"ONE-STOP JOB CENTERS"
JOINT HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION,
TRAINING AND LIFE-LONG LEARNING
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND
THE WORKFORCE
AND THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JUNE 29, 2000
Education and the Workforce Serial No. 106-115
Ways and Means Serial No. 106-36
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education
and the Workforce
Table of Contents
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN HOWARD P. "BUCK" MCKEON, SUBCOMMITTEE ON POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION, TRAINING AND LIFE-LONG LEARNING, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES *
OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER MATTHEW MARTINEZ, SUBCOMMITTEE ON POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION AND LIFE-LONG LEARNING, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, DC *
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRWOMAN NANCY JOHNSON, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES, COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, DC *
OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER BENJAMIN CARDIN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES, COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES *
STATEMENT OF CYNTHIA A. FAGNONI, DIRECTOR, EDUCATION, WORKFORCE, AND INCOME SECURITY ISSUES, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON, DC; ACCOMPANIED BY GALE HARRIS AND DIANNE MURPHY BLANK *
SEE APPENDIX D *
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAY BRAMUCCI, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, WASHINGTON, D.C. *
OPENING STATEMENT OF ROBERT C. GROSS, PRESIDENT, INTERSTATE CONFERENCE OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, AGENCIES, AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, UTAH DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE SERVICES, WASHINGTON, D.C *
STATEMENT OF LINDA H. SOUTH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BREVARD WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT BOARD, INC., COCOA, FLORIDA *
STATEMENT OF RICHARD RAMSBURG, PRINCIPAL, ADULT EDUCATION AND EVENING HIGH SCHOOL, FREDERICK COUNTY MARYLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS, FREDERICK, MARYLAND *
APPENDIX A--WRITTEN OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN HOWARD P. "BUCK" MCKEON, SUBCOMMITTEE ON POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION, TRAINING AND LIFE-LONG LEARNING, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, DC *
HEARING ON "ONE-STOP JOB CENTERS"
Thursday, June 29,2000
House of
Representatives,
Subcommittee on
Postsecondary Education, Training and Life-Long Learning,
Committee on Education
and the Workforce,
Joint w/ Subcommittee on
Human Resources, Committee on Ways and Means
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call,
at 2:00 p.m., in Room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Howard P.
"Buck" McKeon [chairman of the Subcommittee on Postsecondary
Education, Training and Life-Long Learning] presiding.
Present: [Subcommittee on Postsecondary
Education, Training and Life-Long Learning] Representatives McKeon, Petri,
Ehlers, Isakson, Martinez, Holt, Owens, and Roemer, Payne.
Present: [Subcommittee on Human
Resources] Representatives Johnson, McCrery, and Cardin.
Staff Present: Linda Castleman, Office Manager; Patrick Lyden, Professional Staff Member; D'Arcy Philps, Professional Staff Member; Michael Reynard, Deputy Press Secretary; Kent Talbert, Education Policy Counsel; Shane Wright, Legislative Assistant; June Harris, Education Coordinator; Mary Ellen Ardouny, Legislative Associate/Education; and Roxana Folescu, Staff Assistant/Education.
Chairman McKeon.
Good afternoon. A quorum being present, the Subcommittee on Postsecondary
Education, Training and Life-Long Learning from the Committee on Education and
the Workforce, and the Subcommittee on Human Resources from the Committee on
Ways and Means will come to order. I would like to welcome members of the Ways
and Means Committee and thank them for joining us today.
We are holding this joint subcommittee
hearing today to hear testimony on assessing the progress of work-related
provisions under welfare reform. We will move quickly to the testimony of the
witnesses, but we will first have a few opening statements from the chairmen,
ranking members and Mr. Petri.
With that, I ask unanimous consent that
the hearing record remain open for 14 days to allow members' statements,
witness' written testimony and other written material to be submitted for the
record.
Without objection, so ordered.
Good afternoon. I would like to welcome
you to today's hearing on the issue of one-stop centers. I am particularly
pleased we are having this hearing along with the Ways and Means Subcommittee on
Human Resources, chaired by Representative Johnson.
Two years ago, we successfully passed
into law the Workforce Investment Act to consolidate and coordinate what had
been a maze of separate federal job training and employment programs. One of the
key provisions of the Workforce Investment Act was the establishment of one-stop
centers to provide individuals with integrated and streamlined delivery of
employment, job training, and other supportive services.
Just prior to the passage of the
Workforce Investment Act, another major initiative was signed into law, welfare
reform. Both of these laws have as a central theme the concept of work first;
that is, placing a priority on providing individuals with employment
opportunities as a first step toward self-sufficiency, followed by on-going
services and training to help achieve and maintain that goal.
It is this similarity in the mission of
the Workforce Investment Act and welfare reform that makes it so important that
we at the Federal level do whatever we can to ensure that States and localities
have the flexibility to effectively coordinate the delivery of these services.
The purpose of our hearing today is to examine the progress that has been made with respect to the implementation of one-stop centers. As important, we are eager to
hear from a variety of perspectives on
the extent to which the integration of welfare services has been a part of this
implementation. We will hear of both the success of these efforts, as well as
the challenges that continue to face this goal.
It is my hope that this hearing will
lead to continued discussions among our committees, Federal agencies, States and
localities, not only in identifying challenges, but to figure out how best to
break down barriers preventing the most effective and efficient delivery of
these important services.
The vitality of this system is not only
important to the millions of individuals receiving Federal employment and
training assistance, but also to the thousands of employers nationwide who are
desperate to find highly skilled employees to fill vacant positions. Proposals
to help these employers by significantly expanding the number of H-1B visas for
foreign workers are indicative of the challenges we face.
I would also like to note that this
hearing is very timely in that the provisions of the Workforce Investment Act
are to be in place by July 1, 2000, just two days away. We are fortunate to have
the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Employment and Training, Ray Bramucci, here
with us today to provide an update on the progress of this implementation.
I want to again thank Chairman Johnson
for this joint hearing and for her tireless leadership in this area. I would
also like to thank Ron Haskins, Staff Director of the Ways and Means
Subcommittee on Human Resources, who has provided this subcommittee with
invaluable assistance over the years. I want to thank each of our witnesses for
being here this morning, and I look forward to your testimony.
I will now recognize Representative Martinez, ranking member of the committee, for his opening comments.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McKeon
follows:]
WRITTEN OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN HOWARD P. "BUCK" MCKEON, SUBCOMMITTEE ON POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION, TRAINING AND LIFE-LONG LEARNING, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, DC—SEE APPENDIX A
Mr. Martinez.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be here and welcome both our
colleagues from the Ways and Means Committee and the witnesses that will testify
before us today.
As you said earlier, in 1998 our
committee I believe set a precedent by working together and forging a bipartisan
piece of legislation, which stands as a testament to what we can do when we work
together. Of course, there was some resistance in the beginning that had more to
do with pride of authorship of the JTPA than it did with substance in providing
services. But once we got over that, we were able to forge that legislation
together and I believe that it is working in many places.
The Workforce Investment Act was an
essential piece of the welfare reform effort. It repeals the Job Training
Partnership Act and consolidated and coordinated more than 60 Federal education
training and employment rehabilitation programs. In addition, that act provided
States with the flexibility to necessarily implement the programs that will best
suit their needs, while maintaining high standards and accountability. It wasn't
as if it was something new. I visited more than 10 years ago in Texas a one-stop
shop center that they had initiated, much before any of us in Washington or the
Congress thought of doing this.
Finally, but perhaps the most
important, it provides employers and employees alike with easy access to
services through those one-stop centers.
Although the Workforce Investment Act
was enacted less than 2 years ago and the official date of implementation is
still two days away, many States and localities have been integrating employment
and training services under the one-stop system for several years, as I
mentioned, Texas.
We are gathered here today to review
the initial progress of this early implementation. I understand the General
Accounting Office has visited a number of these States and localities that are
well ahead of the game and are prepared to provide us with preliminary
information regarding what is working, where challenges lie, and what the
Federal Government can do to smooth the way for other States.
I am also very interested in hearing the Department of Labor's perspective as it undertakes the challenging responsibility of altering the face of the Nation's job training and employment system and preparing the workforce to compete in an increasingly
competitive economy of the 21st
century.
I am particularly interested in hearing
from you at the State level and local level who have personal experience in
turning this law into reality, what you have to say, for although I believe
Congress did an outstanding job with the Workforce Investment Act, there is
always room for improvement, and it is my hope that your testimony today will
provide us with the direction as to where the improvements can be made.
Thank you very much. I yield back
balance of my time.
Chairman McKeon. Thank you, Mr. Martinez. I would like now to recognize Mrs. Johnson, the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources, for her opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRWOMAN NANCY JOHNSON, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES, COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, DC
Mrs. Johnson.
Thank you, Mr. McKeon. It is indeed a great pleasure to be here and it has been
a great pleasure to work with you and your staff to make this hearing happen. I
have long believed that the jurisdictional lines in Congress are too narrow, and
this kind of joint hearing is both in your interest and in ours.
Also as a State that was a pilot State
for the one-stop centers, I congratulate this committee on the Workforce
Investment Act, because it was an enormous help for us through our role as a
pilot State. We were well aware of the opportunities that were to be had through
more progressive legislative framework around job training activities and job
placement activities, and indeed they have been realized. Not a day passes when
I visit one of these centers, but that I am not thanked by many for the changes
in the law embodied in the Workforce Investment Act.
So we appreciate past performance. We
look forward to working with you in the future and we are very pleased to be at
this joint hearing.
What I want to know as a result of
today's hearing is the following: First, we passed major legislation to give
flexibility to States in promoting work. Is it working? Are the States better
able to coordinate the programs? Are they getting the maximum use out of their
resources? Are there problems that we need to fix?
Second, we have had a revolution in our welfare program. At least 1 million former welfare mothers are working and on average are less likely to be poor, and they have greater incomes than when they were on welfare. We also know many of them are having trouble staying in their jobs. I want to know if we are using one-stop job centers to help these young mothers and other young workers as well stay in the labor force.
Third, although we have achieved a
great deal since passing welfare reform in 1996, I am not satisfied. Mothers
working in low wage jobs are better off and so are their children than they were
on welfare, but I have absolute faith that many of these mothers are capable of
going into bigger and better paying jobs. My question is what are we doing at
the one-stop job centers to help these women get training for better jobs and
move up the career ladder. If we can begin to get good answers to these
questions, we will have achieved a lot today.
In the end, job training and job
placement centers should not be just about that first job. They should be about
career advancement, career development, and working up the job ladder and the
income ladder that goes with it. If welfare reform is to succeed, then we have
to succeed in this larger challenge in the job training-job placement area.
Again, let me thank Mr. McKeon and your
staff, Mr. D'Arcy Philps here, for working with us to bring this committee
together, and I welcome all the witnesses and thank them for coming to
Washington to provide us with better information on the successes and challenges
faced by our on-the-job training programs.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
WRITTEN OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRWOMAN
NANCY JOHNSON, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES, COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS,
U.S. HOUISE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, DC—SEE APPENDIX B
Chairman McKeon.
Thank you.
I will hear now from ranking minority member, Mr. Cardin.
Mr. Cardin.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Indeed I join in complimenting you and Mrs. Johnson for
holding this joint hearing. I think it is important that we look at the broader
subjects, and sometimes that becomes very difficult within our own committee. So
I thank you for convening a joint hearing today.
