NEW INNOVATIONS AND BEST PRACTICES 

UNDER THE WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION, 

LIFELONG LEARNING, AND COMPETITIVENESS 

COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND LABOR 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 12, 2009 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 26, 2009 

FIELD HEARING HELD IN ALBANY, NY, MARCH 23, 2009 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MAY 5, 2009 

FIELD HEARING HELD IN HENDERSON, NV, MAY 29, 2009 

Serial No. 111–2 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor 

( 

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

47–096 PDF 2009

NEW INNOVATIONS AND BEST PRACTICES 

UNDER THE WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION, 

LIFELONG LEARNING, AND COMPETITIVENESS 

COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND LABOR 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 12, 2009 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 26, 2009 

FIELD HEARING HELD IN ALBANY, NY, MARCH 23, 2009 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MAY 5, 2009 

FIELD HEARING HELD IN HENDERSON, NV, MAY 29, 2009 

Serial No. 111–2 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor 

( 

Available on the Internet: 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR 

GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan, Vice Chairman 

Donald M. Payne, New Jersey 

Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Lynn C. Woolsey, California 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Carolyn McCarthy, New York 

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts 

Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio 

David Wu, Oregon 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania 

David Loebsack, Iowa 

Mazie Hirono, Hawaii 

Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania 

Phil Hare, Illinois 

Yvette D. Clarke, New York 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire 

Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio 

Jared Polis, Colorado 

Paul Tonko, New York 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico 

Gregorio Sablan, Northern Mariana Islands 

Dina Titus, Nevada 

[Vacant] 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California, 

Senior Republican Member 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

Peter Hoekstra, Michigan 

Michael N. Castle, Delaware 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan 

Judy Biggert, Illinois 

Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

John Kline, Minnesota 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington 

Tom Price, Georgia 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

Brett Guthrie, Kentucky 

Bill Cassidy, Louisiana 

Tom McClintock, California 

Duncan Hunter, California 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director 

Sally Stroup, Republican Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION, 

LIFELONG LEARNING, AND COMPETITIVENESS 

RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA, TEXAS, Chairman 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Paul Tonko, New York 

Dina Titus, Nevada 

Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey 

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts 

David Wu, Oregon 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Mazie Hirono, Hawaii 

Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio 

Jared Polis, Colorado 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico 

Brett Guthrie, Kentucky, 

Ranking Minority Member 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California 

Michael N. Castle, Delaware 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan 

Judy Biggert, Illinois 

Bill Cassidy, Louisiana 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on February 12, 2009 ....................................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Altmire, Hon. Jason, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Pennsylvania, prepared statement of .......................................................... 66 

Guthrie, Hon. Brett, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Higher 

Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competiveness .................................... 4 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5 

GAO report, ‘‘Workforce Investment Act: One-Stop System Infrastructure Continues to Evolve, but Labor Should Take Action to Require 

That All Employment Service Offices Are Part of the System,’’ 

Internet address to ................................................................................ 66 

Hinojosa, Hon. Rube ́n, Chairman, Subcommittee on Higher Education, 

Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness .................................................... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Additional statements submitted: 

Congleton, Ronald G., Commissioner representing labor, Texas 

Workforce Commission ................................................................... 64 

Harvey, David C., president & CEO, ProLiteracy ........................... 61 

National Council of State Agencies for the Blind, Inc. ................... 67 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Bahr, Morton, president emeritus, Communications Workers of America, 

commissioner, National Commission on Adult Literacy ............................ 11 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 13 

Supplemental material submitted for the record ................................... 68 

Camp, Bill, Sacramento Central Labor Council, AFL–CIO .......................... 26 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 28 

Response to question submitted for the record ....................................... 71 

Elzey, Karen R., vice president & executive director, Institute for a Competitive Workforce, U.S. Chamber of Commerce ........................................ 37 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 39 

Response to question submitted for the record ....................................... 72 

Gonzalez, Yvonne Bonnie, chief executive officer, Workforce Solutions, 

Inc. ................................................................................................................. 7 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 9 

Response to question submitted for the record ....................................... 73 

Johnson, Sherry, associate director, Lincoln Trail Area Development District ................................................................................................................. 34 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 36 

Response to question submitted for the record ....................................... 76 

Wooderson, Steve, administrator, Iowa Vocational Rehabilitation Services .................................................................................................................. 17 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 19 

Response to question submitted for the record ....................................... 77 

Page 

Hearing held on February 26, 2009 ....................................................................... 79 

Statement of Members: 

Guthrie, Hon. Brett, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Higher 

Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competiveness .................................... 81 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 82 
Page

IV 

Statement of Members—Continued 

Guthrie, Hon. Brett, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Higher 

Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competiveness—Continued 

Additional submission: ‘‘CWA Priorities for Workforce Investment 

Act Reauthorization’’ ............................................................................. 150 

Hinojosa, Hon. Rube ́n, Chairman, Subcommittee on Higher Education, 

Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness .................................................... 79 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 81 

Miller, Hon. George, Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor, 

submissions for the record: 

Hon. John Baldacci, chairman, Jobs for America’s Graduates Board 

of Directors ............................................................................................. 149 

James Kendzel, executive director, National Organization for Competency Assurance (NOCA) ................................................................... 137 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Keenan, Cheryl, Director of Adult Education and Literacy, Office of Vocational and Adult Education, U.S. Department of Education ..................... 84 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 86 

Response to question for the record ......................................................... 172 

Lanter, Bob, legislative committee chairman, CWA executive director, 

Contra Costa Workforce Development Board ............................................. 122 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 124 

Morales, John, president, National Workforce Association .......................... 92 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 93 

Raynor, Charissa, executive director, SEIU Healthcare NW Training 

Partnership, on behalf of the Service Employees International Union 

(SEIU) ............................................................................................................ 112 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 114 

Scott, George A., Director of Education, Workforce and Income Security 

Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office .......................................... 90 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 92 

Additional submission ............................................................................... 155 

Smith, Kevin G., executive director, Literacy New York, Inc. ...................... 117 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 119 

Vito, Sandi, on behalf of the National Governors Association ...................... 107 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 109 

Responses to questions for the record ..................................................... 165 

Additional submissions: 

‘‘Aligning State Workforce Development and Economic Development Initiatives’’ ............................................................................. 156 

‘‘Common Measure Proposal Reauthorization of the Workforce 

Investment Act’’ .............................................................................. 168 

‘‘ECW–1.—Governors’ Principles to Ensure Workforce Excellence’’ ............................................................................................... 169 

‘‘Accelerating Sector Strategies,’’ Internet address to ..................... 171 

‘‘State Sector Strategies: Regional Solutions to Worker and Employer Needs,’’ Internet address to ................................................ 171 

Page 

Field hearing held in Albany, NY, on March 23, 2009 ......................................... 173 

Statement of Members: 

Hinojosa, Hon. Rube ́n, Chairman, Subcommittee on Higher Education, 

Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness .................................................... 173 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 175 

Tonko, Hon. Paul, a Representative in Congress from the State of New 

York ................................................................................................................ 176 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Breen, Gail B., executive director, Fulton, Montgomery, and Schoharie 

Counties Workforce Development Board, Inc. ............................................ 184 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 186 

Meiklejohn, Nanine, senior legislative representative, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) ..................... 208 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 210 
Page

V 

Statement of Witnesses—Continued 

Musolino, Mario, Executive Deputy Commissioner, New York State Department of Labor ......................................................................................... 179 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 181 

Quick, Tom, human resources leader, power & water, GE Energy Infrastructure ........................................................................................................ 191 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 193 

Sarubbi, Joseph T., executive director, Training and Education Center 

for Semiconductor Manufacturing and Alternative and Renewable Technologies (TEC–SMART), Hudson Valley Community College ................... 203 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 205 

Page 

Hearing held on May 5, 2009 ................................................................................. 229 

Statement of Members: 

Guthrie, Hon. Brett, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Higher 

Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competiveness .................................... 231 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 232 

Hinojosa, Hon. Rube ́n, Chairman, Subcommittee on Higher Education, 

Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness .................................................... 229 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 231 

Additional submissions: 

Research report no. 06-2, Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges, April 2005, ‘‘Building Pathways 

to Success for Low-Skill Adult Students: Lessons for Community College Policy and Practice from a Longitudinal Student 

Tracking Study’’ .............................................................................. 284 

Letter, dated May 14, 2009, from Dr. Reder .................................... 288 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Bere ́, David, president and chief strategy officer, Dollar General Corp. ..... 244 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 246 

Cooper, Kathy, policy associate, Washington State Board for Community 

and Technical Colleges ................................................................................. 248 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 250 

Finsterbusch, Martin C., executive director of VALUE, Inc. ........................ 238 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 239 

Kinerney, Donna, Ph.D., instructional dean, Adult ESOL & Literacy— 

GED Programs, Montgomery College .......................................................... 256 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 258 

Lanterman, Roberta, Family Literacy ............................................................ 260 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 262 

Reder, Dr. Stephen, university professor and chair, Department of Applied Linguistics, Portland State University .............................................. 251 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 253 

Information about distance-learning services ......................................... 271 

Wilson, Gretchen, Grammy winning recording artist, GED graduate ......... 235 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 236 

Page 

Field hearing held in Henderson, NV, on May 29, 2009 ...................................... 291 

Statement of Members: 

Hinojosa, Hon. Rube ́n, Chairman, Subcommittee on Higher Education, 

Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness .................................................... 291 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 292 

Titus, Hon. Dina, a Representative in Congress from the State of Nevada 293 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Brooks, Chris, director, Bombard Renewable Energy ................................... 312 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 314 

Cook, Chanda, director of community initiatives, Nevada Public Education Foundation ......................................................................................... 316 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 318 
Page

VI 

Statement of Witnesses—Continued 

Metty-Burns, Rebecca, interim director, division of workforce & economic 

development, College of Southern Nevada ................................................. 322 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 324 

Patchett, Brian, president and CEO, Easter Seals of Southern Nevada ..... 297 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 299 

Additional submissions: 

‘‘Executive Summary: Crossroads Rehabilitation Center, Inc.’’ ..... 305 

‘‘Easter Seals Southern Nevada—Investing in Workforce Capacity’’ ................................................................................................... 311 
NEW INNOVATIONS AND BEST PRACTICES 

UNDER THE WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT 

(1) 

NEW INNOVATIONS AND BEST PRACTICES 

UNDER THE WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT 

Thursday, February 12, 2009 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Higher Education, 

Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness 

Committee on Education and Labor 

Washington, DC 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:36 p.m., in room 

2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ruben Hinojosa [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Hinojosa, Bishop, Courtney, Tonko, 

Titus, Andrews, Tierney, Wu, Davis, Hirono, Polis, Guthrie, 

McKeon, Castle, Biggert, and Roe. 

Staff Present: Paulette Acevedo, Legislative Fellow, Education; 

Tylease Alli, Hearing Clerk; Adrienne Dunbar, Education Policy 

Advisor; David Hartzler, Systems Administrator; Fred Jones, Staff 

Assistant, Education; Jessica Kahanek, Press Assistant; Brian Kennedy, General Counsel; Sharon Lewis, Senior Disability Policy Advisor; Ricardo Martinez, Policy Advisor, Subcommittee on Higher 

Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness; Lisa Pugh, 

Legislative Fellow, Education; Melissa Salmanowitz, Press Secretary; Michele Varnhagen, Labor Policy Director; Margaret Young, 

Staff Assistant, Education; Stephanie Arras, Minority Legislative 

Assistant; James Bergeron, Minority Deputy Director of Education 

and Human Services Policy; Robert Borden, Minority General 

Counsel; Cameron Coursen, Minority Assistant Communications 

Director; Kirsten Duncan, Minority Professional Staff Member; 

Susan Ross, Minority Director of Education and Human Services 

Policy; Linda Stevens, Minority Chief Clerk/Assistant to the General Counsel; and Sally Stroup, Minority Staff Director. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. A quorum is present, and the hearing of 

the subcommittee will come to order. 

Pursuant to Committee Rule 12(a), any member may submit an 

opening statement in writing, which will be made part of the permanent record. 

I now recognize myself, followed by the ranking member, Brett 

Guthrie, for an opening statement. 

Good afternoon to everyone, and welcome to the Subcommittee 

on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness 

hearing on ‘‘New Innovations and Best Practices under the Workforce Investment Act,’’ better known as WIA. 
2 

One of the top legislative priorities for our subcommittee is the 

reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act. WIA was last reauthorized in 1998 and was due for reauthorization in 2003. In 

other words, it is long overdue. 

America’s workers cannot afford to wait any longer for an upgrade to our workforce investment system. Our economy has lost 

3.6 million jobs since December 2007, with 798,000 jobs shed last 

month alone. Unemployment has surged to 7.6 percent in our country. The magnitude of these losses is greater than anything we 

have seen in over a generation. 

Worse, as we face the most serious economic crisis since the 

Great Depression, it is clear that we have failed to provide our 

workers with the education and skills that would help them weather this storm. According to the National Commission on Adult Literacy’s report, ‘‘Reach Higher, America,’’ 80 million to 90 million 

U.S. adults, roughly half of the workforce, lack the basic education 

and communication skills required for jobs that pay family-sustaining wages. 

These are the challenges we must address as we renew the job 

training, adult education, and vocational rehabilitative services 

programs authorized under the Workforce Investment Act. The 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which includes a multibillion-dollar investment in job training to help prepare laid-off 

adult and younger workers for jobs in emerging industries, including green jobs, is a critical first step to getting America back to 

work. Just as we talk about modernizing our physical infrastructure, we need to modernize our infrastructure for supporting 

human capital. That is where the reauthorization of WIA will be 

key. 

In 1998, we took a bold step forward in trying to unify a collection of discrete workforce development programs into a coherent 

system that would serve workers and employers alike. WIA envisioned one-stop services for locally developed solutions to workforce 

development needs. 

The law was enacted during a time of economic expansion, a time 

when we were adding jobs and not shedding jobs. Today, we face 

a starkly different environment, and we must adjust our workforce 

investment policy to the new reality. An improved WIA should be 

a key plank in our plans to restore economic prosperity to America’s working families. We have an opportunity to update job training programs so that they not only place workers into jobs but also 

onto career pathways to better wages and advancement in the 

workplace. 

Reauthorization is the perfect time to get serious about re-engaging adult learners who struggle with literacy or who lack a high 

school diploma with our education system, providing them with the 

skills and credentials they need for success. 

We also need to make sure that our investment in WIA results 

in more job training and education services in our communities. We 

need to look for innovative ways to manage the infrastructure and 

the administrative costs of the system so that we can maximize the 

resources that are available for direct services to workers. 

Finally, we need to work on an accountability system that provides us with the information we need to determine that the pro-
3 

grams are achieving their goals while, at the same time, build in 

accountability measures for serving the populations with the greatest barriers to employment. 

I would like to work with all of the members of our subcommittee 

to shape a WIA reauthorization bill that will garner broad, bipartisan support. 

Today’s hearing is the beginning of our deliberations for this 

111th Congress. I would like to thank the witnesses for joining us 

today. Your testimony, each and every one of you, will help set the 

stage for our work ahead. 

I would like to recognize the senior Republican member of our 

subcommittee, Representative Brett Guthrie from Kentucky, for his 

opening statement. 

And if I may ask him to pause for just a moment, I want to say 

that I believe that today’s hearing is going to be one that is very 

important and, as I said in my closing statement, sets the foundation for the work that is before us, and one that we are going to 

try to move with great speed and hope that, if all goes well, that 

we can see our work concluded before the end of the summer. 

And, with that, I yield to my good friend, Brett Guthrie. 

[The statement of Mr. Hinojosa follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Rube ́n Hinojosa, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Higher Education, Lifelong Learning and Competitiveness 

Good afternoon and welcome to the Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong 

Learning and Competitiveness hearing on New Innovations and Best Practices 

under the Workforce Investment Act. 

One of the top legislative priorities for our subcommittee is the reauthorization 

of the Workforce Investment Act—also known as WIA. 

WIA was last reauthorized in 1998 and was due for reauthorization in 2003. In 

other words, it is long overdue. 

America’s workers cannot afford to wait any longer for an upgrade to our workforce investment system. Our economy has lost 3.6 million jobs since December 

2007, with 598,000 jobs shed last month alone. Unemployment has surged to 7.6 

percent. The magnitude of these losses is greater than anything we have seen in 

over a generation. 

Worse, as we face the most serious economic crisis since the Great Depression, 

it is clear that we have failed to provide our workers with the education and skills 

that would help them weather the storm. According to the National Commission on 

Adult Literacy’s report, Reach Higher, America, 80-90 million U.S. adults, roughly 

half of the workforce, lack the basic education and communication skills required 

for jobs that pay family sustaining wages. 

These are the challenges we must address as we renew the job training, adult 

education, and vocational rehabilitative services programs authorized under the 

Workforce Investment Act. 

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which includes a multi-billion dollar investment in job training to help prepare laid-off, adult, and younger workers 

for jobs in emerging industries including green jobs, is a critical first step to getting 

America back to work. 

Just as we talk about modernizing our physical infrastructure, we need to modernize our infrastructure for supporting human capital—that is where the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act will be key. 

In 1998, we took a bold step forward in trying to unify a collection of discreet 

workforce development programs into a coherent system that would serve workers 

and employers alike. WIA envisioned one-stop services for locally developed solutions to workforce development needs. The law was enacted during a time of economic expansion, a time when we were adding jobs and not shedding them. Today, 

we face a starkly different environment and we must adjust our workforce investment policy to the new reality. 

An improved WIA should be a key plank in our plans to restore economic prosperity to America’s working families. We have an opportunity to update job training 

programs so that they not only place workers into jobs but also onto career path-
4 

ways to better wages and advancement in the workplace. Reauthorization is the perfect time to get serious about re-engaging adult learners, who struggle with literacy 

or who lack a high school diploma, with our education system, providing them with 

the skills and credentials they need for success. 

We also need to make sure that our investment in WIA results in more job training and education services in our communities. We need to look for innovative ways 

to manage the infrastructure and administrative costs of the system so that we can 

maximize the resources that are available for direct services to workers. 

Finally, we need to work on an accountability system that provides us with the 

information we need to determine that the programs are achieving their goals, while 

at the same time build in accountability measures for serving the populations with 

the greatest barriers to employment. 

I would like to work with all of the members of our subcommittee to shape a WIA 

reauthorization bill that will garner broad, bipartisan support. 

Today’s hearing is the beginning of our deliberations for the 111th Congress. I 

would like to thank the witnesses for joining us today. Your testimony will help set 

the stage for our work ahead. 

I would like to recognize the Senior Republican Member of our Subcommittee, 

Rep. Brett Guthrie, for his opening statement. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. 

And thank you for calling this hearing. And I welcome our distinguished witnesses. I look forward to working with you throughout 

the 111th Congress and on many important issues. 

Our country is facing its toughest economic challenges in recent 

memory. We face complex and difficult problems as we work toward economic growth. Last week, we saw the Department of 

Labor statistic that nearly 600,000 jobs were lost in January. As 

more and more Americans join the ranks of the unemployed, there 

has never been a more critical time to make sure that our workforce has the opportunity to find new jobs or receive additional 

training. 

In Kentucky, I have observed how investing in the workforce provides tangible improvements for workers, their families, and their 

employers. I come from a manufacturing background, so I have 

seen firsthand that unemployed workers who receive additional 

training for new skills can obtain a new higher-paying job, which 

radically transforms their way of life. At the same time, these 

newly trained workers increase the productivity of local employers 

and fill gaps in the workforce. 

Investing in the workforce is important to make sure that our 

workers are adequately prepared to meet the changing demands of 

our economy. With the proper investment, our workforce can be 

strengthened and maintain its competitive advantage. 

We must be committed to a dynamic, results-oriented job training system that can effectively serve those looking for a job and 

those workers in need of retraining. The one-stop shops under the 

Workforce Investment Act are a tremendous resource for workers. 

However, Federal job training initiatives have not been updated in 

more than a decade, leaving us with a system that is duplicative 

and less efficient than it could be. 

We need to renew these programs for the 21st century, keeping 

local workforce investment boards at the center of a dynamic, responsive system to serve workers. If we are serious about restoring 

our economy, it is vitally important that the Workforce Investment 

Act be reauthorized now. 
5 

I look forward to today’s testimony and learning the best practices and innovative ideas from around the country as we work to 

improve this important legislation. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The statement of Mr. Guthrie follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Brett Guthrie, Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competiveness 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing and I welcome our distinguished witnesses. I look forward to working with you throughout the 111th Congress on many important issues. 

Our country is facing its toughest economic challenges in recent memory. We face 

complex and difficult problems as we work toward economic growth. Last week, we 

saw the Department of Labor statistic that nearly 600,000 jobs were lost in January. As more and more Americans join the ranks of the unemployed, there has never 

been a more critical time to make sure that our workforce has the opportunity to 

find new jobs or receive additional training. 

In Kentucky, I have observed how investing in the workforce provides tangible improvements for workers, their families, and their employers. I come from a manufacturing background so I have seen firsthand that unemployed workers who receive 

additional training for new skills can obtain a new, higher-paying job, which radically transforms their way of life. At the same time, these newly trained workers 

increase the productivity of local employers and fill gaps in the workforce. 

Investing in the workforce is important to make sure that our workers are adequately prepared to meet the changing demands of our economy. With the proper 

investment, our workforce can be strengthened and maintain its competitive advantage. 

We must be committed to a dynamic, results-oriented job training system that can 

effectively serve those looking for a job and those workers in need of retraining. The 

one-stop shops under the Workforce Investment Act are tremendous resources for 

workers. However, federal job training initiatives have not been updated in more 

than a decade, leaving us with a system that is duplicative and less efficient than 

it could be. We need to renew these programs for the 21st century, keeping local 

workforce investment boards at the center of a dynamic, responsive system to serve 

workers. If we are serious about restoring our economy, it is vitally important that 

the Workforce Investment Act be reauthorized now. 

I look forward to today’s testimony and learning the best practices and innovative 

ideas from around the country as we work to improve this important legislation. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Without objection, all members will have 

14 days to submit additional materials or questions for the hearing 

record. 

I would like to introduce our very distinguished panel of witnesses here with us this afternoon. 

And welcome, to each and every one of you as witnesses. 

On the lighting system, for those of you who have not testified 

before this subcommittee, I wish to explain our lighting system and 

the 5-minute rule. Everyone, including members, is limited to 5 

minutes of presentation or questioning. The green light is illuminated when you begin to speak. When you see the yellow light, it 

means you have 1 minute remaining. When you see the red light, 

it means your time has expired and you need to begin the conclusion to your testimony. 

Please be certain, as you testify, to turn on and to speak into the 

microphone in front of you. 

Let me introduce the witnesses. 

Our first witness is Ms. Bonnie Gonzalez, the CEO of the Workforce Solutions organization. Yvonne Bonnie Gonzalez was appointed CEO of her organization in May of 2003. In her position, 
6 

she has programmatic and fiduciary responsibility of the organization that oversees workforce development services for Hidalgo, for 

Starr, and Willacy Counties in deep south Texas. She is responsible 

for ensuring that public dollars go directly to services and investments in customized training, incumbent worker training, and 

other direct services provided to the business client and public 

through workforce centers. 

Bonnie has worked in elementary and post-secondary education 

systems and has a special interest in our Nation’s health-related 

infrastructure since she was a nurse by profession. Bonnie has a 

bachelor of science from the University of Texas at Austin and 

earned a master’s of public administration from Harvard University. She is a very special person in my district which I represent. 

And it is a pleasure to welcome you. I am going to let you get 

started. 

Oh, forgive me. I am out of practice since we finished the last 

session. I am going to actually introduce all of the members of the 

panel and give my ranking member the opportunity to introduce 

someone from his State of Kentucky. 

The second person who will be testifying today is Mr. Morton 

Bahr, president emeritus, Communications Workers of America, 

and commissioner on the National Commission on Adult Literacy. 

Mr. Barr served his union for 51 years and retired as the president in 2005. Recently, he served as a member of the National 

Commission on Adult Literacy, and all our members have a report 

developed by the Commission in their folders. Under his leadership, CWA was one of the first unions to jointly own an educational 

company devoted to delivering educational opportunities to the 

members of the union who were employed by AT&T. This model 

was later replicated throughout the telecommunications industry. 

In 1997, he was appointed by President Clinton to chair the 

Commission for a Nation of Lifelong Learners. 

Welcome to our hearing, Mr. Bahr, and thank you for your service to our Nation. 

The next speaker will be Mr. Stephen Wooderson, State director, 

Iowa Vocational Rehabilitation Services. Stephen Wooderson, of 

West Des Moines, has worked in the vocational rehabilitation profession for over 30 years. He began his career as a vocational rehabilitation counselor and served at all levels of supervision and management. 

Stephen is also a retired Army Reserves lieutenant colonel, who 

has served in numerous command and staff positions during his 

20-year military career prior to retiring in 2001. 

Mr. Wooderson received his bachelor of science from Southwest 

Baptist College and earned his master’s of arts from Spaulding 

University. 

Welcome. And thank you for your military service, as well as 

your long years of service to your very important profession. 

The next person will be Mr. Bill Camp, executive secretary, Sacramento Central Labor Council, AFL-CIO. Mr. Camp’s umbrella organization of local unions represents 160,000 union families in Sacramento and five surrounding counties. 
7 

He is the vice chair of Sacramento Works, Incorporated, the 

county workforce investment board. He has also served as the past 

Chair of the United Way Board of California, Capital Region. 

In the past, he has served as an elected school board member, 

worked at the California Agriculture Labor Relations Board, the 

California State Senate Rules Committee, and the California Labor 

Federation, AFL-CIO. 

He received his bachelor’s of arts in sociology from Oregon and 

earned his master’s of arts in sociology from Duke University. Bill 

has served in his current position for 10 years. 

And we really appreciate and welcome your perspective on the 

issues this afternoon. 

Ms. Karen Elzey will be the next presenter. She is the vice president and executive director, Chamber of Commerce, and director of 

the Institute for a Competitive Workforce. 

Ms. Elzey has 10 years’ experience in workforce development and 

has received her bachelor’s and earned her master’s degree from 

Miami University of Ohio. 

This afternoon, she will be discussing innovative strategies for 

workforce development that the Chamber is initiating through the 

Institute. She also is here to share the nationwide contributions of 

the business community in support of the Workforce Investment 

Act. 

And I welcome Ms. Elzey. 

At this time, I wish to give the speaking system to my ranking 

member, Brett. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to introduce our next witness. 

And a lot of my colleagues and people here have been asking us 

about our ice storm, which was my district and your area where 

you live. So I appreciate your coming. I know there is a lot going 

on back in Elizabethtown. Fortunately, my house is just south of 

the line that came through. But I appreciate your coming here 

under difficult circumstances. And we appreciate everybody that 

has been commenting on Kentucky and giving us your prayers. 

Sherry Johnson is the associate director for Employment Training Programs with the Lincoln Trail Area Development District in 

Elizabethtown, Kentucky. She has been with the agency since 

1985. She has been the Chair of the Kentucky local Workforce Investment Area Directors Group and the Co-Chair for the Workforce 

Subcommittee of the Governor’s BRAC Task Force. And BRAC is 

an acronym for essentially the realigning of Fort Knox. And I appreciate her doing that. 

Sherry has a bachelor’s degree from Murray State University and 

a master’s degree from Western Kentucky University. 

We welcome you here, Sherry, and thank you for making the trip 

to Washington. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. With that, we will begin and ask the first 

witness, Ms. Gonzalez, if she would like to start. 

STATEMENT OF YVONNE BONNIE GONZALEZ, CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS, INC. 

Ms. GONZALEZ. Good afternoon, Chairman Hinojosa, Ranking 

Member Guthrie, and members of the subcommittee. My name is 
8 

Yvonne Bonnie Gonzalez, and currently as, you have been told, I 

serve as chief executive officer of Workforce Solutions. 

Workforce Solutions is a workforce development board serving 

Hidalgo, Starr, and Willacy Counties right on the U.S. Texas border. We are one of 28 workforce development boards in the State 

of Texas. We are considered the fourth-largest board in the State, 

behind Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio, receiving a stake in Federal investment of approximately $57 million this year for the purpose of connecting our business customers with our most available 

workforce. 

As CEO, I have recently been named to the Governor’s Texas 

Team for Nursing Education Capacity. I serve as a member of the 

U.S. Department of Labor’s Initiative for Workforce Transformation 

and the Texas Association of Workforce Boards and the Border 

Trade Alliance. Membership in these committees, councils, and initiatives provide me the unique opportunity to contribute and, most 

importantly, to communicate the critical connection between education, workforce, and economic development. 

On behalf of Workforce Solutions and our numerous public and 

private partners, I would like to thank the committee and the 

Chair for his invitation and for the opportunity to address this 

committee. 

My remarks this afternoon will focus on the adult education/ 

workforce development innovative strategies and best practices 

that will continue to strengthen Texas’s and the Nation’s competitive advantage in this 21st century. 

Let me tell you a little bit about our area in south Texas. We are 

about 84 percent Hispanic; 27 percent of the families live below the 

poverty level, compared to about 12 percent statewide; 38 percent 

of people 25 years of age and older have less than a ninth-grade 

education. And that data is representative of the entire the State 

of Texas border. 

National data demonstrate a clear relationship between educational attainment and lifelong earning potential. Sadly, the educational attainment in the lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas continues to lag behind the Nation. Roughly two out of every five 

adults in Hidalgo and Cameron Counties do not hold a high school 

diploma. 

While the percentage of adult residents in the two counties with 

some college experience or an associate’s degree is similar, the percentage completing a 4-year degree or higher is significantly—I say 

significantly—lower than the rest of the United States. 

The Rio Grande Valley has a very young workforce, and this 

trend we see will continue over the next few decades. This also 

means that large numbers of young and inexperienced workers will 

continue to join the valley’s labor force each year. 

The lower Rio Grande Valley has a unique historical pattern of 

faster population growth during and immediately following a recession. The valley tends to draw an influx of migrants from Texas’s 

major metropolitan areas, especially as jobs in those cities begin to 

dry up. There is a long data lag, so it may be a couple of years before the current recession shows up in the migration data. 

The daunting nature of these economic and workforce challenges 

that I have just shared before you requires a renewed national 
9 

commitment and new national priorities. The 21st century workforce development system needs to remain locally driven, but it 

must receive the necessary and enhanced support and resources 

from Federal allocations. Bold, new thinking and drastic shifts in 

current policy will also be necessary to realize the vision of a successful workforce. This new economic era demands a new workforce 

development system. 

Concerning unemployment statistics, I venture to say, and this 

committee obviously is very aware, that the fact that unemployment numbers are rising so fast, for those of us that are faced with 

that stark reality in our communities, that even historical unemployment trends and seasonally adjusted statistics have pretty 

much gone out the window during this economic crisis. The urgency of this present climate calls for changes in how the current 

systems operate. 

Texas is a traditionally recognized leader in workforce development. However, differences in measuring the effectiveness of the 

workforce investment activity, we find, still separates boards and 

the grantor. 

I see my red light is on. I reserve any comments. And, considering there are many pages left, should there be any additional 

comments or questions, I reserve the right to respond to those as 

needed. Thank you. 

[The statement of Ms. Gonzalez follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Yvonne Bonnie Gonzalez, Chief Executive Officer, 

Workforce Solutions, Inc. 

Good Afternoon, Chairman Hinojosa and Members of the Subcommittee. 

My name is Yvonne ‘‘Bonnie’’ Gonzalez. I serve as the Chief Executive Officer of 

Workforce Solutions. Workforce Solutions is the workforce development board serving Hidalgo, Starr and Willacy Counties. Although this Board covers only three 

counties, it is representative and reflective of the 23 Texas counties along the entirety of the Mexican border. We are 1 of 28 workforce development boards in the 

state of Texas. We are the 4th largest board in the state behind Houston, Dallas, 

and San Antonio, receiving a state and federal investment of approximately $57 million annually for the purpose of connecting business customers with the available 

workforce. 

As CEO, I have recently been named to the Governor’s ‘‘Texas Team for Nursing 

Education Capacity’’, serve as a member U.S. Department of Labor’s Initiative for 

Workforce Transformation, the Texas Association of Workforce Boards and am a 

member of the Border Trade Alliance. Membership in these committees, councils 

and initiatives provides me the unique opportunity to contribute, and most importantly, to communicate the critical connection between education, workforce and economic development. 

On behalf of Workforce Solutions, and our numerous public/private partners, I 

would like to thank you for the opportunity to address the Committee. My remarks 

this afternoon will focus on the adult education/workforce development innovative 

strategies and best practices that will continue to strengthen Texas’ and the nation’s 

competitive advantage in the 21st century global marketplace. 

Demographics: The following is a snapshot of not only our area, but the TexasMexico border. These statistics are however not a secret to this Committee: 

• 84% of the people are Hispanic 

• 27% of the families live below the poverty level compared to 12% statewide 

(Texas Workforce Commission data 2006) 

• 38% of people 25 years or older have less than a 9th grade education 

• The Texas-Mexico border, especially from Webb County to Cameron County has 

repeatedly ranked amongst the fastest growing areas in the nation in the past 2 

years 

• National data demonstrate a clear relationship between educational attainment 

and life-long earning potential 

• Educational attainment rates in the LRGV continue to lag behind the nation. 
10 

• Roughly two out of every five adults in Hidalgo and Cameron counties do not 

hold high school credentials. • While the percentage of adult residents in the two counties with some college 

experience or an Associate’s degree is similar, the percentage completing a 4-year 

degree or higher is significantly lower than the U.S. • The Valley has a young workforce, with this trend projected to continue well 

into the coming decades. • This means that large numbers of young, inexperienced workers will continue 

to join the Valley’s labor force each year. • The Lower Rio Grande Valley has a unique historical pattern of faster population growth during and immediately following a recession. • The Valley tends to draw an influx of migrants from Texas’s major metropolitan 

areas when those cities stop providing jobs (like construction) and people return 

home to the Valley. • There’s a long data lag, so it may be a couple of years before the current recession shows up in the migration data. But if past experience is a guide, the Valley 

may already be on the receiving end of an influx of migrants, many of whom are 

likely to be unemployed. 

The daunting nature of these economic and workforce challenges requires a renewed national commitment and new national priorities. The new 21st century 

workforce development system needs to be locally driven and needs to receive the 

necessary and enhanced support and resources from federal allocations to enable 

our workforce to compete successfully in the global economy. 

Bold new thinking and drastic shifts in current policy will also be necessary to 

realize this vision. A new economic era demands a new workforce development system. Projected growth statistics too numerous to mention points to the Hispanic 

population concentrated in states along the border as the source of the nation’s future workforce. 

Concerning employment and unemployment statistics, I would venture to say this 

Committee is especially aware of the fact unemployment numbers are rising so fast 

on a daily basis as to render any statistics meaningless; even historical unemployment trends and seasonally adjusted statistics have gone out the window during 

this economic crisis. 

The urgency of the present climate calls for changes in how the current systems 

operate in order to meet the emergent needs of both workers and business. WIA is 

no exception. 

Texas is a nationally recognized leader in Workforce Development. This recognition was achieved through the strong leadership, vision and fundamental understanding that business was at the core of and the ultimate consumer of the public 

dollar’s investment in human capital. To continue building will require a review of 

current WIA rules and eligibility, allowable activities, eligible training provider systems and performance measures and their relation and relevance to business. 

However, differences in measuring ‘‘the effectiveness of the workforce investment 

activities’’ still separate boards and the ‘‘grantor’’. To quote the old cliche ‘‘that 

which gets measured gets done’’ has become ‘‘operational’’ and drives the current 

workforce development system. Unfortunately, what is currently being measured 

and how it is measured clashes with private sector workforce plans. 

Just as the daily headlines are capturing rapid historic changes in the nation’s 

economy, so have the demographics. 

• Our Workforce Centers are now reporting more and more people seeking employment who report a 12th grade education or higher. These new job seekers do 

not fit ‘‘pre-unemployment crises’’ profile; those with extremely low education levels 

and poor work history. This new ‘‘job seeker’’ will require expedited workforce services that do not fit the ‘‘traditional’’ model of adult-literacy/work experience/employment, but rather short term technical training in the emerging industry sectors with 

specific job skill portable credentials for entry into new job opportunities. 

• The return of our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan will require extremely specialized services in conjunction with the Department of Vocational Rehabilitation 

Services to re-adjust into the workforce 

• With Veterans as a priority a resource of skills and leadership will become 

available, but must be met with rapid re-training in these transferable skills into 

new industries 

The current WIA system requires a delicate balancing act in order to meet both 

regulatory program compliance and the results businesses expect based on the plans 

developed from their input. The limited allowable activities (i.e. use of WIA funds) 

forces WIBs to innovate, to ‘‘think outside the box’’ while remaining physically ‘‘in 

the box’’. Through partnerships and collaboration, Workforce Solutions has been 

able to: 
11 

• Implement a Customer/Staffing Solutions and Business Consultative Approach 

that bridges job seeker and employer without references to governmental forms and 

policies • Established Fee for Service to business in order to provide workforce expertise 

in the areas of human resources, job screening and assessments • Established Workforce Solutions as an equal partner in economic development 

via Business Intelligence (data) • Created linkages between emerging high technology jobs and preparation of the 

local workforce through competitive grants • Implemented Read Right—a tutoring program for reading comprehension which 

has demonstrated significant impact • Convened leading business and industry leaders to map the future of the workforce for investments of training funds 

Workforce Development’s future resides not in the delivery of services to targeted 

populations, but in ‘‘job creation’’ with business at the forefront, and the delivery 

of services at the speed that business demands. In order for WIA to remain ‘‘in business’’ it must return to its original intent of serving business. 

Given the time allotted by the Committee, the following rules and regulations governing WIA must be re-visited with ‘‘business results’’ as the measures to be 

achieved. • WIBs in Texas are awarded block grants which include TANF funds. Boards are 

measured on their ability to meet the ‘‘participation’’ hours of the TANF participant. 

This is not a workforce development program, but rather a ‘‘public assistance continuing eligibility requirement’’. Failure to keep the TANF recipient ‘‘participating’’ 

leads to sanctions • Title II of WIA—Adult Basic Education and Literacy must be addressed and 

brought into Workforce Development as a provider. Currently WIA funds must be 

spent on Adult Basic Education and Literacy because administration of Title II 

funds do not prepare the job seeker for employment • Program Eligibility—access to WIA training services are built on employment 

inhibiting requirements. An individual must document low income, dislocation from 

work or receipt of public assistance to qualify. These requirements limit the working 

poor, employed workers seeking training for higher skills and employed/incumbent 

workers from being able to progress in the workforce • Time Limitations on training activities—allows only for those who are best prepared to complete training while leaving those who can most benefit without • Efficiencies and Accountability—WIBs are in effect penalized for implementing 

efficiencies in the delivery of their services and documentation thereof. 

A shift to a knowledge based economy increases the educational requirements of 

many industries and occupations. Higher education means increased capacity and 

productivity of a workforce, decreased need for social services, and finally an enhanced pace for innovation and increased competitiveness. 

In summary, strategic and sustainable partnerships between education, workforce 

and economic development entities are critical. Together, building and deploying 

local talent is the key to maintaining a competitive advantage in the Rio Grande 

Valley, South Texas and the Nation. This type of innovative and strategic alignment 

will bring our nation’s economy to a new level. 

Your challenge and mine, is to secure the development and fostering of skilled talent for the nation. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Be assured that the entire statement that 

you brought us will be made part of the record. 

Ms. GONZALEZ. Thank you. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. I now call on Mr. Bahr. 

STATEMENT OF MORTON BAHR, PRESIDENT EMERITUS, COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, COMMISSIONER, NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ADULT LITERACY 

Mr. BAHR. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your interest 

in adult education and the opportunity to discuss our commission’s 

findings and recommendations. 

Capital can be moved anywhere around the world while we sleep. 

New technology can give a company perhaps several months of lead 

time before the competition catches up. Therefore, to be an effective 
12 

competitor in the intensifying global marketplace, the United 

States must have the best educated, highly motivated workforce. 

The choice before us, Mr. Chairman, is whether we settle for a 

low-skills, low-wage economy or we do all that is necessary to develop a high-skills, high-wage economy where all workers have the 

ability to earn family-sustaining wages. We know that education, 

skills development, and lifelong learning are the keys to an innovative and productive workforce. 

America is in danger of losing its long-held place as world leader 

in education. For the first time in our history, our young adults 

aged 25 to 34 are less educated than their parents. In addition, 

about 88 million adults are undereducated insofar as being ready 

to do college-level work. This problem is also exacerbated by the 1.3 

million high school students who drop out each year. 

The Commission has two overarching recommendations. First, 

we ask Congress to transform the adult education and literacy system as we now know it into an adult education and workforce skills 

system, with the ability to serve 20 million adults by 2020. 

Secondly, we ask Congress and State governments to make readiness for post-secondary education and workforce skills the primary 

mission of the adult education and workforce skills system. To 

achieve this essential transformation, we call for significant action 

on the part of Federal and State governments. 

At the core of our Federal recommendation is the passage of a 

comprehensive new Adult Education and Economic Growth Act, designed to overhaul and expand adult education and workforce skills 

training. The act should define the fundamentals of adult education, set forth new program goals, and offer incentives and strategies to increase learner access. 

Because readiness is the major new service outcome and since we 

want to prepare learners for employment in high-performance 

workplaces, the new programs will need to offer such basics as excellence in oral and written communications, critical thinking, 

problem solving, the ability to adapt to new technologies, and work 

in teams. This will require traditional adult education and workforce development groups to work together more closely. 

States should invest more in the skills of their workers so that 

increased productivity helps offset the effect of low-wage labor paid 

in developing countries. 

Government alone cannot do the entire job. Business, too, must 

step up to the plate. For example, 16 national unions, together 

with some 400 employers in the private and public sectors, are 

jointly providing education and training opportunities to some 

500,000 workers. 

During our 2 years of intensive study, we learned that you cannot tweak a system designed for the 20th century to be relevant 

in the rapidly changing world of the 21st century. That is why we 

call for action at all levels to transform the system into an adult 

education and workforce skills system. The system must be highly 

accountable, have more relevance, measurable outcomes, and preserve and create economic opportunities for key underserved segments of our population. 

As the 2007 State New Economy Index puts it, workers who are 

skilled with their hands and could reliably work in repetitive and 
13 

1Source: Education at a Glance, 2007, OECD, analysis for the Commission by the National 

Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS). 

sometimes physically demanding jobs were the engine of the old 

economy. In today’s new economy, knowledge-based jobs are driving the economy, jobs held by individuals with at least 2 years of 

college. 

The Commission proposes a new system, built up gradually over 

the next decade, to address the needs described in our report. This 

means that workplace skills education should be much more highly 

valued and that employers should devote a larger share of their 

training budgets to their low-skilled workers. 

Mr. Chairman, the challenge facing our Nation cannot be underestimated. How well we deal with it will largely determine how 

successfully we compete with the rest of the world and what economic and social standards our citizens will enjoy. It will take a 

Marshall Plan type of response by government at all levels, business, labor, and philanthropy, all working together to restore our 

leadership around the world. 

For me, speaking from 51 years of serving the members of my 

union and the communities in which they live, I believe we can develop an economy where not a single U.S. employer can justify 

moving work offshore because there were no qualified American 

workers and that we can eliminate the use of H-1B visas or keep 

it to a bare and justified minimum. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Bahr follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Morton Bahr, President Emeritus, Communications 

Workers of America, Commissioner, National Commission on Adult Literacy 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to tell the Subcommittee on Education and Labor about the findings of the National Commission on Adult Literacy. 

We appreciate your recognition of the importance of adult education—the third leg 

of our educational system—in preparing our workforce for jobs. 

The National Commission is a distinguished independent panel of leaders. We are 

former U.S. secretaries of labor and education, prominent business and labor leaders, and workforce development experts. We are adult educators, community college 

heads, and researchers. We are leaders in ESL, family literacy, correctional education, youth policy, philanthropy, and even the Foreign Service. Our final report, 

Reach Higher, America, was released on June 26, 2008 at a special event on Capitol 

Hill. You should have a full copy of that report in your folder. 

It is no secret that America is at risk of losing its place as a world leader in education. Here is just one alarming indication of that from our report: Of all 30 OECD 

free-market countries, we are currently the only nation whose young adults are less 

educated than the previous generation.1

Here is another alarming fact. Some 88 million adults in America need help with 

their ESL and basic skills, yet we are currently providing services to only 3 million 

people. I will elaborate on these numbers shortly. The Commission calls for bold 

change at the state and federal levels to address this challenge. We have two overarching recommendations: 

• We call on Congress to transform the adult education and literacy system as 

we now know it into an adult education and workforce skills system with the capacity to effectively serve 20 million adults annually by the year 2020. 

• We call on Congress and state governments to make readiness for postsecondary education and workforce the primary mission of the adult education and 

workforce skills system. 

To achieve this essential transformation, we call for several actions, particularly 

on the part of federal and state government. 

For this bold federal leadership role to pay off, it must be met by strong state 

leadership. Here, in broad terms, are our recommendations on the state role: 
14 

2The Commission’s work was enabled by funding from the Dollar General Corporation (lead funder at $1 million), the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Harold W. McGraw, Jr., a longtime champion of adult education and literacy, and the Joyce and 

Ford Foundations. 3Source: 2006 American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau. 

6) States should engage in comprehensive planning and establish goals to improve 

adult educational attainment and workforce skills in light of their economic development goals. 

7) States should legislate authority for coordination and alignment of systems consistent with their postsecondary education, workforce, and economic development 

goals. In some cases, a cross-agency planning body already exists; in others it may 

need to be created. In some states, a cabinet level position might either be established or strengthened. Whatever the approach, most commissioners feel the governor’s office must be involved. 

8) New federal funds under the new Act should be awarded to states following 

federal approval of a comprehensive adult education plan that each state develops 

and updates periodically for federal review. These funds should be available for 

awards within the first year of the Act’s passage, and states should be ‘‘held harmless’’ at current federal adult education grant levels. 

9) States should invest more in the skills of their workers so that increased productivity helps offset the effect of low-cost labor furnished by developing countries. 

Business must be an active partner in this effort. 

The recommended federal and state actions aim to increase dramatically the number of adult Americans with limited basic skills who receive basic skills instruction 

as defined in the Act. They should result in seamless pathways of instruction from 

the lowest levels of proficiency to attainment of a GED and/or readiness for occupational and/or postsecondary education. They should greatly strengthen the quality, 

range, and accountability of basic skills instruction and related services. And we 

should gradually achieve the following desired outcomes from general and workforce 

basic skills instruction—verifiable learning gains, acquisition of basic and workforce 

skills, accelerated learning, GED acquisition, and transitions to vocational, postsecondary, or other programs that will benefit individuals, the business community, the 

economy, and American society. 

Let me now explain the reasons for our recommendations. During two years of 

intensive study,2 we thoroughly examined our current adult basic education system. 

We looked at its scope, purposes, funding, enrollments, and outcomes. We also 

looked carefully at the federal role in this system, at state performance, and at the 

impact of changing demographics in America on our global competitiveness and 

human resource development needs. We wanted to determine how well this system, 

created for the 20th century, meets the nation’s need to prepare current and future 

workers in the 21st century, from the standpoint of adults with low basic skills— 

our community leaders, our parents and family units, our young adults, our aspiring 

new Americans, our neighbors, incumbent workers, the unemployed and underemployed. 

The Commission quickly discovered that America’s needs cannot be met by simply 

tweaking the adult education system we have. That’s why we call for action at all 

levels—with a focus on federal and state leadership—to transform the system into 

an ‘‘Adult Education and Workforce Skills System.’’ This system must be highly accountable; have more relevant, measurable, and comparable outcomes; and preserve 

and create economic opportunities for key underserved segments of our population— 

especially the burgeoning ESL population, the huge number of high school dropouts 

and underachievers, and nonviolent offenders in our correctional population, who return daily to our communities lacking the skills to qualify for jobs. 

These people, and many millions of other adults at very low literacy and ESL levels, are a big part of our workforce. The vast majority of them are beyond the reach 

of our secondary schools and of higher education institutions. Right now, the U.S. 

labor force consists of about 150 million adults aged 16 and older.3 Unless we rise 

to the adult education challenge, nearly half of these people, many of prime working 

age, will fall behind in their struggle to get higher wage jobs, or to qualify for the 

college courses or job training that will help them join or advance in jobs that pay 

a family-sustaining wage. 

The American economy requires increasingly that most workers have at least 

some postsecondary education or occupational training to be ready for current and 

future jobs in the global marketplace. The Bureau of Labor Statistics forecasts that 

between 2004 and 2014, 24 of the 30 fastest growing occupations will require workers with postsecondary education or training to compete internationally and maintain our standard of living. Every bit of research wisdom over the past two decades 
15 

supports this proposition. The New Commission on Skills of the American Workforce 

and the Commission on a Nation of Lifelong Learners, on which I also served, are 

two of those voices. Yet, we have been moving further from that goal, until now I 

hope. 

As the 2007 State New Economy Index puts it: ‘‘Workers who were skilled with 

their hands and could reliably work in repetitive and sometimes physically demanding jobs were the engine of the old economy. In today’s New Economy, knowledgebased jobs are driving prosperity * * * jobs held by individuals with at least two 

years of college.’’ 

At present, as this Committee knows, our high school dropout rates are staggering. But other compelling facts underlie the Commission’s recommendations, too. 

For example, one in four working families is low-income, and one in five lives in 

poverty. Parents and caregivers in many of these households lack the education and 

skills to earn a family-sustaining wage. One in every 100 U.S. adults 16 and older 

is in prison or jail at any given time (about 2.3 million persons in 2006). About 43 

percent of these people don’t have a high school diploma or equivalent; some 56 percent have very low basic skills. Yet 95 percent of incarcerated people return to our 

communities. More than 18 million recent immigrants need ESL and literacy services now. And beyond that, each year another 2 million immigrants come to the U.S. 

seeking jobs and better lives—the promise of America. The Commission discussed 

the ESL need as a ‘‘tsunami.’’ Fifty percent of these people have low literacy levels 

and lack high school education and English language skills, severely limiting their 

access to jobs and job training, college, and citizenship. I should note that a collateral benefit of ESL instruction is preparation for citizenship. 

The recent National Assessment of Adult Literacy found that about 30 million 

adults 16 and older are at the very lowest level of skills proficiency, which they call 

‘‘below basic.’’ Another 60 million are less than proficient and need various amounts 

of skills upgrading. Analysis done for the Commission by the National Center for 

Higher Education Management Systems found that at least one educational barrier 

keeps up to 88 million adults (aged 18 and older) from entering college and/or job 

training programs. Of these 88 million: • 18.2 million are English-speaking adults who lack a high school diploma. • 18.4 million have limited English skills. Of these 8.2 million have not completed 

high school and many others have less than adequate basic literacy skills. • 51.3 million have a high school diploma but no college and many millions of 

them are not prepared to enter college or jobs. 

In light of these statistics, it is truly shocking that the adult education programs 

of the U.S. Departments of Education and Labor, where the bulk of services are offered, are presently serving only 3 million adults aged 16 and over. 

Most states have not been seriously committed to adult education either—although in some cases this attitude is changing. Every state has an ESL service 

need, and ESL services are receiving the lion’s share of adult education funding. For 

instance, in California, total enrollment was about 570,000 in 2007. Of these, only 

18% were in adult basic education programs, 11% were in high school diploma 

(ASE) programs, and a whopping 71% were in ESL programs. In Rhode Island, of 

the 6,787 enrolled in 2007, 49% were enrolled in ESL. In Texas, with a total enrollment of 102,365 in 2007, ESL accounted for 58%. The national average for these 

three program types is 38% for ABE, 16% for ASE/GED, and 46% for ESL, respectively. Clearly, we are addressing the tip of the iceberg in all three areas of service. 

States appropriate funds to meet Department of Education matching requirements. By this criterion, our analysis shows that state commitment to adult education varies widely. Using the three states mentioned above: California’s state appropriation in 2008 was $700 million. It matched the federal grant of $62 million 

by 1133%. Rhode Island ranks somewhere in the middle in terms of match percentage. Its appropriation last year, $2 million, was 98% of the federal grant amount. 

Texas ranks near the bottom on this measure. It got federal grant funds of nearly 

$40 million and provided a 15% match of $6 million. 

In Reach Higher, America, the Commission looks at national and state comparisons of GED need and attainment. Texas and California top the list in terms of the 

low percentage of GEDs attained in relation to adults 18-64 without a high school 

diploma. In Texas, about 2.9 million adults aged 18-64 lacked a high school diploma 

in 2006. Only about 32,000 attained a GED or equivalent, about 1.1% of the need. 

This pattern is consistent across the states for a national average of only 1.5%. It 

is quite evident that we can and need to do much better. 

The Commission proposes a new System built up gradually over the next decade 

or so to address the needs and problems described above. The System we envision 

will provide nearly seven times the current service capacity. It will emphasize readiness for entering college and job training programs to prepare adults for family-sus-
16 

taining jobs. It will emphasize workforce certificates and other concrete measures 

to demonstrate readiness. It will require comprehensive planning at the state level 

and stronger state funding commitments. It will require new partnerships at all levels, especially across and among federal and state agencies, but also among disparate service provider types, who need to rise above self-interest and turf barriers. 

It must serve people all along a continuum of need from those at the lowest skill 

level to those just short of readiness. And, again, it includes both incumbent and 

future workers. This means that workplace skills education should be much more 

highly valued, and that employers should devote a larger share of their training 

budgets to their low-skilled workers. 

The Commission’s recommendations target federal and state government. But we 

also call for much stronger partnerships between the states and the business community, and we call on community colleges and other adult education service providers, nonprofit organizations, and philanthropy to play their part. All have an essential role. 

One of the curses of current federal and state educational policy and practice is 

the ultra-territorial division of many of our important reform efforts, resulting in 

disconnected and insular silos that work against creative communication, meaningful evaluation, and positive change. I can’t emphasize enough the importance of 

breaking down entrenched silos of interest in the campaign we are recommending. 

The new Adult Education and Economic Growth Act should call for connections 

between the adult education and workforce skills programs of all federal agencies, 

especially the WIA Title I and II programs. Fragmentation, disconnect, and lack of 

communication characterize these interactions now. And it should require states to 

develop integrated statewide plans as a condition of receiving new federal funds. In 

these plans, adult education and workforce skills development are to be linked more 

closely in the context of clearly articulated state economic goals. It also would mobilize public and private resources in a way that allows the states to pursue their own 

choices depending on differences in state demographics and local need—such as 

family and parent literacy, crime prevention and recovery, the needs of non-English 

language minorities, the needs of working-age nonviolent offenders, preparation for 

success in and entry into college and job training, and excellence in the 21st century 

workforce. And it would actively engage governors and their policy staff, and provide 

federal incentives to encourage that. 

The kind of responsible change I am speaking about today should resonate in the 

Obama Administration. The Commission believes this change is crucial if we are to 

provide family-sustaining jobs, compete in the global economy, and protect our nation’s security, core democratic values, and opportunity for all Americans. 

Mr. Chairman, adult education and workforce skills services for a majority of the 

88 million adults defined by the Commission are absolutely key to economic recovery and growth. The goals of providing job training for displaced workers and creating a competitive workforce in ‘‘green jobs’’ and other aspects of the new economy 

cannot be achieved unless the adult education system is reinforced and redirected 

to help tens of millions of adults enter the system to acquire the basic skills they 

need to participate in postsecondary and job training programs. 

Education drives the economy! That refrain was heard again and again in the deliberations of our National Commission. We understand the urgency of strengthening our K-12 and higher education institutions, but adult education is equally important. It is the third vital part of our educational system. It is now a marginalized 

enterprise and must be strengthened and transformed right along with them. 

America faces a choice. We can invest in the basic education and skills of our 

workforce and remain competitive in today’s global economy. Or we can continue to 

overlook the glaring evidence of a national crisis as documented in the Commission’s 

report and move further down the path to decline. We must rise to the challenge. 

The plan set forth in Reach Higher, America constitutes a kind of domestic Marshall Plan—because that is how serious we consider the challenge. Action to meet 

the challenge will cost a great deal more than we are spending now. But the Commission doesn’t just call for a heavier infusion of new funds. Our report devotes an 

entire chapter to spelling out the substantial fiscal gains that will result from those 

expenditures. It’s a national investment that will pay for itself many times over. For 

example, according to the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University, if 4 million dropouts earn a high school diploma by 2020, the net fiscal contributions to federal, state, and local governments in 2008 dollars would exceed $25 

billion annually. To give another example, if the 2.9 million adults (18-64) in Texas 

who do not have a high school diploma or GED got one, their annual net fiscal contribution to national, state, and local governments would increase by $13.5 billion. 

If they attended college, the annual net fiscal contribution would increase by another $10.6 billion. 
17 

In closing, I want to make two final points: 

Much of the national conversation today is necessarily about jobs. Transforming 

the adult education system into the Adult Education and Workforce Skills System 

we call for will create many new jobs in that sector of our economy. There is an 

acute need for many thousands of additional teachers, trainers, counselors, and 

other staff in the network of programs out there already; many thousands more will 

be needed as the new System is developed. 

I also realize that some may think our goals are unrealistic. But many initiatives 

are already in the works in some of the states, trying to tackle local adult education 

and skills training needs along the lines recommended by the Commission, and they 

are starting to get successful results. Some of these leading lights are profiled in 

the Commission’s report. They include an array of workplace education programs; 

the statewide programs of the Indiana State Chamber of Commerce; a model publicprivate venture in Patrick County, Virginia; a cooperative college transition program 

in Louisville, Kentucky; and the much-touted I-Best program in Washington. These 

forward-thinking activities are proof that what we’re calling for can be done. 

Thank you. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. The rest of the entire report that you have 

prepared will be made part of today’s hearing. 

Mr. BAHR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Mr. Wooderson? 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN WOODERSON, STATE ADMINISTRATOR, IOWA VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION SERVICES 

Mr. WOODERSON. Mr. Chairman, ranking member, and members 

of the subcommittee, thank you very much for this opportunity. I 

am Steve Wooderson from Des Moines, Iowa, and today I serve as 

president-elect of the Council of State Administrators of Vocational 

Rehabilitation. 

We know that people with disabilities have a history of low employment. In fact, if you experience a disability, you can anticipate 

twice as many people with disabilities not having a job as individuals that do have a disability. 

As a result of that, the Public VR Program was established in 

1920 with the expressed purpose of increasing the rate of employment for people with disabilities. And today the Public Vocational 

Rehabilitation Program serves approximately 1 million consumers 

in our country every year. 

The public perception of people with disabilities has changed 

over the last several years, much in part due to the Americans 

with Disabilities Act, many other pieces of legislation that have 

brought that to the forefront. We know that there are many people 

with significant disabilities in our country that can go to work and 

want to go to work. As a result of that, in 1998, the Rehabilitation 

Act was reauthorized as Title IV of the Workforce Investment Act. 

The Public VR Program was identified, at that time, as being a 

mandatory partner in the one-stop delivery system. The hallmark 

of our program is specialized counselors highly trained to work 

with individuals with significant disabilities to identify their 

unique needs, their unique abilities, and develop a customized, individualized career plan to help put them back to work. 

Mr. Chairman, in Pharr, Texas, we have a gentleman by the 

name of Mario that went to work after losing his previous job due 

to his disability, his disability being post-polio syndrome. We 

worked with our national employment network team and were able 

to help him in Texas, look at what the job market was like, identi-
18 

fied opportunities for guidance and counseling, provided him with 

some prosthetic devices. And today he works for Convergys, a national company, and he is able to work out of his home as a result 

of the work of the Texas VR agency. 

Steve came to us as a young man in high school, junior, as many 

people do who are looking to transition from high school to posthigh school activities. He experienced a learning disability, attention deficit disorder, also had difficulty with his speech as well. He 

wanted to go on. Our vocational rehabilitation counselor worked 

with him, with his school teachers, developed supports for him so 

that he was able to get job experience, eventually go to college with 

the support of the VR. And today Steve is a school teacher in Goose 

Creek, Iowa, making $30,000 a year. He is also a coach in that 

school system. 

We are also seeing an increase in referrals of our soldiers and 

servicemen and servicewomen coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan seeking services from the Public VR Program. Marine Lance 

Corporal Webb is a native of Alabama, went to serve our country 

in Iraq, was there 2 weeks, was injured. As a result of his injury, 

he lost a leg. He came back to Alabama looking for work. Our Alabama agency was able to work with the local employer. Alabama 

Power accommodated the workplace. He was hired as a dispatcher. 

And today he has actually moved into another job where he is a 

property management specialist. 

The demand for our services continues to rise at the same time 

our resources and our capacities continue to decrease. Some of the 

challenges that we are facing in the Public Vocational Rehabilitation Program is the mandatory COLA identified as being a floor; 

in reality, for us, it has become a ceiling. 

In 2008, 36 of our State agencies experienced waiting lists because they were unable to serve all individuals, meaning 35,000 individuals with disabilities were waiting to access services from the 

Public Vocational Rehabilitation Program. 

The Workforce Investment Act wisely consolidated a number of 

programs into one. We agree with that. At the same time, the total 

dollars that are available for employment and training has reduced, creating additional challenges for us. 

Because of the complexity of the nature of the work of the Public 

Vocational Rehabilitation Program, serving folks with wide ranges 

of disabilities and very significant disabilities, our council believes 

that the Public Vocational Rehabilitation Program, our participation in the one-stop career centers must be considered in light of 

those challenges, and our outcomes must be evaluated in light of 

those challenges as well. 

We are very grateful to the bipartisan support for the stimulus 

package, where we look to have $500 million come to the Public Vocational Rehabilitation Program. We believe that is going to go a 

long way to eliminate those waiting lists, hopefully completely 

eliminate those current waiting lists as they are today. 

We are proud of the history of the VR Program. We believe that 

the data is there to show the value added. In fiscal year 2007, the 

Public VR Program, with our partners, put 200,000 people with disabilities to work in this country. They earned $3 billion in wages. 

They paid $966 million in Federal, State, and local taxes, and gen-
19 

erated 36,000 additional jobs. Our figures show that they will pay 

back the cost of their rehabilitation in 2 to 4 years in taxes alone. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to speak, and I 

look forward to responding to any questions you may have. 

[The statement of Mr. Wooderson follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Steve Wooderson, Administrator, Iowa Vocational 

Rehabilitation Services 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Guthrie, and Members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the Public Vocational Rehabilitation 

program history, success, and challenges. My name is Steve Wooderson and I am 

the Administrator of the Iowa Office of Vocational Rehabilitation Services. I am here 

today as President-elect of the Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation (CSAVR), the national organization that represents the State Directors of 

Vocational Rehabilitation. 

People with disabilities have a history of low employment; estimates are that as 

high as 70% of people with disabilities are not in the workforce and that a majority 

of these unemployed people want to be working. Many of those who are employed, 

are working in part-time positions or struggle to find ways to survive on low paying 

positions without benefits. A high percentage of the population lives below the poverty line. Individuals with disabilities who receive government support through programs such as Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid want to work but are not able 

to acquire positions that pay enough or provide the medical care that they need. 

Though they want to leave the rolls of government programs, their survival depends 

upon the medical supports offered through those systems. 

For the first time ever, last week the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported 

that in December 2008 the unemployment rate for persons with a disability was 

12.3 percent and rose to 13.2 percent in January 2009 (not seasonally adjusted) as 

compared to those without a disability at 6.9 percent (December) and 8.3 percent 

(January). The percentage of people with disabilities who are unemployed is nearly 

double that of individuals who do not have a disability. However, what is most disconcerting within the new statistics is that the unemployment rate for people with 

disabilities is based on only 23% of the population of individuals being in the labor 

force, as opposed to nearly 71% of individuals without disabilities. 

The population of people with disabilities continues to increase as more individuals survive accident, illness and trauma. There is also a rise in prenatal conditions 

and without sufficient health care in poor communities childhood illness and disease 

such as diabetes are on the rise. Autism, learning disabilities and attention deficit 

disorder are seen in increasingly high levels in the K-12 school system. Disability 

is also prevalent in veterans who are returning home from the conflicts in Iraq and 

Afghanistan as well as those at home who are living with disabilities which are 

service or non-service connected. With the aging population and the current economic conditions, many people are forced to work longer because they lack or have 

lost their retirement. The aging workforce is growing and predicted to continue to 

increase as people work well into their 70’s and beyond. This workforce requires a 

unique approach to workplace accommodations as they and their employers work 

through issues related to physical limitations and sensory disabilities involving vision and hearing. All of these individuals are potential consumers of the Public Vocational Rehabilitation program. 

The Public Vocational Rehabilitation program was established by Congress in 

1920 as a state-federal partnership to assist eligible individuals with disabilities to 

achieve gainful employment and to live more productive lives in the community. 

Each year the VR program serves approximately one million customers with disabilities in multi-year career plans. 

The Rehabilitation Act 

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, (The Act) authorizes and funds a 

comprehensive array of programs to assist individuals with physical and mental disabilities to maximize their employment and to achieve economic self-sufficiency, 

independence, inclusion and integration into society 

There are seven titles in The Act. Each of these titles addresses an area of need 

and establishes programs that Congress designated to provide comprehensive services to support the employment and independence of people with disabilities. 

Title I authorizes the Public VR program which includes a consumer run State 

Rehabilitation Council, the Client Assistance Program and funding under VR services grants which incorporates the American Indian Rehabilitation program. 
20 

Title II incorporates research and training. 

Title III covers the inclusion of programs designed to focus on the professional development and training of qualified staff, and special projects such as the Migrant 

and Seasonal Farmworkers programs. 

Title IV of the Act authorizes the National Council on Disability which is composed of fifteen Presidential appointees that represent various facets of the disability community to advise the President, Congress and key staff in the Department of Education, including the Commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Administration on the development of programs under the Act. 

Title V is a civil rights component in The Act that focuses on the access to services, facilities, programs and employment opportunities in the Federal government 

or in programs and/or contractors receiving Federal funds. 

Title VI of the Act establishes programs that help create employment opportunities and work in conjunction with the VR program, including Supported Employment and Projects with Industry programs designed to meet the need for ongoing 

supports for those individuals who are significantly disabled. 

Title VII of the Act authorizes independent living (IL) services through a State 

network of community based IL centers which are coordinated through a State Independent Living Council. This Title also funds IL services for older individuals who 

are blind and need supports to remain living independently. 

Together these Titles address the various facets of individual need and the development of staff, programs and services that support the employment and independence of people with disabilities. 

The Public Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) program funded under Title I of the Act 

is the primary Federal program assisting individuals with disabilities, including individuals with the most significant disabilities, in securing competitive employment. 

Congress designated the Public VR program as a mandatory partner in the OneStop service delivery system created under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 

(WIA). 

VR provides a broad array of individualized services and supports to assist eligible individuals with disabilities in overcoming barriers to employment. VR services 

may include, but are not limited to, evaluations and assessments; counseling and 

guidance, vocational and other training and employment services; orientation and 

mobility training; transportation services and vehicle modifications; personal assistance services, job coaching, supported employment services; transition services for 

youth from school to work; job placement services; and post employment services. 

VR also works with a number of community partners in a variety of ways to meet 

the employment needs of individuals with disabilities. 

The Public VR program has many valuable features that distinguish it from other 

employment programs operating today. VR employs qualified rehabilitation professionals to identify the unique strengths, resources, priorities, concerns, abilities, capabilities, interests and informed choices of eligible individuals so that individualized services plans can be developed to ensure effective job matching and ongoing 

job success, features that can positively influence the bottom line for businesses. 

History and Development of The Rehabilitation Act 

Since the inception of the Act, the public perception of disability has changed significantly. We have much greater expectations for people with disabilities, and understand that most of these individuals have the capacity to be, and want to be, important contributors to our workforce. In response to these changing perceptions, 

Congress has amended the Rehabilitation Act accordingly. 

In 1943, amendments to the Act extended services to persons with intellectual disabilities (mental retardation), mental illness and blindness. It also required that 

each VR agency submit a written State Plan to be approved by the Federal Government. 

A significant number of other Amendments to the Act took place between 1943 

and 1973; however, in 1973 there was a major overhaul of the Act. A requirement 

for a client-centered rehabilitation plan was added to the Act and focused on employment outcomes. The Act also required that VR serve people with the most significant disabilities as a priority and added civil rights protections for individuals 

with disabilities who are served by any programs that receive federal funding. 

In 1978 Independent Living and the Client Assistance Program became permanent within the Act, and programs were added to serve American Indians and Migrant and Seasonal Farm workers. 

In 1986 Supported Employment was added to the Act to increase the employment 

of individuals with the most significant disabilities by providing them with job 

coaching and ongoing supports. 
21 

In 1992 Congress required state agencies to focus on competitive employment as 

the primary outcome of the VR program, and created a ‘‘presumptive eligibility’’ for 

individuals who received Social Security benefits due to a disability. Approximately 

one-third of VR’s customers are people on Social Security Disability Insurance or 

Supplemental Security Income. The 1992 Amendments also included a focus on 

serving students transitioning from school to work. 

Finally, in 1998 the Rehabilitation Act was reauthorized through Title IV of the 

Workforce Investment Act to enhance partnerships between state VR agencies and 

their workforce partners to increase the employment of individuals with disabilities. 

Also in 1998 the Comprehensive System of Personnel Development (CSPD) was 

added to ensure that VR agencies employed qualified staff. 

Focus on Comprehensive Individualized Planning 

Over the past 89 years the program has been expanded to serve a variety of eligible individuals with disabilities and to provide a wide range of services that are required for that individual to achieve an employment outcome and become independent. The hallmark of the VR program is its ability to provide a wide range of 

services to eligible individuals with disabilities through a comprehensive individualized career plan called the Individualized Plan for Employment or the IPE. 

The IPE incorporates the holistic needs of the individual which can include areas 

such as medical, psychological, accommodations and/or adaptive technologies, financial, housing, transportation, education, etc. and how services can reduce or eliminate barriers to support the individual’s vocational goal and success in the workplace. For individuals with disabilities, success in a career requires this type of comprehensive approach. 

Where other programs are menu driven, VR customizes plans based on individual 

needs, vocational goals and the local labor market. It is a unique approach and 

works well for individuals with disabilities because of their varying needs and circumstances. 

VR—Employer Partnerships 

Over the years state VR agencies have also worked hard to develop stronger relationships with the business community. Recently the CSAVR has 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 upfront 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 2007 over 600 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. 
22 

Individual Results 

VR Consumers—Convergys: Texas and Iowa 

I want to share with you stories that are examples of the kind of work our agencies do every day. The first is about a man named Mario from Pharr, Texas. Mario 

is a 36 year old consumer who came to the State VR Agency in Texas seeking assistance after losing his job as a sanitation worker, due to his disability, post polio syndrome. When Mario applied for VR services, he was being supported by his 

girlfriend and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). He requested VR’s 

assistance to find employment and to acquire prosthetic and orthotic devices that 

would accommodate his disability at work. 

His VR counselor provided him with the needed accommodations and helped him 

to secure more suitable employment. As a result of the counseling, guidance, job 

placement assistance, and other vocational rehabilitation services provided by 

DARS, Mario was able to go to work for Convergys as a customer service representative on May 19, 2008. Because of these services, Mario was able to maintain this 

position and is still employed today. 

In Iowa our VR NET relationship with Convergys also helped David, age 44, from 

New London, Iowa, to become recently employed by Convergys. David is paralyzed 

from the waist down and uses a wheelchair for mobility. David came to IVRS after 

being laid off from a production position as a quality inspector. 

Iowa VR (IVRS) supported David in his goal of achieving his Associate of Arts degree at the local community college, but finding work in an economically depressed 

area of the state following his graduation had been a challenge. In addition, David 

had been addressing the challenge of leg tremors when he is exposed to changes in 

temperature and knows that working in a factory setting was not compatible with 

his overall well being. 

When David and his VR counselor began to investigate alternative career opportunities, they became aware of the NET’s partnership with Convergys. After a review 

of the job description, it was determined that David had the skills and abilities to 

perform the essential functions of a home agent. They also considered the physical 

advantage of working from home and liked the fact that David would be earning 

an hourly salary plus benefits. 

Since December IVRS has connected David with the Convergys recruiter, helped 

upgrade his home computer, assisted him with purchasing necessary equipment, 

and he is now anticipating the start of his two-week training on February 9. David 

is extremely motivated by the long-term opportunity with Convergys to enable him 

to incorporate his outgoing personality with the customers he will be assisting on 

a daily basis. 

VR Transition Student—Hyatt: Florida 

In June of 2002, Tara Gilio was an 18-year-old exceptional education student 

graduating with a special diploma. Tara lived in Hudson, FL—a small town about 

an hour north of Tampa. She participated in classes for students with specific learning disabilities due to severe processing deficits that limited her reading and writing 

to 4th grade levels. Although she was an outgoing young lady, she knew that she 

would not qualify for traditional post-secondary programs—such as a vocational/ 

technical school or community college. 

During her senior year in high school, Tara met her Vocational Rehabilitation 

Counselor who specialized in Transition and School to Work students. Her VR 

Counselor quickly identified Tara’s interest in foodservice and referred her to a 

short-term alternative culinary training program for persons with disabilities, located at the Grand Hyatt Tampa Bay. The program was developed in collaboration 

with Florida’s Vocational Rehabilitation Program in an effort to accommodate for 

persons with special needs and prepare them for entry-level employment in the 

foodservice industry. 

The VR Counselor included the training in Tara’s Individual Plan for Employment 

and agreed to pay the tuition for the program. The Executive Chef saw Tara’s potential and offered her a part-time job because there were no full-time positions available. Tara accepted the position and was upgraded to full-time within 6 months. 

Over the past 61⁄2 years Tara has been promoted twice and she enjoys all of the 

benefits of working for a major employer. This includes medical insurance, free 

meals, free uniform cleaning and free rooms. She also enjoys training and inspiring 

the new students as they enter the training program. Tara married in 2005 and is 

the proud mother of a two-year-old daughter. She and her husband recently purchased their first home and Tara continues her employment at the Grand Hyatt 

Tampa Bay. 
23 

Tara has written her own ‘‘success story’’ that began with a meeting with her 

Transition VR Counselor who simply asked ‘‘What do you want to do when you 

leave high school?’’ Tara appreciates the assistance from VR and recently stated 

that she ‘‘would not be where she is today without Vocational Rehabilitation helping 

her and giving her a sense of hope,’’ and when asked about the benefits of Vocational Rehabilitation, Tara recently replied ‘‘VR changed my life forever.’’ 

VR Transition Student—Northwest Iowa School District 

Steve Farrell is a 23 year old teacher. Iowa Vocational Rehabilitation Services 

(IVRS) first became acquainted with Steve as a student at Cedar Falls High School. 

IVRS services were discussed with Steve and his parents in April of 2000 during 

his junior year. Referral information outlined disabling conditions that included 

Learning Disabilities (LD), Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), and 

speech problems. (He also experienced a bout with depression when his older brother died suddenly in 2002 from drug/steroid abuse.) 

Steve was in a resource class for students with learning disabilities throughout 

school. Because his father was an instructor at Hawkeye Community College, Steve 

originally planned to attend that school and major in Police Science. He eventually 

changed his goal and decided he wanted to major in Physical Education and coach. 

The Cedar Falls Transition Alliance Program (TAP) became involved with Steve 

in June of 2000. TAP Coordinator Shirley Fossey arranged for Steve to be employed 

by Cedar Falls Schools over the summer. She also accompanied him when he entered Upper Iowa (Fayette) in the fall of 2001. Both TAP and IVRS maintained contact with Steve as he progressed through school. TAP facilitated needed accommodations and assisted Steve in learning to advocate for himself. IVRS provided funding 

to offset tuition costs and paid for tutorial services to help Steve as he pursued obtaining a four-year degree instead of the two-year degree originally planned. 

Steve majored in Physical Education (PE), minored in Psychology and Wellness 

and Fitness, and has a coaching endorsement. He graduated with honors May 6, 

2006 and is the first TAP participant to obtain a four-year degree! Steve is currently 

working as a Physical Education, Health and Geography teacher/coach at Goose 

Lake, Iowa. He earns $30,000 a year as an employee of the Northeast Iowa School 

District. Services Steve received from VR; counseling and guidance services, diagnostic/treatment, academic training/tuition assistance, job referral, placement search 

and supports, financial and tutorial assistance, and follow-up. Both Steve and his 

parents are very grateful for the services and supports he’s received over the past 

six years. Steve’s success is IVRS and TAP’s success and he has given back to both 

by becoming a motivational speaker to students at Cedar Falls High School, where 

our relationship first began. 

VR and Veterans: Washington State 

Matt is a disabled veteran from Washington State. He is a quadriplegic who also 

has a traumatic brain injury (TBI). Matt spent seven months in a trauma hospital 

and now receives outpatient support from the VA Hospital in Seattle. Matt was not 

expected to live after his injury and he was certainly not expected to return to work, 

be an active father or contributing member of his community. Despite the medical 

predictions, Matt is a single parent raising his 12 year old daughter, he has returned to school, owns a home and lives independently in his community. Two 

months ago Matt re-entered the workforce on a part-time basis and plans to return 

full time when his daughter is older. He volunteers at his daughter’s school and at 

the VA Hospital where he supports other veterans with disabilities who struggle to 

regain their independence and their place in American society. 

What was the difference for Matt and his family? It was the combination of a 

great team of caregivers, actively involved family members and a coordinated team 

approach between the VA system and Public VR that supported Matt’s vision of employment and independence. Family members were actively involved and advocated 

to pull in experts across systems that supported Matt’s success. Matt has received 

support from a variety of programs funded under The Rehabilitation Act, including 

Public VR, independent living supports, advocacy services and the support of qualified staff trained in programs under the Act such as the specialists in neuropsychological evaluation and TBI. This was coupled with the involvement of staff 

from the VA hospital who continues to support Matt’s ongoing medical and psychological needs. The systems were coordinated, the family was involved, and Matt attained his goals and is working toward a future career. Matt is contributing through 

his payment of taxes, his role as a father and family member, involvement in his 

church and supporting the success of other veterans and their families through volunteer work. A coordinated system approach is a proven model of success, for the 

individual and for America. 
24 

VR and Veterans: Alabama 

Marine Lance Corporal Corey Webb had been in Iraq for two weeks when he was 

injured after his unit came under enemy fire. The Springville man sustained a broken collarbone and a leg injury that would later require amputation. When he returned home, Webb tackled his recovery with the ‘‘can do’’ attitude that he had 

learned as a Marine. He was a bit lost, though, when it came to returning to the 

workplace. Prior to his deployment, the young man was preparing to begin work as 

a lineman for Alabama Power Co., but after his injury it was clear he wouldn’t be 

able to perform the duties of that job. 

Despite that, he was determined to work with the company. Alabama Power, a 

longtime customer of the department’s Employer Services, referred Webb to Alabama VR for assistance in finding a place with the company. Peggy Anderson, the 

statewide coordinator for employer development, and Kristie Grammer, a rehabilitation counselor and the department’s V.A. liaison in the Birmingham area, worked 

diligently with Alabama Power to find a position for the young man. He eventually 

was hired as a dispatcher in the company’s appliance sales division. Within a few 

months, he departed for the Annistion Army Depot, where he is a property management specialist. 

Today, with VRS’ support, the 25-year-old is pursuing a bachelor’s degree at Jacksonville State University. He’s grateful for the assistance he has received through 

VRS, which he praises for being a ‘‘single point of contact.’’ ‘‘It’s so much simpler,’’ 

he said. ‘‘If I need anything, I know I can call VRS.’’ The Springville native said 

VR services are especially valuable to ‘‘career military,’’ who might not be familiar 

with the intricacies of searching for employment. ‘‘A lot of these guys who’ve never 

done anything but serve in the military don’t know how to find a job,’’ he said. 

‘‘They don’t know how to create a resume, set up interviews, or anything related 

to finding work. VRS gives them the tools they need to get back to work.’’ 

VR: Challenges and Opportunities 

Health care and higher education are just two factors driving the cost of providing 

VR services. As you may know, the Act has a mandatory Cost of Living Adjustment 

(COLA) that requires the federal government to increase funding for the program 

annually, but even with that, the COLA has not kept pace with the increased demand for VR services, as well as the faster growing costs of health care and education. The COLA, which is based on the generic Consumer Price Index-Urban 

(CPIU), was intended to be a floor below which annual appropriations for the VR 

program could not fall. It was not the intent of Congress at the time the COLA was 

included that it become a ceiling for appropriations, but in fact that is what has 

happened. 

Further, the employment expectations of people with disabilities have grown tremendously, especially since the passage of the Americans’ with Disabilities Act. Despite the successes of the VR program, it faces an increased demand for services 

during the daunting challenges of the current economic downturn. Funding shortfalls have resulted in states having to implement an Order of Selection. 

The Public Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) program authorized under Title I of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, requires a State VR agency to implement 

an ‘‘Order of Selection’’ (OOS) policy when it anticipates that it will not have sufficient fiscal and/or personnel resources to fully serve all individuals eligible for vocational rehabilitation services. Under an Order of Selection, individuals with the 

most significant disabilities must be selected first for the provision of VR services. 

At the end of FY 2008, 36 State VR Agencies were on an OOS 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. 

Congress has acted in other ways to assist people with disabilities become employed. As mentioned earlier, in 1998 Congress passed the Workforce Investment 

Act that envisioned greater access to generic employment services for people with 

disabilities. Unfortunately, that promising vision from 10 years ago remains largely 

unfulfilled today. When WIA was first authorized, it consolidated a number of employment and training programs in an effort to create a seamless service delivery 

system. The consolidation was accompanied by a significant cut in funding, with additional cuts in funding in subsequent years. As a result, WIA has resulted in a substantial decline in funding available for actual training when compared to its predecessor program. As a result, mandatory partners in WIA, including VR are continually asked to contribute more funding to pay for infrastructure and other costs associated with the operation of the one-stop centers. Partner programs, particularly 

the Public Vocational Rehabilitation program, are already under-funded to meet the 

needs of their target populations. 
25 

Vocational Rehabilitation customers often require longer-term and more supportive services than the typical WIA customer. Because of the significant disabilities of VR consumers and the complexity and length of services required, CSAVR 

believes that VR’s participation in one-stops and the evaluation of VR’s outcomes 

must be different; taking into account the characteristics of the population VR 

serves. Although physical access to one-stop centers has improved since the authorization 

of the WIA, programmatic access continues to be a significant problem for many VR 

consumers. The significant majority of centers lack the adaptive technology necessary for consumers with significant disabilities such as blindness and cerebral 

palsy to access the resources of the one-stops self service centers. Disability navigators were employed by some centers in an effort to assist consumers with disabilities 

to have better access; however, many of these individuals lacked the level of skills 

and knowledge necessary to be of any significant benefit. In addition, there were insignificant numbers of navigators to meet the needs. The federal government spends approximately $200 billion a year on various types of assistance for individuals with disabilities. Of that, less than $3 billion is appropriated to address the employment and training needs of individuals with significant disabilities. The Nation’s public policy must be directed toward the realization 

that a significant investment of resources must be in the WIA if people with disabilities are to have real access to the one-stop centers and to the individualized services and supports necessary to increase their independence and their economic selfsufficiency 

Another significant effort by Congress to increase employment among people with 

disabilities was the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act. The legislation, passed in 1999, created the Ticket to Work program in the Social Security 

Administration, increased access to healthcare coverage, and provided benefits planning and assistance to social security beneficiaries who want to return to work. 

The healthcare and benefits planning provisions have largely been successful at 

meeting the needs of people with disabilities on SSDI and SSI who want to work. 

States responded positively to the new Medicaid provisions in the Ticket to Work 

and many have aggressively implemented those provisions. In addition, we know 

that the benefits planning provisions have helped thousands of beneficiaries every 

year navigate the complex array of rules affecting beneficiaries trying to become 

more independent. However, the Ticket to Work implementation was less than successful in its initial rollout. Despite the promise of new options for employment services for beneficiaries, 90% of tickets were deposited with VR agencies. Further, the 

initial regulations provided too little financial incentive for employment programs, 

known in the law as Employment Networks, to participate, and worse, made it impossible for VR agencies and those Employment Networks to function cooperatively. 

In fact, the first regulations literally put VR agencies and Employment Networks 

in opposition to each other. 

SSA has significantly addressed these issues in new regulations published this 

year and VR agencies and Employment Networks are hopeful the new regulations 

will bring success to the Ticket program, but it is still too early to tell. 

Also, CSAVR is very excited about the prospects for renewed focus on the issue 

of employment and people with disabilities that the new administration has promised. The President has stated that his Administration will create a Commission to 

look at ways to improve employment services, work incentives in SSDI and SSI, and 

improve further access to healthcare for people with disabilities. We are pleased 

that the Administration will aggressively pursue the goal of making the federal government a model employer for people with disabilities. We are already seeing success in this area in our work with Federal partners such as the Internal Revenue 

Service (IRS) and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). CSAVR looks forward to working with the Administration and Congress on these critical efforts for 

people with disabilities. 

We deeply appreciate the bipartisan efforts of both the House and Senate to include $500 million for Vocational Rehabilitation Services in H.R. 1, the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Too many times, programs for people with disabilities are first in line for cuts when the budget is tight and last at the table when 

the nation’s treasury is flush. This funding will allow state VR agencies to clear 

their waiting lists and meet the inevitable increase in demand for VR services from 

veterans, youth, and all people with disabilities that will result from these difficult 

economic times. 

VR: Return on Investment 

In conclusion, the Public VR program has demonstrated over the years its effectiveness in serving people with disabilities. You have heard the stories in the testi-
26 

mony, but the numbers behind these stories reveal the impact that the Public VR 

program has in helping people with disabilities find and retain work, reduce dependency on benefits, and help grow the economy. 

In 2007 the Public VR program and its partners helped over 200,000 people with 

disabilities find, return to, or retain employment and 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 we help find or retain employment will ‘‘pay back’’ the cost of their rehabilitation services, through taxes, in 

just two to four years. 

In addition, data from the Social Security Administration reveals that for every 

dollar SSA reimburses VR, means SSA has saved seven dollars 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. 

Again, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today and I look forward to answering any questions that 

you may have. 

Thank you. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Thank you, Mr. Wooderson. 

I now call on Mr. Camp. 

STATEMENT OF BILL CAMP, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, 

SACRAMENTO CENTRAL LABOR COUNCIL, AFL–CIO 

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, it is 

a privilege to be here. 

Not only are people in the United States watching the decisions 

that you are making certainly this week and that your committee 

will make between now and the summer, but the world is waiting 

to see what the United States will do to respond to this economic 

crisis. 

So, as we think about workforce development, we have to look at 

it in the context of what is going on economically in our Nation. 

When we look at it, for all of us, in whatever State you live, it is 

dire. In California, we have a $42 billion budget deficit. We have 

257,000 jobs lost. We have a crisis. We had 2 million calls a day 

to our unemployment insurance claims offices, trying to get a response about people’s claims. The system is completely overwhelmed. 

So, in a crisis, we have a real opportunity—an opportunity to 

step back and decide what can we do that is different, what can 

we learn from what we have done, and what we should take on. 

And I would like to talk about some of those we have done in Sacramento and in California. 

But, first, we must be clear not to throw out the baby with the 

bath water. We have a labor exchange program, and the research 

data demonstrates that the public-sector labor exchange job—unemployment system and referral for jobs and counseling, paid for 

by public dollars, run by the public agency, is the most efficient 

and effective way to help those who get laid off work. 

The Workforce Investment Board needs to focus on training, not 

try to do the job that is already done better by the employment 

services divisions funded by the Wagner Peyser Act all over this 

Nation. It has been a successful program. It should be continued. 

We should focus our workforce investment energy on how do we develop the best training program for the right jobs that take us into 

the future. 
27 

Let me give you an example, though, of what we have done in 

Sacramento. Our Employment Development Department has developed an excellent labor market information base. We have been 

able to take the data of our jobs that are going to be coming open 

in the near future, those that are growing in our region, what the 

wages are, how many people are going to be retiring in a given occupation, and be able to give really clear answers to workers about 

what their potential is. 

And we can do this on a regional basis, on a labor market basis, 

so the workers in San Diego get San Diego data and the workers 

in Los Angeles get Los Angeles data and the people in Sacramento 

can get Sacramento data. That is done by our EDD, Employment 

Services Department. And it is vital, because it says to the Workforce Investment Board, you have to be data-driven. You have to 

make your decisions based on the accurate information in your region about what jobs are opening up, how much they pay, what 

kind of training people have to have, and how do we create that 

training. 

Let me give you an example of what I think, though, are some 

important principles that we have adopted in our Workforce Investment Board. And labor is very active in our board. I run the Labor 

Council, but I have been a vice president of our board from the day 

it started. We actually have two vice presidents—a labor vice president and a succession vice president. 

But the point is we are engaged. We have a stake in making our 

Workforce Investment Board successful. So we adopted a policy 

that at least 40 percent of our dollars that are going for adult and 

dislocated worker training has to go—40 percent of the money 

spent has to go to training, that you cannot use the Workforce Investment Board to supplement the cuts in Wagner Peyser that 

have gone on in the last few years. You have to maintain and mandate a Workforce Investment Board that puts dollars into training. 

The second thing is we have to establish what is really a selfsufficiency standard. What does it take to pay the rent, pay the 

bills, buy the food, and take care of your immediate family on a 

minimum basis in Los Angeles, in San Diego, in any place in the 

United States, and target the training towards that standard. And 

if the training program that we fund doesn’t get people to a reasonable income level within a reasonable time that is self-sustaining, 

we have failed. We have failed the taxpayers, particularly. 

We are not here to train people so they can continue to depend 

on the government for support. We want to train people so they can 

go out and get their foot on that bottom step of the ladder and 

move up. So, as a result, we need to establish self-sustaining standards that allows us to do incumbent worker training. When they 

move up, they create a vacancy down below. 

The third thing we have tried to do is to create a career ladder. 

You think of a career ladder as an apprenticeship program, and if 

it is producing an increase in wages, then it ought to be honored. 

But we have developed that concept in the health industry. So we 

now have jointly run trust programs in health care that create career ladders. If you come in to work for Kaiser or for Catholic 

Healthcare West as a certified nurse’s assistant, you have an op-
28 

portunity to move up and become maybe someday a licensed vocational nurse. 

We find that these innovations really make a difference. Fifteen 

percent of our Workforce Investment Board members have to be 

appointed by the Labor Council. It creates a partnership between 

the Chamber of Commerce and the labor movement that is really 

invaluable, because you have to have that partnership. So when we 

bring the Chamber, the labor movement, our educational institution, our mandated partners together, we create programs that 

really increase people’s wages. 

We look forward to working with you. We have to protect the 

public sector. We have to make sure we focus on training. We have 

to make sure that we have a balance between labor and business 

and the public sector, so that when we look at the formulation of 

the law, we need to balance out the labor representation of the 

board. And we have to incorporate an incentive for innovation. 

Thank you, sir. 

[The statement of Mr. Camp follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Bill Camp, Sacramento Central Labor Council, 

AFL–CIO 

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify 

today on behalf of the ten million members of the AFL-CIO. My name is Bill Camp, 

and I am Executive Secretary of the Sacramento Central Labor Council in California. I am also a member of the Executive Committee of Sacramento Works, which 

provides labor exchange and a variety of employment- and training-related services 

for some 45,000 persons every year. We work extensively with the California Employment Development Department and their innovative labor market information 

data base that they have developed for the state. Sacramento Works also provides 

oversight and administration of programs funded by the Workforce Investment Act, 

including services for youth, dislocated workers, and disadvantaged adults. We operate 12 One-Stop Career Centers in Sacramento County, so I have seen the operation 

of our nation’s employment and training systems up close for many years. In fact, 

in 1966 I received my BA degree at the University of Oregon which included a 

minor in the education of disadvantaged youth. 

I am also on the Executive Committee of LEED, Linking Education and Economic 

Development, a non-profit organization composed of key leaders in our community 

representing labor, private businesses, and the administrators of the school districts, county board of education, community college, and 4 year university serving 

the Sacramento region. 

America’s Job Seekers Need an Economic Recovery Plan 

Any consideration of innovative and forward-thinking responses to the new economy need to take into account the economic and fiscal conditions that affect everything we do. As we all recognize, the nation is caught in the most severe economic 

crisis since the Great Depression. Since December 2007, the official beginning of the 

recession, 3.6 million jobs have been lost across the country. About 21.7 million persons are either unemployed or underemployed, according to the Economic Policy Institute. Jobs in the manufacturing and construction industry are plummeting. Every 

week it seems that more companies announce mass layoffs and facility closings. The 

rapid increase in persons applying for Unemployment Insurance benefits has placed 

severe stress on the UI system—at the same time as 46 states are encountering 

budget deficits. 

The severity of the economic crisis is taking its toll on California and its fiscal 

situation. The state lost more than 257,000 jobs in 2008, with large reductions in 

manufacturing, construction, financial services, and educational and health services. 

In December, California’s unemployment rate stood at 9.3 percent—more than two 

percentage points higher than the December national average. New claims for unemployment benefits increased to about 88,000 in December, compared to about 

57,000 a year earlier. Our UI system is being overwhelmed. During the holiday period, the system averaged more than 2 million call attempts every day. When laid 

off workers call in to try to file a claim, it can take them 20 times to get through. 

It takes weeks to file a claim. 
29 

Because of the economic downturn, the state budget gap between revenues and 

expenditures will total $42 billion over the next few years. More than 2,000 state 

infrastructure projects have been cancelled, threatening the health and livelihoods 

of Californians. The Governor of California is proposing draconian budget cuts that 

will slash state spending for education, health care, and human services. In addition, the Governor is ordering the furlough of government staff at the very moment 

when laid off workers all across the state are in crisis and desperately need their 

services. 

Under these dire economic circumstances, it is more crucial than ever that the 

U.S. Congress enact an American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that helps the 

states and puts people to work improving the infrastructure, increasing the production of electricity from renewable energy sources, modernizing our schools, and investing in education and worker training programs. We urge you to finalize that legislation and place it on the President’s desk with all possible haste. 

Workforce Investment Innovations in California and Sacramento 

We recognize the need for innovation and fresh ideas about how to best serve the 

needs of a diverse population of job seekers. At the same time, it is important to 

balance the initiation of new programs with reliance upon—and improvements of— 

established workforce institutions that can rapidly mobilize their public employee 

ranks to provide necessary services during this time of national economic emergency. In California the center of our workforce development and unemployment insurance system is the dedicated public employees of the Employment Development 

Department (EDD). In particular, EDD has devoted substantial time and resources 

toward developing a sophisticated data base of labor market information. That data 

and the critical analytic work performed by our State EDD is indispensable to identifying growth industries, industry clusters, growth occupations within those sectors 

and clusters, and wage ranges for those occupations. This knowledge plays a role 

in effectively directing our state and local resources to respond to the crisis. LMI 

also supports groundbreaking work in analyzing the emerging green economy and 

projecting the growth in ‘‘green jobs’’ in multiple industries. 

The workforce boards that do their work properly approach their economy and 

labor-market challenges in a strategic manner, first by asking how resources can be 

targeted for maximum benefit. The answer must be data driven. The Wagner Peyser 

funded employment service’s labor market information is indispensable for addressing this threshold question. 

Unfortunately, the training resources necessary to bring industry partners to the 

table are scarce. This is due largely to eroding funding levels for WIA at the federal 

level. It’s also due to the WIA’s unsustainable support for costly One-Stop Career 

Centers. The central function of Wagner Peyser funded employment service is laborexchange, which is an essential low-cost service for connecting jobseekers with employment opportunities. While employment service staff is largely co-located in California One-Stops, the erosion of both Wagner Peyser and WIA title I resources has 

shifted a significant portion of WIA to supporting One-Stop facilities and activities. 

That shift has occurred at the expense of training and intensive services. The roles 

of WIA Title I and employment services must be clearly delineated to ensure that 

resources are not wasted and that we can maximize training opportunities under 

WIA. The employment service must be adequately funded to accomplish its central 

role of public labor exchange and providing labor market information, counseling, 

case management, and referral to job placement. WIA title I funding must be leveraged by the WIB for building regional high road partnerships and for training and 

intensive services directed toward high wage growth sectors. 

In Sacramento, we have formed partnerships between business, labor and educational institutions to make optimal use of the labor market data and analysis produced by EDD. First, we made an early decision about the fundamental policies and 

principles that have enabled our workforce investment agencies to identify employment opportunities and move training dollars where they are most needed. Labor 

has proposed a statewide requirement: that 40 percent of local WIA funds be dedicated to training. This measure would ensure some consistency across a state in 

which policies vary from one locality to another. Some of our WIBs actually devote 

as little as 3 percent of their dollars to training, for example, while others have local 

policies to spend 50 percent on training. This sort of requirement on the level of 

training should be seriously considered in a reauthorized WIA. 

There are still too many WIBs that function on the premise that any job is a good 

job, that low-wage employment is a better option than unemployment. This position 

leads to public resources subsidizing recruitment, screening, and placement services 

for low-wage employers such as Wal-Mart. The workforce board gets credit for place-
30 

ments, but the worker has now made the small step from unemployment to working 

poor. 

In California, even before the recent downturn, workers suffer from significant 

labor market ‘‘churn.’’ More than 1 million involuntary job separations occur each 

month. The workforce development system must not contribute to this by placing 

clients in low-wage high-turnover employment. Those clients end up back in the system seeking additional services. This is a very poor and inefficient use of scarce public resources, not to mention profoundly unjust. 

It is good board membership that drives the strategic direction of WIA resources 

and influences the broader system of training, education, and worker supports. If 

WIB activities are driven solely by technocratic measures that quantify placements 

over the quality of outcomes for workers, then it shouldn’t surprise anyone that public resources subsidize low-road employers like Wal-Mart. 

In California, state law requires that each board have 15 percent labor representation who are nominated by central labor councils and local building and construction trades councils. Experience in California demonstrates that strong labor representation infuses principles for economic justice, quality services, and a workercentered approach to workforce and community development. It also connects workers with high-quality apprenticeship programs and other labor-management training partnerships in growth sectors, and to opportunities for employment with highroad employers. This structural engagement by local labor has meant a commitment 

to ensure the success of the training and employment opportunities of the unemployed in our region. When this broad array of union leaders show a commitment 

to the results of the Workforce Investment programs, the rest of the labor movement 

wants to help it be successful. 

I recall when the President and CEO of the Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber 

of Commerce called me on the phone and said he wanted to work with organized 

labor in fashioning a local board that really prepared the workforce for the high 

wage, high skill jobs of the Sacramento region. He made it clear that he wanted 

to be the Board President and I made it clear that I wanted to be the Vice-President 

of the local board. That took a little constitutional agility since we needed two vice 

Presidents, one for succession purposes and one to ensure Labor is really engaged 

in the policy decisions of the agency. 

In our first strategic planning session, we drew from EDD information and identified key industries that would include high wage, high skills opportunities as well 

as industries where Labor had a voice in the workplace. It was a give and take process, but enough opportunities so that everyone stayed engaged in the board’s policy 

making role. 

Our second policy of importance was to ensure that wage and benefit standards 

had to be met by agencies who provided training or they would not be funded in 

the future. The board adopted income levels in line with a self-sufficiency standard 

and uses them as the eligibility criteria for intensive and training services provided 

at the One-Stop Centers. This policy ensures that unemployed and low-wage workers who work for less than $10 an hour are eligible for training. As these low wage 

workers moved up, they opened up opportunities for the unemployed. All the staff 

in the employment training agency understood that the sustainable wage policy was 

real. Any program that did not meet the standard might be discussed publicly at 

a board meeting. The identification of an employer’s financial contribution to health 

benefits was a part of the wage package and ensured that those employers who provided benefits were on a level playing with those who did not. The self-sufficiency 

standard is an important part of ensuring that self-sufficiency is a driving force for 

the one-stop career centers. In a companion policy, the WIB identified the ‘‘working 

poor’’ as a special population that should receive priority for WIA services and gave 

a high priority to jobs with employer-paid fringe benefits. In addition to Sacramento, 

a few other boards in California have adopted self-sufficiency measures and other 

principles or standards that target WIA resources only to employers that provide 

good salaries and benefits in sectors with growth potential. 

The next policy that pushed employers and trainers to focus on high wage, high 

skilled jobs was the inclusion of career ladders and ‘‘lattices’’ in the definition of a 

successful program. An example of a career ladder is an apprenticeship program, 

but it had to be real in terms of producing wage and benefit increases in order to 

meet our standards. We found that employers who did not traditionally have apprenticeship programs began to organize jointly administered trust funds where collective bargaining money was invested in training opportunities for lower waged 

workers to move up the ladder within their own industry. Our health care providers 

are the best example of this. 

Sacramento Works places a high priority on identifying the jobs that are going 

to be in high demand by employers in the region. The board funded a Sacramento 
31 

regional workforce study to identify high wage, high growth critical occupational 

clusters with career ladders. The board required that the One-Stop Centers spend 

at least 75 percent of all training funds to train workers for these critical occupational clusters. An analysis of base wage data indicates that customers completing 

training in critical occupations had a higher retention rate and made an average 

of $8,000 more per year than customers receiving only labor exchange services. 

The efforts of Sacramento Works to focus on training job seekers for critical occupational clusters has resulted in strong local partnerships over the past eight years. 

Employers, labor, education, and local government have developed a number of sector initiatives in healthcare, construction, transportation, information technology 

and clean energy technology. I have attached a list of those partners to this testimony. 

One of our most important and unique innovations is called www.careerGPS.com. 

This data base covers 80 percent of the occupations in the top 75 industry sectors 

and subsectors that will need to be filled over the next 10 years in the Sacramento 

Labor Market area. It is accessible to anyone with a computer. It explains what jobs 

now and in the future will need to be filled, how much they pay, what training is 

required in order to apply, what training will be required after employment, what 

will be expected of any employee once they are hired, and the name address and 

phone number of any training agencies supplying the needs of that occupation as 

well as the program detail. 

Over the last three years, the Sacramento Works board has worked closely with 

the Partnership for Prosperity, an effort spearheaded by the Sacramento Area Commerce and Trade Organization (SACTO) and the Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber 

of Commerce. This group has brought together 34 organizations in the region to 

work together to create an economic development strategy for the Sacramento region. Under the auspices of the Partnership for Prosperity, the Sacramento board 

partnered with LEED Sacramento to create an action plan focused on identifying 

the high wage/high growth jobs in the region and collaborating with partners to ensure that workers are trained for these jobs. The result is this unique website, 

www.careerGPS.com. This website allows job seekers and students in high school 

and college to navigate the results of the regional workforce forecast to see what 

jobs are out there and what careers they may pursue. This tool is used by One-Stop 

Center coaches to assist job seekers in identifying appropriate training providers 

and will soon be used in high school and community college career centers to assist 

students in making career choices. This is an invaluable service to dislocated workers in today’s economy. As far as I know, there is nothing like this on a regional 

basis anywhere else in the country. 

Sacramento Works is a truly integrated one stop career center system and has 

over 40 partners, including the State of California, Employment Development Department’s Job Service merit staff. Local and state staff work side by side to provide 

assessment, coaching, labor exchange and training services to customers. 

Reforming the Workforce Investment Act 

So far I have talked about the accomplishments and positive aspects of the workforce investment system in California—as it has matured and integrated labor representatives into its governance structures and policy approaches. As the U.S. Congress moves toward the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act, we urge 

the federal government to learn from these experiences and take bold action to reform WIA in a manner that will benefit the unemployed, working families, and communities being devastated by the economic crisis. 

As we travel around the country, we hear many stories about the failures and limitations of the workforce system from our WIB labor representatives and community 

organizations. We hear about the temporary agencies that sit on local boards. Participants come into One-Stop Centers, receive core services, and are sent to the 

same temporary agencies—where they get hired and are counted as placements. 

They work for a low-wage employer for a few months, the temporary agency receives 

their fee, and the participants are soon laid off. They go back to the One-Stop Center and go through the process again. In effect, the local WIB has become a revolving door for low-wage employers. 

Because of the ‘‘work first’’ approach adopted by WIA, participants are frequently 

directed into low-wage jobs with little opportunity for advancement. WIA provides 

too little training and skill development that would enable participants to move into 

high skill employment that pays family-sustaining wages and provides an opportunity for career advancement. There is growing consensus in the employment and 

training community that WIA fails to provide sufficient long-term training leading 

to good jobs. In reports published in 2003, for example, both the National Center 
32 

on Education and the Economy (NCEE) and the Brookings Institution recognized 

this lack of training as a serious deficiency in the system. 

The world has changed drastically since WIA was passed more than 10 years ago. 

WIA was crafted in an environment that favored deregulation, privatization, and 

the vast growth of private contractors delivering public services. Those policies have 

brought the nation to where we are today—suffering from an acute economic crisis 

and a global market meltdown that is spreading across the globe. The crisis calls 

into question the dominant political wisdom of the last 30 years that the bulk of 

decision-making about federal programs are best made locally and, if possible, by 

private sector actors. Instead, workforce policy should establish guiding principles 

and examine how each level of government and various programs can be harnessed 

to advance those objectives. Some of those principles include: 

• Federal policy should support jobs that pay family-sustaining wages and benefits, and provide the opportunity for career advancement. 

• Federal policy should support a strong social safety net for unemployed and underemployed workers, who obtain services from dedicated public servants rather 

than contractors motivated by private gain. 

• Federal policy should be balanced to meet the needs of workers, employers and 

communities. Policies should also be balanced to meet the needs of low-wage workers and higher wage, high skilled workers. 

• Federal agencies should assume a stronger role in developing coherent policies 

and guiding the implementation of various federal program activities in order to 

focus limited government resources on important objectives—that are defined nationally—while leaving considerable latitude at the state and local level. 

Historically, when the nation is faced with large economic and wartime challenges, we have moved to centralize policy-making authority to achieve important 

national objectives. WIA needs to be retooled so it can play a meaningful role in 

responding to the current crisis through the development of comprehensive and uniform policies. 

As it is currently structured, WIA has pushed authority far down to the local level 

without sufficient federal leadership, without ample oversight by the Department of 

Labor, and without uniform implementation practices. The policies and practices of 

WIA vary from one WIB to another, creating confusion and inconsistency. As it 

stands now, WIA is a flawed system that has become so decentralized that it is not 

up to the task of supporting the job creation and clean energy initiatives we need 

to lift the nation out of the recession and economic crisis. Still, the AFL-CIO has 

supported more funding for WIA programs, and we have called upon the U.S. Congress to devote more resources in the American Recovery Plan for dislocated workers, low-income adults, disadvantaged youth, and Reemployment Grants to the 

States. 

In this context, we urge Congress to reform WIA by instituting changes in the 

following four categories. 

First, we need to reassert the role of the public sector in WIA. The center of our 

nation’s workforce development system must be a robust, publicly operated, employment security program that has the resources to provide job matching services, conduct labor market research on the employment implications of new and expanding 

industries, counsel job seekers, and make referrals to job placement. A 2004 research report by WESTAT—a report that was suppressed by the Department of 

Labor under the Bush Administration—concluded that the public labor exchange 

provides ‘‘highly effective reemployment services to claimants’’ and other job seekers. Only a public labor exchange will ensure that services are provided in an equitable manner, free of personal favoritism and conflict of interest. 

The public labor exchange must serve as the primary entry point into the system. 

With plant closings, mass layoffs, and rising unemployment wracking our nation’s 

economy, a strong and uniform system that provides rapid response and operates 

on a statewide and interstate basis is more crucial than ever. Maintaining a public 

labor exchange fosters accountability and the equitable provision of services. It has 

the capacity to achieve statewide and federal policy objectives. To ensure that WIA 

is responsive to the broad public interest, there should be a requirement that the 

One-Stop Centers be publicly operated and that full information about their operations be easily accessible and available to the public. 

Second, WIA needs to shift its focus toward providing training services. The mandate of WIA to follow a sequence of services has led to a focus on the core, minimal 

level of services and an underinvestment in training. This orientation has produced 

a system that tends to support low-road strategies that drive participants into lowwage, dead-end jobs. The sequence of services requirement should be abolished. 

Operational changes that can help to achieve the goal of fostering good jobs include 
33 

a requirement that a minimum—such as 50 percent—of adult and dislocated worker 

WIA funds be spent on training. 

Third, the interests of business and labor must be rebalanced in WIA governance 

structures. The requirement that a majority of State and local WIBs be representatives of business has created boards that are biased toward the interests of the corporate sector, and tends to create conflicts of interest between the boards and local 

vendors. This restriction has also had the unintended consequence of creating large 

and unwieldy boards, a problem that is recognized by labor and the business community. This restraint should be eliminated in a reauthorized WIA. 

WIA boards should be reconstituted to provide greater balance among key stakeholders and allow for more organized labor participation. Unions are strong advocates for effective training for good jobs. As I have explained, California now has 

a legal requirement that 15 percent of its local members be representatives of labor 

organizations. Such a provision should be considered for adoption for WIA as a 

whole. 

Fourth, WIA should incorporate program innovations in a number of areas, starting with sector partnerships. The AFL-CIO supports challenge grants that would 

push the WIA system to move in directions that correspond to the actual workings 

of labor markets and the workforce needs of industry clusters that have been identified by state government agencies and labor market analysis. Governors should 

have new authority to use WIA resources to develop statewide, industry or regionally based initiatives to supplement local workforce activities in accord with industry and labor market trends. We just caution that care should be taken to ensure 

that these partnerships are grounded in real conditions, and do not become another 

layer of bureaucracy with funding demands that are self-perpetuating. 

We would also like to see WIA recognize the need for career pathways for youth. 

We have been working with Senator Patty Murray to refine her ‘‘Promoting Innovations to 21st Century Careers Act.’’ We would encourage the House Education and 

Labor Committee to begin formulating similar legislation. 

Also, we would like to establish a program or initiative in WIA to fund Incumbent 

Worker Training and career ladders—as long as it includes appropriate protections 

to ensure that employers do not shift their costs to federal taxpayers. That program 

should not be limited to persons at particular income levels. And we would see that 

program coordinated with the work of sectoral partnerships, community colleges, apprenticeships, and labor-management training programs. 

In conclusion, the economic crisis has created dramatic new conditions in our 

country. As the economic crisis unfolded this fall, then-Senator Obama said in a Colorado speech: ‘‘What we have seen in the last few days is nothing less than the final 

verdict on an economic philosophy that has completely failed.’’ We need strong leadership from the federal level that is not blinded by free market ideology. And we 

need workforce development policy that is framed as part of a larger industrial policy that would reassert the importance of the public sector, revive our manufacturing economy to supply the component parts for a green economy, change our 

trade policies to generate American jobs, and pass an American Recovery Plan that 

can shore up our infrastructure and move toward a sustainable economy. 

