Wia & community colleges

The role of community colleges in the implementation of WIA 1
Final Paper:
The role of community colleges in the implementation of the Workforce Investment Act
Lavie Margolin
SUNY Empire State
Authors Note: This paper was prepared for Workforce Development, taught by Dr. Nan
DiBello

Abstract
The Workforce Investment Act on community colleges campuses has led to opportunities
for the successful implementation of job initiatives despite a variety of ongoing policy
and administrative challenges since its inception. The Workforce Investment Act was
expected to allow community colleges to utilize the full array of their resources to
prepare job seekers not only with basic skills but for high skill, high wage occupations in
a new form of vocationalism (Jacobs, 2001) . The Workforce Investment Act is seen as
the primary tool for expanding the educational possibilities for adults by the American
Association of Community Colleges.

The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 replaced the Job Training Partnership Act
as the main federal job training program in the United States (Decker & Berk, 2011).
Under the implementation of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, the Adult Education
Act and the National Literacy Act of 1991 were annulled (Warnken, 2007). According to
Decker and Berk, the aim of the Workforce Investment Act was to streamline
employment and training services and help facilitate universal access.
The Workforce Investment Act is the latest in a series of workforce development
initiates, with the first beginning following the end of World War Two (Decker & Berk,
2011). Programs predating the Workforce Investment Act (and its predecessor, the Job
Training Partnership Act) included the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act
(CETA), which was replaced by the Manpower Development Training Act of 1962
(MDTA), followed by the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA). Many
of the federal job training programs in the United States between 1962 and 1998 laid the
groundwork for the Workforce Investment Act. Some of the federal job training
programs left a legacy of best practices could be followed while others served as
reminders of what should be avoided.
The Federal Department of Labor (DOL) provided several principles within the
rules to guide the implementation of the Workforce Investment Act (Decker & Berk,
2011). According to Decker & Berk, the principles included the following: services
should be streamlined, individuals participating in the programs should be empowered,
access to services should be provided universally, accountability of services delivered
would be increased, the private sector would be more engaged than in previous workforce

development acts, there should be a flexible system for local and state systems and a
significant alteration in the way services are delivered.
Under the Workforce Investment Act, there are no barriers to prevent access to
services such as information or job search assistance within one stop centers (Besharov &
Cottingham, 2011). Those participating in training are disadvantaged in education,
employment and prior earnings. Services were consolidated to focus on employment and
training for youths as well as adults. According to Besharov and Cottingham (2011),
Workforce Investment Act programs constitute the highest level of funding received in
the United States by the federal government for training and employment.
Job seekers were expected to be provided with more choices as state and federal
agencies were given more flexibility in the ability to deliver services (Decker & Berk,
2011). While more choices are available for job seekers and service delivery, there are
now significant differences in services provided from state to state. Some states might
have staff providing an emphasis on vocational training while others could face a work
first mentality. Under the Job Training Partnership Act, 95% of participants qualified
based on income alone without having to face other employment barriers (Dervarics,
2001). As per Dervarics, 95% of participating clients in the Workforce Investment Act
must face a major barrier to employment beyond poverty alone.
The administration of the Workforce Investment Act occurs under a multilayered
strategy (Jacobs, 2001). Workforce development boards on a local basis, comprised of
local industry as well as colleges, administer the programs. The Workforce Investment
Act was enacted following the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996, which sought welfare reforms (Warnken, 2007). According

