|
IMMIGRANTS
& EMPLOYMENT |
|
Title I – Workforce Investment Systems Recommendations • Intensive and Training Services |
Title II – Adult Education and Literacy Recommendations • Adult Basic Education (ABE) Funding Formula |
TO: Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Kildee, 21st Century Competitiveness Subcommittee of the House Education and the Workforce Committee
FROM: Tyler Moran, Policy Analyst, National Immigration
Law Center, 208-333-1424, moran@nilc.org
Sue Liu, Workforce Development Analyst, National Council of La Raza, 202-776-1714,
sliu@nclr.org
Barbara Strack, Director, Center for the New American Community, National
Immigration Forum, bstrack@immigrationforum.org
RE: Comments on the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act
DATE: February 28, 2003
Please accept these comments on the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) on behalf of the National Immigration Law Center (NILC), the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), and the National Immigration Forum. NILC is a nonprofit legal support agency that specializes in the intersection of immigration, employment, and public benefits laws. NCLR is a private, nonprofit, nonpartisan, tax-exempt organization established in 1968 to reduce poverty and discrimination, and improve life opportunities for Hispanic Americans. The National Immigration Forum, a broad-based, pro-immigrant advocacy organization, works to embrace and uphold our country's heritage as a nation of immigrants and a beacon of hope for refugees.
The reauthorization of WIA offers an opportunity to build on the successes of the past three years and to address some of the weaknesses of the workforce development and adult education system. Federal law should ensure the employability of the limited English-proficient (LEP) population, by providing necessary skills training and English language instruction. To achieve this goal, the WIA program should provide better access to training services, flexible performance measures, and English instruction that meets the needs of LEP learners. Such improvements to WIA will assist all low-income workers, including immigrants and LEP persons.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics at the U.S. Department of Labor projects that some industries with a high percentage of immigrant workers, such as garment and other manufacturing, will experience job losses in this decade.(1) This decline will force workers to find employment in other industries, increasing the need for language and skills training, job placement, and support services.
We urge you to adopt the recommendations for Title I and Title II, set forth below, which will assist states in meeting the goals of the WIA program. Additionally, we oppose any proposal that seeks to block grant WIA services or to replace training services with vouchers, such as Personal Reemployment Accounts, which restrict, rather than expand, services for hard-to-serve populations. Rather than create a new program, Congress should use the funding to expand existing job training services.
Background
The population of adults who are immigrants and/or LEP is significant and growing. New immigrants (immigrants who entered the U.S. after 1990) accounted for 50.3 percent of the growth in the civilian labor force between 1990 and 2001.(2) Assuming that today's levels of immigration remain constant, immigrants will account for half of the growth in the working-age population between 2006 and 2015, and for all of the growth between 2016 and 2035.(3) Additionally, approximately 17.8 million adults are LEP.(4)
Despite their invaluable contributions to the U.S. economy, many immigrants live in poverty, accounting for one out of every five low-income families.(5) Between 1996 and 1999, immigrants' unemployment rates fell faster than natives', but median wages for natives rose more than 50 percent faster than median wages for immigrants.(6) This poverty is directly related to the challenges and barriers they confront in the labor force, including language and cultural barriers and an education and training system that does not respond to their needs. Lack of English proficiency is a significant barrier to obtaining better jobs. Immigrants who are fluent in oral and written English earn approximately 24 percent more than those who lack fluency, regardless of their vocational qualifications.(7)
Immigrant and LEP workforce issues effect the entire country. Immigrants are no longer settling only in the six states (California, New York, Florida, Texas, New Jersey, and Illinois) in which they have traditionally lived, but are moving to nontraditional states, such as Georgia, Nebraska, North Carolina, and Idaho. In the 1990s the immigrant population in nontraditional immigrant states grew twice as fast as in the traditional states (61 percent versus 31 percent).(8)
TITLE I - WORKFORCE INVESTMENT SYSTEMS
RECOMMENDATIONS
Bold italics designate change in current law
1. INTENSIVE AND TRAINING SERVICES
Current Law:
Intensive services: §134(d)(3)(a)(i)(I) states that funds may be used to provide intensive services to individuals "who are unable to obtain employment through core services."
Training services: §134(d)(4)(A)(i) states that funds may be used to provide training services to individuals "who have met the requirements for intensive services…and who are unable to obtain or retain employment through such services."
Problem:
Many job seekers, including immigrants and LEP persons, are prevented from enrolling in training services because of the perceived "work-first" mandate.(9) As a result, immigrants do not have the opportunity to improve their English proficiency and occupational skills. These skills are essential for entering or re-entering the job market, or securing jobs that pay a living wage. More than 40 percent of noncitizens have less than a high school education, compared to only 13.4 percent of native-born Americans.(10) Given their low levels of education, these immigrants need basic skills training, ESL classes, and supportive services to succeed in the U.S. workforce.
Proposals:
1. Eliminate the mandated sequence of services, and allow one-stop centers to choose which type of service (core, intensive, or training) would best fit the individual's need.
§134(d)(3)(A)(i)(I) and 134(d)(4)(A)(i) are amended as follows:
§134(d)(3)(a)(i)(I) is amended by eliminating §(I). §134(d)(4)(A)(i) is amended by eliminating §(i).
