E   , N 517*  :3  G §’R I
.E ,, . 1 « R yagpga? ~
LC :4, LE/2 ~ ‘

§H*fi;iN
. E * - 4-”     
IE9 >3OOL+b

'¥e“2i2,<'s«hi;’a:'1??i:’3 éjniirersnv

Issue Brief Nov is 1989

.‘ 4
.'x ‘ - . :‘. Lg ‘<3,
‘ ~z;.sI

 EL‘-.9 1.’ x...‘ ‘E. is "'2. -4 ~-
. -~;. 7 "  ”"" V“. Si 0
ST: Lkav ‘(Lid hnafig‘ 9 iv ’

 

 

CONGRESSIONAL

RESEARCH V
SERVICE

 

     «m»«nm@«mr«grumnm@@«m@mn@nm«««r

EMPLOYMENT AND EDUCATION: YOUTH ACT OF 1980

ISSUE BRIEF NUMBER IB80045

AUTHOR:
Irwin, Paul
Education and Public Welfare Division
Rashkoa, Ilona

Education and Public Welfare Division

THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE

MAJOR ISSUES SYSTEM

DATE ORIGINATED O4(10[80~

DATE UPDATED O7(Q§(8O

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CALL 287-5700

0714

CRS- 1 IBBOOQS UPDATE-07/O8/80

;_SUE-DEFINITION-

Unemployment among the Nation's youth is a problem of continuing

importance overall, and the growing unemployment rate among nonuhite youth is s

a special concern. At issue is the proper forn and size of a Federal
response, especially in a time of severe constraints on the Federal budget.
A program to address youth unemployment requires choices to be made among
various employment and education objectives. A new employment program could
focus on the most critical aspects of the youth problem, or existing programs
could be extended or modified. -Similar choices exist for program creation,
extension, «or modification with. regard to Federal education ,programs.
Alternatively, a~ single new- employment and' education program might be
considered.~ Two immediate factors may urge ~legislative attention to the
youth problem during the second session of the 96th Congress: first is the
work of the Vice Presidential Task Force on Youth Employment that led to the
$2 billion proposal in January 1980 for the "Youth Act of 1980;" second is
the expiration in FY80 of the major youth programs under the Comprehensive
Employment and Training Act (CETA). E

 

§A§§§R9UND-AND-POLICY«ANALYSIS

The—Prob;em

EmploymenteRates.- A review of youth unemployment by the Department of
nabor showed that: " F

(1) Youth unemployment accounts for a major share of aggregate
unemployment and is a problem of substantial concern, as illustrated in Table

1.

TABLE 1. Youth as a proportion of the unemployed

1964-1978
14-21 as Number
proportion" average
annual 14-21
unemployed. gnemplgygdi
 O O O’ O O O O. I  O O C O O O O C I 
 0 0 0 O o 0 0 O  0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 Q 
 I O O O O D O O‘  O O O C C O O O O 
 O O O O O O O O  O O O O O O O O O 

Source: U.S. Department of Labor.

(2) Youth employment problems are critical because they are so ineguitably
distributed. The gap between white and nonwhite, and between rich and poor,
has widened considerably. "

(3) The long range hardship related to youth joblessness is significanti“

and T increasing. ‘

(4; Joblessness among youth has substantial social costs and consequences.

CRS- 2 IB80045 UPDATE-07/O8/80 F

Despite nearly two decades of experience with employment and training
programs serving youth, beginning with the manpower Development and Training
Act of 1962, the Economic Opportunity Act which established the Neighborhood
Youth Corps and Job Corps in 1964, and continuing with the Comprehensive
Employment and Training Act of 1973 and the Youth Employment and

Demonstration Projects Act in 1977, the causes and dimensions of youth '

unemployment are still disputed and solutions are elusive.

Before addressing the current policy issues relating to youth that face
Congress, it might be helpful to discuss the concept of unemployment as it
applies to youth. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a person is
either employed, unemployed, or not in the labor Jorce. A person is employed
if he worked for at least 1 hour during the week; he is unemployed if he did
no work during the week and looked for work during the preceding 4 weeks; he
is not in the labor force if he Afallsw into neither the employed nor
unemployed category. Thus a full-time_student who is looking for a part-time
job is counted as unemployed but a school dropout who does not look for work
perhaps because he thinks he cannot get a job is considered not in the labor
force. A ~ 1 * ;

Using the most recent Bureau of Labor Statistics, teenagers (16 to 19)
represent 10% of the civilian labor force but 20% of. the unemployed. The
employment situation for black and other minority youth is more severe, and
the gap between black and white unemployment has .widened dramatically over

' the last 20 years. In 1958, the unemployment rate for minority males age 16

to 19 was 26.8%, compared to 15.7% for white males of the same age group; t1
rate for minority teenagers in 1978 was 34.4%, cozpared to 13.5% for white
youths. As Table 2 indicates, the same trend has occurred for female teenage
unemployment.

