Job Training Programs: Reauthorization and Funding Issues

This paper is divided into the following sections: (1) History of Federal Employment and Training Programs; (2) Reauthorization Issues; (3) Administration Legislative and Budget Proposals; and (4) Congressional Action.

J03 TRAINING PROGRAKS: R E A U T H O R I Z A T I O N AND F U N D I N G I S S U E S I S S U E B2IEF K V X B E R I 9 8 2 0 0 5 AUTHOR: Karen Spar Education and Public W e l f a r e Livision T H E L I B R A R Y OF C O N G R E S S CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE XAJDR I S S U E S S Y S T E M DATE ORIGINATED 02/08/82 DATE UPDATED 01/03/83 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CALL 287-5700 0104 CRS- 1 ISSUE 2EFINITION A new employment training program, to 5 e cperated by State and l o c a l governments in conjunction with the private sectcr, was approved by the 9 7 t h Scngress and signed by President Reagan to replace the expiring Comprehensive Einployment and Training Act (CETA). K O funding i e v e l was specified in the legislation, but a continuing appropriations resolution for FY83 provides $3.764 billion f o r job training programs, which will be in transition from the old CETA system to the new system throughout FY83. In related a c t i o n s , the 97th Congress considered a variety o f job-creating proposals, although the only one enacted is a gascline tax increase estimated to create 3 2 0 , 0 0 0 highway construction jobs. Among the ot3er prcposais considered were both short-term and long-tern public service and public works programs, a n d a proposzl to Cre?.te a new youth conservation corps, similar ro two recently expired programs. BACKGROUND AND POLICY ANALYSIS This paper is divided into the following sections: (1) History of Federal (2) Reauthorization Issues; (3) Employment and Training Programs; Administration Legislative and Budget Proposals; and (4) Congressional Action. (11 History of Federal Employment and Training P r o g r a m s T h e f i r s t non-military Federal job training initiative i s generally Considered the Area Redevelopment Act of 1961 (ARA). The chief purpose o f the Area Redevelopment Act was to a s s i s t economically depressed localities by attracting n e w industry to these areas. As an a d j u n c t , = h e ARA authorized a limited a m o u n t of training to ensure the availability o f a skilled workforce f o r newly created jobs. Persistently high unemployment rates led t o enactment i n 1 9 6 2 of the Manpower Development and Training Act (MDTA), which authorized a Sroader array of training services and allowances. T h e program initially focused on experienced workers displaced due to a u t o m a t i o n , although a s unemployment rates began t o decline among white males, the employment a n d traininq needs of minorities, youth and the economically disaevantaged moved closer to the forefront. T w o y e a r s after enactment of the MDTA came the Johnson Administration's declaration of a war o n poverty and passage of the Economic Opportunity A c t , which spawned a wide range of programs designed to eradicate poverty, including a variety of work experience and training programs targeted specifically o n the poor, minorities a n d youth. By the late 1 9 6 0 s , there w a s a proliferation of job training programs, supplemented i n 1 9 7 1 by public service employment with passage of the Emergency Employment Act. The perceived need to streamline and coordinate these activities, combined with the Nixon Administration's preference for "special r e v e n u e sharing" o r block grant-type programs, led to enactment i n 1973 of t h e Comprehensive Employment and Training Act, w h i c h absorbed many of the existing work and training programs a n d created a new system designed primarily a t the l o c a l level. T h e o r i g i n a l CETA established States and units o f local government with populations of 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 or more as prime sponsors to receive a n d administer CRS- 2 employment and t r a i n i n g f u n d s . Prime sponsors were given authority for planning and a e s i g n i n g l o c a l programs in response to local needs. As o r i g i n a l l y e n a c t e d , CETk a u t h o r i z e d a f u l l r a n g e of comprehensive employment a n d z r a i n i n g s e r v i c e s , t o Se t a i l o r e d a t t h e l o c a l l e v e l t o m a t c h the needs separate t i t l e for transitional public o f t h e c o m m u n i t y , a r ~ dc o n t a i n e c a s e r v i c e empioyment. Job Corps, which had originated under t h e Economic Opportunity Act, and a program of emplcyment and training services for One c f the first s p e c i a l t a r g e t p o p u l a t i o n s a l s o were components o f CETA. t h e a d d i t i o n of an emergency p u b l i c s i g n i f i c a n t a m e n d m e n t s t o CETA was s e r v i c e jobs program, enacted i n 1974 i n response to rising unemployment r a t e s and expanded i n 1976. T h i s p r o g r a m , w h i c h b e c a m e t i t l e V I 3 f CETA, was d e s i g n e d f o r p e o p l e unemployed b e c a u s e of c y c l i c a l d o w n t u r n s i n the economy to supplement t h e regular public s e r v i c e employment a n d was i r i t e n a e d CETA a g a i n was amended i n 1 9 7 7 , w i t h p a s s a g e o f the a u t h o r i z e d b y t i t l e 11. Y o u t h E m p l o y m e n t a n d D e m o n s t r a t i o n P r o j e c t s A c t (YEDPA). The m o s t r e c e n t m a j o r r e w r i t e o f CET9 t o o k place in 1978, when the p r o g r a m was m o r e s p e c i f i c a l l y t a r g e t e d o : ~t h e low-income and disadvantaged a n d v a r i o u s management p r o v i s i o n s w e r e t i g h t e n e d i n r e s p o n s e t o c r i t i c i s m s o f t h e program. I n a d d i t i o n , a new P r i v a t e S e c t o r I n i t i a t i v e P r o g r a m ( P S I P ) was c r e a t e d a s t i t l e V I I of CETA, i n keeping with the notion that private industry s h o u l d be more i n v o l v e d in Federal employment and training activities. The Revenue Act of 1 9 7 8 . a l s o a u t h o r i z e d t h e Targeted Jobs Tax C r e d i t ( T J T C ) , w h i c h i s a v a i l a b l e t o e m p l o y e r s who h i r e i n d i v i d u a l s f r o m o n e the Department of o r more of s e v e n d i s a d v a n t a g e d t a r g e t g r o u p s . Funds f o r Labor's responsibilities i n administering the credit a r e included i n the a p p r o p r i a t i o n f o r t h e t i t l e V I I P r i v a t e S e c t o r I n i t i a t i v e Program. A f u r t h e r program r e l a t e d t o CETA i s r e t r a i n i n g for displaced workers (TAA) e l i g i b l e f o r s p e c i a l b e n e f i t s under t h e Trade Adjustment Assistance program. A l i m i t e d amount o f t r a i n i n g f o r t h i s g r o u p , d i s p l a c e d from t h e i r title I11 jobs because of competition from i m p o r t s , had been provided under o f CETA w h i c h a u t h o r i z e s S p e c i a l F e d e r a l Responsibilities. However, the of 1 9 8 1 amended t h e TAA to authorize O m n i b u s B u d g e t R e c o n c i l i a t i o n Act appropriations for training. A l l p o r t i o n s o f CETA e x p i r e d on S e p t . 30, 1982, although t h e new job t r a i n i n g b i l l a l l o w s CETA p r o v i s i o n s t o c o n t i n u e d u r i n g FY83 for transition A s r e q u e s t e d by t h e R e a g a n A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , t h e R e c o n c i l i a t i o n A c t purposes. a u t h o r i z e d no f u n d i n g f o r p u b l i c s e r v i c e employment u n d e r e i t h e r t i t l e I 1 o r CETA d u r i n g FY82. (However, t h e House recently passed a t i t l e V I of $1 s h o r t - t e r m p u b l i c s e r v i c e employment program which would provide about b i l l i o n t o b e a v a i l a b l e u n t i l Dec. 3 1 , 1 9 8 2 . See Section 4 of this issue the Young A d u l t b r i e f f o r d e t a i l s . ) Likewise, no f u n d i n g i s a u t h o r i z e d f o r C o n s e r v a t i o n C o r p s u n d e r t i t l e V I I I , w h i c h h a d b e e n o n e o f t h e YEDPA p r o g r a m s pending t o a u t h o r i z e a new e n a c t e d i n 1977. (Legislation is currently See s e c t i o n 4 of this p r o g r a m s i m i l a r t o YACC i n t h e I n t e r i o r D e p a r t m e n t . issue brief for details.) The f o l l o w i n g t a b l e compares FY81 a p p r o p r i a t i o n s f o r employment and t r a i n i n g w i t h the appropriations levels for FY82 a n d c o n t i n u i n g a p p r o p r i a t i o n s r e s o l u t i o n l e v e l s i n e f f e c t t h r o u g h Dec. 1 7 , 1 9 8 2 . CRS- 3 TABLE 1 , Emplcyment and Tralnlng Funding f :I? 32::~3ns? FY61 Approp. FY82 Cont. Recon. TY83 cont. Rescl. a / b / g=/ TITLE I1 --Parts E , C-Comprehensive Employment and Training Services $2.102 --Part D-Transitional Public Service Employment 1.930 TITLE I11 --Special Federal Responsibilities 0.536 TITLE IV --Part A--Youth Employment Demonstration 0.192 Programs 0.825 0.192 --Part B--Job / 0.586 Corps 0.561 0.590 --Part C--Summer 0.725 Youth Employment 0.839 0.685 2 / TITLE VI --Countercyclical Public Service 0 Employment 0.495 0 TITLE VII --Private Sector 0.250 d / 0.250 d / initiative 0.150 5 / TITLE VIII --young ~ d u l t Conservation Corps 0.200 0 0 TRADE ADJUSTMENT 0.025 0.025 0 ASSISTANCE f=/ $3.765 TOTAL $7.638 $3.072 e/ -a / ~ o n t i ' n u i n gAppropriations, F Y 8 1 (P.L. 96-536); Supplemental Appropriations, F Y 8 1 (P.L. 97-12). Overall total provided by Continuing Appropriations, b / F Y 8 2 (P.L. 97-161), effective until Sept. 3 0 , 1982. Individual program levels determined by the Department of L a b o r , Employment and Training Administration. An a d d i t i o n a l $700 million (not shown) w a s availsble f o r spending i n F Y 8 2 from previous year carry-over funds. Includes $ 1 4 million for administration of the Targeted c / Jobs F a x Credit. d / Includes $ 2 0 million f o r administration of t h e ~ a r ~ e t eJdo b s Tax Credit. Includes $ 4 5 million provided i n supplemental e / appropriation, P.L. 97-216. Includes $ 4 million provided i n supplemental appropriation, f / P.L. 97-257. CRS- 4 IB82005 UPDATE-01/03/83 g D e p a r t m e n t of Labor a l l o c a t i o n s b a s e d o n Z o n t l n u i n g A p p r o p r i a t i o n s , F Y e 3 (P.L. 97-276 a n d P.L. 97-377). Reauthorization Issues (2) A s can be seen from = a b l e 1 aSove, t h e CETA A u d g e t was d r a m a t i c a l l y due t o the elimination of all r e d u c e d f r o m ? y e 1 t c F P 8 2 , ic i a r g e p a r ; f u n d i n g f o r p u b l i c s e r v i c e employment. T e r m i n a t i o n of p u b l i c service jobs, which h a d become a m a j o r e l e m e n t in the employment and training system, budget c o u p l e d W i t h t h e s c h e d u l e d e x p i r a t i o n o f CETA a n d c u r r e n t c l i m a t e o f c o n s t r a i n t , prompted a m a j o r r e - e v a l u a t i o n o f employment a n d t r a i n i n g i s s u e s t h a t h a s r e s u l t e d i n a new j o b t r a i n i n g p r o g r a m t o r e p l a c e C E T A . B e f o r e d i s c a s s i n 5 t h e s p e c i f i c l e g i s l a t i o n apFroved t h i s y e a r , i t m i g h t be u s e f u l t o summarize b r i e f l y t h s b r o a d i s s u e s which g e n e r a l l y a r i s e i n the employment and t r a i n i n g a r e a . These i s s u e s can be grouped i n t h e f o l l o w i n g Categories: i s s u e s r e l a t e d t o t h e employment anC t r a i n i n g s y s t e m , including t h e r o l e s of each i s v e i of government and t h e p r i v a t e s e c t o r ; i s s u e s r e l z t e d t o program c o n t e n t , Lnclxding t h e t y p e s of s e r v i c e s t o be p r o v i d e d and t h e c r i t e r i a f o r e v a l u a t i n g success; i s s u e s r e l a t e d t o program b e n e f i c i a r i e s , i n c l u d i n g e l i g i b i l i t y c r i t e r i a a n d t a r g e t i n g on s p e c i f i c p o p u l a t i o n g r o u p s , displaced workers o r welfare r e c i p i e n t s ; fiscal issues such as youth, i n c l u d i n g o v e r a l l funding l e v e l s and a l l o c a t i o n formula concerns; and i s s u e s r e l a t e d t o c o o r d i n a t i o n w i t h o t h e r p r o g r a m s s u c h a s t h e Employment S e r v i c e , v o c a t i o n a l e d u c a t i o n , t h e Work I n c e n t i v e ( W I N ) p r o g r a m , e c o n o m i c d e v e l o p m e n t a c t i v i t i e s and others. The Employment a n d T r a i n i n g S y s t e m T h e d e s i g n o f a n y new e m p l o y m e n t a n d t r a i n i n g s y s t e m r a i s e s a series of What role w i l l Federal, State