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

73–706 PDF 2012

H.R. 4297, THE WORKFORCE INVESTMENT 

IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2012 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, APRIL 17, 2012 

Serial No. 112–58 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: 

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/committee.action?chamber=house&committee=education 

or 

Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California 

Judy Biggert, Illinois 

Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Bob Goodlatte, Virginia 

Duncan Hunter, California 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Tim Walberg, Michigan 

Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee 

Richard L. Hanna, New York 

Todd Rokita, Indiana 

Larry Bucshon, Indiana 

Trey Gowdy, South Carolina 

Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania 

Kristi L. Noem, South Dakota 

Martha Roby, Alabama 

Joseph J. Heck, Nevada 

Dennis A. Ross, Florida 

Mike Kelly, Pennsylvania 

George Miller, California, 

Senior Democratic Member 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

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 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

David Loebsack, Iowa 

Mazie K. Hirono, Hawaii 

Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania 

Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio 

Barrett Karr, Staff Director 

Jody Calemine, Minority Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on April 17, 2012 .............................................................................. 1 

Statement of Members: 

Kline, Hon. John, Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce 1 

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

Miller, Hon. George, senior Democratic member, Committee on Education 

and the Workforce ......................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 6 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Harmsen, Sandy, executive director, San Bernardino County Workforce 

Investment Board ......................................................................................... 27 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 30 

Moran, Laurie S., president, Danville Pittsylvania Chamber of Commerce; 

chair, National Association of Workforce Boards (NAWB) ........................ 16 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 18 

Noble, Norma, on behalf of the Governor’s Council for Workforce and 

Economic Development ................................................................................. 8 

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

Van Kleunen, Andy, executive director, National Skills Coalition ............... 22 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 24 

Additional Submissions: 

Foxx, Hon. Virginia, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

North Carolina: 

Letter, dated April 16, 2012, from Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) ............................................................................................... 102 

Letter, dated April 16, 2012, from Associated General Congractors 

of America (AGC) ................................................................................... 103 

Ms. Harmsen, follow-up statement ................................................................. 119 

Mr. Miller: 

Prepared statement of Richard T. Foltin, Esq., American Jewish 

Committee .............................................................................................. 109 

Prepared statement of the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) 110 

Letter, dated May 4, 2012, from Lac Courte Oreilles ............................ 118 

Ross, Hon. Dennis A., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Florida: 

Prepared statement of Dwayne Ingram, Workforce Florida, Inc. ......... 103 

Tierney, Hon. John F., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Massachusetts: 

Letter, American Association of Community Colleges (AACC); Association of Community College Trustees (ACCT) ................................. 56 

Letter, National Council on Independent Living (NCIL) ....................... 58 

Letter, dated March 8, 2012, from Georgetown Public Policy Institute, Georgetown University ................................................................. 59 

Press release, dated March 20, 2012, from the National Center for 

Learning Disabilities (NCLD) ............................................................... 60 

Letter, dated April 13, 2012, from the National Association of State 

Directors of Career Technical Education Consortium (NASDCTEc); 

Association for Career and Technical Education (ACTE) ................... 61 

Letter, dated March 25, 2012, from the National Skills Coalition ........ 63 

Press release from the North Shore Workforce Investment Board ....... 66 

Letter, dated March 27, 2012, from the Council for Advancement 

of Adult Literacy (CAAL) ...................................................................... 67 

Letter, dated April 13, 2012, from the American Library Association 

(ALA) ....................................................................................................... 71 
Page

IV 

Additional Submissions—Continued 

Tierney, Hon. John F., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Massachusetts—Continued 

Letter, dated March 27, 2012, from the Corps Network ........................ 73 

Letter, dated April 16, 2012, from the Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation .......................................................... 75 

Letter, dated April 13, 2012, from the Association of Farmworker 

Opportunity Programs ........................................................................... 80 

Letter, dated April 16, 2012, from the National Council of La Raza 

(NCLR) .................................................................................................... 82 

Letter, dated April 16, 2012, from the Center for Law and Social 

Policy (CLASP) ....................................................................................... 84 

Letter, dated April 10, 2012, from the National Job Corps Association .......................................................................................................... 86 

Letter, dated April 16, 2012, from the American Federation of Labor 

and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL–CIO), et al .............. 88 

Walberg, Hon. Tim, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Michigan: 

Prepared statement of Michael A. Finney, Michigan Strategic Fund .. 106 
(1) 

H.R. 4297, THE WORKFORCE INVESTMENT 

IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2012 

Tuesday, April 17, 2012 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Washington, DC 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room 

2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Kline [chairman 

of the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Kline, Petri, McKeon, Biggert, Platts, 

Foxx, Goodlatte, Roe, Thompson, Walberg, DesJarlais, Hanna, 

Bucshon, Gowdy, Roby, Heck, Ross, Kelly, Miller, Scott, Woolsey, 

Hinojosa, McCarthy, Tierney, Kucinich, Holt, Davis, Loebsack, Altmire, and Fudge. 

Also present: Representative Hurt. 

Staff present: Katherine Bathgate, Deputy Press Secretary; 

James Bergeron, Director of Education and Human Services Policy; 

Casey Buboltz, Coalitions and Member Services Coordinator; 

Heather Couri, Deputy Director of Education and Human Services 

Policy; Cristin Datch, Professional Staff Member; Lindsay Fryer, 

Professional Staff Member; Barrett Karr, Staff Director; Rosemary 

Lahasky, Professional Staff Member; Brian Melnyk, Legislative Assistant; Krisann Pearce, General Counsel; Linda Stevens, Chief 

Clerk/Assistant to the General Counsel; Alissa Strawcutter, Deputy 

Clerk; Brad Thomas, Senior Education Policy Advisor; Aaron 

Albright, Minority Communications Director for Labor; Tylease 

Alli, Minority Clerk; Kelly Broughan, Minority Staff Assistant; 

Jody Calemine, Minority Staff Director; John D’Elia, Minority Staff 

Assistant; Ruth Friedman, Minority Director of Education Policy; 

Livia Lam, Minority Senior Labor Policy Advisor; Brian Levin, Minority New Media Press Assistant; Megan O’Reilly, Minority General Counsel; Julie Peller, Minority Deputy Staff Director; Laura 

Schifter, Minority Senior Education and Disability Advisor; and 

Michele Varnhagen, Minority Chief Policy Advisor/Labor Policy Director. 

Chairman KLINE. A quorum being present, the committee will 

come to order. Today we will examine H.R. 4297, the Workforce Investment Improvement Act of 2012. The legislation will provide a 

more dynamic, effective, and accountable workforce development 

system. 
2 

I would like to thank our witnesses for being with us. I also want 

to extend my appreciation to Representatives Virginia Foxx, Buck 

McKeon, and Joe Heck for their continued leadership on this issue. 

The committee has spent over a year examining the nation’s 

workforce development system. We held four hearings and listened 

as more than a dozen witnesses described the successes and weaknesses in a system designed to provide job training and employment assistance for America’s workers. 

Through these hearings we have learned an expansive network 

of competing programs operated by numerous federal agencies is 

failing to meet the needs of our workforce. Despite an effort to establish a unified workforce development system 14 years ago, employers and State and local leaders still grapple with a bureaucracy 

that squanders taxpayer resources, stifles innovations, and stands 

in the way of the help and training workers need. 

The problems within the current system are staggering. Each 

program has a separate set of rules, reporting requirements, and 

performance measures. Local leaders operating under 19 federal 

mandates that dictate who can serve on the workforce investment 

board. Even if it is in their best interest workers can be denied immediate access to job training assistance, and even though thousands of One Stop Career Centers are spread across the country, 

some services are located in places chosen during the 1970s that 

are inconvenient, if not completely inaccessible, for today’s workers. 

The systemic flaws help explain why 3.5 million jobs are unfilled 

despite the roughly 13 million Americans still searching for work. 

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette recently issued a news report entitled, 

‘‘Manufacturing Jobs Available but Skills Rare, Exec Says.’’ Similar 

reports have appeared in places like Macon, Georgia; Erie, Pennsylvania; and Green Bay, Wisconsin. Workers are needed in fields 

from truck driving to software development to nursing, but employers face a serious lack of skilled applicants. 

We are spending taxpayer dollars on red tape and bureaucracy 

instead of the skills and training workers need to succeed. During 

his State of the Union address President Obama recognized the 

need to ‘‘cut through the maze of confusing programs,’’ and expressed his desire for one program for unemployed workers. 

Yet still we see plans for more programs and hear calls to defend 

a fundamentally broken system. Simply doubling down on the status quo ignores the problems at hand and is a disservice to workers, employers, and taxpayers. 

The recent slowdown in hiring reflected in this month’s jobs report demonstrates how urgently we need to move in a new direction. The Workforce Investment Improvement Act of 2012 embodies 

the smart, responsible reforms that are critical in a modern job 

training system. 

The bill consolidates 27 programs into one flexible Workforce Investment Fund. If a governor can present a responsible plan to consolidate additional job training programs he or she is welcome to 

do so. This will allow us to move closer toward the president’s goal 

of one program and provide more efficient employment and training services to workers. 

The legislation also rolls back unnecessary rules and strengthens 

the role of job creators in workforce training decisions. H.R. 4297 
3 

requires two-thirds of workforce investment board members be employers, helping ensure the skills and training offered to workers 

matches the needs of businesses. The bill grants States and local 

officials authority over filling the remaining slots on the board. If 

individuals from labor unions, community colleges, and youth organization offer the best voice to represent the local workforce they 

can have a seat at the table. 

Furthermore, the Workforce Investment Improvement Act of 

2012 ensures accountability without burying state and local officials in reams of paperwork. Under the bill States would be required to adopt a common set of performance measures to judge 

the success of all programs and the Department of Labor would be 

required to conduct an independent evaluation of its programs 

every 5 years. Workers will learn whether these programs are effective and taxpayers will know whether their money is being well 

spent. 

There are other positive reforms in the legislation, such as providing dedicated funds to assist at-risk youth and individuals facing difficult barriers to employment. No doubt other issues will be 

raised throughout the hearing. 

I expect we will also address a proposal introduced by my Democrat colleagues, one that offers their priorities for reauthorizing the 

Workforce Investment Act. Both sides recognize the challenges 

plaguing the current system and the need for improvement. Ultimately, we have a responsibility to advance reforms that will help 

Americans receive the skills and training they need to get back to 

work. 

I look forward to a lively discussion, a lively debate, and will now 

recognize my distinguished colleague, George Miller, the senior 

Democratic member of the committee, for his opening remarks. 

[The statement of Chairman Kline follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. John Kline, Chairman, 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Today, we will examine H.R. 4297, the Workforce Investment Improvement Act 

of 2012. The legislation will provide a more dynamic, effective, and accountable 

workforce development system. I would like to thank our witnesses for being with 

us. I also want to extend my appreciation to Representatives Virginia Foxx, Buck 

McKeon, and Joe Heck for their continued leadership on this important issue. 

The committee has spent over a year examining the nation’s workforce development system. We held four hearings and listened as more than a dozen witnesses 

described the successes and weaknesses in a system designed to provide job training 

and employment assistance for America’s workers. 

Through these hearings, we have learned an expansive network of competing programs operated by numerous federal agencies is failing to meet the needs of our 

workforce. Despite an effort to establish a unified workforce development system 14 

years ago, employers and state and local leaders still grapple with a bureaucracy 

that squanders taxpayer resources, stifles innovation, and stands in the way of the 

help and training workers need. 

The problems within the current system are staggering. Each program has a separate set of rules, reporting requirements, and performance measures. Local leaders 

operate under 19 federal mandates that dictate who can serve on a workforce investment board. Even if it’s in their best interest, workers can be denied immediate 

access to job training assistance. And even though thousands of One Stop Career 

Centers are spread across the country, some services are located in places chosen 

during the 1970s that are inconvenient—if not completely inaccessible for today’s 

workers. 

These systemic flaws help explain why 3.5 million jobs are unfilled, despite the 

roughly 13 million Americans still searching for work. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette 
4 

recently issued a news report entitled, ‘‘Manufacturing jobs available but skills rare, 

exec says.’’ Similar reports have appeared in places like Macon, Georgia; Erie, Pennsylvania; and Green Bay, Wisconsin. Workers are needed in fields from truck driving to software development to nursing, but employers face a serious lack of skilled 

applicants. 

We are spending taxpayer dollars on red tape and bureaucracy, instead of the 

skills and training workers need to succeed. During his State of the Union address, 

President Obama recognized the need to ‘‘cut through the maze of confusing programs’’ and expressed his desire for one program for unemployed workers. Yet still 

we see plans for more programs and hear calls to defend a fundamentally broken 

system. Simply doubling down on the status quo ignores the problems at hand and 

is a disservice to workers, employers, and taxpayers. 

The recent slowdown in hiring reflected in this month’s jobs report demonstrates 

how urgently we need to move in a new direction. The Workforce Investment Improvement Act of 2012 embodies the smart, responsible reforms that are critical in 

a modern job training system. The bill consolidates 27 programs into one flexible 

Workforce Investment Fund. If a governor can present a responsible plan to consolidate additional job training programs, he or she is welcome to do so. This will allow 

us to move closer toward the president’s goal of one program and provide more efficient employment and training services to workers. 

The legislation also rolls back unnecessary rules and strengthens the role of job 

creators in workforce training decisions. H.R. 4297 requires two-thirds of workforce 

investment board members be employers, helping ensure the skills and training offered to workers matches the needs of businesses. The bill grants state and local 

officials authority over filling the remaining slots on the board. If individuals from 

labor unions, community colleges, and youth organizations offer the best voice to 

represent the local workforce, they can have a seat at the table. 

Furthermore, the Workforce Investment Improvement Act of 2012 ensures accountability without burying state and local officials in reams of paperwork. Under 

the bill, states would be required to adopt a common set of performance measures 

to judge the success of all programs, and the Department of Labor would be required to conduct an independent evaluation of its programs every five years. Workers will learn whether these programs are effective and taxpayers will know whether their money is being well spent. 

There are other positive reforms in the legislation, such as providing dedicated 

funds to assist at-risk youth and individuals facing difficult barriers to employment. 

No doubt other issues will be raised throughout the hearing. I expect we will also 

address a proposal introduced by my Democrat colleagues, one that offers their priorities for reauthorizing the Workforce Investment Act. Both sides recognize the 

challenges plaguing the current system and the need for improvement. Ultimately, 

we have a responsibility to advance reforms that will help Americans receive the 

skills and training they need to get back to work. 

Mr. MILLER. Today the committee meets to examine a bill to reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act. This is no small matter. 

The need for robust federal investments in the nation’s workforce 

is readily apparent. It is made apparent by the rise of local competition and it is made apparent by the deep impact that the last 

recession had on the employment opportunities for certain populations. 

Those investments need to be smart investments. They need to 

be made efficiently and effectively, ensuring job training and employment services to get people—to—get to the people who need 

them. And those services need to reflect the existing and future 

labor market demands. 

We need to demand greater accountability for those investments. 

We need to know whether or not we are working both for shortterm reemployment needs and for long-term skills attainment and 

credentialing, and we need to support and foster innovation in the 

system, engaging partners and leveraging resources. 

Importantly, there is a bipartisan consensus that the law in this 

area needs updating. How the Congress reauthorizes WIA is of 
5 

vital importance to working people, their families, businesses, and 

to our nation’s economy. We must get it right. 

And so as we examine the legislation before us there are a number of important questions to consider. First, does the bill focus sufficient resources toward individuals with the greatest barriers to 

employment? We must not turn our backs on those who are in the 

most need of help from the workforce investment system, including 

workers with low income, the nation’s youth, individuals with disabilities, English language learners, veterans, and long-term unemployed. Equity in the system will grow and strengthen the middle 

class. 

Second, does the bill contain strong accountability measures? 

Does it incentivize programs to improve the outcomes for individuals and businesses? Taxpayers must know that these programs 

are producing results. Workers and employers deserve to know, as 

well. 

And those accountability measures cannot be subject to gaming. 

They must not discourage helping those who are the hardest to 

serve. 

Third, does the bill seek to build on the successes to avoid replicating failures of the past? Successful innovation should be supported and new innovations must be encouraged. Inefficiencies 

must be wrung out of the system, and accurate and detailed data 

should be available to help people tell the differences. 

Fourth, does the bill effectively leverage the expertise and commitment of all stakeholders? A successful workforce investment 

system must value the voices of employers and educators, service 

providers, and those who represent people in need of training. 

Fifth, does the bill provide a vision for long-term skills attainment? A successful workforce investment system recognizes that 

mere job placement is not enough. People need careers. A system 

must provide even the lowest-skilled workers with pathways toward credentials and marketable skills beyond the first job they 

find. 

Sixth, does the bill effectively gauge the demand from industry? 

A successful workplace investment system is demand-driven in 

both the short and long term and it must anticipate future needs 

and drive training toward where the demand is and will be. In 

other words, we should be investing in a real workforce development system, not a temporary staffing agency. 

On many of these questions I have serious concerns about H.R. 

4297. It seeks efficiencies by rolling numbers of programs into a 

single, comingled fund, but in doing so it allows limited resources 

to be diverted away from where they are needed the most. Youth— 

especially the disadvantaged—older workers, foreign workers, 

workers with disabilities, and displaced homemakers, English language learners, veterans, and low-income workers are among those 

who face the greatest barriers to profitable employment, and yet all 

of these populations face the greatest risk of losing access to services under the bill as drafted when funds intended to serve different populations are comingled into a secret—a single program. 

The bill calls for innovation but it locks out key partners in developing that innovation, leaving the system with one hand tied be-
6 

hind its back, and in that sense it fails to build on what we have 

learned over the years. 

While the bill takes steps in the right direction I have fundamental—I have trouble with the fundamental flaws that I have 

outlined here that need to be fixed and I cannot support the bill 

in its current form. The Democrats understand and support the 

modernizing of WIC to serve—of WIA to serve clients more effectively and efficiently. Last month Congressman Tierney, Hinojosa, 

and I introduced a bill to reauthorize WIA with those needed reforms, and I hope our bill can be as much a part of today’s discussion as the Republican bill. And I hope that today’s hearing can 

help foster further discussion about these different approaches and 

work together toward a bipartisan WIA reauthorization. 

Before we close I would like to recognize the leaders from the 

local Goodwill agencies from Oakland, Los Angeles, Boston, Michigan, and San Francisco who are joining us in the audience today. 

Those agencies are examples of how federal investments can leverage additional resources and expertise to help get people back to 

work and onto career paths. 

Welcome to this hearing. 

And I welcome our distinguished panel of witnesses and I look 

forward to your testimony and the ability to ask you questions 

when you are done. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Miller follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. George Miller, Senior Democratic Member, 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Today, the committee meets to examine a bill to reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act. This is no small matter. The need for robust federal investments in the 

nation’s workforce is readily apparent. It’s made apparent by the rise of global competition. And it’s made apparent by the deep impact the last recession has had on 

employment opportunities for certain populations. 

Those investments need to be smart investments. They need to be made efficiently 

and effectively, ensuring job training and employment services get to people who 

need them. And those services need to reflect existing and future labor market demands. 

We need to demand greater accountability for those investments. We need to 

know whether they are working both for short-term reemployment needs and for 

long-term skills attainment and credentialing. And we need to support and foster 

innovation in the system, engaging partners and leveraging resources. 

Importantly, there is a bipartisan consensus that the law in this area needs updating. How the Congress reauthorizes WIA is of vital importance to working people, their families, businesses, and the national economy. We must get it right. 

And so, as we examine the legislation before us, there are a number of important 

questions to consider. 

First, does the bill focus sufficient resources toward individuals with the greatest 

barriers to employment? We must not turn our backs on those who may need the 

most help from a workforce investment system, including workers with low incomes, 

the nation’s youth, individuals with disabilities, English language learners, veterans, and the long-term unemployed. 

Equity in the system will grow and strengthen the middle class. 

Second, does the bill contain strong accountability measures? Does it incentivize 

programs to improve outcomes for individuals and businesses? Taxpayers must 

know that these programs are producing results. Workers and employers deserve to 

know as well. And those accountability measures cannot be subject to gaming. They 

must not discourage helping those who are hardest to serve. 

Third, does the bill seek to build on successes and avoid replicating failures from 

the past? Successful innovations should be supported, and new innovations should 

be encouraged. Inefficiencies must be wrung out of the system, and accurate, detailed data should be available to help people tell the difference. 
7 

Fourth, does the bill effectively leverage the expertise and commitment of all 

stakeholders? For example, community colleges have often played forward-thinking 

roles in job training programs. A successful workforce investment system must 

value the voices of service providers and those who represent people in need of 

training. 

Fifth, does the bill provide a vision for long-term skills attainment? A successful 

workforce investment system recognizes that mere job placement is not enough. People need careers. The system must provide even the lowest skilled workers with 

pathways toward credentials and marketable skills beyond the first job they find. 

Sixth, does the bill effectively gauge demand from industry? A successful workforce investment system is demand-driven in both the short and long term. And, it 

must anticipate future needs and drive training toward where demand is and will 

be. In other words, we should be investing in real workforce development, not a temporary staffing agency. 

On many of these questions, I have serious concerns about this bill. 

It seeks efficiencies by rolling a number of programs into a single, co-mingled 

fund. But in doing so, it allows limited resources to be diverted away from where 

they are needed most. 

Youth, especially the disadvantaged, older workers, farm workers, workers with 

disabilities, displaced homemakers, English language learners, veterans, and low-income workers are among those who face the greatest barriers to profitable employment. And yet all of these populations face the greatest risk of losing access to services under the bill as drafted. 

The bill provides for a stronger accountability system. However, I question whether the system works when funds intended to serve different populations are comingled into a single program. 

The bill calls for innovation, but it locks out key partners in developing that innovation, leaving the system with one hand tied behind its back. And, in that sense, 

it fails to build on what we have learned over the years. 

I am also concerned that the bill does not sufficiently recognize the critical role 

that federal workforce investments play in meeting longer-term economic needs. 

Long-term planning to meet future industry demand will allow workers to be given 

careers, not just jobs. 

While the bill takes steps in the right direction, these fundamental flaws need to 

be fixed. I cannot support it in its current form. 

Democrats understand the need to modernize WIA to serve its clients more effectively and efficiently. For example, we believe WIA must streamline access and better align its programs. We need to demand real accountability, not subject to gaming, so everyone knows what works and what doesn’t. We need to strengthen, not 

water down or eliminate, WIA’s capacity to help those with the greatest barriers to 

employment. 

And, we must promote innovation that fully engages partners and existing infrastructures like the community college system, so local areas can respond more effectively to economic challenges and meet future industry needs. 

Last month, Congressmen Tierney, Hinojosa, and I introduced a bill to reauthorize WIA with these needed reforms. And I hope our bill can be as much a part of 

today’s discussions as the Republican bill. And I hope that today’s hearing can help 

foster further discussions about these different approaches and help us work together toward a bipartisan WIA reauthorization. 

Before I close, I would like to recognize leaders from local Goodwill agencies from 

Oakland, Los Angeles, Boston, Michigan, and San Francisco who are joining us in 

the audience today. 

Those agencies are an example of how federal investments can leverage additional 

resources and expertise to help to get people back to work and onto career paths. 

Welcome! 

And I welcome our distinguished panel of witnesses. 

I look forward to your testimony on how Congress can modernize the Workforce 

Investment Act for the benefit of all and move the economy forward. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentleman. 

Let me welcome to the committee our distinguished colleague 

from Virginia, Congressman Hurt. Without objection, Congressman 

Hurt will be permitted to participate in our hearing today, and I 

hear no objection. 
8 

Pursuant to committee rule 7(c) all committee members will be 

permitted to submit written statements to be included in the permanent hearing record, and without objection, the hearing record 

will remain open for 14 days to allow statements, questions for the 

record, and other extraneous material referenced during the hearing to be submitted in the official hearing record. 

It is now my pleasure to introduce our distinguished panel of witnesses. First, Ms. Norma Noble is the current deputy secretary of 

commerce for workforce development for the State of Oklahoma, 

under Governor Mary Fallin, our former colleague. Prior to her appointment in 2003, Ms. Noble served as administrative coordinator 

for Oklahoma City’s human resources department and center manager of Oklahoma County’s Career Connection Center. 

Welcome. 

Ms. Laurie Moran is the president of the Danville Pittsylvania 

County Chamber of Commerce in Blairs, Virginia, a position she 

has held since January 2002. Ms. Moran is also the chair of the 

National Association of Workforce Boards and has served on the 

board of directors of NAWB for the past 8 years. 

Mr. Andy Van Kleunen is the executive director of the National 

Skills Coalition, which he founded in 1998 as the Workforce Alliance. Prior to founding the coalition, Mr. Van Kleunen was director 

of workforce policy for the National Paraprofessional Healthcare 

Institute. 

Welcome. 

And Ms. Sandy Harmsen is the executive director of the San 

Bernardino County Workforce Investment Board and director of the 

county’s Workforce Development Department in San Bernardino, 

California. Ms. Harmsen also serves as the executive director for 

the San Bernardino County Workforce Investment Boards, which 

includes private business representatives and public sector partners appointed by the county board of supervisors. 

Before I recognize each of you to provide your testimony let me 

once again briefly explain our lighting system. You will each have 

5 minutes to present your testimony. When you begin the light in 

front of you will turn green; when 1 minute is left the light will 

turn yellow; and when your time is expired the light will turn red, 

at which point I ask that you would wrap up your remarks as best 

as you are able. 

After everyone has testified the members will have 5 minutes to 

ask questions of the panel. And as always, I will provide more latitude to the witnesses than to my colleagues. 

With that, let’s get underway. 

Ms. Noble, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF NORMA NOBLE, DEPUTY SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT, WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS 

Ms. NOBLE. Good morning. Chairman Kline, and Ranking Member Miller, and members of the committee, I am Norma Noble and 

it is my honor to testify on behalf of the Governor’s Council for 

Workforce and Economic Development. I have the privilege of serving as the deputy secretary of commerce for workforce development 

in the great State of Oklahoma. 
9 

The Workforce Investment Act is, at its very core, about jobs. It 

equips States to attract, retain, and create jobs by serving three 

primary customers: workers, businesses, and the governments that 

serve them. In short, your action is necessary to better anticipate 

and meet the needs of businesses, to better educate and train workers, and to empower State and regional leaders to be cost-effective, 

innovative, problem-solving. 

It has been more than a decade since Congress passed the Workforce Investment Act. Today, new challenges confront our nation 

and our economic position in the world. We need bold reforms in 

WIA if our—we are going to equip American workers with the 

skills necessary to remain competitive. 

Workforce development is the biggest issue impeding expansion 

and growth of employers today. In responding to the needs of both 

employers and workers we must have flexibility at the state and 

local levels to best provide services to our unemployed and underemployed Americans, getting them back to work quickly. 

It is my belief that H.R. 4297 takes a good step in that direction. 

In order to better understand the needs of Oklahoma’s employers, 

Governor Mary Fallin led a State leadership team in conducting a 

business climate survey. We surveyed almost 5,400 employees and 

the results were very positive: 61 percent of the businesses are 

adding new products; 51 percent are upgrading or expanding; 28 

percent are adding new locations; 75 to 85 percent of the industries 

are optimistic about their future in Oklahoma; 75 to 85 percent 

ranked our postsecondary services as excellent or good. 

Yet, in spite of that and in spite of leading in America’s childhood—early childhood education and higher than average high 

school graduation and 70,000 career ready certificates, 61 percent 

of the businesses in our State rank the availability of the workforce 

as fair or poor. We need game changing. 

In response to the governor’s call for game changing, the Governor’s Council and its partner agencies is implementing 

www.OKJobMatch.com, and this is to provide an online, one-stop 

information and access to workforce programs and services across 

agency and program lines—access for job seekers and employers. 

Employers’ needs, however, cannot be simply met by improving job 

matching or labor exchange. Workers need better skills and better 

career pathways to get to those skills. 

Specifically, workforce development needs to be centered on increasing an attainment of both degrees and industry-validated credentials. We are in a new economy—one in which companies and 

whole industries are being forced to continually adapt to rapidly accelerating changes. And workforce systems need to be flexible 

enough to meet and operate at that same rate of speed. 

