IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WORKFORCE 

INVESTMENT ACT: PROMISING PRACTICES IN 

WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT 

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21ST CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND 

THE WORKFORCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, SEPTEMBER 12, 2002 

Serial No. 107-77 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education 

and the Workforce

82-406 pdf 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office 

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 

 FAX: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
ii

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio, Chairman 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin GEORGE MILLER, California 

MARGE ROUKEMA, New Jersey DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina MAJOR R. OWENS, New York 

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

HOWARD P. “BUCK” McKEON, California PATSY MINK, Hawaii 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas TIM ROEMER, Indiana 

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania ROBERT C. “BOBBY” SCOTT, Virginia 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan 

CHARLIE W. NORWOOD, JR., Georgia RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas 

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York 

FRED UPTON, Michigan JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

VAN HILLEARY, Tennessee RON KIND, Wisconsin 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee 

JIM DeMINT, South Carolina DENNIS KUCINICH, Ohio 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia DAVID WU, Oregon 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania SUSAN DAVIS, California 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota 

 RIC KELLER, Florida 

 TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

 Paula Nowakowski, Chief of Staff 

 John Lawrence, Minority Staff Director

 SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21st CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS 

 HOWARD P. “BUCK” McKEON, California, Chairman

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia, Vice Chairman PATSY MINK, Hawaii

JOHN BOEHNER, Ohio JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware RON KIND, Wisconsin 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina DAVID WU, Oregon 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan 

FRED UPTON, Michigan BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas 

TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska 
iii

Table of Contents 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BUCK McKEON, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21ST

CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE 

WORKFORCE ............................................................................................................................... 2

OPENING STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN JOHN TIERNEY, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

21ST CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE 

WORKFORCE ............................................................................................................................... 4

STATEMENT OF BRUCE STENSLIE, DIRECTOR, VENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, 

WORKFORCE INVESTMENT BOARD, AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE VENTURA 

COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, VENTURA, CA ..................................................... 6

STATEMENT OF DANNY WEGMAN, PRESIDENT, WEGMANS FOOD MARKETS, INC., 

ROCHESTER, NY ......................................................................................................................... 8

STATEMENT OF DIANE D. RATH, CHAIR, TEXAS WORKFORCE COMMISSION, AND 

COMMISSIONER REPRESENTING THE PUBLIC, AUSTIN, TX ........................................ 10

STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY BARNICLE, CO-DIRECTOR, WORKFORCE 

DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM, NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATION AND THE 

ECONOMY, WASHINGTON, D.C............................................................................................. 12

APPENDIX A - WRITTEN OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BUCK McKEON, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21ST CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS, COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE................................................................................... 27

APPENDIX B - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF BRUCE STENSLIE, DIRECTOR, VENTURA 

COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, WORKFORCE INVESTMENT BOARD, AND DEPUTY 

DIRECTOR OF THE VENTURA COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, VENTURA, CA

...................................................................................................................................................... 33

APPENDIX C - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DANNY WEGMAN, PRESIDENT, 

WEGMANS FOOD MARKETS, INC., ROCHESTER, NY....................................................... 49

APPENDIX D - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DIANE D. RATH, CHAIR, TEXAS 

WORKFORCE COMMISSION, AND COMMISSIONER REPRESENTING THE PUBLIC, 

AUSTIN, TX ................................................................................................................................ 57
iv

APPENDIX E - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY BARNICLE, CO-DIRECTOR, 

WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM, NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATION 

AND THE ECONOMY, WASHINGTON, D.C. ......................................................................... 65

APPENDIX F – SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, A SAMPLING OF PROMISING 

PRACTICES FROM THE NATION’S WORKFORCE INVESTMENT SYSTEM, TIMOTHY 

BARNICLE, CO-DIRECTOR, WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM, NATIONAL 

CENTER ON EDUCATION AND THE ECONOMY, WASHINGTON, D.C. ......................... 81

APPENDIX G – DOCUMENT/BROCHURES AVAILABLE IN PERMANENT ARCHIVE 

FILE, VENTURA COUNTY’S WORKFORCE INVESTMENT BOARD, BUILDING OUR 

FUTURE WORKFORCE, VENTURA, CA .............................................................................. 147

Table of Indexes.......................................................................................................................... 149
1

HEARING ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT: 

PROMISING PRACTICES IN WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT 

____________________

Thursday, September 12, 2002 

Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 

 The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:45 a.m., in Room 2175, Rayburn House 

Office Building, Hon. Howard P. “Buck” McKeon, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

 Present: Representatives McKeon, Isakson, Boehner, Ehlers, Tierney, Wu, Andrews, and 

Hinojosa.

 Staff present: Stephanie Milburn, Professional Staff Member; Travis McCoy, Legislative 

Assistant; Heather Valentine, Press Secretary; Patrick Lyden, Professional Staff Member; Alexa 

Callin, Communications Staff Assistant; Deborah L. Samantar, Committee Clerk/Intern 

Coordinator.

Peter Rutledge, Minority Senior Legislative Associate/Labor; Michele Varnhagen, Minority Labor 

Counsel/Coordinator; Dan Rawlins, Minority Staff Assistant/Labor; and Suzanne Palmer, Minority 

Legislative Assistant. 
2

Chairman McKeon. A quorum being present, the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness 

will come to order. 

Mrs. Mink is still in the hospital, and we don't have any further update. Maybe Mr. Tierney 

will have more to say. But we just want all of you to know that we send our best wishes to her and 

hope for her speedy return. Mr. Tierney will be sitting in the chair as the Ranking Member in her 

absence today. 

 We are meeting today to hear testimony on the implementation of the Workforce 

Investment Act. Under Committee rule 12(b), opening statements are limited to the Chairman and 

the Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee. Therefore, if other Members have statements, 

they may be included in the hearing record. 

 With that, I ask unanimous consent for the hearing record to remain open 14 days to allow 

Member statements and other extraneous material referenced during the hearing to be submitted in 

the official hearing record. Without objection, so ordered. 

 I will begin now with my opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BUCK McKEON, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21ST CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS, COMMITTEE 

ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

 Good morning. Thank you for joining us for this important hearing today to hear testimony 

on the implementation of the Workforce Investment Act. This will be our first hearing on 

workforce development issues as we look toward reauthorization next Congress. 

 In 1988, under this Committee's leadership, Congress passed the Workforce Investment Act 

to reform the nation's job training system that formerly was fragmented, contained overlapping 

programs, and did not serve either job seekers or employers well. We have consolidated and 

integrated employment and training services at the local level in a more unified workforce 

development system. 

 The Act created three funding streams to provide for adult employment and training 

services, dislocated workers' employment and training services, and youth development services.

These services are directed by the local Workforce investment boards, which are required to have a 

majority of their members representing business. 

 One of the hallmarks of the new system is that in order to encourage the development of 

comprehensive systems that improve services to both employers and job seekers, local services are 

provided through a one-stop delivery system. At the one-stop centers, assistance ranges from core 

services such as job search and placement assistance, access to job listings, and an initial 
3

assessment of skills and needs; intensive services such as comprehensive assessments and case 

management; and, if needed, occupational skills training. 

In addition, to further promote a seamless system of services for job seekers and employers, 

numerous other federal programs also must make their services available through the one-stop 

systems. During consideration of the welfare reauthorization bill, the House made the Temporary 

Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program a mandatory partner in the one-stop system, unless 

the governor declines to do so. This will serve to further coordinate federal funding streams. 