and local intergovernmental issues. g o v e r n m e n t s each p l a y i n t h e new s y s t e m ? How w i l l p r i v a t e i n d u s t r y a n d t h e n o n p r o f i t , c o m m u n i t y - b a s e d s e c t o r f i t i n ? T h e C E T A p r o g r a m was a d m i n i s t e r e d system. The Federal G o v e r n m e n t made through a primarily Federal-local q r a n t s , a s s u r e d c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e law a n d p r o v i d e d technical assistance, s p o n s o r s were r e s p o n s i b l e for while l o c a l governments s e r v i n g as prime planning, administering and d e l i v e r i n g s e r v i c e s . S t a t e s acted as p r i m e s p o n s o r s i n r u r a l a r e a s n o t c o v e r e d by l o c a l p r i m e s p o n s o r s a n d a d m i n i s t e r e d a small p e r c e n t a g e o f f u n d s s e t a s i d e f o r c o o r d i n a t i o n a n d s p e c i a l services, S u t were n o t g e n e r a l l y c o n s i d e r e d m a j o r a c t o r s i n t h e o v e r a l l C E T A s y s t e m . N o n p r o f i t community-based groups were f r e q u e n t l y s u b c o n t r a c t o r s w i t h CETA p r i m e s p o n s o r s , b u t t h e p r i v a t e i n d u s t r y s e c t o r was o n l y r e c e n t l y g i v e n a f o r m a l r o l e t h r o u g h c r e a t i o n o f t h e P r i v a t e S e c t o r I n i t i a t i v e Program. D u r i n g t h i s y e a r ' s d e b a t e , t h e r e was s o m e s u p p o r t f e x i s t i n g system of l o c a l prime s p o n s o r s . These agencies e x p e r i e n c e i n o p e r a t i n g employment a n d t r a i n i n g programs, CETA i n 1 9 7 3 , a n d i t h a s b e e n a r g u e d t h a t e s t a b l i s h m e n t w o u l d be e x c e s s i v e l y t i m e - c o n s u m i n g a n d d i s r u p t i v e . o r maintaining the have had 8 y e a r s of s i n c e enactment of of a n y new s y s t e m p r o g r a m s a l s o was p r o m o t e d . However, t h e c o n c e p t of S t a t e - a d m i n i s t e r e d year, at t h e prompting of t h e Reagan Administration, Congress b l o c k g r a n t s i n t h e areas o f health, e s t a b l i s h e d a number o f S t a t e - r u n Addi,tional S t a t e block e d u c a t i o n , s o c i a l s e r v i c e s and community services. t h i s year, i n c l u d i n g one f o r t r a i n i n g programs. g r a n t s were p r o p o s e d Advocates of State administration of s o c i a l programs argue that State local o f f i c i a l s a r e s u f f i c i e n t l y c l o s e t o t h e l o c a l l e v e l t o be s e n s i t i v e t o n e e d s b u t a r e n o t as s u s c e p t i b l e t o p o l i t i c a l p r e s s u r e s as l o c a l o f f i c i a l s . F u r t h e r , t h e n u m b e r o f g r a n t r e c i p i e n t s w o u l d be g r e a t l y r e d u c e d u n d e r a Last CRS- 6 IESZ005 S?DATE-01/03/83 Scate-rxn ompicyxent and cra;n;ng s y s t e m , tkereSy reduclncj :he 'ederai adminlstratlve burden. At t h e same tlme, iocai iabor markec conalclons can local qoverrments are rd;z?i~nI S t a t e and some a r g u e t h a t vary drarnat;ca;ly betcer equlpped than States to deslgn enpioyment and Lralnlnq programs appropriate to local needs. T h i s lssue w a s a malor polnt of disagreement between che House and S e n a t e , with the H o u s e favorrng local control over trainlng and the Senate f a v o r i n g increased S t a t e control. The Federal r o l e in employment and training programs was a further issue debated this year. T h e R e a g a n Administration tends t o f a v o r a very limited F e d e r a l role i n social p r o g r a m s , preferring to transfer decisionmaking authority to t h e private s e c t o r and S t a t e level through trimming and consolieation o f programs i n t o broad functional block grants. T h e current Administration's interest in private sector alternatives to large Federal subsidy programs a l s o influenced the deSate over design of a new job trainiRg s y s t e m , r a i s i c g issues s u c h a s representation o f private industry on S t a t e or local decisionmaking bodies and provision of incentives t o the private sector to c r e a t e n e w jobs a n d training opportunities. The r c l e of n o n p r o f i t , community-based organizations, which have been particularly a c t i v e in d e l i v e r i n g employment services to minority groups, a l s o was raised a s a n issue during hearings o n a new program. Employment a n d Training P r o g r a m Content Very soon a f t e r CETA w a s e n a c t e d , i t w a s augmented by the addition of emergency public service j o b s , which grew i n size t o dwarf the program's B o w e v e r , along with rapid expansion of t h e program other components by FY77. c a m e criticism a n d controversy. Congress amended CETA i n 1 9 7 8 i n a n effort to correct a b u s e s and m a n a g e m e n t deficiencies i n the public service employment (PSE) program, but t h e activity f e l l into disfavor nonetheless. All public s e r v i c e employment under both titles I1 and VI of CETA was phased out during F Y 8 1 a t the request of the R e a g a n Administration and with the consent of Congress. In explaining its proposal to terminate public service e m p l o y m e n t , the Administration said the program was not effective a s either a counterstructural o r countercyclical device. In other words, according to skills training and long-term the Administration, P S E d i d n o t provide benefits to people who were disadvantaged i n the labor market regardless o f the health of t h e economy, n o r did it h a v e a n impact o n high unemployment r a t e s during t i m e s of recession. D e s p i t e the current disenchantment with public service employment a s i t functioned under C E T A , many c o n t i n u e to believe job creation i s a n essential component of a n effective t r a i n i n g program, particularly during times of a c u t e unemployment. Various job-creating proposals ere offered in Congress during 1 9 8 2 , a l t h o u g h they w e r e not seriously Considered until a f t e r the November elections when unemployment r a t e s rose sharply. T h e lame-duck s e s s i o n enacted a gasoline t a x hike, which will create a b o u t 320,000 construction jobs. (See s e c t i o n 4 for d e t a i l s on job-creation proposals.) T h e debate o v e r job c r e a t i o n versus t r a i n i n g , and the relative a m o u n t s o f F e d e r a l resources that s h o u l d be invested i n either a c t i v i t y , i s o n e a s p e c t of t h e more f u n d a m e n t a l d e b a t e concerning t h e overall g o a l s of employment and training policy. Employment a n d training programs generally a r e perceived a s a n effort t o i m p r o v e people's employment situation a n d increase their earnings. H o w e v e r , the t y p e s of specific services to be provided a r e determined i n l a r g e part by whether these g o a l s are considered short-term or long-term. F o r e x a m p l e , p u b l i c service employment may increase participants' CRS- 7 IB82005 UPDATE-01/03/83 c u r r e n t e a r n i n g s a n d , i f d o n e on a l a r g e e n o u g h s c a i e , c a n make a n i m p a c t o n t h e u n e m p l o y m e n t r a t e , b u t may h a v e n o l o n g - t e r m e f f e c t o n a n individual's srograms e m p l o y m e n t s i t ~ a t i o n . A t t h e same z i m e , c e r t a i n t y p e s 3 f : r a i n i n g may u p g r a d e a p e r s o n ' s l o n g - t e r m a b i l i t y t o f i n d a n d k e e p a higher paying j o b , b u t may h a v e n o i m m e d i a t e i m p a c t on h i s i n c o m e . Training allowances and o n - j o b - t r a i n i n g programs can have both short-term and long-term e f f e c t s . P u b l i c s e r v i c e e m p l o y m e n t u n d e r C E T A was c r i t i c i z e d partly because t h e jobs had no t r a i n i n g component and t h e program p r i m a r i l y t e n d e d t o serve an income maintenance f u n c t i o n . The 1 9 7 8 amendments a t t e m p t e d t o r e m e d y t h i s b y r e q u i r i n g i n d i v i d u a l e m p l o y a b i l i t y p l a n s f o r PSE p a r t i c i p a n t s a n d r e s e r v i n g a portion of PSE f u n d s f o r t r a i n i n g . Many p e o p l e c o n t i n u e t o b e l i e v e e m p l o y m e n t a n d t r a i n i n g p r o g r a m s s h o u l d n o t b e c o m e a forrr, o f i n c o m e s e c u r i t y . training allowances or S u p p o r t was e x p r e s s e d t h i s y e a r f o r e l i m i n a t i o n o f s t i p e n f i s i n a n e f f o r t t o weed o u t t r a i n e e s who a r e m o t i v a t e d p r i m a r i l y by t h e skilis and p a y m e n t s a n d may n o t b e s e r i o u s l y i n t e r e s t e d i n u p g r a d i n g t h e i r employability. H o w e v e r , t h i s p h i l o s o p h y was s t r o n g l y o p p o s e d b y t h o s e who b e l i e v e low-income p e o p l e would be u n a b l e t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t r a i n i n g p r o g r a m s w i t h o u t some f o r m o f i n c o m e s u p p l e m e n t . Integrally related t o the issue of groups w i l l be served program c o n t e n t i s t h e q u e s t i o n of w h i c h p o p u l a t i o n ( d i s c u s s e d more f u l l y i n t h e n e x t s e c t i o n ) . The c y c l i c a l l y u n e m p l o y e d , who have m a r k e t a b l e job s k i l l s b u t f a l l v i c t i m t o economic downturns, require a d i f f e r e n t t y p e o f a s s i s t a n c e t h a n t h e l o w - s k i l l e d , l o n g - t e r m u n e m p l o y e d , who, i n curn, have d i f f e r e n t needs than older workers i n d e c l i n i n g regions d i s p l a c e d from h i g h - s k i l l e d jobs. training F u r t h e r i s s u e s d i s c u s s e d t h i s y e a r i n c l u d e d how t o t a i l o r p r o g r a m s t o meet a c t u a l s k i l l n e e d s i n t h e l a b o r m a r k e t a n d t h e l o o m i n g p o s s i b i l i t y of shortages i n c e r t a i n s k i l l a r e a s , and whether a n d how t o m e a s u r e a n d reward p e r f o r m a n c e . Program B e n e f i c i a r i e s F e d e r a l empioyment a n d t r a i n i n g programs have been targeted on various s e g m e n t s o f t h e w o r k f o r c e a t d i f f e r e n t times. U n d e r t h e e a r l y Manpower D e v e l o p m e n t a n d T r a i n i n g A c t , p r o g r a m s w e r e f o c u s e d o n a d u l t male h e a d s o f A s t h e Nation h o u s e h o l d s who c o u l d move i n t o e m p l o y m e n t r e l a t i v e l y e a s i l y . t u r n e d i t s a t t e n t i o n t o t h e problems of m i n o r i t i e s and t h e poor, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n urban a r e a s , programs i n t h e l a t e 1960s began t o s h i f t toward t h e economically disadvantaged and l e a s t s k i l l e d segments of t h e p o p u l a t i o n . The r a p i d g r o w t h o f p u b l i c s e r v i c e employment i n t h e m i d d l e t o l a t e 1 9 7 0 s c a u s e d program s p o n s o r s a g a i n t o f o c u s t h e i r e f f o r t s on t h e e a s i e s t t o employ, u n t i l CETA was a m e n d e d i n 1 9 7 8 t o r e t a r g e t t h e p r o g r a m t o w a r d t h e low-income and low-skillecl population. T h i s y e a r ' s debate o v e r new e m p l o y m e n t a n d t r a i n i n g l e g i s l a t i o n was c o n d u c t e d a g a i n s t t h e b a c k d r o p o f r e c o r d h i g h unemployment r a t e s a n d s e v e r e P r e s s u r e s c a u s e d by r e c e s s i o n t o serve c o n s t r a i n t s on t h e F e d e r a l b u d g e t . t h e c y c l i c a l l y u n e m p l o y e d w e r e c o u n t e r e d by b u d g e t a r y f a c t o r s f o r c i n g t i g h t focusing of limited resources. The v a s t l y r e d u c e d b u d g e t a v a i l a b l e f o r e m p l o y m e n t a n d t r a i n i n g a c t i v i t i e s l e d some o b s e r v e r s t o c o n c l u d e t h a t F e d e r a l programs should s e r v e only t h e n e e d i e s t and most d i s a d v a n t a g e d . A t t h e same t i m e , c o n t i n u e d h i g h u n e m p l o y m e n t among y o u t h a n d s k i l l e d workers, p a r t i c u l a r l y t h o s e d i s p l a c e d from jobs i n d e c l i n i n g r e g i o n s o r i n d u s t r i e s , r e s u l t e d i n p r e s s u r e t o c r e a t e o r maintain s e p a r a t e programs f o r these groups. Fiscal Issues CRS- 8 1862005 UPDATE-01/03/63 F u n d i n g u n d e r t h e C o m p r e h e n s i v e E m p l o y m e n t a n d T r a l n ~ n gA c t p e a k e d I n F Y 7 7 a t $ 1 2 . 7 b i l l i o n a n d s i n c e C e c l ~ n e dt o 5 3 . 