Some of the key principles that are needed: simplify things. I 

agree with the core assumption in H.R. 4297 that we don’t need to 

operate through dozens of separate programs, each with its own reporting and management rules. And it also makes sense to organize services and workforce boards at the regional labor market 

level. 

We need State and local control, integrating workforce development and educational opportunities through a governor-led, State, 

regional framework that offers the greatest potential for economic 
10 

expansion. Business-led is a key. H.R. 4297 provides governors the 

authority and flexibility to design such a delivery system that reflects the economy of our State and the neighboring communities 

within the State that are unique for their workforce and their industries. 

Require unified planning. H.R. 4297 begins the process by allowing states to take this important step. I would encourage the proposal to go further. If consolidation is not being implemented I urge 

you to require unified planning. It is too hard for classroom teachers, social workers, job developers, rehabilitation staff to bridge 

their daily activities to employer and industry-recognized skills if 

that is not integrated into their expectations and performance systems. 

Manage for results, not process. Workforce development is overregulated in—on the process side—lots of monitoring and compliance. It underemphasizes performance. 

Be clear about your expected results, but also give us increased 

flexibility about how to retain those results, and of course, the 

funds necessary to do so. 

Integrate adult education and—fully with workforce improvement. We need to help the one-third of our workforce that have low 

basic skills. We need to go well beyond just literacy and GED attainment; we need to help people obtain degrees, credentials, and 

certificates. 

Restore flexible funds at the State level. Providing States with 

only 5 percent of WIA funds barely covers the cost of the required 

program management. Our employers are driving across our 

State—and some flying—so that they can meet on committees for 

innovation, service delivery, career pathways, and policies. We 

won’t be able to implement that if we don’t have statewide funds. 

I end by saying if we are not going to take workforce development serious in our country we are losing—we are shortchanging 

our citizens. We have to have everybody at the table. And workforce development is the only federal system that provides a mechanism where employers, workforce-related agencies, and community partners are there at the table designing a system. 

To get it right—if we don’t get it right we won’t be able to recognize or obtain Thomas Jefferson’s dream. After all that he accomplished—president, statesman, writer of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution—at the end of his life he said, ‘‘I look 

to the diffusion of light and education as the resource most to be 

relied on for ameliorating our condition, promoting our virtues, and 

advancing the happiness of man.’’ 

Thank you so much. 

[The statement of Ms. Noble follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Norma Noble, on Behalf of the Governor’s Council 

for Workforce and Economic Development 

CHAIRMAN KLINE, RANKING MEMBER MILLER, AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE: 

I am Norma Noble and it is my honor to testify on behalf the Governor’s Council 

for Workforce and Economic Development. I have the privilege of serving as the 

Deputy Secretary of Commerce for Workforce Development in the great state of 

Oklahoma. While this is my current position, I want to share that I previously 

worked as Director of Operation and Director of a local Workforce Investment 

Board/Private Industry Council in central Oklahoma. 
11 

The Workforce Investment Act is, at its very core, about jobs. It equips states to 

attract, retain, and create jobs by serving three primary customers: workers, businesses, and the governments that serve them. The nation’s workforce system as it 

currently exists requires real change on these same three fronts. In short, your action is necessary to help better educate and train workers, to anticipate and meet 

the needs of businesses, and to empower state and regional leaders to be cost-effective, innovative, problem solvers. It has been more than a decade since Congress 

passed the Workforce Investment Act. Today, new challenges confront our nation 

and our economic position in the world. Without bold reforms to WIA, such as program and funding consolidation, our workforce system will fall further and further 

behind in our ability to equip American workers with the skills necessary to remain 

competitive in the global economy. 

Workers 

Today’s modern economy dictates a shift in the way states approach the primary 

component of any workforce development system; the worker. States must have the 

flexibility to implement programs that both serve the individual and meet the demands of emerging markets. In short, we must be able to match the training and 

education needs of workers with the jobs that actually exist on the ground. 

Our jobs picture has changed from a pyramid to an hourglass. 

• High Skill Jobs—35% (was 25%) 

• Middle Income Jobs—27% (was 35%) But—much of this middle skilled work 

will be done by outsourcing and a contingent workforce) 

• Low Skill, Low Wage Jobs 38% (was 40%) 

• 82% of manufacturers report a moderate-to-serious skills gap in skilled production. 

• 74% of manufacturers report that this skills gap has negatively impacted their 

company’s ability to expand operations. 

• 69% of manufacturers expect the skills shortage in skilled production to worsen 

in the next 3-5 years. 

Integrating workforce development and educational opportunities 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. H. R. 4297 is establishing this framework. 

It provides governors the authority and flexibility to design a delivery system that 

reflects the economy of the state and neighboring communities including the unique 

dynamics of industries and the workforce. 

Our nation cannot afford to separate education and workforce development as 

they are truly one in the same. States have taken the lead in developing industry 

partnerships to educate and train workers critical skills in key sectors like energy, 

healthcare, and manufacturing. 

Congress should support these strong state-led public-private endeavors by providing governors the authority and funds to cultivate these partnerships and engage 

industry in the delivery and formation of worker education and training. Governors 

need the discretion to identify targeted industries and the flexibility to expend workforce, education, and economic development assets and resources accordingly, and 

have done so effectively through the use of statewide discretionary funds. 

How do you measure success? The numbers trained or even served look miniscule 

when compared with the numbers to be served. And because regions within states 

are as different as states are from each other, impact on populations is difficult to 

obtain in persuasive longitudinal numbers. I want to be clear; workforce investment 

is about jobs and job creation. Job creation and growth is about talent development. 

An ongoing system of learning that results in both degrees and credentials is central 

to success of both the workforce and employers as we move forward. 

Business 

I commend the Committee’s proposal to consolidate and streamline the delivery 

and funding of state workforce development programs. Today, the number of workforce programs provides an inefficient framework that is simply too complex for 

workers and businesses to rely upon. 

Businesses are key to any successful state-based workforce development model; 

that is, just as we must ensure that education and training opportunities are tailored to make all workers employable, in Oklahoma, we are working hard to also 

ensure that we are serving our businesses. A business-driven approach to workforce 

development is appropriate and helps guarantee that public workforce dollars are 

spent efficiently and the ultimate goal, putting people back to work, is attainable. 

Chesapeake Energy, based in Oklahoma City and a global leader in energy production, has implemented a revolutionary internship and apprenticeship program. 
12 

The program equips interns and future employees with the tools, guidance, 

mentorship, and education they need to be prosperous employees. Chesapeake’s program is unique. I have no doubt that this success is a direct product of the company’s ability to see the training process from the very beginning all the way 

through full employment. This company is ensuring that its workers are prepared 

to thrive in accordance with the demands of this 21st century energy economy. It 

uses all of the resources available to it including staffing services. Those of us that 

serve the public workforce development system should take heed. This is a prime 

example of the success that can be had when workers, business, and state government are empowered with the tools to succeed. 

In Georgetown’s recent study for the Southern Growth Policy Board, the pressing 

enigma/conundrum of Oklahoma and similar states is discussed. A majority of workers in our workforce are unskilled. A majority of the jobs in the labor market are 

unskilled. The need for skilled workers in 2020 will be 57% post-secondary skilled 

workers. Post-secondary graduates today don’t see those jobs now so they leave the 

state. Companies who are looking to locate in Oklahoma don’t see a surplus of postsecondary trained workers now so they are hesitant to come. Hence, we proclaim 

the need for college graduates infuriating the employers who are looking for skilled/ 

credentialed workers. A unified plan for all workforce/education would show a consolidated assault on the problem. 

In my home state of Oklahoma, we’ve seen this business-driven approach succeed. 

Specific Oklahoma examples of collaboration creating systemic change, is the way 

partners are currently working on state policy around the issue of career pathways. 

The intent is to ensure that every agency has consistent policy to support this effort. 

This included the education agencies, workforce agencies and social service agencies. 

This is a true systemic approach that will have lasting effect for the entire state. 

This type of work must be done at the state level. 

Likewise, partners are and have been acquiescing around the use of the Career 

Readiness Certificate as a base credential. They are all using it in their own agencies and programs—creating a state system of assessment and credentialing that 

employers are recognizing more and more. 

In addition, we have seen the ability to better engage employers when it is done 

by industry sector. We have had excellent results with industry sector gap analysis 

in heath care and aerospace. As a result, many of our regional areas have also had 

great success with creating strategic plans and conducting business services around 

industry sectors. 

Most recently, the Governor’s Council for Workforce and Economic Development 

is working on a comprehensive Workforce Portal that includes an enhanced job 

matching feature. The Governor has endorsed this effort and the partners are working jointly to get it implemented. A joint application design team, representing all 

of the agencies plus local boards, worked on the format and implementation strategy 

and it is now being implemented as www.OKJobMatch.com. 

Developing this deep level of partnership at the state and local level would not 

have been possible without a strong business led state board, and flexible funding 

through the statewide activities funds. 

Good Government and Governance 

Effective workforce development programs require state and local governments to 

have the flexibility to provide needed services. Oklahoma embodies this reality. As 

a state with disparate economic conditions driven by geography, we need the ability 

to implement regional solutions for regional problems. Today, we do not have that 

flexibility. 

For example, western Oklahoma has experienced extraordinary growth as a result 

of an abundance of energy resources both renewable and fossil fuel. As a result, the 

regional unemployment rate is roughly three percent. In southeast Oklahoma, however, poverty is prevalent and unemployment ranges 9 to 12 percent. Fortunately, 

the Oklahoma Department of Commerce recognizes these differences. Unfortunately, 

the federal law does not. 

A ‘‘one size fits all’’ or ‘‘cookie cutter’’ approach to funding, state board composition, planning areas, and the like are simply untenable. States need more flexibility, 

not less. In Oklahoma, we heavily relied upon the governor’s set-aside to support 

successful innovation. In fact, many of today’s best ideas were germinated through 

governors’ WIA set-aside funds, such as state sector strategies, green jobs programs, 

and innovations in public-private partnership. The set-aside funds are the only federal funding available at the state level under WIA and comprise the most flexible 

funding under the statute. Matching funds from other state sources and from the 

private sector enhance the impact of the set-aside funds and strengthen the ownership and involvement of businesses, industries, and communities in the state work-
13 

force development system. Like many of my colleagues across the country, I am 

deeply concerned about the reduction in the governors’ set-aside for statewide activities. This could have a chilling impact on workforce innovations and most importantly, at a time of continuing economic hardship, the reduction in the governors’ 

set-aside for statewide activities will make it more difficult for Americans to get 

back to work. 

Skills the Energy Industry wishes were taught: 

• New technical graduates: 

Organization skills, platform skills, team management, time management, leadership 

• New non-tech graduates: 

Math aptitude, finance and economics, leadership, collaboration and conflict management. Simple to fix? Maybe, but it requires industry, education, a convening 

WIB, and partners to do so. 

Flexibility at the state and local level is needed to best provide services to unemployed and underemployed workers and others in the talent pipeline. We must help 

them get back to work quickly and fill the workforce needs of industries that are 

in demand in our state. This is a K-20 connection to industry and economic development. It is our belief that HR 4297 takes a good step in that direction. 

Conclusion 

Workforce development is complex. The driving question for those of us who work 

in the workforce development arena everyday must always be, ‘‘what does it take 

to get everyone employable and a good paying job?’’ In the same vein, we also hear 

the very real concerns of business, which asks ‘‘why does it take so long for the 

pieces to come together and for us to find talent?’’ Oklahoma has seen success in 

the state’s private sector, and the nationwide public workforce development system 

should take note. 

In closing, the Workforce Investment Act, at its core, is about jobs. If there was 

ever a time for a ‘‘must pass’’ piece of legislation, now would be that time to fix 

America’s workforce system and get America back to work. The Workforce Investment Improvement Act like its predecessor is in fact the only federal legislation that 

provides a formal mechanism to put all of the players at the table: employers, workforce-related agencies, community partners and citizen representatives to design a 

talent development system for its state and regions. 

If we don’t get it right, we cannot realize Thomas Jefferson’s dream. Mr. Jefferson 

had been through the Revolutionary War, the framing of the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution, served as President of the United 

States and Ambassador to other nations. But, at the end of his life, he said, ‘‘I look 

to the diffusion of light and education as the resource most to be relied on for ameliorating the condition, promoting the virtue and advancing the happiness of man’’. 

(1822) 

The Need for Funding Statewide Activities 

We have hard questions: What is ready to work? How can employer credentials 

pair with education, common core, STEM requirements and new legislation for 

workforce agencies? How can we achieve the American Dream: A Job! 5% unemployed in Oklahoma is really 15%. Fourteen percent unemployment for Veterans is 

really 25% and if you are between 18-25 it is as high as 50%. How can we restore 

HOPE to these Americans that they will get a job to our businesses that we can 

supply them with quality workers. 

In Oklahoma we have used statewide funding to provide planning tools (i.e., 

EMSI) and consultants for local areas, Industry Sector Reports, evaluations, regional planning, Certified Work Ready Communities, Regional Industry Sector Partnerships, support Career Pathway pilots, establish Business Service teams, incent 

OJT and internships, enhance infrastructure, statewide licenses for WorkKeys and 

KeyTrain to increase baseline credentialing for Oklahomans. Other states have carried out similar projects that make their citizens more employable and their economies more viable. 

Without statewide funding the potential is to have duplicative infrastructures in 

each WIB area. Local WIB representation is at both our State Council and our 

inter-agency staff team. We have a shared outcome system. The attached Strategic 

Plan of the Governor’s Council for Workforce and Economic Development further illustrates this structure and shared-outcome system. 

We have some of the partnerships but we also have barriers. We ask that you 

remove the legislative barriers to innovation, efficient service delivery, employer 

validated credentials and career pathways. H. R. 4297 is great step toward achieving this end. 
14 

GOVERNOR’S COUNCIL FOR WORKFORCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN

The Governor’s Council for Workforce and Economic Development has developed 

a strategic plan. As you can see WIA is not the only work of the Council. We are 

working to develop systemic policies that bridge economic development, education 

and workforce programs/services. 

The Council’s plan is the result of employer focus groups, Game Changer committee work and other stakeholder group participation. 

Overarching Issue: Workforce/Talent Development is complex and convoluted. 

There are many players with sometimes competing agendas. But, at the end of the 

day, we need talent that meets Oklahoma employer skill/credential needs now and 

into the future. 

Overarching Theme/Vision: 

1. Oklahoma employers can expect that graduates of Oklahoma education/training 

programs have the skills and credentials they need and are work ready. 

2. Oklahoma will be able to supply the workforce needs of current and future 

Oklahoma employers. 

Goals: 

1. Improve the outcome of Oklahoma skill development systems through the use 

of on-line tools and data bases that will improve efficiency and measure effectiveness. 

2. Increase credentials, certificates and skills by deepening the public/private 

partnerships that will improve the match between employer-demanded skills and 

the skills of job applicants through the use of Career Pathways and Career Readiness Certificates. 

Strategies for Achieving these Goals: 

1. Develop common outcomes: Joint planning/development of a business plan that 

includes outcomes and metrics that all partners play a part in meeting—for the 

good of the state of Oklahoma’s business retention, expansion and attraction efforts: 

Examples: 

a. What is Work Ready? Common definition and metric 

b. More direct & systemic involvement by employers in P-20- Adult/education and 

training issues and in establishing desired outcomes. 

c. % increase in employer validated credentials and degrees obtained 

2. Implement/expand on-line/virtual systems and processes: In order to provide efficient and effective service delivery, and to link and leverage various programs, we 

MUST have common virtual tools and a linked longitudinal data system. This includes a portal that will provide a single access to talent and services available to 

employers and a ‘‘data base’’ or some process that will more readily provide information, including real time information, on talent supply and demand. 

3. Develop and implement career pathways: Career Pathways is an organizing 

process that can link employer validated credential and degree needs to the education and training supply chain. This would involve public/private regional partnerships between employers and service providers. This will ensure that the workforce 

pipeline will support business retention and attraction. 

4. Re-invent workforce investment boards and one-stop career centers: Defining 

their role, enhancing their efforts to engage employers by sector within regions. Involving all system partners and creating WIN-WIN and value added regional planning and service delivery system. Workforce boards include a majority of employer 

members. If properly constituted and functioning, these employers can provide a 

great foundation for regional partnerships. Certified one-stops will ensure that a 

standard of service exist and partners are connected within a region in order to provide coordinated service delivery. 

Action steps being taken/Recommended through Committees: 

Data/Portal Committee: 

1. Fully implement OKJobMatch.com. Replace the current Job Link system with 

OK Job Match in order for OK Job Match to become the new state labor exchange 

system. 

Current Status 

a. Job seeker portal fully up and operational. Resume numbers are increasing. 

Currently, total accounts are at 5,000. Thanks to all partners for promoting this, 

and using the posters, business cards and other education and outreach materials. 

i. OESC and ODOC staff are working with the vendor to convert and use Job 

Match in place of Job Link and open up the employer module. 
15 

* Enterprise system = an on-line integrated program information system. It would connect 

workforce data with education data for better decision making, provide a common data pool and 

more efficiently deliver on-line services via use of KIOSK. It would provide clients a tool to help 

them determine what programs/services they might be eligible for and how and where to apply. 

b. Test version available to OESC/ODOC by May 1, 2012 

c. INITIAL TEST: Small pilot group (5-10 companies/employers+OESC+ODOC) 

performs initial testing for 7-10 days 

d. RE-DEVELOPMENT: Vendor makes changes pursuant to test (2-5 days) 

e. BETA-TEST: Small pilot group (same as above) retests the system for 7-10 days 

f. FINAL DEVELOPMENT: Vendor makes changes pursuant to beta-test 

g. MODULE DEPLOYMENT: Mid-Late May 2012; Focus will be on self-service 

employers; Employers can tap OK talent pool; Added ability to search for those with 

military experience 

Contingency: 

h. Legislation signed that allows OESC Data to be shared with a private entity. 

i. Talent pool (job seeker resumes) is closer to a critical mass recommended at 

30,000 (this will occur when current Job Link resumes are quality checked and included in OKJobMatch.com system.) 

j. As needed, a ‘‘stand alone’’ version of the employer portal may be implemented 

for the Veterans connection project. (Assisting returning veterans and connecting 

them to jobs.) 

2. Establish a state workforce portal. This portal will ultimately provide on-line 

one-stop information and access to workforce programs and services across agencies 

and program lines. This will incorporate the current OKCareerPlanner.com site. It 

will also include the menu of Workforce employer services requested by employers 

in the employer focus group/survey report ‘‘Building Blocks for an Employer-Responsive Workforce System’’. 

Current Status 

a. OKWorks.org ( www.okworks.org). Has been established as the state workforce 

portal. While it is now live—it is just the beginning and will be continuously improved. It will take users to OKJobMatch.com for job search help. 

b. OKMilitaryConnection.com (www.okmilitaryconnection.com) has been established to provide military specific information and services to our returning military 

personnel. OKMilitaryConnection.com will take people to OKJobMatch.com for job 

matching. 

3. Develop plan and cost estimates for an enterprise system.* This would include 

connecting to the P-20 data system. (This is probably a 2 year+ process. The expectation for 2012 is to develop the plan, including cost estimates and develop the needed agency agreements.) 

Current Status 

a. A $6 million DOL grant proposal for a longitudinal data system has been submitted that would include most of these efforts. Also, a $1 million DOL grant proposal for a Workforce Innovation fund grant has also been submitted. It would help 

support some of this effort as well. 

Career Pathways Committee: 

1. A statewide framework for career pathways is adopted. 

2. Career pathways are formally integrated into the K-20 education system. 

3. Effective career pathways practices are part of every student’s education, beginning with career awareness and career exploration in K-8. Before a student enters 

the 9th grade, all students and their parents/guardians in every school receive career counseling assistance that leads to a meaningful individual career and education plan, including requirements needed for post-secondary education. 

4. Trained career navigators are available in every partner agency to help clients, 

dislocated workers, and other adults seeking workforce assistance make training 

and education decisions based on a career pathway model. 

5. An effective messaging plan is in place to help create awareness and buy-in. 

6. All regions are working on at least one career pathway, 

7. In workforce-related state agencies, including all levels of education, policies 

that support the integration of career pathways are in place and are reviewed on 

a regular basis. 

8. Provide technical assistance and support to regions in their career pathways 

efforts (i.e., tool kits, process guides, best practices, etc.) 
16 

9. The National Association of Manufacturing (NAM) Skills Certification System 

is the basis for all manufacturing career pathway initiatives, including the National 

Career Readiness Certificate (NCRC). 

10. Pilot the manufacturing pathways initiative in one or more regions. 

Communications Committee: 

1. Develop and distribute talking points through the State Chamber to encourage 

employers to contact legislators regarding funding for Career Readiness Certificates 

(WorkKeys) and KeyTrain. 

Key Messages to Stress: 

a. CRC is about job creation; 

b. CRC demonstrates ROI for employers in terms of retention, reduced training/ 

re-training, and finding, hiring, and promoting qualified employees; 

c. Job seekers receive a credential now endorsed nationally by the National Association of Manufacturers, National Institute of Metalworking Skills, the Manufacturing Institute, and by local employers and education/training providers; the CRC 

is a foundational credential for manufacturing and aerospace programs and required 

for employment in these sectors. 

d. CRC is being used as an alternative to End of Instruction tests; Shawnee example (small school district) 15 students, who would have failed to receive a high 

school degree, have a diploma and a CRC because of the use of KeyTrain and 

WorkKeys at their school. 

2. Talking points will be used as a blog entry discussing the importance of the 

CRC for SHRM (Society for Human Resources Management). 

3. Prepare an information packet for the SHRM-sponsored Ready to Work Conference, stressing how the CRC can help employers improve retention and find 

qualified employees. 

4. Update the Communications Plan with a new focus on use of social media, 

blogs and other current communications strategies. 

5. The updated plan will be a living document that will guide the communications 

activities, products and deliverables. 

Workforce Systems Oversight Committee: 

1. Re-certify Workforce Investment Boards based on revised policy 

2. Initiate a one-stop evaluation process including survey and on-site visits to help 

inform certification, continuous improvement and one-stop certification processes. 

3. Initiate a one-stop certification process. One-stop certification intended to be a 

joint effort of all partners, to provide one-stop standards for consistency, and to help 

provide stakeholder buy-in, and create service delivery efficiency. 

4. Identify and conduct service delivery efficiency pilot projects—to see what 

works. 

5. Continue to research and identify operational and organizational strategies that 

will help make Workforce Boards stronger and service delivery better (in conjunction with Data/Portal committee work). 

6. Revise the State Plan that is due this year to the Department of Labor using 

the Council’s plan of work as a guide. 

7. Work with regional areas to develop regional planning documents—in conjunction with regional partners. 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you. 

Ms. Moran, you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF LAURIE MORAN, PRESIDENT, DANVILLE 

PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 

Ms. MORAN. Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Miller, and members of the committee, I am Laurie Moran. I am president of the 

Danville Pittsylvania County Chamber of Commerce, which is located in Virginia on the North Carolina border, and I am the chair 

of the National Association of Workforce Boards. 

I want to applaud members of the committee from both sides of 

the aisle for introducing Workforce Investment Act, WIA, reauthorization bills this year. I would like to strongly encourage WIA reauthorization to become a bipartisan process moving forward as sup-
17 

plying the needs of short-term and long-term unemployment and 

employment of our nation should be the shared goal of all of us in 

business, workforce, and for members of Congress. 

It has been 15 years since WIA was enacted. The original legislation was designed in a very different time, when our nation had 

low unemployment and employers were starving for workers at all 

levels in our workforce. Our nation’s core workforce legislation 

needs to be upgraded to ensure that employers have the opportunity to find and hire skilled workers and that job seekers have 

a chance to regain employment in a difficult market. 

As chamber president I represent a predominantly rural region 

whose economy was built on tobacco and textiles, which created 

significant challenges when both sectors simultaneously fell into 

decline. Our chamber has been actively engaged in workforce development for the past decade, working closely with our workforce investment board to develop strategies—strategies that are employerdriven with training dollars allocated for in-demand occupations. 

For the past 2 years our chamber has subcontracted with our 

one-stop operator to provide business services by connecting employers to employees, saving our employers time and reducing their 

cost. Our partnership is making a difference in our community. 

I am also chair of the National Association of Workforce Boards, 

NAWB, which is comprised of business-led workforce investment 

boards from around the nation. During my tenure as board chair 

of NAWB we have actively reached out to over 100 local chambers 

of commerce from across the country, representing over 70,000 employers who employ nearly 5 million workers. These chambers have 

indicated that workforce development is a top concern for their 

businesses. 

Today the workforce system faces competing challenges. Employers are desperately seeking to fill 3.5 million skilled jobs that are 

currently vacant while millions of Americans are unemployed or 

underemployed due to the recession’s lingering effects and due to 

job seekers lacking employable skills. We believe that a reauthorized WIA bill this year will help both job seekers and employers. 

The committee has a copy of NAWB’s priorities for WIA reauthorization, so today I want to highlight a few of the guiding principles which we hope will be included in any legislation that is enacted. 

First, we believe that the workforce development system should 

continue to be governed by effective, business-led workforce investment boards that make data-driven decisions. Business-led boards 

are in the best position to understand the dynamics of local economies and labor markets. 

Second, we believe that local boards should determine how much 

of their WIA funding is devoted to training based on their local 

labor market needs. The focus should be on outcomes rather than 

on a mandated method to achieve our outcomes. Local boards are 

best positioned to help get people back to work and allocate resources based on those local needs. 

We also believe that additional funds leveraged for training from 

other resources, such as Pell Grants, philanthropy, or private sector investments, should be reflected in WIA reporting to provide a 
18 

fuller sense of the amount of training being provided through the 

workforce system. 

Finally, whether it is the efforts to return the long-term unemployed back to work or training that leads to the startup of businesses, the successes that we celebrate across this great nation are 

all important and many are specific to their local communities. Previous WIA legislation was crafted to maintain the delicate balance 

between States and local areas. As the committee moves forward 

we believe that it is imperative that there be a collaborative process between the States and local areas for both automatic designation of WIBs and single State designation. 

On behalf of NAWB and on behalf of the Danville Pittsylvania 

County Chamber of Commerce, we look forward to working with all 

members of the committee to support a bill that incorporates these 

core principles. For 40 years programs and funding for workforce 

initiatives and skills development have received bipartisan support. 

The future of our workforce is not a political party’s issue; it is 

America’s issue. 

Thank you for allowing me to have the time to speak today. 

[The statement of Ms. Moran follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Laurie S. Moran, President, Danville Pittsylvania 

Chamber of Commerce; Chair, National Association of Workforce Boards 

(NAWB) 

Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Miller, and the Members of the Committee. I 

am Laurie Moran, and I am here representing two organizations. I am President 

of the Danville Pittsylvania County Chamber of Commerce, which is located in Virginia on the North Carolina border, and I am also the Chair of the National Association of Workforce Boards. 

Danville Pittsylvania County Chamber of Commerce 

The Danville Pittsylvania County Chamber of Commerce is a local chamber of 

commerce with approximately 700 business members. 85% of our members are 

small businesses with 50 or fewer employees. Our chamber is located in a predominantly rural region that spans more than 1,000 square miles with a population of 

106,561. The economy was built on tobacco and textiles, which created significant 

challenges when both sectors simultaneously fell into decline. From 2001 through 

2011, our region’s unemployment was one to two percentage points higher than the 

national average and four to five percentage points higher than the average for the 

Commonwealth of Virginia. In the past 12 months, our region’s unemployment has 

been consistent with the national average; however, we are still averaging an unemployment rate that is two to three percentage points higher than the state’s. 

With a labor force of 51,000, we have approximately 6,000 unemployed and 5,700 

underemployed. 25% of the adult population does not have a high school diploma 

or GED. Only 14% has a bachelor’s degree or higher. 

In 2001, our chamber of commerce was formed from the merger of two chambers. 

