Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

1 Requires appropriate representative of sex, racial, and ethnic minorities and geographic regions of State.
2 To be appointed jointly by SEA and Governor. Also to include membership of SAC for disadvantaged children.

NGA POLICY POSITION PASSED AT THE 1979 SUMMER MEETING IN LOUISVILLE, KY. YOUTH EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING PROGRAMS

At a time when the nationwide unemployment rate is 5.8 percent, the rate for young people is nearly three times as high and that for black youth is nearly six times as high. These figures indicate that youth employment problems must continue to be a special focus of a comprehensive broad-based employment and training system. It is in the best interest of both society and individual youth that early workforce experiences for young people be positive.

We believe that the legislative tools for improving the youth employment picture are predominantly in place; a key is Title IV of the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act. Certain basic administrative changes, however, must be made to make youth employment and training programs more effective and efficient.

Governors' statewide youth set-aside funds have proven a valuable tool for serving youth who might not otherwise be served. These funds have financed many innovative and experimental programs, and have included programs for youth under state supervision (physically handicapped, mentally retarded educable youth, emotionally troubled, and youth in foster homes, orphanages, or public shelters), programs providing labor market or occupational information, programs establishing cooperative arrangements between state and local institutions, expanded or experimental apprenticeship programs, and model employment and training programs. We support the continuation of these statewide youth services grants as a proven and effective means of serving the employment needs of youth. In considering any program that attempts to solve youth employment problems, it is impossible to ignore the issue of coordination of these programs with programs administered by Local Education Agencies (LEAS). During the demonstration period of the CETA youth programs, a number of problems of coordination have emerged and must be addressed. For example, differing planning and fund

ing cycles of LEAS and CETA have created a barrier to effective linkages, as has the lack of a stronger incentive for LEAs to participate in coordinated, integrated efforts.

To address these needs and a number of others that are relevant to creating an effective nationwide youth employment program, the National Governors' Association recommends that Congress consider the following issues during the reauthorization of the youth employment legislation:

1. Consolidation of programs.-In order to streamline and consolidate programs, all youth employment and training programs should be included under Title IV of CETA and, with the exception of the Job Corps and the Young Adult Conservation Corps, should be decategorized within that title. Youth programs should be forward funded and should have uniform eligibility criteria, such as age, family income, length of time of unemployment, and whether the youth are in school or out-of-school. Eligibility criteria must not serve as incentives to drop out of school. The Job Corps should remain as currently legislated, with continued emphasis on the residential component.

2. Youth conservation programs.-The current administration of youth conservation programs at the federal level is unnecessarily complex. The Young Adult Conservation Corps should be merged into the Youth Conservation Corps, with equitable funding among the states assured. The states should have the option to administe rthe programs. States' conservation program set-asides should be allocated to the Governors.

3. Statewide recruitment and referral systems.-Consistent with the National Governors' Association policy on the rewrite of the Wagner-Peyser Act that states are in a unique position to provide effective planning, administration, and coordination of employment-related programs, we recommend that responsibility for developing and coordinating a statewide, integrated system of recruitment, intake, and referral for all CETA youth programs be lodged with the Governors. This change, combined with uniform eligibility for programs and coordination of funding and planning cycles with other youth programs, should improve substantially the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of CETA youth programs.

4. Maintenance of effort.-The maintenance of effort requirement in serving youth under other titles of CETA should be repealed. The repeal would allow greater flexibility in serving both youth and other target groups and wouid eliminate potential conflicts under proposed welfare reform legislation.

5. Nontargeted funds.-Although the majority of youth programs should be targeted to low-income, disadvantaged youth, a percentage, such as 10 percent, of both regular youth funds and Governors' statewide funds should be available to serve youth of any income level. These funds should be as free of restrictions as possible to encourage experimental programs.

6. CETA/LEA linkage.-Because both the education system and CETA serve youth, linkages between the systems should be encouraged. It is imperative that the planning and funding cycles of CETA and the education system be coordinated. This can be accomplished most easily by forward funding CETA. Employment and training funds should continue to flow through CETA because CETA is a targeted program and education systems are designed to serve all youth. The focus of linked CETA and education funds should be to enhance such programs as school-to-work transition, school-based apprenticeships, and cooperative education.

