ticipants to even perceive their choices, much less make knowledgeable decisions. Unilateral budgetary decisions, such as the recent decision to deny EDD services to PIC's except under contract—and then to make available personnel scarce-undermines the faith of the business community in the government's willingness to be a fair partner in the program. The lack of staff on the part of the state council hampers its ability to act independently of the bureaucracy and so subjects it to the possibility of manipulation. In fact, there seems to be no effective check on the ability of the state administration to manipulate the program to its own ends, regardless of the sentiment of both state and federal statute. Therefore, something remains to be done.

I realize it's highly unlikely that any significant changes will be made to JTPA during this election year or in the near future. But I would strongly suggest the following:

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. This is particularly essential in California, 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.

2. 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, at a time when we had constructed a system that might have effectively served that population and other target groups. The federal law prohibited representation on decision-making bodies that we felt essential, for no good reason. It mandated a service delivery structure that make 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.

3. Finally, I 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 both now fund. We have JTPA, we have WIN, we have adult vocational education, regular vocational education on the community college and high school levels. We in California have the Conservation Corps, youth employment, 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 near 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 previous preoccupation with four-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's structure is the one under which we should subsume all these other programs. . . if we can work out the problems I've mentioned. But we should be considering the next step now-not when we have to react to some crisis with JTPA.

In closing, I think it's appropriate to point out that a great many well intentioned people are doing their best to make this new partnership work. I certainly can't fault the enthusiasm of most of the business people I know who are donating their time and energy to get JTPA off the ground. But I encourage you to consider the problems I've mentioned and to do what you can to make sure that the Act and its accompanying state programs do not bog down in bureaucratic mishmash or become subverted by individuals unenthusiastic about the principles you have enunciated in the act. To permit that would leave us at square one, at a time when vigorous efforts are needed more than ever to assist large segments of our population to enter the economic mainstream, and would render all our work so far a useless exercise.

STATEMENT OF CARL A. HERMAN, VICE CHAIR, LOS ANGELES COUNTY PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCIL

Mr. HERMAN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I'd like to first express the fact that Mr. Fragner, our chairman, regrets not being here. He's on an extended business trip. Also, Rod Hanks could not make it, but Messrs. Bluto and Shaw are here representing the council.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today on behalf of the Los Angeles Private Industry Council during your factfinding hearing on the Job Training Partnership Act program. The JTPA provides for a partnership between local elected officials and the private sector, which is represented by Private Industry Councils. The Los Angeles Private Industry Council is committed to working in partnership with the county board of supervisors as envisioned in the act. We believe we have a very good working relationship now with the board of supervisors and that our PIC is a vital link between government and the private sector.

The county's current JTPA program, which is the subject of this hearing, was developed during the tenure of the prior county PIC. However, the current PIC did review and approve the county's plan.

In addition, we instructed the county staff to insure that the plan met the legal requirements of both Federal and State law. We were willing to see how the program would work during this 9month transition period, evaluate the results, and make our decisions with the board of supervisors for the upcoming 2-year plan. The PIC has begun the planning process for the 2-year plan. The planning process includes the following:

Analysis of unmet employment and training needs of the county service delivery area residents.

Survey of the marketplace to identify potential employers and short- and long-term employment opportunities by industry and specific occupations.

Review of private sector resources available to the program. Evaluation of a variety of training programs and techniques to determine the most cost effective use of JTPA funds.

And consideration of public input into the planning process. During this process, we have considered the issue of targeting JTPA resources for general relief participants. At this time, pending more evaluation from this year's program and an opportunity for public input, we have not formulated a final decision. We recognize and appreciate that general relief recipients need employment and training opportunities and we believe that many of these recipients can benefit from training and enter unsubsidized employment. However, because the JTPA funds are so limited, we are carefully considering priorities for service. Our draft plan, which will be the subject of public input and discussion, includes a potential range of JTPA funding which could be used to provide employment and training services to some part of the general relief target population. We expect that our final decision on the plan will be to allocate some, though a smaller proportion, of the JTPA resources specifically to this target group.