At that time, the chamber’s board of directors identified workforce development as 

the top priority for our region. Through the focus of our board and through our involvement in our local workforce investment board, our chamber has been actively 

engaged in workforce development for the past 11 years. Our chamber advocated for 

improvements to our local workforce system at a time when our region’s system was 

ineffective. Today our workforce investment board is employer-driven with training 

dollars allocated for in-demand occupations in our region. Decisions are based on 

labor market data. We have two comprehensive one stop centers in our workforce 

region, which house the WIA programs, the employment commission, vocational rehabilitation, and representatives from adult education and the community college 

system. 

For the past two years, our chamber has subcontracted with our one stop operator 

to provide business outreach for Danville and Pittsylvania County. Our chamber has 

a full-time staff member who is dedicated to connecting employers to employees, 

saving our employers time and reducing their costs. We have assisted employers 

with recruitment through job fairs, job registration, and pre-employment screening. 
19 

We have placed WIA clients with private sector employers through job placement, 

work experiences, and on-the-job training opportunities. We have worked with employers who required customized and incumbent worker training. We have conducted wage and benefit surveys. We also have a proactive layoff aversion strategy 

to assist employers. In the past two years, we have met with over 200 employers 

and regularly share feedback to assist the workforce investment board in shaping 

policy and strategies that meet the needs of our employers. 

National Association of Workforce Boards (NAWB) 

The National Association of Workforce Boards (NAWB) represents business-led 

Workforce Investment Boards (WIBs) that coordinate and leverage workforce strategies with education and economic development stakeholders within their local communities to ensure that state and local workforce development and job training programs meet the needs of employers. 

NAWB connects workforce development professionals, workforce investment board 

members, and policymakers with the knowledge, training, and tools to help make 

informed, smart decisions about how to invest in workforce strategies that advance 

the economic health of their communities through a skilled, competitive workforce. 

These investments in workforce development create a comprehensive system to provide America with a highly skilled workforce that competes in the global economy. 

Nationally, there are over 550 local WIBs, with each state also having a state 

workforce investment board. These boards are required to be both business majority 

and have a business chair. Over 12,000 employers volunteer their time to serve on 

local and state WIBs. 

Our surveys tell us that the vast majority of local WIB members are small employers with less than 250 employees that reflect the local/regional labor markets 

the WIBs oversee. While these volunteer business leaders represent all sectors of 

the economy, they have one common bond—putting Americans back to work and 

helping employers compete. As WIB members they direct the gathering and analysis 

of labor market needs and trends; communicate these findings to policy makers, employers, training providers, and job seekers; plan the investment strategies for federal and state dollars; and track outcomes to prepare their workforce for the skills 

needed in their local and regional economies. 

Bridging the work of workforce boards and chambers of commerce 

I was appointed to my local workforce investment board 11 years ago where I 

have served as chair and continue to serve on the executive committee. I do not believe that I am an anomaly in my profession. I believe that if you look at workforce 

boards across our country, you will find many local chambers of commerce represented on their boards and engaged in meaningful collaboration in the area of 

workforce development. 

During my tenure as board chair of NAWB, we have actively reached out to local 

chambers of commerce to ensure that the voice of the business community is heard 

by the workforce system. Our outreach efforts have included over 100 local chambers from across the country, representing over 70,000 employers who employ nearly 

five million workers. These chambers have indicated to us that workforce development is a top concern of their business members. 

It is because of the strong partnership that my chamber of commerce shares with 

our local workforce investment board that I became chair of the National Association of Workforce Boards. 

The need for reauthorization 

On behalf of both organizations I represent today, I want to applaud Members of 

the Committee from both sides of the aisle for introducing Workforce Investment 

Act (WIA) reauthorization bills this year. I have been asked to comment today on 

H.R. 4297, but strongly urge that WIA reauthorization is a bipartisan process moving forward as supplying the needs of short-term and long-term employment of our 

nation is the goal of all members of Congress. 

We encourage the Committee to move forward in partnership in this effort. It has 

been fifteen years since WIA was enacted. The original legislation was designed in 

a very different economy and time when our nation had low unemployment and employers were starving for workers at all levels in our workforce. 

Workforce legislation needs to be upgraded and the bill that is the subject of today’s hearing makes major strides to ensure that employers have the opportunity 

to hire skilled workers and that jobseekers have a chance to regain employment in 

a difficult job market. 
20 

The dual challenges facing our workforce system today 

Today the workforce system faces competing challenges. Employers are desperately seeking to fill 3.5 million skilled jobs that are currently vacant, while millions of Americans are unemployed or underemployed due to the recession’s lingering effects and due to job seekers lacking employable skills. 

Workforce boards from around the nation have been on the front lines of this effort to help both employers and job seekers. The most recent annual data from the 

Department of Labor (DOL) indicates that nearly 8.7 million job seekers nationally 

have utilized WIA services—an amazing 252% increase over the past three years 

despite dwindling federal investments to pay for these services. Along with the increase in utilization of WIA services, the success of WIA programs is measured 

through results. Over 55% of WIA program participants—over 4.7 million individuals—were placed in jobs this past program year despite the fact there are over four 

job seekers for every available job. 

Most importantly, employers find value in the services from WIA as DOL’s annual 

data indicates that nearly eight out of ten employers are satisfied with the services 

they have received from the workforce system. 

The workforce system, however, is far from perfect. Clearly, we would like to have 

more resources available so that more job seekers could benefit from training services. In addition to direct tuition dollars, WIBs provide support services such as 

transportation vouchers, books, supplies, testing fees, placement, counseling, and 

services for health, housing, and childcare to ensure the individual not only completes training but enters and retains employment. Additionally, WIBs monitor 

their clients up to one year after job placement. 

We believe that a reauthorized WIA bill this year will help both job seekers and 

employers. The Committee has a copy of NAWB’s priorities for WIA reauthorization, 

so today I want to highlight a few of the guiding principles which we hope will be 

included in the any legislation that is enacted: 

Business-led workforce investment boards 

We believe that the workforce development system should be governed by effective 

business-led workforce investment boards that make data-driven decisions. Business-led boards are in the best position to understand the dynamics of local economies and labor markets. They possess the innate ability to determine where investment of monies committed to workforce development will support and contribute to 

the success of dynamic regional labor markets. 

We believe that business-led boards with input from across a community’s efforts 

in transportation, housing, education, and from its citizens are in the best position 

to ascertain and align investment decisions and hold providers accountable for outcomes. 

We also support a reduction in the size of the workforce investment boards, which 

we believe will help to attract higher caliber private sector board members. For 

boards to have the greatest productivity and creativity with participation by all 

members, boards must be manageable in size. We appreciate H.R. 4297 strengthening the business engagement in state and local workforce decisions. 

While there are many boards across the country that are doing great work despite 

their cumbersome size, it takes tremendous effort, focus, and vision for these boards 

to change a culture of agency-driven to employer-driven. 

Flexibility over use of funding at the local level 

The needs of locales and regions across the U.S. vary significantly. While the 

economy has improved in some areas, there are many areas where unemployment 

is still stubbornly high. One size does not fit all. Job seekers who lost jobs during 

the ’dot-com’ crash did not have the same workforce needs as job seekers who lost 

jobs when textiles moved offshore. 

Because of the role of local workforce investment boards, the local boards are best 

positioned to make informed decisions about the allocation of funds at the local 

level. We are in agreement with the provisions in H.R. 4297 that allow local boards 

to determine how much of their WIA funding is devoted to training based on their 

labor market needs. The focus should be on outcomes rather than on a mandated 

percentage of training. If the goal is to get people back to work, then the local 

boards should know if their labor pool requires minimal support through core and 

intensive (non-training) services, which include advanced assessment, basic skills 

remediation, and work readiness or whether they need enhanced skills and training 

to help job seekers enter/retool to reenter the workforce. 

We also believe this will encourage the continuation and expansion of funds leveraged from other sources, including federal resources such as Pell grants, TANF employment and training, or non-federal resources such as philanthropy or private sec-
21 

tor investments. We would encourage WIA reporting to reflect non-WIA funds that 

local WIBs leverage or receive and the workforce training and/or services that are 

delivered as a result of non-WIA funds. In a time of limited resources, we believe 

that there should be a process to reward those boards that are collaborative and innovative in working beyond WIA funding to leverage additional resources for job 

training and/or placement. 

There are numerous examples of WIBs leveraging private and foundation funding 

to increase their ability to serve employers and job seekers. 

The WorkPlace, a WIB in southwest Connecticut, was featured on 60 Minutes in 

February for an innovative initiative that addressed individuals with 99 weeks of 

unemployment. The Workplace raised over $500,000 from private investors to implement Platform to Employment (P2E), an eight-week work experience program. After 

five weeks of classroom training that includes a self-assessment, change management, effective communication, and successful job search strategies, individuals are 

placed on The WorkPlace’s payroll, eliminating the expenses and risks businesses 

associate with hiring a new employee and allowing businesses to evaluate and consider job candidates. Within weeks after completion of the program, over 70% of 

P2E participants were placed in employment. This is significant when you consider 

that individuals with 99 weeks of unemployment have less than a 10% chance of 

finding employment within a month. In our region over the past three years we have secured over $2 million in nonWIA funds to support workforce development initiatives. Our WIB is working collaboratively to leverage funding and/or training through local foundations, our community colleges, the Virginia Tobacco Commission, and our employers. Funds have 

been targeted for sector strategies in healthcare, advanced manufacturing, energy, 

and information technology. Initial training efforts have focused on energy auditors 

and manufacturing technicians. In addition to providing industry-recognized credentials to participants that assisted in job placement and advancement, we’ve also had 

three businesses start up as a direct result of the training. 

The importance of local decision-making 

Whether it’s the efforts to return the long-term unemployed back to work or training that leads to the start-up of businesses, the successes that we celebrate across 

this great nation are all important, and many are specific to their local communities. Employer-led boards that have local decision-making authority and funding 

flexibility to invest resources in the most relevant areas will be those boards that 

represent regions that thrive. Previous WIA legislation was crafted to maintain the 

delicate balance between states and local areas. As the Committee moves forward, 

we believe that it is imperative that there be a collaborative process between the 

states and local areas for both automatic designation of WIB’s and single state designation. 

I don’t have to look at other states to see the diversity of challenges and opportunities that face our workforce system. I can simply look at my own state, the Commonwealth of Virginia. While Northern Virginia struggles with gridlock, my neighbors complain when the one stoplight in our town is red. But for job seekers in my 

town who are unemployed and have no car, the lack of gridlock also signals the lack 

of public transit to get to a job interview or to get to work. When Northern Virginia 

deals with its unemployed, statistically their job seeker is college-educated as 55% 

of the population has a college degree. When my region discusses the education levels of our unemployed, more than 50% of our job seekers have a high school education or less. I’m not sharing our differences to insinuate that one situation is better than the other. We’re simply different which is why workforce decisions need to 

be made at the local level to address the needs of employers and job seekers who 

are local. 

Our regions require innovative solutions that utilize the insight and investment 

acumen of business leaders in collaboration with elected officials, economic development professionals, educators, and other workforce partners. 

This past weekend, Danville hosted 700 MBA students who were competing in the 

Duke MBA World Rugby Tournament. 30 teams representing six nations were in 

Danville for three days. To many people, it was a sporting event. For our local workforce investment board, the chamber of commerce, economic development office, a 

foundation, employers, and other workforce partners, it was a recruitment event. 

We set up an information booth, utilized young professionals who work in our region 

to help us market our region, and gathered information to determine which students 

might have an interest in returning to Danville for an internship, a job, or a site 

location for their future business. Where else would this type of innovative thinking 

occur but around a local table with business and economic development leaders discussing talent recruitment? 
22 

Thank you 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Committee. I’ve told just a little of the story. There are hundreds of stories about local solutions at 

www.WorkforceInvestmentWorks.com. 

On behalf of NAWB and on behalf of the Danville Pittsylvania County Chamber 

of Commerce, we look forward to working with all of the Members of the Committee 

to support a bill that incorporates these core principles. For 40 years, programs and 

funding for workforce initiatives and skills development have received bi-partisan 

support. The future of our workforce is not a political party’s issue. It’s America’s 

issue. We strongly encourage bi-partisan support for WIA reauthorization. 

Thank you again for allowing me this time today. 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you. 

Mr. Van Kleunen? 

STATEMENT OF ANDY VAN KLEUNEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL SKILLS COALITION 

Mr. VAN KLEUNEN. Thank you. Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Miller, members of the committee, National Skills Coalition is 

a national network of business leaders, union affiliates, community 

colleges, community-based organizations, and public workforce 

agencies who want to see every worker and every industry in this 

country gain the skills they need to compete and prosper. On behalf of those members, I want to thank you for inviting me to testify today and for your efforts to strengthen and modernize the 

Workforce Investment Act for the 21st century. 

We are encouraged that this issue has prompted introduction in 

this committee of two comprehensive reform bills. While these bills 

share some common goals they adopt significantly different approaches in the pursuit of reform. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss some of the key differences between the two bills 

as well as places where we think they potentially align; however, 

for the purposes of my testimony today I am going to focus on H.R. 

4297, Chairwoman Foxx and Representative McKeon’s and Heck’s 

bill, to identify some areas where our members have concerns or 

recommendations for improvement. 

First, in the name of alignment and improving efficiency, necessary goals for a future workforce system, H.R. 4297 adopts the 

blunt instrument of program consolidation, eliminating at least 27 

federal programs that collectively provide a variety of services to 

support the training and employment of many different types of 

workers. Consolidation, in and of itself, will unfortunately not 

produce reform. We need a more targeted approach that fixes what 

is not working and invests in what is. 

Pulling together a list of funding streams will, in and of itself, 

not guarantee that workers or businesses are going to be better 

served, particularly if the consolidated investments are not guided 

by the effective practices developed by the workforce field over the 

past 15 years. Unfortunately, the consolidated fund would do little 

to require states that have not been innovators in the past to adopt 

the effective practices of their peers, and it may even create perverse incentives for past high-performing states to abandon the effective models that they have already developed. 

Second, the bill emphasizes the need for workforce programs to 

be more closely aligned with employer needs, another goal with 

which we strongly agree. However, we feel the mechanism pro-
23 

posed—increasing the percentage of employers sitting on workforce 

investment boards while decreasing representation from other key 

community, education, and labor stakeholders—will actually do little to increase employer involvement or market responsiveness. 

Increasing from 13 to 17 the number of employers on a 25-person 

WIB will not dramatically increase the number of employers 

throughout a region collaborating to define common industry-recognized credentials or vetting shared training and employment strategies to fill open positions in their companies. Such have been the 

accomplishments of States and regions that have adopted a sector 

partnership strategy, in which such partnerships are a planning 

priority, in which there is a participation by a wide enough range 

of firms and other stakeholders to make them legitimate, and in 

which there is funded capacity to sustain them so they can rapidly 

respond to changing industry needs over time. 

While we do appreciate the Republican bill acknowledges the 

value of sector partnerships, it does not prioritize this approach. By 

contrast, the Tierney-Miller-Hinojosa bill incorporates several of 

the above standards to promote sector partnerships, as does Congressman Loebsack’s and Congressman Platts’ SECTORS Act, 

which passed the House under the last Congress. 

Third, the bill seems to ignore the diversity of Americans who 

are part of our rapidly changing workforce. With mounting skill demands and the pending retirement of millions of skilled baby 

boomers, our economic future depends on our moving every available U.S. worker toward skilled employment. 

Young people struggling with particularly high unemployment, 

laid off workers with 30 years experience, mothers who stay and 

home with their children but now must find employment, any of 

the over 80 million hardworking Americans, about half of our workforce who lack the basic reading, math, or English language skills 

to enroll in a technical training course in order to keep up with a 

changing economy. There is no one workforce development strategy 

or funding stream that can meet the need of all of these workers 

or guarantee the full menu of services that each might need in different combinations and settings at different points in their lives. 

Not only does the bill eliminate the various programs that have 

served these different types of workers, it sets a very low 2 percent 

spending requirement for assistance to the hard-to-serve. It removes the provision of support services, like child care or transportation, to help people stay in school or on the job, and it sets an 

18 percent cap on services to low-income youth and would not hold 

states accountable if they spent significantly less. 

In all, while some States would continue to assist the hard-toserve under this bill, we fear many states might not. 

Finally, regarding national investment in skills, we want to 

thank Chairwoman Foxx for her commitment to not use this bill 

to reduce overall funding to workforce programs, the amount for 

the consolidated Workforce Investment Fund being close to the sum 

of current appropriations for consolidated programs. However, we 

do have great concerns about how this proposal might be used by 

others in Congress to implement deeper, devastating cuts. 

Chairman Ryan’s budget blueprint cited an earlier version of this 

bill as rationale for dramatic disinvestment across adult education, 
24 

job training, career and technical education, and higher education 

programs. The House’s recently passed budget resolution cuts over 

$16 billion from education, workforce, and social service programs 

under Budget Function 500 and we fear the passage of H.R. 4297, 

regardless of the intentions of its authors, could be used to target 

much of that impact on the skills of the American people and U.S. 

industries. 

We look forward to working with the committee in pursuit of the 

goals to get all of our workers into skilled jobs and to help meet 

the skill gaps that currently face our U.S. industries. 

[The statement of Mr. Van Kleunen follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Andy Van Kleunen, Executive Director, 

National Skills Coalition 

CHAIRMAN KLINE, RANKING MEMBER MILLER, CHAIRWOMAN FOXX, AND RANKING

MEMBER HINOJOSA: National Skills Coalition is a national network of business leaders, union affiliates, community colleges, community-based organizations, and public 

workforce agencies working together to help every worker and every industry in this 

country gain the skills they need to compete and prosper in today’s economy. 

On behalf of our members, I want to thank you for inviting me to testify before 

the committee today, and for your efforts to strengthen and modernize the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) for the 21st century. With nearly two-thirds of all jobs 

created between 2008-2018 expected to require at least some form of postsecondary 

education or training—including millions of well-paying ‘‘middle-skill’’ jobs that the 

workforce system is particularly well-suited to help fill—we must ensure that all 

U.S. workers have access to education and training leading to skills and industryrecognized credentials that will allow them to get and keep family-supporting jobs. 

And, with U.S. employers struggling to fill even current job openings because of a 

lack of qualified candidates, it is clear that we must act sooner rather than later 

to ensure that we have a workforce system that can respond quickly and effectively 

to the demands of today’s labor market. 

It is a testament to the importance of this issue that we have two alternatives 

before this committee to consider for purposes of WIA reauthorization. The Workforce Investment Improvement Act of 2012 (HR 4297), introduced by Subcommittee 

on Higher Education and Workforce Training Chairwoman Foxx and Representatives McKeon and Heck, and the Workforce Investment Act of 2012 (HR 4227), introduced by Representative Tierney, Ranking Member Miller, and Subcommittee on 

Higher Education and Workforce Training Ranking Member Hinojosa. Both offer visions for the nation’s workforce system that share some key commonalities, but also 

underscore some stark differences. 

Core Goals for Reform 

National Skills Coalition believes that any federal workforce policy reforms, such 

as those being considered by the committee, should be driven by three core goals: 

1. Enhancing the effectiveness of our nation’s workforce system in meeting the 

skill needs of all U.S. workers and businesses, through expanded access to training 

and greater industry involvement in determining what that training should entail; 

2. Strengthening accountability across all of our workforce and education programs, so that states and localities are aligning limited federal resources with labor 

market demand, while also ensuring that the needs of all individuals, including 

those who are harder-to-serve, are met; and 

3. Promoting innovation by building on the lessons learned and best practices developed over the past 15 years by the workforce field, so that high-performing 

states, localities and practitioners can bring those innovations to scale, and so that 

others are encouraged to adopt these effective practices to better meet the needs of 

local workers and industries. 

We are encouraged to see that similar goals inform both the legislation that is 

the focus of today’s hearing, as well as the bill introduced last month by the committee Democrats. However, National Skills Coalition has significant concerns that 

some of the policy changes proposed under HR 4297 may not actually achieve these 

goals. 

Impacts of Proposed Consolidation 

In the name of alignment and reducing inefficiency—necessary goals for our future workforce system—HR 4297 adopts the blunt instrument of program consolida-
25 

tion, eliminating 27 federal programs that collectively provide a variety of services 

to support the training and employment of many different types of workers, as well 

as key functions like our 50-state Wagner-Peyser system that connects the unemployed to unemployment insurance and re-employment services. But after eliminating these programs, the resulting consolidated Workforce Investment Fund 

block-grant does not actually require states or localities to adopt proven practices 

like the reforms the authors encourage elsewhere in their bill. 

Consolidation, in and of itself, is not reform. Simply combining 27 funding 

streams into one will not automatically result in a more effective, efficient system 

if nothing changes in how those funds are being used at the state and local level. 

Congress should make specific, targeted investments in key strategies that we know 

work, and require all states—not just the high-performing innovators—to implement 

those strategies as is appropriate for their local and regional labor market needs. 

This will better drive system-wide change. Even among the states that have been 

first adopters of these practices over the past decade, we fear that consolidation may 

create unintended incentives that will shift them from the very models they have 

developed to bring a wide range of people into the skilled labor market. 

Furthermore, it not clear that the programs that are consolidated under HR 4297 

will actually result in the kind of system alignment that will facilitate seamless 

transitions across programs and institutions. National Skills Coalition believes that, 

rather than simply consolidating a list of programs culled from a Government Accountability Office report, a better approach would be to promote and support career 

pathways models that align adult education, job training, postsecondary education, 

and supportive services at the system level to provide well-defined employment and 

training pathways for individuals, with multiple exit and entry points for workers 

at various skill levels and stages in their careers. These career pathways strategies 

have demonstrated strong results in helping workers—particularly low-skilled individuals and other vulnerable populations—persist and succeed in education and 

training, and have enhanced employer engagement in the design and implementation of programs that help prepare new workers for entry-level positions, while helping incumbent workers move up the career ladder. Numerous states, regions, and 

local communities have already begun this work, and federal policy should support 

the progress that has already been made in the field. 

But our greatest concern, beyond not providing clear direction or standards on 

how federal funds should be used, is the impact that consolidation will have on the 

populations who may no longer be served once these programs are eliminated. 

Programs and Services for a Diverse Workforce 

HR 4297 seems to ignore the diversity of individuals who are in, or aspire to be 

part of, our rapidly changing U.S. workforce. With mounting skill demands and the 

pending retirement of millions of skilled baby boomers, we need to ensure that every 

U.S. worker—even those with the greatest skill needs—can qualify for skilled employment in U.S. industries. That means we need a diversity of programs and pathways to match the wide range of people who need to be part of that solution: young 

people struggling to find jobs out of high school; mid-career dislocated workers who 

have been employed for 20 years but who now must re-train for a new occupation 

or even to remain in their own industry; and older workers who are postponing retirement and need some skills and support to continue earning a living. We have 

nearly 90 million workers who need some upgrading of their reading, math and/or 

English language skills—in addition to whatever new technical skills they will 

need—if they’re going to fill or re-train for open skilled positions. 

There is no one workforce development strategy or funding stream that can meet 

the needs of all of these workers, or guarantee access to the range of services that 

each of them will need in different combination in order to succeed. Many of them 

will require not just technical training, but also possibly income support if they’re 

not working, or childcare or transportation services to help them stay in school or 

on the job after placement, or basic skills and /or English language instruction, or 

any of a number of other types of assistance. HR 4297 eliminates programs that 

have guaranteed that a full diversity of workers—including those with the highest 

skill needs—have access to these federally funded employment and training services. In addition, vulnerable populations like disconnected youth, Native Americans, 

migrant and seasonal farmworkers, and other hard-to-serve populations would almost certainly lose access to vital services under HR 4297. 

In the place of these eliminated programs, HR 4297 requires states set aside a 

very low 2% of their funding allocation for services for individuals with barriers to 

employment—a substantial drop from the already inadequate resources devoted to 

those job-seekers. It removes the provision of support services. It eliminates the current priority of services for low-income individuals. It sets an 18% cap on services 
26 

to low-income youth, and would not hold states accountable if they spent significantly less than that. And, beyond what provisions and programs it eliminates 

through its consolidation proposal, it opens the door for states to use super-waivers 

to roll other federal programs that serve our most vulnerable into the same undifferentiated pot—including TANF, TAA, Vocational Rehabilitation services for those 

living with disabilities, and the Community Services Block Grant. 

As such, it seems almost certain that the consolidation of programs proposed 

under HR 4297—particularly when coupled with the numerous policy changes in the 

bill that reduce protections for low-skilled, low-income, and other targeted populations—will reduce access to education and training services for our nation’s most 

vulnerable workers. 

Employer Engagement and Sector Partnerships 

HR 4297 emphasizes the need for federal workforce programs to be more closely 

aligned with the changing needs of industry—another goal with which we strongly 

agree. However, the mechanism proposed by HR 4297 to achieve greater employment engagement—that is, increasing the percentage of employers sitting on Workforce Investment Boards (WIBs) while decreasing representation from other stakeholders—will likely do little to actually increase the number of local employers involved in the local definition of industry-recognized credentials, or in the vetting of 

the design of related training and employment strategies. At the same time, by decreasing the role of other community stakeholders’ participation on the WIBs—including community-based organizations, service delivery providers, labor representatives and youth advocates—HR 4297 actually threatens to limit the necessary input 

of a range of perspectives in the planning out of workforce services that will meet 

the needs of both employers and workers within local communities. 

Under current law, there are WIBs with 51% employer membership who are actively collaborating with multiple firms and other stakeholders in industry-specific 

sector partnerships—partnerships that are held up as models of employer engagement for the rest of the country—and there are WIBs with the same 51% employer 

stake who are not. The number of employers on these WIBs is not the determinant 

factor. Rather, it is how many employers are meaningfully engaged through industry-specific planning and deployment efforts. Also key is whether the development 

of such sector partnerships is a state or local planning priority, whether there is 

participation by a wide enough range of firms and other stakeholders to make them 

legitimate, if there is funded capacity to help maintain these partnerships to respond to changing industry needs, and if there are rewards for those systems that 

use them effectively to increase employer engagement. 

Accountability and Performance Measures 

National Skills Coalition appreciates and supports the increased attention to accountability and performance measures under HR 4297. The bill makes a number 

of important improvements to the current performance and accountability system, 

including the implementation of common performance measures across WIA core 

programs. The inclusion of a new credential measure, and a measure of progress 

toward a credential that potentially encourages longer-term training critical for lowskilled workers, are important improvements of current law, as is the required state 

adjusted level of performance for each of the core indicators. 

However, even with these changes, there are concerns that HR 4297 will still lead 

to the kinds of ‘‘creaming’’ that sometimes occurs under the current performance 

measures. For example, HR 4297 uses a measure of median wages rather than wage 

gains. The use of median wages tends to push toward focusing on individuals with 

higher earning potential—and thus higher median wages—while a measure of wage 

gains potentially rewards programs that serve low-income individuals who have the 

greatest opportunity to increase their earnings. Under HR 4297, states could potentially meet performance requirements without ever addressing the needs of those 

with the greatest barriers to employment. We know from experience that so long 

as performance measures do not reward states that make the commitment to serve 

low-income, low-skilled, or otherwise vulnerable populations, these populations will 

often not have access to the education and training they need to obtain skilled employment. 

Furthermore, even under current law, data collection and program oversight are 

already difficult. The diversity of local policies for registering participants and tracking program outcomes has complicated federal oversight because it is difficult to obtain nationally comparable data. Under HR 4297, it is likely that the consolidated 

block-grant funding structure will further exacerbate this issue. As a rule, we know 

less about how block-grants funds are spent than other types of funds. Our ability 

to evaluate access to employment and training services by population, type of job-
27 

seeker, income level, or skill level will almost certainly be less under a consolidated 

block grant than under current law. 

Putting Investments in Skills at Risk 

Finally, the level of investment in a skilled workforce provided under HR 4297 

must be considered in the context of the current fiscal debate. We want to thank 

subcommittee Chairwoman Foxx for her commitment to maintaining current funding levels for what are already significantly under-invested programs. The authorization for the proposed Workforce Investment Fund appears to be close to the sum 

of current appropriations for programs consolidated under the bill. While we do not 

agree with the consolidation or believe that this funding level is adequate—witness 

the near tripling of clients using our One-Stop services just over the past two 

years—we appreciate that HR 4297 does not further contribute to the more than 

$1 billion in workforce funding cuts that we have already seen over the past two 

years. 

