For the Record of the Public Hearing on Workforce Investment Act
Subcommittee on Employment, Safety and Training
U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
June 18, 2003
On behalf of the Board of Directors for the American Congress of Community Support and Employment Services (ACCSES), I welcome the opportunity to provide comment on the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998. ACCSES is a national, nonprofit organization of providers of vocational rehabilitation and community supports committed to maximizing employment opportunities and independent living for individuals with disabilities.
As the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Subcommittee on Employment, Safety and Training considers reauthorizing legislation for the nation’s workforce development and public vocational rehabilitation systems, ACCSES appreciates the opportunity to share with you its recommendations. Earlier this year on April 24, ACCSES sent each of you a letter encouraging your subcommittee to pursue a more deliberative path on reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act (hereafter referred to as WIA) and Rehabilitation Act (hereafter referred to as Rehab Act) by seeking greater public input from stakeholders. The public hearing convened on June 18 was a step in the right direction and hopefully additional hearings will follow.
WIA was intended to provide displaced workers with the information, training, and resources necessary to obtain and retain employment through the design and implementation of the One-Stop Delivery System (hereafter referred to as the One-Stops). By establishing the One-Stops, the previously fragmented employment and training system was replaced with an integrated, enhanced system of services and supports corresponding to needs of a competitive labor market.
WIA also recognized that individuals with disabilities often required more specialized services and supports and, therefore, authorized certain mandatory partners participation, such as the Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) program. By mandating the State VR Agencies participation, individuals with disabilities were given physical, programmatic, and systematic accessibility to the workforce investment system.
ACCSES contends that the following recommendations shall serve to improve the existing workforce development and public vocational rehabilitation system.
Utilizing Community-Based Providers in the One-Stop System:
Community-based providers represented by ACCSES play a pivotal role in integrating individuals with disabilities into their communities, and providing the skills necessary to lead more productive lives. Community-based providers offer a wide array of services and supports, including vocational rehabilitation, employment skills, residential services, mental health services, substance abuse services, transportation, case management, day treatment, counseling, and family services. All of these services and supports represent a sound public investment because they assist individuals with disabilities become self-sufficient, tax-paying citizens.
ACCSES believes that the ability of community-based providers to assist individuals with disabilities obtain and retain employment largely depends on a strong, comprehensive workforce development system. Therefore, it is critical that the necessary steps be taken during reauthorization to ensure that continued improvements are made to the WIA’s infrastructure, along with the allocation of appropriate resources. One of the most significant improvements involves greater utilization of community-based providers in the One-Stop system.
Challenge Industries, Inc. located in Ithaca, New York (Tompkins County) provides an excellent example of a community-based provider being included as an integral component in a successful One-Stop system. Challenge is a vocational rehabilitation agency, serving over 500 job seekers in per year comprised of individuals with disabilities and job seekers transitioning from public assistance.
Although many areas in New York state report continued failure to widen participation in the local One-Stop infrastructure, Tompkins Workforce New York One-Stop system has achieved success, in part, by its inclusion of community-based providers. Where other One-Stops have been unable to achieve the overall goals set forth in WIA, Challenge’s involvement in Tompkins Workforce New York One-Stop has helped to eliminate duplication of services.
Some unique features, which have resulted from the inclusion of community-based providers in the Tompkins Workforce New York One-Stop system, include:
Community based providers have long histories of established relationships with the business community that have resulted in growing placement rates for job seekers with disabilities. In short, the success of the public VR system depends on its ability to collaborate, partner and include community-based agencies in serving individuals with disabilities in the One-Stop system.
Utilizing Community-Based Providers in the State VR System:
ACCSES also contends that reauthorization should include comprehensive language that encourages State VR Agencies to utilize the services and supports provided by community-based programs. Considering the U.S. Supreme Court's 1999 Olmstead decision, President Bush's New Freedom Initiative, and subsequent Executive Order Number 13217, the success of the public VR program will depend, in large part, on its ability to collaborate and partner with other agencies, both public and private, in providing services and supports to individuals with disabilities. Since many states are focusing on Olmstead implementation, community-based programs will continue to play an increasing role in assisting individuals obtain work.
For instance, in Florida the total amount of VR expenditures spent in 2002 on private, community-based providers was approximately 8.3 percent (total VR expenditures was $125,176,210 and $10,485,380 was spent on private providers). Yet, the private, community-based providers in the state produced almost four times as many successful closures (22.8 percent). There were 10,013 total employment outcomes defined as 26-closures and private, community-based providers closed 2,284 cases.
Likewise, the State VR Agency in Illinois spent approximately $24 million of its $84 million budget on private, community-based providers (27 percent). The total number of successful outcomes achieved in Illinois last year was an estimated 6,600 and private providers closed 42 percent of the cases (2,801). In Florida and Illinois, private, community-based providers have demonstrated their value to the VR program by successfully working with individuals with disabilities to obtain and retain employment.
