BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                        AJR 46


                                                                       Page  1





       Date of Hearing:   August 18, 2016


          ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JOBS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, AND THE ECONOMY


                                Eduardo Garcia, Chair


       AJR 46  
       (Bonta) - As Introduced June 23, 2016


       SUBJECT:  Unemployment:  Workforce Innovation and Opportunities Act


       SUMMARY:  Memorializes the California Legislature's appeal to the U.S.  
       Congress to include unemployment rates by race and ethnicity within  
       the criteria used to make funding allotments under the federal  
       Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act (WIOA).  Specifically, this bill:  
        


       1)Makes legislative findings, including, but not limited to:



          a)   California's economy has significantly improved since the  
            Great Recession, with unemployment rates down to 5.4% in March  
            2016 and that California has added 2.1 million jobs since the  
            recovery began in February 2010; 



          b)   The Pew Charitable Trusts ranked California among the bottom  
            10 states in bringing people 25 through 54 years of age back to  
            employment. In 2014, 73.6% of California's prime working  
            population had jobs compared with 77.9% in 2007;  









                                                                        AJR 46


                                                                       Page  2







          c)   California has had an uneven economic recovery, with the  
            coastal regions rebounding with more economic vigor relative to  
            inland areas of the state.  At the city level, however,  
            employment disparities continue to persist even in areas that  
            report overall high rates of economic and job growth;  



          d)   Data shows that as a region, the San Francisco bay area is  
            closest to closing the employment gap since 2007.  County  
            averages, however, continue to hide persistent unemployment among  
            certain populations. In Alameda County, where March 2016  
            unemployment dropped to 4.3%, African-American and Latino  
            unemployment in the City of Oakland is still high at 18% and 16%,  
            respectively;  



          e)   The Legislature recommends that the U.S. Congress implement a  
            racial equity lens when structuring WIOA investment proposal  
            requirements to ensure that unemployment rates are analyzed from  
            multiple perspectives and not only average unemployment rates at  
            the aggregate population level; and



          f)   For every $1.00 of wealth a median Caucasian household has, a  
            median Asian household has about 81[, a median Hispanic family  
            has 7[, and a median African-American family has 6[. The  
            disparity in employment exists not just by region in California,  
            but also by race.



       2)Petitions the U.S. Congress to include unemployment rates by race  
         and ethnicity within the WIOA scoring criteria. 









                                                                        AJR 46


                                                                       Page  3







       3)Provides that copies of the resolution be transmitted to U.S.  
         President and U.S. Vice President, Speaker of the House of  
         Representatives, to the Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate, and to  
         each U.S. Senator and U.S. Representative from California, as  
         specified.






       EXISTING STATE LAW establishes the Labor and Workforce Development  
       Agency (Agency) for the purpose of addressing issues relating to  
       California workers and their employers. The Agency is responsible for  
       labor law enforcement, workforce development, and benefit payment and  
       adjudication. The Agency works to combat the underground economy and  
       help legitimate businesses and workers in California through a  
       combination of enforcement and education activities.  Departments and  
       other state entities under the Agency include:





       1)Agricultural Labor Relations Board; 



       2)The California Workforce Board, who is charged with overseeing the  
         state's WIOA-related activities;



       3)The Employment Development Department, including the Employment and  
         Employment-related Services Program and the National Dislocated  
         Workers Grant Program;









                                                                        AJR 46


                                                                       Page  4







       4)Employment Training Panel;



       5)The Department of Industrial Relations, including the Division of  
         Apprenticeship Standards; and



       6)Public Employment Relations Board.



       FEDERAL EXISTING LAW


       1)Authorizes WIOA for the purpose of:



          a)   Increasing access to and opportunities for the employment,  
            education, training, and support services needed to succeed in  
            the labor market, particularly for those individuals with  
            barriers to employment.



          b)   Supporting the alignment of workforce investment, education,  
            and economic development systems in support of a comprehensive,  
            accessible, and high-quality workforce development system in the  
            US.



          c)   Improving the quality and labor market relevance of workforce  
            investment, education, and economic development efforts to  
            provide America's workers with the skills and credentials  








                                                                        AJR 46


                                                                       Page  5





            necessary to secure and advance in employment with  
            family-sustaining wages, and to provide America's employers with  
            the skilled workers the employers needed to succeed in a global  
            economy.



          d)   Promoting improvement in the structure of and delivery of  
            services through the US workforce development system to better  
            address the employment and skill needs of workers, jobseekers,  
            and employers.



          e)   Increasing the prosperity of workers and employers in the US,  
            the economic growth of communities, regions, and States, and the  
            global competitiveness of the United States.



          f)   Providing workforce investment activities, through statewide  
            and local workforce development systems, that increase the  
            employment, retention, and earnings of participants, and increase  
            attainment of recognized postsecondary credentials by  
            participants, and as a result, improve the quality of the  
            workforce, reduce welfare dependency, increase economic  
            self-sufficiency, meet the skill requirements of employers, and  
            enhance the productivity and competitiveness of the Nation.