I’m sure we won’t agree with everything that the President’s Chief of Staff will 

do in the years ahead. But we did notice Rahm Emmanuel’s comment on ‘‘Face the 

Nation’’ last November when he said: ‘‘Rule One: Never allow a crisis to go to waste. 

They are opportunities to do big things.’’ Maybe those ‘‘big things’’ should include 

funding mechanisms for social programs. The AFL-CIO has called upon the G-20 

leaders to explore the feasibility of a instituting a fee on all financial transactions. 

Even a very modest fee could yield revenues of $100 billion per year. These resources that could be used for economic recovery, or education and training services, 

or to offset the costs associated with the Wall Street bailout. So I would leave you 

with that thought. 

The AFL-CIO looks forward to working with the subcommittee an the full Education and Labor Committee on these WIA reforms in the year ahead. 

ATTACHMENT

Sacramento High Growth High Wage Sector Initiatives 

• Transportation: Partnership with Regional Transit, California Labor Federation, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, American River College and 

Sacramento County Office of Education for a Clean Diesel Technology program 

which retrained bus mechanics in clean diesel and trained new workers for regional 

construction and transportation employers. 
34 

• Transportation: Recruiting, screening and referring job candidates for Siemens’ 

Transportation System, a company manufacturing light rail vehicles. Collaborating 

with Siemens’ and Los Rios Community College district on welding training for selected employees. 

• Cost Estimating: Partnership with the Sacramento Builders Exchange to provide incumbent worker and career ladder training in cost estimating 

• Construction Trades: Partnership with Sacramento Sierra Building Trades 

Council, Northern California Construction Training, and Los Rios Community College District to provide pre-apprenticeship construction training. 

• Healthcare: Partnership with Kaiser, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, and 

Sutter Hospitals, SEIU and Los Rios Community College District to increase the 

number of nurses trained in the region and to develop a pre-apprenticeship training 

program (CNA, LVN, Registered Nurse Career Ladder). 

• Clean Energy Technology: Recruiting for students for Community College green 

technology courses in energy and sustainability, and the design and fabrication of 

solar projects. 

• Clean Energy Technology: Partner in Green Capital Alliance, a regional effort 

to position Sacramento as the premier region in the nation for high-value, clean 

technology companies and elevate the region’s visibility both nationally and internationally. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Thank you, Mr. Camp. We will make sure 

that the entire paper that you wrote be made part of the record 

today. 

I call on Ms. Johnson. 

STATEMENT OF SHERRY JOHNSON, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, 

EMPLOYMENT TRAINING PROGRAMS, TRAIL AREA DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

committee. 

I am the WIB director at the Lincoln Trail Area Development 

District, an eight-county regional economic planning and development agency located approximately 40 miles south of Louisville. I 

have been employed in this position for 24 years. The region is the 

birthplace of Abraham Lincoln, whose 200th birthday we celebrate 

today. And, additionally, it is the home of the Fort Knox Military 

Installation. 

The Workforce Investment Act has provided us with many new 

tools to provide workforce services to individuals and businesses 

throughout the region. But there have been many challenges along 

the way. We would like to take our time here today to discuss some 

of our challenges and successes in the Lincoln Trail region in Kentucky. 

There are several new influences that are changing the regional 

landscape for many years to come. We have not been immune to 

the challenges of businesses closing or reducing their workforce. 

Kentucky is losing manufacturing, primarily in the automotive-related industry, and in retail positions every day. In our region 

alone, we have lost 1,000 manufacturing and retail positions since 

July 1st. We are also faced with addressing the needs of 1,000 Federal civilian workers who may choose not to relocate to Fort 

Benning, Georgia, when the Armor School moves in 2011. 

Another challenge will be to recruit, train, retrain, and retain up 

to 1,800 individuals needed to fill the positions with the two new 

commands arriving at Fort Knox, the Army Accessions Command 

and Human Resources Command. And that challenge is now, be-
35 

cause as many as 400 positions will arrive with the Human Resources Command advance party this spring. 

The higher educational skills and levels required for these positions presents us with significant challenges. Gone are the days 

when a high school diploma was a primary entrance to a good job, 

as is a third- or fourth-generation family member working for the 

same company. 

We are focusing our initial efforts to recruit workers from all 

across the Nation and even the world to fill these knowledge-based 

positions. Positions will require, at a minimum, a college degree 

and, in some cases, highly technical skills to manage the day-to-day 

operations of both commands. 

We literally have the equivalent of two Fortune 500 companies 

relocating to our region, and we have to make certain that we are 

able to fill their workforce requirements now and in the future— 

a future that will require the development of career pathways and 

pipeline initiatives in our high schools and post-secondary institutions to meet the continuing need for a qualified workforce. 

Other regional challenges have been in the health care arena. We 

partnered with the Elizabethtown Community and Technical College and health care providers to start a respiratory technology 

program. This effort addressed the immediate shortfall, but we 

have only scratched the surface. Access to allied health training 

programs is limited, and waiting lists are the standard of the day. 

We must continue to invest in developing more access to health 

care training programs. 

We have also invested in an entrepreneurial academy of excellence to stimulate the development of new ideas, innovations, and 

businesses. In its first year, already over 100 individuals have 

signed up for the workshops. This is a partnership between our 

local workforce board, Western Kentucky University, and the Lincoln Trail Innovation and Commercialization Center. 

We are also one of 39 WIRED designated regions across the 

country looking to develop and strengthen our regional economic 

prosperity. We cover a 26-county, two-State area and are addressing the challenges of educating and training our workforce for the 

21st century. 

Other communities in Kentucky have developed targeted onestops and training programs, such as utility alignment and coal 

mining training, for dislocated workers, youth, and other growing 

sectors. Increased business services activities and developing 

strong relationships with local economic development have given us 

an edge in taking a proactive position instead of just reacting to 

change. 

The current economic conditions are unprecedented, and we must 

work collectively to address these enormous challenges. Unemployment continues to rise, and the President’s stimulus package offers 

individuals extended benefits, but we also need to focus more attention on retraining workers and developing employment opportunities in small businesses. We need to infuse Federal, State, and 

local investments into these efforts to get our economy back on 

track and our workforce back to work. 

The challenges we face are daunting but not unique to us alone. 

Each day brings news of people losing their jobs, and we need to 
36 

offer hope. There is a new day dawning in our region, with the 

BRAC transformation and the spinoffs of new retail, service, and 

contractor businesses that will follow this growth. 

The Workforce Investment Act must not be viewed as a poverty 

program but as a vital tool in the economic stimulus and recovery 

of our country. We must have the resources and the funding to address these challenges and opportunities. We must have unprecedented flexibility in our program design and delivery at this critical 

juncture. 

Workforce programs cannot do it alone. Workforce, education, 

and economic development efforts must unite to address these challenges. Our customers deserve hope, and we must generate that 

hope through a unified and streamlined delivery system. The challenge is enormous but one that we stand ready to engage, embrace, 

and successfully execute. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Sherry Johnson, Associate Director, Lincoln Trail 

Area Development District 

Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee for the opportunity to 

speak before you today. I am the Workforce Investment Board Director for the Employment and Training Department at the Lincoln Trail Area Development District, 

an eight county regional economic planning and development agency located approximately 40 miles south of Louisville. I have been employed in this position 24 

years. The region is the birthplace of Abraham Lincoln, whose 200th birthday we 

celebrate today. Additionally, it is the home of the Fort Knox Military Installation. 

Kentucky was one of the first states to implement the Workforce Investment Act 

in 1999. We saw it as an opportunity to be on the cutting edge of a new day in 

workforce training programs. The Act has provided us with many new tools to provide workforce services to individuals and businesses throughout our region, but 

there have been many challenges along the way. We’d like to use our time here 

today to discuss some of our challenges and successes in the Lincoln Trail region 

and the Commonwealth of Kentucky. 

There are several influences that are changing the regional landscape for many 

years to come. We have not been immune to the challenges of businesses closing 

or reducing their workforce because of the current economic situation in our country. Kentucky is losing manufacturing, primarily in the automotive related industry, 

and in retail positions every day. In the Lincoln Trail region alone, we have lost 

1000 manufacturing and retail positions since July 1st. We are also faced with addressing the needs of 1000 federal civilian workers who may choose not to relocate 

to Fort Benning, Georgia when the Armor School moves in 2011. Another challenge 

will be to recruit, train, retrain and retain up to 1800 individuals needed to fill the 

positions with the two new commands arriving at Fort Knox—the Army’s Accessions 

and Human Resources Command. And that challenge is at the forefront, because 

as many as 400 positions in the Human Resources Command advance party will be 

arriving this spring. 

The higher educational levels and skill sets required for these positions presents 

us with significant challenges in the region and the Commonwealth. Gone are the 

days when a high school diploma was the primary entrance to a good job, as is the 

3rd or 4th generation family member working for the same company. We are focusing our initial efforts to recruit workers from across the nation, and even the world, 

to fill these knowledged-based positions. Positions will require, at a minimum, a college degree—and in some cases, highly technical skills to manage the day-to-day operations of both commands. We literally have the equivalent of two Fortune 500 

companies relocating to our region, and we have to make certain that we are able 

to fill their workforce requirements NOW and in the future, a future that will require the development of career pathways and pipelines initiatives in our high 

schools and post secondary institutions to meet the continuing need for a qualified 

workforce. 

Other regional challenges have been in the healthcare arena. Several years ago, 

we were faced with a shortage of respiratory technicians. We partnered with the 

local community and technical college and local healthcare providers to start a res-
37 

piratory technology training program. This effort addressed the immediate short 

fall, but we have only scratched the surface in addressing the shortage of healthcare 

workers. Access to allied health training programs is limited and waiting lists are 

the standard of the day. We must invest in developing more access to healthcare 

training programs. 

We have also invested workforce funds for an entrepreneurial academy of excellence in order to stimulate the development of new ideas, innovations and businesses. This project is in its first year and, already, over 100 individuals have 

signed up for the workshops. This is a partnership between our local workforce 

board, Western Kentucky University, and the Lincoln Trail Innovation and Commercialization Center. 

We are also one of the 39 WIRED designated regions across the country looking 

to develop and strengthen our regional economic prosperity. We cover a 26 county, 

2 state area and are addressing the challenges of educating and training our workforce for the 21st century. 

Other communities throughout the Commonwealth have developed targeted onestops and training programs such as utility lineman and coal mining training for 

dislocated workers, youth, and other growing industry sectors. Increased business 

services activities and developing strong relationships with local economic development professionals have given us an edge in taking a proactive position, instead of 

just reacting to change. 

The current economic conditions in our country are unprecedented and we must 

work collectively to address these enormous challenges. Unemployment continues to 

rise and the President’s stimulus package offers individuals extended benefits, but 

we also need to focus much more attention on retraining workers and developing 

employment opportunities in small businesses. We need to infuse federal, state and 

local investments into these efforts to get our economy back on track and our workforce back to work. 

The challenges we face in the Lincoln Trail region and Kentucky are daunting but 

not unique to us alone. Each day brings news of people losing their jobs in the automotive related industry. The retail industry continues to suffer. We need to offer 

hope. There is a new day dawning in our region with the BRAC transformation at 

Fort Knox and the spinoffs of new retail, service and contractor businesses that will 

follow this growth. 

The Workforce Investment Act must not be viewed as a ‘‘poverty program’’ but 

as a vital tool in the economic stimulus and recovery of our country. We must have 

the resources and funding in place to address these challenges and opportunities. 

We must have unprecedented flexibility in our program design and delivery at this 

critical juncture. The Workforce Investment Act programs cannot do it alone. Workforce, education and economic development efforts must unite as one to address 

these challenges of the workforce system. Our customers deserve hope and we must 

generate that hope through a unified and streamlined delivery system. Mandated 

partner agencies must come to the table and actively participate in the one-stop system with their programs, services and funds. The challenge is enormous, but one 

that we stand ready to engage, embrace and successfully execute. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. 

And now I call on Ms. Elzey. 

STATEMENT OF KAREN ELZEY, VICE PRESIDENT, CHAMBER 

OF COMMERCE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE FOR A 

COMPETITIVE WORKFORCE 

Ms. ELZEY. Thank you, Chairman Hinojosa, Ranking Member 

Guthrie, and members of the subcommittee, for the opportunity to 

present this statement on the important role of the business community in promoting new innovations and best practices under the 

Workforce Investment Act. 

I commend the subcommittee for bringing attention to this important topic. This discussion is particularly timely, given the Nation’s economic crisis. It is also important because of the proposed 

infusion of funds into the WIA system as part of the economic stimulus and the anticipated reauthorization of WIA. 
38 

Our challenge is clear: how to use this money to create good jobs 

that pay good wages. We believe that, while the system has worked 

in some places, it is desperately in need of reform. With the new 

infusion of funding and a renewed commitment to creating highquality, high-wage jobs, now is the time to reform the system. 

Despite some of the challenges, we have also witnessed many 

work local workforce systems that have achieved some success. 

While the Chamber has not undertaken a comprehensive review of 

the WIA system, it is evident that some of the most successful local 

workforce systems have several traits in common. 

First, strong business leadership. Simply put, a local workforce 

system that doesn’t have buy-in from the business community will 

not be successful. A strong business presence drives success. While 

business leadership is envisioned under WIA by having a business 

majority on each local board, in reality these boards are often too 

large and unwieldy to be effective. As a result, many employers 

don’t have the time or the patience to participate. 

Second, effective coordination. In some cases, States have made 

efforts to streamline their own bureaucracies. Others have assisted 

in branding centers to make it easier for the business community 

to have a single point of contact. In Arlington, Texas, the Chamber 

of Commerce and local WIB developed a single resource for employers. This center houses an array of workforce service providers that 

now operate as a single unit focused on meeting employer and employee needs. 

Third, relevant training. Local systems that are effective are 

ones that reach out to businesses to assess the skills needed by employers and needed for employees. In Omaha, Nebraska, Mutual of 

Omaha, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, the Greater Omaha Chamber, the 

local WIB, and others created a unique job training program. 

Under the initiative, jobs were identified for participants upfront. 

Training was tailored to meet the skills requirements for the specific jobs. A job coach was assigned to each worker to help ensure 

success. Of the 19 initial participants in this pilot, all but three 

landed jobs at area insurance companies. This concept of tailoring 

training for actual jobs is one in which the Chamber is likely to 

take an even greater interest as part of WIA reauthorization. 

In Louisville, Kentucky, the community used WIA funding to create the KentuckianaWorks Scholars Program. This initiative, supported by the WIB, the Chamber, and elected officials, aims to increase the educational attainment of citizens. Specifically, it helps 

those who could, with some financial assistance, complete an associate’s degree. 

Mr. Chairman, while this is by no means an exhaustive list of 

best practices in the WIA system, the Chamber believes they represent the fundamental areas in which to build upon the system. 

Federal job training needs to focus more attention on training 

people for actual jobs. Under WIA’s predecessor, the Job Training 

Partnership Act, 75 percent of participants were enrolled in training. By 2000, only about half of participants were in training. And, 

today, just 20 percent of exiting participants were enrolled in training, not including those receiving self-services. In short, the new 

system must focus more attention funded on training. And, given 

the limited funding, this training must be maximized to ensure a 
39 

far greater percentage of those who are being trained are being 

trained with the skills that employers need. 

We must also consider the fact that too many of our Nation’s 

adults not only lack basic skills necessary for jobs that are disappearing, but that they will be even further behind as our Nation’s economy improves. While most sectors of our economy are 

shrinking, others have continued to expand. Even during the last 

3 months, employment in health care and education continued to 

increase. We must not lose sight for the need of our workforce systems to meet this demand and to prepare people for tomorrow’s 

economic recovery. 

As the committee moves forward with WIA reauthorization, the 

Chamber welcomes the opportunity to work with each of you toward addressing these challenges and ensuring the system is able 

to meet the needs of our Nation’s workforce. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The statement of Ms. Elzey follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Karen R. Elzey, Vice President & Executive Director, Institute for a Competitive Workforce, U.S. Chamber of Commerce 

Thank you Chairman Hinojosa, Ranking Member Guthrie, and members of the 

Subcommittee, for the opportunity to present this statement this afternoon on the 

important role of the business community in promoting new innovations and best 

practices under the Workforce Investment Act (WIA). 

I commend the Subcommittee for bringing attention to this important topic. This 

discussion is particularly timely given the nation’s economic crisis; the proposed infusion of funds into the WIA system as part of the economic stimulus; as well as 

the anticipated reauthorization of WIA this Congress. 

Indeed, it is not possible to have this discussion without noting the 11.6 million 

Americans unable to find work. In just the last three months alone, our nation has 

lost nearly 1.8 million jobs. Unfortunately, by most accounts, these numbers will 

likely become even more sobering in the months ahead. 

The front line of this reality can be seen from coast-to-coast in the one-stop career 

centers established as part of WIA, which are seeing record increases in those seeking employment and job training services. A recent article in the Ocala Star-Banner 

highlights a story in Marion County, Florida where demand for services at the local 

workforce center for the last six months is nearly surpassing demand of the entire 

previous year. 

The economic stimulus proposals in the House and Senate both include over $4 

billion of additional funding for programs under the federal employment system, including WIA, representing a doubling of current federal expenditures in this area. 

Clearly, these funds would provide much needed capacity to the system during this 

time. Given this infusion of funds, however, our challenge is clear: how to use this 

money to create good jobs that pay a good wage for jobs that exist in today’s economy? Perhaps the answer lies in our discussion here today about some of the best 

practices and innovations that are being implemented throughout the nation. 

There are many in the business community who question the effectiveness of the 

current system. Unfortunately, we have heard from our Chamber members across 

the country that the WIA system has not always been able to meet the needs of 

many job seekers and employers. We believe that while the system has worked in 

some places, it is desperately in need of reform. With the new infusion of funding, 

and a renewed commitment to creating high-quality, high wage jobs—now is the 

time to reform the system. 

In our view, reform starts in Washington. Poor local implementation of these programs often can be directly traced to the current patchwork of programs, rules, and 

regulations developed here in Washington. For example, despite several decades of 

attempts to streamline and coordinate multiple federal employment and training 

programs—the number of targeted programs continues to increase. 

The one-stop system put into place last reauthorization was supposed to fix all 

that—and it has been somewhat of an improvement. Yet, oftentimes conflicting target populations, performance measures, and even governance structures make onestops nothing more than a co-located maze of disconnected programs. This is particularly true in the area of job search assistance. While the Employment Service 
40 

has the primary role of identifying job openings and providing this information to 

job seekers, federal law also assigns a similar role to the WIA system, welfare, and 

even food stamp programs in many cases. Such overlap confuses participants and 

employers alike. 

Despite these challenges, we have also witnessed many local workforce investment systems that have tried to make the best of these challenges, and have 

achieved some success. While the Chamber has not yet undertaken a comprehensive 

review of the WIA system, it is evident that some of the nation’s most successful 

local workforce investment systems have several traits in common: 

1) Strong business leadership: Simply put, a local workforce investment system 

that doesn’t have buy-in from the business community will not be successful; a 

strong business presence drives success. When businesses turn first to their local 

one-stop for their workforce needs, the participants going to these centers benefit. 

Businesses not only facilitate the information flow; they can help leverage other 

funding. While business leadership is envisioned under WIA by virtue of the business majority on each local board overseeing workforce investment areas—and that 

the chairs of these boards must represent the business community—in reality, these 

boards are often too large and unwieldy to be effective. As a result, many of the 

most active employers at the local level don’t have the time or the patience to participate. 

2) Effective coordination: Despite the challenges of overlapping federal programs 

discussed above, there are examples of how local systems have overcome these difficulties and have at least provided a public perception of coordination. In some 

cases this is helped through state efforts to streamline their own bureaucracies and 

assisting in branding of centers to make it easier for the business community to 

have a single point of contact. 

For example, in Arlington, Texas, the chamber of commerce and Workforce Solutions for Tarrant County (the local Workforce Board) developed a single resource for 

employers, the Center for Continuing Education and Workforce Development. The 

center is a collaborative partnership housing an array of workforce service providers—including the office of the Arlington chamber’s workforce development 

staff—that now operate as a single unit focused on meeting employer and employee 

needs. 

Built on the University of Texas-Arlington campus, the facility incorporates higher education, the publicly funded system, and employers into an integrated model. 

The chamber’s Education and Workforce Development Council employer members 

meet on a monthly basis to provide center administration with feedback and information related to the needs of the employer community. A valuable by-product of 

this approach is that by increasing awareness of workforce development issues and 

resources, council members have become effective advocates of the employer-driven 

workforce development system for the employer community. 

3) Relevant training: While in theory all training under WIA should be relevant 

and tied to real jobs, this clearly is not always the case. Local systems that are effective are ones that reach out to businesses to assess the skills needed by new employees; are active in gathering local labor market information to help inform training; and are engaged with the local training providers to ensure they have programs 

which meet the needs of the local economy. 

In some cases, local areas have taken this one step further and have implemented 

truly innovative solutions to ensuring the relevancy of training. One example of this 

innovation was recently highlighted in the Omaha World Herald. After reports that 

Omaha had one of the highest rates of poverty among African-Americans in the nation, Mutual of Omaha and Blue Cross Blue Shield, along with other partners including the Greater Omaha Chamber of Commerce and the local workforce investment board, set out to create a unique job training program. Under the initiative, 

jobs were identified for participants up front after which training was tailored for 

the participants to meet the skills requirements for the specific jobs. In addition, 

a job coach was assigned to each worker to help ensure ongoing success. Of the 19 

initial participants, all but three landed jobs at area insurance companies. This concept of tailoring training for actual jobs is one in which the Chamber is likely to 

take an even greater interest as part of the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act. 

Another innovative approach is occurring in Louisville, Kentucky where the community is striving to raise the educational attainment of its citizens. In 2008 Mayor 

Jerry Abramson and other leaders announced $1 million in college funding (using 

WIA funding) that would be used to help Greater Louisville-area residents finish 

their associate’s degrees though the KentuckianaWorks Scholars Program. The 

KentuckianaWorks Scholars Program will over 400 people in the 2008-2009 academic year by giving them up to $3,000 for tuition and up to $600 for books and 
41 

supplies. This program is designed to help those who could, with some financial assistance, complete an associate’s degree. 

KentuckianaWorks, the local workforce investment board, benchmarks the educational attainment of its citizens with 15 other communities in which it competes 

for economic development projects. The data showed that Louisville ranked 9th out 

of the 15 communities for the number of associate’s degrees being produced. By setting a goal of educating an additional 400 people to complete their Associate’s degree, Louisville could increase its ranking to fifth. The local chamber, Greater Louisville Inc., is a partner in this initiative. 

Mr. Chairman, while this is by no means an exhaustive list of best practices and 

innovation in the WIA system, the Chamber believes they represent the fundamental areas in which to build upon this system as part of the upcoming reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me conclude with this important point: Federal job 

training needs to focus more attention on training actual people for actual jobs. 

Now, you might say, that seems pretty self-evident, but let me bring the following 

statistics to your attention. Despite nearly 2.5 million individuals participating in 

WIA programs annually, very few actually receive training. In 2006, only 109,528 

Adult Program Participants received training and only 77,160 Dislocated Worker 

Participants received training. (To put this into perspective, there are over 6 million 

students enrolled in the country’s 1,045 community colleges). This reflects a significant decrease in the proportion of WIA funds that support training. Under WIA’s 

predecessor, the Job Training Partnership Act, 75% of participants were enrolled in 

training. By 2000, only about half of participants were in training, and today just 

20% of exiting participants were enrolled in training (not including those receiving 

self-services). 

In short, the new system must focus more attention and funding on training and 

given the limited funding, this training must be maximized to ensure a far greater 

percentage of those who are being trained are being trained appropriately and for 

jobs that actually exist. 

While it might be tempting to surmise that given the vast amount of job loss 

across our nation we need no longer place a priority on training for jobs ‘‘that don’t 

exist.’’ However, such conclusions are short-sighted and fail to consider the longterm trends of our economy and the fact that too many of our nation’s adults not 

only lack basic skills necessary for jobs that are disappearing—they will be even further behind as our nation’s economy continues to improve. 

In fact, while most sectors of our economy are shrinking, others have continued 

to expand. Even during each of the last three months, as our economy has suffered 

some of the worst job loss ever, employment in health care and education continued 

to increase. We must not lose sight for the need of our workforce and training systems to meet this demand as well as the long-term demand in sectors including 

manufacturing, which despite its continued downturn, also faces a graying workforce—from engineers to welders—signaling trouble in years ahead. 

Our nation is also on the verge of embarking on new sectors of employment from 

the bio-tech fields to health care to jobs that will help keep our nation more energy 

efficient. These emerging sectors will rely on a broad range of skilled employees— 

the employees that today’s workforce system should be preparing for tomorrow’s economic recovery. 

As the Committee moves forward with the reauthorization of WIA, the Chamber 

welcomes the opportunity to work with each of you toward addressing these challenges and ensuring this system is able to meet the needs of our nation’s workforce. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Thank you. 

I want to thank each of the presenters for your testimony. 

At this time, we are going to begin the questions, and the members are going to have an opportunity to get clarification or maybe 

ask you some questions that were not addressed by any one of you. 

I now recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

Ms. Elzey, you talked about the need for the 21st century and 

modern, up-to-date, state-of-the-art training. One of your colleagues 

mentioned that it was difficult to get 40 percent of the Federal 

money that comes down to your State and for each of the workforce 

boards to go into training. That tells me that 60 percent is being 

used by maybe whatever the State takes for administrative costs, 
42 

and then the subcontractors have to show a profit, and then there 

are administration costs. 

At the board that you oversee, what percentage would you say 

is the average that was used in 2007 and 2008 for training after 

paying all the administrative costs? 

Ms. ELZEY. Mr. Chairman, in my position, I don’t currently oversee a board, so the statistics that I have quoted in terms of training 

were those national statistics that looked at what percentage was 

coming now, in terms of WIA versus JTPA. 

From our perspective and our members’ perspective, we would 

like to see the dollars be able to be used more for training individuals for jobs that are currently available and those that employers 

will be creating in the future. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Let me ask Ms. Gonzalez. You oversee a 

large group that covers three counties. What would you say is the 

actual percentage of the Federal money that comes down to your 

area that is used for training? 

Ms. GONZALEZ. Of the $57 million that we receive and those that 

flow through the State—those cover eight different funding 

streams, from food stamps, education and training, to our TANF 

dollars, to WIA Adult, Youth, and Dislocated—of the $57 million, 

between 67 and 70 percent go to direct client services, be that in 

training, be that in support services. 

We, Congressman, have gone from 12 facilities in our community 

down to six, and soon to be five, because our workforce board’s 

commitment is that that investment, that Federal investment, 

must go to those that need it, those in need, which are obviously 

our customers. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Being that you said there were about 28 

centers throughout the State of Texas—— 

Ms. GONZALEZ. Yes, sir. 

Chairman HINOJOSA [continuing]. Tell me how does your percentage compare with the average in the State of Texas. 

Ms. GONZALEZ. Our percentage compares not very nicely with the 

rest of the State of Texas. Obviously, in the State of Texas, of the 

28 workforce boards, there are regions that are representative of 

all kinds of issues and sectors in the 28 boards. 

Our child care administrative cost is the lowest in the State. We 

receive $25 million a year, sir, for child care alone. At any given 

day, we support 10,000 children in child care. And we are recognized as one of the two lowest child care administrative costs in the 

State of Texas. 

So, to your question, that range varies. And at this time, sir, I 

do not currently have that information, but I will gladly provide it 

to you. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. What could be done to reduce the administrative costs and increase the amount of money that would go to 

the client services? What could be done? 

Ms. GONZALEZ. From our perspective, we believe strongly in procurement of services. The State of Texas, that is a mandatory process, where workforce services must be procured. It is not just automatically allocated to anybody. So we truly believe in a competitive 

process. 
43 

We also believe that leveraging additional State and private-sector investment dollars into our systems would work. We, at the 

workforce board, and ours is a best practice, utilize a fee-for-service. If one of our business customers wants to work and requests 

specialized training, we ask them for investment. That money immediately goes right back into the program. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. And what percentage does the employer 

pay in this leveraged system? 

Ms. GONZALEZ. At a minimum, 50 percent. Normally between 60 

and 70 percent of the cost the employer puts in. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. My time is up. 

I yield to Mr. Guthrie. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This question is for Ms. Johnson and some from Ms. Elzey’s testimony where it comes from, but I have heard there are more than 

40 members on some local workforce boards in Kentucky. And it 

has been my experience that local boards, which are required to 

have a business majority, are essential to the workforce development in many States. And it is my understanding there is consensus around the idea of streamlining the State and local boards, 

and one idea is to remove the requirement that the one-stop-partner programs have a seat on the local boards. This could result in 

greater representation by local businesses, education officials, community groups and employee representatives who are frequently 

frustrated that they are not able to connect or access resources 

from the local boards because of the sheer size. 

My question is, what has been your experience with the size and 

composition of State and local workforce investment boards? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Our local board membership is at 45, and I think 

throughout Kentucky 40-plus is the average. We certainly believe 

that a business majority is vital and critical to the process because 

they have the jobs, and we need to solicit input to them so that we 

understand and we know what the skills are of any industry or 

business out in our community. 

The partners who are represented through our memorandum of 

understanding and resource-sharing agreements, we would probably agree that possibly the one-stop partners would not need a 

seat on the board. But the board is not manageable at current size, 

current level. We would probably suggest that 25 would be the 

maximum size for an ideal board to get business done, because 

with 45 members, you are looking at a majority of at least 23 to 

conduct business, and if you are pulling from a vast regional area, 

sometimes that is very difficult. So we would definitely support any 

reduction in the size of boards. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Do you have a suggested size board? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Maximum 25. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Maximum 25. Well, there is one more question I 

have. 

Ms. Johnson, again, as you know, there has been a lot of discussion over the last few years about the amount of funding under 

WIA that has been spent on training. It is my understanding that 

a number of provisions in the law have contributed to this issue. 

For example, the law includes requirements that job seekers participate in the level of service sequentially, or there are other bu-
44 

reaucratic requirements on community colleges where they don’t 

participate or other eligible training providers because of the requirements and lack of support for mandatory partners at many 

one-stop centers. 

What has been your experience with unemployed workers in 

Kentucky who need specialized training? 

Ms. JOHNSON. We think the three levels of service are critical, 

because not everyone that comes into your one-stop system needs 

to go into training. Some just need to rework their resume; they 

need to work on interviewing skills. They might need to do some 

research as far as what the labor market is and transition those 

skills. 

But we look at both core and intensive as an opportunity to provide a little bit more intensive one-on-one case management service 

so that that transition to training, if it is needed, is very smooth 

and includes a plan of action so that person can go from being unemployed, from being laid off or whatever, but they can go back 

into training and get a job very quickly. 

We spend probably 85 percent of our funds on training at this 

point in time. The rest, 10 percent is admin, and 5 percent is towards the administration of our one-stops. Not all partners are in 

our one-stops. We have employment services, veterans services, unemployment, vocational rehabilitation in a couple of our centers, 

but that is it. And partner agencies need to come and provide their 

services at the centers. I think it is critical. I think it is vital to 

the people who come seeking our services that they can access 

them in an easy, efficient and streamlined manner. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you very much. That is very helpful. 

I yield back my time. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Thank you. 

I now would like to call on the gentleman from New Jersey, Bob 

Andrews. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for reassuming the leadership of this subcommittee. You have been great 

to work with, and we know you are going to lead us to an excellent 

reauthorization in this. Thank you very much. 

I thank the panel for their testimony. 

When workforce investment boards are at their best, they identify growing areas of a local economy and provide skilled workers 

for those jobs, and the workers build careers, not just jobs. When 

they are at their worst, what happens is what Mr. Camp described, 

which is the world’s most expensive revolving door, where we train 

people for low wage, entry level jobs. They get them for a while, 

they lose them and come back, or someone else loses their job and 

comes back. Mr. Camp has suggested a remedy for that, which is 

a minimum amount of the funds would have to be spent on high 

quality training for a high quality job. 

I would be interested in the panel’s opinion, I know Mr. Camp’s 

opinion, he would be for it, but is anyone against that idea? Our 

chamber would be for that idea? 

Ms. ELZEY. I think we are for the idea that local communities 

look at their local labor markets and identify the needs of employers in those communities to ensure that people get quality jobs. 
45 

Mr. ANDREWS. That is not quite what I was asking. I was asking 

would be, would we have a statutory minimum where at least some 

percentage, Mr. Camp suggests 40 at his Web, would have to go for 

what I would call long-term quality training, that might be an associate’s degree type thing, rather than a couple of months training, the theory being that that gets the person on a career ladder 

rather than just a short-term job. Does the chamber have a position on that? 

Ms. ELZEY. Not at this time. 

Mr. ANDERSON. We would be interested in hearing what you 

think. 

Mr. Bahr, what do you think of that? 

Mr. BAHR. Just some experience that I have had in our own 

union. It is too late to talk about training and retraining once an 

employer announces a plant is closing. There used to be a time 

when a high school graduate without skills or a dropout was able 

to get a job in manufacturing at a family-sustaining wage. We have 

to recognize those days are gone forever and that to train people 

to flip hamburgers in the hope that they are going to continue on 

to get something better I think is not going to happen. 

While we still have to concentrate on the math and science, what 

the high performance workplace has done in this country is to reinvigorate and renew the need for liberal arts. The key to the future, 

we can’t always predict what jobs are going to be needed. You 

know, it took over 100 years for the Morse Code to be made obsolete, and now if you don’t keep up, every 3 years, you are obsolete. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Some would argue it is sooner than that. 

Mr. BAHR. That is the way technology is moving. So how do we 

deal with it? 

I began to develop this idea when President Clinton appointed 

me to chair the Commission for a Nation of Lifelong Learners. As 

much as he and Vice President Gore tried to keep it going down 

at the local level, we failed. But what we were able to do was identify the obstacles to adult learning, the real obstacles, what keeps 

people from learning. But more than that, we recognized that since 

we can’t always predict what jobs are going to be available a year, 

2 years, 3 years from now, and many employers are fearful of suggesting what may not turn out that way because we are in a global 

economy, that we have to train our workforce to be able to react 

quickly to the changes in technology. And the way you do that is 

with higher education. 

You know, if you look at the jurisdiction of this committee, 

change the commas—— 

Mr. ANDREWS. Which is far too narrow, don’t you agree? 

Mr. BAHR. Drop the commas and say higher education plus lifelong learning equals competitiveness. 

Mr. ANDREWS. I will tell you one of the things that our chairman 

I think heard that and was able to negotiate in the stimulus bill, 

which I know will enjoy broad support on the committee, is a substantial increase in the lifelong learning credit, which came out of 

the Clinton administration, so more people can get more dollars 

and go to school. Also the stimulus bill has in it a significant increase in Title I funding, a significant increase in IDEA funding, 

and a special new account for distressed States, which is really all 
46 

of them now, to try to get at this problem long before someone goes 

into the workforce. So our chairman was quite vigorous in his advocacy of those positions. 

Mr. BAHR. There is another aspect we have to look at. About 50 

to 60 percent, if not higher, of the people in the workforce today, 

are the workforce of 2020. That includes the undereducated part of 

the workforce. We can’t just write them off. Now, they are all working, and what we found out in the telecommunications industry, 

maybe because these companies had money and were able to do 

what we wanted to do, that we made the strides we did. But with 

the encouragement where there is a union, of the union and the 

employer, people who never thought about going on to higher education will do so. 

Just as an example in the role that government plays, employerfurnished education is taxable income, and Congress passes legislation, and it used to be, prior to 1994, Rostenkowski would hold it 

every 2 years and renew it automatically, nobody paid attention. 

Well, in 1994, when the power changed in the House, just because nobody did anything, it lapsed. At that time, in U.S. West, 

which is today Quest Communications, we had 17 percent of the 

workforce enrolled in college-level work. When the tax came out of 

their paychecks when the law lapsed, it dropped immediately to 7 

percent. 

So there are two things, and this we managed to get working in 

both parties into the Bush tax cut bill which expires in 2010, and 

we have to keep on the front burner to get that renewed next year 

or the same thing will happen. 

Mr. ANDREWS. I see my time has expired. Thank you very much, 

Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate Mr. Bahr’s point that we should have the Ways and 

Means Committee give us all of their jurisdiction. I completely 

agree with that. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. I can say that anybody who wants to give 

additional answers to that may do it in writing, and we will see 

that the Members of Congress get that. 

I would like to now call on someone who is very special to me. 

He was one of my mentors when I got here back in 1996. He was 

on the Education Committee and was chairman of this particular 

committee, and I want to call on Congressman McKeon from California. 

Mr. MCKEON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you for the kind words. I am an old guy. I have been around here 

a long time, is what he was saying in a nice way. 

Mr. Camp, in your written testimony, you state that the current 

economic crisis calls into question the dominant political wisdom of 

the last 30 years that the bulk of decision-making about Federal 

programs are best made locally. I was one of the principal authors 

of WIA back in—well, we did in 1996, and we did it again in 1998 

when it became law. But one of the things that I have championed 

my whole time here is local control. 

I served on a local school board. I served on a local city council 

and as mayor. And I just firmly believe that the closer you can get 

to the people who are involved, the better the decision. I think at 
47 

a Federal level we should probably deal more in principles, not in 

details down to the local level. 

Did I misunderstand your point in that? Do you think that the 

bulk of decisions impacting local decisions should be made by the 

Federal Government, and why do you believe that a one-size-fitsall system would be better? 

Mr. CAMP. Mr. McKeon, you are a man I have a lot of respect 

for and we have talked about various issues in the past. But let 

me be clear about my point. 

In the State of California, among the workforce investment 

boards, some spend zero percent on training, and some spend 50 

percent. If we are not going to be training workers for the future, 

the Workforce Investment Act is failing the Nation. 

Now, do I believe in local control? Absolutely. I was a local school 

board member for 5 years. I ranted and raved against those guys 

telling us what to do when we thought we knew what was best. 

But you have to have serious guidelines. And the problem we have 

got now is we are all over the map. And when you go and look at 

all the workforce investment boards, and I share a point of view 

with the Chamber of Commerce, there is a huge disparity in what 

people do with a workforce investment board. 

We need to have clear expectations, and I think one of the most 

firm expectations is we have to set a standard about training. Because I have got workforce investment boards in California that 

place zero percent in training. 

Now, I think the other problem we have got is we have to be 

clear about what we think training is, because I have got people 

that says training is where I sat down and taught them how to 

make a phone call, and I don’t think that is what I am thinking 

training is. 

But, on the other hand, there are some smart things that we 

have learned about training. And I will admit I was wrong when 

we first started this in Sacramento, where the Chamber of Commerce did a big survey of our employers and said, what are you 

looking for? What do you want workers to know? And they all came 

back with what I would call soft skills. And I was one of the labor 

guys saying, what is this soft skills? This is just hogwash. And that 

is not true. 

Our Los Rios Community College district designed a course 

which I think we ought to have every union person take. It was 

talking about joint decision-making. It was talking about independence. That was local control. But it was sophisticated local control, 

because we could demonstrate to you how much increase in salary 

people were going to make as a result of a successful completion 

of that course, because we could verify and validate to every member of the business community that when somebody graduated 

from that class, they had, I am not quite sure of the status, the 

acknowledgment of the Los Rios Community College district, of approval, Good Housekeeping Award I guess, in terms of soft skills. 

Those are important, and we developed that class so that, and I 

give credit to the community college that developed that class so 

that it was effective. 

Now, I absolutely believe in local control. I take pride the fact 

that what the mix of jobs and skills that we need in Sacramento 
48 

is not what you need in New Jersey. So we need that sense of control. But we don’t need to appropriate money for workforce investment and not require there be money in training. That is the concern I have got. 

Mr. MCKEON. That was definitely not the intention. 

Mr. CAMP. Well, I am not walking away from my fight that says 

there is a role that the public sector employees play in what we call 

the employment development department. They process the unemployment insurance claims. They should be doing something of 

that, not easy, that counseling job referral work. And we should 

take our workforce investment board, which is where the business 

community and the labor community come together, with the educational community, and say, what are the training needs that will 

make us the best region, that we will do better than San Diego or 

wherever. 

Mr. MCKEON. You should be a Senator. Great job. 

But I would like to hear Ms. Johnson reply to that same question, if the chairman would indulge me. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. I will give you 30 seconds. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Very briefly, every individual in our region that 

goes into training, goes into training for a high demand occupation 

within our labor market and our broader wired region. Pure and 

simple. There is no use of us putting people into training where it 

is a dead end situation. We make them do homework. We do our 

homework. We continue to look at the labor market on a daily 

basis. And if we don’t, we are not doing that customer justice. 

Training needs to be the a the local level. 

Mr. MCKEON. Sounds like we are in agreement. There are a few 

details we could chew on, but thank you very much. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. I would like to now call on the gentleman 

from Massachusetts, Mr. John Tierney. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank you for 

putting special focus and priority on this particular issue at the 

outset of this session. I look forward to working with you on this, 

because I think you have hit it right on the head in these days, trying times. People need to have some security of knowing how they 

are going to get back into the labor force. 

Let me ask our panel members who are parts of the workforce 

investment board system on this. What are we going to do to entice 

people in emerging industries or sectors, whether it is energy efficiency, energy alternatives, nano science, things of that nature, to 

get on the boards? I see the most local boards are the local banker, 

your local insurance person, people that are terrific people and the 

ones that generally give up their time on that, but they are not always from the industry that is creating the new jobs. I think we 

need their expertise on those boards to help us identify what skills 

and education levels we need to get out there. So if I could quickly 

get an answer on that? 

Ms. GONZALEZ. Thank you for the opportunity. I will say, from 

our perspective, it has been very difficult to encourage more so because of the credibility or lack thereof of this system, if you will. 

What we have found is that we have encouraged the successful 

business partners of ours and the successful board members who 

represent the private sector to be our ambassadors. 
49 

The other thing that we have done is that, if an emerging industry is in our community and we engage this business, this company, this partner, one of the requests that we make is that they 

participate in what we call our industry sector task forces so they 

become familiar. It is almost like desensitizing them to the government. 

Mr. TIERNEY. So instead of directly putting them on the board, 

you put them on a task force and try to woo them in? 

Ms. GONZALEZ. And move them in. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Ms. Johnson, what do you do? 

Ms. JOHNSON. We have been trying to focus on working with our 

economic development professionals so that they can engage the 

emerging sectors in their region. We have also started working 

with entrepreneurs. We think that that is an avenue for us to continue to grow and to look at emerging sectors down the line. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Are we doing enough? We have had a couple of 

good examples. One is reflected in the Green Jobs Act, which I had 

the privilege of authoring with Hilda Solis, our new Secretary of 

Labor. Another is a group called E-Team in Massachusetts, where 

we formed partnerships. Are we doing enough to encourage partnerships of a particular industry or company, community college or 

other educational institution, private industry, the business community and labor, to have a consortium to come in and get a grant 

to actually put together a program, and then part of the contribution from the business end, of course, can be either faculty or some 

other contribution towards teaching the courses or money on that. 

Do you think the current act does enough on that, or would you 

like to see something else done to try to encourage that kind of cooperation? 

Ms. JOHNSON. I think that is an excellent idea. And the more 

flexibility that we have to develop partnership relationships to 

meet the needs of both individuals and businesses, the better we 

are. We can be more responsive in a more timely manner. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Camp, do you want to speak? 

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Tierney, on our workforce investment board, we 

go out and do a survey of all of our green energy upstart companies. So we sit down with the CEOs and say, what are you looking 

for? We get them in a roundtable. And we don’t take long, but get 

them in a room with six or eight of them and a facilitator and just 

talk about what their needs are. So we bring that back to the workforce investment board and say, you know, we have got eight people or eight different groups and said this is really what we want 

to kick start our solar energy program, and these are the kind of 

skills we are looking for and what our next level is. 

Because the critical issue for us is if, I am going to kick start a 

green energy program, I need to make sure I am responding to 

what they need today, not what I imagine they may need 10 years 

from now or next year or 2 years from now. But they are in a vulnerable position. They have got to have a responsive work preparation. So we do that. We come back. We have a very small pot of 

money that allows us to do innovation, and that is one of the key 

areas. 
50 

Mr. TIERNEY. If I could quickly go from my right to your left on 

the board here, does anybody see any reason why we cannot device 

a Workforce Investment Act bill that also incorporates the transitional assistance aspect so that we have one channel? If you are 

unemployed for any reason at all, we can address your need as opposed to having two different programs of that nature. If I start to 

my right, yes or no? 

Ms. ELZEY. We have no problem with that. 

Ms. JOHNSON. No problem. 

Mr. CAMP. Are we talking about private industry doing this or 

talking about the public sector? 

Mr. TIERNEY. We are talking about getting it done within one 

silo instead of several silos here. 

Mr. CAMP. Well, filing new claims and processing those claims 

and getting people back out from a regular traditional labor exchange program, I think it has got to be public sector just because 

that is the most efficient way to deliver that, and this it is the least 

conflict of interest problem. We have got people and I—— 

Mr. TIERNEY. That wasn’t really the focus of the question. It is 

basically, is there a need in your mind that we have a Transitional 

Assistance Program in one silo and other workforce investment 

program in other silos? 

Mr. CAMP. I guess I don’t have trouble with it. I have to think 

about it. I will respond to you. 

Mr. WOODERSON. Mr. Tierney, from a disability community 

standpoint, I don’t believe there would be any challenge for us 

there at all. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you. Mr. Bahr? 

Mr. BAHR. Our committee recommends a single. I would also suggest that we ought to be looking for some adult ed people on the 

boards. 

Ms. GONZALEZ. I absolutely do that. And we do have adult ed 

representatives on our board. 

Mr. TIERNEY. I wish we had more time to get into the literacy 

aspect of this, but I am glad it is part of this discussion, and I am 

sure we will get into it later. 

Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. At this time, I would like to call on the gentlewoman from California, Susan Davis. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for 

being here. Nice to see you Mr. Camp after the California legislative days. 

I wanted to go back for just a second and check and see if there 

is anything that has been said in terms of the percentage that 

would go towards training. It is a little out of sync with what programs you do. I know that Mr. Camp mentioned at least 40 percent. We have had mention of greater than that. 

Is there any problem particularly with calling that out as we 

move forward? Is there anything in that that didn’t jive with something you work with? 

Mr. CAMP. I think the key is making sure we have a good clear 

definition of training, because people will report as training something that you and I may not think about, preparing people for 

high-wage jobs. And I do think it is important to have a minimum, 
51 

I didn’t say a maximum, but a minimum that has to be spent on 

that kind of training. I think we are missing the boat if we let the 

local—as much as I honor the local decision-making, you have to 

put some guidelines on what we expect to come out of this money. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Anything else? 

Ms. GONZALEZ. I think, from my perspective or from our perspective, it is important that the training not only be clearly defined 

but that the training be tied to an absolute outcome. It is not good 

enough to have somebody sitting in a chair for the next month or 

2 or 6, or 2 years or 6 years for that matter. It is clearly important 

that the training result in some type of credential or outcome. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. And when we talk about that, we are 

usually thinking of career paths that people will be able to move 

in. Let me ask you about this example in the health field. People 

caring for Alzheimer’s patients, for example. 

I recall in San Diego there was a question of whether the salaries, the incoming salaries, were high enough to receive some of the 

workforce investment dollars at one point. I suspect this was 

worked out along the way. 

Are there areas where actually the employer does fall short and 

yet is in a high need area that should be addressed as we move 

forward? Are there exceptions within that? Certainly you talked 

about the self-sufficiency, the high demand jobs. We are not talking 

about 100 percent. So there is an area in health care. But is there 

a problem with that, and what would there be perhaps that you 

want to just caution us about? 

Mr. CAMP. I would just caution you to establish a requirement 

that there be a sustainable wage, because what that allows the 

workforce local board to make decisions about, and in fact frees up 

this local decision-making issue, is to train people to move up and 

have their spot taken by somebody at a lower wage. 

We use EED data to determine what the wage rate, the income 

of that worker is 18 months down the road, and we talk about that 

at our board saying if you didn’t meet the $12 an hour, don’t fund 

this training program, because they are not meeting a sustainable 

wage. 

Now, do I think there is a magic self-sustaining number I can 

give you today? It is going to vary in each county, because what 

the rent and utilities are in one area is different than another. But 

there is data for every single county in the United States. So you 

can obtain good, hard data about what it takes to have a sustained, 

independent income, and then target that so it allows the workforce investment board to expand who it is providing an upgrade 

training to. And I think that creates the incentive for careers, or 

what we sometimes call ladders or sometimes call lattices. You 

may start out working for a nursing home and go to a hospital and 

go back to a local clinic, but you are still within that field and 

working your way up. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Great. Thank you. 

I actually had a question, I wanted to go to Mr. Wooderson really 

briefly in terms of the veterans programs you mentioned in particular, and how we can better coordinate that. Are there some suggestions? But is there something about all that that just makes you 
52 

all crazy in terms of trying to adhere to both the letter and the 

spirit? What is it we should be thinking about? 

Mr. WOODERSON. From the disability community standpoint, of 

course, title IV of the Workforce Investment Act is our rehabilitation agency. Probably the thing that challenges us the most is not 

so much physical access anymore to workforce one-stop centers. 

That seems to be improving across the country. We are greatly appreciative of that. 

What is really a challenge for us is programmatic access in the 

sense particularly for our consumers with sensory disabilities, visual disabilities, hearing disabilities, accessing the programs. So as 

we talk about the programs that we all serve through WIA, one of 

the things that really does drive us crazy, using your terms, if I 

may, is being able to access those in a way that is equally available 

for folks with disabilities just like anybody else that does not experience a disability. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Anybody else very quickly that wants to weigh in on something 

that really makes you crazy that we should be thinking about? 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. At this time, I would like to call on the gentleman from Colorado, Jared Polis. 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

And thank you to all of you who help inform our process as we 

take on the very important task of hopefully leading to the reauthorization of and improvement in WIA. 

I have a few sets of questions. My constituents in Colorado care 

a lot about green jobs. In fact, 3 weeks ago, the Boulder-based 

American Solar Energy Society released a report that said renewable energy and energy efficiency industries represent more than 

9 million jobs as of 2007. The renewable energy industry grew 

three times as fast as the U.S. economy with the solar, thermal, 

photovoltaic, biodiesel and ethanol sectors leading the way, each 

with 25 percent-plus in annual growth. 

In my district alone, there are currently 2,405 green jobs, according to a survey, and according to the U.S. Conference of Mayors 

over the next two decades there could be 19,003 more jobs created 

in my district. Rather excitingly, more than $5 billion in venture 

capital was invested in clean energy technology industries in 2007, 

which represents one-fifth of all venture capital investment in 

North America and Europe. 

President Obama focused much of his campaign on a new energy 

plan for America that would help create five million new jobs by 

strategically investing $150 billion over the next 10 years to catalyze private efforts to building clean energy in the future. 

My question in this area for you both relates to green jobs as 

well as, more generally, what is being done or what should be done 

and can be done to effectively track the types of jobs that we are 

building capacity in and training people in to match the future 

needs of the economy and the workforce? 

To a certain extent, if we are training for just where there is demand today, we will always be chasing the present time. We need 

to prepare. When you are investing in education and investing in 

preparing somebody, even if they are 30 or 40 years old, they are 
53 

preparing for a 20-year career, 30-year career. If they are younger, 

it is even a longer career. 

So if any of you would care to address ideas about ways we can 

track the best estimates and scientific analysis of the future needs 

of the workforce to building capacity in our programs today? 

Mr. CAMP. Well, Mr. Polis, one of the ways we do that in Sacramento is by creating what we call a jointly administered apprenticeship program. Let’s take solar installations. So when the employer has 50 percent of the votes about who gets hired to teach 

the program, they are going to make damn sure that the right 

skills and insight and level of sophistication is obtained before they 

are going to hire somebody to do the job. The other half of the vote 

is held by the union, who wants to make sure it is somebody that 

is good at teaching these particular workers. 

So you end up with a program that is good at teaching the workforce, but is also cutting edge, because that is the only way you are 

going to compete in an emerging industry like solar installation. 

And that is going to change. There is no question about putting in 

tiles instead of panels will sweep through at some point, or maybe 

some other innovation, and the question is, do we have an established program in which the employer has the authority to dictate 

what the subject matter is. 

So we find that our jointly run programs provide us with that, 

and we are transferring doing that in medical care. Now, as medical care changes, it is not so much on target with regard to green 

energy, although there is a lot of need for green energy in the hospital system. So as we develop new jobs in the medical delivery system, there is a jointly run program that drives both the quality of 

the teaching and the quality of the technical knowledge that has 

to be obtained. I think that is the best system we have designed 

so far. 

Ms. GONZALEZ. Mr. Polis, if I may, what you are really speaking 

to here is an issue of what we would call a business intelligence 

system that finds a way to meld both worker, worker information, 

worker skills, as well as business needs. Not only for today, but 

what kind of business need might I have, whether it be in a green 

job or any other for that matter, tomorrow, 5 years and 10 years 

down the road. 

Earlier we spoke to the point of career pathways and local control. The issue here is, how do we identify transferable, transportable skill sets that can then be matched not only to one particular 

sector, but to others? The Federal Department of Labor does not 

have a system, this is my understanding, does not have a true system in which they manage that kind of data nationally. So if you 

are speaking about a true business intelligence system where both 

the consumer, being the folks that use our end product, as well as 

our folks that we are training could learn, could access, could gather information from, that does not exist. 

The State of Texas has something that we have been working on 

called the WIT, Workforce Information System, and then some of 

us on different boards have developed our own business intelligence 

systems using a CRM model, a customer relations model. 

But nationally, sir, there is no database, and I am looking at my 

partners here on the panel, that identifies or that can meld, if you 
54 

will, worker skill sets for each individual area as well as business 

needs. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. The time has expired. 

I would like to at this time recognize the gentlewoman from Hawaii, Mazie Hirono. 

Ms. HIRONO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank Ms. Gonzalez. You really expressed that really well because we are in an environment now where the future workforce 

needs are changing. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to me that we 

would be spending money to train people for very specific kinds of 

jobs that are not going to exist, so the interchangeability of skills, 

all of that I think is really important. 

Then Mr. Bahr, you talked about lifelong learning. I do think at 

the foundation of a lot of this is we need a trained workforce that 

begins to have the opportunity to have appropriate educational opportunities at a very young age, because as things are changing. 

If they have had the opportunity, for example, for a quality early 

education, that really sets the stage for success in school and in 

life. I think that is something that we ought to be looking at, and 

I am a big proponent of quality early education and the whole continuum of preparing our people for not just work but for success 

in life. 

I have had some experience with WIA money that came to Hawaii. I sat on a panel or a board for like a year or two, and I really 

was confused as to what they were doing, because there didn’t 

seem to be any blueprint, standards. Some of you mentioned that. 

There didn’t seem to be a way for us to report out. Then the big 

concern was what happens when the Federal grant money ends 

and this all comes to a screeching halt. So at the State level where 

all this money is going, and it is all supposed to be handled there, 

I really had serious questions about it. And to be sitting here at 

this end and listening to you, I see that that concern has still not 

been addressed. 

So this is a chunk of money. I am looking at over $5 billion that 

goes in every fiscal year for WIA programs. I think we need some 

help from you all as to how it is that we get a handle on the reporting, the accountability, some kind of standard. Is that what we 

need to start with? Something that that provides a uniform way for 

States to figure out what they should be doing with this money, because otherwise it is just money down the drain. 

Anybody care to respond? 

Mr. CAMP. What we use is the EDD data about their income, 6, 

12 and 18 months down the road. So if a worker comes in and gets 

training and is getting $8,000 a year more in income a year from 

now, something good happened, and we will take the credit for it. 

If the worker is not showing that kind of an increase, then let’s 

don’t do that anymore. Let’s go to that service provider and say, 

your training program was no good, and we have had to do that. 

I think there is another issue, though, that I thought you were 

raising, which is, how do we prepare people for work at an earlier 

age? And what we have done is something that I believe is unique 

in Sacramento, that we call Careers GPS—we use the GPS out of 

the geographical positioning system—in which we have identified 

for the 75 largest industrial sectors 80 percent of all the jobs that 
55 

are going to be created in the next 10 years. And in fact, we can 

predict a lot of those jobs. 

Maybe I can’t tell you exactly, but I can tell you for a six-county 

area how many engineers we are going to need pretty close, enough 

so it can give somebody some good guidance. So we have developed 

a computer base that, for our labor market area, what kind of 

training you have to have to apply for this job, the name, address 

and phone number for the person that provides it, how much 

money you are going to make when you get the job, what you are 

expected to do when you show up for work, and what kind of training you are going to get once you have been hired. So we want to 

drive this down into the seventh grade, as low as the seventh grade 

level, and I assuming the seventh graders can use computers better 

than an old guy like me, but we also make it available to all of our 

work-stop centers, all of our laid-off workers. Because what we 

want to do is be able to say to people, if you live within 50 miles 

of this center, here is what is going to happen over the next 10 

years. If you are thinking you are going to be a professional basketball player, and there is only be going to be 12, you better get a 

back-up. That is what the purpose of that is. 

Ms. HIRONO. Yeah, I was getting at really preparing people very 

early on. It is not just for jobs. It is really attitudinal. It is that 

whole developmental part of an individual that we have to pay attention to, and as far as I am concerned, it starts in preschool and 

even before that. And I would like to see a lot more recognition of 

the importance of those foundational resources that we provide 

really early on as a way for us to prepare people for working and 

life. And by the time you all get these people that need retraining, 

maybe they will have a much better foundation on which you can 

train them. So that was my point. I think you all seem to be agreeing that that is important. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Thank you. 

At this time I would like to recognize the gentleman from Connecticut, Joe Courtney. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I think the 

timing of this hearing could not be more critical, with the economic 

crisis we are going through and a vote to take place within hours 

in terms of the programs that these people are connected with. 

I want to compliment the chamber for stepping up and supporting the President in support of H.R. 1, because these programs 

obviously are desperately shorthanded. 

I was at the Connecticut WIA offices the last week or two. You 

really did sort of get the feeling you are at a Katrina-level event 

in these unemployment offices and these one-stop offices with the 

volume that is sort of coming through. Again, they do a very good 

job of trying, as Ms. Elzey indicated, to tailor their training programs to what is going on out there in the Connecticut economy. 

But it does kind of feel like the moorings are coming loose with the 

storm that is out there right now. 

Mr. Bahr, I was wandering if you could, with a little bit of perspective having been at this awhile and seeing past recessions, just 

sort of give your sort of perspective about where we are right now, 

and really, are these programs that I think are sort of designed for 
56 

a normal business cycle going to be overtaxed and overwhelmed by 

an economy that has lost almost 4 million jobs in the last 13 

months, and it doesn’t seem like there is any light at the end of 

the tunnel right now? 

Mr. BAHR. It is one thing to talk about what we have to do with 

public education, and we need to do. If we look at 1983, the Nation 

at Risk told us if we don’t fix our public education system, we will 

not be able to compete globally. Now it is 25 years later, we have 

fallen further behind. So what you have said about working with 

the young people today and fixing public education so that when 

they go through high school they have a direction, that does not 

deal with today’s problem and the problem of the next 10 years. 

President Obama hopes, and we all hope, that H.R. 1 is going to 

produce somewhere between 3 and 4 million jobs. Are we sure that 

we have trained workers to fill some of those jobs that hopefully 

will come out of the stimulus bill and the high-tech end? I am not 

so sure. 

As I said earlier, a majority of the workforce in 2020 is already 

employed, and as the Baby Boomers start to leave and you still 

have part of this 88 million undereducated, the majority of the 

workforce would continue to grow with an average under-educated 

workforce. 

Now, adult ed has to be looked at as the third leg of the process, 

and we specifically call for it to be spoken about as adult education 

and skills development. They are one and the same. It is my experience that virtually every worker can be trained to do higher 

skilled work. They have got to be encouraged. All the systems have 

to be in place. There has to be a total collaboration at the local 

level with the city or county between business and labor. The community colleges play an enormous role, and there is no substitute, 

in my judgment—when I go back, what the charge to the Commission for Lifelong Learning was, how do we change the culture of 

our Nation from K-12 to lifelong learning? 

As true as it was 10 years ago, and President Clinton put it, I 

think it was the 1999 State of the Union message, he addressed 

this, the more people we have educated in the arts will be the more 

people that have the flexibility to deal with oncoming technology, 

to deal with the high-performance workplace. 

We are not going to be successful with a low-skill/low-wage economy. A solution and our only salvation is a high-skill/high-wage 

economy, and all of our education facilities have to be directed in 

that line. And I think we have the capability to do it. I am amazed 

with the work that our commission did over 2 years. 

It is kind of interesting, you look at so many commissions—I 

served on them—adult ed became a footnote. I was on the Commission for the Upgrade of the Skills of the American Workforce. You 

look at the great report we put out in 2007. It dealt 90 percent 

with the people that you are talking about at the lower education 

level. It only dealt with 10 percent of the people in the workforce 

today. So it was Ray Marshall, former Secretary of Labor, at the 

very first meeting of this commission that said we have to make 

sure that we are not a footnote, but that we are zeroing in on adult 

education and what has to be done to reach these vast numbers. 

The numbers are not going to get better. We are only reaching 3 
57 

million a year, and if half of that are dropouts from high school, 

it is like being on a treadmill going nowhere. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

I would like to now call on the gentlewoman from Nevada, Dina 

Titus. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Members of the panel, I would like to address my question to Mr. 

Wooderson. As you can tell by the attention you have received on 

today’s hearing, often the programs for the disabled get the short 

end of the stick. We have stuck it out though, so I could ask you 

this question. 

The statistics that you mentioned about the unemployment rates 

for the disabled are just striking. They are shameful really, but 

they are striking. And we know that a lot of people on those lists 

really want to go to work, and they could be successful if they were 

given the opportunity. 

I think that the waiting lists that are there now reflect that desire. They are long to start with, and they are going to get even 

longer, partly due to the Americans with Disabilities Act that focuses on immersion in the community as opposed to institutionalization, and also because now there is so much more competition 

from people who are unemployed who don’t have disabilities. And 

we know how those prejudices work. 

I want to add to your list of accomplishments a program in Nevada called Opportunity Village. It is a program that is a publicprivate partnership. It is funded by all different levels of government. It has a very successful campaign going with big billboards 

with a little piece of paper that says, which one was shredded by 

the disabled person? And that kind of says it all. I think that is 

important. 

We know these programs work. You mentioned that they pay for 

themselves. They put more money on the tax roll. They get more 

people off of public assistance. 

What can we do better? Think outside the box. Besides just 

money, is it online courses? Is it better incentives for business to 

participate? What can we do to make these programs fill the increasing need? 

Mr. WOODERSON. Well, thank you, Ms. Titus, for the acknowledgment, first of all, of the program. Specifically in the public VR program, in the last couple of years, we really have emphasized trying 

to link across State lines, because we have been working in silos 

for so long. The Council of State Administrators initiated a program that we call The Net where we are linking employers that 

have representation in a number of States providing them with information about the value added of employing individuals with disabilities, and we are seeing great success with that. It is in pockets 

around the country. We have actually been able to work with the 

Federal Government, been seeing a great response from like the Internal Revenue Service. We are working with companies like 

Walgreens, Safeway; companies that have an existence all over. 

So if we can continue that type of new initiatives to inform employers first of all that we do have people that can work, they want 

to go to work, we can include them in understanding that we can 

access services across State lines, I believe that is one of the big-
58 

gest things that we can do in addition to increasing the dollars that 

are available, of course, to continue providing high-quality types of 

training for persons with disabilities. 

We know that folks with disabilities are often the last into the 

employment marketplace and the first out when times get tough. 

So we have got to push on the high wages, as Mr. Andrews was 

speaking earlier about. We have to identify access issues that allow 

individuals to get into those programs, and we believe that will 

make a great difference in being able to get folks to competitive, 

gainful employment. 

Ms. TITUS. If there are some legislative changes that we need to 

make in the statute, would you get those to us so we can try to 

help you accommodate those things? Because not only does it make 

good economic sense, it is ethically the right thing to do, because 

we all benefit from everybody being able to reach their potential. 

Mr. WOODERSON. Yes, ma’am. You can expect immediate follow 

up. Thank you. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Thank you. 

I am now going to call on the gentleman from Oregon, Congressman David Wu. 

Mr. WU. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have spoken 

with the workforce investment folks at home and also with a number of the community colleges, both that I represent and that are 

in the other four congressional districts of Oregon, and it is no surprise that they all say in economic times like these that enrollment 

in your programs and in theirs goes up significantly. 

Can you, to the best of your efforts, try to quantify or give us 

percentages about how much additional demand you all experience 

and to the best of your ability estimate that for the community college programs also? 

Mr. CAMP. I can give it to you later. I can’t give it to you today. 

Ms. GONZALEZ. Mr. Wu, let me tell you that we have a strong 

relationship with your workforce community in eastern Oregon. We 

are a mentor board to the eastern Oregon area. 

Mr. WU. Would that be Blue Mountain Community College, or 

one of the others? 

Ms. GONZALEZ. I knew you were going to ask that. 

Mr. WU. That is all right. We can get that at a different time. 

Ms. GONZALEZ. I will say to you, again, I will get that information to you. But more importantly, what we see as folks coming in 

to our workforce one-stop centers are absolutely incredible in numbers. I will also say to you that our community college has gone 

from 800 students to 22,000 students in the last 15 years, a huge 

increase in the last 3 years alone. I can get those numbers for you. 

The same is true for our 4-year institution, University of Texas at 

Pan American. So I can get that data for you. 

But I will say you are absolutely correct, both for workforce services as well as training services, support services, any kind of support services that our workforce board can offer. The need far surpasses what we currently have. Our workforce board alone lost $20 

million in funding in the last 5 years. Not because of any other reason except that cutbacks and rescission; $20 million, 46 percent of 
59 

our dislocated worker funds, dislocated worker funds, was cut last 

year alone. 

Mr. WU. Anybody else want to address this in terms of the percentage increase in demand as our unemployment goes up by 2, 3, 

4 or more percentage points? 

Mr. CAMP. I have it for UI claims, the people going into the onestop centers. We have a 61 percent increase in UI claims in will 

California. We have normally now 1 million visits annually to onestop centers, and we think there will be a 60 percent increase over 

that 1 million visits over this next year. 

Mr. WU. Anybody else? 

Ms. JOHNSON. I might add we have not seen the increase yet, 

and we don’t think we have seen the increase because people are 

receiving extended unemployment insurance benefits. They have 

not hit at a point where semesters or terms are occurring to where 

they can get into school, and we have a limitation on how much 

we can pay based on the availability of funding. So if that person 

does not have extra income coming in, we have not seen the increase. It may happen, but at this point in time, the increase as 

far as the number of clients that we are seeing going into training 

to the community college is not occurring. 

Mr. WU. So just as employment tends to be a lagging economic 

indicator, when unemployment occurs, for your centers, it pretty 

much lags the numbers by a significant period also? 

Ms. JOHNSON. It hasn’t in previous high times of unemployment. 

But for the current situation, we have—I mean, our unemployment 

claims, they are out the door. We have 500 or 600 people standing 

in line every day. But the number of people going into training at 

the community college is not increasing at this point in time. It 

may, but it has not yet. 

Mr. WU. Do you have any other explanations or theories about 

why that might be? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Not yet. We are continuing to look at it, because 

we are concerned that we are not meeting the needs at this point 

in time. But it is not occurring. 

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I know my time has expired, but if I 

could ask one further question of the panel? 

Chairman HINOJOSA. I will give you an additional minute. 

Mr. WU. Thank you very much. Could you address the issue, as 

the demand goes up, what is your surge capacity with your current 

resources, both assets on the ground and money, and what do you 

need to accommodate the surge, the potential surge, if it does 

come? 

Mr. WOODERSON. Mr. Wu, from the Vocational Rehabilitation 

Program standpoint, we find right now, as I was mentioning earlier, 36 of our programs already have a waiting list. And we know 

that over 35,000 individuals are waiting to get in the door. 

So what it really boils down to for us is it is not just the money 

itself; it is the capacity to serve those who come through the door. 

So, for us, it really does mean a matter of expanding our ability 

to have professionals on the front line being able to meet those 

needs and then accessing programs out in the community to be 

able to achieve those high-quality jobs. 
60 

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Wu, we have had, during the holiday period, 2 

million calls a day to our UI Claims Office. It takes people sometimes calling 20 times before they can ever get anybody to answer 

the phone. If you are not really good at waiting on the phone, you 

are not going to get your unemployment insurance. 

So the real answer is this phone system, it has created an enormous crisis. People are not getting their unemployment insurance 

because they call and call and call and call and nobody answers the 

phone because they are overwhelmed. And they can’t go in; it is illegal. So they have to either go by computer—and everybody 

doesn’t have a computer. 

So, in terms of the way the UI claims system works, it is an 

enormous failure. It is all automation. 

Mr. WU. Thank you for that information. That is very helpful. 

And hopefully we can act on it and help the folks out there in need. 

I try to reach some folks by phone these days, and it just doesn’t 

work. And then I have to ask my son for help in getting on the 

laptop. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Congressman Wu, you have asked some 

very good questions that hopefully our staff is going to continue to 

try to find answers to, because the numbers are continuing to grow 

at 500,000 to 600,000 jobless per month. So we definitely have to 

answer those. 

As we try to bring this to a close, I wanted to ask if each of the 

members of this panel would consider giving us in writing an answer to this question that I am going to give you. And that is: How 

can workforce centers work in conjunction with the community colleges nearest to them so as to be able to more effectively use the 

stimulus money that is in this $789 billion over 2 years that is 

going to be available, a good part of it going toward retraining 

those that are jobless? 

And I am of the opinion that the community colleges are great 

engines to help revitalize the regions with the highest unemployment rate. As we already learned, in some cities in California they 

are already at 20, 30 percent unemployment, and there are States 

that are already at 15 percent unemployment. So we have a very 

serious problem. 

And I think that you all have made some good points. I like what 

Mr. Bahr said about the importance of not just having training for 

what used to be a good job last century, but going into community 

colleges and, with some help, being able to get an associate degree 

that would pay livable wages. 

I am a strong proponent of community colleges, but I think that, 

in order for them to be successful, they need to have a closer relationship with your centers, because you have resources, both 

human and financial resources, that need to be leveraged with 

what we give the community colleges. 

So, with that, I want to request unanimous consent that two documents that I have in my hands be entered into the record of this 

hearing. And the first document is submitted by David Harvey, 

president and CEO of ProLiteracy, and it is the testimony regarding aspects of adult education. The second document in my hands 

is that from Ronald G. Congleton commissioner representing labor, 
61 

and his testimony on the Texas Workforce Commission. Hearing no 

objection, it will become part of the record. 

[The information follows:] 

Prepared Statement of David C. Harvey, President & CEO, ProLiteracy 

Mr. Chairman and respected members of the Subcommittee, ProLiteracy submits 

this written testimony as part of the Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong 

Learning, and Competitiveness hearing on New Innovations and Best Practices 

Under the Workforce Investment Act (WIA). We regard this as preliminary testimony and respectfully request an opportunity to testify and participate in future 

hearings and the drafting stages of a reauthorization bill, addressing the needs of 

lowest-level adult learners and community-based organizations. 

I would like to briefly introduce ProLiteracy, the problem of adult literacy in 

America, the role that community-based organizations play in educating low-level 

adult learners, and briefly mention some of ProLiteracy’s highest-priority policy concerns related to WIA reauthorization. 

ProLiteracy 

ProLiteracy Worldwide is the world’s oldest and largest organization of adult literacy and basic education programs in the United States. ProLiteracy traces its 

roots to two premiere adult literacy organizations, Laubach Literacy International 

and Literacy Volunteers of America. Laubach Literacy International was founded by 

missionary and adult literacy pioneer Dr. Frank C. Laubach more than 70 years 

ago. During his work with native Muslim tribes in the Philippines, Dr. Laubach pioneered literacy teaching methods—the ability to read, write, and perform basic 

math functions—as a way of helping to lift people out of poverty. His philosophy 

of ‘‘each one, teach one’’ is based on using former adult learners to tutor others in 

their community. When Ruth Johnson Colvin learned in the mid-1960s that a significant number of adults in her Syracuse, NY community could not read, she founded Literacy Volunteers of America. Her program used trained volunteers to tutor 

adults in one-on-one settings. In 2002, Laubach Literacy International and Literacy 

Volunteers of America merged to create ProLiteracy. 

ProLiteracy now represents over 1,200 community-based organizations and adult 

basic education programs in the United States, and we partner with literacy organizations in 53 developing countries. In communities across the United States, these 

organizations use trained volunteers, teachers, and instructors to provide one on one 

tutoring, classroom instruction, and specialized classes in reading, writing, math, 

technology, English language skills, job-training and workforce literacy skills, GED, 

and citizenship. Our members are located in all 50 states and in the District of Columbia. Through education, training and advocacy, ProLiteracy supports the frontline work of these organizations through regional conferences and other training 

events, credentialing, and by publishing materials and products used in teaching 

adults basic literacy and English as a second language and preparing adults for the 

U.S. citizenship and GED exams. We gather and disseminate evidence-based practices in adult literacy instruction. 

The Problem of Adult Literacy in America 

In 2003, the U.S. Department of Education conducted the National Assessment 

of Adult Literacy (NAAL) in order to gauge the English reading and comprehension 

skills of individuals in the United States over the age of 16 on daily literacy tasks 

such as reading a newspaper article, following a printed television guide, and completing a bank deposit slip. The results indicated that 30 million adults—14 percent 

of this country’s adult population—had below basic literacy skills; that is, their ability to read was so poor, they could not complete a job application without help or 

follow the directions on a medicine bottle. An additional 63 million adults read only 

slightly better. 

The high percentage of low-literate adults can be connected to almost every socioeconomic problem this country faces. Adults who struggle to read are unhealthier 

than others, and they use hospitals more often. Low literacy adds an estimated $238 

billion to this country’s health care costs each year. An estimated 60 percent of federal and state prison inmates are barely literate. And struggling readers are more 

likely to be unemployed and require public assistance. 

These are people who, through no fault of their own, did not learn to read and 

write as children. They are people like Carl Solberg, a dyslexic who never learned 

to read until age 42. With the help of the tutors and staff at a ProLiteracy member 

program, Carl earned his high school diploma. He continued to work with his tutor 
62 

and three years later, he earned state certification as a teacher’s aide. He now 

works in the same high school from which he dropped out. 

And there’s Melanie Abney, who grew up in a home where drugs were more important than education. She followed the family pattern—out of high school before 

graduation and into dealing drugs. She became involved in a literacy program while 

in jail and continued to be tutored after her release. She now is the office manager 

for the literacy program that helped her change her life. 

Amie Colley left high school in the ninth grade, unable to recognize all the letters 

of the alphabet. She entered a literacy program at a third grade reading level. Two 

tutors discovered a reading program that works for Amie, who now hopes to earn 

her GED and someday, go to college. 

Community-Based Literacy & Basic Education 

In 2007—2008, ProLiteracy’s member programs assisted nearly 200,000 adults 

struggling to improve their literacy skills. More than half these individuals—62 percent—were tested at the beginning to low basic literacy skill level. This means that 

approximately 120,000 students in ProLiteracy’s member programs had reading, 

writing, and comprehension skills equal to those of first, second, third, and fourth 

graders. At these literacy levels, these individuals would not be eligible for the GED 

preparation classes offered by more traditional adult basic education programs. 

ProLiteracy member programs serve as an important entry point into the literacy 

and adult basic education system in the United States for lowest-level learners requiring intensive one-to-one and classroom instruction before graduating to more advanced programs. 

ProLiteracy member programs provided student instruction with the assistance of 

more than 117,000 trained volunteers. The seven million hours of time donated by 

these volunteers are vital to student success, as many of our programs cannot afford 

to pay full- or part-time professional teachers. Only 55 percent of ProLiteracy member programs access state and federal funding under Title II of the Workforce Investment Act—the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act. 

The Workforce Investment Act 

In order for literacy and basic education programs to be eligible for WIA Title II 

funding, they must meet eligibility requirements as determined by the National Reporting System for Adult Education (NRS), developed by the U.S. Department of 

Education’s Division of Adult Education and Literacy (DAEL). The NRS addresses 

such issues as the intensity and duration of instruction and the learner outcomes 

that must be achieved within specific time frames, outcomes such as finding a job 

and leaving welfare, getting a new job, earning a high school diploma or GED, or 

entering postsecondary training. 

ProLiteracy supports these goals and we support an accountability system for programs; however, revisions to the system are needed in order to adequately evaluate 

community-based organizations and the lowest-level learners they serve. 

Much of ProLiteracy’s work with its member programs, in fact, deals with accountability and program improvement. Students enter our program with goals of 

finding jobs, getting better jobs, and earning a GED. When they enter with Level 

2 ability, however, it is not likely that goal will be achieved within the frameworks 

of the NRS. 

As this subcommittee begins the work of updating and reauthorizing the Workforce Investment Act, ProLiteracy urges its members to consider all the needs of a 

diverse adult literacy and basic education system. The system is not just diverse in 

that the goals of the administering states differ; it is diverse in the needs of the 

people that it serves. Adults at the lowest level need the additional time and individualized instruction that volunteer-based programs can offer so that they will be 

ready for the higher-level instruction available in traditional ABE classes. The volunteer-based programs serve as a feeder system to the ABEs in the same way that 

the ABEs feed students into postsecondary education. 

Mr. Chairman, in any Workforce Investment Act reauthorization bill that is considered by Congress, we strongly recommend that the needs of America’s lowestlevel learners not be forgotten or abandoned. We owe the 1 in 7 adults in America 

who are in need of adult literacy and basic education the chance at a better future. 

Preliminary Reauthorization Recommendations 

ProLiteracy supports the recommendations for changes to Title II made by the 

National Coalition for Literacy, and we support aspects of the work of the National 

Commission on Adult Literacy. In particular, we support the National Coalition for 

Literacy’s call for a revision of the NRS as an effective means of measuring the outcome of programs working with adults at the lowest levels. These recommendations 

are initial steps in considering the unique needs and contributions of ProLiteracy’s 
63 

constituents. In addition to the Coalition’s recommendations, ProLiteracy’s specific 

priority concerns include: 

1) The standards by which student progress is measured and programs deemed 

effective must consider the variables of student literacy level upon entering a program, student learning styles, current abilities, and life challenges. 

2) That State Leadership Activities include appropriations for ‘‘professional capacity-building development for staff and tutors of adult basic education and volunteerand community-based organizations * * *’’ 

3) That ‘‘levels of performance measures for eligible providers must include consideration for the additional time and resources required by those providers serving 

adults * * * who have minimal literacy skills.’’ 

4) That wording regarding ‘‘direct and equitable access’’ to funding and ‘‘intensity 

and duration’’ of instruction be clarified and modified so as to be applicable to the 

unique services offered by community-based organizations. 

5) That local programs and adult learners have a strong role in determining how 

programs are planned, administered, and evaluated. 

In support of the issues identified above, ProLiteracy identified the following policy principles to guide reauthorization: 

1. Adult literacy and basic education are fundamental human rights. 

All adults in the United States who need adult literacy and basic education services should have access to instruction in the local communities where they live and 

work. Supporting these services will require a significant increase in federal, state, 

and local funding to support these educational services. 

2. Adult learners—new readers, those transitioning to higher education, and everyone in between—need access to a continuum of adult literacy and basic education 

services. 

Adult literacy and basic education comprise a comprehensive continuum that includes reading, writing, English language learning, using computers and other technology, numeracy, GED, and other instruction. 

3. Adult literacy and basic education programs and services should be learner centered. 

Adult literacy and basic education programs should be tailored to meet the needs 

and circumstances of the learners they serve. Instruction should support students’ 

learning styles, challenges, and abilities. Programs should coordinate their services 

with the broad range of other services that adult learners may participate in, such 

as social, mental health, and disability services, including case management. 

4. The Adult Education and Family Literacy Act should ensure the widest-possible 

access to federal and state funding mechanisms by local volunteer and adult education programs in order to serve the diverse needs of adult learners. 

Program requirements and evaluation methods should be flexible to meet the 

varying capacities of local volunteer and adult basic education programs. If provisions related to ‘‘direction and equitable access’’ and ‘‘duration and intensity of instruction’’ continue in federal law, a broad-range of success indicators and outcome 

measures must be guaranteed so that programs have access to funding and are able 

to document the full range of literacy services that they provide. 

5. Local programs and adult learners should have a strong role in determining 

how programs are planned, administered, and evaluated. 

The Adult Education and Family Literacy Act is a partnership between federal, 

state, and local governments and local programs. Programs and services will be 

most successful when service providers and adult learners participate with government in planning and evaluating the adult literacy and basic education system. 

6. A federal adult literacy and basic education interagency council should be created to ensure coordination of literacy and adult basic education policy and programs within the federal agencies responsible for public health, immigration, disability, financial literacy, and other related programs. A similar requirement should 

be made for state-level interagency coordination. 

Many federal agencies are involved in various aspects of adult literacy and basic 

education. Similarly, adults participating in literacy and basic education often have 

multiple needs and participate in other publicly funded services. Federal and state 

agencies responsible for these services must coordinate policy and programs to 

eliminate conflicting eligibility requirements and other barriers to a local comprehensive, seamless service systems for adult learners. 

7. Local programs that are successful in moving students through the system— 

from emergent to advanced levels—should get funding and other incentives, including direct federal funding to local programs to assure a variety of delivery systems 

to meet learner needs. 

Programs should create and be rewarded for efforts to create a seamless, learnercentered, local adult literacy and basic education system. This will make it possible 
64 

for learners to move in and out of the system as their needs and circumstances dictate while they are acquiring the combination of skills and education they need to 

succeed at home, in the workplace, and in society. Direct federal funding of local 

programs is a strategy to assure that diverse programs are available to meet learner 

needs and circumstances. 

8. Training and technical assistance and research to identify best practices and 

program models must be supported. 

Local adult literacy and basic education programs need access to best practices 

for program design and instructional methods and to the technical assistance grants 

that will enable them to build their capacity, design innovative programs, support 

anti-stigma programs and campaigns for adult learners, and address other needs. 

Conclusion 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, ProLiteracy looks forward to working with you and members of your staff to strengthen this vitally important piece 

of legislation to ensure that it addresses the needs of America’s lowest-level learners 

and the unique needs of community-based organizations. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Prepared Statement of Ronald G. Congleton, Commissioner Representing 

Labor, Texas Workforce Commission 

An unintended consequence of WIA has been an erosion of the relationship between unemployment insurance (UI) and the employment service (ES). Both funded 

from the same source, the two programs were designed to work together and have 

historically done so with great success. UI pays benefits to those with significant 

work histories who are temporarily unemployed while ES assists in finding them 

new work. Effective employment service reduces the amount of time it takes to find 

a new job, thus lessening the strain on unemployment trust funds and the taxes 

of employers who fund it. Working in tandem, the two programs effectively bridge 

rough spots in the economy for workers and communities. 

In Texas, the linkage between UI and ES was badly weakened by the simultaneous creation of One-Stop centers and withdrawal of UI staff from local communities to remote call centers. Any reauthorization of WIA should strive to rebuild 

the bridge between the programs. This can be done without large scale changes, 

simply by strengthening the role of ES in the One-Stops and coordinating policy 

with the UI program. 

In the early 1990’s, Texas had the one most effective and efficient employment 

services in the country. Each town had an unemployment office run by the state’s 

employment security agency where people who had lost jobs could file claims for unemployment benefits and get job search assistance. In addition to helping claimants 

find work, ES was able to verify that claimants were in fact searching for work, one 

of the core eligibility criteria for receiving unemployment benefits. 

ES performance decreased with the advent of WIA. While part of this was due 

to the removal of unemployment insurance staff to call centers, certain aspects of 

WIA administration in Texas have exacerbated the problem. Minor changes and 

fine-tuning of WIA could reverse this trend and improve services for the unemployed 

while saving taxpayer dollars. 

WIA created a network of local workforce boards overseeing One-Stop centers 

throughout Texas. The One-Stops provide information and services to impoverished 

adults and youth, dislocated workers and other classes of disadvantaged individuals. 

WIA, TANF and Food Stamp Employment and Training programs are collocated 

with ES in the One-Stops, but UI is not. This has eliminated day to day interaction 

between UI and ES, with the latter now aligned more closely with WIA, TANF and 

Food Stamps. 

There has been a resulting shift in focus in the local employment offices, now renamed as One-Stops, from working people to welfare recipients. For all the success 

that the local boards have had in moving people off of welfare rolls and into entry 

level jobs, emphasis on those with a long attachment to the labor force, such as UI 

claimants, has decreased. The needs of those temporarily out of work are different 

from those with little or no work history, but once the unemployment insurance program was removed from the One-Stops, there was little impetus to focus on clients 

not tied to the funding streams supporting the centers. 

A change in the management model of ES accelerated the trend. Although ES is 

still nominally a state-run program in Texas, day-to-day direction and control has 

been ceded to the individual workforce boards and their contractors. As a practical 

matter, an ever-changing group of private contractors have had hiring and firing au-
65 

thority over the ES state workers in the One-Stops. In addition to creating instability in the ranks of ES workers, this has led to ES workers being directed more 

toward the programs funding the One-Stops: primarily WIA, TANF and Food Stamp 

Employment and Training. 

The Texas Workforce Commission has attempted to address the lack of focus on 

UI by imposing performance criteria on the local boards relating to reemployment 

of UI claimants. Lacking experience with UI claimants, the response of local boards 

has been to treat them as they do their other targeted populations, despite the differences inherent in these groups. Laid-off workers and unemployment claimants 

come with a variety of skills, experience and education; by definition they have a 

long-term attachment to the labor force. Unfortunately, the One-Stops tend to view 

them as just another disadvantaged client: rather than cultivate better job postings 

and concentrate on matching them with the particular and unique skills of each individual, the One-Stops have adopted a cookie cutter approach to placement. Arbitrary work search requirements are assigned without regard to experience, profession or job availability, and the quality of job placement has diminished. 

This blurring of the lines between WIA targeted groups and the general population is not the fault of the local workforce boards. After all, transitioning welfare 

clients and low-income people into work has been both their focus and their source 

of funding. Since the boards neither administer nor receive funding for UI, it is unfair to impose UI performance criteria on them. 

To rectify these problems, ES should be reoriented toward the general population 

and given the authority to resume its historical role as the public labor exchange. 

ES staff could then monitor the work search efforts of UI claimants, provide basic 

job matching services and handle all basic intake and evaluation functions of the 

One-Stop. 

Reemphasizing ES would also eliminate a design flaw of WIA, namely, the unnecessary replication of ES services under WIA. Title I of WIA created three levels of 

service delivery: core, intensive and training. Core services are such things as intake, evaluation, and job search assistance—precisely the same services historically 

performed by ES. Combining WIA core service with ES would eliminate this redundancy and allow WIA resources to be devoted entirely to intensive services and 

training. Intake and basic job-matching would be performed by ES uniformly across 

the state, but training and intensive services would be customized by the workforce 

boards as local conditions require. 

In order to achieve efficiency of scale and assure consistency of service, ES should 

once again be managed by the Texas Workforce Commission. As interdependent programs, ES and UI require a high level of coordination that is difficult to achieve 

when the one program is run by the state and the other by 28 different entities. 

Moreover, since both programs are required to be staffed by state merit system employees, delegating direction and control to private contractors is a complicated and 

unwieldy process. The simple solution is to reunite ES and UI as coordinated staterun programs. 

The results of a recent DOL evaluation support strengthening ES at the state 

level. DOL compared the traditional state-run ES with pilots in Colorado, Massachusetts and Michigan, where merit-system requirements were relaxed to allow alternative service delivery. There were large reductions in the numbers of job openings listed in the pilot sites, with the One-Stops concentrating on serving the disadvantaged by obtaining job listings tailored to the skills of low-income job seekers. 

The traditional public labor exchange staffed by state merit-system employees was 

found to be significantly more cost effective. 

We should learn from this lesson in reauthorizing WIA. Local input and control 

in the design and implementation of job training and services for the disadvantaged 

is a critical piece of the puzzle, but so is maintaining a robust statewide labor exchange program. A job seeker should be able to receive the same high quality of 

service anywhere in the state, and ES should provide seamless, well integrated 

statewide services that can follow a job seeker who re-locates. Likewise, UI claimants should be held to the same standards regardless of the location in Texas where 

they reside. Uniformity, consistency and accountability will increase across the 

board if ES is strengthened and once again oriented toward the general population. 

The public still thinks of the One-Stop as the employment office. With the economic downturn, laid off workers are flooding the One-Stops looking to file unemployment claims. They are surely shocked to discover that these offices are no longer 

equipped to take their claims. At best, they can use a computer to attempt to file 

on-line; at worst, they are merely given a phone number to call, a phone number 

that may give them nothing but a busy signal. This is not a sustainable system. 

Strengthening ES, reestablishing its historical relationship with UI and orienting 

the One-Stops back toward the larger population of unemployed workers is critical 
66 

in rebuilding the workforce. Reauthorization of WIA is an opportunity to achieve 

this, and I encourage the committee to consider these suggestions. 

Ronald Congleton, the Commissioner Representing Labor, is one of the three commissioners of the Texas Workforce Commission. He respectfully submits this statement on prospective changes in provisions of the Workforce Investment Act. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. And I am going to give an opportunity to 

Ranking Member Guthrie to make his request. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I ask unanimous consent to submit the Government Accountability Office’s report, report number 071096, for the record. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. No problem. It will be made part of the 

record. 

[The GAO report, ‘‘Workforce Investment Act: One-Stop System 

Infrastructure Continues to Evolve, but Labor Should Take Action 

to Require That All Employment Service Offices Are Part of the 

System,’’ submitted by Mr. Guthrie, may be accessed at the following Internet address:] 

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d071096.pdf 

Chairman HINOJOSA. And I want to thank each and every one of 

the presenters for coming this afternoon and being so generous 

with your time, allowing us to build up our record as we try to find 

ways in which we can try to make this reauthorization one that 

will be very effective and be able to give us the results that we 

need to be able to use the money effectively and make our country 

a better place to raise our families. Once again, I thank you. 

And any member who wishes to submit follow-up questions in 

writing to the witnesses should coordinate with majority staff within the requisite time. 

[The statement of Mr. Altmire follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Jason Altmire, a Representative in Congress 

From the State of Pennsylvania 

Thank you, Chairman Hinojosa, for holding this important hearing on best practices under the Workforce Investment Act (WIA). 

Since 2007, our country has lost more than 3.6 million jobs. We cannot ask American workers to wait any longer for an update to our country’s workforce investment 

system. In one month, we shed almost 600,000 jobs and the unemployment rate has 

surged to 7.6 percent. This week, Congress will send to the president an economic 

recovery package that will both stimulate our ailing economy in the short term as 

well as lay the groundwork for a stronger economy in the future. Included in the 

recovery package is a multi-billion dollar investment in job training to help place 

workers in emerging industries—a critical first step in getting our economy back on 

track. 

I look forward to working with the Chairman on the reauthorization of WIA this 

year. As he mentioned, it was last reauthorized in 1998 and is long overdue for reauthorization. It is my hope that over the next few months, we will have more hearings like this one so that we can hear from all points of view about what works and 

what we need to do to improve WIA to ensure that it is working. 

Thank you again, Chairman Hinojosa, for holding this hearing. I yield back the 

balance of my time. 

[Additional submission by Mr. Hinojosa follows:] 
67 

Prepared Statement of National Council of State Agencies 

for the Blind, Inc. 

Reauthorization of the Rehabilitation Act core principles and priorities 

1. Maintain the Rehabilitation Act as a distinct title within the Workforce Investment Act with a separate and distinct funding stream. Historically, individuals with 

disabilities have not fared well in generic service delivery systems. To allow diversion of funds appropriated to disability programs and intended to benefit disabled 

job seekers, to workforce programs not intended for people with disabilities would 

result in this population being more isolated and less involved in the mainstream 

of America’s workforce. 

2. Create a separate funding stream to support infrastructure costs of operating 

the one-stops. At present vocational rehabilitation funds are severely limited. An increasing number of state agencies have established waiting lists of individuals in 

urgent need of vocational rehabilitation services. Diverting service dollars to pay the 

infrastructure costs of the one-stops will reduce the number of individuals served 

by the vocational rehabilitation program. As an alternative, we recommend that infrastructure funding be made a separate line item within The WIA rather than taxing service dollars from each of the partner programs. 

3. Maintain the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) Commissioner as a 

presidential appointee requiring Senate confirmation. Any reduction in the status 

of the RSA Commissioner will further deemphasize the importance of the vocational 

rehabilitation program within the Department of Education and the Congress. 

Downgrading the Commissioner will reduce the ability for the designated head of 

the vocational rehabilitation program to advocate for the employment and independent living needs of adults with disabilities. 

4. Maintain the option for states to have a separate agency for the blind. Current 

research and performance standards indicate that people who are blind are more 

successful when served by vocational rehabilitation agencies for the blind. The ability of states to submit a state plan to specifically serve people who are blind through 

a distinct designated state unit for the provision of such services is an important 

element in the concept of consumer choice and flexibility. 

5. Most consumers who are blind would prefer to receive vocational rehabilitation 

services from professionals trained to work with persons who are blind and from 

agencies specializing in this service area. Additionally, the NCSAB urges the support for specialized services for the blind through expanded funding of innovative 

training programs in blindness rehabilitation. 

6. Homemakers should continue to be recognized as a successful vocational rehabilitation closure. Homemakers have been viewed as contributing members to society, often providing invaluable support within a household allowing other family 

members to pursue gainful employment. We believe that ‘‘homemaker’’ as a vocational goal should be better defined within the Act and regulations. Such a definition would increase the likelihood that persons choosing a vocational goal of homemaker would receive appropriate related services. 

7. Preserve the provision in the Act to provide independent living services to individuals who are blind over age 55 (Title VII, Chapter 2) through the designated 

state unit for vocational rehabilitation. Title VI1, Chapter 2 must remain separate 

and distinct and not be included in the State Plan for Independent Living. 

8. Amend the formula for the distribution of funds under Title V11, Chapter 2. 

Our organization would like to see assurances in the Rehabilitation Act for minimal 

COLA increases to all states when additional funds are appropriated for Title VII, 

Chapter 2 and see the base award for each state raised to $350,000. 

[Question for the record and the subsequent responses follow:] 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

[VIA FACSIMILE], 

Washington, DC, February 17, 2009. 

Mr. MORTON BAHR, President Emeritus, 

Communications Workers of America, National Commission on Adult Literacy, 

Washington DC. 

DEAR MR. BAHR: Thank you for testifying at the February 12, 2008 hearing of the 

Committee on Education and Labor on ‘‘New Innovations and Best Practices Under 

the Workforce Investment Act.’’ 

Representative Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX), chairman of the Higher Education, Lifelong Learning and Competitiveness Subcommittee and member of the Early Child-
68 

hood, Elementary and Secondary Education Subcommittee, has asked that you respond in writing to the following question: 

1. How can the Workforce Investment Act partners work with the Community 

Colleges near them to use the newly designated economic recovery package funding 

for training programs? 

Please send an electronic version of your written response to the questions to the 

Committee staff by close of business on Tuesday, February 24, 2009—the date on 

which the hearing record will close. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the Committee. 

Sincerely, 

GEORGE MILLER, Chairman. 

Mr. Bahr’s Supplemental Material Submitted for the Record 

1. The National Commission on Adult Literacy, in its final report, ‘‘Reach 

Higher, America,’’ recommends serving 20 million adults by 2020. How can 

we afford enough teachers and staff to serve so many people, and how can 

we expect so many to enroll in programs? 

Answer: The Commission recommends the use of technology on a dramatically increased scale. Along with a major infusion of new funds, both public and private, 

this is a significant part of the solution. Although the Commission’s report made its 

technology recommendation in general terms, the Council for Advancement of Adult 

Literacy (CAAL), the follow-up agent for the Commission, has begun a project that 

will have precise recommendations by late summer. Until we have the results of 

that work, we can’t provide specific advice, but we have made some preliminary suggestions, on request, to some House staffers. On the second part of the question, 

new kinds of public awareness activities will be needed to motivate students and 

the general public. CAAL will undertake a project in the coming months to begin 

the preliminary planning for the public awareness campaigns that will eventually 

be needed. In addition, in the new WIA legislation being drafted now in response 

to the Commission’s report, the federal government would provide encouragements 

to the states to develop appropriate public awareness activities as part of their own 

comprehensive planning for adult education and workforce skills development. 

2. The commission recommends readiness for entering college and job 

training programs as the primary educational outcome of the new adult 

education system. How will we know when ‘‘readiness’’ has been achieved? 

Answer: The Commission recommends close partnerships with business as well as 

collaborations between all kinds of adult education and training providers, including 

community colleges and community-based organizations. These groups need to work 

in concert at national, state, and local levels to identify workforce needs, design programs to meet them, and assess whether workforce readiness has been achieved. In 

fact, the Commission recommends that, as a condition of financial support for lowskilled adult education programs, the new Adult Education and Economic Growth 

Act require the states to formulate plans to do this. Improved labor market research 

at the national level is also important. Also, some valuable tools are available to 

help assess ‘‘readiness.’’ For example, Workforce Certifications are under development by the National Association of Manufacturers (in cooperation with ACT) and 

by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (building on work begun at NIFL). The CASAS 

Workforce Skills Certification System is also coming into use. Further, the National 

Center for Education and the Economy, with which CAAL is doing some follow-up 

work and which is the base for the work of the New Commission on Skills of the 

American Workforce, will shortly release a ‘‘down-in-the-weeds’’ book on what state 

and local programs and planners need to know and do to implement readiness activities and standards. In addition, the new legislation in development, which the 

Commission hopes will fundamentally reform elements of WIA having to do with 

adult education and workforce skills, should make some provision for research and 

development in the workforce certification area. 

3. Many recent reports from leading research organizations stress the 

need to improve the skills of the American workforce. How do the recommendations of the National Commission on Adult Literacy differ? 

Answer: All of the major Commission studies on lifelong learning and human resource development for national economic purposes have recognized the importance 

of adult education, but it has not been a primary focus of their work. In fact, at 

the very first convening of the National Commission on Adult Literacy, one member, 

former Secretary of Labor Ray Marshall, commented that while adult education was 

in the footnote of all the important reports, the Commission needed to make it the 

main focus of OUR work and get it up out of the footnotes. The focus of most of 
69 

the reports to date have been on improving the K-12 and postsecondary systems, 

and linking the two. The Commission thinks these recommendations are high priorities, but we found that, even if implemented, they would not have a large impact 

on the skills of the American workforce for decades to come. This is because of the 

demographics: the vast majority of the American workforce in 2020 and well beyond 

will consist of today’s adults who are beyond the reach of the schools and postsecondary education. A large percentage of them lack the skills to enter postsecondary 

education or job training. Hence, to create the competitive workforce that everyone 

believes we need, it’s essential to invest in adult education programs that provide 

pathways to training and college. Our Commission’s work has filled a gap that others have not filled, and we have assurances from many organizations across the 

country that they agree with our conclusions and support the direction of our recommendations. Incidentally, those recommendations have even greater urgency 

today, at a time when the recession has created millions of displaced workers— 

many in low-skilled fields such as construction. In short, the Adult Education and 

Workforce Skills System we propose must be recognized as an essential partner in 

our national education reform efforts if we are not to leave behind many millions 

in our workforce. 

4. Is the skills gap really that important? 

Answer: The pervasive basic skills problem is critical to our economy and to workforce preparation, and we do not have an adequate system for dealing with this 

problem. In addition, the current WIA is not adequate in structure, funding, or implementation. The Commission has proposed legislation (and is working on it with 

House leaders now) that we hope will create an Adult Education and Workforce 

Skills System largely through major changes in WIA. The goals are to establish new 

educational outcomes for services; connect adult education, workforce skills, and 

other relevant entities in planning and service provision at all levels; and have 

verifiable performance outcomes geared to ‘‘readiness’’ for postsecondary education 

and job training. [NOTE: There were reform aspects in the current WIA Title I and 

II programs, but they have not gone far enough or have often not been enforced. 

As currently structured and funded, WIA is not adequate to the job we need to do 

now because the times have changed profoundly since it was created. The Commission looked specifically at WIA Title II (which encompasses the entire Department 

of Education adult education program), and at the four adult education programs 

of WIA Title I: adult education, dislocated worker program, Trade Adjustment Assistance, and out-of-school youth. In this reform effort, it is highly important to 

overcome silo and fragmentation problems that plague current federal efforts by 

connecting relevant federal adult education programs, especially the WIA Title I and 

II programs, which provide most of the service.] 

5. Can we actually train low-skilled workers for high skilled jobs? How 

do we know? 

Answer: Yes. We know we can do it. Both the Commission and various resource 

organizations (such as CAAL, the Center for Law and Social Policy, and Jobs for 

the Future) have identified, studied, and profiled scores of programs in all parts of 

the country that do this effectively right now. For example, Washington State’s IBest program (one of those profiled by the Commission), provides community college-based dual instruction programs that teach basic and vocational skills concurrently. This program greatly reduces the time it takes to move adult learners up 

their career ladders. The common principles behind this and other programs are 

well understood—and about to be set forth in a new report from the National Center 

on Education and the Economy. The problem is that there are too few resources, 

and federal barriers stand in the way of taking these local efforts to scale. Also, both 

the federal government and the states must coordinate better the efforts of education and training programs (not just WIA Title I and II, but also TANF, corrections education, and others) and link them to needs of employers. The Commission’s 

report proposes measures to overcome these problems. 

6. What explains the low number of adults currently enrolled in adult 

basic education and ESL programs? 

Answer: Given the limited resources available in most states, the adult education 

system has provided a significant level of service, especially for ESL populations. 

And there are long waiting lists for service on all fronts. However, most states have 

not fully implemented WIA Title II provisions for workplace basic skills instruction. 

The Adult Education and Workforce Skills System called for in Reach Higher, America will require much more attention to workforce skills needs and certification. The 

Commission believes that the demand for adult education and workforce skills services will skyrocket and that program outcomes will be greatly improved if federal 

and state policy creates clearer pathways to better jobs and results in higher incomes and family-sustaining wages. 
70 

7. How will the commission’s proposals create jobs? 

Answer: The Commission’s recommendations are an essential pre-condition to creating new jobs. New jobs can’t be created if workers with appropriate basic skills 

aren’t available. Many corporations are grappling with this problem. AT&T is one 

important, highly publicized example. Another is the Dollar General Corporation. 

The former CEO and chairman of Dollar General (lead funder of the Commission’s 

work) spoke about this problem in that company several times during the Commission’s deliberations. A comprehensive workplace skills program would be very supportive of workforce and economic development programs. Also, many more adult 

education jobs will be created by the new System, including instructors, counselors, 

program directors, and planners. 

8. In what Federal department are adult education and basic literacy 

programs most appropriately based? 

Answer: The Commission took no position on this issue. Members believe that the 

emphasis should be on interagency collaboration rather than moving boxes around 

on the federal organization chart, in the process creating unnecessary turf wars. The 

adult skills problems cut across the interests and domains of many federal departments. The Department of Education, under any scenario, has basic responsibility 

for community colleges, higher education generally, the schools, vocational training, 

Pell grants, and many other programs that must be coordinated to create effective 

career pathways. The Department of Labor has some adult education services, as 

identified by the Commission. The challenge is not to shift them elsewhere but to 

connect them in more productive ways with those of Education. The Department of 

Health and Human Services will continue to have responsibility for TANF, which 

must also be linked to career pathway programs. Joint planning and coordination 

should be the priority. 

9. The commission referred to the fastest growing occupations in its report. why is that important? 

Answer: The latest information available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics is 

from 2006. It needs updating and doesn’t capture ‘‘green’’ jobs and more recent 

trends. But, according to the BLS: By most accounts, even in the recession, there 

is still a growing demand for large numbers of workers in all aspects of healthcare, 

personal services, and education nationwide, as well as demand in a wide range of 

occupations within local labor markets. And the Economic Stimulus package intends 

to stimulate demand in construction and many sectors. At present it is difficult to 

forecast the long-term trends. But the essence of the Commission’s recommendations 

is that a career pathway system should be created that can respond quickly and 

flexibly to whatever workforce demands emerge in local labor markets in the years 

to come. 

10. What is the commission’s core Federal recommendation? 

Answer: The Adult Education and Economic Growth Act is at the core of the Commission’s recommendations. This Act needs to focus on the unemployed; low-skilled 

incumbent workers; immigrants with limited or no English; parents or caregivers 

with low basic skills; incarcerated adults; high school dropouts; and high school 

graduates not ready for college. These people are our parents and family units, aspiring new citizens, our neighbors, and both future and incumbent workers. 

[NOTES: (1) In this period of economic emergency, many millions of displaced workers have low basic skills and must be retrained for today’s available jobs and jobs 

of the future, such as ‘‘green jobs.’’ (2) We need to be careful how we apply the term 

‘‘training,’’ which usually refers to people at higher educational levels rather than 

the millions at the center of the National Commission’s concerns whose basic skills 

need upgrading. Retraining cannot alone be effective unless we recognize the importance of upgrading adults with low basic skills and unless we have the resources 

and system to improve the basic skills of displaced workers to the levels required.] 

11. How does the commission define basic skills? 

Answer: For purposes of the new Act, the Commission believes that the current 

definition of ‘‘basic skills’’ needs to be redefined. It will not be enough in the new 

Adult Education and Workforce Skills System we recommend to provide instruction 

in basic reading, writing, math, and ESL. Such basics as how to communicate, acquire information, think critically, solve problems, use technology, and work in 

teams need to be part of the equation to achieve ‘‘readiness.’’ This is one of the reasons that adult education groups (including community colleges) and workforce development groups must work more closely together. 

12. What is the state role in the commission’s call for reform? 

Answer: For federal leadership to deliver, the Act must require states to connect 

all key state interests (adult education, community colleges and postsecondary education generally, workforce skills, youth policy, and others) in comprehensive planning so as to coordinate and align systems consistent with their postsecondary edu-
71 

cation, workforce, and economic development goals. It will be vital in many cases 

for governors’ offices to be involved, and for authority for the required planning to 

actually be set into state legislation. 

13. In the commission’s plan, what entites have responsibilities for delivering instructional services? 

Answer: Community colleges, which now provide about one-third of adult education services in the nation, must step more to the forefront and be funded to do 

so. But all types of provider organizations are essential to the combined effort, including community-based and voluntary organizations, school districts, higher education institutions generally, business and labor, correctional education programs, 

family literacy groups, student alliances, and others—and they also need new and 

better resources to fill their roles. The big challenge is to ‘‘connect the dots’’ among 

these groups. If the Commission’s recommendations to break down the fragmentation and waste created by silos are acted on, these groups will necessarily have to 

work much more together. Beyond that, technology, including distance learning, 

must also be deployed on an unprecedented scale, for instructional purposes and 

also to help meet program management and data collection needs. 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

[VIA FACSIMILE], 

Washington, DC, February 17, 2009. 

Mr. BILL CAMP, Executive Secretary, 

Sacramento Central Labor Council, AFL–CIO, Sacramento, CA. 

DEAR MR. CAMP: Thank you for testifying at the February 12, 2008 hearing of the 

Committee on Education and Labor on ‘‘New Innovations and Best Practices Under 

the Workforce Investment Act.’’ 

Representative Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX), chairman of the Higher Education, Lifelong Learning and Competitiveness Subcommittee and member of the Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education Subcommittee, has asked that you respond in writing to the following question: 

1. How can the Workforce Investment Act partners work with the Community 

Colleges near them to use the newly designated economic recovery package funding 

for training programs? 

Please send an electronic version of your written response to the questions to the 

Committee staff by close of business on Tuesday, February 24, 2009—the date on 

which the hearing record will close. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the Committee. 

Sincerely, 

GEORGE MILLER, Chairman. 

Mr. Camp’s Response to Question Submitted for the Record 

I am responding to the question raised at the committee and reiterated in your 

February 17, 2009 letter: ‘‘How can the Workforce Investment Act partners work 

with the Community Colleges near them to use the newly designated economic recovery package funding for training programs?’’ 

In Sacramento we have already established close working relationships with the 

Los Rios Community College District which covers our entire WIB jurisdiction. 

Within the last 3 years, the employer community in response to the Sacramento 

WIB questionnaire stated specific ‘‘soft’’ skills which they considered of first importance in hiring new employees. The community college staff in coordination with the 

Sacramento WIB developed a course curriculum that when successfully completed 

would earn a ‘‘Ready to Work’’ certificate which the unemployed or underemployed 

worker could take to any employer when they applied for a job. When tracking the 

wages earned by these successful graduates of the ‘‘Ready to Work’’ classes showed 

an $8,000.00 annual increase in income. We are interested in broadening these 

classes into the high school system in preparation for those students who do not see 

themselves as 4 year college applicants. 

In addition, the Sacramento WIB is currently contracting with our community colleges for classes for utility workers who are needed by Pacific Gas and Electric and 

other utilities to replace a well paid unionized workforce that is currently retiring. 

We are currently training highway construction pre-apprenticeship workers who will 

be doing the highway construction work in the stimulus bill. In addition, we are 

training solar installers for the contractors who are working with our local public 

utility in installing solar panels. Lastly, the Sacramento WIB are training ‘‘clean 
72 

diesel mechanics’’ who will be replacing retiring Union mechanics who work for the 

Sacramento Regional Transit Agency. 

The Sacramento WIB will scourer the stimulus plan for opportunities to work 

with our local community colleges in developing courses pertinent to applicants 

seeking opportunities in these stimulus funded activities. To the degree that the 

‘‘ARRA’’ includes authorization for local WIB’s to contract for training with community colleges, apprenticeship and other training providers, the Sacramento WIB will 

work for every opportunity to enroll unemployed job seekers needing skills and development. 

Thank you for the opportunity to respond. I would be glad to share any additional 

details that might interest you. 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

[VIA FACSIMILE], 

Washington, DC, February 17, 2009. 

Ms. KAREN R. ELZEY, Vice-President and Executive Director, 

Institute for a Competitive Workforce, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MS. ELZEY: Thank you for testifying at the February 12, 2008 hearing of 

the Committee on Education and Labor on ‘‘New Innovations and Best Practices 

Under the Workforce Investment Act.’’ 

Representative Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX), chairman of the Higher Education, Lifelong Learning and Competitiveness Subcommittee and member of the Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education Subcommittee, has asked that you respond in writing to the following question: 

1. How can the Workforce Investment Act partners work with the Community 

Colleges near them to use the newly designated economic recovery package funding 

for training programs? 

Please send an electronic version of your written response to the questions to the 

Committee staff by close of business on Tuesday, February 24, 2009—the date on 

which the hearing record will close. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the Committee. 

Sincerely, 

GEORGE MILLER, Chairman. 

Ms. Elzey’s Response to Question Submitted for the Record 

Question posed by Rep. Ruben Hinojosa, Chairman, Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness of the House Committee on Education 

and Labor: How can the Workforce Investment Act partners work with the Community Colleges near them to use the newly designated economic recovery package 

funding for training programs? 

