[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
NEW INNOVATIONS AND BEST PRACTICES
UNDER THE WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION,
LIFELONG LEARNING, AND COMPETITIVENESS
COMMITTEE ON
EDUCATION AND LABOR
U.S. House of Representatives
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
----------
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 12, 2009
----------
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 26, 2009
----------
FIELD HEARING HELD IN ALBANY, NY, MARCH 23, 2009
----------
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MAY 5, 2009
----------
FIELD HEARING HELD IN HENDERSON, NV, MAY 29, 2009
----------
Serial No. 111-2
----------
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor
NEW INNOVATIONS AND BEST PRACTICES
UNDER THE WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION,
LIFELONG LEARNING, AND COMPETITIVENESS
COMMITTEE ON
EDUCATION AND LABOR
U.S. House of Representatives
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 12, 2009
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 26, 2009
__________
FIELD HEARING HELD IN ALBANY, NY, MARCH 23, 2009
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MAY 5, 2009
__________
FIELD HEARING HELD IN HENDERSON, NV, MAY 29, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-2
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor
Available on the Internet:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
47-096 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR
GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan, Vice Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman California,
Donald M. Payne, New Jersey Senior Republican Member
Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin
Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Virginia Peter Hoekstra, Michigan
Lynn C. Woolsey, California Michael N. Castle, Delaware
Ruben Hinojosa, Texas Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Carolyn McCarthy, New York Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan
John F. Tierney, Massachusetts Judy Biggert, Illinois
Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania
David Wu, Oregon Joe Wilson, South Carolina
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey John Kline, Minnesota
Susan A. Davis, California Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Tom Price, Georgia
Timothy H. Bishop, New York Rob Bishop, Utah
Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania Brett Guthrie, Kentucky
David Loebsack, Iowa Bill Cassidy, Louisiana
Mazie Hirono, Hawaii Tom McClintock, California
Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania Duncan Hunter, California
Phil Hare, Illinois David P. Roe, Tennessee
Yvette D. Clarke, New York Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania
Joe Courtney, Connecticut
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio
Jared Polis, Colorado
Paul Tonko, New York
Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico
Gregorio Sablan, Northern Mariana
Islands
Dina Titus, Nevada
[Vacant]
Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director
Sally Stroup, Republican Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION,
LIFELONG LEARNING, AND COMPETITIVENESS
RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas, Chairman
Timothy H. Bishop, New York Brett Guthrie, Kentucky,
Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania Ranking Minority Member
Joe Courtney, Connecticut Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Paul Tonko, New York California
Dina Titus, Nevada Michael N. Castle, Delaware
Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey Mark E. Souder, Indiana
John F. Tierney, Massachusetts Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan
David Wu, Oregon Judy Biggert, Illinois
Susan A. Davis, California Bill Cassidy, Louisiana
Mazie Hirono, Hawaii David P. Roe, Tennessee
Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania
Jared Polis, Colorado
Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on February 12, 2009................................ 1
Statement of Members:
Altmire, Hon. Jason, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Pennsylvania, prepared statement of............... 66
Guthrie, Hon. Brett, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on
Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competiveness..... 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
GAO report, ``Workforce Investment Act: One-Stop System
Infrastructure Continues to Evolve, but Labor Should
Take Action to Require That All Employment Service
Offices Are Part of the System,'' Internet address to.. 66
Hinojosa, Hon. Ruben, Chairman, Subcommittee on Higher
Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness.......... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Additional statements submitted:
Congleton, Ronald G., Commissioner representing
labor, Texas Workforce Commission.................. 64
Harvey, David C., president & CEO, ProLiteracy....... 61
National Council of State Agencies for the Blind,
Inc................................................ 67
Statement of Witnesses:
Bahr, Morton, president emeritus, Communications Workers of
America, commissioner, National Commission on Adult
Literacy................................................... 11
Prepared statement of.................................... 13
Supplemental material submitted for the record........... 68
Camp, Bill, Sacramento Central Labor Council, AFL-CIO........ 26
Prepared statement of.................................... 28
Response to question submitted for the record............ 71
Elzey, Karen R., vice president & executive director,
Institute for a Competitive Workforce, U.S. Chamber of
Commerce................................................... 37
Prepared statement of.................................... 39
Response to question submitted for the record............ 72
Gonzalez, Yvonne Bonnie, chief executive officer, Workforce
Solutions, Inc............................................. 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
Response to question submitted for the record............ 73
Johnson, Sherry, associate director, Lincoln Trail Area
Development District....................................... 34
Prepared statement of.................................... 36
Response to question submitted for the record............ 76
Wooderson, Steve, administrator, Iowa Vocational
Rehabilitation Services.................................... 17
Prepared statement of.................................... 19
Response to question submitted for the record............ 77
----------
Page
Hearing held on February 26, 2009................................ 79
Statement of Members:
Guthrie, Hon. Brett, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on
Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competiveness..... 81
Prepared statement of.................................... 82
Additional submission: ``CWA Priorities for Workforce
Investment Act Reauthorization''....................... 150
Hinojosa, Hon. Ruben, Chairman, Subcommittee on Higher
Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness.......... 79
Prepared statement of.................................... 81
Miller, Hon. George, Chairman, Committee on Education and
Labor, submissions for the record:
Hon. John Baldacci, chairman, Jobs for America's
Graduates Board of Directors........................... 149
James Kendzel, executive director, National Organization
for Competency Assurance (NOCA)........................ 137
Statement of Witnesses:
Keenan, Cheryl, Director of Adult Education and Literacy,
Office of Vocational and Adult Education, U.S. Department
of Education............................................... 84
Prepared statement of.................................... 86
Response to question for the record...................... 172
Lanter, Bob, legislative committee chairman, CWA executive
director, Contra Costa Workforce Development Board......... 122
Prepared statement of.................................... 124
Morales, John, president, National Workforce Association..... 92
Prepared statement of.................................... 93
Raynor, Charissa, executive director, SEIU Healthcare NW
Training Partnership, on behalf of the Service Employees
International Union (SEIU)................................. 112
Prepared statement of.................................... 114
Scott, George A., Director of Education, Workforce and Income
Security Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office..... 90
Prepared statement of.................................... 92
Additional submission.................................... 155
Smith, Kevin G., executive director, Literacy New York, Inc.. 117
Prepared statement of.................................... 119
Vito, Sandi, on behalf of the National Governors Association. 107
Prepared statement of.................................... 109
Responses to questions for the record.................... 165
Additional submissions:
``Aligning State Workforce Development and Economic
Development Initiatives''.......................... 156
``Common Measure Proposal Reauthorization of the
Workforce Investment Act''......................... 168
``ECW-1.--Governors' Principles to Ensure Workforce
Excellence''....................................... 169
``Accelerating Sector Strategies,'' Internet address
to................................................. 171
``State Sector Strategies: Regional Solutions to
Worker and Employer Needs,'' Internet address to... 171
----------
Page
Field hearing held in Albany, NY, on March 23, 2009.............. 173
Statement of Members:
Hinojosa, Hon. Ruben, Chairman, Subcommittee on Higher
Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness.......... 173
Prepared statement of.................................... 175
Tonko, Hon. Paul, a Representative in Congress from the State
of New York................................................ 176
Statement of Witnesses:
Breen, Gail B., executive director, Fulton, Montgomery, and
Schoharie Counties Workforce Development Board, Inc........ 184
Prepared statement of.................................... 186
Meiklejohn, Nanine, senior legislative representative,
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees (AFSCME)......................................... 208
Prepared statement of.................................... 210
Musolino, Mario, Executive Deputy Commissioner, New York
State Department of Labor.................................. 179
Prepared statement of.................................... 181
Quick, Tom, human resources leader, power & water, GE Energy
Infrastructure............................................. 191
Prepared statement of.................................... 193
Sarubbi, Joseph T., executive director, Training and
Education Center for Semiconductor Manufacturing and
Alternative and Renewable Technologies (TEC-SMART), Hudson
Valley Community College................................... 203
Prepared statement of.................................... 205
----------
Page
Hearing held on May 5, 2009...................................... 229
Statement of Members:
Guthrie, Hon. Brett, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on
Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competiveness..... 231
Prepared statement of.................................... 232
Hinojosa, Hon. Ruben, Chairman, Subcommittee on Higher
Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness.......... 229
Prepared statement of.................................... 231
Additional submissions:
Research report no. 06-2, Washington State Board for
Community and Technical Colleges, April 2005,
``Building Pathways to Success for Low-Skill Adult
Students: Lessons for Community College Policy and
Practice from a Longitudinal Student Tracking
Study''............................................ 284
Letter, dated May 14, 2009, from Dr. Reder........... 288
Statement of Witnesses:
Bere, David, president and chief strategy officer, Dollar
General Corp............................................... 244
Prepared statement of.................................... 246
Cooper, Kathy, policy associate, Washington State Board for
Community and Technical Colleges........................... 248
Prepared statement of.................................... 250
Finsterbusch, Martin C., executive director of VALUE, Inc.... 238
Prepared statement of.................................... 239
Kinerney, Donna, Ph.D., instructional dean, Adult ESOL &
Literacy--GED Programs, Montgomery College................. 256
Prepared statement of.................................... 258
Lanterman, Roberta, Family Literacy.......................... 260
Prepared statement of.................................... 262
Reder, Dr. Stephen, university professor and chair,
Department of Applied Linguistics, Portland State
University................................................. 251
Prepared statement of.................................... 253
Information about distance-learning services............. 271
Wilson, Gretchen, Grammy winning recording artist, GED
graduate................................................... 235
Prepared statement of.................................... 236
----------
Page
Field hearing held in Henderson, NV, on May 29, 2009............. 291
Statement of Members:
Hinojosa, Hon. Ruben, Chairman, Subcommittee on Higher
Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness.......... 291
Prepared statement of.................................... 292
Titus, Hon. Dina, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Nevada.................................................. 293
Statement of Witnesses:
Brooks, Chris, director, Bombard Renewable Energy............ 312
Prepared statement of.................................... 314
Cook, Chanda, director of community initiatives, Nevada
Public Education Foundation................................ 316
Prepared statement of.................................... 318
Metty-Burns, Rebecca, interim director, division of workforce
& economic development, College of Southern Nevada......... 322
Prepared statement of.................................... 324
Patchett, Brian, president and CEO, Easter Seals of Southern
Nevada..................................................... 297
Prepared statement of.................................... 299
Additional submissions:
``Executive Summary: Crossroads Rehabilitation
Center, Inc.''..................................... 305
``Easter Seals Southern Nevada--Investing in
Workforce Capacity''............................... 311
NEW INNOVATIONS AND BEST PRACTICES
UNDER THE WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT
NEW INNOVATIONS AND BEST PRACTICES UNDER THE WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT
----------
Thursday, February 12, 2009
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Higher Education,
Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness
Committee on Education and Labor
Washington, DC
----------
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:36 p.m., in
room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ruben Hinojosa
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Hinojosa, Bishop, Courtney, Tonko,
Titus, Andrews, Tierney, Wu, Davis, Hirono, Polis, Guthrie,
McKeon, Castle, Biggert, and Roe.
Staff Present: Paulette Acevedo, Legislative Fellow,
Education; Tylease Alli, Hearing Clerk; Adrienne Dunbar,
Education Policy Advisor; David Hartzler, Systems
Administrator; Fred Jones, Staff Assistant, Education; Jessica
Kahanek, Press Assistant; Brian Kennedy, General Counsel;
Sharon Lewis, Senior Disability Policy Advisor; Ricardo
Martinez, Policy Advisor, Subcommittee on Higher Education,
Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness; Lisa Pugh, Legislative
Fellow, Education; Melissa Salmanowitz, Press Secretary;
Michele Varnhagen, Labor Policy Director; Margaret Young, Staff
Assistant, Education; Stephanie Arras, Minority Legislative
Assistant; James Bergeron, Minority Deputy Director of
Education and Human Services Policy; Robert Borden, Minority
General Counsel; Cameron Coursen, Minority Assistant
Communications Director; Kirsten Duncan, Minority Professional
Staff Member; Susan Ross, Minority Director of Education and
Human Services Policy; Linda Stevens, Minority Chief Clerk/
Assistant to the General Counsel; and Sally Stroup, Minority
Staff Director.
Chairman Hinojosa. A quorum is present, and the hearing of
the subcommittee will come to order.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 12(a), any member may submit an
opening statement in writing, which will be made part of the
permanent record.
I now recognize myself, followed by the ranking member,
Brett Guthrie, for an opening statement.
Good afternoon to everyone, and welcome to the Subcommittee
on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness
hearing on ``New Innovations and Best Practices under the
Workforce Investment Act,'' better known as WIA.
One of the top legislative priorities for our subcommittee
is the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act. WIA was
last reauthorized in 1998 and was due for reauthorization in
2003. In other words, it is long overdue.
America's workers cannot afford to wait any longer for an
upgrade to our workforce investment system. Our economy has
lost 3.6 million jobs since December 2007, with 798,000 jobs
shed last month alone. Unemployment has surged to 7.6 percent
in our country. The magnitude of these losses is greater than
anything we have seen in over a generation.
Worse, as we face the most serious economic crisis since
the Great Depression, it is clear that we have failed to
provide our workers with the education and skills that would
help them weather this storm. According to the National
Commission on Adult Literacy's report, ``Reach Higher,
America,'' 80 million to 90 million U.S. adults, roughly half
of the workforce, lack the basic education and communication
skills required for jobs that pay family-sustaining wages.
These are the challenges we must address as we renew the
job training, adult education, and vocational rehabilitative
services programs authorized under the Workforce Investment
Act. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which includes
a multibillion-dollar investment in job training to help
prepare laid-off adult and younger workers for jobs in emerging
industries, including green jobs, is a critical first step to
getting America back to work. Just as we talk about modernizing
our physical infrastructure, we need to modernize our
infrastructure for supporting human capital. That is where the
reauthorization of WIA will be key.
In 1998, we took a bold step forward in trying to unify a
collection of discrete workforce development programs into a
coherent system that would serve workers and employers alike.
WIA envisioned one-stop services for locally developed
solutions to workforce development needs.
The law was enacted during a time of economic expansion, a
time when we were adding jobs and not shedding jobs. Today, we
face a starkly different environment, and we must adjust our
workforce investment policy to the new reality. An improved WIA
should be a key plank in our plans to restore economic
prosperity to America's working families. We have an
opportunity to update job training programs so that they not
only place workers into jobs but also onto career pathways to
better wages and advancement in the workplace.
Reauthorization is the perfect time to get serious about
re-engaging adult learners who struggle with literacy or who
lack a high school diploma with our education system, providing
them with the skills and credentials they need for success.
We also need to make sure that our investment in WIA
results in more job training and education services in our
communities. We need to look for innovative ways to manage the
infrastructure and the administrative costs of the system so
that we can maximize the resources that are available for
direct services to workers.
Finally, we need to work on an accountability system that
provides us with the information we need to determine that the
programs are achieving their goals while, at the same time,
build in accountability measures for serving the populations
with the greatest barriers to employment.
I would like to work with all of the members of our
subcommittee to shape a WIA reauthorization bill that will
garner broad, bipartisan support.
Today's hearing is the beginning of our deliberations for
this 111th Congress. I would like to thank the witnesses for
joining us today. Your testimony, each and every one of you,
will help set the stage for our work ahead.
I would like to recognize the senior Republican member of
our subcommittee, Representative Brett Guthrie from Kentucky,
for his opening statement.
And if I may ask him to pause for just a moment, I want to
say that I believe that today's hearing is going to be one that
is very important and, as I said in my closing statement, sets
the foundation for the work that is before us, and one that we
are going to try to move with great speed and hope that, if all
goes well, that we can see our work concluded before the end of
the summer.
And, with that, I yield to my good friend, Brett Guthrie.
[The statement of Mr. Hinojosa follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ruben Hinojosa, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Higher Education, Lifelong Learning and Competitiveness
Good afternoon and welcome to the Subcommittee on Higher Education,
Lifelong Learning and Competitiveness hearing on New Innovations and
Best Practices under the Workforce Investment Act.
One of the top legislative priorities for our subcommittee is the
reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act--also known as WIA.
WIA was last reauthorized in 1998 and was due for reauthorization
in 2003. In other words, it is long overdue.
America's workers cannot afford to wait any longer for an upgrade
to our workforce investment system. Our economy has lost 3.6 million
jobs since December 2007, with 598,000 jobs shed last month alone.
Unemployment has surged to 7.6 percent. The magnitude of these losses
is greater than anything we have seen in over a generation.
Worse, as we face the most serious economic crisis since the Great
Depression, it is clear that we have failed to provide our workers with
the education and skills that would help them weather the storm.
According to the National Commission on Adult Literacy's report, Reach
Higher, America, 80-90 million U.S. adults, roughly half of the
workforce, lack the basic education and communication skills required
for jobs that pay family sustaining wages.
These are the challenges we must address as we renew the job
training, adult education, and vocational rehabilitative services
programs authorized under the Workforce Investment Act.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which includes a multi-
billion dollar investment in job training to help prepare laid-off,
adult, and younger workers for jobs in emerging industries including
green jobs, is a critical first step to getting America back to work.
Just as we talk about modernizing our physical infrastructure, we
need to modernize our infrastructure for supporting human capital--that
is where the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act will be
key.
In 1998, we took a bold step forward in trying to unify a
collection of discreet workforce development programs into a coherent
system that would serve workers and employers alike. WIA envisioned
one-stop services for locally developed solutions to workforce
development needs. The law was enacted during a time of economic
expansion, a time when we were adding jobs and not shedding them.
Today, we face a starkly different environment and we must adjust our
workforce investment policy to the new reality.
An improved WIA should be a key plank in our plans to restore
economic prosperity to America's working families. We have an
opportunity to update job training programs so that they not only place
workers into jobs but also onto career pathways to better wages and
advancement in the workplace. Reauthorization is the perfect time to
get serious about re-engaging adult learners, who struggle with
literacy or who lack a high school diploma, with our education system,
providing them with the skills and credentials they need for success.
We also need to make sure that our investment in WIA results in
more job training and education services in our communities. We need to
look for innovative ways to manage the infrastructure and
administrative costs of the system so that we can maximize the
resources that are available for direct services to workers.
Finally, we need to work on an accountability system that provides
us with the information we need to determine that the programs are
achieving their goals, while at the same time build in accountability
measures for serving the populations with the greatest barriers to
employment.
I would like to work with all of the members of our subcommittee to
shape a WIA reauthorization bill that will garner broad, bipartisan
support.
Today's hearing is the beginning of our deliberations for the 111th
Congress. I would like to thank the witnesses for joining us today.
Your testimony will help set the stage for our work ahead.
I would like to recognize the Senior Republican Member of our
Subcommittee, Rep. Brett Guthrie, for his opening statement.
______
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.
And thank you for calling this hearing. And I welcome our
distinguished witnesses. I look forward to working with you
throughout the 111th Congress and on many important issues.
Our country is facing its toughest economic challenges in
recent memory. We face complex and difficult problems as we
work toward economic growth. Last week, we saw the Department
of Labor statistic that nearly 600,000 jobs were lost in
January. As more and more Americans join the ranks of the
unemployed, there has never been a more critical time to make
sure that our workforce has the opportunity to find new jobs or
receive additional training.
In Kentucky, I have observed how investing in the workforce
provides tangible improvements for workers, their families, and
their employers. I come from a manufacturing background, so I
have seen firsthand that unemployed workers who receive
additional training for new skills can obtain a new higher-
paying job, which radically transforms their way of life. At
the same time, these newly trained workers increase the
productivity of local employers and fill gaps in the workforce.
Investing in the workforce is important to make sure that
our workers are adequately prepared to meet the changing
demands of our economy. With the proper investment, our
workforce can be strengthened and maintain its competitive
advantage.
We must be committed to a dynamic, results-oriented job
training system that can effectively serve those looking for a
job and those workers in need of retraining. The one-stop shops
under the Workforce Investment Act are a tremendous resource
for workers. However, Federal job training initiatives have not
been updated in more than a decade, leaving us with a system
that is duplicative and less efficient than it could be.
We need to renew these programs for the 21st century,
keeping local workforce investment boards at the center of a
dynamic, responsive system to serve workers. If we are serious
about restoring our economy, it is vitally important that the
Workforce Investment Act be reauthorized now.
I look forward to today's testimony and learning the best
practices and innovative ideas from around the country as we
work to improve this important legislation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement of Mr. Guthrie follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Brett Guthrie, Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competiveness
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing and I welcome our
distinguished witnesses. I look forward to working with you throughout
the 111th Congress on many important issues.
Our country is facing its toughest economic challenges in recent
memory. We face complex and difficult problems as we work toward
economic growth. Last week, we saw the Department of Labor statistic
that nearly 600,000 jobs were lost in January. As more and more
Americans join the ranks of the unemployed, there has never been a more
critical time to make sure that our workforce has the opportunity to
find new jobs or receive additional training.
In Kentucky, I have observed how investing in the workforce
provides tangible improvements for workers, their families, and their
employers. I come from a manufacturing background so I have seen
firsthand that unemployed workers who receive additional training for
new skills can obtain a new, higher-paying job, which radically
transforms their way of life. At the same time, these newly trained
workers increase the productivity of local employers and fill gaps in
the workforce.
Investing in the workforce is important to make sure that our
workers are adequately prepared to meet the changing demands of our
economy. With the proper investment, our workforce can be strengthened
and maintain its competitive advantage.
We must be committed to a dynamic, results-oriented job training
system that can effectively serve those looking for a job and those
workers in need of retraining. The one-stop shops under the Workforce
Investment Act are tremendous resources for workers. However, federal
job training initiatives have not been updated in more than a decade,
leaving us with a system that is duplicative and less efficient than it
could be. We need to renew these programs for the 21st century, keeping
local workforce investment boards at the center of a dynamic,
responsive system to serve workers. If we are serious about restoring
our economy, it is vitally important that the Workforce Investment Act
be reauthorized now.
I look forward to today's testimony and learning the best practices
and innovative ideas from around the country as we work to improve this
important legislation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
______
Chairman Hinojosa. Without objection, all members will have
14 days to submit additional materials or questions for the
hearing record.
I would like to introduce our very distinguished panel of
witnesses here with us this afternoon.
And welcome, to each and every one of you as witnesses.
On the lighting system, for those of you who have not
testified before this subcommittee, I wish to explain our
lighting system and the 5-minute rule. Everyone, including
members, is limited to 5 minutes of presentation or
questioning. The green light is illuminated when you begin to
speak. When you see the yellow light, it means you have 1
minute remaining. When you see the red light, it means your
time has expired and you need to begin the conclusion to your
testimony.
Please be certain, as you testify, to turn on and to speak
into the microphone in front of you.
Let me introduce the witnesses.
Our first witness is Ms. Bonnie Gonzalez, the CEO of the
Workforce Solutions organization. Yvonne Bonnie Gonzalez was
appointed CEO of her organization in May of 2003. In her
position, she has programmatic and fiduciary responsibility of
the organization that oversees workforce development services
for Hidalgo, for Starr, and Willacy Counties in deep south
Texas. She is responsible for ensuring that public dollars go
directly to services and investments in customized training,
incumbent worker training, and other direct services provided
to the business client and public through workforce centers.
Bonnie has worked in elementary and post-secondary
education systems and has a special interest in our Nation's
health-related infrastructure since she was a nurse by
profession. Bonnie has a bachelor of science from the
University of Texas at Austin and earned a master's of public
administration from Harvard University. She is a very special
person in my district which I represent.
And it is a pleasure to welcome you. I am going to let you
get started.
Oh, forgive me. I am out of practice since we finished the
last session. I am going to actually introduce all of the
members of the panel and give my ranking member the opportunity
to introduce someone from his State of Kentucky.
The second person who will be testifying today is Mr.
Morton Bahr, president emeritus, Communications Workers of
America, and commissioner on the National Commission on Adult
Literacy.
Mr. Barr served his union for 51 years and retired as the
president in 2005. Recently, he served as a member of the
National Commission on Adult Literacy, and all our members have
a report developed by the Commission in their folders. Under
his leadership, CWA was one of the first unions to jointly own
an educational company devoted to delivering educational
opportunities to the members of the union who were employed by
AT&T. This model was later replicated throughout the
telecommunications industry.
In 1997, he was appointed by President Clinton to chair the
Commission for a Nation of Lifelong Learners.
Welcome to our hearing, Mr. Bahr, and thank you for your
service to our Nation.
The next speaker will be Mr. Stephen Wooderson, State
director, Iowa Vocational Rehabilitation Services. Stephen
Wooderson, of West Des Moines, has worked in the vocational
rehabilitation profession for over 30 years. He began his
career as a vocational rehabilitation counselor and served at
all levels of supervision and management.
Stephen is also a retired Army Reserves lieutenant colonel,
who has served in numerous command and staff positions during
his 20-year military career prior to retiring in 2001.
Mr. Wooderson received his bachelor of science from
Southwest Baptist College and earned his master's of arts from
Spaulding University.
Welcome. And thank you for your military service, as well
as your long years of service to your very important
profession.
The next person will be Mr. Bill Camp, executive secretary,
Sacramento Central Labor Council, AFL-CIO. Mr. Camp's umbrella
organization of local unions represents 160,000 union families
in Sacramento and five surrounding counties.
He is the vice chair of Sacramento Works, Incorporated, the
county workforce investment board. He has also served as the
past Chair of the United Way Board of California, Capital
Region.
In the past, he has served as an elected school board
member, worked at the California Agriculture Labor Relations
Board, the California State Senate Rules Committee, and the
California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO.
He received his bachelor's of arts in sociology from Oregon
and earned his master's of arts in sociology from Duke
University. Bill has served in his current position for 10
years.
And we really appreciate and welcome your perspective on
the issues this afternoon.
Ms. Karen Elzey will be the next presenter. She is the vice
president and executive director, Chamber of Commerce, and
director of the Institute for a Competitive Workforce.
Ms. Elzey has 10 years' experience in workforce development
and has received her bachelor's and earned her master's degree
from Miami University of Ohio.
This afternoon, she will be discussing innovative
strategies for workforce development that the Chamber is
initiating through the Institute. She also is here to share the
nationwide contributions of the business community in support
of the Workforce Investment Act.
And I welcome Ms. Elzey.
At this time, I wish to give the speaking system to my
ranking member, Brett.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to introduce our next witness.
And a lot of my colleagues and people here have been asking
us about our ice storm, which was my district and your area
where you live. So I appreciate your coming. I know there is a
lot going on back in Elizabethtown. Fortunately, my house is
just south of the line that came through. But I appreciate your
coming here under difficult circumstances. And we appreciate
everybody that has been commenting on Kentucky and giving us
your prayers.
Sherry Johnson is the associate director for Employment
Training Programs with the Lincoln Trail Area Development
District in Elizabethtown, Kentucky. She has been with the
agency since 1985. She has been the Chair of the Kentucky local
Workforce Investment Area Directors Group and the Co-Chair for
the Workforce Subcommittee of the Governor's BRAC Task Force.
And BRAC is an acronym for essentially the realigning of Fort
Knox. And I appreciate her doing that.
Sherry has a bachelor's degree from Murray State University
and a master's degree from Western Kentucky University.
We welcome you here, Sherry, and thank you for making the
trip to Washington.
Chairman Hinojosa. With that, we will begin and ask the
first witness, Ms. Gonzalez, if she would like to start.
STATEMENT OF YVONNE BONNIE GONZALEZ, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS, INC.
Ms. Gonzalez. Good afternoon, Chairman Hinojosa, Ranking
Member Guthrie, and members of the subcommittee. My name is
Yvonne Bonnie Gonzalez, and currently as, you have been told, I
serve as chief executive officer of Workforce Solutions.
Workforce Solutions is a workforce development board
serving Hidalgo, Starr, and Willacy Counties right on the U.S.
Texas border. We are one of 28 workforce development boards in
the State of Texas. We are considered the fourth-largest board
in the State, behind Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio,
receiving a stake in Federal investment of approximately $57
million this year for the purpose of connecting our business
customers with our most available workforce.
As CEO, I have recently been named to the Governor's Texas
Team for Nursing Education Capacity. I serve as a member of the
U.S. Department of Labor's Initiative for Workforce
Transformation and the Texas Association of Workforce Boards
and the Border Trade Alliance. Membership in these committees,
councils, and initiatives provide me the unique opportunity to
contribute and, most importantly, to communicate the critical
connection between education, workforce, and economic
development.
On behalf of Workforce Solutions and our numerous public
and private partners, I would like to thank the committee and
the Chair for his invitation and for the opportunity to address
this committee.
My remarks this afternoon will focus on the adult
education/workforce development innovative strategies and best
practices that will continue to strengthen Texas's and the
Nation's competitive advantage in this 21st century.
Let me tell you a little bit about our area in south Texas.
We are about 84 percent Hispanic; 27 percent of the families
live below the poverty level, compared to about 12 percent
statewide; 38 percent of people 25 years of age and older have
less than a ninth-grade education. And that data is
representative of the entire the State of Texas border.
National data demonstrate a clear relationship between
educational attainment and lifelong earning potential. Sadly,
the educational attainment in the lower Rio Grande Valley of
Texas continues to lag behind the Nation. Roughly two out of
every five adults in Hidalgo and Cameron Counties do not hold a
high school diploma.
While the percentage of adult residents in the two counties
with some college experience or an associate's degree is
similar, the percentage completing a 4-year degree or higher is
significantly--I say significantly--lower than the rest of the
United States.
The Rio Grande Valley has a very young workforce, and this
trend we see will continue over the next few decades. This also
means that large numbers of young and inexperienced workers
will continue to join the valley's labor force each year.
The lower Rio Grande Valley has a unique historical pattern
of faster population growth during and immediately following a
recession. The valley tends to draw an influx of migrants from
Texas's major metropolitan areas, especially as jobs in those
cities begin to dry up. There is a long data lag, so it may be
a couple of years before the current recession shows up in the
migration data.
The daunting nature of these economic and workforce
challenges that I have just shared before you requires a
renewed national commitment and new national priorities. The
21st century workforce development system needs to remain
locally driven, but it must receive the necessary and enhanced
support and resources from Federal allocations. Bold, new
thinking and drastic shifts in current policy will also be
necessary to realize the vision of a successful workforce. This
new economic era demands a new workforce development system.
Concerning unemployment statistics, I venture to say, and
this committee obviously is very aware, that the fact that
unemployment numbers are rising so fast, for those of us that
are faced with that stark reality in our communities, that even
historical unemployment trends and seasonally adjusted
statistics have pretty much gone out the window during this
economic crisis. The urgency of this present climate calls for
changes in how the current systems operate.
Texas is a traditionally recognized leader in workforce
development. However, differences in measuring the
effectiveness of the workforce investment activity, we find,
still separates boards and the grantor.
I see my red light is on. I reserve any comments. And,
considering there are many pages left, should there be any
additional comments or questions, I reserve the right to
respond to those as needed. Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Gonzalez follows:]
Prepared Statement of Yvonne Bonnie Gonzalez, Chief Executive Officer,
Workforce Solutions, Inc.
Good Afternoon, Chairman Hinojosa and Members of the Subcommittee.
My name is Yvonne ``Bonnie'' Gonzalez. I serve as the Chief
Executive Officer of Workforce Solutions. Workforce Solutions is the
workforce development board serving Hidalgo, Starr and Willacy
Counties. Although this Board covers only three counties, it is
representative and reflective of the 23 Texas counties along the
entirety of the Mexican border. We are 1 of 28 workforce development
boards in the state of Texas. We are the 4th largest board in the state
behind Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio, receiving a state and federal
investment of approximately $57 million annually for the purpose of
connecting business customers with the available workforce.
As CEO, I have recently been named to the Governor's ``Texas Team
for Nursing Education Capacity'', serve as a member U.S. Department of
Labor's Initiative for Workforce Transformation, the Texas Association
of Workforce Boards and am a member of the Border Trade Alliance.
Membership in these committees, councils and initiatives provides me
the unique opportunity to contribute, and most importantly, to
communicate the critical connection between education, workforce and
economic development.
On behalf of Workforce Solutions, and our numerous public/private
partners, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to address the
Committee. My remarks this afternoon will focus on the adult education/
workforce development innovative strategies and best practices that
will continue to strengthen Texas' and the nation's competitive
advantage in the 21st century global marketplace.
Demographics: The following is a snapshot of not only our area, but
the Texas-Mexico border. These statistics are however not a secret to
this Committee:
84% of the people are Hispanic
27% of the families live below the poverty level compared
to 12% statewide (Texas Workforce Commission data 2006)
38% of people 25 years or older have less than a 9th grade
education
The Texas-Mexico border, especially from Webb County to
Cameron County has repeatedly ranked amongst the fastest growing areas
in the nation in the past 2 years
National data demonstrate a clear relationship between
educational attainment and life-long earning potential
Educational attainment rates in the LRGV continue to lag
behind the nation.
Roughly two out of every five adults in Hidalgo and
Cameron counties do not hold high school credentials.
While the percentage of adult residents in the two
counties with some college experience or an Associate's degree is
similar, the percentage completing a 4-year degree or higher is
significantly lower than the U.S.
The Valley has a young workforce, with this trend
projected to continue well into the coming decades.
This means that large numbers of young, inexperienced
workers will continue to join the Valley's labor force each year.
The Lower Rio Grande Valley has a unique historical
pattern of faster population growth during and immediately following a
recession.
The Valley tends to draw an influx of migrants from
Texas's major metropolitan areas when those cities stop providing jobs
(like construction) and people return home to the Valley.
There's a long data lag, so it may be a couple of years
before the current recession shows up in the migration data. But if
past experience is a guide, the Valley may already be on the receiving
end of an influx of migrants, many of whom are likely to be unemployed.
The daunting nature of these economic and workforce challenges
requires a renewed national commitment and new national priorities. The
new 21st century workforce development system needs to be locally
driven and needs to receive the necessary and enhanced support and
resources from federal allocations to enable our workforce to compete
successfully in the global economy.
Bold new thinking and drastic shifts in current policy will also be
necessary to realize this vision. A new economic era demands a new
workforce development system. Projected growth statistics too numerous
to mention points to the Hispanic population concentrated in states
along the border as the source of the nation's future workforce.
Concerning employment and unemployment statistics, I would venture
to say this Committee is especially aware of the fact unemployment
numbers are rising so fast on a daily basis as to render any statistics
meaningless; even historical unemployment trends and seasonally
adjusted statistics have gone out the window during this economic
crisis.
The urgency of the present climate calls for changes in how the
current systems operate in order to meet the emergent needs of both
workers and business. WIA is no exception.
Texas is a nationally recognized leader in Workforce Development.
This recognition was achieved through the strong leadership, vision and
fundamental understanding that business was at the core of and the
ultimate consumer of the public dollar's investment in human capital.
To continue building will require a review of current WIA rules and
eligibility, allowable activities, eligible training provider systems
and performance measures and their relation and relevance to business.
However, differences in measuring ``the effectiveness of the
workforce investment activities'' still separate boards and the
``grantor''. To quote the old cliche ``that which gets measured gets
done'' has become ``operational'' and drives the current workforce
development system. Unfortunately, what is currently being measured and
how it is measured clashes with private sector workforce plans.
Just as the daily headlines are capturing rapid historic changes in
the nation's economy, so have the demographics.
Our Workforce Centers are now reporting more and more
people seeking employment who report a 12th grade education or higher.
These new job seekers do not fit ``pre-unemployment crises'' profile;
those with extremely low education levels and poor work history. This
new ``job seeker'' will require expedited workforce services that do
not fit the ``traditional'' model of adult-literacy/work experience/
employment, but rather short term technical training in the emerging
industry sectors with specific job skill portable credentials for entry
into new job opportunities.
The return of our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan will
require extremely specialized services in conjunction with the
Department of Vocational Rehabilitation Services to re-adjust into the
workforce
With Veterans as a priority a resource of skills and
leadership will become available, but must be met with rapid re-
training in these transferable skills into new industries
The current WIA system requires a delicate balancing act in order
to meet both regulatory program compliance and the results businesses
expect based on the plans developed from their input. The limited
allowable activities (i.e. use of WIA funds) forces WIBs to innovate,
to ``think outside the box'' while remaining physically ``in the box''.
Through partnerships and collaboration, Workforce Solutions has been
able to:
Implement a Customer/Staffing Solutions and Business
Consultative Approach that bridges job seeker and employer without
references to governmental forms and policies
Established Fee for Service to business in order to
provide workforce expertise in the areas of human resources, job
screening and assessments
Established Workforce Solutions as an equal partner in
economic development via Business Intelligence (data)
Created linkages between emerging high technology jobs and
preparation of the local workforce through competitive grants
Implemented Read Right--a tutoring program for reading
comprehension which has demonstrated significant impact
Convened leading business and industry leaders to map the
future of the workforce for investments of training funds
Workforce Development's future resides not in the delivery of
services to targeted populations, but in ``job creation'' with business
at the forefront, and the delivery of services at the speed that
business demands. In order for WIA to remain ``in business'' it must
return to its original intent of serving business.
Given the time allotted by the Committee, the following rules and
regulations governing WIA must be re-visited with ``business results''
as the measures to be achieved.
WIBs in Texas are awarded block grants which include TANF
funds. Boards are measured on their ability to meet the
``participation'' hours of the TANF participant. This is not a
workforce development program, but rather a ``public assistance
continuing eligibility requirement''. Failure to keep the TANF
recipient ``participating'' leads to sanctions
Title II of WIA--Adult Basic Education and Literacy must
be addressed and brought into Workforce Development as a provider.
Currently WIA funds must be spent on Adult Basic Education and Literacy
because administration of Title II funds do not prepare the job seeker
for employment
Program Eligibility--access to WIA training services are
built on employment inhibiting requirements. An individual must
document low income, dislocation from work or receipt of public
assistance to qualify. These requirements limit the working poor,
employed workers seeking training for higher skills and employed/
incumbent workers from being able to progress in the workforce
Time Limitations on training activities--allows only for
those who are best prepared to complete training while leaving those
who can most benefit without
Efficiencies and Accountability--WIBs are in effect
penalized for implementing efficiencies in the delivery of their
services and documentation thereof.
A shift to a knowledge based economy increases the educational
requirements of many industries and occupations. Higher education means
increased capacity and productivity of a workforce, decreased need for
social services, and finally an enhanced pace for innovation and
increased competitiveness.
In summary, strategic and sustainable partnerships between
education, workforce and economic development entities are critical.
Together, building and deploying local talent is the key to maintaining
a competitive advantage in the Rio Grande Valley, South Texas and the
Nation. This type of innovative and strategic alignment will bring our
nation's economy to a new level.
Your challenge and mine, is to secure the development and fostering
of skilled talent for the nation.
______
Chairman Hinojosa. Be assured that the entire statement
that you brought us will be made part of the record.
Ms. Gonzalez. Thank you.
Chairman Hinojosa. I now call on Mr. Bahr.
STATEMENT OF MORTON BAHR, PRESIDENT EMERITUS, COMMUNICATIONS
WORKERS OF AMERICA, COMMISSIONER, NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ADULT
LITERACY
Mr. Bahr. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your
interest in adult education and the opportunity to discuss our
commission's findings and recommendations.
Capital can be moved anywhere around the world while we
sleep. New technology can give a company perhaps several months
of lead time before the competition catches up. Therefore, to
be an effective competitor in the intensifying global
marketplace, the United States must have the best educated,
highly motivated workforce.
The choice before us, Mr. Chairman, is whether we settle
for a low-skills, low-wage economy or we do all that is
necessary to develop a high-skills, high-wage economy where all
workers have the ability to earn family-sustaining wages. We
know that education, skills development, and lifelong learning
are the keys to an innovative and productive workforce.
America is in danger of losing its long-held place as world
leader in education. For the first time in our history, our
young adults aged 25 to 34 are less educated than their
parents. In addition, about 88 million adults are undereducated
insofar as being ready to do college-level work. This problem
is also exacerbated by the 1.3 million high school students who
drop out each year.
The Commission has two overarching recommendations. First,
we ask Congress to transform the adult education and literacy
system as we now know it into an adult education and workforce
skills system, with the ability to serve 20 million adults by
2020.
Secondly, we ask Congress and State governments to make
readiness for post-secondary education and workforce skills the
primary mission of the adult education and workforce skills
system. To achieve this essential transformation, we call for
significant action on the part of Federal and State
governments.
At the core of our Federal recommendation is the passage of
a comprehensive new Adult Education and Economic Growth Act,
designed to overhaul and expand adult education and workforce
skills training. The act should define the fundamentals of
adult education, set forth new program goals, and offer
incentives and strategies to increase learner access.
Because readiness is the major new service outcome and
since we want to prepare learners for employment in high-
performance workplaces, the new programs will need to offer
such basics as excellence in oral and written communications,
critical thinking, problem solving, the ability to adapt to new
technologies, and work in teams. This will require traditional
adult education and workforce development groups to work
together more closely.
States should invest more in the skills of their workers so
that increased productivity helps offset the effect of low-wage
labor paid in developing countries.
Government alone cannot do the entire job. Business, too,
must step up to the plate. For example, 16 national unions,
together with some 400 employers in the private and public
sectors, are jointly providing education and training
opportunities to some 500,000 workers.
During our 2 years of intensive study, we learned that you
cannot tweak a system designed for the 20th century to be
relevant in the rapidly changing world of the 21st century.
That is why we call for action at all levels to transform the
system into an adult education and workforce skills system. The
system must be highly accountable, have more relevance,
measurable outcomes, and preserve and create economic
opportunities for key underserved segments of our population.
As the 2007 State New Economy Index puts it, workers who
are skilled with their hands and could reliably work in
repetitive and sometimes physically demanding jobs were the
engine of the old economy. In today's new economy, knowledge-
based jobs are driving the economy, jobs held by individuals
with at least 2 years of college.
The Commission proposes a new system, built up gradually
over the next decade, to address the needs described in our
report. This means that workplace skills education should be
much more highly valued and that employers should devote a
larger share of their training budgets to their low-skilled
workers.
Mr. Chairman, the challenge facing our Nation cannot be
underestimated. How well we deal with it will largely determine
how successfully we compete with the rest of the world and what
economic and social standards our citizens will enjoy. It will
take a Marshall Plan type of response by government at all
levels, business, labor, and philanthropy, all working together
to restore our leadership around the world.
For me, speaking from 51 years of serving the members of my
union and the communities in which they live, I believe we can
develop an economy where not a single U.S. employer can justify
moving work offshore because there were no qualified American
workers and that we can eliminate the use of H-1B visas or keep
it to a bare and justified minimum.
Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Bahr follows:]
Prepared Statement of Morton Bahr, President Emeritus, Communications
Workers of America, Commissioner, National Commission on Adult Literacy
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to tell the
Subcommittee on Education and Labor about the findings of the National
Commission on Adult Literacy. We appreciate your recognition of the
importance of adult education--the third leg of our educational
system--in preparing our workforce for jobs.
The National Commission is a distinguished independent panel of
leaders. We are former U.S. secretaries of labor and education,
prominent business and labor leaders, and workforce development
experts. We are adult educators, community college heads, and
researchers. We are leaders in ESL, family literacy, correctional
education, youth policy, philanthropy, and even the Foreign Service.
Our final report, Reach Higher, America, was released on June 26, 2008
at a special event on Capitol Hill. You should have a full copy of that
report in your folder.
It is no secret that America is at risk of losing its place as a
world leader in education. Here is just one alarming indication of that
from our report: Of all 30 OECD free-market countries, we are currently
the only nation whose young adults are less educated than the previous
generation.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Source: Education at a Glance, 2007, OECD, analysis for the
Commission by the National Center for Higher Education Management
Systems (NCHEMS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is another alarming fact. Some 88 million adults in America
need help with their ESL and basic skills, yet we are currently
providing services to only 3 million people. I will elaborate on these
numbers shortly. The Commission calls for bold change at the state and
federal levels to address this challenge. We have two overarching
recommendations:
We call on Congress to transform the adult education and
literacy system as we now know it into an adult education and workforce
skills system with the capacity to effectively serve 20 million adults
annually by the year 2020.
We call on Congress and state governments to make
readiness for postsecondary education and workforce the primary mission
of the adult education and workforce skills system.
To achieve this essential transformation, we call for several
actions, particularly on the part of federal and state government.
For this bold federal leadership role to pay off, it must be met by
strong state leadership. Here, in broad terms, are our recommendations
on the state role:
6) States should engage in comprehensive planning and establish
goals to improve adult educational attainment and workforce skills in
light of their economic development goals.
7) States should legislate authority for coordination and alignment
of systems consistent with their postsecondary education, workforce,
and economic development goals. In some cases, a cross-agency planning
body already exists; in others it may need to be created. In some
states, a cabinet level position might either be established or
strengthened. Whatever the approach, most commissioners feel the
governor's office must be involved.
8) New federal funds under the new Act should be awarded to states
following federal approval of a comprehensive adult education plan that
each state develops and updates periodically for federal review. These
funds should be available for awards within the first year of the Act's
passage, and states should be ``held harmless'' at current federal
adult education grant levels.
9) States should invest more in the skills of their workers so that
increased productivity helps offset the effect of low-cost labor
furnished by developing countries. Business must be an active partner
in this effort.
The recommended federal and state actions aim to increase
dramatically the number of adult Americans with limited basic skills
who receive basic skills instruction as defined in the Act. They should
result in seamless pathways of instruction from the lowest levels of
proficiency to attainment of a GED and/or readiness for occupational
and/or postsecondary education. They should greatly strengthen the
quality, range, and accountability of basic skills instruction and
related services. And we should gradually achieve the following desired
outcomes from general and workforce basic skills instruction--
verifiable learning gains, acquisition of basic and workforce skills,
accelerated learning, GED acquisition, and transitions to vocational,
postsecondary, or other programs that will benefit individuals, the
business community, the economy, and American society.
Let me now explain the reasons for our recommendations. During two
years of intensive study,\2\ we thoroughly examined our current adult
basic education system. We looked at its scope, purposes, funding,
enrollments, and outcomes. We also looked carefully at the federal role
in this system, at state performance, and at the impact of changing
demographics in America on our global competitiveness and human
resource development needs. We wanted to determine how well this
system, created for the 20th century, meets the nation's need to
prepare current and future workers in the 21st century, from the
standpoint of adults with low basic skills--our community leaders, our
parents and family units, our young adults, our aspiring new Americans,
our neighbors, incumbent workers, the unemployed and underemployed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Commission's work was enabled by funding from the Dollar
General Corporation (lead funder at $1 million), the Charles Stewart
Mott Foundation, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Harold W. McGraw, Jr., a
longtime champion of adult education and literacy, and the Joyce and
Ford Foundations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission quickly discovered that America's needs cannot be
met by simply tweaking the adult education system we have. That's why
we call for action at all levels--with a focus on federal and state
leadership--to transform the system into an ``Adult Education and
Workforce Skills System.'' This system must be highly accountable; have
more relevant, measurable, and comparable outcomes; and preserve and
create economic opportunities for key underserved segments of our
population--especially the burgeoning ESL population, the huge number
of high school dropouts and underachievers, and nonviolent offenders in
our correctional population, who return daily to our communities
lacking the skills to qualify for jobs.
These people, and many millions of other adults at very low
literacy and ESL levels, are a big part of our workforce. The vast
majority of them are beyond the reach of our secondary schools and of
higher education institutions. Right now, the U.S. labor force consists
of about 150 million adults aged 16 and older.\3\ Unless we rise to the
adult education challenge, nearly half of these people, many of prime
working age, will fall behind in their struggle to get higher wage
jobs, or to qualify for the college courses or job training that will
help them join or advance in jobs that pay a family-sustaining wage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Source: 2006 American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American economy requires increasingly that most workers have
at least some postsecondary education or occupational training to be
ready for current and future jobs in the global marketplace. The Bureau
of Labor Statistics forecasts that between 2004 and 2014, 24 of the 30
fastest growing occupations will require workers with postsecondary
education or training to compete internationally and maintain our
standard of living. Every bit of research wisdom over the past two
decades supports this proposition. The New Commission on Skills of the
American Workforce and the Commission on a Nation of Lifelong Learners,
on which I also served, are two of those voices. Yet, we have been
moving further from that goal, until now I hope.
As the 2007 State New Economy Index puts it: ``Workers who were
skilled with their hands and could reliably work in repetitive and
sometimes physically demanding jobs were the engine of the old economy.
In today's New Economy, knowledge-based jobs are driving prosperity * *
* jobs held by individuals with at least two years of college.''
At present, as this Committee knows, our high school dropout rates
are staggering. But other compelling facts underlie the Commission's
recommendations, too. For example, one in four working families is low-
income, and one in five lives in poverty. Parents and caregivers in
many of these households lack the education and skills to earn a
family-sustaining wage. One in every 100 U.S. adults 16 and older is in
prison or jail at any given time (about 2.3 million persons in 2006).
About 43 percent of these people don't have a high school diploma or
equivalent; some 56 percent have very low basic skills. Yet 95 percent
of incarcerated people return to our communities. More than 18 million
recent immigrants need ESL and literacy services now. And beyond that,
each year another 2 million immigrants come to the U.S. seeking jobs
and better lives--the promise of America. The Commission discussed the
ESL need as a ``tsunami.'' Fifty percent of these people have low
literacy levels and lack high school education and English language
skills, severely limiting their access to jobs and job training,
college, and citizenship. I should note that a collateral benefit of
ESL instruction is preparation for citizenship.
The recent National Assessment of Adult Literacy found that about
30 million adults 16 and older are at the very lowest level of skills
proficiency, which they call ``below basic.'' Another 60 million are
less than proficient and need various amounts of skills upgrading.
Analysis done for the Commission by the National Center for Higher
Education Management Systems found that at least one educational
barrier keeps up to 88 million adults (aged 18 and older) from entering
college and/or job training programs. Of these 88 million:
18.2 million are English-speaking adults who lack a high
school diploma.
18.4 million have limited English skills. Of these 8.2
million have not completed high school and many others have less than
adequate basic literacy skills.
51.3 million have a high school diploma but no college and
many millions of them are not prepared to enter college or jobs.
In light of these statistics, it is truly shocking that the adult
education programs of the U.S. Departments of Education and Labor,
where the bulk of services are offered, are presently serving only 3
million adults aged 16 and over.
Most states have not been seriously committed to adult education
either--although in some cases this attitude is changing. Every state
has an ESL service need, and ESL services are receiving the lion's
share of adult education funding. For instance, in California, total
enrollment was about 570,000 in 2007. Of these, only 18% were in adult
basic education programs, 11% were in high school diploma (ASE)
programs, and a whopping 71% were in ESL programs. In Rhode Island, of
the 6,787 enrolled in 2007, 49% were enrolled in ESL. In Texas, with a
total enrollment of 102,365 in 2007, ESL accounted for 58%. The
national average for these three program types is 38% for ABE, 16% for
ASE/GED, and 46% for ESL, respectively. Clearly, we are addressing the
tip of the iceberg in all three areas of service.
States appropriate funds to meet Department of Education matching
requirements. By this criterion, our analysis shows that state
commitment to adult education varies widely. Using the three states
mentioned above: California's state appropriation in 2008 was $700
million. It matched the federal grant of $62 million by 1133%. Rhode
Island ranks somewhere in the middle in terms of match percentage. Its
appropriation last year, $2 million, was 98% of the federal grant
amount. Texas ranks near the bottom on this measure. It got federal
grant funds of nearly $40 million and provided a 15% match of $6
million.
In Reach Higher, America, the Commission looks at national and
state comparisons of GED need and attainment. Texas and California top
the list in terms of the low percentage of GEDs attained in relation to
adults 18-64 without a high school diploma. In Texas, about 2.9 million
adults aged 18-64 lacked a high school diploma in 2006. Only about
32,000 attained a GED or equivalent, about 1.1% of the need. This
pattern is consistent across the states for a national average of only
1.5%. It is quite evident that we can and need to do much better.
The Commission proposes a new System built up gradually over the
next decade or so to address the needs and problems described above.
The System we envision will provide nearly seven times the current
service capacity. It will emphasize readiness for entering college and
job training programs to prepare adults for family-sustaining jobs. It
will emphasize workforce certificates and other concrete measures to
demonstrate readiness. It will require comprehensive planning at the
state level and stronger state funding commitments. It will require new
partnerships at all levels, especially across and among federal and
state agencies, but also among disparate service provider types, who
need to rise above self-interest and turf barriers. It must serve
people all along a continuum of need from those at the lowest skill
level to those just short of readiness. And, again, it includes both
incumbent and future workers. This means that workplace skills
education should be much more highly valued, and that employers should
devote a larger share of their training budgets to their low-skilled
workers.
The Commission's recommendations target federal and state
government. But we also call for much stronger partnerships between the
states and the business community, and we call on community colleges
and other adult education service providers, nonprofit organizations,
and philanthropy to play their part. All have an essential role.
One of the curses of current federal and state educational policy
and practice is the ultra-territorial division of many of our important
reform efforts, resulting in disconnected and insular silos that work
against creative communication, meaningful evaluation, and positive
change. I can't emphasize enough the importance of breaking down
entrenched silos of interest in the campaign we are recommending.
The new Adult Education and Economic Growth Act should call for
connections between the adult education and workforce skills programs
of all federal agencies, especially the WIA Title I and II programs.
Fragmentation, disconnect, and lack of communication characterize these
interactions now. And it should require states to develop integrated
statewide plans as a condition of receiving new federal funds. In these
plans, adult education and workforce skills development are to be
linked more closely in the context of clearly articulated state
economic goals. It also would mobilize public and private resources in
a way that allows the states to pursue their own choices depending on
differences in state demographics and local need--such as family and
parent literacy, crime prevention and recovery, the needs of non-
English language minorities, the needs of working-age nonviolent
offenders, preparation for success in and entry into college and job
training, and excellence in the 21st century workforce. And it would
actively engage governors and their policy staff, and provide federal
incentives to encourage that.
The kind of responsible change I am speaking about today should
resonate in the Obama Administration. The Commission believes this
change is crucial if we are to provide family-sustaining jobs, compete
in the global economy, and protect our nation's security, core
democratic values, and opportunity for all Americans.
Mr. Chairman, adult education and workforce skills services for a
majority of the 88 million adults defined by the Commission are
absolutely key to economic recovery and growth. The goals of providing
job training for displaced workers and creating a competitive workforce
in ``green jobs'' and other aspects of the new economy cannot be
achieved unless the adult education system is reinforced and redirected
to help tens of millions of adults enter the system to acquire the
basic skills they need to participate in postsecondary and job training
programs.
Education drives the economy! That refrain was heard again and
again in the deliberations of our National Commission. We understand
the urgency of strengthening our K-12 and higher education
institutions, but adult education is equally important. It is the third
vital part of our educational system. It is now a marginalized
enterprise and must be strengthened and transformed right along with
them.
America faces a choice. We can invest in the basic education and
skills of our workforce and remain competitive in today's global
economy. Or we can continue to overlook the glaring evidence of a
national crisis as documented in the Commission's report and move
further down the path to decline. We must rise to the challenge.
The plan set forth in Reach Higher, America constitutes a kind of
domestic Marshall Plan--because that is how serious we consider the
challenge. Action to meet the challenge will cost a great deal more
than we are spending now. But the Commission doesn't just call for a
heavier infusion of new funds. Our report devotes an entire chapter to
spelling out the substantial fiscal gains that will result from those
expenditures. It's a national investment that will pay for itself many
times over. For example, according to the Center for Labor Market
Studies at Northeastern University, if 4 million dropouts earn a high
school diploma by 2020, the net fiscal contributions to federal, state,
and local governments in 2008 dollars would exceed $25 billion
annually. To give another example, if the 2.9 million adults (18-64) in
Texas who do not have a high school diploma or GED got one, their
annual net fiscal contribution to national, state, and local
governments would increase by $13.5 billion. If they attended college,
the annual net fiscal contribution would increase by another $10.6
billion.
In closing, I want to make two final points:
Much of the national conversation today is necessarily about jobs.
Transforming the adult education system into the Adult Education and
Workforce Skills System we call for will create many new jobs in that
sector of our economy. There is an acute need for many thousands of
additional teachers, trainers, counselors, and other staff in the
network of programs out there already; many thousands more will be
needed as the new System is developed.
I also realize that some may think our goals are unrealistic. But
many initiatives are already in the works in some of the states, trying
to tackle local adult education and skills training needs along the
lines recommended by the Commission, and they are starting to get
successful results. Some of these leading lights are profiled in the
Commission's report. They include an array of workplace education
programs; the statewide programs of the Indiana State Chamber of
Commerce; a model public-private venture in Patrick County, Virginia; a
cooperative college transition program in Louisville, Kentucky; and the
much-touted I-Best program in Washington. These forward-thinking
activities are proof that what we're calling for can be done.
Thank you.
______
Chairman Hinojosa. The rest of the entire report that you
have prepared will be made part of today's hearing.
Mr. Bahr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Hinojosa. Mr. Wooderson?
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN WOODERSON, STATE ADMINISTRATOR, IOWA
VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION SERVICES
Mr. Wooderson. Mr. Chairman, ranking member, and members of
the subcommittee, thank you very much for this opportunity. I
am Steve Wooderson from Des Moines, Iowa, and today I serve as
president-elect of the Council of State Administrators of
Vocational Rehabilitation.
We know that people with disabilities have a history of low
employment. In fact, if you experience a disability, you can
anticipate twice as many people with disabilities not having a
job as individuals that do have a disability.
As a result of that, the Public VR Program was established
in 1920 with the expressed purpose of increasing the rate of
employment for people with disabilities. And today the Public
Vocational Rehabilitation Program serves approximately 1
million consumers in our country every year.
The public perception of people with disabilities has
changed over the last several years, much in part due to the
Americans with Disabilities Act, many other pieces of
legislation that have brought that to the forefront. We know
that there are many people with significant disabilities in our
country that can go to work and want to go to work. As a result
of that, in 1998, the Rehabilitation Act was reauthorized as
Title IV of the Workforce Investment Act.
The Public VR Program was identified, at that time, as
being a mandatory partner in the one-stop delivery system. The
hallmark of our program is specialized counselors highly
trained to work with individuals with significant disabilities
to identify their unique needs, their unique abilities, and
develop a customized, individualized career plan to help put
them back to work.
Mr. Chairman, in Pharr, Texas, we have a gentleman by the
name of Mario that went to work after losing his previous job
due to his disability, his disability being post-polio
syndrome. We worked with our national employment network team
and were able to help him in Texas, look at what the job market
was like, identified opportunities for guidance and counseling,
provided him with some prosthetic devices. And today he works
for Convergys, a national company, and he is able to work out
of his home as a result of the work of the Texas VR agency.
Steve came to us as a young man in high school, junior, as
many people do who are looking to transition from high school
to post-high school activities. He experienced a learning
disability, attention deficit disorder, also had difficulty
with his speech as well. He wanted to go on. Our vocational
rehabilitation counselor worked with him, with his school
teachers, developed supports for him so that he was able to get
job experience, eventually go to college with the support of
the VR. And today Steve is a school teacher in Goose Creek,
Iowa, making $30,000 a year. He is also a coach in that school
system.
We are also seeing an increase in referrals of our soldiers
and servicemen and servicewomen coming back from Iraq and
Afghanistan seeking services from the Public VR Program. Marine
Lance Corporal Webb is a native of Alabama, went to serve our
country in Iraq, was there 2 weeks, was injured. As a result of
his injury, he lost a leg. He came back to Alabama looking for
work. Our Alabama agency was able to work with the local
employer. Alabama Power accommodated the workplace. He was
hired as a dispatcher. And today he has actually moved into
another job where he is a property management specialist.
The demand for our services continues to rise at the same
time our resources and our capacities continue to decrease.
Some of the challenges that we are facing in the Public
Vocational Rehabilitation Program is the mandatory COLA
identified as being a floor; in reality, for us, it has become
a ceiling.
In 2008, 36 of our State agencies experienced waiting lists
because they were unable to serve all individuals, meaning
35,000 individuals with disabilities were waiting to access
services from the Public Vocational Rehabilitation Program.
The Workforce Investment Act wisely consolidated a number
of programs into one. We agree with that. At the same time, the
total dollars that are available for employment and training
has reduced, creating additional challenges for us.
Because of the complexity of the nature of the work of the
Public Vocational Rehabilitation Program, serving folks with
wide ranges of disabilities and very significant disabilities,
our council believes that the Public Vocational Rehabilitation
Program, our participation in the one-stop career centers must
be considered in light of those challenges, and our outcomes
must be evaluated in light of those challenges as well.
We are very grateful to the bipartisan support for the
stimulus package, where we look to have $500 million come to
the Public Vocational Rehabilitation Program. We believe that
is going to go a long way to eliminate those waiting lists,
hopefully completely eliminate those current waiting lists as
they are today.
We are proud of the history of the VR Program. We believe
that the data is there to show the value added. In fiscal year
2007, the Public VR Program, with our partners, put 200,000
people with disabilities to work in this country. They earned
$3 billion in wages. They paid $966 million in Federal, State,
and local taxes, and generated 36,000 additional jobs. Our
figures show that they will pay back the cost of their
rehabilitation in 2 to 4 years in taxes alone.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to speak, and I
look forward to responding to any questions you may have.
[The statement of Mr. Wooderson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Steve Wooderson, Administrator, Iowa Vocational
Rehabilitation Services
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Guthrie, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the
Public Vocational Rehabilitation program history, success, and
challenges. My name is Steve Wooderson and I am the Administrator of
the Iowa Office of Vocational Rehabilitation Services. I am here today
as President-elect of the Council of State Administrators of Vocational
Rehabilitation (CSAVR), the national organization that represents the
State Directors of Vocational Rehabilitation.
People with disabilities have a history of low employment;
estimates are that as high as 70% of people with disabilities are not
in the workforce and that a majority of these unemployed people want to
be working. Many of those who are employed, are working in part-time
positions or struggle to find ways to survive on low paying positions
without benefits. A high percentage of the population lives below the
poverty line. Individuals with disabilities who receive government
support through programs such as Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid
want to work but are not able to acquire positions that pay enough or
provide the medical care that they need. Though they want to leave the
rolls of government programs, their survival depends upon the medical
supports offered through those systems.
For the first time ever, last week the Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS) reported that in December 2008 the unemployment rate for persons
with a disability was 12.3 percent and rose to 13.2 percent in January
2009 (not seasonally adjusted) as compared to those without a
disability at 6.9 percent (December) and 8.3 percent (January). The
percentage of people with disabilities who are unemployed is nearly
double that of individuals who do not have a disability. However, what
is most disconcerting within the new statistics is that the
unemployment rate for people with disabilities is based on only 23% of
the population of individuals being in the labor force, as opposed to
nearly 71% of individuals without disabilities.
The population of people with disabilities continues to increase as
more individuals survive accident, illness and trauma. There is also a
rise in prenatal conditions and without sufficient health care in poor
communities childhood illness and disease such as diabetes are on the
rise. Autism, learning disabilities and attention deficit disorder are
seen in increasingly high levels in the K-12 school system. Disability
is also prevalent in veterans who are returning home from the conflicts
in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as those at home who are living with
disabilities which are service or non-service connected. With the aging
population and the current economic conditions, many people are forced
to work longer because they lack or have lost their retirement. The
aging workforce is growing and predicted to continue to increase as
people work well into their 70's and beyond. This workforce requires a
unique approach to workplace accommodations as they and their employers
work through issues related to physical limitations and sensory
disabilities involving vision and hearing. All of these individuals are
potential consumers of the Public Vocational Rehabilitation program.
The Public Vocational Rehabilitation program was established by
Congress in 1920 as a state-federal partnership to assist eligible
individuals with disabilities to achieve gainful employment and to live
more productive lives in the community. Each year the VR program serves
approximately one million customers with disabilities in multi-year
career plans.
The Rehabilitation Act
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, (The Act) authorizes
and funds a comprehensive array of programs to assist individuals with
physical and mental disabilities to maximize their employment and to
achieve economic self-sufficiency, independence, inclusion and
integration into society
There are seven titles in The Act. Each of these titles addresses
an area of need and establishes programs that Congress designated to
provide comprehensive services to support the employment and
independence of people with disabilities.
Title I authorizes the Public VR program which includes a consumer
run State Rehabilitation Council, the Client Assistance Program and
funding under VR services grants which incorporates the American Indian
Rehabilitation program.
Title II incorporates research and training.
Title III covers the inclusion of programs designed to focus on the
professional development and training of qualified staff, and special
projects such as the Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers programs.
Title IV of the Act authorizes the National Council on Disability
which is composed of fifteen Presidential appointees that represent
various facets of the disability community to advise the President,
Congress and key staff in the Department of Education, including the
Commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Administration on the
development of programs under the Act.
Title V is a civil rights component in The Act that focuses on the
access to services, facilities, programs and employment opportunities
in the Federal government or in programs and/or contractors receiving
Federal funds.
Title VI of the Act establishes programs that help create
employment opportunities and work in conjunction with the VR program,
including Supported Employment and Projects with Industry programs
designed to meet the need for ongoing supports for those individuals
who are significantly disabled.
Title VII of the Act authorizes independent living (IL) services
through a State network of community based IL centers which are
coordinated through a State Independent Living Council. This Title also
funds IL services for older individuals who are blind and need supports
to remain living independently.
Together these Titles address the various facets of individual need
and the development of staff, programs and services that support the
employment and independence of people with disabilities.
The Public Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) program funded under
Title I of the Act is the primary Federal program assisting individuals
with disabilities, including individuals with the most significant
disabilities, in securing competitive employment. Congress designated
the Public VR program as a mandatory partner in the One-Stop service
delivery system created under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998
(WIA).
VR provides a broad array of individualized services and supports
to assist eligible individuals with disabilities in overcoming barriers
to employment. VR services may include, but are not limited to,
evaluations and assessments; counseling and guidance, vocational and
other training and employment services; orientation and mobility
training; transportation services and vehicle modifications; personal
assistance services, job coaching, supported employment services;
transition services for youth from school to work; job placement
services; and post employment services. VR also works with a number of
community partners in a variety of ways to meet the employment needs of
individuals with disabilities.
The Public VR program has many valuable features that distinguish
it from other employment programs operating today. VR employs qualified
rehabilitation professionals to identify the unique strengths,
resources, priorities, concerns, abilities, capabilities, interests and
informed choices of eligible individuals so that individualized
services plans can be developed to ensure effective job matching and
ongoing job success, features that can positively influence the bottom
line for businesses.
History and Development of The Rehabilitation Act
Since the inception of the Act, the public perception of disability
has changed significantly. We have much greater expectations for people
with disabilities, and understand that most of these individuals have
the capacity to be, and want to be, important contributors to our
workforce. In response to these changing perceptions, Congress has
amended the Rehabilitation Act accordingly.
In 1943, amendments to the Act extended services to persons with
intellectual disabilities (mental retardation), mental illness and
blindness. It also required that each VR agency submit a written State
Plan to be approved by the Federal Government.
A significant number of other Amendments to the Act took place
between 1943 and 1973; however, in 1973 there was a major overhaul of
the Act. A requirement for a client-centered rehabilitation plan was
added to the Act and focused on employment outcomes. The Act also
required that VR serve people with the most significant disabilities as
a priority and added civil rights protections for individuals with
disabilities who are served by any programs that receive federal
funding.
In 1978 Independent Living and the Client Assistance Program became
permanent within the Act, and programs were added to serve American
Indians and Migrant and Seasonal Farm workers.
In 1986 Supported Employment was added to the Act to increase the
employment of individuals with the most significant disabilities by
providing them with job coaching and ongoing supports.
In 1992 Congress required state agencies to focus on competitive
employment as the primary outcome of the VR program, and created a
``presumptive eligibility'' for individuals who received Social
Security benefits due to a disability. Approximately one-third of VR's
customers are people on Social Security Disability Insurance or
Supplemental Security Income. The 1992 Amendments also included a focus
on serving students transitioning from school to work.
Finally, in 1998 the Rehabilitation Act was reauthorized through
Title IV of the Workforce Investment Act to enhance partnerships
between state VR agencies and their workforce partners to increase the
employment of individuals with disabilities. Also in 1998 the
Comprehensive System of Personnel Development (CSPD) was added to
ensure that VR agencies employed qualified staff.
Focus on Comprehensive Individualized Planning
Over the past 89 years the program has been expanded to serve a
variety of eligible individuals with disabilities and to provide a wide
range of services that are required for that individual to achieve an
employment outcome and become independent. The hallmark of the VR
program is its ability to provide a wide range of services to eligible
individuals with disabilities through a comprehensive individualized
career plan called the Individualized Plan for Employment or the IPE.
The IPE incorporates the holistic needs of the individual which can
include areas such as medical, psychological, accommodations and/or
adaptive technologies, financial, housing, transportation, education,
etc. and how services can reduce or eliminate barriers to support the
individual's vocational goal and success in the workplace. For
individuals with disabilities, success in a career requires this type
of comprehensive approach.
Where other programs are menu driven, VR customizes plans based on
individual needs, vocational goals and the local labor market. It is a
unique approach and works well for individuals with disabilities
because of their varying needs and circumstances.
VR--Employer Partnerships
Over the years state VR agencies have also worked hard to develop
stronger relationships with the business community. Recently the CSAVR
has created a National Employment Team (NET) that is a network of the
80 state VR agencies and their employer partners to focus on increasing
the employment of VR consumers. The NET has working partnerships with
major corporations such as Walgreens, Safeway Convergys, Microsoft, and
also with federal agencies such as the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
and the Department of Transportation (DOT), to name a few.
Through the coordinated national team, VR's relationship with
business effectively meets their employment needs while it incorporates
``real time'' information from employers into VR's career planning and
IPE process with consumers. This upfront work with business opens the
doors to national employment opportunities for VR consumers.
The national model with the corporate connections allows VR to
develop productive working relationships with businesses in multiple
states. The top level support and a company wide strategy have resulted
in multiple employment outcomes. For example, in 2007 over 600 VR
consumers were hired by Safeway which is headquartered in Pleasanton,
CA. but does business in multiple states across the country.
Another one of VR's important business partners is Convergys.
Convergys is an outsourcing company headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio
but doing business in 35 countries. Through the NET, VR has developed a
corporate level relationship that resulted in employment opportunities
in 29 states. VR consumers are being hired for positions in brick and
mortar sites as well as in home agent positions which allows
individuals with significant disabilities and those in rural areas to
be employed in good paying positions with benefits.
In the area of IT, VR is working closely with Convergys to find a
solution that will support access for people who are blind and use
screen readers. Screen readers vocalize the printed information that
sighted people access on the computer screen. Convergys has a corporate
IT and HR team working with a VR team that includes staff experts from
five agencies across the country. The company is thrilled because VR is
providing the technical expertise to work with the company to resolve
the access issue so that they can employ the talents of individuals who
are blind. Again, this type of working relationship will open up
employment opportunities for people with disabilities in 29 states
through this one initiative. It also serves as a corporate model to
other business customers.
Individual Results
VR Consumers--Convergys: Texas and Iowa
I want to share with you stories that are examples of the kind of
work our agencies do every day. The first is about a man named Mario
from Pharr, Texas. Mario is a 36 year old consumer who came to the
State VR Agency in Texas seeking assistance after losing his job as a
sanitation worker, due to his disability, post polio syndrome. When
Mario applied for VR services, he was being supported by his girlfriend
and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). He requested VR's
assistance to find employment and to acquire prosthetic and orthotic
devices that would accommodate his disability at work.
His VR counselor provided him with the needed accommodations and
helped him to secure more suitable employment. As a result of the
counseling, guidance, job placement assistance, and other vocational
rehabilitation services provided by DARS, Mario was able to go to work
for Convergys as a customer service representative on May 19, 2008.
Because of these services, Mario was able to maintain this position and
is still employed today.
In Iowa our VR NET relationship with Convergys also helped David,
age 44, from New London, Iowa, to become recently employed by
Convergys. David is paralyzed from the waist down and uses a wheelchair
for mobility. David came to IVRS after being laid off from a production
position as a quality inspector.
Iowa VR (IVRS) supported David in his goal of achieving his
Associate of Arts degree at the local community college, but finding
work in an economically depressed area of the state following his
graduation had been a challenge. In addition, David had been addressing
the challenge of leg tremors when he is exposed to changes in
temperature and knows that working in a factory setting was not
compatible with his overall well being.
When David and his VR counselor began to investigate alternative
career opportunities, they became aware of the NET's partnership with
Convergys. After a review of the job description, it was determined
that David had the skills and abilities to perform the essential
functions of a home agent. They also considered the physical advantage
of working from home and liked the fact that David would be earning an
hourly salary plus benefits.
Since December IVRS has connected David with the Convergys
recruiter, helped upgrade his home computer, assisted him with
purchasing necessary equipment, and he is now anticipating the start of
his two-week training on February 9. David is extremely motivated by
the long-term opportunity with Convergys to enable him to incorporate
his outgoing personality with the customers he will be assisting on a
daily basis.
VR Transition Student--Hyatt: Florida
In June of 2002, Tara Gilio was an 18-year-old exceptional
education student graduating with a special diploma. Tara lived in
Hudson, FL--a small town about an hour north of Tampa. She participated
in classes for students with specific learning disabilities due to
severe processing deficits that limited her reading and writing to 4th
grade levels. Although she was an outgoing young lady, she knew that
she would not qualify for traditional post-secondary programs--such as
a vocational/technical school or community college.
During her senior year in high school, Tara met her Vocational
Rehabilitation Counselor who specialized in Transition and School to
Work students. Her VR Counselor quickly identified Tara's interest in
foodservice and referred her to a short-term alternative culinary
training program for persons with disabilities, located at the Grand
Hyatt Tampa Bay. The program was developed in collaboration with
Florida's Vocational Rehabilitation Program in an effort to accommodate
for persons with special needs and prepare them for entry-level
employment in the foodservice industry.
The VR Counselor included the training in Tara's Individual Plan
for Employment and agreed to pay the tuition for the program. The
Executive Chef saw Tara's potential and offered her a part-time job
because there were no full-time positions available. Tara accepted the
position and was upgraded to full-time within 6 months.
Over the past 6\1/2\ years Tara has been promoted twice and she
enjoys all of the benefits of working for a major employer. This
includes medical insurance, free meals, free uniform cleaning and free
rooms. She also enjoys training and inspiring the new students as they
enter the training program. Tara married in 2005 and is the proud
mother of a two-year-old daughter. She and her husband recently
purchased their first home and Tara continues her employment at the
Grand Hyatt Tampa Bay.
Tara has written her own ``success story'' that began with a
meeting with her Transition VR Counselor who simply asked ``What do you
want to do when you leave high school?'' Tara appreciates the
assistance from VR and recently stated that she ``would not be where
she is today without Vocational Rehabilitation helping her and giving
her a sense of hope,'' and when asked about the benefits of Vocational
Rehabilitation, Tara recently replied ``VR changed my life forever.''
VR Transition Student--Northwest Iowa School District
Steve Farrell is a 23 year old teacher. Iowa Vocational
Rehabilitation Services (IVRS) first became acquainted with Steve as a
student at Cedar Falls High School. IVRS services were discussed with
Steve and his parents in April of 2000 during his junior year. Referral
information outlined disabling conditions that included Learning
Disabilities (LD), Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), and
speech problems. (He also experienced a bout with depression when his
older brother died suddenly in 2002 from drug/steroid abuse.)
Steve was in a resource class for students with learning
disabilities throughout school. Because his father was an instructor at
Hawkeye Community College, Steve originally planned to attend that
school and major in Police Science. He eventually changed his goal and
decided he wanted to major in Physical Education and coach.
The Cedar Falls Transition Alliance Program (TAP) became involved
with Steve in June of 2000. TAP Coordinator Shirley Fossey arranged for
Steve to be employed by Cedar Falls Schools over the summer. She also
accompanied him when he entered Upper Iowa (Fayette) in the fall of
2001. Both TAP and IVRS maintained contact with Steve as he progressed
through school. TAP facilitated needed accommodations and assisted
Steve in learning to advocate for himself. IVRS provided funding to
offset tuition costs and paid for tutorial services to help Steve as he
pursued obtaining a four-year degree instead of the two-year degree
originally planned.
Steve majored in Physical Education (PE), minored in Psychology and
Wellness and Fitness, and has a coaching endorsement. He graduated with
honors May 6, 2006 and is the first TAP participant to obtain a four-
year degree! Steve is currently working as a Physical Education, Health
and Geography teacher/coach at Goose Lake, Iowa. He earns $30,000 a
year as an employee of the Northeast Iowa School District. Services
Steve received from VR; counseling and guidance services, diagnostic/
treatment, academic training/tuition assistance, job referral,
placement search and supports, financial and tutorial assistance, and
follow-up. Both Steve and his parents are very grateful for the
services and supports he's received over the past six years. Steve's
success is IVRS and TAP's success and he has given back to both by
becoming a motivational speaker to students at Cedar Falls High School,
where our relationship first began.
VR and Veterans: Washington State
Matt is a disabled veteran from Washington State. He is a
quadriplegic who also has a traumatic brain injury (TBI). Matt spent
seven months in a trauma hospital and now receives outpatient support
from the VA Hospital in Seattle. Matt was not expected to live after
his injury and he was certainly not expected to return to work, be an
active father or contributing member of his community. Despite the
medical predictions, Matt is a single parent raising his 12 year old
daughter, he has returned to school, owns a home and lives
independently in his community. Two months ago Matt re-entered the
workforce on a part-time basis and plans to return full time when his
daughter is older. He volunteers at his daughter's school and at the VA
Hospital where he supports other veterans with disabilities who
struggle to regain their independence and their place in American
society.
What was the difference for Matt and his family? It was the
combination of a great team of caregivers, actively involved family
members and a coordinated team approach between the VA system and
Public VR that supported Matt's vision of employment and independence.
Family members were actively involved and advocated to pull in experts
across systems that supported Matt's success. Matt has received support
from a variety of programs funded under The Rehabilitation Act,
including Public VR, independent living supports, advocacy services and
the support of qualified staff trained in programs under the Act such
as the specialists in neuropsychological evaluation and TBI. This was
coupled with the involvement of staff from the VA hospital who
continues to support Matt's ongoing medical and psychological needs.
The systems were coordinated, the family was involved, and Matt
attained his goals and is working toward a future career. Matt is
contributing through his payment of taxes, his role as a father and
family member, involvement in his church and supporting the success of
other veterans and their families through volunteer work. A coordinated
system approach is a proven model of success, for the individual and
for America.
VR and Veterans: Alabama
Marine Lance Corporal Corey Webb had been in Iraq for two weeks
when he was injured after his unit came under enemy fire. The
Springville man sustained a broken collarbone and a leg injury that
would later require amputation. When he returned home, Webb tackled his
recovery with the ``can do'' attitude that he had learned as a Marine.
He was a bit lost, though, when it came to returning to the workplace.
Prior to his deployment, the young man was preparing to begin work as a
lineman for Alabama Power Co., but after his injury it was clear he
wouldn't be able to perform the duties of that job.
Despite that, he was determined to work with the company. Alabama
Power, a longtime customer of the department's Employer Services,
referred Webb to Alabama VR for assistance in finding a place with the
company. Peggy Anderson, the statewide coordinator for employer
development, and Kristie Grammer, a rehabilitation counselor and the
department's V.A. liaison in the Birmingham area, worked diligently
with Alabama Power to find a position for the young man. He eventually
was hired as a dispatcher in the company's appliance sales division.
Within a few months, he departed for the Annistion Army Depot, where he
is a property management specialist.
Today, with VRS' support, the 25-year-old is pursuing a bachelor's
degree at Jacksonville State University. He's grateful for the
assistance he has received through VRS, which he praises for being a
``single point of contact.'' ``It's so much simpler,'' he said. ``If I
need anything, I know I can call VRS.'' The Springville native said VR
services are especially valuable to ``career military,'' who might not
be familiar with the intricacies of searching for employment. ``A lot
of these guys who've never done anything but serve in the military
don't know how to find a job,'' he said. ``They don't know how to
create a resume, set up interviews, or anything related to finding
work. VRS gives them the tools they need to get back to work.''
VR: Challenges and Opportunities
Health care and higher education are just two factors driving the
cost of providing VR services. As you may know, the Act has a mandatory
Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) that requires the federal government
to increase funding for the program annually, but even with that, the
COLA has not kept pace with the increased demand for VR services, as
well as the faster growing costs of health care and education. The
COLA, which is based on the generic Consumer Price Index-Urban (CPIU),
was intended to be a floor below which annual appropriations for the VR
program could not fall. It was not the intent of Congress at the time
the COLA was included that it become a ceiling for appropriations, but
in fact that is what has happened.
Further, the employment expectations of people with disabilities
have grown tremendously, especially since the passage of the Americans'
with Disabilities Act. Despite the successes of the VR program, it
faces an increased demand for services during the daunting challenges
of the current economic downturn. Funding shortfalls have resulted in
states having to implement an Order of Selection.
The Public Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) program authorized under
Title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, requires a State
VR agency to implement an ``Order of Selection'' (OOS) policy when it
anticipates that it will not have sufficient fiscal and/or personnel
resources to fully serve all individuals eligible for vocational
rehabilitation services. Under an Order of Selection, individuals with
the most significant disabilities must be selected first for the
provision of VR services.
At the end of FY 2008, 36 State VR Agencies were on an OOS with
35,213 individuals on waiting lists for services. With the already high
unemployment rate for people with disabilities expected to grow even
faster in today's difficult economy, we expect that the demand for VR
services will grow proportionately.
Congress has acted in other ways to assist people with disabilities
become employed. As mentioned earlier, in 1998 Congress passed the
Workforce Investment Act that envisioned greater access to generic
employment services for people with disabilities. Unfortunately, that
promising vision from 10 years ago remains largely unfulfilled today.
When WIA was first authorized, it consolidated a number of employment
and training programs in an effort to create a seamless service
delivery system. The consolidation was accompanied by a significant cut
in funding, with additional cuts in funding in subsequent years. As a
result, WIA has resulted in a substantial decline in funding available
for actual training when compared to its predecessor program. As a
result, mandatory partners in WIA, including VR are continually asked
to contribute more funding to pay for infrastructure and other costs
associated with the operation of the one-stop centers. Partner
programs, particularly the Public Vocational Rehabilitation program,
are already under-funded to meet the needs of their target populations.
Vocational Rehabilitation customers often require longer-term and
more supportive services than the typical WIA customer. Because of the
significant disabilities of VR consumers and the complexity and length
of services required, CSAVR believes that VR's participation in one-
stops and the evaluation of VR's outcomes must be different; taking
into account the characteristics of the population VR serves.
Although physical access to one-stop centers has improved since the
authorization of the WIA, programmatic access continues to be a
significant problem for many VR consumers. The significant majority of
centers lack the adaptive technology necessary for consumers with
significant disabilities such as blindness and cerebral palsy to access
the resources of the one-stops self service centers. Disability
navigators were employed by some centers in an effort to assist
consumers with disabilities to have better access; however, many of
these individuals lacked the level of skills and knowledge necessary to
be of any significant benefit. In addition, there were insignificant
numbers of navigators to meet the needs.
The federal government spends approximately $200 billion a year on
various types of assistance for individuals with disabilities. Of that,
less than $3 billion is appropriated to address the employment and
training needs of individuals with significant disabilities. The
Nation's public policy must be directed toward the realization that a
significant investment of resources must be in the WIA if people with
disabilities are to have real access to the one-stop centers and to the
individualized services and supports necessary to increase their
independence and their economic self-sufficiency
Another significant effort by Congress to increase employment among
people with disabilities was the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives
Improvement Act. The legislation, passed in 1999, created the Ticket to
Work program in the Social Security Administration, increased access to
healthcare coverage, and provided benefits planning and assistance to
social security beneficiaries who want to return to work.
The healthcare and benefits planning provisions have largely been
successful at meeting the needs of people with disabilities on SSDI and
SSI who want to work. States responded positively to the new Medicaid
provisions in the Ticket to Work and many have aggressively implemented
those provisions. In addition, we know that the benefits planning
provisions have helped thousands of beneficiaries every year navigate
the complex array of rules affecting beneficiaries trying to become
more independent. However, the Ticket to Work implementation was less
than successful in its initial rollout. Despite the promise of new
options for employment services for beneficiaries, 90% of tickets were
deposited with VR agencies. Further, the initial regulations provided
too little financial incentive for employment programs, known in the
law as Employment Networks, to participate, and worse, made it
impossible for VR agencies and those Employment Networks to function
cooperatively. In fact, the first regulations literally put VR agencies
and Employment Networks in opposition to each other.
SSA has significantly addressed these issues in new regulations
published this year and VR agencies and Employment Networks are hopeful
the new regulations will bring success to the Ticket program, but it is
still too early to tell.
Also, CSAVR is very excited about the prospects for renewed focus
on the issue of employment and people with disabilities that the new
administration has promised. The President has stated that his
Administration will create a Commission to look at ways to improve
employment services, work incentives in SSDI and SSI, and improve
further access to healthcare for people with disabilities. We are
pleased that the Administration will aggressively pursue the goal of
making the federal government a model employer for people with
disabilities. We are already seeing success in this area in our work
with Federal partners such as the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and
the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). CSAVR looks forward to
working with the Administration and Congress on these critical efforts
for people with disabilities.
We deeply appreciate the bipartisan efforts of both the House and
Senate to include $500 million for Vocational Rehabilitation Services
in H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Too many times,
programs for people with disabilities are first in line for cuts when
the budget is tight and last at the table when the nation's treasury is
flush. This funding will allow state VR agencies to clear their waiting
lists and meet the inevitable increase in demand for VR services from
veterans, youth, and all people with disabilities that will result from
these difficult economic times.
VR: Return on Investment
In conclusion, the Public VR program has demonstrated over the
years its effectiveness in serving people with disabilities. You have
heard the stories in the testimony, but the numbers behind these
stories reveal the impact that the Public VR program has in helping
people with disabilities find and retain work, reduce dependency on
benefits, and help grow the economy.
In 2007 the Public VR program and its partners helped over 200,000
people with disabilities find, return to, or retain employment and VR
customers earned over $3.0 billion in wages, paid $966 million in
federal, state, & local taxes, and generated 36,000 new jobs. In fact,
on average every person we help find or retain employment will ``pay
back'' the cost of their rehabilitation services, through taxes, in
just two to four years.
In addition, data from the Social Security Administration reveals
that for every dollar SSA reimburses VR, means SSA has saved seven
dollars in benefits that it would have paid out, a net savings of $754
million to the Social Security (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income
(SSI) programs.
Again, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I thank you
for the opportunity to speak to you today and I look forward to
answering any questions that you may have.
Thank you.
______
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you, Mr. Wooderson.
I now call on Mr. Camp.
STATEMENT OF BILL CAMP, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, SACRAMENTO CENTRAL
LABOR COUNCIL, AFL-CIO
Mr. Camp. Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, it is
a privilege to be here.
Not only are people in the United States watching the
decisions that you are making certainly this week and that your
committee will make between now and the summer, but the world
is waiting to see what the United States will do to respond to
this economic crisis.
So, as we think about workforce development, we have to
look at it in the context of what is going on economically in
our Nation. When we look at it, for all of us, in whatever
State you live, it is dire. In California, we have a $42
billion budget deficit. We have 257,000 jobs lost. We have a
crisis. We had 2 million calls a day to our unemployment
insurance claims offices, trying to get a response about
people's claims. The system is completely overwhelmed.
So, in a crisis, we have a real opportunity--an opportunity
to step back and decide what can we do that is different, what
can we learn from what we have done, and what we should take
on. And I would like to talk about some of those we have done
in Sacramento and in California.
But, first, we must be clear not to throw out the baby with
the bath water. We have a labor exchange program, and the
research data demonstrates that the public-sector labor
exchange job--unemployment system and referral for jobs and
counseling, paid for by public dollars, run by the public
agency, is the most efficient and effective way to help those
who get laid off work.
The Workforce Investment Board needs to focus on training,
not try to do the job that is already done better by the
employment services divisions funded by the Wagner Peyser Act
all over this Nation. It has been a successful program. It
should be continued. We should focus our workforce investment
energy on how do we develop the best training program for the
right jobs that take us into the future.
Let me give you an example, though, of what we have done in
Sacramento. Our Employment Development Department has developed
an excellent labor market information base. We have been able
to take the data of our jobs that are going to be coming open
in the near future, those that are growing in our region, what
the wages are, how many people are going to be retiring in a
given occupation, and be able to give really clear answers to
workers about what their potential is.
And we can do this on a regional basis, on a labor market
basis, so the workers in San Diego get San Diego data and the
workers in Los Angeles get Los Angeles data and the people in
Sacramento can get Sacramento data. That is done by our EDD,
Employment Services Department. And it is vital, because it
says to the Workforce Investment Board, you have to be data-
driven. You have to make your decisions based on the accurate
information in your region about what jobs are opening up, how
much they pay, what kind of training people have to have, and
how do we create that training.
Let me give you an example of what I think, though, are
some important principles that we have adopted in our Workforce
Investment Board. And labor is very active in our board. I run
the Labor Council, but I have been a vice president of our
board from the day it started. We actually have two vice
presidents--a labor vice president and a succession vice
president.
But the point is we are engaged. We have a stake in making
our Workforce Investment Board successful. So we adopted a
policy that at least 40 percent of our dollars that are going
for adult and dislocated worker training has to go--40 percent
of the money spent has to go to training, that you cannot use
the Workforce Investment Board to supplement the cuts in Wagner
Peyser that have gone on in the last few years. You have to
maintain and mandate a Workforce Investment Board that puts
dollars into training.
The second thing is we have to establish what is really a
self-sufficiency standard. What does it take to pay the rent,
pay the bills, buy the food, and take care of your immediate
family on a minimum basis in Los Angeles, in San Diego, in any
place in the United States, and target the training towards
that standard. And if the training program that we fund doesn't
get people to a reasonable income level within a reasonable
time that is self-sustaining, we have failed. We have failed
the taxpayers, particularly.
We are not here to train people so they can continue to
depend on the government for support. We want to train people
so they can go out and get their foot on that bottom step of
the ladder and move up. So, as a result, we need to establish
self-sustaining standards that allows us to do incumbent worker
training. When they move up, they create a vacancy down below.
The third thing we have tried to do is to create a career
ladder. You think of a career ladder as an apprenticeship
program, and if it is producing an increase in wages, then it
ought to be honored. But we have developed that concept in the
health industry. So we now have jointly run trust programs in
health care that create career ladders. If you come in to work
for Kaiser or for Catholic Healthcare West as a certified
nurse's assistant, you have an opportunity to move up and
become maybe someday a licensed vocational nurse.
We find that these innovations really make a difference.
Fifteen percent of our Workforce Investment Board members have
to be appointed by the Labor Council. It creates a partnership
between the Chamber of Commerce and the labor movement that is
really invaluable, because you have to have that partnership.
So when we bring the Chamber, the labor movement, our
educational institution, our mandated partners together, we
create programs that really increase people's wages.
We look forward to working with you. We have to protect the
public sector. We have to make sure we focus on training. We
have to make sure that we have a balance between labor and
business and the public sector, so that when we look at the
formulation of the law, we need to balance out the labor
representation of the board. And we have to incorporate an
incentive for innovation.
Thank you, sir.
[The statement of Mr. Camp follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bill Camp, Sacramento Central Labor Council,
AFL-CIO
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting
me to testify today on behalf of the ten million members of the AFL-
CIO. My name is Bill Camp, and I am Executive Secretary of the
Sacramento Central Labor Council in California. I am also a member of
the Executive Committee of Sacramento Works, which provides labor
exchange and a variety of employment- and training-related services for
some 45,000 persons every year. We work extensively with the California
Employment Development Department and their innovative labor market
information data base that they have developed for the state.
Sacramento Works also provides oversight and administration of programs
funded by the Workforce Investment Act, including services for youth,
dislocated workers, and disadvantaged adults. We operate 12 One-Stop
Career Centers in Sacramento County, so I have seen the operation of
our nation's employment and training systems up close for many years.
In fact, in 1966 I received my BA degree at the University of Oregon
which included a minor in the education of disadvantaged youth.
I am also on the Executive Committee of LEED, Linking Education and
Economic Development, a non-profit organization composed of key leaders
in our community representing labor, private businesses, and the
administrators of the school districts, county board of education,
community college, and 4 year university serving the Sacramento region.
America's Job Seekers Need an Economic Recovery Plan
Any consideration of innovative and forward-thinking responses to
the new economy need to take into account the economic and fiscal
conditions that affect everything we do. As we all recognize, the
nation is caught in the most severe economic crisis since the Great
Depression. Since December 2007, the official beginning of the
recession, 3.6 million jobs have been lost across the country. About
21.7 million persons are either unemployed or underemployed, according
to the Economic Policy Institute. Jobs in the manufacturing and
construction industry are plummeting. Every week it seems that more
companies announce mass layoffs and facility closings. The rapid
increase in persons applying for Unemployment Insurance benefits has
placed severe stress on the UI system--at the same time as 46 states
are encountering budget deficits.
The severity of the economic crisis is taking its toll on
California and its fiscal situation. The state lost more than 257,000
jobs in 2008, with large reductions in manufacturing, construction,
financial services, and educational and health services. In December,
California's unemployment rate stood at 9.3 percent--more than two
percentage points higher than the December national average. New claims
for unemployment benefits increased to about 88,000 in December,
compared to about 57,000 a year earlier. Our UI system is being
overwhelmed. During the holiday period, the system averaged more than 2
million call attempts every day. When laid off workers call in to try
to file a claim, it can take them 20 times to get through. It takes
weeks to file a claim.
Because of the economic downturn, the state budget gap between
revenues and expenditures will total $42 billion over the next few
years. More than 2,000 state infrastructure projects have been
cancelled, threatening the health and livelihoods of Californians. The
Governor of California is proposing draconian budget cuts that will
slash state spending for education, health care, and human services. In
addition, the Governor is ordering the furlough of government staff at
the very moment when laid off workers all across the state are in
crisis and desperately need their services.
Under these dire economic circumstances, it is more crucial than
ever that the U.S. Congress enact an American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act that helps the states and puts people to work improving the
infrastructure, increasing the production of electricity from renewable
energy sources, modernizing our schools, and investing in education and
worker training programs. We urge you to finalize that legislation and
place it on the President's desk with all possible haste.
Workforce Investment Innovations in California and Sacramento
We recognize the need for innovation and fresh ideas about how to
best serve the needs of a diverse population of job seekers. At the
same time, it is important to balance the initiation of new programs
with reliance upon--and improvements of--established workforce
institutions that can rapidly mobilize their public employee ranks to
provide necessary services during this time of national economic
emergency. In California the center of our workforce development and
unemployment insurance system is the dedicated public employees of the
Employment Development Department (EDD). In particular, EDD has devoted
substantial time and resources toward developing a sophisticated data
base of labor market information. That data and the critical analytic
work performed by our State EDD is indispensable to identifying growth
industries, industry clusters, growth occupations within those sectors
and clusters, and wage ranges for those occupations. This knowledge
plays a role in effectively directing our state and local resources to
respond to the crisis. LMI also supports groundbreaking work in
analyzing the emerging green economy and projecting the growth in
``green jobs'' in multiple industries.
The workforce boards that do their work properly approach their
economy and labor-market challenges in a strategic manner, first by
asking how resources can be targeted for maximum benefit. The answer
must be data driven. The Wagner Peyser funded employment service's
labor market information is indispensable for addressing this threshold
question.
Unfortunately, the training resources necessary to bring industry
partners to the table are scarce. This is due largely to eroding
funding levels for WIA at the federal level. It's also due to the WIA's
unsustainable support for costly One-Stop Career Centers. The central
function of Wagner Peyser funded employment service is labor-exchange,
which is an essential low-cost service for connecting jobseekers with
employment opportunities. While employment service staff is largely co-
located in California One-Stops, the erosion of both Wagner Peyser and
WIA title I resources has shifted a significant portion of WIA to
supporting One-Stop facilities and activities. That shift has occurred
at the expense of training and intensive services. The roles of WIA
Title I and employment services must be clearly delineated to ensure
that resources are not wasted and that we can maximize training
opportunities under WIA. The employment service must be adequately
funded to accomplish its central role of public labor exchange and
providing labor market information, counseling, case management, and
referral to job placement. WIA title I funding must be leveraged by the
WIB for building regional high road partnerships and for training and
intensive services directed toward high wage growth sectors.
In Sacramento, we have formed partnerships between business, labor
and educational institutions to make optimal use of the labor market
data and analysis produced by EDD. First, we made an early decision
about the fundamental policies and principles that have enabled our
workforce investment agencies to identify employment opportunities and
move training dollars where they are most needed. Labor has proposed a
statewide requirement: that 40 percent of local WIA funds be dedicated
to training. This measure would ensure some consistency across a state
in which policies vary from one locality to another. Some of our WIBs
actually devote as little as 3 percent of their dollars to training,
for example, while others have local policies to spend 50 percent on
training. This sort of requirement on the level of training should be
seriously considered in a reauthorized WIA.
There are still too many WIBs that function on the premise that any
job is a good job, that low-wage employment is a better option than
unemployment. This position leads to public resources subsidizing
recruitment, screening, and placement services for low-wage employers
such as Wal-Mart. The workforce board gets credit for placements, but
the worker has now made the small step from unemployment to working
poor.
In California, even before the recent downturn, workers suffer from
significant labor market ``churn.'' More than 1 million involuntary job
separations occur each month. The workforce development system must not
contribute to this by placing clients in low-wage high-turnover
employment. Those clients end up back in the system seeking additional
services. This is a very poor and inefficient use of scarce public
resources, not to mention profoundly unjust.
It is good board membership that drives the strategic direction of
WIA resources and influences the broader system of training, education,
and worker supports. If WIB activities are driven solely by
technocratic measures that quantify placements over the quality of
outcomes for workers, then it shouldn't surprise anyone that public
resources subsidize low-road employers like Wal-Mart.
In California, state law requires that each board have 15 percent
labor representation who are nominated by central labor councils and
local building and construction trades councils. Experience in
California demonstrates that strong labor representation infuses
principles for economic justice, quality services, and a worker-
centered approach to workforce and community development. It also
connects workers with high-quality apprenticeship programs and other
labor-management training partnerships in growth sectors, and to
opportunities for employment with high-road employers. This structural
engagement by local labor has meant a commitment to ensure the success
of the training and employment opportunities of the unemployed in our
region. When this broad array of union leaders show a commitment to the
results of the Workforce Investment programs, the rest of the labor
movement wants to help it be successful.
