Policy Recommendations from the
National Association of State Job Training Coordinating Council Chairs

... [ Contents || Back to Policy Papers || Home Page ]

State Job Training Coordinating Councils are authorized under the Job Training Partnership Act to advise governors on state Job Training Partnership Act programs and related education, job training, and employment policy and programs. The National Association of State Job Training Coordinating Council Chairs, organized in 1988 by the Chairs of the individual State Councils, provides a unified voice for State Councils on job training and employment issues, works to strengthen employment and training programs, and coordinates with other national organizations engaged in areas of common interests. Staff support is provided by the Employment and Social Services Policy Studies Division of the Center for Policy Research of the National Governors' Association.


© 1993 by the National Association of State Job Training Coordinating Council Chairs

This publication was prepared for the SJTCC Chairs' Association by the National Governors' Association. However, the opinions and recommendations contained in this report do not necessarily represent policy positions of the National Governors' Association or individual Governors.

Contents
Forward v
Policy Recommendations
Introduction
Program Recommendations
System Recommendations

Attachments
Attachment A: Selected Terms to Be Considered for Standardization
Attachment B: Fiscal Barriers
Attachment C: Comments from Other National
Organizations

Forward ... [ Contents ]
The need for an integrated, high quality, and cost effective human resource investment system has never been more clear. The quality of our workforce will be a critical factor in determining our nation's economic future, our status as a world leader, and our standard of living.

There is wide agreement that the current workforce training system in the United States is not organized to meet the challenges of the future. Separate federal programs operate in the absence of an overarching policy framework that ties them together. Programs are delivered in a fragmented, duplicative manner leading to job training that too often fails to meet individual, workplace, or economic needs.

The National Association of Job Training Coordinating Council Chairs believes it is time for a change. It is time to organize the collection of existing federal programs into a coherent, cost effective, and accountable human resource investment system. It is time to bring down the barriers that separate federal programs and to create the mechanisms by which they can be brought together into a comprehensive system at the federal, state, and local levels.

"Bring Down the Barriers" offers a policy framework for accomplishing this important task. The Chairs' Association considers it a starting point for productive dialogue leading to a more effective and efficient human resource investment system for the nation. The Chairs' Association has encouraged and provided leadership to this dialogue throughout the development of these recommendations. As the letters enclosed from other national organizations with an interest in workforce development suggest, there is general agreement that barriers must be eliminated and a more coordinated, systemic approach to workforce development established. It is this broad agreement on the need for change that offers an opportunity for developing greater consensus on the pathways to change.

The National Association of State Job Training Coordinating Council Chairs believes that the nation's economic future depends on its success in finding common ground from which a more effective workforce development system can grow. The Chairs' Association welcomes the opportunity to facilitate the dialogue that such consensus building will require.


Rodo Sofranac
Chair
National Association of State Job Training
Coordinating Council Chairs

BRING DOWN THE BARRIERS

Policy Recommendations from the National Association of
State Job Training Coordinating Council Chairs

Introduction ... [ Contents ]
The need for a coordinated, integrated, cost-effective human resource investment system has never been more clear. The workforce, its abilities and capabilities, will be one--if not the most important--determining factor in our economic future. And our country's economic future will be synonymous with our future as a world leader. More importantly, it will determine how well we and our children can expect to live in the 90's and beyond.

Given the critical need for a "world class" human resource investment system, what do we have in place today? The system that has been created at the federal level is little more than a collection of programs developed by various congressional committees in response to particular needs of targeted populations. They are programs that provide a wide array of similar, often identical services. They are programs that in many instances serve the same people. They are programs that individually are underfunded but collectively spend nearly $10 billion a year. In the final analysis, they are programs that for the most part go about their job in a totally independent fashion, resulting in a fragmented response to the interrelated needs of the people who need their help. The federal programs that fall into this category include the following.

