East St. Louis Action Research Project
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
The employment situation in East St. Louis, and any proposed methods
of improving the employability of low-skilled residents, must be considered
in the context of the current national debate surrounding job training
programs. As with many social welfare programs, federal job training funding
is currently being questioned and legislated in Washington, with sweeping
changes likely in the coming years. How these changes will affect the opportunities
provided to historically under-prepared low-income Americans, especially
in the wake of welfare reform, remains to be seen. This chapter will examine
the current national debate on job training, which hinges on issues of
program consolidation, state-level control, and private sector involvement.
Resources that are currently available to East St. Louis residents will
then be discussed. The chapter will conclude with a discussion of the feedback
generated in interviews on the topic of how to improve future employment
and training-related services for East St. Louis residents. These comments
focus on issues similar to those in the current national debate, as well
as local concerns regarding a current focus on short-term gains, a lack
of basic skills training and needed supports, and a lack of motivation
to pursue training.
National Job Training Policy
Job training programs have been supported by the federal government for over three decades in the United States. These programs seek to assist the private sector in creating a labor force whose skills mirror accurately the jobs available in the economy. This need has become ever more urgent as changes in technology and increased competition from foreign competitors and potential foreign labor forces have caused severe upheavals in the U.S. labor market. The media bombards the public daily with dismal news of layoffs and "re-engineering" to meet the needs of a changing marketplace. Unfortunately for many, the skills that were learned during school or on the job are no longer adequate to keep them employable as the job market becomes more oriented toward technical skills. The private sector is faced with workers ill-equipped to fill the jobs available, and the daunting costs of training potential- and retraining current- employees. The private sector is reluctant to invest sufficiently in training efforts, due to the 'free rider" problem of employees leaving after investment in their skills acquisition has been made. The strategy thus far has been to lobby for federal support for various programs, to replace or supplement private sector training efforts.
To the present, job training programs have usually been enacted on a piecemeal and retroactive basis, often by being attached to legislation that threatens particular job sectors (such as NAFTA), as a way of appeasing special interest groups who would otherwise oppose the legislation. Most job training programs are federally funded, at least in part, but are often locally or regionally administered, due to their specific nature. While on the surface this may appear to be an effective system, and to some degree the local control does allow for greater efficiency within specific programs, there are many redundant efforts occurring due to the lack of coordinated legislation or coordinated funding methods at the federal level.
Job training programs take many forms, and are administered by a wide variety of organizations. Over time, targeted training has been focused toward many different populations: high school students who are unlikely to continue on to a four-year college; high school dropouts who need either general or specific job skills; community college or vocational technical school attendees; workers or the unemployed who are in mid-career or seeking to change careers; and prisoners or ex-offenders who hope to return to productive society. Programs can involve coursework in a classroom setting, one-on-one training (in computer or writing skills, for instance), or "on-the-job" apprenticeships that provide a nominal wage during the training process. Many job training programs are designed to be completed in the evenings or during short periods, while others can take several years of full-time commitment. As of 1995, there were 154 separate federal job training programs (that in turn often have regional or local administrators), controlled by 14 federal agencies, and costing taxpayers nearly $25 billion dollars per year.1 Table C (following page) outlines the funding levels for all major programs, by department.
The Job Training and Partnership Act (JTPA), administered by the Department of Labor, is by far the largest of these many federal programs. In 1983, it replaced the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA), which in 1973 had replaced the Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962 (MDTA).2 Ironically, CETA had been initially enacted to consolidate training efforts because, as John Donahue writes, "By the early 1970s, there was a bewildering array of training, placement assistance, wage subsidy, and public employment programs run by different agencies, with different divisions of administrative responsibility among the federal, state and local governments as well as private companies, and with varying mandates…"3 When CETA was created, it led to the development of a significant number of subsidized public sector jobs. That program was allowed to expire during the Reagan Administration.4 History has yet again repeated itself, with much redundancy and very specialized programs, and this time the solution being discussed is more state-level control and private sector participation.
