have weaker results under outcome-based performance measures.
Margy Waller, while at The Brookings Foundation\15\ found that
state-wide programs tend to benefit whereas local communities tend to
lose resources when programs are block granted.
Nor is voucherizing programs. While an increased investment in
training is needed, exclusive reliance on vouchers for providing access
to training is not warranted. The research evidence on the
effectiveness of using vouchers with disadvantaged adults has been
negative, and evidence on effectiveness with dislocated workers has
been mixed. The sole reliance on vouchers would deprive the workforce
investment system of two important training tools to increase the self
sufficiency of individuals and the economic development of communities:
customized training that supports local economic
development and ties training directly to employment, resulting in job
placement for trainees; and
contract training that allows local areas to purchase
cohort and other training tailored to the needs of hard-to-serve
customers.\16\
The current use of Individual Training Accounts under WIA
unnecessarily discourages the use of contract training, which can be an
effective way to design programs that are tailored to the needs of low-
skilled individuals, such as bridge programs, which prepare adults with
low basic skills to enter postsecondary education and training
programs. The use of contracts can also facilitate the provision of
training to groups or cohorts of lower skilled adults with similar
needs, which can provide important peer support to participants.
It is our contention that rather than a single consolidated
program, we need a more coherent system that brings together diverse
services, service providers and resources to provide appropriate and
effective services to address the diverse needs of different
populations.
CLASP recommends that the following actions be taken to promote
greater alignment of resources and effectiveness:
Streamline and reduce the paperwork burden associated with
the eligibility determination and verification processes. According to
a 2002 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) survey of state and
local workforce boards, documenting eligibility has been ``difficult to
accomplish and resource-intensive.'' \17\ We recommend that Congress
allow cross system eligibility for young people and families who have
been determined eligible for other means-tested federal programs that
require families or individuals to be low-income. For example, Congress
should allow students who are determined eligible for free or reduced
lunch under the National School Lunch Program to be automatically
determined income eligible WIA youth services. This was the policy
under the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA). Congress should allow
local workforce areas to include youth that live in a high-poverty area
or who live in a school district with high percentages of free and
reduced lunch when it is not possible to identify individuals enrolled
in the free or reduced lunch program due to privacy concerns. In
addition Congress should be eligible for WIA services without regard to
income if youth are out of school and have not received a high school
diploma or fall into any of the specified target groups such as youth
in foster care, youth in the juvenile justice system, youth with
disabilities, homeless and runaway youth, and young parents. Also,
Congress should clarify that self-certification methods, such as
sampling and other methods that reduce the documentation burden, are
acceptable alternatives to individual documentation.
Reduce the need for duplicative reporting and accounting
systems. This should be done by agreeing on consistent definitions of
units of service, standards of data quality, and commonly agreed upon
accurate and unbiased cost-allocation methods for services funded by
multiple sources for use across federal workforce education and
training programs.
Align performance expectations across programs.
Incompatible performance accountability requirements across programs
serve as a barrier to greater integration of efforts. The most blatant
examples of incompatible performance expectations and associated
administrative requirements are the ones under which the workforce and
welfare systems operate. WIA's primary performance measures are outcome
measures focusing on employment and earnings. In contrast, TANF's
primary performance measure is the work participation rate, which is a
process measure. Particularly in the wake of the changes made by the
Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, states must track and verify every
reported hour of participation. Workforce agencies consistently report
that this is a significant barrier to serving TANF recipients in
programs that are not solely dedicated to this population. The WIA
performance expectations have discouraged many local areas from serving
individuals who are perceived as having greater barriers to employment.
It is worth noting that even states with highly integrated systems,
such as Utah and Florida, rarely cross-enroll TANF recipients in WIA
programs.
The federal government should ensure that the WIA performance
measures make sufficient adjustment for individuals who are more
difficult to place in higher paying jobs. States that are ready to
adopt fully integrated models should be allowed to substitute the WIA
outcome-based performance measures for the TANF work participation rate
accountability measure. In addition, in order to encourage
coordination, states should be able to deem TANF cash assistance
recipients who are participating in WIA intensive and training services
as fully engaged for the purpose of the TANF work participation rates.
We also recommend that over time the federal government develop and
implement a system of shared accountability across workforce and other
education and training programs.
Align WIA with other education, training and work support
programs to create multiple pathways to postsecondary and career
success for low-income adults, dislocated workers and disadvantaged
youth. Each step in a career pathway is designed to prepare students
for the next level of employment and education and to meet employer
demand for skilled workers. Ideally, pathways begin with short,
intensive remedial ``bridge'' and ``pre-bridge'' programs for those at
the lowest literacy and English language levels and extend through two-
year and four-year college degrees. Connecting these services can
accelerate learning, and help people attain necessary credentials as
well as advance over time to successively higher levels of education
and employment in a given industry or occupational sector. This will
promote long-term, inclusive economic growth by helping workers gain
the skills and connections they need to access family-sustaining
employment and by ensuring that employers have access to the skilled
workers they need to retain and create good jobs. In particular, to
better meet the needs of limited English proficient individuals and
individuals with lower levels of education, Congress should encourage
stronger connections between the workforce development and adult
education systems, and provide additional flexibility within the
workforce system to provide the basic skills and English language
training services that are necessary for success in the labor market.
Focus on obligations rather than expenditures in assessing
fund availability. GAO has consistently found that states are spending
WIA funds within authorized time frames and has strongly stated that
obligations are a more useful measure than expenditures for assessing
WIA funding status.\18\ The amount of ``unexpended funds'' may not
reflect what states and localities actually have on hand because some
portion may be tied up in obligations. The relentless focus on
expenditures rather than obligations also discourages use of long-term
training or long-term engagement of individuals in services that will
help them advance in the labor market.
Finally, system efficiency could be enhanced by providing
more consistent funding to encourage states and local areas to plan
wisely and well. The recent history of funding the system in dribs and
drabs incurs its own administrative costs and inefficiencies. It also
impairs the system's ability to plan at a time of heightened demand for
services.
appendix: summary of research on workforce program effectiveness\19\
Federal investments in workforce development help low-income adults
and youth find jobs, improve their earnings and contribute to their
communities. Although the results of an experimental evaluation of the
Workforce Investment Act (WIA) are not yet available, several rigorous,
quasi-experimental evaluations conducted since 2000 have demonstrated
the value of training and workforce services, especially for
disadvantaged individuals.
A 2005 study found that Workforce Investment Act (WIA)
services in seven states generate employment and earnings gains for
adults and dislocated workers. Individuals receiving WIA services are
more likely to be employed (by about 10 percentage points) and to have
higher earnings (by about $800 per quarter in 2000 dollars) than those
who have not received services. In addition, participants in WIA
programs are less likely than non-participants to receive public
assistance. The authors conclude that ``WIA services, including
training, are effective interventions for adults and dislocated
workers, when measured in terms of net impacts on employment, earnings,
and receipt of public assistance for participants.'' \20\
A 2008 report found positive outcomes for WIA Adult
participants in 12 states, concluding that there are ``large and
immediate impacts on earnings and employment for individuals who
participate in the WIA Adult program * * * Those who obtained training
services have lower initial returns, but they catch up to others within
ten quarters, ultimately registering total gains of $800 for females
and $500 to 600 for males.'' Despite substantial variation in program
structure and implementation across the 12 states, ``overall net
impacts were estimated to be positive in almost all states.'' \21\
A 2008 evaluation of the Youth Opportunity Grant program
found positive results, noting increased educational attainment, Pell
Grant receipt, labor market participation, and employment rates and
earnings for more than 90,000 program participants. The study found
that the program increased overall labor-force participation rates,
specifically for teens ages 16 to 19, women, native-born residents,
blacks, and in-school youth. It also increased employment rates among
blacks, teens, out-of-school youth, and native-born youths, and it
positively impacted the hourly wages of women and teens.\22\
A 2011 evaluation of Washington State workforce programs--
one of only a few net impact evaluations conducted by a state--revealed
that WIA services boost employment and earnings for adults, dislocated
workers and youth. Adults and youth receiving WIA services have higher
employment rates and higher earnings than non-participants three
quarters following participation. Dislocated workers receiving WIA
services are more likely to be employed than non-participants three
quarters following participation.\23\
The national studies tend to average out results from a wide range
of local approaches and consequently mask the success of promising
workforce strategies that are increasingly being used in the field and
are gaining wider recognition by the policy community.\24\ Some of the
most promising advances are the use of sector-focused workforce
strategies to meet the needs of employers and low-income, low-skilled
individuals and integrated education and training strategies that blend
basic skills instruction with occupational skills preparation.
