Job Training Reform: Legislation in the 105th Congress

Job Training Reform: Legislation in the 105th Congress

97-536 EPW
Updated May 15, 1998
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Job Training Reform:
Legislation in the 105th Congress
Ann Lordeman
Specialist in Social Legislation
Education and Public Welfare Division
Summary
The Senate has passed the Workforce Investment Partnership Act of 1997 (the
Senate version of H.R. 1385). This bill, like the House-passed H.R. 1385, the
Employment, Training, and Literacy Enhancement Act of 1997 (H.R 1385), is intended
to consolidate and reform education and training programs. The focus of this report is
on the job training provisions of the House and Senate-passed versions of H.R. 1385.
Overview
The 105 Congress is considering legislation t
th
o reform federal education and training
programs to respond to criticism that the United States does not have a coherent federal
training system but rather a fragmented and duplicative array of programs. The House
passed the Employment, Training, and Literacy Act of 1997 (H.R. 1385).1 This measure
was introduced with bipartisan sponsorship (Representatives McKeon, Goodling, and
Kildee), and was ordered reported with the support of the Clinton Administration. Many
of the provisions in H.R. 1385 would amend the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA), the
country’s chief legislation under which employment and training services are provided
to low income youth and adults and to dislocated workers. (JTPA would be re-titled the
Employment, Training, and Literacy Enhancement Act.) Other provisions would address
adult education and vocational rehabilitation programs. A separate House-passed bill
(H.R. 1853) would address vocational education.
1 H.R. 1385 (McKeon) introduced April 30, 1997; referred to Committee on Education and the
Workforce. Ordered reported (amended) April 30, 1997. Reported May 8, 1997 (H.Rept. 105-
93). Passed House (amended) May 16, 1997 by a vote of 343 to 60. Passed Senate in lieu of S.
1186 May 5, 1998, by a vote of 91-7.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

CRS-2
The Senate passed the Workforce Investment Partnership Act, originally introduced
as S. 1186. This measure was introduced September 17,
2
1997 with bipartisan sponsorship
(Senators DeWine, Jeffords, Kennedy, and Wellstone). Like the House-passed bill, many
of the provisions would address job training, although JTPA would be repealed (rather
than amended) and replaced by Title III of this Act (Workforce Investment and Related
Activities). Other provisions would address vocational education, adult education, and
vocational rehabilitation programs. Table 1 shows the current legislation that is addressed
by the House- and Senate passed versions of H.R. 1385. The focus of this report is on the
job training provisions of these two versions.3
Table 1. Legislation Addressed by House- And Senate-Passed
Versions of H.R. 1385
Legislation
House Version
Senate Version
Job Training Partnership
Amends
Repeals; replaces with
Act
Title III
Adult Education Act
Amends
Repeals; replaces with
Title II
Carl Perkins Vocational
Not addressed;
Repeals; replaces with
and
reauthorized in H.R. 1853
Title I
Applied Technical
Education Act (vocational
education)
Rehabilitation Act of
Amends
Amends
1973 (vocational
rehabilitation)
Wagner-Peyser Act
Amends
Amends
(Employment Service)4

2 S. 1186 (DeWine) introduced September 17,1997; referred to Committee on Labor and Human
Resources. Ordered reported (amended) September 24,1887. Reported October 15, 1997,
(amended) (S.Rept. 105-109). The language of S. 1186, as amended, was inserted in H.R. 1385
on May 5, 1998.
3 For information on JTPA, see CRS Report 94-862, The Job Training Partnership Act: A
Compendium of Programs, by Molly Forman. For information on legislative proposals on adult
education, see CRS Report 97-534, Adult Education and Literacy: Legislation in the 105th
Congress, by Paul M. Irwin. For information on legislative proposals on vocational education,
see CRS Report 97-283, Vocational Education: Legislation to Reauthorize the Carl D. Perkins
Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act, by Richard N. Apling. For information on
legislative proposals on vocational rehabilitation, see CRS Report 94-224, Rehabilitation Act:
Major Programs, 105th Congress Legislation, and Funding, by Carol O’ Shaughnessy.
4 Both versions of H.R. 1385 would amend the Wagner-Peyser Act to more fully integrate
employment services into the state’s workforce system.