7. Integrated grant applications.-Current federal administrative practices and procedures, particularly in the employment and training area, discourage integrated grant applications. When locally agreed-upon grant applications, such as CETA/LEA, meet certain minimum criteria, affected federal departments, at both the national and regional levels, should allow localities maximum flexibility to carry out the program.

8. Private sector initiatives program.-Sufficient linkages between the Title VII Private Sector Initiatives Program (PSIP) and CETA youth programs exist in the current law, but PSIP has not been in place long enough to assess the implementation of these mechanisms.

9. Secretary's discretionary funds.-We support the continued use of the secretary's discretionary funds to carry out national research efforts, especially in such areas as wage subsidies or other incentives to hire youth, and improvement of program performance measures.

Public service employment jobs should be distributed equitably within a local area to units of government based on each unit's pro-rata share of the public workforce.

The Department of Labor should undertake an intensive evaluation of the management information systems currently used in all federally funded employment and training programs. This assessment is necessary to ensure that appropriate data are being collected to meet congressional evaluation needs; to ensure commonality of key data definitions among the various programs; and to ensure that data generated from management information systems are available on a continuous basis at the state level to facilitate effective programs monitoring, review, and self-evaluation.

Consortium arrangements should be approved by the federal government after review and approval by the Governor. This measure is necessary to ensure that such arrangements are compatible with interstate labor markets and accepted substate delivery mechanisms.

The implementation of the new private sector initiative program throughout the country should be closely coordinated with Governors to ensure that designated program areas encompass labor market areas. This is particularly critical in local labor markets that contain multiple prime sponsors. The success of the program will be highly dependent upon the ability to provide services within an entire labor market area, irrespective of local prime sponsor jurisdictional boundaries.

STATEMENT OF JOAN WILLS, DIRECTOR, EMPLOYMENT AND VOCATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM, NATIONAL GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION, AND RICHARD IVES, REPRESENTING GOVERNOR TEASDALE OF MISSOURI AND THE EMPLOYMENT TRAINING SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION

Mr. IVES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee for the opportunity to be with you today. I am Richard Ives, director, Division of Manpower Planning in the State of Missouri.

In that capacity, I have responsibility for administering the full range of CETA programs for the State. This includes the balance of State programs, the Governor's special grant, and one of the 15 welfare reform projects.

I serve at the pleasure of Governor Teasdale who is the chair of the NGA's employment subcommittee. I chair the staff advisory group of that group composed of gubernatorial designees from 30 States.

I would like to add that the Governor asked me to indicate to the committee that he appreciated the opportunity of testifying; however, the gubernatorial race has started in Missouri, and the Lieutenant Governor is of the opposite party. He has indicated that if the Governor leaves the State, he will make some changes in a number of appointees. [Laughter.]

So, 1 week ago the Governor was quoted in the St. Louis Post Dispatch as being a captive in the State. He does apologize for not being able to be here today, but he does appreciate the opportunity.

Mr. JEFFORDS. It sounds like a story I have heard in California. [Laughter.]

MS. WILLS. We call it "Lieutenant Governor Fever."

Mr. Ives. With me today is Joan Wills, staff person from the NGA, responsible for working with the committee as well as with the education subcommittee. After I finish my remarks, Ms. Wills will take a few moments to respond to the request in your letter, Mr. Chairman, regarding an evaluation of existing youth programs and what we think such existing evaluations mean for the future.

I would like to summarize and highlight the written testimony which we have submitted.

First, the National Governors Association does support the consolidation of the three categorical grants. Second, the National Governors Association supports the concept of special incentives grants which will be administered through the prime sponsors.

However, we have three reservations which we would like to note. First, in the written testimony, we point out that at a minimum, we would like the Secretary of Labor to announce the priorities for the coming fiscal year by May 15.