State VR Agencies and community-based providers, alike, need additional training on the needs and best practices in employment services for individuals with severe and persistent mental illness. Based on some estimates, the unemployment rate among this fragile population continues to remain around 90 percent. Therefore, increased resources for community-based demonstration projects for supported employment and supported educational services are needed.
Increasing coordination and accessibility:
For almost thirty years, the cornerstone of Title I of the Rehab Act has consistently been to provide individuals with disabilities with customized vocational rehabilitation, employment services, and other supports. More importantly though, Title I has represented the commitment of the Federal government to empower individuals with disabilities to take control of their own lives by becoming more independent. ACCSES strongly believes that the reauthorization process needs to maintain this commitment by strengthening – not weakening – the public VR system.
Clearly individuals with disabilities who access services and supports from the public VR system stand to benefit by becoming more self-sufficient and less dependent on the public doles. For example, according the New Jersey Division Vocational Rehabilitation Services (NJDVRS) there were 3,788 recipients of NJDVRS services in New Jersey successfully rehabilitated and placed in jobs in fiscal year 2002. For those individuals placed successfully the average weekly wage at achievement of employment was $417 compared with an average weekly wage at the time of referral to NJDVRS of $74. This demonstrates considerable growth in the earning capacities of those who were successfully placed after NJDVRS services.1
In addition the long-held belief that vocational rehabilitation saves tax dollars was supported by data on public support recipients from New Jersey who were referred for NJDVRS services and placed successfully. At the time of their referral, 30% were receiving some type of public support (SSDI, SSI, Public Assistance), while at the successful completion of their program and subsequent placement, 12% continued to receive public support. 2
Protecting the integrity of Title I and State VR Agencies must remain a priority to insure proper services for individuals with disabilities. Keeping the current program infrastructure and funding separate from other employment and training programs will best achieve this objective. During the 1998 reauthorization of the Rehab Act, attempts were made to consolidate VR programs into one funding source - this was avoided because advocates successfully demonstrated that the One-Stops could not effectively work for all individuals with disabilities needing services. The same holds true today. Despite keeping the program infrastructure and funding separate, there has been little technical guidance on how best to effectively coordinate the services available at the One-Stops and its mandatory partners.
A study completed in October 2001 by the General Accounting Office (GAO) determined that mandated partners were concerned that their participation may lead to serving ineligible clients. Specifically, State VR Agencies expressed apprehension that changes to their traditional service-delivery system was forcing them to serve individuals outside their target populations. Since many individuals who enter the system seeking services and supports are not disabled, GAO found that VR was reluctant to provide core services to these individuals. Yet, without VR’s active participation and presence, the One-Stops are often ill equipped to serve individuals with disabilities who require more specialized services and supports.3
The Rehab Act mandates that State VR Agencies must serve individuals with the most severe disabilities based on an Order-of-Selection if they do not have the funding to serve all. Local VR counselors have expressed programmatic concerns over serving non-disabled individuals entering the One-Stops (i.e. providing initial intakes or making referrals). In response to their concerns, the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) has indicated that such services are permitted, and also in compliance with their WIA participation.4
Although DOE has attempted to provide clarification, the GAO study concluded, “the lack of explicit direction leads to continued confusion and a general hesitancy to conduct activities not normally provided in their existing offices.” The current 2003 reauthorization provides an excellent opportunity to clarify the ongoing confusion.5 Since resources available to individuals with disabilities are already limited, the need for clarification on delivery methods is essential to the One-Stops being able to successfully serve these individuals. In order to improve accessibility at the One-Stops, mandatory partners need additional technical guidance and resources to provide for local and regional planning. Congress and Federal agencies need to modify the authorizing legislation and regulations, respectively, to make them more uniform with the One-Stops.
Also, incentives need to be given to mandatory partners for relocation to the One-Stops. One-Stops that have the physical presence of their mandatory partners are better able to serve their targeted populations seeking services and supports. Individuals with disabilities often have difficulties finding adequate and accessible transportation, therefore having a centralized location offering the desired information, training, and resources would help to alleviate this dilemma. In the GAO study, staff reported cases where individuals with disabilities were referred from one location to another in order to receive services.
As previously mentioned, limited resources often create barriers to employment by complicating the ability of individuals with disabilities to access services. Mandatory partners participating in the One-Stops should be allocated additional funds for costs associated with their participation. Fiscal restraints placed on mandatory partners’ ability to collocate with the One-Stops, while maintaining their existing locations, has made it hard to assign additional staff to the One-Stops. Providing additional funding to link existing offices with the One-Stops would encourage greater participation. It would also grant individuals with disabilities options when attempting to access services.
Better coordination between the One-Stops and its mandatory partners is also consistent with congressional intent to make the workforce development system physically and programmatically accessible to people with disabilities. The American with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Sections 504 and 508 of the Rehab Act also mandate that the One-Stops include physical and programmatic accessibility standards. In many cases these standards have not been achieved by the One-Stops.