       2)Sets a three part formula for making general state allotments of  
         WIOA funds for youth, adult, and dislocated workers, as follows:



          a)   33S% of each state's allotment is based on the relative number  
            of unemployed individuals in areas of substantial unemployment in  
            the state, as compared to the total number of unemployed  








                                                                        AJR 46


                                                                       Page  6





            individuals in areas of substantial unemployment in all states;



          b)   33S% of each state's allotment is based on the relative excess  
            number of unemployed individuals in the state, as compared to the  
            total number of excess unemployed individuals in all states;



          c)   33S% of each state's allotment is based on the relative number  
            of disadvantaged individuals in each state, as compared to the  
            total number of disadvantage youth/adults in all states.   
            Disadvantaged individuals are separately calculated for youth and  
            adult for their allotments.



       3)Defines "area of substantial unemployment" as an area of sufficient  
         size and scope to sustain a program of workforce investment  
         activities, as specified, that has an average unemployment rate in  
         the most recent 12 months of at or above 6.5%.



       4)Defines "disadvantaged youth" and "disadvantaged adult" as  
         individuals within the youth or adult age group with a household  
         income at or below the poverty line or 70% of lower living standard  
         income, as specified.



       5)Defines "excess number" to mean the number of individuals that  
         represent the number of unemployed individuals that are in excess of  
         a 4.5% unemployed civilian workforce in the whole state or in areas  
         of substantial unemployment, whichever is higher.











                                                                        AJR 46


                                                                       Page  7





       FISCAL EFFECT:  Unknown.  The purpose of this resolution is to  
       increase funding to California's most economically distressed  
       communities.


       COMMENTS:  


       1)Overview of State WIOA:  WIOA provides states with federal funding  
         for job training and employment investment activities, including  
         work incentive and employment training outreach programs.  There are  
         three primary programs and funding streams, including Adult, Youth,  
         and Dislocated Worker.  Distribution of the funds is based on a set  
         formula which includes specified economic and demographic data.  

         California's workforce development funding from the U.S. Department  
         of Labor has declined over the years from a high of $630 million in  
         2000-01 to $397 million in 2016-17.   Federal law dictates that 85%  
         of Adult and Youth formula funds, and 60% of Dislocated Worker  
         formula funds, are distributed to local workforce development  
         boards.  Funding for the state's activities is derived from the 15%  
         discretionary funds.  

         California received approximately $401 million for program year  
         2015-16, with $321.5 million being allocated to local workforce  
         development boards to provide services for adults, laid-off workers,  
         and youth, and $80.5 million remaining at the state-level for  
         program oversight and discretionary programs.  

         California's federal workforce dollars are overseen by the 51-member  
         California Workforce Development Board, of which 51% of the members  
         represent the private sector, as required by federal law.  Board  
         activities are supported through a staff of 18 authorized positions  
         and is currently led by Executive Director Tim Rainey.  

         There are 48 local workforce development boards that plan for and  
         oversee the workforce system at the local and regional levels.   
         Local workforce boards are comprised of a range of workforce  
         stakeholders, a majority of which are required to be representatives  








                                                                        AJR 46


                                                                       Page  8





         from businesses.  Each local workforce development board has one or  
         more One-Stop Centers, now referred to as America's Career Centers,  
         which provide access to career information, counseling, and funding  
         for education, training, and supportive services.

       2)The California Economy in the Future:  As California continues to  
         transition from the recession, businesses and workers face an  
         economy comprised of highly integrated industry sectors that are  
         also more geographically dispersed.  Advances in technology and  
         processes are occurring more rapidly.  This is resulting in  
         competitiveness being increasingly defined in terms of speed,  
         flexibility, specialization, and innovation.  

         Economists have identified nine key trends (see chart) that will  
         most influence the U.S. and California economies.  Several of these  
         trends place new and demanding challenges on California's training  
         and workforce system.




        --------------------------------------------------------------- 
       | |    Key Economic Trends Affecting the California Economy     |
       |-+-------------------------------------------------------------|
       |1|Cities and regions will become more dominant economic        |
       | |players.                                                     |
       | |                                                             |
       | |                                                             |
       |-+-------------------------------------------------------------|
       |2|Global networks will be supported through more advanced      |
       | |information and transportation technologies.                 |
       | |                                                             |
       | |                                                             |
       |-+-------------------------------------------------------------|
       |3|Barriers to trade will continue to decline among both        |
       | |developed and emerging economies.                            |
       | |                                                             |
       | |                                                             |
       |-+-------------------------------------------------------------|








                                                                        AJR 46


                                                                       Page  9





       |4|The world's largest companies will increasingly be           |
       | |headquartered in emerging foreign markets.                   |
       | |                                                             |
       | |                                                             |
       |-+-------------------------------------------------------------|
       |5|Global and more diversified markets will provide new         |
       | |opportunities for entrepreneurs and smaller size businesses. |
       | |                                                             |
       | |                                                             |
       |-+-------------------------------------------------------------|
       |6|Scarcity and rising prices will increase pressure on the     |
       | |development and deployment of cleaner technologies.          |
       | |                                                             |
       | |                                                             |
       |-+-------------------------------------------------------------|
       |7|Deepening income inequality will result in costly outcomes,  |
       | |most adversely affecting women, minorities, immigrants, the  |
       | |disabled, and the formerly incarcerated, and thus require    |
       | |the diversion of public resources to address unemployment,   |
       | |poverty, and social unrest.                                  |
       | |                                                             |
       | |                                                             |
       |-+-------------------------------------------------------------|
       |8|The retirement of Boomers will place an even greater need    |
       | |for middle- and high-skilled workers.                        |
       | |                                                             |
       | |                                                             |
       |-+-------------------------------------------------------------|
       |9|The U.S workforce will be smaller, more ethnically           |
       | |diversified, and have educational backgrounds that are lower |
       | |than many other developed economies.                         |
       | |                                                             |
       | |                                                             |
        --------------------------------------------------------------- 
        --------------------------------------------------------------- 
       |  Source:  Researched and compiled from various sources by the |
       |     Assembly Committee on Jobs, Economic Development, and the |
       |                                                        Economy|
       |                                                               |








                                                                        AJR 46


                                                                       Page  10





       |                                                               |
        --------------------------------------------------------------- 
         Advances in information technology, advanced manufacturing, complex  
         logistical networks, and the need to have more environmentally  
         sustainable products are just a few of the new workforce realities.  
         Even entry-level workers will be expected to have important soft  
         skills, such as the ability to work in teams, actively listen,  
         communicate effectively with co-workers and bosses, and be able to  
         negotiate workplace needs in a positive manner.  Unlike hard skills,  
         which are about a person's ability to perform a certain task or  
         activity, soft skills provide the tools necessary to learn and  
         advance in the state's continually evolving workplace environment.

         The modern economy has also given rise to a growing need for smaller  
         businesses because of their ability to provide innovative  
         technologies and help other businesses access global markets.  While  
         vital economic players, small businesses and entrepreneurs face  
         unique challenges in competing in an increasingly global and  
         interconnected marketplace.  Programs and services which may have  
         been designed to serve large companies may need to be retooled to  
         better serve the nearly 90% of businesses that have less than 20  
         employees.  These small and adaptable businesses will have an  
         inherent advantage in the post-recession economy, provided they are  
         able to obtain the skillsets necessary to run a successful business  
         and have access to appropriately trained workers. 

         Another key economic trend is the rising importance of regional  
         economies as one of the primary drivers of economic growth.  The  
         economic foundation of many strong regional economies are  
         innovation-based industry clusters which have the ability to support  
         high-paying jobs, lucrative career ladders, and longer term job  
         stability.  Economic researchers have shown that industry clusters  
         rise in areas where local universities, research labs, and competing  
         businesses within the same industry provide a critical mass of  
         skilled workers.  Though the economic composition of regions may  
         differ in California, each region has strengths and weaknesses.  The  
         effective identification and cultivation of these industry strengths  
         will factor heavily on the future economic success of California's  
         regional economies.








                                                                        AJR 46


                                                                       Page  11






         All these changes are occurring at the same time that California and  
         the U.S. confront the social, cultural, and economic impacts of  
         demographic change.  The U.S. Census Bureau projects that by 2043 a  
         majority of the U.S. population will be comprised of people of  
         color.  In 2014, people of color already the majority in California,  
         Hawaii, New Mexico, and Texas, with another nine states were close  
         to 50%.  The growing diversity within the workforce also represents  
         a significant generational shift of the predominantly white baby  
         boomers rapidly aging-out of workplace.   

         Many of these new market realities are already coming to fruition  
         and, for now, California's workforce is underprepared to meet these  
         demands.  Decades of underinvestment in public education,  
         afterschool programs, and continuing education programs that feed  
         into career pathways to the state's dominant and emerging industry  
         sectors directly threaten the state's competitiveness.  There are  
         still numerous unemployed and underemployed workers in California,  
         while simultaneously, there are businesses reporting that they are  
         unable to find qualified workers to fill empty positions.  Strong  
         early education programs, career technology pathways, accessible  
         higher education, and effective and timely workforce development  
         programs are essential to equipping California workers with the  
         skillsets that are in demand.   

       2)Income Inequality and Disparity in Economic Opportunity:   
         California's overall economic growth and increase in jobs has  
         outpaced the U.S. in general, often ranking the state within the top  
         five states in terms of its economic condition.  This success,  
         however, has not been consistent throughout the state with many  
         regions and certain population groups still experiencing  
         recession-related poor economic conditions.  

         According to the U.S. Census Bureau, California's poverty rate is  
         16.4% as compared to a national rate of 15.6%.  It is estimated that  
         nearly a quarter of California children (22.7%) are living in  
         households with annual incomes below the federal poverty line.   
         Contributing factors to these poverty rates include stagnate wage  
         rates, an increasing concentration of annual income among the  








                                                                        AJR 46


                                                                       Page  12





         highest income individuals, and differing job opportunities in the  
         post-recession economy.  

         A review of the most recent unemployment numbers (chart below)  
         illustrates this expanding pattern of economic disparity between  
         regions and population groups in California.  




          ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
         |   California Unemployment June 2016 (not seasonally adjusted)   |
          ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
         |----------------+---------------+-+--------------+---------------|
         |   Employment   | Unemployment  | |  Employment  | Unemployment  |
         |    Category    |     Rate      | |   Category   |     Rate      |
         |----------------+---------------+-+--------------+---------------|
         |California      |     5.7%      | |California    |     5.7%      |
         |----------------+---------------+-+--------------+---------------|
         |Colusa County   |     13.7%     | |Blacks        |     9.8%      |
         |----------------+---------------+-+--------------+---------------|
         |Imperial County |     23.7%     | |Hispanics     |     7.0%      |
         |----------------+---------------+-+--------------+---------------|
         |Los Angeles     |     5.2%      | |Whites        |     5.5%      |
         |County          |               | |              |               |
         |----------------+---------------+-+--------------+---------------|
         |Orange County   |     4.4%      | |16 to 19      |     18.8%     |
         |                |               | |years olds    |               |
         |----------------+---------------+-+--------------+---------------|
         |Riverside       |     6.7%      | |20 to 24      |     9.6%      |
         |County          |               | |years olds    |               |
         |----------------+---------------+-+--------------+---------------|
         |San Bernardino  |     6.4%      | |Blacks 20 to  |     14.9%     |
         |County          |               | |24 years old  |               |
         |----------------+---------------+-+--------------+---------------|
         |San Mateo       |     3.3%      | |Hispanics 20  |     9.8%      |
         |County          |               | |to 24 years   |               |
         |                |               | |olds          |               |
          ----------------------------------------------------------------- 








                                                                        AJR 46


                                                                       Page  13





          ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
         |Tulare County   |     10.8%     | |Source:  California           |
         |                |               | |Employment Development        |
         |                |               | |Department                    |
         |----------------+---------------+-+------------------------------|
         |Ventura County  |     5.4%      | |                              |
         |                |               | |                              |
         |                |               | |                              |
         |                |               | |                              |
          ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
                                                                         


         While the state's unemployment rate for June 2016 (not seasonally  
         adjusted) was 5.7%, some areas of the state had lower rates, while  
         others were considerably higher.  San Mateo County recorded the  
         lowest at 3.3% and Imperial County experienced the highest  
         unemployment rate at 23.7%.  Inland areas generally reported  
         unemployment rates above the statewide average.  As the chart above  
         shows, Tulare County's unemployment rate was 10.8% and Riverside  
         County was recorded as 6.7%.  Coastal areas overall had lower rates  
         than the state average, with Orange County at 4.4%, and Ventura  
         County at 5.4%.  Even densely populated and economically diverse  
         areas like Los Angeles County reported a June 2016 unemployment rate  
         of 5.2%. 