 Clearly, the WIA system contains the Federal Government's primary programs for 

investment in our nation's workforce preparation. Even though the system is still maturing since its 

full implementation in July of 2000, states and local areas have created comprehensive services and 

effective one-stop delivery systems. In addition, the training services provided through WIA are 

invaluable in assistant adult workers in areas of the country facing skill shortages. 

 Nonetheless, there have been problems with the system, resulting from the implementation 

of the law. For example, we have heard of the need to increase the contribution of the mandatory 

partners in the one-stop career centers; to simplify the local and state governance process; and to 

strengthen the private sector's role. Over the next year, we will examine all of these issues in an 

effort to enhance the system so that it will continue to meet the training and employment needs of 

the information-based, highly skilled 21st century workforce. 

 One of the largest aspects that we will have to address is the ongoing problem of funding 

under WIA. For the last couple of years, the Department of Labor has recommended reductions for 

the workforce system due to the excessive carryover amount in the state coffers. While Congress 

has rejected these cuts, it has augmented the concern over the Federal Government's commitment 

to the system by rescinding funding from the dislocated worker program. 

 All of these funding reductions come at a time when the General Accounting Office (GAO) 

has reached the conclusion that the Department of Labor lacks accurate information for 

determining states' available funds, mainly because states report expenditures and obligations 

inconsistently, and the Department does not consider obligations when it reports to Congress on 

available funds under WIA. The GAO also believes that states are on track to expand all of their 

funding in the statutorily authorized three-year time frame. 

Next year, the Committee will focus attention on addressing some of the funding and 

reporting issues raised by the GAO. The Committee will explore whether this lack of information 

on strategies for better managing expenditures is subjecting states to reductions, thereby creating 

funding instability and inhibiting strategic planning. 

 Given that this system is implemented at the state and local level, I believe that it is critical 

that we hear from those in the field that work with these programs on a daily basis before we 

reauthorize WIA. As a result, in the near future those in the field working with adults and at-risk 

youth will be able to log on to the Committee's web site and make recommendations on improving 

the law. We have offered similar opportunities for both the reauthorization of the Higher 
4

Education Act, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and have had great success. 

 Today we will begin the process of hearing from states, localities, businesses and other 

entities that oversee and direct the workforce development system. In addition, the Subcommittee 

will hear from an individual who works for a national organization that provides technical 

assistance on implementation. The witnesses will describe the transition to WIA since the law's 

enactment. We hope to learn of promising practices and how you have used the flexibility of WIA 

to drive workforce development in your areas. In addition, the witnesses will offer 

recommendations on reauthorization, and the Subcommittee welcomes your insights. 

WRITTEN OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BUCK McKEON, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21ST CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS, COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE – SEE APPENDIX A 

Chairman McKeon. I now yield to Congressman Tierney for his opening statement. 

Mr. Tierney. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome all of our witnesses here today.

I don't have an awful lot to add about our colleague, Patsy Mink, except that she has been in 

the hospital and in intensive care for some time since September 1st. We are all hoping that she 

has a speedy recovery. We are keeping a tab on that, and we will express your wishes to her for 

getting well, along with our own. We appreciate your thoughts in that regard. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN JOHN TIERNEY, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21ST CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS, COMMITTEE 

ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

 I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having these hearings, and for having had the 

opportunity to work with you in the past on this issue. This is an issue that, by and large has had a 

great bipartisan effort, and I think everybody is intent on working within the education, labor, and 

business communities to make sure that our workforce is the best that it can possibly be, and that 

our employers and employees all derive as much as they possibly can out of the resources that the 

federal and local governments are able to apply. 

 I am concerned, as you are, Mr. Chairman, that we have had an attempt by the 

Administration to rescind funds in the past, and was happy to join with you on correspondence to 

our colleagues, to the White House, and to the Administration in an effort to overturn that concept.

I also think that it is not healthy that the budget proposes a reduction of $655 million, which is not 

going to help move forward the efforts that we need on this. It would cut the adult program by $50 

million, cut dislocated worker programs by $166 million, and cut the youth program by $127 

million, which is simply unacceptable in terms of having this program go forward. 
5

 I think we are going to hear some examples of what good can be done under this program 

this morning, and I am anxious to get to that. We have had a number of different opportunities 

throughout New England, as well as in my district in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to talk 

to people that are actively involved on the Workforce investment boards. They talk about 

integrating the adult basic education services, they talk about clarifying WIA's expectation of 

whether it's going to be work-first or training with a heavy emphasis from most of the business 

community to have more training, to get people ready to work in jobs that are going to be more 

meaningful and more rewarding for them, and hopefully for their employers. 

 We talk about making sure that there's universal access for core services, and intensive 

training services for lower-income individuals. We would, as you mentioned, like to talk about 

mandating resource sharing among partners at both the federal and the state level, and mandating 

TANF as a partner, so that it works more seamlessly and probably gets everybody the resources 

they need in a better way. 

 We have pages of different suggestions from people. We look forward to talking about all 

those in the upcoming hearings. I thank you again for conducting these hearings, and look forward 

to working with you, and thank again our witnesses for being here today, in particular Mr. Barnicle, 

who is an old friend of all of my colleagues and mine from Massachusetts. And we happen to 

know personally his good work, and we look forward to working with him. 

 Thank you. 

Chairman McKeon. Thank you, Mr. Tierney. 

Now I will introduce our witnesses. First, we will hear from Bruce Stenslie. Mr. Stenslie is 

the Director for the Ventura County Workforce investment board and Deputy Director of the 

Ventura County Human Services Agency. He represents a progressive workforce board that 

advocates welfare development through integration of workforce education, welfare, and economic 

development programs. 

 Our second witness is Danny Wegman. Since 1976, Mr. Wegman has served as the 

President of Wegmans Food Markets, Inc., located in Rochester, New York. Mr. Wegman 

graduated with honors from Harvard University with a degree in economics and still went into the 

food business. 

[Laughter.]

I grew up in the grocery business. He is active in the community, serving on the Board of 

Directors for the United Way in Rochester, on the board of directors for the Rochester Business 

Education Alliance, as well as other service-oriented activities. 

 Then we will hear from Diane Rath. Ms. Rath is Chair of the Texas Workforce 

Commission and the Commissioner Representing the Public. Before assuming that position, Ms. 

Rath served as the Senior Director of Public Affairs for Kinetic Concepts, Inc. She has also served 
6

as Chair for the Texas Council on the Workforce and Economic Competitiveness. 

 Our final witness is Timothy Barnicle. Since 1997, Mr. Barnicle has served as Co-Director, 

Workforce Development Program, National Center on Education and the Economy. Prior to 

serving in this position, he was Assistant Secretary of Labor for Policy and Budget, and for 

Employment and Training, for the United States Department of Labor. 

 Before you begin, I would like to remind you how the lights work. Your full testimonies 

will be included in the record, and if you want to read that or give a synopsis, that is up to you. 

You have five minutes; the yellow light indicates one minute left, and at five minutes the world 

ends.

[Laughter.]

We will hear now from Mr. Stenslie. 