As Table C indicates, in fiscal year 1995 JTPA was funded at
nearly $5 billion dollars, exceeding even the amount spent on all federal
student grants and loans to college students. JTPA began in 1983, and is
designed to be a public-private partnership between the federal government,
the state and local communities. In Illinois, it is administered by the
Department of Commerce and Community Affairs (DCCA), and is operated at
the local level in twenty-six Service Delivery Areas.5 Each
area appoints a Private Industry Council (PIC) to review proposals and
allocate federal funds
Table C: Federal Funding of Training Programs, 1995
to private training providers. Half of PIC members (there are some 700 members in Illinois) are representatives of local businesses. The other half are representatives of labor or community-based organizations, educational institutions, local government and social service agencies.6 Decisions about what programs to fund, made biannually, are based on a determination of regional needs, with a goal of serving economically disadvantaged adults 22 years of age and over, and young people 16 to 21 years of age (although in recent years youth programs have been diminished significantly).7 Demand for the training program must be demonstrated by the applicant. In many states, including Illinois, community colleges are often the primary providers of JTPA-funded job training programs.
The other programs included in Table C are each small in comparison
to JTPA. The JOBS program of the Department of Health and Human Services,
as well as Youthbuild and Enterprise Community funds of the Department
of Housing and Urban Development, will also be discussed later in this
report in detail, as they already do, or may begin to, play a role in training
provision in East St. Louis. Many of the other programs are targeted toward
veterans, refugees, immigrants, and other groups. These smaller programs
are the main focus of current consolidation efforts.
Job Training Reform Efforts
There has been considerable discussion lately about the state of job training programs. Recent welfare reform legislation has emphasized the need to focus on ways to return current welfare recipients to the work force, so that the welfare system can return to its initial purpose of providing temporary support to individuals who find themselves in need of assistance. In the near future, sweeping changes in legislation will likely cause vast changes in current job training programs, with the lofty goal of creating more opportunities for historically under-privileged and economically disadvantaged citizens to become active members of the U.S. economy, and the more practical goal of saving money.
While JTPA is the primary funding source for job training currently, there are still a wide array of other programs (Table C above). By the early 1990s there were again calls to consolidate training programs in the name of efficiency, reducing "pork barrel" programs, and minimizing "big government." In April 1994, the Re-Employment Act (REA) was introduced in Congress by Sen. Edward Kennedy (D- MA). It sought to: consolidate six programs currently administered separately within the Labor Department; establish "one-stop" career centers in larger U.S. communities, where those in need could get all the necessary information about federal assistance and training programs locally available; focus more funds on income supplements for those involved in longer term mid-career retraining; and establish a computerized national job bank.8 The bill was "killed" by resistance from a variety of groups. Industry lobbyists were concerned with whether funds would be specifically earmarked, and what limits would be placed on future taxes to fund the programs. Governors were opposed to the idea of establishing local councils of businesspeople to determine the best use of funds locally, rather than allowing state level control. There was also local opposition to the career center idea. Ironically, the chairman of the National Commission on Employment Policy, Anthony Carnevale, noted that training programs are currently so under-funded relative to the need that if career centers were created to make access to information easier, they would be overloaded. As he put it, "If everybody came, the system couldn't handle the volumes," directly countering the common belief that the chronically unemployed do not desire to work.9
In 1995, former U.S. Senator Nancy Kassebaum (R-KS) introduced a more ambitious plan to consolidate more than just six programs. One program singled out in particular for cuts in her legislation was the Job Corps, a program costing more than $1 billion annually that serves young people who have histories of criminal activity or drug use through complete intervention. The youth are housed, fed and trained in federal facilities around the country, often not near their home and family, in an attempt to break the link to negative influences from their past. The program began in 1964, and currently has 111 centers throughout the country. To date, 1.5 million youths have entered the program, and have furthered their secondary education while learning a variety of trades.10 Publicity about assaults by Job Corps youth on staff members, as well as a high dropout rate, have prompted Republican lawmakers to call for slashing the Job Corps budget. The average stay in a Job Corps facility is nearly eight months, and costs the taxpayers $14,000 per person.11 Conversely, it has been documented that for every dollar spent on the Job Corps program, $1.46 is pocketed by the government in both increased tax receipts and decreased welfare and criminal processing costs. Program defenders explain that the high dropout rates reflect the program's strict standards, and the exit of those who breach the rules.12 Kassebaum's bill sought to devolve administration of many programs, including the Job Corps, to the states. While many felt that state-level control would be impossible for a program of national scope, Kassebaum noted that the most successful Job Corps programs were those with strong state support and links to local employers.13