Note: Sections will need to be renumbered accordingly.
2. Clarify that bilingual training and Vocational English as a Second Language (VESL) are allowable intensive and training activities.
§134(d)(3)(C)(vi) is amended as follows:
"(vi) Short-term prevocational services, including development of learning skills, communication skills, English literacy skills, interviewing skills, punctuality, personal maintenance skills, and professional conduct to prepare individuals for unsubsidized employment or training."
§134(d)(4)(D)(i) is amended as follows:
"(i) occupational skills training, including training for nontraditional employment and bilingual occupational training;"
§134(d)(4)(D)(viii) is amended as follows:
"(viii) adult education, English as a Second Language, and literacy activities provided in combination with services described in any of the clauses (i) through (vii)."
3. Create incentives for programs that integrate occupational training and English literacy, and for training providers and English literacy providers to coordinate services.
§503(a) is amended by adding §(2) as follows:
"(a) In General - Beginning on July 1, 2000, the Secretary shall award a grant to each State that meets the following criteria -
(1) Each State that exceeds the State adjusted levels of performance . . .or such Public Law, respectively; and
(2) Each State that funds programs that integrate occupational skills training and language acquisition."
4. Create incentives for employers to provide training that integrates occupational skills with language acquisition, and to hire individuals who have been trained in such programs, by amending the definitions of on-the-job training and customized training that are referred to in §122(h).
§101(31)(C) is amended by adding §(i) as follows:
"(i) EXCEPTION. - When the participant is limited English proficient and the employer is providing training that integrates occupational skills and language acquisition, reimbursement of up to 100 percent will be provided to the employer."
§101(8)(C) is amended by adding §(i) as follows:
"(i) EXCEPTION. - The cost of the training will be waived when the employer hires an individual who has participated in training that integrates occupational skills and language acquisition."
Rationale:
Because of the "work-first" approach taken by one-stop centers, most immigrants cannot enroll in intensive services and training services, which include programs that provide English classes and job skills. Immigrants who are fluent in oral and written English earn approximately 24 percent more than those who lack fluency, regardless of their vocational qualifications.(11) Existing programs that integrate skills training and language acquisition have demonstrated remarkable employment outcomes.(12) Clarifying that ESL and VESL count as an intensive and training activity, and providing incentives to programs and employers to offer integrated programs will encourage the adoption of these models.
Current Law:
§136 identifies the "core" indicators of performance for employment and training activities. Indicators include -
"(I) entry into unsubsidized employment;
(II) retention in unsubsidized employment 6 months after entry into the employment;
(III) earnings received in unsubsidized employment 6 months after entry into the employment; and
(IV) attainment of a recognized credential relating to achievement of educational skills, which may include attainment of a secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalent, or occupational skills, by participants who enter unsubsidized employment, or by participants who are eligible youth age 19 through 21 who enter post-secondary education, advanced training, or unsubsidized employment."
§136(g) addresses sanctions for states that fail to meet the performance measures. States will first receive technical assistance, and if it still does not meet its performance measure, the Secretary can reduce the grant by not more than 5 percent from the previous year.
§122(c)(6) describes the performance measures that providers must meet to remain on the "eligible provider of training services" list. Organizations that do not meet the performance measures are removed from the list and cannot receive WIA funding to provide training.
Problem:
The current performance system creates a disincentive to serve persons who are LEP because they generally need more intensive and longer periods of training than native-born individuals. Providers sometimes are reluctant to serve LEP individuals because they are less "job ready." To ensure that providers can meet the performance measures, many one-stops "cream" the best individuals (i.e., the individuals most likely to get a job) for training services, and offer persons with greater barriers to employment the "core" services. Similarly, training providers also "cream" by imposing minimum participation requirements (e.g., 8th grade reading level) that many LEP persons cannot meet. The result is that most LEP persons are not able to participate in training services, and even when they are given a voucher for training services, there are few or no training providers to serve them.
Proposals:
1. Identify LEP persons in the factors that are considered in the adjusted levels of performance. Considerations should be made for serving LEP and other hard-to-serve-populations.
§136(b)(3)(A)(iv)(II) is amended as follows:
"(II) how the levels involved compare with the State adjusted levels of performance established for other States, taking into account factors including differences in economic conditions, the characteristics of participants when the participants entered the program, including their level of English proficiency, and the services to be provided; and"
2. Allow for reporting on Adult Basic Education performance measures when training providers integrate job training and language acquisition.
§122(d)(3)(C) is added after §122(d)((3)(B) as follows:
"Adult Education and Family Literacy Act Requirements. - The local board and the designated State agency described in subsection (i) may accept program-specific performance information consistent with the requirements for eligibility under the Adult and Family Literacy Act (20 USC 9212) from a provider for the purpose of enabling the provider to fulfill the applicable requirements of this subsection, if such information is substantially similar to the information otherwise required under this subsection."
3. Allow training programs that integrate occupational skills with language acquisition to meet the same performance measures as providers that provide on-the-job training and customized training.
§122(h) is amended as follows:
"(h) On-the-job training, or customized training or integrated training exception. -
(1) In general. - Providers of on-the-job training, or customized training or integrated training shall not be subject to the requirements of subsections (a) through (e).
