ICCTA Action Alert March 18, 2003 The following summary is reprinted from the American Association of Community Colleges. Highlights of the Workforce Reinvestment and Adult Education Act of 2003 The following is a summary of key provisions of the Workforce Investment Act reauthorization bill introduced by Reps. John Boehner and Buck McKeon. 1. State Workforce Investment Boards: Membership on the state boards is streamlined, with two categories of members removed -- representatives of organizations with experience in youth activities and organizations that deliver workforce investment activities, including CEOs of community colleges. State economic development officials are now mandatory members of the state boards. The requirement for a business majority on the board is maintained, contrary to the Administration’s proposal. The functions of the board are modified to focus more on developing policies affecting the integrated delivery of services at the One-Stop Career Centers, including overseeing the certification of One-Stop Centers and the distribution of One-Stop Center infrastructure funding. (See below for details.) The current provision that allows governors to continue pre-WIA state boards is eliminated. 2. State Plan: States, as well as local areas, would have to submit a plan every 2 years, rather than every 5 years. 3. Local Workforce Investment Boards: The membership of local boards would also be streamlined. The current provision that makes "representatives of local education entities" members of local boards would be narrowed to specify "superintendents of secondary school systems and the presidents of community colleges." Representatives of one-stop partners would no longer be required board members. Youth councils would no longer be required. Instead, local boards would have the authority to establish councils if they choose, including youth councils and one-stop partner councils. The provisions of the law that allow for the continuation of pre-WIA boards, including PICS, would be eliminated. 4. Local Plan: The requirement that the local plan include the memorandums of understanding (MOU) of the One-Stop partners would be eliminated, and plans would have to be submitted every 2 years. 5. Establishment of One-Stop Delivery Systems: Ticket to Work, child support enforcement, and local disability programs would be added as permissible local One-Stop partners. The provision allowing the continuation of pre-WIA One-Stop centers would be eliminated. The functions of the centers would be augmented to include providing access to labor-exchange services, and to Personal Reemployment Accounts (PRA’s). 6. Certification and Funding of One-Stop Centers: One-Stop centers that meet minimum standards of service integration, devised by the state board, would be certified. Those centers that are certified qualify for One-Stop infrastructure funding, which would come from a portion of the funds provided to the State by the One-Stop center partner programs. For example, the State agency that administers the Perkins program would turn over a portion of the state Perkins allocation for this infrastructure funding. The governor would decide the size of the portion to be taken from each partner program, with no limits on this power included in the Act. The governor would then distribute these funds to certified centers using a formula devised by the state board. "Costs of infrastructure," for which these funds may be used, include nonpersonnel costs necessary for the general operation of the centers, such as rent, utilities, and maintenance; equipment; strategic planning activities; and common outreach activities. Infrastructure costs exceeding the amount covered by the grants, as well as other common operating costs, would still be contributed by One-Stop partners as determined via MOU’s. 7. Eligible Providers of Training Services: As proposed by the Administration, the Act gives the job of determining eligibility requirements for training providers to the governors. The governors shall use the performance indicators in the Act for state and local areas, "or other appropriate indicators," of training provider performance. The governor’s criteria must provide for periodic review and renewal of eligibility, and the governor may also authorize local areas to establish additional criteria. There must be a process for training providers to appeal eligibility denials, and the governor must solicit the recommendations of local boards and training providers when devising the eligibility criteria. 8. Funding: The adult, dislocated worker, and Wagner-Peyser funding streams would be combined into one funding stream, as proposed by the Administration. The Secretary of Labor would reserve 10% of this amount, at least 75% of which must be used for national emergency grants, up to 20% for demonstration projects, and up to 5% for technical assistance. Currently, the Secretary of Labor reserves 20% of the dislocated worker funding stream for these national programs. The other 90% of the funding would be allocated to the states on a formula basis, using a new formula that increases emphasis on the number of unemployed people in a State, and reduces emphasis on the excess number of unemployed people and the number of disadvantaged adults. The formula would also take into account the relative size of the state’s labor force. States would be able to reserve up to 40% of the funds allocated to them for statewide activities. The remaining 60% would be allocated to local areas, 80% of which via the same formula that governs federal-to-state allocations, 20% via a formula devised by the governor. The bill would dedicate more funds to the local areas than the Administration, which proposed a 50%-50% funding split. The Act places a 10% cap on administrative costs at the local level, and 5% at the state level. 9. Statewide Employment and Training Activities: The required statewide activities are narrowed to rapid response activities and additional assistance to local areas that have experienced disasters or mass layoffs. Some of the other statewide activities that are currently required are found in other areas of the new Act, or would be permissible activities. Permissible statewide activities are also narrowed -- implementation of programs for displaced homemakers and non-traditional employment are no longer on this list. 10. Local Employment and Training Activities: The wording of the current law leads many to falsely assume a required "progression of services" because eligibility for intensive services extends to those "unable" to obtain employment through core services, and only those "unable" to obtain employment through intensive services qualify for training. The Act seeks to clarify that local areas do not have to follow a progression of services by making WIA participants "unlikely or unable to obtain suitable employment" through core services eligible for intensive services, and those "unlikely or unable to obtain suitable employment" through intensive services eligible for training. The Act leaves it to the governors to define "suitable employment." Priority for services would go to unemployed people for provision of intensive and training services. If local funds for serving low-income individuals are limited, they would also get priority for intensive and training services. Local areas would be able to use up to 10% of their funds for incumbent worker training programs, with an employer match required. The size of the required match starts at 10% for businesses with fewer than 50 employees and increases along with the size of the business. 11. Personal Reemployment Accounts: The text of HR 444, which authorizes the personal reemployment accounts originally proposed by the Administration in its economic stimulus package, is included in the Act. 12. State and Local Performance Indicators: Adult employment indicators are reduced to four core indicators -- entry into unsubsidized employment, retention in employment 6 months after entry, earnings received 6 months after entry, and efficiency in obtaining these outcomes. The first three of these indicators are already in the statute. The Act strikes the existing exemption from reporting on those who only use self-help and informational services. AACC Contact: Jim Hermes, Senior Legislative Associate, 202-728-0200 Illinois Community College Trustees Association 401 E. Capitol Ave., Suite 200 Springfield, IL 62701-1711 217-528-2858 (phone) 217-528-8662 (fax) ICCTA@communitycolleges.org (e-mail) http://www.communitycolleges.org | Home | News | Events | Links |