President Clinton proposed a program in late 1995 which would eliminate 60 programs, and instead issue training vouchers to qualified applicants, who would seek private training at the regional or local level.14 This proposal suggested that the government's role should be that of "seed capitalist" for local initiatives, encouraging and enabling communication between business people and education providers at the local level, rather than that of "bankroller and bureaucracy builder."15 Concerns have been voiced by organized labor and other groups that a simple block grant and/or voucher system such as are currently being discussed will mean losing targeted programs for the disadvantaged or other special populations.16
While Clinton's proposed legislation has floundered, the Kassebaum legislation passed nearly unanimously in October 1995, causing the consolidation of numerous programs. Two amendments were added to the bill, one of which was to exempt the Job Corps program from devolution, due to its nationwide scope. The other was to protect the "trade adjustment assistance program", reflecting a strong lobbying effort on the part of organized labor to maintain programs for workers "displaced by foreign competition."17 The politics of "pork" apparently still sneaks through, even on measures aimed at simplification, and reduction of programs that are too focused.
The School-to Work Opportunities Act of 1994 is one particularly bright spot in the current discussion regarding job training reform. The Act became law in May of 1994, and emphasizes the provision of seed money to states to create partnerships between education and business that will focus on providing opportunities to students who are not college-bound. In order to qualify for funds, a community must have "a local consortium of school, business, labor and community leaders involved in a process that puts a student on-site with an employer in a paid or unpaid work situation".18 The idea is to make public education nationwide more responsive and relevant to jobs and careers, going beyond the traditional college preparation track most focus on. Since its inception, the program has provided $320 million in grants to 27 states.19 Those states that have received funding have focused on creating links to local employers to create apprenticeship programs. Students who meet qualifications and pass an entrance exam can enter an apprenticeship program that combines on -the-job experience with regular class work for the final two years of high school.20
The debate in Washington continues, as it has with other issues, as
to whether devolution to the state level is the appropriate answer in job
training reform. Salient arguments have been made on both sides, and the
ultimate outcome of the debate is as yet unknown.
Evaluative or Critical Recent Studies
Much has been said and written about the effectiveness of job training during this period of government downsizing and devolution. Most recent studies that look at the effectiveness of federal job training programs have focused on the JTPA program, because of its size and scope, and the relative availability of data relating to it. One major issue in training reform is even more fundamental than the results of evaluations of job training; the question of what should be considered a measure of success is open to debate. And of course, the real results of a job training program in the life of an individual may be somewhat intangible, or may happen years later. If someone receives subsidized training in auto mechanics, but later becomes an industrial worker, was the training money spent "wasted"? Were the work ethic and basic skills that were instilled still a good investment if a trainee takes nine months to find steady work rather than six months, which may be the arbitrary success measure? In other words, the evaluation criteria by which to analyze a training effort is every bit as difficult to determine as gathering the data itself.
Two reports, both published in 1989, found similar results in their assessments of JTPA programs. The General Accounting Office, in a report to Congressional Requesters, noted that JTPA served the "more job-ready" and the "less job-ready" in roughly the same proportion, although the less job-ready received less "intensive" services.22 John Donahue of the Economic Policy Institute found that those chosen for training are chosen based more on "job-readiness" than on "need."23 The GAO report found that high school dropouts were underserved in comparison to their incidence in the eligible population, and that those who received higher skill training (and also tended to be the more job-ready) were more successful in finding employment overall.24 Donahue found that the pattern of training was more driven by "short-term placement" than by "long-run payoffs."25 Both studies found that on-the-job training funds tended to be used as wage subsidies, and that on-the-job training opportunities were more focused toward low-skill occupations.
