5
AFDC/TANF Job Training
1962: Manpower Development and Training Act (MDTA)
The MDTA was intended to retrain workers displaced by technological change and to improve the earnings capacity of disadvantaged workers. It was a federally funded and administered training program. Focused on the displaced worker.
1964: Job Corps in the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964
The Job Corps offers training and counseling in a residential environment to highly disadvantaged youth. Focused on disadvantaged youth and adults.
1967: Work Incentive Program (WIN)
Work Incentive Program (WIN) was established in 1967 to provide training to welfare recipients, mostly established by states and localities.
1973: Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA)
Title I of CETA consolidated the various programs and turned the administration and operation of the programs to local officials. It replaced the "categorical" system of funding the programs, whereby each program is targeted at a particular population and federal administrators determined the amount of money allocated to each, with "revenue sharing," whereby state and local governments would receive a manpower training grant, allocated by formula, which was to be spent at their discretion on various job training programs for the disadvantaged. This change was intended to rationalize the administration of workforce development and at the same time increase local control, allowing the programs to be responsive to local conditions.
1982: Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA)
The federal role in job training, dramatically reduced by CETA, was further reduced in 1982, when Title I of CETA was replaced by Title II of the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA). While CETA delegated the responsibility of administration to local officials, local administration was subject to federal oversight in the form of regulations and plan approval as well as designation of the local entities to receive funds. States were largely left out of the process. JTPA placed primary responsibility for oversight with the states. The private sector, too, was not directly involved in the federal job training. A further criticism of the job training system under CETA was that it was not sufficiently coordinated with other related educational and social programs. JTPA made states responsible for promoting coordination, and funds were directly allocated to the governors for this purpose. JTPA reduced the federal expenditure on job training. In 1981, $4.4 billion was spent on job training for the disadvantaged. After reductions throughout the 1980s, this amount had fallen to $2.4 billion by 1994 system under CETA.
The largest federal job training program is the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA). The JTPA is a highly decentralized block grant program administered by local communities with minimal federal regulation and oversight. There are a number of other programs with overlapping clientele and similar purposes, but there is also an extensive set of incentives for coordination among programs. Not focused exclusively on welfare recipients.
1981: WIN demonstration programs (WIN Demos) under the Social Security Act
These programs gave states the option to assume responsibility for the administration and oversight of the WIN program for their state.
1985: Food Security Act
The act established a training program for food stamps recipients.
1988: Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) program in the Family Support Act
Congress passed the program to replace WIN program. JOBS provided federal matching funds for states to design their own welfare-to-work programs. Like JTPA, it specified service options and included performance standards, but allowed states the discretion to determine how to meet them (abolished in 1996).
1996: Temporary Aid for Needy Families (TANF) in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity and Reconciliation Act of 1996.
TANF provides states a block grant to meet the needs of low-income families with children. With funds from the block grant, states must provide cash assistance to needy families with children, and operate a program to put welfare recipients to work.
The federal welfare reform law gives states the capacity and flexibility to create jobs for people on public assistance. The federal law allows states to use welfare funds to develop job training opportunities with employers to help welfare recipients become productive employees. Employers can hire TANF clients in a variety of ways:
Unsubsidized Work - Employers hire TANF recipients just like other employees. Employers who hire welfare recipients may be eligible for a tax credit of up to $2,400 through the Work Opportunity Tax Credit program.
**On-the-Job Training - Employers teach TANF clients occupation-specific skills and the methods used in their business. Participants earn wages while they're being trained, and then remain employed when the training is completed. Employers are reimbursed a pre-determined amount (usually 50% of wages paid) to help offset the cost and the lower productivity associated with training new workers.
Try-Out Employment - Employers agree to provide a full-time job for a specified time period, usually two weeks. Try-out employment gives employers a no-cost, risk-free chance to find out if an employee will work out for them. Employees receive a weekly stipend for their work, and worker's compensation insurance is provided by the state during the try-out period.
Community Work - Participants work for their monthly cash payment with public or private not-for-profit employers.
1997: Welfare-to-Work Grants Program under the Budget Reconciliation Act of 1997
States have considerable flexibility to use the TANF block grant funds for cash welfare payments to families with children, work activities for welfare parents, and related services which those parents may need to move from welfare to work. The WtW grants complement TANF in that the WtW funds are specifically designated for work-related activities and not for cash welfare payments. WtW funds are also targeted on specific groups within the welfare population -- not on all welfare recipients -- particularly those who are least employable or face serious barriers to employment. Unlike most previous welfare initiatives, services under the WtW initiative can also be routinely used to serve non-custodial fathers of children on TANF (e.g., without requesting special federal approval to do so, and without linking the work activity to child support enforcement procedures). Under WtW, grantees are permitted substantial flexibility in designing welfare to work strategies geared to the needs of the local labor market and economy. The overall goal of the authorized activities under the program is to transition TANF recipients (and non-custodial parents of TANF recipients) from welfare to unsubsidized employment and help these individuals remain permanently employed. A complementary goal of the WtW program is to provide education, training, and support services to facilitate career development and wage enhancement of welfare recipients once they become employed. Despite a focus on enhancing the employability of welfare recipients, WtW grantees face an important service restriction in structuring their programs: WtW funds cannot be used for stand-alone (pre-employment) job training or education. However, the funds can be used for training or education once a person has begun work, either as a post-employment service in conjunction with work or as a work-based activity.
1998: Workforce Investment Act
WIA consolidated a number of Labor Department job training programs and created one-stop-centers in every state to help job seekers negotiate their way through the otherwise bewildering system of federal job training programs.