CRS-3
Major Job Training Features
Structure of State and Locally Administered Programs. Statewide decision
making for workforce development would occur through a “collaborative process” under
the House version or through a “statewide partnership” under the Senate version. In either
case, participants would include the Governor, relevant state agencies, and representatives
of parents, business, employees, education, locally-elected officials, and the state
legislature, among others. Under the Senate version, a majority of participants would be
from the business sector, as would the chairperson.
One responsibility of the “collaborative process” or the “statewide partnership”
would be the development of the state plan. Under the House version, each state would
be required to develop a single comprehensive state plan that provides policy guidance
with respect to employment and training programs including the adult education and
literacy program and programs authorized under the Wagner-Peyser Act. Under the
Senate version, the partnership could either develop a plan for adult and dislocated worker
employment and training activities and for youth activities authorized under Title III of
the bill or a “unified plan” covering one or more programs authorized in the bill and one
or more related programs. States submitting unified plans would not be required to
submit any other plan to receive federal funds for the programs covered in the unified
plan.
Under both versions, the Governor through either the collaborative process or the
statewide partnership would designate local areas, referred to as workforce development
areas in the House version and as workforce investment areas in the Senate version.
These areas would be similar in structure to the service delivery areas established under
JTPA. The collaborative process or the statewide partnership would also determine
criteria for the establishment of local boards, referred to as local workforce development
boards in the House version and as local workforce investment partnerships in the Senate
version. These local boards or partnerships would be similar in function to the Private
Industry Councils (PICs) established under JTPA, but would have broader responsibility
for developing a local workforce development system. In addition, under the Senate
version, the workforce investment partnership would appoint a youth partnership to
develop the youth portion of the local plan, award grants to providers of youth activities,
and to coordinate youth activities in the local area
State Administered Programs. Under JTPA, there are four state administered
programs: adult training, summer youth employment and training, youth training, and
economic dislocation and worker adjustment assistance (i.e., dislocated worker program),
each with its own funding stream. Under both versions, the summer youth program
would be eliminated as a separately funded program, but local areas would be required
to provide summer employment opportunities under the new youth program. Separate
funding streams would remain for adult training and dislocated worker training.
State and Local Allocations. Under both versions, allocations to states would be
made in a manner similar to the way they are made under JTPA.5 Both would allocate
5 Differences from JTPA would be in the provisions related to small state minimums, and
minimum and maximum allocations for all states.

CRS-4
funds to states for adult and youth training using the same JTPA three part formula based
on substantial unemployment (over 6.5%), excess unemployment (over 4.5%) and
poverty. They would also allocate funds to states for dislocated workers using the same
JTPA three part formula based on unemployment, excess unemployment, and
unemployment 15 weeks or longer.
JTPA mandates that states allocate funds to local areas using the same formulas used
to allocate funds to the states. Under both versions, this would remain the case for not
less than 70% of funds allocated to local areas. Under the House version, the remainder
of the adult, youth, and dislocated worker funds allocated to local areas could be based
on formulas developed through the state’s “collaborative process.” Under the Senate
version, the remainder of the adult and youth funds allocated to local areas could be
allocated based on formulas (developed through the statewide partnership) that take into
account factors relating to excess poverty or excess unemployment in local areas.
Service Delivery. Under both versions, each local area’s board or partnership would
develop a “one-stop” system to provide individuals and employers a single point of access
to employment and job training services. In the House version, this system is referred to
as a “full service employment and training delivery system”, and in the Senate version it
is referred to as a “one-stop customer service delivery system.” Under both versions,
training services to adults would be available through the one-stops and would be
provided by “eligible providers”. Under the House version, adult training would be
provided primarily through the use of vouchers, referred to in this bill as “skill grants.”6
Under the Senate version, adult training would be provided primarily though “individual
training accounts.” The purpose of both skill grants and individual training accounts is
to provide individuals with the opportunity to choose training courses and providers.
Under the Senate version, no specific mechanism for payment (e.g. vouchers) is
mandated. Under both versions, services to youth would be provided through grants to
providers made on a competitive basis.
Youth Training. Under both versions, low income youth could receive services
similar to those authorized currently under JTPA, such as tutoring and study skills
training, alternative high school services, summer youth opportunities, and adult
mentoring. Under the House version, of the funds allocated to the state for youth
programs, the Governor could reserve not more that 25% for state activities (e.g., capacity
building and technical assistance to local development boards).7 From the Governor’s
reserve, not less than 10% of the total allotment would be used for programs that serve
out-of-school youth, leaving up to 15% of the total allotment for other state activities.
6 For information on vouchers, see: CRS Report 97-525. Employment and Training: Using
Vouchers to Provide Services, by Ann Lordeman.

7 Under both versions, funds for state administrative costs would come from the amounts reserved
for state activities under each of the three state funding streams, and could be not more that 5%
of the total state allotment. Under the Senate version, the administrative funds from each of the
funding streams could be pooled into one account for state administration.