TABLE 2. Unemployment rates for youth
1958 to 1978

Females 16-19 Males 16-19
lesr- Ellis Asnshiie !Aiis  fleeshissr
1958 12.7% _ 28.4%’ 15.7% 26.8%
1962 12.8 30.2 13.7 22.0
1966 12.1 31.3 10.5 21.3
1970 13.4 34.4 13.7 25.0
1974 14.5 34.6 13.5 31.6
1978 14.4 38.4 13.5 34.4

Source: U.S. Department of Labor.

Many experts believe that even these figures understate the problems for
minority youth because unemployment statistics do not reflect the large
number of youths who have become discouraged and stopped looking for work.

Perhaps a more accurate indication of the magnitude of youth unemploymen
is their participation in the labor force. As shown in Table 3, the pattern
of labor force participation among young females over the past 25 years has
generally demonstrated an increasing trend, partixularly for white females.
Labor force participation among young white males has- also  shown an
increasing trend since 1954; however, the increases are not as great as those

\

cns- 3 1330045 UPDATE-07/08/80
demonstrated by white females of the same age. Large declipg§~ were
registered in the labor force participation of nonehite males between 1954
ind 1978. 4
TABLE 3. Civilian labor force participation rates
for youths by race and age
1254 1g_g 1964: 1970 1918-
A32’
16-17
Male: white 47.1 45.4 43.5 48.9 155.3
nonuhite 46.7 41.7 37.3 34.8 33.2
Female: white 29.3. 29.9 28.5 36.6 48.9
nonwhite 24.5 20.7  19.5 24.3 27.7
18-19
Male: white 70.4 470.1 66.6 567.4 75.3
nonwhite 78.4 72.0 67.2 ‘61.8 59.5
Female: white 52.1 50.8 49.6 55.0 64.6
nonwhite 37.7 36.1 46.5 44.7 48.6
20-24
Male: white 86.4 83.3 85.7. 93.3 87.2
nonwhite 91.1 90.8 89.4 83.5 78.0
Female: white 44.4 44.5 48.8 57.7 69.3
nonwhite 49.6 48.8 53.6 i57.0 62.8

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Tra;p;pg—

Report»of~thg—President-1979:

Experts agree that high unemployment rates are generally only one aspect
of the youth problem, but disagree about the causes and even the
Some of the most commonly cited and best documented explanations include:

-- A massive increase in the number of youth due to the
post-war baby boom and sustained high birth rates in
the 1950s and 1960s, with a lack of new jobs to absorb
those who sought work; i

dimensions.

Competi ion from the large influx of illegal aliens
taking low-wage menial jobs once held by youths;

The dramatic rise in the labor force participation of
women, from 32.7% in 1948 to 47.5% in 1976;

Changes in the structure and location of the industrial
sector of the economy, moving jobs out of the depressed
inner cities and diminishing job opportunities for

less skilled workers; and 3

which has, some argue, reduced
This

The impact of the minimum wage,
job opportunities for the unskilled young job seeker.
thesis is widely disputed. *

§duca;;on:— Problems of youth unemployment are related to levels of

educational attainment.

Rates of finemploymenti are higher among school

CBS- 4 ‘ IB80045 UPDATE-07/08/80

dropouts than among high school graduates -- 24% of dropouts aged 16 to 19
years old and 15% of dropouts aged 20 to 2H years old were unemployed in 19’
while only 8% of high school graduates aged 16 to 24 were unemployed in tha.
year. Long term unemployment, i.e., unemployment for more than 3 months, is
an additional problem for some youth. High school dropouts primarily account
for this group of "hard core" unemployed youth. a i ;

Particular educational experiences also seem’ to affect wages - and
unemployment. According to a recent study by Heyer and Rise of the National
Bureau of Economic Research, completion of academic ~high school courses
appears to be more important than vocational training. ~Heyer and Wise could
find no relationship between vocational training and employment or wage rates
during the first 4 years after high school. Students who worked during high
school tend to have higher levels of employment and higher wages than those
who did not. High schoolv academic success is positively related to
employment and wage rates. High motivation and good work habits seem to be
rewarded in school as well as in the work place. In sum, the attributes of
doing well in school, or working while in school, seem to* carry over into
success in the labor market. A   ‘

A partial exception to the linkage between educational attainment and
employment appears among black youth. Since the mid-1950s, the unemployment
rate for black youth has risen considerably faster than for white youth,
regardless of level of educational attainment. That «is, the rate of
unemployment for black youth is now significantly higher for both dropouts
and high school graduates (although because the majority of the population is
white, the majority of unemployed youth is also white). However, even among
black youth, the unemployment rate remains lower for high school graduat
(20% in 1978) than for dropouts (30% in 1978). A

