DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 312 394 CE 053 464

TITLE Working Capital: JTPA In.,7.1ents for the 90's. AReport of the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA)Advisory Committee.

INSTITUTION Department of Labor, Washington, D.C.PUB DATE Mar 89NOTE 40p.

PUB TYPE Viewpoints (120)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Adolescents; Adults; Basic Skills; *Disadvantaged;

Employment Patterns; *Employment Programs; FederalLegislation; *Federal Programs; *Futures (ofSociety); *Job Training; Labor Force Development;*Program Improvement; Skill Development; YoungAdults

IDENTIFIERS *Job Training Partnership Act 1982

ABSTRACTA 38-member Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA)

advisory committee was commissioned by the U.S. Department of Laborto review the country's employment and training policy, especially asfocused in the JTPA, and to make recommendations for improvement. Thecommittee found that two interdependent problems face the UnitedStates: a widening gap between the skills of the work force and thechanging requirements of the economy and an opportunity to offergainful employment to all citizens. specially those who formerlywere marginally employed or on welfare. It also found that JTPA hasstrengths that should be retained, such as the public-privatepartnership, the pivotal role of the states in JTPA management, and alocal system accountable co the public. However, it also found areasin which the JTPA could be strengthened and proposed 28recommendations to that end. Of these, seven major proposals wereadvanced, concerning (1) targeting programs more directly ondisadvantaged persons with serious skills deficiencies; (2)individualizing services; (3) consolidating youth services andincreasing funding; (4) redesigning outcome measures to reflect thegoal of long-term economic self-sufficiency for participants; (5)relaxing program constraints to increase the responsiveness of thesystem, especially to clients with serious employment barriers; (6)improving staff training; and (7) creating public-privatepartnerships between JTPA and other resource programs. (KC)

**************************************************************X********Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made

from the original document.*******************:t***x*****x***************x*************************

JTPA ADVISORYCOMMITTEE

Marion Pines, ChairSenior FellowInstitute for Policy StudiesThe Johns Hopkins UniversityBaltimore, Maryland

Ann AbelDirectorVertnilion County Job Training

PartnershipDanville, Illinois

Gordon AmbachExecutive DirectorCouncil of Chief State School OfficersWashington, D.C.

Vincent AustinDirector of Employ ment and TrainingThe National Urban LeagueNew York, New York

Robert BellPresidentRobert Bell & AssociatesSt. Louis, Missouri

Joan CriggerDirector of Employment and TrainingU.S. Conference of MayorsWashington, D.C.

Ronald DrachNational Employment DirectorDisabled American VeteransWashington, D.C.

Richard G. FreemanPresident, Interstate Conference of

Employment Security AgenciesDes Moines, Iowa

Perry GainesDirector of Customer SupportMilliken & CompanySpartanburg, South Carolina

Evelyn GanzglassDirectorTraining and Employment ProgramsNational Governors' AssociationWashington, D.C.

Judith GucronPresidentManpower Development Research

CorporationNew York, New York

Martin JensenExecutive DirectorNational Job Training Partnership. Inc,Washington, D.C.

Elton JollyPresident and CEOOICs of AmericaPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania

Jack KlepingcrGeneral ManagerWells Cargo, Inc.Ogden, Utah

Robert KnightPresidentNational Association of Private industry

CounciisWashington, D.C.

William KolbergPresidentNational Alliance of Business.Washington, D.C.

Frank W. KrauscrPresidentKrauser & Myatt InternationalMiami, Florida

Jose Gabriel LoyolaState JTPA AdministratorDepartment of Economic SecurityPhoenix, Arizona

Cynthia MaranoExecutie DirectorWider Opportunities for WomenWashington, D.C.

Michael G. McMillanExecutive DirectorHuman Resources Development

Institute, AFL-CIOWashington, D.C.

Jerald T. McNeilDirector, Training and Employment

ProgramsNational Association of CountiesWashington, D.0

Jean MerrittFormer CommissionerIndiana Department of Human SemmesIndianapolis, Indiana

Lilliam Barrios-PaoliCommissionerCity of New York Department of

EmploymentNew York, New York

Philip PowerChairmanSuburban Communications CorporationAnn Arbor, Michigan

Janet QuistLegislative CounselNational League of CitiesWashington, D C.

Nathaniel SempleVice President and Corporate SecretaryCoininittee for Economic DevelopmentWashington, D.C.

Arthur ShyDirector of Education ProgramsUnited Auto WorkersDetroit, Michigan

William SpringVice President, Community AffairsFederal Reserve Bank of BostonBoston, Masssachusetts

Carl W. StrucverPresidentStruever Brothers, Eccles and RouseBaltimore Mar,landJune SuhlingAdministrator, Division of Employment

and TrainingDepartment of Industry, Labor and

Human RelationsMadison, Wisconsin

Charles G. TetroPresidentTraining and Development CorporationBangor, Maine

Geneva Y. TitsworthAssociate SuperintendentWayne County Intermediate School

DistrictWayne, Michigan

Pedro L. VicraPresidentSER-Jobs for Progress National, Inc.Dallas, Texas

Gary WalkerExecutive Vice PresidentPublic/Private VenturesPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania

Barbara WeinbergExecutive DirectorState Job Training OfficeCarson City, Nevada

H. G. WeismanAssistant CommissionerGeorgia Department of LaborAtlanta, Georgia

Linda WoloshanskyExecutive DirectorKankakee Valley Jobs Training

Programs, Inc.Valparaiso. Indiana

Tw" t YoungIndependent Consultant to AFL-CIOAims. Irma

0JTPA Investments for the 90's

A Report ofThe Job TrainingPartnership Act(JTPA) Advisory Committee

March 1989

TABLE OFCONTENTS

PREFACE 4

INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6

AN AGENDA FOR CHANGE

SHARPENING THE FOCUS 10Tightening Targeting 10New Directions for Resource Allocation 14Intensifying the Training Investment 15Clearer Program Peifurmance Measures 21

INCREASING PRODUCTIVITYAND RESPONSIVENESS 26

Structural and Operational Improvements 26System-Wide Capacity Building 29New Institutional Arrangements 33

NEXT STEPS 34

5

PREFACE

In Jul% P)88. the joh :lainingcominunit %%as gken a uniqueopportunity b. the Secretar%of Labor. We %%ere asked to ac-

ti% el% participate in assessim ourii% e ears of e.perience %%ith thejob Tiaining Partnership Act indto contribute to the formulation ofjob training polio for the l990,Specific issues %%ere raised in aII 'kite Paper disseminated b) theDepartment, %VhiCh \%ils %%kid)dkcu,sed in seminars throughoutthe countr), and in se%en monthsof deliberation lk a 38-member111).1 Ad% isor) Committee ap-pointed lr the Secret art.

Two thousand pages (40 pounds)of comments, suggestions andrecommendations were sent to theAdvisory Committee by a cross-section of citizens ranging fromcorporate executives, youthcounselors and school super-intendents, to state and localelected officials. As one AdvisoryCommittee member quipped,"The Department of Labor threwa party, and everyone came!"0We were both surprised andenergized by this unexpectedgroundswell of interest in the na-tion's training policies. Itdemonstrates that there is a grow-ing national constituency for in-vesting in the development of theAmerican workforce. A consensusis building in response to a seriesof interlocking social andeconomic problems that arebecoming obvious to all:

U

The nature of jobs and job re-quirements is changing ir-reversibly, while the demo-graphic of the present andpotential Aorkforce arc alsochanging.There is dearth of qualifiedworkers, but there is also agrowing mismatch betweenjobs and potential workers.The major symptoms of thismismatch are evidenced bymassive functional illiteracy(approximately 25 million),long-term dependency(approximately 3 millionworking age individuals), andfailure to complete high school(almost a million youth ayear).

Resources are restricted in allhuman development systems,and no one system can beeffective operating alone.

Reflecting on this complex ofissues, we conclude that the goalsof the nation's employment andtraining system should be bothhuman development and self-sufficiency for the individual andthe family, and increased produc-tivity for the Americanworkforce.Our work to date is reflected inthis report. Building on thevaried responses to toe WhitePaper, we were encouraged to en-vision a coherent and integratedlearning system responsive to theneeds of the decade ahead. Wedescribe the context in which wedeveloped our recommendationsfor JTPA that form the founda-tion of that vision. They flowlargely from in-depth discussionsby four working sub-groups ofthe Advisuiy Committee, whichwere chaired by members AnnAbel, Gary Walker, CharlesTetro and Carl W. Struever.

Our suggestions do not representunanimity on every issue, nor dowe expect readersincluding theDepartment of Laborto agreeon every point. The Committeedid reach consensus, however, onmajor principles, which led us torecommend steering the JTPAsystem more prescriptively as toclients and outcomes, while at thesame time providing localitieswith a wider range of tools indefining and delivering sere ices.We believe that employers willsupport a training system thatrecognizes the nezd to addworkers to the labor force andone that produces added valueto those workers by virtue ofquality education and training.We hope that taken in the con-text of a changing national andglobal economy, our explorationof the issues will enrich andelevate the national discussionthat must ensue.

7

As we c look back or out delibera-tions to date and look forward tocompletion of our work, each oneof us has deN eloped a new respectfor the complexities of publicpolicy formation. It is a privilegeto be a part of this unique pro-cess. As chair, it is my specialgood fortune to be associatedwith this conscientious and com-mitted group of tblic spiritedcitizens, drawn from business,labor, education, community-based organizations, public in-terest groups, and the employ-ment and training system, whowork with an intensity and zealunmatched in my 25 years of ex-perience in the field. We are sup-ported by an equally talented andcommitted group of staff from theDepartment of Labor. Each per-son has my gratitude and respect.Each one deserves the thanks ofthe country.

Marion Pines, ChairJTPA Advisory Committee

INTRODUCTIONAND EXECUTIVESUMMARY

AMERICA STANDS AT ACROSS-ROADS.\, \i. eruct the last decadeof the 2(4 li cent un. compel i-

ti e pressures are intensik ing and,for the first time sin( e World WarII. our economic preeminent(' is inquestion. We face the grim prospectthat our heritage of eves-risingli\ ing standaids ma\ no longer 1Wa certain legac that can be passedon to our children and grand-children. That prospec includes ,iclear possibility that some gum!),may he permanently pre%entedfrom leading productive lies. .

We have fa«.d other ciisesinpea«. nd in warthroughoutour history. In each instance, .0key to our success has been thequality, flexibility and creativityof our people. Once again, ourhuman resourcesthe workforc eof Americamust see us throughthe difficult period ahead.However, our labor force and ourdecisions about human resourceinvestments will be put to sternertests than we have experienced inrecent decades.To remain competitive,employers will require aworkforce with high levels ofbasic literacy and skills and anability to meet the rapidly shiftingdemands of an increasinglytechnical workplace. At the sametime, there is mounting evidencethat a high proportion of poten-tial job entrantsand workersalready in the labor forceare ill-equipped to staff our offices,hospitals, laboratories andtechnical facilities. This mismatchis likely to increase at the same

(ss

time that the number of newworkers actually diminishesthrough the Year 2000, Whilethese trends pose a serious threatto continued economic growthand prosperity, they also offer anunprecedented opportunity toproy id, employ ment to all thoseAmericans who, in the past, haveremained at the margin of oursociety.We must decide as a nationwhether or not we are preparedto respond to these two in-terdependent problemsa widen-ing gap between the skills of theworkforce and the changing re-quirements of our economyand,at the same time, seize the oppor-tunity to offer gainful employ-ment to all our citizens.We believe that the answer mustbe strongly in the affirmative. 0In accepting the charge of theSecretary of Labor to assess thepast and help chart the future ofthe Job Training Partnership Act(JTPA), it became quickly ap-parent to as that our mandatemust be viewed in the broadercontext of our nation's futureoverall human resource policy.JTPA is the central instrument ofpublic policy designed to equipour economically disadvantagedolder youth and adults with theskills needed for successful entryinto the job market and to enabledislocated workers to becomereintegrated into the economicmainstream. However, a host ofother government programs

vocational education, the newJOBS program for welfare reci-pients, vocational rehabilitationand the public Employment Serv-ice to name a fewalso beardirectly upon the training andemployment of Americanworkers.Our immediate objective inundertaking an examination ofJTPA was, first and foremost, tohelp make it a more effective in-strument in bridging the skillsgap for those who are unemploy-able in today's and tomorrow'slabor market. Specifically, wesought to determine:

How best to refocus JTPA toassure that, in fact, it i cachesthe economically disadvan-taged youth and adults whoare in special need of trainingin order to obtain and keepproductive employment; andHow to enhance the produc-tivity of the JTPA system inachieving its objective.

