How Workforce Investment Boards Are Operating

Transcription

1 How Workforce Investment Boards Are Operating Over the last couple of years, the National Association of Workforce Boards (NAWB) has undertaken a number of surveys and studies to determine how workforce investment boards (WIBs) are structured and what activities they are pursuing. While we have released some of the results already, this paper pulls the findings together into a more comprehensive report covering structure, policy focus, program services, and critical funding issues. Workforce Investment Board Structure WIB Funding 1 WIBs are not funded solely by the Workforce Investment Act (WIA). While every WIB receives program and administrative funding from WIA, 52 percent also receive funds from federal Department of Labor (DOL) grants, 48 percent from state DOL grants, and 42 percent from the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program. Other frequent contributors are other state grants (37%), other federal grants (25%), and local funding (22%). Source of Program and Administrative Funds Workforce Investment Act 100% TANF 42% Federal DOL Grants 52% Other Federal Grants 25% Programs CDBG (Community Development Block Grants) CSBG (Community Services Block Grants) State DOL Grants Other State Grants 5% 5% 37% 48% Private Sector Funding 14% Foundation Grants 16% Local Funding Other 5% 22% of WIBs Receiving some P&A Funds from Identified Program Partner While there is great diversity in the sources of WIB funding, the percentage of WIB funds from these various sources is weighted heavily toward WIA. Forty-eight (48) percent of WIBs receive 1 Programs and Services Survey, conducted March 23, 2011, to April 6, 2011, 181 responses. 1

2 76% to 100% of their program funds from WIA and 73 percent receive over half of their program funds from WIA. Only 21 percent receive 26% to 50% of their program funds from WIA, and 5 percent receive 1% to 25% of their program funds from WIA. Share of WIB Program Budget Workforce Investment Act TANF Federal DOL Grants Programs Other Federal Grants CDBG (Community Development Block Grants) CSBG (Community Services Block Grants) State DOL Grants Other State Grants Private Sector Funding Foundation Grants Local Funding 76%-100% 51%-75% 26%-50% 1%-25% Zero Other of Program Budget Provided by Identified Partner The largest contributors to WIB costs outside of WIA are TANF, which provides over half of program funding for 9 percent of WIBs; federal DOL grants, which provide over half of program funding for 3 percent of WIBs; and other federal grants, which also provide over half of program Share of WIB Administrative Budget Workforce Investment Act TANF Federal DOL Grants Programs Other Federal Grants CDBG (Community Development Block Grants) CSBG (Community Services Block Grants) State DOL Grants Other State Grants Private Sector Funding Foundation Grants Local Funding Other % 51-75% 26-50% 1-25% 0% of Administrative Budget Provided by Identified Partner 2

3 funding for 3 percent of WIBs. WIBs are slightly less reliant on WIA for their administrative funds. Forty-nine percent (49%) of WIBs receive 76% to 100% of their administrative funds from WIA, but only 64 percent receive over half of their administrative funds from WIA (compared to 73 percent of their program funds). Eighteen percent (18%) receive only 26% to 50% of their administrative funds from WIA, and 18 percent receive only 1% to 25% of their administrative funds from WIA. On the other hand, other individual programs are making less significant contributions to WIBs administrative funds. TANF and federal DOL grants are the strongest contributors, with TANF providing over half of administrative funding for 5 percent of WIBs (9 percent for program funding) and federal DOL grants providing over half of administrative funding for 3 percent of WIBs (also 3 percent for program funding). State DOL grants just make the cut in this calculation, providing over half of administrative funding for 1 percent of WIBs. One-Stop Centers 2 WIBs not only have many program partners providing some financial program and administrative support, they also have many program partners in their one-stop centers. The most frequent partners are Wagner-Peyser (in the one-stop centers of 96 percent of WIBs), veterans programs (88%), vocational rehabilitation (83%), TANF (75%), Title V Older Worker program (70%), community-based organizations (68%), trade programs (66%), and education programs (62%). One-Stop Center Partners Wagner-Peyser 96% TANF 75% Vocational Rehabilitation 83% Migrant Council 15% Job Corps 37% Programs Title V Older Worker Program Housing Authority Veterans 70% 88% Trade Programs 66% Education 62% Community Based Organizations 68% Other 32% of One-Stop Centers with Identified Program Partner But, as was the case with WIB funding, these partners do not contribute significantly to the 2 Programs and Services Survey, conducted March 23, 2011, to April 6, 2011, 181 responses. 3