(2) Collection and dissemination of information. - a one-stop operator in a local area shall collect such performance information from on-the-job training, and customized training, and integrated training providers as the Governor may require . . ."Add the following definition in §101 (definitions) as a corresponding amendment:
"Integrated training. - The term "integrated training" means training that combines occupational skills with language acquisition."
Rationale:
By creating flexibility in the performance system for LEP persons, the strong incentive to "cream" individuals who are most likely to succeed in the workplace is removed. This flexibility is currently provided to programs that report on Higher Education measures. Providers will be more willing to serve populations with barriers if they do not feel that they are at risk of being removed from the "eligible provider list." Without amending the current system, LEP persons will continue to be denied training and will not find programs that meet their unique needs.
3. DEMONSTRATION, PILOT, MULTISERVICE, RESEARCH, AND MULTISTATE PROJECTS
Current Law:
Demonstration and Pilot Projects: §171(b)(1) states that the Secretary of Labor shall carry out demonstration and pilot projects through grants and contracts for the purpose of developing and implementing techniques and approaches, and demonstrating the effectiveness of specialized methods, in addressing employment and training needs.
Multiservice Projects: §171(c)(1) states that the Secretary of Labor shall carry out multiservice projects through grants and contracts that follow the strategic plan published in the Federal Register.
Research Projects: §171(c)(2) states that the Secretary of Labor shall carry out research projects through grants and contracts that contribute to the solution of employment and training problems in the United States.
Special participant population that faces multiple barriers to employment is defined in §134(d)(4)(G)(iv) as follows:
(iv) Definition. - In this subparagraph, the term "special participant population that faces multiple barriers to employment" means a population of low-income individuals that is included in one or more of the following categories:
(I) Individuals with substantial language or cultural barriers.
(II) Offenders.
(III) Homeless individuals.
(IV) Other hard-to-serve populations as defined by the Governor involved.
Problem:
Programs that integrate occupational training and language acquisition are not designated as eligible projects in the statute. Additionally, targeted research of programs that serve LEP persons are not included. Therefore, there is little known of "what works" for LEP populations.
Proposals:
1. Add programs that target persons who have substantial language or cultural barriers to the list of those eligible for grants and contracts under the demonstration and pilot projects initiative.
§171(b)(1)(a) is amended by adding section (I) as follows:
"(I) projects that provide training to create or upgrade the job and related skills of persons who are special participant populations as defined in §134(d)(4)(G)(iv)."
2. Add projects that target persons who have substantial language or cultural barriers to the list of those eligible for grants and contracts under multiservice projects.
§171(c)(1) is amended as follows:
"(1) Multiservice projects. - Under a plan published under subsection (a), the Secretary shall, through grants or contracts, carry out multiservice projects -
(A) that will test an array of approaches to the provision of employment and training services to a variety of targeted populations and special participant populations as defined in Section 134(d)(4)(G)(iv);
(B) in which the entity carrying out the project, in conjunction with employers, organized labor, and other groups such as the disability community and special participant populations as defined in Section 134(d)(4)(G)(iv), will design, develop, and test various training approaches in order to determine effective practices; and
(C) that will assist in the development and replication of effective service delivery strategies for targeted populations and special participant populations as defined in Section 134(d)(4)(G)(iv) for the national employment and training system as a whole."
3. Add a study of programs that integrate occupational training and language acquisition to the list of defined research projects.
§171(c)(2)(B) is amended as follows:
"(B) Report on training models for persons who are limited English-Proficient. - The Secretary shall conduct a two-year study on programs that integrate English language instruction with occupational skills training. The Secretary shall prepare and submit to Congress a report containing the results of the study, including policy recommendations."
Note: There is already a section B, but it applied to a two-year study that is presumably complete.
4. Add projects that target persons who have substantial language or cultural barriers to the list of those eligible for grants and contracts under multistate projects.
§171(c)(3)(A) is amended as follows:
"(A) In general. -
(i) Authority. - Under a plan published under subsection (a), the Secretary may, through grants or contracts, carry out multistate projects that require demonstrated expertise that is available at the national level to effectively disseminate best practices and models for implementing employment and training services, address the specialized employment and training needs of particular service populations and special participant populations as defined in Section 134(d)(4)(G)(iv), or address industry-wide skill shortages.
(ii) Design of grants. - Grants or contracts awarded under this subsection shall be designed to obtain information relating to the provision of services under different economic conditions or to various demographic groups and special participant populations as defined in Section 134(d)(4)(G)(iv) in order to provide guidance at the national and State levels about how best to administer specific employment and training services."
Rationale:
Projects tailored to the needs of LEP persons or that integrate job training and language acquisition have promising outcomes. However, the law should make clear that these types of programs can be funded. The inclusion of "special participant populations" as defined in §134(d)(4)(G)(iv) addresses this inequity by facilitating program analysis and innovations geared toward serving the needs of populations that face multiple barriers to employment, including LEPs.
Current Law:
Every two years, in consultation with States, the Secretary publishes a plan to describe the demonstration and pilot, multiservice, research, and multistate project priorities of the Department of Labor concerning employment and training for the five-year period following the submission of the plan.
