Thanks to the Illinois child welfare system.

July 11, 2017 § Leave a comment

Lawsuit Reveals Child Welfare’s Assault on Battered Mothers, Their Children

Print More

richard wexlerFor a mother of two daughters in Will County, Illinois, known in legal papers as Kelly, the morning of May 1 began with her being thrown against a wall so hard she saw stars. When she looked up, she saw the man who did that to her — the father of her children — holding a gun and threatening to use it. Then the father took one of the children and fled. Kelly was terrified the father would hurt her child.

But, as is documented in a civil rights lawsuit filed by the Family Defense Center in Chicago, that was just the start of a nightmare that has not ended — thanks to the Illinois child welfare system.

Someone — Kelly doesn’t know who and probably never will — called the Illinois child abuse hotline. Even though the father is facing criminal charges and even though Kelly has primary legal custody of the children, caseworkers for the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services apparently leaped to the conclusion that, somehow, all this was Kelly’s fault. They coerced her into letting them put both children with the alleged abuser’s parents. A private agency now oversees the case. The alleged abuser has liberal contact with his children while Kelly hasn’t had a visit with them for a month.

Meanwhile, caseworkers are forcing Kelly to jump through all the usual hoops, including a “mental health assessment” and “anger management.” (Remember, she’s not the one who threw someone against a wall, she’s not the one who pulled out a gun, and she’s not the one facing criminal charges.)

Then, according to the complaint, in what may be the single most candid statement ever uttered by a child welfare worker, a caseworker for the private agency explained how the system really works: The case, she explained, is a “maze.” Like mice in a cruel lab experiment, both parents are at the “beginning of the maze.” The children are at “the end of the maze.” She then said that “whichever parent finished his or her services first” wins — that is, he or she would get the children.

By now some may be wondering “where are the courts — aren’t they supposed to approve all this?” But child welfare agencies have ways around pesky nuisances like due process of law. In this case, they effectively blackmailed Kelly into giving up what few rights she had. They told her that unless she agreed to a so-called “safety plan” in which the children were placed “voluntarily” with the abuser’s parents, she’d have no contact of any kind with her children.

There is nothing to suggest this case is unusual. In an almost identical case last year, Illinois reached a settlement agreement to curb the abuse of “safety plans.” They violated the agreement and have yet to adopt the policies they promised to follow.

And Illinois is not alone in blaming mothers for being beaten.

In Utah, a legislative audit report found that children “witnessing domestic violence” is the single largest category for so-called “substantiated” maltreatment.

In New York City the practice of tearing children from their mothers just because the mothers had been beaten was largely ended only after a settlement that followed a federal judge’s scathing 183-page decision in a class-action lawsuit. (My organization’s vice president was co-counsel for the plaintiffs.)

As the decision explains, the lead plaintiff in that case, Sharwline Nicholson was beaten mercilessly by a boyfriend when she decided to break off the relationship.

But even as she was bleeding profusely, suffering from a broken arm, broken ribs and gashes to her head, as she called 911 and waited for an ambulance to take her to a hospital, she arranged for a neighbor to care for her children.

But that wasn’t enough for the city’s child protective services agency. As Nicholson lay in her hospital bed, CPS took the children from the babysitter and threw them into foster care with strangers — where one of the children was abused. Nicholson was charged with “engaging in domestic violence” — presumably by throwing her body into her abuser’s fists.

“It reached the point where I said ‘Oh, why did I call 911,’” Nicholson said.

Cases like this keep happening because of the child welfare system’s penchant for embracing fads — and for always blaming parents, especially mothers, for anything that happens to children.

So a study reports the obvious: Witnessing domestic violence can be emotionally harmful to children. Instead of embracing the obvious solution — arrest the batterer and put him in jail — child protective services rushes to blame the victim — and tear apart the family.

As usually happens when child protective services takes a swing at “bad mothers,” the blow lands on the children. As a succession of experts testified in the Nicholson case, while witnessing domestic violence may indeed be harmful to children, tearing those children from the victim of that violence is far, far worse. One expert called it “tantamount to pouring salt into an open wound.”

Fortunately, the New York City child welfare agency has largely abided by the settlement. And the New York State Court of Appeals effectively extended it statewide.

But that leaves 49 states where battered mothers have to think twice about seeking help — because of what the “helpers” might do to their children. That’s 49 states, where practice in these kinds of cases can boil down to “please pass the salt.”

Richard Wexler is executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform.


