The President’s Demand-Driven Workforce Development Initiatives

The President’s Demand-Driven Workforce Development Initiatives

Order Code RL33811
The President’s Demand-Driven Workforce
Development Initiatives
January 10, 2007
Ann Lordeman
Specialist in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division
Linda Levine
Specialist in Labor Economics
Domestic Social Policy Division

The President’s
Demand-Driven Workforce Development Initiatives
Summary
Since the current Bush Administration came into office, the U.S. Department
of Labor (DOL) has developed and implemented three initiatives referred to as
market- or demand-driven. The goal of the initiatives — the High Growth Job
Training Initiative (HGJTI), Community-Based Job Training Grants (CBJTG), and
Workforce Innovation and Regional Economic Development (WIRED) — is to
address the workforce challenges thought to impede the nation’s competitive
advantage in the global economy. The initiatives have in common an approach that
involves partnering the publicly funded workforce system, the business community,
education and training providers, and economic development agencies.
Between May 2002 and December 2006, nearly $732 million was awarded in
grants for these initiatives. Of this amount, nearly $287 million was awarded for
HGJTI grants, 90% of which was awarded non-competitively. Awards for the other
two initiatives, $250 million for CBJTG and $195 million for WIRED, were awarded
competitively. For the HGJTI and CBJTG initiatives, awards were made in 14 “high-
growth”sectors identified primarily by DOL (e.g., advanced manufacturing,
construction, health care). For WIRED, awards were made to 13 regions of the
country to transform and rebuild their economies so they can better compete globally.
Two statutes provide the authority under which the initiatives have been funded.
The first is the Workforce Investment Act (WIA, P. L. 105-220, Title I), the nation’s
primary employment and job training legislation. Specifically, awards for the HGJTI
and CBJTG initiatives have been made under the general demonstration authority of
Section 171. The WIA funds come from annual appropriations. The second statute
is the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act (ACWIA) of
1998 (P. L. 105-277, Title IV). Specifically, Section 414(c) of ACWIA as amended
by the FY2005 appropriations act (P. L. 108-447) authorizes DOL to make awards
to partnerships of public and private entities for job training for employment in high-
growth sectors. The HGJTI and WIRED initiatives have been funded under the
authority of ACWIA. Funds for awards come from fees paid by employers who file
petitions for H-1B visas to bring into the country nonimmigrants to work in
professional speciality occupations. The fees potentially represent a large source of
funds upon which the DOL initiatives can draw.
This report begins with an overview of each of the initiatives, which is followed
by an analysis of the quantity and quality of jobs the targeted sectors might afford
workers, and an examination of the relationship between the initiatives and WIA.
The report closes with a series of policy questions for potential congressional
oversight.

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
An Overview of the Demand-Driven Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
High Growth Job Training Initiative (HGJTI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Community-Based Job Training Grants (CBJTG) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Workforce Innovation and
Regional Economic Development Initiative (WIRED) . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
The Targeted Sectors: Quantity and Quality of Jobs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Coordination of the Demand-Driven Initiatives and
Title I of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Policy Questions for Potential Congressional Oversight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
List of Tables
Table 1. Comparison of Key Elements
of the President’s Demand-Driven Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Table 2. Total Funding by Demand-Driven Initiative:
Program Years (PY) 2001-2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Table 3. Distribution of HGJTI Awards and Funding
by Program Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table 4. Distribution of CBJTG Awards and Funding
by Program Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Table 5. Distribution of WIRED Awards and Funding
by Program Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Table 6. High Growth Job Training Initiative Sectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Table 7. Employment in Selected HGJTI Sectors,
2004 (actual) and 2014 (projected) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Table 8. High Growth Job Training Initiative (HGJTI) Awards
by Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Table 9. Community Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) by Sector . . . . . . . . . 21
Table 10. Average Hourly Earnings of Production and
Nonsupervisory Workers in Selected HGJTI Industries, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . 23

The President’s Demand-Driven
Workforce Development Initiatives
Introduction
Since the current Bush Administration came into office, the U.S. Department
of Labor (DOL) has developed and implemented three initiatives referred to as
market- or demand-driven that are designed to address the workforce challenges
thought to impede the nation’s competitive advantage in the global economy. The
High Growth Job Training Initiative (HGJTI) is likely the most well-known of these
employer-focused activities, which aim “to prepare workers to take advantage of new
and increasing job opportunities in high growth, high demand and economically vital
sectors of the American economy.”1 The other two are Community-Based Job
Training Grants (CBJTG)2 and Workforce Innovation and Regional Economic
Development (WIRED).
The three initiatives have in common an approach that involves partnering the
publicly funded workforce system (e.g., state and local workforce investment boards)
with members of the business community, education and training providers (e.g.,
community colleges), and economic development agencies. Two other DOL training
initiatives proposed during the Bush Administration — Personal Reemployment
Accounts and Career Advancement Accounts — focus instead on workers; they are
addressed in other CRS reports.3
This report examines the President’s demand-driven initiatives for several
reasons:
! First, the HGJTI and CBJTG initiatives mark perhaps the first
commitment of Labor Department funds to development of an
adequate supply of workers possessing in-demand skills in sectors
of the economy primarily selected by DOL. Similarly, WIRED
marks perhaps the first DOL commitment of funds to assist regions
in transforming their communities in order to compete globally.
1 U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Business Relations
Group at [http://www.doleta.gov/BRG/JobTrainInitiative].
2 This initiative is also known as the Community College Initiative.
3 See CRS Report RL31825, Personal Reemployment Accounts: Results from Bonus
Experiments, by Linda Levine and Ann Lordeman, and CRS Report RL33687, The
Workforce Investment Act (WIA): Program-by-Program Overview and FY2007 Funding of
Title I Training Programs, by Blake Alan Naughton and Ann Lordeman.

CRS-2
! Second, since May 2002, nearly $732 million has been awarded in
grants for these three initiatives; however, limited information has
been available on their exact nature and on the precise use of the
funds. Such information is difficult to ascertain for a number of
reasons, including the relatively brief existence of the initiatives, the
use of non-competitive grants in awarding approximately $258
million in HGJTI grants, and the vagueness of some available
information.
! Third, the 109th Congress expressed interest in the operation of the
HGJTI.4
! Fourth, the 14 HGJTI sectors deemed important by DOL to sustain
economic growth and competitiveness may not be among those most
likely to afford workers plentiful high-paying job opportunities.
! Fifth, the initiatives may not be clearly coordinated with assistance
available to employers through the nation’s primary job training
legislation — Title I of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), P. L.
105-220 — and with activities in which other federal agencies
traditionally have taken the lead (e.g., regional economic
development and the U.S. Department of Commerce).
This report begins with an overview of each of the initiatives, which is followed
by an analysis of the quantity and quality of jobs the targeted sectors might afford
workers, and an examination of the relationship between the initiatives and WIA.
The report closes with a series of policy questions for potential congressional
oversight.
An Overview of the Demand-Driven Initiatives
All three of the President’s demand-driven initiatives are administered by the
Employment and Training Administration (ETA) of the Department of Labor. In
general, “These initiatives are meant to demonstrate how talent development can
increase productivity and drive economic growth. They will help American workers
benefit from the growth in the global economy.”5 Table 1 outlines the variability
among the key characteristics of each of the three initiatives.
Between, May 2002 and December 2006, nearly $732 million has been awarded
in grants for theses initiatives. Table 2 shows the distribution of funds among the
three initiatives and the years in which funds were awarded for each initiative.
4 For example, in the Conference Report (H.Rept. 109-337) on the FY2005 Labor, Health
and Human Services (HHS), and Education appropriations bill, the conferees directed DOL
to submit a quarterly report on the HGJTI with a listing of all awards made during the
quarter and for each award the grantee, the amount of the award, the funding source of the
award, whether the award was made competitively or non-competitively and, if non-
competitively, the justification, the purpose of the award, the number of workers to be
trained, and other expected outcomes.
5 Testimony of DOL Secretary Elaine L. Chao, in U.S. Congress, House Committee on
Education and the Workforce, Building America’s Competitiveness: Examining What Is
Needed to Compete in a Global Economy, Washington, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., Apr. 6, 2006,
Serial 109-34 (Washington: GPO, 2006).

