U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

51–264 PDF 2011

S. HRG. 111–989 

MODERNIZING THE WORKFORCE INVESTMENT 

ACT (WIA) OF 1998 TO HELP WORKERS AND 

EMPLOYERS MEET THE CHANGING DEMANDS 

OF A GLOBAL MARKET 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT AND 

WORKPLACE SAFETY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, 

LABOR, AND PENSIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON

EXAMINING THE WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT OF 1998 

JULY 16, 2009 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ 

COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

BERNARD SANDERS (I), Vermont 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania 

KAY R. HAGAN, North Carolina 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

TOM COBURN, M.D., Oklahoma 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

J. MICHAEL MYERS, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

FRANK MACCHIAROLA, Republican Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE SAFETY

PATTY MURRAY, Washington, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

KAY R. HAGAN, North Carolina 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts (ex 

officio) 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming (ex officio) 

GERRI FIALA, Staff Director 

EDWIN EGEE, Minority Staff Director 

(II) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

THURSDAY, JULY 16, 2009 

Page 

Murray, Hon. Patty, Chairman, Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety, opening statement ......................................................................... 1 

Isakson, Hon. Johnny, a U.S. Senator from the State of Georgia, opening 

statement .............................................................................................................. 3 

Brown, Hon. Sherrod, a U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio, statement .......... 4 

Enzi, Hon. Michael B., a U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 5 

Oates, Jane, Assistant Secretary of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Washington, DC ................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10 

Kanter, Martha, Under Secretary, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC ............................................................................................................. 11 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14 

McQueen, Clyde, President/CEO, Full Employment Council, Kansas City, 

MO ......................................................................................................................... 25 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 27 

Thurmond, Michael L., Commissioner, Georgia Department of Labor, Atlanta, 

GA .......................................................................................................................... 32

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 34 

Bender, Rick S., President, Washington, State Labor Council, AFL–CIO, Seattle, WA ............................................................................................................... 38 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 40 

Kiernan, William E., Ph.D., Director and Research Professor, Institute for 

Community Inclusion, Boston, MA ..................................................................... 41 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 43 

Sarris, Mary W., Executive Director, North Shore Workforce Investment 

Board, Salem, MA ................................................................................................ 55 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 56 

Cooper, Kathy, Policy Associate, Office of Adult Literacy, Washington State 

Board for Community and Technical Colleges, Olympia, WA .......................... 64 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 66 

Wing, Stephen, Director of Workforce Initiatives, CVS Caremark, Twinsburg, 

OH ......................................................................................................................... 68 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 69 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Statements, articles, publications, letters, etc.: 

Senator Kennedy, prepared statement ........................................................... 78 

Response to questions of Senator Murray by: 

Jane Oates ................................................................................................. 79 

Martha Kanter ........................................................................................... 93 

Clyde McQueen .......................................................................................... 102 

Michael L. Thurmond ............................................................................... 103 

William E. Kiernan, Ph.D. ........................................................................ 107 

Mary W. Sarris .......................................................................................... 124 

Kathy Cooper ............................................................................................. 126 

Stephen Wing ............................................................................................ 130 

(III) 

(IV) 

Response to questions of Senator Enzi by: 

Jane Oates ................................................................................................. 86 

Martha Kanter ........................................................................................... 97 

Clyde McQueen .......................................................................................... 103 

Michael L. Thurmond ............................................................................... 105 

William E. Kiernan, Ph.D. ........................................................................ 114 

Mary W. Sarris .......................................................................................... 125 

Kathy Cooper ............................................................................................. 129 

Stephen Wing ............................................................................................ 131 

Response to questions of Senator Coburn by: 

Jane Oates ................................................................................................. 91 

Martha Kanter ........................................................................................... 101 

Consortium for Citizens With Disabilities (CCD) .......................................... 131 

Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation (CSAVR) ..... 132 

National Organization for Competency Assurance (NOCA) ......................... 142 

(1) 

MODERNIZING THE WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT (WIA) OF 1998 TO HELP WORKERS AND EMPLOYERS MEET THE CHANGING DEMANDS OF A GLOBAL MARKET 

THURSDAY, JULY 16, 2009 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE SAFETY, 

COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 

SD–430, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Patty Murray, chairman of the subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Murray, Brown, and Isakson. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MURRAY

Senator MURRAY. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety will come to order. 

Before we begin, I would like to recognize Senator Kennedy for 

his leadership on workforce development and the workforce investment system in particular. We miss him on this committee and 

send him our best. 

I also want to thank two individuals who took the time to fly in 

all the way from my home State of Washington to be with us today. 

Kathy Cooper, who is from the Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges, and has done so much in Washington State to keep our workforce competitive. Also, Rick Bender, 

who is the President of our Washington State Labor Council, AFL– 

CIO. Rick is a passionate advocate for investing in our workers and 

our economy. I thank both of them for being here. 

Throughout my time on this committee, I have had the pleasure 

of working with members, from both sides of the aisle, who are 

committed to helping workers access the skills, training, and education needed to be successful in the workplace. Specifically, I 

would like to thank Senator Enzi. He was scheduled to be here this 

morning, but is in the Finance Committee working on health care 

right now, and expects to join us shortly. I would also like to thank 

Senators Kennedy and Isakson, and all of their staffs, for their 

great bipartisan work on this important issue. 

Helping workers and employers access the information and services needed to be competitive is a win for everyone. It is a win for 

our workers, for our employers, and it is a big win for our economy. 

I believe, now more than ever, that building a competitive and 

2 

skilled workforce is the issue that will make or break us as a nation. Where the skilled workers are, the jobs will follow. 

As Rick Bender knows, we are working hard in Washington 

State to ensure that our highly skilled and competitive aerospace 

workforce, one of our greatest resources, gets the support they need 

to compete in the global economy. In the Puget Sound region, our 

aerospace industry is the lifeblood of many of our communities; 

but, our skilled workforce like machinists are aging out of their 

jobs, and we have not done enough to train the next generation of 

workers. We need to think more strategically about how we align 

our training needs with our larger economic goals. 

Earlier this week, we learned that nearly 330,000 people are unemployed and looking for work in Washington State. Other workers 

are under-employed or have even stopped looking because they believe that there are no jobs available for them. 

Like others in this room, I am very involved in the work we are 

doing to reform our health care system. One of the issues we are 

working on is that, while many workers are struggling to find jobs, 

hospitals and health clinics are having trouble finding workers 

with the right skills to fill the open positions. There are literally 

thousands of jobs just waiting for skilled workers to fill them. 

We need to do a better job of matching up the skills of our workers with the needs of our industries. That is why I helped write the 

section of the health care bill we passed yesterday in the HELP 

Committee, which provides resources to our States, so they along 

with key partners can develop a coherent and comprehensive strategy for training a health care workforce. I believe that investing in 

a skilled health care workforce will benefit all of us. That is why 

this section makes a number of investments in recruitment and 

training of health care workers. This section will help keep our 

health care system and it will help workers get good family-sustaining jobs. In this tough economic climate, nothing could be more 

important than investing in our workers and rebuilding our economic strength. 

That is why I joined my colleagues in a bipartisan effort beginning last fall to modernize and reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act, the legislative cornerstone of our Nation’s workforce development system. 

We have spent hours listening to stakeholders about what has 

worked well, what should be eliminated and what ideas they have 

for innovative change. I am excited to be here today to continue 

that conversation. 

The public workforce investment system established under WIA 

provides a framework for these conversations to happen at State 

and regional levels, that is important because workers look for jobs 

and employers hire in their own communities. 

It is also important that our States and communities make strategic connections between their workforce development efforts and 

what they teach their young people in High School classrooms and 

beyond. 

That is why, in addition to reauthorizing the WIA, I am also reintroducing my Promoting Innovations to 21st Century Careers 

Act. The 21st Century Act is a major legislative proposal to help 

State and regional leaders increase high school graduation rates 

3 

and prepare America’s next generation of highly skilled workers. If 

we do not take a comprehensive approach to preparing all of America’s workers for the demands of a competitive and constantly 

changing economy, many will continue to fall behind, and that is 

a price our Nation cannot afford to pay. 

Since last November, I have made it clear that I want to work 

with the Administration on workforce development initiatives. In 

particular, the modernization and reauthorization of the Workforce 

Investment Act. This committee has a long history and wealth of 

knowledge on this issue. We hope this Administration will take advantage of this as we work to modernize and reauthorize WIA. We 

look forward to a productive partnership with the Departments of 

Labor and Education. 

Before I close on my opening remarks, I would like to make a request of my colleagues, the Administration, and all the stakeholders who serve workers, job seekers, and employers every day. 

Let us work together to reach a consensus and move forward now. 

America’s working families deserve nothing less. 

With that, I want to turn to Senator Isakson, who has been a 

great partner on this issue, for his opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ISAKSON

Senator ISAKSON. Well, thank you, Chairman Murray. I am delighted to be here today and I appreciate all your hard work and 

that of Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi and the others on workforce investment. Since my election to the Congress 11 years ago, 

I have worked on workforce investment, first on the House Education Committee and now in this committee, and I am just delighted to be here today to talk about the reauthorization and enrichment of the Workforce Investment Act. 

Rather than make a lot of remarks, because we have a number 

of people who will testify today, I will reserve just two comments 

in my remarks about two of our fine panelists who will testify 

today. 

First is Secretary Jane Oates, with whom I had the pleasure of 

working, I guess, now almost 8 years ago on the No Child Left Behind Act, when she was the head of Senator Kennedy’s education 

team. She is a marvelous individual with a background in teaching 

and an understanding of the value of education and is in exactly 

the right time and place for this Administration. I welcome you and 

congratulate you on being here. 

Second is Commissioner Mike Thurmond from Georgia. I served 

20 years in State government before coming to Washington. I 

worked with Mike’s sister, Barbara Archibald, when she served 

with me on the State Board of Education. I worked with Mike together in the Georgia House of Representatives. And without appearing to just brag about a hometown guy because that is what 

you are supposed to do, I never knew a finer representative in the 

assembly, and I am sure there is no better commissioner of labor 

in the United States. The evidence in that is his accomplishments 

in two areas. 

One is when we gave some latitude for innovation, it was Mike 

that really developed the One-Stop shop concept in Georgia and 

4 

was aggressive in opening what is now 46 centers in our State for 

One-Stop shop services for those seeking employment. 

Second, in our unemployment offices, Mike changed the name 

and changed the attitude and changed the results. He turned them 

into career centers rather than unemployment offices. He redecorated them into colors that made somebody feel good when they 

walked in the office rather than feel depressed. 

And the results are the following. In the last fiscal year, of the 

people that came in to look for work through the Department of 

Labor in Georgia, 66 percent, 296,000, found employment, and 80 

percent of them were still employed 6 months later. In these economic times, that is a remarkable achievement which only happens 

under great leadership, and Mike is a great leader, and I am delighted he is here today to testify before the committee. 

Madam Chairman, I will reserve the rest of my time for our testimony. 

Senator MURRAY. Thank you very much, Senator Isakson. 

Senator Brown has joined us. Would you like to give an opening 

statement? 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR BROWN

Senator BROWN. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate that. 

And Senator Isakson, thank you for your comments. 

I appreciate very much this hearing. A special thank you to Stephen Wing from Twinsburg, OH. Thank you for joining us. He is 

representing CVS Caremark on the second panel, and that is the 

company that has done terrific things in our State. 

Over the last couple of years, I have conducted about 150 

roundtables around Ohio and been in each of the 88 counties. I will 

gather 15, 20, 25 people around a table, a cross section of the community, and ask them questions for an hour and a half. I hear two 

things consistently from employers. 

One is that infrastructure is a significant problem, water, sewer, 

highways, bridges, broadband, and infrastructure in terms of education too. 

The second thing I hear repeatedly in almost every roundtable 

over the last 21⁄2 years—and many of these were before the severe 

economic downturn—is that employers, whether they are social 

service agencies or manufacturing or service industry or whatever, 

cannot find the right employees, cannot find the match-up of skills 

they need even in a relatively high unemployment State, from 

building trades to engineers to computer operators to manufacturing. 

Ohio now has been getting much better with the new Governor, 

who has been in office for a couple of years, to align its education 

and its job training activities. The adult education training programs have been brought under the university system of Ohio. A 

major player in that, of course, is our community colleges and our 

community college system. 

That is why I introduced with Senator Murray and Senator 

Snowe the Sectors Act to provide grants to industry or sector partnerships. It is so important that we focus these Federal WIA dollars on job training, obviously, that leads to employment better 

than we have, and that needs to come from the bottom up. It needs 

5 

to come from community colleges working with local businesses, 

working with local trade unions, working with the local workforce 

investment board to decide what does our community need. 

Toledo, OH has more solar energy jobs than any city in America. 

The local official, local employers, local unions, local community 

colleges and the University of Toledo and others would like to use 

those WIA dollars to train workers to work in that industry or advanced manufacturing in Columbus or some of the things that they 

are doing with composites that lead the country in Dayton. I mean, 

there are those opportunities all over, and that is what is so very, 

very important. 

The last thing I want to mention is a real brief story, Madam 

Chair. In light of the President’s bold and important announcement 

yesterday and the last couple days on community colleges and how 

important that is, I was a graduation speaker at Sinclair Community College in Dayton a couple of years ago, and the president of 

the college—we rode in from the airport. It was a Friday night. 

There were about 1,000 graduates of the community college, one of 

Ohio’s best community colleges. 

We were just talking away about his speech and my speech, and 

he decided at the beginning of this commencement to ask two questions of the students. And he said keep your eye on the seven students sitting in the right front row of these 1,000 students in the 

audience. The two questions he asked was, how many of you are 

first in your family to go to college? And about 40 percent of the 

students raised their hands of 1,000 graduates, and all seven of the 

students in the front row did. And I will tell you who they are in 

a second. And second, he said, how many of you were told you are 

not college material? And probably a third or a fourth of those students put their hands up, and four of the seven kids in the front 

row put their hands up. 

This was a Friday night. The seven students in the front row had 

graduated from Dayton public schools on Tuesday night, and they 

were first in their family to go to college. Half of them had been 

told they were not college material. 

That is the challenge we have. That is the great thing about the 

community college system, the great thing about what we can do 

with workforce investment, why this hearing is so important and 

why, as we move forward on developing all this, it is so important. 

I thank the chair for her work. 

Senator ISAKSON. Madam Chairman, could I ask unanimous consent that the full statement of Senator Enzi be entered in the 

record? 

Senator MURRAY. Absolutely. Without objection, we will do that. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Enzi follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR ENZI

Chairman Murray and Senator Isakson, I want to thank you for 

holding this hearing on this important issue—reauthorization of 

the Workforce Investment Act (WIA). 

Dramatic changes have occurred in all of our lives over the past 

10 to 11 years. For example, I have become a grandfather. Staying 

in touch 10 years ago meant calling or writing someone instead of 

the instant and text messaging of today. Then, personal GPS sysVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:16 Jul 26, 2011 Jkt 035165 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\51264.TXT DENISE
6 

tems were not available in cars, so that meant many of us spent 

much more time trying to find the way to our destinations. And 

‘‘twittering’ now has a totally different meaning. Well, dramatic 

changes have occurred in the workplace, workforce and economy, 

too. 

It has been over 10 years since WIA was first enacted. And now 

more than ever is when we need to modernize and strengthen the 

system, building on what has worked. America’s workers and employers need to be confident that the workforce development system will provide the skills that are needed to keep jobs in America 

and keep us competitive in the 21st century economy. 

Although the Senate has passed a bill to reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) several times over the past 6 years, 

Congress has not been able to ‘‘get it done.’’ However, reauthorizing 

WIA is especially important now. 

With an unemployment rate of almost 10 percent and a widening 

skills gap for our students and workers, we need to have in place 

a workforce development system that will meet the challenges of a 

global economy and the 21st century workplace. We need to help 

workers secure the skills they need for the jobs being created as 

our economy comes out of the economic downturn, and we need to 

make sure that employers have the skilled workers they need to be 

competitive. Workers need ongoing access to quality education and 

skills training programs for the high-demand, high-skill, high-wage 

jobs of the future. 

I am pleased that we have both the Department of Labor and the 

Department of Education with us today to discuss how the programs they operate contribute to the workforce development system established through the One-Stop Career Centers. I also look 

forward to hearing from the second panel that is made up of seven 

practitioners who represent the various constituencies of the workforce system. Using a modified roundtable structure, they will discuss their perspective of the workforce system in response to two 

questions—what works and what doesn’t and how can we improve 

the system as we move forward? 

We must also find ways that our education and job training programs can come together so that our young people get the education and training they need to graduate from high school and be 

successful in college and the workforce. For every 100 students entering ninth grade, 68 graduate from high school on time. Out of 

40 who immediately enter college, only 18 graduate from college on 

time. Over 275 students drop out of school every school hour, which 

costs in lost wages and revenue approximately $73 million over the 

lifetime of those dropouts. Lower earnings translate into less revenue for local, State and Federal Governments in the form of income, property, and consumption taxes. 

Education and training beyond high school is a prerequisite for 

employment in jobs and careers that support a middle-class life. Individuals with a bachelor’s degree earn, on average, almost twice 

as much over their lifetimes as high school graduates. Jobs requiring bachelor’s degrees are predicted to grow 15 percent by 2016, yet 

the completion rate for students entering college is low with the 

United States coming in at 15th among 29 industrialized countries. 

What this means is that the number of jobs requiring some form 

7 

of post-secondary education or training will grow 60 percent faster 

than the job market as a whole, while the number of people with 

the necessary knowledge and skills is not keeping pace. 

The United States still ranks second among developed nations in 

the proportion of workers over the age of 55 with a post-secondary 

credential, but we drop to No. 11 among younger workers, age 25 

to 34. For the first time in the history of our country we face the 

prospect that the educational level of a generation of Americans 

will not exceed that of the workers who preceded them. 

I want to welcome and thank all of the witnesses who are here 

today—I look forward to what you have to say. A strong education 

and workforce development system is required in order for our students and workers to be prepared to meet the ever escalating 

knowledge and skill requirements of the 21st century. For this reason I am committed to working with the Administration and my 

Senate and House colleagues to put together a bipartisan bill that 

reauthorizes, strengthens and modernizes WIA. We need to act 

now because our students, workers, employers and communities expect and deserve more from us than the status quo. 

Senator MURRAY. With that, we will turn to our first panel. We 

have two witnesses today. 

Jane Oates is the Assistant Secretary of Labor for the Employment and Training Administration. She now leads the ETA in its 

mission to design and deliver training and employment programs 

for our Nation’s workers, including programs under the Workforce 

Investment Act. 

We also have Martha Kanter, who was confirmed on June 19 as 

the Under Secretary of Education for the U.S. Department of Education. She oversees policies, programs, and activities related to 

post-secondary education, vocational and adult education and Federal student aid. 

Jane, we will start with you. Both of your testimony will be submitted in whole in the record, and we look forward to your comments. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JANE OATES, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF 

LABOR, EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ADMINISTRATION, 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. OATES. Senator, thanks so much to you, to Senator Isakson 

for your kind words, and to Senator Brown, I could not begin without thanking you for that reference to Senator Kennedy who I 

share—I wish he was sitting up there, but he would probably ask 

me tougher questions than anybody else. So I should be careful of 

what I wish for. 

It feels very odd sitting on this side of the table. I have such a 

history with this committee, and I hope that history with this committee is testimony to you to the fact that we will work together. 

We are committed at the Department of Labor, and I know my 

friends at Education share that. We respect this committee far too 

much to try to go anywhere else but here to get the answers that 

we need and the legislation that we know is going to be the improvements to the system that we all care about. 

Secretary Solis—a new team that I am very proud to be a part 

of—has established the goal of a good job for everyone. For those 

8 

of you who have met Secretary Solis, I think you are probably well 

aware that she does mean everyone, and that some of the things 

that need to be improved in our system are things that get directly 

to that point. Many of our clients who face real barriers to employment have not fully accessed the system. I hope that we will work 

together to change that in the reauthorization. 

It is exciting to be talking about workforce now. Those of us that 

have been talking about it for the last 11 years felt like we were 

the only ones who were interested. Now we have a President who 

is very interested in it, an Administration, and this committee remains interested, as well as our sister committee in the House. So 

I believe all the stars are aligned that we are going to get the best 

bill possible done as soon as possible. 

The system is being tested. These are hard times for everyone, 

but this system is stretched to the limits. I am here to tell you that 

after receiving all the State plans on June 30, this system is working and it is working hard. It does not mean there do not need to 

be improvements, but there should be no doubt in anybody’s mind 

that this system is working to improve the lives of people who, 

without any fault of their own, have been displaced. 

In addition, it is working hard with youth who face extraordinary 

barriers and it is working hard with disadvantaged adults who had 

a hard time in a full-employment economy getting the jobs that 

they so needed and are having a more challenging time now. 

You know that my past has an equal kind of foot in education 

and in workforce, and I think that is exactly where we need to be 

moving forward. The idea that education and the credentials that 

have been associated with the education world, both industryrecognized credentials, associates degree, bachelors degrees and beyond, are exactly where the workforce system should be leading. 

We should be making sure that when people come to us for training, they get a portable credential. That means if they have to 

move for personal reasons, they are equally able to get a good job 

somewhere else because they have a piece of paper that is recognized that can qualify them for that job anywhere that they go. I 

think in the reauthorization, it gives us an opportunity to make 

sure we articulate that more clearly. 

One of the things that I think all of us have heard in our listening sessions is that in 1998 we wrote a bill that said local areas 

had to partner. In doing that, we did not model at the Federal level 

by our own behavior. One of the commitments that I am here to 

make to you today is, that is going to change. 

The Department of Education and the Department of Labor already, since my limited time here, April 30, as an advisor to the 

Secretary, have had serious meetings together about how we move 

forward not only on creating new ideas but expanding the opportunities that exist now. And I would point to the UI Pell Memorandum that went out. We have been working together on every 

piece of information we put out to expand the opportunity for unemployed workers to qualify for Pell using their current status 

rather than last year’s earnings. 

I hope that as we meet with you over the months to come, the 

list of joint projects that we work on will continue to grow, and I 

know that having Martha here today is a clear indication that we 

9 

intend to work hand in hand on everything regarding WIA implementation. 

The Department of Labor does not want to stop with our partners at the Department of Education. We want to extend that, as 

things are developing, with our partners at HHS. We want to work 

closely with the Department of Defense, as we are looking at bringing more technology into the public workforce system, because Defense has been a high watermark in getting their soldiers up to 

speed, allowing them, even in the middle of battlefields, to continue 

their education. We need to learn from them as we look for electronic tools to expand opportunities for people in the public workforce system. 

We all believe that the dual customer approach is one that we 

should continue, but we should continue to work on it. Therefore, 

you have our commitment that we are going to reach out to departments like the Small Business Administration to find ways that 

our One-Stop Centers can provide all businesses, but particularly 

small businesses who hopefully will be the engine for job growth 

in the coming months and years, to provide them with the kind of 

information that would help them kind of work through the Federal system the best way that we can and help them grow their 

businesses at an accelerated pace. 

The reauthorization presents us with many things that we have 

heard. We have all heard that the boards need work. We need to 

more clearly define roles of States and local boards. We have all 

heard that the eligibility system is sometimes cumbersome and 

often embarrassing for people to come in and bring paperwork to 

prove that they are poor. My staff has heard me say more times 

than they would care to admit right now that someone who is poor 

should not have to continue to prove it time and time again. We 

need to look at youth eligibility and the eligibility criteria for disadvantaged adults to make it less embarrassing and more open to 

those youth and adults who need our services so dramatically especially in these times. 

I was a part of this committee and happily a part of this committee when we created the Workforce Investment Act, but for 

some reason, misperceptions and misconceptions remain. We never 

intended a sequence of service, and yet too often I hear from local 

areas that people have to go through that sequence of service. We 

need to find a way in legislative language to kill that for good, to 

make sure that we are clear in articulating that client needs need 

to be met without waiting to go through undue hardship to get to 

the gold star of job training. And we need to make sure that work 

first is only an option if that is what the client wants. It should 

not be an operating maxim by a One-Stop. 

I think that we have lots of things that we have heard, lots of 

things that you are going to tell us, and we are going to look forward to sharing those. 

I end with my commitment to the members of this committee, 

both the members and your staff who have been so kind to me 

since confirming me. You have our commitment for technical assistance for working as a team, and I know that Martha will echo that 

as well. 

I look forward to your questions. 

10 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Oates follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JANE OATES

Good morning, Chairperson Murray and members of the subcommittee. Thank 

you for extending the invitation to speak with you about the reauthorization of the 

Workforce Investment Act of 1998, or WIA. 

Secretary of Labor Solis has established a goal of ‘‘A good job for everyone.’’ The 

reauthorization of WIA is critical to achieving the Secretary’s goal by helping workers who are unemployed or in low-wage jobs find a path to middle class jobs, providing them with the skills and knowledge they need to succeed in a knowledgebased economy. Helping Americans build the skills to compete for the jobs of the 

future is a top priority of this Administration, as President Obama made clear earlier this week when he announced a new initiative to transform the opportunities 

available at our Nation’s community colleges. The Departments of Labor and Education have also taken steps to make it easier for recipients of Unemployment Insurance to seek retraining and educational opportunities while the economy recovers. 

Our WIA system has been tested in these harsh economic times. WIA One-Stops 

are welcoming record numbers of your constituents who are looking for career counseling, work-related services, and job training. With the additional funding provided 

through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), we 

are helping more job-seekers and workers through the workforce system. For example, in your home State of Washington, Senator Murray, Recovery Act funds are 

making it possible to place additional staff where they are needed most to provide 

re-employment services to Unemployment Insurance claimants and other job seekers. Beginning in May 2009, 1,500 new computers are being installed in job-seeker 

resource rooms at local WorkSource offices all over Washington in order to speed 

up and improve service to out-of-work Washington residents. Also using Recovery 

Act resources, the State has identified over 980 different worksites statewide that 

will provide over 5,000 youth with a meaningful work experience during the summer employment program. These worksites include private, public, and non-profit 

employers that are giving youth opportunities that will help them in choosing a career path in green industries and other high-demand fields. 

Georgia is using Recovery Act funds to re-invigorate its workforce system and 

serve the large numbers of workers now seeking its services. For example, the State 

is extending the hours of operation at One-Stop Career Centers and expanding service capacity through the use of mobile units. Georgia is also using Recovery Act 

funds to provide individuals served through the WIA Adult program with additional 

supportive services and needs-based payments for items such as emergency rent, car 

repairs, eye glasses, and other unexpected needs, to help individuals remain in the 

training they need to find a new job. 

In Michigan, an established initiative, ‘‘No Worker Left Behind’’ combines WIA 

with other workforce funds to provide any unemployed, laid off, or low-income job 

seekers with 2 years of tuition, up to $10,000 total, to attend any Michigan community college, university, or approved training program after a skills assessment. Participants must use the funds to pursue a credential in a high-demand occupation 

or emerging industry or in entrepreneurship. In addition, the funds received under 

the Recovery Act have allowed Michigan to bolster its services to Unemployment Insurance claimants. The State has added significant numbers of staff to provide career readiness assessments, one-on-one career guidance and case management, individual service strategies, and referrals to training. 

However, in each case these services are being provided through a law enacted 

over a decade ago, and whose authorization expired in 2003. Although there is a 

widespread consensus that WIA needs to be reformed and re-invigorated, past efforts to do so have failed. With a new Administration and Congress, we now have 

an opportunity for a successful reauthorization of this important law. 

The Administration supports the reauthorization of WIA. We believe WIA reauthorization should create a modernized system that provides seamless career advancement services for low-skilled adults, at-risk youth, and dislocated workers and 

others needing employment, training and retraining services. This system should 

embody a dual customer approach, which meets the needs of both workers and employers, in developing thriving communities where all citizens succeed and businesses prosper. 

Our approach will be to reach broadly across multiple departments, including the 

Departments of Education and Health and Human Services, to ensure that programs work harmoniously and effectively at the local level. For example, we believe 

customers should be able to access any Federal education and training program, as 

well as education and training opportunities provided by community colleges, 

11 

through the One-Stop system in a manner that supports the achievement of the individual’s educational and career goals. Services should be available in person as 

well as virtually, and the system should make the best use of technology to reach 

and serve job seekers and workers. The system should be accessible to all individuals with disabilities seeking employment and meet their unique needs. Eligibility 

determination processes for the various programs should be simplified and harmonized to the maximum extent possible, to ensure that individuals can readily access the services they need. The One-Stop Career Centers should be able to provide 

each individual a quick and effective assessment of skills and the best plan of services given the customer’s interests and skill level. Performance measures for accountability should be designed to recognize the value-added of services and avoid 

creating disincentives to serve participants who have the greatest need for assistance. And performance information on training programs should be widely available, so individuals can make informed choices about which programs best meet 

their needs. 

One criticism that we hear repeatedly is that we have asked local areas to partner 

with various stakeholders, and yet inside the Beltway we are conducting siloed business as usual. We have already begun to address that in our preliminary interagency discussions. I know that this Federal-level collaboration will require on-going 

commitment and daily effort. I know that the leadership at the Department of Education shares our genuine commitment to a real partnership. Our hope is that in 

working together, we can reduce the burden of duplicative reporting for local providers and that we can make real progress toward a seamless delivery system at 

the Federal level. 

We are looking to build on the WIA structure that this committee created in 1998, 

and to make improvements based on the lessons learned over the decade of its implementation. We are committed to working to support you as you begin the job of 

drafting that legislation. We hope to be a valued partner, and we hope that today 

will be the beginning of a collaborative process that ends with President Obama 

signing into law a re-invigorated WIA that will help put our country back to work. 

This concludes my prepared remarks, and I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

Senator MURRAY. Thank you very much, Secretary Oates. 

Secretary Kanter. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARTHA KANTER, UNDER SECRETARY, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. KANTER. Good morning, Chairman Murray and members of 

the subcommittee. I want to thank you so much for inviting me on 

my 15th day as the new Under Secretary. 

I am delighted to talk about the reauthorization of the Workforce 

Investment Act, having served on the local workforce investment 

board for many years in Silicon Valley. 

The current economic crisis requires us to think both strategically and systemically about how we are going to recommend to 

you investing Federal dollars so that the WIA programs will help 

people obtain the skills that are necessary for success in post-secondary education and the workforce. I have been talking to a number of groups over the last week about the interrelationship between work, family, and education and also thinking about those 

interactions across the life of individuals who become clients to 

WIA and then become dually enrolled in education and training. 

The Department of Education makes significant contributions to 

the effort through our programs for adult, career, and technical 

education. I think Senator Brown referenced many of those great 

programs. Literacy and English language acquisition is a huge portion of what we do, thus the need to collaborate and really integrate those programs not only into careers and meaningful work, 

but also into advanced skill levels so that individuals can ladder up 

to better jobs over time. Vocational rehabilitation services for indiVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:16 Jul 26, 2011 Jkt 035165 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\51264.TXT DENISE
12 

viduals with disabilities have been a big part of our responsibility, 

and services for under-skilled and/or at-risk youth is part of our responsibility. 

So the WIA reauthorization gives us a unique opportunity to better align and integrate the WIA programs within and across Federal agencies that Jane mentioned, among those HHS, of course, 

Labor being the centerpiece in our first effort here. But DOD has 

curriculum that I think we can take advantage of to accelerate 

learning and success in the workforce. Department of Energy, of 

course, is going to be expanding, and Commerce is another one. 

As we look toward reauthorization, we want to really integrate 

all of what we do with Labor and the other agencies and also think 

about the best impact we can have with States and localities so 

that educational and employment outcomes are transparent and 

clear for those that we serve. That was one of the first questions 

I asked coming on board. What are the outcomes today and how 

are we going to measure progress going forward? 

We have to integrate adult basic education and workforce development more effectively. We have great practices. One is in Washington State, the Yakima Valley Community College and the South 

Central Workforce Council, which had been working together to enhance adult learners’ basic literacy in their transition to employment. We have some great best practices to build upon. Through 

this collaboration, the clients who receive benefits under TANF, 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, are assessed. Those with 

appropriate skills and interests in allied health are referred to a 

nurse’s assistant certification training program that the college offers. And this is an example of a successful program where literacy 

training is not only contextual but goal-oriented and embedded, integrated into career and technical education and employment training. So you see that interaction, and that is what we want, that 

level of success for the clients who are also students. 

We have to really identify those best practice models through the 

States across the country so that we can integrate career pathways 

and connect those individuals who are under-skilled youth and 

adults and individuals with disabilities to the high-growth sectors 

that Senator Brown mentioned: manufacturing; solar is huge and 

growing; energy and health care, the unmet need that, Senator 

Murray, you talked about. 

We also want to work with the Department of Labor to recognize 

and reward progress on both educational and employment outcomes, as I said, and develop integrated or linked data systems so 

that we can measure our progress moving forward. 

With the reauthorization, we have an opportunity to modernize 

our literacy training programs, and there are lots of great examples 

that we hope to be able to transfer as best practices to programs 

like the one I served on and the community college that I represented for many years. Cutting-edge technology can efficiently remove barriers and accelerate the performance of low-skilled adults 

as long as the faculty are engaged and working with those programs to best educate students as quickly as possible so that we 

can have the goal of entering the workforce more quickly and then 

re-entering when jobs change, as they will continue to do. 

13 

We want to talk more specifically about WIA changes, but I 

would like to highlight just a couple of target populations that we 

would like you to consider as the legislation develops. 

The first is youth. Approximately 1.2 million students drop out 

of school each year, greatly reducing their earning potential. And 

the Department of Education considers this crisis a high priority, 

and Secretary Duncan has been talking about that as he has gone 

out to communities across the country. 

In the fiscal year 2010 budget request, we support the in-school 

program so that we can do a better job of identifying the students 

early, helping them stay on track, and developing strategies with 

labor and the business community, as well as community-based organizations so that we can re-engage them more quickly. The WIA 

youth programs are essential to this effort. By giving students realworld work experience and giving them the skills training and 

mentors, the youth programs can get the youth back on track more 

quickly so that they can graduate and move on to post-secondary 

education and the workforce after graduation. 

We look forward to collaborating with Labor about that, especially the under-prepared youth. When we distribute employment 

training funds for summer youth, we would like to see education 

be part of that more integrally. And these are the kinds of things 

that Assistant Secretary Oates and I want to work on. 

The second is individuals with disabilities, including youth with 

disabilities. We want to make sure that the One-Stop Centers are 

both prepared to serve those individuals with disabilities and are 

physically and programmatically accessible. We have to ensure that 

the vocational rehabilitation system will prepare those individuals 

with significant disabilities—you will see a lot of work in that—for 

high-quality employment that is geared to what the local workforce 

needs, suited to those individuals’ abilities and interests. 

We also want to promote early intervention in the transition 

process so that youth with disabilities can access post-secondary 

education and high-quality employment. Just as an example, more 

than half of the students in post-secondary education are working 

while they go to school. So the models really have to change and 

be more inclusive of both education and training along the lifetime 

of the continuum of earning power and lifetimes. 

This will maximize potential for success in a variety of careers, 

self-sufficiency for people with disabilities, and independent living, 

and is going to build upon the foundation of the Individuals with 

Disabilities Act. 

Finally, we want to promote evidence-based practices. That is a 

language that you will see Secretary Duncan and I talking about, 

using research to make decisions that are in the best interests of 

the students/clients to get them into the workforce and with the 

education and training they need and really build on the innovation across the country that we are seeing in many of the local 

workforce programs that are integrated with the education programs. 

And we would like to find ways to reward States for experimenting with new service delivery approaches like Jane had mentioned that can be replicated by other States if they so wish. 

14 

The last population we would like to keep in mind, as we look 

at WIA and consider changes to the program, are individuals with 

low-English proficiency. About three-quarters of adults enrolled in 

courses to improve their English proficiency were found to have 

low-beginning to low-intermediate English literacy skills. And I 

know this. We opened up a center this last year and we went from 

100 clients to 400 in one 3-month period. So the demand is tremendous. I think all of these funds can be used in collaboration to increase programs that will meet that demand locally. We have 

many, many thousands of individuals striving to integrate into, advance within, and contribute to society and economic prosperity, 

but face significant language barriers. 

WIA has been successful on a number of fronts, but alignments 

and outcomes have been inconsistent, and we know, working with 

Jane and the Department, we can do a much better job there. 

We have many opportunities to reform WIA, and we have been 

discussing ways to better align our programs, leverage resources, 

and ensure that youth and adults receive the services and support 

they need, whether students are in school, out of school, need academic training, need job placement, social services, or a combination. And it really has to be client-based. 

We look forward to reaching out to the partners across various 

agencies and most prominently Labor and look forward to working 

with Congress and coming back to this committee for your guidance and recommendations and bringing to you the best of what we 

have across the country in ways that we can work together to really make WIA ready for the next generation, as well as getting people back to work right now who need the services. 

I will be available to answer any questions and, just again, want 

to thank you for the opportunity to join you this morning at my 

first Senate hearing. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Kanter follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARTHA KANTER

Good morning, Chairman Murray and members of the subcommittee. Thank you 

for inviting me to speak with you about the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA). The current economic crisis shows that we must think strategically 

and systematically about how best to invest Federal dollars to ensure that the programs under WIA assist people in obtaining the necessary skills to succeed in postsecondary education and the workforce. The Department of Education makes significant contributions to this effort through our programs for adult, career and technical 

education, literacy and English language training, vocational rehabilitation services 

for people with disabilities, and services for under-skilled or at-risk youth. The reauthorization of WIA provides a unique opportunity to better align and integrate programs within and across Federal agencies, States, and localities to improve educational and employment outcomes for those we serve. 

As we look toward reauthorization, we must continue to recognize the interconnection between adult basic education and workforce development and provide 

services accordingly. Many examples exist where these goals intersect. For example, 

literacy training must be contextual, goal-oriented, and embedded into career and 

technical education and employment training. We must develop best practices for 

integrated career pathways and connect our under-skilled youth and students with 

disabilities to high-growth sectors. 

One high-growth, high-demand industry toward which programs can gear their efforts is healthcare. In California there are a number of examples of hospitals and 

hospital foundations partnering with high schools, literacy centers, and community 

colleges to expand and enhance training programs for registered nurses, medical lab 

technicians, and other in-demand healthcare positions. These programs fund more 

faculty as well as tuition, fees, books, and other expenses for students. Working colVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:16 Jul 26, 2011 Jkt 035165 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\51264.TXT DENISE
15 

laboratively with the Department of Labor, the Department can help ensure that 

our students get the skills and jobs they need. 

In Illinois, the Instituto del Progreso Latino (IPL) is extending its certified nursing assistant program and creating a certified medical assistant program in response to the local labor-market demands in healthcare. Career pathway programs 

like the one at IPL link basic education funding with projects for academic post-secondary coursework, work-specific instruction, hands-on classroom, and worksite 

training supported by others. 

Washington State’s Yakima Valley Community College and South Central Workforce Council work together to enhance adult learners’ basic literacy skills and their 

transition to employment. The project assessed clients receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) benefits and referred those with appropriate skills 

and interests in allied health to a nurse’s assistant certification training program 

offered by the college. 

The Department of Education also has been working with the Department of 

Labor to address these interconnected goals in other areas—for example, in Madison, WI, at Madison Area Technical College (MATC), one of five sites participating 

in the Department’s Career Connections initiative. MATC, a recipient of a DOL 

Community-Based Job Training grant and a WIRED grant, leveraged these resources to develop a ‘‘Prep for Success’’ course to promote the success of limited literacy students in Lab Animal Caretaker training and to map career pathways associated with animal lab science. This collaboration provides one clear pathway to 

move under-skilled adults into post-secondary pathway programs in high-demand, 

high-growth industries. 

We must take these pockets of best practices and turn them into standard practices to ensure that all students are achieving educational and employment success. 

While we will have many opportunities to talk about specific changes to WIA, I 

would like to highlight a few key target populations that should be considered as 

we move forward. 

The first is youth. Approximately 1.2 million students drop out of school each 

year. By dropping out, these students greatly reduce their earning potential. The 

Department of Education has made addressing this crisis a high priority by supporting in-school programs to identify these students early and help keep them on 

track, and develop comprehensive strategies in partnership with businesses and 

community-based organizations to re-engage those who do drop out. WIA Youth programs can be key to this effort. By giving students work experience, skills training, 

mentoring—helping them to understand the connections between school and postsecondary education and work—WIA Youth programs can help get youth back on 

track and re-engage them in school so that they graduate prepared to succeed in 

post-secondary education and the workforce. 

We are collaborating with our Federal partners to support these programs in an 

efficient and effective manner. The Departments of Education and Labor have been 

meeting and discussing ways to align programs, leverage resources, and ensure that 

youth receive the services and support they need—whether in school, out of school, 

academic, job training, or social services—or a combination of all of these. We intend 

to reach out to other Federal partners, including the Department of Health and 

Human Services, in these efforts. 

The second group I would like to address is people with disabilities, including 

youth with disabilities. We must ensure that WIA One-Stop Centers are prepared 

to serve people with all disabilities and that they are physically and programmatically accessible. We must ensure that the vocational rehabilitation system helps 

to prepare people with significant disabilities for high-quality employment, suited to 

an individual’s abilities and informed choice and to local workforce opportunities. 

We must also promote early intervention in the transition process so that youths 

with disabilities are prepared to access post-secondary education and high-quality 

employment to maximize their potential for successful careers, self-sufficiency, and 

independent living. Investing in WIA services for transitioning youth with disabilities will build upon the educational foundation of the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act and increase their potential for gainful employment and self-support. 

Finally, we must promote activities that foster innovation and evidence-based practices and reward States for testing innovative service-delivery approaches that can 

be replicated by other States and service providers. 

The final group I would like to address is those with low English proficiency. 

About three-quarters of adults enrolled in courses aimed at improving their English 

proficiency were found to have ‘‘low-beginning’’ to ‘‘low-intermediate’’ English literacy levels. These are individuals looking to integrate, advance, and contribute to 

our economic prosperity, but who face a significant language barrier to doing so. As 

we design programs, we must keep this low-English group in mind. 

16 

We have many opportunities for reform through WIA. There are a number of examples of best practices, but alignment and outcomes have been inconsistent. We 

need to recognize and reward progress on both educational and employment outcomes—and we need integrated data systems to track our progress as we go. We 

should also use this opportunity to modernize our literacy training programs, using 

technologies not available during the last reauthorization. Cutting-edge technology 

can more efficiently remove barriers and accelerate the performance of low-skilled 

adults so they can enter the workforce more quickly. 

The Department of Education looks forward to continuing collaboration with the 

Department of Labor and working with Congress to ensure that the individuals 

served by our programs have the skills they need to become full and successful contributors to our Nation’s economy. 

I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. 

Senator MURRAY. Thank you very much to both of you for your 

testimony. 

I appreciate both of you, in your testimony, speaking to the need 

for strong partnerships as we work to make sure that our workers 

of today have the skills they need. Whether it is between State or 

local, private or business, and the Federal agencies, everybody has 

to be working together, and I want to talk about that a little bit. 

Before I do that, let me just start with asking each of you what 

the President’s vision is for workforce development. Secretary 

Oates, let us start with you. 

Ms. OATES. When I first came on board, Senator Murray, it was 

described to me very briefly that the President is responding every 

day to the crisis that is presented in the economy and that he is 

going to have a multi-pronged approach of which WIA reauthorization would be a strong piece. Obviously, this week we saw his initiative on community colleges which will be another piece of how 

do we serve people better and more efficiently. 

Obviously, Secretary Solis’ goal of a good job for everyone comes 

as a sub-message from the President. I think he wants to get people back to work. I think he is committed to high-quality job training. He is committed to doing things that align the needs of business and growing business with what we are doing with training, 

and I think we are going to continue to see every initiative that 

comes out in this area being part of that multi-pronged approach 

that he spoke about. I think some of the things like the community 

college piece are better articulated right now as there is legislative 

language on the House side. I think that legislation will continue 

to improve, and it will get to its best form when it comes to the 

Senate. That is a little prejudicial statement. There is someone 

from the House probably throwing something at me from behind. 

But I think that we will continue to see innovative strategies 

that will come forward, and I would hope that as those strategies 

are developed now, that the political team is in place in each of the 

Departments and that the political teams, as well as the career 

folks at my Department, as well as our sister agencies, will be a 

part of the development of those ideas. And I sincerely hope from 

the beginning stages this committee will be a part of those ideas 

in the future. 

Senator MURRAY. Secretary Kanter. 

Ms. KANTER. Yes. I would just add he said—and President 

Obama said it again on Tuesday, and I have been tracking every 

time he makes a statement about having the most highly competitive, highly educated workforce in the world. And to do that, on 

17 

Tuesday, he recommended that the community colleges specifically 

graduate 5 million more students in the next 10 years. 

If you step back from all of that, you will see the underpinnings 

of what we have been talking about that are really consistent with 

that vision and goal, which is to have students going through and 

completing programs, whether it is the short-term credential that 

Jane talked about that is employer-based, provided in a community-based organization, or whether it is a nursing assistant program that takes a year at a community college to get us an industry-recognized, hospital-approved certificate, all of that training is 

integrated with getting students the literacy levels in science, 

mathematics, and language that are so sorely needed. So the President’s vision really includes educating everyone and having a vision that everyone in America could have at least 1 year of college 

or advanced training. 

So we have to look at this broadly because there are great training programs that may be separate from a college or the adult ed 

program in a local high school that are meeting the workforce the 

employer needs—solar tech, inspection, just on and on and on. But 

I think all of that is to say that we have to have a more highly 

trained, highly skilled workforce. 

Education plays a role and Labor plays a central role. The business community needs to be part of the conversation so that we can 

move forward and go from 40 percent of Americans, which the 

President has said, who have baccalaureate degrees to 60 percent. 

I came back from UNESCO 2 weeks ago, and Canada has 51 percent of baccalaureate degreed students, individuals across the 

country, and we want to go better. We want to have as highly 

trained, highly skilled workforce as we can, and the credentials and 

degrees and certificates are measures of that level of training. 

So we are thrilled to be working on that agenda. It is extremely 

difficult. It is very ambitious. But I do think it is possible. 

Senator MURRAY. How do you envision the Department of Education and the Department of Labor working together on this? 

Ms. KANTER. Well, first of all, we will have regular meetings. We 

are looking at principles that each other is working on now that we 

would be bringing back to this committee. So integrating the policy 

proposals and our thinking about really doing a review of everything that we can do together and what more we can do with what 

we have. So I have been looking at the outcomes of adult learners 

and literacy levels and how many people have GEDs and what jobs 

would they be ready for. And Labor looks at what jobs are out 

there and what are the specific skills and training that those individuals need, and we need to marry that. 

So I do not know if you want to add anything. 

Ms. OATES. Let me give you a very specific example. I think Martha is exactly right. We have a literacy problem in this country, but 

right now in our current system, you either go for adult literacy or 

you go for job training. That has to be changed immediately, and 

I–BEST does that very well. 

I also think we have to change remedial education because I 

think that—and again, this is my foot in your door, and I am sorry, 

but I know we agree on this. We cannot say to someone who wants 

to be a nurse and goes to a community college and finds out that 

18 

it is going to take him or her 2 years of remedial work before they 

can take a course that bears credit. They are going to lose their 

taste for nursing. We have to figure out ways together to integrate 

the contextualized skills, that you need in the area that you want 

to be trained in, with adult basic ed. 

If you need to learn sight vocabulary and you want to be a nurse, 

there is no reason that your sight vocabulary cannot be related to 

the medical profession. We have done that in so many instances in 

pockets of excellence. We need to do that across the country. And 

I think we do it with a 55-year-old worker the same as we do it 

with an 18-year-old potential worker. 

Senator MURRAY. Specifically on health care, some Labor programs or Education programs are overseen by HHS, Health and 

Human Services. How can we help better align those so that we 

are not fighting with each other, but we are all working together? 

Ms. OATES. I will start and give Martha a chance to catch her 

breath. 

I think the first thing is in performance measures. I think that 

there are clear performance measures that we could agree to. I 

think far too many people at the local area are wasting their time 

answering a question one way for me at Labor, another way for 

Martha at Education, and another way for Mary Wakefield at 

HRSA. I think that is a real problem. We cannot afford in this 

economy or ever to waste people’s time doing duplicative, redundant paperwork. So I would say that performance measures are a 

real way that we could do that and reporting requirements. 

I think we can also make sure that we are getting the best geographic spread on what we are doing. I think we all know—I just 

came from New Jersey—in every State there are high performers, 

people that go after grants from Labor and are successful, and the 

same people go after grants from Education. So they have $3 for 

every dollar that they need, and they serve the people. And do not 

get me wrong, but we are leaving other community colleges and 

other community-based organizations out of the mix because they 

cannot compete with the star in their State. And all of us are hit 

with scarce resources. So oftentimes we will not fund more than 

one program in a certain geographic area. 

We need to work together and create a real scatter map about 

where in States have we not penetrated at all with innovative 

ideas and training. And then we need to agree that we would work 

with those folks to build their skills. Whether they are in urban or 

rural areas, suburban areas, it does make a difference. How do we 

build their skills so that they can write more competitive grants? 

And none of us are putting really any time into that right now. 

Senator MURRAY. I am way over my time, but Secretary Kanter, 

if you want to just add a—— 

Ms. KANTER. Well, I would just add that the integrated data systems are really essential. So your guidance in terms of working 

with States to link up with Federal data that is already being reported, already being used, that we can better align. It would be 

a major investment in infrastructure, but would be of tremendous 

benefit to everyone at the local level who are doing the intakes and 

doing the tracking and performance measures on the clients going 

through whether they are in education at a community college, in 

19 

a local community-based organization over at the Department of 

Labor. Maybe it is a person with disability receiving VR services. 

And all of that integration is duplicative. So I agree with what 

Jane said. 

The other thing I would add is that the standards for this—what 

are the expectations we want for different sectors of the clients we 

serve and how quickly can we accelerate. So your support for innovation and transferring those best practices to the programs that 

desperately need more of those would be of great value to us. 

Senator MURRAY. Thank you very much. 

Senator Isakson, we will turn it over to you. 

Senator ISAKSON. Thank you, Chairman Murray. 

I have a question for both of you. I was really pleased to hear 

Secretary Kanter talk about evidence-based decisions. One of the 

biggest battles of the last reauthorization of WIA was the flexibility 

at the local level to a certain degree, and the way we solved that 

was with five demonstration projects for States, one of which was 

Georgia, out of which the One-Stop shop emerged. 

I just wanted to ask both of you if you recognize the importance 

of allowing some levels of flexibility at the State level to encourage 

innovation and development of new programs rather than a central 

government-down approach? 

Ms. OATES. Senator, I think we need to let the States have room 

for innovation, and I think we need to listen so that every State 

does not have to necessarily re-invent the wheel. I think we have 

done far too little sharing within States and a much worse case of 

sharing State to State. We need to make sure that the innovative 

room that we give States produces lessons learned that we then 

share, and I think both our Departments are committed to doing 

a better job on that. 

But I think we would all be in line with you that it is not a cookie cutter. Georgia is not New Jersey or Massachusetts or Washington State, and we need to make sure that we recognize the 

uniqueness of each of the States and allow them within a parameter of accountability. I know that you mean that as well. We need 

to keep them accountable to whatever measures you are going to 

develop in the new reauthorization, but we do not need to tell them 

how to get there. 

Ms. KANTER. I would just add. I was speaking yesterday to about 

100 people who represent State higher education officials. These 

are the people that run the higher education coordinating councils 

across the 50 States. One gentleman stood up and said that 10 

States had already agreed to look at common standards for career 

and college readiness. I think that is going to be essential going 

forward so that, for example, high school graduation means that 

you are ready for this level of career and you are ready for this 

level of college, instead of the variation that we have. So I was encouraged that States already are working together in new collaborative ways, and I think that is an area where the Federal Government can encourage that. 

Each State is going to have its own unique culture and history 

and will have its own best practices. Some may be easily adopted. 

Others may not. So I think we have to look State by State and 

really see where can we have the greatest impact at this level, and 

20 

of course, me being new to this whole environment, really trying 

to figure out how can the Federal Government be the most effective, have the most impact, and part of that is really looking at 

what is evidence-based and how are we using these grant funds, 

these Challenge Grants, and all of the other programmatic ways 

that we can encourage innovation, how can we then deploy that 

into delivery models that will both streamline service to the customers and get more people educated and into better and better careers going forward. 

Senator ISAKSON. Thank you. 

Secretary Oates, the most compelling and delightful statement 

you made in your prepared remarks was about the dual customer 

approach of those who seek employment as well as the employers. 

Although I am reticent to bring this up with Senator Brown in the 

room, I am going to go ahead and do it anyway because it is a testimony to exactly what you said. 

NCR recently decided to move to Georgia, and I was asked to 

speak to their executives this past Sunday at Georgia Tech. They 

were having a symposium. One of the things that our State developed through its adult and technical education was a quick start 

program where they guarantee training of employees which ultimately is on the location of an ATM and kiosk construction facility, 

that was the deciding factor for the move to Columbus, GA for that 

facility. 

It was the exact reason why this interagency cooperation is so 

important because you want to help people get jobs, but you have 

to have those who train people for jobs a part of the program and 

the needs of the employer to be part of it. 

So I commend you on that, and I will take any comment you 

might have about it. 

Ms. OATES. Well, the only comment I would make, Senator, is 

that you and every Senator on this subcommittee and the full committee hold me accountable to that because if in a year I cannot 

give you new things that we have done to get information out to 

all of our One-Stops about how to improve the dual customer approach, then I should not have this job. 

Senator ISAKSON. Secretary Kanter, last question real quickly. 

You talked about individuals with disabilities twice, which I really 

appreciate you doing because there are two things I think we need 

to look at. 

First, is making high-tech assistance available to people with disabilities. There are a lot of people with disabilities who are employable with assisted technology, and that gets missed. There are a lot 

of things they could do with a computer for people with MS, people 

with any number of very restrictive afflictions, but they can be contributors to society. So that is one area. 

The second area is the public transportation mechanisms in each 

of the States, particularly in the major urban centers, because one 

of the most difficult problems for a person with disabilities to be 

employed is transportation. And the development of van pools and 

things of that nature, to be able to get a person with a disability 

to work and back again, is an important part of interagency cooperation and workforce development. 

21 

So I would just encourage both of you to consider when you are 

talking about interagency cooperation, do not forget those catalysts 

for public transportation. Where it is available, it can make a big 

difference. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator MURRAY. Thank you very much, Senator Isakson. 

Senator Brown. 

Senator BROWN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I thank you both for your willingness to serve and your willingness to take on these immense challenges in very difficult times. 

This job is harder perhaps than when you first thought about it. 

Just really one question, but I will sort of flesh out for both of 

you your thoughts about it. The ARRA money for workforce investment—the legislation that is coming up with reauthorization and 

the dollars that will come with that—how do you see the whole— 

I talked about the Sectors Act that several of us are working on. 

How do you see the sector-based strategies fitting into our workforce system? Just give me more details about how you think that 

works. How do we provide the right incentives to existing workforce investment boards, to employers, to unions, to community colleges, to other institutions of higher learning to put together these 

sector approaches? 

Ms. KANTER. One thing that we are emphasizing—and I think 

you will see it in a lot of the language that is coming out in various 

proposals—is partnerships among the sectors for improving workforce training, education, and placement into jobs, and then together, tracking outcomes and hopefully simplifying the processes 

to do all of that. 

But I think when we encourage collaborative proposals and Challenge Grants or in special initiatives, that we are getting people to 

the table that may have had a sector missing especially, for example, Senator Isakson mentioned the vocational rehabilitation. You 

see in the One-Stops some great examples of where vocational rehabilitation is actually seated at the table in the One-Stop, and 

that is so helpful in terms of streamlining access for students, making sure the transportation is there, and really focused around getting that individual to that next level of success, whether it is directly into a job, whether it is training and a job at the same time 

at an entry level, or laddering up with literacy skills and other 

things, child care and other things that that individual may need. 

So I think it is really a question of how we are going to work 

together in designing all of the implementation programs to build 

upon these pots of funding, whether it is ARRA or the new initiatives that the President mentioned on Tuesday for community college Challenge Grants, or WIA, which is the subject of this great 

hearing that I am learning so much in. 

The other thing we want to do is really work together on who 

is at the table in workforce investment. Do we have the community 

colleges represented on the workforce investment boards? Are the 

partners, are the sectors of health care and manufacturing and energy represented, those business leaders locally? And I think we 

have great experts here to testify on who is at the table and how 

they are working together. 

22 

But really, those would be my two suggestions going forward on 

things that we could really do to ramp up. 

Senator BROWN. Madam Secretary. 

Ms. OATES. Senator, the Recovery Act certainly gave us an area 

to start with and that is green jobs. We certainly are putting out 

grants now and looking at, cross-sector, what is green. 

Some of the innovative things that States have done even with 

summer youth to get kids focused on a sectoral approach, some 

again in green, some in allied health, some in the education sector, 

all areas, we hope, of continued growth—but Labor has to do a better job of getting sectors together at a national level so that we can 

press down some of the information to a local level. 

If a sectoral approach is going to be the way we go—and I think 

actually it has tremendous promise—we need to make sure from 

the beginning the varied business components of that sector are together with the varied educational components, starting with high 

school and working through graduate school, to not only articulate 

their immediate needs but articulate their future needs as the sector grows and expands. 

But it is not a one-time meeting, and that is somehow difficult 

for our system. We think we have a meeting and we check off the 

box. It is, indeed, a different kind of partnership where planning 

and implementation and evaluation all have to be done collaboratively. Whether it is the new manufacturing, whether it is green, 

whether it is health care, we have to make sure that we are 

incenting those kinds of discussions, continuous discussions, so that 

the sectoral approach is the embodiment of continuous improvement linking employer needs with educational needs on not only 

the short-term basis but longer-term as well. 

I would throw out there we need line workers in manufacturing, 

but we also need engineers. And you are going to be able to train 

a line worker in 6 months to a year, thanks to terrific apprenticeship programs that are operating and adapting all the time. An engineer—there is really no way to cut that any shorter than an engineering masters or a bachelors degree. And we do not want to truncate that. We want someone to have the full credential. 

So we are going to need advance notice on those things, and I 

think the sectoral approach is the one way we do have that continuous and ongoing conversation. 

Senator BROWN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator MURRAY. Thank you very much. 

I have a number of questions I am going to submit to you. We 

do have a large panel. I want to get to them. I just want to ask 

two follow-up questions and turn to Senator Isakson. 

I have heard you, Secretary Kanter, this morning, as well as the 

President, talk about the goal of 1-year post-secondary education 

for everyone. For most of us, we think a 2-year degree, 4-year degree. But it also means other credentials, a certificate, a license, a 

journeyman’s card. Can both of you tell me how your Department 

defines post-secondary education? 

Ms. KANTER. Well, we have been talking about—actually in the 

international community, they use the word ‘‘tertiary’’ because 

what that means is that you could get an apprenticeship training, 

you could become a journeyman, and that would qualify for what 

23 

we call post-secondary education. So I think the language of how 

we talk about advanced training—I have been using the word advanced training after high school, hopefully leading to the credentials that Jane talked about, the certificates of achievement which 

are typical for community colleges across the country. That is generally a year you become an automotive technician, a lab tech, a 

biotechnician, and so forth, and then moving up to get the associates degree, the baccalaureate degree, and so forth. But we are 

looking at advanced training broadly. I think that is the basic 

point. 

And there are many sectors within the educational community, 

whether it is at a community-based organization, a public community college, or a private school to provide the training. We want 

to make sure that the quality assurance is there. So these are highquality training programs that lead to jobs that employers have 

ready so that we can put people into those jobs and they are ready 

for them. 

We will be glad to work with the Department of Labor on clarifying language that you may be requesting. 

Ms. OATES. And we want to make sure that it is seen as a step. 

So, therefore, if you get a credential, that does not mean that you 

are finished, that you move on to an associates degree and a baccalaureate degree. But we think, too rarely people who stay for a semester or two contiguous semesters do not get anything to prove 

that they have achieved a level of learning. As Martha said in her 

testimony, more than half of the people going to post-secondary 

education, what we would have considered community college or a 

4-year college, now are working almost full-time. So we should give 

them something to improve their status in the workforce. 

Obviously, for us it is apprenticeships, as well as everything else. 

We are going to promote that and getting better articulation on 

new—in the area of the manufacturing sector—getting new credentials. This committee’s early work with the National Skills Standards Board, which did not get where this committee ever intended 

it to be, did great groundbreaking work. It just did not get to the 

finish line. We need to get sectors to complete that work. I do not 

know how we do it without a money incentive. 

But I hope that we can do it because there are folks who are 

really talented who could take that talent, what they are learning 

in an apprenticeship program and translate it, where appropriate, 

to credits toward an associates degree. And we should be doing 

that more and more. 

In my own house, we should be doing it more in programs like 

Youth Build and Job Corps and our apprenticeship programs, but 

more broadly, we should be encouraging things like dual enrollment in high schools. I know Martha cares deeply about that and 

community colleges. So more kids can graduate with not only their 

high school diploma, which is so critical, but also an advanced certificate. 

Senator MURRAY. Let me ask one final question about a population I care deeply about, our veterans. A number of men and 

women who are coming home have suffered both visible and invisible wounds of war and will need additional support to get the necessary skills to move into the workforce. 

24 

Can you tell me, are both of your Departments willing to work 

with the Department of Defense and Veterans Affairs to make sure 

that we are coordinating systemwide for these young men and 

women? Not for this morning, but I would like both of you to get 

back to me about how you think we can be more responsive to that 

population in the WIA legislation. 

Ms. KANTER. Yes. I can just say that we have had a number of 

meetings with the Veterans Administration, specifically around 

Federal student aid and how veterans are moving through that system when they come back to get education and training. So we look 

forward to more conversations in that regard. We want to get everybody back to education and work. 

Ms. OATES. We have begun to get our One-Stop operations aware 

of the servicemen opportunity colleges so that they can make sure 

that they have that information. The Veterans Administration does 

a wonderful job, but it is a place where we do need redundancy. 

We need to make sure, no matter which door a returning veteran 

comes in—because so many now that are called up to active duty 

are from places like the National Guard that do not get the same 

careful attention from the military that their full-time veterans 

would get. So we are trying to do more, but Senator, this is an area 

where we are never going to do enough. 

Senator MURRAY. We have a lot of work to do. There are a lot 

of Veterans who have skills they earned in the military that do not 

count towards traditional business credentials. So, you both know, 

this is a conversation I am going to continue to have with you. 

I thank both of you. We will have questions that will be submitted for the record for you. And we need to be done by noon 

today, so I am going to move our next panel up. But thank you, 

both of you. 

With that, I ask the second panel to move to the witness table. 

As they do that, I want to describe how this very large panel is 

going to work this morning. 

Each panelist will have 5 minutes to respond to two questions 

that the committee has asked them. The first one is what each of 

them believes works and should be preserved and refined in the 

current workforce system, and what should be eliminated. 

As a former preschool teacher, I know when to stop talking and 

wait for everybody to sit down. 

[Laughter.] 

All right. I will again tell everyone that what we have done here 

is asked each one of the panelists to respond to two questions. The 

first one is to respond to what they believe works, how should it 

be preserved and refined, in the current workforce system and 

what should be eliminated. Second, what innovative policy recommendations they would offer to modernize WIA. 

After the panel completes their remarks, we will have the opportunity to ask questions. Additionally, I would just let the witnesses 

know that, although we do have a short amount of time, if you 

would like to respond to any of our questions, please let us know 

and we will try and do that within a timely amount of time. 

I am going to introduce the panelists. We have Clyde McQueen, 

currently President and CEO of the Full Employment Council in 

Kansas City, MO. Michael Thurmond, Commissioner of the Georgia 

25 

State Department of Labor. Rick Bender, President of the Washington State Labor Council in Seattle, WA. Dr. William Kiernan, 

Director of the Institute for Community Inclusion, and Research 

Professor in the graduate college of education in the McCormick 

School of Policy Studies at the University of Massachusetts in Boston. Mary Sarris is the Executive Director of the North Shore 

Workforce Investment Board. Kathy Cooper is Policy Associate 

with Washington State’s Office of Adult Basic Education, and Stephen Wing is the Director of Workforce Initiatives for CVS 

Caremark. 

Thank you to all of our panelists for joining us today. We look 

forward to hearing your remarks, and Mr. McQueen, we are going 

to begin with you. 

STATEMENT OF CLYDE McQUEEN, PRESIDENT/CEO, FULL 

EMPLOYMENT COUNCIL, KANSAS CITY, MO 

Mr. MCQUEEN. Good morning, Madam Chairman and members 

of the committee. Again, I am pleased to be here to address the reauthorization of this important piece of legislation. 

The Full Employment Council serves as the One-Stop operator 

and fiscal agent for the Kansas City Vicinity and Eastern Jackson 

County Workforce Investment Boards in Missouri. The regions 

served by these two policy bodies cover 2,700 square miles with 

over 1 million people. We have the largest city in the State, Kansas 

City, MO, and we have one of the smallest counties which has 

20,000 people in population. 

The current unemployment rate of the city of Kansas City, MO 

is 11.6 percent. In the five-county region, the unemployment rate 

is 9.6 percent. 

Our workforce system has dealt with the ups and downs of the 

economies in four basic ways. First, we have been conveners of 

partnerships that produce results for workers and employers. Second, we have been a catalyst for workforce innovation. Third, we 

have been leaders or providers of workforce information to determine where the jobs are for people and where the people are for 

emerging employers. And finally, we have been career navigators 

for disconnected youth, dislocated workers, and low-income families. 

The local workforce system enjoys an excellent partnership with 

organized labor, working with the Greater Kansas City AFL–CIO 

and its president, Bridgette Williams, which has led to the creation 

of a locally funded pre-apprenticeship training program called 

Project Prepare. This serves as a training effort for low-income 

women, minorities, and youth to enter apprenticeships in skilled 

areas. This partnership has led to the creation of a local workforce 

ordinance that establishes a First Source program targeting KC, 

MO residents as a first choice for city construction jobs. It establishes goals for women and minorities on construction projects and 

establishes a construction workforce board to oversee the program. 

This partnership has also worked with the local fire fighters union 

and the machinists union who are being impacted by the 

downsizing of the local overall base. 

The system has sector partnership with the Kansas City Metropolitan Healthcare Council that has generated over $2 million in 

26 

public and private funding to reduce the shortage of nurses in the 

greater Kansas City region. Through this partnership, the number 

of nursing students increased by 30 percent, or 300, in a 2-year period. 

The Kansas City system established a partnership with 10 regional economic development agencies to form the first regional 

business retention council in the State of Missouri. The BRC in 

their last 2 years has assisted 367 companies and saved or added 

837 jobs in the process. 

Our local education partnerships in the region exist with community colleges, vocational schools, universities, and proprietary 

schools to establish just-in-time, on-demand training programs to 

serve businesses and job seekers more effectively in the region. The 

local system works in partnership with the State education agency 

to certify and fast-track training courses to meet the immediate regional skill requirements on a bi-State basis that are needed either 

because of economic expansion or economic dislocation in the area. 

We also work as career navigators as we determine career pathways for disconnected youth, low-income adults, and dislocated 

workers. This has been a major focus of the KC local workforce system, and more recently a partnership of the workforce investment 

board, the Kansas City public library, and the Kansas City Parks 

and Rec Department will lead to the development of a 20,000 

square foot, $3 million green facility that will host a youth career 

center and the Black Archives of Mid-America. 

ARRA stimulus funds were used to provide youth summer in- ternships, and $1,000 scholarships after the end of their summer 

job to attend a community college or vocational school or a $500 

book scholarship to attend a university of their choice, if they desire. 

In addition, over five different course offerings have been developed that combine education, work readiness, skill training in each 

career area. 

The One-Stop concept has been the local focal point for the coordination of the workforce system, creating opportunities and 

leveraging funds and programs with one WIB member contributing 

over $2 million in a 20-year period. 

WIA can be reformed by reducing board size, to reducing mandated public sector representation, requiring local partnership 

agreements only with systems that contribute to the local workforce system, reducing youth eligibility requirements to encourage 

system utilization by at-risk, disconnected youth, improving State 

and Federal MIS systems to effectively capture real-time system 

productivity, and review performance metrics to encourage incentive systems to low-skill populations, and discourage low-cost programming that leaves low-income, basic skill-deficient populations 

behind. 

An innovation fund could be locally budgeted to encourage local 

program innovation. 

A training ‘‘smart pass’’ that facilitates client referral of persons 

presently in HUD, HHS, or DOL programs who are economically 

disadvantaged and seek training services. 

And finally, a stand-alone summer jobs career intern program focused on 16- to 24-year-old youth in post-secondary skill areas. 

27 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McQueen follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CLYDE MCQUEEN

Good Morning, Madam Chairman and members of the HELP Committee. 

My name is Clyde McQueen, and I have the privilege of serving as the Chief Executive Officer of the Full Employment Council, the Regional workforce agency for the 

city of Kansas City, MO, and the surrounding counties of Jackson, Clay, Platte, 

Cass and Ray. This area covers 2,700 square miles with a population of 1,091,900 

in urban, suburban, and rural areas. 

I am fortunate to be representing the Kansas City Region, where business, organized labor, community and governmental leadership forge local partnerships to assist its citizenry. I have served in my career as an Economic Development Administrator, a State Workforce Development Director, and Regional Workforce Chief Executive, during every economic downturn that has occurred since 1978. 

I am honored that the Senate has asked me to speak on the Reauthorization and 

Modernization of the Workforce Investment Act, as we face unprecedented challenges and opportunities to develop the skills of our workforce to compete in the 

global marketplace of the 21st Century. 

In serving this diverse Region of major corporations, small businesses, Adults in 

Career transition, or Youth beginning their career journey, the Kansas City Regional workforce system has achieved significant successes. These accomplishments 

have occurred as the Kansas City Regional workforce system has been: 

• Conveners of results-oriented partnerships. • Catalysts for innovative workforce strategies that serve growth industries and 

generate financial support. • Strategic leadership for the compilation and distribution of real-time workforce 

information. • Career Navigators steering through career pathways for Disconnected Youth, 

Low-Income Adults, Dislocated Workers and other Job Seekers in their search for 

meaningful careers and family-supporting incomes. 

This bi-state Region is home to General Motors (Chevy Malibu production), Ford 

(Escape & F-150 truck production), Harley Davidson (V-Rod production), Garmin 

(GPS production), H&R Block Corporation, Cerner (medical records technology), 

Hallmark Cards and Sprint. There are at least 24 hospitals and innumerable nursing home facilities in the area. The most current May 2009 Regional rate of unemployment is 9.6 percent and the city of Kansas City’s unemployment rate is 11.6 

percent. There are 21 school districts, two State community college systems, and two 

major State university systems. 

AN EXEMPLARY ORGANIZED LABOR PARTNERSHIP

The Organized Labor partnership is crucial to the local workforce system in the 

Kansas City region. We have achieved success with results, by working closely with 

the Greater Kansas City AFL–CIO, and its President, Bridgette Williams, in developing local workforce projects and programs. This partnership has led to the development of a pre-apprenticeship program, ‘‘known as Project Prepare,’’ administered 

jointly by the Greater Kansas City AFL–CIO and the Full Employment Council. 

This program targets low-income women, minorities and youth for apprenticeship 

opportunities in the various construction trade unions. We also work closely with 

the Heavy Highway Constructors Association, the Builders Association of Kansas 

City and the Mechanical Contractors Association. This initiative facilitated the creation of a Workforce Ordinance that established a First Source agreement, in which 

Kansas City residents are given the first opportunity to apply for jobs created by 

city-funded or tax-abated construction. In addition, it sets goals for hiring women 

and minorities for all construction trades and apprentice programs. This ordinance 

provides oversight by a city-appointed Construction Workforce Board that recognizes 

superior performers in this effort, as well as levies sanctions for non-compliance. 

Project Prepare has also been effective in working with the Local Firefighter’s 

Union to recruit and screen potential applicants to be trained as cadets for the city 

of Kansas City, MO, as well as the city of Independence, MO Fire Departments. 

This organized labor partnership has also been effective in working with employers and their workforce(s) impacted by the economic downturn. An example of that 

partnership includes the workers of the Machinists Union impacted by the American Airline Overhaul Base downsizing at the Kansas City International Airport. In 

the previous 4 years, these reductions which have impacted at least 1,000 employees, the Kansas City Workforce System has worked efficiently with labor/manageVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:16 Jul 26, 2011 Jkt 035165 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\51264.TXT DENISE
28 

ment transition teams to provide on-site services for Union members. These services 

have included the hiring of Union peer counselors; the establishment of on-site computerized resource rooms to facilitate easy access to career center services; the implementation of ‘‘Fast Track’’ entrepreneurial training programs; and the implementation of on-demand training for emerging growth industries. Dislocated Union 

workers can access the bi-state individual training account system (ITA) to access 

multiple training options at community colleges, universities, vocational schools, 

and proprietary training institutions. 

This partnership has received over $400,000 in support from the city of Kansas 

City; $200,000 in support from the Missouri Department of Transportation; and significant in-kind support from various construction trade unions. This partnership 

has also led to community dialogue between the unions, construction contractors, 

city administrators, community residents, and the Workforce System, and resulted 

in developing a common vision and approach for addressing training and workforce 

needs in the construction sector, as well as other skilled occupations. 

SECTOR PARTNERSHIP: HEALTHCARE/WORKFORCE SYSTEM INCREASES NURSING

STUDENTS AND NURSE EDUCATORS

The Kansas City Regional Workforce System, in collaboration with the Kansas 

City Metropolitan Healthcare Council, has generated over $2 million in public and 

private funding to reduce the shortage of nurses in the Greater Kansas City Region; 

increase the number of nurse educators; and increase the training capacity of local 

schools, community colleges and other secondary educational institutions. 

This local Workforce System/Healthcare partnership led to the development of a 

Nurse Preceptor Academy that provide mentors for new nurses and nursing students; provides financial support to nurses pursuing masters’ degrees to become 

nurse educators through a $500,000 privately funded bi-state scholarship program 

administered by the Full Employment Council; and establishes a bi-state workforce 

system protocol that governs how Missouri and Kansas Workforce Systems interact 

with Missouri and Kansas Hospital programs in the Region bordering the State 

Line. This partnership also increased the number of nursing students by 30 percent 

or 300 nurses. 

This close association with the Healthcare industry also led to the first Healthcare 

online training program in the Region through Truman Medical Center (Kansas 

City, Missouri’s public hospital), where licensed practical nurses are trained to become registered nurses on the hospital premises by Excelsior College of New York. 

Tuition costs are funded equally by the Kansas City Workforce System and Truman 

Medical Center. This online training program reduces the impact of childcare and 

transportation expenses on trainees; increases the number of registered nurses at 

the public hospital; and significantly increases the wages of training graduates. 

SUCCESSFUL BOARD MEMBER PARTNERSHIPS LEAD IN SUPPORT OF THE

WORKFORCE SYSTEM

Great Plains Energy/Kansas City Power & Light has maintained a successful 

workforce partnership with the Workforce Investment Board over a span of 20 

years. Initially, this partnership was established to provide summer interns to 

KCP&L’s facility, but has now evolved to placing persons in their plant operations, 

such as utility linemen and responding to other career opportunities resulting from 

retirements and transitioning of an aging workforce, and implementation of ‘‘Green’’ 

technologies. In addition to utilizing the career center system for its corporate workforce needs, Kansas City Power & Light has been a financial supporter of the local 

Workforce Investment Board, providing over $2 million in private funding to support career center programs. Kansas City Power & Light’s Senior Vice-President 

and Corporate Secretary, Barbara Curry, also serves as Chairperson of the Workforce Investment Board. Great Plains Energy/KCP&L has been the community leader in Workforce/Economic Development partnerships. 

The Board members of the Kansas City/Eastern Jackson Workforce Investment 

Boards have created the opportunity for the local workforce system to innovate, and 

move beyond traditional workforce approaches. Strategies working with Organized 

Labor; linking with Economic Development entities; developing sector-specific initiatives with manufacturing, healthcare, and bioscience training; developing innovative 

training course design and delivery; and innovating fund development are driven by 

the Board members who have created opportunities within their own organizations, 

affiliates, or organizational peers. 

29 

LOCALLY APPOINTED BUSINESS-LED WORKFORCE SYSTEM

The appointment of a Local/Regional Workforce system by local-elected officials 

has increased Workforce System responsiveness, resulting in a more user-friendly 

Workforce System that meets business and job seeker needs, as determined by the 

Board of their respective Regions. As mentioned previously, the Full Employment 

Council serves as the One-Stop Operator/Fiscal Agent for two Workforce Investment 

Regions that border each other, yet are unique in their constituent and employer 

market. These Boards incorporate similar, but distinct job training approaches, yet 

have reduced operational/administrative costs by using the same operational entity. 

These Boards, in partnership with their local-elected officials, have effectively determined structure and service delivery, budget, strategic priorities, and board size. 

This approach has generated substantial local financial support, and reduced duplicate workforce systems in two regions. 

EDUCATIONAL PARTNERSHIPS FOR JUST-IN-TIME/IMMEDIATE RESPONSE TRAINING

In the Kansas City Region, we have formed partnerships with 4-year colleges, vocational schools, proprietary schools, Job Corps and community colleges to develop 

a just-in-time/immediate response/credentialed training system. The foundation of 

the partnership is the Missouri Department of Secondary and Elementary Education retained by the Workforce Investment Boards to verify and certify the curriculum and training to be provided by potential training vendors. DESE approval 

is necessary before training can be assessed by job seekers enrolled in the local 

Workforce System. This system enables the Kansas City Region’s job seekers to access training programs that cover both Missouri and Kansas, including its eight 

county areas, as long as the programs meet DESE criteria. Training Providers include proprietary schools, community colleges, vocational schools, universities and 

private training establishments. 

The timeframe of semester-based skill training has become increasingly incompatible with the quarterly business cycles of employers or the fierce velocity of global 

competition. Utilizing only semester-based training compromises the ability to be 

proactive in meeting workforce needs required by economic expansion, or respond 

to sudden economic dislocation. Therefore, the Region has prodded training providers to create more on-demand and just-in-time training courses to respond to the 

ups and downs of Regional economies. 

The Metropolitan Community College of Kansas City responded by reorganizing 

its administrative structure to provide immediate response to on-demand/customized 

training needs. This realignment has led to immediate response training courses in 

Advanced Manufacturing, Certified Medication Technician, and Welding, to name 

only a few. 

The University of Central Missouri based in Warrensburg, MO, with local 

branches in the Region, has responded by providing on-demand courses in 

Healthcare, Weatherization, Warehouse/Supply Chain and Customer Service careers. 

In March 2009, the University of Kansas responded by initiating a course in Bioscience Technician training. Vocational and proprietary schools have other jobrelated fields. This diverse and growing menu of on-demand training in the total 

post-secondary training structure increases responsiveness to Job Seekers and Employers. 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIPS THAT HELP EXISTING BUSINESSES TO BE

RETAINED OR TO EXPAND IN THEIR REGION

Economic Development Partnerships are necessary to provide assistance to businesses to keep them in the area, or help them to expand. The Full Employment 

Council served as the catalyst to form a Regional Business Retention Council, whose 

sole purpose is to assist existing businesses in Retention and/or expansion efforts. 

The Council is comprised of the Economic Development Partners on the WIB, as 

well as those in the Region. 

The Business Retention Council (BRC) is a diverse conglomerate of Economic Development agencies in the Region that includes: 

• The Economic Development Corporation of Kansas City; 

• Clay County Economic Development Corporation; 

• Lee’s Summit Economic Development Corporation; 

• Independence Council of Economic Development; 

• Blue Springs Economic Development Council; 

• The Liberty Partnership for Growth; 

• The Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce; 

30 

• Richmond Chamber of Commerce; 

• Grandview Chamber of Commerce; and 

• Grain Valley Economic Development Corporation. 

Members of the Business Retention Council make on-site visits to existing businesses to determine their needs in workforce, financing, marketing, etc., and begin 

immediately to accommodate their requests. A Business Retention Coordinator hired 

by the Full Employment Council, serves as the primary contact for the Economic 

Development Agencies and coordinates the total Workforce System support to the 

client businesses in this effort. 

In the last 2 years, over 367 businesses have been provided support and 837 jobs 

have been retained or added through this effort. Funding to support this effort for 

the upcoming year has been provided by the Governor’s 15 percent fund, and the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Stimulus fund. 

Another critical support agency has been the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP), a program funded by the U.S. Department of Commerce in all 50 

States, to provide technical support to manufacturing companies to increase their 

efficiency, and market penetration for their products. Missouri Enterprise, the State 

of Missouri’s MEP program, has provided technical support to over 50 companies 

identified through the Business Retention Council in areas of business, such as Energy and Efficiency audits and Supply Chain analysis. This technical support is 

highly valued by companies assisted by the Business Retention Council. 

THE KANSAS CITY WORKFORCE SYSTEM AS A ‘‘CAREER NAVIGATOR’’ THROUGH CAREER

PATHWAYS FOR DISCONNECTED YOUTH, LOW-INCOME ADULTS, AND DISLOCATED

WORKERS

The Full Employment Council has been a catalyst in facilitating and developing 

career pathways and employment opportunities for economically disadvantaged/disconnected youth through enrollment in universities, community colleges, vocational/ 

proprietary schools, and apprenticeship programs. The Workforce Investment Board 

has introduced the 21st Century Workforce Scholarship program to provide tuition 

scholarships in healthcare, manufacturing, and bioscience careers. The Kansas City 

Region sponsored the ‘‘Dream It Do It’’ campaign to promote manufacturing careers 

as viable options for young adults and successfully raised the visibility of manufacturing careers. 

In addition, the Workforce Investment Board has led local efforts to promote 

youth employment policy and programs designed to facilitate employment opportunity and work advancement. In September 2009, a partnership of the Full Employment Council, Kansas City Public Library, Kansas City Parks and Recreation 

Department; and Black Archives of Mid-America will open a 20,000-square foot 

LEED-certified ‘‘Green’’ facility. This facility will house an education and resource 

facility highlighting the historical accomplishments of African-Americans in the 

Midwest, and a Youth Opportunity Career Center focusing on education and career 

pathways for Low-Income/Disconnected Youth. 

This $2.5 million historic facility is locally funded, but was initially seeded 

through $300,000 in grants leveraged by the Workforce Investment Board. This center is adjacent to the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum and the American Jazz Museum in the 18th Vine Street Historic Jazz area. This focus on post-secondary training opportunities and careers for youth was further re-inforced in the Summer Job 

Program funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Each high 

school or GED graduate that successfully completes the 8-week summer internship 

will be provided a $1,000 scholarship to attend a vocational school or community 

college, or a $500 book scholarship to attend a 4-year institution. 

The Kansas City & Vicinity Workforce Investment Board has been a programs 

catalyst and convener in developing career pathways for low-income populations 

such as Project NOW (New Opportunities for Work.) The Missouri Career Center 

worked with the University of Central Missouri and Metropolitan Community Colleges to develop training courses that combined basic education course work to increase basic skills or GED certification; skill training courses to acquire a specific 

skill credential; and career readiness skills that emphasize teamwork, conflict resolution, and problem solving. These courses were provided at accessible community 

training sites or at local career centers. These training formats have increased the 

participation of basic skill-deficient clients and high school dropouts in job-skill 

training programs. This has led to the development of an entirely new design of 

coursework for basic skill-deficient persons in customer service, warehouse/supply 

chain management; certified medical technician; certified nurse assistant careers; 

and will lead to more and a greater variety of career pathways. 

31 

THE LOCAL WORKFORCE SYSTEM AS AN ‘‘INNOVATION SYSTEM’’ 

Innovation, entrepreneurship, workforce development and resource leveraging are 

critical in order for the Workforce System to become a catalyst and convener as has 

been outlined. The 501c3 status of the Workforce Investment Boards, and Full Employment Council as the One-Stop Operator, provides the ability to leverage local 

public and private resources as it mobilizes the region to move forward with different workforce approaches not readily available as an option for governmental 

agencies, primarily due to the preference of philanthropy to support non-profit agencies. This organizational framework has resulted in 91 percent of the prototype programs undertaken, attracting private funding and local government financial support. The governor’s 15 percent reserve has been the primary seed funding in the 

majority of these special initiatives because of its spending flexibility. This ‘‘demonstration’’ funding is critical to spurring new program design and innovation in the 

local workforce system. 

THE ONE-STOP CAREER CENTER

The One-Stop Career Center concept has also been an organizational platform 

that has led to resource sharing; better job seeker and business access to program 

services; and workforce and labor-market information sharing that enables the local 

system to more effectively serve job seekers and employers. This co-location and enhanced customer information function helps career counselors to use more accurate/ 

real-time job market data to assist job seekers in making informed training and career choices. Simultaneously, the assimilation of data relating to the skill, work histories, and training options of career center job seekers is of major strategic importance to employers as they determine how to meet their workforce requirements in 

the region. 

GREEN JOB INNOVATION

The Kansas City & Vicinity Workforce Investment Board has launched a number 

of Green Career initiatives as a result of receiving ARRA Stimulus funds. Working 

in partnership with the Metropolitan Energy Center and the University of Central 

Missouri, the first curriculum for career pathways for green jobs was established in 

the Kansas City & Vicinity Workforce Investment Board Region. This initial career 

pathway begins as a Weatherization Technician; transitions to an Energy analyst; 

and culminates in an Energy auditor. The first 12 graduates of this program as 

Weatherization Technicians graduated in June 2009, and 10 of them have secured 

employment in the field. The Metropolitan Community Colleges in Kansas City, MO 

have also initiated a number of new course offerings in Green Careers that will become a part of their on-demand course offerings. Across the State Line at Johnson 

County Community College in Kansas, an Energy Auditor Certification Training 

program has been in existence for over a year. 

The Full Employment Council is also a Training Agency Designee for the Green 

Impact Zone, a special impact area of the 5th Congressional District, which targets 

150 blocks of an area with some of the highest numbers of unemployment, poverty, 

and distress in the area. The zone will have a targeted focus on resources from job 

training, to housing, to transportation in a focused effort to reduce unemployment 

and economic decline. The Full Employment Council will be a part of the Community Impact Team to provide intensive assistance to this area. 

Despite the success enjoyed by the Local Workforce System, there are areas of the 

law that must be changed or eliminated: 

1. Public sector board membership must be reduced unless the local board determines it is a strategic value. Mandated public appointments increase Board size to 

sustain a business majority, and make quorum requirements difficult to achieve. 

2. Mandated local partnerships must be eliminated unless the non-WIA partner 

also contributes funds to the Local Workforce System. Presently, the partnership 

agreements as configured, place all accountability and funding on the Local Workforce System and minimal reciprocal accountability from the non-WIA partner. 

3. Youth eligibility requirements must be minimized to increase the services to 

youth most in need (Low-Income and other barriers to employment). However, local 

options for determining eligibility, such as documentation from a TANF agency or 

Food Stamp entity could be a substitute for income information verified through 

check stubs. 

INNOVATION-POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

1. A local innovations budget. To support maximum 2-year programs or projects 

that creates, enhance or expand training options/results for Low Wage Workers, DisVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:16 Jul 26, 2011 Jkt 035165 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\51264.TXT DENISE
32 

connected Youth, as sector-based training. The objective would be to increase training participation, require wage gains in target populations, or market penetration 

in specific industry sectors. 

2. Establish a training ‘‘Smart Pass.’’ To be used to facilitate the referral and enrollment of Economically Disadvantaged clients presently participating in HUD, 

HHS, or other DOL programs that are seeking training services. An Electronic Referral from these agencies would satisfy eligibility and audit requirements for the 

WIA Program, for enrollment or referral to appropriate workforce programs. 

3. Establish a stand-alone Career/Internship/Summer Jobs program. Primarily 

for 16–24-year-old youth, focusing on subsidized employment experience that leads 

to a GED/H.S. diploma; enrollment into community college, vocational school, a 4- 

year institution with certificate programs; enrollment into an apprenticeship or employment. This internship could be available anytime during the year for an 8–12- 

week period. 

4. Adopt measures that reflect job placement, retention, earnings, and credential 

attainment. Discourage measures that encourage low investment approaches or discourage serving hard-to-place clients. 

5. Funding to reflect the reality of a ‘‘Global Skills Competition’’. The United 

States must skill up its Youth and Adult populations at an accelerated rate to compete in the world market, and to make the economic adjustment necessary to arm 

large and small business with a skilled and agile workforce. This became evident 

to me as I looked at the formula budget that was provided to our Region for PY2009, 

leading to a 12 percent decrease in our formula funds. This decrease was offset by 

our ARRA budget, which provided needed relief to meet the 400 percent increase 

of clients in our system. However, it was unsettling that in a time when our unemployment rate is 10 percent in Kansas City, the highest recorded in 25 years, that 

without ARRA, our budget would be cut by 12 percent. I would recommend some 

type of budget ‘‘fail safe’’ mechanism that would act similar to the unemployment 

insurance mechanism that would trigger training fund budget authority when severe economic downturns occur. 

In addition, employment and training budget authority has remained the same 

since I made the transition to the Workforce Development System from Economic 

Development more than 26 years ago, while its purchasing and programming ability 

has been severely diminished by the tremendous tuition increases in the post-secondary training system. We must strive for a target budget allocation of between 

$7 billion to $9 billion to compensate for this erosion of purchasing power to the 

system. 

In closing, I appreciate this opportunity afforded to me to be here today and look 

forward to working with you to increase the skills of our workforce in the present 

and future. 

Senator MURRAY. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Thurmond. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL L. THURMOND, COMMISSIONER, 

GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, ATLANTA, GA 

Mr. THURMOND. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would also like to thank Senator Johnny 

Isakson, a longtime colleague, a former member of the Georgia 

House of Representatives, and a longtime friend and supporter of 

our workforce development efforts in the State of Georgia. 

I am convinced that the philosophy and the funding provided by 

WIA can be leveraged to provide critical employment and training 

opportunities to the millions of unemployed and under-employed 

Americans today. 

Since the mid-1930s, jobless Georgians applied for unemployment 

benefits and searched for jobs in unemployment offices whose design and function reflected Depression era realities. Delivery of employment services to job seekers was fragmented and confusing because employment services were provided based on siloed Federal 

funding streams. 

The enactment of the Workforce Investment Act in 1998 provided 

an unprecedented opportunity for State and local jurisdictions to 

33 

develop a more coordinated and efficient workforce development 

system. 

The Georgia Department of Labor embraced the letter, the philosophy, and the spirit of this legislation, and with bipartisan support, we began to design and implement a fully integrated, comprehensive State workforce development system. Our primary objective was the coordination of five major employment and training 

and income-support programs: the Wagner-Peyser Act, ES, Unemployment Insurance, Vocational Rehabilitation, and subsequently, 

the Workforce Investment Act. 

The Workforce Investment Act encouraged service integration between several federally funded employment and training programs 

via a One-Stop Career Center network. Energized by the flexibility 

afforded by this act, the State of Georgia charted a new course focused on improving the quality of service to our primary customers, 

job seekers, employers, and economic developers. Georgia’s new 

workforce development system was designed to serve a diverse and 

dynamic customer base, as evidenced by our adoption of a universal 

access policy. A strategic commitment was made to ensure that all 

persons, including those with disabilities, would have equal access 

to employment, education, and training resources. 

Significant investments were made to strengthen the technological and programmatic linkages between WIA, ES, UI, and VR 

programs. The foundation of our system is comprised of three components: a statewide network of One-Stop Career Centers and satellite sites; an interactive technological infrastructure; and professionally trained customer-focused staff. Although still a work in 

progress, Georgia’s workforce development system is at the forefront of our State’s efforts to help the more than 480,000 Georgians 

who are unemployed today get back to work. 

Georgia’s WIA-inspired One-Stop network is a cornerstone of our 

system. Investments were made not just by the Labor Department, 

but by WIA partners as well to establish this important technological network. Our network consists of 46 full-service designated 

One-Stops and scores of additional service access points. As a result, Georgia now has a statewide system of clicks and bricks, offices, career centers where unemployed or employed Georgians 

come to seek service, as well as Internet access. 

The transformation of our department unemployment offices 

would not have been possible without the support and unprecedented financial assistance provided by our State WIA board. More 

than $2.5 million was appropriated to help transform 32 of our 53 

unemployment offices into designated One-Stops. The others now 

serve as affiliate satellite One-Stops. Over $2 million was invested 

in One-Stop grants to technical colleges, libraries, homeless shelters, and transition centers to ensure democratic and easy access 

to all of our citizens. 

My key concern today is that we must finally fully fund employment services of the Wagner-Peyser Act. More than 80 percent of 

the Georgians who access employment and training services 

through our career centers are served through the Wagner-Peyser 

program. In Georgia, we provide an administrative assessment that 

supplements Federal funding, but the Federal funding is much too 

small. 

34 

I would also encourage us to expand our summer and youth employment programs where a key focus of those employment programs would be increasing graduation rates. Our Jobs for Georgia 

Graduates program had a 95 percent high school graduation rate 

this past year. 

And finally, this. Thank you for your help in refunding the summer youth program. In Georgia, 10,000 young people are working 

and drawing a paycheck today because of your vote and support. 

And thank you, because I myself—prior to WIA, there was something called JTTA, and I served in a summer youth program. I was 

one of those disadvantaged kids who drew my first paycheck 

through a summer youth program. And my daughter, who is now 

a sophomore at the University of Georgia—I still show her my first 

pay stub. There is something about a job. You get one job. You seek 

another one, and more importantly, you seek another one that pays 

a higher salary than the previous one that you had. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Thurmond follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL L. THURMOND

Thank you Madam Chair, Senator Murray, Ranking Member Senator Isakson, 

and members of the Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety, for the 

opportunity to present testimony on how the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 

1998 served as a catalyst for the design and implementation of a comprehensive 

workforce development system in Georgia. More importantly, I am convinced that 

the philosophy and funding provided by WIA can be leveraged to provide critical employment and training services to millions of unemployed and under-employed 

Americans. 

Since the mid-1930s, jobless Georgians applied for unemployment benefits and 

searched for jobs in ‘‘unemployment offices’’ whose design and function reflected Depression Era economic realities. Delivery of employment services to jobseekers and 

employers was fragmented and confusing, because employment and training programs were ‘‘siloed’’ by Federal funding streams. 

The enactment of the Workforce Investment Act in 1998 provided an unprecedented opportunity for State and local jurisdictions to develop a more coordinated 

and efficient workforce development system. WIA provided for enhanced emphasis 

on customer choice, customer satisfaction, blended funding streams and integrated 

service delivery. 

The Georgia Department of Labor (GDOL) embraced the WIA philosophy and letter of the legislation, and began the design and implementation of a fully integrated, 

comprehensive, State workforce development system. Our primary objective was the 

coordination of four major employment, training and income support programs: 

Wagner-Peyser Act, Employment Services (ES), Unemployment Insurance (UI), Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) and subsequently, the Workforce Investment Act. 

The United States Employment Services program was established under the Wagner-Peyser Act in 1933 to help millions of jobless Americans find work during the 

Great Depression. Two years later, the Unemployment Insurance program was enacted to provide temporary income support for unemployed workers. The Vocational 

Rehabilitation program was originally intended to help disabled World War I veterans find work; however its mission was broadened in 1920 to include all persons 

with disabilities. 

The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 encouraged service integration between 

several federally funded employment and training programs, via a One-Stop Career 

Center network. Significantly, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

(ARRA) provides an unprecedented investment of Federal dollars in America’s workforce development system. 

Energized by the increased flexibility afforded by WIA, the GDOL charted a new 

course focused on improving the quality of service to our primary customers—jobseekers, employers and economic developers. Georgia’s new workforce development 

system was designed to serve a diverse and dynamic customer base as evidenced 

by the adoption of a ‘‘Universal Access’’ policy. A strategic commitment was made 

to ensure that all persons, including those with disabilities, would have equal access 

to employment, education and training resources. 

35 

Significant investments were made to strengthen the technological and programmatic linkages between the WIA, ES, UI and VR programs. The foundation of 

Georgia’s workforce development system is comprised of three components: (1) a 

statewide network of One-Stop Career Centers and satellite sites; (2) an interactive 

technological infrastructure; and (3) professionally trained, customer-focused staff. 

Although still a work-in-progress, Georgia’s workforce development system is at the 

forefront of our State’s efforts to address the economic challenges associated with 

the current recession. 

LAYING THE FOUNDATION

One-Stop Career Center Network 

Georgia’s WIA-inspired, one-stop network is the cornerstone of Georgia’s workforce development system. Significant investments were made by GDOL and WIA 

partners in the establishment of a statewide network of One-Stop Career Centers. 

The network consists of 46 full-service designated one-stops and scores of additional 

service access points. As a result, jobseekers, employers and economic developers 

have greater access to a variety of employment services and related information. 

Subsequent to the passage of WIA, a strategic decision was made to merge all existing GDOL offices into Georgia’s one-stop system. The form and function of the 

department’s 53 ‘‘unemployment offices’’ were redesigned and re-branded as GDOL 

Career Centers. Dull, depressing offices are being transformed into spacious, brightly colored, high tech, high touch One-Stop Career Centers. 

The transformation of the department’s ‘‘unemployment offices’’ would not have 

been possible without the support and unprecedented financial assistance provided 

by Georgia’s local WIA boards and staff. More than $2.5 million were appropriated 

by 11 WIA areas to help underwrite the cost of retrofitting GDOL-operated onestops. Local WIA boards selected 32 of GDOL’s 53 Career Centers as designated 

one-stops, while the remaining department offices serve as satellite one-stops. Over 

$2 million in WIA one-stop grants were also awarded to technical colleges, libraries, 

nonprofit organizations, homeless shelters, transition centers and mobile service 

units to finance the development of an electronic network of satellite one-stops 

throughout the state. 

The WIA philosophy of cooperation, service integration and blended funding 

streams also played a key role in Georgia’s decision to utilize UI administrative assessment funds to offset longstanding Wagner-Peyser budget shorts. State law provides that 8 percent of UI employer taxes can be invested in helping UI claimants 

get back to work quickly. In fiscal year 2009, more than $25 million were appropriated to finance the hiring of career-center job developers, counselors, administrative personnel and other employment-related services. 

Multi-agency partnerships are playing a key role in providing support services 

and connecting customers with employment and training resources. The location of 

local agencies and non-profit service providers in GDOL Career Centers has increased access and improved service delivery to our customers. An abbreviated listing of our one-stop partners includes: The Technical College System of Georgia, 

Local WIA partners, Experience Works, AARP, Economic Opportunity Authority, 

Job Corps, Meals on Wheels, Adult Literacy, Georgia National Guard, Disabled 

American Veterans Administration, Community Council on Aging, Fatherhood Initiative, Georgia Department of Family and Children Services, Homeless Advocacy 

Organizations, and Telemon Corporation. 

Technology 

Prior to the passage of WIA, Georgia utilized a Management Information System 

(MIS), to capture related customer data and employment and training activities. 

The system was not Web-enabled, which allowed users access on a limited system 

network. Although federally compliant in all areas, the MIS system allowed only for 

data collection and reporting, that was restricted to the varying funding silos. 

The WIA mandated greater coordination and unified data collection by key workforce system partners. Accordingly, GDOL developed a more comprehensive data 

system known as the Georgia Workforce System (GWS). This web-enabled system 

encompasses data collection, storage and reporting capabilities for WIA, UI, and 

Wagner-Peyser services. Web access introduced enhanced remote participation in 

the system. Consistency in the method of collection, data type and reporting outcomes was significantly enhanced, along with shared use of information between 

funding silos and programs. State staff provided training to local and State workforce partners upon GWS deployment, with written guidance on new features and 

developments as needed. 

36 

The Georgia Workforce System (GWS) was developed in a Web-enabled, browserbased environment with reporting capability for WIA, ES, UI and VR. Customers 

provide basic demographic information once and comprehensive records are built, 

maintained and accessed throughout the service continuum. Data is housed in a relational database with the capability of interfacing with external systems. 

System components include: a common intake system for key programs to facilitate the collection of customer information; assessing customer needs and tracking 

services and outcomes; system storage of basic demographic data, including work 

history, individual assessments, case management, employment plans and information, documenting the delivery of other services. An eligible provider list and consumer report card system required by WIA includes information about and access 

to service providers. Management and reporting modules enable local WIA agencies 

to meet Federal requirements for performance accountability as well as the production of quarterly and annual reports. An employer information system also enables 

GDOL staff and partners to document employer services, coordinate job development visits and provide relevant employer information. 

GDOL serves a growing number of customers through its Web site (www.dol 

.state.ga.us) by offering over 800 electronic pages of employment and training information, including a variety of online services, forms, publications, and links to additional resources. GDOL also electronically advertises job fairs, employer seminars 

and other events. Additionally, the department provides easy access to a variety of 

labor market resources and information for businesses. 

A major effort was made to increase accessibility for Georgians with disabilities 

by continually improving and expanding our Web-based services. The Georgia Rehabilitation Online Works (GROW) system allows staff to provide enhanced case management services to customers with disabilities. This electronic system creates a 

record of seamless service delivery to a targeted population. In addition to case management, GROW documents assessments, disability determinations, referrals to 

other partner agencies, service outcomes and follow-up. 

The GWS is supported by trained professional staff that provide daily support and 

technical assistance on data management and reporting issues. The State also provides local systems with critical performance tools, including WebFOCUS software, 

through which standard and ad-hoc data queries help local systems track and manage customer activities and outcomes. Flexibility of the GWS is evidenced by the recent and expedient alterations necessitated by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The GWS will serve as the primary means to document the services and positive impacts of Georgia’s ARRA activities. 

Human Capital 

The successful implementation of WIA is dependent on the development and enhancement of professional workforce development staff. Dedicated staff, empowered 

to build partnerships with other agencies and employers, are a key component of 

a successful workforce development system. Considerable education and training investments were made to encourage GDOL employees to embrace the holistic philosophy of integrated service delivery. To achieve this goal, extensive statewide and 

local training, including cross-training among agencies and partners, was developed 

and provided to all professional staff. 

Ongoing training is conducted to ensure that workforce staff is able to effectively 

navigate and help jobseekers, employers and economic developers utilize the system. 

Our comprehensive training program includes: new staff orientation, customer service training, college intern program, International Association of Workforce Professionals, Georgia Rehabilitation Association, Executive Commitment to Leadership 

program, education assistance program, Georgia Workforce Conference, Georgia 

Safety Conference, and the Georgia Employer Committee Conference. In-service 

training is provided to address diversity, use of workforce information and technology, problem solving, and marketing of department services. 

In 2007, the department launched a Learning Management System which houses 

the on-line GDOL Learning Center. The Learning Center provides 24/7 universal access to ‘‘knowledge repositories’’ which enables employees to receive ‘‘just-in-time’’ 

training necessitated by changing marketplace conditions. Self-directed training empowers all employees with the ability to develop and manage personal learning 

plans designed to enhance competency in leadership development, customer service, 

technology skills and workforce information. This strategy has helped eliminate departmental ‘‘training silos’’ and created a unified ‘‘learning community’’ for the department and partner agencies. The Learning Center is fully accessible for persons 

with disabilities who utilize assistive technology devices. 

37 

THE SERVICE CONTINUUM

Georgia’s workforce development system provides jobseekers and employers with 

a continuum of services that can be customized to meet individual needs. The three 

phases of the continuum are: (1) Core Services, (2) Intensive Services, and (3) Training. Support and assistance are provided based on a triage approach that enables 

staff to direct customers to appropriate employment and training resources. Core 

services are available to customers through self-service and/or staff-assisted support. 

Self-Directed Core Services 

Self-directed services include: online filing for UI, free Internet access, job listings, 

copiers, telephone, fax machines, resource personnel, language services, language 

line, forms and other publications, e-mail, resume software, on-line job applications, 

word processing, books and videos, clothes closet, kiddie corner, labor-market information, career counseling, comprehensive assessments, testing, workshops on job 

interviewing, resume writing, job search, negotiation and conflict resolution, case 

management and specialized workshops for veterans, persons with disabilities and 

rehabilitated ex-offenders. 

Intensive Services 

Intensive services are highly structured and offered to customers who have significant barriers to employment. Services include comprehensive assessments, adult 

basic education, internships, intensive job search, supportive services, trade adjustment assistance, etc. These services are designed to address targeted populations 

with specific barriers to employment, such as rehabilitated ex-offenders, Temporary 

Assistance for Needy Families recipients, dislocated workers, youth, veterans, homeless individuals, vocational rehabilitation, non-custodial parents and unemployment 

claimants. 

Training Services 

Training programs help jobseekers who require skill development or enhancement 

services in order to qualify for new employment opportunities. Services may include 

occupational skills training, on-the-job training, entrepreneurial training, job readiness training, customized training, adult education, etc. 

Services for Employers 

Employer services include: designated employer interviewing space, recruitment, 

screening, interviewing, job order taking, referral of jobseekers, UI seminars, access 

to Internet, fax, employer committees, seminars on immigration law and workplace 

safety. 

SUMMARY

Georgia’s strategic decision to design and implement a fully integrated, comprehensive workforce development system has been effective in helping unemployed 

Georgians return to work. The Georgia Department of Labor and our workforce 

partners were successful in helping 295,231 jobseekers return to work between July 

1, 2007 and June 30, 2008. Although our State, like much of the Nation has been 

hit hard by the current recession, 66 percent of those who registered with the department secured employment. Of those who secured employment, 80 percent were 

still working 6 months later. 

The Georgia Department of Labor and our State workforce partners have received 

numerous awards and citations including: the American Institute Full Employment 

Award, the National Foundation for Unemployment Compensation & Workers Compensation’s J. Elred Hill, Jr. Award, USDOL’s Large States Awards for Performance 

Excellence in Tax Operations and Performance Excellence in Appeals Decisions, Letter of Commendation from Region 3 Employment And Training Division, Outstanding Performance Award from the Federal Bonding Program and national honors for helping non-custodial parents, TANF recipients and rehabilitated ex-offenders find employment. 

The Georgia philosophy of workforce development is simple: WIA, UI, ES, VR and 

other employment and training partners must work together to ensure that jobseekers, employers and economic developers receive the highest quality of service. 

More importantly, we are proud to be part of a national workforce development system that is focused on helping unemployed Americans get back to work. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

The following WIA modernization recommendations are submitted for your consideration: 

38 

1. A top priority for WIA reauthorization should be clearly defining the purpose 

and mission of the Wagner-Peyser ES program. The Employment Services program 

should be fully funded because it is the backbone of America’s workforce development system. Incentive funding should be made available to States and local jurisdictions to encourage multi-agency service delivery and coordination. 

2. National Youth strategy should emphasize partnering with State and local 

dropout prevention programs, such as the highly successful Jobs for America’s Graduates (JAG) Program. Georgia is a proud affiliate of the JAG program that emphasizes education, training and career preparation as a dual track for high school students. Notably, participants in Georgia’s 2008 JGG senior class achieved a graduation rate of 95 percent, 20 percentage points higher than the State’s 2008 graduation rate! 

3. Invest unspent ARRA stimulus funds in the development of a national Transitional Jobs Program for WIA, ES, VR and UI customers that will stimulate private 

sector job creation and hiring. Georgia Works is a transitional jobs program that allows UI claimants to receive 8 weeks of on-the-job training while continuing to receive UI benefits. During its 6-year history, 60 percent of the trainees have been 

hired prior to the expiration of their training period. 

Thank you for your service to America, and for your time and attention. 

Senator MURRAY. Thank you and thank you for that endorsement. I worked very hard to get that into the economic recovery 

package. Rahm Emanuel still does not look at me without going, 

I know, summer jobs. So I appreciate that endorsement. Thank 

you. 

Mr. THURMOND. Thank you so much for what you did. 

Senator MURRAY. You bet. 

Mr. Bender. 

STATEMENT OF RICK S. BENDER, PRESIDENT, WASHINGTON 

STATE LABOR COUNCIL, AFL–CIO, SEATTLE, WA 

Mr. BENDER. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the subcommittee, for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the AFL–CIO, 

including the more than 400,000 union members I represent, on 

how best to streamline the decisionmaking process involved with 

the Workforce Investment Act. 

Washington State is proud to be in the forefront of innovation 

and accountability for our Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board, of which I am a labor board member. We have 

transformed our system to work for the economy and the labor 

force. 

Other States are in the process of copying our success, and we 

hope this committee will recognize the value of what we are doing 

and incorporate it for the Federal system and for the success of students, job seekers, workers, and employers nationwide. 

I am excited to tell you about Washington State and what we are 

doing, but first I want to talk about the core components we believe 

must be in place in order to make any workforce board function at 

its best, including: first, a publicly operated employment system; 

second, adequate funding for worker training which includes 

adults, youth and dislocated workers; and third, equal representation on State and local WIA boards between business, government, 

and labor. 

A publicly operated employment security program is the glue between education, industry, and worker retraining. 

Only government systems can achieve statewide and Federal policy integration, as well as equitable distribution of resources. 

The second pillar, funding for adult, youth, and dislocated worker 

training is imperative. Job market upheaval requires us to get 

39 

more training services to more participants. We must cast a wider 

net to get all workers the help they need. 

Last, State and local WIA boards must have equal representation 

between business, government, and labor. The financial meltdown 

revealed a system that relied too heavily on only one of the three 

pillars of our society. Chaos ensued. Workforce investment cannot 

tilt the balance of power toward business, nor can it tilt toward 

government or labor. For everyone to be truly vested, it must be 

an equal partnership. 

In Washington State, we have that balance and it is working extremely well. Our State board has nine members: three from labor, 

three from business, and three from government. We believe this 

model is what makes us stand out across the Nation and has been 

the reason for our success. 

We developed a road map in Washington State to create a highskilled, high-wage workforce by the year 2018, and I have a copy 

of that for the committee. (See www.hecb.wa.gov/research/Issues/ 

documents/documents/HighSkillsHighWages-WTB-2008.pdf.) 

But before this, there was no systemwide accountability for workforce development in Washington State. Every program was separate. We could not collect consistent data from agency to agency. 

Some programs did not even look at what happened to their participants once they left. There were no guides for improvement. 

Now all this has been changed in Washington State. 

We have implemented our Performance Management for Continuous Improvement program, PMCI. This systemwide framework 

provides us increased accountability, improved strategic planning, 

more efficient use of resources, and a sense of shared responsibility 

among workforce development programs. 

These changes improve the credibility of our programs, enhance 

the support they receive, and increase our ability to service the customers. 

I will submit a more detailed account of the PMCI system in my 

written testimony, but the bottom line is that this system works in 

Washington State. 

The system helped us build programs that work for students, 

adults, and industry, and I would like to give you three examples. 

For students, navigation 101. It is a life skills planning program 

for students in grades 6 through 12. It aims to help students make 

clear, careful, and creative plans for life beyond high school while 

involving both teachers and parents. 

For adults, we implemented the I–BEST program. This program 

combines adult basic education, reading, writing, and arithmetic, 

with job skills training. 

And for industry, we have created skill panels to identify and 

close worker skill gaps in industry sectors. It allows partners to anticipate and respond effectively to industry’s changing workforce 

needs. 

These programs are just a sample of the achievements we have 

made through accountability and by listening to each other’s needs. 

We have a strong public overseer in the Employment Securities Department, and we have equal representation between business, 

government, and labor. 

40 

We have learned to work within our means through accountability, but I have to stress the importance of Federal funding in 

this endeavor. We suffered many setbacks during the last Administration, but now because the job market is changing so rapidly, 

funding is more crucial then ever. We must invest in our workforce 

to keep America safe, secure, and productive. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bender follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICK S. BENDER

My name is Rick Bender and I am President of the Washington State Labor 

Council, AFL–CIO. Thank you, Ms. Chairwoman, and members of the subcommittee, for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the AFL–CIO including the 

more than 400,000 union members I represent on how best to streamline the decisionmaking process involved with the Workforce Investment Act. 

Washington State is proud to be in the forefront of innovation and accountability 

for our Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board, of which I am a 

labor board member. We have transformed our system to work for the economy and 

the labor force. 

Other States are in the process of copying our success and we hope this committee 

will recognize the value of what we are doing and incorporate it for the Federal system and the success of students, jobseekers, workers and employers nationwide. 

I am excited to tell you about what Washington is doing, but first I want to talk 

about the core components we believe must be in place in order to make any workforce board function at its best. Including: 

• First, a publicly operated employment system. 

• Second, adequate funding for worker training which includes adults, youth and 

dislocated workers. 

• And third, equal representation on State and local WIA boards between business, government and labor. 

A publicly operated employment security program is the glue between education, 

industry and worker re-training. 

Only government systems can achieve statewide and Federal policy integration— 

as well as equitable distribution of resources. 

The second pillar, funding for adult, youth and dislocated worker training is imperative. 

Job market upheaval requires us to get more training services to more participants. We must cast a wider net to get all workers the help they need. 

Last, State and local WIA boards must have equal representation between business, government and labor. The financial meltdown revealed a system that relied 

too heavily on only one of the three pillars of our society. Chaos ensued. Workforce 

Investment cannot tilt the balance of power toward business—nor can it tilt toward 

government or labor. For everyone to be truly vested, it must be an equal partnership. 

In Washington State, we have balance and it is working extremely well. Our State 

board has nine members—three from labor, three from business and three from government. We believe this model is what makes us stand out across the Nation and 

has been the reason for our success. 

We developed a roadmap in Washington to create a high-skilled, high-wage workforce by 2018. And we created the accountability to get there. 

Before this, there was no systemwide accountability for workforce development. 

Every program was separate—we couldn’t collect consistent data from agency to 

agency. Some programs didn’t even look at what happened to their participants once 

they left. There were no guides for improvements. Now all this has changed. 

We have implemented our ‘‘Performance Management for Continuous Improvement’’ program (PMCI). This systemwide framework provides us: 

• increased accountability, 

• improved strategic planning, 

• more efficient use of resources, and 

• a sense of shared responsibility among workforce development programs. 

These changes improve the credibility of our programs, enhance the support they 

receive and increase our ability to serve customers. 

I will submit a more detailed account of the PMCI system in my written testimony, but the bottom line is—this works. 

41 

This system helped us build programs that work for Students, Adults and Industry. 

Examples include: 

• For Students: Navigation 101.—A life skills and planning program for students in grades 6 through 12, It aims to help students make clear, careful, and creative plans for life beyond high school while involving teachers and parents too. • For Adults: We’ve implemented the I-Best program.—This program combines 

Adult Basic Education (reading, writing and arithmetic) with job skills training. • For Industry: We have created skill panels to identify and close worker skill 

gaps in industry sectors. It allows partners to anticipate and respond effectively to 

industry’s changing workforce needs. 

These programs are just a sample of the achievements we’ve made through accountability and by listening to each others’ needs. We have a strong public overseer 

in the Employment Securities Department and we have equal representation between government, labor, and business. 

We have learned to work within our means through accountability—but I have 

to stress the importance of Federal funding in this endeavor. We suffered many set 

backs during the Bush administration—but now, because the job market is changing 

so rapidly—funding is more crucial than ever. We must invest in our workforce to 

keep America safe, secure and productive. 

Senator MURRAY. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Kiernan. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM E. KIERNAN, Ph.D., DIRECTOR AND 

RESEARCH PROFESSOR, INSTITUTE FOR COMMUNITY INCLUSION, BOSTON, MA 

Mr. KIERNAN. Thank you, Senator Murray and Senator Isakson. 

I would also like to thank Senator Murray for her recognition of 

our own Senator Kennedy and his commitment to the workforce 

field and certainly employment for all as this committee has reinforced that commitment. 

I was also struck by Assistant Secretary Oates’ statement of the 

fact that the Secretary’s mission is a good job for all, which we certainly agree with. 

I direct the Institute for Community Inclusion, which is at the 

University of Massachusetts at Boston. We are a university-affiliated center on disabilities, which is one of 67 centers in a national 

network of the Association of University Centers on Disabilities. 

We have a strong interest in the areas of One-Stop and vocational 

rehabilitation, and I have brought with me a person who assisted 

in the development of the materials, David Hof, who is a technical 

assistance specialist who has worked in One-Stop systems. 

What I will try and summarize today is some of the areas that 

I feel are important for you to consider, but also in the detailed report that is submitted is a much more extensive outline of some of 

the recommendations. 

Let me just touch briefly on the background for the population 

that I will be talking about, and those are individuals with disabilities. 

Thirteen to fourteen percent of adults with disabilities are unemployed. That is 5 percentage points higher than the average population without disabilities. But more troubling than that is between 

26 to 30 percent of adults with disabilities are considered as a part 

of the workforce. That means that basically three to four individuals out of five persons with disabilities are not considered part of 

the workforce. That does not necessarily bode well for the Secretary’s statement about ‘‘all.’’ We have a ways to go in order to 

meet that. 

42 

Additionally, of the individuals with disabilities who are working, 

about one-half are working at or below the poverty level. So we 

must seek to get better jobs, good jobs, as the Secretary has outlined for us. 

I would like to offer a few suggestions about the One-Stops. The 

One-Stop, really as more of a system than a center, is a consortium 

of 17 mandated partners that are there to develop programs that 

would assist in some way in supporting all job seekers. 

Today what I would like to summarize very briefly are seven 

areas that we think are working, two areas that might be for consideration of changes or elimination, and four for innovation. 

In the seven areas, certainly one of the strengths of the workforce system is the universal aspects of the workforce system. We 

have seen changes and considerable changes in issues of physical 

access, as well as more recently program access of persons with disabilities in the One-Stop system. We have made some growth in 

those areas, some considerable growth. As you have heard, we still 

have some room to improve and expand on the full access of persons with disabilities. 

The ongoing contributions of the employment and the training 

system are clear. Since its beginning, the supports through the 

small grants that, in fact, were mentioned earlier, but also in the 

past, they have had a strong commitment to the disability program 

navigators. We would like to re-inforce the idea of continuing the 

support of that effort that allows individuals who would work 

through the One-Stop systems to guide persons with disabilities 

and job seekers to more effectively reach employment outcomes. 