Poor school attendance and educational achievement are not distributed
evenly across the Nation, and seem to be concentrated in high poverty areas
of central cities and rural places.t According to a study by the Childrenfs
Defense Fund, dropout and nonenrollment rates are“ considerably higher in
these areas. .The study found the out-of-school rate for non-white’ children
to be 50% higher than average, and the rate 'for children from low income
families to be nearly 100% higher than average. Children from families with
lower educational achievement also are more than twice as likely to be out of
school. Educational achievement scores are also lower in these same poverty
areas, regardless of age or isubject matter, according to the National
Assessment of Educational Progress. These poverty areas in central cities
and rural localities were the ~only‘ places where -the National‘ Assessment
consistently found low achievementw scores; the scores in large cities,
medium-sized-cities, and small communities in nonmetropolitan areas were all
at or near the national average.

Current P120923 IDS

Emplo1g§gt;- Some of the current programs directed at youth employment or
training are federally operated; others are operated by States and
localities. Title IV (Youth Programs) of the Comprehensive Employment and
Training Act (CETA), which is operated by States and local units P‘
government, provides much of the U.S. Department of Labor assistance
youths. However, the public service employment components of CETA also
provide services to youths. Table 4 shows budget outlays for Department of
Labor programs serving youth for fiscal years 1975-1980.

CRS- 5 IB80045 UPDATE-O7/O8/80
TABLE 4. Budget outlays for Department of Labor
youth programs
19gth‘program~-—-. --e e-1975a 197g a 1977» a 1978 »~1979j1l~1980(1)i
(dollars in millions) I
a Job Corps $170 $226 $202 $275 $375 $404
Summer Youth Employment .
Program (SYEP) 381 459 575 670 681 545
Youth Employment and
Training Program (YETP)~ O. O 4 (294 592 851
Youth Community Conservation
and Improvement Projects
(YCCIP) - 0 0 O 61 140 140
Youth Incentive Entitlement 4
Pilot Projects (YIEPP) O O 0 32 148 43
Youth Adult Conservation .
Corps (YACC) E -»O - - - E -<O«--- (0--—- 139 .307—----153-
Total 5551 $685 $2,135

$781 $1,471 $2,244

other-programs» (Estimated outlays by proportion of youth served in

programs)

Comprehensive
Ed ucation
and Training

Act (CETA) —
I, II, vI(2) $900 $2,153(5) $1,814 $2,727 $2,364 $2,115
United States
Employment 2 ,
Service (USES) . 211 307(5) 283 302 338(5) 349(4)
Work Incentive 5
Program (WIN) 79(4) 110(5) 93 88 85 83(4)
Total $1,190 $2,570(5) $2,190 $3,117 $2,787 $2,547

(3)
(u)

(5)

SOIIIICGZ

Amounts for fiscal years 1979 and 1980 represent estimated
expenditures. 8 .
Funds for youth under 22; data are not available for the
number of youth served ages 22-24.

Funds for youth applicants.

Funds for youth assisted are not available;
made from reported data. 8* "
Includes transition quarter. ~
U.S. Department of Labor Factbook on Youth.

estimates were

cRs- 5 IB80045 UPDATE-O7/08/80

when it was enacted in 1973, the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act
contained two major youth programs: the Summer Youth Employment Program
(SYEP) and Job Corps. The Summer- Youth- §mploymegt- Progr§g— is a 9-week
program of summer employment serving approximately one million disadvantaged
youth between the ages of 14 and 21. The program is designed to serve both
inéschool and out-of-school youth. The intent of SYEE is to provide eligible
youth with employment and training opportunities that will assist them in
developing their maximum occupational potential. The income derived from
participation is to assist those who without monetary compensation would
otherwise be unable to return to school. A

The gg§;§g;p§-assists impoverished and unemployed  youths aged 16-21 by
providing them with basic education, vocational skills training, work
experience, counseling, health services, and other assistance in both
residential and nonresidential settings. a A A

The ;euth«Conservation—Corps, although not part of CETA, was authorized in.

1970 as a pilot program and made  permanent in 1974. It provides
approximately 10,000 youths aged 15 to 18 with the opportunity to work in the
Nation's parks and forests during‘ the vsummer months. Enrollees work on

projects such as reforestration, trail marking, water and soil conservation,
park and recreational area maintenance, and wildlife management. The program
has both residential and nonresidential features. ?

The Youth Employment and Demonstration Projects Act of 1977 (YEDPA), which
amended CETA, created four major demonstration programs (described below,
each representing a different way of addressing youth employment problems.