Over the longer term, nowever, itis our hope that this review ofJTPA will be the first step in acontinuing process of building abroader, integrated humanresource delivery system at thelocal level. Our working assump-tion is that although muchgreater investments are needed,the Federal budget deficitprecludes a major expansion ofresources for JTPA, which nowserves less than 5 percent of itseligible population. That assump-tion extends to the other humandevelopment programs as well.

However, if properly coordinated,the aesources available uncle a\S id(' ',urge of Federal programscan be deployed to expand thenumber of disadvantaged anddislocated workers served, andextend the range of servicesavailable to these individuals. Inthis era of budget stringency,particularly, we should no longeraccept a fragmented, uncoor-dinated approach to deliveryof human services. It is ineffi-cient, wasteful and frustrates theconsumers of these services: boththose who seek training and theirpotential employers.We believe that the JTPA systemcan bring together local humanservice agencies and organizationsand serve as a catalyst indeveloping a more cohesive serv-ice delivery system at the locallevel. JTPA is uniquely posi-tioned to accomplish these goalsbecause of its principal strengths:

The existing public-private part-nership reflected in JTPA's localPrivate Industry Councils bringsan objective bcus to policydevelopment that is unique inpublic programs. It has alsoincreased the awareness ofmajor public issues amongkey private sector actors. ThePICs have the potential forcreating a broader workingpartnership with local electedofficials, local school districts,social and community-basedorganizations and other

h

human service ,diverers tofurther the objectives of an in-tegf d local human resourcedc. y system.

The pivotal role of the states inJTPA management has beendemonstrated in many partsof the country. The Gover-nors are in a position to makecoordination more thanrhetoric, and their State JobTraining Coordinating Coun-cils can become the basis for astrong interagency and privatesector policy board for allworkforce investmentstrategies.

A local system accountable to thepublic, that is designed andmanaged to produce resultsmeasured by performancestandards has earned JTPAhigh marks. The combinationof local creativity and strictaccountability for outcomescan be applied more widely tohuman service programs.

to be served, and the tet 'mita'expertise of the eniploy mum andtraining system itself. We had thebenefit of hundreds of commentsfrom interested oiganizatiuns andindividuals in response to theDepartment's White Paper onJTPA issues. We reviewed theresults of dozens of conferences.seminars and hearings, heldunder state and local auspices, forthe express purpose of infolmingthe Committee's deliberations.With staff assistance, we reviewedthe extensive research and evalua-tion literature of JTPA and itspredecessor programs.Our review focused primarily onthe training of disadvantagedyouth and adults under Title IIof the Act. On the basis of thissearching inquiry and the spiriteddebates of our five Committeemeetings and numerous subcom-mittee sessions, we have reacheda series of conclusions about thefuture direction of the JTPAprogram.It is our general assessment thatthe basic mission of JTPAtraining economically disadvan-taged and dislocated workers forgainful employment, increasingtheir earnings and reducingwelfare dependencyis preciselythe correct role for employmentand training programs in today'slabor market. The economic im-perative of global competitionand employers' increasinglycritical need for well - trainedworkers confirm the correctnessof JTPA's original mandate. Wealso believe that the effectivenessof the structure of JTPA has beenproven by experience and shouldbe retained.However, while strongly reaffirm-ing JTPA's basic mission andmanagement structure, we are

As the Committee approached thereview process, we recognizedthat the strengths of JTPA hadbeen amply documented in theprogram's record of achievement.More economically disadvantagedpersons have been enrolled thanis required by law; jobplacements after training haveexceeded performance expecta-tions; and a new, vital deliverysystem, energized by privatesector and community participa-tion, has been put in place.We were also aware of the issuesraised by the program's critics.Some members of Congress,academic experts and interestgroups have expressed concernabout the program's effectivenessin reaching those in greatest needand providing services to assuretheir long-term employability.During our seven months ofdeliberations, we attempted toprobe beyond both the recordand public perceptions and toexamine, in depth, the issues webelieve are at the heart of thedebate on the future of JTPA.Through the Committee'smembership, we were able tobring to the table a unique con-vergence of interests: theeconomic requirements ofbusiness; the needs of the clients

1u

()min( ed that, buildingupon more than fire years of ex-perience, we can do a far betterjob of cal lying out that missionand increasing the productivity ofthe program. Twenty-eightrecommendations are advanced tothat end. However, we believethat of these, seven major pro-posals are particularly critical toefficiently targeting and leverag-ing the limited resources Mailableunder JTPA to assure that theywill have the maximum impacton the nation's emerging labormarket problems:

Tare` the program moredirectly on those disadvan-taged persons with seriousskills deficiencies. Within theeligible economically dis-advantaged population, asignificant majority of thoseserved should either beseriously deficient in basicskills or be welfarerecipientsthose targeted forservice under the Family Sup-port Act JOBS program andthose with a history ofsubstantial dependency.Individualize and substan-tially intensify the quality ofservices provided. In-depthdiagnostic assessments shouldbe universally available toJTPA enrollees and, on thebasis of those assessments,remedial developmental serv-ices focused on literacy andjob skills should be providedon a more flexible andcustomized basis than is cur-rently the case.Realign the services cur-rently authorized for youthinto a new, consolidatedyear-round program title forat-risk youth with increased

funding. The activities andresources currently authorizedfor youth under Title IIA andIIB should ix consolidatedii.to a new comprehensiveprogram title to provide inten-sive preventive and remedialservices, year-round, to in-school and out-of-school youthwho are at risk of failure inschool and in the job marketThe Youth Title shouldreceive a modest net increasein funding of 500 milliondollars and be designed toallow maximum integrationwith services provided byschools and other governmentand community agencies.Redesign outcome measuresto reflect more accuratelythe program's goal of in-creasing the long-termeconomic self-sufficiency ofparticipants. The primaryprogram outcome measuresfor adults and out-of-schoolyouth should be their in-creased levels of competency,the quality and wages of thejobs in which they are placedand their long-term retentionin the labor market.Substantially relax programconstraints to increase theresponsiveness of the systemoverall and to improve itscapacity for effectively serv-ing participants with seriousbarriers to employment.

Having more carefullyspecifice. enrollment priorities,targeting and outcomes, it isdesirable to encourage max-imum local creativity in deter-mining the mix of servicesprovided to individual par-ticipants. This would includerelaxing current constraints on

work experience, stipends/a( hie. ement arils, and ( ostcategories.

Increase the productivity ofthe JTPA system by under-taking a major training andresearch effort to improveprogram quality and buildthe capacity of the staff whoadminister and deliver theprogram at the state andlocal levels. A multi-facetedtechnical assistance effort isneeded, under strong federalleadership, to train state andlocal staff in "state-of-the-art"systems of basic education,skills training and datamanagement. The nationalJTPA research and develop-ment program should bereoriented to provide informa-tion and pilot testing to sup-port both capacity-buildingand program improvement ef-forts. A specific scenario forPilot Projects is described inthe concluding section of thisreport.Create expanded public-private partnership arrange-ments to achieve linkagesbetween JTPA and otherhuman resources programsin order to serve a largerproportion of the eligiblepopulation more effectivelywith a broader range of ser-vices. Building upon existinginstitutions, such as thePrivate Industry Councils andthe State Job Training Coor-dinating Councils, partnershipinstitutions at the national,state and local levels shouldfoster greater interagency col-laboration in the planning anddelivery of services to the

11

disadvantaged, dislocatedworkers and other groups inneed of assistance to qualifyfor employment. To facilitatethis linkage process, federalagencies serving similar clientgroups should adopt commonoutcome measures.

These new directions and otherareas of recommended action arediscussed in the pages thatfollow.They represent an agenda forchange.While acknowledging and accep-ting the unique strengths of theJTPA system, we propose toreorient it to become more closelyin tune with the rising skill re-quirements of employers and thealarming basic skills deficienciesof the youth and adults who areavailable for work. We propose amore efficiently managed,technically competent and fullyaccountable system.*We believe that this policy agen-da is an important first stepbutonly a first stepin reassessingour overall approach to humanresource policy in the UnitedStates. The federal investment ineducation, training and relatedprograms can no longer be view-ed as investments solely in socialequity and tranquility, as theywere in the 1960's and 1970's,but must be reevaluated in thecontext of the economic realitiesof the 1990's and the next cen-tury. It is our hope that thisreview of the JTPA program willcontribute to a national dialogueand offer a starting point forbuilding an integrated humanresource delivery system in thecommunities of our nation.

AN AGENDAFOR CHANGE

SHARPENINGTHE FOCUS'fir.) I PA N)Nnn MUNI hi`npilSintlin (I ill i( 11(111d

laPidh and , Ill t IIX( l\ do(

t 11.111011g t'llNIII)11111rIlt (It .t 1111111

In the 11111(1(1114 (lull to this leptift.1%111h' 1.11,1111; hill Mk antatte of theunique strengths ot the ..ANtott theprtneiNhip nanagemnt .1'11(1111e:the accountabilit haniework foidecision making. the ineclianimn.that encoltia ,e c lead\ e lesponsesto local needs.

In our judgment. JTPA's lOcuscan be sharp ed in a number ofimportant ways in order to max-imize the impact of this impor-tant instrument of pubic policy.Specifically, we support tightenedtargeting at entry and strength-ened performance outcome stand-ards at exit, revised fundingformulas, and increased oalit} oftraining investments.

Determining eligibility for par-ticipation in JTPA-funded pro-grams and targeting those inneed of services are interdepen-dent processes. Eligibility criteriaanswer the question, "Whoshould be eligible for enroll-ment?" Targeting criteria help toaddress the related question,"Who from among those eligibleshould actually be enrolled orreceive priori(; in the provisionof services ?"

Under current law, eligibility 1Orparticipation in the basic TitleIIA and the Title 1113 summerprogram for youth is quite broad,encompassing all of (kw& who are"cc o nom ically disadvantaged.This is impohant for emphasizingthe purpose 0 JTPAto providetraining primaril} for those withlimited financial means.However, JTPA is not an entitle-ment. A finite amount of fundingis appropriated by Congress eachyear to provide services that, atcurrent appropriation levels,reach less than five percent ofthose eligible for participation.Therefore, of necessity, a priorityfor service must be establishedamong those who are eligible.JTPA's targeting provisionsshould insure that the public in-vestment in training yields thelargest return.Accordingly, we devoted par-ticular attention to questions ofeligibility and targeting. We con-sidered the general perceptions of"creaming ' in these programs.The relationship between JTPA'sservice population and the ce ofrelated programs also became aprime area of discussion, espe-cially following the October sign-ing of the Family Support Act of1988, which created the Job Op-portunities and Basic Skills(JOBS) program for welfarerecipients.

Out of this process, we deter-mined that JTPA needed totarget its resources more effec-tively by focusing primarily onthose who have low incomes andlack the basic skills necessary toperform well in the labor market.There were three essentialelements underlying the rationalefor tightening up entry to thesystem:

The demographic realities ofthe 1990's brought to publicattention in the Workforce 2000report will not go away.Declining birth rates over thepast decade have eroded thetraditional sources of newworkers. Employers are facedwith the need to reach out tothe less qualified to fill theirentry level positions. Thesenew workers will come fromgroups historically under-served by human resourceinvestments and they will

have to meet the rising skillrequirements of theworkplace.

