Job Training: Characteristics of Workforce Training Participants

Job Training: Characteristics of Workforce Training Participants

Order Code RL30929
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Job Training: Characteristics of
Workforce Training Participants
April 12, 2001
Ann Lordeman
Specialist in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Job Training: Characteristics of
Workforce Training Participants
Summary
In 1998, the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) replaced the Job Training
Partnership Act (JTPA) as the country’s major job training program. Specifically, the
adult employment and training activities authorized under WIA Title I-B replaced the
adult training program authorized under JTPA Title II-A. There are a number of
statutory differences between JTPA and WIA, which could affect the characteristics
of who is served under WIA and the type of training they receive. These differences
include the addition of individuals 18 to 21 to the definition of adults under WIA,
elimination of the JTPA income eligibility criteria, elimination of the JTPA older
worker set-aside, and the inclusion of new WIA priorities for providing training to
recipients of public assistance and other economically disadvantaged persons.
Through the years Congress has shown considerable interest in who was served
in federal job training programs. For example, in the 101st and 102nd Congresses, the
House and Senate held hearings and passed amendments to JTPA that addressed
issues such as “creaming” (the practice of serving individuals who are the easiest to
place in jobs and require the least services), possible racial and gender disparities in
JTPA services, and how to best serve older workers — as part of the main JTPA
program or in a separate “set-aside” program. In developing WIA, Congress also
expressed interest in issues related to targeting services to various groups. This
interest is likely to continue as WIA is being implemented and when it is considered
for reauthorization in 2003.
This report examines the statutory differences between JTPA and WIA that
might affect participation by various groups (e.g., public assistance recipients, the
unemployed) in the WIA adult training program. This report also presents data for
Program Year (PY) 1998 on specific characteristics of all adult JTPA participants
receiving any services and data on general characteristics of only those JTPA
participants who received training services. This data will serve as a baseline to
compare the characteristics of WIA participants when PY2000 WIA data become
available in 2002. (The program years 1998 and 2000 were chosen as comparison
years because PY1999 was a transition year for the implementation of WIA, and
PY2000 was the first year all states were required to implement WIA.) When WIA
data for PY2000 become available, a second report will be written comparing the
characteristics of WIA participants and JTPA participants.
This report presents an analysis of the characteristics of JTPA participants that
answers the question “Who was served in JTPA?” and provides the basis for
answering the question “How do persons served under WIA differ from those who
were served in JTPA?” in the next report. Regarding demographic characteristics,
PY1998 JTPA adult participants were more often female, members of a racial or
ethnic minority, at least a high school graduate, either not employed or not in the
labor force, and economically disadvantaged. Regarding training, individuals age 55
and older were less likely to receive training services than were younger adults, and
public assistance recipients made up a higher proportion of those receiving basic skills
training than other kinds of training.

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Differences Between JTPA and WIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Age Eligibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Income and Other Eligibility Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Targeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Participant Characteristics and Training Received . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Participant Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Adults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Older Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Young Adults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Training Received . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Next Step . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Appendix: Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
List of Tables
Table 1. Characteristics of JTPA Title II-A Adult Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table 2. Characteristics of JTPA Title II-A Adults by Economic Status . . . . . . 9
Table 3. Characteristics of JTPA Title II-A Adult Recipients by Public
Assistance Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Table 4. Characteristics of JTPA Title II-A Adults by Employment Status . . . 11
Table 5. Characteristics of JTPA Title II-A of Older Worker Participants by
Program of Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Table 6. Characteristics of JTPA Title II-C Youth Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Table 7. Percent of JTPA Participants Receiving Training by Program . . . . . . 17
Table 8. Percent of Selected Groups of JTPA Participants Receiving Training
by Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Table 9. Percent of Selected Groups of JTPA Participants Receiving Training
by Type of Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Acknowledgment
This report would not have been possible without the diligent collection and
compilation of high quality data on participants in Job Training Partnership Act
(JTPA) programs by the Employment and Training Administration of the U.S.
Department of Labor. In addition, this report benefitted from the guidance, review,
and comments of Richard N. Apling, Thomas Patrick Gabe, and James B. Stedman
of the Domestic Social Policy Division, Congressional Research Service.

Job Training: Characteristics of
Workforce Training Participants
Introduction
In 1998, the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) replaced the Job Training
Partnership Act (JTPA) as the country’s major job training program. Specifically, the
adult employment and training activities authorized under WIA Title I-B replaced the
adult training program authorized under JTPA Title II-A.1 WIA differs from JTPA
in several ways that could affect who participates in the WIA adult program. These
differences include the addition of individuals 18 to 21 to the definition of adults
under WIA, elimination of the JTPA income eligibility criteria, elimination of the
JTPA older worker set-aside, and the inclusion of new WIA priorities for providing
training to recipients of public assistance and other economically disadvantaged
persons.2
Through the years Congress has shown considerable interest in who was served
in federal job training programs. For example, in the 101st and 102nd Congresses, the
House and Senate held hearings and passed amendments to JTPA that addressed
issued such as “creaming” (the practice of serving individuals who are the easiest to
place in jobs and require the least services), possible racial and gender disparities in
JTPA services, and how to best serve older workers — as part of the main JTPA
program or in a separate “set-aside” program. In developing WIA, Congress also
expressed interest in issues related to targeting services to various groups. This
interest is likely to continue as WIA is being implemented and when it is presumably
reauthorized in 2003.
This report presents data on the characteristics of JTPA participants in Program
Year (PY) 1998. The JTPA data are organized so that a comparison with WIA data
will be possible. The data in this report serve as a baseline for examining assumptions
about who might be served under WIA. For example, the U.S. Department of Labor
(DOL) anticipates that, for PY2000, the number of participants will increase and that
the majority of participants in “intensive” and “training services” will be
disadvantaged, low-income individuals, including welfare recipients.3, 4 Members of
1This report focuses on the adult training program. WIA authorizes other programs, such as
the dislocated worker program, that are not discussed here.
2In this report the term “economically disadvantaged” will be used synonymously with the
term “low-income. The first term was used in JTPA and the second is used in WIA, but their
definitions are virtually identical.
3DOL bases its assumption that the number of participants will increase on the further
assumption that the cost per participants will decrease “as (1) the programs shifts from
(continued...)