The-¥Qgth~Incentive~ Entitlement Pilot -Projects~ 11;§g§y— is unique in
employment and training programs in that it establishes an "entitlement" to,a
job for any youth who meets the program's ‘eligibility -criteria. It was
designed to test the effect of guaranteed jobs on« the high school return,
retention,; and completion rates of economically disadvantaged youth.
Approximately u5,ooo youngw people 16 to 19 years old in 17 selected
geographic areas are guaranteed year-round jobs if they agree to attend high
school or work toward a high school equivalency degree. The jobs offer an

average of 20 hours of work per week during the school year and up to QO_

hours per week in the summer.

The-Youth-Community-Conservation-and Improvement Projects;Jg§g;§1- program
was designed to develop the vocational ‘potential of jobless youth by
providing them with work of tangible community benefit. The program is for
unemployed 16- through 19-year-olds, with preference given to economically
disadvantaged outéof-school youth with the most severe difficulty in finding
employment. Seventy-five percent of the funds is lallocated to CETA prime
sponsors for basic program operations, 2% is for migrant and seasonal
farmworker youth, 2% for Indian programs, and 21% for the discretionary use
of the Secretary of Labor. if A

The—Youth—Employment-and Training P§gg;§m_JYETP)_was designed to enhance
the job prospects and career preparation of low-income youths aged 16 throng
21 who have the most severe problems in entering the labor force. A broad
variety of employment and training programs, including work experience
opportunities -in community activities, outreach services, counseling,
education to work transition, institutional and on-the-job training, job
restructuring and child care services are authorized. Eligible youths are

CRS- 7 « IB80045 UPDATE-07/08/80,

from families whose incomes do not exceed 85% of‘ the Bureau of Labor
Statistics lower living standard income level. Youths from“ families with
,ower incomes receive preference for enrollment. Seventy-five percent of the
funds is available by formula to CETA prime sponsors; of that amount, 22% is
earmarked for in-school projects, with coordination and agreement of the

local education agency. A large number of discretionary projects are also 

supported by YETP funds.

$hg;gQ§ng;gdgl;;g9g§grvation Corps (YACC), which became Title VIII of
CETA, was patterned after the New Deal's Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC).
Its aim is to give young people experience in particular occupational skills

A through their work on conservation and other projects carried out at Federal

and non-Federal sites. Young people aged 16 through 23 who are unemployed
and out of school are eligible for. the program.’ Preference is given  to
youths from high unemployment areas. Thirty percent nof the funds is
allocated in grants to States for State conservation efforts that include
preservation, management, and improvement of wvegetation and wildlife;
development, rehabilitation, and maintenance of recreational facilities; and
natural disaster damage control and cleanup activities. YACC is operated by
the 8.8. Departments of Agriculture and Interior under the terms of an
interagency agreement with the 0.3. Department of Labor.

In addition to the above four ‘programs, the 1977 Act also authorized

discretionary projects intended to:

(1) explore the relative effectiveness of different
approaches to assisting economically disadvantaged
and other youth to complete high school in order to
become employed;

(2) enable these youths to achieve job stability and
advancement once they find jobs;

(3) analyze and evaluate in a rigorous manner the
results of the programs being funded; and

(4) develop policy recommendations concerning the
youth employment problem. '

Two years of experience under YEDPA have produced few dramatic or striking
results. According to the Department of Labor, IEDPA programs are
responsible for modest improvement in black youth employment. The programs
claim credit for reversing a 20-year decline in black youth labor force
participation. In 1978, black youth unemployment declined from 38.3% to
36.3%. The number of employed black youth aged 16 to 19 rose from 613,000 to
669,000.

According to a study conducted by the National Council on Employment
Policy, an 18-month look at YEDPA shows only limited success in helping
schools improve their services to low-income students. -

Traditionally, under employment and training programs, as with other
programs, outcome measures have been used to assess performance in the belief
that programs should increase employment and earnings; and this should be
observable in the period immediately following participation in the ‘program.

‘nfortunately, this approach cannot be ‘easily applied to youth programs,,

particularly those offering pre-employment assistance and short term twcrk
experience. In the summer program, for example, although 90% of the

participants return to school, it is unclear how many would not have done so__

eithout the program.

cns- 8 1380045 UPDATE-O7/08/80  

Educa5;gg- There are numerous‘ Federal «programs providing educationa‘
services for youth. many of these are targeted specifically on economical.
and educationally disadvantaged youth, and have as objectives, among other
purposes, the provision of educational, training, and employment skills to
these youth. These programs provide a wide range of categorical assistance

for basic educational skills, vocational training, career guidance and :

counseling, adult basic education, and bilingual education (for a description
of these programs, please see Congressional Research service. Selected
programs related to the Youth Employment Initiative of 1980. Renee Coe et
al. Feb. 13, 1980.) Beyond these programs, there are also Federal programs to
assist college students from low-income families. handicapped children,
school desegregation, Indian education, and persons in need of
rehabilitation. - 1

The Congress has several current options for addressing the youth
unemployment problem. These options include, but are not limited to, the
following four choices: *

(1) to continue the current programs as they are, for they
contain objectives that include the education and
training of disadvantaged youth towards eventual
employment; ' ‘

(2) to decrease the funding of current programs less
effective in providing employment skills to
youth, with or without increasing the support for programs
more closely aligned with those objectives;

(3) to amend, coordinate, or consolidate existing programs to
target them\more directly on the youtk employment
problem; and m

(4) to create a new program for youth employment with the
objective of more efficiently addressing the youth problem.
A new program could be created with or without the
continuation of existing youth education, employment,
and training programs with similar objectives.

