S-1129 This proposal, introduced by Senator Kennedy, is based on the premise that traditional training and employment have not worked effectively and that cash incentives to cities will produce significant changes in employment and/or educational outcomes for economically disadvantaged youth. This bill amends the CETA Act to provide incentives to sponsors, based on post-training employment of participants in the programs. While funds would be distributed according to the current formula during the first two years, the thirdyear funds received by the sponsor would be comprised of rewards for positive outcomes of training for individual participants. Although this system clearly would provide the prime sponsor incentives recommended by Mayors, these provisions are not consistent with our view that multi-year block grant funding is the most desirable funding mechanism for youth employment programs. In addition, this reward system might lead sponsors to train only those youth that appear to offer prospects for positive outcome, while neglecting those hard-core unemployed who most need the assistance. Thus, what appears on the surface to be a method for gearing funding levels to program performance, we believe, would not promote the long-range viability and high quality services needed to impact the youth unemployment problem. S. 2021 This bill, introduced by Senator Metzenbaum and five of his colleagues, is designed to create large-scale youth employment projects in the areas of energy conservation and development. The legislation would create a National Youth Employment Commission charged with implementing large-scale, multi-year projects providing youth employment in such tasks as weatherization, alternative energy development, mass transportation, and low-head hydroelectric dam restoration. The bill would establish commendable program linkages between the Department of Labor, Transportation, and Energy. Projects would be located in areas of high unemployment, and would be initiated at the local level. While this bill attempts to address the well-recognized national needs for energy conservation as well as jobs for youth, this legislation would not replace any of the existing youth unemployment programs. Rather, it would introduce a new approach which I believe might benefit the current YEDPA programs. S. 2218 This bill, introduced by Senator Javits, amends the current CETA youth programs to provide much needed combinations of work experience, skill training, remedial education, counseling, and supportive services. It would require development of personalized youth employability plans and establish a 15 member National Council on Education and Work. The bill is responsive to the Mayors' recommendations for offering incentives to the private sector. It provides for a special voucher program involving a select group of summer youth participants. Vouchers could be redeemed by employers for a value equal to the number of hours minimum wages are paid to participants. The Javits' bill calls for more private sector involvement by allowing payment of subminimum wages for participants 14 to 15 years of age, and provides flexibility in determining wages for pre-apprenticeship programs. In addition, calls for coordination of Title VII activities with local economic development programs, another feature welcomed by the Mayors. S. 2219 While part of a group of bills aim at restructuring the current youth legislation, this second bill submitted by Mr. Javits calls for amendments to the Social Security Act and the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. These provisions would exclude social security taxes from remuneration paid to economically disadvantaged youth during the first six months of employment who participate in a qualified cooperative education program. Mr. Chairman, in summary, I would like to add that each of these pieces of legislation contain valuable provisions and promising approaches that I and my colleagues in the U. s. Conference of Mayors hope to see incorporated in the final Act. We are confident that the outcome will strengthen and improve the youth initiatives, which already have made some meaningful, though still limited, inroads into this pervasive national problem. I want to thank each of you for your time and attention. I hope that the perspectives of the local officials that I have presented will assist you in your efforts to revamp the youth employment legislation. Mr. Chairman, I will happy to answer any questions. Senator NELSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Whitehurst. STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM STANSBURY, MAYOR, CITY OF Mr. STANSBURY. Thank you, Senator. I'm very pleased to be here on behalf of the U.S. Mayors Conference to present our views on these important topics of jobs and welfare reform. My comments are much more statistical and technical and I will not be able to summarize as Dan has. If you will bear with me through my comments, I would appreciate it very much, sir. People of limited income have been, and are increasingly, concentrating in cities. Higher levels of inflation and unemployment have dramatically increased the number of people in our country, especially in our cities, who do not earn enough money to afford a decent standard of living. Because of this high level of inflation and unemployment, low income and poor people continue to migrate to urban cities across our country. This migration is in response, and also is in search of immediate aid. Problems which these individuals face are sometimes short term and sometimes long term. People look to cities for solutions to their numerous problems of housing, work opportunities, growth, development; but needless to say, our resources are limited, but we're unable to help all of those who seek our support and help. There is just never enough resources for everyone to receive their fair share, and this is a burden that every elected official across this country faces daily. During the past decade, many innovative approaches have emerged addressing some of these problems. These efforts have impacted the problems and provided significant positive results, but we still have the problems which indicates that we lack a comprehensive approach to welfare reform. We continue to attack the puzzle, but we never complete the picture. The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare introduced the work incentive program, WIN, in 1968. This program attempted to reverse or at least limit the growth of welfare roles. WIN was intended to provide as many as 900,000 individuals and their families with jobs, but was not the first attempt to reduce welfare roles, although it differed considerably in two respects. First, it levied work requirements on all employable AFDC recipients; and second, it inserted an earnings disregard. However, the most important aspect of WIN was its increased emphasis on training and employment to transition individuals. from welfare roles to unsubsidized employment. In 1971, WIN was amended. The WIN-II emphasis, was changed and stated that training and other services could only be provided when job placement was impossible. Upgrading an individual's skill was forbidden if a less skilled job opportunity was immediately available. Public service employment was permissible, but only as a last resort. The WIN-II changes brought about a significant increase in unsubsidized job placements which ranged from 16.5 percent on June 30, 1972, to 30 percent on June 30, 1973. 68-724 0-80--13 |