Also, the contributions that are made through the Office of Disability Employment Policy and the demonstration of customized 

employment as an effective approach toward assisting persons with 

disabilities in reaching employment, but more particularly in developing and understanding that there has to be a relationship between the employer and the employee and a negotiation to lead to 

good job outcomes for individuals with disabilities. More particularly in the area of customized employment of the Office of Disability Employment Policy, we would like to see an emphasis on 

looking at some other nonmandated partners such as Medicaid, 

CMS, TANF, and SSA in the partnership discussion. 

The measurement effects were talked about very briefly in the 

past of looking at measures that, in fact, would document outcomes 

effectively and not penalize or put at a disadvantage individuals 

with disabilities in the One-Stop system, as currently appears to 

happen. 

The elimination of the sequencing of services Assistant Secretary 

Oates had mentioned. Going from core to intensive to training is 

the sequence that we ought to put to rest and get on with the business of direct access to services. 

The clear practices of the voc rehab system—over the last several 

years, we have seen some very significant relationships expanded 

between the One-Stops and the public vocational rehabilitation system at a State level in States such as, to my right, Washington, 

Alaska, Wisconsin, Connecticut, Michigan, and Minnesota, and 

there are more States that, in fact, have improved their relationships in the public voc rehab system. More particularly, not at the 

43 

State level, but at the local level, there are some examples where 

the rehab system and the One-Stop systems are working quite well 

together. We need more of that expansion. 

A couple of the areas that we think are for elimination. One is 

that we think the requirement of the infrastructure contributions 

to each of the partners has become a major impediment to the negotiation of partnerships. We would recommend that, in fact, the 

infrastructure be supported entirely and that the partnerships 

focus on the relationships of what professionals, expertise, and resources can be brought to the table by the 17 mandated and other 

partners in the system. 

Let me just touch briefly on a few of the areas that I think are 

important to consider. One is that with the passage of WIA, it will 

also bring the vocational rehabilitation system and its emphasis on 

transition. We heard the Deputy Secretary in Education talking 

about transition as important. Transition involves educational systems. It involves a number of partners that, in fact, are not necessarily mandated. So we would strongly encourage in the partnership agreements that we look at both mandated and nonmandated 

partners in the development of effective transition programs and 

the youth programs within Labor. 

The last two elements, I will suggest very briefly. One is that the 

One-Stops be considered as employment networks. In looking at 

the division in Massachusetts alone, in looking at the data for the 

193,000 persons who went through the system last year, 7,347 

were individuals who had SSI or SSDI eligibility. They are individuals who could have a ticket. We could use the ticket to benefit and 

generate additional revenues for the One-Stop, if One-Stops were 

employment networks. 

The collaboration with other entities, including the DD system, 

the developmental disabilities system, and the mental health system in the One-Stops is essential if, in fact, we are going to have 

a comprehensive system to serve individuals with disabilities leading to employment with many of these systems. Now we are seeing 

that employment is a central piece of their mission going forward. 

And last, building the capacity of the staff who work in the OneStop systems to effectively serve and support individuals with disabilities can be done through both online training, staff development, and orientation of new staff. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kiernan follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM E. KIERNAN, PH.D. 

I am William E. Kiernan, Ph.D., Director of the Institute for Community Inclusion, a University Center for Excellence in Disabilities located jointly at the University of Massachusetts Boston and Children’s Hospital Boston. We are 1 of 67 such 

centers that make up the nationwide network of University Centers for Excellence 

in Developmental Disabilities (UCEDD) that are national leaders in research, interdisciplinary training, technical assistance, and service and are supported by the Association of University Centers on Disabilities. UCEDDs are the national leaders in 

a constellation of activities designed to improve employment options and outcomes 

for people with developmental and other disabilities. Our center has worked extensively in supporting the employment of persons with disabilities and has been involved with supporting the One-Stop Career Centers and the public Vocational Rehabilitation agencies at the State level in expanding employment options for persons 

with disabilities. I am pleased and honored to have been asked to comment on the 

44 

reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act and correspondingly the Rehabilitation Act. 

I have organized my verbal as well as the initial portion of this written testimony 

around the two questions that were sent to me by the committee. Additionally, I 

am submitting written testimony including some more specific suggestions as to 

areas where changes could be made to strengthen the act as well as areas where 

modifications might be made to allow the act to realize its full and intended congressional intent, that is, providing universally designed, no-wrong door strategy for all 

job seekers in the United States. 

I would like to begin my written presentation with a brief overview of employment 

status of persons with disabilities nationally and the potential relationship that persons with disabilities have or could have with the workforce development efforts of 

this legislation. 

Current Status of Employment of Persons with Disabilities: Over the past 

decade it has become more apparent that there will be a shortage of workers to 

meet employer demands. Even given the current economic downturn, with the declining birth rate as well as the aging of the current workforce, most industries are 

realizing that their growth will more likely be limited in the long term by the declining labor supply and not the economy in general. Despite this declining workforce, there are still populations where the labor force participation rate is quite low 

as in the case of persons with disabilities where 7 out of 10 persons with disabilities 

are not in the labor market. Coupling the apparent declining labor supply with the 

low-labor force participation rate for persons with disabilities (nationally about 36 

percent of working age adults having any disability condition and 27 percent for 

those having a mental disability as compared to 70 percent labor force participation 

for all working age adults as reported by the American Community Survey, 2006), 

there are some clear inconsistencies in both expectation and perception of this current and potential labor resource. 

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the official unemployment rate 

for people with disabilities, meaning those who have lost their jobs and those whom 

are actively seeking employment, for the first quarter of 2009 was between 13 and 

14 percent, 5 to 6 percentage points higher than the non-disabled population. Additionally, as was also reported in the American Community Survey, the BLS reported 

that for the same time period only 23 percent of all adults with disabilities participated in the labor force as compared with 71 percent of the non-disabled population. 

Correspondingly, for those individuals with disabilities who are employed their 

earnings are considerably less than the earnings for persons without disabilities (50 

to 70 percent less earnings per week for persons with disabilities as compared to 

those without disabilities as reported by the American Community Survey, 2006). 

Finally, as reported by the Harris poll, of those individuals surveyed the vast majority who were not working would be interested in working if the opportunity were 

to become available (approximately 7 out of 10 asked). 

A future challenge for employers is how to utilize the full labor force, supporting 

the older worker who may be acquiring disabilities as they age, engaging the retired 

worker, and recruiting from the emerging workforce of individuals with disabilities 

and recent immigrants to advance the economic engine of American businesses in 

the coming years. 

Interesting enough the approaches to supporting the current older worker as well 

as the re-engagement of the retired older worker are more similar than dissimilar 

to those utilized in accessing the untapped labor pool of workers with disabilities. 

Workplace modifications and accommodations that are universally applicable to the 

diverse workforce of today, older workers, workers with disabilities and immigrant 

workers, offer promise for employers to have a qualified workforce in the coming 

years. 

The concept of the One-Stop, that is no wrong door to employment for all job seekers, is mandated in the Workforce Investment Act. The intent of the One-Stop was 

and remains a system that is seamless and able to support job seekers with a variety of interests, preferences and needs. Additionally, the One-Stops can and often 

play a role with employers as a source of qualified job applicants. The early roll out 

of the One-Stops due to initial funding strategies, limited the ability of the system 

to be truly comprehensive. The lack of clarity regarding the role of the collaborators, 

the emphasis on high volume service and the mandate to serve all job seekers has 

resulted in a system that has considerable potential yet to be realized. 

The following section offers recommendations relating to WIA in the context of the 

questions posed by the committee following up with more detailed discussion of elements of WIA that work, those that may need to be revised, those that are not 

working and, finally, some suggestions of innovative practices and recommendations 

that would modernize WIA. 

45 

RESPONSE TO THE COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Recommendations to the committee: 

• Universal aspects of the One-Stop must be maintained and re-inforced from 

physical to program access. • Ongoing contributions of the Employment and Training Administration to Supporting the Employment of Persons with Disabilities must be a clear focus of ETA 

in all programs. • Ongoing contributions of the Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) 

must focus on the identification and removal of barriers for customers with disabilities seeking services through the One-Stops. • Measurement of effectiveness and impact must not create a disincentive for 

One-Stops to serve customers with disabilities. • Elimination of the concept of sequential services, that is, movement from core 

to intensive to training, and having direct access should be adopted. • Clear practices and resource sharing between the One-Stops and the public Vocational Rehabilitation system leading to increased employment outcomes for customers with disabilities must be the central focus of Memoranda of Agreement with 

WIA. • Linkage with other mandated and non-mandated partners must be encouraged 

leading to increased employment options for persons with disabilities. • Required infrastructure contributions for partners should be eliminated. • Integration of the employment exchange function with the One-Stops in all locations must be accomplished. • Comprehensive transition program development leading to employment outcomes for students with disabilities must be the focus of the WIA youth services and 

VR services. • One-Stops should be strongly encouraged to become Employment Networks. • Collaborations with other entities in assuring access to One-Stop Services and 

employment outcomes should be the goal of WIA with results of policies, programs 

and outcomes reported in the annual plan and the annual report of LWIBs and the 

SWIBs. • Capacity training and staff development addressing employment of the hard-toemploy, including persons with disabilities, must be a focus of ETA in the development of the One-Stop system’s ability to serve customers with disabilities. 

A. What works should be preserved and/or refined in the current workforce system 

and what should be eliminated? 

The following section outlines some of the areas that have been reported or been 

documented as working as well as those areas that, with some modifications, could 

address the universal aspects of the WIA legislation. 

1. What should be preserved and/or refined? 

• Universal aspects of the One-Stop must be maintained and re-inforced from 

physical to program access. Over the past several years many of the One-Stops have 

addressed the physical access of the centers through careful location of the centers 

in accessible buildings and locations, having office space that meets the ADA requirements and equipment and materials that facilitate access by all customers. Additionally, the enhanced role of the greeter, the front desk, at most One-Stops is now 

not only a position that supports new or former customers obtaining directions and 

information but also provides assistance especially in the accessing of information 

and materials in the resource areas. 

There continues to be room for increased accessibility in the programs and activities of the One-Stop for persons with disabilities, non or limited English speaking 

customers and older customers who may not be technologically literate. The need 

to assure that the principles of Universal Design for Learning and the use of teaching strategies and materials for adult learners is essential if all customers are to 

be served through the One-Stops. Progress has been made in these areas as seen 

in examples in States such as Washington, Alaska, Massachusetts and Wisconsin. 

All One-Stops should make sure that they meet not only the physical accessible requirements but the access to programs and activities as noted in the ADA and in 

section 188. Assistance from DOL, through training and technical assistance, to 

One-Stops would serve to increase the accessibility in the One-Stops for all customers, including those having a disability and others who would be considered 

harder to serve. 

The One-Stops, as opposed to the earlier Employment Service, have a strong focus 

on customer service that should be continued. However, it has been observed that 

staff can be unsure of the legal parameters regarding disability inquiries. It is sugVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:16 Jul 26, 2011 Jkt 035165 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\51264.TXT DENISE
46 

gested that DOL develop clearer guidelines and assistance to One-Stop staff on what 

they can ask in the way of offering supports and assistance as well as disclosure. 

A clearer identification of how a customer can utilize all of the resources of the OneStop and what assistance would be most beneficial can continue to increase the customer focus of all One-Stops. • Ongoing contributions of the Employment and Training Administration to Supporting the Employment of Persons with Disabilities must be a clear focus of ETA 

in all programs. ETA has played a central role in increasing the capacity of the 

One-Stops to serve customers with disabilities. Projects such as the Work Incentive 

Grants and the Disability Program Navigator (DPN) grants have been effective at 

increasing the capacity of One-Stops to serve customers with disabilities. The role 

of the DPN should be maintained in ETA and expanded to all of the States. Clarification and consistency in the DPN role is needed, and the functions of the DPN 

addressing systemic change as well as facilitation of access to available services by 

customers with disabilities and other hard-to-serve customers in contrast to the provision of direct services to One-Stop customers. The continuation and expansion of 

the DPN is essential in supporting job seekers with disabilities. 

Additionally, ETA should look to assisting One-Stops in developing more creative 

Memoranda of Agreement with mandated entities such as the public Vocational Rehabilitation agencies at the State and local levels as well as the non-mandated partners such as the State agencies serving individuals with intellectual disabilities, 

persons with mental illness and those who are on welfare. In the coming year an 

added focus on schools and youth in transition should clearly be an area of emphasis 

for ETA and the One-Stops along with their mandated and non-mandated partners. • Ongoing contributions of the Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) 

must focus on the identification and removal of barriers for customers with disabilities seeking services through the One-Stops: ODEP in its short tenure at the Department of Labor has played a considerable role in increasing the understanding of how 

persons with disabilities can be served in the community through the adoption of 

the principles and practices of customized employment and youth services. The demonstration of the effectiveness of customizing the employer and customer relationship in the workplace has been accomplished. The integration of these strategies 

into the One-Stops will mean a collaborative working relationship between ODEP 

and ETA in the coming years. 

ODEP, with its focus on policy, can and should play a considerable role in both 

the development of effectiveness measures for One-Stops nationally as well as the 

identification of policies and practices that have been effective in linking the mandated and non-mandated partners together to address the universal design aspects 

of the One-Stops. Increasing the capacity of the system through identification of 

skills, competencies and certifications of personnel in the One-Stop would again integrate the policy mandates of ODEP with the activities and practices of ETA. 

ODEP can and has played a role in examining Federal policies and practices that 

have facilitated as well as inhibited the employment of persons with disabilities. 

This remains an important policy area in which ODEP can continue to influence 

other Federal agencies and their practices such that there is a more cohesive view 

of both employment, as the goal for persons with disabilities across all Federal agencies, as well as to identify ways in which conflicting policies and practices can be 

brought into line with the expectations of employment first as the goal for persons 

with disabilities. 

• Measurement of effectiveness and impact must not create a disincentive for OneStops to serve customers with disabilities: While this has been an area of continuous 

discussion over several years, there is little progress in the area of identifying clear 

performance measures for the One-Stop system. Some of this is reflective of the nature of the One-Stop in that it is a system and not an individual program, and thus 

for the One-Stop there must be collaborations across multiple agencies addressing 

the needs of the customers who are seeking employment. Many of these partner 

agencies have outcome measures and most have unique interpretations of what the 

actual measure means, as in the case of ‘‘what is employment’’ and ‘‘how long should 

individuals be followed.’’ Care must be exercised so that any measurement of outcomes does not create a disincentive for the One-Stops to serve specific sub-populations. 

As it currently stands, if the One-Stop does not meet its performance measures 

while using WIA funds, there are clear sanctions. The existing structure can and 

often has been reported to be a reason for the low rate of service for persons with 

disabilities and other hard-to-serve customer groups. There is a need to develop 

measures of effectiveness that reflect the customer diversity while embracing the 

mandate of the One-Stop to serve all customers. In some instances the customer mix 

will vary depending upon the demographics of the area served by the One-Stop. Any 

47 

measurement system must be sufficiently flexible to accommodate the diversity of 

the populations served by the One-Stops as well as be able to provide consistent 

measures of outcomes such as employment placements, earnings and job retention 

among other variables. The identification of effective outcome measures for WIA is 

clearly an area of importance and should be a priority for both ETA and ODEP with 

the development of such measures including both mandated and non-mandated 

partner input and consideration. 

While not a performance measure, the adoption of common intake and application 

materials across the One-Stop and its partners would serve to streamline the application effort for the customer as well as reduce the costs to the agencies if common 

data and variables are used for multiple applications for service. The same would 

be true for outcome measures. With some greater consistency in the definition of 

the outcomes measures, cross agency reviews may be able to be accomplished with 

the outcomes providing more meaningful and useful monitoring as well as strategic 

planning. Finally, the development of measures and processes that do not create disincentives for the One-Stops to serve the harder-to-serve customers is essential if 

the mandate of WIA to be universal, seamless and accessible to all is to be realized. 

• Elimination of the concept of sequential services from core to intensive to training and have direct access should be adopted: Typically services are available to the 

customer in a sequential fashion with core services being the first to be offered. The 

customer may move from core to intensive and then training as needs become more 

clearly identified. Moving through this sequence can serve to add time to the process 

that is unnecessary and inefficient. One-Stops staff should be able to access training 

for individuals who would clearly benefit from training and also those who would 

benefit from more intensive services rather than having to go through a sequence 

of services. The increased flexibility will allow the One-Stop to more effectively address the needs of persons with disabilities as well as other hard-to-serve customers 

and also more clearly focus resources on the services that will have the greatest impact on reaching the goal of employment for the customer. 

Additionally, with the adoption of a direct access system for services, One-Stops 

can also be more targeted in the development of their partnerships with the public 

Vocational Rehabilitation system and other mandated and non-mandated partners. 

In these instances collaboratively supporting training leading to employment at the 

time of application may be the most efficient use of shared resources for a customer. 

Flexibility in the use of One-Stop resources can give the One-Stop ability to link 

with other partners in funding and or supporting services for the customer. 

• Clear practices and resource sharing between the One-Stops and the public Vocational Rehabilitation system leading to increased employment outcomes for customers 

with disabilities must be the focus of the Memoranda of Agreement with WIA. While 

included in WIA, the relationship of the public Vocational Rehabilitation system is 

varied across States and within States. In some States the linkage of the One-Stop 

and the VR system has been considerable as witnessed by the efforts in southwest 

Washington, Alaska, Wisconsin, Michigan, Connecticut and Minnesota. In these 

States there is a clear working relationship between the two systems. In other 

States, while there may not be as clear a relationship at the State level, there are 

relationships at the local level with local office of the VR system where staff of VR 

are located within the One-Stop on a part-time or full-time basis. Among other 

States, where the VR agency is not a guest or a casual resource at the One-Stops, 

but has a meaningful relationship, there have been stronger working relationships 

between these two partners. It is clear that there are examples of partnerships that 

have demonstrated that these systems can coordinate resources and direct their 

focus to increase the employment of customers with disabilities. 

• Linkage with other mandated and non-mandated partners must be encouraged 

leading to increased employment options for persons with disabilities. All too often 

the focus of the partnership has been on what resources each of the partners can 

provide to the infrastructure of the One-Stop. These discussions have sidetracked 

discussions of the elements of any agreement to fiscal as opposed to program and 

resource sharing. It is felt that if the infrastructure expenses of the One-Stop are 

provided then the nature of the partnerships with both the mandated and non-mandated partners can be upon sharing of personnel, expertise and fiscal resources directed at assisting customers in accessing employment. 

2. What should be eliminated? 

• Required core contributions for partners should be eliminated: As was noted previously, the focus of the partnership discussions has been upon what resources could 

be provided for infrastructure support of the One-Stop. This focus has lead to considerable debate among the mandated partners and related resistance on working 

48 

collaboratively to address a universal and seamless employment and training system for all job seekers. It is strongly recommended that adequate financial resources 

be made available to cover the basic operating expenses of the One-Stop and that 

the elements of the Memoranda of Agreement be directed at defining what each of 

the entities will bring in the areas of personnel, expertise, fiscal and program resources. • Integration of the employment exchange function with the One-Stops in all locations must be accomplished: As was noted in the GAO report (One-Stop System Infrastructure Continues to Evolve, but Labor Should Take Action to Require that All 

Employment Service Offices Are Part of the System: GAO September 2007), it is essential that the One-Stop and the Labor Service Offices be integrated both for effectiveness in addressing customer needs as well as efficiency in reducing costs. In 

those instances where the Labor Exchange is separate, the Wagner-Peyser resources 

are typically no longer available to the One-Stop and thus the WIA resources are 

needed to support the Administration and core services of the One-Stop, and are not 

available for intensive and training services. 

B. What innovative policy recommendations could be suggested to modernize WIA? 

• Comprehensive transition program development leading to employment outcomes 

for students with disabilities must be the focus of the WIA youth services and VR 

services: With the passage of WIA, transition from school to employment and adult 

life will become a core area of responsibility for the public Vocational Rehabilitation 

system. The additional stimulus monies available to several State agencies (Education, Labor and the public Vocational Rehabilitation Agency) are focused, in part, 

upon the youth population and assuring that these youth enter and remain in the 

workforce. These highly focused resources are of short duration (about 24 months) 

but are of sufficient magnitude that they can significantly impact how transition 

from school to work and adult life is addressed in selected communities. Though the 

stimulus money is of limited duration, the issue of transition is not and the additional resources through the Workforce Investment Act, the Rehabilitation Act, the 

Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act (expanding volunteer services and service 

leading to employment) and the soon to be published Higher Education Act regulations (creating opportunities for students with intellectual disabilities to complete 

their entitlement to education in a post-secondary setting) can become part of an 

expanded strategy for establishing a comprehensive transition service at the State 

level. 

There is clear evidence to show that students with disabilities who have an employment experience in school are more likely to be employed in their adult years. 

Additionally, with the focus on youth in WIA and the addition of transition from 

school to employment and adult life, now part of the Rehabilitation Act, there is a 

significant opportunity to revise the way services and supports are provided to 

youth with disabilities as they exit school. The integration of service leading to employment (the Edward M. Kennedy National Service Act), the options for completing 

education entitlement services for some youth with disabilities in a community college, college or university setting, the use of training resource through community 

colleges can all serve as a platform to revise the transition process so that students 

with disabilities upon exiting school are directed toward employment and not nonwork options in their adult years. One of the relative strengths of WIA has been 

the percentage of young people with disabilities utilizing the WIA-funded youth 

services and better integration of such services with transition activities would be 

of major benefit. 

Partnership agreements including schools, the public Vocational Rehabilitation 

agency, One-Stops, Community Colleges, Universities and community rehabilitation 

providers can lead to a more robust transition planning process and the development of programs and services that link post-secondary settings with community 

colleges and volunteer services that may lead to employment for youth with disabilities. 

• One-Stops are strongly encouraged to become Employment Networks: The passage of the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Act in 1999, resulted in the creation 

of the Ticket to Work Act. The Ticket provides resources to Employment Networks 

(ENs) to assist persons with disabilities in accessing and maintaining employment. 

Over a 5-year period the Employment Network can share in the SSA revenues 

saved through individuals with disabilities entering and remaining in employment. 

In the past One-Stops have shown limited interest in becoming an Employment 

Network for the Ticket Program. In the past year significant changes have been 

made in the program in terms of financial incentives, and simplifying the administrative processes, including an expedited process for One-Stops to become an EN, 

greatly reducing the complexity of this process. The ICI in a review of the potential 

49 

of the Ticket to generate revenue for the One-Stops in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts found that for customers who were receiving SSI or SSDI benefits from 

May 2007 to May 2008, of the 193,868 customers of the Massachusetts One-Stop 

system, 7,347 (3.8 percent) were on SSI/SSDI. Iowa did a similar analysis and found 

that of the 200,602 One-Stop customers in 2006, about 3,400 (1.4 percent) were 

Ticket holders. While it’s a smaller percentage than MA, the number is still significant. These two examples illustrate that there is real untapped potential for an increase in One-Stop involvement in Ticket, and in turn building the capacity of the 

workforce development system to meet the needs of individuals with disabilities. It 

is suggested that through regulatory and policy directives, efforts be made for an 

enhanced role of One-Stops in the Ticket program. • Collaborations with other entities in assuring access to One-Stop Services and 

employment outcomes should be the goal of the WIA with results of policies, programs and outcomes reported in the annual plan and the annual report of the LWIB 

and the SWIB: The One-Stop could partner with community rehabilitation providers 

(CRPs) that have strong individual job placement programs. These CRPs would 

come to the One-Stop Career Centers and meet with individuals identified by the 

One-Stop as potentially benefiting from more intensive employment and training 

services. The CRP would be responsible for engaging individuals in direct job placement with the goal of entry into the workforce and then sustained employment. 

Should the One-Stop choose to contract such a service through the CRP system, 

a direct benefit to the One-Stops would be the freeing up of staff to support more 

customers who can utilize the traditional career center types of services. If the OneStop were to choose to offer the services through their system then the additional 

resources necessary would be used to support the hiring and establishment of such 

a service through the One-Stop. Regardless of the selection of the model, contract 

or expansion of services, the One-Stop would engage the local public Vocational Rehabilitation system as a partner in this effort. The target population to be served 

while having limitations that could be considered a disability may meet the eligibility requirements as a person with a disability but not be eligible for vocational 

rehabilitation services since the VR system will most likely be in an Order of Selection. The expertise of the VR system however can assist in the identification of supports, technology and accommodations that may be beneficial for the job seeker. 

Other partnerships with State agencies such as the Department of Developmental 

or Intellectual Disabilities or the Department of Mental Health would bring in the 

resources and the customer base served by these agencies. While non-mandated entities, they could link with the One-Stops and the CRPs (entities that they currently 

contract with) to increase the options for employment of persons who are served by 

these agencies. Through the State Employment Leadership Network (SELN), a joint 

effort of the ICI and the National Association of State Director of Developmental 

Disabilities Services (NASDDDS), eight States have adopted or are considering the 

adoption of an Employment First strategy. This strategy calls for the allocation of 

agency monies to address employment outcomes first prior to any other service. The 

focus on employment is consistent with the overall direction of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), in that, through the Medicaid Infrastructure 

Grants CMS is supporting States to move more toward employment as the outcome 

for persons with disabilities who are served by these State agencies. Linking the 

One-Stops, VR and the State agencies serving persons with Intellectual Disabilities 

also brings in the resource of CMS since, on average, one half of the budgets for 

these State agencies are reimbursements received from CMS for services provided. 

• Capacity training and staff development addressing employment of the hard-toemploy including persons with disabilities must be a focus of ETA in the development of the One-Stop system’s ability to serve customers with disabilities: If the OneStops are to be able to continue to expand their capacity to serve customers with 

disabilities, then additional staff competencies will need to be developed addressing 

disability awareness, screening and assessment, consumer direction, job development, job accommodations, on-site supports and marketing to employers. The development of these competencies can be integrated into the One-Stop staff development 

efforts and be available on line. The training of employment training specialists or 

job coaches has typically been on a more informal basis. More recently there has 

been an increase in the creation of a range of skills that need to be mastered for 

staff to be able to assume the position of an employment training specialist or a job 

coach. These training activities are leading to the development of a national training 

effort directed at increasing the skills of current staff who are working in the employment and training field as well as the creation of a career track for individuals 

who would be interested in a career in this area. The competencies that have been 

identified as essential for staff who are supporting and training individuals with disabilities are similar to those that are used to increase staff skills of those supporting 

50 

1 Prepared by: William E. Kiernan, Ph.D., Director and Research Professor, Institute for Community Inclusion (UCED), University of Massachusetts Boston, 100 Morrissey Blvd, Boston, MA 

02115-3393; Tel: 617–287–4311; E-mail: william.kiernan@umb.edu; Web: www.community 

inclusion.org; and David Hoff, Senior Technical Assistance Specialist, Institute for Community 

Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston, 100 Morrissey Blvd, Boston, MA 02115–3393. 

the harder to employ as well as the older worker. Such a training effort is consistent 

with the capacity development efforts in the broader discipline of workforce professionals and WIA. 

DOL can play a leadership role in supporting a national staff capacity development effort that would increase staff skills and increase the effectiveness of OneStop services and other employment and training services nationally. UCEDDs are 

exceptionally well-qualified to provide training to current and future professionals 

working with individuals with disabilities. 

Finally, we have included as an Attachment A,1—Detailed Comments and Recommendations for WIA—a more detailed presentation of some of the recommendations for change in the WIA legislation. These are offered in support of the above 

comments and are hoped to be viewed as complimentary to this written statement. 

ATTACHMENT A: DETAILED COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR WIA 

WIA REAUTHORIZATION COMMENTS

The following section presents: (1) an overview of WIA, (2) background and context, (3) issues that need to be addressed in the reauthorization, and (4) WIA reauthorization recommendations. 

1. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

The passage of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) in 1998 resulted in a revolutionary concept—the idea of universal access to employment assistance for all job 

seekers needing help. Language within WIA, and subsequent regulations (both the 

general WIA regulations, and the specific regulations for non-discrimination in section 188) sent a clear message—that universal accessibility in the ‘‘generic’’ workforce system includes serving people with disabilities. In many ways, this concept 

of universal access in WIA, and emphasis on serving people with disabilities, was 

evidence and another indicator of an ongoing evolution of full integration of people 

with disabilities into mainstream society, side-by-side with all other citizens. 

Since the passage of WIA, and the simultaneous development of the One-Stop delivery system, extensive resources have been spent on developing the capacity of the 

One-Stop system and workforce development system as a whole, to meet the needs 

of individuals with disabilities. This has included extensive funding from two DOL 

Departments: the Employment and Training Administration (ETA), and Office of 

Disability Employment Policy (ODEP). Along with the Work Incentive Grants from 

ETA and Customized Employment Grants from ODEP, since 2003, through a cooperative effort between ETA and the Social Security Administration, Disability Program Navigators have been working in One-Stop Career Centers to guide people 

with disabilities in the use of workforce development services. There are currently 

over 425 Navigators spread across 42 States. The amount spent on capacity-building 

grants from ETA and ODEP well exceeds $195 million total from 2000 to 2007, with 

ETA alone spending more than $115 million through their Work Incentive Grants 

and Disability Navigator programs. In addition to these Federal efforts, State and 

local funds have also been used for various capacity-building initiatives. The end result has been significant increases in the capacity of One-Stop and workforce development systems to serve people with disabilities. 

At the same time, it appears these efforts have not necessarily been consistent, 

and local workforce development systems and One-Stop Career Centers vary greatly 

in their receptivity and ability to serve people with disabilities. Additionally, while 

some data are available which provide indicators regarding the performance of the 

workforce development system in serving people with disabilities, the lack of strong 

performance measurement systems for One-Stops has created challenges in determining the progress that has been made. 

2. THE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM: BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

In providing comments on WIA reauthorization, it is critical to have at least some 

context for the role of the One-Stop system, which is the primary means for delivery 

of workforce development services. It is important to bear in mind two basic concepts. First, One-Stop Career Centers are not service delivery agencies in the tradiVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:16 Jul 26, 2011 Jkt 035165 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\51264.TXT DENISE
51 

tional sense. The intent of the WIA legislation, and at least somewhat in actual 

practice, is that One-Stops are a consortium and collaborative of multiple publicly 

funded employment and training programs, that come together to form the OneStop. There currently exists 17 federally funded employment and training programs 

that are mandated as One-Stop partners in the WIA legislation, one of them being 

the public Vocational Rehabilitation system. Despite misperceptions that WIA funding and One-Stop funding are the same thing, as will be discussed in more detail 

later, only 3 of these 17 partners are funded via Workforce Investment Act Funds 

(Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Youth Services). The second important factor to consider is the high customer volume that many One-Stops work with. For example, 

the two One-Stop Career Centers in the Metro North area of Massachusetts (just 

outside of Boston), serve over 20,000 unique customers per year with approximately 

60 staff. In essence, the One-Stop system is a high volume, low-level customer contact system, which relies to a great extent on self-direction. Only a small percentage 

of customers (typically less than 10 percent) receive any services beyond the basic 

‘‘core’’ services that are available to any individual. 

One-Stops have been at times criticized for their inability to respond to individuals needing a high level of 1:1 assistance. Such criticism may be at times valid 

(particularly in cases where services have been refused or accommodations have not 

been provided). However, such criticism is also at times misplaced, as One-Stops 

were never intended to provide the type of intensive, comprehensive services that 

can be typically found by a community rehabilitation provider, and similar entities, 

including the level of intensive job development available at CRPs. At the same 

time, to address the diversity of needs and respond to the mandate to be universally 

accessible to all, the stronger One-Stop Centers have recognized the need to: 

(1) have high quality information and referral systems to handle the high customer volume they experience, 

(2) quickly ascertain a customer’s needs, 

(3) determine what services within the One-Stop can be used to respond to those 

needs, and 

(4) identify and engage partners (both formal and informal) to respond to those 

needs that are beyond the core capacity of the One-Stop. 

One of the ‘‘best practices’’ that has been recognized among One-Stops, is the ability to develop a strong network of community partners (often on an informal basis) 

that can be utilized to respond to customer needs. In the case of individuals with 

disabilities, this includes community rehabilitation providers, public disability 

groups, independent living centers, advocacy groups, etc., going well beyond the 

mandated partnership with public Vocational Rehabilitation. Some One-Stops have 

also partnered with their local Work Incentive Planning and Assistance programs 

(funded by SSA), and a few have become Employment Networks under the Ticket 

to Work, although participation to date by One-Stops in the Ticket program has 

been limited, despite significant outreach efforts by SSA. 

3. ISSUES NEEDING TO BE ADDRESSED

Performance Measurement and Issues: The inability to properly measure the performance of the One-Stop system is an ongoing issue. At this point, the only mechanism for measurement of One-Stop performance is through individual partner and 

funding stream performance measures that allows only a partial (although still 

somewhat informative) look at the system. A subtext of this lack of a comprehensive 

performance measurement system, is the lack of a measurement system for OneStop system performance in serving various groups and sub-populations including 

people with disabilities. As a result, it is impossible to truly ascertain the performance and progress of the One-Stop system as a whole in meeting the needs of people 

with disabilities. 

Wagner-Peyser Data: The performance data that is available, while limited, indicates both successes and challenges regarding serving people with disabilities. The 

Wagner-Peyser data are probably the best indicator available of overall One-Stop 

performance. These funds are used for basic employment/labor exchange services, 

and track the largest number of individuals using the generic workforce development system—and per WIA regulations, are to be delivered within the One-Stop 

system. 

Analysis by the Institute for Community Inclusion (ICI), indicates that the percentage of individuals identifying they have a disability has shown a steady increase 

over time, from 2.3 percent in 2002 to 3.1 percent in 2005 figure. The more recently 

available data show a slight decline: in 2007, 2.8 percent of individuals using Wagner-Peyser funding were identified as having a disability. As noted in a recent publiVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:16 Jul 26, 2011 Jkt 035165 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\51264.TXT DENISE
52 

cation by the Institute for Community Inclusion (ICI) (http://www.community 

inclusion.org/article.php?articlelid=233&type=project&id=16), 

‘‘In examining and interpreting these data, it is important to note that these 

data may not fully reflect the use of these services by people with disabilities, 

as it does not include individuals with non-apparent disabilities who have declined to identify that they have a disability.’’ 

There are a number of other issues with these data. It first off, only indicates percentage of use of the system by people with disabilities, with no outcome data (although outcome data is made available for Wagner-Peyser participants as a whole). 

Second, the data indicate massive variations in the percentage of people with disabilities using services from State-to-State: from less than 1 percent to over 15 percent. The underlying reasons for this variation are not clear, but it is concerning 

and bears further investigation. 

WIA Data: The other piece of significant data that is available is the Workforce 

Investment Act fund data. These funds are generally used for training, as well as 

more intensive services in the workforce development system. In some cases, WIA 

funds are also used for core services. The WIA performance data do provide highly 

detailed information regarding performance and outcomes for people with disabilities. However, only a small percentage of individuals served in the workforce development system are served via WIA funds (approximately a million people annually 

vs. over 13 million via Wagner-Peyser funding). Therefore WIA performance is not 

equivalent to One-Stop performance, although it has been observed that many policymakers internal and external to the workforce development system, advocates, 

and academics often verbally and in writing incorrectly make this assumption. To 

re-inforce this point, in 2007, only 58,000 individuals identified as having a disability were served via WIA funds, while 499,000 individuals were served via Wagner-Peyser funds. 

There are three WIA funding streams: Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Youth. 

Analysis of these data by the Institute for Community Inclusion revealed the following: from 2001 to 2007, the percentage of individuals with disabilities served via 

WIA Adults funds declined from 9 percent of the total served to 4.2 percent. For 

WIA Dislocated Worker funds, the results have varied over this same period, from 

a low of 3.3 percent in 2005 to a high of 4.6 percent in 2006. In conjunction with 

declines in percentage of individuals served, the outcomes for individuals with disabilities trailed the overall average performance. (It is important to note that there 

are significant penalties in terms of funding losses for not meeting required performance outcomes using WIA funds.) For Youth funds however, the results are 

more encouraging. For WIA Youth with disabilities (ages 14 to 21), the percentage 

of individuals served actually increased from about 14 percent to 16 percent from 

2001–2004 (although this has since declined to 14.5 percent in 2007). In terms of 

performance, Older Youth (ages 19–21) with disabilities slightly lagged the average 

performance, and for Younger Youth (ages 14–18), performance was either equivalent or exceeded the average performance. (Note: Youth with disabilities are highly 

eligible for WIA youth services.) These results appear to indicate that when performance for people with disabilities lags the general population, their ability to access services decreases, and when performance for people with disabilities is similar 

to or exceeds the general population, their ability to access services increases. 

4. WIA REAUTHORIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS

Given this context, the following are specific recommendations regarding reauthorization of WIA: 

Performance Tracking and Measurement 

• Development of One-Stop Performance Measurement System: A key 

piece of WIA reauthorization needs to be mandating development of performance 

measurement for the One-Stop system as a whole, which includes measurement of 

performance in serving people with disabilities, among other groups. 

• Clarity of Disability Definition and Tracking of SSI/SSDI Enrollment 

Status: Part of the reform of performance measures needs to include much greater 

clarity regarding definitions and mechanisms for measurement, as it appears that 

the mechanisms for measuring disability are at best inconsistent making it difficult 

to have full confidence in the accuracy of the data. Mandating the collection of SSI/ 

SSDI enrollment status of individuals being served would assist in this process, and 

allow for a much stronger sense of how the system is performing for individuals 

with more significant disabilities, and also allow for greater determination of the potential of the workforce development system in terms of participation in the Ticket 

to Work. 

53 

• Creation of Benchmarks and Targets for Specific Populations: In conjunction with reform of performance measures, it is also recommended that statutory language be included in the reauthorization, which mandates creation of annual benchmarks and targets for serving specific populations, including people with 

disabilities. 

• Revamping WIA Performance Requirements: Revamping of the performance requirements for WIA funds is clearly needed. Too often, concerns over the inability to meet performance standards, is used as an excuse for not serving people 

with disabilities. The WIA performance measures must be modified to account for 

a wider range of job seeker needs. Language must also be incorporated into reauthorization that clearly re-inforces that discrimination against individuals based on 

performance measure concerns is not acceptable. 

Non-Discrimination and Universal Access 

• Strengthen Non-Discrimination Language and Monitoring of Performance for Specific Populations: WIA currently contains significant language regarding the mandate to serve people with disabilities that is strongly re-inforced 

within the section 188 regulations. It is recommended that this language not only 

be maintained, but also strengthened to make this mandate clearer. In conjunction 

with this, language should be incorporated within WIA, that more clearly requires 

monitoring of the performance of meeting the needs of various populations and subgroups (including those with disabilities) and that the demographics of the customers served by the workforce development system should be reflective of the diversity of the region being served. This can be re-inforced with creation of targets 

and benchmarks contained within the recommendation above regarding performance 

measures. 

• Maintain Universal Access Requirements: One of the key strengths of WIA, 

is the concept of universal access to core services, which allows any individual to 

access services, without having to meet eligibility criteria. This should be absolutely 

maintained in any reauthorization. 

Training Services 

• Require Use of Universal Design and Learning Principles in Training: 

Access to skill development training programs for people with disabilities has often 

been limited, particularly for individuals with more significant disabilities. At the 

same time, the ability of people with disabilities to access employment that provides 

real economic independence is highly dependent on increasing their skill levels. The 

use of universal design and learning strategies in creation and delivery of curriculum, have proven to be an effective strategy in increasing the ability of people 

with disabilities and other groups to access and fully benefit from classroom instruction and training. It is therefore recommended, that as an outgrowth of the universal access requirements of WIA, that language be included in the reauthorization 

that requires that training programs be delivered, utilizing universal design and 

learning principles. 

• Strengthen Use of Training Beyond Traditional Classroom Settings: The 

current WIA regulations allow for a wide variety of uses of training funds including 

but not limited to: occupational skills training; on-the job training; adult education 

and literacy; customized training for an employer who commits to hiring. However, 

there is a sense that most training funds are still used for traditional in-person didactic classroom training, which is not an effective learning strategy for many individuals, including some individuals with disabilities. Therefore, in order to ensure 

that funds that are being utilized to support the full range of today’s learning technology, and meet the full range of learner needs, it is recommended that language 

in the reauthorization more clearly and specifically encourage use of training funds 

beyond in-person traditional classroom training. 

• Explicitly Require Training Programs to Meet Needs of People with 

Disabilities: Anecdotal evidence indicates that many training programs available 

via the workforce development system have limited willingness and ability to accommodate for the needs of individuals with disabilities, despite legal requirements 

under the ADA, Rehab Act, and section 188 of WIA to do so. It is recommended that 

language be included in WIA reauthorization, that explicitly states and reiterates 

that training programs make efforts to proactively consider and accommodate the 

needs of individuals with disabilities, and that re-inforces the right of people with 

disabilities to participate in training programs, and receive reasonable accommodations and modifications as necessary. Language should also be included that encourages the use of public VR and other disability partners to assist in supporting individuals in accessing and fully benefiting from workforce development training programs, in order that individuals successfully complete such programs, while simulVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:16 Jul 26, 2011 Jkt 035165 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\51264.TXT DENISE
54 

2http://www.communityinclusion.org/article.php?articlelid=4&type=topic&id=9; http:// 

www.communityinclusion.org/article.php?articlelid=3&type=topic&id=9; http://www.commun 

ityinclusion.org/article.php?articlelid=5&type=topic&id=99. 

taneously ensuring the ability of the workforce development system to meet the 

training program performance requirements. 

One-Stop Partnerships and Role of Disability Partners 

• Strengthen One-Stop Partnership Requirements: The concept of multiple 

partners coming together in a streamlined ‘‘user-friendly’’ system as envisioned 

under WIA makes sense. However, while WIA mandates a multitude of partners 

within the One-Stop system, the reality has been that such partnerships have too 

often been cursory at best. One of the more obvious examples have been cases of 

One-Stop Career Centers funded by WIA funds, operating separately from One-Stop 

Career Centers or State Employment Service offices funded by Wagner-Peyser 

funds, which appears to be inconsistent with the intent of WIA. Another example, 

where opportunities presented by WIA have not been fully taken advantage of, is 

when the partnership with public VR has been itinerant, consisting of a local VR 

counselor spending a day per week (or even less) at a One-Stop with limited interaction with other staff, which is not the integrated and collaborative partnership envisioned under WIA. At the same time, qualitative research clearly indicates that 

when there have been strong partnerships in place, including those with public VR, 

the result has been mutual benefit for all concerned. Therefore, the partnership 

mandates within WIA for the One-Stop system needs to be strengthened, with much 

clearer parameters regarding the requirements of partnership, and penalties and 

sanctions for non-compliance. 

• Maintain Public VR as a Mandated Partner: It is highly recommended that 

the public Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) system remain as a mandated partner 

within the One-Stop system. The leveraging of resources and mutual benefits that 

have been observed on an anecdotal basis and through qualitative research (see reference in footnote 2 on case studies of MN, KY and ME), have clearly indicated the 

benefits of this partnership when properly structured and with the commitment of 

all involved.2

• Remove Partner Infrastructure Contribution Requirement: Extensive 

and excessive energy has been spent over the last decade on the WIA requirement 

that all partners must contribute to the core services and infrastructure of the OneStop system, and this has often been a barrier and distraction to productive partnerships. To address this issue, as recommended by a multitude of commentators, it 

is suggested that a separate line item be created for core One-Stop infrastructure, 

and that this mandate for partnership contributions to infrastructure be removed 

and alternative mechanisms for partnership development be allowed. 

• Encourage Participation by Other Disability Partners Beyond VR: Public VR is the only disability specific system that is a mandated One-Stop partner, 

and as a result is the only disability specific system that has a mandate to serve 

on the local workforce investment boards that oversee the workforce development 

system and One-Stop Career Centers. Given that VR only represents a percentage 

of individuals with disabilities, and many people with disabilities receive employment assistance outside of the VR systems, it is recommended that language be inserted into WIA which either mandates or encourages other disability systems be 

included as members of workforce boards and/or partner in other ways with the 

workforce development system. These would include public intellectual/developmental disability systems, public mental health system and State and local school 

districts. Similarly, language should be included that mandates or encourages partnership with the Veteran’s Administration, which has a major constituency of veteran’s with disabilities, that could benefit from stronger linkages with workforce development. 

Social Security Employment Supports 

• Strengthen Role with Ticket to Work and Other Social Security Employment Support Programs: It is recommended that language be included in 

WIA that strongly encourages or mandates that One-Stop Career Centers be Employment Networks under the SSA Ticket to Work program, which could be a catalyst for increasing services to people with disabilities. Similar to this, should be language that encourages linkages with Work Incentive Planning and Assistance 

(WIPA) Programs, and other Social Security employment support programs. As 

noted above, mandating tracking of the SSI/SSDI status of workforce development 

system customers, would assist in such efforts. 

55 

Disability Program Navigators 

• Make Disability Program Navigators Permanent: The Disability Program 

Navigator (DPN) system has been a real asset to people with disabilities in accessing the One-Stop system. In order to strengthen the DPN system, it is recommended 

that the WIA reauthorization include a statutory requirement to maintain the DPN 

system, with expansion to all 50 States. 

Senator MURRAY. Thank you. 

Ms. Sarris. 

STATEMENT OF MARY W. SARRIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NORTH SHORE WORKFORCE INVESTMENT BOARD, SALEM, MA 

Ms. SARRIS. Hello, Senator Murray and Senator Isakson. Thank 

you so much for having me today. 

And again, I also want to reiterate we miss Senator Kennedy. We 

thank him so much for all of his work and know he is listening to 

what we are saying and moving forward to make WIA the best possible program it can possibly be. 

Again, I am Mary Sarris, and I am with the North Shore Workforce Investment Board (NSWIB). We are located about 12 miles 

north of Boston. We serve 19 cities and towns along the coast of 

Massachusetts. Our board is 35 members, a very active partnership 

between business, organized labor, the community college, the 

State college, several community-based organizations, and of 

course, our mandated partners. We are a very active and involved 

board and that has allowed us to become one of three high-performing WIBs in the State of Massachusetts, and we think has allowed us to be creative, forward-thinking, and solution-oriented to 

the problems that we face on the north shore. 

My remarks are basically based on five principles that we think 

are critical for WIA reauthorization. 

First, is that those decisions that are made closest to the customer are the best decisions. The opportunity for local organizations and regional organizations to serve customers must continue 

to be stressed under WIA reauthorization. 

Second, we believe that WIBs, particularly, for example, the 

North Shore WIB, represents that ideal partnership since we have 

all members of the community on the WIB and they are all very 

active and participatory in the decisions. They are empowered to 

make the decisions that make our system work, and they do take 

that power and go with it. 

Third, we also believe, of course, that WIA must remain an education and training-focused piece of legislation. As mentioned before, the infrastructure of the One-Stop system should be supported 

under other means, and we should use as much of our money as 

possible to educate and train the workforce. 

Fourth, youth services, and I will talk a little bit more in detail 

about this. But youth services must be restructured to better serve 

our emerging workforce. This group of individuals, probably a critical aspect of our workforce, is under a great deal of stress, growing 

every day, and we must be able to be creative and innovative as 

far as serving their needs and helping them make informed career 

decisions and moving into the next phase of their adult life. 

Finally, of course, the system must be very accountable. We believe on the North Shore that there are no secrets, and everything 

that we do, all of the funds that we spend, all the programs that 

56 

we operate are on our Web site. And we look forward to our stakeholders participating in helping us make decisions to make those 

programs run well. 

We see two major strengths with WIA right now. 

First, is the Workforce Investment Act has allowed us to develop 

expertise in four nonprofit organizations and probably more than 

that as well. For WIA vendors that have come to know and understand what the workforce is and know and understand how to communicate that information to the young people, they have learned 

what our critical industries are. They have learned what it means 

to get ready for work, to stay in school, and we are pleased that 

our capacity has been increased and enhanced under WIA through 

these organizations. 

In addition, we have been fortunate that our One-Stop system 

has been able to respond to youth. Through the WIA legislation, we 

receive about $1 million every year for our WIA youth programs. 

In addition, the State of Massachusetts has been able to provide us 

with about $500,000 in resources that allow us to serve as many 

youth as possible, even those who are above the WIA eligibility 

guidelines. Through that, we have been able to establish a youth 

One-Stop Career Center within one of our One-Stops. That center 

is critical and has done great work in helping young people. 

Of course, the area of challenges. We do believe—it has been said 

already—the youth eligibility must be changed. It is way too complicated, particularly for the type of young people that we serve. 

We estimate that about 50 percent of the young people who come 

to us do not complete the eligibility process because it is just too 

onerous. These are young people who really need our services, but 

have a hard time completing all the documentation. We would like 

new legislation to support the opportunity for WIBs to establish 

their own guidelines, and we ask you to trust us that we will most 

definitely serve those most in need. 

We also believe in the presence of a strong summer jobs program. 

The stimulus money has provided us with that opportunity this 

year, and we guarantee you it is money that is being put to good 

use. 

As far as modernization of WIA, Secretary Oates and Secretary 

Kanter discussed this this morning. We need the ability to work 

more closely with our local school districts, particularly to help kids 

make informed career decisions about STEM careers. And we ask 

that the new WIA provide incentives for WIBs and local school districts to work together in that vein. 

The rest of my details are in my testimony, and I look forward 

to your questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Sarris follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARY W. SARRIS

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman and members of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, thank you for the opportunity to participate in these very important committee hearings on the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998. As 

a Massachusetts Workforce Investment Board (MWIB), we are truly fortunate to 

have Senator Edward M. Kennedy as a leader in workforce development and committed to building and supporting a quality workforce system. On the North Shore 

of Massachusetts, we are also fortunate to have Congressman John Tierney as a 

57 

leading member of the House Committee on Education and Labor, and another leader and supporter of our work. Finally, we have Governor Deval Patrick and his Secretary of Labor and Workforce Development, Suzanne Bump, working hard to support Federal efforts with State funding as well as helping us at the local level build 

valuable partnerships that really make WIA work for our economy. 

My testimony is based on five basic premises, which we believe are critical to our 

continued success both in the current challenging economic climate and as we build 

the 21st century workforce in Massachusetts and the Nation. 

First, those decisions that are made closest to the customer are the best decisions. 

When a job seeker, young person or company comes to the workforce system with 

an issue or challenge that is unique to that customer, those providing this service 

know the community and the conditions in which these challenges exist and are 

best situated to develop the most appropriate response and outcome. WIA reauthorization must continue to support a locally driven workforce system that strengthens 

effective partnerships among business, labor, educators and community and faithbased organizations to deliver effective workforce services. 

Second, private sector-led workforce boards that create the strategic communitybased partnerships are the best vehicles for ensuring these quality workforce services for job seekers—both youth and adults—and companies. This is very hard and 

challenging work under the best of economies and local partnerships and collaborations, such as that envisioned in WIA through a WIB-led system of strong One-Stop 

Career Centers is the only way that we can build and sustain a quality workforce 

system. We have seen this work on the North Shore of Massachusetts and in other 

regions of the Commonwealth where the chief-elected officials empower the WIB to 

develop and implement a strategic vision for the region. We hope that future legislation will strengthen our ability to make regional decisions with sufficient resources 

to make a significant impact on the economy of our region while at the same time 

streamlining the administration of the regional workforce system. 

Third, WIA must, in the final analysis, be an education and training system. Over 

the past decade, a significant amount of WIA resources have gone to support important infrastructure requirements of One-Stop Career Centers. While One-Stops are 

our primary labor exchange vehicle for workers and companies, siphoning off training funds to support infrastructure has decreased our ability to train workers for 

careers in emerging industry sectors. We need both a strong One-Stop system and 

a vibrant education and training capacity. Wagner-Peyser funds are most appropriate for the labor exchange functions of our local system. The continued delivery 

of employment services by State merit-based staff in partnership with the local WIA 

provider will ensure the greatest flexibility and service options for our customers. 

Also, as provided for in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, we need 

greater flexibility to use training dollars to support worker skill upgrades through 

our system of community colleges and vocational technical schools. Training for both 

unemployed and incumbent workers must be part of a renewed commitment to responding to the dual challenges of the skill shortage and labor surplus problems we 

are facing in the current economy. 

Fourth, we need a new approach to serving the needs of young people 16–24 years 

of age. Both nationally and in Massachusetts, the job market for teens (16–19) and 

many young adults (20–24-year-olds) has collapsed in recent years. Nationally, teens 

did not gain any net new jobs during the national labor market recovery and expansion from 2003–2007, and Massachusetts’ teens experienced a very similar fate. In 

the first 3 months of this year (2009), fewer than 30 of every 100 teens in the Nation and State were employed. This is a record lows for both areas. At the national 

level, the U.S. Congress and the Obama administration included $1.2 billion in WIA 

youth monies under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to create 

both summer and year-round jobs for economically disadvantaged 14–24-year-olds. 

A federally funded summer jobs program for teens has not been in existence since 

2000. At the State level, the Patrick administration has committed $30 million in 

Federal and State monies, including WIA youth months, YouthWorks and Shannon 

Community Safety Initiatives monies to help put 10,000 of the State’s 14–24-yearolds to work this summer. We need nothing less than a Teen Employment Marshall 

Plan to respond to the crisis of young people. 

And, finally, of course, we should be held to strict accountability and transparency 

standards that ensure a wise and fruitful investment of public dollars. On the North 

Shore we have a belief that there are no secrets to what we do—all information on 

the programs we offer and the outcomes we achieve are available on our Web site 

and in constant meetings with our stakeholders and customers. This philosophy 

must be prevalent across the Nation so that we can build support and involvement 

with all our stakeholders and the general public. 

58 

THE NORTH SHORE WORKFORCE INVESTMENT BOARD (NSWIB)

The NSWIB serves a community of 19 cities and towns located 12 miles north of 

Boston with a population of close to 400,000 individuals, labor force of over 200,000 

and approximately 18,000 businesses. Our unemployment rate is at 8 percent 

matching the State of Massachusetts as a whole. As can be expected we are experiencing a swift downturn economically in conjunction with the State of Massachusetts and the rest of the country. Last year our unemployment rate was 4.7 percent 

with Mass at 4.8 percent. 

The WIB consists of 35 members, with private sector representation from our critical industries including durable goods manufacturing, health care, construction and 

banking, along with our emerging industries of biotechnology and the Creative 

Economy. Public partners include the local community and State college, our largest 

K–12 school system, the carpenters union and the North Shore labor council, two 

community-based organizations, one economic development agency, and of course 

the WIA mandated partners. We are a true ‘‘WIA WIB’’ in that we were established 

concurrent with the implementation of WIA in Massachusetts and have existed only 

under this legislation. 

The city of Salem is our lead city, and provides strong partnership services including acting as the WIB’s fiscal agent and appointing authority to the board. Our 

Mayor, Kimberley Driscoll, is an active participant in workforce development and 

regularly engages her fellow mayors in this process. 

The WIB, in partnership with Salem, oversees and charters on a bi-annual basis, 

a One-Stop system that includes three One-Stop Career Centers located throughout 

our region. In addition, we have a firm belief in the use of data to drive improvement, so have an active and we hope responsive labor-market data division that provides information to the WIB and to other partners as they move their work forward. Finally, we believe in a sectoral approach to workforce development, and have 

several active sector industry partnerships in play reflecting our critical industries 

as mentioned above. 

Our Strategic Plan has five primary goals, including: 

1. Building the capacity of the North Shore Workforce System to meet labor market needs; 

2. Fully engaging the business sector to close the skills gap that exists between 

available workers and employers; 

3. Enhancing our Youth Pipeline by increasing and aligning education, training 

and employment programs; 

4. Increasing, strengthening and strategically aligning relationships with Federal, 

State, and local partners/stakeholders; and 

5. Managing and enhancing available resources to support and grow operations. 

Recently the NSWIB received High Performing WIB status through a rigorous review process designed by the State of Massachusetts. We believe this status reflects 

the strength of our local board and our ability, as a business-led local entity, to understand what is happening in our region and to respond appropriately and successfully to our labor market and economic circumstances. As stated above, we believe 

that strong WIBs are possible, a preferred method of service delivery, and result in 

quality services to companies and individuals, and we ask for continued support for 

this model in the next phase of WIA—we believe in the business adage that the best 

decisions are reached closest to the customer, and hope that this philosophy continues in WIA’s next life. 

NSWIB YOUTH SERVING SYSTEM

The Workforce Investment Act provides us with the greatest share of youth 

money on the North Shore, totally $962,420 in fiscal year 2009. As stated above, 

we are fortunate to have several other youth funding streams through the Commonwealth of Massachusetts totaling $542,163. In addition, for the past 4 years we have 

raised funds privately—approximately $80,000 per year—to support a very small 

summer jobs program which we call F1rstJobs. 

These non-Federal funds help support WIA work but also provide us with the 

ability to work with teens and other young people who are in need but do not meet 

the WIA eligibility guidelines. For example, State funds include projects such as 

Pathways to Success by 21, which is a Massachusetts initiative through which the 

WIB convenes all youth serving agencies in our region and works with them to provide seamless employment and wrap around services to at-risk youth. Through P– 

21 we have added freshmen college-level courses to our WIA Out of School Youth 

programs, providing WIA youth with the opportunity to leave WIA not only with 

a GED but with college credits to make their transition to college all that much 

59 

more successful. These sorts of programs are critical to building the youth workforce 

system that helps all youth, including WIA youth, to make the leap into the primary 

labor market. 

Even in the best economy our young people were struggling to transition into the 

primary labor market. For the past several years, in fact since the 1980’s, youth employment has been declining for several reasons, including elimination of many 

entry-level jobs, competition with returning retirees, and a perceived or real lack of 

employment preparedness in the youth pipeline. In 2008, the teen employment rate 

across the country was at 30 percent, the lowest rate in post-World War II history. 

For 20–24-year-olds, employment rates in 2008 were nearly 5 percent below those 

in 2000. In January 2009 young males were employed at nearly 10 percent lower 

than in early 2001. This crisis is even more compelling for low-income youth, who, 

without networks and other supports, find it even more difficult to move successfully into work. We know through research that in-school work experience leads to 

higher graduation rates, particularly among black and Hispanic males and leads to 

higher employment rates and earnings as young adults. In addition, labor markets 

with high teen-employment rates for males reduces their involvement with the 

criminal justice system, and for females results in lower teen pregnancy rates. 

In addition, as our local school districts work to increase graduation requirements 

so youth are better prepared to enter the high-skilled work force—a good thing!— 

we are finding a cohort of youth who are, under these policies, struggling to graduate—in a way a group of youth who are caught in the middle of positive policy 

changes that have a negative impact on their future due to their current educational 

status. As the work world becomes more complex, virtually all young people (not to 

mention our adults), are finding it harder to move into and through this work world 

and toward careers and economic self sufficiency. WIA is a large part of the solution 

to this dilemma, and has made a huge difference in our region for those most atrisk. However, the opportunity to modernize WIA to reflect our current economy and 

educational and social needs represents a chance to make WIA even better. 