That said, our much greater concern is how consolidation proposals like that proposed under HR 4297 have been cited by others in Congress—including Chairman 

Ryan in his budget blueprint—as rationale for continuing our nation’s disinvestment 

in the skills of its people, across a range of programs: adult education, job training, 

career and technical education, and even higher education. The House’s recently 

passed budget resolution would cut over $16 billion from our nation’s education, 

workforce and social service programs under Budget Function 500, and we fear the 

passage of HR 4297—regardless of the intentions of its authors—would be used to 

justify extremely deep cuts in skills investments. 

Conclusion 

It is our hope that this Committee can bring this debate back to what we think 

are shared goals: investing effectively in all of our country’s workers, ensuring those 

investments are guided by the active involvement of employers and other industry 

stakeholders, holding our states and localities accountable and rewarding those who 

continue to be workforce innovators, and ultimately closing skills gaps that will help 

more people find good employment and help more U.S. industries grow. We look forward to working with the committee in pursuit of these goals. 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you. 

Ms. Harmsen, you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF SANDY HARMSEN, DIRECTOR, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT 

Ms. HARMSEN. Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Miller, and 

distinguished members of the committee, it is my privilege and 

honor to testify before you today regarding the Workforce Investment Improvement Act of 2012. My name is Sandy Harmsen and 

I am the executive director of the San Bernardino County Workforce Investment Board. 

The San Bernardino County WIB and I are passionate about 

WIA and workforce development. I personally believe there is no 

better work done in the world. As one of our members so eloquently 

said, ‘‘Work restores a person’s self confidence, it builds character, 

provides opportunity, promotes self reliance, and is the backbone of 

our country.’’ 

The San Bernardino County WIB fully supports a workforce development system that has local board control and a strong majority of private sector business members within a united workforce 

system. We believe in the engagement of business in State and 

local workforce decisions, increasing local flexibility, and in supporting training needs for all populations. 

I believe that strengthening business engagement in local workforce decisions is a key tenet of this legislation. Our WIB has maintained a strong local connection due it—due to its majority of pri-
28 

vate sector business owners, which has enabled it to focus on the 

needs of both business and job seekers in our economy. 

The board was recognized in the January 2012 GAO report for 

its innovative approach to serving business through process improvement. The program utilized federal funds to assist local businesses with job creation and retention. Many of the programs developed would not have been successful without the engagement of 

business in local workforce decisions. 

The program resulted in saving 1,100 jobs, created more than 

200 new jobs, and infused $25 million back into the economy. 

Again, this is the result of local control. 

We believe local control could be enhanced even further. One 

challenge our county has experienced is in managing the side of— 

size of the board, and we appreciate that this bill emphasizes local 

control over decision-making about which partners serve on the 

board. 

We also agree that local flexibility must be fully supported in the 

workforce system. Local flexibility enabled the county WIB to consistently maintain an active business services program. The connection to the local business community and its workforce needs 

coupled with maintaining a dedicated business services team empowers the board to respond to business needs quickly even during 

times of recession. 

Local control and private sector leadership enables the board to 

effectively identify and respond to the needs of local business. The 

strong business presence provides pertinent, timely leadership and 

decision-making regarding workforce issues. 

Because of this strong business focus the WIB partners with local 

industry councils, chambers of commerce, educational providers, 

and community organizations to provide information and resources 

that aid growing as well as struggling businesses. Local flexibility 

is what has made it possible to serve those needs in a designated 

area in ways specific to the needs of both business and job seekers. 

Jon Novack, from Patton Sales, said in 2009 for the first time in 

his company’s 58-year history he lost money and faced major layoffs. Then a customer who could not afford to stay open any longer 

came to Jon hoping to sell his company. Jon felt if he could acquire 

the company he could make it successful by combining it with his 

existing company. 

Through WIB support he trained the company staff in modernized manufacturing processes and assisted him with recruiting new 

employees. He also utilized the WIB’s on-the-job training program 

with newly hired employees. 

Jon became a member of the WIB last year because, as he put 

it, ‘‘This is how government works with business at its best— 

proactive partnering with business and education to provide a welltrained and smart workforce.’’ 

Malena Bell was laid off from a job and was forced to go apply 

for public assistance. She went from $1,800 a month to $500 a 

month. She discovered the Work Readiness program through the 

county’s workforce investment board’s employment resource centers, attended job seeker workshops, and was hired into one of 

those OJT positions. Two years later she is still employed by this 

same company and is moving up into a sales position. 
29 

The WIB’s relationships with local business community, education providers, and community organizations support the business community and job seekers like Malena. The stories cited 

above directly tie in with important tenets of this act: strengthening business engagement and local workforce decisions, increasing local flexibility, and promoting innovation and best practices. 

WIBs across the nation work to streamline the workforce system 

by working together with various partners to meet the needs of 

their local businesses and job seekers. We invest our funds to develop and seek reports to identify local demand occupations and we 

support the tenets of improving services through on-the-job training. 

San Bernardino County WIB has utilized the on-the-job training 

system to a great degree and since 2009 to date have placed over— 

nearly 2,000 people into on-the-job training positions. The WIB 

partners with other crucial partners to serve special populations, as 

well, and contracts with the Department of Aging, the Probation 

Department, the Sheriff’s Department, Department of Corrections, 

the Head Start program, Transitional Assistance to Needy Families, and the Department of Behavioral Health to provide services 

to those specialized populations. 

We do agree with the GAO report of 2011 that there is better opportunity for better coordination of workforce programs. Strategic 

decisions on services that get individuals in our community who 

are unemployed or underemployed back to work should be made at 

the local level. This legislation places focus on results and closing 

a growing skills gap by identifying and meeting the workforce 

needs of both employers and job seekers. 

Supporting training opportunities for all is another important 

tenet of this legislation. Our WIB and other WIBs, again, across 

the nation work with local industry councils to develop programs 

to provide a skilled workforce that directly meet the needs of business. The San Bernardino County WIB works specifically with community colleges to help support a growing mining industry and create jobs—job training for that specific industry. 

The WIB and Manufacturers Industry Council worked with two 

community colleges to develop and implement an electrical and mechanical training program, again, specific to the needs of business 

in advanced manufacturing. We have worked with vocational 

school, Technical Employment Training Inc., which provided skilled 

machinists for the manufacturing industry, which was also recognized in the GAO report of 2012. 

I will wrap up by saying that another—one of the final tenets of 

this bill that we support absolutely is accountability. We need to 

have a workforce system that serves customers, business, and job 

seekers alike in an effective and efficient manner, maximizing resources and training customers for jobs available with business. We 

support performance measures based on outcomes related to the 

services provided. 

We are happy to say that we have been recognized by several entities for doing just that across the nation and believe that the recognition demonstrates the local board control of the workforce system with strong majority of private sector and collaborative 

projects with workforce programs are key components for success. 
30 

One thing Mr. Miller said: The manner in which we reauthorize 

WIA is vital and important. WIA is such a strong program and it 

is the best workforce program. We agree with that 100 percent. It 

is vital how we reauthorize this bill, and I thank you so much for 

the opportunity to be able to testify on behalf of this. 

[The statement of Ms. Harmsen follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Sandy Harmsen, Executive Director, 

San Bernardino County Workforce Investment Board 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The San Bernardino County Workforce Investment Board believes in a workforce 

system that serves customers—businesses and job seekers alike—in an efficient 

manner that maximizes resources. To that end, the San Bernardino County WIB 

fully supports a workforce development program that has local board control and 

a strong majority of private business members within a united workforce development system. We believe The Workforce Investment Improvement Act of 2012 contains these tenets. 

The San Bernardino County WIB supports the tenets of improving services 

through On-the-Job Training, contracting with community colleges and institutions 

of higher learning to provide specialized group training that is designed for businesses looking to hire individuals with specific skills, and training for those who 

need it the most within our communities. The WIB contracts with other entities and 

provides their clientele with workforce training, job development and job placement 

services. We work with local industry councils to create a skilled workforce that 

meets their specific needs. 

Jon Novack is the President and CEO of Patton Sales. Jon became a member of 

the WIB last year because, as he puts it, ‘‘This is how the government works with 

business at its best—proactive partnering with business and education to provide 

a well-trained and smart workforce. Training is great, but worthless without a job.’’ Malena Bell was a single mom who was laid off and tried to survive on $500 a 

month in Unemployment Insurance. She was hired by Patton Steel through the 

WIB’s On-the-Job Training program. After her training period ended, she was hired 

full-time and is now celebrating her second year with the company. 

San Bernardino County WIB members represent each major industry in our 

County and participate in monthly meetings with local industry councils. Private 

sector business owners are invaluable to our Board. They have their finger on the 

pulse of local business, they are experienced business managers, and they understand the skills local businesses need to grow and diversify. 

The WIB and the Manufacturers Industry Council worked with two community 

colleges to develop and implement an Electrical/Mechanical Advanced Manufacturing training program. Multiple local manufacturing businesses have utilized this 

program to upgrade the skills of their lower-level employees, moving those employees into higher level positions and then hiring new employees through the WIB One 

Stop Centers. 

FULL WRITTEN STATEMENT

Chair John Kline and distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for the 

opportunity to speak today about the Workforce Investment Improvement Act of 

2012 (H.R. 4297). My name is Sandy Harmsen, and I am the Executive Director of 

the San Bernardino County Workforce Investment Board and Director of the County’s Workforce Development Department. The San Bernardino County WIB fully 

supports a workforce development program that has local board control and a strong 

majority of private business members within a united workforce development system. We believe in business engagement in state and local workforce decisions, increasing local flexibility, and supporting the training needs of all populations. 

Strengthening Business Engagement in State and Local Workforce Decisions 

The San Bernardino County Workforce Investment Board consists of a majority 

of business owners who helped establish a local Manufacturing Industry Council 

and a Transportation and Logistics Council. The WIB is also active as members of 

the Aviation Industry Council, the Healthcare Workforce Advisory Board, and the 

California Clean Energy Collaboration. Their connection to the local business community and its workforce needs, coupled with a dedicated Business Services Unit, 

empowered the WIB to quickly respond to the severe economic downturn. Because 

of the local connection, the WIB focuses on the needs of all populations in the coun-
31 

ty. We believe local control could be enhanced even further. One challenge our county has experienced is managing the size of the board. We appreciate that H.R. 4297 

emphasizes local control over decision making about which partners serve on the 

board. 

Promoting Innovation 

The San Bernardino County Workforce Investment Board was recognized in the 

January 2012 GAO Report to Congressional Committees for its innovative approach 

to serving businesses through its process improvement program. San Bernardino 

County WIB has a dedicated and comprehensive business support program that deploys federal funds to assist local employers with job creation and retention. Many 

of the programs developed and implemented would not have been successful without 

the engagement of business in local workforce decisions. 

Maintaining a business focus, the WIB developed relationships with San 

Bernardino employers in high-demand industries that promise job growth and opportunities for county residents. The business services staff meets regularly with 

employers to identify specific workforce needs, discover job openings and negotiate 

subsidized and On-the-Job Training contracts. They also help employers avert layoffs through business efficiency training. The results of local control, with a strong 

business focus, enabled the San Bernardino WIB to implement a process improvement program that resulted in saving 1,106 jobs and hiring 204 residents into newly 

created jobs. The impact of this program was to infuse $25M back into the local 

economy. 

Local control enables the WIB to effectively identify and respond to the needs of 

local businesses. The strong business presence provides pertinent, timely leadership 

and decision making regarding workforce issues. Because of the strong business 

focus, the WIB partners with the local industry councils, chambers of commerce, 

educational providers and community organizations to provide information and resources that aid growing, as well as struggling, businesses. The WIB business services staff developed and implemented Business Survival Workshops throughout the 

County. Workshops are conducted in varying locations to reach as many businesses 

as possible given the large geographic area of San Bernardino County that consists 

of 20,000 square miles (the largest County in the contiguous U.S.) with more than 

62,000 businesses. 

The Business Survival Workshops receive an overwhelming response by the local 

business community. Twenty-nine partners offered free initial consultations to businesses in their respective areas of expertise. More than 400 businesses have taken 

advantage of a free on-site assessment that identifies their strengths and weaknesses in sales, business processes, customer service, and employee performance and 

productivity. To date, the WIB’s weekly workshops have assisted more than 1,100 

businesses. Utilizing the results of their assessment, a business can request additional targeted assistance available through the WIB: 

• Process Improvement for streamlining the manufacturing process to reduce production cost and increase productivity. These services also led to increasing the capacity of the participating manufacturers to increase sales. 

• Strategic and Financial Planning for evaluating the manufacturers’ current 

state and establishing long-term business and strategic goals based on sound financial planning. Referrals to other agencies like the SBA for loans were also made to 

manufacturers who needed operating and investment capital. 

• Quality Management System implementation that improved product quality, 

on-time delivery and met industry ISO 9001 and AS9100 certification requirements. 

Many of the at-risk manufacturers lost customers because they lacked certifications 

or could not enter new markets. 

• New product development and diversification of products to foster innovation 

and growth. Innovation is a key for small manufacturers to stay competitive and 

gain market share. 

As highlighted in the January 2012 GAO Report, manufacturers who received 

these targeted services were surveyed six months after they had implemented recommended changes by an independent survey from NIST/MEP and reported: 

• $8 million in increased sales 

• $18 million in retained sales 

• $2.6 million in cost savings 

• $2.1 million of investment in equipment, IT and workforce skills development 

• 600 retained jobs 

• 117 created jobs 
32 

Increasing Local Flexibility 

The WIB’s business focus is a necessary component to the workforce development 

system. Local flexibility is necessary to serve specific needs in a designated area. 

Local flexibility enabled the San Bernardino County WIB to fund business services 

even during the recession and made a difference for businesses struggling to keep 

their doors open and to people who needed jobs to keep their homes and support 

their families. 

Jon Novack from Patton Sales said that in 2009 ‘‘the wheels came off the bus’’ 

for his company. The value of his inventory fell, customers stopped buying, no one 

could get credit from banks for building, the phones stopped ringing and his trucks 

sat idle. For the first time in his company’s 58 year history, he lost money and faced 

major layoffs, selling of assets, and went into survival mode. Then a Patton customer who could not afford to stay open any longer came to Jon hoping to sell him 

his company. Jon felt the customer’s company had been neglected, was inefficient 

and had no vision of the future. To quote Jon, ‘‘Enter the SB County WIB’’. The 

WIB worked with him every step of the way as he acquired the company. Through 

WIB support, Jon trained the company’s staff in modernized manufacturing processes, assisted him with recruiting new employees, and reduced the cost impact of 

the new hires’ reduced productivity level through its on-the-job training program. 

Jon became a member of the WIB last year because, as he puts it, ‘‘This is how the 

government works with business at its best—proactive partnering with business and 

education to provide a well-trained and smart workforce. Training is great, but 

worthless without a job.’’ 

When Malena Bell was laid off from her non-profit organization, she was in the 

situation that every parent fears—having come one month short of living on the 

street. ‘‘When I lost my job, I was forced to go apply for public assistance,’’ she said. 

‘‘I went from making $1,800 a month to $500 a month.’’ 

Malena wasted no time utilizing the work readiness program offered by staff at 

the county’s Employment Resource Centers, and immediately went to work on her 

resume and interviewing skills. By attending job seeker workshops offered through 

the WIB’s Employment Resource Centers, she had her ear to the ground when Patton Sales Corporation would be hiring through the On-the-Job Training program. 

‘‘She hated being on government assistance and took it personally,’’ said Jon 

Novack, president of Patton. ‘‘She said, ’Give me a chance and let me show you what 

I’m about’.’’ Malena has now been with Patton for two years and is moving up to 

sales training. She plans to stay with Patton until her retirement. 

Local flexibility and the WIB’s relationships with the local business community, 

educational providers and community organizations support the business community and job seekers like Malena. The stories cited above directly tie in with important tenets of the Workforce Investment Improvement Act of 2012: • Strengthening business engagement in local workforce decisions 

• Increasing local flexibility 

• Promoting innovation and best practices 

Supporting Training Opportunities for All Adults, Dislocated Workers, and Youth 

WIBs across the nation work together with various partners to meet the needs 

of local businesses and job seekers. San Bernardino County WIB and other WIBs 

invest their funds in researching and seeking reports to identify local demand occupations and growing and emerging industries. We support the tenets of improving 

services through On-the-Job Training, training for those who need it the most within our communities, and contracting with community colleges and institutions of 

higher learning to provide specialized group training that is designed for businesses 

looking to hire individuals with specific skills. These initiatives under H.R. 4297 will 

ensure that customers are trained in necessary skills to match jobs available with 

business. 

Since 2009, the San Bernardino County WIB has worked with local businesses to 

develop On-the-Job Training (OJT) opportunities and has placed 1,845 job seekers 

into these training positions. These positions not only assisted the job seekers in obtaining needed skills and gaining employment, they also assisted businesses involved in the program by helping them with costs associated with bringing a new 

employee up to the desired productivity level. 

In 2009, after receiving special funding to implement a Summer Youth Employment Training Program, the San Bernardino County WIB provided employment 

skills training to over 1,800 youth and placed them into summer jobs. Many of these 

youth were retained by the businesses at the end of the program. In the summer 

of 2010, utilizing TANF funding, the WIB served 800 youth through a similar program. Annually, the WIB contracts with local providers to serve youth utilizing its 

WIA Youth allocation. 
33 

Streamlining the Maze of Job Training Programs 

Many of the OJT positions developed by the San Bernardino County WIB were 

filled with recipients of public assistance, not because we are mandated to do so, 

but because this is one of the populations our local area has determined is in need 

of workforce services. The WIB partners with other entities to serve special populations. The following entities contract with us to serve their clientele for workforce 

training, job development and job placement: • Department of Aging and Adult Services • Probation Department, Sheriff and Department of Corrections • Head Start • Temporary Assistance to Needy Families • Department of Behavioral Health 

We agree with the GAO report of 2011 that there is opportunity for better coordination of workforce programs. Strategic decisions on services that get individuals in 

our community who are unemployed or underemployed back to work should be 

made at the local level. This legislation places focus on results and closing a growing 

skills gap by identifying and meeting the workforce needs of both employers and job 

seekers. We do need to meet the workforce needs of each community at the local 

level and the workforce system needs to be funded at an appropriate level to provide 

effective services for all. 

Improving Employment and Training Services at One-Stop Career Centers 

The San Bernardino County WIB works with local industry councils to develop 

training programs designed to provide a skilled workforce that meets their specific 

needs. Recently, the WIB worked with a local community college to implement a 

training program for the growing mining industry. The WIB and the Manufacturers 

Industry Council worked with two other community colleges to develop and implement an Electrical and Mechanical training program in Advanced Manufacturing. 

The WIB also worked with a vocational school, Technical Employment Training Incorporated (TET), to develop a work-based training program to provide skilled machinists for the manufacturing industry. The TET initiative was recognized in the 

January 2012 GAO Report. 

Ensuring Accountability for the Use of Taxpayer Funds 

The San Bernardino County Workforce Investment Board believes in a workforce 

system that serves customers—businesses and job seekers alike—in an effective and 

efficient manner that maximizes resources. The San Bernardino County WIB supports performance measures that are based upon outcomes related to the services 

provided. Our WIB has been recognized for its best practices by the National Association of Counties, the Department of Labor and the California State Association 

of Counties. This recognition demonstrates that local board control of the workforce 

system with a strong majority of private business members and collaborative 

projects with workforce programs are key components for success. 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you. 

I thank all of you for your testimony. Your entire written testimony will be included in the record. 

We will move now to my colleagues for some questions and answers. We will limit ourselves—I will help you with this part—to 

5 minutes so that all members have a chance to engage in the discussion. 

Let me start with Ms. Harmsen. 

As you were giving your testimony you talked about strategic decision-making and more strategic approaches and local control. 

H.R. 4297 specifically removes the federal requirements for board 

representation except for the business representation. It is our belief that that streamlines the boards. We have been hearing for 

some time in this committee, out in the field and here, from State 

and local workforce boards about how they are getting very bloated; 

they keep growing in size and get pretty cumbersome. 

Can you address that streamlining provision of this bill and how 

that will affect the board’s ability to do more strategic thinking? 

Ms. HARMSEN. Yes. Thank you. 
34 

As I did state partially in my testimony, we do believe that the 

strong majority of business sector on the board is absolutely vital 

to the success of this program. Having those business members on 

the board to guide decisions as to how the workforce dollars are 

spent is so very important. 

We know, for example, in San Bernardino County, 63,000 small 

businesses in our county—they make up the majority, over 90 percent of the businesses in our county. So to have that voice on the 

board is absolutely important. 

I do believe that the other members of the board should be also 

a local decision, that at that actual local, on-the-ground level, however, for the balance of the members of that board so that the local 

areas can make decisions about who is important to be on those 

boards and have a voice at that table. 

Chairman KLINE. Our thought was that by requiring, as the current law does, all this membership—18, 19 sort of different members—that the boards were getting cumbersome, and I am trying 

to get at your point that if the decision is made at the local level 

about who is on that board it can be a more streamlined operation. 

I don’t want to put words in your mouth, although I guess I am 

trying to here. [Laughter.] 

Ms. HARMSEN. Yes, that is what I am saying. 

Chairman KLINE. Perfect. 

Ms. HARMSEN. Yes. 

Chairman KLINE. It is great how that worked out. [Laughter.] 

Ms. Noble, again, pass our regards to your governor. She was our 

colleague for some years and a great friend to many of us on this 

committee. 

This legislation consolidates 27 federally funded job training programs into a single Workforce Investment Fund. We think that is 

in line with what we heard the president say the other night in the 

thinking that many of us have on this committee that we have allowed these programs to proliferate and become unwieldy. 

So my question to you is, how do you think this legislation, the 

way it is put together with that consolidation, can help State and 

local workforce investment boards in administering these employment and training services? Is it helpful to you? 

Ms. NOBLE. Yes. I believe it is helpful because the—separately, 

programs are intent on whatever the legislation tells them to do. 

And believe me, the individuals programs are doing their best. And 

there are many good programs but they are independent. They 

have to meet whatever their management and their—whatever 

their guidance and whatever their performance is. 

And when you are focused, secondary comes, how do I do that 

with someone else? Putting programs together based on what that 

community perceives the needs of their industries and their unemployed population is allows everyone to become focused at the primary goal, which is, what helps us to get jobs? 

It is efficient in that each program now has separate procurement, separate contracting services, separate buildings. And while 

some of those buildings will remain, many can be used across purposes or same purposes. 

In Oklahoma, for example, we have been able to reduce some of 

our local areas by combining—we didn’t consolidate them; we 
35 

said—the council said, ‘‘Find ways to be more efficient.’’ And sometimes that was by having—sharing a director; sometimes it was by 

having the same fiscal agent; sometimes it is by having the same 

service provider, and through your contracting process. 

But that is, at the State level, asking people—incenting people 

to do things that were more cost effective. By combining from the 

top you started in the right direction. 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you. 

I see my time has expired. 

Mr. Miller? 

Mr. MILLER. I would like to just follow up on that. 

I have two questions, but hopefully we can just follow up on that, 

Mr. Van Kleunen. 

One of my concerns is, Ms. Noble, is in that situation, we have 

some very difficult populations to train and have them acquire the 

skills to become employable, and my concern is that you get sort 

of a more homogeneous board here and then the question is, how 

do you make sure that those populations continue to be a priority? 

One, they may be more expensive; two, they may not look like the 

people that the employers are seeking to employ at that particular 

moment and all of a sudden they drift down. 

And I just wondered if, Mr. Van Kleunen, if you would like to 

comment on that, and Ms. Noble. But I have a second question, too, 

so—— 

Mr. Van Kleunen. Sure. Well, I do think—I mean, there have 

been some valid critiques of the current system that those who are 

hard to serve, some systems serve them very well and some do not. 

I mean, there is flexibility in the current system to do that. There 

have been things that have not been encouraging systems to actually make that a priority. 

I think that ways—by reducing even the funding streams that 

are already making some of those populations a priority—I think 

we are going to be moving further into that direction. I think setting some standards and giving some performance measures that 

actually make it easier for partners to come together, such as 

Norma has mentioned, to work together to move folks along a career pathway, I think that is where it is that we can bring a bunch 

of different programs and streams together to—— 

Mr. MILLER. Ms. Noble? 

Ms. NOBLE. When you set the standard as, what is it that we can 

do to help this number of jobs with these kinds of skills, and then 

you say, for this population, how do you get that population into 

that—into those jobs? That is how you get that standard met. You 

require every pathway, every industry sector to have a way to—you 

must show, how are you going to do it? 

Mr. MILLER. I am going to stop you there. I don’t know that that 

happens in this bill but we will look at it again. 

Mr. Van Kleunen, I want to ask you, one of the concerns we 

have, and the chairman raised this question of what we have heard 

about all throughout the recession is this mismatch of people and 

really how do we develop what has become, in some areas, to be 

the pathways, the models if you develop a linear model where people can plug into the system, acquire additional skills as they acquire additional work experience, and that is kind of a continuum 
36 

that helps both employers renew the skills of those individuals and 

find people along different parts of—— 

Mr. VAN KLEUNEN. And I think that there are two different—the 

first part—and I will agree with Norma on this—the first part is 

to figure out how to get the business community, members of the 

same industry, different firms—small firms, large firms—to say, 

‘‘What are the credentials that we are looking for?’’ We currently 

do not have a mechanism funded by the federal government, encouraged by current law that actually encourages those partnerships to happen. 

We have a lot of those things that have been happening in the 

system over time and it seems like now is the time to make that 

a priority practice throughout all 50 States here in the country. 

And I think that once we do that then we need to figure out how 

to work with the education and training providers—those who are 

providing basic education, those who are doing job training, those 

who are working in the higher education field—to figure out, how 

do we work with the business community so that we have a variety 

of people who can get different types of education and support on 

the job, off the job, and develop a plan over time so that somebody 

who may take 2 or 3 years to get to that kind of good paying credential, but they are still employed while they are doing it. 

It is hard to do that unless we bring industry players together 

to make that happen, and I think—unfortunately, I think eliminating the programs that are prioritizing some of those populations 

that we think otherwise won’t get served, they are just not going 

to be part of that solution. And I think that ultimately a company 

is first interested in training its own workers, which is completely 

appropriate, and I think that, you know, greater provisions for incumbent worker training makes sense, but it is the public sector’s 

responsibility, government’s responsibility for making sure that we 

are also building a pipeline of new workers so that other folks can 

actually enter into that industry down the road. 

Mr. MILLER. Just quickly, how does the sort of what we see on 

the horizon here now, the increased use of badges for very specific 

certifications—how does that play into this and again, employers 

looking for people with specific skills? And there are a lot of new 

entities out there awarding badges—— 

Mr. VAN KLEUNEN. Right. 

Mr. MILLER [continuing]. From some of the largest companies in 

the country to some of the smallest nonprofit organizations. How 

do you factor these into a modern—— 

Mr. VAN KLEUNEN. Well, yes. We have a lot of credentials out 

there. How many of them are actually recognized by industry as 

valid, I think that we need to create a mechanism at the local or 

regional level to come to that determination. 

It seems that having employers come together by industry to 

make some of those decisions would help us decide which badges 

are appropriate, which are not. And in some cases getting—you 

know, if each employer is working with a different job training provider and they are each coming up with their own credential saying, you know, to serve our community we need to kind of figure 

out what it is that we have in common here. What is the 85 percent of the skills that we all agree we want when we hire a person 
37 

for this particular job title? And if we do that then it creates a 

more rationale system whereby a range of education training providers can train to that spec. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. 

Chairman KLINE. Thank the gentleman. 

Mrs. Biggert? 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

holding this hearing. 

According to a recent-released report by the Labor Department 

this month, unemployment soared to 12.1 percent in 2011 for veterans who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan since September of 

2001. In my district the hardworking staff at Will and DuPage 

County Workforce Investment Boards, as well as the great faculty 

at the College of DuPage and Joliet Junior College, they all proposed a pilot program to connect veterans with the employment opportunities, and it is—I think it is a really good idea and I think 

we can all agree that there needs more to be done to support our 

veterans as they transition from military to civilian life. 