The nation's future success ininternational competition maydepend largely on how well itsleast productive workers canbe made more effectivemembers of the workforce.With projected workforceshortages, it will be incum-bent on the nation'semployers to make the bestpossible use of workers whohave not had prior oppor-tunities to fully participate inthe labor force. Workersurpluses in the past gave riseto overconfidence about ourability to competeinternationally.Then. are significant in-tergenerational dimensions topoverty and unemploymentthat JTPA can help tomitigate. The correlationbetween family poverty and

poor performance in school orin the workforce is high.Better employment andemployability for one genera-tion through the effective in-tervention of JTPA andrelated program investmentscan help to break this cycle ofdebilitating poverty anddependence.

RECOMMENDATIONS.With the exception of in-schoolat-risk youth, we support the cur-rent legislative eligibility require-ment which pruvides that 90 per-cent of all enrollees beeconomically disadvantaged.The following recommendationsare intended to bring abouttighter targeting of the availableresources on those within theeligible population who are inneeddefined in terms of skillsdeficiencies or other proxiesandfor whom real program impactsare to be expected.

RECOMMENDATION#1:A Substantial Majority ofAdult Enrollees (22 andOver) Should Be Lackingin Basic Skills (Reading orComputing Below the 8thGrade Level); Or

Welfare RecipientsTargeted for ServiceUnder the Family SupportAct JOBS Program, andOther Welfare RecipientsWho Have ShownSubstantial Dependency.

According to the most recentlyav ailable figures, approximately94 percent of JTPA Title HAparticipants are economicallydisadvantaged, more than re-quired by the Act. However, notall economically disadvantaged in-dividuals have serious skills defi-ciencies or are welfare dependent,groups for w hum job trainingprograms have demonstratedsome of their most impressive im-pacts. At the same time, whilesome 56 percent of JTPAenrollees are high schoolgraduates, studies have shownthat a high school diploma is noguarantee of bask skill competen-cies. This recommendation wouldproduce tighter targeting ongroups with assessed skill defi-ciencies and welfare dependency,not unlike that recently enactedfor the JOBS program.*Programs should seek to servethose individuals for whom realprogram impactsas distinctfrom apparent outcomeswill bethe likely result. This distinctionwas critical to the Committee'sanalysis of experience underJTPA and to our recommenda-

duns for changes in targetingunder the program. The short-term outcomes of participants'enrollment in JTPA has e beenpositive. More than 60 percent ofprogram cumpleters has c beenplaced in jobs. However, thelung-term impact of the programun participants is not }et known.This w ill ins ul.e determining theextent to which these successfuloutcomes might has e beenachieved without program in-tervention. Ongoing controlledstudies w, ill give us the answer tothis question by the earl} 90's.However, as ailable researches idence does pros ide guidanceun how we can enhance the im-pact of JTPA programs. Findingsindicate that the impact un lessemployable individuals is fargreater because they would nothave been successful in the jobmarket without the assistance ofthe program. Therefore, JTPAshould reach out to enroll thosewho do not have a chance to suc-ceed in the labor market withoutsustained intervention. We can-not afford to spend our limitedtraining dollars on those who arevery nearly job-ready or who canmake it in the labor marketwithout our help.

1'

JTPA should focus on creatingadded valuein the limn ofenhanced skills and literacylevelsto the capabilities ofworkers now available but not inthe w,,rkforce. Bringing moretrained workers into the labormarket is desired by employersand potential employees alike.Aggressiv e outreach efforts andlinkages with community-basedorganizations and other humande% elopment systems (i.e., educa-tion, social services) will becomeincreasingly critical.*Therefore, the eligibility andtargeting criteria for JTPA shouldcomplement, not conflict with,the provisions of related humanresource programs, such aseducation and the new welfareJOBS effort. Each of thesesystems has a major role in ad-dressing the needs of the 1990's,and each has its own tools fordoing so. Because their missionsand ser% ice populations overlap toa :arge extent, JTPA and otherprograms need to ensure thattheir eligibility criteria are com-patible. At one level, this couldresult in "seamless" programm-ing and single-form applicationscovering all related programslocally. Or, it might suggestlegislative or administrativeagreements to accept other agen-cies' definitions of needsuch aseligibility for public assistance,Chapter I or school lunchprogramsas sufficient docu-mentation for JTPA programservices. *This recommendation calls for a"substantial majority" ofenrollees to be those with eitherbasic skills deficits ur dependenceon welfare. We recognize that

there are others who have signifi-cant barriers to employment thatwarrant JTPA intervention.Their characteristics will an,from area to area, but IA ill cer-tainly indude the elder!), thedisabled, those with limitedEnglish proficiency or limitedwork experience. Tightertargeting does not imply theelimination of local PIC discre-tion in the selection of par-ticipants. Final participant selec-tion will remain a local decision,but within limits narrowed toreflect both the potential for realprogram impacts and the needs ofthe workforce and workplace.

RECOMMENDATION#2:A Substantial Majority ofOut-of-School YouthEnrollees (Under Age 22)Should Be EitherDropouts, Welfare Re,i-pients or Lacking in BasicSkills (Reading or Com-puting Below the 8thGrade Level).

Older, out-of-school youthmanyof them dropoutsare fastbecoming the lost and "forgottenhalf," according to recent studiesof the problem, and renewed em-phasis on these youth is needed,including aggressive efforts toidentify, recruit and enroll themin JTPA programs.*These non-college bound youngpeople have seen their economicprospects erode in recent years.Most of these youthregardlessof their race or ethnicbackgroundare earning less

than their counterparts did 15years ago. Research indicates thatadditional education and trainingfor this group can have asubstantial payoff in enhancedemplo}abilit) and increased an-nual income.

RECOMMENDATION#3:JTPA Services for In-School Youth Should BeTargeted to Students Aged14 and Over Who are atRisk of Dropping Out ofSchool or Failing in theLabor Market. Eligibilityfor In-School YouthShould Be Defined inTerms Compatible Withthe Educational System;e.g., Chapter I of theHawkins-Stafford Elemen-tary and Secondary Educa-tion Act, or the SchoolLunch Program.

JTPA's mission should encom-pass both preventive andremedial strategies. Since thosewho are encountering labormarket difficulty and those whoare at risk of doing so may havesomewhat different characteristics,the criteria established foreligibility should be designed toaccommodate those needingassistance to prevent a fall, aswell as those requiring help ingetting back on their feet.*The criteria should be -ompatiblewith the classification systems ofother institutions who haveresponsibility for youth, primarilyschools, so that institutional col-

laboration is facilitated and suthat youth are not subjected toadditional stigmatization Forthese reasons, we are recommen-ding that JTPA's eligibilit) forin-school youth util;ze criteriasuch as attendance, grade reten-tion or deficient academic perfor-mance to better target services onthose youth most at risk of drop-ping out or failing in the labormarket. Those criteria should bejointly established by the JTPAand educational systems, andshould aim at ensuring thatJTPA and school dropout preven-tion resources and transition fromschool to work programs are in-tegrated and mutually supportive. e

RECOMMENDATION#4:The Existing 10 Percent"Window" for EligibilityShould be Retained.

Eligibility criteria should bebroad enough to acknowledge dif-ferences in labor market needsand demands. Non-disadvantagedpersons with barriers to employ-ment should have access (albeitlimited) to program services. Forexample, the motivated, unskilledworkers whose dead-end, day-labor jobs put them above the in-come eligibility criteria, but whoremain well below employers'minimum requirements, representa likely target for JTPA services.Similarly, as the child supportprovisions of the Family SupportAct become effective, absentparents who are tapped for sup-port payment obligations, but areunemployed or just poorly paid,need to find a way into JTPA.

There is some evidence that per-sons who are "poor" by localstandards in high cost urbanareas may be excluchd from ser-vice. Meeting the needs of all orsome of these groups could be ac-complished through the use of the10 percent "window.",

The allocation of JTPA resourcesdirectly or indirectly affects whois served, the types of servicesprovided and the outcomes ex-pected. If the eligible populationor those targeted for service inJTPA happens to reside in areasnot receiving appropriate fundingamounts, service inequities willresult.*The current JTPA allocation for-mula has been widely criticizedfor two major deficiencies. First,the formula does not sufficientlytarget resources to the eligiblepopulation: only one-third of thefunds in Title IIA are distributedon the basis of relative shares ofthe economically disadvantagedpopulation; two-thirds of thefunds are distributed on the basisof relative shares of theunemployed, a subgroup receiv-ing little attention in the legisla-tion. The result has been thatmany local Service DeliveryAreas (SDAs) lace significantfunding shortages relative to theirlevel of need. Second, the for-mula produces funding instabili-ty. Because of fluctuations inunemployment and the use of ex-cess (over 4.5 and 6.5 percent),so-called "threshold" unemploy-ment factors, SDA-level fundingshifts a good deal from year toyear, hampering local PICs' abil-ity to engage in long-term plan-ning or to build strong servicedelivery capacity.

RECOMMENDATIONS.We believe Ina. the existi..gallocation formula should bemodified. Our recommendedrhangec in JTPA's targeting pro-..isions reinforce this necess.ty.After considering past and pre-sent research on allocation for-mulas for job training programs,Departmental staff briefings andth2 comments presented in themany public hearings throughoutthe country, we arrived at thefollowing general recommenda-tions concerning the resourceallocation formula for JTPA, butwe caution that any changes inthe allocation formula should bephased in over time to minimizedisruptions in service delivery.

RECOMMENDATION#5:Program Funding ShouldFollow the People to beServed. The DominantFactor in the JTPA Alloca-tion Formula Should BeThe Relative Number ofEligible Persons in aJurisdiction, Whether atthe State or SDA Level.

Data on economically disadvan-taged individuals are collectedonly in conjunction with thedecennial census. Thus, JTPAallocations on the basis of thisiactor will be made for ProgramYear 1992 using data collectedsome 12 years earlier in 1980.While methodologies have beendeveloped for "updating" the

data between the decennial cen-suses, these are useful mainly forpoverty data at the state levelReliable substate estimates re-main elusive, requiring hstan-tial additional research and im-provement. An effort needs to beundertaken to explore possibleways to update decennial data onthe economically disadvantaged,including separate data for youth.The f asibility of obtaining datafor target groups, such as schooldropouts and welfare recipients,also needs to be aggressively ex-plored, since the anocation for-mula should permit funding tofollow the targeted population.Attempts to seek proxies for cen-sus data should be encouraged.Complete elimination ofunemployment (or other measuresof the tightness of the labormarket) as a factor is not war -ran.ed. During periods of highunemployment, individuals seek-ing jobs face increased difficultyin finding them, thus potentiallyincreasing the number of peopleseeking JTPA services. However,research suggests that a highunemployment rate in a localarea is not the best indicator ofthe presence of large numbers ofdisadvantaged individuals, whomthe program may be designed tohelp. There is a .imited overlapbetween the economically disad-vantaged and the unemployedpopulation. The economicallydisadvantaged, often referred toas the "discouraged worke "who may not be actively st. ..ingemployment, are therefore not in-cluded in the official tabulationsof the unemployed. The twopopulations tend to ha "e differentgeographical distributions, as wellas little consistency in socio-economic characteristics. In addi-

tion, unemployment rates aresubject to excessive volatilit) .Thus, the Committee has recom-mended making therelatwe shareof economically disadvantagedpersons the dominant fak.tor inthe allocation form :a, while re-taining a lesser-weightedunemployment fac*or.

RECOMMENDATION#6:Due to the VolatilityResulting From Their Use,Threshold UnemploymentFactors Should Not Be In-corporated Into the Alloca-tion Formulas.