Even with a May 15 date, this would create some problems in the State of Missouri. We have, at the present time, 18 substate regional manpower advisory councils which consist of half elected local officials, the other half being designees from veterans, participants in the program.

We actually start a planning process in the beginning the coming fiscal year in January of each year. The local regional advisory councils then put together a substate plan which we use in submitting the State plan to the Department of Labor.

We then have to adhere to all the State requirements regarding contracting. What I am trying to get at is it is a complicated system.

We have to live within what the Department of Labor mandates. What is mandated by State law. So, even with a May 15th announcement, we would be hard pressed to put together an application for funds and have it in place by October 1.

The second reservation is that we felt priorities in the special incentives grant would have to be longer than 12 months. We found in the Governor's special grants program that it takes a minimum of 2 years to get a program off the ground-then it takes a third year to get it to be really effective.

Third, we support the concept that the Governor's special grants program is an applicant for special incentives grants. The NGÃ does not, at this point, support the concept of a totally separate national pot for the educational cooperative incentive grants prgram. We would like to see them treated the same as the current 22 percent set aside.

Fourth, the NGA supports flexibility in the development of performance standards. Missouri, at this point, is one of 37 States which had some sort of statewide performance standards. The program is just about 2 years old and we are just beginning to collect information on what it means. We would like to see some flexibility in the legislation.

Fifth, the National Governors Association supports the special set aside for Governors programs funding special innovative programs statewide.

In the State of Missouri, we are using almost $1 million to fund 15 youth projects, all within the inner cities of either St. Louis, Kansas City, and St. Joseph.

Many of these programs have been successful. Also, using some of the moneys to begin setting up the State occupational information. coordinating committee.

It is a belief of the Governor that young people can make a decision about what careers they should take if they are given solid information as to what the average wage rate is going to be for a job which they are trying for and the number of openings which are going to be held.

Six, the National Governors Association supports the concept of forward funding.

Seven, the National Governors Association supports the concept of citizen advisory councils. However, I have a personal reservation about this in terms of what my responsibilities are.

Last week-last week I was called before the State senate to testify on what the current four mandated advisory councils do, the balance of the State, the State employment training council, the pick council, and the youth council.

My reading of the legislation reads that we would have a fifth council. At the present time, the four councils cost the division of manpower planning $54,000 a year to administer. It takes 80 person/days a year to staff those councils.

It is getting to the point where it is becoming a burden to staff to operate the councils correctly to where they are going to have an effective role in setting policy for the various programs that we operate.

Finally, in regard to title VII, the NGA has no major problems with the proposed reauthorization. In the State of Missouri, at the present time, we already have representatives of the economic development districts on the Governor's balance of State council.

Approximately half the State of Missouri is economic development

districts.

In conclusion, we feel that the bills that we were asked to review are a step in the right direction. At this point, I would like to turn the presentation over to Joan, who will respond to some of the specific comments that you asked for.

MS. WILLS. Mr. Chairman, we took a slightly different tack when we realized that we were to-being asked by this committee which is somewhat unusual, to evaluate past performance to project the future, which is a very legitimate request.

In the review of the proposed legislative proposals before you, it seems to me, that we can separate those out into some broad categories. First there are three of those proposals that in one fashion or another build upon the concept of entitlement and demonstration programs that have been available to us for the last 3 years.

Another kind of thrust of one of those bills, at least, is raising the question of subminimum wage and what rates we should sponsor— finance wages.

Then, of course, all of them deal with separate different kinds of administrative mechanisms. Let me first speak to the concept of entitlement.

My comments must be regarded as pragmatic and not reflective of ultimate appropriate public policy. Indeed, our association was one of the first to apply the idea, so we are not in opposition.

However, as you are aware, our association has been a very active supporter of at least some kind of incremental movement to rationalize our welfare systems. We believe, if there is going to be a program embracing the concept of entitlement, that it should first, then, focus on the poorest of the poor.

There is another driving reason behind that kind of recommendation. One, when one reviews the evaluation of the entitlement projects today, in terms of the entitlement areas, one of the, quite frankly, disturbing problems is that they have not been able to reach in any

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »