County Job-Training Officials Told to Shape Up Program

By LEO C. WOLINSKY, Times Staff Writer

Directors of a heavily criticized
Los Angeles County Job-training
program designed to force gener-
al-relief recipients off welfare rolls
were ordered Tuesday to improve
their performance to forestall possi-
ble action by the state.

The Board of Supervisors, on a
motion by Supervisor Deane Dana,
gave top county managers two
weeks to come up with a plan to
deflect criticism that is expected to
be raised by state investigators
probing the jobs plan. The investi-
gation was ordered by the Deukme-
jian Administration through its Em-
ployment Development Depart-

11-30-83

Times, are "of a serious nature
potentially affecting the welfare of
thousands of county residents."

He also noted that the county's
$5.1-billion budget is predicated on
the success of the jobs program in
cutting welfare costs. If the scope of
the program is drastically altered as
a result of the state investigation, he
Bald, "then we face the real possibil-
ity of layoffs of additional county
employees."

State investigators say they ex-
pect to complete their inquiry by
mid-December. The results eventu-
ally will be sent to Deukmejian, who
could stop the funding or order
changes in the way the program is
run.

DECLARATION OF FINDINGS

Complainant: Western Center on Law and Poverty
Service Delivery Area: Los Angeles County

ATTACHMENT II

Background:

This declaration of findings relates to the Los Angeles County service delivery area plan for the period October 1, 1983 through June 30, 1984. This declaration of findings is the result of a complaint made by the Western Center on Law and Poverty on October 6, 1983. This declaration of findings is made pursuant to the provisions of section 15029 of the Unemployment Insurance Code.

Issues:

The issues raised by the complainant are as follows:

1. That the service delivery area plan was not developed and approved in accordance with the requirements of the Job Training Partnership Act (hereinafter JTPA) and/or the Family Economic Security Act (hereinafter FESA).

2. That the service delivery area plan improperly "targets" the general relief population for training services.

Findings:

PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND APPROVAL

The service delivery area plan was developed by the County of Los Angeles. The private industry council for the service delivery area (hereinafter SDA) was certified by the Governor on August 1, 1983. Notice of the private industry council (hereinafter PIC) meeting on August 11, 1983 and copy of preliminary agenda was mailed to interested parties on August 8, 1983. The PIC met on August 11, 1983 and gave its concurrence to the plan. Notice that the service delivery area plan (hereinafter Plan) was available for review was published in seven local newspapers on August 12, 13, and 14, 1983.

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors reviewed and concurred in the Plan on August 16, 1983. The Plan was forwarded to the Employment Development Department on August 24, 1983. The PIC and the County Board of Supervisors approved their agreement on September 6, 1983 and September 20, 1983, respectively.

The Plan was approved on September 27, 1983.

Chapter 537, Statutes of 1983 was signed by the Governor on July 28, 1983. That statute contained an urgency clause and was intended to implement JTPA. Section 15045 was added to the Unemployment Insurance Code to require a public hearing by the PIC on the proposed Plan with at least 30 days advance notice and a 30-day comment period prior to final adoption of the Plan. JTPA required that interm plans be submitted by August 31, 1983. The Plan for the Los Angeles County SDA was submitted timely. Therefore, it is concluded that the Plan was developed, submitted and approved in accordance with JTPA. Strict compliance with section 15045 of the UI Code was not possible due to the time limitations required by JTPA.

PLAN TARGET GROUP

The program narrative for the Los Angeles County SDA Plan provides, at page 1, as follows:

"Potentially Eligible Population

"Los Angeles County plans to serve targeted
welfare recipients, specifically General
Relief (GR), Aid to Families With Dependent
Children-Unemployed (AFDC-U), Aid to
Families With Dependent Children-Family
Group (AFDC-FG), youth (ages 16-21), and
other JTPA eligible individuals during this
nine-month interim program. The targeted
welfare client population, all of whom
are unemployed, will make up a large portion
of the client population to be served."

Section 141 of JTPA (29 USC 1551) provides, in part, as follows:

"Except as otherwise provided, the following
conditions are applicable to all programs
under this Act: (a) Each job training plan
shall provide employment and training
opportunities to those who can benefit from,
and who are most in need of, such opportuni-
ties and shall make efforts to provide
equitable services among substantial segments
of the eligible population."

Neither JTPA nor FESA prohibit an SDA Plan from targeting its employment and training opportunities for an identified segment of the eligible population, so long as youth, recipients of Aid to Families With Dependent Children and school drop-outs are properly served.

It is concluded that this Plan contains provisions to satisfy the employment and training services to the groups identified in JTPA. Dated: November 29, 1983

CC:

State Job Training
Coordinating Council
T. Bruinsma, Chairman

Western Center on Law
and Poverty, Inc.

奶

K. R. KIDDOO
Director

Employment Development Department

At the Council meeting of October 13, 1983, concern was expressed that
Job Training Partnership Office (JTPO) staff had inadvertently approved
the Los Angeles County Job Training plan without ensuring that the
conditions imposed by the Council Subcommittee had been met. The attached
report summarizes the steps in the process by which the Los Angeles County
plan was reviewed and approved.

Briefly, the Subcommittee recommended approval of the plan on condition
that four defects would be cured. The areas requiring modification were:
• The SDA would rewrite the plan narrative to eliminate statement
that only General Relief recipients would be served

The SDA would submit a PIC/CEO Agreement

• The SDA would revise Table CIII

Performance Objectives

· The SDA would detail the process for selection of service providers.
Prior to providing administrative approval of the plan, staff was
responsible for ensuring that the plan was modified to meet each one of
these conditions. Subsequent to the Council Subcommittee meeting the
SDA developed the required plan and on September 22, 1983 revised
documents were transmitted to the Job Training Partnership Office.
defects having been corrected, the plan was processed, signed and approved.

The

As a result of concern that has been expressed by the Western Center on
Law and Poverty and others regarding Los Angeles County's intended use of Job
Training Partnership Act funds to reduce General Assistance welfare caseloads,
it came to our attention and to the attention of the SDA staff that Table
CIII and Exhibit D contained numerical inaccuracies which incorrectly