CRS-2
Congress and others may also have assumptions based on their understanding of
WIA’s “intent” and the effects of the changes in the adult program made by WIA on
who receives services. This report also serves as a “preview” of the characteristics
of WIA participants and can assist Congress in its oversight functions until WIA data
become available in 2002. At that time, a report will be written comparing the
characteristics of JTPA participants and WIA participants.
Differences Between JTPA and WIA
WIA differs from JTPA in several ways that could affect who participates in the
adult program. These differences can be grouped into three main categories: age
eligibility, income and other eligibility criteria, and targeting. This section explains the
difference between the two statutes in these three categories.
Age Eligibility
Under JTPA, adults were defined as individuals age 22 and older. Youth were
defined as individuals age 16-21; no individuals in this age range were served in the
adult program. Under WIA, adults are individuals age 18 and older. Individuals age
18-21 can be served under the adult program, the youth program, or they can be “co-
enrolled” in both programs.
Income and Other Eligibility Criteria
Under JTPA, individuals receiving services through the adult training program
were generally required to be “economically disadvantaged.” This term meant
individuals or their families who had a total family income that was not higher than
the poverty line or 70% of the “lower living standard income level” (See Appendix).
Other adults who were considered economically disadvantaged were individuals or
their families receiving welfare payments, persons eligible for food stamps, homeless
persons, or disabled adults whose own income rather than their family income was
low. Up to 10% of participants in the adult program could be noneconomically
disadvantaged if they had some other barrier to employment.
Under WIA, there is no income eligibility requirement for adults. Eligibility for
WIA is based on the level of service received. WIA offers three levels of services.
The first is core services for which being 18 years of age is the only eligibility
3(...continued)
serving only disadvantaged to serving all adults, age 18 and above; and (2) participants
receive services depending upon need, ranging from the less costly ‘core services’ through the
more costly ‘intensive and training’ services.” U.S. Department of Labor. FY20001 Budget
Justifications of Appropriations Estimates and Performance Plans for Committee on
Appropriations, February, 2000. p. TES-74.
4The WIA adult program is funded at $950 million for PY2000, which is slightly less than
funding for the JTPA adult program in PYs1998 and 1999,which was $955 million.

CRS-3
criterion.5 Core services include: job search and placement assistance; labor market
information that identifies job vacancies, the skills necessary for occupations in
demand, and employment trends; initial assessment of skills and needs; information
on available services and programs; and follow-up services to assist in job retention.
The second level is intensive services, which are available to (1) unemployed
adults who have received at least one core service, are unable to obtain employment
through core services and need intensive services to obtain employment, and (2)
employed adults who have received at least one core service and need intensive
services to obtain or retain employment that leads to self-sufficiency.6 Intensive
services include comprehensive assessments, development of individual employment
plans, group and individual counseling, case management and short-term
prevocational services.
The third level is training services, which are available to adults who have
received at least one intensive service, have been unable to obtain or retain
employment through such services, have the skills and qualification to successfully
participate in a selected training program, select training programs that are directly
linked to employment opportunities in the local area and are unable to obtain other
grant assistance, including Pell grants, or need assistance above the levels provided
by such other grants. Training includes occupational skills training, on-the-job
training, entrepreneurial training, skill upgrading, job readiness training, and adult
education and literacy activities in conjunction with other training.
Targeting
Older Worker Set-Aside. Under JTPA, each state was required to set aside
5% of its Title II-A allotment for serving economically disadvantaged individuals 55
years of age and older.7 Under WIA, there is no older worker set-aside.
Priorities for Services. Under JTPA, there was a general program
requirement that efforts be made “to provide equitable services among substantial
segments of the population.” Under WIA, there is no comparable requirement.8
5There is, however, no entitlement to any WIA service nor was there for any JTPA service.
6The criteria for determining whether employment will lead to self-sufficiency are established
at the local level, but federal regulations specify that the criteria must, at a minimum, provide
that self-sufficiency means employment that pays at least the lower living standard income.
7Up to 10% of participants in the set-aside program could have been noneconomically
disadvantaged if they faced serious barriers to employment and met the income eligibility
requirements of the Senior Community Service and Employment Program (Title V of the
Older Americans Act). In addition, in the case of JTPA programs carried out with operators
of Title V programs, individuals who were eligible for the Title V program (e.g., individuals
who had an income no more than 125% of poverty) were deemed eligible for JTPA.
8States are required, however, to include in their annual report to the Secretary of Labor
information on the performance (e.g., entry into, retention in, and earnings of unsubsidized
employment) of out-of-school youth, recipients of public assistance, individuals with
disabilities, veterans, displaced homemakers, and older individuals. This reporting
(continued...)