Over the past months, the United States has experienced a serious downturn in 

our economy and extraordinary turbulence in our financial markets. Millions of 

Americans are anxious about whether their skills are going to provide them with 

job opportunities in a volatile economic landscape. Community colleges play a crucial role in preparing workers with the skills demanded by employers in the evolving global economy. In the short term, meeting the needs of newly unemployed 

workers is the most urgent challenge. 

Community and technical colleges working in collaboration with the public workforce system and the business community, including chambers of commerce which 

represent hundreds of local businesses, are positioned to provide the most advanced, 

flexible, and market-driven education and training. There are several ways that 

Workforce Investment Act partners can strengthen their relationship with community colleges under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA): 

• Contract directly with community colleges for training: The American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provides an additional $2.95 billion to the Workforce 

Investment Act. Specifically, the bill ‘‘provides the authority for local Workforce Investment Boards (WIBs) to contract with institutions of higher education and other 

eligible training providers as long as the authority is not used to limit customer 

choice.’’ This provides an excellent opportunity for local WIBs to expand workforce 

training opportunities with community colleges. However, it must be ensured that 

the WIBs do not limit other training providers such as career colleges from offering 

services. 

• Provide training for middle-skill jobs: Roughly half of all occupations in today’s 

labor market are classified as middle skills jobs—those requiring more than a high 
73 

school diploma but less than a bachelor’s degree. Yet, a large percentage of the population doesn’t possess the education and training to obtain these jobs. Additional 

funding in programs such as Adult Services and Dislocated Workers allows for community colleges to work in collaboration with the workforce investment system and 

the business community to retrain and upgrade the skills of the current workforce. 

The training should be targeted for occupations that are in demand or are expected 

to grow. 

• Support high growth industries and sector-based strategies: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provides an additional $750 million in training 

for high growth industries. This initiative targets investments for public private sector partnerships to develop training programs in high demand occupations. As part 

of this program community colleges have and can continue to play a key role in both 

developing these programs and providing skills training. 

In a country as diverse and complex as ours, we must rely on a system of affordable, accessible community colleges to serve as gateways to further education and 

quality job opportunities. 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

[VIA FACSIMILE], 

Washington, DC, February 17, 2009. 

Ms. BONNIE GONZALEZ, Chief Executive Officer, 

Workforce Solutions, Inc., Lower Rio Grande Valley, McAllen, TX. 

DEAR MS. GONZALEZ: Thank you for testifying at the February 12, 2008 hearing 

of the Committee on Education and Labor on ‘‘New Innovations and Best Practices 

Under the Workforce Investment Act.’’ 

Representative Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX), chairman of the Higher Education, Lifelong Learning and Competitiveness Subcommittee and member of the Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education Subcommittee, has asked that you respond in writing to the following question: 

1. How can the Workforce Investment Act partners work with the Community 

Colleges near them to use the newly designated economic recovery package funding 

for training programs? 

Please send an electronic version of your written response to the questions to the 

Committee staff by close of business on Tuesday, February 24, 2009—the date on 

which the hearing record will close. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the Committee. 

Sincerely, 

GEORGE MILLER, Chairman. 

Ms. Gonzalez’s Response to Question Submitted for the Record 

1. How can the Workforce Investment Act partners work with the Community Colleges near them to use the newly designated economic recovery package funding for 

training programs? 

As an ‘‘early implementer’’ of WIA in 1998-1999 the State of Texas quickly 

achieved consolidation of twenty-eight (28) separately funded employment and training programs under one (1) entity—the Local Workforce Investment Board (LWIB) 

and established the delivery of services through a One-Stop Service model. The 

major services consolidate include, Employer/Business, Employment and Re-Employment Services to unemployment insurance claimants. This consolidation included 

not only services but the wealth of data of each. 

As the only state approved provider of One-Stop Services through its Workforce 

Solutions Centers, Workforce Solutions, Inc. (the Lower Rio Grande Texas LWIB) 

connects employers with job seekers and through this connection and dialogue identifies the needs of both; our Community Colleges are our partners in providing solutions. 

As a LWIB we can work with our Community Colleges as follows: 

• Convene Industry Leaders—both those affected by the current economy and 

those in the emerging industries to identify training needs for Community College 

training development 

• Conduct analysis of the current unemployed labor force to identify transferrable 

skills for rapid re-training 

• Provide Community Colleges with educational levels and training needs of the 

identified population most able to complete training and proposed timelines for completion 
74 

• Recruit the necessary number of the unemployed to fill classroom and on-site 

training 

• Utilize WIA funds and seek competitive grants to pay a portion of the training 

• Provide Assistance in applying for and obtaining maximum amounts of available financial aid through workshops on proper application completion and timely 

submission 

• Provide supportive service in the areas of child care, transportation and training related equipment to enroll and maintain enrollment in training 

• Provide ‘‘income maintenance’’ employment to trainees to fill income gaps during training 

• Provide intensive counseling in family finance/budgeting and motivational activities 

• Develop incentives for obtaining training performance benchmarks which can 

reduce training costs 

• Provide tracking of and assessments of training delivery 

• Provide tracking of and effectiveness of training upon employment 

• Provide employment retention services 

Workforce Solutions, Inc. can contribute the above, at minimum, to work with our 

Community Colleges and our employers to implement the necessary actions needed 

to rapidly provide skills training that will return our labor force to productivity. 

[Graph provided by Ms. Gonzalez follows:] 
75 
76 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

[VIA FACSIMILE], 

Washington, DC, February 17, 2009. 

Ms. SHERRY L. JOHNSON, Associate Director, 

Lincoln Trail Area Development District, Elizabethtown, KY. 

DEAR MS. JOHNSON: Thank you for testifying at the February 12, 2008 hearing 

of the Committee on Education and Labor on ‘‘New Innovations and Best Practices 

Under the Workforce Investment Act.’’ 

Representative Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX), chairman of the Higher Education, Lifelong Learning and Competitiveness Subcommittee and member of the Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education Subcommittee, has asked that you respond in writing to the following question: 

1. How can the Workforce Investment Act partners work with the Community 

Colleges near them to use the newly designated economic recovery package funding 

for training programs? 

Please send an electronic version of your written response to the questions to the 

Committee staff by close of business on Tuesday, February 24, 2009—the date on 

which the hearing record will close. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the Committee. 

Sincerely, 

GEORGE MILLER, Chairman. 

Ms. Johnson’s Response to Question Submitted for the Record 

How can the Workforce Investment Act partners work with the Community Colleges 

near them to use the newly designated economic recovery package funding for training programs? 

Practitioner Response: The Lincoln Trail Workforce Investment Area and the Elizabethtown Community and Technical College (ECTC) have a long history of partnership and collaboration for addressing employment needs of the region. The current 

economic crisis in America allows us to build upon this relationship to expand training opportunities, both long and short term, but to look at the possibility of developing ‘‘refresher’’ courses in subjects such as math, writing skills, introduction to 

computers, entrepreneurial, etc. Discussions will be held to expand training opportunities in high demand sectors in the local labor market—i.e., healthcare, information 

technology (as it relates to Fort Knox demands/needs), and service related occupations. This might include purchasing class-size projects. 

Past examples of our strong relationship with the community college: 

• Establishment of a healthcare career pathways program that is promoted nationally as a successful model for replication. 

• Establishment of the ‘‘Options Workshops’’ for dislocated workers. These workshops are above and beyond our normal rapid response activities. Community partners have included—KY Society for Financial Planners, a local financial planner, 

United Way, local Ministerial Association, etc. The college has also offered dislocated workers two non-credit courses for free. 

• Development of a youth career pathways project in high demand occupations in 

the local labor market. 

• Development of career pathways project at the request of the U.S. Federal 

Highway and Safety Administration and Kentucky Cabinet for Transportation. 

Project was replicated in two other areas across the state. 

• Assisted in the WIRED grant application process. 

• Developing web-based curriculum in response to U.S. Army’s Human Resource 

Command needs—‘‘Military 101’’ and ‘‘Introduction to Military Personnel Management’’. Scheduled for launch in Spring 2009. 

It is important to recognize that ‘‘training’’ is not necessary for everyone and 

should not be the sole focus of our efforts. We need to consider other alternatives 

as well. Workshops on resume writing; interviewing skills; budgeting your finances, 

retirement, savings, etc. are vital tools for individuals as well. 

Quite frankly, the Elizabethtown Community and Technical College is not just important to our local workforce response during the current crisis but a vital partner 

each and every day. The success of our workforce efforts in the region have been 

and will continue to be addressed through the partnership we have with the college. 

Any time we have a new initiative, a plant closure/layoff, or any workforce related 

project—the very first call we make is to the college right across the street. 
77 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

[VIA FACSIMILE], 

Washington, DC, February 17, 2009. 

Mr. STEPHEN WOODERSON, State Administrator, 

Iowa Vocational Rehabilitation Services, Des Moines, IA 

DEAR MR. WOODERSON: 

Thank you for testifying at the February 12, 2008 hearing of the Committee on 

Education and Labor on ‘‘New Innovations and Best Practices Under the Workforce 

Investment Act.’’ 

Representative Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX), chairman of the Higher Education, Lifelong Learning and Competitiveness Subcommittee and member of the Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education Subcommittee, has asked that you respond in writing to the following question: 

1. How can the Workforce Investment Act partners work with the Community 

Colleges near them to use the newly designated economic recovery package funding 

for training programs? 

Please send an electronic version of your written response to the questions to the 

Committee staff by close of business on Tuesday, February 24, 2009—the date on 

which the hearing record will close. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the Committee. 

Sincerely, 

GEORGE MILLER, Chairman. 

Mr. Wooderson’s Response to Question Submitted for the Record 

Responding to: ‘‘How can the Workforce Investment Act partners work with the 

Community Colleges near them to use the newly designated economic recovery package funding for training programs?’’ 

In Iowa we work extensively with the 15 community colleges in our state. In addition to continuing to build training apprenticeships for high demand-high skilled 

trades, I encourage partnerships that foster employment outcomes. I offer the following suggestion. 

In the Des Moines, IA IVRS has partnered with the Community College and 

Workforce Partners and developed a project with the following Purpose and Goals: 

• Purpose: To organize individual agency efforts into collaborative, proactive customer-based activity that leverages resources of each organization to improve access 

for persons with disabilities to the local labor market. 

• Goal 1—To increase outreach to business and industry through the delivery of 

technical assistance, consultation and training by the community college, vocational 

rehabilitation and Veterans Administration staff. 

• Goal 2—To bring the employment life and academic experience for students 

with disabilities into balance through practical application of learning 

• Goal 3—To increase the numbers of persons with disabilities employed on all 

campuses. 

The strategies developed through such a project have resulted in: 

• New relationships with local business and industry 

• Consultation and technical assistance to encourage business and industry to become ‘‘disability friendly’’ 

• Development of new apprenticeship models 

• Increase in employment of persons with disabilities on the community college 

campus 

Thank you for the opportunity to respond. 

Without objection, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:43 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(79) 

NEW INNOVATIONS AND BEST PRACTICES 

UNDER THE WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT 

Thursday, February 26, 2009 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Higher Education, 

Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness 

Committee on Education and Labor 

Washington, DC 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in room 

2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ruben Hinojosa [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Hinojosa, Bishop of New York, Andrews, Wu, Davis, Fudge, Polis, Guthrie, McKeon, Biggert, and 

Roe. 

Staff present: Tylease Alli, Hearing Clerk; Adrienne Dunbar, 

Education Policy Advisor; David Hartzler, Systems Administrator; 

Fred Jones, Staff Assistant, Education; Jessica Kahanek, Press Assistant; Brian Kennedy, General Counsel; Ricardo Martinez, Policy 

Advisor, Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning 

and Competitiveness; Joe Novotny, Chief Clerk; Michele 

Varnhagen, Labor Policy Director; Margaret Young, Staff Assistant, Education; Stephanie Arras, Minority Legislative Assistant; 

James Bergeron, Minority Deputy Director of Education and 

Human Services Policy; Cameron Coursen, Minority Assistant 

Communications Director; Kirsten Duncan, Minority Professional 

Staff Member; Chad Miller, Minority Professional Staff; Susan 

Ross, Minority Director of Education and Human Resources Policy; 

and Linda Stevens, Minority Chief Clerk/Assistant to the General 

Counsel. 

Chairman HINOJOSA [presiding]. A quorum is present. The hearing of the subcommittee will come to order. 

Pursuant to the Committee Rule XII, any member may submit 

an opening statement in writing which will be made part of the 

permanent record. I now recognize myself, followed by Ranking 

Member Brett Guthrie, for an opening statement. 

I want to thank everyone who is here this morning. I welcome 

you to the Higher Education, Lifelong Learning and Competitiveness Subcommittee second hearing in preparation for the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act. 

As with our first hearing, we are going to focus on new innovations and best practices that will improve the workforce develop-
80 

ment system. Each day, our task to renew the Workforce Investment Act grows more urgent. 

On Tuesday, President Obama called on all Americans to commit 

themselves to one year of college or post-secondary training. Last 

week, the president signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to save or create 3.5 million jobs. 

With a nearly $5 billion investment in our job-training programs 

by the Department of Labor, this law places a specific priority on 

assistance that will offer family-sustaining wages to workers who 

have the greatest barriers to finding employment. 

Yet from our last hearing, we know that an estimated 80 million 

to 90 million adults lack the basic education and skills to answer 

the president’s call or to qualify for the jobs that will be created 

by the stimulus plan. According to a recent analysis by Anthony 

Carnevale at Georgetown University Center on Education and the 

Workforce, 54 percent of these jobs will require at least some postsecondary education, and high school dropouts will be eligible for 

only about one-fourth of those jobs that will available. 

We will have to call upon our workforce development system that 

is supported through the Workforce Investment Act to bridge that 

gap. This will require innovation and new approaches to delivering 

job-training and education. 

In recent years, the trends have not been positive for low-income, 

low-skilled workers in the WIA system. According to an analysis by 

the Center for Law and Social Policy, the share of low-income participants who received intensive and training services under WIA 

dropped from 84 percent in the year 2000 to 53.7 percent in the 

year 2007. 

Likewise, the share of workers with low levels of educational attainment who received intensive or training services dropped from 

77.9 percent to 68.7 percent. We need to reverse those trends. 

However, there are examples of innovation and best practices 

across the country where job-training, education, and support services have been integrated into a system of career pathways that 

has enabled workers to complete secondary school, learn English, 

and earn a post-secondary credential, facilitating their entry into 

higher-skilled, higher-paying jobs. We need to build on those successes. 

A similar approach has shown promise with our youth programs. 

Under a reauthorization WIA, we have an opportunity to strengthen our youth programs to not only connect youth to the workplace, 

but also help them to establish lasting bonds to education and lifelong learning. 

Our witnesses today will share with us what practices have been 

most successful in their experience with the workforce investment 

system. 

I thank you for joining us. And I am looking forward to your testimony. 

I now yield time to the ranking member, Mr. Brett Guthrie of 

Kentucky, for his opening statement. 

Brett? 

[The statement of Mr. Hinojosa follows:] 
81 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Rube ́n Hinojosa, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness 

Good Morning. Welcome to the Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness Subcommittee’s second hearing in preparation for the reauthorization 

of the Workforce Investment Act. As with our first hearing, we are going to focus 

on new innovations and best practices that will improve the workforce development 

system. 

Each day, our task to renew the Workforce Investment Act grows more urgent. 

On Tuesday, President Obama called on all Americans to commit themselves to 

one year of college or postsecondary training. 

Last week, the President signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to 

save or create 3.5 million jobs. With a nearly $5 billion investment in our job training programs by the Department of Labor, this law places a specific priority on assistance that will offer family sustaining wages to workers who have the greatest 

barriers to finding employment. 

Yet from our last hearing, we know that an estimated 80—90 million adults lack 

the basic education and skills to answer the President’s call or qualify for the jobs 

that will be created. 

According to a recent analysis by Anthony Carnevale at Georgetown University’s 

Center on Education and the Workforce, 54 percent of these jobs will require at 

least some postsecondary education and high school dropouts will be eligible for only 

about one-fourth of them. 

We will have to call upon our workforce development system that is supported 

through the Workforce Investment Act to bridge that gap. This will require innovation and new approaches to delivering job training and education. 

In recent years, the trends have not been positive for low-income, low-skilled 

workers in the WIA system. According to an analysis by the Center for Law and 

Social Policy, the share of low-income participants who received intensive and training services under WIA dropped from 84 percent in 2000 to 53.7 percent in 2007. 

Likewise, the share of workers with low levels of educational attainment who received intensive or training services dropped from 77.9 percent to 68.7 percent. We 

need to reverse those trends. 

However, there are examples of innovation and best practices across the country 

where job training, education, and support services have been integrated into a system of career pathways that has enabled workers to complete secondary school, 

learn English, and earn a postsecondary credential, facilitating their entry into 

higher-skilled, higher-paying jobs. We need to build on those successes. 

A similar approach has shown promise with our youth programs. Under a reauthorized WIA, we have an opportunity to strengthen our youth programs to not only 

connect youth to the workplace but also help them establish lasting bonds to education and lifelong learning. 

Our witnesses today will share with us what practices have been most successful 

in their experience with the workforce investment system. 

Thank you for joining us. I am looking forward to your testimony. 

I now yield to the Ranking Member, Mr. Brett Guthrie of Kentucky, for his opening statement. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for calling this hearing on this such an important package that we are 

going to be working on throughout the spring and summer. 

In the last month, we lost nearly 600,000 jobs, and the number 

of unemployed workers grows with each day, and the need to help 

them find news job has never been greater. 

It has been more than a decade since federal job-training initiatives have been updated. With a changing economy and growing 

unemployment rates, the time to renew this legislation is now. 

We must be committed to a dynamic, results-oriented job-training system that can effectively serve those looking for a job and 

those workers in need of retraining. The one-stop shops under the 

Workforce Investment Act are the best resource to provide this 

type of job-training. 
82 

I am reminded of a story from a local official in my district that 

stresses the importance of these one-stop shops. In 2006, Judge 

Dave Hourigan, the Marin County judge executive, or our county’s 

chief executive—we call them judges in Kentucky—saw the need to 

create a one-stop shop in his county. 

He understood the importance of consolidating services and developing a central place where people could go to access job-placement information, education, and training, and other assistance, so 

the judge decided to make this a reality for Marion County. He 

worked with business and community leaders to find donated space 

to open the center. Then he worked to connect the center to local 

businesses and industry so that it could be more effective. 

Because of Judge Hourigan’s commitment, Marion Countians 

now have a responsive centralized system in their backyard to provide valuable resources for both employees and employers. It is this 

type of commitment we need to make sure our workforce remains 

competitive. 

It is critical that we continue using the one-stop shop model to 

develop a workforce that meets our economy’s changing needs. 

These centers are working well, and they are the key to providing 

Americans with better jobs and better lives and, in turn, providing 

America with a stronger workforce. 

However, we must continue to keep local workforce investment 

boards, including representatives from the business community, at 

the center of this process. These local businesses will create the 

new jobs that the center will help fill, so they must be at the center 

of the workforce system. 

As a former small businessman, I, like Judge Hourigan, recognize the need for a collaborative effort that includes businesses 

working with the one-stop shop to provide the best services for 

workers who need them. 

I look forward to today’s testimony and learning more about the 

best practices and innovative ideas from around the country as we 

work to reauthorize this important legislation. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The statement of Mr. Guthrie follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Brett Guthrie, Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competiveness 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing and I welcome our distinguished witnesses. 

Last month, we lost nearly 600,000 jobs. The number of unemployed workers 

grows with each day, and the need to help them find new jobs has never been greater. It has been more than a decade since federal job training initiatives have been 

updated. With a changing economy and growing unemployment rate, the time to 

renew this legislation is now. 

We must be committed to a dynamic, results-oriented job training system that can 

effectively serve those looking for a job and those workers in need of retraining. The 

one-stop shops under the Workforce Investment Act are the best resource to provide 

this type of job training system. 

I am reminded of a story from a local official in my district that stresses the importance of these one-stop shops. In 2006, Dave Hourigan, the Marion County 

Judge/Executive or the county’s chief executive officer, in my home state of Kentucky saw the need to create a one-stop shop in his county. He understood the importance of consolidating services and developing a central place where people could 

go to access job placement information, education and training, and other assistance. So, the Judge decided to make this a reality for Marion County. He worked 

with business and community leaders to find donated space to open the center. 
83 

Then, he worked to connect the center to local businesses and industries so that it 

could be more effective. Because of Judge Hourigan’s commitment, Marion 

Countians now have a responsive, centralized system in their backyard to provide 

valuable resources for both employees and employers. 

It is this type of commitment that we need in order to make sure our workforce 

remains competitive. It is critical that we continue using this one-stop shop model 

to develop a workforce that meets our economy’s changing needs. While these centers are working well, providing Americans with better jobs and better lives, and 

in turn, providing America with a stronger workforce, there is still work to be done. 

In our hearing two weeks ago, witnesses testified about concerns over the size of 

local workforce boards and urged us to maintain the business majority on those 

boards. It is clear that we must continue to keep local workforce investment boards, 

including representatives from the business community, at the center of our workforce development system. Local businesses will create the new jobs that one-stop 

centers will help fill, which is what makes this system an essential component of 

our country’s economic growth. As a former small businessman, I, like Judge 

Hourigan, recognize the need for a collaborative effort that includes businesses 

working with the local one-stop shop to provide the best services for the workers 

who need them. 

I look forward to today’s testimony and learning more about the best practices 

and innovative ideas from around the country as we work to reauthorize this important legislation. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Without objection, all members have 14 

days to submit additional materials or questions for the hearing 

record. 

I would like to introduce our very distinguished first panel of 

witnesses here with us this morning. Welcome to each and every 

one of you. 

I wish to explain the lighting system. For those of you who have 

not testified before this subcommittee, allow me to explain our 

lighting system and the 5-minute rule. Everyone, including members, is limited to 5 minutes of presentation or questioning. 

The green light is illuminated when you begin to speak. When 

you see the yellow light, it means you have 1 minute remaining. 

When you see the red light, it means your time has expired and 

you need to conclude your testimony. 

Please be certain, as you testify, to turn on and speak into the 

microphone in front of you so that everyone can hear you. 

We will now hear from our first witness. 

I am going to introduce all three members of this first panel, and 

then we will get started with Ms. Keenan. 

Cheryl is the Director of the U.S. Department of Education’s Division of Adult Education and Literacy in the Office of Vocational 

and Adult Education. In her role as the national director, she oversees the office which funds almost $600 million in state and local 

grant programs to enable adults to become literate and complete 

high school so they can succeed as workers, as parents and citizens. 

Prior to her appointment to this department, she served as the 

Pennsylvania State Director of Adult Education and Literacy. Ms. 

Keenan holds undergraduate and graduate degrees in the field of 

education. We are aware that your office is extremely busy during 

the transition, but we really appreciate your willingness to visit 

with us today and share your knowledge. 

Mr. George Scott, George is the Director of Education and Workforce and Income Security Issues for the U.S. Government Accountability Office. George has been a familiar and frequent witness be-
84 

fore our committee, as well as an important contributor for several 

of our field hearings. He is responsible for overseeing the highquality work the agency provides for our reports across a number 

of areas in our committee jurisdiction. 

He is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel 

Hill and has received several GAO management awards. In 2003, 

he was the 2003 nominee for the William A. Jump Memorial 

Award for exemplary achievement in public administration. 

Welcome, Mr. Scott. And it is always good to have you before our 

subcommittee today, and we look forward to your remarks. 

Mr. John Morales is the Executive Director of the Yuma County 

Workforce Investment Board in Yuma, Arizona. John has over 30 

years of experience in working in employment and training in economic development and behavioral health programs. Over the 

years, he has chaired numerous professional associations on workforce and economic development. And in Arizona, he was named to 

the governor’s P-20 Council on early education through post-secondary alignment. 

He is a firm believer in lifelong learning activities, and I can only 

say that he has selected the right subcommittee in which to come 

and discuss lifelong learning. 

We welcome you, sir. We welcome Mr. Morales. We are happy to 

have you with us. 

We will now start with Ms. Keenan. 

STATEMENT OF CHERYL KEENAN, DIRECTOR OF THE DIVISION OF ADULT EDUCATION AND LITERACY, U.S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Ms. KEENAN. Chairman Hinojosa and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to talk with you today 

about the federally funded adult education programs that the Department of Education administers and the significant role they 

can play in supporting America’s economic recovery. 

Adult education is an important part of the Workforce Investment Act, and we appreciate your recognition of its role in helping 

adults to increase their literacy skills, to learn English, to transition to post-secondary education, and obtain jobs that pay familysupporting wages. 

I would like to note that the Adult Education State Grant Program is one of only six department programs to achieve an effective 

rating under the OMB PART review, which is designed to assess 

and improve program performance and identify program strengths 

and weaknesses. 

So who does this program serve? Adults eligible for services are 

at least 16 years old, are beyond their state’s age for compulsory 

school attendance, are not enrolled in high school, and lack sufficient mastery of basic education or English proficiency. 

More than 2.3 million students enrolled in the adult education 

programs nationwide last year. Forty-five percent of those students 

enrolled in English literacy classes to improve their English proficiency. Forty-one percent enrolled in adult basic ed programs, 

which provides instruction to adults in reading and math below the 

eighth-grade level. And 14 percent enrolled in adult secondary pro-
85 

grams which provide instruction between the 9th-and 12th-grade 

levels. 

Hispanics comprise the largest ethnic group enrolled in adult 

education, at about 44 percent, followed by whites, African-Americans, and Asians. Adult education programs serve a significant 

youth population, primarily high-school dropouts. Last year, more 

than one-third of students—or 850,000—enrolled in adult education 

were between the ages of 16 and 24. Nearly 500,000 of these young 

learners had math and reading skills below the eighth-grade level. 

More than 1 million adults enroll in programs to improve their 

English proficiency. Three-fourths of these adults have English literacy levels at low-beginning to low-intermediate, indicating a significant need to improve both spoken and written English-language 

skills. 

Appropriations for the Adult Education State Grant Program 

have remained at approximately $650 million annually for the last 

5 years. Federal dollars appropriated under AEFLA support adult 

learning through more than 4,100 providers nationwide. Slightly 

more than half of these are local education agencies; 16 percent are 

post-secondary institutions; 21 percent are community-based organizations; and about 3 percent are faith-based organizations. 

The law requires states to establish outcome-based accountability 

systems to determine the effectiveness of local providers in continuously improving adult education activities. Student outcomes that 

states report are on educational gains, attainment of a high-school 

diploma, entry into post-secondary education or training, obtaining 

and retaining employment. 

In the last 5 years, over 3.9 million enrolled adults, or almost 40 

percent, have improved reading, math and English proficiency as 

a result of their enrollment in adult education, and 51 percent of 

the people who came with the goal of getting a GED were successful in achieving that goal. The program also helped over 600,000 

people to get jobs. 

But many challenges still exist in the job market, where the bar 

for literacy skills that are required for family-supporting wages is 

constantly being raised. Our federal-state partnership serves only 

a very small portion of adults who need literacy instruction, and 

America’s high-school dropout rate is significant, and students who 

leave high school frequently look to adult education to provide the 

education and support they need to earn the secondary credential 

required for even the most basic employment. 

Adults need post-secondary credentials to obtain jobs that will 

allow them to feed their families and pay their mortgages, and yet 

65 percent of adults have no associate or higher degrees. Immigrants need to learn English for employment and to participate in 

civic functions that are necessary for life in our democracy, yet onethird of foreign-born persons in the United States do not have a 

high-school diploma, and nearly 18 million are limited in their proficiency in English. 

How is the department addressing these challenges? We have 

created initiatives designed to address the challenges facing adult 

education programs nationwide by enhancing teacher quality and 

stimulating development and innovation. 
86 

In recent years, Congress has appropriated between $7 million and $9 million for national leadership activities, and we use these 

funds to help address our current economic challenges. 

One such effort, the Adult Basic Education Career Connections 

project is expanding the pipeline to post-secondary occupational 

training by preparing low-skilled adults for entry into and advancement in high-demand employment based on regional economic 

needs. 

Several states have launched large-scale efforts to realign their 

adult education systems with these pathway models. The state of 

Washington has developed its I-BEST model that delivers Englishas-a-second-language instruction integrated with occupational 

skills training. 

And states are also using funds available to them under their incentive grant program, section 503 of WIA, to support these efforts. 

For instance, Oregon has invested incentive money to connect its 

adult basic skills program to its post-secondary pathways, and Ohio 

is involved in a similar effort. 

Chairman HINOJOSA [continuing]. Conclusion, I would ask you to 

please do so, and be assured that I will include the entire statement into the record. 

Ms. KEENAN. We are proud of our support for adult education, 

and I hope it can contribute to the success of America’s recovery, 

especially in bringing basic literacy and English-skills training to 

low-income adults. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify about the department’s 

adult ed program, and we look forward to working with you to support the needs of adult learners. I am happy to respond to any 

questions. 

[The statement of Ms. Keenan follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Cheryl Keenan, Director of Adult Education and 

Literacy, Office of Vocational and Adult Education, U.S. Department of 

Education 

Chairman Hinojosa and Members of the Subcommittee, the Department appreciates this opportunity to talk with you about the federally funded adult education 

programs that the Department of Education administers and the significant role 

they can play in supporting America’s economic recovery. Adult education is an important part of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), and we appreciate your recognition of its role in helping adults increase their literacy skills, learn English, 

transition to postsecondary education, and obtain jobs that pay family-supporting 

wages. The Department very much looks forward to working with you to ensure that 

adult education programs continue to effectively prepare participating adults for employment and further learning. 

I am the director of the Department’s Division of Adult Education and Literacy. 

Our division is housed in the Office of Vocational and Adult Education (OVAE). The 

division is responsible for the Adult Education State Grant Program as well as national leadership initiatives to support State and local accountability, program improvement, and innovation authorized by the Adult Education and Family Literacy 

Act (AEFLA) in Title II of the WIA. 

Today, I will discuss the Department’s adult education program and include some 

information on current learner demographics, program performance, and national 

initiatives that help adults in the United States obtain the literacy and employability skills they need to get and keep family-supporting jobs. 

We are proud that the Adult Education State Grant Program is rated ‘‘effective’’ 

by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Our program participated in 

OMB’s 2006 Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) review, which is designed to 

assess and improve program performance, and identify program strengths and 

weaknesses. The Adult Education State Grant Program was one of five Department 

programs to achieve an ‘‘effective’’ rating during the time the Executive Branch car-
87 

ried out PART reviews. The PART assessment findings, including the scoring and 

explanation for program design, program management, strategic planning, program 

management, and program accountability are available online at 

www.Expectmore.gov. 

Who Does Adult Education Serve? 

Adults eligible for services funded by AEFLA are at least 16 years old, are beyond 

their State’s age for compulsory school attendance, are not enrolled in high school, 

and lack sufficient mastery of basic educational skills. They do not have a secondary 

school diploma (or its equivalent) or are unable to read, speak, or write in English. 

More than 2.3 million students enrolled in adult education programs nationwide last 

year. Of those, 45 percent participated in English literacy programs (EL), 41 percent 

in adult basic education (ABE), which provides instruction to adults with reading 

and math below the eighth grade, and 14 percent in adult secondary education 

(ASE), which provides instruction between ninth and twelfth grade levels. Our most 

recent data show that Hispanics comprise the largest ethnic group enrolled in adult 

education programs at 44 percent, followed by White at 26 percent, African Americans at 20 percent, and Asians at 8 percent. 

Adult education programs serve a varied and significant youth population, primarily high school drop-outs. Last year, more than one third of students (850,000) 

enrolled in adult education were between the ages of 16 and 24. Nearly one half 

million of these young learners had math and reading skills below the eighth-grade 

level. About one fifth of these learners were unable to read, write, or speak English 

well enough to function on the job or participate in civic functions. 

More than one million adults enrolled in programs assisted by AEFLA to improve 

their English proficiency. Three-fourths of these adults, when assessed, were found 

to have English literacy levels at ‘‘low beginning’’ to ‘‘low intermediate,’’ indicating 

a significant need to improve both spoken and written English-language skills to attain the proficiency necessary to allow them to advance in America and obtain family-supporting jobs. 

How Is Adult Education Delivered? 

Appropriations for the Adult Education State Grant Program have remained at approximately $560 million annually for the last five years. Program funding is distributed by formula to a State agency designated by State law. Nationwide, we find 

that 33 States provide State Grant funds to State educational agencies (SEAs), 12 

States provide them to their community college or technical college systems, two 

States provide them to State workforce agencies, and five States provide the funds 

to their State Labor Departments. 

The law requires that at least 25% of the total amount of funds expended for 

adult education and literacy activities in a State be from non-Federal contributions. 

Financial reports submitted to our Adult Education National Reporting System 

(NRS) show that on average every Federal dollar is matched by an impressive nationwide average of $3.50 in non-Federal spending to educate adults who need to 

learn English or whose basic literacy skills are too low obtain family-supporting employment. Some States spend as much as $9 dollars for every Federal adult education dollar they receive. Florida is an example of a State that matches at that 

level. Other States spend only the minimum required. 

State agencies designated to receive AEFLA funds must, by law, distribute the 

funds competitively to eligible providers, including local school districts, postsecondary institutions, and community and faith-based organizations. Federal dollars 

appropriated under AEFLA support adult learning through more than 4,100 providers nationwide. Slightly more than half (51 percent) of these providers are local 

educational agencies; 16 percent are postsecondary institutions—primarily community, junior, or technical colleges. Among smaller providers, 21 percent of the national total are community-based organizations, and about three percent are faithbased organizations. We also find that four percent of all providers are correctional 

institutions and two percent are libraries. 

How Is the Quality and Transparency of Adult Education Services Ensured? 

The Department is helping States ensure program quality as well as making performance accountability information transparent and easily available to Congress 

and the public. The Adult Education State Grant program is one of the first Federal 

education programs to build a publicly available system providing national data that 

can be used to evaluate State program effectiveness and ensure continuous improvement. Our Adult Education National Reporting System (NRS) collects and monitors 

data on adult education student outcomes, and State-level data are available to the 

public on line. The Department has assisted States and local programs in using the 

data they collect for the NRS to develop publicly available, easy-to-understand re-
88 

port cards demonstrating State and local performance on student achievement. Several States use report cards to provide performance data to State legislators, students, and the public. 

AEFLA requires States to establish outcome-based accountability systems to determine the effectiveness of local providers in continuously improving adult education activities. The national reporting system (NRS) identifies five core student 

outcomes that States report on to meet their accountability requirements under 

AEFLA, along with definitions of the measures, methodologies for collecting them, 

and reporting formats. The five core measures are: 1) educational gain, 2) attainment of a high school diploma, 3) entry into postsecondary education or training, 

4) entered employment, and 5) job retention. 

States are adopting performance-based funding models to distribute both Federal 

and State adult education funds. These models provide incentives for local providers 

to improve the quality and effectiveness of their services. At least ten States use 

some form of performance-based criteria in funding adult education service providers. The Department is supporting a national project to assist States in implementing performance-based funding by providing training and technical assistance 

on performance-based funding for States that want to create or improve such systems. Sixteen States recently participated in our national training workshop on performance-based funding supported by this AEFLA national leadership project. 

What Results Does Adult Education Achieve? 

In the last five years, over 3.9 million enrolled adults have made ‘‘demonstrated 

improvements’’, as measured on standardized assessments, in reading, math, and 

English proficiency. Highlights from our NRS five-year aggregate data show that: 

1) 615,828 learners or 42% who set a goal of obtaining a job found and entered 

employment after they exited the program. 

2) 813,367 learners or 51% who set a goal of obtaining a GED (or its State equivalent) received a GED. 

3) 231,691 learners or 37% who set a goal of enrolling in postsecondary education 

successfully entered postsecondary education or training after completing the program. 

4) 1.8 million adult learners or 38% succeeded in improving basic literacy skills. 

5) 2.1 million immigrants or 39% improved writing, reading, and oral proficiency 

in English. 

What Challenges Face Adult Education? 

The Department’s work in partnership with the States has produced significant 

accomplishments and helped many learners achieve their education and employment goals. Many challenges still exist, particularly in the job market, where the 

‘‘bar’’ for literacy skills that are required for family-supporting employment is constantly being raised. 

1) Our Federal-State partnership serves only a small portion of the adults who 

need literacy instruction. The 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL) 

found that over 30 million adults have below-basic levels of literacy and another 63 

million read English only at a very basic level. This finding indicates that 44 percent of adults living in the U.S. could benefit from English literacy instruction. In 

addition, our State partners are facing the worst fiscal crisis since World War II and 

must re-examine all their financial commitments, including appropriations for adult 

education. 

2) America’s high school drop-out rate is significant, and students who leave high 

school frequently look to adult education to provide the education and support they 

need to earn the secondary credential required for even the most basic employment. 

Data from the Department’s National Center for Education Statistics show that 73.2 

percent of public school students graduate within four years of starting high school. 

Among young adults, ages 16 to 24, 9.3 percent are out of school and don’t have 

a diploma. 

3) Adults need postsecondary credentials to obtain jobs that will allow them to 

feed their families and pay their mortgages. The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that almost 75 percent of jobs in occupations that are projected to experience 

above average employment growth through 2016 and had above average wages in 

2006 typically require some level of postsecondary education. Currently, according 

to the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2007 American Community Survey, 65 percent of 

adults have no associate or higher degree. 

4) Immigrants with lower educational skills and training need to learn English 

not only for employment but also to participate in civic functions that are necessary 

for life in our democracy. The U.S. Census indicates that the number of adults who 

are immigrants and/or who speak English less than ‘‘very well’’ is significant and 
89 

growing. Assuming that today’s levels of immigration remain constant, immigrants 

are expected to account for half of the U.S. population by 2015 (based on 2007 Educational Testing Service report entitled America’s Perfect Storm: Three Forces 

Changing Our Nation’s Future, ETS, 2007). One-third of foreign-born persons in the 

U.S. do not have a high school diploma, and approximately 17.8 million adults are 

limited English proficient. 

How Is the Department Addressing the Challenges? 

The Department has created initiatives designed to address the challenges facing 

adult education programs nationwide by enhancing program quality and stimulating 

development and innovation. Our leadership initiatives are carried out under the 

authority of section 243 of the AEFLA, which authorizes the Secretary to establish 

and carry out a ‘‘program of national leadership activities to enhance the quality 

of adult education and literacy programs nationwide.’’ In recent years, Congress has 

appropriated between roughly $7 million and $9 million for these activities. 

The Department is using currently using national leadership funds to help address our current economic challenges. We are supporting projects to develop innovative models that should help to connect completion of basic skills and English proficiency instruction to acquisition of high-demand jobs. National leadership funds 

are expanding the ‘‘pipeline’’ to postsecondary occupational training by preparing 

low-skilled adults for entry into, and advancement in, high-demand employment, 

based on regional economic needs. 

The Adult Basic Education (ABE) Career Connections project, supported by national activities funds, is working in six local demonstration sites to assist ABE students to obtain the education and training necessary to begin careers in high-demand fields. One local program participating in this project is Instituto del Progreso 

Latino in Illinois, which is extending its certified nursing assistant program and creating a certified medical assistant program in response to the local labor demands 

in healthcare. Career pathway programs like the one at Instituto del Progreso 

Latino link basic education funding under AEFLA with projects for academic postsecondary coursework, work-specific instruction, hands-on classroom, and work site 

training supported by others. 

Several States have launched large-scale efforts to realign their adult education 

systems with these ‘‘pathways’’ models supported in part by State leadership funds 

made available to all States under section 223 of the AEFLA. The State of Washington has developed a model that delivers English as a Second Language instruction integrated with occupational skills training. States also are using incentive 

funds provided under section 503 of the WIA to support these efforts. Oregon has 

invested its incentive money to connect its adult basic-skills program with its postsecondary career pathways initiative. Ohio has used its incentive funds to build its 

‘‘stackable credential’’ model so that the model extends to the adult basic education 

program. 

The Department also uses national leadership funds to support other projects 

linking low-skilled adults to the training they need for family-supporting employment. Our ‘‘Ready for College’’ discretionary grants help youths who have dropped 

out complete high school and prepare to succeed in college. The four States participating in this project (Kansas, New Jersey, Colorado and North Carolina) are demonstrating how to enhance adult secondary education to better prepare young adults 

for college success. The Kansas Board of Regents is working with seven community 

colleges to improve teacher quality in math, writing, and critical thinking instruction. Essex County College in New Jersey leveraged its work on this project to earn 

private sector funding through Walmart’s Gateway to College National Network. 

These innovative projects link adult education with other funding sources that pay 

for a range of services that would not otherwise be provided by the adult education 

program. 

How Is Collaboration Improving Adult Education Services? 

The Department uses AEFLA national leadership funds to promote increased collaboration between the WIA Title I One-Stop system and the Title II adult education system in order to improve outcomes for adults who have both basic skills 

and employment needs. For example, using those funds, Maryland’s Montgomery 

College and Montgomery Works’ One-Stop Center collaborated to revise an English 

language customer-service training course developed by the National Retail Federation. The course integrates training on customer-service job skills with learning 

English. The State of Washington’s Yakima Valley Community College and South 

Central Workforce Council worked together to enhance adult learners’ basic literacy 

skills and their transition to employment. This project assessed clients who were receiving Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) benefits and referred those 
90 

with appropriate skills and interest in allied health to a Nurses’ Assistant Certification training program offered by the college. Adult basic education providers and 

One-Stop Career Centers in Springfield and St. Joseph, Missouri, developed a model 

for referring clients from a shared client database between adult education programs and the career centers. 

By supporting projects like these, the Department has used national leadership 

funds to design models that link adult basic-skills instruction with employment and 

ensured that adult education programs retain their mission as education programs. 

In providing assistance, our programs provide instruction in reading, writing, and 

math at a level appropriate to participants’ needs. Reading skill is a gatekeeper for 

all other areas of education, and few adult education teachers currently have research-based training in how to teach reading effectively. 

Collaboration among the Department, the National Institute for Literacy, and the 

National Institute of Child Health and Development has been fruitful in identifying 

the evidence base for high-quality reading instruction. The Department is 

partnering with 18 States (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, and Wisconsin) to put this knowledge to work in classrooms by providing intensive teacher training in evidence-based 

reading instruction. 

The Department assists States in improving the quality of English as a Second 

Language teachers so that they can better meet the education and employment 

needs of adults with limited English skills. Direct technical assistance supported by 

the Department’s national leadership funds has been provided to 30 States in the 

last five years by the Department’s Center for Adult English Language Acquisition 

(CAELA) and CAELA Network projects. In Texas, teams of staff, regional professional developers, and local program administrators and teachers have worked to 

develop teacher training to better integrate workplace skills into ESL instruction, 

and to effectively teach adults at beginning literacy levels. 

In conclusion 

We are very proud of our support for adult education and hope it can contribute 

to the success of America’s economic recovery, especially in bringing basic literacy 

and English skills training to low-income adults. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify about the Department’s adult education 

programs. We look forward to working with you to support the needs of adult education learners. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Thank you. 

Mr. Scott? 

STATEMENT OF GEORGE A. SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, 

WORKFORCE AND INCOME SECURITY ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Guthrie, and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to be here today to discuss 

the findings from our prior work on the workforce system under 

the Workforce Investment Act, WIA. As you know, WIA sought to 

transform a fragmented employment and training system into a 

single, one-stop system that serves the needs of all job-seekers and 

employers. 

In the current economic crisis, as increasing numbers of workers 

become unemployed, the system plays a central role in helping 

workers re-enter the workforce. 

My testimony today will discuss the progress the Department of 

Labor has made in addressing key areas of concerns and what 

steps Labor has taken to ensure an understanding of what works 

and for whom in addressing the needs of workers and employers. 

In summary, Labor has made progress in a number of areas, including addressing concerns regarding performance measurement. 

In 2005, Labor began requiring states to implement a common set 
91 

of performance measures for its employment and training programs. 

The move to common measures helps provide a more complete 

picture of WIA services and may encourage one-stops to provide 

services to challenging clients. However, further action may be 

needed to help reduce the incentive to serve only those who help 

the one-stops meet their performance levels. 

Labor has also made strides in improving the accuracy of performance data and states’ ability to share unemployment insurance 

wage records, the primary data source for tracking WIA performance. We previously noted that almost all state officials we surveyed reported that Labor’s data validation requirements have 

helped increase awareness of data accuracy and reliability. 

Regarding the system for sharing wage records, when we last reported on this issue in 2007, only 30 states were participating, and 

it was unclear if and when the other states would enter into a 

data-sharing agreement because of confidentiality concerns. 

Labor has since developed an agreement that addresses those 

concerns. And currently, virtually all states participate in the datasharing system. 

Ensuring that funding is consistent with the demand for services 

and reflects the funds states have available remains an issue. As 

a result of WIA’s funding formulas, states’ funding levels may not 

always be consistent with the actual demand for services. This occurs because formula factors are not aligned with the target populations for these programs. 

In addition, the allocation may not reflect current labor market 

conditions because there are time lags between when the data are 

collected and when the allocation becomes available to states. 

The formula for the dislocated worker program is especially problematic because it causes funding volatility unrelated to a state’s 

actual layoff activity. Also, Labor’s process for determining states’ 

available funds considers only expenditures and does not consider 

obligations. As a result, Labor’s estimate of expenditure rates suggests that states are not spending their funds as quickly as they 

actually are. 

Although Labor has taken steps to improve its outcome data, it 

has only recently begun to study WIA’s impact. WIA required an 

impact evaluation by 2005, but Labor has not made this study a 

research priority. In an effort to fulfill the requirement, Labor has 

conducted one evaluation of WIA and has another underway. 

The study of the Adult and Dislocated Worker programs is now 

complete, and the agency expects to report on those findings in 

March 2009. Labor officials expect to begin implementation of the 

second, more comprehensive study of WIA programs in June 2009. 

However, the evaluation will not be completed until June 2015. 

Further, as we previously reported, Labor will also be challenged 

to evaluate the impact of its discretionary grant initiatives focused 

on the employment and training needs of high-growth, high-demand industries. 

In conclusion, Labor has made strides in its effort to improve the 

workforce system. However, further action is needed to address certain issues. For example, if Congress chooses not to make broader 
92 

funding formula changes, relatively minor changes could improve 

funding stability in the dislocated worker program. 

Finally, little is known about what the workforce system is actually achieving. Consequently, Labor is not well positioned to help 

policymakers understand which employment and training approaches work best. Knowing what works and for whom is key to 

developing an effective and efficient workforce system. 

As Labor moves forward, it is imperative that it maximize the 

opportunities to conduct rigorous evaluations of its programs. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be 

happy to respond to any questions you or other members of the 

subcommittee may have at this time. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Scott may be accessed at the following 

Internet address:] 

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09396t.pdf 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Thank you, Mr. Scott. 

Mr. Morales? 

STATEMENT OF JOHN MORALES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

YUMA COUNTY WORKFORCE INVESTMENT BOARD 

Mr. MORALES. Chairman Hinojosa, Mr. Guthrie, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, my name is John Morales, 

and I am the Executive Director of the local workforce investment 

board in Yuma, Arizona, and I also serve as the president of the 

National Workforce Association. 

I want to thank you for the invitation to testify today. You have 

my written testimony. However, I would like to share with you 

some good news, the fact that WIA is working. 

According to the U.S. Department of Labor, in program year 

2007, WIA served 3.5 million people. Three-quarters of the WIA 

participants and over 70 percent of the employers reported that 

they were satisfied with the assistance they received. Seven out of 

ten WIA adult and dislocated worker participants gained employment by utilizing WIA programs. 

These numbers rose to well over 80 percent when participants received training. These workers were retained at a level exceeding 

85 percent. The Department of Labor’s own data indicates that dislocated workers who enrolled in WIA programs actually experienced an earning gain over their previous employment. 

Now, in Yuma, Arizona, despite having a 15.9 percent unemployment rate for year 2008, WIA has been successful. A big contributor to our success is the local control that our board has enjoyed. 

This speaks to the need to maintain and reinforce local control and 

flexibility to address unique labor market conditions in different 

areas. And I think Yuma, Arizona, along the border has those 

unique labor market conditions. 

Another factor contributing to our success includes our collaboration with local stakeholders, including local elected officials. 

Now, a lot has changed since the law was enacted in 1998. In 

order for our workforce system to be more relevant to the changing 

needs of the 21st century economy, we would like to suggest sev-
93 

eral issues that need to be addressed in reauthorization to make 

WIA even stronger. 

We urge you to build upon a locally driven, private-sector-led vision that Congress originally established in WIA. There are some 

areas that need to be streamlined and more clearly defined, such 

as the size and make-up of local boards. 

For instance, one of our mandated partners in the Job Corps. 

There are no Job Corps centers in Yuma, Arizona. There is one in 

Tucson, which is 250 miles away. So we have a member from Tucson, not even our own county, that drives 250 miles one-way to attend our monthly board meetings. That needs to be worked on, Mr. 

Chairman. 

NWA encourages the committee to include in any reauthorized 

version of WIA expenditure reporting based on accrued expenditures so that future reports to Congress by the Department of 

Labor will be consistent with those determined by previous Congresses. We are thankful that Congress has taken previous action 

to rectify any confusion related to this particular issue. 

Another important revision to WIA could be the streamlining of 

performance measures into meaningful, understandable and useful 

information both to local boards and to Congress. They should be 

refined to encourage closer integration of the workforce investment 

boards and one-stops with adult education, literacy, and Englishproficiency training. 

We encourage greater flexibility for local areas to determine the 

level of services available to participants in order to facilitate more 

robust training activities. We suggest introducing greater flexibility 

at the local level in order to allow for different methods of procuring training, not just with individual training accounts. This 

will allow local boards to address issues such as the availability of 

providers and special labor market needs and emerging technologies, such as green jobs. 

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Guthrie, members of the committee, we 

thank you for the opportunity that you have given the National 

Workforce Association to testify today. 

[The statement of Mr. Morales follows:] 

Prepared Statement of John Morales, President, 

National Workforce Association 

Chairman Ruben E. Hinojosa, Mr. Guthrie and the other distinguished members 

of this Subcommittee, my name is John Morales, and I am the Executive Director 

of the Yuma Private Industry Council in Yuma Arizona. I also currently serve as 

the president of the National Workforce Association (NWA), on behalf of whom I am 

testifying today. 

In my testimony, I will discuss very briefly, from NWA’s perspective, why we believe it is critical to the country’s competitiveness that the Workforce Investment 

Act be reauthorized this year. I will point out several notable areas in WIA that 

I believe we should build on as we go forward, and suggest several issues that need 

to be addressed in reauthorization to make the Workforce Investment Act stronger. 

I urge that you build upon the locally driven, private sector-led vision that Congress established in the Workforce Investment Act. While NWA represents the WIA 

system in cities, suburban areas, and rural America, my experiences on the border 

in Yuma with its 15.9% unemployment rate in 2008, reinforce the need for local control and flexibility to address unique labor market conditions in a wide variety of 

the country’s communities, in collaboration with key local stakeholders including 

local elected officials. 

First, I’d like to point out a number of positive developments that have occurred 

since then-President Bill Clinton signed WIA into law on August 7, 1998. WIA’s 
94 

focus on two customers: jobseekers and businesses was a major change from 40 

years of federal policy and it continues to be the right thing to do. Although there 

is much more to do in order to bring together the array of federally funded workforce development programs, significant progress has been made. 

The most recent PY 07 WIA annual reporting data indicates that nearly 3.5 million people received assistance from WIA, with three-quarters of WIA program participants and over 70% of employers satisfied with the assistance they received. 

Seven out of ten WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker program participants gained employment by utilizing WIA programs, with these numbers rising to well over 80% 

when participants received training. These workers were retained in these new 

jobs—at an overall level exceeding 85%. In fact, DOL’s data indicates that dislocated 

workers who enrolled in WIA programming actually have an earnings gain over 

their previous employment. 

Along with the strong performance data, WIA has fostered much stronger program integration between partner programs, particularly workforce development 

and economic development. One Stop Career Centers nationwide have become a tremendous resource for both workers and employers. Targeting a portion of funds to 

high wage/ high demand sectors has been a success and we continue to learn and 

expand on such efforts. The system’s strategic use of Career Pathways grows stronger every year. Still none of us would argue that there is not a great deal more we 

need to do, and an urgency to do it. 

When Congress worked to enact WIA in the mid 1990’s, the challenges facing our 

workforce were considerably different than they are today. Unemployment was 

much lower. Two weeks ago USDOL hosted a Reemployment Conference in Baltimore, Maryland. In one of the presentations, Dr. Paul Harrington, of the Center for 

Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University, pointed out that there are 11.2 

million unemployed people looking for work today and currently 2.8 million job 

openings. So our approach to training and skill attainment as WIA is reauthorized 

must adapt to this new reality. 

Training-Some important stakeholders argue that there is not enough training 

taking place under WIA today. The National Workforce Association also believes 

that in order to fulfill the vision in WIA to build a world-class workforce and 

strengthen U. S. businesses, more training must be available to students, current 

workers, and those who have suffered the loss of their jobs. And while we recognize 

that you are an Authorizing Committee not the Appropriations Committee, we point 

out two significant factors that negatively affect the amount of training under WIA 

Title 1: 

1. Congress envisioned significant financial contributions to One Stop Career Center operations from all the federal partner workforce programs when WIA was being 

developed, but in reality the lion’s share of these costs have been borne across the 

country by only WIA Title 1 and the Employment Service; further 

2. Since 2000, adjusted for inflation, funding for the Workforce Investment Act 

and the Employment Service have been cut by 40% in inflation adjusted dollars. 

If Congress decides to require that a set percentage of a WIB’s funds must be 

spent on training, then it is essential that skill enhancements and leveraged training count toward that requirement. 

Expenditures—There has been significant debate over the past few years about 

the accuracy of USDOL’s calculation of state and local WIA system spending. NWA 

encourages the Committee to include in this version of WIA reauthorization, as it 

has in previous Congresses, a requirement to have USDOL calculate WIA spending 

based on ‘‘accrued expenditures’’ in determining the redistribution of ‘‘unspent’’ 

funds, in reports to Congress on spending levels, and in determining funding recommendations. This term must be clearly defined in the Act, and USDOL should 

be required to collect this information from states and local areas, and be required 

to utilize such data. Subsequently, technical assistance should be promptly provided 

to 

States and local workforce areas by USDOL. NWA’s recommendations are consistent with recent GAO studies and findings on expenditures and obligations. OIG 

also concurs here. 

Performance Measures—Current performance measures need to be simplified and 

refined to reflect an outcome oriented workforce system. The current performance 

measures under-reward educational attainment, even though as Mort Bahr testified 

before this Subcommittee earlier this month, people with low basic skills are unlikely to be able to obtain and retain a high skill/ high wage job. NWA recommends 

that WIA Reauthorization should allow state and local areas to utilize a regression 

model in developing performance standards, as it was in WIA’s previous iteration, 

the Job Training Partnership Act. The implementation of a regression model, which 

adjusts standards for serving participants with labor markets barriers, would en-
95 

sure that cost calculations, educational attainment, and wage gain measures reflect 

the local economy and the characteristics of populations receiving services. Failure 

to reinstate this regression model risks under-serving those individuals with severe 

barriers to employment. 

Further, performance measures should be refined to encourage closer integration 

of the work of the WIBs and the One Stops with Adult Education, Literacy, and 

English Proficiency training should be enacted. 

In almost every employer focus group I have been a part of the urgent need for 

workers with foundation skills has been strongly expressed. These ‘‘soft skills’’ include: good attendance, punctuality, the ability to communicate effectively both orally and in writing, the ability to work in teams with a diverse group of people, and 

the ability to size up a problem and formulate solutions. While we might think these 

are values that should be instilled in the home, this articulated business need is 

so strong that addressing it must be part of the next generation of WIA. 

While increased education attainment is an allowable training activity today, it 

should be clearly spelled out as a goal and encouraged when training is defined in 

reauthorization. There are many activities today both jobseekers and employers 

would consider training but WIA often doesn’t. An example is a three week course 

in Microsoft Office proficiency taken at a One Stop. Better defining what WIA considers to be training will get everyone on the same page. 

As a former Junior High School Social Studies teacher I am positive that the 

United States can’t meet the long term workforce challenges we face until we 

achieve radically improved results in our P-20 system. But as a WIB director I also 

realize that 70% of our workers in the year 2020 are in the labor force today, and 

many of them lack the skills they need. For this reason, NWA recommends that 

Congress allow WIBs to spend up to 10% of their Adult and Dislocated Worker formula funds on incumbent worker training. This flexibility is needed to both target 

key industry clusters, as well as to help move low wage workers up the career ladder. Performance measures will need to be adjusted, since earnings will increase 

less for an existing low wage worker than an unemployed worker who receives 

training and is then placed into a job. 

In 2009, the Yuma PIC I lead is providing the tuition for the latest iteration of 

incumbent worker training for the YMA as part of Innovation Frontier Arizona, a 

4 county WIRED grantee consisting of the four contiguous counties located on the 

border with Mexico. Labor markets are either local or regional and the workforce 

system needs the same flexibility and tools in either instance. 

It is clear that the workforce challenges the country faces are so serious that no 

single entity can solve them all. Since in this 21st Century economy high school 

graduation alone is no longer enough, a reauthorized WIA must find ways for WIBs 

to better interact with Adult 

Education providers to help a person get a GED. And since only 5% to 10% of 

GED recipients ever complete even one year of Community College, successful strategies like Washington State’s ‘‘I Best’’ program must be replicated. 

While ITAs have been the predominant delivery vehicle since WIA began, sectoral 

strategies, including career ladder approaches to help people move toward self sufficiency, have shown great promise under WIA. NWA believes that in order to help 

workers quickly enroll in the training they desire for high demand sector initiatives 

and basic skill acquisition, ITA requirements should be relaxed to allow local contracting for training. We think this would lead to increased utilization of WIA training resources by Community Colleges and providers of Adult Education and Carl 

Perkins VATEA funds. Additionally, successful best practices leveraging WIA funds 

with other training/ skill acquisition resources like Pell Grants should be disseminated by DOE and DOL. 

In terms of helping economically disadvantaged young people obtain the skills 

they need to succeed in this economy, NWA: 

• Endorses raising the upper Youth age to 24 will allow services to disconnected 

youth who face a particularly difficult time in today’s economy 

• Recommends that a separate Year-round Summer Youth Employment Program 

should be authorized because SYEP is a critical means of getting urban and rural 

young people to understand why their school work is relevant and essential. On the 

governance side of the legislation, NWA agrees with other testifiers who said WIB 

Boards are too large. While they must remain private sector led, public sector representatives should not be on the WIB Board itself, but should have a legislated role 

on a Partner’s table. That Partners’ Table would meet regularly and its mission 

would be to work toward seamless, coordinated service delivery, not policy and oversight, which should remain with the WIB. Local WIBs should be appointed by local 

elected officials. 
96 

In closing, I’d like to suggest two other technical issues that may require working 

with other House Committees but would stretch WIA dollars and increase efficiency 

if they can be addressed. 

1. Access to wage data. While this is not an issue in some states, in many states 

WIBs are barred because of confidentiality laws from accessing this data, which 

would give them a cost effective tool to assess medium and long term effects of different types of training on future income to participants who complete training. 

2. Dueling Data Systems. Most states not only do not have a common report card 

system, but front line workers from different workforce programs who might be providing services to the same customer often need to enter data into four discrete data 

systems-for One Stop Services; for Vocational Rehabilitation services; for Adult Education services; and for welfare to work services. This can’t be fixed locally, and 

would require a federal investment, but that would be quickly recouped since it 

would free up funds and staff time to increase training and case management services. 

Conclusion 

Having a high skilled workforce is a goal all Americans agree we must achieve. 

The National Workforce Association believes that the services provided by the local 

workforce system will benefit in your efforts at WIA Reauthorization. 

Thank you Chairman Hinojosa for allowing me to testify, and for holding these 

hearings. You can be assured of the National Workforce Association’s assistance as 

you move forward with WIA reauthorization. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. I thank you, Mr. Morales. 

At this time, I think we are going to start our questions and hope 

that other members of the committee will take advantage of this 

opportunity, because I think that this is a hearing that is going to 

be very helpful as we try to come up with the final legislation for 

WIA. 

And I am going to start with my first question. My time begins 

now. 

Ms. Keenan, we consider reading and literacy skills as basic to 

allowing adults having job-related opportunities. I come from a 

family-owned business that has operated for over 60 years. And 

when I joined my family in operating that business, it was a small 

company with about 28 employees. 

And I remember that, in trying to grow that business, I suggested to my father that we have some type of training program, 

because the area that I come from is 80 percent Hispanic, and a 

large majority of our employees were limited-English-proficient. 

And so I can relate to employers who have those challenges and 

are trying to grow a business, trying to get their employees to be 

computer-literate, and especially to have those literacy skills. 

At the same time, we view adults who need training in math and 

basic financial skills. So my question to you is, do your programs 

emphasize these skills? And if so, how? 

Ms. KEENAN. Just a clarification question. Do the programs emphasize occupational skills or reading—— 

Chairman HINOJOSA. The reading and literacy and math—— 

Ms. KEENAN. Okay, thank you. 

Chairman HINOJOSA [continuing]. Which are very basic for employees working in any kind of a business, because they have to 

read labels, they have to read statements, invoices. Also, they have 

to do basic math. 

Ms. KEENAN. Right. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. And so those are very important. And I 

want to know how you handle that. 
97 

Ms. KEENAN. Thank you. That is an excellent question, and I appreciate you asking it. The adult basic ed program is an educational program, and the purpose of that program is to improve 

reading, and math, and English proficiency, and problem-solving, 

and the skills that we need people to have in the workplace. 

The program does concentrate mainly on those academic skills. 

And in addition to that, there are great demands on our programs 

to also meet the needs of employers in the workplace. 

So we are seeing the development of different kind of models out 

in the local communities. With English proficiency, for instance, 

there are models that combine vocational English-language training that can meet the demands of the workforce, yet increase the 

English proficiency. 

Programs are experimenting with ways to be able to provide very 

high-quality instruction in reading and high-quality instruction in 

math, while they are also trying to meet the demands of the workplace. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. I want to ask Mr. Scott, is there a way to 

make minor changes to the funding formulas and reduce funding 

volatility? 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, as we have previously reported, volatility in the funding formulas could be mitigated by inserting a couple what we consider minor changes to the formula, including having a hold harmless provision, as well as a stop-gain provision, so 

that the wide fluctuations that are sometimes experienced would 

not occur from year to year. So that is something we have recommended a couple different times, actually, in terms of an option 

to address some of the wide volatility in the funding formula. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Mr. Morales, you spoke about our committee taking a look and possibly looking at the size of boards. 

What has been your experience? Which are the sizes that do not 

work because they are too small or underrepresented or possibly 

too large and unwieldy? What are the sizes? And what would be 

ideal? And why? 

Mr. MORALES. Well, of course, this is only my opinion, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate the question. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. It is a valuable opinion. 

Mr. MORALES. Under the old Job Training Partnership Act, I had 

a board that, under the amendments in 1992, moved our board 

membership up to 17. I thought that was a manageable board. My 

current board is 27. And there are other boards that are much larger than that in metropolitan areas. 

And part of the issue, Mr. Chairman, was the language that 

came out of the original law that said representatives—with the 

‘‘s’’—and I think that was interpreted very literally by everything. 

And what causes the problem, Mr. Chairman, is if you have 17 

mandated partners with representatives, you have to have a majority of business, which I support, but that means that you have 

those 17, plus you have to have more business people to have that 

50 percent or 51 percent majority. 

So I would say anywhere, if you could keep it under 20, I think 

would be a manageable board. I think that, when I work with nonprofit boards—I do a lot of training with nonprofit boards—I think 

that, once you start getting beyond 20, it becomes unwieldy. And 
98 

then it becomes difficult, Mr. Chairman, especially in rural areas 

to get the attendance that you need. 

And you are asking busy people from nonprofit agencies, from 

faith-based organizations, from public agencies, and from businesses to give something valuable, which you can’t give back, which 

is their time. And so I think if you could keep it somewhere under 

20, Mr. Chairman, that is my opinion. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Well, Mr. Morales, don’t you believe that 

there are counties and regions that are larger in population, particularly in the urban counties, that could possibly deal with 20 or 

25, whereas possibly small areas, like those that I represent in 

some of my counties, possibly might be able to work with 20 or 

maybe, plus or minus, 17. Do you think that that would be flexible 

enough? 

Mr. MORALES. Yes, sir, if we had that flexibility. The particular 

problem we had when the original act was rolled out was, there 

was a fervor, an ardent fervor on the part of the states—and the 

state of Arizona was no exception—that we were going to have 

those representatives from those—— 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Yes, we have had some other hearings 

where they had 40. My time is up. 

And I wish to yield now to my ranking member. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

And, first, Ms. Keenan, not really a question, but a statement. 

In my experience in manufacturing—I worked for a family business, as well—excuse me—and learned—we started a GED program in our school—in our factory, and we learned there were 

some people that we had to go to and basic literacy. And that became a passion of mine in the state legislature and started a program on basic literacy. 

So we would go all the way back to people who can’t read a menu 

and try to find ways to get them into the system once they learned. 

And we have seen them progress into GED and, hopefully, even 

higher ed. As the president said the other night, you are going to 

need at least one year of some kind of post-high-school training— 

and I have seen it in tool and die makers and industrial maintenance—to earn a 21st-century living that we want everybody to 

earn. 

So you are right where it needs to be to start getting people into 

that system and move them forward. Thanks. 

And I have a question for Mr. Morales. The one-stop—I talked 

about the one-stop centers in my opening remarks that happened 

in Marion County. And I think they are a tremendous resource. I 

have experienced that. 

And I just wondered, can you give me some sense of the number 

of dislocated workers you have seen this year, as opposed to last 

year? And what type of services are they looking for? So the number between—comparison between now and then or last year and 

the number—what they are looking for. 

Mr. MORALES. Well, Mr. Guthrie, I come from an area that is 

very isolated. And until recently—the last 7 or 8 years—we really 

had difficulty using our dislocated worker funding, because we 

didn’t have very many layoffs. 
99 

I will say that we have had an unprecedented number of layoffs 

this year in Yuma County. We have lost, according to our Arizona 

Department of Commerce, about 4,500 jobs—— 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Did you lose a couple of major employers? I have 

seen that, where one 900-person plant goes out. Or is it just systemic throughout the region? I mean, what has caused that unemployment, going from—you said you didn’t have hardly any unemployment to 15 percent? 

Mr. MORALES. We have a couple of situations in our labor market 

that are very unique. Since our major industry is agriculture, we 

have a seasonal economy, and it is a $3 billion industry. It is probably—if you get lettuce in the wintertime, it probably comes from 

the Yuma area. 

And so you have kind of dual labor markets. And in the wintertime, when it is our highest activity, you will have between—about 

40,000 migrant and seasonal farm workers in the Yuma area at the 

same time that everything else is going. And then when they leave, 

there is an unprecedented number of unemployment insurance 

claims. So those are a couple of the factors. 

But what happened over the last about 7 or 8 years, we were one 

of the fastest-growing metropolitan areas, mid-range metropolitan 

areas in the country. And with all that growth, with the housing 

bubble and construction, everything—we experienced the greater 

drop. 

And we have a burgeoning light manufacturing area there. And 

we helped establish, along with our economic development partners 

and partners from the chamber, a manufacturing association. And 

we are helping incumbent worker training there, but they are laying off because the demand is not there. 

So that—we are getting—but if you go to the metro Phoenix 

area, you are having major reductions in employment in volatile industries, such as construction. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Well, thanks. And in your testimony, you state 

that current performance measures need to be simplified and refined to focus on outcomes and reward state and local workforce investment awards for serving low-income workers. 

And I think there is some consensus in most state and local 

areas that performance indicators are too numerous and burdensome. And GAO talked about how the Department of Labor now requires local boards to focus on the average earnings, which may 

help serve some job-seekers, but that other factors should be considered. 

Personally, I think that the programs should focus on place and 

participants in the private sector. We need to look at measuring 

unsubsidized employment. 

In your opinion, what are the most—those common measurements that you think that all programs under the WIA should adhere to? What do you think the measurement should be? 

Mr. MORALES. Well, Mr. Chairman, currently, I have no problem 

with the common measures, because there are only about six of 

them. But the problem is that, when you add the common measures to the regular measures that we are under law still have to 

report on, there are 17 of those. 
100 

So you have 17 plus the common, which is about 24. We think 

those should be reduced. And we think that some of the most important ones that I think are significant, according to labor market 

economists, are any increases in earned income. If you can show 

over time an increase in earned income, then I think the workforce 

system is doing their jobs. 

And if we are placing people in private-sector employment, I 

think that is great. You have to be careful, in places like Yuma, 

Arizona, where you have a lot of government employment. And so 

in Yuma, Arizona, if we can get somebody a job in the Border Patrol or at the city of Yuma or at the county of Yuma or in a school 

district, we think we are doing our job. 

There is not as much of a private-sector presence in some of the 

rural areas. So I think we have to be careful about how we mandate those kinds of things, but I think that you are right on with 

the private-sector placement. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you. My time is up. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Thank you very much, Ranking Member 

Guthrie. 

I now want to call on one of our newest members of our committee, a Congresswoman from the area of Cleveland, Ohio, who 

has a very challenging situation, and I call on her for questions. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My first question is to Mr. Scott. Mr. Scott, can you propose an 

avenue where funds are really distributed to the most impacted 

communities, where job loss and plant closing are the highest? 

Mr. SCOTT. As we have previously stated, we think this is an important issue, especially as it relates to the dislocated worker program. Back in 2003, for example, we reported that the funding formula for the dislocated worker program was actually three—as 

much as three times more volatile than for the youth or the adult 

programs. 

We believe that is why it is important that as Congress, you 

know, considers reauthorization that it look for options to build in 

some flexibility there so that the dislocated worker formula actually provides states some cushion, in terms of from the volatility 

that can occur from year to year with changes in various factors, 

including unemployment. 

We found, for example, that in 2003 that there are significant 

time lags, in terms of receiving some of the data related to unemployment. At that time, we reported it can range between 9 to 18 

months. And so if you have a formula that is based on data that 

could be in some cases up to a year-and-a-half old, it may not accurately reflect the actual on-the-ground economic conditions at the 

time. And therefore, states are in a sense being penalized because 

of the lag in the data. 

And so, as I have stated before, we do think that is a scenario 

that the Congress should consider making some changes. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you. 

Ms. Keenan, are there any programs within your adult education 

and literacy programs that actually address the issues of financial 

literacy? As we look at this economy right—I am certain that many 

of the people who you provide service to are having difficulty just 
101 

being able to buy groceries, to pay health care, to just live day to 

day. How do you educate these people about financial literacy? 

Ms. KEENAN. That is a very good question. That is a very good 

question. The department has been concentrating the past years on 

helping to improve teachers’ training in the area of reading. And 

we are just now beginning to try to launch some large-scale initiatives around the area of adult numeracy. 

In the adult classroom, it is very common for teachers to be able 

to focus on the basic skills in the context of adult life. And for our 

adults, we have many adults who do come to our programs with 

specific needs around balancing their checkbooks or understanding 

banking statements. And our programs have a long history of trying to deliver services that meet those individuals’ needs. 

There are some places in the country that are developing some 

curriculum for financial literacy. I could gather some more of that 

information and submit it to you. I don’t have those examples right 

off the record. But basically the program has taught financial literacy in many forms throughout the years, and there are many 

people who are working to try to develop more comprehensive curriculum in that area. And I would be happy to share that with you. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you very much. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. At this time, I want to thank Ms. Keenan 

for having participated on the first panel. I realize that you are 

short on time and are trying to make the other event. And we are 

going to excuse you, but please know that we appreciate very much 

that you were here and that you gave us such good information as 

we will make part of the record. And may you return sometime 

soon. 

I would now like to recognize the gentleman from California, the 

gentleman—is Buck McKeon still here? 

Okay. I thought that Buck was here. I want to recognize the gentleman, Congressman from Tennessee, Mr. Roe. 

Dr. ROE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Just a couple of quick comments and then questions. My background also is small business, and my last job before I got here was 

the mayor of my local city. 

And, Mr. Morales, when you talked about local control and private-sector partnerships, I wanted to jump across the counter and 

hug you, because I think no one knows better than the people on 

the ground. And all of my experience in government has been local. 

So I applaud you for what you said. And you are absolutely deadon straight. 

Education, this Workforce Investment Act is something that is 

not a cost. It is an investment. And we have to start looking at 

education as an investment. 

And when I talk to students, I present to them—if you are in 

high school, I will say, ‘‘Let me explain to you how you can earn 

$1 million in the next 4 years.’’ And I said, ‘‘Who wants to do that?’’ 

And I will have them hold their hand up. And it is to get a college 

education, because a college graduate in their lifetime will earn a 

million dollars more than a non-college graduate. A high school 

graduate will earn $500,000 more than someone who does not have 

an education. 
102 

And as mayor of our city, one of the primary focuses we had was 

to get folks who had jobs into jobs—I mean, that didn’t have jobs 

into jobs. And your comment is correct, Mr. Morales. It doesn’t 

matter whether it is a job with the Border Patrol or whomever. A 

job for that people is a job, and they can help feed their family and 

raise their family, so any place we can place them is extremely important, I think. 

We have some huge challenges right now, and this particular 

act—I know I participated in this program. I am a physician, and 

we helped train licensed practical nurses and other people. And it 

was truly a joy. I have hired people out of this in my own office. 

And it is truly a joy to see someone’s face light up when they know 

they have a job. 

And so thank you all for what you do. And I can promise you, 

you will have my support in this program. 

A couple of questions I have. Actually, one was for Ms. Keenan, 

who left, but you all can address is—my concern is not the folks 

who we have trained to jobs we need, whether it is education, 

health care, whatever. What do we do for the folks who fail? 

And, Mr. Morales, I will toss that tough one—you know, when 

you walk in, she gave the percentage who got their GEDs and so 

forth, but what about the folks who fall through the cracks? What 

do we do with them? 

Mr. MORALES. Well, I think that is the beauty of having a onestop system that is focused on business needs and the needs of the 

clients. When we do customized training and we have for licensed—well, for medical assistants and those kinds of—we work 

with medical groups and try to bring people in. 

But we also say that, if the student doesn’t succeed with the employer, then we route them back into the one-stop and see what we 

can do, see if we can address those issues, whether they are basic 

skill issues, whether they are interviewing issues, whether they are 

pre-employment work maturity skills, we try to address those 

issues. 

And there are a lot of people, say, in my labor market that are 

almost prevocational, that is why, Mr. Chairman, we asked for 

ways to link up the literacy, the English proficiency to WIA and a 

little closer, and to incentivize these collaborations. There are great 

collaborations going on all over the country, but it would be nice 

if we could incentivize people to want to work together, because I 

think collaboration is an unnatural act between two or more consenting adults. You know, it is not something we do normally. 

So we are fortunate in Yuma County that we are so isolated from 

everybody else that, if we didn’t collaborate, we know we would 

fail. So it is a survival strategy for us. 

So we have to concentrate on those people so they don’t get left 

behind. And that means that the workshops that we offer, whether 

they are in financial literacy with—we have credit unions and folks 

that we invite in to do those kinds of educational activities, because 

we know we can’t do it all ourselves, that is where the collaborations come in. 

If there are special groups, nonprofit groups, faith-based groups 

out there that can do the job that we can’t do, that we are restricted from in some way, shape or form through WIA, then we 
103 

try to build those collaborations with other organizations in the 

community, because we know that there isn’t enough money in 

WIA to solve the language literacy issues. There isn’t enough 

money in adult education, especially along the border. 

So we have to work together. In our area, in Yuma County, Arizona—and I am sure it is that way along the border, Mr. Chairman—collaboration is a survival issue. 

Dr. ROE. Well, the other question I have, I guess—and, Mr. Scott, 

I will toss this one your way—I mean, we can’t afford to fail. And, 

plus, I think this particular program is not a cost. I think if you 

can show enough—and that is what I want to ask, are we spending 

our dollars wisely? Because if you do, this program pays for itself. 

There is no question in my mind you have people who are not on 

the tax rolls who go on the tax rolls. I absolutely believe that it 

will. 

Do we have accountability to show that the money we are spending—in other words, are we getting the bang for our buck? Are we 

putting the folks out there, they are getting the jobs? Do we have 

that data? 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Roe, as we have previously reported, based on 

our survey of employers, most medium and large employers are 

aware of the one-stop system, use the system, are satisfied with the 

services. We know that. 

You know, one of the concerns—generally, they use the one-stops 

to fill their needs for low-skilled workers. In terms of your question 

as to whether we know we are getting the bang for our buck, that 

is actually one of the concerns we have at GAO. 

Despite the billions of dollars that have been spent on this program, we still don’t know what works and what doesn’t work. And 

it is incumbent upon the Department of Labor going forward to 

make sure, as it rolls out new initiatives, as it rolls out new programs, it continues to foster innovation and flexibility, that they 

build in accountability and they build in rigorous impact evaluations of the initiatives, so that at the end of the day we will know 

what works and what doesn’t. 

And that could also help inform, for those who might fall through 

the cracks, what alternatives we should consider. But a key concern for the Government Accountability Office at this point is, we 

still don’t know which of these programs work and for whom and 

why. 

Dr. ROE. Well, the reason that is important is what Mr. Morales 

just said. He has to stretch his dollar at the local level as far as 

he possibly can. So you want the most effective dollar that you can 

have. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you. I yield back my time. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Thank you. 

At this time, I would like to call on a member who has served 

this committee very well. He is very knowledgeable and certainly 

a contributing member of the Education and Labor Committee, 

Congressman Tim Bishop from New York. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. 

And to the panel, thank you very much for your testimony. 

I had hoped to ask this question of Ms. Keenan, but, Mr. Scott, 

I am going to see what light you might be able to shed on this. 
104 

Ms. Keenan said that approximately 16 percent of the WIA programs were administered through post-secondary education sites. 

And I am particularly interested in the linkages between WIA programs and college campuses. 

And so my question is, in your assessment of WIA programs, 

have you noticed any difference in outcomes between those programs that are administered by local education agencies as opposed 

to those programs that are administered by post-secondary education agencies? 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Bishop, as far as I know, we have not taken a 

look at the programs in that light, so I can’t answer that question 

directly. However, we did issue a report last year that looked at the 

connection between the workforce investment system and community colleges. And there, for example, we found some very innovative practices, in terms linkages between the workforce boards and 

the community colleges and employers. And so that is some information we can provide to you. 

Mr. BISHOP. If you could, because—and that is essentially where 

I am going is to the community colleges. I guess I have this—I was 

a college administrator. And so I have this bias that, if you get a 

young man or a young woman on a college campus and expose 

them to a good experience, they are going to get turned on to learning and so that they may be able to use the Workforce Investment 

Act program as a springboard to a degree-granting post-secondary 

program. 

I guess the other question I have—and, again, perhaps better for 

Ms. Keenan—is an enormous number of the clientele of these programs are high-school dropouts. Have we learned anything about 

the characteristics of those young men and women that we can 

then funnel back to the high schools to help them deal with dropout prevention? 

Mr. SCOTT. I know previously we have reported on some of the 

challenges under WIA and dealing with the youth population. In 

terms of your specific question, I am not aware of any work we 

have done looking at that, but that—we will get back to you on 

that. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right. 

Mr. Morales, in your experience, I mean, how much of the dropout—high-school dropout phenomena is due to, in effect, lack of 

language attainment? Or is—you know, what are the characteristics of the population that you have worked with that we might be 

able to learn from to help the K-12 system do a better job of retaining people through to graduation? 

Mr. MORALES. We are working with our K-12 system, the Yuma 

Union High School District particularly. Some of the characteristics 

that seem to be affecting the dropout rates, according to the school 

superintendent there, she indicates that there is a high mobility 

rate problem. These young people—and we thought it was tied to 

the migrant and seasonal farm worker community, but what we 

found over the years is that those families are settling more in the 

community. And the parents or one of the parents is going to other 

places, like in California. 
105 

But there is just a tremendous mobility issue that we are seeing. 

And it is not just in Yuma. We are also aware of it in some of the 

programs in the Phoenix Union High School District, for instance. 

The other challenge is, how do we keep kids interested in education? How do we challenge them? How do we make education relevant to those children? 

And that is a big problem we have. And we are working right 

now with a—the high school districts and other elementary districts and the private sector in what we call a Yuma business education collaboration to try to start identifying what kind of things 

turn these kids on, because they are having a real problem, especially now in this economy, when their parents aren’t working, they 

are going to work, and they don’t see the relevance of going to their 

classes when they could be earning money and putting food on the 

table. 

Mr. BISHOP. That is the key. I know more about college dropout 

than I know about high school dropouts, but there is a significant 

body of evidence that says that a college dropout is a young man 

or a woman who is unable to connect what he or she is doing at 

that moment with what their future goals might be. 

And so the—finding the—the synergy, if you will, between goals 

and between activities associated with achieving those goals works 

on a college campus. I would presume it would work in high school, 

as well. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

If I just may, Mr. Scott, if you could get us that material that 

you referenced with respect to innovative activities on community 

college campuses, I would appreciate it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SCOTT. Yes, we will provide that information. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. It is my pleasure now to ask another very 

valuable member of this Education and Labor Committee, a friend 

of mine from the great state of Illinois, Judy Biggert. And after her 

questioning, we are going to stop this first panel and move into the 

second panel, which has four representatives of WIA. 

And at this time, Congresswoman Biggert, it is your time. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I will 

be brief. 

Mr. Scott, you mentioned the one-stop shopping centers, and you 

talked about the sequence of services and the tiers of services offered through these one-stop shops. And I have heard from some 

of my local WIAs about this and having some concerns about the 

fact that all of those that come through have to go through each 

tier to complete what they are doing. And in some cases, they—you 

know, they think that they really don’t need the services, let’s say, 

in tier one or all of the services in tier two to get to tier three. 

Do you think that, based on your research, do you think that 

there should be an elimination of the sequential nature of the services that you describe or realigning the tiers of service? Or do you 

think that it is the most beneficial the way that it is? 

Mr. SCOTT. GAO has not taken a position on the approach of the 

providing the tiered services. But, once again, I will point back to 

the need to understand how each of those tier services work and 

what the results we are seeing from that approach, in terms of 
106 

having the necessary information to make an informed decision 

about that. 

In particular, you know, I would suggest that that be one of the 

issues, for example, the Department of Labor could include in its 

evaluation of the program, whether this current approach, you 

know, actually is providing the result and meeting the needs of employers and workers. 

That, once again, goes to the fact, though, that at this point we 

don’t really know what works and what doesn’t. So sorry to not be 

able to directly answer your question, but I think this is an opportunity for the Department of Labor to study such an approach. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Okay. Thank you. 

Well, I will yield back and ask the question of the next panel 

then. Thank you. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Thank you. 

I want to thank the members of the first panel. You all did a fine 

job, and we thank you very much for your generosity of your time 

and valuable information that you have shared with us. We invite 

you to stay and hear the second panel. 

At this time, I invite the members to please come forward and 

take your seat, your place in the second panel. 

If you are ready, we are going to move on and hope that we can 

spend as much time as possible with the panelists that have just 

been seated. 

We are going to start by introducing Ms. Sandi Vito. Sandi is testifying today on behalf of the National Governors Association. She 

was appointed last year by Governor Edward Rendell of Pennsylvania. Sandi was appointed as the Acting Secretary of the Department of Labor and Industry. 

Welcome. Sandi heads the fifth-largest agency of the state government, overseeing 6,000 employees in 200 offices statewide. Her 

offices administer programs such as workers compensation, unemployment compensation, job re-training, and vocational rehabilitation. 

She previously worked in legislative, public policy, and political 

organizations and holds a bachelor’s degree in economics from 

Stockton State University and studied community and regional 

planning and urban studies at Temple University. Welcome. 

Ms. Charissa Raynor is the Executive Director of the SEIU 

Healthcare Northwest Training Partnership. SEIU is the Service 

Employees International Union, for those not familiar with that acronym. The partnership is a new nonprofit health care worker 

training organization, which in the year 2010 will become the primary training provider for long-term care workers in Washington 

State. 

Charissa is well prepared for this effort, since she holds a bachelor of science in nursing from the University of North Carolina at 

Charlotte. She also earned a master’s of health services administration, health policy concentration from the George Washington 

University in our city. 

Welcome, Charissa, and thank you for dedicating yourself to such 

an important service for our country. 

The next panelist will be introduced by Congressman Bishop 

from New York. 
107 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the courtesy. 

I am pleased to welcome both to our committee and to Washington Kevin Smith, who is the Executive Director of Literacy New 

York. Mr. Smith is a 1975 graduate of SUNY Fredonia. He has 

worked for 5 years for the New York State Bureau of Migrant Education and also as the Executive Director of Literacy New York. 

Throughout his career, Mr. Smith has provided innovative program response to the needs of adult learners and strong leadership 

in literacy and in to our state and to our nation. 

His accomplishments include being a delegate to the 1991 White 

House Conference on Library Information and Services. He served 

as a member of New York State Board of Regents Literacy Planning Committee. He was the chair of the state Literacy Council, a 

member of the Adult Learning Services Council under two commissioners of education, secretary of the National Commission on 

Adult Basic Education, and the past president of the New York Association of Continuing and Community Education. 

Mr. Smith, thank you very much for your service, and welcome 

to our committee. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Thank you. 

At this time, I would like to recognize and introduce Mr. Bob 

Lanter. Bob is the Executive Director of the Contra Costa County 

Workforce Investment Board in Concord, California. He has served 

in his current position for the past 7 years, but has over 18 years 

of experience in workforce development. 

Bob also spent 6 years as the Assistant Director of the California 

Workforce Association. His areas of research include one-stop systems, particularly partnerships, and business and universal services. 

Thank you, Bob, for joining the rest of our talented witnesses 

today. And we look forward to your comments. 

Now, I would like to ask the acting secretary, Vito, if she would 

like to start. 

STATEMENT OF SANDI VITO, ACTING SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY, STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Ms. VITO. Chairman Hinojosa, Ranking Member Guthrie, and 

members of the subcommittee, I want to thank you for inviting the 

National Governors Association to testify today. 

I am pleased to be here on behalf of the nation’s governors, and 

I want to first thank you and your colleagues in Congress for the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the critical investments in workforce systems and including the reauthorization of 

the Trade Act that were part of that act. You have signaled to the 

nation’s workforce system that you are counting on us to help our 

nation’s unemployed and job seekers find work and family-sustaining careers. 

The governors take that challenge very seriously, and I can tell 

you, all are working very diligently. As you know, the governors 

met this past weekend. They met with President Obama and the 

cabinet members to discuss implementation of the act. 

They also met this weekend and approved a new workforce policy 

entitled ‘‘Governors Principles to Ensure Workforce Excellence.’’ 
108 

And so the focus of my testimony is going to be on those high-level 

guiding principles. 

States—it originated, I think, with Woodrow Wilson—but states 

like to say that they are the laboratories of democracy. I would like 

to make the point today that states are, in fact, the incubators of 

innovation, particularly when it comes to workforce policy. 

The new policy statement in particular supports those governorled innovations. And while I think that there is no one clear and 

single path to reauthorization of the act, the nation’s governors outlined some key priorities that we think make sense in terms of considering reauthorization. 

We hope that you will build off the innovations that have come 

from both the regional levels and through the governors’ initiatives 

to make our nation competitive in the 21st-century economy. So I 

want to first highlight some of the state-led innovations. 

Critical, as many of the members said earlier today, and President Obama mentioned in his recent State of the Union or state— 

recent speech to the joint Congress, is improving in the skills and 

the access to training. Ensuring that all Americans have access to 

one year of training, I think, is critical to developing a skilled 

workforce. 

Governors have led the effort to increase training and, more importantly, to ensure that the training is geared towards the appropriate needs of the individual, so leveraging dollars from different 

systems to make sure that the intervention for individuals and regions is appropriate. 

The second key innovation by governors is the development of 

skills credentials, which signal to businesses and are universally 

understood that the people coming to apply to them have a set of 

recognized credentials and help improve the earnings capabilities 

of the job-seekers themselves. 

Additional innovations have come in the form of green jobs. We 

need to continue to equip workers with skills and technologies required for emerging occupations in clean and renewable energy, 

and many governors throughout the nation have already taken a 

leadership role on doing that—on just that. 

One national trend among the governors is the creation of what 

is in the research literature called workforce intermediaries. These 

intermediaries make the labor market more transparent. In Pennsylvania, we call them industry partnerships. And essentially they 

are partnerships of businesses, where appropriate labor unions, 

training providers, and community organizations on a regional 

basis or at the labor market level, and they focus in on a specific 

industry and what the skill needs are of that industry so that we 

can create career pathways, training programs that create increased economic opportunity, as well as meet the demands of the 

industry in the region. 

In Pennsylvania, we have had more than 6,300 businesses involved in 80 partnerships and, since 2005, have trained 70,000 

workers. While our original results showed initially a 12 percent 

gain in increase in income for the individuals who went through 

that training, because of the recent events, the average is about 6 

percent, still incredibly good increase in income after the first year 

of training. 
109 

Governors are also leading less glamorous reforms, but these are 

also essential reforms. And they include improvements in the service delivery system, accountability, and overall program efficiencies, all the while trying to reduce administrative costs and duplication of efforts. 

As preparation begins for reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act, I want to outline the Governors Association’s six key 

policy areas. 

The first is—and it was already mentioned, but I want to re-emphasize the National Governors Association position on that—to 

streamline access to training opportunities and eliminate the mandates that dictate sequence of services. 

Second is increasing coordination and integration of workforce 

education and economic development to meet the unique needs of 

states and their regions. We hope to see greater alignment of the 

federal programs, which was mentioned earlier, between the agencies that fund workforce development programs in labor, education, 

and the other federal agencies. 

We would like to see and advocate for building state-led regional 

economies by giving the governors the authority to designate for 

the purposes of delivery of services regions that reflect labor markets and don’t narrowly reflect city or county or other arbitrary 

boundaries. 

And, finally, two critical issues are focus on the emerging industries, such as green jobs—as I talked about earlier—and supporting 

common measures to improve accountability. As we heard earlier, 

the importance of transparency in the system is important to governors. The National Governors Association and the National Association of State Workforce Agencies has a specific proposal related 

to common measures that it would like to see considered. And they 

are happy to provide that in detail. 

In conclusion, the nation’s governors stand ready to work with 

this subcommittee and all the members of Congress to craft what 

we hope will be significant improvements to the Workforce Investment Act and to provide whatever information the committee needs 

from us. 

[The statement of Ms. Vito follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Sandi Vito, on Behalf of the National Governors 

Association 

Chairman Hinojosa, Ranking Member Guthrie, and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting the National Governors Association to testify 

today. 

My name is Sandi Vito and I am honored to be here on behalf of the nation’s governors to discuss governor-led innovations. I also serve as the Secretary of the Department of Labor and Industry for Governor Rendell in Pennsylvania. Governor 

Rendell is the chair of the National Governors Association. 

Governors Focus on Transforming the Workforce System and Upskilling Workers 

This past weekend, the nation’s governors convened in Washington, DC for their 

winter meeting and met with President Obama and Cabinet members to discuss the 

state economic crisis and implementation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Governors also met in the NGA Education, Early Childhood, and Workforce Committee to discuss transforming the workforce system and up skilling 

American workers. During the Committee’s deliberations, the governors also approved a new workforce policy titled ‘‘Governors’ Principles to Ensure Workforce Excellence’’. 
110 

The new policy supports governor-led workforce innovations, and establishes the 

nation’s governors’ key priorities for a world-class workforce. It also makes recommendations to Congress and the Administration for long needed transformations 

to the workforce system. Before I discuss the governors’ new policy recommendations for the workforce system, let me first set the stage with the current economic 

forces and highlight several successful governor-led innovations. 

Federal Workforce Law Outdated 

In 1998, when the Workforce Investment Act became law, it was groundbreaking. 

WIA gave governors the authority to initiate broad structural reforms in their workforce development systems. With this authority, governors made significant progress 

to restructure these systems and strengthen the essential partnerships between federal, state, and local governments and the private sector. Yet state-by-state experiences reveal that many challenges remain, such as providing comprehensive, highly 

integrated education, training, and employment services for workers. In addition, 

governors need help aligning education, workforce and economic development, coping with inflexible mandates, and fully engaging the business community as partners. 

The current economic picture is evidence that business as usual will no longer do. 

The current unemployment rate in America is 7.6 percent and more than 3.6 million 

jobs have been lost since the beginning of this economic downturn. This is the highest number of job losses since the end of World War II. 

Yet, even in today’s economy, businesses are struggling to find the qualified workers they need. A survey by the National Association of Manufacturers revealed that 

more than eight out of 10 manufacturers experienced an overall shortage of qualified workers. And, in a recent Society for Human Resource Management survey, respondents indicated a shortage of qualified candidates in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. As a result, 29 percent of human resource directors have 

hired foreign nationals because qualified U.S. workers were not available. 

These two forces—the rising unemployment rate and the increased need for 

skilled workers—have placed unprecedented demands on America’s workforce. It 

will take bold reforms at the federal, state, and local levels to transform the workforce system and up skill workers. This transformation should begin and build off 

the work of governors to initiate bold, structural reforms that will keep our great 

nation competitive in the 21st century. 

Governor-led Innovations 

Governors are tackling the challenges of unemployment and a lack of skilled 

workers and leading new strategies to improve job seeker outcomes. While governors are initiating reforms all across the country, their efforts can be broadly 

characterized and grouped in the following key areas: 

Increase access to training: All across the country, governors are implementing 

creative initiatives to focus and expand training opportunities for unemployed and 

employed workers. By leveraging WIA funds with a mix of other federal employment 

and training funds, federal and state financial aid, and business partnerships, governors are working to improve the skills of workers in their states. 

Provide workers with credentials: To help employers better find and match job 

seekers’ skill level with the requirements of a job, governors implemented skills 

credentialing programs. The credentials are easily and universally understood and 

valued by employers and certificate recipients alike, and are nationally recognized 

by industry. 

Develop specialized skills training for limited-English speakers: Under governors’ 

leadership, states are also creating new integrated approaches to serving non-native 

English speaking students enrolled in workforce training programs. The programs 

provide simultaneous instruction in a technical field and in basic skills such as 

English, reading, and math to accelerate achievement and prepare students for employment. 

Invest in green jobs: A growing and relatively new area of governor-led reform is 

in emerging industries for clean, green, and renewable energy jobs. To equip workers with the skills and technologies required for green jobs, governors worked with 

community and technical colleges to create career pathways and certificate programs to ensure a pipeline of workers for new jobs in this emerging field. 

Build industry partnerships: Governors are also leading and creating new industry partnerships between employers, labor, training providers, community organizations, and other key stakeholders around specific industries within a region. Industry partnerships address the workforce needs of employers and the training, employment and career advancement needs of workers. The partnerships bring together 
111 

workforce development and education systems and align them with the economic development and competitiveness strategies of the state. 

Across the country, industry partnership initiatives have led to equally positive 

results. Industries fulfill their human capital needs and increase the quality of their 

products and services, while trainees receive higher wages, healthcare benefits, pension plans, and paid leave, and additionally trainees see brighter prospects for future skill attainment and career opportunities. 

Because industry partnerships involve aligning strategies across many agencies, 

systems, and programs, gubernatorial leadership is critical. Governors can galvanize 

the leadership of industry and labor to ensure their voices are at the center of regional industry initiatives. Governors are also uniquely situated to influence public 

agency leadership and bring the work of public institutions into alignment with the 

needs of industry partnerships. 

Focus on Accountability and Improve Data: Governors are leading less glamorous, 

yet essential reforms to enhance service delivery, accountability, and improve overall program efficiencies, while reducing administrative costs, duplication, and layers 

of needless bureaucracy. These reforms are exciting, require the leading force of governors, cut across agencies and funding silos, and may prove the best promise to 

realize the vision of Congress to create ‘‘one-stop shops’’ for any job seeker to access 

services and training. One element of this reform is a move to common cross-cutting 

data that focus on the customer. But I’ll speak more about that in a moment. 

Governor Rendell: Leading Workforce Reform in Pennsylvania 

The national trends in governor-led workforce initiatives are evident in my state 

of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania was one of the first states to develop industry partnerships and extend training and career building efforts beyond individual companies to networks of companies in specific industries. Governor Rendell understands 

that a lack of industry collaboration in workforce training can result in a skills gap 

for businesses, a loss of opportunity for working families, and a shortfall of innovation for industries. Building strong industry partnerships can fill those gaps, laying 

the foundation for prosperity that is broadly shared. 

The results of Pennsylvania’s Industry Partnership’s are impressive. More than 

6,300 businesses are involved in nearly 80 industry partnerships across the state. 

Since the initiatives inception in 2005, more than 70,000 workers have been trained, 

increasing their wages on average of more than 6 percent within the first year since 

receiving the training. 

Governors’ Recommendations for a World-class Workforce System 

Governors are taking action in their states to up skill workers, create jobs, and 

get America back to work for a more prosperous future. But to do this, governors 

also need your help to modernize the workforce system and move governor-led initiatives to scale nationwide. As preparation begins for reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, let me outline six specific recommendations governors 

make in their new workforce policy that can break down breakdown the roadblocks 

and support governor-led innovations. 

• Streamline Access to Training: With the unprecedented demands on workers for 

higher levels of education and new, cutting-edge skill sets, quick access to training 

and education is essential. Both employed and unemployed workers must have 

training opportunities throughout the span of their work life in order to get good 

jobs, advance in their careers and stay competitive. Congress should eliminate mandates that dictate the flow of services for workers. 

• Increase Funding Agility: Economic necessity requires Governors and local leaders to cobble together funds to provide enhanced training and education to workers. 

The existing barriers must be removed to make it more effective and cost efficient 

to do so. Congress should acknowledge the role of Governors by providing enhanced 

flexibility to coordinate and, when necessary at a state or local level, integrate workforce, education and economic development funding to meet the unique needs of 

their states and communities. 

• Align Federal Programs: As many as twelve different executive departments 

fund a variety of workforce programs, including the departments of Labor, Education, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, 

Justice, Veterans, Defense, and Agriculture. This myriad of agencies, funding 

sources, regulations, and responsibilities needlessly complicate, and very often prohibit, the kinds of true alliances and collaboration that are necessary to streamline 

the workforce system. Congress should direct federal agencies to develop a joint initiative that will align federal programs, coordinate oversight and regulations, consolidate redundant and conflicting regulations, and establish transparent levels of 

responsibility and accountability. 
112 

• Build Globally Competitive State-Led Regional Economies: State economies 

don’t stop at the boarder and local economies don’t stop at the city limits. Economies 

are regional in scope, crossing arbitrary and jurisdictional boundaries. Integrating 

economic and workforce development initiatives through a governor-led state-regional framework offers the greatest potential for economic expansion and industry 

competitiveness, while providing job growth, stability and career advancement opportunities for workers. Congress should provide governors the authority to design 

a delivery system that reflects the economy of the state and neighboring communities including the unique dynamics of industries and the workforce. • Focus On Emerging Industries. Globalization has increased the world demand 

for energy. To respond to national concerns, governors are proactively involved in 

establishing broad new energy collaborations and industry partnerships in clean 

and domestic energy and green jobs. Governors have also taken the lead in developing industry partnerships to address critical skills shortages in other key sectors 

like healthcare and technology. Congress should support strong public/private • Support Common Measures to Improve Accountability and Transparency: There 

has been a longstanding challenge and frustration caused by multiple and inconsistent federal performance measures for workforce programs. The nearly 100 complex and incomparable measures impede collaboration in both planning and service 

delivery and are not a sufficient tool for officials and stakeholders to understand 

system performance. Without common-sense performance measures, it is difficult to 

demonstrate the true difference these programs make in the lives of Americans. To 

respond to the challenge, the NGA joined with the National Association of State 

Workforce Agencies to develop common measures that increase system-wide accountability and transparency, while significantly decreasing administrative costs 

and inefficiencies. Congress should support the joint NGA/NASWA Common Measures Proposal which streamlines the existing performance measures into four critical measures that can be applied across all workforce programs. 

Conclusion 

At this time, our states and citizens are experiencing unprecedented fiscal challenges. Governors are facing these challenges and united in unwavering belief that 

the United States’ economy is resilient and the true strength of our nation remains 

the ingenuity, perseverance, and hard work of the American people. Americans want 

to work and Governors are leading reform to make this possible. 

To do so, however, it is time for the laws and policies of this country to catch up 

with the realities and possibilities of the 21st century. Reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act must embody a new federal-state workforce vision; a partnership that equips governors with the tools to initiate bold, structural reforms that 

will keep our great nation competitive. 

Across the country, governors stand ready to work with Congress to ensure that 

every American has the opportunity for a good paying job and the ability to advance 

their career through lifelong learning. Governors know that better days lie ahead; 

the work you do now, in this Subcommittee, will enable or constrain our collective 

fate to meet the workforce challenges of tomorrow. 

ATTACHMENTS

1. National Governors Association Policy: Governors’ Principles to Ensure Workforce Excellence 

2. Joint NGA/NASWA Common Measure Proposal for Reauthorization of the 

Workforce Investment Act 

3. State Sector Strategies: Regional Solutions to Worker and Employer Needs 

4. Accelerating State Adoption of Sector Strategies: An Eleven-State Project to 

Promote Regional Solutions to Worker and Employer Needs 

5. Aligning State Workforce Development and Economic Development Initiatives 

Chairman HINOJOSA. We thank you. And you can relay to the 

Governors Association that we will take their recommendations 

very seriously and definitely see how we can work them into the 

reauthorization of WIA. 

At this time, I would like to call on Ms. Raynor. 

STATEMENT OF CHARISSA RAYNOR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

SEIU HEALTHCARE NW TRAINING PARTNERSHIP 

Ms. RAYNOR. Good morning. 
113 

Chairman HINOJOSA. We can hear you better now. 

Ms. RAYNOR. Thank you, Chairman Hinojosa and Ranking Member Guthrie, for the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee 

today. I am Charissa Raynor, Executive Director of the Service Employees International Union Healthcare Northwest Training Partnership. The training partnership is a joint training effort by employers and SEIU. SEIU is the largest and fastest-growing union 

in the nation, representing 2 million members in the public, health 

care, and property service sectors. 

I would like to focus my remarks today on the work of the SEIU 

Healthcare Northwest Training Partnership and have submitted 

the remainder of my testimony for the record. 

SEIU supports programs that prepare workers for a 21st-century 

economy, with the opportunity to enhance both skills and earnings 

throughout their work life. Representing members in the highgrowth, high-demand occupations, including home care, registered 

nurses, food service workers, janitors and childcare workers, SEIU 

has a proven track record of delivering job-training and education, 

placement, and career development to diverse workers in a variety 

of settings. 

SEIU often partners with employers, and we believe that this 

provides a good model for strengthening training partnerships 

under the Workforce Investment Act. 

In operation since July 2008, the training partnership is a nonprofit labor-management organization in Washington State dedicated to modernizing training and workforce development for longterm care workers and supporting career pathways for those workers who are ready to advance into hospital jobs, for example. 

By 2010, the training partnership will be the primary training 

provider for long-term care workers in Washington. We will be providing training to over 30,000 long-term care workers annually, 

and our programs will include entry-level homecare aid training, 

advanced homecare aid training, a peer mentorship program, and 

continuing education. 

We are predominantly funded by employer contributions and governed by a diverse board. Our programs are tuition-free for workers, and workers are paid to attend training by partner employers. 

Long-term care and hospital employers in Washington State are 

experiencing very serious workforce shortages and at the same 

time increasing demand for health care services related to the 

aging baby boomers. The state also has many poor and low-income 

individuals, often women of color, who are interested in a career in 

health care. Matching these individuals with entry-level career 

track jobs would benefit the economic status of these individuals 

and support access to high-quality care in their communities, turning crisis into an opportunity. 

Unfortunately, this opportunity is not often realized, because 

most entry-level jobs are dead-end, with little room for advancement. Our goal, then, is to reposition these jobs as stepping stones 

to a meaningful career in health care. 

We are in the early stages of developing a 21st-century platform 

that will link at scale these individuals to career tracks in health 

care and support them as they move up a career ladder. Specifically, we are working with partners to design modern, adult-learn-
114 

er-centered training programs for long-term care workers and plugging these programs into an accessible career track, statewide career track. 

Our focus is to link a series of high-demand health care operations across a fast track. Fast tracks credit these entry-level 

homecare aides for their previous training and experience toward 

an end-goal degree, such as nursing and other high demand health 

degrees and certifications. 

As part of this fast track, we have established an intermediate 

step: advanced homecare aid under the apprenticeship model. And 

once implemented in 2010, this will be the first apprenticeship program for long-term care workers in Washington State and the largest apprenticeship program of any kind in Washington State. 

Second, the training partnership is working to develop a Webbased community network tool, a virtual entry point, if you will, 

helping community-based organizations help job-seekers to access a 

customized career track in health care. 

Features include a career track calculator that can be used to 

map different career track options in health care, depending upon 

the job-seeker’s individual needs and goals, and a real-time employment hub that can be used to identify and apply for job openings 

with partner employers. 

[The statement of Ms. Raynor follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Charissa Raynor, Executive Director, SEIU 

Healthcare NW Training Partnership, on Behalf of the Service Employees 

International Union (SEIU) 

Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Hinojosa and Ranking Member Guthrie for 

the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee today. I am Charissa Raynor, Executive Director of the Service Employees International Union Healthcare Northwest Training Partnership. The Partnership is a joint training effort by employers 

and SEIU. SEIU is the largest and fastest-growing union in the nation, representing 

2 million members in the public, healthcare, and property services sectors. 

SEIU’s Vision for WIA and Workforce Development 

SEIU believes that the mission of WIA should be to prepare workers for a 21st 

century economy and to offer them opportunities throughout their work lives to enhance their skills and their earnings. According to U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 

projections, the top 15 fastest-growing occupations over the next decade include 

home care aides, registered nurses, food service workers, janitors, and child care 

workers. However, these rapidly growing occupations, with the exception of registered nurses, pay, on average, wages that are below the median average wage for 

all occupations. As a union dedicated to lifting service workers into the middle class 

and to promoting the delivery of high-quality services, SEIU has a strong interest 

in working with the Subcommittee to reauthorize WIA to promote a comprehensive 

workforce development strategy to: 

1. Alleviate projected shortage occupations in such sectors as: healthcare, child 

care and early education, and property services; 

2. Offer low-literacy, low-skill workers intensive supports and learning strategies 

to fit their needs; and 

3. Create career paths that allow low-wage workers to rise to the middle class. 

SEIU has a proven track record delivering job training and education, job placement, and career development to home care, child care, property services and hospital and health system workers across the country. They have created ongoing 

training and education efforts in their larger local unions—often in partnership with 

their employers; and SEIU believes these efforts can serve as models to strengthen 

the Workforce Investment Act. 

Innovations and Best Practices in Washington 

The work of the SEIU Healthcare NW Training Partnership, a joint labor-management program in Washington, is such an example. In operation since July 2008, 

the Training Partnership is a nonprofit, labor-management organization dedicated 
115 

to modernizing training and workforce development for long term care workers and 

supporting career track programs for workers ready to advance into hospital employment. By 2010, the Training Partnership will be the primary training provider 

for long term care workers in Washington. We are primarily funded by employer 

contributions and governed by a diverse board including labor and employer representatives. Tuition for all training is paid and workers are paid for work time 

missed to attend training. 

Long term care and hospital employers across Washington are experiencing serious workforce shortages that are expected to worsen as baby boomers age—simultaneously reducing workforce supply and increasing demands on our healthcare systems—from entry-level, career track long term care jobs to high demand hospital 

jobs. At the same time, many poor and low-income individuals—often women of 

color—have an interest in healthcare as a career. Matching these individuals with 

entry-level, career track healthcare jobs in their communities would benefit both the 

economic status of these job seekers and support high quality care for people living 

in those same communities. 

More often than not though, these workers never access the career track because 

it is not visible or because it is not supportive. For example, very few entry-level 

long term care workers participate in a healthcare career track. In fact, most of 

these are dead-end jobs with no room for advancement at all. Our goal is to improve 

the attachment of poor and low-income individuals, especially people of color and 

women, across Washington to a meaningful healthcare career track. Especially in 

today’s economic climate, the joint labor-management Training Partnership plays a 

critical role in Washington’s overall strategy for economic stabilization and the benefits are three-fold: 1) building human capital; 2) meeting the current demand for 

trained healthcare professionals; and 3) responding to structural changes in the 

economy. 

Broadly, the SEIU Healthcare NW Training Partnership and partner organizations are in the early stages of developing a 21st century training platform that will 

link, at scale, these individuals to career tracks in healthcare and support them as 

they advance up the career ladder, providing a suite of career track training to more 

than 30,000 long term care workers across Washington. This includes entry-level 

Home Care Aide training, advanced Home Care Aide training, Peer Mentorship for 

new workers, and continuing education for Home Care Aides. 

Specifically, the Training Partnership is working with partners to: 

1. Design a modernized, adult learner centered training program—this includes 

developing an accessible statewide career track for home care aides. Our focus is 

to link a series of high demand healthcare occupations together in a ‘‘fast track’’ program for home care aides. This ‘‘fast track’’ ‘‘credits’’ the entry-level home care aide’s 

training and experience toward their ultimate healthcare degree or certificate. We 

have also established an intermediate step for home care aides, Advanced Home 

Care Aide, under the Apprenticeship model. This Apprenticeship program will be 

the first for long term care workers in Washington. It is expected to be the largest 

Apprenticeship program of any kind and possibly the largest healthcare apprenticeship program in the country. In sum, we are creating targeted opportunities for career mobility in the high demand healthcare sector—from entry-level career track 

home care aide to Advanced Home Care Aide to nursing and other high demand 

hospital jobs; 

2. Develop a Web-based Community Network Tool—a virtual entry point for community-based organizations to help job seekers access a customized career track and 

employment. Features include: a) a Career Track Calculator that can be used to 

map different career track options depending on individual goals and needs; and b) 

a Real Time Employment Hub that can be used to identify job openings among partner employers and being the application process. 

The joint labor-management training model, such as the SEIU Healthcare NW 

Training Partnership, maintains progress in difficult times and responds to the cyclical nature of economic downturns by sustaining public-private partnerships. Programs under the training partnership model are informed by a culturally and linguistically diverse set of stakeholders through two advisory structures: the College 

Consortium for college representatives and the Community Network for communitybased organizations, including workforce development, consumer advocacy, and government agencies. 