The~Administration'sAProposa;~

Title I of the President's Youth Act of 1930 (3.3. 5711/s. 2385) would 

provide a 4-year authorization for employment and training programs serving
youths aged 16-21 who would be the most disadvantaged in the labor market.
The programs would be highly targeted to areas with large concentrations of
disadvantaged youths and to the individuals with special needs, those uho
require basic and remedial skill development, lack credentials, are dropouts
or potential dropouts; teenage parents or expectant parents; handicapped
youth; those under the jurisdiction of juvenile or criminal justice systems;
those who lack equal opportunity due to sex or race; and the» long term
unemployed. - ‘

Participants who enroll in the programs would be given individual needs
assessments resulting in a "personal employability development plan" for the
course of their participation. Benchmarks would be established to measure -a
youth's progress in attaining various levels of competency in the program.

Performance standards also would be established for program operators and
service deliverers.

cns- 9 1580045 UPDATE-07/08/8O ,

The Act would provide incentive grants targeted for programs of projects
‘ith national or special objectives, such as neighborhood rehabilitation and
,ommunity improvement, weatherization of homes for low ’income families,
services for special population groups, projects with private .employers and
economic development agencies, and community development corporations.

Special education cooperation incentive grants would be funded as joint *

agreements between CETA prime sponsors and local education agencies to

integrate programs of work experience and education activities, including the ”*

development of alternative curriculum programs for youth unable to return to
the conventional school environment. Community-based organizations,
postsecondary institutions, and special apprenticeship programs would be
funded under these grants to provide alternative programs for hard-to-reach
individuals. - -

Title.II of the President's Youth Act of 1980 would create a new program
to give disadvantaged secondary school youth basic educational and employment
skills. Nearly 84.5% of the proposed $850 million would flow by formula to
counties with concentrations of children from low-income families. These
funds would be divided as follows: wthree-quarters of the allocations would
become the responsibility of the State educational agency, and the remaining
quarter the responsibility of the sole State agency for vocational education.

other funds (2.4%) would be allocated for students with special needs who
currently are being served through State institutions. About 9.7% of the
proposed funds would be distributed for State supplemental programs to
improve the basic education and employment skills of disadvantaged secondary
‘chool students. The remainder of the proposed funds jabout 3.4%) would be
expended for activities such as’ State administration, research, and
development. - 3 - T

Central to operation of Title II would be the 3-year plan prepared ‘by
eligible secondary schools. Each plan would show specific short and along
term student goals for improving basic educational and employment skills and
for strengthening the transition to work. Annual progress toward these goals
would have to be measured. Student participation would have to be ensured
without regard to race, sex, national origin, or handicapping condition. The
plan would provide for staff development and would include provisions for
involvement of parents, community, and the CETA prime sponsor. A school site
council would be established to assist the secondary school principal.in the
development and implementation of the plan. Eligible secondary schools would
receive financial assistance to develop these plans.

ggag-6711,-Ag-Rgported~By~the.House»Edg§ationsa_g~Labor-Committee~

Title I of H.R. 6711, as reported, would consolidate the existing subparts
of Title I7-A of CETA, but retain the entitlement nature of the current YIEPP
programs. It is organized as follows: ~ —

Subpart 1: ‘Basic Grants for Youth Employment and Training
Programs (72% of the funds)

Subpart 2: Youth Incentive Entitlement and Supplemental
Bork Projects (18% of the funds)

CRS-10 IBBOOQS UPDATE-07/O8/80

Subpart 3: General Provisions (including 10% of the funds
for the Secretary's Discretionary Fund)

Eligibile youths would include the most economically disadvantaged
(incomes not exceeding 70% of the lower living standard income level) 16-
through 19-year-olds (or 21 if enrolled in high school or an equivalent
program for skill training or employment; 14-15 year-olds for counseling,
occupational information and school-to-work transition activities. Twenty
percent of the funds would be allowed to be used for youth with special needs
who do not meet the income test.