As Mrs. Johnson pointed out, the Subcommittee on Human Resources is charged with the responsibility of oversight of the welfare reform that this Congress passed a few years ago. We spent a lot of time in our subcommittee looking at the tools that are currently available and trying to evaluate the progress that we have made. We are all very encouraged by the reduction in the welfare rolls, but we still know we have a long
way to go in order to deal with the
poverty in our community and to make sure that the people that leave welfare in
fact not only have employment, but have opportunity to advance in their
employment.
The one-stop centers offer us one of
the tools that we want to evaluate through this hearing as to how effective it
has been in helping people who are coming off of welfare.
We know that there are 17 of these
centers now, States that are participating in this, that are providing most of
their employment services to people leaving welfare, and another 19 States that
provide other services to people coming off of welfare through their one-stop
centers. What I would like to know as we proceed through the hearing is not only
the direct employment services, but what are the post-employment services being
offered? As Mrs. Johnson pointed out, it is not just getting a person a job, but
whether that person can succeed in that job, can advance, and really have stable
employment for the future.
I am also concerned as to how the
one-stop centers are helping people in post-employment to make sure they get the
benefits they are entitled to under food stamps and Medicaid. We have had a lot
of difficulty in getting people who are eligible enrolled in these services, and
I would hope as we proceed with the hearing, that we will talk about how the
one-stop centers are helping us get people enrolled in the programs that they
are entitled to.
I thank all the witnesses for being
here today, and I look forward to your testimony.
Chairman McKeon.
Thank you, Mr. Cardin.
We have Mr. Petri with us who is in
line to be the chairman of the full committee next year.
Mr. Petri.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend you and
Mrs. Johnson and your ranking members for organizing this very important hearing
and just underline a concern I have, and which I hope the witnesses will
address.
Mrs. Johnson emphasized the importance
of not only getting people into the world of work, but also helping them move up
the career and income ladder. It is my impression that it did not make much
difference how the phase-out rates were coordinated and all of that, between the
vast array of Federal and state programs, when people were not working, because
the phase-out rates did not make any difference. But today if someone is working
in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and earning a minimum wage of $11,000, and then they do
well, work overtime, improve their skills, and make $22,000, their take-home pay
is actually worse. They are penalized.
That is wrong. To fix that up, it is by $3,000 or $4,000, which, is significant. So there is no real economic incentive in the short run to advance and improve oneself and work on the books.
It may not be that job centers are the
full solution. It may be that we in Congress have to do a better job of
coordinating between not just these two committees, but other committees that
have jurisdiction over food stamps or the housing programs and a whole range of
programs to make sure that these marginal phase-out rates, not income tax rates,
but loss of benefit rates, are better coordinated so people don't phase out at
over a 100 percent tax rate in effect, if you look at benefits as income and
then the loss of them as a tax, as they improve their skills and improve their
quality and nominal income.
It is very important, and I am glad
these committees are having this hearing so that we can begin laying the
foundation for addressing it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McKeon.
Thank you. Our first witness today, first panel, is Ms. Cynthia Fagnoni,
Director of Education, Workforce, and Income Security Office at the U.S. General
Accounting Office here in Washington.
We changed some lights here. We don't
have the big glaring red, yellow and green, but we have those little ones. I
think they still work effectively. Your full testimony will be inserted in the
record, and of course anything else, as I said that you wanted to submit later.
However, if you want to summarize or give us your testimony now, the light goes
yellow at four minutes and red at five minutes, and then we will have
questioning from the members.
Ms. Fagnoni.
Thank you. I would like to introduce Gale Harris and Dianne Murphy Blank here
with me today, who helped oversee this particular project and have extensive
knowledge of workforce as well as welfare issues.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Chairman
McKeon, Chairman Johnson and members of the subcommittees. We are pleased to be
here this afternoon to discuss the implementation of the Workforce Investment
Act and the integration of services, including those for TANF recipients at
one-stop centers. Our testimony focuses on the status of States' efforts to
implement WIA, the challenges they have encountered, and the service delivery
approaches that show promise. This testimony is based on our ongoing work for
these subcommittees.
States are making progress in implementing WIA, but not all States will have completed all the required activities by July 1st when WIA takes full effect. All States have submitted their 5-year plans to Labor and established their local areas and nearly all have a comprehensive one-stop center in each area, but 16 States won't have completed
their cost allocation plans, and at
least six States won't have the revised training systems in place.
Even though WIA does not require States
to provide all program services on site at the one-stops, States told us that
many services are on site, especially for the larger Labor funded programs. To
fund one-stop centers' operations and infrastructure, States told us that
Labor's WIA mandated programs were the largest sources.
States are also forging linkages
between WIA and TANF. Forty-three States told us that TANF is a State partner
with the one-stop system, and the TANF block grant was identified as a key
source of one-stop funding by nearly a fourth of the States. TANF
employment-related services are on site at the one-stop centers in about half
the States.
As States have worked to implement WIA,
they report facing the following challenges: Establishing formal partnerships
with agencies that now under WIA provide services through the one-stops, has
proven difficult. For example, States told us that funding limitations across
program partners and the lack of guidance from State and Federal agencies made
it difficult to allocate costs in a fair and equitable manner. States have also
struggled with the logistical issues involved in designing and developing an
integrated system under WIA.
One of the other major infrastructure
challenges has been the development of computer systems to support integration.
Over one-third of the States do not expect to have a management information
system in place by July first.
States' efforts to integrate their
programs have been affected by the multiple requirements of the Federal funding
sources supporting one-stops. States told us that the way Federal funds are
tracked in silos makes it difficult for them to respond to the spirit of WIA.
Despite these challenges, States and
localities are developing integrated service delivery approaches that show
promise. These approaches use WIA's customer focus and aim to reduce the
problems that exist in the fragmented workforce development system.
Our chart over here on your left shows
the key areas that we have identified as critical to successfully integrating
services. One-stops need to attract and serve employers in ways that minimize
wasted time and reduce frustration. The centers we visited in Titusville and
Melbourne, Florida, for example, designated an individual or a team to serve as
the center's representative for an employer or employment sector.
At the same time, one-stops need to
bring in job seekers to help them get employment and program information. To
increase community wide awareness of the centers, those in Killeen, Texas and
Kanab, Utah, identify as a community resource by providing space for a variety
of community wide events.
Creating a customer friendly environment for job seekers is also important. Many centers, such as Dayton, Ohio and Killeen, Texas, minimize the waiting time for services by providing a quick assessment at the information desk and then referring clients for specialized services. Some centers, like the one in Janesville, Wisconsin, use their job resource rooms as the waiting room for specialized services so customers can conduct job
searches while they wait.
Also key is providing job seeker
services that are tailored and seamless. Some clients, like many TANF
recipients, may need intensive case management services to help them find and
keep a job. One-stop centers we visited often found ways to integrate the
services provided by multiple programs, creating a seamless approach to
delivering services. For example, clients in all centers in Utah see a single
case manager for all services, including TANF, food stamps and Medicaid, despite
the program or combination of programs that fund those services.
In Killeen, Texas, on the other hand,
where more than one case manager may be involved in a case, the centers assign a
primary case manager who takes the lead to coordinate most activities and assist
the client to navigate the system.
Moreover, an additional new focus for
the workforce development system, and one that many of you specifically focused
on in your opening statements, is helping job seekers become self-sufficient by
providing needed post-employment services. Once a client gets a job, the focus
of one-stop services becomes one of helping the client retain the job or upgrade
skills to obtain a better job. Because this post-employment program emphasis is
new, most States and localities we visited were only beginning to develop
post-employment efforts.
In conclusion, we are still a long way
from having a nationwide comprehensive workforce investment system that
effectively serves both job seekers and employers, but at this early stage of
WIA implementation, we do see States making progress in integrating employment
and training services. New relationships are being established and despite these
challenges, States and localities are developing promising approaches to the way
they serve their customers.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. We would be happy to answer any questions you or members may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Cynthia
Fagnoni follows.]
WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF CYNTHIA A. FAGNONI,
DIRECTOR, EDUCATION, WORKFORCE, AND INCOME SECURITY ISSUES, U.S. GENERAL
ACCOUNTING OFFICE, ACCOMPANIED BY GALE HARRIS AND DIANNE MURPHY BLANK-SEE
APPENDIX C
Chairman McKeon. Thank you very much. In your view, how is it that some
States and localities are better able to design a unified system within the
constraints of multiple Federal laws, while others point to the Federal laws as
barriers to coordination? Some States you mentioned, some are doing very well
and some are not as well. What is the difference?
Ms. Fagnoni.
I think there can be a number of reasons why some States are further ahead. I
think maybe a lot of States would refer to barriers, but perhaps some have been
more successful in overcoming them. One reason often is the fact there are some
States that have more long-standing relationships with a broader range of
programs and have been working together for a longer periods of time.
For example, there may have been
linkages under the old AFDC programs, the jobs program and the JTPA programs and
those kinds of linkages and relationships carry through under the new systems. I
think also leadership from the State level, leadership in providing a vision and
overall direction for programs. Some States have gone so far as to merge their
workforce and welfare departments, for example, to try to both show the strong
signal that they need to work together as one entity, but also to help try to
break down some of those barriers that exist.
So I think there are a number of
reasons why some States have had a head start, some have had perhaps stronger
visions and pushed ahead further on some of these. But at the same time, both
systems are still evolving, WIA as well as welfare reform, and a number of
States are moving in the same directions.
Chairman McKeon.
Is it your view that coordination between these systems has grown since the
passage of the Welfare Reform and the Workforce Investment Act? Has that been
helpful?
Ms. Fagnoni.
I think it has been. I know in our discussions with some officials around the
country, for example, they have pointed to the welfare to work grant as a
program because it is housed in the Department of Labor, but yet it is designed
to serve hard to serve welfare recipients and non-custodial parents of children
on welfare, that that has sort of forced linkages between Labor programs and
programs out of HHS and welfare programs, including TANF. So that has been
viewed as something that has been advantageous.
Also, as I think we have noted in
recent reports, the goals of the two systems, the workforce development system
and our welfare system, have merged more closely together with a stronger
emphasis on moving people into employment and now a more recent focus on helping
people retain jobs and improve their skills to achieve higher standards of
living.
So I think it is fair to say that while
some States have had a head start, there has been movement since both of these
key reform efforts for the two systems to work more closely together.
Chairman McKeon.
Is that in all States?
Ms. Fagnoni.
Not in all States. I think you will see much variation, as we found when we
surveyed all 50 States. We found a range in terms of the extent to which the
States are partnering with TANF, if you will, at the State level, the extent to
which at the one-stop level services that are TANF-related are available at the
one-stop.
For example, in some States a broad
range of services are available to TANF recipients, including Medicaid, food
stamps, and these sorts of related programs for low-income individuals. In other
one-stops, the link may be with employment-related services for TANF, and the
eligibility and other kinds of services might be elsewhere. So there is a mix in
terms of how much is linked and at what level.
Chairman McKeon.
My time is just about up. Is there anything that you see that we could do to
help those States that are lagging behind?
Ms. Fagnoni.
We identified some challenges that States will need to continue to work on and
that all levels of government will need to work through.
One is to enhance coordination, not
just between the TANF and the workforce development systems, but also even
within the workforce development system, the multitude of programs, some of
which not housed in the Department of Labor and ensuring there is coordination
among those programs.
As we note in our testimony, another
key area, the focus on job retention and post-employment services is a new one
for our workforce development system, and I think it is one that, as a number of
you mentioned in your opening statements, it is just beginning, but deserves
attention and focus to see to what extent States are moving in this direction
and to seek encouragement on that.