While we have an excellent relationship with the WIB and many other community 

organizations, the Training Partnership has yet to receive WIA funding. Expanding 

the purpose of the Workforce Investment Act to include labor-management training 

programs would add value to the WIA funding system, as well as greatly enhance 

our ability to train unemployed and incumbent workers of all skill levels. 
116 

WIA Successes 

SEIU members play a dual role in worforce training and development. SEIU is 

a training provider in some industries and localities, and SEIU public employees in 

many states deliver services in One Stop Centers, proving crucial employment services for the unemployed. These members have assisted unemployed workers to receive unemployment benefits, trained job-seekers, guided them through their job 

search, helped them acquire work-related skills, and brokered the hiring process 

with employers. SEIU members know that strong workforce programs can help the 

country emerge from this economic downturn by helping job seekers gain the skills 

they need to find good jobs and earn a living wage. But in order to bolster the current system of workforce development, Congress must ensure adequate federal funding as well as preserve the successful delivery of employment services by the public 

sector, where there is an emphasis on universal access to services. 

Privatization of employment services short-changes those clients who face the 

greatest barriers as private contractors tend to focus on those workers easiest to 

place. A private institution may fail to deliver services locally or fail to provide individualized services based on a client’s unique needs—or may charge a premium to 

provide comprehensive services. Job seekers with significant employment barriers, 

including seasonal workers, those with disabilities, those in need of special accommodations, or those in rural areas; are likely to be given short shrift under a 

privatized model. 

In this time of economic crisis, the preservation of public sector delivery of employment services and the federal requirement that Wagner-Peyser Employment 

Services be delivered by civil service employees is crucial to WIA’s continued success. The reauthorization of WIA offers an opportunity to codify this longstanding 

regulatory requirement in legislative language. 

Reforms to WIA 

Based on these innovations and successes of WIA, SEIU recommends these reforms which will strengthen WIA to create the robust workforce development system 

the country needs to combat the record levels of unemployment and underemployment and to support workers to succeed in a dynamic economy. 

First, SEIU recommends fostering more partnerships at every level, and include 

labor and other community advocates in the planning and delivery of services. When 

workers belong to a union, they have the opportunity to bargain for additional onthe-job training and other educational and advancement opportunities. SEIU has 

formed many partnerships with employers to invest additional resources in training, 

yet WIA does not reward these partnerships and employers who invest in incumbent 

workers. These collaborations result in career ladders that provide opportunities for 

noncollege educated workers to increase their skills and their paychecks, and they 

open up entry-level positions for disadvantaged or unemployed workers. In contrast 

to many training programs currently funded by WIA, SEIU labor-management 

training programs almost always result in a real job at the end of successful completion of training. 

Specifically, SEIU recommends that you amend WIA to allow state and local 

boards to contract with labor-management training funds to provide occupational 

skills training, on-thejob training and workplace training with related instruction, 

and/or skill upgrading and retraining. This can be accomplished by amending the 

eligible criteria for training partners and by allowing the governor to add labormanagement training funds to the list of eligible entities that are submitted for his 

approval by local boards. 

Second, SEIU recommends that training resources be more focused on highgrowth, high-demand sectors. SEIU supports sectoral strategies where WIA resources are used to target identified needs and shortages in sectors that are growing 

and creating good jobs. For example, our healthcare system suffers from chronic 

workforce shortages and employs too few workers dedicated to prevention and primary care. Priority sectors should include healthcare and long term care, child care 

and early education, and green jobs. WIA funding can be used not just to alleviate 

a nursing shortage, but to grow a more diverse nursing profession and promote 

more nurses working in underserved areas. 

Third, SEIU recommends increased use of grants to fund training and educational 

entities. The WIA system should not continue to rely on Individual Training Accounts as the primary mechanism to deliver services to eligible workers. Individual 

Training Accounts, for example, are too small to support a nurse’s aide who has the 

motivation and opportunity to go to nursing school. The Trade Adjustment Assistance Act, by contrast, offers workers displaced by trade significantly more federal 

support than other displaced workers are eligible for under WIA. ITAs also do not 

promote proven learning strategies, such as cohort training. ITAs were created to 
117 

offer additional choice, but they only offer the illusion of choice and generate high 

administrative costs. Low-wage incumbent workers who have demonstrated a strong 

attachment to the workforce but need additional skills to access career ladders cannot easily qualify for ITAs. 

Fourth, SEIU recommends increasing the percentage of funding allocated to statewide activities. WIA currently allocates 15 percent of a state’s WIA funding to statewide activities. Increasing this by 5 percent would allow governors to develop strategic plans for workforce development and have more authority to create larger initiatives and target funding to accomplish initiatives that address wage inequality 

and that can further sector strategies, such as a statewide initiative to upgrade the 

early childhood education workforce or an initiative to address the nursing shortage. 

Additionally, some incumbent workers are at risk of job loss due to changing technology or industry restructuring, and it may be more cost-effective to intervene before they become unemployed. 

Fifth, SEIU suggests requiring greater coordination among other education and 

training programs. Training dollars should be an integral component of broader 

strategies to promote economic development and alleviate poverty. SEIU supports 

a broader vision of education and lifelong skills building that can leverage student 

loans and Pell grants with WIA dollars and community college resources, for example. Federal child care subsidies should also be made available to workers who 

would otherwise be unable to continue their education and training. This kind of 

coordination is more feasible at the state level than at the level of local WIBs. 

Finally, SEIU recommends that the Committee reform the structure of local WIBs 

as it reauthorizes WIA. Many local WIBs lack a broad vision and real community 

representation, including unions and other advocates for workers and distressed 

communities. 

Conclusion 

SEIU appreciates the significant resources the Congress provided in the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act to modernize unemployment benefits, increase support for state employees to serve unemployed workers, and increase WIA funding 

and competitive training grants during this extremely difficult economic time. SEIU 

looks forward to working with the Subcommittee, as well as the full Education and 

Labor Committee, to devise a workforce development system that works for all 

workers. 

Thank you and I look forward to your questions. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. I am going to interrupt you and say that 

we love the information that you are sharing with us. I am going 

to make sure that the entire statement is put into the record. 

Votes have been called, two of them, and I am going to request 

of members who wish to stay that we have enough time to listen 

to the presentation by Mr. Smith and the presentation by Mr. 

Lanter. After your 5 minutes each, we will then run to vote and 

return to have the question session with each one of you. 

So with that, I would like to proceed to listen to Mr. Smith’s 

presentation. 

STATEMENT OF KEVIN G. SMITH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

LITERACY NEW YORK, INC. 

Mr. SMITH. Chairman Hinojosa, Mr. Guthrie, members of the 

subcommittee, current economic conditions notwithstanding, America’s supply of adequately skilled workers does not meet its demand. It is essential to consider what skills are available versus 

those needed to support and sustain national, state and local economic development strategies. 

As the nation succeeds in building an economic recovery, including job creation, the skills gap will impede progress. Simply, citizens who lack basic literacy and language skills will continue to 

draw from, rather than contribute to, efforts to create economic sta-
118 

bility and growth. We must invest in our nation’s human infrastructure, as we do the nation’s capital infrastructure. 

When discussing the issue of adult literacy, advocates point to 

studies indicating millions who function below basic levels. The 

2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy and more recent National Center for Education Statistics reports chronicle the issue, 

indicating that more than 30 million, or 14 percent of adults, possess skills below basic. 

In my home state of New York, that number is 22 percent, although in Congressman Bishop’s district, it is the same as the national figure, where 1 in 7, more than 160,000 working-age individuals, have below basic skills. The simplest information processing 

tasks are challenging. 

Another 63 million, or 29 percent of adults, function at levels 

considered to be at basic. These adults may become challenged as 

accessing, understanding and utilizing information at work or elsewhere becomes more complex. 

In many cases, these are native-born adults who have attended 

public school, but for a variety of reasons not gained the desired 

abilities. For many others, they are immigrants who have come to 

the United States with varying levels of academic exposure and 

success, but do not speak English well enough to fully engage in 

social and economic activities. 

It is very important for the committee to consider the wide scope 

of adults that may benefit by improved literacy and language skills 

to support their training and employment goals when crafting legislation that better supports the development of a more highly and 

appropriately skilled workforce. 

My written comments go into greater detail on the condition of 

the two systems operating under Title I and Title II of the Workforce Investment Act. Suffice to say that each has been severely 

limited by the level or loss of funding and the scope of the need 

and expectation of service. Neither system is able to provide the 

services to meet the current demand, and both are challenged to 

respond to the emerging increase in programs needed to meet the 

nation’s economic recovery and development plans. 

The need for adult education services far exceeds the capacity of 

the current system to deliver. There is no doubt that we will need 

to enhance efforts to serve more, better, not just to help people to 

help themselves, but to maximize the country’s investment in economic recovery. 

However, before we consider how much it would cost to serve 3 

million or 5 million or 17 million more adults, it is important to 

consider re-engineering the current system into one that can and 

will efficiently and effectively assess the compatibility of skills 

available in the nation, state, community and individual to specifically meet the demands for skills in these current and future 

economies. 

Obviously, difficult decisions will have to be made regarding how 

many may be served how well in order to expedite development of 

skills needed to fill jobs available and being created. 

Analogous to plans to focus on sector employment, we should 

consider literacy and language skills needed to fill jobs in those sectors and concentrate and coordinate our efforts accordingly. 
119 

Adults seek education services due to a very wide range of learning needs and goals. Native-born adults with reading abilities ranging from the 1st-grade level all the way to the 12th seek support 

to advance to the next level. Immigrants who are not literate in 

their native language, as well as highly educated professionals, 

seek help to improve their English-language skills. 

The system responding to this continuum of need include secondary, post-secondary, community-based, faith-based, library, and 

volunteer-based sectors. These programs are all competing for 

scant resources needed to serve the learning needs of this large, 

complex population. Very limited resources are spread very thin. 

State and local contributions vary widely. The level of investment from program to program varies dramatically, as does the 

quantity and quality of service. 

Community colleges seeking to serve higher-level students compete with community-based programs better suited to serving those 

with less skill. State education agencies, compelled to fund secondary or post-secondary institutions, finesse the competitive process, despite direct inequitable statutory language. 

Programs are pitted against each other, rather than creating a 

greater sum, because there is such great need and so few resources 

and strategic planning. 

[The statement of Mr. Smith follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Kevin G. Smith, Executive Director, 

Literacy New York, Inc. 

Current economic conditions not withstanding, America’s supply of adequately 

skilled workers does not meet its demand. It is essential to consider what skills are 

available versus those needed to support and sustain national, state and local economic development strategies. As the nation succeeds in building an economic recovery, including job creation, the skills gap will impede progress. Simply, citizens who 

lack basic literacy and language skills will continue to draw from rather than contribute to efforts to create economic stability and growth. We must invest in the nation’s human infrastructure, as we do the nation’s capital infrastructure. 

When discussing the issue of adult literacy, advocates point to studies indicating 

the millions who function below basic levels. The 2003 National Assessment of Adult 

Literacy (NAAL) and more recent National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) 

reports chronicle the issue indicating that 30 million or 14% of adults possess below 

basic skills. In my home state of New York that number is 22%, although in Congressman Bishop’s district it is the same as the national figure—where one in seven 

or 160,034 working age individuals have below basic skills. The simplest information processing tasks are challenging. Another 63 million or 29% of adults function 

at levels consider to be basic. These adults may become challenged as accessing, understanding and utilizing information at work becomes more sophisticated. In many 

cases, these are native born people who have attended public school but, for a variety of reasons, not gained the desired abilities. For many others, they are immigrants who have come to the United States with varying level of academic exposure 

and success but do not speak English well enough to fully engage in social and economic activities. It is very important for the Committee to consider the wide scope 

of adults that may benefit by improved literacy and language skills to support their 

training and employment goals when crafting legislation that facilitates the development of a more highly and appropriately skilled workforce. 

The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 correctly tied the adult training and education systems together. The law suggests levels of coordination and cooperation. 

Many in the adult education community remain concerned about dedicating our 

work strictly on workforce development. Nonetheless, it is clear that supporting incumbent and unemployed workers with the skills they need to acquire and retain 

employment is critical. Honestly, while there are examples of successful local initiatives, much more needs to be done to research and implement more efficient and 

effective practices that seamlessly merge WIA Title I and Title II functions. 
120 

As has already been testified, the need for adult education services far exceeds 

the capacity of the current system to deliver. You know that of the 88 to 93 million 

Americans who have basic or below basic skills fewer than 3 million are getting 

help. Some, notably the National Commission on Adult Literacy (NCAL) have called 

for a new approach and investment supporting a massive expansion of the adult 

education system. There is no doubt that we will need to enhance efforts to serve 

more, better; not just to help people to help themselves but to maximize the country’s investment in economic recovery as well. 

However, before we consider how much it would cost to serve 3 or 5 or 17 million 

more adults, it is important to consider reengineering the current system in to one 

that can and will efficiently and effectively assess the compatibility of the skills 

available in the nation, state, community and individual to specifically meet the demand for skills in these respective current and future economies. Obviously, difficult 

decisions will have to be made regarding how many may be served how well in order 

to expedite development of the skills needed to fill the jobs available and being created. Analogous to plans to focus on sector employment we should consider the literacy and language skills needed to fill jobs in those sectors and concentrate and 

coordinate our efforts accordingly. The current system does not function in that 

manner. Why? * * * because it lacks the capacity to do so, capacity that includes 

human and fiscal resources, flexibility, local authority and relative parity. The result is two distinct systems still operating as if they had no related purpose when, 

in fact, a large percentage of Title II students have employment goals and Title I 

customers need literacy or language improvement in order to avail and benefit by 

One-Stop services. 

In order to further explain the problems faced by adults seeking skill development 

as needed to become and remain employed it may be useful to consider further the 

range of learning needs that the adult education system is expected to address and 

then, therefore, why coordination is so difficult. As you may know, the National Reporting System (NRS), WIA Title II reporting matrix has categorizes learners as 

Basic Literacy or English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL). Further, these 

two populations are divided into six levels each. A Level I Basic Literacy student 

tests in at reading below the second grade reading level while a Level 6 student 

demonstrates abilities between grade 11 and 12. For the ESOL population the six 

levels also create a scale of English language competency that is an equally broad 

spectrum of abilities. Simply, the adult education system accommodates learners the 

equivalent of a K-12 system for Basic Literacy students and a K-12 system for 

ESOL students. However, it must be considered, that the adult education system 

is working, for the most part, with the students who have not achieved success as 

school-aged learners and who present with multiple literacy-related issues including 

poverty, unemployment, incarceration, substance & alcohol abuse, chronic health 

problems and so on. 

The system responding to this continuum of need includes secondary, post-secondary, community-based, faith-based, library and volunteer-based sectors. These 

programs are all competing for scant resources needed to serve the learning needs 

of this large, complex population. The very limited resources are spread very thin. 

State and local contributions vary widely. The level of investment from program to 

program varies dramatically as does the quantity and quality of service. Community 

colleges seeking to serve Level 5&6 students compete with community-based programs better suited to serving Level 1&2. State Education Agencies (SEAs) compelled to get funds to secondary or post-secondary institutions finesse the competitive process despite ‘direct & equitable’ statutory language. Programs are pitted 

against each other rather than creating a greater sum because there is such great 

need and so few resources and strategic planning. 

On the WIA Title 1 side of the equation, years of deep funding cuts have diminished services and capacity. As in any economy, less is managed by reduction of 

costs. Fewer are served and, all things being equal, those who cost the least to serve 

are targeted. Programs that do not have fully developed partnerships are relegated 

to selecting those closest to job placement. Others have created structures and partnership that facilitate the disparity of readiness to work and availability of employment. This capacity should not be a local anomaly based on governmental structure 

or leadership. Rather, it must be systematic. 

Despite the problems very good work is being accomplished within and between 

the WIA Title I and Title II systems. Here are few examples of what is or could 

be happening to improve the effort: 

Suffolk County, New York 

In Suffolk County, New York the Workforce Investment Board (WIB) and OneStop have been structured in a way that allows for public assistance recipients lack-
121 

ing the skill needed for employment to be served accordingly and avoiding inappropriate placement and rating for the One-Stop operator. They have developed a 

strong referral system with the Long Island Regional Adult Education Network 

(RAEN) that brokers services to a range of all sectors of adult education programs 

by learning need and service availability. 

Despite this strong local solution to the structural and funding issues they face, 

they recognize that things could work better. Statutory authority to seek and secure 

the literacy and language skill development required to place customers in the jobs 

that are available would be greatly facilitated by making placement into educational 

services a positive outcome. Reinstituting the multiple variable regression model 

from the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) would allow One-Stop Career Centers 

to address more difficult-to-serve populations without sacrificing their performance 

and accompanying incentive funding in this difficult fiscal climate. Veteran operators report that under the old system a weighted—scale permitted them to identify 

and serve adults with more serious and difficult employment barriers. 

Allegany County, New York 

In Allegany County, New York, a rural county in the western part of the state, 

a partnership between the WIB, the two major employers and the local volunteer 

literacy program has found great success. Dresser Rand, one of the largest global 

suppliers of rotating equipment solutions and a large regional Dairy, which together 

employ a significant percentage of the working population, have each established 

minimum skill levels for employment consideration. If a perspective employee enters 

the system lacking the skills needed to pass the employer-administered test, they 

are referred to Literacy West for a six-week course that has produced results highly 

satisfactory to both employers. The CEO of Dresser Rand has indicated that this 

flow of skilled workers and the support of the workforce and adult education communities has figured prominently in their decision to remain and continue to invest 

in upstate New York. 

Again, improvements can and should be considered. As in Suffolk County, New 

York there is a lack of clarity regarding protocol and procedure in referring customers from the One-Stop to the adult education provider. Two distinct data systems that do not communicate or share information further hinder efficiency. The 

inability to obtain read only, much less limited data entry access, clearance for the 

adult education partner in Title Is data system forces multiple and more expensive 

steps. 

The One Stops data system provides Literacy West with the employment status 

they need to complete their NRS data reporting required by New York State for all 

adult education funding. This is the only adult education program in the state that 

I am aware of that has this access. All others have used less reliable, more costly 

post-program survey strategies to track the employment outcome they are responsible to report. This cooperation and capacity, coupled with the exemplary educational gain results they produced, made them the most highly ranked adult education program in the state last year. 

Conflicting Outcome Expectations 

Another concept for consideration is retooling our adult education system to specifically deliver workplace skills. Currently, there is a growing conflict between demonstrating educational gain outcomes as indicated by norm-referenced tests and soft 

skill instruction and job protocols. Employers consistently report wanting employees 

who show up on time and work well with others but adult education is forced to 

focus on academic services to realize educational gain outcomes. There has simply 

got to be a way to modify service outcome expectations to support and report the 

delivery of services that effectively produce job acquisition and retention results and 

that encourage the continuation of literacy and language development while workers 

are employed. 

The Volunteer Asset 

The adult education system is unique for its significant volunteer-based service 

response. The nation should be proud of this history and heritage, yet many view 

it as evidence of the system’s relative insignificance and value. I encourage this 

Committee to consider, especially with the renewed Presidential call to voluntary 

services, the worth and role of the volunteer sector. Currently relegated to serving 

the most in need with the least resources, the volunteer-based programs have persisted in organizing fundamental neighbor-helping-neighbor efforts across the country. Better supported and utilized as additional support to group instruction services 

or as job coach/ community mentors to high risk new hires are a couple of ways of 

considering to better utilize the rich volunteer resource already serving in adult 

education. 
122 

The nation and states need to sort out how many adults can be served how well 

with the resources made available under WIA Title II. In Policies to Promote Adult 

Education and Postsecondary Alignment Julie Strawn, CLASP Senior Policy Analyst, reported that the national average investment from all sources per student, per 

year is only $645. Not surprisingly, she went on to report that few adult education 

students go on to postsecondary education and a very high percentage of those who 

do not complete. This analysis speaks clearly for the need to create a continuum of 

adult education services in each state and as required in law. The nation must strategically engage the assets it has available to serve the full spectrum of Basic Literacy and ESOL learning needs, and use the resources made available to develop 

and coordinate the same. 

Both WIA systems have atrophied significantly in recent years and are in desperate need of reengineering and rebuilding. Together they represent an essential 

aspect of our country’s infrastructure and capacity to close the skills gap between 

our nation’s workforce and business needs to compete in this 21st Century global 

economy. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Mr. Smith, we are going to make your entire presentation part of this hearing. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. And we are going to call on Mr. Lanter. 

STATEMENT OF BOB LANTER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CONTRA 

COSTA COUNTY WORKFORCE INVESTMENT BOARD 

Mr. LANTER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee. On behalf of the California Workforce Association and 

our membership, I am pleased to be here today to share our best 

thinking on workforce investment in our country. 

I am also pleased to point out that I am a constituent from 

Chairman George Miller’s district and want to acknowledge how 

grateful we are that he has been a champion both nationally and 

back at home. 

I want to take a second to thank and recognize members Buck 

McKeon and Susan Davis, who have both been strong supporters 

in California. 

There are three essential ingredients to the Workforce Investment Act which serve as common themes that run throughout our 

local roles and regional focus. 

First, WIA provides an infrastructure of workforce investment 

boards, led by the private sector. These WIBs are the only places 

in local communities that serve as a table, where key stakeholders 

come together to develop solutions to local and regional workforce 

issues. 

This structure is not perfect—our boards are too big and sometimes unwieldy—but the concept is a smart one. Make sure the private sector is in the lead, they know where the jobs are, they understand the skills that are needed, and they demand accountability. 

Second, WIA gives authority to a partnership of local elected officials and workforce investment boards to design and deliver solutions that meet their local communities’ needs. Economist strategists throughout the world call for regional approaches in building 

global competitiveness and exhort us to devolve state and national 

approaches in favor of regional strategies. 

Industry sectors, skill development, economic prosperity cannot 

be delivered at a state level through a state system. One size does 

not fit all. 
123 

Another key reason that this local design is so important is that 

millions of dollars are being leveraged through local funding 

streams. Research conducted in California showed that, by combining smaller WIBs into regional bodies, we would have lost a million dollars to the system. Mayors and county supervisors are just 

not able nor willing to give up their local funding to larger regional 

jurisdictions or state governments. 

Thirdly, WIA established one-stop career centers, where in theory many resources would be targeted and leveraged. In reality, 

this occurs in wildly uneven examples across the country. 

This is mainly due to the fact that the Workforce Investment Act 

requires other systems to invest in our one-stops. However, none 

of the corresponding federal law requires this investment. 

This lack of investment has meant that WIA funding that would 

otherwise go to training is going to keep our one-stops running, 

and we must keep our one-stops running. In California, these career centers have been inundated with customers, some seeing 100 

percent increase over the last year. In San Diego alone, since July 

2008, 88,000 customers have went through their doors. 

A word on innovation. California has been engaged for many 

years in focusing on industry sectors. They vary by design and activities and outcomes because they are customized to meet the 

needs of a certain industry. They all use labor market information 

to determine their industry of choice. They are driven by local demand from the business sector and are partners with diverse and 

public-private stakeholders. They are fantastic examples of what 

can be done with WIA funding. 

In Contra Costa, we are faced with a shortage of process technicians in the petrochemical industry. We partnered with the region’s 

refineries, with Dow Chemical and other large manufacturers, 

along with the United Steelworkers and community colleges, to develop a 20-week training program targeted to dislocated construction and airline workers and returning veterans. The program has 

been so successful, it is now offered as part of a normal semesterbased system within the community college programs. 

Lastly, Workforce Investment Act. CWA has spent a considerable 

amount of time developing suggestions for reauthorization. We are 

happy to provide this committee with specific examples, but I 

would like to highlight three quick points. 

First of all, private-sector-led boards make sense. We need to adjust the requirement so that they are not too big to conduct business. Give local areas more autonomy under the law to appoint 

their key stakeholders. Give them their own title and their own 

budget authority so that they can serve as the very important 

intermediary and convening role. 

One-stop career centers, as was quoted recently in the New York 

Times, are emergency rooms of the economic crisis. We must continue to innovate and create more flexibility in terms of requirements about who gets served and when, create more incentives for 

other community resources to locate and fund their staff within our 

centers, and, lastly, we need to continue to innovate youth programs providing opportunities for career pathways, work experience, and contextualized vocational education. 
124 

Let us all participate in constructive dialogue so that we can 

identify what needs to be fixed and the new elements that are required for the new economy. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony today. The California Workforce Association is 

pleased to be a resource to your committee and to other policymakers as we move forward with Workforce Investment Act reauthorization and continue the work to revitalize our nation’s economy. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Lanter follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Bob Lanter, Legislative Committee Chairman, CWA 

Executive Director, Contra Costa Workforce Development Board 

Good Morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee. My name is 

Bob Lanter, and I serve as the Legislative Committee Director for the California 

Workforce Association (CWA), as well as the Executive Director for the Contra 

Costa Workforce Investment Board. On behalf of CWA, and our membership, I am 

pleased to be here today to share our best thinking on what innovations have already been initiated through the Workforce Investment Act, and provide you with 

suggestions on how to further strengthen the workforce investment system. 

I want to recognize members of the Subcommittee for your outstanding leadership 

in the area of workforce development, and thank members Susan Davis and Duncan 

Hunter, who have been strong supporters in California. Of course, we are also very 

thankful for Buck McKeon’s on-going commitment to the workforce system. And I 

am pleased to point out that I am a constituent from Chairman George Miller’s district, and want to acknowledge how much we appreciate that he has been a champion, both nationally, and in his district, for workforce programs. 

California’s economy, as one of the largest in the world, has withstood booms and 

busts over its history, but now faces a unique set of challenging conditions: an unprecedented state budget gap, a statewide unemployment rate nearing 10%, increased housing foreclosures, and a widening achievement gap among students. The 

recession is disproportionately hitting low-skill workers, while at the same time 

some industries are still facing skill and/or labor shortages in higher-skill occupations. 

Last year approximately three million customers were served through California’s 

One-Stop Career Centers. We are hearing that in some areas, the number of customers walking through the door has doubled. In San Diego alone, more than 88,000 

people have visited the One-Stops since July 2008. Confounding our ability to respond is the fact that the funding for our programs has been decimated in the last 

8 years—California has lost almost 50 percent of our WIA funding. 

Even with all of these challenges, we believe the economic crisis may prove to 

spur creativity and innovation and pave the way for a more optimistic future. We 

also believe there is a great opportunity for using the stimulus funding provided 

through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) to build and repair 

this nation’s human capital infrastructure and assist in getting Californians back 

to work. 

In the 1930s, we were a nation with an economic engine fueled by the capacity 

of our physical infrastructure. Thus, when the need came to stimulate the economy, 

our country created millions of jobs for a nation of manual laborers to strengthen 

that physical infrastructure. 

Today’s economy is much more dependent on a skilled, knowledge-based workforce. If this human capital is the most important component of our economic infrastructure, then we must be building a skilled workforce. With help from Congress, 

America’s public workforce system is poised to leverage this difficult moment to prepare our workers for the skills we need to once again be most prosperous and productive nation. 

Context 

What is the Workforce Investment Act? 

One of the difficulties of providing testimony to Congress about the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) is that it means very different things to different people. To 

some, it is a job training program for the unemployed, and in particular, those with 

barriers to employment. For others, it is a system of One-Stop Career Centers, there 

to provide information to all of a community’s residents about jobs, training opportu-
125 

nities and other community resources; and to help people get jobs. To many, it is 

an infrastructure of Workforce Investment Boards—stewards of the WIA funds, but 

equally important, groups of community leaders who understand the needs of businesses in their region and who work to ensure that there is a skilled workforce to 

meet those needs. And to others, WIA is a set of programs specifically designed to 

meet the needs of unemployed adults, dislocated workers, and youth unconnected 

to school and work. Last (and probably not least) there are those who expect WIA 

funds to help businesses recruit and retain their workers, grow their businesses, increase productivity, and increase the overall competitiveness of economic regions. 

The truth is that the Workforce Investment Act is all of these things. Different 

WIBs focus on different roles, largely to meet the needs of their local communities. 

The strength and the weakness of the locally-driven nature of the system is that 

it is tailored to meet local demand, but hard to classify and brand as one thing. 

These differing expectations of the workforce system have created misunderstandings about what is working and what isn’t. For example, many One-Stop Career Centers have done what the federal law encourages—they have leveraged their 

resources with other funds in the community, and use Pell Grants and community 

college funding to pay for training. When you look at their statistics, you will see 

that they have spent virtually no WIA funding on training—but when you look at 

the total investment in the services being delivered through the One-Stop, you see 

that hundreds of people have received training and other services funded by other 

systems. 

There are three essential ingredients, if you will, of the Workforce Investment 

Act, which serve as common themes throughout the differences in roles and regional 

focus. 

Private Sector led WIBs 

First, WIA provides an infrastructure of WIBs, led by the private sector, which 

are the only places in local communities that serve as a ‘‘table’’ where all are invited. The WIB includes business, organized labor, state and local government, education, and community organizations. This structure is not perfect—the boards are 

too big, sometimes unwieldy, and sometimes ineffective. We can provide suggestions 

on how to improve this problem, but the concept behind them is smart. Make sure 

the private sector is in the lead—they know where the jobs are, they understand 

the skills that are needed, and it is their job to be impatient with public sector bureaucracy and make sure that things get done. 

Partnership of Local Elected Officials and WIBs 

Second, WIA gives authority to a partnership of local elected officials and WIBs 

to design and deliver strategies that meet the needs of their communities and regions. Economic strategists throughout the world call for regional approaches to 

building global competitiveness and exhort us to devolve state and national approaches in favor of regional strategy. Although there is often disagreement about 

how many WIBs there should be, and whether regional governance and regional 

strategy are the same thing, strategies around industry sectors, skill development, 

and economic prosperity cannot be delivered at a state level through a state system. 

The other key reason that this local design is so important is that millions of dollars are being leveraged through other local funding streams. In many parts of the 

country, TANF, Community Development Block Grants, Community Services Block 

Grants, economic development and other resources are contributed through the 

leadership of local elected officials. In California, we did research on these investments early in the Schwarzenegger administration, when there was an effort to reduce the number of WIBs in California. What we found surprised even us—by combining smaller WIBs into larger regional bodies, we would have lost millions of dollars—mayors and county supervisors are willing and able to contribute other funds 

when they are being managed through the local partnership, but unwilling and unable if they are offering up funds to a larger region or state government. 

One-Stop Career Centers 

Third, WIA established One-Stop Career Centers, where in theory, many community resources are invested so that much of the funding targeted towards the unemployed could be leveraged. No one can argue that this makes great sense. In reality, 

since WIA required other systems to invest in One-Stops but none of the federal 

laws governing other systems required this same investment, there has been wildly 

uneven around the country. 

In California, where the State Workforce Investment Board commissioned a study 

on how much services cost in a One-Stop, the Employment Service is the largest 

investor outside of WIA, and then it is actually agencies that are not mandated by 

law to participate that bring in the most resources. In other states, such as Texas 
126 

and Michigan, because of laws passed at the state level, WIBs receive funding such 

as TANF, food stamps, child care and adult education. In demonstrations currently 

taking place around the country, One-Stops are providing supports for the working 

poor, including welfare, food stamps, earned income tax credits. 

In most states, certainly in California, the lack of investment of other funds has 

meant that funding that would otherwise go to training is going to keeping the OneStops running. And the problem is, One-Stops are successful community resources. 

In the last six months, California’s One-Stops have been inundated with customers. 

Many of these customers are coming to the One-Stop for the first time; many OneStops have seen a 100 percent increase in customers looking to get help in getting 

back to work. Again, One-Stops are not perfect, and the leveraging of funds is not 

working all over the country, but the concept of One-Stop services makes perfect 

sense. 

New innovations and best practice 

WIBs throughout the entire State have collectively worked together on a number 

of initiatives, and have started even more in response to the economic downturn. 

Through our Association, California’s 49 WIBs have launched a website, 

backtowork.org, which provides information ‘‘in English’’ to those who have lost 

their jobs and want to upgrade their skills, file for unemployment, and look for 

work. We have established a Recovery Act Task Force, and are meeting with statewide associations representing economic development, community college Career 

Technical Education programs, foster youth and TANF, organized labor, mental 

health programs, and those working on infrastructure and energy. We are also 

meeting regularly with our State and Federal partners. Last week, WIB staff from 

40 WIBs met to develop a Summer Youth template that all WIBs can use to help 

ensure high quality programs throughout the State. 

Community Leadership 

At the local and regional level, California WIBs have increasingly taken on a community leadership role and serve to catalyze change in their communities. This 

work ranges from regional strategic planning, labor market research, aligning resources across systems, brokering services and training, to in-depth industry sector 

work. WIBs right now are quickly moving forward to develop plans for how best to 

respond to the current economic crisis, leveraging the funding that will be distributed under the ARRA, and have positioned themselves well to use the larger workforce system to ensure success. 

We have also been working on developing the capacity of WIB staff across the 

State to operate in a transparent and participatory fashion. We are pleased to see 

President Obama’s Executive Order that requires this form of governance. WIBs 

have invested in the capacity of their staff to develop relationships, collaborate with 

other systems, and codesign programs and initiatives with a broad range of public 

and private sector partners, rather than ‘‘going it alone.’’ 

Regional Strategic Planning 

California has developed a new methodology for understanding regional economies, Clusters of Opportunity, which has allowed WIBs to gain new insights into 

the current and future jobs and occupations, and the skills required to become employed in those jobs. Developed by the Economic Strategy Panel and California 

Workforce Investment Board’s California Regional Economies Project, this methodology is being used by WIBs and their economic development and education partners around the State. In Humboldt County, for example, even though there was 

a belief that there were no industry sectors with sufficient scale to launch training 

programs, using this methodology, they discovered 500 niche manufacturers within 

the region. This allowed the WIB to collaborate with the community college to develop a curriculum that would meet employers’ needs, and provide training for residents who might otherwise have moved out of the region to pursue jobs in other 

counties. 

In Tulare County, the WIB and local educational agencies—both K-12 and community colleges started to look at the assets and services in the region, and realized 

that there were a number of employer advisory groups, all established under different funding, that were all in essence providing the same function. They have collectively agreed that the WIB, in collaboration with the schools and colleges, will 

establish single advisory groups within targeted industries, and all of the agencies 

will use the same groups to advise them on training, education and strategy. 

In the San Joaquin Valley, with funding from the State, 8 WIBs have agreed on 

the same target industries, the same assessment tools, and the same protocols with 

community colleges. The California Workforce Association has recently been given 
127 

a grant from the California Endowment, which will allow 4 or 5 consortia of WIBs 

throughout California to develop regional plans related to the healthcare workforce. 

Sector Strategies 

California has been engaged for many years in focusing on industry sector strategies; they vary by design, activities and outcomes because they are customized to 

the needs of a specific industry in a specific region. They all use labor market information to determine their industry and region of focus; are driven by employers in 

that industry; are partnerships of diverse public and private stakeholders; and are 

models for systems change. What is important to note is that building a pipeline 

for workers, and providing opportunities for low income individuals and youth to 

enter good jobs with sustainable wages often requires investment of time and money 

in activities other than training. Some industries, for example, need robust marketing and information dissemination about career pathways for youth in Middle 

School. 

When a financial crisis forced the Los Angeles County Department of Health 

Services to lay off 2,500 entry-level employees, the local Service Employees International Union worked with the LA County WIB and local colleges to establish a 

coordinated effort to advance low-skilled workers into the allied health field. The 

partners established a nonprofit, the Worker Education and Resource Center 

(WERC) to coordinate solutions, including articulating career pathways within allied 

health, designing and implementing new courses with credentials. Since 2002, over 

9,300 L.A.County DHS employees took courses; over 1,000 obtained new credentials 

or degrees; and graduates increased wages by an average of 20%. 

The San Bernardino County WIB catalyzed the establishment of the Alliance for 

Education, an organization that links business to youth through the K-12 education 

system. The Alliance brings information about industry sectors growing in the county and career ladders in those sectors, bringing hands on learning environments to 

the campus. Twenty-seven businesses now have whole curriculum case studies and/ 

or semester long class projects where a curriculum is based on a direct industry 

problem and how to solve it. For example, sheriffs taught students about how to 

solve a murder crime using algebra, Kelly Space Systems has walked through the 

algebraic equations with students who figure out how and launch their own rocket. 

An engineering company has run an environmental curriculum. 

Faced with a shortage of skilled Process Technicians within the Petrochemical 

and Manufacturing sectors, the Workforce Development Board of Contra Costa 

partnered with the regions refineries and large manufacturers, including Shell Oil, 

Chevron, Tesoro and Dow Chemical, along with the United Steel Workers, Los 

Medanos College and Mt. Diablo Adult School to create a sector initiative. The program targeted dislocated construction, airline and returning veterans and put them 

through a 20 week intensive Process Technician certificate program (PTECH.) At 

the conclusion of this 18-month grant, a two semester course was integrated into 

the course offerings at the college. Currently the classes are at capacity and the majority of the graduates are successful in finding employment. 

Talent Development Learning Labs 

In an attempt to better serve our customers in the manner envisioned in WIA, 

California is piloting a Talent Development model, which includes the integration 

of State Employment Service staff and local WIB staff in a new service delivery 

model. Twelve WIBs began implementing an integrated services delivery model, on 

July 1, 2008. The delivery model includes a common set of services available to all 

customers in the pool through a common customer flow, and an integrated staff, 

sharing resources among WIA, Employment Service and TAA staffing. 

The integrated services strategy is intended to shift service priority to an emphasis on worker skills, assisting workers to gain the skills leading to self-sufficiency 

and responding to employer demand. We also are increasing service levels and quality to improve performance. 

At the end of the first year of the pilots, an evaluation will help determine the 

effectiveness of the model and assist WIB directors in making informed decisions 

about whether or not they want to adopt this model and/or implement successful 

components. 

Green Jobs 

With the passage of the California Global Warming Solutions Act, and many following implementation vehicles, California has positioned itself as a leader in the 

areas of renewable energy, energy efficiency, and environmental sustainability 

across many sectors of the economy. As a result, California WIBs are actively engaged in partnerships to support the growing demand in the area of green jobs. 
128 

The California Workforce Investment Board recently restructured its committees 

to focus on developing and encouraging sector strategies, and has established a 

Green Collar Jobs Council. The Green Collar Jobs Council has already begun a valuable effort to develop a data-driven action strategy about how California can grow 

a greener economy and facilitate the creation of green jobs. The Council has an opportunity with the passage of the stimulus package to significantly accelerate that 

work. 

Activities are diverse as the areas of the state. In Southern and Northern California, for example, several WIBs, and counties, have come together to plan and implement regional strategies and programs. In the Los Angeles area, under the auspices of the South Bay WIB, the WIBs are working together with the community 

colleges and labor unions to develop regional strategies. 

The Richmond BUILD Pre-Apprenticeship Construction Skills & Solar Installation Training program is recognized as a national ‘‘best practice’’ for Green Collar 

job training. This innovative program has helped create a pathway out of poverty, 

addressing a primary cause of youth violence in the community. To date, 35 program graduates have obtained Green Collar jobs and are making a livable wage. 

This program includes a solar installation, solar thermal, and energy efficiency components that were developed and implemented in partnership with Solar Richmond, 

Solar Living Institute, GRID Alternatives, & Rising Sun Energy Center. The program received the 2008 FBI Director’s Community Leadership award and has been 

selected as a semi-finalist for the 2009 Harvard Innovations in Government award. 

What’s next for the Workforce Investment Act? 

CWA has spent a considerable amount of time developing suggestions for the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act. We would be happy to provide specific recommendations to the Committee. In this testimony, we want to outline some 

directions to move forward, and directions to move away from. 

Directions to move toward 

We believe that there are many features of the current system that work, and 

that we should build on these. Private sector led boards make sense, and we should 

adjust requirements so that they are not big and unwieldy, and give them more autonomy on the law, with their own title and budget authority, so that they can truly 

serve an intermediary convening role. The voice of the private sector, and their 

‘‘honest broker’’ role on a WIB, provides the kind of leadership that public agencies 

look for. 

One-Stop Career Centers are, as was quoted recently in the New York Times, 

‘‘emergency rooms of the economic crisis.’’ We must continue to innovate, create 

more flexibility in terms of requirements about who gets served when, and create 

more incentives for other community resources to locate and fund staff. One-Stops 

can still be what was envisioned in the original WIA, which was a true integration 

of employment and training services. They must also have enough flexibility so that 

they can respond to different economic conditions, sometimes more focused on helping business retain workers, sometimes on investing in longer term training for the 

economically disadvantaged, and at other times helping people quickly return to 

work. 

Sector strategies provide many pathways to work with employers, economic development and education. We should codify these approaches in the law, and provide 

infrastructure and performance measures that allow us to do more of this work, and 

do it better. We should create incentives for WIBs to move to sector strategies, as 

have been done in Pennsylvania, Washington and other states. 

Our youth programs provide critical services and supports for thousands of young 

people who are not connected to school or work, or who are in danger of dropping 

out. In Los Angeles, 1 in 5 young people between the age of 16 and 24 is not in 

school and not working. We need to continue to innovate with our youth programs, 

providing career pathway opportunities, and opportunities for work experience. We 

are very pleased that ARRA allows us to offer Summer Youth employment, and believe that this should be included in reauthorization. 

Directions to move away from 

You heard testimony several weeks ago, which recommended providing a stronger 

role for the Employment Service (ES) and it’s role in labor exchange. ES was designed to help people find jobs starting in the 1930s. At that time, finding a job 

meant reading classifieds in the newspaper, through word of mouth, and once the 

labor exchange was developed, by going into an Employment Service office. Just as 

in the past we needed travel agents to buy airplane tickets, unemployed people 

needed ES staff to help them look for work. Today, most people still find jobs 

through word of mouth, but the other predominant way is through on-line labor ex-
129 

change. Using the Job Service purely as a labor exchange appears anachronistic and 

unnecessary. [Note: We are not suggesting that staff who belong to merit systems 

do not have a place—most of the staff who work for WIBs in California, for example, 

are members of labor unions and work in city and county government.] 

In California, and a number of other states around the country, as mentioned 

above, we are piloting ways of using both ES and WIA staff in teams to provide 

these services to our customers. We believe that this integrated approach provides 

the best service to the people that need our help, and that isolating ES to deliver 

labor exchange, as has been proposed by others, is a step backward, and will not 

best meet the needs of the unemployed. 

We are concerned about more restrictions on the use of WIA funding at the local 

level, such as a minimum percentage spent on training, for two reasons. First, the 

law requires WIBs to use Individual Training Accounts and the Eligible Training 

Provider List. Requiring a percentage expenditure on training may actually reduce 

leveraged resources, and force WIBs to pay for higher cost training. In California, 

as in other states because of State funding pressures, community colleges are at cap. 

This means that they can no longer take students. If we were required to spend a 

certain percentage of our funds on training, we would have to turn solely to the private schools (many of which offer high quality training, but do not leverage public 

funding) in order to ‘‘make our expenditure levels.’’ Second, in places where they 

have done a good job leveraging resources, using Pell Grants and public education 

funding, resources that now go to support services and intensive services would go 

to training, and we would essentially be supplanting other funds. 

Summary 

In summary, we believe that there are many important and innovative strategies 

that are allowable in current law. Changes to WIA to make it even more effective, 

more responsive to local communities and to our customers are needed—let us all 

participate in constructive dialogue such as this so that we can identify what needs 

to be fixed, and what new elements are required in this new economy. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony today. The California Workforce Association is pleased to serve as a resource to you and other policy makers 

as we move forward with WIA Reauthorization and working toward revitalizing our 

nation’s economy. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. We thank you, Mr. Lanter, for sharing with 

us what is happening in California and how you all are working. 

We will be gone for just a few minutes. There are only two votes. 

Those who wish to turn your head to the back, there is a big screen 

that shows you the voting going on in the House of Representatives. And only two votes are going to be called, so we should see 

you in just a few minutes. 

I thank all the members. And we will be back. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman HINOJOSA. We are ready to reconvene. Members will 

be coming back from the Capitol in just a few minutes, but I will 

start with my first 5 minutes and direct my first question to Ms. 

Sandi Vito. 

The governors would like Congress to align federal programs, 

since you mentioned 12 different executive departments fund a variety of workforce programs. Do they have a proposal for such a 

joint initiative that they would like to see us consider in the reauthorization? 

Ms. VITO. What the National Governors Association is proposing 

is an alignment that looks at regulations, creating potentially an 

interagency team to streamline, coordinate and integrate regulations, policy, et cetera, so that the messages and indicators are 

clearer to both the states and local regions, and make it easier to 

coordinate, as well as eliminating any barriers to coordination. 
130 

We can get you the specific proposal, but I think the larger issue 

is that we would be happy to continue to engage in dialogue, in 

terms of what the specifics of—— 

Chairman HINOJOSA. We would like to see the drafts that you 

have in writing. And then we can certainly have our staff meet 

with you and your staff so that we can have a clear understanding. 

And then, if I have questions, I will be glad to call you. 

Also, another question to you, Sandi. Can you speak on any new 

energy collaborations for green jobs, which was in your remarks? 

Or would you—or would the governors send us some of the examples in the recommendations you made? 

And I ask that because I saw the amount of money that is in 

the—that is in the stimulus plan, and it is a sizable amount of 

money. So I would like to see what the Governors Association is 

thinking. 

Ms. VITO. We can send you the list of innovative projects from 

throughout the states. I can talk specifically about some of the initiatives in my own state of Pennsylvania. 

We have what we call energy partnerships which focus on energy 

conservation technologies. So we are training in weatherization, 

solar installation, where we actually have labor force shortages. In 

western P.A., we are actually training in retrofitting of building. 

And in a few areas throughout the state, we are doing training in 

energy auditing and assessment. 

So there has been good work begun. More of it needs to be done. 

And, again, I will ask the staff at NGA to forward you examples 

from other states. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Good. We would love to see that. 

My next question is to Charissa Raynor. The training partnership features fast-track credits for the entry-level homecare aides. 

How do these credits get accepted by higher education institutions, 

like our community colleges? How do they handle them? And do 

they have different accreditation systems? 

Ms. RAYNOR. Well, that is an excellent question. We believe that 

to have a meaningful career ladder for homecare workers, we have 

to first make sure that homecare workers are a part of the fasttrack, part of a career track. 

And so we are in the development stage right now, working with 

community colleges all across Washington to design this fast-track. 

The notion is that the community colleges would apply credit based 

upon the credential. So it is a statewide credential, certified 

homecare aide, and so this streamlines the process for each community college to apply that credit for previous training and experience, based upon the credential that any worker can access. 

If they have that certification, they go to a college with the program, the fast track in place, and they can access it based upon 

their credential. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. I think that that could be a very useful program. And I had an experience back in the beginning of my first 

term in Congress where NAFTA had been approved. And many of 

the textile companies in my region moved to Mexico and to China 

and elsewhere, Central America. 

And so we had a workforce of very loyal, good workers, working 

for Hagars, Dickies, Fruit of the Loom, Levi’s, and they were dis-
131 

placed, 20 years, some 25 years. And we had to re-train them for 

new jobs, and that was most challenging. So this would be something that I would be very interested in. 

My time has expired. And I would like to yield to Ranking Member Guthrie. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, panel, for this very informative session. 

Mr. Lanter, I want to ask you one on—you mentioned that—or 

in your testimony that private-sector-led boards you thought was 

important to be maintained in the Workforce Investment Act, and 

you talked about challenges working sometimes with the public 

sector, just using private-sector people to push or push, prompt 

along the public sector. 

You said you needed—boards needed to be smaller, but you needed to still maintain the private-sector lead. Could you give just 

some concrete examples of issues you have had with the public sector that, because it is private-sector-led or business people trying 

to get things done, have tried to shape a situation? Or any examples? 

Mr. LANTER. Sure. And I will speak on behalf of my own local 

workforce area, as opposed to the entire membership of the workforce association. 

I think for us the issues are that the private-sector folks have 

knowledge on what they need in terms of a workforce. They don’t 

necessarily have knowledge, nor should they understand the inner 

working of all of our public sector’s laws and regulations. 

And I think there are times when the public-sector folks are, for 

a variety of reasons, using the intricacies of our laws to sway a 

vote one way or another or ensure that dollars are targeted to a 

certain area. 

And I think the private-sector folks kind of cut through that very 

quickly and are able to say, you know, what is best for our local 

community? What is best for industry? What is best for our competitive advantage, in terms of our economy? And I think that gets 

people to kind of listen and straighten up very quickly. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Okay, thank you. And for Mr. Smith, in your testimony, you talked about the fact that many citizens lack basic literacy—maybe I am having a hard time—kind of allergies are bothering me right now—and language skills, I guess I am having—in 

a serious way, though, I mean, basic literacy and language, I know 

that is so important. I have worked on that in state government. 

And my question, how do you ensure these adult programs are 

addressing those needs? And how do we ensure that we are preparing for that? Because kind of my experience was that I would 

see people kind of combing for people that were higher-level literacy, not fully literate by any imagination, but would not focus on 

the lower level, because it was just too difficult. 

And so you could find somebody that read at maybe a junior high 

level and get them into a GED program. If they didn’t read at all, 

it was difficult and they seemed to be kind of looked over. So how 

do we ensure that we are teaching that, is my question? 

Mr. SMITH. It is a very good question. I think what has happened 

under the Workforce Investment Act, for the most part unintentionally, is we have reached out to the higher-level students and 
132 

adults who can benefit by workforce training, because they have 

the literacy and language skill and ability to do so. 

Those who lack those basic skills who cannot benefit by training 

have been relegated to being served by other programs that have 

received, at least in my experience, less resource and less funding. 

Those same adults who present with those lower skills come to us 

with learning disabilities, other literacy-related issues that, in fact, 

should take more time, cost more money, and command a greater 

investment, rather than a lesser investment. 

But they don’t get it. And eventually I believe that they will, because, as we do move the, if you will, as you suggest, the higherlevel adults forward, as we must, then we will have to bring the 

other adults forward in a one-step-up kind of an approach. So—— 

Mr. GUTHRIE [continuing]. Higher-level adults. I guess I should 

have said higher-level readers, instead of adults. Yes, that is exactly right, because we do need—I mean, if you can find somebody 

with a high-school diploma and get them into workforce training 

and move them up, I mean, we should move those people through. 

Mr. SMITH. Yes. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Exactly. And we have debated this in Kentucky. 

And I have always said that is great; I am not criticizing that program at all. We need to get these people through. Well, we just 

can’t forget that there are people that are going to take a little 

more investment, a little more time to get them to the level where 

we can get them through. 

So we don’t need to overlook the mass of people who are ready 

to go into workforce investment. We can’t overlook the people at 

the lower level of reading. 

Mr. SMITH. If I may, just to follow up, we must create a continuum of service for an adult education system in each state. 

There must be an entry point for adults with the lowest level, the 

middle-skill levels, and the higher levels. 

We must coordinate with the workforce investment system, understand the skills that are needed by the workforce system to support training and employment, and identify those adults who need 

the additional adult education, literacy and language skill to move 

them forward on that track in parallel. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Well, you are working a noble cause, I can tell you 

that. That is for sure. It is a very noble cause. Thanks. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. I yield back. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Thank you. 

At this time, I would like to call on my friend from Illinois, Congresswoman Judy Biggert. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I had a question to the previous panel, and I wanted to direct 

it here, about the sequence of services and the three-tier approach 

that has been used and was wondering if there would be greater 

flexibility if those that were in those tiers did not have to go 

through the sequence. 

And maybe start with Mr. Lanter, and I know that Secretary 

Vito has talked about the flow of services. 
133 

Mr. LANTER. Thank you. The short answer is, yes, there would 

be greater flexibility if the tiers of services were eased, in terms of 

how we have to move people through our career centers. 

When you have 88,000 people, close to 2 million in California 

going through our career centers, doing it through a tiered process 

is very difficult and slow at times. 

Some people come in to our career centers just to need quick retool. They want to get their resumes done. They want to know how 

to look for work, because they have been in the job market for 15 

years, and it is a new way of looking for work, and we can do that 

without having to put them into core, and intensive, and then 

training. 

The other thing, in California, we are working on an integrated 

service delivery model that would allow us to move people quickly 

into talent development, rather than having to go through universal services, then staff-assisted, core, and then into intensive. 

Everybody that comes in meets with the job coach immediately. 

The pilots are being run in 12 local areas around the state, and we 

are waiting for the results at the end of this program year. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Why was that put into the three tier, that they 

had to go through? I mean, what would be the pros for keeping 

that? 

Mr. LANTER. I am not sure what the pros would be. At the time 

that the law was written, my understanding is that it was not 

meant to be—it was meant to be a work-first model and not a 

training model. And then, as we got into this, we kind of realized, 

hey, people need to be trained as job change and industries change. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Okay. Because it seems like it wastes a lot of 

time, because when people really need to get back into the workforce, they have to spend the time with that. 

Secretary Vito? 

Ms. VITO. I am not sure I have much to add that hasn’t already 

been said, expect that the National Governors Association strongly 

endorses the concept of removing the sequence of service. It is 

clearly important, in terms of creating the intervention that is most 

appropriate to the individual coming through the workforce system. 

So we are in favor—— 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Would that also allow, then, more people to be in 

the system, that—— 

Ms. VITO. That is correct. I think that is true. I mean, if we do 

an upfront assessment of individuals, for some individuals, the core 

and intensive services are not going to be appropriate because they 

really need to be in literacy and occupational training right from 

the start. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you. 

Then, Mr. Lanter, one of the other issues that came up in the 

previous panel was the size of the board. And it has been suggested 

or I had heard from my community colleges that they would like 

very much to have a representation on the WIA board. Do you have 

community colleges on your boards? 

Mr. LANTER. Yes. In Contra Costa County, we do have community colleges. Every board has an educational representative on it. 

The California Workforce Association would support allowing local 
134 

areas to be able to define their own key stakeholders. How that occurs, we would have to work through. 

But currently, many boards in California have community colleges. We also have started over the last month a meeting between 

the State Association of Workforce Development and the California 

Community College Association of Occupational Educators, which 

is a community college state association, to work to see how we can 

really leverage the vocational training that the community college 

system provides and the one-stop career centers. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Do you think that the boards are too big? 

Mr. LANTER. I do think the boards are too big. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you. 

Anybody else like to comment on that? 

Ms. RAYNOR [continuing]. We don’t have a specific recommendation on the number, but would recommend that there be balance 

in the composition of the board, especially balance between business and labor. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Okay, thank you. 

And I yield back. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Thank you. 

I want to ask my first question to Kevin Smith. Do you think the 

Department of Education and Department of Labor should coordinate on sponsoring some of the pilot projects specifically designed 

to merge literacy and workforce training? 

Mr. SMITH. Absolutely. As you know, the Title II of the Workforce Investment Act did not benefit by the economic recovery stimulus bill. That means, Mr. Chairman, that the capacity of the adult 

education system to respond to the recovery WIA Title II—or Title 

I recovery program is even more stretched. 

So I would strongly recommend and encourage that Labor and 

Education coordinate their plans and their programs. And Labor 

has the money, with—for Title I adult dislocated workers, and I 

think there already is, in just the few days I have spent here in 

D.C. with the Workforce Alliance, there is a sense of need for the 

workforce system to align with the Title II, the adult education providers to coordinate those programs at the ground level. 

It is clearly the departments, both at the federal and state levels, 

have to have conversations, as well, to coordinate. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Well, I am looking forward to possibly having a joint committee hearing by Department of Labor and Department of Education coming before us and that we can have those 

experts and possibly the secretaries address all of this, because it 

is so important that we have a very strong reauthorization of WIA 

that will carry us the next 6 years, that I like the response that 

you gave. 

I want to yield the balance—I mean, I want to yield back my 

time and recognize for 5 minutes the gentleman from Colorado, 

Congressman Jared Polis. 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This question is primarily addressed to Mr. Smith. If anybody 

else would like to comment, I would love to have a discussion. 

The share of individuals who are English-language limited proficiency that received training services has decreased significantly 
135 

in the last decade. Ten percent of exiters from the adult program 

in 2000 were limited English proficiency, 3.8 percent in 2008. 

Clearly, this is not in relation to the need. I mean, the need has 

not gone down 60 percent for English-language services. So what 

are the barriers that are in getting in the way of blending occupational training with adult programs and ESL? Clearly, adult literacy and ESL are allowed uses through AEFLA of WIA. 

How can, through reauthorization, can we support the development of more programs that integrate adult education and ESL 

with occupational training? 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Polis. 

It is simply an issue of capacity. Our organization, 40-affiliateprogram strong, serving all of upstate New York and Long Island, 

are constantly dealing with the dynamic between the need of native-born adults with low literacy skills and adults with English— 

for speakers of other language. 

Right now—and I have watched over the 26 years that I have 

been doing this in my program, that the ESOL population, at least 

for our network, is now up to 60 percent of our service. So, in fact, 

they have increased in percentage of service, but the overall number of people served has dramatically decreased. 

So when you look at the large numbers of people over time, we 

decreased our capacity to serve, but I think we have increased, at 

least from my perspective, the service to ESOL. It is a capacity 

issue. 

Mr. POLIS. And how can we ensure that there is access to WIA 

Title II state grants for community-based organizations that might 

specialize within that area of adult literacy and ESL, be they libraries or literacy programs run by nonprofits or churches, et 

cetera? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, thank you, also, for that question. And as I 

have—that is specifically my area of concern and where I have— 

where we have struggled. 

We have been successful in New York, ever since the Adult Education Act was amended way back in 1978 by our senior senator, 

in accessing funds in terms of to community-based organizations 

that allowed—that amendment allowed that. 

We have watched our federal support go up and go down over 

time. We are in New York State, one of the few states that has received consistently federal dollars, until very recently changes in 

the law, how the distribution of funds—— 

Mr. POLIS. So I think what you are saying—the framework 

works. It is just the funding—it is just a matter of funding? 

Mr. SMITH. I think it is. I think, again, it is a capacity issue. As 

there are fewer dollars available, LEA school districts, community 

colleges get the lion’s share of the money, and the rest trickles 

down. And if there is no trickle-down, we don’t get it. 

Mr. POLIS. So there is—so you are saying that the current—the 

way that it has been run effectively allowed community partnerships, libraries, churches, et cetera, you partnered in some of 

that—— 

Mr. SMITH. There was specific direct and equitable access to all 

of those sector providers. How direct is pretty simple and operating 

well. Equitable, we need some work on defining what that means. 
136 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Thank you. 

I am going to try to bring this to a close and ask this question 

of Ms. Raynor. In your remarks, you recommend WIA fund job priority sectors, but for how long, in terms of years? And who will 

agree on those sectors as being more important than others? 

Ms. RAYNOR. That is an excellent question. Perhaps I will answer 

the second part of the question first. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Okay. 

Ms. RAYNOR. It seems to me that decisions concerning training 

priorities, sector prioritization are best made at the local level, because that is where folks really have a handle on the economic 

landscapes, what the job demand looks like now, what it will look 

like in the future. 

So, for example, in Washington State we know that we currently 

have 60,000 homecare aid aides working in Washington State, all 

across Washington State, and we know that that demand is going 

to increase, of course, as the baby boomers age. 

We also know we have a nursing shortage all across Washington 

State. If even 5 percent of homecare aides advanced along a career 

pathway into nursing, we would really make a dent in our nursing 

shortage in Washington. So I think those decisions are best 

prioritized at the local level. 

And for how long? I don’t know if I have an answer for how long, 

except that it seems that the sectors approach is a smart way to 

match training to jobs at the end of the line. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. I have to agree with you. The acute shortage of nurses is throughout the land. Deep south Texas was spending—we saw where hospitals were spending millions of dollars 

going out to different countries, Canada, Philippines, India, many, 

many countries trying to recruit nurses. 

And we have made a concerted effort to try to get those programs 

funded and taking folks who have possibly—who are what we call 

underemployed, making below the national poverty level, and taking them out of those jobs and training them to become 2-year associate degree nurses. And still we have not been able to fill that 

acute shortage. 

So these programs that you are referring to are extremely important. And being that we have, again, so many different nationalities, individuals who are working here and have limited English 

proficiency makes it that much more challenging. 

So we want to continue talking to your organizations, getting all 

the recommendations that you all can provide us, and allow me to 

try to bring this to a conclusion. 

I have to say that this has been very informative, and I can assure you that we are going to make a strong effort to go outside 

of Washington and have field hearings so that we can get more 

folks who can’t come to Washington to give us their recommendations that we can do the best job we can to reauthorize WIA. 

Again, I wish to thank everyone on the second panel, as I did the 

first panel, for coming to join us in this hearing. And I want to 

thank the members of the subcommittee who participated in this 

very informative session. 
137 

As previously ordered, members will have 14 days to submit additional materials for the hearing record. Any member who wishes 

to submit follow-up questions in writing to the witnesses should coordinate with majority staff within the requisite time, without objection. 

And this hearing is adjourned. 

[Additional materials submitted by Mr. Miller follow:] 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 

Prepared Statement of Hon. John Baldacci, Chairman, Jobs for America’s 

Graduates Board of Directors 

First, let me thank you for your continuing interest in the work of Jobs for America’s Graduates as one of the nation’s largest and most successful programs for helping very high-risk youth succeed both in school and on the job. 

We very much appreciated the time you took to meet with Ken Smith, President 

for Jobs for America’s Graduates, and myself several months ago, when there was 

consideration for the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act, to learn more 

about the 28 year track record of success having served over 600,000 of our nation’s 

most at risk and disadvantaged young people. 

As you may recall, the results have been most consistent and compelling. The latest across the 30-state JAG National Network include: 

• Graduation Rate: 93.6 percent 

• Positive Outcome Rate: 82.7 percent (12 months after leaving school) 
150 

• Job Placement Rate: 60.0 percent • Full-time Jobs Rate: 67.4 percent • Full-time Placement Rate: 89.8 percent (jobs, colleges, the military or some combination) • Higher Education Rate: 45% (the highest ever) 

Here in Maine, the JAG program is, by far, the most effective and most valuable 

program we have for serving this high-risk population. Despite the very difficult economic issues we face, we continue to expand the program because it makes such 

an enormous impact, both educationally and economically, in our state. 

The Workforce Investment Act provides approximately one-third of all the funding 

that finances the JAG program across the 30-state JAG National Network. 

State and local Workforce Investment Boards invest in JAG because, in almost 

every case, JAG programs exceed the performance standards for youth by convincing margins. It is also one of the cost effective uses of WIA funds. 

As you consider the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act we urge your 

consideration of these key issues from our standpoint. 

1. Eligibility: One of the most costly aspects in utilizing WIA funds is the often 

massive amount of paperwork, time, and energy required to try to prove that young 

people are poor in order to qualify for JAG programs. As you well know, WIA today 

has a separate eligibility compared to other programs that seek to determine the 

same economic standing. Easily, 10 percent—or in some cases as much as 20 percent—of the costs of the program are tied up in trying to ‘‘prove poverty’’. We believe 

that a far better use of the resources would be in serving more young people and 

by utilizing the same eligibility requirements for the free or reduced-priced lunch 

program satisfactory for WIA eligibility. A significant increase in the investment in 

young people through WIA will occur with this simple change. 

2. In-school versus out-of-school youth: It is our understanding that a significant 

issue is the amount of WIA funds that would be set aside for ‘‘in-school’’ versus ‘‘outof-school’’ youth. This is not an easy decision, since both populations urgently need 

the kinds of services that WIA—and JAG—can provide. We believe that, in the end, 

prevention is far more effective and less costly than the remediation of a high school 

dropout while one who is unemployed. 

Therefore, we urge that the majority of the funds be made available for serving 

high-risk, academically disadvantaged youth in school, while still investing a significant amount in serving high school dropouts. 

3. Long-term funding: We strongly support the inclusion of much larger scale 

funding for at risk and disadvantaged youth at levels similar to those in the Stimulus Package. We understand the stimulus funding will expire in two years. Given 

the enormous impact that the recession is having on our young people—unemployed 

by a factor of three times more than that of the general population—we urge that 

the higher level of sustaining funding be included in the reauthorization. WIA is one 

of the only sources of funding at either the federal or state level to serve this rapidly 

growing part of our population. A population that, if we intervene now with the 

kinds of results that Jobs for America’s Graduates is able to achieve, we will dramatically change the long term costs while equally dramatically increasing the lives 

and futures of our young people. 

The reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act is a vitally important piece 

of legislation that will drive programs, and state and local policies, for years to 

come. We stand ready to help in any way that we can in the consideration of this 

legislation. Please don’t hesitate to contact me directly with any questions you may 

have, given the critical importance of WIA to our organization and to my own state 

of Maine. 

I know that my colleagues on our Board of Directors, including five other Governors, two Chief State School Officers, and leaders from some of America’s bestknown businesses (listed on our letterhead) would be more than pleased to join in 

the discussions. 

Ken Smith, the President of Jobs for America’s Graduates, and our staff will be 

in touch with yours to answer any questions and to offer the lessons we have 

learned over the past 28 years on how to most effectively serve this at-risk population. 

[Additional submissions of Mr. Guthrie follow:] 

CWA Priorities for Workforce Investment Act Reauthorization 

Workforce investment is a critical policy issue for California and the nation. It is 

perhaps the only policy area that directly links the ability of California companies 
151 

1 12th Annual Business Climate Survey, California Business Roundtable, California Chamber 

of Commerce 

to compete, the ability of communities and regions to retain and grow key industries, and the opportunity for working people to develop the skills needed to prosper 

in a changing economy. California’s future depends on the development of comprehensive workforce investment systems, appropriately aligned at the federal, 

state, and local levels and flexible enough to reflect the diversity of each Workforce 

Investment Area’s social, ethnic, and economic conditions. 

The federal Workforce Investment Act (WIA) was enacted and implemented during a period of relative economic growth, allowing California’s 50 local Workforce Investment Boards (WIBs) to invest in building the infrastructure for a comprehensive 

‘‘One-Stop’’ delivery system. Local areas progressed significantly toward strengthening private-sector leadership; streamlining multiple programs; setting long-term, 

proactive policy that enhances the competitiveness of local and regional industries; 

and developing unique local initiatives, programs, and partnerships. 

California now faces a new set of economic challenges in crisis proportions, challenges that have already strained this new infrastructure. With adequate WIA resources and strategic statutory fine-tuning through the reauthorization of WIA, 

many of these challenges can be addressed and California’s economy strengthened. 

It is no surprise that surveys of California’s business leaders continue to cite the 

lack of a trained workforce among the most significant cost drivers for California 

businesses.1 At the same time, business investment in skills training is declining 

in California and is nearly nonexistent among small businesses, which employ over 

50% of the state’s workforce. Finally, reports show that 90% of job growth in California over the next 5 years will occur in industries where ongoing skills training 

will be critical for maintaining competitiveness. 

The Workforce Investment Act provides the foundation through its system of 

Workforce Investment Boards and One-Stop career centers to fully address the 

workforce needs of all companies, both large and small. After four years of implementing the 1998 law in local communities, much has been learned about what 

works and also about what can be done statutorily to better focus the system envisioned by Congress. Reauthorization of WIA presents an important opportunity to 

make strategic adjustments 

Over 1,000 businesses on 50 local Workforce Investment Boards throughout California have spoken. Their thoughts and those of their One-Stop partners are reflected in the following recommendations for Congress and the Administration to 

consider for reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998. Through the 

California Workforce Association, these 50 WIBs represent 10% of this country’s 

workforce investment system funding in a state that represents 13% of the national 

economy. Our recommendations fall within three broad categories: • Strengthen Business as Customer and Business Leadership • Align Resources and Accountability to the Needs of Customers and the Goals 

of WIA • Clarify and Strengthen Federal, State, and Local Roles 

Strengthen Business as Customer and Business Leadership 

Why is this important? Both the message and promise of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) is that business is a primary customer. As the economy continues 

to evolve, and a trained, high skilled workforce becomes more critical to the success 

of business, it is essential that the public workforce investment system has the capacity to provide the product businesses need. In order to do this, local Workforce 

Investment Boards and their One-Stop system networks need guidance, tools, support, and incentives in the law. 

Current Status: California’s network of local Workforce Investment Boards (WIBs) 

and its One-Stop service delivery system have progressed significantly in establishing products and services for the business community throughout the State. 

Much of this has been done as a result of urging by the private sector leadership 

of WIBs and encouragement of state and federal agencies. Unfortunately, there are 

a number of impediments within the Workforce Investment Act that hamper working with business in the community and engaging private sector leadership on the 

WIBs. 

What we have learned: 

• WIA’s performance measures have a strong tendency to drive the activities and 

direct the limited resources. Without performance standards specifically focused on 

services to business, local One-Stops have little incentive to develop those services. 

• Most local WIBs cobble together funding for business services through a combination of adult, dislocated worker, and rapid response funding. Services to busi-
152 

nesses are needed for these programs, as well as for youth programs. Specific allowable activities written into WIA and the ability to use any funding stream for business services would substantially increase those services in California. 

• Even in recessionary times, over 90 percent of the workforce is employed; to be 

relevant to business, the workforce development system must target skill acquisition 

and career advancement for those workers. 

• Businesses value employed worker training for skill acquisition and customized 

training as two of the most critical and important services. These services should 

be better defined, more broadly allowed, and encouraged in the law. 

• Sequence of services (also described as ‘‘work first’’), as mandated in the law, 

require training opportunities to be some of last services provided, and, therefore, 

limit employer access to WIA trained workers. Greater flexibility in the sequence 

of services will provide greater opportunity to train workers. 

• When properly engaged, business participates and influences the development 

of the local workforce, as envisioned by the authors of WIA. However, the mandated 

minimum size of local boards is often counter-productive to fostering private sector 

participation that focuses on outcomes and systems change. Greater flexibility in 

membership and responsibility will allow for much greater local business participation. 

• Business members of local WIBs seek integrated business solutions as well as 

integrated approaches to community needs, not just targeted services as provided 

through WIA Title I. The effectiveness of business leadership in local workforce investment would be enhanced if local WIBs had planning and oversight authority 

over all WIA Titles, in addition to Title I. 

Recommended Changes and Amendments to WIA: 

• States, in consultation with WIBs and local elected officials, shall develop performance measures for services to business. Incentives for performance will be established. 

• Business services activities are allowable and encouraged under Adult, Dislocated Worker and Youth funding. 

• Employed worker training is allowable and encouraged under Adult, and Dislocated Worker funding. 

• The following is a list of allowable activities for services to business. Allowable 

activities may include (but are not limited to): 

• All phases of recruitment services, from general open postings to referring 

prescreened candidates 

• Business seminars and classes offered in partnership with Small Business Development Centers, Economic Development Organizations, Chambers of Commerce 

and other business organizations 

• Interview and meeting facilities 

• Rapid Response Services 

• On-the-Job and Customized Training opportunities 

• Training for incumbent workers 

• Job Fairs 

• Information brokers providing information on HR Issues, labor laws, licensing, 

permitting and economic development 

• Linkages with economic development 

• Business to business referrals 

• Labor Market Information 

• Assessment for job preparedness 

• Work Readiness Certificates—designed by the local WIB and industry 

• Performance consultation 

• Business services marketing 

• Economic development data preparation 

• Business incubation services 

• Other business services not inconsistent with this Act 

• Every WIB must have a private sector majority and be chaired by a private sector member. WIBs, in negotiation with Local Elected Officials, shall have discretion 

over the additional membership of the WIB. 

Align Resources and Accountability to Needs of Customers and Goals of WIA 

Why is this important? The common needs and interests of our two sets of customers—businesses and job seekers—are employment opportunities, skill acquisition, and career advancement. With the current economy, business requires a higher 

level of service with a broader range of solutions for their workforce needs. Jobseekers, too, are demanding higher levels of services. Although the spirit and intent 

of WIA focus on the capacity of the system to deliver these sets of products and 
153 

2The One-Stop Career Center System Survey, California Employment Development Department, December 2001 

services, certain provisions of the law impede One-Stop Career centers and WIBs 

from fully meeting our customers’ requirements. 

Current Status: 

Employment. In California, thousands of businesses recruiting workers and millions of job seekers have used One-Stop centers. Despite the fact that clients of most 

One-Stop partners benefit from the provision of core (universal) services, these services have largely been provided through WIA Title I funding. 

Skill Acquisition. The transition from a limited/targeted client base under the 

former Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) to ‘‘universal access’’ for core services 

to all citizens under WIA has been a success. But providing these core services to 

virtually anyone who wants them is costly and has reduced the resources available 

for funding training for those who need it. The simple fact is that within WIA Title 

I, there is insufficient funding to both provide universal service and provide training 

for those in need. In addition, the requirements of the system are so restrictive that 

many other training funds are not being used. Finally, given the current, narrowly 

focused WIA language, skill acquisition for employed workers, an increasingly important business-driven service, is difficult to provide. 

Career Development. WIBs and their partners throughout California are beginning to focus efforts on sectoral approaches to the needs of industry sectors, working 

with partners to understand and define career ladders and paths of progression 

through a set of occupations. A set of allowable activities and funding resources 

would encourage and strengthen this important work, thereby increasing our business effectiveness. 

What we have learned: 

• WIA legislation significantly increased the adult population to be served from 

economically disadvantaged and/or dislocated workers under the JTPA program to 

the nation’s entire labor force. However, the funding levels for WIA are comparable 

to JTPA. The assumption implicit in WIA that One-Stops would be funded through 

multiple funding streams would have meant that additional resources would be 

brought into the system. A One-Stop survey conducted by the State EDD found that 

less than 30% of the resources supporting the One-Stops come from required partners.2 Because there has not been significant additional funding, and due to their 

own funding restrictions, many One-Stop partner agencies simply cannot finance or 

support core services. With the greatest share of funding coming from WIA Title I 

to support the One-Stop system, WIA training resources have all but been eliminated. 

• The ‘‘work first’’ sequence of services prescribed in WIA limits customer choice 

for both job seekers and employers. Particularly in a weak economy, it is clear that 

many people seeking work need skill enhancement. Requiring a sequence of services 

limits One-Stops’ ability to appropriately target services to individuals. 

• Current income-based eligibility requirements in youth programs arbitrarily exclude at-risk youth who would most benefit from services. This exclusion impedes 

establishment of comprehensive systems for all youth, such as the All Youth—One 

System approach as adopted by the California Workforce Investment Board (CWIB) 

and many of the 50 WIBs’ Youth Councils. Additionally, the requirement that 30% 

of the Youth funds be spent on Out of School Youth is too prescriptive for every area 

in a state as diverse as California. 

• Current WIA performance measures do not capture the relevant information 

needed to aid strategic planning and continuous improvement for the workforce development system. They are not easily understood by business, don’t align with 

business needs, are not timely, and do not measure service to business. The measures do not capture all of the participants, and focus too much on job placement and 

too little on progress toward self-sufficiency. 

• The variations among different agencies’ performance measures and requirements, including the multiple reporting requirements and inconsistent definitions of 

success among partners, and the need to measure both system-wide success as well 

as good performance in WIA Title I funded programs, present serious obstacles to 

aligning local service delivery among partners. In addition, the administrative difficulty of collecting performance data undermines access to and delivery of services 

and discourages partner participation in WIA. 
154 

Recommended Changes and Amendments to WIA: 

• Workforce Investment Boards may transfer funds from one title to another— 

Adult, Dislocated Worker and Youth—based on needs identified in the local labor 

market. 

• Individuals may be enrolled into core, intensive or training services depending 

on the needs of the customer and the local labor market. 

• WIBs have the authority to waive income eligibility requirements for youth 

based on local needs and priorities, including for youth with barriers to employment 

or at risk of dropping out of school. 

• If funding other than WIA Title I is made available to the local One-Stop systems for core, intensive or training services, requirements for the use of those funds 

are to be waived, and the requirements of Title I shall be applied. 

• Performance standards should be streamlined to a minimum of relevant, timely, 

and meaningful measures. 

• Authorizing legislation of each federally mandated partner program should include specific language adding funding, over and above their existing funding levels, 

for financial contribution to the One-Stops. 

• Additional mandated activities, including but not limited to the assumption of 

the WIA 167 program, will not be required without appropriate funding. 

• A Local Innovation Fund shall be created and used at the discretion of Local 

WIBs for such purposes as innovative business outreach, local marketing, labor 

market and economic research, community audits, and coordinated local planning. 

Funds shall be earmarked from each federal required partner’s funding stream and 

formula-allocated to local Workforce Investment Areas for the purposes of the Local 

Innovation Fund. 

Clarify and Strengthen Federal, State, and Local Roles 

Why is this important? To meet the challenges mentioned above, California needs 

a comprehensive workforce development system, aligned at the federal, state, and 

local levels, one that leverages the resources, missions, and capacities of currently 

disparate programs and services. No single program, agency, or level or government 

can do it alone. If effective coordination is to occur and duplication of efforts is to 

be avoided, local, state, and federal roles must be clearly and appropriately defined. 

Current Status: 

Local areas have made significant progress over the last few years in building 

local partnerships and aligning systems and resources. Unfortunately, existing federal and state administrative restrictions have limited the success of this effort. 

California’s system of workforce investment would be better served and substantially improved if there was greater coordination at the state level among the state 

departments and agencies that administer federal workforce development funds. 

State, federal and local partnerships have been important for the success of WIA 

to date. As an example, many statewide workforce development efforts have been 

effective in addressing key needs such as the state’s nursing shortage, moving teachers into classrooms, and building the capacity of the state’s youth councils through 

its Youth Council Institute. However, greater coordination and consultation with the 

50 WIBs is needed to align statewide initiatives with local economic and workforce 

investment planning and the local infrastructure of service delivery. 

What we have learned: 

• Business members of WIBs value and contribute to locally driven workforce investment efforts tied to local economic development efforts. More state or federal 

control would threaten private sector engagement in the workforce development system. Private sector WIB members believe that they need even more authority, resources and discretion to establish and nurture on-going relationships with economic 

development activities in local communities. 

• Discretionary funds used to address statewide workforce development issues 

would be more effective if the local workforce systems were always used as the local 

coordinating and planning mechanism for statewide efforts. In California, Governor’s discretionary funding has been allocated to local agencies without coordination with or even notification to the WIB. This approach is not the best strategy 

to encourage WIB engagement in workforce systems building and in fostering collaboration. 

• Better utilization by states of the waiver authority provided in WIA could have 

greatly enhanced the ability of local workforce areas to serve clients. 

Recommendations: 

Below are the appropriate roles for each level of government. 
155 

FEDERAL

• Provide clear and timely guidance 

• Provide training, technical assistance, and general capacity building for the national system 

• Fund research on national and international workforce development issues 

• Collect and demonstrate innovative practices around the nation 

• Fund innovative initiatives 

• Make federal partner funding work together in the One-Stops 

• Coordinate the various training and employment program efforts through the 

WIA One-Stop delivery system 

STATE

• Earmark funds for building capacity in the One-Stops and incentives for innovative initiatives 

• Make other state funded programs support One-Stops 

• Utilize existing waiver authority to remove barriers to improve local service delivery to business and job seekers 

• Institute a bottom-up approach through local WIBs for understanding local 

needs and the disbursement of Governor’s Discretionary funds 

• Invest in real-time labor market information 

• Develop statewide plans 

• Develop common reporting systems across state partner programs 

• Encourage local and regional initiatives that that support the strategic growth 

of industry clusters 

• Certify local WIB composition 

LOCAL

• Appoint membership to WIBs 

• Certify One-Stops 

• Engage the local community in developing local plans 

• Approve all grant recipients 

• Manage fiscal resources 

• Oversee and evaluate all programs 

• Certify proposals for Governor’s Discretionary WIA projects 

• Determine priority of service 

• Advocate for/with business 

• Create local performance measures that make sense for desired outcomes 

• Provide LMI intelligence 

[Additional submission of Mr. Scott follows:] 

Why GAO Did This Study 

Since the Workforce Investment Act’s (WIA) enactment in 1998, GAO has issued 

numerous reports that included recommendations regarding many aspects of WIA. 

These aspects include performance measures and accountability, funding formulas 

and spending, one-stop centers, and training, as well as services provided to specific 

populations, such as dislocated workers, youth, and employers. Collectively, GAO 

studies employed an array of data collection techniques, including surveys to state 

and local workforce officials and private sector employers; site visits; interviews 

with local, state, and Department of Labor (Labor) officials; and analyses of Labor 

data and documents. This testimony draws upon the results of these reports, issued 

between 2002 and 2008, and discusses issues raised and recommendations made. 

Specifically, this testimony addresses (1) progress made by Labor in addressing 

areas of concern, particularly related to GAO recommendations for action, and (2) 

what steps Labor has taken to ensure an understanding of what works and for 

whom in addressing the needs of workers and employers. 

Workforce Investment Act 

Labor Has Made Progress in Addressing Areas of Concern, but More Focus 

Needed on Understanding What Works and What Doesn’t 

What GAO Found 

Labor has made some progress addressing earlier concerns regarding performance 

measurement and the accuracy of performance data, but issues with funding remain.[0] The move to common measures helps provide a more complete picture of 
156 

*This Issue Brief was written by Mark Troppe, National Center on Education and the Economy, with Stephen Crawford and Martin Simon, NGA Center for Best Practices. 

WIA services and may encourage services to challenging clients. With regard to such 

clients, Labor has chosen not to systematically adjust expected performance levels 

to account for different populations and local economic conditions, as recommended.[0] Labor has made strides in improving the accuracy of performance 

data by requiring states to conduct data validation efforts. And, it has made 

progress in states’ ability to share data for tracking WIA performance, securing the 

participation of all but one state in the Wage Record Interchange System.[0] Labor 

is also moving ahead with plans to implement an enhanced data reporting system 

that would, for the first time, allow Labor and states to track an individual’s 

progress through the one-stop system.[0] While progress has been made with regard 

to performance data, ensuring that funding is consistent with the demand for services and reflects funds states have available remains an issue.[0] Statutory formulas 

have caused wide fluctuations in the funding states receive, particularly under the 

Dislocated Worker program. In addition, Labor has chosen not to consider states’ 

obligations when estimating their available funds, as recommended. 

To date, Labor has been slow to comply with the requirement to conduct impact 

evaluations of its programs and activities carried out under WIA. In 2004 and 2007, 

we recommended that Labor comply with the requirements of the law and conduct 

an impact evaluation of WIA services to better understand what services are most 

effective for improving outcomes. In its fiscal year 2008 budget, Labor identified a 

WIA assessment as an effort the agency would begin, and it has since initiated two 

studies. One, a nonexperimental study, is now complete, and officials expect to publish the results in March 2009. The other uses a random assignment experimental 

design, and will not be completed until June 2015. To address what Labor perceived 

as shortcomings in the one-stop service delivery system, Labor developed three separate discretionary grant initiatives to focus on the employment and training needs 

of high-growth, high-demand industries and awarded almost $900 million for these 

initiatives. However, Labor will be challenged to assess their impact given methodological issues related to outcome data. Moreover, Labor does not plan to include 

them in the assessment of the impact of WIA services because the initiatives have 

their own evaluations. 

[Additional submissions of Ms. Vito follow:] 

SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND WORKFORCE PROGRAMS DIVISION

Aligning State Workforce Development and Economic Development 

Initiatives* 

Executive Summary 

Driven by the rapidly changing, highly competitive global economy that puts a 

premium on skilled workers, many states are taking steps to better align their 

workforce and economic development programs. When these programs are wellaligned, economic development officials work closely with their counterparts in 

workforce development to ensure that both long-term planning and current recruitment and expansion efforts take into account the skills of the region’s workforce and 

the workforce development systems capacity to train additional workers. Similarly, 

workforce development professionals work closely with economic development officials and employers to ensure that their training and job placement efforts are designed to meet the skill needs of regional industries—especially those viewed as key 

to future economic growth. 

In pursuing this alignment, states are confronted with the challenge of two systems that operate very differently, with workforce programs historically targeted to 

individuals and funded primarily through federal funds, and economic development 

focused on business with state and local funding. The different funding streams add 

a level of complexity to differences among governance and planning structures, performance and reporting requirements, and geographic focus areas. Complicating 

matters are very distinct institutional cultures: people in the workforce system are 

trained in the helping professions, while economic developers see themselves as 

‘‘deal makers.’’ Overcoming these challenges is not easy; it requires persistent leadership from officials at all levels, but particularly the governor. 

This issue brief examines the reasons governors undertake such efforts, the challenges involved, and several promising state practices that highlight the critical role 

of governors. Some governors have merged agencies or created new coordinating 

bodies. Others have established common missions, goals, and performance meas-
157 

ures. Still others have pursued economic and workforce development strategies, 

such as cluster-based initiatives and regional skill alliances, that by their nature 

promote collaboration. Their efforts point to several basic lessons for states that are 

considering the alignment of workforce and economic development. 

• Complete a candid assessment of the status quo as the essential first step in 

determining appropriate actions. 

• Evaluate the positive and negative aspects of each reform option (including restructuring versus other alternatives) and create a sequence of decisions based on 

the current state of affairs. 

• Strengthen the quality of the economic and workforce information available to 

decisionmakers by revamping the data collection, analysis, and dissemination systems. 

• Organize economic and workforce development activities around regions and 

groupings of firms to improve labor market performance. 

• Use financial incentives and administrative actions to resolve the administrative and jurisdictional differences between economic and workforce development. 

• Set broad performance measures across multiple workforce programs so they 

align with state economic goals. 

Background 

Traditionally, economic and workforce development agencies, and the professionals who staff them, have gone their separate ways. Economic development agencies focused on mobilizing the state and local resources needed to achieve business 

recruitment or expansion deals. Workforce development agencies focused on administering a ‘‘second-chance’’ system of federal employment and training programs. 

With the emergence of a knowledge-based economy, however, it became evident that 

economic development requires a skilled, innovative, and flexible workforce. The severe ‘‘skill gaps’’ that appeared in the 1990s showed that workforce development is 

about much more than assisting the unemployed and disadvantaged; it also is about 

producing a workforce with the skills that employers need if they are to succeed in 

a rapidly changing and highly competitive global economy. It became clear that economic development and workforce development are two sides of the same coin, and 

therefore their strategies and activities needed to be aligned. 

When economic and workforce development are well-aligned, economic development officials work closely with their counterparts in workforce development to ensure that both long-term planning and current recruitment and expansion efforts 

take into account the skills of the region’s workforce and its capacity to train additional workers. Similarly, workforce development professionals work closely with 

economic development officials and employers to ensure that their training and job 

placement efforts are designed to meet the skill needs of regional industries—especially those viewed as key to future economic growth. 

Such collaboration requires a level of mutual trust that takes time to develop. 

Trust can be nourished through committed leadership, shared missions, joint planning and reporting, and shared performance measures. Building a trusting relationship can include other approaches, such as joint staffing of governance bodies and 

merged research teams, jurisdictional alignments, and regional and sectoral strategies. 

Yet, genuine alignment goes further than mutual consideration and assistance. 

When their agencies are fully aligned, economic and workforce development officials 

work together to create a common vision for the regional economy and its various 

parts that transcends employment to include innovation and entrepreneurship. They 

develop a unified set of goals spelling out this vision and an integrated strategy— 

with common performance measures and shared incentives—for achieving them. 

Such advanced alignment is rare, especially at the state level, in part because 

states are just beginning to work at alignment and in part because it is not easy 

to accomplish. The quip that ‘‘economic developers are from Mars and workforce developers are from Venus’’ speaks to real differences in occupational cultures and institutional settings that complicate alignment efforts. A growing number of governors are taking steps to overcome the obstacles because they are concerned about 

their states’ ability to compete in a knowledge-based global economy, increasingly 

aware that workforce quality is critical for economic development and job creation, 

and committed to making better use of resources in tight fiscal times. 

Obstacles and Challenges 

For economic and workforce developers to collaborate effectively, each party must 

understand the very different operational contexts in which they operate. For several decades, the publicly funded workforce system operated under strict eligibility 

requirements that provided services almost exclusively to economically disadvan-
158 

i In The Price of Government, David Osborne and Peter Hutchinson go further, suggesting 

that ‘‘simply moving boxes on an organization chart can actually make matters worse, increasing costs while sowing confusion that hampers performance.’’ They recommend ‘‘consolidat[ing] 

funding streams and ‘steering’ authority, so steering (policy) organizations can purchase results 

from any ‘rowing’ organizations—public or private—that can best produce them. See The Price 

of Government:Getting the Results We Need in an Age of Permanent Fiscal Crisis (Basic Books, 

2004), p.13-14. 

taged and unemployed persons. This severely limited the programs’ usefulness to 

economic developers. Although the Workforce Investment Act has provided more 

flexibility for working with different customers, including employed workers and employers, it takes time to change long-engrained habits, and longer yet to change the 

program’s reputation. 

Complicating matters are two very different institutional cultures. Economic developers frequently have a business background and view themselves as ‘‘deal makers.’’ They tend to focus on companies as their primary customer, helping them with 

real-estate development, financing, and water or sewer infrastructure issues. They 

excel in putting together funding packages using multiple local, state, federal, and 

private resources from a variety of programs and agencies. 

In contrast, workforce system staffs typically were trained in the helping professions and saw individuals as their primary client. Only in recent years have they 

taken a more demand-driven approach that addresses individual needs in the context of the needs of a company, industry, or regional economy. 

Another ongoing difference between most economic and workforce developers is 

the source of their funding. While workforce agencies depend on the federal government for the vast majority of their funding, most economic development activities 

are funded by state and local governments. Differences among funding streams create tensions because each funding source has its own policy, reporting, and performance requirements. 

To fulfill diverse and varied missions, workforce and economic development organizations typically seek to meet these requirements based on guidance from different governance boards or councils, which use different tools and engage in different planning processes that cover different geographic areas and adhere to different schedules. The responsible program officials collect data on different performance indicators that are submitted to different oversight authorities via different reporting processes. This ‘‘silo’’ approach occurs despite the often considerable overlap 

among the issues addressed and strategies outlined in the individual plans and initiatives. 

Governance Solutions to Alignment 

Overcoming the alignment barriers—both structural and cultural—does not happen naturally or easily. It takes creative and persistent leadership from officials at 

many levels, and most critically the governor. Only governors have the authority 

and influence to reorganize departments, redefine missions, undertake major strategic initiatives, or reallocate state government’s resources. Only governors are in 

a position to bargain with the legislature if necessary. Once governors decide to act, 

the key question is how best to achieve the desired results. 

One governance approach to promoting greater alignment of economic and workforce development is to consolidate multiple workforce and economic development 

agencies and programs into one department under a single commissioner or secretary. Another approach uses mechanisms, such as mini-cabinets, that facilitate 

‘‘structured coordination’’ among existing agencies. 

Consolidation 

In theory, consolidation is a fairly straightforward way to align workforce and economic development. It typically involves merging similar agencies and programs 

into a single existing department or creating a new department with programs 

pulled from other agencies. In practice, it is usually more challenging. It can consume a great deal of time and energy due to the resistance and maneuvering of 

those affected. Legislators and advocacy groups may get involved, causing the governor to expend political capital in the process. 

In addition, the results of reorganization often are quite disappointing. Employees 

sometimes spend considerable time figuring out their new roles and responsibilities, 

old habits can persist under new arrangements, and long-lamented silos may continue, only now within the same department. This is especially likely when the 

agencies opposed the consolidation and are as culturally different as economic and 

workforce development.i

Despite these challenges, organizational consolidation can produce many benefits 

and lasting change that justify the effort, such as unified authority and its potential 
159 

for ensuring more coordinated planning, implementation, and evaluation. In addition, consolidating agencies can break up dysfunctional bureaucracies and send 

strong signals about new directions and expectations. The difficulty of achieving 

consolidation discourages subsequent political leaders from reversing direction. Because it makes intuitive sense, it is difficult to justify returning to agencies reflecting programmatic silos. 

Several states have consolidated agencies and departments, usually by executive 

order. As far back as 1995, Texas consolidated 24 workforce programs scattered 

across 10 agencies into one new agency, the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC). 

Within this framework, the Texas Workforce Solutions emerged, a partnership 

among TWC, 28 local Workforce Development Boards (WDBs), service providers, 

and other stakeholders. 

TWC allocates federal funds through annual contracts with the WDBs to provide 

services in five programs: Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), Workforce Investment Act (WIA), Food Stamp Employment and Training, Child Care and 

Development Fund, and Welfare to Work. TWC also contracts with local boards to 

operate the Trade Adjustment Assistance program and Project RIO (Re-integration 

of Offenders) and to locally manage Wagner Peyser staff, who remain state merit 

staff. This gives WDBs the opportunity to manage a broader set of funding streams 

and program requirements. Later, an Office of Employer Initiatives was established 

in the TWC to coordinate with the Governor’s Office of Economic Development and 

ensure that the training needs of industry sectors are served. Coordination between 

workforce and economic development was further strengthened when the Department of Economic Development was moved to the Governor’s Office through legislation enacted by the legislature and signed by Governor Rick Perry. 

Former Missouri Gov. Mel Carnahan and Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry also consolidated their states’ various employment and job-training programs and moved 

them into the economic development agency. In Missouri, Gov. Carnahan placed the 

resulting division of workforce development in the Department of Economic Development and Commerce under a sub-cabinet appointee. 

Gov. Henry moved the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission (OESC)—the 

primary agency responsible for administering WIA programs—under the Cabinet of 

the Secretary of Commerce to work more closely with the business recruitment 

team. In part, this realignment involved local one-stop centers and employment offices and personnel who serve as initial contact points and action agents for the 

state’s economic development efforts. A newly appointed deputy secretary of commerce for workforce development oversees the effort and reports directly to the DOC 

Secretary. The deputy secretary also directs the Governor’s Council for Workforce 

and Economic Development, established by Gov. Henry to serve as the state’s reconstituted WIB. The council is supported by the Workforce Solutions Staff Team, created when the Governor asked workforce department heads to designate senior executives to support the council and align department objectives and resources with 

economic development. 

Other states have gone still further, including several that created new, consolidated departments. In 2003, after four years of restructuring efforts that included 

a governor’s mini-cabinet and a transition team that managed the final merger, 

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty established a single Department of Employment and 

Economic Development. That same year, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm created 

by executive order a consolidated Department of Labor and Economic Growth, and 

saw to it that the state’s workforce investment and economic development boards 

shared members. 

In 2004, the Idaho legislature passed and Gov. Dirk Kempthorne signed legislation creating a combined workforce and economic development agency, the Department of Commerce and Labor. As an outgrowth of the merger, the state held a joint 

meeting of economic and workforce development leaders to refine goals for better integration of economic and workforce development services. In addition, the one-stop 

and former job service offices added the full spectrum of economic development, 

community development, and related services to the menu of services in the new 

agency’s service centers. 

Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius included higher education in the alignment of 

workforce and economic development. In January 2004, she issued an executive 

order that transferred WIA, Wagner Peyser, and adult education funds for employment and training from the Department of Labor to the Department of Commerce 

(DOC). The connection with community colleges was strengthened through a partnership with the Kansas Board of Regents, which cofunded an executive position 

with DOC to oversee the partnership. 
160 

Structured Coordination 

Some governors are tackling the governance challenge by developing mechanisms 

to improve coordination among economic and workforce development agencies. For 

example, jobs cabinets are mini-cabinets that coordinate and focus state efforts to 

attract and retain good jobs. Typically they operate within the existing agency structures and are charged with bringing focus and resources from across agency lines 

to achieve some common objectives. Tennessee’s Department of Economic and Community Development administers a Jobs Cabinet and Gov. Phil Bredesen chairs its 

meetings. In Ohio, Gov. Bob Taft’s policy director has hosted monthly meetings of 

the relevant cabinet directors to promote mutual understanding. 

Other states have developed additional mechanisms for promoting the desired 

alignment. Virginia former Gov. James Gilmore moved the state’s WIA programs 

from the Department of Health and Human Services to the Department of Commerce and Trade, and current Gov. Mark Warner appointed a Governor’s Special 

Advisor for Workforce Development to forge a system that meets the needs of workers and employers. Florida created Workforce Florida, Inc. (WFI), a corporate entity 

that oversees the Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation, with strong leadership 

from the legislature. Representatives from WFI sit on the state economic development board, Enterprise Florida, Inc., and the board’s representatives sit on WFI. 

In Florida, WIBs control not only WIA funding, but TANF and Wagner Peyser 

funds as well. Each local board has signed a memorandum of understanding with 

the state. The state employs career service employees and Veterans Reps, who are 

paid with Wagner Peyser funds but work under the day-to-day supervision of local 

WIB managers. Funding for salaries and benefits stays at the state level, where 

payroll is managed, but all other funding comes down to the regional WIBs. 

In Pennsylvania, Gov. Edward Rendell appointed a deputy secretary of workforce 

development in the state’s Department of Labor and Industry to oversee alignment 

issues among five agencies: Aging, Education, Community and Economic Development, Labor and Industry, and Public Welfare. In Massachusetts, Gov. Mitt Romney’s cabinet-level Executive Office of Economic Development (EED) oversees four 

departments: business and technology, workforce development, labor, and consumer 

affairs and business regulation. The directors of all four departments within the 

EED are members of the Governor’s cabinet. 

Missouri merged its workforce development agencies into the Department of Economic Development, but also formed a team among the departments of Economic 

Development, Labor and Industrial Relations, and Social Services that led to the 

creation of nine task forces to examine specific issues and make recommendations 

for better aligning and coordinating their activities. State officials point to impressive results, including significant savings in administrative costs and substantially 

higher rates of job placement and retention. Sometimes such planning is part of a 

more comprehensive assessment of the state’s economic and social policies. 

It is important to note that such structured coordination can complement as well 

as substitute for consolidating programs and agencies. No organizational structure 

is sufficient to efficiently address the multitude of issues and populations that come 

and go without effective coordination across agencies. Governors need to promote 

such coordination, whether through ad hoc and temporary bodies or more permanent ones. 

Strategies and Tactics to Achieve Greater Alignment 

To align economic and workforce development, reorganizing governance structures 

is often helpful, but it is neither necessary nor sufficient. Strategies and tactics are 

needed to align the everyday activities of state and local economic and workforce 

development officials, one-stop career center operators, community college leaders, 

and other key personnel. Three strategic approaches show special promise: focusing 

on specific industries and occupations, joint planning and information management, 

and integrated performance management. 

Segmenting the Market by Industry and Occupation 

A common criticism of job training programs has been that they did not train 

workers to meet the real needs of local employers. Often as a result, workers lack 

the skills they need to qualify for existing jobs, while employers have difficulty filling vacant positions, especially in high-skill, high-growth occupations and industries. 

A growing body of research suggests that the most practical way to match supply 

and demand is to organize communications between skill providers and skill consumers according to some subsegment of the broader universe of employers. Some 

of this segmentation happens anyway, but states are finding that they can promote 

improved labor market performance by organizing their own economic and work-
161 

iiMarano, Cindy and Dexter Ligot-Gordon. From food Processing to Fabricating Metals: a Profile of Manufacturing Sector Initiatives Across the Country, Oakland, CA: National Network of 

Sector Partners, 2004. 

force development efforts around particular occupations, industry sectors, or clusters 

of employers with common characteristics (e.g., members of a supply chain or companies in a specific stage of growth, such as start-up firms or at-risk companies). 

The National Network of Sector Partners recently published a paperii on sector-responsive state policy models that identifies the following common elements. • Combining economic development goals with workforce development goals by 

targeting specific industries that are critical to the state or regional economy, and 

analyzing the workforce needs in those industries. • Encouraging and sometimes providing incentives for the development of partnerships among multiple stakeholders such as employers, education and training 

providers, workforce boards, philanthropic organizations, and organized labor. • Investing in helping employers within those industries to prepare their workforce to become more skilled and productive, and also in preparing new, dislocated, 

or disadvantaged workers for jobs in those industries. • Supporting a variety of solutions to meet employer and worker needs, in addition to traditional workforce training, such as business services, supervisory training, and supportive services or ESL training for disadvantaged clients. • Encouraging regional collaborations that cross traditional workforce and economic development boundaries or link traditional education and training systems. • Including accountability measures that enable the state to ensure that the investments are producing the intended outcomes. 

Several states have launched initiatives that exemplify this sectoral approach. 

Typically, these efforts are regional in geographic scope rather than statewide or 

local, reflecting the regional nature of labor markets. Indeed, one of the helpful 

steps that state leaders can take is to align economic and workforce development 

jurisdictions around the same regional labor markets. 

Michigan’s Regional Skills Alliances are public-private partnerships that convene 

key stakeholders in a particular industry to address the employers’ workforce needs. 

The conveners of such partnerships can come from various institutions, including 

industry associations, labor unions, workforce boards, and community colleges. They 

mobilize the various stakeholders and facilitate the needs assessment, planning, and 

implementation of the sector initiative. Activities include examining, designing, and 

implementing improvements to the sector’s human-resource practices; realigning 

training curricula; and addressing such nonworkplace issues as transportation. In 

2004, the state invested $1.05 million to foster the development of 12 alliances, with 

no single grant exceeding $100,000. The state also offers direct technical assistance 

to each alliance. 

Washington’s Skill Panels, initiated by the Governor and State Legislature, are 

public-private partnerships of business, labor, and education working together 

through regional alliances to improve the skills of workers in industries vital to 

Washington. Industries see the skill panels approach as a successful model, providing leadership, innovation, and solutions to grow and keep a competitive workforce. The state workforce investment board provides funding to each skill panel, 

which leverages additional financial support from other public and private sources. 

The industry skill panels continuously examine the workforce needs of the industries they serve. Panels push for change and recommend new training programs 

where none existed before. They demand more training capacity when there are not 

enough graduates to meet the industry’s needs. They press for modernized training 

for the industry’s current workforce. They demand that public training budgets are 

strategically used. They support economic development initiatives aimed at building 

industry competitiveness. 

Industry skill panels increasingly influence Washington’s workforce development 

system. Effective industry skill panels allow private enterprise to contribute intellectual and financial resources to ensure both workers and employers stay competitive. 

Community colleges are responding to employer needs with more flexible, higher 

quality training. They are expanding and creating more modular courseware options, providing additional weekend and evening classes, offering greater numbers 

of distance learning opportunities, and improving their systems in numerous other 

ways. As a result, participants in the workforce development system are better 

trained and prepared for industries’ skill demands. 

New York State officials decided five years ago to invest WIA discretionary funding in helping local areas meet specific business needs in important industry sectors. They launched a series of initiatives incrementally, building on lessons learned 

in each step. The state funded projects to understand and support career ladders, 
162 

targeting key industries that use developing technologies such as information technology, biotechnology, and nanotechnology. 

New York created Building Skills in New York State (BUSINYS) to provide process-improvement training that helps employees reduce production costs and increase 

efficiencies through processes such as lean manufacturing and six sigma. More than 

$20 million has been awarded to businesses of all sizes, with a significant number 

of awards going to small and emerging businesses. The state also initiated Accelerate New York to help companies in key industries with business planning—after 

state economic development officials observed that businesses’ incumbent-worker 

training funding requests often did not demonstrate a strategic approach to training 

or take advantage of the opportunity to use the training to advance overall company 

objectives. 

Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski, as part of his initiatives to create and maintain 

jobs in the state, implemented an incumbent worker training project, the Employer 

Workforce Training Fund. The fund was specifically designed to increase the coordination among workforce, education and economic development entities at the local 

level. 

Funds are awarded directly to employers for training their workforce. Projects are 

selected and managed by a Workforce Response Team (WRT) in each of Oregon’s 

fifteen regions. Required membership on the WRTs includes the WIA Title IB provider, the state employment department, the community college, and local and state 

economic development entities. Besides assisting local employers in creating and 

maintaining jobs, the funds have provided an incentive for economic development, 

workforce development and education to work together on real projects. This has resulted in a growing awareness among economic development practitioners on the 

importance of workforce development and education and more demand-side thinking 

on the part of the workforce development and education partners. 

Joint Planning and Information Management 

Because of the myriad sources of federal and state funds, the varied planning requirements that accompany the funds, and the different agencies, elected officials, 

and jurisdictions responsible for them, planning efforts often occur independently 

from one another. Aligning planning efforts provides a practical opportunity for 

states to focus multiple resources on priorities agreed upon by the Governor and 

other state leaders. 

Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich designated 10 Economic Development Regions to develop individual ‘‘Opportunity Returns’’ economic development plans. As part of Opportunity Returns, the Critical Skills Shortage Initiative is designed to establish 

local WIB-led coalitions that identify key industry sectors, collect and analyze information about shortages in key occupations, determine root causes and solutions, and 

develop proposals to test and implement solutions that leverage existing resources. 

Using WIA discretionary funds, the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity awards $3 million in planning grants to these coalitions on a 

noncompetitive basis and $15 million in total training grants on a competitive basis 

to those that submit the best plans. In the first year, the training grant funds 100 

percent of the cost of activities authorized under WIA. Grants are renewable for a 

second year to fund up to 50 percent of costs, with each region expected to secure 

funds from other sources to make up the difference and continue without any state 

funds in subsequent years. 

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels is pursuing a strategy similar to the Illinois approach, 

with the major exception of asking the U.S. Department of Labor for a waiver to 

create a single state-designated WIB (plus an Indianapolis WIB). Under this single 

state WIB, Indiana will designate regional workforce boards with greater flexibility 

and accountability. In the process, the state proposed consolidating 16 local WIB 

areas into 11 regions that correspond with economic development and community 

college boundaries. 

Missouri took a different approach, merging its economic and workforce development research units, along with the Missouri Occupational Information Coordinating Committee staff, to create the Missouri Economic Research and Information 

Center (MERIC). In 2004, the center began to provide comprehensive services to 

local WIBs. In addition, Missouri developed a performance scorecard that includes 

measures in three major categories: workforce development, education, and the 

economy. MERIC collects and analyzes the data across the three categories of indicators and reports the results to the Missouri Training and Employment Council. 

The combination of MERIC and the scorecard provide management with valuable 

information to clarify policy direction and priorities and direct their investments toward desired results. 
163 

iiiWashington State Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board, Integrated Performance Information for Workforce Development: A Blueprint for States, Olympia, WA: Washington State Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board, 2005. 

New Jersey initiated a demand-side skills assessment project to strengthen the 

relationship between workforce and economic development and better inform the 

planning processes across these systems. As a first step, the state identified key 

growth industries in the state. Then, working with local WIBs in four regions of the 

state with a concentration of these industries, the state gathered data on the skills 

required by specific industry clusters. 

During the project, the four participating WIBs formed industry advisory groups 

composed of local employers, educational providers, economic developers, and training specialists. These groups helped the local WIBs identify key demand occupations 

in their regions and the skills employers needed in these occupations. Information 

gathered through this process was made available to state agencies, one-stop centers, and institutions of higher education to better align the services and occupational training available through the education and workforce systems with the demands of employers in the regional economies. The effort has expanded to other regions of the state, with information on this initiative available online (see 

www.NJNextStop.org). 

Integrated Performance Information 

The multiple programs that invest in workforce development have dozens of different measures with numerous definitions that make it difficult for policymakers 

to accurately assess their collective benefits and contributions to statewide economic 

competitiveness. Because workforce development is recognized as a critical factor in 

state and regional economic development strategies, a clear understanding of its results is increasingly important to governors and other state policymakers. 

Many states have taken on the challenge of aligning the measures and integrating 

the performance information across workforce programs, and several have made significant progress, including Florida, Oregon, Texas, and Washington. In 2004, these 

states joined with two other states, Michigan and Montana, in the Integrated Performance Information project funded by the U.S. Department of Labor and led by 

the Washington State Workforce Training and Coordinating Board. The project 

aimed to develop a guide for states interested in creating or further developing integrated performance information to better align workforce development programs 

and provide policymakers with the information necessary to make strategic investment decisions. 

The project produced a ‘‘blueprint’’ iii or state guide for simplifying measures and 

developing integrated performance information, drawing heavily on the experiences 

of the participating states—particularly Florida, Oregon, Texas, and Washington. 

Each of these states took a separate path to integrated performance information, 

but they all experienced a journey that took many years and multiple steps. 

Florida’s journey, spanning more than 20 years, involved close collaboration between the Governor’s office and the State Legislature to create the Florida Education and Training Placement Information Program (FETPIP). Today FETPIP is 

the primary tool for informing policymakers about the performance of education and 

workforce programs and how these investments contribute to Florida’s economic 

competitiveness. 

The path to creating FETIP started in 1982 when the Governor’s office sought to 

use unemployment wage records to analyze the labor-market outcomes of vocational 

education students. This led to legislation in 1984 to create the Occupational Identifier Project, which used unemployment wage records to measure post-program employment. The legislation also enacted performance requirements for secondary and 

post-secondary education that tied funding to outcomes. Building on this effort, in 

1988 the legislature created FETPIP within the education agency. Since then, the 

program scope has broadened to include most education programs and a variety of 

employment and training programs. Its functions have broadened as well to include 

program evaluation, performance-based funding, consumer information, and research. 

Oregon tied the development of its integrated performance information to building 

a vital state economy and a competitive workforce. Today the state has a culture 

of shared accountability, focused on outcomes and imbedded in programs, agencies, 

and sectors at all levels. The Governor initiated this effort in 1988 in response to 

a severe economic recession. It started with a strategic-planning process, ‘‘Oregon 

Shines,’’ with the goal of creating the most competent workforce in America by 2000 

and in the world by 2010. 
164 

Oregon’s process involved leaders from business, labor, education, and government 

and led to the formation of the Progress Board, chaired by the Governor. It also resulted in the Oregon Benchmarks: 259 measures that crossed multiple programs, 

agencies, levels of government, and the public and private sectors, with shared responsibility for achieving the benchmark goals. The Progress Board issued ‘‘Oregon 

Shines II’’ in 1997, which updated the benchmarks, reduced the number of measures 

from 259 to 100, and recognized the importance of workforce training and academic 

skills to jobs and the economy. Oregon’s system of cross-system workforce performance indicators has evolved into three tiers of measures: the broadest measures or 

benchmarks, systemwide measures, and program-specific measures. 

Texas took the governance path to creating a system of integrated performance 

information by creating Texas Workforce Investment Council to assist the Governor 

and Legislature with strategic planning and evaluation of the Texas workforce system. Today, the council is the state’s primary source of information on building a 

competitive workforce. 

The Texas Legislature established the council in 1993 and gave it broad strategic 

planning authority and oversight of the state’s workforce programs. With its majority private sector and cross-agency membership, the council also serves as a vehicle 

for linking workforce and economic development programs. The 1995 legislation that 

consolidated 24 workforce programs under the Texas Workforce Commission enhanced the council’s role by giving it responsibility for establishing systemwide performance measures for all workforce programs and moving it to the Governor’s office. Subsequent legislation has reinforced the council’s role in establishing systemwide performance measures. 

Washington also took the governance path to integrated performance information, 

creating the Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board as an independent agency responsible for policy planning and performance accountability. 

Today, both business and labor view the board’s performance information system as 

a key source of information on the performance of workforce programs and their impact on the state’s economic competitiveness. 