National employment and training: §171(a)(2) contains strategies that take into account factors to be considered in addressing national employment and training, such as the availability of existing research, the need to ensure results that have interstate validity, the benefits of economies of scale and the efficiency of proposed projects; and likelihood that the results of the projects will be useful to policymakers and stakeholders in addressing employment and training problems.
Demonstration Projects: §171(b)(1) states that under the Strategic plan published under subsection 171(a), the Secretary shall, through grants or contracts, carry out demonstration and pilot projects in order to develop and implement techniques and approaches, and to demonstrate the effectiveness of specialized methods, in addressing employment and training needs.
Evaluation of programs and activities: §172(a) currently provides the authority for the continuing evaluation of programs and activities, including evaluations addressing the general effectiveness of such programs and activities in relation to their cost.
Discrimination: §188(a)(2) currently states that -"no individual shall be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, subjected to discrimination under, or denied employment in the administration of or in connection with, any such program or activity because of race, color, religion, sex (except as otherwise permitted under title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972), national origin, age, disability, or political affiliation or belief."
State plan: §112(b)(17)(A)(iv) outlines the information required to be included in the strategic five-year State Plan, including a description of how the State will serve the employment and training needs of dislocated workers (including displaced homemakers), low-income individuals (including recipients of public assistance), individuals training for nontraditional employment, and other individuals with multiple barriers to employment (including older individuals and individuals with disabilities.
Allowable intensive services: §134 (d)(3)(C)(i) states that intensive services may include the following: "Comprehensive and specialized assessments of the skill levels and service needs of adults and dislocated workers, which may include-diagnostic testing and use of other assessment tools in-depth interviewing and evaluation to identify employment barriers and appropriate employment goals."
Special participant population that faces multiple barriers to employment is defined in §134(d)(4)(G)(iv) as follows:
(iv) Definition. - In this subparagraph, the term "special participant population that faces multiple barriers to employment" means a population of low-income individuals that is included in one or more of the following categories:
(I) Individuals with substantial language or cultural barriers.
(II) Offenders.
(III) Homeless individuals.
(IV) Other hard-to-serve populations as defined by the Governor involved.
Problem:
The lack of assessment models for persons who are LEP prevents most one-stop delivery systems from determining their employment needs. As a result, LEP persons cannot fully take advantage of employment and training services that meet their needs. In addition, system-wide data collection for LEP persons as an aggregate demographic is essential. This lack of information has kept innovative approaches to providing services from being developed.
Proposals:
1. Standardize One-Stop Career Center assessments for special participant populations that face multiple barriers to employment.
§171(a)(2)(D) is amended by adding §171(a)(2)(E) as follows:
"the versatility of a standardized One-Stop Career Center assessment for targeted populations, including special participant populations that face multiple barriers to employment, as defined in §134(d)(4)(G)(iv); and"
2. Create partnerships with organizations that have expertise in developing and implementing assessment mechanisms to evaluate skills levels of special participant populations.
§171(b)(1)(H) is amended by adding §171(b)(1)(I) as follows:
"(I) the establishment of partnerships with national organizations with special expertise to assist states develop and implement accurate assessment mechanisms to evaluate the skill levels of special participant populations that face multiple barriers to employment, as defined in Section 134(d)(4)(G)(iv)."
3. Include special participant populations in the list of considerations in evaluating the effectiveness of programs.
§172(a)(6) is amended as follows:
"(6) the extent to which such programs and activities meet the needs of various demographic groups; and including special participant populations that face multiple barriers to employment, as defined in §134(d)(4)(G)(iv);"
4. Provide appropriate interpretation and translation services to LEP persons.
§188(a)(2) is amended by adding §i as follows:
(i)"One-Stop Delivery Systems must provide appropriate interpretation and translation services to individuals who lack English proficiency."
5. Ensure states will outline in the State Plan how they intend to serve individuals with multiple barriers to employment, including individuals with limited English Proficiency.
§112(b)(17)(A)(iv) is amended as follows:
"(iv) how the State will serve the employment and training needs of dislocated workers (including displaced homemakers), low-income individuals (including recipients of public assistance), individuals training for nontraditional employment, and other individuals with multiple barriers to employment (including persons with limited English proficiency) and older individuals and individuals with disabilities); and"
6. Ensure specialized assessments gauge English proficiency levels of adults and dislocated workers.
§134(d)(3)(C)(i) is amended as follows:
"(i) Comprehensive and specialized assessments of the skill levels, English proficiency, and service needs of adults and dislocated workers, which may include - "
Rationale:
To successfully place individuals in appropriate training and education services that meet the needs of the job seeker and ultimately the employer, it is important for One-Stop Delivery Systems to conduct accurate assessments. The current law does not encourage specialized assessments for special participant populations, as defined in §134(d)(4)(G)(vi). As a result, LEPs are often inaccurately assessed upon entering the One-Stop Delivery system, keeping them from obtaining the most appropriate services.
5. STATE DISCRETIONARY FUNDING
Current Law:
Innovative programs for displaced homemakers: §134 (a)(3)(A)(vi)(I) states, "implementation of innovative programs for displaced homemakers, which for purposes of this subclause may include an individual who is receiving public assistance and is within two years of exhausting lifetime eligibility under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);"
Special participant population that faces multiple barriers to employment is defined in §134(d)(4)(G)(iv) as follows:
"(iv) Definition. - In this subparagraph, the term "special participant population that faces multiple barriers to employment" means a population of low-income individuals that is included in one or more of the following categories:
(I) Individuals with substantial language or cultural barriers.
