district with the passage of this program. It seems that, if the current trend continues, very few people in my district will be able to benefit. The people I'm thinking about basically are those that are long-termed unemployed.

Of course, the present administration seems to feel that the current rate of unemployment is something to celebrate, but I can assure you that my constituents, who have been out of work for a long time, are not joining in that celebration. More than that, I hope they intend to do something about it at the polls.

Hopefully, we may be able to shed some light on why what seems to have occurred, has occurred, and, if, in fact, there is anything we can do about it.

Mr. HAWKINS. Thank you. Mr. Dymally.

STATEMENT OF HON. MERVYN M. DYMALLY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. DYMALLY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I want to begin by thanking Congressman Hawkins for holding a hearing on this very important matter which I consider to be crucially important, both for Los Angeles and for the Job Training Partnership Act itself.

Those of us who joined Chairman Hawkins and Mr. Jeffords, the ranking minority member of the Employment Opportunities Subcommittee, in the many months of hard work which led to the passage of this act, have almost a personal relationship with it. Each of our most fondly held beliefs about the proper way to carry out job training was tested during the debate and the give and take that resulted in the final act. We are proud of the aspects of the bill that are consistent with our own philosophy, and I expect we still are chagrined by those aspects of the bill which are not consistent with our philosophy. But every one of us, Democrat and Republican alike, wants desperately for this act to fulfill the purpose for which it was intended.

During the testimony taken before the final draft of the bill was voted on, Members of Congress were told that our unemployment rate could not be blamed solely on the recession. We were told that, after the recession had ended, there would be a residue of structural unemployment. That is, people, as many as eight million, would remain unemployed, not because of a sluggish economy, but because of the changed job needs of the Nation. People who had worked their lives in a single occupation would find their skills to be obsolete. They would find themselves trained to do a job that would no longer exist. Moreover, they would find that they lacked the skills to qualify for new jobs.

So we're here today to examine how one of our major metropolitan areas has chosen to make use of funds from the Job Training Partnership Act. Is the Los Angeles program achieving the intended purpose of the act? Is it training and retraining the southern California work force to assume the jobs of the eighties and beyond? Is the program substantially reducing the level of structural unemployment in Los Angeles County? Is the Los Angeles area Private Industry Council demonstrating the job market foresight

we expected of it when we gave it control over administering the program?

The Congress has heard that the Los Angeles program represents, what for want of a better term we might call a "creative" use of the act. I suspect it is a use which was not envisioned by those who wrote and approved the act. I am, therefore, very anxious to hear the testimony that will be presented here today. It may well have a significant impact on the provisions of the act in years to come.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'd like my statement to be entered into the record.

Mr. HAWKINS. Thank you, Mr. Dymally.

[Opening statement of Congressman Dymally follows:]

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MERVYN M. Dymally, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

I want to begin by thanking Chairman Augustus Hawkins for holding this hearing on a matter which I consider to be crucially important both the Los Angeles and for the Job Training Partnership Act itself. Those of us who joined Chairman Hawkins and Mr. Jeffords, the ranking minority member of the Employment Opportunities Subcommittee, in the many months of hard work which led to passage of the Job Training Partnership Act have almost a personal relationship with it. Each of our most fondly held beliefs about the proper way to carry out job training was tested during the debate and the give and take that resulted in the final act. We are proud of the aspects of the bill that are consistent with our own philosophy and, I expect, we are still chagrined by those aspects of the bill which are not consistent with our philosophy. But every one of us. Democrat and Republican alike, wants desperately for this act to fulfill the purpose for which it was intended.

The act was hammered out in the waning days of the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act, popularly known as ČETĂ. The Nation was slipping toward the day that there were 12 million Americans counted as unemployed. At the same time, we knew there were many more unemployed who were not counted because, out of discouragement, they has stopped looking for employment, and so, were no longer traceable by the Department of Labor.

During testimony taken before the final draft of the bill was prepared, Members of Congress were told that our unempolyment rate could not be blamed solely on the recession. We were told that after the rescession had ended, there would be a residue of structural unemployment. That is, people-as many as 8 million people— would remain unemployed not because of a sluggish economy but because the job needs of the nation would have changed. And people who had worked their lives in a single occupation would find skills to be obsolete. They would find themselves trained to do a job that would no longer exist. Moreover, they would find that they lacked the skills to qualify for the new jobs.

The Job Training Partnership Act was designed to help the nation make the all important adjustment to a world of work which required new skills. The CETA program had been accused of training people for jobs that were not in demand. Congress solution to this problem in the new act was the Private Industry Council or PIC. Who could better judge the skill needs of the work force than those who run the businesses and industries? Who could better determine a candidate selection process that would deliver the most potentially employable trainees for the least number of training dollars than the very people who would hire the trainees? That is why private industry was given a majority vote on the Council.

Many Members of Congress wanted first access to job training to go to those who had demonstrated their commitment to work through a career of previous employment. Many felt that these people displaced through structural unemployment deserved retraining first. In part, that is why mandated stipends during the training or retraining period were not included in the Act-even though some of us objected strenuously to this omission. Those who wanted no stipends reasoned that only those who truly intended to use training to prepare themselves for new careers would endure a training process that provided no means of support during the training period. In the end a compromise was struck. A subsistence stipend is not mandated in the Act. Rather, that option is now one that must be decided upon actively by each Private Industry Council.

The Job Training Partnership Act was perhaps the best piece of job training legislation that a two party Congress faced with the need for austerity could produce. I would note that funds for the program were cut nearly in half before the bill was given over to the President for his signature. Under current Executive Branch policy, only about half of the congressionally authorized funds have been released, and in the budget request for fiscal year 1985 the President is asking the Congress to institutionalize current policy by cutting the official authorization for 1985 from the currently authorized level of $6,419,000,000 to $3,523,000,000.

We are here today to examine how one of our major metropolitan areas has chosen to make use of funds from the Job Training Partnership Act. Is the Los Angeles Program achieving the intended purposes of the act? Is it training and retraining the southern California work force to assume the jobs of the eighties and beyond? Is the program substantially reducing the level of structural unemployment in southern California? Is the Los Angeles area Private Industry Council demonstrating the job market foresight we expected of it when we gave it control over administering the act?

The Congress has heard that the Los Angeles program represents what for want of a better term we might call a "creative" use of the act. I suspect it is a use which was not envisioned by those who wrote and approved the Job Training Partnership Act. I am, therefore, anxious to hear the testimony that will be presented here today. It may well have a significant impact on the provisions of the act in years to

come.

Mr. HAWKINS. Thank you, Mr. Dymally.

The first panel will consist of members of the county board of supervisors or their representatives. I do not see any of the members present.

Mr. HUFFORD. Mr. Chairman, I'm Harry Hufford, the county administrative officer.

Mr. HAWKINS. Yes. Mr. Hufford, would you be seated.

It looks like Mr. Hufford is the panel at this time.

Mr. HUFFORD. Well, sir, I do know Mr. Edelman is expected to testify also. I would prefer to have my elected supervisor speak first, but he is not here and I can offer the testimony as the county administrator, and then I'm sure he'll be here shortly thereafter. Mr. HAWKINS. We are pleased to have you.

We have the statement here with us. It will be entered into the record in its entirety, and you may proceed to deal with it as you so desire.

Mr. HUFFORD. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF HARRY HUFFORD, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE

OFFICER OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Mr. HUFFORD. I am Harry Hufford, the chief administrative officer of Los Angeles County. I am very pleased that I have the opportunity to testify before this subcommittee because the county's use of Job Training Partnership Act funds in its employment and training efforts has been misunderstood at times and attacked at others. The county is making a very large investment of county funds in an attempt to provide the necessary training and support services to welfare recipients. The county is using only a small portion of its JTPA allocation in this program.

Our objective in targeting a portion of the JTPA funds for former general relief recipients must be put into proper context. To do so, I would like to highlight three points.

First, the growth in the general relief caseload; second, the public policy of training general relief employables; third, the

amount of JTPA funds used for training general relief recipients compared to nongeneral relief recipients.

The growth in the general relief caseload: First, I would like to comment on the substantial growth in the general relief program in Los Angeles County over the past several years. On attachment I you will see that in 1980-81 our average caseload was 19,221, and our annual net county cost was $41.3 million, all local funding. In 1983-84 our average caseload was estimated at 32,436 at a projected cost of $75.3 million, again all local funding. This recent caseload growth is the result of the following factors.