STATEMENT OF BRUCE STENSLIE, DIRECTOR, VENTURA COUNTY, 

CALIFORNIA, WORKFORCE INVESTMENT BOARD, AND DEPUTY 

DIRECTOR OF THE VENTURA COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, 

VENTURA, CA 

Good morning, Chairman McKeon. Thank you for the invitation to testify today on the 

important matter of our nation's workforce system. And special thanks from the Ventura County 

Workforce Board and our County Board of Supervisors, who really appreciate and respect the 

leadership and work your Subcommittee has done to give us a system that is very nice to work 

with.

 I am going to address just a couple of things today, some best practices, some challenges, 

and some solutions. The first area I would like to comment on is the linkage in Ventura County 

that we have been able to achieve between the Workforce Investment Act and implementing 

welfare reform. 

 We implement our welfare reform system in Ventura County directly through our one-stop 

system. We do this not by making our one-stops in welfare service, but rather by making welfare a 

component of a comprehensive workforce system in the county. And we are very proud; we think 

this works very well. I think it is very duplicable across the country. We are even moving in a 

direction now that has policy direction for implementing TANF programs in Ventura County, 

under the policy direction of our Workforce Board, giving business leadership the opportunity to 

really direct how we are going to work with welfare recipients in the workforce. There are, of 

course, some issues that are difficult, that we would like for your Committee to help us with, and 

some of the linkages that are difficult between TANF and WIA programs across the country. 
7

 The second area of comment is on this new opportunity under WIA to actually work with 

employed or incumbent workers. This is the first opportunity that we have had in the workforce 

system to actually work with businesses after we have people employed. This is an incredible 

opportunity. We could be doing more of it. 

 We are not just looking, in other words, at eligible populations, but we are looking at the 

full spectrum of our business and workforce needs. There is even a lesson in welfare reform here: 

some 68 to 70 percent of our welfare recipients in Ventura County are working, but they remain on 

aid because they are not able to earn enough money. We need to be working with them after they 

are employed, in a post-employment environment. This is certainly encouraged, but under WIA it 

could be expanded. There are some regulatory limitations in the Act that I think could be fixed in 

reauthorization to allow us to do more to continue investing in continuous education with business 

and workers after we get people employed. 

 The third area is the positive movement in youth services. This is an area that in California, 

and I think across the country where youth councils and boards have done extremely well. Our 

youth council is really looking at a full, comprehensive system. We refer to it in California as “All 

Youth, One System.” We are looking at the highest principles of youth development. But there is a 

problem in this system, and that is the only place in WIA that we remain stuck with strict incomeeligibility requirements for enrollment is in the youth program. There are numerous ways we could 

identify and define at-risk youth in this country, and offering local boards and states flexibility in 

how we define eligibility would be very helpful. But the good news I think is that youth councils 

are really looking at the big picture across the board, and not just implementing WIA programs. 

 The fourth area that we really are appreciative of in the WIA is this 15 percent discretionary 

money that goes to states. In addition to having formula revenue to provide the baseline services 

and the core and intensive training, in Ventura County, for example, we have access to money. I 

believe other counties and workforce boards across the country would share what we refer to as a 

Medical Careers Ladder Initiative. 

 To respond to the shortage of nurses and other trained health care professionals, under state 

leadership, we have implemented, I am happy to say, a technology-to-teacher program. We take 

dislocated high-tech workers who have a math and science background, get them into the education 

system, get them credentialed, and get them in as teachers. We have a huge shortage in math and 

science-trained teachers. And this provides a business perspective for the schools that has been 

very valuable. 

 We are also doing a homebuilders program that was spurred both by labor interests and by 

local builders and advocates. So we were able to access resources to do things in that area. 

 In contrast just briefly with the above, there are three areas that we would like to address 

where there are some problems, one of which is that by all this emphasis on the core services and 

universal access, we have had to put a lot of money into the resources at the front end, and we are 

not able to maintain the kind of revenue we would like to do the kind of training. So we do believe 

that more money is needed in the system to expand our customer base for this universal access, and 
8

to invest in continuous education. 

 A good point would be made to ask why aren't the partners contributing? And the comment 

by Mr. Tierney, I think, is a good one: we need help from you to mandate resource-sharing 

amongst the partners, because we are not necessarily getting all of the engagement from the 

partners that we would need to make sure that we are not spending all of our WIA money on just 

maintaining the infrastructure. 

 The last concern is relative to performance standards. They are all dedicated to individual 

program outcomes; they are not systemic in nature. What we like about the Workforce Investment 

Act is it encourages and creates the opportunity to create a comprehensive network of services, yet 

all the performance measures, save customer service, which is good, are focused on individual 

outcomes, and don't reward us for the kind of work that we are doing in system-building. As a 

result, as WIA money gets spent on core services up front, the performance measures haven't 

followed. That could be fixed easily in reauthorization. 

 I think it is extraordinary what workforce boards and one-stops have done across the 

country. We would like you to notice in front of you and add to the record a document, or a set of 

documents, called “Building Our Future Workforce.” We ask you to look at this simply because 

we think it demonstrates how workforce boards, not just in Ventura but across the country, are 

looking at their leadership role in advancing smart information about what opportunities are 

available in the workforce. Historically, we have not done that; we have looked at narrow 

programs. We are really doing system building. 

 Thank you. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF BRUCE STENSLIE, DIRECTOR, VENTURA 

COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, WORKFORCE INVESTMENT BOARD, AND 

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE VENTURA COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES 

AGENCY, VENTURA, CA – SEE APPENDIX B 

Chairman McKeon. Thank you. Without objection, we will put this in the record. Thank you. 

Mr. Wegman? 

STATEMENT OF DANNY WEGMAN, PRESIDENT, WEGMANS FOOD 

MARKETS, INC., ROCHESTER, NY 

Thank you, Chairman McKeon and Members of the Subcommittee, for inviting me to 

testify today on this important subject. My name is Danny Wegman, and I am President of 
9

Wegmans Food Markets in Rochester, New York. Our family-owned company has been in 

operation for over 80 years, and we are proud to be consistently recognized as one of the best 100 

companies to work for in America. We now have 64 stores and employ over 30,000 people. 

 I am here as an employer of youth. About one-third of our employees are younger than 22.

When we operate in areas of disadvantaged populations, I might call them pockets of poverty, our 

turnover for these young people is over 100 percent. That means they don't even stay a year. Not 

only is this expensive for us, it costs us about $4,000 to train an individual and get them up to 

speed. It makes it impossible to give the quality of service that is the hallmark of Wegmans. 

 The only and I repeat only solution to the problem that we have found is an initiative we 

call Work-Scholarship Connection. Essentially, the Work-Scholarship Connection provides a fulltime paid advocate to help 30 young people with school, work, and home problems. With this 

program, the young people stay in school, and they stay working at Wegmans. We need this 

program if we are to hire young people from the various pockets of poverty that exist in areas like 

the cities of Rochester, Trenton, New Jersey, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. Pockets of 

poverty contain few positive role models, and few parents who are successful with our American 

system. The Work-Scholarship Connection interjects advocates with skills to be successful, and to 

help these young people be successful. 

 Let me share the results of this model. Today, we have 1,000 young people in WorkScholarship. They are at risk. If they were not in Work-Scholarship, only 200 would graduate. 

With Work-Scholarship Connection, 800 will graduate; that is 600 more young people who will be 

contributing members of our society. And in fact, over 85 percent of these graduates go on to 

higher education. 

 Today, we have brought a successful graduate with us, Jamarr Meyers. I tried to keep my 

remarks brief so that, if time permits, you may ask him some questions. 