4 centers infrastructure costs. WIA supports 76% to 100% of one-stop centers infrastructure costs for 15 percent of WIBs, and over half of the centers infrastructure costs for 42 percent of WIBs. WIA covers 26% to 50% of one-stop infrastructure costs for 40 percent of WIBs, and 1 to 25% for 17 percent of WIBs. For a surprising 2 percent of WIBs, WIA does not cover any of the one-stop centers infrastructure costs. Wagner-Peyser is the big player in supporting one-stop centers infrastructure costs, covering over half of these costs for 12 percent of WIBs, with TANF and trade programs each covering over half for 2 percent of WIBs, and Job Corps, education, community-based organizations, and vocational rehabilitation each covering over half for 1 percent of WIBs. Share of One-Stop Center Infrastructure Costs Workforce Investment Act Wagner-Peyser TANF Vocational Rehabilitation Programs Migrant Council Job Corps Title V Older Worker Program Housing Authority Veterans Trade Programs Education Community Based Organizations Other 76%-100% 51%-75% 26%-50% 1%-25% Zero of Infrastructure Costs Bourne by Identified Program Partner Regional Initiatives 3 Most WIBs 88 percent are involved in at least one kind of regional initiative. Seventy-seven percent (77%) are in multi-wib initiatives in a single state; 20 percent are in multi-wib initiatives across states, and 6 percent are involved in multi-state initiatives. 3 Programs and Services Survey, conducted March 23, 2011, to April 6, 2011, 181 responses. 4

5 WIB Involvement in Regional Initiatives Type of Initiative Yes, multiple WIBs in one state Yes, multiple WIBs across states Yes, multi-state No 6% 12% 77% Involved in Identified Type of Initiative Staff Credentialing 4 NAWB partnered with the National Association of Workforce Development Professionals (NAWDP) in the 2010 summer to determine the importance the workforce development system places on credentialing staff. The survey was sent out broadly, and 697 individuals connected to the system responded. That large group of respondents has been filtered to the 104 responses received from WIBs for this analysis. WIBs place a high value on staff credentials. Only 9 percent do not use information on staff credentials when making hiring, promotion, salary, or bonus decisions. Nineteen percent (19%) require credentials, while 49 percent indicate that any credential helps candidates, and23 percent indicate that only specific credentials help candidates. 23% Value WIBs Place on Credentials 9% 19% 49% Require Credentials Helps Candidates Specific Ones Help Candidates Has No Effect services to adults, staff providing direct services to youth, staff providing direct services to businesses, and non-management staff that does not provide direct services to customers. The value that WIBs place on credentials does not differ greatly by the type of staff. WIBs value credentials for management staff, staff providing direct 4 Workforce Development Professional Credential, survey conducted August 25, 2010, to March 31, 2011, 697 overall responses, 104 WIB responses. 5

6 Comparison of Value WIBs Place on Credentials for Different Staff Types of WIBs Valuing the Identified Staff in the Specified Manner 80% 60% 40% 0% Managers Adults Youth Business Non-Direct Service Staff Require Credentials Helps Candidates Specific Ones Help Candidates Has No Effect Type of Staff Which credentials WIBs value, however, does vary by the type of staff. WIBs place the greatest value on the NAWDP Certified Workforce Development Professional (CWDP) credential for managers (48% use it for making hiring, promotion, salary, and bonus decisions) and staff providing direct services to adults (39% use it). WIBs also place a large value on teaching certificates for staff providing direct services to adults (35% use it). For staff providing direct services to youth, 57 percent value teaching certificates and 43 percent value the CWDP credential and the CWDP youth services endorsement. The most important credentials for staff providing direct services to businesses are the CWDP business services endorsement (34%), the CWDP (31%), and essential business skills certificates such as a certificate signifying competence in word processing (26%). WIBs look for essential business skills certificates (51%) for non-management staff that does not provide direct services to customers. Credentials WIBs Value for Different Staff Types of WIBs Valuing the Specified Credentials for the Identified Staff 60% 50% 40% 30% 10% 0% Managers Adults Youth Business Non-Direct Service Staff Type of Staff Teaching Certificates Essential Business Skills Certificates Certified Workforce Development Professional (CWDP) CWDP Business Services Endorsement CWDP Youth Services Endorsement 6