CRS-4
Also, under JTPA, not less than 65% of participants in each local area, other
than participants served under the older worker set-aside, had to be individuals who
were in one or more of the following categories: (1) basic skills deficient, (2) high
school dropouts, (3) recipients of cash welfare payments, (4) offenders, (5) disabled,
(6) homeless, or (7) in a category established by the service delivery area with the
approval of the Governor. There is no comparable requirement under WIA.
Under WIA, priority for intensive and training services must be given to
recipients of public assistance and other low-income individuals if WIA funds are
limited in a local area.9
Participant Characteristics and Training Received
This section of the report is divided into two parts. The first, Participant
Characteristics, focuses on all participants who received JTPA services, which in
general are similar to the core, intensive, and training services provided under WIA.
The next part, Training, focuses only on JTPA participants who received training
services. Data for both parts are for PY1998 (July 1, 1998 through June 30, 1999).
This year will serve as a “baseline” against which to compare the characteristics of
WIA participants in PY2000 (July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2001). When the
PY2000 data are available in 2002,10 a second report will be issued making
comparisons between JTPA and WIA participants. The program years 1998 and
2000 were chosen as comparison years because PY1999 was a transition year for the
implementation of WIA, and PY2000 was the first year all states were required to
implement WIA.
The word participant, as used in this report, means one incidence of enrollment
in a JTPA program by an individual who received services in addition to an objective
assessment of skills levels and service needs; who received services in any of the 50
states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico; and who left the program for any reason.
If an individual left a JTPA program, re-enrolled, and left again in PY1998, that
would count as two incidents of enrollment and consequently as two participants. In
the tables that follow, individuals who are counted more than once in a single
program (e.g., adult, youth, older worker set-aside) constitute less than 2% of the
total number of individuals and are included in the analysis. Individuals who
participated in both the older worker set-aside and the main Title II-A adult program
8(...continued)
requirement could be perceived by states as placing a priority on serving these groups,
although the requirement focuses on the performance of the groups and not the number or
percentage of individuals served.
9States and local areas establish the criteria for determining the availability of funds and the
process by which any priority will be applied. The local boards and the governors may
establish a process that gives priority to public assistance recipients and other low income
individuals and that also serves other individuals meeting eligibility requirements.
10Reporting information for the program year ending June 30, 2001 is due to DOL by
September 30, 2001. The data will most likely be available to the public some time in the first
few months of 2002.

CRS-5
are not included in the analyses of older worker participants in these two programs,
because under WIA there is no comparable group of older workers i.e., older workers
who can participate in two programs.
The data for this report are from the JTPA Standardized Program Information
Report (SPIR) PY98 Public Use File made available on CD-ROM by the Employment
and Training Administration of the U.S. Department of Labor. SPIR includes data
on all participants11 in the Adult Title II-A program; SPIR data are not a sample of
participants.12
NOTE ON THE DEFINITION OF TERMS: The terms used below to
describe the characteristics of participants can be found in the appendix. Examples
of these terms are “employed,” “unemployed,” “not in the labor force,” “economically
disadvantaged,” “public assistance recipient,” “veteran,” and terms referring to
various racial and ethnic groups, e.g., white, black, Hispanic.
Participant Characteristics
The following analyses of participant characteristics are organized into three
categories: adults, older workers, and young adults.
Adults. For the purpose of analyzing the characteristics of adults, participants
in the main Title II-A program and in the Title II-A older worker set-aside are
combined in Tables 1 through 4. Generally, DOL in its SPIR data books presents
data separately for adults enrolled in the main Title II-A adult program and adults
enrolled in the Title II-A older worker set-aside. Since there is no older worker set
aside under WIA, the data for participants in the main Title II-A program and
participants in the Title II-A older worker set-aside are combined to create a grouping
comparable to a WIA grouping of persons age 22 and older.13
Table 1 shows the characteristics of all JTPA Title II-A Adult participants. In
general, the adult participants were more likely to be: female (68%), between the
ages of 30 and 54 (53%), a racial or ethnic minority (56%), at least high school
graduates (78%), either unemployed or not in the labor force (82%), and
economically disadvantaged (96%). Also, about 31% received public assistance.
One reason why WIA participants might differ from JTPA participants is that
almost all JTPA participants were economically disadvantaged because this was an
eligibility criterion. Since WIA does not have an income eligibility requirement for
11In SPIR data books, the term “terminees” is used instead of the term “participants” used in
this report, but both terms are defined the same way.
12JTPA PY1998 data can be found in the “PY 98 SPIR Data Book,” April 2000, prepared by
Social Policy Research Associates for the Department of Labor under contract number K-
5950-6-00-80-30.
13Under WIA, youth ages 18 to 21 can be served in the adult program, the youth program or
both programs. Since it is impossible to know which JTPA youth would be comparable to
those served under WIA, they are not included at this point in the analysis. They are
discussed later in this report.