I recall when the President and CEO of the Sacramento Metropolitan
Chamber of Commerce called me on the phone and said he wanted to work
with organized labor in fashioning a local board that really prepared
the workforce for the high wage, high skill jobs of the Sacramento
region. He made it clear that he wanted to be the Board President and I
made it clear that I wanted to be the Vice-President of the local
board. That took a little constitutional agility since we needed two
vice Presidents, one for succession purposes and one to ensure Labor is
really engaged in the policy decisions of the agency.
In our first strategic planning session, we drew from EDD
information and identified key industries that would include high wage,
high skills opportunities as well as industries where Labor had a voice
in the workplace. It was a give and take process, but enough
opportunities so that everyone stayed engaged in the board's policy
making role.
Our second policy of importance was to ensure that wage and benefit
standards had to be met by agencies who provided training or they would
not be funded in the future. The board adopted income levels in line
with a self-sufficiency standard and uses them as the eligibility
criteria for intensive and training services provided at the One-Stop
Centers. This policy ensures that unemployed and low-wage workers who
work for less than $10 an hour are eligible for training. As these low
wage workers moved up, they opened up opportunities for the unemployed.
All the staff in the employment training agency understood that the
sustainable wage policy was real. Any program that did not meet the
standard might be discussed publicly at a board meeting. The
identification of an employer's financial contribution to health
benefits was a part of the wage package and ensured that those
employers who provided benefits were on a level playing with those who
did not. The self-sufficiency standard is an important part of ensuring
that self-sufficiency is a driving force for the one-stop career
centers. In a companion policy, the WIB identified the ``working poor''
as a special population that should receive priority for WIA services
and gave a high priority to jobs with employer-paid fringe benefits. In
addition to Sacramento, a few other boards in California have adopted
self-sufficiency measures and other principles or standards that target
WIA resources only to employers that provide good salaries and benefits
in sectors with growth potential.
The next policy that pushed employers and trainers to focus on high
wage, high skilled jobs was the inclusion of career ladders and
``lattices'' in the definition of a successful program. An example of a
career ladder is an apprenticeship program, but it had to be real in
terms of producing wage and benefit increases in order to meet our
standards. We found that employers who did not traditionally have
apprenticeship programs began to organize jointly administered trust
funds where collective bargaining money was invested in training
opportunities for lower waged workers to move up the ladder within
their own industry. Our health care providers are the best example of
this.
Sacramento Works places a high priority on identifying the jobs
that are going to be in high demand by employers in the region. The
board funded a Sacramento regional workforce study to identify high
wage, high growth critical occupational clusters with career ladders.
The board required that the One-Stop Centers spend at least 75 percent
of all training funds to train workers for these critical occupational
clusters. An analysis of base wage data indicates that customers
completing training in critical occupations had a higher retention rate
and made an average of $8,000 more per year than customers receiving
only labor exchange services.
The efforts of Sacramento Works to focus on training job seekers
for critical occupational clusters has resulted in strong local
partnerships over the past eight years. Employers, labor, education,
and local government have developed a number of sector initiatives in
healthcare, construction, transportation, information technology and
clean energy technology. I have attached a list of those partners to
this testimony.
One of our most important and unique innovations is called
www.careerGPS.com. This data base covers 80 percent of the occupations
in the top 75 industry sectors and subsectors that will need to be
filled over the next 10 years in the Sacramento Labor Market area. It
is accessible to anyone with a computer. It explains what jobs now and
in the future will need to be filled, how much they pay, what training
is required in order to apply, what training will be required after
employment, what will be expected of any employee once they are hired,
and the name address and phone number of any training agencies
supplying the needs of that occupation as well as the program detail.
Over the last three years, the Sacramento Works board has worked
closely with the Partnership for Prosperity, an effort spearheaded by
the Sacramento Area Commerce and Trade Organization (SACTO) and the
Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce. This group has brought
together 34 organizations in the region to work together to create an
economic development strategy for the Sacramento region. Under the
auspices of the Partnership for Prosperity, the Sacramento board
partnered with LEED Sacramento to create an action plan focused on
identifying the high wage/high growth jobs in the region and
collaborating with partners to ensure that workers are trained for
these jobs. The result is this unique website, www.careerGPS.com. This
website allows job seekers and students in high school and college to
navigate the results of the regional workforce forecast to see what
jobs are out there and what careers they may pursue. This tool is used
by One-Stop Center coaches to assist job seekers in identifying
appropriate training providers and will soon be used in high school and
community college career centers to assist students in making career
choices. This is an invaluable service to dislocated workers in today's
economy. As far as I know, there is nothing like this on a regional
basis anywhere else in the country.
Sacramento Works is a truly integrated one stop career center
system and has over 40 partners, including the State of California,
Employment Development Department's Job Service merit staff. Local and
state staff work side by side to provide assessment, coaching, labor
exchange and training services to customers.
Reforming the Workforce Investment Act
So far I have talked about the accomplishments and positive aspects
of the workforce investment system in California--as it has matured and
integrated labor representatives into its governance structures and
policy approaches. As the U.S. Congress moves toward the
reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act, we urge the federal
government to learn from these experiences and take bold action to
reform WIA in a manner that will benefit the unemployed, working
families, and communities being devastated by the economic crisis.
As we travel around the country, we hear many stories about the
failures and limitations of the workforce system from our WIB labor
representatives and community organizations. We hear about the
temporary agencies that sit on local boards. Participants come into
One-Stop Centers, receive core services, and are sent to the same
temporary agencies--where they get hired and are counted as placements.
They work for a low-wage employer for a few months, the temporary
agency receives their fee, and the participants are soon laid off. They
go back to the One-Stop Center and go through the process again. In
effect, the local WIB has become a revolving door for low-wage
employers.
Because of the ``work first'' approach adopted by WIA, participants
are frequently directed into low-wage jobs with little opportunity for
advancement. WIA provides too little training and skill development
that would enable participants to move into high skill employment that
pays family-sustaining wages and provides an opportunity for career
advancement. There is growing consensus in the employment and training
community that WIA fails to provide sufficient long-term training
leading to good jobs. In reports published in 2003, for example, both
the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE) and the
Brookings Institution recognized this lack of training as a serious
deficiency in the system.
The world has changed drastically since WIA was passed more than 10
years ago. WIA was crafted in an environment that favored deregulation,
privatization, and the vast growth of private contractors delivering
public services. Those policies have brought the nation to where we are
today--suffering from an acute economic crisis and a global market
meltdown that is spreading across the globe. The crisis calls into
question the dominant political wisdom of the last 30 years that the
bulk of decision-making about federal programs are best made locally
and, if possible, by private sector actors. Instead, workforce policy
should establish guiding principles and examine how each level of
government and various programs can be harnessed to advance those
objectives. Some of those principles include:
Federal policy should support jobs that pay family-
sustaining wages and benefits, and provide the opportunity for career
advancement.
Federal policy should support a strong social safety net
for unemployed and underemployed workers, who obtain services from
dedicated public servants rather than contractors motivated by private
gain.
Federal policy should be balanced to meet the needs of
workers, employers and communities. Policies should also be balanced to
meet the needs of low-wage workers and higher wage, high skilled
workers.
Federal agencies should assume a stronger role in
developing coherent policies and guiding the implementation of various
federal program activities in order to focus limited government
resources on important objectives--that are defined nationally--while
leaving considerable latitude at the state and local level.
Historically, when the nation is faced with large economic and
wartime challenges, we have moved to centralize policy-making authority
to achieve important national objectives. WIA needs to be retooled so
it can play a meaningful role in responding to the current crisis
through the development of comprehensive and uniform policies.
As it is currently structured, WIA has pushed authority far down to
the local level without sufficient federal leadership, without ample
oversight by the Department of Labor, and without uniform
implementation practices. The policies and practices of WIA vary from
one WIB to another, creating confusion and inconsistency. As it stands
now, WIA is a flawed system that has become so decentralized that it is
not up to the task of supporting the job creation and clean energy
initiatives we need to lift the nation out of the recession and
economic crisis. Still, the AFL-CIO has supported more funding for WIA
programs, and we have called upon the U.S. Congress to devote more
resources in the American Recovery Plan for dislocated workers, low-
income adults, disadvantaged youth, and Reemployment Grants to the
States.
In this context, we urge Congress to reform WIA by instituting
changes in the following four categories.
First, we need to reassert the role of the public sector in WIA.
The center of our nation's workforce development system must be a
robust, publicly operated, employment security program that has the
resources to provide job matching services, conduct labor market
research on the employment implications of new and expanding
industries, counsel job seekers, and make referrals to job placement. A
2004 research report by WESTAT--a report that was suppressed by the
Department of Labor under the Bush Administration--concluded that the
public labor exchange provides ``highly effective reemployment services
to claimants'' and other job seekers. Only a public labor exchange will
ensure that services are provided in an equitable manner, free of
personal favoritism and conflict of interest.
The public labor exchange must serve as the primary entry point
into the system. With plant closings, mass layoffs, and rising
unemployment wracking our nation's economy, a strong and uniform system
that provides rapid response and operates on a statewide and interstate
basis is more crucial than ever. Maintaining a public labor exchange
fosters accountability and the equitable provision of services. It has
the capacity to achieve statewide and federal policy objectives. To
ensure that WIA is responsive to the broad public interest, there
should be a requirement that the One-Stop Centers be publicly operated
and that full information about their operations be easily accessible
and available to the public.
Second, WIA needs to shift its focus toward providing training
services. The mandate of WIA to follow a sequence of services has led
to a focus on the core, minimal level of services and an
underinvestment in training. This orientation has produced a system
that tends to support low-road strategies that drive participants into
low-wage, dead-end jobs. The sequence of services requirement should be
abolished. Operational changes that can help to achieve the goal of
fostering good jobs include a requirement that a minimum--such as 50
percent--of adult and dislocated worker WIA funds be spent on training.
Third, the interests of business and labor must be rebalanced in
WIA governance structures. The requirement that a majority of State and
local WIBs be representatives of business has created boards that are
biased toward the interests of the corporate sector, and tends to
create conflicts of interest between the boards and local vendors. This
restriction has also had the unintended consequence of creating large
and unwieldy boards, a problem that is recognized by labor and the
business community. This restraint should be eliminated in a
reauthorized WIA.
WIA boards should be reconstituted to provide greater balance among
key stakeholders and allow for more organized labor participation.
Unions are strong advocates for effective training for good jobs. As I
have explained, California now has a legal requirement that 15 percent
of its local members be representatives of labor organizations. Such a
provision should be considered for adoption for WIA as a whole.
Fourth, WIA should incorporate program innovations in a number of
areas, starting with sector partnerships. The AFL-CIO supports
challenge grants that would push the WIA system to move in directions
that correspond to the actual workings of labor markets and the
workforce needs of industry clusters that have been identified by state
government agencies and labor market analysis. Governors should have
new authority to use WIA resources to develop statewide, industry or
regionally based initiatives to supplement local workforce activities
in accord with industry and labor market trends. We just caution that
care should be taken to ensure that these partnerships are grounded in
real conditions, and do not become another layer of bureaucracy with
funding demands that are self-perpetuating.
We would also like to see WIA recognize the need for career
pathways for youth. We have been working with Senator Patty Murray to
refine her ``Promoting Innovations to 21st Century Careers Act.'' We
would encourage the House Education and Labor Committee to begin
formulating similar legislation.
Also, we would like to establish a program or initiative in WIA to
fund Incumbent Worker Training and career ladders--as long as it
includes appropriate protections to ensure that employers do not shift
their costs to federal taxpayers. That program should not be limited to
persons at particular income levels. And we would see that program
coordinated with the work of sectoral partnerships, community colleges,
apprenticeships, and labor-management training programs.
In conclusion, the economic crisis has created dramatic new
conditions in our country. As the economic crisis unfolded this fall,
then-Senator Obama said in a Colorado speech: ``What we have seen in
the last few days is nothing less than the final verdict on an economic
philosophy that has completely failed.'' We need strong leadership from
the federal level that is not blinded by free market ideology. And we
need workforce development policy that is framed as part of a larger
industrial policy that would reassert the importance of the public
sector, revive our manufacturing economy to supply the component parts
for a green economy, change our trade policies to generate American
jobs, and pass an American Recovery Plan that can shore up our
infrastructure and move toward a sustainable economy.
I'm sure we won't agree with everything that the President's Chief
of Staff will do in the years ahead. But we did notice Rahm Emmanuel's
comment on ``Face the Nation'' last November when he said: ``Rule One:
Never allow a crisis to go to waste. They are opportunities to do big
things.'' Maybe those ``big things'' should include funding mechanisms
for social programs. The AFL-CIO has called upon the G-20 leaders to
explore the feasibility of a instituting a fee on all financial
transactions. Even a very modest fee could yield revenues of $100
billion per year. These resources that could be used for economic
recovery, or education and training services, or to offset the costs
associated with the Wall Street bailout. So I would leave you with that
thought.
The AFL-CIO looks forward to working with the subcommittee an the
full Education and Labor Committee on these WIA reforms in the year
ahead.
ATTACHMENT
Sacramento High Growth High Wage Sector Initiatives
Transportation: Partnership with Regional Transit,
California Labor Federation, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, American River College and Sacramento County Office of
Education for a Clean Diesel Technology program which retrained bus
mechanics in clean diesel and trained new workers for regional
construction and transportation employers.
Transportation: Recruiting, screening and referring job
candidates for Siemens' Transportation System, a company manufacturing
light rail vehicles. Collaborating with Siemens' and Los Rios Community
College district on welding training for selected employees.
Cost Estimating: Partnership with the Sacramento Builders
Exchange to provide incumbent worker and career ladder training in cost
estimating
Construction Trades: Partnership with Sacramento Sierra
Building Trades Council, Northern California Construction Training, and
Los Rios Community College District to provide pre-apprenticeship
construction training.
Healthcare: Partnership with Kaiser, UC Davis Medical
Center, Mercy, and Sutter Hospitals, SEIU and Los Rios Community
College District to increase the number of nurses trained in the region
and to develop a pre-apprenticeship training program (CNA, LVN,
Registered Nurse Career Ladder).
Clean Energy Technology: Recruiting for students for
Community College green technology courses in energy and
sustainability, and the design and fabrication of solar projects.
Clean Energy Technology: Partner in Green Capital
Alliance, a regional effort to position Sacramento as the premier
region in the nation for high-value, clean technology companies and
elevate the region's visibility both nationally and internationally.
______
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you, Mr. Camp. We will make sure
that the entire paper that you wrote be made part of the record
today.
I call on Ms. Johnson.
STATEMENT OF SHERRY JOHNSON, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, EMPLOYMENT
TRAINING PROGRAMS, TRAIL AREA DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee.
I am the WIB director at the Lincoln Trail Area Development
District, an eight-county regional economic planning and
development agency located approximately 40 miles south of
Louisville. I have been employed in this position for 24 years.
The region is the birthplace of Abraham Lincoln, whose 200th
birthday we celebrate today. And, additionally, it is the home
of the Fort Knox Military Installation.
The Workforce Investment Act has provided us with many new
tools to provide workforce services to individuals and
businesses throughout the region. But there have been many
challenges along the way. We would like to take our time here
today to discuss some of our challenges and successes in the
Lincoln Trail region in Kentucky.
There are several new influences that are changing the
regional landscape for many years to come. We have not been
immune to the challenges of businesses closing or reducing
their workforce. Kentucky is losing manufacturing, primarily in
the automotive-related industry, and in retail positions every
day. In our region alone, we have lost 1,000 manufacturing and
retail positions since July 1st. We are also faced with
addressing the needs of 1,000 Federal civilian workers who may
choose not to relocate to Fort Benning, Georgia, when the Armor
School moves in 2011.
Another challenge will be to recruit, train, retrain, and
retain up to 1,800 individuals needed to fill the positions
with the two new commands arriving at Fort Knox, the Army
Accessions Command and Human Resources Command. And that
challenge is now, because as many as 400 positions will arrive
with the Human Resources Command advance party this spring.
The higher educational skills and levels required for these
positions presents us with significant challenges. Gone are the
days when a high school diploma was a primary entrance to a
good job, as is a third- or fourth-generation family member
working for the same company.
We are focusing our initial efforts to recruit workers from
all across the Nation and even the world to fill these
knowledge-based positions. Positions will require, at a
minimum, a college degree and, in some cases, highly technical
skills to manage the day-to-day operations of both commands.
We literally have the equivalent of two Fortune 500
companies relocating to our region, and we have to make certain
that we are able to fill their workforce requirements now and
in the future--a future that will require the development of
career pathways and pipeline initiatives in our high schools
and post-secondary institutions to meet the continuing need for
a qualified workforce.
Other regional challenges have been in the health care
arena. We partnered with the Elizabethtown Community and
Technical College and health care providers to start a
respiratory technology program. This effort addressed the
immediate shortfall, but we have only scratched the surface.
Access to allied health training programs is limited, and
waiting lists are the standard of the day. We must continue to
invest in developing more access to health care training
programs.
We have also invested in an entrepreneurial academy of
excellence to stimulate the development of new ideas,
innovations, and businesses. In its first year, already over
100 individuals have signed up for the workshops. This is a
partnership between our local workforce board, Western Kentucky
University, and the Lincoln Trail Innovation and
Commercialization Center.
We are also one of 39 WIRED designated regions across the
country looking to develop and strengthen our regional economic
prosperity. We cover a 26-county, two-State area and are
addressing the challenges of educating and training our
workforce for the 21st century.
Other communities in Kentucky have developed targeted one-
stops and training programs, such as utility alignment and coal
mining training, for dislocated workers, youth, and other
growing sectors. Increased business services activities and
developing strong relationships with local economic development
have given us an edge in taking a proactive position instead of
just reacting to change.
The current economic conditions are unprecedented, and we
must work collectively to address these enormous challenges.
Unemployment continues to rise, and the President's stimulus
package offers individuals extended benefits, but we also need
to focus more attention on retraining workers and developing
employment opportunities in small businesses. We need to infuse
Federal, State, and local investments into these efforts to get
our economy back on track and our workforce back to work.
The challenges we face are daunting but not unique to us
alone. Each day brings news of people losing their jobs, and we
need to offer hope. There is a new day dawning in our region,
with the BRAC transformation and the spinoffs of new retail,
service, and contractor businesses that will follow this
growth.
The Workforce Investment Act must not be viewed as a
poverty program but as a vital tool in the economic stimulus
and recovery of our country. We must have the resources and the
funding to address these challenges and opportunities. We must
have unprecedented flexibility in our program design and
delivery at this critical juncture.
Workforce programs cannot do it alone. Workforce,
education, and economic development efforts must unite to
address these challenges. Our customers deserve hope, and we
must generate that hope through a unified and streamlined
delivery system. The challenge is enormous but one that we
stand ready to engage, embrace, and successfully execute.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sherry Johnson, Associate Director, Lincoln Trail
Area Development District
Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee for the
opportunity to speak before you today. I am the Workforce Investment
Board Director for the Employment and Training Department at the
Lincoln Trail Area Development District, an eight county regional
economic planning and development agency located approximately 40 miles
south of Louisville. I have been employed in this position 24 years.
The region is the birthplace of Abraham Lincoln, whose 200th birthday
we celebrate today. Additionally, it is the home of the Fort Knox
Military Installation.
Kentucky was one of the first states to implement the Workforce
Investment Act in 1999. We saw it as an opportunity to be on the
cutting edge of a new day in workforce training programs. The Act has
provided us with many new tools to provide workforce services to
individuals and businesses throughout our region, but there have been
many challenges along the way. We'd like to use our time here today to
discuss some of our challenges and successes in the Lincoln Trail
region and the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
There are several influences that are changing the regional
landscape for many years to come. We have not been immune to the
challenges of businesses closing or reducing their workforce because of
the current economic situation in our country. Kentucky is losing
manufacturing, primarily in the automotive related industry, and in
retail positions every day. In the Lincoln Trail region alone, we have
lost 1000 manufacturing and retail positions since July 1st. We are
also faced with addressing the needs of 1000 federal civilian workers
who may choose not to relocate to Fort Benning, Georgia when the Armor
School moves in 2011. Another challenge will be to recruit, train,
retrain and retain up to 1800 individuals needed to fill the positions
with the two new commands arriving at Fort Knox--the Army's Accessions
and Human Resources Command. And that challenge is at the forefront,
because as many as 400 positions in the Human Resources Command advance
party will be arriving this spring.
The higher educational levels and skill sets required for these
positions presents us with significant challenges in the region and the
Commonwealth. Gone are the days when a high school diploma was the
primary entrance to a good job, as is the 3rd or 4th generation family
member working for the same company. We are focusing our initial
efforts to recruit workers from across the nation, and even the world,
to fill these knowledged-based positions. Positions will require, at a
minimum, a college degree--and in some cases, highly technical skills
to manage the day-to-day operations of both commands. We literally have
the equivalent of two Fortune 500 companies relocating to our region,
and we have to make certain that we are able to fill their workforce
requirements NOW and in the future, a future that will require the
development of career pathways and pipelines initiatives in our high
schools and post secondary institutions to meet the continuing need for
a qualified workforce.
Other regional challenges have been in the healthcare arena.
Several years ago, we were faced with a shortage of respiratory
technicians. We partnered with the local community and technical
college and local healthcare providers to start a respiratory
technology training program. This effort addressed the immediate short
fall, but we have only scratched the surface in addressing the shortage
of healthcare workers. Access to allied health training programs is
limited and waiting lists are the standard of the day. We must invest
in developing more access to healthcare training programs.
We have also invested workforce funds for an entrepreneurial
academy of excellence in order to stimulate the development of new
ideas, innovations and businesses. This project is in its first year
and, already, over 100 individuals have signed up for the workshops.
This is a partnership between our local workforce board, Western
Kentucky University, and the Lincoln Trail Innovation and
Commercialization Center.
We are also one of the 39 WIRED designated regions across the
country looking to develop and strengthen our regional economic
prosperity. We cover a 26 county, 2 state area and are addressing the
challenges of educating and training our workforce for the 21st
century.
Other communities throughout the Commonwealth have developed
targeted one-stops and training programs such as utility lineman and
coal mining training for dislocated workers, youth, and other growing
industry sectors. Increased business services activities and developing
strong relationships with local economic development professionals have
given us an edge in taking a proactive position, instead of just
reacting to change.
The current economic conditions in our country are unprecedented
and we must work collectively to address these enormous challenges.
Unemployment continues to rise and the President's stimulus package
offers individuals extended benefits, but we also need to focus much
more attention on retraining workers and developing employment
opportunities in small businesses. We need to infuse federal, state and
local investments into these efforts to get our economy back on track
and our workforce back to work.
The challenges we face in the Lincoln Trail region and Kentucky are
daunting but not unique to us alone. Each day brings news of people
losing their jobs in the automotive related industry. The retail
industry continues to suffer. We need to offer hope. There is a new day
dawning in our region with the BRAC transformation at Fort Knox and the
spinoffs of new retail, service and contractor businesses that will
follow this growth.
The Workforce Investment Act must not be viewed as a ``poverty
program'' but as a vital tool in the economic stimulus and recovery of
our country. We must have the resources and funding in place to address
these challenges and opportunities. We must have unprecedented
flexibility in our program design and delivery at this critical
juncture. The Workforce Investment Act programs cannot do it alone.
Workforce, education and economic development efforts must unite as one
to address these challenges of the workforce system. Our customers
deserve hope and we must generate that hope through a unified and
streamlined delivery system. Mandated partner agencies must come to the
table and actively participate in the one-stop system with their
programs, services and funds. The challenge is enormous, but one that
we stand ready to engage, embrace and successfully execute.
______
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
And now I call on Ms. Elzey.
STATEMENT OF KAREN ELZEY, VICE PRESIDENT, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE FOR A COMPETITIVE WORKFORCE
Ms. Elzey. Thank you, Chairman Hinojosa, Ranking Member
Guthrie, and members of the subcommittee, for the opportunity
to present this statement on the important role of the business
community in promoting new innovations and best practices under
the Workforce Investment Act.
I commend the subcommittee for bringing attention to this
important topic. This discussion is particularly timely, given
the Nation's economic crisis. It is also important because of
the proposed infusion of funds into the WIA system as part of
the economic stimulus and the anticipated reauthorization of
WIA.
Our challenge is clear: how to use this money to create
good jobs that pay good wages. We believe that, while the
system has worked in some places, it is desperately in need of
reform. With the new infusion of funding and a renewed
commitment to creating high-quality, high-wage jobs, now is the
time to reform the system.
Despite some of the challenges, we have also witnessed many
work local workforce systems that have achieved some success.
While the Chamber has not undertaken a comprehensive review of
the WIA system, it is evident that some of the most successful
local workforce systems have several traits in common.
First, strong business leadership. Simply put, a local
workforce system that doesn't have buy-in from the business
community will not be successful. A strong business presence
drives success. While business leadership is envisioned under
WIA by having a business majority on each local board, in
reality these boards are often too large and unwieldy to be
effective. As a result, many employers don't have the time or
the patience to participate.
Second, effective coordination. In some cases, States have
made efforts to streamline their own bureaucracies. Others have
assisted in branding centers to make it easier for the business
community to have a single point of contact. In Arlington,
Texas, the Chamber of Commerce and local WIB developed a single
resource for employers. This center houses an array of
workforce service providers that now operate as a single unit
focused on meeting employer and employee needs.
Third, relevant training. Local systems that are effective
are ones that reach out to businesses to assess the skills
needed by employers and needed for employees. In Omaha,
Nebraska, Mutual of Omaha, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, the Greater
Omaha Chamber, the local WIB, and others created a unique job
training program. Under the initiative, jobs were identified
for participants upfront. Training was tailored to meet the
skills requirements for the specific jobs. A job coach was
assigned to each worker to help ensure success. Of the 19
initial participants in this pilot, all but three landed jobs
at area insurance companies. This concept of tailoring training
for actual jobs is one in which the Chamber is likely to take
an even greater interest as part of WIA reauthorization.
In Louisville, Kentucky, the community used WIA funding to
create the KentuckianaWorks Scholars Program. This initiative,
supported by the WIB, the Chamber, and elected officials, aims
to increase the educational attainment of citizens.
Specifically, it helps those who could, with some financial
assistance, complete an associate's degree.
Mr. Chairman, while this is by no means an exhaustive list
of best practices in the WIA system, the Chamber believes they
represent the fundamental areas in which to build upon the
system.
Federal job training needs to focus more attention on
training people for actual jobs. Under WIA's predecessor, the
Job Training Partnership Act, 75 percent of participants were
enrolled in training. By 2000, only about half of participants
were in training. And, today, just 20 percent of exiting
participants were enrolled in training, not including those
receiving self-services. In short, the new system must focus
more attention funded on training. And, given the limited
funding, this training must be maximized to ensure a far
greater percentage of those who are being trained are being
trained with the skills that employers need.
We must also consider the fact that too many of our
Nation's adults not only lack basic skills necessary for jobs
that are disappearing, but that they will be even further
behind as our Nation's economy improves. While most sectors of
our economy are shrinking, others have continued to expand.
Even during the last 3 months, employment in health care and
education continued to increase. We must not lose sight for the
need of our workforce systems to meet this demand and to
prepare people for tomorrow's economic recovery.
As the committee moves forward with WIA reauthorization,
the Chamber welcomes the opportunity to work with each of you
toward addressing these challenges and ensuring the system is
able to meet the needs of our Nation's workforce.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement of Ms. Elzey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Karen R. Elzey, Vice President & Executive
Director, Institute for a Competitive Workforce, U.S. Chamber of
Commerce
Thank you Chairman Hinojosa, Ranking Member Guthrie, and members of
the Subcommittee, for the opportunity to present this statement this
afternoon on the important role of the business community in promoting
new innovations and best practices under the Workforce Investment Act
(WIA).
I commend the Subcommittee for bringing attention to this important
topic. This discussion is particularly timely given the nation's
economic crisis; the proposed infusion of funds into the WIA system as
part of the economic stimulus; as well as the anticipated
reauthorization of WIA this Congress.
Indeed, it is not possible to have this discussion without noting
the 11.6 million Americans unable to find work. In just the last three
months alone, our nation has lost nearly 1.8 million jobs.
Unfortunately, by most accounts, these numbers will likely become even
more sobering in the months ahead.
The front line of this reality can be seen from coast-to-coast in
the one-stop career centers established as part of WIA, which are
seeing record increases in those seeking employment and job training
services. A recent article in the Ocala Star-Banner highlights a story
in Marion County, Florida where demand for services at the local
workforce center for the last six months is nearly surpassing demand of
the entire previous year.
The economic stimulus proposals in the House and Senate both
include over $4 billion of additional funding for programs under the
federal employment system, including WIA, representing a doubling of
current federal expenditures in this area. Clearly, these funds would
provide much needed capacity to the system during this time. Given this
infusion of funds, however, our challenge is clear: how to use this
money to create good jobs that pay a good wage for jobs that exist in
today's economy? Perhaps the answer lies in our discussion here today
about some of the best practices and innovations that are being
implemented throughout the nation.
There are many in the business community who question the
effectiveness of the current system. Unfortunately, we have heard from
our Chamber members across the country that the WIA system has not
always been able to meet the needs of many job seekers and employers.
We believe that while the system has worked in some places, it is
desperately in need of reform. With the new infusion of funding, and a
renewed commitment to creating high-quality, high wage jobs--now is the
time to reform the system.
In our view, reform starts in Washington. Poor local implementation
of these programs often can be directly traced to the current patchwork
of programs, rules, and regulations developed here in Washington. For
example, despite several decades of attempts to streamline and
coordinate multiple federal employment and training programs--the
number of targeted programs continues to increase.
The one-stop system put into place last reauthorization was
supposed to fix all that--and it has been somewhat of an improvement.
Yet, oftentimes conflicting target populations, performance measures,
and even governance structures make one-stops nothing more than a co-
located maze of disconnected programs. This is particularly true in the
area of job search assistance. While the Employment Service has the
primary role of identifying job openings and providing this information
to job seekers, federal law also assigns a similar role to the WIA
system, welfare, and even food stamp programs in many cases. Such
overlap confuses participants and employers alike.
Despite these challenges, we have also witnessed many local
workforce investment systems that have tried to make the best of these
challenges, and have achieved some success. While the Chamber has not
yet undertaken a comprehensive review of the WIA system, it is evident
that some of the nation's most successful local workforce investment
systems have several traits in common:
1) Strong business leadership: Simply put, a local workforce
investment system that doesn't have buy-in from the business community
will not be successful; a strong business presence drives success. When
businesses turn first to their local one-stop for their workforce
needs, the participants going to these centers benefit. Businesses not
only facilitate the information flow; they can help leverage other
funding. While business leadership is envisioned under WIA by virtue of
the business majority on each local board overseeing workforce
investment areas--and that the chairs of these boards must represent
the business community--in reality, these boards are often too large
and unwieldy to be effective. As a result, many of the most active
employers at the local level don't have the time or the patience to
participate.
2) Effective coordination: Despite the challenges of overlapping
federal programs discussed above, there are examples of how local
systems have overcome these difficulties and have at least provided a
public perception of coordination. In some cases this is helped through
state efforts to streamline their own bureaucracies and assisting in
branding of centers to make it easier for the business community to
have a single point of contact.
For example, in Arlington, Texas, the chamber of commerce and
Workforce Solutions for Tarrant County (the local Workforce Board)
developed a single resource for employers, the Center for Continuing
Education and Workforce Development. The center is a collaborative
partnership housing an array of workforce service providers--including
the office of the Arlington chamber's workforce development staff--that
now operate as a single unit focused on meeting employer and employee
needs.
Built on the University of Texas-Arlington campus, the facility
incorporates higher education, the publicly funded system, and
employers into an integrated model. The chamber's Education and
Workforce Development Council employer members meet on a monthly basis
to provide center administration with feedback and information related
to the needs of the employer community. A valuable by-product of this
approach is that by increasing awareness of workforce development
issues and resources, council members have become effective advocates
of the employer-driven workforce development system for the employer
community.
3) Relevant training: While in theory all training under WIA should
be relevant and tied to real jobs, this clearly is not always the case.
Local systems that are effective are ones that reach out to businesses
to assess the skills needed by new employees; are active in gathering
local labor market information to help inform training; and are engaged
with the local training providers to ensure they have programs which
meet the needs of the local economy.
In some cases, local areas have taken this one step further and
have implemented truly innovative solutions to ensuring the relevancy
of training. One example of this innovation was recently highlighted in
the Omaha World Herald. After reports that Omaha had one of the highest
rates of poverty among African-Americans in the nation, Mutual of Omaha
and Blue Cross Blue Shield, along with other partners including the
Greater Omaha Chamber of Commerce and the local workforce investment
board, set out to create a unique job training program. Under the
initiative, jobs were identified for participants up front after which
training was tailored for the participants to meet the skills
requirements for the specific jobs. In addition, a job coach was
assigned to each worker to help ensure ongoing success. Of the 19
initial participants, all but three landed jobs at area insurance
companies. This concept of tailoring training for actual jobs is one in
which the Chamber is likely to take an even greater interest as part of
the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act.
Another innovative approach is occurring in Louisville, Kentucky
where the community is striving to raise the educational attainment of
its citizens. In 2008 Mayor Jerry Abramson and other leaders announced
$1 million in college funding (using WIA funding) that would be used to
help Greater Louisville-area residents finish their associate's degrees
though the KentuckianaWorks Scholars Program. The KentuckianaWorks
Scholars Program will over 400 people in the 2008-2009 academic year by
giving them up to $3,000 for tuition and up to $600 for books and
supplies. This program is designed to help those who could, with some
financial assistance, complete an associate's degree.
KentuckianaWorks, the local workforce investment board, benchmarks
the educational attainment of its citizens with 15 other communities in
which it competes for economic development projects. The data showed
that Louisville ranked 9th out of the 15 communities for the number of
associate's degrees being produced. By setting a goal of educating an
additional 400 people to complete their Associate's degree, Louisville
could increase its ranking to fifth. The local chamber, Greater
Louisville Inc., is a partner in this initiative.
Mr. Chairman, while this is by no means an exhaustive list of best
practices and innovation in the WIA system, the Chamber believes they
represent the fundamental areas in which to build upon this system as
part of the upcoming reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me conclude with this important point:
Federal job training needs to focus more attention on training actual
people for actual jobs. Now, you might say, that seems pretty self-
evident, but let me bring the following statistics to your attention.
Despite nearly 2.5 million individuals participating in WIA programs
annually, very few actually receive training. In 2006, only 109,528
Adult Program Participants received training and only 77,160 Dislocated
Worker Participants received training. (To put this into perspective,
there are over 6 million students enrolled in the country's 1,045
community colleges). This reflects a significant decrease in the
proportion of WIA funds that support training. Under WIA's predecessor,
the Job Training Partnership Act, 75% of participants were enrolled in
training. By 2000, only about half of participants were in training,
and today just 20% of exiting participants were enrolled in training
(not including those receiving self-services).
In short, the new system must focus more attention and funding on
training and given the limited funding, this training must be maximized
to ensure a far greater percentage of those who are being trained are
being trained appropriately and for jobs that actually exist.
While it might be tempting to surmise that given the vast amount of
job loss across our nation we need no longer place a priority on
training for jobs ``that don't exist.'' However, such conclusions are
short-sighted and fail to consider the long-term trends of our economy
and the fact that too many of our nation's adults not only lack basic
skills necessary for jobs that are disappearing--they will be even
further behind as our nation's economy continues to improve.
In fact, while most sectors of our economy are shrinking, others
have continued to expand. Even during each of the last three months, as
our economy has suffered some of the worst job loss ever, employment in
health care and education continued to increase. We must not lose sight
for the need of our workforce and training systems to meet this demand
as well as the long-term demand in sectors including manufacturing,
which despite its continued downturn, also faces a graying workforce--
from engineers to welders--signaling trouble in years ahead.
Our nation is also on the verge of embarking on new sectors of
employment from the bio-tech fields to health care to jobs that will
help keep our nation more energy efficient. These emerging sectors will
rely on a broad range of skilled employees--the employees that today's
workforce system should be preparing for tomorrow's economic recovery.
As the Committee moves forward with the reauthorization of WIA, the
Chamber welcomes the opportunity to work with each of you toward
addressing these challenges and ensuring this system is able to meet
the needs of our nation's workforce.
______
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you.
I want to thank each of the presenters for your testimony.
At this time, we are going to begin the questions, and the
members are going to have an opportunity to get clarification
or maybe ask you some questions that were not addressed by any
one of you. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Ms. Elzey, you talked about the need for the 21st century
and modern, up-to-date, state-of-the-art training. One of your
colleagues mentioned that it was difficult to get 40 percent of
the Federal money that comes down to your State and for each of
the workforce boards to go into training. That tells me that 60
percent is being used by maybe whatever the State takes for
administrative costs, and then the subcontractors have to show
a profit, and then there are administration costs.
At the board that you oversee, what percentage would you
say is the average that was used in 2007 and 2008 for training
after paying all the administrative costs?
Ms. Elzey. Mr. Chairman, in my position, I don't currently
oversee a board, so the statistics that I have quoted in terms
of training were those national statistics that looked at what
percentage was coming now, in terms of WIA versus JTPA.
From our perspective and our members' perspective, we would
like to see the dollars be able to be used more for training
individuals for jobs that are currently available and those
that employers will be creating in the future.
Chairman Hinojosa. Let me ask Ms. Gonzalez. You oversee a
large group that covers three counties. What would you say is
the actual percentage of the Federal money that comes down to
your area that is used for training?
Ms. Gonzalez. Of the $57 million that we receive and those
that flow through the State--those cover eight different
funding streams, from food stamps, education and training, to
our TANF dollars, to WIA Adult, Youth, and Dislocated--of the
$57 million, between 67 and 70 percent go to direct client
services, be that in training, be that in support services.
We, Congressman, have gone from 12 facilities in our
community down to six, and soon to be five, because our
workforce board's commitment is that that investment, that
Federal investment, must go to those that need it, those in
need, which are obviously our customers.
Chairman Hinojosa. Being that you said there were about 28
centers throughout the State of Texas----
Ms. Gonzalez. Yes, sir.
Chairman Hinojosa [continuing]. Tell me how does your
percentage compare with the average in the State of Texas.
Ms. Gonzalez. Our percentage compares not very nicely with
the rest of the State of Texas. Obviously, in the State of
Texas, of the 28 workforce boards, there are regions that are
representative of all kinds of issues and sectors in the 28
boards.
Our child care administrative cost is the lowest in the
State. We receive $25 million a year, sir, for child care
alone. At any given day, we support 10,000 children in child
care. And we are recognized as one of the two lowest child care
administrative costs in the State of Texas.
So, to your question, that range varies. And at this time,
sir, I do not currently have that information, but I will
gladly provide it to you.
Chairman Hinojosa. What could be done to reduce the
administrative costs and increase the amount of money that
would go to the client services? What could be done?
Ms. Gonzalez. From our perspective, we believe strongly in
procurement of services. The State of Texas, that is a
mandatory process, where workforce services must be procured.
It is not just automatically allocated to anybody. So we truly
believe in a competitive process.
We also believe that leveraging additional State and
private-sector investment dollars into our systems would work.
We, at the workforce board, and ours is a best practice,
utilize a fee-for-service. If one of our business customers
wants to work and requests specialized training, we ask them
for investment. That money immediately goes right back into the
program.
Chairman Hinojosa. And what percentage does the employer
pay in this leveraged system?
Ms. Gonzalez. At a minimum, 50 percent. Normally between 60
and 70 percent of the cost the employer puts in.
Chairman Hinojosa. My time is up.
I yield to Mr. Guthrie.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This question is for Ms. Johnson and some from Ms. Elzey's
testimony where it comes from, but I have heard there are more
than 40 members on some local workforce boards in Kentucky. And
it has been my experience that local boards, which are required
to have a business majority, are essential to the workforce
development in many States. And it is my understanding there is
consensus around the idea of streamlining the State and local
boards, and one idea is to remove the requirement that the one-
stop-partner programs have a seat on the local boards. This
could result in greater representation by local businesses,
education officials, community groups and employee
representatives who are frequently frustrated that they are not
able to connect or access resources from the local boards
because of the sheer size.
My question is, what has been your experience with the size
and composition of State and local workforce investment boards?
Ms. Johnson. Our local board membership is at 45, and I
think throughout Kentucky 40-plus is the average. We certainly
believe that a business majority is vital and critical to the
process because they have the jobs, and we need to solicit
input to them so that we understand and we know what the skills
are of any industry or business out in our community.
The partners who are represented through our memorandum of
understanding and resource-sharing agreements, we would
probably agree that possibly the one-stop partners would not
need a seat on the board. But the board is not manageable at
current size, current level. We would probably suggest that 25
would be the maximum size for an ideal board to get business
done, because with 45 members, you are looking at a majority of
at least 23 to conduct business, and if you are pulling from a
vast regional area, sometimes that is very difficult. So we
would definitely support any reduction in the size of boards.
Mr. Guthrie. Do you have a suggested size board?
Ms. Johnson. Maximum 25.
Mr. Guthrie. Maximum 25. Well, there is one more question I
have.
Ms. Johnson, again, as you know, there has been a lot of
discussion over the last few years about the amount of funding
under WIA that has been spent on training. It is my
understanding that a number of provisions in the law have
contributed to this issue.
For example, the law includes requirements that job seekers
participate in the level of service sequentially, or there are
other bureaucratic requirements on community colleges where
they don't participate or other eligible training providers
because of the requirements and lack of support for mandatory
partners at many one-stop centers.
What has been your experience with unemployed workers in
Kentucky who need specialized training?
Ms. Johnson. We think the three levels of service are
critical, because not everyone that comes into your one-stop
system needs to go into training. Some just need to rework
their resume; they need to work on interviewing skills. They
might need to do some research as far as what the labor market
is and transition those skills.
But we look at both core and intensive as an opportunity to
provide a little bit more intensive one-on-one case management
service so that that transition to training, if it is needed,
is very smooth and includes a plan of action so that person can
go from being unemployed, from being laid off or whatever, but
they can go back into training and get a job very quickly.
We spend probably 85 percent of our funds on training at
this point in time. The rest, 10 percent is admin, and 5
percent is towards the administration of our one-stops. Not all
partners are in our one-stops. We have employment services,
veterans services, unemployment, vocational rehabilitation in a
couple of our centers, but that is it. And partner agencies
need to come and provide their services at the centers. I think
it is critical. I think it is vital to the people who come
seeking our services that they can access them in an easy,
efficient and streamlined manner.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you very much. That is very helpful.
I yield back my time.
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you.
I now would like to call on the gentleman from New Jersey,
Bob Andrews.
Mr. Andrews. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
reassuming the leadership of this subcommittee. You have been
great to work with, and we know you are going to lead us to an
excellent reauthorization in this. Thank you very much.
I thank the panel for their testimony.
When workforce investment boards are at their best, they
identify growing areas of a local economy and provide skilled
workers for those jobs, and the workers build careers, not just
jobs. When they are at their worst, what happens is what Mr.
Camp described, which is the world's most expensive revolving
door, where we train people for low wage, entry level jobs.
They get them for a while, they lose them and come back, or
someone else loses their job and comes back. Mr. Camp has
suggested a remedy for that, which is a minimum amount of the
funds would have to be spent on high quality training for a
high quality job.
I would be interested in the panel's opinion, I know Mr.
Camp's opinion, he would be for it, but is anyone against that
idea? Our chamber would be for that idea?
Ms. Elzey. I think we are for the idea that local
communities look at their local labor markets and identify the
needs of employers in those communities to ensure that people
get quality jobs.
Mr. Andrews. That is not quite what I was asking. I was
asking would be, would we have a statutory minimum where at
least some percentage, Mr. Camp suggests 40 at his Web, would
have to go for what I would call long-term quality training,
that might be an associate's degree type thing, rather than a
couple of months training, the theory being that that gets the
person on a career ladder rather than just a short-term job.
Does the chamber have a position on that?
Ms. Elzey. Not at this time.
Mr. Anderson. We would be interested in hearing what you
think.
Mr. Bahr, what do you think of that?
Mr. Bahr. Just some experience that I have had in our own
union. It is too late to talk about training and retraining
once an employer announces a plant is closing. There used to be
a time when a high school graduate without skills or a dropout
was able to get a job in manufacturing at a family-sustaining
wage. We have to recognize those days are gone forever and that
to train people to flip hamburgers in the hope that they are
going to continue on to get something better I think is not
going to happen.
While we still have to concentrate on the math and science,
what the high performance workplace has done in this country is
to reinvigorate and renew the need for liberal arts. The key to
the future, we can't always predict what jobs are going to be
needed. You know, it took over 100 years for the Morse Code to
be made obsolete, and now if you don't keep up, every 3 years,
you are obsolete.
Mr. Andrews. Some would argue it is sooner than that.
Mr. Bahr. That is the way technology is moving. So how do
we deal with it?
I began to develop this idea when President Clinton
appointed me to chair the Commission for a Nation of Lifelong
Learners. As much as he and Vice President Gore tried to keep
it going down at the local level, we failed. But what we were
able to do was identify the obstacles to adult learning, the
real obstacles, what keeps people from learning. But more than
that, we recognized that since we can't always predict what
jobs are going to be available a year, 2 years, 3 years from
now, and many employers are fearful of suggesting what may not
turn out that way because we are in a global economy, that we
have to train our workforce to be able to react quickly to the
changes in technology. And the way you do that is with higher
education.
You know, if you look at the jurisdiction of this
committee, change the commas----
Mr. Andrews. Which is far too narrow, don't you agree?
Mr. Bahr. Drop the commas and say higher education plus
lifelong learning equals competitiveness.
Mr. Andrews. I will tell you one of the things that our
chairman I think heard that and was able to negotiate in the
stimulus bill, which I know will enjoy broad support on the
committee, is a substantial increase in the lifelong learning
credit, which came out of the Clinton administration, so more
people can get more dollars and go to school. Also the stimulus
bill has in it a significant increase in Title I funding, a
significant increase in IDEA funding, and a special new account
for distressed States, which is really all of them now, to try
to get at this problem long before someone goes into the
workforce. So our chairman was quite vigorous in his advocacy
of those positions.
Mr. Bahr. There is another aspect we have to look at. About
50 to 60 percent, if not higher, of the people in the workforce
today, are the workforce of 2020. That includes the
undereducated part of the workforce. We can't just write them
off. Now, they are all working, and what we found out in the
telecommunications industry, maybe because these companies had
money and were able to do what we wanted to do, that we made
the strides we did. But with the encouragement where there is a
union, of the union and the employer, people who never thought
about going on to higher education will do so.
Just as an example in the role that government plays,
employer-furnished education is taxable income, and Congress
passes legislation, and it used to be, prior to 1994,
Rostenkowski would hold it every 2 years and renew it
automatically, nobody paid attention.
Well, in 1994, when the power changed in the House, just
because nobody did anything, it lapsed. At that time, in U.S.
West, which is today Quest Communications, we had 17 percent of
the workforce enrolled in college-level work. When the tax came
out of their paychecks when the law lapsed, it dropped
immediately to 7 percent.
So there are two things, and this we managed to get working
in both parties into the Bush tax cut bill which expires in
2010, and we have to keep on the front burner to get that
renewed next year or the same thing will happen.
Mr. Andrews. I see my time has expired. Thank you very
much, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate Mr. Bahr's point that we should have the Ways
and Means Committee give us all of their jurisdiction. I
completely agree with that.
Chairman Hinojosa. I can say that anybody who wants to give
additional answers to that may do it in writing, and we will
see that the Members of Congress get that.
I would like to now call on someone who is very special to
me. He was one of my mentors when I got here back in 1996. He
was on the Education Committee and was chairman of this
particular committee, and I want to call on Congressman McKeon
from California.
Mr. McKeon. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you for the kind words. I am an old guy. I have been around
here a long time, is what he was saying in a nice way.
Mr. Camp, in your written testimony, you state that the
current economic crisis calls into question the dominant
political wisdom of the last 30 years that the bulk of
decision-making about Federal programs are best made locally. I
was one of the principal authors of WIA back in--well, we did
in 1996, and we did it again in 1998 when it became law. But
one of the things that I have championed my whole time here is
local control.
I served on a local school board. I served on a local city
council and as mayor. And I just firmly believe that the closer
you can get to the people who are involved, the better the
decision. I think at a Federal level we should probably deal
more in principles, not in details down to the local level.
Did I misunderstand your point in that? Do you think that
the bulk of decisions impacting local decisions should be made
by the Federal Government, and why do you believe that a one-
size-fits-all system would be better?
Mr. Camp. Mr. McKeon, you are a man I have a lot of respect
for and we have talked about various issues in the past. But
let me be clear about my point.
In the State of California, among the workforce investment
boards, some spend zero percent on training, and some spend 50
percent. If we are not going to be training workers for the
future, the Workforce Investment Act is failing the Nation.
Now, do I believe in local control? Absolutely. I was a
local school board member for 5 years. I ranted and raved
against those guys telling us what to do when we thought we
knew what was best. But you have to have serious guidelines.
And the problem we have got now is we are all over the map. And
when you go and look at all the workforce investment boards,
and I share a point of view with the Chamber of Commerce, there
is a huge disparity in what people do with a workforce
investment board.
We need to have clear expectations, and I think one of the
most firm expectations is we have to set a standard about
training. Because I have got workforce investment boards in
California that place zero percent in training.
Now, I think the other problem we have got is we have to be
clear about what we think training is, because I have got
people that says training is where I sat down and taught them
how to make a phone call, and I don't think that is what I am
thinking training is.
But, on the other hand, there are some smart things that we
have learned about training. And I will admit I was wrong when
we first started this in Sacramento, where the Chamber of
Commerce did a big survey of our employers and said, what are
you looking for? What do you want workers to know? And they all
came back with what I would call soft skills. And I was one of
the labor guys saying, what is this soft skills? This is just
hogwash. And that is not true.
Our Los Rios Community College district designed a course
which I think we ought to have every union person take. It was
talking about joint decision-making. It was talking about
independence. That was local control. But it was sophisticated
local control, because we could demonstrate to you how much
increase in salary people were going to make as a result of a
successful completion of that course, because we could verify
and validate to every member of the business community that
when somebody graduated from that class, they had, I am not
quite sure of the status, the acknowledgment of the Los Rios
Community College district, of approval, Good Housekeeping
Award I guess, in terms of soft skills. Those are important,
and we developed that class so that, and I give credit to the
community college that developed that class so that it was
effective.
Now, I absolutely believe in local control. I take pride
the fact that what the mix of jobs and skills that we need in
Sacramento is not what you need in New Jersey. So we need that
sense of control. But we don't need to appropriate money for
workforce investment and not require there be money in
training. That is the concern I have got.
Mr. McKeon. That was definitely not the intention.
Mr. Camp. Well, I am not walking away from my fight that
says there is a role that the public sector employees play in
what we call the employment development department. They
process the unemployment insurance claims. They should be doing
something of that, not easy, that counseling job referral work.
And we should take our workforce investment board, which is
where the business community and the labor community come
together, with the educational community, and say, what are the
training needs that will make us the best region, that we will
do better than San Diego or wherever.
Mr. McKeon. You should be a Senator. Great job.
But I would like to hear Ms. Johnson reply to that same
question, if the chairman would indulge me.
Chairman Hinojosa. I will give you 30 seconds.
Ms. Johnson. Very briefly, every individual in our region
that goes into training, goes into training for a high demand
occupation within our labor market and our broader wired
region. Pure and simple. There is no use of us putting people
into training where it is a dead end situation. We make them do
homework. We do our homework. We continue to look at the labor
market on a daily basis. And if we don't, we are not doing that
customer justice. Training needs to be the a the local level.
Mr. McKeon. Sounds like we are in agreement. There are a
few details we could chew on, but thank you very much.
Chairman Hinojosa. I would like to now call on the
gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. John Tierney.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank you for
putting special focus and priority on this particular issue at
the outset of this session. I look forward to working with you
on this, because I think you have hit it right on the head in
these days, trying times. People need to have some security of
knowing how they are going to get back into the labor force.
Let me ask our panel members who are parts of the workforce
investment board system on this. What are we going to do to
entice people in emerging industries or sectors, whether it is
energy efficiency, energy alternatives, nano science, things of
that nature, to get on the boards? I see the most local boards
are the local banker, your local insurance person, people that
are terrific people and the ones that generally give up their
time on that, but they are not always from the industry that is
creating the new jobs. I think we need their expertise on those
boards to help us identify what skills and education levels we
need to get out there. So if I could quickly get an answer on
that?
Ms. Gonzalez. Thank you for the opportunity. I will say,
from our perspective, it has been very difficult to encourage
more so because of the credibility or lack thereof of this
system, if you will. What we have found is that we have
encouraged the successful business partners of ours and the
successful board members who represent the private sector to be
our ambassadors.
The other thing that we have done is that, if an emerging
industry is in our community and we engage this business, this
company, this partner, one of the requests that we make is that
they participate in what we call our industry sector task
forces so they become familiar. It is almost like desensitizing
them to the government.
Mr. Tierney. So instead of directly putting them on the
board, you put them on a task force and try to woo them in?
Ms. Gonzalez. And move them in.
Mr. Tierney. Ms. Johnson, what do you do?
Ms. Johnson. We have been trying to focus on working with
our economic development professionals so that they can engage
the emerging sectors in their region. We have also started
working with entrepreneurs. We think that that is an avenue for
us to continue to grow and to look at emerging sectors down the
line.
Mr. Tierney. Are we doing enough? We have had a couple of
good examples. One is reflected in the Green Jobs Act, which I
had the privilege of authoring with Hilda Solis, our new
Secretary of Labor. Another is a group called E-Team in
Massachusetts, where we formed partnerships. Are we doing
enough to encourage partnerships of a particular industry or
company, community college or other educational institution,
private industry, the business community and labor, to have a
consortium to come in and get a grant to actually put together
a program, and then part of the contribution from the business
end, of course, can be either faculty or some other
contribution towards teaching the courses or money on that.
Do you think the current act does enough on that, or would
you like to see something else done to try to encourage that
kind of cooperation?
Ms. Johnson. I think that is an excellent idea. And the
more flexibility that we have to develop partnership
relationships to meet the needs of both individuals and
businesses, the better we are. We can be more responsive in a
more timely manner.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you.
Mr. Camp, do you want to speak?
Mr. Camp. Mr. Tierney, on our workforce investment board,
we go out and do a survey of all of our green energy upstart
companies. So we sit down with the CEOs and say, what are you
looking for? We get them in a roundtable. And we don't take
long, but get them in a room with six or eight of them and a
facilitator and just talk about what their needs are. So we
bring that back to the workforce investment board and say, you
know, we have got eight people or eight different groups and
said this is really what we want to kick start our solar energy
program, and these are the kind of skills we are looking for
and what our next level is.
Because the critical issue for us is if, I am going to kick
start a green energy program, I need to make sure I am
responding to what they need today, not what I imagine they may
need 10 years from now or next year or 2 years from now. But
they are in a vulnerable position. They have got to have a
responsive work preparation. So we do that. We come back. We
have a very small pot of money that allows us to do innovation,
and that is one of the key areas.
Mr. Tierney. If I could quickly go from my right to your
left on the board here, does anybody see any reason why we
cannot device a Workforce Investment Act bill that also
incorporates the transitional assistance aspect so that we have
one channel? If you are unemployed for any reason at all, we
can address your need as opposed to having two different
programs of that nature. If I start to my right, yes or no?
Ms. Elzey. We have no problem with that.
Ms. Johnson. No problem.
Mr. Camp. Are we talking about private industry doing this
or talking about the public sector?
Mr. Tierney. We are talking about getting it done within
one silo instead of several silos here.
Mr. Camp. Well, filing new claims and processing those
claims and getting people back out from a regular traditional
labor exchange program, I think it has got to be public sector
just because that is the most efficient way to deliver that,
and this it is the least conflict of interest problem. We have
got people and I----
Mr. Tierney. That wasn't really the focus of the question.
It is basically, is there a need in your mind that we have a
Transitional Assistance Program in one silo and other workforce
investment program in other silos?
Mr. Camp. I guess I don't have trouble with it. I have to
think about it. I will respond to you.
Mr. Wooderson. Mr. Tierney, from a disability community
standpoint, I don't believe there would be any challenge for us
there at all.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you. Mr. Bahr?
Mr. Bahr. Our committee recommends a single. I would also
suggest that we ought to be looking for some adult ed people on
the boards.
Ms. Gonzalez. I absolutely do that. And we do have adult ed
representatives on our board.
Mr. Tierney. I wish we had more time to get into the
literacy aspect of this, but I am glad it is part of this
discussion, and I am sure we will get into it later.
Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Hinojosa. At this time, I would like to call on
the gentlewoman from California, Susan Davis.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for
being here. Nice to see you Mr. Camp after the California
legislative days.
I wanted to go back for just a second and check and see if
there is anything that has been said in terms of the percentage
that would go towards training. It is a little out of sync with
what programs you do. I know that Mr. Camp mentioned at least
40 percent. We have had mention of greater than that.
Is there any problem particularly with calling that out as
we move forward? Is there anything in that that didn't jive
with something you work with?
Mr. Camp. I think the key is making sure we have a good
clear definition of training, because people will report as
training something that you and I may not think about,
preparing people for high-wage jobs. And I do think it is
important to have a minimum, I didn't say a maximum, but a
minimum that has to be spent on that kind of training. I think
we are missing the boat if we let the local--as much as I honor
the local decision-making, you have to put some guidelines on
what we expect to come out of this money.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Anything else?
Ms. Gonzalez. I think, from my perspective or from our
perspective, it is important that the training not only be
clearly defined but that the training be tied to an absolute
outcome. It is not good enough to have somebody sitting in a
chair for the next month or 2 or 6, or 2 years or 6 years for
that matter. It is clearly important that the training result
in some type of credential or outcome.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you. And when we talk about that, we are
usually thinking of career paths that people will be able to
move in. Let me ask you about this example in the health field.
People caring for Alzheimer's patients, for example.
I recall in San Diego there was a question of whether the
salaries, the incoming salaries, were high enough to receive
some of the workforce investment dollars at one point. I
suspect this was worked out along the way.
Are there areas where actually the employer does fall short
and yet is in a high need area that should be addressed as we
move forward? Are there exceptions within that? Certainly you
talked about the self-sufficiency, the high demand jobs. We are
not talking about 100 percent. So there is an area in health
care. But is there a problem with that, and what would there be
perhaps that you want to just caution us about?
Mr. Camp. I would just caution you to establish a
requirement that there be a sustainable wage, because what that
allows the workforce local board to make decisions about, and
in fact frees up this local decision-making issue, is to train
people to move up and have their spot taken by somebody at a
lower wage.
We use EED data to determine what the wage rate, the income
of that worker is 18 months down the road, and we talk about
that at our board saying if you didn't meet the $12 an hour,
don't fund this training program, because they are not meeting
a sustainable wage.
Now, do I think there is a magic self-sustaining number I
can give you today? It is going to vary in each county, because
what the rent and utilities are in one area is different than
another. But there is data for every single county in the
United States. So you can obtain good, hard data about what it
takes to have a sustained, independent income, and then target
that so it allows the workforce investment board to expand who
it is providing an upgrade training to. And I think that
creates the incentive for careers, or what we sometimes call
ladders or sometimes call lattices. You may start out working
for a nursing home and go to a hospital and go back to a local
clinic, but you are still within that field and working your
way up.
Mrs. Davis. Great. Thank you.
I actually had a question, I wanted to go to Mr. Wooderson
really briefly in terms of the veterans programs you mentioned
in particular, and how we can better coordinate that. Are there
some suggestions? But is there something about all that that
just makes you all crazy in terms of trying to adhere to both
the letter and the spirit? What is it we should be thinking
about?
Mr. Wooderson. From the disability community standpoint, of
course, title IV of the Workforce Investment Act is our
rehabilitation agency. Probably the thing that challenges us
the most is not so much physical access anymore to workforce
one-stop centers. That seems to be improving across the
country. We are greatly appreciative of that.
What is really a challenge for us is programmatic access in
the sense particularly for our consumers with sensory
disabilities, visual disabilities, hearing disabilities,
accessing the programs. So as we talk about the programs that
we all serve through WIA, one of the things that really does
drive us crazy, using your terms, if I may, is being able to
access those in a way that is equally available for folks with
disabilities just like anybody else that does not experience a
disability.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Anybody else very quickly that wants to weigh in on
something that really makes you crazy that we should be
thinking about?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Hinojosa. At this time, I would like to call on
the gentleman from Colorado, Jared Polis.
Mr. Polis. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And thank you to all of you who help inform our process as
we take on the very important task of hopefully leading to the
reauthorization of and improvement in WIA.
I have a few sets of questions. My constituents in Colorado
care a lot about green jobs. In fact, 3 weeks ago, the Boulder-
based American Solar Energy Society released a report that said
renewable energy and energy efficiency industries represent
more than 9 million jobs as of 2007. The renewable energy
industry grew three times as fast as the U.S. economy with the
solar, thermal, photovoltaic, biodiesel and ethanol sectors
leading the way, each with 25 percent-plus in annual growth.
In my district alone, there are currently 2,405 green jobs,
according to a survey, and according to the U.S. Conference of
Mayors over the next two decades there could be 19,003 more
jobs created in my district. Rather excitingly, more than $5
billion in venture capital was invested in clean energy
technology industries in 2007, which represents one-fifth of
all venture capital investment in North America and Europe.
President Obama focused much of his campaign on a new
energy plan for America that would help create five million new
jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next 10
years to catalyze private efforts to building clean energy in
the future.
My question in this area for you both relates to green jobs
as well as, more generally, what is being done or what should
be done and can be done to effectively track the types of jobs
that we are building capacity in and training people in to
match the future needs of the economy and the workforce?
To a certain extent, if we are training for just where
there is demand today, we will always be chasing the present
time. We need to prepare. When you are investing in education
and investing in preparing somebody, even if they are 30 or 40
years old, they are preparing for a 20-year career, 30-year
career. If they are younger, it is even a longer career.
So if any of you would care to address ideas about ways we
can track the best estimates and scientific analysis of the
future needs of the workforce to building capacity in our
programs today?
Mr. Camp. Well, Mr. Polis, one of the ways we do that in
Sacramento is by creating what we call a jointly administered
apprenticeship program. Let's take solar installations. So when
the employer has 50 percent of the votes about who gets hired
to teach the program, they are going to make damn sure that the
right skills and insight and level of sophistication is
obtained before they are going to hire somebody to do the job.
The other half of the vote is held by the union, who wants to
make sure it is somebody that is good at teaching these
particular workers.
So you end up with a program that is good at teaching the
workforce, but is also cutting edge, because that is the only
way you are going to compete in an emerging industry like solar
installation. And that is going to change. There is no question
about putting in tiles instead of panels will sweep through at
some point, or maybe some other innovation, and the question
is, do we have an established program in which the employer has
the authority to dictate what the subject matter is.
So we find that our jointly run programs provide us with
that, and we are transferring doing that in medical care. Now,
as medical care changes, it is not so much on target with
regard to green energy, although there is a lot of need for
green energy in the hospital system. So as we develop new jobs
in the medical delivery system, there is a jointly run program
that drives both the quality of the teaching and the quality of
the technical knowledge that has to be obtained. I think that
is the best system we have designed so far.
Ms. Gonzalez. Mr. Polis, if I may, what you are really
speaking to here is an issue of what we would call a business
intelligence system that finds a way to meld both worker,
worker information, worker skills, as well as business needs.
Not only for today, but what kind of business need might I
have, whether it be in a green job or any other for that
matter, tomorrow, 5 years and 10 years down the road.
Earlier we spoke to the point of career pathways and local
control. The issue here is, how do we identify transferable,
transportable skill sets that can then be matched not only to
one particular sector, but to others? The Federal Department of
Labor does not have a system, this is my understanding, does
not have a true system in which they manage that kind of data
nationally. So if you are speaking about a true business
intelligence system where both the consumer, being the folks
that use our end product, as well as our folks that we are
training could learn, could access, could gather information
from, that does not exist.
The State of Texas has something that we have been working
on called the WIT, Workforce Information System, and then some
of us on different boards have developed our own business
intelligence systems using a CRM model, a customer relations
model.
But nationally, sir, there is no database, and I am looking
at my partners here on the panel, that identifies or that can
meld, if you will, worker skill sets for each individual area
as well as business needs.
Chairman Hinojosa. The time has expired.
I would like to at this time recognize the gentlewoman from
Hawaii, Mazie Hirono.
Ms. Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank Ms. Gonzalez. You really expressed that really well
because we are in an environment now where the future workforce
needs are changing. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me that
we would be spending money to train people for very specific
kinds of jobs that are not going to exist, so the
interchangeability of skills, all of that I think is really
important.
Then Mr. Bahr, you talked about lifelong learning. I do
think at the foundation of a lot of this is we need a trained
workforce that begins to have the opportunity to have
appropriate educational opportunities at a very young age,
because as things are changing. If they have had the
opportunity, for example, for a quality early education, that
really sets the stage for success in school and in life. I
think that is something that we ought to be looking at, and I
am a big proponent of quality early education and the whole
continuum of preparing our people for not just work but for
success in life.
I have had some experience with WIA money that came to
Hawaii. I sat on a panel or a board for like a year or two, and
I really was confused as to what they were doing, because there
didn't seem to be any blueprint, standards. Some of you
mentioned that. There didn't seem to be a way for us to report
out. Then the big concern was what happens when the Federal
grant money ends and this all comes to a screeching halt. So at
the State level where all this money is going, and it is all
supposed to be handled there, I really had serious questions
about it. And to be sitting here at this end and listening to
you, I see that that concern has still not been addressed.
So this is a chunk of money. I am looking at over $5
billion that goes in every fiscal year for WIA programs. I
think we need some help from you all as to how it is that we
get a handle on the reporting, the accountability, some kind of
standard. Is that what we need to start with? Something that
that provides a uniform way for States to figure out what they
should be doing with this money, because otherwise it is just
money down the drain.
Anybody care to respond?
Mr. Camp. What we use is the EDD data about their income,
6, 12 and 18 months down the road. So if a worker comes in and
gets training and is getting $8,000 a year more in income a
year from now, something good happened, and we will take the
credit for it. If the worker is not showing that kind of an
increase, then let's don't do that anymore. Let's go to that
service provider and say, your training program was no good,
and we have had to do that.
I think there is another issue, though, that I thought you
were raising, which is, how do we prepare people for work at an
earlier age? And what we have done is something that I believe
is unique in Sacramento, that we call Careers GPS--we use the
GPS out of the geographical positioning system--in which we
have identified for the 75 largest industrial sectors 80
percent of all the jobs that are going to be created in the
next 10 years. And in fact, we can predict a lot of those jobs.
Maybe I can't tell you exactly, but I can tell you for a
six-county area how many engineers we are going to need pretty
close, enough so it can give somebody some good guidance. So we
have developed a computer base that, for our labor market area,
what kind of training you have to have to apply for this job,
the name, address and phone number for the person that provides
it, how much money you are going to make when you get the job,
what you are expected to do when you show up for work, and what
kind of training you are going to get once you have been hired.
So we want to drive this down into the seventh grade, as low as
the seventh grade level, and I assuming the seventh graders can
use computers better than an old guy like me, but we also make
it available to all of our work-stop centers, all of our laid-
off workers. Because what we want to do is be able to say to
people, if you live within 50 miles of this center, here is
what is going to happen over the next 10 years. If you are
thinking you are going to be a professional basketball player,
and there is only be going to be 12, you better get a back-up.
That is what the purpose of that is.
Ms. Hirono. Yeah, I was getting at really preparing people
very early on. It is not just for jobs. It is really
attitudinal. It is that whole developmental part of an
individual that we have to pay attention to, and as far as I am
concerned, it starts in preschool and even before that. And I
would like to see a lot more recognition of the importance of
those foundational resources that we provide really early on as
a way for us to prepare people for working and life. And by the
time you all get these people that need retraining, maybe they
will have a much better foundation on which you can train them.
So that was my point. I think you all seem to be agreeing that
that is important.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you.
At this time I would like to recognize the gentleman from
Connecticut, Joe Courtney.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I think the
timing of this hearing could not be more critical, with the
economic crisis we are going through and a vote to take place
within hours in terms of the programs that these people are
connected with.
I want to compliment the chamber for stepping up and
supporting the President in support of H.R. 1, because these
programs obviously are desperately shorthanded.
I was at the Connecticut WIA offices the last week or two.
You really did sort of get the feeling you are at a Katrina-
level event in these unemployment offices and these one-stop
offices with the volume that is sort of coming through. Again,
they do a very good job of trying, as Ms. Elzey indicated, to
tailor their training programs to what is going on out there in
the Connecticut economy. But it does kind of feel like the
moorings are coming loose with the storm that is out there
right now.
Mr. Bahr, I was wandering if you could, with a little bit
of perspective having been at this awhile and seeing past
recessions, just sort of give your sort of perspective about
where we are right now, and really, are these programs that I
think are sort of designed for a normal business cycle going to
be overtaxed and overwhelmed by an economy that has lost almost
4 million jobs in the last 13 months, and it doesn't seem like
there is any light at the end of the tunnel right now?
Mr. Bahr. It is one thing to talk about what we have to do
with public education, and we need to do. If we look at 1983,
the Nation at Risk told us if we don't fix our public education
system, we will not be able to compete globally. Now it is 25
years later, we have fallen further behind. So what you have
said about working with the young people today and fixing
public education so that when they go through high school they
have a direction, that does not deal with today's problem and
the problem of the next 10 years.
President Obama hopes, and we all hope, that H.R. 1 is
going to produce somewhere between 3 and 4 million jobs. Are we
sure that we have trained workers to fill some of those jobs
that hopefully will come out of the stimulus bill and the high-
tech end? I am not so sure.
As I said earlier, a majority of the workforce in 2020 is
already employed, and as the Baby Boomers start to leave and
you still have part of this 88 million undereducated, the
majority of the workforce would continue to grow with an
average under-educated workforce.
Now, adult ed has to be looked at as the third leg of the
process, and we specifically call for it to be spoken about as
adult education and skills development. They are one and the
same. It is my experience that virtually every worker can be
trained to do higher skilled work. They have got to be
encouraged. All the systems have to be in place. There has to
be a total collaboration at the local level with the city or
county between business and labor. The community colleges play
an enormous role, and there is no substitute, in my judgment--
when I go back, what the charge to the Commission for Lifelong
Learning was, how do we change the culture of our Nation from
K-12 to lifelong learning?
As true as it was 10 years ago, and President Clinton put
it, I think it was the 1999 State of the Union message, he
addressed this, the more people we have educated in the arts
will be the more people that have the flexibility to deal with
oncoming technology, to deal with the high-performance
workplace.
We are not going to be successful with a low-skill/low-wage
economy. A solution and our only salvation is a high-skill/
high-wage economy, and all of our education facilities have to
be directed in that line. And I think we have the capability to
do it. I am amazed with the work that our commission did over 2
years.
It is kind of interesting, you look at so many
commissions--I served on them--adult ed became a footnote. I
was on the Commission for the Upgrade of the Skills of the
American Workforce. You look at the great report we put out in
2007. It dealt 90 percent with the people that you are talking
about at the lower education level. It only dealt with 10
percent of the people in the workforce today. So it was Ray
Marshall, former Secretary of Labor, at the very first meeting
of this commission that said we have to make sure that we are
not a footnote, but that we are zeroing in on adult education
and what has to be done to reach these vast numbers. The
numbers are not going to get better. We are only reaching 3
million a year, and if half of that are dropouts from high
school, it is like being on a treadmill going nowhere.
Chairman Hinojosa. The gentleman's time has expired.
I would like to now call on the gentlewoman from Nevada,
Dina Titus.
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Members of the panel, I would like to address my question
to Mr. Wooderson. As you can tell by the attention you have
received on today's hearing, often the programs for the
disabled get the short end of the stick. We have stuck it out
though, so I could ask you this question.
The statistics that you mentioned about the unemployment
rates for the disabled are just striking. They are shameful
really, but they are striking. And we know that a lot of people
on those lists really want to go to work, and they could be
successful if they were given the opportunity.
I think that the waiting lists that are there now reflect
that desire. They are long to start with, and they are going to
get even longer, partly due to the Americans with Disabilities
Act that focuses on immersion in the community as opposed to
institutionalization, and also because now there is so much
more competition from people who are unemployed who don't have
disabilities. And we know how those prejudices work.
I want to add to your list of accomplishments a program in
Nevada called Opportunity Village. It is a program that is a
public-private partnership. It is funded by all different
levels of government. It has a very successful campaign going
with big billboards with a little piece of paper that says,
which one was shredded by the disabled person? And that kind of
says it all. I think that is important.
We know these programs work. You mentioned that they pay
for themselves. They put more money on the tax roll. They get
more people off of public assistance.
What can we do better? Think outside the box. Besides just
money, is it online courses? Is it better incentives for
business to participate? What can we do to make these programs
fill the increasing need?
Mr. Wooderson. Well, thank you, Ms. Titus, for the
acknowledgment, first of all, of the program. Specifically in
the public VR program, in the last couple of years, we really
have emphasized trying to link across State lines, because we
have been working in silos for so long. The Council of State
Administrators initiated a program that we call The Net where
we are linking employers that have representation in a number
of States providing them with information about the value added
of employing individuals with disabilities, and we are seeing
great success with that. It is in pockets around the country.
We have actually been able to work with the Federal Government,
been seeing a great response from like the Internal Revenue
Service. We are working with companies like Walgreens, Safeway;
companies that have an existence all over.
So if we can continue that type of new initiatives to
inform employers first of all that we do have people that can
work, they want to go to work, we can include them in
understanding that we can access services across State lines, I
believe that is one of the biggest things that we can do in
addition to increasing the dollars that are available, of
course, to continue providing high-quality types of training
for persons with disabilities.
We know that folks with disabilities are often the last
into the employment marketplace and the first out when times
get tough. So we have got to push on the high wages, as Mr.
Andrews was speaking earlier about. We have to identify access
issues that allow individuals to get into those programs, and
we believe that will make a great difference in being able to
get folks to competitive, gainful employment.
Ms. Titus. If there are some legislative changes that we
need to make in the statute, would you get those to us so we
can try to help you accommodate those things? Because not only
does it make good economic sense, it is ethically the right
thing to do, because we all benefit from everybody being able
to reach their potential.
Mr. Wooderson. Yes, ma'am. You can expect immediate follow
up. Thank you.
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you.
I am now going to call on the gentleman from Oregon,
Congressman David Wu.
Mr. Wu. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have spoken
with the workforce investment folks at home and also with a
number of the community colleges, both that I represent and
that are in the other four congressional districts of Oregon,
and it is no surprise that they all say in economic times like
these that enrollment in your programs and in theirs goes up
significantly.
Can you, to the best of your efforts, try to quantify or
give us percentages about how much additional demand you all
experience and to the best of your ability estimate that for
the community college programs also?
Mr. Camp. I can give it to you later. I can't give it to
you today.
Ms. Gonzalez. Mr. Wu, let me tell you that we have a strong
relationship with your workforce community in eastern Oregon.
We are a mentor board to the eastern Oregon area.
Mr. Wu. Would that be Blue Mountain Community College, or
one of the others?
Ms. Gonzalez. I knew you were going to ask that.
Mr. Wu. That is all right. We can get that at a different
time.
Ms. Gonzalez. I will say to you, again, I will get that
information to you. But more importantly, what we see as folks
coming in to our workforce one-stop centers are absolutely
incredible in numbers. I will also say to you that our
community college has gone from 800 students to 22,000 students
in the last 15 years, a huge increase in the last 3 years
alone. I can get those numbers for you. The same is true for
our 4-year institution, University of Texas at Pan American. So
I can get that data for you.
But I will say you are absolutely correct, both for
workforce services as well as training services, support
services, any kind of support services that our workforce board
can offer. The need far surpasses what we currently have. Our
workforce board alone lost $20 million in funding in the last 5
years. Not because of any other reason except that cutbacks and
rescission; $20 million, 46 percent of our dislocated worker
funds, dislocated worker funds, was cut last year alone.
Mr. Wu. Anybody else want to address this in terms of the
percentage increase in demand as our unemployment goes up by 2,
3, 4 or more percentage points?
Mr. Camp. I have it for UI claims, the people going into
the one-stop centers. We have a 61 percent increase in UI
claims in will California. We have normally now 1 million
visits annually to one-stop centers, and we think there will be
a 60 percent increase over that 1 million visits over this next
year.
Mr. Wu. Anybody else?
Ms. Johnson. I might add we have not seen the increase yet,
and we don't think we have seen the increase because people are
receiving extended unemployment insurance benefits. They have
not hit at a point where semesters or terms are occurring to
where they can get into school, and we have a limitation on how
much we can pay based on the availability of funding. So if
that person does not have extra income coming in, we have not
seen the increase. It may happen, but at this point in time,
the increase as far as the number of clients that we are seeing
going into training to the community college is not occurring.
Mr. Wu. So just as employment tends to be a lagging
economic indicator, when unemployment occurs, for your centers,
it pretty much lags the numbers by a significant period also?
Ms. Johnson. It hasn't in previous high times of
unemployment. But for the current situation, we have--I mean,
our unemployment claims, they are out the door. We have 500 or
600 people standing in line every day. But the number of people
going into training at the community college is not increasing
at this point in time. It may, but it has not yet.
Mr. Wu. Do you have any other explanations or theories
about why that might be?
Ms. Johnson. Not yet. We are continuing to look at it,
because we are concerned that we are not meeting the needs at
this point in time. But it is not occurring.
Mr. Wu. Mr. Chairman, I know my time has expired, but if I
could ask one further question of the panel?
Chairman Hinojosa. I will give you an additional minute.
Mr. Wu. Thank you very much. Could you address the issue,
as the demand goes up, what is your surge capacity with your
current resources, both assets on the ground and money, and
what do you need to accommodate the surge, the potential surge,
if it does come?
Mr. Wooderson. Mr. Wu, from the Vocational Rehabilitation
Program standpoint, we find right now, as I was mentioning
earlier, 36 of our programs already have a waiting list. And we
know that over 35,000 individuals are waiting to get in the
door.
So what it really boils down to for us is it is not just
the money itself; it is the capacity to serve those who come
through the door. So, for us, it really does mean a matter of
expanding our ability to have professionals on the front line
being able to meet those needs and then accessing programs out
in the community to be able to achieve those high-quality jobs.
Mr. Camp. Mr. Wu, we have had, during the holiday period, 2
million calls a day to our UI Claims Office. It takes people
sometimes calling 20 times before they can ever get anybody to
answer the phone. If you are not really good at waiting on the
phone, you are not going to get your unemployment insurance.
So the real answer is this phone system, it has created an
enormous crisis. People are not getting their unemployment
insurance because they call and call and call and call and
nobody answers the phone because they are overwhelmed. And they
can't go in; it is illegal. So they have to either go by
computer--and everybody doesn't have a computer.
So, in terms of the way the UI claims system works, it is
an enormous failure. It is all automation.
Mr. Wu. Thank you for that information. That is very
helpful. And hopefully we can act on it and help the folks out
there in need.
I try to reach some folks by phone these days, and it just
doesn't work. And then I have to ask my son for help in getting
on the laptop.
Chairman Hinojosa. Congressman Wu, you have asked some very
good questions that hopefully our staff is going to continue to
try to find answers to, because the numbers are continuing to
grow at 500,000 to 600,000 jobless per month. So we definitely
have to answer those.
As we try to bring this to a close, I wanted to ask if each
of the members of this panel would consider giving us in
writing an answer to this question that I am going to give you.
And that is: How can workforce centers work in conjunction with
the community colleges nearest to them so as to be able to more
effectively use the stimulus money that is in this $789 billion
over 2 years that is going to be available, a good part of it
going toward retraining those that are jobless?
And I am of the opinion that the community colleges are
great engines to help revitalize the regions with the highest
unemployment rate. As we already learned, in some cities in
California they are already at 20, 30 percent unemployment, and
there are States that are already at 15 percent unemployment.
So we have a very serious problem.
And I think that you all have made some good points. I like
what Mr. Bahr said about the importance of not just having
training for what used to be a good job last century, but going
into community colleges and, with some help, being able to get
an associate degree that would pay livable wages.
I am a strong proponent of community colleges, but I think
that, in order for them to be successful, they need to have a
closer relationship with your centers, because you have
resources, both human and financial resources, that need to be
leveraged with what we give the community colleges.
So, with that, I want to request unanimous consent that two
documents that I have in my hands be entered into the record of
this hearing. And the first document is submitted by David
Harvey, president and CEO of ProLiteracy, and it is the
testimony regarding aspects of adult education. The second
document in my hands is that from Ronald G. Congleton
commissioner representing labor, and his testimony on the Texas
Workforce Commission. Hearing no objection, it will become part
of the record.
[The information follows:]
Prepared Statement of David C. Harvey, President & CEO, ProLiteracy
Mr. Chairman and respected members of the Subcommittee, ProLiteracy
submits this written testimony as part of the Subcommittee on Higher
Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness hearing on New
Innovations and Best Practices Under the Workforce Investment Act
(WIA). We regard this as preliminary testimony and respectfully request
an opportunity to testify and participate in future hearings and the
drafting stages of a reauthorization bill, addressing the needs of
lowest-level adult learners and community-based organizations.
I would like to briefly introduce ProLiteracy, the problem of adult
literacy in America, the role that community-based organizations play
in educating low-level adult learners, and briefly mention some of
ProLiteracy's highest-priority policy concerns related to WIA
reauthorization.
ProLiteracy
ProLiteracy Worldwide is the world's oldest and largest
organization of adult literacy and basic education programs in the
United States. ProLiteracy traces its roots to two premiere adult
literacy organizations, Laubach Literacy International and Literacy
Volunteers of America. Laubach Literacy International was founded by
missionary and adult literacy pioneer Dr. Frank C. Laubach more than 70
years ago. During his work with native Muslim tribes in the
Philippines, Dr. Laubach pioneered literacy teaching methods--the
ability to read, write, and perform basic math functions--as a way of
helping to lift people out of poverty. His philosophy of ``each one,
teach one'' is based on using former adult learners to tutor others in
their community. When Ruth Johnson Colvin learned in the mid-1960s that
a significant number of adults in her Syracuse, NY community could not
read, she founded Literacy Volunteers of America. Her program used
trained volunteers to tutor adults in one-on-one settings. In 2002,
Laubach Literacy International and Literacy Volunteers of America
merged to create ProLiteracy.
ProLiteracy now represents over 1,200 community-based organizations
and adult basic education programs in the United States, and we partner
with literacy organizations in 53 developing countries. In communities
across the United States, these organizations use trained volunteers,
teachers, and instructors to provide one on one tutoring, classroom
instruction, and specialized classes in reading, writing, math,
technology, English language skills, job-training and workforce
literacy skills, GED, and citizenship. Our members are located in all
50 states and in the District of Columbia. Through education, training
and advocacy, ProLiteracy supports the frontline work of these
organizations through regional conferences and other training events,
credentialing, and by publishing materials and products used in
teaching adults basic literacy and English as a second language and
preparing adults for the U.S. citizenship and GED exams. We gather and
disseminate evidence-based practices in adult literacy instruction.
The Problem of Adult Literacy in America
In 2003, the U.S. Department of Education conducted the National
Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL) in order to gauge the English
reading and comprehension skills of individuals in the United States
over the age of 16 on daily literacy tasks such as reading a newspaper
article, following a printed television guide, and completing a bank
deposit slip. The results indicated that 30 million adults--14 percent
of this country's adult population--had below basic literacy skills;
that is, their ability to read was so poor, they could not complete a
job application without help or follow the directions on a medicine
bottle. An additional 63 million adults read only slightly better.
The high percentage of low-literate adults can be connected to
almost every socioeconomic problem this country faces. Adults who
struggle to read are unhealthier than others, and they use hospitals
more often. Low literacy adds an estimated $238 billion to this
country's health care costs each year. An estimated 60 percent of
federal and state prison inmates are barely literate. And struggling
readers are more likely to be unemployed and require public assistance.
These are people who, through no fault of their own, did not learn
to read and write as children. They are people like Carl Solberg, a
dyslexic who never learned to read until age 42. With the help of the
tutors and staff at a ProLiteracy member program, Carl earned his high
school diploma. He continued to work with his tutor and three years
later, he earned state certification as a teacher's aide. He now works
in the same high school from which he dropped out.
And there's Melanie Abney, who grew up in a home where drugs were
more important than education. She followed the family pattern--out of
high school before graduation and into dealing drugs. She became
involved in a literacy program while in jail and continued to be
tutored after her release. She now is the office manager for the
literacy program that helped her change her life.
Amie Colley left high school in the ninth grade, unable to
recognize all the letters of the alphabet. She entered a literacy
program at a third grade reading level. Two tutors discovered a reading
program that works for Amie, who now hopes to earn her GED and someday,
go to college.
Community-Based Literacy & Basic Education
In 2007--2008, ProLiteracy's member programs assisted nearly
200,000 adults struggling to improve their literacy skills. More than
half these individuals--62 percent--were tested at the beginning to low
basic literacy skill level. This means that approximately 120,000
students in ProLiteracy's member programs had reading, writing, and
comprehension skills equal to those of first, second, third, and fourth
graders. At these literacy levels, these individuals would not be
eligible for the GED preparation classes offered by more traditional
adult basic education programs. ProLiteracy member programs serve as an
important entry point into the literacy and adult basic education
system in the United States for lowest-level learners requiring
intensive one-to-one and classroom instruction before graduating to
more advanced programs.
ProLiteracy member programs provided student instruction with the
assistance of more than 117,000 trained volunteers. The seven million
hours of time donated by these volunteers are vital to student success,
as many of our programs cannot afford to pay full- or part-time
professional teachers. Only 55 percent of ProLiteracy member programs
access state and federal funding under Title II of the Workforce
Investment Act--the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act.
The Workforce Investment Act
In order for literacy and basic education programs to be eligible
for WIA Title II funding, they must meet eligibility requirements as
determined by the National Reporting System for Adult Education (NRS),
developed by the U.S. Department of Education's Division of Adult
Education and Literacy (DAEL). The NRS addresses such issues as the
intensity and duration of instruction and the learner outcomes that
must be achieved within specific time frames, outcomes such as finding
a job and leaving welfare, getting a new job, earning a high school
diploma or GED, or entering postsecondary training.
ProLiteracy supports these goals and we support an accountability
system for programs; however, revisions to the system are needed in
order to adequately evaluate community-based organizations and the
lowest-level learners they serve.
Much of ProLiteracy's work with its member programs, in fact, deals
with accountability and program improvement. Students enter our program
with goals of finding jobs, getting better jobs, and earning a GED.
When they enter with Level 2 ability, however, it is not likely that
goal will be achieved within the frameworks of the NRS.
As this subcommittee begins the work of updating and reauthorizing
the Workforce Investment Act, ProLiteracy urges its members to consider
all the needs of a diverse adult literacy and basic education system.
The system is not just diverse in that the goals of the administering
states differ; it is diverse in the needs of the people that it serves.
Adults at the lowest level need the additional time and individualized
instruction that volunteer-based programs can offer so that they will
be ready for the higher-level instruction available in traditional ABE
classes. The volunteer-based programs serve as a feeder system to the
ABEs in the same way that the ABEs feed students into postsecondary
education.
Mr. Chairman, in any Workforce Investment Act reauthorization bill
that is considered by Congress, we strongly recommend that the needs of
America's lowest-level learners not be forgotten or abandoned. We owe
the 1 in 7 adults in America who are in need of adult literacy and
basic education the chance at a better future.
Preliminary Reauthorization Recommendations
ProLiteracy supports the recommendations for changes to Title II
made by the National Coalition for Literacy, and we support aspects of
the work of the National Commission on Adult Literacy. In particular,
we support the National Coalition for Literacy's call for a revision of
the NRS as an effective means of measuring the outcome of programs
working with adults at the lowest levels. These recommendations are
initial steps in considering the unique needs and contributions of
ProLiteracy's constituents. In addition to the Coalition's
recommendations, ProLiteracy's specific priority concerns include:
1) The standards by which student progress is measured and programs
deemed effective must consider the variables of student literacy level
upon entering a program, student learning styles, current abilities,
and life challenges.
2) That State Leadership Activities include appropriations for
``professional capacity-building development for staff and tutors of
adult basic education and volunteer- and community-based organizations
* * *''
3) That ``levels of performance measures for eligible providers
must include consideration for the additional time and resources
required by those providers serving adults * * * who have minimal
literacy skills.''
4) That wording regarding ``direct and equitable access'' to
funding and ``intensity and duration'' of instruction be clarified and
modified so as to be applicable to the unique services offered by
community-based organizations.
5) That local programs and adult learners have a strong role in
determining how programs are planned, administered, and evaluated.
In support of the issues identified above, ProLiteracy identified
the following policy principles to guide reauthorization:
1. Adult literacy and basic education are fundamental human rights.
All adults in the United States who need adult literacy and basic
education services should have access to instruction in the local
communities where they live and work. Supporting these services will
require a significant increase in federal, state, and local funding to
support these educational services.
2. Adult learners--new readers, those transitioning to higher
education, and everyone in between--need access to a continuum of adult
literacy and basic education services.
Adult literacy and basic education comprise a comprehensive
continuum that includes reading, writing, English language learning,
using computers and other technology, numeracy, GED, and other
instruction.
3. Adult literacy and basic education programs and services should
be learner centered.
Adult literacy and basic education programs should be tailored to
meet the needs and circumstances of the learners they serve.
Instruction should support students' learning styles, challenges, and
abilities. Programs should coordinate their services with the broad
range of other services that adult learners may participate in, such as
social, mental health, and disability services, including case
management.
4. The Adult Education and Family Literacy Act should ensure the
widest-possible access to federal and state funding mechanisms by local
volunteer and adult education programs in order to serve the diverse
needs of adult learners.
Program requirements and evaluation methods should be flexible to
meet the varying capacities of local volunteer and adult basic
education programs. If provisions related to ``direction and equitable
access'' and ``duration and intensity of instruction'' continue in
federal law, a broad-range of success indicators and outcome measures
must be guaranteed so that programs have access to funding and are able
to document the full range of literacy services that they provide.
5. Local programs and adult learners should have a strong role in
determining how programs are planned, administered, and evaluated.
The Adult Education and Family Literacy Act is a partnership
between federal, state, and local governments and local programs.
Programs and services will be most successful when service providers
and adult learners participate with government in planning and
evaluating the adult literacy and basic education system.
6. A federal adult literacy and basic education interagency council
should be created to ensure coordination of literacy and adult basic
education policy and programs within the federal agencies responsible
for public health, immigration, disability, financial literacy, and
other related programs. A similar requirement should be made for state-
level interagency coordination.
Many federal agencies are involved in various aspects of adult
literacy and basic education. Similarly, adults participating in
literacy and basic education often have multiple needs and participate
in other publicly funded services. Federal and state agencies
responsible for these services must coordinate policy and programs to
eliminate conflicting eligibility requirements and other barriers to a
local comprehensive, seamless service systems for adult learners.
7. Local programs that are successful in moving students through
the system--from emergent to advanced levels--should get funding and
other incentives, including direct federal funding to local programs to
assure a variety of delivery systems to meet learner needs.
Programs should create and be rewarded for efforts to create a
seamless, learner-centered, local adult literacy and basic education
system. This will make it possible for learners to move in and out of
the system as their needs and circumstances dictate while they are
acquiring the combination of skills and education they need to succeed
at home, in the workplace, and in society. Direct federal funding of
local programs is a strategy to assure that diverse programs are
available to meet learner needs and circumstances.
8. Training and technical assistance and research to identify best
practices and program models must be supported.
Local adult literacy and basic education programs need access to
best practices for program design and instructional methods and to the
technical assistance grants that will enable them to build their
capacity, design innovative programs, support anti-stigma programs and
campaigns for adult learners, and address other needs.
Conclusion
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, ProLiteracy looks
forward to working with you and members of your staff to strengthen
this vitally important piece of legislation to ensure that it addresses
the needs of America's lowest-level learners and the unique needs of
community-based organizations.
Thank you for your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of Ronald G. Congleton, Commissioner Representing
Labor, Texas Workforce Commission
An unintended consequence of WIA has been an erosion of the
relationship between unemployment insurance (UI) and the employment
service (ES). Both funded from the same source, the two programs were
designed to work together and have historically done so with great
success. UI pays benefits to those with significant work histories who
are temporarily unemployed while ES assists in finding them new work.
Effective employment service reduces the amount of time it takes to
find a new job, thus lessening the strain on unemployment trust funds
and the taxes of employers who fund it. Working in tandem, the two
programs effectively bridge rough spots in the economy for workers and
communities.
In Texas, the linkage between UI and ES was badly weakened by the
simultaneous creation of One-Stop centers and withdrawal of UI staff
from local communities to remote call centers. Any reauthorization of
WIA should strive to rebuild the bridge between the programs. This can
be done without large scale changes, simply by strengthening the role
of ES in the One-Stops and coordinating policy with the UI program.
In the early 1990's, Texas had the one most effective and efficient
employment services in the country. Each town had an unemployment
office run by the state's employment security agency where people who
had lost jobs could file claims for unemployment benefits and get job
search assistance. In addition to helping claimants find work, ES was
able to verify that claimants were in fact searching for work, one of
the core eligibility criteria for receiving unemployment benefits.
ES performance decreased with the advent of WIA. While part of this
was due to the removal of unemployment insurance staff to call centers,
certain aspects of WIA administration in Texas have exacerbated the
problem. Minor changes and fine-tuning of WIA could reverse this trend
and improve services for the unemployed while saving taxpayer dollars.
WIA created a network of local workforce boards overseeing One-Stop
centers throughout Texas. The One-Stops provide information and
services to impoverished adults and youth, dislocated workers and other
classes of disadvantaged individuals. WIA, TANF and Food Stamp
Employment and Training programs are collocated with ES in the One-
Stops, but UI is not. This has eliminated day to day interaction
between UI and ES, with the latter now aligned more closely with WIA,
TANF and Food Stamps.
There has been a resulting shift in focus in the local employment
offices, now renamed as One-Stops, from working people to welfare
recipients. For all the success that the local boards have had in
moving people off of welfare rolls and into entry level jobs, emphasis
on those with a long attachment to the labor force, such as UI
claimants, has decreased. The needs of those temporarily out of work
are different from those with little or no work history, but once the
unemployment insurance program was removed from the One-Stops, there
was little impetus to focus on clients not tied to the funding streams
supporting the centers.
A change in the management model of ES accelerated the trend.
Although ES is still nominally a state-run program in Texas, day-to-day
direction and control has been ceded to the individual workforce boards
and their contractors. As a practical matter, an ever-changing group of
private contractors have had hiring and firing authority over the ES
state workers in the One-Stops. In addition to creating instability in
the ranks of ES workers, this has led to ES workers being directed more
toward the programs funding the One-Stops: primarily WIA, TANF and Food
Stamp Employment and Training.
The Texas Workforce Commission has attempted to address the lack of
focus on UI by imposing performance criteria on the local boards
relating to reemployment of UI claimants. Lacking experience with UI
claimants, the response of local boards has been to treat them as they
do their other targeted populations, despite the differences inherent
in these groups. Laid-off workers and unemployment claimants come with
a variety of skills, experience and education; by definition they have
a long-term attachment to the labor force. Unfortunately, the One-Stops
tend to view them as just another disadvantaged client: rather than
cultivate better job postings and concentrate on matching them with the
particular and unique skills of each individual, the One-Stops have
adopted a cookie cutter approach to placement. Arbitrary work search
requirements are assigned without regard to experience, profession or
job availability, and the quality of job placement has diminished.
This blurring of the lines between WIA targeted groups and the
general population is not the fault of the local workforce boards.
After all, transitioning welfare clients and low-income people into
work has been both their focus and their source of funding. Since the
boards neither administer nor receive funding for UI, it is unfair to
impose UI performance criteria on them.
To rectify these problems, ES should be reoriented toward the
general population and given the authority to resume its historical
role as the public labor exchange. ES staff could then monitor the work
search efforts of UI claimants, provide basic job matching services and
handle all basic intake and evaluation functions of the One-Stop.
Reemphasizing ES would also eliminate a design flaw of WIA, namely,
the unnecessary replication of ES services under WIA. Title I of WIA
created three levels of service delivery: core, intensive and training.
Core services are such things as intake, evaluation, and job search
assistance--precisely the same services historically performed by ES.
Combining WIA core service with ES would eliminate this redundancy and
allow WIA resources to be devoted entirely to intensive services and
training. Intake and basic job-matching would be performed by ES
uniformly across the state, but training and intensive services would
be customized by the workforce boards as local conditions require.
In order to achieve efficiency of scale and assure consistency of
service, ES should once again be managed by the Texas Workforce
Commission. As interdependent programs, ES and UI require a high level
of coordination that is difficult to achieve when the one program is
run by the state and the other by 28 different entities. Moreover,
since both programs are required to be staffed by state merit system
employees, delegating direction and control to private contractors is a
complicated and unwieldy process. The simple solution is to reunite ES
and UI as coordinated state-run programs.
The results of a recent DOL evaluation support strengthening ES at
the state level. DOL compared the traditional state-run ES with pilots
in Colorado, Massachusetts and Michigan, where merit-system
requirements were relaxed to allow alternative service delivery. There
were large reductions in the numbers of job openings listed in the
pilot sites, with the One-Stops concentrating on serving the
disadvantaged by obtaining job listings tailored to the skills of low-
income job seekers. The traditional public labor exchange staffed by
state merit-system employees was found to be significantly more cost
effective.
We should learn from this lesson in reauthorizing WIA. Local input
and control in the design and implementation of job training and
services for the disadvantaged is a critical piece of the puzzle, but
so is maintaining a robust statewide labor exchange program. A job
seeker should be able to receive the same high quality of service
anywhere in the state, and ES should provide seamless, well integrated
statewide services that can follow a job seeker who re-locates.
Likewise, UI claimants should be held to the same standards regardless
of the location in Texas where they reside. Uniformity, consistency and
accountability will increase across the board if ES is strengthened and
once again oriented toward the general population.
The public still thinks of the One-Stop as the employment office.
