result of plant closures or massive layoffs in industries where occupations are male dominated rather than seeking out those unemployed from more fragmented female dominated occupations. The SDAs must make an effort to recruit dislocated workers from traditionally female concentrated labor markets if it is realistically committed to serving all relevant populations. In addition, since an equal match from non-federal sources is required for use of funds received under dislocated worker programs, the application of the 70/30 split of training and non-training cost limitations does not apply to non-federal matching funds. This allows out of half the total funds for dislocated workers additional money for training and supportive services such as child care, community assistance, counseling and English language training. Many poor women are unable to obtain work or find only low paying jobs because they lack training, experience, or important supportive services such as child care and transportation. Therefore, women should not be denied access to this additional opportunity to get jobs under Title III's dislocated worker programs or to receive critical financial assistance while being trained for reemployment.

III. ON THE BRIGHT SIDE--SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS

Out of more than 44 million women in the paid labor force today, 80% are restricted to approximately 20 of 420 listed occupational categories. Clerical, retail sales, factory and service work dominate in the female labor market. However, these sectors cannot come close to providing jobs for ever increasing female job seekers. women are the majority (66%) of "discouraged workers"--those who would like to be employed but have given up looking for work for lack of

Consequently,

opportunities. Only a little under 10% of women who found employment in 1978 held well-paid traditionally "male" jobs. 21.6% held sexneutral jobs and 68.5% were segregated into low paid traditionally "female" jobs.

For the most part, women are no longer unable to enter into employment and training programs. It is also true, unfortunately, that many training programs reinforce occupational stereotyped and prepare women for low-wage jobs--primarily in the clerical and service fields. In addition, women face major barriers to participation in training because they are economically disadvantaged and are thus unable to afford child care or transportation costs. Poor women of limited English speaking ability are denied jobs because they can't afford ESL classes to improve their English.

The TPA should offer a vehicle through which employment solutions to female poverty can be systematically implemented. With this in mind, Wisconsin Governor, Anthony S. Earl, has authorized the Governor's Employment and Training Office to fund "hands on" training for state JTPA staff to recognize the needs of Wisconsin's disadvanteged women's population. Aiming at training trainers within the JTPA Administration in Wisconsin, Gene Boyer and Associates have developed materials including audio visual aids and role playing that teach those on SDA and PIC staffs to be responsive to problems facing potential recipients. The training materials are sensitive to the specific needs of minority women, including Hispanics and those with limited English speaking ability. In addition, women are targeted for non-traditional jobs (defined by one of their job trainers, Mary Griswold of the Worker's Rights Institute, as "any job that pays well".)

By offering a state grant to be combined with a percentage of

JTPA technical assistance money allowable under the statute, the state of Wisconsin does not turn its back on the real needs of its JTPA

eligible population.

The state legislature in California is also not unaware of the needs of poor women. Assembly Bill 1162 directs the SDAs there to note that childcare is important and therefore local resources should be used to provide childcare services. The bill offers to match state dollars with JTPA funds going toward technical assistance in providing child care to recipients. Like Wisconsin, it is money well-spent to ensure that JTPA can assist those who need the training for good jobs. CONCLUSION

IV.

Congress should mandate that the Department of Labor immediately look into the problems of implementation and clarify any regulation ambiguities that have caused problems such as those outlined in this statement. Careful oversight should assess the extent to which the states and SDAs meet the target populations' need for training and employment. The training programs funded under the JTPA must attempt to fill some of the need that exists among minority women, particularly Hispanic women, for skills that can lead to better paying jobs.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF LAROZA

1. THE JOB TRAINING PARTNERSHIP ACT

AN OVERVIEW FROM THE HISPANIC PERSPECTIVE

The Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) was passed by Congress and signed by the President in October 1982. JTPA replaced the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) as the nation's primary federal employment and training legislation on October 1, 1983. JTPA was developed to continue the federal commitment to assist youth and unskilled adults for entry into the labor market and to afford job training to economically disadvantaged individuals who are in need of such training to obtain productive employment. Thus, its purposes are not unlike those of CETA.

However, JTPA Introduces significant changes to the employment and training system. One of the major issues to emerge during JTPA's development was the appropriate relationship between the federal, state and local governments. Under JTPA, within the context of President Ronald Reagan's "New Federalism," the state now assumes many of the functions previously performed by the Department of Labor. Governors are thus given significantly increased authority to shape the state employment and training system, including designation of Service Delivery Areas (SDAs), and general oversight of state and local programs, and management of performance.

Concurrently, JTPA expands local decision-making authority to give local areas great flexibility to decide how programs will be administered and managed and what types and mixes of programs will be provided. However, while CETA gave local authority to cities and counties, under JTPA these local decisions are made through the private/public sector partnership which is the foundation of JTPA. Local elected officials will appoint the members of the Private Industry Councils (PICS) the majority of which should represent the private sector.

JTPA significantly departs from CETA in its elimination of public service employment (PSE) slots and near elimination of funds for training stipends. CETA provisions relating to PSE and mandatory allowances have been repealed. JTPA's developers believe that thse changes will lead to an emphasis on training rather than income maintenance.

In line with the legislative wish for an effective return on Investment, JTPA emphasizes the concept of performance standards, and stipulates that they focus on increased employment and earnings and reflect a reduction of welfare. The emphasis on performance is further augmented by Incentive funding for successful programs. While the benefits of such accountability are obvious, the Inherent danger of performance standards based on positive placements is that it may encourage "creaming"--the tendency to select as clients persons who are least disadvantaged and easiest to place. These individuals are considered a less risky Investment than other more disadvantaged individuals. Hispanics and other individuals with serious employment barriers may find themselves excluded from participation in training programs due to the tendency to "cream" on the part of program operators. Furthermore, the lack of targeting language in JTPA contributes to the exclusion of minorities in employment and training programs.

The principles espoused by the Job Training Partnership Act may lead to a severe negative effect on Hispanic participation rates. The concept of decentralization erodes federal oversight over targeting and monitoring efforts, thus endangering equal access to training programs by the disadvantaged and minorities. Hispanic, small and minority business, and CBO representation in the PICS may be low due to the lack of strong language mandating such representation. The restriction on training stipends may have a chilling effect on those individuals who are most in need of training but who can least afford the extra costs associated with training, such as transportation and child care. The emphasis on performance standards based on positive placements may cause organizations to "cream" participants, thus, ignoring the disadvantaged and long-term unemployed. Perhaps most Important, Hispanic participation is likely to plummet unless Hispanic communitybased organizations (CBOs) continue to play a major role in client outreach and in delivery of employment and training services.

If Hispanics are to be equitably served under JTPA, factors affecting Hispanic participation, whether as clients or as service deliverers, must be identified early. Policy makers and community leaders must become aware of the need to remove obstacles to such participation and encourage full Hispanic involvement in JTPA planning and implementation. The manner in which JTPA was drafted, with its ambiguous and non-targeted language, may lead to a disastruous exclusion of Hispanics and other disadvantaged groups. JTPA's deficiencies also reflect the short-sightedness of policy makers. Hispanics are the fastest-growing constituency and the youngest subpopulation group in America; they will be an increasing proportion of the future labor force. The taxes paid by future Hispanic workers