For the reasons given we,unemployment thresholdfactorsespecially those now usedfor unemployment in excess of4.5 and 6.5 percent in states andSDAsshould be avoided. Slightchanges in the rate of unemploy-ment around the critical thresholdvalues, while indicating onlymarginal change in the environ-ment, tend to produce wideswings in funding. The adverseaffects of these swings on plan-ning and service provider capa-city over time can cripple eventhe most effective programs andundercut staff morale.*We suggest, however, that someconsideration might be given toincluding a measure of "excesseconomic disadvantage" in theformula to ensure that areas withhigh concentrations of disadvan-taged persons, receive adequatefunding. This will tend to targetfunds to depressed areas, whereproblems are most severe.*

RECOMMENDATION#7:The Allocation Formulasfor JTPA Shc,uld IncludeAppropriate "HoldHarmless" Provisions

Funding volatility has been amajor cause for concern withJTPA at the state and locallevels. This volatility haQ resultedin part from the use of tl.resholuunemployment factors in the for-mula, but it has also occurreddue to the absence of mechanismsdesigned to minimize themagnitude of year-to-year fund-ing shifts, so-called "holdharmless" provisions. Untilrecently, the allocation formula inJTPA had no such provision -.4t

the local level. To ensure relativefunding stability for states andSDAs over timeand to promotethoughtful planning and enhancethe capacity of serviceprovidersthe Advisory Commit-tee supports the inclusion of ap-propriate "hold harmless" provi-sions in any and all JTPA alloca-tion formulas.

The essence of JTPA's interven-tion in the labor market is its in-vestment in training. JTPA offersa wide array of activities and ser-vices that, in the aggregate, con-stitute this "working capital" in-vestment. The extent to which ithas an impact on an individualparticipant's employability andlater experiences depends on bothits quality and its intensity,relative to the participant's needsand aspirations at entry and thestate of the local labor market.

17

Four major forces drive the ac-tivities and services the JTPAsystem provides: the workforcerequirements of employers; theneeds of individuals the programsaim to assist, the availability ofquality services from a broad ar-ray of providers; and theavailability of requisite servicesfrom related human developmentsystems and employers.*In some respects, employer needsremain constant over time: firmsneed dependable, hardworkingemployees who understand andadhere to the discipline of theworkplace and the expectationsthat govern the typical Americanworkplace. In other respects,employer requirements are chang-ing rapidly: the expanding serviceeconomy, the increased use oftechnology and more flexible pro-duction techniques require greaterliteracy and numeric skills amonga wider spectrum of theworkforce. And, in a growingnumber of industries, even entry-level employees must be able todefine production or servicedelivery problems and contributeto designing their solution. Oneexample: the following item ap-peared in the Decembzr 21, 1988edition of the New York Times:

Wanted: Floor sweeper.Required: The ability to

operate electronic controls on acleaning machine and to mixratios of water and cleaningsolution accurately.While employer needs areexpanding, so are those of theavailable workforce. A moreslowly expanding population,with a large and growing share ofits members coming fromeconomically and educationally

upia wane

..403

fJz

disads antaged backgrounds, issimply not producing enoughworkers with sufficient skills tomeet employer needs. The largenumbers of young females %situhas e sole parenting and financialresponsibilities will pros idespecial challenges that must beaddressed by trainers andemployers.*Employers tend first to seek out,hire and train the most job-readyof this shrinking pod of ssurkcrs.Those that arc left %%11 not be im-mediately ready to n eet therigors and requirements ofavailable jobsalthough they willeventually be needed if employersare to compete successfully in theface of worker shortages. It is thisgroup that JTPA must locate,enroll and provide with skills andbehaviors sufficient to succeed inthe labor market.Decades of experience with train-ing programs indicate that it isneither a cheap nor quick task toprepare such individuals foremployment. They often havemultiple obstacles to achieving adecent life and labor market suc-cess: poor education, lack of in-come, small children to care for,lack of experience in either secur-ing or holding a job, or pressinghealth problems. These obstaclesare often accompanied by a lowsense of confidence, an eye quick

to spot defeat and, sometimes, anunrealistic notion of the time andeffort required to achiese self-sufficiency.*Whateser the particulai utiX ofproblems, st, cessful inters entionon behalf of t. se individualsnecessitates a bread mix of ser-

ices, support and supers isionthat is individually tailored. Thattailoring applies to the timing ofthe pros ision as wdl as the ter-mination of these sers ices, su thatthe skills, behas iurs and attitudesnecessary for long-term successare acquired and internalized byJTPA participants without pro-moting any further sense ofdependency or defeat.*Some of the services requiredfor example, child care, transpor-tation, counselingmay often beavailable from other public agen-cies or even from employersthemselves, and may not requireJTPA funding. However, theavailability of particular servicesand service providers for JTPAparticipants varies widely byjurisdiction, making it difficultand inappropriate to prescribe atthe federal or even the state levelwhich services should be providedand financed by JTPA, andwhich by other sources.*The forces that most influencethe nature of the required JTPAinvestments all point to the need

14 a job training system with theservice mix largely determined bylocal program managers respond-ing to local needs. The creativelocal partnersiiip, comprised of itsprix ate and public members, isbest suited to make these deci-sions, ss ithin quality parametersestablished at the federal andstate levels. Moreover, the natureof this investment must also beshaped by the experience of thelast 25 years, which has shownthat increases in participants' ear-nings and self-sufficiency are ac-complished hugely through ser-vices providing enough content,challenge and suFpurt to improveindis iduals' opportunities andcapacities to capitalize onhem.*

The JTPA program has beencriticized for providing a level ofsers ices that does not result inlung-term job retention. Thefollowing recommendations aredesigned to make significant im-provements in the long-termemployment and earning pros-pects of participants.RECOMMENDATIONS.Over the last two decades, wehave learned a great deal fromlarge social demonstration pro-jects with credible research com-ponents. They have consistentlydemonstrated the lack of connec-tion between "p1'...asing" short-term performance, such as lowcosts and high placementnumbers, and real impacts on thelong-term employment and earn-ings record of participants, par-ticularly women and youth withmultiple labor market deficienciesand barriers. Building on thisknowledge base, we offer thefollowing recommendations to im-prove the quality ofprogramming:

RECOMMENDATION#8:Renewed Emphasis ShouldBe Placed on Strengthen-ing the Local Role (PICsand Local Elected Of-ficials) in Planning andFostering IntegratedService Delivery to MeetLocal Labor MarketNeeds.

Only at the level of employer andjob seekerthe two customers ofthe employment and trainingsystemcan the system fashionan investment responsive to thelong-term needs of both. Withinlocal communities, a whole rangeof service deliverersfrom com-munity colleges to community-based organizations, fromtechnical institutes to privateemployersare developing train-ing curricula and teaching techni-ques to prepare the work force.Some are more innovative ormore effective or more expensivethan others. PICs and local of-ficials must make the critical andtimely decisions. They mustdetermine the skill demands ofthe local area, reach out to enrollthose most in _wed of skilldevelopment, articulate the ser-vices and outcomes required tomeet needed skill levels andassure the labor market success ofparticipants, select the serviceproviders best able to deliver thedesired services, develop the mostcost effective quality assurancecontracts for service that linkspayment to delivered outcomesfor targeted individuals, arrange

linkages with partners in thehuman development field forneeded support and de' elopmentservices, and then manage andmonitor the entire process forresults. These are awesomeresponsibilities that must beclearly articulated, understoodand accepted. But it is the localbase for this decision-making this critical. Local decisions aremost open to public scrutiny andmost responsive to changing localconditions.

RECOMMENDATION#9:Every JTPA ProgramShould Provide aDiagnostic Assessment andAssignment Process and aMix of Services In-dividualized to AddressParticipant Needs.

Only after participants' workhistory, job and educationalskills, interests, health, motivationand life circumstances are re-viewed and documented, can theybe used to establish the servicesindividuals should receive andtheir obligations while receivingthose services.Assessment instruments are beingdeveloped or are in use across awide variety of program activitiesand with varied target popula-tions. They will be used, forexample, to diagnose the needsof welfare recipients to betrained with resources to flowfrom the Family Support Act.Public schools are familiar withmany basic skills assessment toolsas well.

19

State and local programs need topay greater attention to thec rite' is by which applicants areassigned to services and shouldcollaborate on de% eloping assess-ment tools that serve similarclients with multiple programneeds. One promising effort todevelop an assessment tool withbroad applications within JTPA isthe pilot Project of the Stateswhich is working towardcriterion-referenced tests whichcan be used across a range oflabor markets and have the addedadvantage of focusing remedialeducation on functional basicskills desired by employers anddemonstrated to be vital in bothwork and personal life. Theongoing effort to develop andimplement national assessmenttools and standards should besupported with substantialtechnical assistance from thefederal level..Participation in customized andindividualized multi-componentprograms will improve long-termprospects for multi-problemenrollees. An SDA's package ofservices should include ap-propriate and creative combina-tions of the following: vigorousoutreach activities; support ser-vices with maximum participantaccess; allowances, stipends or in-centive payments; work ex-perience; remedial education foradults and youth; functional jobskills train,, ,g; motivational train-ing; on-the-job training (OJT);and other labor market linkagessuch as job clubs, job search andpost-program support. If all theseservices are funded by JTPA, asmay be necessary in many areasof the country, the increased costsfor each participant will constitutea substantial, but necessary andwise investment.

Training It ain't

0ti,

u d to be!

2i,

RECOMMENDATION10:

To Increase the Respon-siveness of the Job Train-ing System Overall, andEspecially to Enhance itsCapacity for EffectivelyServing Participants withGreater Barriers toEmployment, Certain Ex-isting Program ConstraintsShould Be SubstantiallyRelaxed:

A Three ExistingCategories (Ad-ministration., Suppor-tive Services andTraining) Should BeReplaced by TwoPrimary CostCategoriesManagement and Ser-vices, and the PresentCost Category Con-straints Should beRelaxed.

B Limitations on WorkExperience andStipends Should BeLess Stringent WhenThey are Utilized inAccordance with theIndividual Partici-pant's EmployabilityDevelopment Plan.

We regard the existing costcategories related to support ser-vices, training and administrationas unduly rcsuictix e. It local pro-grams are to serve more at-riskpopulations, they should beallowed to provide and financeadequate outreach, health, childcare and motivational services tosupport and foster longer-termenrollment. At-tisk populations

ith multiple bai riers to employ-ment need an integrated array ofservices, which should not besubjected to arbitrary restrictionsas to relative distribution of ex-penditures. Therefore, detein-ing where "training" ends and"support" begins is often an ar-bitrary exercise. For that reason,we favor only two cost categories.management and services.Management activities should in-clude most of those expendituresnow classified as administration,services would include every-thing else..Keeping a more targeted popula-tion enrolled for the longerdevelopmental training requiredto produce substantial programimpacts in terms of earnings anddependency will present a specialchallenge to local program pro-viders. It is unrealistic to expectthose individuals least able tofend for themselvesand for theirchildrento undergo lengthyperiods of training without thewherewithal to subsist. Therefore,we recommend relaxing restric-tions on the use of stipends, in-centive awards, learning rein-forcement payments and/orbonuses by local PICs to help im-plement the more intensive train-ing packages needed for in-dividuals with multiplebarriers.