First, there has been an increase in the number of employable general relief recipients. This is due to the loss of CETA job opportunities and a trend of rising unemployment in general. This trend has only recently been reversed and we are optimistic about this improvement.

Second, there has been an increase in the number of unemployable general relief recipients. This is due to a decline in the transfer of unemployable persons to the federally funded supplemental security income program [SSI]. This has resulted from prior Federal efforts to restrict SSI program expenditures.

Third, there is the conversion of refugees to the general relief program. Changes in the Federal law eliminated eligibility for refugee assistance once the refugee has been in the United States for 18 months. The conversion of these refugees to the general relief program has continued to impact county costs as the limited Federal reimbursement for refugees expires.

As you can see, the growth in the county's mandated program of last resort is reflecting not only the economy in general but the implementation of Federal policies that have shifted costs from the Federal and State governments to the counties. Therefore, utilizing Federal JTPA funds to defray a small portion of the costs of training the county's general relief employables is entirely appropriate. In fact, it should be maximized to offset the tremendous burden to local taxpayers of the mandated general relief program.

The issue of public policy of training general relief recipients: Next I would like to respond to criticisms of the board of supervisors' policy of providing a training opportunity for general relief recipients. I think we all have to agree that the general relief recipients are among those most in need of assistance in becoming employable. By creating a county employment and training program and targeting the employable portion of the general relief caseload, we expect to see several benefits.

First, we expect to see the achievement of economic self-sufficiency for individuals who would otherwise be dependent upon welfare subsidies.

Second, we anticipate an improvement of the general economic outlook of the county as former welfare recipients become taxpayers, consumers, and contributors to local productivity.

In fact, the former general relief recipients and those participants who would have been eligible for general relief without this training and employment resource represent every significant segment group targeted for services under JTPA. These include women, veterans, the handicapped, and each of the age and ethnic categories.

The county's employment and training program is not a new idea. The concept is based on a successful pilot program instituted during 1982-83 in Los Angeles County. This innovative pilot program offered employment and training opportunities available under the CETA program to approximately 1,800 general relief and State AFDC-U welfare recipients. This demonstration effort achieved positive results, both in terms of improving the employability of the participants and in achieving a financial benefit to the county.

By providing appropriate employment and training services to the target client population, the county is enhancing their employability, their marketable skills, and, therefore, their potential for higher wages. In addition, participants receive employment services which include job development, job placement, and job retention skills. Providing these opportunities for general relief employables is good public policy and should not be abandoned.

Use of JTPA funds for training general relief recipients: Lastly, I want to comment on the extent to which Los Angeles County is using JTPA funds for training general relief recipients. As I have said before, only a small portion of the $35.4 million in title IIA JTPA funds available for residents in all of the service delivery areas of Los Angeles County is being used to support the county employment and training program. If we look at the chart that is attached to my statement on JTPA funding for countywide title IIA programs, we see that only 12.7 percent of $4.5 million is being used for training former general relief recipients. The remaining 87.3 percent of Federal funding is directed toward nongeneral relief participants. Of the title IIA JTPA funds coming directly to the county, as contrasted with the areawide figures I've just described, only 35.4 percent is being used for training and stipend costs for the general relief recipients. The remainder of our allocation is being used for services to nongeneral relief adults, youth, and allowable administrative costs. If the goal is to allocate more JTPA slots to non-GR's, this should be accomplished by increasing the county's overall JTPA funds. I'd like to repeat that. If the goal is to allocate more JTPA slots to non-GR's, this should be accomplished by increasing the county's overall JTPA funds. That is our firm recommendation. It should not be accomplished by reducing the slots we are currently using for training former general relief recipients.

In addition to the JTPA title IIA funds, the county administers $11.9 million in JTPA funds for displaced workers, older Americans, and for the summer employment of youth. Attachment III is a separate report describing the county JTPA program and the county employment and training program.

We firmly believe that the initial objectives of the county employment and training program remain valid. At the same time, we recognize that the program design was flawed in that it was based on projections of smaller caseloads. We are currently wrestling with ways in which to handle the problems created by large caseloads and delays we encountered in implementing proper administrative procedures. We are currently taking action to resolve these problems. You can be assured that we will continue to refine our use of JTPA training slots to maximize their effectiveness in meet