An experimental study of three sector-focused training
programs found positive impacts for low-income, disadvantaged workers
and job seekers. Participants in sector-based training programs earned
18 percent--about $4,500--more than control group members during the
two years of the study. Participants also were more likely to work,
work in jobs with higher wages and hold jobs that offer benefits (such
as health insurance). Sector-focused programs usually target rapidly
growing jobs that require limited postsecondary education but pay wages
at or near the median wage in the economy and that involve intermediary
organizations that bring together training providers, employers and
workers.\25\
Sector-focused workforce programs are beginning to
identify the benefits that flow to participating employers or an entire
industry. These outcomes include improvements to a business's ability
to find and retain qualified workers, increases in productivity and
increases in the skills of existing workers. For example, a hospital
participating in a healthcare initiative documented $40,000 in savings
as a result of lower turnover and reduced hiring costs.\26\
A quasi-experimental evaluation of Capital IDEA, a sector-
focused training program in Austin, Texas found substantial employment,
earnings, and Unemployment Insurance-related impacts relative to a
comparison group receiving low-intensity one-stop center services.
Participants trained in healthcare and other fields have experienced
earnings impacts of more than $3,100 per quarter seven years after
enrollment and the impacts appear to be increasing during the economic
recession and recovery.\27\
Research on programs that contextualize basic skills
instruction to a specific occupation or set of occupations has yielded
promising results. One of the best examples is Washington State's
Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training (I-BEST) program, which
blends adult education with occupational training and pairs adult
education teachers with career and technical education instructors. A
recent study found that IBEST participants are 56 percent more likely
than regular adult education students to earn college credit, 26
percent more likely to earn a certificate or degree, and 19 percent
more likely to achieve learning gains on basic skills tests.\28\
Another study found that IBEST participants experience higher
employment rates and earnings than nonparticipants three quarters after
leaving the program.\29\
A growing body of research suggests that workforce investments are
likely to pay off for the next generation. Most evaluations have
focused on a limited set of outcome measures, especially employment and
earnings gains for individual participants. Yet, there is evidence that
workforce investments may produce benefits both for adult participants
and their children.\30\
As Katherine Magnuson has written, ``many workers,
although certainly not all, are also parents, and human capital
accumulation is an intergenerational process. Improving the educational
and employment prospects for parents in the workforce today may also do
the same for their children as they enter the workforce tomorrow.''
\31\ There is encouraging evidence that, when mothers with low
education levels complete additional education, their children appear
to have improved language and reading skills.\32\ These quasi-
experimental studies suggest that the effects of increased maternal
education are apparent only for mothers with a high school education or
less and are associated with a variety of education and training
services, including high school completion and GED, occupational
training and college.\33\
ENDNOTES
\1\ Sheila Maguire, Joshua Freely, Carol Clymer and Maureen Conway,
Job Training That Works: Findings from the Sectoral Employment Impact
Study, P/PV In Brief (Public/Private Ventures), May 2009, http://
www.ppv.org/ppv/publications/assets/294--publication.pdf.
\2\ Several quasi-experimental studies have shown this linkage. K.
Magnuson, H. Sexton, P. Davis-Kean, and A. Huston, ``Increases in
Maternal Education and Young Children's Language Skills,'' Merrill-
Palmer Quarterly, Vol. 55, No. 3, July 2009, http://muse.jhu.edu/
login?uri=/journals/merrill-palmer--quarterly/v055/55.3.magnuson.pdf
and K. Magnuson, ``Maternal Education and Children's Academic
Achievement During Middle Childhood,'' Developmental Psychology, Vol.
43, No. 6, 2007, http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/
merrillpalmer--quarterly/v055/55.3.magnuson.pdf. In addition,
Transitional Jobs programs, which combine time-limited subsidized
employment with a comprehensive set of services including case
management, have been found to significantly reduce recidivism among
individuals who have left prison.
\3\ Christopher T. King and Carolyn Heinrich, How Effective Are
Workforce Development Programs? Prepared for the Symposium Celebrating
the Ray Marshall Center's 40th Anniversary, 2010. http://
www.utexas.edu/research/cshr/pubs/pdf/Heinrich%20and%20King%20%
20How%20Effective%20Are%20Workforce%20Development%20Programs.pdf.
\4\ Multiple Employment and Training Programs, GAO, page 17.
\5\ Testimony Of LaDonna Pavetti, Vice President, Family Income
Support Policy Before The House Ways And Means Committee, Subcommittee
On Human Resources, April 5, 2011.
\6\ Marcie Foster, Julie Strawn and Amy Ellen Duke-Benfield, Beyond
Basic Skills: State Strategies to Connect Low-Skilled Students to an
Employer-Valued Postsecondary Education, CLASP, March 2011. http://
www.clasp.org/admin/site/publications/files/Beyond-Basic-Skills-March-
2011.pdf
\7\ 2009-2010 Adult Student Waiting List Survey, National Council
of State Directors of Adult Education.
\8\ Are Federal Workforce Programs Duplicative?, National Skills
Coalition, March 2011. http://www.nationalskillscoalition.org/homepage-
archive/documents/2011/nsc--programsduplicative--2011-03.pdf
\9\ Utah Department of Workforce Services, Utah's Job Connection,
WIA/Wagner Peyser State ARRA Plan, http://jobs.utah.gov/edo/stateplans/
wiawpstateplan.pdf. See also A. Rowland, Utah's Economy: The Future is
Here. Voices for Utah's Children, January 2009, http://
www.workingpoorfamilies.org/pdfs/Utah--Assessment--Report.pdf.
\10\ D. Wright and L. Montiel, Workforce System One-Stop Services
for Public Assistance and Other Low-Income Populations: Lessons Learned
in Select States, Rockefeller Institute, April 2010, prepared for the
U.S. Department of Labor and released in 2011, http://www.rockinst.org/
pdf/workforce--welfare--and--social--services/2010-04DOL--Workforce--
System.pdf.
\11\ N. Ridley and E. Ganzglass, Responding to the Recessions: How
the Recovery Act Boosted Training and Innovation in Three States,
CLASP, February 2011 http://www.clasp.org/admin/site/publications/
files/Respondingto-the-Great-Recession-ARRA-and-WIA-2011.pdf
\12\ D. Pavetti, L. Schott, and E. Lower-Bash, Creating Subsidized
Employment Opportunities For Low-Income Parents: The Legacy of the TANF
Emergency Fund, CLASP and CBPP, February 2011, http://www.clasp.org/
admin/site/publications/files/Subsidized-Employment-Paper-Final.pdf.
\13\ N. Patel et al, A Means to an End: Integration of Welfare and
Workforce Development Systems, CLASP, October 2003, http://
www.clasp.org/admin/site/publications/files/0155.pdf and A. Werner and
K. Lodewick, Serving TANF and Low-Income Populations through WIA One-
Stop Centers, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of
the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, January 2004,
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/WIA-centerssite-visits04/.
\14\ WIA Reauthorization: Recommendations for Reauthorization of
the Workforce Investment Act Adult Program, CLASP, July 2009, http://
www.clasp.org/admin/site/publications/files/WIA--Recs-for-Adult-
Program-final.pdf.
\15\ Power point presentation on TANF Reauthorization 2003: Lessons
from Block Grants, June 13, 2003, New York City.
\16\ Reform or Dismantling? President's Workforce Proposal Raises
Serious Concerns, CLASP, 2006. http://www.clasp.org/admin/site/
publications/files/0279.pdf.
\17\ GAO Report to Congressional Requesters, ``Workforce Investment
Act: Youth Provisions Promote New Service Strategies, but Additional
Guidance Would Enhance Development'', April 2002, p. 29, http://
www.gao.gov/new.items/d02413.pdf.
\18\ GAO, Workforce Investment Act: Labor Has Made Progress in
Addressing Areas of Concern, but More Focus Needed on Understanding
What Works and What Doesn't, 2009.
\19\ From Neil Ridley and Elizabeth Kenefick, Research Shows
Effectiveness of Workforce Programs: A Fresh Look at the Evidence,
Center for Law and Social Policy, May 2011, http://www.clasp.org/admin/
site/publications/files/workforce-effectiveness.pdf.
\20\ Kevin Hollenbeck, Daniel Schroeder, Christopher T. King and
Wei-Jang Huang, Net Impact Estimates for Services Provided through the
Workforce Investment Act, U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and
Training Administration, October 2005, http://wdr.doleta.gov/research/
FullText--Documents/
Net%20Impact%20Estimates%20for%20Services%20Provided
%20through%20the%20Workforce%20Investment%20Act-%20Final%20Report.pdf.
\21\ Carolyn Heinrich, Peter Mueser and Kenneth Troske, Workforce
Investment Act Non-Experimental Net Impact Evaluation, Final Report,
IMPAQ International, December 2008, http://wdr.doleta.gov/research/
FullText--Documents/
Workforce%20Investment%20Act%20NonExperimental%20Net%20Impact%20Evaluati
on%20-%20Final%20Report.pdf.
\22\ Russell H. Jackson, et. al., Youth Opportunity Grant
Initiative: Impact and Synthesis Report, Decision Information
Resources, Inc., prepared for U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and
Training Administration, December 2007, http://wdr.doleta.gov/research/
FullText--Documents/YO Impact and Synthesis Report.pdf.
\23\ Washington State Workforce Training and Education Coordinating
Board, Results of the Net Impact Study of 12 Workforce Programs, April,
2011. The study also shows that adults, youth and dislocated workers
receiving WIA services have higher earnings than non-participants three
years following participation. The short term results are for
participants exiting in 2007-2008. The long term results are for
participants exiting in 2005-06. The author of this study, Kevin
Hollenbeck, has also conducted net impact studies for Virginia and
Indiana.