7 Workforce Investment Board Policy Focus 5 The vast majority, 63 percent, of WIBs closely follow their state budget process, with 35 percent of the WIBs providing input to the policy makers. 27% WIB Attention to State Budget Process 7% 3% Closely Follow and Provide Input to Policy Makers 35% Closely Follow the Process 28% Somewhat Follow on Issues Important to WIB Read/Listen to News Not Very Closely Most of the WIBs tracking their states budget focus on career and technical education funds (89%), two-year post-secondary education funds (72%), and customized training funds (69%). WIBs also track welfare funding (54%), four-year post-secondary education funds (53%), K-12 funding (52%), and business taxes (43%). WIB Focus on Budget Issues Customized Training Funds 69% Post-Secondary Education (4 Year) 53% Post-Secondary Education (2 Year) 72% Career & Technical Education Funds 88% Issues K - 12 Funding Early Childhood 36% 52% Transportation Funding 30% Business Taxes 43% Welfare Funding 54% Healthcare Funding for Benefits 14% of WIBs Focused on Identified Issue Most WIBs dedicate time to policy issues at board meetings only 4 percent never reserve time 5 NAWB/Pew Survey on Early Childhood, conducted March 23, 2011, to April 5, 2011, 153 responses. 7

8 at full board meetings to discuss and craft opinions on issues that impact workforce development, such as state budget priorities. Forty percent (40%) are made aware of major state plans for education and 39 percent are occasionally sent articles on topics of interest, including issues in education, by WIB staff. Another 22 percent have a committee that follows policy issues and reports at full board meetings and 17 percent only discuss policy if a WIB member raises an issue. WIB Reservation of Time at Board Meetings on Policy Issues WIB Has a Policy Committee 22% How Policy Issuses Are Taken to WIB WIB Is Made Aware of Major Education Policies Staff Occasionally Provides News Articles Only if a Member Raises the Issue 17% 40% 39% Never 4% 0% 10% 30% 40% 50% Providing Time at Board Meetings for Policy Issues Only 10 percent of WIBs do not meet with elected policy makers. Sixty-eight percent (68%) have local or regional officials on the WIB. Sixty-four percent (64%) meet with state legislators, 48 percent meet with federal legislators, and 7 percent meet with the governor. WIBs Meeting with Elected Policy Makers Local/Regional Officials Are on WIB 68% Elected Policy Makers State Legislators Governor Federal Legislators 7% 48% 64% Rarely or Never Meet with Officials 10% 0% 40% 60% 80% of WiIBs Meeting with Identified Elected Policy Makers A large portion of WIBs meet with appointed policy makers as well. Sixty percent meet with local or regional community colleges, 58 percent meet with local or regional PK-12 school 8

9 officials, 46 percent meet with local or regional organizations focusing on improving school performance, and 45 percent meet with local or regional private colleges. WIBs Meeting with Appointed Policy Makers Local/Regional PK-12 School Officials 58% Appointed Policy Makers Local/Regional Organizations Focusing on Improving School Performance Local/Regional Community Colleges Local/Regional Private Colleges Local/Regional Four Year Colleges & Universities State Officials Responsible for Education Policy 35% 40% 46% 46% 60% National Entities Focusing on Education 31% 0% 10% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% of WIBs Meeting with Identified Appointed Policy Makers Equally interesting is how the WIB members meet with these appointed policy makers. Of those that meet with local or regional community colleges (the largest group of officials WIBs meet with), 78 percent do so because the official is on the WIB; 12 percent meet up with them because they sit on joint planning committees where they are the principal partners with education. WIBs meet with local and regional PK-12 school officials (the second largest group of officials) because in 71 percent of the WIBs, PK-12 school officials sit on the WIB; 17 percent see the PK- 12 school officials because they sit on joint education planning committees. 9

10 How WIBs Meet with Appointed Policy Makers Local/Regional PK-12 School Officials Appointed Policy Makers Local/Regional Organizations Focusing on Improving School Performance Local/Regional Community Colleges Local/Regional Private Colleges Local/Regional Four Year Colleges & Universities State Officials Responsible for Education Policy National Entities Focusing on Education of WIBs Meeting in the Specified Way with the Identified Appointed Policy Makers Member of a National Organization whose Focus is Education Member of the WIB Speak or Write in Support of Issues Important to the Entity with State officials Conduct or Review Labor Market Analyses for this Group Sit on Joint Planning Committees where We Are Principal Partners with Education Make a Point to Schedule Meetings More than Once a Year Attend Joint Meetings not Intentionally Scheduled Between 67 percent and 75 percent of WIBs consider the following issues important or very important: remediation for new labor market entrants, remediation for transitional workers, Important Education Issues for WIBs Education Issues Remediation for New Labor Market Entrants Remediation for Transitional Workers Dropout Prevention Initiatives Career Information for PK-12 Students Long Term Education Improvement Strategies 74% 74% 71% 75% 67% Rating Identified Issue as Important or Very Important 10