Prime sponsors would be required to develop standards for participating
youth regarding attendance, attitude, performance, and other appropriate
criteria, and give the youth a certificate of achievement. Prime sponsors
would also be required to provide each youth served with an employability
development plan with an assessment of the appropriate services to be
provided. ' :

Under the Basic Grant Program (Subpart 1), prime sponsors could provide
all the services now authorized under IETP and YCCIP. It would use the same
allocation as the current YETP formula. It would maintain the 22% set-aside
for Local Education Agency-CETA cooperation; however it would modify the
current provisions to allow education services for out-of-school as well as
in-school youth and provide that the agreement must include alternative
education for youth who need such services. f

Prime sponsors wishing to run an entitlement program in poverty areas
would be able to apply for matching funds punder the entitlement .a
supplemental employment matching grant program (Subpart 2) if they match an
equal amount from their basic grant allocation. The prime sponsors would be
able to use these matching funds for full-time work opportunities in national
priority projects such as energy conservation. housing rehabilitation, etc.
Eligible youths would include out—of-work youth who meet income eligibility
and reside in poverty areas and whom have completed high school or GED
equivalent. - 4

-1 n F 1

Title I would include the Summer Youth Program in the overall youth
employment plan, but would retain separate authorization -for funding. It
would extend Title IV-A of CETA without change and authorize $2.5 billion for
FY81. psuch sums as may be necessary would be authorized for fiscal years
1982-1985. ' - - . 1 1

Title II of H.R. 6711, as reported, retains much of the basic structure of
the Administration's proposal. Funds would be divided somewhat differently
among the various parts of Title II as ~follows;~ basic grants to counties
would amount to 78.5% of the total funds for they title; State institutions
would receive 2.5%; State supplemental programs, 15.0%; State administration,

1.5%; research and development, 0.5%; outlying areas, 1.0%; and‘ Bureau of %

Indian Affairs, 1.0%.

Basic grants under Title II would be-divided so that 25% of these funds
would be spent for vocational education programs, and area vocational schools
outside the jurisdiction of local school districts are eligible to receive
funds, according to the committee report. A joint agreement on the use
the vocational funds would be required between the school‘ district and the
area vocational school. The-committee bill also requires that at least 22%
of the total funds under this title are to be used for programs carried out
pursuant to agreements between school districts and CETA prime sponsors.

CBS-11 IB80045 UPDATE-O7/08/80

The report language clarifies that State supplementalw programs are for

-unding school districts in counties not gualifying under the basic grant "

formula. The same program requirements applicable to the basic grant progra

»would be applicable to the supplemental grants program. ‘ I

The requirement for 3-year plans prepared by eligible secondary schools is ’

retained in the committee bill, except that the specific short and long term

goals must comply with minimum standards to be established by each State}?

educational agency.

Title III of the committee bill contains the funding authorization for ”

Titles I and II. It authorizes such sums as may be necessary to carry out
Part A of Title IV of CETA for FY81, and $50- million for planning grants
under Title II for FY81 as well. For fiscal years 1982 through 1985, sums
are authorized for Title I of this bill which are equal to the amount
available for Part A of Title IV of CETA for P180, with excess funds above
this amount to be divided equally between Titles J and II of this bill. T

Numerous other legislative proposals have been introduced relating to
youth employment. The major bills are summarized under LEGISLATION.

Issues-Related to Program-Emphasis and Admigistg§_;gg»

The President's proposed Youth Act of 1980, and similar measures
introduced during the 96th Congress, confront policymakers with general
Vhoices concerning the structure and administration of programs aimed at the
youth employment problem. several related issues may have to be addressed if
such legislation is to be enacted.

The first issue is the program strategy to be mandated by the legislation
--v should the program be focused on employment, education,~ or some
combination of the two. An employment program might concentrate on. creation
of new jobs or on employment skills training; it could create a new program
altogether or extend existing CETA youth programs that would otherwise expire
in FY80. An education program might focus on basic educational skills
training, vocational training, or assisting students in career guidance and
counseling. Existing Federal vocational education legislation expires in
FY81; that program might be modified to address the youth employment problem
more directly than it does now. A judgment on the immediacy of the problem
may help guide the program emphasis -- an employment program may best serve
youth_out of school and out of work, but an education program may best
prevent other youth now in school from reaching the same condition.

A second issue is Federal«administrative;«gtggcture, whether a combined
program would have a separate.administrative strwmture or be integrated into

existing program offices of either, the Department of TEducation or the 1

Department .of Labor. The program could be administered. directly in
conjunction with existing CETA programs or an another program within the

Department of Labor. If the~ program were to be administered by the p

Department of Education, administration could he in conjunction with either
the vocational education programs or the compensatory education programs for

,isadvantaged children. Another option would be to administer the program, 1

through a new administrative structure in either of the existing departments,
or through a separate agency, outside of both departments, established for
that specific purpose. Use of an existing agency has the advantage of

capitalizing upon the experience of that agency in administering similar I

cns-12 Inaoous UPDATE-07/O8/80

programs, and the possible disadvantage of administering the new program in
the same manner as current programs. Creation of a new agency general’
entails additional staff as well as the necessity for State and local
governments to deal with an additional administrative structure.