\24\ Whitney Smith, Jenny Wittner, Robin Spence and Andy Van
Kleunen, Skills Training Works: Examining the Evidence, The Workforce
Alliance (now the National Skills Coalition), September 2002, http://
www.nationalskillscoalition.org/assets/reports-/skills-training-
works.pdf.
\25\ Sheila Maguire, Joshua Freely, Carol Clymer and Maureen
Conway, Job Training That Works: Findings from the Sectoral Employment
Impact Study, P/PV In Brief (Public/Private Ventures), May 2009, http:/
/www.ppv.org/ppv/publications/assets/294--publication.pdf.
\26\ Maureen Conway, Sector Strategies in brief, Workforce
Strategies Initiative, the Aspen Institute, November 2007, http://
www.aspenwsi.org/publications/07-014b.pdf.
\27\ Tara Smith, Christopher T. King and Daniel G. Schroeder, Local
Investments in Workforce Development: 2011 Evaluation Update, Austin:
Ray Marshall Center, University of Texas, April 2011 (forthcoming); and
Robert G. Glover and Christopher T. King, ``The Promise of Sectoral
Approaches to Workforce Development: Towards More Effective, Active
Labor Market Policies in the United States,'' in Charles J. Whalen,
Ed., Human Resource Economics: Essays in Honor of Vernon M. Briggs,
Jr., Kalamazoo, Michigan: The W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment
Research, 2010.
\28\ Matthew Zeidenberg, Sung-Woo Cho and Davis Jenkins, Washington
State's Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training Program (I-
BEST): New Evidence of Effectiveness, Community College Research
Center, 2010. http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/Publication.asp?UID=805
\29\ Washington State Workforce Training and Education Coordinating
Board, Results of the Net Impact Study of 12 Workforce Programs, April,
2011. The short term results are for participants exiting in 2007-2008.
\30\ A number of experimental studies report that Transitional Jobs
programs, which combine time-limited subsidized employment with a
comprehensive set of services including case management, have been
found to significantly reduce recidivism among individuals who have
left prison.
\31\ Katherine Magnuson, Investing in the Adult Workforce: An
Opportunity to Improve Children's Life Chances, prepared for the Annie
E. Casey Foundation Initiative on Investing in Workforce Development,
March 2007, http://www.aecf.org/news/fes/dec2008/pdf/Magnuson.pdf.
\32\ Several quasi-experimental studies have shown this linkage. K.
Magnuson, H. Sexton, P. Davis-Kean, and A. Huston, ``Increases in
Maternal Education and Young Children's Language Skills,'' Merrill-
Palmer Quarterly, Vol. 55, No. 3, July 2009, http://muse.jhu.edu/
login?uri=/journals/merrill-palmer--quarterly/v055/55.3.magnuson.pdf
and K. Magnuson, ``Maternal Education and Children's Academic
Achievement During Middle Childhood,'' Developmental Psychology, Vol.
43, No. 6, 2007, http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/
merrillpalmer--quarterly/v055/55.3.magnuson.pdf.
\33\ Various studies have found the linkage between increased
maternal education and improved children's achievement only for mothers
with low education levels and have shown that parents who completed
additional education participated in a variety of programs. Additional
research is needed to parse the effects of different types of education
and training. Research to date has concentrated on the effects of
maternal education for children at certain ages (during the first three
years of life, between ages 4 and 6, between ages 6 and 10).
______
Chairwoman Foxx. Mr. Royal, are you recognized for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF BERT ``VAN'' ROYAL, OWNER/BROKER, MAGNOLIA POINT
REALTY, K&V INVESTMENT GROUP, INC.
Mr. Royal. Good morning Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member
Hinojosa, and other distinguished members of the subcommittee.
My name is Van Royal and I serve as the volunteer chairman of
First Coast Workforce Development, Inc, known locally at
WorkSource.
We are the regional workforce board serving Jacksonville in
northeast Florida. In my testimony today, I would like to
address from a business perspective some of the inefficiencies
in the current employment and training programs, as well as how
we in Florida have worked to eliminate some of these issues.
As a small business owner, I know firsthand the
frustrations of trying to wind through programs and regulations
that aren't only necessary to grow your business, but
oftentimes to sustain the business you have. Most small
businesses do not have HR directors; they barely have time to
write an ad for the newspaper, much less analyze growth
incentives, community block grants, brownfield initiatives, or
available training programs. If a small business employs ten
people, a change of two people represents a 20 percent increase
in jobs.
Many of the above-mentioned programs could help; but most
important to the small business owner is a skilled and easily
identifiable new employee. The various agencies--DOL, EPA, HUD,
USDA, and I am sure there are more--all have economic
incentives that address employment or have employment standards
in their regulations. Even the best economic advisers have a
difficult time guiding large employers through the maze of
hiring and training incentives, so imagine the small businesses
owner trying to do the same. It is no wonder that these
employment incentives are often overlooked or ignored by small
businesses that are just trying to survive.
Selecting and training the right employee is critical to
the process of small businesses. It is more important than
large companies, due to the expense of replacement and the
downtime expense of no one being in that slot, particularly if
you as an owner have to fill that slot. That is why it is
critical that not only the services of the workforce
development system be easy to use, but the perception of the
programs must be positive and reinforcing.
The GAO report referenced here today describes a plethora
of federal job training and employment programs. While all of
them were likely created with the best of intentions, it is
virtually impossible for businesses, particularly small
businesses and job seekers, to know about and navigate the
services of that many programs. We need a system that is simple
to understand and easy to use.
My home State of Florida has made some great progress in at
least consolidating some of these programs of our local
workforce boards. So what makes Florida different?
We believe that with an integrated, flexible system, we can
really make a difference. The State of Florida had the
foresight to design a workforce development system that takes
the best of what WIA had designed and builds an even more
integrated system based on business involvement and local
decisionmaking. By pulling together no less than seven
federalemployment and training programs, and integrating them
and the funding streams through their regional workforce
boards, we have been able to shape our policies and training to
meet our local business needs.
Having the flexibility to meet these programs and funding
streams together allows us to maximize services to businesses,
as well as job seekers. We are able to leverage funds from
multiple programs to customize service delivery. We cross-train
staff in multiple programs and are able to cost-allocate
salaries, et cetera, in a manner that creates great
efficiencies.
There is, however, a tremendous amount of administrative
waste in the process of separately tracking each funding silo,
reporting redundancies, eligibility data, et cetera. While we
strive to make our services seamless to services and job
seekers, these multiple programs that all support employment
and training services make that seamlessness more difficult
than it should be.
A prime example of one of the difficulties is the State
merit staff requirement for the delivery of Wagner-Peyser,
veterans and trade adjustment assistance. This requirement
eliminates our ability to cross-train staff supporting these
programs. For instance, a veterans program staff member cannot
assist the military member spouse if both are in need of job
placement or training assistance.
Although there is no direct federal statutory mandate in
the Wagner-Peyser Act requiring State merit staff to deliver
services, the U.S. DOL Secretary has denied Florida's waiver
request from this regulation every year since 2007. This waiver
has been granted to the States of Colorado, Massachusetts, and
Michigan, but U.S. DOL has taken a position that no further
exceptions will be approved. This is just one example of
regulatory rules getting in the way of efficient service
delivery. There are many, many more.
Chairwoman Foxx, that concludes my remarks. However, in
last 15 seconds, a personal note: What you do is the most
important thing to businesses at this point in time. Growing
our job force and working with them on employment is hugely
important, as is this committee, and I give you great kudos for
the work you do. I want to thank you for allowing me to speak.
[The statement of Mr. Royal follows:]
Prepared Statement of Van Royal, Chairman, WorkSource
Chairwoman Foxx and other distinguished members of this
Subcommittee: my name is Van Royal and I serve as the volunteer
Chairman of First Coast Workforce Development, Inc., known locally as
WorkSource. We are the Regional Workforce Board serving Jacksonville
and Northeast Florida.
In my testimony today, I would like to address, from a business
perspective, some of the inefficiencies in the current employment and
training programs as well as how we, in Florida, have worked to
eliminate some of those issues.
As a small business owner, I know first-hand the frustrations of
trying to wind through programs and regulations that aren't only
necessary to grow your business but often times to sustain the business
you have. Most small businesses do not have HR directors, they barely
have time to write an ad for the newspaper much less analyze growth
incentives, community block grants, brownfield initiatives or available
training programs. If a small business employs 10 people, a change of 2
people represents a 20 % increase in jobs. Many of the above mentioned
programs could help, but most important to the small business owner is
a skilled and easily identifiable new employee. The various agencies,
DOL, EPA, HUD, USDA and I am sure there are more, all have economic
incentives that address employment or have employment standards in
their regulations. Even the best economic advisors have a difficult
time guiding large employers through the maze of hiring and training
incentives so imagine the small business owner trying to do the same.
It is no wonder that these ``employment incentives'' are overlooked or
ignored by small businesses who are just trying to survive.