 We have spent over 15 years developing a program that truly creates systemic change in a 

community. We would recommend that you assign the appropriate resources to visit us and 

determine what it would take to make this a national effort. 

 We believe that monies need to be focused on long-term interventions with measurable 

outcomes. We believe that employers need incentives to participate. Many employers do not 

regularly employ youth. We believe the qualifications for funding need to be simplified. And 

furthermore, we believe that national leadership for the Work-Scholarship Connection needs to be 

established. The community needs to help to get this concept started. We know this concept works. 

We would like to share it with the nation.

Thank you very much. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DANNY WEGMAN, PRESIDENT, WEGMANS 

FOOD MARKETS, INC., ROCHESTER, NY – SEE APPENDIX C 
10

Chairman McKeon. Thank you. 

Ms. Rath? 

STATEMENT OF DIANE D. RATH, CHAIR, TEXAS WORKFORCE 

COMMISSION, AND COMMISSIONER REPRESENTING THE PUBLIC,

AUSTIN, TX

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members. I am Diane Rath, Chair of the Texas 

Workforce Commission. And I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today about the 

reauthorization of WIA. 

 Texas is one of the few states in the country with a consolidated and integrated system, and 

it has been a tremendous success. We bring together clients seeking work under several federal 

programs, including WIA, TANF, food stamp, Trade Act, veterans, child care, and many others are 

all located in our one-stops. 

 We have an outstanding record of serving TANF adult recipients, and Texas has received 

high-performance bonuses totaling $69.4 million in each of the last three consecutive years for our 

success in job placement. We have been successful because of our board's relationships with 

employers, and their meeting the employers' needs and understanding what they want from an 

employee when they place a TANF adult recipient. We have also received two consecutive WIA 

incentive awards totaling $6 million. 

 Our system has been a success because business and industries view the network as a viable 

solution to workforce needs. Business is a primary customer of our system. Our challenge is 

increasing business’ use of the system. We need performance measures that are more reflective of 

serving employers. 

 States should have a greater policy role and more flexibility to meet local community needs. 

States need to be able to shift funds to meet these needs. The governance structure of state councils 

and local boards must be simplified. States should be able to use workforce investment resources 

as an economic development tool; after all, workforce development is a building block of economic 

development. 

 WIA has resulted in an economic system with social benefits, not a social system with 

economic benefits. The system must focus on outcome, not process measurements. We must be 

able to listen to the customer and design our services to meet those needs. 

 We need to establish a core set of performance measures, such as employment, retention, 

and earnings that would apply across partner programs. We need to create common definitions and 

reporting formats to encourage one-stop partners to work together cohesively. We need to 

encourage co-enrollment among programs to maximize those limited available training and related 
11

resources, and avoid needless duplication. 

 The glue that holds all the partners together in the one-stop is the Wagner-Peyser 

employment service. However, these funds have been held flat for the last many years, and in 

Texas, we only receive about 32 cents for every dollar in FUTA taxes that our employers are 

sending to Washington. That is why Texas is very supportive of the Administration's UI/ES reform 

proposal. With this reform, Texas employers can receive the services for which they are paying, 

but not receiving, and all Texans can access a wide range of quality services in our one-stop 

environment. 

 The states need additional flexibility to help employers recover and workers regain jobs. 

The restrictive formula allocations in WIA, however, limit the assistance that states and local 

workforce areas can provide. Local needs for adult, dislocated worker, and youth funding are 

different, and one-size-fit-all truly does not fit in a state as large and diverse as Texas. 

 WIA does not allow the states to design flexibility into formula allocations. With the 

enactment of WIA, Congress sent a very strong signal about the sweeping changes it expected to 

occur in America's job training systems, making them truly employer-focused. However, some 

vestiges of the old system remain, creating difficulty in the states' implementation of WIA. 

 We are taking advantage of WIA waiver provisions, and have submitted waiver requests for 

five areas to DOL. Each of these waivers will improve our services for the effective populations, 

allow the Texas boards to respond to local economic conditions, and facilitate matching employers 

with job seekers. We urge you to continue the waiver option in the reauthorization legislation, and 

to include a super-waiver with WIA in the TANF reauthorization. 

 As a further step, the workforce development system could be greatly improved by the 

integration of federal programs. Different definitions for common populations, different funding 

cycles, different performance measures, all result in competing priorities at the local level. The 

lack of integration causes administrative complexity, increased cost, and diverts focus from 

providing quality, effective services to the nation's employers and job seekers. 

 The accountability provisions of WIA have strengthened the performance outcomes relative 

to the use of our WIA training funds. However, the reporting requirements are so burdensome that 

we are losing some of our state's most valuable training providers, our community colleges. Relief 

during WIA reauthorization from excessive reporting requirements on training providers would be 

welcome to these important partners. 

 All federal youth programs should focus on a strong educational background, which would 

result in long-term attachment to the workforce and lifelong learning. We need to promote 

activities that connect our youth with the local job market and youth development. There must be 

increased coordination among all programs serving youth. One integrated, coherent strategy with 

meaningful outcomes across all programs is an overarching necessity. 

 I very much appreciate this opportunity to appear before you. We are very proud of our 

system. We feel we have built a very strong foundation for our workforce system, and we look 
12

forward to the opportunities under WIA reauthorization. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DIANE D. RATH, CHAIR, TEXAS WORKFORCE 

COMMISSION, AND COMMISSIONER REPRESENTING THE PUBLIC, 

AUSTIN, TX – SEE APPENDIX D 

Chairman McKeon. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Barnicle? 

STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY BARNICLE, CO-DIRECTOR, WORKFORCE 

DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM, NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATION AND 

THE ECONOMY, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Thank you, and good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Tierney and 

Members of the Committee for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the National Center on 

Education and the Economy's Workforce program, and on behalf of my colleagues directing this 

work, who are well known to the Committee, Mary Gardner Clagett and Ray Uhalde. 

Mr. Chairman, under your leadership, the Committee did yeoman work in producing the 

Workforce Investment Act in 1998. Since then, its importance has been demonstrated time after 

time. I couldn't help recalling yesterday, as we recognized the anniversary of the cowardly attacks 

on America one year ago and the tragic loss of innocent life, the extraordinary effort that the WIA 

system launched in New York City for people's economic lives. The system responded to it 

immediately by organizing job opportunities, by working in counseling, and by getting people into 

training where appropriate. It was an absolutely extraordinary, heroic job at a time when the 

pressures were enormous on the system, in a city that, quite frankly, was certainly not recognized 

as on the cutting edge of WIA reform. 

 But with the business leadership and the staff and the coordination that occurred with the 

state, the results were very gratifying, and the effort was absolutely heroic. I think of one person in 

particular, Dorothy Lehman, who I think the Chairman has actually met, who was the staff person 

for the Workforce Board in New York City, and with extraordinary effort and intelligence and 

initiative, helped to make all of this work, and provide thousands of job opportunities for people 

whose jobs had been blown up. I didn't realize until later that her brother was killed in the World 

Trade Center, and that during that period of mourning, she was providing this kind of heroic 

leadership. And as you think about the contributions that WIA has made, we should also think 

about the kinds of challenges that WIA has had in some places. 