These and other studies of the JTPA program that have been used recently as ammunition in arguments to consolidate training funding and allow greater state control have the same difficulties as the analyses of the Job Corps program mentioned earlier. What is to be defined as success is open to debate. The Donahue study faulted JTPA for focusing on short-term instead of long-term placement, while the GAO report was faulting the same program for having an unacceptably low placement rate. There has been a call to increase "accountability mechanisms" if and when funds devolve to the states, requiring states to account for progress toward meeting program "objectives."26 Who will determine the objectives to be met is unknown. Dorothy Whitehead of the East St. Louis Employment and Training Center (ETC) noted that programs would be more effective locally if local actors could play a role in goal-setting and determining appropriate success measures. It is unclear whether legislators concerned with accountability will be willing to allow the block grant concept to extend to the level of allowing true local control of programs.
With Bill Clinton now re-elected to a second term, renewed discussion
of job training reform can be expected in the next session of Congress.
It will be necessary for considerable compromise to occur, and more devolution
of control to the state level in the form of block grants is the likely
result if that compromise is achieved. Greater private sector involvement
needs to be leveraged, because federal funding alone is not likely to meet
the need that exists for educational opportunities. The need to address
the issue is ever more urgent as a result of welfare reform. Difficult
discussions about how to overcome serious systemic problems will need to
be conducted. In the meantime, the residents of East St. Louis have several
training avenues available to them under the current system. These are
described in the following section.
Local Job Training Efforts and Awareness
Several social service providers and public sector administrators were interviewed to develop an understanding of what job training resources currently exist for East St. Louis residents. Their responses, as well as printed information provided during the interviews, are the sources for the description of resources to follow. Further objective data was not sought out. For this reason, this description of existing resources and recent developments may not be exhaustive.
The Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) is currently the primary provider of federally funded job training programs available to East St. Louis residents. The other major public agency programs in the area are Project Chance and Earnfare, both work incentive programs for welfare recipients administered by the Department of Public Aid, and the Illinois Training Program (ITP), run directly by DCCA, which funds companies' costs to retrain existing employees. Steven Schneider of the St. Clair County Intergovernmental Grants Department, who administers JTPA funding for the service delivery area that includes East St. Louis, thinks that "starting from scratch" in East St. Louis will be the best way to deal with the job training needs of the community. While he admits that past training offerings have had their "shortcomings", and that there has been a shortage of them, he feels that the long-term objective in East St. Louis should be job creation, since most current training must necessarily be for jobs outside of the community.
The "starting from scratch" analogy was mentioned because three significant changes have occurred in East St. Louis recently that will radically improve the ability of residents to avail themselves of training opportunities. Firstly, the Department of Labor has provided seed money for a few "demonstration" career centers, in hopes of showcasing their potential for efficient provision of information at the local level. Illinois is one state that received funding, and has created fifty-two "Illinois Employment and Training Centers" (ETCs). One of these centers was recently established in East St. Louis, providing access to the Illinois Department of Employment Security (IDES) and Job Training Partnership Act services in one location. Secondly, the community college in East St. Louis has undergone a recent change of administration, and has expressed an intention to reassess and reinvigorate its training programs. And thirdly, several important entities involved in training concerns are currently involved in a planning process as part of the aforementioned "School-to-Work Partnership Act."
The "one-stop center" that recently opened in East St. Louis, jointly operated by JTPA and IDES, will allow better provision of training programs. It is being funded with Department of Labor "demonstration grant" money. Its location (on 20th Street) is convenient to public transportation, and allows easy access to training information for unemployed residents who find, after meeting with a caseworker from IDES about their employment options, that they may be eligible for assistance in upgrading their skills. The client will then visit with a JTPA caseworker at least four times before beginning any training program. The ETC hopes to carefully screen and refer clients to the most appropriate training program for them. The East St. Louis Housing Authority currently works closely with the facility, providing referrals to the center for its residents who inquire about jobs. Other social service providers, such as church-based or neighborhood-based groups, can now easily refer concerned residents to one facility for assessment of the opportunities available to them. If residents are deemed eligible for participation in a JTPA program (due to factors such as age, level of education, family income, and length of unemployment), they can meet with a caseworker to determine what type of training is most promising for them. JTPA participants are eligible for support for all training and initial job-related costs, such as transportation and child care, and even uniform purchases. The local service delivery area for JTPA currently funds over 150 types of training at several facilities in the region, including Metropolitan Community College, Belleville Area College, Beck Area Vocational Center, John A. Logan College, Kaskaskia College, Vatterott College, and others. While community colleges often provide numerous programs each, several smaller private sector training providers offer training on a smaller scale. Training is provided in numerous areas, including secretarial and business skills, computers and electronics, day care, industrial trades (heating and air conditioning repair, machining, and so forth), medical positions (lab technician, nurses assistant, respiratory therapist, and so forth), security, trucking, and auto mechanics. How closely these training offerings are tied to regional employer demand is unclear, although that is a stated goal of the PIC.
