Economic Equity Insider

On the Fast Track: House Introduces Perkins Reauthorization Bill, Senate Takes up Issue

On June 3rd, Congressman Mike Castle (R-DE), Chair of the House Subcommittee on Education Reform, introduced H.R. 4496, the Vocational and Technical Education for the Future Act. The Subcommittee then held a hearing on this legislation on June 15th, and could mark up the bill during the first weeks of July. The Senate, not far behind the House, held a Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee hearing on June 24th. The HELP Committee is expected to introduce a bill some time in July.

As reported on the Women Work! Policy Exchange Listserv, H.R. 4496 resembles the Administration’s proposal for Perkins reauthorization, which is largely silent on the issue of gender equity. The proposal’s key objectives focus on aligning Perkins with No Child Left Behind Act and preparing secondary students for postsecondary education or training through rigorous academics. Little attention is paid to the needs of girls at the secondary level and to women re-entering the system at the postsecondary level.

The House Subcommittee on Education Reform then held a hearing on June 15th, where the following witnesses testified: Dr. Robert D. Sommers, CEO of Butler Technology and Career Development Schools in Fairfield Township, OH; Katharine Oliver, Assistant State Superintendent of Career, Technology and Adult Learning at the Maryland State Department of Education in Baltimore, MD; Mimi Lufkin, Executive Director of the National Alliance for Partnerships in Equity in Cochranville, PA; and Robin White, Senior Program and Policy Director at the Academy for Educational Development National Institute for Work and Learning in Washington, DC. In her testimony, Mimi Lufkin emphasized the need for H.R. 4496 to include single parent/displaced homemaker programming, as well as efforts to increase support nontraditional training and employment among girls and women.

Key Provisions: Vocational and Technical Education
for the Future Act (H.R. 4496)

Weakens the definition of "individuals training for nontraditional employment."
Maintains $150,000 per state cap on state leadership funding for nontraditional training.
Eliminates the accountability measure for nontraditional training (the 4th core indicator) for students at the secondary level.
Fails to improve provisions around the disaggregation of data by gender for reporting.
Does not designate funding at the local level to implement their plan for serving special populations (displaced homemakers, single parents, single pregnant women, and individuals preparing for nontraditional employment and training).
Does not incorporate a self-sufficiency measure into the accountability or guidance provisions.
Does not allow local agencies to deliver support services to women enrolled in CTE programs.
Does not contain provisions to prepare counselors, teachers, and administrators with training on how to ensure that all female students in CTE programs are treated equitably from enrollment through graduation.

Just a few days after the House hearing, the Senate HELP Committee held its hearing on Perkins reauthorization, titled Reauthorization of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act: Education for the 21st Century Workforce. The witnesses were: Dr. Michael Rush, Administrator of the Idaho Division of Professional-Technical Education in Boise, ID; Dr. Frank Blankenship, Assistant Superintendent and Vocational Director of Columbiana County Career and Technical Center in Lisbon, OH; Dr. Jo Anne McFarland, President of Central Wyoming College in Riverton, WY; Harry Lightsey, President of BellSouth, South Carolina in Columbia, SC; and Angela Olszewski, Journeywoman and Instructor at Non Traditional Employment for Women, in New York, NY.

Many of the witnesses touched upon gender equity issues in their remarks. In particular, Angela Olszewski spoke of the importance of exposing women and girls to nontraditional training, and the benefits of choosing a career in the skilled trades. Dr. Rush profiled a model female CTE student who was enrolled in automotive technology classes along with advanced placement academic courses. Mr. Lightsey noted that two BellSouth funded initiatives at the South Carolina Department of Education have assisted women in becoming more involved in engineering, technical programs, and robotics—nontraditional occupations for their gender.