Legislation enacted in 1991 created the board with strong support from the business community, which was concerned that the state lacked a good system for tracking the results of its workforce investments. With a majority of private-sector members and no responsibility for program operation, the board is seen as a neutral 

third party in establishing common measures and evaluating program performance 

across state agencies. The board led a two-year process of developing and adopting 

a performance accountability system with common performance measures. After 

using the system for several years, the board refined the measures to a core set of 

indicators. 

Conclusions and Recommendations 

The emergence of regional knowledge economies and evolution of federal workforce-development programs have created new opportunities for fruitful collaboration among economic and workforce development agencies. Where that collaboration 

works well, the resulting partnerships facilitate progress in several areas. Most notably, they help establish combined regional entities and identities that create a climate for seeking region wide solutions to competitiveness challenges and opportunities—including those of marketing and of improving the skills and agility of the 

workforce. 

Governors are in an ideal position to promote such alignment. They can define 

a vision that will win support from a wide variety of key individuals and organizations. They can use the bully pulpit to amplify the message. They can use discretionary funding to encourage collaboration in desired areas, including planning, research, staff cross-training and collocating, and even the merging of agencies or 

aligning of agency missions and funding streams. 

There is no single right way to do any of this. Rather, the chosen path—whether 

it involves agency consolidation, pooled funding, joint research shops, unified regional districts and entities, or other methods—should reflect each state’s economic, 

political, and institutional realities and be designed to achieve intended outcomes. 

Nevertheless, universal lessons emerge from the experiences summarized in this 

Issue Brief. First, governors can play a critical role in promoting alignment. Although many economic development decisions are made at the regional or local 

level, governors can define the vision, use the bully pulpit to promote change, and 

advance specific strategies for aligning economic and workforce development activities at all levels of government. In addition, states that are successfully moving toward alignment have incorporated many of the following practices or lessons. 

• Complete a candid assessment of the status quo as the essential first step in 

determining appropriate actions. The assessment can identify areas of misalignment 
165 

and illuminate their nature and implications, relevant actors and stakeholders, the 

history of any previous attempts to address it, and the potential costs and benefits 

of reform. 

• Evaluate the positive and negative aspects of each reform option (including restructuring versus other alternatives) and create a sequence of decisions based on 

the current state of affairs. With a clear understanding of the status quo, state leadership can begin to assess the relative merits of various approaches, from changes 

in governance structures to less dramatic reform options. Good decisions about consolidating economic and workforce development agencies versus alternative methods 

for eliciting the needed collaboration—such as jobs cabinets and other forms of 

structured coordination—are made with careful consideration of the political and 

economic contexts, history of relationships among relevant agencies, and other such 

variables. 

• Strengthen the quality of the economic and workforce information available to 

decision makers by revamping the data collection, analysis, and dissemination systems. Accurate assessments and effective plans both depend on access to quality, 

real-time data about practices and economic conditions. Many states have improved 

the quality of relevant data available to key decision makers by revamping the 

mechanisms for data definition, collection, analysis, packaging, and dissemination. 

Some states have required regional and local entities to incorporate the use of this 

data into plans and proposed initiatives in order to compete for discretionary funding. 

• Organize economic and workforce development activities around regions and 

groupings of firms to improve labor-market performance. Increasingly, states are 

using various levers at their disposal to encourage regional and local entities to segment the marketplace into groups of employers that have a more meaningful economic context. This includes customizing targeted economic and workforce development activities to the needs of specific industries or economic sectors, clusters, startup companies—whatever groupings make sense—to improve labor market performance. 

• Use financial incentives and administrative actions to resolve the administrative and jurisdictional differences between economic and workforce development. 

The state can help regional and local entities sort out the confusing array of administrative and jurisdictional differences (e.g., different agencies, counties, cities, regional authorities, etc.) when studying trends or organizing responses. State leaders 

can use discretionary funds, reporting guidance or administrative measures such as 

jobs cabinets to promote the creation of aligned economic and workforce development jurisdictions and joint planning within them. 

• Set broad performance measures across multiple workforce programs so they 

align with state economic goals. Because ‘‘you get what you measure,’’ many states 

are establishing broad performance metrics that encourage collaboration and alignment across programs and funding streams. Innovative performance strategies such 

as an integrated performance information systems, system wide performance measures, and cross-system performance scorecards can advance these efforts. 

Answers for the Record Submitted by Ms. Vito 

On behalf of the nation’s governors, thank you for the opportunity to testify before 

the U.S. House Education and Labor, Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong 

Learning, and Competitiveness on February 26, 2009 regarding the reauthorization 

of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA). Included below are the National Governors 

Association’s responses to Chairman Hinojosa’s questions asked during the hearing, 

which supplement the testimony given by Sandi Vito on behalf of NGA. 

What can be done to align workforce programs across federal agencies? 

Governors and state leaders are transforming state workforce systems by merging 

and consolidating state agencies and bringing missions, goals and objectives into 

alignment with one another to better respond to job seekers’ needs, reduce fragmentation, promote accountability, and create shared responsibility. However, governors will be unable to achieve the kind of true alliances and collaborations that 

are necessary to streamline the state-led workforce system without integration and 

alignment of workforce programs at the federal level. 

To address this need, governors recommend a joint federal initiative to align 

workforce programs and services across executive agencies. The joint initiative must 

work in consultation with state leaders who understand the effect of national policies and programs on the delivery of services to our citizens and can help shape federal support. The joint initiative should develop a shared purpose, possess high-level 
166 

technical and programmatic expertise, and be given sufficient authority to decide 

and enact necessary changes. 

The components of a joint initiative should, at a minimum, address: 

Federal regulations: The process of integrating and streamlining workforce education and training regulations will provide a needed opportunity for federal agencies to jointly examine and eliminate conflicting regulations and expose the potential 

for collaborative guidance that facilitates seamless service delivery mechanisms at 

the state and local levels. 

Reporting requirements: Jointly aligned federal data reporting requirements will 

support state data systems, simplify data collection and data validation, and reduce 

costs and duplication. It will also produce federal data sets that are comparable to 

one another and thereby better able to inform planning and evaluation. 

Performance measurements: As set forth in NGA’s written testimony, NGA and 

the National Association of State Workforce Agencies propose common performance 

measurements applied across federally funded workforce education, training and 

employment related programs to replace all performance measures and other indicators. The proposal streamlines the current complex system and will provide comparable and meaningful outcome measures across workforce programs. 

Oversight: Consistent and coordinated federal oversight that focuses on helping 

states improve their practices and effectiveness across all workforce programs will 

foster a stronger federal-state relationship and will result in better program performance and outcomes. 

Service integration: Federal agencies must work together to make a paradigm 

shift that embodies and prioritizes integrated service delivery for citizens and supports mechanisms that maximize the concept of ‘‘one-stop shopping.’’ 

What new energy collaborations for green jobs have governors created? 

Emerging and growing industries are dynamic and often distinct, evolving differently within states and regions. Governors are uniquely positioned to integrate 

and align economic development, education and workforce resources to respond to 

the needs of emerging industries like clean, renewable energy and also for growing 

industries like healthcare and education. Governors can set public policy agenda, influence agency leadership and bring the work of public institutions into alignment 

with the needs of emerging and growing industries to support job creation and drive 

regional economies. Governors are leading reforms to prepare individuals for today’s 

emerging fields, as well as jobs of the future. Our nation’s economic interests require a nimble, flexible, forward looking workforce system. While green jobs are an 

exciting, promising and growing field today, the needs of our nation will continue 

to shift. 

To ensure our nation’s ability to compete in an evolving global economy and respond to crucial energy and environmental challenges, governors across the nation 

are making significant investments in establishing new and broad clean and renewable energy collaborations and designing and implementing initiatives to train and 

prepare workers for green jobs. 

It is important that Congress recognize that each state is unique and that practices in one state may not necessarily result in the same outcomes in another state. 

To that end, NGA provides the following as a small sample of the wide variety of 

Governors’ green jobs innovations being implemented across the country. While governors are leading a broad array of green initiatives through changes in state tax 

laws, economic incentives, and infrastructure modernizations, the examples below 

highlight the use of ‘‘workforce’’ levers to achieve change. 

California Governor Schwarzenegger enacted new law to expand career and technical education programs (CTE) in the state by connecting CTE to postsecondary 

and career options, thus making the CTE courses more meaningful for students. 

One program within the initiative will establish partnership academies in green 

technology in each of the state’s nine economic regions. Partnership academies are 

schools within a high school that integrate academic and career technical education. 

Green technology partnership academies will train young people in emerging environmentally sound technologies. 

In Connecticut, Governor Rell established guidelines to train and develop Connecticut’s green collar workforce to meet the needs of the growing clean energy business sector. The Connecticut Employment and Training Commission will create a 

Green Collar Jobs Council that will bring together representatives from business 

and industry and the Departments of Education, Higher Education, Environmental 

Protection, Labor and Economic and Community Development, and the Energy 

Workforce Development Consortium. Additionally, the Labor Commissioner will establish a 21st Century Green Jobs Training Initiative which will provide training 
167 

to meet the needs of the energy industry and other green industry workforce needs 

as identified by the Energy Workforce Development Consortium. 

As part of Governor Crist’s commitment to reduce Florida’s dependence on foreign 

oil, lower greenhouse emissions and develop renewable energy resources, he recently 

released a study ‘‘GreenForce Florida, An Alternative Energy Workforce Profile.’’ 

Based on direction from the report, the Department of Education is working collaboratively with a group of stakeholders to fast-track the development of the career 

pathways, standards, benchmarks and frameworks for several solar industry occupations. By utilizing the existing Workforce Education Career Clusters Pathways as 

a platform, Florida will be able to rapidly create a green-collar workforce that will 

be prepared to serve Florida’s growing alternative energy industries. 

Governor Granholm expanded Michigan’s No Worker Left Behind program to include a Green Jobs Initiative. The No Worker Left Behind program, which the Governor launched in August 2007, provides up to two years of free tuition at any 

Michigan community college, university or other approved training program. The 

Green Jobs Initiative expands the program to include a focus on creating training 

programs needed to help green companies succeed. 

The Green Jobs Initiative invests in training for jobs in alternative energy industries, including wind, solar, biofuels and geothermal energy. The main goal of the 

initiative is to ensure that Michiganders are prepared to enter the new jobs that 

emerge as employers expand operations or add new components to their workforce 

in response to a changing energy market. A website will facilitate collaborative partnerships between businesses, educational institutions, and government to better 

link research and development in renewable energy with education and training. 

Governor Paterson of New York created a Renewable Energy Task Force to identify a means of attracting clean energy industries and promoting renewable energy 

technologies. One of the 16 specific recommendations made by the Task Force was 

a green jobs pilot program to examine existing training programs in the state and 

identify the skill sets and specific job titles in the efficiency, solar and offshore wind 

sectors. Unemployment data collected by the Department of Labor and temporary 

disability assistance data collected from Department of Housing and Community Renewal is then used to match displaced workers, particularly those who are disadvantaged and living in low-income communities, with job training such as certified 

weatherization installation and solar energy technician. 

In Oregon, Governor Kulongoski utilized federal Workforce Investment Act resources to develop a statewide Strategic Training Fund Grant program. One of the 

grants provided funding to build an Alternative Energy Career Pathway to support 

the skilled workforce needed to maintain and operate wind turbines, with transferable skills for hydro, solar, and biofuel occupations. The funds were used to expand 

lab curriculum and create an on-line and distance learning program for the Wind 

Turbine Technician Training program at Columbia Gorge Community College. 

Vermont Governor Douglas supports four innovative statewide training initiatives 

in renewable energy and energy efficiency. One program through the Center for 

Sustainable Practices trains new and incumbent workers in six different modules 

of weatherization certificate training. Trainees are recruited through Workforce Investment Act programs. WIA eligible trainees and TANF recipients typically complete more than one module in the progressive series of skill training to secure 

green jobs. The project is a partnership of the Division of Economic Services, the 

Vermont Technical College, the Office of Economic Opportunity and the Vermont 

Department of Labor. 

In Washington, Governor Gregoire created statewide goals to reduce Washington’s 

global-warming pollution and increase the number of green jobs. One component of 

this initiative is the Green-Collar Job Training Fund that trains workers for highwage occupations, or occupations that are part of career pathways in high-demand 

industries related to clean energy. Competitive grants are awarded to partnerships 

that draw on labor market analysis and work in collaboration with a range of stakeholders to leverage and align other public and private resources, link basic education with skills training, involve employers and unions in the development and 

validation of career pathways, and integrate support services. Targeted populations 

include low-income adults and youth, entry-level and incumbent workers, and dislocated workers in declining industries who can be re-trained for high-wage occupations in high-demand green industries. 

Thank you for the opportunity to make additional comments on the reauthorization of WIA. If you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact 

Linda Lawson, Legislative Director, Education, Early Childhood, and Workforce 

Committee at (202) 624-5369 or via email at LLawson@nga.org; or Joan Wodiska, 

Committee Director, Education, Early Childhood, and Workforce Committee at 

(202)624-5361 or via email at jwodiska@nga.org. 
168 

Common Measure Proposal Reauthorization of the Workforce Investment 

Act 

A critical element of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) reauthorization is the 

development and use of common measures to increase system-wide accountability, 

while significantly decreasing administrative costs and inefficiencies. The NGANASWA WIA Common Measure Proposal streamlines the complex system of nearly 

100 varying and incomparable performance measures into four critical measures focused on customer outcomes, including short-term and long-term employment rates, 

earnings, and credential completion. 

The intent of the NGA-NASWA proposed legislative language is to replace all performance measures and additional indicators across all programs directly or indirectly authorized under WIA, including WIA Dislocated Worker, Wagner-Peyser, 

WIA Adult, WIA Youth, Job Corp, Veterans’ programs, and related programs authorized at the U.S. Department of Education, including Adult Education and Rehabilitative Services. 

PROPOSED LANGUAGE

(b) STATE PERFORMANCE MEASURES.—— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—For each State, the State performance measures shall 

consist of 

(A)(i) the core indicators of performance described in paragraph (2)(A); 

and (ii) additional measures of performance (if any) identified by the State 

under paragraph (2)(B); and 

(B) a State adjusted level of performance for each measure described in 

subparagraph (A). 

(2) INDICATORS OF PERFORMANCE 

(A) CORE INDICATORS OF PERFORMANCE.—— 

(i) IN GENERAL.—The core indicators of performance for employment and training activities authorized under the Workforce Investment Act [insert section references, as applicable] (except for informational activities) shall consist of—— 

(I) the percentage of program participants who are employed during the second quarter after exit; 

(II) the percentage of program participants who are employed 

during the fourth quarter after exit; 

(III) the median earnings of program participants during the second quarter after exit; 

(IV) the percentage of program participants who obtain an education or training credential during participation or within one 

year of exit; 

(ii) CORE INDICATORS FOR ELIGIBLE YOUTH.—The core indicators of performance (for participants who are eligible youth age 14 

through 18) for youth activities authorized under WIA Youth [insert 

section reference, as applicable], shall include—— 

(I) the percentage of program participants who are in education 

or training, or employed during the second quarter after exit; 

(II) the percentage of program participants who are in education 

or training, or employed during the fourth quarter after exit; 

(III) the median earnings of program participants during the second quarter after exit among participants not enrolled in education 

or training; 

(IV) the percentage of program participants who obtain an education or training credential during participation or within one 

year of exit; 

(B) ADDITIONAL INDICATORS.—Additional indicators of performance 

shall consist of 

(i) A State may identify in the State plan additional performance 

measures for workforce investment activities authorized under this 

subtitle. 

For more information, please contact Joan Wodiska with the National Governors 

Association (NGA) at jwodiska@nga.org or 624-5361 or Curt Harris with the National Association of State Workforce Agencies (NASWA) at charris@naswa.org or 

434-8023. Last updated: May 2, 2007 
169 

ECW–1.—Governors’ Principles to Ensure Workforce Excellence 

1.1 Preamble 

The strength of America is our citizens—their innovation, creativity, and hard 

work. In the 21st century’s rapidly advancing global economy, the foundation and 

economic prosperity of this nation will depend on a responsive workforce that has 

specialized and advanced training, cutting-edge skill sets, and higher levels of education. It also will depend on a workforce system that can anticipate the business 

needs of the future and rapidly align the necessary resources to stay ahead of the 

emerging demands. 

Competitive economies include aligned economic, educational and workforce development systems that address the needs of workers, regardless of the worker’s skill 

level, age or circumstance. Through a comprehensive, integrated, and flexible workforce system, the nation will be equipped to swiftly respond to the changing needs 

of its workers and businesses to keep them competitive. 

Globalization demands a bold transformation of our nation’s federal-state-local 

workforce system. Since enactment of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, the nation’s governors made significant progress and led innovative new strategies to restructure workforce development systems, forge new alliances with federal, state, 

and local governments and the private sector, and ultimately, upgrade the skills and 

knowledge of America’s workforce. To accelerate these transformations and help ensure that every job seeker remains competitive for work in a global economy, governors need new flexibilities to create a nimble, flexible, market-driven and supplyfocused workforce system. 

The time is ripe for the laws and policies of this country to catch up with the realities and possibilities of the 21st century. Governors call on Congress and the Administration to enact transformative legislation that will authorize governors to 

proactively implement innovations, build broad and inclusive partnerships, and activate structural reforms across education, workforce, and economic development systems. 

1.2 Governors’ Priorities for a World-Class Workforce 

Governors recommend the following key priorities for a world-class workforce. 

Nimble state systems that can anticipate and respond to the current and emerging demands of workers and business require that governors have flexibility and 

discretion over funding and the authority to rapidly implement innovations. 

Every worker must have access to training and lifelong learning opportunities 

that will improve their employability and earning potential through education, 

training, and career advancement. 

Education and training must align to the current and future needs of business. 

Emerging entrepreneurs and small business owners must be cultivated to accelerate the capacity for innovations that will lead to new knowledge, new technologies, and new jobs. 

Workforce development strategies must produce broad and prosperous regional 

benefits for residents and businesses and result in high-quality job growth and business attraction and retention. 

The business community should engage with the workforce development system 

in mutually beneficial joint ventures that will increase the education, training, and 

employment capacity for workers, strengthen business, and stimulate regional 

economies. 

Responsibility for governance of the state workforce system should reside with the 

governor. The governor can deploy resources based on regional economies rather 

than geopolitical boundaries. 

Meaningful collaborations between federal agencies should support and help to 

streamline workforce, education, and economic development programs at the state 

and local levels. 

National investments in workforce must provide substantial, reliable, and flexible 

funding and support commensurate with their importance and contribution to the 

economic success of our nation. 

System-wide accountability and transparency with decreased administrative costs 

can be achieved with common, customer-centric, state-driven performance measures. 

Governors need additional flexibility in regard to workforce policy, funding and 

federal regulations to allow for workforce services integration across the workforce 

system at the state and local levels, to reduce administrative costs, and to streamline and integrate workforce policy and services for business, workers and job seekers. 
170 

1.3 Recommendations for Transforming the Workforce System 

Governors urge Congress and the Administration to adopt the following recommendations to transform the workforce system. 

1.3.1 Governor-Led, Business-Guided Workforce System. The new challenges confronting our nation and economic position in the world emphasize the need for a 

comprehensive and flexible state-based workforce system focused on the needs of 

local regions and communities that is led by governors and guided by business leaders. To be effective agents of systemic state change, Congress must recognize the 

authority of governors in state-led workforce systems and eliminate the rigid, onesize-fits-all laws and regulations, federally-mandated governance, and prescribed 

service delivery structures that get in the way of state and local innovations. 

1.3.2 Globally Competitive State-Led Regional Economies. Economies are regional 

in scope. Integrating economic and workforce development initiatives through a governor-led state-regional framework offers the greatest potential for economic expansion and industry competitiveness, while providing job growth and stability for 

workers and opening career advancement opportunities. State-regional approaches 

and sector strategies often include and cross several jurisdictional boundaries including city, county and even state lines. National policy should be designed to support governor-led state-regional initiatives and sector strategies, particularly state 

efforts to build broad partnerships with business and industry. Federal policy also 

should support strong public/private partnerships and provide governors with the 

authority to cultivate these partnerships to attract and retain high-growth industries and high-wage occupations. 

1.3.3 Focus On Emerging Industries. Globalization has increased the world demand for energy. To address a number of national concerns, clean and domestic energy has become one of the governors’ top priorities. Governors are proactively involved in establishing new and broad energy collaborations and designing and implementing ‘‘green job’’ and ‘‘green economy’’ initiatives. Governors also have taken 

the lead in developing collaborations and initiatives to address critical skills shortages in the health care, technology, and industry sectors experiencing skill shortages. To further expand these and other regional efforts, governors need the discretion to identify targeted and emerging industries and the flexibility to expend workforce, education, and economic development assets and available resources accordingly. 

1.3.4 Responsive Assistance for Businesses in Transition and Affected Workers. As 

the economy ebbs and flows, business and workers have to adapt. In times of business downsize or closure, employers turn to states to help laid-off workers find new 

employment. Often, this first means helping workers upgrade their skills or learn 

new skills. Federal initiatives and funding targeted at this population must be immediately available and flexible so that appropriate services are responsive to the 

unique circumstances within each state and are readily accessible to workers. In addition, workers affected by federal policy decisions should receive adequate Trade 

Adjustment Assistance, incorporated into the overall state workforce system, in a 

timely and efficient manner. All federal assistance should be provided through statebased networks and initiatives, and final authority to implement the provision of 

assistance should be determined by the governor. 

1.3.5 Increased and Agile Funding. Federal funding has not kept pace with the 

growing training and education needs of workers to stay competitive and for states 

and localities to provide those services. Governors support an adequate and consistent federal investment for workforce development and should be given the authority to determine how federal funds are allocated within their states as demands 

dictate. Economic necessity already requires governors and local leaders to cobble 

together funds to provide enhanced training and education to workers and the existing barriers must be removed to make it more effective and cost efficient. Furthermore, Congress should acknowledge the role of governors by providing enhanced 

flexibility to coordinate and, when necessary at a state or local level, integrate workforce, education and economic development funding to meet the unique needs of 

their states and communities. Additionally, governors should be given the option to 

pool federal funds for various employment, economic development, education, and 

training programs at the state level to respond to the needs of workers and businesses. 

1.3.6 Alignment of Federal Programs. Portions of the workforce system span 

across many agencies within the federal government, including the U.S. Departments of Labor, Education, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Justice, Veterans Affairs, and Defense. These myriad administrations, agencies, funding 

sources, regulations, and responsibilities needlessly complicate, and in some cases 

prohibit, the kind of true alliances and collaborations that are necessary to stream-
171 

line the workforce development system and to provide seamless services at the state 

and local levels. 

To that end, governors recommend that Congress and the Administration direct 

federal partner agencies to develop a joint initiative to align federal programs, oversight, and regulations, consolidating redundancy and conflicting regulations where 

possible, and to establish transparent levels of responsibility and accountability. The 

initiative also should be tasked to identify and eliminate obvious and hidden barriers to program alignment that are embedded in standard operating procedures 

within the federal government. 

1.3.7 Accountability and Reporting. Accountability and workforce system performance outcomes should be addressed separately from reporting. A set of common performance measures applied across the workforce system will increase accountability 

and transparency, while significantly decreasing data collection inefficiencies. Governors urge Congress to adopt a performance measurement system applied across 

the system and developed by the states to streamline varying and incomparable performance measures into four critical areas focused on customer outcomes, including 

short-term and long-term employment rates, earnings and credential completion. 

1.3.8 Incentivize Innovations. To foster invention and sustain a culture of innovation, states must be incentivized and rewarded for their efforts to build a world-class 

workforce system. Governors support incentivizing states with additional federal 

funds and flexibilities for initiatives including comprehensive system building, anticipating and addressing emerging education and training needs, and developing 

regional economies. 

1.3.9 Maximize Advanced Technologies. Every aspect of the workforce system can 

be improved upon by technological advances to help streamline service delivery, 

modernize data collection and validation investments, and simplify reporting efforts. 

Initial investments will marginalize costs over time, and produce better outcomes 

for workers and businesses and for system accountability. Congress should provide 

transitional financial support that will give states and localities the ability to utilize 

technological advances to achieve greater system efficiencies. 

1.3.10 Vital Role of Community and Technical Colleges. Community and technical 

colleges have an important and broad role in America’s workforce system. Community and technical colleges are responsive to the demands of the labor market and 

provide customized career and technical training programs, adult basic education 

and English Language Training to meet the specific needs of industry sectors and 

individual employers, including training for incumbent workers. Governors acknowledge the vital role of community and technical colleges in workforce education and 

training and in state-led regional and sector initiatives, and support including these 

entities in funding and collaborative opportunities that align the necessary resources to meet the emerging needs of a highly-skilled workforce. 

1.3.11 Preparing Youth for Work. The varying challenges facing youth in our country today require programs that are designed to help them acquire foundational 

skills and progress through the education continuum regardless of the point of entry 

and needed supports, and to prepare them for future employment and life-long 

learning. Governors must be given the flexibility to coordinate funding streams and 

to utilize funding where appropriate given the unique needs of youth and the available resources within each community. Governors are leading efforts to increase 

high school completion rates and keep more students in school. The workforce system needs to build upon this work and help empower youth to succeed. 

Time limited (effective Winter Meeting 2009—Winter Meeting 2011). Adopted 

Winter Meeting 1993; reaffirmed Winter Meeting 1995; revised and reaffirmed Winter Meeting 1997; revised Winter Meeting 1998, Winter Meeting 2000, Winter Meeting 2002, Annual Meeting 2003, and Winter Meeting 2005; reaffirmed Winter Meeting 2007; revised Winter Meeting 2009 (formerly Policy HR-1). 

[Other submissions of Ms. Vito may be accessed at the following 

Internet addresses:] 

http://www.sectorstrategies.org/system/files/AcceleratingSectorStrategiesPhase1Report.pdf 

http://www.nga.org/Files/pdf/06STATESECREG.PDF 

[Question for the record submitted to Ms. Keenan follow:] 
172 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

[VIA FACSIMILE], 

Washington, DC, March 3, 2009. 

Ms. CHERYL KEENAN, Director, 

Division of Adult Education & Literacy, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, 

DC. 

DEAR MS. KEENAN: Thank you for testifying at the February 26, 2009 hearing of 

the Committee on Education and Labor on ‘‘New Innovations and Best Practices 

Under the Workforce Investment Act.’’ 

Representative Marcia L. Fudge (D-OH), member of the Higher Education, Lifelong Learning and Competitiveness Subcommittee and member of the Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee, has asked that you respond in writing to the following question: 

1. Are there any programs that you know of that focus on financial literacy within 

your division of adult education and literacy? I know many people are strapped for 

money due to the fact that the costs for many sectors, from health care to education, 

are increasing. How do we effectively educate adults about saving and being prepared for unexpected economic situations? 

Please send an electronic version of your written response to the questions to the 

Committee staff by close of business on Tuesday, March 10, 2009—the date on 

which the hearing record will close. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. 

Sincerely, 

GEORGE MILLER, Chairman. 

Answer for the Record Submitted by Ms. Keenan 

Question: Are there any programs that you know of that focus on financial literacy 

within your division of adult education and literacy? I know many people are 

strapped for money due to the fact that the costs for many sectors, from health care 

to education, are increasing. How do we effectively educate adults about saving and 

being prepared for unexpected economic situations? 

The ability to comprehend and analyze information to make sound, informed financial decisions is an important skill and necessary to ensuring the financial well 

being of families. The Office of Vocational and Adult Education has identified the 

following financial literacy programs and resources that can help adults with low 

literacy manage their money: 

• The Adult Literacy Media Alliance (ALMA) has enriched literacy and community outreach programs nationwide since 1998. Building on a shared interest in improving the financial literacy of some 70 million undereducated adults in America, 

ALMA and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) joined forces to develop multimedia financial literacy workshops targeted to adults who read between 

a 5th and 8th grade level. ALMA’s multimedia tools offer web-based, paper and 

video-based curriculum to help learners become smart about their money. The curriculum can be used by adult education instructors to provide simple math and 

reading instruction to help learners develop the skills they need to start budgeting, 

saving, control their debts, and investing. Additional information on ALMA can be 

found on TV 14’s website at http://www.tv411.org 

• The Howard County Library system in Maryland is another good example of 

how adult education programs typically integrate or contextualize financial literacy 

within the content of a broader adult education program. Additional information can 

be found on the Howard County Library’s website at http://hclibrary.org 

• The National Center for Family Literacy, through a partnership with the National Endowment for Financial Education, developed the complete Financial Opportunity: Family Progress curriculum. The adult student workbook is aimed at parents who read on a fourth grade reading level. Additional information can be found 

on the National Center for Family Literacy’s website. 

• Lastly, the Massachusetts Community and Banking Council in June 2008 published Expanding Financial Skills in Low-Income Communities. This framework is 

presented as a guide for non-profit executive directors, trainers, financial institutions, and others to provide financial education training for adults. 

[Whereupon, at 12:42 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(173) 

NEW INNOVATIONS AND BEST PRACTICES 

UNDER THE WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT 

Monday, March 23, 2009 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Higher Education, 

Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness 

Committee on Education and Labor 

Washington, DC 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m., in the auditorium of the New York State Department of Education Building, 

89 Washington Avenue, Albany, New York, Hon. Ruben Hinojosa 

[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Hinojosa, Tonko, and Polis. 

Staff Present: Ricardo Martinez, Policy Advisor; and Paulette 

Acevedo, Legislative Fellow, Education. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. A quorum is present. The hearing of the 

subcommittee will come to order. 

Pursuant to committee rule 12, any member may submit an 

opening statement in writing, which will be made part of the permanent record. Without objection, all members will have 14 days 

to submit additional materials or questions for the hearing record. 

Good morning to everyone in the audience. Welcome to the Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness Subcommittee’s third hearing in preparation for the reauthorization of the 

Workforce Investment Act. 

This is also the first field hearing for the 111th Congress, and 

I would like to personally thank our good friend and colleague, 

Congressman Paul Tonko, and the New York State Department of 

Education for hosting us. 

The last reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act was in 

1998. I came to Congress in the class of 1996 and I had the distinct 

pleasure of going through the process in 1997 and 1998 to get that 

job done. 

I wish to divert a moment from my prepared remarks and say 

that I came from the world of business, a family business that my 

father and mother started back in 1947, 61 years ago. And I happen to have been the first of seven brothers to graduate from the 

University of Texas in Austin, and I came back to the family business at the request of my father. I had actually been given a real 

nice offer by IBM and he talked me into coming back and helping 

the family grow this family business. 
174 

So, in 1976, when he passed away, the board of directors elected 

me as the president and chief financial officer of this food processing company, which at that time had exactly 28 employees; and 

I put to use the training that I had gotten. Over a period of time, 

in the 20 years that I was in that position, I helped grow that family business with a strategic plan that called for investing in training for our employees to make them computer literate and be able 

to bring in, through loans guarantees by the Small Business Administration, equipment that made us a little bit more competitive. 

We grew our business to $50 million, over a 20-year period, to 

over 300 employees. And one of the things that I remember was 

that the board that ran what we used to call PIC, the Private Industry Council board, were of different thinking. I thought they 

were antiquated, and when I saw the opportunity to have input 

into changes in what is now WIA, I thought that was the best 

thing that could ever happen. 

However, it has been long overdue that we reauthorize WIA. And 

that is why I am so pleased that the leadership from Nancy Pelosi 

all the way down to our committee, agreed that we come to Albany, 

New York, because there is a great, great brain trust here that we 

want to tap into and listen to the recommendations of employers 

and trainers of the workforce so that we can work that into the reauthorization act of, hopefully, 2009. 

I am an optimist; I always have been, thanks to my mother. And 

that is that if all goes well and we have at least three or four congressional hearings in Washington and two to four field hearings 

from the East Coast to the West Coast, we are going to—we have 

a goal, a time line that will help us bring it to the House floor before the August recess. That means we have to work rapidly, 

smart, and very convincingly so that other 435 Members of Congress will also support our proposal. 

Having said that, I want to say that times have changed. To say 

that times have changed would be an understatement. In 1997, our 

economy generated 3 million new jobs; since the start of this recession in December of 2007, we have lost over 7 million jobs. In 1998, 

our unemployment rate was only 4.5 percent; in February of this 

year, it hit 8.1 percent. 

We need to be much smarter and more innovative in our workforce investment system if we are going to turn these numbers 

around. And that is why today’s congressional field hearing is entitled Subcommittee on Higher Education Lifelong Learning and 

Competitiveness—Subcommittee that is looking for creative ideas 

that will increase the amount of money that is available for retraining instead of the 40 percent that seems to have been the rule 

of thumb in the last 6 to 8 years. We need to be much smarter, 

innovative with our workforce investment system if we are going 

to turn these numbers around. 

We have taken bold and swift action with the passage of the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which will infuse approximately $4 billion into our workforce investment system. This 

is an opportunity, as well as a challenge, for all of the stakeholders. 

The opportunity comes with the unprecedented increases in resources. There is also some new flexibility in being able to develop 
175 

contracts for training to meet the community workforce needs rather than relying solely on individual training accounts. 

Additionally, we will be able to provide youth opportunities on a 

much larger scale. Most exciting is the major commitment to green 

jobs in high-growth areas such as allied health. 

The challenge is handling the dramatically increased number of 

individuals seeking services while scaling up best practices and 

testing innovative new ones. We need to do a much better job of 

putting youth and low-skilled adults on career pathways that will 

enable them to answer President Obama’s call to commit to 1 year 

of college or career training. 

I believe that we are up to the challenge. The testimony of today’s witnesses shows that we have ideas and tested practices that 

work. We just need the resources and the sustained commitment 

to have a world-class workforce development system that works for 

those starting at the bottom rung of the career ladder, as well as 

for those racing to the top. 

I would like to thank our witnesses today for joining us. It is invaluable for our subcommittee to have the opportunity to get outside of Washington, D.C., and visit the communities that our Federal policies and programs are intended to serve. 

I thank you for hosting us and thank you for your testimony 

today. 

In closing, I would like to yield to my good friend, a valuable new 

member of the subcommittee, Representative Paul Tonko, for an 

opening statement. 

[The statement of Mr. Hinojosa follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Rube ́n Hinojosa, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness 

Good Morning. Welcome to the Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness Subcommittee’s third hearing in preparation for the reauthorization of 

the Workforce Investment Act. This is also our first field hearing for the 111th Congress, and I would like to personally thank Congressman Paul Tonko and the New 

York State Department of Education for hosting us. 

The last reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act was in 1998. To say 

that times have changed would be an understatement. In 1997, our economy generated 3 million new jobs. Since the start of this recession in December of 2007, we 

have lost over 4 million jobs. In 1998, our unemployment rate was 4.5 percent. In 

February of this year, it hit 8.1 percent. We need to be much smarter and more innovative with our workforce investment system if we are going to turn these numbers around. 

We have taken bold and swift action with the passage of the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act, which will infuse approximately $4 billion into our workforce 

investment system. This is an opportunity and a challenge for all of the stakeholders. 

The opportunity comes with the unprecedented increase in resources. There is 

also some new flexibility in being able to develop contracts for training to meet the 

community workforce needs rather than relying solely on individual training accounts. Additionally, we will be able to provide youth opportunities on a much larger 

scale. Most exciting is the major commitment to Green Jobs and high growth areas 

such as allied health. 

The challenge is handling the dramatically increased number of individuals seeking services while scaling up best practices and testing innovative new ones. We 

need to do a much better job of putting youth and low-skilled adults on career pathways that will enable them to answer President Obama’s call to commit to one year 

of college or career training. 

I believe that we are up to the challenge. 

The testimony of today’s witnesses shows that we have ideas and tested practices 

that work. We just need the resources and the sustained commitment to have a 
176 

world-class workforce development system that works for those starting at the bottom rung of the career ladder as well as for those racing to the top. 

I would like to thank our witnesses today for joining us. It is invaluable for our 

Subcommittee to have the opportunity to get outside of Washington and visit the 

communities that our federal policies and programs are intended to serve. 

Thank you for hosting us and thank you for your testimony. 

I would now like to yield to my good friend, a valuable new member of the Subcommittee, Rep. Paul Tonko, for an opening statement. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Chair. 

First, I would like to thank our chairman, Ruben Hinojosa, for 

calling this hearing. And it is a hearing on such an important subject at such an important time. In addition, I would like to thank 

both the Chair and Congressman Polis for their efforts to join us 

today on what will be a very busy day for us on the Hill. 

I would like to thank the witnesses, certainly, for their testimony 

and their continued efforts on workforce development in the State 

of New York, which is indeed incredibly important to all sectors of 

our economy. 

This hearing commences at a time of historic economic uncertainty. While the current recession may have started at the end of 

2007, many American workers have been facing significant economic challenges for years. The decline of manufacturing, for instance, across the country has left millions out of work with few 

opportunities to earn the salaries that they and their families require. 

In addition, millions more Americans face tremendous barriers to 

employment, either through lack of education or the skill sets necessary to advance and attain living-wage employment. The Workforce Investment Act reauthorization offers a unique opportunity 

for all of us to address these issues and transition millions of 

Americans into careers that will allow them to support their families and build this Nation’s economy. 

I believe that one particular area of work where WIA can be effective is by training workers for jobs in what will be and is now 

this emerging green energy industry. As demand for renewable 

sources for energy will grow, this industry will need those skilled 

workers to install new high-tech equipment ranging from wind turbines to photovoltaic systems to geothermal and other emerging 

technologies. The demand for workers to manufacture and to install and to maintain these equipments will provide an opportunity 

for millions of Americans to have access to middle-class careers. 

Chairman, I am happy to note that you recognize the brain trust 

in this area. We have placed a major investment in emerging technologies of all sorts from transmission and generation in the energy 

field. This area is blossoming with all sorts of opportunity, with 

nanotechnology, with superconductive cable, with work done at the 

Wind Institute at GE—and we are going to, I am certain, hear of 

that issue from Tom. 

But all of this is now growing a need for advancing the workforce 

agenda. We will need those quality workers in order to make this 

all work. The alarms on these issues have been sounding for quite 

some time now, and I believe getting this right is critical to ensuring our energy independence, our economic stability, and to guaranteeing a future for hardworking Americans. 
177 

Certainly, when you talk about the resources being committed, I 

couldn’t agree more. But that commitment will be most effective 

and most efficient if it is engaged with a synergy of planning with 

laser-sharp focus that will put together the plan that will guide us. 

The traditional blueprint for the structuring and guiding of all of 

us to reach our goals, I believe, will now become our ‘‘green print’’ 

for our innovation economy. And all of us here working will have 

a cornerstone of development in the workforce development that 

will build that green print to be the strongest that we can have for 

the innovation economy. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Thank you. 

Before introducing our distinguished witnesses and panelists, I 

want to say how pleased I was to meet each one of you before we 

started this program and to say to the audience that yesterday I 

had a windshield tour of some of the facilities here. And I was so 

impressed with the nanotechnology investment that is here. To see 

a billion dollars invested by the State and another $4 billion by private industry is a sign of the commitment that there is for this 

type of technology, which is extremely important in today’s times, 

something that—in the State of Texas, I wish we had that kind of 

a facility. 

But we will partner with you, universities like Rice University 

and others that have great talent pools, working with some of your 

organizations out here; I am sure we will come up with great ideas 

on energy and discoveries of nanotechnology. 

Lastly, I want to say that when I met Joe Sarubbi from Hudson 

Valley Community College, it reminded me of the investment that 

we have made in deep south Texas with South Texas Community 

College, 23,000 students. And when we heard of the passage of the 

stimulus plan and the $787 billion that will be available, our President, Dr. Shirley Reed, and I talked about bringing stakeholders 

together with the workforce investment boards from Laredo, from 

McAllen, Edinburgh and Brownsville, and all of our community colleges and universities so that we could write up applications to 

compete for some of that money. 

I am sure you all have already done that and know that the 

money is going to go fast, and we hope that your congressional district here is going to get its fair share. 

Mr. TONKO. We will be in line. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. With that, we will start the introductions. 

It is my pleasure to introduce Mr. Mario Musolino, Executive 

Deputy Commissioner, New York State Department of Labor. 

Mario has served in his position since March of 2007, supervising 

all executive staff members on behalf of the commissioner and developing policies and procedures that have had an impact on millions of New Yorkers. 

He oversees the day-to-day operations of agencies responsible for 

the unemployment insurance program, workforce development 

funds, as well as a variety of worker protection programs. 

Mr. Musolino also serves as the Labor Department’s liaison to 

the New York State Insurance Fund and Governor Paterson’s Recovery and Reinvestment Cabinet. He holds an associate’s degree 

in criminal justice from Hudson Valley Community College and has 
178 

a bachelor’s degree in political science from the State University of 

New York. 

Welcome to our hearing this morning. 

The second participant is Ms. Gail Breen, Executive Director, 

Fulton, Montgomery and Schoharie Counties Workforce Development Board in Amsterdam, New York. Gail has 25 years of experience in workforce development, including nearly 20 years as a national trainer and as a presenter at State and national conferences. 

She has served as Executive Director since July of 2000. Gail is 

currently serving as President of the Board of the New York Association of Training and Employment Professionals. 

She holds a master’s degree in social work management from the 

University of Albany, State University of New York. And it is a 

pleasure to have you with us today. 

The third presenter is Mr. Thomas Quick, Senior Human Resources Manager for GE Energy Infrastructure—Power and Water. 

Mr. Quick represents GE Power and Water’s business headquartered in Schenectady. 

Boy, that is as hard as saying ‘‘Hinojosa.’’ 

The business is a world-leading provider of traditional and renewable power generation technology. He has been in his current 

role for several years, and previously worked as a Senior Vice 

President of Human Resources, NBC Universal for Television Stations Divisions, Telemundo and Media Works. In addition, he has 

held human resources positions in manufacturing, in engine assembly, engineering and finance, and information technology as well as 

in legal and business development. 

He is as native of Amsterdam, New York, and holds a bachelor’s 

degree from Le Moyne College in industrial and labor relations and 

has earned an MBA from Syracuse University. 

It sounds like we really need to listen to you, and welcome. 

The next presenter will be Joseph Sarubbi, Executive Director of 

Tech-Smart, which is a training and education center for semiconductor manufacturing, alternative and renewable energy, at Hudson Valley Community College. Joe has 35 years’ experience in 

education in the electrical construction and maintenance industry. 

He has garnered a national reputation for the design and delivery of RE training programs. He was responsible for the design and 

delivery of photovoltaic installers programs at the college, that is 

nationally recognized as the model program for other institutions 

to emulate. The programs include credit and noncredit courses, and 

a State University of New York certificate program. He is a member of Governor Paterson’s Green Collar Workforce Development 

Task Force subcommittee. Joe has a bachelor of science in vocational technical education from SUNY Institute of Technology, and 

earned a master of science in education administration and policy 

studies from the University of Albany, as well as a journeyman’s 

certificate from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. 

We look forward to your comments. 

And last but not least, Ms. Nanine Meikljohn, Senior Legislative 

Representative for the American Federation of State, County and 

Municipal Employees, Washington, D.C. Nanine has over 25 years 

of experience in congressional relations, intergovernmental affairs, 
179 

and political organizing. She has been with the union since 1973 

and is currently the Senior Representative specializing in job training, unemployment insurance, social services and welfare, employee protections, and privatization of public services. 

Prior to coming to AFSCME she spent 4 years working on employment and training and poverty issues at the U.S. Conference 

of Mayors and the National League of Cities. 

We have an excellent panel. Welcome. And let’s begin. 

I want to give some rules, though, that we abide by; and that is 

the lighting system that you are going to see being utilized here. 

Those of you who have not testified before our subcommittee, 

please let me explain our lighting system and the 5-minute rule. 

Everyone—including our members—is limited to 5 minutes of presentation or questioning. 

The green light is illuminated when you begin to speak. When 

you see the yellow light, it means you have 1 minute remaining. 

When you see the red light, it means your time has expired, and 

you need to conclude your testimony. 

I will be a bit lax with that rule, but do try to stay within that 

time of 5 to 6 minutes. Please be certain, as you testify, to turn 

on and speak into the microphone that you will share, because 

there are only two mics there on the table. We are trying to save 

some money, I believe. 

We will now hear from our first witness. Mario. 

STATEMENT OF MARIO MUSOLINO, EXECUTIVE DEPUTY 

COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Mr. MUSOLINO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Congressman Tonko, as well. 

On behalf of Governor Paterson and Commissioner Smith, I really appreciate the opportunity here to spend a few minutes talking 

about the Workforce Investment Act, as well as the area of green 

job training. 

In 1998, under the Workforce Investment Act, a new system was 

set in motion with the goal of making worker training both locally 

driven and responsive to the demands of the private sector. If we 

fast-forward a decade from there, upon her swearing in as Labor 

Secretary, our new Labor Secretary Hilda Solis said, ‘‘In a time of 

economic crisis, giving Americans the tools they need to find and 

keep a job must be our priority.’’ 

Here at the New York State Department of Labor, we have been 

working with every region of the State to tap into potential highgrowth industries. We realize that our State is not just one economy, but a compilation of regional economies, each with its own 

needs. 

Here in the State there are 33 local Workforce Investment 

Boards across the entire State, and sometimes, even in the respective regions, communication and coordination of common issues can 

be problematic. This is one of the reasons why the State requires 

local Workforce Investment Boards to partner together to apply for 

regional, sector-based partnership grants. 

This type of regional economic focus needs to be a foundation of 

any WIA reauthorization effort. In addition to encouraging the development of regional partnerships, we are cultivating sector-based 
180 

approaches that align with our State’s overall economic goals and 

policies. An industry-specific approach helps a region bolster its 

economic competitiveness by engaging partners to align education, 

economic and workforce planning, and targeting public resources 

more wisely in sectors with growth potential. The green area is 

one, of course, that we see as really part of the future of the State. 

It is clear from established practices that the WIA program requires comprehensive and strategic overhaul. To put this in some 

context, 33 local Workforce Investment Boards operate independently across New York State, each with its own governing body and 

established policies for program implementation. This sometimes 

can create confusion for the customers we serve. 

For example, WIB-established maximum levels for individual 

training accounts, or ITAs, vary from local area to local area and 

can be substantially different even among adjacent counties. We 

recommend that program goals and guidelines be based on policies 

determined by the State in consultation with the State Workforce 

Investment Board and consistently applied throughout the State. 

In New York, we are looking for more flexible alternatives to getting training funds to community colleges. We are exploring possibility of funding entire classrooms in priority demand occupations 

that can serve multiple individuals on the basis of a single payment. 

We also know that one of the biggest challenges facing community colleges is in the field of health care, such as the demand for 

registered nurses. The cost of hiring faculty to train nurses, who 

earn substantially more through practice than teaching, and the 

cost of purchasing equipment and laboratories makes the cost of 

delivering and expanding training programs in nursing prohibitive. 

WIA funding should have the flexibility to address these issues 

along with the cost of per participant training. 

New York State currently operates the same service delivery system it did when WIA was first signed into law, but with only half 

the funding. In New York services once funded with $305 million 

are now restricted to about $159 million, while user demand has 

increased dramatically. Consider that 30 years ago, in 1978, the 

Federal Government spent $9.5 billion on job training. Adjusting 

for inflation, the GAO has calculated we would have to spend $30 

billion today to provide the same level of training that was provided with that funding in 1978. 

To support the ongoing needs of the program, we ask that the 

WIA funding levels be established, at a minimum, to program year 

2000 levels, when New York received $3.5 million in WIA funds. 

In addition to funding, Congress should review WIA obligations 

and spending provisions, giving consideration to the time frame of 

the receipt of the current year WIA Federal resources. We also recommend consideration of continued use of obligation requirements 

that are in existing legislation, rather than impose restrictive 

spending requirements which may pressure States to place individuals in short-term training opportunities which may not be the best 

fit for the local economy or for the individual. 

As mentioned earlier, there is hope in Washington in the form 

of the new administration and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, supported by you, Mr. Chairman, and Congressman 
181 

Tonko. We are very thankful for the resources that will be coming 

into the State under the ARRA package. We also support the expansion of the Trade Adjustment Assistance program that was in 

the ARRA package, and we think that there are some lessons there 

for WIA as well. 

Previously, TAA was only available to workers in industries 

whose production was affected by import competition. The new provisions of TAA improve on the existing benefits available to workers and increase eligibility to include communities, firms, and service sector employees affected by trade. 

In a perfect world, we would like to see the same flexibility that 

is in TAA, which includes 1 to 2 years of training and income support made available to all dislocated works under WIA reauthorization. 

Regarding WIA youth, as you know, current legislation for youth 

eligibility requires that individuals meet the age criteria of 21, 

have multiple barriers to employment; we request that WIA reauthorization eliminate the need for these multiple barriers and we 

recommend that the age be increased to 24, as it was done in the 

ARRA. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

I want to assure you, Mario, that all of your statement in its entirety will be made a part of the record of today’s hearing, and I 

thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Musolino follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Mario Musolino, Executive Deputy Commissioner, 

New York State Department of Labor 

Good morning. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Tonko, and invited guests. My name 

is Mario Musolino and I serve as Executive Deputy Commissioner of Labor for the 

State of New York. On behalf of Governor David Paterson and Labor Commissioner 

Patricia Smith, I am pleased to offer testimony today on the federal Workforce Investment Act (WIA), as well as on related work in areas such as green job training, 

and more importantly, how we can work together at the local, State and Federal 

levels to improve the current service delivery system on behalf of New York’s current and emerging workforce. 

In 1998, under the Workforce Investment Act, a new system was set in motion 

with the goal of making worker training both locally driven and responsive to the 

demands of the private sector. Since 1998, however, our world has drastically 

changed, and with it the workforce needs of both business and industry. 

Upon her swearing-in as Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis, said, ‘‘In a time of economic crisis, giving Americans the tools they need to find and keep a job must be 

our priority.’’ The Secretary went on to emphasize the need for more training in 

high-growth industries such as green collar jobs. Here in New York we are taking 

the steps necessary to meet this national priority and our Department of Labor is 

a key part of Governor Paterson’s Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Cabinet, 

which is expediting employment and training activities using stimulus funding. 

The following are improvements we would recommend including in WIA reauthorization. 

Sector-based strategies/Regional-based system 

At the Department of Labor, we are working with every region of the state to tap 

into these potential high-growth industries. We realize that our state is not just one 

economy, but a compilation of regional economies, each with their own needs. Sometimes, these regional economies affect workers in other states as well. Earlier this 

year, New York, New Jersey and Connecticut were awarded a $22 million National 

Emergency Grant to help workers affected by the recent downturn in the financial 

sector. Each state recognized this as an issue that translated beyond borders—an 

issue that required a regional solution. 

We are going to continue this approach with our neighboring states in the coming 

months. As neighbors, oftentimes we share the same media markets, weather and 
182 

geographic conditions, and very often, similar economic conditions and interests. 

One has to look no further than the Southern Tier of New York State, which shares 

a border with the Northern Tier of Pennsylvania. Southern Tier issues and Northern Tier issues are intertwined, and in this current economic climate, we need to 

explore every possible way to work with our neighboring states to overcome this crisis together. 

There are 33 local Workforce Investment Boards (WIBs) across the state, and 

sometimes even in their respective regions, communication, and coordination of common issues, is problematic. This is one of the reasons why the state requires local 

WIBs to partner together to apply for our regional sector-based partnership grants. 

In the future we will be looking at more ways that we can better align our WIB 

structure to best suit our regional economies. Strategic investment of employment 

and training funds, based on regional collaboration and dialogue, can not only build 

on a region’s strengths but maximize its ability to address weaknesses. This type 

of regional economic focus needs to be a foundation of any WIA reauthorization effort. 

In addition to encouraging the development of regional partnerships, we’re cultivating sector-based approaches that align with our state’s overall economic development goals and policies. The sector approach builds strategic partnerships with key 

stakeholders around specific industries to address the workforce needs of business, 

as well as the training, employment and career advancement needs of workers, particularly career pathways or ladders, which have shown great promise under WIA, 

and should be expanded in the upcoming reauthorization. 

An industry-specific approach helps a region bolster its economic competitiveness 

by engaging partners to align education, economic and workforce planning and targeting public resources more wisely in sectors with growth potential. This, in turn, 

brings about systemic change. Take renewable energy—if we can focus on specific 

career pathways within areas such as wind or solar, we can develop and provide 

training for entry-level jobs as well as skills development to sustain and grow higher-skilled jobs within those high-growth industries. 

Individual Training Accounts 

It is clear from established practices that the WIA program requires a comprehensive and strategic overhaul, since program design and delivery capabilities fall far 

short of the goals intended by the original legislation. To put this into context, 33 

WIBs operate independently across New York State, each with its own governing 

body and established policies for program implementation. Oftentimes, this can create confusion for the customers we serve. For example, Individual Training Account 

(ITA) practices vary by locality. The WIB established maximum levels for ITAs vary 

from local area to local area and can be substantially different even among adjacent 

counties. As a fundamental component of WIA reauthorization, we recommend that 

program goals and guidelines be based on policies determined by the state, in consultation with the Statewide Workforce Investment Board, and consistently applied 

throughout the state. In this way, the state can effectively compile data for monitoring and report out a common set of services and standards. 

In regard to Individual Training Accounts, in New York we are looking for more 

flexible alternatives to getting training funds to community colleges. As mentioned, 

ITAs are processed on an individual basis. We’re exploring the possibility of funding 

entire classrooms in priority demand occupations that can serve multiple individuals 

on the basis of a single payment. 

We also know that one of the biggest challenges facing community colleges is in 

the field of health care, such as the demand for registered nurses, which exceeds 

the supply. As of last year, there are approximately 5,300 openings for registered 

nurses annually in New York. Community colleges, our largest provider of trained 

nurses, supply about 2,000 graduates each year. While other colleges have nursing 

programs, the demand is not being met. The cost of hiring faculty to train nurses, 

who earn substantially more through practice than in teaching, and the cost of purchasing equipment and laboratories makes the cost of delivering and expanding 

training programs in nursing prohibitive. WIA funding should have the flexibility 

to address these issues along with the cost of per participant training. What if WIA 

could be used for these additional costs of training? Imagine the possibilities and 

the positive impact on the economy. 

Current resources 

To do this, the current system as we know it would require significant change. 

Over the last year, our state has undergone the most severe economic downturn 

since the Great Depression. Our local communities, large and small, are feeling the 

effects of this recession, and in turn this has put tremendous strain on our current 
183 

service delivery system. In New York State, we anticipate serving in excess of 

700,000 individuals through our WIA programs this year, which are especially vital 

in today’s job market, where currently there is only one job opening for every three 

unemployed workers. 

At present, New York State currently operates the same service delivery system 

it did when WIA was first signed into law, but with only half the funding. In New 

York, services once funded with $305 million are now restricted to $159 million 

while user demand increased exponentially. Reductions in the Wagner-Peyser Employment Service staff have added to this strain. WIA Reauthorization must ensure 

that adequate resources are appropriated to support its goals. 

It’s clear that the time to change business as usual is now. Consider that 30 years ago, in 1978, the federal government spent $9.5 billion on job training. Adjusting 

for inflation, the GAO has calculated we would have to spend $30 billion today to 

provide the same level of funding. 

To support the ongoing needs of the program, we ask that the WIA funding levels be established at a minimum, the PY 2000 levels when New York received $305 million in WIA funds. While we are aware ARRA funding is currently available to support services, we expect that the funds will be primarily used within a year. 

We’re certainly hopeful the ARRA or stimulus package will help the country slowly begin to emerge from the recession, but we anticipate that when we do finally 

emerge there will still be many workers in the pipeline looking for our services. 

Without increased funding for normal program operations, it will be difficult for 

local areas to address the ongoing program needs. In fact, without an increase in 

normal program appropriations, there will likely be a downward ripple effect in 

funding and subsequent employment and training services which could be devastating to New Yorkers. 

In addition to the funding, Congress should review WIA obligation and spending 

provisions giving consideration to the timeframe of receipt of the current year WIA 

federal resources. The majority of the current year funds are received in October, 

not the onset of the year which occurs in July each year. In addition, consideration 

should be given to the time necessary to procure training and the fact that spending 

will occur throughout the duration of the training contract against existing obligation requirements. We recommend consideration of continued use of the obligation 

requirements that are in existing legislation rather than impose restrictive spending 

requirements which may pressure states to place individuals in short term training 

opportunities which may not be the best fit for the local economy and/or the individual. 

ARRA Package 

As mentioned, there is hope in Washington in the form of a new Administration 

and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), supported by you and 

Congressman Tonko and other members of this Committee, to guide us on a path 

to renewal. Once again, we thank you for your support. Earlier this year, Governor 

Paterson wrote to the President and the New York Congressional Delegation strongly urging the passage of this package, detailing our state’s goals of creating new jobs 

for a green economy with an ambitious clean energy agenda. The ARRA aims to 

save or create 3.5 million jobs nationwide, including 215,000 here in New York 

State, while making investments in worker training for emerging industries such 

as green, health care and advanced manufacturing. 

The ARRA authorizes $3.95 billion to be spent on training and employment services nationwide. Of this amount, New York will receive nearly $170 million in training funds for adults, youths, and dislocated workers and an additional $22 million 

in employment services, including re-employment services for current unemployment insurance claimants. Most of the WIA funds will go directly to the 33 Local 

Workforce Investment Areas across the state where New Yorkers can access a variety of training programs and connect with employers and potential job opportunities 

at their local One-Stop Centers. We’re working to get this money to the local workforce areas as soon as possible, and will be out doing press events in the coming 

weeks in local communities to make certain that individuals know where to go to 

tap into these training funds. 

We were also actively supportive of the expansion of the Trade Adjustment Assistance program in the ARRA package. Previously, TAA was only available to workers 

in industries whose production was affected by import competition. The new provisions of TAA improve upon the existing benefits available to workers, and increase 

eligibility to include communities, firms, and service sector employees affected by 

trade. In a perfect world, we would like to see the same flexibility that is in TAA, 

which includes one to two years of training and income support, made available to 

all dislocated workers under WIA reauthorization. Like TAA, WIA reauthorization 
184 

should recognize that workers now face a dramatic break from one industry or career to an entirely new industry or career and require significant training and education. As some regions are hit harder by trade than others, the inception of Trade 

Impacted Regions would also ensure that more workers are covered by TAA provisions. 

Ways to improve the current system 

I’ve run a couple of ‘‘perfect world’’ scenarios by you today and with WIA reauthorization we have the ability to make ‘‘real world’’ solutions to strengthening the 

workforce system of tomorrow. 

Underpinning the entire workforce development system is the issue of adequate 

resources. Simply, without appropriate funding levels, the system will not work for 

a large majority of its customers. Restoring previous funding levels will make the 

system more relevant at a time of economic crisis when people really need it and 

as ARRA funds spend out, will ensure continuity of services. 

WIA should explicitly address the issue of regional and sector based approaches. 

These strategies are crucial for making the locally based workforce system relevant 

to the communities they serve by training and connecting workers for viable employment opportunities in their region. 

The state should be in a position to establish policies that reinforce coordination 

amongst the WIBs and ensure a consistent set of statewide services. The reauthorization should address Individual Training Accounts, and allow them to be used 

more flexibly in order to purchase services and equipment to assist in areas of high 

demand, like the green economy and health care, that can serve a wider array of 

customers. 

Regarding WIA Youth, as you know, current legislation for youth eligibility requires that the individual meet the age criteria of 21, be considered low-income and 

meet one of six barriers to employment. We request that the reauthorization remove 

these additional eligibility barriers to employment, and allow the state the flexibility 

to do summer or year round programs. We recommended to Congressman Rangel 

and former Senator Clinton to expand the WIA Youth age criteria up through 24 

in the ARRA package, and we strongly recommend the age change be made permanent. Additionally, we recommend the income criteria be expanded to allow the use 

of School Lunch eligibility to be used as the poverty criteria. 

Further, in New York, we require that those receiving Unemployment Insurance 

come into the WIA system. We believe in connecting those on UI into the WIA system early to receive value added services in our one-stop system, and recommend 

this be replicated in any national legislation and resourced accordingly. 

Conclusion 

I hope I have shared with you my vision for the future WIA system to better meet 

the needs of the New Yorkers. On behalf of Governor Paterson and Commissioner 

Smith, we would welcome continuing to be a part of this critical national conversation. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to testify, and I welcome any questions you 

may have. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. At this time, I want to welcome another 

friend and colleague from the great State of Colorado. Jared Polis 

who has just arrived. He serves on the Education and Labor Committee and is a valued member who makes great contributions as 

we are going through this process. Welcome this morning. 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. I now call on the second presenter, Gail. 

STATEMENT OF GAIL B. BREEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FULTON, MONTGOMERY, AND SCHOHARIE COUNTIES, WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT BOARD, INC. 

Ms. BREEN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Congressmen. It is my pleasure to be here today; I was really delighted 

and honored to be invited. 
185 

I particularly would like to acknowledge Congressman Paul 

Tonko. I have known him for many, many years and he is going 

to be a great asset to the committee as you go forward. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. 

Ms. BREEN. You are welcome. 

I am going to talk quickly today about some best practices and 

innovations from the local level. When Congress established the 

Workforce Investment Act of 1998, it envisioned a locally driven, 

business-sector-led program that would bring together the resources of 19 workforce partners to provide quality services to both 

job seekers and businesses. 

In 2000, FMS—Fulton, Montgomery, and Schoharie, where I am 

the WIB director—began to move to an integrated service delivery 

system, which has since become a statewide requirement by the 

New York State Department of Labor. Our One-Stop Center staff 

and supervisors work in teams that are based on job functions 

rather than funding organizations. 

Our local Workforce Investment Board took WIA partnership seriously right from the beginning, as did our local partners. And 

with reduced funding across all workforce agencies, functional 

alignment of staff has become critical. We simply do not have the 

resources for agencies to provide quality workforce services through 

program silos. 

Our customers don’t need to know and they don’t really care 

where an individual staff person’s paycheck comes from. What they 

are interested is in receiving quality services. And although I believe that the best systems are those that are locally driven, we all 

need opportunities to identify and work with regional partners on 

projects of mutual interest and benefit. 

FMS has been working with Saratoga-Warren-Washington and 

the Capital District and Columbia-Greene since 2002 on joint workforce summits and on workforce reports. We are a natural region 

that is based on common interests, common industries, commutation patterns, common workforce needs and collaborations of local 

colleges and other organizations. 

Now, through a regional grant from the New York State Department of Labor, the Capital Region Workforce Coalition is developing a sector strategy that is regional, skill focused, systemic and 

collaborative. We are focusing on advanced manufacturing careers, 

including energy, nanotech, biotech and green initiatives. Our coalition encompasses four local Workforce Investment Boards, 11 counties, and includes partners from K-through-12 education, community colleges, 4-year colleges, training providers, economic development organizations, organized labor, and industry. 

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 offers tremendous opportunities for our workforce programs. There has been 

a decrease in WIA funding of almost 50 percent since 2000, and 

local workforce areas have struggled to maintain quality services. 

Thanks to the stimulus bill, however, for at least 1 year we will 

be back at 2000-level funding and we will be able to train many, 

many more people for the jobs of the future. 

Additionally, with significant increases in youth funds, we will be 

able to provide stronger year-round youth services. Looking towards the summer where we will see many dislocated workers 
186 

competing for the same jobs that our summer youth have had in 

the past, if we don’t have a summer youth program, we are going 

to have young people that will have no opportunity for a job. 

Other opportunities under the stimulus include the ability to buy 

an entire classroom customized to meet the needs of our participants in their preparation for the jobs of the future. This will allow 

us to spend stimulus funds quickly and wisely and encourage community colleges and WIBs to strengthen our relationships. 

I also believe that we will be building on and creating new relationships with organized labor, focusing on the skills necessary for 

the workforce of the future. But we will continue to have challenges. Our potential workforce is shrinking and it is growing 

older; there are fewer workers in the pipeline and many have outdated skills. If we are going to be successful in our region in attracting emerging industries and retaining those we currently 

have, we need to have a globally competitive workforce. We have 

an untapped and underutilized segment of the greater workforce 

pool: older workers, individuals with disabilities, dislocated workers, the disadvantaged, disengaged youth, and the formerly incarcerated. We must engage them all. 

Finally, I can’t recommend too strongly that we continue to build 

on locally driven, business-sector control boards with local control 

and the flexibility to customize our services to meet our customers’ 

needs. One-size policies do not always fit everyone. 

While I know you are the authorizing committee and not the Appropriations Committee, our challenge is the need for ongoing financial support for these critical programs. We need this financial 

support if we are going to continue to provide the quality services 

that our dislocated workers and other job seekers so desperately 

need and deserve. 

And finally I would like to highlight the importance of funding 

opportunities for regional partnerships, partnerships that are skill 

focused, collaborative, and reflect the common workforce needs of 

the natural region. 

So again thank you for allowing me to provide testimony today. 

If I can continue to give you input as a local WIB director and as 

the partner of a regional sectoral strategies grant, or as the President of the Board of the New York Association of Training and Employment Professionals, I would be delighted to do that. Thank you 

very much. 

[The statement of Ms. Breen follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Gail B. Breen, Executive Director, Fulton, 

Montgomery, and Schoharie Counties Workforce Development Board, Inc. 

Good Morning Congressman Hinojosa and Congressman Tonko. My name is Gail 

Breen, and I am Executive Director of the Fulton, Montgomery, and Schoharie 

Counties Workforce Development Board, Inc. in upstate New York. I also currently 

serve as President of the Board of the New York Association of Training and Employment Professionals (NYATEP), New York State’s workforce association, and am 

the grant recipient for a four-Workforce Investment Board regional coalition initiative addressing sector strategies. I am delighted to be here with you today to share 

information on best practices and innovations, as well as ideas on how we might 

continue to build on our successes while identifying and acting on opportunities for 

further growth and success. Although I am here representing the FMS Workforce 

Investment Area, I will also be speaking to regional activities and issues and the 

thoughts of other local WIB directors as they relate to my positions in our Greater 

Capital Region Workforce Coalition and NYATEP. 
187 

I appreciate very much the invitation to testify at this field hearing today, and 

I would like to particularly acknowledge Congressman Paul Tonko, in whose district 

I both reside and work. I’ve known Paul for many years, and I believe he will be 

a great asset to the Committee. 

The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 

When Congress established the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA), it envisioned a locally driven, private sector led program that would bring together the resources of up to 19 mandatory partners to provide quality workforce services to jobseekers and businesses. This sounds very straightforward, but the ‘‘workforce services’’ is defined very differently by different people. Some interpret WIA as a 

straight forward jobs training for the unemployed who are primarily disadvantaged. 

Others see it as a system of One-Stop Career Centers with services for a universal 

population of jobseekers, while still others see it as a set of workforce programs that 

would meet the needs of unemployed adults, dislocated workers, and disadvantaged 

youth with few if any connections to school or work. Finally, still others see WIA 

as a way to provide business with a quality workforce so that businesses and the 

local economy can flourish. 

Although different WIBs concentrate their efforts based on their own local needs, 

the fact remains that locally and nationally this is a very successful program. According to PY 07 WIA annual reporting data, nearly 3.5 million people received assistance from WIA funding. And 75% of WIA program participants and over 70% 

of employers indicated they were satisfied with the assistance they received. Seven 

out of ten WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker program participants gained employment by utilizing WIA programs, with these numbers exceeding 80% when participants received training. These workers also have a retention rate of 85%, and DOL’s 

own data indicates that dislocated workers who are enrolled in WIA programming 

have an earnings gain over their previous employment. I believe that these successes can be attributed to a locally-driven system where local WIBs use their expertise to develop policies and implement programs targeted to their areas and those 

adjacent to them. One size simply does not fit all. 

Fulton, Montgomery, and Schoharie Counties LWIA—the Demographics 

The Fulton, Montgomery, and Schoharie Counties Workforce Investment Area lies 

30 miles to the west of Albany, NY and is bisected by the Mohawk River and the 

NYS Thruway, creating a major east/west transportation system through the region. 

Fulton and Montgomery Counties have a long tradition of manufacturing particularly in textiles and leather. Over the last 50 years, however, manufacturing has 

declined dramatically as leather mills have closed their doors and textile mills have 

moved first to the southern states and then off shore. Schoharie County, which is 

primary agricultural, lost its only textile manufacturer in 2001, dislocating over 500 

workers. 

As traditional manufacturing companies have closed or moved abroad they have 

left behind an older population that still wants and needs to work but is lacking 

in education and skills to find jobs in other industries that have moved into our area 

or the adjacent capital region. In addition, fewer young people are staying in the 

area, which adds to a skewing of population percentage to the older end. Most of 

the young people who go away to college do not return. The young people who stay 

are predominantly those with a high school education or less. The 2000 census 

shows that 21% of the workforce in FMS does not even have a high school diploma, 

let alone post-secondary training. 

Currently our area is experiencing some of the highest unemployment rates in the 

state. Schoharie County was at the top of list in January with an unemployment 

rate of ll.3%. Fulton and Montgomery followed closely with 10.5% and 10.7% respectively. Traffic in our Amsterdam One Stop Career Center is up by 45% in the first 

six months of this year as compared with the same time period of the previous year. 

Center traffic is also up significantly in our One Stop Career Centers in Cobleskill 

and Gloversville, as are repeat visits by jobseekers. 

In spite of the current economic climate, we still have our successes. We offer 

youth GED programs in all three counties. Our GED students have a passing rate 

of well over 80%. Our youth programs also have a soft skills/work readiness component that has our local Board certification. We are using Adult and Dislocated 

Worker WIA dollars to assess current skills and abilities and then train people in 

emerging and expanding fields such as health and medical, advanced manufacturing, the trades, and now green jobs. Our private sector Board membership reflects these industries and lends their expertise to our workforce initiatives. We also 

work hard to help businesses keep a trained workforce by providing employed worker and customized training. This training, similar to Ireland’s One-Step Up Pro-
188 

gram, provides additional training to incumbent workers to enable them to stay 

competitive in their current jobs. In FMS, and in the majority of the local workforce 

areas across the state, we consistently meet and exceed state and federal expectations and measures. As I stated earlier, I believe that these successes can be attributed to a locally-driven system where each local workforce investment area has the 

flexibility to focus on different activities, at different times, depending on the current economic climate as well as to develop policies to meet the attendant needs. 

Best practices 

In 2006, One-Stop Centers across New York State moved to an integrated service 

delivery approach called Functional Alignment. Center staff work in teams based on 

job function rather than funding organization. We also utilize functional supervision 

for these teams. In other words, the day-to-day supervisor of a team may or may 

not be employed by the same organization. In the FMS Workforce Solutions Centers 

we have functional teams for our front desks, resource rooms, workforce advisors, 

business services representatives and youth. Teams are made up of staff funded 

through WIA, DOL Employment Services, Experience Works, local TANF and other 

programs. Functional Alignment is not as easy and straightforward as it sounds, 

however. Functional Alignment brings together staff with different job cultures, different organization and agencies, with vastly uneven pay scales, and expects them 

to learn and take on additional duties, while sharing skills and duties and identities 

with others that they may have invested years in attaining. 

FMS is very fortunate, because we have been practicing the concept without 

knowing the name, since WIA was enacted in New York State in 2000. We developed this concept early on because our local workforce investment board took the 

WIA partner collaboration seriously—as did our local partners. In many local workforce investment areas, WIA and ES carry most, if not all, of the load for infrastructure costs for the One-Stop Centers. In FMS, all partners in our three Centers contribute to the infrastructure costs. Although WIA is still the primary funder, our 

Center partners include the Employment Service, VESID (Vocational Rehabilitation), local TANF programs, Experience Works, Literacy Volunteers, a community 

action program, and a local educational institution providing secondary and post 

second education. Even before 2000, the JTPA program (the predecessor of WIA) 

and ES were co-located. 

In just a few steps, we moved from co-location to sharing costs, to sharing duties. 

And with reduced funding—we have lost nearly 50% of our WIA funding over the 

last 8 years—functional alignment of staff has become critical. We simply do not 

have enough staff from any one agency to provide workforce services through program silos. Staff all wear nametags with the FMS Workforce Solutions System 

logo—there is no reference to partner organization identities. This is an evolutionary process however, and each local workforce area moves forward at a different 

rate. At FMS, we still have improvements that we can make. As I talk with other 

WIB Directors across the state, I hear many different stories about why functional 

alignment is struggling; sometimes because some staff are reluctant to assume duties that are not in their job description, sometimes because other staff don’t want 

to share control of duties, and other times because long time supervisors and managers of different programs just can’t seem to change. By focusing on what we have 

in common, and by supervisors and managers of all organizations embracing and 

not just tolerating functional alignment, I believe we will be hearing more and more 

stories about differences being put aside and staff working together to provide quality services. 

The customers don’t need to know—and don’t care—where the individual staff’s 

paycheck comes from, customers only care that they are receiving quality services. 

Innovations 

Although I believe that the best systems are those that are locally driven, we all 

need opportunities to identify and work with regional partners on projects of mutual 

interest and benefit. Industries and commutation patterns cannot be defined—or 

confined—by political boundaries. Industries and jobseekers do not stop at the county line. 

In 2007, NYS Department of Labor provided funding for local workforce areas to 

develop projects along regional lines. Fulton, Montgomery, and Schoharie had been 

working with Saratoga-Warren-Washington, Columbia-Greene, and the Capital Region WIBs on joint workforce summits and state of the workforce reports since 2002 

but without the support and encouragement of significant additional funding. We 

are a ‘‘natural’’ region based on common industries, emerging industries, commutation patterns, common workforce needs, and collaborations of local colleges. We are 

not a region defined by political boundaries. 
189 

With FMS as the grant recipient, the four LWIBs, identifying ourselves as the 

Greater Capital Region Workforce Coalition, submitted a proposal to develop a sector strategy that is regional, skill focused, systemic, and collaborative, the goal of 

which is to play a significant role in helping the region develop a highly skilled, 

technology-capable workforce. The Coalition encompasses 4 LWIBs, 11 counties, and 

includes partners from K-12 education, community colleges, 4-year colleges, training 

providers, economic development organizations, organized labor, industry, chambers 

of commerce, and local government. 

Working closely with partners, in Year 1 the Coalition is: 

• Completing a talent pipeline to be used in addressing current and emerging 

needs of regional industries, particularly those in green and high technology areas; • Promoting Advanced Manufacturing careers including energy, nanotech, 

biotech, green, and construction to all segments of the worker pipeline; including 

dislocated workers, youth, career changers, mature workers, individuals with disabilities, and formerly incarcerated individuals; • Providing training opportunities in STEM skills (science, technology, engineering and math) dependent jobs; • Adopting a regional consensus on the definition and measurement of work readiness skills; • Developing a Technical Career Awareness Program directed to parents, youth, 

guidance counselors, teachers, and school administrators. 

Year 2 proposed activities include: 

• Working with local community colleges and organized labor to develop training 

programs around clean room technology and green technology; 

• Supporting apprenticeship programs in emerging regional technologies; 

• Developing innovative training methodologies including virtual training; 

• Providing training opportunities to address gaps identified through the talent 

pipeline activity of Year 1; and 

• Rolling out the marketing products of the Technical Career Awareness Program 

developed in year 1. 

The Greater Capital Region Coalition Regional Sector Strategies Grant is just one 

of a number of regional workforce efforts currently funded by NYS Department of 

Labor. Although all are in various stages of implementation, all are reporting successes. 

Opportunities and challenges to the success of our work 

There are both opportunities and challenges to the success of our work. The 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 brings tremendous opportunities 

on many levels. In terms of workforce programs, this stimulus is critical in providing the funding levels of WIA programs to meet the challenge. In New York 

State, WIA was funded at $304,953,605 in 2000. By 2008, New York State’s allocation was $159,224,210. This is a decrease of $145,729,395 or ¥47.79%. In FMS, our 

2000 allocation was $2,072,033. In 2008 our allocation was $1,092,730. Again, there 

has been a decrease of almost 50%, and it has weakened us as the country entered 

this deep recession. 

Local workforce areas have struggled to reduce costs while maintaining quality 

services. This is especially difficult in rural multi-county areas that are lacking in 

public transportation. We have been forced to feel that we must choose between 

closing workforce centers (depriving many of those most in need to ready access of 

our services such as skills assessment and career counseling) or reducing the 

amount of funds we spend on training (which also deprives people of financial support in attaining new and necessary skills). 

There has been no good choice. Many of us have chosen to reduce staff and to 

maintain funds available for participation in training by reducing the amount of 

training funds available for each individual going. Reducing the amount of training 

funds per participant has allowed us to maintain participant training numbers, but 

more people are now being trained for lower level jobs on the career ladder. We have 

found ourselves in the position of training people for lower level, career ladder jobs, 

but not always jobs that help people immediately become self-sufficient. These jobs 

do, however, start at a higher wage than our area’s entry level wage for a total of 

all occupations. Thanks to our stimulus package allocation, FMS will once again be 

able to train people for the jobs of the future, including health care and green initiatives, without reducing the number of people we serve in training. 

Additionally, with significant increases in youth funds, we will be able to provide 

stronger year-round youth services and work experience. Looking towards a summer 

where we will find many dislocated workers competing with young people for traditionally summer youth jobs, a WIA summer youth program may be the only opportunity for a young person to have a summer job. 
190 

Other opportunities include a renewed interest in partnership between organizations providing workforce and related services. We are all in real need of designing 

new training programs for the jobs of the future. The stimulus funding will provide 

us with the opportunity to buy an entire classroom customized to meet the needs 

of our participants in their preparation for the jobs of the future. This will allow 

us to spend stimulus funds quickly and wisely and will encourage community colleges and WIBs to re-new and strengthen our relationships. I also believe we will 

be building on and creating new relationships with organized labor. Together, we 

will focus on skills necessary for a technologically competent workforce that will attract emerging industries to our region. 

We will continue to have challenges. Our potential workforce is shrinking—and 

growing older. There are fewer workers in the pipeline and many have out-dated 

skills. If we are to be successful in our region in attracting emerging industries, and 

retaining those we currently have, we need to have a globally competitive workforce. 

For that we must be ready to look beyond the traditional pool of emerging workers—young people with high school and post secondary school educations. We have 

untapped and underutilized segments in the greater workforce pool; older workers, 

individuals with disabilities, dislocated workers, the disadvantaged, disengaged 

youth, and the formerly incarcerated. 

While I know you are the Authorizing Committee, not the Appropriations Committee, our final challenge is on-going financial support of these critical workforce 

programs—or the lack of it. We have all done more with less for many years now. 

But there comes a time when no one can do more with less, and worse—no one can 

continue to provide the quality services that our dislocated workers and other jobseekers so desperately need and deserve. Between 1990 and 2007, New York State 

lost 44% of its traditional manufacturing jobs. In 2008 and into 2009, the continued 

downward spiral of lost jobs—and companies—in New York State, and the nation, 

has been dizzying. Many of us firmly believe that we can turn this around. The 

economy will improve. Jobs will return. But they will not necessarily be the jobs 

that we have lost. And without continued and consistent funding of workforce programs, we cannot train the workforce of the future. 

WIA reauthorization—where do we go from here? 

I cannot recommend too strongly that we continue to build upon locally driven, 

private sector-led local workforce boards. Local Workforce Investment Areas will 

only be able to provide quality services to jobseekers and businesses alike if we have 

the local control and the flexibility to customize our services to meet local needs, 

while utilizing the knowledge and expertise of our private sector members. 

We need to further strengthen our youth programs. In FMS, as in many workforce 

areas across the state, we believe in spending more than the required 30% of our 

youth funds on out-of-school youth. These are young people, many times young single parents, who have been given up on by their schools and their families. We are 

their last best hope. We need to continue to provide GED services and soft skills 

training, while increasing career pathway opportunities and opportunities for work 

experience. 

We also need increased and consistent funding at a level that will allow us to invest in our future workforce by providing quality training opportunities, while continuing to fund the One-Stop Career Centers that provide the skills assessment and 

career counseling critical for jobseekers to make informed decisions for future careers. 

Finally, I would like to again highlight the importance of opportunities for regional partnerships—partnerships that are skill-focused, systemic, collaborative, and 

reflect the workforce needs of a region. These also require funding—funding specifically targeted to regional efforts where local workforce areas come together to address common workforce and economic needs. 

Conclusion 

Thank you again for the opportunity to provide testimony today. I would be 

pleased and honored to continue to be a resource to this committee, as an executive 

director of a local workforce board, a partner in a regional sector strategy initiative, 

and as president of a statewide workforce membership organization. Please do not 

hesitate to call on me again as you move forward with WIA Reauthorization. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Thank you, Gail. In your closing remarks, 

you said that you realize that we are not appropriators that we are 

authorizers. The question comes up what is first, the chicken or the 
191 

egg? And without us, the appropriators are worthless; they can’t do 

a thing. We are very important, too. 

We are pleased now to introduce from General Electric, Tom 

Quick. 

STATEMENT OF TOM QUICK, HUMAN RESOURCES LEADER, 

POWER & WATER, GE ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE 

Mr. QUICK. I appreciate the opportunity to come here this morning and discuss green collar skills training in the United States. 

The GE Power & Water business offers a diverse portfolio of 

products and services such as wind and solar renewable energy. 

The record-setting growth of wind energy is a bright spot in the 

U.S. economy. According to the American Wind Energy Association, 

AWEA, the U.S. Installed 8,358 megawatts of wind power in 2008. 

Currently, wind power in the U.S. Is enough to power 7 million 

homes. 

The U.S. is now the global leader in wind power, having surpassed Germany in both wind generation and installed capacity. 

AWEA estimates that the wind industry employs over 85,000 people directly and indirectly, with 13,000 manufacturing jobs created 

in 2008 alone. 

At GE, we now have installed over 10,000 1.5 megawatt wind 

turbines worldwide and one out of two wind turbines installed in 

the U.S. is a GE turbine. We have wind turbine assembly locations 

in Florida, South Carolina, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and California. 

The headquarters of our renewable business is located locally, here 

in Schenectady, New York. 

The installed base of wind power in the U.S. has spurred a demand for skilled workers who can operate and maintain wind turbines. As the U.S.-installed base continues to grow, there is a growing demand for skilled wind technicians. A report from the Department of Energy states that if wind power supplied 20 percent of the 

U.S. electricity by 2030, this would result in over 160,000 direct 

jobs. The total direct and indirect jobs supported by the wind industry could exceed 500,000 by 2030, according to the DOE report. 

The ability to train skilled turbine technicians—wind turbine 

technicians is a collective challenge faced by the business community and educational institutions, with the Federal Government 

playing a key role. At GE, we hire wind technicians with associate 

degrees in electrical or electronic repair and 3-plus years of work 

experience in the electrical or electronics repair industry. There are 

currently a number of community and technical colleges with programs to address these training needs, yet these represent only the 

beginning of the training effort required to support the wind industry growth. 

Community and technical colleges with programs that emphasize 

a technical curriculum are good candidates to consider expanding 

their course offerings to include such courses as wind turbine mechanical systems or wind turbine site construction. 

The business community has to expand their own job skills training as well. GE has expanded our Energy Learning Center located 

in Niskayuna, New York, to include a wind training program and 

facility. The wind training facility has eight classrooms, 11,000 

square feet of lab space, and dedicated control room to train wind 
192 

technicians. We provide training to our own employees and employees of 200 customers in the United States. 

Partnerships between the wind industry manufacturers, site operators, with local educational institutions are good for everyone. A 

recent example of such partnership is the one between GE and 

Hudson Valley Community College to create the machinist training 

program in 2006. This partnership results in students receiving 2- 

year associate degrees, and GE enrolls employees into the program. 

The Capital District Workforce Investment Board encourages job 

training and skills development partnerships in our local area. The 

Federal Government can provide critical leadership to ensure these 

partnerships extend to the renewables industry. Through the 

Workforce Investment Act and the creation of regional Workforce 

Investment Boards across the U.S., the Federal Government can 

ensure that money is spent on educational programs today that can 

be leveraged to provide the green collar skills required for tomorrow. 

The Federal Government can ensure that public education and 

private business partnerships are encouraged to prepare interested 

students for jobs in the green economy. A trained workforce able 

to meet the demands of this expanding green economy benefits all 

of us in United States, and GE welcomes the Federal Government’s 

leadership to provide the necessary skills for workers to have rewarding careers in the renewable energy industry. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the subcommittee this 

morning on this very important topic. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Thank you, Tom. 

[The statement of Mr. Quick follows:] 
193 
194 
195 
196 
197 
198 
199 
200 
201 
202 
203 

Chairman SARUBBI. Now I call on Joe Sarubbi. 

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH T. SARUBBI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

TEC–SMART, HUDSON VALLEY COMMUNITY COLLEGE 

Mr. SARUBBI. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Tonko, Congressman 

Polis, it is a pleasure to provide testimony to you providing regarding new innovations and best practices under the Workforce Investment Act. 

I have spent the last 30 years of my life in higher education at 

the community college level, and I can say with confidence that regarding workforce development, there is no better place to develop 

a national agenda for green collar jobs. Community colleges are our 

Nation’s best bet for retooling America. 
204 

I believe community colleges can be looked upon as the SWAT 

team for workforce development because of their ability to provide 

rapid development of customized courses to meet the needs of the 

workforce, green collar and otherwise. 

One of the missions of community colleges is to be responsive to 

the educational needs of adult learners, displaced workers, returning veterans, and disadvantaged youths. Currently, there are 1,166 

community colleges in the Nation and most offer workforce development type training. 

I believe that the Workforce Investment Act should ensure that 

local Workforce Investment Boards provide for community college 

representation to strengthen their relationships. And as our Nation 

continues to advance renewable energy and energy efficiency programs with ambitious goals, there is a great urgency to create a 

green collar workforce; and community colleges, as the Nation’s 

best bet, have been rallying to that cause. That could not be any 

more evident than right near in the Capital Region of New York 

State as Hudson Valley Community College has been providing nationally recognized PV training programs for 3 years and is considered by many in the business to be the model program, and it also 

offers geothermal training as well. 

In fact, Hudson Valley Community College’s multipronged approach could be a prototype for the renewable energy discipline and 

other community colleges nationwide, utilizing a combination of 

noncredit and credit courses and certificate and degree programs to 

meet the needs of all constituents. HVCC’s program has been so 

successful that the college partnered with NYSERDA to expand its 

programs across New York State. Congressman Tonko is quite familiar with this initiative and, as former president of NYSERDA, 

supported the cause. 

NYSERDA and Hudson Valley Community College also 

partnered to establish a statewide network of community colleges 

for energy efficiency training, and by 2010, will have trained a few 

thousand people. Such collaborations have provided a geographic 

blanket of green collar training across New York State in both the 

renewable energy and energy efficiency environments. 

But NYSERDA and HVCC didn’t stop there. They also partnered 

with the Interstate Renewable Energy Council and the Partnership 

For Environmental Technology Education to organize a Renewable 

Energy and Energy Efficiency Workforce Education Conference, 

which was held at Hudson Valley Community College. Educators 

from 34 States and 6 countries came together to learn and share 

best practices and effective approaches to teaching green collar 

workforce skills. We are now on our third conference, which will be 

held in November 2009. 

The Workforce Investment Act should help support such endeavors to encourage stronger connections between workforce investment and green collar jobs training. 

Hudson Valley Community College is now taking green collar 

training to another level as it will be constructing a state-of-theart training facility dedicated to green collar jobs. With the creation 

of TEC-SMART, Hudson Valley Community College will have a facility with dedicated laboratories to specific green technologies: 
205 

photovoltaic, geothermal, large and small wind, alternative fuels, 

and semiconductor manufacturing. 

Through TEC-SMART, the college will seek to work with local 

Workforce Investment Boards to offer training for the adult learners, displaced workers, returning veterans and disadvantaged 

youth I mentioned earlier. Through TEC-SMART, the college will 

be able to offer train-the-trainer programs to help other colleges 

ratchet up their green collar training programs, as well as partner 

with 4-year institutions to continue to develop green collar skills. 

And it is also important to continue to support blue collar training programs, as many of these act as feeders to green collar jobs 

training. 

In conclusion, community colleges can and are providing the 

backbone for green collar jobs. It is critical that the reauthorization 

of the Workforce Investment Act recognizes the role that community colleges play in workforce development training and will provide the necessary resources to support this training. 

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify and share 

these observations and opinions with you. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Sarubbi follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Joseph T. Sarubbi, Executive Director, Training and 

Education Center for Semiconductor Manufacturing and Alternative and 

Renewable Technologies (TEC–SMART), Hudson Valley Community College 

Mr. Chairman, Congressman Tonko, Members of the Committee, it is a pleasure 

to provide testimony to you regarding ‘‘New Innovations and Best Practices Under 

the Workforce Investment Act.’’ 

The timing couldn’t be better to talk about what’s happening at the higher education level regarding ‘‘Green Collar’’ jobs and the role Community College’s can 

play (and are playing) in support of the Workforce Investment Act. 

The Case for Workforce Training at Community Colleges 

As a former Journeyman Electrician who was trained through the International 

Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, I’ve devoted the last three decades of my life to 

workforce training at Hudson Valley Community College; first as a Professor, then 

as a Department Chair, and now as the Executive Director of the College’s renewable energy training center. I feel strongly about the positive impact our college 

alone has had on the Capital Region community regarding job placement, and I’ve 

witnessed other community college’s having a similar impact within their respective 

regions. 

One of the main objectives of a community college is to be responsive to the educational needs of adult learners, displaced workers, returning veterans, and disadvantaged youths. This is achieved by providing services and vocational training 

that will develop independent and confident learners, as well as life skills. There’s 

no question that community colleges are best suited to serve this mission. In fact, 

community colleges could be viewed as the ‘‘Swat Team’’ for workforce training because of their ability to provide rapid deployment of customized courses and services 

to address the employment needs of the community. 

As our national economy continues to experience a major transformation, the need 

to aggressively re-tool our workforce has never been more paramount, and community colleges should be the epicenters for making this happen. Currently, there are 

1,166 community colleges nationwide, and most offer workforce development type 

training. Moreover, numerous community colleges have a Workforce Development 

‘‘Center’’ that often provides a one-stop system for easy access. With the ability to 

offer flexible training schedules, on-line courses, credit and non-credit courses, workshops, certificate programs, and degree programs, community colleges can quickly 

manage the challenges ahead and respond to learner needs in a rapidly changing 

environment. The Workforce Investment Act should ensure that local Workforce Investment Boards provide for community college representation. 
206 

As a Department Chair with oversight of numerous vocational training programs 

I’ve had the opportunity to work with Workforce Investment Boards for the purpose 

of retraining displaced workers. I’ve witnessed first-hand the value of the Workforce 

Investment Act (WIA) and the role it’s played in improving the lives of many. Yet, 

I’ve also found that the administrative complexities associated with aligning training programs and individual benefits to be challenging. Depending on individual 

needs, effective, high quality job training and education can take anywhere from two 

weeks to upwards of two years. Aligning flexibility in benefits to mirror training 

programs will greatly improve completion of training and a better chance of leading 

to a ‘‘living wage.’’ For example: if a displaced unskilled worker needs a two-year 

vocational training program to become successful, and was displaced at a time of 

the year where such training was offered, but the training program already started, 

it precluded the worker from starting. Often benefits would ‘‘run-out’’ before the 

worker could complete the training since the worker had to wait until the next 

training cycle. The Workforce Investment Act should focus on helping workers 

through the entire training process. 

Green Collar Jobs and the Community College 

As our nation continues to advance Clean Energy and Energy Efficiency programs 

with ambitious goals, the need to develop a Green Collar workforce has brought 

about a new sense of urgency, and community colleges have been rallying to the 

cause. Hudson Valley Community College, for example, has been providing photovoltaic (PV) training for three years, and is recently training students in geothermal 

technology as well. In fact, it should be noted that Hudson Valley Community College’s model for photovoltaic training has received national attention for its threepronged delivery that meets the needs of all constituents. So much so that Jane M. 

Weissman, Executive Director, Interstate Renewable Energy Council and ViceChair, North America Board of Certified Energy Practitioners, has stated, ‘‘The photovoltaic course programs at Hudson Valley Community College are national models 

for other educational providers across the country. Combining class-room instruction 

based on strong electrical curriculum, coupled with an extensive laboratory plus onsite training opportunities, have positioned Hudson valley as a leader in photovoltaic training. They have clearly demonstrated their ability to produce high-end 

instruction for a strong renewable energy workforce.’’ Furthermore, Jerry Ventre, 

Engineering Consultant and Former Director of the Photovoltaics and Distributed 

Generation Division of the Florida Solar Energy Center stated: ‘‘In a relatively short 

time, Hudson Valley Community College has established itself as a clear leader in 

photovoltaic training in the U.S. They have extremely well designed course offerings, highly qualified faculty, excellent relationships with industry, outstanding facilities, and strong institutional support. And, most importantly, they provide their 

students with the proper combination of classroom activities, hands-on training in 

the laboratory and on-the-job experience with actual photovoltaic system installations in the field.’’ While Hudson Valley Community College is a forerunner in 

Clean Energy and Energy Efficiency training, many other community colleges have 

demonstrated their ability to ‘‘ratchet-up’’ their training programs and offer similar 

‘‘green’’ technology skills. All across the country community colleges are beginning 

to re-tool their trainers who can provide the green collar workforce training that 

would be supported under the Workforce Investment Act. 

Best Practices 

The success of Hudson Valley Community College’s (PV) programs lies in the 

multi-pronged approach to training, ensuring access to any and all who seek such 

skills: (1) the 40 hour introduction to photovoltaic installation non-credit course offers access to those who demonstrate some existing construction and/or manufacturing skills and want to enter the PV installer industry. This could be a displaced 

worker, or someone seeking to enhance their skills in preparation for transitioning 

into renewable energy workforce. Upon completion of this course, students are eligible to take the Entry Level Certificate of Knowledge exam, which upon passing, 

awards them an entry level credential that is recognized by photovoltaic contractors, 

(2) the 19 credit Photovoltaic Installation Certificate program offers training to 

those who do not have any prior knowledge or skills, but seek to become a PV installer. This one year certificate can be completed in the evenings and weekend to 

provide flexibility to students, (3) Hudson Valley Community College also offers two 

credit courses in photovoltaic design and installation that is offered to students of 

the electrical Construction and Maintenance two-year degree program. Upon training completion, students will have multiple career paths thus ensuring that the size 

of the workforce does not out pace market demands, and visa-versa. Lastly, students 

of all three paths can enroll in the 40 hour non-credit ‘‘advanced PV installer train-
207 

ing’’ course that prepares students to take the North American Board of Certified 

Energy Practitioners exam, which can lead to becoming a ‘‘Certified’’ PV Installer. 

Hudson Valley Community College has partnered with the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) to expand such programs 

across New York State. In fact, I’ve had the pleasure of working with Congressman 

Tonko, who at the time was President of NYSERDA and understood the value of 

this training, which he supported 100%. With a combined vision to expand such 

training, Hudson Valley Community College and NYSERDA collaborated to provide 

a geographic ‘‘blanket’’ of green collar training across New York State by networking 

with other community colleges eager to provide similar training at their institutions. 

This training model is an offshoot of NYSERDA’s New York Energy $mart Residential Program that, again, with Hudson Valley Community College serving as the 

lead institution, established a statewide network of community colleges for energy 

efficiency training programs as well. By 2010 the energy efficient training programs 

will have trained a few thousand people across New York State. Hudson Valley 

Community College has created a paradigm for green collar training that, with the 

right resources, can be replicated across the country. 

To further facilitate best practices in green collar job environment a: Renewable 

Energy & Energy Efficiency Workforce Education National Conference was sponsored by NYSERDA and organized by the Interstate Renewable Energy Council 

(IREC), Partnership for Environmental Technology Education (PETE) and Hudson 

Valley Community College was held in November 2006 at Hudson Valley Community College. It was the first national conference on workforce education for the renewable energy and energy efficiency trades and industries. The event was an opportunity for educational providers and faculty at Technical High Schools, Community Colleges, four-year Schools and other training programs to learn about best 

practices and effective approaches to teaching renewable energy and energy efficiency workforce skills. The conference attracted over 250 educators from 34 states 

and six countries, and was held over a three day period. The second national conference was again held at Hudson Valley Community College and attracted over 350 

people from across the country and world. The audience again was community colleges, technical high schools, labor and apprenticeship programs, industry, government agencies and others who are planning to start or are providing practitioner 

training for the renewable energy and energy efficiency industries. 

Sessions focused on some of the critical workforce topics such as jobs and how to 

prepare for workforce needs; how to create Vocational High School Trade Program 

to Community College to four-year College articulation agreements; model solar energy, wind energy, energy efficiency, geothermal curricula and programs; and how 

to integrate energy efficiency and renewable energy into other trades on campus. 

Other important areas covered included industry-based task analysis certification 

and training standards; establishing successful business and industry advisory committees; conducting local job market assessments; and creating hands-on renewable 

energy laboratories. The third national conference, being held in November 2009 in 

Albany, New York, will offer the most current information on instructional strategies, curricula development, and best practices for training in the renewable energy 

and energy efficiency fields. It will address many of the jobs outlined in the green 

jobs initiatives being launched nationwide. Most of the attendees are from community colleges seeking new and innovative ways to grow and improve their green collar practitioner training. The Workforce Investment Act should seek to become a 

partner for the National Conference to encourage stronger connections between 

workforce investment and green collar job training. The Workforce Investment Act 

should help local WIBs become more active in training programs by helping to facilitate articulation agreements that allow for seamless education from secondary and 

adult education to post-secondary education. 

Innovative Ideas 

Hudson Valley Community College is committed to training a green collar workforce and has taken a giant step towards enhancing its practitioner training initiatives. With the support of state funding, the College will be constructing a stateof-the-art training facility dedicated to green collar jobs. TEC-SMART (Training and 

Education Center for Semiconductor Training, and Alternative and Renewable Technologies) will have individual laboratories each dedicated to a specific green technology: photovoltaic, geothermal, large and small wind, alternative fuels, and semiconductor manufacturing. This facility will support many of the training initiatives 

mentioned earlier and serve the region, state and nation as the premiere resource 

for green collar training and education. 

Through the TEC-SMART facility, Hudson Valley Community College will seek to 

work closely with local Workforce Investment Boards to offer training in myriad 
208 

ways. For example, with the necessary WIA resources, the College would focus its 

energies by turning its attention to the returning veteran. The number of returning 

veterans continues to grow well past the half-million mark, and providing green collar job training to many makes sense in today’s competitive economy. Through TECSMART, Hudson Valley Community College will also seek to provide ‘‘Train-the 

Trainer’’ programs to other community colleges to help accelerate the availability of 

green collar training programs whereby local WIBs across the Country can provide 

the necessary services returning veterans anticipate. Furthermore, by collaborating 

with four-year institutions such as SUNY Stony Brook, the college could establish 

2 + 2 programs that WIBs could support with a focus on higher-skilled, higher-wage 

green collar jobs. 

Through TEC-SMART, and with the necessary WIA resources, Hudson Valley 

Community College will be able to provide upgraded training to low-income workers 

who seek to advance to a higher skilled green collar job. By working closely with 

local WIBs, the college can develop customized green collar training programs to 

meet the needs of the low-wage earner. In fact, another strength of a community 

college is its ability to effectively assess the academic skills of those seeking to upgrade their employment status and provide the services necessary to access training. 

Most community colleges have Learning Assistance Centers that help each worker’s 

ability to succeed in training, and improve worker retention. There is nothing more 

daunting to a low-wage worker than to take up the practice of life-long learning, 

and there’s no better place for them to have a feeling of accomplishment and achieve 

success than a community college. The Workforce Investment Act could help bridge 

that ‘‘disconnect.’’ 

Non-Green Collar Jobs 

Many community colleges offer tremendous technology programs that have continued to provide training for ‘‘blue collar’’ jobs for decades. The importance of the WIA 

to continue to support these programs cannot be overstated. In fact, many of these 

‘‘blue collar’’ programs provide a feeder system to green collar jobs. For example, 

most PV installers and wind technicians who hold the higher skilled positions within those respective ‘‘green collar’’ fields first received training in the electrical/electronic environment. Similarly, those seeking employment as a geothermal technician 

first gained valuable training in the HVAC/R environment. As the green technology 

job market continues to ebb and flow, those who are cross trained are most like to 

retain ‘‘living wage’’ jobs. The same could be said about alternative fuels. 

In Conclusion 

Community Colleges can and are providing the backbone for green collar jobs. It’s 

critical that the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act recognizes the role 

Community Colleges play in workforce development training. The best practices I 

shared today can be implemented across the country with the right resources. Facilities like TEC-SMART can be instrumental in Train-the Trainer programs for 

other colleges and technical schools to ensure rapid deployment of training programs. Colleges like Hudson Valley Community College, who have learned to walkthe-walk regarding green collar training, can be active in helping other schools address the green collar work force needs of our nation. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee, for allowing me the 

opportunity to testify and share these observations and opinions with you. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. And now we call on Nanine. 

STATEMENT OF NANINE MEIKLEJOHN, SENIOR LEGISLATIVE 

REPRESENTATIVE, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, 

COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES (AFSCME) 

Ms. MEIKLEJOHN. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Tonko, and Congress Polis, thank you for the opportunity to present AFSCME’s 

views on reauthorization of WIA. AFSCME represents 1.6 million 

members around the country, many of whom work in State and 

local workforce programs. 

The daunting economic challenges we are facing have revealed 

some underlying weaknesses and call into question some of the assumptions in Federal workforce policy over the last 10 years. We 
209 

believe it is time for a new direction that expands on and strengthens all of the components of the workforce system. 

WIA was enacted during a period of economic growth and amid 

pressures to block grant, decentralize and reduce funding for Federal workforce programs, it was an uneasy compromise that caused 

tensions between the publicly operated State programs and the 

local, more privatized WIA-funded programs. For our members and 

the State agencies, WIA came to represent a way to weaken or privatize the services they provide. 

Difficult issues emerged, such as how to finance one-stop operations and how much control local boards would have over the 

work of the State agency employees. Declining funding exacerbated 

these tensions. Organizational structures, policies, and services 

vary widely and the sequence-of-services rule focused resources on 

core services instead of training. 

As local WIA providers increasingly duplicated some of the Wagner-Peyser Employment Service functions, the previous Labor Department tried to eliminate it, contending it was unnecessary. In 

fact, though, the employment service is much more than another 

job matching program. It is a crucial partner in the unemployment 

insurance system, conducts foreign labor certifications, helps administer the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act, and the Targeted 

Jobs Tax Credit. It also maintains statewide job banks and a comprehensive system of labor market information in each State. 

The close relationship of the employment service to the UI system is especially important. Traditionally, States maintain flexible 

staffing patterns between the two that were undermined as they 

centralized their UI operations into call centers and ES staff moved 

into local one-stop centers. As a result, UI claimants rarely get the 

early reemployment services they need, and one-stop centers are 

ill-equipped to help jobless workers get through overburdened UI 

application systems. This situation and the role of the employment 

service in the broader workforce system requires more attention. 

Typically, when the Nation has faced extraordinary challenges, 

we have turned to the Federal Government for leadership. This is 

true today. Already the economic recovery program asserts a 

stronger Federal role in workforce policy, limits local flexibility to 

modify Federal funding priorities, and calls for more balance between the needs of workers and employers. 

We hope WIA reauthorization will continue this new direction. 

We specifically recommend the following: The sequence-of-service 

policy should be abandoned; WIA programs should have to devote 

more resources to training; training should focus on high-growth 

fields, while local areas retain flexibility to run programs specifically suited to their local needs. 

We need a stronger, more comprehensive capacity to provide 

labor exchange services and counseling to an increasingly diverse 

group of disadvantaged and dislocated experienced workers seeking 

help. 

A strong statewide employment service can complement the work 

of local WIA programs. Strengthening its ability to provide comprehensive job-matching tools and good labor market information 

will benefit the entire system because it will attract more employers, improve job matching for all workers, and support regional sec-
210 

tor and labor management training initiatives which extend beyond 

local one-stop boundaries. Without the sequence-of-services rule, 

more effective and professional career planning and assessment 

will be needed to carefully match workers’ skills and interests with 

the right services at the front end. 

A computer is not enough. Just as real estate agents help house 

hunters, even though there are many real estate Web sites, knowledgeable counselors can help job seekers and employers achieve 

good matches. The State agency can establish a level of consistency 

for these functions statewide through its policy-setting authority. 

The fact that State employment service employees are in meritbased personnel systems is a benefit. Merit system principles of 

personnel administration were originally adopted to ensure government accountability, fairness, and transparency. When applied 

well, they lead to quality services by a staff accountable to the public, not individual private interests. These principles currently in 

regulation should be codified in law. 

Mr. Chairman, you are considering WIA reauthorization at an 

unusual point in time. We look forward to working with you as you 

begin this process and again thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Thank you for your presentation. 

[The statement of Ms. Meiklejohn follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Nanine Meiklejohn, Senior Legislative Representative, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees 

(AFSCME) 

Chairman Hinojosa and Congressman Tonko, my name is Nanine Meiklejohn, and 

I am a Senior Legislative Representative for the American Federation of State, 

County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). 

AFSCME’s 1.6 million members work in state and local government agencies, 

health care institutions, and nonprofit agencies across the country. They include the 

employees in state employment security and workforce agencies and in local onestop operations. We appreciate this opportunity to present AFSCME’s views on reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA). 

We face a starkly different economic situation now than when WIA was enacted 

and when Congress last considered legislation to reauthorize WIA. The accelerating 

pace of job loss is breathtaking. In February, unemployment surged to 8.1 percent 

as non-farm payroll employment fell sharply. Over the past year the number of unemployed persons jumped by five million as the unemployment rate rose by 3.3 percentage points. The number of workers receiving unemployment benefits has risen 

by 54 percent in the last 12 months to over five million people, and 2.9 million 

workers still had not found jobs after 26 weeks of unemployment in February—a 

55% increase over last year. 

This extraordinary situation is creating extraordinary demands on our workforce 

system. The unemployment insurance system, which relies on telephone call centers 

and electronic applications, is under enormous strain and in some states, including 

here in New York, has experienced temporary breakdowns. Long lines of unemployed workers have formed at overwhelmed local one-stop centers—the only physically available place they can go for help. 

These challenges have revealed some underlying weaknesses and call into question some of the assumptions in federal workforce policy over the last 10 years. 

Since WIA was enacted, and especially during the last eight years, workforce funding declined; federal leadership continued to shrink; efforts were made to collapse 

workforce programs into each other despite their unique roles; training activities 

have been extremely limited; the voice of workers in the system was almost silenced; and publicly administered systems were neglected in favor of publicly-funded 

but privately-provided services. 

This is not to imply that there have not been important innovative programs during that time. Indeed, many are operating in local areas. They include sector and 

regional training initiatives, labor-management partnerships, such as the long-
211 

standing health care training partnership conducted by AFSCME’s affiliate, District 

1199 (c) in Philadelphia, career pathways initiatives for young people, and closer 

linkages between the workforce system and economic development strategies. The 

testimony of Bill Camp, on behalf of the AFL-CIO on February 12, 2009, described 

a number of important and exciting policies and initiatives taking place in California. They should be strengthened and encouraged during WIA reauthorization. 

However, more is needed to enable our workforce system to meet today’s challenges. We believe now is the time to guide federal workforce policy in a new direction that expands on and strengthens all of the components of the workforce system 

so that it can provide the highest level of services for workers and employers possible. We support all of the recommendations made by the AFL-CIO at the February 

hearing, but in this statement, I will focus specifically on key aspects of the delivery 

system. 

WIA’s Place in the Workforce System 

WIA was enacted during a period of relative economic stability and amid pressures to block grant, decentralize and reduce funding for federal workforce programs. It established a one-stop center system with the laudable goal of facilitating 

access to a wide range of related services, including the WIA adult, dislocated worker and youth programs, Unemployment Insurance (UI), Employment Services (ES), 

Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), Vocational Rehabilitation and Adult Education. 

As originally conceived, these programs would be coordinated by locating WIA 

services and other workforce programs in local one-stop centers and by linking them 

electronically. As much as possible, the programs were to be integrated with each 

other; a term that has been interpreted in different ways in different states and 

local areas and which has represented an uneasy compromise between block granting and coordination. 

In moving in this direction, WIA created significant tensions between the publicly 

operated state programs, such as Vocational Rehabilitation and Wagner-Peyser Employment Services, and the local more privatized WIA programs, particularly where 

local workforce boards attempted to assert control over the large state public agency 

operations. For our members in the state agency programs, WIA came to represent 

a mechanism to weaken or privatize the programs in which they work and the services they provide. 

Difficult issues emerged, such as how to finance one-stop operations (because WIA 

did not provide operational funding for the one-stop centers) and the extent to which 

local boards and one-stop operators, some of them private companies, would control 

the work of the state agency employees. As a result, considerable energy has been 

spent on governance, financing and process issues, and significant WIA resources 

have been spent building an operational infrastructure of one-stop centers. Declining WIA funding and stagnating Wagner-Peyser funding greatly exacerbated these 

tensions. 

Because of the highly decentralized nature of the program, organizational structures, policies and services vary widely among, and even within, states. This has 

made it virtually impossible to paint a clear picture of the way the system operates 

from a national perspective. 

At the same time, WIA’s effectiveness as a source of meaningful training services 

was weakened by a mandate to provide universal services through a sequence of 

core, intensive and training service with no effective job quality criteria and heavy 

reliance on self-service. As a result, WIA providers increasingly focused primarily 

on general labor exchange services and on placements with low-wage employers at 

the expense of a consistent policy of providing value added quality services for job 

seekers and employers. 

Wagner-Peyser’s Role in the Workforce System 

As local WIA providers increasingly duplicated some of the labor exchange services historically provided by the state Wagner-Peyser Employment Service, the previous Labor Department pursued an aggressive effort to defund and eliminate the 

state Employment Service. Department officials based their case primarily on the 

claim that the state Employment Service is essentially like other local job matching 

activities funded by WIA, a view shared broadly among those providing local WIA 

funded services. 

In fact, though, the Employment Service is much more than another job matching 

program. It is a crucial partner of the Unemployment Insurance program, conducts 

labor certifications, and helps administer the Trade Adjustment Assistance program 

and the targeted jobs tax credit. In addition, it maintains statewide job banks and 

a comprehensive system of labor market information in each state, both of which 
212 

are valuable resources that support state and local economic development strategies 

and regional and sector partnerships. 

Maintaining this flexible state agency workforce can provide both efficiencies and 

flexibility. For example, Ohio state staff is trained in ES, UI, TAA, labor market 

information and outreach services to employers, which allows the state to provide 

more universal services that can respond to emerging and changing local needs. 

The relationship of the Wagner-Peyser Employment Service to the Unemployment 

Insurance program is especially important. In administering the Unemployment Insurance program, the states also must ensure that UI claimants are looking for and 

securing employment. 

Traditionally, ES and UI staff worked closely together in providing benefits and 

employment services to help UI claimants find jobs. They often were cross trained 

so that they could shift between the more technical functions of processing unemployment benefit applications and matching job seekers with employers. This flexibility to adjust staffing patterns was substantially undermined as states centralized 

their UI operations into call centers and ES staff moved into local one-stop centers. 