         Looking more specifically at different population groups, the chart  
         also shows the great discrepancies between the statewide rate and  
         key subgroups, including unemployment among Blacks and Hispanics  
         being 9.8% and 7.0% respectively.  For the youngest members of the  
         workforce obtaining quality jobs remains a significant issue with  
         unemployment among 16 to 24 year olds being well above the state  
         average, ranging from 9.5% to 18.8%.  In other words, one-in-five of  
         California's next generation of workers is unemployed.  

         Also worth noting is that the unemployment numbers most commonly  
         reported are based on the total number of unemployed individuals  
         that are estimated to be actively seeking work within a specified  
         survey period, also referred to as the U3 definition. Using a  








                                                                        AJR 46


                                                                       Page  14





         broader U.S. Department of Labor definition of unemployment (U6),  
         includes all unemployed individuals of the labor force, in addition  
         to marginally attached workers and involuntary part time workers;  
         California's unemployment rate for May 2016 shifts from 5.6% to  
         11.9%. Given that there are over 3 million unemployed workers that  
         not counted under the U3 definition, discouraged workers, who are  
         eligible to work but are not working, have become an increasingly  
         important public policy issue. 

         Just as the unemployment data shows the growing economic disparities  
         by geography, race/ethnicity, and age, research also confirms that a  
         greater percentage of total aggregate earnings are going to a  
         smaller group of individuals.  According to the World Top Income  
         Database, pretax income among those with the highest 1% of income in  
         California comprised 9.82% of total income in 1980 and 25.31% in  
         2013.  These findings could signal a larger issue about limits on  
         the state's long-term economic growth.  A growing body of economic  
         studies show that large-scale income disparities correlate to  
         shorter periods of economic growth, whereas societies with lower  
         levels of income disparity have larger and longer-term periods of  
         growth.  



       3)Creating On-Ramps to Success:  WIOA represents the most significant  
         shift in federal workforce policy in several decades.  Among other  
         requirements, WIOA mandates that the state develop a plan for making  
         workforce investments, set goals, and report on their progress.  
         Future federal funding is dependent on the state meeting certain  
         plan-specific and national performance measures.  



         California's Unified Strategic Workforce Development Plan (State  
         Plan) outlines a comprehensive four-year strategy for investing  
         federal workforce training and employment service dollars in a  
         manner that aligns and coordinates six core WIOA funded programs.   
         The state goal (2017 through 2027) is to produce one million  
         "middle-skill" industry valued and recognized postsecondary  








                                                                        AJR 46


                                                                       Page  15





         credentials.  In meeting this goal, the State Plan anticipates  
         doubling the number of people enrolled in apprenticeship programs.





         Achieving these goals will be challenging due to the significant  
         number of California workers who are not currently ready to take on  
         middle-skill training.  In 2012, there were 1.9 million unfilled  
         middle skill jobs.  This number is expected to grow as one-third of  
         middle skill workers retire over the next ten years.  This  
         middle-skill job gap is global, making workforce a competitive  
         advantage for states and regions that are capable of providing and  
         maintaining this important human resource. 





         Some of those who are least ready to begin middle-skill training are  
         individuals who have historically based barriers to employment,  
         including, but are not limited to, veterans, unskilled and  
         low-skilled workers, out-of-school youth, foster youth, long-term  
         unemployed, individuals with developmental and other disabilities,  
         formerly incarcerated individuals, farmworkers, and other  
         economically disadvantaged individuals.  Local workforce boards are  
         developing strategies to address these challenges, but significant  
         funding is needed and author is concerned that the current state  
         allocation formula is insufficient to meet the need.





       4)Funding under the WIOA Formula:  Unemployment rates play a  
         significant role in WIOA state allotments, especially in Parts One  
         and Two. The three-part formula applies to WIOA Youth, Adult, and  
         Dislocated Worker programs, as follows:








                                                                        AJR 46


                                                                       Page  16








              Part One:  A comparison of the relative number of unemployed  
            individuals in areas with unemployment over 6.5% to that of all  
            states;



              Part Two:  A comparison of the relative number of excess  
            unemployed individuals (over 4.5%) in the state, as compared to  
            the total excess unemployed in all states;



              Part Three:  A comparison of the number of disadvantaged  
            individuals in the state to the total number in all states.