I think there are opportunities to look
at how States and localities could be encouraged to better integrate and maybe
break down some of the barriers and administrative challenges that have to do
with the multiple funding streams.
Chairman McKeon.
Thank you. Mr. Martinez.
Mr. Martinez.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can you hear me?
Ms. Fagnoni.
I can, but not too well.
Mr. Martinez.
My switch doesn't seem to be working. Now?
Ms. Fagnoni.
Yes.
Mr. Martinez.
I am having a little difficulty. The light is not going on.
The first part of the act was
establishing the Workforce Investment Board on the State level. Most States have
done that already?
Ms. Fagnoni.
Yes.
Mr. Martinez.
Then the next was to identify investment areas, and the States have done that?
Ms. Fagnoni.
Yes.
Mr. Martinez.
So that they are proceeding along the lines that the act suggested. It is a good
thing that in many States welfare programs are collaborating with the workforce
investment. Originally when JTPA was enacted, it was more or less in answer to
the distress of workers that were being put out of jobs because of factories
closing and moving overseas, dislocated workers. Initially when that act was
enacted, one of the first places, the County of L.A., I guess, were ahead of
their time, because they choose to take and start to move welfare recipients
into the job training partnership programs to get them off the welfare rolls.
Immediately here in Congress there was an upheaval. You know, this isn't what
the act was for. It was for dislocated workers.
Slowly over the years it started to
move towards trying to include in the act hard to serve welfare recipients,
which they were successful in amending the act. I think the Workforce Investment
Act made a big improvement, because it brought the flexibility to do all of that
now together.
I can't understand why more States are
not eager and moving very rapidly into a fully implemented plan. Could you tell
me why?
Ms. Fagnoni.
I think there are a number of reasons. As we point out in our testimony, some of
the areas where States are having more difficulty in reaching the implementation
requirements by July 1st, a couple of days from now, have to do with
requirements to have training partners in place that have been certified, to
have the individual training accounts established so that people can use
vouchers in effect to seek training, and they have had some difficulties in
developing some of the MOU's for some of the partners, particularly in cases
where this may be new and there may be some issues with turf among the different
agencies. So these are some of the areas where while they have some of the major
pieces in place and are overall on track with implementation, some of these
other areas, part of them administrative dealing with cost allocations among
funds, have been more challenging.
In addition, States have considerable
flexibility; particularly with say a program like TANF that is not a required
mandatory partner under WIA. They have some flexibility and choices in terms of
what they choose to include and combine together as part of the workforce
development system and in the one-stops.
So there are a number of reasons why we
see some ranges.
Mr. Martinez.
Should the legislation be amended so that would be a requirement?
Ms. Fagnoni.
That is something that I know I have heard people talk about recently, in
talking about maybe they should have done that when the law was enacted or maybe
used that opportunity.
In talking to people around the
country, we get some varying opinions about the extent to which people feel
comfortable completely incorporating TANF within the workforce development
system and within one-stops.
There are those who would raise
concerns that TANF recipients might not get the range of services they need and
might not get the attention they need for special services if they are grouped
together completely with others seeking jobs. At the same time, we have seen
instances where the extent to which TANF recipients may need to go to different
locations to receive different kinds of services can be very confusing and
time-consuming and difficult.
So, what I think we have been talking
about among ourselves is it would be important, I think, for the Congress and
others to pay attention to how this system is evolving, look at the States that
have been more active in incorporating TANF, look at what that has and hasn't
done for TANF recipients, and we can start to get a sense of whether or not that
is important enough to do that, that other States should be encouraged to do the
same, or whether there are some issues that surface that one needs to pay
attention to.
Mr. Martinez.
Earlier you mentioned about finding the right service providers. I imagine you
mean the people that would provide the training. Weren't there a lot of people
in place for those kind of services already from the Job Training Partnership
Act that the PICs themselves had given slots to X number of service providers,
and wasn't there any transition from using those people into the new program?
Ms. Fagnoni.
I think there were. I think in a number of cases they would be the same
providers. But I think there are some additional requirements. For example, the
trainers have to be able to show some performance so that particularly for
clients who are making choices about where to go for training, would have
information on how effective those trainers had been in actually placing people
in jobs, for example.
There are some additional requirements.
So some of the same providers that were able to provide training under the old
system may need to go through some additional re-certification. They may
ultimately be able to use them, but in some cases, they have to spend some
additional time demonstrating that they can meet the requirements under WIA.
Mr. Martinez.
Thank you. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Chairman McKeon.
Thank you. Chairwoman Johnson.
Mrs. Johnson.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
What percentage of the one-stop centers
have developed job retention programs, on site job support advice counseling
during that first year of employment, career advancement services, advice as to
what training you could take after hours, what education to move up the career
ladder? How developed are those job retention and development services and how
common are they?
Ms. Fagnoni.
Let me premise by saying while we did survey all 50 States to get an overall
sense of where they were in implementing WIA, and we did miss visiting a number
of one-stops, it is not by any means a representative sample. We did visit 24
one-stops around the country for this particular project alone.
From visiting those one-stops and from
talking to State officials, I will say that one-stops are very early on in
thinking about how they might provide job retention services. To the extent
there are, and we have an example where the State of Florida is setting up a
system to work on that, the focus has been on TANF recipients and former TANF
recipients, and they have been using TANF funds.
So what we saw was a very limited
amount so far, in part I believe because this is a new focus under this system.
Mrs. Johnson.
I did visit one of the one-stop centers in Florida and was very impressed with
this aspect of their work, and I would hate for the funding stream issue to in
any way inhibit the rollover of that experience into the rest of their
population, because in the long run, all unemployed ought to have behind them
retention services and advise about how to advance in their career.
Do you see in those States, recognizing
now that this is a young service area, rolling it over to other than TANF
clients?
Ms. Fagnoni.
We did not see it yet, but I do think we see recognition that this is a new
focus under WIA and that I think this is something that we will want to pay
attention to as this system evolves.
Mrs. Johnson.
Since welfare to work is specifically a Labor Department program, has that
program that challenges them to help the really hard to employ, has that
affected their approach to some of their own hard to employ unemployed people?
In other words, people who have been on unemployment compensation quite a long
time and clearly are having a hard time finding a job?
Ms. Fagnoni.
To my knowledge, I think the focus has been more targeted on those that can be
served under the welfare to work grant. As you know, recently the requirements
for which they could serve broadened to help enable States to focus a little bit
more broadly on serving individuals under the welfare to work grants.
Ms. Harris.
I would like to add one thing. I have a team that just came back from doing some
work in New York State. This is just what I have heard. But apparently they are
going to use some of the flexibility under TANF to use TANF funds with an
eligibility criteria of like 200 percent of poverty to help people who are
already employed retain their jobs and advance. In other words, it is using TANF
funds, but not for folks who necessarily were receiving monthly cash assistance
and have then become employed. So in that way they are broadening the population
that they hope to reach with their retention and advancement services.
Mrs. Johnson.
There are certainly many people who are in the same position as welfare
recipients in terms of both employment and development of their employment
capabilities, even though they are not welfare recipients, maybe don't have
children, for some other reason are not on welfare. So I certainly would want to
do all that we can through the law to encourage the development of a consistent
program that reaches people in terms of their need, not necessarily in terms of
what program they came into. While welfare to work was a legitimate way to
start, I don't think it is where we ought to be in 10 years with a
population-specific program that is identified according to what program you
came into the system as opposed to what your needs are.
Ms. Fagnoni.
Right. Well, also in addition to the fact that you have low income families who
may or may not have been on welfare, we issued a report some years ago looking
at the child care system where we made the statement that welfare families and
low income working poor families are often the same families at different points
in time. In other words, we also have a situation where while somebody may be
successful in moving from welfare to work, we know that there is considerable
recidivism and it is important to understand the linkages and fluidity between
welfare recipients and low-income individuals in general.
Mrs. Johnson.
Lastly, I just want to raise an issue that I don't know whether your work has
given you any insight into or not, but between 1994 and 2000, the decline in the
welfare rolls has been 50 percent, and 80 percent have gone into full-time work.
The decline in the number of people on unemployment has been only 12 percent.
So one has to ask the question, are we
enforcing the work requirements in welfare more effectively than we are
reflecting the job search and work requirements for those on unemployment
compensation? I believe this is very important, because the longer you are out
of the workforce, even if you win, the longer you are out of the workforce, the
more dispirited you become and the harder you are to reemploy, for a lot of
different reasons.
So why is it that we have seen this
dramatic drop in the welfare rolls, and most of it into jobs, but we have not
seen a dramatic drop in the unemployment rolls? Although we have seen a 33
percent decline in unemployment nationally, there is only a 12 percent decline
in those on unemployment?
I realize there is a returning group of
people, but it is a concern, and one has to ask are the work requirements under
the unemployment compensation system enforced? Are they as effective? Has the
agency stressed job placement and reemployment as aggressively with the
unemployed as they do with welfare recipients?
Ms. Fagnoni.
I have to say we haven't done any direct work on that.
Ms. Harris.
But we do have a job ongoing that is looking at the unemployment insurance
system and welfare reform to see if States are rethinking the role of
unemployment insurance.
Mrs. Johnson.
Do you have anything going on that looks at how States are enforcing the
requirement to search for a job and take a job?
Ms. Harris.
Again, I have just heard a team out there that has heard there is not that much
of it going on, but there is some.
Mrs. Johnson.
We will have to talk about doing that, because all of the job training research
does show that on-the-job training is the most effective, and that is why the
unemployment compensation system has to get better at retention, at supporting
people in their first job or in a job, and then in career development, because
there are ways to get people working as opposed to not working, whether they are
on welfare or unemployed. But if we don't do a better job of retention and of
advancement, then we won't succeed.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McKeon.
Thank you.
Mr. Cardin.
Mr. Cardin.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was listening to my chairman talk about the
unemployment insurance issues, and I think the point she raised is very
important. But I would hope that we would always draw the distinction between
the services we provide under TANF, which are income-related benefits, social
program versus unemployment insurance, which is an earned benefit, and there is
a distinction between the two programs that we should always remember. That is
not to say people shouldn't comply with the requirements of law, they should,
but they are different programs.
Ms. Fagnoni,
I think this report is very helpful. One thing I hope we will do is make sure
that States get a copy of it. It seems you can learn from each other. One of the
things that are going to be useful is for States to see what other States are
doing, what is working, and what is not working. We are at the infancy stage of
one-stop centers, and this could be useful for States to learn from each other.
So I hope this report will get wide distribution.
I just want to highlight one section,
one statement that you made in your report, one finding that I find very
interesting from Provo, Utah, and I know that Mr. Rose is here from Utah, but
where they have one-site child care facilities to help parents. That is quite an
incentive to use the services. You can get your child into daycare. It looks
like the contract entered into, is used well according to your report.
Ms. Fagnoni.
That is not the only center we have been to where there is an on site, not just
a play area for kids, but actually somebody, a licensed daycare provider on site
so that people when they are trying to work at getting a job, getting services,
don't have to worry about their kids being safe.
Mr. Cardin.
That is quite a good approach and something we should certainly take a look at.
In your report you talk about seven
States that have integrated the services for eligibility on food stamps and
Medicaid into their one-stop shops. I would hope that you would make the names
of those seven States available to us.
What I would like to do is see whether
we have any information as to whether those States are doing better than others
in getting those that are eligible for Medicaid and food stamps enrolled. I
don't know if you know that or not.
Ms. Fagnoni.