CRS-6
the receipt of services, the proportion of persons receiving any WIA services who are
economically disadvantaged may fall below the PY1998 level of 96%.
Another reason why WIA participants may differ from JTPA participants
involves older workers. Over three-quarters of the JTPA Title II-A participants age
55 and over were served in the older worker set-aside program, which is eliminated
under WIA. If the data from the older worker set-aside were not included in Table
1, it would show that 2.3% rather than 9.3% of the participants were age 55 and
older.14
Table 2 shows the characteristics of participants by their economic status. The
4% of JTPA participants who were not economically disadvantaged were more likely
to be 55 years of age or older, white, veterans, and employed than were the
economically disadvantaged participants. If a greater proportion of WIA participants
are not economically disadvantaged individuals as a result of the elimination of the
income eligibility requirement, participants might be more likely to have these
characteristics. (While WIA requires that priority for intensive and training services
be given to recipients of public assistance and other low-income individuals, it seems
unlikely that the proportion of economically disadvantaged persons served under WIA
would be higher than the 96% level for all JTPA adult participants shown in Table
1.)
Table 3 shows the characteristics of participants by their status as public
assistance recipients. The 31% of JTPA participants who received public assistance
were more likely to be female, younger adults, black, not high school graduates, and
not in the labor force than were participants who were not recipients of public
assistance. If the WIA requirement that priority for intensive and training services be
given to recipients of public assistance and other low-income individuals has the effect
of increasing the proportion of public assistance recipients served, then persons with
these characteristics are more likely to be served.
Table 4 shows the characteristics of participants by their employment status.
The 18% of JTPA participants who were employed were more likely to be white and
to be better educated than those who were unemployed or not in the labor force.
Since WIA explicitly allows for the receipt of intensive and training services by
employed individuals who need to obtain or retain employment that allows for self
sufficiency,15 it is possible a greater proportion of WIA participants may be employed
14It is not clear how the elimination of the set-aside will affect the participation of older
workers in WIA. There has been a long standing debate on whether having a set-aside for
older workers increases the number of older individuals served or acts as a deterrent to serving
older workers. Some observers assert that providers or state and local policy makers perceive
the set-aside program as the primary way to serve individuals 55 years of age and older and
the main Title II-A program as the primary way to serve those under 55 years of age, thus
limiting services to the former group. Others assert that society in general discriminates
against older workers and without a set-aside, they will not be served.
15The criteria for determining self-sufficiency is set at the state and local levels. The WIA
regulations set the minimum criterion as employment that pays at least the “lower living
(continued...)

CRS-7
than were JTPA participants. However, the characteristics of the employed
participants under WIA may be different from those under JTPA because WIA
participants may be less likely to be economically disadvantaged.
TECHNICAL NOTE: In the tables that follow, there are some characteristics
(e.g. gender, age) for which data are missing, but in no table for any characteristic is
the percent of missing data greater than 0.04%.
15(...continued)
standard income level.”

CRS-8
Table 1. Characteristics of JTPA Title II-A Adult Participants
Total adult participants
Characteristics
(N=163,223)
Gender — female
67.7%
Age
22-29
37.7%
30-54
53.0%
55+
9.3%
Race/ethnicity
White (not Hispanic)
43.9%
Black (not Hispanic)
34.5%
Hispanic (of any race)
17.1%
American Indian/Alaska Native
1.6%
Asian or Pacific Islander
2.9%
Highest grade completed
Less than high school graduate
22.4%
High school graduate
56.1%
Post high school
17.9%
College graduate and above
3.6%
Veteran
6.4%
Disability
6.2%
Public assistance recipient
30.7%
Labor force status
Employed
18.2%
Unemployed
49.7%
Not in the labor force
32.1%
Economically disadvantaged
96.0%

CRS-9
Table 2. Characteristics of JTPA Title II-A Adults by Economic
Status
Not economically
Economically
disadvantaged
disadvantaged
Characteristics
(N=6,500)
(N=156,723)
Gender — female
63.4%
67.9%
Agea
22-29
25.5%
38.2%
30-54
46.1%
53.2%
55+
28.4%
8.5%
Race/ethnicity
White (not Hispanic)
51.7%
43.6%
Black (not Hispanic)
33.3%
34.5%
Hispanic (of any race)
11.9%
17.3%
American Indian/Alaska Native
1.0%
1.7%
Asian or Pacific Islander
2.1%
2.9%
Highest grade completeda
Less than high school graduate
21.8%
22.4%
High school graduate
54.0%
56.2%
Post high school
18.7%
17.9%
College graduate and above
5.5%
3.6%
Veteran
12.0%
6.2%
Disability
9.6%
6.1%
Public assistance recipientb
17.6%
31.2%
Labor force status
Employed
25.1%
17.9%
Unemployed
55.3%
49.5%
Not in the labor force
19.6%
32.6%
a These percentages may not sum to a 100% because of rounding.
b It is not clear why nearly 18% of those who were not economically disadvantaged were public
assistance recipients. The JTPA statutory definition of economically disadvantaged includes
being a public assistance recipient or being a member of a family that receives public assistance.
Not all economically disadvantaged persons need be public assistance recipients — they could
be economically disadvantaged because of other factors — but one would expect that all public
assistance recipients would be economically disadvantaged.

CRS-10
Table 3. Characteristics of JTPA Title II-A Adult Recipients by
Public Assistance Status
Recipientsa
Non-recipientsa
Characteristics
(N=50,091)
(N=113,109)
Gender — female
85.5%
59.8%
Ageb
22-29
43.9%
35.0%
30-54
53.0%
53.0%
55+
3.1%
12.1%
Race/ethnicityb
White (not Hispanic)
38.8%
46.1%
Black (not Hispanic)
40.7%
31.7%
Hispanic (of any race)
16.1%
17.6%
American Indian/Alaska Native
1.9%
1.5%
Asian or Pacific Islander
2.4%
3.1%
Highest grade completed
Less than high school graduate
27.8%
19.9%
High school graduate
54.8%
56.7%
Post high school
15.5%
19.0%
College graduate and above
1.9%
4.4%
Veteran
2.8%
8.1%
Disability
6.4%
6.1%
Labor force status
Employed
9.3%
22.1%
Unemployed
42.0%
53.2%
Not in the labor force
48.7%
24.7%
Economically disadvantagedc
97.7%
95.3%
a The sum of the number of recipients and non-recipients is 23 participants less than the total
number of Title II-A participants because of missing data.
b These percentages may not sum to a 100% because of rounding.
c It is not clear why 97.7% instead of 100% of public assistance recipients were economically
disadvantaged. The JTPA statutory definition of economically disadvantaged includes being a
public assistance recipient or being a member of a family that receives public assistance. Not all
economically disadvantaged persons need be public assistance recipients — they could be
economically disadvantaged because of other factors — but one would expect that all public
assistance recipients would be economically disadvantaged.