• Job Training Partnership Act.
• Carl Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act.
• Adult Education Act.
• Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training Title of the Family Support Act.
• Economic Dislocation and Worker Adjustment Assistance Act.
• Trade Adjustment Assistance Act.
• Wagner­Peyser Act.
• Vocational Rehabilitation Act.
• Food Stamps, Employment and Training Programs.
• Refugee Assistance Act.
• State Legalization Impact Assistance Grants.
• Stewart McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, Employment and Training.
• Title V, The Older Americans Act.

Program Recommendations ... [ Contents ]
While there is strong sentiment for a total rebuilding of the system from the ground up, reality dictates that every effort be made to work with the existing collection of programs to form them into a rational, cost-effective, accountable human resource investment system. To accomplish this, the legal and institutional barriers that have provided reasons for keeping these programs apart must be brought down. To that end, the State Chairs' Association strongly recommends that Congress and the federal government take the following action regarding these programs:

1. Develop and require all programs to use a core information system with uniform terms and definitions. This core system should at a minimum capture basic demographic information, record services provided, and report outcomes obtained. The system should be set up so that all programs share information and can eliminate duplicative data collection. (See Attachment A for examples of terms to be considered for standardization.)

2. Develop a complementary set of results-oriented performance standards that lead to long term self­sufficiency for all the programs in the system and then use these outcome measures to manage the programs.

3. Standardize the fiscal and administrative procedures and cost categories that currently apply to the programs. By doing this, a level playing field can be created that will facilitate program integration. (See Attachment B for examples.)

4. Require each state to construct a single, integrated human resource investment plan that establishes goals, objectives, and outcome expectations for each of the programs involved.

System Recommendations ... [ Contents ]
Along with the need for attacking the barriers that have effectively served to keep programs apart for decades, the State Chairs recognize the need for establishing groups at the federal, state, and local levels to take a leadership role in bringing the above referenced programs together as a system. To this end, the following recommendations are strongly endorsed:

1. Establish a Federal Human Resource Investment Board by Presidential executive order. This board should have a majority of members from the private sector, and should include the majority and minority leadership of the House and Senate along with representatives from the applicable federal agencies that administer workforce investment programs. The board should be vested with the authority to grant waivers to provisions of existing law and regulations to facilitate program integration and experimentation.

The ability to waive federal regulations and conflicting portions of laws is absolutely critical if we truly want to hasten the building of a coordinated human resource investment system. This was a key recommendation of the NGA report Streamlining and Integrating Human Resource Development Services for Adults. Private sector involvement and human resource integration is good for states, and will be helpful at the federal level as well.

We need to replace the current fragmented policymaking process with a streamlined, consolidated, coordinated approach that includes agencies having programmatic responsibility, the legislative branch, the private sector (who are the consumers of our human resource products and services), labor, and the public interest community.

These are the players that we want at both the state HRIC level and in a comparable HRIC at the federal level. These are also the kind of representatives that have made the workforce development policy boards of Europe and Japan more effective. It is clear that some public/private sector policy board, vested with the ability to foster generic national policy and tear down the barriers that prevent state and local areas from building an integrated system, is critically needed.

2. Encourage states to establish State Human Resource Investment Councils to replace all existing councils and boards required under these federal statutes. This HRIC should be vested with the responsibility for planning, developing, and monitoring a comprehensive workforce investment system in every state. It is strongly recommended that Congress provide incentives for states to establish HRIC's, and that technical assistance be provided to the states and localities through public interest groups such as the National Governors' Association, the National Association of Counties, the National Association of Private Industry Councils, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and similar national organizations with recognized legitimacy in human resource investment.


3. Encourage local jurisdictions to establish Human Resource Investment Boards to oversee all programs at the local level and be vested with the authority to approve or disapprove local plans for federal funds. The majority of human resource investment services are delivered by local program providers, and while the state and local role differs vastly, the idea of a private sector/government board at the local level, with the authority to require integrated planning and to provide a single point of oversight and accountability, is believed to be essential.