We don't. I kind of anticipated it would be a question. I think there certainly
is the potential that the more services are collocated, there may be more of an
opportunity to ensure that those people don't fall through the cracks, that
somebody knows that they are eligible for food stamps, for Medicaid. But we
didn't look specifically at that.
Mr. Cardin.
We do have the names of the seven States. Maybe we can try to_again, I know this
is the early stage, but it seems to me common sense tells us if they are
coordinating it, it is one place, they can get the eligibility services done
while they are there, there is a better chance the person will get the services
they are entitled to.
Ms. Fagnoni.
It would seem like that would be the case. For example, in Utah, which is one of
the States that does that, there is one individual who actually is knowledgeable
about all the programs. In other places we have somebody who may have to use
other individuals for different programs, but one person coordinates for the
client, so again they make sure they have all of the services to which they are
entitled and need.
So I think it is something, like I
said, worth looking at to see where there is broader inclusion of TANF, whether
that makes a difference and what kind of difference.
Mr. Cardin.
Thank you. We have talked about TANF funds being used by States as we intended
them, very flexibly for these times of programs. Do we know how much TANF funds
are actually being used to support these centers?
Ms. Fagnoni.
We don't. From our survey we have a good sense of the extent to which States are
using TANF funds and to what extent they are a major source of funds, but States
aren't required to report the different pieces of funding that are used to fund
one-stops, and they weren't able to provide that to us.
Mr. Cardin.
Could you give us an estimate based upon what you have, or not?
Ms. Fagnoni.
We don't have a dollar estimate, not for use of TANF funds.
Mr. Cardin.
Would it be difficult for you_I understand you can't give us a scientific
number, but would it be difficult for you to get back to us_ I see you are
shaking your head.
Ms. Fagnoni.
It would be up to whether or not the States could provide us with that
information. I don't know how difficult. We will follow up with you on that. We
would have to go to the States for that information, if they have it.
The Committee did not receive this
information.
Mr. Cardin. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McKeon.
Thank you.
Mr. Petri.
Mr. Petri.
Thank you. I have just one area that I thought I might ask you. You may not be
able to respond. You allude in the report several times, certainly the idea of
one-stop is partly for convenience, and it recognizes the logistical problems
people have in getting around in what we now call T-21, the Transportation Act.
Secretary Slater was very eager that we have a major transportation component
for people who are moving from welfare into the world of work who are low-income
working people.
You do talk of locating one-stop
centers in low-income areas, on bus lines, to increase accessibility. We tried
to make it flexible enough so that it wasn't just mass transit. Many employers
in our area find that one of the biggest incentives for securing and retaining
an employee is providing a car, because it is not just going from where they
live to work, but it is going to church, it is going to school, it is taking
kids to the doctor, it is dropping them off in daycare, and they are not all on
a line. Our counties are maintaining cars for people at the county garage,
because a used car with a big problem is a disaster if you have no fallback
resources.
Could you mention anything about that?
Is that being coordinated at all or do you have any sense of whether job centers
are able to plug people in to transportation resources as part of this?
Ms. Fagnoni.
In some of our other work where we looked more specifically at efforts to move
TANF recipients from welfare to work in particular, we found a number of
localities around the country where they were trying to make sure that clients,
that people for whom they are trying to get jobs, have the sorts of support they
need to be able to get and retain a job. Some key aspects are child-care and
transportation. So you are right, it is not simply transportation to the
one-stop, it is also making sure that they have those kinds of supports that are
necessary to get a job and get to one's job.
So we have seen in a variety of jobs we
have done a number of innovative approaches to ensuring that people can get to
their job. So, yes, it is recognized pretty widely as a key component.
Mr. Petri.
Thank you.
Chairman McKeon.
Mr. Owens.
Mr. Holt.
Mr. Holt.
No questions at this time. I am eager to hear Mr. Bramucci.
Chairman McKeon.
Mr. McCrery.
Mr. McCrery.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let's talk about funding sources for these one-stop
centers for just a moment. I see, I am trying to breeze through your written
testimony and I see some charts that indicate the various programs that
contribute to the funding of these one-stop centers, but I don't see anything
indicating the relative contribution of the various programs.
Can you identify the funding according
to the amount from the various sources? Does most of the money come from
Employment Services, for example, or does most of the money come from some other
mandated Department of Labor program? How is the breakdown there?
Ms. Fagnoni.
Well, let me preface this again by saying we do not have dollar figures, but we
did ask and States were able to provide us with what they identified as key
funding sources. Yes, the Employment Service identified as a key-funding source.
It was primarily I think some of the
key Department of Labor programs that were identified, including WIA funding,
but, again, we did find, for example, that 12 States ranked TANF as among their
three largest funding sources. It did vary considerably, and we had a number of
States that were pulling together funding from several different programs.
Mr. McCrery.
The question that Mrs. Johnson asked is an interesting one, the one that she
asked about unemployment, the drop in unemployment benefits and the number of
people using the service in comparison to the drop in the welfare rolls, and I
guess implicit in her question was that maybe the incentives are different in
the two programs, welfare reform you have to take any job, there is a time
requirement and so forth; employment services or unemployment comp, there are
different requirements. You get the money, you have to seek, but you don't have
to find, I guess.
I am wondering if there could be a
connection between the amount of money available for those services and the
effectiveness of those services? Did you find that in your examination of these
one-stop centers and the function of, say, the employment services branch of
that one-stop center?
Ms. Fagnoni.
We don't really have the information to be able to determine whether or not
levels of funding made the difference. I think Congressman Cardin's point about
the different nature of the two programs may account for some of those
differences in terms of the way those programs are viewed and the extent to
which by law some requirements are built into the programs now in terms of, for
example, under TANF the requirement that people be in work activities within a
certain number of years, those sorts of things. I think they make the
difference.
Mr. McCrery.
Since we have a number of States that are not integrating their TANF program
into these one-stop centers, would you advise making that mandatory?
Ms. Fagnoni.
I think this is something we would want to pay attention to see for those States
where there is more integration, make the comparison as this system develops,
the comparison in terms of outcomes for TANF recipients, do we see improved
outcomes where there is more integration of services. I think that might give
the Congress the information it may need to determine whether or not you would
want to send a stronger message to the States that aren't currently integrating
the services.
Mr. McCrery.
Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McKeon.
Mr. Roemer.
Mr. Roemer.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too welcome the distinguished panel that we have
before us today on what I think is a very important and critically vital issue
to many of our constituencies.
I was a strong supporter of the
President's efforts to reform welfare and change what was the current system,
but I also believe that we need a welfare-to-reform, and that we need to
continue to watch very carefully what happens in this economy, to take care of
many of the poorest of the poor people that are very much in need of continued
assistance, whether it be child care and one-stop shopping, or whether it be
cradle to grave learning opportunities and educational experiences.
My question would be how do we continue
to, with the transient population here with one-stop shopping, how do we
continue to plug people into cradle to grave education opportunities? Do you
work closely with local businesses, do local businesses give you input on what
skills are needed, how are you able to track and keep people involved in this
kind of education system, and are local businesses encouraged to participate?
Ms. Fagnoni.
Let me first talk to the point of tracking. You are right, that is a very
critical aspect. If a system is going to help people once they move into the
workplace, then there would need to be some kind of follow-up system, some kind
of tracking across the system, I would think, so look at what kind of job that
that person gets, what is the income, what kinds of training are they receiving
on the job, what might they need to upgrade their skills and perhaps advance,
either in that job or in a different job.
We have got some specific examples
where local businesses have gotten involved in helping welfare_ former welfare
recipients with on-the-job training and recognizing some special needs that
people who may have had less attachment to the workforce might need. But I don't
think we have sort of a broad national picture of that. But that certainly, in
certain areas of the country and certain localities, I think there is a strong
linkage with employers. As we noted on our chart, that is a real key element of
an effective one-stop approach, making sure not to just focus on helping people
that walk in the door, but unless the one-stop has an effective approach with
employers, they are not going to be able to link people with the jobs and then
help make sure they stay in those jobs and advance.
So I do think we have seen some
specific examples of that, but I don't think we have a good national picture.
Mr. Roemer.
Where regionally are we better at including some of the local business input
into the needs of the local economy for those kinds of specific jobs that are
open?
Ms. Fagnoni.
I don't think we have reports that would identify a specific region. I think
what we have is across the country we will have pockets of localities where
there have been more effective linkages.
Mr. Roemer.
Do we have a way to share those best practices with other communities so that we
can learn what is working in one community so that we might apply it in another
through kind of best practices, or Internet linkage?
Ms. Fagnoni.
I think this is something that it would be useful to pursue, and it may be that
the Department of Labor could play an important, useful role. That is often a
very good role for a Federal department, particularly as programs have been
devolved in terms of authority to States and localities. The Federal Government
can play a very important role in identifying and disseminating information on
best practices.
Mr. Roemer.
I would certainly be interested in your suggestions in order to work with the
Department of Labor on that.
Finally, you indicated that it was
important to track these individuals to make sure that once they were placed
with the local business, to assess how successful they were doing, if in fact
they needed an upgrading in their job skills and their productivity.
It you say you do that, or we do not
currently have a very good system of doing that?
Ms. Fagnoni.
This is a system that is only just evolving. I would say of all the pieces of
what might be an effective approach to serving individuals, this is the newest
and least developed piece, this piece of paying attention to people once they
move into the workforce. I think under a lot of programs in the past, and even
some current programs, the focus was on getting people jobs, and I think there
is now a better recognition that that is not going to be enough to fully serve
people, particularly low income individuals.
Mr. Roemer.
I would hope too that we could focus more on that aspect. In our economy in
South Bend, Indiana, in my district I represent in northern Indiana, we are
seeing people constantly in need, from the working poor to the highest paying
white collar jobs, the people are in constant need of training and productivity
enhancement and new learning skills, and I would hope that we would do this to
especially the vulnerable population that gets into these sometimes low paying
jobs and the jobs change and then we forget about them.
So, again, there is another area where
I would be happy to work with you folks.
Thank you.
Chairman McKeon.
Mr. Isakson.
Mr. Isakson.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to follow up with Mr. McCrery's question if I
could for a second. On page 12 of the report and in other places, it makes
direct reference to where States have had difficulty because of multiple Federal
requirements and multiple sources of rules. In particular I want to address
myself to on page 9. It appears to me there are 12 or 13 various programs from
which funds are being drawn to fund the one-stop source, is that correct?
Ms. Fagnoni.
Right.
Mr. Isakson.
Is the States using some or all of those?
Ms. Fagnoni.
Those are mandatory programs, right.
Mr. Isakson.
On page 12 it says that the various accountabilities for the use of the funds
sometimes is in conflict, so the States are having difficulty using some of the
funds for its intended purpose because some of the requirements are different,
depending on the source of the funds.
I didn't have time to read, so I am
really asking, and it may already be in here and you just point me in the right
direction, have you all made any recommendation as to how we might simplify the
accounting on the States' parts so they can take advantage of the ability to use
multiple sources of funding to fund what is supposed to be an integrated
one-stop shop?
Ms. Fagnoni.
We have not made recommendations. This is our first look at this system, given
that it is technically not officially in place until a couple of days from now.
Therefore, this was our early look at how things are going, where the States
are, and particularly looking at those localities and one-stops that seems to be
further out ahead. So, no, we didn't in this particular assignment focus on
that.
Mr. Isakson.
