Order Code RS21484
April 4, 2003
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA):
Reauthorization of Title I
Job Training Programs
Ann Lordeman
Specialist in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division
Summary
Title I of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA) (P.L. 105-220), the
country’s chief job training legislation, authorizes several job training programs,
including Youth, Adult, and Dislocated Worker Activities; Job Corps; Youth
Opportunity Grants; and programs for Native Americans, migrant and seasonal
farmworkers, and veterans. The funding authorization for WIA programs expires on
September 30,2003. On March 6, 2003, the Administration released its proposal for
reauthorization of the Title I programs. On March 27, 2003, the House Committee on
Education and the Workforce approved H.R. 1261, as amended, the Workforce
Reinvestment and Adult Education Act of 2003. In addition to reauthorizing the Title
I job training programs, the bill would also reauthorize the adult education and literacy
programs and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. This report focuses on provisions related
to the Title I programs, and will be updated after major legislative developments.
Introduction
The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA) (P.L. 105-220),1 was enacted in
August 1998. Among other things, WIA repealed the Job Training Partnership Act
(JTPA), and replaced it with new training provisions under Title I, Workforce Investment
Systems.2 All states were required to implement Title I by July 1, 2000. The
authorization for WIA programs expires on September 30, 2003.
1 29 U.S.C. 2811 et seq.
2 For more information see CRS Report 97-536, Job Training Under the Workforce Investment
Act (WIA): An Overview, by Ann Lordeman.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CRS-2
On March 6, 2003, the Administration released its proposal for reauthorization of
WIA.3 On March 20, 2003, the House Subcommittee on 21st Century Workforce
Competitiveness of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce marked up
H.R. 1261, which is based on the Administration’s proposal. On March 27, the full
committee ordered to be reported H.R. 1261, as amended. A notable change in the bill
as ordered to be reported is the omission of provisions for Personal Reemployment
Accounts.4
H.R. 1261, among other things, amends and reauthorizes the Title I WIA training
programs,5 adult education and literacy programs,6and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.7
These programs would be authorized through FY2009. Regarding adult education, H.R.
1261 would authorize the Adult Basic Skills and Family Literacy Education Act to replace
the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA); however, most AEFLA
provisions would be continued. Program authority would be expanded to include
assistance for immigrants in acquiring an understanding of the American free enterprise
system and individual freedoms. Regarding the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, H.R. 1261
would require state vocational rehabilitation (VR) plans to describe how VR services
would be better coordinated with services under the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA); and remove the requirement that the Commissioner of the
Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) be appointed by the President and
confirmed by the Senate.8 The remainder of this report focuses on Workforce Investment
Systems, Title I of WIA.
Summary of Amendments to Title I
One-Stop Delivery System. Under current law, services for adults are provided
primarily through a coordinated service delivery system overseen locally by local
workforce investment boards (WIB). This “one-stop” system is intended to provide a
“seamless” combination of services to improve employment opportunities for individuals.
The law mandates that certain “partners,” which are entities that administer programs
such as adult education and vocational rehabilitation, provide “applicable” services
3 For more information on the Administration’s proposal, see
[http://www.doleta.gov/whatsnew/WIA_Factsheet_Final_v3.cfm].
4 These provisions were removed, but are contained in H.R. 444, the Back to Work Incentive Act
of 2003. For information on the accounts, see CRS Report RL31825, Personal Reemployment
Accounts: Result from Bonus Demonstrations, by Linda Levine.
5 For a brief summary of programs authorized under Title I of WIA, see CRS Report RS20244,
The Workforce Investment Act (WIA): Training Programs Under Title I at a Glance, by Ann
Lordeman.
6 For information, see CRS Report RL30106, Adult Education and Family Literacy Act, Title II
of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, P.L. 105-220, by Paul M. Irwin.
7 For information on the Rehabilitation Act, see CRS Report RL31378, Rehabilitation Act:
Programs and Funding, by Sidath V. Panangala.
8 Programs authorized under both the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act and the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 would be affected by amendments regarding the one-stop delivery
system in Title I of WIA. For information on these amendments, see the section of this report
on the one-stop delivery system.