Could you each talk a little bit about the way in which your ability to serve unemployed veterans could be enhanced by the flexibility offered under H.R. 4297? 

Ms. Noble? 

Ms. NOBLE. I would be happy to. Thank you. 

In Oklahoma we have created the OK—this for Oklahoma, of 

course—OKMilitaryConnection.com, which ties to our OKJobMatch. And the OKMilitaryConnection.com is a place where veterans and their families can go to find all of the services they—that 

they need. The job portion is through OKJobMatch, but veterans 

and their families also need support systems and supportive services, and housing, and counseling. And we believe in Oklahoma 

that we should now serve those who have served us, and so we 

have a—we have brought together all of the agencies, both workforce agencies and military or veterans agencies together. The—— 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Would the flexibility of this bill help at all? 

Ms. NOBLE. The flexibility of the bill helps in that all—whether 

we are talking about Food SNAP or about the veterans employment and training services, it is all in the same umbrella. So that 

really helps us to meet the needs of the veterans. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Ms. Moran, do you have any comments on that? 

Ms. MORAN. Certainly. I believe that as we have local, businessled boards and we are making decisions at the local levels we are 

able to address those populations that are prevalent in our own 

communities. I come from a region where we don’t have a lot of 

veterans but we really do focus on trying to help those that return 

to our community. We have case managers who are quite aware of 

veteran services, but by working closely hand-in-hand with our 

businesses we are able to identify those employers that are willing 

to put them to work and to help to transition them back into the 

mainstream of our communities. 

And again, I think that comes back by having that local flexibility we can help to identify those populations that need our greatest support. Thank you. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you. 
38 

Mr. Van Kleunen, I don’t know with your program if you get into 

the—— 

Mr. VAN KLEUNEN. Well, we certainly work with a lot of folks 

who work with veterans on the ground. I mean, I think that that 

is a tremendously great need that we have right now, as you know, 

because of folks who have been coming back from our wars. I think 

that while flexibility certainly will help I think the problem isthat 

there is going to be no way that we know for sure that veterans 

are going to be well served unless there is some way that we are 

measuring outcomes relative to veterans. 

The problem about this particular proposal, 4297, is that we will 

no longer have a way to measure whether or not we are serving 

veterans significantly or not. There is not a—there is not a performance measure that is targeted to their services. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Okay. 

Ms. Harmsen? 

Ms. HARMSEN. Yes. We do serve many veterans, and particularly 

those that are returning veterans, and one of the challenges that 

we have found is there are many programs out there. Every department that we have in our county and surrounding cities have programs for the newly released veterans, and I think that better coordination of those programs would certainly help because I think 

it—number one, it is confusing for the veteran—the newly released 

veteran; and number two, with all of those services available, just 

trying to get them linked into the services that we specifically are 

providing because we are discussing this issue here is—makes it 

also challenging and difficult. 

So I think that, again, allowing the local areas to really work together to try to identify how to serve that is a good idea. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you. Thank you. 

And then I have just one quick question: There has been broad 

agreement on the need to avoid a one-size-fits-all approach to the 

workforce development. Are there ways in which the federal government can help to disseminate best practices or help State 

boards or locals to disseminate ideas that work so others have the 

ability to coordinate and collaborate? Anybody like to address that, 

or—— 

Chairman KLINE. The gentlelady’s time has expired. If one of you 

would like to address that we would love to have the response for 

the record. Anybody want to take that for the record? 

Mr. VAN KLEUNEN. I will say that the Democratic proposal actually does make some provisions for that, particularly on, for instance, on the adult education side, where we are trying to create 

a national clearinghouse of excellence on some of those issues. So 

I think that is one area where it is by having some capacity at the 

national level that we can get practitioners—— 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you. 

Mr. Scott, you are recognized. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Van Kleunen, can you tell me how the bills differ on use of 

community colleges and how flexible they can be in terms of technology and creating jobs that actually exist in the local areas? 

Mr. VAN KLEUNEN. Well, the Democratic proposal does include 

some specific investments particularly targeted at community col-
39 

leges, and it goes to a point that Norma was making earlier, which 

is that we believe that community college programs that work in 

partnership with other partners to provide a range of services 

makes sure that both those who are college ready and those who 

are still not college ready but want to be going to college to get 

some kind of technical training have the ability to do so. 

And so creating partnership grants where we can bring community-based organizations, folks who are working in unionized industries can work with their local community colleges to develop some 

pathways over time, I think that that is where it is that we will 

get some outcomes. And it is different than what has been the typical community college program up until now. 

Mr. SCOTT. Do the proprietary or trade schools have a role in 

this? 

Mr. VAN KLEUNEN. Absolutely. I think that, you know, we have 

not enough capacity to train people for the number of jobs that are 

open in the economy today, and so I think there is a range of education and training providers who could play a role in solving some 

of those skill gaps, and that is allowed under both pieces of legislation. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. 

Let me ask any of the members of the panel, what happens to 

disconnected youth if they don’t get job training? What kind of trajectory are they on if they drop out of school and they don’t get job 

training? 

Ms. NOBLE. Well, it is happening now, sir. Our young people are 

not getting—not only are they not getting the skills training that 

they need, they also are not getting the jobs through just working, 

which is also a way of getting training. 

And as a result we have increased the number of young people 

who are in the underground markets of, whether it is crime, or 

just—they are now living at home with you. 

Mr. SCOTT. Anybody else want to—— 

Ms. HARMSEN. I would like to address that, as well. The youth 

programs, when we have had the—those additional youth dollars 

to assist with putting the youth to work with those youth summer 

programs, it has had amazing results for those youth because once 

they get that first job, they get that first paycheck and they see the 

value of that, that has given a lot of them just that impetus to turn 

around and want to get that education that is needed so that they 

can go further. 

Mr. SCOTT. My other committee is the Judiciary Committee, 

where I serve on the Crime Subcommittee, and these youth are, 

without the job training, on a trajectory that is disproportionately 

involved in crime. And therefore, I think since we are going to be 

on the hook for them anyway we need to make sure we focus them 

on the right track. 

I served on a job training committee way back in the 1980s and 

we talked—we kind of alluded to it, about the credentials, and the 

idea was to try to get credentials for every job so that employers 

looking for people knew what they were getting, but even if it was 

just a waiter—something like a waiter you could be Class A, B, C, 

where some might just need to take orders, you might want somebody more qualified, knows something about wines or something 
40 

like that, so you can get credentialed—auto mechanic, various levels. 

Is there any attempt to get credentials for virtually every job position out there? 

Mr. VAN KLEUNEN. So I would say that particularly in this country I don’t think that we are looking for somebody to define for employers what the credentials should be. I think that the activity 

that we should be funding is how it is that we bring employers together by industry to get them to figure out what are the credentials that they are looking for, what are the skills standards that 

they are looking for? 

The Democratic proposal does—both proposals actually talk 

about that. I think there are actually some greater vehicles to actually achieve that in the Democratic proposal. 

There are some opportunities to identify credentials. For instance, some of the things that Norma was talking about that they 

are doing in Oklahoma, where they are using career readiness credentials, where it is really just kind of a way to certify that folks 

have received a certain type of basic skill that employers can think, 

‘‘Okay, this person is ready to take an entry level job or to enroll 

in a course.’’ 

It seems to me that a way we would measure performance and 

whether or not a State or locality is doing a good job is we actually 

find out whether or not they are increasing credential attainment. 

That is a performance measure—a system-wide performance measure in the Democratic—— 

Mr. SCOTT. I don’t want to cut you off, but I am about to run out 

of time. I would like to just ask a question for the record, because 

you won’t have time to answer it in the time allotted, and that is 

if you could comment for the record on the effect of funding levels 

that are in the various bills and whether or not we need more 

money to get the job done. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

If you could take that for the record, Mr. Van Kleunen or others. 

Dr. Foxx, you are recognized. 

Mrs. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I want to thank the members of the panel for being here 

today, and also send my greetings to Governor Fallin, Ms. Noble, 

if you will—— 

Ms. NOBLE. Certainly will. 

Mrs. FOXX [continuing]. And I thank Ms. Moran for bringing me 

greetings from a former colleague, George Daniel, in the State senate. Always nice to have folks here with whom we have connections. 

I am really intrigued by some of the comments that have been 

made by Mr. Miller and some by Mr. Van Kleunen, and I am going 

to hope to get to respond to those in a moment. 

But one particularly I wanted to point out to Mr. Van Kleunen, 

I assume you are not familiar with the fact that the administration 

has recommended itself that seven programs be done away with— 

seven of the 27 we are talking about—and that five of those—five 

additional programs have not been funded, one of them since 2003, 

and is the only program that our colleagues on the other side of 

the aisle have recommended be done away with. 
41 

So while you are talking about the blunt instrument of consolidation being a problem, there are already 12 of the 27 that either 

have been recommended to be done away with by the administration or haven’t been funded, some of which for a long time, so they 

are effectively gone away or could be done away with, it seems to 

me, without too much—coming about as a result of them. 

I wanted to ask Ms. Noble and then also Ms. Moran and Ms. 

Harmsen if you would respond to this: Ms. Noble, you mentioned 

that one of the problems with the existing situation is that it over 

regulates process and that there is very little emphasis on accountability and performance, and that is certainly a major concern of 

ours and one reason why we are doing what we are doing. 

I want to ask you if there are some other examples of ways that 

the—either the Labor Department, or the Education Department, 

or any—whoever is administering the program focuses on the 

wrong things. We have heard you all say the top-down administration, in terms of the development of the boards or the composition 

of the local boards, but can you give another example of some 

things that specifically you would like to see changed? 

Ms. NOBLE. In terms of performance, I think having the ability 

to look at impacts or outcomes rather than counting the numbers 

of people served or the numbers of people in the seat in a classroom. And that is why it has to be really at the regional level, so 

that you can determine what does that region need? 

We have some areas of Oklahoma with 12 percent unemployment 

and we have other areas of Oklahoma with 3 percent unemployment. 

Mrs. FOXX. I read that in your—— 

Ms. NOBLE. And so regionally we—they have to determine what 

is best for them. In one area they are talking about really their 

pipeline in the fourth grade and preparing, and they want to know 

what you are doing to bring in labor; in the other they are trying 

to do something different. So looking at impacts, outcomes, and 

outputs, and being able to do that at the regional level. 

Mrs. FOXX. Regional. All right. 

Ms. Moran? 

Ms. MORAN. I think also it is a focus on having the right outcomes that we measure, and typically in WIA you get measured for 

the number of people who go through training, and there are WIBs 

that look like they haven’t done a lot. Well, the really effective 

WIBs have learned how to leverage other dollars, yet we don’t get 

credit for that as a system. And yet, if we want to be innovative 

and collaborative I think that is what we have to start to look at 

is the overall system. 

Mrs. FOXX. Ms. Harmsen? 

Ms. HARMSEN. Yes. Thank you. 

I believe that workforce development in and of itself should be 

recognized as a profession, that there are so many different programs across the board that also understand that their populations 

need assistance with workforce development, that there needs to be 

standards for workforce development that need to be set, and I 

think that the boards have been—very instrumental in bringing together already some of those programs because there is such a 

need. 
42 

You have the local folks that are on your board that care about 

your community so your boards are already partnering with those 

programs. But if there were certain standards that we all adhered 

to for that workforce piece that would be outstanding. 

Mrs. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentlelady. 

Mr. Hinojosa, you are recognized. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank the panelists for coming to this hearing and participating. I want to ask my first question of Andy Van Kleunen. 

In your testimony you indicate that the blunt instrument of program consolidation will do far more human damage than the illness it poses to cure. But given our increasingly diverse workforce, 

what impact would H.R. 4297 have on the low-skilled workers, minority communities, and disadvantages youth, which have such a 

high unemployment rate? And also address what it would do to migrant and seasonal farm workers, also those who are limited 

English proficient, Native Americans, and older workers, populations that desperately need this education and job training programs to improve their lives. 

Mr. VAN KLEUNEN. Well, Congressman, I think that you point 

out just by the list that you have read that we have a great diversity of people who are trying to either stay in our current labor 

market or get back into our labor market and advance in some 

way, and I think the concern for many folks in the community, and 

particularly people who are working with the types of workers that 

you are talking about, is that some of these folks are going to be 

higher cost than your average, say, WIA participant, they may take 

longer to actually advance toward some kind of a credential or a 

good-paying job than the average WIA participant. 

And once you take all those programs and put them into one big 

pot and you say there is going to be a standard for placement, a 

standard for wage gains, a standard for credential attainment that 

we are going to measure across this entire number of people who 

are served by that pot, those who are going to take longer to succeed are going to be typically not served. It is not in a State’s or 

a locality’s interest to actually serve them because it is going to 

bring their performance measures down. And even today, in the 

current WIA system, systems that do that do that at their own 

peril. 

It seems to me that we should recognize moving forward that we 

should set very high standards for accountability but we should reward systems that are actually serving those who are the harder 

to serve and to give them some credit for what we think will be 

a great payoff for the worker and for the local community if they 

succeed in getting a skilled job. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. I agree with you. 

Why is it vitally important to create career pathways for the 

adult learners and improve adult literacy in America? I have been 

working with Congressman Roe on this particular group of adults 

who have a very low literacy of reading and writing—maybe third 

grade level—and how difficult it is to retrain them. Give me your 

thoughts. 
43 

Mr. VAN KLEUNEN. Well, this issue about basic skills in our current workforce—I often use the example, in Michigan—when Michigan decided after all of the layoffs in the local economy to give anybody who wanted who had been laid off from a job an opportunity 

to go back to community college—it was anybody—they found that 

a third of their dislocated workers—these were folks who had been 

working 20, 30 years in a skilled job in an industry that was 

changing—could not even take their first community college course. 

And those were people who were working. 

As you know, we have a lot of other folks who have not been 

working very well for quite a while. The only way they are going 

to get a skilled job is if they can get some of that reading and math 

learning in order to be able to qualify for some technical training. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. I agree with you. Those are very important keys 

and recommendations that you are making. 

I want to ask another question of Laurie Moran. 

Ms. Moran, you mentioned that our workforce system is far from 

perfect and in great need of additional resources to assist those job 

seekers. Tell me, why are support services as—like counseling, 

transportation vouchers, placement, child care placement services—why are they critical for job seekers? 

Ms. MORAN. I think as we look at the different regions of this 

country it comes back to why it is important that we have to address the local issues of a community. I live in a rural community 

in Virginia, and when you think about our State and you look at 

Northern Virginia, the issue there is gridlock. 

I laugh and share the example that when you look at my hometown the traffic concern we have is when the one stoplight catches 

you and it is red. But the difficulty in not having gridlock is that 

you also don’t have public transit to get you to jobs. 

So it is important that we—as we look at the barriers that keep 

people from getting to work that we are able to serve job seekers 

at all levels. Training is important but we also have to help overcome the other barriers, whether it is transportation, or child care, 

or elder care, which is a growing concern in this country. We have 

got to help job seekers to get beyond all of those issues. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you. 

My time is expired. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentleman. 

Dr. Heck? 

Mr. HECK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the opportunity to work on this bill. And also, I thank you again for 

bringing the field hearing out to my district. I represent Southern 

Nevada, which unfortunately still has the highest unemployment 

rate in the nation, so this is obviously a very critical issue. 

Thank all the panelists for being here. 

We recently held a job fair just last week. We had over 50 employers that had hundreds of open jobs. And as I walked around 

the job fair and was talking with them about why they had these 

job openings when we have the highest unemployment rate in the 

nation they said because when people come in to apply they can’t 

find the person who is ready to go to work. And these were jobs 

ranging from entry level to—one of them was a six-figure income 

job that they were at a job fair trying to fill. 
44 

So I believe that trying to get this system in place and modified 

and improved to get these people connected to jobs is critically important. 

And I know, Mr. Van Kleunen, you talked about the importance 

of getting businesses to agree on credentials, and I wholeheartedly 

agree, but I think other than perhaps trying to make a comparison 

with the military training, of which there is a national standard, 

it is going to be very difficult and that probably has to be driven 

by the local business community of what credential they want to 

agree on for that local community. I mean, we can’t even get two 

high school diplomas from different States to be equivalent at this 

point. 

So with that, I would like to ask—Ms. Harmsen, you talked 

about the business owner who joined the WIB board because he 

said this is the way government was supposed to work. What perspective can local business leaders lend to the boards when deciding where to focus their training dollars and how can State and 

local boards better engage the business community in these workforce activities? 

Ms. HARMSEN. Well, I think one of the—the best way that I can 

answer that question is just the example that we have used in our 

county. Because we maintained the business services team even 

through the time of the recession, during the time of the recession, 

when it first started, we went from having 2,000 people a month 

coming into our centers to nearly 7,000 people a month, which was 

a dramatic, as you can imagine, impact into our centers. 

What a lot of my colleagues were forced to do was bring their 

folks who were out making contact with business into the centers 

just to address that need in the centers for those job seekers, so 

we didn’t—they didn’t have folks out there with—making contact 

with business. 

What we have done is maintain that business services team who 

keeps that connection with business, and so what we do by maintaining that team is collecting that data and that local, real-time 

information as to what is going on with those businesses so that 

then what they have done is they have put together—when I identified and mentioned the Manufacturing Industry Council, that we 

also put—were part of putting together the Transportation and Logistics Council and part of the Aviation Council in our area, so that 

that means all these businesses from our local area come together 

on a monthly basis with WIB involvement, and the WIB works together to convene them, and we find out—the community colleges 

are there, institutions of higher learning—what are those specific 

training needs, so that we can then work together with them to design those courses specific to those business needs, and then, of 

course, the WIB will assist in funding. And I think that is an outstanding way to do that and keep all—many of the tenets that you 

have put into this bill as far as being that business-led—addressing 

those needs are met. 

Mr. HECK. And I would agree. I think when you have over 50 

employers saying that they can’t find employees that are ready to 

go to work that probably they need to have more of an input in how 

we are trying to set up the credentials and get employees trained. 
45 

In the hearing that I—field hearing I previously mentioned we 

had heard that Southern Nevada lost over 70,000 construction jobs 

during this recession, primarily because our construction workforce 

was about 12.5 percent of our total workforce when the national average is closer to 5. And so the question posed to the analyst was, 

‘‘Do you expect these construction jobs to come back?’’ to which he 

said, ‘‘No, we will probably never see that level of construction 

again.’’ 

So I turned to a representative of the construction industry and 

said, ‘‘What are you doing to get your workers ready for the jobs 

that will be here, not necessarily the jobs that were here?’’ And the 

answer was a little disappointing, and it was just that, ‘‘Well, we 

just need to spend more money on infrastructure so I can put them 

back to construction work.’’ 

But with that, I mean, there has been a lot of debate about targeted programs. 

Ms. Noble, you brought up in your testimony that you felt that 

there wasn’t necessarily need for targeted programs, but how can— 

give us some examples of how your State and local area would use 

these flexible funds—improve services to dislocated workers and individuals with limited English proficiency, veterans, or Native 

Americans. 

Ms. NOBLE. Let me take each one of those. For our veterans, for 

example, we are doing a couple of things. Our education community is working with our employer community and we are actually 

converting the skills that the veterans acquired while they were in 

service so that they will apply to the jobs that we do have. We are 

doing that by having them—the licensing provisions, the ability to 

test out so that they don’t have to repeat a lot of their education. 

In terms of our Native American populations, which we have a 

lot of in Oklahoma, we have joined—they have joined with our 

other workforce programs by industry. In the health care industry, 

for example, in the eastern part of our State all of the hospitals 

now have joined together and determined, what are those steps for 

each one of them, and both eastern and—both the work—— 

Chairman KLINE. Sorry to interrupt, but the gentleman’s time 

has expired—the old ‘‘ask the question with 10 seconds left trick.’’ 

Ms. Fudge? 

Mr. FUDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank all of you for your testimony and certainly what I believe is a genuine concern to improve WIA, so I thank you. 

Ms. Noble—and I am going to follow up on some questions that 

were asked by my colleagues—adult illiteracy is a huge problem in 

this country. I represent the city of Cleveland, Ohio, where the majority of adults are functionally illiterate. This means that folks are 

incapable of writing a brief letter or even finding a way, sometimes, 

to use a bus schedule. And it is not unique to my district. 

Adult illiteracy is common in so many areas, and so in your testimony you say that our nation cannot afford to separate education 

and workforce development because they are one and the same. So 

my question is, if this is the case, how can States use WIA to ensure that those in need of adult basic education are encouraged to 

return and to continually use the services provided at a one-stop 

center? 
46 

Ms. NOBLE. Thank you, Congresswoman. I am an educator first. 

I started my career in education, and so I am a great believer that 

that is the way out. 

Adult education cannot—in my opinion—cannot stand alone because people, one, get focused on getting—I got my ABE, or I got 

my GED, and they don’t see that what I am really looking for is 

a career. That is why, one, it needs to be together. 

The other part is that it is a long process, as Andy talked about. 

We have to be able, through this joint connection, to have a person 

work on learning to read but apply that reading, and that is why 

the system that looks at what is it not just that you know but how 

do you use what you know? I can then get a job. I can get a job 

while I am continuing to learn, but the system has to not terminate 

me before I get there. It has to allow me to get those credentials 

along the way. 

Mr. FUDGE. But how do we get people to use it? How do we get 

the illiterate adult into the centers? Because that is as big a part 

of the problem as anything else. 

Ms. NOBLE. And part of, if I may, part of the answer is that you 

don’t deliver services just in a center. 

Mr. FUDGE. That is a big part of the problem with this bill. 

I am going to ask another question, then if anyone else wants to 

answer that one you may. 

Mr. Van Kleunen, back to the veterans issue: The unemployment 

rate among veterans is higher, obviously, than the national average. Nineteen percent of the more than 36,000 veterans in my district are unemployed. Veterans obviously have served, and many 

continue to serve, this country honorably. 

As members of Congress we must make it a point to help vets 

whenever possible, and I think we all agree on that—especially 

when we address their education and employment needs. In your 

opinion, would consolidating—with this whole consolidation we 

have been talking about in this bill—would consolidating the Veterans Workforce Investment Program help reduce unemployment 

among veterans, and what impact do you believe that such a consolidation would have on veterans? 

Mr. VAN KLEUNEN. Well, I do think—and again, because this is 

such an important issue, and I think that if we have to unpack it 

a bit to see, okay, if you have somebody who has come back as a 

veteran who is looking for a job, what are the things that we have 

offered to do for them so far? We have offered to send them to college through the G.I. bill. Many of them are not ready to go to college or not interested in pursuing a 4-year degree; they are looking 

for some kind of technical training. Some of them actually do have 

those kind of reading and math challenges that we need to address. 

And to go back to your prior question, the way we get folks to— 

adults, like myself, to increase our reading and math is we don’t 

ask us to sit in a classroom for 6 months, you know, reading books. 

We figure out how to train us to be able to do a job. That is the 

research says how—— 

Mr. FUDGE. But it is time-consuming and goes back to what you 

were saying—— 

Mr. VAN KLEUNEN. It is time-consuming—— 

Mr. FUDGE [continuing]. Penalized for taking on those—— 
47 

Mr. VAN KLEUNEN. Right. So right. So that is where I think 

that—so clearly we need to make sure that we have the investment 

available for folks to do both basic skills and technical training at 

the same time. 

And I just think the other part of it is that our veterans need 

other things besides training. They also do need some support services—— 

Mr. FUDGE. Right. But I do want you to answer the question: 

Does it help or hurt if we consolidate? 

Mr. VAN KLEUNEN. And so part of the proposal is that we are 

now taking support services out of what is a fundable service under 

what would be the consolidated workforce fund. So those veterans 

that were looking for supportive services beyond training in order 

to help them to get back into a job, develop a career path, we have 

now taken that out as a fundable activity. 

Mr. FUDGE. So the answer is, they would be hurt? 

Mr. VAN KLEUNEN. It would be more difficult. It would more be 

difficult—— 

Mr. FUDGE. I am just trying to get there. 

If anybody else wants to answer I have about a minute. I guess 

I would do either of the questions. 

Chairman KLINE. You have about 2 seconds. 

Mr. FUDGE. Then I yield back. [Laughter.] 

Chairman KLINE. Thank the gentlelady. 

Mrs. Roby? 

Mrs. ROBY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you all for being here today. And I am going to start with 

Ms. Noble. 

If you would just shed some light on whether or not you feel the 

current workforce investment system is spending enough money on 

training, and will eliminating the burdensome sequence of services 

provision and reducing burdensome requirements for trainers—excuse me, for training providers help increase access to training? 

Ms. NOBLE. Okay. Depends on where you live as to whether it 

is spending enough on training, and I say that because we have 

areas that—where the workforce board has said, 40 percent, 50 

percent must be spent on training. But in those areas where they 

don’t have enough workers they don’t want people to be in longterm training; they want people to work and train. And so it is 

what is going on in that area that should determine what the menu 

should look like. 

Mrs. ROBY. Well, and then what else do you think that the committee could contain in this bill as it relates to that? 

Ms. NOBLE. I think training should be encouraged by determining what kinds of and how many credentials and certificates 

the participants are receiving. That way they can get it through apprenticeships, internships, as well as classroom training and combinations of work-based training. 

Mrs. ROBY. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Noble. 

Ms. Moran, in your testimony you discuss the specific education 

and job training needs in your community, citing that 50 percent 

of job seekers in your area have a high school education or less. 

Can you describe how your locally driven system would ensure the 

needs that—of your area are specifically met? 
48 

Ms. MORAN. Certainly. Thank you. 

Because we have a very active and engaged workforce board that 

has strong collaboration throughout the community, both with 

businesses as well as with community college, adult education, and 

other programs, we work to address those issues that are of critical 

need. Most of our employers today require, at a minimum, a high 

school education. So if we can’t bring the education level up to at 

least that level we are doomed before we start. 

So we look at how do we work with K-12, how do we work with 

the community college and higher education, how do we work with 

training providers, adult education, and we really focus our efforts 

on that, because it is difficult to get into the skills training without 

also having the basic educational levels. And I think that is where 

that local, business-led board has been important. 

Mrs. ROBY. And how does this bill, H.R. 4297, offer a step in the 

right direction to ensure local control and decision making are in 

place? 

Ms. MORAN. This bill does allow for that local control and decision making. It allows for the local boards to determine the amount 

of training, so as we look at some of the needs that might not be 

classified as training, whether that would be the literacy or adult 

education, those decisions would come back to the local boards to 

decide how much should be training and how much should be allocated for other areas. 

Mrs. ROBY. Thank you. 

And quickly, Ms. Harmsen, we often hear in Washington that if 

there is no dedicated federal funding program or funding stream to 

aid specific populations with employment and training services 

then this will permit states and locals to skirt their responsibilities 

in helping those individuals find and retain employment. Can you 

speak to this issue specifically? 

Ms. HARMSEN. Yes. I think that—and I had stated this in my testimony, as well—that we respect our partners. Our partners have 

a role in each of those specialized populations and that workforce 

is such an important key issue for each of those specialized populations. And I think that if, again, we are able to identify what the 

tenets of workforce development should be that those guidelines 

can be followed to ensure that all of those population’s needs are 

met. 

I think that it is coordination together is really what needs to 

happen with all of the funding. How the workforce dollars go out 

into each of those different programs is coordination together to 

say, here are—and that is where I think the local system is so good 

because it is that direct connection to business that say, here is 

where the business needs are, here is where we need to train, here 

is what we need to do, and here is how we can help each of those 

populations. 

Because we know that the members that are on our board live 

in these areas, as well, and they are concerned about those who are 

underemployed, those who are receiving assistance and getting 

subsidized employment and the parolee populations, and that sort 

of thing. And I think that they are not—they are very concerned— 

they are very concerned about all of those populations. 

Mrs. ROBY. Right. Thank you so much. 
49 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. Thank the gentlelady. 

Ms. Woolsey, you are recognized. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think one of the things we have to keep in front of us while 

we are talking about this is one of the major values of WIA is that 

employer willingness—Ms. Moran referred to willing employers—I 

mean, willing to what? To train, to support, to hire what populations? 