Our primary goal during the planning process is to develop the most effective JTPA program possible, with maximum participation by the private sector. We believe that we will be able to accomplish this because our PIC members are absolutely committed to the success of this program.

I want to thank you again for the opportunity to present the Los Angeles County PIC's perspective on the local implementation of JTPA.

If I may, Mr. Chairman, I have a few personal observations that I would like to make at this time.

Mr. DYMALLY. Before you do that, do you have a list of your PIC members?

Mr. HERMAN. I've got one in my briefcase and I'll get it for you as soon as we finish. How's that?

Mr. DYMALLY. Fine. Thank you.

Mr. HERMAN. One of the previous speakers said he wondered how the PIC could approve the current plan. My professional reputation and experience is as a problem solver and, if you will, a fixer. I am accustomed to dealing with issues and problems as they are presented without worrying too much about how they got there.

Quite frankly, when we walked into the room, the private industry council in Los Angeles County, the hand was on the table. It was dealt. We were behind the train. It left the station. What we got was a late entry into the game and we decided we had one or two choices to make, and that was to spend 9 months discussing what we might do to change what had happened in the past, or to accept basically what was there so long as it was legal, deal with it and, based on that experience, attack the problem. We have not had the luxury of a long planning period. But we're not going to duck our responsibilities. We intend to provide leadership from the private sector in this particular opportunity that's presented to us. Quite frankly, if any of us were timid or politically oriented when we accepted the challenge back in June, we probably, after the first two meetings, would have resigned.

So let's take a look, though, at what we dealt with besides the actual legal hand that was dealt to us. We can't operate in a vacuum. We are facing tremendous competition from the macroenvironment. We are faced with a worldwide economy. Things are changing every minute. We are getting a new influx of women and minorities into the labor force. I've seen a reputable survey that says, by 1995, 75 percent of the new entries in the labor market will be minorities and females. The demands, quite frankly, exceed our ability to supply.

Right now let's take a look at the fact that essentially what we are trying to do is put 10 pounds of product in a 5-pound box. The forecasts about the great economy of the future isn't really realistic. The labor market is going to grow very slowly. Intensive shifts in jobs make it so difficult to predict that what we are training people for today will even exist in the next couple of years. Take, for example, the programing profession. Two or three years ago we in industry spent a lot of our time and resources trying to train people for entry-level programer positions. Technology in the computer industry has increased so rapidly that today it's very difficult to find many jobs available for entry-level programers. That shift was very subtle but very, very fast. Now we have a real problem. There are several occupations like that.

From the standpoint of my personal view of the environment that we face, there is one other thing that we need to consider, and that is a tremendous diversity and fragmentation in the area of training programs. There's a mix of constituencies, there's a mix of

motivations. There's a myriad of laws and a myriad of departments that deal with and administer those laws.

I would urge this subcommittee, I would urge all the other persons who represent government at whatever level to work toward a synthesis and a synergy in dealing with those laws. I'm not here to necessarily give my opinion on how those laws impact other people. All I know is that, as a member of the Private Industry Council, we are dealing with fragmentation and we need to deal with a problem that we totally understand and have the ability to move off of dead center.

With that I'd like to conclude my personal remarks and again introduce Mr. Doug Shaw on my left. Doug is with the Mid-Valley Manpower Consortium. Paul Bluto on my right. Paul is with the UAW. Paul is the chairman of our planning committee and Doug is the chairman of our operations oversight committee. They have extensive experience in this area and we'll be very happy to answer your questions.

Mr. HAWKINS. Before that, Mr. Shaw, would you care to supplement the statement?

Mr. DYMALLY. Mr. Herman, in the meantime, could you get me that list because I want to ask questions based on that list that I

see.

[Prepared statement of Carl A. Herman follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CARL A. HERMAN, VICE CHAIR, LOS ANGELES COUNTY

PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCIL

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today on behalf of the Los Angeles County Private Industry Council [PIC] during your fact-finding hearing on the Job Training Partnership Act [JTPA] Program.