Although ACCSES contends that improving the One-Stops accessibility is an essential piece of reauthorization, it should not come at the expense of the mandatory partners existing obligations. Many of the mandatory partners, such as VR, are already severely under-funded – having to place people on waiting lists for services and supports. In fact, currently 37 State VR Agencies are operating under an Order-of-Selection. Funds appropriated to the VR system should not be re-directed for purposes other than the ones mandated by the Rehab Act. The Rehab Act clearly outlines accountability criteria for VR-related funds, which includes prohibiting the transfer of funds. Section 16(a) of the Rehab Act reads, “No funds appropriated under this Act for any program or activity may be used for any purpose other than that for which the funds were specifically authorized.” Therefore, ACCSES is strongly opposed to siphoning such funds for administrative and infrastructure development of the One-Stops.
Maintaining dedicated programs and funding:
It is widely recognized that individuals with disabilities require varying services and supports depending on the severity of their physical or cognitive impairment. In response to these differences, Congress authorized several smaller, specialized programs designed to address specific service needs of individuals with disabilities. The Rehab Act specifically includes four dedicated programs – Supported Employment State Grant program, Projects With Industries (PWI), Migrant and Seasonal Farm workers, and Recreation Projects – whose distinct tasks are better served separate from the larger state VR grants.
The President's fiscal year (FY) 2004 budget proposes to fold these four smaller programs funded through Title VI of the Rehab Act into the larger VR State grant program. The President's budget argues that these programs are redundant and should have the same funding source. By consolidating these programs, individuals with disabilities will have less choices made available to them because many States would opt not to fund smaller programs as part of their core VR services, costing jobs and opportunities. Each of these programs is proven to be highly successful programs complimenting the basic state grants, despite being level funded year after year.
The Projects with Industry (PWI) program provides an excellent example. PWI has a proven track record over more than 30 years of placing persons with disabilities into competitive jobs in the community. It has proven to be a most effective means of involving the business community in the rehabilitation process. PWI provides a bridge between the private business community and government supports for people with disabilities. In every nationwide PWI competition conducted during the last fifteen to twenty years, the number of qualified applications has far exceeded the available funding.
ACCSES believes additional funding should be made available so that more individuals with disabilities can be placed through PWI projects. Since this program serves a very important role as adjuncts to the VR services authorized under Title I of the Rehabilitation Act, ACCSES cannot support the President's request to consolidate these separate funding streams into the Title I State VR grant. ACCSES recommends that the Projects with Industry program maintained in the Rehab Act as part of WIA and be funded at $50 million for FY 2004.
Rather than eliminate the structural integrity of these successful programs, Congress should concentrate on improved coordination – not only between intra-agency programs, but also on a larger scale between the One-Stops and its mandatory partners. Even more troubling is that the President also wants to consolidate three adult training programs administered under DOL.
According to DOL’s own website, “The purpose of Adult programs under Title I of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) is to provide workforce investment activities that increase the employment retention and earnings of participants, and increase occupational skill attainment by the participants. This program aims to improve the quality of the workforce, reduce welfare dependency, and enhance the productivity and competitiveness of the nation's economy.” These objectives can be best attained by dedicated programs that tailor to the specific needs of workers with and without disabilities.
ACCSES fears that the employment needs of individuals with disabilities trying to obtain employment and training skills will be harder to access under a consolidated One-Stop system. There are already enough barriers to employment facing this fragile population that is underserved by the One-Stops. The current law that provides dedicated funding for WIA adult, dislocated worker, and Wagner-Peyser State grants programs must be maintained.
Providing for Youth-in-Transition:
In its 18th Annual Report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), DOE’s Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) recognized that while all IDEA requirements are important, some of its requirements have a more direct relationship to student results than others. OSEP placed the highest priority on compliance with those IDEA requirements that have the strongest relationship with improved services and results for students with disabilities and their families. The first priority indicated was the statement of needed transition services for students with disabilities beginning no later than age 16 (and younger if appropriate).
ACCSES supports that the full array of transition begins by age 14. The statement of needed transition services is the required link to the community; the drop out rate of youth with disabilities prior to the requirements in the current law necessitates its implementation prior to age 16. Using community based organizations in transition planning will assist students to be better prepared by providing them with opportunities to apply skills necessary for employment.
In addition, ACCSES supports the proposed legislation with Senate Bill 1248 for IDEA reauthorization, which amends the Rehab Act to include language specific to VR counselors providing transition assistance for youth with disabilities. However, with 37 states already in an order of selection, the resources necessary to carry out this provision must be included. Under funding this provision will put an overwhelming burden on a system that is already lacking resources necessary to fulfill its current requirements. Also, the public VR system was designed to promote employment and training for individuals with disabilities. Their role in transition planning must be specific to these areas only.
Conclusion:
The ongoing reauthorization provides your Subcommittee the opportunity to remedy some of the inconsistencies that exist under the workforce development system that result in severe barriers to accomplishing the purpose of these programs, i.e. to further the education, employment, and independence of persons with disabilities. These barriers need to be removed. ACCSES believes that individuals with disabilities would be better served by a seamless service delivery system, whereby the Workforce Investment Act, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Rehabilitation Act, and Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act coordinate and use identical language to foster smooth transition and cooperative services.