Unjust Enrichment

July 11, 2017 § Leave a comment

Unjust Enrichment: An Alternative Cause of Action When There is Not a Written Contract Between the Parties

By: Jennifer Burt Tee

February 19, 2015

What if you did not enter into a written contract with another party, but you gave funds, services, or some other interest to the party and the other party fails to give you anything in return?  If there is no written contract between you and the other party, it may be difficult to prove that the other party breached the contract. However, you may be able to recover under the theory of unjust enrichment.

The theory of unjust enrichment is based on a contract implied in law. People ex rel. Hartigan v. E & E Hauling, Inc., 153 Ill. 2d 473, 497, 607 N.E. 2d 165, 177 (Ill. 1992). To prevail on the theory of unjust enrichment, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant has unjustly retained a benefit to the plaintiff’s detriment, and that defendant’s retention of the benefit violates the fundamental principles of justice, equity, and good conscience. HPI Care Services, Inc. v. Mt. Vernon Hospital, 131 Ill.2d 145, 160, 545 N.E.2d 672 (Ill. 1989). To recover under this theory, plaintiffs must show that defendant voluntarily accepted a benefit which would be inequitable for him to retain without payment. Id. (citing Premier Electrical Construction Co. v. La Salle National Bank, 132 Ill. App. 3d 485, 496, 477 N.E. 2d 1249).

“Because unjust enrichment is based on an implied contract, where there is a specific contract which governs the relationship of the parties, the doctrine of unjust enrichment has no application.”  Hartigan, 153 Ill.2d 497.  However, in a lawsuit, a plaintiff may plead unjust enrichment “in the alternative” to a breach of contract action.  One of the reasons that a plaintiff may plead unjust enrichment “in the alternative” is that if the contract is deemed unenforceable by the court, the plaintiff may then proceed on his cause of action of unjust enrichment in the absence of an enforceable contract between the parties.

Illinois workforce innovation and opportunity – 2016-2020

May 6, 2017 § Leave a comment

some info open link for getting ed monies?

(JULY 1, 2016-JUNE 30, 2020)