0 b i l l i o n i n P Y S 2 , t h e l o w e s t l e v e l since enactment. T h e f o l l o w i n g t a b l e s h o w s t h e f u n d i n g h i s t o r y o f CETA s l n c e its inception. CRS- 9 IB82005 UPDATE-01/03/83 TABLE 2. CETA Funding History a/ FY75 $ 3.817 TY76 5.662 FY77 12.737 FP78 3.378 FY79 10.320 FY80 8.128 FY8l 7.638 FY82 3.072 b/ a / This table indicates n e w budget authority. kdditional funding has been available in each y e a r , particularly F Y 7 8 , d u e to carry-over funds. b / Appropriation i n effect through Sept. 3 0 , 1 9 8 2 , under continuing resolution (P.L. 97-161) and supplemental a p p r o p r i a t i o n s ( P . L . 97-216 a n d P.L. 97-257). About $ 7 0 0 million i n F Y 8 1 carry-over money also was available in FY82. The c h a n g e i n P r e s i d e n t i a l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s b r o u g h t a dramatic change i n zffice i n "edral 3 c l F c y t o w s r d empl3yment and =raining. Zef3re leaving J a n u a r y 1 9 8 1 , P r e s i d e n t C a r t e r s u b m i t t e d a n FY82 b u d g e t r e q u e s t f o r CETA o f $9.640 b i l l i o n . P r e s i d e n t R e a g a n P s i n i t i a l FY82 C E T A r e q u e s t , submitted in in September 1981 t o M a r c h 1 9 8 1 , w a s f o r $ 3 . 5 6 7 b i l l i o n ; t h i s was r e v i s e d $3.238 b i l l i o n . I n t h e Omnibus B u d g e t R e c o n c i l i a t i o n A c t o f 1981, Congress programs in e s t a b l i s h e d a n a u t h o r i z a t i o n c e i l i n g o f $ 3 . 8 9 5 b i l l i o n f o r CETA FY82. However, C o n g r e s s a c t u a l l y a p p r o p r i a t e d o n l y $3.023 b i l l i o n for CETA 1 i n t h e c o n t i n u i n g r e s o l u t i o n w h i c h f u n d e d t h e p r o g r a m i n FY82 (see Table f o r program breakdown). An a d d i t i o n a l $ 4 5 m i l l i o n was provided for summer a supplemental appropriation (P.L. 97-216) and y o u t h employment t h r o u g h a n o t h e r $4 m i l l i o n was a d d e d f o r J o b C o r p s ( P . L . 9 7 - 2 5 7 ) . President Reagan's r e q u e s t f o r e m p l o y m e n t a n d t r a i n i n g p r o g r a m s i n FY83 was $ 2 . 4 b i l l i o n , f o r a 6 9 % r e d u c t i o n f r o m CETA's f u n d i n g l e v e l i n FY81 a n d a 2 1 % r e d u c t i o n f r o m 9Y62 appropriations. (See section 3 f o r d e t a i l s . ) Meanwhile, the House Budget in FY83; Committee assumed C E T A P s s u c c e s s o r would be f u n d e d a t $ 3 . 0 b i l l i o n t h e Ssnate Budget Committee assumed $3.7 billion. Final decisions on A continuing spending a r e up to the Appropriations Committees. programs in FY83 a p p r o p r i a t i o n s r e s o l u t i o n i s now f u n d i n g L a b o r D e p a r t m e n t and provides $3.76 b i l l i o n f o r job t r a i n i n g a c t i v i t i e s ( s e e s e c t i o n 4 ) . T h e r e d u c e d b u d g e t a v a i l a b l e f o r e m p l o y m e n t a n d t r a i n i n g make allocation With the overall s i z e of the employment and i s s u e s a primary concern. t r a i n i n g p i e s h r i n k i n g , S t a t e s and l o c a l i t i e s a r e v i t a l l y i n t e r e s t e d in the CETA process used t o determine t h e i r share. The a l l o c a t i o n f o r m u l a u s e d in v a r i e d by p r o g r a m , r e l y i n g on different combinations of such f a c t o r s as r e l a t i v e numbers o f low-income a d u l t s , unemployed p e r s o n s , unemployed p e r s o n s 4.5%, unemployed persons living i n a r e a s of substantial in excess of u n e m p l o y m e n t a n d u n e m p l o y e d p e r s o n s who a r e l o w - i n c o m e . A r e l a t e d i s s u e i s what p o r t i o n of t h e o v e r a l l employment and training b u d g e t s h o u l d b e a l l o c a t e d a t t h e S t a t e a n d s u b - s t a t e l e v e l , a n d What p o r t i o n w i l l be r e t a i n e d i n Washington f o r d i s c r e t i o n a r y u s e by the Department of I11 of CETA a u t h o r i z e d special Federal responsibilities, Labor. Title a percentage of a d m i n i s t e r e d d i r e c t l y by t h e S e c r e t a r y o f L a b o r . Further, for the S e c r e t a r y of a p p r o p r i a t i o n s u n d e r e a c h t i t l e o f CETA was r e s e r v e d Labor's discretionary use. Fiscal issues also include f i s c a l controls. What p r o c e d u r e s w i l l b e used t o make s u r e F e d e r a l employment and t r a i n i n g f u n d s are spent properly? of the 1 9 7 8 amendments to C o n t r o l l i n g f r a u d a n d a b u s e was a m a j o r i n t e n t CETA, f o l l o w i n g w i d e s p r e a d c r i t i c i s m of the program, particularly in the o p e r a t i o n of p u b l i c s e r v i c e employment. Numerous p r o v i s i o n s were added in 1978 both t o p r e v e n t f r a u d and abuse from o c c u r r i n g i n t h e f i r s t p l a c e and t o e n a b l e t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f L a b o r a n d p r i m e s p o n s o r s t o r e s p o n d e f f e c t i v e l y when was t o h a m p e r abuses did occur. However, a b y - p r o d u c t of t h e s e amendments t h e f l e x i b i l i t y of prime sponsors, despite the law's original intent to decentralize employment and t r a i n i n g programs. This year's effort to how to provide a u t h o r i z e a new j o b t r a i n i n g p r o g r a m i n c l u d e d d i s c u s s i o n o f at the same t i m e , maximum f l e x i b i l i t y a t t h e S t a t e o r l o c a l l e v e l w h i l e , m a i n t a i n t h e f i s c a l i n t e g r i t y of t h e program. Coordination A r e c u r r i n g c o n c e r n i n e m p l o y m e n t a n d t r a i n i n g p o l i c y i s how t o c o o r d i n a t e been t h e p r i m a r y work a n d training r e l a t e d programs. A l t h o u g h CETA h a s program r u n by t h e F e d e r a l Government s i n c e 1 9 7 3 , numerous a c t i v i t i e s i n the public and private sector have related goals and provide similar services. Federal programs most often cited a s related to job training include the U.S. Employmen: S e r v i c e , the Work Incentive (WIN) p r o g r a m , vocational education programs and economic development. Despite language in CETA and other encouraging c o o r d i n a t i o n , most coordination that d o e s exist results from local conditions and circumstances rather than Federal directives. A major barrier to coordination among related employment and training programs is different delivery systems a n d servlce delivery areas. While CETA was a decentralized locally planned program, t h e Employment Service and vocational education a r e State-administered, WIN i s administered through the public welfare system and economic development activities a r e conducted by local public a n d private development agencies and in some parts of tne country, through regional commissions. F u r t h e r , while these programs may have overlapping goals and objectives, they are not identical. Client groups and methods of service delivery may differ and turf battles a r e inevitable in a n y attempt to bring long-established programs together. Nonstheless, coordination i s considered desirable by m o s t people because of i t s potential cost savings a n d because i t eliminates t h e currently confusing array of services a v a i l a b l e to clients. The current focus on the budget and efforts to reduce d o m e s t i c spending has resulted in renewed discussion this year of ways to c o o r d i n a t e Federal employment a n d training activities. (3) Administration Legislative and Budget Proposals T h e Administration formally submitted a job training bill to Congress on Mar. 9 , which w a s introduced the sane d a y a s S. 2 1 8 4 by Senators Quayle and Hatch. A general outline of the proposal w a s revealed on Feb. 8, when the Administration's FY83 budget was released. H o w e v e r , the Administration subsequently endorsed the version of S. 2 0 3 6 passed by the Senate and agreed to support t h e compromise measure approved by the House-Senate conference committee. The total f u n d i n g level f o r employment and training activities in FY83 would be $2.4 billion under the Administration's original plan, which called for f o r a $1.8 billion block g r a n t to States f o r job t r a i n i n g , $387 million J o b Corps, a n d a consolidation of nationally administered programs f o r special target population groups to be funded a t $ 2 0 0 million. Employment a n d training a c t i v i t i e s a l s o a r e on the l i s t of more than 40 currently Federal programs which the Administration proposes to "turn back" to the S t a t e s a s part of President Reagan's New Federalism initiative. During a fund financed by a n earmarked transition period from FY84-FY88, a trust portion of existing Federal taxes would be available to States, which could u s e their portion o f the trust fund to continue a n y of the turn-back programs under Federal r u l e s and conditions, o r a s "super revenue-sharing" money for other purposes. By FY88, the Federal Government would have no further role i n a n y o f t h e s e activities, a n d , by F Y 9 1 , the trust fund also would be phased out. At that p o i n t , States could terminate these programs o r continue them by raising their own revenues. Specific d e t a i l s , such a s whether all existing employment and training activities would be included i n the turn-back s c h e m e , a r e not y e t available f r o m the Administration. Specifically f o r FY83, Yhe Administration proposed to allow CETA to expire a n d replace a l l current training for disadvantaged youths and a d u l t s provided under titles 11-B a n d C , IV-A a n d VII of CETA with a single block grant to S t a t e s funded a t $1.8 billion i n FY83. T h e program would be authorized through F Y 8 7 , with 'tsuch s u m s a s necessaryn authorized for fiscal years 1984 through 1987. A major emphasis of the Administration's proposal was t h e elimination of any semblance of income maintenance or income support f r o m employment and trsininq ?regrams. T h e r e f o r e , the Administration proposed to prohibit entirely the payment of training allowances and s t i p e n d s , w h i c h , according to Administration estimates, consumed 44% of CETA training funds. The Administration a l s o would limit the provision of supportive services, such a s transportation and child c a r e , to 10% of each State's training allotment. No subsidized employment would be allowed. Eligibility f o r services would be strictly limited to welfare recipients a t l e a s t 1 6 y e a r s o l d , a n 8 economically disadvantaged out-of-school youth aged 16-25. Up to 1 0 % of each State's allotment could be used for groups not meeting these criteria, if they have additional barriers to employment. S t a t e s with s e v e r e displaced worker problems coulC use up t o a n additional 5% of their allotment to serve this population group, if the State fcrnished an equal amount o f nonfederai matching funds. The Administration estimated one million individuals could be trained annually under this proposal. Funding under the Administration proposal would flow from the Federal Government to States, which i n turn would designate substate delivery a r e a s and determine substate allocations. Any local government with a population of at least 500,000 would automatically be designated a s a s e r v i c e delivery (PIC) would be area. At the local l e v e l , a P r i v a t e Industry Council established i n each service delivery a r e a , with members appointed by t h e Governor after consultation with local officials. A majority o f the l o c a l F I C members would be from the private sector. These local C O U n C i l S , with t h e approval of the State council and the Governor, would develop a program plan f o r the service delivery a r e a , deciding the types of training t o be provided, skill and occupational areas in which training would be provided, a n d population groups to be served, within the maximum Federal i n c o m e eligibility criteria. In testimony before a joint House-Senate subcommittee hearing o n Mar. 1 5 , Albert Angrisani, head of t h e Employment and Training Administration a t the Department of L a b o r , said the Administration expects half the training funds to be used at the local level f o r on-job-training. T h e Administration's legislation would continue the J o b Corps a s a federally administered program a t a n annual level of $387 m i l l i o n , compared with current appropriations of $586 million. The Department Finally, t h e Administration proposed a $200 million program of nationally administered services for special target population groups, particularly N a t i v e Americans, migrant