YOUTH EMPLOYMENT AND WELFARE REFORM JOBS, 1980 THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 1980 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT, POVERTY, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:45 a.m., in room 4232, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Gaylord Nelson (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Senator NELSON. The Subcommittee on Employment, Poverty, and Migratory Labor, begins its second day of hearings on youth employment issues, and on the jobs component of the administration's welfare reform proposal. Yesterday the subcommittee received testimony from Secretary of Labor Ray Marshall, and from three expert witnesses on employment and training issues. Today the committee is pleased to have representatives of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties, the League of Cities, and the AFL-CIO, to testify on these important matters. Our witnesses today will be Hon. Daniel Whitehurst, mayor of Fresno, Calif.; and Hon. William Stansbury, mayor of Louisville, Ky., representing the U.S. Conference of Mayors; Hon. Charlotte Williams, a county commissioner from Genessee County, Mich., and Hon. Paula MacIlwaine, a county commissioner from Montgomery County, Ohio, representing the National Association of Counties; Hon. Carol Bellamy, the city council president, New York City, representing the National League of Cities and Mr. Robert McGlotten, the associate director, legislative department of the AFL-CIO. The committee is pleased to have you take the time to come here and testify today. I apologize for being late. I had some people in conference from my State that ran a little past 9:30, and I regret having delayed you. Would you identify yourselves and your associates for the reporter, starting over here, and going down the line so that the reporter will have an accurate record. Mr. STANSBURY. William Stansbury, mayor of the City of Louisville, Ky. Mr. MCPHERSON. Michael McPherson, U.S. Conference of Mayors. Mr. WHITEHURST. Daniel Whitehurst, mayor of Fresno, Calif. MS. NICKERSON. Carol Nickerson, U.S. Conference of Mayors. Senator NELSON. Now, we'll proceed any way you desire. If you have prepared statements, your statements will be printed in full (169) in the record, and in order to get through today, if you can summarize and avoid duplication, we would appreciate it. Who will be starting? Mr. WHITEHURST. I think I will lead off, Mr. Chairman. STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. WHITEHURST, MAYOR OF FRESNO, CALIF., ACCOMPANIED BY MICHAEL MCPHERSON, U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS Mr. WHITEHURST. We do have a written statement to submit, and I will abbreviate that statement for you. I chair the Conference of Mayors Subcommittee on Youth, and it's our pleasure to discuss with you this morning our perspectives on needed revisions to youth employment legislation. Our ideas are based upon our experience as chief local elected officials in our communities, and as managers of local CETA programs. USCM conducted a joint project with the Department of Labor, to obtain input from mayors around the country on the subject of youth legislation. It's not necessary here to dwell on the nature and scope of the youth unemployment problem. However, it may interest you that while official statistics place urban youth unemployment at 32 percent, some of our cities experience rates approaching 50 percent among intercity poor and minority youngsters 16 to 21 years of age. Of course, our cities have to deal with the problems that result from this high unemployment level. Based on those observations, the Conference of Mayors has for a number of years been actively involved in promoting youth programs as a comprehensive and integrated part of community services. We have promoted Federal, State, and local cooperation to employ youth to revitalize our cities by improving deteriorating structures, to expand social services, to improve transitioning from school to work, to improve local educational opportunities, and to provide tax incentives or wage subsidies to the private sector to promote meaningful and long-term employability opportunities for disadvantaged youth. We discussed these concerns at our last annual meeting during which we acknowledged youth unemployment as one of the critical problems of our cities, and called for a national youth employment policy. I'd like to discuss some of the recommendations of the joint project with the Department of Labor under which we visited cities around the country and viewed outstanding youth employment programs. This year-long project was called the youth education. and assessment program and involved mayors from around the country. We visited four cities; Boston, Mass.; Berkeley, Calif.; Tulsa, Okla.; and Memphis, Tenn.; and looked at the youth employment programs in those cities. These were extensive 2-day visits. We interviewed students, other young people, program operators, employers and had a chance to really focus on some of the areas we think need to be considered in future youth employment legislation. We have forwarded our suggestions to the Department of Labor, and I'd like to summarize them for you now. First, it became apparent to us that the role of education is a priority concern in this whole matter of youth employment, and our finding is that each young person should receive an adequate education and be ready to enter the labor force. It became clear to us that the most successful programs were the ones in which the local governments, the private sector, and educational agencies were working together. The involvement and the coordination of the educational system, with the CETA delivery system are essential. Senator