to Warnken, the Workforce Investment Act focused on initiatives that stressed work first
in order to lessen dependency upon welfare with the idea that all citizens could become
workers.
The Workforce Investment Act supports the integration of a number of job search
related services including career counseling, job search, assessment, and training (Jacobs,
2001). One stop centers, which operate locally, are the central access point to services
related to workforce development (Decker & Berk, 2011). Every state must have at least
one local workforce development area and each area within the state must have at least a
one stop center to provide services for all mandatory programs (Berashov & Cottingham,
2011).
Workforce Investment Boards are comprised of a vast majority of businesses and
representation from higher education institutions but there is no stipulation that the board
must have community college representation (Gonzalez, 2009). Community colleges
already have built relationships with local industry and it was natural for community
colleges to administer and deliver these programs (Jacobs, 2001). Community colleges
can teach critical thinking skills and broad capabilities in addition to industry specific
skills (Gonzalez, 2009).
The Workforce Investment Act on community colleges campuses has led to
opportunities for the successful implementation of job initiatives despite a variety of
ongoing policy and administrative challenges since its inception. The Workforce
Investment Act was expected to allow community colleges to utilize the full array of their
resources to prepare job seekers not only with basic skills but for high skill, high wage
occupations in a new form of vocationalism (Jacobs, 2001) . The Workforce Investment

Act is seen as the primary tool for expanding the educational possibilities for adults by
the American Association of Community Colleges.
With service delivery expected through the use of workforce one centers, it is a
natural for community colleges to house these training centers (Jacobs, 2001). For
example, Mt. Hood Community College has served as a one stop center since 1999 in a
partnership between the community college and the local oversight board (Gonzalez,
2009). While clients attend the one stop for life skills workshop and career consulting, the
college provides the actual training. According to Gonzalez, community colleges often
become seen as only vendors within the federal workforce system. Community colleges
are considered eligible training providers during their first year of participation but then
must reapply for renewal (Dervarics, 2001).
The Workforce Investment Act could serve the market need of higher skilled jobs
that require less than a bachelors degree, such as in smaller firms that are often under the
radar of big industrial opportunities examined by economists (Jacobs, 2001). Jacobs felt
that the full potential of the Workforce Investment Act on community colleges has not
been felt due to governmental focus on the entry level worker and short term training.
With half of welfare participates lacking a high school diploma, literacy education is an
important component to preparing workers to enter or re-enter the job market in addition
to teaching job based competencies (Warnken, 2007).
Participating community colleges contract with the Workforce Investment Act in
order to provide training services (Fowler & Visher, 2007). The Workforce Investment
Act covers the fees for students through the use of Individual Training Accounts (ITAs)
as well as the costs associated with running a program such as staff salaries, according to

Fowler and Visher (2007). Under legislation enacted by the Obama administration,
schools are contracted to provide service (Rodriguez, 2009). This allows the schools to
better plan for services and use funds for costs such as hiring faculty.
There are several examples of successful partnerships highlighting the use of
Community Colleges in delivering workforce development initiatives. Successful
programs, like those at Cabrillo Community College, Shoreline Community College and
City Colleges Chicago, have many things in common (Jacobs, 2001). According to
Jacobs, these programs align training with the needs of local industry, utilize funds for
greater coordination and feature both vocational and academic preparation. Additionally,
these vocational job training programs attract a larger pool of job seekers in need of
training (Jacobs, 2001).
Education and training have long been considered the most effective routes out of
poverty (Shaw & Goldrick-Rab, 2006). Many community colleges have struggled with
the implementation of the Workforce Investment Act due to a focus on short term
vocational training for low paying, entry level jobs without a plan towards long term
skills training (Jacobs, 2001). The Workforce Investment Act, hand in hand with welfare
reform, have placed an emphasis on rapid job placement and a wok first philosophy
leading to a loss of programs that emphasized skills building, in direct contrast to the
mission of community colleges: to serve the greater community through training and
education regardless of a persons income or race (Shaw & Goldrick-Rab, 2006).
According to Shaw and Goldrick-Rab (2006), the Workforce Investment Act has
made it more challenging for higher education institutions to serve lower income
individuals towards a higher level degree, leaving short term training as the most likely