CRS-11
Table 4. Characteristics of JTPA Title II-A Adults by
Employment Status
Unemployed or not in
Employeda
the labor forcea
Characteristics
(N=29,670)
(N=133,550)
Gender — female
70.5%
67.1%
Ageb
22-29
42.2%
36.7%
30-54
49.6%
53.7%
55+
8.2%
9.5%
Race/ethnicity
White (not Hispanic)
51.2%
42.3%
Black (not Hispanic)
31.9%
35.0%
Hispanic (of any race)
12.9%
18.0%
American Indian/Alaska Native
1.4%
1.7%
Asian or Pacific Islander
2.6%
3.0%
Highest grade completedb
Less than high school graduate
14.2%
24.2%
High school graduate
58.7%
55.5%
Post high school
23.0%
16.7%
College graduate and above
4.0%
3.6%
Veteran
6.2%
6.5%
Disability
5.1%
6.4%
Public assistance recipient
15.7%
34.0%
Economically disadvantaged
94.5%
96.4%
a The sum of the number of participants not employed or not in the labor force and the number
employed is three participants less than the total number of Title II-A participants because of missing
data.
b These percentages may not sum to a 100% because of rounding.

CRS-12
Older Workers. Table 5 compares the characteristics of individuals age 55
and older who participated in the Title II-A older worker set-aside with individuals
age 55 and older who participated in the main Title II-A program. Persons who
participated in both programs are not included in this analysis.16 As shown in the
table, the two groups were similar except for three characteristics. The set-aside
participants were more likely to be female (70% vs 56%) and age 65 and above (29%
vs 12%) and less likely to be Hispanic (12% vs 19%) than the older workers in the
main Title II-A program. It is possible that the older worker set-aside programs
engaged in more outreach to older persons and consequently served a higher
proportion of older individuals and women. It is not clear why a higher proportion
of Hispanic older workers were served in the main Title II-A program.
Since both groups of JTPA older workers were similar in many respects, it is
likely that older workers in WIA will have a similar profile. For example, WIA older
workers are likely to have at least a high-school education and be unemployed or out
of the workforce. However, regarding gender, age, and ethnicity, it is not clear
whether WIA older workers, who with the elimination of the older worker set-aside
will be served in the adult WIA program, will “look” more like the set-aside
participants or like the main Title II-A older workers.
Regardless of which program the older individual participated in, persons age 55
and older differed in some characteristics from the population of all participants as
shown in Table 1. Participants who were 55 and older were more likely to be white,
Asian or Pacific Islander, a college graduate, veteran, or have a disability than were
all participants. In addition, older participants were much less likely to be recipients
of public assistance. The elimination of the older worker set-aside, and the WIA
requirement that priority for intensive and training services be given to recipients of
public assistance could result in a decrease in the proportion of older workers served.
However, a decrease in older workers is unlikely to affect the characteristics of all
WIA participants, since the proportion of all participants who are 55 and older is only
9%.
16There were 821 individuals who participated in both programs. Because under WIA there
is no comparable group of older workers, i.e., older workers who can participate in two
programs, they have been excluded from this analysis of older workers.

CRS-13
Table 5. Characteristics of JTPA Title II-A of Older Worker
Participants by Program of Participation
Adults age 55
and older
participating in
Adults age 55 and
the 5% set-aside
over in main II-A
Characteristics
(N=10,822)
(N=2,763)
Gender — female
70.4%
56.2%
Agea
55-59
45.4%
67.5%
60-64
25.7%
20.3%
65+
29.0%
12.2%
Race/ethnicitya
White (not Hispanic)
57.9%
53.4%
Black (not Hispanic)
24.6%
21.2%
Hispanic (of any race)
11.7%
19.0%
American Indian/Alaska Native
1.0%
1.5%
Asian or Pacific Islander
4.8%
5.0%
Highest grade completed
Less than high school graduate
23.6%
23.8%
High school graduate
46.4%
45.9%
Post high school
19.7%
18.9%
College graduate and above
10.3%
11.4%
Veteran
12.2%
14.8%
Disability
7.8%
11.2%
Public assistance recipient
9.5%
12.4%
Labor force statusa
Employed
16.0%
13.9%
Unemployed
50.2%
55.8%
Not in the labor force
33.9%
30.3%
Economically disadvantaged
87.3%
89.3%
a These percentages may not sum to a 100% because of rounding.
Young Adults. Table 6 shows the characteristics of JTPA Title II-C Youth
participants between the ages of 18 and 21 who were out of school. Being out of

