While the political push to reform the nationís job training system has decreased substantially, the work force development conference committee continues to attempt to craft a compromise bill that addresses the major differences between a House-passed bill, known as the CAREERS Act, and a Senate-passed bill, known as the Workforce Development Act.
The bills, which seek to consolidate more than 90 job training and education programs into just a few block grants, have garnered substantial bipartisan support.
They are designed to streamline the nation’s job training system; eliminate duplication of services; and develop a system of one-stop or integrated career systems that economically disadvantaged adults and youth, dislocated workers and others in need of job training and employment assistance can rely on to receive a full range of job training, education and social services. These are goals that NACo shares with the Congress.
Troublesome aspects exist in both bills, however.
Both bills would reduce the influence that county elected officials could have over job training programs. The Senate’s Workforce Development Act, however, would transfer most authority to governors who could keep local elected officials out of the job training system, while the House’s CAREERS Act would retain important roles for local elected officials.
NACo supports, in general, the House version of job training reform. While we are concerned about some of the provisions, we believe that the governance structure that the House bill would mandate ensures a role for local elected officials and the development of a program that is responsive to local needs.
It is unclear as to whether job training reform legislation will be enacted by the 104th Congress. Major differences between the House and Senate bills may make it impossible for members and their staffs to bridge the disagreements and come up with a bill that each house can adopt.
On the other hand, job training reform is one of the few areas around which a bipartisan consensus has emerged. That, in itself, makes it a likely candidate for congressional action.
Funding for job training programs is another major issue. The Senate has yet to act on this appropriation and appears unable to do so because of disagreements over issues unrelated to the funding of job training programs.
The House-passed appropriations bill would cut substantially appropriations for job training programs. Like many programs in the House Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill (H.R. 2127), job training programs were cut.
Unfortunately, job training programs appeared to take a disproportionate share of the cuts. Overall, cuts in job training approached 45 percent. This $4 billion program would be reduced to $2.2 billion if the House has its way. Among the programs that were targeted were the summer youth employment program, for which funds were eliminated; the year-round youth program, for which funds were reduced by 80 percent; the dislocated worker program, for which funds were reduced by 30 percent; and the job training program for economically disadvantaged adults, for which funds were reduced by 25 percent.
It remains difficult to predict the outcome of job training reform efforts or funding for job training programs. It is NACo’s view that job training reform legislation should be adopted by the Congress.
However, two criteria should be met. First, job training reform should ensure that clients have access to a broad range of services that lead to meaningful work. Second, job training reform should recognize the necessary and important role that local elected officials and business representatives must play in the development and implementation of programs to meet client needs.
However, it is also NACo’s view that efforts to reform job training through the development of a streamlined and non-duplicative system should not be used to drastically cut funding, as has been proposed by the House in H.R. 2127.
It is also NACo’s view that job training programs should be funded at a level that permits them to perform the functions for which the program was designed. Current funding proposals by the House would make it impossible for programs to operate in ways that would ensure appropriate and sufficient services.
(Prepared by Neil E. Bomberg, associate legislative director.)
This document was produced using an evaluation version of HTML Transit