Metropolitan Community College (MCC) recently changed from receiving significant state support to being more reliant on local tax revenues, and has been working with a consultant (along with two other area colleges) to determine what training programs are most needed in the region. It is too early to assess the success of their administrative reform efforts, but there is much discussion at MCC of the need to increase job training offerings. They have secured JTPA funding to operate thirteen training programs, many in cooperation with other area colleges. Seven of the programs are medical in nature, four are office-related, and the remaining two are child care and aviation electronics. Steven Schneider feels that MCC and Southern Illinois University's East St. Louis Center (SIU-ESL) are the logical places in East St. Louis for training programs to be offered. SIU-ESL has been a contract provider of training in the past, and currently provides GED programs and career counseling. Beginning this year, it is operating an intervention program to provide career guidance, placement assistance and follow-up counseling to high school seniors who will enter the work force directly this spring.
The new "School-to-Work" initiative involves MCC, the East St. Louis school district (SD189), area business leaders, and officials from JTPA and the state board of education. In Illinois, the effort has been dubbed "Education-to-Careers." A regional partnership had to be demonstrated in order to secure federal funding under the 1994 Act to begin a needs analysis process. This group is in the beginning stages of investigating how area high schools and community colleges, working in conjunction with the business community, can better serve the needs of non-college bound students.
In addition to these new initiatives and opportunities, SD189 provides classes in various vocational areas. These include child care, nursing, electronics, and aviation and automotive mechanics. Some include a work component during the school year. Many are part of a program called "Tech Prep", a state-wide initiative. At the junior high school level, the "Work Experience Career Exploration Program" (WECEP) provides part-time jobs during the school day for 14 and 15 year olds, combined with regular courses for the balance of the day. The program is targeted toward students who are experiencing difficulty in school. The purpose of the program, according to school district literature, is to "increase self-esteem, explore career options, develop positive attitudes toward work, gain entry-level skills, and continue in school after reaching age sixteen."
The Department of Public Aid office is the other major public sector agency (besides the ETC) that interacts regularly with residents who are likely to be eligible for job training. They administer AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) and AABD (Aid to the Aged, Blind or Disabled) programs, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Transitional Assistance, Family and Children Assistance, and Child Support Enforcement. In addition, they demonstrate to aid recipients the increased monetary value of choosing work over public assistance, and support efforts of aid recipients to achieve self-sufficiency through several programs: Project Chance, the JOBS program, and Earnfare. Project Chance and JOBS provide case management, supportive services and referrals to AFDC clients, to assist them in moving towards self-sufficiency. Costs such as child care, transportation, supplies, medical exams and uniforms can be covered by grants. Earnfare is a program for non-AFDC clients who receive food stamps. They gain work experience through employers associated with the Earnfare program, with similar grant support for costs, as a way of gaining skills toward finding true private sector employment on their own afterward. Earnfare employers get employees at no direct cost (wages are covered through advance payments from the state), and do not have to pay additional taxes or worker's compensation benefits for Earfare workers.
Awareness of existing job training opportunities among those interviewed
was high, as most persons interviewed dealt either directly or indirectly
with the issues of education or employment. Many noted that awareness of
public sector services such as unemployment insurance and job training
is also unusually high among the general East St. Louis population, due
to word of mouth and the sheer number of residents either utilizing or
eligible for services.