CRS-5
The remainder of the funds would be allocated to the local workforce development areas.8
The local area would be required to give priority for youth activities to school dropouts
and other hard-to-serve youth.
Under the Senate version, of the funds allocated to the state for youth programs, the
Governor could reserve not more that 15% for state activities. The remainder of the funds
would be allocated to the local workforce development areas, of which at least 50%
would have to be spent on youth activities to out-of-school youth.9
Under the Senate version, if more than $1 billion and less than $1.25 billion was
appropriated for youth activities, the Secretary of Labor would reserve the amount in
excess of $1 billion for a new youth opportunities grant program to increase the long-term
employment of youth living in high poverty areas; youth activities for farmworkers; and
a role model academy project to provide training and education in a residential setting
using a military model. If $1.25 billion or more was appropriated, the Secretary would
reserve $0.25 billion of the appropriation for these activities.
Adult Training. Under both versions, one set of services and one delivery system
would be authorized for both “adults” and for “dislocated workers”, but funds would be
appropriated separately for the two groups. (Under JTPA, there is one list of authorized
services under the adult training program and another list under the dislocated worker
program, and there could be separate delivery systems.) Services would include “core
services” such as, job search assistance; “intensive services”, such as comprehensive and
specialized assessments; and training including occupational training and on-the-job
training.
Under both versions, the Governor could reserve not more than 15% of the funds
appropriated to states for adult training for statewide activities. The remainder would be
allocated to local areas. Under the House version, local areas would be required to give
priority for receiving intensive services and training to welfare recipients and other low
income individuals with multiple barriers to employment. Under the Senate version,
priority for receiving training would be given to low income individuals if funds were
limited in the local area. (Unlike current law, there would be no requirement under either
version that at least ninety percent of individuals be “economically disadvantaged”.)
Of funds appropriated for services to dislocated workers, under both versions, the
Secretary of Labor would reserve 20% to provide emergency assistance grants in the case
of plant closures, mass layoffs, and disasters (as is the case in current law). Under the
House version, of the funds allocated to the state for services to dislocated workers, the
Governor could reserve up to 30% for state level activities. From the Governor’s reserve,
not more than 10% of the total allotted to the state could be used for activities such as
capacity building and technical assistance; not more than 5% could be used for state
8 Under the House version, not more that 10 percent of funds allocated to local areas under each
of the funding streams could be used for administrative costs.

9 Under the Senate version, not more than 15% of funds allocated to local areas under each of the
funding streams could be used for administrative costs. The administrative funds from each of
the funding streams could be pooled into one account for local administration.

CRS-6
administration; and the remainder would be used for “rapid response” assistance. At least
70% of the state’s allotment would be allocated to the local workforce development areas.
Under the Senate version, of the funds allocated to the state for services to dislocated
workers, the Governor could reserve not more than 15% for state level activities (e.g.,
capacity building and technical assistance), and not more than 25% for “rapid response”
activities. At least 60% of the state’s allotment would be allocated to the local workforce
development areas.
Performance Accountability. Major components of an accountability system for
programs authorized under both versions would be indicators and levels of performance
(referred to in the House version as “state benchmarks”, and in the Senate version as
“state performance measures”); incentive grants to reward achievement; and sanctions in
the form of reduced state allotments to penalize poor performance.
Federally Administered Programs. Both versions would continue most federally
administered programs, including Job Corps, Native Americans, migrant and seasonal
farmworkers, and veterans’ employment. Both bills would make relatively minor changes
to these programs, except that the Senate version would make more extensive changes to
Job Corps. Under the Job Corps program, the Senate version would, among other things:
(1) require the Secretary to develop and implement a plan for assigning enrollees to Job
Corps to help assure that youth are placed in centers closest to their homes; (2) require
each center to have a business and community liaison; (3) require each center to have an
industry council to recommend to the Secretary appropriate vocational training for the
center; and (5) specify the areas in which the Secretary would establish performance
measures and expected performance levels.
State Reforms. Under the House version, states would be allowed to continue
certain job training reforms enacted by state statute before July 1, 1997 for a period of
three years after the date of enactment. State reforms could be in areas such as
reorganization or restructuring of job training agencies, programs, or delivery systems.
Under the Senate version, a state that had enacted a statute prior to December 31, 1997
related to state councils, designation of service delivery areas, and sanctioning of local
areas for poor performance would, in general, be allowed to continue operating under the
state statute. Under both versions, the Secretary of Labor could waive a range of statutory
and regulatory requirements. In addition, under the Senate version, states could request
authority from the Secretary to waive certain statutory and regulatory requirements
applicable to local areas. (This authority is generally referred to as “work- flex.”)
Authorization. Under the both versions, the authorization levels for programs
would be for such sums as necessary . For the House version the authorization would be
for each of the fiscal years 1999 through 2003; for the Senate version it would be for each
of the fiscal years 1999 through 2004. The current authorization for most JTPA programs
is also such sums as necessary. Most programs, however, are permanently authorized.