CRS-14
school is not a WIA eligibility criterion, but since 96% of adult JTPA participants
were not in school, it can be anticipated that out-of-school youth, who comprise 79%
of youth ages 18-21, would be more likely than in-school youth to participate in
WIA’s adult program.17
In general, the young adult participants are more likely to be female (66%), a
member of a racial or ethnic minority (62%), educated at least at the high school level
(56%), either unemployed or not in the labor force (82%), and economically
disadvantaged (97%). In addition, about 27% received public assistance. The
characteristics of young adults are similar to those of adults shown in Table 1 with
four main exceptions that are in part related to age differences. Young adults are less
likely to have graduated from high school than adults (22% vs 43%), are less likely
to have any post high school education (5% vs 22%), are more likely to not be in the
labor force than adults (43% vs 32%), and are less likely to be veterans (0.5% vs
6.4%).
As with the JTPA adult participants, almost all JTPA youth participants were
economically disadvantaged because that was an eligibility criterion. Youth enrolled
in the WIA youth program, or co-enrolled in the WIA youth and adult programs, will
still have to be economically disadvantaged. Young adults enrolled only in the adult
program will not have to meet any income eligibility criteria.
Since WIA, unlike JTPA, allows individuals age 18-21 to participate in the adult
program, there will inevitably be some young adults who will participate in that
program. However, the characteristics of the young adult participants under WIA
may be different from those under JTPA. For example, it may be that young adults
with characteristics most similar to JTPA adult participants will be more likely to
participate in the adult program than other young adults. Based on the JTPA data,
this would indicate that perhaps individuals who have graduated from high school and
are either employed or are unemployed (as opposed to being out of the work force)
might be more likely to participate in the adult program.
17Older youth served by JTPA were more likely to be out of school than younger youth. Of
those who were 18 years old, 62% were out of school, while of those 21 years old, 92% were
out of school.

CRS-15
Table 6. Characteristics of JTPA Title II-C Youth Participants
Total youth participants age
18-21 and out of school
Characteristics
(N=33,125)
Gender — female
66.4%
Race/ethnicity
White (not Hispanic)
38.2%
Black (not Hispanic)
35.4%
Hispanic (of any race)
22.5%
American Indian/Alaska Native
1.7%
Asian or Pacific Islander
2.2%
Highest grade completed
Less than high school graduate
44.3%
High school graduate
50.5%
Post high school
5.1%
College graduate and above
0.1%
Veteran
0.5%
Disability
5.2%
Public assistance recipient
26.7%
Labor force status
Employed
18.5%
Unemployed
38.2%
Not in the labor force
43.3%
Economically disadvantaged
97.0%
Training Received
Under WIA, training may be provided to individuals who have received at least
one core service and one intensive service and who need training in order to obtain
or retain employment at the level of self-sufficiency. (See the previous discussion on
eligibility in the section of this report titled Differences Between JTPA and WIA.)
Priority for training must be given to recipients of public assistance and other low-
income individuals if WIA funds are limited in a local area. In this report, a
participant is considered to have received training if he or she received basic skills
training, occupational skills training, or on-the-job training.
Table 7 shows the percent of participants by program who received training.
As discussed in the Introduction, DOL expects the total number of participants

CRS-16
receiving WIA services to increase as the adult program moves to serving any adult
over the age of 18 and to providing services that range from the less costly core
services to the more costly intensive and training services. If this proves to be true,
then an increase in the overall number of participants may result in a decrease in the
proportion of participants receiving training as more persons receive the lower cost
core services and fewer persons receive the higher cost training services.
While, in general, there may be a decrease in the proportion of participants
receiving training, it is less clear how the proportion of older workers and youth ages
18-21 who receive training might be affected by new WIA training provisions. There
are several questions that can be raised about the proportion of these two groups that
might receive WIA training services. These questions (and those pertaining to Table
8) could be relevant as Congress monitors the implementation of WIA. They are:
! In the case of older workers, will the new priority on training public assistance
recipients affect the proportion of those workers who receive training since a
relatively small percentage of older workers receive public assistance (Table
5)? Or will there be no effect because there is also a priority on training
economically disadvantaged persons and nearly 90% of JTPA older worker
participants were economically disadvantaged?
! In the case of participants 18-21 years of age, what will be the effect of
opening the adult program to them? Will youth who do not meet the income
eligibility criteria of the WIA youth program enroll in the WIA adult program
to receive any service, i.e., core, intensive or training? Or will those
economically disadvantaged youth enrolled in the WIA youth program who
primarily “need” the training services offered in the adult program enroll in it
for those services?

CRS-17
Table 7. Percent of JTPA Participants Receiving Training by
Program
Adults age 55
Adults 55 and
and older
older
Youth participants age
participating in
participating in
18-21 and out of school
Adults participating in
the 5% set-aside
main Title II-A
participating in the
the Title II-A program
program
programa
Title II-C program
(N=163,223)
(N=10,822)
(N=2,763)
(N=33,125)
81.3%
62.6%
71.8%
80.1%
a This group is a sub-set of the adults participating in the Title II-A program and is shown here as
a comparison to adults participating in the set-aside program.
Table 8 shows the percent of JTPA participants by program who received
training and were economically disadvantaged, recipients of public assistance, or
unemployed or not in the work force. The percent of these groups that received
training under each of four programs is similar to the percent that received any JTPA
services. For example, 30.7% of Title II-A participants were public assistance
recipients (Table 1) and 31.4% of Title II-A participants who received training were
public assistance recipients (first column, second row, Table 8).18
As noted in the Introduction section at the beginning of this report, DOL
expects that the majority of participants in training services will be economically
disadvantaged individuals, including welfare recipients. WIA does require that
priority for intensive and training services be given to recipients of public assistance
and other low-income individuals if WIA funds are limited in a local area. WIA also
explicitly allows for the receipt of training services by employed persons who need to
obtain or retain employment that allows for self sufficiency. It is unclear, however,
how these provisions might affect the receipt of training by participants who are
economically disadvantaged, recipients of public assistance, or unemployed or not in
the work force. Questions that can be raised about the groups who might receive
WIA training are:
! Will a smaller proportion of those receiving training be economically
disadvantaged because of the elimination of the eligibility requirement?
! Will a relatively high proportion of youth ages 18-21 who receive training be
economically disadvantaged, because most youth receiving training under WIA
will be “co-enrolled” in the WIA youth program and therefore, economically
disadvantaged? Or will a smaller proportion of youth be economically
disadvantaged because they are enrolled only in the adult program, which does
not have any income eligibility requirements?
! Will the priority WIA places on serving public assistance recipients result in a
greater proportion of these persons receiving training?
! Will a smaller proportion of persons who receive training be unemployed or
not in the labor force, because WIA explicitly allows for the receipt of training
services by employed persons who need to obtain or retain employment that
18To make similar comparisons with other programs, see Tables 5 and 6.