---

CRS-3
through the one-stop system.9 Partners must enter into written agreements with the local
WIBs regarding services to be provided, the funding of the services and operating costs
of the system, and the methods of referring individuals among partners. Partners also
serve as representatives on the local WIBs.
H.R. 1261 would add the requirement that each Governor determine a portion of
federal funds provided to state and local areas under the federal laws authorizing the one-
stop partner programs (e.g., adult education and vocational rehabilitation programs) to be
used toward paying the costs of the one-stop centers’ infrastructure (i.e., nonpersonnel
costs). Each state WIB would develop the formula to be used by the Governor in
allocating the funds to the one-stop centers it would certify for this purpose.
Structure of State and Locally Administered Programs. Under current law,
the state WIB, which functions as an advisory body to the Governor, includes in its
membership: the Governor; members of the state legislature; chief elected officials;
representatives of the lead state agencies responsible for the programs carried out by one-
stop partners, business, and labor organizations; and individuals and representatives of
organizations having experience with youth. H.R. 1261 would add to the required
membership the state agency officials responsible for economic development and would
remove representatives of youth. H.R. 1261 would also amend the functions of the WIB
by adding the requirement that they assist the Governor in certifying one-stop centers and
awarding infrastructure funds.
One function of the state WIB is to assist the Governor in the designation of local
workforce investment areas. Under current law, a request for designation from any unit
of general local government with a population of 500,000 or more is automatically
approved. H.R. 1261 continues this requirement, but allows the Governor to deny a
request for designation if the unit of government “did not perform successfully” during
the preceding 2 years. H.R. 1261 is silent on how successful performance would be
determined.
Within each local area, a local WIB is certified by the Governor. These local boards
have broad responsibility for developing a local workforce investment system. H.R. 1261
would eliminate the requirement that membership of local WIBs include representatives
of the one-stop partners; they are required members of the state WIBs. Under current law,
each local board is required to establish a youth council as a subgroup of the WIB to
develop the youth portion of the local plan, to recommend eligible providers of youth
activities, and to coordinate youth activities in the local area. H.R. 1261 would eliminate
the requirement for youth councils; they would be optional.
State and National Programs. Under current law, there are three state
administered programs: youth, adult, and dislocated worker, each of which has its own
state grant. H.R. 1261 would retain the youth program, but refocus it as described below.
H.R. 1261 would also create one state grant for adult activities by consolidating the state
grants for the WIA adult and dislocated worker programs with the state reemployment
9 In addition to the mandatory partners, WIA also specifies optional partners, which could include
entities that administer Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).

---

CRS-4
grants and state employment service grants, both of which are authorized under the
Wagner-Peyser Act (29 U.S.C. 49 et seq.)
There are several national programs under current law, such as Job Corps, Youth
Opportunity Grants (YOG), and programs for Native Americans, migrant and seasonal
farmworkers, and veterans. H.R. 1261 would eliminate YOGs, which are competitive
grants made to local WIBs and other entities to increase the long-term employment of
youth living in empowerment zones, enterprise communities, and high poverty areas.
H.R. 1261 would replace the program with Youth Challenge Grants, which would include
competitive grants to states and local areas and discretionary grants to public or private
entities to provide assistance to both in-school and out-of-school youth.
State and Local Allocations. Separate formulas are currently used to allocate
funds to states for adult activities, dislocated worker activities, the employment service,
and reemployment grants.10 Under H.R. 1261, these four funding streams would be
combined into one formula grant for a revised adult program. Of the funds appropriated
for adult activities, the Secretary of Labor would reserve 10% to provide for national
dislocated worker grants (currently called national emergency grants), demonstration
projects, and technical assistance. As in current law, 0.25% of the total appropriation
would be reserved for grants to outlying areas. Of the remainder, 60% would be allotted
to states on the basis of the relative11 number of unemployed individuals, 15% on the basis
of the relative “excess” number of unemployed individuals (more than 4.5% of the
civilian labor force), 15% on the basis of the basis of the relative number of individuals
in the civilian labor force, and 10% on the basis of the relative number of low-income
adults.
Of the funds allocated for adult activities to the states under H.R. 1261, the Governor
could reserve up to 50% for statewide activities.12 Of the remainder, 80% would be
allocated to local areas based on a statutory formula and 20% would be allocated to local
areas based on a formula developed in consultation with state and local WIBs.
Under current law, funds to states for youth activities are allotted by a formula based
one-third on the relative number of unemployed individuals residing in areas of
substantial unemployment (at least 6.5%), one-third on the basis of the relative “excess”
number of unemployed individuals (more than 4.5% of the civilian labor force ), and one-
third on the basis of the relative number of low-income youth. Of the funds allocated to
the state for adult and youth programs, the Governor can reserve not more than 15% for
statewide activities. The remainder of the funds are allocated to the local areas.
Under H.R. 1261, of the funds appropriated for youth activities, the Secretary of
Labor would reserve 25% for Youth Challenge Grants. As in current law, 0.25% of the
10 For a detailed description of how funds are allotted to states for adults, dislocated workers, and
employment services, see [http://www.doleta.gov/budget/statfund.asp].
11 The word “relative” as used in this report means the number of individuals in a state compared
to the total number in all states.
12 Of this amount, not less than half would be distributed to local areas by formula to support the
provision of core services (e.g., outreach and job search assistance) through one-stop delivery
systems.

