cil in the future to do all it can to help the country develop a plan that trains workers who business will hire.

I would also note that under FESA those groups most likely to benefit from successful job training had mandated representation on the Private Industry Council. JTPA's less clear direction has allowed PICS to ignore participant input. An increased willingness by a business to listen to participant concerns and an increased willingness by the county to listen to business concerns would have resulted in a better job training partnership and a better Los Angeles County plan.

I would like to close my remarks by noting that the two main improvements on CETA you have created in the Job Training Partnership Act are the direction by private industry and the administration by the Governors of the States. However, as we see from the example of Los Angeles County before us, direction from private industry has yet to mature and State administration, in both design and performance, is weaker than it should be. In my role as the State Senator responsible for reviewing all job training policy and funding in California, I pledge my full support to your efforts to develop job training that puts people to work in jobs that help the economy grow. Thank you again for this opportunity.

Hon. AUGUSTUS HAWKINS,

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE,
SENATE COMMITTEE ON HEALTH AND WELFARE,
February 14, 1984.

Chairman, House Subcommittee on Employment Opportunities, House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR REPRESENTATIVE HAWKINS: As chairperson of the Health and Welfare Committee of the California Senate and as a senator from the Los Angeles area, I am submitting the attached comments on the Los Angeles County job training plan. I respectfully request that my comments be made part of the record for the hearing held by the House Subcommittee on Employment Opportunities on February 14 1984, in Los Angeles, California.

In general, I would like to register my opposition to the manner in which federal job training funds are being used primarily for the county's General Relief recipients, to the possible exclusion of AFDC and other needy persons residing in the service delivery area. I believe the limited training resources should be concentrated on other segments of the low-income population who would benefit more from the training and hence provide a higher return on the county's investment than has been seen in the General Relief population. The guidelines embodied in Senator Lockyer's Family Economic Security Act establish, I believe, a better system of priorities for use of job training funds than the Los Angeles County plan.

Sincerely,

Attachment.

DIANE E. WATSON, Chairperson.

COMMENTS OF SENATOR DIANE E. WATSON, SUBMITTED TO THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES, FEBRUARY 14, 1984

Representative Hawkins and members: I appreciate the opportunity to present my comments for the record. You are to be commended, first, for your principal role in the enactment of the Job Training Partnership Act [JTPA] and second, for holding this hearing today. A program of employment training, developed in partnership with private industry, and focused on the economically disadvantaged, is of primary value and importance to California.

However, as you know from your experience in Congress, enactment of a law and implementation of it may be two very different matters. It appears that the job training plan under which the Los Angeles County Private Industry Council is operating does not meet the intent of JTPA. Los Angeles County apparently has abrogated its responsibilities of caring for indigents by using the job training program to avoid providing for the legitimate subsistence needs of its General Relief population. As reported in several articles in the local newspapers, the county expected to save $4 million, not because recipients trained under the program would move off the assistance rolls, but because they would drop off aid rather than undergo training. This expected result, of course, has not materialized.

Concentrating these limited Federal training dollars on the General Relief population in the county means that other equally needy groups-notably young ÁFDC mothers and black and Hispanic unemployed youth-will not have as much access to job training programs as they will have otherwise. I feel that Congress and the taxpayer will realize a better return on the job training dollar if these other groups

are served in larger numbers. For the most part, these other groups are more employable and job-ready than many of the General Relief recipients. The likelihood, therefore, that a job training program will enable them to eventually move into selfsufficiency is greater.

Along these lines, I believe a better integration of employment and training programs and programs serving AFDC and other low-income persons is called for. California has already established a mechanism for doing this in Senator Lockyer's Family Economic Security Act, which will be described in other testimony today. In that piece of legislation, certain groups are targeted for receipt of services in order of their likelihood of success, with AFDC, not General Relief, recipients first. Although FESA was not funded in state budget, the approach in that law is preferable to the Los Angeles County approach.

In conclusion, I encourage the members of this subcommittee to examine very closely the priority for service established in the Los Angeles plan, and to question whether even more scarce job training funds should be diverted into a program that not only has not accomplished its objectives thus far, but which also is questionable in terms of meeting the intent of JTPA.

Mr. MARTINEZ. All right. We'll hear from Gregory Schmidt.
Nice to see you again, too.

STATEMENT OF GREGORY SCHMIDT, SENIOR CONSULTANT TO THE SENATE ELECTIONS AND REAPPORTIONMENT COMMITTEE Mr. SCHMIDT. Mr. Chairman, I have submitted a written statement for the record.

I would just like to state a couple of things we suggested might be changed in Federal law to assist the State.

No. 1, the role of the legislature in the process should be expanded to act as a counterforce to the institutional inertia of the bureaucracy and the unilateral actions of the Governor that have occurred in California. This is particularly essential here where legislative sentiment is probably closer to congressional intent regarding JTPA than is the attitude of the State administration. I would suggest mandatory review of programs and confirmation procedures for all State council members.