Selecting and training the right employee is critical to the
success of a small business. It is more important than a large
company's due to the expense of replacement and the ``down time
expense'' of no one being in that slot particularly if you as an owner
have to fill that slot. That is why it is critical that not only the
services of the workforce development system be easy to use but the
perception of the programs must be positive and re-enforcing. The GAO
report referenced here today describes a plethora of federal job
training and employment programs. While all of them were likely created
with the best of intentions, it is virtually impossible for businesses,
particularly small businesses, and job seekers to know about and
navigate the services of that many programs. We need a system that is
simple to understand and easy to use. My home state of Florida has made
some great progress in at least consolidating some of these programs
under the umbrella of our local workforce boards.
What Makes Florida Different?
We believe that, with an integrated, flexible system, we can really
make a difference. The State of Florida had the foresight to design a
workforce development system that takes the best of what WIA had
designed and build an even more integrated system based on business
involvement and local decision-making. By pulling together no less than
seven federal employment and training programs (WIA, Wagner-Peyser,
Welfare Transition, a portion of Unemployment Compensation, Trade
Adjustment Act, Food Stamp Employment and Training, and Veterans funds)
and integrating that funding through the regional workforce boards, we
have been able to shape our policies and training to meet our local
business needs.
Having the flexibility to mix these programs and funding streams
together allows us to maximize services to businesses as well as job
seekers. We are able to leverage funds from multiple programs to
customize service delivery. We cross-train staff in multiple programs
and are able to cost allocate salaries, etc. in a manner that creates
great efficiencies. There is, however, a tremendous amount of
administrative waste in the process of separately tracking each funding
silo, reporting redundancies, eligibility data entry, etc. While we
strive to make our services seamless to businesses and job seekers,
these multiple programs that all support employment and training
services make that seamlessness more difficult than it should be.
A prime example of one of the difficulties is the State merit staff
requirement for the delivery of Wagner-Peyser, Veterans and Trade
Adjustment Assistance. This requirement eliminates our ability to cross
train staff supporting these programs. For instance, a Veterans program
staff member cannot assist the military member's spouse if both are in
need of job placement or training assistance. Though there is no direct
federal statutory mandate in the Wagner-Peyser Act requiring State
merit staff to deliver services, the USDOL Secretary has denied
Florida's waiver requests from this regulation every year since 2007.
This waiver has been granted to the states of Colorado, Massachusetts
and Michigan but USDOL has taken a position that no further exceptions
will be approved.
Florida created its own version of a system that was ``customer-
focused.'' In Florida, we determined that the primary customer of our
system was the business community that creates the jobs workers need.
The WIA legislation mandated that local workforce boards include
business as an active partner. It's imperative that we keep that part
of the system intact. In fact, we would recommend, based on our
experience, that local boards have a ``super majority'' of at least 65%
of their board members comprised of private industry.
With business in charge of our local system, we found ourselves
changing our organizational culture--from an internal focus on process
and procedures to an external focus on results. If you want a system
that is truly market-driven, the market must have a voice. That strong,
private-sector business voice is what set us on a new path of
responsiveness to business needs. The business leadership of our board
asked questions that don't typically get asked in many public sector
led initiatives; questions, for example, about the return on investment
of funds in particular projects and contracts. It didn't take long for
us to shift our priorities and ask how we could operate differently to
better use our funding and leverage resources from partners.
Another point that Florida got right was encouraging partners to
work together to provide seamless services to jobseekers. Bringing
agencies together was good for the jobseeker, but it also helped us to
eliminate duplication of services and achieve more by working together.
One partner that we have found to be invaluable is economic
development. By bringing our local ED organizations in as valued
partners, we gain insight into targeted industries and can help shape
the workforce our local economy demands.
Under WIA, training is delivered in response to the local labor
market needs. The legislation required that training resulted in an
industry-recognized certification. In our local region, we invested in
education to learn the language of economic development, and changed
our training strategy to focus on helping companies and industries
expand.
The consumer of our training system is business--but to date, there
is no funding and no performance measure that is tied to serving
business. Currently, WIA funding is delivered in silos based on
categories of workers (adult, dislocated, etc.) We need funding that is
flexible and that allows us to react to our local labor market
conditions.
We've spent twelve years building partnerships, learning how to
understand the market, and building the foundations to be competitive.
We must continue to build on the things that WIA got right--a demand-
driven, flexible system that allowed us to become a meaningful player
in growing the economy.
Consolidation of the multitude of federally funded employment and
training programs as part of the Reauthorization of WIA needs to expand
that flexibility, eliminate meaningless silos and create a new formula
for funding that recognizes 21st century workforce challenges of
business retention and expansion.
Life Long Learning and Career Services
After K-12 education, we must provide a flexible workforce system
that engages workers at every stage of their career, offering entry
points for skill advancement in the classroom or on the job. In order
to be competitive in the global economy, we must create a culture of
lifelong learning that rewards higher skills with economic advancement.
The focus of a successful career development system, one that
supports business growth and global competitiveness, is not job
placement. Rather, it centers on the skill sets needed in the local
labor market, and how workers can obtain those skills through
education, training and job succession. WorkSource, Cornerstone (our
regional economic development partnership), and our community college
and training partners work together to strategically provide a wide
variety of activities that are designed to recruit proficient workers,
retain valuable workers and re-train workers with new skills.
This philosophy is embodied in a career development methodology
resulting in income growth. The Income Growth Strategy promotes wage
progression through rapid attachment to the workforce, continual skill
gains, and personal development activities. As a strategic framework,
this approach builds upon a program design generally referred to as
``post-employment:'' placement, retention, advancement and/or rapid re-
employment services. The foundation of this approach is that all
employment and training services are delivered within the framework of
the skills needs of the business community.
The Income Growth Strategy involves designing a planned sequence of
service interventions, which target the needs of the job seeker in the
larger context of serving our business customer. The model embraces
incremental income goals achieved through labor market advancement. In
our model, job seekers are not necessarily terminated from career
development services at job placement. Success is measured by the
ongoing skill development and wage growth of the job seeker.
Traditionally, workforce system contact with the employer ends at
placement or soon thereafter, not resuming until the next time
placement services are needed. Under Income Growth, a business services
strategy, represents activities, such as employed worker training, as
value-added products for the employer, part of a comprehensive set of
business services.
Providing services to the worker is no longer limited to a physical
one-stop location, but may be offered at the worksite, at a training
center, or over the internet.
Currently, performance standards drive the system toward an early
termination approach. We must create strategies that allow workers to
access a flexible system that offers skill attainment and comprehensive
career development services. System performance should be measured,
incrementally, as a worker progresses in income growth without
terminating them from services.
What We Need Now for the New Economy
Funding of the workforce system is still based on the concept of
equity, rather than competitiveness. While we recognize that it's
important to help everyone engage in meaningful work, a funding formula
based primarily on unemployment and poverty rates doesn't address the
needs of our businesses or our workforce. It doesn't help either of
them compete in the global economy.
When we compete against other cities for new industries and good
jobs, we're not competing against the places that we were five or ten
years ago. Today, our economic development partners are not just
competing against typical regional rivals in Georgia, South Carolina or
Alabama or even cities in other regions, we are facing increasing
competition from countries such as Malaysia, India and China. With the
advent of technology, companies can now locate their businesses where
they find the best talent for any given aspect of their business. U.S.
companies are establishing a global footprint in order to compete and
to open new markets. Our workforce and education systems need to
reflect the current reality of global competition.
Where do we go from here?
We ask your support to improve the legislation in a manner
that broadens, coordinates, and supports partnerships at a local
delivery level. Local boards are responsible for the system-wide
coordination of resources and services, but distinct program rules,
coupled with the authority granted to state and federal partners,
undermines seamless delivery to the public.
Local boards should have a ``super majority'' of at least
65% of their board members comprised of private industry. The current
requirement that the board chair should be appointed from the private
sector is a critical factor in maintaining business involvement.
Performance standards must be re-visited and redesigned to
give all programs common goals. In addition, we must create standards
that reinforce and reward ongoing career development services and end
short term episodic fixes. WorkSource supports performance standards
that target income growth and skill attainment as outcomes for all
programs. We believe these measurements should be calculated
incrementally while the job seeker or worker is receiving services, not
at termination. Also, we support the creation of performance standards
that measure business involvement and satisfaction with the workforce
system.
The workforce development pipeline begins in our K-12
educational system. In addition to intervening with the most at-risk
youth, career services must be provided to all young people. Incentives
should be used to encourage regional workforce boards to work in
partnership with their educational systems to create workforce learning
environments (i.e. Career Academies) that reflect the skills needed in
the local labor market, and provide industry recognized certifications
and/or college credit for all high school graduates.
Programs and funding streams should be consolidated at the
federal level to ensure real flexibility in providing effective
services at the local level. Maintaining separate funding streams will
continue to keep the focus on programmatic barriers and not on
services.
We urge that funding formulas be based on building
competitiveness, rather than an approach that only considers equity. A
funding formula based primarily on unemployment and poverty rates won't
lead to our workers obtaining the skills to compete in the global
economy.
Chairwoman Foxx, that concludes my remarks. I want to thank you
again for this opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee on this
critical issue. I welcome any questions that you may have.