CRS-3
Table 1. Comparison of Key Elements
of the President’s Demand-Driven Initiatives
Workforce
High Growth Job
Community-Based
Innovation and
Key element
Training Initiative
Job Training Grants
Regional Economic
(HGJTI)
(CBJTG)
Development
(WIRED)
Overall
Prepare workers for job
Build the capacity of
Transform and rebuild
objectives of
opportunities in high-
community colleges to
regional economies.
the initiatives
growth/high-demand
train workers in skills
industries and sectors
required by industries
of the American
expected to grow and
economy.
by industries where
there is a demand for
qualified workers.
Scope of the
National —
Local and regional —
Regional —
initiatives
specifically, DOL
specifically,
specifically, governors
identifies high-
community colleges
identify labor market
growth/high-demand
and other grantees
areas that are
industries and awards
focus on the local and
composed of multiple
funds for projects
regional demands of
jurisdictions within a
focused on the needs of
employers.
state or across state
those industries.
borders.
Perceived
Jobs are vacant in high-
Community colleges
Regions need to rebuild
problems to be
growth, high-demand
face capacity
and transform their
addressed
fields due to a lack of
constraints, which
economies to compete
qualified people.
make them unable to
globally.
meet demand for
training.
Sectors
DOL identified 14
Each grant applicant
Not applicable.
targeted by the
sectors that met one of
identified any sector,
initiatives
five criteria: sectors
including the 14
(1) projected to add
identified by DOL, that
substantial numbers of
met one of the five
new jobs to the
criteria enumerated in
economy, (2) that have
the column to the left.
a significant impact on
the nation’s economy,
(3) that influence the
growth of other
industries, (4) that are
undergoing
technological and other
innovation that requires
new skill sets, or (5)
that are emerging fields
having the potential for
growth. (See Table 6
for the specific 14
sectors.)

CRS-4
Workforce
High Growth Job
Community-Based
Innovation and
Key element
Training Initiative
Job Training Grants
Regional Economic
(HGJTI)
(CBJTG)
Development
(WIRED)
Funding
Section 171 of the
Section 171 of the
Section 414(c) of the
authority for
Workforce Investment
Workforce Investment
American
grants
Act (WIA) and Section
Act (WIA).
Competitiveness and
414(c) of the American
Workforce
Competitiveness and
Improvement Act
Workforce
(ACWIA).
Improvement Act
(ACWIA).
Source of
Annual appropriations
Annual appropriations.
Employer fees.
funding
and employer fees.
Competitive or
Both, but primarily
Competitive.
Competitive.
non-
non-competitive.
competitive
awards
Eligible
Public, private for-
An individual
State governors, the
grantees
profit, and private
community or technical
governor of Puerto
nonprofit
college, a community
Rico, and the mayor of
organizations.
college district, a state
the District of
community college
Columbia.
system, or an
individual one-stop
career center in
partnership with its
local workforce
investment board.
Grant activities
Wide range of
Capacity-building of
Designing and
activities, from
community colleges
implementing strategic
building career ladders
(e.g., development of
approaches to regional
for new and incumbent
curricula, including
economic development
workers, to expanding
technology-based
and job growth.
postsecondary training
distance learning
alternatives including
curricula;
apprenticeship and
implementation of
community colleges’
strategies to ensure
workforce development
availability of qualified
programs, to accessing
instructors;
new or untapped labor
procurement of
pools.
equipment) and
training activities for
individuals.

CRS-5
Workforce
High Growth Job
Community-Based
Innovation and
Key element
Training Initiative
Job Training Grants
Regional Economic
(HGJTI)
(CBJTG)
Development
(WIRED)
Required
Representatives of the
Same as the President’s
Regional civic,
project
workforce investment
High Growth Job
business, investor,
partners
system, business and
Training Initiative.
academic,
industry, and the
entrepreneurial and
continuum of
philanthropic leaders.
education, which
includes elementary,
middle, and high
schools, career and
technical high schools,
community and
technical colleges,
four-year colleges and
universities, and other
training entities.
Leveraging
Grantees are
Same as the President’s
Same as the President’s
encouraged to utilize
High Growth Job
High Growth Job
the resources of the
Training Initiative.
Training Initiative.
partners.
Cost sharing
Cost-sharing
Cost sharing is not
Same as the
requirements are
required; however,
Community-Based Job
largely unknown, since
applicants are
Training Grants.
85% of the awards
encouraged to leverage
from Program Year
the resources of the
(PY) 2001-2006 were
partnership whenever
non-competitive.
possible.
Source: Congressional Research Service analysis based upon publicly available information such as
DOL solicitation-for-grant announcements, press releases, and speeches.
Table 2. Total Funding by Demand-Driven Initiative:
Program Years (PY) 2001-2006a
Program years for
Percent of
Amount of
Initiative
which funds have
total funds
award
been awarded
awarded
High Growth Job Training
Initiative (HGJTI)
PY2001-PY2006
$286,902,313
39%
Community-Based Job Training
Grants (CBJTG)
PY2005-PY2006
250,000,000
34%
Workforce Innovation and
Regional Economic
Development (WIRED)
PY2006
195,000,000
27%
Total
Not applicable
731,902,313
100%
Source: Created by CRS from information in DOL online databases and press releases.
a. A program year runs from July 1 through June 30. The data in this table include PY2006 through
December 31, 2006 (i.e., the first six months of the program year 2006).

CRS-6
High Growth Job Training Initiative (HGJTI)
The Administration began the HGJTI in PY2001 “as a pilot to prepare workers
for jobs being created in high growth industries.”6 This initiative is administered by
the Business Relations Group (BRG), a division in ETA’s Office of Workforce
Investment. The BRG (1) identifies high-growth, high-demand sectors; (2) convenes
one or more executive forums for each sector to offer leaders in business and industry
opportunities to share their current and future labor needs with the public workforce
system (e.g., the system authorized under WIA); and (3) convenes a solutions forum
with representatives of industry, the public workforce system, educators, and
economic development officials to collectively verify the workforce challenges
identified during executive forums and to devise solutions.
Examples of the kinds of workforce challenges or problems identified through
the forums include a mismatch between the skills imparted to high school and college
students and the skill requirements of employers; new labor force entrants
uninterested in seeking employment in the targeted sectors, perhaps because they
have a negative image of particular sectors or because these individuals may be
unaware of the wide range of careers targeted sectors offer; and the seeming dearth
of new workers with up-to-date skills, which requires industries undergoing rapid
technological change to devote more of their resources to upgrading the skills of
incumbent workers, and also to take other measures aimed at retaining experienced
staff. To address these problems, the BRG refers proposed solutions outside the
department’s domain to other agencies, identifies solutions for which DOL already
has committed program funds, and awards grants to partnerships to undertake
demonstration projects that reflect the remaining priority solutions.7
Two statutes provide the authority under which HGJTI grants have been
awarded. The first is the Workforce Investment Act (WIA, P. L. 105-220, Title I),
the nation’s primary employment and job training legislation.8 Specifically, awards
have been made under the general authority of Section 171, Demonstration, Pilot,
Multiservice, Research, and Multistate Projects. The WIA funds come from annual
appropriations. The second statute is the American Competitiveness and Workforce
Improvement Act (ACWIA) of 1998 (P. L. 105-277, Title IV). 9 Specifically, Section
428 of P. L. 108-447 (the FY2005 appropriations act) amended Section 414(c) of
ACWIA to authorize DOL to make awards to partnerships of public and private
6 Budget of the United States Government, FY2007, p.183.
7 “The President’s High Growth Job Training Initiative,” at [http://www.doleta.gov/BRG/
JobTrainInitiative/].
8 29 U.S.C. §2811 et seq.
9 The 105th Congress, in Title IV (the American Competitiveness and Workforce
Improvement Act of 1998) of P.L. 105-277 (8 U.S.C.§1101 et seq.), originally imposed the
H-1B visa education and training fee on employers seeking to utilize nonimmigrant
professionals (e.g., foreign workers with information technology skills) to finance DOL and
National Science Foundation (NSF) activities aimed at better matching the supply of highly
skilled U.S. workers to employer demand. For more information on these NSF and DOL
activities, see CRS Report RL31973, Programs Funded by the H-1B Visa Education and
Training Fee, and Labor Market Conditions for Information Technology (IT) Workers, by
Linda Levine.