---

CRS-5
total appropriation would be reserved for grants to outlying areas and not more than 1.5%
for youth activities for Native Americans. Of the remainder, one-third would be allotted
on the basis of the relative number of high school dropouts ages 16 through 21; one-third,
on the relative number of jobless out-of-school youth ages 16 through 21; and one-third,
on the relative number of “economically disadvantaged” youth.
Of the funds allocated for youth activities to the states in H.R. 1261, the Governor
could reserve up to 10% for statewide activities. Of the remainder, 80% would be
allocated to local areas based on a statutory formula and 20% would be allocated to local
areas based on a formula developed in consultation with state and local WIBs.
Youth Activities. At least 30% of the funds currently allocated to local areas have
to be spent on youth activities for out-of-school youth. Under H.R. 1261, at least 70% of
the funds would have to be spent on school dropouts, recipients of a secondary school
diploma or the “General Equivalency Diploma” (GED),13 court-involved youth attending
an alternative school, and youth in foster care or who have been in foster care. Within this
group, priority for youth services must be given to school dropouts. No more than 30%
of the funds could be spent on in-school youth who are low income.
Under current law, services to youth must be provided through grants to providers
made on a competitive basis. H.R. 1261 would repeal this requirement.
Adult Activities. Under current law, three levels of services (core, intensive, and
training) are provided to individuals sequentially. An individual must first receive at least
one core service, such as outreach, initial assessment of skills and needs, and job search
and placement assistance to be eligible to receive intensive services, such as
comprehensive assessments and development of individual employment plans. To be
eligible to receive training services, such as occupational skills training and on-the job
training, an individual must have received at least one intensive service, and must have
been unable to obtain or retain employment.
H.R. 1261 would eliminate the sequencing of services in certain instances.
Individuals would be eligible to receive intensive service if the one-stop operator
determined they would be unlikely or unable to obtain “suitable employment” through
core services and are in need of intensive services to obtain suitable employment.
Likewise, individuals would be eligible to receive training services if the one-stop
operator determined they would be unlikely or unable to obtain “suitable employment”
through intensive services and in need of training services to obtain suitable employment.
The Governor would define the term “suitable employment.”
At present, if a local area determines that funds are limited, a priority for intensive
and training services must be given to recipients of public assistance and low-income
individuals participating in the adult program.14 H.R. 1261 would add a priority for
intensive and training services for unemployed individuals.
13 This is an apparent reference to the General Educational Development program, which is often
seen as an equivalent to a high school diploma.
14 There is no similar priority for the dislocated worker program.

---

CRS-6
H.R. 1261 would permit local WIBs to use 10% of the allotment for adult activities
for incumbent worker training programs to assist workers in obtaining the skills necessary
to retain employment and avert layoffs.15 An employer match would be required.
Training, as in current law, would be provided primarily though individual training
accounts. The one-stop operator is responsible for arranging payment to eligible training
providers. In order for training providers to be certified by the Governor, they currently
must report on certain performance measures, such as program completion rates and
wages at completion, that are established in law. Under H.R. 1261, the Governor would
establish the criteria and procedures regarding the eligibility of providers. The Governor
would be required to take into account performance indicators, such as entry and retention
in unsubsidized employment, or other “appropriate” indicators and other factors the
Governor determines to be appropriate to ensure quality of services, accountability of
providers, and the informed choice of participants. Local WIBs and one-stop delivery
systems would continue to retain a list of eligible providers, and participants who have
individual training accounts would continue to choose providers from this list in
consultation with a case manager.
Performance Accountability. Under current law, there are 15 core indicators
of performance for adults, dislocated workers, and youth and two indicators of customer
satisfaction. H.R. 1261 would reduce the number of indicators from 15 to eight and
would make indicators for customer satisfaction a local option.
Nondiscrimination. Under current law, discrimination regarding participation,
benefits and employment because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age,
disability or political affiliation is prohibited. H.R. 1261 would continue these
prohibitions, but it would add an exemption for religious organizations with respect to
their employment of individuals of a particular religion.
Authorization. Under H.R. 1261, youth activities would be authorized at
$1,001,000,000 for FY2004, and for such sums as necessary for each of the fiscal years
2005 through 2009. Adult activities would be authorized at $3,079,800,000 for FY2004,
and for such sums as necessary for each of the fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
15 Under current law, statewide activities may include training for incumbent workers, but there
is no similar provision for local areas.

---