I think it is important that WIA has replaced willingness with 

expectations—actual expectations and the support systems that 

will be available using federal funds and measured by outcomes 

and outputs. I mean, we cannot overlook that one of the reasons 

we have WIA in the first place is that populations were going underserved, and for us to even suggest using federal funds and not 

address the underserved and not have a way to measure this is 

something we cannot allow. 

So, Mr. Van Kleunen, one of the populations I am particularly 

concerned about is the workers with disabilities, and when I say 

that I mean also—I include recovering substance abusers in that 

population, of course. And we know, willing employers may not 

want to deal with substance abusers who are being rehabilitated 

and could fall off the wagon, or whatever. So, I mean, it is a worry 

and it is going to take more. 

So I believe there is—and you can correct me if I am wrong— 

there are about 1 million individuals with disabilities and another 

35,000 waiting on a list for services, and so my concern is if—what 

this Republican bill will do if it allows states to divert vocational 

rehab funds away from individuals with disabilities. 

Mr. VAN KLEUNEN. Well, this is one of the parts of the bill that 

we have not talked about yet. So we have talked a lot about the 

27 programs that are federally charged to be put into the consolidated fund, but it does also create an opportunity for states to take 

a whole other list of programs, including vocational rehab services, 

to also include them, so it could be a much longer list than 27 within any particular State. And certainly for folks who are living with 

disabilities or serving people who are living with disabilities this is 

a great concern precisely because, back to the issue of—these are— 

for those who are seeking employment it is a—some, for them, a 

long process. 

And the reality isthat there is a great diversity within our disabled community that is currently served by the V.R. program, and 

to set one standard that we are going to—across all of those clients 

for employment outcomes is actually not recognizing that there are 

different folks with different needs within that population. So that 

current program, as it exists, kind of recognizes those dual purposes of people who are served by V.R. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Right. Could you give us an idea of which services 

would be at risk if we did this, or is it just getting on the will—— 

Mr. VAN KLEUNEN. Well, I think that it is a matter—it is as 

much a matter of breadth as it is—so I think that what will happen is if the vocational rehab services are pulled within to a State’s 

consolidated fund I think that the range of services that are going 

to be provided to people currently qualified for V.R. is going to be 
50 

narrower; I can’t say specifically which ones are going to be gone. 

And it probably is that those that are easier to serve within the 

V.R. population are most likely to be served as opposed to those 

who are the harder to serve, even within that particular category. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you. 

Ms. Moran, in your testimony you state that we should judge job 

training programs by their results. And you mentioned that over 

the past 3 years 8.7 million Americans have used WIA services, a 

252 percent increase, and that 55 percent of these workers have 

found jobs despite the fact that there were four job seekers for 

every job. That seems to be a pretty good number to me. 

Do you think that these results justify scrapping the entire WIA 

program and turning it into a block grant or would it not be better 

to fix—maybe making your panels smaller or something? 

Ms. MORAN. We believe there have been some good results in 

this system. We also believe there is always room for improvement. 

I don’t know that I would refer to saying that we should scrap 

the entire system but I think we need to look at how to continuously improve the entire system. How do we put together those efforts and programs to build on the successes, to look around the 

nation at those areas that have been successful and replicate that 

so that all areas of our nation are having these success levels? But 

we do believe there have been successful outcomes due to the collaboration and the innovation that has happened at the local level, 

you know, in present day. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KLINE. Gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Mr. Walberg? 

Mr. WALBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I thank the panel for being with us today, talking about a 

subject that is extremely important all across this nation in your 

districts, your areas, but also in mine. 

Ms. Noble, in your testimony you urged the workforce investment 

system to, and I quote—‘‘manage results, not process.’’ Could you 

describe for us what a State must currently measure in terms of 

reporting requirements, how much time this takes, on average, and 

why you believe it is currently—underemphasizes the performance 

aspect? 

Ms. NOBLE. Currently, we do important things like, one, look 

after the money to make sure the money is spent right, and that 

has to be there, but we also—— 

Mr. WALBERG. That is not a bad idea—— 

Ms. NOBLE. That is not a bad idea. But also, we do data validation. We spend a lot of time doing data validation. We require almost 100 percent—the—at the local level, that they are spending 

their time looking and monitoring and going through files that 

have been put together by case managers, and then the State sends 

out people to go through those same files by one—and sees how you 

are keeping those, and counts them again. And then at the State 

level we monitor ourselves, and then the federal level of regents 

come in and they—this is just on data validation. 

Mr. WALBERG. This is unnecessary redundancy, you would say? 

Ms. NOBLE. Yes. Just as one kind of example. 
51 

We count how many people go to work. We are under common 

performance measures in Oklahoma, so ours already are less than 

others have. But we want to know, did you go to work? Did you 

receive—did you go to work in an area where you received training? Did you stay in that job 6 months later? 

And those are, to me, the common measures that should be—for 

any program—should be able to tell, did you put someone in training? What were the results of that training? Did they get a job? Did 

they keep the job? That is what you need. 

Mr. WALBERG. Well, in light of that, then how will the performance system set up under this bill, H.R. 4297, improve the accountability of federal funds? 

Ms. NOBLE. What we will have on the performance system is all 

of the programs—right now each program has its separate standards. For example, we were talking about rehab and Andy was correct that rehab currently says you serve those people who are the 

most—have the most disabilities. Now, if that is what you want to 

continue then put that in the bill. 

When we have fewer people, though, and we have lots of people 

who have disabilities and who need services, right now those are 

all referred to rehab. Yes, everybody could serve them. Adult education can serve them; WIA can serve them. But they get siloed, 

and that is the problem. If you happen to come on the wrong day 

to one of those siloed programs and I don’t have any money you 

don’t get service. Bringing it together allows me to pool the money 

and provide services to the people in my area that need the service. 

Mr. WALBERG. Thank you. 

Ms. Harmsen, in your testimony you briefly talk about community colleges, which are having an outstanding resurgence in my 

district, looking toward real-world issues, including advanced manufacturing and the like. In Michigan we have pioneers in workforce 

development, like the Lansing Community College, helping job creators access a workforce trained for their specific needs. How would 

H.R. 4297 help organizations like community colleges participate in 

federal workforce development programs to educate and train potential employees? 

Ms. HARMSEN. Well, I believe that the tenets of the legislation 

reference that, that we are working together with those community 

colleges and those institutions of higher learning, and I think that 

that is absolutely necessary for us to do, because they are in the— 

I, too, I believe in education. 

Education is so very important when you are looking at not only 

just a job, and I think that that is one thing to think about. When 

we think about the spill in all of those populations, which I am 

hearing is such a concern, and it is a concern for us on the ground 

level as we are serving those populations, because there are some 

folks who need to come in and just learn how to work, learn how 

to—I was thinking when someone was talking, I had someone tell 

me 2 weeks ago in a meeting that one of the biggest concerns they 

are starting to see is the insurgence of people coming into the centers that are 25 years old who have never worked. 

Mr. WALBERG. That is amazing. 

Ms. HARMSEN. Holy cow. But the community college piece, I 

think, so very important in working together. And what we have 
52 

seen is our community colleges’ ability to be flexible, working with 

the employers to tailor the programs to what they need, and we 

love the part—the piece of the bill that talks about being able to 

directly contract with those community colleges to work with employers, because that has been a remarkable thing that has shown 

great success in our county, and I know in other WIBs, as well. 

Mr. WALBERG. Thank you. 

Mrs. FOXX [presiding]. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

Mr. Loebsack? 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I really do appreciate the hearing today. This is something—I 

have been in Congress since January 2007 and we have been talking about reauthorization since that time—reauthorization of 

WIA—so this—I think it is a really critical hearing. 

Also, I am very happy that there are some references to sector 

partnerships in the majority bill. I want to thank Representative 

Platts for working with me on a bipartisan basis on the SECTORS 

Act, which, I want to point out, did pass the House unanimously 

in the last Congress at the end of the last session, the 2010. I also 

want to thank Chairman Miller and Mr. Tierney for including the 

SECTORS Act in their Workforce Investment Act of 2012, and I 

urge the majority to continue to work in a bipartisan manner to 

produce a bill that can help get really millions of unemployed back 

to work and, of course, boost our overall economic growth. 

As I mentioned, I have been working to move forward this sector 

partnership for workforce and economic development for a number 

of years. I really do believe that we need to better organize training 

and education and bring together all the critical folks in a community around sector partnerships, and higher education, and community colleges. Very, very important. They are, as well, in my district, throughout Iowa, throughout the country. I think it is absolutely critical. Workers, unions, where they might have apprenticeship programs, for example, as well. 

And of course, management. Of course, employers that determine 

how to save and create new industries, how to streamline the system to get people the training they need, the skills that employers 

want. We are constantly hearing about the skills gap. It is a bipartisan concern, I think it is fair to say. 

I do have concerns about the bill and about the consolidation in 

the bill. I believe we really need to diversify input into workforce 

development systems through sector strategies because our communities are diverse, and to move forward we are going to need to 

work together and not divide our communities. 

I want to ask each one of you specifically to give a response to 

me when it comes to sector partnerships what you think about this 

particular bill and also the Democratic alternative, as far as incorporating the idea of sector partnerships and support for sector partnerships into any reauthorization of WIA that we see moving forward. And I would like to start with Mr. Van Kleunen, if I might. 

Mr. VAN KLEUNEN. Well, and obviously to the extent that we are 

all talking about this concept and this strategy, which really has 

been developed without the support—direct support from the federal government since WIA was authorized. I mean, this is where 

the field is way out in front of where we have been with our na-
53 

tional legislation, so let’s at least put into legislation moving forward an investment in the very partnerships that up until now 

some states have developed using some of the 15 percent money, 

which now has been taken away and is actually is not included 

back in with 4297. 

Let’s really make that a standard that we have some States that 

are doing this and some localities and some boards that are doing 

this; we have a lot that are not. Why do we not make that a standard that everyone who is receiving funding from the federal government for workforce development that there should be some effort 

to organize employers by industry with other stakeholders. That 

should be a baseline expectation. We can’t achieve that unless we 

actually put it into law. 

I do think that the Democratic bill actually does that in a number of different ways that we don’t achieve with the Republican 

proposal. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you. 

Ms. Noble? 

Ms. NOBLE. Sector partnerships, Congressman, are just vital. I 

will give you three examples. 

The Texhoma partnership in Oklahoma, and—which was funded 

with 15 percent funds—we trained each of our boards in how to do 

it, and these still exist today. They are very strong. This is Oklahoma and Texas together dealing with what are the important industries? They identified them, built those partnerships, and each 

of the chambers of commerce contributed. So that is the way you 

get—you finance some of this. 

Some of the best known States in—that I have worked with 

across the country have modeled after sector partnerships. Boston 

is important today in its workforce work because of the sector partnership that actually started under the PICK, which is—that 

shows how old I am. Washington State is doing a lot of avant-garde 

work, and it is led by its sector partnerships. 

We funded in Oklahoma and our—those areas, that is how our 

tribal nations, which are often separate, that is how they have 

come together with non-tribal entities. Sector partnerships is industry-leading. The key is industry-leading. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you, Ms. Noble. 

We are almost out of time. I would like to submit that question 

to the other two for the record and get your response, if I might 

do that, Madam Chair. 

And again, I introduced this bill when I did because I had heard 

from the communities about how important sector partnerships 

are, so thank you very much. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mrs. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Loebsack. 

Mr. Tierney? 

I am sorry. Mr. Platts? 

Mr. PLATTS. Thank you, Madam Chair. I certainly would be glad 

to waive my turn behind Mr. Tierney, but I do appreciate the 

chance to—— 

Mr. TIERNEY. Don’t blow it. [Laughter.] 

Mr. PLATTS. Well, Madam Chair, I want to thank you for your 

efforts in the reauthorization, as well as the full committee chair 
54 

and all the members, both sides of the aisle, who understand the 

importance of this reauthorization and that we not just do it but 

do it well. 

I am going to echo Mr. Loebsack’s comments about sector partnerships and I appreciate—that was an issue I was going to address, but as a cosponsor with Congressman Loebsack don’t want 

to repeat on that issue and maybe touch on one that goes, I think, 

hand-in-hand. 

In addition to being the lead Republican with Mr. Loebsack on 

the sectors partnership, I am the lead Republican with Mr. Donnelly on the America Works Act, which is to then promote the— 

what has been discussed here to some degree already—the nationally recognized, very portable skill credentials. I know in my district I certainly hear from my employers—mainly manufacturers— 

and I believe I have seen a number where hundreds of thousands 

of jobs in the manufacturing community today are empty because 

employers can’t find the skilled labor force to match up to them. 

And I have to say, my—personally, my ninth grade son, T.J., who 

loves working with his hands, his newest endeavor is—in his—one 

of his classes at school he is getting more exposed to welding, to 

where now we have a portable home welding unit, where he has 

begun to heighten his skill level—carefully, I have asked him and 

reminded him. Yes, we don’t want to burn the house down. 

But as he was doing it I was thinking that, you know, I am glad 

to encourage him. I mean, he is in a college prep program but I 

am glad to encourage that skill as well, because it may be that in 

the end he decides that he doesn’t want to go the college route, and 

I know today that if he had a welding skill he would be hired like 

that in a very well-paying job. 

And so in Representative Donnelly’s bill, that I am the lead R 

with, with Joe on, is to try to promote that national recognition, 

the portability. 

And I apologize, running in and out, if you have already touched 

on this, but I know, Mr. Van Kleunen, your association really promotes this idea, I believe. If you want to comment or any of the 

witnesses on the importance of that portability—not just that we 

have credentials but the portability of those credentials and how 

you think that would benefit workforce training and filling these 

empty positions that are so important to our manufacturing community. 

Mr. VAN KLEUNEN. Absolutely, Congressman. I mean, we think 

that there is room for both nationally recognized, portable credentials so that folks can move around the country. We also think 

there is also room where it is necessary when there are national 

credentials that don’t necessarily meet the specific needs of the 

local labor market or the niche that that particular industry is trying to fill, where there is opportunity for those employers to come 

together to come up with their own skill standards. But we think 

that having a balanced approach between the two is exactly where 

we should be going to be making clear both to employers as well 

as to workers what it is that the skills are that we are expecting. 

Mr. PLATTS. And is it fair to say that if you partner the SECTORS Act with this idea of credentialing you really, then, kind of 

determine, with some that may be nationals, but those partner-
55 

ships in a community, that they may—that partnership will lead 

to a community-wide credentialing, that they kind of go hand-inhand? 

Mr. VAN KLEUNEN. We think they go hand-in-hand. We think it 

is the right way to bring people to the table and it is the right way 

to set a standard that other folks can adopt. 

Mr. PLATTS. Okay. Thank you. 

Ms. NOBLE. Yes. Our manufacturers, for example, in our State 

have come to the State councilmen and asked for a—an Oklahoma 

version of NAM. They buy into the NAM portable skills but they 

also want some other things because they want to count it different 

than NAM counts it. And the aerospace community has similar— 

we have done aerospace studies and we can tell you what skills are 

needed, from a paint-striper to an engineer. 

And to do that, though, it takes a lot of work. But once you do 

it we can then prepare high school students as well as our engineering students. 

And just this week the deans of our private school and public 

universities—engineering schools—came together with our leading 

aerospace companies to talk that pathway. 

Mr. PLATTS. Great. 

Ms. NOBLE. That is what we have got to do in our country. 

Mr. PLATTS. Yes. I know I am about to run out of time. And I 

have seen this personally with my oldest brother, who was trained 

in—years back in heavy earth-moving equipment, top of his class 

in the training, graduated, but there were no jobs in that industry 

anywhere close, and so he got great training through, you know, 

the loss of jobs going overseas, but if it wasn’t—there wasn’t a job. 

So this partnership that we identify the jobs and the skills—together, appreciate all of your efforts. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mrs. FOXX. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

Now, Mr. Tierney? 

Mr. TIERNEY. Well, thank you very much. 

The prospect of a 9-year-old Platts running around Pennsylvania 

with a torch ought to get us all unsettled, but particularly if we 

live in that State and that neighborhood. 

On that, thank you. Madam Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record about a dozen letters from 

various organizations commenting on the bill that is before us 

today and the Democratic alternative. 

[The information follows:] 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 

Mrs. FOXX. Without objection. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you very much. 

I have prospects that this can be done on a bipartisan basis. Ms. 

Moran and others have mentioned that. And I am a little troubled 

that the bill was filed a day before we left for 2 weeks in the district, and the hearing is the day after we get back, and now I understand it is going to be marked up within a week. I would hope 

that we could spend some time and really sift through this. 

Let me ask folks, there have been comments favorable to the bill 

that is before us today, and some that have some concerns on that. 
92 

Ms. Harmsen, do you think that there are some provisions in the 

bill that was filed by Mr. Miller, Mr. Hinojosa, and I that could improve upon the bill that is the subject of today’s hearing? 

Ms. HARMSEN. I think that the things that I have discussed are 

really something that should be a focus, is making sure that that 

local control is local at that local area. 

Mr. TIERNEY. And that would be one improvement? 

Ms. HARMSEN. Yes, and business. Really focusing on that business. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Van Kleunen, do you see things in the bill that 

Mr. Miller, Mr. Hinojosa, and I filed that could be, in fact, be improvements on the bill that—today? 

Mr. VAN KLEUNEN. Absolutely. I mean, there are a number of 

areas where I think, around issues of performance measurement, 

where I would think that it is aligned with the motivations of the 

Republican bill. I think that we could improve the Republican bill 

using some of those performance standards. 

I think the focus on business and sector partnerships that we 

have talked about—I think could also be another way that could 

help to define some of those standards on the local level for it to 

be meaningful in the business. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you. 

Ms. Moran? 

Ms. MORAN. And certainly I support the bipartisan effort because 

I think this is such a critical effort, that if we can look at those 

common areas and those shared principles that we have talked 

about—the business-led boards, having that local decision and that 

local delivery system, looking at outcomes that are meaningful and 

have value to employers and to job seekers—and then working on 

those areas. 

And I think there are some areas that we can look at as to how 

do we improve? You know, one of the areas from the Democrat bill 

that I would love to see readdressed is mandating the percentage 

of money that goes to training and allow that to be a local decision. 

Mr. TIERNEY. On that issue, let me ask this: The principles of the 

National Association of Workforce Boards have for policies state 

that locally-based, employer-led workforce investment boards are in 

the best position to develop strategies that align to the need and 

economic development investments. You go on to say the funds designated to statewide use should align with local or regional workforce and economic development strategies and that locally-based 

workforce investment boards should have a voice in those funding 

plans. Correct? 

Ms. MORAN. Correct. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Now, I hope—we tried to address that in the bill 

that we filed, but I note in the bill 4297 that is before us today, 

it gives—it consolidates a number of programs, as we have talked 

about, it gives additional authority to governors, and in fact, it 

would allow a governor, if so inclined, to combine to just have one 

board statewide. Now, you state on page six that you have a—there 

is a delicate balance between State and local areas. Are you concerned by the prospect that a governor could have just one board 

statewide, might not strike that—that balance at all, as well? 
93 

Ms. MORAN. We would certainly encourage that that balance be 

between the State and the locals so that you do have local regions 

that make economic sense and that they are labor market-driven. 

So we would very strongly encourage that the local areas be engaged in that conversation and decision. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Okay. Now, one of your association principles is 

also that a physical one-stop shop infrastructure be funded separately. Do you see that anywhere in the bill by Ms. Foxx, Mr. 

Kline—the one we are discussing today? 

Ms. MORAN. I have not seen that separate funding at this point. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Van Kleunen, you talked at length about the 

core reasons that we have a workforce investment bill, ensuring 

that all workers have access to education and training leading to 

skills and industry-recognized credentials that will allow them to 

keep family-supporting jobs—broadly stated on that. You also said 

that consolidation was not reform. What concerns do you have 

about consolidation and how it might detract from that original 

core goal that you set forth? 

Mr. VAN KLEUNEN. Well, I think, as I said already, I mean, our 

concern about if we are not making sure that our publicly funded 

programs are giving a wide range of workers an opportunity to prepare for the skilled job in a local industry—and again, I believe 

that that is a role of the public sector. It is a role of industry to 

say, ‘‘Here are the standards that we are looking for.’’ It is the role 

of the public sector to make sure that anybody who wants to train 

for that job, whether it takes them 6 weeks or 6 months, that they 

are going to have an opportunity to do that. And we fear that the 

consolidation proposal will make it harder for those who are going 

to be the harder to serve to actually get to that point. 

Mr. TIERNEY. And harder still if the board doesn’t reflect at least 

some people from community-based organizations, and in labor, 

and others. 

Mr. VAN KLEUNEN. Absolutely. Because this is a shared process, 

right? This is something where we are trying to serve both businesses and workers and the broader community. And I think that 

we need to have all of those stakeholders around the table to figure 

that out. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you all for your testimony today. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Mrs. FOXX. Your time is expired. 

I just want to say that I find it absolutely amazing that the 

United States of America got to the point it got to, got through 

World War II and won World War II without a single federal government worker training program, and now the world will end if 

we don’t continue them and in silos. 

Dr. Roe, I believe you are next? 

Mr. ROE. Okay. Thank the chairman, and thank you for having 

this hearing, and I am sorry I have had to jump in and out but 

I have enjoying hearing the testimony, and certainly from the folks 

down at the grassroots level. And having been an employer for over 

30 years and realizing that what you needed to do was to line up 

the skill set with what you needed as an employer. 

And to me, when I visit our—I am in the service industry as a 

physician, but I have visited a tremendous number of manufactur-
94 

ers in our area and you hear that all over every day. Can you pass 

a drug screen? And number two, do you have the skills that we 

need in this job? 

And I think, Ms. Noble, you made the best comment I have ever 

heard. It is really pretty simple. When you train somebody, and 

when industry comes in and you train these people do they get a 

job, and then 6 months later do they still have the job? And that 

is fairly common sense, what you just said, and I think that is the 

metric that you need, and that is the metric I would need if I am 

out there looking for work and I go to this one-stop shop and can 

they train me where I live, as Todd Platts was saying—they did 

not in that case. They did a lot of great training but there was not 

job. 

And having local community line those jobs up, I see that as the 

biggest detriment to people finding jobs. It may not be exactly what 

you want—welding was brought up. We have a 3-year wait in my 

area for people to get into welding. There is a huge need for it, and 

yet we are not training enough welders where we are for the jobs 

we need. 

So I would like to hear your comment, Ms. Noble, on that. 

Ms. NOBLE. I agree, obviously, that the industry needs must be 

met and must drive what we do. And that is really the best way 

to get services, I believe, to everyone. If I have no skills now and 

I have limited education, if you can show me a way to get those 

skills and to get some—I may start on the bottom rung but at least 

I have a pathway that I can get—that is why the State of Oklahoma has invested so much in career pathways that align with industry sector work. 

Mr. ROE. Congressman Hinojosa and I have worked on adult literacy together, and that is the least investment we see in Tennessee, it is several hundred dollars to get a GED but has the most 

bang for the buck. Does this bill address adult literacy—just any 

of you want to take this—in an adequate enough way? I am asking 

this as a question, rhetorically. 

Mr. VAN KLEUNEN. The bill that we are talking about today, it 

does allow for the integration of adult literacy services into the 

larger pot. I think that we have—to your point, and I think we 

have said it several times, making adult literacy services guaranteed to be available and to be integrated with technical training is 

absolutely essential. We think the consolidation proposal actually 

may reduce the availability of adult literacy services because, 

again, those who require them are often harder to serve clients. 

And so I think that is the concern. We want to see them aligned 

but I don’t think we want to see adult literacy services diluted by 

throwing them into the bigger pot. 

Mr. ROE. Okay. 

And, Ms. Moran, do you have a comment? I know the people that 

I really listen to are the people down in the trenches every day that 

do this job every day. Are we making this easier—will this bill 

make this easier for you to do your job, to provide the services that 

you have out there? 

Ms. MORAN. I actually believe that the improvements we have 

been talking about today, the principles we have been talking 

about, making sure that it is employer-led, that the local areas 
95 

have the decisions and are delivering the product will make it easier. Because I think it is difficult to mandate it from the federal 

government; I think it is difficult to mandate it from the State government. These are local decisions that really need to be responsive 

to the business environment in the local communities, and that will 

make it easier for employers and job seekers. 

Mr. ROE. And when a business is getting ready to expand or a 

business is going to move into your community you have to have 

those things. You have to have a ready, well-educated workforce. 

I am going to give you an example right now. In Chattanooga, 

Tennessee—I don’t live there, but Volkswagen is expanding dramatically and they are having to bring workers into that area because they don’t have the fully skilled people that they need. 

So community colleges, I think, are—make a turn a lot quicker 

than 4-year colleges and they are able to provide those workforce 

skills much quicker, and then what you all do, also. But I think 

the skills gap is the biggest—I think that is the biggest detriment 

we have in the country. Every employer I have gone to has told me 

that very thing. 

And I yield back my time. 

Mrs. FOXX. Thank you. 

The gentleman from Tennessee yields back and sets the record 

for ending before the end of time today. We thank him. 

I believe, Mrs. Davis, you are next? 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

And I appreciate you all for being here. I have to run out for another meeting but I wanted to come back to the question and in 

some ways identify my comments with Mr. Tierney’s in terms of 

his questions, focusing on consolidation, because that seems to be 

the biggest difference. 

As I have sat here and listened to you all, sounds to me like 

there is a lot of agreement there and we keep going back and forth 

between two bills that would suggest to me that actually there are 

very good issues that are addressed in both. But the one that concerns me is the consolidation and the funding. 

One of the things that we know—and if we even go back to No 

Child Left Behind—you have to disaggregate data. You have to be 

able to judge whether all people who are part of workforce development have an equal chance of opportunity to be successful in the 

program—can’t guarantee results, but an opportunity to do that. 

And what I think I have heard you all say in one way or another 

is that through consolidation, you are going to lose the ability to 

do that, and that is a very important thing for locals to be able to 

evaluate. 

Is that correct? Did I miss that? And could you speak to that, 

whoever wants to? 

Mr. Van Kleunen? 

Mr. VAN KLEUNEN. Absolutely. I think by, again, by putting all 

of these programs together we have lost the ability to set standards 

and establish some accountability to make sure that all of those 

different types of workers are served. And so I think you are absolutely right. 

Strategically, it seems that there are a lot of ways that we could 

figure out some agreement across these two bills, but it is the fund-
96 

ing mechanism that is making it hard for us to figure out how it 

is that we can actually come up with a way that is going to guarantee that everybody who wants that opportunity can actually 

train for a job in their local community. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Ms. Harmsen, did you want to—— 

Ms. HARMSEN. Yes. And I agree, it is the funding mechanism. 

Because I think that we are all concerned about all of those populations that are in our local areas that need to be served. And so 

I think that we need to make sure that if we are—what we are consolidating is, again, the guidelines over how we are serving those 

different populations—— 

Mrs. DAVIS. Do you see, in the bill that we are addressing here 

today, then, do you see, particularly in 4297, do you see that—I 

mean, do you have questions about that? Because I think I have 

heard you say that on a number of occasions. Is that correct? 

Ms. HARMSEN. Yes. Because, well, obviously I don’t have that 

50,000-foot view of what is going on with all of the other programs 

that may be—because when I read the bill and it was saying that 

there were programs that were not performing, I don’t know that. 

I do know that—I don’t know which programs are non-performing 

or performing. I do know that WIA has been performing and that 

we have been partnering with those other programs already, so if 

there was something that was able to be put in place to ensure, so 

that, like we are saying, that each of those populations are still 

serve some mechanism that, however you are consolidating this, I 

still think it is that concept of the funding for workforce services. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Ms. Moran? 

Ms. MORAN. And I don’t have a magic number of how many programs do we consolidate, collaborate, integrate, whatever the magic 

word of the day is, but I do think it is critical that the programs 

come under the umbrella of the workforce investment boards so 

that we do have consolidated efforts in the work we are doing, so 

that we are not duplicating efforts, so that we are building upon 

the strengths of what we need to do—— 

Mrs. DAVIS. Could you tell me how you think that the bill—the 

other bill that we are talking about here today—Mr. Tierney and 

others’ bill—could you tell me how—why you think that doesn’t do 

that? 