With the economic downturn, laid off workers are flooding the One-Stops
looking to file unemployment claims. They are surely shocked to
discover that these offices are no longer equipped to take their
claims. At best, they can use a computer to attempt to file on-line; at
worst, they are merely given a phone number to call, a phone number
that may give them nothing but a busy signal. This is not a sustainable
system. Strengthening ES, reestablishing its historical relationship
with UI and orienting the One-Stops back toward the larger population
of unemployed workers is critical in rebuilding the workforce.
Reauthorization of WIA is an opportunity to achieve this, and I
encourage the committee to consider these suggestions.
Ronald Congleton, the Commissioner Representing Labor, is one of
the three commissioners of the Texas Workforce Commission. He
respectfully submits this statement on prospective changes in
provisions of the Workforce Investment Act.
______
Chairman Hinojosa. And I am going to give an opportunity to
Ranking Member Guthrie to make his request.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I ask unanimous consent to submit the Government
Accountability Office's report, report number 071096, for the
record.
Chairman Hinojosa. No problem. It will be made part of the
record.
[The GAO report, ``Workforce Investment Act: One-Stop
System Infrastructure Continues to Evolve, but Labor Should
Take Action to Require That All Employment Service Offices Are
Part of the System,'' submitted by Mr. Guthrie, may be accessed
at the following Internet address:]
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d071096.pdf
______
Chairman Hinojosa. And I want to thank each and every one
of the presenters for coming this afternoon and being so
generous with your time, allowing us to build up our record as
we try to find ways in which we can try to make this
reauthorization one that will be very effective and be able to
give us the results that we need to be able to use the money
effectively and make our country a better place to raise our
families. Once again, I thank you.
And any member who wishes to submit follow-up questions in
writing to the witnesses should coordinate with majority staff
within the requisite time.
[The statement of Mr. Altmire follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jason Altmire, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Pennsylvania
Thank you, Chairman Hinojosa, for holding this important hearing on
best practices under the Workforce Investment Act (WIA).
Since 2007, our country has lost more than 3.6 million jobs. We
cannot ask American workers to wait any longer for an update to our
country's workforce investment system. In one month, we shed almost
600,000 jobs and the unemployment rate has surged to 7.6 percent. This
week, Congress will send to the president an economic recovery package
that will both stimulate our ailing economy in the short term as well
as lay the groundwork for a stronger economy in the future. Included in
the recovery package is a multi-billion dollar investment in job
training to help place workers in emerging industries--a critical first
step in getting our economy back on track.
I look forward to working with the Chairman on the reauthorization
of WIA this year. As he mentioned, it was last reauthorized in 1998 and
is long overdue for reauthorization. It is my hope that over the next
few months, we will have more hearings like this one so that we can
hear from all points of view about what works and what we need to do to
improve WIA to ensure that it is working.
Thank you again, Chairman Hinojosa, for holding this hearing. I
yield back the balance of my time.
______
[Additional submission by Mr. Hinojosa follows:]
Prepared Statement of National Council of State Agencies
for the Blind, Inc.
Reauthorization of the Rehabilitation Act core principles and
priorities
1. Maintain the Rehabilitation Act as a distinct title within the
Workforce Investment Act with a separate and distinct funding stream.
Historically, individuals with disabilities have not fared well in
generic service delivery systems. To allow diversion of funds
appropriated to disability programs and intended to benefit disabled
job seekers, to workforce programs not intended for people with
disabilities would result in this population being more isolated and
less involved in the mainstream of America's workforce.
2. Create a separate funding stream to support infrastructure costs
of operating the one-stops. At present vocational rehabilitation funds
are severely limited. An increasing number of state agencies have
established waiting lists of individuals in urgent need of vocational
rehabilitation services. Diverting service dollars to pay the
infrastructure costs of the one-stops will reduce the number of
individuals served by the vocational rehabilitation program. As an
alternative, we recommend that infrastructure funding be made a
separate line item within The WIA rather than taxing service dollars
from each of the partner programs.
3. Maintain the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA)
Commissioner as a presidential appointee requiring Senate confirmation.
Any reduction in the status of the RSA Commissioner will further
deemphasize the importance of the vocational rehabilitation program
within the Department of Education and the Congress. Downgrading the
Commissioner will reduce the ability for the designated head of the
vocational rehabilitation program to advocate for the employment and
independent living needs of adults with disabilities.
4. Maintain the option for states to have a separate agency for the
blind. Current research and performance standards indicate that people
who are blind are more successful when served by vocational
rehabilitation agencies for the blind. The ability of states to submit
a state plan to specifically serve people who are blind through a
distinct designated state unit for the provision of such services is an
important element in the concept of consumer choice and flexibility.
5. Most consumers who are blind would prefer to receive vocational
rehabilitation services from professionals trained to work with persons
who are blind and from agencies specializing in this service area.
Additionally, the NCSAB urges the support for specialized services for
the blind through expanded funding of innovative training programs in
blindness rehabilitation.
6. Homemakers should continue to be recognized as a successful
vocational rehabilitation closure. Homemakers have been viewed as
contributing members to society, often providing invaluable support
within a household allowing other family members to pursue gainful
employment. We believe that ``homemaker'' as a vocational goal should
be better defined within the Act and regulations. Such a definition
would increase the likelihood that persons choosing a vocational goal
of homemaker would receive appropriate related services.
7. Preserve the provision in the Act to provide independent living
services to individuals who are blind over age 55 (Title VII, Chapter
2) through the designated state unit for vocational rehabilitation.
Title VI1, Chapter 2 must remain separate and distinct and not be
included in the State Plan for Independent Living.
8. Amend the formula for the distribution of funds under Title V11,
Chapter 2. Our organization would like to see assurances in the
Rehabilitation Act for minimal COLA increases to all states when
additional funds are appropriated for Title VII, Chapter 2 and see the
base award for each state raised to $350,000.
______
[Question for the record and the subsequent responses
follow:]
U.S. Congress,
[VIA FACSIMILE],
Washington, DC, February 17, 2009.
Mr. Morton Bahr, President Emeritus,
Communications Workers of America, National Commission on Adult
Literacy, Washington DC.
Dear Mr. Bahr: Thank you for testifying at the February 12, 2008
hearing of the Committee on Education and Labor on ``New Innovations
and Best Practices Under the Workforce Investment Act.''
Representative Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX), chairman of the Higher
Education, Lifelong Learning and Competitiveness Subcommittee and
member of the Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education
Subcommittee, has asked that you respond in writing to the following
question:
1. How can the Workforce Investment Act partners work with the
Community Colleges near them to use the newly designated economic
recovery package funding for training programs?
Please send an electronic version of your written response to the
questions to the Committee staff by close of business on Tuesday,
February 24, 2009--the date on which the hearing record will close. If
you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the
Committee.
Sincerely,
George Miller, Chairman.
______
Mr. Bahr's Supplemental Material Submitted for the Record
1. The National Commission on Adult Literacy, in its final report,
``Reach Higher, America,'' recommends serving 20 million adults by
2020. How can we afford enough teachers and staff to serve so many
people, and how can we expect so many to enroll in programs?
Answer: The Commission recommends the use of technology on a
dramatically increased scale. Along with a major infusion of new funds,
both public and private, this is a significant part of the solution.
Although the Commission's report made its technology recommendation in
general terms, the Council for Advancement of Adult Literacy (CAAL),
the follow-up agent for the Commission, has begun a project that will
have precise recommendations by late summer. Until we have the results
of that work, we can't provide specific advice, but we have made some
preliminary suggestions, on request, to some House staffers. On the
second part of the question, new kinds of public awareness activities
will be needed to motivate students and the general public. CAAL will
undertake a project in the coming months to begin the preliminary
planning for the public awareness campaigns that will eventually be
needed. In addition, in the new WIA legislation being drafted now in
response to the Commission's report, the federal government would
provide encouragements to the states to develop appropriate public
awareness activities as part of their own comprehensive planning for
adult education and workforce skills development.
2. The commission recommends readiness for entering college and job
training programs as the primary educational outcome of the new adult
education system. How will we know when ``readiness'' has been
achieved?
Answer: The Commission recommends close partnerships with business
as well as collaborations between all kinds of adult education and
training providers, including community colleges and community-based
organizations. These groups need to work in concert at national, state,
and local levels to identify workforce needs, design programs to meet
them, and assess whether workforce readiness has been achieved. In
fact, the Commission recommends that, as a condition of financial
support for low-skilled adult education programs, the new Adult
Education and Economic Growth Act require the states to formulate plans
to do this. Improved labor market research at the national level is
also important. Also, some valuable tools are available to help assess
``readiness.'' For example, Workforce Certifications are under
development by the National Association of Manufacturers (in
cooperation with ACT) and by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (building on
work begun at NIFL). The CASAS Workforce Skills Certification System is
also coming into use. Further, the National Center for Education and
the Economy, with which CAAL is doing some follow-up work and which is
the base for the work of the New Commission on Skills of the American
Workforce, will shortly release a ``down-in-the-weeds'' book on what
state and local programs and planners need to know and do to implement
readiness activities and standards. In addition, the new legislation in
development, which the Commission hopes will fundamentally reform
elements of WIA having to do with adult education and workforce skills,
should make some provision for research and development in the
workforce certification area.
3. Many recent reports from leading research organizations stress
the need to improve the skills of the American workforce. How do the
recommendations of the National Commission on Adult Literacy differ?
Answer: All of the major Commission studies on lifelong learning
and human resource development for national economic purposes have
recognized the importance of adult education, but it has not been a
primary focus of their work. In fact, at the very first convening of
the National Commission on Adult Literacy, one member, former Secretary
of Labor Ray Marshall, commented that while adult education was in the
footnote of all the important reports, the Commission needed to make it
the main focus of OUR work and get it up out of the footnotes. The
focus of most of the reports to date have been on improving the K-12
and postsecondary systems, and linking the two. The Commission thinks
these recommendations are high priorities, but we found that, even if
implemented, they would not have a large impact on the skills of the
American workforce for decades to come. This is because of the
demographics: the vast majority of the American workforce in 2020 and
well beyond will consist of today's adults who are beyond the reach of
the schools and postsecondary education. A large percentage of them
lack the skills to enter postsecondary education or job training.
Hence, to create the competitive workforce that everyone believes we
need, it's essential to invest in adult education programs that provide
pathways to training and college. Our Commission's work has filled a
gap that others have not filled, and we have assurances from many
organizations across the country that they agree with our conclusions
and support the direction of our recommendations. Incidentally, those
recommendations have even greater urgency today, at a time when the
recession has created millions of displaced workers--many in low-
skilled fields such as construction. In short, the Adult Education and
Workforce Skills System we propose must be recognized as an essential
partner in our national education reform efforts if we are not to leave
behind many millions in our workforce.
4. Is the skills gap really that important?
Answer: The pervasive basic skills problem is critical to our
economy and to workforce preparation, and we do not have an adequate
system for dealing with this problem. In addition, the current WIA is
not adequate in structure, funding, or implementation. The Commission
has proposed legislation (and is working on it with House leaders now)
that we hope will create an Adult Education and Workforce Skills System
largely through major changes in WIA. The goals are to establish new
educational outcomes for services; connect adult education, workforce
skills, and other relevant entities in planning and service provision
at all levels; and have verifiable performance outcomes geared to
``readiness'' for postsecondary education and job training. [NOTE:
There were reform aspects in the current WIA Title I and II programs,
but they have not gone far enough or have often not been enforced. As
currently structured and funded, WIA is not adequate to the job we need
to do now because the times have changed profoundly since it was
created. The Commission looked specifically at WIA Title II (which
encompasses the entire Department of Education adult education
program), and at the four adult education programs of WIA Title I:
adult education, dislocated worker program, Trade Adjustment
Assistance, and out-of-school youth. In this reform effort, it is
highly important to overcome silo and fragmentation problems that
plague current federal efforts by connecting relevant federal adult
education programs, especially the WIA Title I and II programs, which
provide most of the service.]
5. Can we actually train low-skilled workers for high skilled jobs?
How do we know?
Answer: Yes. We know we can do it. Both the Commission and various
resource organizations (such as CAAL, the Center for Law and Social
Policy, and Jobs for the Future) have identified, studied, and profiled
scores of programs in all parts of the country that do this effectively
right now. For example, Washington State's I-Best program (one of those
profiled by the Commission), provides community college-based dual
instruction programs that teach basic and vocational skills
concurrently. This program greatly reduces the time it takes to move
adult learners up their career ladders. The common principles behind
this and other programs are well understood--and about to be set forth
in a new report from the National Center on Education and the Economy.
The problem is that there are too few resources, and federal barriers
stand in the way of taking these local efforts to scale. Also, both the
federal government and the states must coordinate better the efforts of
education and training programs (not just WIA Title I and II, but also
TANF, corrections education, and others) and link them to needs of
employers. The Commission's report proposes measures to overcome these
problems.
6. What explains the low number of adults currently enrolled in
adult basic education and ESL programs?
Answer: Given the limited resources available in most states, the
adult education system has provided a significant level of service,
especially for ESL populations. And there are long waiting lists for
service on all fronts. However, most states have not fully implemented
WIA Title II provisions for workplace basic skills instruction. The
Adult Education and Workforce Skills System called for in Reach Higher,
America will require much more attention to workforce skills needs and
certification. The Commission believes that the demand for adult
education and workforce skills services will skyrocket and that program
outcomes will be greatly improved if federal and state policy creates
clearer pathways to better jobs and results in higher incomes and
family-sustaining wages.
7. How will the commission's proposals create jobs?
Answer: The Commission's recommendations are an essential pre-
condition to creating new jobs. New jobs can't be created if workers
with appropriate basic skills aren't available. Many corporations are
grappling with this problem. AT&T is one important, highly publicized
example. Another is the Dollar General Corporation. The former CEO and
chairman of Dollar General (lead funder of the Commission's work) spoke
about this problem in that company several times during the
Commission's deliberations. A comprehensive workplace skills program
would be very supportive of workforce and economic development
programs. Also, many more adult education jobs will be created by the
new System, including instructors, counselors, program directors, and
planners.
8. In what Federal department are adult education and basic
literacy programs most appropriately based?
Answer: The Commission took no position on this issue. Members
believe that the emphasis should be on interagency collaboration rather
than moving boxes around on the federal organization chart, in the
process creating unnecessary turf wars. The adult skills problems cut
across the interests and domains of many federal departments. The
Department of Education, under any scenario, has basic responsibility
for community colleges, higher education generally, the schools,
vocational training, Pell grants, and many other programs that must be
coordinated to create effective career pathways. The Department of
Labor has some adult education services, as identified by the
Commission. The challenge is not to shift them elsewhere but to connect
them in more productive ways with those of Education. The Department of
Health and Human Services will continue to have responsibility for
TANF, which must also be linked to career pathway programs. Joint
planning and coordination should be the priority.
9. The commission referred to the fastest growing occupations in
its report. why is that important?
Answer: The latest information available from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics is from 2006. It needs updating and doesn't capture
``green'' jobs and more recent trends. But, according to the BLS: By
most accounts, even in the recession, there is still a growing demand
for large numbers of workers in all aspects of healthcare, personal
services, and education nationwide, as well as demand in a wide range
of occupations within local labor markets. And the Economic Stimulus
package intends to stimulate demand in construction and many sectors.
At present it is difficult to forecast the long-term trends. But the
essence of the Commission's recommendations is that a career pathway
system should be created that can respond quickly and flexibly to
whatever workforce demands emerge in local labor markets in the years
to come.
10. What is the commission's core Federal recommendation?
Answer: The Adult Education and Economic Growth Act is at the core
of the Commission's recommendations. This Act needs to focus on the
unemployed; low-skilled incumbent workers; immigrants with limited or
no English; parents or caregivers with low basic skills; incarcerated
adults; high school dropouts; and high school graduates not ready for
college. These people are our parents and family units, aspiring new
citizens, our neighbors, and both future and incumbent workers. [NOTES:
(1) In this period of economic emergency, many millions of displaced
workers have low basic skills and must be retrained for today's
available jobs and jobs of the future, such as ``green jobs.'' (2) We
need to be careful how we apply the term ``training,'' which usually
refers to people at higher educational levels rather than the millions
at the center of the National Commission's concerns whose basic skills
need upgrading. Retraining cannot alone be effective unless we
recognize the importance of upgrading adults with low basic skills and
unless we have the resources and system to improve the basic skills of
displaced workers to the levels required.]
11. How does the commission define basic skills?
Answer: For purposes of the new Act, the Commission believes that
the current definition of ``basic skills'' needs to be redefined. It
will not be enough in the new Adult Education and Workforce Skills
System we recommend to provide instruction in basic reading, writing,
math, and ESL. Such basics as how to communicate, acquire information,
think critically, solve problems, use technology, and work in teams
need to be part of the equation to achieve ``readiness.'' This is one
of the reasons that adult education groups (including community
colleges) and workforce development groups must work more closely
together.
12. What is the state role in the commission's call for reform?
Answer: For federal leadership to deliver, the Act must require
states to connect all key state interests (adult education, community
colleges and postsecondary education generally, workforce skills, youth
policy, and others) in comprehensive planning so as to coordinate and
align systems consistent with their postsecondary education, workforce,
and economic development goals. It will be vital in many cases for
governors' offices to be involved, and for authority for the required
planning to actually be set into state legislation.
13. In the commission's plan, what entites have responsibilities
for delivering instructional services?
Answer: Community colleges, which now provide about one-third of
adult education services in the nation, must step more to the forefront
and be funded to do so. But all types of provider organizations are
essential to the combined effort, including community-based and
voluntary organizations, school districts, higher education
institutions generally, business and labor, correctional education
programs, family literacy groups, student alliances, and others--and
they also need new and better resources to fill their roles. The big
challenge is to ``connect the dots'' among these groups. If the
Commission's recommendations to break down the fragmentation and waste
created by silos are acted on, these groups will necessarily have to
work much more together. Beyond that, technology, including distance
learning, must also be deployed on an unprecedented scale, for
instructional purposes and also to help meet program management and
data collection needs.
______
U.S. Congress,
[VIA FACSIMILE],
Washington, DC, February 17, 2009.
Mr. Bill Camp, Executive Secretary,
Sacramento Central Labor Council, AFL-CIO, Sacramento, CA.
Dear Mr. Camp: Thank you for testifying at the February 12, 2008
hearing of the Committee on Education and Labor on ``New Innovations
and Best Practices Under the Workforce Investment Act.''
Representative Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX), chairman of the Higher
Education, Lifelong Learning and Competitiveness Subcommittee and
member of the Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education
Subcommittee, has asked that you respond in writing to the following
question:
1. How can the Workforce Investment Act partners work with the
Community Colleges near them to use the newly designated economic
recovery package funding for training programs?
Please send an electronic version of your written response to the
questions to the Committee staff by close of business on Tuesday,
February 24, 2009--the date on which the hearing record will close. If
you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the
Committee.
Sincerely,
George Miller, Chairman.
______
Mr. Camp's Response to Question Submitted for the Record
I am responding to the question raised at the committee and
reiterated in your February 17, 2009 letter: ``How can the Workforce
Investment Act partners work with the Community Colleges near them to
use the newly designated economic recovery package funding for training
programs?''
In Sacramento we have already established close working
relationships with the Los Rios Community College District which covers
our entire WIB jurisdiction.
Within the last 3 years, the employer community in response to the
Sacramento WIB questionnaire stated specific ``soft'' skills which they
considered of first importance in hiring new employees. The community
college staff in coordination with the Sacramento WIB developed a
course curriculum that when successfully completed would earn a ``Ready
to Work'' certificate which the unemployed or underemployed worker
could take to any employer when they applied for a job. When tracking
the wages earned by these successful graduates of the ``Ready to Work''
classes showed an $8,000.00 annual increase in income. We are
interested in broadening these classes into the high school system in
preparation for those students who do not see themselves as 4 year
college applicants.
In addition, the Sacramento WIB is currently contracting with our
community colleges for classes for utility workers who are needed by
Pacific Gas and Electric and other utilities to replace a well paid
unionized workforce that is currently retiring. We are currently
training highway construction pre-apprenticeship workers who will be
doing the highway construction work in the stimulus bill. In addition,
we are training solar installers for the contractors who are working
with our local public utility in installing solar panels. Lastly, the
Sacramento WIB are training ``clean diesel mechanics'' who will be
replacing retiring Union mechanics who work for the Sacramento Regional
Transit Agency.
The Sacramento WIB will scourer the stimulus plan for opportunities
to work with our local community colleges in developing courses
pertinent to applicants seeking opportunities in these stimulus funded
activities. To the degree that the ``ARRA'' includes authorization for
local WIB's to contract for training with community colleges,
apprenticeship and other training providers, the Sacramento WIB will
work for every opportunity to enroll unemployed job seekers needing
skills and development.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. I would be glad to share
any additional details that might interest you.
______
U.S. Congress,
[VIA FACSIMILE],
Washington, DC, February 17, 2009.
Ms. Karen R. Elzey, Vice-President and Executive Director,
Institute for a Competitive Workforce, U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
Washington, DC.
Dear Ms. Elzey: Thank you for testifying at the February 12, 2008
hearing of the Committee on Education and Labor on ``New Innovations
and Best Practices Under the Workforce Investment Act.''
Representative Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX), chairman of the Higher
Education, Lifelong Learning and Competitiveness Subcommittee and
member of the Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education
Subcommittee, has asked that you respond in writing to the following
question:
1. How can the Workforce Investment Act partners work with the
Community Colleges near them to use the newly designated economic
recovery package funding for training programs?
Please send an electronic version of your written response to the
questions to the Committee staff by close of business on Tuesday,
February 24, 2009--the date on which the hearing record will close. If
you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the
Committee.
Sincerely,
George Miller, Chairman.
______
Ms. Elzey's Response to Question Submitted for the Record
Question posed by Rep. Ruben Hinojosa, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness of the House
Committee on Education and Labor: How can the Workforce Investment Act
partners work with the Community Colleges near them to use the newly
designated economic recovery package funding for training programs?
Over the past months, the United States has experienced a serious
downturn in our economy and extraordinary turbulence in our financial
markets. Millions of Americans are anxious about whether their skills
are going to provide them with job opportunities in a volatile economic
landscape. Community colleges play a crucial role in preparing workers
with the skills demanded by employers in the evolving global economy.
In the short term, meeting the needs of newly unemployed workers is the
most urgent challenge.
Community and technical colleges working in collaboration with the
public workforce system and the business community, including chambers
of commerce which represent hundreds of local businesses, are
positioned to provide the most advanced, flexible, and market-driven
education and training. There are several ways that Workforce
Investment Act partners can strengthen their relationship with
community colleges under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (ARRA):
Contract directly with community colleges for training:
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provides an
additional $2.95 billion to the Workforce Investment Act. Specifically,
the bill ``provides the authority for local Workforce Investment Boards
(WIBs) to contract with institutions of higher education and other
eligible training providers as long as the authority is not used to
limit customer choice.'' This provides an excellent opportunity for
local WIBs to expand workforce training opportunities with community
colleges. However, it must be ensured that the WIBs do not limit other
training providers such as career colleges from offering services.
Provide training for middle-skill jobs: Roughly half of
all occupations in today's labor market are classified as middle skills
jobs--those requiring more than a high school diploma but less than a
bachelor's degree. Yet, a large percentage of the population doesn't
possess the education and training to obtain these jobs. Additional
funding in programs such as Adult Services and Dislocated Workers
allows for community colleges to work in collaboration with the
workforce investment system and the business community to retrain and
upgrade the skills of the current workforce. The training should be
targeted for occupations that are in demand or are expected to grow.
Support high growth industries and sector-based
strategies: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provides
an additional $750 million in training for high growth industries. This
initiative targets investments for public private sector partnerships
to develop training programs in high demand occupations. As part of
this program community colleges have and can continue to play a key
role in both developing these programs and providing skills training.
In a country as diverse and complex as ours, we must rely on a
system of affordable, accessible community colleges to serve as
gateways to further education and quality job opportunities.
______
U.S. Congress,
[VIA FACSIMILE],
Washington, DC, February 17, 2009.
Ms. Bonnie Gonzalez, Chief Executive Officer,
Workforce Solutions, Inc., Lower Rio Grande Valley, McAllen, TX.
Dear Ms. Gonzalez: Thank you for testifying at the February 12,
2008 hearing of the Committee on Education and Labor on ``New
Innovations and Best Practices Under the Workforce Investment Act.''
Representative Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX), chairman of the Higher
Education, Lifelong Learning and Competitiveness Subcommittee and
member of the Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education
Subcommittee, has asked that you respond in writing to the following
question:
1. How can the Workforce Investment Act partners work with the
Community Colleges near them to use the newly designated economic
recovery package funding for training programs?
Please send an electronic version of your written response to the
questions to the Committee staff by close of business on Tuesday,
February 24, 2009--the date on which the hearing record will close. If
you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the
Committee.
Sincerely,
George Miller, Chairman.
______
Ms. Gonzalez's Response to Question Submitted for the Record
1. How can the Workforce Investment Act partners work with the
Community Colleges near them to use the newly designated economic
recovery package funding for training programs?
As an ``early implementer'' of WIA in 1998-1999 the State of Texas
quickly achieved consolidation of twenty-eight (28) separately funded
employment and training programs under one (1) entity--the Local
Workforce Investment Board (LWIB) and established the delivery of
services through a One-Stop Service model. The major services
consolidate include, Employer/Business, Employment and Re-Employment
Services to unemployment insurance claimants. This consolidation
included not only services but the wealth of data of each.
As the only state approved provider of One-Stop Services through
its Workforce Solutions Centers, Workforce Solutions, Inc. (the Lower
Rio Grande Texas LWIB) connects employers with job seekers and through
this connection and dialogue identifies the needs of both; our
Community Colleges are our partners in providing solutions.
As a LWIB we can work with our Community Colleges as follows:
Convene Industry Leaders--both those affected by the
current economy and those in the emerging industries to identify
training needs for Community College training development
Conduct analysis of the current unemployed labor force to
identify transferrable skills for rapid re-training
Provide Community Colleges with educational levels and
training needs of the identified population most able to complete
training and proposed timelines for completion
Recruit the necessary number of the unemployed to fill
classroom and on-site training
Utilize WIA funds and seek competitive grants to pay a
portion of the training
Provide Assistance in applying for and obtaining maximum
amounts of available financial aid through workshops on proper
application completion and timely submission
Provide supportive service in the areas of child care,
transportation and training related equipment to enroll and maintain
enrollment in training
Provide ``income maintenance'' employment to trainees to
fill income gaps during training
Provide intensive counseling in family finance/budgeting
and motivational activities
Develop incentives for obtaining training performance
benchmarks which can reduce training costs
Provide tracking of and assessments of training delivery
Provide tracking of and effectiveness of training upon
employment
Provide employment retention services
Workforce Solutions, Inc. can contribute the above, at minimum, to
work with our Community Colleges and our employers to implement the
necessary actions needed to rapidly provide skills training that will
return our labor force to productivity.
______
[Graph provided by Ms. Gonzalez follows:]
U.S. Congress,
[VIA FACSIMILE],
Washington, DC, February 17, 2009.
Ms. Sherry L. Johnson, Associate Director,
Lincoln Trail Area Development District, Elizabethtown, KY.
Dear Ms. Johnson: Thank you for testifying at the February 12, 2008
hearing of the Committee on Education and Labor on ``New Innovations
and Best Practices Under the Workforce Investment Act.''
Representative Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX), chairman of the Higher
Education, Lifelong Learning and Competitiveness Subcommittee and
member of the Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education
Subcommittee, has asked that you respond in writing to the following
question:
1. How can the Workforce Investment Act partners work with the
Community Colleges near them to use the newly designated economic
recovery package funding for training programs?
Please send an electronic version of your written response to the
questions to the Committee staff by close of business on Tuesday,
February 24, 2009--the date on which the hearing record will close. If
you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the
Committee.
Sincerely,
George Miller, Chairman.
______
Ms. Johnson's Response to Question Submitted for the Record
How can the Workforce Investment Act partners work with the
Community Colleges near them to use the newly designated economic
recovery package funding for training programs?
Practitioner Response: The Lincoln Trail Workforce Investment Area
and the Elizabethtown Community and Technical College (ECTC) have a
long history of partnership and collaboration for addressing employment
needs of the region. The current economic crisis in America allows us
to build upon this relationship to expand training opportunities, both
long and short term, but to look at the possibility of developing
``refresher'' courses in subjects such as math, writing skills,
introduction to computers, entrepreneurial, etc. Discussions will be
held to expand training opportunities in high demand sectors in the
local labor market--i.e., healthcare, information technology (as it
relates to Fort Knox demands/needs), and service related occupations.
This might include purchasing class-size projects.
Past examples of our strong relationship with the community
college:
Establishment of a healthcare career pathways program that
is promoted nationally as a successful model for replication.
Establishment of the ``Options Workshops'' for dislocated
workers. These workshops are above and beyond our normal rapid response
activities. Community partners have included--KY Society for Financial
Planners, a local financial planner, United Way, local Ministerial
Association, etc. The college has also offered dislocated workers two
non-credit courses for free.
Development of a youth career pathways project in high
demand occupations in the local labor market.
Development of career pathways project at the request of
the U.S. Federal Highway and Safety Administration and Kentucky Cabinet
for Transportation. Project was replicated in two other areas across
the state.
Assisted in the WIRED grant application process.
Developing web-based curriculum in response to U.S. Army's
Human Resource Command needs--``Military 101'' and ``Introduction to
Military Personnel Management''. Scheduled for launch in Spring 2009.
It is important to recognize that ``training'' is not necessary for
everyone and should not be the sole focus of our efforts. We need to
consider other alternatives as well. Workshops on resume writing;
interviewing skills; budgeting your finances, retirement, savings, etc.
are vital tools for individuals as well.
Quite frankly, the Elizabethtown Community and Technical College is
not just important to our local workforce response during the current
crisis but a vital partner each and every day. The success of our
workforce efforts in the region have been and will continue to be
addressed through the partnership we have with the college. Any time we
have a new initiative, a plant closure/layoff, or any workforce related
project--the very first call we make is to the college right across the
street.
______
U.S. Congress,
[VIA FACSIMILE],
Washington, DC, February 17, 2009.
Mr. Stephen Wooderson, State Administrator,
Iowa Vocational Rehabilitation Services, Des Moines, IA
Dear Mr. Wooderson:
Thank you for testifying at the February 12, 2008 hearing of the
Committee on Education and Labor on ``New Innovations and Best
Practices Under the Workforce Investment Act.''
Representative Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX), chairman of the Higher
Education, Lifelong Learning and Competitiveness Subcommittee and
member of the Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education
Subcommittee, has asked that you respond in writing to the following
question:
1. How can the Workforce Investment Act partners work with the
Community Colleges near them to use the newly designated economic
recovery package funding for training programs?
Please send an electronic version of your written response to the
questions to the Committee staff by close of business on Tuesday,
February 24, 2009--the date on which the hearing record will close. If
you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the
Committee.
Sincerely,
George Miller, Chairman.
______
Mr. Wooderson's Response to Question Submitted for the Record
Responding to: ``How can the Workforce Investment Act partners work
with the Community Colleges near them to use the newly designated
economic recovery package funding for training programs?''
In Iowa we work extensively with the 15 community colleges in our
state. In addition to continuing to build training apprenticeships for
high demand-high skilled trades, I encourage partnerships that foster
employment outcomes. I offer the following suggestion.
In the Des Moines, IA IVRS has partnered with the Community College
and Workforce Partners and developed a project with the following
Purpose and Goals:
Purpose: To organize individual agency efforts into
collaborative, proactive customer-based activity that leverages
resources of each organization to improve access for persons with
disabilities to the local labor market.
Goal 1--To increase outreach to business and industry
through the delivery of technical assistance, consultation and training
by the community college, vocational rehabilitation and Veterans
Administration staff.
Goal 2--To bring the employment life and academic
experience for students with disabilities into balance through
practical application of learning
Goal 3--To increase the numbers of persons with
disabilities employed on all campuses.
The strategies developed through such a project have resulted in:
New relationships with local business and industry
Consultation and technical assistance to encourage
business and industry to become ``disability friendly''
Development of new apprenticeship models
Increase in employment of persons with disabilities on the
community college campus
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
______
Without objection, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:43 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
NEW INNOVATIONS AND BEST PRACTICES UNDER THE WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT
----------
Thursday, February 26, 2009
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Higher Education,
Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness
Committee on Education and Labor
Washington, DC
----------
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in
room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ruben Hinojosa
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Hinojosa, Bishop of New York,
Andrews, Wu, Davis, Fudge, Polis, Guthrie, McKeon, Biggert, and
Roe.
Staff present: Tylease Alli, Hearing Clerk; Adrienne
Dunbar, Education Policy Advisor; David Hartzler, Systems
Administrator; Fred Jones, Staff Assistant, Education; Jessica
Kahanek, Press Assistant; Brian Kennedy, General Counsel;
Ricardo Martinez, Policy Advisor, Subcommittee on Higher
Education, Lifelong Learning and Competitiveness; Joe Novotny,
Chief Clerk; Michele Varnhagen, Labor Policy Director; Margaret
Young, Staff Assistant, Education; Stephanie Arras, Minority
Legislative Assistant; James Bergeron, Minority Deputy Director
of Education and Human Services Policy; Cameron Coursen,
Minority Assistant Communications Director; Kirsten Duncan,
Minority Professional Staff Member; Chad Miller, Minority
Professional Staff; Susan Ross, Minority Director of Education
and Human Resources Policy; and Linda Stevens, Minority Chief
Clerk/Assistant to the General Counsel.
Chairman Hinojosa [presiding]. A quorum is present. The
hearing of the subcommittee will come to order.
Pursuant to the Committee Rule XII, any member may submit
an opening statement in writing which will be made part of the
permanent record. I now recognize myself, followed by Ranking
Member Brett Guthrie, for an opening statement.
I want to thank everyone who is here this morning. I
welcome you to the Higher Education, Lifelong Learning and
Competitiveness Subcommittee second hearing in preparation for
the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act.
As with our first hearing, we are going to focus on new
innovations and best practices that will improve the workforce
development system. Each day, our task to renew the Workforce
Investment Act grows more urgent.
On Tuesday, President Obama called on all Americans to
commit themselves to one year of college or post-secondary
training. Last week, the president signed the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act to save or create 3.5 million jobs.
With a nearly $5 billion investment in our job-training
programs by the Department of Labor, this law places a specific
priority on assistance that will offer family-sustaining wages
to workers who have the greatest barriers to finding
employment.
Yet from our last hearing, we know that an estimated 80
million to 90 million adults lack the basic education and
skills to answer the president's call or to qualify for the
jobs that will be created by the stimulus plan. According to a
recent analysis by Anthony Carnevale at Georgetown University
Center on Education and the Workforce, 54 percent of these jobs
will require at least some post-secondary education, and high
school dropouts will be eligible for only about one-fourth of
those jobs that will available.
We will have to call upon our workforce development system
that is supported through the Workforce Investment Act to
bridge that gap. This will require innovation and new
approaches to delivering job-training and education.
In recent years, the trends have not been positive for low-
income, low-skilled workers in the WIA system. According to an
analysis by the Center for Law and Social Policy, the share of
low-income participants who received intensive and training
services under WIA dropped from 84 percent in the year 2000 to
53.7 percent in the year 2007.
Likewise, the share of workers with low levels of
educational attainment who received intensive or training
services dropped from 77.9 percent to 68.7 percent. We need to
reverse those trends.
However, there are examples of innovation and best
practices across the country where job-training, education, and
support services have been integrated into a system of career
pathways that has enabled workers to complete secondary school,
learn English, and earn a post-secondary credential,
facilitating their entry into higher-skilled, higher-paying
jobs. We need to build on those successes.
A similar approach has shown promise with our youth
programs. Under a reauthorization WIA, we have an opportunity
to strengthen our youth programs to not only connect youth to
the workplace, but also help them to establish lasting bonds to
education and lifelong learning.
Our witnesses today will share with us what practices have
been most successful in their experience with the workforce
investment system.
I thank you for joining us. And I am looking forward to
your testimony.
I now yield time to the ranking member, Mr. Brett Guthrie
of Kentucky, for his opening statement.
Brett?
[The statement of Mr. Hinojosa follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ruben Hinojosa, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness
Good Morning. Welcome to the Higher Education, Lifelong Learning,
and Competitiveness Subcommittee's second hearing in preparation for
the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act. As with our first
hearing, we are going to focus on new innovations and best practices
that will improve the workforce development system.
Each day, our task to renew the Workforce Investment Act grows more
urgent.
On Tuesday, President Obama called on all Americans to commit
themselves to one year of college or postsecondary training.
Last week, the President signed the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act to save or create 3.5 million jobs. With a nearly $5
billion investment in our job training programs by the Department of
Labor, this law places a specific priority on assistance that will
offer family sustaining wages to workers who have the greatest barriers
to finding employment.
Yet from our last hearing, we know that an estimated 80--90 million
adults lack the basic education and skills to answer the President's
call or qualify for the jobs that will be created.
According to a recent analysis by Anthony Carnevale at Georgetown
University's Center on Education and the Workforce, 54 percent of these
jobs will require at least some postsecondary education and high school
dropouts will be eligible for only about one-fourth of them.
We will have to call upon our workforce development system that is
supported through the Workforce Investment Act to bridge that gap. This
will require innovation and new approaches to delivering job training
and education.
In recent years, the trends have not been positive for low-income,
low-skilled workers in the WIA system. According to an analysis by the
Center for Law and Social Policy, the share of low-income participants
who received intensive and training services under WIA dropped from 84
percent in 2000 to 53.7 percent in 2007. Likewise, the share of workers
with low levels of educational attainment who received intensive or
training services dropped from 77.9 percent to 68.7 percent. We need to
reverse those trends.
However, there are examples of innovation and best practices across
the country where job training, education, and support services have
been integrated into a system of career pathways that has enabled
workers to complete secondary school, learn English, and earn a
postsecondary credential, facilitating their entry into higher-skilled,
higher-paying jobs. We need to build on those successes.
A similar approach has shown promise with our youth programs. Under
a reauthorized WIA, we have an opportunity to strengthen our youth
programs to not only connect youth to the workplace but also help them
establish lasting bonds to education and lifelong learning.
Our witnesses today will share with us what practices have been
most successful in their experience with the workforce investment
system.
Thank you for joining us. I am looking forward to your testimony.
I now yield to the Ranking Member, Mr. Brett Guthrie of Kentucky,
for his opening statement.
______
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
calling this hearing on this such an important package that we
are going to be working on throughout the spring and summer.
In the last month, we lost nearly 600,000 jobs, and the
number of unemployed workers grows with each day, and the need
to help them find news job has never been greater.
It has been more than a decade since federal job-training
initiatives have been updated. With a changing economy and
growing unemployment rates, the time to renew this legislation
is now.
We must be committed to a dynamic, results-oriented job-
training system that can effectively serve those looking for a
job and those workers in need of retraining. The one-stop shops
under the Workforce Investment Act are the best resource to
provide this type of job-training.
I am reminded of a story from a local official in my
district that stresses the importance of these one-stop shops.
In 2006, Judge Dave Hourigan, the Marin County judge executive,
or our county's chief executive--we call them judges in
Kentucky--saw the need to create a one-stop shop in his county.
He understood the importance of consolidating services and
developing a central place where people could go to access job-
placement information, education, and training, and other
assistance, so the judge decided to make this a reality for
Marion County. He worked with business and community leaders to
find donated space to open the center. Then he worked to
connect the center to local businesses and industry so that it
could be more effective.
Because of Judge Hourigan's commitment, Marion Countians
now have a responsive centralized system in their backyard to
provide valuable resources for both employees and employers. It
is this type of commitment we need to make sure our workforce
remains competitive.
It is critical that we continue using the one-stop shop
model to develop a workforce that meets our economy's changing
needs. These centers are working well, and they are the key to
providing Americans with better jobs and better lives and, in
turn, providing America with a stronger workforce.
However, we must continue to keep local workforce
investment boards, including representatives from the business
community, at the center of this process. These local
businesses will create the new jobs that the center will help
fill, so they must be at the center of the workforce system.
As a former small businessman, I, like Judge Hourigan,
recognize the need for a collaborative effort that includes
businesses working with the one-stop shop to provide the best
services for workers who need them.
I look forward to today's testimony and learning more about
the best practices and innovative ideas from around the country
as we work to reauthorize this important legislation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement of Mr. Guthrie follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Brett Guthrie, Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competiveness
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing and I welcome our
distinguished witnesses.
Last month, we lost nearly 600,000 jobs. The number of unemployed
workers grows with each day, and the need to help them find new jobs
has never been greater. It has been more than a decade since federal
job training initiatives have been updated. With a changing economy and
growing unemployment rate, the time to renew this legislation is now.
We must be committed to a dynamic, results-oriented job training
system that can effectively serve those looking for a job and those
workers in need of retraining. The one-stop shops under the Workforce
Investment Act are the best resource to provide this type of job
training system.
I am reminded of a story from a local official in my district that
stresses the importance of these one-stop shops. In 2006, Dave
Hourigan, the Marion County Judge/Executive or the county's chief
executive officer, in my home state of Kentucky saw the need to create
a one-stop shop in his county. He understood the importance of
consolidating services and developing a central place where people
could go to access job placement information, education and training,
and other assistance. So, the Judge decided to make this a reality for
Marion County. He worked with business and community leaders to find
donated space to open the center. Then, he worked to connect the center
to local businesses and industries so that it could be more effective.
Because of Judge Hourigan's commitment, Marion Countians now have a
responsive, centralized system in their backyard to provide valuable
resources for both employees and employers.
It is this type of commitment that we need in order to make sure
our workforce remains competitive. It is critical that we continue
using this one-stop shop model to develop a workforce that meets our
economy's changing needs. While these centers are working well,
providing Americans with better jobs and better lives, and in turn,
providing America with a stronger workforce, there is still work to be
done.
In our hearing two weeks ago, witnesses testified about concerns
over the size of local workforce boards and urged us to maintain the
business majority on those boards. It is clear that we must continue to
keep local workforce investment boards, including representatives from
the business community, at the center of our workforce development
system. Local businesses will create the new jobs that one-stop centers
will help fill, which is what makes this system an essential component
of our country's economic growth. As a former small businessman, I,
like Judge Hourigan, recognize the need for a collaborative effort that
includes businesses working with the local one-stop shop to provide the
best services for the workers who need them.
I look forward to today's testimony and learning more about the
best practices and innovative ideas from around the country as we work
to reauthorize this important legislation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
______
Chairman Hinojosa. Without objection, all members have 14
days to submit additional materials or questions for the
hearing record.
I would like to introduce our very distinguished first
panel of witnesses here with us this morning. Welcome to each
and every one of you.
I wish to explain the lighting system. For those of you who
have not testified before this subcommittee, allow me to
explain our lighting system and the 5-minute rule. Everyone,
including members, is limited to 5 minutes of presentation or
questioning.
The green light is illuminated when you begin to speak.
When you see the yellow light, it means you have 1 minute
remaining. When you see the red light, it means your time has
expired and you need to conclude your testimony.
Please be certain, as you testify, to turn on and speak
into the microphone in front of you so that everyone can hear
you.
We will now hear from our first witness.
I am going to introduce all three members of this first
panel, and then we will get started with Ms. Keenan.
Cheryl is the Director of the U.S. Department of
Education's Division of Adult Education and Literacy in the
Office of Vocational and Adult Education. In her role as the
national director, she oversees the office which funds almost
$600 million in state and local grant programs to enable adults
to become literate and complete high school so they can succeed
as workers, as parents and citizens.
Prior to her appointment to this department, she served as
the Pennsylvania State Director of Adult Education and
Literacy. Ms. Keenan holds undergraduate and graduate degrees
in the field of education. We are aware that your office is
extremely busy during the transition, but we really appreciate
your willingness to visit with us today and share your
knowledge.
Mr. George Scott, George is the Director of Education and
Workforce and Income Security Issues for the U.S. Government
Accountability Office. George has been a familiar and frequent
witness before our committee, as well as an important
contributor for several of our field hearings. He is
responsible for overseeing the high-quality work the agency
provides for our reports across a number of areas in our
committee jurisdiction.
He is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill and has received several GAO management awards. In
2003, he was the 2003 nominee for the William A. Jump Memorial
Award for exemplary achievement in public administration.
Welcome, Mr. Scott. And it is always good to have you
before our subcommittee today, and we look forward to your
remarks.
Mr. John Morales is the Executive Director of the Yuma
County Workforce Investment Board in Yuma, Arizona. John has
over 30 years of experience in working in employment and
training in economic development and behavioral health
programs. Over the years, he has chaired numerous professional
associations on workforce and economic development. And in
Arizona, he was named to the governor's P-20 Council on early
education through post-secondary alignment.
He is a firm believer in lifelong learning activities, and
I can only say that he has selected the right subcommittee in
which to come and discuss lifelong learning.
We welcome you, sir. We welcome Mr. Morales. We are happy
to have you with us.
We will now start with Ms. Keenan.
STATEMENT OF CHERYL KEENAN, DIRECTOR OF THE DIVISION OF ADULT
EDUCATION AND LITERACY, U.S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Ms. Keenan. Chairman Hinojosa and members of the
subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to talk with you
today about the federally funded adult education programs that
the Department of Education administers and the significant
role they can play in supporting America's economic recovery.
Adult education is an important part of the Workforce
Investment Act, and we appreciate your recognition of its role
in helping adults to increase their literacy skills, to learn
English, to transition to post-secondary education, and obtain
jobs that pay family-supporting wages.
I would like to note that the Adult Education State Grant
Program is one of only six department programs to achieve an
effective rating under the OMB PART review, which is designed
to assess and improve program performance and identify program
strengths and weaknesses.
So who does this program serve? Adults eligible for
services are at least 16 years old, are beyond their state's
age for compulsory school attendance, are not enrolled in high
school, and lack sufficient mastery of basic education or
English proficiency.
More than 2.3 million students enrolled in the adult
education programs nationwide last year. Forty-five percent of
those students enrolled in English literacy classes to improve
their English proficiency. Forty-one percent enrolled in adult
basic ed programs, which provides instruction to adults in
reading and math below the eighth-grade level. And 14 percent
enrolled in adult secondary programs which provide instruction
between the 9th-and 12th-grade levels.
Hispanics comprise the largest ethnic group enrolled in
adult education, at about 44 percent, followed by whites,
African-Americans, and Asians. Adult education programs serve a
significant youth population, primarily high-school dropouts.
Last year, more than one-third of students--or 850,000--
enrolled in adult education were between the ages of 16 and 24.
Nearly 500,000 of these young learners had math and reading
skills below the eighth-grade level.
More than 1 million adults enroll in programs to improve
their English proficiency. Three-fourths of these adults have
English literacy levels at low-beginning to low-intermediate,
indicating a significant need to improve both spoken and
written English-language skills.
Appropriations for the Adult Education State Grant Program
have remained at approximately $650 million annually for the
last 5 years. Federal dollars appropriated under AEFLA support
adult learning through more than 4,100 providers nationwide.
Slightly more than half of these are local education agencies;
16 percent are post-secondary institutions; 21 percent are
community-based organizations; and about 3 percent are faith-
based organizations.
The law requires states to establish outcome-based
accountability systems to determine the effectiveness of local
providers in continuously improving adult education activities.
Student outcomes that states report are on educational gains,
attainment of a high-school diploma, entry into post-secondary
education or training, obtaining and retaining employment.
In the last 5 years, over 3.9 million enrolled adults, or
almost 40 percent, have improved reading, math and English
proficiency as a result of their enrollment in adult education,
and 51 percent of the people who came with the goal of getting
a GED were successful in achieving that goal. The program also
helped over 600,000 people to get jobs.
But many challenges still exist in the job market, where
the bar for literacy skills that are required for family-
supporting wages is constantly being raised. Our federal-state
partnership serves only a very small portion of adults who need
literacy instruction, and America's high-school dropout rate is
significant, and students who leave high school frequently look
to adult education to provide the education and support they
need to earn the secondary credential required for even the
most basic employment.
Adults need post-secondary credentials to obtain jobs that
will allow them to feed their families and pay their mortgages,
and yet 65 percent of adults have no associate or higher
degrees. Immigrants need to learn English for employment and to
participate in civic functions that are necessary for life in
our democracy, yet one-third of foreign-born persons in the
United States do not have a high-school diploma, and nearly 18
million are limited in their proficiency in English.
How is the department addressing these challenges? We have
created initiatives designed to address the challenges facing
adult education programs nationwide by enhancing teacher
quality and stimulating development and innovation.
In recent years, Congress has appropriated between $7
million and $9 million for national leadership activities, and
we use these funds to help address our current economic
challenges.
One such effort, the Adult Basic Education Career
Connections project is expanding the pipeline to post-secondary
occupational training by preparing low-skilled adults for entry
into and advancement in high-demand employment based on
regional economic needs.
Several states have launched large-scale efforts to realign
their adult education systems with these pathway models. The
state of Washington has developed its I-BEST model that
delivers English-as-a-second-language instruction integrated
with occupational skills training.
And states are also using funds available to them under
their incentive grant program, section 503 of WIA, to support
these efforts. For instance, Oregon has invested incentive
money to connect its adult basic skills program to its post-
secondary pathways, and Ohio is involved in a similar effort.
Chairman Hinojosa [continuing]. Conclusion, I would ask you
to please do so, and be assured that I will include the entire
statement into the record.
Ms. Keenan. We are proud of our support for adult
education, and I hope it can contribute to the success of
America's recovery, especially in bringing basic literacy and
English-skills training to low-income adults.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify about the
department's adult ed program, and we look forward to working
with you to support the needs of adult learners. I am happy to
respond to any questions.
[The statement of Ms. Keenan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Cheryl Keenan, Director of Adult Education and
Literacy, Office of Vocational and Adult Education, U.S. Department of
Education
Chairman Hinojosa and Members of the Subcommittee, the Department
appreciates this opportunity to talk with you about the federally
funded adult education programs that the Department of Education
administers and the significant role they can play in supporting
America's economic recovery. Adult education is an important part of
the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), and we appreciate your recognition
of its role in helping adults increase their literacy skills, learn
English, transition to postsecondary education, and obtain jobs that
pay family-supporting wages. The Department very much looks forward to
working with you to ensure that adult education programs continue to
effectively prepare participating adults for employment and further
learning.
I am the director of the Department's Division of Adult Education
and Literacy. Our division is housed in the Office of Vocational and
Adult Education (OVAE). The division is responsible for the Adult
Education State Grant Program as well as national leadership
initiatives to support State and local accountability, program
improvement, and innovation authorized by the Adult Education and
Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) in Title II of the WIA.
Today, I will discuss the Department's adult education program and
include some information on current learner demographics, program
performance, and national initiatives that help adults in the United
States obtain the literacy and employability skills they need to get
and keep family-supporting jobs.
We are proud that the Adult Education State Grant Program is rated
``effective'' by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Our program
participated in OMB's 2006 Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
review, which is designed to assess and improve program performance,
and identify program strengths and weaknesses. The Adult Education
State Grant Program was one of five Department programs to achieve an
``effective'' rating during the time the Executive Branch carried out
PART reviews. The PART assessment findings, including the scoring and
explanation for program design, program management, strategic planning,
program management, and program accountability are available online at
www.Expectmore.gov.
Who Does Adult Education Serve?
Adults eligible for services funded by AEFLA are at least 16 years
old, are beyond their State's age for compulsory school attendance, are
not enrolled in high school, and lack sufficient mastery of basic
educational skills. They do not have a secondary school diploma (or its
equivalent) or are unable to read, speak, or write in English. More
than 2.3 million students enrolled in adult education programs
nationwide last year. Of those, 45 percent participated in English
literacy programs (EL), 41 percent in adult basic education (ABE),
which provides instruction to adults with reading and math below the
eighth grade, and 14 percent in adult secondary education (ASE), which
provides instruction between ninth and twelfth grade levels. Our most
recent data show that Hispanics comprise the largest ethnic group
enrolled in adult education programs at 44 percent, followed by White
at 26 percent, African Americans at 20 percent, and Asians at 8
percent.
Adult education programs serve a varied and significant youth
population, primarily high school drop-outs. Last year, more than one
third of students (850,000) enrolled in adult education were between
the ages of 16 and 24. Nearly one half million of these young learners
had math and reading skills below the eighth-grade level. About one
fifth of these learners were unable to read, write, or speak English
well enough to function on the job or participate in civic functions.
More than one million adults enrolled in programs assisted by AEFLA
to improve their English proficiency. Three-fourths of these adults,
when assessed, were found to have English literacy levels at ``low
beginning'' to ``low intermediate,'' indicating a significant need to
improve both spoken and written English-language skills to attain the
proficiency necessary to allow them to advance in America and obtain
family-supporting jobs.
How Is Adult Education Delivered?
Appropriations for the Adult Education State Grant Program have
remained at approximately $560 million annually for the last five
years. Program funding is distributed by formula to a State agency
designated by State law. Nationwide, we find that 33 States provide
State Grant funds to State educational agencies (SEAs), 12 States
provide them to their community college or technical college systems,
two States provide them to State workforce agencies, and five States
provide the funds to their State Labor Departments.
The law requires that at least 25% of the total amount of funds
expended for adult education and literacy activities in a State be from
non-Federal contributions. Financial reports submitted to our Adult
Education National Reporting System (NRS) show that on average every
Federal dollar is matched by an impressive nationwide average of $3.50
in non-Federal spending to educate adults who need to learn English or
whose basic literacy skills are too low obtain family-supporting
employment. Some States spend as much as $9 dollars for every Federal
adult education dollar they receive. Florida is an example of a State
that matches at that level. Other States spend only the minimum
required.
State agencies designated to receive AEFLA funds must, by law,
distribute the funds competitively to eligible providers, including
local school districts, postsecondary institutions, and community and
faith-based organizations. Federal dollars appropriated under AEFLA
support adult learning through more than 4,100 providers nationwide.
Slightly more than half (51 percent) of these providers are local
educational agencies; 16 percent are postsecondary institutions--
primarily community, junior, or technical colleges. Among smaller
providers, 21 percent of the national total are community-based
organizations, and about three percent are faith-based organizations.
We also find that four percent of all providers are correctional
institutions and two percent are libraries.
How Is the Quality and Transparency of Adult Education Services
Ensured?
The Department is helping States ensure program quality as well as
making performance accountability information transparent and easily
available to Congress and the public. The Adult Education State Grant
program is one of the first Federal education programs to build a
publicly available system providing national data that can be used to
evaluate State program effectiveness and ensure continuous improvement.
Our Adult Education National Reporting System (NRS) collects and
monitors data on adult education student outcomes, and State-level data
are available to the public on line. The Department has assisted States
and local programs in using the data they collect for the NRS to
develop publicly available, easy-to-understand report cards
demonstrating State and local performance on student achievement.
Several States use report cards to provide performance data to State
legislators, students, and the public.
AEFLA requires States to establish outcome-based accountability
systems to determine the effectiveness of local providers in
continuously improving adult education activities. The national
reporting system (NRS) identifies five core student outcomes that
States report on to meet their accountability requirements under AEFLA,
along with definitions of the measures, methodologies for collecting
them, and reporting formats. The five core measures are: 1) educational
gain, 2) attainment of a high school diploma, 3) entry into
postsecondary education or training, 4) entered employment, and 5) job
retention.
States are adopting performance-based funding models to distribute
both Federal and State adult education funds. These models provide
incentives for local providers to improve the quality and effectiveness
of their services. At least ten States use some form of performance-
based criteria in funding adult education service providers. The
Department is supporting a national project to assist States in
implementing performance-based funding by providing training and
technical assistance on performance-based funding for States that want
to create or improve such systems. Sixteen States recently participated
in our national training workshop on performance-based funding
supported by this AEFLA national leadership project.
What Results Does Adult Education Achieve?
In the last five years, over 3.9 million enrolled adults have made
``demonstrated improvements'', as measured on standardized assessments,
in reading, math, and English proficiency. Highlights from our NRS
five-year aggregate data show that:
1) 615,828 learners or 42% who set a goal of obtaining a job found
and entered employment after they exited the program.
2) 813,367 learners or 51% who set a goal of obtaining a GED (or
its State equivalent) received a GED.
3) 231,691 learners or 37% who set a goal of enrolling in
postsecondary education successfully entered postsecondary education or
training after completing the program.
4) 1.8 million adult learners or 38% succeeded in improving basic
literacy skills.
5) 2.1 million immigrants or 39% improved writing, reading, and
oral proficiency in English.
What Challenges Face Adult Education?
The Department's work in partnership with the States has produced
significant accomplishments and helped many learners achieve their
education and employment goals. Many challenges still exist,
particularly in the job market, where the ``bar'' for literacy skills
that are required for family-supporting employment is constantly being
raised.
1) Our Federal-State partnership serves only a small portion of the
adults who need literacy instruction. The 2003 National Assessment of
Adult Literacy (NAAL) found that over 30 million adults have below-
basic levels of literacy and another 63 million read English only at a
very basic level. This finding indicates that 44 percent of adults
living in the U.S. could benefit from English literacy instruction. In
addition, our State partners are facing the worst fiscal crisis since
World War II and must re-examine all their financial commitments,
including appropriations for adult education.
2) America's high school drop-out rate is significant, and students
who leave high school frequently look to adult education to provide the
education and support they need to earn the secondary credential
required for even the most basic employment. Data from the Department's
National Center for Education Statistics show that 73.2 percent of
public school students graduate within four years of starting high
school. Among young adults, ages 16 to 24, 9.3 percent are out of
school and don't have a diploma.
3) Adults need postsecondary credentials to obtain jobs that will
allow them to feed their families and pay their mortgages. The Bureau
of Labor Statistics estimates that almost 75 percent of jobs in
occupations that are projected to experience above average employment
growth through 2016 and had above average wages in 2006 typically
require some level of postsecondary education. Currently, according to
the U.S. Census Bureau's 2007 American Community Survey, 65 percent of
adults have no associate or higher degree.
4) Immigrants with lower educational skills and training need to
learn English not only for employment but also to participate in civic
functions that are necessary for life in our democracy. The U.S. Census
indicates that the number of adults who are immigrants and/or who speak
English less than ``very well'' is significant and growing. Assuming
that today's levels of immigration remain constant, immigrants are
expected to account for half of the U.S. population by 2015 (based on
2007 Educational Testing Service report entitled America's Perfect
Storm: Three Forces Changing Our Nation's Future, ETS, 2007). One-third
of foreign-born persons in the U.S. do not have a high school diploma,
and approximately 17.8 million adults are limited English proficient.
How Is the Department Addressing the Challenges?
The Department has created initiatives designed to address the
challenges facing adult education programs nationwide by enhancing
program quality and stimulating development and innovation. Our
leadership initiatives are carried out under the authority of section
243 of the AEFLA, which authorizes the Secretary to establish and carry
out a ``program of national leadership activities to enhance the
quality of adult education and literacy programs nationwide.'' In
recent years, Congress has appropriated between roughly $7 million and
$9 million for these activities.
The Department is using currently using national leadership funds
to help address our current economic challenges. We are supporting
projects to develop innovative models that should help to connect
completion of basic skills and English proficiency instruction to
acquisition of high-demand jobs. National leadership funds are
expanding the ``pipeline'' to postsecondary occupational training by
preparing low-skilled adults for entry into, and advancement in, high-
demand employment, based on regional economic needs.
The Adult Basic Education (ABE) Career Connections project,
supported by national activities funds, is working in six local
demonstration sites to assist ABE students to obtain the education and
training necessary to begin careers in high-demand fields. One local
program participating in this project is Instituto del Progreso Latino
in Illinois, which is extending its certified nursing assistant program
and creating a certified medical assistant program in response to the
local labor demands in healthcare. Career pathway programs like the one
at Instituto del Progreso Latino link basic education funding under
AEFLA with projects for academic postsecondary coursework, work-
specific instruction, hands-on classroom, and work site training
supported by others.
Several States have launched large-scale efforts to realign their
adult education systems with these ``pathways'' models supported in
part by State leadership funds made available to all States under
section 223 of the AEFLA. The State of Washington has developed a model
that delivers English as a Second Language instruction integrated with
occupational skills training. States also are using incentive funds
provided under section 503 of the WIA to support these efforts. Oregon
has invested its incentive money to connect its adult basic-skills
program with its postsecondary career pathways initiative. Ohio has
used its incentive funds to build its ``stackable credential'' model so
that the model extends to the adult basic education program.
The Department also uses national leadership funds to support other
projects linking low-skilled adults to the training they need for
family-supporting employment. Our ``Ready for College'' discretionary
grants help youths who have dropped out complete high school and
prepare to succeed in college. The four States participating in this
project (Kansas, New Jersey, Colorado and North Carolina) are
demonstrating how to enhance adult secondary education to better
prepare young adults for college success. The Kansas Board of Regents
is working with seven community colleges to improve teacher quality in
math, writing, and critical thinking instruction. Essex County College
in New Jersey leveraged its work on this project to earn private sector
funding through Walmart's Gateway to College National Network. These
innovative projects link adult education with other funding sources
that pay for a range of services that would not otherwise be provided
by the adult education program.
How Is Collaboration Improving Adult Education Services?
The Department uses AEFLA national leadership funds to promote
increased collaboration between the WIA Title I One-Stop system and the
Title II adult education system in order to improve outcomes for adults
who have both basic skills and employment needs. For example, using
those funds, Maryland's Montgomery College and Montgomery Works' One-
Stop Center collaborated to revise an English language customer-service
training course developed by the National Retail Federation. The course
integrates training on customer-service job skills with learning
English. The State of Washington's Yakima Valley Community College and
South Central Workforce Council worked together to enhance adult
learners' basic literacy skills and their transition to employment.
This project assessed clients who were receiving Temporary Assistance
to Needy Families (TANF) benefits and referred those with appropriate
skills and interest in allied health to a Nurses' Assistant
Certification training program offered by the college. Adult basic
education providers and One-Stop Career Centers in Springfield and St.
Joseph, Missouri, developed a model for referring clients from a shared
client database between adult education programs and the career
centers.
By supporting projects like these, the Department has used national
leadership funds to design models that link adult basic-skills
instruction with employment and ensured that adult education programs
retain their mission as education programs. In providing assistance,
our programs provide instruction in reading, writing, and math at a
level appropriate to participants' needs. Reading skill is a gatekeeper
for all other areas of education, and few adult education teachers
currently have research-based training in how to teach reading
effectively.
Collaboration among the Department, the National Institute for
Literacy, and the National Institute of Child Health and Development
has been fruitful in identifying the evidence base for high-quality
reading instruction. The Department is partnering with 18 States
(California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois,
Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New York, North
Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, and Wisconsin) to
put this knowledge to work in classrooms by providing intensive teacher
training in evidence-based reading instruction.
The Department assists States in improving the quality of English
as a Second Language teachers so that they can better meet the
education and employment needs of adults with limited English skills.
Direct technical assistance supported by the Department's national
leadership funds has been provided to 30 States in the last five years
by the Department's Center for Adult English Language Acquisition
(CAELA) and CAELA Network projects. In Texas, teams of staff, regional
professional developers, and local program administrators and teachers
have worked to develop teacher training to better integrate workplace
skills into ESL instruction, and to effectively teach adults at
beginning literacy levels.
In conclusion
We are very proud of our support for adult education and hope it
can contribute to the success of America's economic recovery,
especially in bringing basic literacy and English skills training to
low-income adults.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify about the Department's
adult education programs. We look forward to working with you to
support the needs of adult education learners.
______
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you.
Mr. Scott?
STATEMENT OF GEORGE A. SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, WORKFORCE
AND INCOME SECURITY ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY
OFFICE
Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Guthrie, and
members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to be here today to
discuss the findings from our prior work on the workforce
system under the Workforce Investment Act, WIA. As you know,
WIA sought to transform a fragmented employment and training
system into a single, one-stop system that serves the needs of
all job-seekers and employers.
In the current economic crisis, as increasing numbers of
workers become unemployed, the system plays a central role in
helping workers re-enter the workforce.
My testimony today will discuss the progress the Department
of Labor has made in addressing key areas of concerns and what
steps Labor has taken to ensure an understanding of what works
and for whom in addressing the needs of workers and employers.
In summary, Labor has made progress in a number of areas,
including addressing concerns regarding performance
measurement. In 2005, Labor began requiring states to implement
a common set of performance measures for its employment and
training programs.
The move to common measures helps provide a more complete
picture of WIA services and may encourage one-stops to provide
services to challenging clients. However, further action may be
needed to help reduce the incentive to serve only those who
help the one-stops meet their performance levels.
Labor has also made strides in improving the accuracy of
performance data and states' ability to share unemployment
insurance wage records, the primary data source for tracking
WIA performance. We previously noted that almost all state
officials we surveyed reported that Labor's data validation
requirements have helped increase awareness of data accuracy
and reliability.
Regarding the system for sharing wage records, when we last
reported on this issue in 2007, only 30 states were
participating, and it was unclear if and when the other states
would enter into a data-sharing agreement because of
confidentiality concerns.
Labor has since developed an agreement that addresses those
concerns. And currently, virtually all states participate in
the data-sharing system.
Ensuring that funding is consistent with the demand for
services and reflects the funds states have available remains
an issue. As a result of WIA's funding formulas, states'
funding levels may not always be consistent with the actual
demand for services. This occurs because formula factors are
not aligned with the target populations for these programs.
In addition, the allocation may not reflect current labor
market conditions because there are time lags between when the
data are collected and when the allocation becomes available to
states.
The formula for the dislocated worker program is especially
problematic because it causes funding volatility unrelated to a
state's actual layoff activity. Also, Labor's process for
determining states' available funds considers only expenditures
and does not consider obligations. As a result, Labor's
estimate of expenditure rates suggests that states are not
spending their funds as quickly as they actually are.
Although Labor has taken steps to improve its outcome data,
it has only recently begun to study WIA's impact. WIA required
an impact evaluation by 2005, but Labor has not made this study
a research priority. In an effort to fulfill the requirement,
Labor has conducted one evaluation of WIA and has another
underway.
The study of the Adult and Dislocated Worker programs is
now complete, and the agency expects to report on those
findings in March 2009. Labor officials expect to begin
implementation of the second, more comprehensive study of WIA
programs in June 2009. However, the evaluation will not be
completed until June 2015.
Further, as we previously reported, Labor will also be
challenged to evaluate the impact of its discretionary grant
initiatives focused on the employment and training needs of
high-growth, high-demand industries.
In conclusion, Labor has made strides in its effort to
improve the workforce system. However, further action is needed
to address certain issues. For example, if Congress chooses not
to make broader funding formula changes, relatively minor
changes could improve funding stability in the dislocated
worker program.
Finally, little is known about what the workforce system is
actually achieving. Consequently, Labor is not well positioned
to help policymakers understand which employment and training
approaches work best. Knowing what works and for whom is key to
developing an effective and efficient workforce system.
As Labor moves forward, it is imperative that it maximize
the opportunities to conduct rigorous evaluations of its
programs.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would
be happy to respond to any questions you or other members of
the subcommittee may have at this time.
Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Scott may be accessed at the
following Internet address:]
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09396t.pdf
______
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you, Mr. Scott.
Mr. Morales?
STATEMENT OF JOHN MORALES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, YUMA COUNTY
WORKFORCE INVESTMENT BOARD
Mr. Morales. Chairman Hinojosa, Mr. Guthrie, and
distinguished members of the subcommittee, my name is John
Morales, and I am the Executive Director of the local workforce
investment board in Yuma, Arizona, and I also serve as the
president of the National Workforce Association.
I want to thank you for the invitation to testify today.
You have my written testimony. However, I would like to share
with you some good news, the fact that WIA is working.
According to the U.S. Department of Labor, in program year
2007, WIA served 3.5 million people. Three-quarters of the WIA
participants and over 70 percent of the employers reported that
they were satisfied with the assistance they received. Seven
out of ten WIA adult and dislocated worker participants gained
employment by utilizing WIA programs.
These numbers rose to well over 80 percent when
participants received training. These workers were retained at
a level exceeding 85 percent. The Department of Labor's own
data indicates that dislocated workers who enrolled in WIA
programs actually experienced an earning gain over their
previous employment.
Now, in Yuma, Arizona, despite having a 15.9 percent
unemployment rate for year 2008, WIA has been successful. A big
contributor to our success is the local control that our board
has enjoyed. This speaks to the need to maintain and reinforce
local control and flexibility to address unique labor market
conditions in different areas. And I think Yuma, Arizona, along
the border has those unique labor market conditions.
Another factor contributing to our success includes our
collaboration with local stakeholders, including local elected
officials.
Now, a lot has changed since the law was enacted in 1998.
In order for our workforce system to be more relevant to the
changing needs of the 21st century economy, we would like to
suggest several issues that need to be addressed in
reauthorization to make WIA even stronger.
We urge you to build upon a locally driven, private-sector-
led vision that Congress originally established in WIA. There
are some areas that need to be streamlined and more clearly
defined, such as the size and make-up of local boards.
For instance, one of our mandated partners in the Job
Corps. There are no Job Corps centers in Yuma, Arizona. There
is one in Tucson, which is 250 miles away. So we have a member
from Tucson, not even our own county, that drives 250 miles
one-way to attend our monthly board meetings. That needs to be
worked on, Mr. Chairman.
NWA encourages the committee to include in any reauthorized
version of WIA expenditure reporting based on accrued
expenditures so that future reports to Congress by the
Department of Labor will be consistent with those determined by
previous Congresses. We are thankful that Congress has taken
previous action to rectify any confusion related to this
particular issue.
Another important revision to WIA could be the streamlining
of performance measures into meaningful, understandable and
useful information both to local boards and to Congress. They
should be refined to encourage closer integration of the
workforce investment boards and one-stops with adult education,
literacy, and English-proficiency training.
We encourage greater flexibility for local areas to
determine the level of services available to participants in
order to facilitate more robust training activities. We suggest
introducing greater flexibility at the local level in order to
allow for different methods of procuring training, not just
with individual training accounts. This will allow local boards
to address issues such as the availability of providers and
special labor market needs and emerging technologies, such as
green jobs.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Guthrie, members of the committee, we
thank you for the opportunity that you have given the National
Workforce Association to testify today.
[The statement of Mr. Morales follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Morales, President,
National Workforce Association
Chairman Ruben E. Hinojosa, Mr. Guthrie and the other distinguished
members of this Subcommittee, my name is John Morales, and I am the
Executive Director of the Yuma Private Industry Council in Yuma
Arizona. I also currently serve as the president of the National
Workforce Association (NWA), on behalf of whom I am testifying today.
In my testimony, I will discuss very briefly, from NWA's
perspective, why we believe it is critical to the country's
competitiveness that the Workforce Investment Act be reauthorized this
year. I will point out several notable areas in WIA that I believe we
should build on as we go forward, and suggest several issues that need
to be addressed in reauthorization to make the Workforce Investment Act
stronger.
I urge that you build upon the locally driven, private sector-led
vision that Congress established in the Workforce Investment Act. While
NWA represents the WIA system in cities, suburban areas, and rural
America, my experiences on the border in Yuma with its 15.9%
unemployment rate in 2008, reinforce the need for local control and
flexibility to address unique labor market conditions in a wide variety
of the country's communities, in collaboration with key local
stakeholders including local elected officials.
First, I'd like to point out a number of positive developments that
have occurred since then-President Bill Clinton signed WIA into law on
August 7, 1998. WIA's focus on two customers: jobseekers and businesses
was a major change from 40 years of federal policy and it continues to
be the right thing to do. Although there is much more to do in order to
bring together the array of federally funded workforce development
programs, significant progress has been made.
The most recent PY 07 WIA annual reporting data indicates that
nearly 3.5 million people received assistance from WIA, with three-
quarters of WIA program participants and over 70% of employers
satisfied with the assistance they received. Seven out of ten WIA Adult
and Dislocated Worker program participants gained employment by
utilizing WIA programs, with these numbers rising to well over 80% when
participants received training. These workers were retained in these
new jobs--at an overall level exceeding 85%. In fact, DOL's data
indicates that dislocated workers who enrolled in WIA programming
actually have an earnings gain over their previous employment.
Along with the strong performance data, WIA has fostered much
stronger program integration between partner programs, particularly
workforce development and economic development. One Stop Career Centers
nationwide have become a tremendous resource for both workers and
employers. Targeting a portion of funds to high wage/ high demand
sectors has been a success and we continue to learn and expand on such
efforts. The system's strategic use of Career Pathways grows stronger
every year. Still none of us would argue that there is not a great deal
more we need to do, and an urgency to do it.
When Congress worked to enact WIA in the mid 1990's, the challenges
facing our workforce were considerably different than they are today.
Unemployment was much lower. Two weeks ago USDOL hosted a Reemployment
Conference in Baltimore, Maryland. In one of the presentations, Dr.
Paul Harrington, of the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern
University, pointed out that there are 11.2 million unemployed people
looking for work today and currently 2.8 million job openings. So our
approach to training and skill attainment as WIA is reauthorized must
adapt to this new reality.
Training-Some important stakeholders argue that there is not enough
training taking place under WIA today. The National Workforce
Association also believes that in order to fulfill the vision in WIA to
build a world-class workforce and strengthen U. S. businesses, more
training must be available to students, current workers, and those who
have suffered the loss of their jobs. And while we recognize that you
are an Authorizing Committee not the Appropriations Committee, we point
out two significant factors that negatively affect the amount of
training under WIA Title 1:
1. Congress envisioned significant financial contributions to One
Stop Career Center operations from all the federal partner workforce
programs when WIA was being developed, but in reality the lion's share
of these costs have been borne across the country by only WIA Title 1
and the Employment Service; further
2. Since 2000, adjusted for inflation, funding for the Workforce
Investment Act and the Employment Service have been cut by 40% in
inflation adjusted dollars.
If Congress decides to require that a set percentage of a WIB's
funds must be spent on training, then it is essential that skill
enhancements and leveraged training count toward that requirement.
Expenditures--There has been significant debate over the past few
years about the accuracy of USDOL's calculation of state and local WIA
system spending. NWA encourages the Committee to include in this
version of WIA reauthorization, as it has in previous Congresses, a
requirement to have USDOL calculate WIA spending based on ``accrued
expenditures'' in determining the redistribution of ``unspent'' funds,
in reports to Congress on spending levels, and in determining funding
recommendations. This term must be clearly defined in the Act, and
USDOL should be required to collect this information from states and
local areas, and be required to utilize such data. Subsequently,
technical assistance should be promptly provided to
States and local workforce areas by USDOL. NWA's recommendations
are consistent with recent GAO studies and findings on expenditures and
obligations. OIG also concurs here.
Performance Measures--Current performance measures need to be
simplified and refined to reflect an outcome oriented workforce system.
The current performance measures under-reward educational attainment,
even though as Mort Bahr testified before this Subcommittee earlier
this month, people with low basic skills are unlikely to be able to
obtain and retain a high skill/ high wage job. NWA recommends that WIA
Reauthorization should allow state and local areas to utilize a
regression model in developing performance standards, as it was in
WIA's previous iteration, the Job Training Partnership Act. The
implementation of a regression model, which adjusts standards for
serving participants with labor markets barriers, would ensure that
cost calculations, educational attainment, and wage gain measures
reflect the local economy and the characteristics of populations
receiving services. Failure to reinstate this regression model risks
under-serving those individuals with severe barriers to employment.
Further, performance measures should be refined to encourage closer
integration of the work of the WIBs and the One Stops with Adult
Education, Literacy, and English Proficiency training should be
enacted.
In almost every employer focus group I have been a part of the
urgent need for workers with foundation skills has been strongly
expressed. These ``soft skills'' include: good attendance, punctuality,
the ability to communicate effectively both orally and in writing, the
ability to work in teams with a diverse group of people, and the
ability to size up a problem and formulate solutions. While we might
think these are values that should be instilled in the home, this
articulated business need is so strong that addressing it must be part
of the next generation of WIA.
While increased education attainment is an allowable training
activity today, it should be clearly spelled out as a goal and
encouraged when training is defined in reauthorization. There are many
activities today both jobseekers and employers would consider training
but WIA often doesn't. An example is a three week course in Microsoft
Office proficiency taken at a One Stop. Better defining what WIA
considers to be training will get everyone on the same page.
As a former Junior High School Social Studies teacher I am positive
that the United States can't meet the long term workforce challenges we
face until we achieve radically improved results in our P-20 system.
But as a WIB director I also realize that 70% of our workers in the
year 2020 are in the labor force today, and many of them lack the
skills they need. For this reason, NWA recommends that Congress allow
WIBs to spend up to 10% of their Adult and Dislocated Worker formula
funds on incumbent worker training. This flexibility is needed to both
target key industry clusters, as well as to help move low wage workers
up the career ladder. Performance measures will need to be adjusted,
since earnings will increase less for an existing low wage worker than
an unemployed worker who receives training and is then placed into a
job.
In 2009, the Yuma PIC I lead is providing the tuition for the
latest iteration of incumbent worker training for the YMA as part of
Innovation Frontier Arizona, a 4 county WIRED grantee consisting of the
four contiguous counties located on the border with Mexico. Labor
markets are either local or regional and the workforce system needs the
same flexibility and tools in either instance.
It is clear that the workforce challenges the country faces are so
serious that no single entity can solve them all. Since in this 21st
Century economy high school graduation alone is no longer enough, a
reauthorized WIA must find ways for WIBs to better interact with Adult
Education providers to help a person get a GED. And since only 5%
to 10% of GED recipients ever complete even one year of Community
College, successful strategies like Washington State's ``I Best''
program must be replicated.
While ITAs have been the predominant delivery vehicle since WIA
began, sectoral strategies, including career ladder approaches to help
people move toward self sufficiency, have shown great promise under
WIA. NWA believes that in order to help workers quickly enroll in the
training they desire for high demand sector initiatives and basic skill
acquisition, ITA requirements should be relaxed to allow local
contracting for training. We think this would lead to increased
utilization of WIA training resources by Community Colleges and
providers of Adult Education and Carl Perkins VATEA funds.
Additionally, successful best practices leveraging WIA funds with other
training/ skill acquisition resources like Pell Grants should be
disseminated by DOE and DOL.
In terms of helping economically disadvantaged young people obtain
the skills they need to succeed in this economy, NWA:
Endorses raising the upper Youth age to 24 will allow
services to disconnected youth who face a particularly difficult time
in today's economy
Recommends that a separate Year-round Summer Youth
Employment Program should be authorized because SYEP is a critical
means of getting urban and rural young people to understand why their
school work is relevant and essential. On the governance side of the
legislation, NWA agrees with other testifiers who said WIB Boards are
too large. While they must remain private sector led, public sector
representatives should not be on the WIB Board itself, but should have
a legislated role on a Partner's table. That Partners' Table would meet
regularly and its mission would be to work toward seamless, coordinated
service delivery, not policy and oversight, which should remain with
the WIB. Local WIBs should be appointed by local elected officials.
In closing, I'd like to suggest two other technical issues that may
require working with other House Committees but would stretch WIA
dollars and increase efficiency if they can be addressed.
1. Access to wage data. While this is not an issue in some states,
in many states WIBs are barred because of confidentiality laws from
accessing this data, which would give them a cost effective tool to
assess medium and long term effects of different types of training on
future income to participants who complete training.
2. Dueling Data Systems. Most states not only do not have a common
report card system, but front line workers from different workforce
programs who might be providing services to the same customer often
need to enter data into four discrete data systems-for One Stop
Services; for Vocational Rehabilitation services; for Adult Education
services; and for welfare to work services. This can't be fixed
locally, and would require a federal investment, but that would be
quickly recouped since it would free up funds and staff time to
increase training and case management services.
Conclusion
Having a high skilled workforce is a goal all Americans agree we
must achieve. The National Workforce Association believes that the
services provided by the local workforce system will benefit in your
efforts at WIA Reauthorization.
Thank you Chairman Hinojosa for allowing me to testify, and for
holding these hearings. You can be assured of the National Workforce
Association's assistance as you move forward with WIA reauthorization.
______
Chairman Hinojosa. I thank you, Mr. Morales.
At this time, I think we are going to start our questions
and hope that other members of the committee will take
advantage of this opportunity, because I think that this is a
hearing that is going to be very helpful as we try to come up
with the final legislation for WIA.
And I am going to start with my first question. My time
begins now.
Ms. Keenan, we consider reading and literacy skills as
basic to allowing adults having job-related opportunities. I
come from a family-owned business that has operated for over 60
years. And when I joined my family in operating that business,
it was a small company with about 28 employees.
And I remember that, in trying to grow that business, I
suggested to my father that we have some type of training
program, because the area that I come from is 80 percent
Hispanic, and a large majority of our employees were limited-
English-proficient.
And so I can relate to employers who have those challenges
and are trying to grow a business, trying to get their
employees to be computer-literate, and especially to have those
literacy skills.
At the same time, we view adults who need training in math
and basic financial skills. So my question to you is, do your
programs emphasize these skills? And if so, how?
Ms. Keenan. Just a clarification question. Do the programs
emphasize occupational skills or reading----
Chairman Hinojosa. The reading and literacy and math----
Ms. Keenan. Okay, thank you.
Chairman Hinojosa [continuing]. Which are very basic for
employees working in any kind of a business, because they have
to read labels, they have to read statements, invoices. Also,
they have to do basic math.
Ms. Keenan. Right.
Chairman Hinojosa. And so those are very important. And I
want to know how you handle that.
Ms. Keenan. Thank you. That is an excellent question, and I
appreciate you asking it. The adult basic ed program is an
educational program, and the purpose of that program is to
improve reading, and math, and English proficiency, and
problem-solving, and the skills that we need people to have in
the workplace.
The program does concentrate mainly on those academic
skills. And in addition to that, there are great demands on our
programs to also meet the needs of employers in the workplace.
So we are seeing the development of different kind of
models out in the local communities. With English proficiency,
for instance, there are models that combine vocational English-
language training that can meet the demands of the workforce,
yet increase the English proficiency.
Programs are experimenting with ways to be able to provide
very high-quality instruction in reading and high-quality
instruction in math, while they are also trying to meet the
demands of the workplace.
Chairman Hinojosa. I want to ask Mr. Scott, is there a way
to make minor changes to the funding formulas and reduce
funding volatility?
Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, as we have previously reported,
volatility in the funding formulas could be mitigated by
inserting a couple what we consider minor changes to the
formula, including having a hold harmless provision, as well as
a stop-gain provision, so that the wide fluctuations that are
sometimes experienced would not occur from year to year. So
that is something we have recommended a couple different times,
actually, in terms of an option to address some of the wide
volatility in the funding formula.
Chairman Hinojosa. Mr. Morales, you spoke about our
committee taking a look and possibly looking at the size of
boards. What has been your experience? Which are the sizes that
do not work because they are too small or underrepresented or
possibly too large and unwieldy? What are the sizes? And what
would be ideal? And why?
Mr. Morales. Well, of course, this is only my opinion, Mr.
Chairman. And I appreciate the question.
Chairman Hinojosa. It is a valuable opinion.
Mr. Morales. Under the old Job Training Partnership Act, I
had a board that, under the amendments in 1992, moved our board
membership up to 17. I thought that was a manageable board. My
current board is 27. And there are other boards that are much
larger than that in metropolitan areas.
And part of the issue, Mr. Chairman, was the language that
came out of the original law that said representatives--with
the ``s''--and I think that was interpreted very literally by
everything. And what causes the problem, Mr. Chairman, is if
you have 17 mandated partners with representatives, you have to
have a majority of business, which I support, but that means
that you have those 17, plus you have to have more business
people to have that 50 percent or 51 percent majority.
So I would say anywhere, if you could keep it under 20, I
think would be a manageable board. I think that, when I work
with nonprofit boards--I do a lot of training with nonprofit
boards--I think that, once you start getting beyond 20, it
becomes unwieldy. And then it becomes difficult, Mr. Chairman,
especially in rural areas to get the attendance that you need.
And you are asking busy people from nonprofit agencies,
from faith-based organizations, from public agencies, and from
businesses to give something valuable, which you can't give
back, which is their time. And so I think if you could keep it
somewhere under 20, Mr. Chairman, that is my opinion.
Chairman Hinojosa. Well, Mr. Morales, don't you believe
that there are counties and regions that are larger in
population, particularly in the urban counties, that could
possibly deal with 20 or 25, whereas possibly small areas, like
those that I represent in some of my counties, possibly might
be able to work with 20 or maybe, plus or minus, 17. Do you
think that that would be flexible enough?
Mr. Morales. Yes, sir, if we had that flexibility. The
particular problem we had when the original act was rolled out
was, there was a fervor, an ardent fervor on the part of the
states--and the state of Arizona was no exception--that we were
going to have those representatives from those----
Chairman Hinojosa. Yes, we have had some other hearings
where they had 40. My time is up.
And I wish to yield now to my ranking member.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
And, first, Ms. Keenan, not really a question, but a
statement. In my experience in manufacturing--I worked for a
family business, as well--excuse me--and learned--we started a
GED program in our school--in our factory, and we learned there
were some people that we had to go to and basic literacy. And
that became a passion of mine in the state legislature and
started a program on basic literacy.
So we would go all the way back to people who can't read a
menu and try to find ways to get them into the system once they
learned. And we have seen them progress into GED and,
hopefully, even higher ed. As the president said the other
night, you are going to need at least one year of some kind of
post-high-school training--and I have seen it in tool and die
makers and industrial maintenance--to earn a 21st-century
living that we want everybody to earn.
So you are right where it needs to be to start getting
people into that system and move them forward. Thanks.
And I have a question for Mr. Morales. The one-stop--I
talked about the one-stop centers in my opening remarks that
happened in Marion County. And I think they are a tremendous
resource. I have experienced that.
And I just wondered, can you give me some sense of the
number of dislocated workers you have seen this year, as
opposed to last year? And what type of services are they
looking for? So the number between--comparison between now and
then or last year and the number--what they are looking for.
Mr. Morales. Well, Mr. Guthrie, I come from an area that is
very isolated. And until recently--the last 7 or 8 years--we
really had difficulty using our dislocated worker funding,
because we didn't have very many layoffs.
I will say that we have had an unprecedented number of
layoffs this year in Yuma County. We have lost, according to
our Arizona Department of Commerce, about 4,500 jobs----
Mr. Guthrie. Did you lose a couple of major employers? I
have seen that, where one 900-person plant goes out. Or is it
just systemic throughout the region? I mean, what has caused
that unemployment, going from--you said you didn't have hardly
any unemployment to 15 percent?
Mr. Morales. We have a couple of situations in our labor
market that are very unique. Since our major industry is
agriculture, we have a seasonal economy, and it is a $3 billion
industry. It is probably--if you get lettuce in the wintertime,
it probably comes from the Yuma area.
And so you have kind of dual labor markets. And in the
wintertime, when it is our highest activity, you will have
between--about 40,000 migrant and seasonal farm workers in the
Yuma area at the same time that everything else is going. And
then when they leave, there is an unprecedented number of
unemployment insurance claims. So those are a couple of the
factors.
But what happened over the last about 7 or 8 years, we were
one of the fastest-growing metropolitan areas, mid-range
metropolitan areas in the country. And with all that growth,
with the housing bubble and construction, everything--we
experienced the greater drop.
And we have a burgeoning light manufacturing area there.
And we helped establish, along with our economic development
partners and partners from the chamber, a manufacturing
association. And we are helping incumbent worker training
there, but they are laying off because the demand is not there.
So that--we are getting--but if you go to the metro Phoenix
area, you are having major reductions in employment in volatile
industries, such as construction.
Mr. Guthrie. Well, thanks. And in your testimony, you state
that current performance measures need to be simplified and
refined to focus on outcomes and reward state and local
workforce investment awards for serving low-income workers.
And I think there is some consensus in most state and local
areas that performance indicators are too numerous and
burdensome. And GAO talked about how the Department of Labor
now requires local boards to focus on the average earnings,
which may help serve some job-seekers, but that other factors
should be considered.
Personally, I think that the programs should focus on place
and participants in the private sector. We need to look at
measuring unsubsidized employment.
In your opinion, what are the most--those common
measurements that you think that all programs under the WIA
should adhere to? What do you think the measurement should be?
Mr. Morales. Well, Mr. Chairman, currently, I have no
problem with the common measures, because there are only about
six of them. But the problem is that, when you add the common
measures to the regular measures that we are under law still
have to report on, there are 17 of those.
So you have 17 plus the common, which is about 24. We think
those should be reduced. And we think that some of the most
important ones that I think are significant, according to labor
market economists, are any increases in earned income. If you
can show over time an increase in earned income, then I think
the workforce system is doing their jobs.
And if we are placing people in private-sector employment,
I think that is great. You have to be careful, in places like
Yuma, Arizona, where you have a lot of government employment.
And so in Yuma, Arizona, if we can get somebody a job in the
Border Patrol or at the city of Yuma or at the county of Yuma
or in a school district, we think we are doing our job.
There is not as much of a private-sector presence in some
of the rural areas. So I think we have to be careful about how
we mandate those kinds of things, but I think that you are
right on with the private-sector placement.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. My time is up.
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you very much, Ranking Member
Guthrie.
I now want to call on one of our newest members of our
committee, a Congresswoman from the area of Cleveland, Ohio,
who has a very challenging situation, and I call on her for
questions.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My first question is to Mr. Scott. Mr. Scott, can you
propose an avenue where funds are really distributed to the
most impacted communities, where job loss and plant closing are
the highest?
Mr. Scott. As we have previously stated, we think this is
an important issue, especially as it relates to the dislocated
worker program. Back in 2003, for example, we reported that the
funding formula for the dislocated worker program was actually
three--as much as three times more volatile than for the youth
or the adult programs.
We believe that is why it is important that as Congress,
you know, considers reauthorization that it look for options to
build in some flexibility there so that the dislocated worker
formula actually provides states some cushion, in terms of from
the volatility that can occur from year to year with changes in
various factors, including unemployment.
We found, for example, that in 2003 that there are
significant time lags, in terms of receiving some of the data
related to unemployment. At that time, we reported it can range
between 9 to 18 months. And so if you have a formula that is
based on data that could be in some cases up to a year-and-a-
half old, it may not accurately reflect the actual on-the-
ground economic conditions at the time. And therefore, states
are in a sense being penalized because of the lag in the data.
And so, as I have stated before, we do think that is a
scenario that the Congress should consider making some changes.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you.
Ms. Keenan, are there any programs within your adult
education and literacy programs that actually address the
issues of financial literacy? As we look at this economy
right--I am certain that many of the people who you provide
service to are having difficulty just being able to buy
groceries, to pay health care, to just live day to day. How do
you educate these people about financial literacy?
Ms. Keenan. That is a very good question. That is a very
good question. The department has been concentrating the past
years on helping to improve teachers' training in the area of
reading. And we are just now beginning to try to launch some
large-scale initiatives around the area of adult numeracy.
In the adult classroom, it is very common for teachers to
be able to focus on the basic skills in the context of adult
life. And for our adults, we have many adults who do come to
our programs with specific needs around balancing their
checkbooks or understanding banking statements. And our
programs have a long history of trying to deliver services that
meet those individuals' needs.
There are some places in the country that are developing
some curriculum for financial literacy. I could gather some
more of that information and submit it to you. I don't have
those examples right off the record. But basically the program
has taught financial literacy in many forms throughout the
years, and there are many people who are working to try to
develop more comprehensive curriculum in that area. And I would
be happy to share that with you.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you very much.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Hinojosa. At this time, I want to thank Ms. Keenan
for having participated on the first panel. I realize that you
are short on time and are trying to make the other event. And
we are going to excuse you, but please know that we appreciate
very much that you were here and that you gave us such good
information as we will make part of the record. And may you
return sometime soon.
I would now like to recognize the gentleman from
California, the gentleman--is Buck McKeon still here?
Okay. I thought that Buck was here. I want to recognize the
gentleman, Congressman from Tennessee, Mr. Roe.
Dr. Roe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just a couple of quick comments and then questions. My
background also is small business, and my last job before I got
here was the mayor of my local city.
And, Mr. Morales, when you talked about local control and
private-sector partnerships, I wanted to jump across the
counter and hug you, because I think no one knows better than
the people on the ground. And all of my experience in
government has been local. So I applaud you for what you said.
And you are absolutely dead-on straight.
Education, this Workforce Investment Act is something that
is not a cost. It is an investment. And we have to start
looking at education as an investment.
And when I talk to students, I present to them--if you are
in high school, I will say, ``Let me explain to you how you can
earn $1 million in the next 4 years.'' And I said, ``Who wants
to do that?'' And I will have them hold their hand up. And it
is to get a college education, because a college graduate in
their lifetime will earn a million dollars more than a non-
college graduate. A high school graduate will earn $500,000
more than someone who does not have an education.
And as mayor of our city, one of the primary focuses we had
was to get folks who had jobs into jobs--I mean, that didn't
have jobs into jobs. And your comment is correct, Mr. Morales.
It doesn't matter whether it is a job with the Border Patrol or
whomever. A job for that people is a job, and they can help
feed their family and raise their family, so any place we can
place them is extremely important, I think.
We have some huge challenges right now, and this particular
act--I know I participated in this program. I am a physician,
and we helped train licensed practical nurses and other people.
And it was truly a joy. I have hired people out of this in my
own office. And it is truly a joy to see someone's face light
up when they know they have a job.
And so thank you all for what you do. And I can promise
you, you will have my support in this program.
A couple of questions I have. Actually, one was for Ms.
Keenan, who left, but you all can address is--my concern is not
the folks who we have trained to jobs we need, whether it is
education, health care, whatever. What do we do for the folks
who fail?
And, Mr. Morales, I will toss that tough one--you know,
when you walk in, she gave the percentage who got their GEDs
and so forth, but what about the folks who fall through the
cracks? What do we do with them?
Mr. Morales. Well, I think that is the beauty of having a
one-stop system that is focused on business needs and the needs
of the clients. When we do customized training and we have for
licensed--well, for medical assistants and those kinds of--we
work with medical groups and try to bring people in.
But we also say that, if the student doesn't succeed with
the employer, then we route them back into the one-stop and see
what we can do, see if we can address those issues, whether
they are basic skill issues, whether they are interviewing
issues, whether they are pre-employment work maturity skills,
we try to address those issues.
And there are a lot of people, say, in my labor market that
are almost prevocational, that is why, Mr. Chairman, we asked
for ways to link up the literacy, the English proficiency to
WIA and a little closer, and to incentivize these
collaborations. There are great collaborations going on all
over the country, but it would be nice if we could incentivize
people to want to work together, because I think collaboration
is an unnatural act between two or more consenting adults. You
know, it is not something we do normally.
So we are fortunate in Yuma County that we are so isolated
from everybody else that, if we didn't collaborate, we know we
would fail. So it is a survival strategy for us.
So we have to concentrate on those people so they don't get
left behind. And that means that the workshops that we offer,
whether they are in financial literacy with--we have credit
unions and folks that we invite in to do those kinds of
educational activities, because we know we can't do it all
ourselves, that is where the collaborations come in.
If there are special groups, nonprofit groups, faith-based
groups out there that can do the job that we can't do, that we
are restricted from in some way, shape or form through WIA,
then we try to build those collaborations with other
organizations in the community, because we know that there
isn't enough money in WIA to solve the language literacy
issues. There isn't enough money in adult education, especially
along the border.
So we have to work together. In our area, in Yuma County,
Arizona--and I am sure it is that way along the border, Mr.
Chairman--collaboration is a survival issue.
Dr. Roe. Well, the other question I have, I guess--and, Mr.
Scott, I will toss this one your way--I mean, we can't afford
to fail. And, plus, I think this particular program is not a
cost. I think if you can show enough--and that is what I want
to ask, are we spending our dollars wisely? Because if you do,
this program pays for itself. There is no question in my mind
you have people who are not on the tax rolls who go on the tax
rolls. I absolutely believe that it will.
Do we have accountability to show that the money we are
spending--in other words, are we getting the bang for our buck?
Are we putting the folks out there, they are getting the jobs?
Do we have that data?
Mr. Scott. Mr. Roe, as we have previously reported, based
on our survey of employers, most medium and large employers are
aware of the one-stop system, use the system, are satisfied
with the services. We know that.
You know, one of the concerns--generally, they use the one-
stops to fill their needs for low-skilled workers. In terms of
your question as to whether we know we are getting the bang for
our buck, that is actually one of the concerns we have at GAO.
Despite the billions of dollars that have been spent on
this program, we still don't know what works and what doesn't
work. And it is incumbent upon the Department of Labor going
forward to make sure, as it rolls out new initiatives, as it
rolls out new programs, it continues to foster innovation and
flexibility, that they build in accountability and they build
in rigorous impact evaluations of the initiatives, so that at
the end of the day we will know what works and what doesn't.
And that could also help inform, for those who might fall
through the cracks, what alternatives we should consider. But a
key concern for the Government Accountability Office at this
point is, we still don't know which of these programs work and
for whom and why.
Dr. Roe. Well, the reason that is important is what Mr.
Morales just said. He has to stretch his dollar at the local
level as far as he possibly can. So you want the most effective
dollar that you can have.
Mr. Chairman, thank you. I yield back my time.
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you.
At this time, I would like to call on a member who has
served this committee very well. He is very knowledgeable and
certainly a contributing member of the Education and Labor
Committee, Congressman Tim Bishop from New York.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this
hearing. And to the panel, thank you very much for your
testimony.
I had hoped to ask this question of Ms. Keenan, but, Mr.
Scott, I am going to see what light you might be able to shed
on this.
Ms. Keenan said that approximately 16 percent of the WIA
programs were administered through post-secondary education
sites. And I am particularly interested in the linkages between
WIA programs and college campuses.
And so my question is, in your assessment of WIA programs,
have you noticed any difference in outcomes between those
programs that are administered by local education agencies as
opposed to those programs that are administered by post-
secondary education agencies?
Mr. Scott. Mr. Bishop, as far as I know, we have not taken
a look at the programs in that light, so I can't answer that
question directly. However, we did issue a report last year
that looked at the connection between the workforce investment
system and community colleges. And there, for example, we found
some very innovative practices, in terms linkages between the
workforce boards and the community colleges and employers. And
so that is some information we can provide to you.
Mr. Bishop. If you could, because--and that is essentially
where I am going is to the community colleges. I guess I have
this--I was a college administrator. And so I have this bias
that, if you get a young man or a young woman on a college
campus and expose them to a good experience, they are going to
get turned on to learning and so that they may be able to use
the Workforce Investment Act program as a springboard to a
degree-granting post-secondary program.