WIA SUCCESSES

WIA funds have been used by four youth serving organizations in our region to 

develop the capacity to deliver high quality workforce-related services to at-risk 

youth. While these organizations had all been well-respected in relation to their 

youth services, their connection to workforce development and their ability to help 

at-risk teens make informed education and career choices has been enormously enhanced by participating in WIA youth programs. They have learned how to engage 

youth in dual goals, including high school equivalency AND job AND college. As 

stated above, they have creatively brought in community college courses as part of 

their curriculum, and will be adding computer literacy training as a service for all 

their students. WIA has spearheaded this change—and we believe has added a critical level of quality and sophistication of services in our region. 

We have been able to enhance our Career Center’s ability to work with youth. 

Early on as a WIB our Career Center staff began coming to the WIB pleading for 

training and enhanced services for teen and older youth job development needs. 

These young customers were coming into the Centers that did not have programs 

and services appropriate for their circumstances. Through a strategic planning effort 

in cooperation with our Career Centers, the WIB established as a priority the development and support of a Youth Career Center (YCC), located in a separate office 

within one of our One-Stop’s location. This Youth Career Center, funded through 

WIA and other youth funds through the State of Massachusetts and private contributions, has allowed us to appropriately focus workforce services for this population, including job readiness workshops, assistance in applying for jobs, and referral to WIA or other youth programs. The YCC is not seen as separate from our OneStops, but an integral part of the One-Stop system, so young people as they mature 

easily move between the two, and come to know and understand these services as 

available to them at any time in their work life. In addition, our One-Stop Career 

Center’s Business Services Unit has developed an expertise in developing jobs for 

teens as well as adults, particularly during the summer season where teen jobs are 

in such demand. 

IMPROVEMENTS TO WIA

WIA should be modified to change youth eligibility and to change the 

way we determine eligibility. Current eligibility rules require stringent documentation, including income tests, academic skills assessments, previous criminal 

records, foster care information, and other documents that are by definition difficult 

to obtain and reflective of failure by those we are seeking to obtain them from. 

60 

These very steps are demoralizing to the youth we are trying to enroll—how can 

we imagine an at-risk youth trying to make positive changes by enrolling in a quality WIA youth program only to be told that he or she has to prove their failures 

in order to begin the process. These youth are easily turned off by such bureaucracy—in fact, we estimate that probably only 50 percent of those who begin this 

process actually complete it, representing a core of young people denied service by 

the system designed to provide these services. 

In addition, these rules exclude a large population of needy youth whose families 

are struggling at just over poverty level, such as families who are eligible for free/ 

reduced lunch or other Federal income-tested programs. These teens are left out of 

critical growth experiences in the work world that could prevent them from falling 

into great poverty or other at-risk situations. 

We do not ask that we lose our focus on serving the most at-risk. Instead we ask 

that local WIBs be given the authority, as they are under the WIA Adult programs, 

to develop a process that works for the population we are trying to serve. There are 

many ways to show need that are not inflammatory or degrading or difficult and 

bureaucratic to obtain. Income proxies from other Federal, State, or local programs 

should be allowed. Partnerships and enhanced communication and mutual responsibility with other youth serving agencies or organizations should be encouraged so 

that referrals are made seamlessly and acceptable documentation received this way. 

Automatic eligibility, regardless of income, should be granted for certain risk factors 

such as youthful offender status, high school drop-out, teen parent, etc. We ask you 

to trust the local level to understand who needs to be served and how best to document this—we know that this will have an enormously positive benefit to the youth 

we are working to serve. 

WIA should allow local regions to determine other aspects of service, 

such as the in school/out of school balance. Through long conversations and debates, our Youth Council and WIB determined several years ago to focus our limited 

WIA youth funding on our out-of-school population. While not totally eliminating inschool services (we are currently at a 37 percent/63 percent in-school/out-of-school 

ratio) we recognized a tremendous void in services for the out-of-school population 

in our region and have thus targeted our resources accordingly. The result are three 

well-run and responsive programs for out-of-school youth that did not exist in the 

past, along with two very strong in-school programs working closely with the local 

school districts in keeping at-risk teens in school. Other regions may see this issue 

differently, and reverse this structure. In any case, as mentioned above, we ask that 

decisions such as these remain with the local regions, ensuring that local needs are 

met. 

The value of a summer employment program for at-risk youth cannot be 

underestimated. While we believe in the full WIA youth program model for at-risk 

youth, we also know that large numbers of teens—in fact the majority of teens at 

all income levels—cannot find work during the summer. Summer employment is key 

to teens’ full workforce development and yet is basically unavailable even in good 

economic times. We know this by the number of youth who come to our Career Centers looking for work—and by the economic challenges that companies face when 

hiring youth. We know, for example, that the retail trade, often where a teen finds 

the first job, has, in many cases, made strategic decisions to increase minimum age 

for employment sometimes to 18 and often to 21. In addition, they are tapping an 

age cohort only recently available to retail, i.e., retirees, to fill the need for temporary and/or part-time employment. Recent data collected by the Center for Labor 

market information at Northeastern University shows that summer employment nationally and across Massachusetts continues to decline every year, with of course a 

major decline expected this summer. We are fortunate this year that the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act allow us to provide this service to at-risk youth this 

summer (albeit with the eligibility challenges as mentioned above). This should become a standard part of WIA, with priority service to low-income youth and with 

the ability of local WIBs to establish other priorities and documentation requirements. A permanent summer jobs program will be a very strong and fruitful investment in the lives of these youth AND in the strength of the youth pipeline. 

INNOVATIVE POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS TO MODERNIZE WIA

In summary, the above issues would result in THREE policy changes in a new 

WIA. These include: 

1. The opportunity for local WIBs to establish eligibility policies and procedures 

around youth service, while retaining the requirement to give priority to low income, 

severely at-risk youth. 

61 

2. Providing local authority to establish other program priorities, including the inschool/out-of-school program mix. 

3. Allowing a permanent, stand-alone summer jobs program for all youth, with a 

focus on serving youth who are at or near poverty or exhibit other at-risk characteristics. 

In addition, other policy suggestions to modernize WIA would include: 

• Require secondary and post-secondary institutions to work closely with 

the workforce system to better prepare all youth to consider careers within 

local and national critical and emerging industries, most of which have a 

STEM focus. The workforce system is often relegated to the fringes of our traditional educational system, based on the overall American belief that individuals 

study first, and then go to work. While we are making progress, we have a long 

way to go to ensure that students at all levels see the connection between what they 

are learning in school and how it plays out in our high-skilled work environment. 

For example, WIA should support the placement of teachers in summer externships 

where they practice their area of expertise in a work environment and then translate this experience into curriculum and related activities that make STEM real to 

young learners. The new WIA should provide incentives and supports to WIBs that 

work closely with their local school systems to develop and implement programs 

such as this and related curriculum that helps all youth become excited and committed to careers in STEM fields. • In addition, the new WIA should have incentives/options to allow local 

WIBs and the educational system to develop appropriate transition programs for youth. We know that in too many cases youth are graduating from high 

school not prepared to college-level programming, whether of a certificate or associate/bachelor degree nature. WIBs, with their diverse membership of business, 

labor, education, and community organizations, are the perfect place for conversations around this challenge to take place—for both the adult and the youth customer. A modernized WIA would reward those regions that take on this dilemma 

and develop solutions that result in a greater transition to higher education and 

into high-skilled jobs. • The new WIA should support and expand the ability of One-Stop Career 

Centers to provide universal services to all youth within the community. 

Currently, due to funding limitations and rules, most One-Stops find it difficult and/ 

or unallowable to provide these services. As mentioned above, WIA youth funds are 

limited to serving only the most at-risk, and a Youth Career Center should be open 

to ALL youth, just as adult One-Stops are open to all adults. We on the North Shore 

have been able to establish a Youth Career Center only because of additional State 

support for youth. We urge that the new WIA treat youth as the old WIA treats 

adults, i.e., individuals who need job-related services without regard to income or 

other factors. • The new WIA should adjust performance standards for all youth, regardless of age, to encourage continued education as well as job placement 

upon high school graduation or GED receipt. We need to focus on helping 

young people choose a career path that will provide them with the opportunity to 

be economically self-sufficient as adults. These paths in general require additional 

post-secondary education as well as work experience. Young people should be encouraged to consider multiple pathways to reaching their goals, and the new WIA 

should be designed to encourage these outcomes. 

CONCLUSION

When Congress enacted the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 we were in a period of strong economic growth and global transition. WIA as designed at the time 

was right for transforming the job training system into the 21st century. 

Global transition accomplished, we now face the most significant economic challenges since the Great Depression. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics more 

than 15 million people are officially out of work and our unemployment rate is approaching 10 percent. We have to rethink how we respond to the current labor surplus while at the same time prepare workers for those industry sectors that remain 

critical and/or are emerging, such as green job, high-skilled manufacturing, and 

health care. 

This will require keeping what worked and taking bold steps to make the changes 

that are needed now. We believe Congress should: 

1. Continue support for local decisionmaking through WIBs as partnership among 

business, labor, education, and community/faith-based workforce leaders; 

2. Provide dedicated funding for the One-Stop Career Center infrastructure in an 

effort to maximize training resources under WIB; 

62 

3. Create a Teen Employment Marshall Plan to respond to the youth employment 

crisis, including simpler and more locally driven eligibility and other programmatic 

policies, a permanent summer and/or year round jobs program, great connections to 

STEM careers, support for youth services in our One-Stop system, transition support for youth to the next steps, and more appropriate performance outcomes; and 

4. Insure accountability while at the same time provide maximum local flexibility 

in program implementation. 

We are at a crossroad and we need to take the best path to education, train, and 

put America’s youth—and adults—back to work. 

Thank you. 

ATTACHMENT.—PROFILES OF YOUTH BEING SERVED BY WIA 

Below are five vignettes of youth served through the North Shore Workforce Investment Board’s WIA Youth programs. These programs are offered by four community-based organizations chosen through a competitive bid process on a bi-annual 

basis. They include: 

• Action, Inc. in Gloucester—Compass Program. • Catholic Charities in Lynn and Salem—Youthworks. • My Turn in Lynn—WIA Out-of-School Youth Program. • Girls Inc. in Lynn—Careerpath. 

We attach these stories to provide a more compelling picture of the employment 

and educational challenges of WIA youth and the creativity and dedication of our 

partners as they help these young people overcome these challenges. 

ASHLEY

Ashley entered the Compass program in the fall of 2007 to complete requirements 

for her high school diploma. She was an out-of-school, older youth who only needed 

a few additional requirements for graduation. Through our program we set her up 

with a Credit Recovery academic plan which included participating in the Composition I course offered at Compass through North Shore Community College. We 

began the enrollment process with the Workforce Investment Board to qualify her 

for our programs after her 3-week trial period. This was a complicated task because 

of the extensive paperwork required for eligibility. With out-of-school youth school 

many times documents are no longer valid because they are out-dated for WIA eligibility requirements and, many of our students—including Ashley—do not have their 

social security cards in their possession. It is difficult for our students who do not 

have transportation and other forms of identification to get a duplicate card. Ashley’s mother is hearing impaired and their only form of income is her disability 

check, but getting this documentation is a long process. Eventually Ashley was approved through WIA in April. Ashley continued with the program throughout the 

process and received her Gloucester High School diploma in June 2008, 3 years after 

her anticipated graduation date. She was placed in work experience at Addison Gilbert Hospital where she got experience and earned her first ever pay check. Ashley 

has just completed her first year at North Shore Community College in the medical 

administrative assistant program, making the dean’s list. She is looking forward to 

returning to school in the fall and getting her associates degree. 

CHRIS

Chris was a bit of a ‘‘sad sack’’ when he first arrived at the Catholic Charities 

GED Program in May 2008. His scores showed that he would need to make a long 

term commitment in order to successfully pass his GED. He participated in the 

summer employment program by working in the maintenance department at the 

Catholic Charities Day Care Center. The director of the day care often commented 

on how he managed to paint himself more than the walls. Slowly, we watched Chris 

grow. He became a strong and dedicated student in the fall. He worked hard in class 

and was never shy about asking questions. All the staff at the Center got to know 

him and would often ask how he was doing. One year after Chris began the program, he took his GED test in May 2009. Although, he did not pass the math section, he did successfully pass the other four tests. He wanted to take the retest in 

math right away and came to the program every day during the following month. 

On June 18, 2009, Chris graduated with the rest of the class, having successfully 

passed all five sections of the GED. Now he is planning to attend Marion Court College in September and in order to feel more acclimated to the campus, he is spending this summer’s employment opportunity on the campus working in the grounds 

keeping department. 

63 

IESHA

Iesha was 16 when she entered the program, pregnant but very determined to 

find a way to put her life back together. She was considered a ward of the State 

and was living with an aunt here in Lynn. She was enrolled in the program in February 2008 and progressed rapidly toward her GED. While she was in the program, 

she participated in the Navigating the Future College Writing class as well as the 

Transitions to College Course, earning her four college credits. Within 2 months, she 

took her GED test and passed. She then participated in the summer youth employment component and was placed at the CAEP (College Application Education Program) as a youth mentor. Barely over 17, she gave birth to her son in July. Her 

plans were to move forward and she wanted to attend college class over the summer, but reality taught her that she needed to pace herself and she postponed starting until September. A referral was made for her to connect up with the Healthy 

Families Program to help her with parenting skills and how to time manage. She 

enrolled at North Shore Community College in January 2009 and has been attending full-time. During the last conversation with Iesha, she expressed that she is 

doing very well and that she is exactly where she had hoped she would be in her 

life. 

LAPORSCHA

Laporscha first entered the program back in February 2008 looking to get her 

GED and find a job, eventually entering the field of criminal justice. Her attendance 

in the program was remarkable from the beginning. While attending classes, 

Laporscha showed a strong interest in almost everything we had to offer. Her adventure started when she took part in a focus group sponsored by the Commonwealth Corp on a new initiative called ‘‘Think Again.’’ The program was designed 

to help young people make choices while they were in middle school. She was 

hooked and wanted to know and do more. We offered to have her enroll in the 

Northeast Youth Leadership Program and in July 2008 she spent 3 days and 2 

nights at Merrimack College in Andover attending a training to become a youth 

leader. While still attending the GED classes, she also participated in the Navigating the Future/North Shore Community College, Transition to College course. 

Using the skills she had acquired in the training, Laporscha started a work experience placement as the coordinator for the Think Again Project. The design was to 

have her work with and in the local middle schools to help reach young people 

thinking about quitting school. She also did a summer youth employment placement 

at the Catholic Charities North Day Care Center. She worked for 7 weeks in the 

day care helping with feeding, daily games and activities and assisting the teaching 

staff. She got a job at the local Taco Bell and was happy to be bringing in a pay 

check. All the while, she was dealing with serious social issues at home that frequently left her homeless, penniless and with no one to turn to. Amazingly, 

Laporscha continued to take advantage of everything the program could offer to her. 

By the winter, she made a difficult decision to go to California to live and work with 

her grandmother and her aunt. She left in January 2009 in hopes of finding a new 

life and a new direction. With the beginning of spring, Laporscha returned to Lynn. 

She called and asked if she could return to the program. Here she has a sense of 

direction and meaning and she would like to continue toward the dreams and goals 

she first established a year ago. Very few students take advantage of as many opportunities as Laporscha did, and hopefully, she will continue to reach out to all we 

have to offer. 

GISELL

Gisell came to Girls Inc. from the Dominican Republic during the summer. If she 

had stayed in the Dominican Republic, she would have been entering her senior 

year of high school. Her first language was Spanish, so she needed to work on her 

English. In Lynn she started school as a junior. The Career Path Program funded 

by the Workforce Investment Board changed everything for her. She says, ‘‘I didn’t 

know the way to get into college, especially here in the United States. They showed 

me everything. Every question I had, they answered.’’ Gisell used every resource 

available. She found the workshops on interviewing for a job and financial literacy 

especially valuable—she says these are good skills for life. She found the weekly 

Mentor Program that is part of Career Path was just what she needed to take the 

many steps she had to take to reach her academic and life goals. She was matched 

with a volunteer mentor from Lynn who supported and encouraged her, and she 

found she could make use of the differences in their life experiences. Gisell was accepted at the college of her dreams! However, she ran into a major bump in the 

64 

road. While the college offered her some financial assistance, she came to realize 

that she did not want to put her family into debt. Gisell is very strong-minded, so 

she was not excited about making a back-up plan. But she says that the Career 

Path Coordinator and Academic Advisor for the Career Path Program helped her 

to see that going to another college was not the end of the world and that she could 

still reach her long-term goals. They helped her adapt successfully to her real life 

circumstances. Gisell is currently doing well at North Shore Community College and 

is a member of the Honor Society. She is struggling with one class. She used connections she made while in the Career Path Program to continue working with TRIO 

and join a study group to help her with the challenging class. Gisell did a summer 

internship in Lynn at the community dental center. From this experience she gained 

the confidence that she could ‘‘do anything.’’ Later she worked weekends at 

Brooksby Village leading activities for elders, and they loved her! She also took advantage of a volunteer who came to Girls Inc. to do a physics project in which she 

made a wooden triangle fly using electricity. She also attended an architecture class 

taught by a Girls Inc. Board member. Gisell says, ‘‘I never would have made it to 

where I am now without Girls Inc. and the Career Path Program.’’ 

Senator MURRAY. Well, thank you very much. 

Ms. Cooper. 

STATEMENT OF KATHY COOPER, POLICY ASSOCIATE, OFFICE 

OF ADULT LITERACY, WASHINGTON STATE BOARD FOR 

COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL COLLEGES, OLYMPIA, WA 

Ms. COOPER. Thank you, Chair Murray, Senator Isakson. It is a 

pleasure to be here today to bring some perspective from adult 

basic education providers in Washington State. I think you will 

hear them echo the themes that you have already discussed this 

morning. 

I would tell you that I bring their great sense of urgency to this 

conversation. Adults with skills gaps in basic education and 

English as a second language in my State come from the fastest 

growing population groups, are under-prepared for the jobs they 

have today, and lack the skills for the programs that could prepare 

them for the job that will need them tomorrow. They will make up 

a significant part of our future workforce for the next two generations, are one of our State’s richest potential assets, and within the 

parameters and supports of the current law, we are able to serve 

less than 10 percent of the need. 

In response to those needs, I am here today to ask you to focus 

your modernization in four areas. 

The first is to identify the purpose of title II as student success 

in post-secondary education and progress along career pathways. 

Eighty-six percent of the adults who come to our program come 

with the goal of gaining skills to get and keep a better job. Our research has identified the point at which these students will have 

just enough skills and knowledge to get a family-wage job. We call 

that the ‘‘tipping point.’’ It is 1 year of college credit and a vocational credential or certificate. That is the goal for our adult literacy programs, the minimal goal for every student they serve. It 

is a goal worth having for title II, and it is a goal the President 

has declared for the country’s education system. 

The second change that we seek is language that identifies and 

supports the expansion of integrated education. As you have heard 

this morning, our State’s flagship innovation is integrated basic 

education and skills training, or I–BEST. I–BEST puts an adult 

basic education and professional-technical instructor in the same 

classroom at the same time, offering instruction that integrates job 

65 

training and adult basic education. All I–BEST programs lead to 

vocational certificates recognized by local employers in demand 

fields that pay family wages. Those certificates carry exactly the 

same credit and are the same certificates that other college students earn. 

I–BEST also provides a full range of student support, but the 

most important thing about I–BEST is that it works better than 

anything else we have ever done. The latest study documents that 

I–BEST students earn an average of 52 college credits. That is 

more than the 45 required for the tipping point, and they demonstrate greater gains than adult basic education students in traditional classrooms. However, we cannot continue this level of innovation in the margins. The new WIA can make room, however, for 

this success in Washington and other States. 

A third critical area is to ensure that those who need most education and training will be able to get it by aligning titles I and 

II and naming community colleges as partners. Even in Washington where we have good will and we have good intentions, we 

are able to overcome the structural barriers to jointly serve in any 

great number those who are most under-prepared. The new law 

can align program definitions, allowable activities, outcome measures, and performance targets that will drive us to invest in the 

workers who are currently getting the least and who need the most 

and who stand to most contribute to a vibrant economy. 

In my home State, we also know that the community and technical college system is at the center of moving under-prepared 

adults into the skilled workforce. We are heartened to hear President Obama’s support for our system and his inclusion of adult 

basic education and integration in his thinking. 

The success of the new act will be greatest if each State’s college 

system is named as a system partner. That new relationship will 

result in a more comprehensive education and training system that 

can more fully develop the workforce. 

Finally, we ask you not to starve the solution. In Washington, we 

know what we need to do and we know how to do it. Meanwhile, 

Federal resources decrease every year. So we would ask you to authorize an additional $17 million in appropriations this year to hold 

harmless 36 States penalized when the Department of Education 

changed their data source. Washington State alone stands to lose 

more than a quarter of a million dollars. 

We would ask you to increase next year’s appropriation to $750 

million, an investment that would simply allow States to serve as 

much as 40 percent of the adults already on waiting lists. 

And finally, we would ask that you target an additional $75 million to help States develop the kind of innovative programs like 

I–BEST that move low-skilled adults further and faster on career 

pathways to success. 

We are proud of our good work, proud of the accomplishment of 

our adult learners, and really applaud your efforts to create new 

parameters and support new opportunities. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Cooper follows:] 

66 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KATHY COOPER

Chair Murray and members of the committee, I am honored to provide perspective 

about WIA reauthorization from Washington State’s adult basic education providers. 

It is a special privilege to have this role before a committee chaired by Senator Murray—a champion of so many efforts to support low-income families and economic 

growth. 

You could not have picked a more critical time to modernize the framework provided by the Workforce Investment Act. Your work will shape our ability to meet 

the needs of the emerging workforce and fuel a revitalized economy. 

Despite diligent efforts and significant State level investments, we are not able 

to meet the accelerating needs of adult students and our State’s economy within the 

parameters of the current law. The populations that adult basic education/English 

as a second language programs target are Washington State’s fastest growing 

groups. Almost all of our students work—often at more than one job. They earn lowincomes, are under-prepared for today’s jobs, and lack the skills to succeed in traditional education and training programs. This population will provide the growth in 

our State’s workforce for at least the next two generations. We are able to enroll 

less than 10 percent of these hard-working adults, recognized by President Obama 

as making up most of our Nation’s talent pipeline. 

At the same time, skill levels required from workers continue to accelerate exponentially. When we talk with employers in Washington State, they no longer discuss 

the workforce needed to support a recovering economy. Instead, they talk about the 

workforce needed to fuel a new economy—one in which workers must demonstrate 

even higher skills and be much more agile and ready to change. 

In response to those urgent needs, I am here today to ask you to focus on four 

areas as you reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act (WIA). 

Redefine the purpose of title II as student success in post-secondary education and progress along career pathways. Eighty-six (86) percent of the students who enroll in adult basic education in Washington State come to learn the 

skills they need to get and keep a good job. Joint research carried out by the Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges and the Community College Research Center at Columbia University found that far too few of them ever 

complete enough education to make a significant difference in economic self-sufficiency or to meet employer needs. The research also identified the point at which 

students have just enough skills and knowledge to get family-wage jobs and take 

the first steps along career pathways. We call that the Tipping Point—1 year of college credit and a vocational credential or certificate. It’s the goal that our adult literacy programs have over time for every student they serve and it’s a goal President 

Obama identified for our national education system. 

Drive the creation and expansion of integrated education and dual enrollment programs that move adult literacy students further and faster 

along education and career pathways. In Washington State, the flagship among 

these kinds of innovative practices is Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training or I–BEST. 

I–BEST puts an adult basic education and a professional-technical instructor in 

the same classroom at the same time. This team offers instructions that integrates 

job training and adult basic education for highly motivated students, whether or not 

they have a GED or high school diploma. Their success demonstrates the importance of concurrent, rather than sequential, learning to accelerate progress for 

adults. In fact, all I–BEST programs lead to vocational certificates recognized by 

local employers in demand fields that pay family wages. They are the same certificates earned by other college students and carry the same college credit. That instruction not only prepares students for first steps on their education and career 

pathways, it also gives them the skills and knowledge they need to succeed at the 

next steps. In Washington State, we look beyond mythical career ladders that have 

rungs spread too far apart for the reach of most adult basic education students. Instead, we think about skills as a chain with links that interlock. 

Beyond integrating basic skills and professional-technical education, I–BEST students also receive a full range of student support, including advising, counseling, 

case management and financial aid. Blending enhanced student services with innovative instruction is critical to I–BEST success. 

The most important thing about the 138 I–BEST programs offered through Washington’s 34 community and technical colleges is that they work for students and for 

employers. The Community College Research Center released a study in May documenting that I–BEST students earn an average of 52 credits, which is more than 

the 45 credits needed to reach the Tipping Point. At the same time, I–BEST stuVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:16 Jul 26, 2011 Jkt 035165 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\51264.TXT DENISE
67 

dents demonstrate greater gains in their adult basic education/English language 

skills than students enrolled in traditional adult basic education classes. 

That’s only the data part of the story. The rest of the I–BEST story lives in the 

success of students and the employers who hire them. They are students like Harry, 

who was injured and had to leave the job he’d held for three decades. He was apprehensive about enrolling in the manufacturing processes I–BEST program at Lower 

Columbia College, not sure he could master the required skills after 47 years away 

from a classroom. Eight out of ten students who begin college without a diploma 

don’t make it. Instead, Harry has a 3.6 GPA, will complete his certificate in December, and already has an internship job waiting. 

The I–BEST story is about Dien, who came to North Seattle Community College 

in the fall of 2007 as a recent immigrant from Vietnam. In only 2 years, he enrolled 

in adult literacy and I–BEST accounting classes, finished an initial accounting certificate, got a job, completed his AA degree, and will continue work this fall towards 

a bachelor’s degree in accounting at Central Washington University. 

The success of I–BEST is echoed by Kekebush and her five children. A refugee 

from war-torn Eritrea, she developed English skills and completed her Licensed 

Practical Nurse certificate in the winter of 2008—part of Renton Technical College’s 

second, 2-year I–BEST cohort. Like her I–BEST peers, her grade point average was 

higher than traditional students in the same classes. She is scheduled to graduate 

from the Registered Nurse program at the end of this summer. 

Ensure that those most in need of services will get them by aligning activities, outcomes and partnerships in titles I and II. The needs of underprepared workers and employers cannot be addressed using the current capacity of 

either the workforce development or adult basic education system alone. Gaps in 

service and unsatisfactory results will not be resolved at the level of coordination 

possible within the confines of the current act. Despite the goodwill of local workforce investment boards and adult basic education providers in Washington State, 

we have not been able to overcome structural barriers. 

Current program definitions, allowable activities, outcome measures, and aggressive targets in title I don’t match those in title II. The mismatch leaves providers 

from both systems in the same quandary. They choose between addressing the 

needs of clients and communities or hitting performance targets through activities 

that serve clients who need the least support. Alignment of the two titles will allow 

qualified providers from both systems to leverage each other’s strengths and resources, count shared success, and invest in workers who will benefit the most. 

In addition, community and technical college systems are going to play a more 

central role in moving low-skilled adults along education and career pathways. In 

Washington, we are learning that the quality of the relationship between the college 

and workforce development systems predict success in both title I and title II. Reauthorization provides an opportunity to change the parameters of this relationship 

from a series of individual contracts between boards and college venders into a systemic relationship between partners capable of delivering coherent and comprehensive services. 

Don’t starve the solution. Faced with increases in both under-skilled population 

groups and the skill/knowledge levels required to recreate a vital economy, we are 

starving the solution to both dilemmas. Adult literacy funding continues to decrease 

across the country. 

Three actions will reverse this trend and allow us to better meet the demands of 

workers and the economy. No. 1, authorize an additional $17 million in the current 

appropriations bills to hold harmless all 36 States penalized when the Department 

of Education changed the data source they use for distribution formulas. In Washington State, we stand to lose more than a quarter of a million dollars. No. 2, increase next year’s appropriation to $750 million, allowing States to serve 40 percent 

of those already on waiting lists across the Nation. No. 3, target an additional $75 

million for seeding and scaling up approaches that integrate basic skills and postsecondary education and training or which dually enroll students in adult basic education and post-secondary education and training. 

We are proud of the innovative efforts of adult basic education providers in Washington State and celebrate the success of our adult learners. As you reauthorize 

WIA title II, you have the opportunity to create new parameters and support new 

opportunities that will make it possible for us to expand our successful efforts and 

be joined in innovation by colleagues across the Nation. 

I am happy to take your questions. 

Senator MURRAY. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Wing. 

68 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN WING, DIRECTOR OF WORKFORCE 

INITIATIVES, CVS CAREMARK, TWINSBURG, OH 

Mr. WING. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman and Senator 

Isakson. I am Stephen Wing, Director of Workforce Initiatives for 

CVS Caremark. Thank you for inviting me to speak to you today 

about CVS Caremark’s experiences in the workforce investment 

system. 

Today, CVS Caremark is the only fully integrated pharmacy 

health care company in the United States. It has approximately 

215,000 employees across 45 States who demonstrate a shared passion for customer service and a commitment to creating a better future of health care in America. 

At CVS Caremark, we understand how much a company’s culture impacts its people and ultimately its performance. That is why 

we have established a unifying vision that defines our company 

and serves as a guide of how we conduct our business every day. 

These principles inspire us to go above and beyond our customers, 

our clients, and our colleagues. 

An integral part of our mission is investment in our workforce 

and the communities we serve. The primary focus of our workforce 

initiatives is to train, hire, develop, and retain, and support the 

lifelong learning of diverse qualified associates, while adding value 

to CVS Caremark by establishing partnerships with local, State, 

and Federal agencies, educational institutions, nonprofits, and 

faith-based organizations under the umbrella of the workforce investment system. 

In November 1996, we started our first Welfare to Work program 

in Akron, OH, in partnership with the Summit County Welfare Office and the Summit County Employment Service, along with Family Solutions, a local nonprofit that assisted us in recruiting four 

candidates. Since that time, we have hired over 65,000 former welfare recipients, and as of today, 40,000 of those are still actively 

employed in career path positions at CVS Caremark. At that level 

of retention, 60 percent, represents a stark contrast to entry-level 

service jobs in retail where turnover can easily exceed 200 percent 

a year. 

It is worth noting too that the retention rate for former welfare 

recipients is also much higher than the retention level for other 

entry-level CVS Caremark colleagues hired from other sources. 

In addition, over half of those former welfare recipients we have 

hired have been promoted at least twice. We are excited to find 

that people are not just joining us for a job but for a career. 

One of those employees is Debra Autry. Debra is a lead technician at our East Main Street store in Akron, OH. She was in our 

first Welfare to Work program. She started out as a part-time crew 

member and worked at two stores so that she could get full-time 

status. Debra showed her supervisors very quickly that she was excellent at customer service and is dedicated to the stores and, in 

her 13-year career, has been promoted four times, completed the 

entire pharmacy tech program and received the national certification. We are very proud of Debra. I remember her telling us 

about other training programs that she had participated in while 

on welfare where she completed the course and got a certification 

69 

with no job. With our training at CVS Caremark, we guarantee a 

job for all who pass their training. 

Some of the benefits of the partnerships that we have been able 

to develop with these organizations—such as in the workforce system, but the nonprofits and the faith-based organizations—some of 

the benefits to CVS Caremark of these various partnerships include the following: access to quality job seekers, savings from 

more effective use of company and adult education resources, improved work qualities, increased employee retention, improved customer service, increased employment promotion rates, support for 

the well-being and economic development of the community, and 

the assistance with workers’ training and educational needs. 

In addition to the benefits to CVS Caremark, the benefits for 

those involved include: access to good jobs, financial and other support, and greater awareness and access to community resources. 

In terms of the reauthorization, we believe that ensuring that existing youth dollars are directed to promote innovation in education 

and training for disconnected youth is critical. Funding for these 

kinds of programs should be based at least in part on the success 

of those models. We also believe that these kinds of programs 

should include an articulation of key elements linked to outcomes 

to be eligible for the Federal funding. 

And in conclusion, we believe in the workforce investment system 

and have seen that it has been very positive and productive for 

CVS Caremark. We would want to share that with other companies 

and make sure that we get more buy-in from companies. 

I also would recommend that you connect with Corporate Voices 

for Working Families and the Institute for Competitive Workforce 

at the U.S. Chamber who have great thoughts on the Workforce Investment reauthorization. I serve on both boards and I know that 

they have done a lot of work on this, and I would recommend that 

you check with them. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Senator Isakson. We appreciate this opportunity to tell you about CVS Caremark’s experience within the workforce system and look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wing follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEPHEN WING

Good morning Senator Murray and members of the subcommittee. I am Steve 

Wing, Director of Workforce Initiatives for CVS Caremark. Thank you for inviting 

me to speak to you today about CVS Caremark’s experience in the Workforce Investment system. 

First, let me tell you about our company, and our history of business innovation 

and leadership. Our corporate history begins with the opening of our first retail 

store in 1963. At that time, we were seen as an innovator in selling health and 

beauty products at a good price and in convenient locations. Since that time, we 

have grown to nearly 7,000 retail store locations in 45 States and the District of 

Columbia. Our groundbreaking efforts have continued in our pharmacy benefit management and retail health clinic and specialty pharmacy businesses. 

Today, CVS Caremark, as the only fully integrated pharmacy health care company in the United States, has approximately 215,000 employees who demonstrate 

a shared passion for customer service and a commitment to creating a better future 

for health care in America. At CVS Caremark, we understand how much a company’s culture impacts its people and ultimately its performance. That’s why, we 

have established a Vision, Mission and set of Values that defines our company and 

serves to guide our business every day—in the thousands of communities we serve. 

70 

These principles inspire us to go above and beyond for our customers, our clients 

and our colleagues. 

An integral part of our mission is our investment in our workforce and the communities we serve. The primary focus of our workforce initiatives is to hire, train, 

develop, retain, and support the life-long learning of diverse qualified associates, 

while adding value to CVS Caremark by establishing partnerships with local, State, 

and Federal agencies, educational institutions, nonprofits and faith-based organizations under the umbrella of the workforce investment system. 

In November 1996, we started our first Welfare to Work training program in 

Akron, OH in partnership with the Summit County Welfare Office, the Summit 

County Employment Service and Family Solutions, a local nonprofit that assisted 

us in recruiting four candidates. Since that time we have hired over 65,000 people 

who had been on public assistance and as of today over 40,000 of them are still actively employed in career path positions at CVS Caremark. This level of retention, 

60 percent, represents a stark contrast to other entry-level service jobs in retail 

where turnover can easily exceed 200 percent a year. It is worth noting that the 

retention rate for former welfare recipients is also much higher than retention levels 

for entry-level CVS Caremark colleagues hired from other sources. In addition, over 

half the former welfare recipients we have hired have been promoted at least twice. 

We’re excited to find that people aren’t just joining us for a job but a career. 

One of these employees is Debra Autry. Debra is a lead technician at our East 

Main Street store in Akron, OH. She was in our first Welfare to Work training program. She started out as a part-time crew member and worked at two stores so she 

could get full time status. Debra showed her supervisors very quickly that she was 

excellent at customer service and dedicated to the success of the store. In her 13- 

year career Debra has been promoted four times, completed the entire pharmacy 

technician program and received the National Pharmacy Technician Certification 

(CPhT). We are very proud of Debra. We knew she would do well from the beginning 

of her training because of her motivation to complete the course and her dedication 

by being in class on time everyday. I remember her telling us about other training 

programs that she had participated in while on welfare where she completed the 

course and got a certificate with no job at the end. With our training at CVS 

Caremark we guaranteed a job for all who passed their training. 

Debra’s employment with CVS Caremark has not only been life changing for her 

but also for her family. Debra’s daughter came to work for CVS and became a shift 

supervisor and while working has been going to school to become a registered nurse. 

She will soon graduate and may someday be a nurse practitioner for our 

MinuteClinic. When I heard of this young woman following in her mother’s footsteps, I realized that our program focus is bigger than just hiring someone. It is 

about helping people have the confidence and skills to work. For the company, it 

means building a competent, motivated pool of employees. 

Because of what we learned and our success during these early days, our workforce initiatives program has grown and thrived. As such, CVS Caremark constantly 

seeks new and innovative ways to improve the recruitment and retention of its 

workforce. One approach has been to liaison our workforce investment programs to 

a network of local, State, and national partnerships—with K–12 education, adult 

education providers, faith-based and community organizations, and workforce development agencies to help the company find and train new employees. We have used 

the workforce investment system to coordinate the process. 

Our Workforce Initiatives team oversees these partnerships and other programs 

designed to strengthen CVS Caremark’s workforce. In addition to customized training programs for new and incumbent staff, the department runs internship programs for high school students and incentive programs for mature workers. 

OVERVIEW OF PARTNERSHIPS

Our department devotes significant time and resources to finding qualified workers, training them for entry-level positions and helping employees advance their careers at CVS Caremark. It does this in partnership with faith-based organizations, 

workforce development agencies and private intermediaries all coordinated through 

the workforce investment system. 

One-Stop Centers 

In partnership with local One-Stop Centers, CVS has developed a training program for new entry-level employees and first-level managers that simulates on-thejob roles and responsibilities in a replica of a CVS store. At the seven CVS Learning 

Centers in six cities, employees are trained on curriculum developed by the National 

Retail Federation (NRF) with an emphasis on customer service and skills that prepare them for a career path ranging from entry-level to pharmacy assistance and 

71 

technician positions. Incumbent workers receive training to help them move up the 

career ladder. A recent study found that the learning centers have a positive impact 

on employee retention, advancement, completion of certifications, and sales. 

For example, CVS/pharmacy partnered with the District of Columbia Department 

of Employment Services to open the South Capitol Learning Center in Washington, 

DC in 2001. The Learning Center features a One-Stop job center for unemployed 

DC residents and a training center for CVS employees. CVS offers the ultimate recruitment incentive to local job seekers that visit the Learning Center—a guaranteed job if they qualify for public assistance funds and complete one of the on-site 

training programs. 

The training prepares entry-level employees for their first jobs at CVS stores and 

helps current employees improve their skills and obtain higher-paying jobs within 

the company. At the training center, employees learn to use a cash register, develop 

photographs, shelve merchandise, and assist in the pharmacy at the center’s freestanding mock store. Program costs are shared by CVS Caremark and the District 

of Columbia through public Welfare to Work funds and workforce investment dollars. 

This partnership benefits CVS, the One-Stop Center, unemployed adults, and the 

District of Columbia. Since 2000, CVS/pharmacy has hired 10,000 trainees from the 

South Capitol Learning Center, enabling the company to expand its reach in DC. 

The One-Stop helps with CVS’s recruitment by referring qualified low-income job 

seekers to the company’s on-site learning center and in turn fulfills its mission of 

helping unemployed residents secure employment. While in training, which includes 

the pre-employment programs, DC residents receive hourly wages and part-time 

benefits from CVS Caremark. 

According to the Department of Employment Services (DOES), 

‘‘Rebuilding the job center was a centerpiece of the District’s effort to revitalize the area that surrounds it. Once a rough area, it now features new businesses, renovated buildings, a new elementary school and several new housing 

complexes.’’ 

Partnerships With Faith-based Organizations 

Through a successful partnership with the Mt. Lebanon Baptist Church in Washington, DC, we discovered that faith-based organizations could play a major role in 

recruiting qualified entry-level employees. Together we developed a partnership that 

would ultimately benefit Mt. Lebanon, CVS Caremark, and DC residents. 

CVS and Mount Lebanon worked together to sponsor a church-based job fair, during which CVS interviewed 90 adults and hired 40. The job fair allowed CVS to expand its reach in the DC metro area and hire employees from the church to staff 

its new stores. Based on the success of subsequent recruitment fairs, CVS Caremark 

has since refined the church-based job fair model and is replicating it in partnership 

with churches in other cities across the country. 

In addition to the workforce benefits, CVS employees have the option of becoming 

homeowners. CVS Caremark has developed a home ownership program for employees, called CVS Prescriptions to Homeownership that provides low-interest loans for 

inner city residents. After 2 years, all employees can participate in the homeownership program. Managers and pharmacists are eligible upon their start dates. 

Mt. Lebanon Baptist Church and the Washington Interfaith Network both serve 

as examples of CVS’s success in partnering with faith-based organizations to gain 

access to a network of potential employees. The faith-based partnership has also expanded within DC, through the help of the Washington Interfaith Network (WIN). 

Through WIN, CVS gains a vehicle for advertising job openings in the DC area and 

sponsoring job fairs at over 60 churches in the area. 

Additionally, CVS Caremark recently created a mini-learning center at Mt. Lebanon—the first faith-based One-Stop Center in the country—to train qualified lowincome residents for entry-level employment at CVS. 

Partnerships With Intermediary Organizations 

CVS Caremark has also strengthened its workforce by retaining the services of 

WorkSource Partners, Inc. (WSP), an intermediary organization dedicated to helping companies address workforce challenges in the Boston region. WSP provides 

guidance to clients on both the hiring and placement of new employees and training 

and development of incumbent staff, with a particular focus on ‘‘help[ing] companies 

cultivate the enormous potential of our community.’’ 

WorkSource Partners approached CVS after learning about the company’s learning center model with the suggestion that CVS promote its own employees into store 

managers. In order to do so, however, CVS needed to provide entry-level workers 

with remedial skills training because they did not have the educational skills to 

72 

complete the tasks. WorkSource Partners turned to its partners, including the National Retail Federation and the Ben Franklin Jr. College to design a basic skills 

training program. The NRF provided content expertise in the development of customer service training. Ben Franklin offered guidance in curriculum development 

and instruction. 

As the intermediary, WorkSource Partners brokers the relationships between 

CVS, CVS employees, and the curriculum and instruction team. Its roles include: 

marketing the program to CVS employees, offering career coaching to CVS employees, working with store managers to identify training candidates, developing training curriculum, and overseeing the partnerships. Funds for this program were received from the workforce investment system. 

As the training program developed in partnership with WorkSource Partners 

shows, CVS did not need to look outside its own workforce to fill managerial positions. Instead, it provided targeted training to entry-level employees—customized 

for various job-tracks—and encouraged employees to advance their careers within 

the company. 

Other examples of successful models developed in coordination with the Workforce 

Investment system are: 

• Our involvement in a number of initiatives in Cleveland, Kansas City, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, New York City, San Antonio, and Indianapolis designed to provide on-ramps to both post-secondary education and career paths for 

low-income/low-skilled young adults. We are excited about our work to develop an 

employer-driven alternative pathway for disconnected youth. We think it makes 

good business sense, and we believe we will also be helping young people develop 

key workforce skills that will help them advance with us, or move on to other careers. 

• In our work with Corporate Voices for Working Families, we participated along 

with a number of other employers to identify the barriers to employment for disconnected young adults, leading to the creation of a model alternative pathway for disconnected youth that meets the needs of both employers and young adults. Our experience at CVS Caremark confirms the alternative pathway model, with the most 

effective approach for low-income/low-skilled young adults being one that is holistic, 

providing integrated skill training (academic, professional/life skills, and technical 

job skill), social support services, mentoring, a work-based learning experience, and 

post-secondary academic credits. 

• Our Pathways to Pharmacy Program (see www.cvscaremark.com). We are piloting a new program in our Boston and Detroit markets. The pilot is focused on high 

school dropouts and people who have obtained a GED. Working with several partners, we provide 6 weeks of intensive training in a classroom setting. The training 

was designed so that it incorporates critical workplace skills as well as CVS-specific 

training. In addition, the young people have a mentor and social supports to help 

ensure their success. Following the classroom training period, the young people apprentice in a CVS store, where they have the chance to practice what they have 

learned. At the same time, the managers have the chance to see what kind of employee the young person will be before making a hiring decision. In the second phase 

of the pilot, once the young person is an employee, we have designed a set of tools 

that they can use to continue their skill development (on-line training and on-thejob training) so that in conjunction with their manager they can continue on a career path. The mentor continues to check in with them and help them trouble shoot 

any challenges that may arise. We developed this pilot with support from the Kellogg Foundation’s New Options Initiative. Our plan is to work out the kinks in the 

first two markets, and roll it out regionally and ultimately nationally. 

• Our work with the ‘‘Year Up’’ program in Providence, RI. Year Up is a 1-year 

intensive training program that serves low-income urban young adults. They provide 6 months of integrated skill training along with mentoring and social support. 

They also partner with a local community college so that the young people earn college credits through the program. In the second 6 months, they partner with employers who provide apprenticeships for the students (see www.yearup.org/locations/providence.htm). We have had tremendous success in our partnership with 

Year Up. We have hired many of the apprentices into jobs in our IT department, 

and they are some of our best employees. Our CEO has been so impressed by the 

quality of the Year Up apprentices that he has directed us to find ways to expand 

the partnership so that Year Up can provide us with a talent pipeline into jobs beyond the IT department. 

73 

BENEFITS OF PARTNERSHIPS

Some benefits to CVS Caremark of its various partnerships with faith-based, OneStop, and intermediary organizations in coordination with the workforce investment 

system include: 

• Access to qualified job seekers. • Savings from more effective use of company and adult education resources. • Improved work quality. • Increased employee retention. • Improved customer service. • Increased employee promotion rate. • Support for the well-being and economic development of the community. • Assistance with worker training and education needs. 

In addition to the benefits to CVS Caremark, the benefits for those involved include access to good jobs, financial and other support and greater 

awareness and access to community services. 

In terms of reauthorization of the WIA, we believe that ensuring that existing 

youth training dollars are directed to promote innovations in education and training 

for disconnected youth is critical. Funding for these kinds of programs should be 

based at least in part, on the success of those models. We also believe that these 

kinds of programs should include an articulation of key elements (integrated skill 

training, social supports, mentoring, post-secondary credits, and employer-provided 

apprenticeship/internship, etc.) linked to measurable outcomes to be eligible for Federal funding. The current system drives support to local youth programs based 

largely on relationships and local inputs, rather than outcomes. 

We encourage our emerging leaders to become active members of workforce investment boards. In many of our major markets we have our local operation executives participate on local boards. This has been a ‘‘win-win’’ for both CVS Caremark 

and the local WIB. Our managers become more educated on the community and the 

WIB gets the expertise of a business executive. I myself am a member of the Cleveland Workforce Investment Board. 

In conclusion, we believe in the Workforce Investment System and have seen that 

it has been very positive and productive for CVS Caremark, our workforce partners, 

and our employees. We would advise other companies considering such programs to 

contemplate working with various types of organizations that can address workforce 

challenges, including faith-based organizations, public agencies, and private intermediaries. We would also recommend the development of replicable training models 

that can be implemented in a variety of locations and for a variety of career tracks. 

Lastly, prospective employers might consider partnering with adult education providers to develop career pathways for entry-level employees and provide the necessary training to advance them along the path. 

Thank you Madam Chairwoman and members of the subcommittee. We appreciate this opportunity to tell you about CVS Caremark’s experience within the 

Workforce Investment System and look forward to working with the subcommittee 

as you consider reauthorization of this important act. 

Senator MURRAY. Thank you very much to all of our witnesses 

today. This hearing has provided invaluable insight as we move 

forward on reauthorizing WIA. Excellent suggestions from each 

and every one of you. 

I have a few questions that I am just going to offer up for anybody who would like to jump in and respond. 

For the last 11 years, WIA often has not had the level of evaluation and reporting that it should. We have heard about this from 

several of you. We all want to see stronger evaluation and greater 

accountability. I think we all understand that, we need to improve 

our collection efforts. 

We also want to be sure that we encourage innovation and risktaking because nobody knows best. We have heard from the local 

stories how important it is to put this encouragement to good use. 

Does anybody have any recommendations on how we strike a balance between accountability and innovation and still encourage 

States—or strike a balance between the accountability and reporting and still encourage innovation and creativity at the local level? 

74 

Mr. MCQUEEN. I would just say, Madam Chairman, that the 15 

percent fund, which was the Governor’s fund, has been very important to the ability to innovate, and we have always then been able 

to spin that off into a performance-driven program. So it really is 

being able to experiment with the program that is not as regulated, 

first tweak it and then spin it over into a program that is. In every 

program that we mentioned, the Governor’s 15 percent fund or the 

discretionary money was critical. But we did not need it to continue 

with. We worked it out and then we were able to spin it off into 

the system. 

Ms. COOPER. I would also suggest, Senator Murray, that an 

alignment of some of those accountability measures between title 

I and title II would help. We are not only reporting on the same 

things, we are reporting on them defined differently, adults, youth, 

poverty, and the program year, how long it is, what the performance outcomes are. And I think that duplication and the fact that 

you cannot align those duplicated data make it harder to really 

measure success. 

Mr. WING. Senator, I think for accountability, one of the things 

that we would suggest is the board membership on the workforce 

investment boards. We have a number of our executives, regional 

managers, district managers, that are on boards. 

But I think that the innovation—I think to really look at that 

and to try to really look at getting great members, I think you need 

to look at how you can be risk-taking and still be accountable. But 

I think you will find that there are people in the communities that 

want to serve and business people that want to serve. I think you 

need to look at that so that is what you create there so that people 

will want to serve on those boards. 

Senator MURRAY. Ms. Sarris. 

Ms. SARRIS. I think that the innovation comes through those very 

strong partnerships, and there are resources out there. If you have 

strong relationships with the local school districts, the people who 

work in the other programs at the local level, it is amazing how 

much innovation you really can do within the letter of the law to 

make things happen. 

Also, the ARRA grant, in allowing us to do group training—we 

have used that money to innovate new training programs from 

there, with the hope that the successful ones will be moved onto 

our approved vendor list and then become part of ongoing services, 

I think similar to what Clyde mentioned at the end of the table. 

If you try it out with this group training money, you could run it 

a couple of cycles, and then it becomes part of our ongoing system, 

it gets reported that way. That small part of ARRA has been, I 

think, very critical to us and probably is something we should 

think about continuing. 

Senator MURRAY. Mr. Kiernan. 

Mr. KIERNAN. I think the question about performance and performance measures is complicated because there are 17 mandated 

partners, each having their own data collection efforts. One of the 

things that we want to be careful about is that some individuals 

who come in and benefit from the use of the One-Stop system may 

take more time, and in fact, the outcome of their earnings may be 

somewhat less. And so caution has to be really raised toward the 

75 

idea of not just cavalierly measuring the numbers of persons who 

go through and the earnings contributed, so that the measures 

have to really reflect somewhat the demographics and the population that is served and also, to some extent, spending some time 

looking at what are the data sets that are already being collected 

by the public voc rehab system and several other entities to measure outcomes. 

The piece of it or the innovation, I think, comes really from being 

creative about the partnerships and the memorandum of understanding and how that is defined within the One-Stops for mandated as well as the nonmandated partners as education and the 

developmental disability system and the mental health system. 

Mr. BENDER. Senator, I might just comment I do not think you 

can have both. I think we showed that with our new performance 

system, you can have both accountability but still allow innovation 

at the local level. So I think it is important though, however, that 

there has to be some type of basic standard and services that are 

being met by everybody in the workforce training system. 

Mr. THURMOND. Senator, in Georgia, one of the things we were 

able to do—we look at WIA as the program, but it is more philosophy, and it is the philosophy of cooperation and service integration. And based on that, we developed a coordinated, unified data 

collection system among the four major programs which is UI, ES, 

VR, and WIA. And our Georgia workforce system encompasses the 

data collection, the storage, reporting capabilities for all of those 

programs. 

Well, how did that help innovation? One of the things we had to 

understand is that among those four programs, you have to have 

a common language. We realized that assessment means four different things for four different programs. And so you have to have 

a common language and then an overarching common goal, which 

is to help Americans get back to work. Some will require training, 

education. Others can do it more directly, but understanding that 

the most important thing about this legislation that Senator Kennedy and others worked on originally was the fact that we were 

supposed to move toward collaboration and integration. And ‘‘collaboration’’ is a big word. It does not mean nothing until money 

changes hands out on the front line. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator MURRAY. With that, Senator Isakson. 

Senator ISAKSON. Following up on that outstanding insight—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ISAKSON [continuing]. Mr. Thurmond, I think about 90 

percent of your budget is Federal funds. Is that not correct? 

Mr. THURMOND. That is correct. 

Senator ISAKSON. And we have talked a lot about flexibility in 

Federal funds. 

In your prepared remarks, you talk about the provision that you 

all created in Georgia where you have up to an 8 percent flexibility 

unemployment insurance tax to use toward programs to get people 

back to work rather than just an unemployment benefit. That is a 

flexibility of State funds. Is that unique to Georgia or is that pretty 

much pervasive around the country? 

76 

Mr. THURMOND. A handful of States actually use an administrative assessment. Actually we were in the General Assembly when 

we passed that in the late 1980s, and because of the flat line in 

the funding for employment services, many States do not have 

front line staff. They cannot afford it. That is often missed when 

we look at getting people back to work. Many States just cannot 

do it. 

So what we were able to do in Georgia is take that .08 percent 

of the employer taxes and then invest that in re-employment services primarily to pay for career counselors, job fairs, and other resources on the front line. 

Without that, States just do not have the resources because they 

cannot hire the staff, and that is why many of them went to telephonic claims filing and electronic claims filing because we do not 

have the staff. And I submit to you, in order for us to really address the 14 million or so Americans out of work, we are going to 

have to get some front line resources to hire some professional staff 

back out there or partner with States, similar to what we did in 

Georgia. 

Senator ISAKSON. That funds most of your employees in your career centers, does it not? 

Mr. THURMOND. A major portion of it, yes, sir. 

Senator ISAKSON. Thank you very much, Commissioner. 

Ms. Cooper, I need a little information. You referred to DOE 

changing a data source and it costing you a quarter of a million 

dollars. Is that right? 

Ms. COOPER. Yes. 

Senator ISAKSON. What data source were you referring to? 

Mr. THURMOND. They used to distribute money to States based 

on the census, and now they are going to use the ACS, the American Community Survey. And as a result of that, 36 States are 

going to experience a disruption in funding. 

Senator ISAKSON. I am sorry. What is the American Community 

Survey? 

Ms. COOPER. It is the new—every year they figure out sort of 

what the census is like, but they do it using a different set of data. 

They are able to get more recent data that way, but it is a different 

instrument. 

Senator ISAKSON. Thank you for educating me on that. I want to 

followup on that later on. 

Ms. COOPER. Thank you. 

Senator ISAKSON. Thank you, ma’am. 

Mr. Kiernan, I appreciate your commitment to those with disabilities. You made a reference to three to four out of five people with 

disabilities are not included in unemployment statistics. Is that 

right? 

Mr. KIERNAN. That is correct. 

Senator ISAKSON. How would it be publicly available to me to 

know what percentage of people with disabilities are unemployed? 

Mr. KIERNAN. That same survey we just talked about. The American Community Survey would give you information with regard to 

the numbers of persons who are employed and invested in the labor 

force market. Usually for all disabilities, it is about 36 percent of 

the population, which means there are 3 out of 10 or roughly 4 out 

77 

of 10. For persons with mental disabilities, which includes intellectual disabilities and mental health, it is about 25 percent. 

Senator ISAKSON. Was your comment there a suggestion to merge 

those statistics with the overall unemployment rate to have a better reflection of total unemployment? 

Mr. KIERNAN. The Bureau of Labor Statistics just recently published some of the unemployment stats for persons with disabilities 

as a new initiative. I think that you have to couple that with the 

labor force participation rate to get a true picture of what the labor 

source looks like for persons with disabilities. 

Senator ISAKSON. Yes. Ms. Oates is not here, but when we did 

No Child Left Behind, we disaggregated every group in public education, including those with disabilities. And that was the right 

thing to do, but there was an unintended consequence, we also 

locked them in as one group in assessments, which has been a 

huge problem. There are unique characteristics of people with disabilities that should be focused on separately than getting merged 

into the overall statistics and somewhat lost, if you will. 

So I appreciate your bringing that up because it does beg the 

question how we might better have available and illuminate the 

people with disabilities as a disaggregated group in an unemployment survey so as to better focus on the unique needs for them to 

become employed. I do not know if that is a good observation or 

not, but I think that is a better way to do it than losing them in 

that overall merger. 

Thank you very much to all of you for your commitment to the 

workers of America. 

Senator MURRAY. I do have some additional questions for all of 

our panelists. We will submit them to you and ask for your written 

responses. 

Again, this has been excellent for us as we move forward on our 

committee’s work. 

Senator Isakson. 

Senator ISAKSON. Out of deference to Senator Enzi, can we leave 

the record open for submission of his questions? 

Senator MURRAY. Yes. I will leave the record open, for any members who want to submit a statement to the record, for an additional 7 days. 

Again, let me thank all of our witnesses for traveling here to be 

with us and participating in this important hearing. We look forward to your responses to additional questions. Thank you very 

much. 

With that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Additional material follows.] 

78 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR KENNEDY

An educated workforce is our country’s most valuable resource. 

America’s long-term economic vitality depends on the creation and 

maintenance of an effective, accessible, and accountable system of 

job training and career development that is open to all. Disadvantaged adults and out-of-school youth in particular need the opportunity to develop the job skills that will enable them to become productive members of the community. Dislocated workers displaced 

by the current recession and continuing rapid technological change 

deserve the chance to pursue new careers. Now, more than ever, 

people of all ages need opportunities to obtain degrees, credentials 

and industry-recognized certificates to engage in family-sustaining 

employment. The way in which we respond to challenges in employment and education today will determine how prosperous a nation we are in the years ahead. 

That’s why I commend the Subcommittee on Employment and 

Workplace Safety for holding today’s hearing on modernizing the 

Workforce Investment Act to help workers and employers deal with 

the changing demands of a global market. The importance of welldeveloped employment skills has never been greater, and it continues to grow. Even in today’s troubled economy, opportunities 

still exist for many who enter the workforce with good academic 

training and well-developed career skills. But for those who lack 

career skills and basic proficiency in language, math and science, 

today’s economy can be an intimidating environment for employment. 

It’s been too long since we’ve looked at the Workforce Investment 

Act. When it first passed in 1998 its goal was to respond to the 

challenges of the changing workplace by enabling men and women 

to acquire the skills necessary to enter the job market and upgrade 

their skills throughout their careers, and that goal has not 

changed. But as today’s witnesses will describe, the challenges facing today’s workers and our job-training system have changed, and 

we must ensure that our efforts in Congress keep up with the 

times. We’ve tried before to improve this bill, and I’m optimistic 

that this time, we will succeed. 

In fact, we’re already engaged in a bipartisan effort to improve 

the act. For nearly a year, we’ve worked together, listening to the 

voices of those in the field and seeking consensus on an approach 

that will provide more efficient training and support services to 

vulnerable populations, including out-of-school youth, and encourage greater program cooperation by business, labor, and education, 

and by State and local governments and communities. An important goal aspect of our goal has been to ensure that the Departments of Education and Labor coordinate their efforts, so that they 

can provide their expertise and combine their resources to achieve 

the greatest impact. 

This hearing brings together an impressive array of leaders on 

these issues, and I thank each of them. Each has made important 

contributions to employment opportunities in this country, and 

their voices are the kinds of voices we have been seeking in our listening sessions in recent months. 