Separating the ES and UI operations has had several consequences. In any state 

that does not require it, and most states don’t, Unemployment Insurance recipients 

have no obligation to go to a one-stop center at all. Even if they do go, they rarely 

get early reemployment services that can shorten their time without work or help 

move them to a new career. In addition, local one-stop centers are ill-equipped to 

help jobless workers get through the overburdened UI application system other than 

offering them a telephone connection. 

However, the severity of the economic downturn has led some states to seek ways 

to rebuild the connection between the two programs. Connecticut and Ohio are moving to assign some of their ES staff situated in local one-stop centers to help workers with their UI claims. This ability to adjust duties and functions as economic circumstances change is possible only because the states retain authority over the ES 

staff. 

Although the transition of ES staff into local one-stop centers appears almost complete, its role in the centers requires more attention both in terms of its relationship 

to the UI program and as part of the overall workforce system. 

Moving Forward—A New Balance 

Typically, when the nation has faced extraordinary challenges, we have turned to 

the federal government to achieve important national objectives and priorities. This 

is true today. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) asserts a 

stronger federal policy in the workforce system. 

The law provides specific guidance on how some funds are to be used. In particular, it requires that states use $250 million of the $400 million appropriated for 

the Employment Service specifically to provide reemployment services for UI claimants. Our hope is that the U.S. Department of Labor will consider a requirement 

for all contractors receiving ARRA funds to list new jobs on the state job banks to 

facilitate matches for all job seekers. The program also directs training resources 

to high priority areas, in particular green jobs and health care, through a grant 

process that will be managed by the Secretary of Labor. 

A subsequent March 4, 2009 notice from the Labor Department further asserts 

federal policy and calls for more balance between the needs of workers and employers. It urges alignment with economic and community development strategies and 

close alignment of education and training with jobs and industries that are important to local and regional economies. The Department also has determined that several waivers will not apply to Recovery Act funds on the grounds that they are contrary to congressional intent, including a waiver providing authority for full transfer 

of funds between the Adult and Dislocated Worker Programs. In addition, services 

and training are to be maximized and administrative costs minimized. 

AFSCME applauds this new direction and hopes that WIA reauthorization will 

continue to foster it. In particular, we hope to see more balanced membership on 

workforce boards, including stronger participation by organized labor, and increased 

support for labor-management partnerships in industry and sector training initiatives. We also hope to see more balance among available services and a new stronger partnership among the public and private agencies and state and local governments. In addition, we hope greater attention is given to reemployment services for 

UI claimants by the Employment Service. 

Training and Services 

The sequence of services policy has caused local WIA programs to emphasize core 

services at the expense of other services and training. As demands on the local cen-
213 

ters escalate though, it is becoming apparent, at least in some states, that there are 

important gaps in the services available for job seekers. 

In order to ensure that WIA programs provide more intensive services and training, the sequence of service policy should be explicitly abandoned. WIA programs 

should have to devote a certain percentage of their funding for training as previous 

job training laws required. 

In addition, federal law should place a priority on training in high growth fields, 

such as alternative energy, broadband, advanced manufacturing, child care, and 

health care that are of a high national priority. The recently enacted Higher Education Act embraced a similar concept of high national need in the loan forgiveness 

program. Guiding, but not requiring, states and localities to direct services and 

training in such areas can help ensure a meaningful role for the workforce system 

in a new economy without stifling other initiatives specifically suitable to local economic conditions and populations. 

Expanding the Scope of the One-Stop System 

As more experienced jobless workers seek help at local one-stop centers, the demands on the system are expanding and changing. While WIA may have been largely a last resort for low-income and disadvantaged persons, increasingly others with 

different experiences, but perhaps similar skill development needs, are lining up at 

local centers. It is not clear yet whether this is a temporary phenomenon due to the 

downturn or a more fundamental shift. Some analysts predict that many of the lost 

jobs will never return. 

In either case, this development means that the workforce system needs to 

strengthen both its labor exchange—or core services—capacity and its ability to 

guide and provide services to workers with increasingly disparate needs. It also 

needs to be able to help them acquire new skills in a changing economy. 

The statewide and public character of the Employment Service makes it a potentially valuable asset in achieving this objective. A study of six states conducted by 

WESTAT for the U.S. Department of Labor, ‘‘Evaluation of Labor Exchange Services 

in a One-Stop Delivery System Environment’’, which was completed in 2004 but 

suppressed by the Department for four years, is instructive. It noted that by virtue 

of its statewide character the state Employment Service overcomes a tendency of 

local workforce areas to engage in more targeted job development and job matching 

at a time when job seekers are more willing to look for opportunities beyond their 

immediate communities. 

The WESTAT study further observed that ‘‘Effective job-matching systems linked 

high-quality technology with well-trained staff dedicated both to ensuring that employers were appropriately listing their jobs and job seekers were able to effectively 

use the technology.’’ Achieving both involves staff outreach and a concerted effort 

to attract and hold employers as well as the staffing capacity to make good matches. 

This is an important finding. The broader the scope of information available to 

local one-stop centers, the more effective all of the partner programs can be. 

Strengthening the ability of the state employment services to provide comprehensive 

job matching tools and good labor market information will benefit the entire system 

because it will attract more employers, improve job matching, and support regional 

and sector training initiatives. It can be a rich resource for all job seekers, experienced and disadvantaged alike, particularly helping to open up opportunities for disadvantaged job seekers they might not otherwise have. 

Eliminating the sequence of services rule will have important consequences for 

the system. It will create more flexibility to provide a broader range of services, but 

it also will create a new need for effective and professional career planning and assessment in order to carefully match workers’ skills and interests with the right 

services, training and jobs. It will open up new ways to align services functionally 

and perhaps in teams of staff from different programs, even as dedicated funding 

continues to be provided for specific groups of workers. 

A skilled and professional state Employment Service staff that competently advises workers and employers will become even more necessary. An analogy with the 

real estate industry helps make this point. Although there are many websites that 

list homes for sale, house hunters still seek out real estate agents to help them narrow their search and make the best decision. 

The state Employment Service staff already conducts assessment and career planning functions when they provide reemployment services to UI claimants and counsel TAA enrollees. The state can control the quality and consistency of these services 

statewide through its policy setting authority, the ability to set high standards for 

job counselors, and, if resources are available, professional training and upgrading. 

Because it is not limited to the local boundaries of one-stop systems it is well posi-
214 

tioned to perform such functions to support both sector and regional training and 

skill development partnerships. 

WIA reauthorization should strengthen the state Employment Service capacity by, 

among other measures, providing resources for staff development. We note that New 

York state is moving to upgrade its Wagner-Peyser staff by hiring labor service representatives with masters degrees in counseling. 

A strong statewide Employment Service can compliment, rather than compete 

with, the work currently being done by local WIA programs which focus on the more 

intensive work involved in serving populations with significant barriers to employment. 

The fact that state Employment Service employees are in merit based personnel 

(civil service) systems is an additional benefit despite claims of the previous administration which tried to eliminate this longstanding regulatory requirement. It did 

so because the merit staffing rule stood in the way of its effort to dismantle the Employment Service, devolve it to local WIA boards, and contract out the funds to private contractors. 

The merit staffing rule was characterized erroneously as a ‘‘labor protection’’, but 

the reality is that merit system principles of personnel administration were originally adopted in the interests of government accountability, fairness and transparency. They require adherence to the following principles to insure improvement 

of public service: 

a) Recruiting, selecting, and advancing employees on the basis of their relative 

ability, knowledge, and skills, including open consideration of qualified applicants 

for initial appointment. 

b) Providing equitable and adequate compensation. 

c) Training employees, as needed, to assure high quality performance. 

d) Retaining employees on the basis of the adequacy of their performance, correcting inadequate performance, and separating employees whose inadequate performance cannot be corrected. 

e) Assuring fair treatment of applicants and employees in all aspects of personnel 

administration without regard to political affiliation, race, color, national origin, sex, 

religious creed, age or handicap and with proper regard for their privacy and constitutional rights as citizens. This ‘‘fair treatment’’ principle includes compliance 

with the Federal equal employment opportunity and nondiscrimination laws. 

f) Assuring that employees are protected against coercion for partisan political 

purposes and are prohibited from using their official authority for the purpose of 

interfering with or affecting the result of an election or a nomination for office. 

These principles should be codified in the Wagner-Peyser Act to establish them 

more firmly in the law. In fact, we suggest that the substance of these principles 

is unassailable and that they also are appropriate for the operators of the one-stop 

centers as well. 

Mr. Chairman, you are considering WIA reauthorization at an unusual point in 

time. Our economic circumstances present both unique challenges and opportunities 

for the workforce system. If reformed by building new partnerships and creating a 

new balance, we believe WIA along with its workforce program partners will be well 

positioned to play a much more expansive and meaningful role in the economic life 

of our country. AFSCME looks forward to working with you as you begin this process. Thank you again for this opportunity to testify here today. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. I liked everything I heard, and I am sure 

that my colleagues are going to have some questions that will be 

directed to one or more of the presenters. 

I would like to start myself. I will be limited to 5 minutes also 

by the rules, and if necessary, we will have a second round. 

I believe that your contributions will be very valuable to us as 

we move forward in the reauthorization of this WIA reauthorization act of 2009, so my first question is going to be directed to the 

Hudson Valley Community College. And let me look at the one that 

I think was engraved in my mind, because you talked about even 

partnering with high schools. And I think that stakeholders include 

our schools, our community colleges, our workforce boards, and of 

course, our 4-year universities. 
215 

So I would like to ask you, Joe, you mentioned that there are 

some challenges in the administrative complexities related to the 

alignment of training programs and the individual benefits. So 

would you elaborate on how the reauthorization of WIA should consider these issues? 

Mr. SARUBBI. Certainly, some of the concerns we have seen at 

the community college level: 

Nobody can predict exactly when they anticipate getting laid off 

from a job. So if we were to take a particular displaced worker, for 

example, the way most community colleges are set up in our Nation is on a semester-by-semester basis. Courses usually start 

around the 1st of September, finish at the end of December, pick 

up in January, end in May. If a particular worker gets displaced 

in October and that is the starting point for them to start to earn 

their actual funding, part of the problem is they can’t get into 

training until either January or the following September of the 

next year because of the sequence of actual course work that they 

would have to complete, knowing that they have to start out with 

the simpler courses. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. If I may interrupt you, have you seen the 

model of the Maricopa County Community College system in Phoenix, Arizona, which is the open entry and open exit for community 

colleges? 

Mr. SARUBBI. No. 

I have heard about that, and other community colleges are looking at that particular model. A lot of it has to do with when we 

talk about the type of green collar jobs, you still need a certain 

level of on-the-job, you know, hands-on training that needs to be 

done at specific institutions. 

So if you have got the type of technologies where you can offer 

that training in a way that—again, knowing the size of the actual 

classes that you would be able to have coming through, sometimes 

it works good, sometimes it doesn’t. 

I have heard mixed reviews about it right now, and I have not 

had a chance to research it at the highest level. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. I think there are some advantages and disadvantages of that model, but it was listed by Newsweek as one 

of the largest and best community college systems in the country, 

so there must be some good qualities to that. 

Mr. SARUBBI. Certainly. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. You said one of the factors leading to the 

successful efforts between Hudson Community College and local 

entities was the investment of the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. 

Is this a model that we should consider for other areas in the Nation? 

Mr. SARUBBI. Without a doubt. NYSERDA has been a fantastic 

partner in helping us to get to the level where we are. They have 

the resources and the skill sets to allow a technical school like 

Hudson Valley to gear for the Green Collar Jobs Initiative that we 

have been able to get to the level that we have. Without 

NYSERDA, we would not have been able to pull that off. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. My area has about 30 percent of its population in my congressional district below the national poverty level. 
216 

What efforts are being made by your community college to recruit a diverse and typically underserved population? 

Mr. SARUBBI. Right now, we have worked closely—I am drawing 

a blank at the name of the organization that we have been working 

with right now, with youth programs that are bringing disadvantaged youths to Hudson Valley to help them earn their GED. And 

once they finish that, they can continue on with actual skills within 

the technology—— 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Could it be HEP-CAMP? 

Mr. SARUBBI. No, it is—Youth Skills of America is the actual organization, and we have been working with Albany, Schenectady 

and Troy to do that. They helped us build homes for disadvantaged 

people, too, and—to be able to get us to that next level. So that has 

been successful so far. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. I thank you for your responses, and it looks 

like I am running out of time. But I would like to call on my colleagues; and we will start out with Paul and see what questions 

he would like to ask. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A question to all of you. 

I hear this whole concern with structure and focus. And maybe 

just hearing from each of you, from your varying perspectives: If 

you could structure the best response programmatically to the 

needs of underskilled or those needing training in new skills, how 

would it work? 

I am hearing these regional boards, I am hearing the regional 

concepts, I am hearing an employee service sector, training sector 

to the side, and allowing some of our agencies to do more of the 

routine work. 

What is the best way for—from an industry perspective and a 

governmental perspective and education perspective, what is the 

best way you could structure it? In an ideal sense, what would it 

be in order to really maximize training opportunities? 

Mr. MUSOLINO. There is a lot in that question, Congressman, 

needless to say. 

Mr. TONKO. I am not looking to make enemies. 

Mr. MUSOLINO. I think there are probably two different structural issues that we certainly struggle with at the State level, both 

equally important. 

One of the structural issues is the geography of the State. New 

York State is a large State as is Texas—Colorado. So when we are 

thinking about the State, we are thinking in terms of various regional economies that exist. And in New York State we have placed 

some bets, as it were, in different areas of the State. State policy 

is invested in photonics in the Rochester area, nanotechnology here 

in Albany, and health sciences, biotechnology in the Buffalo area. 

And trying to create an employment and training system that is 

flexible enough to be able to deal with those different regional 

economies, knowing that even though those are target areas, they 

are not the only jobs and industries that exist in those large 

swaths of the State. 

We have 33 local Workforce Investment Boards. It is an interesting geographic question whether there should be fewer or more. 

But ultimately the need for on-the-ground, local-level input matters 
217 

a lot. We have to know what the businesses in the areas of the 

State need. 

Mr. TONKO. So do these boards—as established, do they get to 

that issue? Are they the best outreach? 

Mr. MUSOLINO. Some do and some don’t, and that is one of the 

issues. 

We have—you are fortunate, you have Gail Breen here who is 

really one of the best in the State. Other areas of the State aren’t 

often as sensitive to the needs of the business community. They 

don’t have the same level of active business participation. 

We have tried to incentivize the Workforce Investment Boards 

from the State by doing regional grants that require Workforce Investment Boards to apply as a partner with their neighboring 

Workforce Investment Boards; and we think you get more strength 

from doing that. So there is the local geographic area that is tricky 

to deal with. I think business participation is a big help with that. 

The other structural issue that I think is important is how we 

use Workforce Investment Act funds in the State government agencies, within the world where there is an awful lot of other public 

money in the system—and, in fact, Workforce Investment Act funds 

are dwarfed by educational funds that come into the State—but 

using this as a coordinating mechanism and as a lever to be able 

to keep our policies unified. 

We have been looking at different ways to deal with community 

colleges in the State. We agree that community colleges are a great 

delivery mechanism, and they are publicly funded and they have 

great penetration across the State. But things don’t always align 

so well, so I think you have to deal with those structural things in 

both ways. 

Mr. TONKO. Let me go across quickly—I don’t want to go beyond 

my 5 minutes, but I think it is a fundamental question. 

Ms. BREEN. I will try go quickly because I see the orange light 

on. 

From the perspective of our own level Workforce Investment 

Board, we have taken the business sector perspective very seriously on our board. And if you look at the people to sit on our 

board now, as opposed to the people who were on the board in 

2000, it is a different board. It reflects the industries, health care, 

manufacturing, distribution centers, service industries that are 

there now that might not have been there 8 years ago. So we have 

tried to repopulate the board, looking at what do people need locally. 

But beyond that, we have looked at our natural regional area. 

And when I say ‘‘natural,’’ it is very difficult to draw boundaries 

in New York State because they don’t work for everyone. When we 

look at Fulton, Montgomery and Schoharie, we are in the Mohawk 

Valley region, according to the State; but when you look at our 

commutation patterns and where people go to work and school 

every day, they go east, they do not go west. 

Schoharie County has 40 percent of the working population leaving the county every day, 70 percent go to the Capital Region. 

Montgomery and Fulton Counties are not far behind that. That is 

why we talk about natural partnerships between our regions. And 

that is why I think that working with Fulton, Montgomery and 
218 

Schoharie, Saratoga-Washington-Warren, the Capital Region and 

Columbia-Greene, we have wonderful relationships with community colleges, with industries. That is a natural fit for us, and I 

would like to see that continue. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Before I call on my colleague from Colorado, Congressman Polis, 

I want to take advantage of something you said, Gail. 

Is it possible for workforce boards like yours to help us increase 

the percentage of the Federal dollars that go towards retraining 

folks who are jobless? The rule of thumb has been in our hearings 

that only 40 percent of every dollar goes towards retraining; so it 

seems to me that the administration and profits for the subcontractors is just too high. 

Is it possible to increase that 40 percent? And if so, quickly tell 

me how to do it. 

Ms. BREEN. First of all, we have to talk about 40 percent of 

what? 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Of a dollar. 

Ms. BREEN. Of whatever the dollar is? 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Federal money that we send down to you. 

Ms. BREEN. I think that we can meet that goal and exceed it, if 

we go back to—the original funding level was 2,000 or higher, but 

at the current funding level—you look at Fulton, Montgomery, and 

Schoharie, we get an allocation of a million dollars a year. In 2000, 

we got an allocation of 2 million a years. You can’t cut funding like 

that and expect people to be able to keep centers open that are critical for the workforce, particularly in rural areas. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Thank you. 

At this time, I would like to call on Congressman Polis from Colorado. 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to thank Chairman Hinojosa for helping to arrange 

this hearing today, and Representative Tonko for making sure that 

our colleagues on this subcommittee are aware of the best practices 

here in New York. 

One of the important things for us to take into account as we 

work to reauthorize WIA is regional diversity, and we can learn 

from programs that work in Colorado, New York, and other States 

and try to incorporate and scale best practices; and this is a particularly valued hearing for that. 

I would also like to thank the New York Department of Education, I served 6 years on the Colorado Department of Education 

and I am jealous of this venue. We would have loved to have had 

such a wonderful venue. I thank the New York Department of Education for opening up their building to us. 

My first question is to Ms. Breen. I would like you to elaborate 

on the manner in which you map the needs of the private sector 

to your workforce training programs and how you incorporate evaluating trends and making sure that your programs are geared towards the growth areas and areas that jobs will be needed in. 

Ms. BREEN. Excellent question. Not to give too much to other organizations and not enough to the actual board, but we rely very 

heavily on New York State Department of Labor, our regional analysts, to provide us with the initial information. But then we have 
219 

a business services team that works closely with us and our board 

members to look at what are the declining industries, where are 

the industries expanding? 

And then we look at the dislocated workers, the people who are 

being laid off and do some skills assessment on them, because what 

we are finding, at least in our area, the dislocated workers are generally an older population and they have fewer skills. They have 

worked in manufacturing where maybe a high school education is 

the best they have had. 

And in emerging industries and advanced manufacturing, you 

need those STEM skills, you need science, technology, engineering, 

and math to make it work. So how do we get those dislocated workers who are older to come back in and take an interest in getting 

the additional skills they need so that they will be successful in 

health care, so they will be successful in advanced manufacturing? 

Mr. POLIS. Just to follow that up, does your State Department 

of Labor give you regional job things? Is it broken out regionally, 

or is it just a State assessment? 

Ms. BREEN. Not only will it break it out regionally, but we have 

regional analysts that will work with us by county. So we can look 

at not just my three-county region, but we have an 11-county coalition that I talked about before. 

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Musolino, first of all, it sounds like you provide 

some excellent information to the regional centers. But my question 

is about the age restrictions, and I am wondering if you have any 

indication of interest of what level of interest there is in the 22- 

to-24-year-old demographic for the youth services? 

Mr. MUSOLINO. Well, certainly as we have begun to talk to providers around the State—I was in Harlem last week meeting with 

a number of community-based organizations—they see being able 

to deal with the older youth population as pretty critical to what 

they are doing. A lot of kids, young people, dropped out of school 

and maybe aren’t thinking about getting back in until later on. And 

so there is anecdotal evidence that they think this would be a valuable change. 

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Quick, the wind training facility that you mentioned, is that strictly a privately run facility or is that also a private-public venture? 

Mr. QUICK. It is a privately run facility, run by General Electric. 

Mr. POLIS. And you have public partnerships working with the 

community colleges? 

Mr. QUICK. Yes. 

As a matter of fact, in the example with Hudson Valley Community College with our machinist apprentice program, certainly one 

of those kind of private and public partnerships that have happened. 

You know, as we look and continue to expand in the wind industry, I would expect with the Workforce Investment Boards and the 

demand for green collar jobs that it is only going to increase, the 

partnership that is going to be needed in our wind facility with the 

local community colleges and educational institutions. 

Mr. POLIS. Do these public-private partnerships, like with the 

community college, help justify your corporation to have this wind 

training facility? 
220 

Mr. QUICK. I believe so. In order for us to meet certainly the demand of our customers who are requiring our wind turbines, we 

have to make certain that we have not only our own skilled employees, but the customers having to skill their own employees as 

well. 

Coming to General Electric in our facilities in concert with local 

communities here from an educational perspective, or community 

colleges around the country, I think is the way to go, quite frankly. 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. We have time for a second round of questions, and I would like to start that second round and continue 

with the line of thinking of Congressman Polis. My question is to 

Tom Quick. 

There is a lack of skilled labor, and you said that that was a 

major obstacle to the expansion of the wind industry. But—obviously it may be easier to work with college graduates, but what 

contributions should come from the high schools, the community 

colleges, and technical schools so that we can help those jobless individuals get a job? 

Mr. QUICK. Well, I believe it is a critical component, Congressman. I think that, you know, it is the folks with the 2-year associate degrees in a technical discipline that will be the wind turbine 

technicians that we will need going forward, not necessarily the 4- 

year degreed individual. 

I think that the Workforce Investment Act needs to consider 

where it spends its money. If it spends its money across all community colleges or technical colleges across the U.S., it may not getting it biggest bang for the dollars spent. I think current educational institutions that already have a technical degree program 

are probably best prepared at this point in time to augment that 

program with training that would be involved in the renewables industry. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. I want to say that we in Texas have some 

regions along the Gulf of Mexico that are ideal for setting up windmills. And I think that Kleberg County and Refugio County and 

those areas there are, as we speak, some of those windmills being 

put up. We have some technical colleges in Harlingen, South Texas 

Technical College, that would be ideal after listening to your answer. 

How would they be able to partner with you here in Albany so 

that they could get that 2-year associate degree program for this 

specific trait? 

Mr. QUICK. Thinking about that specific location, Congressman, 

I think the question would be, what would be one of our customers 

who would want to take that area of the country where the wind 

is blowing and like to create a wind farm? Once that potential customer is identified, obviously not only are they purchasing our 

wind turbines, but they have staff and skill their own wind technicians to be able to stay on these wind farms. There becomes the 

local labor connected with the local community colleges and where 

our wind training facility can help train those specific employees 

to return back to Texas to really have a career, quite frankly, in 

that wind farm. 
221 

Chairman HINOJOSA. I will put their president in contact with 

you and see if we can take advantage of that offer. 

My next question would be to the last presenter, and Nanine, 

you mentioned that local one-stop centers are ill-equipped to help 

jobless workers get through the overburdened application system. 

How can we get more cooperation from all of the workforce training 

partners to expedite services during this period of severe national 

unemployment problems where our Nation’s jobless rate is over 8 

percent? 

Ms. MEIKLEJOHN. Well, it is not an easy answer. 

Before WIA was established, the employment service and the unemployment insurance workforce sat in the same location and often 

were cross-trained so that they could do each other’s jobs; and 

when the economy changed, they could be shifted around to meet 

the existing need. 

Now, there are a couple of States that have actually started to 

make an effort to get their employment service staff, who are sitting in the local one-stop offices now, to help process unemployment claims again as workers come into those local offices. At the 

moment, most one-stop centers only have a telephone link to the 

UI call center, but both Connecticut and, now, Ohio are moving to 

shift some of their employment staff who are sitting there over to 

doing UI claims again. 

So they are trying to knit back together a connection that has 

frayed very badly over the last 8 years or so. 

I wanted, if I might, just to supplement what some of the other 

panelists have said about training and partnerships and sectoral 

initiatives. And I would like to call your attention to a program 

that our affiliate in Philadelphia, 1199 C, has had actually for 35 

years. 

It is a very strong partnership with hospital employers in the 

Philadelphia area. There are over 40 employers in that partnership, and it is a labor-management partnership which brings—they 

train—half of the people that they bring into the training program 

are from the local low-income communities and half are incumbent 

workers in the health care sector; and they have created career 

pathways so that they can move people who are unemployed and 

unskilled into jobs and move them up. 

They have trained about 1,300 workers in the last year. And they 

also partner with the Philadelphia school board and Youth Build 

and the Philadelphia Youth Network. It is a very expansive program which also receives WIA funding from the State. So it is a 

really good model for a sectoral partnership approach which involves strong participation by the local union. 

And I just want to also make the observation that WIA—one of 

the, I think, unfortunate effects of WIA was that the role of organized labor was sidelined pretty significantly by the law and the 

extent to which it exists in local programs now is very hit or miss. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. I like your recommendation, and after we 

close this session, I would like to talk to you a little bit more. Because we have a program in McAllen, Texas, that has been very 

successful in increasing the number of students that were underemployed and then trained in an associate degree program that is 
222 

allied health and nursing that has been very successful. But we 

need to increase it even more, so I would like it talk to you. 

With that, I yield to Congressman Paul Tonko. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Joe Sarubbi, you mentioned that there are some challenges in 

the administrative complexities in your testimony that relate to the 

alignment of training programs. Can you just elaborate on that, 

please? 

Mr. SARUBBI. Again, when you look at the great job that the Department of Labor is doing as far as pulling together statistics and 

what is happening with the Workforce Investment Board, sometimes there is a disconnect when it gets to the level of the training, 

you know, within, for example, at a community college, of kind of 

pulling that all together. 

I don’t believe we have enough business representation involved 

with this creating that consortium of companies with the Department of Labor, with Workforce Investment Boards and community 

colleges together to figure out the best way to get this training off 

the ground. 

When I see students come to Hudson Valley, it is a daunting 

task for most of them to be able to say, if I am a 40- or 50-yearold person who has been laid off, ‘‘I need to be retrained; how do 

we make this happen?’’ And they are brought to Hudson Valley or 

any community college; we are trying to give them the best services. What we need is a stronger connection between the Department of Labor and the Workforce Investment Boards and the colleges to make that happen, so that we can be more successful with 

these students. I am starting to see that kind of disconnect right 

now. 

Mr. TONKO. Is there something in the reauthorization of the act 

that you would recommend to this panel? Would there be a specific 

improvement that would be required? 

Mr. SARUBBI. I would like to see more employers invested in 

some type of consortium that involves the Workforce Investment 

Act that would allow employers to help us—working with the Department of Labor and Workforce Investment Boards, help us understand their employment needs and how they could also participate in this particular process, whether it is on-the-job training or 

supporting students who are coming out of high school who need 

to get to that next level, displaced workers, and/or the returning 

veterans. 

If it is incentivized in a way that employers are willing to take 

on these types of candidates in a way that would allow them to 

grow within the job, I think we would have a strong chance for 

them to succeed within the program while they are gaining their 

training. So I see a stronger connection bringing some of the employers into this act to make it happen more successfully. 

Mr. TONKO. And, Tom, when you talk about the 500,000 projected jobs by the Department of Energy—— 

Mr. QUICK. Right. 

Mr. TONKO [continuing]. In the wind industry? 

Mr. QUICK. Correct. 

Mr. TONKO. I am going to make an assumption here that if an 

underskilled, displaced worker or a student who comes to you 
223 

wants this training, might have an interest in an across-the-board 

renewable opportunity, are we at risk of maybe siloing what we 

train someone for? 

Is there a way, once you capture that individual, to provide PV 

training, the geothermal and wind? Is there an across-the-board introduction, or do we channel that into the site operators or wind 

technicians? 

Mr. QUICK. That is a good question. I think that there is certainly a unique skill set for each part of the renewable industry. 

It would be nice if one brush touches everyone who had an interest 

in a career in the renewable industry. 

I think there is a need to go deep inside of these technical skill 

sets. Someone, for example, who goes deep with the skills to be a 

wind technician may not be necessarily trained to immediately go 

in and set up a solar farm. That is a different type of a skill set. 

I think we have got to work in concert with private employers, 

with the Federal Government, and the educational institutes to 

watch as we move forward with the Department of Energy goal of 

2030 to have 20 percent of electricity be wind power, to determine 

where best do we need to train the workers of tomorrow. 

Mr. TONKO. Does the training focus come through your training 

program that you described, or do you reach to a program like 

Gail’s that might have that traditional regional aspect going, or to 

Nanine, where she might be able to provide for, like, what use is 

there of apprenticeship programs for the labor community? 

Mr. QUICK. I think you can really touch, quite frankly, all three. 

We can sort of hire students who have gone through the community college or technical colleges immediately to be placed, for example, around the U.S. on wind farms. 

But I think we can take that student, bring them then to our 

wind training facility and train them specifically on General Electric wind turbines so that they are in the best position, quite frankly, to service our own manufactured wind turbines across the U.S. 

Mr. TONKO. Does anyone else on the panel have a response to 

that? Anything you would add? 

Mr. MUSOLINO. I have a quick point I would make. 

At the department we are actually trying to deconstruct various 

jobs in the green area now to understand what the common skill 

sets might be. Because a lot of what we have to think about in WIA 

and all the training programs is really about career ladders. And 

you might bring a young person in or someone in with maybe not 

a high school education, maybe just a GED, to start thinking about 

things like weatherization, which is a fairly low level of skill. It requires some training, short training courses, 40 hours to be able to 

do the building envelope analysis. 

But we would like to see how you move people up to higher and 

higher skill levels, so they get more family-sustaining wages and 

a better career path for that. We are doing that work at the department now, and we are seeing that there are cross-skill sets that we 

will be able to deal with. 

Mr. TONKO. Do I still have time, Mr. Chairman? 

With the concern for resources, that a couple of you have made 

mention of, and the fact that the 2000 level is double what you are 
224 

working on right now, when you have that sort of economic fiscal 

pressure, what gives? 

Do you serve fewer people? Do you have less intense training? 

Just how do you absorb that sort of shortfall? 

Ms. BREEN. I will take that one from a local level. 

What we looked at, because obviously when you lose 50 percent 

of your funding, you are losing a tremendous amount of money. 

Being three rural counties and people not have having the computer skills that they might need to access our programs by computers, the first decision we made that was that we need to have 

a center in every county, and that was reinforced by chief elected 

officials that said, You can do anything you want, but don’t take 

my resource room away from me. 

After that, we looked at staffing. How much staffing could we 

lose and still provide quality services? And again that goes back to 

having an integrated service delivery system. If we had to rely on 

just WIA staff or just employment service staff or just VocRehab 

staff, we would never be able to continue to operate our programs, 

but by having integrated services delivery with functional supervision of those teams we have done very, very well. 

When you get down to the training aspect, you want to continue 

to train at least at many people as you did before, if not more. 

What that means then is, you have to train people for shorter periods of time for lower level jobs. Where for years we trained registered nurses, we have gone back to LPNs and certified nurse assistants. Even a certified nurse assistant still makes more money 

than an entry level wage than our actual average level wage across 

the three counties. 

Another thing we have started to do is going to the community 

colleges and look at student who are in their second year, who in 

trouble financially and might not be able to complete the radiology 

technology programs, the histotechnology, the RN, and bring them 

in and serve them too. We don’t serve less people; in fact, we serve 

more. But we serve them with newer resources, and it means that 

we have to serve at a different level. 

Mr. TONKO. And for a facility like yourself, if someone has an interest or finds that their makeup perhaps is such that they are 

suited for a green collar opportunity, would you then integrate 

them into a program like that at Hudson Valley? 

Ms. BREEN. Absolutely. And Fulton-Montgomery Community College is currently working with HVCC in conjunction with them. 

They might start out at FMCC. 

Absolutely, we are looking at green jobs not just for dislocated 

workers, but also for young people coming out of high school or our 

GED programs. And we have GED programs in each of our three 

counties and we have a pass rate of over 80 percent for our students. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

We are about to bring this to a closing, and I wanted to ask the 

gentleman from Colorado, Congressman Jared Polis, if he would 

like to have any closing remarks. 

Mr. POLIS. Yes, thank you. Closing remarks or questions for the 

panel, as well? 
225 

Chairman HINOJOSA. I will allow you to ask one or two questions, then a closing remark. 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

A question for Mr. Sarubbi: What efforts are being made by your 

institution to recruit and remain a diverse and typically underserved population, including women, in nontraditional fields and 

minorities? 

Mr. SARUBBI. That is a great question. We have reached out into 

the inner cities. We have traveled to—faculty have traveled even 

towards New York City, trying to attract inner city youth about the 

value of technology programs. 

Again, working with Youth Build programs, trying to get students who are disadvantaged or are struggling just to finish high 

school right now, we brought them to Hudson Valley Community 

College. We actually get them through special program that allows 

them to finish their GED and, while doing that, pick up real trade 

technical skills in a construction industry. And we have employers 

who are happy to pick them up. 

We are reaching out to the female population as well. We are 

starting to see an increase in the number of women in our program, so much so that we highlight them on our marketing materials to attract more women; and we move those publications towards places where you would see more women actually interact 

with those types of publications with the idea of attracting females 

in that regard. And it has been successful so far. 

Typically, most of the construction industries, as we know, has 

been nontraditional for females, but we are doing our best to try 

to publicize that as much as possible. 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you. 

Final question for Mr. Musolino: Your State requires the 33 WIB 

boards to apply for regional, sector-based partnership grants. My 

question is, are all of them participating and do you recommend 

this model for consideration on a national basis? 

Mr. MUSOLINO. All of them are not participating. Those are optional. That is additional funding that they can apply for. 

I believe we have nine that have received those grants, nine consortia across the State. Not all Workforce Investment Boards are 

involved in it. 

We do highly recommend it. It is a way to use incentive dollars 

to get people to think in regional terms and cooperate across our 

traditional Workforce Investment Board lots. 

Mr. Polis. I would like to thank Mr. Tonko, in particular, for 

helping to arrange this hearing, as well as highlighting some of the 

wonderful work that upstate New York is doing in this area that 

will help inform our own discussions as we work towards the reauthorization of WIA. And again I express my gratitude to Chairman 

Hinojosa for his efforts in leading the WIA reauthorization efforts 

and making sure that we learn from best practices across the country. 

In my district, as well, there are many green collar jobs. In addition to wind, we also have solar—a strong solar industry. In fact, 

some of the turbines that Mr. Quick’s lab teaches people to use 

were tested in my district at the wind farm of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, where they apply stress testing 
226 

to wind turbines to see how they will hold up over time, usually 

at the prototype stage before they are rolled out. 

Due to the excellent geophysical characteristics for solar power 

in Colorado, we have also had tremendous growth in that area, including both distributed solar installations on homes as well as primary and applied research and development, some of which is related to the Federal lab, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, others which now occur in the private sector. 

The testimony that you have given today will help all of us on 

our committee, both those of us who are here and those of who us 

can read the written testimony back in Washington, to better formulate a national WIA Act that will truly take into account our regional differences, as well as best practices nationally, including 

some of the wonderful accomplishments you have had here in upstate New York. 

Thank you. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Now I would like to ask our host, Congressman Tonko, if you would like to make any closing remarks. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Chair. 

Certainly, I thank all of you for the focus that you provide with 

the essential work that is done in training the workforce of the future. 

But an added thank you, and probably the most sincere I can 

offer, is for the hope that you provide to individual workers and 

their families. The despair of not having work opportunity and the 

opportunity that you provide for individuals to know that they have 

these capabilities and can develop even more is a great bit of hope 

that you can instill, and I thank you for that. 

What I take from this is the need to continue to provide, somehow with the reauthorization, enhanced flexibility so that you can 

have that opportunity to strike those regional strategies or partnerships that will best get the dollars to most effective use. 

And then the collaboration—if you can advise us into the future, 

as we work on this mission, to best understand how we can strike 

that collaboration amongst the States, working with the Federal 

dollars, in our academic settings, our community colleges and others, the apprenticeship programs and the private sector needs and 

the private investments that are being made—if we can strike a 

strongest bit of collaboration there, with your guidance, it would be 

most useful. 

And then I heard the message clearly about resources, and 

whether we are dealing with the appropriators or the authorizers, 

it is the amount of money that you have to invest locally that is 

most telling. And to be able to address that in meaningful measure, 

as we did in a down payment in the stimulus package, certainly 

should be our goal. 

So I thank you for your advice and the sage wisdom you have 

imparted. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. As I come to my concluding remarks I want 

to say that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act signed in 

mid-February by our President Obama included over $4 billion in 

funding for WIA programs; and now that the stimulus plan has 

been approved with the $787 billion, it is our responsibility to bring 

all the stakeholders who can work together in different programs 
227 

and take advantage of this Federal investment to create jobs, goodpaying jobs. 

And so I want to say that, once again, I would like to thank the 

witnesses and the members of the subcommittee for a very informative session. As previously ordered, members will have 14 days to 

submit additional materials for the hearing record. Any member 

who wishes to submit follow-up questions in writing to these witnesses should coordinate with our majority staff within the requisite time. 

And without objection, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(229) 

NEW INNOVATIONS AND BEST PRACTICES 

UNDER THE WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT 

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Higher Education, 

Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness, 

Committee on Education and Labor 

Washington, DC 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:12 a.m., in room 

2175, Rayburn, Hon. Ruben Hinojosa [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Hinojosa, Bishop, Tonko, Titus, Andrews, Tierney, Wu, Davis, Fudge, Polis, Pierluisi, Guthrie, 

McKeon, Castle, Ehlers, Biggert, and Roe. 

Staff Present: Tylease Alli, Hearing Clerk; Alice Cain, Senior 

Education Policy Advisor (K-12); Fran-Victoria Cox, Staff Attorney; 

Adrienne Dunbar, Education Policy Advisor; David Hartzler, Systems Administrator; Jessica Kahanek, Press Assistant; Mike 

Kruger, Online Outreach Specialist; Ricardo Martinez, Policy Advisor, Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and 

Competitiveness; Alex Nock, Deputy Staff Director; Joe Novotny, 

Chief Clerk; Melissa Salmanowitz, Press Secretary; Margaret 

Young, Staff Assistant, Education; Stephanie Arras, Minority Legislative Assistant; Robert Borden, Minority General Counsel; Cameron Coursen, Minority Assistant Communications Director; Chad 

Miller, Minority Professional Staff; Susan Ross, Minority Director 

of Education and Human Services Policy; Linda Stevens, Minority 

Chief Clerk/Assistant to the General Counsel; and Sally Stroup, 

Minority Staff Director. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. A quorum is present. The hearing of the 

committee will come to order. 

Pursuant to the committee rules, any member may submit an 

opening statement in writing, which will be made part of the permanent record; And I will recognize myself, followed by the ranking 

member, Congressman Brett Guthrie, for an opening statement. 

Welcome to the Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness Subcommittee’s fourth congressional hearing in preparation for the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act, better known as WIA. As with our previous hearings, we are going to 

focus on new innovations and best practices that will improve the 

workforce development system. Today, we will turn our attention 
230 

to the adult education and family literacy programs that are authorized under Title II of the Act. 

We are facing the greatest world economic crisis since the Great 

Depression. We need to retool our economy, and that starts with 

investing in our people. The President made clear his commitment 

when he set the goal of returning the United States to number one 

in the world in producing college graduates. He also issued a challenge to every American to commit to at least 1 year of college or 

advanced training. 

Adult education programs provide us the bridge to achieving the 

President’s goals. Unfortunately, today, this bridge does not have 

the capacity to do the job. According to the national assessment of 

adult literacy, an estimated 93 million adults lack sufficient literacy skills to enroll in postsecondary education or training. 

Funding for adult education has actually declined. Today, the 

adult education State grant program is funded at $554 million, 

roughly $20 million less than the funding level for fiscal year 2004. 

These low levels of funding mean that we are only able to reach 

an estimated 2 to 4 percent of the population that needs adult education services. 

In 2008, 2.3 million adults participated in federally supported 

education programs. Of this total, roughly 1 million participated in 

English as a second language programs. Nearly another million enrolled in basic education programs for adults with reading and 

math levels below the 8th grade, and the rest were enrolled in secondary education programs that lead to a GED. 

The adult education programs have also played a critical role in 

helping adult immigrants learn English and learn about American 

society and American government. $68 million of the adult State 

grant formula is dedicated to integrated English as a second language and civics programs. 

There are long wait lists for all of the adult education services. 

Our challenge for the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment 

Act is to develop innovative models that will significantly expand 

our capacity to deliver adult education. We need to fully develop 

the talents of our entire population. We cannot afford to write off 

the other 93 million adults. Therefore, we need a targeted, we need 

a focused strategy to build a bridge to postsecondary education advanced training and a better quality of life for adults. 

This is where you panelists come in. We want to hear from you, 

your recommendations and how we can make this a reauthorization act that is going to take us the next 6 years and get over this 

economic crisis and put more people to work. 

Today’s panel brings together experts in the field of adult education, including the most important experts of all, adult learners 

who have been able to achieve their goals through adult education 

programs. I would like to thank you witnesses for joining us today. 

I am looking forward to your testimony. 

And now I yield to the ranking member, my friend Congressman 

Brett Guthrie of Kentucky, for his opening statement. 

[The statement of Mr. Hinojosa follows:] 
231 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Rube ́n Hinojosa, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness 

Good Morning. Welcome to the Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness Subcommittee’s fourth hearing in preparation for the reauthorization of 

the Workforce Investment Act. As with our previous hearings, we are going to focus 

on new innovations and best practices that will improve the workforce development 

system. Today, we will turn our attention to the adult education and family literacy 

programs that are authorized under Title II of the Act. 

We are facing the greatest world economic crisis since the Great Depression. We 

need to re-tool our economy and that starts with investing in our people. The President made clear his commitment when he set the goal of returning the United 

States to number one in the world in producing college graduates. He also issued 

a challenge to every American to commit to at least one year of college or advanced 

training. 

Adult education programs provide us the bridge to achieving the President’s goals. 

Unfortunately, today, this bridge does not have the capacity to do the job. According 

to the National Assessment of Adult Literacy, an estimated 93 million adults lack 

sufficient literacy skills to enroll in postsecondary education or training. 

Funding for adult education has actually declined. Today, the adult education 

state grant program is funded at $554 million, roughly $20 million less than funding 

level for fiscal year 2004. These low levels of funding mean that we are only able 

to reach an estimated 2 to 4 percent of the population that needs adult education 

services. 

In 2008, 2.3 million adults participated in federally supported adult education 

programs. Of this total, roughly 1 million participated in English as a second language programs; nearly another million enrolled in basic education programs for 

adults with reading and math levels below the eighth grade; and the rest were enrolled in secondary education programs that lead to a GED. The adult education 

programs have also played a critical role in helping adult immigrants learn English 

and learn about American society and government. $68 million of the adult state 

grant formula is dedicated to integrated English as a second language and civics 

programs. There are long wait lists for all of the adult education services. 

Our challenge for the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act is to develop innovative models that will significantly expand our capacity to deliver adult 

education. We need to fully develop the talents of our entire population. We cannot 

afford to write off 93 million adults. Therefore, we need a targeted and focused 

strategy to build a bridge to postsecondary education, advanced training and a better quality of life for adults. 

Today’s panel brings together experts in the field of adult education—including 

the most important experts of all—adult learners who have been able to achieve 

their goals through adult education programs. I would like to thank you witnesses 

for joining us today. I am looking forward to your testimony. 

I now yield to the Ranking Member, Mr. Brett Guthrie of Kentucky, for his opening statement. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing; 

and I welcome our distinguished witnesses, a great Kentucky company here with us today, founded right near my district. 

Our country continues to face tough economic challenges. We face 

complex and difficult problems as we work to restore economic 

growth. Investing in our workforce is important to ensure that 

workers are adequately prepared to meet the changing demands of 

our economy. With proper investment, our workforce can be 

strengthened and maintain its competitive advantage. 

When I first began in politics, I was running for the State legislature in Kentucky and in the State Senate, and people talked to 

me. What are you focused on? K-12? Secondary? Adult? I said, really, it is K-R, kindergarten through retirement. It became my 

mantra. 

And several witnesses here that fit the mold is that some people 

were not educated at the level they should have been when they 

were younger and need education to get back in the workforce. Be-
232 

cause it is difficult to work without it. My father went to work for 

Ford Motor Company, thought he would work there until he retired. They shut the plant down, and he had use his education to 

become a businessperson to find a job for himself. And there are 

people who are working within companies that see other opportunities and need to continue to move forward. 

Another thing I learned in Kentucky, we had a lot of people that 

were functionally illiterate and then illiterate completely and 

worked on those issues because you couldn’t even read a menu or 

a book to their grandchild. And we created programs to get them 

into the system for higher education. 

So it is an important thing that we are doing here, and our economy depends on it. For us to have opportunities for people absolutely depends on what we are doing on this committee, and what 

you are sharing with us is going to help us do a better job because 

of your life stories. We have some great life stories. I am familiar 

with one, just being a fan; and I know what your companies are 

doing with others. 

Today, there are 5,000 federally sponsored adult education centers across the country; and these centers are located in schools, 

community centers, libraries, public housing, community colleges, 

and volunteer organizations. In Kentucky, Dollar General is one 

that we are working with in some counties, because we realized 

people weren’t going to school because they had bad experience in 

a school. So let us go find them where they are. And Dollar General 

has been a great, great partner with us in moving forward with 

that. 

And as we work to improve the Adult Education Family Literacy 

Act of this Workforce Investment Act, we must remain focused on 

improving the quality of instruction, promoting the use of technologies, encouraging the business community to invest. I look forward to today’s testimony and learning more of the best practices 

and innovative ideas around the country as we work to improve the 

Workforce Investment Act. 

Again, thank you all for coming to Washington today. It is going 

to be great and informative, and I appreciate the chairman calling 

this meeting, and I yield back. 

[The statement of Mr. Guthrie follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Brett Guthrie, Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competiveness 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing and I welcome our distinguished witnesses. 

Our country continues to face tough economic challenges. We face complex and 

difficult problems as we work to restore economic growth. Investing in our workforce 

is important to ensure that workers are adequately prepared to meet the changing 

demands of our economy. With the proper investment, our workforce can be 

strengthened and maintain its competitive advantage. 

Education, including adult education and family literacy programs, will be a critical component of ensuring that individuals have the basic skills needed to move up 

the economic ladder to better paying jobs or a higher education. 

Today, there are some 5,000 federally-sponsored adult education centers across 

the country. These centers are located in schools, community centers, libraries, public housing, community colleges, and volunteer organizations, both public and private, for-profit and non-profit. 

As we work to improve the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act of the Workforce Investment Act, we must remain focused on improving the quality of instruc-
233 

tion, promoting the use of new technologies, and encouraging the business community to co-invest in the skills of the local workforce. 

I look forward to today’s testimony and learning more of the best practices and 

innovative ideas from around the country as we work to improve this aspect of the 

Workforce Investment Act. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Thank you. 

Without objection, all members will have 14 days to submit additional materials or additional questions for the hearing record. 

Before we start, I want to talk a little bit about the lighting system that we use for our congressional hearing. For those of you 

who have not testified before this subcommittee, please let me explain that lighting system and the 5-minute rule. Everyone, including Members of Congress, are limited to 5 minutes of presentation 

or questioning. 

The green light is illuminated when you begin to speak. When 

you see the yellow light, it means you have 1 minute remaining. 

When you see the red light, it means your time has expired and 

you need to conclude your testimony. 

Please be certain as you testify to turn on and speak into the 

microphone in front of you. 

We will now hear from our first witness, and I wish to recognize 

Representative Phil Roe of Tennessee to make our first introduction. Congressman. 

Mr. ROE. I thank the chairman for yielding. 

I would like to take this time to introduce a fellow Tennessean 

to the committee, Ms. Gretchen Wilson. Ms. Wilson is a multi-platinum recording country music singer and songwriter. Her work has 

won numerous awards, including Female Vocalist of the Year from 

both the Country Music Association and the Academy of Country 

Music and the Grammy Award for the best female country vocal 

performance. Right before this briefing, members of the Tennessee 

delegation heard firsthand about Ms. Wilson’s passion for promoting and improving adult education. 

Until last year, like so many Americans, she hadn’t completed 

her high school education. As she told us, it was important for her 

to earn her diploma, not only for herself but to show her 8-yearold daughter the importance of education. At the age of 34, she received her GED on May 15, 2008, through the Adult Learning Center of Wilson County in Lebanon, Tennessee. We are not sure they 

didn’t name the county after her, too. 

This perseverance helped make her a role model, and I am 

pleased she chose to come to Washington to share her experiences 

and insight to create a stronger adult education system. She is very 

busy. She didn’t have time to—did take the time, due to a very 

busy and hectic schedule, to do this; and we appreciate you spending your valuable time and passion with us today. You are making 

a difference. Welcome to this committee. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Thank you very much for your introduction. 

The next person I wish to introduce is Mr. Marty Finsterbusch. 

Marty was appointed VALUE’s first Executive Director in 2001. 

VALUE is the only national nonprofit adult literacy organization in 
234 

the United States governed and operated by current and former literacy students. 

Since 2000, Marty has served on Pennsylvania’s Adult Basic and 

Literacy Education Interagency Coordinating Council, having been 

appointed by three different governors. During his National Institute for Literacy Fellowship in 2000, Marty studied adult learner 

involvement in all 50 States. He has also served on the governing 

boards of several national and State organizations, including 

SCALE, including Laubach Literacy Action, which became 

ProLiteracy, and has also served on Pennsylvania’s State Coalition 

for Literacy. Welcome. 

The next person will be Mr. David Bere ́, who is President and 

Chief Strategy Officer of Dollar General. David joined the company 

in December, 2006, after serving as a Director since 2002. Bere ́

served from December of 2003 until June 2005 as the Corporate 

Vice President of Ralcorp Holdings, Incorporated and as the President and CEO of Bakery Chef, Incorporated. From 1996 to 1998, 

Bere ́ served as President and CEO of McCain Foods, U.S.A., a 

manufacturer and marketer of frozen foods and a subsidiary of 

McCain Foods Limited. He spent 17 years at the Quaker Oats 

Company, where he served as the President of the Breakfast Division and the Golden Grain Division. In 1983, he was appointed 

White House Fellow by President Ronald Reagan. Bere ́ earned both 

his bachelor degree and his master’s of business administration degree from Indiana University, and we welcome you. 

Ms. Kathy Cooper serves as Policy Associate for the Adult Basic 

Education Office, Washington State Board for Community and 

Technical Colleges, with an emphasis on external relationships and 

new initiatives. She provides primary support to the State’s governor-appointed Advisory Council and has served as a member of 

the subcabinet team that implemented welfare reform. She acts as 

one of the leaders in developing the integrated basic skills and professional technical instructional model known as I-BEST. 

Kathy started her career in education as a middle school reading 

specialist in the State of Idaho. During her tenure, she became department head at her school and eventually the coordinator of secondary reading services for that district. 

Mr. Stephen Reder is a university professor and chairman of the 

Department of Applied Linguistics at Portland State University. 

Dr. Reder’s interests focus on adult education and literacy and language development during adulthood. He was the principal investigator of two recently completed major projects in adult education, 

the National Lab Site for Adult ESOL and the Longitudinal Study 

of Adult Learning, which followed a random sample of about 1,000 

high school dropouts for nearly 10 years, focusing on the way 

youths and adults failed or succeed in reconnecting with learning, 

education, and work. A new project directed by Dr. Reder is applying the findings of this study to design an innovative learning support system called the Learner Web. 

Professor Reder is the author of numerous publications about 

adult literacy, including the forthcoming book, Dropping Out and 

Moving on: Life, Literacy and Development Among School Dropouts, which will be published by Harvard University Press. 
235 

Also with us is Ms. Donna Kinerney. She is the Instructional 

Dean for Adult ESOL and Literacy Programs, the workforce development and continuing education unit for Montgomery College. As 

Instructional Dean, Dr. Kinerney provides administrative and instructional leadership for grant-funded adult educational programs, 

including the Adult ESOL and Literacy GED Program and Refugee 

Training Program, which serve approximately 12,000 learners in 

need of English language or literacy skills development per year. 

Dr. Kinerney serves on the board of the Maryland Association for 

Adult Community and Continuing Education and was the chairwoman of the adult education interest section for Teachers of 

English to Speakers of Other Languages. 

Also with us is Roberta Lanterman. Ms. Lanterman has been 

working in the field of family literacy for over 15 years and currently serves as Director of the Long Beach Family Literacy Program in the Long Beach Unified School District. She also serves as 

the Southern California training coordinator for the McDonald’s 

Family Mealtime Literacy Nights. 

Ms. Lanterman has a bachelor’s degree from the University of 

California at Santa Barbara, a California multiple subject teaching 

credential, and she is a certified trainer for the National Center for 

Family Literacy. 

I welcome each and every one of you, and I look forward to your 

testimony. 

At this time, we are ready to start with Ms. Wilson. 

STATEMENT OF GRETCHEN WILSON, GRAMMY WINNING 

RECORDING ARTIST AND GED GRADUATE 

Ms. WILSON. My name is Gretchen Wilson. I came here today to 

share my story of what adult education has meant to me and to 

my family. 

I, like many other young children, Americans, lived in a household that was sort of volatile, wasn’t the kind of place where I really wanted to be or that my mother wanted me to be, either. And 

at a young age, 14, my mother helped me to sign out of school, and 

I moved out on to my own and started to support myself. And I 

think what happens with a lot of young people is that life just 

starts, and it takes over, and education gets put on a back burner. 

You have to start worrying about more adult things, like paying 

your bills and where your next meal is going to come from. So I 

think that happens to a lot of young people, as it did with me. 

Life kind of got away from me, and I found myself in my 20s 

uneducated and still not sure if this incredible dream that I was 

chasing was ever going to come true. I was one of the lucky ones, 

and the impossible did happen for me. I am incredibly lucky, living 

a life that most people can only dream of. 

I am a single mother of a beautiful child, and I also have a musical career. But I found myself in my early 30s still missing something, still feeling like there was a piece of me that I had not completed. The first time I thought about going back and getting my 

GED was almost immediately. And I feel like that a lot of people 

feel that they would like to go back and do something more, but 

it is not there for them. It is not easy to find. It is not financially 

feasible. 
236 

1 NAAL State and County Estimates: http://nces.ed.gov/naal/estimates/StateEstimates.aspx 2 National Assessment of Adult Literacy: http://nces.ed.gov/naal/ 3 U.S. Census: http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?—lang=en 4 Alliance for Excellent Education: http://www.all4ed.org/files/NCLB—HighSchools.pdf 

In fact, if this dream hadn’t happened for me, I don’t think I 

would have been able to go back and afford to finish my education. 

This was something that I didn’t have to do, but I did for myself, 

for my daughter, for my family. I feel that I am a better mother, 

a better person, a better human and a better American because of 

this education. And I hope and I am here to help other people’s 

dreams come true, and hopefully we can make other people feel as 

complete as I do. 

Thank you. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Thank you. 

[The statement of Ms. Wilson follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Gretchen Wilson, Grammy Winning Recording 

Artist, GED Graduate 

Hi. My name is Gretchen Wilson, and I’m here to tell you about how important 

the adult education program has been to me. 

I was one of many teenagers who was forced to leave home and school at a very 

young age. And for most people, education takes a back seat to work and financial 

commitment almost immediately. I know this because I was one of those people. I 

struggled financially until I was almost thirty years old, and the impossible dream 

came true. I became a mommy * * * and a major recording artist for Sony Records. 

After having been blessed with a life that most people only dream of, there was still 

something missing, a piece of me that was incomplete. I chose to continue my education not only for myself, but also for my daughter, Grace. She’s in second grade 

now, and she’s getting ready to start doing long division. 

I realized that, as she got older, I would have to address important issues with 

her, including the educational needs that had not been met in my own life. I knew 

that she would be curious about things that I valued, such as an education, and 

that she would ask me probing questions like, if school is that important, then why 

didn’t you graduate? I also knew that she would need to ask me to help her with 

much more difficult math problems than long division, and I wanted to be ready 

to meet the challenge. I wanted to set a good example for her. I was determined 

to complete my high school education by finding a local adult education program 

and earning a GED, and I am proud to stand before you today and say that I did. 

I’m not only blessed, but also relieved that I’ll be able to help her with her homework next year. 

Going back to school was an eye-opener for me in many ways. After talking with 

others who had gone back to school, I realized that I was only one person out of 

many people in need of a GED credential. Not only was I among nearly 6,500 1

adults in Wilson County that lack basic education skills, but also among 577,000 

adults in Tennessee and 93 million adults in America with basic skills deficiencies.2

Additionally, one in five adults have not completed high school,3 and nearly 7,000 

high school students drop out every school day.4

Why do young people leave school in your Congressional districts? For many reasons, and the reasons may surprise you. Perhaps a family member was sick, or they 

had to quit school to work for their family’s survival. Some had to travel with their 

parents who were in the military or who were otherwise mobile because of job requirements. Their education, as a result, was fractured. Credits that counted in one 

school system would not count in another. They realized they did not have enough 

credits to graduate, and they felt they had no alternative but to quit. These are only 

a few examples out of the many diverse reasons why young people leave. 

In talking to people, my heart began to ache. There are so many people struggling 

to make ends meet and they cannot because they do not have high school diplomas. 

Their parenting skills are lacking. Many do not have the basic education skills 

themselves nor do they understand that they need to nurture and encourage their 

children to become well educated. They do not have the social skills needed to navigate the workplace, they feel inferior to their cohorts, and they often just give up. 

People need the tools to succeed in America, and, at the very minimum, a major 

tool on the road to success is a high school diploma or GED. All Americans deserve 
237 

5 Institute of Medicine of the National Academies: http://www.iom.edu/?id=19723&redirect=0 6 National Assessment of Adult Literacy: http://nces.ed.gov/naal/ 7 National Council of State Directors of Adult Education. 2007-2008 Adult Student Waiting 

List Survey: www.ncsdae.org 

a basic education so that they can take advantage of opportunities otherwise not 

open to them. 

Adult education and literacy is a silent epidemic that has been growing for years. 

It isn’t easily recognized like poor health or hunger, although it can alleviate both. 

For example, nearly half of all American adults-90 million people-have difficulty understanding and using health information.5 In order to get good health care and to 

raise healthy families, adults need to be able to understand the health information 

available to them. That understanding increases as adult literacy increases.6

Educated parents help children succeed and break the cycle of educational deficiencies in families. Adult education and literacy issues are invisible to America because most people who suffer are ashamed of it, try to hide it, and will not speak 

out. Adult education and literacy is not a priority for our country, but if you have 

had your eyes opened like I have, then you see that it should be. 

The sad truth is, if my dream hadn’t come true, I probably wouldn’t have been 

able to afford to take off work in order to get my GED. A lot of Americans out there 

who really want and need to continue their education can’t afford it, either. 

Those who do go back to school, in between work and family responsibilities, may 

be put on waiting lists. In a recent survey,7 80,000 adults (in 41 of 46 states reporting) confirmed students on waiting lists in their state, not counting waiting lists 

with community-based organizations that do not receive federal funds. There is no 

excuse to wait list people. What would parents say if they were told their child had 

to wait three months, six months, a year or more to enroll their child in school? 

Americans would be in an uproar! Parents would not tolerate it. Why do we tolerate 

it for adults? 

Adults are wait listed for adult education and literacy programs because these 

programs are severely underfunded. We invest heavily in K-12, Head Start, and 

Early Head Start but the amount spent on adult education and literacy is significantly less. Invest more in educating the parent, and you’ll educate the child and 

break the cycle of illiteracy for generations to come. The reality is, you wait list people, turn them away, and they’re probably not coming back. You’ve just added more 

undereducated adults to the statistics. The cycle continues. 

Talking to adult educators, every year they are under a cloud of threats for closure or diminished funds. I can only imagine how difficult it would be to work under 

that type of stress. These highly educated and very dedicated men and women already work on a dime and get more bang for their buck with the dollars spent on 

their programs than on most federally-funded education programs. I challenge you 

to show me another program out there anywhere in America that does so much for 

its people with so little. 

Less than an hour ago, I delivered thousands of letters from Tennesseans to Tennessee Congressmen requesting additional funding for adult education. Many of 

those who wrote are students, sharing their educational goals and aspirations. Here 

are just a few examples of why adult education is important to them (refers to stack 

of letters, reads a sentence or two from them): • I lost my job after nine years because my plant moved to Mexico, and I need 

to get my GED. • I’m the son of military parents who were constantly on the move which kept 

me from receiving many credits, and I’d like to complete my high school education. 

• I’m a single dad with two young boys. I come from a bad side of the city where 

drugs and gangs run the streets. I want to turn my life around through adult education. 

• I went from a person who could not read or write to an operation’s manager 

for a major company thanks to this program. 

• I came to America to get my education; I would like to open a business here 

and help my community. 

• I had a traumatic head injury and lost my ability to read and write. 

These are just a few examples of hundreds of thousands of stories told to Congress yearly about adult education and literacy. Why does Congress seem to pay so 

little attention to this issue, when year after year it is raised? 

Last, I have been amazed at the numbers of lives I have personally touched as 

a result of achieving my own GED. You have no idea how many people approach 

me at my concerts to say that I have inspired them to continue their own education. 

That knowledge inspires me, invigorates me, and compels me to ask you to join me 

in championing adult education and literacy. Begin now by urgently funding serv-
238 

ices to help adults increase their skills and reduce waiting lists. Shape legislation 

that truly meets the need. Raise this issue on every front. Advocate for it in every 

hall. Be the pioneer that brings this silent epidemic to light. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. I now call Mr. Finsterbusch. 

STATEMENT OF MARTIN FINSTERBUSCH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, VALUE, INC. (VOICE OF ADULT LEARNERS UNITED TO 

EDUCATE) 

Mr. FINSTERBUSCH. Thank you, chairman and committee members, for allowing me to speak today. 

My name is Marty Finsterbusch. And, yes, I am a director of a 

national organization, but I am an adult learner. I went into a literacy program in 1984 as a student. I was in special ed and came 

out with only a 4th grade reading level. How do you survive with 

that? 

I found the literacy program. It got me up to a level, and I finally 

got into community college, but it took 10 years to get through 

community college with all the things that were going on. 

But what I really want to talk about and share with you is that 

it is not just me. A lot of adult learners across the country are coming into programs, getting some help, and they are giving back, and 

they are getting involved. And we, the students, have gotten together; and we have come up with recommendations that we believe that will help us, our families, our communities, and strengthen the United States. Here are some of these recommendations 

that I would like to share with you: 

One is technology, investment in technology for adult education. 

For a lot of us, we do have learning disabilities. I cannot spell. Regardless of how long you sit me in a class, I cannot spell. I can 

comprehend. I can do a lot of stuff. I can plan a lot of things. But 

I can’t spell. With the new technologies out there for the blind and 

deaf, my workload would double. I could do—if these technologies 

were introduced into adult education for a lot of people. 

Also, another issue that would help a lot of us is case management for adult education. As I was going through the system and 

wanted to move from ABE literacy programs into community college, there is no direct path for us. How do we maneuver this system? This system has a lot of silos in it. How do we, if we don’t 

know, if we want to go to college, who is telling us about Pell 

grants? We don’t have counselors like in high school saying these 

are what you are going to face; these are the requirements you 

need. So we are left trying to figure out the system. 

And what would help the whole entire system is case management and introducing that to adult education. That would help us 

navigate and help us more be successful in getting through this. 

The other issue that we came up with is soft skills. Reading and 

writing and math is critical for our society, but also critical in our 

society’s survival is critical thinking, organizing skills, diversity 

training. What we are hearing—and this is what business is saying 

they need about people, but this is what we are saying. And we are 

asking adult education to look at what labor classifies as soft skills 

and allow that into adult basic education. 
239 

We need these other skills besides. We can’t wait until we finally 

have 3 or 4 years in reading and writing if we have don’t learning 

disabilities or other issues before we can be able to access these 

other—before somebody teaches these other skills. We need them 

before we hit higher education or job training. 

And so these are just some of the recommendations that we really believe that—let me just—I am getting nervous. I apologize. 

Slow down. All right. 

In summing up this, that adult education has helped millions, 

and it helped me personally, and I cannot thank them enough. But 

if we are going to help multimillions of Americans who need help 

right now, we need to do a couple of things; and that is, one, invest 

in adult basic education. We need to upgrade it. And that is bringing in the technology and all the other stuff that is out there into 

adult education. 

And then the third is connect adult education to what is going 

on in our society now, what is all the things that we are facing. 

Higher education needs to be realistic. It is not here is a book and 

here is a thing and it has no relationship to our life. Project learning. We can get information as we are doing something for ourselves, our family, and our community. 

These are the recommendations that we are asking you to consider; and in closing of this, we would like to thank you for your 

support for our recommendations. We really do believe, if we work 

together, we can make the American dream for millions of men and 

women in this country. 

Again, we would like to thank you for giving us this opportunity 

to say this to you. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Finsterbusch follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Martin C. Finsterbusch, Executive Director of 

VALUE, Inc. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee for this opportunity to 

speak to you about the need for innovation to improve our nation’s adult education 

and literacy system. 

My name is Marty Finsterbusch. I am the Executive Director of VALUE, Voice 

of Adult Learners United to Educate. VALUE is the only national nonprofit organization in the U.S. governed and operated by current and former adult literacy students. VALUE’s mission is to improve our nation’s education system and empower 

adults with low literacy skills to realize their human potential. VALUE asserts that 

almost all successful for-profit companies systematically use consumer input and 

feedback to improve their products and services. VALUE helps adult learner leaders, literacy professionals, and policy-makers do this too. In addition to policy advocacy, we help state-level agencies and organizations develop the capacity to train 

and support adult learner leaders. We also conduct biennial national adult learner 

leadership institutes and operate a national resource center on adult learner involvement and leadership. 

Ninety million adults in our nation have low literacy skills according to the 2004 

National Assessment of Adult Literacy. The current adult basic education system 

is serving fewer than 3 million of them. That means, 87 million aren’t being served 

at all. The vast majority of them don’t want to seek help from a system that looks 

like the schools that failed them in the past—a system that by its design continues 

to reinforce the stigma of adult low-literacy. Many who do seek help drop out because they can’t achieve their own real goals in a timely manner within a system 

that uses outdated methods. I come to you today to plead for extensive changes to 

the current adult basic education system authorized under Title II of the Workforce 

Investment Act (WIA). If ever there was a system that cried out for reform and innovation, the current approach to adult literacy in this country is one such system. 
240 

But before I make specific recommendations on reform, let me give you a bit more 

background on who we low-literate adults are and the very real threats we face 

daily. First, I need you to put out of your mind the unfortunate stereotypical image 

of the person with low-literacy as being homeless and of low intelligence. For many, 

adult literacy issues can be traced to undiagnosed learning disabilities, failing 

schools, and family issues—all having more to do with class, race, gender, and cultural bias than intelligence. As one of our members stated: 

‘‘We are your family-members; we are your neighbors; we are your co-workers. We 

are small-business owners; we are first-responders. We are among the working poor 

and some of us are even millionaires. Few around us ever know our truth. Because 

of shame and stigma, we keep it hidden.’’ 

And let me add, we are among the millions of people who worked for decades in 

the industries of America that no longer exist or whose jobs are being relocated to 

other countries. 

When adults with low literacy skills publicly admit this deficiency, some lose their 

jobs—jobs for which they received good performance appraisals up until their secret 

was revealed; they lose the chance at promotion; some lose the respect of their family, friends, and co-workers. As another member stated: 

‘‘When we loose jobs, we are unable to transfer to new jobs and new industries, 

not for lack of desire, but lack of literacy skills. We are people who can’t get into 

job training programs or off of welfare, not for lack of desire, but because of a lack 

of literacy skills. We are also people who want to learn English as the language of 

our new country, but we can’t because of the learning skills we failed to get in our 

nations of origin.’’ 

Far too few adults with low literacy skills are going to seek help when faced with 

these very real threats. Especially, they will not seek help from the current system. 

My personal experience provides an example of what some low-literate adults experience in our nation’s educational system. As a small child, I suffered from a serious ear infection that caused me to miss-hear certain sounds. In the course of testing, my family discovered that I have a learning disability. I started out going to 

public school, but had to stay after school almost every day. I wasn’t learning to 

read, but my teachers would have promoted me anyway because I was a good kid 

who tried hard. Instead, my parents sent me to a semi-private special education 

school where there were no grade levels and few challenges. The kids in my neighborhood asked, ‘‘Why do you go to that retard school?’’ I graduated in 1982 with a 

4th grade reading level and a poor self-image. 

After working for two years, I decided I wanted to go to college. I knew I needed 

to improve my reading so I went back to my former school. They said they couldn’t 

help me because I already had my high school diploma. They referred me to a community-based volunteer program. There, I improved my reading 6 grade-levels in 14 

months. I began taking courses at the community college. Despite getting A’s and 

B’s in all of my other courses, I kept failing English composition. Documentation of 

my learning disability didn’t excuse my inability to spell. I was told I could never 

graduate until I passed my English courses. With this obstacle on top of job and 

family responsibilities, it took me 10 years to earn my Associates Degree. 

During that time period, I dedicated the rest of my life to adult literacy. I started 

by organizing a student support group in the program that had helped me so much. 

I became a part-time staff member there before moving to serve on its Board of Directors. Beginning in 1986, I organized a state student network; conducted workshops and conferences at state and national levels; and served on the boards of several national literacy organizations. I have been appointed to the Pennsylvania 

State Interagency Coordinating Council under three different Governors. In 1999, 

I was a National Institute for Literacy Fellow, after which I became the Executive 

Director of VALUE, the national adult leaner organization I helped create. 

I talk with adult learners from around the country continually. They share with 

me their insights, their frustrations, and promising practices. I continually talk with 

my colleagues from state and national literacy organizations too. I feel I am able 

to share with you a good sense of what works and what doesn’t work in our system—from the consumer perspective. 

VALUE believes it is unacceptable for the current adult basic education system 

to serve less than 3 million adults each year using 19th Century methods, requiring 

3-5 years on average for an adult to achieve ‘‘functional literacy.’’ It is no wonder 

that perhaps as many as 20% of learners drop out of adult literacy programs before 

completing ten hours of instruction and less than 3% reach their primary goal of 

earning their GED in 3-5 years. The system is simply not designed to meet the selfidentified and evolving needs of today’s learners and employers in a realistic timeframe—needs that should redefine adult basic education. 
241 

VALUE’s Social Change Initiative calls for a consumer-driven redesign of the current adult basic education system in this country. It must be redesigned to help 

many times more learners achieve their personal goals faster using 21st Century 

approaches. Funding must be dramatically increased to pay for this system modernization and expansion. And finally, adult literacy policy must not be dealt with 

in isolation; it must be integrated with other federal policies and programs. 

The Model T car, silent movies, and vaudeville have long been outdated, yet the 

approach to adult literacy we use in this country today is still based on assumptions 

and practices created before the first Model T rolled off the assembly line, and long 

before the advent of silent movies. We need to modernize this system. Many of the 

recommendations that follow are based on the promising practices of exceptional 

providers in the adult education and vocational rehabilitation fields that VALUE asserts should be implemented throughout a modern, innovative system. 

First, adult learners should be taught to use modern technology for reading and 

writing. 

The adult basic education system must take advantage of tremendous advances 

in technology. The current system uses the computer mostly as a tool for drill and 

practice and largely ignores its potential to speed up the process of meeting learner 

goals. Technology that reads, writes, and translates exists today for the blind, the 

deaf, diplomats and international business people. With widespread access to knowledge through technology, adult learners can more rapidly gain the skills and knowledge needed to be productive members of the global workforce. 

UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization 

defines literacy as: 

‘‘the ability to identify, understand, interpret, create, communicate, compute and use printed and written materials associated with varying contexts. Literacy involves a continuum of learning to enable an individual to 

achieve his or her goals, to develop his or her knowledge and potential, and 

to participate fully in the wider society.’’ 

The focus of the current system in the U.S. is on reading and writing. The focus 

should be on accessing and processing information independently, as stated in the 

UNESCO definition of literacy. The Act should require the use of technology, such 

as what is currently used in the blind and low-vision community to enable adult 

learners to access and process information independently much sooner than they are 

able to in the current system. 

Using modern technology to help them read and write, adult learners could turn 

their attention to employment and training information much sooner than if they 

had to first master reading and writing. It can take three to five years for an adult 

learner to reach the point of being able to access information by first learning to 

read. Using technology, an adult leaner can learn to access information in three to 

five months. 

VALUE is not asserting that learning to read and write is no longer important. 

We’re simply saying that it doesn’t have to hold back adult learners from employment-related information and training when modern technology provides access. Essentially, what we’re suggesting is replacing the current adult education and literacy approach with one that looks much more like the vocational rehabilitation 

model. This would shorten the time required for WIA Title II activities and make 

it fit better with the Title I timeframe. 

Those of us in the field promoting this new approach have coined the term ‘‘virtual literacy’’ to describe it. Virtual literacy merely is attempting to allow for the 

literacy assistive technologies currently being used successfully in the disability 

community be used throughout the adult literacy and job training communities. Because of the major technological breakthroughs, the ability to make almost anyone 

‘‘virtually literate’’ is currently available, affordable, and gaining wide acceptability 

in the general public. In fact, Congress recently added a free software download to 

their website to enable anyone with limited literacy capacity to be able to be 

‘‘read’’—through hearing—all Congressional materials. 

Text-to-speech and speech-to-text dictation software is widely available for personal computers. There are even very good software programs available for free. 

And continually, new and improved handheld devices are being introduced that 

make virtual literacy an increasingly viable mobile option. With us here today we 

have representatives from virtual literacy pilot programs at Drake and Michigan 

State Universities who will be doing a hands-on demonstration this afternoon for 

Senate HELP Committee staff. 

Let me just add that with my learning disability, it is still a tortuous exercise for 

me to write. Consequently, I dictate messages to my interns. For longer documents 

like this testimony, I discuss with writers what I want to say and then edit what 
242 

they draft for me. I have not yet learned to use the technology that I’m telling you 

about. However, I am confident that when I do learn to use it, my productivity will 

increase significantly because I will be able to do the writing myself. 

The adoption of this ‘‘virtual literacy’’ approach will require a significant investment, as much or more in professional development as in hardware and software. 

However, while data does not yet exist to back me up, I think the cost/benefit ratio 

will be compelling as the significantly reduced time required per student will make 

it possible for many, many more adult learners to get the help they need. 

Second, make case management a core service. 

Currently the Act does not require the provision of case management. Due to the 

complexity of the lives of adult learners, case management should be required as 

a core activity. Case managers should help adult learners deal with problems in 

their lives that prevent them from pursuing their education and provide career 

guidance, making it possible for them to make informed decisions and prepare for 

future education, a job and/or job training. 

Case managers are needed both in adult literacy programs and in One-Stop centers. In OneStops, many adults with low literacy skills find it very difficult, even 

intimidating, to navigate the one-stop system of job, education, and training services. In some cases, low-literate adults get bumped around from program to program, not knowing how to describe their situation in a way that will help someone 

determine what services they really need and in what order. Skilled case managers 

could help them understand what is available and successfully get the services they 

need and get them in the order they need them. This would not only improve the 

customer experience, it would also increase the overall efficiency of the system. 

The situation is similar in adult literacy programs. Many adult learners have personal difficulties, sometimes related to their low-literacy skills, but sometimes unrelated, which distract or prevent them from focusing on their adult basic education. 

Literacy-related low self-esteem tends to make a bad situation worse. This is one 

of the prime reasons adult learners drop out of a program. A case manager could 

help learners get the help they need so they don’t have to drop out. 

In some exemplary programs, having a current or former adult learner take on 

this role enhances the rapport between client and staff. 

Adult learners’ transition from the literacy program to further education, employment, or job training is another area in which a case manager is essential. Figuring 

out what your options are, what the requirements are for each option, what next 

steps to take, and how to prepare yourself for the transition can be a bewildering 

set of tasks; I know it was for me at one point. In exemplary programs, a case manager makes this process less intimidating and enhances the chances for success. The 

critical policy point here is that the Act must permit and encourage case management as a core service, not relegate it to an ancillary or administrative function. 

Third, adult education instruction should include workplace essential skills. 

Currently the Act doesn’t address the much needed soft skills including customer/ 

client service; critical thinking/problem solving; cultural sensitivity; leadership; negotiation; personal responsibility; teamwork; and time-management are essential for 

the success of all workers. Teaching these skills should be a core responsibility of 

all adult literacy providers. 

These skills are needed by those of us who pursue higher education as well as 

those who take part in job training. The adult literacy program is the place to teach 

them because many of us work one or more jobs while we are in a literacy program 

or we get a job without taking part in job training. These skills help us do better 

in our literacy programs too. 

Fourth, measure performance differently. 

Learner goal achievement must be the primary measure of success for a redesigned adult basic education system. The current system uses standardized test 

scores as a primary measure of success and consequently, the program focus is on 

successful test-taking rather than goal attainment. Adult learners want to focus on 

their own goals, not on artificial goals generated for local programs by ‘‘experts.’’ 

The use of measures such as standardized test scores are inconsistent with a consumer-driven system. 

The current system treats learners not as adults with time-sensitive real-life 

goals, with job and family responsibilities, with knowledge and experience acquired 

over a lifetime, and with the burden of shame and stigma associated with low literacy, but it subjects them to a traditional fixed drill-and-practice classroom model 

more appropriate for working with children. So few seek help and many that do 

drop out because this approach is completely inappropriate given the complexities 

of adult lives in the 21st Century. 

Adult education instruction should be customized to help individual adult learners 

meet their self-defined personal goals. One size does not fit all. Learners stay in pro-
243 

grams as long as they see the connection between instruction and their personal 

goals. Adult education instruction should be based on a ‘‘wealth model’’ rather on 

a ‘‘deficit model.’’ The wealth model, which is more appropriate for adults, helps 

learners realize their own strengths and knowledge and use them as a basis for further learning; this builds better self-esteem. Zeroing in and focusing on what adult 

learners can’t do may be appropriate in child education, but in adults it reinforces 

already low self-esteem. 

Fifth, share leadership with adult learners. 

One of VALUE’s core beliefs is that most successful for-profit companies rely on 

consumer input and feedback to improve their products and services; the adult literacy system should do this too. Adult learners should be part of the planning, delivery, and supervision of adult education services and research at every level. As 

recipients of adult education services, adult learners have a unique, important, and 

all-too-often overlooked perspective regarding what does and does not work. 

The consumer, the adult learner, isn’t asked for input or feedback about adult literacy policies and programs in any systematic way. Low-literate adults are sometimes viewed as ignorant—at best, people to be pitied and taken care of; at worst, 

people to be looked down on and dismissed. As one of our members stated: 

‘‘When people find out we have low literacy skills, some suddenly start to treat 

us differently—they talk down to us and show less respect for our opinions, knowledge, and experience than they did before they found out.’’ 

Currently, the Act does not require that adult learners be specifically included in 

program operation and governance at local, state, and national levels. The system 

should be much more consumer-driven. The Act should specifically require the integration adult learners into program operation and governance at all levels; our perspective is as important as that of literacy professionals and bureaucrats and must 

be heard. 

During the upcoming intergovernmental conference on adult education to be held 

later this month in Brazil, UNESCO will consider an International Adult Learners’ 

Charter. In addition to affirming adult literacy as a human right, this charter states 

that adult learners have the right to a central role in policy development for adult 

and lifelong learning systems. UNESCO officials anticipate approval of this charter. 

I should add that by and large the community-based program sector of the adult 

literacy field has been the most willing to embrace an advisory role, and in many 

programs a governance role for adult learners. 

Sixth, change participation requirements. 

The adult education system should take into consideration that adult learners 

have job and family responsibilities that limit their ability to participate in adult 

literacy activities. The adult education system must be flexible so learners can fit 

instruction into their busy lives. Because research shows that learners make greater 

learning gains with increased participation, participation requirements were established for publicly funded programs. While they may be fine for adults without significant job or family responsibilities, they are unrealistic and inappropriate for 

many others. 

Consequently, these participation requirements serve as a barrier to some who 

seek help and cause others to drop out when they find they just can’t fit the required level of participation into their busy lives. In such cases, dropping out or opting not to participate is a choice they shouldn’t have to make, especially since it 

is based on research that fails to take into consideration the real-life demands of 

adults. Additionally, a significant number of community-based adult literacy programs forego public funding because they primarily serve adult learners who can’t 

meet the participation requirements. The Act should expressly permit the flexibility 

needed so these programs don’t have to forego public funding in order to serve adult 

learners with one or more jobs and family responsibilities. 

Personal shame and societal stigma of low-literacy also present significant barriers to participation in adult literacy programs. Adult education policy and outreach efforts should be designed to address these barriers. 

Lastly, encourage adult basic education and job training activities to be done together. 

For many low-literate adults, the amount of time required to master reading and 

writing skills under WIA Title II doesn’t fit well with the employment and training 

timeframe under WIA Title I or under TANF, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. This incompatibility has resulted in far too few opportunities for adults with 

low literacy skills to participate in job training and literacy instruction at the same 

time. 

Research shows that learners can make gains more rapidly if education and training are done together. In his 1997 book entitled Functional Context Education: Making Learning Relevant, Dr. Thomas G. Sticht wrote: 
244 

‘‘Functional Context Education is designed to generate swift gains in reading and 

math skills by teaching academics in the context of learning and performing a given 

task. For instance, an electrician in training may learn math concepts while she 

fixes a malfunctioning device. Or a maintenance worker may improve his reading 

skills while learning to use job-specific manuals, specifications, and forms. Military 

researchers have found that compared with general literacy instruction, this kind 

of learning-to-do instruction generates robust and rapid gains in job-related literacy 

that endure over time.’’ 

By having the adult basic education system adopt a ‘‘virtual literacy’’ approach, 

the incompatibility between Title I and Title II timeframes can be minimized. As 

a result, more bridge programs combining adult literacy and job training can be offered, which benefits both adult learners and the system as a whole. 

In conclusion, the adult basic education system must not be viewed as a second 

chance system for people who failed earlier in life. For many like me, it was the 

inadequacies of the K-12 system that failed us. Rather, a strong adult basic education system must be viewed as an essential part of the prescription for our nation’s economic health and prosperity. Adult literacy is an essential public policy 

concern; it must not be dealt with in isolation, but rather integrated with other policies and programs. The success of policies and programs dealing with early childhood education, health care, welfare, retraining the American workforce, and maintaining a strong military with capable recruits are all linked to having an adult population with better literacy skills. We cannot continue to waste the potential of the 

current adult population by devoting so little attention and resource to the adult 

basic education system. With all federal and state funding combined, less than 4% 

of adults with low literacy skills are in adult basic education programs and many 

programs have long waiting lists. And we can not well serve the current adult population by attempting to simply replicate the existing traditional fixed drill-and-practice classroom model. 

Thank you for this opportunity to talk with you today. I look forward to working 

closely with you and your staff in creating a modern and appropriate adult literacy 

system that is truly designed to meet the 21st century needs of adult learners. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. The next presenter is Mr. David Bere ́. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID BERE ́ , PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 

STRATEGY OFFICER, DOLLAR GENERAL CORP. 

Mr. BERE ́. Mr. Chairman, respected members of the committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to speak. 

As you mentioned earlier, my name is Dave Bere ́; and I am the 

President and Chief Strategy Officer of Dollar General Corporation. 

I am here today to talk as a businessperson that views this topic 

as one of the most important issues facing our country. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Would you please turn on your microphone? 

Mr. BERE ́. It is on. Does that help? 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Much better. 

Mr. BERE ́. As a way of background, Dollar General is the largest 

discount retailer in the United States by number of stores, with 

more than 8,400 stores in 35 States. We are a 70-year-old company 

in the Fortune 300, $10 billion in sales, with more than 72,000 employees. 

Adult literacy is important to Dollar General for a number of reasons. Our cofounder, J. L. Turner, was functionally illiterate, with 

only a third grade education. His family’s recognition of that tremendous burden formed the beginning of the company’s long legacy 

of support for adult learners. 

But, today, we see more than ever the pressures that low literacy 

skills can put on business success and productivity. Importantly, 

adult literacy challenges in this country impact our customers and 
245 

our employees in particular. We see the hardships they face every 

day, and we want to help them. 

And indeed we are helping. In the last 15 years, Dollar General 

has donated more than $33 million to literacy and basic educational efforts that have helped more than 1.6 million adults improve their literacy skills. We underwrote the work of the National 

Commission on Adult Literacy, which released its findings and recommendations last June in a report entitled, Reach Higher America: Overcoming Crisis in the U.S. Workforce. 

As members of this subcommittee, I know you are aware the tremendous need to improve the literacy skills of our adult labor pool 

goes beyond the reach of the public K-12 school systems. We live 

in the most powerful nation in the world, and yet one-third of our 

adult population cannot read well enough to succeed in most work 

environments. And, at the same time, a large majority of the new 

jobs created over the next 5 years will require a bachelor’s degree 

or some secondary education or training. 

Let me put it to what it means to Dollar General. Simply put, 

if we continue our current track, over time Dollar General and 

other businesses across America will not have the skilled workers 

required for growth and competitiveness. Even worse, we will continue to grow economically apart as a nation; and key segments of 

our population will be left out of the new workforce. 

During the 2009 fiscal year, Dollar General will expand our 

workforce with the creation of more than 4,000 new jobs in our 

stores and distribution centers as we open at least 450 stores in 

neighborhoods across the country. Many of these jobs provide a 

great point of entry into the workforce. However, because of the 

evolution of the retail industry and the increased use of technology, 

even those entry level jobs require competent literacy and basic 

technology skills. 

Now, to help increase the skill set of our employees, we have onsite GED classes and ESOL classes at our distribution centers. We 

offer a GED reimbursement program for full-time employees; and 

through the partnership of ProLiteracy, we offer a literacy and 

basic educational referral program for employees and customers 

that generates more than 6,000 referrals annually. 

We recognize the value of incumbent worker training, tax credits, 

incentives to encourage businesses to hire and invest in professional development and basic skills of lower skilled workers. However, as we all know, the business community cannot tackle all the 

challenges. We need your partnership and that of the States and 

nonprofit sector to effectively address this need. 

As we address this important issue, we highly recommend that 

together that we keep adult literacy high on the national agenda. 

Specifically, we ask the following: 

We ask for the committee’s consideration of the recommendations 

presented by the National Commission on Adult Literacy. 

Two, we ask that the committee evaluate the funding sources for 

literacy and ensure there is an open dialogue between funding 

streams. We need to build strategic collaborations between and 

among government agencies and between those agencies and the 

private sector. 
246 

i US Census Bureau, Population Finder 

Three, we ask the committee to recognize the valuable role and 

increased support for community based organizations that help 

adults at the lowest levels of literacy so that they can receive the 

personal instruction that they need. 

Thank you very much for your time and attention. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Bere ́ follows:] 

Prepared Statement of David Bere ́, President and Chief Strategy Officer, 

Dollar General Corp. 

Mr. Chairman and respected members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. My name is David Bere ́. I am President and Chief 

Strategy Officer of Dollar General Corporation. Dollar General is the largest discount retailer in the United States by number of stores with more than 8,400 neighborhood stores located in 35 states. We are headquartered in Goodlettsville, Tennessee and employ more than 72,000 workers. As a large employer, we have a vested interest in ensuring that this country has a workforce that is prepared to meet 

the challenges of doing business in the 21st century. 

Dollar General’s History with Adult Literacy 

Dollar General’s history of supporting literacy dates back to 1939. Our co-founder, 

J.L. Turner, was functionally illiterate. He had to drop out of school in the third 

grade when his father was killed in an accident. As the oldest child in the family, 

he never had the opportunity to return to school. However, with hard work and determination he started the Fortune 300 company we recognize today as Dollar General. 

Dollar General is committed to supporting literacy, not only because of our founder’s legacy, but also because of our commitment to meeting the basic needs of our 

customers and employees. Since 1994, we have donated more than $33.4 million to 

nonprofit literacy efforts. We have helped more than 1.6 million adults receive basic 

education assistance and provided more than 50,000 literacy referrals to individuals 

who would like to learn to read, prepare for the GED or learn the English language. 

Dollar General also underwrote the work of the National Commission on Literacy, 

which released its findings and recommendations last June in a report titled, Reach 

Higher America: Overcoming Crisis in the U.S. Workforce. This report shows the 

connection between our country’s global competitiveness and the need for a workforce that can read, write, do math, speak English, and use technology. 

While we are proud of our investments in literacy and basic education, we recognize that the staggering number of adults in need of basic literacy and education 

assistance continues to grow. It will take the federal government, state governments 

and an increased awareness across the nation to initiate the tide of change needed 

to give back the American Dream to the American people and to those arriving in 

our country looking for opportunities to improve their lives. 

Adult Education in the United States 

According to the National Assessment of Adult Literacy, 93 million adults in the 

United States—or roughly 30 percent of our nation’s total population—read at the 

two lowest levels of literacy. 

Unfortunately, we have become a society that is desensitized to numbers and statistics. So, I would like to put this statistic into context. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 93 million exceeds the total population of the following states combined: 

• New York; 

• Texas; 

• Pennsylvania; 

• Tennessee; 

• Ohio; 

• Delaware; 

• Indiana; and 

• Michigan.i
247 

ii United States Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Why America Needs an Educated and Prepared Workforce iii United States Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Why America Needs an Educated and Prepared Workforce iv US Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education 

Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy vPolicy Brief, The Working Poor Families Project: Strengthening State Policies for America’s 

Working Poor; vi Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Situation Summary, March 2009 vii Bureau of Labor Statistics, Economic News Release, College Enrollment and Work Activity 

of High School Graduates, 2008 

Impact on Business 

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 63 percent of the 18.9 million new 

jobs created during the 2004—2014 period are projected to be filled by those with 

at least a bachelor’s degree.ii

According to the Employment and Training Administration’s report on Why America Needs an Educated and Prepared Workforce, 90 percent of the fastest growing 

jobs in the United States require some level of post-secondary education or training.iii

We live in the most powerful nation in the world, and yet one third of our population cannot read well enough to succeed in most work environments.iv

The National Center on Educational Quality of the Workforce estimates that lit- eracy deficiencies result in an estimated $60 billion loss in productivity in the 

United States annually.v

There are more than 150 million people in the US work force.vi While there is 

great need for support of K-12 programs, only two percent of the annual workforce 

will come from the current year’s high school graduating class.vii Therefore, there 

is a great need to invest in the adults that are already in the workforce to maintain 

our global competitiveness and increase the employability of the current labor pool. 

What does this mean to business? 

To maintain the United States’ ability to compete globally, we must address the 

issue of adult literacy and basic education in our nation. We can no longer allow 

this silent epidemic to cripple our productivity and diminish our standing in the 

world’s economy. The inability of so many of our adult citizens to read, write, speak 

English, and to perform other vital basic work and life tasks at a proficient level 

threatens the social fabric of our nation as well as the vibrancy of our local and national economies. 

What does this mean to Dollar General? 

Dollar General employs more than 72,000 people across 35 states at our stores, 

distribution centers and corporate office. Despite the tough economic times, we are 

creating more than 4,000 new jobs this year and opening at least 450 stores in communities across the country. 

Retail jobs are a great entry point into the workforce for many individuals. 

Through the retail experience, individuals learn basic business skills, customer service and technology skills that can help them transition into higher paying management positions within retail or transition to other sectors. 

While retail is a great point of entry into the workforce, the evolution of the retail 

industry has necessitated that Dollar General and many other retailers require a 

higher level of basic skills for entry-level workers. This is true at our neighborhood 

stores and in our distribution centers. 

To meet the educational needs of our workforce, we have on-site GED classes and 

ESOL classes at our distribution centers. We offer a GED reimbursement program 

for full-time employees. Through a partnership with ProLiteracy, we offer a literacy 

and basic education referral program for employees and customers across our 35 

state market area. That program, which we are very proud of, generates more than 

6,000 referrals annually. 

We recognize the value of incumbent worker training and are developing plans 

to expand and strengthen our training programs for lower skilled workers. We support training programs that are designed to increase productivity and the potential 

for company growth while increasing an employee’s basic education, work skills, 

earnings potential and potential for upward mobility. Other companies support and 

provide similar programs. However, for a variety of reasons, businesses alone cannot 

tackle all the needs of incumbent workers. The cost of training and lost or delayed 

productivity can present challenges for businesses. Additionally, because individuals 

have different preferences in terms of where and how they want to receive instruction, it is difficult for a company like Dollar General to meet the needs of all of its 

workers who want to improve their literacy skills. To meet those critical needs, we 

need continued support from and partnership with federal and state governments. 
248 

Therefore, we encourage and ask for your continued support of tax credits and incentives to encourage businesses to hire and invest in the professional development 

and basic skills of lower skilled workers. 

We also need to increase access to programs for employees outside of the work 

environment. Entering a classroom for an adult learner can be intimidating. For 

matters of privacy and pride, some employees do not want to take classes on-site 

or in a setting with their peers. We understand and respect our employees’ desire 

for confidentiality. Therefore, in those circumstances, we make every effort to refer 

them to a local program to receive the assistance they need. When making outside 

referrals, we are challenged by access to instruction due to a waiting list or the absence of programs in rural markets for learners at all levels. Therefore, we ask for 

your continued support in increasing access for learners. 

With increased funding for incumbent worker training programs and more parity 

in funding for community-based and institutional-sponsored programs, we can help 

resolve some of the challenges noted above. 

Dollar General remains steadfast in our commitment to literacy. Our support for 

adult education will not waiver. Today, we extend our hand in partnership and hope 

that you will join us in expanding opportunities for adult learners across the nation. 

Conclusion 

Winston Churchill once said, ‘‘It is no use saying, we are doing our best. You have 

got to succeed in doing what is necessary.’’ 

As you address this important issue, we ask that you help ensure that adult literacy is high on the national agenda and that you consider these four specific 

things. 

1. We ask for the Committee’s consideration of the recommendations presented by 

the National Commission on Adult Literacy in its report titled, Reach Higher America: Overcoming Crisis in the U.S. Workforce. 

2. We ask that the Committee evaluate the funding sources for literacy and ensure that there is open dialogue between funding streams. We need to build strategic collaborations between and among government agencies and between those 

agencies and the private sector to ensure that we are working toward a common 

goal and strategically focusing funding efforts. 

3. We ask the Committee to continue to support employment tax credits such as 

the Work Opportunities Tax Credit, the Welfare-to-Work Tax Credit and also incentives for Incumbent Worker Training Programs across the United States. 

4. We ask the Committee to recognize the valuable role and increase support for 

community-based organizations that help adults at the lowest level of literacy receive the personalized instruction they need to increase their employability and advance to traditional Adult Basic Education programs. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony and for your work in this 

area of critical importance to our country. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. At this time, I would like to call on Kathy 

Cooper. 

STATEMENT OF KATHY COOPER, POLICY ASSOCIATE, OFFICE 

OF ADULT BASIC EDUCATION, WASHINGTON STATE BOARD 

FOR COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL COLLEGES 

Ms. COOPER. Thank you for the opportunity to talk with you this 

morning about innovation by adult basic education programs and 

community and technical colleges in Washington State. 

I would like to start by telling you what caused us to innovate. 

Simply put, we looked at what was happening in our State and 

compared that with the outcomes of our efforts. Despite good work, 

we fell short of meeting the accelerating needs of our students and 

State. We were serving well less than 10 percent of the people that 

needed our services, with serious implications, because these 

underprepared and underserved adults are our fastest growing population and will make up all of the growth in our State’s workforce. 

Second, our students were not succeeding. Joint research by the 

State Board and the Community College Research Center at Co-
249 

lumbia University found that too few adult learners reach what the 

study called the tipping point. That is enough education to significantly impact their own self-sufficiency and move students into the 

talent pipeline. 

Finally, our employers couldn’t find the workers that they needed. 

This combination of factors caused us to look at change. 

So what are we doing that is different? Our flagship effort is IBEST, Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training. I-BEST 

puts an adult basic education and professional technical instructor 

in the same classroom at the same time. They offer instruction that 

integrates job-specific and basic skills for students ready to succeed. That instruction leads to a real certificate recognized by local 

employers in a demand field with a living wage job. It is the same 

certificate earned by traditional college students, and it earns college credit. And this instruction prepares students not only for the 

first step on an education career pathway, but it gives them the 

skills and knowledge they need to continue. You add to that a full 

range of student support, and you have I-BEST. 

So how then do we know that it is working? One measure of IBEST’s success is the growth of our programs. In 3 years, we have 

gone from 10 pilots to 138 approved programs at all 34 community 

and technical colleges in our State. 

Another measure is how I-BEST students perform. For example, 

Tacoma Community College has an I-BEST accounting program 

that includes adult basic education and traditional students. But 

there is a difference in the performance of these two groups. One 

hundred percent of I-BEST students are retained in this program. 

Their average grade point average is a 3.5, and all of them pass 

the courses. 

We also have independent evidence of our success. The Community College Research Center just released a working paper that 

documents that I-BEST students on average earn not only 52 credits more than needed to reach the tipping point, but they also increase their basic skills faster than students enrolled in traditional 

classes. The data confirmed that I-BEST works. 

Finally, what can we ask you to do to support these kinds of efforts as you reauthorize WIA Title II? 

First, we would ask you to redefine the purpose of Title II as students success in postsecondary programs and progress along career 

pathways. 

Second, we would ask you to reform the data and accountability 

system to reflect that new purpose and to make sure that the data 

we report is useful for teaching and learning as well as accountability. 

Finally, we would ask you to link a clear purpose for adult basic 

education and reformed accountability with increased funding. It 

makes no sense to acknowledge the exponential increases in underfilled populations in our country, as well as the continually increasing levels of skill required for a recovering economy, and then 

starve the solution for both of those issues. At a specific level, we 

recommend that new legislation include a $75 million appropriation for seeding and scaling up approaches like I-BEST. 
250 

We are proud of the innovative efforts at community and technical colleges in Washington State. As you reauthorize WIA Title 

II, you can make it possible for us to expand those efforts and to 

be joined in innovation by colleagues across our country. 

Thank you. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Thank you. 

[The statement of Ms. Cooper follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Kathy Cooper, Policy Associate, Washington State 

Board for Community and Technical Colleges 

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Kathy Cooper, representing the Office of Adult Basic Education for the Washington State Board for 

Community and Technical Colleges in Olympia, Washington. 

Thank you for the opportunity to address the innovative efforts of adult basic education programs at Washington state’s community and technical colleges. I’m going 

to do that by answering four questions: 

‘‘Why innovate? Why isn’t the way we’ve always done adult education good 

enough?’’ 

The short answer is that we looked at what was happening in our state and compared that to the outcomes of our efforts. Despite good work, the data showed that 

our efforts fell short of meeting the continually accelerating needs of our students 

and our state. Specifically we learned three important things: 

First, we were serving less than 10% of those that needed our services. This had 

serious implications for our state’s future because these under-prepared and underserved adult workers are from our fastest growing populations and will account for 

all of the net growth in our state’s workforce for at least the next two generations. 

Second, not enough of our students were succeeding. Joint research by our state 

board and the Community College Research Center at Columbia University found 

that too few low-income adult learners in our colleges ever reach what the study 

called the ‘‘Tipping Point,’’ that is, enough education to make a significant difference 

in economic self-sufficiency and to enter into the talent pipeline needed by our 

state’s employers to compete. 

Third, our employers, in the midst of the last recession and at the height of our 

economic boom, couldn’t find enough qualified workers. In fact, the number of Washington employers who identify lack of basic and English language skills among 

workers as a barrier to their success tripled in two years. 

This combination of changing demographics, accelerating skill requirements, students’ goals, and our determination to help every student move forward further and 

faster toward the Tipping Point is what spurred us to innovate. 

What are we doing that’s different?’’ 

The flagship effort among our innovative practices is I-BEST—Integrated Basic 

Education and Skills Training. (See the I-BEST summary.) 

At its core, I-BEST tosses to one side traditional assumptions about educational 

scope, sequence, and readiness to learn. I-BEST puts an adult basic education and 

a professional-technical instructor in the same classroom at the same time. They 

offer instruction that integrates jobspecific and basic skills for any student that is 

ready to succeed, whether or not they have a GED or high school diploma. That instruction leads to a real certificate recognized by local employers in a demand field 

that pays a living wage. It’s the same certificate earned by traditional college students and it carries college credit. And that instruction prepares students not only 

for that first step on their education and career pathways, but it gives them the 

skills and knowledge they need for the next step. Change your mental image from 

the picture of a career ladder with rungs spread too far apart for some of us to reach 

into the image of a chain with links that interlock. That’s IBEST. 

Beyond integrating basic skills and professional-technical education, I-BEST students also receive a full range of student supports, including advising, counseling, 

case management and financial aid. This blend of enhanced student services with 

innovative instruction is also I-BEST. 

‘‘How do we know it’s working?’’ 

This question has the same answer as the first question: We listen to what our 

data are telling us. 

One measure of I-BEST success is the growth of the program. I-BEST has expanded from pilots at 10 colleges to 138 approved programs at all 34 community 

and technical colleges in our state. (See the Program Inventory) 
251 

Another measure of success is how much better I-BEST students perform. For example, Tacoma Community College has an I-BEST accounting program that includes adult basic education and ESL students along with the adults you would expect to see in a community college classroom. But there is a difference in the performance of these two student groups. 100% of I-BEST students are retained in the 

program. Their average GPA is a 3.5. Finally, all of the I-BEST students pass the 

courses. In short, their outcomes outpace traditional students. 

We have independent evidence of I-BEST success as well. Columbia University’s 

Community College Research Center just released a working paper at the end of 

April that documents IBEST’s positive outcomes. The paper notes that I-BEST students, on average, not only earn 52 credits—more credits than needed to reach the 

Tipping Point, but they also increase their basic skills more than students enrolled 

in traditional ABE classes. With the same hours of instruction, 62% of I-BEST students make significant gains compared to 45% of traditional ABE students. 

The data just confirms what our students tell us all the time: I-BEST works. 

What can Congress do to support these kinds of efforts, especially as you consider 

reauthorization of WIA, Title II? 

From the perspective of Washington state we need three changes in order for us 

to continue to innovate and bring to scale successful practices. 

Redefine the purpose of Title II as student success in post-secondary education 

and progress along career pathways. 86% of the students who come to adult basic 

education in Washington state come to get and keep a good job. And we know that 

they must progress at least as far as the Tipping Point to achieve that dream. Surely the focus of our national system should reach as far as the vision of our students. 

Reform the data and accountability system to reflect the new purpose and make 

the data useful for teaching and learning, as well as accountability. We embrace accountability that is objective, measurable, and evidence-based and we want it to be 

useful. The data must tell us if students are making progress toward the skills and 

credentials that have meaning in the labor market and their own lives. And it must 

tell us which program activities are most effective. And we need it in real time so 

that we are able to improve outcomes. 

Link a clear purpose for adult basic education and a reformed accountability system with an increase in funding so that adult basic education programs can expand 

services to the growing numbers of adults that needs them. It makes no sense to 

acknowledge exponential increases in under-skilled population groups as well as 

continuously increasingly levels of skills required by a recovering economy and then 

starve the solution to them both. 

On a specific level, we recommend that new legislation target $75 million in new 

Title II state grant appropriations for seeding and scaling up approaches that integrate basic skills and postsecondary education and training or which dually or concurrently enroll students in basic skills and post-secondary education and training. 

We also recommend that the Secretary of Education conduct an evaluation of the 

impact of integrated programs on the rate at which students attain career and postsecondary success. 

We are proud of the innovative efforts of adult basic education providers at community and technical colleges in Washington state. As you reauthorize WIA Title 

II, you have the opportunity to create a fresh vision and new opportunities that will 

make it possible for us to expand those efforts and be joined in innovation by our 

colleagues across the nation. 

Thank you for your time this morning. We believe that better skills lead to better 

jobs, leading to better lives. And that is still the American dream. 

I am happy to take your questions. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Now I would like to call on Stephen Reder. 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN REDER, PH.D., UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR AND CHAIR, DEPARTMENT OF APPLIED LINGUISTICS, PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY 

Mr. REDER. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman and subcommittee members, I am Steve Reder, 

University Professor and Chair of the Department of Applied Linguistics at Portland State University and a board member of 

ProLiteracy. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak 

this morning. 
252 

Like you, I am moved by Gretchen’s and Marty’s compelling stories. 

With my colleagues, I have been conducting the Longitudinal 

Study of—— 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Would you please turn on your microphone? Move it closer to you. 

Mr. REDER. Thank you. 

With my colleagues, I have been conducting the Longitudinal 

Study of Adult Learning in which we have followed a random sample of about 1,000 high school dropouts for nearly 10 years. Even 

though I am formally representing only myself in this hearing, I 

am humbled by the opportunity to speak for the thousand adults 

whose stories we have been listening to and learning from and the 

millions more just like them across the country. 

America likes to celebrate people such as Gretchen and Marty 

who have beat the odds. What I have learned is that, through adult 

education, we can do something even better. We can change the 

odds. 

The population we followed includes adults who have attended 

literacy programs and ones who haven’t. Careful comparison of 

their experiences over a long period of time reveals the impact of 

programs on literacy development, continuing education, and family wage employment. 

The bottom line is that programs make a difference. So I urge 

Congress to reauthorize WIA Title II programs to contribute to our 

economic recovery. The research shows that many adults work 

independently to improve their basic skills or prepare for the GED, 

including many who never attend a basic skills program. This, 

along with the long waiting lists found at many programs, tells us 

that there is much more demand for services than the system can 

supply. So I urge Congress to expand Title II programs to meet the 

needs. 

If we really do want to change the odds, this increased funding 

should not be used only to do more of exactly the same things. We 

need to increase the capacity and effectiveness of the adult education system, especially for those most in need. 

Here are four priorities my research suggests we pursue: 

One, build persistence in adult learners. The road to many adult 

learners’ goals is long, requiring great motivation and persistence 

of learning. Programs need to engage students for much longer periods, especially those coming in at the lowest skill levels. As the 

poet William Butler Yates put it, education is not filling a bucket 

but lighting a fire. We need an adult literacy system that not only 

lights the fire but keeps it burning. 

Two, improve the National Reporting System, or the NRS. Although I strongly support program accountability, we need to improve the accountability system being used in adult education. The 

NRS misses important program impacts by focusing on short-term 

outcomes and narrow measures of literacy development. It uses too 

short a follow-up period for the literacy measures it employs and 

thus may not help programs put their best foot forward or support 

their improvement efforts. 

Three, develop learning support systems. To increase persistence, 

adults need learning support systems that provide portable, per-
253 

sonalized learning plans they can follow. These plans might include 

periods of time in attending programs or working independently 

with tutors or receiving support services from community based organizations or volunteer programs. Grants could assist communities to develop local learning support systems, perhaps utilizing 

technology to facilitate collaboration and information sharing 

among the various organizations working with the same learners. 

Four, utilize technology to increase system capacity. Many adults 

engage in periods of self-study before or after periods of program 

participation. Programs could increase their outreach and enrollment and increase their students’ persistence by using technology 

to connect these self-directed learning activities with traditional 

classes. This would broaden the role of technology from offering 

distance education to connecting different learning modalities and 

activities over time. 

To pursue these and other priorities, the adult literacy field 

needs an independent, comprehensive research and development 

center. Although the Department of Education established R&D 

centers for adult literacy that operated successfully for 15 years, 

funding for such a center has been discontinued. On behalf of the 

many adults who would benefit from a higher capacity and more 

effective system, I ask Congress to establish an independent center 

to support an adult literacy system that will light the fire and 

change the odds for millions of Americans. 

Thank you. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Reder follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Dr. Stephen Reder, University Professor and Chair, 

Department of Applied Linguistics, Portland State University 

Mr. Chairman and Subcommittee members, I am Dr. Stephen Reder, University 

Professor and Chair of the Department of Applied Linguistics at Portland State University. The Department is involved in teaching, research and service activities related to language and literacy issues in education, work and community settings. 

My research is focused on adult education and literacy and language development 

in adults. I was the Principal Investigator of two recently completed major projects 

in adult education: the National Labsite for Adult ESOL, a classroom-based video 

laboratory for studying second language teaching and learning, and the Longitudinal Study of Adult Learning , in which I followed a random sample of about 1,000 

high school dropouts for nearly ten years, to study how youths and adults fail or 

succeed in reconnecting with learning, education and work. I am a member of the 

Board of Directors of ProLiteracy Worldwide and have served on numerous state 

and national advisory boards concerned with adult education. 

I am here to speak with you today about the need for independent research that 

would help millions of adults develop the skills they need to be successful in today’s 

information and technology age. You have heard about the scope of the adult literacy issue in this country—nearly one-half the adult population of the United 

States stands to improve their financial health, their physical health, and the wellbeing of their families by improving their reading, writing, math, computer technology, and English skills. Yet we spend relatively little on research given the size 

and importance of the adult education mission. Think of the many millions of dollars we would save through better utilization of health care services and the economic prosperity that would be generated from increased levels of employment and 

a more highly skilled workforce—and research suggests that all of these outcomes 

will result from appropriate investments in adult education. My own research illustrates, for example, how adults whose literacy skills improve over time experience 

increasing levels of employment and earnings, whereas those who skills decrease experience reduced levels of employment and earnings. 
254 

The issues to research 

Research has a vital role to play in helping shape and deliver adult education 

more effectively. My longitudinal study of about 1,000 adults who had dropped out 

of high school brought to light many issues that affect their participation in adult 

education and identified obstacles to their successful learning. I found, for example, 

that many adults work independently to improve their basic skills or prepare for 

the GED. This includes many adults who never attend a basic skills program. This, 

along with the long waiting lists that potential students find at many programs, 

tells us that there is much more demand for services than the system can supply. 

The research further shows that many adults engage in periods of ‘‘self study’’ between periods of program participation. This suggests that programs could increase 

their outreach and enrollment and increase their students’ persistence by connecting 

self-directed learning activities with traditional classes. This indicates an important 

potential role for technology, not only in offering distance education, but in connecting different learning modalities and activities over time. 