States should be provided greater leeway in customizing the program to reflect State goals and regional economic needs. The Federal law diluted our targeting toward AFDC, which Senator Greene referred to, at a time when we had constructed a system that might have effectively served that population and all other target groups. The Federal law prohibited representation on decisionmaking bodies that we felt essential, for no good reason. It mandated a service delivery structure that makes difficult our experiment integrating welfare and employment services. I hesitate to mention it, but we'd certainly appreciate a bit more of a commitment to federalism in this regard at a time when we are trying to do something positive.

Finally I would urge you to join us in an effort we've undertaken on the State level to organize our job preparation resources and seek some order out of the chaos of programs we now fund. We have JTPA, we have WIN, we have adult vocational eduation, regular vocational education on the community college and high school levels. We in California have the conservation corps, youth employment programs, regional occupational centers, and on and on. This is not only confusing to the public, it results in a diffusion of energy and resources and makes coordinated planning nearly impossible. We can foresee an integrated system of employment preparation, readying people for the labor market of the 20th century. This system will require a different emphasis than our previ

32-647 0-84--5

ous preoccupation with 4-year colleges and our noncoordinated establishment of various programs for various groups.

We believe that the input of the business community is essential in this process and consider JTPA, at least on paper, as a start. Perhaps the JTPA structure is the one under which we should subsume all these other programs if we can work out the problems that have been mentioned. But we should be considering the next step now in this integration process, not when we have to react to some crisis with JTPA.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to make a few points. Mr. GREENE. Mr. Chairman and members, let me indicate, before we depart, that we are temporarily in somewhat of a unique positon here in the legislature. We can get more bipartisan support for some of the kinds of things that we have developed than is normally the case. I know there's a difference of opinion between our Republican and Democratic members, but I still feel confident that the carefully crafted, well-drawn proposal still gets bipartisan support in the California Legislature.

Mr. HAWKINS. Thank you. I'm confident of that, Senator Greene. As you well know, we have discussed this matter very extensively over a long period of time.

May I take the opportunity to congratulate you on what you have done in this field? We have tried to coordinate activities so that Federal law and State law would conform to many of the suggestions that you have indicated today.

Personally, I believe that it was unfortunate that there was an attempt to badmouth the CETA program. We have seen the individuals today who admitted that the CETA program works. Wonderful programs have been operating in the country for more than a year under CETA, and now we're beginning to see some evidence that some of the newer programs are not doing nearly as well. CETA, which had a very high placement rate, was suppressed. Now what we have done is we have simply destroyed a program that could have operated well. The private sector involvement was mandated under title VII of CETA. We could have done everything under that title that we are now proposing to do under JTPA. Let's hope that it will be accomplished, but I think it goes back to the fact that individuals who want to do a good job can do it. I don't think CETA was necessarily bad, even though they fixed the record in order to destroy it. I quite agree with the point that's been made throughout the act. It speaks of the State. What it should have done is it should have substituted the word "governor" for the "State" because the sole representative, really, for the State is the Governor. I was surprised, quite frankly, when I didn't hear from you and some of the other State legislators. When you were not being included in the act. So it's one of the few instances where I didn't hear from you.

But I do want to say that this committee, for several years and many times in your presence, did travel to California to look at the CWETA program, for example. This was a wonderful program. It succeeded. And perhaps it succeeded so well that they wanted to eliminate it.

Mr. GREENE. Well they did.

Mr. HAWKINS. And they eliminated that program. I would hope that a year from now, the JTPA program will not be discarded because it can't work. The same people who criticized CETA are now constructing something which they would be ashamed of even admitting a year from now. Then we'll get into another program. This will be the seventh time that I have participated in drafting a major jobs legislation since I have been in Congress, and possibly this year will see some developments elsewhere.

So I do want to congratulate the witnesses.

Mr. GREENE. Let me give you a figure. It's startling. The CETA/ CWETA combination produced 30 percent of the training in the aerospace industry in the Silicon Valley. The actual figure is 32 percent, so that's what it can produce.

Mr. DYMALLY. Mr. Chairman, Senator Greene now represents Compton for the first time, and I can't let this opportunity go by without mentioning the fact that, beginning last year, under CETA and CWETA, we organized a job training program in Compton. As a result of JTPA, we no longer have CETA or CWETA. Last month was the last of the program. So a very promising program in Compton which is not being served by JTPA now is lost.

Mr. GREENE. Thank you.

Mr. HAWKINS. I again thank the witnesses.

Thank you, Senator.

The next panel is the Los Angeles County Private Industry Council. Mr. Carl Herman is the vice chair, and he's accompanied by Mr. Doug Shaw, a member and chairman of the opportunities oversight committee; Mr. Paul Bluto, a member and chairman of the planning committee; and Mr. Rod Hanks, the business representative.

Gentlemen, we welcome you and look forward to your testimony. I regret that we delayed you so long, but I understand that you do have other commitments, for which we apologize for having delayed you, but we look forward to your testimony.