 Now, obviously, as we all know, the impact of September 11th was not simply on New 

York City. Across the country, the economy slid from doldrums to recessions back to the 

doldrums. And our Workforce Investment Act system has responded, particularly to the needs of 

the unprecedented 2.3 million people who in the last two years have lost their jobs. Hundreds of 
13

thousands of workers and their families, and the communities that they come from, are better off 

because this system is in place and doing its work. 

 Of course, we didn't have the resources necessary to respond to the needs of the thousands 

of young adults who bore the largest share of the burden from the recession. And this is an area 

that I think Congress and the administration need to address. Young adults need to work, too, and 

WIA needs to be financially and professionally better equipped to respond. 

 Clearly, the volatility of the economy, the intensity of global competition, the pace of 

technology, the skill shortages, et al., that underlined the development of the consensus around 

WIA, have been reinforced in the time since the passage of the Act. Tom Friedman, in his best 

selling book, The Lexus and the Olive Tree, suggested that this law and this system created by this 

law has the potential to be the most important domestic economic initiative of the 1990s. 

 But Mr. Chairman, two or three years ago, as WIA implementation began, how effective it 

might be was really a matter of grave concern to a lot of us. After all, this was a dramatic change 

that had received little or no public acclaim or attention. The challenge was great. We all asked 

ourselves a number of questions; here are just three of them that pop to mind. 

 Would states and localities work out the division of responsibility amicably, or would the 

flexibility in the law produce a giant jurisdictional food fight? Would mandated partners go to the 

trenches to fight the partnerships and collaboration clearly called for, but vaguely enforceable, 

under the law? After all, collaboration is often described as an unnatural act among consenting 

adults. Would private industry councils, largely focused on an advisory role related to budgeting a 

few federal dollars, evolve into the key economic development and human resource development 

regional leadership role that the act envisioned? 

 To these and many other questions, the answers have begun to emerge slowly, but I think 

very clearly. Yes, we can do it; in fact, we have. Always and everywhere? No way. But in most 

places across the country, state after state, city after city, common sense, hard work and dedication 

to serving our communities needs our winning and overcoming these very real challenges. Are we 

ready to declare victory and begin to relax? No. But we can honestly see real progress, and most 

importantly, momentum on a very tough assignment by many thousands of men and women from 

business and labor and positions of community leadership. 

 We visited one-stops all over the country. We know what is happening in some detail in the 

cities and counties and states that are part of two consortia that we coordinated. And Mr. Chairman, 

I can assure you, as have GAO and others, that the momentum is with us. Day by day, partnershipby-partnership, obstacle-by-obstacle, we are making solid progress in creating the civic 

infrastructure that was envisioned in the act. I have included in my written testimony some 

examples of successful and promising practices, and ask permission to submit a more detailed list 

to the Committee in the next few days. 

 None of this is to suggest we don't have a lot of work to do, and a long way to go, because 

we do. Many challenges remain. People on the panel have raised a number of them already. Most 

of the challenges are for the states and localities, in their workforce boards and their one-stops. 
14

Some can be helped immeasurably from state capitals, from Congress, and from the executive 

branch. And in conclusion, let me just mention three or four of these quickly. 

 First, funding. For the Workforce Investment Act to meet the Committee's expectation, 

those of the business community and other community leaders who we are engaging, and also our 

citizens, we have to have the wherewithal to produce high-quality and substantial results. The 

challenge to integrate systems as we have heard is really tough. The one-stop system needs friends 

in high places to push at the highest levels to get this done and to make it less time and energyconsuming at the state and local level, where this work is very, very hard to do. 

 Second, business leadership obviously is key to the Workforce Investment Act's success. 

Active labor engagement is also crucial in many sections of the country and sectors of the 

economy. The private sector has voted with their feet for WIA; over 15,000 men and women, on a 

voluntary basis, all over the country, are serving on workforce boards. Getting them there is a 

challenge; keeping them there may be harder. And getting the leaders on the workforce boards to 

engage their own companies in our system is going to be the next measure of this system's success, 

in my opinion. 

 Third is training, as mentioned by our friends from Ventura County. We don't necessarily 

need to have to do it ourselves, but we sure better be able to connect people to it and find ways to 

fund it, where appropriate. If we are not able to significantly improve people's career prospects and 

their standards of living, we will not have much to brag about. 

 Finally, youth. Leave no child behind is a basic American value. The Workforce 

Investment Act can play and must play a key role, as envisioned in the act. If the magnitude of our 

response is not a lot greater than it has been in this economic downturn, the Workforce Investment 

Act certainly is not going to meet my expectations, and I think as a result of it, America is going to 

be less than it could be, economically and socially. 

Mr. Chairman, again, thanks for the leadership and for the invitation. I hope we can be of 

help to the Committee as we build on the progress that has been achieved to date. Thank you. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY BARNICLE, CO-DIRECTOR, 

WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM, NATIONAL CENTER ON 

EDUCATION AND THE ECONOMY, WASHINGTON, D.C. – SEE APPENDIX E 

Chairman McKeon. Thank you very much. 

 Well, hearing from you has been very enlightening. And I have told the story before about 

a friend I had years ago that was a principal at a high school in the L.A. City School District. Now, 

at the time that was a school district that had about 500,000 students; it is larger now. But I 

remember years ago him telling me that they had done a study, and they found that from the time 

somebody conceived of an idea in that school district until it was fully implemented took 25 years. 
15

Now, maybe they have improved on that now, I don't know. Or maybe it has gotten worse, 

I don't know. But I get frustrated. Our country is large, and we sit here and we try to do things to 

make things better. And then sometimes you wonder, does it really happen? Does the water get to 

the end of the row? I have visited programs, and I have been to one-stops. But if I tried right now 

to visit every one-stop in the country, I probably couldn't do it in the rest of the time I have here in 

Congress. So there is no way I personally can know really what is happening from the work that 

we have tried to generate. This is one way for us to hear a little bit, but there is so much out there 

we don't really know. 

 Our goal was to take authority and responsibility from Washington and give it to the local 

areas, because we have a great country, we have educated, sharp people, and we have leadership 

throughout the country. They don't need somebody in Washington to tell them what time to get up 

in the morning, where to report to work, what to do while they're there at work, what time to leave 

and go home, what time to go to bed, and what TV programs to watch in between. They know how 

to do it if we could just let them do it. 

 At the same time, I realize that every locale is different, and there does need to be some 

federal involvement and direction for continuity from area to area as long as we are providing local 

taxpayer dollars that are funneled through Washington, and some of it works its way back into the 

local areas. 

 But I hope as we go through this process that we will be able to achieve the goals of local 

leadership by letting those who are the members of the workforce development boards, and those 

who are providing help to people in the local areas that need a job, a better job, or a career, help 

them along that path. Whether it is somebody coming from welfare, from TANF, or somebody that 

has a job now but just wants to improve themselves, all was envisioned to be the goal of the onestop.

 It has been two to three years, and I hope it doesn't take 25 years, because knowing how 

things happen here, somebody will make a law to change it anyway. Then all of what we have been 

working on will have to be re-vamped to move in some other direction. But I hope that as we go 

through this process, we can achieve those goals. 

Mr. Wegman, this program that you have, you called it the Work-Scholarship Connection 

program? You have one person for every 30 youth, and you pay for that person. Wegmans set up 

the program, and you are doing it yourself? 

Mr. Wegman. Yes. We set it up originally in 1987 with 30 young kids and one of our own people. 

The program grew, and we felt that it should be a community program, not a Wegmans program. 