11 dropout prevention initiatives, career information for PK-12 students, and long-term education improvement strategies. The pattern of the degree of importance WIBs place on each of these issues is similar across all of the education issues. Between 30 and 42 percent of WIBs considered all five topics to be very important and a significant part of a WIB s work; between 34 percent and 47 percent of WIBs considered all five topics to by important and are active in developing plans on the topics with other community members; 12 percent to 18 percent of WIBs consider the topics to be somewhat important and put some thought into planning; between 5 and 15 percent consider the issues to be somewhat important but do not engage in planning on the topics; and between 0 percent and 2 percent consider the topics not to be important at all. Degree of Importance WIBs Place on Education Issues Remediation for New Labor Market Entrants Education Issues Remediation for Transitional Workers Dropout Prevention Initiatives Career Information for PK-12 Students Long Term Education Improvement Strategies of WIBs Placing the Specified Degree of Importance on the Identified Education Issue Very Important and a Significant Part of a WIB's Work Important and Active Planning with Others in the Community Somewhat Important and some Planning Somewhat Important but no Plan Not Important at All Youth Council Involvement in PK-12 Education Issues 3% 58% 8% 30% Very Involved Yes, but Not Early Learning Only as a Provider of Labor Market Data No Involvement Eight-eight percent (88%) of the WIBs youth councils are involved in PK- 12 education issues, but 58 percent are not involved in early learning issues. Of those involved with PK-12 education issues, 96 percent coordinate 11

12 summer employment opportunities, 71 percent provide labor market data, and 53 percent broker internships. Youth Council Activies with Education Providing Labor Market Data 71% Education Activity Brokering Internships Coordinating Summer Employment Opportunities Developing/Facilitating Summer Externships for Teachers Raising Funds for Summer Employment 27% 33% 53% 96% Raising Funds for Post-Secondary Education Scholarships of WIBs Participating in the Indicated Education Activity Workforce Investment Board Program Services Services to Businesses 6 WIBs provide a large variety of services to businesses, though small businesses are provided fewer options than are all businesses. The most commonly provided business services are labor Types of Business Services Services Dedicated staff Labor market information Forums/ seminar series Concierge service Meeting space Specialized job fairs Group services Human resources On-the-job training Customized training Entrepreneurial training Other 24% 24% 30% 12% 18% 55% 76% 58% 45% 61% 42% 52% 85% 52% 88% 48% 67% 39% 70% 48% 79% 52% 85% 100% Small businesses All businesses 0% 10% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 6 Small Business Services, survey conducted November 22, 2010, to January 11, 2011, 51 responses. 12

13 market information, specialized job fairs, customized training (including assessments, basic skills, and essential work skills), meeting space (for events), on-the-job training for new hires, dedicated business services staff, human resources assistance, and pooling of similar companies to provide services to them as a group (group services). Least available services are entrepreneurial training and concierge service that connects/ refers businesses to the WIB and other service providers. There is substantial variation in the entity that employs WIBs business services staff. For most WIBs, business services staff are part of one-stop center staff (58%) or state or local WIB staff (56%), with some business services staff being part of contractor staff (29%), local or regional economic development staff (17%), or state or local government agency staff (15%). Employers of Business Services Staff State or local workforce investment board 56% Employers State or local government agency Local or regional economic development One-stop center 15% 17% 58% Contractor 29% 0% 10% 30% 40% 50% 60% Targeting. Very few WIBs target their business services based on company size, though 5 percent make serving small businesses a priority and 3 percent make serving large companies a priority. Among WIBs that target their business services based on non-size criteria, the most common criteria are high growth industries and high wage industries, with some Targeting of Services by Business Size 3% 5% WIBs also targeting export industries. For any given criteria, WIBs are more likely to target their services to all businesses than they are to small businesses. This suggests the WIBs use multiple targeting criteria for all businesses, and fewer for small businesses. 92% No Yes, large businesses a priority Yes, small businesses a priority 13