(II) Offenders.
(III) Homeless individuals.
(IV) Other hard-to-serve populations as defined by the Governor involved."
Problem:
States have the flexibility to use the governor's discretionary spending to focus on the unique needs of their respective states. However, few have taken advantage of this to focus on the unique needs of LEPs, despite their growth in states nationwide. According to the 2000 Census, immigrants increasingly make up a larger segment of the U.S. workforce, accounting for 50.3 percent of the growth in the civilian labor force between 1990 and 2000. Despite this, training and education services provided under WIA remain inaccessible to LEP job seekers.
Proposals:
Identify programs that target special participant populations as eligible activities.
Section 134(a)(3)(A)(vi)(III) is added after Section 134(a)(3)(A)(vi)(II) as follows:
"(III) implementation of innovative programs for special participant populations as defined in Section 134(d)(4)(G)(iv) to increase the number of individuals offered occupational training in growth industries. , Rationale: Addressing the education and training needs of special populations as defined below in Section 134(d)(4)(G)(iv), in conjunction with the needs of employers will narrow the existing mismatch between the supply and demand for trained workers to enter the competitive workforce."
Rationale:
Including programs that target special participant populations in activities that may be funded with state discretionary funds gives states more flexibility to develop innovative programs for LEP persons.
TITLE II - ADULT EDUCATION AND LITERACY
RECOMMENDATIONS
Bold italics designate change in current law
1. ADULT BASIC EDUCATION (ABE) FUNDING FORMULA
Current Law:
ABE funds are currently distributed to States through "initial allotments" and "additional allotments," which are based on the number of "qualifying adults" in the state or outlying area. §211(d) defines qualifying adult as an adult who -
(1) is at least 16 years of age, but less than 61 years of age;
(2) is beyond the age of compulsory school attendance under the law of the State or outlying area;
(3) does not have a secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalent; and
(4) is not enrolled in secondary school.
Problem:
Under current law, LEP persons with a high school degree are not considered in the distribution of ABE funds—even though they are enrolled in ABE programs, such as English as a Second Language (ESL). According to the Urban Institute's tabulation of the Census 2000 Supplementary Survey, 51.4 percent—or 6,978,000—of all LEP persons have a high school degree.(13) Of this number, close to 50 percent of them reside in "new growth" states(14) where the infrastructure for LEP persons is limited, and the need for them to attain job skills is high.
Therefore, states with large numbers of LEP persons (e.g., California and Texas) or high growth rates of LEP persons (e.g., Georgia and Nebraska) are strained to stretch resources for a demand that is not accounted for in their current funding stream.
Proposal:
Amend the ABE funding distribution formula to States to include the actual number and percentage growth of State LEP populations with a high school degree.
§211(d) is amended as follows:
"(d) Qualifying Adult - For the purpose of subsection (c)(2), the term "qualifying adult" means an adult who -
(1) is at least 16 years of age, but less than 61 years of age;
(2) is beyond the age of compulsory school attendance under the law of the State or outlying area;
(3) does not have a secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalent or is limited English Proficient;"(15) and
(4) is not enrolled in secondary school.§211(f)(1) corresponding amendment:
"(A) for fiscal year 2004, no eligible agency shall receive an allotment under this subtitle that is less than 90 percent of the payments made to the State or outlying area of the eligible agency for fiscal year 2003; and
(B) for fiscal year 2005 and each succeeding fiscal year, no eligible agency shall receive an allotment under this subtitle that is less than 90 percent of the allotment the eligible agency received for the preceding fiscal year under this subtitle."
Rationale:
Persons who are LEP need access to ABE and LEP programs to advance their education, participate more actively in the civic life of their communities, and increase their earnings, regardless of whether they have a high school degree. An analysis of census data shows that immigrants who are fluent in oral and written English earn about 24 percent more than those who lack fluency, regardless of what other qualifications they may have.(16) Moreover, parents who are proficient in English are more likely to be active participants in their children's schooling, contributing substantially to their educational achievement.
Using their own funds, states currently serve the LEP population regardless of their prior level of education. However the current formula does not provide federal funding to serve LEP participants who have obtained a secondary school diploma.
Current Law:
Eligible agencies that receive funds under Title II are required to submit a five-year plan to the Secretary of Education, and Section 224(b) sets out the criteria for such plans.
Problem:
Section 224(b)(10) currently requires that state plans include a description of strategies for reaching certain targeted populations, including LEP individuals. However, the statute does not require that this description be based on an actual objective assessment of the needs of the LEP population. Instead, Section 224(b)(1), which calls for an "objective assessment of … needs" is silent with respect to the LEP population.
If states do not specifically assess the needs of the LEP population (e.g., identify the size of the population, where they reside within the state, demographic and language characteristics, etc.), they cannot effectively develop "program strategies" to meet such needs. Census data are readily available with which states can conduct such objective assessments.