Well, the reason I asked the question is that I understand how this is a
problem. I talked to our_ Michael Thurman in Georgia, our Labor Commissioner,
who has been a tremendous guy in implementing welfare to work and a number of
things, and the most difficult problem they are having now, as Representative
Johnson said, we have reduced welfare rolls substantially. Those that remain,
however, are very difficult people to employ, as we all know, given the nature
of our economy right now and we have got full employment, and the need for this
one-stop is important, the need for support, the need for referral, the need for
adult literacy. It would seem like to me that if we could get some
recommendations here on what we might do to give some flexibility on the
accounting side back to the source of money, it might help our States be able to
really take advantage of those funds and implement a program, rather than be
held back because they don't think they can account for the money, so the money
doesn't get used, if you follow what I am saying there.
Ms. Fagnoni.
I think this is an area where States are still working through, and what would
be needed would be to get a better handle on some of the more specifics and how
those might be overcome. Part of it could be talking to the other States that
have kind of figured out how to pull things together. Others might be places
where there could be more uniform guidelines that would enable States to better
piece funds together.
Mr. Isakson.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McKeon.
Thank you. I see in the report you visited five States and you said how many?
Ms. Fagnoni.
It was twenty-four one-stops in all, actually in more than five States. We
focused on five States that were sort of early implementers of one-stops, which
were Texas, Florida, Kentucky, Utah and Oregon. We also visited one-stops in
Ohio, Illinois and Wisconsin. While it is not a representative sample, it was a
pretty broad range of one-stops.
Chairman McKeon.
Do you have any idea how many one-stops there are in the country now?
Ms. Fagnoni.
My understanding is there are over 1,000. I think there are 1,476 is what our
number says.
Chairman McKeon.
Do you have a list of those by State?
Ms. Fagnoni.
Not with us.
Chairman McKeon.
Can you get that?
Ms. Fagnoni.
We can get that for you.
[The information follows:]
Chairman McKeon.
Thank you. Mr. Owens.
Mr. Owens.
Mr. Chairman, I had to step out for a
markup in Government Reform down the hall, so I might have missed the answer to
this question. Just one brief clarification. The TANF, the use of TANF funds you
said in 12 States they use them primarily_the bulk, the proportion used is
greatest of TANF funds for the funding of one-stop centers? Did I hear you
correctly?
Ms. Fagnoni.
What we said was that 12 States ranked TANF as among their three largest funding
sources.
Mr. Owens.
Is there a distinction between overhead and administrative? Is this money being
used for overhead and administration costs, or being used for direct services to
the clients? Is TANF the primary supplier of administrative costs?
Ms. Fagnoni.
It was for infrastructure and operations, correct.
Mr. Owens.
Not for client services?
Ms. Fagnoni.
That would include services. It could include services to clients other than
obviously the cash assistance benefit itself.
Mr. Owens.
Thank you.
Chairman McKeon.
Thank you very much. Now we will ask the second panel to come forward if they
would. This panel will be comprised of the Honorable Ray Bramucci, Assistant
Secretary of Employment and Training at the U.S. Department of Labor here in
Washington; Ms. Linda South, Executive Director of the Brevard Workforce
Development Board in Cocoa, Florida; Mr. Robert Gross, Executive Director of the
Utah Department of Workforce Services in Salt Lake City, Utah; and Mr. Richard
Ramsburg, Principal of the Adult Education and Evening High School at Frederick
County Public Schools in Leonardtown, Maryland.
Let's start with Mr. Bramucci.
Mr. Bramucci.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I welcome the opportunity to chat with you and members.
I have spent the better part of two years around the country looking at, probing
and poking. Rather than read a long statement, I will just tell you that what we
are engaged in at the Department of Labor is an ongoing evolutionary program of
bringing the right people and rooms together to talk and cooperate, to get at
this issue of facilitating the movement of people to higher and dryer ground.
That is a variety of people. Those people at the top end who are caught in the
skills gap and the people at the bottom who are being left behind because they
don't have fundamental skills.
There are uneven rules. We share the
GAO's opinion of where we are with one-stops and the relative cooperation
between agencies. But the issue here is confronting the issue of separate
revenue streams, separate groupings of people with separate cultures, to
interact more effectively in the face of a variety of interests on the part of
locals and State officials.
Where there is interest, for instance,
in Montgomery County in Ohio, it was years ago that they merged welfare with
Labor and Human Services. So it was a natural movement for them to create one of
the best one-stops in the country. As a matter of fact, I was there yesterday in
Dayton with Governor Taft, and there are 47 different partners there.
In other places there aren't 47
different people getting together to do anything.
So we have been working at this. We
have been working at it in the way that we say we are the coach. We are trying
to get the players together. It is not rocket science, it is simply place by
place, urging people to make the right alliances so that people can be served,
not to only get a job, but to get a better job, and then to get the kind of
services they need to stay on the job.
We are encouraged that Congress did the
right thing, and we see our opportunity to administer this act in a bipartisan
way, saying we are looking for implementation and not compliance; we are trying
not to force people into the same shoe, regardless of their foot.
On the whole, we have been sparking the
best connections between the disparate parts of Federal services and State
services to senior citizens who are looking for work or who need workers that I
think we have ever seen. I have been around a long time. I was Commissioner of
Labor for 4 years in New Jersey and I see it from both perspectives. I tell you
we are on better ground now than before we had the Workforce Investment Act.
I would just allow myself to be
questioned now.
[The statement of Mr. Bramucci
follows:]
WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF THE HON. RAY BRAMUCCI, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF EMPLOYMENT
AND TRAINING, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, WASHINGTON, D.C.—SEE APPENDIX E
Chairman McKeon.
Thank you. Mr. Gross.
Mr. Gross. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Madam Chairman, members. Once again, I
would like to extend to you a thank you for the invitation to speak here. You
have my written testimony, and I would just like to indicate at the outset that
I am here essentially to offer at least three distinct perspectives.
Currently I am serving as the President
of the Interstate Conference of Employment Security Agencies. That is the group
of all 54 State and territorial administrators of essentially the workforce
development agencies throughout the States, which are charged with the
responsibility of such diverse programs as unemployment insurance, labor market
information, the employment service, and in most of our States job training and
its progeny.
In addition, in such States as Utah, my
own State Wisconsin, and soon to be Ohio, we are also, several of us, are
responsible for the implementation of essentially the TANF program or what has
been referred to as the welfare programs and the integration of those.
Secondly, I guess the perspective I can
offer you is one of the early implementer States. Governor Levitt from our State
recruited me from the private sector four years ago essentially to oversee the
implementation and consolidation of five different agencies of our State
government to essentially combine all workforce development as well as welfare
administrations.
Thirdly, my perspective comes from that
perspective I had in the private sector. For 20 years I was a volunteer in the
old JTPA system and its forerunners, serving first as a PIC chair and then as a
member of our state Workforce Investment Board, the last 2 of which I served as
chair.
Let me offer these perspectives very
quickly, and I will try to incorporate some of the questions that have already
been asked.
There are some entities, including our
own entity, ICESA, which is providing essentially forums for the sharing of best
practices. We do so, for example, by means of a Web site called the Workforce
ATM, which many of our States and local partners are using extensively, as well
as our Federal colleagues.
Secondly, we are increasingly using our
labor market information people, economists throughout the country, to work with
our local boards. Increasingly we are hearing from my colleagues around the
country that our economists and labor market information folks are one of the
things attracting business to the table in terms of the oversight of our
one-stop centers.
Third, as I mentioned, we are, many of
us, involved directly in welfare reform, but certainly all of our agencies are
involved to some extent or another with the linkage in terms of welfare reform
as well as linkages to other partners in education, higher education, vocational
rehabilitation, veterans affairs and so on.
Finally, I would offer the perspective
we are involved in an ongoing partnership with our colleagues at the Department
of Labor in a number of self-service kinds of tools that are primarily based on
technology that are doing much to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of
our system primarily to self-service customers, both employers and job seekers.
Concerning the challenges, we have
some, as Mr. Bramucci indicated. First, this perspective in terms of the
attraction to business and employers to the table is an ongoing problem or
challenge. Even under the current law, as an early implementing State I can tell
you that we continue to have problems attracting business leaders and then
retaining those leaders to our local and State workforce investment boards.
My own perspective and the advice of my
colleagues suggest this: That essentially we bring people in with an
expectation. In my own case, for example, I used to chair a board of directors
in a for-profit, a board that was responsible for governance and the direction
of policy matters. Yet, we expect people to join these particular boards and get
to the ninth degree of minutia. Very often the boards are administered or
staffed by bureaucrats, essentially who don't know any better, and essentially
many of our employers come, and, if we can get them attracted at all, soon lose
interest because of the morass of Federal regulation or reporting that they find
themselves immersed in. These programs are extremely complicated.
Secondly, and as has already been
mentioned, funding is a critical problem. As our Governor likes to say, the
Congress has addressed two legs of a three-legged stool in terms of welfare
reform, the Workforce Investment Act. Now we need to turn our attention, the
Congress we would hope turns its attention to the adequacy of funding for the
Employment Service.
I am happy to report that ICESA, along
with representatives and colleagues from the Department of Labor, organized
Labor and employer representatives, have been working in a group, and we have
something that we are going to be proposing to the Congress shortly to address
that. So funding is also a critical issue.
I know my time is up, so I will answer
any questions when we get to that point.
[The statement of Mr. Gross follows:]
WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF ROBERT C. GROSS, PRESIDENT, INTERSTATE CONFERENCE OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, AGENCIES, AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, UTAH DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE SERVICES, WASHINGTON, D.C—SEE APPENDIX F
Chairman McKeon. Thank you. Ms. South
Ms. South.
Good afternoon. Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here. On behalf of
my partners, the stakeholders and neighbors from Brevard County, the Florida
Space Coast, we bring you greetings from the Space Center.
I am going to answer the questions that
were raised up in the GAO study, to what extent are the Federal funding streams
being utilized in a one-stop career center in Florida, and particularly Brevard.
We utilize the services of WIA Title I, Wagner-Peyser, Adult Education and
Literacy, Vocational Rehabilitation, Community Development Block Grants,
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, TANF, Title IV Older Workers,
Postsecondary Carl Perkins, Veteran Services, Unemployment and Food Stamp
Employment and Training in our Brevard job link system. So we believe we have a
very thorough comprehensive integration of Federal funding in our system.
Time is short to address all the best
practices and the wonderful opportunities that are available in the one-stops,
so what I am going to do today is talk to you about what you apparently have
some interest in, and that is the upgrading of skills of people once they come
into the job market.
Florida has a system based on a step
stone, stepladder type of activity. First job, first wages; better job, better
wages; and high skill, high wages. Our better job, better wages program is aimed
at people who have entered the workforce but are still not self-sufficient. That
would include not only TANF recipients, but also first-time workers or displaced
homemakers or people with disabilities or any of our customers that may have a
need to upgrade their skills.
We are very fortunate to have TANF
integrated as part of our one-stop services. I frankly don't understand how
one-stop career services can function without TANF as an integrated part of what
we are doing. In Florida we have a program called RITA, or Retention Incentive
Training Accounts, where we can spend TANF funds for both former welfare people
and people who are 200 percent of the Federal poverty level or lower, and remove
any barrier they might have that would stand in the way of them getting
additional training and learning that would allow them to go up the ladder of
prosperity.
It is important for all of our
customers to stay engaged with the one-stop system, regardless of where they are
in their career development.
The one-stop center serves as a central
clearinghouse, a dynamic marketplace, so to speak, where the role of the
one-stop is to broker all of the elements of the workforce investment system for
the benefit of not only job seekers, but employers, in an effort to engage them
in the workforce in a faster, more efficient way than ever before.