CRS-7
entities for job training for employment in high-growth sectors.10 Funds for awards
come from fees paid by employers who file petitions for H1-B visas to bring into the
country nonimmigrants to work in professional speciality occupations.
Between PY2001 and PY2006,11 150 awards totaling $286.9 million were
made.12 Table 3 shows the distribution of grants across program years. As shown
in the table, funding peaks in PY2004, the same year in which funding from H-1B
fees was likely used to supplement WIA demonstration monies. While the authority
under which individual grants were made is not always clear,13 DOL, in its FY2007
Budget Justification, states that DOL “initially” used a “significant” amount of WIA
discretionary resources to support the HGJTI.14 DOL has also indicated that H-1B
fees it received beginning with the second quarter of FY200515 have been used to
fund HGJTI grants under ACWIA authority in Section 414(c).16 Based on this
information and by cross-referencing each award date with the appropriate program
and fiscal year, CRS estimates that WIA was the funding source for all awards made
in PYs 2001-2003 (see Table 3), that WIA continued to be the major source of funds
in PY2004, with perhaps approximately 28% or $25.4 million of the grants awarded
in that year funded with H-1B fees, and that the H-1B fees possibly funded all of the
awards in PY2005 and PY2006.17 It is unclear under which of the two authorities
funds were awarded when the year of the award is not specified. For FY2006, DOL
estimated that $125 million would be available to fund HGJTI grants and the WIRED
initiative (discussed later in this report). H-1B fees are permanently authorized, and
consequently could represent a steady source of funding for HGJTI and WIRED.
10 While the HGJTI is not specifically mentioned in either WIA or ACWIA, these statutes
have provided the authority for funding the initiative. In the DOL Budget Justification
FY2007, DOL states on p. TES-113 that the ACWIA Section 414(c) grants “are consistent
with and support the High Growth Job Training Initiative.” Much of the information
regarding the HGJTI grants is found in Administration documents — such as solicitation for
grant announcements, fact sheets, descriptions posted on DOL’s website, press releases, and
speeches — rather than in legislation.
11 A program year begins on July 1 and ends on June 30. For example, PY2006 began July
1, 2006, and will end June 30, 2007. Information in this report includes awards made as of
Dec. 31, 2006.
12 Information on the awards is taken from the DOL database of the HGJTI Investment
Center at, [http://www.doleta.gov/BRG/HGJTIGrantees]. CRS reviewed information from
three DOL online sources: the HGJTI Investment Center, the HGJTI publication library,
and press releases. In some cases, information on the awards (e.g., amount of an award,
name of a grantee, the number of awards made in a given sector) varied by source. CRS
determined that the most authoritative source is the HGJTI Investment Center, information
from which is supplemented by press releases as needed.
13 The funding authority is generally specified when awards are made on a competitive basis.
As discussed later in this report, most of the HGJTI grants were made non-competitively.
14 DOL, Budget Justification FY2007,p. TES-113.
15 These fees are accounted for on a fiscal-year, not program-year, basis. FY2005 began
Oct. 1, 2004, and ended Sept. 30, 2005. The second quarter of FY2005 began in January
2005, which is in PY2004.
16 Information provided to CRS by DOL, Mar. 22, 2006.
17 To date, in PY2006, $16.8 million was awarded under the authority of Section 414(c) of
ACWIA. Approximately $6.0 million could have been awarded with H-1B fees as well.

CRS-8
Of the 150 awards, more than one-quarter, or 41, were made to institutions of
higher education, including 25 to community colleges. Almost another one-quarter,
or 35, were made to local and state workforce investment boards or state agencies.
The remaining half of the awards were made to various industry associations and
other organizations. Some of the activities undertaken by the grantees include job
training for entry-level, incumbent, and unemployed workers; development of
apprenticeship opportunities and certification programs; development or expansion
of curricula; development and provision of instruction via telecommunication; and
establishment of career ladders.
Table 3. Distribution of HGJTI Awards and Funding
by Program Yeara
Percentage
Number of
Percentage of
Funds
Program Year
of All
Awards
All Awardsa
Awarded
Fundsb
2001
1
1%
$4,541,205
2%
2002
8
5%
22,641,579
8%
2003
34
23%
66,571,780
23%
2004
60
40%
90,976,782
32%
2005
22
15%
67,913,992
24%
2006
16
11%
22,803,320
8%
Unspecified Year,
9
6%
11,453,655
4%
PY2001-PY20
Total
150
100%
286,902,313
100%
Source: Created by CRS from information in the DOL HGJTI Investment Center data base and DOL
press releases.
a. The data in this table includes PY2006 as of 12/31/2006, i.e., the first six months of the program
year.
b. Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding.
Of the 150 awards, 127, or 85%, were made on a non-competitive basis. The
non-competitive awards account for 90% of funds awarded. The 23 competitive
awards were made in response to a Solicitation for Grant Applications (SGA) for
HGJTI grants for the health care and biotechnology industries under WIA authority
in Section 171,18 and to an SGA for HGJTI grants in advanced manufacturing under
ACWIA authority in Section 414(c).19
ACWIA is silent on whether awards should be made competitively or not.
Under Section 171 of WIA, awards are not required to be made on a competitive
basis if they are for (1) demonstration and pilot projects20 or (2) multiservice projects,
18 69 Federal Register 56082, Sept. 17, 2004.
19 71 Federal Register 32559, June 6, 2006, and corrected in 71 Federal Register 37960,
July 3, 2006.
20 29 USC 2916(b) (2)(A). WIA, as originally enacted by P. L. 105-220, required that grants
(continued...)

CRS-9
research projects, or multistate projects21 that do not exceed $100,00022 or are funded
jointly with other public- or private-sector entities.23 In general, DOL did not specify
the nature of the award (i.e., demonstration, pilot, or multiservice) in its online
grantee database and press releases.
For the 127 non-competitive awards, funding ranged from $95,000 for the
Pennsylvania Automotive Association to train workers for careers in the automotive
industry as automotive service technicians, to $12,202,600 for YouthBuild USA to
train adjudicated youth in the construction industry through a combination of
academic instruction and construction skills development. The median award was
$1,639,403. The expected period of performance (i.e., duration) is not known.
For the 23 competitive awards, funding ranged from $276,393 to Job Path, Inc.
to create a career ladder training model in biosciences for high school students that
includes outreach activities and an internship program, to $1,860,515 to Ivy Tech
Community College (Indiana) for activities such as creating a new statewide
advanced manufacturing curriculum and training new workers. The median award
for the health care and biotechnology grants was $1.0 million, with an expected
period of performance of up to 24 months. The median award for the advanced
manufacturing grants was $1.5 million, with an expected period of performance of
up to 36 months. The difference in the median award amounts for the two sets of
grants could be due to the difference in their duration. A grant expected to be used
over 36 months may be higher than one expected to be used over 24 months. Nearly
half of the non-competitive grants (59 of 127) were awarded amounts of $1.9 million
or more, greater than the largest amount awarded for any competitive grant.
However, because the actual period of performance is not known for any of these
grants, no conclusion can be made as to whether the non-competitive grants are larger
or smaller on a per-month basis than any of the competitive grants.
The use of non-competitive awards provides particular challenges for
congressional oversight and for anyone seeking to obtain specific information on
many of the details of the grants. In addition to the expected period of performance,
another area generally addressed in an SGA is cost sharing (i.e., whether, as a
requirement of receiving a grant, an applicant must provide other funds, whether
received from a federal or non-federal source). The SGA for the competitive health
care and biotechnology grants required a “match” equivalent of at least 50% of the
20 (...continued)
for demonstration and pilot projects be made competitively unless they were funded jointly
with other public- or private-sector entities that provide a portion of the funding for the
project. Technical amendments to WIA in P. L. 105-277, the omnibus appropriation bill for
FY1999, deleted this requirement and substituted the requirement that awards be made in
accordance with generally applicable federal requirements.
21 Of the non-competitive grants awarded, 39% were for multistate projects. (Information
on whether a project was multistate was available for 123 of the 127 non-competitive
projects.) Nineteen of the 23 competitive grants were for single-state projects.
22 Of the 150 grants awarded, four were made for under $100,000, each of which was a non-
competitive award.
23 29 USC2916(c)(4)(A).

