The Most Influential Jobs Bill You’ve Never Heard Of

Could an overhaul of the Workforce Investment Act be a key to solving unemployment?

OAKLAND, CA - AUGUST 05: Job seeker Maurice Jones looks through job listings at Eastbay Works Oakland One-Stop Career Center August 5, 2010 in Oakland, California. U.S. jobless claims unexpectedly rose by 19,000 new claims for the week ending on July 31. 
Getty Images
Fawn Johnson
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Fawn Johnson
May 15, 2014, 5:01 p.m.

It’s the most in­flu­en­tial jobs bill you’ve nev­er heard of, and this sum­mer it might be up­dated for the first time in 14 years.

When the Work­force In­vest­ment Act was signed by Pres­id­ent Clin­ton in 1998, the idea was to con­sol­id­ate what had typ­ic­ally been sep­ar­ate state of­fices — the un­em­ploy­ment of­fice, the job-list­ings of­fice, the train­ing-ser­vices of­fice, some­times even the wel­fare of­fice — in­to One-Stop Ca­reer Cen­ters, in or­der to help more Amer­ic­ans con­nect with em­ploy­ers’ needs. But Con­gress has ig­nored the law since it went in­to ef­fect in 2000, and law­makers and ad­voc­ates say it badly needs a face-lift. Its fo­cus on short-term train­ing and rap­id ree­m­ploy­ment for laid-off work­ers is out­dated, ac­cord­ing to the Na­tion­al Skills Co­ali­tion, a job-train­ing ad­vocacy group.

The act grew out of a de­bate in the mid-1990s. After Clin­ton signed the wel­fare-re­form law that for the first time linked wel­fare be­ne­fits to jobs and train­ing, poli­cy­makers turned a crit­ic­al eye to­ward ex­ist­ing gov­ern­ment train­ing pro­grams and found them dis­con­nec­ted from the job mar­ket. The Work­force In­vest­ment Act sought to get busi­nesses more in­volved in the sys­tem. It also im­posed re­port­ing re­quire­ments on the One-Stop Ca­reer Cen­ters, man­dat­ing that they track em­ploy­ment out­comes for the people they served — but not wheth­er those re­ceiv­ing job train­ing were also tak­ing col­lege classes or pur­su­ing a cer­ti­fic­ate, for ex­ample. Thus, it pri­or­it­ized im­me­di­ate em­ploy­ment over in­vest­ments in long-term job-read­i­ness.

Con­gres­sion­al staffers say that the law’s em­phas­is on em­ploy­ment out­comes also para­dox­ic­ally made it harder for the One-Stop Ca­reer Cen­ters to provide ser­vices to the very people it was in­ten­ded to help, such as low-in­come youth, or adults who need re­medi­al school­work or help with child care. Dir­ect­ing a self-suf­fi­cient cli­ent to a job-list­ing kiosk, avail­able at all One-Stops is, after all, a more ef­fi­cient route to suc­cess than provid­ing in­di­vidu­al at­ten­tion or in­tens­ive job train­ing to a cli­ent who is es­pe­cially hard to em­ploy.

Law­makers want to clear up these prob­lems. Re­pub­lic­ans and Demo­crats in both the House and the Sen­ate want the new Work­force In­vest­ment Act to en­cour­age every One-Stop Ca­reer Cen­ter to of­fer more types of train­ing to more cli­ents. What’s more, both the House and Sen­ate bills say cli­ents should be get­ting some sort of de­gree or cer­ti­fic­ate, and that it’s OK if that pro­cess takes a few years. Un­der the pro­posed changes, that wouldn’t count against a One-Stop’s year-end tally of cli­ents and their em­ploy­ment out­comes.

There are dis­agree­ments between the two cham­bers. The House passed its ver­sion of the le­gis­la­tion last year along party lines, with only two Demo­crats vot­ing in fa­vor of it; Demo­crats say Re­pub­lic­ans gut­ted the law. A more bi­par­tis­an ef­fort passed the Sen­ate Health, Edu­ca­tion, Labor, and Pen­sions Com­mit­tee last sum­mer on an 18-3 vote. While the House bill com­bines 35 dif­fer­ent job-train­ing pro­grams in­to one and gives states money in the form of block grants, the Sen­ate ver­sion re­tains most of the ori­gin­al law’s pro­grams, con­sol­id­at­ing only five.