A third issue is the process required for the allocat;gn;«g;;e§ggg§
appropriated for the program. Complete discretion in the distribution of
funds could be given to the Federal agency administering the program,
although the potential appropriation of nearly $2 billion makes this ‘option
rather unlikely. The mandated use of an allocation formula raises the
additional question of whether the allocations would be made at the State
level only or at the prime sponsor, county, or ~school district level. A
related guestion is what type of data will be used for allocation purposes.
Poverty, unemployment, educational attainment level, or other data mighty be
used to target a group in the allocation formula. If the decision is to
allocate at the county or school district level, the most recent population
and poverty data available for the immediate future will be from the 1970
census. A further question concerns the degree of concentration of funds on

the targets group -- whether to fund -only those localities with high
concentrations of the target group or to fund all localities containing any
members of the target group. Advocates for’ high concentration of funds

emphasize that the anticipated level of funding is not sufficiently great to
provide adequate programs for all and that the problem of youth unemployment
appears disproportionately greater in areas with either a high number or ga
high percentage of disadvantaged youth. ‘ i

 A fourth issue is the role o§;thgé§ta;g§. especially that of the State
educational agencies, in the administration of a new education program. (If
role of the States has not generally been considered an issue with CETA youth
programs.) Most Federal elementary and secondary programs are administered
through State educational agencies. The State role generally involves State
plans and assurances relative to the State's administration of the program.
Few Federal programs allow the vlocal school district to be the direct
recipient of funds. Federal vocational education funds flow through State
vocational education agencies when such agencies exist separate from the
State educational agency. The basic issue regarding the States is the amount
of discretion that can be exercised by the State and the degree of program
uniformity that will exist among or within the States. i

. . . .. .  . v ‘ p
A fifth issue is the choice of recipient. agency- that will receive the

funds to operate the actual program. CETA prime sponsors are. government
agencies that can provide various community and social services, in contrast
to local school districts that are generally restricted to providing only
educational services. For instruction in basic educational skills and
vocational training, it seems logical that the school districts would receive
the funds to administer and operate the program.v For work experience and job
related programs, CETA prime sponsors would appear to be the appropriate
agency. vIf the legislation were to combine youth education and‘ employment
programs, or to fund separate education and employment components,
considerable coordination would be necessary between the school districts and
the CETA prime sponsors. — -

State and local levels. The advisory or approval powers that the committet

will have over program planning, program operation, and budget development
represent a major concern.i Provisions relating’ to the membership of the
committees are also of interest. To what degree will the legislation
prescribe the membership, and will ‘ community members, employer

A sixth issue is the powers and-dugigsyggythe adg;§g;y_gQmmitte§§a at t’

- were to be cut back at the sme time as the creation of the youth proposal.%

CBS-13 IBBOOQS UPDATE-O7/O8/80

representatives, parents, teachers, various subject specialists in the
‘chools, youth, and other interest groups be represented on the advisory
committees? To what extent will membership overlap or duplicate the existing
membership of advisory committees mandated by CETA and Title I of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (for compensatory education
for disadvantaged children)? a I *

A seventh issue is limited to the education portion of the President's
proposed youth initiative, and concerns what might be called the traditional
and continuing questions of Federal aig_for-educatign. The obvious purpose
of the initiative is to increase the basic educational and job-entry skills
of a segment of the youth population. Less obvious objectives and concerns
might include the increase of Federal funds for education and the "reform" of
existing Federal progarms.w An increase in the amount of Federal aid nfor
education clearly is intended in the proposed youth initiative. The proposed
funding level of $850 million would represent an increase in Federal aid of
approximately 11% over the currents level for elementary "and secondary
education programs (although this amount would increase total elementary and
secondary education revenues from all sources by less than 1%). Obviously,
the net increase would be less if the funding for existing Federal programs

An education program as substantial as that proposed by the youth
initiative might also be seen as a vehicle to "reform" certain aspects of
existing programs. A Such "reforms" -might include changing the- future
distribution of Federal funds through new allocation formulas (including the
concentration of funds in large cities or the provision of additional- funds
‘or smaller States), the consolidation  or repackaging of categorical
programs, the phasing out of older programs that appear to be less successful
in addressing current needs, and the provision of additional services to
nonpublic school pupils. The youth initiative might even be viewed by some
as a chance to reform American secondary education in general, since it is
this educational level that has arguably been at least partially unsuccessful
in meeting the needs of the disadvantaged youth under consideration -- Ea
target group that generally has not been successful in school and is highly

-prone to unemployment. 1

pgersrggr N-

H.R. 4465 (Hawkins) ’ _ :