possibility. Workforce Investment Act participants are only eligible for job training, at a
community college or otherwise, after failed outcomes at two previous levels: job search
training and job search workshops (Shaw & Goldrick-Rab, 2006).
There are a variety of additional challenges that community colleges face in
implementing WIA programs effectively on college campuses (Fowler & Visher, 2007).
Community colleges have to avoid duplication of services between what they provide and
what other Workforce Investment Act sponsored workforce development organizations
provide. As only some one stop centers are based on community college campuses, one
stop staff may not be aware of the full array of workforce development training services
available at community colleges.
Community colleges have to gain admittance to eligible training provider lists and
allocate budgets to supplement additional training costs not fully covered with the
Individual Training Account voucher (Fowler & Visher, 2007). It is challenging for
schools to go through the onerous process of collecting data of Workforce Investment
Act participants in order to remain an eligible training provider (Pekowa, 2005).
According to Pekow (2005a), waivers have been granted by the Department of
Labor to several states to grant them more time in gathering the necessary information.
Additional waivers have been granted to community colleges when sufficient training
providers cannot be found who will accept Individual Training Grants and the costs of
training are covered directly by the college. The reporting process is especially difficult
for small, rural colleges that do not have a massive infrastructure for large data gathering
(Dervarics, 2001). According to Dervarics, there is no additional funding provided to
help in the cost involved in collecting the data.

Recruitment for client participation in the Workforce Investment Act has been
challenging. Under Workforce Investment Act requirements, 30% of participants should
be out of school you that are between the ages of 14 and 21 (Dervarics, 2001). Youth
must also have at least one of the following challenges: juvenile offender status, runaway,
school dropout status, lack of basic skills or parenting responsibilities. According to
Dervarics, there is competition for youth contracts in some areas and other areas finding
at least one bidder.
Successful schools have implemented creative strategies to combat time
restrictions on training for Workforce Investment Act participants while allow students to
enter the job market and continue their development. New Hampshire Community
Technical College has secured partnership with local employers who will cover
additional education costs following the completion of Individual Training Grant
sponsored training (Fowler & Visher, 2007). A college lab was created within the school
to mirror labs in the workplace. Industry partners work closely with the school to provide
curriculum suggestions and revisions.
The temptation to skim for the most qualified job seekers led to the increased
importance of administrative oversight. According to Shaw and Goldrick-Rab (2006), the
accountability system reporting for schools serving Workforce Investment Act recipients
is quite onerous as compared to the Job Training Partnership Act and leads to less
participation in serving Workforce Investment Act clients. Schools that don’t meet
certain performance standards may be considered ineligible to be used as training
providers (Rodriguez, 2009).

Colleges must report on long term earnings and employment of clients and must
meet “customer satisfaction” metrics (Shaw & Goldrick-Rab, 2006). Local workforce
investment boards have complained that they are not receiving enough updated
information to know how their training providers are doing (Pekow, 2005). Making the
issue more challenging, states, and even municipalities within the states, report on
outcomes differently.
Participants in Workforce Investment Act programs have faced resistance from
some pockets of community college administrators as they feel that the type of students
attracted are not suitable for college study (Jacobs, 2001). According to Jacobs, it is felt
that these students are a drain on institutional resources with limited capacity such as
support services and counseling departments as these services are keys for many student
to graduate successfully. Community college administrators consider Workforce
Investment Act funding as insufficient given the demands of participating in such a
program and would rather direct funding to a greater pool of students in a wider array of
programs (Shaw & Goldrick-Rab, 2006).
Some community colleges have struggled to keep up with ever changing market
demands for vocational employment (Fowler & Visher, 2007). According to Fowler &
Visher (2007), hiring of college staff is conducted on at least a semester by semester basis
and community colleges are not structured to change direction on a moment’s notice,
even if market demands warrant it. New curriculum reflective of market conditions takes
time to pass through the college approval process and could not be done as adeptly as a
for-profit college (Fowler & Visher, 2007).