______
Chairwoman Foxx. I want to thank all of the witnesses for
their comments. I am going to start the questioning off with
Dr. Sherrill.
You mentioned in your comments that very little evaluation
has been done in terms of the effectiveness of the programs.
Could you give us some advice on what types of evaluations you
would recommend that the Departments undertake to ensure that
the precious taxpayer dollars that we are spending are being
spent well, and that we can determine that they are either
being spent well or not?
Mr. Sherrill. Yes. This can be a challenging area to
evaluate programs. Impact studies can be very revealing about
what the program achieved. It often can be expensive. In some
cases, some of these programs are small, and so it may not be
cost-effective. There are other kinds of studies as well.
We issued a couple of reports in the last 2 years focusing
explicitly on the Department of Labor's employment and
training, ETA's research agenda, and made several
recommendations in this area to improve that. One of the things
that was telling is that in 2008, 34 of the research products
disseminated by ETA were delayed by 2 to 5 years. So they have
been doing numerous research studies but not disseminating
them; so part of the issue was that they weren't available to
be used, some of these, in a very timely manner.
So we made several recommendations to the Department of
Labor to better track, have tracking processes for these
studies that they were doing, to get more external input in the
studies, to provide more public transparency and
accountability. And we have taken some steps to make progress
in this area.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you.
Mr. Temple, you advocated in your comments more flexibility
for the States in what they are doing. Could you give some
suggestions of some red tape that ought to be eliminated?
Mr. Temple. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
I think probably the biggest hurdle that we have, as has
been stated earlier, is just working through all of the red
tape for approvals and reports that just take a lot of staff
time and a lot of time at the local level for our board
partners and anyone that they contract with.
The administrative dollars that are represented in all of
this paperwork and everything that is behind it could certainly
be spent better serving our customers, job seekers, and
employers.
I truly believe that the States are the labs of innovation,
and I would like to go back to this movement of money from the
States to the Department of Labor for innovation fund and the
President's proposed budget that would increase it from $125
million to $300 million. So that is $325 million taken away
from the flexibility that States have now to do such things, as
I have said earlier, like the Texas Veterans Leadership
Program, or our STEM academies or developing curricula for
training that could be used statewide for renewable energy.
I think there are a lot of things that we can do and, as
Dr. Sherrill said, coming up with common measures. We have
tried to do that in Texas, to the degree that we can.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you very much.
Mr. Royal, you said you want the programs to be more
focused on the business community. Do you want to expand in the
comments that you made, do you want to name other areas where
there could be some improvements? I know your time was limited,
so if you want to take a minute or two to expand on that.
Mr. Royal. The unique thing right now is that in the State
of Florida, we have been able to develop that ATM where people
can do that one-stop. Coming to the counter, in the services we
are able to do, it has been great. But behind the scenes, if
Wachovia or any other bank, they would be in worse shape than
they had, if they had to do through all of the silos that we
have set up.
From a business standpoint, it is the same way. Outside of
the employee, from the employer standpoint, there are so many
programs out there and the regulations that we are having to
deal with, that a small, particularly a small business owner,
is not capable of going through that red tape and saying this
is going to help my new small-solar manufacturer. We just had
one in Green Cove Springs come in, and we talk to them about
grants and their face glazes over. These are the kinds of
things that if we can work on trying to get that aspect of
employment training, look at the HUD requirements actually for
low-income placement. They are really difficult to work through
from a small business perspective.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you all very much.
Mr. Hinojosa, I recognize you now for questions.
Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx.
My first question is for Larry Temple, the Texas Workforce
Commission. Mr. Temple, in Ms. Ganzglass' testimony, she points
out that adult education services reach about 2.4 million
students out of a pool of 93 million adults with low basic
skills who may be eligible for and need these services to
upgrade their skills. Those numbers are staggering to me.
In my own area, I know that there is a need for literacy
services, as there is throughout the State of Texas. How do you
ensure in a consolidated system that individuals like those in
need of adult education receive the services they need?
Mr. Temple. That is a great question, and a great
challenge. The adult education program in the State of Texas is
not administered by the Workforce Commission. Currently, it is
administered between kind of a combination between the Texas
Education Agency and the Higher Ed. Coordinating Board through
the community colleges. And the funding is woefully inadequate
to cover the number of people.
As chairman of the Literacy Council, Interagency Literacy
Council, one of the things that we have been presented with is
just the lack of knowledge of just exactly what is out there
because there are a lot of programs that don't get federal
funding or State funding; therefore, they don't report. So we
really don't know what the gap is, but we certainly know there
is a gap.
We work very closely with and through our workforce board,
and on our State board we have adult ed. represented, and
particularly through the nonprofits and community organizations
at the local level, and referrals and working with the
community colleges, and even put some of our dollars through
WIA and the TANF in helping to pay for such things as not only
the GED classes but even the travel.
Mr. Hinojosa. My time is getting away from us, and I have
three or four more questions. Let me add to the list of folks
who take care of adult education that you mentioned, including
the community colleges, our public schools, our libraries. Many
others are trying to do something about this huge problem. And
we discovered it was three or four times bigger than we thought
it was in 2008 when we went into our recession and we had so
many people losing their jobs. And in training them for new
jobs, we found out that many could not read or write. So we
need your help. We need everybody's help to give adult
education a high priority.
I would like to go to my next question for Mr. Temple.
Mr. Temple, when Texas consolidated the programs you
discussed, can you tell me if State workers were laid off in
that consolidation?
Mr. Temple. The legislature provided some incentives. We
have a rule of 80 for retirement. They were given an additional
5 years toward the rule of 80. So many of them were able to
retire. Within the agency, we did internal postings. And I am
just going from memory. It was a long time ago. It was back in
1995. But 94 or 95 percent either retired, went to work back
within the agency, or went to work for the contractors. So just
a very few people did not actually end up with a job in the
system either through the contractor or through the local
workforce board. A lot of these people actually work for the
board or were retained. So during that RIF process, we held all
of our hiring internal for those individuals.
Mr. Hinojosa. My third question goes to Dr. Sherrill with
GAO.
Mr. Sherrill to be clear, GAO did not find any actual
duplication in its analysis of federal job training programs?
If I am mistaken, please give me some clarification.
Mr. Sherrill. That is right. We found overlap at a high
level, as I explained. And then we drilled down to focus more
deeply on three of the larger programs, the TANF, the
Employment Service, and the WIA Adults. And we found that they
serve some of the same low-income population and some of the
similar services.
When we tried to get more data on the extent to which the
same recipients might be receiving services from multiple
programs, we weren't able to do that because of some data
limitations. For example, Department of Labor told us that
about 4\1/2\ percent of the WIA Adult people who had received
training and exited the program were TANF recipients; but that
is not all of the TANF recipients, because those are just the
ones who self-reported, and they were not able to tell us and
HHS were not able to tell us to what extent were those people
also receiving TANF employment and training services.
So, no, as we tried to go deeper and to find more out for
those programs, we weren't able to get a sense of were the same
people receiving the same services from more than one program.
Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you.
I yield back.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Hinojosa.
I now recognize Mr. Thompson for 5 minutes.
Mr. Thompson. Madam Chair, thank you for calling this
hearing. It is an incredibly important topic. America's
competitiveness is based upon having a qualified and trained
workforce. Having served on a workforce investment board for
many years, I think WIA is one of the important tools there.
Dr. Sherrill, within your written testimony you noted in
fiscal year 2009 there were $18 billion in costs to the
programs. Maybe it is in there and you can point me to it. In
terms of program evaluation, one of the major returns on
investment for me is what is the dollar value of annual earned
income of individuals who went through the programs, achieved
the outcome we are looking for, and returned to gainful
employment. Is that data out there in terms of return on
investment for 2009?
Mr. Sherrill. There is data out there for some of the
programs. For example, the WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker
programs report out on certain measures. And so nationwide for
2009, the WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker programs generally
did not meet their performance goals across the country. For
entering employment, getting people jobs, they fell for both
adult and dislocated workers pretty far short of the goals.
For employment retention, keeping people in jobs, they were
closer, but still fell short.
But for average earnings, they did meet their performance
goals.
And for the youth program, the WIA Youth program, the
younger youth goals were met nationwide, but there was a more
mixed picture with regard to the older youth goals. It is
important to keep in mind that it was sort of a difficult
economic environment at that time as well.
Mr. Thompson. Sure. Absolutely.
Given that, are there current performance indicators that
the federal job training programs are required to--the ones
that we have, are they enough to track the programs'
effectiveness? And are there any additional indicators that
Congress should explore to better gauge the programs'
effectiveness?
Mr. Sherrill. One of the recommendations we have made is
that Labor, because Labor negotiates performance goals with the
States on each of these measures, so one of the things that we
have recommended is that Labor make adjustments for differences
in economic conditions or demographic conditions to better
reflect sort of the difficulty--level of difficulty that the
States are facing. Labor hasn't really done that yet.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
Mr. Royal, thank you, or my sympathies for serving as the
president on the Workforce Investment Board. No, thank you for
doing that. It is a huge undertaking. It is so important to
have employers, the business and industry, the employers
involved in that process. My own experience has been that it
has been a mix.