There are multiple challenges. Some of
you have heard this from my colleagues. The biggest challenge that we see is
that the act provides States and local areas with the opportunity to completely
streamline their workforce systems. For States that are seeking to flex the
powerful potential of the WIA, we are finding barriers at the Federal level that
are systemic and counterproductive to the act.
The disconnect comes from Federal
partners that do not appear to understand a State or local design in delivering
services and sometimes apply narrow interpretations of the law without a context
in which to interpret it. This is very confusing for local areas and local
partners as we attempt to apply programs in a better fashion. It is very
difficult to have a local design saying one thing and Federal partners
indicating that that might not be the way it is. This inconsistency makes it
difficult for local leaders to get outside the box and flex the muscle of WIA in
making that happen. It leads us to management by fear of monitoring versus
management by leadership and forward thinking.
When you asked about the concept of
TANF in the one-stops, again, Brevard County has the pleasure and privilege of
doing consulting work with other workforce boards around the country as a result
of our known success in the one-stop delivery. For areas that do not integrate
TANF into their one-stops, we have stopped accepting them as consulting jobs
because we don't know how to help them. We just don't know how to apply what we
are doing locally in Brevard County to areas where TANF is not part of that
program.
The Federal level leadership is the
required partners that can work together to send a united message to their own
associates in the regions about the visions and the opportunities under with WIA.
When funding and prevailing legislation is aligned, Congress will have taken a
giant step forward in ensuring that one-stop successes are not dependent on
personalities in the area, but on a strong backbone of legislation.
In closing, we encourage Congress to
provide the leadership necessary to keep the opportunities that WIA has
possible, keep that alive and available for us at the local levels to design and
keep helping our neighbors.
[The statement of Ms. South follows:]
WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF LINDA H. SOUTH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BREVARD WORKFORCE
DEVELOPMENT BOARD, INC., COCOA, FLORIDA—SEE APPENDIX G
Chairman McKeon.
Thank you. Mr. Ramsburg.
Mr. Ramsburg.
Mr. McKeon, Mrs. Johnson, members, you
have a written statement from me, and I am going to try to sort through it and
eliminate the redundancies of things that I have heard because I don't want you
to have to hear them over and over again.
In Frederick County, six agencies
worked together two years ago starting with discussions to form a one-stop
partnership. We now have eight cooperating agencies and they are listed in the
written testimony that you have here.
I guess that process, I am highlighting
it very quickly, but it has not been an easy process, moving from talk to what
do we want to do, how can we do it and how can we make the funding work, and the
fact we are also working, all still working together and talking and making it
happen I think is a major accomplishment.
In my written testimony I listed 10
significant agreements that have evolved from this. I want to highlight one in
particular, because Mrs. Johnson and Mr. Cardin and I think to an extent Mr.
Petri had asked about what are you doing for post-employment, and that has
become perhaps the critical emphasis with our one-stop partnership.
We have moved 90 percent of our welfare
recipients into jobs. The problem now is everybody has been saying, what do we
do? Transportation is, of course, an issue, especially in Frederick County,
which is a fairly large geographic area.
We have started and we are funding this
with a combination of adult education, HUD, another partner in this, the Housing
Authority, and TANF funds, where we are putting computers in the homes of former
TANF people, I think it is about 90 percent female.
We are teaching them basic skills,
hence the adult education piece. We are teaching them Microsoft Office, we are
teaching them keyboarding, we are teaching them the WHO Office Suite, the idea
being to move them from $6.50 an hour jobs into benefited and higher paid
positions by giving them the technology and the self-confidence to use the
technology. It eliminates the barriers of child-care; it eliminates the barriers
of transportation. We are pleased with that. We have had over 100 people
enrolled, and I have more statistics on that if you might be interested.
As I said, we have addressed the
working poor. They are certainly our greatest challenge. I will add another
group here, and that is the foreign born population who have never been on
welfare of any kind, but who are working 60 to 80 hours a week in unskilled,
underpaid jobs. I see that as a whole other population that we are trying to
address.
We have indicated some challenges, and
of course you hear the word "towers" over and over again, and that is
our greatest challenge. We have funding coming into these categorical towers, if
you will, and yet we are trying to work in a cooperative umbrella, and trying to
break from one tower to the other without being audited and sent to jail
sometimes can be a challenge.
We love the one-stop umbrella though,
and I need to emphasize that. It has brought us together. WIA has given us the
incentive to do that, and we are working and it was WIA and of course the
welfare reform that has moved us in that direction.
We certainly want flexibility, but we
don't expect it. When I say we, I mean the local level, without accountability.
Our only thing is we want to be included in developing that accountability
process, but we want accountability across the board for all partners.
There are other Federal regulations
that complicate what we can do, and I mention two here. Perhaps the most glaring
and sensitive, especially as we move into the digital transfer of information,
is the whole business of confidentiality, how do we report outcomes, how do we
share information, interface information from agency to agency without breaching
the confidentiality of the people we want to protect. That is a major issue and
one that is going to get in the way, if you will, of how we report the outcomes
of the endeavors that we have. I appreciate the opportunity to be here, and will
certainly respond to questions from a local one-stop perspective. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Ramsburg
follows:]
WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF RICHARD RAMSBURG, PRINCIPAL, ADULT EDUCATION AND EVENING HIGH SCHOOL, FREDERICK COUNTY MARYLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS, FREDERICK, MARYLAND—SEE APPENDIX H
Chairman McKeon.
Thank you very much. We have had some real good input there.
Mr. Bramucci,
you indicated the OMB is still reviewing the final regulations for the
implementation of the Workforce Investment Act. How long have they had these
regulations?
Mr. Bramucci.
It had been a couple of weeks. We are going to be finished with them by Friday.
There will not be any surprises, notwithstanding when we get them out, because
we have been in close consultation with our partners. What we are talking about,
Mr. Chairman, are fine-tunings and marginal varieties of different uses of words
that don't really affect the bottom line too much. So I think that we are pretty
timely with that.
Chairman McKeon.
It takes effect in two days. We have had some complaints. How have you responded
to States and localities have that have criticized the lack of direction and the
lateness in getting these regulations?
Mr. Bramucci.
By telling them that they are probably wrong, that there was no impediment to
their acting and there was no mysterious regulation coming down the pike that
wasn't very much different from other regulations. What we are trying to do is
get off that train and get on the train to do something, and form those
partnerships and get the act going, because the regulations in themselves are
not impediments to actions by locals or States because they are well aware of
what is in there, what the dialogue has been. And, Mr. Chairman, there has never
been an effort that I can imagine in my time where we have reached out more to
the local and State communities to consult and listen and adjust and conciliate
different ideas than we have with implementing WIA.
Remember, we didn't say comply, we said
implement. And we meant it. That has been our mode of operating, and I am
confident that any reasonable groups of people out there who want to do
something in the United States of America have the ability to do it.
Chairman McKeon.
And if the regulations come and they are different than what they have done,
they don't have to worry about it too much?
Mr. Bramucci.
I am saying to you, Mr. Chairman, they are not too different. I was out in
California with your people, the California Workforce Board, which is a great
group of people. Before I could get to the microphone, I heard about 25
complaints of what the Governor did not do and what we did not do. I said to
people, listen, it is not about what we do, it is about what you do. Because
there is plenty of room under the act to put together alliances, form
partnerships and getting the job done. Yes, there are a lot of gory details,
outcomes and all of that, which we were working with. We are not demanding
results tomorrow or next week. We are not going in there with a heavy club. So
we have changed, and people ought to take advantage of that and try to find the
kind of partnerships that the law allows.
Chairman McKeon.
Great. Thank you.
Mr. Gross,
you mentioned the Department of Labor has proposed some unnecessarily
complicated reporting systems going far beyond the minimally required goal
expressed under WIA. Can you please elaborate on that?
Mr. Gross.
Well, let me suggest, Mr. Chair, first of all, I would reiterate what Mr.
Bramucci has said. In terms of the reports from my colleagues about the
flexibility of the Department of Labor and the Department of Labor support to
individual States in this period of transition, it has been superb. There is
concern among several of my colleagues though about the extent to which the
reporting requirements, the tenor of those reporting requirements, are moving.
The indication, of course, in the statute is that they should be less so rather
than more so. So many States have expressed those concerns about what ultimately
come out in terms of the reporting requirements themselves, in terms of
reporting compliance with the act.
Chairman McKeon.
This sounds to me like you kind of get involved in dealing with people and
personalities. It sounds like Mr. Bramucci has a great attitude about it; you
know, kind of go off, take the act and put people first and get out and help
them. Maybe there are some people that haven't gotten that message in your
department and maybe they are complying.
So somewhere in there, there is
probably that message being sent. So if you will keep hammering on your message
of implementing, not the heavy handed, and what we are really trying to do with
this whole purpose is help people, each of you in your areas are doing that very
well. But this is a big country and there are a lot of people out there that,
you know, we pass a law and before it gets fully implemented, we have passed
another law, not we, I am new here, but somebody probably did. But what we would
like to do probably is, as Mr. Martinez asked, is that some way we can maybe a
little tinker around the edges, but not before you have a chance to get this
implemented, come in with something new. But if there is something we need to do
to help, we want to be able to do that, but we don't want to get in the way of
what you are trying to do. We just want to, all of us, have this attitude of
helping people and what is the best way to get it done.
Mr. Bramucci.
Mr. Chairman, I think the best way to do it is give us a chance to do this. We
are making progress. We are on the same page. We need though the system to be
supportive. We can't run a car without gas and oil and we can't run a system,
whether it is one-stop or any other system, without support. We need that
support.
That is all I ask of you, to look at
that. I know we have had some great words from Chairman Goodling about the
integrity of our programs. We would like to build on that, because we are
building a system that will survive political change, and it is not ideological.
We just got to do the right thing. But we need the funds to do that job.
Chairman McKeon.
Okay. Well, just if you hadn't mentioned it was and all we would have probably
been all right. We are leaving next week for a recess, so we won't be causing
any problems except out visiting and seeing what is happening out there.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Martinez.
Mr. Martinez.
Is this thing on? Yes, it is.
I have to laugh a little bit about when
you say that you want them to proceed as quickly as they can ahead with what the
law allows, but who is going to determine what the law allows? You have a lot of
people working under your jurisdiction who you cannot absolutely control all the
time, because I have seen it. They have attitudes, and I will tell you, some of
the bureaucrats have an attitude like "we are the law." They did not
pass the law, they were only supposed to implement the law, but they act as if
we are the law, and what we say goes.
Then these people took a prerogative,
let us say, or an initiative, and they did something because they thought on
their level it was the best way to do it and be most effective at it. Then, all
of a sudden they find that it does not really comply with this bureaucrat's
interpretation of the law, because, after all, when you say that, who is going
to determine what the law allows, the person sitting in that office underneath
you?
So I can understand, because I came
from a city government that would not take any Federal funds. You know why it
won't take any Federal funds? Because we didn't want "Big Brother"
from Washington sitting in our backyard telling us what we could and couldn't
do, or telling us after we did something that we did it wrong and we owed them
money and we had to pay it back. You see how complicated it gets, when you might
think it is very simple, let's just do it.
But you know what I really want to talk
about, because it has come up in several of the conversations here, is the idea
of where you get your funding from, and in a way you indicated, you know, we
need the resources to do the job.
Well, you know, we originally I think
in the bill enacted $110 million for startup grants. Let me ask you, did any of
you in starting your centers apply for any of that money?