Studies of only those students in programs teaches us little about effective outreach methods and student retention problems, however. We need more longitudinal 

research that follows both youth and adults who participate in literacy programs 

and those who do not. We need to discover how to provide services to adults so they 

participate in learning with sufficient engagement, intensity and duration to reach 

their goals. We also need to learn much more about how to help the hardest-to-serve 

learners—those who are at the lowest literacy levels, those for whom English is a 

second language and who are illiterate in their native language, and those who have 

learning disabilities. Many of these individuals will require years of instruction in 

order to reach their learning and employment goals. We must be able to help them 

stay the course as they cope with learning setbacks as well as successes, family concerns, and work issues. Building the persistence of learning in adults facing such 

long trajectories must be a research priority. We need to learn how to build locally 

connected and integrated delivery systems that allow community-based programs to 

feed low-level learners into higher-level institutionally-based ESL and adult education programs. And how to help adult education students transition successfully 

into post-secondary education and training programs. At the same time, we need 

much more information about how to reconnect dropouts with both education and 

family-supporting work. 

Most literacy and adult basic education programs retain learners for relatively 

short periods of time. Therefore, we need to develop new types of learning support 

systems that provide persistent structures for adults to follow. These structures 

might combine periods in which adults attend programs, use online materials to 

work independently or with tutors, or receive support services from local community-based organizations (CBOs) and volunteer programs, for example. Grants could 

encourage and assist local communities to develop cross-sector, long-term adult 

learning support systems, perhaps utilizing technology to provide learners and a 

range of providers and agencies working with them shareable information that can 

be used to foster more learner-centered integration of services. 

We need research to improve the National Reporting System (NRS), the accountability system used in adult education. I support program accountability; however, 

my own research indicates that important program impacts are missed by a system 

that focuses on short-term outcomes and narrow measures of literacy and skills development. When we compared program participants and non-participants over 

time, the evidence of program impact on learner outcomes depended on the literacy 

measure used and the time period involved. According to these findings, the NRS 

uses too short a follow-up time period for the literacy measures it uses; therefore, 

the NRS may not help programs put their best foot forward. Perhaps even more 

problematic, the NRS may not be as useful as it could be for program improvement. 

A review of the NRS could determine whether changing either the type of literacy 

measure or lengthening the time period would better support programmatic improvement efforts. Other issues could be examined as well, such as making sure 

that the accountability system gives due credit to programs for assisting the lowestlevel and hardest-to-serve students. In supporting adults and the programs that 

serve them, we must keep in mind the words of William Butler Yeats: ‘‘Education 

is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.’’ 

To assure translation of research into improved educational practice, increased 

support is needed for adult education teacher training and professional development. Federal funding once available for State Literacy Resource Centers, for example, is no longer available and the resources for professional development are highly 

uneven across states. Research can help us determine the role that technology 

should play in providing such teacher training and professional development in a 

cost-effective manner. 
255 

Increasing the capacity of the adult education delivery system 

The goal of all this research is to increase both the quantity and quality of programs and services, not just so that programs can serve more adults—although we 

certainly need to do that—but also so that we increase the persistence of their 

learning. We want more adults to stay in programs long enough to reach their education, job-training, and family-supporting employment goals. Better coordination of 

WIA Title I and Title II programs can play an important part in this as long as 

we do not lose the basic educational focus of the Title II programs. The stimulus 

legislation that allows Title I WIBs to fund Title II adult literacy providers is an 

excellent step in this direction, one which I hope the Committee will include in the 

reauthorization. The knowledge gained through research can help us develop programs that offer a continuum of services across skill levels and life contexts, and 

engage the full range of resources and capacities in learners’ communities, including 

full-time and part-time teachers and volunteers, whether working in institutionallybased programs or CBOs. Research can also help us assess the extent to which 

adult learners are availing themselves of such links to the job training available in 

their communities. Such service continuum is vital to addressing the complex issues 

of adult literacy. 

Increasing our research capacity 

In addition to pursuing a systematic research agenda through targeted grant competitions, the adult literacy field needs a comprehensive research and development 

center focused specifically on adult literacy and learning. Legislation establishing 

the Institute of Educational Sciences (IES) requires the Department of Education 

to operate one or more Centers that address adult literacy issues. Although the Department of Education established R&D centers for adult literacy that operated successfully for 15 years, first at the University of Pennsylvania and then in a collaborative of universities led by Harvard University, funding for such a Center has recently been discontinued. If the leadership at IES is not interested in recompeting 

a center for adult literacy and education, it is important for other legislation to establish one. 

Such a center could be competed and placed at any university or network of universities. It should work closely with literacy and adult education providers and 

focus on conducting basic and applied research, distilling practitioner knowledge, 

and disseminating results so that practitioners can understand, respond to, and 

translate research into practical programs. 

Wherever such a Center is established, it is essential that it conduct research 

about how programs can best support the learning of diverse adult learners to help 

them meet their long-term educational and employment goals. It is critical that the 

Center be managed in a way that keeps it free from political interference and pressures unrelated to the needs of the adult education system. It needs the independence, with guidance from a suitable advisory board and peer-review processes, to 

construct and pursue a long-term research agenda using an appropriate mix of exploratory and confirmatory research methods. 

Summary 

While there are occasional notable research projects, by and large, the United 

States invests little money in research and development that would help us increase 

capacity and improve the quality and effectiveness of our adult education system. 

Considering the importance of these services to success in higher education, lifelong 

learning and economic competitiveness, Congress must commit to supporting systematic research designed to identify effective ways to increase program capacity 

and effectiveness. I recommend: 

• Immediately reauthorize WIA Title II to contribute to our economic recovery, 

with a central focus on adults who are not functionally literate 

• Recompete and fund an independent research center for adult literacy and education 

• Focus research on building student persistence, reconnecting dropouts, helping 

the hardest-to-reach learners, and supporting successful transitions of adult education students into family-wage employment and postsecondary education and 

training 

• Develop learning support systems that provide persistent structures for adults 

to follow over relatively long periods of time 

• Explore uses of technology to increase delivery system capacity through online 

and blended instructional programs and to coordinate employment, education and 

social services 

• Review and modify the National Reporting System for better accountability and 

program improvement 
256 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you. I offer my services to the Committee as it continues its work in adult literacy. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Now I would like to call on Dr. Donna 

Kinerney. 

STATEMENT OF DONNA KINERNEY, PH.D., INSTRUCTIONAL 

DEAN, ADULT ESOL AND LITERACY PROGRAMS, MONTGOMERY COLLEGE 

Ms. KINERNEY. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, 

thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts with you today. 

My name is Dr. Donna Kinerney, and I am the Instructional 

Dean for Adult English for Speakers of Other Languages—that is 

ESOL—and Literacy to GED Programs at Montgomery College in 

Maryland. As a teacher and program administrator for adult 

English language programs for many years, I will focus my remarks on my own experiences, research, and insights gathered as 

a leader in the adult education interest section of our professional 

organization, the Teachers of English for Speakers of Other Languages. 

One of the most challenging aspects of serving adult English language learners is bringing appropriate services to the broad needs 

of our students. 

For example, there is Maria from El Salvador who wants to read 

to her grandchildren in English, but she is one of the 19 percent 

of all immigrants who never made it to high school in her country 

and who struggles with basic English literacy. There is Lan from 

Vietnam, who wants desperately to become a nurse but is like the 

2.4 million immigrants ages 17 to 24 who need more English in 

order to begin postsecondary education. And there is Tekle from 

Ethiopia, who works as a parking lot attendant but would give anything to become an engineer again as he was in his country, just 

like the more than 1.3 million other college-educated immigrants 

who are unemployed or working in unskilled jobs, many because of 

their limited English. 

Like these students, 5.8 million legal permanent residents in the 

U.S. need additional English if they are to fully participate in U.S. 

life. Learning English takes time, an estimated 85 to 150 hours of 

instruction to advance a single level. Unsurprisingly, 44 percent of 

participants in federally funded adult ed programs are in ESOL 

classes. That represents just over a million students, a mere drop 

in the bucket in terms of need. 

In my program at Montgomery College, which is the largest in 

Maryland, we offer life skills, ESOL, English literacy and civics, 

and adult basic education-GED. In fiscal year 2008, in these programs, we provided over 10,000 seats to almost 5,00 learners, with 

82 percent participating in ESOL or civics instruction. English language learners also represent 57 percent of our ABE-GED students, a traditionally native English speaking population in other 

regions. 

We share in the need for expanded services. We are in a suburb 

of Washington, D.C., not in a State with an enormous immigrant 

population like California and Texas; and yet our current wait list 

for ESOL classes is well over a thousand. 
257 

We have partnered with our local one-stop to provide ESOL for 

a customer service job program that incorporates advising and job 

search support because most adult ESOL learners have only a limited understanding of employment and training services in the U.S. 

We have learned much about interagency partnerships, workforce 

training, vocational assessments, and case management services 

along the way and have used that knowledge to pilot new conceptualized ESOL and vocational training for building trades and 

health care career pathways. 

There are many promising practices across the U.S., career pathways that provide ways for adults to learn English and receive 

workforce training, bridge instruction to move ESOL learners to 

adult basic education GED programs and beyond. Ongoing advising 

and social service supports, like Mr. Finsterbusch noted, and extensive professional development are all among them. 

I would like to then propose three areas of recommendations on 

ways to improve WIA: 

First, authorize the EL/civics funding program and expand the 

scope of Title II to acknowledge the diverse and specific training 

needs and employment needs of English language learners. The 

current Title II funding formula does not take into account the 

English language learner population, yet ESOL services are a primary function under this statute. Instructions should support adult 

ESOL learners with career pathways and transitions to postsecondary programs. We must include advising and case management 

services and social service supports. To maintain an increased accountability, we should create more relevant performance measures 

supported by improved vocational and academic assessments, as 

my peers here today have said. 

Second, increase State leadership funds under Title II and encourage States to provide training for adult ESOL instructors, administrators, and curriculum designers and support adult ESOL 

teacher credentialing and certification. Adult education is chronically underfunded, and issues of quality are of constant concern. 

If we don’t want to leave children behind, then we shouldn’t leave 

adults behind either. 

Particularly in States that are experiencing increases in immigration, teachers may not have had extensive training or experience. It is a challenge to find qualified and skilled instructors and 

curriculum developers, particularly for vocational ESOL instruction, even for a program like mine that is in a major metropolitan 

area. 

Third, create a research center dedicated to adult education that 

specifically includes a focus on English language and literacy acquisition and instruction. Given the piecemeal nature of research on 

adult English language and literacy learners, we desperately need 

a comprehensive research center. We lack an in-depth understanding of how to best teach English literacy to students who have 

limited literacy skills in their native languages. We do not yet have 

complete information on how to help learners persist or transition 

to other training, yet we are called on every day to implement programs that do just these things, and we must do so without solid 

research. 
258 

And, for the record, I would also like to add to support the National Coalition for Literacy’s request to have a professional adult 

educator on the State and local workforce investment boards to 

strengthen the relationship between education and labor. 

I appreciate the opportunity here to talk with you today. Thank 

you. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Thank you. 

[The statement of Ms. Kinerney follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Donna Kinerney, Ph.D., Instructional Dean, Adult 

ESOL & Literacy—GED Programs, Montgomery College 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for allowing me to 

share my thoughts on the reauthorization of Title II of the Workforce Investment 

Act (WIA). My name is Dr. Donna Kinerney and I am the Instructional Dean for 

Adult English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) & Literacy—GED Programs 

at Montgomery College in Maryland. As a teacher and program administrator for 

adult English language programs since 1989, I will focus my remarks on my own 

experiences, research, and insights gathered as a leader in the adult education interest section of Teachers of English for Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), the 

global professional association for English language educators. You’ve heard of these 

English programs referred to adult English as a Second Language (ESL) or adult 

English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) programs. 

You have undoubtedly met some of our adult ESOL students in your travels. One 

of the most challenging and fulfilling aspects of serving adult English language 

learners is bringing appropriate services to the broad needs of our students. For example there is, Maria from El Salvador, who wants to read to her grandchildren 

in English, but she’s one of the 19% of all immigrants who never made it to high 

school in her country and who struggles with basic English literacy here in the U.S. 

(U.S. Department of Education, 2009). There is also Lan from Vietnam, who wants 

desperately to go to college and become a nurse but is like the 2.4 million immigrants, ages 17 to 24, who need more English in order to begin postsecondary education (McHugh, Gelatt & Fix, 2007). And there is Tekle, from Ethiopia, who works 

as a parking lot attendant, but would give anything to become an engineer again 

as he was in his native country, just like the more than 1.3 million other collegeeducated immigrants who are unemployed or working in unskilled jobs many because of their limited English (Batalova & Fix, 2008). 

Like these students, 5.8 million legal permanent residents in the U.S. need additional English if they are to fully participate in U.S. civic life and/or pass the U.S. 

citizenship test (McHugh, Gelatt & Fix, 2007). Learning English takes time; it takes 

an estimated 85-150 hours of instruction to advance a single level under the National Reporting System, the framework used by federally funded programs 

(McHugh, et al., 2007). Unsurprisingly, as indicated by the most recent available 

data, 44% of participants in federally funded adult education programs are in ESOL 

classes. That represents just over a million students, a mere drop in the bucket in 

terms of need (U.S. Department of Education, 2007). It’s no surprise that waitlists 

for adult ESOL have exploded across the country—a 2006 survey by the National 

Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials found numerous programs reporting waitlists from a few weeks to more than three years. And in fact, Massachusetts reported a waitlist of over 16,000 for ESOL across the state (Tucker, 2006). 

My program at Montgomery College is like many others. We offer life skills 

ESOL, English Literacy and Civics, and Adult Basic Education-GED and assist with 

family literacy programming. 

In FY 08, we provided over 10,000 seats to almost 5000 learners, with 82% participating in ESOL or Civics instruction. However, English language learners are 

not only in ESOL programs, as they make up the largest demographic in our program and represent 57% of our ABE-GED students, a traditionally native English 

speaking population in other geographic regions. We share in the national need for 

expanded services—we are in a suburb of Washington DC, not in a state with enormous immigrant population like California or Texas, and yet our current waitlist 

for ESOL classes is well over 1000. As is the trend in some regions, our program 

was administered for many years by the local public school system, but in 2005, as 

part of a local effort to better serve the education and workforce training needs of 

adult learners, our program moved to the community college where we are housed 

under the College’s Workforce Development and Continuing Education Unit. In our 

new home at Montgomery College, we have partnered with Montgomery Works, our 
259 

local one-stop, to provide an ESOL for Customer Service Jobs program that incorporates extensive advising and job search support because most adult ESOL learners have only a limited understanding of employment and training services in the 

U.S. We have learned much about interagency partnerships, workforce training, vocational assessments, and case management services along the way and have used 

that knowledge to pilot new contextualized ESOL and vocational training for building trades and healthcare career pathways that will transition our learners into 

other noncredit vocational training programs at the College. In need of highly qualified teachers, we are currently piloting our TESOL Training Institute, a series of 

four intensive courses, to help new teachers enter the field and veteran teachers improve their skills. In addition, to further extend our hand to the community, we 

work closely with the Montgomery Coalition for Adult English Literacy, a nonprofit 

for community-based ESOL service providers to professional development opportunities and guidance for programs that are outside of the federally funded system. But 

we could not begin to offer this level of service without the hard work of a group 

of highly qualified and enormously skilled full-time staff and part-time teachers. 

From around the country, I hear of programs too numerous to mention here that 

are meeting the needs of adult ESOL learners by developing many promising practices. Increasing numbers of programs like those in Oregon and Washington are creating career pathways and models that provide streamlined ways for adults to learn 

English and receive workforce training. Programs like Yakima Valley Community 

College are creating bridge instruction to move ESOL learners to adult basic education and GED programs and beyond. Other programs such as AVANCE family literacy programs in Texas and Dorcas Place Family Literacy Center in Rhode Island 

along with affiliates of the National College Transition Network have learned, as 

have we, that ongoing advising and social service supports are critical to for learners and their families to succeed at all levels including the transition to postsecondary education and training. Finally, many programs nationwide, including the 

City College of San Francisco and the College of Lake County in Illinois, find, as 

do we, that ongoing professional development for teachers and administrators is absolutely critical in order to implement quality programs and develop new curricula. 

Given these experiences, I would like to propose three broad areas of recommendations on ways to improve WIA: 

1. Authorize the EL/Civics funding program, and expand the scope of Title II to 

acknowledge the diverse and specific training and employment needs of English language learners. 

The current Title II funding formula does not take into account the English language learner population yet ESOL services are a primary function under this statute. Instructional programming should support adult ESOL earners with career 

pathways and transitions to postsecondary programs. To do this well, we must include in Title II advising and case management services because adult ESOL learners are unfamiliar with education and employment systems in the U.S. and often 

have social service needs that limit their participation. To maintain and increase 

our accountability for this expanded version of Title II, we should create more relevant performance measures supported by improved vocational and academic assessments that better monitor the progress of ESOL programs and learners. 

2. Increase state leadership funds under Title II and encourage states to provide 

training for adult ESOL instructors, administrators, and curriculum designers and 

support adult ESOL teacher credentialing and certification. 

Adult education is chronically underfunded and issues of quality are of constant 

concern. In 2003-2004, only 36% of adult ESOL learners moved up to the next proficiency level (McHugh, Gelatt, & Fix, 2007), and in any year, it is estimated that 

only 10% of adult ESOL learners transfer to certificate or degree programs 

(Chisman & Crandall, 2007). If we don’t want to leave children behind, then we 

shouldn’t leave adult students behind either. Particularly in states that are experiencing increases in immigration, teachers may not have had extensive training or 

experience in working with English language learners (Crandall, Ingersoll, & Lopez, 

2008; Schaetzel, Peyton, & Burt, 2007). With limited budgets and most classes meeting in the evenings, full-time instructional positions are rare and so are career pathways for adult ESOL teachers. All of this means that is a challenge to find and retain qualified and skilled adult ESOL instructors and curriculum developers, particularly for vocational ESOL instruction, even for a program like mine that is in 

a major metropolitan area. 

3. Create a research center dedicated to adult education that specifically includes 

a focus on adult English language and literacy acquisition and instruction. 

Given the piecemeal nature of existing research on adult English language and 

literacy learners, we desperately need a comprehensive center that will undertake 

these efforts if we are to meet learner needs. We lack, for example, an in-depth un-
260 

derstanding of how to best teach English literacy to adult ESOL students who have 

limited literacy skills in their native languages. We do not yet have complete information on how to help adult ESOL learners persist or transition to other training. 

And yet, we are called everyday to implement programs that do just these things 

and we must do so without the benefit of a solid research base. 

Thank you again for the invitation to speak today. We in adult ESOL programs 

hope to participate at every table where adult education and workforce training are 

being discussed. We look forward to an even brighter future serving our students, 

Maria, Lan, and Tekle, and the millions of others waiting to learn English. 

REFERENCES

Batalova, J. & Fix, M. (2008). Uneven progress: The employment pathways of 

skilled immigrants in the United States. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute. Retrieved May 1, 2009 from http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/ 

BrainWasteOct08.pdf. 

Chisman, F. & Crandall, J. (2007). Passing the torch: Strategies for innovation in 

community college ESL. Executive summary. New York: Council for the Advancement of Adult Literacy. Retrieved May 1, 2009 from http://caalusa.org/ 

eslpassingtorch226.pdf. 

Crandall, J., Ingersoll, G., & Lopez, J. (2008). Adult ESL credentialing and certification. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Retrieved May 1, 2009 

from http://www.cal.org/caela/esl—resources/briefs/tchrcred.html. 

McHugh, M., Gelatt, J. & Fix, M. (2007). Adult English language instruction in the 

United States: Determining need and investing wisely. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute. Retrieved May 1, 2009 from http:// 

www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/NCIIP—English—Instruction073107.pdf. 

Schaetzel, K., Peyton, J.K., & Burt, M. (2007). Professional development for adult 

ESL practitioners: Building capacity. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Retrieved May 1, 2009 from www.cal.org/caela/esl—resources/briefs/ 

profdev.html 

Tucker, J. T. (2006). The ESL logjam. Waiting times for adult ESL classes and the 

impact on English learners. National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Educational Fund. Retrieved May 1, 2009 from http:// 

www.naleo.org/downloads/ESLReportLoRes.pdf. 

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2009). 

Issue Brief. English Literacy of Foreign-Born Adults in the United States: 2003. 

Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved May 1, 2009 from 

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009034.pdf. 

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education (2007). 

Adult education annual report to Congress 2004-2005. Washington D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Education. Retrieved May 1, 2009 from http://www.ed.gov/ 

about/offices/list/ovae/pi/AdultEd/congressionalreport04-05.pdf. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. At this time, I would like to call on Dr. Roberta Lanterman. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERTA LANTERMAN, PROGRAM DIRECTOR, 

LONG BEACH FAMILY LITERACY 

Ms. LANTERMAN. Good morning. My name is Roberta Lanterman, 

and it is a privilege to be with you here this morning. 

I have worked for the cause of literacy for more than 25 years. 

Currently, I am the Director of the Long Beach Family Literacy 

Program in Long Beach, California. 

I would like to talk to you today about education partnerships 

that work—between parents and children, between the public sector and the private sector, between programs serving generations 

of learners. 

In my early days as an educator, we made incremental progress, 

but there were barriers we could not overcome because parents 

were not literate. They could not help even if they wanted to. It 

was then that I saw the light. The problem is systemic, and the so-
261 

lution was to reach both generations simultaneously, helping 

adults while helping our youngest learners side by side. 

All too often, we compartmentalize education: early childhood, 

adolescent, adult ed, workforce training. We take limited aim at 

our problems by running from issue to issue, program to program, 

without remaining focused on the systemic issues that are causing 

our education and workforce problems. 

Studies show there is a direct correlation between the education 

of a parent, the poverty status at the home and the likeliness of 

the child’s success in school. Addressing the needs of the entire 

family is a powerful community strategy for raising educational 

levels, improving workforce skills, and breaking the cycle of poverty. 

Consider Margarita, one woman who made the decision to join 

our family literacy program and not only changed her life but also 

the lives of her three daughters. Her dream was to become a teacher, but obstacles got in the way. She was orphaned. She became 

pregnant and moved to a country where she didn’t know the language and had to sleep in the water heater room instead of a bedroom. Her husband’s drinking problem was endangering the children, and she worked two very low-wage jobs. 

Through family literacy, she learned English, became involved in 

her children’s education and revived her dream of becoming a 

teacher. Today I am proud to say that Margarita is a U.S. citizen. 

She will soon graduate from college and has become a certified preschool teacher for the Long Beach Unified School District. 

But the effects of family literacy reach beyond Margarita. Her 

oldest daughter graduated from college and started her own business. Another one is studying to become a paralegal, and her third 

is enrolled in the gifted program in the high school. 

So let me tell you about Long Beach Family Literacy. We have 

been in operation since 1992. We serve as a model for other literacy 

efforts and have been lauded as a national example by the Annie 

E. Casey Foundation. 

Our program includes four components: adult education, parent 

education, parent and child time together, and early childhood education. We provide adults and their children with the skills and resources necessary to be successful in their education, financially secure and productive members of their communities. They become 

lifelong learners, which has never been more important than this 

global, high-tech economy. Seventy-three percent of our participants are at or below the Federal poverty level, and 61 percent 

have not gone beyond the 9th grade. 

By addressing the needs of parents and children simultaneously, 

we are outperforming stand-alone programs. We exceed State 

benchmarks year after year. Our most recent adult outcomes show 

that parents made gains that are more than double the State reading proficiency benchmarks. Our children who entered kindergarten increased their English language skills at a rate of 2.5 more 

than the Federal benchmark. Children in our program leave preschool possessing the skills to succeed in kindergarten and beyond, 

and their parents simultaneously gain the language and literacy 

skills to support them. Our program also ranks in the 90th percentile for attendance and retention. 
262 

We continue to implement new measures that ensure innovation 

and success. In 1998, we joined forces with the Pacific Gateway 

Workforce Investment Network to integrate family literacy and 

welfare-to-work programming. The model is still in place. The partnership with our local Workforce Investment Act employment entity is invaluable in bridging the gaps between education and employment for families in need. 

Last year, we were awarded a grant from Toyota to bring our 

program to Hispanic families, to expand to three elementary school 

sites. The Toyota program, created by the National Center for Family Literacy, brings parents and children together in classrooms 

and includes culturally relevant programming. 

The need is great in Long Beach. Forty-two percent of the population is low income, and the unemployment rate exceeds 10 percent. The good news is that our entire community is responding to 

our success. Small businesses support our efforts. They know that 

educated community members make better employees and consumers. Local McDonald’s operators are opening their doors for 

Family Mealtime Literacy Nights to provide workshops and meals 

to help families improve their literacy skills. 

Family literacy is essential to supplying a 21st century workforce. The Toyota/NCFL model doesn’t only just work in Long 

Beach but in both urban and rural settings. That is why it is crucial for the Workforce Investment Act initiatives to support our 

family literacy efforts. Parents pass along more than just eye color 

and other genetic traits to their children. They instill values and 

attitudes towards learning and education. Stronger literacy skills 

across multiple generations benefit family, communities, and the 

national economy. It is simply too urgent to address only one generation at a time, one programmatic element at a time. 

So I strongly encourage Congress to continue to support family 

literacy programs as an important delivery model in the provision 

of the adult education services. 

Thank you. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Thank you very much. 

[The statement of Ms. Lanterman follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Roberta Lanterman, Family Literacy 

Good morning. My name is Roberta Lanterman. It is a privilege to be with you 

this morning. 

I have worked for the cause of literacy for more than 25 years. Currently, I am 

the director of the Long Beach Family Literacy Program in Long Beach, California 

and the training coordinator for the McDonald’s Family Mealtime Literacy Nights. 

Previously a kindergarten and preschool teacher, I also have been a certified trainer 

for the National Center for Family Literacy for more than 10 years. That experience 

has allowed me to tap into national best practices and research for the benefit of 

the children and parents I serve. 

I would like to talk to you today about education partnerships that work—between parents and their children, between the public sector and private businesses, 

and between programs serving generations of learners. 

In my early days as an educator, we made incremental progress, but there were 

barriers we could not overcome because parents were not literate. They could not 

help even if they wanted to. It was then that I saw the light. The problem is systemic, and the solution was to reach both generations simultaneously—helping 

adults while helping our youngest learners side-by-side. 

All too often, we compartmentalize education—early childhood education, adolescent education, adult education, workforce training. We take limited aim at our 

problems by running from issue to issue, program to program, without remaining 
263 

focused on the systemic issues that are causing our education and workforce problems. 

We must focus on the interconnectedness of the problem, which will lead us to 

a real, longlasting solution—educating the entire family. Studies show there is a direct correlation between the education of the parent, the poverty status of the home 

and the likelihood of the child’s success in school. RAND Corporation research, ‘‘Are 

L.A.’s Children Ready for School,’’ conducted in 2004, is one such study. 

Addressing the needs of the entire family is a powerful community strategy for 

raising educational levels, improving workforce skills and breaking the cycle of poverty. 

Consider Margarita—one woman who made the decision to participate in our family literacy program, and not only changed her life, but also the lives of her three 

daughters. 

Her dream was to become a teacher. But obstacles got in the way. She was orphaned. She became pregnant and moved to a country where she did not know the 

language and had to sleep in the water heater room instead of a bedroom. Her husband’s drinking problem was endangering the children, and she worked two lowwage jobs. 

Through family literacy, she learned English, became involved in her children’s 

education and revived her dream of becoming a teacher. Margarita has become a 

U.S. citizen, will soon graduate from college at California State University and has 

become a certified preschool teacher. But the effects of family literacy reach beyond 

Margarita. One daughter graduated from college and has started her own business. 

Another is studying to become a paralegal, and a third is enrolled in a gifted program in high school with an emphasis on international business. 

In 2007, Education Week issued a report that underscores family literacy’s philosophy, ‘‘From Cradle to Career: Connecting American Education from Birth to Adulthood.’’ Importantly, more than half of the 13 categories used to predict children’s 

future success dealt with issues surrounding parents and other adults. Another category (preschool enrollment) is directly related to parents’ actions and value of education. Family income, parental educational attainment and parental employment 

were the three leading categories. Successful states had strong results in those categories, which served as a springboard for success in the remaining measures related to children’s education. 

One of the reasons the home environment is so important is that students spend 

five times as much time in communities and with their families as they do at school, 

so educators cannot conquer this challenge alone. Parents must be educated. 

Let me tell you a little bit about the Long Beach Family Literacy Program that 

has been in operation since 1992. It serves as a model for other literacy efforts and 

has been lauded as a national example by the Annie E. Casey Foundation. 

My program includes four components: adult education, parent education, parent 

and child together time, and early childhood education. 

We provide adults and their children with the skills and resources necessary to 

be successful in their education, financially secure and productive members of their 

communities. They become lifelong learners, which has never been more important 

in this global, high-tech economy. 

Seventy-three percent of our participants are at or below the federal poverty level, 

and 61 percent have not gone beyond the ninth grade. 

By addressing the needs of parents and children simultaneously, we are outperforming stand-alone programs. We exceed state benchmarks year after year in adult 

education proficiency, preschool vocabulary and preschool alphabet knowledge. 

Our most recent adult outcomes show that parents made gains that were more 

than double the state reading proficiency benchmarks. Our children who entered 

kindergarten increased their English-language skills at rate of 2.5 times more than 

the federal benchmark. Children in our program leave preschool possessing the 

skills to succeed in kindergarten and beyond, and their parents simultaneously gain 

the language and literacy skills to support them. 

Our program ranks in the 90th percentile for attendance and retention because 

we do not let families fall through the cracks. We know if they come to our program 

consistently, they will reach their goals. It is that simple, but at the same time, it 

is that complicated. 

For example, Cecilia was coming to the Toyota Family Literacy Program with her 

young daughter. But, after leaving her abusive husband, she moved into a domestic 

violence shelter 30 miles away. The shelter staff wanted her to quit the family literacy program and find immediate employment, but Cecilia daughter persevered— 

knowing the commitment would lead to long-term stability. She and her daughter 

took a train 30 miles to the program. As a result, she received her high school diploma with honors and is attending Long Beach City College to become an art 
264 

teacher instead of being stuck in a low-wage job. Cecilia still comes to our program—taking two buses just to get here. She turned a nightmare into a personal 

triumph. 

Our efforts address the educational needs of children and their parents to create 

literate home environments and prepare adults to enter the workforce. 

We continue to implement new measures that ensure innovation and success. In 

1998, we joined forces with the Pacific Gateway Workforce Investment Network to 

integrate family literacy and welfare-to-work programming. The model is still in 

place. The partnership with our local Workforce Investment Act employment entity 

is invaluable in bridging the gaps between education and employment for families 

in need. 

Last year, we were awarded a grant from Toyota to bring our program to Hispanic 

families and expand our program to three local elementary school campuses. Of 

nearly 200 national applicants, Long Beach was among the top five in nation. The 

Toyota program, created by the National Center for Family Literacy, brings parents 

and children together in classrooms and includes culturally relevant programming. 

Core services are provided through funding from First 5 Los Angeles and Toyota. 

But part of the key to sustainability is that we don’t rely on just one or two funding 

streams. We hold fund-raisers with vendors and apply for grants from community 

foundations. We also request in-kind services and resources from our award-winning 

school district and our Workforce Investment Act partner. 

The need is great in Long Beach—42 percent of the population is low-income, and 

the unemployment rate exceeds 10 percent. 

The good news is the entire community is responding to the success they see. 

Small business owners realize that educated community members make better employees and consumers. Local McDonald’s operators are opening their doors for 

Family Mealtime Literacy Nights to provide workshops and meals to help families 

improve their literacy skills together. 

Family literacy is crucial to supplying a 21st century workforce. The Toyota/NCFL 

model has been successfully implemented in both urban and rural settings—from 

New York, Chicago and right here in D.C. to Shelby County, Alabama; Wichita, 

Kansas; and Springdale, Arkansas. The Springdale program was featured in a recent issue of PARADE Magazine. 

Results from the Toyota programs already implemented include: 

• Significant literacy gains by adults with 54 percent improving literacy scores by 

at least one level. This has contributed to an improved understanding of basic oral 

and written instructions in English, reading a note from a teacher, setting up a doctor’s appointment, and displaying basic computer literacy skills (word processing 

and sending e-mail); 

• Children in the program exceeded peers in such areas as academic performance 

(79 percent), motivation to learn (86 percent), attendance (96 percent), classroom behavior (91 percent), and involvement in classroom activities (88 percent); 

• 92 percent of parents stating they are better able to help their child with homework; and 

• 91 percent of parents stating their child’s grades have improved. 

The needs of New York City are obviously different from the needs in Springdale, 

Arkansas, but the flexibility of family literacy programming yields success for all 

communities. 

That’s why it is crucial for Workforce Investment Act initiatives to support family 

literacy efforts. 

Parents pass along more than just eye color and other genetic traits to their children. They instill values and attitudes toward learning and education. Stronger literacy skills across multiple generations benefit families, communities, and the national economy. It’s simply too urgent to address only one generation at a time, one 

programmatic element at a time. 

I strongly encourage Congress to continue to support family literacy programs as 

an important delivery model in the provision of adult education services. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Now we are going to move into the heart 

of this hearing on questions, and I am going to recognize myself for 

5 minutes. 

The first question would go to Ms. Gretchen Wilson. Do you have 

suggestions on how awareness of adult literacy resources and programs can be raised in both the rural and the urban communities 

across our country? 
265 

Ms. WILSON. Suggestions on how we can raise awareness. Without funding? I mean, I am a businesswoman myself, and you have 

to spend money to get any kind of a message out. So other than— 

I mean, I think we are all doing what we can do on our own levels. 

I myself, I am on tour. I have shows that I perform in front of, 

you know, sometimes a few hundred, sometimes a few thousand 

people; and I am preparing to educate people on my screens, on 

tour, to let people know how easy it actually was to find the adult 

education center. 

I didn’t have any idea how to do it. I went to the local high 

school and said, how do I get a diploma? I didn’t even know where 

the building was. It is not a very large town that I am from. So 

I am not sure if I have any answers on that. 

I think what I am here to do and I think what I am willing to 

do is any suggestions that anybody else has. I think we are all willing to do everything we can, no matter what it is. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Gretchen, thank you. I can assure you we 

are going to do everything we can to raise the amount in the appropriations so that there will be the resources necessary to raise that 

level of awareness, and I thank you for making us realize that we 

have got to have money to be able to do that kind of a marketing 

program and thus raise the level of awareness. So we thank you 

for your suggestion. 

My next question will go to Martin Finsterbusch. Why do you 

think adults drop out of literacy programs so frequently before 

completing their learning goals? 

Mr. FINSTERBUSCH. Why they drop out? There is a lot of reasons 

why people drop out. I will try to explain this the best I can. There 

is a lot—relax, Marty. I am sorry. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Take your time. 

Mr. FINSTERBUSCH. All right. The reason why people come in the 

program I tried to describe is that there is more reason why people 

come into a program than there are leaves on a tree. We all have 

different reasons why we come in. But then again in our society, 

why we fail out, sometimes it could be the requirements, the sitting 

in a classroom. You have family obligations. Where is that program? And then when you come into a program, you found your 

program at that library someone told you. So coming into the system, it all depends on the program you hit. 

And then there is that program meeting the needs that you 

want. For example, if you just lost your spouse who then did your 

checkbook for you and paid your bills for you and you now have 

to do with that and you go to a program and say, I need help how 

to read, well, I will help you how to read, but it will going to take 

us 2 to 3 years to help you. But I need to learn how to do my 

checkbook now. If a program can’t meet that person’s needs, they 

are going to go. 

If another person comes in and said, look, my job just got transferred over to another country. I need to learn how to fill out this 

application now. And the program says, okay, well, we are going 

to have you read, teach you how to read but don’t address how to 

fill out that application now, they are going to leave. 
266 

So immediate needs have to be addressed by adult education if 

you don’t want us to leave. And that is one I think of the biggest 

reasons. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Thank you. 

My next question I want to direct to David Bere ́. What are some 

of the barriers that small- and medium-sized businesses face in 

helping employees improve their literacy skills? 

Mr. BERE ́. I think there are two things we need to think about. 

You mentioned—— 

Chairman HINOJOSA. I don’t think your speaker is on. 

Mr. BERE ́. Sorry. Two things for—I think one of the biggest barriers right now is just awareness, what you mentioned before. As 

I have gotten into this in the last 18 months to 24 months, I have 

been stunned by the statistics; and it has been a real concern going 

forward for our business and other businesses. 

I think the other big barrier—so I think awareness, understanding, and then a third thing is funding. Small businesses—you 

know, we are a large corporation. We have a lot of passion for this. 

We can afford a lot of the training that we are doing and a lot of 

the programs that we are doing. But from a small business standpoint, I think it is difficult for them. So any type of tax incentives 

and things of that nature I think would be very beneficial to them. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. I agree with you that resources are necessary; and assuming what I said earlier, that the appropriations 

will be increased, how can we leverage both the private sector investment in money and timed resources with the Federal investment so that there would be greater success? 

Mr. BERE ́. That is a great question, and I don’t know if I have 

the answer to that other than what you just said. I think it is extremely important. We have found in the programs that we have 

been involved with when there is partnership between the private 

sector and there is—and the not for profit and the company, you 

get a lot better success. So the examples that we have had is we 

have been able to either get the cooperation of a State or funding 

from a State. You combine that funding from our resources. 

And then the other thing that is really important from a best 

practices standpoint, we have been very clear on the goals that we 

want, we are trying to accomplish. It is usually around a specific 

area. It could be region and specific goals against an educational 

goal. I think it is very important that we are clear on the outcomes 

that we are trying to get, and I think it is very important that we 

continue to measure those things. 

And then the fourth thing is the partnership. So we have to figure out exactly what you just said. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. We will work on that. I think you are very 

thorough, and I appreciate that. 

I would like to call on Congressman Guthrie for his questions. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you very much. My first one will be for Ms. 

Wilson. 

I worked in a manufacturing plant before I came here, and there 

was a lady who is a little older now, but was 19. She had got married, had a baby and didn’t go to college, and she obviously had the 

talent and opportunity. So we really encouraged her. She kind of 

rose up through the ranks, and wanted to be a supervisor, so we 
267 

wanted her to get some background and sent her to school and tutored her. 

And she came to me afterwards. I said, how was it? She said, you 

know what, it really impressed upon me how much it affected my 

children. I mean, my children seeing me study made them want to 

study more. 

And there is a lady at Vanderbilt in Nashville that wrote a book, 

and the quote I will take out of the book is if you want to educate 

a child, educate its mother. And there is a lot of research that 

shows that. And so I met your daughter just earlier, and I—just 

the experience of you, if you could share that, if you wouldn’t mind, 

the sense of you going to school and what it did for her in school. 

Ms. WILSON. I really don’t think that I had any idea when I 

made the decision, because I really made the decision to go back 

and finish my education for me. It was something that was a desire 

that I had, and it was something that was missing for me. I really 

didn’t actually think about it, you know, how it would affect my 

daughter until I got involved in it. 

You know, she was proud of me, and that, I think, maybe is the 

first time that I have seen that look in her eye. You know, to have 

my daughter there at graduation with me was—I know it wasn’t 

the way it was supposed to work, but I wouldn’t have changed it 

for anything now. 

I think—like I said earlier, my mother, my mother dropped out. 

She didn’t finish school, and I am almost positive that that is the 

reason why I found it unimportant to myself. 

And I know that I am setting a good example by doing this, and 

I know that by finishing this and—you know, I am also—I am interested in having a college education. Musical careers don’t last 

forever. So I know now that my education will continue, and I will 

go on, and hopefully I will continue to be inspiring to her. I don’t 

want her to think that these sort of things that happened for me 

happen for everybody. They are very few and far between. 

So we have to make sure that parents out there are educating 

their children on, you know, hey, you are not going to be Mr. Basketball U.S.A., you might not be a country music mama over here; 

you might have to really, really work and have an education. And 

I think it is important for people like me, and that is why I am 

here today, to show that to everyone else. This doesn’t happen to 

everyone. It may have not happened for me, and I should have had 

a backup plan, and I didn’t, but now I do. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Well, I think you said when we were talking earlier, too, and I just want to comment that, you know, you are a 

star, and you are now getting your degree, but it was hard work. 

You just didn’t all of the sudden become a famous person. You 

worked hard, and people who work hard at it can get there. We 

need to have the opportunity for people willing to work hard and 

want to work hard to get there. I think that is what we need to 

be focused on in this. 

Mr. Reder, I am working on something in Kentucky. We have an 

estimated 20 percent that are functionally illiterate when we were 

doing some studies. We were looking at trying to bring technology, 

because just the numbers to have tutors—you should have the 
268 

numbers. You couldn’t tutor enough people to get the level of education, the level they need and the people in the college. 

And so we were doing some experiments with technology and 

talked with Dollar General on that, as I mentioned earlier. Are you 

seeing—I know you are using technology to teach teachers. Are you 

seeing that technology—because my first impression of that was 

people would be kind of scared of technology if they were functionally illiterate, but we haven’t really seen that. They have actually 

been able to use technology to try to get—we want to find something that is replicable, that we can put it everywhere and people 

can have access to it, because the one-on-one, just the numbers are 

too big. Could you comment on what you have done with technology in that respect? 

Mr. REDER. Well, technology is one of the areas I was suggesting. 

I offered great potential for increasing the capacity and effectiveness of our programs. We need to do research and development to 

actually, you know, develop those technologies to the point where 

I can really answer your question. That is one of the reasons I am 

calling for a research center that can look at that question. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. We set up a program in Kentucky. It’s called—the 

group that is doing this is CCLD, the Collaborative Center for Literacy Development, at University of Kentucky, and we are trying 

to see how can we adapt technology just to get to the masses that 

way. So maybe there is an opportunity to look at that further. 

Mr. REDER. I think, you know, using it for distance delivery, you 

know, letting adults study, you know, with technology on line and 

so forth, and increasingly the younger adults coming through the 

system are very comfortable with technology, unlike when I went 

through the system. 

But I think there are other ways technology can be very valuable, too, trying to create sort of an anywhere, anytime learning 

plan that goes with the adult when they stop in and out of a program. As Gretchen said, life often makes it very difficult to, you 

know, stick in a program. So if we had these more transportable, 

you know, systems that lots of service providers could interact 

with, I think it would really build the kind of persistence that we 

see as being essential to adults reaching their dreams. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. I see my yellow light real quick, and I just want 

to comment, because I am not going to be able to ask a question, 

on the ESL. If the mother’s education level correlates, then if you 

have a mother that is not educated in her native language and 

doesn’t speak English as a first language, that is an area we definitely have to address, and hopefully we will do that this summer. 

And then on the tipping point, and I won’t ask—I have got a red 

light—but how do you determine what is enough? Is there some 

standard you say that they have reached enough education? I think 

that was in the comment. 

Ms. COOPER. The tipping point research indicated that enough to 

get to that bottom rung is essentially 1 year of college. In our 

State, that would be 45 credits and a recognized credential or certificate. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Very good. 

I would like to now call on our friend, Congressman Andrews 

from New Jersey. 
269 

Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for this series of hearings that you are holding. I find them to be very edifying, and I appreciate your efforts. I thank the panelists for excellent testimony. 

Ms. Wilson, your testimony was powerful, and it just beautifully 

captured the reason we care so much about this issue, and I congratulate you for what you have accomplished in your life. It is 

very impressive. It is really great. 

One of the things I am hearing from the panel is that research 

really needs to drive what we do on this law and in this program. 

Dr. Reder, in particular, I was interested in the longitudinal study 

in which you engaged, and I want to ask you some more questions 

about it. My understanding is you tracked 1,000 high school dropouts for 10 years; is that right? 

Mr. REDER. Close to 10 years; 9 years plus, yes. 

Mr. ANDREWS. How many of those 1,000 people were low literacy, 

at the two lowest levels of literacy? 

Mr. REDER. We had a broad spectrum of skills. There were individuals—among the dropouts we followed, some actually had very 

high levels of skill; others had very low levels of skill. I would say 

it was a broad distribution. About a third of them over that 10-year 

period went on to get a GED. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Well, the question I asked, though, is we have had 

testimony this morning that roughly 30 percent of the population 

is at the two lowest levels of literacy. Was that 30 percent tracked 

in your 1,000 sample, or was it higher than that? 

Mr. REDER. I would say in Oregon, where we drew our sample, 

literacy levels are a little higher than they are in the rest of the 

country, but we have the full—we had the full range in our study. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Of the subset of the 1,000 that had low literacy 

skills, how many of them accessed a literacy program during the 

10 years? 

Mr. REDER. I would say it was about 20 percent. That is a rough 

guess. I would have to go look. 

Now, one of the things that is different in our population is that 

it was restricted in age, so people were 18 to 44 years old at the 

beginning of our study. So we didn’t have the older population who 

tends not to participate. That is why that number is a little higher. 

We also did not have—we had nonnative speakers of English, but 

not low levels of English proficiency. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Now, is it correct that the 20 percent or so that 

accessed literacy programs had a better success rate in terms of 

employment and earnings than the 80 percent who did not? 

Mr. REDER. When you look over a long time period, that is correct. That is one of the events I said we need to really follow people 

over long periods of time. 

Mr. ANDREWS. By what order of magnitude did they have greater 

success? Did 20 percent more have jobs and make 30 percent more 

money? What order of magnitude of that success? 

Mr. REDER. I am going to have to actually, you know, provide 

more information. I don’t have that—— 

Mr. ANDREWS. I tell you why I ask these questions. This is not 

a Jeopardy round here. 
270 

The argument that we will always hear when we try to fund a 

program like we are talking about today is, well, everybody wants 

funded and everything is desirable. This strikes me as a particularly great example of how a dollar invested can multiply many, 

many, many times over. 

I suspect that the cost of literacy services for those 20 percent 

that access the program wasn’t very much at all, but the taxes that 

they paid because of the income they made far, far exceeded the 

amount that was invested. It would be very helpful for the Chairman and the rest of us, as we try to increase the money for this 

program, to be able to master those facts and be able to commend. 

So you would be a big help to us in that regard. 

The final question I want to ask was about distance learning. Is 

anybody aware of any data that would show the differences, if any, 

in the performance for distance-learning services versus traditional 

services? In other words, one of the things people sometimes suspect about distance learning is it is not as effective as in-person 

learning. I don’t accept that premise at all, and I would be interested if anybody has any data about the quality of performance in 

literacy programs for distance learning as opposed to traditional. 

Mr. REDER. I don’t have that data, but I know where you can get 

it. The State of California, that has a very extensive distance education component in their adult education program, has quite a bit 

of data on the effectiveness of traditional classes, on-line classes 

and blended classes; that is, classes where students both go to traditional classrooms as well as use on line. 

Mr. ANDREWS. One of the reasons that I raise this issue is it has 

both cost and equity implications. A lot of our individuals we are 

trying to help here live in rural areas that are not easily accessible 

to schools and other institutions. And then, frankly, those who live 

in urban areas have transportation issues and child-rearing issues. 

It just isn’t very easy to get where you need to get at a given time. 

And I am interested in whether distance learning helps to solve 

those problems, whether it is effective or not. I suspect that it is. 

Ms. Wilson, did you want to say something about that? 

Ms. WILSON. I just wanted to say that I didn’t have time. I wanted to be at this program. 

Mr. ANDREWS. How old is your daughter, by the way? 

Ms. WILSON. She is eight. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Is she here? 

Ms. WILSON. Yeah. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Well, that is great. She should be very proud of 

her mom, and someday she will be up here testifying. That is great. 

Ms. WILSON. But I didn’t have the time that I know that they 

really wanted me to have to be able to sit in there and be one on 

one and be in that classroom. I had to take the books and learn 

and go on tour and to study out there and to soak up everything 

I could. It seemed to work just fine for me because I wanted it. And 

I really think it would solve a lot of the people’s financial problems: 

Well, I can’t go in there and work on this education because I have 

to be at work; they can study away from a classroom. They can actually do it on their own time. 

Mr. ANDREWS. I suspect that you probably do a lot of things at 

2:00 and 3:00 in the morning, because that is the only time you 
271 

had to do them as a mom, as a working mom, but if some of that 

could be your coursework, I assume it would work very well. 

Ms. WILSON. Yes. 

Mr. ANDREWS. I am very interested in whatever we can do, Mr. 

Chairman, to validate that interest in distance learning. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. If any of the panelists can give us answers 

to Mr. Andrews’ questions, we would appreciate it. 

[The information, submitted by Mr. Reder, follows:] 

Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the panel. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. At this time I would like to call on Congressman Roe and have him ask his questions. 
272 

Mr. ROE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I must have gone the other 

way. I overdosed on education. I was in school for 24 years, so— 

but thank you, Gretchen, for being here today, and it is Grace that 

is back here. We didn’t introduce her earlier, and I apologize for 

that. 

I think that you weren’t lucky. I think you are very talented and 

worked very hard, and I think that is—I think that is the impression that you have given everybody, and that is what you want to 

do to motivate people to get them to do what you did. You can do 

it if you want to. Just what you said, how busy you were—and you 

are incredibly busy—to be able to take the time, you place the importance on it. I think that is one of the problems that we have in 

education is that we don’t value it. It is an investment, not a cost. 

And as we were talking in our meeting before here, if you get a 

high school education, you will earn a half million dollars more in 

your lifetime; and if you have a college education, you will earn a 

million dollars more on average in your lifetime, which changes not 

only your life, but your family and those around you and your 

friends. 

Mr. Andrews asked an excellent question. He had to leave. But 

in Tennessee I supplied some data where 14,000 or so GEDs were 

issued in 2007 and 2008, and this was at a cost of only $275.19 per 

student. If there is not a better investment in the world, I don’t 

know it, and I have seen any number of programs come through 

where we spend $5-, $10-, $15,000 per participant. In the State of 

Tennessee, $275.19, and that improved that person’s who got that 

GED, their income, by over $9,000 a year. And you multiply that 

times 14,000, and you get how much more tax dollars came in, not 

going out. 

So I think that answers the question. And I am sure this same 

data is available in every State in the Union. 

Workforce development is a huge issue, and, Dave, I want to ask 

you if you could expound on if the education level makes it difficult 

for you to find qualified employees for your business. 

Mr. BERE ́. Yes, there is no question. As I said in my testimony, 

when I first got into this, I was really astounded by the statistics 

and worried about our own growth plans as we were going forward. 

And I think another big awareness of the issue is we have got to 

get the business community to really understand that this is a big 

issue, and that we are going to be in trouble as a business community if we don’t solve this relatively quickly. 

It really comes down to, you know, every job that we have at Dollar General or any company, whether it be in the distribution center, whether it be in the stores, there is certain basic skills that 

you need, and some people don’t even have the chance to even get 

to that level. But once you get to that level, then you have to keep 

growing your skill set. So having on-site training programs is something that is extremely important. 

And then the other piece is it changes. The technology changes. 

Every year in our distribution system we are putting in new capital 

that require new skills to run that capital. We have new POS systems that go into our stores. So it is a constant building of skills 

over time, and your great companies, if they figure out how to do 

this constantly, do that. The issue we have here is that there are 
273 

some basic skills that they can’t get to second, third and fourth 

level. 

Mr. ROE. I recall one of my anatomy professors in medical school 

said, I can teach you to practice medicine 1 year 25 times, or I can 

teach you to practice 25 years. And what you are saying is that is 

a lifelong learning, and I think what we have heard today, we have 

the No Child Left Behind Act. We should have the No Adult Left 

Behind Act. 

As mayor of our city, Johnson City, Tennessee, before I came 

here, that was one of the great challenges I discovered was how do 

we get the folks out there who are talented and bright, how do we 

get them educated, and that is a real challenge. And I think one 

of the greatest challenges we have in this country, as we spoke before, there are more honor students in China than we have students in America. So we have got to get with it, and this is an opportunity, I think. It is a huge opportunity to spend a little bit of 

money and get a humongous result. 

My light is on. I thank all of you, and I yield back my time. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Thank you. 

At this time, I would like to call on the gentleman from Colorado, 

Congressman Jared Polis. 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

The percentage of exiters from the adult program with limited 

English proficiency who received intensive training has dropped 

considerably from a high of 8 percent in 2002 to 3.8 percent in 

2007, by more than half. I think we all know and suspect that that 

is not because of a lack of demand or a reduction in the need for 

these services. 

In addition, the share of exiters who are coenrolled in Title I and 

Title II decreased from 2.5 percent in 2001 to .2 percent in 2002. 

In my home State of Colorado, Title II serves only an estimated 3 

percent of the target population. 

My first question is for Dr. Kinerney, and it is about what 

changes do you recommend in the reauthorization of WIA to help 

reverse these trends? Not the obvious one of increasing funding, 

but sort of taking that one aside, what structural changes can, in 

fact, reverse this trend of what has happened, which is, in fact, 

these services have moved away from serving limited-English-language proficiency people, which seem to be one of the—in fact, in 

Colorado, my home State, one of the biggest growth needs and markets. And what ideas do you have absent outside of just resources 

in terms of collaboration between Title I and Title II, other ideas? 

Ms. KINERNEY. I think there is an opportunity here for technology. I would share that with my colleagues here. 

We don’t really know, and we need to understand better, who 

has access to computers. In our program, for example, we take all 

of our EL/civics students, we take them to the libraries, we show 

them computer labs, and we want to make sure that people have 

access to that. But yet I am hearing now that students at our refugee training programs are bringing computers with them, laptops 

with them, from refugee camps. So I think there is really an unexplored opportunity here to utilize that technology and come up with 

some new ways to perhaps serve these folks. 
274 

Mr. POLIS. If I could follow up on that. You know, it is unlikely 

that the new technology would be a requirement or kind of top 

down. How do we create an environment that allows for on-line, 

new technology to effectively compete for these funds from the bottom up, and does the current way that we spend these funds prevent the type of use of technology that you are referring to? 

Ms. KINERNEY. I wish I had a solution for all of this. I think 

that—— 

Mr. POLIS. And I would open that up if anybody else would care 

to comment. 

Ms. KINERNEY. When we use technology for language learning, I 

think we also have to be really cognizant that communication and 

language learning is a very human activity. So, we do have to build 

in opportunities for people to connect on multiple levels. It is not 

just simply that I can sit there at a computer with a piece of software or on a Web site and hope to learn English. I need to have 

real connection with other people, because there is no way a piece 

of software is going to be able to predict what other people do. 

So I don’t know exactly what the solution is going to be, but I 

would say, too, that the technology, if we could wrap that in with 

that human piece where people have the opportunity to either go 

into class for short periods, perhaps work with volunteers, utilize— 

like with the Learner Web, I know they have volunteers from 

across the U.S. that can help with folks who are in a classroom 

maybe in a very different geographic region. And so looking at different ways that we can interface with those programs might work. 

Mr. POLIS. I want to open that up, but before I do, I also want 

to add I think another important aspect is predictability. And one 

of the difficulties in planning around these funds is the lack of this 

reauthorization and for several years a continuation. 

So, I mean, whenever you are talking technology, you are generally talking some capital investment. I think providers want to 

know if this is something that is going to be here in 2 or 3 years, 

what is the revenue stream going to be like for 3 years as it applied in the use of technology, and that has been very, very, very 

difficult, impossible really, in this environment in the last few 

years. 

Any other ideas about either how we can better open up to technology or other ways to serve more lab people? 

Mr. FINSTERBUSCH. What I allude to in here is don’t just think 

of technology as the on-line technology in the classroom. Think 

about your cell phone. That is the lessons. 

What we are hearing, talk to texts. You know, I am hearing, for 

instance, if you are texting, you will be able to talk in English, and 

it comes out in another language. Or a workplace, where a manager has employees that speak in another language, boom. 

These are the kind of skills, technology, that I think we need to 

look into to get the adult learners the tools on their jobs and in 

their communities; not just think of technology for the classroom, 

but what technologies that corporations are developing, that we are 

using every day, and give the adult learners the tools in their 

hands that goes with them. 

So I think we need to look in investing in that kind of technology, speech to text, so people can pump out writing materials or 
275 

get that writing material back to them if they don’t have the skills. 

So if you have employees that can’t read that text, there is a pen 

that will scan a page and will read it to them. The employee just 

got all the information they needed without sitting in a classroom 

that particular month, or 3 years, or whatever. 

So when you think of technology, I really think, stop just thinking on line technology, long distance. Think about what the person 

has in their pockets. 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. At this time, I would like to call on Congressman Castle from Delaware. 

Mr. CASTLE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I don’t 

disagree with anything that I have heard here today from the panelists or from those asking questions, but I certainly would like to 

shift gears a little bit if I could. 

And I will start, I think, with Ms. Wilson and Mr. Finsterbusch 

and their own personal experiences. But my concern is, how did we 

get in the position that we are in? Why do people drop out of 

school, whatever it may be? And we have these sessions here, and 

we read these high-falutin’ reports or whatever it may, but maybe 

we all have a fairly good idea of all this. 

But I am worried about the common culture; that is, I am worried about television, perhaps the people Ms. Wilson sings to, whatever it may be. I mean, how can we make sure the people grasp 

the fact that they need to be educated? I think it was Dr. Roe who 

indicated the earnings numbers: If you graduate from high school, 

it is another half-million dollars, and from college it is another million dollars. 

I am not sure people really understand that, or if they do, it is 

sort of a fact. But how can we take this culture into television 

shows, into the performers in our country who—LeBron James is 

somebody who can say, maybe you are not going to be as good as 

I am, but you have got to get educated, or whatever it may be. 

I worry about it being too much on an intellectual plain and not 

hitting home with people, and I am talking about folks staying in 

school. And we have lot of other problems with that in early education and everything else, but I am also talking about going back 

with the programs we are talking about today, the adult literacy, 

more than just us talking about it, but making sure the people 

grasp the significance of this and how it can help them. 

Any answers anybody has? 

Ms. WILSON. I mean, the first part of your question, why do people drop out of school, it is people like me. I am a trailer park girl. 

I mean, I ate peanut butter and jelly and hot dogs every day. I was 

one of those people. I dropped out of school because my household 

was horrible. Mostly people I knew dropped out of school because 

they needed to go to work. They needed three people in the family 

working, not one. 

There is so many different—some people—I moved. My parents 

had me in—I went to a different school every 3 months, I think. 

I was constantly being introduced to new people and new teachers, 

and really, if I had stayed in school, I don’t think I would have 

made it through anyway, because some schools had different credit 
276 

programs than other schools have, and I would have ended up not 

having what I needed to graduate. 

I think there is lots and lots of different reasons why people don’t 

stay in school. 

Mr. CASTLE. Is there anything that would have kept you in 

school in retrospect, looking back now? 

Ms. WILSON. Not in the house that I was in, but you know—and 

I hate to say it, but I think there is a lot of that that we don’t see, 

too, that doesn’t get discussed. 

But as far as how we can get people like me to recognize the importance—and I, myself, there is lots of things I can do just being 

a celebrity and being in the public eye. There are things that I am 

already doing. I am doing interviews with anybody I can about it. 

I am talking to radio stations all over the United States, which 

reaches millions of people, and discussing the importance and what 

it has done for me, and how it wasn’t something I had to do, but 

how much it has affected my life and my family’s life and so many 

other people around me, made them feel better about themselves. 

It is making us a stronger America. 

Mr. CASTLE. Are your fellow entertainers doing what you are 

doing do you think? 

Ms. WILSON. I am sorry? 

Mr. CASTLE. Are your fellow entertainers doing what you are 

doing do you think? 

Ms. WILSON. I think everybody that I know in the entertainment 

industry has a passion. This is my passion. I can tell you—— 

Mr. CASTLE. Your passion for educating? 

Ms. WILSON. Well, I know a few of them. I know a few of them. 

I know a couple of them that came to me as soon as this was finished and asked me how hard it was, because they are not capable 

of reading themselves. 

Mr. CASTLE. Okay. Mr. Finsterbusch. 

Mr. FINSTERBUSCH. I can share why people don’t come into programs. One, we haven’t addressed it here. There is a real stigma, 

a fear for people coming forward and saying, I need help. People 

do—when you say—and there is a lot of adult learners in this audience today, and I bet you almost every one of them had experienced, when they declared, I am an adult learner, people treat 

them differently. People that treated—talked to us as an equal, and 

all of a sudden they do talk to us differently or down to us. And 

so there is a fear of coming forward and saying, I need help. And 

there is not enough champions out there saying, I am an adult 

learner. 

And so programs need to work on this. There is that out there. 

It is not talked much about in our society, that we do look down 

on people that have less education. We might lack education, but 

we now as adults have a lot of life experience and other skills. But 

that is not what—and then the other issue is—and I just lost my 

thought, and I apologize—is—I had it, and I lost it because I got 

nervous again. I have to calm down. 

So it is the stigma issue, and I will—it will come back to me. I 

am going to have to pass on, but there is a piece to that, I am 

sorry. She took me on—I am sorry—it is not fear of failing, as 

someone just mentioned. It is that a lot of people in our society 
277 

don’t really know they have a literacy problem. It really doesn’t hit 

them until a crisis or something else happens, like the loss of a job 

or like the spouse that I said earlier, because they got their education many years ago, or they were able to get through the system 

so we have a high school diploma. I had a high school diploma, but 

that wouldn’t translate to a good job if they tested me coming into 

that job now. 

So a lot of people don’t realize it until something happens, and 

then it is immediate need. And so I think when they did a test on 

who had reading levels, a lot of people didn’t think they had a literacy problem, but when they got tested, they needed literacy help. 

So that is a problem why people don’t come in to getting help for 

literacy. 

Mr. CASTLE. If the Chairman will allow? 

Chairman HINOJOSA. I will give you another minute, and then I 

have to move forward. 

Mr. CASTLE. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. Bere ́, did you want to say something? 

Mr. BERE ́. I was going to say maybe another issue here is the 

job landscape is changing. So there was a time where you didn’t 

need a high school education, and you could still be assured of a 

job. Now the requirements are so changing that there is now that 

gap, and I think people are waking up and saying, my goodness, 

I don’t have the skill set, and so that could be another reason. 

Mr. CASTLE. Exactly. Thank you. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. At this time, I would like to call on Congressman John Tierney from Massachusetts. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for putting 

together such a great panel on this subject today. 

It is about a dozen years ago we were still dealing with this 

issue. In Massachusetts, we had over 20,000 people in a waiting 

line to get any services, and unfortunately that hasn’t shrunk at 

all. 

Mr. Finsterbusch, you are a great example out here, and we 

want to thank you for coming forward. I think your presence here 

today will do a lot, as will Ms. Wilson’s. And Ms. Wilson, you are 

not such a ‘‘Redneck Woman’’ after all. You have really just proven 

that and probably ruined your whole career just by coming forward 

here today. 

Mr. Finsterbusch, we are told that some of the community-based 

organizations are having trouble accessing Title II funds, that the 

States are hoarding them. Do you have any comments on that or 

anything you think we can do in reauthorization that might free 

that up a little bit? I didn’t say it was going to be easy. 

Mr. FINSTERBUSCH. A lot of community-based programs really try 

to meet the needs of the adult learners in their communities. The 

moneys coming through the departments have rules. You have to 

have a student that will meet a certain amount of hours. They 

have to have this, they have to—you know, right now they don’t 

count on record if you don’t do 14 hours, so that student is not 

counted on the books. And so some programs choose not to opt, and 

others, because of the way the funding flows, it goes to the community colleges, and the community colleges decide how the money 
278 

goes out. And so the CBOs sometimes get left out of that money 

flow. 

There is somehow—the community-based programs are in the 

community, and a lot of people are able to find them. They are having problems navigating that fragmented system. 

Mr. TIERNEY. So some flexibility and some assistance on that? 

Mr. FINSTERBUSCH. Yes. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Access is one thing that I think, Mr. Bere ́, I want 

to address a question to you on this. I think businesses have responsibility, and I thank you for Dollar General stepping forward 

on that. 

We had some great ideas in our community about trying to get 

businesses to partner without trying to bribe them in the Tax 

Code, whatever; get them to understand their own self-interest. We 

had companies that would provide their site and some of their personnel for a half-hour and hour before work, and then let the people stay on for a half-hour or hour into work on their dime. And 

we had tremendous participation from people in that. 

A large company came in, bought them out, nixed the program, 

gave a small check to a community organization, thought they were 

doing just as well. 

When you talk about access to the program, it seems to me the 

workplace is a great place for people to access it. How do we entice 

businesses to participate in a program like that and get more involved without feeling the need to be bribed in? 

Mr. BERE ́. Well, I, first of all, agree with you that the business 

community needs to step up. We are clearly part of the solution 

here, and as I mentioned earlier, I think it really is about partnership. 

I think there are two things. One is the business community, and 

I said this earlier, needs to become aware. I really don’t think they 

understand the long-term implications of this and the implications 

to themselves as this is going on, and they have to treat this as 

an investment. 

I think the second piece, it is a cultural thing. There are just 

some companies who care, and they are worried about this; you 

know, companies like McDonald’s, what they have done with their 

own McDonald House and things like that. So I think the best 

thing we can do is increase awareness, realize that this is really 

a national problem, and that we have got to work together, and 

only by working through partnerships is this thing going to get 

done. You can’t solve it alone, we can’t solve it alone, the States 

can’t solve it alone. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Ms. Cooper, Ms. Lanterman, you both talked about 

good programs that you are running. We need to bring them up to 

scale. 

I assume neither one of you wants to relinquish your program 

and adopt the other’s in full bore on that, and we want to allow 

both or some innovation in different ways for different areas on 

that, but we need to bring them up to scale. We have done that 

a little bit with I-BEST. We have gone, I think, from 10 to 130-odd 

programs, but that is still not serving all of your State’s population, 

never mind the rest of the country. 
279 

Give us some ideas on what we could do on reauthorization that 

would allow good programs to be acknowledged and then be 

brought up to scale. 

Ms. COOPER. I think I referred to that a bit earlier when I talked 

about the importance of what it is that we measure and what it 

is that we allow to be counted as instruction for goals. So I think 

looking at the accountability system and being really clear about 

what it is that we look for as we move people forward. I think that 

that would be helpful. 

As well, I think the think the law is not clear about allowing a 

very richly contextual instruction that focuses on work, and I think 

it has been interpreted as well more rigidly than it might be. So 

I think those are places we might look. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you. 

Ms. LANTERMAN. I would just like to add about the family literacy model and really highlighting that as a way to remove the 

barriers that we have been talking about. 

Every adult in our program talks about they would not be able 

to do this, go back to school, without the care for their children. 

And the motivation behind learning in the classroom with their 

children is very powerful not only for themselves, when they see 

themselves as growing and learning, but to help their children. 

So, again, just highlighting the family literacy model which 

brings the partnerships in place that we have been talking about 

here, as well as the private sector and the public sector. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Thank you. 

I now would like to call on my friend Congresswoman Biggert. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

holding this hearing. I have got just a couple of questions. 

Ms. Cooper, have you seen an increase in the demand for your 

educational services change since the current recession began? 

Ms. COOPER. Yes. I would say this was—this fall was one of the 

largest enrollments for adult basic education in the history of our 

State, and that was before the effects of the recession. Since the 

recession began, our State, like many others, has experienced significant layoffs, and that is a time when adult workers often look 

for more education. So at the very time that we are seeing reduction in funds, it has been very difficult for our programs to expand 

their doors to let even more people come in in a very purposeful 

way, so that as the economy recovers, these workers will be prepared to move into those good-paying jobs. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Have you put in any special programs for returning veterans who want to upgrade their skills? Are they a part of 

this mix that is coming in? 

Ms. COOPER. They are part of that mix, and they are part of this 

mix that is well-recognized in Washington State as an important 

population. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Okay. Then, Ms. Lanterman, how—can your family program be used in traditional schools, a classroom setting? 

Ms. LANTERMAN. Absolutely. We just expanded to three elementary school sites, and it has been so exciting to see how that works 

with kindergarten, first, second-grade children. Parents are in their 

child’s classroom for 2 hours a week, watching the teacher strate-
280 

gies, the reading instruction piece. They go back into their adult ed 

classroom. They are able to work with their teacher on what the 

strategies are, how can they work and help with their children’s 

homework. So they are learning again side by side with their children. The results so far have just been fantastic to watch. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. It sounds like a great program, and I think you 

said in your testimony that you got this grant, and there were 200 

other groups competing for this grant. So it sounds like people are 

really looking for something like this. 

Ms. LANTERMAN. We are addressing the parent needs as well, because as adult reentry students, they are not just adults, they 

are—the majority of them are parents. So they get to address those 

needs, relieve those barriers, become involved in their children’s 

education. They are leaders at their school sites. They are PTA 

presidents. They are all on the school site councils. 

The teachers see them now as true partners. I had one teacher 

say, this parent said that she didn’t think I was going to fit as her 

child’s teacher—be a teacher best, and she said this was going to 

be a problem parent, and since she joined the Toyota Family Literacy Program, they have a true relationship now, and they can 

work side by side. She saw this parent as a problem parent, and 

the parent saw it as a problem teacher, but now the child benefits. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. I would suspect, too, that, you know, one thing is 

all of us who have been parents have been involved in this, are the 

homework—— 

Ms. LANTERMAN. Yes. 

Mrs. BIGGERT [continuing]. That our children bring home, and I 

would imagine that that would really be a help for the parents to 

be much more engaged in helping. 

Ms. LANTERMAN. It is essential. I am an educator and educated, 

and my kindergartner comes home or my sixth grader comes home, 

and I can’t understand sometimes, and I am thinking here are 

these parents that don’t have those skills, and we are giving them 

those skills, and they are learning again for themselves, but able 

to help their children. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Well, you see it wanting to expand in your area. 

Do you think that this is going to be something that will really 

take place, or how can we encourage other places or—I guess it is 

the funding that is going to drive this issue; is that correct? 

Ms. LANTERMAN. Yes. The support and the funding and just what 

you are doing here today, sharing best practices, innovations, what 

partnerships that can be formed, because this is a partnership. I 

don’t get lots of money. The money that we receive is just enough 

to coordinate those pieces. I don’t pay for the adult ed. I don’t pay 

for the early childhood. It is just the coordination of that so that 

we are really strengthening the family and all the learners in the 

family. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. What about the children, like zero to three, is that 

part of this, too? 

Ms. LANTERMAN. Yes. We have a toddler program. So it is, again, 

parents going into that toddler classroom, learning the importance 

of brain development, what they can do with their children. We 

have parents saying, I didn’t know I could read to them at that 

age. I didn’t think they could learn the alphabet. We have one fam-
281 

ily that wouldn’t even allow their 1-year-old to walk, so they were 

afraid she was going to fall. 

So much child development is in place, but again, the literacy 

skills and, again, for them to be able to work with their children 

in their home, and that goes—that is critical right—for both zero 

to 3, we are not reaching them at that preschool or beyond. It is 

right in the beginning of their learning years. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you. Thank you for all you do. I yield back. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Thank you, Congresswoman Biggert. I 

think that your questions bring validity to the literacy recommendations that have been given by several of today’s witnesses, 

and I want to commend you, Ms. Lanterman, in bringing up the 

success of the Toyota National Center for Family Literacy, because 

the area that I represent in deep south Texas has a very high percentage of families below the national poverty level. 

So a couple of years ago we started an effort, an initiative that 

would focus on children from age 1 to sixth grade, which is age 12, 

and we invited the RIF program, which is Reading Is Fundamental, because they have the textbooks for children of all ages. 

And we also invited Toyota to see if they would bring this model 

of NCFL and help us, because we found that unless there is family 

participation and parental involvement in reading to a child, 1-year 

old, 2-year-old, 3-year-old, we can’t possibly be successful in teaching them the art of learning. And it works for all ages, just like 

we have learned here from several panelists. 

But Toyota has been especially generous in the deep south Texas 

program in helping us with funding so that we can have that parental involvement. So I certainly recommend that to you. 

I would like to call on the Congresswoman from the State of Nevada, Congresswoman Titus, who has had a very difficult time with 

the jobless rate in the State of Nevada and has volunteered to host 

our next congressional field hearing in her State. It is going to be 

on Friday, May 29th, and that is another step that will get us closer and closer to be able to write the legislation that will reauthorize the WIA Act for 2009. So I would like to call on her for her 

questions. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 

for coming to Las Vegas. We do have the worst unemployment that 

we have had in 25 years, and it is very important to us to look at 

this legislation, and your work on that is most appreciated. So 

thank you. 

If I could just kind of sum up, we heard from all of you that 

adult literacy programs are needed, they are wanted, they can 

change lives, they should be continued, but with greater funding 

and some reforms, and, I think, make them more accessible, more 

relevant, more timely, more accountable and more technologically 

up to date. That is kind of what I have been hearing. 

But I would like to step back a little further and ask you, if we 

were to do all that, and I think there is a feeling that we need to 

do, a general consensus about those things, are we really ready to 

move forward? Do we have the providers, the equipment, the infrastructure, the teachers to take advantage of these changes? For example, are there enough ESL teachers available? Are there mechanisms in place for public outreach to bring people into the pro-
282 

gram? Do we have that in place, or do we need to do a little backfilling before we can move forward with these reforms? And anybody can answer. I would just address it generally. 

Ms. KINERNEY. I will take a shot at that one. 

Yes, we absolutely are not ready for—well, no, we are not ready 

to ramp up. We have a significant need for trained teachers regardless of the program level. We need significant more technology support and data systems to be able to pull this off. We need commitment from employers, more commitment from communities. There 

is a whole host of activities that we are going to need to undertake. 

My personal concern is with making sure that we have a sufficient number of teachers who are well qualified and well trained 

and get those folks in the classrooms, because we just simply don’t 

have them now, and even in my area it is difficult to find qualified 

and skilled folks, and in rural areas it is all that much more difficult. 

Ms. COOPER. I would answer that question a little differently 

saying that we are absolutely ready to ramp up, but that there 

would be some areas in which the availability of planning money, 

money to produce more tailored and specific professional development for both existing part-time instructors and tutors, as well as 

recruitment of new people, would be very helpful. 

Mr. REDER. I also think we are ready to ramp up. I think the 

committee needs to think very carefully in drafting the legislation 

about how to include all of the relevant players and providers in 

a community-by-community fashion so that we don’t wind up with 

sort of top-down imposed systems that don’t fit community needs, 

which we sometimes see in the current system. So I would urge 

you to, you know, craft the legislation in a way that will allow appropriate partnerships, that we have heard everyone, I think, talk 

about this morning, have their natural place in receiving the funding and in doing local planning collaboratively to really meet the 

needs of the adults and make sure we get them into family wage 

employment. 

Ms. TITUS. Along these same lines, one of my concerns is that 

States won’t pick up their end of the bargain. States especially that 

are so economically strapped like Nevada are States that this may 

not be a priority when you have a very small pie to divide up into 

a lot of pieces. Can you suggest any teeth that we might put in 

there to be sure that that doesn’t happen and that we do see these 

kind of programs put in place where they are needed? 

Mr. REDER. Well, I am not an expert on those types of things, 

but it seems to me that we may need to have multiple funding 

streams that can reach service providers perhaps in different ways, 

and perhaps there can be different incentives in the legislation for, 

you know, mixing streams and putting, you know, comprehensive 

programs into place. 

Ms. COOPER. I would also say that we both have a great deal of 

support at the State level in Washington State. So I am grateful 

to come from a State with that sort of record. But I will tell you 

our experience would be that one of the ways you sort of both level 

the playing field and also really incent the kind of behavior that 

you like is to give people adequate time and money to plan, and 

then make some kinds of money available by application so that 
283 

people meet certain criteria. And that is the kind of model that we 

used with I-BEST in the beginning, and it has worked well for us 

in other ventures. 

Mr. FINSTERBUSCH. I would have to say the field is ready. We 

want to do it, but we are not ready because we haven’t dealt with 

the issues of the silos of adult education. From our viewpoint, you 

can say, let us do this, but until there is a clear navigation to help 

people navigate this, it is not going to succeed. People are going to 

drop out because they can’t get through. And so we really do need 

to look at all the funding flows, and how do they relate to each 

other, and how do they support each other. 

Right now we have got too many pockets all over the place and 

the coordination. So if you want to ramp up, it is the coordination 

that you are really going to need to look at and then look at we, 

the customers, needing part of this, and can we understand it, and 

can we navigate it, because if we can’t, it won’t succeed. 

And so that is what I am going to recommend. There is a will. 

There is a will, but someone needs to sit down and say coordination, and get these silos start working with each other. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Thank you very much for your thoughtful 

questions. 

I am coming to a close, and I want to take this opportunity in 

sharing with you that when the year started, we decided that we 

needed to hear from different regions of the country, both rural and 

urban and suburban areas. We were in Albany, New York, having 

a congressional field hearing and got their perspective. Now we are 

going to Nevada, and we have had people here in Washington representing different sectors. 

And one thing that comes to mind is that having been a part of 

the reauthorization of WIA in 1998, I recall that we found difficulty 

in putting into the act some type of a cap on how much money 

could be spent with subcontractors and with those in administration, and the end result is that after looking back from 1998 to 

now, we see that there are regions where only 30 to 40 percent of 

the Federal money that came down for training individuals was all 

that was available. 

The profit made by the subcontractors, the wasteful use of Federal and State money, some heavy administration costs, that has 

to be addressed. That needs to be addressed because I personally 

would like to see a minimum of 60 percent used for training our 

participants, adults. And if we don’t address it, then I think you 

are going to have another 6 or 8 years of what we experienced the 

last 10. 

Talk about it. Give us your ideas on how you are going to support legislation that would cap how much profit those subcontractors can make, and also the workforce development boards have 

controls so that administrative costs don’t get out of hand. All of 

that is extremely important as we go into these next few months, 

and I can tell you that there are members of this committee who 

are very seriously considering how we can address this problem 

that I am laying on your lap. 

Once again, I would like to thank each and every one of the witnesses and the members of the subcommittee for a very informative 
284 

session. As previously ordered, Members will have 14 days to submit additional materials for the hearing record. 

[Additional submissions of Mr. Hinojosa follow:] 

[Research Report No. 06-2, Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges, April 2005] 

Building Pathways to Success for Low-Skill Adult Students: Lessons for 

Community College Policy and Practice from a Longitudinal Student 

Tracking Study 

(The ‘‘Tipping Point’’ Research) 

According to the U.S. Census (2000), 42 percent of adults in the United States 

between the ages of 25 and 64 have no more than a high school education (authors’ 

calculations). Unfortunately, however, most new jobs and the vast majority of jobs 

that pay wages sufficient to support a family require at least some education beyond 

high school (Carnevale & Derochers, 2003), and low educational attainment is associated with high rates of unemployment and poverty. 

Community colleges are an important entry point to postsecondary education for 

adults with no previous college education or even a high school diploma. In fall 

2002, for example, adults between the ages of 25 and 64 represented 35 percent of 

fulltime equivalent (FTE) enrollments at two-year public colleges, compared with 

only 15 percent of FTE undergraduate enrollments at four-year public institutions 

(authors’ calculations, based on U.S. Department of Education, 2001). Moreover, 

more than two-thirds of the community college students who entered postsecondary 

education at age 25 or older were low income (authors’ calculations based on 

‘‘Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study’’ [BPS:96/01], 2003). The 

potential of community colleges to serve as a ‘‘pathway’’ for lowskill adults to college 

and career-path employment, therefore, is evident. Across the nation, several major 

projects are underway whose goal is to develop policies and practices supportive of 

this role. Funded by national foundations, these initiatives include the Ford Foundation’s Bridges to Opportunity initiative and the National Governor’s Association’s 

Pathways to Advancement project, funded by Lumina Foundation for Education. 

Despite this interest, relatively little is known about the unique experiences and 

the educational and employment outcomes of adults who enter community college 

with limited education. We do know that their experiences and outcomes differ from 

those of traditional college-aged students. Compared with community college students who enrolled soon after high school (at ages 18-24), those who start later (at 

ages 25-64) are more likely to earn a certificate and less likely to earn an associate 

degree. The late starters are also far less likely to transfer to a four-year institution 

and earn a bachelor’s degree. Indeed, among students who entered a community college for the first time in 1995-96, 60 percent of older first-time students did not earn 

any credential or transfer to a baccalaureate program after six years, compared with 

40 percent of younger, first-time students (authors’ calculations, based on BPS:96/ 

01, 2003). 

This Brief summarizes findings from a new study that seeks to fill information 

gaps about older community college students. Researchers used student record information from the Washington State Community and Technical College system to examine the educational experience and attainment as well as the employment and 

earnings of a sample of adult students, five years after first enrolling. The students 

in the sample were age 25 or older with, at most, a high school education. The study 

was conducted by staff at the Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges (SBCTC), with assistance from the Community College Research Center, as part of Ford’s Bridges to Opportunity initiative. Its goal was to provide educators throughout Washington’s community and technical college system with a detailed profile of their low-skill adult students, who make up about one-third of the 

approximately 300,000 students served by the system annually. The study also 

sought to identify the critical points where adult students drop out or fail to advance to the next level in order to help SBCTC staff stimulate thinking among educators throughout the system about how to bridge those gaps and thereby facilitate 

student advancement. 

Study Sample 

The study’s data source was the system that the Washington State Board for 

Community and Technical Colleges uses to track students in its 34 colleges. The 

database contains complete transcript information on every student who enrolls in 

college credit or non-credit courses. 

The study sample consisted of two SBCTC cohorts: first-time college students who 

were adults age 25 or older with a high school education or less and who started 

in 1996-97 or in 1997-98. Also included in the cohorts were 18- to 24-year-old, first 
285 

time students who lacked a high school diploma or GED. These younger students 

were included because by not graduating from high school and enrolling at a community college, they had in effect entered the adult labor market, whether or not 

they were employed. The sample included students who enrolled in college-credit 

(including college remedial or ‘‘developmental ’’) or adult basic skills programs, 

which include adult basic education (ABE), English as a second language (ESL), and 

GED preparation. In Washington State, adult basic skills programs are provided 

through the community and technical colleges. Together the two cohorts totaled 

34,956 students, or about one-third of all students who entered a community or 

technical college for the first time in Washington State in the two baseline years. 

Females comprised the largest share of the student sample, reflecting a common 

pattern among students in community colleges. Whites made up more than half of 

the sample, and Latinos onequarter. Students between the ages of 25 and 29 comprised the largest group. Over 70 percent had children; nearly one-quarter were single parents. Most of the students were working or seeking work. A little more than 

one-third were not in the labor force. The majority of the low-skill adults were low 

income. 

The starting education level of the students also varied. Nearly one-third enrolled 

in an ESL program. Slightly more than one-third did not have a high school diploma 

and enrolled in adult basic education or GED programs. Approximately one-third of 

the students already had either a diploma or a GED. 

Three-quarters of the high school diploma holders, and nearly 80 percent of GED 

holders, enrolled in occupational degree programs, reflecting the high interest of 

adult students in occupational programs. Forty percent of the students with a high 

school diploma or GED also took at least one developmental course. The majority 

of both GED and diploma holders who enrolled in academic transfer programs had 

to take at least one remedial course. 

Study Findings 

For both cohorts we used the transcript information in the SBCTC student database to track the educational progress of the different subgroups (defined in terms 

of the students’ starting education levels) five years after they entered a community 

or technical college. We used Unemployment Insurance wage record data from the 

Washington State Employment Security Department to examine the annual earnings of students five years after they started. 

Student Educational Attainment and Earnings after Five Years 

Only 13 percent of the students who started in ESL programs went on to earn 

at least some college credits. Less than one-third (30 percent) of adult basic education (ABE/GED) students made the transition to college-level courses. Only four 

to six percent of either group ended up getting 45 or more college credits or earning 

a certificate or degree within five years. (Washington’s community and technical colleges are on the quarter system, so 45 credits is equivalent to two full-time semesters of coursework, or 30 credits in semester systems.) 

Nearly 30 percent of the students who started with a GED, and 35 percent of 

those who started with a high school diploma, earned at least 45 credits or a credential in five years. Fourteen percent of the students who started with a GED, and 

18 percent of students who started with a high school diploma, earned an advanced 

certificate or an associate degree in five years. 

Not surprisingly, the higher students’ educational attainment after five years, the 

higher the wages they earned on average. Compared with students who earned 

fewer than ten college credits, those who took at least one year’s worth of collegecredit courses and earned a credential had an average annual earnings advantage: 

$7,000 for students who started in ESL; $8,500 for those who started in ABE or 

GED; and $2,700 and $1,700 for those entering with a GED or high school diploma, 

respectively. 

These findings are consistent with previous research on the economic returns to 

a subbaccalaureate education. These studies show that earning an occupational certificate (equivalent to two semesters of full-time study) provides individuals with a 

significant earnings advantage compared with individuals with just some college but 

no degree, although the magnitude of the advantage varies by student gender and 

field of study (Bailey, Kienzl, & Marcotte, in press; Grubb, 2002; Kienzl, 2004). 

These studies have also found that the wage gains associated with postsecondary 

education of less than a year are negligible. 

Advancement beyond English as a Second Language and Adult Basic Education 

Only one percent of ESL students who started with less than a high school education earned a GED or high school diploma in five years. In all, 12 percent went 

beyond ESL and enrolled in college-credit courses. Of these, two-thirds had a high 
286 

school credential when they started in ESL. A much larger group of ESL students 

had a high school credential upon enrollment but went no further than ESL. Latino 

ESL students with a high school diploma were less than half as likely as other students to advance beyond basic skills. Males who earned a GED (particularly 

Latinos) were less likely than women to go further in their education. Part of this 

gender difference may result from the fact that, on average, men earn more than 

women, and thus forgo more wages when they attend school. 

Thirty-one percent of the students who started in ABE or GED courses went on 

to enroll in at least one college-level course. Of this group, 70 percent, or 2,543 students, already had a high school credential. A larger group (3,245) also had a high 

school credential but went no further than basic skills, including 1,147 students who 

earned their GED or diploma at the college and left. 

A number of factors seem to be associated with a greater likelihood that students 

who start in ESL or ABE/GED will go on to succeed in college-level courses. A higher percentage of students who succeeded in earning a credential or completing at 

least 45 credits received financial aid than did students who did not do either. In 

addition, students who took developmental education after taking ESL or ABE/GED 

were more likely to earn a credential or at least 45 credits than were those who 

did not. Students who expected up-front that they would attend college a year or 

longer were more successful than were students who did not know upon enrollment 

how long they would attend or those for whom information on their expectations for 

college was not available. 

Although financial aid and developmental education were associated with higher 

chances of success, many students who went beyond ESL or ABE/GED did not receive these supports. Only about 23 percent of students who transitioned from ESL, 

and 35 percent of those who transitioned from ABE, received financial aid when 

they enrolled in collegelevel courses. Only 28 percent of ESL students who 

transitioned, and 33 percent of transitioning ABE students, enrolled in developmental courses. Moreover, less than one-third of ESL and ABE/GED students expected to attend college for a year or more. About half (54 percent) of ESL students, 

and 47 percent of ABE/GED students, did not have clear plans or their intent was 

not ascertained. 

Implications for Policy and Practice 

This study of students in the Washington State Community and Technical College 

system finds evidence that attending college for at least one year and earning a credential provides a substantial boost in earnings for adults with a high school diploma or less who enter higher education through a community college. These findings are consistent with studies that have used nationally representative samples 

of community college students. 

Short-term training, such as the type often provided to welfare recipients seeking 

to enter the workforce, may help individuals get into the labor market, but it usually does not help them advance beyond low-paying jobs. Neither does an adult basic 

skills education by itself nor a limited number of college-level courses provide much 

benefit in terms of either employment or earnings. Another recent study of Washington State community college students (Hollenbeck & Huang, 2003) found that 

adult basic skills programs had no impact on wages and had only a modest impact 

on average rates of employment in the long term (but not the short term). In contrast, individuals who went through community college occupational degree programs were eight percent more likely to be employed, and they earned over $4,400 

per year more on average than did similar individuals in Washington’s labor force 

who did not enroll in any training program. Only individuals who took basic skills 

courses concurrently with vocational training enjoyed a significant benefit in average rates of employment and quarterly earnings. 

Another study (Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board [WTECB], 

2004), drawing on occupational forecasts by Washington State’s Employment Security Department, shows that not only do workers with at least a year of college and 

a credential earn substantially more than do those with just some or no college, but 

that they are in higher demand among employers, at least in Washington State. 

The findings from all of these studies of Washington State indicate that community and technical colleges should consider making at least one year of college-level 

courses and earning a credential a minimum goal for the many low-skill adults they 

serve. While hundreds of low-skill adult students in our sample were able to achieve 

this threshold level of attainment in five years, many more did not. Eight out of 

ten students in ABE or ESL were able to make modest skill gains, at best earning 

a GED, but did not advance to college-level courses. Seven out of ten students who 

had a GED and took college-credit courses left with less (and often a lot less) than 
287 

a year of college credit and no credential. This is also true for the more than two 

out of three students who had a high school diploma and took college courses. 

To enable low-skill adults to achieve the threshold level of one year of college plus 

a credential or more, community colleges in Washington State and elsewhere should 

rethink their programs and services. For example, the study summarized here found 

that there are students—the 69 percent of ABE and ESL students who make the 

transition to college-level work with a high school diploma or GED in hand—who 

are eligible to receive financial aid and developmental education. These supports 

would make it two to three times more likely that they would earn a credential, 

but, at best, only one-third of these students receive them. Therefore, it would be 

useful for basic skills and developmental education faculty to work together to encourage students to take advantage of developmental courses and to work with 

counseling and student services staff to ensure that eligible students apply for financial aid. 

In addition, support should be given to the far larger group of students who have 

or earn a high school diploma or GED but never go beyond basic skills in community college. More aggressive efforts to educate them about their college education 

opportunities, combined with ‘‘bridge programs’’ that ease their transition to college, 

might increase their enrollment and success in college-level programs. 

Finally, since short-term training that is focused on getting low-skilled adults a 

job generally does not result in earnings gains over time when students do not continue their education, colleges could help students avoid dead-end starts by ensuring 

that short-term training options lead to real educational attainment in the long 

term. 

A commuter transit system that is run on the schedule of working adults and that 

can accommodate on-and-off traffic, but still makes connections to long-term destinations, may be an apt metaphor for an education system effective in serving lowskill adults. Such a system would provide a clear map of the educational pathways 

that students can follow to advance in their jobs and pursue further education, indicating where they can ‘‘stop out’’ of education for a time and reenter as they are 

able. The system would give students a lot of guidance and support so they do not 

get lost as they leave and reenter college, and would allow adults to go farther and 

faster than they do in the conventional college system. 

Rethinking existing community college programs to create more of an educational 

transit system has to be done collaboratively, involving faculty and staff from across 

the academic and administrative divisions or ‘‘silos’’ that characterize most community colleges and higher education institutions generally. The Washington State 

Community and Technical College system is taking steps to break down those silos 

by sharing the results of this study widely among its faculty, staff, and administrators. Member colleges interested in improving outcomes for lowskill adult students 

have been invited to organize teams from across their various divisions—basic skills, 

academic transfer (where developmental education is typically housed), workforce 

education, and student services—to reflect on the state-level data from this study 

and on similar data from their own colleges. The aim is to encourage these 

crossdivisional teams to eliminate roadblocks to advancement and create pathways 

to educational and economic success for their many low-skill adult students. 

REFERENCES

Bailey, T., Kienzl, G. S., & Marcotte, D. E. (in press). The return to sub-baccalaureate education: The effects of schooling, credentials, and program of study 

on economic outcomes. New York: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College Research Center. 

Beginning postsecondary students longitudinal study second follow-up data analysis 

system BPS:96/01 (2003) [Data CD-ROM]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 

Carnevale, A. P., & Derochers, D. M. (2003). Standards for what? The economic 

roots of K-16 reform. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. 

Grubb, W. N. (2002). Learning and earning in the middle, Part I: National studies 

of pre-baccalaureate education. Economics of Education Review, 21, 299-321. 

Hollenbeck, K. M., & Huang, W. J. (2003, July). Net impact and benefit-cost estimates of the workforce development system in Washington state (Technical Report No. TR03-018). Kalamazoo, MI: W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment 

Research. 

Kienzl, G. S. (2004). The triple helix of education and earnings: The effect of schooling, work and pathways on the economic outcomes of community college students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Public use microdata sample: 2000 [Data file]. Available from 
288 

United States Census 2000 Web site, http://www.census.gov/main/www/ 

cen2000.html 

U.S. Census Bureau. (2002). The big payoff: Educational attainment and synthetic 

estimates of work-life earnings (Current Population Reports P23-210). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration. 

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2001). Integrated postsecondary education data system—Fall enrollment survey: 2001— 

[Data File]. Available from Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System 

Web site, http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/ 

Washington State Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board. (2004). 

High skills, high wages: Washington’s strategic plan for workforce development. 

Olympia, WA: Author. 

This Brief was developed at the Community College Research Center (CCRC), Teachers College, 

Columbia University. It was drawn from a longer report entitled Building Pathways to Success 

for Low-Skill Adult Students: Lessons for Community College Policy and Practice from a Statewide Longitudinal Tracking Study, which may be ordered from CCRC. Funding for this research 

was generously provided by the Ford Foundation through grants to the Washington State Board 

for Community and Technical Colleges for the Bridges to Opportunity initiative and to the Community College Research Center for research on the role of community colleges in improving access and attainment by low-income and minority students. 

COLLEGE OF LIBERAL ARTS AND SCIENCES, 

DEPARTMENT OF APPLIED LINGUISTICS, POST OFFICE BOX 751, 

Portland, OR, May 14, 2009. 

Hon. RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA, Chair; Hon. BRETT GUTHRIE, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness, House 

Committee on Education and Labor, Washington, DC. 

DEAR REPRESENTATIVES HINOJOSA AND GUTHRIE: Thank you for the opportunity 

to testify before your Subcommittee on May 5, 2009 and share my views about the 

importance of research in making WIA maximally effective. I am writing to share 

some specific suggestions for the Subcommittee to consider about the need for WIA 

to establish a strong, independent research and development center for adult literacy. 

To support the goals of WIA more effectively, the field of adult literacy needs a 

strong, independent R&D center. Although the Department of Education (OERI and 

later IES) funded such a center at the University of Pennsylvania from 1991-1996 

and at Harvard University from 1996-2007, OERI/IES staff were consistently indifferent and sometimes antagonistic towards the field. Funding for such a center has 

been discontinued for more than two years. 

To be effective, the R&D center needs to be independent of political and agency 

pressures that would repeatedly try to redefine its priorities and agenda from yearto-year. The Center should be housed within a university or network of collaborating 

universities having expertise and experience in the field. The Center must be able 

to pursue a stable, long-term R&D agenda that has been carefully crafted by researchers, practitioners, policy-makers and other experts and stakeholders in the 

field. Its work should be guided by an advisory board (whose role is only advisory) 

and use research designs and produce publications that benefit from peer-review 

processes. 

The work of the R&D center will have practical implications for a number of federal departments—including Education, Labor, Health and Human Services, in particular, but also Justice, Defense and Homeland Security among others. Administering the center within a multi-agency setting such as the National Institute for 

Literacy would thus seem to make sense. Although NIFL has accomplished some 

worthwhile things, it does not have the size, capacity or structure in its current 

form to effectively manage a strong, independent R&D center. (The President has 

recently proposed to disband NIFL. If the President and the Congress decide to 

refocus NIFL on adults, redesign its structure to be more cost-effective, and provide 

it with qualified leadership and staff, then it might be a proper place to administer 

a new adult literacy R&D center grant.) 

I recommend placing the Center in either Education or Labor. Wherever it is 

placed, it must be seen as serving a mission broader than that of any one Department. All Departments should be able to add funds, without having to engage in 

competitive bidding, to enhance the work funded by a base budget of at least $10 

million per year. The Center should not be placed in OVAE (the program branch 

of adult education) because the R&D agenda needs to be free from pressures to conform with services currently being implemented. If it were placed in Labor, which 
289 

has the capacity to manage such a center effectively, it is important to make clear 

that the Center’s R&D agenda should address the needs of all adult literacy learners, including those at the lowest skill levels. The Employment and Training Administration (ETA) might be a logical management agency for the R&D Center grant. 

The Center should have a mandate to: 

• provide advice to the field that is based on the best available empirical research 

and professional wisdom 

• pursue new research and experiment with new ways of supporting learning and 

delivering services 

• support professional development through technical assistance and training 

• build a knowledge and communications infrastructure for the field 

Thank you again for the opportunity to share my views with the Subcommittee. 

Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can provide additional information, answer 

questions, or otherwise assist you. 

Sincerely, 

STEPHEN REDER, PH.D., University Professor and Chair, 

Department of Applied Linguistics. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. If any Member who wishes to submit follow-up questions in writing to the witnesses should coordinate with 

Majority staff within the requisite time, and without objection, this 

congressional hearing is adjourned, and we thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(291) 

NEW INNOVATIONS AND BEST PRACTICES 

UNDER THE WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT 

Friday, May 29, 2009 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Higher Education, 

Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness, 

Committee on Education and Labor 

Washington, DC 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m. at the 

Nevada State College, Dawson Building, 1021 East Paradise Hills 

Drive, Henderson, Nevada, Hon. Ruben Hinojosa [Chairman of the 

Subcommittee] presiding. 

Members Present: Representatives Hinojosa and Titus. 

Staff Present: Paulette M. Acevedo; Ricardo Martinez, Policy Advisor. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. A quorum is present. The hearing of the 

Subcommittee on Higher Education will come to order. 

Pursuant to the committee rules, any member may submit an 

opening statement in writing which will be made part of the permanent record. 

I now recognize myself, followed by my colleague, who will make 

opening statements. Without objection, all members will have 14 

days to submit additional materials or questions for the hearing 

record. I would like to make my statement and then make some 

privileged statements. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Good morning. Welcome to the Higher Education Lifelong Learning and Competitiveness Subcommittee’s fifth 

hearing, in preparation for the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act, known as WIA. 

This is also our second field hearing for the 111th Congress and 

I would like to personally thank Congresswoman Dina Titus and 

the Nevada State College for hosting us. 

These hearings are of critical importance. The last time we reauthorized the Workforce Investment Act was in 1998. The Workforce 

Investment Act was designed to streamline and coordinate our job 

training programs. It was supposed to provide a one stop system 

of workforce development that would serve workers and employers 

alike. 
292 

After 11 years the system is long overdue for an upgrade. Time 

is of the essence. Last month our economy shed another 539,000 

jobs, bringing the total to 5.7 million jobs lost since the beginning 

of the rescission in December 2007. 

Never in my lifetime have we needed a workforce investment 

system to deliver more for our economy than right now. 

We have taken bold and swift action with the passage of the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which will infuse approximately four billion—yes, B as in boy—$4 billion into our workforce investment systems. It is imperative that our workforce investment system be up to the challenge. 

We have much to learn from Nevada. As one of the fastest growing regions in the entire country, Nevada has seen its demand for 

many adult services, such as English as a second language and job 

training, skyrocket. As one of the hardest hit by the foreclosure crisis, Nevada is on the front lines of the economic crisis. 

Today we will hear from experts on the ground. These are the 

people who are working to reconnect disconnected youth, who are 

preparing individuals for green jobs, who are addressing our workforce needs in high growth areas, such as health care, and who are 

insuring that individuals with disabilities are getting the vocational and rehabilitative support they need to work and live independently. 

I would like to thank our witnesses today for joining us, and for 

the work you do every day to strengthen our workforce. It is invaluable for our subcommittee to have the opportunity to get outside of Washington, D.C. and visit the communities that our federal 

policy and programs are intended to serve. 

Thank you to the hosts for having us and thank you for your testimony to the witnesses. 

I would like to yield to my good friend, a valuable member of the 

subcommittee, Congresswoman Dina Titus, for an opening statement. 

[The statement of Mr. Hinojosa follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Rube ́n Hinojosa, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Higher Education, Lifelong Learning and Competitiveness 

Good Morning. Welcome to the Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness Subcommittee’s fifth hearing in preparation for the reauthorization of 

the Workforce Investment Act. This is also our second field hearing for the 111th 

Congress, and I would like to personally thank Congresswoman Dina Titus and the 

Nevada State College for hosting us. 

These hearings are of critical importance. The last time we reauthorized the 

Workforce Investment Act was in 1998. 

The Workforce Investment Act was designed to streamline and coordinate our job 

training programs. It was supposed to provide a one-stop system of workforce development that would serve workers and employers alike. 

After 11 years, the system is long overdue for an upgrade, and time is of the essence. Last month, our economy shed another 539,000 jobs, bringing the total to 5.7 

million jobs lost since the beginning of the recession in December 2007. Never in 

my lifetime, have we needed our workforce investment system to deliver more for 

our economy than right now. 

We have taken bold and swift action with the passage of the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act, which will infuse approximately $4 billion into our workforce 

investment system. It is imperative that our workforce investment system be up to 

the challenge. 

We have much to learn from Nevada. As one of the fastest growing regions in the 

country, Nevada has seen its demand for many adult services, such as English as 
293 

a Second language and job training, skyrocket. As one of the hardest hit by the foreclosure crisis, Nevada is on the frontlines of the economic crisis. 

Today, we will hear from experts on the ground. These are the people who are 

working to re-connect disconnected youth, who preparing individuals for green jobs, 

who are addressing our workforce needs in high growth areas such as health care, 

and who are ensuring that individuals with disabilities are getting the vocational 

and rehabilitative support they need to work and live independently. 

I would like to thank our witnesses today for joining us and for the work you do 

every day to strengthen our workforce. It is invaluable for our Subcommittee to 

have the opportunity to get outside of Washington and visit the communities that 

our federal policies and programs are intended to serve. 

Thank you for hosting us and thank you for your testimony. 

I would now like to yield to my good friend, a valuable new member of the Subcommittee, Rep. Dina Titus, for an opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DINA TITUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA 

Ms. TITUS. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for calling 

for today’s Congressional hearing to look at innovations and best 

practices for the renewal of the Workforce Investment Act. It is an 

honor to have the committee meet here at Nevada State College in 

District Three, that I represent, especially on a topic that is so critical to Nevada. 

Since the economic recession began in December of 2007 Nevada 

has endured a number of foreclosures. This district is one of the 

highest in the country for foreclosures, and the unemployment rate 

has soared to the highest that it’s been in 25 years. 

This Congress inherited a deep economic crisis that will not turn 

around overnight. But I’m proud of the fact that as the Chairman 

pointed out, we have taken some dramatic steps to put our nation 

on the path to recovery, when we passed the stimulus package that 

will save or create millions of jobs, including 34,000 here in Nevada. 

Now recent statistics show a glimmer of hope that perhaps we’ve 

at least reached the bottom of this recession, but we know that our 

work is far from over. Creating more jobs in Southern Nevada remains one of my top priorities and I know that Congress must take 

bold action to help put Americans and Nevadans back to work. 

That’s why I’m really encouraged by the enthusiasm of the Education and Labor Committee with the emphasis that the Chairman 

has put on the hearings and reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act. 

It is a very important part of our efforts to fix the economy and 

I stand committed to working with the Chairman and across the 

aisle to have a spirit of bipartisanship as we move forward in this 

with this new legislation. 

The WIA, or Workforce Investment Act, is designed to coordinate 

and consolidate and improve employment and training and literacy 

and just opportunities for the future, and that’s why it is so critical 

that we move forward with this today. And I think our panel reflects just a wide sweep of the kinds of things that can be included 

as we look at restructuring this act. 

We’re going to hear about training for health care professionals, 

youth activities, so we don’t lose those young people, vocational rehabilitation and placement for individuals with disabilities, whom 

I’ve worked with a long time in the Legislature, and of course 
294 

green jobs. That is the new economy, the economy of the future, 

and Nevada needs to be ready to harness it. 

So I want to thank all of you who have come out to attend today, 

this important hearing. It’s an honor to represent you and have you 

here. 

I also want to point out that unlike many legislative hearings 

where they take public comment, we in our Congressional hearings, 

we’re not able to take public comment. But for us to be successful 

as we move forward, we need to hear from all of you who are in 

this room, and that would include a broad range of voices and ideas 

in addition to those who are the official witnesses. 

So, although you can’t provide public comment here, I would 

greatly appreciate it if you would submit your comments for the 

record, and we can put them in the record, and you can send them 

to me. There are several ways that you can do that, either with the 

form you find on the back of the room to submit notes, anything 

you want to submit, or you can do it on the website. And so I thank 

you for that feedback. 

Also, thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for bringing your committee to Las Vegas. This is a very important topic for Southern 

Nevada, and we are looking forward to sharing some of the things 

that are going on here with you. 

So thank you very much, and I look forward to an insightful and 

thought provoking hearing today. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Thank you. It is a pleasure to work with 

Dina. As Congresswoman of this area she is your voice, she is your 

representative, and works hard. I’m delighted to have her on my 

subcommittee because she is not afraid of hard work, long hours, 

and the horrible trip back and forth every week or every two weeks 

from Washington to her home district. 

So I thank you and I look forward to this hearing. You should 

know that after five Congressional hearings, one in Albany, New 

York, and the others in Washington, D.C., and today here in Nevada, we believe that we are gathering information that is very 

necessary for us to be able to start writing the legislation and hopefully be able to debate in our committee in July, be able to take 

it to the House floor and debate among the 435 members that compose the U.S. Congress. 

I can say that we have heard from witnesses through previous 

hearings that have given us hope that in this rewrite of the reauthorization of WIA that we will be able to find the way in which 

to restructure workforce development boards so that the greater 

amount of money will be going towards training students, young, 

middle-aged, and senior adults. 

The reason is that at least the last 11 years we found that there 

wasn’t enough regulation to try to hold the amount of money that 

was being given to the subcontractors in profits and the cost of operating so many offices and centers that were being utilized so that 

40 percent or less of the money coming from Washington went towards training students. 

We want to turn that around. We would like to see 60 percent 

or more of the federal money going towards training and the balance for what I mentioned earlier. 
295 

Having said that, I am proud to be in my 13th year in Congress 

serving on this committee, and Chairman of the Subcommittee on 

Higher Education, which I think is this campus here is a good example of what I fight for. 

We know that the average lifetime earnings of a student who 

graduates from high school is $500,000. But those who graduate 

from college can expect a lifetime income of $1 million. So that 

would certainly improve the quality of life for their families, the region that they live in, and certainly paying taxes to help us with 

what is required and that is infrastructure, to be able to keep expanding. 

You are the envy of many states as one of the fastest growing 

regions in the country. The area that I represent in deep south 

Texas was trailing just behind you. So it gives me great pleasure 

to come and see it for myself what is it that y’all have done, and 

of course downtown Las Vegas and all the expansion going on there 

is proof of the success that you have had. Only in Dubai, and Abu 

Dhabi and those areas that are rich with oil have we seen something that even comes close to what I saw downtown yesterday 

when I came in. 

So today’s hearing is going to be directed at having a trained 

workforce, and I also was delighted to meet so many people prior 

to getting started, and one particular that caught my attention was 

Kenneth LoBene, director for U.S. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development here in this area, and working with the youth 

council. 

I believe that the group that y’all are working with, ages of 15 

to 25, have so much potential. But unfortunately, materials that I 

read indicate that we have a very high dropout rate and are not 

finishing high school, but that’s not just here in Nevada, that’s 

throughout the country. If you were at one of our last hearings, the 

people who testified from Detroit, Michigan told us that there are 

some pockets of 70 percent dropout rate from their high schools. 

That’s why it’s so important that we listen to these witnesses 

and others who are in the audience because I honestly believe that 

there are solutions. 

With a new president with the Obama administration making 

the kind of commitment of $787 billion in the stimulus plan, monies that go out throughout the country for so many different ways 

of in which we can create jobs, and infrastructure, I believe there 

is hope. 

The folks that I hear on CNN and other stations on TV tell us 

that there’s reason to believe that we are somewhere close to finishing and ending this recession that has been one of the longest 

we’ve had in the last 50 years. 

So we’re going to proceed and I’m going to start by introducing 

the panelists. The first one that I will present is Brian Patchett, 

president and CEO Easter Seals Southern Nevada. 

Our first witness has been an advocate for over 20 years for people with disabilities and improving quality of life and promoting 

independence. He has worked for the Utah Assistive Technology 

program, training people to implement the Americans with Disabilities Act, which is extremely important to us in our country. 
296 

Mr. Patchett graduated from Utah State University with degrees 

in political science in 1992, and then went on to study at Syracuse 

University and earned master’s degrees in public administration 

and rehabilitation counseling. 

He is one of 49 million Americans classified as disabled, but this 

has not hindered his education or professional goals. He has 

worked for Eastern Seals in Washington and Arizona and in Southern Nevada, where he has served as the president and CEO since 

2004. 

Mr. Patchett has received many awards in his career and he and 

his wife, Stacy, are the proud parents of six children, and we are 

very happy to welcome you this morning. 

The next panelist will be Chris Brooks, Director, Bombard Renewable Energy. Mr. Brooks has been a journeyman, wireman in 

the State of Nevada for the past 17 years and is a certified master 

electrician. He is certified by the North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners and also has the state required OSHA 

PV installers license. 

Mr. Brooks is the founding member of Solar Nevada, the local 

chapter of the American Solar Energy Society, where he currently 

serves as their vice president. Mr. Brooks is also been appointed 

to the Nevada Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency task force. 

Welcome this morning and you have all of our attention regarding 

your certifications. 

The next person, next witness, Ms. Chanda Cook, Nevada Public 

Education Foundation. As director of community initiatives, Ms. 

Cook has taken an active leadership role for the foundation in reducing high school dropout rates and graduating students that are 

prepared for the workforce and higher education priorities. 

Prior to her current position she spent more than a decade in 

corporate community relations with Nevada Power, focusing on 

programs that supported energy education, as well as math, science 

and technology. 

Ms. Cook has been active on education issues at the local, and 

the state and national levels. Locally she has a long history of involvement with the Clark County School District, which is the fifth 

largest in the entire nation. 

She also has been appointed by the governor to serve as the parent representative to the Nevada Commission on Educational Excellence and will be sharing her thoughts with us today on Nevada 

youth, as well as sharing her concerns for our youth nationally. 

Ms. Cook has a bachelor of arts degree in social work from the 

University of Nevada Las Vegas, and has continued her education 

with participation in the Harwood Institute for Public Leadership. 

Welcome. 

Next presenter is Ms. Rebecca Metty-Burns. She is the Interim 

Director, Division for Workforce and Economic Development, College of Southern Nevada in Las Vegas. 

Ms. Metty-Burns is responsible for overseeing the industry workforce programs in the division, as well as community and personal 

enrichment courses, grant funded GED, and English as a second 

language courses in the prison program. 
297 

The Division provides industry courses in health care, in manufacturing, in hospitality, and operates an OSHA training institute 

education center. 

Before joining CSN, Ms. Metty-Burns had 16 years experience as 

a human resources leader directing employee training and human 

resources projects. She holds a BA in economics from the University of Alaska in Anchorage, and she holds an MBA from the University of Nevada Las Vegas. 

