NLA Info: Federal Leg/Appr Update
Jim Bowling
VE_BOWLING at A1.ODE.OHIO.GOV
Mon Nov 17 16:46:28 EST 1997
To: National Literacy Advocacy Subscribers and Others
From: Jim Bowling, Chair, Legislative Committee
National Council of State Directors of Adult Education and
American Association for Adult and Continuing Education
Subject: Federal Legislative and Appropriations Update
Authorizations: Proposed Senate Bill
As reported in the USDE/DAEL TH NOTES of November 13, 1997 and confirmed by
Senator Michael DeWine's Office, Congress will not consider S. 1186, the
proposed "Workforce Investment Partnership Act", before it recesses this week.
Senate floor action is expected to be taken up in the second session of the
105th Congress which will resume in January.
Senate staff indicate that a "Managers Amendment" to the bill is being worked
on by staff and that consideration is being given to NCSDAE/AAACE, and National
Coalition for Literacy concerns and proposed changes as well as materials
received from multiple other groups. A summary of the concerns and requests
relative to adult education and literacy are attached to this brief in the form
of the text of a letter that was sent previously to key Senators on the Senate
Labor and Human Resources Committee.
We are requesting an opportunity to review language changes that are being
considered in response to our issues before the bill is brought to the floor
for a vote. Once passed by the full Senate, it will be referred to a joint
House/Senate Conference Committee that will be charged to reconcile the
differences between the Senate and House passed bills.
Any future Policy and/or Action Alerts that may be issued relative to S. 1186
or other related matters will be posted to this listserv and the AAACE Web Site
Home Page, Public Policy Section, at <http://www.albany.edu/aaace/>.
Appropriations: FFY 1998 Budget Approval
Last weekend, Congress approved the Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 1998 Labor,
Health, Human Resources, and Education appropriations bill (House Report
105-390). The bill was signed by the President the morning of November 13th
in the East Room of the White House. This action represents funds now
approved to use for the twenty-seven month period beginning July 1, 1998.
Final amounts (in thousands) include:
1997 1998 Chg %
Adult Education State-Administered Grts 340,339 345,339 +5,000 1.5
Evaluation and Tech Assistance (Nat Prgs) 4,998 4,998 -0- 0.0
National Institute for Literacy (NIFL) 4,991 5,491 +1,000 22.3
Literacy Programs for Prisoners 4,723 4,723 -0- 0.0
Sub-total for Adult Education 354,551 360,551 +6,000 1.7
We are grateful to the Budget Appropriations Conference Committee to see some
increase in the amount for Adult Education, esp. for State Grants when neither
the House nor Senate versions proposed any increase in the State Grant Program
at all. The initial Senate version did include maintaining level for Literacy
Programs for Prisoners which the House and Administration sought to eliminate
and the 1m increase for the Institute which prevailed over the proposed level
amount in the House.
While taking some level of satisfaction from all of this, of additional and
greater concern is that larger increases of 41.7m in State Grants, 1m in
National Programs, and 1.5m for the Institute proposed by the Administration
did not have more of an impact on the outcome. If accepted, that would have
raised the State Grant Program to 382m, or 36.6m MORE THAN the passed amount
of 345.3m. Further and lastly, even this highest proposed amount for State
Grants by the Administration would still be seriously inadequate to more
seriously address the extent of unmet needs for adult education and literacy
in the States as expressed by the National Council of State Directors of Adult
Education in their recommended authorization level of 1b (billion) contained
in their proposed Adult Education for the 21st Century document.
In closing, yes, we need to recognize and express thanks to the appropriate
body and individuals responsible for the increases that did take place.
However, we must never forget the much larger context and the extent of the
large unmet needs that we all face in the States every day with still very
limited and inadequate resources.