The 15 percent ap on ad-ministrative services makes nodistinction between the resources

ailable to large and small SDAsor to the distinctions betweenurban and rural adr it istrativecha1lenges. Yet, all face com-pat able and growing regulatoryresponsibilities. Under JTPA, weexpect prog An administrators tomaintain and Lair, out. complexmanagement information sy stems;sophisticated contracting andgrant management systems;eligibility verification procedures;monitoring of service providers,long-term IoilwA-up and trackingof clients; creative collaborationswith other human service pro-viders; in addition to conductingmore vigorous outreach effortsand developing assessment toolsand individualized service plans.These administrative/managementservices are critical to the successof the JTPA program and to thequality of services provided to itsenrollees. The present 15 percentadministrative cap also presentsserious problems to service pro-viders in many areas where SDAsare left with insufficient ad-ministrative funds available to"pass through" to them. Theseconditions often give rise to lessthan optimal practices in an effortto "bury" the requisite manage-ment responsibilities and costs inother categories through the useof elaborate contracting ar-rangements. A mechanism forraising the limit for justifiablemanagement expenditures from15 percent to 20 percent shouldreceive serious consideration.*Work experiencewhen coupledwith remedial education and/orclassroom trainingcan be avaluable and effectivedevelopmental tool, particularly

for the populations re,ommendedin this report for priority sell ice.The restrictions on the use ofwork experience imposed duringthe framing of JTPA shouid berelaxed. Enactment of tighterenrollment and performance stan-dards, together with greaterprivate sector oversight and in-volvement at the local level, ap-pear to provide adequate con-trols. It could be unduly con-straining to continue to limit anactivity that, if operated ap-propriately, has the demonstratedability to produce r' al impacts forkey groups, including at-riskyouth and economically disadvan-taged women. With the newnational interest in communityservice projects, well-designedwork experience activities shouldonce again be available.*Since the Committee is recom-mending a tighter, more targetedapproach to both participationand program outcomes, itbelieves that many intermediatearbitrary constraints in the pre-sent law can be surrendered.

RECOMMENDATION#11:Collaborative EffortsAmong Schools, BusinessCommunities and JTPA toKeep At-Risk Youth InSchool, and Get Out-of-School Youth Back inSchool or in Training Pro-grams, Should Be En-couraged Through Incen-tive Awards, TechnicalAssistance and Joint Plan-ning Requirements.

High dropout rates in urbanpublic school systems, high ratesof illegitimate births by teenagers,low reading and numerical sk:'ls,drug usage, rising crime rates kyounger youth, poor labor marketconditions each of these prob'ems seems to reach record highsevery year and, ii unchecked, theconsensus among both politicalparties and leaders from all sec-tors of the economy is that theimplications for our economyand political system could besevere.Redirecting and improving theuse of JTPA resources for suchat-risk youth will require a var-iety of approaches and changes:

greater flexibility for SDAs inoffering the kinds and dura-tion of services that youth re-quire to become effective andlifelong workers;

greatly reduced emphasis onlow cost and high job place-ment rates as measures ofsuccess;

more active leadership fromthe federal and state levels,including the use of incentivesan.' special project funds forSDAs with high proportionsof at-risk youth, and for thosewho undertake innovative andsubstantial collaborations withthe schools, local business andcommunity institutions;greater emphasis at the federallevel on devising and testingmultiple service programs thatcan attract and retain high-risk youth and provide themwith the skills, incentives andadult supports that will pro-mote long-term labor marketconnections; and

23

creation of a more formalcommitment and structure topromote the packaging andreplication of effective servicecomponents or programapproaches.

In short, to meet the challenge ofstrengthening the labor marketprospects of at-risk youth, JTPAmust extend its capacity beyondthe usual division into summerand school-year programming;and beyond the usual distinctionbetween schools, employment/training and social services. Col-laborative, multi-service strategiesshould be JTPA's aim, andJTPA should have the flexibilityto provide whatever services arenecessary to bring youth into thelabor market.*JTPA's commitment to and effec-tiveness with at-risk youth will bethe ultimate measuring rod of itsusefulness and efficiency as astrategy to strengthen the humancapital in our economy, and toalleviate the nation's most pressing social concerns. As noted inRecommendation #19, the Com-mittee feels that creation of aseparate youth title is a necessarystep to highlight the importanceof services to youth; constructiveand concrete attention to the ap-proaches and changes suggestedabove will give a new youth titlethe tools necessary to be effective.

The simplicity and clarity ofJTPA's mission and goals, com-bined with the performancestandards and incentives that ac-company them, gives the currentjob training system far morecredibility and acceptability thanin the past, both amongemployers and the broader com-munity. Recommending the out-

comes by which program perfor-mance should be measured wasone of the most critical decisionareas the Commi'.ce faced. Thechoice of outcomes establishesmany of JTPA's most basic pro-gram parameters, since, moreoften than not "you get what youmeasure." It is necessary to bevery careful to measure thoseresults which actually achieve theprogram's goals, and to collectthe correct data elements that accurately measure performance.JTPA has been subjected to con-siderable criticism over the out-comes it has selected for em-phasis. In the first few years ofits existence, JTPA performancestandards heavily emphasizedshort-run, termination-basedmeasures of success, includingplacement rates, wages at place-ment and "other posithc" out-come measures for youth.Average costs per placement (orcosts per positive outcome for

F.

youth) have also been used. Ithas been arguedboth by someresearchers and by programoperators in the fieldthat givingundue weight to these measurescaused PICs and local serviceproviders to serve a dispropor-tionate number of indiN 'dualswho already appeared relativelyjob-ready. That is, with thepressures to perform againstshort-run standards, some JTPAprogram managers allocatedresources to those for whoa goodoutcomes were likely. Theperception of "creaming" hascontinued to haunt JTPA.The issue is not resolved simplyby establishing longer-term out-come measures. While we com-mend the Department of Laborfor establishing post-program per-formance standards, unless enroll-ment is further targeted, longer-term measures may provide in-creased incentives for program

(pet ators to enroll moreemploy able hulk, idttals. This t on-cern led us to tvw recommenda-tions. that the program target in-dividuals confronting greater bar-riers to employment, And that thesystem of performance standardspromote effective servi ,.,f to aless employable population.Establisl longer-term outcomemeasures isuch as employmentretention and increases in earn-ings) makes sense only in thecontext of greater targeting onthe more-in-need, for it is herethat JTPA can hope to maximizethe return on its investment inhuman capital.RECOMMENDATIONS.JTPA has drawn its distinctiveidentity and gained widespreadcredibility in no small part fromthe emphasis it has accorded toprogram accountabi:' .1/. Par-ticularly among employers, butalso among prow am staff in jobtraining and °the' systems and inthe Congress, the fact that JTPAhas a demonstrable "bottomline" has given it increasedstanding. There is absolutely nodesire to retreat from theperformance-driven systemcreated with JTPA in 1982.However, JTPA must more clear-ly demonstrate Its contribution tothe economy's productivity inpart through its selection of out-come measures. Training pro-grams increasingly are being ask-ed to meet the needs of bothpotential workers and theiremployers, with added pressurelikely as labor shortages increasein the 1990's. JTPA must be ableto shuv. that its programs pro-duce workers with added valuesufficient to provide employerswith the capacity to produceeffectively.0

Within this context we offer thefollowing major recommendationsregarding JTPA performancemeasures:

RECOMMENDATION#12:Thell.eimay ProgramPerformance Outcome forJTPA Adults Should BcJob Placements andEmployment Retention.JTPA Programs ShouldParticularly Seek JobsWith Career Potential,Employee Benefits andWages That Will Allow In-dividuals and Families toBecome Self-Sufficient.

While other measures may alsobe desired for adults, job place-ment and employment retention(not necessarily of the placementjob) must be part of a set of per-formance standards implementedfor job training programs.While the research findings onthe degree to which placementand retention predict longer-termprogram impacts have been mix-ed, there are powerful reasons tokeep them. Certainly, on a verybasic level, attaining those out-comes communicates programsuccess to both businesses and thecommunity at large. Moreover,for a program that tightly targetsthose in need of serv;ces andaims to increase earnings, it isvery difficult to argue that jobplacement and employment reten-tion are not appropriate near-term outcomes.

RECOMMENDATION#13:An Intermediate Com-petency Measure ShouldBe Added To Morc Effec-tively Support Basic SkillsRemediation for Adults.

Under the existing standardsframework, the only acceptableoutcomes for adults arcplacement-related. This place-ment orientation follows directlyfrom the provisions of the Actand is a response to perceiveddifficulties under earlier pro-grams. For youth, both in andout of school, non-placement out-comes related to academiccredentialling are not only accep-table, they are encouraged andrewarded as an integral part ofthe performance incentivessystem. This situation has led toan imbalance in programs foradults and youth. Adults whoapply to JTPA with serious skillsdeficits and poor work historiesare less apt to be enrolled by pro-grams than a comparable youthwho may only be a year or twoyounger. Their employment pro-spects may be equally poor, butfrom the SDA or provider'sperspective, the youth appearsmore "attractive" since, undercurrent practices, the programcan be rewarded for its efforts toserve him or her, while ac-complishing something short ofjob placement. The Committeefeels that this type of imbalance iscounter-productive and can beeasily remedied.The exact form a competencymeasure should take is notspecified here. There are a

25

number of options, including anemi.:oyability enhancementmeasure similar to the one nowused for youth, or a recognizedmeasure of educational attain-ment such as the GED. Althoughit is important for competenciesto reflect the needs of local labormarkets and to have high PIC in-volvement, there is a need fornational-state and state-SDAparameters governing competencymeasurement systems. If increas-ed competencies truly a,L valuedoutcomes, as we believe they are,it is inappropriate to allow thevariation that now exists.

RECOMMENDATION#14:Performance Measures forYouth Should Include theAcquisition of Work-Related Competencies,School Completion, andEntry Into AdvancedTraining, Education orEmployment.

For in-school youth served byJTPA, appropriate outcomesshould be related to competencyattainment, school credentiallingor entry into advanced education,training, or employment aftergraduation.Older out-of-school youth, par-ticularly dropouts, should be en-couraged and assisted in seekingeducation. JTPA may provide theskills, remediation and disciplinenecessary to enter more work/study or training programs.Creating the community linkagesthat maximize these opportunitiesshould be part of the local JTPAaccountability structure.*

RECOMMENDATION#15:Because of Their Effectson Both the GroupsTargeted and the ServicesProvided, the Act's Cur-rent PerformanceStandards Should BeModified in Three KeyRespects:

A While Cost MeasuresShould Clearly BeUsed for Day-To-DayProgram Administra-tion and PossiblySanctions, TheyShould Bc ExcludedFrom the PerformanceIncentives Process;

B Near-Term OutcomeStandards Should BeValid Proxies forDesired Longer-TermImpacts;

C The Federal Govern-ment Should DevelopApproved, AlternativeMethods for Measur-ing Long-Term IncomeGain and Welfare Sup-port Reduction, UsingUnemployment In-surance Wage Records,Social Security, theOngoing JTPA Ex-periments Evaluationor Other Sources.

Experience has shown that ncen-five awards kelp to steel tnesystem. The' Tfore, the outcomt sused in the standards and incen-ti\es process should be such thatmanaging towards them leadsprog.am of rators to producelasting results for their par-ticipants. Cost standards are im-portant management tools in boththe public and private sectors.They distinguish JTPA fromother programs by presenting a"private sector face" to thenational employer community.In JTPA, cost standards playsubstantially different roles ateach governmental le.wel. At thefederal level, the coststandardsguidelines actuallycan be used to indicate what thefederal government feels is ap-propriwe. on average, to spendfor youth and adults to achievecertain outcomes. At the statelevel, the cost standards can beused by the state councils andgovernors to set some generalguidelines and make somegeneral comparisons amongSDAs, adjusting for localeconomic conditions and the typeof participants served, using theDepartment of Labor's or analternative adjustment model.Locally, the local elected officialsand PICstypically with accessto far more detailed cost informa-tion, including the contributionfrom other non JTPA sourcescan use cost tandards to assessthe cost effectiveness of theirser ^ providers for definedgroups of participants.*However, there are significantdrawbacks to the use of coststandards for incentiv- awardsOven the limitations of the dataand the adjustment model. It isimpossible to make correct

judgments at the ..dcral or statelevels on the quality and efficien-cy of services based o.1 cost infor-mation alone. For example, pro-grams with a high cost perentered employment may bepoorly managed or hive very fewoptions for coordination locally(e.g., rural programs) or mayrepresent the results of an inten-sive insrestment approach: con-versely, programs with low costsper entered employment may beoperating well-designed interven-tions efficiently or serving job-ready clients in quick-fix effortsor doing a great job of programcoordination so tha, ..on-jTPAcontrwutionsnone of which arereported federallyare maxi-mized. Currently, there is no wayto know these distinctions at thestate level, where incentiveawards are made, or to accountfor them in the performance ad-justment model. Therefore, heCommittee recommends that coststandards be excluded from in-centive awards.*In the continuing effort tomanage programs that producelasting results for participants, theprocess of seeking out and im-plementing valid short-run prox-ies for these long-term impacts iscritical. Skill competency levelsand wages at placement have

been suggested to the Committeeas two such proxies. It is impor-tant that DOL maintain a con-tinuous research effort designedto support the use of the rightperformance measures.*The federal government shouldalso take the responsibility fordeveloping approvedmethodologies for measuringlong -term income gain and reduc-tions in welfare dependency. Try-ing to assemble this informationat the local level through long-term follow-up or random sampl-ing is inefficient and ineffective.Operating within federally ap-proved guidelines, states have ac-cess to wage records through theUI system for more than 95 per-cent of American workers, andshould be able to collect the re-quisite information. In addition,valuable data on long-term pro-gram impacts will be available inthe early 1990s from the JTPAevaluation, which is using ran-dom assignments and controlgroups to compare outcomes overtime.

