Mission

1. Workforce Education and Training Policies:Current Federal Reauthorization ProposalsJob Opportunities Task ForceBaltimore, MarylandApril 23rd, 2003

2. Mission The Workforce Alliance (TWA) is a national coalition of local leaders advocating for federal policies that invest in the skills of America’s workers– including those who are low-income, unemployed, or seeking advancement– so they can better support their families, and help American businesses better compete in today’s economy.

3. TWA’s Four-Point Platform • Increase our Nation’s Investment in the Skills of its Workforce • Expand Access to Education & Training for All Workers • Measure Policies by their Success in Developing Self-Sufficient Workers • Promote and Reward Local Innovation

4. A Very Busy Year … • Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) • Administration: DONE • House: DONE (HR 4) • Senate: Finance Committee (May-June?); Summer – Fall * Current Law Extended Until June 30th • Workforce Investment Act (WIA) • Administration: March Framework; Senate Bill? (May) • House: Education & Workforce Comm (HR 1261); Floor vote delayed • Senate: HELP Committee (May-June?); Fall • Higher Education Act (HEA) & Perkins Act • Late 2003 / early 2004 • Ongoing Funding Battles • Congress vs. Administration? (FY2004 Budget, Approps)

5. TWA’s Goals for ImprovingTANF • Allow a range of employment-connected education and training activities—including post-secondary education—to count as “work activities” • Eliminate the 12-month limit vocational education • Eliminate 30% cap on number of clients engaged in E & T • Reward states for improving clients’ success in the labor market (employment, retention, earnings gains) vs. for reducing state caseloads • TANF-WIA integration through performance measures (vs. “super waivers”)

6. Competing TANF Proposals Administration & House: HR 4 Passed February 2003; same as last year’s bill (HR 4737) • Further limits on allowable work activities • Raised required hours of work to 40 Highly prescriptive about what to for specific hours each week • Raised work participation rate to 70% Double of most states • No More than 4 months education / training

7. Competing TANF Proposals Senate Last session’s “Tri-Partisan” Finance Committee Bill • 30 hours of work, with 24 in “work-focused” activities • Raised work participation rate to 70% • Allowed 24 months of vocational education • Post-secondary as work activity for 10% of caseload; ABE as work activity for up to 6 months • Employment credit vs. caseload reduction credit • $200 million Business Link Partnership grants

8. TWA’s Goals for ImprovingWIA • Invest in our Nation’s Workforce • Protect and Expand WIA Funding • Expand Access to Training (vs. current decreases) • Relieve “infrastructure” vs. “training” competition for limited dollars • Allow for a flexible “array” of services (core, intensive, training) vs. a federally mandated sequence • Easier for Effective Training Providers to Participate • Reduce reporting burdens across federal programs, types of clients– common performance measures (with diverse outcome expectations) • Robust, cross-agency public tracking systems that relieve burdens on individual training providers

9. TWA’s Goals for ImprovingWIA • State / Local Flexibility to Better Meet Local Conditions • Fewer federal mandates on funding mechanisms (vouchers vs. contracts), ETP requirements, etc. • Ability to adjust “performance” for changed local economic conditions • Federal prescriptions on “who,” but not on “how” • More Meaningful Opportunities for Engaging Business • WIBs are important, but should not be the only way • Industry-specific planning efforts / intermediaries– in which business collaborates with training providers, labor unions, public system

10. Competing WIA Proposals • Administration: USDOL-ETA White Paper • 10-pager, released March 7th, 2003 • Was to have followed last year’s forums, written comments • House: HR 1261-- “Workforce Reinvestment and Adult Education Act ” • Passed out of Committee this week; floor vote in April (?) • Senate: May - June 2003 • Legislative version of Administration’s proposal • Democratic / Tri-partisan Alternative

11. USDOL / House Proposals“Encouraging” Elements… • Relaxed Sequence of Services (???) • USDOL: generally stated • House: “unlikely or unable to obtain suitable employment” (Governor) • State Flexibility on ETP Lists • Still need to address funding to encourage participation • Tracking WIA clients or all clients (pro and con) • Separate One-Stop Funding Stream; all agencies contribute • USDOL: not specific; separate line in FY2004 budget request • House: at State level

