EXECUTIVE SUMMARY REPORT ON EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING PROGRAM FOR FORMER GENERAL RELIEF RECIPIENTS I. ISSUES RAISED IN THE NOVEMBER 27, 1983 LOS ANGELES TIMES ARTICLE Purposes and Benefits of the Program Achievement of economic self-sufficiency for individuals A minimum $4 million savings in County General Funds Procedures for Evaluating and Assigning Participants Although some mismatches of individuals to program sites did occur during start up, such situations have been resolved by the department on an agency-by-agency and case-by-case basis. A screening and referral system is in place which takes into consideration the interests, aptitudes, past work experience and residence of each participant. - Participants are offered a wide range of activities Access to the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) Program State Review of the County's Program State Employment Development Department has completed II. III. The EDD review was carried out at the request of the Western Center on Law and Poverty. EDD is required to routinely review all such complaints. PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS A participant screening, evaluation and referral process - Quarterly program reports to the PIC Operations Committee and to the Board. An expansion of the Department's Job Development Section. A uniform appeal process. A service provider's forum established at the suggestion PIC COMMENTS The PIC is aware that some administrative problems have occurred as the program was being implemented. However, they have also indicated their belief that the department seems to have moved quickly and aggressively to handle the implementation problems as they have surfaced. REPORT EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING FOR FORMER GENERAL RELIEF RECIPIENTS This report is to provide information on comments which appeared in a recent newspaper article regarding the County's Employment and Training Program, and to provide a general update on the status of that project. Background On November 27, 1983, an article appeared in the Los Angeles Times which expressed concerns regarding the County's Employment and Training Program. On November 29, 1983, on a motion of Supervisor Dana, the Departments of Community Services and Public Social Services, and the Chief Administrative Office, in conjunction with the Private Industry Council (PIC), were instructed to report on the comments mentioned in the article, on a State study of the County's job training program, and on recommendations for program improvements. Attachment I contains a copy of the Board motion and newspaper article for your information. Newspaper Comments The comments contained in the newspaper article touch on several aspects of the Employment and Training Program: the purpose and benefits of training former General Relief recipients, the procedures followed in assigning participants to training activities and the types of training and related services provided to enrollees. Purpose and Benefits of the Employment and Training Program For the 1982-83 Fiscal Year, the Department of Community Services, with Chief Administrative Office, PIC and Board approval, and in cooperation with DPSS, developed and implemented a pilot program to offer employment and training opportunities available under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) program to approximately eighteen hundred (1800) 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. As a result of this program, $10.7 million in General Fund welfare costs were avoided. Based upon the success of this effort, the department proposed that he program be expanded for 1983-84 to provide employment and training opportunities to all persons receiving General Relief as of October 1, 1983 and all eligible persons applying for General Relief during the program period determined employable by DPSS. This proposal was approved by the CAO and by your Board during 1983-84 budget deliberations. While this is admittedly an ambitious undertaking, the experience of 1982-83 demonstrates that it can work. Moreover, there are a number of benefits to be obtained from such an effort: - - - Achievement of economic self-sufficiency for individuals Improvement of the general economic outlook of the County A minimum $4 million savings in County General Funds Unfortunately, the newspaper article implies that financial benefit is the County's principal, if not sole, motivation in undertaking this program. While the budgetary advantages are certainly important, there are other benefits to individuals and the local economy as discussed above, that are of equal or greater signifi cance. Procedures for Evaluating and Assigning Participants A concern is expressed in the newspaper article that former General Relief recipients are not being appropriately screened and referred to training assignments. Although some mismatches of individuals to training sites did occur at the beginning of the program and specifically for twenty-five (25) clients at the Chinatown Service Center, these were the result of start-up problems. Such situations have been resolved by the department on a case-by-case and agencyby-agency basis. At this time, a screening and referral system is in place which takes into consideration the interests, aptitudes, past work experience, and residence of each participant. Depending upon his or her needs and interests, the participant will be referred to one of a number of employment and/or training projects. These include a wide range of activities: job search assistance for the most job-ready, remedial education for those who lack basic reading and math competencies, classroom training in occupational skills, on-the-job training with private employers, or work experience to develop basic employability skills (habits of good attendance, promptness, acceptance of supervision, etc.). Some programs may include a combination of two or more of these activities. Quality of Training A concern was raised in the newspaper article about whether the GRS competitive in the job market. As noted above, a full range of employment and training activities is being made available to the former General Relief recipients, with the participants' assignment based upon ability and interest. In cases where occupational training is the selected option, a wide variety of choices are available. These range from short-term training for occupations such as Custodian and File Clerk, to high-skill programs for occupations such as Auto Mechanics, Word Processing and Bank Teller. Training for Non-GRS A further concern expressed in the newspaper article is that the County's Employment and Training Program provides very limited opportunities for unemployed persons who are not on or applying for General Relief. In fact, approximately fifty-eight (58) percent of the County's JTPA funds are available to groups other than former GRS. The fifty-eight (58) percent is made up of the forty-four (44) percent of JTPA funds set aside for youth, and the fourteen (14) percent available for service to adults who are not former GRS. It should also be noted that the former General Relief recipients in the program represent every significant segment group targeted for service under JTPA. These include women, veterans, the handicapped, and each of the age and ethnic categories. State Study The November 27, 1983 newspaper article, and a subsequent article that appeared on November 30 (Attachment III), cited an "investigation" of the County's job training program by the State and implied the involvement of the Governor. The State Employment Development Department was conducting a routine administrative review of limited elements of the County's Job Training Plan, as required by State law. Unfortunately, the newspaper article created a false impression that the State was conducting a political investigation, when in reality they were carrying out a routine administrative review conducted to meet the requirements of State law. The study was not initiated by the State or the Governor, but resulted from the requirements that the Director of EDD, whenever he receives a complaint about a JTPA program, look into the complaint and make a formal declaration of finding. EDD was reviewing the County's plan as a result of a complaint submitted by the Western Center on Law and Poverty and not at the request of any other agency or official. The study was assigned to the EDD Legal Section which concluded that the County's Service Delivery Area Plan was developed, submitted 32-647 0-84-41 |