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF STATE DIRECTORS OF ADULT EDUCATION
November 14, 1997
Following is the text of a letter sent to Senators Kennedy (D-MA),
DeWine (R-OH), Jeffords (R-VT), and Wellstone (D-MN) relative to issues
and requested language changes in the proposed Workforce Investment
Partnership Act. These were transmitted the week of October 20th in a
jointly signed letter from NCSDAE, AAACE, and The National Coalition
for Literacy.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Letter to Senators Kennedy, DeWine, Jeffords, and Wellstone)
Over the past two years we have worked closely with Senate staff to
help craft legislation that would enable us to effectively meet the
needs of under-educated and limited English proficient adults. Part
of our challenge has been to accomplish maximum coordination of adult
education with the employment and training systems without intruding
on the integrity of either system. We in the adult education
community are grateful for having had this opportunity, acknowledge
the hard work and dedication of the staff in giving genuine
consideration to our suggestions, and we have, therefore, strongly
supported this legislation. We hope to continue this support right up
to the enactment of comprehensive legislation for education and
workforce development. State and local adult education programs share
the concerns expressed by other sectors of the education community
with respect to Title V of S1186 - the Workforce Investment
Partnership Act of 1997. Our support for Title V is jeopardized by
provisions which appear to nullify many of the carefully crafted
provisions of Title II (as well as the other three preceding titles).
Over the past two weeks we have conveyed recommended language changes
to Committee staff, and have been told that Title V was still under
discussion and that efforts were being made to remove provisions
damaging to adult education. To date we have not seen an amended
version of the bill - or any amended sections.
The adult education community has been more willing than most to be
flexible and support changes that feel fraught with risk but also hold
the promise of building a more coordinated and effective system of
services. With so much at stake and possibly little time remaining, we
now must know where we stand with respect to Title V in order to
continue providing this support. We have restated our recommendations
below and request that we be able to examine the bill version destined
for floor action for a period of at least two weeks prior to its going
to the Senate floor. We understand this may be difficult or even
impossible, however, we really need this time in order to shift gears
if the problematic provisions remain. If this commitment is
impossible to make, we ask that we be allowed to examine the bill in
whatever form it has taken by October 31, 1997. If the Senate is
unable to meet either of these requests, we must regretfully withdraw
our support for the bill in its present form, advocate for the removal
of adult education from Title V, and ensure that incentive grants
based on the adult education appropriation are triggered by the merits
of a state's adult education program.
CRITICAL TITLE V ISSUES:
CONFLICTING REQUIREMENTS: In section 501(b)(3) a"system program" in
a unified plan is defined as a program CARRIED OUT THROUGH the one
stop customer service system. While we agree with the goal of a
unified plan to foster more coordinated and integrated services under
the various components of our States' education, employment and
training systems, the unified plan MUST NOT require that adult
education services be provided through the one-stops. The legislation
sets forth procedures to be followed by one-stop systems. They are to
implement local partnership plans which, according to Section 309, are
not expected to address education in any form. One-stop systems have
no responsibility to address the broad (family, community, and
economic) purposes of adult education. Their procedures conflict with
eligibility, activity, accountability and provider selection
provisions of Title II. Moreover, one-stop systems are geared
especially to serve the unemployed, while over 40% of enrollees in
adult education are employed adults who have decided on their own to
seek further education - particularly refugees and immigrants seeking
to learn the language of their new country.
Recommended Language Change: Instead of using the words "carried
out" by the one-stop customer service system for all activities
included in a unified plan, the language in Section 501(b)(3) could
read "Titles I and II activities CARRIED OUT IN COORDINATION WITH the
one-stop customer service system" and "other activities carried out
through the one-stop customer service system".
CONTENT OF UNIFIED PLAN: In Section 501(d)(1)(A) a unified State plan
is to be developed in a manner which "substantially reflects the
planning provisions of the federal statutes authorizing the system
programs". The actual planning requirements are to be spelled out
later in regulations developed by the appropriate Secretaries {Section
501(d)(1)(B)}. Since "substantially" is subject to a wide range of
interpretation, some limits need to be placed on how far a unified
plan can depart from the provisions of the principal titles of the
legislation.
Recommended Language Change: Add to Section 501(d)(1)(B) "EXCEPT THAT
PLANNING REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE LIMITED TO THOSE NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE
COORDINATION AND SHALL NOT INCLUDE PROVISIONS WHICH AMEND ELIGIBILITY,
USE OF FUNDS, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND OPERATION AND ADMINISTRATION
PROVISIONS OF EXISTING FEDERAL STATUTES OR OTHER TITLES OF THIS
LEGISLATION"
OTHER RELATED CRITICAL ISSUES:
ELIGIBLE AGENCY: Adult education can support the Section 2 definition
of "Eligible Agency" as long as the phrase "responsible for
administering or setting policy for adult education and literacy" is
changed to "responsible for administering AND setting policy for adult
education and literacy..."