Chapter 1: Executive Summary ……………………………………………………………………………….. 1 Chapter 2: Economic and Workforce Analysis …………………………………………………………… 4 Chapter 3: Illinois Workforce System ……………………………………………………………………….. 24 Chapter 4: State Vision, Principles, Goals and Strategies …………………………………………….. 30 Chapter 5: State Board Functions …………………………………………………………………………….. 35 Chapter 6: Performance Goals, Assessment and Evaluation………………………………………… 36 Chapter 7: Implementation of State Strategy…………………………………………………………….. 39 Chapter 8: Core Program Administration ………………………………………………………………….. 47 Chapter 9: Operating Systems and Policies ……………………………………………………………….. 61 Chapter 10: Assurances ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 68 Appendices and Attachments ………………………………………………………………………………….. 70
The Illinois Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Unified State Plan is designed to provide a vision of the Governor’s integration of workforce, education and economic development policy while also serving as a federal compliance document for the United States Departments of Labor and Education under the federal Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA). The Unified State Plan outlines the vision, principles and goals for the integration of workforce, education and economic development programs for the State of Illinois (state).
State Workforce System: The Governor, State Workforce Innovation Board and WIOA core partners including the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity (Commerce), the Illinois Department of Employment Security (Employment Security), the Illinois Department of Human Services Division of Vocational Rehabilitation (Vocational Rehabilitation) and the Illinois Community College Board (ICCB) determined that the state will submit a Unified State Plan. The state has developed this Unified State Plan with the intent to integrate the programs listed below (including the non-core programs) into the strategies outlined in the Unified State Plan.
• Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity
o Youth,AdultandDislocatedWorkerPrograms
o EmploymentandTrainingundertheCommunityServicesBlockGrantProgram o TradeActPrograms
o RegionalEconomicDevelopment
• Illinois Community College Board
o AdultEducationandFamilyLiteracyAct
o Career and Technical Education Programs at the postsecondary level authorized under the
Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act of 2006
• Illinois Department of Employment Security
o Wagner-PeyserEmploymentServicesincludingLaborMarketInformation o MigrantSeasonalFarmworkersMonitorAdvocateSystem
o VeteransEmploymentandTrainingServices
o UnemploymentInsuranceServices
o TradeAdjustmentAssistance
• Illinois Department of Human Services
o RehabilitationServicesforIndividualswithDisabilities
o TemporaryAssistanceforNeedyFamilies
• Illinois Department on Aging
o SeniorCommunityServicesEmploymentProgram
• Illinois Department of Corrections
o Section212oftheSecondChanceActof2007
• Nationally Directed – Locally Administered Programs
o NationalFarmworkerJobsProgram o YouthBuild
o JobCorps
Vision Statement: Promote business-driven talent solutions that integrate education, workforce and economic development resources across systems to provide businesses, individuals, and communities with the opportunity to prosper and contribute to growing the state’s economy.
Guiding Principles: Illinois will work toward achieving the vision using these principles as guideposts for policy development and program service delivery. Each partner will use its resources to support the following principles:
• Business demand driven orientation through a sector strategy framework
• Strong partnerships with business at all levels
• Career pathways to jobs of today and tomorrow
• Integrated service delivery
• Access and opportunity for all populations
• Cross-agency collaboration and alignment for developing and/or promoting career pathways and
industry recognized stackable credentials
• Clear metrics for progress and success
• Focus on continuous improvement and innovation
State Goals: The partners will collectively use the following goals to support Illinois’ vision to align and integrate education, workforce and economic development strategies at the state, regional and local levels to improve the economic growth and competiveness of the state’s employers and their workforce.
• Foster improvement and expansion of employer-driven regional sector partnerships to increase the focus on critical in-demand occupations in key sectors that are the engine of economic growth for the state and its regions.
• Expand career pathway opportunities through more accelerated and work-based training and align and integrate programs of study leading to industry-recognized credentials and improved employment and earnings.
• Expand career services and opportunities for populations facing multiple barriers to close the gap in educational attainment and economic advancement through career pathways and improved career services and expansion of bridge programs.
• Expand information for employers and job seekers to access services by improving the Illinois public- private data infrastructure to support the alignment and integration of economic development, workforce development and education initiatives for supporting sector partnerships and career pathways.
State Strategies and Highlighted Activities: Illinois will explore a variety of strategies for the implementation of these principles and goals with a focus on improving community prosperity through more competitive businesses and workers. These strategies and highlighted activities include:
• Coordinate Demand-Driven Strategic Planning at the State and Regional Levels
o Providing data and tools to support regional planning to align education, workforce and economic development strategies.
o Developing a state and regional cross-agency benchmark report for stakeholders and the public.
• Support Employer-Driven Regional Sector Initiatives
o Conducting outreach to regional and local economic development organizations to improve