I guess the other question I have--and, again, perhaps
better for Ms. Keenan--is an enormous number of the clientele
of these programs are high-school dropouts. Have we learned
anything about the characteristics of those young men and women
that we can then funnel back to the high schools to help them
deal with dropout prevention?
Mr. Scott. I know previously we have reported on some of
the challenges under WIA and dealing with the youth population.
In terms of your specific question, I am not aware of any work
we have done looking at that, but that--we will get back to you
on that.
Mr. Bishop. All right.
Mr. Morales, in your experience, I mean, how much of the
dropout--high-school dropout phenomena is due to, in effect,
lack of language attainment? Or is--you know, what are the
characteristics of the population that you have worked with
that we might be able to learn from to help the K-12 system do
a better job of retaining people through to graduation?
Mr. Morales. We are working with our K-12 system, the Yuma
Union High School District particularly. Some of the
characteristics that seem to be affecting the dropout rates,
according to the school superintendent there, she indicates
that there is a high mobility rate problem. These young
people--and we thought it was tied to the migrant and seasonal
farm worker community, but what we found over the years is that
those families are settling more in the community. And the
parents or one of the parents is going to other places, like in
California.
But there is just a tremendous mobility issue that we are
seeing. And it is not just in Yuma. We are also aware of it in
some of the programs in the Phoenix Union High School District,
for instance.
The other challenge is, how do we keep kids interested in
education? How do we challenge them? How do we make education
relevant to those children?
And that is a big problem we have. And we are working right
now with a--the high school districts and other elementary
districts and the private sector in what we call a Yuma
business education collaboration to try to start identifying
what kind of things turn these kids on, because they are having
a real problem, especially now in this economy, when their
parents aren't working, they are going to work, and they don't
see the relevance of going to their classes when they could be
earning money and putting food on the table.
Mr. Bishop. That is the key. I know more about college
dropout than I know about high school dropouts, but there is a
significant body of evidence that says that a college dropout
is a young man or a woman who is unable to connect what he or
she is doing at that moment with what their future goals might
be.
And so the--finding the--the synergy, if you will, between
goals and between activities associated with achieving those
goals works on a college campus. I would presume it would work
in high school, as well.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
If I just may, Mr. Scott, if you could get us that material
that you referenced with respect to innovative activities on
community college campuses, I would appreciate it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Scott. Yes, we will provide that information.
Chairman Hinojosa. It is my pleasure now to ask another
very valuable member of this Education and Labor Committee, a
friend of mine from the great state of Illinois, Judy Biggert.
And after her questioning, we are going to stop this first
panel and move into the second panel, which has four
representatives of WIA.
And at this time, Congresswoman Biggert, it is your time.
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I will
be brief.
Mr. Scott, you mentioned the one-stop shopping centers, and
you talked about the sequence of services and the tiers of
services offered through these one-stop shops. And I have heard
from some of my local WIAs about this and having some concerns
about the fact that all of those that come through have to go
through each tier to complete what they are doing. And in some
cases, they--you know, they think that they really don't need
the services, let's say, in tier one or all of the services in
tier two to get to tier three.
Do you think that, based on your research, do you think
that there should be an elimination of the sequential nature of
the services that you describe or realigning the tiers of
service? Or do you think that it is the most beneficial the way
that it is?
Mr. Scott. GAO has not taken a position on the approach of
the providing the tiered services. But, once again, I will
point back to the need to understand how each of those tier
services work and what the results we are seeing from that
approach, in terms of having the necessary information to make
an informed decision about that.
In particular, you know, I would suggest that that be one
of the issues, for example, the Department of Labor could
include in its evaluation of the program, whether this current
approach, you know, actually is providing the result and
meeting the needs of employers and workers.
That, once again, goes to the fact, though, that at this
point we don't really know what works and what doesn't. So
sorry to not be able to directly answer your question, but I
think this is an opportunity for the Department of Labor to
study such an approach.
Mrs. Biggert. Okay. Thank you.
Well, I will yield back and ask the question of the next
panel then. Thank you.
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you.
I want to thank the members of the first panel. You all did
a fine job, and we thank you very much for your generosity of
your time and valuable information that you have shared with
us. We invite you to stay and hear the second panel.
At this time, I invite the members to please come forward
and take your seat, your place in the second panel.
If you are ready, we are going to move on and hope that we
can spend as much time as possible with the panelists that have
just been seated.
We are going to start by introducing Ms. Sandi Vito. Sandi
is testifying today on behalf of the National Governors
Association. She was appointed last year by Governor Edward
Rendell of Pennsylvania. Sandi was appointed as the Acting
Secretary of the Department of Labor and Industry.
Welcome. Sandi heads the fifth-largest agency of the state
government, overseeing 6,000 employees in 200 offices
statewide. Her offices administer programs such as workers
compensation, unemployment compensation, job re-training, and
vocational rehabilitation.
She previously worked in legislative, public policy, and
political organizations and holds a bachelor's degree in
economics from Stockton State University and studied community
and regional planning and urban studies at Temple University.
Welcome.
Ms. Charissa Raynor is the Executive Director of the SEIU
Healthcare Northwest Training Partnership. SEIU is the Service
Employees International Union, for those not familiar with that
acronym. The partnership is a new nonprofit health care worker
training organization, which in the year 2010 will become the
primary training provider for long-term care workers in
Washington State.
Charissa is well prepared for this effort, since she holds
a bachelor of science in nursing from the University of North
Carolina at Charlotte. She also earned a master's of health
services administration, health policy concentration from the
George Washington University in our city.
Welcome, Charissa, and thank you for dedicating yourself to
such an important service for our country.
The next panelist will be introduced by Congressman Bishop
from New York.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the courtesy.
I am pleased to welcome both to our committee and to
Washington Kevin Smith, who is the Executive Director of
Literacy New York. Mr. Smith is a 1975 graduate of SUNY
Fredonia. He has worked for 5 years for the New York State
Bureau of Migrant Education and also as the Executive Director
of Literacy New York.
Throughout his career, Mr. Smith has provided innovative
program response to the needs of adult learners and strong
leadership in literacy and in to our state and to our nation.
His accomplishments include being a delegate to the 1991
White House Conference on Library Information and Services. He
served as a member of New York State Board of Regents Literacy
Planning Committee. He was the chair of the state Literacy
Council, a member of the Adult Learning Services Council under
two commissioners of education, secretary of the National
Commission on Adult Basic Education, and the past president of
the New York Association of Continuing and Community Education.
Mr. Smith, thank you very much for your service, and
welcome to our committee.
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you.
At this time, I would like to recognize and introduce Mr.
Bob Lanter. Bob is the Executive Director of the Contra Costa
County Workforce Investment Board in Concord, California. He
has served in his current position for the past 7 years, but
has over 18 years of experience in workforce development.
Bob also spent 6 years as the Assistant Director of the
California Workforce Association. His areas of research include
one-stop systems, particularly partnerships, and business and
universal services.
Thank you, Bob, for joining the rest of our talented
witnesses today. And we look forward to your comments.
Now, I would like to ask the acting secretary, Vito, if she
would like to start.
STATEMENT OF SANDI VITO, ACTING SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
AND INDUSTRY, STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Ms. Vito. Chairman Hinojosa, Ranking Member Guthrie, and
members of the subcommittee, I want to thank you for inviting
the National Governors Association to testify today.
I am pleased to be here on behalf of the nation's
governors, and I want to first thank you and your colleagues in
Congress for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the
critical investments in workforce systems and including the
reauthorization of the Trade Act that were part of that act.
You have signaled to the nation's workforce system that you are
counting on us to help our nation's unemployed and job seekers
find work and family-sustaining careers.
The governors take that challenge very seriously, and I can
tell you, all are working very diligently. As you know, the
governors met this past weekend. They met with President Obama
and the cabinet members to discuss implementation of the act.
They also met this weekend and approved a new workforce
policy entitled ``Governors Principles to Ensure Workforce
Excellence.'' And so the focus of my testimony is going to be
on those high-level guiding principles.
States--it originated, I think, with Woodrow Wilson--but
states like to say that they are the laboratories of democracy.
I would like to make the point today that states are, in fact,
the incubators of innovation, particularly when it comes to
workforce policy.
The new policy statement in particular supports those
governor-led innovations. And while I think that there is no
one clear and single path to reauthorization of the act, the
nation's governors outlined some key priorities that we think
make sense in terms of considering reauthorization.
We hope that you will build off the innovations that have
come from both the regional levels and through the governors'
initiatives to make our nation competitive in the 21st-century
economy. So I want to first highlight some of the state-led
innovations.
Critical, as many of the members said earlier today, and
President Obama mentioned in his recent State of the Union or
state--recent speech to the joint Congress, is improving in the
skills and the access to training. Ensuring that all Americans
have access to one year of training, I think, is critical to
developing a skilled workforce.
Governors have led the effort to increase training and,
more importantly, to ensure that the training is geared towards
the appropriate needs of the individual, so leveraging dollars
from different systems to make sure that the intervention for
individuals and regions is appropriate.
The second key innovation by governors is the development
of skills credentials, which signal to businesses and are
universally understood that the people coming to apply to them
have a set of recognized credentials and help improve the
earnings capabilities of the job-seekers themselves.
Additional innovations have come in the form of green jobs.
We need to continue to equip workers with skills and
technologies required for emerging occupations in clean and
renewable energy, and many governors throughout the nation have
already taken a leadership role on doing that--on just that.
One national trend among the governors is the creation of
what is in the research literature called workforce
intermediaries. These intermediaries make the labor market more
transparent. In Pennsylvania, we call them industry
partnerships. And essentially they are partnerships of
businesses, where appropriate labor unions, training providers,
and community organizations on a regional basis or at the labor
market level, and they focus in on a specific industry and what
the skill needs are of that industry so that we can create
career pathways, training programs that create increased
economic opportunity, as well as meet the demands of the
industry in the region.
In Pennsylvania, we have had more than 6,300 businesses
involved in 80 partnerships and, since 2005, have trained
70,000 workers. While our original results showed initially a
12 percent gain in increase in income for the individuals who
went through that training, because of the recent events, the
average is about 6 percent, still incredibly good increase in
income after the first year of training.
Governors are also leading less glamorous reforms, but
these are also essential reforms. And they include improvements
in the service delivery system, accountability, and overall
program efficiencies, all the while trying to reduce
administrative costs and duplication of efforts.
As preparation begins for reauthorization of the Workforce
Investment Act, I want to outline the Governors Association's
six key policy areas.
The first is--and it was already mentioned, but I want to
re-emphasize the National Governors Association position on
that--to streamline access to training opportunities and
eliminate the mandates that dictate sequence of services.
Second is increasing coordination and integration of
workforce education and economic development to meet the unique
needs of states and their regions. We hope to see greater
alignment of the federal programs, which was mentioned earlier,
between the agencies that fund workforce development programs
in labor, education, and the other federal agencies.
We would like to see and advocate for building state-led
regional economies by giving the governors the authority to
designate for the purposes of delivery of services regions that
reflect labor markets and don't narrowly reflect city or county
or other arbitrary boundaries.
And, finally, two critical issues are focus on the emerging
industries, such as green jobs--as I talked about earlier--and
supporting common measures to improve accountability. As we
heard earlier, the importance of transparency in the system is
important to governors. The National Governors Association and
the National Association of State Workforce Agencies has a
specific proposal related to common measures that it would like
to see considered. And they are happy to provide that in
detail.
In conclusion, the nation's governors stand ready to work
with this subcommittee and all the members of Congress to craft
what we hope will be significant improvements to the Workforce
Investment Act and to provide whatever information the
committee needs from us.
[The statement of Ms. Vito follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sandi Vito, on Behalf of the National Governors
Association
Chairman Hinojosa, Ranking Member Guthrie, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for inviting the National Governors Association
to testify today.
My name is Sandi Vito and I am honored to be here on behalf of the
nation's governors to discuss governor-led innovations. I also serve as
the Secretary of the Department of Labor and Industry for Governor
Rendell in Pennsylvania. Governor Rendell is the chair of the National
Governors Association.
Governors Focus on Transforming the Workforce System and Upskilling
Workers
This past weekend, the nation's governors convened in Washington,
DC for their winter meeting and met with President Obama and Cabinet
members to discuss the state economic crisis and implementation of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Governors also met in the NGA
Education, Early Childhood, and Workforce Committee to discuss
transforming the workforce system and up skilling American workers.
During the Committee's deliberations, the governors also approved a new
workforce policy titled ``Governors' Principles to Ensure Workforce
Excellence''.
The new policy supports governor-led workforce innovations, and
establishes the nation's governors' key priorities for a world-class
workforce. It also makes recommendations to Congress and the
Administration for long needed transformations to the workforce system.
Before I discuss the governors' new policy recommendations for the
workforce system, let me first set the stage with the current economic
forces and highlight several successful governor-led innovations.
Federal Workforce Law Outdated
In 1998, when the Workforce Investment Act became law, it was
groundbreaking. WIA gave governors the authority to initiate broad
structural reforms in their workforce development systems. With this
authority, governors made significant progress to restructure these
systems and strengthen the essential partnerships between federal,
state, and local governments and the private sector. Yet state-by-state
experiences reveal that many challenges remain, such as providing
comprehensive, highly integrated education, training, and employment
services for workers. In addition, governors need help aligning
education, workforce and economic development, coping with inflexible
mandates, and fully engaging the business community as partners.
The current economic picture is evidence that business as usual
will no longer do. The current unemployment rate in America is 7.6
percent and more than 3.6 million jobs have been lost since the
beginning of this economic downturn. This is the highest number of job
losses since the end of World War II.
Yet, even in today's economy, businesses are struggling to find the
qualified workers they need. A survey by the National Association of
Manufacturers revealed that more than eight out of 10 manufacturers
experienced an overall shortage of qualified workers. And, in a recent
Society for Human Resource Management survey, respondents indicated a
shortage of qualified candidates in science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics. As a result, 29 percent of human resource directors
have hired foreign nationals because qualified U.S. workers were not
available.
These two forces--the rising unemployment rate and the increased
need for skilled workers--have placed unprecedented demands on
America's workforce. It will take bold reforms at the federal, state,
and local levels to transform the workforce system and up skill
workers. This transformation should begin and build off the work of
governors to initiate bold, structural reforms that will keep our great
nation competitive in the 21st century.
Governor-led Innovations
Governors are tackling the challenges of unemployment and a lack of
skilled workers and leading new strategies to improve job seeker
outcomes. While governors are initiating reforms all across the
country, their efforts can be broadly characterized and grouped in the
following key areas:
Increase access to training: All across the country, governors are
implementing creative initiatives to focus and expand training
opportunities for unemployed and employed workers. By leveraging WIA
funds with a mix of other federal employment and training funds,
federal and state financial aid, and business partnerships, governors
are working to improve the skills of workers in their states.
Provide workers with credentials: To help employers better find and
match job seekers' skill level with the requirements of a job,
governors implemented skills credentialing programs. The credentials
are easily and universally understood and valued by employers and
certificate recipients alike, and are nationally recognized by
industry.
Develop specialized skills training for limited-English speakers:
Under governors' leadership, states are also creating new integrated
approaches to serving non-native English speaking students enrolled in
workforce training programs. The programs provide simultaneous
instruction in a technical field and in basic skills such as English,
reading, and math to accelerate achievement and prepare students for
employment.
Invest in green jobs: A growing and relatively new area of
governor-led reform is in emerging industries for clean, green, and
renewable energy jobs. To equip workers with the skills and
technologies required for green jobs, governors worked with community
and technical colleges to create career pathways and certificate
programs to ensure a pipeline of workers for new jobs in this emerging
field.
Build industry partnerships: Governors are also leading and
creating new industry partnerships between employers, labor, training
providers, community organizations, and other key stakeholders around
specific industries within a region. Industry partnerships address the
workforce needs of employers and the training, employment and career
advancement needs of workers. The partnerships bring together workforce
development and education systems and align them with the economic
development and competitiveness strategies of the state.
Across the country, industry partnership initiatives have led to
equally positive results. Industries fulfill their human capital needs
and increase the quality of their products and services, while trainees
receive higher wages, healthcare benefits, pension plans, and paid
leave, and additionally trainees see brighter prospects for future
skill attainment and career opportunities.
Because industry partnerships involve aligning strategies across
many agencies, systems, and programs, gubernatorial leadership is
critical. Governors can galvanize the leadership of industry and labor
to ensure their voices are at the center of regional industry
initiatives. Governors are also uniquely situated to influence public
agency leadership and bring the work of public institutions into
alignment with the needs of industry partnerships.
Focus on Accountability and Improve Data: Governors are leading
less glamorous, yet essential reforms to enhance service delivery,
accountability, and improve overall program efficiencies, while
reducing administrative costs, duplication, and layers of needless
bureaucracy. These reforms are exciting, require the leading force of
governors, cut across agencies and funding silos, and may prove the
best promise to realize the vision of Congress to create ``one-stop
shops'' for any job seeker to access services and training. One element
of this reform is a move to common cross-cutting data that focus on the
customer. But I'll speak more about that in a moment.
Governor Rendell: Leading Workforce Reform in Pennsylvania
The national trends in governor-led workforce initiatives are
evident in my state of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania was one of the first
states to develop industry partnerships and extend training and career
building efforts beyond individual companies to networks of companies
in specific industries. Governor Rendell understands that a lack of
industry collaboration in workforce training can result in a skills gap
for businesses, a loss of opportunity for working families, and a
shortfall of innovation for industries. Building strong industry
partnerships can fill those gaps, laying the foundation for prosperity
that is broadly shared.
The results of Pennsylvania's Industry Partnership's are
impressive. More than 6,300 businesses are involved in nearly 80
industry partnerships across the state. Since the initiatives inception
in 2005, more than 70,000 workers have been trained, increasing their
wages on average of more than 6 percent within the first year since
receiving the training.
Governors' Recommendations for a World-class Workforce System
Governors are taking action in their states to up skill workers,
create jobs, and get America back to work for a more prosperous future.
But to do this, governors also need your help to modernize the
workforce system and move governor-led initiatives to scale nationwide.
As preparation begins for reauthorization of the Workforce Investment
Act of 1998, let me outline six specific recommendations governors make
in their new workforce policy that can break down breakdown the
roadblocks and support governor-led innovations.
Streamline Access to Training: With the unprecedented
demands on workers for higher levels of education and new, cutting-edge
skill sets, quick access to training and education is essential. Both
employed and unemployed workers must have training opportunities
throughout the span of their work life in order to get good jobs,
advance in their careers and stay competitive. Congress should
eliminate mandates that dictate the flow of services for workers.
Increase Funding Agility: Economic necessity requires
Governors and local leaders to cobble together funds to provide
enhanced training and education to workers. The existing barriers must
be removed to make it more effective and cost efficient to do so.
Congress should acknowledge the role of Governors by providing enhanced
flexibility to coordinate and, when necessary at a state or local
level, integrate workforce, education and economic development funding
to meet the unique needs of their states and communities.
Align Federal Programs: As many as twelve different
executive departments fund a variety of workforce programs, including
the departments of Labor, Education, Commerce, Health and Human
Services, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Veterans, Defense,
and Agriculture. This myriad of agencies, funding sources, regulations,
and responsibilities needlessly complicate, and very often prohibit,
the kinds of true alliances and collaboration that are necessary to
streamline the workforce system. Congress should direct federal
agencies to develop a joint initiative that will align federal
programs, coordinate oversight and regulations, consolidate redundant
and conflicting regulations, and establish transparent levels of
responsibility and accountability.
Build Globally Competitive State-Led Regional Economies:
State economies don't stop at the boarder and local economies don't
stop at the city limits. Economies are regional in scope, crossing
arbitrary and jurisdictional boundaries. Integrating economic and
workforce development initiatives through a governor-led state-regional
framework offers the greatest potential for economic expansion and
industry competitiveness, while providing job growth, stability and
career advancement opportunities for workers. Congress should provide
governors the authority to design a delivery system that reflects the
economy of the state and neighboring communities including the unique
dynamics of industries and the workforce.
Focus On Emerging Industries. Globalization has increased
the world demand for energy. To respond to national concerns, governors
are proactively involved in establishing broad new energy
collaborations and industry partnerships in clean and domestic energy
and green jobs. Governors have also taken the lead in developing
industry partnerships to address critical skills shortages in other key
sectors like healthcare and technology. Congress should support strong
public/private
Support Common Measures to Improve Accountability and
Transparency: There has been a longstanding challenge and frustration
caused by multiple and inconsistent federal performance measures for
workforce programs. The nearly 100 complex and incomparable measures
impede collaboration in both planning and service delivery and are not
a sufficient tool for officials and stakeholders to understand system
performance. Without common-sense performance measures, it is difficult
to demonstrate the true difference these programs make in the lives of
Americans. To respond to the challenge, the NGA joined with the
National Association of State Workforce Agencies to develop common
measures that increase system-wide accountability and transparency,
while significantly decreasing administrative costs and inefficiencies.
Congress should support the joint NGA/NASWA Common Measures Proposal
which streamlines the existing performance measures into four critical
measures that can be applied across all workforce programs.
Conclusion
At this time, our states and citizens are experiencing
unprecedented fiscal challenges. Governors are facing these challenges
and united in unwavering belief that the United States' economy is
resilient and the true strength of our nation remains the ingenuity,
perseverance, and hard work of the American people. Americans want to
work and Governors are leading reform to make this possible.
To do so, however, it is time for the laws and policies of this
country to catch up with the realities and possibilities of the 21st
century. Reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act must embody a
new federal-state workforce vision; a partnership that equips governors
with the tools to initiate bold, structural reforms that will keep our
great nation competitive.
Across the country, governors stand ready to work with Congress to
ensure that every American has the opportunity for a good paying job
and the ability to advance their career through lifelong learning.
Governors know that better days lie ahead; the work you do now, in this
Subcommittee, will enable or constrain our collective fate to meet the
workforce challenges of tomorrow.
ATTACHMENTS
1. National Governors Association Policy: Governors' Principles to
Ensure Workforce Excellence
2. Joint NGA/NASWA Common Measure Proposal for Reauthorization of
the Workforce Investment Act
3. State Sector Strategies: Regional Solutions to Worker and
Employer Needs
4. Accelerating State Adoption of Sector Strategies: An Eleven-
State Project to Promote Regional Solutions to Worker and Employer
Needs
5. Aligning State Workforce Development and Economic Development
Initiatives
______
Chairman Hinojosa. We thank you. And you can relay to the
Governors Association that we will take their recommendations
very seriously and definitely see how we can work them into the
reauthorization of WIA.
At this time, I would like to call on Ms. Raynor.
STATEMENT OF CHARISSA RAYNOR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SEIU
HEALTHCARE NW TRAINING PARTNERSHIP
Ms. Raynor. Good morning.
Chairman Hinojosa. We can hear you better now.
Ms. Raynor. Thank you, Chairman Hinojosa and Ranking Member
Guthrie, for the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee
today. I am Charissa Raynor, Executive Director of the Service
Employees International Union Healthcare Northwest Training
Partnership. The training partnership is a joint training
effort by employers and SEIU. SEIU is the largest and fastest-
growing union in the nation, representing 2 million members in
the public, health care, and property service sectors.
I would like to focus my remarks today on the work of the
SEIU Healthcare Northwest Training Partnership and have
submitted the remainder of my testimony for the record.
SEIU supports programs that prepare workers for a 21st-
century economy, with the opportunity to enhance both skills
and earnings throughout their work life. Representing members
in the high-growth, high-demand occupations, including home
care, registered nurses, food service workers, janitors and
childcare workers, SEIU has a proven track record of delivering
job-training and education, placement, and career development
to diverse workers in a variety of settings.
SEIU often partners with employers, and we believe that
this provides a good model for strengthening training
partnerships under the Workforce Investment Act.
In operation since July 2008, the training partnership is a
nonprofit labor-management organization in Washington State
dedicated to modernizing training and workforce development for
long-term care workers and supporting career pathways for those
workers who are ready to advance into hospital jobs, for
example.
By 2010, the training partnership will be the primary
training provider for long-term care workers in Washington. We
will be providing training to over 30,000 long-term care
workers annually, and our programs will include entry-level
homecare aid training, advanced homecare aid training, a peer
mentorship program, and continuing education.
We are predominantly funded by employer contributions and
governed by a diverse board. Our programs are tuition-free for
workers, and workers are paid to attend training by partner
employers.
Long-term care and hospital employers in Washington State
are experiencing very serious workforce shortages and at the
same time increasing demand for health care services related to
the aging baby boomers. The state also has many poor and low-
income individuals, often women of color, who are interested in
a career in health care. Matching these individuals with entry-
level career track jobs would benefit the economic status of
these individuals and support access to high-quality care in
their communities, turning crisis into an opportunity.
Unfortunately, this opportunity is not often realized,
because most entry-level jobs are dead-end, with little room
for advancement. Our goal, then, is to reposition these jobs as
stepping stones to a meaningful career in health care.
We are in the early stages of developing a 21st-century
platform that will link at scale these individuals to career
tracks in health care and support them as they move up a career
ladder. Specifically, we are working with partners to design
modern, adult-learner-centered training programs for long-term
care workers and plugging these programs into an accessible
career track, statewide career track.
Our focus is to link a series of high-demand health care
operations across a fast track. Fast tracks credit these entry-
level homecare aides for their previous training and experience
toward an end-goal degree, such as nursing and other high
demand health degrees and certifications.
As part of this fast track, we have established an
intermediate step: advanced homecare aid under the
apprenticeship model. And once implemented in 2010, this will
be the first apprenticeship program for long-term care workers
in Washington State and the largest apprenticeship program of
any kind in Washington State.
Second, the training partnership is working to develop a
Web-based community network tool, a virtual entry point, if you
will, helping community-based organizations help job-seekers to
access a customized career track in health care.
Features include a career track calculator that can be used
to map different career track options in health care, depending
upon the job-seeker's individual needs and goals, and a real-
time employment hub that can be used to identify and apply for
job openings with partner employers.
[The statement of Ms. Raynor follows:]
Prepared Statement of Charissa Raynor, Executive Director, SEIU
Healthcare NW Training Partnership, on Behalf of the Service Employees
International Union (SEIU)
Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Hinojosa and Ranking Member
Guthrie for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee today. I
am Charissa Raynor, Executive Director of the Service Employees
International Union Healthcare Northwest Training Partnership. The
Partnership is a joint training effort by employers and SEIU. SEIU is
the largest and fastest-growing union in the nation, representing 2
million members in the public, healthcare, and property services
sectors.
SEIU's Vision for WIA and Workforce Development
SEIU believes that the mission of WIA should be to prepare workers
for a 21st century economy and to offer them opportunities throughout
their work lives to enhance their skills and their earnings. According
to U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics projections, the top 15 fastest-
growing occupations over the next decade include home care aides,
registered nurses, food service workers, janitors, and child care
workers. However, these rapidly growing occupations, with the exception
of registered nurses, pay, on average, wages that are below the median
average wage for all occupations. As a union dedicated to lifting
service workers into the middle class and to promoting the delivery of
high-quality services, SEIU has a strong interest in working with the
Subcommittee to reauthorize WIA to promote a comprehensive workforce
development strategy to:
1. Alleviate projected shortage occupations in such sectors as:
healthcare, child care and early education, and property services;
2. Offer low-literacy, low-skill workers intensive supports and
learning strategies to fit their needs; and
3. Create career paths that allow low-wage workers to rise to the
middle class.
SEIU has a proven track record delivering job training and
education, job placement, and career development to home care, child
care, property services and hospital and health system workers across
the country. They have created ongoing training and education efforts
in their larger local unions--often in partnership with their
employers; and SEIU believes these efforts can serve as models to
strengthen the Workforce Investment Act.
Innovations and Best Practices in Washington
The work of the SEIU Healthcare NW Training Partnership, a joint
labor-management program in Washington, is such an example. In
operation since July 2008, the Training Partnership is a nonprofit,
labor-management organization dedicated to modernizing training and
workforce development for long term care workers and supporting career
track programs for workers ready to advance into hospital employment.
By 2010, the Training Partnership will be the primary training provider
for long term care workers in Washington. We are primarily funded by
employer contributions and governed by a diverse board including labor
and employer representatives. Tuition for all training is paid and
workers are paid for work time missed to attend training.
Long term care and hospital employers across Washington are
experiencing serious workforce shortages that are expected to worsen as
baby boomers age--simultaneously reducing workforce supply and
increasing demands on our healthcare systems--from entry-level, career
track long term care jobs to high demand hospital jobs. At the same
time, many poor and low-income individuals--often women of color--have
an interest in healthcare as a career. Matching these individuals with
entry-level, career track healthcare jobs in their communities would
benefit both the economic status of these job seekers and support high
quality care for people living in those same communities.
More often than not though, these workers never access the career
track because it is not visible or because it is not supportive. For
example, very few entry-level long term care workers participate in a
healthcare career track. In fact, most of these are dead-end jobs with
no room for advancement at all. Our goal is to improve the attachment
of poor and low-income individuals, especially people of color and
women, across Washington to a meaningful healthcare career track.
Especially in today's economic climate, the joint labor-management
Training Partnership plays a critical role in Washington's overall
strategy for economic stabilization and the benefits are three-fold: 1)
building human capital; 2) meeting the current demand for trained
healthcare professionals; and 3) responding to structural changes in
the economy.
Broadly, the SEIU Healthcare NW Training Partnership and partner
organizations are in the early stages of developing a 21st century
training platform that will link, at scale, these individuals to career
tracks in healthcare and support them as they advance up the career
ladder, providing a suite of career track training to more than 30,000
long term care workers across Washington. This includes entry-level
Home Care Aide training, advanced Home Care Aide training, Peer
Mentorship for new workers, and continuing education for Home Care
Aides.
Specifically, the Training Partnership is working with partners to:
1. Design a modernized, adult learner centered training program--
this includes developing an accessible statewide career track for home
care aides. Our focus is to link a series of high demand healthcare
occupations together in a ``fast track'' program for home care aides.
This ``fast track'' ``credits'' the entry-level home care aide's
training and experience toward their ultimate healthcare degree or
certificate. We have also established an intermediate step for home
care aides, Advanced Home Care Aide, under the Apprenticeship model.
This Apprenticeship program will be the first for long term care
workers in Washington. It is expected to be the largest Apprenticeship
program of any kind and possibly the largest healthcare apprenticeship
program in the country. In sum, we are creating targeted opportunities
for career mobility in the high demand healthcare sector--from entry-
level career track home care aide to Advanced Home Care Aide to nursing
and other high demand hospital jobs;
2. Develop a Web-based Community Network Tool--a virtual entry
point for community-based organizations to help job seekers access a
customized career track and employment. Features include: a) a Career
Track Calculator that can be used to map different career track options
depending on individual goals and needs; and b) a Real Time Employment
Hub that can be used to identify job openings among partner employers
and being the application process.
The joint labor-management training model, such as the SEIU
Healthcare NW Training Partnership, maintains progress in difficult
times and responds to the cyclical nature of economic downturns by
sustaining public-private partnerships. Programs under the training
partnership model are informed by a culturally and linguistically
diverse set of stakeholders through two advisory structures: the
College Consortium for college representatives and the Community
Network for community-based organizations, including workforce
development, consumer advocacy, and government agencies.
While we have an excellent relationship with the WIB and many other
community organizations, the Training Partnership has yet to receive
WIA funding. Expanding the purpose of the Workforce Investment Act to
include labor-management training programs would add value to the WIA
funding system, as well as greatly enhance our ability to train
unemployed and incumbent workers of all skill levels.
WIA Successes
SEIU members play a dual role in worforce training and development.
SEIU is a training provider in some industries and localities, and SEIU
public employees in many states deliver services in One Stop Centers,
proving crucial employment services for the unemployed. These members
have assisted unemployed workers to receive unemployment benefits,
trained job-seekers, guided them through their job search, helped them
acquire work-related skills, and brokered the hiring process with
employers. SEIU members know that strong workforce programs can help
the country emerge from this economic downturn by helping job seekers
gain the skills they need to find good jobs and earn a living wage. But
in order to bolster the current system of workforce development,
Congress must ensure adequate federal funding as well as preserve the
successful delivery of employment services by the public sector, where
there is an emphasis on universal access to services.
Privatization of employment services short-changes those clients
who face the greatest barriers as private contractors tend to focus on
those workers easiest to place. A private institution may fail to
deliver services locally or fail to provide individualized services
based on a client's unique needs--or may charge a premium to provide
comprehensive services. Job seekers with significant employment
barriers, including seasonal workers, those with disabilities, those in
need of special accommodations, or those in rural areas; are likely to
be given short shrift under a privatized model.
In this time of economic crisis, the preservation of public sector
delivery of employment services and the federal requirement that
Wagner-Peyser Employment Services be delivered by civil service
employees is crucial to WIA's continued success. The reauthorization of
WIA offers an opportunity to codify this longstanding regulatory
requirement in legislative language.
Reforms to WIA
Based on these innovations and successes of WIA, SEIU recommends
these reforms which will strengthen WIA to create the robust workforce
development system the country needs to combat the record levels of
unemployment and underemployment and to support workers to succeed in a
dynamic economy.
First, SEIU recommends fostering more partnerships at every level,
and include labor and other community advocates in the planning and
delivery of services. When workers belong to a union, they have the
opportunity to bargain for additional on-the-job training and other
educational and advancement opportunities. SEIU has formed many
partnerships with employers to invest additional resources in training,
yet WIA does not reward these partnerships and employers who invest in
incumbent workers. These collaborations result in career ladders that
provide opportunities for noncollege educated workers to increase their
skills and their paychecks, and they open up entry-level positions for
disadvantaged or unemployed workers. In contrast to many training
programs currently funded by WIA, SEIU labor-management training
programs almost always result in a real job at the end of successful
completion of training.
Specifically, SEIU recommends that you amend WIA to allow state and
local boards to contract with labor-management training funds to
provide occupational skills training, on-thejob training and workplace
training with related instruction, and/or skill upgrading and
retraining. This can be accomplished by amending the eligible criteria
for training partners and by allowing the governor to add labor-
management training funds to the list of eligible entities that are
submitted for his approval by local boards.
Second, SEIU recommends that training resources be more focused on
high-growth, high-demand sectors. SEIU supports sectoral strategies
where WIA resources are used to target identified needs and shortages
in sectors that are growing and creating good jobs. For example, our
healthcare system suffers from chronic workforce shortages and employs
too few workers dedicated to prevention and primary care. Priority
sectors should include healthcare and long term care, child care and
early education, and green jobs. WIA funding can be used not just to
alleviate a nursing shortage, but to grow a more diverse nursing
profession and promote more nurses working in underserved areas.
Third, SEIU recommends increased use of grants to fund training and
educational entities. The WIA system should not continue to rely on
Individual Training Accounts as the primary mechanism to deliver
services to eligible workers. Individual Training Accounts, for
example, are too small to support a nurse's aide who has the motivation
and opportunity to go to nursing school. The Trade Adjustment
Assistance Act, by contrast, offers workers displaced by trade
significantly more federal support than other displaced workers are
eligible for under WIA. ITAs also do not promote proven learning
strategies, such as cohort training. ITAs were created to offer
additional choice, but they only offer the illusion of choice and
generate high administrative costs. Low-wage incumbent workers who have
demonstrated a strong attachment to the workforce but need additional
skills to access career ladders cannot easily qualify for ITAs.
Fourth, SEIU recommends increasing the percentage of funding
allocated to statewide activities. WIA currently allocates 15 percent
of a state's WIA funding to statewide activities. Increasing this by 5
percent would allow governors to develop strategic plans for workforce
development and have more authority to create larger initiatives and
target funding to accomplish initiatives that address wage inequality
and that can further sector strategies, such as a statewide initiative
to upgrade the early childhood education workforce or an initiative to
address the nursing shortage. Additionally, some incumbent workers are
at risk of job loss due to changing technology or industry
restructuring, and it may be more cost-effective to intervene before
they become unemployed.
Fifth, SEIU suggests requiring greater coordination among other
education and training programs. Training dollars should be an integral
component of broader strategies to promote economic development and
alleviate poverty. SEIU supports a broader vision of education and
lifelong skills building that can leverage student loans and Pell
grants with WIA dollars and community college resources, for example.
Federal child care subsidies should also be made available to workers
who would otherwise be unable to continue their education and training.
This kind of coordination is more feasible at the state level than at
the level of local WIBs.
Finally, SEIU recommends that the Committee reform the structure of
local WIBs as it reauthorizes WIA. Many local WIBs lack a broad vision
and real community representation, including unions and other advocates
for workers and distressed communities.
Conclusion
SEIU appreciates the significant resources the Congress provided in
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to modernize unemployment
benefits, increase support for state employees to serve unemployed
workers, and increase WIA funding and competitive training grants
during this extremely difficult economic time. SEIU looks forward to
working with the Subcommittee, as well as the full Education and Labor
Committee, to devise a workforce development system that works for all
workers.
Thank you and I look forward to your questions.
______
Chairman Hinojosa. I am going to interrupt you and say that
we love the information that you are sharing with us. I am
going to make sure that the entire statement is put into the
record.
Votes have been called, two of them, and I am going to
request of members who wish to stay that we have enough time to
listen to the presentation by Mr. Smith and the presentation by
Mr. Lanter. After your 5 minutes each, we will then run to vote
and return to have the question session with each one of you.
So with that, I would like to proceed to listen to Mr.
Smith's presentation.
STATEMENT OF KEVIN G. SMITH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LITERACY NEW
YORK, INC.
Mr. Smith. Chairman Hinojosa, Mr. Guthrie, members of the
subcommittee, current economic conditions notwithstanding,
America's supply of adequately skilled workers does not meet
its demand. It is essential to consider what skills are
available versus those needed to support and sustain national,
state and local economic development strategies.
As the nation succeeds in building an economic recovery,
including job creation, the skills gap will impede progress.
Simply, citizens who lack basic literacy and language skills
will continue to draw from, rather than contribute to, efforts
to create economic stability and growth. We must invest in our
nation's human infrastructure, as we do the nation's capital
infrastructure.
When discussing the issue of adult literacy, advocates
point to studies indicating millions who function below basic
levels. The 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy and more
recent National Center for Education Statistics reports
chronicle the issue, indicating that more than 30 million, or
14 percent of adults, possess skills below basic.
In my home state of New York, that number is 22 percent,
although in Congressman Bishop's district, it is the same as
the national figure, where 1 in 7, more than 160,000 working-
age individuals, have below basic skills. The simplest
information processing tasks are challenging.
Another 63 million, or 29 percent of adults, function at
levels considered to be at basic. These adults may become
challenged as accessing, understanding and utilizing
information at work or elsewhere becomes more complex.
In many cases, these are native-born adults who have
attended public school, but for a variety of reasons not gained
the desired abilities. For many others, they are immigrants who
have come to the United States with varying levels of academic
exposure and success, but do not speak English well enough to
fully engage in social and economic activities.
It is very important for the committee to consider the wide
scope of adults that may benefit by improved literacy and
language skills to support their training and employment goals
when crafting legislation that better supports the development
of a more highly and appropriately skilled workforce.
My written comments go into greater detail on the condition
of the two systems operating under Title I and Title II of the
Workforce Investment Act. Suffice to say that each has been
severely limited by the level or loss of funding and the scope
of the need and expectation of service. Neither system is able
to provide the services to meet the current demand, and both
are challenged to respond to the emerging increase in programs
needed to meet the nation's economic recovery and development
plans.
The need for adult education services far exceeds the
capacity of the current system to deliver. There is no doubt
that we will need to enhance efforts to serve more, better, not
just to help people to help themselves, but to maximize the
country's investment in economic recovery.
However, before we consider how much it would cost to serve
3 million or 5 million or 17 million more adults, it is
important to consider re-engineering the current system into
one that can and will efficiently and effectively assess the
compatibility of skills available in the nation, state,
community and individual to specifically meet the demands for
skills in these current and future economies.
Obviously, difficult decisions will have to be made
regarding how many may be served how well in order to expedite
development of skills needed to fill jobs available and being
created.
Analogous to plans to focus on sector employment, we should
consider literacy and language skills needed to fill jobs in
those sectors and concentrate and coordinate our efforts
accordingly.
Adults seek education services due to a very wide range of
learning needs and goals. Native-born adults with reading
abilities ranging from the 1st-grade level all the way to the
12th seek support to advance to the next level. Immigrants who
are not literate in their native language, as well as highly
educated professionals, seek help to improve their English-
language skills.
The system responding to this continuum of need include
secondary, post-secondary, community-based, faith-based,
library, and volunteer-based sectors. These programs are all
competing for scant resources needed to serve the learning
needs of this large, complex population. Very limited resources
are spread very thin.
State and local contributions vary widely. The level of
investment from program to program varies dramatically, as does
the quantity and quality of service.
Community colleges seeking to serve higher-level students
compete with community-based programs better suited to serving
those with less skill. State education agencies, compelled to
fund secondary or post-secondary institutions, finesse the
competitive process, despite direct inequitable statutory
language.
Programs are pitted against each other, rather than
creating a greater sum, because there is such great need and so
few resources and strategic planning.
[The statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kevin G. Smith, Executive Director,
Literacy New York, Inc.
Current economic conditions not withstanding, America's supply of
adequately skilled workers does not meet its demand. It is essential to
consider what skills are available versus those needed to support and
sustain national, state and local economic development strategies. As
the nation succeeds in building an economic recovery, including job
creation, the skills gap will impede progress. Simply, citizens who
lack basic literacy and language skills will continue to draw from
rather than contribute to efforts to create economic stability and
growth. We must invest in the nation's human infrastructure, as we do
the nation's capital infrastructure.
When discussing the issue of adult literacy, advocates point to
studies indicating the millions who function below basic levels. The
2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL) and more recent
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) reports chronicle the
issue indicating that 30 million or 14% of adults possess below basic
skills. In my home state of New York that number is 22%, although in
Congressman Bishop's district it is the same as the national figure--
where one in seven or 160,034 working age individuals have below basic
skills. The simplest information processing tasks are challenging.
Another 63 million or 29% of adults function at levels consider to be
basic. These adults may become challenged as accessing, understanding
and utilizing information at work becomes more sophisticated. In many
cases, these are native born people who have attended public school
but, for a variety of reasons, not gained the desired abilities. For
many others, they are immigrants who have come to the United States
with varying level of academic exposure and success but do not speak
English well enough to fully engage in social and economic activities.
It is very important for the Committee to consider the wide scope of
adults that may benefit by improved literacy and language skills to
support their training and employment goals when crafting legislation
that facilitates the development of a more highly and appropriately
skilled workforce.
The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 correctly tied the adult
training and education systems together. The law suggests levels of
coordination and cooperation. Many in the adult education community
remain concerned about dedicating our work strictly on workforce
development. Nonetheless, it is clear that supporting incumbent and
unemployed workers with the skills they need to acquire and retain
employment is critical. Honestly, while there are examples of
successful local initiatives, much more needs to be done to research
and implement more efficient and effective practices that seamlessly
merge WIA Title I and Title II functions.
As has already been testified, the need for adult education
services far exceeds the capacity of the current system to deliver. You
know that of the 88 to 93 million Americans who have basic or below
basic skills fewer than 3 million are getting help. Some, notably the
National Commission on Adult Literacy (NCAL) have called for a new
approach and investment supporting a massive expansion of the adult
education system. There is no doubt that we will need to enhance
efforts to serve more, better; not just to help people to help
themselves but to maximize the country's investment in economic
recovery as well.
However, before we consider how much it would cost to serve 3 or 5
or 17 million more adults, it is important to consider reengineering
the current system in to one that can and will efficiently and
effectively assess the compatibility of the skills available in the
nation, state, community and individual to specifically meet the demand
for skills in these respective current and future economies. Obviously,
difficult decisions will have to be made regarding how many may be
served how well in order to expedite development of the skills needed
to fill the jobs available and being created. Analogous to plans to
focus on sector employment we should consider the literacy and language
skills needed to fill jobs in those sectors and concentrate and
coordinate our efforts accordingly. The current system does not
function in that manner. Why? * * * because it lacks the capacity to do
so, capacity that includes human and fiscal resources, flexibility,
local authority and relative parity. The result is two distinct systems
still operating as if they had no related purpose when, in fact, a
large percentage of Title II students have employment goals and Title I
customers need literacy or language improvement in order to avail and
benefit by One-Stop services.
In order to further explain the problems faced by adults seeking
skill development as needed to become and remain employed it may be
useful to consider further the range of learning needs that the adult
education system is expected to address and then, therefore, why
coordination is so difficult. As you may know, the National Reporting
System (NRS), WIA Title II reporting matrix has categorizes learners as
Basic Literacy or English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL).
Further, these two populations are divided into six levels each. A
Level I Basic Literacy student tests in at reading below the second
grade reading level while a Level 6 student demonstrates abilities
between grade 11 and 12. For the ESOL population the six levels also
create a scale of English language competency that is an equally broad
spectrum of abilities. Simply, the adult education system accommodates
learners the equivalent of a K-12 system for Basic Literacy students
and a K-12 system for ESOL students. However, it must be considered,
that the adult education system is working, for the most part, with the
students who have not achieved success as school-aged learners and who
present with multiple literacy-related issues including poverty,
unemployment, incarceration, substance & alcohol abuse, chronic health
problems and so on.
The system responding to this continuum of need includes secondary,
post-secondary, community-based, faith-based, library and volunteer-
based sectors. These programs are all competing for scant resources
needed to serve the learning needs of this large, complex population.
The very limited resources are spread very thin. State and local
contributions vary widely. The level of investment from program to
program varies dramatically as does the quantity and quality of
service. Community colleges seeking to serve Level 5&6 students compete
with community-based programs better suited to serving Level 1&2. State
Education Agencies (SEAs) compelled to get funds to secondary or post-
secondary institutions finesse the competitive process despite `direct
& equitable' statutory language. Programs are pitted against each other
rather than creating a greater sum because there is such great need and
so few resources and strategic planning.
On the WIA Title 1 side of the equation, years of deep funding cuts
have diminished services and capacity. As in any economy, less is
managed by reduction of costs. Fewer are served and, all things being
equal, those who cost the least to serve are targeted. Programs that do
not have fully developed partnerships are relegated to selecting those
closest to job placement. Others have created structures and
partnership that facilitate the disparity of readiness to work and
availability of employment. This capacity should not be a local anomaly
based on governmental structure or leadership. Rather, it must be
systematic.
Despite the problems very good work is being accomplished within
and between the WIA Title I and Title II systems. Here are few examples
of what is or could be happening to improve the effort:
Suffolk County, New York
In Suffolk County, New York the Workforce Investment Board (WIB)
and One-Stop have been structured in a way that allows for public
assistance recipients lacking the skill needed for employment to be
served accordingly and avoiding inappropriate placement and rating for
the One-Stop operator. They have developed a strong referral system
with the Long Island Regional Adult Education Network (RAEN) that
brokers services to a range of all sectors of adult education programs
by learning need and service availability.
Despite this strong local solution to the structural and funding
issues they face, they recognize that things could work better.
Statutory authority to seek and secure the literacy and language skill
development required to place customers in the jobs that are available
would be greatly facilitated by making placement into educational
services a positive outcome. Reinstituting the multiple variable
regression model from the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) would
allow One-Stop Career Centers to address more difficult-to-serve
populations without sacrificing their performance and accompanying
incentive funding in this difficult fiscal climate. Veteran operators
report that under the old system a weighted--scale permitted them to
identify and serve adults with more serious and difficult employment
barriers.
Allegany County, New York
In Allegany County, New York, a rural county in the western part of
the state, a partnership between the WIB, the two major employers and
the local volunteer literacy program has found great success. Dresser
Rand, one of the largest global suppliers of rotating equipment
solutions and a large regional Dairy, which together employ a
significant percentage of the working population, have each established
minimum skill levels for employment consideration. If a perspective
employee enters the system lacking the skills needed to pass the
employer-administered test, they are referred to Literacy West for a
six-week course that has produced results highly satisfactory to both
employers. The CEO of Dresser Rand has indicated that this flow of
skilled workers and the support of the workforce and adult education
communities has figured prominently in their decision to remain and
continue to invest in upstate New York.
Again, improvements can and should be considered. As in Suffolk
County, New York there is a lack of clarity regarding protocol and
procedure in referring customers from the One-Stop to the adult
education provider. Two distinct data systems that do not communicate
or share information further hinder efficiency. The inability to obtain
read only, much less limited data entry access, clearance for the adult
education partner in Title Is data system forces multiple and more
expensive steps.
The One Stops data system provides Literacy West with the
employment status they need to complete their NRS data reporting
required by New York State for all adult education funding. This is the
only adult education program in the state that I am aware of that has
this access. All others have used less reliable, more costly post-
program survey strategies to track the employment outcome they are
responsible to report. This cooperation and capacity, coupled with the
exemplary educational gain results they produced, made them the most
highly ranked adult education program in the state last year.
Conflicting Outcome Expectations
Another concept for consideration is retooling our adult education
system to specifically deliver workplace skills. Currently, there is a
growing conflict between demonstrating educational gain outcomes as
indicated by norm-referenced tests and soft skill instruction and job
protocols. Employers consistently report wanting employees who show up
on time and work well with others but adult education is forced to
focus on academic services to realize educational gain outcomes. There
has simply got to be a way to modify service outcome expectations to
support and report the delivery of services that effectively produce
job acquisition and retention results and that encourage the
continuation of literacy and language development while workers are
employed.
The Volunteer Asset
The adult education system is unique for its significant volunteer-
based service response. The nation should be proud of this history and
heritage, yet many view it as evidence of the system's relative
insignificance and value. I encourage this Committee to consider,
especially with the renewed Presidential call to voluntary services,
the worth and role of the volunteer sector. Currently relegated to
serving the most in need with the least resources, the volunteer-based
programs have persisted in organizing fundamental neighbor-helping-
neighbor efforts across the country. Better supported and utilized as
additional support to group instruction services or as job coach/
community mentors to high risk new hires are a couple of ways of
considering to better utilize the rich volunteer resource already
serving in adult education.
The nation and states need to sort out how many adults can be
served how well with the resources made available under WIA Title II.
In Policies to Promote Adult Education and Postsecondary Alignment
Julie Strawn, CLASP Senior Policy Analyst, reported that the national
average investment from all sources per student, per year is only $645.
Not surprisingly, she went on to report that few adult education
students go on to postsecondary education and a very high percentage of
those who do not complete. This analysis speaks clearly for the need to
create a continuum of adult education services in each state and as
required in law. The nation must strategically engage the assets it has
available to serve the full spectrum of Basic Literacy and ESOL
learning needs, and use the resources made available to develop and
coordinate the same.
Both WIA systems have atrophied significantly in recent years and
are in desperate need of reengineering and rebuilding. Together they
represent an essential aspect of our country's infrastructure and
capacity to close the skills gap between our nation's workforce and
business needs to compete in this 21st Century global economy.
______
Chairman Hinojosa. Mr. Smith, we are going to make your
entire presentation part of this hearing.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Hinojosa. And we are going to call on Mr. Lanter.
STATEMENT OF BOB LANTER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CONTRA COSTA
COUNTY WORKFORCE INVESTMENT BOARD
Mr. Lanter. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the
subcommittee. On behalf of the California Workforce Association
and our membership, I am pleased to be here today to share our
best thinking on workforce investment in our country.
I am also pleased to point out that I am a constituent from
Chairman George Miller's district and want to acknowledge how
grateful we are that he has been a champion both nationally and
back at home.
I want to take a second to thank and recognize members Buck
McKeon and Susan Davis, who have both been strong supporters in
California.
There are three essential ingredients to the Workforce
Investment Act which serve as common themes that run throughout
our local roles and regional focus.
First, WIA provides an infrastructure of workforce
investment boards, led by the private sector. These WIBs are
the only places in local communities that serve as a table,
where key stakeholders come together to develop solutions to
local and regional workforce issues.
This structure is not perfect--our boards are too big and
sometimes unwieldy--but the concept is a smart one. Make sure
the private sector is in the lead, they know where the jobs
are, they understand the skills that are needed, and they
demand accountability.
Second, WIA gives authority to a partnership of local
elected officials and workforce investment boards to design and
deliver solutions that meet their local communities' needs.
Economist strategists throughout the world call for regional
approaches in building global competitiveness and exhort us to
devolve state and national approaches in favor of regional
strategies.
Industry sectors, skill development, economic prosperity
cannot be delivered at a state level through a state system.
One size does not fit all.
Another key reason that this local design is so important
is that millions of dollars are being leveraged through local
funding streams. Research conducted in California showed that,
by combining smaller WIBs into regional bodies, we would have
lost a million dollars to the system. Mayors and county
supervisors are just not able nor willing to give up their
local funding to larger regional jurisdictions or state
governments.
Thirdly, WIA established one-stop career centers, where in
theory many resources would be targeted and leveraged. In
reality, this occurs in wildly uneven examples across the
country.
This is mainly due to the fact that the Workforce
Investment Act requires other systems to invest in our one-
stops. However, none of the corresponding federal law requires
this investment.
This lack of investment has meant that WIA funding that
would otherwise go to training is going to keep our one-stops
running, and we must keep our one-stops running. In California,
these career centers have been inundated with customers, some
seeing 100 percent increase over the last year. In San Diego
alone, since July 2008, 88,000 customers have went through
their doors.
A word on innovation. California has been engaged for many
years in focusing on industry sectors. They vary by design and
activities and outcomes because they are customized to meet the
needs of a certain industry. They all use labor market
information to determine their industry of choice. They are
driven by local demand from the business sector and are
partners with diverse and public-private stakeholders. They are
fantastic examples of what can be done with WIA funding.
In Contra Costa, we are faced with a shortage of process
technicians in the petrochemical industry. We partnered with
the region's refineries, with Dow Chemical and other large
manufacturers, along with the United Steelworkers and community
colleges, to develop a 20-week training program targeted to
dislocated construction and airline workers and returning
veterans. The program has been so successful, it is now offered
as part of a normal semester-based system within the community
college programs.
Lastly, Workforce Investment Act. CWA has spent a
considerable amount of time developing suggestions for
reauthorization. We are happy to provide this committee with
specific examples, but I would like to highlight three quick
points.
First of all, private-sector-led boards make sense. We need
to adjust the requirement so that they are not too big to
conduct business. Give local areas more autonomy under the law
to appoint their key stakeholders. Give them their own title
and their own budget authority so that they can serve as the
very important intermediary and convening role.
One-stop career centers, as was quoted recently in the New
York Times, are emergency rooms of the economic crisis. We must
continue to innovate and create more flexibility in terms of
requirements about who gets served and when, create more
incentives for other community resources to locate and fund
their staff within our centers, and, lastly, we need to
continue to innovate youth programs providing opportunities for
career pathways, work experience, and contextualized vocational
education.
Let us all participate in constructive dialogue so that we
can identify what needs to be fixed and the new elements that
are required for the new economy. Thank you for the opportunity
to provide testimony today. The California Workforce
Association is pleased to be a resource to your committee and
to other policymakers as we move forward with Workforce
Investment Act reauthorization and continue the work to
revitalize our nation's economy.
Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Lanter follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bob Lanter, Legislative Committee Chairman, CWA
Executive Director, Contra Costa Workforce Development Board
Good Morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee. My
name is Bob Lanter, and I serve as the Legislative Committee Director
for the California Workforce Association (CWA), as well as the
Executive Director for the Contra Costa Workforce Investment Board. On
behalf of CWA, and our membership, I am pleased to be here today to
share our best thinking on what innovations have already been initiated
through the Workforce Investment Act, and provide you with suggestions
on how to further strengthen the workforce investment system.
I want to recognize members of the Subcommittee for your
outstanding leadership in the area of workforce development, and thank
members Susan Davis and Duncan Hunter, who have been strong supporters
in California. Of course, we are also very thankful for Buck McKeon's
on-going commitment to the workforce system. And I am pleased to point
out that I am a constituent from Chairman George Miller's district, and
want to acknowledge how much we appreciate that he has been a champion,
both nationally, and in his district, for workforce programs.
California's economy, as one of the largest in the world, has
withstood booms and busts over its history, but now faces a unique set
of challenging conditions: an unprecedented state budget gap, a
statewide unemployment rate nearing 10%, increased housing
foreclosures, and a widening achievement gap among students. The
recession is disproportionately hitting low-skill workers, while at the
same time some industries are still facing skill and/or labor shortages
in higher-skill occupations.
Last year approximately three million customers were served through
California's One-Stop Career Centers. We are hearing that in some
areas, the number of customers walking through the door has doubled. In
San Diego alone, more than 88,000 people have visited the One-Stops
since July 2008. Confounding our ability to respond is the fact that
the funding for our programs has been decimated in the last 8 years--
California has lost almost 50 percent of our WIA funding.
Even with all of these challenges, we believe the economic crisis
may prove to spur creativity and innovation and pave the way for a more
optimistic future. We also believe there is a great opportunity for
using the stimulus funding provided through the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA) to build and repair this nation's human capital
infrastructure and assist in getting Californians back to work.
In the 1930s, we were a nation with an economic engine fueled by
the capacity of our physical infrastructure. Thus, when the need came
to stimulate the economy, our country created millions of jobs for a
nation of manual laborers to strengthen that physical infrastructure.
Today's economy is much more dependent on a skilled, knowledge-
based workforce. If this human capital is the most important component
of our economic infrastructure, then we must be building a skilled
workforce. With help from Congress, America's public workforce system
is poised to leverage this difficult moment to prepare our workers for
the skills we need to once again be most prosperous and productive
nation.
Context
What is the Workforce Investment Act?
One of the difficulties of providing testimony to Congress about
the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) is that it means very different
things to different people. To some, it is a job training program for
the unemployed, and in particular, those with barriers to employment.
For others, it is a system of One-Stop Career Centers, there to provide
information to all of a community's residents about jobs, training
opportunities and other community resources; and to help people get
jobs. To many, it is an infrastructure of Workforce Investment Boards--
stewards of the WIA funds, but equally important, groups of community
leaders who understand the needs of businesses in their region and who
work to ensure that there is a skilled workforce to meet those needs.
And to others, WIA is a set of programs specifically designed to meet
the needs of unemployed adults, dislocated workers, and youth
unconnected to school and work. Last (and probably not least) there are
those who expect WIA funds to help businesses recruit and retain their
workers, grow their businesses, increase productivity, and increase the
overall competitiveness of economic regions.
The truth is that the Workforce Investment Act is all of these
things. Different WIBs focus on different roles, largely to meet the
needs of their local communities. The strength and the weakness of the
locally-driven nature of the system is that it is tailored to meet
local demand, but hard to classify and brand as one thing. These
differing expectations of the workforce system have created
misunderstandings about what is working and what isn't. For example,
many One-Stop Career Centers have done what the federal law
encourages--they have leveraged their resources with other funds in the
community, and use Pell Grants and community college funding to pay for
training. When you look at their statistics, you will see that they
have spent virtually no WIA funding on training--but when you look at
the total investment in the services being delivered through the One-
Stop, you see that hundreds of people have received training and other
services funded by other systems.
There are three essential ingredients, if you will, of the
Workforce Investment Act, which serve as common themes throughout the
differences in roles and regional focus.
Private Sector led WIBs
First, WIA provides an infrastructure of WIBs, led by the private
sector, which are the only places in local communities that serve as a
``table'' where all are invited. The WIB includes business, organized
labor, state and local government, education, and community
organizations. This structure is not perfect--the boards are too big,
sometimes unwieldy, and sometimes ineffective. We can provide
suggestions on how to improve this problem, but the concept behind them
is smart. Make sure the private sector is in the lead--they know where
the jobs are, they understand the skills that are needed, and it is
their job to be impatient with public sector bureaucracy and make sure
that things get done.
Partnership of Local Elected Officials and WIBs
Second, WIA gives authority to a partnership of local elected
officials and WIBs to design and deliver strategies that meet the needs
of their communities and regions. Economic strategists throughout the
world call for regional approaches to building global competitiveness
and exhort us to devolve state and national approaches in favor of
regional strategy. Although there is often disagreement about how many
WIBs there should be, and whether regional governance and regional
strategy are the same thing, strategies around industry sectors, skill
development, and economic prosperity cannot be delivered at a state
level through a state system.
The other key reason that this local design is so important is that
millions of dollars are being leveraged through other local funding
streams. In many parts of the country, TANF, Community Development
Block Grants, Community Services Block Grants, economic development and
other resources are contributed through the leadership of local elected
officials. In California, we did research on these investments early in
the Schwarzenegger administration, when there was an effort to reduce
the number of WIBs in California. What we found surprised even us--by
combining smaller WIBs into larger regional bodies, we would have lost
millions of dollars--mayors and county supervisors are willing and able
to contribute other funds when they are being managed through the local
partnership, but unwilling and unable if they are offering up funds to
a larger region or state government.
One-Stop Career Centers
Third, WIA established One-Stop Career Centers, where in theory,
many community resources are invested so that much of the funding
targeted towards the unemployed could be leveraged. No one can argue
that this makes great sense. In reality, since WIA required other
systems to invest in One-Stops but none of the federal laws governing
other systems required this same investment, there has been wildly
uneven around the country.
In California, where the State Workforce Investment Board
commissioned a study on how much services cost in a One-Stop, the
Employment Service is the largest investor outside of WIA, and then it
is actually agencies that are not mandated by law to participate that
bring in the most resources. In other states, such as Texas and
Michigan, because of laws passed at the state level, WIBs receive
funding such as TANF, food stamps, child care and adult education. In
demonstrations currently taking place around the country, One-Stops are
providing supports for the working poor, including welfare, food
stamps, earned income tax credits.
In most states, certainly in California, the lack of investment of
other funds has meant that funding that would otherwise go to training
is going to keeping the One-Stops running. And the problem is, One-
Stops are successful community resources. In the last six months,
California's One-Stops have been inundated with customers. Many of
these customers are coming to the One-Stop for the first time; many
One-Stops have seen a 100 percent increase in customers looking to get
help in getting back to work. Again, One-Stops are not perfect, and the
leveraging of funds is not working all over the country, but the
concept of One-Stop services makes perfect sense.
New innovations and best practice
WIBs throughout the entire State have collectively worked together
on a number of initiatives, and have started even more in response to
the economic downturn. Through our Association, California's 49 WIBs
have launched a website, backtowork.org, which provides information
``in English'' to those who have lost their jobs and want to upgrade
their skills, file for unemployment, and look for work. We have
established a Recovery Act Task Force, and are meeting with statewide
associations representing economic development, community college
Career Technical Education programs, foster youth and TANF, organized
labor, mental health programs, and those working on infrastructure and
energy. We are also meeting regularly with our State and Federal
partners. Last week, WIB staff from 40 WIBs met to develop a Summer
Youth template that all WIBs can use to help ensure high quality
programs throughout the State.
Community Leadership
At the local and regional level, California WIBs have increasingly
taken on a community leadership role and serve to catalyze change in
their communities. This work ranges from regional strategic planning,
labor market research, aligning resources across systems, brokering
services and training, to in-depth industry sector work. WIBs right now
are quickly moving forward to develop plans for how best to respond to
the current economic crisis, leveraging the funding that will be
distributed under the ARRA, and have positioned themselves well to use
the larger workforce system to ensure success.
We have also been working on developing the capacity of WIB staff
across the State to operate in a transparent and participatory fashion.
We are pleased to see President Obama's Executive Order that requires
this form of governance. WIBs have invested in the capacity of their
staff to develop relationships, collaborate with other systems, and
codesign programs and initiatives with a broad range of public and
private sector partners, rather than ``going it alone.''
Regional Strategic Planning
California has developed a new methodology for understanding
regional economies, Clusters of Opportunity, which has allowed WIBs to
gain new insights into the current and future jobs and occupations, and
the skills required to become employed in those jobs. Developed by the
Economic Strategy Panel and California Workforce Investment Board's
California Regional Economies Project, this methodology is being used
by WIBs and their economic development and education partners around
the State. In Humboldt County, for example, even though there was a
belief that there were no industry sectors with sufficient scale to
launch training programs, using this methodology, they discovered 500
niche manufacturers within the region. This allowed the WIB to
collaborate with the community college to develop a curriculum that
would meet employers' needs, and provide training for residents who
might otherwise have moved out of the region to pursue jobs in other
counties.
In Tulare County, the WIB and local educational agencies--both K-12
and community colleges started to look at the assets and services in
the region, and realized that there were a number of employer advisory
groups, all established under different funding, that were all in
essence providing the same function. They have collectively agreed that
the WIB, in collaboration with the schools and colleges, will establish
single advisory groups within targeted industries, and all of the
agencies will use the same groups to advise them on training, education
and strategy.
In the San Joaquin Valley, with funding from the State, 8 WIBs have
agreed on the same target industries, the same assessment tools, and
the same protocols with community colleges. The California Workforce
Association has recently been given a grant from the California
Endowment, which will allow 4 or 5 consortia of WIBs throughout
California to develop regional plans related to the healthcare
workforce.
Sector Strategies
California has been engaged for many years in focusing on industry
sector strategies; they vary by design, activities and outcomes because
they are customized to the needs of a specific industry in a specific
region. They all use labor market information to determine their
industry and region of focus; are driven by employers in that industry;
are partnerships of diverse public and private stakeholders; and are
models for systems change. What is important to note is that building a
pipeline for workers, and providing opportunities for low income
individuals and youth to enter good jobs with sustainable wages often
requires investment of time and money in activities other than
training. Some industries, for example, need robust marketing and
information dissemination about career pathways for youth in Middle
School.
When a financial crisis forced the Los Angeles County Department of
Health Services to lay off 2,500 entry-level employees, the local
Service Employees International Union worked with the LA County WIB and
local colleges to establish a coordinated effort to advance low-skilled
workers into the allied health field. The partners established a
nonprofit, the Worker Education and Resource Center (WERC) to
coordinate solutions, including articulating career pathways within
allied health, designing and implementing new courses with credentials.
Since 2002, over 9,300 L.A.County DHS employees took courses; over
1,000 obtained new credentials or degrees; and graduates increased
wages by an average of 20%.
The San Bernardino County WIB catalyzed the establishment of the
Alliance for Education, an organization that links business to youth
through the K-12 education system. The Alliance brings information
about industry sectors growing in the county and career ladders in
those sectors, bringing hands on learning environments to the campus.
Twenty-seven businesses now have whole curriculum case studies and/or
semester long class projects where a curriculum is based on a direct
industry problem and how to solve it. For example, sheriffs taught
students about how to solve a murder crime using algebra, Kelly Space
Systems has walked through the algebraic equations with students who
figure out how and launch their own rocket. An engineering company has
run an environmental curriculum.
Faced with a shortage of skilled Process Technicians within the
Petrochemical and Manufacturing sectors, the Workforce Development
Board of Contra Costa partnered with the regions refineries and large
manufacturers, including Shell Oil, Chevron, Tesoro and Dow Chemical,
along with the United Steel Workers, Los Medanos College and Mt. Diablo
Adult School to create a sector initiative. The program targeted
dislocated construction, airline and returning veterans and put them
through a 20 week intensive Process Technician certificate program
(PTECH.) At the conclusion of this 18-month grant, a two semester
course was integrated into the course offerings at the college.
Currently the classes are at capacity and the majority of the graduates
are successful in finding employment.
Talent Development Learning Labs
In an attempt to better serve our customers in the manner
envisioned in WIA, California is piloting a Talent Development model,
which includes the integration of State Employment Service staff and
local WIB staff in a new service delivery model. Twelve WIBs began
implementing an integrated services delivery model, on July 1, 2008.
The delivery model includes a common set of services available to all
customers in the pool through a common customer flow, and an integrated
staff, sharing resources among WIA, Employment Service and TAA
staffing.
The integrated services strategy is intended to shift service
priority to an emphasis on worker skills, assisting workers to gain the
skills leading to self-sufficiency and responding to employer demand.
We also are increasing service levels and quality to improve
performance.
At the end of the first year of the pilots, an evaluation will help
determine the effectiveness of the model and assist WIB directors in
making informed decisions about whether or not they want to adopt this
model and/or implement successful components.
Green Jobs
With the passage of the California Global Warming Solutions Act,
and many following implementation vehicles, California has positioned
itself as a leader in the areas of renewable energy, energy efficiency,
and environmental sustainability across many sectors of the economy. As
a result, California WIBs are actively engaged in partnerships to
support the growing demand in the area of green jobs.
The California Workforce Investment Board recently restructured its
committees to focus on developing and encouraging sector strategies,
and has established a Green Collar Jobs Council. The Green Collar Jobs
Council has already begun a valuable effort to develop a data-driven
action strategy about how California can grow a greener economy and
facilitate the creation of green jobs. The Council has an opportunity
with the passage of the stimulus package to significantly accelerate
that work.
Activities are diverse as the areas of the state. In Southern and
Northern California, for example, several WIBs, and counties, have come
together to plan and implement regional strategies and programs. In the
Los Angeles area, under the auspices of the South Bay WIB, the WIBs are
working together with the community colleges and labor unions to
develop regional strategies.
The Richmond BUILD Pre-Apprenticeship Construction Skills & Solar
Installation Training program is recognized as a national ``best
practice'' for Green Collar job training. This innovative program has
helped create a pathway out of poverty, addressing a primary cause of
youth violence in the community. To date, 35 program graduates have
obtained Green Collar jobs and are making a livable wage. This program
includes a solar installation, solar thermal, and energy efficiency
components that were developed and implemented in partnership with
Solar Richmond, Solar Living Institute, GRID Alternatives, & Rising Sun
Energy Center. The program received the 2008 FBI Director's Community
Leadership award and has been selected as a semi-finalist for the 2009
Harvard Innovations in Government award.
What's next for the Workforce Investment Act?
CWA has spent a considerable amount of time developing suggestions
for the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act. We would be
happy to provide specific recommendations to the Committee. In this
testimony, we want to outline some directions to move forward, and
directions to move away from.
Directions to move toward
We believe that there are many features of the current system that
work, and that we should build on these. Private sector led boards make
sense, and we should adjust requirements so that they are not big and
unwieldy, and give them more autonomy on the law, with their own title
and budget authority, so that they can truly serve an intermediary
convening role. The voice of the private sector, and their ``honest
broker'' role on a WIB, provides the kind of leadership that public
agencies look for.
One-Stop Career Centers are, as was quoted recently in the New York
Times, ``emergency rooms of the economic crisis.'' We must continue to
innovate, create more flexibility in terms of requirements about who
gets served when, and create more incentives for other community
resources to locate and fund staff. One-Stops can still be what was
envisioned in the original WIA, which was a true integration of
employment and training services. They must also have enough
flexibility so that they can respond to different economic conditions,
sometimes more focused on helping business retain workers, sometimes on
investing in longer term training for the economically disadvantaged,
and at other times helping people quickly return to work.
Sector strategies provide many pathways to work with employers,
economic development and education. We should codify these approaches
in the law, and provide infrastructure and performance measures that
allow us to do more of this work, and do it better. We should create
incentives for WIBs to move to sector strategies, as have been done in
Pennsylvania, Washington and other states.
Our youth programs provide critical services and supports for
thousands of young people who are not connected to school or work, or
who are in danger of dropping out. In Los Angeles, 1 in 5 young people
between the age of 16 and 24 is not in school and not working. We need
to continue to innovate with our youth programs, providing career
pathway opportunities, and opportunities for work experience. We are
very pleased that ARRA allows us to offer Summer Youth employment, and
believe that this should be included in reauthorization.
Directions to move away from
You heard testimony several weeks ago, which recommended providing
a stronger role for the Employment Service (ES) and it's role in labor
exchange. ES was designed to help people find jobs starting in the
1930s. At that time, finding a job meant reading classifieds in the
newspaper, through word of mouth, and once the labor exchange was
developed, by going into an Employment Service office. Just as in the
past we needed travel agents to buy airplane tickets, unemployed people
needed ES staff to help them look for work. Today, most people still
find jobs through word of mouth, but the other predominant way is
through on-line labor exchange. Using the Job Service purely as a labor
exchange appears anachronistic and unnecessary. [Note: We are not
suggesting that staff who belong to merit systems do not have a place--
most of the staff who work for WIBs in California, for example, are
members of labor unions and work in city and county government.]
In California, and a number of other states around the country, as
mentioned above, we are piloting ways of using both ES and WIA staff in
teams to provide these services to our customers. We believe that this
integrated approach provides the best service to the people that need
our help, and that isolating ES to deliver labor exchange, as has been
proposed by others, is a step backward, and will not best meet the
needs of the unemployed.
We are concerned about more restrictions on the use of WIA funding
at the local level, such as a minimum percentage spent on training, for
two reasons. First, the law requires WIBs to use Individual Training
Accounts and the Eligible Training Provider List. Requiring a
percentage expenditure on training may actually reduce leveraged
resources, and force WIBs to pay for higher cost training. In
California, as in other states because of State funding pressures,
community colleges are at cap. This means that they can no longer take
students. If we were required to spend a certain percentage of our
funds on training, we would have to turn solely to the private schools
(many of which offer high quality training, but do not leverage public
funding) in order to ``make our expenditure levels.'' Second, in places
where they have done a good job leveraging resources, using Pell Grants
and public education funding, resources that now go to support services
and intensive services would go to training, and we would essentially
be supplanting other funds.
Summary
In summary, we believe that there are many important and innovative
strategies that are allowable in current law. Changes to WIA to make it
even more effective, more responsive to local communities and to our
customers are needed--let us all participate in constructive dialogue
such as this so that we can identify what needs to be fixed, and what
new elements are required in this new economy.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony today. The
California Workforce Association is pleased to serve as a resource to
you and other policy makers as we move forward with WIA Reauthorization
and working toward revitalizing our nation's economy.
______
Chairman Hinojosa. We thank you, Mr. Lanter, for sharing
with us what is happening in California and how you all are
working.
We will be gone for just a few minutes. There are only two
votes. Those who wish to turn your head to the back, there is a
big screen that shows you the voting going on in the House of
Representatives. And only two votes are going to be called, so
we should see you in just a few minutes.
I thank all the members. And we will be back.
[Recess.]
Chairman Hinojosa. We are ready to reconvene. Members will
be coming back from the Capitol in just a few minutes, but I
will start with my first 5 minutes and direct my first question
to Ms. Sandi Vito.
The governors would like Congress to align federal
programs, since you mentioned 12 different executive
departments fund a variety of workforce programs. Do they have
a proposal for such a joint initiative that they would like to
see us consider in the reauthorization?
Ms. Vito. What the National Governors Association is
proposing is an alignment that looks at regulations, creating
potentially an interagency team to streamline, coordinate and
integrate regulations, policy, et cetera, so that the messages
and indicators are clearer to both the states and local
regions, and make it easier to coordinate, as well as
eliminating any barriers to coordination.
We can get you the specific proposal, but I think the
larger issue is that we would be happy to continue to engage in
dialogue, in terms of what the specifics of----
Chairman Hinojosa. We would like to see the drafts that you
have in writing. And then we can certainly have our staff meet
with you and your staff so that we can have a clear
understanding. And then, if I have questions, I will be glad to
call you.
Also, another question to you, Sandi. Can you speak on any
new energy collaborations for green jobs, which was in your
remarks? Or would you--or would the governors send us some of
the examples in the recommendations you made?
And I ask that because I saw the amount of money that is in
the--that is in the stimulus plan, and it is a sizable amount
of money. So I would like to see what the Governors Association
is thinking.
Ms. Vito. We can send you the list of innovative projects
from throughout the states. I can talk specifically about some
of the initiatives in my own state of Pennsylvania.
We have what we call energy partnerships which focus on
energy conservation technologies. So we are training in
weatherization, solar installation, where we actually have
labor force shortages. In western P.A., we are actually
training in retrofitting of building. And in a few areas
throughout the state, we are doing training in energy auditing
and assessment.
So there has been good work begun. More of it needs to be
done. And, again, I will ask the staff at NGA to forward you
examples from other states.
Chairman Hinojosa. Good. We would love to see that.
My next question is to Charissa Raynor. The training
partnership features fast-track credits for the entry-level
homecare aides. How do these credits get accepted by higher
education institutions, like our community colleges? How do
they handle them? And do they have different accreditation
systems?
Ms. Raynor. Well, that is an excellent question. We believe
that to have a meaningful career ladder for homecare workers,
we have to first make sure that homecare workers are a part of
the fast-track, part of a career track.
And so we are in the development stage right now, working
with community colleges all across Washington to design this
fast-track. The notion is that the community colleges would
apply credit based upon the credential. So it is a statewide
credential, certified homecare aide, and so this streamlines
the process for each community college to apply that credit for
previous training and experience, based upon the credential
that any worker can access.
If they have that certification, they go to a college with
the program, the fast track in place, and they can access it
based upon their credential.
Chairman Hinojosa. I think that that could be a very useful
program. And I had an experience back in the beginning of my
first term in Congress where NAFTA had been approved. And many
of the textile companies in my region moved to Mexico and to
China and elsewhere, Central America.
And so we had a workforce of very loyal, good workers,
working for Hagars, Dickies, Fruit of the Loom, Levi's, and
they were displaced, 20 years, some 25 years. And we had to re-
train them for new jobs, and that was most challenging. So this
would be something that I would be very interested in.
My time has expired. And I would like to yield to Ranking
Member Guthrie.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, panel, for this very informative session.
Mr. Lanter, I want to ask you one on--you mentioned that--
or in your testimony that private-sector-led boards you thought
was important to be maintained in the Workforce Investment Act,
and you talked about challenges working sometimes with the
public sector, just using private-sector people to push or
push, prompt along the public sector.
You said you needed--boards needed to be smaller, but you
needed to still maintain the private-sector lead. Could you
give just some concrete examples of issues you have had with
the public sector that, because it is private-sector-led or
business people trying to get things done, have tried to shape
a situation? Or any examples?
Mr. Lanter. Sure. And I will speak on behalf of my own
local workforce area, as opposed to the entire membership of
the workforce association.
I think for us the issues are that the private-sector folks
have knowledge on what they need in terms of a workforce. They
don't necessarily have knowledge, nor should they understand
the inner working of all of our public sector's laws and
regulations.
And I think there are times when the public-sector folks
are, for a variety of reasons, using the intricacies of our
laws to sway a vote one way or another or ensure that dollars
are targeted to a certain area.
And I think the private-sector folks kind of cut through
that very quickly and are able to say, you know, what is best
for our local community? What is best for industry? What is
best for our competitive advantage, in terms of our economy?
And I think that gets people to kind of listen and straighten
up very quickly.
Mr. Guthrie. Okay, thank you. And for Mr. Smith, in your
testimony, you talked about the fact that many citizens lack
basic literacy--maybe I am having a hard time--kind of
allergies are bothering me right now--and language skills, I
guess I am having--in a serious way, though, I mean, basic
literacy and language, I know that is so important. I have
worked on that in state government.
And my question, how do you ensure these adult programs are
addressing those needs? And how do we ensure that we are
preparing for that? Because kind of my experience was that I
would see people kind of combing for people that were higher-
level literacy, not fully literate by any imagination, but
would not focus on the lower level, because it was just too
difficult.
And so you could find somebody that read at maybe a junior
high level and get them into a GED program. If they didn't read
at all, it was difficult and they seemed to be kind of looked
over. So how do we ensure that we are teaching that, is my
question?
Mr. Smith. It is a very good question. I think what has
happened under the Workforce Investment Act, for the most part
unintentionally, is we have reached out to the higher-level
students and adults who can benefit by workforce training,
because they have the literacy and language skill and ability
to do so.
Those who lack those basic skills who cannot benefit by
training have been relegated to being served by other programs
that have received, at least in my experience, less resource
and less funding. Those same adults who present with those
lower skills come to us with learning disabilities, other
literacy-related issues that, in fact, should take more time,
cost more money, and command a greater investment, rather than
a lesser investment.
But they don't get it. And eventually I believe that they
will, because, as we do move the, if you will, as you suggest,
the higher-level adults forward, as we must, then we will have
to bring the other adults forward in a one-step-up kind of an
approach. So----
Mr. Guthrie [continuing]. Higher-level adults. I guess I
should have said higher-level readers, instead of adults. Yes,
that is exactly right, because we do need--I mean, if you can
find somebody with a high-school diploma and get them into
workforce training and move them up, I mean, we should move
those people through.
Mr. Smith. Yes.
Mr. Guthrie. Exactly. And we have debated this in Kentucky.
And I have always said that is great; I am not criticizing that
program at all. We need to get these people through. Well, we
just can't forget that there are people that are going to take
a little more investment, a little more time to get them to the
level where we can get them through.
So we don't need to overlook the mass of people who are
ready to go into workforce investment. We can't overlook the
people at the lower level of reading.
Mr. Smith. If I may, just to follow up, we must create a
continuum of service for an adult education system in each
state. There must be an entry point for adults with the lowest
level, the middle-skill levels, and the higher levels.
We must coordinate with the workforce investment system,
understand the skills that are needed by the workforce system
to support training and employment, and identify those adults
who need the additional adult education, literacy and language
skill to move them forward on that track in parallel.
Mr. Guthrie. Well, you are working a noble cause, I can
tell you that. That is for sure. It is a very noble cause.
Thanks.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Guthrie. I yield back.
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you.
At this time, I would like to call on my friend from
Illinois, Congresswoman Judy Biggert.
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I had a question to the previous panel, and I wanted to
direct it here, about the sequence of services and the three-
tier approach that has been used and was wondering if there
would be greater flexibility if those that were in those tiers
did not have to go through the sequence.
And maybe start with Mr. Lanter, and I know that Secretary
Vito has talked about the flow of services.
Mr. Lanter. Thank you. The short answer is, yes, there
would be greater flexibility if the tiers of services were
eased, in terms of how we have to move people through our
career centers.
When you have 88,000 people, close to 2 million in
California going through our career centers, doing it through a
tiered process is very difficult and slow at times.
Some people come in to our career centers just to need
quick retool. They want to get their resumes done. They want to
know how to look for work, because they have been in the job
market for 15 years, and it is a new way of looking for work,
and we can do that without having to put them into core, and
intensive, and then training.
The other thing, in California, we are working on an
integrated service delivery model that would allow us to move
people quickly into talent development, rather than having to
go through universal services, then staff-assisted, core, and
then into intensive.
Everybody that comes in meets with the job coach
immediately. The pilots are being run in 12 local areas around
the state, and we are waiting for the results at the end of
this program year.
Mrs. Biggert. Why was that put into the three tier, that
they had to go through? I mean, what would be the pros for
keeping that?
Mr. Lanter. I am not sure what the pros would be. At the
time that the law was written, my understanding is that it was
not meant to be--it was meant to be a work-first model and not
a training model. And then, as we got into this, we kind of
realized, hey, people need to be trained as job change and
industries change.
Mrs. Biggert. Okay. Because it seems like it wastes a lot
of time, because when people really need to get back into the
workforce, they have to spend the time with that.
Secretary Vito?
Ms. Vito. I am not sure I have much to add that hasn't
already been said, expect that the National Governors
Association strongly endorses the concept of removing the
sequence of service. It is clearly important, in terms of
creating the intervention that is most appropriate to the
individual coming through the workforce system. So we are in
favor----
Mrs. Biggert. Would that also allow, then, more people to
be in the system, that----
Ms. Vito. That is correct. I think that is true. I mean, if
we do an upfront assessment of individuals, for some
individuals, the core and intensive services are not going to
be appropriate because they really need to be in literacy and
occupational training right from the start.
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you.
Then, Mr. Lanter, one of the other issues that came up in
the previous panel was the size of the board. And it has been
suggested or I had heard from my community colleges that they
would like very much to have a representation on the WIA board.
Do you have community colleges on your boards?
Mr. Lanter. Yes. In Contra Costa County, we do have
community colleges. Every board has an educational
representative on it. The California Workforce Association
would support allowing local areas to be able to define their
own key stakeholders. How that occurs, we would have to work
through.
But currently, many boards in California have community
colleges. We also have started over the last month a meeting
between the State Association of Workforce Development and the
California Community College Association of Occupational
Educators, which is a community college state association, to
work to see how we can really leverage the vocational training
that the community college system provides and the one-stop
career centers.
Mrs. Biggert. Do you think that the boards are too big?
Mr. Lanter. I do think the boards are too big.
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you.
Anybody else like to comment on that?
Ms. Raynor [continuing]. We don't have a specific
recommendation on the number, but would recommend that there be
balance in the composition of the board, especially balance
between business and labor.
Mrs. Biggert. Okay, thank you.
And I yield back.
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you.
I want to ask my first question to Kevin Smith. Do you
think the Department of Education and Department of Labor
should coordinate on sponsoring some of the pilot projects
specifically designed to merge literacy and workforce training?
Mr. Smith. Absolutely. As you know, the Title II of the
Workforce Investment Act did not benefit by the economic
recovery stimulus bill. That means, Mr. Chairman, that the
capacity of the adult education system to respond to the
recovery WIA Title II--or Title I recovery program is even more
stretched.
So I would strongly recommend and encourage that Labor and
Education coordinate their plans and their programs. And Labor
has the money, with--for Title I adult dislocated workers, and
I think there already is, in just the few days I have spent
here in D.C. with the Workforce Alliance, there is a sense of
need for the workforce system to align with the Title II, the
adult education providers to coordinate those programs at the
ground level.
It is clearly the departments, both at the federal and
state levels, have to have conversations, as well, to
coordinate.
Chairman Hinojosa. Well, I am looking forward to possibly
having a joint committee hearing by Department of Labor and
Department of Education coming before us and that we can have
those experts and possibly the secretaries address all of this,
because it is so important that we have a very strong
reauthorization of WIA that will carry us the next 6 years,
that I like the response that you gave.
I want to yield the balance--I mean, I want to yield back
my time and recognize for 5 minutes the gentleman from
Colorado, Congressman Jared Polis.
Mr. Polis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This question is primarily addressed to Mr. Smith. If
anybody else would like to comment, I would love to have a
discussion.
The share of individuals who are English-language limited
proficiency that received training services has decreased
significantly in the last decade. Ten percent of exiters from
the adult program in 2000 were limited English proficiency, 3.8
percent in 2008.
Clearly, this is not in relation to the need. I mean, the
need has not gone down 60 percent for English-language
services. So what are the barriers that are in getting in the
way of blending occupational training with adult programs and
ESL? Clearly, adult literacy and ESL are allowed uses through
AEFLA of WIA.
How can, through reauthorization, can we support the
development of more programs that integrate adult education and
ESL with occupational training?
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Polis.
It is simply an issue of capacity. Our organization, 40-
affiliate-program strong, serving all of upstate New York and
Long Island, are constantly dealing with the dynamic between
the need of native-born adults with low literacy skills and
adults with English--for speakers of other language.
Right now--and I have watched over the 26 years that I have
been doing this in my program, that the ESOL population, at
least for our network, is now up to 60 percent of our service.
So, in fact, they have increased in percentage of service, but
the overall number of people served has dramatically decreased.
So when you look at the large numbers of people over time,
we decreased our capacity to serve, but I think we have
increased, at least from my perspective, the service to ESOL.
It is a capacity issue.
Mr. Polis. And how can we ensure that there is access to
WIA Title II state grants for community-based organizations
that might specialize within that area of adult literacy and
ESL, be they libraries or literacy programs run by nonprofits
or churches, et cetera?
Mr. Smith. Well, thank you, also, for that question. And as
I have--that is specifically my area of concern and where I
have--where we have struggled.
We have been successful in New York, ever since the Adult
Education Act was amended way back in 1978 by our senior
senator, in accessing funds in terms of to community-based
organizations that allowed--that amendment allowed that.
We have watched our federal support go up and go down over
time. We are in New York State, one of the few states that has
received consistently federal dollars, until very recently
changes in the law, how the distribution of funds----
Mr. Polis. So I think what you are saying--the framework
works. It is just the funding--it is just a matter of funding?
Mr. Smith. I think it is. I think, again, it is a capacity
issue. As there are fewer dollars available, LEA school
districts, community colleges get the lion's share of the
money, and the rest trickles down. And if there is no trickle-
down, we don't get it.
Mr. Polis. So there is--so you are saying that the
current--the way that it has been run effectively allowed
community partnerships, libraries, churches, et cetera, you
partnered in some of that----
Mr. Smith. There was specific direct and equitable access
to all of those sector providers. How direct is pretty simple
and operating well. Equitable, we need some work on defining
what that means.
Mr. Polis. Thank you.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you.
I am going to try to bring this to a close and ask this
question of Ms. Raynor. In your remarks, you recommend WIA fund
job priority sectors, but for how long, in terms of years? And
who will agree on those sectors as being more important than
others?
Ms. Raynor. That is an excellent question. Perhaps I will
answer the second part of the question first.
Chairman Hinojosa. Okay.
Ms. Raynor. It seems to me that decisions concerning
training priorities, sector prioritization are best made at the
local level, because that is where folks really have a handle
on the economic landscapes, what the job demand looks like now,
what it will look like in the future.
So, for example, in Washington State we know that we
currently have 60,000 homecare aid aides working in Washington
State, all across Washington State, and we know that that
demand is going to increase, of course, as the baby boomers
age.
We also know we have a nursing shortage all across
Washington State. If even 5 percent of homecare aides advanced
along a career pathway into nursing, we would really make a
dent in our nursing shortage in Washington. So I think those
decisions are best prioritized at the local level.
And for how long? I don't know if I have an answer for how
long, except that it seems that the sectors approach is a smart
way to match training to jobs at the end of the line.
Chairman Hinojosa. I have to agree with you. The acute
shortage of nurses is throughout the land. Deep south Texas was
spending--we saw where hospitals were spending millions of
dollars going out to different countries, Canada, Philippines,
India, many, many countries trying to recruit nurses.
And we have made a concerted effort to try to get those
programs funded and taking folks who have possibly--who are
what we call underemployed, making below the national poverty
level, and taking them out of those jobs and training them to
become 2-year associate degree nurses. And still we have not
been able to fill that acute shortage.
So these programs that you are referring to are extremely
important. And being that we have, again, so many different
nationalities, individuals who are working here and have
limited English proficiency makes it that much more
challenging.
So we want to continue talking to your organizations,
getting all the recommendations that you all can provide us,
and allow me to try to bring this to a conclusion.
I have to say that this has been very informative, and I
can assure you that we are going to make a strong effort to go
outside of Washington and have field hearings so that we can
get more folks who can't come to Washington to give us their
recommendations that we can do the best job we can to
reauthorize WIA.
Again, I wish to thank everyone on the second panel, as I
did the first panel, for coming to join us in this hearing. And
I want to thank the members of the subcommittee who
participated in this very informative session.
As previously ordered, members will have 14 days to submit
additional materials for the hearing record. Any member who
wishes to submit follow-up questions in writing to the
witnesses should coordinate with majority staff within the
requisite time, without objection.
And this hearing is adjourned.
[Additional materials submitted by Mr. Miller follow:]
------
Prepared Statement of Hon. John Baldacci, Chairman, Jobs for America's
Graduates Board of Directors
First, let me thank you for your continuing interest in the work of
Jobs for America's Graduates as one of the nation's largest and most
successful programs for helping very high-risk youth succeed both in
school and on the job.
We very much appreciated the time you took to meet with Ken Smith,
President for Jobs for America's Graduates, and myself several months
ago, when there was consideration for the reauthorization of the
Workforce Investment Act, to learn more about the 28 year track record
of success having served over 600,000 of our nation's most at risk and
disadvantaged young people.
As you may recall, the results have been most consistent and
compelling. The latest across the 30-state JAG National Network
include:
Graduation Rate: 93.6 percent
Positive Outcome Rate: 82.7 percent (12 months after
leaving school)
Job Placement Rate: 60.0 percent
Full-time Jobs Rate: 67.4 percent
Full-time Placement Rate: 89.8 percent (jobs, colleges,
the military or some combination)
Higher Education Rate: 45% (the highest ever)
Here in Maine, the JAG program is, by far, the most effective and
most valuable program we have for serving this high-risk population.
Despite the very difficult economic issues we face, we continue to
expand the program because it makes such an enormous impact, both
educationally and economically, in our state.
The Workforce Investment Act provides approximately one-third of
all the funding that finances the JAG program across the 30-state JAG
National Network.
State and local Workforce Investment Boards invest in JAG because,
in almost every case, JAG programs exceed the performance standards for
youth by convincing margins. It is also one of the cost effective uses
of WIA funds.
As you consider the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act
we urge your consideration of these key issues from our standpoint.
1. Eligibility: One of the most costly aspects in utilizing WIA
funds is the often massive amount of paperwork, time, and energy
required to try to prove that young people are poor in order to qualify
for JAG programs. As you well know, WIA today has a separate
eligibility compared to other programs that seek to determine the same
economic standing. Easily, 10 percent--or in some cases as much as 20
percent--of the costs of the program are tied up in trying to ``prove
poverty''. We believe that a far better use of the resources would be
in serving more young people and by utilizing the same eligibility
requirements for the free or reduced-priced lunch program satisfactory
for WIA eligibility. A significant increase in the investment in young
people through WIA will occur with this simple change.
2. In-school versus out-of-school youth: It is our understanding
that a significant issue is the amount of WIA funds that would be set
aside for ``in-school'' versus ``out-of-school'' youth. This is not an
easy decision, since both populations urgently need the kinds of
services that WIA--and JAG--can provide. We believe that, in the end,
prevention is far more effective and less costly than the remediation
of a high school dropout while one who is unemployed.
Therefore, we urge that the majority of the funds be made available
for serving high-risk, academically disadvantaged youth in school,
while still investing a significant amount in serving high school
dropouts.
3. Long-term funding: We strongly support the inclusion of much
larger scale funding for at risk and disadvantaged youth at levels
similar to those in the Stimulus Package. We understand the stimulus
funding will expire in two years. Given the enormous impact that the
recession is having on our young people--unemployed by a factor of
three times more than that of the general population--we urge that the
higher level of sustaining funding be included in the reauthorization.
WIA is one of the only sources of funding at either the federal or
state level to serve this rapidly growing part of our population. A
population that, if we intervene now with the kinds of results that
Jobs for America's Graduates is able to achieve, we will dramatically
change the long term costs while equally dramatically increasing the
lives and futures of our young people.
The reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act is a vitally
important piece of legislation that will drive programs, and state and
local policies, for years to come. We stand ready to help in any way
that we can in the consideration of this legislation. Please don't
hesitate to contact me directly with any questions you may have, given
the critical importance of WIA to our organization and to my own state
of Maine.
I know that my colleagues on our Board of Directors, including five
other Governors, two Chief State School Officers, and leaders from some
of America's best-known businesses (listed on our letterhead) would be
more than pleased to join in the discussions.
Ken Smith, the President of Jobs for America's Graduates, and our
staff will be in touch with yours to answer any questions and to offer
the lessons we have learned over the past 28 years on how to most
effectively serve this at-risk population.
______
[Additional submissions of Mr. Guthrie follow:]
CWA Priorities for Workforce Investment Act Reauthorization
Workforce investment is a critical policy issue for California and
the nation. It is perhaps the only policy area that directly links the
ability of California companies to compete, the ability of communities
and regions to retain and grow key industries, and the opportunity for
working people to develop the skills needed to prosper in a changing
economy. California's future depends on the development of
comprehensive workforce investment systems, appropriately aligned at
the federal, state, and local levels and flexible enough to reflect the
diversity of each Workforce Investment Area's social, ethnic, and
economic conditions.
The federal Workforce Investment Act (WIA) was enacted and
implemented during a period of relative economic growth, allowing
California's 50 local Workforce Investment Boards (WIBs) to invest in
building the infrastructure for a comprehensive ``One-Stop'' delivery
system. Local areas progressed significantly toward strengthening
private-sector leadership; streamlining multiple programs; setting
long-term, proactive policy that enhances the competitiveness of local
and regional industries; and developing unique local initiatives,
programs, and partnerships.
California now faces a new set of economic challenges in crisis
proportions, challenges that have already strained this new
infrastructure. With adequate WIA resources and strategic statutory
fine-tuning through the reauthorization of WIA, many of these
challenges can be addressed and California's economy strengthened.
It is no surprise that surveys of California's business leaders
continue to cite the lack of a trained workforce among the most
significant cost drivers for California businesses.\1\ At the same
time, business investment in skills training is declining in California
and is nearly nonexistent among small businesses, which employ over 50%
of the state's workforce. Finally, reports show that 90% of job growth
in California over the next 5 years will occur in industries where
ongoing skills training will be critical for maintaining
competitiveness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 12th Annual Business Climate Survey, California Business
Roundtable, California Chamber of Commerce
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Workforce Investment Act provides the foundation through its
system of Workforce Investment Boards and One-Stop career centers to
fully address the workforce needs of all companies, both large and
small. After four years of implementing the 1998 law in local
communities, much has been learned about what works and also about what
can be done statutorily to better focus the system envisioned by
Congress. Reauthorization of WIA presents an important opportunity to
make strategic adjustments
Over 1,000 businesses on 50 local Workforce Investment Boards
throughout California have spoken. Their thoughts and those of their
One-Stop partners are reflected in the following recommendations for
Congress and the Administration to consider for reauthorization of the
Workforce Investment Act of 1998. Through the California Workforce
Association, these 50 WIBs represent 10% of this country's workforce
investment system funding in a state that represents 13% of the
national economy. Our recommendations fall within three broad
categories:
Strengthen Business as Customer and Business Leadership
Align Resources and Accountability to the Needs of
Customers and the Goals of WIA
Clarify and Strengthen Federal, State, and Local Roles
Strengthen Business as Customer and Business Leadership
Why is this important? Both the message and promise of the
Workforce Investment Act (WIA) is that business is a primary customer.
As the economy continues to evolve, and a trained, high skilled
workforce becomes more critical to the success of business, it is
essential that the public workforce investment system has the capacity
to provide the product businesses need. In order to do this, local
Workforce Investment Boards and their One-Stop system networks need
guidance, tools, support, and incentives in the law.
Current Status: California's network of local Workforce Investment
Boards (WIBs) and its One-Stop service delivery system have progressed
significantly in establishing products and services for the business
community throughout the State. Much of this has been done as a result
of urging by the private sector leadership of WIBs and encouragement of
state and federal agencies. Unfortunately, there are a number of
impediments within the Workforce Investment Act that hamper working
with business in the community and engaging private sector leadership
on the WIBs.
What we have learned:
WIA's performance measures have a strong tendency to drive
the activities and direct the limited resources. Without performance
standards specifically focused on services to business, local One-Stops
have little incentive to develop those services.