INCENTIVE GRANTS: Section 243, "Incentive Grants" part (c) provides
that funds shall be used to "carry out innovative programs as
determined by the State". Priority is to be given to States
submitting a unified plan as described in Section 501. Even though
the funds for these grants comes off the top (2%) of the adult
education appropriation, there is no provision that any attention need
be paid to Title II. Given the relatively low level of funding for
adult education, and the fact that far more significant resources are
already available through the other titles of this bill (as well other
HHS and DOL resources) we believe that it is essential to ensure that
this 2% investment in innovative/collaborative programs make some
contribution to strengthening the educational foundation of
under-educated and limited English proficient adults.
Recommended Language Change: Add language to the section on adult
education incentive funding which says,"ADULT EDUCATION ACTIVITIES
CARRIED OUT THROUGH A UNIFIED PLAN SHALL BE SUPPORTED AT A LEVEL
COMMENSURATE TO THE PROPORTION OF FEDERAL FUNDS CONTRIBUTED BY TITLE
II STATE GRANT AND INCENTIVE FUNDING".
The concerns outlined above and the changes we have recommended are
critically important to ensuring that the hard work that went into
crafting Title II of the Act is not lost through problematic
provisions in Title V and related language. Without these changes,
the adult education program will suffer irreparable harm.
NON-PRIORITY CONCERNS WE'D LIKE YOU TO CONSIDER:
YOUTH PARTNERSHIPS: Adult education providers are required members of
local workforce investment partnerships (Section 308(c). Section
308(i)(2) sets up the membership of local youth partnerships. There
is no adult education representation. Many out-of-school youth,
especially welfare recipients who are required to earn a high school
diploma or equivalent, will be enrolled in GED or adult high school
completion programs operated by adult education providers.
Recommended Language Change: Insert as (vi) of Section 308(i)(2)
"representatives of adult education providers" and renumber the
existing (vi) as (vii).
ADULT EDUCATION AS A TRAINING ACTIVITY: Section 315(c)(3)(C)(iv)
makes adult education an allowable training activity if it is provided
in combination with OJT, job readiness, or employment skill training.
The bill is silent on whether "in combination with" requires that the
services be concurrent.
Recommended Language Change: Add language that defines "in
combination with" as being concurrent with, or in sequence with, as
part of an employability development plan".
ACCOUNTABILITY FOR ADULT EDUCATION ACTIVITIES WHICH QUALIFY AS TITLE
III ACTIVITIES: Recognizing that direct placement may not be the
outcome of certain activities authorized under Title III (such as
adult education) Section 312(b)(2)(C)(v) lists other acceptable
outcomes. This set of outcomes does not explicitly include adult
education outcomes although adult education is an allowable activity
if conducted in combination with other authorized activities.
Recommended Language Change: Add to Section 312(b)(2)(C)(v) "for
literacy providers or providers of integrated education and training
services, the success rate of the applicable program in raising the
literacy levels of individuals in skill areas that are considered
important for successful participation in training and employment"
CONTROL OF REFERRALS BY ONE-STOPS: Section 311 provides that not only
would one-stop systems conduct intake, initial assessment, and
referral services, they could also directly provide services. There
is an inherent conflict of interest in this arrangement. As the sole
gateway for clients eligible for training, other training providers
will be dependent on the quality and timeliness of referrals from the
one-stops. However, the one-stop, in an environment of high stakes
performance standards, will also be referring clients to parts of its
own agency - which may be in competition for funds with one-stop
partner agencies. One-stop partner agencies will perceive themselves
to be at a distinct disadvantage.
Recommended Language Change: Enact language which establishes a
process whereby the one-stop partners monitor the referral behavior of
the one-stop customer service system operator.
Thank you once again for the opportunity to strengthen the "Workforce
Investment Partnership Act of 1997."
Signed:
Jim Bowling, Chairman
National Council of SDAE
Bob Bickerton, Chairman
Legislative Committee
NCSDAE and AAACE
Peter Wait, Chairman
National Coalition for Literacy
-----------------------------------
More information about the Nla-nifl-archive
mailing list