Even currently as a Member of Congress, I work very closely
with my workforce investment boards, and I just see some models
do better than others in terms of engaging. Some boards have
members of the boards who are very frustrated, and others who
are very engaged.
Given that, based on your experience, how can we improve
the current set of performance standards to accurately measure
business engagement and satisfaction with the workforce
investment system?
Mr. Royal. We have all kinds of measurements as a workforce
board as to how we take care of employment. The reality is, and
it boils down to, is if someone gets employed, then there is an
employer out there who has a job.
The biggest struggle we have now is while we work to train
and educate the workforce, we have a difficult time in trying
to help small businesses, for instance, through some of their
programs which actually creates a job. Because no matter how
well we train--and that is one of the frustrations we have had
lately in the last couple of years, higher education has done a
great job of training, but if you don't have a job to put them
in, all of the best-trained employees around are not going to
make a difference.
When you look at the 2009 numbers, we could have trained
200,000 people more, and you wouldn't have had one more
placement, because the jobs just weren't there. So making it
easier from a business standpoint is probably the most
frustrating.
Right now in the State of Florida, we have been able to put
some silos together and really do a much better job of training
employees. We have a good workforce. Making those readily
accessible to employers, and if there are incentives to be
given to employers, put them in such a way that small
businesses--which you hear over and over again, 60 percent of
the United States employment is small businesses--make it
accessible to those people who have eight or ten, as opposed to
you need an HR director, you have to go out and hire somebody
to work your way through grant systems.
And there are HUD programs out there, for instance, where
you have to hire somebody who doesn't have a high school
education or can't make more than $9, and you are trying to
develop a business, and you are going, Really? By the time you
run across a couple of those, as an employer you say, That's
enough.
So we as the workforce board, the private sector is really
concentrated on that employer standard and feedback and how
easy it was to place a job, how quickly were we able to get
analysis. And those we are improving. But that has been a slow
process.
Getting them trained, there are a lot of programs and
places to do that, and we have really worked to get that. But
that feedback in the private sector, out in front of the
counter from the employment sector has been, I think, the most
difficult so far and the biggest challenge. Because there are
dollars to be had; they just don't know how to get them.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
Chairwoman Foxx. Mr. Tierney, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think some will note
the irony that today's hearing on perceived ``duplication''
follows a full Committee hearing on the same subject.
Dr. Sherrill, while there are programs in the employment
training area you found areas of overlap, but you have not made
findings of duplication; is that correct?
Mr. Sherrill. That is correct, in the employment training
area, we have not made findings of duplication.
Mr. Tierney. It seems to me the example I used in the last
hearing on that was the veterans programs where they seemed to
overlap, they serve distinct populations, whether disabled
veterans or homeless veterans, that have specific criteria that
need to be served; is that a good example?
Mr. Sherrill. That is a good example. I mean, we set out
sort of stage setting at the high level, and in a few programs
we went deeper. But we didn't look at veterans programs for
this work, for example.
Mr. Tierney. Now a lot of times the recommendations talk
about efficiencies that were achieved or not achieved in the
delivery, but the fact of the matter is, is it not, that the
States under current law are oftentimes charged with the
responsibility of delivering these programs. And you have made
some recommendations to the Department of Labor and Health and
Human Services on how they might collaborate and try to come up
with incentives to get the States to implement those
efficiencies.
Mr. Sherrill. Right. The focus of our recommendation was
basically there are a few areas where some of the States and
localities have done more innovative things, but we don't know
a lot about, so can these serve as models for other places? We
need more information about the challenges, the strategies, and
the results.
And so we saw the federal agencies, Labor and HHS, as being
able to play a key role there in collecting and disseminating
more information about those kind of State efforts, and whether
more incentives might be needed to encourage other States to do
those sort of things or not.
Mr. Tierney. Mr. Temple and Mr. Royal, can you tell me how
the proposal under the initial continuing resolution that would
cut $3 billion to this program would have enhanced your ability
to perform your functions and work with local workforce boards?
Mr. Temple. The original HR, we would have closed an
estimated 47 percent of our local offices. Luckily, we had a
couple of other programs in there, because of our
consolidation, that we would have had a presence, although
certainly diminished. But, save that consolidation, we would
have really been in trouble.
Mr. Tierney. Mr. Royal.
Mr. Royal. Right at the time when we are starting to come
out of this economic malaise that we have been in, when
employers are looking for job seekers, employment, that is when
we cut these out? That is the time I would think we should hang
in there in order to make sure that we have got a qualified
workforce, and identifiable, and that the process is an easy
one. Don't quit now. This is when we are starting to ramp back
up. That is the toughest time, you would think.
Mr. Tierney. Let me ask you, Mr. Royal, you have done some
good work, some creative things on the Board, and I think it is
indicative--and a lot depends on who are the members on the
board and what services your workforce investment people can
find. You talked a little bit about an individual small
business owner's inability to go through all of the programs
and figure out what they qualify for. But, in fact, how our
workforce investment board operates, and probably yours, that's
what staff help out with. They find out the businesses, and
they go through that work and make the necessary
recommendations.
Mr. Royal. We are starting to. Where the partnership really
is starting to have some synergy is with the economic
development aspect of Chambers and things like that.
When a person becomes unemployed on Monday, and on Tuesday
they walk in and we can take care of their benefits, we can get
them into a new training, we can assess what their skills are.
So and so just left, we can tell you what businesses are moving
in. We can provide training. We can provide day care, we can
provide transportation. We can do all of those things for them.
The reality is, though, that while we take care of that
aspect, again the question and those incentives that are out
there for the employer in how to access them through SBA, for
instance, SBA is one of those agencies that has started change,
and it has made a difference. If all the agencies took a good
look at that, I think it would make a huge difference.
But, yes, in the workforce boards is where that needs to
take place because we have a great private industry part of
that. And as employers, we know what the product needs to look
like, what we are looking for, and they have reacted very well.
We couldn't be any happier with it.
Chairwoman Foxx. I am going to ask a couple of second
questions and give other members an opportunity to do that.
Dr. Sherrill, listening to you and talking about evaluation
performance standards and that kind of thing, is it fair to say
that the focus on whatever evaluation is being done is more on
inputs and not results?
Mr. Sherrill. Well, I think it has been more of a mixed bag
because the programs do have various outcome measures. And so
we found that almost all of these programs do track a range of
outcome measures such as entered employment and average
earnings and job retention and things like that. We found,
though, that few programs have had impact studies that really
try to address to what extent these outcomes are due to the
program itself versus other factors. Those are tougher to do.
But some of the programs have had those kind of studies.
The Department of Labor was mandated by statute to do a
random assignment impact study of the WIA Adult Dislocated
Worker programs, the gold standard study that kind of got
delayed in getting a start. Part of the reason was they thought
that WIA reauthorization might change the program in
fundamental ways, and so now the study is underway but it won't
be finished until 2015.
Chairwoman Foxx. Mr. Royal, you mentioned that a lot of
work is done in getting people ready for jobs, but there are no
jobs. Who is making the decisions as to what jobs people are
being prepared for? Is it the small businesses that are coming
to you and saying, this is what we need? Or is it the workforce
board deciding amongst itself what the jobs are that are out
there? Where are you getting the information to set up your
programs?
Mr. Royal. The great thing about the WorkSource boards as
they are set up in the local areas is that they are made up of
a breadth of people in that, whether they be chamber
representatives, small businesses, large businesses, large
industries, higher education--and that input is probably one of
the most important things that we do is help to guide where
training--for instance in our area, the Port of Jacksonville is
huge and our military is huge, so consequently having somebody
from the military base and the port as it expands, and that on
that board in training, whether it is logistics and that, makes
an incredible difference.
So I would tell you that the board has a very high input on
where training should be, because these represent the health
care industry, they represent a wide variety of employers. And
there is a gauge as well as economic chairpeople for chambers
of commerce, you can train for nurses, but if you are closing a
hospital, why?
That is why that private sector in the job growth industry
of the chamber is so important to be a part of that and to talk
with schools, to talk with--what does it take to put on a
culinary arts program?
We are expanding our tourism dollars in St. Augustine, how
about a satellite office for FCCJ in St. Augustine? What effect
will that have?
Those are the kinds of things I think will make a big
difference and it is very, very valuable so we certainly have a
great degree of input in that.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you very much. Mr. Hinojosa.
Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you for giving us an opportunity to ask
another round of questions. My question is to Mr. Royal and Mr.
Temple.
I would like to ask for your, I guess, advice. Looking at
the book that talks about establishing these workforce boards--
and it doesn't give a number, it just simply says that there
must be a majority representing the business community and that
we also include these representatives of these listed in the
book here.
In talking to executive directors of boards in Texas, I
have found that oftentimes those who represent business--and I
want to make clear, I came from the world of business, 34
years, and ran a company that had 300 employees, so I was
pleased that we had an opportunity to answer the question that
the chair asked, fill out some forms and say how many people we
intended to hire or lay off in the next 6 months or even a
year. And we gave that information to the executive director of
our WIA board.