Local elected officials would be charged with the responsibility of establishing a private sector/government board to fulfill this function. Existing PICs may be used if appropriate, but if unable to handle the function, local elected officials would be able to reconstitute a more appropriate PIC for this purpose. In order to be successful, PICs or reconstituted PICs will need to include individuals who have responsibility for or experience and expertise with other human resource development programs such as literacy, vocational education, skill upgrading, unemployment insurance, economic development, postsecondary student financial aid programs, and so forth.

The Chairs' Association believes that change to our existing system is critically needed if we are to create a world class workforce. The changes outlined will provide an opportunity for states and local jurisdictions to move aggressively to pull the existing programs together as one system that can address the needs we face, be accountable, and make the greatest use of the available resources.

ATTACHMENT A... [ Contents ]

SELECTED TERMS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR STANDARDIZATION

It is understood that the standardization of all the terms listed below may not be feasible initially. Immediate work on common definitions should focus on those terms that affect eligibility determination.

ATTACHMENT B ... [ Contents || Home Page ]

FISCAL BARRIERS

Cost Categories
Cost categories vary dramatically from program to program, making it difficult to manage programs funds by multiple sources. For example, JOBS requires each dollar spent to be identified with ten or eleven program activities and two different matching rates. JTPA has three specific cost categories: administration, direct training services, and training­related and supportive services. Support and administration are defined differently in JTPA and JOBS. EDWAA has some similar, but some different, cost categories: administration, support services and needs­related payments, retraining, basic adjustment, and rapid response. The Adult Education Act requires state and local matching. AEA state administrative expenses include all management and supervisory expenditures and expenditures for state advisory councils. At the local level, 95 percent of the grant must be spent on adult education instructional activities. The remaining funds may be used for local administrative costs, including planning, administration, evaluation, personnel development, and coordination. Other AEA cost categories at the state level include programs in public housing, special projects, and teacher instruction. Instructional programs include local expenditures for client training. The vocational education legislation has categories for state administration, state leadership, sex equity, offenders, and single parents and displaced homemakers.


Cost Limitations

Cost limitations now are defined differently across programs. For example, JTPA Title IIA and IIC allow up to 20 percent to be spent on administration, and no less than 50 percent on direct training. Alternatively, JOBS does not have cost limitations, except as they impact on matching rates; JOBS does have minimum cost levels for target groups. EDWAA has three cost limitations. First, 50 percent of annual SSA expenditures must be on retraining services. Second, end­of­year administrative expenditures are not to exceed 15 percent of total program year expenditures. Finally, there is a cap of 25 percent for support services and needs­related payments at the state and substate level. As of July l, l99l, there was a 5 percent cap on state administrative expenses under the Adult Education Act. Local administrative costs are equal to 5 percent, but this amount is subject to negotiations with the state education department. Funds for the AEA's state­level special demonstration projects and teacher training programs currently are pegged at not less than 15 percent of the state grant; of this, two­thirds must be spent on training. AEA also contains a 10 percent setaside for institutionalized adults and allows the state to determine the setaside for public housing authority programs. The Perkins legislation allows 5 percent or $250,000 for state administration, whichever is higher; of this amount $60,000 must be spent for sex equity administration. The federal funds also must be matched dollar for dollar with state funds. Both the AEA and Perkins legislation also require "maintenance of effort" at the state and local levels. States and local agencies must match or exceed their expenditures in the previous year.


Funds Obligated and Carryover Provisions
Currently, programs have different carryover provisions. For example, JOBS does not allow any funds to be carried over to the next fiscal year, but does allow for obligated funds to be liquidated during the twelve months following the end of the fiscal year. The JTPA program year is different than the JOBS fiscal year. JTPA gives two additional years to obligate allowable carryovers of up to 15 percent of funds allocated in a specific fiscal year. EDWAA allows only a 20 percent carryover of the state allotment from one year to the next. Both the Adult Education Act and the Carl Perkins Vocational Education and Applied Technology Act are forward­funded because school budgets are prepared about a year in advance. Therefore, funds under AEA and Perkins can be carried over for twenty­seven months. If not expended in this time, funds revert to the federal government.

[ Back to Policy Papers || Home Page ]