1999: There were 40 federal programs that spent an estimated $11.7 billion on job training or job placement assistance as the primary goal. Most of these programs are located in three federal departments -- the Department of Labor, the Department of Education, and the Department of Health and Human Services. These programs primarily serve one or more of the following groups: welfare recipients, other poor adults and youth, and workers who have lost their jobs due to foreign trade.
Overall, according to the General Accounting Office, federal job training policy today remains fragmented and inefficient. Independent studies seem to indicate that the benefits of these programs modestly outweigh the costs, but that they are not enough, by themselves to lift their target populations out of poverty and that their benefits probably fade after four to five years.
Emphasis in TANF and WtW—find a job first, then provide post-employment training.
To count toward the work participation rate, an individual must be "engaged in work" activities for at least the minimum average number of hours per week during the month as required for the particular year (e.g., a minimum of 20 hours per week under the all-families rate -- increasing to 30 hours per week beginning in 2000 -- and 35 hours per week under the two-parent families rate).
To be considered "engaged in work," a TANF recipient must be involved in one or more of the following activities during a month:
· unsubsidized employment;
· subsidized private sector employment;
· subsidized public sector employment;
· work experience (including work associated with the refurbishing of publicly assisted housing) if sufficient private sector employment is not available;
· on-the-job training;
· community service programs;
· provision of child care services to an individual who is participating in a community service program;
· vocational education training -- not to exceed 12 months for any individual, and provided that not more than a total of 30 percent of persons counting toward the participation rate for a month can satisfy the requirements either by participating in vocational education training or by being a teen parent head of household attending school;(6)
· job search and job readiness assistance -- limited to 6 weeks; though can be extended to up to 12 weeks if the state's unemployment rate is at least 50 percent greater than the unemployment rate of the United States.
Job skills training, education related to employment, and secondary school or GED completion for TANF adults do not count toward the first 20 hours of participation per week in a work activity. Hence, only those who are active more than 20 hours (and for the two-parent cases, 30 hours) may be counted towards the state's participation rate and only if the individual participates in:
· job search and job readiness assistance in excess of the above-specified limits;
· job skills training directly related to employment;
· education directly related to employment, in the case of a recipient who has not received a high school diploma or a certificate of high school equivalency; or satisfactory attendance at secondary school or in a course of study leading to a certificate of general equivalence, in the case of a recipient who has not completed secondary school or received such a certificate.
More focus on employer-focused job training programs and consolidation of job training programs.
The most effective welfare-to-work programs share a flexible, balanced approach that offers job search, education, job training, and work. They offer a wide range of individualized services. They have a central focus on employment and close ties to local employers. They are intensive, setting high expectations for participation.
Job training in the classroom or workplace and access to postsecondary education are key components of a strategy aimed at better jobs. However, training must be made more consistently effective, and more accessible to those with low basic skills. Job training that ends in a degree or certificate is more likely than job search or basic education services to increase the earnings potential of recipients.
Work can be a critical part of increasing recipients' employability if it is part of a broad range of employment and training services. Paid employment has been a key element in some programs that were especially effective with very disadvantaged recipients. Unpaid employment may also be effective if designed as a learning experience; it should be noted, however, that "workfare" programs tried in the 1980s did not increase employment or earnings
AFDC (pre-1996)
1962: Manpower Development and Training Act (MDTA)
1964: Job Corps in the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964
1967: Work Incentive Program (WIN)
1973: Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA)
1981: WIN demonstration programs (WIN Demos) under the Social Security Act
1982: Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA)
1985: Food Security Act
1988: Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) program in the Family Support Act
TANF (post-1996)
1997: Welfare-to-Work Grants Program under the Budget Reconciliation Act of 1997
1998: Workforce Investment Act
(JPTA still available)
Policy Suggestions:
State TANF choices to restrict access to education and training activities may have played a role in increasing the likelihood that families attaining employment entered low-wage jobs.
1. Place strong emphasis on employment, but rely on a more individualized, mixed strategy combining job search, education, and training, and rather than urge participants to take any job, expressly focus on helping participants find better jobs (similar to the Portland, Oregon program)
2. Give states the option of using employment outcome measures in lieu of the participation rate process measures in TANF (will give an added incentive for states to help participants seek higher-paying and long-term jobs, not just any job). Give extra credit to states that help families obtain higher-paying jobs.
3. Also allow funding and time for pre-employment job training, rather than just focusing on post-employment training.
4. Publicly funded training programs should be driven by labor market demand.
5. Employment and training programs targeted on the disadvantaged groups should focus on occupational training rather than immediate employment, and the training should be intensive rather than short-term in nature.
6. Programs should offer a full range of supportive services as part of their program mix.
Welfare recipients and former recipients have had very limited access to skill-upgrading services under TANF—in fact, states spent less than one percent of the block grant in 2000 on education and training (however, WIA and other measures are explicitly set aside for job training programs).
On-the-job training has had the most consistently positive results for increasing the earnings of disadvantaged workers, including welfare recipients (both under CETA and JPTA). Also has the largest impact on earnings.
WIN programs: Maine Training Opportunities in the Private Sector (TOPS)-job readiness training, full-time on-the-job training and part-time unpaid work experience for those not ready to enter OTJ. (Possible need to incorporate basic skills training and education).
Questions:
What are differences between focusing on pre-employment and post-employment job training? How can both training methods complement each other in a welfare program?
What are the implications of the consolidation of job training programs? Does the possible increase in efficiency also mean perhaps an overlooking of welfare recipients (job training programs encompass more than just welfare recipients)?