Employers’ Role in State Job-Training Programs Will Grow

In a rare bipartisan victory, the Senate just overwhelmingly approved a new approach to workforce investment for new economic times.

Sens. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., and Patty Murray, D-Wash., talk to reporters before the Senate vote on the Workforce Investment and Opportunity Act, a job training law. The bill passed 
National Journal
Fawn Johnson
Add to Briefcase
Fawn Johnson
June 25, 2014, 1:21 p.m.

It’s a small change, but one that could greatly in­crease the in­flu­ence of busi­nesses with their loc­al gov­ern­ments when it comes to job cre­ation. A job-train­ing bill that passed the Sen­ate on Wed­nes­day, 95-3, sig­ni­fic­antly bol­sters em­ploy­ers’ voices on loc­al com­mit­tees that de­term­ine what types of job-train­ing pro­grams re­ceive fed­er­al dol­lars. It does that primar­ily by shrink­ing these com­mit­tees to less than half their cur­rent size.

Gone are the cur­rently re­quired slots for labor of­fi­cials, state le­gis­lature mem­bers, and rep­res­ent­at­ives of “eco­nom­ic agen­cies.” In their place, the le­gis­la­tion des­ig­nates spots for com­munity-based or­gan­iz­a­tions, joint labor-man­age­ment pro­grams, and em­ploy­ment agen­cies. It also al­lows for a lot of flex­ib­il­ity. One board might have a com­munity-cen­ter lead­er as a mem­ber, and an­oth­er might have a loc­al uni­on of­fi­cial in the same spot. Even the gov­ernor’s mem­ber­ship is op­tion­al.

The most im­port­ant thing about these Work­force In­vest­ment Boards is that they must be made up of a ma­jor­ity of busi­ness lead­ers. That’s no dif­fer­ent from the cur­rent law, but the trimmed-down boards mean that the em­ploy­er rep­res­ent­at­ives might ac­tu­ally get to use their mem­ber­ship for something oth­er than com­munity ser­vice. Right now, some board mem­bers com­plain that they do noth­ing but at­tend meet­ings. The boards are so bloated that they are “un­wieldy and can’t work,” ac­cord­ing to Sen. Johnny Isak­son, R-Ga., a chief spon­sor of the bill.

The meas­ure is an im­press­ive over­haul of bur­eau­crat­ic red tape that may help en­sure that people who need help trans­ition­ing in­to a 21st-cen­tury work­force are train­ing for jobs that em­ploy­ers ac­tu­ally need. It has be­nefited from wide bi­par­tis­an sup­port, with Re­pub­lic­ans and Demo­crats alike agree­ing that get­ting more people in­to the skilled jobs is the most im­port­ant factor in the coun­try’s eco­nom­ic de­vel­op­ment. Do­ing so re­duces un­em­ploy­ment and gives busi­nesses work­ers with spe­cif­ic skill sets. 

The bill up­dates the 1998 Work­force In­vest­ment Act, which has been ig­nored al­most since its birth. It set up loc­al “one-stop cen­ters” where job seekers can find all of the gov­ern­ment em­ploy­ment sup­ports — job list­ings, train­ing op­tions, and un­em­ploy­ment in­sur­ance — in one loc­a­tion. The ori­gin­al meas­ure was signed by Pres­id­ent Clin­ton. But it was Pres­id­ent Bush’s ad­min­is­tra­tion that was re­spons­ible for im­ple­ment­ing it, and that was nev­er a high pri­or­ity. By 2008, the eco­nomy had changed so much since the In­ter­net boom in which the law was ori­gin­ally passed that the stat­ute was a near-ana­chron­ism. 

With Sen­ate pas­sage, House lead­ers are ex­pec­ted to fol­low suit shortly. Pres­id­ent Obama has in­dic­ated he will sign the bill.

Once the over­haul be­comes law, the Work­force In­vest­ment Act will be a trimmed-down, more busi­ness-ori­ented ver­sion of the ori­gin­al. It in­cludes new, uni­ver­sal per­form­ance met­rics that will al­low gov­ernors to de­term­ine what’s work­ing and what isn’t. Some train­ing pro­grams will get ex­tra money for demon­strat­ing suc­cess — i.e., that their cli­ents are gain­fully em­ployed after a year or two.

The re­write is a product of in­tense talks over the last sev­er­al months among the chief edu­ca­tion gurus on Cap­it­ol Hill. Sen. Patty Mur­ray, D-Wash., has been work­ing on an over­haul for years, but her pre­vi­ous ver­sions have done noth­ing but gath­er dust. Earli­er this year, she was presen­ted with a nar­row op­por­tun­ity to ac­tu­ally pass something (a rar­ity in the Sen­ate these days) when Sen­ate Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Harry Re­id told Demo­crat­ic spon­sors that he would give the bill floor time in the sum­mer if they could come to an agree­ment with Re­pub­lic­ans on le­gis­la­tion that would also pass the House. Re­id’s goal was that the bill would pass on the Sen­ate floor by “un­an­im­ous con­sent” — without op­pos­i­tion.

“In the middle of the night, by U.C., that’s what we’re hop­ing for,” Mur­ray joked as law­makers were near­ing agree­ment. (It didn’t quite hap­pen that way, but it was close. The de­bate star­ted at noon and fi­nal pas­sage oc­curred around 3:30 p.m.)

Con­veni­ently, Isak­son’s of­fice is right next to Mur­ray’s in the Rus­sell Sen­ate Of­fice Build­ing. He and Mur­ray spent hours hash­ing out the bill’s de­tails and then tak­ing their product to their re­spect­ive parties. Their House coun­ter­parts were in on every con­ver­sa­tion, in keep­ing with Re­id’s re­quest.