RECOMMENDATION#16:Outcomes Should Be BasedOn Clearly Defined DataElements and Systems.

In the business world, it is nowwidely accepted that the excellentcompanies define their expectedresults explicitly, and tightlymeasure performance againstthem, while allowing their pro-ducers to have discretion in howthey attain those results. We sug-gest that JTPA emulate thismodel. To date, JTPA has tend-

ed to permit key elements of per-formance to be defined IN ith greatdiscretion. It is time to rectifythis situation and reinforce theperformance-driven character ofthe system. Even in a decentra-lized federal-state-local job train-ing system, the fact that fundsare overwhelmingly federal clearlyargues for insisting on a highlevel of ci-countability Th:swould lead to higher levels ofconfidence that the programs arcachieving constructive publicpurposes.

RECOMMENDATION#17:The Reliability and Con-sistency of InformationCollected By JTPA ShouldBe Improved and CommonData Elements Should BeDeveloped in Order toDefine and Measure Per-formance ConsistentlyAcross Programs.

Currently, statesand evenSDAs within the same statemake use of different definitionsfor key terms that indicate whena participant begins a programand is therefore "counted"andwhen he or she ends programparticipationat which timehis/her status is recorded andreported. Standardizing themeaning of such terms as"enrollment," "termination,"and "placement" throughout thesystem would 1 -'rove the valid-ity of national performancereports and create a level playingfield for measuring outcomes in

JTPA across states tnd SDAsithin states. Further, a broad-

based, inter-disciplinary groupshould work collaborativelytow and the creation of a core ofcommon and compatible dataelements and program languagesfor JTPA, other DOL/ETA pro-grams and closely relatedworkforce investment activities,such as the Family Support Act(JOBS) and vocational educationand rehabilitation. Compatibledata elements and performancemeasures across programs will beconducive to greater collaborationand coordination and will permitprograms and servi'-e nroviders tobe more easily compared.

RECOMMENDATION#18:The Measurement of JTPAOutcomes Should Be KeptAs Simple and As FocusedAs Possible.

It is axiomatic that, if all thingsare important, then none are.The fact is that there are now 12national performance standards,many added governors' standardsand numerous performance re-quirements in performance con-tracts. It is important thatJTPA's mission not be diffusedthrough the use of too manymeasures embedded in complexmeasurement and adjustmentsystems. Or, as the head of afederal task force on IRSpenalties stated recently: "Ruleslose moral force if there are toomany of the..,. That's why thereare only 10 commandments."

AN AGENDAFOR CHANGE

INCREASINGPRODUCTIVITY ANDR"ONSIVENESS'1 i Ira! ))ork of job training

has been and continues to be donein relatti% e obscurit) h Thousandsof individuals and organizationsacross the countn; but the e \tit-i IlL; potential fur accolm tislimentin the job training s)st( al has notbee:: full) realized. A relatnel)pass') e. adninusti a in e prates,has int) ailed %%hen do en el gct ic.t t. Ai% t and focus(d t is lc-quirt (I. The emphasis sinful(' IRupon management. The challengelock) is to achit9 high levels ofperlifrmance b) perliTting thepractice of labor market in t en en-lion and by expanding its roleamong a host of related programsand systems.

Yer_...c....JE.41.

A coherent human resourcedevelopment strategy is essentialto achieving JTPA's workforceinvestment goals. But evenmanaged at peak capacity, solv-ing the nation's productivityproblef is and addressing itsglobal challenges is more thanany single program, agency orsystem can hope to accomplish onits own. In these times of con-strained federal and state budgetsan(' limited resources, what isneeded is federally directedleadership that requires JTPAand related programs to active!)collaborate, drawing from allavailable resources to provide acontinuum of services.*JTPA's program activities andmanagement structures can bemolded to it the requirements ofa future increasingly dominatedby rapid change and uncertainty.On one hand, they will need tobe agile, creative, adaptive andrisk taking; and on the other, ef-ficient, competent and highly ac-countable for results. In otherwords, they will have to possessmany of the same features thatdistinguish the best and most suc-cessful companies they will in-teract with in the labor market.

JTPA's passage in 1982 intro-duced fundamental changes to thejob training system, most ofwhich by now are well acceptedand admired throughout thecountry. These changes included,among others: strengthening therole of local PICs andprivate/public partnershipsgenerally; enhancing the role ofstates, especially governors andtheir State Job Training Coor-dinating Councils; and encourag-ing cooperative planning andother joint activities with thelabor exchange system operatedby the Employment Service. Allof these changes were substantiveand important; they have thepotential for even greater ad-vances in the future.JTPA must increasingly becomea demand-driven system. To bedemand-driven is to be driven bycustomer needs, those of bothparticipants and employers. Par-ticipants' needs are defined bywhat they require to bridge the

Wet

gap between their current defi-ciencies and their career aspira-tions and opportunities.Employers' needs are defined bytheir hiring and advancementstandards and their competitivepositions. To be demand-drivenis to accept the obligation totailor services to meet in-dividualized needs, whether thoseof participants or of employers.This, in turn, creates the demandfor a structure with the capacitto plan, manage, deliver, track,account for and evaluate in-dividualized services.*

RECOMMENDATIONS.This first set of recommendationsencompasses changes in JTPA'sown internal structure and opera-tions. They speak to the way inwhich JTPA funding flows byprogram title. The types ofchanges recommended should beviewed as logical next steps alongthe path the job training systemhas been on for some time. Theyrepresent the system's e solutionas a major player in a com-prehensive array of systems.+

RECOMMENDATION#19:The Current JTPA TitleIIA and IIB StructureShould Be Changed,Creating A ComprehensiveAt-Risk Youth Title ForThe Provision of Year-Round Services To BothIn-School and Out-of-School Youth Between theAges of 14 and 21 Years ofAge, and An Adult TitleServing Those 22 Years ofAge and Over.

RECOMMENDATION#20:The RecommendedFunding Split Based onCurrent Appropriations is60 Percent/Youth Title, 40Percent/Adult Title.

RECOMMENDATION#21:500 Million Dollars ShouldBe Requested As An Addi-tional Appropriation ForThe Newly Proposed Com-prehensive At-Risk YouthTitle.

There is a compelling argumentfor giving added emphasis,visibility and dollars to servicesfor youth, based not only on theevident need for more preventivetreatment strategies, but also onthe fact that they will constitutean increasing share of thenumber of young entrants to thelabor force.*The creation of a separate youthtitle will significantly broaden op-portunities for collaboration be-tween JTPA, local school systemsand other community resources.Such opportunities should includejoint identification of at-riskyouth and collaborative planningof Chapter I, Vocational Educa-tion, Special Education, AdultEducation and JTPA initiativesfor both in- and out-of-schoolyouth.*The rationale for recommendinga separate youth title isaugmented by a number of im-portant facts. First, early researchfindings and changing labormarket conditions indicate thatyear-round developmental ac-tivities may have a larger payofffor youth and employers than dothe traditional stand-alone, sum-mer employment programs.Second, older, out-of-schoolyouthmany of themdropoutsare fast becoming thelost and "forgotten nalf."Renewed emphasis on servingthese youth is needed, including

aggressive outreach efforts, sincemany of these youth do not res-pond to traditional intake ac-tivities. And, third, as statedpreviously, program experiencehas demonstrated a series of pro-grammatic interventions that areparticularly effective with youth,such as adult mentors, technologybased instruction coupled withwork experience, and communityservice, life skills and motiva-tional training.We also recommend that themajority of funding in the youthtitle should be dedicated to out-of-school youth. This recommen-dation presumes that the currentTitle IIA requirement that 40percent of the funds be expendedon youth would be eliminated,with approximately that level offunding transferred to the pro-posed Comprehensive At-RiskYouth Title. It further presumesthat the funding now in Title IIBas well as the newly requested ad-ditional appropriation would beincorporated into this title. Wehope and expect that morelimited JTPA funding will beused to leverage and supplement

a

existing resources to serve in-school youth at risk of droppingout or failure in the labormarket. thus freeing up the largerbalance of Youth Title resourcesto focus on the difficult problemsof the out-of-school, largelydropout population.Finally, we acknowledge that thefuture stability of the workforceand of the American family willdepend on our ability to raise theaspirations, hopes, abilities andopportunities of all young people,particularly those now popularlyreferred to as "at risk" or morebroadly, the "forgotten half.This challenge will require someinstitutional changes, new pro-grammatic initiatives that may in-clude community service, greatercommunity involvement and newinvestments. Successfully serving"at-risk" youth requires intensiveindividual investments. These ad-ditional funds will be required inorder .sot to reduce the numberof young people served.Therefore, even in a time offiscal restraint, we recommendthis modest additional investmentin the nation's future.*

-71.1rwer. N., -,tz,

RECOMMENDATION#22:Current State Set-Asides of5%, 3%, 8% and 6%Should Be Revised AsFollows:

A Of the Total ResourcesAvailable in the NewlyProposed Adult andYouth Titles:

85 % Should FlowThrough To LocalAreas

15% Should BeUsed in Approx-imately EqualThirds By TheStates for ProgramManagement, Incen-tives for Local Pro-grams and BroadCapacity BuildingActivities.

B A Higher MinimumFloor For StateManagement and Ad-ministration is NeededFor Small States.

In the original design of JTPA,in addition to 5 percent for ad-ministration, a series of specialset-asides were established toachieve specific program objec-tives at the state level: to en-courage coordination between

education and training services (8percent); to provide training pro-grams for older individuals (3percent); and to provide incentivegrants for programs meeting orexceeding performance standards(6 percent). We believe these pro-visions need reconsideration.Decisions on the nee' for trainingolder individuals are best made atthe local level, where both de-mand and need can best be deter-mined and met, as in the case ofother target groups; therefore,continuation of the special olderworker set-aside at the state levelis not recommended. We also feelthat coordination between educa-tion and JTPA systems will beconsiderably expanded throughour recommendations for jointplanning for intensive basic andvocational skills to in- and out-of-school youth and adults, as wellas building new arrangements forintegrated service delivery at thenational, state and local levels.*We did conclude, however, thatit is essential that 15 percent ofallocated funds be reserved forthe Governor and that thesefunds should be used tostrengthen state management ofthe program (including data col-lection), to build the capacity ofstate and local deliverers of pro-gram services, and to provide in-centives for SDAs to move innew desirable directions.The system could benefit greatlyfrom additional small scale ex-perimentation and on-sitetechnical assistance in manage-ment techniques and programdesign. Although we recommendthese activities as appropriate forbroad national sponsorship, in-dividual state efforts need to beencouraged to nurture both a

top-down and bottom-up im-provement in quality andcreativity. States should be en-couraged to foster experimenta-tion and pilot projects, and afterappropriate evaluation, undertakeaggressive dissemination andtechnical assistance efforts to helpreplicate promising strategies andimprove local services. Strongerinter-state communication andknowledge transfer would im-prove the capacity and the qualityof the entire national trainingsystem. *Incentives play a significant rolein changing bureaucratic as wellas human behavior. Fundingleverages change, both in andbeyond JTPA. Experience withthe use of incentive funds and thevarious set-asides, under JTPAand its predecessor programs,shows that the carrot is moreeffective than the stick in indu-cing change, whether it is to pro-mote more effective performancecF ectly or to establish and nur-ture program linkages indirectly.Non-cash incentives, such asadded program flexibility orspecial recognition for exemplaryperformance or activities, canalso be effective. Agencies aremore likely to use the servicesand cooperate with others if bothcan get credit for the endresults.In the earlier section on perfor-mance measures, we outlined ourrecommendations vis a vis ap-propriate outcome/impactmeasures. There was strong senti-ment expressed by members thatstates be judicious in establishingthe criteria for incentive awards,because of their implicit "steer-ing" effect. States should be en-couraged to consider awards forserving harder-to-serve groupsthan required by law and/or for

31

forging cooperative ventures withother human developmentsystems that leverage additionalresources. However, we do notfavor incentive awards for merelydoing what is required.*We also recommend that arelated state management issue bereexamined. Under current lawsmall states are now providedwith a minimum administrativefunding level of $200,000. Giventhe complex and increasing ad-ministrative responsibilities in-cumbent upon every state, seriousconsideration should be given toincreasing the minimum ad-ministrative funding level. 4.