Notably, both Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY), who is Chair of the HELP Committee, and Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), also commented on the need to examine ways to increase gender equity during Perkins reauthorization. In his opening statement, Sen. Enzi said, “Another important issue that I've worked on with my colleagues on this Committee in the Workforce Investment Act is the idea that we should be helping women of all ages pursue careers in high-wage, high-growth professions. The Perkins Act has a lengthy history of supporting state efforts in this area. I expect to continue that focus through this reauthorization.” In his statement, Sen. Enzi also pointed to the need to close the wage gap between men and women. Sen. Clinton echoed this, noting the importance of continuing to train women in nontraditional employment, especially the skilled building trades. These remarks signal that the HELP committee is placing gender equity issues on the priority list during this reauthorization.

On June 3, the Personal Reemployment Accounts bill (H.R. 444) was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives by a narrow, ten-vote margin. The bill was introduced in late January 2003. On March 5, 2003, the House Committee on Workforce and Education passed the measure by a single vote. The bill finally reached the House floor in early June 2004 where, after a series of complex legislative maneuvers, it was put to a vote.

The bill authorizes $3.6 billion over two years for states to administer the unemployment program. The Personal Reemployment Accounts (PRA) program would provide a maximum of $3,000 to newly unemployed workers. Recipients of PRAs could use the funds for employment-related expenses including: career and literacy counseling; job training; reimbursement for childcare and transportation; and, in limited cases, income support. An applicant is eligible for a PRA when s/he has exhausted her/his unemployment insurance (UI), or is likely to do so within three months of the program’s start date. Income support is available to individuals who find employment within 13 weeks of opening their PRA, and any unspent money will be awarded as a “cash reemployment bonus.”

Unfortunately, many women are ineligible for PRA benefits. Nationally, less than half of unemployed workers receive UI. Displaced homemakers entering the workforce for the first time or after an extended absence are ineligible for unemployment benefits because they have not lost a paid job. Further, most states require a minimum length of employment or minimum amount of earnings to qualify for UI, thereby excluding low-wage and part-time workers; sixty percent of low-wage workers are women. For example, Florida requires that a worker earn at least $3,400 to qualify for UI. At first glance this appears to be a relatively small sum; however, a minimum wage worker employed 30 hours a week would need to work for 22 weeks – nearly six months – before meeting Florida's earnings requirement.

Critics note that the “cash reemployment bonus” makes little fiscal sense. It offers workers employed within three months 60% of their unspent funds with the remaining 40% payable after six months of continuous employment. Offering an incentive for PRA recipients implies that unemployed workers simply aren’t looking hard enough for steady work. Employment data belies that implication: from 2001 to 2004, women lost over 300,000 jobs. The outlook is even bleaker for single mothers: their rate of employment has fallen faster than other parents or college-educated adults. Nationally, 2 million people are suffering from long-term unemployment; that is, they have been without work for at least 27 weeks. The Department of Labor reports that for every eight unemployed workers there are only three jobs available. The cash incentive simply serves to encourage the unemployed to find a job – be it low-wage, without health insurance or paid leave – as quickly as possible.

Finally, the bill prohibits any person who opens a PRA from using all but "core services" – computer-based job searching or local labor market information – at One-Stop Career Centers for a one-year period, regardless of whether they gain employment or exhaust their PRA funds. If s/he wishes to use any of the intensive reemployment services such as counseling, job training, or supportive services, they must be purchased using PRA funds. Essentially, opening a PRA will cut off a worker from the most effective services: education and job training. Under the current Workforce Investment Act system, there is no cap on reemployment or job training services, and states provide vouchers for up to $10,000 of usage.

Both the Senate and House of Representatives are considering new bills designed to aid working families without sick leave. The bills, both entitled the Healthy Families Act (S. 2520 and H.R. 4575) were introduced on June 15, 2004 by Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), respectively. The legislation recognizes that employees need time off to care for themselves and loved ones and grants persons working 30 or more hours a week seven days of paid sick leave per year; part-time employees would be granted leave on a pro-rated scale.