This morning we look forward to her comments regarding the 

training of individuals for the health care industry. Welcome to you 

and all the other witnesses and now we are ready to hear from everyone, and we will start with you, Mr. Patchett—excuse me, let 

me take this opportunity to say something about the lights that 

you are going to see operating here in front of you. 

For those of you who have not testified before this subcommittee, 

let me explain our lighting system and the five-minute rule. 

Everyone, including members, is limited to five minutes of presentation or questioning. The green light is illuminated when you 

begin to speak. When you see the yellow light, it means you have 

one minute remaining. When you see the red light, it means your 

time has expired and you need to try to conclude your testimony. 

Please be certain as you testify to turn on and speak into the 

microphone in front of you so that we can have all of the participants and the audience hear you clearly. 

Now we’ll hear from our first witness, Mr. Patchett. 

STATEMENT OF BRIAN PATCHETT, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

EASTER SEALS OF SOUTHERN NEVADA 

Mr. PATCHETT. Thank you very much, Chairman Hinojosa and 

Congresswoman Titus. It’s a pleasure to be here to speak with you 

this morning and I also want to recognize Erin Fox next to me. Her 

job is to tell me when the lights are properly colored because I 

don’t see the lights from here. 

What I would like to talk about today is people with disabilities 

and employment. I think as we look at the rehabilitation act, which 

is now the fourth, or is also part of the WIA Act that we have, 

there are a couple of things I want to emphasize and that is universal design, and I want to talk about transition and I want to 

talk about assistive technology and a couple of things. 

But first I think it’s important to understand, we talk about the 

challenges we have with the economy today. We talk about unemployment, and Mr. Chairman, you mentioned some of those statistics and the things that are going on. And it is very concerning and 

even more concerning is the impact on people with disabilities. 

As we think about individuals generally throughout the country 

and here in Nevada we look at roughly 71 percent of people that 

could be employed are employed. When you look at people with disabilities, that number is 23 percent. 23 percent of individuals with 

disabilities are employed. And when we talk about unemployment 

statistics right now, we talk about roughly nine percent, maybe ten 

percent of people with, in general being unemployed in this economic downturn that we are in. Among people with disabilities who 

are employed, that 23 percent we talked about, we are talking 
298 

about a number closer to 15 percent, roughly 14.5 percent. Very 

significant. 

So that impact is definitely felt by individuals with disabilities, 

and as you mentioned, I am a person with a disability. I’ve had the 

opportunity to be a person who went through the vocational rehabilitation system, was very much helped through that system. It 

changed my life. I was able to pursue my graduation and I am 

where I am today. 

Unfortunately, many still are not. And I think that’s what the 

key is, as I’m talking, is how we get to that, that issue. 

I also want to recognize a couple people that are here and thank 

them. We have Director Mosley of DETR, which is the Department 

of Employment and Rehabilitation Training. His leadership is 

amazing right now, in trying to change and turn things around in 

Nevada. 

Also Debra Brown, from vocational rehabilitation and so many of 

the staff are there. Things they are doing, especially over the last 

year, have been wonderful and thank you Congresswoman Titus for 

all of the efforts you made over the years and worked at the Legislature to help persons with disabilities. 

Let’s talk about universal design and I think the easiest way to 

think about this is when you think about a WIA place or a work 

site place for training or for information about jobs. Here we call 

them the Job Connect sites. 

A person goes there to get information about jobs, maybe get 

some training related to jobs, and to find jobs. And I think about, 

we think about that related to people without disabilities or people 

with disabilities, what we need to be able to get to is thinking 

about all people together. 

One of the challenges we have right now is that if a person walks 

into one of these sites and they have a disability, or they come in 

using a wheelchair or whatever, that site may not be accessible to 

them, programatically or also technologically. They may not be able 

to access the computers at that site, they may not be able to—the 

individuals working there may not be able to help them to be able 

to build their resumes to be able to search for jobs. 

We need to start thinking about people with disabilities and people without disabilities together under the Workforce Investment 

Act. In 1973 the Rehabilitation Act was passed. It became part of 

WIA 11 years ago, as has been mentioned. We need to somehow 

figure out how to further blur the lines so that whenever somebody 

needs services for employment, regardless of ability, they can receive those services. 

Second, I want to talk about transition services. One of the 

things that makes a significant difference is the kind of services a 

person gets as they are coming through school, are they being prepared for employment, are they getting adequate career counseling, 

adequate education, adequate job experience. 

One of the challenges we have still within the act is how do we 

get at preparing students, high school students to make that transition from school to work. And quite often in both these areas one 

of the challenges is assistive technology. Assistive technology are 

devices that help someone with a disability to be able to get a job 
299 

or to be able to keep a job. And certainly that becomes a challenge 

as it relates to employment for some of us with disabilities. 

I’d also add that sometimes the 90 days that when someone is 

employed through voc rehab, that that employment, once that person has been employed for 90 days, the case is closed. 

I argue, I think in my written testimony, and I would argue here 

that that’s not long enough. We need to be able to spend more time 

following up with individuals with disabilities. Maybe it’s six 

months, I don’t know, maybe it’s longer than that. And I’d go ahead 

and close there. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Mr. Patchett, I want to yield an extra 

minute to you to complete your thoughts. 

Mr. PATCHETT. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

And yet, as we look at trying to create this system that’s more 

friendly to helping persons with disabilities, and trying to get from 

transition from school to work or through that process, again back 

to the 90 days, that I think about when I got my first job, and even 

when I got this job as CEO, it took a lot longer than 90 days to 

become used to this job. 

We need to be able to follow along, as vocational rehab professionals, longer than 90 days. If we can do that, we can guarantee 

employment to last longer. A good percentage of people who become 

employed as persons with disabilities, at 90 days the case is closed. 

A good percentage of those people within 20 days of that 90 days, 

so basically 110 days, then lose that job. So we need to extend that, 

and my recommendation is to go six months and that would—— 

Chairman HINOJOSA. I assure you that your entire record, written record statement, rather your entire statement will be part of 

the record of today’s hearing. 

[The statement of Mr. Patchett follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Brian Patchett, President and CEO, 

Easter Seals of Southern Nevada 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong 

Learning and Competitiveness, my name is Brian Patchett. I am currently the 

President/CEO of Easter Seals Southern Nevada, a non-profit organization serving 

children and adults with disabilities. I have spent much of my life working with the 

Vocational Rehabilitation system. I was first a client of these services as a young 

man and later a professional in the field of rehabilitation. Today, I would like to 

share with you some of my personal experiences in conjunction with addressing 

some of the key issues that need attention when looking at the reauthorization of 

the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), specifically in the area of Vocational Rehabilitation. Within that context I will identify important improvements that can be made 

that will provide greater access to employment for people with disabilities. 

Some of the areas where improvements can be made include: universal design, 

supported employment, school to work transition, and access to assistive technology. 

I would also like to discuss our proposal related to employment opportunity for people with disabilities in the field weatherization and green jobs. 

As I said above, my experience with Voc Rehab has been both as a client and as 

a professional. I became legally blind at age seven when blood vessels burst across 

the macula leaving a residue of scar tissue that impaired my vision. As a child after 

my vision loss, it became very important to me to not be perceived as having a disability. I did everything I could to prove I was a typical boy from playing sports including soccer, football and track and field to attending public school with my peers. 

I discovered I could do many things well and also found my limitations. For example, I found I couldn’t play baseball. 

When I turned 18, I had my first experience with Vocational Rehabilitation services. I was asked to sit in a room and put together nuts and bolts. I was then given 

an IQ test. This path would have led me to a sheltered workshop. Thankfully, I left 
300 

that situation, went to college and eventually earned Masters’ Degrees in Rehabilitation Counseling and Public Administration from Syracuse University. 

My professional career related to disability services began when I started working 

as an undergraduate through a university affiliated program with the Tech Act 

Grant in the field of Assistive Technology. I became an expert in assistive technology and legislation regarding persons with disabilities. In addition to working on 

disability innovation at the state level, I also got a world wide view of disability 

issues when I traveled with Mobility International USA to the former Soviet Union. 

The two summers I spent as a student ambassador in Russia becoming fluent in 

the language and promoting disability awareness were remarkable and deeply impacted my philosophy and understanding of disability on a global scale. 

When I reached graduate school, I was prepared to continue my expertise in assistive technology and co-taught the course on assistive technology to my peers. 

Upon graduation from Syracuse University and the Maxwell School of Citizenship 

and Public Affairs, I became a Certified Rehabilitation Counselor (CRC). I was hired 

by Easter Seals Washington as their Eastern Washington Regional Director and Director of Assistive Technology and have continued, for the past 13 years, to work 

for positive change and greater independence for persons with disabilities within the 

framework of Easter Seals. I left Easter Seals Washington to take the position of 

Vice-President of Programs for Easter Seals Arizona. And for the last five years, I 

have served as President/CEO for Easter Seals Southern Nevada. 

During all these years, as a student and professional, I have worked closely with 

Vocational Rehabilitation programs in several states. I have watched the evolution 

of the Rehab Act to today when it has been reauthorized as WIA Title IV or the 

Rehab Act. And, I have been directly involved in serving thousands of people with 

disabilities. 

I know what it is for a person with a disability to run into barriers in finding 

employment and even in barricades within the Voc Rehab system. My undergraduate studies were in Political Science and International Studies and, at one 

point; I was applying for a job as a congressional intern in Washington D.C. During 

my interview, the hirer from the congressman’s office asked me about my disability. 

When I explained my disability, the individual then asked how I ever thought I 

could work in a congressional office given my disability, and even wondered out loud 

why I had even applied for the job. This experience was a powerful and personal 

representation of discrimination and has motivated me to want to change the perceptions people with disabilities endure and help create more effective service delivery for persons with disabilities. 

Easter Seals Southern Nevada 

Easter Seals Southern Nevada (ESSN) is a non-profit Nevada corporation dedicated to providing the highest quality services to persons with disabilities and their 

families. Easter Seals nationally believes in full participation of persons with disabilities in our communities and throughout society. Our mission and vision are specific: To create solutions that help people with disabilities become self sufficient 

through education, community partnerships and direct services. Our services include the following: 

Early intervention: 

We offer services for children with special needs, ages birth to three, in their natural family environment. Our goal is to help them develop and learn so they can 

reach developmental milestones and become more successful when entering school. 

Wonders of our World Child Development Center: 

We offer child care for children of all abilities, ages 6 weeks to 8 years of age. 

Our child care uses Creative Curriculum, develops family plans for all children, and 

focuses on the strengths in every child to create a fun place to learn and grow. 

Autism services: 

We provide in-home ABA instruction and social skills training to children with 

autism, ages 3 to 8. We also offer parent training and support to help families learn 

about autism, accept the challenges ahead and become more educated and independent advocates for their child. 

Family respite: 

We provide qualified families with a voucher each month to help assist with the 

cost of obtaining respite services for their child with a disability. Parents choose a 

provider they know and trust and Easter Seals assists with voucher reimbursement 

to help cover the cost. 
301 

Adult day services: 

We give adults with significant disabilities the opportunity to experience community activities that maximize their self help, socialization and daily living skills in 

a safe, age appropriate daily program. 

Supported living assistance: 

We provide support to people with disabilities in all aspects of independent living 

to ensure they can remain active, contributing members of their community. Our 

goal is to assist each person in reaching the highest level of independence that they 

are able to achieve, while living in their own home. 

Assistive technology: 

We provide evaluations, workplace assessments, training and any other tool necessary to assist people with disabilities to be successful in employment, education, 

recreation and independent living. We provide services in the home and also in our 

state of the art assistive technology lab. 

Employment and rehabilitation: 

We offer a full employment program for adults with disabilities, providing work 

skills training and pre-employment assessment. Individuals work within our warehouse facility or at one of our community worksites, doing real work and earning 

a paycheck which furthers their ultimate goal of independence. 

Employment and the Rehab Act 

This year, the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the official 

unemployment rate for people with disabilities, meaning those who have lost their 

jobs and those who are actively seeking employment, for the first quarter of 2009 

was hovered between 13 and 14%, 5 to 6 percentage points higher than the nondisabled population. While this statistic is alarming, even more troubling is the lack 

of labor force participation by people with disabilities. BLS reported that for the 

same time period only 23% of all adults with disabilities participated in the labor 

force as compared with 71% of the non-disabled population. Further, those individuals with disabilities who can find jobs are more likely to have less job experience 

and are more likely to earn lower incomes than individuals without disabilities. 

In Nevada, we have historically not provided adequate rehabilitation services for 

many reasons. Our challenges have ranged from leaving federal money on the table 

because of our unwillingness to match the dollars and now our inability to do so 

because of the economic situation. There are too few rehabilitation counselors to 

meet the needs in Nevada. Recruiting qualified rehabilitation counselors has been 

difficult especially with the state not having a university program which prepares 

individuals to sit for the CRC Exam. Additionally, the state is not adequately able 

to contract out for job development and assistive technology services, leaving potential workers in the ranks of the unemployed.. 

These challenges along with those I will outline in the next sections are what continue to keep individuals with disabilities from employment at the same level as 

their non-disabled peers. Furthermore, many rehabilitation programs across the 

country lack appropriate philosophical leadership, in other words, the leadership 

may not be people with disabilities or people who truly understand the challenges 

facing those of us with disabilities. 

Universal Design 

Creating universally designed systems for access to jobs, job information, career 

planning, and general person-centered services is one of the greatest challenges facing persons with disabilities in Nevada and throughout the country. Imagine a person who has significant physical disabilities and uses a wheelchair. He or she is unable to access a standard computer work station including standard keyboard, 

mouse at a workforce development site, (called Job Connects in Nevada). Not only 

is the computer station inaccessible but the staff members who are there help the 

individual in finding employment have not received proper training on how to assist 

a person with a disability. Success for this individual at Job Connects is all but impossible and he or she leaves the site frustrated, deflated, and unable to pursue employment. 

Unfortunately, this example is the case too many times and even though WIA 

seems to address this issue, it has not been addressed strongly enough. A workforce 

development site should be required to meet the standards of universal design. The 

term ‘‘universal design for the workforce development system’’ means the design of 

environments, products and communication practices as well as the delivery of programs, services and activities to meet the needs of all customers of the workforce 

development system. 
302 

Staff should be adequately trained to work with individuals with disabilities as 

a facet of any professional development activity. A work station or stations should 

contain appropriate assistive technology hardware and software such as the work 

stations Easter Seals Southern Nevada has designed for libraries. The technology 

would be there to serve virtually every individual with a disability and available 

staff would be trained on how to assist those who need to access these assistive 

technologies. Such technologies would benefit not only job seekers with disabilities, 

but also individuals who may have age related vision impairments or hearing loss 

as well as any number of other challenges to using computers. 

I have attached supporting documents that outline of what we at Easter Seals 

Southern Nevada can do to assist in creating universal design. Additionally, every 

WIA Jobs Connects or workforce development site should be required to meet the 

standards of universal design. Any vendor operating such a site would be expected 

to make sure their site is programmatically and physically accessible to persons 

with disabilities and their contract would indicate that they would be audited on 

an annual basis to ensure that they meet the standards of universal design. 

Supported Employment 

After a person is determined to be eligible for Vocational Rehabilitation, he or she 

develops an Individualized Plan for Employment or an IPE. This IPE is to be person-center which means the person with the disability determines the career path 

and together with the rehabilitation counselor outlines goals and supports needed 

to achieve the employment outcomes desired. These supports might include: career 

counseling, job training, education, job shadowing, job coaching, and career exploration accessing assistive technology services and devices. 

Unfortunately, my experience has been that this doesn’t always occur. In fact, 

many who become employed often are not adequately prepared for that employment 

and do not receive all of the supports needed to be successful long term. Job coaching and especially assistive technology are areas that are usually lacking in this 

process—both of which are critical components of job maintenance. 

Additionally, the VR system counts a person as having a successful outcome if 

they have been placed into a job and continue at that job for ninety days. At that 

point services from Voc Rehab stop. This has often been referred to as ‘‘the 26’’ or 

case closure. Unfortunately, evidence shows that many people end up losing that job 

within 20 days of that closure because supports have ended. I ask the question: 

‘‘How many of us, after three months of a job really have a grasp of what we are 

doing?’’ I think most of us would say that it takes at least six months to a year 

for us to become comfortable with a new position. Thus, I believe we should change 

the Voc Rehab system to allow for longer supports. 

Access to Assistive Technology 

‘‘John’’ is a 35 year old. He has cerebral palsy and uses a wheel chair for mobility. 

He was able to find a job as a Customer Service representative in a call center, but 

John’s rehabilitation counselor did not authorize assistive technology services prior 

to employment and as John was nearing the end of his probationary 90 days at 

work—his employer expressed concerns regarding his productivity level. Easter 

Seals was contacted to respond to the crisis and identify technology that could save 

John’s job. After completing the evaluation, voice input software and adaptations to 

his work station were recommended. However, prior to the authorizations and approvals being completed, John lost his job. 

This true story demonstrates challenges faced by the vast majority of persons 

with significant disabilities in the Voc Rehab system. Receiving adequate assistive 

technology services and devices is consistently the place Voc Rehab here in NV falls 

down the most. Voc Rehab is intended to be a system designed to help persons with 

disabilities find employment. But the fact is that many states limit those they serve 

to the most significantly disabled because of funding restraints. And, persons with 

the most significant disabilities are most likely to need assistive technology devices 

in order to perform the essential functions of a job. 

Assistive technology is a device or service which helps a person to access some 

part of life. Assistive technology may be an adapted keyboard for someone who has 

difficultly typing or voice input for someone who is unable to type at all; software 

that enlarges characters and images on a screen for an individual who is visually 

impaired; Braille output for persons who are blind; adjustable desks for persons 

using mobility devices such as a wheelchair; and, augmentative communication devices that allow a person who is non-verbal to communicate. 

To be a successful user of assistive technology, one must be given access to the 

evaluation and exploration process which includes learning about and selecting appropriate technology which will help one to be successful. In the case of employ-
303 

ment, it is necessary to become successful at using assistive technology in order to 

perform the essential functions of a job. 

The assistive technology evaluation should take place as early as possible. Once 

the IPE is established, this should be one of the first priorities. The person should 

then receive the technology recommended in the assistive technology evaluation and 

sufficient training should follow on the device or devices. 

With this preparation, the person will then be able to confidently talk with employers about how they can perform the essentials functions of a job and be confident in performing that job with their assistive technology. In fact, the individual 

would then become the expert on the technology they use. 

Using screen enlargement and voice output software has completely changed my 

life and made it possible for me to be successful academically and in my career as 

a CEO of a significant non-profit organization. 

The following outline again the important components of any successful assistive 

technology process: 

1. Person center assistive technology evaluation, including exploration and hands 

on trying the technology. 

2. Acquisition of assistive technology. 

3. Adequate training on use of assistive technology. 

4. Follow-up and assistance in implementation at job site (this may also include 

a through jobsite analysis). 

If this process is followed, the person may be expected to be more successful in 

their career. I do want to emphasis that a person needs to have adequate time prior 

to job interviewing and actual employment to be come expert on their technology. 

Just like being proficient on a computer or having appropriate education before entering a job, a person must have expertise, experience and confidence in using their 

assistive technology before they become employed. 

School to Work Transition 

Preparing high school students with disabilities for the world of work has been 

one of the great challenges for the Voc Rehab system. My experience as a consumer 

of VR services and as a program partner in several states, including here in NV, 

has led me to conclude that few states provide this service in any meaningful way. 

Four years ago, I had the opportunity of working with Karla Macomb, a wonderful 

disability advocate and leader in Nevada for many years, on a proposal to the Voc 

Rehab system four years ago for transition services. This proposal was initially accepted and Easter Seals Southern Nevada was asked to begin the process to provide 

services in Nevada. Unfortunately, the program we envisioned was watered down 

significantly and Easter Seals no longer provides these services. The state continues 

to provide some transition services in conjunction with the schools, but some of the 

critical components are completely non-existent. 

According to the Rehab Act, transition from school to work should begin at age 

sixteen and may begin as early as age fourteen. To be successful, Voc Rehab and 

the schools should work together to create a system that begins the transition process for students with disabilities by age sixteen. Ideally, these students would receive the following services: 

Career exploration 

Career counseling 

Assistive technology 

Job shadowing 

Summer employment 

Mobility training (i.e. access to buses, etc.) 

Resume building 

College exploration 

Eventual employment 

Most of us growing up, held summer jobs and had our first experience with work 

while in high school. Some of us even received work experience at an earlier age. 

I personally began delivering newspapers when I was 8 years old and continued this 

job into my teens. I subsequently held other valuable summer jobs that prepared 

me for the adult work force. If WIA Title IV could focus more on transition and 

helping teenagers with disabilities in conjunction with the school to have positive 

job shadowing and work experiences, I believe we would see more than the 23% of 

persons with disabilities in the work force. 

Weatherization and Green Jobs and People with Disabilities 

Easter Seals Southern Nevada is proposing to utilize persons from the vocational 

rehabilitation system and individuals with intellectual disabilities to provide weatherization of homes and manufacturing of solar panels. This is a wonderful win-win 
304 

opportunity where we can combine the desire to create a green economy along with 

entering persons with disabilities into green jobs at the outset and creation of these 

new markets. Thus we have proposed the following: 

Easter Seals Southern Nevada (ESSN) has proposed developing partnerships with 

companies that manufacture ‘‘green’’ products, establishing a weatherization program, and allowing workers to be trained in skills that will be valuable in emerging 

markets. For example, Sea Group Ltd. is a manufacturing company specializing in 

solar energy applications and is interested in working with people with disabilities 

through Easter Seals Southern Nevada to assemble, package, ship/deliver and install energy-saving products. 

In partnership with Sea Group, ESSN is in negotiations with the City of Las 

Vegas to provide homes with a pressurized water heater system, including installation, via government subsidization funding to homeowners. In addition, the City of 

Las Vegas has an interest in implementing cost saving energy heating consumption 

at its community pools and other buildings under their jurisdiction with the products provided via Easter Seals from Sea Group. Sea Group Ltd. specializes in solar 

energy applications and will provide the raw materials for individuals with disabilities to assemble, package, ship/deliver, and install solar thermal panels and other 

energy saving products. Through Sea Group, ESSN is proposing to provide 1,000 

homes, via government subsidies, with pressurized water heater systems, including 

installation. In addition, the City of Las Vegas in interested in implementing cost 

saving by reducing energy heating consumption at its municipal pools and buildings 

through products provided by ESSN via Sea Group Ltd. This project will involve a 

partnership with the State Use Program (Preferred Purchase) to contract directly 

with ESSN to purchase these products. 

This ‘‘green’’ job initiative is among the many projects we have developed that will 

allow us to train dislocated workers for opportunities and careers. 

As mentioned above, Easter Seals already has excellent partnerships with BVR, 

DETR, DRC, BSB, and Mental Health as a pool from which dislocated workers can 

be referred to our services. Easter Seals also has established relationships with 

other local businesses that provide work opportunities to individuals in our warehouse setting, such as Berry Plastics and Caesar’s Palace. Individuals are trained 

on and paid for completed specific warehouse related tasks for these large companies, such as assembly, packaging and forklift operation. 

Conclusion 

With a 10.4% unemployment rate in Nevada, the highest in two decades, higher 

than the 8.9% national average, Easter Seals is positioned to be instrumental in 

skills training and job placement to address the needs of both dislocated workers 

and Nevada’s economy. 

U.S. soldiers deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan who have returned to civilian life 

face an unemployment rate three (3) times the national average—with 1 in every 

5 returning Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom service 

members expressing indicators for posttraumatic stress disorder and 1 in every 5 

had some level of traumatic brain injury. For those receiving Temporary Assistance 

for Needy Families, research has shown that over half of the current caseload today 

can be assumed to have learning disabilities, mental retardation, psychiatric or addictive disorders, or a combination thereof. 

We strongly advocate for system wide supports to be in place that address these 

core issues for clients and wrap them with the supports and services they need to 

be successful. For us, the link between poverty, unemployment, unsuccessful job 

placements, and hidden disabilities is clear and compelling. We are uniquely positioned to respond to the needs of the vast number of dislocated workers that have 

such hidden disabilities as listed above, which are at the root of poverty, unemployment, and homelessness. 

Easter Seals workforce development services provide an individualized approach 

to assisting dislocated workers to make informed choices and attain their employment aspirations. Easter Seals’ approach includes an array of services and supports 

that ultimately lead to employment. This approach is designed to identify goals, objectives, and planning needs, and providing the supports a person needs to achieve 

and maintain employment. 

Rehabilitation services have greatly improved since the Rehab Act was first 

passed into law in 1973. However, there continue to be significant challenges of access to employment as I have outline and as we move into the future, these challenges will become greater especially in the areas of technology and mobility. With 

more and more reliance on technology and increasing mobility between jobs and the 

complete changing of the traditional work place, we will need to emphasize uni-
305 

versal design for services, long-term supports, assistive technology and transition 

services in order to prepare those of us with disabilities for the future. 

[Additional submissions of Mr. Patchett follow:] 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Organization Name: Crossroads Rehabilitation Center, Inc. 

d.b.a. Easter Seals Crossroads Rehabilitation Center 

Overview of proposal: 

In response to the June 2, 2003 request for proposal from Career Choices, Incorporated: 

Easter Seals Crossroads Rehabilitation Center proposes to provide adaptive equipment and software that will increase the accessibility of WorkOne Evansville and 

the five WorkOne Express Sites, for the disabled in the five county Workforce Services Area. This equipment and services correspond to Phases Two and Three of this 

project. Phase One has been completed and Easter Seals Crossroads proposed to 

provide services under both Phase Two and Phase Three. 

Based on a 3 year history of partnering with Marion County (Indianapolis) Indiana agencies, Easter Seals Crossroads Rehabilitation Center (Easter Seals Crossroads) has developed X-tations (accessible workstations) that address the needs of 

individuals with disabilities as they utilize the services of WorkOne facilities. These 

workstations include adaptive hardware and software, a comprehensive training 

program for WorkOne staff and on-going technical support. In working with the Department of Workforce Development, Easter Seals Crossroads has exclusively developed specialized software that allows the assistive technology included with the Xtation to be compatible with Indiana’s CS3 system. 

In response to the needs set forth in the request for proposals, Easter Seals Crossroads proposes that two X-tations be implemented in the Evansville WorkOne center 

and one X-tation be implemented in each of the five WorkOne express sites. 

A comprehensive training program (including custom training manuals and quick 

reference guides) will be implemented so that the staff in the WorkOne centers are 

able to appropriately utilize the X-tations to serve the needs of individuals with disabilities. 

Easter Seals Crossroads is looking forward to an opportunity to build on the success of the Marion County WorkOne project in implementing accessible technology 

in Southwestern Indiana. 

Applicant organization 

Mission: Easter Seals Crossroads is a community resource working with children 

and adults with disabilities and special needs and their families to promote growth, 

dignity and independence. 

Agency and Department 

Easter Seals Crossroads Rehabilitation Center, a not-for-profit organization, has 

been serving individuals with disabilities in Indiana for over 65 years. The Ruth 

Lilly Assistive Technology Center was founded in 1988 with the specific purpose of 

utilizing computer-based technology to assist individuals with disabilities in achieving their vocational goals. Since its inception, this program has grown to provide 

job accommodation, adaptive computer access, ergonomic consultation and other rehabilitation technology services to individuals with all types of disabilities throughout the state of Indiana. 

The Ruth Lilly Assistive Technology Center is the only CARF-accredited assistive 

technology program in the state on Indiana. All work performed by the center is supervised by a RESNA-certified Assistive Technology Practitioner (ATP). 

Recently, the Ruth Lilly Assistive Technology Center opened its doors to the west 

coast by establishing two technology centers in Las Vegas, Nevada. 

References 

Please find letters of recommendation attached from the following entities: 

• Indianapolis Private Industry Council (Attachment one) 

• Indiana Department of Work Force Development (Attachment two) 

• Disability Resource Specialists from the Indianapolis WorkOne centers (Attachment three) 

• Mayor of Indianapolis, Office of Disability Services (Attachment four) 
306 

Statement of Need 

In order to adequately address the needs of individuals with disabilities as the 

utilize the WorkOne centers, specialized technology must be implemented. The technology proposed (X-tation) has been designed specifically for this purpose. 

Easter Seals Crossroads proposes that two X-tation workstations be implemented 

at the WorkOne center in Evansville. One X-tation should be implemented at each 

of the WorkOne express sites in Posey County, Warrick County, Spencer County 

and Perry County. 

Hardware and software: 

(Please see Time Line section below for a schedule of equipment procurement, delivery and setup.) 

Through experience in working with the Indianapolis WorkOne centers, a great 

deal of experience has been obtained. Based on this experience, a set of hardware 

and software has been developed and tested to ensure that the adaptive technology 

needs of most individuals accessing a WorkOne center will be met. 

It is recommended that X-tations be implemented at the WorkOne center as well 

as at the express sites. 

The X-tation includes the following technology designed to meet the needs of individuals with the following disabilities: 

Low Vision: 

• Screen Magnification Software (MAGic) 

• MAGic has been developed by Freedom Scientific, the leading manufacturer of 

technology to assist individuals with vision impairment. This application provides 

varying levels of screen magnification, cursor enhancements and color inversion to 

meet the needs of individuals with a wide variety of vision impairment. 

• This software has been developed to be compatible with other Freedom Scientific products, which are recommended in this report. 

• Large Screen Monitor: 

• During the bidders meeting on 6-10-03, it was indicated that computers and 19’’ 

monitors are being furnished by another vendor. Easter Seals Crossroads Rehabilitation Center will not furnish computer systems or monitors as part of this project. 

• Large print keyboard labels: 

• The X-tation is equipped with a standard keyboard with large print labels. For 

those with declining vision, it is often difficult to decipher some keys on the keyboard. This system of labels alleviates the difficulty with those tasks. 

• Video Magnifier (CCTV) 

• The X-tation includes a color video magnifier which is supported by a wheeled 

stand. This color magnifier can be moved toward and away from the workstation 

and allows users with limited vision the ability to read and write on employmentrelated materials while using the X-tation. 

• Compatibility with CS3: 

• These items have been tested with the CS3 system, are in use in the Indianapolis WorkOne centers, and are compatible. 

Blind: 

• Screen Reading Software (JAWS): 

• JAWS has also been developed by Freedom Scientific, the leading manufacturer 

of technology to assist individuals who are completely blind. This application ‘‘reads’’ 

the information on the computer’s screen (via speakers or headphones). This software is highly adjustable to ensure that the user is able to listen to information at 

the rate and tone of their choosing. 

• The staff of the Ruth Lilly Assistive Technology Center has developed specialized computer software to allow the user to operate the CS3 system with JAWS. 

This software includes user keystrokes specifically for CS3 functions, as well as a 

custom help system designed to allow the user to understand better each screen 

within CS3 and how it applies to the user’s activities. This custom software is included in our proposal at no additional charge. 

• Document Scanning system (Openbook): 

• Openbook has also been developed by Freedom Scientific, the leading manufacturer of technology to assist individuals who are completely blind. This document 

scanning and reading system works with the X-tation’s document scanner to scan 

printed materials into the station and ‘‘read’’ them aloud to the user via speakers 

or a headset. This system provides adjustable fonts, rates of reading, and compatibility with the other components of the X-tation. 

• Compatibility with CS3: 

• These items have been tested with the CS3 system are in use in the Indianapolis WorkOne centers, and are compatible. 

Physical: 
307 

The X-tation includes hardware and software designed to meet the needs of individuals with many types of physical disabilities, including: 

• Spinal cord injury/paralysis 

• Cerebral palsy 

• CVA/Stroke 

• Head injury 

• Repetitive stress injury/Carpal tunnel syndrome 

• Multiple Sclerosis 

• Muscular Dystrophy 

• Ataxia 

• Amputation 

• ALS 

• Spina Bifida 

• Arthrogryposis 

• Reflex sympathetic dystrophy 

• Various other physical disabilities 

• Voice Input (Dragon Naturally Speaking) 

• Dragon Naturally Speaking is a voice input system that allows users with 

learning or physical difficulties to input information into a computer system. This 

system utilizes a headset microphone that allows the user to speak information, 

which is converted to text and commands within computer applications. Web-based 

voice commands fully support CS3 navigation. 

• Switch input (Switch Click, Screen Doors) 

• Users with the physical ability to simply ‘‘push a button’’ utilize the X-tation’s 

single switch input system. This system utilizes one of two switches included in the 

system, or is compatible with most switches that users may bring to the 

workstation, to allow the user to control a ‘‘virtual keyboard’’ to navigate the system 

and input information into the workstation. 

• Adaptive pointing input/on-screen keyboard (Programmable trackball, Screen 

Doors, Magic Cursor) 

• Users who have the ability to operate a mouse or programmable trackball may 

choose to operate the system by pointing to keys on the ‘‘virtual keyboard’’ to navigate the system and input information into the workstation. 

• Miniature keyboard (Datalux) 

• Users who type with a single hand, a single finger or who utilize a head pointer, 

may operate the system with the miniature keyboard. The Datalux spacesaver keyboard is smaller than a typical keyboard and reduces the effort required by the user 

while typing. 

• Over-sized, programmable keyboard (Intellikeys) 

• Users with tremors or users with limited ability to target keys on a standard 

keyboard may utilize one of the several overlays on the Intellikeys keyboard to access the X-tation. 

• Document scanning system (WYNN) 

• Although primarily a tool for individuals with learning disabilities, the WYNN 

(What You Need Now) document scanning system has been used to provide individuals with physical disabilities access to printed materials that cannot be physically 

handled. 

• Articulating arm supports and typing aids: 

• In order to provide support for users with limited arm strength and fine motor 

control of the upper extremities, the X-tation includes two adjustable, articulating 

arm supports and slip-on typing aids. 

• Electric dual height adjustable workstation 

• The X-tation is built around a dual height adjustable workstation that is adjusted by electric motors with easy-access switches. The workstation consists of two 

work areas: one that supports the keyboard/mouse area of the workstation and another that supports the display and scanner area. Each of these surfaces can be adjusted, independently, from a minimum seated height of 24 inches to a maximum 

standing height of 44 inches. 

• Articulating mounting arms: 

• The X-tation includes two articulating mounting arms. These arms are designed 

to position the keyboards, pointing devices and switches within easy reach of individuals with limited mobility. 

• Compatibility with CS3: 

• These items have been tested with the CS3 system, are in use in the Indianapolis WorkOne centers, and are compatible. 

Deaf: 
308 

Traditionally, individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing have minimal adaptive 

technology needs as it pertains to computer access. The following items are included 

in the X-tation to address those needs: • Sound Sentry: • This software is integral to the Windows operating system and generates a visual indicator when the computer makes an audible sound. • Show Sounds: • This software allows the display of captions of applications that are designed 

to include captions. • TTY: • The X-tation includes a basic TTY unit to allow the placement and reception 

of TTY calls. 

Learning: 

The X-tation includes a variety of systems to enhance access by individuals with 

learning disabilities: • Voice Input (Dragon Naturally Speaking) • Dragon Naturally Speaking is a voice input system that allows users with 

learning or reading difficulties to input information into a computer system. This 

system utilizes a headset microphone that allows the user to speak information, 

which is converted to text within computer applications. This functionality has proven to reduce misspelled words and increase a learning disabled user’s capacity to 

read and generate written documents. • Document scanning reading/literacy software (WYNN): • WYNN (What You Need Now) has been developed by Freedom Scientific’s 

Learning Systems Group. This system provides the user alternative access to materials in any of the following formats: Web-based, Computer-based (Word or text documents) or scanned printed materials. • WYNN provides multimodal feedback in the following formats: • speech output • color-coded reading • various font sizes, types and spacing • Additionally, WYNN allows the user to create bookmarks and notes in either 

voice or written format. • Compatibility with CS3: • These items have been tested with the CS3 system, are in use in the Indianapolis WorkOne centers, and are compatible. 

Staff Training: 

Training is a critical component of any assistive technology solution. In terms of 

the WorkOne centers, this is especially true. Many end-users come to the center 

with existing assistive technology experience. Others have not had the opportunity 

to utilize this type of assistance. In either situation, it is critical that the staff of 

the WorkOne centers be familiar with the assistive technology and able to provide 

end-users basic instruction in its use. 

Type of training: 

Training will be provided by two experienced trainers in the following manners: 

1. Lecture style training: 

In order to ensure that staff have knowledge of various disability types and how 

those disabilities affect access to the Work One’s computer systems, an overview of 

the disability types (above) will be covered. Additionally, lecture-style instruction 

will be provided regarding each of the adaptive technologies included in the Xtation. 

2. Hands-on practice: 

Immediately following the lecture-style portion of the training, staff will have an 

opportunity to put their knowledge into practice by participating in a series of exercises designed to increase practical knowledge of workstation utilization. These exercises will include practice on tasks specifically related to the CS3 system as well 

as role-playing exercises designed to increase empathy toward end-users with disabilities. 

Location of Training: 

Training will be conducted at the WorkOne center in Evansville and each of the 

express sites. Experience has dictated that the working environment is the best 

training environment. Our trainers have experience in working with staff to overcome the distractions that will occur. 

Levels of Training: 

Three specific groups of staff have been identified: 

Level One: 

The most intensive training will be provided to those who work with the X-tation 

on a day-to-day basis. Individuals in this group will be trained on basic, inter-
309 

mediate and some advanced aspects of the technology included in the X-tation. Additionally, this group will be trained in adjusting the workstation to meet the needs 

of a variety of individuals with disabilities as well as how to provide rudimentary 

training to those end users who might not have experience with assistive technology. This group also will be trained to perform level three training so that new 

staff can be trained without the expense of additional training from the Ruth Lilly 

Assistive Technology Center. 

Level Two: 

The next most intensive training will be provided to those who provide relief to 

the first group. This group will be provided training similar to that of the first 

group. This training will be slightly less detailed and will focus on the basic operation of the assistive technology available. 

Level Three: 

Lastly, it is important that everyone in the WorkOne center have a basic understanding of the X-tation. A brief overview or ‘‘top ten’’ training program will be provided to these individuals. Training will include awareness of the technology available and basic understanding of its use. 

Training materials: 

Training materials will be provided in two forms: 

1. Manufacturer’s documentation: Each component of the X-tation comes with 

manufacturer’s documentation. This documentation is typically brief and includes 

basic operations of each component. 

2. Custom documentation: Many components of the workstation are compatible 

with the CS3 system; however, special keystrokes or customization may have been 

developed to ensure compatibility. Custom manuals have been developed for these 

situations and will be provided. 

3. Quick reference guides: Each component’s basic functionality has been described in terms of its functionality for persons with different types of disabilities. 

This full-color guide includes photographs that will assist the most novice user in 

utilizing various components of the X-tation. 

4. Accessible formats: All training materials and quick reference guides will be 

provided in both paper format and accessible CD-ROMs. 

Training for new staff: 

Individuals trained at Level One will be able to provide training to new staff who 

will function at Level Three. Additional training can also be purchased should the 

need arise. 

Training evaluation: 

WorkOne staff will subjected to a brief test prior to training and following training. This test will consists of questions designed to identify knowledge of working 

with individuals and assistive technology. The pre and post-test results will be compared and presented during the administrative wrap up meeting. 

Set up and installation: 

Two teams of installers will utilize cargo vans to deliver and install X-tations at 

each of the locations specified in the Request For Proposals. These teams will deliver and assemble X-tations at a rate of one workstation per day at each location. 

The time allotted for installation and set up are appropriate and can easily be met. 

Set up, installation and training will be coordinated in such a way that the Information Resource Areas will be available to the public at all times. 

Follow up assistance: 

Regular follow up visits: 

Follow up assistance will be readily available to the WorkOne centers. Up to three 

visits to each WorkOne center per year will be provided for the purposes of support, 

training and maintenance. (Should more than three visits per year be required, onsite support is available at standard rates. Should one site require more support 

than other sites, unused visits may be shared among sites, per approval of the 

WorkOne Director.) 

Technical support line: 

The Ruth Lilly Assistive Technology Center has established a 24-hour 7 day-perweek help line available to our clients. This system allows the staff of the WorkOne 

centers to leave a message at any time and receive a return phone call. The target 

response time is within one hour of the call being received. In the event that problems cannot be resolved with a telephone call, an on-site visit (up to three per year) 

will be made within two working days. 

Measures implemented to reduce support needs: 

The X-tation utilizes technology that is specifically designed to ensure compatibility among components. This utilization has been found to drastically reduce the 

amount of support required. 

Evaluation process: 
310 

Following the delivery and setup process, a brief questionnaire will be provided 

to the managers of each WorkOne center. This questionnaire will solicit feedback 

regarding the setup and delivery process. Results of this questionnaire will be presented during the administrative wrap up meeting. 

Demonstrated Organizational Experience 

In 2000, the Ruth Lilly Assistive Technology Center partnered with the Indiana 

Private Industry Council, Goodwill Industries of Central Indiana, the Indiana Department of Workforce Development and Indiana Vocational Rehabilitation to make 

the WorkOne Centers in Indianapolis more accessible. This project involved all aspects of accessibility, including overcoming physical barriers in the WorkOne facilities, attitudinal barriers of staff and technology barriers. With regard to technology, 

four X-tation (accessible workstations) were implemented, staff were provided training based on their role and need to utilize the workstation, specialized software was 

developed to allow the X-tations to be compatible with the CS3 system, and a set 

of customized training manuals/quick reference guides was developed to instruct 

end-users and staff in techniques for utilizing adaptive computer equipment with 

the WorkOne’s software. 

Budget Narrative/Justification 

The Statement of Need (above) clearly details the need and utilization of equipment and services proposed. 

Please refer to attachments five, six and seven, which provide detailed costs associated with each phase of this project. 

Time Line and Management 

Management of project: 

Easter Seals Crossroads’ involvement in this project will be managed by Wade 

Wingler, Manager of the Ruth Lilly Assistive Technology Center. Mr. Wingler will 

coordinate all equipment and service delivery through the Executive Director of the 

WorkOne Center or her delegates. WorkOne Management will be responsible to coordinate scheduling of the following activities among the WorkOne Express sites. 

TIME LINE 

[The following is the target time line for delivery of services and equipment] 

PHASE TWO 

(planning, procurement, delivery and setup) 

Planning 

July 31, 2003 Planning and introductions at Evansville, Posey & Warrick 

August 1, 2003 Planning and introductions at Vanderberg, Spencer & Perry 

Equipment procurement 

August 4, 2003 Equipment ordered from suppliers 

August 25, 2003 All equipment received at Easter Seals Crossroads 

Delivery and setup 

September 1, 2003 Delivery/setup teams (2) assemble, load and travel to Southwestern Indiana 

September 2, 2003 Evansville WorkOne setup (both teams) 

September 3, 2003 Posey & Warrick County setup (one team per location) 

September 4, 2003 Vanderberg & Spencer County setup (one team per location) 

September 5, 2003 Perry County setup and teams return to Indianapolis (both teams) 

PHASE THREE 

(training) 

September 8, 9 & 10, 2003 Evansville Level one & two training (trainer 1) 

September 8, 9 & 10, 2003 Vanderberg Level one & two training (trainer 2) 

September 10,11 & 12, 2003 Posey Level one & two training (trainer 1) 

September 10,11 & 12, 2003 Warrick Level one & two training (trainer 2) 

September 15,16 & 17, 2003 Spencer Level one & two training (trainer 1) 

September 15,16 & 17, 2003 Perry Level one & two training (trainer 2) 

September 22, 2003 Evansville & Vanderburg Level three training (trainer 1) 

September 23, 2003 Posey & Warrick Level three training (trainer 1) 
311 

TIME LINE—Continued 

[The following is the target time line for delivery of services and equipment] 

September 24, 2003 Spencer & Perry Level three training (trainer 2) 

ADMINISTRATIVE WRAP UP 

September 30, 2003 Administrative wrap up meeting in Evansville and project completion 

Easter Seals Southern Nevada—Investing in Workforce Capacity 

For more than 85 years, Easter Seals has offered help and hope to children and 

adults living with disabilities and to the families that love them, nationwide. Over 

the past 25 years, Easter Seals Southern Nevada has been providing critical services that impact the lives of individuals and families and strengthen our entire community. Our strong record of high quality services, experienced staff, fiscal responsibility and use of best practices makes us uniquely positioned to partner with State 

and local agencies to leverage the Stimulus Package in Nevada. 

Our mission—To create solutions that help people with disabilities become self— 

sufficient through education, community partnerships and direct services. 

The goals of Easter Seals Southern Nevada are: 

• Full employment for persons with disabilities 

• Absolute independence for persons with disabilities 

• Community participation for persons with disabilities 

To ensure that people can get back to work, be successful in a job or living independently, and support their family during this economic downturn, we are able to 

provide a wide range of services as listed, below. 

Employment and Rehabilitation: Provides an opportunity for participants to learn 

new skills to successfully enter the workforce or return to work after an illness or 

injury and earn wages at the same time. Easter Seals often accepts individuals that 

have not been able to work in other environments and we succeed in helping them 

achieve their employment goals. This program currently assists over 100 people in 

these critical areas and could serve an additional 50 over the next 3 months by hiring and training 6 new staff members, for a total of 56 paid positions added to our 

community. 

Adult Day Services: Gives adults with severe/profound disabilities the opportunity 

to participate in center based activities that promote independence with daily living 

skills, social interaction with peers and physical fitness. Caregivers for these participants are able to continue working, secure in the knowledge that their loved one 

is receiving optimal care in a safe and stimulating environment, which adds to the 

economy and helps reduce unemployment rates. Over 40 individuals currently participate in this program. If funding was readily available, this program could provide services for an additional 15 individuals, within the next two months, by hiring 

and training 5 new staff. 

Supported Living Assistance: Provides guidance and training to individuals with 

developmental delays and mental illness. These services are designed to enable 

these individuals to live as independently as possible in the community. The more 

individuals that are able to live independently, the less of a burden on the State 

to provide for them and less stress on the family members who care for them. This 

enables family members to maintain employment and also allows the individuals in 

the program to have the pride of living on their own and once they feel secure in 

their housing, it is much easier for them to find and maintain employment as well. 

There are currently over 70 individuals receiving supported living services and an 

additional 20 individuals could be served, within the next three months, by hiring 

and training 4 new staff. 

Assistive technology services: Provides person centered services that empower 

children and adult with disabilities to create positive change and increase independence and productivity using appropriate assistive technology. Services include evaluation, training, troubleshooting and customized solution development. All of these 

services lead to a more independent life and the ability to begin working, maintain 

employment or go back to work after an illness or injury. With increased funding, 

a minimum of 85 additional individuals could be served through the services listed 

above, in a one on one or classroom setting, which would ready them for employment or help them to maintain their current employment. Three staff positions 

would be added within a two month period to serve this increased caseload, for a 

total of 88 people potentially employed with these resources. 
312 

Child Development Center: The Easter Seals—Wonders of Our World Child Development Center is designed for families with children of all abilities from 6 weeks 

to 8 years. Our inclusive environment promotes diversity that builds acceptance and 

positive attitudes toward others. All parents struggle with finding quality, safe, affordable child care but this issue is magnified for parents of children with special 

needs because there are so few options available. If funding were readily available, 

our center could accommodate 45 additional children within a two month period, by 

hiring and training 4 new staff. This would enhance the local workforce, not only 

by adding positions within our agency, but all of the parents who would be able to 

find and maintain employment. Our Center Director is also qualified to provide 

training to families or other providers on a variety of child related topics, including 

promoting inclusion within other centers statewide. 

Early intervention services: Works with children with developmental delays or diagnosed conditions affecting development from birth to three. This home based, parent driven program focuses on the family’s goals for their child by providing developmental services as well as therapies, nutrition, parent training and playgroups. As 

funding has become scarce for this program, the waiting list is growing. Easter 

Seals could serve an additional 100 children, doubling our current capacity, within 

three months by hiring and training 4 new staff. As with our other children’s services, this program assists children reach their potential and increases the chances 

for a less restrictive entry into education and other programs which saves the taxpayers and, ultimately, an increased chance of entering the work force as adults. 

Recreation/Camping: Provides camping and recreation activities for children of all 

abilities, ages 8 to 18. Activities are scheduled throughout the year allowing children to interact with their peers and engage in adventures that they might not normally have a chance to explore while promoting physical activity. With funding 

readily available to scholarship children with special needs that cannot afford camp, 

an additional 50 children could participate in camping/recreation experiences 

throughout the year, by hiring 4 contract staff. 

Autism services: Provides one on one applied behavior analysis to children with 

autism, ages 18 months to 8 years of age, in their own home. This program not only 

works with the child, but with the entire family to develop strategies for success 

that family members can carry out every day. Funding for autism services is sorely 

lacking in Nevada, and therefore, many families are looking to move out of state 

to find the services their child needs. Increasing funding will allow more children 

to be served, more parent training, and more residents staying in Nevada. Ultimately a child’s success with these interventions can mean less restrictive environments in school resulting in lower cost to taxpayers and higher probability of employment when they become adults. This program is very time intensive so even a 

relatively small number of children receive a great many hours of service. Therefore, 

with funding readily available, an additional 12 children could be added to this program for approximately 400 additional hours per month, by hiring and training 4 

new staff within the next 3 months. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. And with that, I call on Mr. Brooks. 

STATEMENT OF CHRIS BROOKS, DIRECTOR, BOMBARD 

RENEWABLE ENERGY 

Mr. BROOKS. Chairman, thank you. Congresswoman Titus, thank 

you. 

I was born here in the State of Nevada and I’m a third generation electrical worker and about a decade ago I started a renewable 

energy business where together with my current employer, Bombard Electric, we’ve installed over 20 megawatts of renewable energy in this state. And on 500, over 500 projects, employing hundreds of Nevada electrical workers and other tradesmen for thousands and thousands of man-hours. 

I am and my family is, all my employees are all members of the 

IBEW, the electrical union, and we were all trained by that electrical union. I helped create the renewable energy training curriculum for the Joint Apprenticeship Training Center here in Las 

Vegas, and I also worked on the National Apprenticeship Training 
313 

Center in their renewable energy curriculum development team 

and we provide certification and training for electricians. 

The renewable energy industry began in American laboratories 

with American scientists developing innovative solutions to the energy challenges. Over the past few decades the industry has grown 

from a niche market to one of the fastest growing industries in the 

world. 

From utility sized installations down to residential systems, renewable energy emerges as an enormous industry capable of providing thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in states like Nevada. Governments at all levels, understanding the potential for 

job and fiscal growth, have begun introducing policies to support 

the implementation of this now viable energy solution. 

For renewable energy to meet America’s growing energy demands, we must continue to develop our most valuable renewable 

resource, the American workforce. 

We must train tomorrow’s renewable energy workforce today. 

These green jobs, for the most part, are construction jobs. To train 

green workers, we need to train construction workers, and build on 

their already existing knowledge base. 

Renewable energy technologies require the same high standards 

for safety and reliability as existing energy technology installations, construction projects, and any other types of construction related processes. Many of the building trades training programs require these high standards already and are well aligned with the 

green jobs goals of the Workforce Investment Act. 

The IBEW has led the way in the training and providing of a 

highly skilled workforce for the safe installation of the latest electrical technologies, dating back to its inception over a century ago 

in 1891. 

The IBEW and NECA have been instrumental in establishing 

national standards to maintain the highest level of workmanship 

and safety in these installations. These high standards continue as 

the IBEW and the JATC establish renewable energy training programs. 

Southern Nevada JATC has been providing training since 1947. 

The JATC is a non-profit member of the community focused on providing long-term employment for individuals seeking a career, not 

just a job, in the electrical construction industry and in renewable 

energy. 

The JATC understands the benefits of career-oriented training 

and placement, for both individuals and the communities that they 

are working in. In its long history in southernNevada, the JATC 

has trained thousands of electricians, including my grandfather, 

my father, my brothers and myself. 

Last week in Southern Nevada we turned out 93 electricians 

through that training program, in electrical theory, construction 

practices, safety, and during the course of the program, the fiveyear program that every apprentice went through, they received 

training in renewable energy systems. 

The Southern Nevada campus of JATC also has a state of the art 

wind and PV training facility that teaches about installation of 

these projects. These programs, all these programs that we’ve 

talked about to get these certifications already exist, are well 
314 

aligned with the Workforce Investment Act, but are self-funded. 

Right now all of the electrical workers dispatched by the IBEW pay 

for these programs with portions of their own paychecks. 

There are many existing programs, like apprenticeships, that the 

JATC is currently working with. The Build Nevada Initiative, for 

instance, focuses on providing high school students a gateway into 

the trade schools and apprenticeship programs by giving the math 

skills and construction skills that will—or jobs skills that will then 

help them get into the apprenticeship programs right out of high 

school. 

Apprenticeship programs all over the country, like the JATC and 

several other building trades, hire American veterans through programs such as Helmets to Hardhats where they are taking former 

military personnel and putting them right into construction training apprenticeship programs. 

Educational outreach is essential in this. The apprenticeship programs in companies like ours, we reach out to all the schools, local 

schools, trade schools, job fairs, and offer employment opportunities 

through the apprenticeship programs to the students in the high 

schools. 

Because of the tremendous leadership of many Nevadans, some 

of them here and some of them in Washington, D. C. right now, 

and some up in Carson still, we have many things like Senator 

Horsford’s Green Jobs act that are well aligned with the current 

goals of the Workforce Investment Act. 

The problem that we have is the recurring costs of training provided by JATC of Southern Nevada and many building trades facilities are self-funded. They are funded by the contractors and 

they are funded by our workers that they are training. As a result 

of the economic downturn, and the loss of jobs, we are losing funding at the same time. 

If we don’t have men out there working, men and women in the 

field, they can’t contribute to these training programs. The trainers 

are also usually workers in the field themselves. So these building 

trades programs and the facilities they use, the trainers that work 

there, the workforce they trained already exist, are well aligned 

and direct funding of these programs would be very helpful to furthering our goals. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Thank you, Mr. Brooks. 

Again, I want to say that your statement in its entirety will be 

made part of this record. 

[The statement of Mr. Brooks follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Chris Brooks, Director, Bombard Renewable Energy 

I was born and raised in Nevada. I am a third generation electrician and helped 

establish the current Renewable Energy industry in the state. I was a small business owner who saw the potential for Renewable Energy in Nevada nearly a decade 

ago. My father, brothers, and I, all trained electricians, work in the Renewable Energy industry today as green job pioneers. 

After working as an electrician in the construction and utility sectors in Nevada 

for many years I started a solar electric contracting company in 2000. In 2004 I 

joined forces with Bombard Electric, creating their Renewable Energy Division, as 

a response to an increase in demand and interest in the Renewable Energy industry. Together we have installed over 20 megawatts of Renewable Energy on over 500 

projects in and around the State of Nevada. 

I helped create and develop the Renewable Energy training program and curriculum for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) / National 
315 

Electrical Contractors Association (NECA) / Electrical Joint Apprenticeship Training 

Center of Southern Nevada (JATC). In addition to my local efforts I am on the Renewable Energy Curriculum Development Committee for the National JATC. I was 

among the earliest solar professionals to obtain certification from the North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners (NABCEP). In 2007 I was appointed 

to the Nevada Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Task Force. In 2008 I 

was appointed to Senator Harry Reid’s Blue Ribbon Task Force for a Clean Energy 

Future. I was a founding member of, and current board member of, the American 

Solar Energy Society (ASES) Southern Nevada Chapter, SolarNV. 

The Renewable Energy industry began in American laboratories with American 

scientists developing innovative solutions to meet energy challenges. Over the past 

few decades the industry has grown from a niche market to one of the fastest growing industries in the world. 

From utility sized installations down to residential systems, Renewable Energy 

has emerged as an enormous industry capable of providing thousands of jobs and 

millions of dollars to states like Nevada. Governments at all levels, understanding 

this potential for job and fiscal growth, have begun introducing policy to support the 

implementation of this now viable energy solution. For Renewable Energy to meet 

America’s growing energy demands we must continue to develop our most valuable 

renewable resource, the American workforce. 

We must train tomorrow’s Renewable Energy workforce today. These Green Jobs 

are construction jobs. To train green workers we need to train construction workers, 

and build on their already existing knowledge base. Renewable Energy technologies 

require the same high standards for safety and reliability as existing energy technology installations, construction projects, and any other construction related process. Many of the building trades training programs require these high standards already and are well aligned with the Green Job goals of The Workforce Investment 

Act. 

The IBEW has led the way in the training and providing of a highly skilled workforce for the safe installation of the latest in electrical technology, dating back to 

its inception, over a century ago, in 1891. The IBEW and NECA have been instrumental in establishing national standards to maintain the highest level of workmanship and safety in its installations. These high standards have continued as the 

IBEW and the JATC established Renewable Energy training programs. 

The Southern Nevada JATC has been providing training since 1947. The JATC 

is a non-profit member of the community focused on providing long-term employment for individuals seeking a career in the electrical construction industry, including Renewable Energy. The JATC understands the benefits of career oriented training and placement, for both the individuals and the communities they are working 

in. In its long history in Southern Nevada the JATC has trained thousands of electricians including my grandfather, my father, my brothers, and myself. 

Last week in Southern Nevada the JATC graduated 93 electricians from the five 

year apprenticeship program. This program’s curriculum focuses on electrical theory, construction practices, and safety. During the course of the program every apprentice is taught the theory behind, and the methods of installation for, Renewable 

Energy systems. 

The Southern Nevada campus of the JATC also has a state of the art Wind and 

PV Training Laboratory. This lab offers hands on training on four different existing 

solar arrays, multiple types of inverters, and fully functional wind turbine. All this 

equipment, in addition to measurement and verification hardware, is routed to a 

comprehensive data acquisition system. All the data that is collected is available online as an educational resource to the public. 

In addition to the apprenticeship training on Renewable Energy and the Wind 

and PV Training Lab, the JATC also offers a 50 hour comprehensive training module, concentrated on safe and effective installation of photovoltaic (PV) systems. This 

class prepares the already certified electricians for the Nevada State PV Installer’s 

License exam, administered by the Nevada State OSHA Department. Several hundred apprentices and electricians have successfully completed this course and exam 

in order to meet the state’s requirements for installing wind and PV technology. 

These programs already exist, are well aligned with The Workforce Investment 

Act goals for Green Jobs, but are self-funded. All of the electrical workers dispatched by the IBEW pay for these programs with portions of their paychecks. 

There are many existing programs that apprenticeships like the JATC are currently working with. The Build Nevada Initiative focuses on providing high school 

students a gateway in to trade schools and apprenticeship programs. Students enrolled in the program obtain math skills that exceed the requirements for entry in 

to all apprenticeship programs, including the Renewable Energy programs offered 

by the JATC. Build Nevada partners with the Clark County School District to teach 
316 

the future workforce occupational skills at facilities such as Desert Rose High School 

and the Area Technical Trade Center. The Build Nevada Initiative also ensures that 

the future workforce is properly trained in construction equipment operation and 

jobsite safety before they enter their respective apprenticeship program. 

Apprenticeship programs all over the country, including the JATC of Southern 

Nevada, are working with America’s veterans through programs such as Helmets 

to Hardhats. Helmets to Hardhats is a non-profit organization that connects former 

military personnel with career opportunities from the nationwide building and construction trades. 

Educational outreach is an essential part of developing a Renewable Energy workforce. The Renewable Energy Division of Bombard Electric regularly attends elementary school energy fairs, donates time and materials to school science projects, 

and sponsors Renewable Energy competitions at area schools. Our company, together with the JATC apprenticeship program, also provides resources on careers 

in Renewable Energy at vocational high schools and technical academies. 

Because of the tremendous leadership demonstrated by many Nevadans, including 

State Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford, United States Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and NV Energy, there are several new and existing programs that 

are well aligned with the Green Jobs goals of the Workforce Investment Act. Senator Horsford’s proposed SB152 would utilize existing apprenticeship training programs and non-profit workforce development groups to leverage federal funds for 

Green Jobs. All installers at the Renewable Energy Division of Bombard Electric 

were trained by JATC instructors, whose education would not have been possible 

without the hard work of Senator Reid. The JATC Wind and PV Training Laboratory was funded largely by NV Energy through the Renewable Generations program 

and a pilot and demonstration program authorized by the Nevada State Legislature. 

The reoccurring costs of training provided by the JATC of Southern Nevada are 

funded by the electrical workers of the IBEW and the contractors of NECA. These 

training programs continue to provide the most comprehensive training on the latest 

energy technology, including Renewable Energy. As a result of the economic downturn a growing portion of the workforce responsible for funding the training programs is unemployed and cannot contribute. This month alone Bombard Electric 

has spent over $10,000 in Renewable Energy training for its workforce. 

Growing unemployment means less funding for a program that is currently at 

maximum capacity. The existing classroom facilities for the JATC training programs 

are in need of expansion and modernization. All this at a time when Renewable Energy training is most needed. 

The trainers in the JATC programs are largely workers themselves who have to 

train the future Renewable Energy workforce in addition to their full time jobs. 

These trainers receive less compensation when training than if they were on the job. 

The apprentices and journeymen electrical workers receive all their training after 

hours and on weekends with no compensation whatsoever. In addition they also pay 

for all of their textbooks and materials, even when unemployed. 

These building trades training programs, the facilities they use, the trainers who 

work there, and the workforce they train already exist and are well aligned with 

the Workforce Investment Act goals for Green Jobs. Direct funding of these programs, and others like them around the state and country, are necessary for the 

growth and development of a Renewable Energy workforce. Bombard Electric, and 

contractors like them all over the country, need help to best prepare their workforce 

for our Renewable Energy future. With the guidance and support of the Workforce 

Investment Act our common goals of putting Nevadans and Americans back to work 

can be realized safely and soon. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. I now call on Mrs. Cook. 

STATEMENT OF CHANDA COOK, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY 

INITIATIVES, NEVADA PUBLIC EDUCATION FOUNDATION 

Ms. COOK. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Chandra Cook 

and I’m here today representing the Nevada—— 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Will you speak a little bit closer to the 

microphone? I want to be sure that everybody hears you clearly. 

Ms. COOK. Thank you. 

As you know, America’s dropout crisis has continued to receive 

significant attention nationally. I commend you, Chairman Hino-
317 

josa and Chairman of the Full House Education and Labor Committee, George Miller, for your long-standing leadership on behalf 

of all of American youth, as well as our newest representative to 

Congress, Congresswoman Titus, who has been a leader and an advocate for issues that affect Nevadans and our youth. 

The scope of this problem and its impact in Nevada is staggering. 

Approximately 20 percent, or 43,000 Nevada youth, have not progressed beyond high school diploma and are neither employed, nor 

enrolled in secondary—in post-secondary education. 

Nevada ranks worst among all 50 states in the percentage of 

teens who are not attending school and who are not working. These 

individuals have little chance to ever learn a family-supporting 

wage and many of them have been dependent upon public systems, 

rather than becoming contributing members of society. 

Beyond the individual impact, the economic and social consequences for Nevada are great. For example, the high school dropouts from 2008, if they had graduated, Nevada’s economy would 

have seen an additional $5.1 billion in wages. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the Nevada Public Education Foundation which works for systemic 

change by bringing together the education, workforce development 

and youth development systems to our Ready For Life movement. 

While Congress looks at the youth provisions of the Workforce 

Investment Act, or WIA, it should ask a serious of broader questions about how to advance a comprehensive youth strategy that 

includes WIA as one of the federal policy vehicles for improving the 

education and career pathways for America’s most vulnerable 

youth. 

Our legislative recommendations are captured in the following 

areas: Governance, eligibility services and performance, quality improvement, and innovation. To be most effective, WIA youth programs and activities should be part of a larger regional strategy 

connecting workforce, education and youth development activities, 

as opposed to working in isolation. 

This should include increased flexibility, regional integration, 

funding local priorities and investing in expansion of local capacities through intermediate areas and collaborative system approaches. 

Current eligibility and performance provisions are obstacles to 

serving many of the youth that are most at need. Eligibility determination must be simplified and streamlined, and I recommend the 

eligibility goes to age 24, which was done in March, and research 

has shown that we need to connect our youth by the time they are 

25, or basically we’ve lost them forever. 

Ideally, determining eligibility for WIA should be based on risk 

factors. If income requirements are maintained, permit youth who 

are eligible for other federal means-tested programs to be automatically eligible for WIA services. 

Under the current performance measurement system providers 

often serve primarily those who are most job ready, thus reaching 

a smaller portion of the population that need services. Older disconnected youth, especially those with low skill levels present a 

special challenge. Congress should adopt measures to mark the 

progress of all eligible youth, particularly those who are hard to 
318 

employ for those skills. This will require different performance 

measures for different segments of the population. 

Funding for youth activities is diffused, limiting the impact of 

federal efforts to raise workforce-imposed secondary readiness. To 

improve impact we recommend that Congress should place a priority on off-track students, including prevention and credit retrieval efforts to get them back on track for graduation, and to attaining post-secondary credentials. 

We recommend that we should link WIA in-school activities reviewed with other relevant federal programs and place a priority 

on funding partnerships among community organizations, colleges, 

K-12, employers, philanthropy as appropriate. More details and 

specific recommendations are in my written testimony. 

Again, thank you for this opportunity to testify. As you know, in 

today’s economy it is imperative that the revised legislation be even 

more strategic, youth collaborative, targeted and deliberate activities promoting educational engagement and work skill development. The Workforce Investment Act can help our youth graduate 

from high school and gain appropriate post-secondary education or 

training to become productive members of our society. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Thank you. 

[The statement of Ms. Cook follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Chanda Cook, Director of Community Initiatives, 

Nevada Public Education Foundation 

America’s dropout crisis has continued to receive significant attention nationally. 

This is the result of better data about the significant number of students not graduating on-time—only 70% nationally on average, with some schools graduating 

fewer than 50% of their students. Recent research has also underscored the serious 

social and economic impact on communities through the country. 

The scope of the problem and its economic impact on Nevada is staggering. Consider the following statistics: 

• Nevada’s graduation rate was 67.4% for 2007-08 

• 20% or approximately 43,000 Nevada youth ages 18-24 are 

disconnected (have not progressed beyond a high school diploma and are neither 

employed nor enrolled in postsecondary education) 

Nevada ranks worst among all 50 states in the percentage of: 

• Teens who are high school dropouts 

• Teens not attending school and not working 

• Young adults enrolled in or completed college 

For the individuals represented by these numbers, their chances to ever be able 

to earn a family-supporting wage are slim, and research tells us many of them will 

be dependent on public systems rather than becoming contributors to the public 

good. Beyond the individual impact, the economic and social consequences for Nevada are grave: 

• If the more than 19,500 high school dropouts from 2008 had earned their diplomas, Nevada’s economy would have seen an additional $5.1 billion in wages over 

these students’ lifetimes. 

• If Hispanics/Latinos, African-Americans, and Native Americans achieved the 

same education levels as Whites by 2020, Nevada’s personal income would increase 

by $2.2 billion. 

• More than 80% of America’s prison population consists of dropouts. It costs approximately SIX TIMES MORE annually to incarcerate than educate an individual. 

In an effort to address these staggering numbers and resulting issues, Nevada 

Public Education Foundation created the Ready for Life movement to bring together 

youth-serving systems in a collaborative effort to ensure more Nevada youth are 

‘‘ready for life.’’ 

Nevada Public Education Foundation’s Ready for Life Movement 

Established in 1991, Nevada Public Education Foundation (NPEF) is a statewide 

non-profit intermediary organization working for systemic change on behalf of Nevada youth. Facilitating collaboration among public and private youth-serving orga-
319 

nizations, NPEF brings together the education, workforce development, and youth 

development systems in order to better serve youth, particularly those most at risk 

of not graduating from high school and transitioning to productive adulthood. NPEF 

builds this connected infrastructure through its Ready for Life movement. 

NPEF launched Ready for Life in 2005 as a collaborative effort to improve Nevada’s high school graduation rate. NPEF’s focus was driven by research from Stanford University indicating that young people who are not connected by age 25 to either school or work are likely to remain disconnected forever, resulting in significant 

personal, economic, and societal costs. This concern was solidified by local research 

(see www.readyforlifenv.org) showing that too many of our own students are failing 

to transition from high school to productive adulthood. According to the Stanford research, those most at risk of not being ‘‘connected by 25’’ fall into four categories: 

youth who do not complete high school; those deeply involved in the juvenile justice 

system; youth in the foster care system; and young, unmarried mothers. 

Ready for Life is a statewide movement, a systemic effort to support youth; it is 

not a specific program or intervention, but a facilitation of collaboration among 

youth-serving organizations with the end goal of connecting Nevada youth to education or productive employment by age 25. 

Nevada’s Ready for Life movement now involves hundreds of organizations statewide, local community collaboratives, and a network of nearly 1,000 stakeholders 

working toward the vision that all Nevada youth are ready for life, supported by 

a community ethic that values education. Convened by Nevada Public Education 

Foundation, public and private organizations are partnering in the belief that as 

they work together, students will be more likely to complete high school and gain 

appropriate postsecondary education or training to become productive, contributing 

members of society. Partners include local agencies, nonprofits, community-based organizations, education entities including local school districts and higher education, 

faith based organizations, youth, concerned parents, and elected officials. 

In November 2008, the Ready for Life Nevada Dropout Prevention Summit established the goal to increase Nevada’s high school graduation rate 10% by 2013. Recognizing common goals and collaborative processes, Nevada Public Education Foundation was excited to unite the Ready for Life movement with NV DETR’s federal 

Shared Youth Vision partnership in January 2009. With this unique blend of public, 

private and non-profit leadership, Nevada is now positioned to make sustainable 

systemic change via this collaboration, with the end goal of connecting Nevada 

youth to education or productive employment by age 25. Through Ready for Life in 

local communities and statewide, NPEF facilitates: 

• Creating a connected infrastructure by aligning education, workforce development and youth development to support youth 

• Public and private coordination at the local and state levels, recognizing multiple systems have roles in youth success 

• Cross-communication between federal, state and local work to leverage resources, remove barriers, and learn & share promising practices 

• Collaborative planning and progress toward measurable goals to help youth become ‘‘ready for life’’ 

• Building a community ethic that values education 

Intermediary Organizations 

The following recommendations are submitted by NPEF and include significant 

input and feedback from workforce and education intermediary organizations across 

the country, including those in Portland, Philadelphia, Boston and Chicago. Facilitated by Jobs for the Future, the Boston-based research, development and policy organization, this consortium (of which NPEF is a member) has been developing and 

sharing best practices for systemic change to help our nation’s struggling students 

and disconnected youth succeed in school and transition to become productive, contributing members of society. 

The work of these intermediary organizations, including NPEF’s Ready for Life 

Nevada work since 2005, underscores the need for intermediary organizations dedicated to building the infrastructure necessary for ongoing and sustainable collaboration among youthserving systems. In order to more effectively engage youth in 

school and develop an educated workforce to lead our nation’s economy, investment 

in intermediary organizations is critical for alignment of education, workforce, and 

youth development systems. 

Legislative Recommendations 

While Congress should look directly at the youth provision of the Workforce Investment Act, it must also ask a series of broader questions about how to advance 

a comprehensive youth strategy that include the Workforce Investment Act as one 
320 

of the federal policy vehicles for improving the education and career pathways for 

America’s most vulnerable youth. Congress should seize this moment to align outcomes, reporting & accountability, encourage and ease the use of multiple funding 

streams. All these multiple federal policy vehicles, including the youth activities of 

the Workforce Investment Act, should ensure that all eligible youth are advancing 

on a clear path toward a postsecondary credential required for success in today’s 

economy. 

The legislative recommendations are captured in the following areas: 

• Governance 

• Eligibility, Services, and Performance 

• Quality Improvement and Innovation 

Governance 

Current law authorized Youth Councils to provide coordination and oversight 

among a limited number of local stakeholders with respect to authorized youth activities. Today, Youth Councils must play a more strategic role. 

With the support of local Workforce Investment Boards (WIBs), Youth Councils 

must measure the needs of local youth and ensure that school districts, WIBs, higher education partners, and other key stakeholders collaborate to provide a targeted 

range of options to serve them. 

To be most effective, WIA youth programs and activities should be part of a larger 

regional strategy connecting workforce, education and youth development activities. 

Rather than stand-alone entities working in isolation, Youth Councils must collaborate with other youthserving systems and connect to related efforts in order to better meet the needs of local youth. As described above, intermediary organizations 

are highly effective conduits for this collaboration. 

Congress should: 

• Allow the maximum flexibility and encourage regional integration of WIA youth 

efforts with existing regional youth committees and/or intermediaries where appropriate, as opposed to working in isolation. 

• Invest in expansion of local capacity through intermediaries and collaborations 

that bring together workforce, education, and youth development systems at the 

local, regional and/or state levels. 

• Specify that representation must include an individual from the local education 

agency or agencies in the area responsible for secondary education; individual from 

at least one local institution for higher education; employers in local industries and 

sectors that are growing and have a high demand for skilled labor; and as appropriate local youth-related foundations and/or philanthropies. 

• Establish an incentive fund for entrepreneurial WIBs and Youth Councils to 

adopt an expanded set of duties, including improving capacity to gather, analyze, 

and use data to evaluate the quality of current youth program options and increasing the supply of quality education options for in-school and out-of-school youth. 

• Allow Youth Councils the discretion to direct funding toward local priorities. 

Such provisions should set floors on basic activities, such as in-school, out-of-school, 

and, as appropriate, summer jobs. A portion of funds would be directed toward 

highpriority purposes consistent with data analyses and investment strategies. 

Eligibility, Services, and Performance 

WIA should focus on serving youth that are most in need of skill development 

services. That means retaining services for both in-school and out-of-school youth, 

while placing a priority on the hardest-to-serve through targeting services, expanding eligibility, and improving performance measures. Current eligibility and performance provisions pose programmatic obstacles to serving many of the youth that 

are most in need. 

Eligibility—Too much time at the local level is devoted to determining eligibility, 

with little positive effect and in the face of new research that offers more streamlined strategies for eligibility determination. There is a need to simplify the determination of which youth are eligible to receive services. 

Congress should: 

• Increase age eligibility to 24. Research shows the importance of engaging youth 

by age 25. Congress already recognized this by raising the age for youth employment funds in the ARRA from 21 to 24. 

• Permit youth who are eligible for other federal means-tested programs to be 

automatically eligible for WIA services. 

• Make youth automatically eligible for services based on risk factors, such as disconnected status (out of school and out of work) and early warning indicators for 

in-school, off-track youth (e.g. over-age, under-credited, non-attendance), preferably 

without income eligibility. 
321 

• If income requirements are maintained, permit the use of income proxy measures (e.g., ESEA Title I, Free and Reduced lunch status, high-poverty census tracks) 

as automatic designation for eligibility. 

Funding—Funding for youth activities is diffused, limiting the impact of federal 

efforts to raise workforce and postsecondary readiness. Funds should target off-track 

students within the in-school population. 

To improve impact, Congress should: 

• Place a priority on off-track students, including prevention and credit retrieval 

efforts to get them back on track to graduation and to attaining postsecondary credentials. 

• Permit follow-up services that provide continuing support (e.g., from a transition counselor) after young people leave schools or programs and as they seek to 

enter or remain in work or further education. 

• Link WIA in-school activities for youth with other relevant federal programs. 

Program Design—WIA youth program designs and elements should advance the 

development of high-quality pathways that ensure eligible youth attain skills and 

credentials necessary for educational and career advancement. WIA youth funding 

should result in the development of high-quality pathways and options that lead to 

postsecondary credentials and career advancement for youth. 

Congress should: 

• Establish that the purpose of WIA youth activities is to ensure that eligible 

youth attain workforce skills and credentials that promote educational and career 

advancement, with special attention to creating employment opportunities in 

highgrowth and emerging sectors. 

• Retain the ability to allow continued funding to support eligible youth over 

more than one year and for a transitional period after they have left the program 

or school. 

• Strengthen incentives for employers to train and employ, and for colleges to enroll, formerly disconnected youth who have completed WIA-funded youth programs. 

One example is the disconnected youth tax credit. 

Employment Programs—Youth employment programs, including project-based 

learning activities, apprenticeships, and internships, should help youth attain both 

work-related skills and supports that can help students advance in educational attainment and achievement. 

These programs should provide highly structured and well-supervised work experiences that emphasize learning and skill development. Programs should be encouraged to build partnerships with employers, who can provide work-based training 

and learning experiences through internships and apprenticeships. 

Congress should: 

• Invest in a funding stream for high-quality summer and year-round youth employment opportunities that emphasize learning and skill development as well as 

academic programs. 

• Focus attention on educational engagement and work skills development strategies for all WIA-funded youth programs. 

Performance Measures—Differentiate performance measurements stipulated 

under WIA to align with the distinct needs of varying adult and youth populations. 

Under the current performance measurement system, providers often serve primarily those who are more job-ready, thus reaching a smaller proportion of the population that need services. Provide incentives in the law for programs to serve a 

broader range of youth. One way of achieving this is by differentiating performance 

measurements stipulated under WIA to align with the distinct needs of varying 

youth populations. Programs should be able to apply interim benchmarks that are 

predictive of educational and career advancement and that account for the relative 

difficulty of populations with multiple risk factors. 

Congress should: 

• For youth, adopt measurements to mark the progress of all eligible youth, particularly those who are hard to employ or low-skilled. Determining the progress of 

all eligible youth would require different performance measures for different segments of the eligible population. 

Quality Improvement and Innovation 

Current law lacks any effective mechanism of promoting quality improvement and 

innovation among WIA Youth programs and activities. As a result, the field lacks 

a pool of quality models and practices that can help spur broader systemic improvement. 

First, innovation and higher levels of successes should be promoted not just for 

national organizations with ‘‘branded’’ models but also for local organizations and/ 
322 

or partnerships that demonstrate the ability to serve particular groups well and 

achieve higher performance outcomes. 

Congress should: 

• Create an innovation fund for WIA Youth programs. Partnerships that seek to 

develop a new program, improve an existing program, or scale up a promising 

model, all toward more challenging performance outcomes, would be eligible to receive funding. The fund would be used to drive programs toward meeting challenging performance measures, including measures focused on lower-income, lowerskilled, and other disadvantaged populations. 

Second, older disconnected youth, especially those with low skill levels, present 

special challenges. Too few successful models for this population exist. Additionally, 

there are too few models for the hardest-to-serve adult workers (i.e., those with multiple barriers to employment, those with the lowest skill levels, and those with limited English proficiency). 

Congress should: 

• Establish an investment fund to encourage social entrepreneurs to take on 

these challenges and invent new promising approaches. 

• Place a priority on funding partnerships among community organizations, colleges, K-12 schools, employers, and philanthropy, as appropriate. 

• Include funding for evaluation of these new models. 

Conclusion 

Nevada Public Education Foundation is honored to provide input and testimony 

for reauthorizing the Workforce Investment Act. This legislation has been successful 

in helping many of our nation’s young people gain work experience and skills needed for gainful employment. In today’s economy, it is imperative that the revised legislation be even more strategic to provide the opportunities necessary to help our 

struggling students and disengaged youth succeed through collaborative, targeted 

and deliberate activities promoting educational engagement and work skill development that will help them graduate from high school and gain appropriate post-secondary education or training to become productive, contributing members of society. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. And I now call upon Rebecca Metty-Burns. 

STATEMENT OF REBECCA METTY–BURNS, INTERIM DIRECTOR 

FOR THE WORKFORCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, 

COLLEGE OF SOUTHERN NEVADA 

Ms. METTY-BURNS. Good morning, and thank you for this opportunity to testify regarding the Workforce and Investment Act. 

I am particularly encouraged in being able to come in and talk 

with you about innovations because innovations require the ability 

to search out for feedback, take that feedback, and then incorporate 

that to improve programs and reach a goal of excellence. I think 

that this is a wonderful opportunity to take a look at programs 

that are in place and what we can do to make them even better, 

even more effective and respond to community needs. 

I chose to look at one particular program that we operate in collaboration with the credit program at the College of Southern Nevada. The division that I represent offers non-credit programs and 

we primarily focus on skill-specific training for local employers for 

their particular workforce needs. 

In this particular program, the Certified Nursing Assistant program, we worked in collaboration with the credit department to say 

how can we also, in combination with you, and provide some avenues for participants coming in with WIA funds to access that program and also access job opportunities from that. 

The collaboration resulted in an intensive seven-week program, 

and what the division does to support our participants is also offer 

an opportunity for them to attend an orientation, helping with ad-
323 

ministrative pieces, and introduce them to what they will be going 

through in that seven-week process. 

We also make sure that they have available refresher sessions, 

review sessions, to make sure that they can succeed with their 

studies. 

When I talked to several of the students and our health care coordinator, a lot of the comments that they make resonated, I think, 

with other information you’ve heard through this hearing process. 

The first is the opportunity that was there. Two of the people I 

talked with completed the program successfully and were very excited about the prospect of what their employment opportunities 

would be. They noted that it was essential to have additional support services, though, as they were re-entering education and they 

needed to make sure that they had some reinforcement as they 

were going through an academic program. 

I think there are still some ways that we can reinforce that and 

we are learning from students who may falter through that program that there’s more to be done and more to add in for their success. Additional assessments that are needed to make sure that 

they are matched up correctly with the program, that they have 

the foundational skills to succeed, when we are driven to move people through too quickly in a short time frame, so they can search 

for a job, we may not be giving them the full opportunity of what 

they can do on a career path, if they have the foundational skills 

and a broader understanding of what that entry level job may lead 

to in the future. 

I’d like to recommend that in considering some innovations even 

to WIA that it be remembered that the community colleges are 

where a large part of the American workforce goes to receive their 

skill training and their education and that as you are building a 

career path it’s really important to also build an education path 

with that participant. 

If we could provide additional support services for participants 

that are coming in that allow them to assess where their academic 

skills are, give them additional support and mentoring to the careers that are open to them and where their interests may be, as 

well as make sure that they are ready and aware of what the job 

is that they will be seeking. 

One of the students that I talked with in the CNA program said 

it was very important in the conversation that he had with his case 

worker that was very detailed and eye-opening about what that job 

as a CNA would be after he got that job, and other students hadn’t 

received that opportunity and he felt that was a very valuable 

piece of the process and important to making sure there was a 

match to the program. 

As we continue to talk about education and career pathways, we 

also would like to encourage a focus that moves from the immediate short-term training to also allowing the opportunity for participants to expand that to degree attainment or deeper educational 

attainment. 

Again, one of the students that I talked with completed the CNA 

program and would very much have liked to have gone on to get 

his RN, but the funding stopped at the CNA. Certainly in a state 

that needs more nurses and healthcare workers, it’s unfortunate 
324 

that he couldn’t go on at this time with someone who had such enthusiasm and success and capabilities. 

I also think that as we continue to receive employee—or I’m 

sorry, employer feedback in the contract training that we do in our 

division we become very aware of what employers are seeking for 

and any new information they need incorporated in training, and 

it would be important to include that flexibility. 

As those flexibilities are added into the legislation, and allow the 

regions to really decide what’s most important to them, I feel that 

innovations in the training program can come very quickly. 

I appreciate the time today. Thank you so much. 

[The statement of Ms. Metty-Burns follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Rebecca Metty-Burns, Interim Director, Division of 

Workforce & Economic Development, College of Southern Nevada 

Good morning and thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding the 

Workforce Investment Act. 

My name is Rebecca Metty-Burns and I am the Interim Director for the Division 

of Workforce & Economic Development at the College of Southern Nevada. The Division of Workforce is a collection of programs that include an Adult Language and 

Literacy Program, Prison Program, Community Enrichment courses and contract 

training programs. Our skill intensive courses are primarily delivered through noncredit, customized training to local business and industry. 

I am encouraged that a focus in discussion around the Workforce Investment Act 

involves innovations. Innovations require program flexibility and continuous feedback by stakeholders and in that process you can develop programs of excellence. 

I believe that by responding to what we have learned in operating programs with 

WIA funding there is an opportunity to make the programs more effective for participants and employers while also allowing the education partners to more comprehensively respond to the needs of their communities. 

In feedback from two recent students in our Certified Nursing Assistant program, 

I found points that not only illustrate the promise of what that program can deliver 

but also where efforts are needed to ensure improvements are implemented. Their 

comments are specific to their experiences in one program but they also apply in 

general to WIA funded workforce programs. I’d like to share their observations with 

you today as well as some additional insights from the staff overseeing this program 

for the division. 

The Certified Nursing Assistant program for the Division of Workforce & Economic Development operates in collaboration with the credit program at the College 

of Southern Nevada. Students receive the full CNA program offered by college instructors in a focused and intensive set of courses that spans seven weeks. Participants receiving WIA funding attend an orientation to the program conducted by 

workforce staff to help them with administrative items. Throughout the seven weeks 

each Friday afternoon there is extra assistance available to workforce participants 

needing additional educational support. 

Charles Curtis recently completed our CNA program and at 57 years old exemplifies what an impact the program can have. He is brimming with enthusiasm about 

his new career path and, with his willingness to be flexible in a work schedule, feels 

his employment options are excellent. Charles had previous experience in working 

with senior care and while being initially nervous about returning to school, he 

gained confidence as the support offered and program structure reaffirmed his capabilities. He particularly liked the Friday review sessions and having access to that 

additional support. Charles had been unemployed for months and with his experience with senior care and an associate’s degree it would seem he would have been 

identified as great candidate for the program. Yet, he only received a referral after 

he happened to hear about the program on a public television segment and then 

persistently pursued a referral to the program. 

Scott Lester is also a recent student in our CNA program and only found out 

about the program by word of mouth. He also took the initiative and went to a referral agency and requested the program. Scott made a good candidate as he had some 

previous work in healthcare as well as having completed a degree. The case worker 

he spoke with about the program explained in ‘‘eye-opening’’ detail what a job as 

a nursing assistant would entail. While Scott felt his previous work in healthcare 

prepared him, he mentioned that a number of students had not received that ‘‘eye- 
325 

1Working it Out: Community Colleges and the Workforce Investment Act, Mary Visher and 

Donna Fowler, Institute for the Study of Family, Work and Community, December 2006 

opening’’ information from their case worker and that they really should be aware 

of the realities of the job. Scott also mentioned his academic background prepared 

him for the rigors of the intensive program. He felt the additional assistance was 

an excellent option but was concerned that a number of his classmates were not prepared for the academics involved. He noted that a number of the students did excellent in the labs but struggled with keeping up with required reading and taking the 

tests. 

Scott successfully completed the program and very much wants to continue in the 

nursing program to become an RN. He would seem to be a terrific candidate and 

in a state that badly needs more nurses in the workforce so he was disappointed 

to find out that WIA funding is not available for him to continue with a degree program. 

Our Healthcare Workforce Coordinator, Sue Folds, has worked in cooperation for 

years with the credit nursing program to make the CNA program successful. As she 

herself was an RN, she is also concerned that students need to be prepared upfront 

for the coursework and what the job will entail. While she can tell you of many successful students she also is quick to point out that she has had students go to one 

lab class and come back and drop out saying there was no way they were going to 

do that for a job. While there may be a number of circumstances that cause a student to drop—we do know there is a need to better inform and match candidates 

to the program. The students that complete the program but did not pass demonstrate that perhaps if there was an upfront assessment of foundational academic 

skills we could better prepare those students for successful completion. 

Sue has built solid ties to healthcare employers in the community and provides 

several healthcare programs as well as contract training. She has many more programs on hold that would be beneficial for skills enhancement of the current workforce or allow entry into a healthcare position. Our programs are demand driven 

and currently start-up and administrative costs prevent those programs from being 

implemented. As much as she would like to implement more courses and support 

career paths in healthcare, limited resources determine priorities and pace of development. 

The information I received from the students and our workforce coordinator highlighted that given the right client match to the program it can be an absolute success. Through close communication and collaboration workforce and credit programs 

can deliver training in a unique structure that answers a clear community need. 

The instructors and staff have worked to add key features such as an orientation 

and extra support to ensure student success. It is also clear that we need to continue with new innovations and expand support for the students to fill educational 

gaps and to work closely with referral agencies to make sure the program is promoted and candidates identified. 

Recommendations and innovation opportunities 

Community colleges are where much of the American workforce receives its education and skills. For innovations in WIA to have significant impact the colleges 

need to have the ability to play an important role with local businesses and agencies 

in developing a workforce strategy that answers the needs of the community. There 

is a current call for the building of career pathways but that requires a corresponding educational pathway in order to succeed. 

1. An important step in determining an education pathway that promotes a career 

pathway is allowing the college workforce programs to offer more of the support 

services. 

In its recommendations, Working it Out: Community Colleges and the Workforce 

Investment Act notes, ‘‘Encourage colleges to provide case management and support 

services to ensure positive outcomes. * * * Community colleges increasingly recognize the importance of support services, but because they are viewed primarily as 

providers of training and not of support services they rarely receive WIA funding 

for these services. To enable WIA participants to succeed in community colleges, the 

colleges should have the means to meeting all their needs.’’ 1

As demonstrated in the CNA program some students may need a details and realistic description of what the job they are training for entails. Students may need 

to brush up on basic skills and gain confidence to enter into a more rigorous program. How the colleges and its partners design and deliver the support services is 

one of those areas that should be rewarded for innovation. As core criteria, programs should require standard assessments of WIA clients that allow the workforce 

program staff, the case manager and the client to plan an education path for suc-
326 

2Working it Out: Community Colleges and the Workforce Investment Act, Mary Visher and 

Donna Fowler, Institute for the Study of Family, Work and Community, December 2006 3Training Policy in Brief, by Gwen Rubinstein and Andrea Mayo, pg 18, The Workforce Alliance, 2007. 

cess. What assessments to use need to be determined by local educational institutions in partnership with local employers. Even clients that are not anticipating entering a formal training program should assess foundational skills to close any gaps 

prior to their employment search. 

2. Encourage innovations to programs by allowing flexibility and adaptability for 

training programs based on the feedback of clients, educators and the employers 

and including and encouraging contract training. 

Workforce programs that provide contract training have the advantage of an employer partner providing specific criteria for outcomes. The relationship built between the college workforce program and the employer brings to it the continuous 

feedback, evaluation and improvement cycle that would be a positive for any workforce program. Another recommendation in Working it Out: Community Colleges 

and the Workforce Investment Act supports a WIA adjustment to contract training, 

‘‘Relax constraints on contract training. Constraints on using WIA funds for customized and contract training, a system that works well for colleges and demand 

driven models of workforce development, have inhibited college participation in 

WIA.’’ 2

A challenge highlighted in the economic recession has been how difficult the current structure of WIA has made it to assist employers and agency with needed skills 

training. Employers do not have the training dollars to spend and as a self-funded 

division we do not have the start-up funds to supply for equipment and curriculum 

development. ‘‘Each type of provider—independent of its ability to train and place 

job seekers—has a different capacity to adjust to the payment system and reporting 

requirements imposed by WIA. As a result, some effective programs have opted out, 

or have been forced out, of the federally funded workforce development system because of its ‘‘one size fits all’’ approach.’’ 3 Needed programs would be developed and 

implemented quickly if funding could be directed to start-up costs. 

3. Support a sustainable approach for creation of career-education pathways that 

rewards workforce strategies that build from short-term skills training to deeper 

education attainment. 

The ‘‘work-first’’ focus that continues to push the interpretation on how to best 

assist WIA clients promotes a short-term solution and perpetuates a long-term problem. The focus on quick placement often moves clients into entry-level positions 

rather than gaining advanced training for a higher level position. Incumbent workers need the opportunity to gain advanced education to retain their jobs, handle increased responsibility or be eligible for career movement. Discussion of career ladders won’t lead to workable solutions unless workforce investment is viewed in career terms. Education and employer partnerships need to move from single program 

planning to comprehensive support for movement from short-term training to degree 

attainment. 

If workforce investment is designed to reward community collaboration, support 

of unique local workforce needs and allowed to be responsive and flexible, I believe 

continued innovations in workforce development will quickly come forth. 

I want to thank you for the opportunity to share the story about just one of our 

workforce programs. Your attention to the Workforce Investment Act is needed and 

appreciated. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Thank you. Thank you all for your testimony. I want to say that we had a slight difficulty, technical difficulty with the second microphone that is sitting there on the 

table. So instead of sending the microphone to Mr. Patchett, I’m 

going to reverse the order of questions that we’re going to start 

with Rebecca Metty-Burns, and I will start by taking a five-minute 

period of dialogue with you. Then my colleague will have an opportunity to also ask questions, and we will move from my right to my 

left in the questions and I will wait to see how this dialogue goes. 

I may choose to have a second round of questions and just open to 

anyone, and so with that, I now recognize myself for five minutes. 
327 

Rebecca Metty-Burns, how do you suggest candidates be well informed and matched to a program that tailors to their strengths so 

that individuals are not set up for failure, while at the same time 

not inhibiting individuals from entering? And the second part to 

my questions, how do you ensure that your programs are accessible 

by a diverse school of candidates, including minorities, individuals 

with disabilities, those with what we call English language learners, and those of low economic backgrounds? 

Ms. METTY-BURNS. Thank you very much. In order to really 

make sure we’ve got the match, the assessments that need to occur 

are several. One is an academic assessment to make sure that they 

have some basic skills needed to move into and successfully complete a program. So whether it is a reading level or a math level 

or another technical area that we need to measure to put in an instrument there that can give us some feedback, and if there’s additional skills that we need to be brought up, we can do that right 

at that point. 

We also think that there is an important kind of career goal 

match that needs to occur. Much of what the Community College 

system does is work with entering students on trying to sort out 

what kind of career are they interested in. So there’s processes already in place and there’s people with expertise in knowing how to 

make that happen. And it’s important to match that up with the 

case managers that may be working with the system, to really 

start a little more dialogue between the groups, to make sure the 

right assessment tools are being used, the right conversations are 

being held with that participant, as well as opportunities maybe in 

just visiting a course, visiting an employer, really seeing what is 

it that would go into that job, so there is an awareness. Also to 

build that enthusiasm for a career. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Thank you very much. I want to ask Mrs. 

Cook, in your testimony you mention several ways to streamline 

eligibility criteria for WIA youth programs. 

Which of these would be the simplest to implement while keeping eligibility targeted to groups in need. 

Ms. COOK. Ideally, if there was a way that we could make a 

whole school eligible would be great. We have schools that are considered dropout factories. If we could identify a school and work 

within that school, that would make it eligible for anyone in there, 

and that would be very simple. 

Secondly, we would look at other risk factors and if there’s a way 

to just base eligibility on those risk factors, being disconnected, not 

having the skill set, as opposed to the income eligibilities that are 

in place. That would be significant. 

There’s an enormous amount of time that’s used in collecting the 

paperwork to prove the eligibility and it makes it very difficult, if 

not impossible, for some of the youth that are most in need to be 

eligible. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Ms. Cook, do you have any objections if we 

were to write in that we want to use our public buildings longer, 

and more days of the week, so that there would be more time for 

these students to be well trained. 
328 

Ms. COOK. I would have no objection to that. Everyone has limited resources and we need to use the resources that at our disposal most effectively and efficiently as possible. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. And Mr. Brooks, in your testimony you describe training programs organized by the IBEW and the NECA. 

Are these programs open to non-members. 

Mr. BROOKS. Well, the programs require membership to the individual organizations, like the IBEW and the National Electrical 

Contractors Association, to be available to the people who are 

members. And largely in part because they are funded by the members. 

But what the NECA and IBEW do is try to provide a path, using 

some of the initiatives like the Building Nevada Initiative and Helmets to Hardhats, to get people out of the military, out of high 

schools, out of trade schools and right into the apprenticeship program, so the facilities can be available. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. I’m concerned, in listening to some of the 

commencement speakers here in the last two weeks, saying that 

out of college graduates, only one out of five college graduates had 

a job. We have a terrible situation. And then folks who dropped 

out, you can imagine how concerned we are. I will come back to 

you. 

My last question is to Mr. Patchett. In your testimony you stated 

that the vocational rehabilitation system counts a person as having 

a successful outcome if they are in their job placement for 90 days. 

What are your thoughts as to how to track meaningful outcomes, 

while serving all people with disabilities. 

Mr. PATCHETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that when you 

look at reasonable outcomes, I don’t think 90 days is enough. I 

think the outcomes need to be that an individual is clearly on a career path, that they are succeeding where they are at. 

That needs to be a much more long-term thing, maybe six 

months, maybe a year. We need to follow up with them and see if 

they are progressing within their job, are they receiving advancements, are they getting good marks and so forth, are we able to 

come back in there if something does not go well and provide additional job coaching to ensure that the individual is able to keep the 

job, and so forth. So that would be my recommendations. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Thank you. I now recognize the gentle lady 

from Nevada, Congresswoman Titus, recognized for five minutes. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll start with you, Mr. 

Patchett. Your testimony about the work of Easter Seals is focused 

mostly on physical disabilities, problems of not being ADA qualified, even the job connection sites. I would ask you if you would 

further elaborate on that topic about neurological and psychological 

challenges. We see that a lot from our soldiers who are coming 

home. We know the problem of funding mental health in this state. 

Could you expand on what we might do to better include them 

in the authorization. 

Mr. PATCHETT. Thank you, Congresswoman Titus. Absolutely 

Easter Seals provides services to individuals with cognitive intellectual disabilities and psychiatric disabilities, including support, living services and job training rehabilitation. 
329 

I think that one of the things that I would like to talk about that 

we’re looking at, and actually we have a proposal on the street, is 

to utilize what my colleague next to me was saying, and that is 

green jobs. 

We have an opportunity right now to be able to focus on individuals coming back from war, individuals who have various kinds of 

disabilities, and look at how we can include them in some of the 

green jobs. 

I also think that the second part of my answer would be providing adequate support, providing adequate counseling, adequate 

monitoring of medications and so forth, and psychiatric disabilities. 

We have seen tremendous benefits and have been able to help individuals with psychiatric mental health disabilities to be successful, 

both in work and in living independently in the homes on their 

own. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you. Mr. Brooks, I would like just to expand, 

you mentioned Senator Horsford’s green jobs bill, and there’s just 

an article in the paper today about the need for green jobs and how 

Nevada has been losing them to New Mexico. 

I wonder if you would talk to us a little bit about not just your 

program, but perhaps what other kinds of green jobs we could help 

support that, build on what you do with the IBEW, whether it is 

training for weatherization, or training for manufacturing jobs, because we would like to get the companies that build the mirrors, 

as well as those who put them in. Would you elaborate on that. 

Mr. BROOKS. Absolutely. A lot of what’s happening is going to be 

through weatherization and modernization of existing buildings. 

That will encompass many different trades and crafts in the construction industries, as well as manufacturing. 

So the JATC for the IBEW is one of many training facilities 

around the State of Nevada that are training individuals who do 

the modernization, weatherization and energy efficiency measures, 

as well as some manufacturing, and it’s working with like Senator 

Horsford’s green jobs initiative where it leverages these dollars 

that members of these trade organizations are participating in with 

some of the State funds and Federal funds, and nonprofit organizations to get the most bang for your buck, to employ, to train people 

who then have a path to get out there and go do the work. 

At the end of the day it also takes companies, businesses to put 

these people to work. So partnerships that include the businesses 

with the training facilities, with the community organizations we 

feel are a very effective way to get it done. 

Ms. TITUS. Are you finding that the businesses are cooperative 

because they need that trained workforce? And I would also ask 

you is if some of the members who could qualify for some assistance and not just have the whole cost come out of their own pocket, 

would that expand the workforce and the people who might participate in these kind of programs. 

Mr. BROOKS. Absolutely. Right now there’s no stipends, no scholarships, no assistance to a lot of people who are participating in 

some of the building trades programs that are teaching green jobs 

and weatherization and energy efficiency training. It’s all coming 

out of their own pockets. It would definitely assist, especially those 

lower income people trying to get into these programs. It would 
330 

definitely assist, it would help them get into the programs and get 

out to work, if there was some assistance in that, in their tuition 

and their textbooks and even living expenses. 

Ms. TITUS. Okay. Ms. Cook, you mentioned the dropout factories. 

I know there are a number of them in my district, and it’s very 

alarming when you read those kind of figures. But also there seems 

to be no incentive for companies to hire students who have dropped 

out or have those kinds of problems. 

I think in your written testimony you might have stated it, some 

things we need to do to incentivize businesses to hire these young 

people who might then get trained. Would you elaborate on that. 

Ms. COOK. Well, we need to do something to incentivize businesses, and maybe tax credits would be a way to do that. We have 

about 1,300 youth here in Southern Nevada that are participating 

in the summer stimulus program. 

One of the challenges we have is getting enough employers to 

give them a meaningful summer experience. We have thousands 

and thousands of other students that want a summer job. The 

Northwest Career Technical Academy has an excellent engineering 

program and they are looking at having everyone of their students 

have a meaningful summer experience. 

So if there are ways that we could incentivize businesses with 

tax credits, or other things, it would be great because it does take 

resources from that business to supervise these youth or young 

people at a level that’s going to make it meaningful and make it 

productive. 

Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chairman, could I have permission for a little 

more time. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. I yield the Congresswoman to provide an 

additional two minutes. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you. I would just comment to Ms. Metty-Burns 

what a great needthere is for healthcare professionals in this state, 

for nurses, and for other kinds of technicians and so a program like 

this seems to be great. I can imagine that a person who goes into 

nursing that has no idea what that job is going to be really like. 

So I appreciate your mention of the need to counsel on that before they go into that training. But your stories are also about people who just happened into the program. They just happened to 

find out about it, word of mouth or television. 

What can we do better to do outreach and information so people 

know that these programs exist, and can take advantage of them. 

Ms. METTY-BURNS. That is a great question because it’s a huge 

need to make sure we do advertise and market, actually, the programs that we have available. We work closely with the referral 

agencies and of course they have numerous people coming in and 

they are working many cases and they do the best they can to 

make sure people have that information. 

But one of the students mentioned that the way he learned about 

the program was on a public television segment that happened to 

mention the program and then he went and sought it out and 

asked for a referral, and pursued that. 

So I think that there are some opportunities either in partnering 

up with interested employers and helping us market the program 

to the community. We’ve continued to start reaching out to the 
331 

community through communication resource fairs, so that we can 

also take that word out. There’s a great deal to be done on that 

and I think it’s an area where we need to collaborate in partnership to make sure we can market. 

As self-funded programs, we don’t come with a marketing budget, 

an advertising budget. So we have to be creative to go and reach 

into these communities and there’s a great deal I think more we 

could do in working with community centers, community fairs, to 

get the word out about the availability of these programs. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Thank you. I have chosen to have a second 

round of questions. I find this information very valuable and I’m 

going to ask that Mrs. Cook, that you take the microphone and 

have an opportunity to tell me, in your presentation you described 

how the youth councils can play a larger coordinating role in the 

WIA youth programs. I am quite concerned about the illiteracy rate 

among adults and young people who are teenagers in their 20’s 

dropping out of high school. 

So my questions to you are going to be how we can address that 

problem and as a member of my committee on education, whenever 

we’ve had Congressional hearings on literacy, both for adults and 

young people, we find that many do not know how to read. 

Would you have any suggestions on how in WIA we could have 

those extra hours that I asked you about earlier, utilizing a building where trained teachers on reading could spend time in training 

folks to be able to read, and hopefully love to read books, to have 

their own library at home. Because if that were the case, I think 

that employers would find it easier to train this workforce. 

Ms. COOK. Chairman Hinojosa, none of this can be done in isolation. Workforce is not separate than education is not separate than 

youth development and we have to have a connected infrastructure 

that support these youth. 

So by partnering with the education system and using the buildings and seeing this as a joint venture, as opposed to WIA being 

stand alone education and education funding being stand alone and 

youth services funding being stand alone, if we were to do that and 

bring them all together, we would have a connected infrastructure 

where we could expand the services within schools. Maybe part of 

it is funded with WIA, but it would be a continuation after school 

in providing those services. 

I think one of the most important things that you can do with 

the WIA reauthorization is to use this as an opportunity to create 

that infrastructure to serve the youth that’s not done in pockets in 

isolation. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Let me share with you and the audience 

that I’ve had the pleasure, even when I was in the minority for ten 

years, to travel with then Chairman Buck McKeon from California, 

and we wanted to ask folks out in China how was it that their students were out-performing the American students in the international scholastic competition, academics, and we actually went 

into campuses that were feeder high schools to the colleges that 

were producing so many engineers and scientists and mathematicians and physicists and so forth. 
332 

The parents were invited to some of these town hall meetings 

and when I would ask those questions, some parents would take 

the microphone and they would answer parental involvement is the 

basic answer to your question. But the final say, that gentleman 

with the long white beard said if you will just remember this formula, early reading, plus writing, equals success in schools. 

Ms. COOK. Right. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. So this literacy idea, I took my Congressional district a year and a half ago and we started with the Texas 

State Technical College, which is a two-year program, and they 

chose to put up the match money, because Congress paid 75 percent of the cost of the books for these one-year-olds, two-year-olds, 

three-year-olds, and we have to raise 25 percent to match the Congressional portion. They said we will raise and we will contribute 

the 25 percent, and with the Meadows Foundation, which is in 

Texas, in Dallas, they have parental training on how to read to babies, one, two, three-year-olds and that is on-going now. 

So I’m going to say that we are going to have to think out of the 

box. Whatever we’ve done the last ten years was good, but not good 

enough. This is the 21st century, and we are going to have to take, 

as you said, partners, stakeholders, employers, employees, and the 

entities, the non-profits and others, so that we can get the folks to 

become literate with the reading and writing. 

With that I yield to the Congresswoman from Nevada, Congresswoman Titus. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I so respect that 

project that you did in Texas. I would like to see us try to do something like that here in Nevada and see if we can get some people 

to help us meet that match. And I agree with that early reading. 

I know that one thing that works is all day kindergarten. The earlier you start, the better you do, and the likelier you are to finish, 

and I absolutely believe that. 

I’d just like to ask maybe a general question that anybody can 

answer, is that the workforce investment boards that have existed 

in the past are made up largely of business, or majority of business. And yet the problem we have is getting business more engaged, more willing to participate, more likely to hire the graduates of these programs. 

What would you do to recommend that we make this relationship 

better, in addition to perhaps those tax credits that Ms. Cook mentioned. 

Mr. BROOKS. I actually am engaged in hiring people and unfortunately laying people off sometimes, too, on a daily basis. And we 

choose a path to provide our workforce through labor unions. But 

the children coming out of the schools and with options to either 

go into the university system and pursue a career that requires 

that, or to go through trade programs and pursue a career that requires that, it’s what Ms. Cook said was very important, that we 

don’t live in a pocket, we don’t live in isolation, that the youth services, educational, whether it be higher education or the K through 

12 and trade schools and universities, we all need to be working 

together at a very early stage so we can have the qualified students 

coming out of schools, going into the universities or the trade 

schools. And there needs to be much better coordination, I think, 
333 

from us, the employers and organizations that represent employers 

with the university systems and with the K through 12 in this 

state and there seems to be a disconnect there. 

And I feel as a father of three children, one entering into college 

right now, it’s very difficult for a lot of kids coming out of school 

to have that path into a career, especially one that pays a living 

wage. 

Ms. TITUS. May I, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. Yes. 

Ms. TITUS. Along with those statements, kind of like the same 

mind, I know that the system works layer by layer by layer. The 

money comes from Congress and it goes to the State, it goes to the 

State investment boards, then passes on to different agencies. 

Sometimes those different agencies can act as roadblocks, as opposed to facilitators. 

Would we be better off looking at a program that goes directly 

to the institutions or the programs that are providing that training, 

rather than going to some kind of artificially established state 

agency, board, et cetera? 

Ms. METTY-BURNS. We certainly would like to see that opportunity incorporated into the reauthorization or the rewriting of 

WIA. Because we go out in the, with the industry and business 

constantly seeking what is it that they need. 

We have a close connection with the industry. And I would like 

to have that opportunity to build those programs around the educational attainment and the specific skills being requested by the 

industry, as well as continue with the feedback and improvement 

cycle, rather than sometimes being locked into reporting requirements or cycles that are made in general, rather then specific to 

a region, a need in the community or a specific program that’s responding to that. 

So that is something that we see that we think would be very 

helpful, at least in having that opportunity to put forth programs 

and receive that funding directly. 

Ms. COOK. I’d also like to add that I think it’s important to have 

funding maybe go to some programs directly. However, if we are 

to move forward, we need to look at our community in a regional 

way and in a systemic way and set priorities and be able to fund 

in that way, setting priorities for population, setting priorities for 

the services that are needed, and if there’s too much direct funding 

that’s going out, then you are losing the collaborative process that 

you could have and the strategic ability to be able to address 

issues. 

So I think there’s a way to do both, but for us to be effective and 

to move forward, we need to go from that shotgun approach to 

being able to be strategic to leverage resources, too, and be 

thoughtful about how the funding and resources are used. 

Ms. TITUS. Do you feel like the boards are doing that now or we 

could improve that process. 

Ms. COOK. I think the process can be improved, and it should be 

improved and Congress should encourage collaboration to improve 

the process. 
334 

Chairman HINOJOSA. I yield the young lady another minute because I believe that Mr. Patchett was trying to get your attention 

and I’ll give you another minute to finish up. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PATCHETT. Thank you very much. I think that this is kind 

of the crux of the issue, this question really addresses this. We’ve 

got to find a way to get, I’m thinking more high school kids, kids 

with disabilities, but kids in general into real work experience and 

into real work and therefore the real work, I think we all remember jobs we had when we were younger that led to other jobs and 

other jobs and so forth. 

Right now that’s not happening. I don’t see that happening. I 

don’t see that those who have the potential to provide internships 

or provide early jobs are being connected with sufficiently to give, 

in the case of what I have been talking about, kids with disabilities, but it could be all kids. As a father of six children, I’m aware 

of a lot of issues. 

So I think that would be very beneficial if we could do that, and 

actually look more at those who provide the direct service to really 

create a system that would be able to focus more on kids having 

positive experiences at the youngest age possible. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HINOJOSA. This has been very interesting and as I 

prepare to make concluding remarks and go into adjournment, I 

wish to take this opportunity as the Chairman of this hearing to 

thank Dr. Lesley DiMare of Nevada State. She is the Provost. We 

thank you for hosting us here on your campus. 

I also would like to thank Spencer Stewart, Associate Vice President, for setting up the facilities so that we could have this large 

participation and large audience. Also I would like to thank Dr. 

Rho Hudson, Dina’s sister, who made initial requests for the arrangements of this facility. 

And finally, I’d like to thank those who came from Washington 

on my staff, Mr. Ricardo Martinez, on my left, Paulette Acevedo, 

and Jim Rath, who is a Fellow working in my office on math and 

science projects which are of great interest to my Congressional 

district. 

I thank all of you for helping us have such a successful public 

hearing, field hearing here in Nevada. 

Once again, I would like to thank the witnesses and the members of the subcommittee for a very informative session. 

As previously ordered, members will have 14 days to submit additional materials for the hearing record. If any member wishes to 

submit follow-up questions in writing to the witnesses, you should 

coordinate with the staff within the requisite time. 

Without objection this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