The real capacity for better per-formance in JTPA lies in its serv-ice provider organizations and thepeople who staff them. The jobtraining system, in its variousguises, has performed remarkablywell since its inception severaldecades ago, surviving largeswings in funding, significantchanges in governing relation-ships and substantive shifts in themix of allowable target popula-tions and services. The source ofthis enduring capacity should beexplicitly recognized; every effortshould be made to amelioratethe conditions that impede it, andsustained efforts should beprovided to ensure that it isnurtured. *To work alongside these ad-ministrators and service pro-viders, strong and active privatepartners are vitally needed at alllevels of the job training systemand in related public programs aswell. Along with its performance-driven nature, a distinguishingfeature of JTPA is the role playedby the private sector, especially at

the local level through hundredsof PICs. Promoting strong, activeprivate/public partnership institu-tions for JTPA at all goveminen-tal levels will help to demcnstratethe commitment to achievingcommon goals within theframework of a coherentworkforce investment policy.*RECOMMENDATIONS.The set of recommendationsoffered here deal with the impor-tant but largely neglected tasks ofbuilding and supporting thecapacity of the job trainingsystem. They range from sug-gesting more stable and depend-able funding and improving labormarket information for planningto ensuring capacity for strongpolicy making and servicec).elivery and conducting moreresearch to carry better designedprograms into the future. o

RECOMMENDATION#23:The Department of LaborShould Take A ProactiveRole in Building CapacityThroughout the Employ-ment and TrainingSystem.

Federal training and technic alassistance responsibilities havebeen sadly neglected. One say ofredressing this void in system-wide capacity building would beto create a new line item 14 thispurpose in the JTPA appropria-tion. Such funds could create andsustain a network of multi-regional training institutes andinstitutional grants for a smallgroup of colleges and universities.Comparable past efforts wereviewed positively by the employ-ment and training community, aswell as by such objecti)e outsidepanels as the National Academyof Sciences.We also support efforts to bothfoster professional growth amongmanagers, service deliverers andadvisors, and assist in thedevelopment of professional stan-dards of service for the industry.Both areas of investment will im-prove the effectiveness of jobtraining. To that end, we con-gratulate the Department ofLabor for its support for thePartnership for Employment andTraining Careers, the new profes-sional association being createdfor workers and volunteers in theemployment and training field.We also point to an area ofweakness in the system:technology transfer for literacydevelopment, skill training anddata management. Enormousstrides have been taken in privateindustry and the military in theuse of technology for training andmanagement. Yet, by and large,local SDAs are left to their owndevices to ferret out qualitytechniques and systems. Werecommend that the Departmenttake immediate steps to help thesystem make use of a 20th cen-tury knowledge base as we readyfor the challenges of the 21stcentury.

RECOMMENDATION#24:In Order To In.prove Pro-gram Capacity and theQuality of Services, Per-manent National AdvisoryPanels Should Be CreatedTo:

A Advise DOL and theStates on the IssuesMost In Need of Fur-ther Research andDevelopment (R & D);and

B After Assessing theResults of the R & DActivities, Advise DOLon the Most EffectiveWays to Disseminateand Replicate Signifi-cant Findings.

R & D and capacity building ac-tivities in general have taken aback seat during JTPA's first fiveyears of existence. Resource set-asides at the federal and statelevels should be considered inorder to stimulate and evaluatenew approaches to working suc-cessfully with more difficultclients. Careful R & D is thefoundation of program success.Without a continuing R & Dagenda, which feeds proven ideasinto the pipeline, systems tend tostagnate. oThe recommended panels, withrevolving membership composedof local practitioners, SDA andstate administrators, and national

policy experts, should be chargedwith creating an annual agendaof items for research and deelop-ment for consideration by thestates and federal departments incharge of employment and train-ing. Those offices should workwith appropriate experts to deter-mine the most feasible strategyfor implementing the suggestions.A modest agenda for R & D PilotProjects is suggested by the Com-mittee in the concluding sectionof this report.The underlying purpose of thepanels would be to broaden in-volvement of the whole system inthe R & D function, and therebyimprove that function'susefulness. Too often researchfindings have no effect on thesystem's in lligence or practice,in addition, there is currently toolittle investment in the develop-ment of new service approachesand better use of technology.Knowledge by itself generatesonly modest action, oftenhaphazardly and often withoutmuch congruence between thetwo. Twenty-five years ofemployment and training history,plus an examination of the waymost successful for-profit com-panies operate, indicate clearlythat resources and strategies arenecessary to maximize the impactof the R & D function.Often, research reports, show-and-tell panels at industry con-ferences, promotional materialsand occasional how-to bookletsare the primary media for sharingknowledge and insights aboutnew services or developments.For some knowledge, these ap-proaches are adequate and ap-propriate; for others, especially

w hen they represent new,technically oi icnted or multi-component ser ices, or strategicsinoking technical assistance andtraining, incenth e funds andother devices are needed to en-sure practical and accurate ex-ploitation in the field.Therefore, it is important to ex-amine and assess the results ofarious research, demonstration

and pilot projects, and recom-mend, under clearly articulatedstandards, those which should bemore broadly utilized and how.The 3oal of this recommendationis to upgrade the quality,relevance and importance of theR & D function in a humancapital development system thatmust keep pace with workplaceand demographic changes.

RECOMMENDATION#25:Standards for Core ServiceDelivery Components andstaff Should BeDeveloped.

Core competencies should bedefined by peer professionals foreach basic occupational specialtyinvolved in the delivery of serv-ices; i.e., outreach and intakeworker, assessment specialist, casemanager, curriculum developer,contract manager, MIS specialist,job developer and others. Peer-developed standards should evolvefor workforce developmentcareers across agencies andrelated programs. A similar effortshould be undertaken to createpeer-developed standards for thebasic components of the .JTPA

33

SCIA ice deliery system, includingreci uitment, assessment, remedia-tion, curricula development,job dcelopment, post-programservices and other importantcomponents.While considerable attention hasbeen given to certain aspects oflabor market intervention, therehas been little if any movementtoward the kind of systematic ef-fort required to understand anddevelop the critical components ofthe delivery system. JTPA mustsystematically perfect its "produc-tion function. the system's abil-ity to perform outreach, assess-ment, strategic, goal-directed,result-oriented employabilityplanning, academic, occupationaland functional skills development;marketing and placement, andpost-placement services.This advancement is possible onlyafter certain conditions are met.First, there is a need for industrystandards and definitions. Se-cond, there is a need to track andfinancially account for programparticipation, performance andoutcomes (intermediate andlonger term) at a service unitlevel. Third, is the need for de-tailed data on Individualcharacteristics, including informa-tion on employment barriers inaddition to the type of demo-graphic information currently col-lected. Finally, is the need to bemotivated and financially able tomove from what is commonlydone to what is possible. Thiscalls for positive incentives fordesired results as well as carefulexperimentation on a scale thatcan only reasonably be ac-complished on an ongoing basiswith the support and involvementof the federal government, assuggested in the concluding sec-tion of this report.*

RECOMMENDATION#26:Efforts Should Be Under-taken To Reduce Instabili-ty and Strengthen theCapacity of the Job Train-ing System To Meet theNeeds of Both Individualsand Employers Over TimeBy:

A Moving the SystemToward Multi-YearFunding ThatStimulates theDevelopment and Useof Strategic Planning;

B Encouraging Statesand SDA'S To AdoptMulti-Year Contrac-ting Arrangements(Similar To Those inJob Corps) That Pro-vide for Multi-YearCore Funding for KeyService Providers.

Throughout the JTPA system,long-range planning has beenrendered virtually impossible bythe short-term, year-to-yearorientation of the program, for-mula funding volatility andnumerous constraints currentlyembodied in the legislation.Beginning at the Congressionallevel, the adoption of a longer-term perspective must become apriority. Such a perspectivewould be most appropriately ar-ticulated in multi-year fundingthat enables the system to move

to a higher plane of managementand to allow core service pro-iders to hire, train and retain acadre of professional staff. It isour belief that the payoff of sucha strategy would be more in-tegrated planning and servicedelivery at state and local levels,supported by a stable network ofexperienced service personnel.

RECOMMENDATION#27:Labor Market Information(LMI) is Critical to JobTraining Decision-Makingand Needs Attention inTwo Key Respects:

A Greater Involvementand Investment inDeveloping the Capa-city of Both Producersand Users of LMI atFederal, State andLocal Levels; and

B Development, By theDepartment of Laborin Cooperation Withthe States, of Tech-niques for Local Plan-ners to Facilitate theCreation and Use ofLocally-Derived LMI.

We acknowledge that LMI is animportant element of decision-making and planning at, all levelsof management in JTPA. Theavailability and usability of infor-mation for the benefit of the in-dividual participant is especiallyimportant, yet that is where it isnow least helpful.

34

The existing 50 different LMIprograms arc Inconsistent in theirapproaches to data analysis andapplication and use of the data.This lack of comparability is areal barrier to sharing innova-tioas and advancing LMI's use.The current informationconfigurationfederal, state andlocalcan neNci achieve the com-prehensiveness that Congress in-tended without more activefederal leadership to guide effec-tive analysis for planning and in-dividual career guidance pur-poses. The development of betterLMI in direct support of JTPA iscentral to the mission of theLabor Department and its pro-grams, both job training andlabor exchange.Those who rely on LMI generallybelieve that knowing how tomake better use of existing infor-mation should take priority overobtaining more data. The firstmeans of improving communica-tion with the users of LMI canbe accomplished by increasing itsmeaning through more and im-proved analysis. In addition, in-creased training is needed forboth producers and users.Under JTPA's decentralized ap-proach, efforts to share newtechnology and developmentsacross states have not been fullysuccessful. An organized and con-sistent federal effort is needed toassure that new and innovativedevelopments are shared effec-tively with those who use them.*Improving our LMI can result ina job training system that is moreresponsive to the needs of both itscustomers. It should assist inidentifying demand occupations,key trends in industrial change,wage patterns and the like; itshould also inform individual'scareer choices and plans.

Throughout this report, we havereferred to the changing nature ofthe workplace, the changingnature of the workforce and thefiscal constraints of our currentenvironment. We have referencedother major systems and pro-grams concerned with developinghuman working capitaleducation, welfare, appren-ticeship, veterans, aging andmany others. We have made thecase that no one system or pro-grani can operate effectively orefficiently as a stand-alone activ-ity. We are committed to the ef-fort to overcome some of thelongstanding barriers to function-ing as an effective part of a morecomprehensive whole. To stim-ulate this collaboration, we offeran initial recommendation.