regional collaboration in economic development planning.
o Aligning and integrating business and job seeker services among the programs along with state and regional economic development partners.
• Provide Career Pathways for Economic Advancement
o Exploring ways to fully mainstream targeted populations into sector-based career pathway
initiatives to achieve outcomes similar to other populations (see “Targeted Populations” on
page 21).
o Creatingnewpathwaysforsuccessbypreparinglow-skilladultstotakeadvantageofsector-
based bridge programs.
• Coordinate and Enhance Career Services and Case Management
o Establishing case management teams to coordinate and support the delivery of enhanced
case management services to participants across programs.
o Promoting continuous improvement in career services and case management through the
identification of best practice models and incentivizing demonstration projects.
• Expand Access to Labor Market Information
o Improving access to labor market information for employers and job seekers that will allow
them to promote and access job openings, review changing labor market trends, and
identify education and training programs.
o Supporting awareness and adoption of innovative private sector models, such as the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce Talent Pipeline Management Initiative.
• Improve Public-Private Data Infrastructure
o Working with core partners and the State Chief Information Officer to develop a framework
of how to integrate state intake, case management and reporting systems.
o Expanding and improving the state education and workforce longitudinal data system to
support the six strategies.
Stakeholder Collaboration and Comment
The State of Illinois Workforce Innovation Board (IWIB) is responsible for overseeing the development, implementation and modification of the Unified State Plan and for convening all relevant programs, required partners and stakeholders. The state agencies responsible for the administration of the core and required programs have reviewed and commented on appropriate operational planning portion of the Unified State Plan. Illinois’ Unified State Plan was released for public comment on January 25, 2016 to allow interested stakeholders to participate in the development of the plan. The comments to the Unified State Plan can be viewed in Attachment A.
Illinois’ Unified State Plan is structured around the operational and strategic elements that are required by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act State Plan Requirements.1 To ensure compliance with the federal planning requirements, some content contained in Illinois’ Unified State Plan is included in multiple chapters, appendices and attachments. Chapters 2 through 5 summarize the data analysis and strategic elements of the Unified State Plan.
The Illinois Department of Employment Security houses the state’s labor market economists and provides data and information to support state, regional, and local workforce and economic development initiatives. The state established an interagency data team with representatives from the core program partners including Employment Security, Commerce, ICCB and Vocational Rehabilitation to establish the framework for the data that is used in the Economic and Workforce Analysis. Illinois is looking to formalize the relationship of the interagency data team so that it serves as an ongoing resource, extending beyond the development of the Unified State Plan and supporting the implementation of the state, regional and local plans.
The economic and workforce analysis presented in this chapter highlight data that is publicly available and analysis that replicable. The state encourages regional and local partners to regularly and systemically analyze and validate complementary data through various forms of business engagement. The long-term goal is to develop the most robust data collection possible so that supply and demand projections benefit from as near to real-time information as possible.
Economic and Workforce Analysis
Three of the most important economic benchmarks used by Illinois to both understand our economic position and to evaluate the effectiveness of our efforts to improve that position, are overall economic production, employment and earnings. Examining these three indicators across the past ten years provides an uncommonly stark description of Illinois’ experience before, across and since the “Great Recession” during the final years of the first decade of the 21st century.
The main narrative told by the numbers in Table 1 is that Illinois was struck hard by the economic downturn – harder than the nation overall, but not as hard as our fellow states in the Great Lakes region (IL, IN, MI, OH and WI). Our overall Gross Domestic Product (GDP) grew by an infinitesimal six-tenths of one percent from 2004-2009. But even that far surpassed our neighbors, whose combined economies shrank by nearly five percent. Similar stories are told by changes in employment and earnings from 2004 to 2009. Illinois gained only a handful of jobs – much less than the nation as a whole, but still ahead of the Great Lakes region overall. The story since 2009 has been one of a lagging recovery for Illinois. While we have seen increases in all three of these measures, Illinois has trailed the region in the pace of those increases (see Table 1).
1 See Office of Management and Budget Control Number 1205-0522
Table 1: Illinois vs. Benchmark States vs. Nation:
Change in GDP, Employment and Earnings over Last 10 years
Great Lakes Region*
Great Lakes Region*
* Defined by the US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis to include: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin
Gross Domestic Product: Bureau of Economic Analysis Real GDP by State (millions of chained 2009 dollars)
Employment: Haver Analytics, Bureau of Labor Statistics
Earnings: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Compensation of Employees by NAICS Industry (Table SA6N), wage and salary data