Local Issues and Critique
When interviewees were asked to voice their opinions on how to best foster employability in East St. Louis, and what role job training should play in the effort, their responses were nearly unanimous in support of training efforts. Ironically, many of their suggestions about what could be done better involved the very "intangible" efforts that may defy data gathering needed to measure success rates. It should be noted at this point that, of the twelve persons asked these questions, three are educators and one works for JTPA.
Training was described alternatively as "absolutely key", because the "clock is running out" for welfare recipients, and as the "most important" element in local employment policy, because the "jobs are there." Not only is training the key, but it must be "forward thinking", according to Percy Harris. Training is needed for East St. Louis residents to achieve steady employment and good wages, according to Marilyn Stringfellow of the local ETC, because employers are not doing their own training. They are expecting a certain skill level in applicants, for every type of job.
Only a few interviewees discounted training as a solution to the local employability problem. Mike Cordes of the city's Business and Economic Development Department described training as "throwing money at a problem" that the private sector can solve. He instead favors deregulation to encourage the establishment of businesses in East St. Louis, and fostering entreprenuership. Nolan Cheatham of the Department of Public Aid characterized the situation as a "chicken and egg" problem of needing local job sources, but needing existing skills to lure job sources. Casino Queen traffic, and spin-off activity on the riverfront were mentioned as potential opportunities to bring in new job sources. In general, it was mentioned that East St. Louis' central location in the region should be used to greater advantage. Local job sources would also help to solve the transportation barrier faced by residents, and young parents especially, according to another. Another interviewee stated that training effects would be limited because other employability factors are currently overwhelming, referring to regional discrimination against East St. Louis residents.
The general consensus seems to be that there are sufficient four-year colleges in the area to meet local need, and that there are many training programs available in the region, with most requiring a car or bus ride from East St. Louis. Interviewees had much to say about the effectiveness of these existing programs. While the recent developments in the previous section may ameliorate some of these concerns, it is still prudent to further detail the issues the interviewees feel need to be addressed.
Common criticisms were voiced by many interviewees. Many felt that training programs focus primarily on low-paying occupations, while Marilyn Stringfellow of the East St. Louis ETC noted that most JTPA training programs require at least a 10th or 11th grade reading level, which applicants often do not have. The general quality of many training programs was questioned by some. One social service provider noted that while good training may exist, the innovative support services needed are missing. He went on to describe these as night-time day care, and a tutoring or mentoring component. Outreach is often by individual training providers, who then refer those interested to JTPA for eligibility screening, which can be confusing to respondents.
Cheryl Lovell of the East St. Louis Housing Authority noted that, in a survey of residents conducted about four years ago, she found that public housing residents were unwilling to devote an extended period of time to training. As a result, even though people are aware of training programs, they are not motivated to undertake training because of the time commitment involved. Another interviewee noted that it takes perseverance to find an appropriate training program, and sometimes a willingness to spend money. Without a clear idea of the benefit of the training, few will partake of the opportunity. Marilyn Stringfellow has found that many eligible persons are interested only in programs that can provide immediate wages, and are unwilling to consider forgoing wages in order to receive a greater benefit in the future. Another chilling comment heard in several interviews was that many residents of East St. Louis who are dependent upon public assistance are not yet even aware of pending changes to their benefits due to welfare reform, or are in denial about the effect that the changes will have on their lives. Several social service providers are already concerned both about the effect the impending cut-off will have on those who are blindsided by the change without having prepared for it, and about the effect of a sudden deluge of requests for training that cannot be met as awareness increases.
Specific suggestions regarding strategies for training programs included a wide variety of ideas. Many expressed a need to instill more self-confidence and a more positive self-image in young people somehow, and to have high school counselors do a better job of steering young East St. Louis residents down realistic paths toward self-sufficiency. Bill Miller of St. Mary's hospital described the need to create a "bidirection" for high school students, so that those who are not college bound do not feel like failures. A strong GED program was recommended, along with a better support system for the jobless who did not finish school. Only after receiving that base support could trainees then fully take advantage of a strong local vocational education program, the need for which was also strongly expressed. This program could then focus on more targeted skills. Several interviewees stated that MCC could take a leading role in working with businesses to create the training programs needed to lure them into the city, focusing on taking advantage of future development potential, and meeting technical and service needs. The potential direct and spin-off employment effects of housing projects and a pending prison project were mentioned as opportunities to be exploited.