We asked a local agency there, Hillside, if they would handle the program for us. And so now the 

program is administrated as the Hillside Work-Scholarship Connection. 

Chairman McKeon. You support it through probably some of your own means, and some of your 

employees that attend? 
16

Mr. Wegman. We continue to contribute $250,000 a year. 

Chairman McKeon. That is some support. 

Mr. Wegman. Well the annual budget now is about $2.5 million. And it is doing very well. 

Chairman McKeon. Is it all private money, or foundation money? 

Mr. Wegman. No some of this has come from monies from New York State. Actually, they were 

TANF dollars, and there was a request for proposal, and they funded our program. 

Chairman McKeon. I would like to come up and see what you are doing. Maybe we can put 

together a trip to come up and visit and see what you are doing there. 

Mr. Wegman. That would be fantastic. Thank you very much. 

Chairman McKeon. I want to see what you are doing in Ventura, too, which is right next door to 

me, so that I could do a lot easier. But each of you is doing a great job. 

 I talked too much and used up my time. But I will read your testimonies and hope that as 

we go through this process, we all will be heavily involved working together. 

Mr. Tierney. 

Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Wegman, I commend you for the contributions that you are making in that program. I 

think I would like to see more employers understand that we are creating a workforce for them, and 

that there is a role and a contribution that they should be making to this. It ought not to be an 

entirely public burden, given the fact that we are providing a workforce for people. So I think that 

we have got to find the right partnership mix on that, and I again commend you for what you have 

done there. 

Mr. Stenslie, let me just ask you quickly; you mentioned that you've managed to 

successfully link WIA to TANF programs in your area. You think it is something that could be 

duplicated nationwide, but you had some difficulties. Would you highlight those difficulties for 

us? 

Mr. Stenslie. There is really only a couple. And maybe some of them are local to California; 

where in the state of California, there is a completely different administrative structure at the state 

level.

 But what could be managed more effectively for us through federal intervention, and I think 

Ms. Rath mentioned it, is common outcomes for the program. Right now, what we are mandated to 

shoot for under TANF is simply, to be blunt, a reduction of the number of people on aid. There is 

not a whole lot of incentive to do anything effective relative to specific employment outcomes. 
17

There is no incentive to do that, in other words. And I think it would be effective to have such an 

incentive.

 We have staff that are common case managers. And while they are dedicated to 

employment, when their client leaves and they delve back into the case management system, they 

find themselves asking different questions. What do I document here? What do I claim as a credit? 

What is a successful activity? Having those standardized across the board would be incredibly 

effective.

 The other issue is this debate regarding how to balance work-first with ongoing investments 

in education? And work-first has been enormously successful, but of course it has been successful 

in a hot economy. As the economy flattens out, work-first doesn't work so well. And the 

underbelly of work-first to us is that we have most of our welfare recipients working, but not 

getting enough income to get off aid. 

 We are constrained in our ability to get them into education. We are afraid, frankly, that it 

might become more constrained to get them into a long-term continuous education environment. 

In fact, we would recommend, and it is strongly stated in our testimony, that when a TANF client is 

enrolled in WIA-sponsored training, they should be exempted from the calculation of the percent of 

clients meeting the number of hours required to be on the job, so that we can actually invest in 

training.

Mr. Tierney. Thank you. Let me ask one broad question; maybe I will start right to left on this.

We have a number of dislocated worker programs, TAA, welfare-to-work, all of these things. 

Does it make any sense anymore, in this country at least, to base our eligibility criteria on how you 

became employed, as opposed to the fact that you are employed, and we ought to deal with you? 

Or should we have just one system and one eligibility criterion? 

Mr. Barnicle? 

Mr. Barnicle. Well, I think that the intention of the law was to offer people, regardless of what 

their work needs were, whether they were young people trying to connect to the labor force for the 

first time, or people who had been dislocated because of trade or other reasons, a common place 

where they could be assisted, mostly in the one-stop. And I think you have heard a number of 

colleagues talk about the need to try to simplify and universalize the criteria, et cetera. 

 I think one of the difficulties with doing that, having worked on the Hill myself for many 

years, is that there are a variety of different people that have a particular interest, and the nature of 

the problems are different for different categories of people, and the degree to which the public is 

being called upon, or feels compelled, to respond to those claims on federal dollars varies. People 

who are dislocated because of American trade policy, in some people's mind should be treated 

differently than people who are out of work because of other reasons. 

 Whether that is wise or not is a philosophical question we could debate for a long time. 
18

Mr. Tierney. Yes, and it is one that you just avoided, very well. I want to hand you that, because 

it was a question that we asked. 

Mr. Barnicle. But the practical problem it creates is, when we don't do it in a universal way, 

enormous for administering these programs. And it shows up day after day after day in higher 

costs and lower-quality services. 

Mr. Tierney. Right.

Ms. Rath? 

Ms. Rath. I would agree. In our system, all of those services are delivered in our one-stop. And 

we have been successful because when we have a job seeker connecting with an employer, they 

don't have a label. When that employer interviews a person, they have no idea what funding source 

is referring that person, but rather they have a qualified applicant. 

 We think that is the strength of it, particularly when you are dealing with some of the 

populations that have barriers. The employer doesn't need to know that up front when they are 

interviewing them. So we deliver services in an integrated fashion. 

 However, when we get the money and we have to report the money and performance back 

up, it comes in silos. And each silo has its own eligibility, the rest of the difficulties I testified to. 

So it comes to us fractured, it goes back up fractured, and somehow we are supposed to integrate 

all that to deliver services. 

 And we are succeeding, but at what cost? The administrative costs, and the barriers we 

have to overcome in the back office so that it is seamless for all of our customers, be it employer or 

job seeker, is tremendous. And those are dollars that are needed desperately and could be utilized 

much more effectively in delivering services. 

Mr. Tierney. Thank you. I know my time is up, and I am sorry I am not going to be able to 

continue that. But Mr. Chairman, I think that is one area that we ought to perhaps spend some time 

on. Hopefully, we can focus on that a bit, as to why we are spending so much money 

administratively when everybody is out of work and everybody needs to get back to work. 

 Also, unfortunately, I have to leave. But somebody might raise the question about skills 

first or work-first, or how we are going to work on that, because I know in New England in 

particular, all of the employers up there, barring none, thought that we were not doing the right 

thing by failing to concentrate on skills and training, and moving that along. I would like to hear, 

perhaps, what others think about that. 

 Thank you. Thank you all. 

Chairman McKeon. Thank you. 
19

Mr. Isakson. 

Mr. Isakson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Wegman, congratulations on your program. And while I am asking this question, I 

think you have someone here that was in that Work-Scholarship Connection? Ask him to slide his 

chair up so I can ask him a question. 

Mr. Wegman. I can do better than that. Jamarr, take my chair. 

Mr. Isakson. Looks like it involves working out, also. This guy is in great shape. 

[Laughter.]

Mr. Isakson. Welcome. Your name, sir? 

Mr. Meyers. Jamarr Meyers, sir. 

Mr. Isakson. Jamarr, would you just tell us briefly, because I have got a question for Ms. Rath, 

too, what the Work-Scholarship Connection program did for you. 

Mr. Meyers. When I was younger, I came to high school not knowing what to do or whom to talk 

to. I was a bad student back in middle school, and my father was actually killed in a robbery, or 

some sort of murder or whatever. 