Proposal:
To ensure that states adequately serve the LEP population, whose needs are often different from those of other adult learners, WIA should be amended to require that State Plans include a specific assessment of the needs of the LEP population, similar to language in §224(b)(10) and in §II(D)(1)(b) of the State Unified Plan Planning Guidance (OMB Control No. 1205-0407).
§224(b)(1) is amended as follows:
"(1) an objective assessment of the needs of individuals in the State or outlying area for adult education and literacy activities, including -
(A) individuals most in need or hardest to serve; and
(B) individuals with limited English proficiency;"
Rationale:
This change will help focus States' planning efforts to ensure that the particular needs of LEP individuals are adequately met. This is especially important as the LEP population grows and disperses into nontraditional immigration states and some states face rapid growth in the number of people needing ESL services, as reflected in recent census statistics.
3. DIRECT AND EQUITABLE ACCESS IN GRANTS AND CONTRACTS
Current Law:
Section 231(c) states that all providers shall have direct and equitable access to apply for grants and that the same grant announcement be used for all eligible providers. Section 231(e) includes factors that the eligible agency must consider in awarding grants.
Problem:
The "direct and equitable access" provision in the law has not, in practice, given community-based organizations (CBOs), adequate access to funding. In many states, there is a drastic disparity between CBOs access to Title II funding and the growing need for community-based adult education instruction that is accessible and responsive to LEP persons. Many CBOs provide ESL and other adult literacy instruction; however, such systems are usually funded outside the Title II system. This is problematic, as a survey of 42 CBOs affiliated with the National Council of La Raza indicated that the majority of clients served by CBOs do not access the federally funded workforce system, and nor are their adult basic education needs adequately met through their local educational agency or community colleges.(17)
Proposals:
1. §231(a) is amended as follows:
"(a) Grants and contracts. - From grant funds made available under section 211(b), each eligible agency shall award multiyear grants or contracts, on a competitive basis, to eligible providers within the State or outlying area, as outlined under section 203(5), to enable the eligible providers to develop, implement, and improve adult education and literacy activities within the State."
2. §231(c)(2) is amended as follows:
"(2) the same grant or contract announcement process and application process and proposal review process is used for all eligible providers, including community-based organizations, in the State or outlying area"
3. Add §231(c)(3) Section 231(c)(2) as follows:
"(3) There shall be a process in place to increase outreach and recruitment to solicit grant and contract applications from eligible community-based organizations."
4. §231(e)(3) is amended as follows:
(3) the commitment of the eligible provider to serve individuals in the community who are most in need of literacy services, including individuals who are limited English-proficient, low-income, or have minimal literacy."
5. §231(e)(9) is amended as follows:
"(9) whether the activities coordinate with other available resources in the community, such as by establishing strong links with elementary schools, and secondary schools, postsecondary educational institutions, one-stop centers, job training programs, community-based organizations, and social service agencies."
6. §231(e)(12) is amended as follows:
"(12) whether the local communities have a demonstrated need for additional English literacy and civics education programs."
7. §231(e)(13) is added after §231(e)(12) to read as follows:
"(11)whether the activities maintain a high quality information management system that has the capacity to report participant outcomes and to monitor program performance against the eligible agency performance measures; and
(12) whether the local communities have a demonstrated need for additional English literacy programs; and
"(13) Whether the activities are located in communities with high limited English-proficient populations."
Rationale:
Many immigrants and LEP persons are more likely to seek services from CBOs that have cultural and linguistic competence than from community colleges and K-12 institutions. CBOs have built trust in the community and are often situated where immigrants live and work. Expanding the funding accessibility to eligible CBOs currently providing adult literacy services represents the most effective way of better serving LEPs.
4. INCENTIVES FOR INTEGRATING TITLE I AND TITLE II
Current Law:
Job training is funded under Title I and ABE is funded under Title II. Each has a separate set of performance measures and funding methods, and is under the jurisdiction of a separate agency. States may submit a unified plan under Title V, but this plan does not relieve states of the responsibility to meet statutory requirements for each program.
Title I
Performance Measures
- §136(b)(2)(A) identifies the core indicators of performance including -
(1) entry into unsubsidized employment;
(2) retention in unsubsidized employment 6 months after entry into the employment;
(3) earnings received in unsubsidized employment 6 months after entry into the employment; and
(4) attainment of a recognized credential relating to achievement of educational skills, which may include attainment of a secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalent, or occupational skills, by participants who enter unsubsidized employment, or by participants who are eligible youth age 19 to 21 who enter post-secondary education, advanced training, or unsubsidized employment.- Indicators are reported to the Department of Labor.
Receipt of Funds
- Title I training funds are distributed through Individual Training Accounts or vouchers (§134(d)(4)(D)). The ITA payment system, including amount and duration, varies across states.
Title II
Performance Measures
- §212(b)(2)(A) identifies the core indicators of performance including -
(1) Demonstrated improvements in literacy skill levels in reading, writing, and speaking the English language, numeracy, problem solving, English language acquisition, and other literacy skills.
(2) Placement in, retention in, or completion of, postsecondary education, training, unsubsidized employment or career advancement.
(3) Receipt of a secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalent.- Indicators are reported to the Department of Education.
Receipt of Funds
- Title II funds are distributed through grants and contracts (§231).