NELSON. Are you talking about programs in which you were dealing with out-of-school youth? Mr. WHITEHURST. Both, in school and out of school. But even with out-of-school youth, there is an educational component for the job training that you're doing. The cooperation of local educational institutions in relating to their in-school youth, and assisting in the training of kids who have dropped out of school, were found to be critical. What's happened in a lot of communities is that the local government spends its CETA moneys on youth programs, while the schools have their own vocational educational programs. Under recent legislation it has been proposed that a certain amount of CETA funds be routed through the school districts. We found that the successful programs were the ones in which the school systems themselves went far beyond their cooperative efforts and saw their job as part of their mission to reduce youth unemployment and to prepare youth for the world of work. The major ingredient in the successful programs was the close cooperation of the prime sponsor agency and the school system. Our next major finding, as we looked at communities that were successful, was the heavy involvement of the private sector and the labor community. And we for that reason, support cash incentives to involve the private sector. Again, where it's just a city or a prime sponsor taking CETA funds and trying to operate programs, we found those programs to be sort of flat. The programs that seemed to be making progress were the ones where the schools, the private sector and the city or the prime sponsor were working together. The third major concern developed by our committee is the need for equalization of eligibility requirements for all youth programs. The various categories of the youth legislation have different eligibility requirements, and different age and income levels for inschool, out-of-school youth. Our recommendation is that we extend eligibility to 100 percent of those with below standard income. I believe the NACO testimony, which you'll be hearing, includes a similar recommendation. The final recommendations that we want to address, are the decategorization of youth unemployment programs and multiyear block grant funding. We look to the community development block grant as a model in which we would like to see legislation in which Congress tells us, "Here are the kinds of programs we want you to fund. However, you may tailor them to your own community, and decide how much you want to spend on the summer, year-round, on-the-job training programs, other kinds of training, et cetera." 68-724 O-80-12 We would like to have that kind of flexibility. We found that those cities operating the best youth employment programs were the ones which sought to develop flexibility, by using CETArather the youth employment legislation—to enhance ongoing programs in their community. A problem that we've all experienced is the unpredictability of funding. Therefore, we're looking to multiyear block grant funding to allow us to plan a year or two in advance. Too often we are advised in September of the funding levels we'll be working with in October. Therefore, we're interested in a block grant approach rather than separate programs, such as summer, in-school, and out-ofschool projects. We would like to have a block grant approach with general criteria. However, we're not talking about giving up accountability. We think that, just as in the community development block grant program, there must be the same kind of accountability and standards for us to follow; but we think this greater flexibility will allow us to do a better job. Addressing specifically, now, the administration's proposed Youth Act of 1980, we find that this legislation would provide local prime sponsors broader and more flexible program design and delivery capacity. We like the fact that it gives us flexibility and consolidates localized CETA programs that offer preemployment assistance, preparatory education and training and entry level work experience. The present YETP, YCCIP, and SYEP, would be combined into one youth grant, along the lines I just mentioned. Funds would be allocated on a formula basis according to poverty, youth population, and population density, and provide allocations for 2 years. The local prime sponsor could choose the mix of year around and summer activities based on local conditions. In other words, the administration's bill provides the advanced 2-year funding and flexibility that we're looking for. Also in line with our recommendations, the joint DOL-HEW legislation tightens performance standards for prime sponsors while placing some responsibility on the youth. It would entitle registrants to certain services, conditioned upon the participant's efforts and accomplishments. We're also interested in seeing a greater integration of youth and adult programs in the proposed legislation. The legislation requires community input for the development of evaluation criteria and includes a program of incentives to encourage prime sponsors to establish linkages with local school systems. It still, however, leaves the local prime sponsors with the task of tying those agencies together. Although it is difficult for prime sponsors to change local educational systems, we feel it is essential that local educational systems be more responsive to the overall issue of youth unemployment. S. 1129, which was introduced by Senator Kennedy, provides for & cash incentive program for cities to produce significant changes in the outcome of these programs and calls for actual posttraining employment of program participants. While funds would be distributed according to the current formula during the first 2 years, the |