and seasonal farmworkers, older workers a n d veterans. This program would continue some of the services provided under title 111 of CETA and t h e be Trade Adjustment Assistance Act, a l t h o u g h no minimum funding l e v e l s would mandated f o r any of the special population groups. The Reagan Administration's budget released i n February requested no f u n d i n g for t h e Community Service Employment Program authorized by title V o f the Older Americans Act, and Labor Department documents indicated this program would be terminated a n d its activities continued through the new special t a r g e t population groups program. (For d e t a i l s on the Community S e r v i c e Employment Program f o r Older Americans and i t s current budget status, s e e IB82016.) T h e Summer Youth Employment P r o g r a m , authorized by title IV-C o f CETA a n d serving a b o u t 695,000 participants i n F Y 8 2 a t a funding l e v e l of $ 6 4 0 million, would be c o m p l e t e l y t eliminated i n FY83 under the Reagan the Work Incentive Administration budget. Likewise, a related program -- would b e (WIN) program under t i t l e I V of the Social Security Act terminated by the Administration i n FY83. Similar services t o WIN, which registers welfare recipients for work a n d provides employment a n d training services, could be provided under the Social Services Block Grant -- administered by the Department of Health and Human Services, according to Administration. T h e following table compares F Y 8 2 budget authority and Outlays employment and training programs i n F Y 8 2 with Administration requests FY 83. he for for TABLE 3 . Employment and Trainlng Funding, 1982-83 (in millions) FY82 Training grants Block grants a/ FY83 Request (BA) (0) (BA) (0) (BA) (0) (BA) (0) (BA) (0) CETA, title 11-B, C CETA, title IV-A CETA, title VII (Total) Job Corps National programs Special targeted prog. 2 / (BA) (0) (BA) Native Americans (0) Migrants and seasonal farmworkers CETA, Other title I11 (BA) (0) b - / (BA) (0) Trade Adjustment Assist. Older workers c / (Total) (BA) (0) (BA) (0) (BA) (0) Other CETA Programs Public Service Employment 2 / (BA) (0 Summer Youth Employment (BA) Young Adult Conservation Corps (BA) (0 Work Incentive Program (0) (BA) (0) -139 640 e / 695 -70 246 g / 269 F Y 8 2 budget Department of Labor FY83 budget documents. authority may not coincide with actual appropriations because of proposed reprogrammings and transfers. -a / Proposed new program t o begin in F Y 8 3 . b / Includes national activities not necessarily related to direct training of individuals, such a s research and demonstration and training and technical assistance. -c / Indicates funding under title V of the Older Americans Act, Source: CDmrnunlty Servise Employment for Older Americans. d / Includes funding under both tities 11-D a n d V I of CETA. e / D o e s n c t include $45 million provided through supplemental a p ? r o p r i a t ~ o n , P.L. 97-216. f / D o e s not include $4 million provided in supplemental appropriations, P.L. 97-257. / D o e s not include $ 3 5 million provided in supplemental g appropriation, P.L. 97-216. Congress had three major employment and training bills to consider this year, sponsored by Representative Hawkins, Senator Quayle, and Representative Zeffords, in addition to the proposals of the Administration. The House Zmployment Opportunities Subcommittee, chaired by Hawkins, and the Senate Employment and Productivity Subcommittee, chaired by Quayle, held joint hearings on eRployment and training legislation during the third week of March, receiving testimony from more than 9 0 witnesses, representing State and local governments, the private for-profit sector, nonprofit community-based groups, and organizations serving various constituencies, such as youth, minorities, women, the handicapped, and organized labor. The House Subcommittee held mark-up sessicns on Mar. 31 and Apr. 1 , approving a bill on Apr. 1. The full House Education and ' L a b o r Committee completed action on the bill and or6ered i t reported on Apr. 27. The full House passed of the the measure on Aug. 4. The Senate subcommittee approved its version legislation on Apr. 22. The full Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee ordered the measure reported on May 26. The bill was passed on the Senate floor on July 1. House and Senate conferees met to reconcile differences in the two bills on Aug. 19, Sept. 9 , 1 5 , 1 6 , 2 0 , 2 1 , 22 and 23. T h e conference report was approved 95-0 by the Senate on Sept. 2 9 , and 339-12 by the House on Oct. 1. President Reagan signed the bill into law (P.L. 97-300) on Oct. 13. The House and Senate versions of job training legislation differed substantially in many areas. However, amendments to the House bill, passed the bills Aug. 4 on the House floor, went a t least part way toward making more similar. For example, as reported to the House by the Education and billion for job Labor Committee, H.R. 5320 would have authorized $5.4 training in FY83, while the Senate's S. 2036 specified no funding level and instead authorized "such sums as may be necessary." A successful amendment on the House floor eliminated the specific authorization level in H.R. 5320. Another major difference was the explicit intention of the Senate bill to devote as much money as possible to the direct costs of training, rather than related activities such as administration and supportive services (child care, transportation, meals, etc.). As passed by the Senate, S. 2036 requires States to spend no more than 30% of their allocations on the combined costs of administration and supportive services. As reported by the Education and Labor Committee, H.R. 5320 limited administrative expenses to 15% of each local area's allotment, but did not place any limit on the portion of funds which could be used for either supportive services or wages, allowances and stipends. As amended on ths House floor, H.R. 5320 stated that local areas must use a t least 70% of their allotments for the direct costs of training, making the bill somewhat more compatible with S. 2036. However, supportive services could be considered a direct training cost under the House-passed version of H.R. 5320 and thus could be funded from the 70% reserved for training. Under the Senate-passed S. 2036, meanwhile, supportive services could not be considered a training cost and could be funded only with the 30% reserved for administration and other non-training expenses. Other major differences between the House and Senate bills included allowances and stipends, which were permitted on the basis of financial need in the House bill but essentially prohibited i n the Senate bill; the role of the State, with the Senate bill giving considerable discretion to the Governor in terms of service delivery area designation and planning, while =he Souse b i l l preserved the Federal-local relationship; sucsizized employment, w i t h t h e Eouse b i l l a u t h o r i z i n g a l i m i t e d amount of primarily short-duration subsidized jobs f o r youngsters in the p r i v a t e and ?ublFc s e c t o r s , w h i l e t h e Senace b i l l would s u b s i d i z e no jobs a t all; s i z e of areas s u b - s t a t e s e r v i c e d e l i v e r y a r e a s , w i t h t h e Hsuse b i l l f a v o r i n g s m a l l e r at least 150,000, and t h e Senate S i l l mandating with populations of designation of areas with 250,000 population or larger; and f ormula allocation factors. FY83 B u d g e t A c t i o n The House a n d S e n a t e Budget Committees d i s a g r e e d on t h e amounts assumed included i n t h e first f o r employment a n d t r a i n i n g programs i n PY83 a s c o n c u r r e n t r e s o l u t i o n o n t h e FY63 b u d g e t ( S . C o n . R e s . 9 2 ) . h i t h o u g h t h e House p a s s e d t h e c o n f e r e n c e r e p o r t on S . C o n . R e s . 9 2 on J u n e 22 and the Senate approved t h e i d e n t i c a l conference report t h e following day, the Sudget C o m m i t t e e s i n b o t h c h a m b e r s q u o t e d d i f f e r e n t f i g u r e s on t h e a m o u n t a s s u m e d i n The r e a s o n such a discrepancy t h e r e s o l u t i o n f o r CETA o r i t s r e p l a c e m e n t . spending levels can e x i s t i s because the budget resolution only establishes f o r broad budget functions, and not for individual programs. Therefore, total of $26.8 billion in budqet w h i l e t h e House a n d S e n a t e a g r e e d on a authority for education, t r a i n i n g and social services programs in FP83 ( b u d g e t f u n c t i o n 5 0 0 ) , t h e y d i s a g r e e d o n how t h e s e f u n d s s h o u l d b e allocated its replacement among p r o g r a m s . T h e H o u s e B u d g e t C o m m i t t e e a s s u m e d CETA o r while che w o u l d b e f u n d e d a t t h e c u r r e n t FY82 l e v e l o f $ 3 b i l l i o n i n F Y 8 3 , its successor i n S e n a t e B u d g e t C o m m i t t e e a s s u m e d $ 3 . 7 b i l l i o n f o r CETA o r congressional intent FY63. B e c a u s e t h e b U d g e ~r e s o l u t i o n i s a b l u e p r i n t o f and not an a c t u a l spending measure, t h e Appropriations Committees i n the H o u s e a n d S e n a t e u l t i m a t e l y d e c i d e how m u c h i n d i v i d u a l p r o g r a m s w i l l r e c e i v e . T h e H o u s e A p p r o p r i a t i o n s C o m m i t t e e o n S e p t . 2 9 r e p o r t e d H . R . 7 2 0 5 , a n FY83 funding b i l l f o r t h e Departments of Labor, Education and Health a n d Human Services. H o w e v e r , b e c a u s e CETA was s c h e d u l e d t o e x p i r e o n S e p t . 3 0 a n d t h e the Appropriations Committee n e w j o b t r a i n i n g p r o g r a m was n o t y e t e n a c t e d , training activities. d i d not consider i n t h i s b i l l a n appropriation f o r job C o n g r e s s s u b s e q u e n t l y e n a c t e d a c o n t i n u i n g r e s o l u t i o n , P.L. 97-276, e f f e c t i v e u n t i l Dec. 1 7 . T h i s m e a s u r e was i n t e n d e d t o m a i n t a i n p r o g r a m s , i n c l u d i n g j o b A second continuing resolution t r a i n i n g , a t t h e i r o p e r a t i n g l e v e l s i n FY82. (P.L. 97-377) h a s s i n c e b e e n e n a c t e d , e f f e c t i v e t h r o u g h the end of FY83, which p r o v i d e s $3.76 b i l l i o n f o r job t r a i n i n g . The following i s a aetailed description of P.L. 97-300, as s i g n e d by related P r e s i d e n t Reagan on Oct. 1 3 , 1982. Also provided is a discussion of l e g i s l a t i o n c o n s i d e r e d by t h e 9 7 t h C o n g r e s s . P.L. 97-300: Job Training Among P r o g r a m s Partnership A c t Authorization and Allocations The f i n a l v e r s i o n of job training legislation a u t h o r i z e s a permanent of "such sums as n e c e s s a r y . " The House program with a funding l e v e l E d u c a t i o n a n d L a b o r Committee o r i g i n a l l y r e p o r t e d a b i l l a u t h o r i z i n g $5.4 b i l l i o n f o r j o b t r a i n i n g b u t t h i s a p o u n t was d e l e t e d b y a n a m e n d m e n t on t h e tag House f l o o r . The S e n a t e v e r s i o n o f t h e b i l l o r i g i n a l l y c a r r i e d a p r i c e thereafter. However, o f $ 3 . 9 b i l l i o n f o r FY83 a n d " s u c h s u m s a s n e c e s s a r y " t h e S e n a t e L a b o r a n d Human R e s o u r c e s C o m m i t t e e a l s o a g r e e d t o delete a specific funding level. In i t s report on t h e b i l l , t h e Senate panel states ;05 C o r p s i s t h e o n l y p r o g r a m c o n t a i n e d i n t h e new b i l l w l ~ h a speclfic f u n d l n ? l e v e l a u t h o r ~ z e df o r F'Y83. The final version of the legislation and " s u c h sumsw : h e r e a f t e r . a u z n s r l z e s $ 6 l E n ~ l l l s n f c r J O S c o r p s 13 '"3 A l l o c a t i s n s among a c t i v i t i e s a u t h o r i z e d u n d e r t h e J o b T r a i n i n g P a r t n e r s h i p "such sums Act a r e done as follows i n t h e f i n a l v e r s i o n of t h e l e g i s l a t i o n : as necessaryw a r e authorized f o r adult and youth training programs under t i t l e 1 1 - A and f o r n a t i o n a l programs ( e x c e p t Job Corps) under t i t l e IV. Of t h e arount appropriazec each year for " L,' ,les 11-A and IV, 7% w i l l be r e s e r v e d f o r n a t i o n a l programs. Of t h i s s e t - a s i d e f o r n a t i o n a l p r o g r a a s , 5% w i l l 3s r e s e r v e c i c r v e t e r a n s ' e m p l o y m e n t a n c $ 2 m i l l i o n e a c h ysar for the X a t i c n a l C o m m i s s i o n fsr S m p l o y m e n t P o l i c y . An a m o u n t e q u a l t o 3.3% of the t3e national programs' annual t i t l e 1 1 - A a p p r o p r i a t i o n w i l l be p a i d o u t of s e t - a s i d e f o r N a t i v e American programs, a n d a t u r t h e r amount e q u a l t o 3 . 