Ms. MORAN. I am not saying that it doesn’t do that. What it does 

allow, and I think what both allow as they look at the programs, 

is keeping it under the umbrella of the workforce investment board 

so that we have a common plan, that we have common outcomes. 

And by looking at how we consolidate some of the programs or 

integrate, then I think we also look at how we make investments 

that have the greatest payback and return on investment for our 

local communities. So I do think it is important that we have outcomes that are consistent across the board and that we are administered through the workforce investment system. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Ms. Noble, would you like to comment, too? Where 

do you see the problem in trying to bring all this together? 

Ms. NOBLE. I think the problem is the lack of a required unified 

plan. You can have separate programs if they are all driving toward the same goal, and if they are not driving toward the same 

goal you have what you have now. 
97 

And it is not that individual programs are not performing, but 

they are not performing toward the same end. And the end is that 

you have jobs that are being filled by people who are acquiring 

skills. 

Senior programs, rehab programs, TANF programs, when we 

said—when the council said, we want you to focus on programs— 

your funding toward health services, or—because we had such a 

tremendous shortage, TANF training said, ‘‘We can do that through 

our contracted work. We didn’t consolidate.’’ WIBs took the same 

approach. They said, we can join together with other WIBs and 

other kinds of training entities. The rehab, in their plan of the 

year, could do the—the problem is that it is not mandated. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Can I just, really quickly—do you think we can do 

this but have far fewer resources to do it? 

Mrs. FOXX. Mrs. Davis, I am sorry. Your time is up so I can’t let 

you ask any more questions. Thank you. 

Mr. Hurt is recognized. 

Mr. HURT. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I want to thank you, and thank the committee, and thank the 

chairman for allowing me to be a part of this hearing today. I want 

to thank the patrons who have led on this issue and have the bills 

there before the committee. 

And I also wanted to thank the panel for joining us. 

I come from rural Southside Virginia. I represent the 5th district 

of Virginia, and of course, as one of our panelists in particular 

knows, we have really faced tremendous economic challenges in the 

southern part of our district in particular, but all across the 5th 

district. In fact, textiles, furniture, tobacco have been a mainstay 

for our rural district for centuries, and we have seen over the last 

10, 20 years how that economy has changed. 

Back in the 1950s, Dan River Mills, which is located—was located on the banks of the Dan River, employed 15,000 people. It 

was the second largest employer in Virginia after the shipyards in 

Newport News. Today Dan River Mills does not exist, and I think 

that that tells a very painful story for Southside Virginia, but it 

also tells a painful story for so many communities across our country. 

In fact, last week, or maybe earlier this week, we had unemployment numbers released for one of our localities in the 5th district 

and it was at 16 percent. So that is the challenge we face. That 

is the challenge that I think we are all trying to grapple with here, 

and workforce training is obviously critical to finding our way towards the future. 

I think it is also important to remember that as we struggle with 

these issues that we are borrowing 40 cents on every dollar we 

spend and that we are approaching a debt in this country of $16 

trillion, which is a tremendous drag on the economy and something 

that makes it more difficult for our private sector to perform. 

And so again, having an effort like this to really focus on those 

programs that work it seems to me is critical, because at the end 

of the day what we want is we want full employment in this country, and I think that we probably all agree that we want a balanced budget, and want to have the fiscal responsibility in Washington that has been lacking heretofore. 
98 

I am proud, especially, to be here—to be with Laurie Moran who 

is, as was indicated, is not only the chair of the National Association for Workforce Boards but also is our Danville Pittsylvania 

Chamber president back in—back home, and I think that her expertise on this issue is welcome. 

I guess my question would be maybe—and maybe Laurie could 

answer first and then anyone who would like to add—Laurie, I 

guess my question is, is when you look back on the last 15 years 

and how these programs have affected Southside Virginia in your 

experience, and as you, in a larger national position, are able to 

look across the country, can you talk about the—specifically how 

these programs save jobs—how do they save jobs, specifically, that 

are in the community, keep them from going other places, and how 

do we use—how have you all been able to use, as a chamber and 

as a workforce investment board—use these to attract new jobs, especially in an area where we have had to rebuild an economy and 

have had some measured success with advanced manufacturing, 

and the service sector, and so forth? 

Ms. MORAN. Certainly. And I would have to confess and tell you, 

I come from a region of the country that probably didn’t do a very 

well job—very good job when we first enacted WIA, and so it has 

been a learning curve for our region. But what we have seen in recent years is that our workforce board has placed the employer as 

the primary customer. We have focused on jobs that are in demand 

so we tie our training dollars to jobs that are in demand to make 

sure that people come out of training and get good employment in 

the community. 

We have implemented a business services component to the work 

that we are doing, and to help employers as well as—but especially 

employers to navigate through the many programs that are out 

there right now, because it is difficult and it is confusing, and 

about the 15th person who calls on an employer with a different 

type of program to offer to them, the employer throws their hands 

up in disgust because they no longer can understand it. 

So we have really tried to look at a collaborative model in our 

part of the commonwealth and in our part of the country to make 

sure that we are serving employers and that we are serving job 

seekers. And I think what we have today is a much more productive program and system that is helping job seekers and it is helping employers, and we are seeing measurable results as a result of 

that. 

Mrs. FOXX. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Hurt. 

Mr. HURT. [Off mic] 

Mrs. FOXX. Thank you very much. 

I want to thank, again, the witnesses for taking time—oh, I forgot Mr. Holt. 

I tried to give Mr. Tierney twice and then forget you. I apologize, 

Mr. Holt. 

Mr. HOLT. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

It is long past time that we reauthorize WIA, and it is a tragedy 

that this reauthorization process is becoming partisan. The bill we 

are considering today cuts away at WIA under the guise of improving it. 
99 

And some of you will remember that in 1998 the initial authorization of WIA was a model of bipartisan cooperation. I was not in 

Congress at the time but I was running. I was involved in a campaign as a candidate at that time and I followed the process closely, and remember eminent journalist David Broder wrote a column 

entitled, ‘‘A Leg Up for U.S. Workers,’’ which is exactly what WIA 

has become. 

He also noted that WIA was 5 years in the making and it only 

became law because of bipartisan efforts by members of Congress 

at the time. He reported Senator Wellstone and Senator DeWine, 

opposite sides of the aisle, leaving the floor together. Senator 

Wellstone turned to Senator DeWine and, according to Broder, 

said, ‘‘Mike, this may not lead—this may not be the lead story tonight on the network news but it is a good piece of work.’’ 

We should be modernizing WIA and here we are considering a— 

what is a partisan reauthorization bill. I really want to thank Representatives Tierney, and Hinojosa, and Miller for introducing a 

sensible and comprehensible WIA reauthorization bill. You would 

think we could agree on measuring performance of each kind of activity and program and each kind of worker and prospective worker, and we can’t even get that far. 

I want to mention two provisions in the Tierney bill that I am 

particularly interested in. A few years ago I introduced the Online 

Job Training Act to modernize WIA. It is based on a successful program at Rutgers that gave single mothers computers and Internet 

access, and people said, oh no, they will misuse it. They will play 

games. They will walk off with the computers. 

No. They were not being served by the traditional system and it 

worked. 

I also want to talk about another provision of the bill. You know, 

in this day and age our local libraries are job placement agencies. 

They are playing an important role in helping the public find employment. 

And I am pleased that Mr. Tierney’s bill includes portions of legislation that I have called Workforce Investment through Local Libraries, the WILL Act. And that is what I wanted to ask you about. 

Let me start with Mr. Van Kleunen. 

Do you know of WIA-sponsored organizations coordinating or 

working with libraries with regard to workforce activities? And 

then as time allows, let me ask the others, please. 

Mr. VAN KLEUNEN. So, yes. I mean, I think that one of the things 

that whatever we are doing in the future of WIA is that we need 

to figure out how to use community institutions that already are 

in existence whereby we are not forcing everybody to go down to 

one physical one-stop in order to be able to find out what jobs are 

available or what services are available to them. 

And I think that we have WIA systems throughout the country 

who are trying to do this with institutions like local libraries. I 

know in Philadelphia the library system is now playing a big, leading role in adult literacy services and trying to align that with 

what is going on with job training in the city. 

So I think it is an opportunity. I think it is kind of a lesson to 

a larger goal, which is trying to make sure that we are using our 
100 

existing community-based infrastructure as different entry points 

into our WIA system. 

Mr. HOLT. Ms. Harmsen? 

Ms. HARMSEN. Yes. We, in San Bernardino County, do work with 

our libraries. We also work with other areas. We work in some 

areas, because our county is so big—our county is larger than 

many States, and so we have to address the needs, when you look 

at our high desert area and our low desert, very, very different 

from the looks of our East Valley and West Valley. And so what 

we have done is gone into those communities, and in some areas 

we have brought in the technology into the chambers offices or into 

the—actually into the city hall, they have made an office—provided 

office space for us to be able to provide services to their—to customers who come in, both business and jobseeker. 

Mr. HOLT. Ms. Moran or Ms. Noble, could either of you give specifics of coordination with local libraries? 

Ms. NOBLE. Yes. Thank you, Congressman. 

The B-talk program was very successfully implemented in our 

state in that we focused that money to help rural areas get 

broadband. And because of that—and we specifically planned it so 

that the workforce community could deliver services through the libraries, because there are libraries all over the state. 

And before then our summer programs, for example, for our 

young people, it would take them 3 hours to go to a center to get 

the program, where by using the libraries and the infrastructure 

that was put in place we could do that. When we rolled out our 

OKJobMatch.com one of the first groups that we went to was to 

train librarians, and they applauded us because they had done 

their own survey and found that, as you said, a lot of time is being 

spent by librarians in helping people not to find a book but to find 

a job. 

Mr. HOLT. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mrs. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Holt. 

Well now let me say again, I would like to thank the witnesses 

for coming today, I know on behalf of the chairman and on behalf 

of the entire committee, for sharing your comments with us and enlightening all of us on issues that you are dealing with on a dayto-day basis. We really appreciate your making the effort to be here 

and sharing your wisdom and sharing your experiences, some of it 

for longer times than others, but we appreciate that. 

Mr. Tierney, I would like to recognize you for closing comments. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you very much. 

And my appreciation, also, to all of the witnesses here today. You 

really did help this panel consider a lot of topics, and your considerable wisdom and experience has been enormously helpful. 

You know, we should be able to emulate what we did in 1998, 

and that is reach a bipartisan bill on this. We all profess to have 

similar goals; we all understand that that bill, which was created 

back when unemployment was probably 5 percent or less and when 

many of the industries and technologies that we talk about today 

didn’t even exist, so there is certainly a need for modernization and 

a need for us to improve and take the lessons that have been 

learned over time. 
101 

You know, I can see some of the larger issues may be difficult 

to deal with but I don’t think they are insurmountable and I know 

that streamlining is important to some members, and my colleague 

to my left, in particular, but I think that also ensuring that all 

workers—that all workers, whether they are unskilled or lesser 

educated than others, or whether they are incumbent workers who 

need additional skills, or people that are very skilled that have 

been displaced, that all of them get the attention that they need 

in this bill. 

So I think that is a concern about making sure that everybody 

has access to education and training and that our boards both are 

informed because of local participation—I think everybody understands we want this to be a business-oriented and majority board, 

but that we also, I think, would hope that we could make some recognition that perhaps that goal of getting everybody served in the 

long run might not do as well unless we have representation of others on the board as well, whether those are community-based organizations, or labor, or others, and that we could put that focus on 

that and come to some resolve on that basis. 

We need to make sure not just for the immediate needs of employers, which are important, but also most of our employers understand, even though it may not be their most pressing issue, that 

we have to have the pipeline down the line ready, and that means 

with the great diversity that we have here that so many of you 

spoke about today, that even people that may not speak the language as well as we would like, that don’t have the skills that we 

want or whatever, they need attention and sometimes they need 

prioritization so that that pipeline of employees is there for us if 

we want to keep strong and keep competitive. 

And so that is why it is important to have the right representation on boards and to have the right protections in our law for the 

use of money to make sure that it gets placed where it needs to 

get placed to move those forward. 

I think that, you know, innovation is important, and in our bill 

we tried to make sure there was adequate attention to that, and 

we have done a lot of things in pilot programs and others over the 

time. Those best practices ought to be taken up to scale and our 

bills ought to be able to give attention to that and the flexibility 

to move in innovative ways so that we can move—do that. 

I also think that community colleges were mentioned by a number of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle with adequate emphasis. I think that that is a piece of work that ought to get good 

attention in this bill. The community colleges have a lot to offer 

and they can participate in great ways and create, both at the education level and in some respect with the training level, if we get 

everybody—employers, employees, community people working together with them on that. 

I see great potential here and I hope others do, as well. I think 

all of your comments today were leading us in that direction to 

show us that we can take either bill as a base and improve it with 

some aspects of the other, and that hopefully we will be able to find 

some way to do that. And again, I want to thank you for your comments and your information today. 

Thank you, Ms. Chairman. 
102 

Mrs. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Tierney. 

I appreciate all my colleagues for being here today and asking 

their questions, and again, doing their best to bring out information. I agree with you. I think that there are places where we can 

agree on what needs to be in the bill that we pass. The panel in 

particular has emphasized local control, flexibility, the need for setting standards, and the need for accountability. 

One of the things we are attempting to fix in this bill is the lack 

of standards, the lack of accountability that has existed in the past, 

and not only from the GAO report but in just looking at other reports that have been made on existing programs we see almost a 

total lack of accountability. The American people are really frustrated right now. They are seeing these reports about the GSA; 

they know that is only the tip of the iceberg; they know that there 

is tremendous waste in the federal government and they want to 

see their money being well spent. 

They are also frustrated and being unemployed, and being unemployed for long periods of time. We know we have at least 12 million unemployed Americans, and yet we have 3.5 million jobs that 

need to be filled, and they ought to be filled by well-educated 

Americans. They ought to help improve our economy. 

So how do we meet the need of the employers out there and also 

help those 12.5 million unemployed Americans get jobs? 

The government isn’t going to create the jobs. We can create an 

environment where the private sector can create jobs and we can 

improve existing programs—we can eliminate poorly run programs 

and improve the existing programs to help match, again, the unemployed Americans with where there are jobs. 

So I do think there are a lot of areas where we can agree. As 

a former community college president I am always glad to hear the 

community colleges being emphasized, and I think that we certainly should be utilizing them more. 

But I appreciate, again, all of you all for being here today and 

helping share your expertise, and I look forward to our having a 

markup on this bill and our—hopefully solving some problems and 

not just talking about them. I am a big believer in doing things, 

not just trying to do things. 

So thank you all very much for being here. 

I thank my colleagues, I thank Mr. Tierney, and the committee 

stands adjourned. 

[Additional submissions of Mrs. Foxx follow:] 

April 16, 2012. 

Hon. JOHN KLINE, Chairman; Hon. GEORGE MILLER, Ranking Member, 

Committee on Education & Workforce, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, 

DC 20515 

DEAR CHAIRMAN KLINE AND RANKING MEMBER MILLER: On behalf of Associated 

Builders and Contractors (ABC), a national association with 74 chapters representing 22,000 merit shop construction and construction-related firms, I am writing in regard to the full committee hearing on the Workforce Investment Improvement Act of 2012 (H.R. 4297). ABC supports this legislation because it will strengthen our nation’s workforce development system by creating a more streamlined approach that focuses on businesses’ hiring and training needs, which will increase 

employment opportunities. 

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of wage and salary jobs 

in the construction industry is expected to grow 19 percent through 2018, while all 

industries combined are expected to grow by 11 percent. ABC believes that one of 
103 

the keys to attracting new workers and retaining current craft professionals is flexible training programs. 

Specifically, H.R. 4297 will enable small businesses, which create more than 65 

percent of all new jobs in America, to continue developing training programs and 

career opportunities. By serving their communities through the local workforce investment boards that would be enhanced by this legislation, business leaders can 

become more involved in career development programs and serve as an authority 

on training, skills and job opportunities in their communities. 

Additionally, this legislation would eliminate current language in the Green Jobs 

Act included in the Workforce Investment Act. The current statutory language allows these training grants to be accessed by firms associated with a labor union, 

effectively barring contractors with employees that chose not to be associated with 

union training providers from accessing federal training dollars funded by their own 

taxes. This is grossly unfair to the 86 percent of employees in the construction industry who chose not to be affiliated with a labor organization. 

We appreciate your attention to this important matter, and urge immediate passage of the Workforce Investment Improvement Act of 2012. 

Sincerely, 

GEOFFREY BURR, 

Vice President, Federal Affairs. 

April 16, 2012. 

Hon. JOHN KLINE, 

U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515. 

Re: Support H.R. 4297, the Workforce Investment Improvement Act of 2012 

DEAR REPRESENTATIVE KLINE: On behalf of the Associated General Contractors of 

America (AGC), I would like to thank you for holding the hearing on H.R. 4297, the 

‘‘Workforce Investment Improvement Act of 2012,’’ which will help reform the nation’s job training system by strengthening employer engagement in state and local 

workforce decisions, as well as giving states and localities more flexibility. A strong 

and skilled workforce is vital to the nation’s economic recovery. 

AGC is the nation’s largest and most diverse trade association in the commercial 

construction industry. AGC’s 32,000 members include 7,000 general construction 

contractors, 12,000 specialty contractors, and 13,000 suppliers and service providers, 

in a nationwide network of 95 chapters. AGC represents both union and open-shop 

contractors in the building, highway, heavy industrial, and municipal utility sectors 

of the construction industry. 

The construction industry is made up of predominantly small employers. In the 

past, many employers in the industry have had trouble connecting with local workforce investment systems or workforce investment boards (WIBs) due to the structure of the boards and types of training offered locally. However, H.R. 4297 will 

strengthen the presence and participation of employers on WIBs, and this increased 

participation by employers will be a welcomed change to the construction industry. 

Local employers can ensure local job training will address workforce gaps and better 

fit local population needs. 

The construction industry has many unique workforce demands that differentiate 

it from other industries. Currently, the industry has the highest unemployment rate 

of any industry and continues to suffer depression-like conditions. As the economy 

recovers, baby boomers retire, and the construction industry sees a renewed need 

for a strong and skilled workforce, H.R. 4297 will be a step in the right direction 

to offer unemployed construction workers—as well as workers displaced from other 

industries and veterans—a vital path to the training necessary for them to become 

a part of the nation’s future economic well being. 

Sincerely, 

JEFFREY D. SHOAF, 

Senior Executive Director, Government Affairs. 

[Additional submission of Mr. Ross follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Dwayne Ingram, Chairman, 

Workforce Florida, Inc. Board of Directors 

Thank you for this opportunity on behalf of Workforce Florida Inc. and the State 

of Florida to provide comments on H.R. 4297, the Workforce Investment Improvement Act of 2012. 
104 

Workforce Florida is the statewide workforce investment board charged with developing strategies that help Floridians enter, remain and advance in the workforce 

while strengthening the state’s business climate. We are proud that Florida has 

been and continues to be a recognized leader in workforce development. To that end, 

we offer the following comments for consideration on the Workforce Investment Improvement Act of 2012. 

Funding for State-Level Activities 

Our primary concern is the proposed reduction in the Workforce Investment Act 

(WIA) State Set Aside/Governor’s Reserve funding. Historically, 15 percent of WIA 

funding has been available to Governors to pay the cost of state-level administration 

and to support state workforce innovation. These state set aside funds are essential 

to allowing Governors maximum flexibility to advance statewide workforce development and economic development priorities. 

We strongly recommend the House Education and the Workforce Committee consider leaving intact the flexible 15 percent state set aside for Governors to continue 

using in innovative ways. Consistent with federal WIA and Chapter 445, Florida 

Statutes, Workforce Florida’s Board of Directors has historically invested the 15 percent state set aside funds in: 

• customized projects that respond to both immediate and long-term employment 

and training needs as well as statewide economic development and strategic priorities; 

• incumbent worker training to ensure Florida businesses, especially small businesses, maintain a productive, well-trained and competitive workforce (Worth noting: state law requires that at least $2 million in WIA state set aside funds be used 

annually for the Incumbent Worker Training (IWT) Grant Program); 

• the development and operation of the Employ Florida Marketplace, Florida’s online, comprehensive job-matching and labor market information tool for job seekers 

and employers, which also serves as the case management information system for 

Florida’s workforce system; 

• programs targeting special populations who may need additional assistance to 

overcome barriers to employment; and 

• performance incentives for local workforce investment boards. 

• development of Employ Florida Banner Centers to support training in highwage 

As a demonstration of the success Florida has had with utilizing state set aside 

funds in innovative ways, some recent examples include: 

• industry sectors that help diversify Florida’s economy. In 2008, the International Economic Development Council (IEDC) presented Workforce Florida with 

an Excellence Award for partnership with educational institutions for the Banner 

Centers initiative; 

• Incumbent Worker Training grants, which are used to bolster skills upgrade 

training for full-time employees, thus improving business productivity and job retention; 

• the Employ Florida Healthcare Workforce Initiative, designed to help Floridians 

get back to work in a growing economic sector as well as to aid healthcare workers 

already employed by advancing their careers; and 

• specially developed initiatives to support the education and training of: 

–low-income and at-risk youth; 

–people seeking to transition from welfare to work; 

–those receiving unemployment compensation; and 

–those who remain unemployed after exhausting their unemployment benefits. 

If there is a change made to the current funding structure, we propose as an alternative to the significant and immediate reduction in state set aside funds from 

15 percent to 5percent, Florida proposes a ‘‘Hold Harmless’’ provision that would 

allow for a graduated implementation of the targeted reduction. This graduated reduction by a small percentage on an annual basis would enable states to make adjustments to statewide programs incrementally until arriving at the Committee’s 

proposed 5percent funding level after a few years. It will be extremely difficult, if 

not impossible, for state boards to continue to fund additional requirements within 

the bill at the 5 percent funding level. 

Strengthening Business Engagement in State and Local Workforce Decisions 

Florida supports the proposed change in state and local board structure that 

would require business leaders, including those representing in-demand industries, 

to make up a two-thirds majority on the boards. As Florida has demonstrated, private-sector leadership contributes greatly to our responsiveness to emerging needs 

and our strong emphasis on efficiency and accountability as well as our ongoing 
105 

focus on substantive alignment with economic development priorities. We believe a 

business-led focus provides strong alignment with the increased emphasis on employers and business services in other sections of the bill. 

Furthermore, Florida supports the proposed streamlining that would remove all 

federal requirements on board membership, with the exception of business and economic development representation and chief elected officials at the state level and 

business representation at the local level. Providing Governors and chief elected officials the authority to appoint the remaining one-third membership of boards will 

make the boards more manageable and ensure that the workforce system is demand-driven and focused on training individuals for the jobs of today and tomorrow. 

Florida supports the proposal within the bill to create regional approaches by 

eliminating grandfather clauses in current law that allow certain local areas to remain in place and by repealing automatic designations for areas with a population 

of 500,000 or more. We agree that Governors should have the authority to designate 

local workforce investment areas with consideration for existing labor market areas 

and economic development regions in order to end duplicative and overlapping service delivery areas. 

In conclusion, while Florida supports the proposed change in state and local board 

structure, Florida does not support the proposal to reduce funding for the Governor’s 

Reserve to support innovation. Reductions to state set aside funds risk stifling the 

innovation and action that have been a hallmark of the workforce system and could 

result in a solely federally driven workforce development system in lieu of the federal-state-local system that exists today. 

We look forward to our continuing collaboration to create an even more effective 

and efficient workforce system for America. Please contact the President of Workforce Florida, Chris Hart IV, if you have any questions regarding Florida’s initial 

comments on H.R. 4297. 

[Additional submission of Mr. Walberg follows:] 
106 
107 
108 
109 

[Additional submissions of Mr. Miller follow:] 

Prepared Statement of Richard T. Foltin, Esq., Director of National and 

Legislative Affairs, Office of Government and International Affairs, American Jewish Committee 

From its founding in 1906, the American Jewish Committee (AJC) has been a 

strong voice in support of fair and generous treatment of immigrants, participating 

actively in many of the major immigration debates of our time. AJC continues to 

reaffirm its commitment to fair and generous immigration policies, as fundamentally good for the United States and consistent with Jewish values. According to 

Jewish tradition, ‘‘strangers’’ are to be welcomed and valued, as we were once 

‘‘strangers in the land of Egypt.’’ The Torah tells us: ‘‘The strangers who sojourn 
110 

with you shall be to you as the natives among you, and you shall love them as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt’’ (Leviticus 19:33-34). 

As American Jews, we recall how our parents and grandparents made their way 

to this country seeking a better life, often arriving without speaking even a word 

of English. We know that the American Jewish community has prospered because 

of all that this country has offered us, which included programs that taught English 

and helped them to integrate, and that same opportunity should be available to new 

generations of immigrants as well. 

We support the Workforce Investment Act of 2012 (H.R.4227) because each day 

in our congregations, service programs, health-care facilities, and schools we witness 

the human consequences of the lack of investment in new Americans. As the 

English language learner (ELL) population continues to grow, it is critical that Congress support English language acquisition and integration. According to the Census 

Bureau, more than 19% of the population (54.8 million) speaks a language other 

than English at home. In spite of this fact, there continues to be one- to three-year 

waitlists for English literacy education in many areas. This legislation acknowledges 

that immigrants want to learn English, become citizens, and participate fully in 

their adopted country, but are frequently unable to do so because the programs they 

need are underfunded or non-existent. 

These new immigrants deserve the opportunity to succeed, regardless of the outcome of current immigration debates. We support policies and measures which 

honor our heritage as a country that welcomes immigrants. We must ensure that 

we continue to be a nation that embraces newcomers and facilitates their integration into our society as full and equal partners. That is why we urge you to support 

the provisions of the Workforce Investment Act that encourage adult English language education, which would go a long way to help with immigrant integration and 

bolstering America’s role as a leader in the competitive global economy. 

Thank you for considering our views on this matter. 

Prepared Statement of the Center for Law and Social Policy 

CHAIRMAN KLINE, REPRESENTATIVE MILLER AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE: 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony for the April 17th hearing. CLASP develops and advocates for policies at the federal, state and local levels 

that improve the lives of low income people. In particular, we focus on policies that 

strengthen families and create pathways to education and work. 

Our testimony for the record describes our serious concerns about many provisions in H.R. 4297, which was recently introduced by Rep. Foxx, Rep. Heck and Rep. 

McKeon. It includes the following two documents that are available on the CLASP 

website at www.clasp.org: 

1. Reauthorizing the Workforce Investment Act: The House Workforce Block Grant 

Bill Heads in the Wrong Direction 

http://www.clasp.org/admin/site/publications/files/Wrong-Direction-for-WIA.pdf 

2. Workforce Investment Act Reauthorization May Move Youth Development Field 

Back a Decade 

http://www.clasp.org/admin/site/publications/files/WIAYouthHR4297-Final.pdf 

Analysis of H.R. 4297 

To help advocates and stakeholders, CLASP has developed a set of criteria for 

evaluating this bill and other proposals that consolidate programs offering workforce 

services to low-income families and individuals. These criteria are informed by a review of the merits and problems of block grants, program consolidation and superwaivers. The six criteria for any such legislation are: 

• Does the stated purpose of the legislation include a vision and provide sufficient 

direction for improving outcomes for low-income adults and youth? 

• What is the likely impact on funding? 

• What is the likely impact on access to services for populations currently targeted for services? 

• Are there strong safeguards or incentives to focus appropriate services on those 

most in need? 

• Does it support the capacity needed to administer and deliver services? 

• Does it include data collection and accountability provisions designed to ensure 

equitable service provision and robust outcomes? 

In applying these criteria to H.R. 4297, CLASP finds that the bill fails on most 

counts. It consolidates programs targeting specific populations into a block grant, 

which is expected to serve all job seekers without providing adequate assurances 
111 

that individuals with employment challenges will receive suitable services. More 

specifically, 

1. It is likely to shift funding and services away from currently targeted populations and to weaken the capacity to serve them effectively. 