CRS-10
grant award amount. This match could be provided in cash or in-kind;24 however, at
least 50% of the total grant match amount had to be a cash match provided by
business partners.25 The SGA for competitive grants in advanced manufacturing did
not require cost sharing. For the non-competitive grants, it is not known whether
there were any cost-sharing requirements. Also, both of the competitive grant SGAs
included leveraged resources in the evaluation criteria.26
Other grant features often included in an SGA are the statutory authority for the
grant; “critical elements” the grant should address; eligible applicants, expected range
of funding, and number of awards; criteria used to evaluate the application; and
requirements related to reporting, outcomes, and evaluation of the funded projects.
DOL has indicated that in the future it “will be awarding the majority of grants (over
95%) funded by H-1B visa fees through a variety of competitive solicitations.”27
Future SGAs could be in the construction, energy, and homeland security sectors.28
Community-Based Job Training Grants (CBJTG)
In its FY2005 Budget, the Administration requested funding for “a new,
employer-focused grant program for training in community and technical colleges.”29
DOL awarded $125 million in both October 2005 and December 2006, for a total of
$250 million awarded to 142 community colleges in 45 states.30
24 In-kind contributions could include things such as support services, mentoring, and
volunteers.
25 69 Federal Register 56086, Sept. 17, 2004.
26 Leveraged resources are in-kind or federal and non-federal cash contributions made by
any of a number of entities, including businesses, faith-based and community organizations,
foundations, other government programs (e.g., Vocational Rehabilitation or Adult
Education, administered by the Department of Education), and other DOL programs (e.g.,
registered apprenticeships or Job Corps). Each of the fact sheets in the HGJTI database
does include a figure for leveraged resources.
27 Information provided to CRS by DOL, Mar. 22, 2006.
28 DOL, The President’s High Growth Job Training Initiative, at [http://www.doleta.gov/
budget/3HGJTI07.pdf].
29 Budget of the United States Government, FY2005, p. 226.
30 DOL, “U.S. Department of Labor Awards $125 Million in Competition For the
President’s Community-Based Job Training Grants,” news release, Oct. 19, 2005
[http://www.doleta.gov/whatsnew/new_releases/2005-10-19.cfm], and “U.S. Department
of Labor Awards $125 Million in Second Competition for President’s Community-Based
Job Training Grants,” news release, Dec. 11, 2006.

CRS-11
Table 4. Distribution of CBJTG Awards and Funding
by Program Yeara
Number of
Program Year
Funds Awarded
Awards
2005
70
$125,000,000
2006
72
125,000,000
Total
142
250,000,000
Source: Created by CRS from information in DOL press releases.
a. The data in this table include PY2006 as of Dec. 31, 2006 (i.e., the first six months of the program
year).
As shown in Table 1, the purpose of the grants is to build the capacity of
community colleges to train workers to develop the skills required to succeed in high-
growth industries and occupations and industries in which demand for qualified
workers is outstripping the supply. The grants were competitive, as specified in the
conference report (H.Rept. 108-792) on the FY2005 omnibus appropriations bill.
They were awarded in response to two SGAs: one in May 2005 and one in July
2006. The primary difference between the two SGAs is that the pool of grantees was
broader under the PY2006 SGA.31 Under the PY2005 SGA, only community
colleges were eligible to apply. Under the 2006 SGA, DOL accepted applications
from individual community or technical colleges, community college districts, state
community college systems, or individual one-stop career centers in partnership with
their local workforce investment boards.32 All of these entities, except for individual
community colleges or technical colleges, had to specify one or more community
college(s) where all capacity-building and training activities would occur under the
grant.
The SGAs required all community college applicants to develop and implement
a combination of capacity-building and training activities. In general, training
activities were to be provided by a community or technical college, and occur within
the context of a continuum of education and training that supports long-term career
growth, such as an articulated career ladder. These activities were also to result in
college credit or other industry-recognized credentials, and indicate a level of mastery
in a given field. Capacity-building strategies were expected to address significant
barriers that impede the ability of a community college to meet local or regional
industry demand for workforce training. Examples of capacity-building activities
specified in the SGAs include the development or adaptation of competency models
and curricula to support training; the development of innovative curricula, teaching
methods, and instructional design to meet the skill needs of employers;
31 Another difference was that the purpose of the 2006 SGA includes building the capacity
of community colleges to train workers to develop the skills required to succeed in local or
regional industries and occupations.
32 The conference report (H.Rept. 109-337) on the FY2006 Labor-HHS-Education
appropriations bill directed DOL to include one-stop career centers as eligible applicants in
future grant solicitations. Three of the 72 awards made in PY2006 were made to one-stop
centers.

CRS-12
implementation of innovative strategies to ensure the availability of qualified and
certified instructors; procurement of equipment necessary for training in
industry-demanded skills; and support for clinical experiences required for
certification or licensure.33
The grants were funded under the general authority of WIA Section 171,
Demonstration, Pilot, Multiservice, Research, and Multistate Projects, but the funds
were specifically appropriated in FY2005 and FY2006 appropriation bills (P.L.
108-447 and P.L. 109-149, respectively.) The President’s budget requests since
FY2005 have included funding for CBJTGs. Both the House- and the Senate-passed
bills (H.R. 27) in the 109th Congress to reauthorize WIA included a
community-based job training demonstration project, similar to the President’s
Community Based Job Training Initiative. Both the House and Senate-passed
versions of H.R. 27 would have required DOL in awarding grants to consider the
extent to which a grant would expand a local one-stop center’s capacity to be
demand-driven and responsive to local needs. The House-passed version would have
required community colleges to work in conjunction with local workforce investment
systems, while the Senate version would have required community colleges to work
with local boards. In the House version, an application for a grant would have had
to include an assurance that it had been developed in consultation with the board in
the area where the proposed grant would be used. In the Senate version, the
application would have had to include a description of the involvement of the local
board and businesses in the geographic area where the proposed grant would be
implemented.
The range of awards was from $617,921 for Midland College (TX) to expand
the college’s distance learning programs for nurse training, to $3,600,768 for L.E.
Fletcher Technical Community College (LA) to build its capacity and the capacity
of three community college partners to train approximately 3,000 workers in the
marine transportation and manufacturing industries. The median award for all
grantees was $1,916,013.34 The initial period of grant performance was expected to
fall within a range of 24 to 36 months. The SGA did not require cost sharing, and
while leveraging of resources was encouraged, it was not included in the evaluation
criteria.
Workforce Innovation and
Regional Economic Development Initiative (WIRED)
In November 2005, DOL issued an SGA announcing its intent to fund a new
initiative, WIRED.35 Competition was limited to governors who could apply on
behalf of regions within their states. As shown in Table 1, the purpose of the grants
is to transform and rebuild regional economies, or, more specifically, “to transform
regional economies by enlisting the skills of the numerous and varied players in those
33 70 Federal Register 22907-8, May 3, 2005.
34 Information on the awards is taken from the DOL data base of the CBJT Investment
Center, at [http://www.doleta.gov/BRG/CBJTGrants/].
35 DOL, “Workforce Innovation in Regional Economic Development (WIRED) Initiative:
Solicitation for Grant Applications,”November 21, 2005 at [http://www.doleta.gov/sga/sga/
SGA-DFA-PY-05-04.pdf], (hereafter referred to as WIRED SGA).

CRS-13
economies to research and produce long-term strategic plans that prepare workers for
high-skill, high-wage opportunities in the coming years and into the next decade.”36
The SGA did not require cost sharing, and while leveraging of resources was
encouraged, it was not included in the evaluation criteria.
Table 5. Distribution of WIRED Awards and Funding
by Program Yeara
Program Year
Number of Awards
Funds Awarded
2005
13
$195,000,000
2006
none as of Dec. 31, 2006
0
Total
13
195,000,000
Source: Created by CRS from information in DOL press releases.
a. The data in this table include PY2006 as of 12/31/2006, i.e., the first six months of the program
year.
The SGA indicated the Department’s perception of problems facing some
regions, which the initiative is expected to address, as follows:
While some regions of the country have thrived as a result of globalization,
others have struggled to compete, particularly those with an economy based on
manufacturing or other trade-impacted industries. These regions are being forced
to revitalize and reinvent themselves. Regions recently impacted by hurricanes
and other natural disasters will also have to rebuild and transform their
economies.37
The SGA was not very specific about the activities that grantees were to engage
in to address the need to rebuild and transform regional economies. Rather, the SGA
required applicants to “show how the region will be taking the current systems and
structures supporting economic growth to the next level by implementing new efforts
designed to drive system integration, innovation and transformation.”38 The best
source of information on grantee activities comes from the Request for Proposal
(RFP) issued on June 9, 2006, to evaluate the WIRED projects that were selected
from the applicants responding to the SGA. In the background section of the RFP,
DOL states:
In order to accomplish this [transform regional economies], grantees have
specified numerous strategies including the following: 1) Bolstering job creation
and increasing training in high-growth occupations; 2) Developing
post-secondary educational opportunities; 3) Engaging K-12 education systems
to fuel a pipeline of new workers, especially for occupations that require math
and science skills; 4) Improving entrepreneurship development and business
engagement; 5) Expanding availability of capital and new investments; 6)
36 DOL, “Secretary of Labor Elaine L. Chao Announces $195 Million for President Bush’s
Competitiveness Agenda,” news release, Feb. 1, 2006.
37 WIRED SGA, p. 3.
38 WIRED SGA, p. 11.

