[NLA] Question: Was "Direct and Equitable Access a mistake?

[Ellison, Art]

To the list, 

  I am very hesitant to wade into any of the public policy issues currently
being debated on the list but as a state director who has been actively
involved in attempting to influence federal adult education legislation over
the past 23 years and one who annually commits about $600,000 per year of
federal/state funds for volunteer programs (all of which use the NRS), I do
have a comment on the direct and equitable debate.
  Kevin and I agree most of the time but his view that "we are not getting
the equitable support mandated in the Act" is more wishful thinking than
reflective of the actual wording in WIA. Neither volunteer or classroom
based programs have "mandated support" in the current legislation. 
  There are 12 criteria in the Act that must be considered in awarding funds
at the local level. The two that volunteer programs have the most trouble in
reaching are "intensity and duration of instruction" and "staffing with
well-trained instructors, counselors and administrator". Having said that
most of the applications from volunteer programs in New Hampshire are
funded. A few are not but using the criteria in the Act we also do not fund
a number of applications for classroom based programs.
  New Hampshire has a long history of supporting volunteer programs that are
administered by community based organizations and school systems. They serve
about 1400 students per year while our classroom based programs provide
services to approximately 7600 adults. Direct and equitable access has
always been part of our system. Not only because it is required by federal
legislation but because it is the right thing to do.  

 Art Ellison, NH Department of Education
   


-----Original Message-----
From: KSmith1 at aol.com [mailto:KSmith1 at aol.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 10:27 AM
To: nla at lists.literacytent.org
Subject: Re: [NLA] Question: Was "Direct and Equitable Access a mistake?

All,

Having played a roll in the decision to seek direct & equitable access for 
public and private nonprofit organizations over set-aside funding in the 
National Literacy Act, I would like to offer some historical perspective and

rationale for our action.  

On the surface the choice was a rather simple one.  At that time (3 or 4 
years prior to passage), the 'mood' of the Congress was anti set-aside.  
Congress felt strongly that there were far too many special interests, 
populations, organizations all seeking their own pot of money.  It was
pretty 
clear that asking for a set-aside was going to be an up hill battle.  

More important, in my opinion, was the debate around and about developing an

integrated system of service.  The proponents of D & E felt strongly that a 
set-aside would further divide the system, now known as AELS, and
marginalize 
the nonprofit sector.  We knew we would not get the resource we needed as 
quickly and cleanly as we might under set-aside but we hoped that, over
time, 
the wisdom of investing in a diverse system with multiple sectors capable of

responded to the learning needs of the adult population would create the 
desire to support the nonprofit sector rather than the requirement to do so.


We all pretty much understood what direct access meant.  No program that met

the criteria had to go through another organization to get funded.  Some 
states still created regional efforts and funneled funds through LEAs or 
Community Colleges to avoid direct access.  I'm sure folks can defend these 
decisions but the impact was the same: non-profits did not get direct 
funding.  

The equitable part of the equation is the more complex issue.  If we made a 
mistake, it was in not defining what we meant by equitable.  Many
interpreted 
it to mean that non-profits would be judged equally in the scoring of grant 
applications. Some states established state specific criteria (i.e., 
instruction be certified teachers) which volunteer organizations could not 
meet.  So, while the applications were judged equitably, the provider could 
not compete.  

Should equitable be based on the percentage of the population served.  In
New 
York, LVA has consistently served about 5% of the adult education population

and received less then 1% of the federal funding.  To my knowledge, New York

State has done a comparatively good job of supporting non-profits, they have

tried to be equitable.  They have tried to integrate the volunteer sector 
service in to a system of service. But I certainly argue that we aren't 
getting the equitable support mandated in the Act.  

Maybe equitable should be defined as a minimum based on state share.  I
don't 
know which definition would be best but we need one.  I remain convinced
that 
D & E was/is the right choice considering a long term outcome: an integrated

service system.  I also understand and commiserate with my colleagues that, 
despite very strong language in the Act, our sector has consistently been 
denied.  It is also my opinion, that DOE/DAEL has consistently avoided the 
fray on this issue to the detriment of the sector and the system.

Unfortunately we still have people who consider the volunteer sector has 
second class, unprofessional and unworthy.  The irony is that, in many
cases, 
those same individuals are willing to relegate the most needy students to be

served by the sector with the least resource by their faliure to endorse 
funding for this sector.  

Kevin Smith
LVA-NYS
_______________________________________________
NLA mailing list: NLA at lists.literacytent.org
http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/nla
LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy
http://literacytent.org
_______________________________________________
NLA mailing list: NLA at lists.literacytent.org
http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/nla
LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy
http://literacytent.org