The House Re­pub­lic­an job-train­ing bill that passed last year drew loud protests from Demo­crats be­cause it would have con­sol­id­ated most of the cur­rent train­ing pro­grams in­to a state block grant. There was no chance of that bill com­ing to the Sen­ate floor, even though it ac­cur­ately re­flec­ted the pref­er­ences of most Re­pub­lic­ans. Still, House Edu­ca­tion and the Work­force Com­mit­tee Chair­man John Kline, R-Minn., in­dic­ated he was open to less drastic changes.

With Re­id’s dead­line in mind, these parties even­tu­ally came to a com­prom­ise. They cut 15 pro­grams in­stead of the 35 ori­gin­ally re­ques­ted by House Re­pub­lic­ans. The state work­force boards shrank from 61 re­quired mem­bers to 33. The loc­al boards went from 51 mem­bers to 19. Youth coun­cils, a con­fus­ing sub­set of the loc­al boards, were elim­in­ated.

The “core in­dic­at­ors” that are sup­posed to sig­nal suc­cess of a train­ing pro­gram will be­come uni­ver­sal when the bill is signed in­to law. Cur­rently, there are dif­fer­ent out­come meas­ures for each type of train­ee. Suc­cess­ful aid to a laid-off work­er is defined dif­fer­ently than suc­cess­ful aid to a young poor per­son look­ing for his or her first job. The pa­per­work is over­whelm­ing. The data is a mess.

Not every­one is happy, even though law­makers from both parties ac­know­ledged the sig­ni­fic­ant ac­com­plish­ment in reach­ing a bi­par­tis­an agree­ment. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., lamen­ted on the Sen­ate floor that Job Corps, one of the law’s most ex­pens­ive train­ing pro­grams for young people, is largely un­touched.

Crit­ics say Job Corps doesn’t have a great track re­cord for its $1.7 bil­lion price tag. Many train­ees don’t com­plete the pro­gram, and many who do don’t find work in the field for which they were trained. House Re­pub­lic­ans pro­posed a ma­jor over­haul to Job Corps that would have capped the mon­et­ary al­lot­ment and re­quired all grantees to re­apply for fund­ing when their grants ran out. Yet those changes aren’t in the bill now.

“When you ask be­hind the scenes why we didn’t have ma­jor re­form to Job Corps, it’s be­cause of all the pa­ro­chi­al people they em­ploy,” Coburn said. “Most of the Job Corps pro­grams in Ok­lahoma are highly in­ef­fi­cient, fail­ing to do what we want them to do.”

But even Coburn un­der­stands that Job Corps is too im­port­ant polit­ic­ally for Demo­crats to make ma­jor changes. Isak­son said he spent a lot of time with Re­pub­lic­ans and his col­leagues in the states ex­plain­ing that his deal with Demo­crats had too many im­prove­ments over cur­rent law to hold up over the de­sire to do more.

“They asked me, ‘Did you get everything you wanted?’ No. Of course not. ‘Did you get enough?’ Well, we got plenty,” Isak­son said.

What We're Following See More »
TWO MONTHS AFTER REFUSING AT CONVENTION
Cruz to Back Trump
1 days ago
THE LATEST
WHO TO BELIEVE?
Two Polls for Clinton, One for Trump
1 days ago
THE LATEST

With three days until the first debate, the polls are coming fast and furious. The latest round:

  • An Associated Press/Gfk poll of registered voters found very few voters committed, with Clin­ton lead­ing Trump, 37% to 29%, and Gary John­son at 7%.
  • A Mc­Clatchy-Mar­ist poll gave Clin­ton a six-point edge, 45% to 39%, in a four-way bal­lot test. Johnson pulls 10% support, with Jill Stein at 4%.
  • Rasmussen, which has drawn criticism for continually showing Donald Trump doing much better than he does in other polls, is at it again. A new survey gives Trump a five-point lead, 44%-39%.
NO SURPRISE
Trump Eschewing Briefing Materials in Debate Prep
1 days ago
THE DETAILS

In contrast to Hillary Clinton's meticulous debate practice sessions, Donald Trump "is largely shun­ning tra­di­tion­al de­bate pre­par­a­tions, but has been watch­ing video of…Clin­ton’s best and worst de­bate mo­ments, look­ing for her vul­ner­ab­il­it­ies.” Trump “has paid only curs­ory at­ten­tion to brief­ing ma­ter­i­als. He has re­fused to use lecterns in mock de­bate ses­sions des­pite the ur­ging of his ad­visers. He prefers spit­balling ideas with his team rather than hon­ing them in­to crisp, two-minute an­swers.”

Source:
TRUMP NO HABLA ESPANOL
Trump Makes No Outreach to Spanish Speakers
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Donald Trump "is on the precipice of becoming the only major-party presidential candidate this century not to reach out to millions of American voters whose dominant, first or just preferred language is Spanish. Trump has not only failed to buy any Spanish-language television or radio ads, he so far has avoided even offering a translation of his website into Spanish, breaking with two decades of bipartisan tradition."

Source:
$1.16 MILLION
Clintons Buy the House Next Door in Chappaqua
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Bill and Hillary Clinton have purchased the home next door to their primary residence in tony Chappaqua, New York, for $1.16 million. "By purchasing the new home, the Clinton's now own the entire cul-de-sac at the end of the road in the leafy New York suburb. The purchase makes it easier for the United States Secret Service to protect the former president and possible future commander in chief."

Source:
×