For in depth information on the Workforce Investment Act, please visit: Workforce Investment Act Overview.
The Workforce Investment Act is the latest of a series of programs aimed at helping American workers find jobs that can meet their economic needs. While there are many revolutionary changes brought about by this landmark legislation, it has evolved from a number of earlier attempts to bring workers into the economy in a way that benefits them as well as the nation. Understanding the development of our system of job training and employment services will help put this legislation in a historical context.
In 1917, the first attempt to deal with the influx of unskilled to urban areas was made by congress with the passage of the Vocational Education Program. Prior to this, Congress felt that both education and any help to needy people were the responsibility of the states. The states, in turn, passed the responsibility to local communities. Consequently, little was done. Then, in 1920, the Vocational Rehabilitation Act was passed to assist returning veterans and others in finding employment following the world war. These programs were the beginning of the federal involvement in employment assistance, but were very limited.
The events occurring in 1929 and thereafter were so pervasive that the need was greater than any city or state could provide. With unemployment impacting one fourth of the workforce in an era of single wage earner families, literally the entire nation was affected. In 1933, the Federal government implemented a number of programs to get people working, some of which were eventually declared unconstitutional. For the most part they were looked on as temporary, but the passage of the Wagner-Peyser Act, which established the Federal/State Employment Service, signaled a new direction for employment assistance.
World War II and the post war boom reduced the previous fear of unemployment, and the Korean conflict in 1950 delayed the need for further employment legislation. However, during the decade of the 50's, significant changes were taking place:
Millions more people had left the farms for the cities The advances in technology were having a global impact People were living longer The post war baby boom children were growing up The number of female workers increased dramatically; and Minorities, particularly African Americans, were demanding an equal opportunity to share in the American dream.
These conditions set the stage for the federal employment and training legislation of the 60's known as the "Great Society" programs.
In 1962, the Manpower Development and Training Act (MDTA) was passed. Its original purpose was to retrain workers whose jobs had been eliminated by technological change and economic change. Then in 1963, the increase in unemployed youth who could not find jobs led congress to pass the Vocational Education Act, which strengthened the vocational education system. But more was needed.
The war on poverty demanded more comprehensive legislation, so in 1963 congress passed the Economic Opportunity Act (EOA). The EOA was umbrella legislation which encompassed several categorical programs, including:
The Job Corps – A residential job training and basic education program for economically disadvantaged youth. The Job Corps remains as one of the premier job training programs in the world.
New Careers – Expanding career opportunities in the public sector.
Operation Mainstream – A work program targeted at older workers.
The Neighborhood Youth Corps – A work experience program for disadvantaged youth. This was an attempt to address the problem of high youth unemployment and limited job opportunities.
Community Action Programs – An effort to involve the local community in resolving social programs, including unemployment.
The Summer Youth Employment Program - Providing work experience for disadvantaged youth.
There was little concern for the duplication and overlap that was developing among the various agencies that administered these programs. As the system expanded, however, it became apparent that the costs associated with these programs were limiting the availability of services and consolidation was necessary. In 1967, the EOA was amended to bring about some consolidation, especially at the local level.
To a large extent, federal employment and training programs followed a uniform set of regulations administered through the federal government with only limited flexibility to adapt to local needs and circumstances. Local areas were unable to adapt the programs to deal with sometimes unique circumstances that demanded creative solutions tailored to the needs of the workers in those areas, or to shift resources among programs to meet the most critical needs of the local area.
The emphasis of most of the early categorical programs was on educating workers rather than increasing job availability for the unemployed. This trend was changed when President Nixon signed the Emergency Employment Act (EEA) of 1971. This legislation created a massive public employment program which subsidized jobs in the public sector for disadvantaged individuals. The intent was to provide increased job opportunities during a time of high employment – but the cost of completely subsidizing employment was extremely high.
The EEA also included another important feature. It began the concept of decentralizing decision making authority closer to the local areas. Congress further consolidated and decentralized programs through the next major revolution in job training, the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act or CETA.
In 1973 marked the passage of the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act. More than any previous program, CETA represented a desire to bring decision making down to local areas where the services were provided, and a need to consolidate programs under a single administrative structure. Local areas known as "Prime Sponsors" received funding allocations to provide employment and training services within each state, incorporating elements of the MDTA and EOA programs.
CETA also required the establishment of a local advisory council in each prime sponsor area to assist in designing the program for that local area. As a first effort to consolidate and coordinate the provision of services, it had some success. Its critics could point to several system weaknesses, however, and CETA was plagued with bad publicity.