CRS-14
Creating improved systems for rapid technoloy transfer including market
opportunities for innovative university research and development; and 7)
Aligning disparate public and private resources toward a unified regional
workforce and economic development strategy.39
In February 2006, DOL announced that it had selected 13 regions to receive
$15.0 million over a three-year period, for a total of $195 million. Each of the 13
regions encompasses multiple counties, and in one case counties in two states.40 In
mid-March of 2006, DOL awarded $100,000 for planning grants to each of the
governors of the next 13 highest-scoring WIRED proposals, referred to as the
“Virtual 14th Region.”41 The grants were funded under the authority of ACWIA. As
noted earlier, ACWIA as amended authorizes DOL to make awards to partnerships
of public and private entities for job training for employment in high-growth sectors.
While the WIRED activities do not appear to be directly related to job training,
ACWIA does provide that “related services [to job training]” can be provided, and
that to facilitate the provision of job training, funds may be used to develop and
implement “model activities.”42 Presumably, it is on the basis of these provisions
that DOL has the authority to fund WIRED under ACWIA. DOL, in its FY2007
budget justification, does not address the rationale for using ACWIA authority to
fund WIRED, but does state that “The ultimate goal of the WIRED initiative is to
expand employment and advancement opportunities for American workers and
catalyze the creation of high skill and high wage opportunities.”43
On June 9, 2006, DOL issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) to evaluate the
WIRED Initiative. The period of performance would be 45 months. The estimated
cost would be between $2.7 million and $3.5 million.44 The evaluation seeks to
describe implementation and measure performance in three areas. These are (1)
strategic approach and implementation (e.g., specific regional problems addressed,
strategies used, amount of increase in collaboration), (2) innovation and capacity
changes (e.g., business networks expanded or created, new training in targeted
industries, improvement in venture capital investment), and (3) economic and labor
39 DOL, Workforce Innovation in Regional Economic Development Evaluation, June 9, 2006
at [http://www.doleta.gov/sga/rfp/DOL061RP20079.pdf], p. C-1.
40 See DOL Fact Sheet, Workforce Innovation in Regional Economic Development Selected
Regions, at [http://www.doleta.gov/pdf/WIRED%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf for a list of regions].
41 DOL, WIRED Update, June 30, 2006, at [http://www.doleta.gov/pdf/WIRED_200606_
update.pdf].
42 One example of a model activity provided in ACWIA at Section 414(c)(2)(B) is
“increasing the integration of community and technical college activities with activities of
businesses and the public workforce investment system to meet the training needs for the
industries and economic sectors identified pursuant to [the paragraph on identifying high
growth industries and economic sectors].” This example appears to provide authority for
funding CBJTG, which is currently funded under the authority of WIA.
43 DOL FY2007 Budget Justification, p. TES-113.
44 This cost is based on DOL’s estimate of the level of effort required. DOL estimates that
the level of effort would be between 30 and 35 professional person years at between $90,000
and $100,000 per professional person year. This would include all costs. The RFP can be
found at [http://www.doleta.gov/sga/rfp/DOL061RP20079.pdf].

CRS-15
market effects (e.g., increase in tax base, graduation rates, changes in job creation,
changes in the relative strength of targeted sectors.)
No plans to make additional WIRED awards have been announced, although the
DOL Budget Justification notes that FY2007 will be the second year of the WIRED
Initiative.45
The Targeted Sectors: Quantity and Quality of Jobs
Both the HGJTI and CBJTG include an important and perhaps unique
organizing principle for the provision of federal job training and related services
(outlined in Table 1 of this report). The two initiatives focus on sectors of the
economy that meet at least one of the following criteria first enumerated by DOL:
! projected to add substantial numbers of new jobs to the economy;
! has a significant effect on the nation’s economy;
! influences the growth of other industries;
! is undergoing technological and other innovations that require
workers to develop new skill sets; or
! is an emerging field having the potential for growth.
In the FY2005 appropriations act (P.L. 108-447), Congress subsequently directed the
Secretary of Labor (in consultation with state workforce investment boards) to
consider these factors when distributing the department’s share of funds collected
from the H-1B visa education and training fee.
The Labor Department determined that, at the national level, the 14 sectors
shown in Table 6 fit the high-growth criteria. Although DOL gives leeway to
applicants for CBJTGs to identify sectors at the local and regional level that differ
from those the department has chosen for the HGJTI, the applicants still must base
sector determinations on at least one of the high-growth criteria listed above.46
The 14 sectors that DOL selected for the HGJTI are a mixture of industries and
occupations, with some more clearly defined than others. For example, DOL
material on automotive services and IT suggest that the two sectors more closely
reflect occupations (e.g., automotive service technicians and computer software
engineers, respectively) than industries (e.g., automobile dealers and computer
systems design services, respectively). A few sectors do not have distinct categories
in either the government’s industrial classification system (i.e., biotechnology,
homeland security) or occupational classification system (i.e., geospatial technology),
which makes comprehension difficult. In addition, the advanced manufacturing
sector, described in Table 6, is not well-defined. The department acknowledged that,
45 DOL, FY2007 Budget Justification, p. TES-115.
46 DOL, “The President’s Community-Based Job Training Grants Solicitation for Grant
Applications (DFA-PY-04-10) Frequently Asked Questions,” posted Mar. 8, 2006, at
[http://www.doleta.gov/business/FAQ_Community-BasedJobTrainingGrants.cfm].

CRS-16
while it designated aerospace manufacturing as a separate sector, the industry is a
subset of advanced manufacturing.47
Table 6. High Growth Job Training Initiative Sectors
Sector
Description
Advanced
Manufacturing industries undergoing technological transformation
manufacturing
that requires employees to have new high-level skill sets.
Aerospace
Producers of aircraft, aircraft engines, parts, and auxiliary
manufacturing
equipment, as well as guided missiles, space vehicles, and
propulsion units, parts, and auxiliary equipment.
Automotive
Automotive repair and maintenance (a service industry) and
services
automobile dealers (a retail trade industry) employ over one-half of
automotive service technicians and mechanics, the occupation that
seemingly composes this sector.a
Biotechnology
Commercial application of technologies that manipulate the
molecules of living organisms (e.g., animal breeding, seed
production, and drug and medical device development).
Construction
Building construction contractors, heavy construction contractors
(e.g., utilities and highways), and specialty trades contractors.
Energy
Oil and gas extraction, coal mining, and utilities (e.g., power
generation, transmission, and distribution).
Financial
Banking, securities and commodities, and insurance.
services
Geospatial
Application of technology to obtain, analyze, display, and manage
technology
data in a geographic and spatial context. There is no consensus on
whether this is a tool or a discipline, and if the latter, whether it is
part of the information technology discipline (see below).
Health care
Hospitals, ambulatory care facilities (e.g., doctors’ offices,
services
outpatient centers, medical and diagnostic labs, and home health
providers), and nursing and residential care facilities.
Homeland
Traditional protective services and emergency management, as
security
well as information- and cyber-security; the latter two likely
overlap with the geospatial technology and information technology
sectors.
Hospitality
Accommodation (e.g., hotels, including casino hotels) and eating
and drinking places (e.g., full- and limited-service restaurants).
Information
Appears to be occupation-based because non-IT industries employ
technology (IT)
many more workers with computer-related skills than do IT
industries (e.g., computer systems design services).
47 DOL, America’s Aerospace Industry: Identifying and Addressing Workforce Challenges,
May 2005.

CRS-17
Sector
Description
Retail trade
Includes building and gardening supply stores, electronics stores,
sporting goods stores, book stores, clothing stores, and groceries.
Transportation
Includes air, rail, water, and truck transportation; transit and
ground passenger transportation; and sightseeing transportation.
Source: Descriptions developed by CRS primarily based upon information posted on the HGJTI Web
pages in 2006 and on the North American Industrial Classification System.
a. The occupation is important to each industry as well, with automotive service technicians and
mechanics accounting for more than one-fourth of all workers in the automotive repair and
maintenance services industry and less than one-fifth of all workers in the auto dealer industry.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), National Employment Matrix, employment by
occupation, industry, and percent distribution, 2004 and projected 2014.
The sectors are diverse in other respects as well. They include industries that
compete globally (e.g., aerospace and biotechnology) and industries that largely have
a domestic orientation (e.g., construction and retail trade). Yet, the Administration
has said that it regards the HGJTI as operating in support of its American
Competitiveness Initiative.48 While “competitiveness” typically is used in the context
of the international marketplace, some of the DOL-identified sectors are not much
engaged in the production of tradeable goods or services, and thus may not be the
most appropriate foci for a competitiveness agenda.
Because they can be chosen based upon different high-growth criteria, the
sectors also differ from one another in their viability as job generators. The emerging
field of biotechnology, for example, needs “significant time and investment to
develop to the point where the job growth can occur” because of the multiple, lengthy
stages that must be completed successfully before a product can be brought to
market.49 Clues to the advanced manufacturing sector’s job creation capability may
be gleaned from the business partners and occupations mentioned in grants thus far
awarded: advanced manufacturing partnerships include fabricated metal product
producers and motor vehicle manufacturers; metalworking occupations, found in
both industries, are the focus of some grants. Although total employment is projected
to fall in fabricated metal products manufacturing and rise slightly in motor vehicle
production between 2004 and 2014, as shown in Table 7, the number of machinist
jobs is projected to grow by 8,600 in the two industries over the 10-year period.50
Similarly, despite the below-average rate of job growth shown in Table 7 for the
aerospace sector, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) projects that the
industry’s employment of aircraft mechanics and service technicians could rise by
48 Testimony of DOL Secretary Elaine L. Chao, in U.S. Congress, House Committee on
Education and the Workforce, Building America’s Competitiveness: Examining What Is
Needed to Compete in a Global Economy, Washington, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., Apr. 6,
2006, Serial 109-34 (Washington: GPO, 2006).
49 Prepared for DOL by New Economy Strategies, LLC and The Leonard Resource Group,
Inc., The Biotechnology Industry: Identifying and Addressing Workforce Challenges in an
Emerging Industry, October 2004, p. 22.
50 BLS, National Employment Matrix, employment by occupation, industry, and percent
distribution, 2004 and projected 2014.

