As a coalition of workforce development organizations, our comments will focus on how to improve the use of AEFLA / WIA Title II funds within the context of occupational training programs geared toward helping adults enter and succeed in skilled occupations. However, we do also recognize that there are other valuable uses of AEFLA / WIA Title II resources that advance adult literacy independent of any specific employment outcome. We hope a reauthorized AEFLA / WIA Title II will allow a better pursuit of both goals.

The Disconnect Between Adult Education and Occupational Skills Training

Our network of workforce development stakeholders feels there is an avoidable disconnect between federal support for occupational training under programs like WIA Title I, and basic skills education services provided under AEFLA / WIA Title II . Our members are often serving job-seekers who not only lack the latest occupational skills to enter newly available jobs, but also lack the literacy, language or computation skills that are now minimum requirements often just to make it through these training programs, let alone succeed in these "new economy" positions.

Recent research confirms our members' real-world experience: that when basic skills education is offered within the context of occupational training, it yields significant labor market success for trainees. For example, a recent study that was part of the National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies found that over three years, high school non-graduates who participated in basic education followed by post-secondary training or education earned an impressive 47% more than high school non-graduates who participated in basic education alone. Yet current federal policies do not facilitate or encourage the effective integration of these two types of education and training. Many community colleges and community-based organizations cite concerns about local workforce development systems in which basic education and occupational skills training services operate independently of each other. As a result, many occupational training providers who serve adults with additional basic skills needs have no way of accessing AEFLA / WIA Title II funds-or even Title II-funded providers of adult literacy services-to support their trainees' success. In some cases, community-based training providers find they must cobble together leftover funds from other sources to support basic skills services for their trainees, albeit not at the level or intensity that such training providers would prefer. In other cases, some community colleges find that the nature of Title II funding discourages their institutions from integrating Title II services with the institution's workforce development programs.  There are a number of practical issues that a reauthorized AEFLA / WIA Title II should take into account to ease coordination between occupational and basic skills services:

·        Title I and Title II continue to function as separate systems, even though they are mandated partners within WIA. Individual job-seekers who are referred to a Title I "eligible training provider" to receive occupational training services rarely receive a simultaneous referral for adult education services. If the occupational training provider does not receive Title II funding, then it typically has no other federal resource to support basic skills services for that job-seeker.

·        Title I and Title II of WIA are subject to different performance measurement systems. Even at institutions like community colleges, which receive both Title I and Title II funding, the difference in performance indicators for the two sources makes their integration within a single workforce development program difficult. Performance indicators under WIA Title I primarily measure labor market gains (e.g., placement, retention, earnings gains), whereas WIA Title II indicators include other measures of equal weight, including improvements in literacy levels and receipt of a secondary diploma or its equivalent-important goals on their own, but not essential to measuring the success of a graduate from an employment-focused workforce development program. Given the need to track two different sets of goals for each student, some colleges just opt to keep the basic skills services separate from the occupational training services, thereby reducing integration.

·        In some states, adult education and adult occupational skills training are often the responsibility of completely separate institutions. In many states, the K-12 system operates AEFLA programs, thereby placing Title II services within a completely different set of institutions than those in which most occupational training is being delivered to local adults under Title I (i.e., community colleges, community-based organization, and unions).

Recommendations for Better Coordination Between Adult Education and Occupational Skills Training

The Department of Education should continue to allow AEFLA / WIA Title II programming that raises literacy and basic skills levels for some individuals independent of any employment outcome. However, for those local areas and training institutions that are providing occupational training and want to integrate those services with basic education services, the Department of Education should be working with Congress and the U.S. Department of Labor to ease integration between WIA Title I and AEFLA / WIA Title II. That can be done by:

·        Making it easier for training providers to access both Title I and Title II funds for individual clients or programs.

·        Streamlining performance measurements for Title I and Title II funds when used in the context of single workforce development program. Allow the employment-focused measures used for training services under WIA Title I (e.g., job placement, job retention, earnings gains) to suffice for measuring performance for Title II funds used within the context of an occupational skills training program. If there are separate education measurements required, focus on workplace-related competencies as opposed to only on grade-level improvements.

·        Encouraging co-location of adult education and occupational skills training programs within individual institutions. States should continue to have the flexibility to choose which institutions (K-12, post-secondary, community-based, etc.) are eligible to deliver AEFLA / WIA Title II services. However, the Department and Congress should consider creating incentives or new demonstration programs for the use of some of those funds by institutions / providers delivering occupational training, in order to assess their success in integrating basic skills and occupational skills services.

We are gratified to see that the Alliance supports the broad purposes of the Title II program but are concerned about their perception that consistent definitions and control of title II dollars by employment and training agencies are their preferred means of fostering better integration of Title I and Title II activity.  We need to have them understand that consistent employment–related definitions are needed – but only for those individuals in Title II programs who choose employment or training as their goal.  They also seem to be unaware that the direct and equitable provisions of Title II already allow them to apply for funding.  State and local adult education agencies need to demonstrate that the best path to better integration is to promote partnerships between agencies that are experienced in delivering adult education services and employment and training agencies.
 

It is also interesting that they call for learning gains measures other than academic standardized tests.  This is the same issue that we have encountered in looking for a way to record gains in workforce literacy programs.

One other presentation was especially noteworthy. It was a Congressional briefing by Catherine Brown of Hillary Clinton’s staff,  James Bergeron of the House majority of the Education and the Workforce Committee and Michele Varnhagen of that committee’s minority staff.

Catherine Brown said that of the several pending reauthorizations TANF will be considered first - possibly in a reconciliation bill.  She sees two reconciliation bills coming out.  One would be an economic stimulus package and the other a combination of prescription drugs and TANF.  The benefit to the Administration of a reconciliation bill is that it only needs 51 votes to pass, no amendments are allowed, and it can't be filibustered, according to Brown.  The Finance committee will be given a cap and will do the writing in the next two months. 

She does not see a major overhaul in WIA, and she discussed the several ways to count expenditures, assuming that the Administration will adopt the most conservative method to bolster their case that additional money is not needed. (Because most Title I programs are performance-based, a great deal of the payments to local agencies does not occur until late in the program.  The Administration is using expenditures to date  to evaluate fiscal needs of the WIA Title I program and is likely to come to the conclusion that Title I is not spending its money and therefore doesn’t need more).

Brown said that Higher Education will be on a slower track.  The '05 budget will contain the Administration proposal.

James Bergeron added that Higher Education will be about serving 24-29 year old workers. He also said that the WIA proposal from the administration might look more at incumbent worker training and engagement of the business community.  This would entail changing performance measures.  He seemed reticent to discuss any plans to "Rob Perkins to pay Pell" – the rumor that Perkins would be zero funded and its funding used to shore up a Pell deficit.

Michele Varnhagen predicted that the Senate would chisel away at the TANF proposed 40 hour week proposed by the House- especially in light of there being no additional money for child care.  She said that there was little reliable data to make decisions about the need for training dollars.  Departing from what Brown said, she reported that the Administration might do something radical in combining programs - including making TANF a mandatory One-Stop partner.

There was general agreement that TANF waivers would continue - despite their proposed termination in the House bill.