At first glance, dif­fer­ences seem ir­re­con­cil­able, but aides say the ne­go­ti­at­ors, in­clud­ing Sen. Patty Mur­ray, D-Wash., and Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., are ac­tu­ally pretty close on many thorny is­sues. They all ac­know­ledge that some of the cur­rent law’s 47 sep­ar­ate pro­grams will have to go. Many of the pro­grams are tailored to serve spe­cif­ic pop­u­la­tions — youth, laid-off work­ers, dis­abled job seekers, vet­er­ans — but the Gov­ern­ment Ac­count­ab­il­ity Of­fice says they are overly du­plic­at­ive. The fi­nal deal won’t con­sol­id­ate all the pro­grams in­to to a single block grant, but the two sides can meet in the middle, aides say.

If ne­go­ti­at­ors are able to reach a deal in the next sev­er­al weeks, their com­prom­ise could be on the Sen­ate floor some­time this sum­mer. With House mem­bers in­volved in the talks now, that agree­ment should, in the­ory, eas­ily pass the House.

It’s a tall or­der, but it’s not im­possible. Mur­ray has been work­ing on the bill and re­lated is­sues for years. Re­pub­lic­ans lately have been talk­ing about the need to up­date job-train­ing pro­grams. In Janu­ary, one of the ne­go­ti­at­ors, Sen. Lamar Al­ex­an­der, R-Tenn., said the Sen­ate should vote on a job-train­ing bill dur­ing the de­bate on un­em­ploy­ment be­ne­fits. House Speak­er John Boehner touted the House-passed job-train­ing bill last month in a weekly ra­dio ad­dress, chas­tising the Sen­ate for not tak­ing up the is­sue.

The ne­go­ti­at­ors are hop­ing to provide law­makers with something to vote on to back up their pub­lic state­ments. But it has to be just the right bill. Demo­crats will run in­to prob­lems if they go too far in curb­ing the in­di­vidu­al pro­grams. Ad­vocacy groups will not eas­ily let go of money set aside for spe­cif­ic groups of job-seekers, es­pe­cially when they don’t trust that the states will serve those people on their own.

The House bill is “totally un­ac­cept­able,” says Chan­elle Hardy, ex­ec­ut­ive dir­ect­or of the Na­tion­al Urb­an League’s Wash­ing­ton bur­eau. The Urb­an League sup­ports the Sen­ate ef­fort be­cause it dir­ects fed­er­al dol­lars to pro­grams that help young people who have dropped out of high school, or have been in­volved in the crim­in­al-justice sys­tem, get trained and find jobs.

That lan­guage isn’t in the House bill, which makes the le­gis­la­tion a non­starter for the Urb­an League. “A single work­force in­vest­ment fund block grant would totally un­der­mine and dis­mantle our na­tion’s work­force-de­vel­op­ment sys­tem’s re­sponse to the very pop­u­la­tion of adults and youth most in need of its ser­vices,” Hardy says.

Strong state­ments like that are go­ing to have to be tempered for a new law to make it to Pres­id­ent Obama’s desk. But if Re­pub­lic­ans and Demo­crats could agree on a budget, maybe they can do this too.

This art­icle is part of The Next Amer­ica pro­ject. 

What We're Following See More »
Trump Deposition Video Is Online
1 days ago

The video of Donald Trump's deposition in his case against restaurateur Jeffrey Zakarian is now live. Slate's Jim Newell and Josh Voorhees are live-blogging it while they watch.

Debate Commission Admits Issues with Trump’s Mic
1 days ago

The Commission on Presidential Debates put out a statement today that gives credence to Donald Trump's claims that he had a bad microphone on Monday night. "Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump's audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall," read the statement in its entirety.

Trump Deposition Video to Be Released
1 days ago

"A video of Donald Trump testifying under oath about his provocative rhetoric about Mexicans and other Latinos is set to go public" as soon as today. "Trump gave the testimony in June at a law office in Washington in connection with one of two lawsuits he filed last year after prominent chefs reacted to the controversy over his remarks by pulling out of plans to open restaurants at his new D.C. hotel. D.C. Superior Court Judge Brian Holeman said in an order issued Thursday evening that fears the testimony might show up in campaign commercials were no basis to keep the public from seeing the video."

Chicago Tribune Endorses Gary Johnson
1 days ago

No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."

USA Today Weighs in on Presidential Race for First Time Ever
1 days ago

"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."