79 

Mary Sarris has seen the Workforce Investment Act’s effectiveness up close, serving on the North Shore Workforce Investment 

Board. I hope that in our committee’s bill, we can reflect her commitment for serving youth more effectively. Supporting One-Stops 

as they help youth seek summer employment, and encouraging 

them to pursue future educational opportunities, is vital for improving the services we offer. 

In addition, I commend William Kiernan for directing our attention to the needs of adults with disabilities. I, too, remember the 

enthusiasm for the One-Stop Centers when they were created. I 

hope, along with Mr. Kiernan, that we can ensure that these centers serve older and disabled adults well in the States, and that we 

can do more to help young adults with disabilities make the transition to a fruitful work life. 

Finally, I particularly commend Undersecretary of Education 

Martha Kanter and Assistant Secretary of Labor for Education and 

Training Jane Oates. Martha Kanter has devoted her career to 

meeting the diverse needs of community college students, and before coming to the Department, she led one of the most innovative 

community college systems in the Nation. Jane Oates is a longtime friend, having served on my staff for many years, and is as 

capable a thinker as anyone I know on these issues. From 2006 

until this year, she was New Jersey’s commissioner for higher education, and she was instrumental in creating a statewide credittransfer agreement and a supporter of extending in-state tuition 

benefits to all of New Jersey’s students. 

This hearing, and the other work we’ve been doing on these 

issues, is part of our major effort to streamline these programs and 

invest in our fellow citizens, young and old, in an effective way. 

We’ve conducted a constructive review of all of the various job 

training programs to determine what kind of vocational training we 

need to meet the challenges we face today, how best to support 

adult education programs, and how best to respond to the changes 

in our workforce as a result of new technology and increased needs 

for retraining. 

These are complex issues, but the bill we will introduce will retain individual choice and quality labor-market information as its 

cornerstones, and will also incorporate many good ideas like those 

we’ll hear today. 

Our witnesses are helping to shape a new Workforce Investment 

Act that will expand the possibilities offered in today’s system, 

making it possible for millions more Americans to obtain the skills 

they need to compete in the global economy. And by doing so, we 

will also enable them to realize their own individual American 

dreams. As you can tell, I look forward to this hearing very much. 

I wish I could be there in person. 

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS OF SENATOR MURRAY, SENATOR ENZI, 

AND SENATOR COBURN BY JANE OATES

QUESTIONS OF SENATOR MURRAY

Question 1. Dislocated workers can access various levels of services based on the 

reason for their dislocation. What are your thoughts on how we can better align 

those services in a way that raises the bar for all programs? 

Answer 1. Currently the public workforce system makes a distinction between individuals dislocated due to the impact of Federal policy and foreign trade and those 

80 

who have become dislocated for other reasons. The Department has made efforts to 

better align the programs serving dislocated workers and provide these individuals 

with the resources, services, and training needed to rejoin the workforce. For example, the Department supports dual-enrollment projects that combine Trade Adjustment Assistance and Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Dislocated Worker and National Emergency Grant services to provide a wider array of ‘‘wrap-around’’ services 

to trade-eligible workers. 

We at the Department of Labor (DOL) look forward to further discussions with 

the Senator and other members of the committee to identify ways in which WIA reauthorization can be used to better align the Federal workforce programs so that 

they address the needs of dislocated workers as efficiently and seamlessly as possible. 

Question 2. How does the Department define ‘‘post-secondary education’’ or a 

‘‘post-secondary education credential?’’ 

Answer 2. The Department has not formally defined the terms ‘‘post-secondary 

education’’ or ‘‘post-secondary education credential.’’ However, Title I of WIA does 

provide a definition for ‘‘post-secondary educational institution.’’ WIA defines this 

term to mean ‘‘an institution of higher education,’’ as defined by Section 102 of the 

Higher Education Act of 1965 at 20 U.S.C. 1002. The definition at 20 U.S.C. 1002 

is provided for the purpose of student assistance programs, and includes public or 

nonprofit accredited institutions that award bachelor’s degrees or provide not less 

than a 2-year program that is acceptable for full credit towards such a degree; any 

school that provides not less than a 1-year program of training to prepare students 

for gainful employment in a recognized occupation; proprietary institutions; and 

post-secondary vocational institutions. 

The Department has interpreted the term ‘‘post-secondary education’’ to include 

education that takes place at a post-secondary educational institution. This interpretation includes post-secondary workforce training that takes place after the completion of the 12th grade or the award of a GED or other high school equivalent. Credentials awarded through post-secondary training such as registered apprenticeships and training leading to industry-recognized credentials, which may involve 

both classroom and on-the-job training or work experience components, also make 

up the universe of ‘‘post-secondary education’’ for DOL programmatic purposes. 

Question 3. What are the Department’s principles for WIA reauthorization? 

Answer 3. Both the changing skill demands of the 21st century labor market and 

the recent downturn in the economy have posed challenges for our Nation’s public 

workforce system. In order to increase the skills and competitiveness of the American workforce, the public workforce system must become more innovative, adaptive, 

and responsive to the needs of workers, businesses, and communities. 

A decade after the passage of WIA, reauthorization and reform of WIA provides 

an opportunity to introduce innovations, build on strengths of the workforce system, 

and address areas of the system that should be bolstered. WIA reform is an important vehicle for ensuring that the workforce system helps every American worker 

find a good job, including segments of the population with specific, and sometimes 

multiple, barriers to employment that the workforce system can help them overcome. 

The Department believes that WIA reauthorization should create a modernized 

workforce system that provides seamless career advancement services for low-skilled 

adults, at-risk youth, and dislocated workers and others needing employment, training, and retraining services. The Department has already started discussing WIA 

reform with the Department of Education. Additionally, while the Administration 

has not yet put forward formal principles, the Department has held many listening 

sessions with stakeholders concerning WIA reauthorization. Here are some of the 

ideas we have provided to help frame those discussions. 

Public Workforce System 

• A dual customer approach is essential because the needs of workers and employers are both important in developing thriving communities where all citizens 

succeed and businesses prosper. 

• The public workforce system is responsive to labor-market demand in industry 

sectors important to the regional economy. 

• State and local workforce investment boards are strategic, effective, and efficient in governing and overseeing the workforce system. 

• The performance accountability framework for the public workforce system encompasses measures of both interim and long-term employment outcomes that account for all customers served and encourage the system to serve those most in 

81 

need, and produces meaningful and readily available performance information for 

program administrators, policymakers, and customers. • Customers have the information they need to find jobs that suit their skills and 

choose training programs. • The system encourages innovation, emphasizes proven approaches, and builds 

knowledge of what works. • The system is fully accessible and available to all people, including persons with 

disabilities and those with limited English proficiency. 

Dislocated Workers 

• All workforce programs for dislocated workers, including those with disabilities, 

are integrated and accessible through the One-Stop system. • One-Stop Career Centers provide each worker with a quick and effective assessment of skills and the best plan of services given their interests and skill levels. • All programs for dislocated workers are available to these workers through both 

direct in-person services and virtual reemployment services, including easy-to-use 

assessments and information on skills transferable to new jobs in demand, opportunities provided by career pathway models, and high-quality career counseling supported by real-time workforce information. 

Low-Skilled Adults 

• The public workforce and adult education systems are available to adults needing education and training information or assistance in a manner that supports the 

achievement of each individual’s educational and career goals. • A customer’s eligibility determination is performed once rather than separately 

for each program. • Assessments of customers’ educational and training needs are aligned so they 

can be relied on by other workforce programs, community colleges, and education 

institutions; except to the extent that a separate assessment process is required for 

determining eligibility under the Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants program. • Basic skills programs successfully prepare students to enroll in education 

courses, advance to credit bearing classes at 2-year or 4-year colleges, or enter or 

reenter the workforce. • Career counseling services reflect best practices in assisting low-skilled adults 

and instruction reflects approaches that have proven successful. 

At-Risk Youth 

• Both compensated work activity, or related strategies such as internships, and 

education are emphasized. The former can be an effective method of engaging youth 

in the short-term, providing an initial introduction to employment; while education, 

especially when integrated with compensated work activity for at-risk and low-income youth, can contribute to the success of youth in the labor market. • Emphasis is provided to programs that are ‘‘proven’’ (through rigorous evaluation) or ‘‘promising’’ (on the basis of a record with positive outcomes and operation 

to scale). 

• Because at-risk youth need local providers that connect them to resources that 

address their wide variety of needs, the workforce system partners with school districts, high schools, community colleges, local employers, criminal justice systems, 

and various social service providers to provide these diverse services. 

• Performance measures for accountability recognize gains over time and do not 

create incentives to select participants on the basis of anticipated performance success over need. 

• The workforce system targets in-school and out-of-school at-risk youth, including those with disabilities. These groups include: (1) young people in high school 

who are ‘‘off-track’’ and at high risk of dropping out; (2) youth who have already 

dropped out; and (3) high school graduates who do not have college and career ready 

skills and who have failed to obtain regular jobs. However, these categories are 

fluid, as individuals move in and out of school. Youth who live in neighborhoods and 

areas of concentrated poverty should receive particular attention, as should youth 

from low-income families, wherever they live. 

• A youth’s eligibility determination is performed once rather than separately for 

each program when permitted by Federal law. 

• Data related to State certification tests and other performance measures is 

shared across departments and programs. 

Question 4. What are the Department’s current plans for addressing the lack of 

systemic evaluation of programs under WIA? 

Answer 4. An important part of reauthorization of WIA will be the identification 

of strategies that maximize resources, streamline access to services, and avoid the 

82 

unnecessary duplication of programs. To support these efforts, the Department has 

reaffirmed its commitment to evaluating its programs and using the findings of 

these evaluations to guide the continuous improvement of programs and service delivery. Our commitment is evidenced by our recent Recovery and Reemployment Research Conference, which featured findings from many Department-funded research 

and evaluation projects and through which we engaged a broad spectrum of communities, including workforce investment, research, education, oversight agencies, nonprofit organizations, and public policy makers. The conference proceeding will help 

inform ETA’s Five-Year Research, Demonstration and Evaluation Strategic Plan for 

2009–2014. 

In 2008, the Employment and Training Administration commissioned the Net Impact Evaluation of the WIA Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Youth Programs—a random assignment evaluation of major programs under Title I of WIA. The evaluation, 

which is still in the design stage, will measure the post-program involvement impacts on employment and earnings of participants receiving services funded through 

WIA, as compared to those receiving services funded through other sources or those 

who received no services. The complete evaluation is being conducted over the 

course of 7 years. This approach will allow a sufficient follow-up period to reliably 

measure post-program impacts, as well as allow time to accommodate the modernization expected to be achieved through reauthorization. 

Additionally, in December 2008, the Workforce Investment Act Non-Experimental 

Net Impact evaluation conducted by IMPAQ International, LLC, was completed. 

The study reports results of a non-experimental net impact evaluation of the Adult 

and Dislocated Worker programs under WIA. Statistical methods were used to compare WIA program participants with groups of individuals who were similar across 

a range of demographic characteristics, social welfare benefit receipt, and labor-market experiences but who either did not receive WIA services or did not receive WIA 

training. The overall goal of the evaluation was to provide information on the longrun impact of the WIA program at both the local and national level. 

The study observed important similarities in the patterns of estimated impacts. 

The results for all participants in the WIA Adult program (regardless of services received) show that participating in the program is associated with an increase in 

quarterly earnings of several hundred dollars. Also, over time WIA Dislocated Worker participants’ earnings overtake those of a comparison group composed of workers 

with similar characteristics and work histories. The Department posted the report 

on ETA’s Research Database available at http://wdr.doleta.gov/research/. 

Question 5. How does the Department envision the President’s new community 

college initiative interacting with WIA programs and other efforts the Department 

has undertaken to support the role of community colleges in workforce development, 

including education and training? 

Answer 5. As noted by the President, community colleges are the largest part of 

our higher education system and are growing rapidly. Community colleges feature 

affordable tuition, convenient locations, flexible schedules, and programs and curriculums targeted to individuals of various skill and education levels, and have proven their ability to work with businesses, industry, and government to create tailored 

training programs to meet the needs of both workers and the economy. Additionally, 

many community colleges have experience providing Rapid Response services to dislocated workers. Because of their unique features, community colleges play a key 

role in a variety of ways in both the public workforce system and regional economies. Numerous community college representatives sit on workforce boards, operate 

One-Stop Career Centers on their campuses, and offer programs for low-skill adults 

to improve their basic skills while acquiring technical training. Community colleges 

also are important to registered apprenticeship programs, providing the conceptual 

or academic part of training to apprentices. The role of community colleges was further strengthened by flexibility built into the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) which facilitated local workforce boards’ ability to contract with institutions of higher education, including community colleges, as well as 

other eligible training providers. 

We at the Department are excited about the opportunities that will be created by 

the President’s community college initiative. The initiative, designed to meet the 

President’s goal of an additional 5 million community college graduates by 2020, 

would invest $12 billion in community colleges over the next decade to provide opportunities for lifelong learning that will raise the level of education and skills of 

America’s workforce. This will help to rebuild the Nation’s economic competitiveness 

and ability to fill the jobs of the future. The proposal would provide several strategies to strengthen community colleges nationwide. Through the Community College 

Challenge Fund specifically, the Departments of Labor and Education will work in 

83 

partnership to jointly administer grants to enable community colleges to innovate 

and expand proven reforms. To further increase WIA program interaction with community colleges, the Department envisions stronger connectivity and collaboration 

between the One-Stop delivery system and community colleges, particularly in the 

areas of eligibility determination, referral, assessment, and service planning based 

on customers’ interests and skill levels. Additionally, the One-Stop system will link 

customers to the education and training opportunities that will be created by the 

community college initiative. 

The initiative will build on the Department of Labor’s current initiatives engaging 

community colleges as workforce system partners. Beginning in fiscal year 2005, the 

Department used Community Based Job Training Grants (CBJTG) to support community colleges by helping fund capacity-building, curriculum development, and 

training in high-growth, high-demand industries. In his fiscal year 2010 budget, 

President Obama introduced the Career Pathways Innovation Fund as an evolution 

of the CBJTG. This initiative continues the support to community colleges provided 

by CBJTG but focuses on career pathways, sequences of coursework, education, and 

credentials leading to a better job in a particular field. The Department will continue to work closely with the Department of Education and draw on its experience, 

particularly with career pathways, college-and career-ready standards, credit transferability, longitudinal data system operation, student support services to implement this initiative. 

Question 6. How does the Department plan to use lessons learned from the ARRA 

WIA funding to shape its reauthorization principles? What efforts are the Department making to track and measure the impact of this funding? 

Answer 6. As part of the implementation of the Recovery Act, the Department embarked on a review of State and Local Workforce Investment Boards to determine 

their readiness to implement the Recovery Act along with their regular formula responsibilities under WIA and other workforce programs. The readiness consultations, held with 209 local areas and States across the country during April–May, 

2009, provided ETA with some broad insights regarding the general health of the 

public workforce system and reflected the proactive positioning of the system in the 

context of WIA reauthorization. Eighty-four percent of State Workforce Investment 

Boards reported that they were ready to refine and develop a vision to use Recovery 

Act funds to drive change throughout their workforce systems to meet future workforce and economic challenges. Ninety-four percent of States signaled readiness in 

the area of partnerships and a shared vision with education, labor, civic and philanthropic institutions to drive regional development strategies. Ninety-one percent of 

States have developed policies to target services to the hardest-to-serve populations. 

(The full report can be accessed at http://www.doleta.gov/pdf/National—Readiness— 

Report.pdf.) 

We are also reaching out to learn about needs for improvement from the Government Accountability Office and Office of the Inspector General teams who have been 

in the field looking at implementation of the Recovery Act. 

Based on discussions with State and local workforce agencies, ETA is playing a 

critical role in providing Recovery Act-related technical assistance for system integration, reemployment, and other reform principles likely to be mainstays of a reauthorized workforce investment system. 

Consistent with the principles of transparency and accountability, ETA recognized 

the need to collect participant and performance information more frequently to inform policymakers and the public about the progress of the Recovery Act’s implementation and about the labor-market outcomes achieved for job seekers through 

the coupling of Recovery Act and regular formula funds. Beginning May 1, 2009, 

States have been reporting monthly on the number of participants served under 

WIA Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Youth programs, and the Wagner-Peyser Employment Service program and ETA has been making reported information publicly 

available on www.recovery.gov. Additionally, to obtain more robust, real-time information on individual characteristics and services and to determine the effect of the 

Recovery Act resources, States are required to submit WIA individual records on all 

participants on a quarterly basis beginning May 15, 2010, a change in reporting requirements from annual submissions. 

ETA has moved swiftly to ensure that evaluation of the effectiveness of the Recovery Act programs is captured, measured, and assessed and that knowledge is developed to inform implementation efforts. One planned evaluation will examine the 

summer youth employment opportunities provided through the WIA Youth Recovery 

Act funding. This implementation study is based on a selected sample of 20 local 

workforce investment areas. 

84 

Other planned evaluations include a review of State workforce development and 

unemployment insurance policy responses to the current economic recession and the 

Recovery Act. This project will examine the types of policy actions States take in 

their workforce development and unemployment insurance systems to meet the 

challenges of the recession. Plans also include initiating an intensive process study 

and impact analysis of grants awarded to prepare workers for careers in healthcare 

and other high-growth and emerging industries as well as an evaluation of the Recovery Act Green Jobs grants. 

Question 7. How can adult education services under title II be better aligned with 

title I programs to help low-skilled adults persist on a career pathway toward a family-sustaining career? 

Answer 7. Current information and experience suggest that integrating basic 

skills training with occupational training can be a better strategy for serving lowincome adults in search of a job. 

The current statute divides occupational training and adult basic education into 

separate funding streams (title I and title II, respectively). However, integration of 

activities is allowed and encouraged to support these efforts, the Department will 

identify and encourage effective and innovative adult learning practices for lowskilled adults that leverage title I and title II resources. This increased collaboration 

and the development of new adult learning practices will improve the system’s capacity to create flexible delivery models focused on moving low-skilled adults along 

multiple learning pathways to post-secondary credentials. 

In order to encourage State and local areas to effectively coordinate title I and 

title II services, we must support coordination at the Federal level. Examples of how 

we can enhance collaboration include: 

1. Encouraging States to align title I and title II resources to support dual service 

programs; 

2. Revising performance measures to encourage coordination between programs, 

especially for those States that have common contracts in dual service programs. 

Title I and title II programs are subject to different outcome measures and reporting 

requirements, making it difficult for low-skilled adults to receive both types of services through one program. As part of reauthorization, Congress may want to consider aligning progress and outcome measures for title I and title II programs. 

3. Encouraging interagency coordination at the Federal and State levels that creates a greater role for adult education providers in the administration of local workforce investment areas; and 

4. Rewarding States that achieve strong outcomes through enhanced collaboration 

among State agencies administering title I and title II programs. 

Question 8. What recommendations do you have for strengthening the public private partnerships to support the goals of WIA? 

Answer 8. It is now commonly understood that the effective planning and implementation of workforce development strategies and solutions requires strategic partnerships that include both public and private partners. Important partners include 

the workforce system, economic developers, business and industry, organized labor, 

education at all levels, community-based organizations, and others. One of the most 

often-cited challenges to successful collaboration in the context of strategic partnerships is the need for funding to support the ‘‘coming together’’ of partners. In particular, time and resources are needed to plan and manage partnership meetings, 

develop and monitor collaborative work plans, and evaluate and assess the outcomes 

of partnerships. In many cases, individual partners may not have the resources 

needed for these purposes. 

As we approach reauthorization of WIA, one possible approach to strengthening 

public/private partnerships is exploring incentives for strategic partnerships by 

using relatively small amounts of resources targeted to promote collaboration among 

public/private partners. These resources could support a local Workforce Investment 

Board’s efforts to host strategic planning sessions with partners who are not Board 

members, in order to target skills training that is transferable across industry sectors. The resources also could be used by local Boards to bring together partners 

that represent a given sector of the local economy to design or validate a training 

curriculum for occupation-specific training. Such an approach may also include 

leveraging resources already available through formula programs or other publicsector or private-sector resources. We at the Department look forward to an opportunity to further discuss this and other possible approaches with the Senator and 

other members of the committee. 

85 

Question 9. How can the Department help to improve the accessibility, both physically and programmatically, of One-Stop Centers and training programs? What 

changes should Congress make to the law to ensure accessibility? 

Answer 9. The WIA nondiscrimination regulations require State and local agencies administering WIA financial assistance to designate Equal Opportunity (EO) 

Officers. These agencies and their EO Officers have an independent obligation to 

monitor compliance with nondiscrimination laws by covered entities within their jurisdictions, and to ensure that any violations—including violations of the comprehensive access requirements—are remedied. At the departmental level, ETA and 

the Civil Rights Center (CRC) share the responsibility of monitoring the workforce 

system’s compliance with the legal requirements related to comprehensive access by 

people with disabilities. 

With the proposed end of the Work Incentive Grant pilot program in fiscal year 

2010, ETA will increase collaboration with CRC and the ODEP to expand the capacity of the workforce system to provide comprehensive access and to replicate and 

integrate the promising practices identified through the Disability Program Navigator Initiative, which sought to improve services at One-Stop Centers for job seekers with disabilities. At the same time, CRC and ETA will continue to identify 

where One-Stops and other entities within the service delivery system do not provide comprehensive access, and will partner with ODEP to provide guidance on how 

to ensure comprehensive and universally accessible environments. 

In addition to these efforts, the Department will explore or expand the following 

approaches to improve the capacity of the workforce system to serve individuals 

with multiple barriers to employment, including young people and adults with disabilities: training front-line staff on how to deliver services at One-Stops that are 

welcoming, accessible, and customer-friendly, as well as legally compliant; building 

on/establishing disability advisory committees that include representatives from the 

disability community and vocational rehabilitation, as well as EO officers, to regularly assess and monitor comprehensive access of One-Stop Career Centers; and continuing to conduct legally-required outreach to job seekers with disabilities and the 

local agencies/organizations serving them. 

The Department remains committed to continuously improving the accessibility of 

the One-Stop System and looks forward to working with Congress during WIA reauthorization to identify strategies and legislative changes that will improve services 

to persons with disabilities. 

Question 10. What administrative and policy changes would you recommend for 

creating a more coherent, seamless workforce system that encompasses the provisions under Title I, II, III, IV, and V of WIA and serves both job seekers and workers, and employers? 

Answer 10. As described more fully in my response to question 3, the Department 

of Labor believes that WIA reauthorization should create a modernized workforce 

system that provides seamless career advancement services for low-skilled adults, 

at-risk youth, dislocated workers, and others needing employment, training, and retraining services. The Department has already been discussing WIA reform with the 

Department of Education and has held many listening sessions with stakeholders 

concerning WIA reauthorization. 

In order to support a modernized workforce system, the Department will pursue 

a number of approaches. One possible approach would be to align and simplify the 

eligibility determination processes for the various programs to ensure that individuals can readily access the services for which they are eligible and do not have to 

repeatedly provide the same information to determine if they are eligible for different Federal programs. 

The Department also recommends aligning performance accountability measures 

for programs, and ensuring that these measures are based on both interim and longterm outcomes and do not discourage services to those most in need. The Department also sees value in making this information more readily available [Note: New 

DOL edit] and the process more transparent. This information could help customers 

and others know how the system is performing and help them make informed 

choices about what training will best prepare them for employment. 

In addition, basic skills training should be linked to occupational skills training 

for those low-skilled adults that have employment related needs and who can benefit from such programs, with multiple opportunities for a worker to access further 

basic and occupational skills training as he or she progresses along a career pathway. 

86 

Question 11. What recommendations do you have for helping communities, including industry and education partners, become more engaged in and find value in 

their local workforce systems? 

Answer 11. Strategic public and private partnerships are required for the effective 

planning and implementation of workforce development strategies and solutions. 

The workforce investment system must be seen as valuable and employ effective 

strategies for engaging key partners, including economic developers, business and 

industry, organized labor, education at all levels, community-based organizations, 

and others. 

WIA provided a framework for collaboration through the State and local board 

structures. Due to a variety of factors, many boards struggle to manage two very 

different statutory roles: (1) to be strategic and (2) to manage programs. In addition, 

even as large as the boards are per the current statute, they cannot bring all the 

key partners to the table. Therefore, there is a need for other mechanisms and resources to help make the connections. 

Many Local Workforce Boards and One-Stops across the Nation use business representatives, generally, in two primary roles: (1) to bring the business customer to 

the One-Stop to identify and meet their hiring needs and (2) to engage more broadly 

with business and industry and other strategic partners in the context of industry 

sector strategies. Similarly, State and local workforce partners are also actively engaging their education partners. 

Thus, as we approach reauthorization of WIA, the Department suggests exploring 

approaches such as statutory incentives or mandates, for engaging key strategic 

partners and community leaders as both customers of the system and strategic partners in workforce development. 

Question 12. How can the Department support an increased awareness for all potential customers of programs and services available under WIA? 

Answer 12. DOL can support outreach activities on behalf of the workforce system 

in a variety of ways. As a Federal agency, DOL has a broad reach across organizations representing a variety of constituents, including diverse workers’ interest 

groups, labor organizations, industry representatives, Federal agencies, foundations 

and elected officials. From a national stage, DOL can help these different organizations navigate the public workforce system, and better understand how their own 

constituents can benefit by working with the system. 

Some of the key things that DOL can do to support these efforts include: 

• Partner with intermediaries to design and distribute outreach materials describing the workforce system in a consistent and recognizable way. 

• Work collaboratively with Federal partners and national organizations to cosponsor learning events for their constituents and members about the workforce investment system and its assets. 

• In the context of industry sector strategies, engage strategic partners in promoting the workforce system and the resources that can be leveraged as part of a 

broader strategy. 

• Make performance information more available, transparent, and usable for program stakeholders and customers. 

• Work to increase availability of the workforce system to various populations 

through such activities as extended hours for One-Stop Career Centers, presence of 

multi-lingual staff, and information on services provided by programs that are not 

One-Stop partners. 

• Continue to work with entities at all levels of the workforce system to educate 

them about both their legal obligation to conduct, and effective strategies for conducting, outreach efforts to ensure the inclusion of members of both sexes, various 

racial and ethnic groups, individuals with disabilities, and individuals in differing 

age groups. 

QUESTIONS OF SENATOR ENZI

Question 1. How will you work together (with the Department of Education) to 

make sure youth served in the WIA programs are connected or reconnected to the 

larger education system? And, conversely how does the Department of Education 

plan to coordinate with WIA programs under the Department of Labor? 

Answer 1. ETA has provided guidance to the WIA Title I Youth Formula Program 

that encourages serving hardest-to-serve youth, including a specific focus on high 

school dropouts and out-of-school youth. Strategies for serving disconnected youth 

must include a strong academic focus with an opportunity to obtain a high school 

diploma or equivalent, transition into post-secondary education, and begin a career. 

This requires clear ‘‘on ramps’’ or reconnection points that link to both the tradiVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:16 Jul 26, 2011 Jkt 035165 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\51264.TXT DENISE
87 

tional education system and multiple education pathways. ETA will work with the 

Department of Education on this priority in the following ways: 

• Support joint development of community-wide strategies or blueprints for re-engaging high school dropouts in conjunction with reform efforts already underway to 

improve high schools; 

• Develop a strategy that disseminates to the education and workforce systems 

successful ‘‘on ramp’’ strategies for reconnecting out-of-school youth, and provide 

guidance to both systems on how to implement such strategies; 

• Explore new approaches for consideration as part of reauthorization of WIA and 

related education legislation, such as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

of 1965, for ways to leverage and encourage stronger connections between education 

and workforce systems around reconnecting out-of-school youth; and 

• Increase out-of school youth enrollments in community college programs by 

identifying and promoting best practices and programs with success in this area. 

Question 2. How can we better coordinate the One-Stop system and the job training provisions of title I with the other WIA titles, Adult Basic Education and the 

Vocational Rehabilitation? 

Answer 2. Enabling greater coordination among agencies administering WIA Title 

I funding is a priority for the Department. DOL will work with the Department of 

Education and the programmatic systems implementing these programs in the following ways: 

1. The Department will work with Education to identify and/or develop innovative 

and effective adult learning practices for low-skilled adults. Such practices should 

leverage WIA Title I and Title II resources with a goal of creating flexible delivery 

models that move low-skilled adults along multiple pathways leading to post-secondary credentials. A 2-year non-experimental evaluation of the I-BEST program in 

Washington by the Community College Research Center at Columbia University 

found that students enrolled in programs that integrate adult education and occupational training were more likely to obtain certificates than students enrolled in basic 

education programs (Jenkins, Dais, Matthew Zeidenber & Gregory S. Kienzl. Educational Outcomes of I-BEST, Washington State Community and Technical College 

System’s Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training Program: Findings from a 

Multivariate Analysis. May 2009. CCRC Working Paper No. 16: New York). Additionally, initial results from a multi-year, random assignment study of sectoral 

training strategies that contextualize basic education into skills training programs, 

conducted by Public/Private Ventures, demonstrate positive impacts on employment 

outcomes for program participants (Maguire, Sheila, Joshua Freely, Carol Clymer 

and Maureen Conway. Job Training that Works: Findings from the Sectoral Impact 

Study. May 2009. Public/Private Ventures. New York). 

2. WIA Title I youth programs can be better coordinated with Adult Education’s 

WIA Title II programs around serving older, out-of-school youth in need of basic 

skills. There is some overlap between the eligibility for WIA Titles I and II. WIA 

Title I serves youth ages 14–24 and WIA Title II serves individuals age 16 and older 

who are not in school and are past the age of compulsory school attendance in their 

State. Programs under both WIA Titles I and II emphasize increasing basic skill levels, and use the literacy/numeracy gains common performance measure. The Departments of Labor and Education will work together to ensure that more WIA Title 

I youth who are basic-skills deficient receive basic-skills remediation. 

3. There are a number of opportunities to strengthen connections among the WIA 

delivery systems, including WIA Title I programs and Vocational Rehabilitation, for 

young people and adults with disabilities, while maintaining confidentiality of medical and disability-related information. The Department of Labor intends to build on 

the lessons learned from the Disability Navigator program, which ETA plans to 

share with the workforce system through the Workforce3One Web site, to enhance 

these connections at the One-Stop service delivery level. The Department of Labor 

will work with the Department of Education to: 

• Provide guidance to States and local areas to promote appropriate co-enrollment 

in workforce development and vocational rehabilitation programs, joint staff training, permissible data sharing, cross-agency referrals, joint staff meetings, and 

shared resources, with the ultimate goals of reducing the high unemployment and 

underemployment of people with disabilities; 

• Identify and disseminate service delivery models that effectively connect and integrate Vocational Rehabilitation services in One-Stop Career Centers; and 

• Explore new legislative approaches for connecting and coordinating services for 

consideration as part of reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act. 

88 

Question 3. and 6. What are the roles of the One-Stop Centers in providing job 

training and continuing education opportunities for people with disabilities, particularly youth with disabilities transitioning from high-school to post-secondary programs? What are the One-Stops doing to address accessibility issues and specifically 

for the One-Stops how are they implementing the 188 Disability Checklist? 

Answer 3. and 6. One-Stop Career Centers are required to make available job 

training and education opportunities to all customers, including job seekers with 

disabilities, in accordance with the non-discrimination requirements of section 188 

of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) and its implementing regulations at 29 CFR 

part 37, as well as with section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (which applies 

to all federally assisted-activities). These opportunities must be provided to customers with disabilities in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of 

those customers. Comprehensive services that use an Integrated Resource Team approach to meet the needs of individuals with disabilities can further these opportunities through leveraging and coordinating diverse resources that address multiple 

barriers to employment such as transportation, housing, or supported employment 

needs. Youth with disabilities who are served through the WIA Youth formula program are counseled and provided guidance by either the local WIA Youth service 

provider or the One-Stop Career Center on continuing education and training services. The need for such services should be documented and included, to the extent 

possible under current confidentiality requirements, as part of an individual service 

strategy that addresses the youth’s educational and occupational skills needs. 

The WIA nondiscrimination regulations at 29 CFR part 37 require State Governors to submit documents known as Methods of Administration (MOA) to the Department of Labor’s Civil Rights Center (CRC) for review. The MOA must describe 

the actions a State will take to ensure that its WIA Title I-financially assisted programs, activities, and recipients are complying, and will continue to comply, with 

WIA Section 188 and its implementing regulations—including the requirements related to disability. CRC reviews each MOA and, to the extent the document indicates a deficiency in the State’s Equal Opportunity (EO)-related policies, practices, 

and procedures, works with the State to help bring it into compliance. 

In addition, all applications for Federal financial assistance under WIA Title I, including WIA State Plans, must assure that the recipient will comply with a list of 

specified nondiscrimination statutes and their implementing regulations, including 

Section 188 of WIA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and other statutes applicable to recipients of Federal financial assistance. This assurance is incorporated by 

operation of law in all documents or other arrangements (written or unwritten) that 

make WIA Title I financial assistance available. 

The WIA nondiscrimination regulations require State and local-level agencies administering WIA financial assistance to designate EO Officers. These agencies and 

their EO Officers have an independent obligation to monitor compliance with nondiscrimination laws by covered entities within their jurisdictions, and to ensure that 

any violations—including violations of the comprehensive access requirements—are 

remedied. 

While a helpful tool, the WIA Section 188 Disability Checklist was issued in 2003, 

well before the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA) 

made significant changes to the text and interpretation of Federal disability nondiscrimination laws, including those applicable to the One-Stop system. The Department of Labor intends to revise and reissue the Checklist after the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Department of Justice, and the Department’s 

Civil Rights Center publish final rules implementing the regulatory changes necessitated by the ADAAA. With the proposed end of the Disability Program Navigator 

(DPN) pilot program in fiscal year 2010, ETA will increase collaboration with CRC 

and the Department’s Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) to expand the 

capacity of the workforce system to ensure that the One-Stop delivery system provides comprehensive accessibility, and to replicate and integrate the promising practices identified through the DPN Initiative. At the same time, CRC and ETA will 

continue to identify where One-Stops and other entities within the service delivery 

system do not provide comprehensive access, and will partner with ODEP to provide 

guidance on how to ensure comprehensively and universally accessible environments. 

Question 4. What types of incentives are needed so that more Adult Basic Education and Perkins Career and Technical students successfully transition to postsecondary education, occupational and technical training (including through the 

One-Stop delivery system), and the workforce? 

Answer 4. We believe that the prospect of higher-paying jobs and careers provides 

a strong incentive for students to transition into post-secondary education programs 

89 

and attain post-secondary credentials. As the Department of Labor has implemented 

workforce strategies in collaboration with education, business and industry, organized labor, and other partners, it has been our experience that ‘‘bridge’’ programs 

that support an education pathway have greater success by making the move to 

post-secondary education seamless. For example, a study by MDRC on Career Academies points to a variety of positive outcomes from the programs, including higher 

wages and greater autonomy among participants (http://www.mdrc.org/publications/ 

482/overview.html). 

In addition, learning environments that integrate academic and occupational 

skills can lead to an increased number of students continuing on education pathways into post-secondary education. The One-Stop system also plays a key role by 

providing individuals access to the resources necessary to make informed career 

choices and information about the linkages between further education, training, and 

good jobs. 

The Department of Labor will work with the Department of Education to identify 

incentive mechanisms to promote greater use of WIA Title I, Adult Basic Education, 

and Perkins Act funding at the State and local levels to improve successful student 

transitions to post-secondary education. 

Question 5a. What do we need to do so that the workforce development system 

is viewed as an economic development strategy? 

Answer 5a. A modernized workforce investment system should position education 

and training as critical drivers of a knowledge-based economy, and function as an 

essential element of a broad-based economic development strategy. The Department 

believes a reinvigorated workforce investment system will be aligned with the Secretary’s goal of a good job for everyone. To meet this goal, the workforce system 

must embody a dual customer approach that ensures that all individuals have pathways to good jobs, and growing businesses have full access to skilled workers, including untapped and diverse labor pools. In order to promote these ideas, it is important that the Department of Labor work closely with the Department of Commerce to align our efforts in economic development and workforce development. We 

need to encourage economic development funding that incorporates workforce strategies as a key component of a comprehensive economic development strategy. Similarly, we need to help State and local workforce system partners be positioned to 

play this role in economic development by carrying out activities such as working 

to ensure workforce training programs are providing participants with the skills 

needed by the local economy. It will be important to acknowledge this role in the 

context of WIA reauthorization and to provide guidance in support of that role. 

Question 5b. What types of incentives are needed so that State and local workforce investment boards align workforce development services with regional or sectoral strategies to enhance system coordination? 

Answer 5b. A number of States and their local Workforce Investment Boards and 

One-Stop Career Centers have successfully implemented a variety of sector approaches that have examined labor market trends, developed an understanding of 

specific industry sector workforce needs, and promoted training that responds to 

those immediate employer needs within the identified sectors. Leadership at the 

State and local levels is required to emphasize this approach, as well as funding to 

support it. It has also required recognition that workers are better served by service 

providers that know what skills a given sector needs and strategies that ensure that 

workers can attain those skills and related credentials. 

The Department of Labor’s recent American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Solicitation for Grant Applications for State Energy Sector Partnership and Training 

Grants incorporated sector strategies into competitive funding opportunities as an 

incentive for State and local workforce investment boards to align workforce development services with regional or sector strategies. Funding incentives are an effective way for the Department to bring attention to a new approach, but supporting 

replication of these approaches though policy guidance and technical assistance 

(without dedicated funding) are other options. 

We believe a modernized workforce investment system should require that training programs be designed and implemented through a range of Federal, State, local, 

and private-sector institutions working collaboratively to encourage the integration 

of education, training, and supportive services. This strategic planning process 

needs to include key decisionmakers from a range of appropriate institutions to ensure that workforce development strategies are reflective of State and local policies 

and priorities. In addition to planning requirements, the Department could award 

incentive resources to States that take this approach. As we consider reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act, we recommend exploring incentives for straVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:16 Jul 26, 2011 Jkt 035165 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\51264.TXT DENISE
90 

tegic partnerships, using relatively small amounts of funding and other resources 

targeted to promote collaboration among public/private partnerships, with a goal of 

helping partners leverage resources already available through formula-funded programs. 

Question 5c. What can be done to strengthen partnerships with employers, especially small businesses, to allow them to make meaningful contributions to the 

workforce development system? 

Answer 5c. Engaging small businesses with the workforce investment system is 

an ongoing challenge due to the limited time and resources small business owners 

have to commit to activities other than their own business. Therefore, successful engagement of small businesses requires carefully crafted strategies that accommodate 

their needs. 

The workforce system must be seen as an important resource to small businesses 

by connecting them to relevant information and services. Presenting One-Stop Career Centers as a key human resource development asset for small businesses is a 

first and key step. Industry sector strategies provide a context for small business 

engagement as has been demonstrated by Manufacturing Extension Partnerships 

across the country. Another strategy that has been successful over time is for the 

Local Workforce Investment Board or One-Stop to provide networking opportunities 

for small businesses combined with informational presentations on key issues, not 

all of which need to relate to workforce development, but that successfully engage 

the small business owners. Using Chambers of Commerce as an intermediary to engage small business has also been a successful model. Another successful strategy 

has been to encourage integration of Small Business Development Centers into OneStop Career Centers to support small business growth. 

Having engaged the small business owner as a customer, small businesses can 

contribute to the workforce system in a variety of meaningful ways, including: (1) 

providing internships, externships, and hands-on training and, where possible, offering stipends to participants; (2) connecting small businesses to existing community 

college programs designed for entrepreneurs by serving as mentors/coaches or serving as instructors; (3) having Small Business Development Centers serve as OneStop satellites during off-hours of the One-Stop; and (4) taking advantage of on-thejob-training. 

Opportunities to provide further incentives for small business engagement include: 

• Exploring both administrative and legislative changes that encourage coordination and information sharing between One-Stop Career Centers and Small Business 

Development Centers (SBDCs). This could include the exchange of data to track participants who are referred to SBDCs for entrepreneurship training and policies that 

require participation of SBDCs on Workforce Investment Boards (WIBs) or other 

governing structures. 

• In WIA reauthorization, considering incentives for cluster-based activities, 

whereby a collection of WIBs is rewarded for recruiting, training, and placing workers into jobs across a set of industry competitors. By providing financial incentive, 

WIBs could engage these ‘‘pools’’ of employers in addressing their needs, which may 

be particularly attractive to small businesses that do not have the resources to act 

independently to access the workforce system. At the same time, this would encourage partnership among WIBs that may consider themselves in competition with one 

another for the partnerships with employers. 

Question 7. Furthermore, how is the One-Stop system addressing the concern that 

One-Stop Centers automatically refer people with disabilities to the Vocational Rehabilitation system? 

Answer 7. This is an important issue, and we are currently considering the full 

range of options for addressing it. In part, this issue is being addressed by promoting greater coordination, to the extent possible under current confidentiality requirements, at the local level between the Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) and workforce systems. For example, training One-Stop Career Center staff in the eligibility 

requirements of VR services, which in recent years has been provided through the 

assistance of Disability Program Navigators (DPNs), has led to improving the capacity of the staff to determine which job seekers with disabilities are eligible for and 

would most benefit from VR services. Further, integrated resource team approaches, 

which have been emphasized in training and technical assistance efforts, promote 

the leveraging of expertise and resources of the respective systems to benefit job 

seekers with disabilities. 

Over the last 2 years, an increasing number of One-Stops and Local Workforce 

Investment Boards have become Employment Networks under the Social Security 

91 

Administration’s Ticket-to-Work Program, so they are serving customers who are 

Social Security disability beneficiaries, rather than referring them to VR. Moreover, 

because most State VR agencies are on an ‘‘order of selection,’’ under which people 

with the most significant disabilities are served first, the VR system often refers 

persons with disabilities who are on its waiting lists to the other programs within 

local One-Stop systems. More effort is needed to further educate entities at all levels 

of the system about their legal obligations regarding customers with disabilities, eligibility requirements for the various programs targeted towards customers with disabilities, and effective service strategies in fully integrated settings. 

At the Federal level, ETA is increasing collaboration with the Department’s Civil 

Rights Center and Office of Disability Employment Policy. The goals of this increased collaboration include the provision of the education discussed above, and the 

integration of the promising practices identified through the DPN Initiative into the 

public workforce system. The latter integration will ensure that the lessons and 

practices learned through the DPN pilot program are continued after it ends. 

QUESTIONS OF SENATOR COBURN

Question 1. In both written and verbal testimony, you expressed a desire to work 

cooperatively with other agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services in addition to the Departments of Labor and Education in attempting to improve job-training programs. Beyond these three agencies, what other agencies conduct job-training or job-training related programs that should be included in multiagency collaborative efforts? 

Answer 1. In addition to the Departments of Health and Human Services and 

Education, several other Federal departments and agencies provide a variety of resources that can support worker reemployment. State agencies operate employment 

and training programs under the Department of Agriculture’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The Department of Energy received training funds 

as part of their Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) investments. 

The Department of Defense provides resources for military spouses and supports the 

National Guard’s Youth ChalleNGe program, and the Department of Veterans Affairs provides resources for veterans. This list is not comprehensive, but includes 

some of the key agencies with training resources. The Department believes strongly 

that increased cooperation and collaboration among these departments and agencies, combined with the leveraging and aligning of resources, will result in higher 

quality and more comprehensive job training programs. 

In addition to programs administered by the Departments of Labor, Education, 

and Health and Human Services, the One-Stop delivery system under the Workforce 

Investment Act (WIA) includes additional partner programs’ employment and training activities carried out by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, 

work programs authorized by the Food Stamp Act (administered by Agriculture), 

and programs authorized under the National and Community Service Act. The OneStop system is based on partnerships that leverage resources to support comprehensive centers where individuals can find access to, and information about, the wide 

array of job training and education opportunities that exist. 

Question 2. In Ms. Oates’ verbal testimony regarding performance measures, she 

mentioned potential waste that occurs as job training providers have to submit different performance measure reporting requirements and related paperwork that differs from agency to agency. Please provide specific examples of how performance 

measures and reporting requirements are duplicative and provide recommendations 

to eliminate this duplication for Congress to consider as we reauthorize WIA. Please 

also provide information regarding which performance measures have shown to be 

useful in evaluating program success. 

Answer 2. The definitions of the performance measures for the WIA Title I programs and the Wagner-Peyser Employment Service differ from the statutorily-defined measures of the Trade Adjustment Act (TAA) program, and the WIA Title II 

program measures, while similar to the WIA Title I Adult and Youth measures, 

have different definitions as well. As a result, service providers must collect different information for different measures according to funding stream, and program 

specific goals and purpose, often for the same individual customer being served. The 

Department believes it would be useful to explore how WIA can support the development of performance measures that will reflect the success of both job training and 

education initiatives by collecting and reporting interim and long-term outcome data 

from all participants served and that specifically encourage the system to serve 

those most in need. Additionally, the Department believes that the ultimate purpose 

of performance data is to help establish goals and assess whether the workforce sysVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:16 Jul 26, 2011 Jkt 035165 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\51264.TXT DENISE
92 

tem assists its customers, including individuals from traditionally underserved populations, in finding a good job. 

ETA believes a streamlined performance reporting approach has the potential 

benefits of reducing the administrative burden and enhancing collaboration among 

service providers, if the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are similar 

among funding streams. Previously, the Department of Labor worked with other 

Federal agencies to develop a set of performance measures that included entered 

employment, employment retention, and earnings for all adult job training programs 

and a set of youth and lifelong learning measures for youth and adult basic education programs. The Department of Labor implemented this set of performance 

measures for its workforce development programs; however, we understand that 

statutory constraints and requirements prevented other Federal agencies from full 

implementation. ETA continues to consider streamlined reporting and other proposed initiatives in collaboration with its partners and stakeholders as it refines its 

approach to program performance reporting for the workforce system and its customers. 

The core set of current performance measures for adults and dislocated workers 

in WIA Title I and other workforce programs—entered employment, employment retention, and earnings—provide a good basis for evaluating the success of these programs. However, there is a lag in outcome data due to the time period to assess 

outcomes. For example, employment retention is measured at 6 months and 9 

months after program completion for WIA Adult and Dislocated Workers programs 

and the Wagner-Peyser Employment Service. However, under TAA it is measured 

12 months after program completion. While outcome data is essential to gauging 

program effectiveness, the collection of further information on interim progress that 

could be gathered without a significant lag could also be beneficial for program management. Such information could include training received and credentials attained. 

In addition to the core set of outcome measures for title I adult participants, 

measures of credentials attained and customer satisfaction with the services received would be valuable measurement tools. The credential measure can provide 

insight into training milestones and the degree to which participants secure portable credentials (certificate and/or degree) vital to continuing on a career pathway. 

The customer satisfaction measure would be useful to assess the value of the program and to aid in improvement of strategies and services. 

For the WIA youth program, as part of the set of performance measures referenced previously, States report outcomes for all youth using the following measures: placement in employment or education, attainment of a degree or certificate, 

and literacy and numeracy gains. An employment/education retention measure for 

youth is critical as another measure of effectiveness of the service strategy. 

Question 3. During the President’s transition he promised to conduct ‘‘an immediate and periodic public inventory of administrative offices and functions and require agency leaders to work together to root out redundancy.’’ Please identify what 

redundancies you have discovered in existing job-training programs including any 

you have uncovered in your current collaborative efforts with other agencies. 

Answer 3. An important part of WIA reauthorization will be the identification of 

strategies that maximize resources, streamline access to services, and avoid the unnecessary duplication of programs. To support these efforts, a strong emphasis on 

informed decisionmaking is required. Thus, the Department is strengthening its efforts to conduct rigorous evaluations of its programs to gather data, inform systematic and policy decisions, and guide the continuous improvement of programs and 

service delivery. The continuous improvement of DOL’s programs will help American workers improve their skills, advance their education, and secure a good job. 

We are also working with the Department of Education and other Federal agencies to review the current mix of job training investments to determine if 

redundancies or inefficiencies exist and develop strategies to address them. 

Question 4. As the unemployment rate continues to climb, making efficiency in 

job-training programs a critical necessity, which job-training or job-training related 

programs, do you think can be eliminated because they are ineffective, duplicative, 

unnecessary, or have outlived their purpose? 

Answer 4. The current design of the workforce system was put in place in 1998, 

at a time of full employment (the national unemployment rate for the year ranged 

from 4.4 to 4.6 percent that year). Though designed at a time when economic conditions were better than they are now, the public workforce system has stepped up 

to the plate, performing admirably in responding to the challenges it has faced in 

the current recession. In this time of high unemployment, it is important that the 

93 

workforce system look carefully at the labor market and target investments to skills 

areas that will help workers to attain good jobs as the economy recovers. 

The spirit of WIA embodies streamlining programming and access to services. We 

agree that we must consider how the workforce system can be improved through 

WIA reauthorization to modernize the system to meet the needs of today’s economy, 

while continuing to serve those who are most in need of help securing and retaining 

good jobs. The Department has engaged in activities specifically related to modernizing WIA, such as meeting with stakeholder organizations to gather suggestions 

about reforming and improving the workforce system, and looks forward to further 

opportunities to share information and work with the Senator and other members 

of the committee during WIA reauthorization. Together, we need to examine ways 

to improve the delivery of services through the workforce system, identify and eliminate unnecessary duplication (such as complex eligibility determination processes 

across multiple programs), and maximize the effectiveness of our limited resources 

in serving the American workforce. 

Question 5. How do your agencies detect fraud in job-training or job-training related programs? 

Answer 5. ETA monitors grantees through six regional offices, each managed by 

a Senior Executive Service (SES) Regional Administrator. On-site monitoring of all 

grantees is done to the extent that travel resources allow, and each State grantee 

receives a comprehensive review of fiscal and programmatic activity once every 3 

years. In addition, ETA conducts quarterly desk reviews of all active grants using 

a system called the Grants Electronic Management System, or GEMS. These desk 

reviews consist of standard questions and analysis and are recorded in the GEMS 

system along with documentation of grantee-submitted fiscal reports, performance 

data, and Federal Project Officer notations. On the basis of these quarterly reviews, 

ETA assigns a risk rating to the grantee (red, yellow, or green). ETA monitors ‘‘at 

risk’’ grants on a more frequent basis, using standard operating procedures and a 

comprehensive Core Monitoring Guide and its supplements. A grantee is categorized 

as ‘‘at risk’’ based on criteria designed to evaluate the degree to which Federal staff 

should provide oversight and technical assistance to ensure compliance with financial reporting requirements. Such criteria include the grantee’s ability to timely and 

accurately submit financial reports, the amount of grant funds awarded, and whether or not the grantee is a first time ETA grant recipient. During the course of monitoring, if any suspicion of fraud or abuse is detected, it is immediately reported to 

the Region Administrator who determines if there was intent to misapply funds that 

would warrant an Office of the Inspector General (OIG) Incident Report. 

ETA is also focusing on strengthening its working relationship with OIG. Through 

this strengthened relationship, ETA hopes to research new approaches that will 

allow us to proactively identify and correct problems before they become significant. 

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS OF SENATOR MURRAY, SENATOR ENZI, AND

SENATOR COBURN BY MARTHA KANTER

QUESTIONS OF SENATOR MURRAY

Question 1. How does the Department define ‘‘post-secondary education’’ or a 

‘‘post-secondary education credential’’? 

Answer 1. The generally accepted understanding of the term ‘‘post-secondary education’’ is education and training beyond high school. This could include education 

from a number of sources, such as at 2- and 4-year colleges and universities, postsecondary trade and technical schools (along with community-based training), posthigh school adult education, and registered apprenticeship programs. 

Although there is no statutory or regulatory definition of ‘‘post-secondary education credential,’’ again generally, the term is understood to include both formal 

degrees and certificates awarded by traditional institutions of higher education as 

well as industry-recognized credentials and certificates based on non-credit training 

that takes place either within or outside of a traditional educational setting. 

ED and the Department of Labor (DOL) have begun discussions about what 

standards should be used to define industry-recognized credentials. This joint effort 

will help inform our decisionmaking when WIA reauthorization is considered. Also, 

we want to include industry stakeholders in the process of helping us define these 

standards, so that credentials provide interim performance measures and are portable and ‘‘stackable’’ and are both recognized and used by employers. 

We think that the adoption of standards will help workers who seek credentials, 

particularly low-skilled workers, obtain employment and advance in their education 

and careers. States are not currently required, under Title II of WIA, to report information on certificates beyond the secondary level. Expanding and enhancing data 

94 

collection on certificates would be useful if there were established common Federal 

definitions of certificates and industry-grouped post-secondary credentials. 

Question 2. What are the Department’s principles for WIA reauthorization? 

Answer 2. While formal principles have not yet been established, we believe that 

WIA reauthorization should aim to ensure that adults seeking training will find, 

gain physical and programmatic access to, and, if eligible, obtain the federally supported services they need, regardless of their system point of entry. To this end, we 

must improve the alignment and integration of adult education and employment 

and training services in order to fully meet the needs of the target populations: the 

unemployed, the underemployed, and those who need basic educational training in 

order to advance in their education and career goals—including individuals with disabilities. 

The Department will continue to have conversations with DOL to ensure that this 

overarching principle, anchored in the needs of the client, guides our work. 

WIA reauthorization should ensure that all individuals are served, including lowskilled adults and individuals with disabilities, and that clients can gain access to 

programs and systems in a variety of ways. Multiple points of entry are needed to 

ensure that clients can gain access to services in a manner that best meets their 

needs. The One-Stop Centers are one vital point where customers can obtain the 

services they need and connect with Federal education and training programs. 

Other system-entry points, particularly community colleges and community-based 

organizations, must also help workers gain education and workforce skills, find and 

sustain employment, and advance in their careers. Performance and accountability 

measures must be aligned and must recognize gains over time if the systems are 

to align and customers’ needs are to be fully met. 

Question 3. How does the Department envision the President’s new community 

college initiative interacting with WIA programs and other efforts the Department 

or the Department of Labor has undertaken to support the role of community colleges in workforce development, including education and training? What is the Department’s view on the role of community colleges in workforce development, including education and training? 

Answer 3. Community colleges are central to the workforce system and to 

strengthening the economy because they provide skilled workers who are necessary 

to meet our Nation’s economic and social challenges. There are nearly 12 million 

students enrolled in community colleges across the country. These students are 

choosing among for-credit and noncredit classes, developmental courses, career-prep 

courses, adult education, core career and technical education, general education 

courses, and apprenticeships, in obtaining the instruction and skills they need to 

further their education and achieve their career goals. Community colleges lead the 

way in preparing graduates in fast-growing fields such as healthcare. The flexible 

nature of community colleges allows them to work with employers and the private 

sector to address regional workforce shortages and create tailored training, partnerships, and apprenticeship programs for specific occupations. These institutions offer 

a low-cost and flexible way for students to achieve their educational and employment goals. 

The President’s community college initiative, the American Graduation Initiative 

(AGI), was announced in July and is included, in large part, in H.R. 3221, the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009, as passed by the House. H.R. 3221 

would require that the AGI be jointly administered by the Department and DOL 

and is geared specifically toward strengthening the community college system so 

that it can provide education and training critical to advancing America’s workforce. 

We see this effort as aligning with WIA and will work to integrate the two authorities on enactment. 

Designed to help meet the President’s goal of an additional 5 million community 

college graduates by 2020, AGI, as incorporated in House-passed H.R. 3221, would 

provide competitive grants to fund innovative programs and programs of proven effectiveness that improve post-secondary completion rates and train workers for 

skilled occupations. The two Departments would give priority to applications focused 

on serving low-income adults and nontraditional students. Funds could be used to 

enhance linkages with various local, State, and Federal programs, including those 

funded under WIA, and to focus on integrated education and training programs and 

sector-specific strategies in high-growth and high-need areas. The targeted population and activities in the AGI grant programs would be in alignment with the Administration’s principles for WIA reauthorization. If the AGI is enacted, the Department and DOL will seek to ensure that the grants are implemented in a manner 

that enables students to achieve maximum educational and employment gains. 

95 

Question 4. How can adult education services under title II be better aligned with 

title I programs to help low-skilled adults persist on a career pathway toward a family-sustaining career? 

Answer 4. In addition to the principles discussed above in response to question 

2, we are discussing with DOL several key strategies for improving the alignment 

and integration of services provided to low-skilled individuals under Title I and Title 

II of WIA, including: (1) creating incentives to dually enroll clients in education and 

training programs that include shared accountability and reporting on employment 

and education outcomes; (2) encouraging models of service delivery that integrate 

education and training, specifically by targeting resources so as to connect adult 

education to post-secondary career pathways in industry-specific, high-growth areasand in areas where replacements of large portions of the sector’s workforce are 

needed; and (3) expanding the availability of basic skills services to One-Stop clients 

through title II providers. This integration and alignment could extend to the title 

I youth program for both in-school and out-of-school youth and include the provision 

of more comprehensive services to out-of-school youth enrolled in title II through 

partnerships with the title I youth program. 

During reauthorization, we also want to look at ways to improve the alignment 

of education and workforce services under title II, such as by requiring States to 

implement content standards that are aligned with college-and-career-readiness 

competencies and to provide for the development of assessments to measure student 

achievement against these standards. We will also look at ways to use innovative 

literacy programs, through work-focused education, as a mechanism to assist the 

neediest families in moving to economic self-sufficiency. 

Question 5. What recommendations do you have for strengthening public and private partnerships to support the goals of WIA? 

Answer 5. Effective public-private partnerships are essential to maximizing workforce development, job placement, and educational achievement. The cornerstone of 

these partnerships is alignment and integration of standards and expectations of 

the private sector with training and educational delivery systems through ED and 

DOL. 

The best-performing public-private partnerships result in identified sector-specific 

curricula, standards, and assessments that are well-informed by industry expectations for workforce performance. To this end, the Department, in collaboration with 

DOL, is leading an effort to define career pathways in 16 general industry sectors, 

including healthcare, construction technology, information technology, and manufacturing. These pathways define the learning expectations of the industry partners. 

The learning expectations can be captured in ‘‘stackable’’ industry-recognized credentials that reflect increasing levels of skills. These credentials are valuable for 

employers looking to hire workers with a set level of expertise and for workers looking to improve their earning potential. 

Additionally, the creation of broad State and local partnerships that include not 

only business and industry partners, but also local governments, education institutions, agencies, and organizations, corporations, foundations, and workforce investment boards and mandatory One-Stop partners under WIA, may help ensure that 

workers, learners, and businesses benefit. Clear expectations and accountability for 

partnerships will strengthen coordination among these agents, particularly between 

the private and public sectors. 

State and local Workforce Investment Boards (WIBs) are important to fostering 

the types of partnerships necessary to maximize workforce development, job placement, and educational achievement. Therefore, WIBs must be strategic, effective, 

and representative; State and regional communication and coordination systems will 

ensure that workforce training is aligned with State and regional employer needs. 

Federal partnerships are also critical to the success of these efforts. To increase 

students’ job placement and career advancement success, ED can expand and deepen career pathway efforts by improving coordination with DOL to encourage State 

and local partnerships throughout entities such as educational institutions and 

training programs. 