CRS-18
allows for self sufficiency result in receiving training services? Will employed
persons also be economically disadvantaged?
Table 8. Percent of Selected Groups of JTPA Participants
Receiving Training by Programa
Youth
participants
Adults age 55
Adults 55 and
age 18-21 and
Adults
and older
older
out of school
participating in
participating in
participating in
participating in
the Title II-A
the 5% set-
main Title II-A
the Title II-C
program
aside program
program
program
Group
(N=132,738)
(N=6,774)
(N=1,985)b
(N=26,545)
Economically
96.2%
87.4%
88.8%
97.0%
disadvantaged
Public
assistance
31.4%
10.3%
12.0%
27.4%
recipients
Unemployed or
not in the labor
80.9%
83.0%
85.3%
80.4%
force
a Using the first column as an example, this table should be read as follows: Of the adults who
received training in the Title II-A program, 96.2% were economically disadvantaged, 31.4% were
public assistance recipients, and 80.9% were unemployed or not in the labor force.
b This group is a sub-set of the adults participating in the Title II-A program and is shown here as
a comparison to adults participating in the set-aside program.
Table 9 shows the percent of JTPA participants by program who received each
of three types of training and were economically disadvantaged, recipients of public
assistance, or unemployed or not in the work force.19 The percent of these groups
that received basic skills training, occupational skills training, and on-the-job training
under each of four programs is fairly similar to the percent that received any training.
For example, 31.4% of Title II-A participants who received any training were public
assistance recipients (Table 8) and 37.8% of Title II-A participants who received
basic skills training were public assistance recipients (first column, second row, Table
9).
One new WIA requirement that may affect who receives which type of training
is the requirement that basic skills training can only be provided in combination with
other training. This requirement is most likely to affect public assistance recipients
because they constituted a higher proportion of participants receiving basic skills
training than of participants receiving occupational skills training or on-the-job
19Older workers participating in the main Title II-A program or the set-aside program are not
shown separately in this table because the number of older worker receiving each type of
service tend to be relatively small. However, older workers who received training in the main
Title II-A program are included in the columns labeled “Title II-A Adults.”

CRS-19
training. Consequently, there may be an increase in the proportion of public
assistance recipients who receive occupational skills training and on-the-job training.
Table 9. Percent of Selected Groups of JTPA Participants
Receiving Training by Type of Traininga
Group
Basic skills training
Occupational skills training
On-the-job training
Title II-A
Title II-C
Title II-A
Title II-C
Title II-A
Title II-C
adults
youth
adults
youth
adults
youth
(N=29,564)
(N=12,028)
(N=103,020)
(N=16,652)
(N=15,346)
(N=1,393)
Economi-
cally
96.6%
97.0%
95.6%
97.1%
97.2%
96.8%
disadvan-
taged
Public
assistance
37.8%
29.4%
31.3%
28.1%
25.6%
16.4%
recipients
Unem-
ployed or
not in the
87.7%
88.0%
78.9%
75.9%
85.4%
85.1%
labor
force
a Using the first column as an example, this table should be read as follows: Of the adults who
received basic skills training, 96.6% were economically disadvantaged, 37.8% were public assistance
recipients, and 87.7% were unemployed or not in the labor force.
Next Step
This report analyzes the characteristics of JTPA adult participants (and those
youth who could be considered adults under WIA) and the types of training they
received in PY1998. The report answers the question “Who was served in JTPA?”
and provides the basis for answering the question “How do persons served under
WIA differ from those who were served in JTPA?” A subsequent report using WIA
PY2000 data is planned for the spring of 2002 when WIA data will be available.
The forthcoming report will compare the characteristics of WIA adult
participants and the types of training they received to the JTPA participants. It is
likely to reflect some differences that could occur as a result of statutory differences
between JTPA and WIA, such as the addition of individuals 18-21 to the definition
of adults under WIA, elimination of the JTPA income eligibility criteria, elimination
of the JTPA older worker set-aside, and the WIA specified priorities for providing
training to low-income persons and public assistance recipients in certain cases.
However, factors other than statutory differences may also affect the characteristics
of WIA participants and may need to be taken into account. These factors could
include, the incidence of certain groups (e.g., economically disadvantaged adults,
public assistance recipients) in the general population and whether there is an increase
in individuals co-enrolled in WIA and other programs.