Problem:
Frequently, organizations that provide programs that integrate basic skills training and language instruction need to draw down both Title I and Title II funding because Title II funds alone do not cover the cost of the program. For example, the average amount spent per student for ABE is $600, while the average maximum allowable amounts per voucher under the Title I Individual Training Accounts are in the range of $4,000 to $6,000.(18) Because the respective titles are overseen by different agencies, and operate under different performance measures and funding methods, organizations that draw down Title I and Title II funding are required to work in an entirely separate system for the same student. This requirement prohibits most organizations from accessing both Title I and Title II funds. Similarly, it creates a disincentive for agencies that receive funding from Department of Labor and agencies that receive funding from the Department of Education to coordinate services.
While Title V of WIA gives states the option to create a unified plan, it is an option, and States that take it still must meet the statutory requirements for each program (e.g., different performance measures).
Proposals:
1. Create incentives for programs that integrate job training and English literacy, and for training providers and English literacy providers to coordinate services.
§503(a) is amended as follows:
"(a) In General - Beginning on July 1, 2000, the Secretary shall award a grant to each State that meets the following criteria -
(3) Each state that exceeds the State adjusted levels of performance . . .or such Public Law, respectively; and
(4) Each State that funds programs that integrate occupational skills training and language acquisition."
2. Require research that analyzes best practices for integrating English literacy and job training.
§242(c)(1)(C) is amended as follows:
"(C) to coordinate the support of reliable and replicable research and development on literacy and basic skills in families and adults across Federal agencies, especially with the Office of Educational Research and Improvement in the (Note: office has been eliminated) Department of Education and the Office of Employment and Training in the Department of Labor, and to carry out basic and applied research and development on topics that are not being investigated by other organizations or agencies, such as the special literacy needs of individuals with learning disabilities and the effectiveness of programs that integrate occupational skills training and language acquisition."
3. Create unified performance measures for providers that draw down Title I and Title II funds.
Add §212(b)(2)(C) after § 212(b)(2)(B) as follows:
"(C) Unified indicators. - Unified indicators shall be used for programs that receive funding from §211 and §134(d)(4), and shall include the following:
(i) Performance measures identified in §136(b)(2)(A); and
(ii) the performance measure identified in §212(b)(2)(A)(i)."
4. Add §212(b)(1)(A)(iii) after §212(b)(1)(A)(ii) as a corresponding amendment:
"(iii) unified indicators of performance (if any) identified by the eligible agency under paragraph (2)(C); and"
Rationale:
Existing programs that integrate skills training and language acquisition have demonstrated remarkable employment outcomes.(19) For example, the Help In Re-Employment (HIRE) Center in Milwaukee has a bilingual curriculum to train workers with limited English proficiency in the use of computerized milling machines that create complex parts for high-end processing machines. HIRE's 16-week training program has a successful completion rate of 87 percent, and 90 percent of those who completed the course moved into higher-paying jobs. The average starting wage for graduates of the program is nearly $11 an hour.
Despite the success of these programs, many have been unable to use a combination of Title I and Title II funds because of the separate requirements for each title that apply to the same student. Programs that integrate training and language access represent a promising model that States can use to better integrate services, as was intended under WIA.
Current Law:
Section 241 sets out Administrative Provisions related to Title II, including requirements that funds under this subtitle should supplement, not supplant, State or local funding for adult education and literacy and that States maintain an adequate "fiscal effort per student." There are currently no reporting requirements in this section.
Problem:
Concern is emerging among educators and advocates that 16-, 17-, and 18-year-olds are increasingly entering adult ESL programs. Specifically, the concern is that these youth are being steered to adult education rather than high school courses due to the increased demands being placed on high schools with respect to student performance under the No Child Left Behind Act and various state laws. In order to assess whether these concerns are justified and, if so, what impact this trend may have on 16-18-year-old students, WIA should be amended to require certain data collection and reporting to the Department of Education and to Congress.
Proposal:
§241 should be amended to include a new subsection at the end as follows -
"(c) REPORTS. -
(1) ANNUAL REPORT. - An eligible agency receiving funds under this subpart shall annually provide the Secretary with a report on the number of 16-, 17-, and 18-year-old participants in the programs and services provided under Section 231, disaggregated by race, ethnicity, gender, limited English proficiency status, disability, and socio-economic status.
(2) The Secretary shall report to Congress, no later than June 30, 2005 and by June 30 annually thereafter, the results of the eligible agency reports required in subsection (c)(1)."
Rationale:
The secondary education environment is undergoing dramatic change as schools move to implement the No Child Left Behind Act. In order to determine whether these changes have unintended consequences for LEP youth-16-, 17-, and 18-year-olds-who may be enrolled in either high school or adult education classes, it is necessary to begin collecting data now.
Current Law:
Section 243 calls for the establishment of national leadership activities to enhance adult education and literacy programs nationwide, and describes the kinds of activities that can qualify for funding under this heading.
Problem:
Adequate funding is an essential prerequisite in ensuring that the needs of the adult LEP population are met, but in recent years some states have experienced rapid and unpredictable increases in the adult LEP population that are not reflected in state allocations under Section 211(c)(2). An additional provision is necessary to allow communities facing such rapid changes to apply directly to the Secretary for grants to meet the needs of newly arriving LEP individuals.