At a more basic level, several interviewees made it clear that creating
programs with stability, and which provided role models and real world
experiences, were crucial to the success of training programs in East St.
Louis. Many also emphasized that potential trainees would not be able to
take full advantage of opportunities provided unless they were somehow
convinced of the urgency of the situation, the need to take their future
into their own hands, and the need to invest time and effort in a program
that would create a future (and greater) payoff, rather than an immediate
one. For an effective training strategy to be devised for East St. Louis,
the national issues of consolidation, coordination and private sector involvement
must be considered, as well as local concerns such as those voiced about
the current short-term focus, lack of support services, and the need to
generate awareness and motivation.
CHAPTER THREE NOTES:
1. Lee, Chris. "Out of the Maze: Can the Federal Job-Training Mess be Fixed?". Training. February 1995. page 30.
2. Orr, Larry L., and others. "Does Training for the Disadvantaged Work? Evidence from the National JTPA Study". page 3.
3. Donahue, John D.. "Shortchanging the Workforce: The Job Training Partnership Act and the Overselling of Privatized Training". page 3.
4. Donahue, John D.. "Shortchanging the Workforce: The Job Training Partnership Act and the Overselling of Privatized Training". page 4.
5. "Illinois JTPA: Great Beginnings". page i.
6. "Illinois JTPA: Great Beginnings". page i.
7. Orr, Larry L., and others. "Does Training for the Disadvantaged Work? Evidence from the National JTPA Study". page 3.
8. Geber, Beverly. "Can the Federal Job-Training System be Rebuilt?". Training. September 1994. page 32.
9. Geber, Beverly. "Can the Federal Job-Training System be Rebuilt?". Training. September 1994. page 35.
10. "Corps for Troubled Youth Now Finds Itself in Trouble". Christian Science Monitor. February 2, 1995. page 1+.
11. "Corps for Troubled Youth Now Finds Itself in Trouble". Christian Science Monitor. February 2, 1995. page 1+.
12. "Save the Job Corps". New York Times editorial. June 10, 1995. page A18.
13. Kassebaum, Sen. Nancy Landon. "Job Corps Will Gain From State Control". New York Times letter to the editor. June 17, 1995. page A18.
14. Lee, Chris. "Out of the Maze: Can the Federal Job-Training Mess be Fixed?". Training. February 1995. page 30.
15. Lee, Chris. "Out of the Maze: Can the Federal Job-Training Mess be Fixed?". Training. February 1995. page 32.
16. Miller, William H. "Sea Change!". Industry Week. September 4, 1995. page 33.
17. "A Good Block Grant". Washington Post editorial. October 13, 1995. page A24.
18. "Vocational education rides new waves". Chicago Tribune special section. November 17, 1996. Section 18, page 9.
19. "Grading Time for School-to-Work Act". New York Times education section. July 10, 1996.
20. "Grading Time for School-to-Work Act". New York Times education section. July 10, 1996.
21. "Grading Time for School-to-Work Act". New York Times education section. July 10, 1996.
22. "Job Training Partnership Act: Services and Outcomes for Participants with Differing Needs". Report to Congressional Requesters. pages 3-4.
23. Donahue, John D.. "Shortchanging the Workforce: The Job Training Partnership Act and the Overselling of Privatized Training". page 1.
24. "Job Training Partnership Act: Services and Outcomes for Participants with Differing Needs". Report to Congressional Requesters. pages 3-4.
25. Donahue, John D.. "Shortchanging the Workforce: The Job Training Partnership Act and the Overselling of Privatized Training". page 1.
26. "Make States Account for Training Grants". Christian
Science Monitor. January 11, 1996. page 19.
: Diane Gormery-Barnes
HTML by : Yong Wook Kim
Last modified: May 21, 1997
St. Louis Action Research Project