2. It limits the range of services needed to assist low-income individuals, low-wage 

workers, those with barriers and unemployed workers generally, instead of providing a more comprehensive set of services. 

3. It has inadequate safeguards or incentives to ensure that states and local areas 

improve outcomes for individuals with barriers to employment, although it strengthens some accountability provisions. 

H.R. 4297 is likely to shift funding and services away from currently targeted populations and weaken the capacity to serve them effectively. • Under the proposed Workforce Investment Fund, HR 4297 eliminates a separate youth funding stream for local areas and pits youth against other populations. 

A large proportion (about two-fifths) of the fund comes from funding streams currently dedicated to serving low-income and disadvantaged youth. Yet it caps funding 

for Statewide Youth Challenge Grants at 18 percent of the total amount allotted to 

a state rather than setting this as a floor. In practice, a governor could spend much 

less than 18 percent on youth programs. The statewide competition for these youth 

grants would put national programs based on established models into direct competition with local programs. Together, these changes are likely to weaken or potentially dismantle local programs that exited about 122,000 young people in PY 2010.1

• The new Statewide Youth Challenge Grants include no protections to prevent 

funding from shifting away from economically distressed communities toward other 

parts of the state. At the same time, the Workforce Investment Fund is likely to 

divert funding away from areas with large concentrations of disadvantaged adults 

because it drops this factor from the formula for distributing federal workforce dollars to states and within states. • The bill eliminates the current priority of service for low-income adults under 

the new Workforce Investment Fund, while allowing unlimited spending on incumbent workers regardless of income eligibility or barriers to employment. Trends observed under WIA are likely to accelerate if current programs are replaced by a 

broad block grant designed to serve a wide range of job seekers, including adults, 

dislocated workers, youth, older workers and others. Low-income adults now represent only about half of those receiving intensive or training services with adult 

employment and training funding. Elimination of the priority of service would further undercut access to services for the nearly 254,000 low-income adults who exited 

after receiving intensive or training services during PY 2010.2

• Creating Statewide Grants for Adults with Barriers to Employment is likely to 

weaken existing capacity to provide services by depriving programs of reliable funding and by pitting national programs against local programs and for-profit organizations. It is also likely to shift management responsibilities and administrative costs 

from the federal government to the states without increasing efficiency. States do 

not have, and would have to build from scratch, the administrative capacity to procure and oversee programs serving the individuals currently served by the national 

programs.3 It is difficult to envision that requiring states to administer multiple 

competitive grant programs would add to the efficiency or effectiveness of delivering 

comprehensive services to adults or youth with barriers. 

• Equally troubling is the inclusion of a form of super-waiver that allows states 

to consolidate funds from a list of mandatory and discretionary programs (including 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Trade Adjustment Assistance and Unemployment Insurance as well as Adult Education and Vocational Rehabilitation programs). These funds can be diverted from serving unemployed and low-income individuals targeted by those programs and added to the new block grant for states— 

to be used for a wide range of functions and services without respect to the original 

intent of Congress. 

Instead of providing a more comprehensive set of services, H.R. 4297 restricts the 

range of services needed to assist low-income individuals, low-wage workers, those 

with barriers and unemployed workers generally. 

• While the bill provides more options for delivering training, it eliminates the 

ability of local areas to provide supportive services, such as transportation and child 

care, and needs-related payments for low-income individuals and unemployed workers who need assistance while participating in services. Supportive services are critical to helping participants stay engaged with and complete education and training 

programs. 

• Elimination of supportive services limits rather than expands customer choice 

by making it more difficult for participants to engage in long-term programs or participate in services that are unavailable in the community. A study of the use of 
112 

Personal Reemployment Services Accounts during a U.S. Department of Labor demonstration found that dislocated workers, who had the choice of how to spend a fixed 

amount of money on a range of services, spent substantial funds on supportive services; in fact, in five of the seven sites, participants spent more on supportive services 

than on any other service.4

• The bill eliminates the 10 youth program elements authorized in WIA, including leadership development and adult mentoring, which are based on research and 

what is known about effective youth development. Elimination of this framework for 

youth services would diminish the appropriate capacity to serve youth, which is 

quite different from the service capacity typically available to adult participants 

through one-stop centers. 

• The bill reduces the voice in state and local governance of community organizations and stakeholders with expertise and interest in serving vulnerable populations. 

Although H.R. 4297 strengthens some accountability provisions in WIA, it lacks 

strong safeguards or incentives to require or encourage states and local areas to improve outcomes for vulnerable populations. 

• To its credit, the bill includes some improvements to performance accountability 

for workforce programs. These proposed changes include the introduction of shared 

measures for programs; the use of robust outcomes including longer-term employment and credential attainment; and, most important, a new requirement for adjusting state and local performance levels that should remove some disincentives for 

providing services to participants who are least job-ready. These provisions could be 

strengthened by including a wage-gains measure in addition to or in place of the 

proposed earnings measure. A wage-gains measure better captures successful earnings outcomes for welfare recipients and other low-income individuals who receive 

employment and training services.5

• The bill includes enhanced state and local planning requirements that ask for 

information on how the needs of low-income individuals and other populations are 

to be met. Yet such requirements are likely to prove hollow because the bill does 

not hold states and local areas accountable for achieving goals or meeting the needs 

identified in the plans. 

• Apart from the requirement to adjust performance levels, the bill lacks safeguards to prevent services from shifting from vulnerable populations to more jobready individuals with fewer barriers. Under the proposed framework of performance measures and reporting requirements, a state or local area could meet the 

benchmarks while serving few disadvantaged individuals and without improving 

outcomes for those with severe employment challenges. In a little-noticed but potentially significant change, the bill also requires the Secretary of Labor to reduce funding for states that fail to meet performance levels (and there is a corresponding requirement for governors to reduce local funding). By strengthening financial sanctions and removing performance incentives, the bill is likely to increase the pressure 

on states and local areas to meet negotiated levels in a way that may dilute or even 

counteract any benefit to be derived from adjusting performance levels. 

• The experience of implementing block grants suggests that tracking and measuring results are a major challenge.6 In a review of block grants begun during the 

1980s, the Government Accountability Office found that Congress received ‘‘limited 

information on program activities, services delivered and clients served’’ as a result 

of a reduction in reporting requirements.7 A more recent review found that, under 

the Program Assessment Rating Tool system previously used by the Office of Management and Budget, one-third of block grant programs were rated ‘‘results not 

demonstrated.’’ 8

• The experience of implementing WIA suggests that data collection and reporting are already problem areas. In a series of reports, GAO found that the diversity 

of local policies for registering and tracking participants made it difficult to obtain 

comparable and meaningful data.9 It is already difficult under WIA to track spending by level or type of service—that is, to determine precisely how WIA funds are 

being used at the state and local levels. Under a broad block grant it would be even 

more difficult to obtain good data and evaluate services provided to multiple populations. 

Conclusion 

As this analysis indicates, H.R. 4297 does not meet the criteria that CLASP has 

developed for evaluating workforce legislation. Of primary concern is the lack of 

strong safeguards to ensure that vulnerable populations receive services and that 

appropriate services reach those most in need. In fact, the bill proposes to eliminate 

an existing safeguard in WIA—the priority of service for low-income adults. This 
113 

provision is based on a long-standing principle shared by members on both sides of 

the aisle. 

Focusing public resources on disadvantaged individuals ensures that appropriate 

services go to those who need them and who are likely to benefit from them. It is 

also important to ensure that federal funds have maximum impact. In a tight budget environment, public resources should target those who are generally not the 

beneficiaries of education and training investments made by the private sector.10

As research shows, training and intensive services for participants, particularly 

for disadvantaged adults, are likely to pay off.11 Recent evaluations of WIA found 

that workforce services, particularly occupational training, increased employment 

and earnings for participants served with adult employment and training funds.12

As WIA reauthorization proceeds, policymakers should not ignore this evidence; 

rather, they should build on the capacity of the workforce system to improve outcomes for low-income adults, disconnected youth and individuals with barriers to 

employment. 

Analysis of H.R. 4279 through a Youth Advocacy Lens 

More than a decade ago, the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998 restructured the youth service delivery system in this country by enabling youth services 

organizations to provide more intensive services of longer duration; infuse the best 

of what was learned from research and practice into youth development programming; build the youth service delivery capacity in high-poverty communities; and, 

through youth councils, introduce more strategic and collaborative approaches to 

youth programming. As a result, during the last decade, many innovative practices 

and comprehensive interventions to meet the needs of low-income youth occurred 

within the local WIA system, through partnerships with education and other funding streams. The local workforce system enrolled nearly 250,000 low-income youth 

in 2011. Of the quarter million youth who exited WIA during 2010 and 2011, nearly 

two-thirds were minority youth, 45 percent were out of school, and 72 percent found 

employment or enrolled in postsecondary education or advanced training. Of those 

who were high school dropouts upon entry, 50 percent earned a high school diploma 

or GED.13

This is the time to be fortifying our local WIA youth delivery system and building 

on its strengths. The ongoing recession has been unforgiving for youth, and youth 

employment rates are at a 60-year low; fewer than one in five minority teens had 

a job at the height of last summer, and nearly half of youth in many of our poor 

and minority school districts are dropping out of school. For many low-income youth, 

WIA services are the only resources that provide a lifeline and an opportunity to 

get back on track, train for and get jobs, and earn wages. 

On March 29, 2012, Rep. Virginia Foxx, Rep. Joseph J. Heck, and Rep. Howard 

P. McKeon introduced the Workforce Investment Improvement Act of 2012 (H.R. 

4297), which, among other things, consolidates 27 federal employment and training 

programs into a single workforce investment fund, devolves more power and decision making to state and local workforce boards, eliminates many of the requirements and mandates that governed the now consolidated streams and increases the 

role of employers on state and local workforce boards. 

H.R. 4297, if enacted, would dissolve the local youth workforce and development 

system in the nation and its ability to respond to current and future education and 

employment challenges facing low-income youth. In short, the bill would result in 

a reduction of employment and training services for youth. 

In 2010, in anticipation of a WIA reauthorization, CLASP released a set of recommendations explaining how reauthorization could be a vehicle to create an even 

more robust youth delivery system to prepare low-income and disconnected youth 

for opportunities in a twenty-first century economy. Our recommendations focused 

on five areas of concern: 1) increasing the focus on dropouts and high-risk youth: 

2) strengthening the strategic role of youth councils and workforce boards; 3) building a comprehensive, integrated local youth delivery system; 4) removing from performance systems some disincentives to serving high-risk youth; and 5) increasing 

opportunities for youth to obtain work exposure. This paper analyzes the impact of 

the Workforce Investment Improvement Act of 2012 for youth services against the 

backdrop of these original recommendations. 

1. Increasing the Focus on Youth in High-Risk Categories 

Current WIA law provides a separate funding stream for youth activities and requires that a minimum of 30 percent of funds be expended on interventions directed 

to out-of-school youth without a high school diploma or those with a secondary 

school credential who have significant barriers to obtaining employment. The inclusion of this ‘‘set-aside’’ serves as a safeguard to ensure local areas plan and program 
114 

for youth with significant barriers. Even with these provisions, youth in high-risk 

categories, such as dropouts and offenders, are underserved by the WIA system. 

WIA reauthorization provides the opportunity to strengthen priorities for serving 

these disconnected youth, who have few other options to connect to pathways to 

labor market credentials. 

As it is currently drafted, however, H.R. 4297 moves in the opposite direction. The 

bill eliminates an estimated $2.6 billion of funding that was previously dedicated 

to serving the needs of low-income youth and consolidates it into the approximately 

$6 billion, adult-focused ‘‘Workforce Investment Fund.’’ Although the youth funding 

streams that were consolidated into this single fund account for 42 percent of the 

total fund amount, there is no language in the bill that requires expenditures for 

youth programming and no accountability measures that would ensure equitable 

and comprehensive services are provided to youth. While the bill does allow governors to set aside up to 18 percent of the fund for ‘‘Youth Challenge Grants,’’ this 

is at a governor’s discretion and, because many competing workforce priorities exist, 

governors might choose much reduced levels of service to youth instead. 

Current WIA law recognizes that the low-income youth population needs services 

and supports that are differentiated from those targeted to adult and dislocated 

worker groups. There is much to lose by consolidating the youth funds into the 

‘‘Workforce Investment Fund’’ and no value added. Simply folding youth into the 

broad pool of unemployed adults to be served by the ‘‘Workforce Investment Fund’’ 

ignores decades of practice, experience, and research about what works best to prepare youth for labor market success. 

Recommendation: Maintain a separate WIA youth funding stream that is allocated by formula to local areas to serve youth ages 16 to 24. Require that at least 

50 percent of those served with formula funding be in the high-risk category, to include dropouts along with homeless youth, young offenders, disabled youth, low-income pregnant and parenting teens, and youth in the foster care system. 

2. Strengthening the Role of Youth Councils and Workforce Boards as Focal Points 

for Strategic Coordination of Youth Service Activity 

H.R. 4297 would eliminate youth councils. The establishment of youth councils 

was a key component of the original WIA legislation, designed to bring strategic 

focus to youth programming in local areas around the country. In communities like 

Los Angeles, San Diego, Seattle, Hartford, Philadelphia, Boston, and many others, 

youth councils, in conjunction with workforce boards, work to bring stakeholders together and leverage resources from multiple sources and systems to support programming for vulnerable youth. This function should be encouraged, built upon, and 

expanded, rather than disabled. The elimination of youth councils would be a significant step backwards and result in the loss of expertise and leadership at the 

local level on behalf of youth. 

H.R. 4297 would also change requirements for local board membership by requiring a two-thirds business majority and removing requirements for representation on 

the board of other types of relevant stakeholders, including education entities, community-based organizations, and others with a record of working with disadvantaged populations, including youth. There is also no requirement that local boards 

develop a strategic youth plan. 

Together, these changes raise many concerns. The elimination of the strategic 

planning body, weak requirements relating to youth in the local plan, the limitation 

of participation of key stakeholders on local boards, and the lack of a floor for youth 

services in the ‘‘Workforce Investment Fund’’ together make it easier for states and 

local areas to retreat from investing in a youth population, which is more complicated to serve and whose interventions are much more costly. 

Recommendation: Reauthorization legislation should maintain youth councils or 

require an alternative entity—designated by local elected officials in consultation 

with the local Workforce Investment Board that assembles the stakeholders in the 

field of youth policy and practice, leadership from key education and youth-serving 

systems, employers, and youth—to advise on programs, strategies and cross-system 

alignment. Youth councils and workforce boards should be charged with identifying 

how vulnerable youth populations will be served in the local area and how WIA resources will work in conjunction with education, other funding streams, and youthserving systems to meet the needs of vulnerable youth populations. The current 

WIA statute is overly prescriptive about board membership, responsibilities, and authority. New language is needed in the reauthorization legislation to allow local 

areas the flexibility to configure youth council membership, roles, and responsibilities appropriate for their areas—as long as the council consists of experts and 

stakeholders in the local youth arena, including youth. 
115 

3. Building a Comprehensive, Integrated Local Youth Delivery System 

H.R. 4297 would eliminate the 10 youth program elements authorized in WIA. 

The required elements are based on research-driven youth development principles 

and support a comprehensive framework to serving youth, including integrated approaches that consist of blended education and basic skills instruction, career preparation, work exposure and work experience, leadership, mentoring opportunities, 

and strong case management, to deliver a variety of support services—such as mental and physical health services, transportation, financial support and housing assistance. The bill assumes existing one-stop centers will have the expertise, knowledge base, and capacity to serve youth. This is not likely, given the fact that under 

the current WIA system youth are not typically provided comprehensive services 

through the one-stop system. The elimination of both the youth program elements 

and the youth council would stifle a community’s ability to ensure the quality of 

youth program design or coordinate across systems to promote data sharing, quality 

improvement, and partnerships with other youth-serving systems—justice, child 

welfare, and education. 

As mentioned, H.R. 4297 does include a statewide ‘‘Youth Challenge Fund,’’ which 

is targeted to youth ages 16 to 24 and is designed to support five primary program 

activities: training and internships for out-of-school youth in high-demand industries; dropout recovery activities that lead to a secondary school credential; interventions specific to special youth populations, including foster care and homeless youth, 

court-involved youth, young parents, and youth with disabilities; contextualized 

learning strategies that link to postsecondary education opportunities and career 

pathways; and operating a residential center, such as Job Corps. The inclusion of 

a ‘‘Youth Challenge Fund’’ and the five program activities are laudable. The construction of this fund, however, is problematic for several reasons: (1) its 18 percent 

funding cap is less than current dedicated spending levels, and the amounts to be 

spent in this fund are at a governor’s discretion, which could jeopardize continuous 

and consistent funding for innovation; (2) there are no real requirements to target 

the most vulnerable youth, as this fund can serve any low-income youth ages 16 to 

24 without regard to education status or barriers; thus, college students and college 

graduates are also eligible, and no priority is assigned to youth with greater needs; 

and (3) the ‘‘Youth Challenge Fund’’ is the only funding stream made available to 

fund the national youth programs that were repealed by this legislation. The U.S. 

Department of Labor national youth programs, including YouthBuild and Job Corps, 

will only continue to be funded through the ‘‘Youth Challenge Fund’’ and at the discretion of the state. This pits local programs against national program models to 

compete for a very limited pool of dollars. 

Recommendation: Retain the existing 10 WIA youth program elements and include a ‘‘Youth Challenge Fund’’ that is not subject to a governor’s discretion for 

funding. Specifically: 

• Require local plans to identify the vulnerable youth populations that will be 

served, how the 10 program elements will be built into service delivery, and how 

WIA dollars will be used to leverage other resources, including education and other 

youth-serving systems, to provide more comprehensive programming for youth. 

• Eliminate the current funding mechanism for ‘‘Youth Challenge Grants’’ and establish a set funding stream for them. Strengthen the fund and direct funding to 

local, cross-system partnerships, led by existing youth councils or other appropriately designated entities, in high-poverty areas, and assign priority to youth in 

high-risk categories. 

4. Removing Disincentives to Serving High-Risk Youth that Currently Exist in the 

Performance System 

H.R. 4297 establishes a performance accountability system of core indicators 

which apply to the employment and training activities in the ‘‘Workforce Investment 

Fund,’’ adult education and literacy program authorized under Title II and much of 

the vocational and rehabilitation programs for individuals with disabilities authorized in Title I, and is presumably designed to assess outcomes for the entire workforce system. Yet, there are no specific performance measures established for youth 

within the ‘‘Workforce Investment Fund’’. This represents a stark departure from 

current law, which takes into account age-appropriate factors and includes measures for both older and younger youth. Instead, the bill includes youth-specific 

measures that only apply to the ‘‘Youth Challenge Fund’’. 

Both funds have six similar measures related to 1) entered employment rates 2) 

retaining employment 3) wage gains 4) credential attainment 5) interim academic 

progress, and 6) obtaining training related employment. The measures for the 

‘‘Youth Challenge Fund’’ allow entrance in unsubsidized employment and enrollment in education, training, or the military upon exit to count in the calculation of 
116 

the first two outcome measures. This is not the case for youth served in the ‘‘Workforce Investment Fund,’’ which only counts those individuals who obtain unsubsidized employment in the first two measures. Thus, local areas that use the ‘‘Workforce Investment Fund’’ to serve young dropouts and transition them to postsecondary education and training may experience a negative impact on their performance outcomes on the two entered employment measures. It also means that there 

will be different performance standards for youth across the various WIA funding 

streams, making it more difficult to integrate programming. 

Though H.R. 4297 presents deficits in terms of appropriately assessing youth outcomes within the larger ‘‘Workforce Investment Fund,’’ it does incorporate important 

changes that represent a step in the right direction and an improvement over current measures. The bill includes a measure of interim progress toward achieving a 

credential or employment. This is an important addition to the performance system 

because providing adequate interventions for out-of-school youth and those with limited basic skills may require longer and more intensive services. The bill also requires a governor to ensure that standards are adjusted to take into account differing economic factors of the local area and demographic characteristics of populations served. This is important because it helps remove disincentives to serving 

difficult populations. 

Recommendation: Draw from the existing youth performance measures incorporated in the ‘‘Youth Challenge Fund’’ and establish one set of youth performance 

measures to be administered across the various funds within the bill for youth ages 

16 to 24. It is recommended that further adjustments to these measures be added 

that take into account the challenges associated with the multiple barriers vulnerable youth can face, including being a high school dropout, teen parent, or criminal 

offender, living in foster care, or having limited English proficiency. 

5. Increasing Opportunities for Youth Work Exposure 

Youth have been hit particularly hard by the economic recession and slow job 

growth. The rate of joblessness in our low-income and minority communities is of 

great concern. The development of appropriate work skills and a work ethic is best 

learned through exposure to the workplace and consistent, progressive work experiences. At a time when youth employment is at a 60-year low, the role of the workforce system in brokering opportunities for youth work experiences, summer jobs, 

and internships should be paramount. WIA reauthorization should provide the 

mechanisms for local areas to provide low-income youth with access to summer jobs 

and year-round work experiences. When funding was made available through the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 for summer jobs, the local workforce system responded by putting over a quarter million youth to work, demonstrating that the capacity exists to implement quality efforts. Research studies 

have shown that early work experience correlates with labor market success and 

higher earnings.14 Thus, this type of investment would pay off in the long run in 

terms of a better equipped pool of new entrants into the workforce. 

Recommendation: Establish a separate funding stream for work experience and 

work exposure activities, including summer and year-round jobs, apprenticeships, 

internships, youth corps, transitional jobs, and on-the-job training to serve low-income youth ages 14 to 24. 

ENDNOTES

1Social Policy Research Associates, PY 2010 WIASRD Data Book, November 2011. 

2Social Policy Research Associates, PY 2010 WIASRD Data Book, November 2011. 

3Kenneth Finegold, Laura Wherry, and Stephanie Schardin, Block Grants: Historical Overview and Lessons Learned, The Urban Institute, April 2004, http://www.urban.org/ 

uploadedPDF/310991—A-63.pdf. This analysis suggests the difficulties of building new state capacity for administering services under a block grant. 4 Responses to Personal Reemployment Accounts (PRAs): Findings from the Demonstration 

States, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. and Coffey Consulting, LLC, 2008. 5 Evelyn Ganzglass, Recommendations on Performance Accountability in the Workforce Education and Training System, CLASP, 2010. http://www.clasp.org/admin/site/publications/ 

files/Workforce—Investment—Act—Recommendations—for—Shared—Accountability—System.pdf. 6Margy Waller, Block Grants: Flexibility vs. Stability in Social Services, Center on Children 

and Families Policy Brief #34, The Brookings Institution, December 2005, http:// 

www.brookings.edu/papers/2005/12welfare—waller.aspx. 7Government Accountability Office, Block Grants: Characteristics, Experience and Lessons 

Learned, Government Accountability Office, February 1995, http://www.gao.gov/products/ 

HEHS-95-74. 8 Congressional Research Service, Block Grants: Perspectives and Controversies, April 5, 2011. 
117 

9Government Accountability Office, Workforce Investment Act: Additional Actions Would Further Improve the Workforce System, June 28, 2007, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07- 

1051T. 10The Aspen Institute, Sector Strategies in Brief, Workforce Strategies Initiative, November 

2007. Employers tend to invest in training for more educated workers and are least likely to 

invest in those who earn low wages, have low education and skill levels or occupy entry-level 

positions. 11 Neil Ridley and Elizabeth Kenefick, Research Shows the Effectiveness of Workforce Programs: A Fresh Look at the Evidence, CLASP, May 2011, http://www.clasp.org/admin/site/ 

publications/files/workforce-effectiveness.pdf. 12 In a recent letter to Congress, seven researchers cited the evidence showing the value of 

workforce services to participants, especially disadvantaged adults. 13PY 2010 WIASRD Data Book (2011). Prepared by Social Policy Research Associates for the 

Office of Performance and Technology, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, http://www.doleta.gov/performance/results/pdf/py—2010—wiasrd—data— 

book.pdf 14Sum, Andrew, Joseph McLaughlin, and Ishwar Khatiwada. 2006. Still Young, Idle, and Jobless: The Continued Failure of the Nation’s Teens to Benefit from Renewed Job Growth. Boston: 

Center for Labor Market Studies, Northeastern University. 
118 
119 

[Additional submission of Ms. Harmsen follows:] 

Additional Submission for the Record From Ms. Harmsen 

Thank you for recognizing Local Workforce Investment Boards as a program that 

is instrumental in developing a comprehensive workforce development system. The 

San Bernardino County Workforce Investment Board believes in a workforce system 

that serves customers—businesses and job seekers alike—in an efficient manner 

that maximizes resources. 

In response to multiple questions relating to program consolidation asked by several Committee Members: 

The San Bernardino County Workforce Investment Board (WIB) fully supports the 

effort to create a solid, receptive workforce development system. We support that 

there is a need to address the shrinking availability of funding by creating an effec-
120 

tive, efficient workforce development system. We recognize that congress has the 

ability to view programs at a higher level and can identify under-performing workforce programs. We understand there may be a need for consolidating some of these 

programs in order to preserve resources and increase efficiency in providing workforce development activities. If consolidation of some programs needs to take place, 

it should be under the local WIBs. Local WIBs across the nation currently collaborate with other entities to serve special populations through contracted services. We 

recognize that different populations have different priorities, needs and skill sets. 

Through collaborative contracted services local WIBs provide needs assessment, career assessment, employability skills development, job training and job placement 

for special populations. With a private business majority, the WIBs also have knowledge of the skills needed by the local workforce and can effectively develop strategies to train individuals in those skills. Strong collaborations maximize funding and 

efficiency at the local level instead of relying on small, targeted national programs 

to accomplish this goal. Flexible performance standards to address special populations and the effective utilization of funding through collaboration enable communities to effectively respond to the job training needs of all job seekers. 

In response to various questions relating to the membership of Local Workforce 

Investment Boards by several Committee Members: 

Local flexibility is necessary to serve specific needs in a designated area. A strong 

majority of private business is a key component to the workforce development system because it enables the WIB to identify local demand occupations and local 

growth industry sectors. With a private business majority, the WIBs are able to 

identify skills needed by the local workforce and can effectively develop strategies 

to train individuals in those skills. Flexibility in determining membership will enable local officials to establish boards that are effective, efficient and representative 

of the entities and populations present in their local areas. To ensure that boards 

do not become homogenous, local WIBs should be able to demonstrate the process 

they used to determine their design. 

In response to various questions relating to national industry-recognized training 

certificates by several Committee Members: 

The San Bernardino County WIB agrees that industry-recognized certificates are 

important to ensuring that America has a well-trained workforce to support job 

growth. Our WIB helped establish a local Manufacturing Industry Council and a 

Transportation and Logistics Council. The WIB is also active as members of the 

Aviation Industry Council, the Healthcare Workforce Advisory Board, and the California Clean Energy Collaboration. These councils in turn connect to national industry organizations. We recognize that to be effective, local workforce development systems must actively develop and participate in these types of networks in order to 

develop nationally recognized certificates. 

In response to various questions relating to flexibility in utilizing community colleges and trade schools in workforce development system by several Committee 

Members: 

The San Bernardino County WIB fully supports local flexibility in using community colleges and trade schools. We recognize it is an effective and efficient utilization of our training funding. Recently, the WIB worked with a local community college to implement a training program for the region’s growing mining industry. The 

WIB and the Manufacturers Industry Council worked with two other community 

colleges to develop and implement an Electrical and Mechanical training program 

in Advanced Manufacturing to develop skill sets needed by local manufactures. The 

WIB also worked with a local vocational school to develop a work-based training 

program to provide skilled machinists for the manufacturing industry. This initiative was recognized in the January 2012 GAO Report. 

In response to various questions relating to adequate funding for a workforce development system by several Committee Members: 

The San Bernardino County WIB recognizes the reality of shrinking national resources and the importance of ensuring that public funds are utilized in the most 

effective and efficient manner. To this end, we believe that local control of workforce 

development programs through local Workforce Investment Boards is key in reducing administrative overhead, eliminating duplication of efforts and ensuring that 

training is tied to local business needs and employment opportunities. 

[Whereupon, at 12:27 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

Æ