The JTPA provides for a partnership between local elected officials and the private sector, which is represented by Private Industry Councils. The Los Angeles County PIC is committed to working in partnership with the County Board of Supervisors as envisioned in the act. We believe that we have a very good working relationship now with the Board of Supervisors and that our PIC is a vital link between government and the private sector.

The County's current year JTPA Program, which is the subject of this hearing, was developed during the tenure of prior County PIC. However, the current PIC did review and approve the county's plan. In addition, we instructed the county staff to ensure that the Plan met the legal requirements of both Federal and State law. We were willing to see how the program would work during this 9-month transition period, evaluate the results, and make our decisions with the Board of Supervisors for the upcoming 2-year plan.

The PIC has begun the planning process for the 2-year plan. The planning process includes the following:

Analysis of the unmet employment and training needs of County Service Delivery Area residents;

Survey of the marketplace to identify potential employers and short and longterm employment opportunities by industry and specific occupation;

Review of private sector resources available to the program;

Evaluation of a variety of training programs and techniques to determine the most cost-effective use of JTPA funds; and

Consideration of public input to the planning process.

During this process we have considered the issue of targeting JTPA resources for General Relief recipients. At this time, pending more evaluation data from this year's program and an opportunity for public input, we have not formulated a final decision. We recognize and appreciate that General Relief recipients need employment and training opportunities and we believe that many of these recipients can benefit from training and enter unsubsidized employment. However, because the JTPA funds are so limited, we are carefully considering priorities for service. Our draft plan, which will be the subject of public input and discussion, includes a potential range of JTPA funding which could be used to provide employment and train

ing services to some part of the General Relief target population. We expect that our final decision on the plan will be to allocate some, though a smaller proportion, of the JTPA resources specifically to this target group.

Our primary goal during the planning process is to develop the most effective JTPA Program possible, with maximum participation by the private sector. We believe that we will be able to accomplish this because our PIC members are absolutely committed to the success of this program.

I want to thank you again for the opportunity to present the Los Angeles County PIC's perspective on local implementation of JTPA.

STATEMENT OF DOUG SHAW, CHAIRMAN, OPPORTUNITIES

OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE

Mr. SHAW. Yes. I would wholeheartedly concur with Carl's remarks, but I want to add something, if I may.

It is very unfortunate that you have been receiving so much negative testimony on this program. In essence, gentlemen, the program can work and the program is working. It is not working in all areas of the county but it is working.

I have a program in the first district in the San Gabriel Valley and I have 230 general relief recipients on that program. For the first time, these people are starting to feel like they've got some self-respect. They are in training programs and they're doing very well. It's got a great deal of potential, and I sincerely hope that you are listening because it's very important that something like this happens. This is the first time in the State of California, and to my knowledge the first time in the United States, that any program like this has been undertaken, and Los Angeles County is the guinea pig in this process and catching all the flack.

But you agree with those that began this program that, yes, it's good to get people off of general relief. Well, it's trial by fire and that's exactly what's happening, but it's going to work. Whether we put JTPA dollars into the program or not, the program is going to succeed because there are enough agencies and people in the county of Los Angeles who feel strongly about this program to make it work. There's a program in an agency called ICI. They train people to be animal license collectors. They collect dog licenses and they get paid by the county animal control program for this. These are general relief recipients who wear a uniform, who have an ID card, who are trained in the program, and who go door to door and they collect licenses for animals.

No. 1, it gives them a job. No. 2, it gives them self-respect. They feel good about what they're doing. It brings in additional revenue to the county. I've heard us two or three times talk about, "This program is only to supplement the county's budget." What's wrong with that? Why is that such a bad thing?

Mr. HAWKINS. It's against the law. That's what is bad about it. Mr. SHAW. No. What we're talking about here is the fact that the money that you can save in one program will help another program. Instead of having to cut back $5 million maybe you've only got to cut back $1 million.

Mr. HAWKINS. Mr. Shaw, let me interrupt you. I think we are getting a little afield. We are not opposing a training program for those on general relief. I think I should caution you against that. Mr. SHAW. I understand that.