         Funding for the three programs is substantially the same under the  
         Workforce Investment Act, the previous workforce development law,  
         and WIOA.  Funding level do change between years based on total  
         funding available and the underlying employment conditions within  
         states, as compared to other states. Over the past few years,  
         California's comparative funding allotment has been increasing,  
         while other states like Colorado and Pennsylvania have had  
         measurable drops.  This trend continued in federal fiscal year 2016  
         allocations.  The chart below shows a comparison of select states by  
         funding stream.  








          --------------------------------------------------------------------- 








                                                                        AJR 46


                                                                       Page  17





         |       Comparison of State WIOA Allocations 2014 through 2016        |
         |                                                                     |
         |                                                                     |
          --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
         |--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
         |              |   Percent    |   Percent    |   Percent    |   Percent    |   Percent    |   Percent    |
         |              |  Change in   |  Change in   |  Change in   |  Change in   |  Change in   |  Change in   |
         |              |    Youth     |    Youth     |    Adult     |    Adult     |  Dislocated  |  Dislocated  |
         |              |  Allotments  |  Allotments  |  Allotments  |  Allotments  |   Workers    |   Workers    |
         |              | 2014 to 2015 | 2015 to 2016 | 2014 to 2015 | 2015 to 2016 |  Allotments  |  Allotments  |
         |              |              |              |              |              | 2014 to 2015 | 2015 to 2016 |
         |              |              |              |              |              |              |              |
         |              |              |              |              |              |              |              |
         |--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
         |Arkansas      |    12.92     |     1.89     |    12.73     |     1.85     |     3.04     |    -3.66     |
         |              |              |              |              |              |              |              |
         |              |              |              |              |              |              |              |
         |--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
         |California    |     1.33     |     6.69     |     1.25     |     6.60     |     4.25     |     3.40     |
         |              |              |              |              |              |              |              |
         |              |              |              |              |              |              |              |
         |--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
         |Colorado      |    -4.67     |     5.51     |    -4.85     |    -5.51     |    -13.91    |    -9.54     |
         |              |              |              |              |              |              |              |
         |              |              |              |              |              |              |              |
         |--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
         |Minnesota     |    -8.74     |     5.51     |    -8.75     |     5.51     |    -11.85    |     9.54     |
         |              |              |              |              |              |              |              |
         |              |              |              |              |              |              |              |
         |              |              |              |              |              |              |              |
         |              |              |              |              |              |              |              |
         |              |              |              |              |              |              |              |
         |--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
         |New Mexico    |    13.49     |    17.48     |    13.19     |    17.21     |    29.17     |    18.61     |
         |              |              |              |              |              |              |              |
         |              |              |              |              |              |              |              |
         |--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
         |New York      |     0.22     |     3.60     |     0.16     |     3.56     |     2.49     |     9.54     |
         |              |              |              |              |              |              |              |








                                                                        AJR 46


                                                                       Page  18





         |              |              |              |              |              |              |              |
         |--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
         |Pennsylvania  |    -7.54     |     4.30     |    -7.91     |     4.72     |    -13.72    |     1.60     |
         |              |              |              |              |              |              |              |
         |              |              |              |              |              |              |              |
         |--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
         |Texas         |     4.61     |     5.51     |     4.51     |     5.51     |    -4.13     |     9.54     |
         |              |              |              |              |              |              |              |
         |              |              |              |              |              |              |              |
          -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
          --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
         |       Source:  U.S. Department of Labor  Advisory 4/27/2015/Federal |
         |                                                  Register 04/18/2016|
         |                                                                     |
         |                                                                     |
         |                                                                     |
         |                                                                     |
         |                                                                     |
          --------------------------------------------------------------------- 



         The funding formula also results in changes in allotments between  
         local board allotments.  The California Workforce Association  
         evaluated the differences between the 2015 and 2016 local  
         allotments.  The chart below displays the aggregated numbers for the  
         Youth, Adult, and Dislocated Worker funding.





                                          


          -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
         |    Workforce     |     Total      | |   Workforce    |    Total    |
         |   Development    |   Difference   | |  Development   | Difference  |
         |      Boards      |Between federal | |     Boards     |   Between   |