Insurance benefits can run out for a program participant before a program can
begin when it is delivered on a semester by semester basis (Pekow, 2005b). According
to Pekow (2005b), some boards have worked effectively around issues related to timing.
A Maryland board worked with the community college to schedule training during off
times and a Washington board bought group training outside of the school’s regular
schedule.
Funding for the Workforce Investment Act had declined even as the caseloads
were increasing (Decker & Birk, 2011). The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act
of 2009 increased funding. Of the $3.95 billion for a variety of Workforce Investment
Act programs, $500 million is for adult training services, $1.45 billion for dislocated
worker programs, $1.2 billion for youth programs and $750 million for worker training
and placement programs (Baxter, 2011). Persistent high levels of unemployment and
underemployment have kept the focus on the importance of training workers for the
needs of employers as well as the role of the public workforce system (Decker & Birk,
2011).
Organizational change is occurring within community colleges based on the
influence of workforce development initiatives that have an influence over the for-credit
programs (Van Noy, Jacobs, Korey, Bailey, & Hughes (2008). These influences can
increase the depth of offerings at the college. For example, the number of non-credit
courses focused on technology has grown and this in turn, can lead the college to focus
on its overall technology offerings.
Community college leaders have long advocated for more training for program
participants before they are required to go to work (Evelyn, 2003). In order for students

to benefit from training, education must prepare students for long term career goals and
pathways as opposed to short term vocational training (Jacobs, 2001).
The Workforce Investment Act must become more agile in order to meet the
needs of job seekers and changing market conditions (Dervarics, 2009). Technical and
academic coursework should be more fully integrated in order to improve an
understanding of broader skills (Jacobs, 2001). Community college leaders are seeking
greater articulation to bridge the gaps between adult basic education and traditional
education (Dervarics, 2009). As WIA grows in maturity so will the quality of services
provided to students on community college campuses. Although there have been many
challenges faced in the implementation of WIA, there are many bright spots to focus on
for the future.

References
Baxter, J. (2011). The workforce investment act: Important but neglected law.
Techniques: Connecting Education & Careers, 86(3), 12.
Besharov, D., Cottingham, P. (2011). The Workforce Investment Act: Implementation
Experiences and Evaluation Findings. Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for
Employment Research
Decker, P. T., & Berk, J. A. (2011). Ten years of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA):
Interpreting the research on WIA and related programs. Journal Of Policy
Dervarics, C. (2009). Job training issues to get greater visibility. Diverse: Issues In
Higher Education, 25(25), 6-7.
Dervarics, C. (2001). Workforce investment act problematic for some community
colleges. Community College Week, 14(9), 3.
Evelyn, J. (2003). Community colleges push for changes as congress renews job-training
law. Chronicle Of Higher Education, 49(32), A31.
Fowler, D., & Visher, M. (2007). Helping displaced workers find a home. Community
College Journal, 78(1), 39-42.
Gonzalez, J. (2009). Community colleges could win from renewal of job-training act.

Chronicle Of Higher Education, 56(3), A21-A22.
Jacobs, J. (2001). Community colleges and the workforce investment act: Promises and
problems of the new vocationalism. New Directions For Community Colleges,
(115), 93-99. doi:10.1002/cc.34
Pekow, C. (2005a). Colleges have mixed reactions to workforce reforms. Black Issues In
Higher Education, 22(4), 8
Pekow, C. (2005a). Workforce investment act boards displeased with community college
training. Black Issues In Higher Education, 22(12), 6.
Shaw, K. M., & Goldrick-Rab, S. (2006). Work-first federal policies: Eroding access to
community colleges for latinos and low-income populations. New Directions For
Community Colleges, (133), 61-70. doi:10.1002/cc.228
Van Noy, M., Jacobs, J., Korey, S., Bailey, T., & Hughes, K. L. (2008). The rise of
noncredit workforce education. Community College Journal, 78(5), 54-59.
Warnken, W. (2007). Marginalization of adult literacy education in workforce
preparedness collaboration: Representation and negotiation in an interagency
partnership under the workforce investment act of 1998. College Reading
Association Yearbook, (28), 66-78.

Wia & community colleges

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to Wia & community colleges

Wia & community colleges