Mr. Ramsburg.
Yes.
Mr. Martinez.
Okay. Now, that is not really a lot if you talk about_how many centers did they
say there were? 1,476. That is a lot of centers to divide that kind of money up
when it takes that kind of money. So you relied on the funds from other
programs, that you were able to do because the law did indicate you could use
TANF funds, et cetera, et cetera.
However, it was a concern of ours, and
indicated by Mr. Cardin and Nancy, what percentage of those monies that you use.
I think we need to know, I think Mr. Cardin's question is a very good one, we
need to know what percentages of your operating funds come from each of those
funds so you can determine how much you can rely on from those funds and that we
might need to do more. Now, in the new appropriation, there was money allowed
for WIA for the different programs, for the one-stop delivery system itself and
the youth activities and the adult activities, et cetera. But that amount of
money, that amount of money actually was, in the House_ well, in the year 2000
you got $5.4 billion for that. So you could get money from there for those
activities. I think for us to understand it better we have to know how much of
your operating money came from that money.
Then in the coming year, there was
actually originally asked for $6.1 billion, but the House bill cut it back to $5
billion. So for us to be able to judge how much that appropriation really has to
be, we need to know how much you are using of that money for most of your
operation and then where you get into other funds to give you the operating
funds that you need. In other words, to establish what you need to establish, a
total operating budget to be able to be successful in doing the job that you are
required to do. Can you respond to that?
Mr. Bramucci.
Yes. First, I would like to clarify the record, I am not big brother, and I am
the old grandfather. I am trying to be softer than the big brother. If that
attitude that you refer to is present out there, I haven't seen it. If it is, we
try to stamp on it and we try to change it.
Mr. Martinez.
Well, I am going to interrupt you right now and say get your head out of the
sand, because it is out there, and we have all seen it. If you haven't seen it,
I am surprised.
Mr. Bramucci.
Congressman, I do not have my head in the sand, and I don't see it, and I get
around this country as much as any person that ever represented this government
on the job.
Mr. Martinez.
I have been in government now since actually 1968, from the local City Council
to the State to the Federal Government. And, you know, Pat Williams on the House
floor said one time, "Never underestimate the power of the bureaucracy.
They are a kingdom unto themselves." Do you know why he said that? Because
he was in this House more than 18 years, and he saw it over this period of time.
There are many people in this House
that have said if you really want to reform government, do more oversight from
the committees that you sit on of the agencies that you are supposed to have the
oversight jurisdiction over in order to make sure they are complying with the
laws.
Let me tell you something, I have seen
in the time I was chairman laws passed, we passed here, that when the
regulations start to come out from the agencies, child care is one of the best
examples, the regulations not only offended the Democrats that were in charge
then, but they offended the Republicans who were in charge, and we held
hearings, and those Republicans came here, governors, mayors, council people, to
testify that the Department is handcuffing them in their ability to manage child
care in their own States.
So don't tell me that bureaucrats don't
a lot of times take more power than they should have and are excessive in their
interpretation of the regulations or interpretation of the law as we pass it,
because that is a fact of life and it is a fact of government, and we need to be
ever alert to be able to control that.
Mr. Bramucci.
That is fine. I don't have my head in the sand. I want that to be understood.
Mr. Martinez.
Well, if you say you have never seen bureaucrats take advantage_.
Mr. Bramucci.
I did not say that. I said that in our watch, if that is happening, I want to
know about it, because we stamp it out. That is what I said to you.
Mr. Martinez.
I am glad that you are one person in charge of an agency or a department of an
agency that has that attitude, because more should be that way.
Mr. Bramucci.
I hope that this does not, because we are doing some positive things,
Congressman. However, it will take a lot of patience and a lot of understanding
and a lot of help across political lines with old habits being broken, and that
is what we are talking about, to get at that issue, to get at the silos that
exist.
Mr. Martinez.
Let me just in closing, because my time has run out, read you something from
your testimony, Mr. Gross. You talk about the difficulties you have, and you
talk about over the several months there have been several memoranda issued
jointly by the Labor Department and various other Federal Departments in an
attempt to clear up the confusion, to clear the confusion. You must have had
confusion about what you were doing and if you were doing it right. Am I wrong?
Mr. Gross.
Well, let me answer that, Mr. Martinez, a couple of ways. Yes, there has been
confusion, but I wouldn't want to categorically say that is the Department of
Labor's problem. Let me suggest to you our confusion. As an early implementer,
plus a State that has combined both TANF as well as workforce development
programs, this whole business of Federal funding streams is indeed one of our
most difficult challenges.
Utah has adopted a model cost
allocation system that many States have visited our State and are interested in.
As far as we know, it is the only program to date improved by the Departments of
Labor, Health, Human Services, Agriculture and OMB. That is a reason that many
States are looking at it.
Essentially what we try to do is our
local employees, their work is seamless, but they are called by people who check
with them periodically throughout the day based on their work activities and the
way they report those activities. That is how we assess monies against the
Federal funding streams. We try to make that seamless as far as our employees
are concerned. We certainly try to make that seamless as far as our customers,
our job seekers and employers.
But one of the things I think you will
find in my testimony that we see especially in our State, that I know my
colleagues see in other States, is we are mandated under the Workforce
Investment Act to partner with our local government partners, including
education, higher education and voc-rehab. We think it important that Congress
get into the same kind of mandates at the Federal level, with the Federal
partners. We know of initiatives that are interdepartmental, but one of the
things that I have had increasing concern about is the disparate lack of linkage
among the Workforce Investment Act, welfare reform, and what is happening in
terms of the employment service and the unemployment insurance system.
I think Congress needs to look at those
as a tri-part problem that affects very often the same population, and indeed as
you describe the overall public workforce development system, those three broad
areas and their funding streams are what direct the system. Yet at the Federal
level, they are not necessarily congruent. But we are mandated at a local level
to make them congruent. There is a disconnect there.
Mr. Martinez.
I agree. There is something we have to do about that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McKeon.
Thank you. That goes right back to Chairman Johnson's opening statement of the
jurisdiction overlaps and problems that we have here.
Mrs. Johnson.
Mrs. Johnson.
Thank you very much. I think your comment, Mr. Gross, is right to the point. You
were forced to make them congruent. We are not forced to work together and we
don't make them congruent, and it is very, very hard. First of all, I really
want to thank this panel, because it reminds me of a free society, the
creativity of the people, where there is concern and care, does reach. I am just
glad the more flexible resources of the Workforce Investment Act and of TANF,
did enable you, because both of them are block grant approaches. They are both
flexibility approaches. I really commend you on the progress that you have made.
I have one question before I get to
sort of my bigger question. Mr. Bramucci, I also commend you for stressing
implementation and not compliance in your work with the States, because if we
are going to win, we have to do something. We can't just talk about it. One of
the reasons, and I thought Mr. Gross described it absolutely perfectly, for two
decades businessmen have been telling me if you didn't pay the bureaucrats to
come to the training partnership meetings or the workforce investment meetings,
they would move right along. But one side is getting paid to make these
complicated decisions and the other side is giving up time from paid employment
to try to give some guidance, vision and view. So, again, another disconnect.
So when I read the National Association
of State Liaison's comments, and the National Association of State Workforce
Board Chairs, and I do want to put this in the record, I want to ask you a very
specific question and follow up, Mr. Bramucci. They say, "As you will note
from our letter, the State officials who were responsible for implementing and
reporting on the results of the services provided in WIA are concerned that
excessive and unnecessary collection and storage of personal information in a
central national database would divert vital resources from services and
neutralize much of the flexibility that is essential for States to meet their
unique needs for expanded skills and employment of their workforce.
"We believe that accountability
should rely on a limited number of clear, direct and understandable outcome
measures reported to the Congress and the general public by the
Federal-State-local partnership that operates WIA programs."
Now, that was our vision under welfare
and under WIA. To what extent are the detailed nature of your regulations
governing information reporting driven by the silos and the different
requirements of each program and to what extent were you able to repress that
complexity and focus on a simpler system?
Mr. Bramucci.
That is a whale of a question. I think that the first part I will respond to is
the confidentiality. There are real issues. I am not sure how that will resolve_
I am not sure there are any automatic safeguards we put in place. We have issues
with our own records and issues with welfare confidentiality. We are going to
have to work those through. We are certainly trying to adopt a program
consistent with cooperation, because in the end, the dilemma is we are going to
have to exchange information. If we are going to have common service from a
variety of empowered partners, you can't do that in a vacuum. So you have got to
know what the context is.
As an example, in one of the career
centers in Massachusetts, record keeping is done with a bar code card, where
your name is on there, you have a code, and then when you come in, you plug it
in and your file comes out and we try to contain it so people don't have to keep
giving the same information again. But it is the balance of efficiency and
service against confidentiality.
I do not have an answer except to tell
you that we are open to any suggestions. The Department of Education has been
especially concerned and has voiced that at partners meetings. We have some
concerns also. It is an issue yet to be resolved but very much on the table.
Mrs. Johnson.
Would any of you at the table agree or disagree that we need a new round of
reform that now block grants a lot of these silos into a single block grant,
with language that would set out accountability in terms of, you know, a few
criteria? Do you think that is possible and do you think you, and in the real
world, could work with us in the Congress from both the employment group and the
TANF group to set up what those criteria should be? We would not do this year.
This is a multiyear project. It would take a couple of years. But is that where
we need to go, and are there people out there that have a level of experience
that would enable us to go there?
Mr. Bramucci.
Well, from my perspective, I am not a career employee, and I go out and I hear
the regular complaints that people have that are justifiable, not just whining,
about complicated procedures for accounting for success or failure. I think we
are all eager to be sure, so we end up requiring more and more information,
which stultifies the system.
Yes, I think it is time to emulate the
kind of revenue flow that we have seen in TANF. TANF has the fewest strings
attached possible, and yet possibly when good things are happening, when States
are employing that money properly, properly might be too judgmental a word, but
in the best way to support people in work and gaining higher ground, it is an
admirable thing. Our money has a lot more requirements built into the system
that people are trying to deal with. There is some heavy-handedness, because
rules are the easy part, and saying this outcome is not proper, that is easy.
Mrs. Johnson.
They also protect you.
Mr. Bramucci.
They protect you. And people do fear the accountants and OIG and everybody. It
is a fear that pervades the system. Therefore, unless we change substantially
the way we ask people to account for things. I will give you a quick example.
Mrs. Johnson.
I do want to hear from the other panelists. Thank you.
Mr. Bramucci.
Sorry.
Mr. Gross.
I would answer that question, Madam Chairman, if the following way. Yes, I think
that is a very good idea. Secondly, I think we are in Utah demonstrating it can
work, at least on a State level. Three, I don't know about the practicality in
terms of doing something like that on a Federal level because I guess for no
other reason the politics of the thing. I will suggest to you that our
experience in Utah would indicate that it is not easy. I am a short-timer and
short-timer to government as well, and one of the things I have learned is that
policy generally follows funding, or vice versa, and there are lots of turfs and
lots of funding streams that people work very hard and diligently to try to
preserve and protect.
So the politics of the thing I think
poses enormous challenges, but I think in States like ours, we are demonstrating
that it can work with the right kind of vision and leadership from a Governor,
legislature and so on, both of whom have been very supportive.
Mrs. Johnson.
So do you think there is enough experience out there amongst people like you and
across the Nation to be able to work as a task force to determine what funding
streams should be block granted and what should be the criteria?
Mr. Gross.
I am confident of it.
Ms. South.