2 % of :he t i t l e 1 1 - A appropriation w i l l be paid from the national programs' s e t - a s i d e f o r migrant and seasonal farmworker programs. Remaining amounts i n LJ12 n a t i o n a l programs set-aside w i l l be used for national activities a d ~ ~ i n i s t e r ebdy t h e S e c r e t a r y o f Labor, labor market information, and t r a i n i n g programs t o a s s i s t Federal c o n t r a c t o r s i n meeting a f f i r m a t i v e a c t i o n obligations. ii for sunmer y o u t h programs "Such sums as c e c e s s a r y " a l s o a r e a u t h o r i z e d u n c e r t i t l e 1 1 - B a n d f o r a s s i s t a n c e t o d i s l o c a t e d w o r k e r s u n d e r t i t l e 111. S e r v i c e D e l i v e r y Areas (SDAs) Governors w i l l divide t h e i r S t a t e s i n t o s e r v i c e d e l i v e r y a r e a s following s p e c i f i c procedures outlined i n t h e Job Training Partnership Act. The House S i i l reserved t h i s r o l e f o r t h e Secretary of Labor, while t h e Senate and t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i o n made s e r v i c e d e l i v e r y a r e a d e s i g n a ~ t i o na S t a t e f u n c t i o n . The f i n a l v e r s i o n of t h e l e g i s l a t i o n imposes c e r t a i n l i m i t s on the Governor's discretion i n designating these areas, however. The p r o c e d u r e works as follows: The S t a t e j o b t r a i n i n g coordinating council proposes service delivery areas, w i t h w r i t t e n j u s t i f i c a t i o n , t o t h e Governor. The G o v e r n o r , after receiving the State council's recommendations, publishes proposed service d e l i v e r y a r e a s f o r comment. These p r o p o s e d a r e a s must be e i t h e r t h e entire S t a t e , o r o n e o r more u n i t s o f l o c a l g o v e r n m e n t ; be consistent with labor m a r k e t a r e a ( L M A ) o r S t a n d a r d M e t r o p o l i t a n S t a t i s t i c a l A r e a (SMSA) b o u n d a r i e s ( a l t h o u g h n o t n e c e s s a r i l y t h e e n t i r e LMA a n d S M S A ) ; a n d b e Consistent with a r e a s i n which r e l a t e d s e r v i c e s are p r o v i d e d under o t h e r programs. Local governments, b u s i n e s s groups o r o t h e r i n t e r e s t e d p e o p l e can comment on the G o v e r n o r ' s p r o p o s a l and r e q u e s t c t a n g e s . The G o v e r n o r i s r e q u i r e d t o a p p r o v e Those areas c e r t a i n r e q u e s t s f o r d e s i g n a t i o n as a s e r v i c e d e l i v e r y a r e a . g u a r a n t e e d SDA d e s i g n a t i o n , if t h e y so request, a r e any u n i t s of local government w i t h population of 200,000 o r more, any consortia of local g o v e r n m e n t s w i t h a n a g g r e g a t e p o p u l a t i o n o f 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 o r more w h i c h serve a substantial part of a labor market area, and any r u r a l Concentrated The House b i l l w o u l d E m p l o y m e n t P r o g r a m Which h a d b e e n a CETA p r i m e s p o n s o r . h a v e mandated d e s i g n a t i o n of a r e a s w i t h p o p u l a t i o n s o f 1 5 0 , 0 0 0 o r more, w h i l e t h e S e n a t e b i l l would have g u a r a n t e e d d e s i g n a t i o n f o r a r e a s w i t h populations of 500,000 o r more a n d f o r areas of 250,000 o r more under certain circumstances. Under the final version of the legislation, Governors also submitted by a have the option of approving requests for S D A designation doesn't meet the local government o r consortium of local governmenrs which minimum population requirement but which serves a substantial portion of a labor market area. Private Industry CoXncilS (PICs) Each service delivery area will have a Private Industry Council, with members appointed by local elected officials from nominations submitted by specific groups. A majority of P I C menibers, and the chairman, will be private sector representatives, chosen from nominations submitted by general purpose business organizations in the area. The number of nominations submitted will equal a t least 150% of the number of private sector members to be chosen. P r i v a t e sector representatives will reasccacly represent the industry and demographic composition of the locai business commGnity, a n 8 if possible, half the private sector representatives will be from small businesses, including minority enterprises. Other members o f the P I C will include educational agencies (chosen from nominations submitted by local educational institutions and organizations), organized labor (chosen from nominatins submitted by State and local labor organizations o r building trades councils), rehabilitation agencies, community-based organizations, economic development agencies and the public employment service (chosen from nominations submitted by interested groups). The Governors must certify the P I C if it meets a l l requirements of the Act. If Local elected officials in a service delivery area cannot a g r e e o n aFpointments to t h e P I C , the Governor will make these appointments. T h e r o l e of the P I C is t o provide policy guidance and oversee local job training programs, to establish procedures for developing a job training plan a n d to select a grant recipient and administrative entity to oFerate the program, i n agreement with l G c a l elected officials. Planning T h e P I C and chief elected officials in the service delivery area jointly decide who will develop the local job training plan. Regardless of who actually writes the p l a n , i t must be approved and submitted jointly to the Governor by both the P I C a n d t h e local elected officials. If the P I C and l o c a l officials cannot a g r e e o n the plan, the Governor will merge that service delivery a r e a into one or more other service delivery areas i n the State. T h e Senate bill would have required the P I C to develop the plan and t o submit it to the Governor jointly with local officials, with the Governor resolving any disputes between the P I C and local officials. The House b i l l , o n the other hand, would have required the P I C and local officials to develop the plan jointly but i t would have been submitted to the Secretary by the local officials. The Secretary would have mediated in c a s e s of dispute between the P I C a n d l o c a l officials, under the House bill. Under the final version o f job training legislation, the service delivery a r e a plan will cover two program years and do the following: identify t h e g r a n t recipient a n d administrative entity for the SDA; describe job training services t o be provided; describe procedures for identifying participants a n d budget; verifying their eligibility; s e t performance goals; contain a 2-year demonstrate how t h e local plan will comply with the Governor's coordination pian; demonstrate 5ow the SDA wlli c o o r d ~ n a t ewith other SDAs in the s'ame labor market a r e a , ~f there is more than one SDA in the labor market area; specify fiscal Control procedures; and specify procedures for preparing and submlttlng an annual report to the Governor. The plan is published and made availaSle for comment at least 1 2 0 days Sefore the start of he first of the two program years and a final plan is submitted to the Governor a t least 80 days before start of the first program year. The Governor must approve the plan unless prevlous deficiencies in the service delivery area have not been corrected, or the administrative entity is inadequate, or the plan contains inadquate safeguards to protect funds, or the plan doesn't comply with the Act, its regulations, or the Governor's ccordination plan. Performance Standards All programs authorized under the Job Training Parrnership Act will be held accountable to certain performance standards. For adult training programs, the Secretary will prescribe performance standards based on such factors as placement and retention in unsubsidized employment, increases in earning and reductions in welfare dependency. The Secretary will designate additional factors for evaluating youth programs, including attainment of or employment competencies recognized by the PIC, school completion, enrollment in another training proqram, apprenticeship or the military. For the dislocated workers program, the secretary will prescribe standards based on placement and retention i n unsubsidized employment. The Secretary will prescribe variations in performance standards for programs serving special population groups, such a s Native Americans, migrants and ex-offenders. At the State level, Governors may vary the Secretary's standards, within established limits, to reflect specific economic, geographic and demographic factors within the State and the service delivery areas. If a service delivery area fails to meet performance standards, the Governor will provide technical assistance. However, if the area fails to meet performance standards 2 years in a r o w , the Governor will impose a PIC, or recrganization plan, which could result in a restructured prohibition against certain service providers, or a new administrative entity to operate the program. State Job Training Coordinating Council Both the House and Senate bills would have required the Governors to establish some sort of State job training council, although the Senate bill would have made private sector members 51% of the State council, while the House would have required private sector members to comprise 25% of the State council. Under the final version of the Job Training Partnership Act, one-third of the State job training coordinating council will be business and industry representatives. Of the remaining members, each of the following State legislature and other State three groups must constitute a t least 20%: agency representatives; local government representatives; and the eligible population and general public, organized labor, community-based organizations and local educational agencies. Subject t o the Governor's approval, State council functions include the following: recommend the Governor's coordination and special services plan; recommend substate service delivery areas; review and provide g u i d a n c e f o r a l l programs within the State; develop linkages with relaced programs z n d coordinate activities with the PICs; develop a State job training report; recommend variations in performance standards; advise the Governor a n d l o c a l entities on job training plans; certify local job training plans a s consistent with the Governor's coordination scheme; review State employment service p l a n s ; submit a n annual report to the Governor; identify employment a n d training and vocational education needs in the S t a t e ; review related State agency plans; a n d , if the Governor so chooses, perform f u n c t i o n s of t h e State councils under the Work Incentive (WIN) program and the Wagner-Peyser Act (the public employment service proqram). Statewide Activities Governors will develop ?