I am in receipt of your letter of December 5, 1983 regarding the 'Declaration of Findings for Complaint Against Los Angeles Cooney SDA'. I appreciate the intent of your office in conducting the investigation but am disturbed by the superficiality of the findings as finally released.

In a memorandum dated November 4, 1983, directed
to the investigator, Mr. David Paulsen of your staff, we
set forth sixteen areas of concern regarding the Los Angeles
JTPA Program. These areas of concern were compressed into
two issues in the Declaration of Timings. Not all of the
issues raised by our complaint have been addressed by your
Investigative report.

With respect to the County Plan's Target Groups your
Pindings merely cites the first paragraph of the County's
program narrative and concludes that this intent to serve a
potentially eligible population comports with 29 U.S.C.
1551 of JTPA. We never questioned this portion of the County
Plan for raised that section of the JTPA law in our complaint.
If anything, it is the failure of the County Plan's Client
Participant Characteristics & Service Parity Targets (plan
attachments) to meet the general intent articulated in the
Plan's first paragraph which generated our complaint. Despite
State intervention and subsequent modifications regarding
ethnicity and other goals the Los Angeles County JTPA program
persists in serving inter alia, only 28 women, 10% AFDC
recipients and a minimal number of non-English speakers.
Thousands of eligible JPA participants are denied job training
due to the County's mandatory General Relicf-JTPA program.

The above illustration is only one example of the deficiencies contained in your office's Declaration of Findings dated December 5, 1983. What additional avenues of appeal are available to us under the process afforded by Unemployment Ins. C. $ 15029? And, what additional action can we anticipate from your office - or is your letter of December 5 the final action with respect to our complaint.

This letter is in response to your letter dated December 29, 1983.

I must respectfully disagree with your statements concerning my Declaration
of Findings, dated December 5, 1983. My findings were neither superficial
nor deficient with respect to those issues raised in your request for an
investigation that were within my authority as the Governor's administrator
of the Job Training Partnership Act in California.

Your request for an investigation under section 15029 of the Unemployment
Insurance Code voiced your general dislike for the Job Training Partnership
Act program in the Los Angeles County service delivery area and your view
that the program provided for the general relief recipients differently than
they had previously been served by the county.

Under the Job Training Partnership Act, the expenditure of federal
funds for employment and training is to be administered at the local service
delivery area level. Congress provided general basic requirements for the
service delivery areas to satisfy in order to receive the federal funds.
The role of the Governor, as delineated by Congress, is to designate the
service delivery areas, certify the private industry council, and approve
the job training plan which is to be developed and prepared at the local
level, i.e., the service delivery area. The job training plan need only
satisfy the general guidelines established by Congress.

During the operation of the program the Governor has the responsibility
to review, monitor, and audit the service delivery areas to ensure that the
funds are being expended in accordance with the Act. The Act requires that
40% of the funds available in the service delivery area be expended to
provide services to eligible youth. The Act further provides that
recipients of payments of Aid to Families With Dependent Children and
eligible school dropouts be served on an equitable basis. So long as a
service delivery area operates its prograin to deliver employment and
training services within the described broad guidelines the Governor has
limited enforcement authority.

The

In addition, Congress has adopted the concept that the success of Job Training Partnership Act is to be measured by "performance". The basic measure of performance is the increase in employment and earnings and reduction in welfare dependency due to participation in the program. United States Department of Labor was assigned the responsibility of developing the "performance standards" to be used as the measure of success for the program. Until such time as data is available which establishes that a program is not meeting performance criteria, the role of the Governor is one of oversight. The Governor is.required to provide technical assistance to those programs that do not meet performance criteria. Governor must impose a reorganization plan, which may include restructuring of the private industry council, prohibiting the use of designated service providers, and other measures to improve performance, if the failure to meet performance standards persists for a second year.

The

The local area has wide latitude with respect to program design and operation with limited intervention by the Governor until such time as the performance standards are not satisfied for two program years.

The

Therefore, my Declaration of Findings properly addresses those issues you raised which are subject to my review and control at this time. Employment Development Department will continue to monitor the Los Angeles County Service Delivery Area program and assist the administrative entity in achieving the performance standards promulgated by the Department of Labor. Although there is no appeal process afforded under section 15029 of the Unemployment Insurance Code, the Job Training Partnership Act and the regulations adopted thereunder provide that discrimination complaints may be made directly to the Department of Labor and that other complaints are to be made at the service delivery area level.

In closing, I wish again to thank you for your interest in the Job Training Partnership Act and advise you that it is my desire that the administration of that Act result in a successful employment and training program. However, I may only assist in the success of that program to the degree and in the manner provided by Congress when it enacted the Job Training Partnership Act.

Sincerely,

K. R. KIDDOO

Director

We are concerned about the current Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) program for adults that the County of Los Angeles is implementing. The initial plan that the County submitted to the State in August indicated that the County planned to transfer all of its 14,000 General Relief recipients to the JTPA program. We are aware that this transfer is the subject of litigation, Venzor v. Tanaka, brought by the Western Center on Law and Poverty.

We, however, request that your office review the current JTPA program (1983-84) for Los Angeles County and other concerns raised herein pursuant to your authority under California Unemployment Insurance Code Section 15028.

1. The County JTPA Plan

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, the Department of Social Services, and the Department of Community Services developed the JTPA program for the 1983-84 program year. These three groups jointly decided to focus the entire JTPA county program on employable General Relief recipients beginning October 1, 1983. These employable General Relief recipients had previously been receiving aid from the County. The County eliminated the General Relief-employable program as of October 1, 1983 and transferred all recipients under this program to JTPA program.

The County planned to pay these individuals a JTPA stipend out of the county general fund. The individuals had to present themselves to job training programs funded with JTPA funds and were to receive JTPA training. This overall scheme was contained in the County's JTPA plan which was approved by the Private Industry Council (PIC) on August 11, 1933 and by the Board of Supervisors on August 16, 1983.

Since the initial approval by the PIC in August, the county plan has been modified twice. At the request of the State Council, the county submitted modifications on September 23, 1983. The Council had asked that the County's plan be modified to serve not only General Relief recipients. With this and other modifications, the Council approved the county plan on September 30, 1983.

Several weeks ago, the County further modified its target goals to include, among others, a change of the Hispanic target goal from its original 21% to 50%.

2. The County's JTPA Program Continues to Exclude Eligible Persons

MALDEF's concern with the County's actions thus far this program year is that the focus on General Relief recipients to the exclusion of other eligible groups, including Hispanics and women, is in contravention of the intent and language of the Job Training Partnership Act.

While the County has altered its "General Relief-Only" language in its JTPA plan and has changed the target goal for Hispanics, the County's JTPA program has continued to serve only General Relief recipients. Our understanding from community sources is that the county has negotiated contracts with job training agencies which require these agencies to serve only General Relief recipients which the county refers to them.

Therefore, the current JTPA program being implemented by the county targets the General Relief client population originally proposed in August: