National Association of Counties * Washington, D.C.            Vol. 31, No. 5 * March 15, 1999

---

Previous story | Table of Contents | Next story

County officials raise concerns
about Workforce Investment Act

Seek clarifications of law, representation
on Workforce Investment Boards

By Mary Ann Barton
senior staff writer

---

Jeff Teitz, counsel, Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee (second from right) makes a point at a hearing March 1 about implementation of the Workforce Investment Act. Looking on are: (L–r): Ray Uhalde, deputy assistant secretary of Labor for Employment and Training, D’Arcy Philps, professional staff, House Committee on Education and the Workforce and Penelope Cameron, chair of the Employment Steering Committee.

Reporting requirements, state versus local control, local flexibility, prioritization of clients.

Washington bureaucrats got an earful from county officials about problems they see with the Workforce Investment Act, in a Legislative Conference public hearing March 1. The new law was designed to allow states and localities to develop new and innovative strategies for the delivery of workforce development programs.

Joel Yelverton of the Mississippi Association of Supervisors told the jam-packed room a "horror story" about how his state’s Board of Community Colleges recently presented a white paper to Gov. Kirk Fordice (R) that recommended the group as the state’s new Workforce Investment Board.

"And you can imagine who was not represented," Yelverton said.

To add to local officials’ concerns, Mississippi’s director of economic development supported the Community College Board recommendation – in opposition to a decision by the governor’s chief of staff – to develop a new board. Yelverton said it was discovered later that the wife of the economic development chief served on the Community College Board.

Meanwhile, the governor has made a proclamation establishing a Workforce Investment Board that says local officials must be represented, he said.

But local officials in Mississippi are still concerned, because bills are being introduced in the legislature that would hand authority over to state agencies, out of county officials’ control. The legislation is being introduced because the federal legislation allows it, Yelverton pointed out.

"Every state agency has hired a lobbyist," he noted. "They all want their slice of the pie."

Things aren’t that much different up north. In Pennsylvania, Union County Commissioner Harry Vansickle told the group that the following changes would help make the new law work in his county:

• Require states to ensure legitimate representation of local elected officials on the statewide Workforce Investment Boards.
• Increase vigilance and oversight on the part of the U.S. Department of Labor of those states conducting early implementation to ensure that the interpretation of WIA on the part of the states meets the thresholds of the law as intended by Congress.
• Require states to designate Service Delivery Areas that have, by law, met the criteria for designation.
• Encourage states not to create implementation models that place additional burdens on local areas that exceed what is mandated in WIA.
• Require states to provide local flexibility in the development of local workforce investment systems.

"If action is not taken soon on behalf of the local areas in Pennsylvania, it is believed that the overall benefits of the Workforce Investment Act will not be realized," Vansickle said.