In order to facilitate the employment of individuals with disabilities who are eligible for Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) services, the Department has supported a 

number of activities to increase business and industry’s awareness of the services 

provided through the VR State Grants. We’ve supported and participated in conferences and job fairs offered by business organizations, conducted forums in four 

high-growth industries—financial services, hospitality/retail, technology, and health 

care—and published the employer resource Disability 101. Also, the Council for 

State Administrators of VR has begun work on the ‘‘Net,’’ an online tool to connect 

VR agency job developers and employers nationally. 

96 

In reauthorizing the Rehabilitation Act, we want to look at ways to further 

strengthen collaboration between VR agencies and employers at the national and 

State levels. 

Question 6. How can the Department help to improve the accessibility, both physically and programmatically, of One-Stop Centers and training programs? What 

changes should Congress make to the law to ensure accessibility? 

Answer 6. One-Stop accessibility is required under Section 188 of WIA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; however, there are anecdotal reports that problems still exist with accessibility of physical structures, technology, and service delivery. We will work with DOL to identify if there are approaches that can better 

ensure access by individuals with disabilities—both physically (i.e., facilities are 

readily accessible and useable) and programmatically (i.e., the full array of WIA 

services is available). 

Question 7. What administrative and policy changes would you recommend for 

creating a more coherent, seamless workforce system that encompasses the provisions under Title I, II, III, IV, and V of WIA and serves both job seekers and workers, and employers? 

Answer 7. Improving the alignment and integration of adult education and employment and training services in order to meet the needs of clients is one of the 

Department’s overarching priorities for WIA reauthorization. Several strategies we 

are considering were discussed above in response to questions 2 and 4. Additionally, 

reauthorization will allow us to examine ways to further strengthen the accountability provisions, such as establishing local and regional performance targets; connecting funding to performance; and expanding the use of longitudinal data systems 

to track education and employment outcomes. 

Further, we want to look at ways to establish core standards for adult education 

instructors and faculty and strengthen the teacher-quality and professional-development provisions in State plans; increase the use of technology for classroom instruction and distance learning; and employ innovative ‘‘platforms’’ and evidence-based 

learning strategies to enhance the provision of services. 

Several ways to improve coordination of programs under title I with the VR program under the Rehabilitation Act include: 

(1) Using a common intake or application process to ascertain basic information 

about the individual (though eligibility for specialized VR services would continue 

to be made by a qualified VR counselor who meets the personnel standards). 

(2) Co-location of programs funded through WIA within One-Stop Centers. Anecdotal evidence, gained in monitoring, suggests that in States where VR program 

staff are co-located in the One-Stop with title I staff, (e.g., in Georgia, Minnesota, 

Wyoming, and Washington), information sharing and referral can be facilitated. 

(3) Training of One-Stop Center staff to work with individuals with disabilities, 

including developing a better understanding of the eligibility requirements of relevant programs, would make the staff more aware of how to better meet the needs 

of those individuals and would increase the likelihood that direct services would be 

provided and appropriate referrals would be made to the VR program and other programs. 

(4) Ensuring that One-Stops are fully accessible and available to individuals with 

disabilities, in order to promote coordination among partner programs as well. 

Question 8. How can the Department support an increased awareness for all potential customers of programs and services available under WIA? 

Answer 8. Federal agencies, including ED and DOL, should continue to work together to ensure that clients are informed of and receiving services for which they 

are eligible. Co-location of services within a One-Stop, enrollment through a common intake process, and the option for co-enrollment in multiple programs by individuals who come to a One-Stop could be powerful tools in meeting the needs of 

those who are already being served, but who have not sufficiently realized the potential of the broader workforce system. For example, co-location of the VR agency 

staff within the One-Stop Center, where feasible, could assist in exposing disabled 

persons to all the available partner program services, including VR services. 

Public-awareness efforts aimed at promoting the services offered by the workforce, 

adult education, and community college systems need to be targeted to the various 

customers they serve. Strategies to re-engage youth and adults in educational and 

career pathways should make use of technological innovations, including social networking and use of web portals, to disseminate information more widely. Our efforts 

should include: (1) working with high schools to build awareness of services available to youth; (2) expanding services to incumbent workers within targeted busiVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:16 Jul 26, 2011 Jkt 035165 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\51264.TXT DENISE
97 

nesses, especially small- to mid-size companies that have the need to upgrade the 

skills of their workers; (3) using community-based and non-profit organizations to 

reach new immigrants, including those with professional skills; (4) expanding use 

of technology to reach different client populations, including youth who have 

dropped out of school, as well as linking to VR with DOL’s Web sites and online 

information-sharing to offer as much information as possible to VR consumers and 

employers; and (5) highlighting referral directories and toll-free hotlines that States 

would support by keeping current information about publicly-funded local providers; 

and (6) providing guidance to States on how to inform students receiving IDEA services of the available One-Stop services as part of a required transition plan. 

Question 9. How will the Department institute a partnership with the Department 

of Labor on WIA and other workforce development education and training initiatives? 

Answer 9. The reauthorization of WIA affords a great opportunity for the two Departments to work hand-in-hand to assist in the provision of world-class education 

and career development opportunities, and successful job placement, to the full spectrum of Americans—from those who need basic literacy training to highly-skilled 

displaced workers who need to change careers. We have begun to have conversations with DOL about how to better align our programs and leverage our resources 

so as to ensure the best possible outcomes for our clients. The recent work between 

DOL and ED to help those who are unemployed enroll in and pay for post-secondary 

education, and the work we’re committing to do together under the President’s 

American Graduation Initiative, demonstrates both the desire and ability of our 

agencies to work together in the best interest of clients. 

QUESTIONS OF SENATOR ENZI

Question 1. How will you work together (with the Department of Labor) to make 

sure youth served in the WIA programs are connected or reconnected to the larger 

education system? And, conversely how does the Department of Education plan to 

coordinate with WIA programs under the Department of Labor? 

Answer 1. The Department has a strong commitment to collaborating with DOL 

to help better connect or re-connect students with the larger educational and employment systems. The workforce system should target both in-school and out-ofschool at-risk youth, including those with disabilities. These groups include: (1) 

young people in high school who are ‘‘off-track’’ and at risk of dropping out—especially those with poor literacy skills and mental-health/substance-abuse problems; 

(2) those who have already dropped out; and (3) high school graduates with poor 

skills who are not enrolled in post-secondary education and failing to obtain regular 

jobs. These categories are fluid as individuals move in and out of school and college 

and as they may enter or re-enter one or more of these categories. ED also recognizes that employment can be a vital component of any high-engagement educational strategy for at-risk youth. Reauthorization provides an opportunity to 

strengthen the connection between DOL’s programs and academic skills development. For example, employment opportunities funded under WIA Youth could 

strengthen linkages to an academic component to help ensure that students are attaining college- and work-ready skills while participating in meaningful employment. 

The agencies could also better align performance measures and eligibility criteria 

so as to reduce barriers to participation in WIA programs for at-risk youth, by instituting performance measures that recognize gains over time and avoid the selection 

of participants on the basis of performance rather than need. Sharing and matching 

data related to performance measures across programs and departments will enhance the agencies’ ability to measure the success of educational and employment 

strategies. Youth eligibility could be established once, rather than for each separate 

program. Certain programs could consider automatic eligibility for at-risk groups 

such as juvenile offenders, homeless individuals, dropouts, and foster youth. Particular attention could be paid to youth who live in areas of concentrated poverty, 

both rural and urban. 

The VR program reconnects individuals whose disabilities pose a substantial impediment to employment to the larger education and training system by providing 

educational services to those individuals as part of their Individualized Plan for Employment (IPE). It is a frequent user of existing training programs in carrying out 

an individual’s IPE. For example, 22 percent of individuals of transition age (14– 

24 at application) whose service records were closed in fiscal year 2008 after receiving services from the VR State program were assisted in the provision of college or 

university training; 14 percent received occupational or vocational training; 14 percent received other miscellaneous training; and about 3 percent received basic acaVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:16 Jul 26, 2011 Jkt 035165 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\51264.TXT DENISE
98 

demic remedial skills or literacy instruction independent of the training period 

under the above categories. 

State VR agencies also help facilitate the transition of youth with disabilities from 

high school to post-secondary education and employment through the provision of 

transition services both under VR and IDEA. In addition, they also provide consultative and technical assistance services to assist educational agencies in planning for 

the transition of students with disabilities from school to post-school activities, including employment. When VR staff visit a school to consult, they provide information about VR services, employment trends, and career options with school staff, 

students with disabilities, and their families. These consultations would be a good 

time to provide information about services available through the One-Stops. 

The Rehabilitation Act also requires State VR agencies to have an interagency 

agreement in place with each public institution of higher education (IHE) in the 

State, including community colleges. These agreements detail the financial responsibilities of the IHEs and the State VR agency in the provision of educational support for individuals with disabilities who are VR participants. These agreements 

help to ensure that services to VR participants are coordinated and that the needs 

of those individuals are fully addressed as the student matriculates. The Office of 

Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, the Office of Post-Secondary Education, and the Office of Vocational and Adult Education (OVAE) are working to develop model agreements and to ensure that States and IHEs meet their obligations. 

Where practical, greater alignment between the programs that serve young people 

with disabilities under IDEA, the Higher Education Act (HEA), WIA, and the Rehabilitation Act is useful and would streamline practices and eliminate barriers to participation. 

Question 2. How can we better coordinate the One-Stop system and the job training provisions of title I with the other WIA titles, Adult Basic Education and the 

Vocational Rehabilitation? 

Answer 2. Multiple points of entry into the One-Stop system (both locally and 

through technology) should be available to ensure that clients can find, gain physical and programmatic access to, and, if eligible, obtain services in the manner that 

best meets their needs. For example, all workforce programs (including those for 

dislocated and laid off workers) should be available, coordinated, and accessible 

within State and local One-Stop Centers and in partnership with community colleges and community-based organizations, in order to provide each individual quick 

and effective triage, assessment of skills, and the best plan of services given the customer’s interests and skills. In addition to the principles discussed in response to 

Senator Murray’s second question, we’re looking at the specific strategies mentioned 

in the answers to most of these questions. 

Co-location can be an effective strategy to facilitate greater integration of adult 

education and employment-related services, but the current financial burden on 

One-Stop partners often acts as a barrier to such integration. Adult education providers spend very little of their local budgets on administrative staff (10 percent) 

or on rent (3 percent). These providers, working with limited resources, work diligently to secure in-kind support for physical facilities so that more monies are available to provide instruction for clients. The decision to co-locate in a One-Stop often 

means deciding to sacrifice instructional time for clients, since One-Stops often require partners to pay for space. 

Question 3. What are the roles of the One-Stop Centers in providing job training 

and continuing education opportunities for people with disabilities, particularly 

youth with disabilities transitioning from high-school to post-secondary programs? 

What are the One-Stops doing to address accessibility issues and specifically for the 

One-Stops how are they implementing the 188 Disability Checklist? 

One-Stops should provide people with disabilities physical and programmatic access to—and, if eligible, the ability to obtain—the same programs and services that 

are as available to anyone else. The VR State Grants program is available to provide additional specialized services that are not provided by the other One-Stop 

partners, but are necessary for individuals whose disabilities pose a substantial impediment to employment to successfully prepare for and gain employment. 

Implementing a revised WIA Section 188 Disability Checklist and ensuring effective enforcement of the underlying regulatory requirements would help individuals 

with disabilities (including those transitioning from school to work) participate fully 

in all One-Stop programs, by helping ensure consistency of treatment from place to 

place. We are told that youth with disabilities who access One-Stop services often 

do so through VR, likely because VR is required to be involved when transition from 

secondary school is discussed with students with disabilities receiving IDEA servVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:16 Jul 26, 2011 Jkt 035165 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\51264.TXT DENISE
99 

ices. Transition services for all students might be improved by requiring other agencies, including the One-Stop partners, to be involved with transition planning for 

youth with disabilities at the secondary school level. 

Minnesota is one example of a One-Stop system with youth programs designed for 

individuals with disabilities. RSA and IDEA monitoring staff observed in a site visit 

that the State’s One-Stop system offered individuals with disabilities career guidance, individualized assistance in assessing skills and abilities, and first-hand support in how to conduct a job search. 

Question 4. What types of incentives are needed so that more Adult Basic Education and Perkins Career and Technical students successfully transition to postsecondary education, occupational and technical training (including through the 

One-Stop delivery system), and the workforce? 

Answer 4. Shared accountability systems that reward education and employment 

outcomes for clients who are dually enrolled in title I and other WIA programs, and 

establishing common measures across systems that include long-term goals for lowskilled adults, regardless of their point of entry, could be created. Enhancing support services provided to adult basic education participants, such as academic and 

career counseling and mentoring, would help provide adults with the knowledge, 

skills, and support needed to successfully transition to post-secondary education. 

Providing services outside the traditional 8 to 4 workday would also assist adult 

basic education students. 

Creating the opportunity for students to earn college credit while in high school 

is an incentive for transition to post-secondary education for students enrolled in career and technical education programs. Integral to transition is the availability of 

academic and career counseling to students and expanding the availability of career 

pathways between secondary and post-secondary education. Reauthorization could 

also encourage the development of new models of service delivery that integrate 

education and training, specifically by targeting resources to bridge adult education 

to post-secondary career pathways in industry-specific, high-growth and high-need 

areas. Creating a ‘‘pipeline’’ for low-skilled adults into established post-secondary career pathway programs will provide an incentive to align adult education and postsecondary education requirements and prepare adults to be college-and careerready. 

Reauthorization of title II should address improving the alignment of education 

and workforce services to achieve a contextual approach to work-based learning. Requiring States to implement content standards that are aligned with college- and 

appropriate career- readiness competencies and the development of assessments to 

appropriately measure how clients meet these standards will encourage this alignment. The current effort to establish core standards for workforce- and college-readiness can also be extended to the adult population and serve as the framework for 

contextualized work-relevant curriculum and instruction. 

Question 5. What new programs or strategies will be initiated to provide individuals, seeking jobs, training, or retraining, with the necessary background and skills 

for lifelong learning? 

Answer 5. Although the Administration has not yet reached decisions on what, 

if any, new programs to recommend as part of the reauthorization of WIA Titles II 

and IV, we are exploring certain issues. The ability to re-engage out-of-school youth 

and adults in educational programs leading to college- and career-readiness is critical to meeting the President’s goal of having the highest proportion of college graduates by 2020. 

In addition to working on the WIA reauthorization, we are eagerly awaiting the 

enactment of the American Graduation Initiative. We believe the AGI, if enacted, 

would provide us with mechanisms for identifying new and replicating currently 

successful strategies for helping youth and adults, at various points in their education and careers, succeed and advance. Under the AGI, as set out in the Housepassed bill, the Department and DOL would make competitive grants to increase 

program and college completion in community colleges, with an emphasis on preparing students for employment in high-demand industries and closing the enrollment and achievement gaps for underrepresented students. The AGI would also encourage States to enact reforms that make community colleges more responsive to 

student and workforce needs and to ensure that they measure and make public, 

education and employment outcomes. In addition, ED would expect to see a number 

of innovative practices created under the AGI, including an increased number of institutions that use contextualized and integrated programs that combine education, 

training, and ‘‘wrap-around’’ support services tied to occupational or career pathways in critical, growing, and emerging industries. We would also expect to see the 

100 

creation of more dual-enrollment options in order to help older youth and adults 

transition successfully into the workforce, post-secondary education and training 

systems. WIA could further bolster these efforts and provide incentives for States 

to establish career pathway models connected to post-secondary education. 

Another component of the AGI that we believe would help individuals at different 

points in their educational and employment histories is Open Online Education, the 

Online Skills Training Laboratory, which would make high-quality higher education 

and training widely and openly available. Online courses provide flexibility, which 

is important to students and workers who may juggle multiple commitments, including family and work, or those who live in rural areas without convenient access to 

traditional systems of higher or adult education. Software can tailor instruction to 

student learning styles and paces and generate immediate feedback on student 

learning outcomes and course effectiveness. We believe that this initiative would be 

instrumental in helping students gain the knowledge, skills, and credentials they 

need to advance their education and careers. 

Question 6. What are the roles of community colleges in providing job training and 

continuing education opportunities for people with disabilities, particularly youth 

with disabilities transitioning from high school to post-secondary programs? 

Answer 6. State VR agencies frequently refer (and pay for) VR participants to attend community colleges for job training and continuing education to help to prepare 

them to achieve their particular employment goal. (See response to Enzi Question 

1.) In addition, the State VR agency is required under the Rehabilitation Act to 

have an interagency agreement in place with each public IHE, including community 

colleges, located in the State. These agreements detail the financial responsibilities 

of the IHE and the State VR agency for providing services to VR participants, and 

help to ensure that services are coordinated and that the needs of these individuals 

are fully addressed as the student matriculates. 

Community colleges are also sources of basic education, either provided as a freestanding service or as a support, for individuals who are pursuing academic or vocational programs at the college level, and, so, are major resources for individuals with 

disabilities who need remediation or academic accommodation to complete formal 

training programs. As discussed earlier, the AGI would be focused specifically on 

strengthening the community college system to improve education and training, and 

we see this effort as aligning with WIA and will work to integrate these two programs. 

Question 7. How will the Department of Education partner with the Department 

of Labor to address the educational needs of disadvantaged, disconnected youth who 

may be in or out of school? 

Answer 7. The WIA Title II program serves almost 1 million youth who have 

dropped out of school each year. We will work with DOL to expand educational services to more out-of school youth and the current partnership with the title I youth 

program, such as our partnership with DOL’s Youth Vision, to offer more comprehensive services and employment support than it is currently able to provide. 

Additionally, ED is committed to working with DOL on the specific strategies discussed earlier. 

With regard to youth with disabilities, ED and DOL will work together to ensure 

that policies are consistent across programs. One-Stops and employment programs 

that serve individuals with a developmental or mental health disability could become more actively involved in IDEA transition planning, including the development 

of IEPs, for students who are also eligible for services under programs administered 

by DOL and HHS. 

Question 8. From the perspective of the Department of Education what can be 

done, internally, to link K–12 school systems with the workforce system? Externally, 

how can school systems be incentivized to partner with the One-Stop system so that 

more students know about these important resources? 

Answer 8. The Department is committed to improving coordination between the 

K–12 school system and the higher education and workforce systems in order to ensure that students are leaving school with the skills needed to succeed in college 

and the workplace. Within the Department, a key strategy, incorporated in our appropriations, the Recovery Act, and the AGI, is supporting the development of statewide longitudinal data systems that will provide data that can be used to evaluate 

how well students are prepared for higher education, lifelong learning, and the 

workforce. These systems will bring educators closer to being able to evaluate which 

programs and pathways effectively prepare students for employment and provide 

feedback that enables educators to improve teaching and learning. 

101 

The Department requested and received fiscal year 2009 appropriation language 

that allows us to provide funds under the Statewide Data Systems grant program 

for data systems that include post-secondary and workforce information; and, under 

the Recovery Act, the Department received $250 million to help States build systems that can include post-secondary and workforce information. The competition 

for Recovery Act money is under way. 

QUESTIONS OF SENATOR COBURN

Question 1. In both written and verbal testimony, you expressed a desire to work 

cooperatively with other agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services in addition to the Departments of Labor and Education in attempting to improve job-training programs. Beyond these three agencies, what other agencies conduct job-training or job-training related programs that should be included in multiagency collaborative efforts? 

Answer 1. In addition to these agencies, the Department has engaged in conversations with the Departments of Justice (DOJ) and Homeland Security (DHS) to support both the continuation and the initiation of multi-agency collaborations. DHS’s 

Office of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ Office of Citizenship (USCIS) 

continues, for the third year, to provide funds to the Office of Vocational and Adult 

Education (OVAE) through an interagency agreement. We are using the DHS funds 

to support the development and dissemination of teacher-training materials for the 

English Language and Civics program. OVAE collaborates with DOJ on issues related to incarcerated individuals and OVAE currently participates in the National 

Offender Workforce Development Partnership along with other agencies, including 

DOJ. Further, the Department, DOL, and the Department of Energy have entered 

into a memorandum of understanding to collaborate on linking our workforce to job, 

training, and education opportunities under the Recovery Act and annual appropriations. 

We will also consult on job training with the Social Security Administration (SSA) 

and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). SSA administers disability programs 

and the Ticket to Work program and the VA funds educational benefits programs 

and offers vocational rehabilitation programs through the Vocational Rehabilitation 

and Employment Service and through rehabilitation programs operated in conjunction with the VA hospital system. 

Question 2. During the President’s transition he promised to conduct ‘‘an immediate and periodic public inventory of administrative offices and functions and require agency leaders to work together to root out redundancy.’’ Please identify what 

redundancies you have discovered in existing job-training programs including any 

you have uncovered in your current collaborative efforts with other agencies. 

Answer 2. The Department is reviewing all currently funded programs to determine which ones should be continued and which should be eliminated in fiscal year 

2011. The Secretary has pledged to conduct a line-by-line review to identify programs that duplicate other Federal efforts, that have proven to be ineffective, or 

that are too narrow or small to have a national impact. We are completing that review and have incorporated the results into our fiscal year 2011 budget submission 

to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 

Question 3. As the unemployment rate continues to climb, making efficiency in 

job-training programs a critical necessity, which job-training or job-training related 

programs, do you think can be eliminated because they are ineffective, duplicative, 

unnecessary, or have outlived their purpose? 

Answer 3. The President’s fiscal year 2010 budget request includes the elimination of programs that have proven to be ineffective, unnecessary, or redundant, 

or that have outlived their purpose. The President’s fiscal year 2011 budget will reflect a thorough review of currently funded programs as well as the President’s goal 

of either fixing or eliminating programs that meet the criteria described above. In 

addition, the Department has begun to identify areas of weakness as well as areas 

of opportunity in anticipation of the reauthorization of WIA. 

Question 4. How do your agencies detect fraud in job-training or job-training related programs? 

Answer 4. Our program offices monitor the States with regard to their compliance 

with programmatic and fiscal requirements in the statutes, regulations, and OMB 

circulars. In the course of this monitoring, if fraud is suspected, the facts are summarized and provided to the Department’s Office of Inspector General. Offices also 

receive information from State audits conducted as part of the State single-audit requirement. 

102 

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS OF SENATOR MURRAY AND SENATOR ENZI

BY CLYDE MCQUEEN

QUESTIONS OF SENATOR MURRAY

Question 1. More often than not, people think of workforce development as separate from education programs and economic development efforts. I believe we have 

to think comprehensively about how these efforts are connected at the regional, 

State and Federal levels. In your experience, how can we encourage these connections in WIA reauthorization? 

Answer 1. We encourage connectivity between workforce, education, and economic 

development by insuring that there is legislative direction in each of the programs 

funded to coordinate programs, policies, and projects. Merely placing this in WIA 

reauthorization language does not necessarily encourage the other agencies (Education and Economic Development) to push for program integration. In lieu of this 

legislative compulsion for all three areas, these areas can provide incentives to cooperate through the Governor’s 15 percent funds, a local innovation account, the 

sole purpose of which would be to encourage program coordination or regulatory relief through reduced program regulation when these three programs interact around 

a common project. We have had excellent experience with economic development 

and education coordination and integration with these types of funding and regulatory exemptions. 

Question 2. What recommendations do you have for branding the system and increasing awareness among all job seekers, employers and our communities at-large? 

Answer 2. The system should have a national tag line that all Department of 

Labor (DOL) career centers and contractors are required to have displays on their 

career centers, stationary, and advertisements. We should have national ‘‘smart’’ 1- 

800 numbers that, when called, would automatically route the job seeker to the career center in their area. There should be a ‘‘National Workforce Week’’ where, 

every year, the focus is on developing talent for the future with events staged at 

the DOL-funded career centers and the development of partnerships with community colleges and 4-year institutions of higher learning. 

Question 3. What are the essential partnerships that you believe local boards 

must have in their communities to make their work comprehensive and maximize 

their effectiveness? 

Answer 3. Essential partnerships must include education at the high schools, community colleges, proprietary schools and 4-year institutions. Additionally, partnerships should be developed in the areas of economic development, organized labor, 

business associations, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) Programs, 

Growth Programs and/or high paying industries, such as healthcare, manufacturing, 

industry associations, etc. 

Question 4. What are the major barriers you have experienced to aligning WIA 

services and building these partnerships? How can policymakers encourage public 

and private partnerships and strategic sector or regional approaches for all local 

boards in reauthorization? 

Answer 4. The major barriers I have experienced in aligning these services is not 

as dramatic as it was earlier in my tenure with my organization. I have found that 

my tenure has extended my involvement with economic development, education and 

sector organizations and has enabled me to create the type of relationships necessary to execute these programs. When I did not have this interaction with these 

organizations, my job was more difficult. When I was newly appointed, with no tenure in the organization, it took a while for people in these systems to feel comfortable with me and my organization. A structural barrier was that, often, the 

metrics that governed WIA were not always compatible (as my partner agencies saw 

it) with their programmatic goals and objectives. Public and private partnerships 

can be encouraged through incentives such as local demonstration money; regulatory relief from regulations as an incentive to work with certain industry sectors 

or partnership areas, establishing national memorandums for coordination and integration at the national, regional, State, and local areas, where appropriate. There 

should be metrics assigned to such formal agreements and national regional report 

cards issued on their results. 

Question 5. In your opinion, what are the appropriate roles for the State and local 

boards in WIA? How should those roles be balanced in a way that promotes respect 

and collaboration? 

103 

Answer 5. The primary objective of State boards is to align State programs and 

policies that create a State level plan for workforce development and coordinate the 

execution of its plan. State boards create the policy and coordination framework that 

sets the operating parameters that are passed on the local workforce regions for execution. These broad goals, policy framework and funding establish the framework 

against which local and regional workforce programs are executed. The local boards 

are charged with developing local and regional strategies and tactics to execute the 

States’ plan depending on the unique socioeconomics of each region/locale. 

The State board should set metrics of its own regarding how to align, plan, and 

execute State level strategies and tactics. Results should be posted quarterly in the 

same fashion that the WIB posts its quarterly results. I think a point of conflict has 

been that the State WIB has seen its role as solely oversight of local programs with 

minimal attention to what it can do to create more comprehensive workforce development policy and tactics at the State level. 

Question 6. Why do you believe that work experiences for young people are so valuable? 

Answer 6. Work experiences are valuable in helping young people to develop a 

work ethic, determine and develop future career choices, teach financial literacy and 

develop employer relationships. The private sector alone does not have the capacity 

to generate the type of ‘‘try-out’’ employment opportunities necessary to develop the 

work and skill assets of ‘‘at-risk’’ youth. 

Question 7. How have you successfully engaged employers in hiring young people, 

particularly those that are most at-risk? And, have they found the experience valuable? 

Answer 7. Yes we have successfully engaged employers in hiring at-risk youth 

through a combination of publicly subsidized and private sector employment. Employers have found this to be successful because, in many instances, they have retained the youth in employment positions or provided excellent recommendations for 

them. 

QUESTIONS OF SENATOR ENZI

Question 1. What principles do you recommend for inclusion in a WIA reauthorization that would encourage communities to design One-Stop Career Centers that 

effectively serve workers of all ages and all abilities? 

Answer 1. Language should indicate that all Career Centers should be ADA accessible and accessible by public transit only if there is a transit system in the area. 

Each Career Center should have a designated youth area or designated external 

youth office where youth between the ages of 16–24 can be immediately engaged for 

program services. 

Question 2. What do you recommend to other States and communities interested 

in developing a similar program to Kansas City for youth? 

Answer 2. In developing programs similar to youth programs in Kansas City, it 

is important that there be recognition of youth talent as a key ingredient to economic development that permeates city and regional economic development policy. 

The development of young people must be viewed as a key economic development 

strategy to sustain and expand communities, as opposed to merely a ‘‘social enterprise.’’ 

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS OF SENATOR MURRAY AND SENATOR ENZI

BY MICHAEL L. THURMOND

QUESTIONS OF SENATOR MURRAY

Question 1. More often than not, people think of workforce development as separate from education programs and economic development efforts. I believe we have 

to think comprehensively about how these efforts are connected at the regional, 

State, and Federal levels. In your experience, how can we encourage these connections in WIA reauthorization? 

Answer 1. As stated during my testimony at the Senate’s Employment and Workplace Safety Subcommittee, I believe, the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998 

provided an unprecedented opportunity for State and local jurisdictions to develop 

a more coordinated and efficient system. To advance and expand upon the success 

of the WIA and to better link education and economic development to the system, 

the following suggestions are offered for your consideration: 

• We must clearly define this intent in WIA reauthorization legislation and reinforce this expectation in the way the systems allocate funds and measure outcomes; 

104 

• System partners at all levels must fully understand the role and relationship 

between education and workforce development on the Nation’s economic development capacity; • Develop common statutory language, goals and performance outcomes which 

complements, connects and coordinates the role and function of education, economic 

development and workforce development; • Provide incentives to States that align the desired connections through performance; • Allow flexibility for the broad use of customized training, incumbent worker 

training and on-the-job training; • Encourage the use of information systems with shared portals across programmatic areas to enhance communication between education, economic development, and workforce development. This would enhance sharing of customer information and outcomes, facilitate better marketing of initiatives, and promotion of employment incentives (e.g. tax and credits). • WIA Reauthorization should include language which describes a seamless transition of the systems E3 strategy (Economic Development, Education and Employment) with clearly defined roles and responsibilities. 

Question 2. Overall I think we need to do a better job of getting the word out 

about the services available under WIA and at local One-Stop Centers for workers, 

employers, educators and the community. What recommendations do you have for 

branding the system and increasing awareness among all job seekers, employers 

and our communities at large? 

Answer 2. Today’s economic crisis requires our Nation to re-think and retool our 

efforts in connecting economic development, education and employment through 

strategic alignment. National/State/Local awareness of effective federally funded 

programs will play a pivotal role in how we rebound from this crisis. 

Any marketing campaign should adopt global business language which describes 

the system’s purpose, goals and benefits to all stakeholders. A clear description of 

how the system is designed to create a skilled and qualified workforce to meet the 

existing and emerging workforce needs is essential. 

Branding would enhance the system’s universal identity. Wikipedia defines 

‘‘brand’’ as the following: 

A brand is a name or trademark connected with a product or producer. Brands 

have become increasingly important components of culture and the economy, now 

being described as ‘‘cultural accessories and personal philosophies’’. 

I emphasize the ‘‘increasingly important components of culture and the economy’’ 

within this definition and would recommend from a Federal level that the WIA umbrella system adopt a modern brand name with a business economic driven ‘‘credo’’ 

tag line. A suggestion would be to use the WIA acronym as a trademark such as 

‘‘Workforce In Action’’—Your System, Your Future. Employers tend to support and 

utilize a Federal program where they can financially articulate the services to their 

bottom line savings. The ‘‘Your System, Your Future’’ tag line addresses today and 

tomorrow’s workforce needs through Education and Economic Development of high 

demand jobs. 

Effective branding would require that system stakeholders clearly understand 

their role, responsibilities and investment in achieving the system’s bottom line— 

an emphasis on job creation and growth while building a skilled and trained workforce. 

Importantly, the branding process should be developed with a universal trademark that promotes ownership of the WIA system as a unified, inclusive workforce 

system within education, the business community, the job seeker and the community-at-large. 

Finally, the Georgia Department of Labor’s (GDOL) branding campaign history 

and success may be used as a model for the system. GDOL established a strong 

brand identity through the use of a logo (A Job for Every Georgian and a Georgian 

for Every Job), tagline (Building a World-class Workforce) and GDOL footprint and 

signage which is highly visible and known through the State. More importantly, 

GDOL is known for its effective and responsive service to all customers and for its 

emphasis in achieving results. 

Question 3a. Your statement describes how the State of Georgia used the enactment of WIA as a way to make significant changes to the planning and delivery of 

workforce services. State and regional partnerships among agencies and private and 

public organizations seem to be a critical contributor to State and regional innovations in policy and services. How do the multi-agency partners in Georgia work together to jointly plan, support, and evaluate services and how well does that process 

105 

work? How do the partners collaborate within the One-Stop delivery system? How 

do the partner agencies and organizations create linkages with economic development to support State and regional growth plans? 

Answer 3a. The State of Georgia used the enactment of WIA to make significant 

changes to the planning and delivery of workforce services by encouraging customer 

choice, increasing customer satisfaction and by integrating services and leveraging 

various funding streams. 

Question 3b. How do the multi-agency partners in Georgia work together to jointly 

plan, support, and evaluate services and how well does that process work? 

Answer 3b. In Georgia, partners work in a collaborative and effective manner 

through a variety of avenues to plan, support and evaluate services. This includes 

State level meetings involving partners from various agencies including education, 

economic development and workforce development. Other efforts include State board 

workforce meetings, monthly WIA Director’s meetings and regular One-Stop partner 

meetings at the local level to discuss: workforce strategies, referral systems, community resources, ways to leverage available funding, and opportunities to secure new 

funding. 

In Georgia, 32 of GDOL’s 53 career centers are designated One-Stops, while the 

remaining offices serve as satellite locations. This unique arrangement allows for 

enhanced planning, sharing of resources and coordination among State and local 

partners. 

Question 3c. How do the partners collaborate within the One-Stop delivery system? 

Answer 3c. In addition to the regular One-Stop partners meetings, local partners 

work closely together to develop Memorandums of Understanding (MOU’s) and Resource Sharing Agreements (RSA’s) that document a level of commitment to partner 

collaboration within the One-Stop delivery system. These agreements outline service 

strategies for co-located staff, referral procedures, shared resources, quality standards, performance data tracking and outcome requirements. 

Question 3d. How do the partner agencies and organizations create linkages with 

economic development to support State and regional growth plans? 

Answer 3d. Partner agencies and organizations create linkages with economic development to support the State/regional growth plans through the Board’s strategic 

planning efforts, coordination with local and State economic development partners, 

and by coordination with State and local governments. In Georgia, 16 local workforce areas are administered directly by local governments or regional development 

commissions which create an intrinsic partnership between workforce and economic 

development efforts and support for local and regional growth. 

During the initial implementation of WIA in Georgia, local workforce areas were 

given funding to develop regionally-based strategies related to economic and workforce development. Communities in Georgia continue to respond effectively to the 

message of partnership as a means of achieving goals. With the support of State 

leaders, local and regional partners come together on Workforce Investment Boards, 

task forces and regional planning boards to develop creative and attainable solutions to challenges such as educational attainment, teen pregnancy, provision of 

transportation and other employment barriers. 

QUESTIONS OF SENATOR ENZI

Question 1. A number of people with disabilities have claimed that around the 

country One-Stops are neither physically or programmatically accessible. What has 

Georgia done to improve the programmatic and physical accessibility of One-Stops 

for individuals with disabilities? Based on your experience, what would you recommend to other States to improve the programmatic and physical accessibility for 

individuals with disabilities? 

Answer 1. As a result of a legislative action, Vocational Rehabilitation became 

apart of the Georgia Department of Labor in July 2001. This move ended the segregation of services for people with disabilities and put in motion an opportunity for 

a fully integrated employment service system for all Georgians. Budgetary and cultural changes were first addressed. A culture of inclusion was communicated, adopted and enforced from the top and throughout the organization. Importantly, we focused on the ability people have as opposed to the physical, mental and/or emotional 

‘‘disability’’ of an individual. In doing so, we established a service delivery system 

which allowed all citizens to fully participate in the workforce services offered. 

The Georgia Department of Labor/Vocational Rehabilitation (GDOL/VR) staff 

members with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Assistive Technology (AT) 

106 

expertise provided training and technical assistance to GDOL Career Centers and 

One-Stops to enhance customer services and exceed ADA requirements. We feel 

other States could benefit from taking actions similar as to the items below that 

GDOL/VR implemented at Career Centers and One-Stops to improve the programmatic and physical accessibility for individuals with disabilities: 

• Install appropriate automatic doors and frequently test them to ensure they 

continue to be in good working condition. • Provide a front reception or help desk that is a lower height for better direct 

interaction with people who use a wheelchair. • Provide more accessible parking spaces. • Train all Career Center and One-Stop staff members to offer excellent customer 

service for all customers including those who have disabilities. • Provide special training on the AT on the accessible computer(s) and work stations to Career Center staff assigned to Resource Centers to enable them to assist 

customers better and ensure the training is updated as appropriate. • Install accessible work stations with customer-controlled adjustable heights that 

are designed to meet the needs of individuals with a variety of disabilities including 

visual impairments, extremity impairments, learning or reading impairments, dexterity impairments, etc. Examples of the work station accessibility features that 

GDOL implemented include: • JAWS—for users who are blind, • MaGIC—for users who have low vision, • WYNN—for users with a learning disability, • OpenBook—for users with vision loss, • Microsoft Accessibility Features—including features such as Sticky Keys 

and Filter Keys for users with dexterity issues, • 21′′ Monitors, • Brailed and Large Print Materials—Many of the print documents at the 

Career Centers have been converted into grade 2 Braille and 22 point large print. 

These are regularly updated and replaced. • Anti-glare Computer Monitor Filter, • Scanner to scan a document and read it aloud to user with vision loss, • CCTV for users with low vision to read printed documents, • Trackball or accessible mouse, • TTY, • Headsets for privacy in using AT software—with disposable covers 

for sanitization, • Ubi Duo at the Help Desk to facilitate communication with customers who 

are deaf, and • FM Listening Devices, Talking Calculators, Franklin Talking Dictionaries. 

We also suggest States incorporate an annual review process similar to Georgia’s 

to ensure and maintain programmatic and physical accessibility. Continuous training is necessary for staff to provide service and coordinate effectively with other internal and external partners. 

For the past year, GDOL advanced its inclusion strategy with an initiative called 

‘‘OASIS.’’ OASIS allows for the integration of customers into the Wagner-Peyser 

funded activities with an emphasis on the work first philosophy. 

Question 2. How is Georgia working with small businesses and other businesses 

that might not have been active participants in the workforce system in the past, 

to get them to use it and see it as a valuable source of qualified workers? 

Answer 2. Georgia Department of Labor (GDOL) Commissioner Michael L. Thurmond created Georgia Work$ (GW$), an innovative training initiative designed to 

stimulate job growth and hiring as the primary strategy for engaging small businesses and other businesses who have not been active participants in the past. Georgia Work$ (GW$), a proven Georgia Department of Labor initiative reduces 

employer costs associated with recruiting, training and hiring new employees. During the past 6 years, GW$ has helped Georgia employers train and/or hire 

over 3,000 qualified employees. Participating employers have reduced their hiring 

costs by more than 19.4 million dollars. 

All Georgia employers willing to provide job specific training to unemployment insurance (UI) claimants are eligible to participate. GW$ provides a number of competitive advantages, including: 

• Pre-screened qualified applicants 

• Up to 6 weeks of pre-employment training 

• Trainee stipends are fully covered by GDOL 

• Hiring of trainees at discretion of employers 

107 

• Workers’ compensation coverage provided by GDOL 

Benefits to the GDOL and State 

1. Protects solvency of UI Trust Fund 

2. Stimulates job growth 

3. Provides career center staff with a new tool to help job seekers and employers 

Other GDOL business engagement strategies include: 

• Marketing and education through the local WIB’s comprising 51 percent business membership; 

• Partnering with Chamber of Commerce and Business leaders on economic development; 

• Use of on-the job (OJT) as a method of job placement and support to small 

businesses; 

• Georgia Department of Labor hosts an annual workforce conference to engage 

large and small businesses to learn about all of the workforce development services; 

• The Rapid Response unit is used to address small business lay off’s and opportunities for job seeker transitioning services; 

• Georgia has retained employer committees, with a membership of over 1,600 

employers, as advisors to the career centers located throughout the State. Participating business members assist the department in reaching out to businesses in the 

community; and 

• Employer Marketing Representatives work with employers throughout their 

service area, often in conjunction with Vocational Rehabilitation Employment Specialists. This ensures that individuals served by Vocational Rehabilitation have the 

full range of employment opportunities available in the community. 

Question 3. It has been argued that the One-Stops and State Vocational Rehabilitation programs are built on different principles. These differences are highlighted 

in outcomes measures. Realizing that it can possibly cost more and take longer for 

some people with disabilities to reach their employment goals how should the WIA 

performance measures be adjusted to take this into account? 

Answer 3. The differences are based in Federal legislation and regulations. The 

VR program reporting measures are detailed in the Rehabilitation Act, Section 106, 

Standards and Indicators. Standard 1, Indicator 1.1 requires an equal to or greater 

number of successful closures from the prior year for compliance with the indicator. 

The requirements for determining a successful closure are found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 361.56, requirements for closing the record of services of an individual who has achieved an employment outcome. The major requirement that a VR client must be employed for a minimum of 90 days before a case 

record may be closed as successful is significantly different from the WIA requirements. WIA measures the job retention in the first, second and third quarters after 

a client entered employment. 

Since the VR and WIA measurements are prescribed by law, only changes in 

those laws could adjust them. Other VR requirements that do not correlate to a WIA 

outcome are these requirements of VR Performance Indicators: 

• 1.2—Ratio of successful employment outcomes to non-successful outcomes, 

• 1.3—Earnings equivalent to at least the minimum wage, 

• 1.4—Percentage of individuals served who with significant disabilities, 

• 1.5—Ratio of wage compared to State average, 

• 1.6—Percentage of individuals who report self supporting before and after VR 

services and successful employment, and 

• Standard 2—Ratio of minority compared to non-minority individuals receiving 

services from the VR program. 

A recommendation for WIA performance measures is to allow more flexibility to 

adjust performance measures, if necessary, to allow for full service inclusion. Specifically, reauthorization should encourage renegotiation of measures with more emphasis on serving all ‘‘hard-to-serve’’ populations. 

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS OF SENATOR MURRAY AND SENATOR ENZI

BY WILLIAM E. KIERNAN, PH.D. 

I am William E. Kiernan, Ph.D., Director of the Institute for Community Inclusion, a University Center for Excellence in Disabilities located jointly at the University of Massachusetts Boston and Children’s Hospital Boston. We are one of 67 such 

Centers that make up the nationwide network of University Centers for Excellence 

in Developmental Disabilities (UCEDD) that are national leaders in research, interdisciplinary training, technical assistance, and service and are supported by the AsVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:16 Jul 26, 2011 Jkt 035165 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\51264.TXT DENISE
108 

sociation of University Centers on Disabilities. UCEDDs are the national leaders in 

a constellation of activities designed to improve employment options and outcomes 

for people with developmental and other disabilities. Our Center has worked extensively in supporting the employment of persons with disabilities and has been involved with supporting the One Stop Career Centers and the public Vocational Rehabilitation agencies at the State level in expanding employment options for persons 

with disabilities. I am pleased and honored to have been asked to comment to the 

written questions for the record from Senators Murray and Enzi on the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act and correspondingly the Rehabilitation Act. 

I have organized my written responses around the 10 questions (four from Senator Murray and six from Senator Enzi) that were sent to me by Senator Murray 

on behalf of the Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety of the Senate 

HELP Committee. Additionally, I am submitting supporting appendices relating to 

these questions that will integrate the common areas that were emphasized in my 

oral and written testimony of July 16, 2009 and my written responses to these 10 

questions submitted on September 18, 2009. 

QUESTIONS OF SENATOR MURRAY

Question 1. What policy changes need to occur to make One-Stops fully accessible—both physically and programmatically—for individuals with disabilities? 

Answer 1. In responding to this initial question on accessibility, I would like to 

again remind the subcommittee of our feeling that there is a substantive difference 

between the One-Stop system and the One-Stop Career Centers and that, in order 

to realize the full intent of Congress that there be a universally designed and seamless gateway for all job seekers, one needs to look at both the individual elements 

of the system (the 17 partners including the One-Stop Career Centers) as well as 

how the collective partners perform with regard to access, utilization and impact for 

all job seekers, including job seekers having a disability. More details on the perspectives of the One-Stop system and the One-Stop Career Centers are included in 

my testimony submitted on July 16, 2009. 

That said, the following response reflects a focus primarily on the One-Stop Career Centers and ways in which there can be a clearer sense of how accessible and 

effective they are in serving customers with disabilities. It is also my feeling, and 

those of my colleagues who have assisted in framing these responses, that many of 

the issues that are raised in this and the other questions can be addressed though: 

(1) clearer interpretation of the current law, (2) more effective documentation of the 

nature of the population served and the outcomes of the service provided and (3) 

more accountability exercised by DOL in the functioning of the LWIBs at a local 

level and the SWIBS at the State level. 

The current legislation and regulations already are sufficient to address concerns 

about access to the One-Stop Career Centers by customers with disabilities. Again 

as noted in the original testimony we feel that there has been considerable progress 

made on both the physical and program access in the One-Stops though the actual 

data in these areas is limited and tends to be more anecdotal in nature. Given that, 

much of my response will address the need for data collection at the One-Stop levels 

and the requirements for reporting to DOL and the making of these results available to other interested parties. 

From a legislative and policy perspective, there is a need to get a better handle 

on how much of an issue accessibility really is (and creating an ability to measure 

progress in these areas moving forward), before promulgating new regulations and 

or offering new directives. What would help is better data regarding the use of the 

system by people with disabilities, and better use of the existing data. A few 

thoughts on this include: 

• changing the data collection requirements of all customers including the collection of information on the receipt of SSA benefits (SSI, SSDI and the combined SSI/ 

SSDI) by customers. These data will offer some measure of the presence of a disability for the customer and also offer data for administrative purposes to the OneStops regarding the number of customers who may have a Ticket to Work option 

available. In those instances SSA revenues would be available should the customer 

enter and remain in employment at the required level according to the Ticket regulations. Such an effort may change some of the role of the One-Stop Career Center, 

that is, moving from solely a high volume low touch service to a high or moderate 

touch and lower volume service. It may also impact the nature of the partners’ roles 

in the One-Stop system creating new ways in which the One-Stop Career Centers 

may interact with other partners (those other 16 that are mandated as well as those 

that are non-mandated including State Mental Health and Developmental DisabilVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:16 Jul 26, 2011 Jkt 035165 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\51264.TXT DENISE
109 

ities agencies as well as community rehabilitation provider agencies) and realize 

greater service and better outcomes for customers with disabilities. • implementing a new integrated data collection system (currently in process by 

DOL), WISPR, which essentially will serve as a One-Stop performance measurement 

system. It would seem opportune for there to be a directive from Congress that requires that WISPR include a mechanism for measurement of the system’s performance in terms of serving people with disabilities, as a direct sub-set of how performance is measured for the overall population (including percentage of people served, 

mix of services provided, outcomes realized, etc). The GAO has on several occasions 

called for better measures of performance, ones that reflect the demographics of 

both the labor market as well as the population of potential job seekers in the geographic area served by the One-Stop. The integration of this effort into the developing WISPR system and a clear start date (for full implementation or implementation on a pilot basis) would be a reasonable step in gathering data to answer the 

questions on accessibility, utilization and impact for persons with disabilities seeking services through the One-Stop system as well as the One-Stop Centers. • have Congress direct DOL to develop a scientifically valid sampling procedure 

for collecting data on the access, utilization and impact of the One-Stop system as 

well as the One-Stop Career Centers and to integrate these data collection efforts 

with those that exist for the public Vocational Rehabilitation system (RSA 911). 

Such an effort would give Congress and DOL a view of the impact of the One-Stop 

system on customers with disabilities seeking and obtaining employment through 

this system. Additionally, this information should be made available to customers 

as well as become part of the public reporting system of DOL on One-Stop and or 

WIA performance. 

In addition to the development of better and more effective data collection for purposes of offering services to customers in a more timely fashion, provision of materials for planning at the local level, documentation of service utilization and measurement of impact at the local, State and national levels, the development of reporting and monitoring by DOL and the use of these processes to enhance compliance, 

identify areas for increased capacity development efforts and areas for expansion of 

services and expertise based upon local needs would be most appropriate. 

To that end the following suggestions are put forth to the subcommittee: 

• adopt a streamlined checklist to be completed on at least a bi-annual basis or 

some scheduled basis (this is not specifically required in Section 188). The completion of such a check list will serve to raise the issue of access as well as report on 

actual services (the outcome of increased access should be reflected in an increase 

in the utilization of One-Stop services and supports by persons with disabilities) and 

give a baseline of data on utilization as well as outcomes. 

• Congress to direct DOL to prepare an annual report on the performance of the 

One-Stop system in terms of people with disabilities, using secondary analysis of existing data (WIA, Wagner-Peyser etc.) as well as some qualitative research/data. 

Other data sources such as RSA 911, ACS, SSA data, State DD and State MH data 

and other sources (see http://www.statedata.info/about/data—sources.php for list 

of relevant data sources in employment and disabilities) could be accessed to support the current WIA and Wagner-Peyser data. This, of course, is assuming the no 

common data elements are identified as noted in a prior recommendation. 

• given the wide variation reported in percentage of people with disabilities using 

the system from state-to-state (via the Wagner-Peyser data), Congress may want to 

consider requiring DOL to either penalize those States that are in the bottom quartile, or require those States to develop some type of corrective action plan addressing ways to increases access, utilization and outcomes for customers with disabilities. If this effort is to be effective, DOL will need to be able to offer training and 

technical assistance to such States in both the framing of a corrective action plan 

and its implementation. 

• Congress could consider enhancing enforcement by the DOL Civil Rights Center 

including an annual report to DOL (to be included as part of the above noted report 

to Congress) regarding its efforts to ensure non-discrimination against people with 

disabilities, including a summary of complains received and responses made. Such 

a report may include the required Section 188 Methods of Administration that are 

to be issued by each State’s governor with these elements made public along with 

the data reported on access and outcomes for customers with disabilities and an 

analysis of all stats done by the DOL Civil Rights Center on issues of compliance. 

In facilitating increased access there must be a change in the way that DOL interprets the allocation of resources for services to customers including customers with 

disabilities. The continuation of the use of funds being ‘siloed’ and not able to be 

blended across groups presents a considerable challenge to managers of the OneVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:16 Jul 26, 2011 Jkt 035165 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\51264.TXT DENISE
110 

Stop Career Centers and in many ways may serve to limit access to services by 

many customer population groups. In an effort to create more flexibility, DOL 

should, as was noted in my prior response to the subcommittee, move away from 

the sequential perspectives of the services offered, that is having customers move 

from core to intensive to training. The capacity to rapidly assess needs of individual 

customers and the ability to directly access the level of services needed will serve 

to streamline the overall structure for customers seeking service. The adoptions of 

flexibility in the allocation of funds by specific groups as well as the ability to go 

directly to one level of service rather than to move through the sequence of services 

(core, intensive and training) will offer increased capacity of the One-Stops to be 

more responsive to customers with disabilities and for that matter all customers. 

When discussing data and its utilization, it is important to separate out the data 

collection efforts that are directed as assuring that the most appropriate services are 

identified for a customer and those that are collected for documentation of effort as 

well as administrative and planning purposes. While some variables such as presence of a disability, sources of financial support and other service systems accessed 

will facilitate the accountability, planning and administration of the program, data 

on nature of the limitations, extent of the needs and barriers to employment may 

be more valuable in planning for and obtaining services and supports. These latter 

elements are useful in the establishment of a plan but will often not be relevant, 

effective or even legal to be shared with others including employers or useful, to any 

great extent, in planning and administration. 

There should be guidance from DOL on clarifying the distinction between disability information available and useful to the customer service part of workforce 

development services (intake, case management, support services etc.) which workforce staff should be encouraged to be ‘‘proactive’’ in seeking out for support reasons 

and the more privileged information that should be less accessible to employer marketing staff and certainly generally not accessible to employers themselves. By the 

universal access nature of WIA, data in no instance should be utilized to rule a customer out of the service streams but rather to get them more effectively and efficiently into the most appropriate service stream. 

Given the increasing concerns about the payment of sub-minimum wage and the 

significant presence of persons with intellectual and significant disabilities in sheltered employment settings, it may be possible for DOL to further options for persons 

with disabilities in sheltered workshops to be served by the One-Stop Career Center 

as well as other WIA partners under the dislocated worker provisions. Such an approach should be considered if, in fact, the funding sources of WIA remain separated 

and not able to be blended. Should DOL enforce the Dislocated Worker provisions 

as noted below, more individuals with disabilities who are marginally employed in 

sheltered employment settings could be eligible for supports and services under the 

dislocated worker provisions. The Dislocated Worker definition already has a capacity to serve workers with disabilities but those sections (underlined below) are not 

often used and DOL may want to consider reinforcing the sections of the existing 

definition as a way of offering additional options for individuals with disabilities. 

Dislocated worker.—The term ‘‘dislocated worker’’ means an individual who— 

(A)(i) has been terminated or laid off, or who has received a notice of termination 

or layoff, from employment: (ii)(I) is eligible for or has exhausted entitlement to unemployment compensation; or (II) has been employed for a duration sufficient to 

demonstrate, to an appropriate entity at a One-Stop Center referred to in section 

134(c), attachment to the workforce, but is not eligible for unemployment compensation due to insufficient earnings or having performed services for an employer that 

were not covered under a State unemployment compensation law; and (iii) is unlikely 

to return to or benefit from returning to a previous industry or occupation; (B)(i) has 

been terminated or laid off, or has received a notice of termination or layoff, from 

employment as a result of any permanent closure of, or any substantial layoff at, 

a plant, facility, or enterprise; (ii) is employed at a facility at which the employer 

has made a general announcement that such facility will close within 180 days; or 

(iii) for purposes of eligibility to receive services other than training services described in section 134 (d)(4), intensive services described in section 134 (d)(3), or 

supportive services, is employed at a facility at which the employer has made an 

general announcement that such facility will close; (C) was self-employed (including 

employment as a farmer, a rancher, or a fisherman) but is unemployed as a result 

of general economic conditions in the community in which the individual resides or 

because of natural disasters; or (D) is a displaced homemaker. (10) Displaced homemaker.—The term ‘‘displaced homemaker’’ means an individual who has been providing unpaid services to family members in the home and who—(A) has been dependent on the income of another family member but is no longer supported by that 

111 

income; and (B) is unemployed or underemployed and is experiencing difficulty in 

obtaining or upgrading employment. 

Question 2. We have heard that an important consideration is staff development— 

ensuring that job seekers and workers with disabilities are treated with respect, 

provided information to explore career opportunities, and access to appropriate services when they enter a One-Stop facility. How should WIA support such professional 

development through legislation? 

Answer 2. There is a growing recognition of the need for a highly trained workforce that is knowledgeable about employment and training as well as job support 

strategies. There are some competencies that have been identified by workforce 

training and disability training entities that address skill areas in job development, 

marketing, job placement and other employment supports for customers seeking assistance in obtaining and maintaining employment. Trainings are typically offered 

in person, on site or through the use of a distance education platform and often are 

done on an ‘‘ad hoc’’ basis. The requirements of skill level and competency mastery 

are seldom part of the requirement for those working in the employment and training system. For personnel employed in the public Vocational Rehabilitation system 

there is a requirement that all staff are master’s prepared and that there is a national certification that carries with it an obligation for in-service training over a 

5 year period in order to maintain this national certification. Much of the training 

offered relates more to counseling and individual service and less to job development 

and placement skill levels. 

There is some precedence regarding the need for training of staff in the One-Stops 

as stated through the Section 188 regulations. Currently the regulations require 

that the Governor’s Methods of Administration ‘‘include a system of policy communication and training to ensure that personnel are aware of and can effectively carry 

out these responsibilities.’’ It may be worthwhile for Congress to stipulate that these 

requirements be more prescriptive, including specific competencies and knowledge 

areas related to people with disabilities. 

At the local level some LWIBs require programs that want to be considered OneStops and eligible for WIA supports must have a defined percentage of staff completing their training in the employment and training fields. This effort is entirely 

local and has not yet been adopted on a statewide or national level. Training at the 

in-service level could easily incorporate strategies to support customers with disabilities. Some training areas might include basic knowledge in non-discrimination policies and practices, reasonable accommodation, general disability etiquette, job training and supports for all job seekers and universal design strategies to support all 

job seekers. 

It would be appropriate for DOL to consider designing and or adapting training 

materials that could be made available for LWIBs and One-Stops to increase the 

capability of the Centers and the staff in the system to better understand issues of 

disability, supports for customers with disabilities and knowledge about accommodation and non-discrimination in the workplace. While it may not be the prerogative 

of the DOL to prescribe a specific training curricula, the recognition of the mastery 

of identified competencies in employment and training, the documenting of such 

mastery and the use of in-service training (face to face, on-line and self instructional) could go a long way in increasing the capacity of personnel in the One-Stop 

system and the One-Stop Centers to support customers with disabilities. 

Question 3. How should the legislation address what some argue are disincentives 

to serve individuals with disabilities under WIA? 

Answer 3. Reflecting legislative and Congressional intent, there is no disincentive 

for One-Stops to serve people with disabilities, as it is a universally accessible system in terms of core services. The issue may be the misunderstanding by front line 

staff and local officials in terms of what is and is not subject to performance requirements. By strengthening the language in WIA regarding the universal access requirements to labor exchange services some of the perceived disincentives could be 

dealt with. 

The basic issue with services funded by WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker funds 

(which is only a sub-set of services provided via the One-Stop system as discussed 

in my original testimony) is indeed the high performance requirements and sanctions that result. The data analysis completed by the ICI indicates that individuals 

with disabilities do lag the general population in terms of their performance under 

WIA, and over time we have seen a drop off in participation rates (please see prior 

testimony submitted on July 16, 2009 at the WIA hearing on this issue). GAO has 

recommended systematic adjustment of expected performance levels to account for 

different populations and local economic conditions when negotiating performance. 

112 

Given this GAO response, Congress may at least urge some demonstration projects 

that deal with ways to address the apparent disincentives in the current DOL performance measures that create a disincentive for One-Stop Centers to serve customers who may be more difficult to serve or may not reach the exit criteria of employment. 

Additionally, what is probably more important is for DOL and States to stress 

that the performance standards are (1) meant as the responsibility of the staff and 

not to be transferred to the customer and (2) that the standards apply to the system 

and not to all individual programs in the system but rather to the aggregate of the 

programs in a State. In some instances the standards are viewed as the requirement 

or goal for each individual program and thus create a disincentive for programs 

serving customers with disabilities who may take longer to serve and not realize full 

time employment at the end of the effort. Considering the performance standards 

as an aggregate measure and not applied rigidly to each individual program may 

be one strategy that WIA and the State SWIBs can employ to support those programs that are interested in serving a greater portion of more hard to serve customers. 

We would also suggest that the subcommittee may want to consider some language that reinforces that specific criteria must be used to determine eligibility that 

are not arbitrary in nature, and that concerns over meeting performance criteria by 

an individual or group of customers cannot be used as a reason to deny eligibility. 

To that end we would offer the following suggestions. Under the language specifying 

criteria for intensive and training services we would suggest that the following may 

be added: 

Clear, consistent, objective criteria that are in full compliance with all aspects 

of the Workforce Investment Act (including Sec. 188. Nondiscrimation.) and approved and fully documented by the State and local workforce investment area 

are to be used in determining eligibility for intensive/training services. Subjective criteria are to be avoided, including assumptions regarding an applicant’s 

ability to meet performance measurement requirements, which may not be used 

as criteria for denial of services. 