 But the Hillside Scholarship Connection jumped on me, as soon as I got into school, and not 

only helped my grades increase to a 4.73, which is the highest in the Rochester City School District 

at that present moment, they also jumped on a roll of after-school activities. They took us bowling, 

they took us to college tours, and they took us to job interviews that showed us what to do, how to 

talk properly, and how to raise the correct questions when asked. 

 They also helped me and other students to apply to schools to get into the school that we 

want. And that was not only during the school time, but they remained after. And actually, we still 

have youth advocates with the students at this present moment, too. 

Mr. Isakson. Would it be fair for me to say that your person you worked with in this program was 

like a mentor to you, in terms of life skills and what you needed to do to move ahead? 

Mr. Meyers. It was more than that; actually, like a father to me. 

Mr. Isakson. Well, I want to commend you, because the results are your achievement. And I want 

to commend Mr. Wegman for starting that program. And it sounds to me Mr. Chairman that it is 

certainly something that could be adopted in a pervasive way. And I personally will come up and 
20

visit your program, and go with the Chairman whenever he sets up our little trip. I commend you. 

Mr. Meyers. Thank you. 

Mr. Isakson. Yes, thank you, sir.

I personally believe the two keys to meaningful and long-term employment are education 

and childcare for the type of people that we are talking about. And maybe a third item is 

transportation, but we will leave it at the first two. 

Mr. Wegman has demonstrated, I think, that the real key for the people we are trying to 

reach from the education standpoint is giving them the life skills to actually seek out education. He 

didn't say it, but his program has generated $43.6 million in scholarships for students to further 

their education, that I presume came from other sources because they earned those scholarships. I 

know a 4.73 average would get you a scholarship in Georgia in a minute. So that is commendable. 

Ms. Rath, in your printed testimony, you said Texas now provides childcare to over 100,000 

children a day? Would you tell us briefly how you fund that childcare? 

Ms. Rath. Yes, sir. We were very instrumental in moving our CCDF program into the workforce 

system. And we are just about the only state that is structured that way. That is because we believe 

that childcare is an economic development issue. It influences if people can go to work, and if they 

can keep those jobs. And our employers tell us it is the single most important factor in their 

reduced turnover and in their ability to maintain a stable workforce. 

 Ours is primarily federally funded, through the CCDF program. Our state does a very 

minimal TANF transfer, and it varies from year to year, if those funds are available and if they are 

transitioned into childcare funding. 

 But the strength of our system is our local boards. Our local boards, with their connections 

to the community and their responsibility for administering our CCDF program, have been 

phenomenal in raising local funds and identifying those opportunities, and in bringing that source 

of funds into our system. 

 Normally, childcare funding is not a concern of bank presidents and major business leaders 

in our community. That is somebody else's problem. But once they realize that integral link to 

employment, they have been very active with corporate donations, and in United Way donations in 

really maximizing and leveraging those dollars. We would not be successful in drawing down our 

maximum federal match without that business leadership at the local level. So we are very proud 

of having that connection. 

Mr. Isakson. I have one other question on that. For your people in that program who are going 

back to work and are utilizing the childcare, over time do they invest any money in the childcare? I 

mean, as they begin working and earning money, is there a cost to them down the line? Or is it all 

provided by the state? 
21

Ms. Rath. No, sir. The only individuals who do not pay are our TANF recipients, and that is 

because it is prohibited. So there is usually a gradual increasing parent co-pay, so they are 

contributing. I think we have a belief that nothing that is free is truly valued. So we want to 

maximize that investment, we want ownership there. And it has been very successful for us. 

Mr. Isakson. Thank you very much. 

Chairman McKeon. Thank you. 

Jamarr, how old are you? 

Mr. Meyers. Eighteen, sir. 

Chairman McKeon. And what school are you attending now? 

Mr. Meyers. Roberts Wesleyan College. 

Chairman McKeon. Great. Well, good luck to you. 

Mr. Meyers. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman McKeon. Sounds good. 

Mr. Wegman. The bad news is he wants my job. 

[Laughter.]

Mr. Wegman. And I think he is going to get it. 

Chairman McKeon. The good news is he has got a long time, and you have got a long time. 

[Laughter.]

Chairman McKeon. Mr. Andrews? 

Mr. Andrews. Thank you.

Good morning to the panelists, and I think by the time he gets your job, that Wegmans will 

be an even greater force in the New Jersey market. We know that you are coming to New Jersey 

and doing well. We welcome you. And when you have a new CEO, we would especially welcome 

you.
22

 I would like to thank all the panelists for their testimony this morning. I first became 

involved in this issue 16 years ago, when I was elected to county government in my county in New 

Jersey, and appointed private industry council (PIC) commissioner. So I have been through the 

PICs and I have actually been through CEDA. I was a CEDA employee in the summer job 

program as a high school student; appointed PIC council members; was still around when JTPA 

first came in; and participated five years ago in helping to write this law. 

 I want to congratulate each of you, and the private employment sector as well in this 

country, for the progress that you have made. You have taken the concepts that we have tried to 

integrate into the law and made them work in people's lives. 

 Welfare rolls are 53 percent lower than they were at the beginning of the 1990s, not always 

for the right reasons, but many times for the right reasons. And I think the absence of a lot of 

media this morning is evidence of the fact that we have a working, successful public program that 

doesn't engender a lot of controversy. What it does engender, though, is the need to move forward 

and improve. And that is what the purpose of these hearings is. 

 I must say that we do have to understand the context in which we are having this 

discussion: that the budget proposal that came from the White House this year called for cuts in the 

adult program by $50 million, the dislocated worker program by $166 million, and the youth 

program by $127 million. Now, I subscribe to the fact that efficiencies in the operation of the 

program can perhaps make up for some of that. But I hope that we are able to achieve an equal 

level of consensus on the need to put our dollars into these programs. 

Mr. Stenslie, I was intrigued by your testimony about what we are not doing correctly with 

outcome measurements, particularly with respect to the TANF population. What would your 

position be on a change in the TANF outcome rules that would measure your success in placing 

people in jobs that meet certain criteria, rather than simply removing them from the welfare rolls? 

Do you think that would be a preferable outcome measurement? 

Mr. Stenslie. We are advocating for that, yes. We would prefer to see that. 

Mr. Andrews. One of the issues this Committee has been dealing with in welfare reform is exactly 

that. And Mr. Kind and some others on our side of the aisle have tried to work with the majority to 

write that into the new welfare reform law, so that is what you are measured on. We would like to 

see that happen as well. 

Ms. Rath, I want to ask you about your ideas about the 50 percent employer match. My 

experience is that you are correct when you assert that there are some circumstances where a lower 

employer match would facilitate job placement better. I am concerned, though not in the case of 

Texas, necessarily, but in the case of the theoretical possibility of states and localities using the 

WIA funds as an employer subsidy, rather than as a job training impetus. 

 Two questions in particular: One is if we exceeded the 50 percent public share, would you 

favor the requirement that the employer enter into some kind of binding agreement to provide 
23

employment for a fixed minimum period of time? 

Ms. Rath. Yes, sir. We are very outcome-focused in our state, and in Texas we would like to be 

able to model it much after one of our state-funded programs, where we really require employment 

for a specified length of time at a specified wage before that last payment is made. We believe we 

have to have the employer buy in and we have to integrate it. And we believe that that long-term 

commitment is very important. 