Most local WIBs cobble together funding for business
services through a combination of adult, dislocated worker, and rapid
response funding. Services to businesses are needed for these programs,
as well as for youth programs. Specific allowable activities written
into WIA and the ability to use any funding stream for business
services would substantially increase those services in California.
Even in recessionary times, over 90 percent of the
workforce is employed; to be relevant to business, the workforce
development system must target skill acquisition and career advancement
for those workers.
Businesses value employed worker training for skill
acquisition and customized training as two of the most critical and
important services. These services should be better defined, more
broadly allowed, and encouraged in the law.
Sequence of services (also described as ``work first''),
as mandated in the law, require training opportunities to be some of
last services provided, and, therefore, limit employer access to WIA
trained workers. Greater flexibility in the sequence of services will
provide greater opportunity to train workers.
When properly engaged, business participates and
influences the development of the local workforce, as envisioned by the
authors of WIA. However, the mandated minimum size of local boards is
often counter-productive to fostering private sector participation that
focuses on outcomes and systems change. Greater flexibility in
membership and responsibility will allow for much greater local
business participation.
Business members of local WIBs seek integrated business
solutions as well as integrated approaches to community needs, not just
targeted services as provided through WIA Title I. The effectiveness of
business leadership in local workforce investment would be enhanced if
local WIBs had planning and oversight authority over all WIA Titles, in
addition to Title I.
Recommended Changes and Amendments to WIA:
States, in consultation with WIBs and local elected
officials, shall develop performance measures for services to business.
Incentives for performance will be established.
Business services activities are allowable and encouraged
under Adult, Dislocated Worker and Youth funding.
Employed worker training is allowable and encouraged under
Adult, and Dislocated Worker funding.
The following is a list of allowable activities for
services to business. Allowable activities may include (but are not
limited to):
All phases of recruitment services, from general open
postings to referring prescreened candidates
Business seminars and classes offered in partnership with
Small Business Development Centers, Economic Development Organizations,
Chambers of Commerce and other business organizations
Interview and meeting facilities
Rapid Response Services
On-the-Job and Customized Training opportunities
Training for incumbent workers
Job Fairs
Information brokers providing information on HR Issues,
labor laws, licensing, permitting and economic development
Linkages with economic development
Business to business referrals
Labor Market Information
Assessment for job preparedness
Work Readiness Certificates--designed by the local WIB and
industry
Performance consultation
Business services marketing
Economic development data preparation
Business incubation services
Other business services not inconsistent with this Act
Every WIB must have a private sector majority and be
chaired by a private sector member. WIBs, in negotiation with Local
Elected Officials, shall have discretion over the additional membership
of the WIB.
Align Resources and Accountability to Needs of Customers and Goals of
WIA
Why is this important? The common needs and interests of our two
sets of customers--businesses and job seekers--are employment
opportunities, skill acquisition, and career advancement. With the
current economy, business requires a higher level of service with a
broader range of solutions for their workforce needs. Jobseekers, too,
are demanding higher levels of services. Although the spirit and intent
of WIA focus on the capacity of the system to deliver these sets of
products and services, certain provisions of the law impede One-Stop
Career centers and WIBs from fully meeting our customers' requirements.
Current Status:
Employment. In California, thousands of businesses recruiting
workers and millions of job seekers have used One-Stop centers. Despite
the fact that clients of most One-Stop partners benefit from the
provision of core (universal) services, these services have largely
been provided through WIA Title I funding.
Skill Acquisition. The transition from a limited/targeted client
base under the former Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) to
``universal access'' for core services to all citizens under WIA has
been a success. But providing these core services to virtually anyone
who wants them is costly and has reduced the resources available for
funding training for those who need it. The simple fact is that within
WIA Title I, there is insufficient funding to both provide universal
service and provide training for those in need. In addition, the
requirements of the system are so restrictive that many other training
funds are not being used. Finally, given the current, narrowly focused
WIA language, skill acquisition for employed workers, an increasingly
important business-driven service, is difficult to provide.
Career Development. WIBs and their partners throughout California
are beginning to focus efforts on sectoral approaches to the needs of
industry sectors, working with partners to understand and define career
ladders and paths of progression through a set of occupations. A set of
allowable activities and funding resources would encourage and
strengthen this important work, thereby increasing our business
effectiveness.
What we have learned:
WIA legislation significantly increased the adult
population to be served from economically disadvantaged and/or
dislocated workers under the JTPA program to the nation's entire labor
force. However, the funding levels for WIA are comparable to JTPA. The
assumption implicit in WIA that One-Stops would be funded through
multiple funding streams would have meant that additional resources
would be brought into the system. A One-Stop survey conducted by the
State EDD found that less than 30% of the resources supporting the One-
Stops come from required partners.\2\ Because there has not been
significant additional funding, and due to their own funding
restrictions, many One-Stop partner agencies simply cannot finance or
support core services. With the greatest share of funding coming from
WIA Title I to support the One-Stop system, WIA training resources have
all but been eliminated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The One-Stop Career Center System Survey, California Employment
Development Department, December 2001
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ``work first'' sequence of services prescribed in WIA
limits customer choice for both job seekers and employers. Particularly
in a weak economy, it is clear that many people seeking work need skill
enhancement. Requiring a sequence of services limits One-Stops' ability
to appropriately target services to individuals.
Current income-based eligibility requirements in youth
programs arbitrarily exclude at-risk youth who would most benefit from
services. This exclusion impedes establishment of comprehensive systems
for all youth, such as the All Youth--One System approach as adopted by
the California Workforce Investment Board (CWIB) and many of the 50
WIBs' Youth Councils. Additionally, the requirement that 30% of the
Youth funds be spent on Out of School Youth is too prescriptive for
every area in a state as diverse as California.
Current WIA performance measures do not capture the
relevant information needed to aid strategic planning and continuous
improvement for the workforce development system. They are not easily
understood by business, don't align with business needs, are not
timely, and do not measure service to business. The measures do not
capture all of the participants, and focus too much on job placement
and too little on progress toward self-sufficiency.
The variations among different agencies' performance
measures and requirements, including the multiple reporting
requirements and inconsistent definitions of success among partners,
and the need to measure both system-wide success as well as good
performance in WIA Title I funded programs, present serious obstacles
to aligning local service delivery among partners. In addition, the
administrative difficulty of collecting performance data undermines
access to and delivery of services and discourages partner
participation in WIA.
Recommended Changes and Amendments to WIA:
Workforce Investment Boards may transfer funds from one
title to another--Adult, Dislocated Worker and Youth--based on needs
identified in the local labor market.
Individuals may be enrolled into core, intensive or
training services depending on the needs of the customer and the local
labor market.
WIBs have the authority to waive income eligibility
requirements for youth based on local needs and priorities, including
for youth with barriers to employment or at risk of dropping out of
school.
If funding other than WIA Title I is made available to the
local One-Stop systems for core, intensive or training services,
requirements for the use of those funds are to be waived, and the
requirements of Title I shall be applied.
Performance standards should be streamlined to a minimum
of relevant, timely, and meaningful measures.
Authorizing legislation of each federally mandated partner
program should include specific language adding funding, over and above
their existing funding levels, for financial contribution to the One-
Stops.
Additional mandated activities, including but not limited
to the assumption of the WIA 167 program, will not be required without
appropriate funding.
A Local Innovation Fund shall be created and used at the
discretion of Local WIBs for such purposes as innovative business
outreach, local marketing, labor market and economic research,
community audits, and coordinated local planning. Funds shall be
earmarked from each federal required partner's funding stream and
formula-allocated to local Workforce Investment Areas for the purposes
of the Local Innovation Fund.
Clarify and Strengthen Federal, State, and Local Roles
Why is this important? To meet the challenges mentioned above,
California needs a comprehensive workforce development system, aligned
at the federal, state, and local levels, one that leverages the
resources, missions, and capacities of currently disparate programs and
services. No single program, agency, or level or government can do it
alone. If effective coordination is to occur and duplication of efforts
is to be avoided, local, state, and federal roles must be clearly and
appropriately defined.
Current Status:
Local areas have made significant progress over the last few years
in building local partnerships and aligning systems and resources.
Unfortunately, existing federal and state administrative restrictions
have limited the success of this effort. California's system of
workforce investment would be better served and substantially improved
if there was greater coordination at the state level among the state
departments and agencies that administer federal workforce development
funds.
State, federal and local partnerships have been important for the
success of WIA to date. As an example, many statewide workforce
development efforts have been effective in addressing key needs such as
the state's nursing shortage, moving teachers into classrooms, and
building the capacity of the state's youth councils through its Youth
Council Institute. However, greater coordination and consultation with
the 50 WIBs is needed to align statewide initiatives with local
economic and workforce investment planning and the local infrastructure
of service delivery.
What we have learned:
Business members of WIBs value and contribute to locally
driven workforce investment efforts tied to local economic development
efforts. More state or federal control would threaten private sector
engagement in the workforce development system. Private sector WIB
members believe that they need even more authority, resources and
discretion to establish and nurture on-going relationships with
economic development activities in local communities.
Discretionary funds used to address statewide workforce
development issues would be more effective if the local workforce
systems were always used as the local coordinating and planning
mechanism for statewide efforts. In California, Governor's
discretionary funding has been allocated to local agencies without
coordination with or even notification to the WIB. This approach is not
the best strategy to encourage WIB engagement in workforce systems
building and in fostering collaboration.
Better utilization by states of the waiver authority
provided in WIA could have greatly enhanced the ability of local
workforce areas to serve clients.
Recommendations:
Below are the appropriate roles for each level of government.
federal
Provide clear and timely guidance
Provide training, technical assistance, and general
capacity building for the national system
Fund research on national and international workforce
development issues
Collect and demonstrate innovative practices around the
nation
Fund innovative initiatives
Make federal partner funding work together in the One-
Stops
Coordinate the various training and employment program
efforts through the WIA One-Stop delivery system
STATE
Earmark funds for building capacity in the One-Stops and
incentives for innovative initiatives
Make other state funded programs support One-Stops
Utilize existing waiver authority to remove barriers to
improve local service delivery to business and job seekers
Institute a bottom-up approach through local WIBs for
understanding local needs and the disbursement of Governor's
Discretionary funds
Invest in real-time labor market information
Develop statewide plans
Develop common reporting systems across state partner
programs
Encourage local and regional initiatives that that support
the strategic growth of industry clusters
Certify local WIB composition
LOCAL
Appoint membership to WIBs
Certify One-Stops
Engage the local community in developing local plans
Approve all grant recipients
Manage fiscal resources
Oversee and evaluate all programs
Certify proposals for Governor's Discretionary WIA
projects
Determine priority of service
Advocate for/with business
Create local performance measures that make sense for
desired outcomes
Provide LMI intelligence
______
[Additional submission of Mr. Scott follows:]
Why GAO Did This Study
Since the Workforce Investment Act's (WIA) enactment in 1998, GAO
has issued numerous reports that included recommendations regarding
many aspects of WIA. These aspects include performance measures and
accountability, funding formulas and spending, one-stop centers, and
training, as well as services provided to specific populations, such as
dislocated workers, youth, and employers. Collectively, GAO studies
employed an array of data collection techniques, including surveys to
state and local workforce officials and private sector employers; site
visits; interviews with local, state, and Department of Labor (Labor)
officials; and analyses of Labor data and documents. This testimony
draws upon the results of these reports, issued between 2002 and 2008,
and discusses issues raised and recommendations made. Specifically,
this testimony addresses (1) progress made by Labor in addressing areas
of concern, particularly related to GAO recommendations for action, and
(2) what steps Labor has taken to ensure an understanding of what works
and for whom in addressing the needs of workers and employers.
Workforce Investment Act
Labor Has Made Progress in Addressing Areas of Concern, but More Focus
Needed on Understanding What Works and What Doesn't
What GAO Found
Labor has made some progress addressing earlier concerns regarding
performance measurement and the accuracy of performance data, but
issues with funding remain.[0] The move to common measures helps
provide a more complete picture of WIA services and may encourage
services to challenging clients. With regard to such clients, Labor has
chosen not to systematically adjust expected performance levels to
account for different populations and local economic conditions, as
recommended.[0] Labor has made strides in improving the accuracy of
performance data by requiring states to conduct data validation
efforts. And, it has made progress in states' ability to share data for
tracking WIA performance, securing the participation of all but one
state in the Wage Record Interchange System.[0] Labor is also moving
ahead with plans to implement an enhanced data reporting system that
would, for the first time, allow Labor and states to track an
individual's progress through the one-stop system.[0] While progress
has been made with regard to performance data, ensuring that funding is
consistent with the demand for services and reflects funds states have
available remains an issue.[0] Statutory formulas have caused wide
fluctuations in the funding states receive, particularly under the
Dislocated Worker program. In addition, Labor has chosen not to
consider states' obligations when estimating their available funds, as
recommended.
To date, Labor has been slow to comply with the requirement to
conduct impact evaluations of its programs and activities carried out
under WIA. In 2004 and 2007, we recommended that Labor comply with the
requirements of the law and conduct an impact evaluation of WIA
services to better understand what services are most effective for
improving outcomes. In its fiscal year 2008 budget, Labor identified a
WIA assessment as an effort the agency would begin, and it has since
initiated two studies. One, a nonexperimental study, is now complete,
and officials expect to publish the results in March 2009. The other
uses a random assignment experimental design, and will not be completed
until June 2015. To address what Labor perceived as shortcomings in the
one-stop service delivery system, Labor developed three separate
discretionary grant initiatives to focus on the employment and training
needs of high-growth, high-demand industries and awarded almost $900
million for these initiatives. However, Labor will be challenged to
assess their impact given methodological issues related to outcome
data. Moreover, Labor does not plan to include them in the assessment
of the impact of WIA services because the initiatives have their own
evaluations.
______
[Additional submissions of Ms. Vito follow:]
Social, Economic and Workforce Programs Division
Aligning State Workforce Development and Economic Development
Initiatives*
Executive Summary
Driven by the rapidly changing, highly competitive global economy
that puts a premium on skilled workers, many states are taking steps to
better align their workforce and economic development programs. When
these programs are well-aligned, economic development officials work
closely with their counterparts in workforce development to ensure that
both long-term planning and current recruitment and expansion efforts
take into account the skills of the region's workforce and the
workforce development systems capacity to train additional workers.
Similarly, workforce development professionals work closely with
economic development officials and employers to ensure that their
training and job placement efforts are designed to meet the skill needs
of regional industries--especially those viewed as key to future
economic growth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
*This Issue Brief was written by Mark Troppe, National Center on
Education and the Economy, with Stephen Crawford and Martin Simon, NGA
Center for Best Practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In pursuing this alignment, states are confronted with the
challenge of two systems that operate very differently, with workforce
programs historically targeted to individuals and funded primarily
through federal funds, and economic development focused on business
with state and local funding. The different funding streams add a level
of complexity to differences among governance and planning structures,
performance and reporting requirements, and geographic focus areas.
Complicating matters are very distinct institutional cultures: people
in the workforce system are trained in the helping professions, while
economic developers see themselves as ``deal makers.'' Overcoming these
challenges is not easy; it requires persistent leadership from
officials at all levels, but particularly the governor.
This issue brief examines the reasons governors undertake such
efforts, the challenges involved, and several promising state practices
that highlight the critical role of governors. Some governors have
merged agencies or created new coordinating bodies. Others have
established common missions, goals, and performance measures. Still
others have pursued economic and workforce development strategies, such
as cluster-based initiatives and regional skill alliances, that by
their nature promote collaboration. Their efforts point to several
basic lessons for states that are considering the alignment of
workforce and economic development.
Complete a candid assessment of the status quo as the
essential first step in determining appropriate actions.
Evaluate the positive and negative aspects of each reform
option (including restructuring versus other alternatives) and create a
sequence of decisions based on the current state of affairs.
Strengthen the quality of the economic and workforce
information available to decisionmakers by revamping the data
collection, analysis, and dissemination systems.
Organize economic and workforce development activities
around regions and groupings of firms to improve labor market
performance.
Use financial incentives and administrative actions to
resolve the administrative and jurisdictional differences between
economic and workforce development.
Set broad performance measures across multiple workforce
programs so they align with state economic goals.
Background
Traditionally, economic and workforce development agencies, and the
professionals who staff them, have gone their separate ways. Economic
development agencies focused on mobilizing the state and local
resources needed to achieve business recruitment or expansion deals.
Workforce development agencies focused on administering a ``second-
chance'' system of federal employment and training programs. With the
emergence of a knowledge-based economy, however, it became evident that
economic development requires a skilled, innovative, and flexible
workforce. The severe ``skill gaps'' that appeared in the 1990s showed
that workforce development is about much more than assisting the
unemployed and disadvantaged; it also is about producing a workforce
with the skills that employers need if they are to succeed in a rapidly
changing and highly competitive global economy. It became clear that
economic development and workforce development are two sides of the
same coin, and therefore their strategies and activities needed to be
aligned.
When economic and workforce development are well-aligned, economic
development officials work closely with their counterparts in workforce
development to ensure that both long-term planning and current
recruitment and expansion efforts take into account the skills of the
region's workforce and its capacity to train additional workers.
Similarly, workforce development professionals work closely with
economic development officials and employers to ensure that their
training and job placement efforts are designed to meet the skill needs
of regional industries--especially those viewed as key to future
economic growth.
Such collaboration requires a level of mutual trust that takes time
to develop. Trust can be nourished through committed leadership, shared
missions, joint planning and reporting, and shared performance
measures. Building a trusting relationship can include other
approaches, such as joint staffing of governance bodies and merged
research teams, jurisdictional alignments, and regional and sectoral
strategies.
Yet, genuine alignment goes further than mutual consideration and
assistance. When their agencies are fully aligned, economic and
workforce development officials work together to create a common vision
for the regional economy and its various parts that transcends
employment to include innovation and entrepreneurship. They develop a
unified set of goals spelling out this vision and an integrated
strategy--with common performance measures and shared incentives--for
achieving them.
Such advanced alignment is rare, especially at the state level, in
part because states are just beginning to work at alignment and in part
because it is not easy to accomplish. The quip that ``economic
developers are from Mars and workforce developers are from Venus''
speaks to real differences in occupational cultures and institutional
settings that complicate alignment efforts. A growing number of
governors are taking steps to overcome the obstacles because they are
concerned about their states' ability to compete in a knowledge-based
global economy, increasingly aware that workforce quality is critical
for economic development and job creation, and committed to making
better use of resources in tight fiscal times.
Obstacles and Challenges
For economic and workforce developers to collaborate effectively,
each party must understand the very different operational contexts in
which they operate. For several decades, the publicly funded workforce
system operated under strict eligibility requirements that provided
services almost exclusively to economically disadvantaged and
unemployed persons. This severely limited the programs' usefulness to
economic developers. Although the Workforce Investment Act has provided
more flexibility for working with different customers, including
employed workers and employers, it takes time to change long-engrained
habits, and longer yet to change the program's reputation.
Complicating matters are two very different institutional cultures.
Economic developers frequently have a business background and view
themselves as ``deal makers.'' They tend to focus on companies as their
primary customer, helping them with real-estate development, financing,
and water or sewer infrastructure issues. They excel in putting
together funding packages using multiple local, state, federal, and
private resources from a variety of programs and agencies.
In contrast, workforce system staffs typically were trained in the
helping professions and saw individuals as their primary client. Only
in recent years have they taken a more demand-driven approach that
addresses individual needs in the context of the needs of a company,
industry, or regional economy.
Another ongoing difference between most economic and workforce
developers is the source of their funding. While workforce agencies
depend on the federal government for the vast majority of their
funding, most economic development activities are funded by state and
local governments. Differences among funding streams create tensions
because each funding source has its own policy, reporting, and
performance requirements.
To fulfill diverse and varied missions, workforce and economic
development organizations typically seek to meet these requirements
based on guidance from different governance boards or councils, which
use different tools and engage in different planning processes that
cover different geographic areas and adhere to different schedules. The
responsible program officials collect data on different performance
indicators that are submitted to different oversight authorities via
different reporting processes. This ``silo'' approach occurs despite
the often considerable overlap among the issues addressed and
strategies outlined in the individual plans and initiatives.
Governance Solutions to Alignment
Overcoming the alignment barriers--both structural and cultural--
does not happen naturally or easily. It takes creative and persistent
leadership from officials at many levels, and most critically the
governor. Only governors have the authority and influence to reorganize
departments, redefine missions, undertake major strategic initiatives,
or reallocate state government's resources. Only governors are in a
position to bargain with the legislature if necessary. Once governors
decide to act, the key question is how best to achieve the desired
results.
One governance approach to promoting greater alignment of economic
and workforce development is to consolidate multiple workforce and
economic development agencies and programs into one department under a
single commissioner or secretary. Another approach uses mechanisms,
such as mini-cabinets, that facilitate ``structured coordination''
among existing agencies.
Consolidation
In theory, consolidation is a fairly straightforward way to align
workforce and economic development. It typically involves merging
similar agencies and programs into a single existing department or
creating a new department with programs pulled from other agencies. In
practice, it is usually more challenging. It can consume a great deal
of time and energy due to the resistance and maneuvering of those
affected. Legislators and advocacy groups may get involved, causing the
governor to expend political capital in the process.
In addition, the results of reorganization often are quite
disappointing. Employees sometimes spend considerable time figuring out
their new roles and responsibilities, old habits can persist under new
arrangements, and long-lamented silos may continue, only now within the
same department. This is especially likely when the agencies opposed
the consolidation and are as culturally different as economic and
workforce development.\i\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\i\ In The Price of Government, David Osborne and Peter Hutchinson
go further, suggesting that ``simply moving boxes on an organization
chart can actually make matters worse, increasing costs while sowing
confusion that hampers performance.'' They recommend ``consolidat[ing]
funding streams and `steering' authority, so steering (policy)
organizations can purchase results from any `rowing' organizations--
public or private--that can best produce them. See The Price of
Government:Getting the Results We Need in an Age of Permanent Fiscal
Crisis (Basic Books, 2004), p.13-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite these challenges, organizational consolidation can produce
many benefits and lasting change that justify the effort, such as
unified authority and its potential for ensuring more coordinated
planning, implementation, and evaluation. In addition, consolidating
agencies can break up dysfunctional bureaucracies and send strong
signals about new directions and expectations. The difficulty of
achieving consolidation discourages subsequent political leaders from
reversing direction. Because it makes intuitive sense, it is difficult
to justify returning to agencies reflecting programmatic silos.
Several states have consolidated agencies and departments, usually
by executive order. As far back as 1995, Texas consolidated 24
workforce programs scattered across 10 agencies into one new agency,
the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC). Within this framework, the Texas
Workforce Solutions emerged, a partnership among TWC, 28 local
Workforce Development Boards (WDBs), service providers, and other
stakeholders.
TWC allocates federal funds through annual contracts with the WDBs
to provide services in five programs: Temporary Assistance to Needy
Families (TANF), Workforce Investment Act (WIA), Food Stamp Employment
and Training, Child Care and Development Fund, and Welfare to Work. TWC
also contracts with local boards to operate the Trade Adjustment
Assistance program and Project RIO (Re-integration of Offenders) and to
locally manage Wagner Peyser staff, who remain state merit staff. This
gives WDBs the opportunity to manage a broader set of funding streams
and program requirements. Later, an Office of Employer Initiatives was
established in the TWC to coordinate with the Governor's Office of
Economic Development and ensure that the training needs of industry
sectors are served. Coordination between workforce and economic
development was further strengthened when the Department of Economic
Development was moved to the Governor's Office through legislation
enacted by the legislature and signed by Governor Rick Perry.
Former Missouri Gov. Mel Carnahan and Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry also
consolidated their states' various employment and job-training programs
and moved them into the economic development agency. In Missouri, Gov.
Carnahan placed the resulting division of workforce development in the
Department of Economic Development and Commerce under a sub-cabinet
appointee.
Gov. Henry moved the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission
(OESC)--the primary agency responsible for administering WIA programs--
under the Cabinet of the Secretary of Commerce to work more closely
with the business recruitment team. In part, this realignment involved
local one-stop centers and employment offices and personnel who serve
as initial contact points and action agents for the state's economic
development efforts. A newly appointed deputy secretary of commerce for
workforce development oversees the effort and reports directly to the
DOC Secretary. The deputy secretary also directs the Governor's Council
for Workforce and Economic Development, established by Gov. Henry to
serve as the state's reconstituted WIB. The council is supported by the
Workforce Solutions Staff Team, created when the Governor asked
workforce department heads to designate senior executives to support
the council and align department objectives and resources with economic
development.
Other states have gone still further, including several that
created new, consolidated departments. In 2003, after four years of
restructuring efforts that included a governor's mini-cabinet and a
transition team that managed the final merger, Minnesota Gov. Tim
Pawlenty established a single Department of Employment and Economic
Development. That same year, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm created by
executive order a consolidated Department of Labor and Economic Growth,
and saw to it that the state's workforce investment and economic
development boards shared members.
In 2004, the Idaho legislature passed and Gov. Dirk Kempthorne
signed legislation creating a combined workforce and economic
development agency, the Department of Commerce and Labor. As an
outgrowth of the merger, the state held a joint meeting of economic and
workforce development leaders to refine goals for better integration of
economic and workforce development services. In addition, the one-stop
and former job service offices added the full spectrum of economic
development, community development, and related services to the menu of
services in the new agency's service centers.
Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius included higher education in the
alignment of workforce and economic development. In January 2004, she
issued an executive order that transferred WIA, Wagner Peyser, and
adult education funds for employment and training from the Department
of Labor to the Department of Commerce (DOC). The connection with
community colleges was strengthened through a partnership with the
Kansas Board of Regents, which cofunded an executive position with DOC
to oversee the partnership.
Structured Coordination
Some governors are tackling the governance challenge by developing
mechanisms to improve coordination among economic and workforce
development agencies. For example, jobs cabinets are mini-cabinets that
coordinate and focus state efforts to attract and retain good jobs.
Typically they operate within the existing agency structures and are
charged with bringing focus and resources from across agency lines to
achieve some common objectives. Tennessee's Department of Economic and
Community Development administers a Jobs Cabinet and Gov. Phil Bredesen
chairs its meetings. In Ohio, Gov. Bob Taft's policy director has
hosted monthly meetings of the relevant cabinet directors to promote
mutual understanding.
Other states have developed additional mechanisms for promoting the
desired alignment. Virginia former Gov. James Gilmore moved the state's
WIA programs from the Department of Health and Human Services to the
Department of Commerce and Trade, and current Gov. Mark Warner
appointed a Governor's Special Advisor for Workforce Development to
forge a system that meets the needs of workers and employers. Florida
created Workforce Florida, Inc. (WFI), a corporate entity that oversees
the Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation, with strong leadership
from the legislature. Representatives from WFI sit on the state
economic development board, Enterprise Florida, Inc., and the board's
representatives sit on WFI.
In Florida, WIBs control not only WIA funding, but TANF and Wagner
Peyser funds as well. Each local board has signed a memorandum of
understanding with the state. The state employs career service
employees and Veterans Reps, who are paid with Wagner Peyser funds but
work under the day-to-day supervision of local WIB managers. Funding
for salaries and benefits stays at the state level, where payroll is
managed, but all other funding comes down to the regional WIBs.
In Pennsylvania, Gov. Edward Rendell appointed a deputy secretary
of workforce development in the state's Department of Labor and
Industry to oversee alignment issues among five agencies: Aging,
Education, Community and Economic Development, Labor and Industry, and
Public Welfare. In Massachusetts, Gov. Mitt Romney's cabinet-level
Executive Office of Economic Development (EED) oversees four
departments: business and technology, workforce development, labor, and
consumer affairs and business regulation. The directors of all four
departments within the EED are members of the Governor's cabinet.
Missouri merged its workforce development agencies into the
Department of Economic Development, but also formed a team among the
departments of Economic Development, Labor and Industrial Relations,
and Social Services that led to the creation of nine task forces to
examine specific issues and make recommendations for better aligning
and coordinating their activities. State officials point to impressive
results, including significant savings in administrative costs and
substantially higher rates of job placement and retention. Sometimes
such planning is part of a more comprehensive assessment of the state's
economic and social policies.
It is important to note that such structured coordination can
complement as well as substitute for consolidating programs and
agencies. No organizational structure is sufficient to efficiently
address the multitude of issues and populations that come and go
without effective coordination across agencies. Governors need to
promote such coordination, whether through ad hoc and temporary bodies
or more permanent ones.
Strategies and Tactics to Achieve Greater Alignment
To align economic and workforce development, reorganizing
governance structures is often helpful, but it is neither necessary nor
sufficient. Strategies and tactics are needed to align the everyday
activities of state and local economic and workforce development
officials, one-stop career center operators, community college leaders,
and other key personnel. Three strategic approaches show special
promise: focusing on specific industries and occupations, joint
planning and information management, and integrated performance
management.
Segmenting the Market by Industry and Occupation
A common criticism of job training programs has been that they did
not train workers to meet the real needs of local employers. Often as a
result, workers lack the skills they need to qualify for existing jobs,
while employers have difficulty filling vacant positions, especially in
high-skill, high-growth occupations and industries.
A growing body of research suggests that the most practical way to
match supply and demand is to organize communications between skill
providers and skill consumers according to some subsegment of the
broader universe of employers. Some of this segmentation happens
anyway, but states are finding that they can promote improved labor
market performance by organizing their own economic and workforce
development efforts around particular occupations, industry sectors, or
clusters of employers with common characteristics (e.g., members of a
supply chain or companies in a specific stage of growth, such as start-
up firms or at-risk companies). The National Network of Sector Partners
recently published a paper\ii\ on sector-responsive state policy models
that identifies the following common elements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\ii\ Marano, Cindy and Dexter Ligot-Gordon. From food Processing to
Fabricating Metals: a Profile of Manufacturing Sector Initiatives
Across the Country, Oakland, CA: National Network of Sector Partners,
2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combining economic development goals with workforce
development goals by targeting specific industries that are critical to
the state or regional economy, and analyzing the workforce needs in
those industries.
Encouraging and sometimes providing incentives for the
development of partnerships among multiple stakeholders such as
employers, education and training providers, workforce boards,
philanthropic organizations, and organized labor.
Investing in helping employers within those industries to
prepare their workforce to become more skilled and productive, and also
in preparing new, dislocated, or disadvantaged workers for jobs in
those industries.
Supporting a variety of solutions to meet employer and
worker needs, in addition to traditional workforce training, such as
business services, supervisory training, and supportive services or ESL
training for disadvantaged clients.
Encouraging regional collaborations that cross traditional
workforce and economic development boundaries or link traditional
education and training systems.
Including accountability measures that enable the state to
ensure that the investments are producing the intended outcomes.
Several states have launched initiatives that exemplify this
sectoral approach. Typically, these efforts are regional in geographic
scope rather than statewide or local, reflecting the regional nature of
labor markets. Indeed, one of the helpful steps that state leaders can
take is to align economic and workforce development jurisdictions
around the same regional labor markets.
Michigan's Regional Skills Alliances are public-private
partnerships that convene key stakeholders in a particular industry to
address the employers' workforce needs. The conveners of such
partnerships can come from various institutions, including industry
associations, labor unions, workforce boards, and community colleges.
They mobilize the various stakeholders and facilitate the needs
assessment, planning, and implementation of the sector initiative.
Activities include examining, designing, and implementing improvements
to the sector's human-resource practices; realigning training
curricula; and addressing such nonworkplace issues as transportation.
In 2004, the state invested $1.05 million to foster the development of
12 alliances, with no single grant exceeding $100,000. The state also
offers direct technical assistance to each alliance.
Washington's Skill Panels, initiated by the Governor and State
Legislature, are public-private partnerships of business, labor, and
education working together through regional alliances to improve the
skills of workers in industries vital to Washington. Industries see the
skill panels approach as a successful model, providing leadership,
innovation, and solutions to grow and keep a competitive workforce. The
state workforce investment board provides funding to each skill panel,
which leverages additional financial support from other public and
private sources.
The industry skill panels continuously examine the workforce needs
of the industries they serve. Panels push for change and recommend new
training programs where none existed before. They demand more training
capacity when there are not enough graduates to meet the industry's
needs. They press for modernized training for the industry's current
workforce. They demand that public training budgets are strategically
used. They support economic development initiatives aimed at building
industry competitiveness.
Industry skill panels increasingly influence Washington's workforce
development system. Effective industry skill panels allow private
enterprise to contribute intellectual and financial resources to ensure
both workers and employers stay competitive. Community colleges are
responding to employer needs with more flexible, higher quality
training. They are expanding and creating more modular courseware
options, providing additional weekend and evening classes, offering
greater numbers of distance learning opportunities, and improving their
systems in numerous other ways. As a result, participants in the
workforce development system are better trained and prepared for
industries' skill demands.
New York State officials decided five years ago to invest WIA
discretionary funding in helping local areas meet specific business
needs in important industry sectors. They launched a series of
initiatives incrementally, building on lessons learned in each step.
The state funded projects to understand and support career ladders,
targeting key industries that use developing technologies such as
information technology, biotechnology, and nanotechnology.
New York created Building Skills in New York State (BUSINYS) to
provide process-improvement training that helps employees reduce
production costs and increase efficiencies through processes such as
lean manufacturing and six sigma. More than $20 million has been
awarded to businesses of all sizes, with a significant number of awards
going to small and emerging businesses. The state also initiated
Accelerate New York to help companies in key industries with business
planning--after state economic development officials observed that
businesses' incumbent-worker training funding requests often did not
demonstrate a strategic approach to training or take advantage of the
opportunity to use the training to advance overall company objectives.
Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski, as part of his initiatives to
create and maintain jobs in the state, implemented an incumbent worker
training project, the Employer Workforce Training Fund. The fund was
specifically designed to increase the coordination among workforce,
education and economic development entities at the local level.
Funds are awarded directly to employers for training their
workforce. Projects are selected and managed by a Workforce Response
Team (WRT) in each of Oregon's fifteen regions. Required membership on
the WRTs includes the WIA Title IB provider, the state employment
department, the community college, and local and state economic
development entities. Besides assisting local employers in creating and
maintaining jobs, the funds have provided an incentive for economic
development, workforce development and education to work together on
real projects. This has resulted in a growing awareness among economic
development practitioners on the importance of workforce development
and education and more demand-side thinking on the part of the
workforce development and education partners.
Joint Planning and Information Management
Because of the myriad sources of federal and state funds, the
varied planning requirements that accompany the funds, and the
different agencies, elected officials, and jurisdictions responsible
for them, planning efforts often occur independently from one another.
Aligning planning efforts provides a practical opportunity for states
to focus multiple resources on priorities agreed upon by the Governor
and other state leaders.
Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich designated 10 Economic Development
Regions to develop individual ``Opportunity Returns'' economic
development plans. As part of Opportunity Returns, the Critical Skills
Shortage Initiative is designed to establish local WIB-led coalitions
that identify key industry sectors, collect and analyze information
about shortages in key occupations, determine root causes and
solutions, and develop proposals to test and implement solutions that
leverage existing resources.
Using WIA discretionary funds, the Illinois Department of Commerce
and Economic Opportunity awards $3 million in planning grants to these
coalitions on a noncompetitive basis and $15 million in total training
grants on a competitive basis to those that submit the best plans. In
the first year, the training grant funds 100 percent of the cost of
activities authorized under WIA. Grants are renewable for a second year
to fund up to 50 percent of costs, with each region expected to secure
funds from other sources to make up the difference and continue without
any state funds in subsequent years.
Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels is pursuing a strategy similar to the
Illinois approach, with the major exception of asking the U.S.
Department of Labor for a waiver to create a single state-designated
WIB (plus an Indianapolis WIB). Under this single state WIB, Indiana
will designate regional workforce boards with greater flexibility and
accountability. In the process, the state proposed consolidating 16
local WIB areas into 11 regions that correspond with economic
development and community college boundaries.
Missouri took a different approach, merging its economic and
workforce development research units, along with the Missouri
Occupational Information Coordinating Committee staff, to create the
Missouri Economic Research and Information Center (MERIC). In 2004, the
center began to provide comprehensive services to local WIBs. In
addition, Missouri developed a performance scorecard that includes
measures in three major categories: workforce development, education,
and the economy. MERIC collects and analyzes the data across the three
categories of indicators and reports the results to the Missouri
Training and Employment Council. The combination of MERIC and the
scorecard provide management with valuable information to clarify
policy direction and priorities and direct their investments toward
desired results.
New Jersey initiated a demand-side skills assessment project to
strengthen the relationship between workforce and economic development
and better inform the planning processes across these systems. As a
first step, the state identified key growth industries in the state.
Then, working with local WIBs in four regions of the state with a
concentration of these industries, the state gathered data on the
skills required by specific industry clusters.
During the project, the four participating WIBs formed industry
advisory groups composed of local employers, educational providers,
economic developers, and training specialists. These groups helped the
local WIBs identify key demand occupations in their regions and the
skills employers needed in these occupations. Information gathered
through this process was made available to state agencies, one-stop
centers, and institutions of higher education to better align the
services and occupational training available through the education and
workforce systems with the demands of employers in the regional
economies. The effort has expanded to other regions of the state, with
information on this initiative available online (see
www.NJNextStop.org).
Integrated Performance Information
The multiple programs that invest in workforce development have
dozens of different measures with numerous definitions that make it
difficult for policymakers to accurately assess their collective
benefits and contributions to statewide economic competitiveness.
Because workforce development is recognized as a critical factor in
state and regional economic development strategies, a clear
understanding of its results is increasingly important to governors and
other state policymakers.
Many states have taken on the challenge of aligning the measures
and integrating the performance information across workforce programs,
and several have made significant progress, including Florida, Oregon,
Texas, and Washington. In 2004, these states joined with two other
states, Michigan and Montana, in the Integrated Performance Information
project funded by the U.S. Department of Labor and led by the
Washington State Workforce Training and Coordinating Board. The project
aimed to develop a guide for states interested in creating or further
developing integrated performance information to better align workforce
development programs and provide policymakers with the information
necessary to make strategic investment decisions.
The project produced a ``blueprint'' \iii\ or state guide for
simplifying measures and developing integrated performance information,
drawing heavily on the experiences of the participating states--
particularly Florida, Oregon, Texas, and Washington. Each of these
states took a separate path to integrated performance information, but
they all experienced a journey that took many years and multiple steps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\iii\ Washington State Workforce Training and Education
Coordinating Board, Integrated Performance Information for Workforce
Development: A Blueprint for States, Olympia, WA: Washington State
Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida's journey, spanning more than 20 years, involved close
collaboration between the Governor's office and the State Legislature
to create the Florida Education and Training Placement Information
Program (FETPIP). Today FETPIP is the primary tool for informing
policymakers about the performance of education and workforce programs
and how these investments contribute to Florida's economic
competitiveness.
The path to creating FETIP started in 1982 when the Governor's
office sought to use unemployment wage records to analyze the labor-
market outcomes of vocational education students. This led to
legislation in 1984 to create the Occupational Identifier Project,
which used unemployment wage records to measure post-program
employment. The legislation also enacted performance requirements for
secondary and post-secondary education that tied funding to outcomes.
Building on this effort, in 1988 the legislature created FETPIP within
the education agency. Since then, the program scope has broadened to
include most education programs and a variety of employment and
training programs. Its functions have broadened as well to include
program evaluation, performance-based funding, consumer information,
and research.
Oregon tied the development of its integrated performance
information to building a vital state economy and a competitive
workforce. Today the state has a culture of shared accountability,
focused on outcomes and imbedded in programs, agencies, and sectors at
all levels. The Governor initiated this effort in 1988 in response to a
severe economic recession. It started with a strategic-planning
process, ``Oregon Shines,'' with the goal of creating the most
competent workforce in America by 2000 and in the world by 2010.
Oregon's process involved leaders from business, labor, education,
and government and led to the formation of the Progress Board, chaired
by the Governor. It also resulted in the Oregon Benchmarks: 259
measures that crossed multiple programs, agencies, levels of
government, and the public and private sectors, with shared
responsibility for achieving the benchmark goals. The Progress Board
issued ``Oregon Shines II'' in 1997, which updated the benchmarks,
reduced the number of measures from 259 to 100, and recognized the
importance of workforce training and academic skills to jobs and the
economy. Oregon's system of cross-system workforce performance
indicators has evolved into three tiers of measures: the broadest
measures or benchmarks, systemwide measures, and program-specific
measures.
Texas took the governance path to creating a system of integrated
performance information by creating Texas Workforce Investment Council
to assist the Governor and Legislature with strategic planning and
evaluation of the Texas workforce system. Today, the council is the
state's primary source of information on building a competitive
workforce.
The Texas Legislature established the council in 1993 and gave it
broad strategic planning authority and oversight of the state's
workforce programs. With its majority private sector and cross-agency
membership, the council also serves as a vehicle for linking workforce
and economic development programs. The 1995 legislation that
consolidated 24 workforce programs under the Texas Workforce Commission
enhanced the council's role by giving it responsibility for
establishing systemwide performance measures for all workforce programs
and moving it to the Governor's office. Subsequent legislation has
reinforced the council's role in establishing systemwide performance
measures.
Washington also took the governance path to integrated performance
information, creating the Workforce Training and Education Coordinating
Board as an independent agency responsible for policy planning and
performance accountability. Today, both business and labor view the
board's performance information system as a key source of information
on the performance of workforce programs and their impact on the
state's economic competitiveness.
Legislation enacted in 1991 created the board with strong support
from the business community, which was concerned that the state lacked
a good system for tracking the results of its workforce investments.
With a majority of private-sector members and no responsibility for
program operation, the board is seen as a neutral third party in
establishing common measures and evaluating program performance across
state agencies. The board led a two-year process of developing and
adopting a performance accountability system with common performance
measures. After using the system for several years, the board refined
the measures to a core set of indicators.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The emergence of regional knowledge economies and evolution of
federal workforce-development programs have created new opportunities
for fruitful collaboration among economic and workforce development
agencies. Where that collaboration works well, the resulting
partnerships facilitate progress in several areas. Most notably, they
help establish combined regional entities and identities that create a
climate for seeking region wide solutions to competitiveness challenges
and opportunities--including those of marketing and of improving the
skills and agility of the workforce.
Governors are in an ideal position to promote such alignment. They
can define a vision that will win support from a wide variety of key
individuals and organizations. They can use the bully pulpit to amplify
the message. They can use discretionary funding to encourage
collaboration in desired areas, including planning, research, staff
cross-training and collocating, and even the merging of agencies or
aligning of agency missions and funding streams.
There is no single right way to do any of this. Rather, the chosen
path--whether it involves agency consolidation, pooled funding, joint
research shops, unified regional districts and entities, or other
methods--should reflect each state's economic, political, and
institutional realities and be designed to achieve intended outcomes.
Nevertheless, universal lessons emerge from the experiences
summarized in this Issue Brief. First, governors can play a critical
role in promoting alignment. Although many economic development
decisions are made at the regional or local level, governors can define
the vision, use the bully pulpit to promote change, and advance
specific strategies for aligning economic and workforce development
activities at all levels of government. In addition, states that are
successfully moving toward alignment have incorporated many of the
following practices or lessons.
Complete a candid assessment of the status quo as the
essential first step in determining appropriate actions. The assessment
can identify areas of misalignment and illuminate their nature and
implications, relevant actors and stakeholders, the history of any
previous attempts to address it, and the potential costs and benefits
of reform.
Evaluate the positive and negative aspects of each reform
option (including restructuring versus other alternatives) and create a
sequence of decisions based on the current state of affairs. With a
clear understanding of the status quo, state leadership can begin to
assess the relative merits of various approaches, from changes in
governance structures to less dramatic reform options. Good decisions
about consolidating economic and workforce development agencies versus
alternative methods for eliciting the needed collaboration--such as
jobs cabinets and other forms of structured coordination--are made with
careful consideration of the political and economic contexts, history
of relationships among relevant agencies, and other such variables.
Strengthen the quality of the economic and workforce
information available to decision makers by revamping the data
collection, analysis, and dissemination systems. Accurate assessments
and effective plans both depend on access to quality, real-time data
about practices and economic conditions. Many states have improved the
quality of relevant data available to key decision makers by revamping
the mechanisms for data definition, collection, analysis, packaging,
and dissemination. Some states have required regional and local
entities to incorporate the use of this data into plans and proposed
initiatives in order to compete for discretionary funding.
Organize economic and workforce development activities
around regions and groupings of firms to improve labor-market
performance. Increasingly, states are using various levers at their
disposal to encourage regional and local entities to segment the
marketplace into groups of employers that have a more meaningful
economic context. This includes customizing targeted economic and
workforce development activities to the needs of specific industries or
economic sectors, clusters, start-up companies--whatever groupings make
sense--to improve labor market performance.
Use financial incentives and administrative actions to
resolve the administrative and jurisdictional differences between
economic and workforce development. The state can help regional and
local entities sort out the confusing array of administrative and
jurisdictional differences (e.g., different agencies, counties, cities,
regional authorities, etc.) when studying trends or organizing
responses. State leaders can use discretionary funds, reporting
guidance or administrative measures such as jobs cabinets to promote
the creation of aligned economic and workforce development
jurisdictions and joint planning within them.
Set broad performance measures across multiple workforce
programs so they align with state economic goals. Because ``you get
what you measure,'' many states are establishing broad performance
metrics that encourage collaboration and alignment across programs and
funding streams. Innovative performance strategies such as an
integrated performance information systems, system wide performance
measures, and cross-system performance scorecards can advance these
efforts.
______
Answers for the Record Submitted by Ms. Vito
On behalf of the nation's governors, thank you for the opportunity
to testify before the U.S. House Education and Labor, Subcommittee on
Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness on February
26, 2009 regarding the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act
(WIA). Included below are the National Governors Association's
responses to Chairman Hinojosa's questions asked during the hearing,
which supplement the testimony given by Sandi Vito on behalf of NGA.
What can be done to align workforce programs across federal
agencies?
Governors and state leaders are transforming state workforce
systems by merging and consolidating state agencies and bringing
missions, goals and objectives into alignment with one another to
better respond to job seekers' needs, reduce fragmentation, promote
accountability, and create shared responsibility. However, governors
will be unable to achieve the kind of true alliances and collaborations
that are necessary to streamline the state-led workforce system without
integration and alignment of workforce programs at the federal level.
To address this need, governors recommend a joint federal
initiative to align workforce programs and services across executive
agencies. The joint initiative must work in consultation with state
leaders who understand the effect of national policies and programs on
the delivery of services to our citizens and can help shape federal
support. The joint initiative should develop a shared purpose, possess
high-level technical and programmatic expertise, and be given
sufficient authority to decide and enact necessary changes.
The components of a joint initiative should, at a minimum, address:
Federal regulations: The process of integrating and streamlining
workforce education and training regulations will provide a needed
opportunity for federal agencies to jointly examine and eliminate
conflicting regulations and expose the potential for collaborative
guidance that facilitates seamless service delivery mechanisms at the
state and local levels.
Reporting requirements: Jointly aligned federal data reporting
requirements will support state data systems, simplify data collection
and data validation, and reduce costs and duplication. It will also
produce federal data sets that are comparable to one another and
thereby better able to inform planning and evaluation.
Performance measurements: As set forth in NGA's written testimony,
NGA and the National Association of State Workforce Agencies propose
common performance measurements applied across federally funded
workforce education, training and employment related programs to
replace all performance measures and other indicators. The proposal
streamlines the current complex system and will provide comparable and
meaningful outcome measures across workforce programs.
Oversight: Consistent and coordinated federal oversight that
focuses on helping states improve their practices and effectiveness
across all workforce programs will foster a stronger federal-state
relationship and will result in better program performance and
outcomes.
Service integration: Federal agencies must work together to make a
paradigm shift that embodies and prioritizes integrated service
delivery for citizens and supports mechanisms that maximize the concept
of ``one-stop shopping.''
What new energy collaborations for green jobs have governors
created?
Emerging and growing industries are dynamic and often distinct,
evolving differently within states and regions. Governors are uniquely
positioned to integrate and align economic development, education and
workforce resources to respond to the needs of emerging industries like
clean, renewable energy and also for growing industries like healthcare
and education. Governors can set public policy agenda, influence agency
leadership and bring the work of public institutions into alignment
with the needs of emerging and growing industries to support job
creation and drive regional economies. Governors are leading reforms to
prepare individuals for today's emerging fields, as well as jobs of the
future. Our nation's economic interests require a nimble, flexible,
forward looking workforce system. While green jobs are an exciting,
promising and growing field today, the needs of our nation will
continue to shift.
To ensure our nation's ability to compete in an evolving global
economy and respond to crucial energy and environmental challenges,
governors across the nation are making significant investments in
establishing new and broad clean and renewable energy collaborations
and designing and implementing initiatives to train and prepare workers
for green jobs.
It is important that Congress recognize that each state is unique
and that practices in one state may not necessarily result in the same
outcomes in another state. To that end, NGA provides the following as a
small sample of the wide variety of Governors' green jobs innovations
being implemented across the country. While governors are leading a
broad array of green initiatives through changes in state tax laws,
economic incentives, and infrastructure modernizations, the examples
below highlight the use of ``workforce'' levers to achieve change.
California Governor Schwarzenegger enacted new law to expand career
and technical education programs (CTE) in the state by connecting CTE
to postsecondary and career options, thus making the CTE courses more
meaningful for students. One program within the initiative will
establish partnership academies in green technology in each of the
state's nine economic regions. Partnership academies are schools within
a high school that integrate academic and career technical education.
Green technology partnership academies will train young people in
emerging environmentally sound technologies.
In Connecticut, Governor Rell established guidelines to train and
develop Connecticut's green collar workforce to meet the needs of the
growing clean energy business sector. The Connecticut Employment and
Training Commission will create a Green Collar Jobs Council that will
bring together representatives from business and industry and the
Departments of Education, Higher Education, Environmental Protection,
Labor and Economic and Community Development, and the Energy Workforce
Development Consortium. Additionally, the Labor Commissioner will
establish a 21st Century Green Jobs Training Initiative which will
provide training to meet the needs of the energy industry and other
green industry workforce needs as identified by the Energy Workforce
Development Consortium.
As part of Governor Crist's commitment to reduce Florida's
dependence on foreign oil, lower greenhouse emissions and develop
renewable energy resources, he recently released a study ``GreenForce
Florida, An Alternative Energy Workforce Profile.'' Based on direction
from the report, the Department of Education is working collaboratively
with a group of stakeholders to fast-track the development of the
career pathways, standards, benchmarks and frameworks for several solar
industry occupations. By utilizing the existing Workforce Education
Career Clusters Pathways as a platform, Florida will be able to rapidly
create a green-collar workforce that will be prepared to serve
Florida's growing alternative energy industries.
Governor Granholm expanded Michigan's No Worker Left Behind program
to include a Green Jobs Initiative. The No Worker Left Behind program,
which the Governor launched in August 2007, provides up to two years of
free tuition at any Michigan community college, university or other
approved training program. The Green Jobs Initiative expands the
program to include a focus on creating training programs needed to help
green companies succeed.
The Green Jobs Initiative invests in training for jobs in
alternative energy industries, including wind, solar, biofuels and
geothermal energy. The main goal of the initiative is to ensure that
Michiganders are prepared to enter the new jobs that emerge as
employers expand operations or add new components to their workforce in
response to a changing energy market. A website will facilitate
collaborative partnerships between businesses, educational
institutions, and government to better link research and development in
renewable energy with education and training.
Governor Paterson of New York created a Renewable Energy Task Force
to identify a means of attracting clean energy industries and promoting
renewable energy technologies. One of the 16 specific recommendations
made by the Task Force was a green jobs pilot program to examine
existing training programs in the state and identify the skill sets and
specific job titles in the efficiency, solar and offshore wind sectors.
Unemployment data collected by the Department of Labor and temporary
disability assistance data collected from Department of Housing and
Community Renewal is then used to match displaced workers, particularly
those who are disadvantaged and living in low-income communities, with
job training such as certified weatherization installation and solar
energy technician.
In Oregon, Governor Kulongoski utilized federal Workforce
Investment Act resources to develop a statewide Strategic Training Fund
Grant program. One of the grants provided funding to build an
Alternative Energy Career Pathway to support the skilled workforce
needed to maintain and operate wind turbines, with transferable skills
for hydro, solar, and biofuel occupations. The funds were used to
expand lab curriculum and create an on-line and distance learning
program for the Wind Turbine Technician Training program at Columbia
Gorge Community College.
Vermont Governor Douglas supports four innovative statewide
training initiatives in renewable energy and energy efficiency. One
program through the Center for Sustainable Practices trains new and
incumbent workers in six different modules of weatherization
certificate training. Trainees are recruited through Workforce
Investment Act programs. WIA eligible trainees and TANF recipients
typically complete more than one module in the progressive series of
skill training to secure green jobs. The project is a partnership of
the Division of Economic Services, the Vermont Technical College, the
Office of Economic Opportunity and the Vermont Department of Labor.
In Washington, Governor Gregoire created statewide goals to reduce
Washington's global-warming pollution and increase the number of green
jobs. One component of this initiative is the Green-Collar Job Training
Fund that trains workers for high-wage occupations, or occupations that
are part of career pathways in high-demand industries related to clean
energy. Competitive grants are awarded to partnerships that draw on
labor market analysis and work in collaboration with a range of
stakeholders to leverage and align other public and private resources,
link basic education with skills training, involve employers and unions
in the development and validation of career pathways, and integrate
support services. Targeted populations include low-income adults and
youth, entry-level and incumbent workers, and dislocated workers in
declining industries who can be re-trained for high-wage occupations in
high-demand green industries.
Thank you for the opportunity to make additional comments on the
reauthorization of WIA. If you have any additional questions, please do
not hesitate to contact Linda Lawson, Legislative Director, Education,
Early Childhood, and Workforce Committee at (202) 624-5369 or via email
at [email protected]; or Joan Wodiska, Committee Director, Education,
Early Childhood, and Workforce Committee at (202)624-5361 or via email
at [email protected].
______
Common Measure Proposal Reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act
A critical element of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA)
reauthorization is the development and use of common measures to
increase system-wide accountability, while significantly decreasing
administrative costs and inefficiencies. The NGA-NASWA WIA Common
Measure Proposal streamlines the complex system of nearly 100 varying
and incomparable performance measures into four critical measures
focused on customer outcomes, including short-term and long-term
employment rates, earnings, and credential completion.
The intent of the NGA-NASWA proposed legislative language is to
replace all performance measures and additional indicators across all
programs directly or indirectly authorized under WIA, including WIA
Dislocated Worker, Wagner-Peyser, WIA Adult, WIA Youth, Job Corp,
Veterans' programs, and related programs authorized at the U.S.
Department of Education, including Adult Education and Rehabilitative
Services.
proposed language
(b) STATE PERFORMANCE MEASURES.----
(1) IN GENERAL.--For each State, the State performance
measures shall consist of
(A)(i) the core indicators of performance described
in paragraph (2)(A); and (ii) additional measures of
performance (if any) identified by the State under
paragraph (2)(B); and
(B) a State adjusted level of performance for each
measure described in subparagraph (A).
(2) INDICATORS OF PERFORMANCE
(A) CORE INDICATORS OF PERFORMANCE.----
(i) IN GENERAL.--The core indicators of
performance for employment and training
activities authorized under the Workforce
Investment Act [insert section references, as
applicable] (except for informational
activities) shall consist of----
(I) the percentage of program
participants who are employed during
the second quarter after exit;
(II) the percentage of program
participants who are employed during
the fourth quarter after exit;
(III) the median earnings of program
participants during the second quarter
after exit;
(IV) the percentage of program
participants who obtain an education or
training credential during
participation or within one year of
exit;
(ii) CORE INDICATORS FOR ELIGIBLE YOUTH.--The
core indicators of performance (for
participants who are eligible youth age 14
through 18) for youth activities authorized
under WIA Youth [insert section reference, as
applicable], shall include----
(I) the percentage of program
participants who are in education or
training, or employed during the second
quarter after exit;
(II) the percentage of program
participants who are in education or
training, or employed during the fourth
quarter after exit;
(III) the median earnings of program
participants during the second quarter
after exit among participants not
enrolled in education or training;
(IV) the percentage of program
participants who obtain an education or
training credential during
participation or within one year of
exit;
(B) ADDITIONAL INDICATORS.--Additional indicators of
performance shall consist of
(i) A State may identify in the State plan
additional performance measures for workforce
investment activities authorized under this
subtitle.
For more information, please contact Joan Wodiska with the National
Governors Association (NGA) at [email protected] or 624-5361 or Curt
Harris with the National Association of State Workforce Agencies
(NASWA) at [email protected] or 434-8023. Last updated: May 2, 2007
______
ECW-1.--Governors' Principles to Ensure Workforce Excellence
1.1 Preamble
The strength of America is our citizens--their innovation,
creativity, and hard work. In the 21st century's rapidly advancing
global economy, the foundation and economic prosperity of this nation
will depend on a responsive workforce that has specialized and advanced
training, cutting-edge skill sets, and higher levels of education. It
also will depend on a workforce system that can anticipate the business
needs of the future and rapidly align the necessary resources to stay
ahead of the emerging demands.
Competitive economies include aligned economic, educational and
workforce development systems that address the needs of workers,
regardless of the worker's skill level, age or circumstance. Through a
comprehensive, integrated, and flexible workforce system, the nation
will be equipped to swiftly respond to the changing needs of its
workers and businesses to keep them competitive.
Globalization demands a bold transformation of our nation's
federal-state-local workforce system. Since enactment of the Workforce
Investment Act of 1998, the nation's governors made significant
progress and led innovative new strategies to restructure workforce
development systems, forge new alliances with federal, state, and local
governments and the private sector, and ultimately, upgrade the skills
and knowledge of America's workforce. To accelerate these
transformations and help ensure that every job seeker remains
competitive for work in a global economy, governors need new
flexibilities to create a nimble, flexible, market-driven and supply-
focused workforce system.
The time is ripe for the laws and policies of this country to catch
up with the realities and possibilities of the 21st century. Governors
call on Congress and the Administration to enact transformative
legislation that will authorize governors to proactively implement
innovations, build broad and inclusive partnerships, and activate
structural reforms across education, workforce, and economic
development systems.
1.2 Governors' Priorities for a World-Class Workforce
Governors recommend the following key priorities for a world-class
workforce.
Nimble state systems that can anticipate and respond to the current
and emerging demands of workers and business require that governors
have flexibility and discretion over funding and the authority to
rapidly implement innovations.
Every worker must have access to training and lifelong learning
opportunities that will improve their employability and earning
potential through education, training, and career advancement.
Education and training must align to the current and future needs
of business.
Emerging entrepreneurs and small business owners must be cultivated
to accelerate the capacity for innovations that will lead to new
knowledge, new technologies, and new jobs.
Workforce development strategies must produce broad and prosperous
regional benefits for residents and businesses and result in high-
quality job growth and business attraction and retention.
The business community should engage with the workforce development
system in mutually beneficial joint ventures that will increase the
education, training, and employment capacity for workers, strengthen
business, and stimulate regional economies.
Responsibility for governance of the state workforce system should
reside with the governor. The governor can deploy resources based on
regional economies rather than geopolitical boundaries.
Meaningful collaborations between federal agencies should support
and help to streamline workforce, education, and economic development
programs at the state and local levels.
National investments in workforce must provide substantial,
reliable, and flexible funding and support commensurate with their
importance and contribution to the economic success of our nation.
System-wide accountability and transparency with decreased
administrative costs can be achieved with common, customer-centric,
state-driven performance measures.
Governors need additional flexibility in regard to workforce
policy, funding and federal regulations to allow for workforce services
integration across the workforce system at the state and local levels,
to reduce administrative costs, and to streamline and integrate
workforce policy and services for business, workers and job seekers.
1.3 Recommendations for Transforming the Workforce System
Governors urge Congress and the Administration to adopt the
following recommendations to transform the workforce system.
1.3.1 Governor-Led, Business-Guided Workforce System. The new
challenges confronting our nation and economic position in the world
emphasize the need for a comprehensive and flexible state-based
workforce system focused on the needs of local regions and communities
that is led by governors and guided by business leaders. To be
effective agents of systemic state change, Congress must recognize the
authority of governors in state-led workforce systems and eliminate the
rigid, one-size-fits-all laws and regulations, federally-mandated
governance, and prescribed service delivery structures that get in the
way of state and local innovations.
1.3.2 Globally Competitive State-Led Regional Economies. Economies
are regional in scope. Integrating economic and workforce development
initiatives through a governor-led state-regional framework offers the
greatest potential for economic expansion and industry competitiveness,
while providing job growth and stability for workers and opening career
advancement opportunities. State-regional approaches and sector
strategies often include and cross several jurisdictional boundaries
including city, county and even state lines. National policy should be
designed to support governor-led state-regional initiatives and sector
strategies, particularly state efforts to build broad partnerships with
business and industry. Federal policy also should support strong
public/private partnerships and provide governors with the authority to
cultivate these partnerships to attract and retain high-growth
industries and high-wage occupations.
1.3.3 Focus On Emerging Industries. Globalization has increased the
world demand for energy. To address a number of national concerns,
clean and domestic energy has become one of the governors' top
priorities. Governors are proactively involved in establishing new and
broad energy collaborations and designing and implementing ``green
job'' and ``green economy'' initiatives. Governors also have taken the
lead in developing collaborations and initiatives to address critical
skills shortages in the health care, technology, and industry sectors
experiencing skill shortages. To further expand these and other
regional efforts, governors need the discretion to identify targeted
and emerging industries and the flexibility to expend workforce,
education, and economic development assets and available resources
accordingly.
1.3.4 Responsive Assistance for Businesses in Transition and
Affected Workers. As the economy ebbs and flows, business and workers
have to adapt. In times of business downsize or closure, employers turn
to states to help laid-off workers find new employment. Often, this
first means helping workers upgrade their skills or learn new skills.
Federal initiatives and funding targeted at this population must be
immediately available and flexible so that appropriate services are
responsive to the unique circumstances within each state and are
readily accessible to workers. In addition, workers affected by federal
policy decisions should receive adequate Trade Adjustment Assistance,
incorporated into the overall state workforce system, in a timely and
efficient manner. All federal assistance should be provided through
state-based networks and initiatives, and final authority to implement
the provision of assistance should be determined by the governor.
1.3.5 Increased and Agile Funding. Federal funding has not kept
pace with the growing training and education needs of workers to stay
competitive and for states and localities to provide those services.
Governors support an adequate and consistent federal investment for
workforce development and should be given the authority to determine
how federal funds are allocated within their states as demands dictate.
Economic necessity already requires governors and local leaders to
cobble together funds to provide enhanced training and education to
workers and the existing barriers must be removed to make it more
effective and cost efficient. Furthermore, Congress should acknowledge
the role of governors by providing enhanced flexibility to coordinate
and, when necessary at a state or local level, integrate workforce,
education and economic development funding to meet the unique needs of
their states and communities. Additionally, governors should be given
the option to pool federal funds for various employment, economic
development, education, and training programs at the state level to
respond to the needs of workers and businesses.
1.3.6 Alignment of Federal Programs. Portions of the workforce
system span across many agencies within the federal government,
including the U.S. Departments of Labor, Education, Commerce, Health
and Human Services, Justice, Veterans Affairs, and Defense. These
myriad administrations, agencies, funding sources, regulations, and
responsibilities needlessly complicate, and in some cases prohibit, the
kind of true alliances and collaborations that are necessary to
streamline the workforce development system and to provide seamless
services at the state and local levels.
To that end, governors recommend that Congress and the
Administration direct federal partner agencies to develop a joint
initiative to align federal programs, oversight, and regulations,
consolidating redundancy and conflicting regulations where possible,
and to establish transparent levels of responsibility and
accountability. The initiative also should be tasked to identify and
eliminate obvious and hidden barriers to program alignment that are
embedded in standard operating procedures within the federal
government.
1.3.7 Accountability and Reporting. Accountability and workforce
system performance outcomes should be addressed separately from
reporting. A set of common performance measures applied across the
workforce system will increase accountability and transparency, while
significantly decreasing data collection inefficiencies. Governors urge
Congress to adopt a performance measurement system applied across the
system and developed by the states to streamline varying and
incomparable performance measures into four critical areas focused on
customer outcomes, including short-term and long-term employment rates,
earnings and credential completion.
1.3.8 Incentivize Innovations. To foster invention and sustain a
culture of innovation, states must be incentivized and rewarded for
their efforts to build a world-class workforce system. Governors
support incentivizing states with additional federal funds and
flexibilities for initiatives including comprehensive system building,
anticipating and addressing emerging education and training needs, and
developing regional economies.
1.3.9 Maximize Advanced Technologies. Every aspect of the workforce
system can be improved upon by technological advances to help
streamline service delivery, modernize data collection and validation
investments, and simplify reporting efforts. Initial investments will
marginalize costs over time, and produce better outcomes for workers
and businesses and for system accountability. Congress should provide
transitional financial support that will give states and localities the
ability to utilize technological advances to achieve greater system
efficiencies.
1.3.10 Vital Role of Community and Technical Colleges. Community
and technical colleges have an important and broad role in America's
workforce system. Community and technical colleges are responsive to
the demands of the labor market and provide customized career and
technical training programs, adult basic education and English Language
Training to meet the specific needs of industry sectors and individual
employers, including training for incumbent workers. Governors
acknowledge the vital role of community and technical colleges in
workforce education and training and in state-led regional and sector
initiatives, and support including these entities in funding and
collaborative opportunities that align the necessary resources to meet
the emerging needs of a highly-skilled workforce.
1.3.11 Preparing Youth for Work. The varying challenges facing
youth in our country today require programs that are designed to help
them acquire foundational skills and progress through the education
continuum regardless of the point of entry and needed supports, and to
prepare them for future employment and life-long learning. Governors
must be given the flexibility to coordinate funding streams and to
utilize funding where appropriate given the unique needs of youth and
the available resources within each community. Governors are leading
efforts to increase high school completion rates and keep more students
in school. The workforce system needs to build upon this work and help
empower youth to succeed.
Time limited (effective Winter Meeting 2009--Winter Meeting 2011).
Adopted Winter Meeting 1993; reaffirmed Winter Meeting 1995; revised
and reaffirmed Winter Meeting 1997; revised Winter Meeting 1998, Winter
Meeting 2000, Winter Meeting 2002, Annual Meeting 2003, and Winter
Meeting 2005; reaffirmed Winter Meeting 2007; revised Winter Meeting
2009 (formerly Policy HR-1).
______
[Other submissions of Ms. Vito may be accessed at the
following Internet addresses:]
http://www.sectorstrategies.org/system/files/
AcceleratingSectorStrategies-Phase1Report.pdf
http://www.nga.org/Files/pdf/06STATESECREG.PDF
______
[Question for the record submitted to Ms. Keenan follow:]
U.S. Congress,
[Via Facsimile],
Washington, DC, March 3, 2009.
Ms. Cheryl Keenan, Director,
Division of Adult Education & Literacy, U.S. Department of Education,
Washington, DC.
Dear Ms. Keenan: Thank you for testifying at the February 26, 2009
hearing of the Committee on Education and Labor on ``New Innovations
and Best Practices Under the Workforce Investment Act.''
Representative Marcia L. Fudge (D-OH), member of the Higher
Education, Lifelong Learning and Competitiveness Subcommittee and
member of the Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee, has
asked that you respond in writing to the following question:
1. Are there any programs that you know of that focus on financial
literacy within your division of adult education and literacy? I know
many people are strapped for money due to the fact that the costs for
many sectors, from health care to education, are increasing. How do we
effectively educate adults about saving and being prepared for
unexpected economic situations?
Please send an electronic version of your written response to the
questions to the Committee staff by close of business on Tuesday, March
10, 2009--the date on which the hearing record will close. If you have
any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
George Miller, Chairman.
______
Answer for the Record Submitted by Ms. Keenan
Question: Are there any programs that you know of that focus on
financial literacy within your division of adult education and
literacy? I know many people are strapped for money due to the fact
that the costs for many sectors, from health care to education, are
increasing. How do we effectively educate adults about saving and being
prepared for unexpected economic situations?
The ability to comprehend and analyze information to make sound,
informed financial decisions is an important skill and necessary to
ensuring the financial well being of families. The Office of Vocational
and Adult Education has identified the following financial literacy
programs and resources that can help adults with low literacy manage
their money:
The Adult Literacy Media Alliance (ALMA) has enriched
literacy and community outreach programs nationwide since 1998.
Building on a shared interest in improving the financial literacy of
some 70 million undereducated adults in America, ALMA and the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) joined forces to develop
multimedia financial literacy workshops targeted to adults who read
between a 5th and 8th grade level. ALMA's multimedia tools offer web-
based, paper and video-based curriculum to help learners become smart
about their money. The curriculum can be used by adult education
instructors to provide simple math and reading instruction to help
learners develop the skills they need to start budgeting, saving,
control their debts, and investing. Additional information on ALMA can
be found on TV 14's website at http://www.tv411.org
The Howard County Library system in Maryland is another
good example of how adult education programs typically integrate or
contextualize financial literacy within the content of a broader adult
education program. Additional information can be found on the Howard
County Library's website at http://hclibrary.org
The National Center for Family Literacy, through a
partnership with the National Endowment for Financial Education,
developed the complete Financial Opportunity: Family Progress
curriculum. The adult student workbook is aimed at parents who read on
a fourth grade reading level. Additional information can be found on
the National Center for Family Literacy's website.
Lastly, the Massachusetts Community and Banking Council in
June 2008 published Expanding Financial Skills in Low-Income
Communities. This framework is presented as a guide for non-profit
executive directors, trainers, financial institutions, and others to
provide financial education training for adults.
______
[Whereupon, at 12:42 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
NEW INNOVATIONS AND BEST PRACTICES UNDER THE WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT
----------
Monday, March 23, 2009
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Higher Education,
Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness
Committee on Education and Labor
Washington, DC
----------
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m., in
the auditorium of the New York State Department of Education
Building, 89 Washington Avenue, Albany, New York, Hon. Ruben
Hinojosa [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Hinojosa, Tonko, and Polis.
Staff Present: Ricardo Martinez, Policy Advisor; and
Paulette Acevedo, Legislative Fellow, Education.
Chairman Hinojosa. A quorum is present. The hearing of the
subcommittee will come to order.
Pursuant to committee rule 12, any member may submit an
opening statement in writing, which will be made part of the
permanent record. Without objection, all members will have 14
days to submit additional materials or questions for the
hearing record.
Good morning to everyone in the audience. Welcome to the
Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness
Subcommittee's third hearing in preparation for the
reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act.
This is also the first field hearing for the 111th
Congress, and I would like to personally thank our good friend
and colleague, Congressman Paul Tonko, and the New York State
Department of Education for hosting us.
The last reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act
was in 1998. I came to Congress in the class of 1996 and I had
the distinct pleasure of going through the process in 1997 and
1998 to get that job done.
I wish to divert a moment from my prepared remarks and say
that I came from the world of business, a family business that
my father and mother started back in 1947, 61 years ago. And I
happen to have been the first of seven brothers to graduate
from the University of Texas in Austin, and I came back to the
family business at the request of my father. I had actually
been given a real nice offer by IBM and he talked me into
coming back and helping the family grow this family business.
So, in 1976, when he passed away, the board of directors
elected me as the president and chief financial officer of this
food processing company, which at that time had exactly 28
employees; and I put to use the training that I had gotten.
Over a period of time, in the 20 years that I was in that
position, I helped grow that family business with a strategic
plan that called for investing in training for our employees to
make them computer literate and be able to bring in, through
loans guarantees by the Small Business Administration,
equipment that made us a little bit more competitive.
We grew our business to $50 million, over a 20-year period,
to over 300 employees. And one of the things that I remember
was that the board that ran what we used to call PIC, the
Private Industry Council board, were of different thinking. I
thought they were antiquated, and when I saw the opportunity to
have input into changes in what is now WIA, I thought that was
the best thing that could ever happen.
However, it has been long overdue that we reauthorize WIA.
And that is why I am so pleased that the leadership from Nancy
Pelosi all the way down to our committee, agreed that we come
to Albany, New York, because there is a great, great brain
trust here that we want to tap into and listen to the
recommendations of employers and trainers of the workforce so
that we can work that into the reauthorization act of,
hopefully, 2009.
I am an optimist; I always have been, thanks to my mother.
And that is that if all goes well and we have at least three or
four congressional hearings in Washington and two to four field
hearings from the East Coast to the West Coast, we are going
to--we have a goal, a time line that will help us bring it to
the House floor before the August recess. That means we have to
work rapidly, smart, and very convincingly so that other 435
Members of Congress will also support our proposal.
Having said that, I want to say that times have changed. To
say that times have changed would be an understatement. In
1997, our economy generated 3 million new jobs; since the start
of this recession in December of 2007, we have lost over 7
million jobs. In 1998, our unemployment rate was only 4.5
percent; in February of this year, it hit 8.1 percent.
We need to be much smarter and more innovative in our
workforce investment system if we are going to turn these
numbers around. And that is why today's congressional field
hearing is entitled Subcommittee on Higher Education Lifelong
Learning and Competitiveness--Subcommittee that is looking for
creative ideas that will increase the amount of money that is
available for retraining instead of the 40 percent that seems
to have been the rule of thumb in the last 6 to 8 years. We
need to be much smarter, innovative with our workforce
investment system if we are going to turn these numbers around.
We have taken bold and swift action with the passage of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which will infuse
approximately $4 billion into our workforce investment system.
This is an opportunity, as well as a challenge, for all of the
stakeholders. The opportunity comes with the unprecedented
increases in resources. There is also some new flexibility in
being able to develop contracts for training to meet the
community workforce needs rather than relying solely on
individual training accounts.
Additionally, we will be able to provide youth
opportunities on a much larger scale. Most exciting is the
major commitment to green jobs in high-growth areas such as
allied health.
The challenge is handling the dramatically increased number
of individuals seeking services while scaling up best practices
and testing innovative new ones. We need to do a much better
job of putting youth and low-skilled adults on career pathways
that will enable them to answer President Obama's call to
commit to 1 year of college or career training.
I believe that we are up to the challenge. The testimony of
today's witnesses shows that we have ideas and tested practices
that work. We just need the resources and the sustained
commitment to have a world-class workforce development system
that works for those starting at the bottom rung of the career
ladder, as well as for those racing to the top.
I would like to thank our witnesses today for joining us.
It is invaluable for our subcommittee to have the opportunity
to get outside of Washington, D.C., and visit the communities
that our Federal policies and programs are intended to serve.
I thank you for hosting us and thank you for your testimony
today.
In closing, I would like to yield to my good friend, a
valuable new member of the subcommittee, Representative Paul
Tonko, for an opening statement.
[The statement of Mr. Hinojosa follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ruben Hinojosa, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness
Good Morning. Welcome to the Higher Education, Lifelong Learning,
and Competitiveness Subcommittee's third hearing in preparation for the
reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act. This is also our first
field hearing for the 111th Congress, and I would like to personally
thank Congressman Paul Tonko and the New York State Department of
Education for hosting us.
The last reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act was in
1998. To say that times have changed would be an understatement. In
1997, our economy generated 3 million new jobs. Since the start of this
recession in December of 2007, we have lost over 4 million jobs. In
1998, our unemployment rate was 4.5 percent. In February of this year,
it hit 8.1 percent. We need to be much smarter and more innovative with
our workforce investment system if we are going to turn these numbers
around.
We have taken bold and swift action with the passage of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which will infuse approximately
$4 billion into our workforce investment system. This is an opportunity
and a challenge for all of the stakeholders.
The opportunity comes with the unprecedented increase in resources.
There is also some new flexibility in being able to develop contracts
for training to meet the community workforce needs rather than relying
solely on individual training accounts. Additionally, we will be able
to provide youth opportunities on a much larger scale. Most exciting is
the major commitment to Green Jobs and high growth areas such as allied
health.
The challenge is handling the dramatically increased number of
individuals seeking services while scaling up best practices and
testing innovative new ones. We need to do a much better job of putting
youth and low-skilled adults on career pathways that will enable them
to answer President Obama's call to commit to one year of college or
career training.
I believe that we are up to the challenge.
The testimony of today's witnesses shows that we have ideas and
tested practices that work. We just need the resources and the
sustained commitment to have a world-class workforce development system
that works for those starting at the bottom rung of the career ladder
as well as for those racing to the top.
I would like to thank our witnesses today for joining us. It is
invaluable for our Subcommittee to have the opportunity to get outside
of Washington and visit the communities that our federal policies and
programs are intended to serve.
Thank you for hosting us and thank you for your testimony.
I would now like to yield to my good friend, a valuable new member
of the Subcommittee, Rep. Paul Tonko, for an opening statement.
______
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Chair.
First, I would like to thank our chairman, Ruben Hinojosa,
for calling this hearing. And it is a hearing on such an
important subject at such an important time. In addition, I
would like to thank both the Chair and Congressman Polis for
their efforts to join us today on what will be a very busy day
for us on the Hill.
I would like to thank the witnesses, certainly, for their
testimony and their continued efforts on workforce development
in the State of New York, which is indeed incredibly important
to all sectors of our economy.
This hearing commences at a time of historic economic
uncertainty. While the current recession may have started at
the end of 2007, many American workers have been facing
significant economic challenges for years. The decline of
manufacturing, for instance, across the country has left
millions out of work with few opportunities to earn the
salaries that they and their families require.
In addition, millions more Americans face tremendous
barriers to employment, either through lack of education or the
skill sets necessary to advance and attain living-wage
employment. The Workforce Investment Act reauthorization offers
a unique opportunity for all of us to address these issues and
transition millions of Americans into careers that will allow
them to support their families and build this Nation's economy.
I believe that one particular area of work where WIA can be
effective is by training workers for jobs in what will be and
is now this emerging green energy industry. As demand for
renewable sources for energy will grow, this industry will need
those skilled workers to install new high-tech equipment
ranging from wind turbines to photovoltaic systems to
geothermal and other emerging technologies. The demand for
workers to manufacture and to install and to maintain these
equipments will provide an opportunity for millions of
Americans to have access to middle-class careers.
Chairman, I am happy to note that you recognize the brain
trust in this area. We have placed a major investment in
emerging technologies of all sorts from transmission and
generation in the energy field. This area is blossoming with
all sorts of opportunity, with nanotechnology, with
superconductive cable, with work done at the Wind Institute at
GE--and we are going to, I am certain, hear of that issue from
Tom.
But all of this is now growing a need for advancing the
workforce agenda. We will need those quality workers in order
to make this all work. The alarms on these issues have been
sounding for quite some time now, and I believe getting this
right is critical to ensuring our energy independence, our
economic stability, and to guaranteeing a future for
hardworking Americans.
Certainly, when you talk about the resources being
committed, I couldn't agree more. But that commitment will be
most effective and most efficient if it is engaged with a
synergy of planning with laser-sharp focus that will put
together the plan that will guide us.
The traditional blueprint for the structuring and guiding
of all of us to reach our goals, I believe, will now become our
``green print'' for our innovation economy. And all of us here
working will have a cornerstone of development in the workforce
development that will build that green print to be the
strongest that we can have for the innovation economy.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you.
Before introducing our distinguished witnesses and
panelists, I want to say how pleased I was to meet each one of
you before we started this program and to say to the audience
that yesterday I had a windshield tour of some of the
facilities here. And I was so impressed with the nanotechnology
investment that is here. To see a billion dollars invested by
the State and another $4 billion by private industry is a sign
of the commitment that there is for this type of technology,
which is extremely important in today's times, something that--
in the State of Texas, I wish we had that kind of a facility.
But we will partner with you, universities like Rice
University and others that have great talent pools, working
with some of your organizations out here; I am sure we will
come up with great ideas on energy and discoveries of
nanotechnology.
Lastly, I want to say that when I met Joe Sarubbi from
Hudson Valley Community College, it reminded me of the
investment that we have made in deep south Texas with South
Texas Community College, 23,000 students. And when we heard of
the passage of the stimulus plan and the $787 billion that will
be available, our President, Dr. Shirley Reed, and I talked
about bringing stakeholders together with the workforce
investment boards from Laredo, from McAllen, Edinburgh and
Brownsville, and all of our community colleges and universities
so that we could write up applications to compete for some of
that money.
I am sure you all have already done that and know that the
money is going to go fast, and we hope that your congressional
district here is going to get its fair share.
Mr. Tonko. We will be in line.
Chairman Hinojosa. With that, we will start the
introductions.
It is my pleasure to introduce Mr. Mario Musolino,
Executive Deputy Commissioner, New York State Department of
Labor. Mario has served in his position since March of 2007,
supervising all executive staff members on behalf of the
commissioner and developing policies and procedures that have
had an impact on millions of New Yorkers.
He oversees the day-to-day operations of agencies
responsible for the unemployment insurance program, workforce
development funds, as well as a variety of worker protection
programs.
Mr. Musolino also serves as the Labor Department's liaison
to the New York State Insurance Fund and Governor Paterson's
Recovery and Reinvestment Cabinet. He holds an associate's
degree in criminal justice from Hudson Valley Community College
and has a bachelor's degree in political science from the State
University of New York.
Welcome to our hearing this morning.
The second participant is Ms. Gail Breen, Executive
Director, Fulton, Montgomery and Schoharie Counties Workforce
Development Board in Amsterdam, New York. Gail has 25 years of
experience in workforce development, including nearly 20 years
as a national trainer and as a presenter at State and national
conferences. She has served as Executive Director since July of
2000. Gail is currently serving as President of the Board of
the New York Association of Training and Employment
Professionals.
She holds a master's degree in social work management from
the University of Albany, State University of New York. And it
is a pleasure to have you with us today.
The third presenter is Mr. Thomas Quick, Senior Human
Resources Manager for GE Energy Infrastructure--Power and
Water. Mr. Quick represents GE Power and Water's business
headquartered in Schenectady.
Boy, that is as hard as saying ``Hinojosa.''
The business is a world-leading provider of traditional and
renewable power generation technology. He has been in his
current role for several years, and previously worked as a
Senior Vice President of Human Resources, NBC Universal for
Television Stations Divisions, Telemundo and Media Works. In
addition, he has held human resources positions in
manufacturing, in engine assembly, engineering and finance, and
information technology as well as in legal and business
development.
He is as native of Amsterdam, New York, and holds a
bachelor's degree from Le Moyne College in industrial and labor
relations and has earned an MBA from Syracuse University.
It sounds like we really need to listen to you, and
welcome.
The next presenter will be Joseph Sarubbi, Executive
Director of Tech-Smart, which is a training and education
center for semiconductor manufacturing, alternative and
renewable energy, at Hudson Valley Community College. Joe has
35 years' experience in education in the electrical
construction and maintenance industry.
He has garnered a national reputation for the design and
delivery of RE training programs. He was responsible for the
design and delivery of photovoltaic installers programs at the
college, that is nationally recognized as the model program for
other institutions to emulate. The programs include credit and
noncredit courses, and a State University of New York
certificate program. He is a member of Governor Paterson's
Green Collar Workforce Development Task Force subcommittee. Joe
has a bachelor of science in vocational technical education
from SUNY Institute of Technology, and earned a master of
science in education administration and policy studies from the
University of Albany, as well as a journeyman's certificate
from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.
We look forward to your comments.
And last but not least, Ms. Nanine Meikljohn, Senior
Legislative Representative for the American Federation of
State, County and Municipal Employees, Washington, D.C. Nanine
has over 25 years of experience in congressional relations,
intergovernmental affairs, and political organizing. She has
been with the union since 1973 and is currently the Senior
Representative specializing in job training, unemployment
insurance, social services and welfare, employee protections,
and privatization of public services.
Prior to coming to AFSCME she spent 4 years working on
employment and training and poverty issues at the U.S.
Conference of Mayors and the National League of Cities.
We have an excellent panel. Welcome. And let's begin.
I want to give some rules, though, that we abide by; and
that is the lighting system that you are going to see being
utilized here. Those of you who have not testified before our
subcommittee, please let me explain our lighting system and the
5-minute rule. Everyone--including our members--is limited to 5
minutes of presentation or questioning.
The green light is illuminated when you begin to speak.
When you see the yellow light, it means you have 1 minute
remaining. When you see the red light, it means your time has
expired, and you need to conclude your testimony.
I will be a bit lax with that rule, but do try to stay
within that time of 5 to 6 minutes. Please be certain, as you
testify, to turn on and speak into the microphone that you will
share, because there are only two mics there on the table. We
are trying to save some money, I believe.
We will now hear from our first witness. Mario.
STATEMENT OF MARIO MUSOLINO, EXECUTIVE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, NEW
YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Mr. Musolino. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
Congressman Tonko, as well.
On behalf of Governor Paterson and Commissioner Smith, I
really appreciate the opportunity here to spend a few minutes
talking about the Workforce Investment Act, as well as the area
of green job training.
In 1998, under the Workforce Investment Act, a new system
was set in motion with the goal of making worker training both
locally driven and responsive to the demands of the private
sector. If we fast-forward a decade from there, upon her
swearing in as Labor Secretary, our new Labor Secretary Hilda
Solis said, ``In a time of economic crisis, giving Americans
the tools they need to find and keep a job must be our
priority.''
Here at the New York State Department of Labor, we have
been working with every region of the State to tap into
potential high-growth industries. We realize that our State is
not just one economy, but a compilation of regional economies,
each with its own needs.
Here in the State there are 33 local Workforce Investment
Boards across the entire State, and sometimes, even in the
respective regions, communication and coordination of common
issues can be problematic. This is one of the reasons why the
State requires local Workforce Investment Boards to partner
together to apply for regional, sector-based partnership
grants.
This type of regional economic focus needs to be a
foundation of any WIA reauthorization effort. In addition to
encouraging the development of regional partnerships, we are
cultivating sector-based approaches that align with our State's
overall economic goals and policies. An industry-specific
approach helps a region bolster its economic competitiveness by
engaging partners to align education, economic and workforce
planning, and targeting public resources more wisely in sectors
with growth potential. The green area is one, of course, that
we see as really part of the future of the State.
It is clear from established practices that the WIA program
requires comprehensive and strategic overhaul. To put this in
some context, 33 local Workforce Investment Boards operate
independently across New York State, each with its own
governing body and established policies for program
implementation. This sometimes can create confusion for the
customers we serve.
For example, WIB-established maximum levels for individual
training accounts, or ITAs, vary from local area to local area
and can be substantially different even among adjacent
counties. We recommend that program goals and guidelines be
based on policies determined by the State in consultation with
the State Workforce Investment Board and consistently applied
throughout the State.
In New York, we are looking for more flexible alternatives
to getting training funds to community colleges. We are
exploring possibility of funding entire classrooms in priority
demand occupations that can serve multiple individuals on the
basis of a single payment.
We also know that one of the biggest challenges facing
community colleges is in the field of health care, such as the
demand for registered nurses. The cost of hiring faculty to
train nurses, who earn substantially more through practice than
teaching, and the cost of purchasing equipment and laboratories
makes the cost of delivering and expanding training programs in
nursing prohibitive. WIA funding should have the flexibility to
address these issues along with the cost of per participant
training.
New York State currently operates the same service delivery
system it did when WIA was first signed into law, but with only
half the funding. In New York services once funded with $305
million are now restricted to about $159 million, while user
demand has increased dramatically. Consider that 30 years ago,
in 1978, the Federal Government spent $9.5 billion on job
training. Adjusting for inflation, the GAO has calculated we
would have to spend $30 billion today to provide the same level
of training that was provided with that funding in 1978.
To support the ongoing needs of the program, we ask that
the WIA funding levels be established, at a minimum, to program
year 2000 levels, when New York received $3.5 million in WIA
funds.
In addition to funding, Congress should review WIA
obligations and spending provisions, giving consideration to
the time frame of the receipt of the current year WIA Federal
resources. We also recommend consideration of continued use of
obligation requirements that are in existing legislation,
rather than impose restrictive spending requirements which may
pressure States to place individuals in short-term training
opportunities which may not be the best fit for the local
economy or for the individual.
As mentioned earlier, there is hope in Washington in the
form of the new administration and the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act, supported by you, Mr. Chairman, and
Congressman Tonko. We are very thankful for the resources that
will be coming into the State under the ARRA package. We also
support the expansion of the Trade Adjustment Assistance
program that was in the ARRA package, and we think that there
are some lessons there for WIA as well.
Previously, TAA was only available to workers in industries
whose production was affected by import competition. The new
provisions of TAA improve on the existing benefits available to
workers and increase eligibility to include communities, firms,
and service sector employees affected by trade.
In a perfect world, we would like to see the same
flexibility that is in TAA, which includes 1 to 2 years of
training and income support made available to all dislocated
works under WIA reauthorization.
Regarding WIA youth, as you know, current legislation for
youth eligibility requires that individuals meet the age
criteria of 21, have multiple barriers to employment; we
request that WIA reauthorization eliminate the need for these
multiple barriers and we recommend that the age be increased to
24, as it was done in the ARRA.
Chairman Hinojosa. The gentleman's time has expired.
I want to assure you, Mario, that all of your statement in
its entirety will be made a part of the record of today's
hearing, and I thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Musolino follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mario Musolino, Executive Deputy Commissioner,
New York State Department of Labor
Good morning. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Tonko, and invited guests.
My name is Mario Musolino and I serve as Executive Deputy Commissioner
of Labor for the State of New York. On behalf of Governor David
Paterson and Labor Commissioner Patricia Smith, I am pleased to offer
testimony today on the federal Workforce Investment Act (WIA), as well
as on related work in areas such as green job training, and more
importantly, how we can work together at the local, State and Federal
levels to improve the current service delivery system on behalf of New
York's current and emerging workforce.
In 1998, under the Workforce Investment Act, a new system was set
in motion with the goal of making worker training both locally driven
and responsive to the demands of the private sector. Since 1998,
however, our world has drastically changed, and with it the workforce
needs of both business and industry.
Upon her swearing-in as Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis, said, ``In
a time of economic crisis, giving Americans the tools they need to find
and keep a job must be our priority.'' The Secretary went on to
emphasize the need for more training in high-growth industries such as
green collar jobs. Here in New York we are taking the steps necessary
to meet this national priority and our Department of Labor is a key
part of Governor Paterson's Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Cabinet,
which is expediting employment and training activities using stimulus
funding.
The following are improvements we would recommend including in WIA
reauthorization.
Sector-based strategies/Regional-based system
At the Department of Labor, we are working with every region of the
state to tap into these potential high-growth industries. We realize
that our state is not just one economy, but a compilation of regional
economies, each with their own needs. Sometimes, these regional
economies affect workers in other states as well. Earlier this year,
New York, New Jersey and Connecticut were awarded a $22 million
National Emergency Grant to help workers affected by the recent
downturn in the financial sector. Each state recognized this as an
issue that translated beyond borders--an issue that required a regional
solution.
We are going to continue this approach with our neighboring states
in the coming months. As neighbors, oftentimes we share the same media
markets, weather and geographic conditions, and very often, similar
economic conditions and interests. One has to look no further than the
Southern Tier of New York State, which shares a border with the
Northern Tier of Pennsylvania. Southern Tier issues and Northern Tier
issues are intertwined, and in this current economic climate, we need
to explore every possible way to work with our neighboring states to
overcome this crisis together.
There are 33 local Workforce Investment Boards (WIBs) across the
state, and sometimes even in their respective regions, communication,
and coordination of common issues, is problematic. This is one of the
reasons why the state requires local WIBs to partner together to apply
for our regional sector-based partnership grants. In the future we will
be looking at more ways that we can better align our WIB structure to
best suit our regional economies. Strategic investment of employment
and training funds, based on regional collaboration and dialogue, can
not only build on a region's strengths but maximize its ability to
address weaknesses. This type of regional economic focus needs to be a
foundation of any WIA reauthorization effort.
In addition to encouraging the development of regional
partnerships, we're cultivating sector-based approaches that align with
our state's overall economic development goals and policies. The sector
approach builds strategic partnerships with key stakeholders around
specific industries to address the workforce needs of business, as well
as the training, employment and career advancement needs of workers,
particularly career pathways or ladders, which have shown great promise
under WIA, and should be expanded in the upcoming reauthorization.
An industry-specific approach helps a region bolster its economic
competitiveness by engaging partners to align education, economic and
workforce planning and targeting public resources more wisely in
sectors with growth potential. This, in turn, brings about systemic
change. Take renewable energy--if we can focus on specific career
pathways within areas such as wind or solar, we can develop and provide
training for entry-level jobs as well as skills development to sustain
and grow higher-skilled jobs within those high-growth industries.
Individual Training Accounts
It is clear from established practices that the WIA program
requires a comprehensive and strategic overhaul, since program design
and delivery capabilities fall far short of the goals intended by the
original legislation. To put this into context, 33 WIBs operate
independently across New York State, each with its own governing body
and established policies for program implementation. Oftentimes, this
can create confusion for the customers we serve. For example,
Individual Training Account (ITA) practices vary by locality. The WIB
established maximum levels for ITAs vary from local area to local area
and can be substantially different even among adjacent counties. As a
fundamental component of WIA reauthorization, we recommend that program
goals and guidelines be based on policies determined by the state, in
consultation with the Statewide Workforce Investment Board, and
consistently applied throughout the state. In this way, the state can
effectively compile data for monitoring and report out a common set of
services and standards.
In regard to Individual Training Accounts, in New York we are
looking for more flexible alternatives to getting training funds to
community colleges. As mentioned, ITAs are processed on an individual
basis. We're exploring the possibility of funding entire classrooms in
priority demand occupations that can serve multiple individuals on the
basis of a single payment.
We also know that one of the biggest challenges facing community
colleges is in the field of health care, such as the demand for
registered nurses, which exceeds the supply. As of last year, there are
approximately 5,300 openings for registered nurses annually in New
York. Community colleges, our largest provider of trained nurses,
supply about 2,000 graduates each year. While other colleges have
nursing programs, the demand is not being met. The cost of hiring
faculty to train nurses, who earn substantially more through practice
than in teaching, and the cost of purchasing equipment and laboratories
makes the cost of delivering and expanding training programs in nursing
prohibitive. WIA funding should have the flexibility to address these
issues along with the cost of per participant training. What if WIA
could be used for these additional costs of training? Imagine the
possibilities and the positive impact on the economy.
Current resources
To do this, the current system as we know it would require
significant change. Over the last year, our state has undergone the
most severe economic downturn since the Great Depression. Our local
communities, large and small, are feeling the effects of this
recession, and in turn this has put tremendous strain on our current
service delivery system. In New York State, we anticipate serving in
excess of 700,000 individuals through our WIA programs this year, which
are especially vital in today's job market, where currently there is
only one job opening for every three unemployed workers.
At present, New York State currently operates the same service
delivery system it did when WIA was first signed into law, but with
only half the funding. In New York, services once funded with $305
million are now restricted to $159 million while user demand increased
exponentially. Reductions in the Wagner-Peyser Employment Service staff
have added to this strain. WIA Reauthorization must ensure that
adequate resources are appropriated to support its goals.
It's clear that the time to change business as usual is now.
Consider that 30 years ago, in 1978, the federal government spent $9.5
billion on job training. Adjusting for inflation, the GAO has
calculated we would have to spend $30 billion today to provide the same
level of funding.
To support the ongoing needs of the program, we ask that the WIA
funding levels be established at a minimum, the PY 2000 levels when New
York received $305 million in WIA funds. While we are aware ARRA
funding is currently available to support services, we expect that the
funds will be primarily used within a year.
We're certainly hopeful the ARRA or stimulus package will help the
country slowly begin to emerge from the recession, but we anticipate
that when we do finally emerge there will still be many workers in the
pipeline looking for our services. Without increased funding for normal
program operations, it will be difficult for local areas to address the
ongoing program needs. In fact, without an increase in normal program
appropriations, there will likely be a downward ripple effect in
funding and subsequent employment and training services which could be
devastating to New Yorkers.
In addition to the funding, Congress should review WIA obligation
and spending provisions giving consideration to the timeframe of
receipt of the current year WIA federal resources. The majority of the
current year funds are received in October, not the onset of the year
which occurs in July each year. In addition, consideration should be
given to the time necessary to procure training and the fact that
spending will occur throughout the duration of the training contract
against existing obligation requirements. We recommend consideration of
continued use of the obligation requirements that are in existing
legislation rather than impose restrictive spending requirements which
may pressure states to place individuals in short term training
opportunities which may not be the best fit for the local economy and/
or the individual.
ARRA Package
As mentioned, there is hope in Washington in the form of a new
Administration and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA),
supported by you and Congressman Tonko and other members of this
Committee, to guide us on a path to renewal. Once again, we thank you
for your support. Earlier this year, Governor Paterson wrote to the
President and the New York Congressional Delegation strongly urging the
passage of this package, detailing our state's goals of creating new
jobs for a green economy with an ambitious clean energy agenda. The
ARRA aims to save or create 3.5 million jobs nationwide, including
215,000 here in New York State, while making investments in worker
training for emerging industries such as green, health care and
advanced manufacturing.
The ARRA authorizes $3.95 billion to be spent on training and
employment services nationwide. Of this amount, New York will receive
nearly $170 million in training funds for adults, youths, and
dislocated workers and an additional $22 million in employment
services, including re-employment services for current unemployment
insurance claimants. Most of the WIA funds will go directly to the 33
Local Workforce Investment Areas across the state where New Yorkers can
access a variety of training programs and connect with employers and
potential job opportunities at their local One-Stop Centers. We're
working to get this money to the local workforce areas as soon as
possible, and will be out doing press events in the coming weeks in
local communities to make certain that individuals know where to go to
tap into these training funds.
We were also actively supportive of the expansion of the Trade
Adjustment Assistance program in the ARRA package. Previously, TAA was
only available to workers in industries whose production was affected
by import competition. The new provisions of TAA improve upon the
existing benefits available to workers, and increase eligibility to
include communities, firms, and service sector employees affected by
trade. In a perfect world, we would like to see the same flexibility
that is in TAA, which includes one to two years of training and income
support, made available to all dislocated workers under WIA
reauthorization. Like TAA, WIA reauthorization should recognize that
workers now face a dramatic break from one industry or career to an
entirely new industry or career and require significant training and
education. As some regions are hit harder by trade than others, the
inception of Trade Impacted Regions would also ensure that more workers
are covered by TAA provisions.
Ways to improve the current system
I've run a couple of ``perfect world'' scenarios by you today and
with WIA reauthorization we have the ability to make ``real world''
solutions to strengthening the workforce system of tomorrow.