14 Non-Size Criteria for Targeting Services High growth industries 45% 86% Criteria High wage industries Export industries 9% 23% 41% 68% Small businesses All businesses Other 14% 23% Human Resources Services. WIBs provide a large variety of human resources services to businesses. The most common services are job posting, worker outreach and recruitment, job seeker pre-screening, meeting space (for interviews), and job seeker assessments. In almost all cases, small businesses have less access to WIBs human resources services than do all businesses (the exceptions being business plan development (17% for small businesses and 13% for all businesses) and financial counseling (7% for each)). Human Resources Services Type of Service Business plan development Personnel manual development Job description development Financial counseling Information on hiring laws/regs Information on fringe benefit plans Information on tax credits Job posting Worker outreach and recruitment Job seeker pre-screening Job seeker assessments Meeting space (for interviews) Business retention/ development Outplacement assistance Other 17% 13% 23% 7% 7% 17% 10% 10% 43% 43% 47% 43% 43% 60% 73% 73% 63% 63% 63% 57% 57% 80% 70% 90% 100% 100% 100% 97% Small businesses All businesses 14

15 On-the-Job Training Services. About two-thirds of WIBs provided on-the-job training (OJT) services for businesses in PY This rose by 12 percentage points, to almost 80 percent, in PY Provision of On-the-Job Training Services 100% Most WIBs providing OJT used No WIA (78% in PY and 40% 85% in PY ) and 67% 79% American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) (78% in PY and 73% in PY 0% ) funds to pay for the cost of the services. TANF was used by 39 percent of WIBs in PY Program Year and 31 percent of WIBs in Other sources of OJT funding were a Department of Labor national emergency grant, Trade Adjustment Assistance and Trade and Globalization Adjustment Assistance, and state and local resources. 80% 60% 33% 21% Yes Funding for On-the-Job Training WIA 78% 85% Source ARRA TANF 31% 39% 70% 73% Last program year This program year Other 4% 15% 0% 10% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Customized Training Services. While the percentage of WIBs providing OJT increased between PY and PY , the percentage providing customized training declined (from 67% to 55%). WIBs offering customized training use a variety of methodologies, including providing grants to employers, sharing training among many employers, and offering the training through the registered apprenticeship program. A couple of WIBs that do not provide the training do refer companies to partner agencies. 15

16 About two-thirds of the WIBs providing customized training paid for it with WIA funds (62% in PY and 67% in PY ), while about one-third used ARRA funds (33% in PY and 29% in PY ). State general revenue was used by 14 percent of the WIBs, and this program year 5 percent of the WIBs used state Unemployment Insurance (UI) funds. WIBs also used governor s discretionary WIA funds to pay for customized training last program year. Provision of Customized Training 100% 80% 33% 46% 60% 40% 67% 55% 0% No Yes Program Year Funding For Customized Training WIA 62% 67% Source ARRA State General Revenue State UI 0% 5% 14% 14% 33% 29% Last Program Year This Program Year Other 0% 5% 0% 10% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% WIBs that provide businesses with customized training do so for a variety of reasons, the most likely of which are: Learning skills associated with a new machine or computer system (76% for all businesses, 52% for small businesses); Increasing productivity and company competitiveness (67%; 52%); Retraining for new jobs added to the company (62%; 57%); and Layoff aversion (62%; 57%); 16

17 Purpose of Customized Training Maintaining employee skill Retraining for new jobs 38% 52% 57% 62% Purpose Layoff aversion Increasing productivity and competitiveness 57% 62% 52% 67% Small Businesses All Businesses General skills upgrading 38% 62% Learning skills for a new system 52% 76% 0% 40% 60% 80% Entrepreneurial Training. Only 4 percent of WIBs provide entrepreneurs with all of the training they need to succeed in their new ventures. More frequently the WIBs provide entrepreneurs with some of the training they need and link them with other organizations that can help them with their other needs (42%). Twenty-nine percent (29%) of WIBs only provide entrepreneurs with referrals, and 25 percent provide no services at all around entrepreneurial training. Provision of Entrepreneurial Training 4% 25% All Some plus referrals 42% Only referrals None 29% WIBs providing entrpreneurial training do so in a wide variety of subjects, including: Business plan development (64%); Individual counseling and coaching (64%); Staffing (55%); Legal and financial issues (46%); and Marketing (46%). 17