[Prepared statement of Gregory Schmidt follows:]

PREPARED Statement of GREGORY SCHMIDT, SENIOR CONSULTANT, SENATE ELECTIONS AND REAPPORtionment Committee

Mr. Chairman and members, my name is Gregory Schmidt. I am the Senior Consultant to the Senate Elections and Reapportionment Committee and am here today representing Senator Bill Lockyer, Chairman of that Committee. The Senator sends his best wishes. He has been detained in Sacramento because of a meeting on reapportionment, an issue that seems to have as much staying power as full employment and welfare reform.

Senator Locker, previously an Assemblyman and Chairman of the Assembly Human Resources Committee, was the author of AB 3424, the Family Economic Security Act, which is the California counterpart to the Job Training Partnership Act. I was the Principal Consultant to that Committee during the 1980-82 session and worked closely with him in drafting the measure. I also sit, as his representative, on the State Job Training Coordinating Council. So what I say today is essentially a statement of legislative intent, an explanation of what we believed we were doing, how we perceive the inter-relationship between state and federal law, and what we suggest should be done to improve the overall program for the benefit of California's economically disadvantaged.

The Family Economic Security Act was actually born in Washington, in the summer of 1981. A number of us had gone back to monitor developments arising from the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, and had gathered one night to bemoan the fact that, for over a decade, the President and his advisors had forced us into a defensive position on welfare and social services. We were continually

fighting a rearguard action, defending programs which we all realized were less than successful in breaking the cycle of poverty. We determined to do something about that. What we felt was necessary was a fundamental transformation of the welfare system-from a program of income maintenance to one of employment preparation and training. Such a change, we felt, would reflect a change that has occurred in our society since the '30's. Where AFDC was established to permit women to stay home and raise their children, as the public then felt apppropriate, now it would provide a mechanism whereby they might enter the labor market and provide for their own economic security. This was thought to be consistent with changing roles of women in the society.

As we went to work on that program in Sacramento, it became clear that major changes were afoot in Congress, that CETA would soon be replaced by a new program that, in its first drafts, showed remarkable similarity to what we were proposing in California. We worked hard to ensure that the measures were consistent, at least in terms of structure, and in that we were remarkably successful. But there remain marked differences between TJPA and FESA, regardless of the fact that FESA is considered state-enabling legislation and regardless of surface similarities. FESA was meant to be a major change in AFDC. We proposed to integrate the welfare system with the job training programs overseen by our Employment Development Department, and to earmark the great majority of federal job training dollars for AFDC recipients. Displaced workers were to be served by a state-only program of training administered by an Employment Training Panel. Participation in job training was to be a criterion, when appropriate, for welfare eligibility.

We perceived a county-based system of service-delivery areas, in order to facilitate integration of job programs and the county-based welfare system.

We proposed a private industry council, and a state council, with the significant participation of program recipients themselves, and child care providers, and other such individuals who might provide the business members with some insight into the actual effect of their decisions.

We'd hoped for a job preparation process, modified by the private industry councils in each service delivery area, to reflect labor market demand, to provide clients with genuinely useful counseling and training, to provide support services such child care that would truly create an opportunity for economic mainstreaming.

Little of this has happened, partially due to the confusion that arises with any new program, partially due to inconsistencies between state and federal program goals, but primarily due to the unwillingness of some of the program administrators and advisers to take these goals seriously.

While JTPA is admirably crafted to provide services to the economically disadvantaged, there is an understandable tendency on the part of private industry council members and state council members, as businees people, to steer the program toward the most employable. That we can live with, and continue to push against it, because there is at least an economic justification to it. Less acceptable is the tendency in some service delivery areas, particularly Los Angeles, to subvert the program by using it as a means of reducing the county General Assistance caseload. It would be unfair not to mention that some progress is being made in expanding services to AFDC-our state target group. But JTPA as currently administered does not contain the focus on that group that we had intended in state legislation.

Regarding the county-based structure of the service delivery areas-we lost that fight in Congress and so are saddled with a mongrel system of city, county, and consortia that greatly complicates the integration of welfare with job training. We hope it can be worked out, and there are people on the local level who are working in good faith to see that services are coordinated, even if structure is not integrated. But we've received very little support from the state administration, which prefers to pursue workfare as an appropriate exercise for welfare recipients, rather than realistic preparation for the marketplace.

We have lost the battle in our effort to ensure the effective participation of clients and service providers in the decision-making process. Federal law has been interpreted to preclude the addition of mandated seats for child care or for recipients on the PIC's. Appointments to the state council, even under the provisions of the federal law, were somewhat perverted by the Governor in the choices he made. The Lietenant Governor was designated to represent those eligible for the program. The appointee for community-based organizations, although a good man, had no experience with those groups or with service delivery.

Most aminous, however, are the trends we see toward the "bureaucratization" of the program. The business community's participation has been enthusiastic, but runs into a wall of paperwork generated by EDD, similar to that spewn forth by the Department of Labor under CETA. This makes if difficult for the private sector par