CRS-18
3.1% annually or almost 5,000 jobs over the 2004-2014 period.51 In contrast, the
energy sector’s coal mining industry is not expected to add workers in any of the
occupations for which BLS develops projections; the sector’s oil and gas industry
might create jobs in a handful of occupations,52 but as seen in Table 7, their gains are
projected to be greatly outweighed by job losses in other occupations.
Table 7. Employment in Selected HGJTI Sectors,
2004 (actual) and 2014 (projected)
Sectora
Thousands of jobs
Change
2004 2014
Thousands
Annual
of jobs,
average rate
2004-2014
of change
(%)
Total nonfarm wage and
132,192
150,877
18,685
1.3
salary employment
Energy
765
725
-40
-0.5
Oil and gas extraction
123
107
-16
-1.4
Coal mining
72
55
-17
-2.6
Utilities
570
563
-7
-0.1
Construction
6,965
7,757
792
1.1
Manufacturing
14,329
13,553
-777
-0.6
Fabricated metal
1,498
1,470
-28
-0.2
products
Motor vehicles, bodies
1,109
1,171
62
0.6
and trailers, and parts
Aerospace
444
480
36
0.8
Retail trade
15,035
16,683
1,649
1.0
Transportation and
4,250
4,756
506
1.1
warehousing
Finance and insurance
5,966
6,462
496
0.8
Health care
12,055
15,610
3,555
2.9
Hospitality (accommodation
10,646
12,401
1,755
1.5
and food services)
IT occupationsb
3,046
4,003
957
3.1
51 Ibid.
52 Ibid.

CRS-19
Sectora
Thousands of jobs
Change
2004 2014
Thousands
Annual
of jobs,
average rate
2004-2014
of change
(%)
Automotive service
803
929
126
1.6
technicians and mechanics
Source: Created by CRS from data in Jay M. Berman, “Industry Output and Employment Projections
to 2014,” Monthly Labor Review, November 2004; and Daniel E. Hecker, “Occupational Employment
Projections to 2014,” Monthly Labor Review, November 2004.
a. Only those HGJTI sectors with unique categories in the North American Industrial Classification
system or the Standard Occupational Classification system are included.
b. IT occupations are computer specialists, including computer software engineers, computer support
specialists, computer programmers, network and computer systems administrators, and network
systems and data communications analysts.
Publicly available HGJTI documentation frequently observes that many existing
jobs will become available to individuals as the large baby-boom cohort retires.
Consequently, even those industries expected to create few if any new jobs could hire
workers as replacements for retirees. But industries projected to have fewer jobs in
the future compared to today could be less likely than others to experience a labor
shortage because they would not need to replace all departing older employees.
Sectors with a shrinking job base thus would not seem to be among the most
promising sources of employment for workers, but at least one — energy — is
present among the initiative’s sectors. As shown in Table 8, the energy sector
accounted for 7% of all HGJTI awards and 9% of the funds awarded to date in the
PY2001-PY2006 period. Similarly, as shown in Table 9, the energy sector
accounted for 9% of all CBJTG awards and 9% of the funds awarded thus far.

CRS-20
Table 8. High Growth Job Training Initiative (HGJTI) Awards
by Sectora
Number of
Percentage of
Funds
Percentage of
Sector
Awards
All Awards
Awarded
All Funds
Advanced Manufacturing
32
21%
$77,395,642
27%
Aerospace
7
5%
8,856,133
3%
Automotive
12
8%
14,385,956
5%
Biotechnology
16
11%
22,921,599
8%
Construction
9
6%
35,124,004
12%
Energy
11
7%
27,093,668
9%
Financial
5
3%
5,989,023
2%
Geospatial
6
4%
6,438,653
2%
Health Care
29
19%
43,244,709
15%
Hospitality
4
3%
4,337,000
2%
Information Technology
3
2%
7,806,982
3%
Retail
3
2%
5,164,900
2%
Transportation
3
2%
6,289,588
2%
Non-Specific Sector
10
7%
21,854,456
8%
Total
150
100%
286,902,313
100%
Source: Created by CRS from information in the DOL HGJTI Investment Center database and DOL
press releases.
a. The data in this table are for the PY2001-PY2005 and PY2006 through December 31, 2006, which
is through the sixth month of PY2006.

CRS-21
Table 9. Community Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG)
by Sector
Number of
Percentage of
Funds
Percentage
Sector
Awards
All Awardsa
Awards
of All Fundsa
Advanced Manufacturing
23
16%
$42,595,147
17%
Aerospace
2
1%
3,619,500
1%
Automotive
5
4%
6,285,555
3%
Biotechnology
7
5%
11,063,921
4%
Construction/Skilled Trades
10
7%
16,644,403
7%
Energy
13
9%
22,314,984
9%
Financial Services
1
1%
1,260,000
1%
Forestry
2
1%
3,316,974
1%
Geospatial
1
1%
1,928,457
1%
Health Care
67
47%
121,000,805
48%
Hospitality
1
1%
1,620,987
1%
IT
1
1%
708,476
0%
Transportation
8
6%
15,641,038
6%
Non-specific
1
1%
1,999,753
1%
Total
142
100%
250,000,000
100%
Source: Created by CRS from information in the DOL CBJT Investment Center database.
a. Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole percent and may not add to 100 because of rounding.
Alternatively, most of the sectors for which BLS data are available could be
substantial creators of new jobs. As shown in Table 7, the eight sectors are
construction, retail trade, transportation, finance, health care, hospitality, IT, and
automotive services. Of the HGJTI funds awarded thus far over the PY2001-PY2006
period, 43% went to projects involving these sectors. Of the CBJTG awards, nearly
two-thirds of the funds awarded to date went to projects in seven of the eight sectors
(not retail). (See Table 8 and Table 9, respectively.) The largest percentage of
CBJTG funds (48%) went to health care, compared to 15% of the HGJTI funds. The
difference in sector funding patterns between the two initiatives could be related to
the fields in which community colleges typically provide training.53
Firms in sectors projected to significantly increase employment also could hire
individuals to fill existing positions as current employees not only retire but also quit
or are discharged. Indeed, some of the fast-growing HGJTI sectors are marked by
53 One major difference between the HGJTI and CBJTC is that in the former, DOL chooses
the sectors in which to make awards, either competitively or non-competitively, while in the
CBJTG initiative, applicants compete for awards in any sector in their locality that they
determine meets the HGTJI’s high-growth criteria.