18 Type of Entrepreneurial Training Product development 27% Business plan development 64% Financial request preparation 36% Individual counseling and coaching 64% Type Legal and financial issues Staffing 46% 55% Accounting 36% Record-keeping 36% Marketing 46% Other (please specify) 18% 0% 10% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Partnerships. All WIBs provide business services in partnership with other organizations. The most common ones are: Economic development (94%); Chambers of commerce (94%); Business Services Partnerships Regional development organizations 66% Economic development 94% Small business administration 53% Chambers of commerce 94% Industry associations 81% Organizations Professional associations Local commerce department Community- and faith-based organizations Two-year colleges Four-year colleges and universities 28% 47% 66% 69% 91% High schools 47% School districts 44% Media 38% Other 16% 18

19 Two-year colleges (91%); and Industry Associations (81%). Other partners are professional associations (69%), regional development organizations (66%), and four-year colleges and universities (66%). Services to Individuals with Disabilities 7 Participation Level. The WIA system is serving adults with disabilities at a rate equal to their presence in the labor force. From April 2008 to March 2009, 4 percent of all WIA adult program exiters were individuals with disabilities, the exact same percentage as that of adults with disabilities (age 20 and above) in the civilian labor force in Overall Labor Force Participation Rate (20+) WIA Reported Participation Rate of Unemployed Individuals (20+) Adults with Disabilities 3.98% 3.98% 6.37% An analysis of youth services shows an even greater degree of attention to individuals with disabilities. While the overall percentage of youth (ages 16 to 24) with disabilities was 4 percent in 2009, 14 percent of WIA youth exiters (April 2008 to March 2009) reported having disabilities, while 20 percent either WIA Reported + Non- Reported Participation Rate Overall with a Disability (16-24) WIA Reported Participation Rate WIA Reported + Non- Reported Participation Rate 7.28% 0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00% 5.00% 6.00% 7.00% 8.00% Youth with Disabilities 3.70% 13.67% 19.89% 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 7 Unless otherwise noted, data on WIA participation, services, and outcomes came from PY 2008 WIASRD Data Book, Social Policy Research Associates, January 19, All numbers refer to exiters from April 2008 to March 2009 unless noted in the tables or graphs. ( The only other information on WIA participation and services, as noted in the text, came from a National Association of Workforce Boards survey conducted between June and August, General data on individuals with disabilities came from United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Economic News Release, Table 1. Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population by disability status and selected characteristics, 2009 annual averages, August 25, ( 19

20 reported having a disability or did not report their disability status. Services. Services to WIA adult participants do appear to vary depending on whether individuals do or do not have a disability. Adults with disabilities exiting between April 2008 and March 2009 were more likely to receive intensive services (31 percent vs. 25 percent), but less likely to receive training (9 percent vs. 12 percent). 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 10% 0% 64% 60% Core Services Only 25% 31% Core and Intensive Services Only WIA Adult Services 12% 9% Training 7% 6% ITA Established All Exiters Exiters with a Disability WIA services to adults with disabilities, however, tells only part of the story. Equally important is the access the WIA system provides to other programs serving individuals with disabilities. A National Association of Workforce Boards (NAWB) survey conducted in 2010 found that all WIBs have some relationship with service providers that assist individuals with 100% 80% 60% 40% 0% WIA System Relationship to Other Programs Serving Indviduals w ith Disabilties 80% We refer individuals w ith disabilities to other providers 67% 67% Other providers refer individuals w ith disabilities to us Co-location disabilities. Almost 80 percent of WIA programs refer individuals with disabilities to other programs. Sixty-seven percent (67%) receive referrals from other programs, and 67 percent are co-located with service providers that assist individuals with disabilities. 0% None 20

21 On average, the WIA system provides longer programs for youth with disabilities than youth as a whole. Youth exiting between April 2008 and March 2009 had participated for an average of 56.2 weeks, while youth with disabilities had participated for an average of 68.2 weeks. Youth with disabilities are more likely to be enrolled in a number of important activities: Educational achievement services, Employment services, Summer youth employment opportunities, Leadership development activities, and Education enrollment. 40% 35% 30% 25% 15% 10% 5% 0% 37% 29% 26 or fewer weeks WIA Youth Services - Weeks of Participation 25% 23% 26 to 52 weeks 16% 14% 52 to 78 weeks The only activities where youth with disabilities might be significantly under-represented are support services and follow-up services, and this may be because they are able to access other disability-only programs for these services. 24% 32% More than 78 weeks All Exiters Exiters with a Disability WIA Youth Services - Activities Educational achievement services Employment services Summer youth employment opportunities Leadership development activities Additional support for youth services 12 months of follow-up services All Exiters Exiters with a Disability Needs-related payments Other supportive services Education enrollment Pell grant recipient 0% 10% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100 % 21