                                                                        AJR 46


                                                                       Page  19





         |                  |funding in 2015 | |                |   federal   |
         |                  |    and 2016    | |                | funding in  |
         |                  |                | |                |  2015 and   |
         |                  |                | |                |    2016     |
         |                  |                | |                |             |
         |                  |                | |                |             |
         |------------------+----------------+-+----------------+-------------|
         |Alameda           |     -1.99%     | |Marin           |   -7.05%    |
         |                  |                | |                |             |
         |                  |                | |                |             |
         |------------------+----------------+-+----------------+-------------|
         |Anaheim City      |     -4.85%     | |Mendocino       |   -2.41%    |
         |                  |                | |                |             |
         |                  |                | |                |             |
         |------------------+----------------+-+----------------+-------------|
         |Contra Costa      |     -4.35%     | |Merced          |    5.63%    |
         |                  |                | |                |             |
         |                  |                | |                |             |
         |------------------+----------------+-+----------------+-------------|
         |Foothill          |     8.64%      | |Monterey        |    4.23%    |
         |(Pasadena)        |                | |                |             |
         |                  |                | |                |             |
         |                  |                | |                |             |
         |------------------+----------------+-+----------------+-------------|
         |Fresno            |     4.96%      | |Mother Lode     |   -5.57%    |
         |                  |                | |                |             |
         |                  |                | |                |             |
         |------------------+----------------+-+----------------+-------------|
         |Golden Sierra     |     -7.21%     | |Napa-Lake       |   -5.13%    |
         |(Placer, El       |                | |                |             |
         |Dorado, Alpine)   |                | |                |             |
         |                  |                | |                |             |
         |                  |                | |                |             |
         |------------------+----------------+-+----------------+-------------|
         |Humboldt          |     -6.61%     | |NCC (4 Counties |    1.90%    |
         |                  |                | |North of Sac)   |             |
         |                  |                | |                |             |
         |                  |                | |                |             |
         |------------------+----------------+-+----------------+-------------|








                                                                        AJR 46


                                                                       Page  20





         |Imperial          |     17.59%     | |NoRTEC (11      |   -2.56%    |
         |                  |                | |Northern        |             |
         |                  |                | |Counties)       |             |
         |                  |                | |                |             |
         |                  |                | |                |             |
         |------------------+----------------+-+----------------+-------------|
         |Kern, Inyo, Mono  |     7.39%      | |NOVA            |   120.53%   |
         |                  |                | |(Sunnyvale)     |             |
         |                  |                | |                |             |
         |                  |                | |                |             |
         |------------------+----------------+-+----------------+-------------|
         |Kings             |     2.80%      | |Oakland City    |   -9.13%    |
         |                  |                | |                |             |
         |                  |                | |                |             |
         |------------------+----------------+-+----------------+-------------|
         |Los Angeles City  |     0.14%      | |Orange          |   -5.70%    |
         |                  |                | |                |             |
         |                  |                | |                |             |
         |------------------+----------------+-+----------------+-------------|
         |Los Angeles       |     1.44%      | |Pacific Gateway |    2.93%    |
         |County            |                | |(Long Beach)    |             |
         |                  |                | |                |             |
         |                  |                | |                |             |
         |------------------+----------------+-+----------------+-------------|
         |Madera            |     7.57%      | |Richmond City   |   -10.20%   |
         |                  |                | |                |             |
         |                  |                | |                |             |
         |------------------+----------------+-+----------------+-------------|
         |Riverside         |     -3.29%     | |Santa Barbara   |   -0.73%    |
         |                  |                | |                |             |
         |                  |                | |                |             |
         |------------------+----------------+-+----------------+-------------|
         |Sacramento        |     -4.44%     | |Santa Cruz      |    2.61%    |
         |                  |                | |                |             |
         |                  |                | |                |             |
         |------------------+----------------+-+----------------+-------------|
         |San Benito        |     1.50%      | |SELACO          |    2.36%    |
         |                  |                | |                |             |
         |                  |                | |                |             |








                                                                        AJR 46


                                                                       Page  21





         |------------------+----------------+-+----------------+-------------|
         |San Bernardino    |     -7.52%     | |Solano          |   -3.87%    |
         |City              |                | |                |             |
         |                  |                | |                |             |
         |                  |                | |                |             |
         |------------------+----------------+-+----------------+-------------|
         |San Bernardino    |     -4.28%     | |Sonoma          |   -6.69%    |
         |County            |                | |                |             |
         |                  |                | |                |             |
         |                  |                | |                |             |
         |------------------+----------------+-+----------------+-------------|
         |San Diego         |     -6.00%     | |South Bay - LA  |    3.71%    |
         |                  |                | |                |             |
         |                  |                | |                |             |
         |------------------+----------------+-+----------------+-------------|
         |San Francisco     |     -7.03%     | |Stanislaus      |    1.89%    |
         |                  |                | |                |             |
         |                  |                | |                |             |
         |------------------+----------------+-+----------------+-------------|
         |San Joaquin       |     0.35%      | |Tulare          |    7.54%    |
         |                  |                | |                |             |
         |                  |                | |                |             |
         |------------------+----------------+-+----------------+-------------|
         |San Jose -        |     -7.34%     | |Ventura         |   -2.80%    |
         |Silicon Valley    |                | |                |             |
         |                  |                | |                |             |
         |                  |                | |                |             |
         |------------------+----------------+-+----------------+-------------|
         |San Luis Obispo   |     -6.24%     | |Verdugo         |    2.87%    |
         |                  |                | |                |             |
         |                  |                | |                |             |
         |------------------+----------------+-+----------------+-------------|
         |San Mateo         |    -100.00%    | |Yolo            |   -1.85%    |
         |                  |                | |                |             |
         |                  |                | |                |             |
         |------------------+----------------+-+----------------+-------------|
         |Santa Ana City    |     -9.89%     | |                |             |
         |                  |                | |                |             |
         |                  |                | |                |             |