-year coordination and special services pians describing how resources provided under the Act will be used within t h e S t a t e a n d service delivery areas and evaluating the experience of t h e previous 2 years. Included i n the plan will be criteria for coordinating a c t i v i t i e s under this Act with related activities within the State. L o c a l job training plans must be consistent with these coordination criteria. The Governor's coordination and special services activities may i n c l u d e t h e following: information and technical assistance to s e r v i c e delivery areas; special model training and employment programs and related services; activities f o r offenders and others the Governor determines need special assistance; assistance t o rural a r e a s lying outside major labor market areas; training related to energy conservation and solar energy development; industry-wide training; assistance t o dislocated workers a s authorized by title 111; information related to economic, industry and labor market conditions; preservice and in-service training for local job training staff; a n d statewide programs which provide for joint funding o f activities under t h i s Act with related programs. Funds will be set aside for Governors to use specifically f o r education coordination grants, under the final version of the job training legislation. No more t h a n 20% of t h e s e funds can be used for technical a s s i s t a n c e t o foster the development of cooperative agreements between S t a t e education agencies a n d administrative entities in service delivery a r e a s a n d , if appropriate, local education agencies. At least 8 0 % o f t h e f u n d s set a s i d e f o r education coordination must b e used for actual services to e l i g i b l e participants provided under these cooperative agreements. T h e 8 0 % used f o r services must be matched by non-federal funds or resources a s determined i n t h e cooperative agreement. A t least 75% of the funds used for services m u s t b e focused o n economically disadvantaged individuals. F u n d s a l s o will be set aside f o r Governors to operate training programs f o r older workers, who are a t least 5 5 years old and economically disadvantaged. These programs will be developed i n COnjUnCtiOn w i t h s e r v i c e delivery a r e a s within the State and will be designed to o p e n e m p l o y m e n t opportunities for older workers with private employers. Both t h e House and Senate bills had provided f o r some statewide a c t i v i t i e s o n behalf o f older workers and for coordination with S t a t e education agencies. Both bills also provided f o r a State labor market information s y s t e m , which will be overeen and managed by the S t a t e occupational information coordinating committee o r another unit designated by the G o v e r n o r , nnder c n e final version of the bill. Tralnlng he Dlsadvanzaged: Ailotmencs and Aiiocazions Among Activities Title 11-k authorizes the central program of the Job Training P a r t n e r s h i p A c t , which is training for disadvantaged adults and youth. Of funds will be set a s i a e each year for appropriated for this part, $5 million a l l o c a t i o n among G u a m , the Virgin Islands, American S a m o a , the T r u s t Territory of the Pacific Islands and the Northern Kariana Islands. Remaining f u n d s will be allocated among S t a t e s , including the District of Columbia a n C P u e r t o R i c c , according to a three-psrt formula based equally on the foilowing factors: relative nurr,ber of unemployed individuals living in a r e a s with jobless r a t e s of a t least 6.5% f o r the previous 1 2 months; relative number of unemployed indivicuals in excess of 4.5% of the State's civilian labor f o r c e ; and relative number of economically disadvantaged individuals. Each State will be guaranteed a t least 90% of its allotment percentage for the previous fiscal year. T h e House and S e n a t e bills each had different allocation formulas f o r the disadvantaged training program. The Senate bill would h a v e allocated funds a c c o r d i n g to two equal factors: long-term unemployed and economically disadvantaged. T h e . H o u s e bill based allocations o n four equal f a c t o r s , of which t h r e e were related to unemployment and one was low-income adults. T h e f i n a l version of the legislation Calls for the Governor to receive each S t a t e ' s a l l o t m e n t and a l l o c a t e 78% o f i t among service delivery a r e a s within the S t a t e , according to t h e same t h r e e factors used to determine the S c a t e share. (Under the House b i l l , f u n d s would have flowed directly from 22% the F e d e r a l Government to l o c a l service delivery areas.) T h e remaining of each S t a t e ' s allotment under title 11-A w i l l be divided a s follows: 8% for S t a t e education coordination grants; 3 % f o r programs f o r older w o r k e r s ; 6% f o r incentive a w a r d s to s e r v i c e delivery areas exceeding performance standards (unused portions of t h i s set-aside will be used for technical for a u d i t i n g , administration, assistance); and 5% for G o v e r n o r s to use coordination and special services activities and expenses o f the S t a t e job training coordinating council. Training the Disadvantaged: Eligibility Eligibility f o r services u n d e r title 11-A i s limited to the economically d i s a d v a n t a g e d , defined a s welfare and food s t a m p recipients, individuals with i n c o m e s n o higher than the O f f i c e of Management and Budget poverty line or 70% of t h e Bureau of Labor Statistics' lower living standare income l e v e l , certain foster children, or c e r t a i n handicapped adults whose families exceed the i n c o m e criteria. However, u p to 1 0 % of participants may be i n d i v i d u a l s who a r e n o t economically disadvantaged, i f they have encountered barriers to employment. Examples of people w h o could constitute this 1 0 % a r e t h o s e With limited English-speaking a b i l i t y , displaced homemakers, school d r o p o u t s , t e e n a g e parents, the handicapped, older workers, v e t e r a n s , offenders, a l c o h o l i c s o r addicts. Both t h e House a n d S e n a t e bills had provided f o r this 1 0 % exemption from the economically disadvantaged requirement. Training t h e Disadvantaged: Program C o n t e n t B o t h t h e House a n d Senate b i l l s provided that about half the training f u n d s i n e a c h s e r v i c e d e l i v e r y a r e a would be used to serve disadvantaged youth. The f i n a l v e r s i o n o f t h e l e g i s l a t i o n r e q u i r e s a t l e a s t 4 0 % o f funds t o be used f o r y o u t h , t o be v a r i e d up o r down d e p e n d i n q on t h e r a t i o of disadvantaged youth t o a d u l t s i n the l o c a l area. Further, Aid to Families w i t h Dependent C h i l d r e n r e c i p i e n t s and eligible school dropouts must be s e r v e d e q u i t a b l y a c c o r d i n g t o t h e l r p r o p o r t i o n of e c o n o m i c a l l y disadvantaged of 15 and people i n the l o c a l area. Youth a r e d e f i n e d a s between t h e a g e s 21, i n c l u s i v e . E l i g i b l e t r a i n i n g a c t i v i t i e s under t h e f i n a l version of the legislation allowing a full i n c l u d e a l l t h ~ s ec o n t a i n e d i n t h e H o u s e a n d S e n a t e b i l l s , develcpment services, r a n g e of education, t r a i n i n g a n d employability i n c l u d i n g o n - j o b - t r a i n i n g i n t h e p r i v a t e a n d p u b l i c s e c t o r s , wcrk e x p e r i e n c e , supportive s e r v i c e s and needs-based payments n e c e s s a r y for trainees to a l o c a l l y developed formula. participate in the program provided under F u r t h e r , a s e r i e s of " e x e m p l a r y y o u t h programs,'' which had been c o n t a i n e d i n option of local planners. These t h e H o u s e b i l l , may be c o n d u c t e d a t t h e programs i n c l u d e "education f o r employment," geared f o r high s c h o o l droupouts with deficiencies despite a high school dipioma; or youngsters "pre-employment s k i l l s t r a i n i n g " for e l i g i b l e youth, including 14and academic achievement but 1 5 - y e a r - o l d s , who d o n o t meet s t a n d a r d l e v e l s o f plan to seek full-time work after leaving school; "entry employment e x p e r i e n c e t f f o r y o u t h who h a v e c o m p l e t e d s o m e s o r t o f pre-employment skills t r a i n i n g , h a v e l i m i t e d work e x p e r i e n c e a n d a r e e n r o l l e d i n h i g h s c h o o l o r an a c c r e d i t e d equivalency program; and "school-to-work transition assistanze" f o r h i g h s c h o o l s e n i o r s a n d d r o p o u t s who p l a n t o s e e k full-time employment. " E n t r y employment e x p e r i e n c e " can i n c l u d e full-time summer o r part-time subsidized jobs i n public and private nonprofit agencies i n combination with employment f o r education and t r a i n i n g programs. Also a u t h o r i z e d i s t r y - o u t e l i g i b l e youth i n p r i v a t e f o r - p r o f i t worksites, o r non-profit employers if may hold a tryout for-profit worksites are not available. Youngsters (not t o p o s i t i o n f o r no l o n g e r t h a n 250 h o u r s a n d w i l l be p a i d c o m p e n s a t i o n for the service b e c o n s i d e r e d w a g e s ) by t h e e n t i t y r e c e i v i n g t h e g r a n t Employers which do n o t hire a tryout employee a f t e r the d e l i v e r y area. s u b s i d i z e d p e r i o d e x p i r e s may n o t r e c e i v e a n o t h e r . Training t h e Disadvantaqed: L i m i t a t i o n on Non-Training Costs One o f t h e m o s t c o n t r o v e r s i a l i s s u e s i n d e v e l o p m e n t o f the job training for related l e g i s l a t i o n was how much o f t h e p r o g r a m f u n d s s h o u l d b e a l l o w e d In general, both expenses such as a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and s u p p o r t i v e s e r v i c e s . to t h e House a n d S e n a t e a g r e e d t h a t 70% o f p r o g r a m f u n d s s h o u l d be d e v o t e d t r a i n i n g a n d no more t h a n 30% u s e d f o r a d d i t i o n a l c o s t s . However, the two b o d i e s d i d n o t s h a r e a common d e f i n i t i o n o f t r a i n i n g a n d therefore differed for on t h e t y p e of a c t i v i t i e s w h i c h c o u l d b e f i n a n c e d from t h e 70% r e s e r v e d b i l l , the following training. Under t h e f i n a l compromise v e r s i o n of the l i m i t a t i o n s w i l l a p p l y t o a d u l t and youth t r a i n i n g programs a u t h o r i z e d under t i t l e 11-A of t h e Act: No m o r e t h a n 3 0 % o f t i t l e 1 1 - A f u n d s i n a s e r v i c e d e l i v e r y a r e a c a n b e used f o r t h e combined c o s t s o f a d m i n i s t r a t i o n (which a l o n e cannot e x c e e d 15% 5 0 % o f work e x p e r i e n c e c o s t s which of t i t l e 11-A funds) and t h e following: meet c e r t a i n p r o g r a m r e q u i r e m e n t s ; 1 0 0 % o f w o r k e x p e r i e n c e c o s t s w h i c h d o n o t meet these requirements; supportive services, such as c h i l d c a r e and t r a n s p o r t a t i o n ; and needs-based payments t o trainees. For 50% o f work e x p e r i e n c e c o s t s t o f a l l o u t s i d e t h i s 30% l i m i t a t i o n ( a n d be f u n d e d f r o m t h e 70% r e s e r v e d f o r a c t u a l training), the work e x p e r i e n c e m u s t meet these 3 e 3 0 % l i m i t a t i o ~c a n b e w a i v e d i f c h e P I C s u S m i t s a r e q u e s t a n d i f one o r more o f t h e f o l l o w i n g c o n d i t i o n s exist: t h e a r e a ' s unemplcyment race e x c e e d s t h e n a t i o n a l a v e r a g e by a t least three p o i n t s and t h e r a t i o of p r i v a t e employment t o p o p u l a t i o n i n t h e area i s l o w e r than the national a v e r a g e ; t h e l o c a l job t r a i n i n g p l a n s e r v e s a d i s p o r t i o n a t e l y h i g h number of p e o p l e who n e e d s u j s t a n t i a l s u p p o r t i v e s e r v i c e s , such a s the handicapped, offenders, o r singie parents; necessary c h i l d c a r e c o s t s exceed h a l f of the the 30% l i m i t a t i o n ; cr necessary non-administrative expenses included i n ZransFGrtation costs exceed one-third of the non-administrative expecses included i n t h e 30% l i m i t a t i o n . Summer Y o u t h P r o g r a m s is summer y o u t h S e p a r a t e l y a u t h o r i z e d from t h e main t r a i n i n g program "Such sums a s n e c e s s a r y w may b e employment and t r a i n i n g under t i t l e 1 1 - B . a p p r o p r i a t e d a n d w i l l be a l l o t z e d among S t a t e s a c c o r d i n g t o t h e same t h r e e f a c t o r s u s e d i n t h e m a i n t r a i n ~ n gp r o g r a m , a f t e r t h e o u t l y i n g a r e a s f i r s t a r e g i v e n t h e same p e r c e n t a g e o f f u n d s hey r e c e i v e d i n t h e p r e v i o u s f i s c a l year f o r summer y o u c h a c t i v i t i e s . Economically disadvantaged youth, i n c l u d i n g 14- and 15-year-olds a t l o c a l during the o p t i o n , w i l l be e l i g i b l e f o r a f u l l r a n g e o f t r a i n i n g a c t i v i t i e s summer m o n t h s u n d e r t i t l e 11-3, i n c l u d i n g o n - j o b - t r a i n i n g , work experience and supportive services. Local e l e c t e d o f f i c i a l s , PICs, Governors and S t a t e job t r a i n i n g c o o r d i n a t i n g c o u n c i l s w i l l have t h e same a u t h o r i t y over the summer y o u t h p r o g r a m a s t h e y d o o v e r t h e m a i n t r a i n i n g program under title 11-A. However, t h e 30% r e s t r i c t i o n on u s e o f f u n d s f o r n o n - t r a i n i n g e x p e n s e s w i l l n o t a p p l y t o t h e summer p r o g r a m . The Senate b i l l had authorized summer y o u t h programs as a separate would h a v e made summer p r o g r a m s an allowable a c t i v i t y ; t h e House b i l l a c t i v i t y under