Underpinning the entire workforce development system is the issue
of adequate resources. Simply, without appropriate funding levels, the
system will not work for a large majority of its customers. Restoring
previous funding levels will make the system more relevant at a time of
economic crisis when people really need it and as ARRA funds spend out,
will ensure continuity of services.
WIA should explicitly address the issue of regional and sector
based approaches. These strategies are crucial for making the locally
based workforce system relevant to the communities they serve by
training and connecting workers for viable employment opportunities in
their region.
The state should be in a position to establish policies that
reinforce coordination amongst the WIBs and ensure a consistent set of
statewide services. The reauthorization should address Individual
Training Accounts, and allow them to be used more flexibly in order to
purchase services and equipment to assist in areas of high demand, like
the green economy and health care, that can serve a wider array of
customers.
Regarding WIA Youth, as you know, current legislation for youth
eligibility requires that the individual meet the age criteria of 21,
be considered low-income and meet one of six barriers to employment. We
request that the reauthorization remove these additional eligibility
barriers to employment, and allow the state the flexibility to do
summer or year round programs. We recommended to Congressman Rangel and
former Senator Clinton to expand the WIA Youth age criteria up through
24 in the ARRA package, and we strongly recommend the age change be
made permanent. Additionally, we recommend the income criteria be
expanded to allow the use of School Lunch eligibility to be used as the
poverty criteria.
Further, in New York, we require that those receiving Unemployment
Insurance come into the WIA system. We believe in connecting those on
UI into the WIA system early to receive value added services in our
one-stop system, and recommend this be replicated in any national
legislation and resourced accordingly.
Conclusion
I hope I have shared with you my vision for the future WIA system
to better meet the needs of the New Yorkers. On behalf of Governor
Paterson and Commissioner Smith, we would welcome continuing to be a
part of this critical national conversation.
Thank you again for this opportunity to testify, and I welcome any
questions you may have.
______
Chairman Hinojosa. At this time, I want to welcome another
friend and colleague from the great State of Colorado. Jared
Polis who has just arrived. He serves on the Education and
Labor Committee and is a valued member who makes great
contributions as we are going through this process. Welcome
this morning.
Mr. Polis. Thank you.
Chairman Hinojosa. I now call on the second presenter,
Gail.
STATEMENT OF GAIL B. BREEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FULTON,
MONTGOMERY, AND SCHOHARIE COUNTIES, WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
BOARD, INC.
Ms. Breen. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Good morning,
Congressmen. It is my pleasure to be here today; I was really
delighted and honored to be invited.
I particularly would like to acknowledge Congressman Paul
Tonko. I have known him for many, many years and he is going to
be a great asset to the committee as you go forward.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
Ms. Breen. You are welcome.
I am going to talk quickly today about some best practices
and innovations from the local level. When Congress established
the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, it envisioned a locally
driven, business-sector-led program that would bring together
the resources of 19 workforce partners to provide quality
services to both job seekers and businesses.
In 2000, FMS--Fulton, Montgomery, and Schoharie, where I am
the WIB director--began to move to an integrated service
delivery system, which has since become a statewide requirement
by the New York State Department of Labor. Our One-Stop Center
staff and supervisors work in teams that are based on job
functions rather than funding organizations.
Our local Workforce Investment Board took WIA partnership
seriously right from the beginning, as did our local partners.
And with reduced funding across all workforce agencies,
functional alignment of staff has become critical. We simply do
not have the resources for agencies to provide quality
workforce services through program silos.
Our customers don't need to know and they don't really care
where an individual staff person's paycheck comes from. What
they are interested is in receiving quality services. And
although I believe that the best systems are those that are
locally driven, we all need opportunities to identify and work
with regional partners on projects of mutual interest and
benefit.
FMS has been working with Saratoga-Warren-Washington and
the Capital District and Columbia-Greene since 2002 on joint
workforce summits and on workforce reports. We are a natural
region that is based on common interests, common industries,
commutation patterns, common workforce needs and collaborations
of local colleges and other organizations.
Now, through a regional grant from the New York State
Department of Labor, the Capital Region Workforce Coalition is
developing a sector strategy that is regional, skill focused,
systemic and collaborative. We are focusing on advanced
manufacturing careers, including energy, nanotech, biotech and
green initiatives. Our coalition encompasses four local
Workforce Investment Boards, 11 counties, and includes partners
from K-through-12 education, community colleges, 4-year
colleges, training providers, economic development
organizations, organized labor, and industry.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 offers
tremendous opportunities for our workforce programs. There has
been a decrease in WIA funding of almost 50 percent since 2000,
and local workforce areas have struggled to maintain quality
services. Thanks to the stimulus bill, however, for at least 1
year we will be back at 2000-level funding and we will be able
to train many, many more people for the jobs of the future.
Additionally, with significant increases in youth funds, we
will be able to provide stronger year-round youth services.
Looking towards the summer where we will see many dislocated
workers competing for the same jobs that our summer youth have
had in the past, if we don't have a summer youth program, we
are going to have young people that will have no opportunity
for a job.
Other opportunities under the stimulus include the ability
to buy an entire classroom customized to meet the needs of our
participants in their preparation for the jobs of the future.
This will allow us to spend stimulus funds quickly and wisely
and encourage community colleges and WIBs to strengthen our
relationships.
I also believe that we will be building on and creating new
relationships with organized labor, focusing on the skills
necessary for the workforce of the future. But we will continue
to have challenges. Our potential workforce is shrinking and it
is growing older; there are fewer workers in the pipeline and
many have outdated skills. If we are going to be successful in
our region in attracting emerging industries and retaining
those we currently have, we need to have a globally competitive
workforce. We have an untapped and underutilized segment of the
greater workforce pool: older workers, individuals with
disabilities, dislocated workers, the disadvantaged, disengaged
youth, and the formerly incarcerated. We must engage them all.
Finally, I can't recommend too strongly that we continue to
build on locally driven, business-sector control boards with
local control and the flexibility to customize our services to
meet our customers' needs. One-size policies do not always fit
everyone.
While I know you are the authorizing committee and not the
Appropriations Committee, our challenge is the need for ongoing
financial support for these critical programs. We need this
financial support if we are going to continue to provide the
quality services that our dislocated workers and other job
seekers so desperately need and deserve.
And finally I would like to highlight the importance of
funding opportunities for regional partnerships, partnerships
that are skill focused, collaborative, and reflect the common
workforce needs of the natural region.
So again thank you for allowing me to provide testimony
today. If I can continue to give you input as a local WIB
director and as the partner of a regional sectoral strategies
grant, or as the President of the Board of the New York
Association of Training and Employment Professionals, I would
be delighted to do that. Thank you very much.
[The statement of Ms. Breen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gail B. Breen, Executive Director, Fulton,
Montgomery, and Schoharie Counties Workforce Development Board, Inc.
Good Morning Congressman Hinojosa and Congressman Tonko. My name is
Gail Breen, and I am Executive Director of the Fulton, Montgomery, and
Schoharie Counties Workforce Development Board, Inc. in upstate New
York. I also currently serve as President of the Board of the New York
Association of Training and Employment Professionals (NYATEP), New York
State's workforce association, and am the grant recipient for a four-
Workforce Investment Board regional coalition initiative addressing
sector strategies. I am delighted to be here with you today to share
information on best practices and innovations, as well as ideas on how
we might continue to build on our successes while identifying and
acting on opportunities for further growth and success. Although I am
here representing the FMS Workforce Investment Area, I will also be
speaking to regional activities and issues and the thoughts of other
local WIB directors as they relate to my positions in our Greater
Capital Region Workforce Coalition and NYATEP.
I appreciate very much the invitation to testify at this field
hearing today, and I would like to particularly acknowledge Congressman
Paul Tonko, in whose district I both reside and work. I've known Paul
for many years, and I believe he will be a great asset to the
Committee.
The Workforce Investment Act of 1998
When Congress established the Workforce Investment Act of 1998
(WIA), it envisioned a locally driven, private sector led program that
would bring together the resources of up to 19 mandatory partners to
provide quality workforce services to jobseekers and businesses. This
sounds very straightforward, but the ``workforce services'' is defined
very differently by different people. Some interpret WIA as a straight
forward jobs training for the unemployed who are primarily
disadvantaged. Others see it as a system of One-Stop Career Centers
with services for a universal population of jobseekers, while still
others see it as a set of workforce programs that would meet the needs
of unemployed adults, dislocated workers, and disadvantaged youth with
few if any connections to school or work. Finally, still others see WIA
as a way to provide business with a quality workforce so that
businesses and the local economy can flourish.
Although different WIBs concentrate their efforts based on their
own local needs, the fact remains that locally and nationally this is a
very successful program. According to PY 07 WIA annual reporting data,
nearly 3.5 million people received assistance from WIA funding. And 75%
of WIA program participants and over 70% of employers indicated they
were satisfied with the assistance they received. Seven out of ten WIA
Adult and Dislocated Worker program participants gained employment by
utilizing WIA programs, with these numbers exceeding 80% when
participants received training. These workers also have a retention
rate of 85%, and DOL's own data indicates that dislocated workers who
are enrolled in WIA programming have an earnings gain over their
previous employment. I believe that these successes can be attributed
to a locally-driven system where local WIBs use their expertise to
develop policies and implement programs targeted to their areas and
those adjacent to them. One size simply does not fit all.
Fulton, Montgomery, and Schoharie Counties LWIA--the Demographics
The Fulton, Montgomery, and Schoharie Counties Workforce Investment
Area lies 30 miles to the west of Albany, NY and is bisected by the
Mohawk River and the NYS Thruway, creating a major east/west
transportation system through the region. Fulton and Montgomery
Counties have a long tradition of manufacturing particularly in
textiles and leather. Over the last 50 years, however, manufacturing
has declined dramatically as leather mills have closed their doors and
textile mills have moved first to the southern states and then off
shore. Schoharie County, which is primary agricultural, lost its only
textile manufacturer in 2001, dislocating over 500 workers.
As traditional manufacturing companies have closed or moved abroad
they have left behind an older population that still wants and needs to
work but is lacking in education and skills to find jobs in other
industries that have moved into our area or the adjacent capital
region. In addition, fewer young people are staying in the area, which
adds to a skewing of population percentage to the older end. Most of
the young people who go away to college do not return. The young people
who stay are predominantly those with a high school education or less.
The 2000 census shows that 21% of the workforce in FMS does not even
have a high school diploma, let alone post-secondary training.
Currently our area is experiencing some of the highest unemployment
rates in the state. Schoharie County was at the top of list in January
with an unemployment rate of ll.3%. Fulton and Montgomery followed
closely with 10.5% and 10.7% respectively. Traffic in our Amsterdam One
Stop Career Center is up by 45% in the first six months of this year as
compared with the same time period of the previous year. Center traffic
is also up significantly in our One Stop Career Centers in Cobleskill
and Gloversville, as are repeat visits by jobseekers.
In spite of the current economic climate, we still have our
successes. We offer youth GED programs in all three counties. Our GED
students have a passing rate of well over 80%. Our youth programs also
have a soft skills/work readiness component that has our local Board
certification. We are using Adult and Dislocated Worker WIA dollars to
assess current skills and abilities and then train people in emerging
and expanding fields such as health and medical, advanced
manufacturing, the trades, and now green jobs. Our private sector Board
membership reflects these industries and lends their expertise to our
workforce initiatives. We also work hard to help businesses keep a
trained workforce by providing employed worker and customized training.
This training, similar to Ireland's One-Step Up Program, provides
additional training to incumbent workers to enable them to stay
competitive in their current jobs. In FMS, and in the majority of the
local workforce areas across the state, we consistently meet and exceed
state and federal expectations and measures. As I stated earlier, I
believe that these successes can be attributed to a locally-driven
system where each local workforce investment area has the flexibility
to focus on different activities, at different times, depending on the
current economic climate as well as to develop policies to meet the
attendant needs.
Best practices
In 2006, One-Stop Centers across New York State moved to an
integrated service delivery approach called Functional Alignment.
Center staff work in teams based on job function rather than funding
organization. We also utilize functional supervision for these teams.
In other words, the day-to-day supervisor of a team may or may not be
employed by the same organization. In the FMS Workforce Solutions
Centers we have functional teams for our front desks, resource rooms,
workforce advisors, business services representatives and youth. Teams
are made up of staff funded through WIA, DOL Employment Services,
Experience Works, local TANF and other programs. Functional Alignment
is not as easy and straightforward as it sounds, however. Functional
Alignment brings together staff with different job cultures, different
organization and agencies, with vastly uneven pay scales, and expects
them to learn and take on additional duties, while sharing skills and
duties and identities with others that they may have invested years in
attaining.
FMS is very fortunate, because we have been practicing the concept
without knowing the name, since WIA was enacted in New York State in
2000. We developed this concept early on because our local workforce
investment board took the WIA partner collaboration seriously--as did
our local partners. In many local workforce investment areas, WIA and
ES carry most, if not all, of the load for infrastructure costs for the
One-Stop Centers. In FMS, all partners in our three Centers contribute
to the infrastructure costs. Although WIA is still the primary funder,
our Center partners include the Employment Service, VESID (Vocational
Rehabilitation), local TANF programs, Experience Works, Literacy
Volunteers, a community action program, and a local educational
institution providing secondary and post second education. Even before
2000, the JTPA program (the predecessor of WIA) and ES were co-located.
In just a few steps, we moved from co-location to sharing costs, to
sharing duties. And with reduced funding--we have lost nearly 50% of
our WIA funding over the last 8 years--functional alignment of staff
has become critical. We simply do not have enough staff from any one
agency to provide workforce services through program silos. Staff all
wear nametags with the FMS Workforce Solutions System logo--there is no
reference to partner organization identities. This is an evolutionary
process however, and each local workforce area moves forward at a
different rate. At FMS, we still have improvements that we can make. As
I talk with other WIB Directors across the state, I hear many different
stories about why functional alignment is struggling; sometimes because
some staff are reluctant to assume duties that are not in their job
description, sometimes because other staff don't want to share control
of duties, and other times because long time supervisors and managers
of different programs just can't seem to change. By focusing on what we
have in common, and by supervisors and managers of all organizations
embracing and not just tolerating functional alignment, I believe we
will be hearing more and more stories about differences being put aside
and staff working together to provide quality services.
The customers don't need to know--and don't care--where the
individual staff's paycheck comes from, customers only care that they
are receiving quality services.
Innovations
Although I believe that the best systems are those that are locally
driven, we all need opportunities to identify and work with regional
partners on projects of mutual interest and benefit. Industries and
commutation patterns cannot be defined--or confined--by political
boundaries. Industries and jobseekers do not stop at the county line.
In 2007, NYS Department of Labor provided funding for local
workforce areas to develop projects along regional lines. Fulton,
Montgomery, and Schoharie had been working with Saratoga-Warren-
Washington, Columbia-Greene, and the Capital Region WIBs on joint
workforce summits and state of the workforce reports since 2002 but
without the support and encouragement of significant additional
funding. We are a ``natural'' region based on common industries,
emerging industries, commutation patterns, common workforce needs, and
collaborations of local colleges. We are not a region defined by
political boundaries.
With FMS as the grant recipient, the four LWIBs, identifying
ourselves as the Greater Capital Region Workforce Coalition, submitted
a proposal to develop a sector strategy that is regional, skill
focused, systemic, and collaborative, the goal of which is to play a
significant role in helping the region develop a highly skilled,
technology-capable workforce. The Coalition encompasses 4 LWIBs, 11
counties, and includes partners from K-12 education, community
colleges, 4-year colleges, training providers, economic development
organizations, organized labor, industry, chambers of commerce, and
local government.
Working closely with partners, in Year 1 the Coalition is:
Completing a talent pipeline to be used in addressing
current and emerging needs of regional industries, particularly those
in green and high technology areas;
Promoting Advanced Manufacturing careers including energy,
nanotech, biotech, green, and construction to all segments of the
worker pipeline; including dislocated workers, youth, career changers,
mature workers, individuals with disabilities, and formerly
incarcerated individuals;
Providing training opportunities in STEM skills (science,
technology, engineering and math) dependent jobs;
Adopting a regional consensus on the definition and
measurement of work readiness skills;
Developing a Technical Career Awareness Program directed
to parents, youth, guidance counselors, teachers, and school
administrators.
Year 2 proposed activities include:
Working with local community colleges and organized labor
to develop training programs around clean room technology and green
technology;
Supporting apprenticeship programs in emerging regional
technologies;
Developing innovative training methodologies including
virtual training;
Providing training opportunities to address gaps
identified through the talent pipeline activity of Year 1; and
Rolling out the marketing products of the Technical Career
Awareness Program developed in year 1.
The Greater Capital Region Coalition Regional Sector Strategies
Grant is just one of a number of regional workforce efforts currently
funded by NYS Department of Labor. Although all are in various stages
of implementation, all are reporting successes.
Opportunities and challenges to the success of our work
There are both opportunities and challenges to the success of our
work. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 brings
tremendous opportunities on many levels. In terms of workforce
programs, this stimulus is critical in providing the funding levels of
WIA programs to meet the challenge. In New York State, WIA was funded
at $304,953,605 in 2000. By 2008, New York State's allocation was
$159,224,210. This is a decrease of $145,729,395 or -47.79%. In FMS,
our 2000 allocation was $2,072,033. In 2008 our allocation was
$1,092,730. Again, there has been a decrease of almost 50%, and it has
weakened us as the country entered this deep recession.
Local workforce areas have struggled to reduce costs while
maintaining quality services. This is especially difficult in rural
multi-county areas that are lacking in public transportation. We have
been forced to feel that we must choose between closing workforce
centers (depriving many of those most in need to ready access of our
services such as skills assessment and career counseling) or reducing
the amount of funds we spend on training (which also deprives people of
financial support in attaining new and necessary skills).
There has been no good choice. Many of us have chosen to reduce
staff and to maintain funds available for participation in training by
reducing the amount of training funds available for each individual
going. Reducing the amount of training funds per participant has
allowed us to maintain participant training numbers, but more people
are now being trained for lower level jobs on the career ladder. We
have found ourselves in the position of training people for lower
level, career ladder jobs, but not always jobs that help people
immediately become self-sufficient. These jobs do, however, start at a
higher wage than our area's entry level wage for a total of all
occupations. Thanks to our stimulus package allocation, FMS will once
again be able to train people for the jobs of the future, including
health care and green initiatives, without reducing the number of
people we serve in training.
Additionally, with significant increases in youth funds, we will be
able to provide stronger year-round youth services and work experience.
Looking towards a summer where we will find many dislocated workers
competing with young people for traditionally summer youth jobs, a WIA
summer youth program may be the only opportunity for a young person to
have a summer job.
Other opportunities include a renewed interest in partnership
between organizations providing workforce and related services. We are
all in real need of designing new training programs for the jobs of the
future. The stimulus funding will provide us with the opportunity to
buy an entire classroom customized to meet the needs of our
participants in their preparation for the jobs of the future. This will
allow us to spend stimulus funds quickly and wisely and will encourage
community colleges and WIBs to re-new and strengthen our relationships.
I also believe we will be building on and creating new relationships
with organized labor. Together, we will focus on skills necessary for a
technologically competent workforce that will attract emerging
industries to our region.
We will continue to have challenges. Our potential workforce is
shrinking--and growing older. There are fewer workers in the pipeline
and many have out-dated skills. If we are to be successful in our
region in attracting emerging industries, and retaining those we
currently have, we need to have a globally competitive workforce. For
that we must be ready to look beyond the traditional pool of emerging
workers--young people with high school and post secondary school
educations. We have untapped and underutilized segments in the greater
workforce pool; older workers, individuals with disabilities,
dislocated workers, the disadvantaged, disengaged youth, and the
formerly incarcerated.
While I know you are the Authorizing Committee, not the
Appropriations Committee, our final challenge is on-going financial
support of these critical workforce programs--or the lack of it. We
have all done more with less for many years now. But there comes a time
when no one can do more with less, and worse--no one can continue to
provide the quality services that our dislocated workers and other
jobseekers so desperately need and deserve. Between 1990 and 2007, New
York State lost 44% of its traditional manufacturing jobs. In 2008 and
into 2009, the continued downward spiral of lost jobs--and companies--
in New York State, and the nation, has been dizzying. Many of us firmly
believe that we can turn this around. The economy will improve. Jobs
will return. But they will not necessarily be the jobs that we have
lost. And without continued and consistent funding of workforce
programs, we cannot train the workforce of the future.
WIA reauthorization--where do we go from here?
I cannot recommend too strongly that we continue to build upon
locally driven, private sector-led local workforce boards. Local
Workforce Investment Areas will only be able to provide quality
services to jobseekers and businesses alike if we have the local
control and the flexibility to customize our services to meet local
needs, while utilizing the knowledge and expertise of our private
sector members.
We need to further strengthen our youth programs. In FMS, as in
many workforce areas across the state, we believe in spending more than
the required 30% of our youth funds on out-of-school youth. These are
young people, many times young single parents, who have been given up
on by their schools and their families. We are their last best hope. We
need to continue to provide GED services and soft skills training,
while increasing career pathway opportunities and opportunities for
work experience.
We also need increased and consistent funding at a level that will
allow us to invest in our future workforce by providing quality
training opportunities, while continuing to fund the One-Stop Career
Centers that provide the skills assessment and career counseling
critical for jobseekers to make informed decisions for future careers.
Finally, I would like to again highlight the importance of
opportunities for regional partnerships--partnerships that are skill-
focused, systemic, collaborative, and reflect the workforce needs of a
region. These also require funding--funding specifically targeted to
regional efforts where local workforce areas come together to address
common workforce and economic needs.
Conclusion
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide testimony today. I
would be pleased and honored to continue to be a resource to this
committee, as an executive director of a local workforce board, a
partner in a regional sector strategy initiative, and as president of a
statewide workforce membership organization. Please do not hesitate to
call on me again as you move forward with WIA Reauthorization.
______
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you, Gail. In your closing
remarks, you said that you realize that we are not
appropriators that we are authorizers. The question comes up
what is first, the chicken or the egg? And without us, the
appropriators are worthless; they can't do a thing. We are very
important, too.
We are pleased now to introduce from General Electric, Tom
Quick.
STATEMENT OF TOM QUICK, HUMAN RESOURCES LEADER, POWER & WATER,
GE ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE
Mr. Quick. I appreciate the opportunity to come here this
morning and discuss green collar skills training in the United
States.
The GE Power & Water business offers a diverse portfolio of
products and services such as wind and solar renewable energy.
The record-setting growth of wind energy is a bright spot in
the U.S. economy. According to the American Wind Energy
Association, AWEA, the U.S. Installed 8,358 megawatts of wind
power in 2008. Currently, wind power in the U.S. Is enough to
power 7 million homes.
The U.S. is now the global leader in wind power, having
surpassed Germany in both wind generation and installed
capacity. AWEA estimates that the wind industry employs over
85,000 people directly and indirectly, with 13,000
manufacturing jobs created in 2008 alone.
At GE, we now have installed over 10,000 1.5 megawatt wind
turbines worldwide and one out of two wind turbines installed
in the U.S. is a GE turbine. We have wind turbine assembly
locations in Florida, South Carolina, Virginia, Pennsylvania,
and California. The headquarters of our renewable business is
located locally, here in Schenectady, New York.
The installed base of wind power in the U.S. has spurred a
demand for skilled workers who can operate and maintain wind
turbines. As the U.S.-installed base continues to grow, there
is a growing demand for skilled wind technicians. A report from
the Department of Energy states that if wind power supplied 20
percent of the U.S. electricity by 2030, this would result in
over 160,000 direct jobs. The total direct and indirect jobs
supported by the wind industry could exceed 500,000 by 2030,
according to the DOE report.
The ability to train skilled turbine technicians--wind
turbine technicians is a collective challenge faced by the
business community and educational institutions, with the
Federal Government playing a key role. At GE, we hire wind
technicians with associate degrees in electrical or electronic
repair and 3-plus years of work experience in the electrical or
electronics repair industry. There are currently a number of
community and technical colleges with programs to address these
training needs, yet these represent only the beginning of the
training effort required to support the wind industry growth.
Community and technical colleges with programs that
emphasize a technical curriculum are good candidates to
consider expanding their course offerings to include such
courses as wind turbine mechanical systems or wind turbine site
construction.
The business community has to expand their own job skills
training as well. GE has expanded our Energy Learning Center
located in Niskayuna, New York, to include a wind training
program and facility. The wind training facility has eight
classrooms, 11,000 square feet of lab space, and dedicated
control room to train wind technicians. We provide training to
our own employees and employees of 200 customers in the United
States.
Partnerships between the wind industry manufacturers, site
operators, with local educational institutions are good for
everyone. A recent example of such partnership is the one
between GE and Hudson Valley Community College to create the
machinist training program in 2006. This partnership results in
students receiving 2-year associate degrees, and GE enrolls
employees into the program.
The Capital District Workforce Investment Board encourages
job training and skills development partnerships in our local
area. The Federal Government can provide critical leadership to
ensure these partnerships extend to the renewables industry.
Through the Workforce Investment Act and the creation of
regional Workforce Investment Boards across the U.S., the
Federal Government can ensure that money is spent on
educational programs today that can be leveraged to provide the
green collar skills required for tomorrow.
The Federal Government can ensure that public education and
private business partnerships are encouraged to prepare
interested students for jobs in the green economy. A trained
workforce able to meet the demands of this expanding green
economy benefits all of us in United States, and GE welcomes
the Federal Government's leadership to provide the necessary
skills for workers to have rewarding careers in the renewable
energy industry.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the subcommittee
this morning on this very important topic.
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you, Tom.
[The statement of Mr. Quick follows:]
Chairman Sarubbi. Now I call on Joe Sarubbi.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH T. SARUBBI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TEC-SMART,
HUDSON VALLEY COMMUNITY COLLEGE
Mr. Sarubbi. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Tonko, Congressman
Polis, it is a pleasure to provide testimony to you providing
regarding new innovations and best practices under the
Workforce Investment Act.
I have spent the last 30 years of my life in higher
education at the community college level, and I can say with
confidence that regarding workforce development, there is no
better place to develop a national agenda for green collar
jobs. Community colleges are our Nation's best bet for
retooling America.
I believe community colleges can be looked upon as the SWAT
team for workforce development because of their ability to
provide rapid development of customized courses to meet the
needs of the workforce, green collar and otherwise.
One of the missions of community colleges is to be
responsive to the educational needs of adult learners,
displaced workers, returning veterans, and disadvantaged
youths. Currently, there are 1,166 community colleges in the
Nation and most offer workforce development type training.
I believe that the Workforce Investment Act should ensure
that local Workforce Investment Boards provide for community
college representation to strengthen their relationships. And
as our Nation continues to advance renewable energy and energy
efficiency programs with ambitious goals, there is a great
urgency to create a green collar workforce; and community
colleges, as the Nation's best bet, have been rallying to that
cause. That could not be any more evident than right near in
the Capital Region of New York State as Hudson Valley Community
College has been providing nationally recognized PV training
programs for 3 years and is considered by many in the business
to be the model program, and it also offers geothermal training
as well.
In fact, Hudson Valley Community College's multipronged
approach could be a prototype for the renewable energy
discipline and other community colleges nationwide, utilizing a
combination of noncredit and credit courses and certificate and
degree programs to meet the needs of all constituents. HVCC's
program has been so successful that the college partnered with
NYSERDA to expand its programs across New York State.
Congressman Tonko is quite familiar with this initiative and,
as former president of NYSERDA, supported the cause.
NYSERDA and Hudson Valley Community College also partnered
to establish a statewide network of community colleges for
energy efficiency training, and by 2010, will have trained a
few thousand people. Such collaborations have provided a
geographic blanket of green collar training across New York
State in both the renewable energy and energy efficiency
environments.
But NYSERDA and HVCC didn't stop there. They also partnered
with the Interstate Renewable Energy Council and the
Partnership For Environmental Technology Education to organize
a Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Workforce Education
Conference, which was held at Hudson Valley Community College.
Educators from 34 States and 6 countries came together to learn
and share best practices and effective approaches to teaching
green collar workforce skills. We are now on our third
conference, which will be held in November 2009.
The Workforce Investment Act should help support such
endeavors to encourage stronger connections between workforce
investment and green collar jobs training.
Hudson Valley Community College is now taking green collar
training to another level as it will be constructing a state-
of-the-art training facility dedicated to green collar jobs.
With the creation of TEC-SMART, Hudson Valley Community College
will have a facility with dedicated laboratories to specific
green technologies: photovoltaic, geothermal, large and small
wind, alternative fuels, and semiconductor manufacturing.
Through TEC-SMART, the college will seek to work with local
Workforce Investment Boards to offer training for the adult
learners, displaced workers, returning veterans and
disadvantaged youth I mentioned earlier. Through TEC-SMART, the
college will be able to offer train-the-trainer programs to
help other colleges ratchet up their green collar training
programs, as well as partner with 4-year institutions to
continue to develop green collar skills.
And it is also important to continue to support blue collar
training programs, as many of these act as feeders to green
collar jobs training.
In conclusion, community colleges can and are providing the
backbone for green collar jobs. It is critical that the
reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act recognizes the
role that community colleges play in workforce development
training and will provide the necessary resources to support
this training.
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify and
share these observations and opinions with you.
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Sarubbi follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joseph T. Sarubbi, Executive Director, Training
and Education Center for Semiconductor Manufacturing and Alternative
and Renewable Technologies (TEC-SMART), Hudson Valley Community College
Mr. Chairman, Congressman Tonko, Members of the Committee, it is a
pleasure to provide testimony to you regarding ``New Innovations and
Best Practices Under the Workforce Investment Act.''
The timing couldn't be better to talk about what's happening at the
higher education level regarding ``Green Collar'' jobs and the role
Community College's can play (and are playing) in support of the
Workforce Investment Act.
The Case for Workforce Training at Community Colleges
As a former Journeyman Electrician who was trained through the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, I've devoted the last
three decades of my life to workforce training at Hudson Valley
Community College; first as a Professor, then as a Department Chair,
and now as the Executive Director of the College's renewable energy
training center. I feel strongly about the positive impact our college
alone has had on the Capital Region community regarding job placement,
and I've witnessed other community college's having a similar impact
within their respective regions.
One of the main objectives of a community college is to be
responsive to the educational needs of adult learners, displaced
workers, returning veterans, and disadvantaged youths. This is achieved
by providing services and vocational training that will develop
independent and confident learners, as well as life skills. There's no
question that community colleges are best suited to serve this mission.
In fact, community colleges could be viewed as the ``Swat Team'' for
workforce training because of their ability to provide rapid deployment
of customized courses and services to address the employment needs of
the community.
As our national economy continues to experience a major
transformation, the need to aggressively re-tool our workforce has
never been more paramount, and community colleges should be the
epicenters for making this happen. Currently, there are 1,166 community
colleges nationwide, and most offer workforce development type
training. Moreover, numerous community colleges have a Workforce
Development ``Center'' that often provides a one-stop system for easy
access. With the ability to offer flexible training schedules, on-line
courses, credit and non-credit courses, workshops, certificate
programs, and degree programs, community colleges can quickly manage
the challenges ahead and respond to learner needs in a rapidly changing
environment. The Workforce Investment Act should ensure that local
Workforce Investment Boards provide for community college
representation.
As a Department Chair with oversight of numerous vocational
training programs I've had the opportunity to work with Workforce
Investment Boards for the purpose of retraining displaced workers. I've
witnessed first-hand the value of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA)
and the role it's played in improving the lives of many. Yet, I've also
found that the administrative complexities associated with aligning
training programs and individual benefits to be challenging. Depending
on individual needs, effective, high quality job training and education
can take anywhere from two weeks to upwards of two years. Aligning
flexibility in benefits to mirror training programs will greatly
improve completion of training and a better chance of leading to a
``living wage.'' For example: if a displaced unskilled worker needs a
two-year vocational training program to become successful, and was
displaced at a time of the year where such training was offered, but
the training program already started, it precluded the worker from
starting. Often benefits would ``run-out'' before the worker could
complete the training since the worker had to wait until the next
training cycle. The Workforce Investment Act should focus on helping
workers through the entire training process.
Green Collar Jobs and the Community College
As our nation continues to advance Clean Energy and Energy
Efficiency programs with ambitious goals, the need to develop a Green
Collar workforce has brought about a new sense of urgency, and
community colleges have been rallying to the cause. Hudson Valley
Community College, for example, has been providing photovoltaic (PV)
training for three years, and is recently training students in
geothermal technology as well. In fact, it should be noted that Hudson
Valley Community College's model for photovoltaic training has received
national attention for its three-pronged delivery that meets the needs
of all constituents. So much so that Jane M. Weissman, Executive
Director, Interstate Renewable Energy Council and Vice-Chair, North
America Board of Certified Energy Practitioners, has stated, ``The
photovoltaic course programs at Hudson Valley Community College are
national models for other educational providers across the country.
Combining class-room instruction based on strong electrical curriculum,
coupled with an extensive laboratory plus on-site training
opportunities, have positioned Hudson valley as a leader in
photovoltaic training. They have clearly demonstrated their ability to
produce high-end instruction for a strong renewable energy workforce.''
Furthermore, Jerry Ventre, Engineering Consultant and Former Director
of the Photovoltaics and Distributed Generation Division of the Florida
Solar Energy Center stated: ``In a relatively short time, Hudson Valley
Community College has established itself as a clear leader in
photovoltaic training in the U.S. They have extremely well designed
course offerings, highly qualified faculty, excellent relationships
with industry, outstanding facilities, and strong institutional
support. And, most importantly, they provide their students with the
proper combination of classroom activities, hands-on training in the
laboratory and on-the-job experience with actual photovoltaic system
installations in the field.'' While Hudson Valley Community College is
a forerunner in Clean Energy and Energy Efficiency training, many other
community colleges have demonstrated their ability to ``ratchet-up''
their training programs and offer similar ``green'' technology skills.
All across the country community colleges are beginning to re-tool
their trainers who can provide the green collar workforce training that
would be supported under the Workforce Investment Act.
Best Practices
The success of Hudson Valley Community College's (PV) programs lies
in the multi-pronged approach to training, ensuring access to any and
all who seek such skills: (1) the 40 hour introduction to photovoltaic
installation non-credit course offers access to those who demonstrate
some existing construction and/or manufacturing skills and want to
enter the PV installer industry. This could be a displaced worker, or
someone seeking to enhance their skills in preparation for
transitioning into renewable energy workforce. Upon completion of this
course, students are eligible to take the Entry Level Certificate of
Knowledge exam, which upon passing, awards them an entry level
credential that is recognized by photovoltaic contractors, (2) the 19
credit Photovoltaic Installation Certificate program offers training to
those who do not have any prior knowledge or skills, but seek to become
a PV installer. This one year certificate can be completed in the
evenings and weekend to provide flexibility to students, (3) Hudson
Valley Community College also offers two credit courses in photovoltaic
design and installation that is offered to students of the electrical
Construction and Maintenance two-year degree program. Upon training
completion, students will have multiple career paths thus ensuring that
the size of the workforce does not out pace market demands, and visa-
versa. Lastly, students of all three paths can enroll in the 40 hour
non-credit ``advanced PV installer training'' course that prepares
students to take the North American Board of Certified Energy
Practitioners exam, which can lead to becoming a ``Certified'' PV
Installer.
Hudson Valley Community College has partnered with the New York
State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) to expand
such programs across New York State. In fact, I've had the pleasure of
working with Congressman Tonko, who at the time was President of
NYSERDA and understood the value of this training, which he supported
100%. With a combined vision to expand such training, Hudson Valley
Community College and NYSERDA collaborated to provide a geographic
``blanket'' of green collar training across New York State by
networking with other community colleges eager to provide similar
training at their institutions. This training model is an offshoot of
NYSERDA's New York Energy $mart Residential Program that, again, with
Hudson Valley Community College serving as the lead institution,
established a statewide network of community colleges for energy
efficiency training programs as well. By 2010 the energy efficient
training programs will have trained a few thousand people across New
York State. Hudson Valley Community College has created a paradigm for
green collar training that, with the right resources, can be replicated
across the country.
To further facilitate best practices in green collar job
environment a: Renewable Energy & Energy Efficiency Workforce Education
National Conference was sponsored by NYSERDA and organized by the
Interstate Renewable Energy Council (IREC), Partnership for
Environmental Technology Education (PETE) and Hudson Valley Community
College was held in November 2006 at Hudson Valley Community College.
It was the first national conference on workforce education for the
renewable energy and energy efficiency trades and industries. The event
was an opportunity for educational providers and faculty at Technical
High Schools, Community Colleges, four-year Schools and other training
programs to learn about best practices and effective approaches to
teaching renewable energy and energy efficiency workforce skills. The
conference attracted over 250 educators from 34 states and six
countries, and was held over a three day period. The second national
conference was again held at Hudson Valley Community College and
attracted over 350 people from across the country and world. The
audience again was community colleges, technical high schools, labor
and apprenticeship programs, industry, government agencies and others
who are planning to start or are providing practitioner training for
the renewable energy and energy efficiency industries.
Sessions focused on some of the critical workforce topics such as
jobs and how to prepare for workforce needs; how to create Vocational
High School Trade Program to Community College to four-year College
articulation agreements; model solar energy, wind energy, energy
efficiency, geothermal curricula and programs; and how to integrate
energy efficiency and renewable energy into other trades on campus.
Other important areas covered included industry-based task analysis
certification and training standards; establishing successful business
and industry advisory committees; conducting local job market
assessments; and creating hands-on renewable energy laboratories. The
third national conference, being held in November 2009 in Albany, New
York, will offer the most current information on instructional
strategies, curricula development, and best practices for training in
the renewable energy and energy efficiency fields. It will address many
of the jobs outlined in the green jobs initiatives being launched
nationwide. Most of the attendees are from community colleges seeking
new and innovative ways to grow and improve their green collar
practitioner training. The Workforce Investment Act should seek to
become a partner for the National Conference to encourage stronger
connections between workforce investment and green collar job training.
The Workforce Investment Act should help local WIBs become more active
in training programs by helping to facilitate articulation agreements
that allow for seamless education from secondary and adult education to
post-secondary education.
Innovative Ideas
Hudson Valley Community College is committed to training a green
collar workforce and has taken a giant step towards enhancing its
practitioner training initiatives. With the support of state funding,
the College will be constructing a state-of-the-art training facility
dedicated to green collar jobs. TEC-SMART (Training and Education
Center for Semiconductor Training, and Alternative and Renewable
Technologies) will have individual laboratories each dedicated to a
specific green technology: photovoltaic, geothermal, large and small
wind, alternative fuels, and semiconductor manufacturing. This facility
will support many of the training initiatives mentioned earlier and
serve the region, state and nation as the premiere resource for green
collar training and education.
Through the TEC-SMART facility, Hudson Valley Community College
will seek to work closely with local Workforce Investment Boards to
offer training in myriad ways. For example, with the necessary WIA
resources, the College would focus its energies by turning its
attention to the returning veteran. The number of returning veterans
continues to grow well past the half-million mark, and providing green
collar job training to many makes sense in today's competitive economy.
Through TEC-SMART, Hudson Valley Community College will also seek to
provide ``Train-the Trainer'' programs to other community colleges to
help accelerate the availability of green collar training programs
whereby local WIBs across the Country can provide the necessary
services returning veterans anticipate. Furthermore, by collaborating
with four-year institutions such as SUNY Stony Brook, the college could
establish 2 + 2 programs that WIBs could support with a focus on
higher-skilled, higher-wage green collar jobs.
Through TEC-SMART, and with the necessary WIA resources, Hudson
Valley Community College will be able to provide upgraded training to
low-income workers who seek to advance to a higher skilled green collar
job. By working closely with local WIBs, the college can develop
customized green collar training programs to meet the needs of the low-
wage earner. In fact, another strength of a community college is its
ability to effectively assess the academic skills of those seeking to
upgrade their employment status and provide the services necessary to
access training. Most community colleges have Learning Assistance
Centers that help each worker's ability to succeed in training, and
improve worker retention. There is nothing more daunting to a low-wage
worker than to take up the practice of life-long learning, and there's
no better place for them to have a feeling of accomplishment and
achieve success than a community college. The Workforce Investment Act
could help bridge that ``disconnect.''
Non-Green Collar Jobs
Many community colleges offer tremendous technology programs that
have continued to provide training for ``blue collar'' jobs for
decades. The importance of the WIA to continue to support these
programs cannot be overstated. In fact, many of these ``blue collar''
programs provide a feeder system to green collar jobs. For example,
most PV installers and wind technicians who hold the higher skilled
positions within those respective ``green collar'' fields first
received training in the electrical/electronic environment. Similarly,
those seeking employment as a geothermal technician first gained
valuable training in the HVAC/R environment. As the green technology
job market continues to ebb and flow, those who are cross trained are
most like to retain ``living wage'' jobs. The same could be said about
alternative fuels.
In Conclusion
Community Colleges can and are providing the backbone for green
collar jobs. It's critical that the reauthorization of the Workforce
Investment Act recognizes the role Community Colleges play in workforce
development training. The best practices I shared today can be
implemented across the country with the right resources. Facilities
like TEC-SMART can be instrumental in Train-the Trainer programs for
other colleges and technical schools to ensure rapid deployment of
training programs. Colleges like Hudson Valley Community College, who
have learned to walk-the-walk regarding green collar training, can be
active in helping other schools address the green collar work force
needs of our nation.
Thank you Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee, for allowing
me the opportunity to testify and share these observations and opinions
with you.
______
Chairman Hinojosa. And now we call on Nanine.
STATEMENT OF NANINE MEIKLEJOHN, SENIOR LEGISLATIVE
REPRESENTATIVE, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND
MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES (AFSCME)
Ms. Meiklejohn. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Tonko, and
Congress Polis, thank you for the opportunity to present
AFSCME's views on reauthorization of WIA. AFSCME represents 1.6
million members around the country, many of whom work in State
and local workforce programs.
The daunting economic challenges we are facing have
revealed some underlying weaknesses and call into question some
of the assumptions in Federal workforce policy over the last 10
years. We believe it is time for a new direction that expands
on and strengthens all of the components of the workforce
system.
WIA was enacted during a period of economic growth and amid
pressures to block grant, decentralize and reduce funding for
Federal workforce programs, it was an uneasy compromise that
caused tensions between the publicly operated State programs
and the local, more privatized WIA-funded programs. For our
members and the State agencies, WIA came to represent a way to
weaken or privatize the services they provide.
Difficult issues emerged, such as how to finance one-stop
operations and how much control local boards would have over
the work of the State agency employees. Declining funding
exacerbated these tensions. Organizational structures,
policies, and services vary widely and the sequence-of-services
rule focused resources on core services instead of training.
As local WIA providers increasingly duplicated some of the
Wagner-Peyser Employment Service functions, the previous Labor
Department tried to eliminate it, contending it was
unnecessary. In fact, though, the employment service is much
more than another job matching program. It is a crucial partner
in the unemployment insurance system, conducts foreign labor
certifications, helps administer the Trade Adjustment
Assistance Act, and the Targeted Jobs Tax Credit. It also
maintains statewide job banks and a comprehensive system of
labor market information in each State.
The close relationship of the employment service to the UI
system is especially important. Traditionally, States maintain
flexible staffing patterns between the two that were undermined
as they centralized their UI operations into call centers and
ES staff moved into local one-stop centers. As a result, UI
claimants rarely get the early reemployment services they need,
and one-stop centers are ill-equipped to help jobless workers
get through overburdened UI application systems. This situation
and the role of the employment service in the broader workforce
system requires more attention.
Typically, when the Nation has faced extraordinary
challenges, we have turned to the Federal Government for
leadership. This is true today. Already the economic recovery
program asserts a stronger Federal role in workforce policy,
limits local flexibility to modify Federal funding priorities,
and calls for more balance between the needs of workers and
employers.
We hope WIA reauthorization will continue this new
direction. We specifically recommend the following: The
sequence-of-service policy should be abandoned; WIA programs
should have to devote more resources to training; training
should focus on high-growth fields, while local areas retain
flexibility to run programs specifically suited to their local
needs.
We need a stronger, more comprehensive capacity to provide
labor exchange services and counseling to an increasingly
diverse group of disadvantaged and dislocated experienced
workers seeking help.
A strong statewide employment service can complement the
work of local WIA programs. Strengthening its ability to
provide comprehensive job-matching tools and good labor market
information will benefit the entire system because it will
attract more employers, improve job matching for all workers,
and support regional sector and labor management training
initiatives which extend beyond local one-stop boundaries.
Without the sequence-of-services rule, more effective and
professional career planning and assessment will be needed to
carefully match workers' skills and interests with the right
services at the front end.
A computer is not enough. Just as real estate agents help
house hunters, even though there are many real estate Web
sites, knowledgeable counselors can help job seekers and
employers achieve good matches. The State agency can establish
a level of consistency for these functions statewide through
its policy-setting authority.
The fact that State employment service employees are in
merit-based personnel systems is a benefit. Merit system
principles of personnel administration were originally adopted
to ensure government accountability, fairness, and
transparency. When applied well, they lead to quality services
by a staff accountable to the public, not individual private
interests. These principles currently in regulation should be
codified in law.
Mr. Chairman, you are considering WIA reauthorization at an
unusual point in time. We look forward to working with you as
you begin this process and again thank you for the opportunity
to testify.
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you for your presentation.
[The statement of Ms. Meiklejohn follows:]
Prepared Statement of Nanine Meiklejohn, Senior Legislative
Representative, American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees (AFSCME)
Chairman Hinojosa and Congressman Tonko, my name is Nanine
Meiklejohn, and I am a Senior Legislative Representative for the
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME).
AFSCME's 1.6 million members work in state and local government
agencies, health care institutions, and nonprofit agencies across the
country. They include the employees in state employment security and
workforce agencies and in local one-stop operations. We appreciate this
opportunity to present AFSCME's views on reauthorization of the
Workforce Investment Act (WIA).
We face a starkly different economic situation now than when WIA
was enacted and when Congress last considered legislation to
reauthorize WIA. The accelerating pace of job loss is breathtaking. In
February, unemployment surged to 8.1 percent as non-farm payroll
employment fell sharply. Over the past year the number of unemployed
persons jumped by five million as the unemployment rate rose by 3.3
percentage points. The number of workers receiving unemployment
benefits has risen by 54 percent in the last 12 months to over five
million people, and 2.9 million workers still had not found jobs after
26 weeks of unemployment in February--a 55% increase over last year.
This extraordinary situation is creating extraordinary demands on
our workforce system. The unemployment insurance system, which relies
on telephone call centers and electronic applications, is under
enormous strain and in some states, including here in New York, has
experienced temporary breakdowns. Long lines of unemployed workers have
formed at overwhelmed local one-stop centers--the only physically
available place they can go for help.
These challenges have revealed some underlying weaknesses and call
into question some of the assumptions in federal workforce policy over
the last 10 years. Since WIA was enacted, and especially during the
last eight years, workforce funding declined; federal leadership
continued to shrink; efforts were made to collapse workforce programs
into each other despite their unique roles; training activities have
been extremely limited; the voice of workers in the system was almost
silenced; and publicly administered systems were neglected in favor of
publicly-funded but privately-provided services.
This is not to imply that there have not been important innovative
programs during that time. Indeed, many are operating in local areas.
They include sector and regional training initiatives, labor-management
partnerships, such as the longstanding health care training partnership
conducted by AFSCME's affiliate, District 1199 (c) in Philadelphia,
career pathways initiatives for young people, and closer linkages
between the workforce system and economic development strategies. The
testimony of Bill Camp, on behalf of the AFL-CIO on February 12, 2009,
described a number of important and exciting policies and initiatives
taking place in California. They should be strengthened and encouraged
during WIA reauthorization.
However, more is needed to enable our workforce system to meet
today's challenges. We believe now is the time to guide federal
workforce policy in a new direction that expands on and strengthens all
of the components of the workforce system so that it can provide the
highest level of services for workers and employers possible. We
support all of the recommendations made by the AFL-CIO at the February
hearing, but in this statement, I will focus specifically on key
aspects of the delivery system.
WIA's Place in the Workforce System
WIA was enacted during a period of relative economic stability and
amid pressures to block grant, decentralize and reduce funding for
federal workforce programs. It established a one-stop center system
with the laudable goal of facilitating access to a wide range of
related services, including the WIA adult, dislocated worker and youth
programs, Unemployment Insurance (UI), Employment Services (ES), Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA), Vocational Rehabilitation and Adult
Education.
As originally conceived, these programs would be coordinated by
locating WIA services and other workforce programs in local one-stop
centers and by linking them electronically. As much as possible, the
programs were to be integrated with each other; a term that has been
interpreted in different ways in different states and local areas and
which has represented an uneasy compromise between block granting and
coordination.
In moving in this direction, WIA created significant tensions
between the publicly operated state programs, such as Vocational
Rehabilitation and Wagner-Peyser Employment Services, and the local
more privatized WIA programs, particularly where local workforce boards
attempted to assert control over the large state public agency
operations. For our members in the state agency programs, WIA came to
represent a mechanism to weaken or privatize the programs in which they
work and the services they provide.
Difficult issues emerged, such as how to finance one-stop
operations (because WIA did not provide operational funding for the
one-stop centers) and the extent to which local boards and one-stop
operators, some of them private companies, would control the work of
the state agency employees. As a result, considerable energy has been
spent on governance, financing and process issues, and significant WIA
resources have been spent building an operational infrastructure of
one-stop centers. Declining WIA funding and stagnating Wagner-Peyser
funding greatly exacerbated these tensions.
Because of the highly decentralized nature of the program,
organizational structures, policies and services vary widely among, and
even within, states. This has made it virtually impossible to paint a
clear picture of the way the system operates from a national
perspective.
At the same time, WIA's effectiveness as a source of meaningful
training services was weakened by a mandate to provide universal
services through a sequence of core, intensive and training service
with no effective job quality criteria and heavy reliance on self-
service. As a result, WIA providers increasingly focused primarily on
general labor exchange services and on placements with low-wage
employers at the expense of a consistent policy of providing value
added quality services for job seekers and employers.
Wagner-Peyser's Role in the Workforce System
As local WIA providers increasingly duplicated some of the labor
exchange services historically provided by the state Wagner-Peyser
Employment Service, the previous Labor Department pursued an aggressive
effort to defund and eliminate the state Employment Service. Department
officials based their case primarily on the claim that the state
Employment Service is essentially like other local job matching
activities funded by WIA, a view shared broadly among those providing
local WIA funded services.
In fact, though, the Employment Service is much more than another
job matching program. It is a crucial partner of the Unemployment
Insurance program, conducts labor certifications, and helps administer
the Trade Adjustment Assistance program and the targeted jobs tax
credit. In addition, it maintains statewide job banks and a
comprehensive system of labor market information in each state, both of
which are valuable resources that support state and local economic
development strategies and regional and sector partnerships.
Maintaining this flexible state agency workforce can provide both
efficiencies and flexibility. For example, Ohio state staff is trained
in ES, UI, TAA, labor market information and outreach services to
employers, which allows the state to provide more universal services
that can respond to emerging and changing local needs.
The relationship of the Wagner-Peyser Employment Service to the
Unemployment Insurance program is especially important. In
administering the Unemployment Insurance program, the states also must
ensure that UI claimants are looking for and securing employment.
Traditionally, ES and UI staff worked closely together in providing
benefits and employment services to help UI claimants find jobs. They
often were cross trained so that they could shift between the more
technical functions of processing unemployment benefit applications and
matching job seekers with employers. This flexibility to adjust
staffing patterns was substantially undermined as states centralized
their UI operations into call centers and ES staff moved into local
one-stop centers.
Separating the ES and UI operations has had several consequences.
In any state that does not require it, and most states don't,
Unemployment Insurance recipients have no obligation to go to a one-
stop center at all. Even if they do go, they rarely get early
reemployment services that can shorten their time without work or help
move them to a new career. In addition, local one-stop centers are ill-
equipped to help jobless workers get through the overburdened UI
application system other than offering them a telephone connection.
However, the severity of the economic downturn has led some states
to seek ways to rebuild the connection between the two programs.
Connecticut and Ohio are moving to assign some of their ES staff
situated in local one-stop centers to help workers with their UI
claims. This ability to adjust duties and functions as economic
circumstances change is possible only because the states retain
authority over the ES staff.
Although the transition of ES staff into local one-stop centers
appears almost complete, its role in the centers requires more
attention both in terms of its relationship to the UI program and as
part of the overall workforce system.
Moving Forward--A New Balance
Typically, when the nation has faced extraordinary challenges, we
have turned to the federal government to achieve important national
objectives and priorities. This is true today. The American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) asserts a stronger federal policy in the
workforce system.
The law provides specific guidance on how some funds are to be
used. In particular, it requires that states use $250 million of the
$400 million appropriated for the Employment Service specifically to
provide reemployment services for UI claimants. Our hope is that the
U.S. Department of Labor will consider a requirement for all
contractors receiving ARRA funds to list new jobs on the state job
banks to facilitate matches for all job seekers. The program also
directs training resources to high priority areas, in particular green
jobs and health care, through a grant process that will be managed by
the Secretary of Labor.
A subsequent March 4, 2009 notice from the Labor Department further
asserts federal policy and calls for more balance between the needs of
workers and employers. It urges alignment with economic and community
development strategies and close alignment of education and training
with jobs and industries that are important to local and regional
economies. The Department also has determined that several waivers will
not apply to Recovery Act funds on the grounds that they are contrary
to congressional intent, including a waiver providing authority for
full transfer of funds between the Adult and Dislocated Worker
Programs. In addition, services and training are to be maximized and
administrative costs minimized.
AFSCME applauds this new direction and hopes that WIA
reauthorization will continue to foster it. In particular, we hope to
see more balanced membership on workforce boards, including stronger
participation by organized labor, and increased support for labor-
management partnerships in industry and sector training initiatives. We
also hope to see more balance among available services and a new
stronger partnership among the public and private agencies and state
and local governments. In addition, we hope greater attention is given
to reemployment services for UI claimants by the Employment Service.
Training and Services
The sequence of services policy has caused local WIA programs to
emphasize core services at the expense of other services and training.
As demands on the local centers escalate though, it is becoming
apparent, at least in some states, that there are important gaps in the
services available for job seekers.
In order to ensure that WIA programs provide more intensive
services and training, the sequence of service policy should be
explicitly abandoned. WIA programs should have to devote a certain
percentage of their funding for training as previous job training laws
required.
In addition, federal law should place a priority on training in
high growth fields, such as alternative energy, broadband, advanced
manufacturing, child care, and health care that are of a high national
priority. The recently enacted Higher Education Act embraced a similar
concept of high national need in the loan forgiveness program. Guiding,
but not requiring, states and localities to direct services and
training in such areas can help ensure a meaningful role for the
workforce system in a new economy without stifling other initiatives
specifically suitable to local economic conditions and populations.
Expanding the Scope of the One-Stop System
As more experienced jobless workers seek help at local one-stop
centers, the demands on the system are expanding and changing. While
WIA may have been largely a last resort for low-income and
disadvantaged persons, increasingly others with different experiences,
but perhaps similar skill development needs, are lining up at local
centers. It is not clear yet whether this is a temporary phenomenon due
to the downturn or a more fundamental shift. Some analysts predict that
many of the lost jobs will never return.
In either case, this development means that the workforce system
needs to strengthen both its labor exchange--or core services--capacity
and its ability to guide and provide services to workers with
increasingly disparate needs. It also needs to be able to help them
acquire new skills in a changing economy.
The statewide and public character of the Employment Service makes
it a potentially valuable asset in achieving this objective. A study of
six states conducted by WESTAT for the U.S. Department of Labor,
``Evaluation of Labor Exchange Services in a One-Stop Delivery System
Environment'', which was completed in 2004 but suppressed by the
Department for four years, is instructive. It noted that by virtue of
its statewide character the state Employment Service overcomes a
tendency of local workforce areas to engage in more targeted job
development and job matching at a time when job seekers are more
willing to look for opportunities beyond their immediate communities.
The WESTAT study further observed that ``Effective job-matching
systems linked high-quality technology with well-trained staff
dedicated both to ensuring that employers were appropriately listing
their jobs and job seekers were able to effectively use the
technology.'' Achieving both involves staff outreach and a concerted
effort to attract and hold employers as well as the staffing capacity
to make good matches.
This is an important finding. The broader the scope of information
available to local one-stop centers, the more effective all of the
partner programs can be. Strengthening the ability of the state
employment services to provide comprehensive job matching tools and
good labor market information will benefit the entire system because it
will attract more employers, improve job matching, and support regional
and sector training initiatives. It can be a rich resource for all job
seekers, experienced and disadvantaged alike, particularly helping to
open up opportunities for disadvantaged job seekers they might not
otherwise have.
Eliminating the sequence of services rule will have important
consequences for the system. It will create more flexibility to provide
a broader range of services, but it also will create a new need for
effective and professional career planning and assessment in order to
carefully match workers' skills and interests with the right services,
training and jobs. It will open up new ways to align services
functionally and perhaps in teams of staff from different programs,
even as dedicated funding continues to be provided for specific groups
of workers.
A skilled and professional state Employment Service staff that
competently advises workers and employers will become even more
necessary. An analogy with the real estate industry helps make this
point. Although there are many websites that list homes for sale, house
hunters still seek out real estate agents to help them narrow their
search and make the best decision.
The state Employment Service staff already conducts assessment and
career planning functions when they provide reemployment services to UI
claimants and counsel TAA enrollees. The state can control the quality
and consistency of these services statewide through its policy setting
authority, the ability to set high standards for job counselors, and,
if resources are available, professional training and upgrading.
Because it is not limited to the local boundaries of one-stop systems
it is well positioned to perform such functions to support both sector
and regional training and skill development partnerships.
WIA reauthorization should strengthen the state Employment Service
capacity by, among other measures, providing resources for staff
development. We note that New York state is moving to upgrade its
Wagner-Peyser staff by hiring labor service representatives with
masters degrees in counseling.
A strong statewide Employment Service can compliment, rather than
compete with, the work currently being done by local WIA programs which
focus on the more intensive work involved in serving populations with
significant barriers to employment.
The fact that state Employment Service employees are in merit based
personnel (civil service) systems is an additional benefit despite
claims of the previous administration which tried to eliminate this
longstanding regulatory requirement. It did so because the merit
staffing rule stood in the way of its effort to dismantle the
Employment Service, devolve it to local WIA boards, and contract out
the funds to private contractors.
The merit staffing rule was characterized erroneously as a ``labor
protection'', but the reality is that merit system principles of
personnel administration were originally adopted in the interests of
government accountability, fairness and transparency. They require
adherence to the following principles to insure improvement of public
service:
a) Recruiting, selecting, and advancing employees on the basis of
their relative ability, knowledge, and skills, including open
consideration of qualified applicants for initial appointment.
b) Providing equitable and adequate compensation.
c) Training employees, as needed, to assure high quality
performance.
d) Retaining employees on the basis of the adequacy of their
performance, correcting inadequate performance, and separating
employees whose inadequate performance cannot be corrected.
e) Assuring fair treatment of applicants and employees in all
aspects of personnel administration without regard to political
affiliation, race, color, national origin, sex, religious creed, age or
handicap and with proper regard for their privacy and constitutional
rights as citizens. This ``fair treatment'' principle includes
compliance with the Federal equal employment opportunity and
nondiscrimination laws.
f) Assuring that employees are protected against coercion for
partisan political purposes and are prohibited from using their
official authority for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the
result of an election or a nomination for office.
These principles should be codified in the Wagner-Peyser Act to
establish them more firmly in the law. In fact, we suggest that the
substance of these principles is unassailable and that they also are
appropriate for the operators of the one-stop centers as well.
Mr. Chairman, you are considering WIA reauthorization at an unusual
point in time. Our economic circumstances present both unique
challenges and opportunities for the workforce system. If reformed by
building new partnerships and creating a new balance, we believe WIA
along with its workforce program partners will be well positioned to
play a much more expansive and meaningful role in the economic life of
our country. AFSCME looks forward to working with you as you begin this
process. Thank you again for this opportunity to testify here today.
______
Chairman Hinojosa. I liked everything I heard, and I am
sure that my colleagues are going to have some questions that
will be directed to one or more of the presenters.
I would like to start myself. I will be limited to 5
minutes also by the rules, and if necessary, we will have a
second round.
I believe that your contributions will be very valuable to
us as we move forward in the reauthorization of this WIA
reauthorization act of 2009, so my first question is going to
be directed to the Hudson Valley Community College. And let me
look at the one that I think was engraved in my mind, because
you talked about even partnering with high schools. And I think
that stakeholders include our schools, our community colleges,
our workforce boards, and of course, our 4-year universities.
So I would like to ask you, Joe, you mentioned that there
are some challenges in the administrative complexities related
to the alignment of training programs and the individual
benefits. So would you elaborate on how the reauthorization of
WIA should consider these issues?
Mr. Sarubbi. Certainly, some of the concerns we have seen
at the community college level:
Nobody can predict exactly when they anticipate getting
laid off from a job. So if we were to take a particular
displaced worker, for example, the way most community colleges
are set up in our Nation is on a semester-by-semester basis.
Courses usually start around the 1st of September, finish at
the end of December, pick up in January, end in May. If a
particular worker gets displaced in October and that is the
starting point for them to start to earn their actual funding,
part of the problem is they can't get into training until
either January or the following September of the next year
because of the sequence of actual course work that they would
have to complete, knowing that they have to start out with the
simpler courses.
Chairman Hinojosa. If I may interrupt you, have you seen
the model of the Maricopa County Community College system in
Phoenix, Arizona, which is the open entry and open exit for
community colleges?
Mr. Sarubbi. No.
I have heard about that, and other community colleges are
looking at that particular model. A lot of it has to do with
when we talk about the type of green collar jobs, you still
need a certain level of on-the-job, you know, hands-on training
that needs to be done at specific institutions.
So if you have got the type of technologies where you can
offer that training in a way that--again, knowing the size of
the actual classes that you would be able to have coming
through, sometimes it works good, sometimes it doesn't.
I have heard mixed reviews about it right now, and I have
not had a chance to research it at the highest level.
Chairman Hinojosa. I think there are some advantages and
disadvantages of that model, but it was listed by Newsweek as
one of the largest and best community college systems in the
country, so there must be some good qualities to that.
Mr. Sarubbi. Certainly.
Chairman Hinojosa. You said one of the factors leading to
the successful efforts between Hudson Community College and
local entities was the investment of the New York State Energy
Research and Development Authority.
Is this a model that we should consider for other areas in
the Nation?
Mr. Sarubbi. Without a doubt. NYSERDA has been a fantastic
partner in helping us to get to the level where we are. They
have the resources and the skill sets to allow a technical
school like Hudson Valley to gear for the Green Collar Jobs
Initiative that we have been able to get to the level that we
have. Without NYSERDA, we would not have been able to pull that
off.
Chairman Hinojosa. My area has about 30 percent of its
population in my congressional district below the national
poverty level.
What efforts are being made by your community college to
recruit a diverse and typically underserved population?
Mr. Sarubbi. Right now, we have worked closely--I am
drawing a blank at the name of the organization that we have
been working with right now, with youth programs that are
bringing disadvantaged youths to Hudson Valley to help them
earn their GED. And once they finish that, they can continue on
with actual skills within the technology----
Chairman Hinojosa. Could it be HEP-CAMP?
Mr. Sarubbi. No, it is--Youth Skills of America is the
actual organization, and we have been working with Albany,
Schenectady and Troy to do that. They helped us build homes for
disadvantaged people, too, and--to be able to get us to that
next level. So that has been successful so far.
Chairman Hinojosa. I thank you for your responses, and it
looks like I am running out of time. But I would like to call
on my colleagues; and we will start out with Paul and see what
questions he would like to ask.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A question to all of
you.
I hear this whole concern with structure and focus. And
maybe just hearing from each of you, from your varying
perspectives: If you could structure the best response
programmatically to the needs of underskilled or those needing
training in new skills, how would it work?
I am hearing these regional boards, I am hearing the
regional concepts, I am hearing an employee service sector,
training sector to the side, and allowing some of our agencies
to do more of the routine work.
What is the best way for--from an industry perspective and
a governmental perspective and education perspective, what is
the best way you could structure it? In an ideal sense, what
would it be in order to really maximize training opportunities?
Mr. Musolino. There is a lot in that question, Congressman,
needless to say.
Mr. Tonko. I am not looking to make enemies.
Mr. Musolino. I think there are probably two different
structural issues that we certainly struggle with at the State
level, both equally important.
One of the structural issues is the geography of the State.
New York State is a large State as is Texas--Colorado. So when
we are thinking about the State, we are thinking in terms of
various regional economies that exist. And in New York State we
have placed some bets, as it were, in different areas of the
State. State policy is invested in photonics in the Rochester
area, nanotechnology here in Albany, and health sciences,
biotechnology in the Buffalo area. And trying to create an
employment and training system that is flexible enough to be
able to deal with those different regional economies, knowing
that even though those are target areas, they are not the only
jobs and industries that exist in those large swaths of the
State.
We have 33 local Workforce Investment Boards. It is an
interesting geographic question whether there should be fewer
or more. But ultimately the need for on-the-ground, local-level
input matters a lot. We have to know what the businesses in the
areas of the State need.
Mr. Tonko. So do these boards--as established, do they get
to that issue? Are they the best outreach?
Mr. Musolino. Some do and some don't, and that is one of
the issues.
We have--you are fortunate, you have Gail Breen here who is
really one of the best in the State. Other areas of the State
aren't often as sensitive to the needs of the business
community. They don't have the same level of active business
participation.
We have tried to incentivize the Workforce Investment
Boards from the State by doing regional grants that require
Workforce Investment Boards to apply as a partner with their
neighboring Workforce Investment Boards; and we think you get
more strength from doing that. So there is the local geographic
area that is tricky to deal with. I think business
participation is a big help with that.
The other structural issue that I think is important is how
we use Workforce Investment Act funds in the State government
agencies, within the world where there is an awful lot of other
public money in the system--and, in fact, Workforce Investment
Act funds are dwarfed by educational funds that come into the
State--but using this as a coordinating mechanism and as a
lever to be able to keep our policies unified.
We have been looking at different ways to deal with
community colleges in the State. We agree that community
colleges are a great delivery mechanism, and they are publicly
funded and they have great penetration across the State. But
things don't always align so well, so I think you have to deal
with those structural things in both ways.
Mr. Tonko. Let me go across quickly--I don't want to go
beyond my 5 minutes, but I think it is a fundamental question.
Ms. Breen. I will try go quickly because I see the orange
light on.
From the perspective of our own level Workforce Investment
Board, we have taken the business sector perspective very
seriously on our board. And if you look at the people to sit on
our board now, as opposed to the people who were on the board
in 2000, it is a different board. It reflects the industries,
health care, manufacturing, distribution centers, service
industries that are there now that might not have been there 8
years ago. So we have tried to repopulate the board, looking at
what do people need locally.
But beyond that, we have looked at our natural regional
area. And when I say ``natural,'' it is very difficult to draw
boundaries in New York State because they don't work for
everyone. When we look at Fulton, Montgomery and Schoharie, we
are in the Mohawk Valley region, according to the State; but
when you look at our commutation patterns and where people go
to work and school every day, they go east, they do not go
west.
Schoharie County has 40 percent of the working population
leaving the county every day, 70 percent go to the Capital
Region. Montgomery and Fulton Counties are not far behind that.
That is why we talk about natural partnerships between our
regions. And that is why I think that working with Fulton,
Montgomery and Schoharie, Saratoga-Washington-Warren, the
Capital Region and Columbia-Greene, we have wonderful
relationships with community colleges, with industries. That is
a natural fit for us, and I would like to see that continue.
Chairman Hinojosa. The gentleman's time has expired.
Before I call on my colleague from Colorado, Congressman
Polis, I want to take advantage of something you said, Gail.
Is it possible for workforce boards like yours to help us
increase the percentage of the Federal dollars that go towards
retraining folks who are jobless? The rule of thumb has been in
our hearings that only 40 percent of every dollar goes towards
retraining; so it seems to me that the administration and
profits for the subcontractors is just too high.
Is it possible to increase that 40 percent? And if so,
quickly tell me how to do it.
Ms. Breen. First of all, we have to talk about 40 percent
of what?
Chairman Hinojosa. Of a dollar.
Ms. Breen. Of whatever the dollar is?
Chairman Hinojosa. Federal money that we send down to you.
Ms. Breen. I think that we can meet that goal and exceed
it, if we go back to--the original funding level was 2,000 or
higher, but at the current funding level--you look at Fulton,
Montgomery, and Schoharie, we get an allocation of a million
dollars a year. In 2000, we got an allocation of 2 million a
years. You can't cut funding like that and expect people to be
able to keep centers open that are critical for the workforce,
particularly in rural areas.
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you.
At this time, I would like to call on Congressman Polis
from Colorado.
Mr. Polis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to thank Chairman Hinojosa for helping to
arrange this hearing today, and Representative Tonko for making
sure that our colleagues on this subcommittee are aware of the
best practices here in New York.
One of the important things for us to take into account as
we work to reauthorize WIA is regional diversity, and we can
learn from programs that work in Colorado, New York, and other
States and try to incorporate and scale best practices; and
this is a particularly valued hearing for that.
I would also like to thank the New York Department of
Education, I served 6 years on the Colorado Department of
Education and I am jealous of this venue. We would have loved
to have had such a wonderful venue. I thank the New York
Department of Education for opening up their building to us.
My first question is to Ms. Breen. I would like you to
elaborate on the manner in which you map the needs of the
private sector to your workforce training programs and how you
incorporate evaluating trends and making sure that your
programs are geared towards the growth areas and areas that
jobs will be needed in.
Ms. Breen. Excellent question. Not to give too much to
other organizations and not enough to the actual board, but we
rely very heavily on New York State Department of Labor, our
regional analysts, to provide us with the initial information.
But then we have a business services team that works closely
with us and our board members to look at what are the declining
industries, where are the industries expanding?
And then we look at the dislocated workers, the people who
are being laid off and do some skills assessment on them,
because what we are finding, at least in our area, the
dislocated workers are generally an older population and they
have fewer skills. They have worked in manufacturing where
maybe a high school education is the best they have had.
And in emerging industries and advanced manufacturing, you
need those STEM skills, you need science, technology,
engineering, and math to make it work. So how do we get those
dislocated workers who are older to come back in and take an
interest in getting the additional skills they need so that
they will be successful in health care, so they will be
successful in advanced manufacturing?
Mr. Polis. Just to follow that up, does your State
Department of Labor give you regional job things? Is it broken
out regionally, or is it just a State assessment?
Ms. Breen. Not only will it break it out regionally, but we
have regional analysts that will work with us by county. So we
can look at not just my three-county region, but we have an 11-
county coalition that I talked about before.
Mr. Polis. Mr. Musolino, first of all, it sounds like you
provide some excellent information to the regional centers. But
my question is about the age restrictions, and I am wondering
if you have any indication of interest of what level of
interest there is in the 22-to-24-year-old demographic for the
youth services?
Mr. Musolino. Well, certainly as we have begun to talk to
providers around the State--I was in Harlem last week meeting
with a number of community-based organizations--they see being
able to deal with the older youth population as pretty critical
to what they are doing. A lot of kids, young people, dropped
out of school and maybe aren't thinking about getting back in
until later on. And so there is anecdotal evidence that they
think this would be a valuable change.
Mr. Polis. Mr. Quick, the wind training facility that you
mentioned, is that strictly a privately run facility or is that
also a private-public venture?
Mr. Quick. It is a privately run facility, run by General
Electric.
Mr. Polis. And you have public partnerships working with
the community colleges?
Mr. Quick. Yes.
As a matter of fact, in the example with Hudson Valley
Community College with our machinist apprentice program,
certainly one of those kind of private and public partnerships
that have happened.
You know, as we look and continue to expand in the wind
industry, I would expect with the Workforce Investment Boards
and the demand for green collar jobs that it is only going to
increase, the partnership that is going to be needed in our
wind facility with the local community colleges and educational
institutions.
Mr. Polis. Do these public-private partnerships, like with
the community college, help justify your corporation to have
this wind training facility?
Mr. Quick. I believe so. In order for us to meet certainly
the demand of our customers who are requiring our wind
turbines, we have to make certain that we have not only our own
skilled employees, but the customers having to skill their own
employees as well.
Coming to General Electric in our facilities in concert
with local communities here from an educational perspective, or
community colleges around the country, I think is the way to
go, quite frankly.
Mr. Polis. Thank you.
Chairman Hinojosa. We have time for a second round of
questions, and I would like to start that second round and
continue with the line of thinking of Congressman Polis. My
question is to Tom Quick.
There is a lack of skilled labor, and you said that that
was a major obstacle to the expansion of the wind industry.
But--obviously it may be easier to work with college graduates,
but what contributions should come from the high schools, the
community colleges, and technical schools so that we can help
those jobless individuals get a job?
Mr. Quick. Well, I believe it is a critical component,
Congressman. I think that, you know, it is the folks with the
2-year associate degrees in a technical discipline that will be
the wind turbine technicians that we will need going forward,
not necessarily the 4-year degreed individual.
I think that the Workforce Investment Act needs to consider
where it spends its money. If it spends its money across all
community colleges or technical colleges across the U.S., it
may not getting it biggest bang for the dollars spent. I think
current educational institutions that already have a technical
degree program are probably best prepared at this point in time
to augment that program with training that would be involved in
the renewables industry.
Chairman Hinojosa. I want to say that we in Texas have some
regions along the Gulf of Mexico that are ideal for setting up
windmills. And I think that Kleberg County and Refugio County
and those areas there are, as we speak, some of those windmills
being put up. We have some technical colleges in Harlingen,
South Texas Technical College, that would be ideal after
listening to your answer.
How would they be able to partner with you here in Albany
so that they could get that 2-year associate degree program for
this specific trait?
Mr. Quick. Thinking about that specific location,
Congressman, I think the question would be, what would be one
of our customers who would want to take that area of the
country where the wind is blowing and like to create a wind
farm? Once that potential customer is identified, obviously not
only are they purchasing our wind turbines, but they have staff
and skill their own wind technicians to be able to stay on
these wind farms. There becomes the local labor connected with
the local community colleges and where our wind training
facility can help train those specific employees to return back
to Texas to really have a career, quite frankly, in that wind
farm.
Chairman Hinojosa. I will put their president in contact
with you and see if we can take advantage of that offer.
My next question would be to the last presenter, and
Nanine, you mentioned that local one-stop centers are ill-
equipped to help jobless workers get through the overburdened
application system. How can we get more cooperation from all of
the workforce training partners to expedite services during
this period of severe national unemployment problems where our
Nation's jobless rate is over 8 percent?
Ms. Meiklejohn. Well, it is not an easy answer.
Before WIA was established, the employment service and the
unemployment insurance workforce sat in the same location and
often were cross-trained so that they could do each other's
jobs; and when the economy changed, they could be shifted
around to meet the existing need.
Now, there are a couple of States that have actually
started to make an effort to get their employment service
staff, who are sitting in the local one-stop offices now, to
help process unemployment claims again as workers come into
those local offices. At the moment, most one-stop centers only
have a telephone link to the UI call center, but both
Connecticut and, now, Ohio are moving to shift some of their
employment staff who are sitting there over to doing UI claims
again.
So they are trying to knit back together a connection that
has frayed very badly over the last 8 years or so.
I wanted, if I might, just to supplement what some of the
other panelists have said about training and partnerships and
sectoral initiatives. And I would like to call your attention
to a program that our affiliate in Philadelphia, 1199 C, has
had actually for 35 years.
It is a very strong partnership with hospital employers in
the Philadelphia area. There are over 40 employers in that
partnership, and it is a labor-management partnership which
brings--they train--half of the people that they bring into the
training program are from the local low-income communities and
half are incumbent workers in the health care sector; and they
have created career pathways so that they can move people who
are unemployed and unskilled into jobs and move them up.
They have trained about 1,300 workers in the last year. And
they also partner with the Philadelphia school board and Youth
Build and the Philadelphia Youth Network. It is a very
expansive program which also receives WIA funding from the
State. So it is a really good model for a sectoral partnership
approach which involves strong participation by the local
union.
And I just want to also make the observation that WIA--one
of the, I think, unfortunate effects of WIA was that the role
of organized labor was sidelined pretty significantly by the
law and the extent to which it exists in local programs now is
very hit or miss.
Chairman Hinojosa. I like your recommendation, and after we
close this session, I would like to talk to you a little bit
more. Because we have a program in McAllen, Texas, that has
been very successful in increasing the number of students that
were underemployed and then trained in an associate degree
program that is allied health and nursing that has been very
successful. But we need to increase it even more, so I would
like it talk to you.
With that, I yield to Congressman Paul Tonko.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Joe Sarubbi, you mentioned that there are some challenges
in the administrative complexities in your testimony that
relate to the alignment of training programs. Can you just
elaborate on that, please?
Mr. Sarubbi. Again, when you look at the great job that the
Department of Labor is doing as far as pulling together
statistics and what is happening with the Workforce Investment
Board, sometimes there is a disconnect when it gets to the
level of the training, you know, within, for example, at a
community college, of kind of pulling that all together.
I don't believe we have enough business representation
involved with this creating that consortium of companies with
the Department of Labor, with Workforce Investment Boards and
community colleges together to figure out the best way to get
this training off the ground.
When I see students come to Hudson Valley, it is a daunting
task for most of them to be able to say, if I am a 40- or 50-
year-old person who has been laid off, ``I need to be
retrained; how do we make this happen?'' And they are brought
to Hudson Valley or any community college; we are trying to
give them the best services. What we need is a stronger
connection between the Department of Labor and the Workforce
Investment Boards and the colleges to make that happen, so that
we can be more successful with these students. I am starting to
see that kind of disconnect right now.
Mr. Tonko. Is there something in the reauthorization of the
act that you would recommend to this panel? Would there be a
specific improvement that would be required?
Mr. Sarubbi. I would like to see more employers invested in
some type of consortium that involves the Workforce Investment
Act that would allow employers to help us--working with the
Department of Labor and Workforce Investment Boards, help us
understand their employment needs and how they could also
participate in this particular process, whether it is on-the-
job training or supporting students who are coming out of high
school who need to get to that next level, displaced workers,
and/or the returning veterans.
If it is incentivized in a way that employers are willing
to take on these types of candidates in a way that would allow
them to grow within the job, I think we would have a strong
chance for them to succeed within the program while they are
gaining their training. So I see a stronger connection bringing
some of the employers into this act to make it happen more
successfully.
Mr. Tonko. And, Tom, when you talk about the 500,000
projected jobs by the Department of Energy----
Mr. Quick. Right.
Mr. Tonko [continuing]. In the wind industry?
Mr. Quick. Correct.
Mr. Tonko. I am going to make an assumption here that if an
underskilled, displaced worker or a student who comes to you
wants this training, might have an interest in an across-the-
board renewable opportunity, are we at risk of maybe siloing
what we train someone for?
Is there a way, once you capture that individual, to
provide PV training, the geothermal and wind? Is there an
across-the-board introduction, or do we channel that into the
site operators or wind technicians?
Mr. Quick. That is a good question. I think that there is
certainly a unique skill set for each part of the renewable
industry. It would be nice if one brush touches everyone who
had an interest in a career in the renewable industry.
I think there is a need to go deep inside of these
technical skill sets. Someone, for example, who goes deep with
the skills to be a wind technician may not be necessarily
trained to immediately go in and set up a solar farm. That is a
different type of a skill set.
I think we have got to work in concert with private
employers, with the Federal Government, and the educational
institutes to watch as we move forward with the Department of
Energy goal of 2030 to have 20 percent of electricity be wind
power, to determine where best do we need to train the workers
of tomorrow.
Mr. Tonko. Does the training focus come through your
training program that you described, or do you reach to a
program like Gail's that might have that traditional regional
aspect going, or to Nanine, where she might be able to provide
for, like, what use is there of apprenticeship programs for the
labor community?
Mr. Quick. I think you can really touch, quite frankly, all
three. We can sort of hire students who have gone through the
community college or technical colleges immediately to be
placed, for example, around the U.S. on wind farms.
But I think we can take that student, bring them then to
our wind training facility and train them specifically on
General Electric wind turbines so that they are in the best
position, quite frankly, to service our own manufactured wind
turbines across the U.S.
Mr. Tonko. Does anyone else on the panel have a response to
that? Anything you would add?
Mr. Musolino. I have a quick point I would make.
At the department we are actually trying to deconstruct
various jobs in the green area now to understand what the
common skill sets might be. Because a lot of what we have to
think about in WIA and all the training programs is really
about career ladders. And you might bring a young person in or
someone in with maybe not a high school education, maybe just a
GED, to start thinking about things like weatherization, which
is a fairly low level of skill. It requires some training,
short training courses, 40 hours to be able to do the building
envelope analysis.
But we would like to see how you move people up to higher
and higher skill levels, so they get more family-sustaining
wages and a better career path for that. We are doing that work
at the department now, and we are seeing that there are cross-
skill sets that we will be able to deal with.
Mr. Tonko. Do I still have time, Mr. Chairman?
With the concern for resources, that a couple of you have
made mention of, and the fact that the 2000 level is double
what you are working on right now, when you have that sort of
economic fiscal pressure, what gives?
Do you serve fewer people? Do you have less intense
training? Just how do you absorb that sort of shortfall?
Ms. Breen. I will take that one from a local level.
What we looked at, because obviously when you lose 50
percent of your funding, you are losing a tremendous amount of
money. Being three rural counties and people not have having
the computer skills that they might need to access our programs
by computers, the first decision we made that was that we need
to have a center in every county, and that was reinforced by
chief elected officials that said, You can do anything you
want, but don't take my resource room away from me.
After that, we looked at staffing. How much staffing could
we lose and still provide quality services? And again that goes
back to having an integrated service delivery system. If we had
to rely on just WIA staff or just employment service staff or
just VocRehab staff, we would never be able to continue to
operate our programs, but by having integrated services
delivery with functional supervision of those teams we have
done very, very well.
When you get down to the training aspect, you want to
continue to train at least at many people as you did before, if
not more. What that means then is, you have to train people for
shorter periods of time for lower level jobs. Where for years
we trained registered nurses, we have gone back to LPNs and
certified nurse assistants. Even a certified nurse assistant
still makes more money than an entry level wage than our actual
average level wage across the three counties.
Another thing we have started to do is going to the
community colleges and look at student who are in their second
year, who in trouble financially and might not be able to
complete the radiology technology programs, the
histotechnology, the RN, and bring them in and serve them too.
We don't serve less people; in fact, we serve more. But we
serve them with newer resources, and it means that we have to
serve at a different level.
Mr. Tonko. And for a facility like yourself, if someone has
an interest or finds that their makeup perhaps is such that
they are suited for a green collar opportunity, would you then
integrate them into a program like that at Hudson Valley?
Ms. Breen. Absolutely. And Fulton-Montgomery Community
College is currently working with HVCC in conjunction with
them. They might start out at FMCC.
Absolutely, we are looking at green jobs not just for
dislocated workers, but also for young people coming out of
high school or our GED programs. And we have GED programs in
each of our three counties and we have a pass rate of over 80
percent for our students.
Chairman Hinojosa. The gentleman's time has expired.
We are about to bring this to a closing, and I wanted to
ask the gentleman from Colorado, Congressman Jared Polis, if he
would like to have any closing remarks.
Mr. Polis. Yes, thank you. Closing remarks or questions for
the panel, as well?
Chairman Hinojosa. I will allow you to ask one or two
questions, then a closing remark.
Mr. Polis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
A question for Mr. Sarubbi: What efforts are being made by
your institution to recruit and remain a diverse and typically
underserved population, including women, in nontraditional
fields and minorities?
Mr. Sarubbi. That is a great question. We have reached out
into the inner cities. We have traveled to--faculty have
traveled even towards New York City, trying to attract inner
city youth about the value of technology programs.
Again, working with Youth Build programs, trying to get
students who are disadvantaged or are struggling just to finish
high school right now, we brought them to Hudson Valley
Community College. We actually get them through special program
that allows them to finish their GED and, while doing that,
pick up real trade technical skills in a construction industry.
And we have employers who are happy to pick them up.
We are reaching out to the female population as well. We
are starting to see an increase in the number of women in our
program, so much so that we highlight them on our marketing
materials to attract more women; and we move those publications
towards places where you would see more women actually interact
with those types of publications with the idea of attracting
females in that regard. And it has been successful so far.
Typically, most of the construction industries, as we know,
has been nontraditional for females, but we are doing our best
to try to publicize that as much as possible.
Mr. Polis. Thank you.
Final question for Mr. Musolino: Your State requires the 33
WIB boards to apply for regional, sector-based partnership
grants. My question is, are all of them participating and do
you recommend this model for consideration on a national basis?
Mr. Musolino. All of them are not participating. Those are
optional. That is additional funding that they can apply for.
I believe we have nine that have received those grants,
nine consortia across the State. Not all Workforce Investment
Boards are involved in it.
We do highly recommend it. It is a way to use incentive
dollars to get people to think in regional terms and cooperate
across our traditional Workforce Investment Board lots.
Mr. Polis. I would like to thank Mr. Tonko, in particular,
for helping to arrange this hearing, as well as highlighting
some of the wonderful work that upstate New York is doing in
this area that will help inform our own discussions as we work
towards the reauthorization of WIA. And again I express my
gratitude to Chairman Hinojosa for his efforts in leading the
WIA reauthorization efforts and making sure that we learn from
best practices across the country.
In my district, as well, there are many green collar jobs.
In addition to wind, we also have solar--a strong solar
industry. In fact, some of the turbines that Mr. Quick's lab
teaches people to use were tested in my district at the wind
farm of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden,
where they apply stress testing to wind turbines to see how
they will hold up over time, usually at the prototype stage
before they are rolled out.
Due to the excellent geophysical characteristics for solar
power in Colorado, we have also had tremendous growth in that
area, including both distributed solar installations on homes
as well as primary and applied research and development, some
of which is related to the Federal lab, the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory, others which now occur in the private
sector.
The testimony that you have given today will help all of us
on our committee, both those of us who are here and those of
who us can read the written testimony back in Washington, to
better formulate a national WIA Act that will truly take into
account our regional differences, as well as best practices
nationally, including some of the wonderful accomplishments you
have had here in upstate New York.
Thank you.
Chairman Hinojosa. Now I would like to ask our host,
Congressman Tonko, if you would like to make any closing
remarks.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Chair.
Certainly, I thank all of you for the focus that you
provide with the essential work that is done in training the
workforce of the future.
But an added thank you, and probably the most sincere I can
offer, is for the hope that you provide to individual workers
and their families. The despair of not having work opportunity
and the opportunity that you provide for individuals to know
that they have these capabilities and can develop even more is
a great bit of hope that you can instill, and I thank you for
that.
What I take from this is the need to continue to provide,
somehow with the reauthorization, enhanced flexibility so that
you can have that opportunity to strike those regional
strategies or partnerships that will best get the dollars to
most effective use.
And then the collaboration--if you can advise us into the
future, as we work on this mission, to best understand how we
can strike that collaboration amongst the States, working with
the Federal dollars, in our academic settings, our community
colleges and others, the apprenticeship programs and the
private sector needs and the private investments that are being
made--if we can strike a strongest bit of collaboration there,
with your guidance, it would be most useful.
And then I heard the message clearly about resources, and
whether we are dealing with the appropriators or the
authorizers, it is the amount of money that you have to invest
locally that is most telling. And to be able to address that in
meaningful measure, as we did in a down payment in the stimulus
package, certainly should be our goal.
So I thank you for your advice and the sage wisdom you have
imparted.
Chairman Hinojosa. As I come to my concluding remarks I
want to say that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
signed in mid-February by our President Obama included over $4
billion in funding for WIA programs; and now that the stimulus
plan has been approved with the $787 billion, it is our
responsibility to bring all the stakeholders who can work
together in different programs and take advantage of this
Federal investment to create jobs, good-paying jobs.
And so I want to say that, once again, I would like to
thank the witnesses and the members of the subcommittee for a
very informative session. As previously ordered, members will
have 14 days to submit additional materials for the hearing
record. Any member who wishes to submit follow-up questions in
writing to these witnesses should coordinate with our majority
staff within the requisite time.
And without objection, this hearing is adjourned. Thank
you.
[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
NEW INNOVATIONS AND BEST PRACTICES UNDER THE WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT
----------
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Higher Education,
Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness,
Committee on Education and Labor
Washington, DC
----------
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:12 a.m., in
room 2175, Rayburn, Hon. Ruben Hinojosa [chairman of the
subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Hinojosa, Bishop, Tonko, Titus,
Andrews, Tierney, Wu, Davis, Fudge, Polis, Pierluisi, Guthrie,
McKeon, Castle, Ehlers, Biggert, and Roe.
Staff Present: Tylease Alli, Hearing Clerk; Alice Cain,
Senior Education Policy Advisor (K-12); Fran-Victoria Cox,
Staff Attorney; Adrienne Dunbar, Education Policy Advisor;
David Hartzler, Systems Administrator; Jessica Kahanek, Press
Assistant; Mike Kruger, Online Outreach Specialist; Ricardo
Martinez, Policy Advisor, Subcommittee on Higher Education,
Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness; Alex Nock, Deputy Staff
Director; Joe Novotny, Chief Clerk; Melissa Salmanowitz, Press
Secretary; Margaret Young, Staff Assistant, Education;
Stephanie Arras, Minority Legislative Assistant; Robert Borden,
Minority General Counsel; Cameron Coursen, Minority Assistant
Communications Director; Chad Miller, Minority Professional
Staff; Susan Ross, Minority Director of Education and Human
Services Policy; Linda Stevens, Minority Chief Clerk/Assistant
to the General Counsel; and Sally Stroup, Minority Staff
Director.
Chairman Hinojosa. A quorum is present. The hearing of the
committee will come to order.
Pursuant to the committee rules, any member may submit an
opening statement in writing, which will be made part of the
permanent record; And I will recognize myself, followed by the
ranking member, Congressman Brett Guthrie, for an opening
statement.
Welcome to the Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and
Competitiveness Subcommittee's fourth congressional hearing in
preparation for the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment
Act, better known as WIA. As with our previous hearings, we are
going to focus on new innovations and best practices that will
improve the workforce development system. Today, we will turn
our attention to the adult education and family literacy
programs that are authorized under Title II of the Act.
We are facing the greatest world economic crisis since the
Great Depression. We need to retool our economy, and that
starts with investing in our people. The President made clear
his commitment when he set the goal of returning the United
States to number one in the world in producing college
graduates. He also issued a challenge to every American to
commit to at least 1 year of college or advanced training.
Adult education programs provide us the bridge to achieving
the President's goals. Unfortunately, today, this bridge does
not have the capacity to do the job. According to the national
assessment of adult literacy, an estimated 93 million adults
lack sufficient literacy skills to enroll in postsecondary
education or training.
Funding for adult education has actually declined. Today,
the adult education State grant program is funded at $554
million, roughly $20 million less than the funding level for
fiscal year 2004. These low levels of funding mean that we are
only able to reach an estimated 2 to 4 percent of the
population that needs adult education services.
In 2008, 2.3 million adults participated in federally
supported education programs. Of this total, roughly 1 million
participated in English as a second language programs. Nearly
another million enrolled in basic education programs for adults
with reading and math levels below the 8th grade, and the rest
were enrolled in secondary education programs that lead to a
GED.
The adult education programs have also played a critical
role in helping adult immigrants learn English and learn about
American society and American government. $68 million of the
adult State grant formula is dedicated to integrated English as
a second language and civics programs.
There are long wait lists for all of the adult education
services. Our challenge for the reauthorization of the
Workforce Investment Act is to develop innovative models that
will significantly expand our capacity to deliver adult
education. We need to fully develop the talents of our entire
population. We cannot afford to write off the other 93 million
adults. Therefore, we need a targeted, we need a focused
strategy to build a bridge to postsecondary education advanced
training and a better quality of life for adults.
This is where you panelists come in. We want to hear from
you, your recommendations and how we can make this a
reauthorization act that is going to take us the next 6 years
and get over this economic crisis and put more people to work.
Today's panel brings together experts in the field of adult
education, including the most important experts of all, adult
learners who have been able to achieve their goals through
adult education programs. I would like to thank you witnesses
for joining us today. I am looking forward to your testimony.
And now I yield to the ranking member, my friend
Congressman Brett Guthrie of Kentucky, for his opening
statement.
[The statement of Mr. Hinojosa follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ruben Hinojosa, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness
Good Morning. Welcome to the Higher Education, Lifelong Learning,
and Competitiveness Subcommittee's fourth hearing in preparation for
the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act. As with our
previous hearings, we are going to focus on new innovations and best
practices that will improve the workforce development system. Today, we
will turn our attention to the adult education and family literacy
programs that are authorized under Title II of the Act.
We are facing the greatest world economic crisis since the Great
Depression. We need to re-tool our economy and that starts with
investing in our people. The President made clear his commitment when
he set the goal of returning the United States to number one in the
world in producing college graduates. He also issued a challenge to
every American to commit to at least one year of college or advanced
training.
Adult education programs provide us the bridge to achieving the
President's goals. Unfortunately, today, this bridge does not have the
capacity to do the job. According to the National Assessment of Adult
Literacy, an estimated 93 million adults lack sufficient literacy
skills to enroll in postsecondary education or training.
Funding for adult education has actually declined. Today, the adult
education state grant program is funded at $554 million, roughly $20
million less than funding level for fiscal year 2004. These low levels
of funding mean that we are only able to reach an estimated 2 to 4
percent of the population that needs adult education services.
In 2008, 2.3 million adults participated in federally supported
adult education programs. Of this total, roughly 1 million participated
in English as a second language programs; nearly another million
enrolled in basic education programs for adults with reading and math
levels below the eighth grade; and the rest were enrolled in secondary
education programs that lead to a GED. The adult education programs
have also played a critical role in helping adult immigrants learn
English and learn about American society and government. $68 million of
the adult state grant formula is dedicated to integrated English as a
second language and civics programs. There are long wait lists for all
of the adult education services.
Our challenge for the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment
Act is to develop innovative models that will significantly expand our
capacity to deliver adult education. We need to fully develop the
talents of our entire population. We cannot afford to write off 93
million adults. Therefore, we need a targeted and focused strategy to
build a bridge to postsecondary education, advanced training and a
better quality of life for adults.
Today's panel brings together experts in the field of adult
education--including the most important experts of all--adult learners
who have been able to achieve their goals through adult education
programs. I would like to thank you witnesses for joining us today. I
am looking forward to your testimony.
I now yield to the Ranking Member, Mr. Brett Guthrie of Kentucky,
for his opening statement.
______
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this
hearing; and I welcome our distinguished witnesses, a great
Kentucky company here with us today, founded right near my
district.
Our country continues to face tough economic challenges. We
face complex and difficult problems as we work to restore
economic growth. Investing in our workforce is important to
ensure that workers are adequately prepared to meet the
changing demands of our economy. With proper investment, our
workforce can be strengthened and maintain its competitive
advantage.
When I first began in politics, I was running for the State
legislature in Kentucky and in the State Senate, and people
talked to me. What are you focused on? K-12? Secondary? Adult?
I said, really, it is K-R, kindergarten through retirement. It
became my mantra.
And several witnesses here that fit the mold is that some
people were not educated at the level they should have been
when they were younger and need education to get back in the
workforce. Because it is difficult to work without it. My
father went to work for Ford Motor Company, thought he would
work there until he retired. They shut the plant down, and he
had use his education to become a businessperson to find a job
for himself. And there are people who are working within
companies that see other opportunities and need to continue to
move forward.
Another thing I learned in Kentucky, we had a lot of people
that were functionally illiterate and then illiterate
completely and worked on those issues because you couldn't even
read a menu or a book to their grandchild. And we created
programs to get them into the system for higher education.
So it is an important thing that we are doing here, and our
economy depends on it. For us to have opportunities for people
absolutely depends on what we are doing on this committee, and
what you are sharing with us is going to help us do a better
job because of your life stories. We have some great life
stories. I am familiar with one, just being a fan; and I know
what your companies are doing with others.
Today, there are 5,000 federally sponsored adult education
centers across the country; and these centers are located in
schools, community centers, libraries, public housing,
community colleges, and volunteer organizations. In Kentucky,
Dollar General is one that we are working with in some
counties, because we realized people weren't going to school
because they had bad experience in a school. So let us go find
them where they are. And Dollar General has been a great, great
partner with us in moving forward with that.
And as we work to improve the Adult Education Family
Literacy Act of this Workforce Investment Act, we must remain
focused on improving the quality of instruction, promoting the
use of technologies, encouraging the business community to
invest. I look forward to today's testimony and learning more
of the best practices and innovative ideas around the country
as we work to improve the Workforce Investment Act.
Again, thank you all for coming to Washington today. It is
going to be great and informative, and I appreciate the
chairman calling this meeting, and I yield back.
[The statement of Mr. Guthrie follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Brett Guthrie, Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competiveness
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing and I welcome our
distinguished witnesses.
Our country continues to face tough economic challenges. We face
complex and difficult problems as we work to restore economic growth.
Investing in our workforce is important to ensure that workers are
adequately prepared to meet the changing demands of our economy. With
the proper investment, our workforce can be strengthened and maintain
its competitive advantage.
Education, including adult education and family literacy programs,
will be a critical component of ensuring that individuals have the
basic skills needed to move up the economic ladder to better paying
jobs or a higher education.
Today, there are some 5,000 federally-sponsored adult education
centers across the country. These centers are located in schools,
community centers, libraries, public housing, community colleges, and
volunteer organizations, both public and private, for-profit and non-
profit.
As we work to improve the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act
of the Workforce Investment Act, we must remain focused on improving
the quality of instruction, promoting the use of new technologies, and
encouraging the business community to co-invest in the skills of the
local workforce.
I look forward to today's testimony and learning more of the best
practices and innovative ideas from around the country as we work to
improve this aspect of the Workforce Investment Act.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
______
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you.
Without objection, all members will have 14 days to submit
additional materials or additional questions for the hearing
record.
Before we start, I want to talk a little bit about the
lighting system that we use for our congressional hearing. For
those of you who have not testified before this subcommittee,
please let me explain that lighting system and the 5-minute
rule. Everyone, including Members of Congress, are limited to 5
minutes of presentation or questioning.
