REPORT EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING FOR FORMER GENERAL RELIEF RECIPIENTS This report is to provide information on comments which appeared in a recent newspaper article regarding the County's Employment and Training Program, and to provide a general update on the status of that project. Background On November 27, 1983, an article appeared in the Los Angeles Times which expressed concerns regarding the County's Employment and Training Program. On November 29, 1983, on a motion of Supervisor Dana, the Departments of Community Services and Public Social Services, and the Chief Administrative Office, in conjunction with the Private Industry Council (PIC), were instructed to report on the comments mentioned in the article, on a State study of the County's job training program, and on recommendations for program improvements. Attachment I contains a copy of the Board motion and newspaper article for your information. Newspaper Comments The comments contained in the newspaper article touch on several aspects of the Employment and Training Program: the purpose and benefits of training former General Relief recipients, the procedures followed in assigning participants to training activities and the types of training and related services provided to enrollees. Purpose and Benefits of the Employment and Training Program For the 1982-83 Fiscal Year, the Department of Community Services, with Chief Administrative Office, PIC and Board approval, and in cooperation with DPSS, developed and implemented a pilot program to offer employment and training opportunities available under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) program to approximately eighteen hundred (1800) General Relief and State AFDC-U welfare recipients. This demonstration effort achieved positive results, both in terms of improving the employability of the participants and in achieving a financial benefit to the County. As a result of this program, $10.7 million in General Fund welfare costs were avoided. Based upon the success of this effort, the department proposed that the program be expanded for 1983-84 to provide employment and training opportunities to all persons receiving General Relief as of October 1, 1983 and all eligible persons applying for General Relief during the program period determined employable by DPSS. This proposal was approved by the CAO and by your Board during 1983-84 budget deliberations. While this is admittedly an ambitious undertaking, the experience of 1982-83 demonstrates that it can work. Moreover, there are a number of benefits to be obtained from such an effort: - - - Achievement of economic self-sufficiency for individuals Improvement of the general economic outlook of the County A minimum $4 million savings in County General Funds Unfortunately, the newspaper article implies that financial benefit is the County's principal, if not sole, motivation in undertaking this program. While the budgetary advantages are certainly important, there are other benefits to individuals and the local economy as discussed above, that are of equal or greater signifi cance. Procedures for Evaluating and Assigning Participants A concern is expressed in the newspaper article that former General Relief recipients are not being appropriately screened and referred to training assignments. Although some mismatches of individuals to training sites did occur at the beginning of the program and specifically for twenty-five (25) clients at the Chinatown Service Center, these were the result of start-up problems. Such situations have been resolved by the department on a case-by-case and agencyby-agency basis. At this time, a screening and referral system is in place which takes into consideration the interests, aptitudes, past work experience, and residence of each participant. Depending upon his or her needs and interests, the participant will be referred to one of a number of employment and/or training projects. These include a wide range of activities: job search assistance for the most job-ready, remedial education for those who lack basic reading and math competencies, classroom training in occupational skills, on-the-job training with private employers, or work experience to develop basic employability skills (habits of good attendance, promptness, acceptance of supervision, etc.). Some programs may include a combination of two or more of these activities. Quality of Training A concern was raised in the newspaper article about whether the GRS competitive in the job market. As noted above, a full range of employment and training activities is being made available to the former General Relief recipients, with the participants' assignment based upon ability and interest. In cases where occupational training is the selected option, a wide variety of choices are available. These range from short-term training for occupations such as Custodian and File Clerk, to high-skill programs for occupations such as Auto Mechanics, Word Processing and Bank Teller. Training for Non-GRS A further concern expressed in the newspaper article is that the County's Employment and Training Program provides very limited opportunities for unemployed persons who are not on or applying for General Relief. In fact, approximately fifty-eight (58) percent of the County's JTPA funds are available to groups other than former GRs. The fifty-eight (58) percent is made up of the forty-four (44) percent of JTPA funds set aside for youth, and the fourteen (14) percent available for service to adults who are not former GRS. It should also be noted that the former General Relief recipients in the program represent every significant segment group targeted for service under JTPA. These include women, veterans, the handi capped, and each of the age and ethnic categories. State Study The November 27, 1983 newspaper article, and a subsequent article that appeared on November 30 (Attachment III), cited an "investigation" of the County's job training program by the State and implied the involvement of the Governor. The State Employment Development Department was conducting a routine administrative review of limited elements of the County's Job Training Plan, as required by State law. Unfortunately, the newspaper article created a false impression that the State was conducting a political investigation, when in reality they were carrying out a routine administrative review conducted to meet the requirements of State law. The study was not initiated by the State or the Governor, but resulted from the requirements that the Director of EDD, whenever he receives a complaint about a JTPA program, look into the complaint and make a formal declaration of finding. EDD was reviewing the County's Plan as a result of a complaint submitted by the Western Center on Law and Poverty and not at the request of any other agency or official. The study was assigned to the EDD Legal Section which concluded that the County's Service Delivery Area Plan was developed, submitted 32-647 0-84-41 and approved in accordance with JTPA and further that the Plan contained provisions to satisfy the employment and training services to the groups identified in JTPA. A copy of EDD's findings is attached. Western Center on Law and Poverty and Legal Aid have requested another Court Hearing on December 14, 1983 before Judge Leon Savitch to challenge various aspects of the program. The department will report on the outcome of the hearing. Program Improvements As indicated above, some start-up problems occurred at the beginning of this year's Employment and Training Program for former GRs. This was primarily due to the high intake which far exceeded past projections. Since that time, a number of procedures have been set in place to ensure that program participants are appropriately screened and referred to activities that will assist them in achieving self-sufficiency and will be provided a training stipend or wage comparable to the enrollee's previous welfare grant. procedures include the following: These A participant screening, evaluation and referral process Quarterly program reports to the PIC Operations Committee An expansion of the department's Job Development Section A uniform appeal procedure to ensure due process to A service provider's forum to permit contractors to bring service problems to the department for immediate resolution. PIC Comments In response to the Board's request that the PIC contribute input to this report, the members of the PIC Executive Committee have provided the following comments: The PIC is confident that the County's JTPA Plan is legal For several reasons (delay in State instructions and late - given the time constraints and implications for the County budget, the PIC determined to support the Board in the implementation of the 1982-83 General Relief employment program. The PIC is aware that some administrative problems have occurred as the program was being implemented. However, they have also indicated their belief that the department seems to have moved quickly and aggressively to handle the implementation problems as they have surfaced. At the recommendation of the PIC, the department has Summary In summary, the Employment and Training Program for former GRs was established on a pilot basis last year. It was developed for four (4) major reasons: 1. 2. 3. 4. Because the ability to get and retain a job is a major factor in the definition of self-worth in our society; Because General Relief recipients are among those most in Because welfare is a drain on the productivity and solvency of our economy, in addition to the sense of failure it can create in able bodied individuals; and Because such a program can mitigate County welfare costs. Based upon its success last year, the program was expanded to all former employable GR recipients. Although this is an ambitious undertaking, systems have been established to ensure appropriate referral, training and supportive services to the enrollees, to ersure stipend or wage payments at least equal to their welfare grants and to ensure due process for those who wish to appeal some aspect of their participation in the program. The program has only been in operation for eight (8) weeks, but has nevertheless encompassed the caseload in a clear, definable program. Concurrence The Chief Administrative Office, County Counsel, and DPSS have participated in the development of this report and concur in its contents. |