A majority of middle income Americans lack paid sick leave. More than 50% of all workers in the private sector and state and local government are not provided with sick leave after one year of employment. Of the 1.22 million employees surveyed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (excluding self-employed, federal, agricultural and domestic workers) 89 million - or 73% - were granted less than seven sick days per year. Low-income employees are significantly worse off: seventy-six percent (76%) of the poorest families lack any regular, compensated sick leave. Further, less than half of all workers may use sick leave to care for a child.

Lack of paid sick leave is especially troubling for women who comprise the majority of minimum-wage workers. Women are also far more likely to need to care for aging parents or other adult family members; nearly 75% of persons providing informal, familial care to the elderly are women. Roughly one-third of women are "sandwiched" between caring for their children, working full-time, and providing, on average, 18 hours a week of caregiving to an adult family member. Women also report being worried about their ability to balance the conflicting demands of financial solvency and caregiving:. A survey of women aged 25-41 found that just under half are deeply concerned that they will live at or near the poverty line following retirement because they have been unable to adequately save during their working years.

On June 22, 2004 Congress passed the TANF and Related Programs Continuation Act of 2004 (H.R. 4589). The Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) program’s fiscal authorization expired in 2002. Since then, the program has been operating on a number of continuances, the latest of which expires on September 30, 2004.

There was a victory in this latest continuance: a “clean” extension of existing law until September 2004. A so-called “clean” extension simply means that current law was extended with no amendments or deletions. The Administration has advocated changes to current law including: the addition of marriage incentives (see the Economic Equity Insider, June, 2004 for more information); an expansion of faith-based programs; the addition of monies for abstinence-only sex education; a restoration of nutrition benefits for legal immigrants; the reinstatement of supplemental monies for states with population growth or low numbers of welfare recipients; requiring families to participate in “constructive activities” 40 hours a week, at least 24 hour of which must be work; and revising data collection. At least a few of the Administration’s proposals are likely to cause a long debate should they be added to any future extensions.

Advocates of a multi-year extension argue that short-term continuances threaten states' ability to provide long-term funding and programmatic stability. Short-term, stop-gap measures only add to the financial instability already plaguing the majority of states. Changes in an ad-hoc extension could subject a state to new work or funding mandates; states with biennial legislatures (for example, Texas) would be particularly affected by any federal changes. A clean, multi-year extension would allow states more flexibility in deciding what counts as work and would leave current minimum work requirements untouched.

It appears unlikely that the entire program will be reauthorized this year as the legislative calendar has been truncated due to the death of former President Reagan and the impending fall election cycle.

On June 14th, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that sexual harassment so severe that it forces an employee to resign should be treated the same as an outright dismissal. The Court held that a person “must show that the abusive working environment became so intolerable that her resignation qualified as a fitting response.” The case, Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders, involved the harassment of a police communications officer by three supervisors. The harassment included lurid remarks, obscene gestures, and physical intimidation. Officer Suders attempted to file a complaint, but the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEOC) officer appeared insensitive and unhelpful. Immediately before her attempt to file the complaint, she had discovered a drawer containing her completed computer skills exams. Her superiors had told her she failed the exam, which was an untrue assertion. Her superiors had simply neglected to score her exams. She removed the exams, but before she was able to return them, her supervisors dusted the file drawer with a theft-detection powder. When Ms. Suders attempted to replace her tests, her hands turned blue. She was subsequently arrested, photographed and questioned by her harassers. She was allowed to leave only after she agreed to resign. The arrest and interrogation occurred two days after speaking to the EEOC officer.

Generally, an employer is given the opportunity to prove that it did everything possible to address the allegations of sexual harassment. However, the employer is not allowed to assert that defense if the person filing the lawsuit can prove that she quit in reasonable response to employer behavior. For example, if the employer imposed a “humiliating demotion, extreme cut in pay, or transfer to another position in which she would face unbearable working conditions” or other sanction. The latest Supreme Court decision adds “constructive discharge” – resignation in the face of severe harassment – to the list of conditions under which an employer may not use the defense.