RECOMMENDATION#28:At All Levels of Govern-ment, Public/Private Part-nership Institutions ShouldBe Created or Expandeci"to Become Responsible forthe Collaborative PolicyDevelopment and PlanningNeeded to Build a MoreCoherent Human ResourceDelivery System.

States and federal agencies mustreach agreement on commongoals and then establish a seriesof "treaties" as the groundworkfor establishing common ter-minology, program measures,data base elements and the com-mitment of resources for jointlyplanned program activities. Atthe federal level, the partnership

institution would develop broadpolicy, make recommendations onkey workforce investment goalsand generally foster morecoherent, integrated systems forhuman resource development.This entity should have top -levelparticipation from the Depart-ments of Labor, Education,Health and Human Services,Commerce and Housing andUrban Development; frombusiness and labor; and fromrepresentatives of state and localgovernment.At the state level, the State JobTraining Coordinating Councilsshould be energized and expand-ed in scope to promote coherentinter-agency resource develop-ment strategies in keeping witheach state's political and institu-tional context. They should in-clude top level decision-makersfrom key public agencies,business, labor and communityorganizations,and representativesfrom the local level. The recentlyenacted provisions in theEconomic Dislocation andWorker Adjustment Act are agood beginning in this regard.PICs should expand their missionto provide oversight on, andserve as catalysts to, greater in-

35

teragency coordination, collabora-tion and communication in alllocal human resource develop-ment programs. This local part-nership should generally includelocal elected officials, active, high-level business and labor participa-tion, directors of local publicagencies, and community -basedorganizations.The expanded role and functionsof PICs and SJTCCs recom-mended here should not beviewed as an endorsement ofJTPA program "takeovers" ofthe human development field.This is not the intent behind therecommendation. Rather, we feelstrongly that the "systems"model created under JTPA is onethat should be emulated. PICsand SJTCCs, working with stateand local elected officials, maywell become the genesis for ex-panded entities charged withdeveloping and implementing"working capital" policy at thestate and local level. The nextphase of our activities, and someof the Pilot Projects suggested inthe conclusion of this report,should carry us further on theroad to a workforce investmentsystem.

.1=.1dale.lo..11.11.1111A10.1

AN AGENDAFOR CHANGE

./EXT STEPSThe Committee had a laic op-poi tunity to look at the mov-ing parts of a sy stein as the

ILL t its capacity to pluck« v, 01 k-

i tg capital,- and to try, to integiatc-c Iii perspectiv es on that s\ stein intoa coherent package of 1(1.0111,11(11(1d-t ons and (onside' ations.The elements in the package areboth interdependent and mutuallyreinforcing. For example, increas-ing local discretion over servicechoice and relaxing categoricalcost restrictions will increase theeffectiveness of service deliveryonly in conjunction with tight-ened enrollment targeting, aclearer definition of the functionof performance standards, in-creased requirements for reward-

worthy performance and broaderparticipation in the R & D pro-cess. Recommending a packageof interdependent provisions maybe risky, but the Committee feltit was realistic for two reasoiFirst, JTPA's original designvisioned integrated training at.employment systems in everystate, but that vision under-standably was distracted by asevere recession and federal en-couragement to use all a. ailableresources to get people back towor: Therefore, early emphasison placements became the routinebusiness of JTPA. With thereturn of a healthy economy,state and local officials haverenewed their interest in in-tegrating programs with similarmissions. These efforts should beencouraged, because we believethey will greatly imprcve the ef-fectiveness both of JTPA and ofthe other programs..

Second, public discomfort withpast employment and trainingprograms led to piecemeal legisla-tion, regulatory adjustments andtheir eventual demise. JTPA, incontrast, has significant supportand substantive strengths. Anylegislative and regulatory changesshould preserve its vitalcharacteristics v% !tile improving itsoverall responsiveness to rapidsocial and economic trends..In sum, we support a publiclyfunded employment and trainingsystem that is geared in policyand practice to the long-termhuman capital development goalso often stated rhetorically by ourleaders and in legislation. Itsenrollment priorities and longer-term outcomes should be moredefinitively established to reflectthat human capital approach,with incentives and rewards tiedto added-value outcomes. Themeans to achieve these outcomesshould be left largely to localdecision-makers, except where na-tional needs or findings aboutspecific service strategies providea compelling case for restrictingthat discretion. The systemshould develop a more sustainedand broadly-based R & D andcapacity building function to helpit keep up in practice and qualitywith the changing needs of bothits participants and their eventualemployers.

4

In our deliberations, we recogn.ed that in several program areascritical to the future effectivenessof the JTPA program, theavailable base of information andexperience was not adequate tosupport recommendations forlegislative or administrativechange. We believe that these in-formation gaps should be address-ed by the Department of Laborthrough pilot projects conductedunder its research and demonstra-tion program. Several areasmight be appropriate for inter-agency research agendas. Thefollowing areas of research andtesting warrant particularly highpriority:

Integrated Delivery of HumanServices. This report hasargued the case for buildingan integrated human servicedelivery system at the locallevel, and recommended anadministrative framework forbuilding such a system. Ap-propriately designeddemonstration projects canprovide working models ofsuch linkages. We wouldrecommend that particular at-tention in this regard shouldbe devoted to projects involv-ing joint planning by JTPA,education and social serviceagencies in providing servicesto disadvantaged youth andwelfare recipients. Incentivesfor joint planning and in-tegrated service deliveryshould include waivers onrestrictive regulations. Wepoint to the successful WINdemonstration projects of theearly 80s that paved the wayfor welfare reform in 1988.

For example, we propose apilot project in which incen-tives are offered to a fewstates to encourage legislationmodeled on a Council ofChief State School Officers'proposal for a guaranteedquality education for every at-risk youth. This could includepooling portions of Head-Start, Chapter I, VocationalEducation, JOBS and JTPAfunds; waiving certain restric-tive regulations; implementingresearch findings on ap-propriate curricula andteaching techniques; ar-ticulating outcome expecta-tions at defined intervals; andtesting of various forms oftechnical assistance and sanc-tions if at-risk youth are notsuccessfully educated andprepared for self-sufficientlives. The Departments ofEducation and Labor mightjointly fund such research,which would require interimevaluations based on perfor-mance standards.The phenomenal growth infemale-headed households liv-ing in poverty, and theestablished correlation be-tween that and subsequentschool and work failure,justify support for a group ofpilot projects that wouldutilize resources from multiplefunding streams to deliverhuman developmental servicesto persistently poor familyunits. Pilots of such FamilyDevelopment Centers, inwhich the goal is economicself-sufficiency for the family,may be appropriate joint

R & D projects for DOL andHHS, and HUD if suchcenters were to be located inlarge public housing com-plexes. Interim performancestandards that assess literacy,teen pregnancy, school perfor-mance, family stability andultimate self-sufficiency shouldbe established.Developing Improved Assess-ment Systems. It is our convic-tion that more sophisticatedassessment of JTPA enrollees,at entry, is critical to successin serving disadvantaged per-sons with serious skills defi-ciencies. Research is neededto determine the most effec-tive and efficient means ofproviding such assessment.We urge the testing of alter-native methodologies forassessing youth and adults inthe JTPA program, such asexpansion of the criterion-referenced test proposed bythe Project of the States. Out-comes from this effort wouldbe valuable to all relatedprograms.Case Management and RelatedData Systems. Integrated serv-ice planning and delivery byhuman resource agencies canbe greatly facilitated by theuse of the case managementapproach. Systematic testingon a pilot project basis of theuse of case managersas in-dividuals and in teamsshould be carried out withinthe JTPA program and as anapproach to linking servicesbetween JTPA and otherrelated programs in thecommunity.

Because of the past fragmen-tation of training and employ-ment programs, case manage-ment v as not seen as a viableservice delivery strategy inthis area. However, withauthority granted to a single,overall "managementarm"the statesthere isnow the opportunity toseriously consider movingtowards the comprehensiveinter-agency service deliverysystem afforded by the casemanagement approach. Thisis especially significant in lightof the strong support given tocase management in the newJOBS program. Intensiveinter-agency staff trainingmust be a prerequisite to im-plementation, and appropriatecurricula should be developedas part of the researcheffort.Case management implies anew approach to managementand the organization of serv-ices into individual treatmentplans. Integral to the successof this strategy for JTPA andfor its linkage to other humandevelopment systems isresearch and development intoa newly designed data andreporting system that will cap-ture discreet units of servicewith attendant disaggregatedcosts per unit. DOL is en-couraged to pursue this effort,not only to provide betterlocal management and servicedelivery; if successful, costreports related to outcomesand long-term program im-pacts will have real meaning.We recommend that one state

in each region be selected topilot this effort, su that resultscan be rapidly disseminated.Cost Categories. As discussedearlier in this report, there isreason to believe that the cur-rent cap on administrativecosts may be unnecessarilyconstraining, particularly forsmall SDAs or small states.We believe that there is meritin testing the value of costrestrictions in general, on apilot basis, to determinewhether or not the orogram'seffectiveness is therebydiminished or enhanced. Con-clusive results will require aparticularly careful framing ofthe hypothesis .o be tested,and rigorous data collectionand analysis of the results.Interagency Staff Training.We have stressed the impor-tance of building the capacityof the personnel who staff theemployment and trainingdelivery system, including theservice providers. It is likelythat there is a similar need forcapacity-building in local non-JTPA training, social serviceand education agencies. Weurge the Department, forreasons of cost-effectiveness aswell as to help build in-teragency teamwork at thelocal level, to explore withother Federal agencies thepossibility of jointly fundingand conducting training ofstate and local staffs engagedin human resource develop-ment programs. Articulatingcommon goals might be anexcellent first step in thisprocess.

In view of the importance ofthese issues to the future of theJTPA program and related

human dcelopmc ,t systems, v.eurge the Departincn of Labor tomoc promptly on this researchand development agenda, andfollow up with aggressivedissemination of importantfindings.CONCLUSIONThe Advisory Committee has ac-cepted the charge of the Secretaryof Labor to follow un this reportwith a more intensive analysis ofthe problem of building an in-tegrated human resource deliverysystem. We believe that the bar-riers to coordinated servicedelivery, while persistent, are notinsurmountable. In addition tofurther policy recommendationsin this critical area, we may alsosuggest additions to the Depart-ment's research agenda on thistopic.In the process of this analysis, ithas become clear that the JobTraining Partnership Act createdboth a program and a deliverysystem. Some view JTPA in thenarrower sense; others see thebroader context. Many of therecommendations proposed in thisreport are directed to sharpeningthe focus of JTPA program ac-tivities in order to develop a pro-duct custom tailored for a chang-ed market place. At the sametime, we became acutely awarethat the JTPA delivery systemhas the capacity for considerablebroadening; it could become thefoundation for integrated humancapital development activities. Inthis report, we have indicatedwhat some next steps in thatdirection might be. Whether ornot that happens depends on vi-sion, leadership, professionalismand a healthy dose of good will inevery community and at everylevel of government.

A special thank you to thosewho lent their full cooperationand support to the JTPAAdvisory Committee.

ALTERNATESDavid Hornbeck

Robcrt Ivry

Ilcs Minoff

Richard Pracgcr

Alan Zuckcrman

EDITOR

Christopher King

EDITORIAL ASSISTANCE

Lawrcncc Bailis

Natalic Jaffc

Rosc Livingston

DEPARTMENT OF LABORSTAFF SUPPORT

Dolores Battic

Michael Brauscr

Stephanie Curtis

Hugh Davies

Barbara DcVcaux

Mary Ann Donovan

Lloyd Fcldman

Gcrri Fiala

Tcrcnce Fincgan

Richard Kaufmann

Elaine Kolodny

David Lah

Patricia McNcil

Martha Muirhcad

Sande Schiffcrcs

Shitiey Smith

Karen Staha