The green light is illuminated when you begin to speak.
When you see the yellow light, it means you have 1 minute
remaining. When you see the red light, it means your time has
expired and you need to conclude your testimony.
Please be certain as you testify to turn on and speak into
the microphone in front of you.
We will now hear from our first witness, and I wish to
recognize Representative Phil Roe of Tennessee to make our
first introduction. Congressman.
Mr. Roe. I thank the chairman for yielding.
I would like to take this time to introduce a fellow
Tennessean to the committee, Ms. Gretchen Wilson. Ms. Wilson is
a multi-platinum recording country music singer and songwriter.
Her work has won numerous awards, including Female Vocalist of
the Year from both the Country Music Association and the
Academy of Country Music and the Grammy Award for the best
female country vocal performance. Right before this briefing,
members of the Tennessee delegation heard firsthand about Ms.
Wilson's passion for promoting and improving adult education.
Until last year, like so many Americans, she hadn't
completed her high school education. As she told us, it was
important for her to earn her diploma, not only for herself but
to show her 8-year-old daughter the importance of education. At
the age of 34, she received her GED on May 15, 2008, through
the Adult Learning Center of Wilson County in Lebanon,
Tennessee. We are not sure they didn't name the county after
her, too.
This perseverance helped make her a role model, and I am
pleased she chose to come to Washington to share her
experiences and insight to create a stronger adult education
system. She is very busy. She didn't have time to--did take the
time, due to a very busy and hectic schedule, to do this; and
we appreciate you spending your valuable time and passion with
us today. You are making a difference. Welcome to this
committee.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you very much for your
introduction.
The next person I wish to introduce is Mr. Marty
Finsterbusch. Marty was appointed VALUE's first Executive
Director in 2001. VALUE is the only national nonprofit adult
literacy organization in the United States governed and
operated by current and former literacy students.
Since 2000, Marty has served on Pennsylvania's Adult Basic
and Literacy Education Interagency Coordinating Council, having
been appointed by three different governors. During his
National Institute for Literacy Fellowship in 2000, Marty
studied adult learner involvement in all 50 States. He has also
served on the governing boards of several national and State
organizations, including SCALE, including Laubach Literacy
Action, which became ProLiteracy, and has also served on
Pennsylvania's State Coalition for Literacy. Welcome.
The next person will be Mr. David Bere, who is President
and Chief Strategy Officer of Dollar General. David joined the
company in December, 2006, after serving as a Director since
2002. Bere served from December of 2003 until June 2005 as the
Corporate Vice President of Ralcorp Holdings, Incorporated and
as the President and CEO of Bakery Chef, Incorporated. From
1996 to 1998, Bere served as President and CEO of McCain Foods,
U.S.A., a manufacturer and marketer of frozen foods and a
subsidiary of McCain Foods Limited. He spent 17 years at the
Quaker Oats Company, where he served as the President of the
Breakfast Division and the Golden Grain Division. In 1983, he
was appointed White House Fellow by President Ronald Reagan.
Bere earned both his bachelor degree and his master's of
business administration degree from Indiana University, and we
welcome you.
Ms. Kathy Cooper serves as Policy Associate for the Adult
Basic Education Office, Washington State Board for Community
and Technical Colleges, with an emphasis on external
relationships and new initiatives. She provides primary support
to the State's governor-appointed Advisory Council and has
served as a member of the subcabinet team that implemented
welfare reform. She acts as one of the leaders in developing
the integrated basic skills and professional technical
instructional model known as I-BEST.
Kathy started her career in education as a middle school
reading specialist in the State of Idaho. During her tenure,
she became department head at her school and eventually the
coordinator of secondary reading services for that district.
Mr. Stephen Reder is a university professor and chairman of
the Department of Applied Linguistics at Portland State
University. Dr. Reder's interests focus on adult education and
literacy and language development during adulthood. He was the
principal investigator of two recently completed major projects
in adult education, the National Lab Site for Adult ESOL and
the Longitudinal Study of Adult Learning, which followed a
random sample of about 1,000 high school dropouts for nearly 10
years, focusing on the way youths and adults failed or succeed
in reconnecting with learning, education, and work. A new
project directed by Dr. Reder is applying the findings of this
study to design an innovative learning support system called
the Learner Web.
Professor Reder is the author of numerous publications
about adult literacy, including the forthcoming book, Dropping
Out and Moving on: Life, Literacy and Development Among School
Dropouts, which will be published by Harvard University Press.
Also with us is Ms. Donna Kinerney. She is the
Instructional Dean for Adult ESOL and Literacy Programs, the
workforce development and continuing education unit for
Montgomery College. As Instructional Dean, Dr. Kinerney
provides administrative and instructional leadership for grant-
funded adult educational programs, including the Adult ESOL and
Literacy GED Program and Refugee Training Program, which serve
approximately 12,000 learners in need of English language or
literacy skills development per year.
Dr. Kinerney serves on the board of the Maryland
Association for Adult Community and Continuing Education and
was the chairwoman of the adult education interest section for
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
Also with us is Roberta Lanterman. Ms. Lanterman has been
working in the field of family literacy for over 15 years and
currently serves as Director of the Long Beach Family Literacy
Program in the Long Beach Unified School District. She also
serves as the Southern California training coordinator for the
McDonald's Family Mealtime Literacy Nights.
Ms. Lanterman has a bachelor's degree from the University
of California at Santa Barbara, a California multiple subject
teaching credential, and she is a certified trainer for the
National Center for Family Literacy.
I welcome each and every one of you, and I look forward to
your testimony.
At this time, we are ready to start with Ms. Wilson.
STATEMENT OF GRETCHEN WILSON, GRAMMY WINNING RECORDING ARTIST
AND GED GRADUATE
Ms. Wilson. My name is Gretchen Wilson. I came here today
to share my story of what adult education has meant to me and
to my family.
I, like many other young children, Americans, lived in a
household that was sort of volatile, wasn't the kind of place
where I really wanted to be or that my mother wanted me to be,
either. And at a young age, 14, my mother helped me to sign out
of school, and I moved out on to my own and started to support
myself. And I think what happens with a lot of young people is
that life just starts, and it takes over, and education gets
put on a back burner. You have to start worrying about more
adult things, like paying your bills and where your next meal
is going to come from. So I think that happens to a lot of
young people, as it did with me.
Life kind of got away from me, and I found myself in my 20s
uneducated and still not sure if this incredible dream that I
was chasing was ever going to come true. I was one of the lucky
ones, and the impossible did happen for me. I am incredibly
lucky, living a life that most people can only dream of.
I am a single mother of a beautiful child, and I also have
a musical career. But I found myself in my early 30s still
missing something, still feeling like there was a piece of me
that I had not completed. The first time I thought about going
back and getting my GED was almost immediately. And I feel like
that a lot of people feel that they would like to go back and
do something more, but it is not there for them. It is not easy
to find. It is not financially feasible.
In fact, if this dream hadn't happened for me, I don't
think I would have been able to go back and afford to finish my
education. This was something that I didn't have to do, but I
did for myself, for my daughter, for my family. I feel that I
am a better mother, a better person, a better human and a
better American because of this education. And I hope and I am
here to help other people's dreams come true, and hopefully we
can make other people feel as complete as I do.
Thank you.
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Wilson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gretchen Wilson, Grammy Winning Recording Artist,
GED Graduate
Hi. My name is Gretchen Wilson, and I'm here to tell you about how
important the adult education program has been to me.
I was one of many teenagers who was forced to leave home and school
at a very young age. And for most people, education takes a back seat
to work and financial commitment almost immediately. I know this
because I was one of those people. I struggled financially until I was
almost thirty years old, and the impossible dream came true. I became a
mommy * * * and a major recording artist for Sony Records. After having
been blessed with a life that most people only dream of, there was
still something missing, a piece of me that was incomplete. I chose to
continue my education not only for myself, but also for my daughter,
Grace. She's in second grade now, and she's getting ready to start
doing long division.
I realized that, as she got older, I would have to address
important issues with her, including the educational needs that had not
been met in my own life. I knew that she would be curious about things
that I valued, such as an education, and that she would ask me probing
questions like, if school is that important, then why didn't you
graduate? I also knew that she would need to ask me to help her with
much more difficult math problems than long division, and I wanted to
be ready to meet the challenge. I wanted to set a good example for her.
I was determined to complete my high school education by finding a
local adult education program and earning a GED, and I am proud to
stand before you today and say that I did. I'm not only blessed, but
also relieved that I'll be able to help her with her homework next
year.
Going back to school was an eye-opener for me in many ways. After
talking with others who had gone back to school, I realized that I was
only one person out of many people in need of a GED credential. Not
only was I among nearly 6,500 \1\ adults in Wilson County that lack
basic education skills, but also among 577,000 adults in Tennessee and
93 million adults in America with basic skills deficiencies.\2\
Additionally, one in five adults have not completed high school,\3\ and
nearly 7,000 high school students drop out every school day.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NAAL State and County Estimates: http://nces.ed.gov/naal/
estimates/StateEstimates.aspx
\2\ National Assessment of Adult Literacy: http://nces.ed.gov/naal/
\3\ U.S. Census: http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/
main.html?--lang=en
\4\ Alliance for Excellent Education: http://www.all4ed.org/files/
NCLB--HighSchools.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do young people leave school in your Congressional districts?
For many reasons, and the reasons may surprise you. Perhaps a family
member was sick, or they had to quit school to work for their family's
survival. Some had to travel with their parents who were in the
military or who were otherwise mobile because of job requirements.
Their education, as a result, was fractured. Credits that counted in
one school system would not count in another. They realized they did
not have enough credits to graduate, and they felt they had no
alternative but to quit. These are only a few examples out of the many
diverse reasons why young people leave.
In talking to people, my heart began to ache. There are so many
people struggling to make ends meet and they cannot because they do not
have high school diplomas. Their parenting skills are lacking. Many do
not have the basic education skills themselves nor do they understand
that they need to nurture and encourage their children to become well
educated. They do not have the social skills needed to navigate the
workplace, they feel inferior to their cohorts, and they often just
give up. People need the tools to succeed in America, and, at the very
minimum, a major tool on the road to success is a high school diploma
or GED. All Americans deserve a basic education so that they can take
advantage of opportunities otherwise not open to them.
Adult education and literacy is a silent epidemic that has been
growing for years. It isn't easily recognized like poor health or
hunger, although it can alleviate both. For example, nearly half of all
American adults-90 million people-have difficulty understanding and
using health information.\5\ In order to get good health care and to
raise healthy families, adults need to be able to understand the health
information available to them. That understanding increases as adult
literacy increases.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Institute of Medicine of the National Academies: http://
www.iom.edu/?id=19723&redirect=0
\6\ National Assessment of Adult Literacy: http://nces.ed.gov/naal/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Educated parents help children succeed and break the cycle of
educational deficiencies in families. Adult education and literacy
issues are invisible to America because most people who suffer are
ashamed of it, try to hide it, and will not speak out. Adult education
and literacy is not a priority for our country, but if you have had
your eyes opened like I have, then you see that it should be.
The sad truth is, if my dream hadn't come true, I probably wouldn't
have been able to afford to take off work in order to get my GED. A lot
of Americans out there who really want and need to continue their
education can't afford it, either.
Those who do go back to school, in between work and family
responsibilities, may be put on waiting lists. In a recent survey,\7\
80,000 adults (in 41 of 46 states reporting) confirmed students on
waiting lists in their state, not counting waiting lists with
community-based organizations that do not receive federal funds. There
is no excuse to wait list people. What would parents say if they were
told their child had to wait three months, six months, a year or more
to enroll their child in school? Americans would be in an uproar!
Parents would not tolerate it. Why do we tolerate it for adults?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ National Council of State Directors of Adult Education. 2007-
2008 Adult Student Waiting List Survey: www.ncsdae.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adults are wait listed for adult education and literacy programs
because these programs are severely underfunded. We invest heavily in
K-12, Head Start, and Early Head Start but the amount spent on adult
education and literacy is significantly less. Invest more in educating
the parent, and you'll educate the child and break the cycle of
illiteracy for generations to come. The reality is, you wait list
people, turn them away, and they're probably not coming back. You've
just added more undereducated adults to the statistics. The cycle
continues.
Talking to adult educators, every year they are under a cloud of
threats for closure or diminished funds. I can only imagine how
difficult it would be to work under that type of stress. These highly
educated and very dedicated men and women already work on a dime and
get more bang for their buck with the dollars spent on their programs
than on most federally-funded education programs. I challenge you to
show me another program out there anywhere in America that does so much
for its people with so little.
Less than an hour ago, I delivered thousands of letters from
Tennesseans to Tennessee Congressmen requesting additional funding for
adult education. Many of those who wrote are students, sharing their
educational goals and aspirations. Here are just a few examples of why
adult education is important to them (refers to stack of letters, reads
a sentence or two from them):
I lost my job after nine years because my plant moved to
Mexico, and I need to get my GED.
I'm the son of military parents who were constantly on the
move which kept me from receiving many credits, and I'd like to
complete my high school education.
I'm a single dad with two young boys. I come from a bad
side of the city where drugs and gangs run the streets. I want to turn
my life around through adult education.
I went from a person who could not read or write to an
operation's manager for a major company thanks to this program.
I came to America to get my education; I would like to
open a business here and help my community.
I had a traumatic head injury and lost my ability to read
and write.
These are just a few examples of hundreds of thousands of stories
told to Congress yearly about adult education and literacy. Why does
Congress seem to pay so little attention to this issue, when year after
year it is raised?
Last, I have been amazed at the numbers of lives I have personally
touched as a result of achieving my own GED. You have no idea how many
people approach me at my concerts to say that I have inspired them to
continue their own education. That knowledge inspires me, invigorates
me, and compels me to ask you to join me in championing adult education
and literacy. Begin now by urgently funding services to help adults
increase their skills and reduce waiting lists. Shape legislation that
truly meets the need. Raise this issue on every front. Advocate for it
in every hall. Be the pioneer that brings this silent epidemic to
light.
______
Chairman Hinojosa. I now call Mr. Finsterbusch.
STATEMENT OF MARTIN FINSTERBUSCH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, VALUE,
INC. (VOICE OF ADULT LEARNERS UNITED TO EDUCATE)
Mr. Finsterbusch. Thank you, chairman and committee
members, for allowing me to speak today.
My name is Marty Finsterbusch. And, yes, I am a director of
a national organization, but I am an adult learner. I went into
a literacy program in 1984 as a student. I was in special ed
and came out with only a 4th grade reading level. How do you
survive with that?
I found the literacy program. It got me up to a level, and
I finally got into community college, but it took 10 years to
get through community college with all the things that were
going on.
But what I really want to talk about and share with you is
that it is not just me. A lot of adult learners across the
country are coming into programs, getting some help, and they
are giving back, and they are getting involved. And we, the
students, have gotten together; and we have come up with
recommendations that we believe that will help us, our
families, our communities, and strengthen the United States.
Here are some of these recommendations that I would like to
share with you:
One is technology, investment in technology for adult
education. For a lot of us, we do have learning disabilities. I
cannot spell. Regardless of how long you sit me in a class, I
cannot spell. I can comprehend. I can do a lot of stuff. I can
plan a lot of things. But I can't spell. With the new
technologies out there for the blind and deaf, my workload
would double. I could do--if these technologies were introduced
into adult education for a lot of people.
Also, another issue that would help a lot of us is case
management for adult education. As I was going through the
system and wanted to move from ABE literacy programs into
community college, there is no direct path for us. How do we
maneuver this system? This system has a lot of silos in it. How
do we, if we don't know, if we want to go to college, who is
telling us about Pell grants? We don't have counselors like in
high school saying these are what you are going to face; these
are the requirements you need. So we are left trying to figure
out the system.
And what would help the whole entire system is case
management and introducing that to adult education. That would
help us navigate and help us more be successful in getting
through this.
The other issue that we came up with is soft skills.
Reading and writing and math is critical for our society, but
also critical in our society's survival is critical thinking,
organizing skills, diversity training. What we are hearing--and
this is what business is saying they need about people, but
this is what we are saying. And we are asking adult education
to look at what labor classifies as soft skills and allow that
into adult basic education.
We need these other skills besides. We can't wait until we
finally have 3 or 4 years in reading and writing if we have
don't learning disabilities or other issues before we can be
able to access these other--before somebody teaches these other
skills. We need them before we hit higher education or job
training.
And so these are just some of the recommendations that we
really believe that--let me just--I am getting nervous. I
apologize. Slow down. All right.
In summing up this, that adult education has helped
millions, and it helped me personally, and I cannot thank them
enough. But if we are going to help multimillions of Americans
who need help right now, we need to do a couple of things; and
that is, one, invest in adult basic education. We need to
upgrade it. And that is bringing in the technology and all the
other stuff that is out there into adult education.
And then the third is connect adult education to what is
going on in our society now, what is all the things that we are
facing. Higher education needs to be realistic. It is not here
is a book and here is a thing and it has no relationship to our
life. Project learning. We can get information as we are doing
something for ourselves, our family, and our community.
These are the recommendations that we are asking you to
consider; and in closing of this, we would like to thank you
for your support for our recommendations. We really do believe,
if we work together, we can make the American dream for
millions of men and women in this country.
Again, we would like to thank you for giving us this
opportunity to say this to you.
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Finsterbusch follows:]
Prepared Statement of Martin C. Finsterbusch, Executive Director of
VALUE, Inc.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee for this
opportunity to speak to you about the need for innovation to improve
our nation's adult education and literacy system.
My name is Marty Finsterbusch. I am the Executive Director of
VALUE, Voice of Adult Learners United to Educate. VALUE is the only
national nonprofit organization in the U.S. governed and operated by
current and former adult literacy students. VALUE's mission is to
improve our nation's education system and empower adults with low
literacy skills to realize their human potential. VALUE asserts that
almost all successful for-profit companies systematically use consumer
input and feedback to improve their products and services. VALUE helps
adult learner leaders, literacy professionals, and policy-makers do
this too. In addition to policy advocacy, we help state-level agencies
and organizations develop the capacity to train and support adult
learner leaders. We also conduct biennial national adult learner
leadership institutes and operate a national resource center on adult
learner involvement and leadership.
Ninety million adults in our nation have low literacy skills
according to the 2004 National Assessment of Adult Literacy. The
current adult basic education system is serving fewer than 3 million of
them. That means, 87 million aren't being served at all. The vast
majority of them don't want to seek help from a system that looks like
the schools that failed them in the past--a system that by its design
continues to reinforce the stigma of adult low-literacy. Many who do
seek help drop out because they can't achieve their own real goals in a
timely manner within a system that uses outdated methods. I come to you
today to plead for extensive changes to the current adult basic
education system authorized under Title II of the Workforce Investment
Act (WIA). If ever there was a system that cried out for reform and
innovation, the current approach to adult literacy in this country is
one such system.
But before I make specific recommendations on reform, let me give
you a bit more background on who we low-literate adults are and the
very real threats we face daily. First, I need you to put out of your
mind the unfortunate stereotypical image of the person with low-
literacy as being homeless and of low intelligence. For many, adult
literacy issues can be traced to undiagnosed learning disabilities,
failing schools, and family issues--all having more to do with class,
race, gender, and cultural bias than intelligence. As one of our
members stated:
``We are your family-members; we are your neighbors; we are your
co-workers. We are small-business owners; we are first-responders. We
are among the working poor and some of us are even millionaires. Few
around us ever know our truth. Because of shame and stigma, we keep it
hidden.''
And let me add, we are among the millions of people who worked for
decades in the industries of America that no longer exist or whose jobs
are being relocated to other countries.
When adults with low literacy skills publicly admit this
deficiency, some lose their jobs--jobs for which they received good
performance appraisals up until their secret was revealed; they lose
the chance at promotion; some lose the respect of their family,
friends, and co-workers. As another member stated:
``When we loose jobs, we are unable to transfer to new jobs and new
industries, not for lack of desire, but lack of literacy skills. We are
people who can't get into job training programs or off of welfare, not
for lack of desire, but because of a lack of literacy skills. We are
also people who want to learn English as the language of our new
country, but we can't because of the learning skills we failed to get
in our nations of origin.''
Far too few adults with low literacy skills are going to seek help
when faced with these very real threats. Especially, they will not seek
help from the current system.
My personal experience provides an example of what some low-
literate adults experience in our nation's educational system. As a
small child, I suffered from a serious ear infection that caused me to
miss-hear certain sounds. In the course of testing, my family
discovered that I have a learning disability. I started out going to
public school, but had to stay after school almost every day. I wasn't
learning to read, but my teachers would have promoted me anyway because
I was a good kid who tried hard. Instead, my parents sent me to a semi-
private special education school where there were no grade levels and
few challenges. The kids in my neighborhood asked, ``Why do you go to
that retard school?'' I graduated in 1982 with a 4th grade reading
level and a poor self-image.
After working for two years, I decided I wanted to go to college. I
knew I needed to improve my reading so I went back to my former school.
They said they couldn't help me because I already had my high school
diploma. They referred me to a community-based volunteer program.
There, I improved my reading 6 grade-levels in 14 months. I began
taking courses at the community college. Despite getting A's and B's in
all of my other courses, I kept failing English composition.
Documentation of my learning disability didn't excuse my inability to
spell. I was told I could never graduate until I passed my English
courses. With this obstacle on top of job and family responsibilities,
it took me 10 years to earn my Associates Degree.
During that time period, I dedicated the rest of my life to adult
literacy. I started by organizing a student support group in the
program that had helped me so much. I became a part-time staff member
there before moving to serve on its Board of Directors. Beginning in
1986, I organized a state student network; conducted workshops and
conferences at state and national levels; and served on the boards of
several national literacy organizations. I have been appointed to the
Pennsylvania State Interagency Coordinating Council under three
different Governors. In 1999, I was a National Institute for Literacy
Fellow, after which I became the Executive Director of VALUE, the
national adult leaner organization I helped create.
I talk with adult learners from around the country continually.
They share with me their insights, their frustrations, and promising
practices. I continually talk with my colleagues from state and
national literacy organizations too. I feel I am able to share with you
a good sense of what works and what doesn't work in our system--from
the consumer perspective.
VALUE believes it is unacceptable for the current adult basic
education system to serve less than 3 million adults each year using
19th Century methods, requiring 3-5 years on average for an adult to
achieve ``functional literacy.'' It is no wonder that perhaps as many
as 20% of learners drop out of adult literacy programs before
completing ten hours of instruction and less than 3% reach their
primary goal of earning their GED in 3-5 years. The system is simply
not designed to meet the self-identified and evolving needs of today's
learners and employers in a realistic timeframe--needs that should
redefine adult basic education.
VALUE's Social Change Initiative calls for a consumer-driven
redesign of the current adult basic education system in this country.
It must be redesigned to help many times more learners achieve their
personal goals faster using 21st Century approaches. Funding must be
dramatically increased to pay for this system modernization and
expansion. And finally, adult literacy policy must not be dealt with in
isolation; it must be integrated with other federal policies and
programs.
The Model T car, silent movies, and vaudeville have long been
outdated, yet the approach to adult literacy we use in this country
today is still based on assumptions and practices created before the
first Model T rolled off the assembly line, and long before the advent
of silent movies. We need to modernize this system. Many of the
recommendations that follow are based on the promising practices of
exceptional providers in the adult education and vocational
rehabilitation fields that VALUE asserts should be implemented
throughout a modern, innovative system.
First, adult learners should be taught to use modern technology for
reading and writing.
The adult basic education system must take advantage of tremendous
advances in technology. The current system uses the computer mostly as
a tool for drill and practice and largely ignores its potential to
speed up the process of meeting learner goals. Technology that reads,
writes, and translates exists today for the blind, the deaf, diplomats
and international business people. With widespread access to knowledge
through technology, adult learners can more rapidly gain the skills and
knowledge needed to be productive members of the global workforce.
UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Organization defines literacy as:
``the ability to identify, understand, interpret, create,
communicate, compute and use printed and written materials
associated with varying contexts. Literacy involves a continuum
of learning to enable an individual to achieve his or her
goals, to develop his or her knowledge and potential, and to
participate fully in the wider society.''
The focus of the current system in the U.S. is on reading and
writing. The focus should be on accessing and processing information
independently, as stated in the UNESCO definition of literacy. The Act
should require the use of technology, such as what is currently used in
the blind and low-vision community to enable adult learners to access
and process information independently much sooner than they are able to
in the current system.
Using modern technology to help them read and write, adult learners
could turn their attention to employment and training information much
sooner than if they had to first master reading and writing. It can
take three to five years for an adult learner to reach the point of
being able to access information by first learning to read. Using
technology, an adult leaner can learn to access information in three to
five months.
VALUE is not asserting that learning to read and write is no longer
important. We're simply saying that it doesn't have to hold back adult
learners from employment-related information and training when modern
technology provides access. Essentially, what we're suggesting is
replacing the current adult education and literacy approach with one
that looks much more like the vocational rehabilitation model. This
would shorten the time required for WIA Title II activities and make it
fit better with the Title I timeframe.
Those of us in the field promoting this new approach have coined
the term ``virtual literacy'' to describe it. Virtual literacy merely
is attempting to allow for the literacy assistive technologies
currently being used successfully in the disability community be used
throughout the adult literacy and job training communities. Because of
the major technological breakthroughs, the ability to make almost
anyone ``virtually literate'' is currently available, affordable, and
gaining wide acceptability in the general public. In fact, Congress
recently added a free software download to their website to enable
anyone with limited literacy capacity to be able to be ``read''--
through hearing--all Congressional materials.
Text-to-speech and speech-to-text dictation software is widely
available for personal computers. There are even very good software
programs available for free. And continually, new and improved handheld
devices are being introduced that make virtual literacy an increasingly
viable mobile option. With us here today we have representatives from
virtual literacy pilot programs at Drake and Michigan State
Universities who will be doing a hands-on demonstration this afternoon
for Senate HELP Committee staff.
Let me just add that with my learning disability, it is still a
tortuous exercise for me to write. Consequently, I dictate messages to
my interns. For longer documents like this testimony, I discuss with
writers what I want to say and then edit what they draft for me. I have
not yet learned to use the technology that I'm telling you about.
However, I am confident that when I do learn to use it, my productivity
will increase significantly because I will be able to do the writing
myself.
The adoption of this ``virtual literacy'' approach will require a
significant investment, as much or more in professional development as
in hardware and software. However, while data does not yet exist to
back me up, I think the cost/benefit ratio will be compelling as the
significantly reduced time required per student will make it possible
for many, many more adult learners to get the help they need.
Second, make case management a core service.
Currently the Act does not require the provision of case
management. Due to the complexity of the lives of adult learners, case
management should be required as a core activity. Case managers should
help adult learners deal with problems in their lives that prevent them
from pursuing their education and provide career guidance, making it
possible for them to make informed decisions and prepare for future
education, a job and/or job training.
Case managers are needed both in adult literacy programs and in
One-Stop centers. In OneStops, many adults with low literacy skills
find it very difficult, even intimidating, to navigate the one-stop
system of job, education, and training services. In some cases, low-
literate adults get bumped around from program to program, not knowing
how to describe their situation in a way that will help someone
determine what services they really need and in what order. Skilled
case managers could help them understand what is available and
successfully get the services they need and get them in the order they
need them. This would not only improve the customer experience, it
would also increase the overall efficiency of the system.
The situation is similar in adult literacy programs. Many adult
learners have personal difficulties, sometimes related to their low-
literacy skills, but sometimes unrelated, which distract or prevent
them from focusing on their adult basic education. Literacy-related low
self-esteem tends to make a bad situation worse. This is one of the
prime reasons adult learners drop out of a program. A case manager
could help learners get the help they need so they don't have to drop
out.
In some exemplary programs, having a current or former adult
learner take on this role enhances the rapport between client and
staff.
Adult learners' transition from the literacy program to further
education, employment, or job training is another area in which a case
manager is essential. Figuring out what your options are, what the
requirements are for each option, what next steps to take, and how to
prepare yourself for the transition can be a bewildering set of tasks;
I know it was for me at one point. In exemplary programs, a case
manager makes this process less intimidating and enhances the chances
for success. The critical policy point here is that the Act must permit
and encourage case management as a core service, not relegate it to an
ancillary or administrative function.
Third, adult education instruction should include workplace
essential skills.
Currently the Act doesn't address the much needed soft skills
including customer/client service; critical thinking/problem solving;
cultural sensitivity; leadership; negotiation; personal responsibility;
teamwork; and time-management are essential for the success of all
workers. Teaching these skills should be a core responsibility of all
adult literacy providers.
These skills are needed by those of us who pursue higher education
as well as those who take part in job training. The adult literacy
program is the place to teach them because many of us work one or more
jobs while we are in a literacy program or we get a job without taking
part in job training. These skills help us do better in our literacy
programs too.
Fourth, measure performance differently.
Learner goal achievement must be the primary measure of success for
a redesigned adult basic education system. The current system uses
standardized test scores as a primary measure of success and
consequently, the program focus is on successful test-taking rather
than goal attainment. Adult learners want to focus on their own goals,
not on artificial goals generated for local programs by ``experts.''
The use of measures such as standardized test scores are inconsistent
with a consumer-driven system.
The current system treats learners not as adults with time-
sensitive real-life goals, with job and family responsibilities, with
knowledge and experience acquired over a lifetime, and with the burden
of shame and stigma associated with low literacy, but it subjects them
to a traditional fixed drill-and-practice classroom model more
appropriate for working with children. So few seek help and many that
do drop out because this approach is completely inappropriate given the
complexities of adult lives in the 21st Century.
Adult education instruction should be customized to help individual
adult learners meet their self-defined personal goals. One size does
not fit all. Learners stay in programs as long as they see the
connection between instruction and their personal goals. Adult
education instruction should be based on a ``wealth model'' rather on a
``deficit model.'' The wealth model, which is more appropriate for
adults, helps learners realize their own strengths and knowledge and
use them as a basis for further learning; this builds better self-
esteem. Zeroing in and focusing on what adult learners can't do may be
appropriate in child education, but in adults it reinforces already low
self-esteem.
Fifth, share leadership with adult learners.
One of VALUE's core beliefs is that most successful for-profit
companies rely on consumer input and feedback to improve their products
and services; the adult literacy system should do this too. Adult
learners should be part of the planning, delivery, and supervision of
adult education services and research at every level. As recipients of
adult education services, adult learners have a unique, important, and
all-too-often overlooked perspective regarding what does and does not
work.
The consumer, the adult learner, isn't asked for input or feedback
about adult literacy policies and programs in any systematic way. Low-
literate adults are sometimes viewed as ignorant--at best, people to be
pitied and taken care of; at worst, people to be looked down on and
dismissed. As one of our members stated:
``When people find out we have low literacy skills, some suddenly
start to treat us differently--they talk down to us and show less
respect for our opinions, knowledge, and experience than they did
before they found out.''
Currently, the Act does not require that adult learners be
specifically included in program operation and governance at local,
state, and national levels. The system should be much more consumer-
driven. The Act should specifically require the integration adult
learners into program operation and governance at all levels; our
perspective is as important as that of literacy professionals and
bureaucrats and must be heard.
During the upcoming intergovernmental conference on adult education
to be held later this month in Brazil, UNESCO will consider an
International Adult Learners' Charter. In addition to affirming adult
literacy as a human right, this charter states that adult learners have
the right to a central role in policy development for adult and
lifelong learning systems. UNESCO officials anticipate approval of this
charter.
I should add that by and large the community-based program sector
of the adult literacy field has been the most willing to embrace an
advisory role, and in many programs a governance role for adult
learners.
Sixth, change participation requirements.
The adult education system should take into consideration that
adult learners have job and family responsibilities that limit their
ability to participate in adult literacy activities. The adult
education system must be flexible so learners can fit instruction into
their busy lives. Because research shows that learners make greater
learning gains with increased participation, participation requirements
were established for publicly funded programs. While they may be fine
for adults without significant job or family responsibilities, they are
unrealistic and inappropriate for many others.
Consequently, these participation requirements serve as a barrier
to some who seek help and cause others to drop out when they find they
just can't fit the required level of participation into their busy
lives. In such cases, dropping out or opting not to participate is a
choice they shouldn't have to make, especially since it is based on
research that fails to take into consideration the real-life demands of
adults. Additionally, a significant number of community-based adult
literacy programs forego public funding because they primarily serve
adult learners who can't meet the participation requirements. The Act
should expressly permit the flexibility needed so these programs don't
have to forego public funding in order to serve adult learners with one
or more jobs and family responsibilities.
Personal shame and societal stigma of low-literacy also present
significant barriers to participation in adult literacy programs. Adult
education policy and outreach efforts should be designed to address
these barriers.
Lastly, encourage adult basic education and job training activities
to be done together.
For many low-literate adults, the amount of time required to master
reading and writing skills under WIA Title II doesn't fit well with the
employment and training timeframe under WIA Title I or under TANF,
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. This incompatibility has
resulted in far too few opportunities for adults with low literacy
skills to participate in job training and literacy instruction at the
same time.
Research shows that learners can make gains more rapidly if
education and training are done together. In his 1997 book entitled
Functional Context Education: Making Learning Relevant, Dr. Thomas G.
Sticht wrote:
``Functional Context Education is designed to generate swift gains
in reading and math skills by teaching academics in the context of
learning and performing a given task. For instance, an electrician in
training may learn math concepts while she fixes a malfunctioning
device. Or a maintenance worker may improve his reading skills while
learning to use job-specific manuals, specifications, and forms.
Military researchers have found that compared with general literacy
instruction, this kind of learning-to-do instruction generates robust
and rapid gains in job-related literacy that endure over time.''
By having the adult basic education system adopt a ``virtual
literacy'' approach, the incompatibility between Title I and Title II
timeframes can be minimized. As a result, more bridge programs
combining adult literacy and job training can be offered, which
benefits both adult learners and the system as a whole.
In conclusion, the adult basic education system must not be viewed
as a second chance system for people who failed earlier in life. For
many like me, it was the inadequacies of the K-12 system that failed
us. Rather, a strong adult basic education system must be viewed as an
essential part of the prescription for our nation's economic health and
prosperity. Adult literacy is an essential public policy concern; it
must not be dealt with in isolation, but rather integrated with other
policies and programs. The success of policies and programs dealing
with early childhood education, health care, welfare, retraining the
American workforce, and maintaining a strong military with capable
recruits are all linked to having an adult population with better
literacy skills. We cannot continue to waste the potential of the
current adult population by devoting so little attention and resource
to the adult basic education system. With all federal and state funding
combined, less than 4% of adults with low literacy skills are in adult
basic education programs and many programs have long waiting lists. And
we can not well serve the current adult population by attempting to
simply replicate the existing traditional fixed drill-and-practice
classroom model.
Thank you for this opportunity to talk with you today. I look
forward to working closely with you and your staff in creating a modern
and appropriate adult literacy system that is truly designed to meet
the 21st century needs of adult learners.
______
Chairman Hinojosa. The next presenter is Mr. David Bere.
STATEMENT OF DAVID BERE, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF STRATEGY OFFICER,
DOLLAR GENERAL CORP.
Mr. Bere. Mr. Chairman, respected members of the committee,
thank you for the opportunity to speak.
As you mentioned earlier, my name is Dave Bere; and I am
the President and Chief Strategy Officer of Dollar General
Corporation. I am here today to talk as a businessperson that
views this topic as one of the most important issues facing our
country.
Chairman Hinojosa. Would you please turn on your
microphone?
Mr. Bere. It is on. Does that help?
Chairman Hinojosa. Much better.
Mr. Bere. As a way of background, Dollar General is the
largest discount retailer in the United States by number of
stores, with more than 8,400 stores in 35 States. We are a 70-
year-old company in the Fortune 300, $10 billion in sales, with
more than 72,000 employees.
Adult literacy is important to Dollar General for a number
of reasons. Our cofounder, J. L. Turner, was functionally
illiterate, with only a third grade education. His family's
recognition of that tremendous burden formed the beginning of
the company's long legacy of support for adult learners.
But, today, we see more than ever the pressures that low
literacy skills can put on business success and productivity.
Importantly, adult literacy challenges in this country impact
our customers and our employees in particular. We see the
hardships they face every day, and we want to help them.
And indeed we are helping. In the last 15 years, Dollar
General has donated more than $33 million to literacy and basic
educational efforts that have helped more than 1.6 million
adults improve their literacy skills. We underwrote the work of
the National Commission on Adult Literacy, which released its
findings and recommendations last June in a report entitled,
Reach Higher America: Overcoming Crisis in the U.S. Workforce.
As members of this subcommittee, I know you are aware the
tremendous need to improve the literacy skills of our adult
labor pool goes beyond the reach of the public K-12 school
systems. We live in the most powerful nation in the world, and
yet one-third of our adult population cannot read well enough
to succeed in most work environments. And, at the same time, a
large majority of the new jobs created over the next 5 years
will require a bachelor's degree or some secondary education or
training.
Let me put it to what it means to Dollar General. Simply
put, if we continue our current track, over time Dollar General
and other businesses across America will not have the skilled
workers required for growth and competitiveness. Even worse, we
will continue to grow economically apart as a nation; and key
segments of our population will be left out of the new
workforce.
During the 2009 fiscal year, Dollar General will expand our
workforce with the creation of more than 4,000 new jobs in our
stores and distribution centers as we open at least 450 stores
in neighborhoods across the country. Many of these jobs provide
a great point of entry into the workforce. However, because of
the evolution of the retail industry and the increased use of
technology, even those entry level jobs require competent
literacy and basic technology skills.
Now, to help increase the skill set of our employees, we
have on-site GED classes and ESOL classes at our distribution
centers. We offer a GED reimbursement program for full-time
employees; and through the partnership of ProLiteracy, we offer
a literacy and basic educational referral program for employees
and customers that generates more than 6,000 referrals
annually.
We recognize the value of incumbent worker training, tax
credits, incentives to encourage businesses to hire and invest
in professional development and basic skills of lower skilled
workers. However, as we all know, the business community cannot
tackle all the challenges. We need your partnership and that of
the States and nonprofit sector to effectively address this
need.
As we address this important issue, we highly recommend
that together that we keep adult literacy high on the national
agenda. Specifically, we ask the following:
We ask for the committee's consideration of the
recommendations presented by the National Commission on Adult
Literacy.
Two, we ask that the committee evaluate the funding sources
for literacy and ensure there is an open dialogue between
funding streams. We need to build strategic collaborations
between and among government agencies and between those
agencies and the private sector.
Three, we ask the committee to recognize the valuable role
and increased support for community based organizations that
help adults at the lowest levels of literacy so that they can
receive the personal instruction that they need.
Thank you very much for your time and attention.
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Bere follows:]
Prepared Statement of David Bere, President and Chief Strategy Officer,
Dollar General Corp.
Mr. Chairman and respected members of the Committee, thank you for
the opportunity to speak with you today. My name is David Bere. I am
President and Chief Strategy Officer of Dollar General Corporation.
Dollar General is the largest discount retailer in the United States by
number of stores with more than 8,400 neighborhood stores located in 35
states. We are headquartered in Goodlettsville, Tennessee and employ
more than 72,000 workers. As a large employer, we have a vested
interest in ensuring that this country has a workforce that is prepared
to meet the challenges of doing business in the 21st century.
Dollar General's History with Adult Literacy
Dollar General's history of supporting literacy dates back to 1939.
Our co-founder, J.L. Turner, was functionally illiterate. He had to
drop out of school in the third grade when his father was killed in an
accident. As the oldest child in the family, he never had the
opportunity to return to school. However, with hard work and
determination he started the Fortune 300 company we recognize today as
Dollar General.
Dollar General is committed to supporting literacy, not only
because of our founder's legacy, but also because of our commitment to
meeting the basic needs of our customers and employees. Since 1994, we
have donated more than $33.4 million to nonprofit literacy efforts. We
have helped more than 1.6 million adults receive basic education
assistance and provided more than 50,000 literacy referrals to
individuals who would like to learn to read, prepare for the GED or
learn the English language. Dollar General also underwrote the work of
the National Commission on Literacy, which released its findings and
recommendations last June in a report titled, Reach Higher America:
Overcoming Crisis in the U.S. Workforce. This report shows the
connection between our country's global competitiveness and the need
for a workforce that can read, write, do math, speak English, and use
technology.
While we are proud of our investments in literacy and basic
education, we recognize that the staggering number of adults in need of
basic literacy and education assistance continues to grow. It will take
the federal government, state governments and an increased awareness
across the nation to initiate the tide of change needed to give back
the American Dream to the American people and to those arriving in our
country looking for opportunities to improve their lives.
Adult Education in the United States
According to the National Assessment of Adult Literacy, 93 million
adults in the United States--or roughly 30 percent of our nation's
total population--read at the two lowest levels of literacy.
Unfortunately, we have become a society that is desensitized to
numbers and statistics. So, I would like to put this statistic into
context. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 93 million exceeds the
total population of the following states combined:
New York;
Texas;
Pennsylvania;
Tennessee;
Ohio;
Delaware;
Indiana; and
Michigan.\i\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\i\ US Census Bureau, Population Finder
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact on Business
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 63 percent of the 18.9
million new jobs created during the 2004--2014 period are projected to
be filled by those with at least a bachelor's degree.\ii\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\ii\ United States Department of Labor, Employment and Training
Administration, Why America Needs an Educated and Prepared Workforce
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the Employment and Training Administration's report on
Why America Needs an Educated and Prepared Workforce, 90 percent of the
fastest growing jobs in the United States require some level of post-
secondary education or training.\iii\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\iii\ United States Department of Labor, Employment and Training
Administration, Why America Needs an Educated and Prepared Workforce
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We live in the most powerful nation in the world, and yet one third
of our population cannot read well enough to succeed in most work
environments.\iv\
The National Center on Educational Quality of the Workforce
estimates that literacy deficiencies result in an estimated $60 billion
loss in productivity in the United States annually.\v\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\iv\ US Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences,
National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy
Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy
\v\ Policy Brief, The Working Poor Families Project: Strengthening
State Policies for America's Working Poor;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are more than 150 million people in the US work force.\vi\
While there is great need for support of K-12 programs, only two
percent of the annual workforce will come from the current year's high
school graduating class.\vii\ Therefore, there is a great need to
invest in the adults that are already in the workforce to maintain our
global competitiveness and increase the employability of the current
labor pool.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\vi\ Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Situation Summary,
March 2009
\vii\ Bureau of Labor Statistics, Economic News Release, College
Enrollment and Work Activity of High School Graduates, 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What does this mean to business?
To maintain the United States' ability to compete globally, we must
address the issue of adult literacy and basic education in our nation.
We can no longer allow this silent epidemic to cripple our productivity
and diminish our standing in the world's economy. The inability of so
many of our adult citizens to read, write, speak English, and to
perform other vital basic work and life tasks at a proficient level
threatens the social fabric of our nation as well as the vibrancy of
our local and national economies.
What does this mean to Dollar General?
Dollar General employs more than 72,000 people across 35 states at
our stores, distribution centers and corporate office. Despite the
tough economic times, we are creating more than 4,000 new jobs this
year and opening at least 450 stores in communities across the country.
Retail jobs are a great entry point into the workforce for many
individuals. Through the retail experience, individuals learn basic
business skills, customer service and technology skills that can help
them transition into higher paying management positions within retail
or transition to other sectors.
While retail is a great point of entry into the workforce, the
evolution of the retail industry has necessitated that Dollar General
and many other retailers require a higher level of basic skills for
entry-level workers. This is true at our neighborhood stores and in our
distribution centers.
To meet the educational needs of our workforce, we have on-site GED
classes and ESOL classes at our distribution centers. We offer a GED
reimbursement program for full-time employees. Through a partnership
with ProLiteracy, we offer a literacy and basic education referral
program for employees and customers across our 35 state market area.
That program, which we are very proud of, generates more than 6,000
referrals annually.
We recognize the value of incumbent worker training and are
developing plans to expand and strengthen our training programs for
lower skilled workers. We support training programs that are designed
to increase productivity and the potential for company growth while
increasing an employee's basic education, work skills, earnings
potential and potential for upward mobility. Other companies support
and provide similar programs. However, for a variety of reasons,
businesses alone cannot tackle all the needs of incumbent workers. The
cost of training and lost or delayed productivity can present
challenges for businesses. Additionally, because individuals have
different preferences in terms of where and how they want to receive
instruction, it is difficult for a company like Dollar General to meet
the needs of all of its workers who want to improve their literacy
skills. To meet those critical needs, we need continued support from
and partnership with federal and state governments. Therefore, we
encourage and ask for your continued support of tax credits and
incentives to encourage businesses to hire and invest in the
professional development and basic skills of lower skilled workers.
We also need to increase access to programs for employees outside
of the work environment. Entering a classroom for an adult learner can
be intimidating. For matters of privacy and pride, some employees do
not want to take classes on-site or in a setting with their peers. We
understand and respect our employees' desire for confidentiality.
Therefore, in those circumstances, we make every effort to refer them
to a local program to receive the assistance they need. When making
outside referrals, we are challenged by access to instruction due to a
waiting list or the absence of programs in rural markets for learners
at all levels. Therefore, we ask for your continued support in
increasing access for learners.
With increased funding for incumbent worker training programs and
more parity in funding for community-based and institutional-sponsored
programs, we can help resolve some of the challenges noted above.
Dollar General remains steadfast in our commitment to literacy. Our
support for adult education will not waiver. Today, we extend our hand
in partnership and hope that you will join us in expanding
opportunities for adult learners across the nation.
Conclusion
Winston Churchill once said, ``It is no use saying, we are doing
our best. You have got to succeed in doing what is necessary.''
As you address this important issue, we ask that you help ensure
that adult literacy is high on the national agenda and that you
consider these four specific things.
1. We ask for the Committee's consideration of the recommendations
presented by the National Commission on Adult Literacy in its report
titled, Reach Higher America: Overcoming Crisis in the U.S. Workforce.
2. We ask that the Committee evaluate the funding sources for
literacy and ensure that there is open dialogue between funding
streams. We need to build strategic collaborations between and among
government agencies and between those agencies and the private sector
to ensure that we are working toward a common goal and strategically
focusing funding efforts.
3. We ask the Committee to continue to support employment tax
credits such as the Work Opportunities Tax Credit, the Welfare-to-Work
Tax Credit and also incentives for Incumbent Worker Training Programs
across the United States.
4. We ask the Committee to recognize the valuable role and increase
support for community-based organizations that help adults at the
lowest level of literacy receive the personalized instruction they need
to increase their employability and advance to traditional Adult Basic
Education programs.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony and for
your work in this area of critical importance to our country.
______
Chairman Hinojosa. At this time, I would like to call on
Kathy Cooper.
STATEMENT OF KATHY COOPER, POLICY ASSOCIATE, OFFICE OF ADULT
BASIC EDUCATION, WASHINGTON STATE BOARD FOR COMMUNITY AND
TECHNICAL COLLEGES
Ms. Cooper. Thank you for the opportunity to talk with you
this morning about innovation by adult basic education programs
and community and technical colleges in Washington State.
I would like to start by telling you what caused us to
innovate. Simply put, we looked at what was happening in our
State and compared that with the outcomes of our efforts.
Despite good work, we fell short of meeting the accelerating
needs of our students and State. We were serving well less than
10 percent of the people that needed our services, with serious
implications, because these underprepared and underserved
adults are our fastest growing population and will make up all
of the growth in our State's workforce.
Second, our students were not succeeding. Joint research by
the State Board and the Community College Research Center at
Columbia University found that too few adult learners reach
what the study called the tipping point. That is enough
education to significantly impact their own self-sufficiency
and move students into the talent pipeline.
Finally, our employers couldn't find the workers that they
needed.
This combination of factors caused us to look at change.
So what are we doing that is different? Our flagship effort
is I-BEST, Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training. I-
BEST puts an adult basic education and professional technical
instructor in the same classroom at the same time. They offer
instruction that integrates job-specific and basic skills for
students ready to succeed. That instruction leads to a real
certificate recognized by local employers in a demand field
with a living wage job. It is the same certificate earned by
traditional college students, and it earns college credit. And
this instruction prepares students not only for the first step
on an education career pathway, but it gives them the skills
and knowledge they need to continue. You add to that a full
range of student support, and you have I-BEST.
So how then do we know that it is working? One measure of
I-BEST's success is the growth of our programs. In 3 years, we
have gone from 10 pilots to 138 approved programs at all 34
community and technical colleges in our State.
Another measure is how I-BEST students perform. For
example, Tacoma Community College has an I-BEST accounting
program that includes adult basic education and traditional
students. But there is a difference in the performance of these
two groups. One hundred percent of I-BEST students are retained
in this program. Their average grade point average is a 3.5,
and all of them pass the courses.
We also have independent evidence of our success. The
Community College Research Center just released a working paper
that documents that I-BEST students on average earn not only 52
credits more than needed to reach the tipping point, but they
also increase their basic skills faster than students enrolled
in traditional classes. The data confirmed that I-BEST works.
Finally, what can we ask you to do to support these kinds
of efforts as you reauthorize WIA Title II?
First, we would ask you to redefine the purpose of Title II
as students success in postsecondary programs and progress
along career pathways.
Second, we would ask you to reform the data and
accountability system to reflect that new purpose and to make
sure that the data we report is useful for teaching and
learning as well as accountability.
Finally, we would ask you to link a clear purpose for adult
basic education and reformed accountability with increased
funding. It makes no sense to acknowledge the exponential
increases in underfilled populations in our country, as well as
the continually increasing levels of skill required for a
recovering economy, and then starve the solution for both of
those issues. At a specific level, we recommend that new
legislation include a $75 million appropriation for seeding and
scaling up approaches like I-BEST.
We are proud of the innovative efforts at community and
technical colleges in Washington State. As you reauthorize WIA
Title II, you can make it possible for us to expand those
efforts and to be joined in innovation by colleagues across our
country.
Thank you.
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Cooper follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kathy Cooper, Policy Associate, Washington State
Board for Community and Technical Colleges
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Kathy Cooper,
representing the Office of Adult Basic Education for the Washington
State Board for Community and Technical Colleges in Olympia,
Washington.
Thank you for the opportunity to address the innovative efforts of
adult basic education programs at Washington state's community and
technical colleges. I'm going to do that by answering four questions:
``Why innovate? Why isn't the way we've always done adult education
good enough?''
The short answer is that we looked at what was happening in our
state and compared that to the outcomes of our efforts. Despite good
work, the data showed that our efforts fell short of meeting the
continually accelerating needs of our students and our state.
Specifically we learned three important things:
First, we were serving less than 10% of those that needed our
services. This had serious implications for our state's future because
these under-prepared and under-served adult workers are from our
fastest growing populations and will account for all of the net growth
in our state's workforce for at least the next two generations.
Second, not enough of our students were succeeding. Joint research
by our state board and the Community College Research Center at
Columbia University found that too few low-income adult learners in our
colleges ever reach what the study called the ``Tipping Point,'' that
is, enough education to make a significant difference in economic self-
sufficiency and to enter into the talent pipeline needed by our state's
employers to compete.
Third, our employers, in the midst of the last recession and at the
height of our economic boom, couldn't find enough qualified workers. In
fact, the number of Washington employers who identify lack of basic and
English language skills among workers as a barrier to their success
tripled in two years.
This combination of changing demographics, accelerating skill
requirements, students' goals, and our determination to help every
student move forward further and faster toward the Tipping Point is
what spurred us to innovate.
What are we doing that's different?''
The flagship effort among our innovative practices is I-BEST--
Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training. (See the I-BEST
summary.)
At its core, I-BEST tosses to one side traditional assumptions
about educational scope, sequence, and readiness to learn. I-BEST puts
an adult basic education and a professional-technical instructor in the
same classroom at the same time. They offer instruction that integrates
jobspecific and basic skills for any student that is ready to succeed,
whether or not they have a GED or high school diploma. That instruction
leads to a real certificate recognized by local employers in a demand
field that pays a living wage. It's the same certificate earned by
traditional college students and it carries college credit. And that
instruction prepares students not only for that first step on their
education and career pathways, but it gives them the skills and
knowledge they need for the next step. Change your mental image from
the picture of a career ladder with rungs spread too far apart for some
of us to reach into the image of a chain with links that interlock.
That's IBEST.
Beyond integrating basic skills and professional-technical
education, I-BEST students also receive a full range of student
supports, including advising, counseling, case management and financial
aid. This blend of enhanced student services with innovative
instruction is also I-BEST.
``How do we know it's working?''
This question has the same answer as the first question: We listen
to what our data are telling us.
One measure of I-BEST success is the growth of the program. I-BEST
has expanded from pilots at 10 colleges to 138 approved programs at all
34 community and technical colleges in our state. (See the Program
Inventory)
Another measure of success is how much better I-BEST students
perform. For example, Tacoma Community College has an I-BEST accounting
program that includes adult basic education and ESL students along with
the adults you would expect to see in a community college classroom.
But there is a difference in the performance of these two student
groups. 100% of I-BEST students are retained in the program. Their
average GPA is a 3.5. Finally, all of the I-BEST students pass the
courses. In short, their outcomes outpace traditional students.
We have independent evidence of I-BEST success as well. Columbia
University's Community College Research Center just released a working
paper at the end of April that documents IBEST's positive outcomes. The
paper notes that I-BEST students, on average, not only earn 52
credits--more credits than needed to reach the Tipping Point, but they
also increase their basic skills more than students enrolled in
traditional ABE classes. With the same hours of instruction, 62% of I-
BEST students make significant gains compared to 45% of traditional ABE
students.
The data just confirms what our students tell us all the time: I-
BEST works.
What can Congress do to support these kinds of efforts, especially as
you consider reauthorization of WIA, Title II?
From the perspective of Washington state we need three changes in
order for us to continue to innovate and bring to scale successful
practices.
Redefine the purpose of Title II as student success in post-
secondary education and progress along career pathways. 86% of the
students who come to adult basic education in Washington state come to
get and keep a good job. And we know that they must progress at least
as far as the Tipping Point to achieve that dream. Surely the focus of
our national system should reach as far as the vision of our students.
Reform the data and accountability system to reflect the new
purpose and make the data useful for teaching and learning, as well as
accountability. We embrace accountability that is objective,
measurable, and evidence-based and we want it to be useful. The data
must tell us if students are making progress toward the skills and
credentials that have meaning in the labor market and their own lives.
And it must tell us which program activities are most effective. And we
need it in real time so that we are able to improve outcomes.
Link a clear purpose for adult basic education and a reformed
accountability system with an increase in funding so that adult basic
education programs can expand services to the growing numbers of adults
that needs them. It makes no sense to acknowledge exponential increases
in under-skilled population groups as well as continuously increasingly
levels of skills required by a recovering economy and then starve the
solution to them both.
On a specific level, we recommend that new legislation target $75
million in new Title II state grant appropriations for seeding and
scaling up approaches that integrate basic skills and postsecondary
education and training or which dually or concurrently enroll students
in basic skills and post-secondary education and training.
We also recommend that the Secretary of Education conduct an
evaluation of the impact of integrated programs on the rate at which
students attain career and post-secondary success.
We are proud of the innovative efforts of adult basic education
providers at community and technical colleges in Washington state. As
you reauthorize WIA Title II, you have the opportunity to create a
fresh vision and new opportunities that will make it possible for us to
expand those efforts and be joined in innovation by our colleagues
across the nation.
Thank you for your time this morning. We believe that better skills
lead to better jobs, leading to better lives. And that is still the
American dream.
I am happy to take your questions.
______
Chairman Hinojosa. Now I would like to call on Stephen
Reder.
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN REDER, PH.D., UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR AND
CHAIR, DEPARTMENT OF APPLIED LINGUISTICS, PORTLAND STATE
UNIVERSITY
Mr. Reder. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman and subcommittee members, I am Steve Reder,
University Professor and Chair of the Department of Applied
Linguistics at Portland State University and a board member of
ProLiteracy. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak
this morning.
Like you, I am moved by Gretchen's and Marty's compelling
stories.
With my colleagues, I have been conducting the Longitudinal
Study of----
Chairman Hinojosa. Would you please turn on your
microphone? Move it closer to you.
Mr. Reder. Thank you.
With my colleagues, I have been conducting the Longitudinal
Study of Adult Learning in which we have followed a random
sample of about 1,000 high school dropouts for nearly 10 years.
Even though I am formally representing only myself in this
hearing, I am humbled by the opportunity to speak for the
thousand adults whose stories we have been listening to and
learning from and the millions more just like them across the
country.
America likes to celebrate people such as Gretchen and
Marty who have beat the odds. What I have learned is that,
through adult education, we can do something even better. We
can change the odds.
The population we followed includes adults who have
attended literacy programs and ones who haven't. Careful
comparison of their experiences over a long period of time
reveals the impact of programs on literacy development,
continuing education, and family wage employment.
The bottom line is that programs make a difference. So I
urge Congress to reauthorize WIA Title II programs to
contribute to our economic recovery. The research shows that
many adults work independently to improve their basic skills or
prepare for the GED, including many who never attend a basic
skills program. This, along with the long waiting lists found
at many programs, tells us that there is much more demand for
services than the system can supply. So I urge Congress to
expand Title II programs to meet the needs.
If we really do want to change the odds, this increased
funding should not be used only to do more of exactly the same
things. We need to increase the capacity and effectiveness of
the adult education system, especially for those most in need.
Here are four priorities my research suggests we pursue:
One, build persistence in adult learners. The road to many
adult learners' goals is long, requiring great motivation and
persistence of learning. Programs need to engage students for
much longer periods, especially those coming in at the lowest
skill levels. As the poet William Butler Yates put it,
education is not filling a bucket but lighting a fire. We need
an adult literacy system that not only lights the fire but
keeps it burning.
Two, improve the National Reporting System, or the NRS.
Although I strongly support program accountability, we need to
improve the accountability system being used in adult
education. The NRS misses important program impacts by focusing
on short-term outcomes and narrow measures of literacy
development. It uses too short a follow-up period for the
literacy measures it employs and thus may not help programs put
their best foot forward or support their improvement efforts.
Three, develop learning support systems. To increase
persistence, adults need learning support systems that provide
portable, personalized learning plans they can follow. These
plans might include periods of time in attending programs or
working independently with tutors or receiving support services
from community based organizations or volunteer programs.
Grants could assist communities to develop local learning
support systems, perhaps utilizing technology to facilitate
collaboration and information sharing among the various
organizations working with the same learners.
Four, utilize technology to increase system capacity. Many
adults engage in periods of self-study before or after periods
of program participation. Programs could increase their
outreach and enrollment and increase their students'
persistence by using technology to connect these self-directed
learning activities with traditional classes. This would
broaden the role of technology from offering distance education
to connecting different learning modalities and activities over
time.
To pursue these and other priorities, the adult literacy
field needs an independent, comprehensive research and
development center. Although the Department of Education
established R&D centers for adult literacy that operated
successfully for 15 years, funding for such a center has been
discontinued. On behalf of the many adults who would benefit
from a higher capacity and more effective system, I ask
Congress to establish an independent center to support an adult
literacy system that will light the fire and change the odds
for millions of Americans.
Thank you.
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Reder follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Stephen Reder, University Professor and
Chair, Department of Applied Linguistics, Portland State University
Mr. Chairman and Subcommittee members, I am Dr. Stephen Reder,
University Professor and Chair of the Department of Applied Linguistics
at Portland State University. The Department is involved in teaching,
research and service activities related to language and literacy issues
in education, work and community settings. My research is focused on
adult education and literacy and language development in adults. I was
the Principal Investigator of two recently completed major projects in
adult education: the National Labsite for Adult ESOL, a classroom-based
video laboratory for studying second language teaching and learning,
and the Longitudinal Study of Adult Learning , in which I followed a
random sample of about 1,000 high school dropouts for nearly ten years,
to study how youths and adults fail or succeed in reconnecting with
learning, education and work. I am a member of the Board of Directors
of ProLiteracy Worldwide and have served on numerous state and national
advisory boards concerned with adult education.
I am here to speak with you today about the need for independent
research that would help millions of adults develop the skills they
need to be successful in today's information and technology age. You
have heard about the scope of the adult literacy issue in this
country--nearly one-half the adult population of the United States
stands to improve their financial health, their physical health, and
the well-being of their families by improving their reading, writing,
math, computer technology, and English skills. Yet we spend relatively
little on research given the size and importance of the adult education
mission. Think of the many millions of dollars we would save through
better utilization of health care services and the economic prosperity
that would be generated from increased levels of employment and a more
highly skilled workforce--and research suggests that all of these
outcomes will result from appropriate investments in adult education.
My own research illustrates, for example, how adults whose literacy
skills improve over time experience increasing levels of employment and
earnings, whereas those who skills decrease experience reduced levels
of employment and earnings.
The issues to research
Research has a vital role to play in helping shape and deliver
adult education more effectively. My longitudinal study of about 1,000
adults who had dropped out of high school brought to light many issues
that affect their participation in adult education and identified
obstacles to their successful learning. I found, for example, that many
adults work independently to improve their basic skills or prepare for
the GED. This includes many adults who never attend a basic skills
program. This, along with the long waiting lists that potential
students find at many programs, tells us that there is much more demand
for services than the system can supply.
The research further shows that many adults engage in periods of
``self study'' between periods of program participation. This suggests
that programs could increase their outreach and enrollment and increase
their students' persistence by connecting self-directed learning
activities with traditional classes. This indicates an important
potential role for technology, not only in offering distance education,
but in connecting different learning modalities and activities over
time.
Studies of only those students in programs teaches us little about
effective outreach methods and student retention problems, however. We
need more longitudinal research that follows both youth and adults who
participate in literacy programs and those who do not. We need to
discover how to provide services to adults so they participate in
learning with sufficient engagement, intensity and duration to reach
their goals. We also need to learn much more about how to help the
hardest-to-serve learners--those who are at the lowest literacy levels,
those for whom English is a second language and who are illiterate in
their native language, and those who have learning disabilities. Many
of these individuals will require years of instruction in order to
reach their learning and employment goals. We must be able to help them
stay the course as they cope with learning setbacks as well as
successes, family concerns, and work issues. Building the persistence
of learning in adults facing such long trajectories must be a research
priority. We need to learn how to build locally connected and
integrated delivery systems that allow community-based programs to feed
low-level learners into higher-level institutionally-based ESL and
adult education programs. And how to help adult education students
transition successfully into post-secondary education and training
programs. At the same time, we need much more information about how to
reconnect dropouts with both education and family-supporting work.
Most literacy and adult basic education programs retain learners
for relatively short periods of time. Therefore, we need to develop new
types of learning support systems that provide persistent structures
for adults to follow. These structures might combine periods in which
adults attend programs, use online materials to work independently or
with tutors, or receive support services from local community-based
organizations (CBOs) and volunteer programs, for example. Grants could
encourage and assist local communities to develop cross-sector, long-
term adult learning support systems, perhaps utilizing technology to
provide learners and a range of providers and agencies working with
them shareable information that can be used to foster more learner-
centered integration of services.
We need research to improve the National Reporting System (NRS),
the accountability system used in adult education. I support program
accountability; however, my own research indicates that important
program impacts are missed by a system that focuses on short-term
outcomes and narrow measures of literacy and skills development. When
we compared program participants and non-participants over time, the
evidence of program impact on learner outcomes depended on the literacy
measure used and the time period involved. According to these findings,
the NRS uses too short a follow-up time period for the literacy
measures it uses; therefore, the NRS may not help programs put their
best foot forward. Perhaps even more problematic, the NRS may not be as
useful as it could be for program improvement. A review of the NRS
could determine whether changing either the type of literacy measure or
lengthening the time period would better support programmatic
improvement efforts. Other issues could be examined as well, such as
making sure that the accountability system gives due credit to programs
for assisting the lowest-level and hardest-to-serve students. In
supporting adults and the programs that serve them, we must keep in
mind the words of William Butler Yeats: ``Education is not filling a
bucket, but lighting a fire.''
To assure translation of research into improved educational
practice, increased support is needed for adult education teacher
training and professional development. Federal funding once available
for State Literacy Resource Centers, for example, is no longer
available and the resources for professional development are highly
uneven across states. Research can help us determine the role that
technology should play in providing such teacher training and
professional development in a cost-effective manner.
Increasing the capacity of the adult education delivery system
The goal of all this research is to increase both the quantity and
quality of programs and services, not just so that programs can serve
more adults--although we certainly need to do that--but also so that we
increase the persistence of their learning. We want more adults to stay
in programs long enough to reach their education, job-training, and
family-supporting employment goals. Better coordination of WIA Title I
and Title II programs can play an important part in this as long as we
do not lose the basic educational focus of the Title II programs. The
stimulus legislation that allows Title I WIBs to fund Title II adult
literacy providers is an excellent step in this direction, one which I
hope the Committee will include in the reauthorization. The knowledge
gained through research can help us develop programs that offer a
continuum of services across skill levels and life contexts, and engage
the full range of resources and capacities in learners' communities,
including full-time and part-time teachers and volunteers, whether
working in institutionally-based programs or CBOs. Research can also
help us assess the extent to which adult learners are availing
themselves of such links to the job training available in their
communities. Such service continuum is vital to addressing the complex
issues of adult literacy.
Increasing our research capacity
In addition to pursuing a systematic research agenda through
targeted grant competitions, the adult literacy field needs a
comprehensive research and development center focused specifically on
adult literacy and learning. Legislation establishing the Institute of
Educational Sciences (IES) requires the Department of Education to
operate one or more Centers that address adult literacy issues.
Although the Department of Education established R&D centers for adult
literacy that operated successfully for 15 years, first at the
University of Pennsylvania and then in a collaborative of universities
led by Harvard University, funding for such a Center has recently been
discontinued. If the leadership at IES is not interested in recompeting
a center for adult literacy and education, it is important for other
legislation to establish one.
Such a center could be competed and placed at any university or
network of universities. It should work closely with literacy and adult
education providers and focus on conducting basic and applied research,
distilling practitioner knowledge, and disseminating results so that
practitioners can understand, respond to, and translate research into
practical programs.
Wherever such a Center is established, it is essential that it
conduct research about how programs can best support the learning of
diverse adult learners to help them meet their long-term educational
and employment goals. It is critical that the Center be managed in a
way that keeps it free from political interference and pressures
unrelated to the needs of the adult education system. It needs the
independence, with guidance from a suitable advisory board and peer-
review processes, to construct and pursue a long-term research agenda
using an appropriate mix of exploratory and confirmatory research
methods.
Summary
While there are occasional notable research projects, by and large,
the United States invests little money in research and development that
would help us increase capacity and improve the quality and
effectiveness of our adult education system. Considering the importance
of these services to success in higher education, lifelong learning and
economic competitiveness, Congress must commit to supporting systematic
research designed to identify effective ways to increase program
capacity and effectiveness. I recommend:
Immediately reauthorize WIA Title II to contribute to our
economic recovery, with a central focus on adults who are not
functionally literate
Recompete and fund an independent research center for
adult literacy and education
Focus research on building student persistence,
reconnecting dropouts, helping the hardest-to-reach learners, and
supporting successful transitions of adult education students into
family-wage employment and postsecondary education and training
Develop learning support systems that provide persistent
structures for adults to follow over relatively long periods of time
Explore uses of technology to increase delivery system
capacity through online and blended instructional programs and to
coordinate employment, education and social services
Review and modify the National Reporting System for better
accountability and program improvement
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you. I offer my
services to the Committee as it continues its work in adult literacy.
______
Chairman Hinojosa. Now I would like to call on Dr. Donna
Kinerney.
STATEMENT OF DONNA KINERNEY, PH.D., INSTRUCTIONAL DEAN, ADULT
ESOL AND LITERACY PROGRAMS, MONTGOMERY COLLEGE
Ms. Kinerney. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts with you today.
My name is Dr. Donna Kinerney, and I am the Instructional
Dean for Adult English for Speakers of Other Languages--that is
ESOL--and Literacy to GED Programs at Montgomery College in
Maryland. As a teacher and program administrator for adult
English language programs for many years, I will focus my
remarks on my own experiences, research, and insights gathered
as a leader in the adult education interest section of our
professional organization, the Teachers of English for Speakers
of Other Languages.
One of the most challenging aspects of serving adult
English language learners is bringing appropriate services to
the broad needs of our students.
For example, there is Maria from El Salvador who wants to
read to her grandchildren in English, but she is one of the 19
percent of all immigrants who never made it to high school in
her country and who struggles with basic English literacy.
There is Lan from Vietnam, who wants desperately to become a
nurse but is like the 2.4 million immigrants ages 17 to 24 who
need more English in order to begin postsecondary education.
And there is Tekle from Ethiopia, who works as a parking lot
attendant but would give anything to become an engineer again
as he was in his country, just like the more than 1.3 million
other college-educated immigrants who are unemployed or working
in unskilled jobs, many because of their limited English.
Like these students, 5.8 million legal permanent residents
in the U.S. need additional English if they are to fully
participate in U.S. life. Learning English takes time, an
estimated 85 to 150 hours of instruction to advance a single
level. Unsurprisingly, 44 percent of participants in federally
funded adult ed programs are in ESOL classes. That represents
just over a million students, a mere drop in the bucket in
terms of need.
In my program at Montgomery College, which is the largest
in Maryland, we offer life skills, ESOL, English literacy and
civics, and adult basic education-GED. In fiscal year 2008, in
these programs, we provided over 10,000 seats to almost 5,00
learners, with 82 percent participating in ESOL or civics
instruction. English language learners also represent 57
percent of our ABE-GED students, a traditionally native English
speaking population in other regions.
We share in the need for expanded services. We are in a
suburb of Washington, D.C., not in a State with an enormous
immigrant population like California and Texas; and yet our
current wait list for ESOL classes is well over a thousand.
We have partnered with our local one-stop to provide ESOL
for a customer service job program that incorporates advising
and job search support because most adult ESOL learners have
only a limited understanding of employment and training
services in the U.S. We have learned much about interagency
partnerships, workforce training, vocational assessments, and
case management services along the way and have used that
knowledge to pilot new conceptualized ESOL and vocational
training for building trades and health care career pathways.
There are many promising practices across the U.S., career
pathways that provide ways for adults to learn English and
receive workforce training, bridge instruction to move ESOL
learners to adult basic education GED programs and beyond.
Ongoing advising and social service supports, like Mr.
Finsterbusch noted, and extensive professional development are
all among them.
I would like to then propose three areas of recommendations
on ways to improve WIA:
First, authorize the EL/civics funding program and expand
the scope of Title II to acknowledge the diverse and specific
training needs and employment needs of English language
learners. The current Title II funding formula does not take
into account the English language learner population, yet ESOL
services are a primary function under this statute.
Instructions should support adult ESOL learners with career
pathways and transitions to postsecondary programs. We must
include advising and case management services and social
service supports. To maintain an increased accountability, we
should create more relevant performance measures supported by
improved vocational and academic assessments, as my peers here
today have said.
Second, increase State leadership funds under Title II and
encourage States to provide training for adult ESOL
instructors, administrators, and curriculum designers and
support adult ESOL teacher credentialing and certification.
Adult education is chronically underfunded, and issues of
quality are of constant concern. If we don't want to leave
children behind, then we shouldn't leave adults behind either.
Particularly in States that are experiencing increases in
immigration, teachers may not have had extensive training or
experience. It is a challenge to find qualified and skilled
instructors and curriculum developers, particularly for
vocational ESOL instruction, even for a program like mine that
is in a major metropolitan area.
Third, create a research center dedicated to adult
education that specifically includes a focus on English
language and literacy acquisition and instruction. Given the
piecemeal nature of research on adult English language and
literacy learners, we desperately need a comprehensive research
center. We lack an in-depth understanding of how to best teach
English literacy to students who have limited literacy skills
in their native languages. We do not yet have complete
information on how to help learners persist or transition to
other training, yet we are called on every day to implement
programs that do just these things, and we must do so without
solid research.
And, for the record, I would also like to add to support
the National Coalition for Literacy's request to have a
professional adult educator on the State and local workforce
investment boards to strengthen the relationship between
education and labor.
I appreciate the opportunity here to talk with you today.
Thank you.
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Kinerney follows:]
Prepared Statement of Donna Kinerney, Ph.D., Instructional Dean, Adult
ESOL & Literacy--GED Programs, Montgomery College
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for allowing
me to share my thoughts on the reauthorization of Title II of the
Workforce Investment Act (WIA). My name is Dr. Donna Kinerney and I am
the Instructional Dean for Adult English for Speakers of Other
Languages (ESOL) & Literacy--GED Programs at Montgomery College in
Maryland. As a teacher and program administrator for adult English
language programs since 1989, I will focus my remarks on my own
experiences, research, and insights gathered as a leader in the adult
education interest section of Teachers of English for Speakers of Other
Languages (TESOL), the global professional association for English
language educators. You've heard of these English programs referred to
adult English as a Second Language (ESL) or adult English for Speakers
of Other Languages (ESOL) programs.
You have undoubtedly met some of our adult ESOL students in your
travels. One of the most challenging and fulfilling aspects of serving
adult English language learners is bringing appropriate services to the
broad needs of our students. For example there is, Maria from El
Salvador, who wants to read to her grandchildren in English, but she's
one of the 19% of all immigrants who never made it to high school in
her country and who struggles with basic English literacy here in the
U.S. (U.S. Department of Education, 2009). There is also Lan from
Vietnam, who wants desperately to go to college and become a nurse but
is like the 2.4 million immigrants, ages 17 to 24, who need more
English in order to begin postsecondary education (McHugh, Gelatt &
Fix, 2007). And there is Tekle, from Ethiopia, who works as a parking
lot attendant, but would give anything to become an engineer again as
he was in his native country, just like the more than 1.3 million other
college-educated immigrants who are unemployed or working in unskilled
jobs many because of their limited English (Batalova & Fix, 2008).
Like these students, 5.8 million legal permanent residents in the
U.S. need additional English if they are to fully participate in U.S.
civic life and/or pass the U.S. citizenship test (McHugh, Gelatt & Fix,
2007). Learning English takes time; it takes an estimated 85-150 hours
of instruction to advance a single level under the National Reporting
System, the framework used by federally funded programs (McHugh, et
al., 2007). Unsurprisingly, as indicated by the most recent available
data, 44% of participants in federally funded adult education programs
are in ESOL classes. That represents just over a million students, a
mere drop in the bucket in terms of need (U.S. Department of Education,
2007). It's no surprise that waitlists for adult ESOL have exploded
across the country--a 2006 survey by the National Association of Latino
Elected and Appointed Officials found numerous programs reporting
waitlists from a few weeks to more than three years. And in fact,
Massachusetts reported a waitlist of over 16,000 for ESOL across the
state (Tucker, 2006).
My program at Montgomery College is like many others. We offer life
skills ESOL, English Literacy and Civics, and Adult Basic Education-GED
and assist with family literacy programming.
In FY 08, we provided over 10,000 seats to almost 5000 learners,
with 82% participating in ESOL or Civics instruction. However, English
language learners are not only in ESOL programs, as they make up the
largest demographic in our program and represent 57% of our ABE-GED
students, a traditionally native English speaking population in other
geographic regions. We share in the national need for expanded
services--we are in a suburb of Washington DC, not in a state with
enormous immigrant population like California or Texas, and yet our
current waitlist for ESOL classes is well over 1000. As is the trend in
some regions, our program was administered for many years by the local
public school system, but in 2005, as part of a local effort to better
serve the education and workforce training needs of adult learners, our
program moved to the community college where we are housed under the
College's Workforce Development and Continuing Education Unit. In our
new home at Montgomery College, we have partnered with Montgomery
Works, our local one-stop, to provide an ESOL for Customer Service Jobs
program that incorporates extensive advising and job search support
because most adult ESOL learners have only a limited understanding of
employment and training services in the U.S. We have learned much about
interagency partnerships, workforce training, vocational assessments,
and case management services along the way and have used that knowledge
to pilot new contextualized ESOL and vocational training for building
trades and healthcare career pathways that will transition our learners
into other noncredit vocational training programs at the College. In
need of highly qualified teachers, we are currently piloting our TESOL
Training Institute, a series of four intensive courses, to help new
teachers enter the field and veteran teachers improve their skills. In
addition, to further extend our hand to the community, we work closely
with the Montgomery Coalition for Adult English Literacy, a nonprofit
for community-based ESOL service providers to professional development
opportunities and guidance for programs that are outside of the
federally funded system. But we could not begin to offer this level of
service without the hard work of a group of highly qualified and
enormously skilled full-time staff and part-time teachers.
From around the country, I hear of programs too numerous to mention
here that are meeting the needs of adult ESOL learners by developing
many promising practices. Increasing numbers of programs like those in
Oregon and Washington are creating career pathways and models that
provide streamlined ways for adults to learn English and receive
workforce training. Programs like Yakima Valley Community College are
creating bridge instruction to move ESOL learners to adult basic
education and GED programs and beyond. Other programs such as AVANCE
family literacy programs in Texas and Dorcas Place Family Literacy
Center in Rhode Island along with affiliates of the National College
Transition Network have learned, as have we, that ongoing advising and
social service supports are critical to for learners and their families
to succeed at all levels including the transition to postsecondary
education and training. Finally, many programs nationwide, including
the City College of San Francisco and the College of Lake County in
Illinois, find, as do we, that ongoing professional development for
teachers and administrators is absolutely critical in order to
implement quality programs and develop new curricula.
Given these experiences, I would like to propose three broad areas
of recommendations on ways to improve WIA:
1. Authorize the EL/Civics funding program, and expand the scope of
Title II to acknowledge the diverse and specific training and
employment needs of English language learners.
The current Title II funding formula does not take into account the
English language learner population yet ESOL services are a primary
function under this statute. Instructional programming should support
adult ESOL earners with career pathways and transitions to
postsecondary programs. To do this well, we must include in Title II
advising and case management services because adult ESOL learners are
unfamiliar with education and employment systems in the U.S. and often
have social service needs that limit their participation. To maintain
and increase our accountability for this expanded version of Title II,
we should create more relevant performance measures supported by
improved vocational and academic assessments that better monitor the
progress of ESOL programs and learners.
2. Increase state leadership funds under Title II and encourage
states to provide training for adult ESOL instructors, administrators,
and curriculum designers and support adult ESOL teacher credentialing
and certification.
Adult education is chronically underfunded and issues of quality
are of constant concern. In 2003-2004, only 36% of adult ESOL learners
moved up to the next proficiency level (McHugh, Gelatt, & Fix, 2007),
and in any year, it is estimated that only 10% of adult ESOL learners
transfer to certificate or degree programs (Chisman & Crandall, 2007).
If we don't want to leave children behind, then we shouldn't leave
adult students behind either. Particularly in states that are
experiencing increases in immigration, teachers may not have had
extensive training or experience in working with English language
learners (Crandall, Ingersoll, & Lopez, 2008; Schaetzel, Peyton, &
Burt, 2007). With limited budgets and most classes meeting in the
evenings, full-time instructional positions are rare and so are career
pathways for adult ESOL teachers. All of this means that is a challenge
to find and retain qualified and skilled adult ESOL instructors and
curriculum developers, particularly for vocational ESOL instruction,
even for a program like mine that is in a major metropolitan area.
3. Create a research center dedicated to adult education that
specifically includes a focus on adult English language and literacy
acquisition and instruction.
Given the piecemeal nature of existing research on adult English
language and literacy learners, we desperately need a comprehensive
center that will undertake these efforts if we are to meet learner
needs. We lack, for example, an in-depth understanding of how to best
teach English literacy to adult ESOL students who have limited literacy
skills in their native languages. We do not yet have complete
information on how to help adult ESOL learners persist or transition to
other training. And yet, we are called everyday to implement programs
that do just these things and we must do so without the benefit of a
solid research base.
Thank you again for the invitation to speak today. We in adult ESOL
programs hope to participate at every table where adult education and
workforce training are being discussed. We look forward to an even
brighter future serving our students, Maria, Lan, and Tekle, and the
millions of others waiting to learn English.
REFERENCES
Batalova, J. & Fix, M. (2008). Uneven progress: The employment pathways
of skilled immigrants in the United States. Washington, DC:
Migration Policy Institute. Retrieved May 1, 2009 from http://
www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/BrainWasteOct08.pdf.
Chisman, F. & Crandall, J. (2007). Passing the torch: Strategies for
innovation in community college ESL. Executive summary. New
York: Council for the Advancement of Adult Literacy. Retrieved
May 1, 2009 from http://caalusa.org/eslpassingtorch226.pdf.
Crandall, J., Ingersoll, G., & Lopez, J. (2008). Adult ESL
credentialing and certification. Washington, DC: Center for
Applied Linguistics. Retrieved May 1, 2009 from http://
www.cal.org/caela/esl--resources/briefs/tchrcred.html.
McHugh, M., Gelatt, J. & Fix, M. (2007). Adult English language
instruction in the United States: Determining need and
investing wisely. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute.
Retrieved May 1, 2009 from http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/
NCIIP--English--Instruction073107.pdf.
Schaetzel, K., Peyton, J.K., & Burt, M. (2007). Professional
development for adult ESL practitioners: Building capacity.
Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Retrieved May
1, 2009 from www.cal.org/caela/esl--resources/briefs/
profdev.html
Tucker, J. T. (2006). The ESL logjam. Waiting times for adult ESL
classes and the impact on English learners. National
Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials
Educational Fund. Retrieved May 1, 2009 from http://
www.naleo.org/downloads/ESLReportLoRes.pdf.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics
(2009). Issue Brief. English Literacy of Foreign-Born Adults in
the United States: 2003. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of
Education. Retrieved May 1, 2009 from http://nces.ed.gov/
pubs2009/2009034.pdf.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education
(2007). Adult education annual report to Congress 2004-2005.
Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved May 1,
2009 from http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ovae/pi/AdultEd/
congressionalreport04-05.pdf.
______
Chairman Hinojosa. At this time, I would like to call on
Dr. Roberta Lanterman.
STATEMENT OF ROBERTA LANTERMAN, PROGRAM DIRECTOR, LONG BEACH
FAMILY LITERACY
Ms. Lanterman. Good morning. My name is Roberta Lanterman,
and it is a privilege to be with you here this morning.
I have worked for the cause of literacy for more than 25
years. Currently, I am the Director of the Long Beach Family
Literacy Program in Long Beach, California.
I would like to talk to you today about education
partnerships that work--between parents and children, between
the public sector and the private sector, between programs
serving generations of learners.
In my early days as an educator, we made incremental
progress, but there were barriers we could not overcome because
parents were not literate. They could not help even if they
wanted to. It was then that I saw the light. The problem is
systemic, and the solution was to reach both generations
simultaneously, helping adults while helping our youngest
learners side by side.
All too often, we compartmentalize education: early
childhood, adolescent, adult ed, workforce training. We take
limited aim at our problems by running from issue to issue,
program to program, without remaining focused on the systemic
issues that are causing our education and workforce problems.
Studies show there is a direct correlation between the
education of a parent, the poverty status at the home and the
likeliness of the child's success in school. Addressing the
needs of the entire family is a powerful community strategy for
raising educational levels, improving workforce skills, and
breaking the cycle of poverty.
Consider Margarita, one woman who made the decision to join
our family literacy program and not only changed her life but
also the lives of her three daughters. Her dream was to become
a teacher, but obstacles got in the way. She was orphaned. She
became pregnant and moved to a country where she didn't know
the language and had to sleep in the water heater room instead
of a bedroom. Her husband's drinking problem was endangering
the children, and she worked two very low-wage jobs.
Through family literacy, she learned English, became
involved in her children's education and revived her dream of
becoming a teacher. Today I am proud to say that Margarita is a
U.S. citizen. She will soon graduate from college and has
become a certified preschool teacher for the Long Beach Unified
School District.
But the effects of family literacy reach beyond Margarita.
Her oldest daughter graduated from college and started her own
business. Another one is studying to become a paralegal, and
her third is enrolled in the gifted program in the high school.
So let me tell you about Long Beach Family Literacy. We
have been in operation since 1992. We serve as a model for
other literacy efforts and have been lauded as a national
example by the Annie E. Casey Foundation.
Our program includes four components: adult education,
parent education, parent and child time together, and early
childhood education. We provide adults and their children with
the skills and resources necessary to be successful in their
education, financially secure and productive members of their
communities. They become lifelong learners, which has never
been more important than this global, high-tech economy.
Seventy-three percent of our participants are at or below the
Federal poverty level, and 61 percent have not gone beyond the
9th grade.
By addressing the needs of parents and children
simultaneously, we are outperforming stand-alone programs. We
exceed State benchmarks year after year. Our most recent adult
outcomes show that parents made gains that are more than double
the State reading proficiency benchmarks. Our children who
entered kindergarten increased their English language skills at
a rate of 2.5 more than the Federal benchmark. Children in our
program leave preschool possessing the skills to succeed in
kindergarten and beyond, and their parents simultaneously gain
the language and literacy skills to support them. Our program
also ranks in the 90th percentile for attendance and retention.
We continue to implement new measures that ensure
innovation and success. In 1998, we joined forces with the
Pacific Gateway Workforce Investment Network to integrate
family literacy and welfare-to-work programming. The model is
still in place. The partnership with our local Workforce
Investment Act employment entity is invaluable in bridging the
gaps between education and employment for families in need.
Last year, we were awarded a grant from Toyota to bring our
program to Hispanic families, to expand to three elementary
school sites. The Toyota program, created by the National
Center for Family Literacy, brings parents and children
together in classrooms and includes culturally relevant
programming.
The need is great in Long Beach. Forty-two percent of the
population is low income, and the unemployment rate exceeds 10
percent. The good news is that our entire community is
responding to our success. Small businesses support our
efforts. They know that educated community members make better
employees and consumers. Local McDonald's operators are opening
their doors for Family Mealtime Literacy Nights to provide
workshops and meals to help families improve their literacy
skills.
Family literacy is essential to supplying a 21st century
workforce. The Toyota/NCFL model doesn't only just work in Long
Beach but in both urban and rural settings. That is why it is
crucial for the Workforce Investment Act initiatives to support
our family literacy efforts. Parents pass along more than just
eye color and other genetic traits to their children. They
instill values and attitudes towards learning and education.
Stronger literacy skills across multiple generations benefit
family, communities, and the national economy. It is simply too
urgent to address only one generation at a time, one
programmatic element at a time.
So I strongly encourage Congress to continue to support
family literacy programs as an important delivery model in the
provision of the adult education services.
Thank you.
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you very much.
[The statement of Ms. Lanterman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Roberta Lanterman, Family Literacy
Good morning. My name is Roberta Lanterman. It is a privilege to be
with you this morning.
I have worked for the cause of literacy for more than 25 years.
Currently, I am the director of the Long Beach Family Literacy Program
in Long Beach, California and the training coordinator for the
McDonald's Family Mealtime Literacy Nights. Previously a kindergarten
and preschool teacher, I also have been a certified trainer for the
National Center for Family Literacy for more than 10 years. That
experience has allowed me to tap into national best practices and
research for the benefit of the children and parents I serve.
I would like to talk to you today about education partnerships that
work--between parents and their children, between the public sector and
private businesses, and between programs serving generations of
learners.
In my early days as an educator, we made incremental progress, but
there were barriers we could not overcome because parents were not
literate. They could not help even if they wanted to. It was then that
I saw the light. The problem is systemic, and the solution was to reach
both generations simultaneously--helping adults while helping our
youngest learners side-by-side.
All too often, we compartmentalize education--early childhood
education, adolescent education, adult education, workforce training.
We take limited aim at our problems by running from issue to issue,
program to program, without remaining focused on the systemic issues
that are causing our education and workforce problems.
We must focus on the interconnectedness of the problem, which will
lead us to a real, longlasting solution--educating the entire family.
Studies show there is a direct correlation between the education of the
parent, the poverty status of the home and the likelihood of the
child's success in school. RAND Corporation research, ``Are L.A.'s
Children Ready for School,'' conducted in 2004, is one such study.
Addressing the needs of the entire family is a powerful community
strategy for raising educational levels, improving workforce skills and
breaking the cycle of poverty.
Consider Margarita--one woman who made the decision to participate
in our family literacy program, and not only changed her life, but also
the lives of her three daughters.
Her dream was to become a teacher. But obstacles got in the way.
She was orphaned. She became pregnant and moved to a country where she
did not know the language and had to sleep in the water heater room
instead of a bedroom. Her husband's drinking problem was endangering
the children, and she worked two low-wage jobs.
Through family literacy, she learned English, became involved in
her children's education and revived her dream of becoming a teacher.
Margarita has become a U.S. citizen, will soon graduate from college at
California State University and has become a certified preschool
teacher. But the effects of family literacy reach beyond Margarita. One
daughter graduated from college and has started her own business.
Another is studying to become a paralegal, and a third is enrolled in a
gifted program in high school with an emphasis on international
business.
In 2007, Education Week issued a report that underscores family
literacy's philosophy, ``From Cradle to Career: Connecting American
Education from Birth to Adulthood.'' Importantly, more than half of the
13 categories used to predict children's future success dealt with
issues surrounding parents and other adults. Another category
(preschool enrollment) is directly related to parents' actions and
value of education. Family income, parental educational attainment and
parental employment were the three leading categories. Successful
states had strong results in those categories, which served as a
springboard for success in the remaining measures related to children's
education.
One of the reasons the home environment is so important is that
students spend five times as much time in communities and with their
families as they do at school, so educators cannot conquer this
challenge alone. Parents must be educated.
Let me tell you a little bit about the Long Beach Family Literacy
Program that has been in operation since 1992. It serves as a model for
other literacy efforts and has been lauded as a national example by the
Annie E. Casey Foundation.
My program includes four components: adult education, parent
education, parent and child together time, and early childhood
education.
We provide adults and their children with the skills and resources
necessary to be successful in their education, financially secure and
productive members of their communities. They become lifelong learners,
which has never been more important in this global, high-tech economy.
Seventy-three percent of our participants are at or below the
federal poverty level, and 61 percent have not gone beyond the ninth
grade.
By addressing the needs of parents and children simultaneously, we
are outperforming stand-alone programs. We exceed state benchmarks year
after year in adult education proficiency, preschool vocabulary and
preschool alphabet knowledge.
Our most recent adult outcomes show that parents made gains that
were more than double the state reading proficiency benchmarks. Our
children who entered kindergarten increased their English-language
skills at rate of 2.5 times more than the federal benchmark. Children
in our program leave preschool possessing the skills to succeed in
kindergarten and beyond, and their parents simultaneously gain the
language and literacy skills to support them.
Our program ranks in the 90th percentile for attendance and
retention because we do not let families fall through the cracks. We
know if they come to our program consistently, they will reach their
goals. It is that simple, but at the same time, it is that complicated.
For example, Cecilia was coming to the Toyota Family Literacy
Program with her young daughter. But, after leaving her abusive
husband, she moved into a domestic violence shelter 30 miles away. The
shelter staff wanted her to quit the family literacy program and find
immediate employment, but Cecilia daughter persevered--knowing the
commitment would lead to long-term stability. She and her daughter took
a train 30 miles to the program. As a result, she received her high
school diploma with honors and is attending Long Beach City College to
become an art teacher instead of being stuck in a low-wage job. Cecilia
still comes to our program--taking two buses just to get here. She
turned a nightmare into a personal triumph.
Our efforts address the educational needs of children and their
parents to create literate home environments and prepare adults to
enter the workforce.
We continue to implement new measures that ensure innovation and
success. In 1998, we joined forces with the Pacific Gateway Workforce
Investment Network to integrate family literacy and welfare-to-work
programming. The model is still in place. The partnership with our
local Workforce Investment Act employment entity is invaluable in
bridging the gaps between education and employment for families in
need.
Last year, we were awarded a grant from Toyota to bring our program
to Hispanic families and expand our program to three local elementary
school campuses. Of nearly 200 national applicants, Long Beach was
among the top five in nation. The Toyota program, created by the
National Center for Family Literacy, brings parents and children
together in classrooms and includes culturally relevant programming.
Core services are provided through funding from First 5 Los Angeles
and Toyota. But part of the key to sustainability is that we don't rely
on just one or two funding streams. We hold fund-raisers with vendors
and apply for grants from community foundations. We also request in-
kind services and resources from our award-winning school district and
our Workforce Investment Act partner.
The need is great in Long Beach--42 percent of the population is
low-income, and the unemployment rate exceeds 10 percent.
The good news is the entire community is responding to the success
they see. Small business owners realize that educated community members
make better employees and consumers. Local McDonald's operators are
opening their doors for Family Mealtime Literacy Nights to provide
workshops and meals to help families improve their literacy skills
together.
Family literacy is crucial to supplying a 21st century workforce.
The Toyota/NCFL model has been successfully implemented in both urban
and rural settings--from New York, Chicago and right here in D.C. to
Shelby County, Alabama; Wichita, Kansas; and Springdale, Arkansas. The
Springdale program was featured in a recent issue of PARADE Magazine.
Results from the Toyota programs already implemented include:
Significant literacy gains by adults with 54 percent
improving literacy scores by at least one level. This has contributed
to an improved understanding of basic oral and written instructions in
English, reading a note from a teacher, setting up a doctor's
appointment, and displaying basic computer literacy skills (word
processing and sending e-mail);
Children in the program exceeded peers in such areas as
academic performance (79 percent), motivation to learn (86 percent),
attendance (96 percent), classroom behavior (91 percent), and
involvement in classroom activities (88 percent);
92 percent of parents stating they are better able to help
their child with homework; and
91 percent of parents stating their child's grades have
improved.
The needs of New York City are obviously different from the needs
in Springdale, Arkansas, but the flexibility of family literacy
programming yields success for all communities.
That's why it is crucial for Workforce Investment Act initiatives
to support family literacy efforts.
Parents pass along more than just eye color and other genetic
traits to their children. They instill values and attitudes toward
learning and education. Stronger literacy skills across multiple
generations benefit families, communities, and the national economy.
It's simply too urgent to address only one generation at a time, one
programmatic element at a time.
I strongly encourage Congress to continue to support family
literacy programs as an important delivery model in the provision of
adult education services.
______
Chairman Hinojosa. Now we are going to move into the heart
of this hearing on questions, and I am going to recognize
myself for 5 minutes.
The first question would go to Ms. Gretchen Wilson. Do you
have suggestions on how awareness of adult literacy resources
and programs can be raised in both the rural and the urban
communities across our country?
Ms. Wilson. Suggestions on how we can raise awareness.
Without funding? I mean, I am a businesswoman myself, and you
have to spend money to get any kind of a message out. So other
than--I mean, I think we are all doing what we can do on our
own levels.
I myself, I am on tour. I have shows that I perform in
front of, you know, sometimes a few hundred, sometimes a few
thousand people; and I am preparing to educate people on my
screens, on tour, to let people know how easy it actually was
to find the adult education center.
I didn't have any idea how to do it. I went to the local
high school and said, how do I get a diploma? I didn't even
know where the building was. It is not a very large town that I
am from. So I am not sure if I have any answers on that.
I think what I am here to do and I think what I am willing
to do is any suggestions that anybody else has. I think we are
all willing to do everything we can, no matter what it is.
Chairman Hinojosa. Gretchen, thank you. I can assure you we
are going to do everything we can to raise the amount in the
appropriations so that there will be the resources necessary to
raise that level of awareness, and I thank you for making us
realize that we have got to have money to be able to do that
kind of a marketing program and thus raise the level of
awareness. So we thank you for your suggestion.
My next question will go to Martin Finsterbusch. Why do you
think adults drop out of literacy programs so frequently before
completing their learning goals?
Mr. Finsterbusch. Why they drop out? There is a lot of
reasons why people drop out. I will try to explain this the
best I can. There is a lot--relax, Marty. I am sorry.
Chairman Hinojosa. Take your time.
Mr. Finsterbusch. All right. The reason why people come in
the program I tried to describe is that there is more reason
why people come into a program than there are leaves on a tree.
We all have different reasons why we come in. But then again in
our society, why we fail out, sometimes it could be the
requirements, the sitting in a classroom. You have family
obligations. Where is that program? And then when you come into
a program, you found your program at that library someone told
you. So coming into the system, it all depends on the program
you hit.
And then there is that program meeting the needs that you
want. For example, if you just lost your spouse who then did
your checkbook for you and paid your bills for you and you now
have to do with that and you go to a program and say, I need
help how to read, well, I will help you how to read, but it
will going to take us 2 to 3 years to help you. But I need to
learn how to do my checkbook now. If a program can't meet that
person's needs, they are going to go.
If another person comes in and said, look, my job just got
transferred over to another country. I need to learn how to
fill out this application now. And the program says, okay,
well, we are going to have you read, teach you how to read but
don't address how to fill out that application now, they are
going to leave.
So immediate needs have to be addressed by adult education
if you don't want us to leave. And that is one I think of the
biggest reasons.
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you.
My next question I want to direct to David Bere. What are
some of the barriers that small- and medium-sized businesses
face in helping employees improve their literacy skills?
Mr. Bere. I think there are two things we need to think
about. You mentioned----
Chairman Hinojosa. I don't think your speaker is on.
Mr. Bere. Sorry. Two things for--I think one of the biggest
barriers right now is just awareness, what you mentioned
before. As I have gotten into this in the last 18 months to 24
months, I have been stunned by the statistics; and it has been
a real concern going forward for our business and other
businesses.
I think the other big barrier--so I think awareness,
understanding, and then a third thing is funding. Small
businesses--you know, we are a large corporation. We have a lot
of passion for this. We can afford a lot of the training that
we are doing and a lot of the programs that we are doing. But
from a small business standpoint, I think it is difficult for
them. So any type of tax incentives and things of that nature I
think would be very beneficial to them.
Chairman Hinojosa. I agree with you that resources are
necessary; and assuming what I said earlier, that the
appropriations will be increased, how can we leverage both the
private sector investment in money and timed resources with the
Federal investment so that there would be greater success?
Mr. Bere. That is a great question, and I don't know if I
have the answer to that other than what you just said. I think
it is extremely important. We have found in the programs that
we have been involved with when there is partnership between
the private sector and there is--and the not for profit and the
company, you get a lot better success. So the examples that we
have had is we have been able to either get the cooperation of
a State or funding from a State. You combine that funding from
our resources.
And then the other thing that is really important from a
best practices standpoint, we have been very clear on the goals
that we want, we are trying to accomplish. It is usually around
a specific area. It could be region and specific goals against
an educational goal. I think it is very important that we are
clear on the outcomes that we are trying to get, and I think it
is very important that we continue to measure those things.
And then the fourth thing is the partnership. So we have to
figure out exactly what you just said.