Madam Chairman, I have to agree with my colleague Mr. Gross. The WIA empowers
communities to reduce welfare dependency and to increase productivity for their
local economies by increased skills.
You get what you measure, and if what
we want to do is get people into jobs where they grow and they have higher
skills and they benefit the employer communities of our regions, then should not
what we measure be entering employment, wage at employment, skills attainment,
retention and higher earnings over a period of time? And every funding stream
that has employment and skills gain and economic growth as an outcome should
come to us in a manner that we can weave our own strategies in our own
communities based on the assets and weaknesses that each community has.
So I would speak strongly to the
concept of block granting their use funding streams to combine the performance
outcomes into what we are really looking like, and just get down to the bottom
line, and say what is it we are trying to accomplish.
Mrs. Johnson.
From your experience, do you guess these new regulations are going to ask you
for information that will speak to those issues or ask you for information that
will speak to other issues?
Ms. South.
We are finding information we are being required to report do not necessarily
measure the bottom line, which is entering employment and skills and earnings
growth.
Mrs. Johnson.
My time has expired. Mr. Ramsburg, I will give you a chance.
Mr. Ramsburg.
I will be very brief. I certainly agree with everything that has been said here.
I guess I would reiterate that something like that would need to be phased in
over time. I think it should indeed definitely have local input, and I think it
should be painfully simple, a few objectives, leave the strategies to the local
communities. Someone used the term "best practice" earlier. Best
practices are wonderful, but you can't template Baltimore City on San Antonio,
Texas. You can't do it. Geography determines the practice that you have to use
and the population that is there.
Mrs. Johnson.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McKeon.
Mr. Cardin.
Mr. Cardin.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank the panel again. I have found this
discussion extremely helpful and I thank all four of you for being here today.
Just an observation on the last
exchange, and that is whenever you have a national objective or a national
priority or a matter you think is of national importance for the Federal
Government to act, and you have the local governments implement it, as we are
trying to do in this, there is always the argument about more flexibility, more
block granting, but I find that tends to also lead to less Federal interest. I
think we have to be very careful about preserving the national priority here.
We talk about accountability, but
accountability is difficult. We all want accountability, but it is difficult to
measure. I think the requirements and standards that we put in each one of these
silos are there because there is a national priority and a national interest.
When you start to mix all this together and say well, we know what we want, but
let the States do it and we will give them a block of money to do it, the
problem is that 10 years later it is going to be a local responsibility with
local funds, and I have some concerns about that.
So I agree with all four of you that we
should move slowly in this area. We certainly want to remove the unnecessary
burdens, we want you to be able to do the creativity that, Mr. Ramsburg, you
have been able to do in Frederick County. I shouldn't be surprised because
Maryland always comes up with good ideas, but what you are doing with the
computers is fascinating. These are people that are employed that have a
computer at home to increase their skills so that they can move up the
employment ladder?
Mr. Ramsburg.
We have enrolled over 100 people. It splits almost 50-50, half of them do not
have basic 8th grade skills, and so with them we are using an Internet delivery
of software to bring their skill level up. The others we are using keyboarding
and Microsoft Office. Interestingly enough, we are seeing academic gain with
both groups, but we are also seeing job improvement with the people, just some
fascinating things. We have an instructor that goes in one hour a week into the
home.
Mr. Cardin.
How is this funded?
Mr. Ramsburg.
By a very small piece from the Federal Adult Basic Education Grant. The rest is
TANF and HUD money. The local housing authority has a grant through HUD, I am
not even sure of the backgrounds on that, and the other is TANF. There is a fair
amount of reporting that gets fairly complicated because you have to keep all of
the people in the correct funding stream. My office handles that because we are
coordinating that particular project.
Mr. Cardin.
Wonderful. We would like to see how that plays out. It would be wonderful to
follow up, the people that have gone through the program, and how you will, I
assume, be able to bring new people in as people get these skills.
Mr. Ramsburg.
The average stay in the program is 27 weeks. We have had some who stayed of
course longer and some much shorter. We are a year and a half into the program
and learning some amazing lessons. Don't use junk computers. You are better off
to spend the cash up front.
Mr. Cardin.
Don't accept contributions of junk computers.
Mr. Ramsburg.
Right. You spend the money paying the technician to fix them. We learned that we
needed to do a screening process with the people. It is now at a point where it
is really picking up and we are starting to see some great benefits.
Mr. Cardin.
I applaud you for that, particularly in getting into the home. It makes a lot of
sense.
Mr. Gross,
all of us are talking about trying to get more resources to do the job.
Unemployment insurance of course is one area that at least our subcommittee,
Mrs. Johnson, and I have acknowledged we should be doing with the States on the
administrative costs. Could you just give us briefly, and I hope we will be
holding a subsequent hearing on the unemployment insurance in our committee, but
how you are able to get all of the stakeholders together on the unemployment
insurance reforms and what the status of that is?
Mr. Gross.
Yes, sir, with great difficulty. Essentially we began in March of 1999, our
colleagues from the Department of Labor suggested ICESA put together a working
group. We had a couple of preliminary meetings consisting of some of Mr.
Bramucci's staff, key staff members, as well as my State colleagues. I was asked
to chair that meeting or that series of meetings, along with someone from the
Department of Labor. We identified representatives from organized workers
associations as well as business associations, invited them to the table. We
have met in person approximately a dozen times, most of the time here in
Washington, had several other conference calls. We have gone through a process
whereby we started out with all concerns or the constituents' concerns, put them
out on the table, talked through them and then identified the areas where we
could agree, and then we began to shape what we thought could be a consensus
package and we have been in the process of working toward that consensus package
now for, well, all of this year.
The status of that as of June 27th, two
days ago, is that we achieved a consensus among those four constituent groups,
and are ready now to talk in earnest with members of the Congress about that.
Mr. Cardin.
Congratulations. I applaud you. It is a very, very difficult assignment. For
years we have been fighting among the different stakeholders. If you can bring
them together on the kinds of changes you talked about, congratulations.
Mr. Gross.
I must indicate the Department of Labor played a pivotal role, Grace Kilbane and
others, in the staff work as well as the negotiating work. So it was a joint
team effort. There is lots of credit to go around.
Mr. Cardin.
You are the last stakeholder that has to act.
Mr. Gross.
Yes.
Chairman McKeon.
Mr. Isakson.
Mr. Isakson.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have one question. I learned a new term, funding
silos. It is intriguing. Everybody has talked about it. I want to ask Mr.
Bramucci a question, if I can. I am new here, so this may be a dumb question,
but going back to the testimony of Mr. Gross, in his printed testimony he uses
the term "emphatically stressed," which I think adds emphasis to the
statement that the funding silos are an inhibitor to integrating the services,
which is the intent of this.
I guess my question to you is this: Can
your department or the others where funds would flow through to this lessen
these inhibitors, or is the language of the Congress that established the
programs so strong that it is inhibiting in itself in terms of the use of the
funding in an integrated way?
Mr. Bramucci.
Congressman, I think that the module of the one-stop system, requiring people to
get into rooms together and to cooperate, is the best way to get at this. We
have just printed in the Federal Register a methodology for sharing costs
between the partners, and I think there is not necessarily a categorical
incompatibility with the funding streams if we get people to work together. And
we have enough examples of people working together that it can work. We got to
keep at it. And I think if we can organize this system from the ground up, from
local communities and in the States, and form the partnerships that, as some of
them you heard described by GAO, the way to get at this, in my opinion.
Mr. Isakson.
Let me ask you, tell me in your use of the term "get the people in the room
together," who are those people?
Mr. Bramucci.
Those people meaning, all of the stakeholders, including the departments of
government.
Mr. Isakson.
Okay. That is what I was hoping you would say, and Mr. Gross, please don't let
me put any word into your testimony that is not written, but you can get all the
stakeholders except the government in the room and all you have done is nothing,
because if they are not in a room and are not one of those partners we keep
talking about, we can't solve anything, is that not right?
Mr. Gross.
I would agree with that. That is exactly the point of the written testimony I
think.
Mr. Isakson.
I would just observe, Mr. Bramucci appears to be a facilitator and not an
inhibitor, which I appreciate, but I hope the others that work with you and
under you or in government do the same thing, because this is a great approach
to maximize the dollars that we appropriate and the return on those dollars, but
in addition an inhibitor that keeps us from using them doesn't serve the
intended purpose well at all. Thank you.
Mr. Ramsburg.
May I add one thing about the silos?
Mr. Isakson.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ramsburg.
I do not want to use the term "get around," but there is a way of
breaking through those silos, and that is simply writing contractual agreements
between and among agencies, which contain dollar amounts. You get your legal
counsel to approve it, and it is done. As locals get more and more accustomed to
doing that, and these are actual business contracts that say I will provide a
service for the one-stop with these guaranteed outcomes, and the cost will be
thus and so, that an easy way to break through those barriers.
Mr. Isakson.
Thank you.
Chairman McKeon.
Mr. Ehlers.
Mr. Ehlers.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do apologize for being a bit late. I had a conflict
with other meetings. Because I wasn't here for the whole hearing, I am hesitant
to ask any questions. But I do simply want to comment, during the time I have
been here, I have been heartened by the testimony I have heard. I think we have
made some real progress here, and I can also vouch that in the State of
Michigan, part of which I represent, that the welfare reform or welfare to work
has made some really positive improvements as well.
I appreciate the work that is being
done in this effort. I think we have really managed to change the tone of the
programs, as Mr. Bramucci said. We are trying to get away from the bureaucratic
approach and develop it into a people-centered approach. I think that has been
far more successful than what has happened previously, and I am very heartened
by it and pleased that things seem to be progressing.
This doesn't mean there is not a lot
more to do. There always is. But at least it is nice to know we are going in the
right direction, and I appreciate that.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman McKeon.
Thank you. Well, I wouldn't have bet when we started this hearing that we would
have gotten through this. I know they were going to have votes at 2:00, 2:30,
3:00, 3:30 and 4:00. We have been fortunate to arrive at this point without
having a vote interruption. I would like to ask Chairman Johnson if she has any
final comments to make.
Mrs. Johnson.
I just want to put one comment in the record. In preparing for this hearing, I
was surprised to learn that you basically do probability sampling and then
assign money to the silos. I think the Congress needs to really understand that
when we ask for very particular reporting and we also ask for collaboration and
a product that can only come about through collaboration, we don't get the data
we think we are getting. You cannot probability sample and have that data mean
what we were looking for.
In the end, we are only looking for
what Ms. South mentioned, we are looking for the outcomes. I used to tell people
when we were writing welfare reform and the President kept vetoing it; this is
hard, because we are trying to write a different type of law. We are trying to
write law based on outcomes, not based on process and detail and all of that. I
think we are sort of halfway there. But this business of probability and
sampling and allocating, what you come out with is a guesstimate, and it isn't
worth the time.
So I think we have to be thinking
bigger over the next few months, and I hope that my friend Buck McKeon and the
rest of his committee and our committee will have the chance to work together on
this in the future. Thanks.
Chairman McKeon.
Thank you very much. I think this has been a very productive hearing. I want to
thank the witnesses. There is one person in the back that we haven't mentioned
that I notice is here, Mary Gardner Clagett, who was very helpful in writing
this legislation, did yeoman work. She has left the committee now and is out
helping you all to implement this. But we are happy to see you here, Mary.
We will now then close this hearing.
Again, thank you for being here. Let me just say one other thing. If you think
of some other things that you didn't get a chance to say, if you get them to us,
we would be happy to insert those in the record. Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 4:12 p.m., the subcommittees were adjourned.]