Mr. Andrews. Finally, for Mr. Barnicle, one of the concerns that I have is in the make-up of the 

Workforce investment boards, and I make no accusations here; I am a big fan of community 

colleges and voc institutes. But public entities that sponsor community colleges and voc schools 

place representatives of those entities on the workforce investment boards. Because the workforce 

investment board provides a ready source of federal dollars to offset local tax dollars to run the 

community college or the voc school, I have noticed a tendency to favor, and I don't have data that 

would validate this, necessarily, but I will bet if we looked at it is true, the community college or 

voc school over other means of custom training by employers, career schools, and so forth, not 

always for the right reasons. 

 What ideas do you have about making sure that there is a level playing field for competition 

among job trainers, so that this problem does not manifest itself? 

Mr. Barnicle. Just two ideas. One is it seems to me it is the responsibility of the business 

leadership of the workforce boards and the responsibility of the staff of those boards to make sure 

that is not happening. The staff has to be high quality if it is going to work, to make sure that they 

recognize the potential problem that does exist. 

 The second thing I would say is that in the make-up of the workforce boards, I think the 

jurisdictions need to be very careful in terms of who they are putting on the board. I think 

Congress has to take a look in the reauthorization process at who gets to sit on the boards. 

Mr. Andrews. I will just finish quickly with this. Would you favor a statutory requirement that a 

majority of the members of a workforce investment board be private-sector employers? 

Mr. Barnicle. That is what the law requires currently. 

Mr. Andrews. I realize it requires it. Functionally, though, would you favor a more robust 

iteration of that? 

Mr. Barnicle. Probably. 

Chairman McKeon. Thank you. 

Mr. Hinojosa? 
24

Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I also wish to compliment the panelists. I 

apologize that I couldn't be here from the beginning, but I was at another meeting. 

 I especially want to address my comments and compliments to Commissioner Diane Rath 

from my state of Texas. The work you are doing, I think, is a great improvement, through the 

workforce development board that we have in my district. And I read all of your testimony last 

night so that I would be prepared to address it. They have been calling us for a vote; we have about 

ten minutes to go. So I am going to be succinct and get right down to questions that would help us 

as we do the reauthorization for this program next year. 

 In your testimony, you speak about flexibility and waivers that you are requesting and 

recommending. I come from the world of business, and we like that the goal is the outcome 

measurement. But I was just looking at the labor unemployment rates for five years in the 

metropolitan statistical area of McAllen, Edinburg, and Mission in south Texas. And you 

mentioned in your comments, that we had 13.3 percent unemployment in July of 2002. Well, I 

think that it has been an embarrassment to the state of Texas that they have neglected the south 

Texas region for 35 years of double-digit unemployment. And just looking at the last two years, 

starting with January of 2001, 15.6 percent unemployment, to a low of 11 percent in May of 2001, 

and then the numbers that you gave, you can see that it varies from 11 to 15 percent in just the last 

two years. 

 So tell me, instead of making too many changes on what seems to be working in the 

workforce development board program, this WIA, why is it that regions like mine and others in the 

country continue to have a double-digit unemployment, and what can you do about it? 

Ms. Rath. Thank you Congressman, I appreciate the question.

I really do appreciate and want to acknowledge your support and involvement with your 

local board. Without your support, I'm not sure that board would be in existence today. That has 

been critical to your area, and we are very appreciative and grateful of that. 

 I think you raise an extremely valid point, because I am very proud of what we have done 

under the last five years with redirecting resources to the border areas in south Texas. I agree they 

have been neglected. And that is one of the hallmarks of the flexibility that we now have. We 

really can direct resources. But I think many of my comments do go to the need to have greater 

flexibility, so we can address an inherent institutional inadequacy that exists. Right now, we are 

very limited, both at the local and the state level, on how we can maximize that investment and 

truly respond to local needs. 

 One area we are prohibited from is economic development investment. I truly believe WIA 

is an economic development tool that has to be maximized, and yet we are extremely restricted in 

how we can utilize these funds without outcome. So I think that needs to be re-evaluated very 

quickly.

 I also think it is important that we have flexibility in the funding silos at the state level, so 

that I can redirect dollars that you need to your area. I have a cap of what I can access of 15 
25

percent statewide. So I am very limited in where I can take funds from that are not being utilized 

and redirect them to those areas of desperate need. I have to wait two years before I can recoup 

those dollars from a local investment area, when I might know six months into the first funding 

year that they are not going to be spent and are not going to be obligated. And I cannot touch them 

for two years. 

Mr. Hinojosa. If I may interrupt you because our time is running out and I am going to have to go 

vote. I want to say to you that I want to continue to work with you the way that we have worked 

during the last three years. I went out on a limb against the people that did not want to create the 

workforce development board, and we went around them and we made it happen. 

 However, I am very disappointed in the amount of money that is being paid to those who 

get the contracts to implement training. They make a 10 percent profit after paying expenses. And 

when you take a look at what they take off of the top, it is a third or greater. So the amount that 

really goes towards training our people is something slightly over 55 to 58 percent. And that needs 

to change. That is what was wrong in our public schools, and we got real hard on them through the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce here in Washington and in Austin so that more money 

would go to the students. The same thing has to apply to this. 

 So I am hoping that through you and our Committee, we can raise the level of importance 

and priority in not letting so much money go to administration and to profit. That is the only part 

that I am very, very concerned about, after watching how it works these last three years. 

Mr. Chairman, I wish we could continue, but I think that the recommendations that they 

have are very worthy of our consideration and debate and so forth. But I do urge you to take a look 

at what I am expressing as a very high concern in my area by those of us who came from the world 

of business and want a trained workforce. We are beginning to get it. Truly, my region, as you 

well know, Mr. Chairman, had an increase in population of 48 percent. It was the highest growth 

area in the state of Texas. And so we increased our population to 640,000 just in the county of 

Hidalgo, and we have reduced it from over 20 percent down to 13.3 percent. 

 But that is not good enough. And the neglect by the Federal Government that we had in the 

past is now being corrected, and more federal funds, to the tune of a 218 percent increase in job 

training, has come into my area. That has made a significant difference. But it is still not good 

enough.

I say that we should take a look at giving Commissioner Rath some percentage or some 

amount that could be put into regions that have a lot of potential. We should be able to have a 

single digit in unemployment in every part of the state of Texas, instead of allowing the Texas 

border regions to have areas of over 20 percent, like we have in Stark County and other parts. 

 So again, it is a pleasure to see you here, Commissioner Rath, and I pledge to continue to 

work with you. 

Chairman McKeon. Thank you very much. I want to thank the witnesses for being here today, 

and for your participation. 
26

As the Congressman said, they have called us to a vote, so we will have to bring this 

hearing to a close. But I want to encourage you, as I said earlier, to stay in touch with us and work 

closely with us as we go through the reauthorization process, because you all have good things to 

bring to the table. 

 Thank you very much for being here, and this Subcommittee stands adjourned. 

Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned. 
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149

Table of Indexes 

Chairman McKeon, 2, 5, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 21, 23, 25 

Mr. Andrews, 21, 22, 23 

Mr. Barnicle, 12, 17, 18, 23 

Mr. Hinojosa, 24, 25 

Mr. Isakson, 19, 20, 21 

Mr. Meyers, 19, 20, 21 

Mr. Stenslie, 16, 22 

Mr. Tierney, 4, 16, 17, 18 

Mr. Wegman, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21 

Ms. Rath, 10, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24