Proposal:
§243 is amended by adding the following phrase at the end of the first sentence:
", including grants to communities experiencing large increases of limited English-proficient individuals who were not accounted for in making state allocations under Section 211(c)(2), for the purpose of providing English language and civics education programs."
The beginning of the next sentence is amended by substituting "Other" in lieu of "Such".
Rationale:
Many states and communities have found themselves ill prepared to provide services responsive to rapidly changing demographics, and they lack sufficient infrastructures to adequately address the needs of recently-arrived LEP individuals. This provision would permit such communities to seek additional funding to address such changed circumstances.
End Notes
1. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational Outlook Handbook 2002-03 Edition.
2. Sum, Fogg, Harrington, et. al. Immigrant Workers and the Great American Job Machine: The Contributions of New Foreign Immigration to National and Regional Labor Force Growth in the 1990s. (National Business Roundtable, August 2002).
3. Reforming Immigration. Helping Meet America's Need for a Skilled Workforce. A Statement by the Research and Policy Committee of the Committee for Economic Development. 2001.
4. National Immigration Forum analysis of 2000 Census.
5. Fix, Michael. Tabulations of Current Population Survey. The Urban Institute, November 2001.
6. Fix, Zimmermann, and Passel. The Integration of Immigrant Families in the United States. The Urban Institute Immigration Studies Program, Washington D.C. July 2001.
7. Gonzalez, A. (2000, July). The Acquisition and Labor Market Value of Four English Skills: New Evidence from NALS. (Contemporary Economic Policy, July 2000). The estimated impact of oral fluency alone is 17 percent. Analyses for immigrants in destinations other than the U.S. produce generally similar estimates for oral fluency; for example, 12 percent for fluency in English or French in Canada and for Hebrew fluency in Israel (Chiswick & Miller, 1998, Chiswick, 1998).
8. Fix, Zimmermann, and Passel. The Integration of Immigrant Families in the United States. The Urban Institute Immigration Studies Program, Washington D.C. July 2001.
9. In a GAO report that focused on 14 local workforce areas (GAO-2-274), training declined 52 percent compared to JTPA in its first year of operation.
10. U.S. Census Bureau. Current Population Survey. March 2000.
11. Gonzalez, A. (2000, July). The Acquisition and Labor Market Value of Four English Skills: New Evidence from NALS. (Contemporary Economic Policy, July 2000). The estimated impact of oral fluency alone is 17 percent. Analyses for immigrants in destinations other than the U.S. produce generally similar estimates for oral fluency; for example, 12 percent for fluency in English or French in Canada and for Hebrew fluency in Israel (Chiswick & Miller, 1998, Chiswick, 1998).
12. While rigorous research in the area of integrating skills and language acquisition does not exist, extensive research has been conducted on programs that integrate skills training and education. See, for example, the National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS) at www.mdrc.org/Reports2002/NEWWS_Synthesis/NEWWS_Synthesis.htm#NationalWelfaretoWorkStrategies.
13. Tabulation includes individual's aged 18-64. Census figures for persons aged 16-18 have not been released.
14. The Urban Institute defines "new growth" states as the 22 states where the foreign-born population grew by more than 91 percent between 1990 and 2000.
15. The Department of Education distributed state grants for "integrated English literacy and civics education services to immigrants and other limited English proficient populations" based on the following formula: 65 percent of the funds are allocated "based on a State's absolute need as determined by calculating each State's share of a 10-year average of the Immigration and Naturalization Service data for immigrants admitted for legal permanent residence for the 10 most recent years." The remaining 35 percent must be allocated to States "that experienced growth as measured by the average of the 3 most recent years for which Immigration and Naturalization Service data for immigrants admitted for legal permanent residence are available."
16. Gonzalez, A. (2000, July). The Acquisition and Labor Market Value of Four English Skills: New Evidence from NALS. (Contemporary Economic Policy, July 2000). The estimated impact of oral fluency alone is 17 percent. Analyses for immigrants in destinations other than the U.S. produce generally similar estimates for oral fluency; for example, 12 percent for fluency in English or French in Canada and for Hebrew fluency in Israel (Chiswick & Miller, 1998, Chiswick, 1998).
17. Liu, Sue and Phillippe, Kent, "2001-2002 Workforce Development Affiliate Assessment Findings," National Council of La Raza.
18. A preliminary report by the Center for Law and Social Policy found that the maximum allowable amounts of ITAs for those local boards that provided information about caps ranged from $1,000 to $10,000, with some boards setting different caps for different types of training. Most caps were in the $4,000 to $6,000 range. Patel, Nisha and Savner, Steve. Implementation of Individual Training Account Policies Under the Workforce Investment Act: Early Information from Local Areas. (Center for Law and Social Policy, May 2001).
19. While rigorous research in the area of integrating skills and language acquisition has yet to be conducted, there is extensive research on programs that integrate skills training and education. See, for example, the National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS) at www.mdrc.org/Reports2002/NEWWS_Synthesis/NEWWS_Synthesis.htm#NationalWelfaretoWorkStrategies.
Home
| About
NILC | Publications | Community Education Materials
Immigrants & Employment | Immigrants & Public Benefits | Immigration Law & Policy
Trainings | Links
California Immigrant Welfare Collaborative