t h e main t r a i n i n g program. D i s l o c a t e d Workers: A l l o c a t i o n of Funds had included a s e p a r a t e program for Both t h e House a n d S e n a t e b i l l s " s u c h sums d i s l o c a t e d w o r k e r s , w h i c h a p p e a r s i n t h e f i n a l b i l l a s t i t l e 111. a s n e c e s s a r y " may b e a p p r o p r i a t e d , o f w h i c h 25% w i l l be used for people a f f e c t e d b y mass l a y o f f s , n a t u r a l d i s a s t e r s , F e d e r a l G o v e r n m e n t a c t i o n s s u c h a s f a c i l i t y r e l o c a t i o n s , o r p e o p l e who l i v e i n h i g h u n e m p l o y m e n t areas o r designated e n t e r p r i s e zones. S t a t e s must apply t o t h e S e c r e t a r y t o r e c e i v e a p o r t i o n 'of t h e s e r e s e r v e d f u n d s . The remaining 75% of d i s l o c a t e d worker f u n d s w i l l be a l l o t t e d among a l l S t a t e s g i v i n g e q u a l w e i g h t t o t h e f o l l o w i n g three factors: r e l a t i v e number o f unemployed i n d i v i d u a l s ; r e l a t i v e number o f unemployed i n d i v i d u a l s i n e x c e s s of 4.5% o f t h e civilian labor force; and r e l a t i v e number of p e o p l e unemployed 1 5 weeks o r more. D i s l o c a t e d Workers: E l i g i b i l i t y and Program Content E l i g i b l e p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h e d i s l o c a t e d workers program w i l l f a l l i n t o one of t h e f o l l o w i n g c a t e g o r i e s : p e o p l e who h a v e been terminated or laid-off from t h e i r job o r have been n o t i f i e d of pending l a y - o f f , a r e e l i g i b l e f o r or have exhausted their entitlement t o unemployment compensation, and are u n i i k e l y t o r e t u r n t o t h e i r p r e v i o u s i n d u s t r y o r o c c u p a t i o n ; p e o p l e who have facility l o s t o r a r e about t o l o s e t h e i r job because of a permanent p l a n t o r c l o s i n g ; o r t h e l o n g - t e r m u n e m p l o y e d who h a v e l i m i t e d e m p l o y m e n t p o t e n t i a l i n t h e i r f i e l d i n t h e area i n which t h e y l i v e , i n c l u d i n g o l d e r w o r k e r s whose a g e c r e a t e s a b a r r i e r t o employment. of e l i g i b l e dislocated workers, with the S t a t e s w i i l i d e n t i f y groups a s s i s t a n c e of t h e l o c a l PICs i f t h e S t a t e c h o o s e s t o u s e them. Once t h e s e groups a r e i d e n t i f i e d , S t a t e s and local PICs w i l l d e t e r m i n e i f acy job for which opportunities exist, either i n the labor market area or outside, t h e s e people can be r e t r a i n e d . States also w i l l inform e l i g i b l e wcrkers a b o u t a n y t r a i n i n g o p p o r t u n i t i e s w h i c h may e x i s t . A c t i v i t i e s authorized under t h e d i s l o c a t e d workers program include job which demand search a s s i s t a n c e , job development, t r a i n i n g i n job s k i l l s f o r exceeds supply, supportive s e r v i c e s , relocation a s s i s t a n c e and a c t i v i t i e s conducted wirh employers o r l a b o r organizations t o provide e a r l y intervention i n c a s e of a p l a n t c l o s i n g . in a service Before t h e S t a t e can approve a d i s l o c a t e d workers program o f f i c i a l s must have 30 d a y s to d e l i v e r y a r e a , t h e P I C and l o c a l e l e c t e d a negative review the plan. S t a t e s can approve a program d e s p i t e local officials, b u t must justify their recommendation from t h e P I C o r reasons i n writing. D i s l o c a t e d Workers: M a t c h i n g ; Use o f F u n d s A s r e q u i r e d u n d e r b o t h t h e House -and S e n a t e b i l l s , S t a t e s m u s t match t h e i r d i s l o c a t e d workers a l l o t m e n t w i t h an e q u a l amount of non-Federal resources. The n o n - F e d e r a l m a t c h c a n i n c l u d e t h e d i r e c t c o s t of employment o r training services provided by State or local agencies, private nonprofit and for-profit organizations. S t a t e - f i n a n c e d unemployment i n s u r a n c e b e n e f i t s to e l i g i b l e d i s l o c a t e d w o r k e r s e n r o l l e d i n t r a i n i n g c a n c o n s t i t u t e up t o 50% o f t h e non-Federal match. S t a t e s whose a v e r a g e unemployment r a t e i s h i g h e r t h a n requirements reduced t h e n a t i o n a l a v e r a g e w i l l have t h e i r non-Federal match rate exc2eds the national by 1 0 % f o r e a c h 1%b y w h i c h t h e S t a t e ' s j o b l e s s average. No m o r e t h a n 3 0 % o f each State's Federal allotment can be used for s u p p o r t i v e s e r v i c e s , wages, a l l o w a n c e s , s t i p e n d s , and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c o s t s . N a t i o n a l Programs t o Native Americans and S p e c i f i c amounts are s e t - a s i d e f o r a s s i s t a n c e of the new legislation, migrant and s e a s o n a l farmworkers under t i t l e IV-A similar t o programs p r e v i o u s l y a u t h o r i z e d by title I11 of CETA. These p r o g r a m s a r e a d m i n i s t e r e d d i r e c t l y by t h e S e c r e t a r y o f Labor, as i s J o b Job Corps, which w i l l c o n t i n u e e s s e n t i a l l y unchanged under t i t l e IV-B o f t h e Training Partnership Act. A s p e c i f i c amount a l s o is set aside f o r the Secretary t o administer an employment and training program for veterans, specifically service-connected disabled veterans, Vietnam-era and recently separated veterans. This program, authcrized as title IV-C, will be operated through the Assistant Secretary for Veterans' Employment in the Labor Department. A series of national activities, some of which are similar to those previously authorized under title I11 of C E T A , are contained in title IV-D of the new iegislaticn. These authorize the Secretary to administer multistate programs, research and demonstration, pilot projects, evaluation, training and technical assistance. Part E of title IV authorizes a Federal 1z.bor market information system, including a job bank program and funding for the National Occupational Information Coordinating Committee established by the Vocational Education Act. Finally, title IV-E reauthorizes the National Commission for Zmployment Policy, which had been established under citie V of CETA. Transition FY83 will be a year of transition into the new program and existing CETA provisiocs will apply during that year until the new program is in place. T h e new system must be operational by Oct. 1 , 1983, when FY84 begins. Wagner Peyser-Act Amendments (Employment Service) The new iegislation makes some amendments to the Wagner-Peyser Act, designed to make planning for the employment service more consistent with the planning system established under the new J o b Training Partnership Act. For example, service delivery area under Wagner-Peyser is redefined the same as i n the new legislation. Local employment service planning will be conducted jointly with local PICs and elected officials and plans must be certified by State job training coordinating councils a s ccnsistent with the Governor's cocraination plans. Funding for the employment service comes from the Federal unemployment tax. However, the Job Training Partnership Act provides for a new formula for allocating these funds among States. Two-thirds of each State's allotment will be based on relative number of people i n 'the civilian labor force and one-third will be based on relative number of unemployed individuals. Each State will be guaranteed a t least 90% of its allotment percentage from the previous year. Further, the Secretary can reserve up to 3 % of employment service funds to supplement State allotments and ensure that each State maintains an adequate staff level. Of each State's allotmsnt, 90% will be used for job search, placement and recruitment services for job-seekers and employers and for various other activities such a s program evaluation, devloping linkages with other programs, services for dislocated workers, labor market and occupational information systems, a management information system, and administering the work test for the State unemployment compensation program. The remaining 10% will be used by Governors for performance incentives for local employment service offices consistent with performance standards established by the Secretary, services for groups with special needs and extra costs of any exemplary service delivery models. The employment service can perform others services not specifically authorized under the Wagner-Peyser Act under contracts which provide for the payment for such services by another agency. Work Incentive ( W I N ) Prcgram The Job Training Partnership Act a l s o amends the Work Incentive (WIN) program, authorized by the Social Security Act, to make it more consistent with the new job training system. F o r example, the PIC will take over certain functions of the previously authorized Labor Market Advisory Council and WIN activities must be coordinated with services provided under the n e w legislation. H.J.Res. 631: FP83 Continuing Resolution (Job Creation Package) job-creation proposals dominated much of the activity of c?ie post-election lame-duck session of the 97th Congress, although the only legisistion enacted wass a five-cent-a-gallon gasoline t a x i n c r e a s e , which is estimated t c create 320,000 highway a n d mass transit construction jobs (H.R. 6211). However, in its version of the FP53 continuing appropriations resolution, the House included a $5.4 billion package of of job-creating initiatives. The two largest single items i n the House bill were a $ 1 billion supplement to the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program r u n by the Department of short-term emergency jobs Housing and Urban Development and a $1 billion program, similar to legislation passed earlier i n the year by the House (see H.J.Res. 5 6 2 , below). T?ie House package a l s o included f u n d s f o r highway, mass t r a n s i t and rail corridor repairs; improvement of Veterans Administration medical facilities and public housing projects; funds for the Economic Development Administration and Small Business Administration l o a n s ; funds t o create jobs with the National Park Service and National Forest Service; f u n d s for the Indian Health Service a n d Fish and Wildlife Service; a n d funds f o r numerous other activities such a s rural water and waste d i s p o s a l , s o i l resource conservation and development, watershed a n d flood prevention, various Army Corps of Engineers projects, child day care a n d home health c a r e jobs, building and upgrading of military h o u s i n g , home weatherization a n d emergency fooa and shelter for t h e homeless. In a d d i t i o n , t h e House package included $200 million t o f u n d t h e new dislocated workers program authorized by title I11 of the J o b Training Partnership Act. The Senate version of H.J.Res. 6 3 1 contained a s m a l l e r , $1.2 billion jobs package, most of which would have g o n e t o the CDBG program a t HUD. However, President Reagan endorsed the gasoline tax increase a n d threatened to veto the continuing resolution i f i t contained a n y funding f o r additional job-creating programs. House and S e n a t e conferees agreed to d r o p the jobs package from the continuing resolution a n d the m e a s u r e was signed by t h e President on Dec. 2 1 (P.L. 97-377). H.J.Res. 562: Urgent Supplemental Appropriation (Public Service Employment Program) for Department of Labor In response t o a national unemployment r a t e of 9.8% and the anticipation that jobless rates would worsen f u r t h e r , t h e House Appropriations Committee reported in August a n urgent supplemental appropriation for t h e Department of Labor to create a short-term program of public s e r v i c e jobs to e m p l o y a b o u t 200,000 people, according to estimates provided by t h e bill sponsors. The measure cleared the House o n Sept. 16 by a v o t e of 223 t o 1 6 9 , after a n alternative sponsored by Representatives Michel a n d Lynn Martin f a i l e d 1 5 2 to 243. As passed by the House, H.J.Res. 5 6 2 would appropriate a b o u t $ 1 billion ( 5 % of annual spenCing on unemployment compensation) to che Department of Labor, of which 85% would be allotted by formula among local jurisdictions with higher-t9an-average unemployment. Local areas would use the funds to create minimum wage jobs for people unemployed a t least 2 weeks. Employment would last no longer than 6 months and would Se concentrated in the areas of repair, maintenance