But the important thing is many of the business community
are not showing up for the meetings. That is what is being
reported to me. And I was chairman of this committee, so I went
from West Coast to East Coast and meetings here, congressional
hearings, and that was common.
And I see Mr. Royal sort of smiling. And being a
businessman like I was, you will agree with me they have busy
schedules and they don't show up for the boards. And unless you
have a quorum of all of them, then oftentimes you can't get
anything done.
So tell me, please, if you think--what would be the ideal
size and how do we help the executive directors get the job
done, so that if they don't show up, that we can still get the
job done without them?
I am going to start with you, Mr. Temple.
Mr. Temple. Yes, sir. I think the number, regardless of
size, I think the biggest challenge that I see some of the
executive directors and staff around--not just in Texas, around
the nation, is making those meetings relevant to the employers
and not wasting their time on who gets the janitorial RFP or
not getting into the minutia of running it but being strategic.
Chairwoman Foxx asked about who picks what to be trained.
Our local workforce boards identify their targeted demand
occupations. You have demand occupations which is a list as
long as this room, but then they look at where the targeted
demand occupations--where is their best return for the
investment? And that is where those local board members, those
businesspeople, have the input----
Mr. Hinojosa. Mr. Temple, I am going to interrupt you. In
this last recession, the ones who lost their jobs were
Hispanics and blacks, big numbers that lost their jobs. Why?
Because home construction and commercial construction went in
the tank. Roads and repairs of roads and bridges stopped. All
this to say that if you were to say that you are going to put
the emphasis on the high-paying jobs, you are going to leave
out a lot of people who are Americans and deserve to be given
equal importance. So I have to disagree with you; that the way
you answered the question would be leaving out many of those
big percentages that lost the jobs.
Mr. Temple. Actually, sir, those targeted demand
occupations are defined by the local board in construction, in
many of our boards is actually one of their demand occupations,
and they spend money on the construction trades and developing
infrastructure.
Mr. Hinojosa. Okay, I misunderstood you. And I will ask Mr.
Royal from Florida to tell me what are your impressions about
the question I asked?
Mr. Royal. I resemble that remark, because I came from that
particular industry in construction. But to answer your
question, it needs to be 51 percent or higher, as far as I am
concerned; and the reason specifically, if we--and one of the
things that we have done in our board is--I hate to use the
term ``dummied'' it down, but we have made it, as Mr. Temple
said, relevant to the business owner that our continued
success, and not the immediate, they may not be employing
somebody in 6 months, but you are going to be employing
somebody in the next 20 years, that is your business plan. You
have got to have a program in here, so you have to have an
investment in it.
And we have told each and every one of our private sector
businessmen, when they come on the board, is that this is the
time that is incredibly well spent, and it may not be
particular to your industry right now, but sooner or later the
growth of Jacksonville, how that tide rises all of our
businesses, and if you don't get involved--and you hate to say
it, because you have a bunch of bureaucrats--but the reality is
that is it, and they are not out there with their feet on the
ground. And so consequently we have had a couple of issues in
our own State where we have had to have majorities of, I don't
know, 65 or 75 percent votes because of certain requirements
now by the State, and we have gotten them.
And the reality is that, as you said, it has got to be
relevant. And they have got to know that this is hugely
important. And if we can make a difference--we now not only
have one-stops, but we take those mobilely now. We take those
out with a bank of 20 computers, and we go to libraries and 15
sites a week or 16 sites----
Mr. Hinojosa. Excuse me. My time has expired.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you.
Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you for giving our colleagues an
opportunity to ask questions.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Royal.
I would now like to recognize Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Temple, has Texas done anything to bring their focus or
make those programs on the six industries clusters that
represent the most return for your investment?
Mr. Temple. Yes, sir. We worked with the Governor's Office
of Economic Development and work groups from local economic
developments on identifying for the State where we saw the best
return--advanced technology, manufacturing, aerospace, defense,
biotech, life sciences, information and computer technology,
petroleum refining, chemical products, and energy.
That is not to say that every board area has possibly
immediately that potential or those needs, but they may have
logistics services that could support those.
But, for instance, in Galveston, the tourism trade is big,
so that board has identified in that area the tourism and
retail as some of their primary. Some of the areas in Houston
have--in the Houston board, there are 14 county boards, gulf
coast--identified construction trades and putting some of their
money into that.
So that is where we are. And then we ask the boards to
submit their local plans, how they are going to support that
strategy, so that we are all working toward a common goal, but
still given the autonomy at the local board for them to be able
to actually address their particular needs.
I would like to point out, under the WIA program, there is
a--almost prohibited to be able to use these funds for
incumbent workers. So if there isn't training, there may
certainly be the ability to enhance jobs or provide for growth
within a company that would allow them to possibly generate
revenue to hire more people.
And that is some of the flexibility that we had in mind;
just kind of where the rubber meets the road, to be able to
have a little more flexibility to work with incumbent workers
for those businesses that are still in business. Maybe could
enhance their workers' skills that may develop more income and
more jobs and that sort of thing.
Mr. Thompson. One of the strengths of the current system
seems to make up the WIA board and bring that industry in
perspective. I know my own WIA boards, a number of years I
served on them, we had many of those same areas. We also had
marginal housing, energy, health care, but it was--we were able
to adjust to the employment market and the needs. And those
really speak to critical mass in terms of needs.
Is there sufficient flexibility in the program? A few years
back, I know the ones within my web I will share the experience
and add an individuals dislocated gull type--I don't remember
if it was trade-related or what--lost their job and essentially
they came to a web at that point. And specifically the
subcommittee I served on was Education and Technology, and they
were interested in pursuing training for gunsmithing, not on
any of the demand lists. And the interesting part is they came
in with a letter from an employer that said, if this gentleman
gets training, and decent training, he is hired. I am
surprised. It was a good paying job. But we couldn't work with
him; we couldn't serve him at that point. Maybe things have
changed since I left the web.
Mr. Temple. A lot of that is flexibility as determined at
the State level. Our boards do generally limit to what their
demand occupation lists, but they also do have exceptions. And
in this instance that certainly would be one.
The one thing we are trying not to do as a State, and the
boards are as well, is someone does have marketable skills and
they would just like to be a gunsmith because that is something
they would like to do, but we have identified that they do have
transferable skills, then we are not probably going to invest
WIA dollars in that individual because we have a lot of people
who don't have transferable skills. So in that case there could
be a problem in that respect. But someone may be living in
Amarillo and wants to be an underwater welder because they are
going to move to the coast, then that board could provide that
training for them.
Mr. Thompson. Mr. Royal, you as chairman of the local
Workforce Investment Board, what are some of the issues that
take up an inordinate amount of your board's time, your staff's
time, that you deem too time-consuming or distracting from
strategic planning, and how can this be improved at the federal
level? Any suggestions?
Mr. Royal. We spend an inordinate amount of time looking at
particular individual RFPs, the requirements and that; not that
they aren't certainly ones that are important, but that is the
minutia that the staff can do if done well. The requirement now
by some agencies and the State require particular votes in
that.
We need to be able to focus on not policy, but direction of
the big ship. And I would like to think that if there are
certain amounts of regulations that the staff is having to
duplicate behind the scenes of--again, that ATM. If the ATM
works and it does work, if there is any cost savings,
Representative Hinojosa mentioned earlier that if we do it more
efficiently, that is more money in the system.
And that is exactly what it is all about is that some of
this, it is not job cutting, it is not red tape cutting as much
as it is how much more can we do if we had 20 percent more of
our funds. And I think that is somewhat of the frustrating part
of our board because we see some of that. We are invested in
it. We watch it happen. And from time to time, even our
executives have to bring it to us and show us that these are
things that they are having to do. So a certain amount of the
funding that we get goes to administration that probably
didn't. But it is a hopeful group.
And again, I reiterate one more time, there is nothing more
important that we do than educating and training this workforce
and getting it back employed. And this is what you all do, so
thank you.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Royal. Mr.
Tierney.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you very much.
Ms. Ganzglass, you indicated in your testimony that in
2008, 2009, was it two-thirds of adults and three-quarters of
dislocated workers who participated in training programs
actually found jobs? Is that accurate?
Ms. Ganzglass. I believe so. Those are Department of Labor
numbers.
Mr. Tierney. Okay. You have no reason to doubt them?
Ms. Ganzglass. No.
Mr. Tierney. You also indicated that the summer youth
program that was implemented rapidly in 2009 ultimately reached
more than 355,000 disadvantaged youth.
Ms. Ganzglass. Correct. That includes summer youth
employment program.
Mr. Tierney. And 4.3 million found jobs, even in the
difficult labor market?
Ms. Ganzglass. Correct.
Mr. Tierney. I think that is some indication of the
outcomes that things are moving along and progressing. We
have--I understand Mr. Royal's point if there are no jobs out
there, it is difficult and that becomes part of the challenge.
But as we get more jobs, the challenge I think is going to be
marrying them up.
So I was glad to hear about the diversity on the board both
you and Mr. Temple have on that.
Have either you or Mr. Temple had your boards utilize
periodic surveys of your business community in terms of
identifying what industries may be growing in your area or
anticipated to grow?