                                                                        AJR 46


                                                                       Page  22





          -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
         


         Federal funding formulas can be challenging to adjust.  The  
         Committee and the author may wish to further clarify the purpose of  
         the proposed change in order to ensure that California is advocating  
         for more overall statewide funding and that this does not result in  
         individual areas of the state receiving less funding.





       1)Amendments:  Staff understands the author will offer amendments to  
         clarify that the provisions of this bill are designed to gain more  
         money for California communities and are not intended to suggest a  
         re-arrangement of existing funds.  Staff recommends that the author  
         clarify which of the state funding allotments are included within  
         the recommendation and whether the recommendation applies to part  
         one, two, or three of the funding formulas described under Federal  
         Existing Law Number 2.



       2)Related Legislation:  Below is a list of the related bills.



          a)   AB 80 (Campos) Interagency Task Force on the Status of Boys  
            and Men of Color:  This bill would have established a 20-member  
            Interagency Task Force on the Status of Boys and Men of Color.  
            Issues to be addressed by the Task Force would include, but not  
            be limited to, employment and wealth creation, health and safety,  
            education, and juvenile justice.  Status:  Vetoed by the  
            Governor, 2015.  Governor's Veto Message: How state policy can be  
            tailored to promote the well-being of boys and men of color is  
                                         profoundly important.  These issues, however, are best addressed  
            through concrete actions, not another non-binding commission.   








                                                                        AJR 46


                                                                       Page  23





            The Legislature and the Administration are working on the  
            critical issues raised by this bill, such as the Local Control  
            Funding Formula, healthcare expansion and criminal justice  
            reform.  Much more can be done, and I am committed to advancing  
            this work.



          b)   AB 288 (Holden) College and Career Pathways:  This bill  
            authorizes the governing board of a community college district to  
            enter into a College and Career Access Pathways (CCAP)  
            partnership with the governing board of a school district within  
            its immediate service area, as specified, to offer or expand dual  
            enrollment opportunities for students who may not already be  
            college bound or who are underrepresented in higher education.   
            The goal of the agreements is to develop seamless pathways for  
            students from high school to community college for  
            career-technical education or preparation for transfer, improve  
            high school graduation rates, or help high school pupils achieve  
            college and career readiness.  The bill includes specific  
            conditions which must be met prior to the adoption of such an  
            agreement.  The authority in this measure sunsets on January 1,  
            2022.  Status:  Signed by the Governor, Chapter 618, Statutes of  
            2015.



          c)   AB 1270 (E. Garcia) California Workforce Innovation and  
            Opportunity Act:  This bill aligns California statute with the  
            new requirements of the federal Workforce Innovation and  
            Opportunity Act of 2014.  Status:  Signed by the Governor,  
            Chapter 94, Statutes of 2015.



          d)   AB 2642 (E. Garcia, C. Garcia, Eggman, Gomez) Barriers to  
            Employment:  This bill would have established the Breaking  
            Barriers to Employment Initiative for the purpose of assisting  
            individuals who have multiple barriers to employment to receive  








                                                                        AJR 46


                                                                       Page  24





            the remedial education and work readiness skills that will help  
            them to successfully participate in training, apprenticeship, or  
            employment opportunities that will lead to self-sufficiency and  
            economic stability.  Status:  Held in the Assembly Committee on  
            Appropriations, 2016. 



       REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:




       Support


       City of Oakland




       Opposition


       None Received




       Analysis Prepared by:Toni Symonds / J., E.D., & E. / (916) 319-2090

















                                                                        AJR 46


                                                                       Page  25