and rehabilitation of public facilities and conservation, rehabilitation and improvement of public lands. The remaining 15% would be used to supplement the $192 million currently available for youth employment and training programs under title IV-A of CETA. Funds appropriated under H.J.Res. 562 would remain available until Dec. 31, 1982. An identical measure, S.J.Res. 245, was introduced in the Senate by Senators Kennedy and Robert Byrd. Senatcr Kennedy also proposed this program as an amendment to 97-276), but the recently passed continuing appropriations resolution (?.L. his amendment was tabled S y a vote of 60,-37. House Democratic leaders made a second attempt in the lame-duck session of the 97th Congress to push through this legislation as part of a larger jobs package. However, lawmakers agreed to drop the proposal in the face of an Administration-threatened veto. H.R. 6250: Community Renewal Employment Act 5320 as Public service employment, originally a provision in H.R. introduced by Representative Hawkins in January, was deleted from the job The House training legislation and introduced as a separate bill on May 3. Education and Labor Committee approved the bill on May 5. Co-sponsoring the legislation with Hawkins were Representatives Perkins, Jeffords, Clay, Weiss, Corrada and Washington. The bill would authorize a program for five fiscal years, with no specified funeing level, to provide jobs to long-term unemployed individuals In general, eligible recipients of grant in areas of high unemployment. funds would be local governments with populations of 50,000 or more and an average unemployment rate for the preceeding three months higher than the national average, or which have experienced sudden and severe economic dislocation. Certain groups of lo'cal governments, existing concentrated employment programs, Indian tribes, and States in certain instances also could receive funds t o administer the program. The Secretary would allocate 75% of annual appropriations among States according to their relative number of unemployed people, relative number of unemployed people i n excess of 4.5% of the labor force, and relative number of people unemployed a t least 1 5 weeks. The remaining 259 would be used a t the Secretary's discretion in a r e a s of high unemployment or designated enterprise zones, or areas affected by mass layoffs, natural disasters or Federal actions such a s relocation of facilities. Eligible individuals would b e unemployed at least 1 5 weeks. Local governments would apply to the Secretary for funds, and their applications would be evaluated according to t h e severity and duration of unemployment in the area, the degree t o which proposed activities would lead to unsubsidized employment, the extent t o which t h e application demonstrates need for the proposed services, and the extent t o which local governments have coordinated with related activities to encourage economic and community development. Jobs would be provided i n accordance with a number of restrictions, similar to those added to the CETA public service employment program in 1978 to protect against fraud and abuse. No more than 25% of funds could be used for o r t h e c c s t s of s u p p l i e s , t o o l s o r eqclpment. could not g e n e r a l l y w o u l d Se p a i d a t l e a s t m i n l m u m w a g e a n d s u b s i C i z e d 2ob l o n g e r t h a n 5 2 weeks i n a two-year p e r i o d . administration H.R. 4861: Partlclpants remaln in a American Conservation Corps A c t In response t o both high youth jobless r a t e s and c9nservation needs on public lands, Representative Seiberling i n October 1981 introduced the American C o n s e r v a t i o n Corps A c t , f a s h i o n e d a f t e r two programs which no l o n g e r Youth Conservation r e c e i v e d f u n d i n g a f t e r FY81. T h e s e t w o p r o g r a m s -- t h e C o r p s a n d t h e Y o u n g A d u l t C o n s e r v a t i o n C o r p s -- w e r e t h e n s e l v e s l o o s s l y b a s e d on t h e C i v i l i a n Conservation Corps of t h e 1930s. H.R. 4 8 6 1 was a p p r o v e d b y t h e H o u s e E d u c a t i o n a n d L a b o r C o m m i t t e e a n d the C o m m i t t e e on I n t e r i o r a n C I n s u l a r A f f a i r s a n d p a s s e d t h e f u l l H o u s e o n J u n e 9 by a v o t e of 291-102. However, t h e Administration opposes the measure, contending it i s not a high budget p r i o r i t y a t t h i s time. T h e ? r o g r a m w o u l d b e a u t h o r i z e d a t $ 5 0 m i l l i o n i n FY83 and $250 m i l l i o n each year thereafter, with funding coming from an earmarker2 p o r t i o n of and mineral leasing, F e d e r a l r e v e n u e s g e n e r a t e d Sy a c t i v i t i e s s u c h as o i l timber cutting, and franchise fees. Special consideration under the living in areas of l e g i s l a t i o n w o u l d be g i v e n t o d i s a d v a n t a g e d y o u n g s t e r s with the high unemployment. The I n t e r i o r Department, in cooperation A g r i c u l t u r e D e p a r t m e n t , would a d m i n i s t e r t h e program. A c o m p a n i o n m e a s u r e i n t h e S e n a t e , S . 2 0 6 1 , was i n t r o d u c e d F e b . 3, 1982, Natural b y S e n a t o r M o y n i h a n a n d was r e f e r r e d t o t h e C o m m i t t e e o n E n e r g y a n d Resources, where subcommittee hearings were held during September. LEGISLATION P.L. 97-276, H . J . R e s . 599 Continuing a p p r o p r i a t i o n s r e s o l u t i o n f o r job t r a i n i n g and o t h e r Federal P a s s e d House a n d S e n a t e O c t . 1, 1982. p r o g r a m s , e f f e c t i v e t h r o u g h Dec. 1 7 . Signed i n t o law O c t . 2, 1982. P.L. 9 7 - 3 0 0 , S . 2 0 3 6 A u t h o r i z e s "such sums as n e c e s s a r y v f o r Job T r a i n i n g P a r t n e r s h i p A c t . local area t r a i n i n g program operated by States i n combination w i t h governments and P r i v a t e Industry Councils. Introduced Feb. 2, 1982; r e f e r r e d t o Committee on Labor a n d Human R e s o u r c e s ; approved Sy SuScommittee on Employment a n d P r o d u c t i v i t y Apr. 22. R e p o r t e d by L a b o r a n d Human Resources P a s s e d S e n a t e by v o t e of 95-0 July 1, C o m m i t t e e May 2 6 ( s . R e ~ t . 9 7 - 4 6 9 ) . 1982. P a s s e d H o u s e , a m e n d e d , Aug. 4 , 1982. Conference held. Conference r e p o r t was p a s s e d b y S e n a t e , o n S e p t . 2 9 ; b y t h e H o u s e , o n O c t . 1. S i g n e d b y P r e s i d e n t Reagan o n O c t . 1 3 (P.L. 9 7 - 3 0 0 ) . P.L. 9 7 - 3 7 7 , H . J . R e s . 631 Continuing appropriations resolution for job training and other p r o g r a m s , e f f e c t i v e t h r o u g h t h e e n d o f FY83. Contains $3.76 b i l l i o n f o r job 19. Conference report training. P a s s e d H o u s e o n D e c . 1 4 , S e n a t e o n Dec. p a s s e d o n Dec. 2 0 ; s i g n e d i n t o l a w D e c . 2 1 . H.R. 4861 ( S e i b e r l i n g ) Aaerlcan C o n s e r v a t ~ s c3 - s Act. Authorizes the Department o f Interlor ;o administer conservation centers to employ youths aged 16-23. Introduced Oct. 29, 1981; referred to Committees on Educaticn and Labor, and on Interior and Insular Affairs. Zeported Apr. 21, 1982, by Interior and Insular Affairs Committee. Approved by Education and Labor Committee May 5 (H.Rept. 97-500). Passed House June 9. H.R. 5320 (Hawkins et al.) J o b Training Partnership Act. Authorizes "such sums as necessary" for employment and training services provided through local prime sponsors and Private Industry Councils. Introduced Jan. 25, 1982; referred to Committee on Education and Labor. Amended and approved by Subcommittee on Employment Opportunities Apr. 1 , 19S2; approved by Education and Labor Committee Apr. 2 7 (H.Rept. 97-537). Passed House Aug. 4. H.R. 5461 (Jeffords) Productivity and Human Investment Act. Authorizes $3.6 billion in FY83 for employment and training program operated by combination of State and local area governments and Private Industry Councils. Introduced Feb. 5 , 1982; referred to Committee on Education and Labor. H.R. 6250 (Hawkins et al.) Community Renewal Employment Act. Authorizes public service employment through FY87. Introduced May 3 , 1982; referred to Committee on Education and Labor. Reported, amended, May 1 7 , 1982 (H.Rept. 97-538). H.J.Res. 562 (Perkins et al.) Provides $1 billion supplemental appropriation for FY82 to create jobs for youth and adults. Reported by House Appropriations Committee Aug. 18 (H.Rept. 97-764). Passed House Sept. 16. S. 2184 (Quayle, Hatch, by request of Administration) Job Training Act. Authorizes $2.4 billion for training States. Introduced Mar. 9 , 1982; referred to Committee on Resources. block Labor grants t o and Human S. J - R e s 245 (Kennedy) Identical to H.J.Res. 562 (see above). Introduced Sept. 1 5 , 1982. CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS 10/21/82 -- 10/13/82 -- 10/02/82 -- President signed into law P.L. 97-377, continuing appropriations resolution for FY83, with $3.76 billion for job training. President signed into law, P.L. Training Partnership Act. 97-300, the Job President signed into law, P.L. 97-276, continuing appropriations resolution effective through Dec. 1 7 , 1982. -- Ecuse and Senate passed E.;.Res. 5 9 9 , continuing appropriations resolution. Senate tabled, 60-37, an amendment to apgropriate $1 blllion for public service 2obs. -- House passed conference report s n job traininq b i l l , 339-12. 09/29/82 -- Senate passed conference report on job training b i l l , 95-0. 09/16/82 -- House passed supplemental appropriation for public service jobs program (E.J.Res. 552). 10/Ci/82 08/19-09/23/62 -- House-Senate conferees met ~ e r i o d i c a i l y to resolve differences on jab t r a i n i ~ gb i i l , approving compromise bill on 09/23/82. House passed H.E. 06/09/82 ---- 05/26/82 -- S e n a c e Labor and Human Resources Committee ordered reported S. 2036. 05/05/82 -- H o u s e Education a n d Labor Committee ordered reported H.R. 6250. 05/03/82 -- Representative Hawkins introduced H.R. Renewal Employment Act. 04/27/82 -- House Education a n d Labor Committee approved a n d ordered reported amended version of H.R. 5320. 04/22/82 -- 04/01/82 -- 08/04/82 97/01/82 03/15-18/82 5320 by v o t e of 356-52. S e n a t e unanimously passed S. 2036. House passed H.R. Corps A C ~ . 4 8 6 1 , the American Conservation 6 2 5 0 , Community S e n a t e Employment and Productivity Subcommittee approved amended version of S. 2036. House Employment Opportunities Subcommittee completed markup a n d approved H.R. 5320. -- More than 9 0 witnesses testified before joint House/Senate Subcommittee hearings on pending employment a n d trainiEg legislation. 03/09/82 -- Senators Quayle a n d Hatch introduced the Administration's J o b Training A c t , S. 2184. 02/05/82 -- Representative Jeffords introduced H.R. Productivity and Human Investment Act. 5 4 5 1 , the 02/02/82--Senator Quayle introduced S. 2 0 3 6 , t h e Training f o r J o b s Act. 0 1 / 2 5 / 8 2 - - R e p r e s e n t a t i v e H a w k i n s introduced H.R. 5 3 2 0 , the Community Partnership for Employment a n d Training Act. ADDITIONAL REFERENCE SOURCES Congressional Budget Office/National Commission for Employment Policy. CETA training programs -- d o they work for adults? July 1982. Mirengoff, W i l l i a m , Lester Rindler, Harry Greenspan, a n d Charles Harris. CETA: Accomplishments, problems, solutions. Washington, Bureau of Social Science Research, 1981. 3 3 0 p. General Accounting Office. CETA programs for disadvantaged adults -- what do we k n o w about their enrollees, services and effectiveness? "IPE-82-2, J u n e 1 4 , 1982.ff U.S. ----- Labor should make sure CETA programs have effective employability development systems. Washington. 84 p. "HRD-82-2, Jan. 1 3 , 1982" U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Comprehensive Employment and Training Act budget for F Y 8 2 by Ilona Rashkow. Washington (archivedj CRS I s s u e Brief 8 1 0 6 5 ----- The Comprehensive Employment and Training Act by Ilona Rashkow. Washington Feb. 2 7 , 1981. 4 2 p. C R S R e p o r t 81-56 ----- ----- Side-by-side comparison of proposed employment a n d training 41 p. legislation by Karen Spar. Washington Aug. 1 3 , 1982. CRS typed report. The Comprehensive Employment and Training Act: a compilation of data by Bob Guttman and Renee Coe. Washington May 1 4 , 1982. 3 2 p. CRS typed report. ----- Federal employment and training programs Wolfe. Washington Dec. 1 4 , 1981. 39 p. CRS R e p o r t 81-265 ----- The private sector initiative program 7 p. Gabe. Washington Sept. 8 , 1981. C R S T y p e d Report by by Mark Thomas