Mr. Temple. All the time. About every 6 months. That is one
of the most important things that we do.
And we share our labor market information data with the
local boards, and those boards have planners that utilize that
for them as well.
Ms. Ganzglass. Could I add something just to the outcome
discussion? It is interesting for the evaluation discussion as
well as outcomes, that although the members are all interested
in having the systems work better together, you are asking
questions about the individual components. So from an
evaluation point of view, it really is counterproductive at
this point to look at one funding stream, because out in the
field these programs really are working together.
So you really have to look at the contribution of all of
them working together, and we haven't had those kinds of
evaluations. And at least we have argued that we really also
need to move to outcome performance measurement system that
recognizes that people who have very low basic skills or
English language deficiencies may start in adult education and
move to WIA when they have overcome some of those deficiencies.
And so you really have to look at how the system together
is achieving the desired goals. So we can't just look at one
piece of it, because there really are multiple components.
Mr. Tierney. I think you noted also in terms of
measurement, there are some instances where somebody may have
got the training and education services and it pays off not
immediately, but in a later generation on that, their children
actually doing better in school and graduating and better
literacy and things of that nature.
Ms. Ganzglass. We have seen that outcomes are delayed and
the sector-based evaluations that we have been pointing to
really didn't have the real outcomes for a couple of years. And
the regular reporting systems are really much shorter term for
convenience, so you have to look at the longer term as well.
Mr. Tierney. Mr. Royal and Mr. Temple, do your programs use
internships and apprenticeships to any great degree and, if so,
have you found them to be valuable, or are there any problems
with that?
Mr. Royal. We did, and it didn't work. And the problem was
that we took what we thought a unique plan, we thought it was
great; we took federal dollars and said, we will put you into a
short-term apprentice program in whatever industry that we find
has the needs. And we put it out there and a lot of people
signed up and said, I will be an apprentice, I will do anything
in that, and the employers were afraid. The employers were
afraid that for 6 months I am going to get used to having
someone run around and I am not going to have time to train him
in 6 months, and then the money is going to go away there. So
there was a resistance. And I hate to say it, but that was a
program that didn't work and we thought it was a good idea.
Mr. Tierney. Mr. Temple, your experience?
Mr. Temple. We have used it in the arena of the STEM
academies, particularly for high school students and college
students working with companies like Johnson Controls, and it
has worked very well. But with recent Department of Labor
interpretations of how you have to treat interns, there is no
such thing almost as an unpaid internship anymore, and like
that, so a lot of individuals are willing to come in and do
these things. They are not producing a product. They are not
making a widget that is being sold. But that has really been a
chilling effect on the internship for a lot of companies.
Mr. Tierney. Because they have to pay them?
Mr. Temple. Well, they weren't paying them before. They
were 30-day internships over-the-summer type deal. A lot of
individuals have done that over the years, and a lot of
companies do have paid internships as well. But I know that
that has been something that we have heard. But we do work
through our STEM academies, and they are paid internships and
we have worked with them.
Mr. Tierney. With the Chairwoman's indulgence, the reason I
raise that question, in our area we found internships in the
energy and energy efficiency areas useful to companies. They
actually came looking for them. They found they weren't sure
about bringing somebody in or not--but they brought them in for
6 months, and most thought they were invaluable after that and
managed to keep them on afterwards.
Mr. Temple. We would probably call that an on-the-job
training program which comes with a wage, a little different.
Just our interpretation. But on OJT, a very successful program
for us. A little too much red tape from the Department of Labor
standpoint. We would like a little flexibility on that.
Mr. Tierney. I hear that loud and clear. Then you get
accountability versus flexibility on that. That is something
you can always help us with on that. Thank you.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Tierney.
Dr. Bucshon.
Mr. Bucshon. Good morning. I have a couple comments and a
few questions. I find it continues to strike me, being new to
Congress, the resistance that we have in Washington, D.C. of
trying to downsize and consolidate programs to make everything
more efficient. I just want to make that comment, it is very
striking. And this is potentially another indication of that.
A couple of questions, first of all, for Mr. Sherrill.
What are some of the things Congress can do immediately in
the short term, based on what we are seeing with some of these
reports, to curtail the amount of duplication and waste that we
have in federal job training programs?
Mr. Sherrill. I think there is a least a couple of areas.
One is to start with the administration's proposal for
consolidating certain programs the administration has proposed
for 2012, consolidating various vocational rehabilitation
programs, nine programs into three; to consolidate some
technical education programs. So that could be a starting point
for consideration.
A second possible avenue is that the GPRA Modernization Act
was recently passed that really provides more of a vehicle
where OMB has more of a role to help identify some priority
areas to be a more cross-cutting focus on what are the outcomes
that ought to be focused on. Employment training could possibly
be one of them for focus. And the idea is to identify certain
priority areas, to find out who are the major players in
agencies, and to really pay attention to monitoring that area
over time is another avenue for Congress as well.
Mr. Bucshon. Thank you.
Ms. Ganzglass, I am reading here that the GAO report
reported that many of the programs did not have comprehensive
evaluations. And it says that, but you argue that most of the
programs are producing results. That is what I see here.
So the question I have here is that without comprehensive
evaluations, what are we basing our results on? And secondly,
where it says most of the programs are producing results, I
would like to know which ones are not?
Ms. Ganzglass. I guess two responses to that. The first is
we are talking about outcomes as opposed to impacts, so many of
the--all of the programs have reporting systems. Some of them
focus on outcomes. In the TANF program, for example, the report
is not on the results; it is that people have participated for
X number of hours in a set of allowable activities. So it is
not an accountability system that is focused on outcomes. It is
very much of a process measure. And the difference is that
evaluations try to sort out whether, in fact, that program has
made a difference, would it have happened anyway, or is it the
sole contribution of that program to have the results? And so
it is a different level. And we know from many evaluations that
outcomes are not the same as impacts. So something that really
looks good in the long run may not have had that kind of a
value added, if you will. So that is the difference between
outcomes and impacts.
Which programs do not have reporting? I cannot tell you
where, I don't know all of the outcome measures in all of the
programs. The ones under WIA, under the Trade Act, under the
Employment Service, under all of the major programs, adult
education, Perkins, all of those, have solid systems for
reporting results outcomes.
Mr. Bucshon. I have a limited amount of time so what I am
trying to get, then, is that we consider it a success if people
participate in a program, but we don't get any results from it.
See, I am a heart surgeon, so for me if you look at what the
outcome is and what it does in the long run is what is
important. You can participate as a patient in open-heart
surgery, but if you don't survive the operation it doesn't
really make a whole lot of difference.
Ms. Ganzglass. I wholeheartedly agree with you, totally. We
have argued that.
Mr. Bucshon. I think it is great to have everybody
participating in programs out there, and it makes us all feel
great that we are spending our money on that. But the question
is, which questions in my view give us results, bang for the
taxpayers' dollar?
Ms. Ganzglass. We totally agree. We have argued for many
years that the TANF program should really shift from a process
participation focus to an outcome focus, and that is still a
work in progress. But we totally agree with you.
Mr. Bucshon. Thank you. My time is expired.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Dr. Bucshon, for giving us such
a great analogy.
I want to thank the witnesses again for taking the time to
testify before the subcommittee today. Mr. Hinojosa, do you
have any closing remarks?
Mr. Hinojosa. I would like to say that I was here in 1998
when we had the last reauthorization of WIA. And I wish that we
had been able to find some way of compromising between both
sides of the aisle and getting it reauthorized earlier,
especially in 2008, 2009, when we were in that recession that
cost us a lot of jobs.
I would like to say that we are looking for ways in which
we might be able to find grounds to compromise on both sides,
and I look forward to being able to pick up the phone and call
each one of you and discuss what your recommendations are; that
we can do this because jobs is by far one of the most important
issues that our country is facing. It isn't easy, as both the
Republicans and the Democrats have found out, as we have been
trying to create those jobs.
So I want to thank each and every one of you for
participating today. I hope that we can continue some type of
communication with you as the experts in the WIA work that we
are doing. I thank you for coming.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you Mr. Hinojosa.
Again, I want to thank you all for coming. It seems to me
that what you have pointed out today is what many Americans
understand; and that is, it is extraordinarily difficult to
have effective programs operating at the local level when you
have bureaucrats in Washington trying to run those programs and
make the decisions for 50 States and lots of other folks.
It seems to me that we would be so much better off in
spending hardworking taxpayers' dollars if the federal
government weren't taking those moneys to Washington and then
dispensing some of them back to the States with the wisdom of
Washington on how to spend them. I think we would be so much
better off if that money were staying in the States, and the
States could be making the decisions, and the localities could
be making those decisions. That is where I would like to be,
because it is just so difficult to make those changes, as other
people have indicated. Once you get something set in stone,
changing it--particularly demanding results--that seems to be
the most difficult thing for people in Washington to be able to
establish.
I have been in education. I know how difficult it is to set
up evaluations. But I also know it can be done. And I know we
can determine whether we are getting any results for the money
that we are spending. And we should be doing more of that. So
thank you all very much again for coming.
There being no further business, the subcommittee stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]