Amends the current CETA youth programs by expanding the Youth Incentive
Entitlement Pilot Program (YIEPP), and increasing the number of youth served
under the Youthv Employment and Training Program (YETP). Calls for
employability development plans for all youth program enrcllees. Provides,

through expansion of the entitlement program, that both in-school and J

out-of-school youth would have partstime job incentives for completion of
their high school education. Also amends the Social Security Act and the
Work Incentive Program (WIN) for welfare parents under age 22 who volunteer
to participate in work and training opportunities created by a special fund.
Calls for funding of non-residential institutional skill centers in areas of

high unemployment and establishes a new part D of Title IV to provide ]

employment opportunities- for~ disadvantaged youth in Federal agencies

‘exclusive of Public service- Employment under CETA). Reauthorizes the‘

Private sector Initiatives Program (PSIPy and links it with youth programs
under Title IV of CETA. Directs the Private Industry Councils to develop

specific employment and training programs in the (private sector and ;

establishes the coordination of on-thesjob training provisions with the

CBS-14 1 IB80045 UPDATE-O7/O8/80

Targeted Jobs Tax Credit program to expand opportunities for youth in the
private sector. Expands the apprenticeship programs with emphasis «
under-utilized occupations. Amends the piagner-Peyser Act to (establish a
youth component within the Employment Service. Introduced June 1a, 1979;
referred to Committee on Education and Labor.

H.R. 5876 (Perkins) ,

Provides for contractural agreements between national community-based
organizations and the prime sponsors to provider skills training, job
counseling, and placement services to eligible youth in cooperation with the
private industry council. stipulates that these agreements would be among
those community-based organizations that have demonstrated effectiveness in
the delivery of employment services and would comply with any, program
regulations established by the Department of Labor. Introduced Nov. 13,
1979; referred to Committee on Education and Labor.

H.R. 6208 (Jeffords) ~ _ ~ 5

Replaces CETA Title IV, Part A with a "limited" entitlement program for
those youth attending a qualified school. (A qualified school is defined as
a school serving a poverty area or having a large enrollment of students

~residing in poverty areas.) Calls for agreements between the local education

agencies and the prime sponsors which are intended toy create school-to-work
transitional services. Also provides cash incentive bonuses to private
employers; would allow employers to pay subvminimum wage during the first f6
months; and exempts employers from social security and unemployment insurance
taxes for the first 6 months. Introduced Dec. 20, 1979; referred to the
Committees on Education and Labor, and ways and Means. ‘

H.R. 6711 (Perkins et al.)/S. 2385 (Hilliams et al.)

Amends the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act to extend the
authorization of youth training and employment programs and to revise such
programs. Extends the authorization of the private sector initiative
program, the Job Corps, and the summer youth program. ‘Establishes basic and
employment skills improvement programs for disadvantaged youth, to be run by
State and local educational agencies. Introduced Har. 5, 1980; referred to
Senate Labor and Human Resources, and House Education and Labor Committees.
H.R. 6711, amended, reported favorably by the committee May 16, 1980 (H.Rept.
96-1034).) R R E 1

S. 1129 (Kennedy) ' ' I

Amends CETA to provide incentives to sponsors, based on post-training
employment of participants in the program. ’Provides that while funds would
be distributed according to the current formula during the first 2 years, the
thirdryear funds received by the sponsor would be comprised of rewards for
positive outcomes of training for individual participants. Introduced May
14, 1979; referred to Committee on Labor and Human Resources Committee.

5. 2021 (Hetzenbaum) .   - 9

creates large-scale youth employment projects in the areas of, energy
conservation and development. Creates a National Youth Employment Commission
charged with implementing large-scale, multiyear projects providing youth
employment in such tasks as weatherization, alternatives energy development,
mass transportation, and hydroelectric dam restoration. Establishes progr'
linkages between the, Departments -of Labor, sTransportation, and Energ,-
Provides that projects would be located in areas of high unemployment, and
would be initiated at the local level. Introduced Nov. 19, 1979; referred to
Committee on Labor and Human Resources.

CBS-15 IBBOOUS UPDATE-O7/08/80

S. 2218 (Javits) y

Amends the current CETA youth programs to provide combinations of work
experience. skill training, remedial education, counseling, and supportive
services. Requires development of personalized youth employability plans and
establishes a 15-member National Council on Education and Work. Provides Ea
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 that minimum wages are paid to participants). Calls for more ‘private
sector involvement by allowing payment of sub-minimum wages for participants
14 to 15 years of age, and provides for flexibility in determining wages for
pre-apprenticeship programs. Introduced Jan. 24, 1980; referred to Committee
on Labor and Human Resources. ' m

LIBRARY
OF
WASHINGTON
umavensrrv
ST. LOUIS - MO.