Chairman Hinojosa. We will work on that. I think you are
very thorough, and I appreciate that.
I would like to call on Congressman Guthrie for his
questions.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you very much. My first one will be for
Ms. Wilson.
I worked in a manufacturing plant before I came here, and
there was a lady who is a little older now, but was 19. She had
got married, had a baby and didn't go to college, and she
obviously had the talent and opportunity. So we really
encouraged her. She kind of rose up through the ranks, and
wanted to be a supervisor, so we wanted her to get some
background and sent her to school and tutored her.
And she came to me afterwards. I said, how was it? She
said, you know what, it really impressed upon me how much it
affected my children. I mean, my children seeing me study made
them want to study more.
And there is a lady at Vanderbilt in Nashville that wrote a
book, and the quote I will take out of the book is if you want
to educate a child, educate its mother. And there is a lot of
research that shows that. And so I met your daughter just
earlier, and I--just the experience of you, if you could share
that, if you wouldn't mind, the sense of you going to school
and what it did for her in school.
Ms. Wilson. I really don't think that I had any idea when I
made the decision, because I really made the decision to go
back and finish my education for me. It was something that was
a desire that I had, and it was something that was missing for
me. I really didn't actually think about it, you know, how it
would affect my daughter until I got involved in it.
You know, she was proud of me, and that, I think, maybe is
the first time that I have seen that look in her eye. You know,
to have my daughter there at graduation with me was--I know it
wasn't the way it was supposed to work, but I wouldn't have
changed it for anything now.
I think--like I said earlier, my mother, my mother dropped
out. She didn't finish school, and I am almost positive that
that is the reason why I found it unimportant to myself.
And I know that I am setting a good example by doing this,
and I know that by finishing this and--you know, I am also--I
am interested in having a college education. Musical careers
don't last forever. So I know now that my education will
continue, and I will go on, and hopefully I will continue to be
inspiring to her. I don't want her to think that these sort of
things that happened for me happen for everybody. They are very
few and far between.
So we have to make sure that parents out there are
educating their children on, you know, hey, you are not going
to be Mr. Basketball U.S.A., you might not be a country music
mama over here; you might have to really, really work and have
an education. And I think it is important for people like me,
and that is why I am here today, to show that to everyone else.
This doesn't happen to everyone. It may have not happened for
me, and I should have had a backup plan, and I didn't, but now
I do.
Mr. Guthrie. Well, I think you said when we were talking
earlier, too, and I just want to comment that, you know, you
are a star, and you are now getting your degree, but it was
hard work. You just didn't all of the sudden become a famous
person. You worked hard, and people who work hard at it can get
there. We need to have the opportunity for people willing to
work hard and want to work hard to get there. I think that is
what we need to be focused on in this.
Mr. Reder, I am working on something in Kentucky. We have
an estimated 20 percent that are functionally illiterate when
we were doing some studies. We were looking at trying to bring
technology, because just the numbers to have tutors--you should
have the numbers. You couldn't tutor enough people to get the
level of education, the level they need and the people in the
college.
And so we were doing some experiments with technology and
talked with Dollar General on that, as I mentioned earlier. Are
you seeing--I know you are using technology to teach teachers.
Are you seeing that technology--because my first impression of
that was people would be kind of scared of technology if they
were functionally illiterate, but we haven't really seen that.
They have actually been able to use technology to try to get--
we want to find something that is replicable, that we can put
it everywhere and people can have access to it, because the
one-on-one, just the numbers are too big. Could you comment on
what you have done with technology in that respect?
Mr. Reder. Well, technology is one of the areas I was
suggesting. I offered great potential for increasing the
capacity and effectiveness of our programs. We need to do
research and development to actually, you know, develop those
technologies to the point where I can really answer your
question. That is one of the reasons I am calling for a
research center that can look at that question.
Mr. Guthrie. We set up a program in Kentucky. It's called--
the group that is doing this is CCLD, the Collaborative Center
for Literacy Development, at University of Kentucky, and we are
trying to see how can we adapt technology just to get to the
masses that way. So maybe there is an opportunity to look at
that further.
Mr. Reder. I think, you know, using it for distance
delivery, you know, letting adults study, you know, with
technology on line and so forth, and increasingly the younger
adults coming through the system are very comfortable with
technology, unlike when I went through the system.
But I think there are other ways technology can be very
valuable, too, trying to create sort of an anywhere, anytime
learning plan that goes with the adult when they stop in and
out of a program. As Gretchen said, life often makes it very
difficult to, you know, stick in a program. So if we had these
more transportable, you know, systems that lots of service
providers could interact with, I think it would really build
the kind of persistence that we see as being essential to
adults reaching their dreams.
Mr. Guthrie. I see my yellow light real quick, and I just
want to comment, because I am not going to be able to ask a
question, on the ESL. If the mother's education level
correlates, then if you have a mother that is not educated in
her native language and doesn't speak English as a first
language, that is an area we definitely have to address, and
hopefully we will do that this summer.
And then on the tipping point, and I won't ask--I have got
a red light--but how do you determine what is enough? Is there
some standard you say that they have reached enough education?
I think that was in the comment.
Ms. Cooper. The tipping point research indicated that
enough to get to that bottom rung is essentially 1 year of
college. In our State, that would be 45 credits and a
recognized credential or certificate.
Chairman Hinojosa. Very good.
I would like to now call on our friend, Congressman Andrews
from New Jersey.
Mr. Andrews. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for this
series of hearings that you are holding. I find them to be very
edifying, and I appreciate your efforts. I thank the panelists
for excellent testimony.
Ms. Wilson, your testimony was powerful, and it just
beautifully captured the reason we care so much about this
issue, and I congratulate you for what you have accomplished in
your life. It is very impressive. It is really great.
One of the things I am hearing from the panel is that
research really needs to drive what we do on this law and in
this program. Dr. Reder, in particular, I was interested in the
longitudinal study in which you engaged, and I want to ask you
some more questions about it. My understanding is you tracked
1,000 high school dropouts for 10 years; is that right?
Mr. Reder. Close to 10 years; 9 years plus, yes.
Mr. Andrews. How many of those 1,000 people were low
literacy, at the two lowest levels of literacy?
Mr. Reder. We had a broad spectrum of skills. There were
individuals--among the dropouts we followed, some actually had
very high levels of skill; others had very low levels of skill.
I would say it was a broad distribution. About a third of them
over that 10-year period went on to get a GED.
Mr. Andrews. Well, the question I asked, though, is we have
had testimony this morning that roughly 30 percent of the
population is at the two lowest levels of literacy. Was that 30
percent tracked in your 1,000 sample, or was it higher than
that?
Mr. Reder. I would say in Oregon, where we drew our sample,
literacy levels are a little higher than they are in the rest
of the country, but we have the full--we had the full range in
our study.
Mr. Andrews. Of the subset of the 1,000 that had low
literacy skills, how many of them accessed a literacy program
during the 10 years?
Mr. Reder. I would say it was about 20 percent. That is a
rough guess. I would have to go look.
Now, one of the things that is different in our population
is that it was restricted in age, so people were 18 to 44 years
old at the beginning of our study. So we didn't have the older
population who tends not to participate. That is why that
number is a little higher. We also did not have--we had
nonnative speakers of English, but not low levels of English
proficiency.
Mr. Andrews. Now, is it correct that the 20 percent or so
that accessed literacy programs had a better success rate in
terms of employment and earnings than the 80 percent who did
not?
Mr. Reder. When you look over a long time period, that is
correct. That is one of the events I said we need to really
follow people over long periods of time.
Mr. Andrews. By what order of magnitude did they have
greater success? Did 20 percent more have jobs and make 30
percent more money? What order of magnitude of that success?
Mr. Reder. I am going to have to actually, you know,
provide more information. I don't have that----
Mr. Andrews. I tell you why I ask these questions. This is
not a Jeopardy round here.
The argument that we will always hear when we try to fund a
program like we are talking about today is, well, everybody
wants funded and everything is desirable. This strikes me as a
particularly great example of how a dollar invested can
multiply many, many, many times over.
I suspect that the cost of literacy services for those 20
percent that access the program wasn't very much at all, but
the taxes that they paid because of the income they made far,
far exceeded the amount that was invested. It would be very
helpful for the Chairman and the rest of us, as we try to
increase the money for this program, to be able to master those
facts and be able to commend. So you would be a big help to us
in that regard.
The final question I want to ask was about distance
learning. Is anybody aware of any data that would show the
differences, if any, in the performance for distance-learning
services versus traditional services? In other words, one of
the things people sometimes suspect about distance learning is
it is not as effective as in-person learning. I don't accept
that premise at all, and I would be interested if anybody has
any data about the quality of performance in literacy programs
for distance learning as opposed to traditional.
Mr. Reder. I don't have that data, but I know where you can
get it. The State of California, that has a very extensive
distance education component in their adult education program,
has quite a bit of data on the effectiveness of traditional
classes, on-line classes and blended classes; that is, classes
where students both go to traditional classrooms as well as use
on line.
Mr. Andrews. One of the reasons that I raise this issue is
it has both cost and equity implications. A lot of our
individuals we are trying to help here live in rural areas that
are not easily accessible to schools and other institutions.
And then, frankly, those who live in urban areas have
transportation issues and child-rearing issues. It just isn't
very easy to get where you need to get at a given time.
And I am interested in whether distance learning helps to
solve those problems, whether it is effective or not. I suspect
that it is.
Ms. Wilson, did you want to say something about that?
Ms. Wilson. I just wanted to say that I didn't have time. I
wanted to be at this program.
Mr. Andrews. How old is your daughter, by the way?
Ms. Wilson. She is eight.
Mr. Andrews. Is she here?
Ms. Wilson. Yeah.
Mr. Andrews. Well, that is great. She should be very proud
of her mom, and someday she will be up here testifying. That is
great.
Ms. Wilson. But I didn't have the time that I know that
they really wanted me to have to be able to sit in there and be
one on one and be in that classroom. I had to take the books
and learn and go on tour and to study out there and to soak up
everything I could. It seemed to work just fine for me because
I wanted it. And I really think it would solve a lot of the
people's financial problems: Well, I can't go in there and work
on this education because I have to be at work; they can study
away from a classroom. They can actually do it on their own
time.
Mr. Andrews. I suspect that you probably do a lot of things
at 2:00 and 3:00 in the morning, because that is the only time
you had to do them as a mom, as a working mom, but if some of
that could be your coursework, I assume it would work very
well.
Ms. Wilson. Yes.
Mr. Andrews. I am very interested in whatever we can do,
Mr. Chairman, to validate that interest in distance learning.
Chairman Hinojosa. If any of the panelists can give us
answers to Mr. Andrews' questions, we would appreciate it.
[The information, submitted by Mr. Reder, follows:]
------
Mr. Andrews. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the panel.
Chairman Hinojosa. At this time I would like to call on
Congressman Roe and have him ask his questions.
Mr. Roe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I must have gone the
other way. I overdosed on education. I was in school for 24
years, so--but thank you, Gretchen, for being here today, and
it is Grace that is back here. We didn't introduce her earlier,
and I apologize for that.
I think that you weren't lucky. I think you are very
talented and worked very hard, and I think that is--I think
that is the impression that you have given everybody, and that
is what you want to do to motivate people to get them to do
what you did. You can do it if you want to. Just what you said,
how busy you were--and you are incredibly busy--to be able to
take the time, you place the importance on it. I think that is
one of the problems that we have in education is that we don't
value it. It is an investment, not a cost.
And as we were talking in our meeting before here, if you
get a high school education, you will earn a half million
dollars more in your lifetime; and if you have a college
education, you will earn a million dollars more on average in
your lifetime, which changes not only your life, but your
family and those around you and your friends.
Mr. Andrews asked an excellent question. He had to leave.
But in Tennessee I supplied some data where 14,000 or so GEDs
were issued in 2007 and 2008, and this was at a cost of only
$275.19 per student. If there is not a better investment in the
world, I don't know it, and I have seen any number of programs
come through where we spend $5-, $10-, $15,000 per participant.
In the State of Tennessee, $275.19, and that improved that
person's who got that GED, their income, by over $9,000 a year.
And you multiply that times 14,000, and you get how much more
tax dollars came in, not going out.
So I think that answers the question. And I am sure this
same data is available in every State in the Union.
Workforce development is a huge issue, and, Dave, I want to
ask you if you could expound on if the education level makes it
difficult for you to find qualified employees for your
business.
Mr. Bere. Yes, there is no question. As I said in my
testimony, when I first got into this, I was really astounded
by the statistics and worried about our own growth plans as we
were going forward. And I think another big awareness of the
issue is we have got to get the business community to really
understand that this is a big issue, and that we are going to
be in trouble as a business community if we don't solve this
relatively quickly.
It really comes down to, you know, every job that we have
at Dollar General or any company, whether it be in the
distribution center, whether it be in the stores, there is
certain basic skills that you need, and some people don't even
have the chance to even get to that level. But once you get to
that level, then you have to keep growing your skill set. So
having on-site training programs is something that is extremely
important.
And then the other piece is it changes. The technology
changes. Every year in our distribution system we are putting
in new capital that require new skills to run that capital. We
have new POS systems that go into our stores. So it is a
constant building of skills over time, and your great
companies, if they figure out how to do this constantly, do
that. The issue we have here is that there are some basic
skills that they can't get to second, third and fourth level.
Mr. Roe. I recall one of my anatomy professors in medical
school said, I can teach you to practice medicine 1 year 25
times, or I can teach you to practice 25 years. And what you
are saying is that is a lifelong learning, and I think what we
have heard today, we have the No Child Left Behind Act. We
should have the No Adult Left Behind Act.
As mayor of our city, Johnson City, Tennessee, before I
came here, that was one of the great challenges I discovered
was how do we get the folks out there who are talented and
bright, how do we get them educated, and that is a real
challenge. And I think one of the greatest challenges we have
in this country, as we spoke before, there are more honor
students in China than we have students in America. So we have
got to get with it, and this is an opportunity, I think. It is
a huge opportunity to spend a little bit of money and get a
humongous result.
My light is on. I thank all of you, and I yield back my
time.
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you.
At this time, I would like to call on the gentleman from
Colorado, Congressman Jared Polis.
Mr. Polis. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
The percentage of exiters from the adult program with
limited English proficiency who received intensive training has
dropped considerably from a high of 8 percent in 2002 to 3.8
percent in 2007, by more than half. I think we all know and
suspect that that is not because of a lack of demand or a
reduction in the need for these services.
In addition, the share of exiters who are coenrolled in
Title I and Title II decreased from 2.5 percent in 2001 to .2
percent in 2002. In my home State of Colorado, Title II serves
only an estimated 3 percent of the target population.
My first question is for Dr. Kinerney, and it is about what
changes do you recommend in the reauthorization of WIA to help
reverse these trends? Not the obvious one of increasing
funding, but sort of taking that one aside, what structural
changes can, in fact, reverse this trend of what has happened,
which is, in fact, these services have moved away from serving
limited-English-language proficiency people, which seem to be
one of the--in fact, in Colorado, my home State, one of the
biggest growth needs and markets. And what ideas do you have
absent outside of just resources in terms of collaboration
between Title I and Title II, other ideas?
Ms. Kinerney. I think there is an opportunity here for
technology. I would share that with my colleagues here.
We don't really know, and we need to understand better, who
has access to computers. In our program, for example, we take
all of our EL/civics students, we take them to the libraries,
we show them computer labs, and we want to make sure that
people have access to that. But yet I am hearing now that
students at our refugee training programs are bringing
computers with them, laptops with them, from refugee camps. So
I think there is really an unexplored opportunity here to
utilize that technology and come up with some new ways to
perhaps serve these folks.
Mr. Polis. If I could follow up on that. You know, it is
unlikely that the new technology would be a requirement or kind
of top down. How do we create an environment that allows for
on-line, new technology to effectively compete for these funds
from the bottom up, and does the current way that we spend
these funds prevent the type of use of technology that you are
referring to?
Ms. Kinerney. I wish I had a solution for all of this. I
think that----
Mr. Polis. And I would open that up if anybody else would
care to comment.
Ms. Kinerney. When we use technology for language learning,
I think we also have to be really cognizant that communication
and language learning is a very human activity. So, we do have
to build in opportunities for people to connect on multiple
levels. It is not just simply that I can sit there at a
computer with a piece of software or on a Web site and hope to
learn English. I need to have real connection with other
people, because there is no way a piece of software is going to
be able to predict what other people do.
So I don't know exactly what the solution is going to be,
but I would say, too, that the technology, if we could wrap
that in with that human piece where people have the opportunity
to either go into class for short periods, perhaps work with
volunteers, utilize--like with the Learner Web, I know they
have volunteers from across the U.S. that can help with folks
who are in a classroom maybe in a very different geographic
region. And so looking at different ways that we can interface
with those programs might work.
Mr. Polis. I want to open that up, but before I do, I also
want to add I think another important aspect is predictability.
And one of the difficulties in planning around these funds is
the lack of this reauthorization and for several years a
continuation.
So, I mean, whenever you are talking technology, you are
generally talking some capital investment. I think providers
want to know if this is something that is going to be here in 2
or 3 years, what is the revenue stream going to be like for 3
years as it applied in the use of technology, and that has been
very, very, very difficult, impossible really, in this
environment in the last few years.
Any other ideas about either how we can better open up to
technology or other ways to serve more lab people?
Mr. Finsterbusch. What I allude to in here is don't just
think of technology as the on-line technology in the classroom.
Think about your cell phone. That is the lessons.
What we are hearing, talk to texts. You know, I am hearing,
for instance, if you are texting, you will be able to talk in
English, and it comes out in another language. Or a workplace,
where a manager has employees that speak in another language,
boom.
These are the kind of skills, technology, that I think we
need to look into to get the adult learners the tools on their
jobs and in their communities; not just think of technology for
the classroom, but what technologies that corporations are
developing, that we are using every day, and give the adult
learners the tools in their hands that goes with them.
So I think we need to look in investing in that kind of
technology, speech to text, so people can pump out writing
materials or get that writing material back to them if they
don't have the skills. So if you have employees that can't read
that text, there is a pen that will scan a page and will read
it to them. The employee just got all the information they
needed without sitting in a classroom that particular month, or
3 years, or whatever.
So when you think of technology, I really think, stop just
thinking on line technology, long distance. Think about what
the person has in their pockets.
Mr. Polis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Hinojosa. At this time, I would like to call on
Congressman Castle from Delaware.
Mr. Castle. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I don't
disagree with anything that I have heard here today from the
panelists or from those asking questions, but I certainly would
like to shift gears a little bit if I could.
And I will start, I think, with Ms. Wilson and Mr.
Finsterbusch and their own personal experiences. But my concern
is, how did we get in the position that we are in? Why do
people drop out of school, whatever it may be? And we have
these sessions here, and we read these high-falutin' reports or
whatever it may, but maybe we all have a fairly good idea of
all this.
But I am worried about the common culture; that is, I am
worried about television, perhaps the people Ms. Wilson sings
to, whatever it may be. I mean, how can we make sure the people
grasp the fact that they need to be educated? I think it was
Dr. Roe who indicated the earnings numbers: If you graduate
from high school, it is another half-million dollars, and from
college it is another million dollars.
I am not sure people really understand that, or if they do,
it is sort of a fact. But how can we take this culture into
television shows, into the performers in our country who--
LeBron James is somebody who can say, maybe you are not going
to be as good as I am, but you have got to get educated, or
whatever it may be.
I worry about it being too much on an intellectual plain
and not hitting home with people, and I am talking about folks
staying in school. And we have lot of other problems with that
in early education and everything else, but I am also talking
about going back with the programs we are talking about today,
the adult literacy, more than just us talking about it, but
making sure the people grasp the significance of this and how
it can help them.
Any answers anybody has?
Ms. Wilson. I mean, the first part of your question, why do
people drop out of school, it is people like me. I am a trailer
park girl. I mean, I ate peanut butter and jelly and hot dogs
every day. I was one of those people. I dropped out of school
because my household was horrible. Mostly people I knew dropped
out of school because they needed to go to work. They needed
three people in the family working, not one.
There is so many different--some people--I moved. My
parents had me in--I went to a different school every 3 months,
I think. I was constantly being introduced to new people and
new teachers, and really, if I had stayed in school, I don't
think I would have made it through anyway, because some schools
had different credit programs than other schools have, and I
would have ended up not having what I needed to graduate.
I think there is lots and lots of different reasons why
people don't stay in school.
Mr. Castle. Is there anything that would have kept you in
school in retrospect, looking back now?
Ms. Wilson. Not in the house that I was in, but you know--
and I hate to say it, but I think there is a lot of that that
we don't see, too, that doesn't get discussed.
But as far as how we can get people like me to recognize
the importance--and I, myself, there is lots of things I can do
just being a celebrity and being in the public eye. There are
things that I am already doing. I am doing interviews with
anybody I can about it. I am talking to radio stations all over
the United States, which reaches millions of people, and
discussing the importance and what it has done for me, and how
it wasn't something I had to do, but how much it has affected
my life and my family's life and so many other people around
me, made them feel better about themselves. It is making us a
stronger America.
Mr. Castle. Are your fellow entertainers doing what you are
doing do you think?
Ms. Wilson. I am sorry?
Mr. Castle. Are your fellow entertainers doing what you are
doing do you think?
Ms. Wilson. I think everybody that I know in the
entertainment industry has a passion. This is my passion. I can
tell you----
Mr. Castle. Your passion for educating?
Ms. Wilson. Well, I know a few of them. I know a few of
them. I know a couple of them that came to me as soon as this
was finished and asked me how hard it was, because they are not
capable of reading themselves.
Mr. Castle. Okay. Mr. Finsterbusch.
Mr. Finsterbusch. I can share why people don't come into
programs. One, we haven't addressed it here. There is a real
stigma, a fear for people coming forward and saying, I need
help. People do--when you say--and there is a lot of adult
learners in this audience today, and I bet you almost every one
of them had experienced, when they declared, I am an adult
learner, people treat them differently. People that treated--
talked to us as an equal, and all of a sudden they do talk to
us differently or down to us. And so there is a fear of coming
forward and saying, I need help. And there is not enough
champions out there saying, I am an adult learner.
And so programs need to work on this. There is that out
there. It is not talked much about in our society, that we do
look down on people that have less education. We might lack
education, but we now as adults have a lot of life experience
and other skills. But that is not what--and then the other
issue is--and I just lost my thought, and I apologize--is--I
had it, and I lost it because I got nervous again. I have to
calm down.
So it is the stigma issue, and I will--it will come back to
me. I am going to have to pass on, but there is a piece to
that, I am sorry. She took me on--I am sorry--it is not fear of
failing, as someone just mentioned. It is that a lot of people
in our society don't really know they have a literacy problem.
It really doesn't hit them until a crisis or something else
happens, like the loss of a job or like the spouse that I said
earlier, because they got their education many years ago, or
they were able to get through the system so we have a high
school diploma. I had a high school diploma, but that wouldn't
translate to a good job if they tested me coming into that job
now.
So a lot of people don't realize it until something
happens, and then it is immediate need. And so I think when
they did a test on who had reading levels, a lot of people
didn't think they had a literacy problem, but when they got
tested, they needed literacy help. So that is a problem why
people don't come in to getting help for literacy.
Mr. Castle. If the Chairman will allow?
Chairman Hinojosa. I will give you another minute, and then
I have to move forward.
Mr. Castle. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Bere, did you want to say something?
Mr. Bere. I was going to say maybe another issue here is
the job landscape is changing. So there was a time where you
didn't need a high school education, and you could still be
assured of a job. Now the requirements are so changing that
there is now that gap, and I think people are waking up and
saying, my goodness, I don't have the skill set, and so that
could be another reason.
Mr. Castle. Exactly. Thank you.
Chairman Hinojosa. At this time, I would like to call on
Congressman John Tierney from Massachusetts.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for putting
together such a great panel on this subject today.
It is about a dozen years ago we were still dealing with
this issue. In Massachusetts, we had over 20,000 people in a
waiting line to get any services, and unfortunately that hasn't
shrunk at all.
Mr. Finsterbusch, you are a great example out here, and we
want to thank you for coming forward. I think your presence
here today will do a lot, as will Ms. Wilson's. And Ms. Wilson,
you are not such a ``Redneck Woman'' after all. You have really
just proven that and probably ruined your whole career just by
coming forward here today.
Mr. Finsterbusch, we are told that some of the community-
based organizations are having trouble accessing Title II
funds, that the States are hoarding them. Do you have any
comments on that or anything you think we can do in
reauthorization that might free that up a little bit? I didn't
say it was going to be easy.
Mr. Finsterbusch. A lot of community-based programs really
try to meet the needs of the adult learners in their
communities. The moneys coming through the departments have
rules. You have to have a student that will meet a certain
amount of hours. They have to have this, they have to--you
know, right now they don't count on record if you don't do 14
hours, so that student is not counted on the books. And so some
programs choose not to opt, and others, because of the way the
funding flows, it goes to the community colleges, and the
community colleges decide how the money goes out. And so the
CBOs sometimes get left out of that money flow.
There is somehow--the community-based programs are in the
community, and a lot of people are able to find them. They are
having problems navigating that fragmented system.
Mr. Tierney. So some flexibility and some assistance on
that?
Mr. Finsterbusch. Yes.
Mr. Tierney. Access is one thing that I think, Mr. Bere, I
want to address a question to you on this. I think businesses
have responsibility, and I thank you for Dollar General
stepping forward on that.
We had some great ideas in our community about trying to
get businesses to partner without trying to bribe them in the
Tax Code, whatever; get them to understand their own self-
interest. We had companies that would provide their site and
some of their personnel for a half-hour and hour before work,
and then let the people stay on for a half-hour or hour into
work on their dime. And we had tremendous participation from
people in that.
A large company came in, bought them out, nixed the
program, gave a small check to a community organization,
thought they were doing just as well.
When you talk about access to the program, it seems to me
the workplace is a great place for people to access it. How do
we entice businesses to participate in a program like that and
get more involved without feeling the need to be bribed in?
Mr. Bere. Well, I, first of all, agree with you that the
business community needs to step up. We are clearly part of the
solution here, and as I mentioned earlier, I think it really is
about partnership.
I think there are two things. One is the business
community, and I said this earlier, needs to become aware. I
really don't think they understand the long-term implications
of this and the implications to themselves as this is going on,
and they have to treat this as an investment.
I think the second piece, it is a cultural thing. There are
just some companies who care, and they are worried about this;
you know, companies like McDonald's, what they have done with
their own McDonald House and things like that. So I think the
best thing we can do is increase awareness, realize that this
is really a national problem, and that we have got to work
together, and only by working through partnerships is this
thing going to get done. You can't solve it alone, we can't
solve it alone, the States can't solve it alone.
Mr. Tierney. Ms. Cooper, Ms. Lanterman, you both talked
about good programs that you are running. We need to bring them
up to scale.
I assume neither one of you wants to relinquish your
program and adopt the other's in full bore on that, and we want
to allow both or some innovation in different ways for
different areas on that, but we need to bring them up to scale.
We have done that a little bit with I-BEST. We have gone, I
think, from 10 to 130-odd programs, but that is still not
serving all of your State's population, never mind the rest of
the country.
Give us some ideas on what we could do on reauthorization
that would allow good programs to be acknowledged and then be
brought up to scale.
Ms. Cooper. I think I referred to that a bit earlier when I
talked about the importance of what it is that we measure and
what it is that we allow to be counted as instruction for
goals. So I think looking at the accountability system and
being really clear about what it is that we look for as we move
people forward. I think that that would be helpful.
As well, I think the think the law is not clear about
allowing a very richly contextual instruction that focuses on
work, and I think it has been interpreted as well more rigidly
than it might be. So I think those are places we might look.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you.
Ms. Lanterman. I would just like to add about the family
literacy model and really highlighting that as a way to remove
the barriers that we have been talking about.
Every adult in our program talks about they would not be
able to do this, go back to school, without the care for their
children. And the motivation behind learning in the classroom
with their children is very powerful not only for themselves,
when they see themselves as growing and learning, but to help
their children.
So, again, just highlighting the family literacy model
which brings the partnerships in place that we have been
talking about here, as well as the private sector and the
public sector.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you.
I now would like to call on my friend Congresswoman
Biggert.
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding this hearing. I have got just a couple of questions.
Ms. Cooper, have you seen an increase in the demand for
your educational services change since the current recession
began?
Ms. Cooper. Yes. I would say this was--this fall was one of
the largest enrollments for adult basic education in the
history of our State, and that was before the effects of the
recession. Since the recession began, our State, like many
others, has experienced significant layoffs, and that is a time
when adult workers often look for more education. So at the
very time that we are seeing reduction in funds, it has been
very difficult for our programs to expand their doors to let
even more people come in in a very purposeful way, so that as
the economy recovers, these workers will be prepared to move
into those good-paying jobs.
Mrs. Biggert. Have you put in any special programs for
returning veterans who want to upgrade their skills? Are they a
part of this mix that is coming in?
Ms. Cooper. They are part of that mix, and they are part of
this mix that is well-recognized in Washington State as an
important population.
Mrs. Biggert. Okay. Then, Ms. Lanterman, how--can your
family program be used in traditional schools, a classroom
setting?
Ms. Lanterman. Absolutely. We just expanded to three
elementary school sites, and it has been so exciting to see how
that works with kindergarten, first, second-grade children.
Parents are in their child's classroom for 2 hours a week,
watching the teacher strategies, the reading instruction piece.
They go back into their adult ed classroom. They are able to
work with their teacher on what the strategies are, how can
they work and help with their children's homework. So they are
learning again side by side with their children. The results so
far have just been fantastic to watch.
Mrs. Biggert. It sounds like a great program, and I think
you said in your testimony that you got this grant, and there
were 200 other groups competing for this grant. So it sounds
like people are really looking for something like this.
Ms. Lanterman. We are addressing the parent needs as well,
because as adult reentry students, they are not just adults,
they are--the majority of them are parents. So they get to
address those needs, relieve those barriers, become involved in
their children's education. They are leaders at their school
sites. They are PTA presidents. They are all on the school site
councils.
The teachers see them now as true partners. I had one
teacher say, this parent said that she didn't think I was going
to fit as her child's teacher--be a teacher best, and she said
this was going to be a problem parent, and since she joined the
Toyota Family Literacy Program, they have a true relationship
now, and they can work side by side. She saw this parent as a
problem parent, and the parent saw it as a problem teacher, but
now the child benefits.
Mrs. Biggert. I would suspect, too, that, you know, one
thing is all of us who have been parents have been involved in
this, are the homework----
Ms. Lanterman. Yes.
Mrs. Biggert [continuing]. That our children bring home,
and I would imagine that that would really be a help for the
parents to be much more engaged in helping.
Ms. Lanterman. It is essential. I am an educator and
educated, and my kindergartner comes home or my sixth grader
comes home, and I can't understand sometimes, and I am thinking
here are these parents that don't have those skills, and we are
giving them those skills, and they are learning again for
themselves, but able to help their children.
Mrs. Biggert. Well, you see it wanting to expand in your
area. Do you think that this is going to be something that will
really take place, or how can we encourage other places or--I
guess it is the funding that is going to drive this issue; is
that correct?
Ms. Lanterman. Yes. The support and the funding and just
what you are doing here today, sharing best practices,
innovations, what partnerships that can be formed, because this
is a partnership. I don't get lots of money. The money that we
receive is just enough to coordinate those pieces. I don't pay
for the adult ed. I don't pay for the early childhood. It is
just the coordination of that so that we are really
strengthening the family and all the learners in the family.
Mrs. Biggert. What about the children, like zero to three,
is that part of this, too?
Ms. Lanterman. Yes. We have a toddler program. So it is,
again, parents going into that toddler classroom, learning the
importance of brain development, what they can do with their
children. We have parents saying, I didn't know I could read to
them at that age. I didn't think they could learn the alphabet.
We have one family that wouldn't even allow their 1-year-old to
walk, so they were afraid she was going to fall.
So much child development is in place, but again, the
literacy skills and, again, for them to be able to work with
their children in their home, and that goes--that is critical
right--for both zero to 3, we are not reaching them at that
preschool or beyond. It is right in the beginning of their
learning years.
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you. Thank you for all you do. I yield
back.
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you, Congresswoman Biggert. I
think that your questions bring validity to the literacy
recommendations that have been given by several of today's
witnesses, and I want to commend you, Ms. Lanterman, in
bringing up the success of the Toyota National Center for
Family Literacy, because the area that I represent in deep
south Texas has a very high percentage of families below the
national poverty level.
So a couple of years ago we started an effort, an
initiative that would focus on children from age 1 to sixth
grade, which is age 12, and we invited the RIF program, which
is Reading Is Fundamental, because they have the textbooks for
children of all ages. And we also invited Toyota to see if they
would bring this model of NCFL and help us, because we found
that unless there is family participation and parental
involvement in reading to a child, 1-year old, 2-year-old, 3-
year-old, we can't possibly be successful in teaching them the
art of learning. And it works for all ages, just like we have
learned here from several panelists.
But Toyota has been especially generous in the deep south
Texas program in helping us with funding so that we can have
that parental involvement. So I certainly recommend that to
you.
I would like to call on the Congresswoman from the State of
Nevada, Congresswoman Titus, who has had a very difficult time
with the jobless rate in the State of Nevada and has
volunteered to host our next congressional field hearing in her
State. It is going to be on Friday, May 29th, and that is
another step that will get us closer and closer to be able to
write the legislation that will reauthorize the WIA Act for
2009. So I would like to call on her for her questions.
Ms. Titus. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
for coming to Las Vegas. We do have the worst unemployment that
we have had in 25 years, and it is very important to us to look
at this legislation, and your work on that is most appreciated.
So thank you.
If I could just kind of sum up, we heard from all of you
that adult literacy programs are needed, they are wanted, they
can change lives, they should be continued, but with greater
funding and some reforms, and, I think, make them more
accessible, more relevant, more timely, more accountable and
more technologically up to date. That is kind of what I have
been hearing.
But I would like to step back a little further and ask you,
if we were to do all that, and I think there is a feeling that
we need to do, a general consensus about those things, are we
really ready to move forward? Do we have the providers, the
equipment, the infrastructure, the teachers to take advantage
of these changes? For example, are there enough ESL teachers
available? Are there mechanisms in place for public outreach to
bring people into the program? Do we have that in place, or do
we need to do a little backfilling before we can move forward
with these reforms? And anybody can answer. I would just
address it generally.
Ms. Kinerney. I will take a shot at that one.
Yes, we absolutely are not ready for--well, no, we are not
ready to ramp up. We have a significant need for trained
teachers regardless of the program level. We need significant
more technology support and data systems to be able to pull
this off. We need commitment from employers, more commitment
from communities. There is a whole host of activities that we
are going to need to undertake.
My personal concern is with making sure that we have a
sufficient number of teachers who are well qualified and well
trained and get those folks in the classrooms, because we just
simply don't have them now, and even in my area it is difficult
to find qualified and skilled folks, and in rural areas it is
all that much more difficult.
Ms. Cooper. I would answer that question a little
differently saying that we are absolutely ready to ramp up, but
that there would be some areas in which the availability of
planning money, money to produce more tailored and specific
professional development for both existing part-time
instructors and tutors, as well as recruitment of new people,
would be very helpful.
Mr. Reder. I also think we are ready to ramp up. I think
the committee needs to think very carefully in drafting the
legislation about how to include all of the relevant players
and providers in a community-by-community fashion so that we
don't wind up with sort of top-down imposed systems that don't
fit community needs, which we sometimes see in the current
system. So I would urge you to, you know, craft the legislation
in a way that will allow appropriate partnerships, that we have
heard everyone, I think, talk about this morning, have their
natural place in receiving the funding and in doing local
planning collaboratively to really meet the needs of the adults
and make sure we get them into family wage employment.
Ms. Titus. Along these same lines, one of my concerns is
that States won't pick up their end of the bargain. States
especially that are so economically strapped like Nevada are
States that this may not be a priority when you have a very
small pie to divide up into a lot of pieces. Can you suggest
any teeth that we might put in there to be sure that that
doesn't happen and that we do see these kind of programs put in
place where they are needed?
Mr. Reder. Well, I am not an expert on those types of
things, but it seems to me that we may need to have multiple
funding streams that can reach service providers perhaps in
different ways, and perhaps there can be different incentives
in the legislation for, you know, mixing streams and putting,
you know, comprehensive programs into place.
Ms. Cooper. I would also say that we both have a great deal
of support at the State level in Washington State. So I am
grateful to come from a State with that sort of record. But I
will tell you our experience would be that one of the ways you
sort of both level the playing field and also really incent the
kind of behavior that you like is to give people adequate time
and money to plan, and then make some kinds of money available
by application so that people meet certain criteria. And that
is the kind of model that we used with I-BEST in the beginning,
and it has worked well for us in other ventures.
Mr. Finsterbusch. I would have to say the field is ready.
We want to do it, but we are not ready because we haven't dealt
with the issues of the silos of adult education. From our
viewpoint, you can say, let us do this, but until there is a
clear navigation to help people navigate this, it is not going
to succeed. People are going to drop out because they can't get
through. And so we really do need to look at all the funding
flows, and how do they relate to each other, and how do they
support each other.
Right now we have got too many pockets all over the place
and the coordination. So if you want to ramp up, it is the
coordination that you are really going to need to look at and
then look at we, the customers, needing part of this, and can
we understand it, and can we navigate it, because if we can't,
it won't succeed.
And so that is what I am going to recommend. There is a
will. There is a will, but someone needs to sit down and say
coordination, and get these silos start working with each
other.
Ms. Titus. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you very much for your thoughtful
questions.
I am coming to a close, and I want to take this opportunity
in sharing with you that when the year started, we decided that
we needed to hear from different regions of the country, both
rural and urban and suburban areas. We were in Albany, New
York, having a congressional field hearing and got their
perspective. Now we are going to Nevada, and we have had people
here in Washington representing different sectors.
And one thing that comes to mind is that having been a part
of the reauthorization of WIA in 1998, I recall that we found
difficulty in putting into the act some type of a cap on how
much money could be spent with subcontractors and with those in
administration, and the end result is that after looking back
from 1998 to now, we see that there are regions where only 30
to 40 percent of the Federal money that came down for training
individuals was all that was available.
The profit made by the subcontractors, the wasteful use of
Federal and State money, some heavy administration costs, that
has to be addressed. That needs to be addressed because I
personally would like to see a minimum of 60 percent used for
training our participants, adults. And if we don't address it,
then I think you are going to have another 6 or 8 years of what
we experienced the last 10.
Talk about it. Give us your ideas on how you are going to
support legislation that would cap how much profit those
subcontractors can make, and also the workforce development
boards have controls so that administrative costs don't get out
of hand. All of that is extremely important as we go into these
next few months, and I can tell you that there are members of
this committee who are very seriously considering how we can
address this problem that I am laying on your lap.
Once again, I would like to thank each and every one of the
witnesses and the members of the subcommittee for a very
informative session. As previously ordered, Members will have
14 days to submit additional materials for the hearing record.
[Additional submissions of Mr. Hinojosa follow:]
[Research Report No. 06-2, Washington State Board for Community and
Technical Colleges, April 2005]
Building Pathways to Success for Low-Skill Adult Students: Lessons for
Community College Policy and Practice from a Longitudinal Student
Tracking Study
(The ``Tipping Point'' Research)
According to the U.S. Census (2000), 42 percent of adults in the
United States between the ages of 25 and 64 have no more than a high
school education (authors' calculations). Unfortunately, however, most
new jobs and the vast majority of jobs that pay wages sufficient to
support a family require at least some education beyond high school
(Carnevale & Derochers, 2003), and low educational attainment is
associated with high rates of unemployment and poverty.
Community colleges are an important entry point to postsecondary
education for adults with no previous college education or even a high
school diploma. In fall 2002, for example, adults between the ages of
25 and 64 represented 35 percent of fulltime equivalent (FTE)
enrollments at two-year public colleges, compared with only 15 percent
of FTE undergraduate enrollments at four-year public institutions
(authors' calculations, based on U.S. Department of Education, 2001).
Moreover, more than two-thirds of the community college students who
entered postsecondary education at age 25 or older were low income
(authors' calculations based on
``Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study'' [BPS:96/
01], 2003). The potential of community colleges to serve as a
``pathway'' for lowskill adults to college and career-path employment,
therefore, is evident. Across the nation, several major projects are
underway whose goal is to develop policies and practices supportive of
this role. Funded by national foundations, these initiatives include
the Ford Foundation's Bridges to Opportunity initiative and the
National Governor's Association's Pathways to Advancement project,
funded by Lumina Foundation for Education.
Despite this interest, relatively little is known about the unique
experiences and the educational and employment outcomes of adults who
enter community college with limited education. We do know that their
experiences and outcomes differ from those of traditional college-aged
students. Compared with community college students who enrolled soon
after high school (at ages 18-24), those who start later (at ages 25-
64) are more likely to earn a certificate and less likely to earn an
associate degree. The late starters are also far less likely to
transfer to a four-year institution and earn a bachelor's degree.
Indeed, among students who entered a community college for the first
time in 1995-96, 60 percent of older first-time students did not earn
any credential or transfer to a baccalaureate program after six years,
compared with 40 percent of younger, first-time students (authors'
calculations, based on BPS:96/01, 2003).
This Brief summarizes findings from a new study that seeks to fill
information gaps about older community college students. Researchers
used student record information from the Washington State Community and
Technical College system to examine the educational experience and
attainment as well as the employment and earnings of a sample of adult
students, five years after first enrolling. The students in the sample
were age 25 or older with, at most, a high school education. The study
was conducted by staff at the Washington State Board for Community and
Technical Colleges (SBCTC), with assistance from the Community College
Research Center, as part of Ford's Bridges to Opportunity initiative.
Its goal was to provide educators throughout Washington's community and
technical college system with a detailed profile of their low-skill
adult students, who make up about one-third of the approximately
300,000 students served by the system annually. The study also sought
to identify the critical points where adult students drop out or fail
to advance to the next level in order to help SBCTC staff stimulate
thinking among educators throughout the system about how to bridge
those gaps and thereby facilitate student advancement.
Study Sample
The study's data source was the system that the Washington State
Board for Community and Technical Colleges uses to track students in
its 34 colleges. The database contains complete transcript information
on every student who enrolls in college credit or non-credit courses.
The study sample consisted of two SBCTC cohorts: first-time college
students who were adults age 25 or older with a high school education
or less and who started in 1996-97 or in 1997-98. Also included in the
cohorts were 18- to 24-year-old, first time students who lacked a high
school diploma or GED. These younger students were included because by
not graduating from high school and enrolling at a community college,
they had in effect entered the adult labor market, whether or not they
were employed. The sample included students who enrolled in college-
credit (including college remedial or ``developmental '') or adult
basic skills programs, which include adult basic education (ABE),
English as a second language (ESL), and GED preparation. In Washington
State, adult basic skills programs are provided through the community
and technical colleges. Together the two cohorts totaled 34,956
students, or about one-third of all students who entered a community or
technical college for the first time in Washington State in the two
baseline years.
Females comprised the largest share of the student sample,
reflecting a common pattern among students in community colleges.
Whites made up more than half of the sample, and Latinos onequarter.
Students between the ages of 25 and 29 comprised the largest group.
Over 70 percent had children; nearly one-quarter were single parents.
Most of the students were working or seeking work. A little more than
one-third were not in the labor force. The majority of the low-skill
adults were low income.
The starting education level of the students also varied. Nearly
one-third enrolled in an ESL program. Slightly more than one-third did
not have a high school diploma and enrolled in adult basic education or
GED programs. Approximately one-third of the students already had
either a diploma or a GED.
Three-quarters of the high school diploma holders, and nearly 80
percent of GED holders, enrolled in occupational degree programs,
reflecting the high interest of adult students in occupational
programs. Forty percent of the students with a high school diploma or
GED also took at least one developmental course. The majority of both
GED and diploma holders who enrolled in academic transfer programs had
to take at least one remedial course.
Study Findings
For both cohorts we used the transcript information in the SBCTC
student database to track the educational progress of the different
subgroups (defined in terms of the students' starting education levels)
five years after they entered a community or technical college. We used
Unemployment Insurance wage record data from the Washington State
Employment Security Department to examine the annual earnings of
students five years after they started.
Student Educational Attainment and Earnings after Five Years
Only 13 percent of the students who started in ESL programs went on
to earn at least some college credits. Less than one-third (30 percent)
of adult basic education (ABE/GED) students made the transition to
college-level courses. Only four to six percent of either group ended
up getting 45 or more college credits or earning a certificate or
degree within five years. (Washington's community and technical
colleges are on the quarter system, so 45 credits is equivalent to two
full-time semesters of coursework, or 30 credits in semester systems.)
Nearly 30 percent of the students who started with a GED, and 35
percent of those who started with a high school diploma, earned at
least 45 credits or a credential in five years. Fourteen percent of the
students who started with a GED, and 18 percent of students who started
with a high school diploma, earned an advanced certificate or an
associate degree in five years.
Not surprisingly, the higher students' educational attainment after
five years, the higher the wages they earned on average. Compared with
students who earned fewer than ten college credits, those who took at
least one year's worth of college-credit courses and earned a
credential had an average annual earnings advantage: $7,000 for
students who started in ESL; $8,500 for those who started in ABE or
GED; and $2,700 and $1,700 for those entering with a GED or high school
diploma, respectively.
These findings are consistent with previous research on the
economic returns to a subbaccalaureate education. These studies show
that earning an occupational certificate (equivalent to two semesters
of full-time study) provides individuals with a significant earnings
advantage compared with individuals with just some college but no
degree, although the magnitude of the advantage varies by student
gender and field of study (Bailey, Kienzl, & Marcotte, in press; Grubb,
2002; Kienzl, 2004). These studies have also found that the wage gains
associated with postsecondary education of less than a year are
negligible.
Advancement beyond English as a Second Language and Adult Basic
Education
Only one percent of ESL students who started with less than a high
school education earned a GED or high school diploma in five years. In
all, 12 percent went beyond ESL and enrolled in college-credit courses.
Of these, two-thirds had a high school credential when they started in
ESL. A much larger group of ESL students had a high school credential
upon enrollment but went no further than ESL. Latino ESL students with
a high school diploma were less than half as likely as other students
to advance beyond basic skills. Males who earned a GED (particularly
Latinos) were less likely than women to go further in their education.
Part of this gender difference may result from the fact that, on
average, men earn more than women, and thus forgo more wages when they
attend school.
Thirty-one percent of the students who started in ABE or GED
courses went on to enroll in at least one college-level course. Of this
group, 70 percent, or 2,543 students, already had a high school
credential. A larger group (3,245) also had a high school credential
but went no further than basic skills, including 1,147 students who
earned their GED or diploma at the college and left.
A number of factors seem to be associated with a greater likelihood
that students who start in ESL or ABE/GED will go on to succeed in
college-level courses. A higher percentage of students who succeeded in
earning a credential or completing at least 45 credits received
financial aid than did students who did not do either. In addition,
students who took developmental education after taking ESL or ABE/GED
were more likely to earn a credential or at least 45 credits than were
those who did not. Students who expected up-front that they would
attend college a year or longer were more successful than were students
who did not know upon enrollment how long they would attend or those
for whom information on their expectations for college was not
available.
Although financial aid and developmental education were associated
with higher chances of success, many students who went beyond ESL or
ABE/GED did not receive these supports. Only about 23 percent of
students who transitioned from ESL, and 35 percent of those who
transitioned from ABE, received financial aid when they enrolled in
collegelevel courses. Only 28 percent of ESL students who transitioned,
and 33 percent of transitioning ABE students, enrolled in developmental
courses. Moreover, less than one-third of ESL and ABE/GED students
expected to attend college for a year or more. About half (54 percent)
of ESL students, and 47 percent of ABE/GED students, did not have clear
plans or their intent was not ascertained.
Implications for Policy and Practice
This study of students in the Washington State Community and
Technical College system finds evidence that attending college for at
least one year and earning a credential provides a substantial boost in
earnings for adults with a high school diploma or less who enter higher
education through a community college. These findings are consistent
with studies that have used nationally representative samples of
community college students.
Short-term training, such as the type often provided to welfare
recipients seeking to enter the workforce, may help individuals get
into the labor market, but it usually does not help them advance beyond
low-paying jobs. Neither does an adult basic skills education by itself
nor a limited number of college-level courses provide much benefit in
terms of either employment or earnings. Another recent study of
Washington State community college students (Hollenbeck & Huang, 2003)
found that adult basic skills programs had no impact on wages and had
only a modest impact on average rates of employment in the long term
(but not the short term). In contrast, individuals who went through
community college occupational degree programs were eight percent more
likely to be employed, and they earned over $4,400 per year more on
average than did similar individuals in Washington's labor force who
did not enroll in any training program. Only individuals who took basic
skills courses concurrently with vocational training enjoyed a
significant benefit in average rates of employment and quarterly
earnings.
Another study (Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board
[WTECB], 2004), drawing on occupational forecasts by Washington State's
Employment Security Department, shows that not only do workers with at
least a year of college and a credential earn substantially more than
do those with just some or no college, but that they are in higher
demand among employers, at least in Washington State.
The findings from all of these studies of Washington State indicate
that community and technical colleges should consider making at least
one year of college-level courses and earning a credential a minimum
goal for the many low-skill adults they serve. While hundreds of low-
skill adult students in our sample were able to achieve this threshold
level of attainment in five years, many more did not. Eight out of ten
students in ABE or ESL were able to make modest skill gains, at best
earning a GED, but did not advance to college-level courses. Seven out
of ten students who had a GED and took college-credit courses left with
less (and often a lot less) than a year of college credit and no
credential. This is also true for the more than two out of three
students who had a high school diploma and took college courses.
To enable low-skill adults to achieve the threshold level of one
year of college plus a credential or more, community colleges in
Washington State and elsewhere should rethink their programs and
services. For example, the study summarized here found that there are
students--the 69 percent of ABE and ESL students who make the
transition to college-level work with a high school diploma or GED in
hand--who are eligible to receive financial aid and developmental
education. These supports would make it two to three times more likely
that they would earn a credential, but, at best, only one-third of
these students receive them. Therefore, it would be useful for basic
skills and developmental education faculty to work together to
encourage students to take advantage of developmental courses and to
work with counseling and student services staff to ensure that eligible
students apply for financial aid.
In addition, support should be given to the far larger group of
students who have or earn a high school diploma or GED but never go
beyond basic skills in community college. More aggressive efforts to
educate them about their college education opportunities, combined with
``bridge programs'' that ease their transition to college, might
increase their enrollment and success in college-level programs.
Finally, since short-term training that is focused on getting low-
skilled adults a job generally does not result in earnings gains over
time when students do not continue their education, colleges could help
students avoid dead-end starts by ensuring that short-term training
options lead to real educational attainment in the long term.
A commuter transit system that is run on the schedule of working
adults and that can accommodate on-and-off traffic, but still makes
connections to long-term destinations, may be an apt metaphor for an
education system effective in serving low-skill adults. Such a system
would provide a clear map of the educational pathways that students can
follow to advance in their jobs and pursue further education,
indicating where they can ``stop out'' of education for a time and
reenter as they are able. The system would give students a lot of
guidance and support so they do not get lost as they leave and reenter
college, and would allow adults to go farther and faster than they do
in the conventional college system.
Rethinking existing community college programs to create more of an
educational transit system has to be done collaboratively, involving
faculty and staff from across the academic and administrative divisions
or ``silos'' that characterize most community colleges and higher
education institutions generally. The Washington State Community and
Technical College system is taking steps to break down those silos by
sharing the results of this study widely among its faculty, staff, and
administrators. Member colleges interested in improving outcomes for
lowskill adult students have been invited to organize teams from across
their various divisions--basic skills, academic transfer (where
developmental education is typically housed), workforce education, and
student services--to reflect on the state-level data from this study
and on similar data from their own colleges. The aim is to encourage
these crossdivisional teams to eliminate roadblocks to advancement and
create pathways to educational and economic success for their many low-
skill adult students.
REFERENCES
Bailey, T., Kienzl, G. S., & Marcotte, D. E. (in press). The return to
sub-baccalaureate education: The effects of schooling,
credentials, and program of study on economic outcomes. New
York: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College
Research Center.
Beginning postsecondary students longitudinal study second follow-up
data analysis system BPS:96/01 (2003) [Data CD-ROM].
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center
for Education Statistics.
Carnevale, A. P., & Derochers, D. M. (2003). Standards for what? The
economic roots of K-16 reform. Princeton, NJ: Educational
Testing Service.
Grubb, W. N. (2002). Learning and earning in the middle, Part I:
National studies of pre-baccalaureate education. Economics of
Education Review, 21, 299-321.
Hollenbeck, K. M., & Huang, W. J. (2003, July). Net impact and benefit-
cost estimates of the workforce development system in
Washington state (Technical Report No. TR03-018). Kalamazoo,
MI: W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
Kienzl, G. S. (2004). The triple helix of education and earnings: The
effect of schooling, work and pathways on the economic outcomes
of community college students. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Columbia University. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000).
Public use microdata sample: 2000 [Data file]. Available from
United States Census 2000 Web site, http://www.census.gov/main/
www/cen2000.html
U.S. Census Bureau. (2002). The big payoff: Educational attainment and
synthetic estimates of work-life earnings (Current Population
Reports P23-210). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Economics and Statistics Administration.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
(2001). Integrated postsecondary education data system--Fall
enrollment survey: 2001--[Data File]. Available from Integrated
Postsecondary Education Data System Web site, http://
nces.ed.gov/ipeds/
Washington State Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board.
(2004). High skills, high wages: Washington's strategic plan
for workforce development. Olympia, WA: Author.
This Brief was developed at the Community College Research Center
(CCRC), Teachers College, Columbia University. It was drawn from a
longer report entitled Building Pathways to Success for Low-Skill Adult
Students: Lessons for Community College Policy and Practice from a
Statewide Longitudinal Tracking Study, which may be ordered from CCRC.
Funding for this research was generously provided by the Ford
Foundation through grants to the Washington State Board for Community
and Technical Colleges for the Bridges to Opportunity initiative and to
the Community College Research Center for research on the role of
community colleges in improving access and attainment by low-income and
minority students.
______
College of Liberal Arts and Sciences,
Department of Applied Linguistics, Post Office Box 751,
Portland, OR, May 14, 2009.
Hon. Ruben Hinojosa, Chair; Hon. Brett Guthrie, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and
Competitiveness, House Committee on Education and Labor,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representatives Hinojosa and Guthrie: Thank you for the
opportunity to testify before your Subcommittee on May 5, 2009 and
share my views about the importance of research in making WIA maximally
effective. I am writing to share some specific suggestions for the
Subcommittee to consider about the need for WIA to establish a strong,
independent research and development center for adult literacy.
To support the goals of WIA more effectively, the field of adult
literacy needs a strong, independent R&D center. Although the
Department of Education (OERI and later IES) funded such a center at
the University of Pennsylvania from 1991-1996 and at Harvard University
from 1996-2007, OERI/IES staff were consistently indifferent and
sometimes antagonistic towards the field. Funding for such a center has
been discontinued for more than two years.
To be effective, the R&D center needs to be independent of
political and agency pressures that would repeatedly try to redefine
its priorities and agenda from year-to-year. The Center should be
housed within a university or network of collaborating universities
having expertise and experience in the field. The Center must be able
to pursue a stable, long-term R&D agenda that has been carefully
crafted by researchers, practitioners, policy-makers and other experts
and stakeholders in the field. Its work should be guided by an advisory
board (whose role is only advisory) and use research designs and
produce publications that benefit from peer-review processes.
The work of the R&D center will have practical implications for a
number of federal departments--including Education, Labor, Health and
Human Services, in particular, but also Justice, Defense and Homeland
Security among others. Administering the center within a multi-agency
setting such as the National Institute for Literacy would thus seem to
make sense. Although NIFL has accomplished some worthwhile things, it
does not have the size, capacity or structure in its current form to
effectively manage a strong, independent R&D center. (The President has
recently proposed to disband NIFL. If the President and the Congress
decide to refocus NIFL on adults, redesign its structure to be more
cost-effective, and provide it with qualified leadership and staff,
then it might be a proper place to administer a new adult literacy R&D
center grant.)
I recommend placing the Center in either Education or Labor.
Wherever it is placed, it must be seen as serving a mission broader
than that of any one Department. All Departments should be able to add
funds, without having to engage in competitive bidding, to enhance the
work funded by a base budget of at least $10 million per year. The
Center should not be placed in OVAE (the program branch of adult
education) because the R&D agenda needs to be free from pressures to
conform with services currently being implemented. If it were placed in
Labor, which has the capacity to manage such a center effectively, it
is important to make clear that the Center's R&D agenda should address
the needs of all adult literacy learners, including those at the lowest
skill levels. The Employment and Training Administration (ETA) might be
a logical management agency for the R&D Center grant.
The Center should have a mandate to:
provide advice to the field that is based on the best
available empirical research and professional wisdom
pursue new research and experiment with new ways of
supporting learning and delivering services
support professional development through technical
assistance and training
build a knowledge and communications infrastructure for
the field
Thank you again for the opportunity to share my views with the
Subcommittee. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can provide
additional information, answer questions, or otherwise assist you.
Sincerely,
Stephen Reder, Ph.D., University Professor and Chair,
Department of Applied Linguistics.
______
Chairman Hinojosa. If any Member who wishes to submit
follow-up questions in writing to the witnesses should
coordinate with Majority staff within the requisite time, and
without objection, this congressional hearing is adjourned, and
we thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
NEW INNOVATIONS AND BEST PRACTICES UNDER THE WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT
----------
Friday, May 29, 2009
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Higher Education,
Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness,
Committee on Education and Labor
Washington, DC
----------
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m. at
the Nevada State College, Dawson Building, 1021 East Paradise
Hills Drive, Henderson, Nevada, Hon. Ruben Hinojosa [Chairman
of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Members Present: Representatives Hinojosa and Titus.
Staff Present: Paulette M. Acevedo; Ricardo Martinez,
Policy Advisor.
Chairman Hinojosa. A quorum is present. The hearing of the
Subcommittee on Higher Education will come to order.
Pursuant to the committee rules, any member may submit an
opening statement in writing which will be made part of the
permanent record.
I now recognize myself, followed by my colleague, who will
make opening statements. Without objection, all members will
have 14 days to submit additional materials or questions for
the hearing record. I would like to make my statement and then
make some privileged statements.
STATEMENT OF HON. RUBEN HINOJOSA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Chairman Hinojosa. Good morning. Welcome to the Higher
Education Lifelong Learning and Competitiveness Subcommittee's
fifth hearing, in preparation for the reauthorization of the
Workforce Investment Act, known as WIA.
This is also our second field hearing for the 111th
Congress and I would like to personally thank Congresswoman
Dina Titus and the Nevada State College for hosting us.
These hearings are of critical importance. The last time we
reauthorized the Workforce Investment Act was in 1998. The
Workforce Investment Act was designed to streamline and
coordinate our job training programs. It was supposed to
provide a one stop system of workforce development that would
serve workers and employers alike.
After 11 years the system is long overdue for an upgrade.
Time is of the essence. Last month our economy shed another
539,000 jobs, bringing the total to 5.7 million jobs lost since
the beginning of the rescission in December 2007.
Never in my lifetime have we needed a workforce investment
system to deliver more for our economy than right now.
We have taken bold and swift action with the passage of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which will infuse
approximately four billion--yes, B as in boy--$4 billion into
our workforce investment systems. It is imperative that our
workforce investment system be up to the challenge.
We have much to learn from Nevada. As one of the fastest
growing regions in the entire country, Nevada has seen its
demand for many adult services, such as English as a second
language and job training, skyrocket. As one of the hardest hit
by the foreclosure crisis, Nevada is on the front lines of the
economic crisis.
Today we will hear from experts on the ground. These are
the people who are working to reconnect disconnected youth, who
are preparing individuals for green jobs, who are addressing
our workforce needs in high growth areas, such as health care,
and who are insuring that individuals with disabilities are
getting the vocational and rehabilitative support they need to
work and live independently.
I would like to thank our witnesses today for joining us,
and for the work you do every day to strengthen our workforce.
It is invaluable for our subcommittee to have the opportunity
to get outside of Washington, D.C. and visit the communities
that our federal policy and programs are intended to serve.
Thank you to the hosts for having us and thank you for your
testimony to the witnesses.
I would like to yield to my good friend, a valuable member
of the subcommittee, Congresswoman Dina Titus, for an opening
statement.
[The statement of Mr. Hinojosa follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ruben Hinojosa, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Higher Education, Lifelong Learning and Competitiveness
Good Morning. Welcome to the Higher Education, Lifelong Learning,
and Competitiveness Subcommittee's fifth hearing in preparation for the
reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act. This is also our
second field hearing for the 111th Congress, and I would like to
personally thank Congresswoman Dina Titus and the Nevada State College
for hosting us.
These hearings are of critical importance. The last time we
reauthorized the Workforce Investment Act was in 1998.
The Workforce Investment Act was designed to streamline and
coordinate our job training programs. It was supposed to provide a one-
stop system of workforce development that would serve workers and
employers alike.
After 11 years, the system is long overdue for an upgrade, and time
is of the essence. Last month, our economy shed another 539,000 jobs,
bringing the total to 5.7 million jobs lost since the beginning of the
recession in December 2007. Never in my lifetime, have we needed our
workforce investment system to deliver more for our economy than right
now.
We have taken bold and swift action with the passage of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which will infuse approximately
$4 billion into our workforce investment system. It is imperative that
our workforce investment system be up to the challenge.
We have much to learn from Nevada. As one of the fastest growing
regions in the country, Nevada has seen its demand for many adult
services, such as English as a Second language and job training,
skyrocket. As one of the hardest hit by the foreclosure crisis, Nevada
is on the frontlines of the economic crisis.
Today, we will hear from experts on the ground. These are the
people who are working to re-connect disconnected youth, who preparing
individuals for green jobs, who are addressing our workforce needs in
high growth areas such as health care, and who are ensuring that
individuals with disabilities are getting the vocational and
rehabilitative support they need to work and live independently.
I would like to thank our witnesses today for joining us and for
the work you do every day to strengthen our workforce. It is invaluable
for our Subcommittee to have the opportunity to get outside of
Washington and visit the communities that our federal policies and
programs are intended to serve.
Thank you for hosting us and thank you for your testimony.
I would now like to yield to my good friend, a valuable new member
of the Subcommittee, Rep. Dina Titus, for an opening statement.
______
STATEMENT OF HON. DINA TITUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF NEVADA
Ms. Titus. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
calling for today's Congressional hearing to look at
innovations and best practices for the renewal of the Workforce
Investment Act. It is an honor to have the committee meet here
at Nevada State College in District Three, that I represent,
especially on a topic that is so critical to Nevada.
Since the economic recession began in December of 2007
Nevada has endured a number of foreclosures. This district is
one of the highest in the country for foreclosures, and the
unemployment rate has soared to the highest that it's been in
25 years.
This Congress inherited a deep economic crisis that will
not turn around overnight. But I'm proud of the fact that as
the Chairman pointed out, we have taken some dramatic steps to
put our nation on the path to recovery, when we passed the
stimulus package that will save or create millions of jobs,
including 34,000 here in Nevada.
Now recent statistics show a glimmer of hope that perhaps
we've at least reached the bottom of this recession, but we
know that our work is far from over. Creating more jobs in
Southern Nevada remains one of my top priorities and I know
that Congress must take bold action to help put Americans and
Nevadans back to work.
That's why I'm really encouraged by the enthusiasm of the
Education and Labor Committee with the emphasis that the
Chairman has put on the hearings and reauthorization of the
Workforce Investment Act.
It is a very important part of our efforts to fix the
economy and I stand committed to working with the Chairman and
across the aisle to have a spirit of bipartisanship as we move
forward in this with this new legislation.
The WIA, or Workforce Investment Act, is designed to
coordinate and consolidate and improve employment and training
and literacy and just opportunities for the future, and that's
why it is so critical that we move forward with this today. And
I think our panel reflects just a wide sweep of the kinds of
things that can be included as we look at restructuring this
act.
We're going to hear about training for health care
professionals, youth activities, so we don't lose those young
people, vocational rehabilitation and placement for individuals
with disabilities, whom I've worked with a long time in the
Legislature, and of course green jobs. That is the new economy,
the economy of the future, and Nevada needs to be ready to
harness it.
So I want to thank all of you who have come out to attend
today, this important hearing. It's an honor to represent you
and have you here.
I also want to point out that unlike many legislative
hearings where they take public comment, we in our
Congressional hearings, we're not able to take public comment.
But for us to be successful as we move forward, we need to hear
from all of you who are in this room, and that would include a
broad range of voices and ideas in addition to those who are
the official witnesses.
So, although you can't provide public comment here, I would
greatly appreciate it if you would submit your comments for the
record, and we can put them in the record, and you can send
them to me. There are several ways that you can do that, either
with the form you find on the back of the room to submit notes,
anything you want to submit, or you can do it on the website.
And so I thank you for that feedback.
Also, thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for bringing your
committee to Las Vegas. This is a very important topic for
Southern Nevada, and we are looking forward to sharing some of
the things that are going on here with you.
So thank you very much, and I look forward to an insightful
and thought provoking hearing today.
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you. It is a pleasure to work with
Dina. As Congresswoman of this area she is your voice, she is
your representative, and works hard. I'm delighted to have her
on my subcommittee because she is not afraid of hard work, long
hours, and the horrible trip back and forth every week or every
two weeks from Washington to her home district.
So I thank you and I look forward to this hearing. You
should know that after five Congressional hearings, one in
Albany, New York, and the others in Washington, D.C., and today
here in Nevada, we believe that we are gathering information
that is very necessary for us to be able to start writing the
legislation and hopefully be able to debate in our committee in
July, be able to take it to the House floor and debate among
the 435 members that compose the U.S. Congress.
I can say that we have heard from witnesses through
previous hearings that have given us hope that in this rewrite
of the reauthorization of WIA that we will be able to find the
way in which to restructure workforce development boards so
that the greater amount of money will be going towards training
students, young, middle-aged, and senior adults.
The reason is that at least the last 11 years we found that
there wasn't enough regulation to try to hold the amount of
money that was being given to the subcontractors in profits and
the cost of operating so many offices and centers that were
being utilized so that 40 percent or less of the money coming
from Washington went towards training students.
We want to turn that around. We would like to see 60
percent or more of the federal money going towards training and
the balance for what I mentioned earlier.
Having said that, I am proud to be in my 13th year in
Congress serving on this committee, and Chairman of the
Subcommittee on Higher Education, which I think is this campus
here is a good example of what I fight for.
We know that the average lifetime earnings of a student who
graduates from high school is $500,000. But those who graduate
from college can expect a lifetime income of $1 million. So
that would certainly improve the quality of life for their
families, the region that they live in, and certainly paying
taxes to help us with what is required and that is
infrastructure, to be able to keep expanding.
You are the envy of many states as one of the fastest
growing regions in the country. The area that I represent in
deep south Texas was trailing just behind you. So it gives me
great pleasure to come and see it for myself what is it that
y'all have done, and of course downtown Las Vegas and all the
expansion going on there is proof of the success that you have
had. Only in Dubai, and Abu Dhabi and those areas that are rich
with oil have we seen something that even comes close to what I
saw downtown yesterday when I came in.
So today's hearing is going to be directed at having a
trained workforce, and I also was delighted to meet so many
people prior to getting started, and one particular that caught
my attention was Kenneth LoBene, director for U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development here in this area, and working
with the youth council.
I believe that the group that y'all are working with, ages
of 15 to 25, have so much potential. But unfortunately,
materials that I read indicate that we have a very high dropout
rate and are not finishing high school, but that's not just
here in Nevada, that's throughout the country. If you were at
one of our last hearings, the people who testified from
Detroit, Michigan told us that there are some pockets of 70
percent dropout rate from their high schools.
That's why it's so important that we listen to these
witnesses and others who are in the audience because I honestly
believe that there are solutions.
With a new president with the Obama administration making
the kind of commitment of $787 billion in the stimulus plan,
monies that go out throughout the country for so many different
ways of in which we can create jobs, and infrastructure, I
believe there is hope.
The folks that I hear on CNN and other stations on TV tell
us that there's reason to believe that we are somewhere close
to finishing and ending this recession that has been one of the
longest we've had in the last 50 years.
So we're going to proceed and I'm going to start by
introducing the panelists. The first one that I will present is
Brian Patchett, president and CEO Easter Seals Southern Nevada.
Our first witness has been an advocate for over 20 years
for people with disabilities and improving quality of life and
promoting independence. He has worked for the Utah Assistive
Technology program, training people to implement the Americans
with Disabilities Act, which is extremely important to us in
our country.
Mr. Patchett graduated from Utah State University with
degrees in political science in 1992, and then went on to study
at Syracuse University and earned master's degrees in public
administration and rehabilitation counseling.
He is one of 49 million Americans classified as disabled,
but this has not hindered his education or professional goals.
He has worked for Eastern Seals in Washington and Arizona and
in Southern Nevada, where he has served as the president and
CEO since 2004.
Mr. Patchett has received many awards in his career and he
and his wife, Stacy, are the proud parents of six children, and
we are very happy to welcome you this morning.
The next panelist will be Chris Brooks, Director, Bombard
Renewable Energy. Mr. Brooks has been a journeyman, wireman in
the State of Nevada for the past 17 years and is a certified
master electrician. He is certified by the North American Board
of Certified Energy Practitioners and also has the state
required OSHA PV installers license.
Mr. Brooks is the founding member of Solar Nevada, the
local chapter of the American Solar Energy Society, where he
currently serves as their vice president. Mr. Brooks is also
been appointed to the Nevada Renewable Energy and Energy
Efficiency task force. Welcome this morning and you have all of
our attention regarding your certifications.
The next person, next witness, Ms. Chanda Cook, Nevada
Public Education Foundation. As director of community
initiatives, Ms. Cook has taken an active leadership role for
the foundation in reducing high school dropout rates and
graduating students that are prepared for the workforce and
higher education priorities.
Prior to her current position she spent more than a decade
in corporate community relations with Nevada Power, focusing on
programs that supported energy education, as well as math,
science and technology.
Ms. Cook has been active on education issues at the local,
and the state and national levels. Locally she has a long
history of involvement with the Clark County School District,
which is the fifth largest in the entire nation.
She also has been appointed by the governor to serve as the
parent representative to the Nevada Commission on Educational
Excellence and will be sharing her thoughts with us today on
Nevada youth, as well as sharing her concerns for our youth
nationally.
Ms. Cook has a bachelor of arts degree in social work from
the University of Nevada Las Vegas, and has continued her
education with participation in the Harwood Institute for
Public Leadership. Welcome.
Next presenter is Ms. Rebecca Metty-Burns. She is the
Interim Director, Division for Workforce and Economic
Development, College of Southern Nevada in Las Vegas.
Ms. Metty-Burns is responsible for overseeing the industry
workforce programs in the division, as well as community and
personal enrichment courses, grant funded GED, and English as a
second language courses in the prison program.
The Division provides industry courses in health care, in
manufacturing, in hospitality, and operates an OSHA training
institute education center.
Before joining CSN, Ms. Metty-Burns had 16 years experience
as a human resources leader directing employee training and
human resources projects. She holds a BA in economics from the
University of Alaska in Anchorage, and she holds an MBA from
the University of Nevada Las Vegas.
This morning we look forward to her comments regarding the
training of individuals for the health care industry. Welcome
to you and all the other witnesses and now we are ready to hear
from everyone, and we will start with you, Mr. Patchett--excuse
me, let me take this opportunity to say something about the
lights that you are going to see operating here in front of
you.
For those of you who have not testified before this
subcommittee, let me explain our lighting system and the five-
minute rule.
Everyone, including members, is limited to five minutes of
presentation or questioning. The green light is illuminated
when you begin to speak. When you see the yellow light, it
means you have one minute remaining. When you see the red
light, it means your time has expired and you need to try to
conclude your testimony.
Please be certain as you testify to turn on and speak into
the microphone in front of you so that we can have all of the
participants and the audience hear you clearly.
Now we'll hear from our first witness, Mr. Patchett.
STATEMENT OF BRIAN PATCHETT, PRESIDENT AND CEO, EASTER SEALS OF
SOUTHERN NEVADA
Mr. Patchett. Thank you very much, Chairman Hinojosa and
Congresswoman Titus. It's a pleasure to be here to speak with
you this morning and I also want to recognize Erin Fox next to
me. Her job is to tell me when the lights are properly colored
because I don't see the lights from here.
What I would like to talk about today is people with
disabilities and employment. I think as we look at the
rehabilitation act, which is now the fourth, or is also part of
the WIA Act that we have, there are a couple of things I want
to emphasize and that is universal design, and I want to talk
about transition and I want to talk about assistive technology
and a couple of things.
But first I think it's important to understand, we talk
about the challenges we have with the economy today. We talk
about unemployment, and Mr. Chairman, you mentioned some of
those statistics and the things that are going on. And it is
very concerning and even more concerning is the impact on
people with disabilities.
As we think about individuals generally throughout the
country and here in Nevada we look at roughly 71 percent of
people that could be employed are employed. When you look at
people with disabilities, that number is 23 percent. 23 percent
of individuals with disabilities are employed. And when we talk
about unemployment statistics right now, we talk about roughly
nine percent, maybe ten percent of people with, in general
being unemployed in this economic downturn that we are in.
Among people with disabilities who are employed, that 23
percent we talked about, we are talking about a number closer
to 15 percent, roughly 14.5 percent. Very significant.
So that impact is definitely felt by individuals with
disabilities, and as you mentioned, I am a person with a
disability. I've had the opportunity to be a person who went
through the vocational rehabilitation system, was very much
helped through that system. It changed my life. I was able to
pursue my graduation and I am where I am today.
Unfortunately, many still are not. And I think that's what
the key is, as I'm talking, is how we get to that, that issue.
I also want to recognize a couple people that are here and
thank them. We have Director Mosley of DETR, which is the
Department of Employment and Rehabilitation Training. His
leadership is amazing right now, in trying to change and turn
things around in Nevada.
Also Debra Brown, from vocational rehabilitation and so
many of the staff are there. Things they are doing, especially
over the last year, have been wonderful and thank you
Congresswoman Titus for all of the efforts you made over the
years and worked at the Legislature to help persons with
disabilities.
Let's talk about universal design and I think the easiest
way to think about this is when you think about a WIA place or
a work site place for training or for information about jobs.
Here we call them the Job Connect sites.
A person goes there to get information about jobs, maybe
get some training related to jobs, and to find jobs. And I
think about, we think about that related to people without
disabilities or people with disabilities, what we need to be
able to get to is thinking about all people together.
One of the challenges we have right now is that if a person
walks into one of these sites and they have a disability, or
they come in using a wheelchair or whatever, that site may not
be accessible to them, programatically or also technologically.
They may not be able to access the computers at that site, they
may not be able to--the individuals working there may not be
able to help them to be able to build their resumes to be able
to search for jobs.
We need to start thinking about people with disabilities
and people without disabilities together under the Workforce
Investment Act. In 1973 the Rehabilitation Act was passed. It
became part of WIA 11 years ago, as has been mentioned. We need
to somehow figure out how to further blur the lines so that
whenever somebody needs services for employment, regardless of
ability, they can receive those services.
Second, I want to talk about transition services. One of
the things that makes a significant difference is the kind of
services a person gets as they are coming through school, are
they being prepared for employment, are they getting adequate
career counseling, adequate education, adequate job experience.
One of the challenges we have still within the act is how
do we get at preparing students, high school students to make
that transition from school to work. And quite often in both
these areas one of the challenges is assistive technology.
Assistive technology are devices that help someone with a
disability to be able to get a job or to be able to keep a job.
And certainly that becomes a challenge as it relates to
employment for some of us with disabilities.
I'd also add that sometimes the 90 days that when someone
is employed through voc rehab, that that employment, once that
person has been employed for 90 days, the case is closed.
I argue, I think in my written testimony, and I would argue
here that that's not long enough. We need to be able to spend
more time following up with individuals with disabilities.
Maybe it's six months, I don't know, maybe it's longer than
that. And I'd go ahead and close there.
Chairman Hinojosa. Mr. Patchett, I want to yield an extra
minute to you to complete your thoughts.
Mr. Patchett. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
And yet, as we look at trying to create this system that's
more friendly to helping persons with disabilities, and trying
to get from transition from school to work or through that
process, again back to the 90 days, that I think about when I
got my first job, and even when I got this job as CEO, it took
a lot longer than 90 days to become used to this job.
We need to be able to follow along, as vocational rehab
professionals, longer than 90 days. If we can do that, we can
guarantee employment to last longer. A good percentage of
people who become employed as persons with disabilities, at 90
days the case is closed. A good percentage of those people
within 20 days of that 90 days, so basically 110 days, then
lose that job. So we need to extend that, and my recommendation
is to go six months and that would----
Chairman Hinojosa. I assure you that your entire record,
written record statement, rather your entire statement will be
part of the record of today's hearing.
[The statement of Mr. Patchett follows:]
Prepared Statement of Brian Patchett, President and CEO,
Easter Seals of Southern Nevada
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee on Higher Education,
Lifelong Learning and Competitiveness, my name is Brian Patchett. I am
currently the President/CEO of Easter Seals Southern Nevada, a non-
profit organization serving children and adults with disabilities. I
have spent much of my life working with the Vocational Rehabilitation
system. I was first a client of these services as a young man and later
a professional in the field of rehabilitation. Today, I would like to
share with you some of my personal experiences in conjunction with
addressing some of the key issues that need attention when looking at
the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), specifically
in the area of Vocational Rehabilitation. Within that context I will
identify important improvements that can be made that will provide
greater access to employment for people with disabilities.
Some of the areas where improvements can be made include: universal
design, supported employment, school to work transition, and access to
assistive technology. I would also like to discuss our proposal related
to employment opportunity for people with disabilities in the field
weatherization and green jobs.
As I said above, my experience with Voc Rehab has been both as a
client and as a professional. I became legally blind at age seven when
blood vessels burst across the macula leaving a residue of scar tissue
that impaired my vision. As a child after my vision loss, it became
very important to me to not be perceived as having a disability. I did
everything I could to prove I was a typical boy from playing sports
including soccer, football and track and field to attending public
school with my peers. I discovered I could do many things well and also
found my limitations. For example, I found I couldn't play baseball.
When I turned 18, I had my first experience with Vocational
Rehabilitation services. I was asked to sit in a room and put together
nuts and bolts. I was then given an IQ test. This path would have led
me to a sheltered workshop. Thankfully, I left that situation, went to
college and eventually earned Masters' Degrees in Rehabilitation
Counseling and Public Administration from Syracuse University.
My professional career related to disability services began when I
started working as an undergraduate through a university affiliated
program with the Tech Act Grant in the field of Assistive Technology. I
became an expert in assistive technology and legislation regarding
persons with disabilities. In addition to working on disability
innovation at the state level, I also got a world wide view of
disability issues when I traveled with Mobility International USA to
the former Soviet Union. The two summers I spent as a student
ambassador in Russia becoming fluent in the language and promoting
disability awareness were remarkable and deeply impacted my philosophy
and understanding of disability on a global scale.
When I reached graduate school, I was prepared to continue my
expertise in assistive technology and co-taught the course on assistive
technology to my peers. Upon graduation from Syracuse University and
the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, I became a
Certified Rehabilitation Counselor (CRC). I was hired by Easter Seals
Washington as their Eastern Washington Regional Director and Director
of Assistive Technology and have continued, for the past 13 years, to
work for positive change and greater independence for persons with
disabilities within the framework of Easter Seals. I left Easter Seals
Washington to take the position of Vice-President of Programs for
Easter Seals Arizona. And for the last five years, I have served as
President/CEO for Easter Seals Southern Nevada.
During all these years, as a student and professional, I have
worked closely with Vocational Rehabilitation programs in several
states. I have watched the evolution of the Rehab Act to today when it
has been reauthorized as WIA Title IV or the Rehab Act. And, I have
been directly involved in serving thousands of people with
disabilities.
I know what it is for a person with a disability to run into
barriers in finding employment and even in barricades within the Voc
Rehab system. My undergraduate studies were in Political Science and
International Studies and, at one point; I was applying for a job as a
congressional intern in Washington D.C. During my interview, the hirer
from the congressman's office asked me about my disability. When I
explained my disability, the individual then asked how I ever thought I
could work in a congressional office given my disability, and even
wondered out loud why I had even applied for the job. This experience
was a powerful and personal representation of discrimination and has
motivated me to want to change the perceptions people with disabilities
endure and help create more effective service delivery for persons with
disabilities.
Easter Seals Southern Nevada
Easter Seals Southern Nevada (ESSN) is a non-profit Nevada
corporation dedicated to providing the highest quality services to
persons with disabilities and their families. Easter Seals nationally
believes in full participation of persons with disabilities in our
communities and throughout society. Our mission and vision are
specific: To create solutions that help people with disabilities become
self sufficient through education, community partnerships and direct
services. Our services include the following:
Early intervention:
We offer services for children with special needs, ages birth to
three, in their natural family environment. Our goal is to help them
develop and learn so they can reach developmental milestones and become
more successful when entering school.
Wonders of our World Child Development Center:
We offer child care for children of all abilities, ages 6 weeks to
8 years of age. Our child care uses Creative Curriculum, develops
family plans for all children, and focuses on the strengths in every
child to create a fun place to learn and grow.
Autism services:
We provide in-home ABA instruction and social skills training to
children with autism, ages 3 to 8. We also offer parent training and
support to help families learn about autism, accept the challenges
ahead and become more educated and independent advocates for their
child.
Family respite:
We provide qualified families with a voucher each month to help
assist with the cost of obtaining respite services for their child with
a disability. Parents choose a provider they know and trust and Easter
Seals assists with voucher reimbursement to help cover the cost.
Adult day services:
We give adults with significant disabilities the opportunity to
experience community activities that maximize their self help,
socialization and daily living skills in a safe, age appropriate daily
program.
Supported living assistance:
We provide support to people with disabilities in all aspects of
independent living to ensure they can remain active, contributing
members of their community. Our goal is to assist each person in
reaching the highest level of independence that they are able to
achieve, while living in their own home.
Assistive technology:
We provide evaluations, workplace assessments, training and any
other tool necessary to assist people with disabilities to be
successful in employment, education, recreation and independent living.
We provide services in the home and also in our state of the art
assistive technology lab.
Employment and rehabilitation:
We offer a full employment program for adults with disabilities,
providing work skills training and pre-employment assessment.
Individuals work within our warehouse facility or at one of our
community worksites, doing real work and earning a paycheck which
furthers their ultimate goal of independence.
Employment and the Rehab Act
This year, the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics reported
that the official unemployment rate for people with disabilities,
meaning those who have lost their jobs and those who are actively
seeking employment, for the first quarter of 2009 was hovered between
13 and 14%, 5 to 6 percentage points higher than the non-disabled
population. While this statistic is alarming, even more troubling is
the lack of labor force participation by people with disabilities. BLS
reported that for the same time period only 23% of all adults with
disabilities participated in the labor force as compared with 71% of
the non-disabled population. Further, those individuals with
disabilities who can find jobs are more likely to have less job
experience and are more likely to earn lower incomes than individuals
without disabilities.
In Nevada, we have historically not provided adequate
rehabilitation services for many reasons. Our challenges have ranged
from leaving federal money on the table because of our unwillingness to
match the dollars and now our inability to do so because of the
economic situation. There are too few rehabilitation counselors to meet
the needs in Nevada. Recruiting qualified rehabilitation counselors has
been difficult especially with the state not having a university
program which prepares individuals to sit for the CRC Exam.
Additionally, the state is not adequately able to contract out for job
development and assistive technology services, leaving potential
workers in the ranks of the unemployed..
These challenges along with those I will outline in the next
sections are what continue to keep individuals with disabilities from
employment at the same level as their non-disabled peers. Furthermore,
many rehabilitation programs across the country lack appropriate
philosophical leadership, in other words, the leadership may not be
people with disabilities or people who truly understand the challenges
facing those of us with disabilities.
Universal Design
Creating universally designed systems for access to jobs, job
information, career planning, and general person-centered services is
one of the greatest challenges facing persons with disabilities in
Nevada and throughout the country. Imagine a person who has significant
physical disabilities and uses a wheelchair. He or she is unable to
access a standard computer work station including standard keyboard,
mouse at a workforce development site, (called Job Connects in Nevada).
Not only is the computer station inaccessible but the staff members who
are there help the individual in finding employment have not received
proper training on how to assist a person with a disability. Success
for this individual at Job Connects is all but impossible and he or she
leaves the site frustrated, deflated, and unable to pursue employment.
Unfortunately, this example is the case too many times and even
though WIA seems to address this issue, it has not been addressed
strongly enough. A workforce development site should be required to
meet the standards of universal design. The term ``universal design for
the workforce development system'' means the design of environments,
products and communication practices as well as the delivery of
programs, services and activities to meet the needs of all customers of
the workforce development system.
Staff should be adequately trained to work with individuals with
disabilities as a facet of any professional development activity. A
work station or stations should contain appropriate assistive
technology hardware and software such as the work stations Easter Seals
Southern Nevada has designed for libraries. The technology would be
there to serve virtually every individual with a disability and
available staff would be trained on how to assist those who need to
access these assistive technologies. Such technologies would benefit
not only job seekers with disabilities, but also individuals who may
have age related vision impairments or hearing loss as well as any
number of other challenges to using computers.
I have attached supporting documents that outline of what we at
Easter Seals Southern Nevada can do to assist in creating universal
design. Additionally, every WIA Jobs Connects or workforce development
site should be required to meet the standards of universal design. Any
vendor operating such a site would be expected to make sure their site
is programmatically and physically accessible to persons with
disabilities and their contract would indicate that they would be
audited on an annual basis to ensure that they meet the standards of
universal design.
Supported Employment
After a person is determined to be eligible for Vocational
Rehabilitation, he or she develops an Individualized Plan for
Employment or an IPE. This IPE is to be person-center which means the
person with the disability determines the career path and together with
the rehabilitation counselor outlines goals and supports needed to
achieve the employment outcomes desired. These supports might include:
career counseling, job training, education, job shadowing, job
coaching, and career exploration accessing assistive technology
services and devices.
Unfortunately, my experience has been that this doesn't always
occur. In fact, many who become employed often are not adequately
prepared for that employment and do not receive all of the supports
needed to be successful long term. Job coaching and especially
assistive technology are areas that are usually lacking in this
process--both of which are critical components of job maintenance.
Additionally, the VR system counts a person as having a successful
outcome if they have been placed into a job and continue at that job
for ninety days. At that point services from Voc Rehab stop. This has
often been referred to as ``the 26'' or case closure. Unfortunately,
evidence shows that many people end up losing that job within 20 days
of that closure because supports have ended. I ask the question: ``How
many of us, after three months of a job really have a grasp of what we
are doing?'' I think most of us would say that it takes at least six
months to a year for us to become comfortable with a new position.
Thus, I believe we should change the Voc Rehab system to allow for
longer supports.
Access to Assistive Technology
``John'' is a 35 year old. He has cerebral palsy and uses a wheel
chair for mobility. He was able to find a job as a Customer Service
representative in a call center, but John's rehabilitation counselor
did not authorize assistive technology services prior to employment and
as John was nearing the end of his probationary 90 days at work--his
employer expressed concerns regarding his productivity level. Easter
Seals was contacted to respond to the crisis and identify technology
that could save John's job. After completing the evaluation, voice
input software and adaptations to his work station were recommended.
However, prior to the authorizations and approvals being completed,
John lost his job.
This true story demonstrates challenges faced by the vast majority
of persons with significant disabilities in the Voc Rehab system.
Receiving adequate assistive technology services and devices is
consistently the place Voc Rehab here in NV falls down the most. Voc
Rehab is intended to be a system designed to help persons with
disabilities find employment. But the fact is that many states limit
those they serve to the most significantly disabled because of funding
restraints. And, persons with the most significant disabilities are
most likely to need assistive technology devices in order to perform
the essential functions of a job.
Assistive technology is a device or service which helps a person to
access some part of life. Assistive technology may be an adapted
keyboard for someone who has difficultly typing or voice input for
someone who is unable to type at all; software that enlarges characters
and images on a screen for an individual who is visually impaired;
Braille output for persons who are blind; adjustable desks for persons
using mobility devices such as a wheelchair; and, augmentative
communication devices that allow a person who is non-verbal to
communicate.
To be a successful user of assistive technology, one must be given
access to the evaluation and exploration process which includes
learning about and selecting appropriate technology which will help one
to be successful. In the case of employment, it is necessary to become
successful at using assistive technology in order to perform the
essential functions of a job.
The assistive technology evaluation should take place as early as
possible. Once the IPE is established, this should be one of the first
priorities. The person should then receive the technology recommended
in the assistive technology evaluation and sufficient training should
follow on the device or devices.
With this preparation, the person will then be able to confidently
talk with employers about how they can perform the essentials functions
of a job and be confident in performing that job with their assistive
technology. In fact, the individual would then become the expert on the
technology they use.
Using screen enlargement and voice output software has completely
changed my life and made it possible for me to be successful
academically and in my career as a CEO of a significant non-profit
organization.
The following outline again the important components of any
successful assistive technology process:
1. Person center assistive technology evaluation, including
exploration and hands on trying the technology.
2. Acquisition of assistive technology.
3. Adequate training on use of assistive technology.
4. Follow-up and assistance in implementation at job site (this may
also include a through jobsite analysis).
If this process is followed, the person may be expected to be more
successful in their career. I do want to emphasis that a person needs
to have adequate time prior to job interviewing and actual employment
to be come expert on their technology. Just like being proficient on a
computer or having appropriate education before entering a job, a
person must have expertise, experience and confidence in using their
assistive technology before they become employed.
School to Work Transition
Preparing high school students with disabilities for the world of
work has been one of the great challenges for the Voc Rehab system. My
experience as a consumer of VR services and as a program partner in
several states, including here in NV, has led me to conclude that few
states provide this service in any meaningful way.
Four years ago, I had the opportunity of working with Karla Macomb,
a wonderful disability advocate and leader in Nevada for many years, on
a proposal to the Voc Rehab system four years ago for transition
services. This proposal was initially accepted and Easter Seals
Southern Nevada was asked to begin the process to provide services in
Nevada. Unfortunately, the program we envisioned was watered down
significantly and Easter Seals no longer provides these services. The
state continues to provide some transition services in conjunction with
the schools, but some of the critical components are completely non-
existent.
According to the Rehab Act, transition from school to work should
begin at age sixteen and may begin as early as age fourteen. To be
successful, Voc Rehab and the schools should work together to create a
system that begins the transition process for students with
disabilities by age sixteen. Ideally, these students would receive the
following services:
Career exploration
Career counseling
Assistive technology
Job shadowing
Summer employment
Mobility training (i.e. access to buses, etc.)
Resume building
College exploration
Eventual employment
Most of us growing up, held summer jobs and had our first
experience with work while in high school. Some of us even received
work experience at an earlier age. I personally began delivering
newspapers when I was 8 years old and continued this job into my teens.
I subsequently held other valuable summer jobs that prepared me for the
adult work force. If WIA Title IV could focus more on transition and
helping teenagers with disabilities in conjunction with the school to
have positive job shadowing and work experiences, I believe we would
see more than the 23% of persons with disabilities in the work force.
Weatherization and Green Jobs and People with Disabilities
Easter Seals Southern Nevada is proposing to utilize persons from
the vocational rehabilitation system and individuals with intellectual
disabilities to provide weatherization of homes and manufacturing of
solar panels. This is a wonderful win-win opportunity where we can
combine the desire to create a green economy along with entering
persons with disabilities into green jobs at the outset and creation of
these new markets. Thus we have proposed the following:
Easter Seals Southern Nevada (ESSN) has proposed developing
partnerships with companies that manufacture ``green'' products,
establishing a weatherization program, and allowing workers to be
trained in skills that will be valuable in emerging markets. For
example, Sea Group Ltd. is a manufacturing company specializing in
solar energy applications and is interested in working with people with
disabilities through Easter Seals Southern Nevada to assemble, package,
ship/deliver and install energy-saving products.
In partnership with Sea Group, ESSN is in negotiations with the
City of Las Vegas to provide homes with a pressurized water heater
system, including installation, via government subsidization funding to
homeowners. In addition, the City of Las Vegas has an interest in
implementing cost saving energy heating consumption at its community
pools and other buildings under their jurisdiction with the products
provided via Easter Seals from Sea Group. Sea Group Ltd. specializes in
solar energy applications and will provide the raw materials for
individuals with disabilities to assemble, package, ship/deliver, and
install solar thermal panels and other energy saving products. Through
Sea Group, ESSN is proposing to provide 1,000 homes, via government
subsidies, with pressurized water heater systems, including
installation. In addition, the City of Las Vegas in interested in
implementing cost saving by reducing energy heating consumption at its
municipal pools and buildings through products provided by ESSN via Sea
Group Ltd. This project will involve a partnership with the State Use
Program (Preferred Purchase) to contract directly with ESSN to purchase
these products.
This ``green'' job initiative is among the many projects we have
developed that will allow us to train dislocated workers for
opportunities and careers.
As mentioned above, Easter Seals already has excellent partnerships
with BVR, DETR, DRC, BSB, and Mental Health as a pool from which
dislocated workers can be referred to our services. Easter Seals also
has established relationships with other local businesses that provide
work opportunities to individuals in our warehouse setting, such as
Berry Plastics and Caesar's Palace. Individuals are trained on and paid
for completed specific warehouse related tasks for these large
companies, such as assembly, packaging and forklift operation.
Conclusion
With a 10.4% unemployment rate in Nevada, the highest in two
decades, higher than the 8.9% national average, Easter Seals is
positioned to be instrumental in skills training and job placement to
address the needs of both dislocated workers and Nevada's economy.
U.S. soldiers deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan who have returned to
civilian life face an unemployment rate three (3) times the national
average--with 1 in every 5 returning Operation Enduring Freedom and
Operation Iraqi Freedom service members expressing indicators for
posttraumatic stress disorder and 1 in every 5 had some level of
traumatic brain injury. For those receiving Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families, research has shown that over half of the current
caseload today can be assumed to have learning disabilities, mental
retardation, psychiatric or addictive disorders, or a combination
thereof.
We strongly advocate for system wide supports to be in place that
address these core issues for clients and wrap them with the supports
and services they need to be successful. For us, the link between
poverty, unemployment, unsuccessful job placements, and hidden
disabilities is clear and compelling. We are uniquely positioned to
respond to the needs of the vast number of dislocated workers that have
such hidden disabilities as listed above, which are at the root of
poverty, unemployment, and homelessness.
Easter Seals workforce development services provide an
individualized approach to assisting dislocated workers to make
informed choices and attain their employment aspirations. Easter Seals'
approach includes an array of services and supports that ultimately
lead to employment. This approach is designed to identify goals,
objectives, and planning needs, and providing the supports a person
needs to achieve and maintain employment.
Rehabilitation services have greatly improved since the Rehab Act
was first passed into law in 1973. However, there continue to be
significant challenges of access to employment as I have outline and as
we move into the future, these challenges will become greater
especially in the areas of technology and mobility. With more and more
reliance on technology and increasing mobility between jobs and the
complete changing of the traditional work place, we will need to
emphasize universal design for services, long-term supports, assistive
technology and transition services in order to prepare those of us with
disabilities for the future.
______
[Additional submissions of Mr. Patchett follow:]
Executive Summary
Organization Name: Crossroads Rehabilitation Center, Inc.
d.b.a. Easter Seals Crossroads Rehabilitation Center
Overview of proposal:
In response to the June 2, 2003 request for proposal from Career
Choices, Incorporated:
Easter Seals Crossroads Rehabilitation Center proposes to provide
adaptive equipment and software that will increase the accessibility of
WorkOne Evansville and the five WorkOne Express Sites, for the disabled
in the five county Workforce Services Area. This equipment and services
correspond to Phases Two and Three of this project. Phase One has been
completed and Easter Seals Crossroads proposed to provide services
under both Phase Two and Phase Three.
Based on a 3 year history of partnering with Marion County
(Indianapolis) Indiana agencies, Easter Seals Crossroads Rehabilitation
Center (Easter Seals Crossroads) has developed X-tations (accessible
workstations) that address the needs of individuals with disabilities
as they utilize the services of WorkOne facilities. These workstations
include adaptive hardware and software, a comprehensive training
program for WorkOne staff and on-going technical support. In working
with the Department of Workforce Development, Easter Seals Crossroads
has exclusively developed specialized software that allows the
assistive technology included with the X-tation to be compatible with
Indiana's CS3 system.
In response to the needs set forth in the request for proposals,
Easter Seals Crossroads proposes that two X-tations be implemented in
the Evansville WorkOne center and one X-tation be implemented in each
of the five WorkOne express sites.
A comprehensive training program (including custom training manuals
and quick reference guides) will be implemented so that the staff in
the WorkOne centers are able to appropriately utilize the X-tations to
serve the needs of individuals with disabilities.
Easter Seals Crossroads is looking forward to an opportunity to
build on the success of the Marion County WorkOne project in
implementing accessible technology in Southwestern Indiana.
Applicant organization
Mission: Easter Seals Crossroads is a community resource working
with children and adults with disabilities and special needs and their
families to promote growth, dignity and independence.
Agency and Department
Easter Seals Crossroads Rehabilitation Center, a not-for-profit
organization, has been serving individuals with disabilities in Indiana
for over 65 years. The Ruth Lilly Assistive Technology Center was
founded in 1988 with the specific purpose of utilizing computer-based
technology to assist individuals with disabilities in achieving their
vocational goals. Since its inception, this program has grown to
provide job accommodation, adaptive computer access, ergonomic
consultation and other rehabilitation technology services to
individuals with all types of disabilities throughout the state of
Indiana.
The Ruth Lilly Assistive Technology Center is the only CARF-
accredited assistive technology program in the state on Indiana. All
work performed by the center is supervised by a RESNA-certified
Assistive Technology Practitioner (ATP).
Recently, the Ruth Lilly Assistive Technology Center opened its
doors to the west coast by establishing two technology centers in Las
Vegas, Nevada.
References
Please find letters of recommendation attached from the following
entities:
Indianapolis Private Industry Council (Attachment one)
Indiana Department of Work Force Development (Attachment
two)
Disability Resource Specialists from the Indianapolis
WorkOne centers (Attachment three)