CRS-22
above-average rates of employee turnover (e.g., construction, retail trade, and
hospitality).54 High turnover is a characteristic commonly associated with poor-
quality jobs (e.g., low pay and few benefits).
Just as the sectors could vary in their ability to generate jobs, they also could
differ in their capacity to provide high-quality positions. The Secretary of Labor has
spoken about HGJTI projects “train[ing] workers for good paying jobs in high
growth fields,”55 and about CBJTI grants “train[ing] workers in high growth fields
that pay good wages.”56 Similarly, “[t]he goal of the WIRED initiative is ... to
research and produce long-term strategic plans that prepare workers for high-skill,
high-wage opportunities.”57 As shown in Table 10, several targeted sectors for
which BLS wage data are available pay comparatively well: energy, construction,
aerospace manufacturing, finance and insurance, and health care. In contrast,
average hourly earnings of $8.53 in the hospitality industry were a little more than
half of the national average ($16.11) in 2005, while average hourly earnings of
$12.36 in the retail trade industry were a little more than three-quarters of the
national average. Based upon data from a BLS survey of occupations, employees in
the four largest IT occupations had average hourly earnings in 2005 that ranged from
$20.86 (computer support specialists) to $40.54 (computer software engineers,
systems software).58 In contrast, automotive service technicians and mechanics
averaged $16.90 per hour, which is below the all-occupations’ average of $18.21.
Mirroring the mixed employment picture of the sectors that could be analyzed, the
variability in wage data suggests that the high-growth criteria might be fine-tuned to
better target industries expected to have plentiful job growth opportunities in
relatively high-paid occupations.
54 BLS, “Job Openings and Labor Turnover: April 2006,” News, USDL 06-943, June 6,
2006. In addition, HGJTI profiles of the hospitality and transportation sectors refer to
reducing turnover as a workforce challenge, as does the health care industry report, all of
which can be found at [http://www.doleta.gov/BRG/JobTrainInitiative/].
55 Remarks prepared for delivery by U.S. Secretary of Labor Elaine L. Chao, Johns Hopkins
Project Reach Visit, Baltimore, Maryland, Friday, January 6, 2006, available at
[http://www.dol.gov/_sec/media/speeches/20060106_hopkins.htm]. Italics added. See,
also, HGJTI industry reports, which typically state that the initiative is meant to help
workers “find good jobs with good wages and career paths.”
56 Remarks prepared for delivery by U.S. Secretary of Labor Elaine L. Chao, City Club of
Cleveland, Cleveland, Ohio, Thursday, February 2, 2006; available at [http://www.dol.gov/
_sec/media/speeches/20060202_cleveland.htm]. Italics added.
57 “Secretary of Labor Elaine L. Chao Announces $195 Million for President Bush’s
Competitiveness Agenda,” ETA News Release, Feb. 1, 2006. Italics added.
58 BLS, Occupational Employment Statistics survey, May 2005. Data available at
[http://www.bls.gov/oes/].

CRS-23
Table 10. Average Hourly Earnings of Production and
Nonsupervisory Workers in Selected HGJTI Industries, 2005
Industry
Average hourly earnings
All private nonfarm industries
$16.11
Energy
not available
Coal mining
22.06
Oil and gas extraction
19.34
Utilities
26.70
Construction
19.46
Manufacturing
16.56
Aerospace
24.80
Fabricated metal products
15.80
Motor vehicles and parts
22.27
Retail trade
12.36
Transportation and warehousing
16.71
Finance and insurance
19.09
Health care
17.98
Hospitality (accommodations and food services)
8.53
Source: Created by CRS from BLS Current Employment Statistics program data.
Coordination of the Demand-Driven Initiatives
and Title I of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA)
Title I of WIA, the nation’s chief job training legislation, provides services to
both workers and employers.59 In PY2006, programs and activities authorized under
Title I of WIA were funded at $5.1 billion, including $125 million for CBJTGs.
Services authorized under WIA are generally provided through a system of one-stop
career centers, that are “designed to help businesses find qualified workers and help
job-seekers and workers obtain employment and training services to advance their
careers.”60 There are approximately 3,500 centers nationwide.
59 DOL Fact Sheet, The Public Workforce System, Talent Development for Your Business,
available at [http://www.doleta.gov/business/pdf/Employers%20and%20the%20Public%
20Workforce%20System_final.pdf].
60 DOL Fact Sheet, One-Stop Employment and Training Services, at [http://www.doleta.gov/
programs/factsht/pdf/onestopemployment.pdf].

CRS-24
A one-stop system is created by the local workforce investment board (WIB)
with the agreement of the chief elected official (e.g., the mayor). The local WIB,
which is certified by the governor, has broad responsibility for developing a local
workforce investment system. To ensure that the local workforce investment system
is focused on employers as well as workers, the statute requires that a majority of the
board’s members be representatives of businesses and that the chairperson be one of
the businesses’ representatives.61
The two HGJTI SGAs that competitively funded 23 grants, 15% of all HGJTI
grants to date, and the two CBJTG SGAs that competitively funded all of the 142
CBJTG grants to date, address two ways Title I of WIA is to be coordinated with the
HGJTI and CBJTG initiative. First, each of the SGAs required that applicants
demonstrate that a proposed project be implemented by a “strategic” partnership that
included at least one entity from the workforce investment system (i.e., state and
local workforce investment boards, state workforce agencies, one-stop career centers
and their partners), the education and training community, and employers and
industry-related organizations. Second, each of the SGAs encouraged the applicants
to integrate WIA funding at the state and local level into their proposed project to
“ensure that the full spectrum of assets available from the workforce system is
leveraged to support” either the “HGJTI solution,” in the case of the HGJTI projects,
or “the capacity building and training activities,” in the case of the CBJTG projects.62
Examples provided in the SGAs of the integration of WIA funds included using (1)
supportive services (e.g., transportation, child care) funded under WIA, (2) individual
training accounts, which provide WIA participants with the opportunity to choose
training courses, and (3) WIA customized training, which is designed to meet the
special requirements of an employer.63
Another training resource, not mentioned in the SGAs, that has particular
benefit to employers is on-the-job training (OJT). With OJT, the employer provides
occupational training to a WIA participant in exchange for a reimbursement of up to
50% of the wage rate of the participant. This subsidy is to compensate the employer
“for the extraordinary costs associated with training participants and the costs
61 29 USC2832. Each state also has a WIB that is to assist the governor in setting statewide
workforce investment policy. Like the local WIB, a majority of state WIB members must
be representatives of businesses, and the chairperson must be one of those representatives.
(29 USC 2821). For the intent of Congress in carving out a role for businesses in WIA, see
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Education and the Workforce, Employment, Training,
and Literacy Enhancement Act of 1997, report to accompany H.R. 1385, 105th Cong., 1st
sess., H.Rept. 105-93, (Washington: GPO, 1997) p. 91, and U.S. Congress, Senate
Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Workforce investment Partnership Act of 1997,
report to accompany S. 1186, 105th Cong., 1st sess., S.Rept. 105-109 (Washington: GPO,
1997), p. 17.
62 For the HGJTI SGAs, see 69 Federal Register 56086, September 17, 2004, and 71
Federal Register 32564, June 6, 2006. For the CBJTG SGAs, see 70 Federal Register
22908, May 3, 2005, and 71 Federal Register 37952, July 3, 2006.
63 To receive customized training, the employer must commit to employ an individual on
successful completion of the training. The employer receives a subsidy of not more than
50% of the cost of the training.

CRS-25
associated with the lower productivity of the participants.”64 Both OJT and
customized training contracts may be written for eligible employed workers when an
employee is not earning a self-sufficient wage as determined by local board policy.
They may also be written when the OJT or customized training relates to the
introduction of new technologies, introduction of new production or service
procedures, or upgrading to new jobs that require additional skills, workplace
literacy, or other appropriate purposes identified by the local board.
In addition to the two training services particularly geared to employers, there
is also a WIA requirement that training services be directly linked to occupations that
are in demand in a local area, or in another area to which an adult or dislocated
worker receiving such services is willing to relocate. A local board may also approve
training services for occupations determined by the local board to be in sectors of the
economy that have a high potential for sustained demand or growth in the local area.
These training provisions, including OJT and customized training, can help to ensure
that workers find good jobs and that employers have access to the workers they need.
The WIRED SGA did not specifically mention partnerships that include the
workforce investment system. WIRED partnerships are to include “change agents
representing an array of key interests including government, academia, business,
community development and entrepreneurship.”65 The WIRED SGA also did not
specifically address the integration of WIA resources. All applicants were required,
however, to describe how resources under existing federal, state and local programs
“will be aligned....”66 Other provisions of the WIRED SGA related to coordination
with WIA (1) required applicants to “clearly link goals and associated strategies to
addressing the identified workforce and economic development challenges”67; (2)
required applicants to “demonstrate that strategies are built upon and align with
current state and local strategic plans currently in place” under, among other things,
the Workforce Investment Act,68 and (3) permitted applicants to “identify federal
regulatory and statutory barriers that impede their reform efforts and identify specific
waiver requests pursuant to WIA Sections 189 [general WIA waiver authority] and/or
192 [workforce flexibility plans] and the relevant WIA regulations.”69
While the WIRED SGA is not particularly specific on the role of WIA in the
initiative, WIA does contain many pertinent provisions. The only provision that
64 20 CFR §663.710.
65 WIRED SGA, p. 10.
66 Specific resources cited on page 11 of the WIRED SGA were “any existing grants such
as: (1) grants awarded under the President’s High-Growth Job Training Initiative; (2)
Community-Development Block Grants; (3) grants from the Department of Commerce’s
Economic Development Agency; (4) Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community
designations; and (5) foundation grants focused on workforce development or economic
development.”
67 WIRED SGA p. 11.
68 Ibid. Other entities listed were the Department of Commerce’s economic development
programs, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s community
development programs.
69 Ibid.