Additionally, we offer the following suggestions in language changes under Chapter 6—General Provisions, to address performance issues and concerns: 

SEC. 136. PERFORMANCE ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM 

(e) Evaluation of State Programs.— 

(1) In general.—Using funds made available under this subtitle, the State, in coordination with local boards in the State, shall conduct ongoing evaluation studies 

of workforce investment activities carried out in the State under this subtitle in 

order to promote, establish, implement, and utilize methods for continuously improving the activities in order to achieve high-level performance within, and highlevel outcomes from, the statewide workforce investment system. To the maximum 

extent practicable, the State shall coordinate the evaluations with the evaluations 

provided for by the Secretary under section 172. 

(2) Design.—The evaluation studies conducted under this subsection shall be designed in conjunction with the State board and local boards and shall include analysis of customer feedback and outcome and process measures in the statewide workforce investment system. The studies may include use of control groups. 

(3) Results.—The State shall periodically prepare and submit to the State board, 

and local boards in the State, reports containing the results of evaluation studies 

conducted under this subsection, to promote the efficiency and effectiveness of the 

statewide workforce investment system in improving employability for jobseekers 

and competitiveness for employers. 

Insert the following additional language: 

Among the information to be included in this report is information that specifically addresses the efficiency and effectiveness of the statewide workforce investment system in improving the employability of the groups specified in Sec. 

136(d)(2)(F), recipients of public assistance, out-of-school youth, veterans, individuals with disabilities, displaced homemakers, and older individuals. 

(i) Other Measures and Terminology. 

Insert the following additional language: 

(4) Development of weighted performance measures for difficult to serve—To ensure that performance measurement accounts for the needs of individuals with 

more significant barriers to employment, the Secretary, after collaboration with 

representatives of appropriate Federal agencies, and representatives of States 

and political subdivisions, business and industry, employees, eligible providers 

113 

of employment and training activities, educators, and participants, with expertise regarding workforce investment policies and workforce investment activities, 

shall issue regulations and guidance for the development of performance measure mechanisms for State and local areas that account for investments in individuals requiring more effort due to more significant barriers to employment including but not limited to education and literacy, lack of basic skills, disability, 

homelessness, and individuals who are ex-offenders. These modifications in performance criteria will be designed to evaluate performance based upon a number 

of factors to differentiate degrees of difficulty and effort required while encouraging and supporting the workforce development system to focus efforts on the 

harder to serve. 

Question 4. What policy changes are necessary to ensure a stronger connection between the Vocational Rehabilitation program and other programs under WIA? How 

can those programs be better aligned or integrated to serve the needs of individuals 

with disabilities? 

Answer 4. The overall interaction between public Vocational Rehabilitation and 

the One-Stop Career Centers has been evolving over the past 10 years. The relationship between the two entities in some instances is one of collaboration and cooperation and in other instances one of avoidance and non-interaction. In many instances, 

the relationship of VR to the One-Stop Career Centers, has been growing with qualitative data showing the in some settings the VR staff are central to the operations 

of the One-Stop and in others the VR staff have been effective at engaging One-Stop 

personnel in providing the core services to VR clients including but not limited to 

re ́sume ́ building training, job interviewing skills, interviewing strategies and marketing skills to meet those needs in the local community, with VR staff resources 

then utilized for more focused and intensive disability specific services. 

In establishing the relationship between VR and the One-Stops often the driver 

of the relationship is the framing of the MOU with that document defining the nature of the interaction. By defining the nature of the relationship based upon the 

personnel, expertise and fiscal interactions between the VR and One-Stops, the emphasis is on how these two elements of the One-Stop system can focus upon the 

needs of the customers who have disabilities. If DOL is more able to clarify the extent of the elements to be included in an MOU, assist in supporting creative options 

through the use of the MOU and offer greater guidance on the aspects that should 

be covered by the MOU ultimately the relationship between VR and the One-Stops 

can be further expanded. Too often the initial discussions on framing the MOU deal 

with how fiscal resources can be accessed to share the infrastructure support needs 

of the One-Stop. As was noted in my prior testimony, we would strongly support 

that core infrastructure funding for the One-Stops be provided through DOL and 

that the elements of the MOU focus on the personnel, expertise and shared funding 

that could be used to assist customers with disabilities served by the One-Stop system. 

What would be very useful is to be able to document where the interactions have 

been most productive, what the elements to those relationship are, how each entity 

interacts around an individual customer and what strategies they have been able 

to use to assure the there is coordination and collaboration across the many employment and training resources. Ultimately what would be effective would be the ability of DOL to identify the core elements of a MOU that lead to better coordination 

and corresponding better outcomes for job seekers having a disability. 

There are some areas where the VR and One-Stop programs could logically interact. The newly expanded focus of VR on transition and the ongoing interest of DOL 

in youth offers a common area of interest. The ability for VR and One-Stops to collaborate around the theme of transition from school to work could be a mandated 

element in the development of statewide MOUs. While it is not clear how many 

youth who are served through DOL programs have a disability, by the nature of the 

eligibility for such service many youth with disabilities would be eligible for DOL 

youth services. Modification of the youth services to consider not just summer but 

year round programs that are jointly supported by DOL, VR and local educational 

entities could significantly impact the transition process for many youth with disabilities. The capacity to develop a shared initiative or for DOL to develop a national initiative in collaboration with the Department of Education’s Rehabilitation 

Services Administration could serve as a strong incentive for One-Stops and the 

local VR offices to collaborate. The recent emphasis on post-secondary opportunities 

for youth with intellectual disabilities and the extensive use of community college 

settings by DOL is again an area for potential collaboration and could also be an 

area addressed through the State MOU process. 

114 

QUESTIONS OF SENATOR ENZI

Question 1. What happens to individuals eligible for VR services but who are subject to an ‘‘order of selection policy’’ or waiting list? Typically, people on a State 

waiting list receive information and referral services from the VR agency, but what 

does or should the One-Stops (including adult education, dislocated workers, and 

community colleges) also provide? 

Answer 1. The number of VR agencies with waiting lists is relatively small with 

the number of individuals on the list also small. Given this, it would seem that 

there would be limited impact should there be a substantial focus on dealing with 

those individuals affected by the OOS and relegated to waiting lists in VR. That 

said, the One-Stops have been able to offer a range of core services to customers 

who have a disability some of which are known to VR and some may not be. The 

information and referral supports are available from both VR and the One-Stops for 

job seekers. As in the discussion of the role of the MOU, it is highly likely that 

through the use of the MOU the core services and related supports and information 

could be made available to customers with disabilities who do not meet the VR 

Order of Selection. Correspondingly VR can serve as a technical resource to the 

One-Stop in areas such as types of accommodations, utilization of assistive technologies, strategies for provision of supports in job placement and consultation on 

related topics. These same customers who may not meet the OOS would be able to 

benefit from the core services of the One-Stop as well as the information and referral from the public VR agency. 

As was stated in our response to a prior question, the overall interaction between 

public VR and the One-Stop Career Centers has been evolving. The relationship between the two entities in some instances is one of collaboration and cooperation and 

in other instances one of avoidance and non-interaction. Over the past 10 years the 

relationship of VR to the One-Stop Career Centers has been growing with qualitative data showing that in some settings the VR staff are central to the operations 

of the One-Stop and in others the VR staff have been effective at engaging One-Stop 

personnel in providing the core services including but not limited to re ́sume ́ building 

training, job interviewing skills, interviewing strategies and marketing skills to 

meet those needs in the local community, with VR staff resources then utilized for 

more focused and intensive disability specific services. 

Question 2. Frequently, there is a concern that people with disabilities seeking 

services through a One-Stop are immediately referred to the Vocational Rehabilitation agency. How do we better equip our One-Stops to address the needs of this population so that they can receive educational and job training skills needed to be 

competitive in the marketplace? 

Answer 2. While there is no substantial data on whether there are immediate referrals of persons with disabilities to the VR system when they are seeking services 

at the One-Stops, there are anecdotal accounts of such happening. Such an automatic referral is not consistent with the universal access concepts of WIA and is 

often not in the best interest of the individual. Should the One-Stop system and the 

One-Stop Career Centers be able to directly access the most needed service (core, 

intensive or training) then with the adoption of an initial screening of all job seekers 

it would be relatively easy for the One-Stop to direct the customer to the most appropriate services. Much of this can be clarified through elements of the MOU. It 

should also be noted that the VR contribution to the One-Stop is one of personnel 

and expertise not necessarily to the customer but to the One-Stop staff. VR knowledge of disability and disability conditions, accommodation strategies and local disability specific resources can be an additional resource to the One-Stop staff. Again 

such arrangements should be included as part of the MOU that is developed between the One-Stop and VR as well as the other mandated and non-mandated partners of the One-Stop system. As was noted in prior responses to some of the earlier 

questions, as DOL requires greater reporting from the SWIBs and LWIBS (through 

the SWIBs) about the activities of the One-Stop system, questions about and data 

showing the pathway of customers with and without disabilities through the OneStop system would certainly be useful to DOL in both measuring efficiency as well 

as documenting trends in service. 

The analysis of the MOUs, if they are required to identify and detail strategies 

for serving customers with disabilities, will also offer DOL some indications of how 

it is anticipated that the system will serve customers with disabilities. Data on 

where individuals may be referred (this could be quantitative or qualitative data depending upon the requirements established by DOL for reporting activities of the 

One-Stop system at the State and local levels) would provide DOL with a better 

115 

sense of how often, if at all, customers with disabilities are automatically referred 

to VR. 

Additionally, we have adapted a decision making guide assembled by Mr. Joe 

Marrone of the ICI as a way for VR and One-Stop Centers to decide when a referral 

to VR is appropriate or not for an individual State. While we are not indicating that 

this is the strategy to be adopted, it is a reflection of the types of procedures that 

could be included as part of an MOU or even just a memo of agreement and practice 

clarification from one agency to another as to how to most effectively utilize the resources of the One-Stop system. 

Finally in some cases, referral to VR is what people may need and thus a direct 

referral may be appropriate. In general, we would feel that an automatic referral 

may not be warranted without at least some utilization of a triaging process by the 

One-Stop identifying what those customers they feel may benefit from VR services 

and supports would in fact need. Given this, the subcommittee might want to 

strengthen language in WIA, indicating that automatic referral to VR is not acceptable, and that as people are referred to VR or other partners, there is an expectation 

that they may still utilize other elements of the workforce development system. 

While not stipulating VR directly but rather including a procedure to be followed 

with all customers to the One-Stop Career Centers prior to a referral to any other 

mandated or non-mandated partners there needs to be clear evidence that both the 

referral is correct and that the partner has the capacity to meet the perceived needs 

of the customer. 

Beyond the issue of VR relationships, key to addressing the education and training needs of individuals with disabilities, is ensuring that the training providers 

funded by WIA and accessed by the workforce development system, offer services 

in ways that are fully responsive to the needs of individuals with disabilities. To 

address this issue, it is suggested that under the WIA legislative language address 

selection of training providers, the following changes be made: 

CHAPTER 3—WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACTIVITIES PROVIDERS

SEC. 122. IDENTIFICATION OF ELIGIBLE PROVIDERS OF TRAINING SERVICES. 

(c) Subsequent Eligibility Determination.— 

(4) Considerations.—In developing such procedure, the Governor shall ensure that 

the procedure requires the local boards to take into consideration, in making the 

determinations of subsequent eligibility— 

(A) the specific economic, geographic, and demographic factors in the local areas 

in which providers seeking eligibility are located; and 

(B) the characteristics of the populations served by providers seeking eligibility, 

including the demonstrated difficulties in serving such populations, where applicable. 

Insert the following additional language: 

(C) the ability of training providers to respond to the diverse needs of populations served, including but not limited to individuals with disabilities, older 

workers, and individuals from racial and ethnically diverse backgrounds. 

(D) the ability of training providers to apply the principles of Universal Design 

for Learning to accommodate learner differences and meet the diversity of individual training needs. 

Question 3. Youth transition is also an area of significant concern. How can the 

One-Stop system help assist with the transition of youth with disabilities from highschool to post-secondary life? 

Answer 3. The research on the development of careers and occupations for youth, 

including the DOL longitudinal study of youth shows that the period from 16 to the 

mid 20’s is a time of exploration and learning of job skills including the so called 

soft skills to employment. The One-Stop system with its partners, including public 

VR, needs to offer opportunities for various types of employment, support for training and education with the emphasis on connection to the growth and better wage 

occupations. The One-Stop system needs to stay connected with youth and young 

adults longer than just entry into a job with more focus on entry into industries and 

occupational areas. The reinforcement of lifelong learning is also key to future success. This effort could be easily linked to the youth employment activities of DOL 

and also serve as a way of bringing together schools with high growth job needs in 

the local communities. The skills and competencies required for some of these high 

growth jobs could assist schools in shaping their curricula to meet the skill demands 

in some of the labor marker sectors. 

116 

Additionally, the One-Stops may want, along with VR, to develop MOUs with 

local educational associations such that the resources of the One-Stop and VR can 

be more effectively integrated into the transition planning processes that schools 

must engage in for students with disabilities. There is clear evidence that for those 

students who are engaged in employment (off campus employment more than in 

school employment experiences) are more likely as adults to be in the real work setting. Given this well documented phenomena, the role of the One-Stop and VR in 

the transition planning and the development of work experiences for students with 

disabilities can be considerable. 

While the majority of students with disabilities exit school at around 18 years of 

age, some remain in school until their 22nd birthday. The restructuring of the final 

years of entitlement to education needs to be a priority for local schools, VR and 

the One-Stops. The potential for the development of shared demonstration projects 

that facilitate the movement of students with disabilities from school to post-secondary and employment settings would be an effective collaboration that could be 

initiated at the Federal level through a joint program of the Departments of Labor 

and Education. 

With VR having responsibility for facilitating the transition from school to work, 

the increased emphasis from the Corporation for National and Community Service 

(CNCS) to have volunteer experiences be a gateway into employment (part of the 

Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act) and the initiative in higher education for 

students with intellectual disabilities (a recent initiative included with the passage 

of the Higher Education Act), there are now additional resources that could be 

brought into the transition planning and implementation process. The One-Stops 

can serve as a realistic resource for job preparation and re ́sume ́ building while the 

VR system can work with the schools to provide the necessary consultation and 

technical assistance for students to enter employment while in their high school 

years. These jobs should remain with the student upon graduation with the ongoing 

support services (if needed) provided by VR and or the Developmental Disabilities 

or Mental Health systems. The success of the transition process for students with 

disabilities will be the capacity of the various One-Stop partners and non-mandated 

partners to share resources and expertise with the focus on employment as the ultimate outcome either upon exit from high school or post-secondary school programs. 

One-Stops can help with transition primarily by doing a better job of partnering 

with schools. We would thus suggest that the subcommittee may want to consider 

adding in language to the legislation that would encourage a more aggressive relationship with schools and a more active role in the transition process for youth with 

disabilities. Most of the activity relating to youth is undertaken outside the OneStop system, and more with youth services (which often are primarily delivered separately from One-Stops). Some possible language that the subcommittee could consider is presented below. 

CHAPTER 4—YOUTH ACTIVITIES

SEC. 129. USE OF FUNDS FOR YOUTH ACTIVITIES. 

(c) Local Elements and Requirements.—(3) Additional requirements.— 

Insert the following additional language: 

(D) Linkage with IDEA authorized transition services.—When serving youth with 

disabilities receiving services authorized under the Individual with Disabilities 

Education Act (IDEA), providers of youth services shall coordinate activities with 

the local educational authority, and work collaboratively to incorporate the WIA 

youth services into the Individual Education Plan (IEP) and the transition services incorporated within the IEP, and act as a participating agency in the transition process. 

(E) Criteria in determining eligibility.—Clear, consistent, objective criteria that 

are in full compliance with all aspects of the Workforce Investment Act (including Sec. 188. Nondiscrimation.) and approved and fully documented by the State 

and local workforce investment area are to be used in determining eligibility for 

youth services. Subjective criteria are to be avoided, including assumptions regarding an applicant’s ability to meet performance measurement requirements, 

which may not be used as a criteria for denial of services. 

Question 4. It has been argued that the One-Stops and State Vocational Rehabilitation programs are built on different principles. These differences are highlighted 

in outcomes measures. Realizing that it can possibly cost more and take longer for 

some people with disabilities to reach their employment goals how should the WIA 

performance measures be adjusted to take this into account, if at all? 

117 

Answer 4. The challenge in development of common performance measures is that 

they do not by their nature take into consideration the local demographics nor the 

diverse nature of the local population being served by WIA. The suggestion that was 

made in my original testimony asks that DOL convene a group of experts that will 

come up with a series of common measures (regression formulae, individual data 

elements across partners, new data elements unique to WIA activity—number 

placed, earnings, benefits, impact on reduction in public expenditures etc.) for reporting outcomes and also how those measures could be integrated into existing 

data collection efforts across the WIA partners including those noted in the RSA 911 

data collection activities. I have included in Appendix B the position that was presented in the full report on July 16, 2009. 

What is probably equally important is for DOL and States to stress that the performance standards are measures of staff function and not of how customers perform and also that these standards are not used to eliminate the establishment and 

or support for programs that choose to address the needs of harder to serve customers and correspondingly viewed as not carrying their weight with regard to 

meeting the DOL performance standards. In this latter situation it is possible that 

the performance standards could be considered as looking at the aggregate for a 

State and that within individual programs in the State there can be considerable 

variability reflecting differences in both the demographics of the local economy and 

the population served. 

Also as was noted in our response to question 3 from Senator Murray, the basic 

issue with services funded via WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker funds (which is 

only a sub-set of services provided via the One-Stop system as discussed in my original testimony) is indeed the high performance requirements and sanctions that result. The data analysis completed by the ICI indicates that individuals with disabilities do lag the general population in terms of their performance under WIA, and 

over time we have seen a drop off in participation rates. GAO has recommended systematic adjustment of performance levels to account for different populations and 

local economic conditions when negotiating performance. Given this GAO response, 

Congress may at least urge some demonstration projects that deal with ways to address the apparent disincentives in the current DOL performance measures that 

create a disincentive for One-Stop Centers to serve customers who may be more difficult to serve or may not reach the exit criteria of employment. 

Question 5. What can be done within schools to enhance transition services so 

that students receive real job training instead of contracting with sheltered employment providers that eventually hire the students they support? 

Answer 5. The concern about the transition process leading to placement into 

sheltered settings is a clear concern. Ongoing data collection conducted by the ICI 

has shown that there continues to be on an annual basis a greater number of individuals with disabilities entering sheltered employment than integrated employment over the past decade. In fact, there has not been a single year in the past two 

decades of data collection regarding those individuals served by State Developmental Disability agencies that more individuals have entered integrated employment than sheltered employment. It is clear and has been commented on in our response to prior questions, that there is a need for clarity that the desired outcome 

of the transition process be employment in typical work settings. This does not 

mean that students with disabilities are to move for high school to employment but 

that student goals in the long term whether exiting high school or an institution 

of higher education must be entry and advancement in an integrated employment 

setting. 

The changes in legislative language addressing the issues noted in this question 

may be more appropriately addressed in the IDEA reauthorization. The clear message should be that the transition outcomes should address post-secondary options 

and subsequently employment or direct assistance in entering employment for student with disabilities who are exiting school and entering adult life, and that utilizing sheltered work or similar services during the transition process or as an outcome of the process is not an acceptable outcome. 

Some of the strategies noted in our response to question 3 would also apply to 

our response to this question. The transition process is one that will require active 

student involvement, a clear focus on employment as the ultimate outcomes and the 

development of curricula and school based experiences that prepare the student to 

be ready to engage in employment and or post-secondary outcomes upon graduation 

(see our responses to question 3 for more detail on the transition planning and implementation process). 

118 

Question 6. Consumers are interested in the possibility of exploring a self-directed 

form of vocational rehabilitation services, similar to self-directed service in the Medicaid Home and Community Based Waiver program. What are your thoughts and 

how would you establish such a program? 

Answer 6. Historically the VR legislation and regulations provide a wide array of 

options for the design and structuring of VR services through the IPE process including the option for a consumer to develop and implement their own plan (IPE). 

The only agency requirements are that a VR counselor review and mutually agree 

with the IPE. The consumer has broad discretion on how, and through what programs their services will be provided. The real challenge is how effectively the existing options are practiced. Funding some research into the practices and their impact 

would create interest in the development of approaches embracing self directed services. 

A significant issue in this area of self-directed services is the individual States 

comfort with providing financial options under self directed services. It is not generally under the control of an agency such as VR but rather with financial and administrative agencies and thus a single agency is often limited in what it can implement. Thus, at times the limitations in having a self directed service may be a reflection of the overall State financial management practices rather than the interest 

and capacity of the public VR system. 

[Preparation of Responses: The lead author, William E. Kiernan, would like to acknowledge the very considerable support, guidance and review of the above responses to each of the questions submitted to Senators Murray and Enzi by John 

Halliday, David Hoff and Joseph Marrone. The recommendations as well as observations made are reflective of the combined input from the senior author as well as 

these ICI senior staff members. Specific questions or areas for clarification should 

be sent to: William E. Kiernan, Ph.D., Director and Research Professor, Institute 

for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston, 100 Morrissey Blvd., 

Boston, MA 02115–3393; e-mail: william.kiernan@umb.edu; phone:617–287–4311; 

web: www.communityinclusion.org.] 

APPENDIX A

Subject: Guidance Regarding Referral of a Customer with a Disability for VR Services 

Date: 10/1/04 

A. Purpose. To provide guidance to local One-Stop Career Centers and to the VR 

agency on how to determine whether it is appropriate for One-Stop Career Center 

System to refer a customer with a disability to the local VR office for assistance. 

B. References. The Workforce Investment Act of 1998; 29 CFR Part 37; Title II 

of the Americans with Disabilities Act, DOL Training and Employment Guidance 

Letter No. 9-02 and (name of State here) DOL Policy Directive No. 1-04 and Institute for Community Inclusion Policy Brief, Volt. 3, No. 2: Provisions in the Final 

Regulations Governing the State VR Program Describing the Interplay with WIA 

and TWWIIA (February, 2001). 

C. Background. The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) includes nondiscrimination 

and equal opportunity regulations for the provision of services to all customers. Included in those regulations is specific language regarding the service to individuals 

with disabilities specifically: 

• Individuals with disabilities have a right to use the services of the One-Stop 

system. 

• One-Stop Career Centers must be readily accessible to individuals with disabilities. 

• Individuals with disabilities are entitled to reasonable accommodations and 

modifications when using One-Stop services. 

• Individuals with disabilities should not be automatically referred to agencies 

providing services for people with disabilities. 

• Referral to other programs such as vocational rehabilitation should be based 

upon individual need and agreement by customers. 

Collaboration between the VR agency and the WIA administering agency is intended to produce better information, more comprehensive services, easier access to 

services, and improved long-term employment outcomes. Thus, effective participation of the State VR program is critical to enhancing opportunities for individuals 

with disabilities in the State VR program itself as well as other components of the 

workforce investment system in each State and local area. [65 FR 10621, 10624 

(February 28, 2000)] 

119 

All partner programs (not just the Designated State Unit implementing the State 

VR program) have a legal responsibility under Title I of WIA, the ADA, and Section 

504 of the Rehabilitation Act to serve persons with disabilities. Some individuals 

with disabilities may receive the full scope of needed services through the One-Stop 

system without accessing the State VR program at all; while others may be referred 

to the designated State unit for a program of VR services or receive a combination 

of services from the State VR program and other One-Stop system partners. [66 FR 

4425 (January 17, 2001)] Nothing in Title I or Title IV of WIA or the implementing 

regulations is meant to be construed to require designated State units to pay the 

costs of providing individuals with disabilities access to the One-Stop system. In 

fact, that responsibility falls to the One-Stop system in accordance with the ADA 

and Section 504. [66 FR 4425 (January 17, 2001)] In addition, some individuals who 

are eligible for VR services may choose not to participate in the VR program and, 

therefore, also may be served exclusively by other partner programs of the One-Stop 

system. [66 FR 4425 (January 17, 2001)] 

Therefore this policy guidance is issued under the premise that the One-Stop system will endeavor to serve customers with disabilities through the full panoply of 

services the One-Stop system offers and that the customer with a disability is (potentially) eligible for, whether or not, they may also be (potentially) eligible for other 

employment related disability specific services. It is expected that, while the final 

decisions regarding which agency services the customer would choose to access 

would reside in the customer, as agency policy the DOL would expect referrals to 

be made to the State VR agency primarily as a complement to One-Stop services 

and NOT as a replacement for such services. Also, since the VR agency is a partner 

in each One-Stop, it is strongly encouraged, that in addition to this policy directive, 

each Center develop a local referral protocol under the statewide parameters outlined below. Several Centers have developed Employment Planning teams involving 

VR, WIA staff, and other disability specific partners and this may be a viable model 

to continue to expand in various parts of the State to assist in rendering assistance 

to customers with disabilities more effectively, especially in regard to the collaborative activities envisioned specifically in the areas under Sections D.4, D.5, D.6, 

and D.8 below. 

As noted in the Policy Directive No. 1-04, previously issued by the State Department of Labor, One-Stop staff may not make unnecessary inquiries into the existence of a disability but they may ask whether an individual has a disability, as long 

as there is a specific reason for making such an inquiry and these inquiries are 

made for all customers of the system. The One-Stop system may ask whether an 

individual has a disability for the following reasons: ‘‘. . . to determine if the individual is eligible for special services or funding as a result of the disability . . .’’. 

If using the previous guidance, Policy Directive No. 1-04, the customer is believed 

to be a person with a disability, then the following decision tree process should be 

used to determine the feasibility and appropriateness of a referral to the State VR 

agency. The information should be used consistently while, at the same time, recognizing that every situation that staff confront involves a multitude of factors that 

must be considered. But applying the decision making guidelines described below 

should help in assisting customers with disabilities more effectively and expeditiously. 

D. Guidance: 

Below is the decision tree protocol for considering whether a workforce customer 

should be referred for VR services. Nothing in the guidelines below is meant to contravene the Policy Directive No. 1-04 referenced above, which remains fully in effect 

and is expected to be adhered to in all respects. This guidance serves as a complement and supplement to that directive, not as a replacement in any form. 

Questions to consider in deciding whether a workforce customer should be referred 

to the local office of the State VR Agency for assistance. 

These questions below are developed in a decision tree format and should be applied in the order described. 

(1) Do you know that a customer has a disability? Y/N 

• If Y, did [s]he self disclose? Y/N 

• If Y, on a form? Or to you directly? Or to others who informed you? 

• If N, what other factors lead you to believe this? How does this knowledge 

get incorporated into your decision given the requirement that it is up to the customer to voluntarily self disclose disability status and not have that label assigned 

to him/ her by external parties? 

(Note: It would be useful and all One-Stops are encouraged to incorporate as part 

of their general customer orientation several pieces of disability service oriented inVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:16 Jul 26, 2011 Jkt 035165 PO 00000 Frm 00123 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\51264.TXT DENISE
120 

formation, both in written material and oral presentations at general orientation 

sessions. This should include information about why One-Stops encourage customers 

to self identify should they need disability specific assistance, what disability specific partners and resources might be available to help, and how customers might 

self identify and with which staff should they be encouraged to connect. Where possible it is highly desired that VR staff participate at some level in presenting a brief 

description of VR services to all customers attending orientation sessions.) 

(2) Does the customer have a disability that needs some special accommodations 

if [s]he is to successfully use workforce services? Y/N 

• If Y, what leads you to believe this? (Should reference local resources 

and info re accommodations here) 

(Note: If staff believe an accommodation is necessary and staff broach the topic, 

then such staff should explain what leads them to arrive at this judgment and how 

such an accommodation might benefit the customer to derive the full benefit of 

workforce development services.) 

• If N, no other action regarding referral to VR is needed at this time, unless 

the customer specifically requests such service. 

(3) Does the customer believe [s]he needs and desires this accommodation? Y/N 

• If Y, what leads you to believe this? • If N, no other action regarding referral to VR is needed at this time, unless 

the customer specifically requests such service. 

(Note: If the customer believes an accommodation is necessary then staff should 

ask the customer what sort of accommodation might be needed and how such an 

accommodation might benefit the customer to derive the full benefit of workforce development services.) 

(4) Does the One-Stop Center have the ability to provide this accommodation service on its own without the assistance of VR? Y/N 

• If Y, what leads you to believe this? 

• If N, what leads you to believe this? 

(Note: Each One-Stop Center should have in place an MOA regarding the process 

in place for assessing and providing needed accommodations. The One-Stop staff 

should reference this policy at this juncture. However, it is also useful for the workforce staff to identify local resources or experts who may assist the Center staff in 

examining other creative problem solving options that have not previously been acknowledged.) 

(5) Does the customer have some more extensive individual support needs related 

to his/her disability that should be attended to in order for the person to successfully 

attain and retain employment? Y/N 

• If Y, what information, in addition to the customer’s own statements, leads 

you to believe this? Have you discussed this opinion with the customer directly? 

• If N, why not and what leads you to believe this? Do you need some assistance from someone else to discuss this with the customer directly? It is expected 

that there be both formal (through Memoranda of Understanding) as well as informal working relations established with VR and other disability partners in the OneStop so that this consultation can be accessed readily and effectively. 

(Note: Workforce staff should be clear when identifying the perceived need for extensive individual support that this judgment is rendered with the expectation that 

such support should be expected to assist the customer in achieving a successful employment outcome and is not being used to ‘‘screen the person out’’ of services.) 

(6) Does the customer wish to be referred to disability specialty services that VR 

provides? Y/N 

• If Y, what leads you to believe this? Staff should provide every opportunity 

to the customer to continue to use all appropriate workforce services, especially core 

and assisted self service, even while discussing with the customer the possible need 

of disability specialty services. 

• If N, what leads you to believe this? If N, no other action regarding referral 

to VR should be undertaken, unless the workforce staff believe that this additional 

service is essential and without it, the customer can not get any further benefit from 

the other workforce services available. In that case, it is then incumbent upon the 

staff member to explain the rationale for this decision cogently in a manner that 

elicits a positive response and agreement to this referral from the customer, not 

merely acquiescence. 

(Note: Workforce staff should be clear when identifying the perceived need for 

disability specialty services that VR provides that this judgment is rendered with 

121 

the expectation that such service is expected to assist the customer in achieving a 

successful employment outcome and is not being used to ‘‘screen the person out’’ of 

workforce services.) 

(7) Do you think the person should still consider VR even if [s]he is not interested? Y/N 

• If Y, why do you believe this? Do you need some assistance from someone else 

to discuss this with the customer directly? As with question 5 above, workforce staff 

should have a collaborative relationship established with disability partners in the 

One-Stop or the community at large so that this consultation can be accessed readily and effectively. • If N, then it is expected that the One-Stop Center will then seek to provide 

the service that staff felt the person needed, which they thought VR should provide. 

If this service provision is ascertained to be impractical or impossible without VR 

assistance, then it is the responsibility of the workforce staff or supervisors to clearly explain their rationale and gain the customer’s understanding (and ideally) agreement. This decision should only be rendered after full discussion with administrative staff at the One-Stop Center and with the local VR partner personnel. 

(8) Will you make the referral directly to VR if the customer agrees that [she] is 

interested in VR services? Y/N 

• If Y, does your One-Stop Center have a regular process in place to do this? 

As noted above in question 5 above, each One-Stop Center is expected to have in 

place both formal (through Memoranda of Understanding) as well as informal working relations established with VR so that this referral can be accomplished effectively and seamlessly. • If N, why not? Is this because the customer prefers to do it him[her]self? If 

so, then workforce personnel should offer advice to the customer on the most efficacious way to accomplish this self referral and proactively offer to assist if the customer changes his/ her mind. Furthermore, workforce personnel are expected to ensure that the customer understands the situation fully, including the ability to continuing receiving all appropriate workforce services (the preferred mode) or the process in place to reaccess workforce services without prejudice at a future time. 

(Note: It is not acceptable to suggest the customer self refer to VR either because 

of workforce staff’s other work requirements or because staff are not knowledgeable 

how to arrange such a transition. In either case, workforce staff are expected to do 

timely follow up to make sure the person is connected appropriately and that the 

customer is engaged in services that meet the needs assessed.) 

(9) If the customer with the disability will be getting assistance from VR, will the 

One-Stop Center workforce staff still continue to serve him/her with other (non VR 

funded) services? Y/N 

• If Y, how will this be communicated to and coordinated with VR staff? Procedures for providing joint services should be fully explicated in the Memoranda of 

Understanding between local One-Stop Centers and the State VR local service offices. • If N, why will the One-Stop Center not continue to assist the person? Is it 

because the One-Stop Center does not have any services the person needs? If so, 

how did you decide this? Core services or assisted self service should be feasible alternatives in almost every instance. It is expected that this assessment is done in 

partnership with the affected customer and explained clearly and in writing if the 

person requests it. If the customer still seeks One-Stop Center services, then there 

needs to be an administrative policy in place in writing regarding the process for 

why further services would not be offered—a situation that should occur infrequently if ever. 

Is it because VR is better equipped to deliver all the services needed? If so, how 

did you decide this? It is expected that that this assessment is done in partnership 

with the affected customer and explained clearly and in writing if the person requests it. If the customer still seeks One-Stop Center services, then there needs to 

be an administrative policy in place in writing regarding the process for why further 

services would not be offered—a situation that should occur infrequently if ever. 

(Note: As noted in question 8 above as well as in Section C of this document, the 

preferred mode for the system (and consistent with the spirit and the letter of the 

ADA and WIA legislation) is for the customer to be able to continue to receive all 

appropriate workforce services concurrent with participating in VR services wherever possible.) 

[Draft prepared by: Joe Marrone, Senior Program Manager, Public Policy National 

Center for Workforce and Disability, Institute for Community Inclusion, UMASS 

122 

BOSTON, West Coast Office: 4517 NE 39th Ave., Portland, OR 97211–8124; tel: 

503–331–0687 (home office) or 503–331–0486 (home); fax: 503–961–7714; e-mail: 

JM61947@AOL.COM; web: www.onestops.info.] 

APPENDIX B

RESPONSE TO PERFORMANCE MEASURES AS PRESENTED IN JULY 16, 2009 TESTIMONY OF

WILLIAM E. KIERNAN, PH.D. 

Measurement of effectiveness and impact must not create a disincentive for OneStops to serve customers with disabilities: While this has been an area of continuous 

discussion over several years, there is little progress in the area of identifying clear 

performance measures for the One-Stop system. Some of this is reflective of the nature of the One-Stop in that it is a system and not an individual program, and thus 

for the One-Stop there must be collaborations across multiple agencies addressing 

the needs of the customers who are seeking employment. Many of these partner 

agencies have outcome measures and most have unique interpretations of what the 

actual measure means, as in the case of ‘‘what is employment’’ and ‘‘how long should 

individuals be followed’’. Care must be exercised so that any measurement of outcomes does not create a disincentive for the One-Stops to serve specific sub-populations. 

As it currently stands, if the One-Stop does not meet its performance measures 

while using WIA funds, there are clear sanctions. The existing structure can and 

often has been reported to be a reason for the low rate of service for persons with 

disabilities and other hard to serve customer groups. There is a need to develop 

measures of effectiveness that reflect the customer diversity while embracing the 

mandate of the One-Stop to serve all customers. In some instances the customer mix 

will vary depending upon the demographics of the area served by the One-Stop. Any 

measurement system must be sufficiently flexible to accommodate the diversity of 

the populations served by the One-Stops as well as be able to provide consistent 

measures of outcomes such as employment placements, earnings and job retention 

among other variables. The identification of effective outcome measures for WIA is 

clearly an area of importance and should be a priority for both ETA and ODEP with 

the development of such measures including both mandated and non-mandated 

partner input and consideration. 

While not a performance measure, the adoption of common intake and application 

materials across the One-Stop and its partners would serve to streamline the application effort for the customer as well as reduce the costs to the agencies if common 

data and variables are used for multiple applications for service. The same would 

be true for outcome measures. With some greater consistency in the definition of 

the outcomes measures, cross agency reviews may be able to be accomplished with 

the outcomes providing more meaningful and useful monitoring as well as strategic 

planning. Finally, the development of measures and processes that do not create disincentives for the One-Stops to serve the harder to serve customers is essential if 

the mandate of WIA to be universal, seamless and accessible to all is to be realized. 

Performance Measurement and Issues: The inability to properly measure the performance of the One-Stop system is an ongoing issue. At this point, the only mechanism for measurement of One-Stop performance is through individual partner and 

funding stream performance measures that allows only a partial (although still 

somewhat informative) look at the system. A subtext of this lack of a comprehensive 

performance measurement system, is the lack of a measurement system for OneStop system performance in serving various groups and sub-populations including 

people with disabilities. As a result, it is impossible to truly ascertain the performance and progress of the One-Stop system as a whole in meeting the needs of people 

with disabilities. 

Wagner-Peyser Data: The performance data that is available, while limited, indicates both successes and challenges regarding serving people with disabilities. The 

Wagner-Peyser data are probably the best indicator available of overall One-Stop 

performance. These funds are used for basic employment/labor exchange services, 

and track the largest number of individuals using the generic workforce development system—and per WIA regulations, are to be delivered within the One-Stop 

system. 

Analysis by the Institute for Community Inclusion (ICI), indicates that the percentage of individuals identifying they have a disability has shown a steady increase 

over time, from 2.3 percent in 2002 to 3.1 percent in 2005 figure. The more recently 

available data show a slight decline: in 2007, 2.8 percent of individuals using Wagner-Peyser funding were identified as having a disability. As noted in a recent publication by the Institute for Community Inclusion (ICI) (http:// 

www.communityinclusion.org/article.php?articlelid=233&type=project&id=16), ‘‘In 

123 

examining and interpreting these data, it is important to note that these data may 

not fully reflect the use of these services by people with disabilities, as it does not 

include individuals with non-apparent disabilities who have declined to identify that 

they have a disability.’’ There are a number of other issues with these data. It first 

off, only indicates percentage of use of the system by people with disabilities, with 

no outcome data (although outcome data is made available for Wagner-Peyser participants as a whole). Secondly, the data indicate massive variations in the percentage of people with disabilities using services from state-to-state: from less than 1 

percent to over 15 percent. The underlying reasons for this variation are not clear, 

but it is concerning and bears further investigation. 

WIA Data: The other piece of significant data that is available is the Workforce 

Investment Act fund data. These funds are generally used for training, as well as 

more intensive services in the workforce development system. In some cases, WIA 

funds are also used for core services. The WIA performance data do provide highly 

detailed information regarding performance and outcomes for people with disabilities. However, only a small percentage of individuals served in the workforce development system are served via WIA funds (approximately a million people annually 

vs. over 13 million via Wagner-Peyser funding). Therefore WIA performance is not 

equivalent to One-Stop performance, although it has been observed that many policymakers internal and external to the workforce development system, advocates, 

and academics often verbally and in writing incorrectly make this assumption. To 

reinforce this point, in 2007, only 58,000 individuals identified as having a disability 

were served via WIA funds, while 499,000 individuals were served via WagnerPeyser funds. 

There are three WIA funding streams: Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Youth. 

Analysis of these data by the Institute for Community Inclusion revealed the following: from 2001 to 2007, the percentage of individuals with disabilities served via 

WIA Adults funds declined from 9 percent of the total served to 4.2 percent. For 

WIA Dislocated Worker funds, the results have varied over this same period, from 

a low of 3.3 percent in 2005 to a high of 4.6 percent in 2006. In conjunction with 

declines in percentage of individuals served, the outcomes for individuals with disabilities trailed the overall average performance. (It is important to note that there 

are significant penalties in terms of funding losses for not meeting required performance outcomes using WIA funds.) For Youth funds however, the results are 

more encouraging. For WIA Youth with disabilities (ages 14 to 21), the percentage 

of individuals served actually increased from about 14 percent to 16 percent from 

2001–2004 (although this has since declined to 14.5 percent in 2007). In terms of 

performance, Older Youth (ages 19–21) with disabilities slightly lagged the average 

performance, and for Younger Youth (ages 14–18), performance was either equivalent or exceeded the average performance. (Note: Youth with disabilities are highly 

eligible for WIA youth services.) These results appear to indicate that when performance for people with disabilities lags the general population, their ability to access services decreases, and when performance for people with disabilities is similar 

to or exceeds the general population, their ability to access services increases. 

4. WIA Reauthorization Recommendations 

Given this context, the following are specific recommendations regarding reauthorization of WIA: 

Performance Tracking and Measurement 

• Development of One-Stop Performance Measurement System: A key 

piece of WIA reauthorization needs to be mandating development of performance 

measurement for the One-Stop system as a whole, which includes measurement of 

performance in serving people with disabilities, among other groups. 

• Clarity of Disability Definition and Tracking of SSI/SSDI Enrollment 

Status: Part of the reform of performance measures needs to include much greater 

clarity regarding definitions and mechanisms for measurement, as it appears that 

the mechanisms for measuring disability are at best inconsistent making it difficult 

to have full confidence in the accuracy of the data. Mandating the collection of SSI/ 

SSDI enrollment status of individuals being served would assist in this process, and 

allow for a much stronger sense of how the system is performing for individuals 

with more significant disabilities, and also allow for greater determination of the potential of the workforce development system in terms of participation in the Ticket 

to Work. 

• Creation of Benchmarks and Targets for Specific Populations: In conjunction with reform of performance measures, it is also recommended that statutory language be included in the reauthorization, which mandates creation of anVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:16 Jul 26, 2011 Jkt 035165 PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\51264.TXT DENISE
124 

nual benchmarks and targets for serving specific populations, including people with 

disabilities. 

• Revamping WIA Performance Requirements: Revamping of the performance requirements for WIA funds is clearly needed. Too often, concerns over the inability to meet performance standards, is used as an excuse for not serving people 

with disabilities. The WIA performance measures must be modified to account for 

a wider range of job seeker needs. Language must also be incorporated into reauthorization that clearly reinforces that discrimination against individuals based on 

performance measure concerns is not acceptable. 

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS OF SENATOR MURRAY AND SENATOR ENZI

BY MARY W. SARRIS

QUESTIONS OF SENATOR MURRAY

Question 1. In your testimony, you discuss strong, collaborative partnerships as 

a key to developing and sustaining creative services to help at-risk teenagers and 

young adults disconnected from school and work transition into the labor market. 

What have been the most beneficial relationships with key stakeholders in the industry and education community for your Workforce Board in helping young people 

prepare for a full range of post-secondary education and training options and careers? 

Answer 1. Sector-led partnerships that incorporate multiple stakeholders with 

post-secondary and adult basic education are one way to prepare young people for 

careers as well as give them an introduction to continuing their education. One example of this would be a program we developed several years ago called TURBO 

which worked in the construction trades industry and had adult basic education providers as well as our local community college participating and assisting youth in 

gaining basic skills and work readiness elements to be hired and then begun a career ladder within the industry. Private industry within the construction trades 

were involved in the development of the curriculum to ensure the basic elements 

needed to be successful. 

In addition, through funding from the State of Massachusetts, we have developed 

a partnership of over 20 youth serving organizations called Pathways to Success by 

21 (P–21). Through P–21 we have established solid relationships between and 

among agencies which work on various elements of youth distress so that true coordination of services can be provided. For example, through P–21 we surveyed 

teens using an Asset model to better understand teen perception of their strengths 

and challenges they face, most importantly unstructured time after school and lack 

of quality work experience opportunities. This information helps us develop community-wide solutions including stepping up efforts for part-time job development. In 

addition, P–21 partners serving out-of-school youth have come together to offer college credit courses in GED programs, leading to a surge of interest in GED attainment and college enrollment. Finally, we have offered quality training to youth serving staff in P–21 agencies to improve their overall ability to reach and serve youth. 

Another partnership on behalf of youth involves a teacher externship program, 

which includes local STEM companies, local public school systems and their teachers, and Salem State College, the largest providers of bachelor and master degree 

education programs. Teacher externs work for 5 to 8 weeks during the summer in 

real STEM activities where they practice their science and math competencies in a 

high skills environment. Wrapping around this experience is a graduate level education course led by Salem State where they work as a cohort to design curriculum 

that brings what they learned right into the classroom, thus enhancing the learning 

experience for their students and motivating them to choose STEM careers. While 

a very new program, we believe teacher externships are a wise investment of corporate and public funds, leading to returns in higher high school graduation rates 

and an increase in STEM career choices. 

Question 2. How are these partnerships important to the sustainability of North 

Shore’s efforts to provide learning and work opportunities to young people, particularly those who are struggling to graduate from high school or have dropped out? 

Answer 2. The issues facing youth cannot possibly be overcome without many 

stakeholders working together on behalf of these youth. At the same time, developing relationships in a neutral environment and growing these relationships into 

true collaboratives on behalf of youth is not a natural role for any agency in particular. The Workforce Investment Board, however, is established to provide this 

neutral environment through which services for youth can be vetted, developed, enhanced, and improved. The WIB provides economic and labor market information 

125 

backing up the need for these relationships and provides the impetus for organizations to come together and change in positive directions. 

The partnerships which focus in on careers and educational pathways that youth 

can embrace while they are finishing their GED is one example. As stated above, 

here in the North Shore, WIA youth participants can take college credit courses 

while simultaneously working on their GED. This ensures that once they have received their GED they are not only familiar with the post-secondary education system but they have already gained ‘‘credit’’ and confidence. P–21, led by the WIB, 

provided the environment where this innovation came to light and was made a reality. The same can be said for sector partnerships such as TURBO and our Teacher 

Externship project. Permanent positive impact on youth development can only happen when all agree to work together toward a common goal, with the WIB operating 

in a convening and brokering function. 

Question 3. From the North Shore Board’s experience, what policy improvements 

can you suggest to encourage the sort of partnerships that help young people successfully transition from school to successful careers? 

Answer 3. We urge you to help develop incentives that encourage local school districts to work with the workforce development system toward this transition goal. 

While our relationships with local school districts are in some cases strong and in 

other cases developing, there is no doubt that schools easily become isolated in their 

quest to help students pass standardized tests, while addressing the myriad of social 

issues in a less organized fashion. We would urge that Education policy, along with 

Workforce policy, provide direction and resources that support programs such as 

sector partnerships for youth, P–21, and teacher externships. For example, States 

should be encouraged to include teacher externships as either a required or highly 

encouraged route for teacher re-certification. This would elevate the concept of business involvement in classroom planning to a higher level. In addition, students who 

become involved, through career exploration, internships, or joint projects with companies in sector partnerships should be able to receive school credit once such involvement is reviewed and approved by qualified teaching staff. These types of policies result in stronger relationships between schools and their communities and 

more successful outcomes for all students, including those at risk of leaving school 

or those in alternative education programs. 

QUESTIONS OF SENATOR ENZI

Question 1. Some States and localities have boards that excel in their leadership 

and performance outcomes. What could be done to disseminate these best practices 

to other State and local workforce boards? 

Answer 1. We have participated in the National Business Learning Partnership 

(a DOL-sponsored program) which matches up Leaner and Mentor WIB’s from 

around the country to learn and share. We have participated three times in this program (once as a learner site working with a local WIB in Sunnyvale CA, then as 

a mentor site with a Council of Governments in Clovis, NM, and most recently 

again as a mentor site with Department of Workforce Development in Iowa) and 

have learned a tremendous amount form these peer-to-peer experiences. A continuation and expansion of this program would without a doubt provide the appropriate 

forum for best practice dissemination. The cost of this program revolves primarily 

around travel between the sites. Costs such as this could be shared by the U.S. Department of Labor, the States, and various WIBS participating. 

Question 2. An unintended consequence of the enactment of WIA in 1998 has been 

the creation of local workforce boards with 40 or more members. The North Shore 

Workforce Investment Board has an effective Board. What are the defining characteristics of this board? What incentives are used to attract the right employer representatives to serve on the boards, who then take on a meaningful role? 

Answer 2. The North Shore WIB consists of 35 members. In regard to mandated 

partners, we have several members who represent more than one partner, for example, one board member represents Wagner-Peyser, Unemployment Assurance, Rapid 

Response, and Migrant/Seasonal Farm workers. This type of state-level organization 

greatly helps keep WIBs to a more reasonable membership level. 

From a higher perspective, however, the North Shore WIB and our lead-elected 

official, Mayor Kimberley Driscoll of the city of Salem, believe that the WIB provides a vital, strategic function in the support and development of our workforce as 

an economic development activity. The North Shore economy is one that demands 

and rewards high skills. This translates into the need for an organization that can 

bring this information to the general public, develop resources, including WIA and 

126 

non-WIA, and help invest these resources wisely in educational and community organizations. This is how we see the WIB on the North Shore. 

The Mayor and Board Chair work continuously to ensure that all board appointments are appropriate to our Strategic Plan. This includes ensuring that private 

sector leaders—representing at least 51 percent of board membership—come from 

our critical and emerging industries and have concerns and interests in developing 

our workforce. They work closely with local Chambers of Commerce and other business organizations to find those business leaders who exhibit this level of interest. 

Community and public appointments are approached with the same level of scrutiny. 

These companies and community leaders believe that they have authority AND 

responsibility to develop and carry out a strategic plan that meets the needs of the 

North Shore. They view funding sources, both WIA and non-WIA, as tools to carry 

out this plan. The WIB has a committee structure that allows board members to 

participate in whatever specific interest they may have, such as youth pipeline, 

skills gap, or partnership development. By combining a concentration on a specific 

area with an opportunity to truly participate in decisions at the full WIB level, 

board members believe their expertise is of value and actually makes a difference 

in their community. 

In short, the defining characteristics of the North Shore WIB is a Mayor who 

takes the appointing authority seriously, a board chair who provides the Mayor with 

the information needed to make strong appointments, a strategic focus on the workforce needs of the region, and a structure that mandates participation but also provides full authority to make decisions over how WIA and non-WIA funds are invested in our local economy. With this type of philosophy, local business and community leaders are naturally motivated to participate and find incentive in the successful implementation of services to job seekers and companies in our region. 

Question 3. How can we create incentives so that State and local workforce investment boards are actively involved in strategic planning rather than limited to program operations? 

Answer 3. The State of Massachusetts has established a High Performing Board 

application process which places emphasis on the boards ‘‘being’’ and ‘‘thinking’’ 

strategically. Through the HPWIB process, Massachusetts, along with various regional and local stakeholders, has defined what a successful workforce board looks 

like. Part of the application process in Massachusetts is that in order to be ‘‘high 

performing’’ the board needs to have a strategic plan in place and the ability to 

track progress on the goals, indicators and benchmarks in the plan. This is the only 

way that boards can be assured that they are truly having an impact on their region, making it a better place to live, work, and in which to do business. 

The successful attainment of HPWIB status provides in and of itself an incentive 

to reach this goal. By being identified as high performing, WIBs become more credible in their communities and across the State, are sought out for other leadership 

roles such as presentations, grant partnership opportunities, and other community 

leadership roles. However, additional financial resources to continue the good work 

they do are truly appreciated. In Massachusetts, the State has freed up WIA 15 percent funds in the form of $100,000 grants to successful HPWIBs. While small in the 

scheme of overall budgets (the NSWIB has a budget of about $6 million of which 

about 65 percent is WIA funding), this type of grant provides flexibility for boards 

to continue their strategic activities, such as developing new labor market reports 

and blueprints, attending trainings, etc. We would urge Congress to codify the Massachusetts High Performing WIB definition into WIA and to provide resources to 

WIBs that reach and maintain this certification. 

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS OF SENATOR MURRAY AND SENATOR ENZI

BY KATHY COOPER

QUESTIONS OF SENATOR MURRAY

Question 1. The President and others have recognized Washington’s I–BEST program as one of the most innovative approaches to adult education in the country. 

The program has shown great results in helping adult learners achieve learning 

gains by integrating basic skills learning with occupational training. What specific 

barriers do you encounter in implementing the I–BEST program relating to rules 

and requirements under titles I and II of WIA? 

Answer 1. The I–BEST program is not a ready fit within titles I and II as they 

are currently written and interpreted. This continues to complicate I–BEST progress 

and limit our ability to partner with title I providers. 

127 

• The purposes of title I do not require offering services to low-skilled, low-income 

workers or making investments in the education and training needed to develop the 

workforce. • Title I has been interpreted to require a sequence of service that does not match 

the needs or schedules of low-income, low-skilled workers or the structure of I– 

BEST. In addition, community and technical colleges and adult basic education providers are not defined as automatic or priority providers. • The title I accountability system places weight on job placement and wage levels in short timeframes, incenting service to the highest skilled and easiest-to-place 

customers. I–BEST succeeds with low-wage workers, placing weight on measurable 

progress along a career pathway in a high demand field that addresses needs of 

local employers. Title I would need to weigh such measurable progress equally to 

job placement in order to support I–BEST—a wise course of action in the long term 

because I–BEST better develops the emerging workforce as it meets employer demand. • The success of I–BEST students in adult basic education, post-secondary education, and progress on career pathways is not a purpose of the current version of 

title II. • Current law and policy require that title II instruction focus only on educational 

and/or English language gains defined by Federal levels. They specifically restrict 

investment of funds for instruction defined as ‘‘vocational’’—which includes how to 

use a computer. 

• While the achievement levels of I–BEST students exceed that of students in traditional ABE classes, the achievement system itself focuses too many of our limited 

resources on documenting progress within arbitrary levels that change every few 

years and have no meaning or relevance to students, employers, or our title I partners. 

Question 2. How do you recommend that the goals of both titles be better aligned 

to serve adult learners in WIA reauthorization? 

Answer 2. The goals of the title I and title II should not be identical. It makes 

little sense for partners in the workforce development system to duplicate services. 

Instead the purposes should be intentionally and specifically complementary. 

• We recommend title I have a goal to create a comprehensive workforce development system that meets the skills and needs of existing and emerging employers 

at the same time as it supports under-prepared adults and workers who need to advance to the next level of education and employment. 

• The goal we recommend for title II is to provide students with the skills and 

knowledge required for success in post-secondary education and progress on pathways to family-wage jobs. This goal aligns with the explicit workforce development 

goal for title I and reflects the vision from Tipping Point research done here and 

replicated nationally. The Tipping Point for self-sufficiency is 1 year of college credit 

and a vocational certificate recognized by local employers. 

Question 3. What are the core principles of the I–BEST program that make it effective and how can other programs emulate and implement those principles even 

if their adult education services are not provided within a State’s community college 

system? 

Answer 3. 

• I–BEST begins with a clearly defined career pathway in a high demand field 

that is developed in partnership with local/area employers. Pathways must have 

multiple access points for students and reach as far as a 4-year degree, when possible. 

• I–BEST projects provide options for short-term training that typically lasts two 

quarters, but may be designed for between one and eight quarters. The initial program on the pathway must result in college-level credits, a college credential that 

has meaning in the local job market, and readiness for a job that pays a family 

wage. 

• Instruction integrates adult basic education and professional/technical skills 

and is based on an approved set of integrated learning outcomes. 

• Instruction is delivered by a team that includes an adult basic education instructor and professional/technical instructor who teach as a team at least 50 percent of the time. 

• Student support services and success strategies are provided from entities 

across the college structure and the community. 

• Each provider has a plan to support students as they transition to next steps 

on the pathway, whether students continue immediately or stop out for a period of 

employment. 

128 

While I–BEST in Washington State benefits from the commitment of our community and technical college system, all core activities can be achieved by a variety 

of partnering entities. In fact, when we created an I–BEST pilot project targeting 

out-of-school youth—a difficult population with whom to succeed, colleges partnered 

with local workforce development councils and community-based organizations. 

These partners bring expertise in case management, employer engagement, and 

community-based resources that proved invaluable to this group. 

Question 4. What role should adult education programs play in the President’s 

community college initiative? How can adult education providers and community 

colleges partner to create pathways for low-skill adults into a post-secondary education program that leads to a credential of value in the labor market? 

Answer 4. Our Nation cannot meet the degree achievement goals set by President 

Obama for the community college initiative unless we address the demographic imperative that already drives the adult basic education system. Like most of the 

country, our State knows that the current number of under-prepared adults is greater than the number of all the young people who have or will graduate from high 

school in classes from 2000 to 2010. 

Adult basic education programs open the doorway to educational achievement for 

under-prepared adults. Adult basic education must be clearly included and supported in the initiative in order for it to succeed with our Nation’s fastest growing 

populations. Whether adult basic education is provided within a community college 

system or by community-based partners, the keys to success are: 

• A clear purpose of student success in post-secondary education and progress on 

pathways to family-wage jobs. 

• An accountability system that measures and rewards progress toward that purpose and that matters to adult students and employers. 

• Flexibility to design and deliver instruction that leads to defined outcomes. 

• Partnerships that leverage State investments. 

• Adequate Federal funding to address the expanding services and unmet need. 

I–BEST is only one example of the way that college and adult basic education providers can partner to make good on education’s promise of better skills and better 

lives. Reflecting I–BEST’s documented success, the new law must create a pocket 

for innovation, providing funds to design new programs and support implementation 

beyond the capacity of current resources. 

Question 5. In your opinion, what should be the overall goal of adult education 

services provided by the Federal Government? How should that goal be reflected in 

a reauthorized WIA? 

Answer 5. The overall goal of the Federal Government’s adult education services 

should be threefold: 

• maintain focus on the highest and broadest purposes of the reauthorized WIA; 

• distribute resources that support States to meet those purposes, extending to 

States maximum flexibility to tailor programs within the realm of effective practices; and 

• act as advocates that encourage States to innovate in order to increase the success of adult basic education students in post-secondary education and in progressing on career pathways. 

To those ends, we specifically recommend that the new law direct the Federal 

Government to: 

• immediately convene a broad spectrum of innovative system leaders and independent researchers in order to create a much-simplified accountability system that 

measures meaningful progress along education and career pathways; 

• gather, analyze, and distribute data that States will use to identify and implement best practices; and 

• provide support to a third-party research center located in an organization recognized for independence and validity, charging that entity to identify evidencedbased practices that increase student success in post-secondary education and 

progress on career pathways; and 

• distribute dedicated funds for innovation, supported by waivers from requirements that restrict the innovation critical to progress. 

Question 6. What are some of the lessons you have learned from I–BEST demonstration projects with young people? 

Answer 6. (a) Because I–BEST is a short-term program with tangible outcomes, 

includes wrap-around services, and is taught by a team of skilled instructors, it is 

an ideal foundation for services to young people. 

129 

(b) Many young people require deliberate guidance to navigate career exploration, 

higher education, and the workplace. This includes skill building in areas termed 

‘‘soft skills’’ or ‘‘work readiness’’ and frequently prioritized by employers. 

(c) Intensive and flexible support services must be readily available at the site of 

instruction. Barriers to success are multiple—ranging from a diploma held for unpaid parking tickets to homelessness and lack of computer access. Without the capacity and resources to readily respond to such barriers, each issue can stop students in their tracks. 

(d) Employer support must be cultivated in order for successful completers to be 

hired. 