12. USDOL / House Proposals“Encouraging” Elements… • New Business Role on Local WIBs (strategy vs. administration) • Local agencies sit on separate “Operating Committees” • Agency concerns about being saddled with One-Stop costs, no authority • Still too limited focus on WIBs vs. industries? • Common Performance Measures (4 for Adults, across agencies) • USDOL: employment, retention, earnings gains or credential (unclear) • House: employment, retention, earnings gains • BOTH: Efficiency Measure– Another “one size fits all” measure that will force creaming or low-cost / low-skill strategies

13. USDOL / House Proposals“Encouraging” Elements… • Recognized Need to Better Serve Certain Workers Incumbent Workers • 10% of Local Adult Dollars (with Governor approval); good, but no new money At-Risk / Special Populations • USDOL: “more dynamic performance negotiation process” • House: Incentive Grants to States and Locals; expands “special populations” to people with disabilites; * New amendments on displaced homemakers; ex-offenders; demonstration program • BOTH: Other proposal elements could work against serving people with special needs (e.g., Efficiency Measure, Adult Block Grant)

14. USDOL / House ProposalsBad Ideas… • Consolidation of Adult, Dislocated Worker and Employment Service dollars into new $3.1 billion “Comprehensive Adult” block grant • Ignores differences between different types of job-seekers • Pits different types of workers against each other over limited funds • Everyone served by stream for single set of outcome measures • Transfers too much Authority from Locals to Governors • USDOL: 50/50 funding split; Governor determines allocation formula • House: 50/50 split (but half of Governor’s $ to locals for core services) • USDOL: Governors do local area designation; no appeal to USDOL • State WIB authority over Local One-Stops (allocation; certification)

15. USDOL / House ProposalsBad Ideas… • “State Option” to Block Grant WIA Entirely • USDOL: Governor can choose to scrap WIA system, apply funds however s/he wants within certain very broad guidelines (e.g. One-Stops); without current statutory protections (e.g., FLSA) • House: Does NOT include State Option Block Grant Authority • Personal Reemployment Accounts (PRAs) • USDOL: Part of proposal • House: Been removed from WIA bill; will be introduced elsewhere? (already passed under “Back to Work Incentive Act”)

16. USDOL / House ProposalsOther Details… • Changes to State & Local WIB Composition (adult) • USDOL: State WIBs not required business majority; partner agencies • House: State WIBs retain business majority • BOTH: Agencies off Local WIB (Operating Committees) • ITAs to “Career Scholarships” (USDOL only) • Combine public and private dollars • New Priority for Unemployed Workers • Vs. old “priority” on public assistance recipients

17. WIA Title IIAdult Education and Family Literacy HR 1261; Dept. of Education expressed priorities (vs. budget request) • *** Fewer Big Changes than under Title I • Additional Performance Indicators • Core Indicators: improved basic skills, transition to post-secondary education, post-secondary credential or equivalent • Employment Performance Indicators: employment, retention, earnings gains; no efficiency measure • Additional Emphasis on “Workplace Literacy” • Distinct activity area, along with ABE, ESL and Family Literacy

18. WIA Title IIAdult Education and Family Literacy • Additional “Eligible Providers” • Qualified faith-based organizations • For-profit • Push for Curricular “Standards” (?) • Emphasis on “scientific research-based practices” • Research on adult vs. K-12 learners??? • Implications for workplace literacy???

19. TWA’s Goals for ImprovingHEA / Pell Grants • Individual Eligibility:Make it easier for working adults / part-time students to use Pell Grants • Not “regular students”; don’t make “satisfactory progress” • Cost of Attendance, Expected Contribution • Program Eligibility:New aid that could be used for non-traditional, employment-focused courses • Expand use of Pell: e.g., shorter-termed courses effective in helping people advance; distance learning courses OR • Create a new title in HEA for programs serving working adults not seeking enrollment in a long-term course of academic study

20. TWA’s Goals for ImprovingPerkins • Maintain Funding for Adult Workforce Programs • Administration calling for 24% cut to Perkins; Governors’ option to use funding for K-12 education • Differences in Adult vs. High School Programs: • Different measures of “success” (e.g., employment vs. degree completion) • Reward meaningful labor market outcomes • Comparable outcome measures with other federal workforce programs (e.g., WIA)

21. Bush Administration’s 2004 Budget Request

23. Andy Van KleunenExecutive DirectorThe Workforce Alliance (TWA)1054 31st Street NW, Suite 425Washington, DC 200007andyvk@workforcealliance.orgWashington Office: 202-338-0737