22 Outcomes. Outcomes for adults with disabilities are not as good as those for all adult exiters. This, unfortunately, reflects the overall employment pattern for individuals with disabilities in the workforce, not just those that receive WIA services. WIA Adult Outcomes All Exiters Exiters with Disabilities Entered employment (quarter after exit) % 53.4% Retention in 2nd and 3rd quarters % 79.0% Average earnings in 2nd and 3rd quarters 2 $14,811 $11,509 1 Based on exiters from October 2007 to September Based on exiters from April 2007 to March The outcomes for WIA youth with disabilities are more mixed. Youth with disabilities were slightly less likely to be placed in education and employment than were all youth participants (59% for exiters with disabilities, 61% for all exiters), but when this is broken down, youth with disabilities were very slightly more likely to be placed in employment (51% vs. 50%), while less likely to be placed in education (8% vs. 11%). Overall, youth with disabilities were more likely than the total youth population to attain a degree or certificate (59% vs. 52%). When this is broken down, youth with disabilities were more likely to attain a secondary school diploma (47% vs. 33%), but less likely to attain a GED or the equivalent (6% vs. 9%) or a certificate or postsecondary degree (6% vs. 10%). Youth with disabilities were just as likely to achieve literacy and numeracy gains as were the total youth population (38%). WIA Youth Outcomes Placement in employment or education Employment Education Attainment of degree or certificate Secondary school diploma All Exiters w/disability GED or equivalency Certificate or postsecondary degree Literacy and numeracy gains 0% 10% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Placement in employment or education and attainment of a degree or certificate are based on exiters from October 2007 to September Literacy and numeracy gains are based on exiters from April 2007 to March

23 WIB Partnerships with Libraries 8 Almost half (47%) of WIBs have partnerships with local libraries to deliver employment and training services. For those WIBs with library partnerships, the most frequent types are 53% WIBs with Library Partnerships to Deliver Employment and Training Services sharing workforce information and electronic tools with the library system (69%); training library staff about employment and training resources available through the public workforce system (62%); and using space available at libraries for one-stop staff to provide services to 47% Library Partnerships No Library Partnerships Type of WIB-Library Partnership Familiarizing library patrons w ith career resources offered through the public w orkforce system or available electronically 45% Training library staff about employment and training resources available through the public w orkforce system 62% Library Partnership Sharing w orkforce information and electronic tools w ith the library system Partnering w ith libraries to share labor market and w orkforce information and develop solutions to meet meet the employment needs of patrons Using space available at libraries for one-stop staff to provide services to library patrons or to host career events 43% 52% 69% Locating one-stop career centers or satellite career centers in libraries 14% 0% 40% 60% 80% of WIBs with the Indicated Partnership 8 WIB-Library Initiatives Survey, conducted April 1, 2000, to April 12, 2010, 94 responses. 23

24 library patrons or to host career events (52%). Critical Funding Issues 9 The question of whether WIBs are over- or under-funded has plagued the system for over a decade. In this time when Congress and the Administration are looking for easy budgets to cut, it is critical that the WIA system not be seen as having substantial amounts of unused funds. Many WIBs have either run out or expect to run out of WIA funds this program year. In the area of training services, 60 percent of WIBs have or will run out of funds for adult participants, 49 percent for dislocated participants, and 39 percent for youth. For intensive services, 21 percent of WIBs have or will run out of funds for adult participants and 18 percent for dislocated participants; and for core services 11 percent of WIBs have or will run out of funds for adult participants and 9 percent for dislocated participants. WIBs Running out of WIA Funds Running Out of Funds 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 10% 0% 60% 49% 39% 21% 18% 11% 9% Core Services Intensive Services Training Type of WIA Services Adults Dislocated Workers Youth Because of this shortage of funds, 63 percent of WIBs have created waiting lists for training services. While WIBs are running short of funds, it does not necessarily look like this is the case. Approximately 75 percent of WIBs that have or will run out of funds appear to still have funding because remaining funds, while obligated or encumbered, are still on their books. 9 WIB Training and Service Funds, survey conducted March 31, 2011, to April 8, 2011, 57 responses. 24