CETA Strengths:
Consolidated duplicative job training programs (EOA, MDTA, EEA) Emphasis on decentralization Removed many limitations which existed under categorical programs Allowed program design flexibility to meet local needs Required local advisory councils, fostering community inputCETA Weaknesses:
Regulations developed to counter criticism became more rigid, reducing the program flexibility Additional components, added to fit special needs, recreated the "categorical" separations that CETA tried to reduce Negative publicity from abuse of the Public Service Employment program reduced public and congressional confidence in the program The advisory councils did not have the genuine input of the private sector, particularly employers Advisory councils input was often ignored, since they were not directly involved in administration or oversight The State had no role in system development, therefore coordination of state and local activities was limited and often nonexistent. The lack of a strong state administrative role to advocate for local areas contributed to the erosion of local program autonomy
While CETA was aimed at consolidation, the Job Training Partnership Act of 1982 represented the first real effort to reduce the sometimes stifling effect of Federal control and put responsibility for program design and operation in the hands of states and local communities. By giving a larger role to states while maintaining and strengthening the role of councils and local elected officials, the Federal role became more balanced.
The Act emphasized a separation of general administration of the job training system from the actual operation of programs. This meant that the Federal role was limited to assuring the State administrative systems were working and program outcome were successful, while the Governors assumed the responsibility to oversee and administer the local programs within their State. Local programs, however, were given control over the design and operation of programs at the local level through a partnership between business and community led Private Industry Councils (PIC's), and local elected officials. Local programs could determine what services to provide, and how best to provide them. This meant that States interpreted the law and applied its principles within the state with guidance from the federal government while local programs enjoyed considerable autonomy with regard to actual program operations.
JTPA was divided into seven titles:
Title I outlined the partnership and requirements for the local and state system.
Title II describes the three funding streams for economically disadvantaged adults (II-A) and the year round (II-C) and summer youth (II-B) programs that flow through to local areas. It describes the services that can be provided and the eligibility requirements for each funding stream.
Title III (also called the Economic Dislocation and Worker Adjustment Assistance Act {EDWAA} or the dislocated worker program) funds assistance for people who have lost jobs due to layoffs or business closures and are unlikely to become reemployed in the same or similar occupations. They are called dislocated workers. States were required to set up a unit that could respond on-site to significant layoffs occurring anywhere in the state to provide early reemployment assistance. Rapid Response and additional assistance could supplement a local area's resources to deal with such large layoffs.
Title IV reauthorizes national level programs for Native Americans, Veterans and Migrant Farmworkers, and the Job Corps. These funds flow directly to the programs and are not administered through the state or PIC's.
Title V authorizes a program called Jobs for Employable Dependent Individuals, which was designed to provide states a bonus for placing certain employable dependent individuals such as welfare recipients. This program was never funded.
Title VI amended the Wagner-Peyser Act and other programs to bring them into conformance with JTPA and included some additional requirements, such as the requirement to collect selective service registration confirmation prior to enrollment.
Title VII adds the flexibility to establish a State Human Resources Investment Council with expanded responsibilities. States had the option of substituting this council for the State Job Training Coordinating Council (SJTCC) required by Title I.
JTPA established a framework that distributed funds to states by Federal formula for each of the four funding streams the State administers and sets up the local area structure where a required portion of the funds are distributed by Federal formula to those areas.
JTPA Strengths:
Decentralized program development to the State and local level Community involvement through a strong local council structure. PIC's assumed a significant operational and planning role. State Rapid Response improved assistance when business closures or large layoffs occurred by making resources available quickly to supplement local funds. The strengthened State role and resources provided consistency within the State while allowing local diversity. State and local resources could respond to help when unforeseen events occurred.JTPA weaknesses:
Although some consideration occurred, the system was not flexible enough. PIC's often were closely involved in operating programs, reducing the objectivity of their oversight. The level of coordination and integration of services varied, with some local areas lacking true service integration. A general reduction of flexibility with regulations existed that did not encourage innovation.
Over time, the JTPA system began to require modification to move toward a more comprehensive workforce development system where customers could receive a broad array of information and assistance coordinated among all of the programs and service providers in the area as well as nationally. Program modifications and administrative actions to bring this comprehensive system about became cumbersome and confusing, necessitating completely new legislation. Advances in technology and the desire to move the system toward universal access to assistance added to the need for new legislation.
JTPA represented a positive change in service provision. No one wanted to lose the strong local involvement or diminish the innovations that JTPA fostered, but the need to coordinate Federal, State and local programs requires the ability to plan and implement programs with consistency beyond local areas. The challenge is to create a system where local innovation is balanced with the seamless provision of services among programs statewide. From the point of view the customer, services should be easily accessible through whatever point of access is convenient to them – the concept of "One Stop Shopping".
Updated: April 2004
For in depth information on the Workforce Investment Act, please visit: Workforce Investment Act Overview.