(e) Partnerships between title I and II providers as well as between communitybased and educational entities are critical. It continues to ‘‘take a village’’ to support 

young adults who need a ticket into the middle class. 

QUESTIONS OF SENATOR ENZI

Question 1. How did Washington State work with the reformed Adult Basic Education program so that staff had the professional development they needed to teach 

in a new system? What professional development did they need and who provided 

it? 

Answer 1. I–BEST professional development is created and delivered in a partnership between two groups. The first group is made up of staff from the State Board 

for Community and Technical Colleges’ adult basic education, information technology, student services and workforce development offices. The second group is successful college practitioners with program expertise, experience, insights, advice and 

materials in the same four areas. In addition, a college system Center of Excellence 

in Education and Training has offered summer institutes with an I–BEST focus. 

I–BEST professional development activities focus primarily in four areas: 

• consideration of research and evidence-based practices linked to student success; 

• sharing of barriers and best practices; 

• creating integrated outcomes; and 

• teaching in teams. 

Practitioners identify professional development as a critical factor to their success. 

However, limitations in funds that can be used to support such professional development—notably, the 12.5 percent cap in ABE leadership dollars—currently curtails 

our efforts and acts as a barrier to I–BEST expansion. 

Question 2. What are the best strategies for building partnerships between postsecondary education and workforce development programs to promote a seamless 

system for our students and workers? 

Answer 2. Clearly, aligned goals and accountability systems are a necessary foundation for success in building partnerships between adult basic education and postsecondary providers—whether or not these providers sit in the same system. Adult 

basic education providers must have as their goal to provide students with the skills 

and knowledge required for success in post-secondary education and progress on 

pathways to family-wage jobs. The vision for the current adult basic education system cannot continue to stop far short of college-level skills. 

Postsecondary providers must also have a broader goal: to provide all adults with 

the skills and knowledge to gain certificates and degrees necessary to fully meet 

their academic and employment goals. Community and technical college systems are 

leaders in the sea change from viewing student failure in higher education as a 

mark of institutional rigor to creating innovative strategies that ensure a wider 

range of students gain the skills and knowledge to take their place in America’s 

workforce and the middle class. 

Washington State is using a range of strategies to assist ABE and other nontraditional students in successful transitions through post-secondary education. The 

first is a Student Achievement System that provides financial awards to colleges 

based on student attainment. Colleges earn points along a continuum from adult 

basic education through degree/certificate attainment. This system provides highest 

rewards to those colleges that move ABE students across the entire continuum. The 

second effort focuses on student success strategies that include efforts like building 

student cohorts, deliberate instruction in how to navigate the college environment, 

and mandatory advising. The third provides additional financial resources to lowincome students. Opportunity Grants are given to low-income students on career 

pathways in demand fields and have clearly demonstrated that additional financial 

support results in higher rates of retention and achievement. Finally, Washington 

State continues to believe that integration—moving two points on the educational 

130 

pathway together—is the best way to ensure that students do not get lost moving 

from one point to the other. This year, we will design and fund I–BEST pilots that 

integrate developmental education with one or more general education classes required for 2-year degrees. 

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS OF SENATOR MURRAY AND SENATOR ENZI

BY STEPHEN WING

QUESTIONS OF SENATOR MURRAY

Question 1a. While companies like CVS Caremark are motivated to contribute to 

a better society, I know that businesses also have to do what’s good for productivity, 

growth, and competitiveness. 

How has your investment in training and education for workers, even those who 

face multiple barriers to employment and your partnership with the workforce investment system been beneficial to your company’s sustainability? 

Answer 1a. We have found that partnering with the workforce investment system 

is beneficial in multiple ways, most importantly to our business is that our retention 

rates are much higher. The system has become a branch of our human resources 

team. The One-Stop system uses our job descriptions and then recruits individuals 

that meet those requirements. Using their pool of potential employees, they prescreen applicants so we only see candidates that meet our standards. Everyone wins 

in this scenario. The incentive for our hiring locations is that we get workers who 

share our core values. We can work with them to become skilled members of our 

team and the incentives such as tax credits and on-the-job training dollars are of 

great help to those potential employees. 

Question 1b. Have the return on your investment been worth it? 

Answer 1b. We strongly believe our investment has reaped multiple benefits. As 

we stated in our initial testimony, we have hired over 65,000 former welfare recipients since 1996. We have found that these individuals have stayed with the company at a much higher rate than other employees in similar roles. They have received additional training and have been promoted to new positions. In developing 

these partnerships, we have been able to attain a competitive advantage over our 

competition by tapping into the workforce system and creating a trusting relationship. 

CVS Caremark not only looks at the Return On Investment (ROI), but considers 

how we can give back to the communities we serve. One example is our new partnership with the local One-Stops where we are going to give 100,000 free flu shots 

to the unemployed. We found that over 70 percent of the unemployed this year do 

not plan to get a flu shot. We have set up partnerships in 20 key markets and are 

working with those local One-Stops to assist in giving out vouchers that can be redeemed for the shot at a CVS/pharmacy or Minute Clinic. In addition, we will also 

have a scheduled day when the shots will be given at the One-Stop location. 

Question 1c. Why do you think other employers don’t leverage the workforce system the same way CVS Caremark has done? How can we change that? 

Answer 1c. There are many misconceptions regarding the system. Most think that 

the standards of the centers are poor and that they cannot supply the people needed 

for staffing. The University of Virginia Continuing Education Department is doing 

a week-long training conference for workforce investment system participants to 

learn how to work with their local businesses. It is an intense program where they 

will hear from business executives on what they are looking for in employees. They 

are also given projects to present to the entire group meant to promote discussion 

on how to work with businesses in finding new employees and how to work with 

them when they are displaced. It is an excellent program and we assist in the sponsorship of it. We suggest that this concept be enlarged to cover all States and local 

WIB participation. 

Question 1d. How do we create a more meaningful role for business in the workforce system? 

Answer 1d. One simple thing is to increase the incentives for companies to participate. The WOTC program and on-the-job training dollars should be designed to 

make it easier for companies to participate. During the mid-1990s we joined the 

Welfare to Work Partnership where four charter companies became thousands of 

companies and millions of people were hired. Another incentive may be to look at 

other targeted groups of individuals such as out-of-school youth and mature workers. We would be happy to work with the U.S. Department of Labor to assist in creating a more meaningful role for business. 

131 

QUESTIONS OF SENATOR ENZI

Question 1. What functions, including strategic planning, would be incentives for 

employers to be meaningfully engaged on State and local workforce boards to 

produce coherent, effective workforce system that better serves both employers and 

workers? 

Answer 1. One key area that would make it more meaningful for business is to 

get them to be board members on the local workforce systems. One suggestion is 

to use the National Association of Workforce Boards (NAWB) in assisting in recruiting and educating businesses on how to become a member. Board membership needs 

to be meaningful including the ability to make decisions on programs and how monies should be spent locally. 

Question 2. How do we encourage business to partner with the workforce system 

through innovative partnerships like the CVS One-Stop operated here in Washington, DC? 

Answer 2. For over 9 years we have worked closely with the One-Stop system to 

hire targeted groups of employees. The mock up store gives the new employee an 

opportunity to learn the system and go through the company’s training. When they 

start at the store they have had hands on training and a higher level of confidence. 

Thousands of Washington, DC residents have gained employment through this system. The ROI for this endeavor has been great and we have seen high retention 

rates. The One-Stop and CVS Caremark share costs, rent is free for us, while we 

supply the equipment and staff the location with our trainers. We also agreed to 

hire 250 new workers that are from a targeted population in the district each year. 

In fact we now have six regional learning centers across the country in partnership 

with One-Stops. Our seventh center will open later this year in Washington, DC. 

We believe the key to getting business involvement is to be innovative and train 

employees to their skill levels. Companies need to see the value of working in the 

workforce investment system. We think the best ways are to show the companies 

that they can get involved just as we did. That they are able to do their own training and get quality new hires. That they can apply for tax credits and On-the-Job 

Training dollars that are easily secured. We could also do an Open House and invite 

business leaders to come to the center to see the facility in action and then ask for 

their feedback and replicate the program within their company in partnering with 

the One-Stop. 

As stated before, we would be glad to work with the U.S. Department of Labor 

on new and innovative ways to work with businesses to get them to the table. 

Smaller companies could partner up with larger companies to maximize the training 

dollars. 

CONSORTIUM FOR CITIZENS WITH DISABILITIES (CCD) 

WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT REAUTHORIZATION PRINCIPLES

JULY 2009

• People with disabilities using the workforce investment system must be thought 

of as job seekers first. The workforce investment system should then respond to 

their needs from this assumption as it would any job seeker utilizing the system. 

• The workforce investment system should be reconstructed using the principles 

of universal design to ensure that any job seeker can access the full array of services 

available. 

• Training should be enhanced for workforce investment system staff to respond to differing levels of customer need. 

• The workforce investment system should be structured to access and utilize 

a variety of approaches and strategies to infuse disability awareness throughout 

local service delivery systems. 

• This reauthorization should strengthen the workforce investment systems 

commitment to physical, technological and programmatic accessibility. 

• People with disabilities must be included in any categories of priority of service 

and funds should be dedicated to meeting those needs. Workforce investment funds 

should prioritize targeted at-risk groups. 

• The workforce investment system should approach each job seeker as an individual and respond to his or her needs accordingly. 

• It should provide each job seeker with access to training needed to meet 

local labor market needs. 

132 

• It should utilize strategies such as assistive technology, supported or customized employment, job restructuring, and flex arrangements that allow job seekers to maximize opportunities in the local labor market. • It should provide reasonable accommodations when appropriate. 

• A dedicated Federal funding stream should be established to adequately fund 

all of the infrastructure costs of our Nation’s job training system. • The role of the workforce investment system in youth with disabilities 

transitioning from school to work and community life should be strengthened. • The workforce investment system should strengthen its coordination with vocational and educational programs for veterans with disabilities to ensure that wounded warriors access all services and benefits to which they are entitled. • The workforce investment system must be held accountable for its services to 

people with disabilities. This means that: 

• The performance measurement system should be redesigned so as to not 

create disincentives to serving people with disabilities. • Reporting requirements must be changed to include data on services to people with disabilities. • State and local system governance plans should explicitly outline strategies 

for serving individuals with disabilities. • Local systems should engage employment service providers with expertise 

in serving people with disabilities. • Governance bodies should assure that staff are appropriately trained to respond to the needs of job seekers with disabilities. 

• The employment interests of people with disabilities must be represented in the 

workforce investment system’s governance structure. • The Secretary of Labor should ensure that personnel with expertise in disability 

policy and programs are embedded in the local and State system to promote linkages between public and private agencies and expand employment opportunities for 

people with disabilities. • We support authorizing and strengthening the Office of Disability Employment 

Policy’s role in shaping and advancing policy on employment of people with disabilities. 

The Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD) is a coalition of national disability organizations and advocates for public policy that ensures the inclusion of 

children and adults with disabilities in all aspects of society. The Employment and 

Training Task Force is a smaller group within the coalition that addresses Federal 

disability employment issues, working to secure national public policy that advances 

self-determination, independence, empowerment, integration and inclusion in employment for individuals with disabilities. 

We hope this document will be useful as you move through the legislative process 

and look forward to working with you over the coming months. 

Sincerely, 

American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities; American 

Congress of Community Supports and Employment Services; American Council of 

the Blind; American Network of Community Options and Resources; APSE; Council 

of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation; Easter Seals, Inc.; Inter-National Association of Business, Industry and Rehabilitation; Judge David L. Bazelon 

Center for Mental Health Law; National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability 

for Youth; National Disability Rights Network; National Down Syndrome Congress; 

National Industries for the Blind; National Rehabilitation Association; National Spinal Cord Injury Association; NISH; Paralyzed Veterans of America; The Arc of the 

United States; United Cerebral Palsy. 

COUNCIL OF STATE ADMINISTRATORS OF VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION (CSAVR) 

The Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation (CSAVR) submits this statement on Modernizing the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998. 

CSAVR is composed of the chief administrators of the State Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) Programs serving individuals with physical and mental disabilities in the 

States, District of Columbia, and the territories. The Council, which was founded 

in 1940 to furnish input into the State-Federal Rehabilitation Program, provides a 

forum for State administrators to study, deliberate, and act upon matters affecting 

the rehabilitation and employment of individuals with disabilities. The Council 

serves as a resource for the formulation and expression of the collective points of 

view of the VR Directors across the country on all issues affecting the provision of 

quality employment, training, and rehabilitation services to individuals with all 

types of disabilities who are seeking to enter or re-enter the labor market. 

133 

The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA; P.L. 105–220) established a new 

One-Stop Career Center system, administered by the U.S. Department of Labor 

(DOL), through which a number of federally funded education and training programs, e.g., Wagner-Peyser, post-secondary vocational education, adult education, 

vocational rehabilitation, etc., recruit and serve their customers. 

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (the Rehab Act), which was linked 

to workforce through Title IV of WIA in 1998, funds multiple programs and projects 

that provide comprehensive and complementary services and supports to empower 

eligible individuals with disabilities to maximize employment, economic self-sufficiency, independence, inclusion and integration into society. The VR Program, authorized under Title I of the Rehab Act, is the primary federally funded employment 

and training program specifically designed to assist individuals with disabilities, including individuals with the most significant disabilities, in overcoming barriers to 

employment. 

The VR Program operates across all sectors (public, private, non-profit, for-profit), 

and at all jurisdictional levels (Federal, State and local). It is built on federally mandated principles that individuals with disabilities hold dear, including consumer 

driven planning; consumer empowerment; informed choice; individualized services 

and supports; due process protections; and the availability of advocacy services. 

When the Rehab Act was reauthorized in 1992 and 1998, the VR Program saw increased consumer control, more emphasis on serving individuals with the most significant disabilities, and a focus on long-term, competitive employment outcomes. 

Under VR, a majority of individuals with disabilities, including those with the 

most significant disabilities, are presumed capable of benefiting from the VR services in terms of securing employment. Qualified VR counselors assist eligible individuals explore their abilities, potentials, and interests, and provide them with information on and access to specialized assessments, services and supports that are 

not available through generic employment and training programs. Qualified VR 

counselors provide guidance and counseling as eligible individuals use existing information and information from assessments and evaluations provided by VR to make 

informed choices about vocational goals, the services needed to pursue those goals, 

and the providers of those services. VR provides eligible individuals with disabilities 

a wide variety of services and supports to assist them in accomplishing specific employment outcomes consistent with their abilities, capabilities, interests, resources, 

and informed choices. 

Federally appropriated VR funds require a State match at a set ratio (78.7 percent Federal to 21.3 percent State). This funding mechanism creates a State/Federal 

partnership that has worked for over 89 years. The Designated State Unit (DSU) 

responsible for implementing the State Plan for VR Services must make specific assurances and be responsible for the expenditure of VR funds. 

The services, supports and assistance available through VR may be provided directly or purchased from other qualified service providers. State VR agencies work 

cooperatively and in collaboration with significant numbers of community partners 

(State/Federal, public/private, non-profit/for-profit) to provide the full range of services and supports that individuals with disabilities need to prepare for, enter, retain 

or advance in employment. 

The Rehab Act requires Congress to appropriate an annual increase for VR that 

is at least equal to the increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) over the previous 

fiscal year. While this mandate was intended to create a floor for the VR appropriation, Congress has not appropriated funds above the mandated CPI increase for a 

number of years. This is particularly problematic because the formula used to distribute these funds, which is based on a State’s per capita income and population, 

results in significant variations in the increases in individual State allotments. 

When the increase is limited to the CPI increase and the formula is applied, not 

all States receive increases that equal the annual rate of inflation. Unfortunately, 

this has had a cumulative effect on a number of States, significantly reducing VR’s 

ability in those States to meet the needs of unemployed Americans with disabilities. 

EXTERNAL FACTORS DRIVING INCREASED DEMAND FOR VR SERVICES

A number of external factors are driving an increase in demand for VR services. 

Because of minimal increases in Federal funding, State VR agencies are struggling 

to meet these demands. These external factors include: 

Iraq & Afghanistan: VR agencies are providing services to veterans with disabilities and in recent survey of State agencies we identified over 16,000 joint cases between the VR program and the VA’s—Vocational Rehabilitation & Employment Program (VR&E). VR also serves a number of veterans who are not eligible for the VA’s 

VR&E program. 

134 

America’s Working Seniors: VR agencies are also seeing increasing demand from 

the aging workforce. More people are working longer for a number of reasons, including the loss of retirement funds and the increased cost of living. As we age, 

there are a number of disability related issues that surface. There is an increased 

need for helping the aging population retain work and/or reenter the workforce. 

Business has also been asking for assistance to keep individuals working and seeking the support of VR agencies in identifying the appropriate assistive technology 

and accommodations. 

Assistive Technology: Over the years, assistive technology (AT) has become a fundamental tool, making it possible for individuals with disabilities, including individuals with the most significant disabilities, to participate in training and employment 

programs and seek employment opportunities in the competitive labor market. 

While the cost of some AT has fallen, specialized products remain costly. Additional 

costs are incurred to maintain, repair and update AT and to provide training on the 

use of AT. VR agencies report that the number of customers benefiting from AT has 

doubled in 5 years and that VR’s overall expenditure on AT increases each year. 

Special Education: The Federal appropriation for special education has increased 

significantly while VR has seen only the required CPI increase. Increases in special 

education funding have increased the demand for VR services as more students with 

disabilities exit special education and seek adult services and employment. This constitutes a movement from a system of entitlement to services to a system based on 

eligibility. VR does not have the resources to meet all the needs of students exiting 

special education, of youth with disabilities who have dropped out of school, or are 

in the juvenile justice system, or the growing demand from transition services while 

students with disabilities are still in school. 

TANF: Over 40 percent of the individuals left on our welfare rolls are individuals 

with disabilities or family members of individuals with disabilities. As a result, Welfare-to-Work programs for TANF recipients are increasingly turning to VR for assistance in serving this population. 

Ticket to Work: The work incentives provisions, the Ticket-to-Work Program, and 

particularly the extended access to health care authorized under the Ticket to Work 

and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 are intended to encourage millions 

of Americans who receive Social Security disability benefits to seek assistance in entering or re-entering the workforce. To date, over 93 percent of the individuals participating in the Ticket Program have assigned their tickets to VR, placing an enormous burden on VR without providing any additional funding. Recent changes to 

the Ticket to Work regulations may provide some relief but the changes are too recent to have had much effect. 

Olmstead: As Federal and State efforts to implement the Supreme Court’s 

Olmstead decision expand, more and more individuals with disabilities are being 

moved from institutions to community settings. As they establish themselves in the 

community and obtain the services and supports they need to live more independently, many will turn to VR for assistance in entering employment. 

Order of Selection: VR is severely under-funded to meet the mandates in the 

Rehab Act and the external challenges facing the Program. As a result, cost containment associated with administrative efficiencies cannot sustain the current level of 

service being delivered by the VR Program. Under the current appropriation, VR 

can assist only a small percentage of eligible individuals (i.e., an estimated one in 

twenty who could potentially benefit from services). At the end of fiscal year 2008, 

36 State VR Agencies were on an Order of Selection, with 35,213 individuals on 

waiting lists for services. With the already high unemployment rate for people with 

disabilities expected to grow even faster in today’s difficult economy, we expect that 

the demand for VR services will grow proportionately. 

Nonetheless, VR is one of the most cost effective programs ever created by Congress. Even with inadequate funding and in the face of many external challenges, 

VR is a program with a proven track record. In 2007 the Public VR program and 

its partners helped over 200,000 people with disabilities find, return to, or retain 

employment. VR customers earned over $3.0 billion in wages, paid $966 million in 

Federal, State, & local taxes, and generated 36,000 new jobs. In fact, on average 

every person VR helps find or retain employment will ‘‘pay back’’ the cost of their 

rehabilitation services, through taxes, in just 2 to 4 years. 

In addition, data from the Social Security Administration reveals that for every 

dollar SSA reimburses VR, means SSA has saved $7 in benefits that it would have 

paid out, a net savings of $754 million to the Social Security (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) programs. 

The Department of Education’s Longitudinal Study of the Public VR Program, released in 2002 and the last of study of its kind, tracked 8,500 randomly selected 

applicants and consumers of the VR Program, from 37 State VR Agencies over a 

135 

5 year period. The findings of that study are impressive and include, among other 

things: 

Sixty-nine percent of the individuals who completed their VR service plans secured employment. 

Eighty-three percent of VR consumers who secured employment during the Study 

were still employed after 1 year; 

Seventy-six percent of those placed in employment were still employed after 3 

years. • The average hourly earnings for these VR consumers increased from $7.33 per hour in year 1 to $9.62 per hour after 3 years. • At exit from the VR program, 32 percent of these VR consumers were in competitive jobs and had earnings about 200 percent above poverty level. 

Seventy-five percent of the employment outcomes were competitive jobs in professional, managerial, technical, service or clerical/sales positions. 

Thirty-nine percent of consumers who participated in the Longitudinal Study had 

received some form of public assistance at entry to the Public VR Program. After 

case closure, 3 years later, this percentage declined to 26 percent. 

The quality of the relationship between the qualified VR counselor and the consumer was significant related to employment and earning levels. 

Even with this impressive record, the Public VR Program has been severely 

under-funded to provide assistance to Americans with disabilities, the segment of 

the American population with the highest unemployment record. 

When Congress passed the Workforce Investment Act in 1998, it set in motion significant changes in the workforce investment system, including governance, accountability and increased coordination and collaboration among federally funded partner 

programs. Among the organizing principles of WIA is universal access where a set 

of core services are intended to be available to any individual who needs them. A 

second principle is the concept of a One-Stop service delivery system whereby Federal assistance and services can be made available through partnership organizations which, in many cases, are located under one roof to facilitate ease of access 

and enhanced customer service. The One-Stop service delivery system, through 

statewide and local workforce development systems, was intended to increase the 

employment, retention, earnings, and skills attainment of participants, including individuals with disabilities. 

CSAVR recognizes the importance of VR’s participation in the One-Stop system 

created under WIA. Individuals with disabilities experience the highest unemployment rate of any segment of the American population. The One-Stop delivery system 

should be an additional vehicle for increased resources and employment opportunities for persons with disabilities. Nevertheless, significant barriers and challenges 

exist for individuals with disabilities who are seeking assistance through the OneStop system. 

With regard to the pending reauthorization of WIA and the Rehab Act, CSAVR 

raises the following issues and makes the following recommendations. 

Issue 1: Do No Harm 

CSAVR strongly supports ensuring the integrity of the funding authorized under 

the Rehab Act to meet the needs of individuals with disabilities. These programs, 

projects and services create a complementary, coordinated, and comprehensive service delivery system for individuals with disabilities who want to increase their independence and self-sufficiency. The system, which includes services (e.g., independent 

living services, evaluations and assessments, education and training, employment 

services, etc.), supports (assistive technology services and devices, interpreters, readers, personal assistance services, etc.), and a supporting infrastructure (monitoring 

and enforcement, technical assistance and training, research and demonstration 

projects, etc.), has been working well for individuals with disabilities for over 89 

years. 

Consequently, one of CSAVR’s primary policy priorities for reauthorization of 

WIA/Rehab Act is to maintain and expand the funding available to meet the diverse 

needs of individuals with disabilities, particularly those with significant disabilities, 

who are seeking to enter, re-enter or remain in the workforce. Many of these individuals must have access to specialized services and supports to participate in training and engage in employment. CSAVR supports eliminating the sequence of services that exists in the WIA program. Job seekers need to be able to access the services they need find employment without delays. 

CSAVR will also oppose any efforts to redirect funds currently authorized and appropriated for programs under the Rehabilitation Act to other purposes. CSAVR 

does not support the consolidation of funds currently appropriated for Supported 

Employment State Grants (SE), Projects with Industry (PWI), Recreation Projects, 

136 

and Migrant and Seasonal Farm Worker Projects into VR’s appropriation, particularly if these consolidated funds are used to provide VR’s required CPI increase. 

Programs such as SE and PWI are important because they enhance VR’s ability to 

meet specific needs of certain segments of the population of unemployed individuals 

with disabilities. SE funds enhance VR’s ability to provide on-going, intensive services to individuals with the most significant disabilities, particularly those who need 

long-term supports to engage in employment. PWI’s linkage with the business community and ability to providing job opportunities for individuals who are ‘‘job-ready’’ 

are particularly important for individuals whose disabilities may not be significant 

enough to receive VR services. 

Issue 2: Secure a Dedicated Line-Item to Fund the Infrastructure Costs of One-Stop 

Career Centers 

The Public VR Program is a mandatory partner in the WIA and, as such, is required to contribute significant resources to support the infrastructure and other 

costs associated with the operation of One-Stop Centers. While VR’s partnership in 

State workforce investment systems is critically important, WIA has placed yet another financial burden on an already strained program; further reducing the percentage of VR funds that are available to provide services and supports to eligible 

individuals with disabilities who want to work. Rather than taking funds from mandatory partners, who are already under funded to serve specific populations, CSAVR 

supports the authorization of a dedicated line-item to fund the infrastructure costs 

of One-Stop Centers. 

Issue 3: Adequacy of Resources Available to the VR Program 

Real and significant increased funding is required to maintain and enhance the 

quality of services provided by State VR Agencies and to facilitate employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities. CSAVR believes that the VR Program must 

have substantially increased resources to meet the unique and specialized rehabilitation needs of individuals with disabilities. A substantial increase in the Federal 

investment in this proven program must become a national priority. The mandated 

Consumer Price Index (CPI) increase in funding for the Public VR Program is an 

important provision in current law that should be maintained in the upcoming reauthorization. However, Congress must understand that this mandated CPI increase 

represents the minimum annual increase in Federal funding for the VR Program, 

and that increases in the overall Federal appropriation must be adequate to hold 

all States and territories harmless with regard to the previous year’s appropriation 

while ensuring that each State allotment gets at least an increase equal to the CPI 

increase for the previous year. CSAVR believes that such increases are necessary 

to ensure the VR Program’s ability to meet the letter and intent of the Rehab Act 

and keep up with the external challenges facing the Program. 

Issue 4: Ensuring the Physical and Programmatic Accessibility of One-Stops, Job 

Training Programs, Educational Programs and Other Service Programs 

The vision of the WIA legislation was to create a collaborative service delivery 

system that serves all Americans who encounter barriers to employment, including 

dislocated workers, the long-term unemployed, at-risk youth, and individuals with 

significant disabilities. Collaboration between VR and DOL-funded workforce investment services is intended to produce better information, more comprehensive services, easier access to services, and improved long-term employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities. 

Under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehab 

Act, the One-Stop Career Centers created under WIA are required to be both physically and programmatically accessible. One-Stop Centers and other service providers that receive Federal funding are responsible for serving individuals with disabilities under the same terms and conditions as they serve non-disabled individuals. 

While many, if not most, One-Stop Centers have achieved some level of physical 

accessibility, many challenges remain with regard to programmatic accessibility. If 

individuals with communicative, cognitive and sensory disabilities are to be able to 

access services in a One-Stop Center, information must be available in a range of 

alternate formats (large print, Braille, and disk). In addition, auxiliary aids and 

services (e.g., interpreters and readers) and assistive technology such as accessible 

software and related-communicative equipment must be readily available to ensure 

the individuals with physical, mental, sensory and cognitive disabilities can access 

information and have meaningful participation in educational programs, vocational 

training, and other types of employment services provided through the One-Stop 

service delivery system. The provision of such accommodations is the responsibility 

the One-Stop Centers or the service providers used by the One-Stop Centers. 

137 

As a required partner in the One-Stop system created under WIA, VR Programs 

may provide technical assistance on identifying and providing needed accommodations, and information on how to make physical facilities accessible to individuals 

with different types of disabilities. However, State VR Agencies should not be covering expenses associated with making One-Stop facilities and programs accessible 

to individuals with disabilities. That responsibility must remain with the One-Stop 

Centers and the entities they use to provide educational, employment and training 

services. In addition, State VR Agencies should not be asked to assume the expenses 

associated with the provision of core services in a One-Stop Center merely because 

some individuals with disabilities will be benefiting from those services. 

Issue 5: Dedicated Funding to Provide Transition Services for Youth With Disabilities 

A number of research findings have clearly demonstrated the need to improve 

transition outcomes for students with disabilities. Youth with disabilities, especially 

those with significant disabilities, often have a difficult time completing high school. 

For those youth with disabilities who do complete high school, it is well documented 

that they have a difficult time enrolling in and completing post-secondary education 

and finding and keeping employment. In addition, students with disabilities have 

higher drop out rates than non-disabled students. One out of five adults with disabilities has not graduated from high school, compared to less than one out of ten 

adults without disabilities. Drop out rates for students with disabilities vary with 

the nature and significance of the disability. Youth with severe emotional disturbances (57.6 percent) and youth with learning disabilities (36 percent) have the highest drop out rates of all disability groups. 

Students with disabilities have higher rates of incarceration. More than one in 

three youths who enter correctional facilities have previously received special education services. Over the past several years, the number of students with disabilities 

in correctional facilities has risen at over twice the rate of the overall special education population. More than half of all young people with emotional disturbance 

are arrested at least once within 3 to 5 years of exiting school. 

Students with disabilities have low rates of college enrollment. Only 14 percent 

of youth with disabilities attend post-secondary school versus 53 percent in the general population. This is particularly troubling given that post-secondary credentials 

bring economic gains in the labor market. Nationally, 70 percent of youth with disabilities are unemployed 2 years after exiting from high school. Only 26 percent of 

working-age adults with disabilities have a job or own their own business. People 

with disabilities are nearly three times more likely than people without disabilities 

to be living in households with total incomes of $15,000 or less. 

In recent reauthorizations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 

(IDEA) and the Rehab Act, the natural linkages between special education, transition services, and VR services have received some attention. However, without dedicated funding, transition services compete with the other mandates, priorities and 

external challenges of the VR Program. Currently, the transition provisions in these 

two laws are not always implemented in a carefully coordinated manner. In addition, the lack of specificity regarding shared funding responsibilities often results in 

conflicts that can delay or deny needed assistance. 

CSAVR believes the return on America’s investment in special education is closely 

linked to VR’s ability to assist transitioning youth with disabilities in exploring vocational options, and accessing post-secondary education, training and employment 

services. A July 2002 report from The Longitudinal Study of VR Services, the last 

such study conducted, found that transitioning youth represent 13.5 percent of the 

consumers of VR services (i.e., approximately 135,000 youth with disabilities). It 

also found that 63 percent of young adults (below age 25) who received VR services 

successfully went to work, with most entering competitive employment. When young 

adults with disabilities enter competitive employment immediately upon or shortly 

after exiting the educational system, their need for long-term public assistance (such 

as SSI, welfare benefits, food stamps, etc.) can be significantly reduced. 

The gaps in services provided under the entitlement of IDEA versus the eligibility 

of adult service systems often seem vast and insurmountable to youth with disabilities and their families. As a result, students with disabilities continue to struggle 

to attain success and independence in employment, post-secondary education, independent living, and healthy and active relationships in their communities. 

This Nation cannot afford to invest substantial resources in this segment of its 

youth population while providing few, if any, options after the school experience is 

completed. Transition programs must be strengthened and enhanced if we are to assist students in reaching their potential to become productive and active members 

of their communities. Transition planning must become a long-term educational 

138 

process beginning in middle school. Transition goals and objectives should be the 

foundation of a student’s educational program and guide the development of a student’s IEP throughout the high school years. 

With the number of students in special education who need transition services increasing every year, the pressure on personnel in both the special education system 

and the VR system to provide transition services is growing. Currently there are no 

designated resources for transition services, either in IDEA or the Rehab Act. Transition services are listed among the services that may be funded under IDEA, Part 

B, and under Title I of the Rehab Act for those students who have been determined 

eligible for VR services and who have had an individualized plan for employment 

(IPE) developed in partnership with a qualified VR Counselor. The lack of dedicated 

resources often results in students not having access to needed transition services. 

CSAVR believes that in addition to strengthening linkages between special education and the VR Program, NEW targeted monies must be provided in both IDEA 

and the Rehabilitation Act for transition planning and the provision of transition 

services. These monies should supplement resources currently used for transition 

services under IDEA, Part B, and Title I of the VR Program and the COLA. 

Having a dedicated funding stream for transition services would allow both special education and VR to collaborate substantively, and provide quality, relevant 

transition services to students with disabilities in a timely manner. 

Further, a dedicated funding for VR will facilitate the creation of a cadre of Transition Counselors who specialize in working with schools and adult service systems 

to improve employment and educational outcomes for youth with disabilities. These 

specialists could provide career counseling, employment, job placement, and case 

management services to youth with disabilities. 

Dedicated funding would enhance the capacity of VR to support the efforts of local 

high schools to provide school-based employment services to youth with disabilities 

(e.g., running job clubs, providing technical support for school-based employment 

services, identifying trial work experiences, etc.). Dedicated VR funding would allow 

VR counselors to become highly visible in school settings and actively involved in 

working with teachers, parents, and employers to assist youth with disabilities in 

accessing post-secondary education, to connect youth with significant disabilities to 

adult services programs (including VR), and to place youth with disabilities in employment. 

Issue 6: Retain the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) Within the Department of Education (DOE) 

CSAVR strongly opposes any attempt to move the Rehabilitation Services Administration from the Department of Education to the Department of Labor. The VR 

program provides a wide array of services to a broad population, from teens to seniors. VR provides the services and supports that are necessary for an eligible individual to go to work which may include, but is not limited to, such things as medical 

assistance, assistive technology, and transportation. 

In particular, students with disabilities who are leaving the education system represent the single largest source of potential customers for VR services. CSAVR believes it is critical for all State VR Agencies to strengthen the continuum of services 

provided to these students to facilitate a smooth and beneficial transition from secondary education to post-secondary education and employment. The close relationship between VR and Special Education is critical to the planning and implementation of services that will ensure the success of transition students; and this relationship can best be maintained by retaining the RSA within the DOE. 

Issue 7: Maintain the Status of the RSA Commissioner’s Position in Current Law 

CSAVR will not support downgrading of the RSA Commissioner’s position. 

CSAVR believes that downgrading the Office of the Commissioner of RSA would diminish the importance of the VR Program and devalue the employment of individuals with disabilities. 

Issue 8: Ensuring the Integrity of the Designated State Unit (DSU) 

CSAVR believes that the VR Program must continue to be administered and implemented by a Designated State Unit (DSU) in each State to ensure that individuals with disabilities continue to have access to the highest quality job training and 

employment services and supports tailored to their unique and individualized needs. 

The Rehab Act must continue to require each State to designate in its State Plan 

a State Unit that has the sole responsibility for administering the State Plan for 

VR Services, while giving States the option of designating a separate State Unit to 

serve individuals who are blind or visually impaired. 

Each DSU must be an agency or a division within a State agency that is primarily 

concerned with the provision of VR services to individuals with disabilities; has a 

139 

director that is solely responsible for the administration of that State Plan; employs 

staff who are engaged 90 percent of the time on implementing the VR Program; and 

have organizational responsibilities equal to other major organizational units within 

State government. Services through the DSU must continue to be available statewide. CSAVR believes that development of the budget, management of finances, supervision of staff, determinations of eligibility, approval of individualized plans for 

employment, and decisions about case closures should be the sole responsibility of 

qualified professionals employed by the DSU, as should the overall management of 

the VR program. State-level oversight and accountability are necessary to ensure a 

consumer responsive, effective and efficient VR Program. Having a DSU with responsibility for the administration, management and implementation of the Program will help to ensure a viable, accountable, and effectively managed program of 

VR services. 

The DSU in each State is held accountable for the expenditure of Federal and 

State funds dedicated for the employment, training and support needs of individuals 

with significant disabilities. Accountability is a fundamental and critical element of 

the VR Program. DSUs make annual reports on how they have expended VR funds, 

providing extensive information on the individuals receiving services. Standards and 

indicators appropriate for VR were developed in response to the 1992 amendments 

to the Rehab Act. They are used to evaluate the effectiveness of the VR program 

and to provide methods for measuring improvement. In addition, The Longitudinal 

Study of Vocational Rehabilitation Services mentioned earlier has provided extensive information that demonstrates the long-term results of the VR Program. 

To clarify lines of responsibility, CSAVR recommends that the act refer only to 

a Designated State Unit (permitting a free-standing State Agency to function as 

such a unit) and that specific language be added to the definition of the DSU to 

clarify exactly what functions are the responsibility of the DSU and, therefore, may 

not be delegated. CSAVR has developed suggested language to clarify the lines of 

authority for the administration and implementation of the VR Program and to ensure accountability for the expenditure of VR funds. This language (which would 

completely rewrite of Section 101(a)(2) DESIGNATED STATE AGENCY; DESIGNATED STATE UNIT) can be found in appendix I. 

Issue 9: Representation of Disability Interest on Workforce Investment Boards 

Recognizing the expertise of individuals staffing the VR Program and the importance of considering the views of individuals with disabilities, CSAVR believes each 

State Workforce Investment Board (SWIB) must include in its membership at least 

one individual with a disability and the Director of the DSU administering the State 

Plan for VR Services (Directors in States that have a separate DSU that serves individuals who are blind or visually impaired). The representative of the DSU must 

be a person who has day-to-day responsibility for administering the VR Program or 

an individual designated by the VR Director. Nearly 4 years after implementation 

of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), there are still States that are meeting the 

SWIB composition requirements by having the head of the umbrella agency housing 

the VR Program serve as the VR representative on the SWIB. 

To address this issue, CSAVR recommends amending Sec. 111(b)(1)(C)(vi)(I) of 

WIA, which sets out the composition of the SWIB, by adding a new subsection 

111(b)(1)(C)(vi)(II); and redesignating current (vi)(II) as (vi)(III). The amended section might read as follows: 

Sec. 111(b)(1)(C)(vi)(I) the lead State agency officials with responsibility for the 

programs and activities that are described in section 121(b) and carried out by OneStop partners; and 

[New] (vi)(II) in the case of the Public Vocational Rehabilitation Program authorized under Title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 720 ET seq.), the Vocational Rehabilitation Director employed by the Designated State Unit or the Vocational Rehabilitation Directors in States that have a separate State entity that is 

responsible for the rehabilitation of individuals who are blind and visually impaired; 

and 

[Redesignated] (vi)(III) ‘‘in any case in which no lead State agency official has responsibility for such a program, service or activity, a representative in the State 

with expertise relating to such program, service, or activity; and . . .’’ 

Issue 10: Representation on Local Workforce Investment Boards 

Currently, WIA requires representatives of local community-based organizations 

(including organizations representing individuals with disabilities and veterans) to 

be included in the membership of Local Workforce Investment Boards (Local WIBs). 

As a result of this requirement, many Local WIBs include representatives of community rehabilitation programs (CRPs), the Public VR program, and individuals 

140 

with disabilities. If Local WIBs are to be effective in meeting the needs of individuals with disabilities who are not eligible for VR services, individuals with disabilities and representatives of organizations serving individuals with disabilities must 

be included on these local boards. Consequently, CSAVR supports the continuation 

of the current requirement regarding organizations representing individuals with 

disabilities and veterans serving on Local WIBs and the addition of language requiring individuals with disabilities to serve on Local WIBs. 

Issue 11: VR—Dual Customers—Employer Partnerships 

Over the years State VR agencies have also worked hard to develop stronger relationships with the business community. Recently CSAVR created a National Employment Team (NET) that is a network of the 80 State VR agencies and their employer partners to focus on increasing the employment of VR consumers. The NET 

has working partnerships with major corporations such as Walgreens, Safeway 

Convergys, Microsoft, and also with Federal agencies such as the Internal Revenue 

Service (IRS) and the Department of Transportation (DOT), to name a few. 

Through the coordinated national team, VR’s relationship with business effectively meets their employment needs while it incorporates ‘‘real time’’ information 

from employers into VR’s career planning and IPE process with consumers. This up 

front work with business opens the doors to national employment opportunities for 

VR consumers. 

The national model with the corporate connections allows VR to develop productive working relationships with businesses in multiple States. The top level support 

and a company-wide strategy have resulted in multiple employment outcomes. For 

example, in 2008 over 680 VR consumers were hired by Safeway which is 

headquartered in Pleasanton, CA but does business in multiple States across the 

country. 

Another one of VR’s important business partners is Convergys. Convergys is an 

outsourcing company headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio but doing business in 35 

countries. Through the NET, VR has developed a corporate level relationship that 

resulted in employment opportunities in 29 States. VR consumers are being hired 

for positions in brick and mortar sites as well as in home agent positions which allows individuals with significant disabilities and those in rural areas to be employed 

in good paying positions with benefits. 

In the area of IT, VR is working closely with Convergys to find a solution that 

will support access for people who are blind and use screen readers. Screen readers 

vocalize the printed information that sighted people access on the computer screen. 

Convergys has a corporate IT and HR team working with a VR team that includes 

staff experts from five agencies across the country. The company is thrilled because 

VR is providing the technical expertise to work with the company to resolve the access issue so that they can employ the talents of individuals who are blind. Again, 

this type of working relationship will open up employment opportunities for people 

with disabilities in 29 States through this one initiative. It also serves as a corporate model to other business customers. 

The Act, Title I, Section 109, references VR’s responsibility in educating employers about the Americans with Disabilities Act. This limited reference does not fully 

describe the role or relationship that VR must develop to support business in the 

recruitment, hiring, promotion, training and retention of qualified individuals with 

disabilities and to support the individual’s success in the workplace. CSAVR supports language that would strengthen the dual customer model and the establishment of a grant funded program that would be targeted at promoting the ongoing 

development of relationships between State VR agencies and businesses as part of 

the dual customer model. 

Issue 12: Inadequate Resources Available for VR to Meet the CSPD Requirements 

The role of the VR counselor is the cornerstone of the VR Program. As the key 

professional in the system, the counselor is responsible for interacting with individuals with disabilities who are seeking or receiving VR services to assist them in entering the workforce and becoming economically independent. VR counselors are 

uniquely qualified to assist individuals with disabilities in assessing their needs for 

individualized services and supports to achieve high quality employment outcomes. 

In 1998, Congress mandated that VR employ qualified counselors, i.e., counselors 

that meet the national standard or the highest State standard for persons in that 

profession (in most cases, requiring a master’s degree). With minimal increases in 

funding and expanding external pressures, VR is finding it more and more difficult 

to attract and retain qualified individuals. With over one third of the incumbent 

counselors in some States not meeting the State standard for VR Counselors, VR 

must provide additional education and training to incumbent counselors to upgrade 

141 

their qualifications. While special training grant funds have been made available for 

this purpose, they are not adequate to cover the cost of necessary education and 

training. State VR agencies have had to make up the shortfall in these training 

funds with case service funds. 

State VR agencies are facing a dwindling pool of potential qualified applicants for 

counselor positions. The situation is likely to become critical over the next 5 to 10 

years because a significant percentage of individuals currently working for VR will 

be retiring. This situation calls for a serious focus on succession planning. 

As a result of all these factors, CSAVR will seek increased resources for Section 

302 of the Rehab Act so that additional funding will be available for training rehabilitation professionals, particularly for in-services training for staff of DSU that are 

having problems meeting requirements for a Comprehensive System of Personnel 

Development found in Title I of the Rehab Act. 

CSAVR stands ready to provide any information about the VR program and what 

is happening in individual States, and we look forward to working with members 

of the Subcommittee and the full HELP Committee on reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act. Please feel free to contact Paul J. Seifert, CSAVR Director of 

Government Relations at 301–219–4719 if you have any questions or need any additional information. 

APPENDIX I 

CSAVR proposes the following rewrite of Section 101(a)(2) DESIGNATED STATE 

AGENCY; DESIGNATED STATE UNIT: 

Section 101(a)(2) Designated state unit.— 

(A) The State plan shall designate a State unit as the sole State entity to administer the plan. The Designated State unit must be either a State agency with the 

primary function of implementing the State Plan for VR services or a division or 

unit within a larger State agency that is located at an organizational level and has 

an organizational status comparable to that of other major organizational units 

within other State Agencies. Under State law, a separate State Unit may be designated to provide vocational rehabilitation services to individuals who are blind 

and to be the sole State unit authorized to administer the part of the plan under 

which vocational rehabilitation services are provided for individuals who are blind. 

In the case of American Samoa, the appropriate State unit shall be the governor 

of American Samoa. 

(B) The State unit designated under subparagraph (A) shall— 

(i) be primarily concerned with vocational rehabilitation, or vocational and other 

rehabilitation, of individuals with disabilities, and be responsible for the administration of the State Plan for VR services; 

(ii) have a full-time director who shall be responsible for: 

(I) Policy formulation and implementation; 

(II) all decisions regarding the development, implementation and approval of 

the annual budget for the Public VR Program and all decisions regarding the development, implementation and approval of the allocation, administration, and expenditure of vocational rehabilitation funds authorized under Sec. 100(b); 

(III) supervision of professional staff and decisions about the Comprehensive 

System of Personnel Development implemented in accordance with Sec. 101(a)(7); 

and 

(IV) representing the Public VR Program on the State Workforce Investment 

Board created under Title I of the Workforce Investment Act; 

(iii) have staff employed on the rehabilitation work of the designated State unit 

all or substantially all of who are employed full time on such work and at such levels and in such capacities as the State Director determines to be adequate. 

(I) all decisions affecting eligibility for vocational rehabilitation services, for 

the nature and scope of available services, and the provision of these services; and 

(II) all decisions about the approval of individualized plans for employment 

and determinations to close the record of services of an individual who has achieved 

an employment outcome, in accordance with Sec. 361.56. 

(iv) The responsibilities assigned to the full-time VR Director in section 100 

(a)(2)(B)(ii) are solely the responsibilities of the Director and may not be delegated 

to any other State official not subordinate to the Director. 

(v) The functions of the staff of the Designated State Unit outlined in subsection 

101(a)(2)(B)(iii) are solely the responsibility of the Designated Sate Unit and may 

not be delegated to any other State unit or any other subdivision of the State Agency within which the Designated State Unit is housed. 

(C) Responsibility for Services for the Blind 

142 

1 A full list of NOCA’s organizational members may be viewed at http://www.noca.org. NOCA 

members represent more than 10 million individuals worldwide and include certification programs of some 150 professions and occupations. NOCA members certify individual skills in 

fields as diverse as construction, healthcare, automotive, and finance. 2http://www.careeronestop.org/. 3Sen. Feingold introduced S. 175, the Skills Standards Certification Evaluation Act of 2009, 

earlier this year which also calls for a national study to evaluate certifications and provide confirmation of their value to employers. S. 175 would only evaluate ‘‘skill certifications’’ that receive Federal funding. It should be noted that occupational certifications are overwhelmingly 

regulated at the State level, hence there are only a small number of certifications that are codified into Federal law or recognized in Federal regulations. 

If the State has designated only one State Unit pursuant to subparagraph (A), the 

State may assign responsibility for the part of the State Plan under which vocational rehabilitation services are provided for individuals who are blind to another 

organizational unit, with the provisions of subparagraph (B) applying separately to 

each of the designated State units. 

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR COMPETENCY ASSURANCE (NOCA), 

WASHINGTON, DC 20036, 

July 16, 2009. 

Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety, 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

Right now, three-quarters of the fastest-growing occupations require more than a 

high school diploma. And so tonight, I ask every American to commit to at least one 

year or more of higher education or career training. This can be community college 

or a four year school; vocational training or an apprenticeship. But whatever the 

training may be, every American will need to get more than a high school diploma. 

—President Obama, Address to Joint Session of Congress, February 24, 2009. 

INTRODUCTION

On behalf of the National Organization for Competency Assurance (NOCA), an 

international association representing over 400 organizations 1 that grant occupational certifications, I am pleased to provide the subcommittee with our views on 

the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA). 

WIA REAUTHORIZATION SHOULD RECOGNIZE IMPORTANCE OF CERTIFICATION

NOCA recommends including information about occupational certification and licensure opportunities as a core service available through One-Stop employment and 

training career centers. The Department of Labor (DOL) launched its 

CareerOneStop 2 web site several years ago. This user-friendly web site allows job 

seekers to easily search for certification options in a number of different fields and 

professions. NOCA recommends that Congress encourage the expansion of this valuable tool by authorizing DOL to raise awareness about the site to workers as well 

as career development professionals. 

In 2003, both the Senate and the House passed different versions of WIA reauthorization. NOCA supported the Senate version of the WIA reauthorization 

(S. 1021) in particular as it included provisions directing One-Stop Centers to make 

available information about occupational certification and licensure opportunities to 

those seeking re-employment or new career directions. The Senate bill also called 

for a national study of the benefits of earning an occupational certification. The results of the study were to be presented to Congress and were required to include 

recommendations designed to promote the acquisition of occupational certifications.3

S. 1021 also authorized grants for the development of new certification programs for 

emerging competencies. Competencies relative to new technologies and emerging 

sectors will provide new job opportunities, and certifications based on the known regimes for certification programs, will provide the competency assurances to employers and the general public. We recommend that any WIA reauthorization undertaken by this committee include similar provisions. 

HELP DISLOCATED WORKERS PAY FOR CERTIFICATION

Spiraling costs are putting the dream of a higher education out of reach for many 

Americans. Many workers will not be able to achieve a valid occupational certification—which will serve many as the key to a new career—without receiving some 

143 

4 4 See also Su Bacon, ‘‘Setting Strategy: Earning professional credentials has many benefits 

for businesses.’’ Kansas City Star (Jul. 2, 2007), available at http://www.kansascity.com/business/story/174730.html. 5 Value of Certification Executive Summary. American Board of Nursing Specialties (May 

2006), 4. Available at http://www.nursingcertification.org/pdf/executivelsummary.pdf. 6 Ibid. 

7Poll Indicates Certified Workers Earn More, press release, Sept. 5, 2003. Available at:http:// 

www.noca.org/portals/0/Poll%20results.doc. See also CertMag’s 2006 Salary Survey. Available 

at: http://www.certmag.com/articles/templates/CMlgenlArticleltemplate.asp?articleid=2479 

&zoneid=223. See also 12 Money-Making Certifications to Boost Your Career, Yahoo! HotJobs. 

Available at: http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/career-articles-12lmoneylmakinglcertificationsltol 

boostlyourlcareer-653. 8See http://ncraonline.org/certification/Certification/rpr/default.htm. 9See http://ncraonline.org/NCRA/pressroom/AboutCourtRep/. 10http://www.bls.gov/oes/2007/may/oes537021.htm. 

form of financial assistance. At the same time, Federal dollars should not be put 

towards academically questionable programs. 

NOCA suggests allowing displaced workers to be eligible for financial aid to pay 

for the costs of taking an occupational certification exam. The Montgomery G.I. program was expanded a decade ago to allow veterans to use their education benefits 

towards this purpose and this could serve as a model for the committee when retooling of WIA begins. As with the Montgomery G.I. system, NOCA recommends that 

only those certifications that have been accredited by a nationally recognized accreditation body be eligible for any type of Federal financial aid or reimbursement. 

OCCUPATIONAL CERTIFICATION LEADS TO BETTER JOBS AND BETTER WAGES

Many organizations in today’s challenging economy have recognized their workforce as their most valuable asset. Likewise, as President Obama stated in his February 26 joint address to Congress, individuals recognize that now more than ever 

before they must acquire and maintain more comprehensive skill sets to ensure 

their own attractiveness and ability in the workplace.4

Certification offers a meaningful and a direct pathway to re-employment for individuals eligible for assistance through the One-Stop system. Certification may be a 

part of the training for specific job skills required in local markets. Including information about the vast array of certification programs and opportunities available to 

job seekers when they visit One-Stops is an excellent way to assist individuals in 

obtaining new work and possibly better career opportunities. 

The value of acquiring an occupational certification is underscored in existing 

data. Research conducted by the American Board of Nursing Specialties (ABNS) (a 

NOCA member) ‘‘document[s] a high level of agreement among certified nurses, noncertified nurses and nurse managers that certification is greatly valued among 

nurses.’’ 5 Respondents to the ABNS survey revealed that among the incentives their 

employers offer to promote and recognize nursing certifications are reimbursement 

of exam fees, a listing of their certifications on nametags and/or business cards, and 

receiving reimbursement for continuing education.6 Other surveys indicate that certification results in higher wages for credentialed employees, as well as bonuses.7

Certification programs whose prerequisites and requirements displaced workers 

may quickly access—like those in the nascent ‘‘green’’ jobs movement—would enable 

those workers to move back into gainful employment and possibly enhanced career 

opportunities. Certification of one’s specialized skills learned from years on the job 

may well be one of the quickest pathways to reemployment. 

In many instances, an occupational certification does not require a 4-year college 

degree. College is an expensive and time-consuming undertaking which may not 

represent a viable alternative for all job seekers. Persons who do not wish to pursue 

a bachelor’s degree can pursue rewarding careers in fields such as automotive mechanic, construction trades, and medical assisting, among many others. Examples 

of occupations not requiring a baccalaureate degree include: 

• Court reporters. This profession remains in high demand. According to the National Court Reporters Association, 81 percent of those holding the Registered Professional Reporter (RPR) certification say their professional designation is important 

to them.8 Court reporters earn close to $64,000 annually on average.9

• Crane operator. The Bureau of Labor Statistics lists the annual mean salary for 

crane operators as $42,940.10 Most States require crane operators to have a certification obtained from an accredited certification body. 

• Automotive technician. According to the National Automotive Technicians Education Foundation, automotive technicians receiving the Automotive Service Excellent (ASE) certification can earn $60,000 or more per year. 

144 

11http://www.bls.gov/oes/2007/may/oes292034.htm. 12 Average Certification Exam Fee Tops $350, press release, May 20, 2004. Available at: 

http://www.noca.org/portals/0/exam%20fee—header.pdf. 13See Hyon B. Shin with Rosalind Bruno, Language Use and English-Speaking Ability: 2000. 

U.S. Census Bureau (Oct. 2003). Available at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr29.pdf. 14 NOCA International Staff Summary Report. National Organization for Competency Assurance (Oct. 20, 2006). Not available online. 15 John E. Kasper, Ph.D., CAE, To Certify or . . . Not to Certify?, Forum Magazine (January 

2009), 28. 

• X-ray technician. There continues to be a demand for trained professionals in 

the healthcare field. X-ray technicians can expect to earn a mean annual wage of 

over $51,000 according to BLS statistics.11

These are just a small sampling of the occupations available to dislocated workers, new workforce entrants, and others seeking meaningful employment and living 

wages, who may choose not to go on to pursue a 2- or 4-year degree. Occupational 

certification is in most instances an affordable retraining option for many workers. 

A 2004 survey conducted by NOCA indicatedthe average cost of certification tests 

is $350.12

The certification sector is also recognizing the changing face of the American 

workforce. While the United States has always been a nation of immigrants, U.S. 

Census figures indicate that the number of persons who speak a language other 

than English at home increased from 31.8 million in 1990 to 47 million in 2000.13

In addition, while some immigrants enter the United States with high quality training and education, others lack advanced skills and will need to obtain training 

inorder to advance in the workforce. 

Certification bodies are adapting swiftly to meet the needs of America’s changing 

workforce. For example, many certification boards are administering their 

coursework and examinations in languages other than English. Certification examinations for numerous occupations are now administered on a global scale. A 2006 

survey of NOCA member organizations revealed that over 50 percent of respondents 

administer their exams in countries other than the United States and that 37 percent of respondents translate their exams into languages other than English.14

Certification bodies are also in full compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, thus allowing persons with disabilities to earn certifications with reasonable accommodation that does not compromise the validity or reliability of the testing process. 

WHAT IS CERTIFICATION?

The certification of professional and occupational skill sets affirms the importance 

and measurability of a knowledge and experience base for practitioners in a particular field, their employers, and the public at large. Certification represents a 

measureable demonstration of a particular individual’s professional competence. In 

some professions certification is a requirement for employment or practice. In other 

professions and occupation, certification is a means of demonstrating mastery over 

skill sets and competencies required by the work place or consumers. In all instances, certification enhances the employability and career advancement of the individual practitioner or employee. 

A certification is generally developed when an industry or profession is able to 

identify a ‘‘fundamental body of knowledge for the profession. There should be a relatively stable, expert-identified, peer-reviewed, objective, consensual set of tasks, activities and understanding that identifies what individuals in the profession do.’’ 15

Numerous occupations, such as doctors, nurses, accountants, and physical therapists, require a license to practice the profession at the State level. Certification is 

distinct from licensure in that it is voluntary and frequently requires recertification 

to maintain the currency of the certification. 

ABOUT THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR COMPETENCY ASSURANCE (NOCA)

NOCA, the oldest and largest international organization representing over 400 

certification agencies, testing companies, consulting firms and individuals involved 

in professional certification, was created in 1977 as the National Commission for 

Health Certifying Agencies (NCHCA) with Federal funding from the Department of 

Health and Human Services. Its mission was to develop standards for quality certification in the allied health fields and to accredit organizations that met those 

standards. With the growing use of certification in other fields, NCHCA’s leaders 

recognized that what is essential for credible certification of individuals in the 

145 

16 A full list of programs achieving NCCA accreditation may be viewed at: http:// 

www.noca.org/NCCAAccreditation/AccreditedCertificationPrograms/tabid/120/Default.aspx. 

healthcare sector is equally essential for other sectors. With this vision, NCHCA 

evolved into the National Organization for Competency Assurance. 

NOCA also brings the expertise of its internationally recognized accrediting arm, 

the National Commission for Certifying Agencies (NCCA). NCCA uses a peer review 

process to evaluate adherence to its standards by certification programs and grants 

accreditation to those programs that have met those standards. These standards exceed the requirements set forth by the American Psychological Association and the 

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and thus help to protect the 

health, safety, and welfare of the public. 

NCCA accredited programs certify individuals in a wide range of professions and 

occupations including nurses, automotive professionals, respiratory therapists, counselors, emergency technicians, and more. To date, NCCA has accredited over 200 

programs representing 98 organizations.16 NCCA is the largest accreditation program in the United States and recognition of NCCA accreditation is incorporated 

into many Federal and State statutes and regulations pertaining to the regulation 

of various occupations. 

CONCLUSION

The Nation’s growing numbers of unemployed are desperate to get back to work 

in an occupation that allows them to support themselves and their families. Improving the prospects for reemployment into new career opportunities represents the 

core of the Workforce Investment Act. Individuals, whether employed or self-employed, know that now more than ever before they must acquire and maintain more 

comprehensive skill sets to ensure their own marketability and competence in the 

workplace. 

Certification represents an excellent pathway to employment opportunities for 

workers in all areas in the economy. It also serves as an important assurance for 

employers and the general public that individuals have attained the necessary skill 

sets to provide the services or carry out the scope of their employment. 

NOCA urges inclusion of those provisions that will confirm the role of certification 

in our economy and the workplace and make investments to ensure that occupational certification and licensure opportunities are made a solid part of the Workforce Investment system, confirm the value of occupational certification by an objective study, and help launch occupational certifications in emerging sectors. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

JAMES KENDZEL, MPH, 

Executive Director, 

National Organization for Competency Assurance (NOCA). 

[Whereupon, at 11:57 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

Æ