wia

OMB Sequester Transparency Act Report Is Released

/ The Old Crank / 1 Comment

OMB has just released its report on sequestration, which they were required to do by the Sequestration Transparency Act passed by Congress earlier this summer. (The report is actually about a week late.)

To me, it’s mainly of interest because it provides us with OMB’s best estimate, at this time, as to what the percentage cut will be: 8.2% for nondefense discretionary spending, and 7.6% for nondefense mandatory programs. (Adult education falls under the category of nondefense discretionary spending.) This is based on an assumption that FY 2013 discretionary spending will be at FY 2012 levels (the Act mandated that they do this). For fairly tedious reasons I won’t go into here, that’s not what’s actually going to happen, and so the final percentage cut will actually be a bit different. But we are moving closer towards understanding precisely what the numbers will be.

Sequester Transparency Report Excerpt

The report does not break out Adult Education separately. I’m too tired to calculate precise numbers for adult education alone, but without looking anything up, I believe an 8.2% reduction from FY 2012 levels is going to be just shy of $50 million.

Again, bear in mind that there are several other federal programs other than Title II of WIA that fund adult education in the U.S., and all of the estimates I’ve seen only look at WIA Title II. It would be very difficult to figure out with much precision what the combined impact of the cuts to the other programs that fund adult education would be, since these programs do not exclusively fund adult education—and the extent to which they support adult education services may vary from year to year. The point is, any analysis of the impact of sequestration that looks only at WIA Title II is surely underestimating the actual impact that sequestration will have on this field.

I also think that the even bigger danger for adult education funding may lie in possible replacements for sequestration being bandied about, which could conceivably cut even more from nondefense discretionary programs in over to prevent cuts on the the defense side.

By the way, there are pages and pages in this report identifying certain categories of spending as “sequesterable” or not. As a fun weekend sequester-themed activity—and one that might also help get more people talking about the issue—try using the word “sequesterable” in conversation at some point. Here is an example to get you started: “Boy, I am really in a sequesterable mood at the moment—I think I will go and sit in the closet.”

Republican Platform Essentially Endorses House Republicans’ WIA Reform Plan

/ The Old Crank

(Updated Below)

The 2012 Republican platform was released today. For what it’s worth, it implicitly endorses the approach that Republicans in the House took with their Workforce Investment Act (WIA) reauthorization bill, H.R. 4297. This bill, which was passed by the House Education and the Workforce Committee in June, would consolidate all of the different WIA funding streams and convert them into a block grant program for states. H.R. 4297 isn’t mentioned specifically in the Republican platform, but consolidation of federal workforce programs is explicitly endorsed (see page page 7):

It is critical that the United States has a highly trained and skilled workforce. Nine federal agencies currently run 47 retraining programs at a total cost of $18 billion annually with dismal results. Both the trainees in those programs and the taxpayers who fund them deserve better. We propose consolidation of those programs into State block grants so that training can be coordinated with local schools and employers.

UPDATE 8/29/12: It’s also worth pointing out that, unsurprisingly, the GOP platform says nothing about adult education or adult literacy—with one exception: it offers explicit support for family literacy programs (See page 36):

Because parents are a child’s first teachers, we support family literacy programs, which improve the reading, language, and life skills of both parents and children from low-income families.

Will State TANF Waivers Improve Coordination Between TANF and Adult Education?

/ The Old Crank

(Updated Below)

A couple of weeks ago, the Obama Administration announced that it would begin allowing states to apply for waivers to current TANF rules so that they can “test alternative and innovative strategies, policies, and procedures that are designed to improve employment outcomes for needy families.” LaDonna Pavetti of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities recently wrote a blog post in which she argued that the granting of these waivers, which has apparently annoyed some Republican members of Congress, will strengthen welfare reform. She believes the increased flexibility will permit states to not only design more effective strategies for helping recipients prepare for, find, and retain jobs, but also “measure their accomplishments in more meaningful ways than the current system allows.”

One of her arguments is that waivers will provide states with greater flexibility to align their TANF employment programs with other employment, training, and education initiatives:

The TANF work requirements are very narrowly defined and often are inconsistent with the requirements in other job training and employment programs.  If HHS allows states some flexibility to increase the effectiveness of their TANF work programs and activities, states will be able to maximize coordination among TANF and other programs including the Workforce Investment Act, Adult Education, and Vocational Rehabilitation. This will help to streamline programs and make it easier for unemployed parents to be served by the program best suited to help them secure and retain employment and increase the effectiveness of the bigger employment and training system. (my emphasis)

It will be interesting to see whether any states use this opportunity to improve coordination between TANF and adult education services. It seems to me that this could also be a potential opportunity for adult education advocates and TANF advocates to work together to improve educational opportunities for TANF recipients.

UPDATE 7/30/12:  Greg Kaufman, writing about the proposed waivers in his “This Week in Poverty” blog for The Nation, argues that these waivers represent modest reform only, and argues that what is needed is something more along the lines of Congresswoman Gwen Moore’s RISE Act:

Can you imagine the outcry if there were good, aggressive reforms offered by Democrats—the kind found in Congresswoman Gwen Moore’s RISE Act? Among the smart changes Moore calls for are: adjusting each state’s block grant for inflation so it’s no longer frozen at 1996 funding levels, unchanged for the past 16 years; allowing education and job training to count towards work requirements; providing childcare for all work-eligible parents; and prohibiting time limits of less than 60 months.

Now that would indeed be the end of welfare reform as we know it. Or at least the end of some of its most egregious failures—and the beginning of a system with the interests of poor people at its heart.

Faith Groups: Republican WIA Reauthorization Bill Steers Federal Support Away from the Most Vulnerable

/ The Old Crank

A group of faith based organizations, including the Friends Committee on National Legislation, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, NETWORK, and the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, have written a letter to the Chairman and the Ranking Member of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce expressing their concerns with the Republican’s Workforce Investment Act (WIA) reauthorization bill, H.R. 4297, which is scheduled to be marked up tomorrow at 10 am. It’s a good letter, because it focuses on the crux of what many seem to agree is the fundamental problem with the bill:

H.R. 4297 eliminates the current priority of service for low-income adults and those with barriers to employment. Without priority, dislocated workers, youth, older workers, and those in areas of highest unemployment would continue to be at a disadvantage. Low-income adults now represent only about half of those receiving intensive services or training services with adult employment and training funding, despite their increased rates of unemployment. Elimination of the priority of services, including necessary supportive services like child care and transportation, would further weaken access to these services to low-income adults and youth.

Rather than cutting back on the range of services needed by low-income individuals, low-wage workers, and those with barriers to employment, our interfaith community would prefer to see job training and job creation programs focus specifically on low-income communities and vulnerable populations. Unless special and specific efforts are made to include them, certain distressed communities with disproportionately high unemployment or low earnings will be left out of the mainstream economic recovery. Properly crafted WIA reauthorization legislation must consider populations with unique needs— such as people of color, displaced workers, workers with disabilities, older workers, low-income youth, and people with limited-English proficiency—by providing worker retraining, education assistance, job placement and other job related services. (my emphasis)

In fact, a WIA bill that “focused specifically on low-income communities and vulnerable populations” would be an interesting piece of legislation.