CRS-26
appears incompatible with the WIRED initiative is the prohibition on the use of WIA
funds for economic development activities.70 WIA staff may participate, however,
on economic development boards and commissions, and work with economic
development agencies to provide information about WIA programs; assist in making
informed decisions about community job training needs; and promote the use of first
source hiring agreements, which require private companies that receive public
monies to agree to use the public sector as the first source for job hires.
In addition, governors may include state agency officials responsible for
economic development on state WIBs. The membership of local boards must consist
of representatives of economic development agencies, including private sector
economic development entities. Finally, the state plan must contain information
describing the skills and economic development needs of the state.
Other WIA provisions relevant to all three demand-driven initiatives are those
that pertain to regional and interstate planning, information sharing, and
coordination. Under WIA, a state may require the local boards for a designated
region71 to participate in a regional planning process that results in establishing
regional performance measures for workforce investment activities. A state may also
require the local boards for a designated region to share employment statistics,
information about employment opportunities and trends, and other types of
information that would assist in improving the performance of all local areas in the
designated region. Further, a state may require the local boards for a designated
region to coordinate the provision of workforce investment activities, including the
provision of transportation and other supportive services, so that they extend across
the boundaries of local areas within the designated region. Likewise, two or more
states that contain an interstate region that is a labor market area, economic
development region, or other appropriate contiguous subarea of the states may
designate the area as a region for joint planning, information sharing and
coordination of services.
70 29 U. S. C. 2931(e)
71 A designated region is a combination of local areas that are partly or completely in a
single labor market area, economic development region, or other appropriate contiguous
subarea of a state.

CRS-27
Policy Questions
for Potential Congressional Oversight
The 110th Congress may decide to conduct oversight hearings on the President’s
demand-driven initatives. The following are questions Congress may wish to address
in its oversight role.
(1) In the HGJTI and CBJTG SGAs, DOL has stated that it may require that projects
participate in an overall evaluation of the outcomes and benefits of the projects.72
Grantees were required to agree to make records on participants, employers and
funding available and to provide access to program operating personnel and to
participants. Does DOL plan to fund an independent evaluation of these grants? If
yes, would the study examine implementation issues, achievement of goals and
outcomes, or both? What is the time line? Would grants that were awarded non-
competitively be evaluated (i.e, those for which there was no SGA)?
(2) As noted earlier in this report, DOL has stated that “These [three] initiatives are
meant to demonstrate how talent development can increase productivity and drive
economic growth. They will help American workers benefit from the growth in the
global economy.”73 How will DOL measure whether the initiatives increased
productivity, promoted economic growth, and enabled participants to gain from
gloablization? How long after the completion of the grants would it be prudent to
determine if these goals were met?
(3) In the HGJTI, CBJTG, and WIRED SGAs, grantees were required to submit
quarterly financial and progress reports and a final report. Information to be included
in the quarterly reports included a status update on leveraged resources and strategic
partner activities. (a) What was the value and nature of the leveraged resources?
That is, were they primarily cash or in-kind? Were they from federal, state, local
government, private for-profit, or private non-profit resources? Were there any
barriers to obtaining the leveraged resources? (b) What was the nature of the
partnerships? What types of activities did partnerships engage in? What were the
most successful ones in terms of meeting project goals? Were there barriers to
forming partnerships? How did the partnerships differ from the composition of
workforce investment boards under WIA?
(4) The SGAs also required the grantees to describe outcomes including information
on all capacity building, training, employer, and grant deliverable outcomes as well
the anticipated impact of these outcomes on the community college and industry
partners, and on the broader community. How will DOL determine if the outcomes
anticipated by the grantees came to fruition?
72 The WIRED SGA required that selected applicants participate in an evaluation of the
initiative. As previously noted in this report, the RFP for this evaluation has been issued.
73 Testimony of DOL Secretary Elaine L. Chao, in U.S. Congress, House Committee on
Education and the Workforce, Building America’s Competitiveness: Examining What Is
Needed to Compete in a Global Economy, Washington, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., Apr. 6, 2006,
Serial 109-34 (Washington: GPO, 2006).

CRS-28
(5) The SGAs also required the grantees to describe promising approaches. What
were the promising approaches to meeting the needs of employers and workers? Will
they be shared with other local communities? How? Were there promising
approaches that are relevant to reauthorization of WIA?
(6) Were any of the criteria for sector selection better predictors than others of
participants’ ability to obtain jobs — particularly fairly high-paying positions? Were
some sectors better than others at providing opportunities for workers to obtain
employment — particularly high-paying jobs? Does DOL anticipate reexamining the
14 sectors it chose to target for HGJTI awards?
(7) In the HGJTI SGAs, DOL states that for each of the 14 sectors identified by DOL,
comprehensive industry reports are published after executive and workforce solutions
forums have been held. Reports have been released for advanced manufacturing,
aerospace, automotive, biotechnology, construction and healthcare. To date, reports
have not been put on-line for energy, financial, geospatial, hospitality, IT, retail
sectors and transportation, although awards have been made in each of these
sectors.74 What is the purpose of the reports? Were they perhaps intended to assist
applicants in designing projects which could be funded by DOL? Will reports
become available for all of the sectors or did DOL discontinue them? If the latter,
why?
(8) Under the WIRED SGA, applicants could identify specific regulatory and
statutory waivers under WIA’s waiver and work-flex authorities that could assist
applicants in their reform efforts.75 DOL also was to work with grant participants in
identifying waivers. What areas were identified by applicants and grantees as
requiring waivers to address impediments to reform? Were the areas identified
permissible under the statute?
(9) The WIRED SGA did not require that at least one entity from the workforce
investment system (i.e., state and local workforce investment boards, state workforce
agencies, and one-stop career centers) be included in a partnership to implement the
project as it did in the HGJTI and CBJTG SGAs. To what extent, if any, is the
workforce investment system involved in WIRED?
(10) Many activities funded by HGJTI and CBJTG are those traditionally supported
by the Department of Education (ED) (e.g., distance education, curriculum
development). In what ways are these initiatives coordinated with ED? For example,
in 2002, ED created the Community College Labor Market Responsiveness Initiative
to develop and disseminate information to help community colleges keep pace with
the needs of a diverse student body and a dynamic labor market. In 2003, a report
was published on defining the characteristics of a market-driven college, and in 2004,
a three-volume guide was published to assist colleges wanting to become more
74 No report has been written for homeland security, but no awards have been made in this
area.
75 These authorities are under WIA Sections 189 and 192.

CRS-29
market-driven.76 Did DOL use the products of this initiative to inform the
development and implementation of the HGJTI and CBJTG initiatives?
(11) The mission of the Department of Commerce’s Economic Development
Administration (EDA) is “to lead the federal economic development agenda by
promoting innovation and competitiveness, preparing American regions for growth
and success in the worldwide economy.”77 While one of EDA’s key investment
programs is to expand and upgrade physical infrastructure, EDA also invests in
partnership planning, which it describes as supporting Economic Development
Districts, Indian Tribes, and others with long-term planning efforts.78 The Commerce
Department’s FY2007 Budget Justification says that, EDA “will focus on promoting
regional economic development strategies and demonstrating performance.”79 The
justification further states that “To implement the goals and objectives of the
Strengthening America’s Communities Initiative (SACI), the Economic
Development Administration will work in partnership with HUD to establish a
results-based Federal economic development framework, thus empowering
America’s communities to achieve and maintain global competitiveness.”80 Is DOL’s
WIRED initiative, which is intended to transform and rebuild regional economies,
duplicative of these EDA activities? Is EDA working in partnership with DOL as
well as with HUD? Was any of EDA’s FY2005 budget of $255.4 million or FY2006
budget of $250.7 million used in conjunction with the WIRED initiative?81
76 Westat and the Academy for Educational Development, Documented Characteristics of
Labor Market-Responsive Community Colleges and a Review of Supporting Literature,
2003, and MacAllum, Keith et al., Academy for Educational Development, The
21st-Century Community College: A Strategic Guide to Maximizing Labor Market
Responsiveness, 2004.
77 EDA, Overview of Programs and Priorities, Ben Erulkar, Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Commerce for Economic Development, July 28, 2006, p 2.
78 Ibid, p.3
79 Department of Commerce, Budget Justification FY2007, p.71.
80 Ibid.
81 Ibid.