CRS-20
Appendix: Glossary
The definitions of the following terms used throughout this report are based on
the definitions contained in the “Standardized Program Information Report (SPIR)
Format Instructions and Definitions” for PY1998, with the exception of the definition
for “lower living standard income level,” which is defined in the statute authorizing
JTPA programs. In general, the terms used here are defined similarly under WIA
reporting requirements.
Disability refers to a “participant who has a physical (motion, vision, hearing)
or mental (learning or developmental) impairment which substantially limits one or
more of such person’s major life activities and has a record of such an impairment, or
is regarded as having such an impairment ... such impairment does result in a
substantial barrier to employment.”
Economic Status
Economically disadvantaged20 refers to a JTPA participant “who (1) receives,
or is a member of a family which receives, cash welfare payments under a Federal,
State, or local welfare program; (2) has, or is a member of a family which has,
received a total family income for the six-month period prior to application, in relation
to family size and location, that when ANNUALIZED did not exceed either (a) the
official poverty line as defined by the Department of Health and Human Services, and
revised annually in accordance with Section 673(2) of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)), or (b) 70 percent of the lower living
standard income level, whichever is greater; (3) is receiving or has been determined
eligible to receive in the 6-month period prior to the application food stamps pursuant
to the Food Stamp Act of 1977; (4) qualifies as a homeless individual under(a) and
(c) of Section 103 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act; (5) is a
foster child on behalf of whom State or local government payments are made; or (6)
is an individual with a disability who meets the requirements of (1) or (2) above, but
who is a member of a family whose income does not meet such requirements.”
Lower living standard income level “means that income level (adjusted for
regional, metropolitan, urban, and rural differences and family size) determined
annually by the Secretary [of DOL], based on the most recent lower living family
budget issued by the Secretary.”21
20Under WIA, the term “low-income” is used instead of economically disadvantaged, but its
definition is similar.
21The lower living standard income level as published in the Federal Register on May 12,2000
(v. 65, no. 93, p. 30630-30636) for a family of four ranges from $24,510 in the non-
Metropolitan South to $29,300 in the metropolitan Northeast. Income levels are higher for
Alaska, Hawaii and Guam.

CRS-21
Labor Force Status
Employed refers to a participant “who, during the 7 consecutive days prior to
application, did any work at all as a paid employee, in his or her own business,
profession or farm, worked 15 hours or more as an unpaid worker in an enterprise
operated by a member of the family, or is one who was not working, but has a job or
business from which he or she was temporarily absent because of illness, bad weather,
vacation, labor-management dispute, or personal reasons, whether or not paid by the
employer for time-off, and whether or not seeking another job.”
Unemployed refers to a participant “who did not work during the 7 consecutive
days prior to application, who made specific efforts to find a job within the past 4
weeks prior to application, and who was available for work during the 7 consecutive
days prior to application. Also included as unemployed are those who did not work,
and (a) were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off, or
(b) were waiting to report to a new wage or salary job scheduled to start within 30
days.”
Not in labor force refers to a participant “who did not work during the 7
consecutive days prior to application for a JTPA program and is not classified as
employed or unemployed.”
Public Assistance Recipient refers to a participant who was receiving any of
the following assistance at time of application.22
! Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). Also includes individuals
receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) at application.
! General Assistance (GA) (State/local government).
! Refugee Cash Assistance (RCA).
! Supplemental Security Income (SSI) (SSA Title XVI).
Training Services
Basic skills training is “instruction normally conducted in an institutional
classroom or one-on-one tutorial setting and designed to upgrade basic skills and
prepare the individual for further training, post-secondary education transition, future
employment, or retention in present employment, and may be provided within the
framework of basic education skills competencies. Includes, but is not limited to,
reading, writing, mathematics, literacy training, speaking, listening, problem-solving,
reasoning, study skills, English for non-English speakers, bilingual training, and GED
preparation (including computer assisted instruction).”
Occupational skills training is “instruction conducted in an institutional or
worksite setting designed to provide or upgrade individuals in the primary/technical
and secondary/ancillary skills to perform a specific job or group of jobs such as auto
mechanics, health services, or clerical training. Includes job-specific competency
training, job-specific school-to-work/apprenticeship programs, on-site industry
22When not used for eligibility determination, the information may be self-reported.

CRS-22
specific training, customized training, entrepreneurial training, internships, and pre-
apprenticeship training. It may be provided within the framework of occupational/job
specific skills competencies, and when structured like a job, may also be used to
provide training in work maturity competencies.”
On-the-job-training (OJT) is “training in the public or private sector which is
given to an individual while s/he is engaged in productive work, designed to provide
or upgrade individuals in the primary/technical and secondary/ancillary skills required
to perform and essential to the full and adequate performance of the job. It may be
provided within the framework of occupational/job specific skills competencies, and
may also be used to provide training in work maturity competencies.”
Race/ethnicity
White (not Hispanic) is a participant who has “origins in any of the original
peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.”
Black (not Hispanic) is a participant who has “origins in any of the black racial
groups of Africa.”
Hispanic is a participant of “Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American,
or other Spanish culture or origin (including Spain), regardless of race.”23
American Indian or Alaska Native (not Hispanic) is a participants who has
“origins in any of the original peoples of North America, and who maintains cultural
identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition.”
Asian or Pacific Islander (not Hispanic) is a participant who has “origins in
any of the original people of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian Subcontinent
(e.g., India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Sikkim, and Bhutan), or the
Pacific Islands. This area includes, for example, China, Japan, Korea, the Philippine
Islands, [and] Samoa. Hawaiian Natives are [also] recorded as Asian or Pacific
Islanders.”
Veteran refers to a participant “who (A) served on active duty in the military
service (of the U.S.) for a period of more than 180 days and who was discharged or
released with other than a dishonorable discharge or (B) was discharged or released
from active duty because of a service-connected disability or (C) was discharged as
a member of a reserve component under an order to active duty pursuant to Section
672(a), (d), or (g), 673, or 673b of Title 10, who served on active duty during a
period of war or in a campaign or expedition for which a campaign badge is
authorized and was discharged from such duty with other than a dishonorable
discharge. (38 U.S.C. 2011(4))”
23Among persons from Central and South American countries, only those who are of Spanish
origin, descent, or culture are included in the Hispanic category.