The situation described by these numbers provides the setting for planning the implementation of WIOA. The challenge for Illinois is to utilize WIOA and all of its partner programs to assist the state’s businesses in increasing productivity, employment and earnings throughout the state.
Economic Analysis
Table 2 shows the projected employment demand through 2022 for major industry sectors across Illinois. The largest number of job openings is expected to be created within the business services and health care sectors. Large percentage changes in employment are also expected in wholesale trade and a resurgent construction sector.
Gross Domestic Product
2004 637,828 2,090,863
2009 641,880 1,995,394
2014 680,448 2,187,656
2004 5,934,131 22,027,090
2009 5,935,337 21,140,406
2014 6,071,686 21,852,220
2004 256,671,215 847,365,841
2009 286,828,581 894,538,281
2014 333,471,194 1,055,156,486
Percent Change in Gross Domestic Product
Percent Change in Employment
Percent Change in Earnings
Table 2: Illinois Employment by Major Industry Sector
Base Year Employment 2012
Agricultural Production
Natural Resources and Mining
Utilities 23,809
Share of
Statewide Projected Base Year Year
Employment Employment 2012 2022
Net Change 2012-2022
Percent Location Change Quotient
2012-2022 2012
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Title TOTAL, ALL INDUSTRIES
1.24% 0.16% 0.39% 3.06% 9.45% 4.77% 9.67% 4.44% 1.62% 5.93%
13.96% 9.23% 11.90% 8.69% 4.54% 5.93% 5.01%
76,584 11,695 24,322
215,181 581,655 324,652 632,132 293,395
98,113 392,651 1,020,527 600,804 841,289 580,005 300,240 365,720 319,607
512,336 8.31%
292 0.38% 1,558 15.37% 513 2.15% 26,265 13.90% -1,080 -0.19% 30,291 10.29% 35,739 5.99% 19,860 7.26% -1,905 -1.90% 26,935 7.37% 159,603 18.54% 31,947 5.62% 107,596 14.66% 44,289 8.27% 20,233 7.23% -174 -0.05% 10,374 3.35%
0.85 0.58 1.01 0.79 1.15 1.22 0.95 1.46 0.88 1.11 1.13 1.24 1.02 0.92 1.07 0.39 0.83
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Transportation and Warehousing Information
Financial Activities
Professional and Business Services
Educational Services, Private and Public*
Health Care and Social Assistance
Leisure and Hospitality
Personal and Other Services
Self Employed, Unpaid Family Workers and Others n.e.c.
188,916 582,735 294,361 596,393 273,535 100,018 365,716 860,924 568,857 733,693 535,716 280,007 365,894 309,233
* Location Quotient for “Educational Services, Private and Public” is for 2014
Sources: IL Department of Employment Security Statewide Long-Term Employment Projections, Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity
76,292 10,137
Figure 1 factors in percentage growth and a measure of industry importance in the state (location quotient), with “bubble” size indicating the relative size of the industry.
Figure 1: Bubble Chart Based on Table 2
Sources: IL Department of Employment Security Statewide Long-Term Employment Projections, Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity
Table 3 shows the projected employment demand through 2022 for major occupational sectors throughout Illinois. The largest numbers of new jobs are expected to be created within the transportation and material moving, sales, healthcare, food service, business and financial operations and computer and mathematical occupation sectors. Large numbers of job openings (including replacement jobs) are expected in sales and office and administrative occupations.
Table 3: Illinois Employment by Major Occupational Sector
Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Title TOTAL, ALL OCCUPATIONS
Transportation and Material Moving Occupations Sales and Related Occupations
Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occs
Food Preparation and Serving Occupations Business and Financial Operations Occupations Healthcare Support Occupations
Office and Administrative Support Occupations Construction and Extraction Occupations Computer and Mathematical Occupations Management Occupations
Education, Training and Library Occupations Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maint. Occs Personal Care and Service Occupations Production Occupations
Installation, Maintenance and Repair Occs Protective Service Occupations
Community and Social Services Occupations Arts/Design/Entertainment, Sports/Media Occs Legal Occupations
Architecture and Engineering Occupations Life, Physical and Social Science Occupations Farming, Fishing and Forestry Occupations
Base Year Employment
2012 6,166,236
460,208 636,874 330,411 451,936 315,143 172,031 917,264 220,061 152,628 459,745 410,319 229,563 187,390 445,529 202,930 153,906 102,398
98,826 53,470 83,565 35,102 46,937
Share of Statewide Base Year Employment
2012 100.00%
7.46% 10.33% 5.36% 7.33% 5.11% 2.79% 14.88% 3.57% 2.48% 7.46% 6.65% 3.72% 3.04% 7.23% 3.29% 2.50% 1.66% 1.60% 0.87% 1.36% 0.57% 0.76%
Net Projection Employment
Year Change Employment 2012-2022
Average Annual Job Openings due to
Sources: IL Department of Employment Security Statewide Long-Term Employment Projections, Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity
2022 Number Percent Growth Replacements
Total 199,277
16,441 23,328 10,862 20,618
6,850 25,725 6,733 5,423 12,700 10,966 7,145 6,395 11,987 6,412 4,906 3,235 3,021 1,468 2,502 1,170 1,414
6,678,572 512,336 8.31%
513,176 52,968 11.51% 678,851 41,977 6.59% 371,129 40,718 12.32% 491,629 39,693 8.78% 353,460 38,317 12.16% 207,310 35,279 20.51% 951,675 34,411 3.75% 249,079 29,018 13.19% 181,295 28,667 18.78% 485,377 25,632 5.58% 434,583 24,264 5.91% 253,732 24,169 10.53% 209,960 22,570 12.04% 466,575 21,046 4.72% 220,543 17,613 8.68% 162,477 8,571 5.57% 110,938 8,540 8.34% 105,138 6,312 6.39%
59,545 6,075 11.36% 88,821 5,256 6.29% 36,970 1,868 5.32% 46,309 – 628 -1.34%
55,296 143,981
5,327 11,114 4,220 19,108 4,089 6,773 3,989 16,629 3,872 6,106 3,564 3,286 5,283 20,442 2,905 3,828 2,867 2,556 3,488 9,212 2,437 8,529 2,417 4,728 2,277 4,118 2,945 9,042 1,795 4,617
892 4,014 862 2,373 668 2,353 608 860 559 1,943 194 976
38 1,376
Emerging Demand Industry Sectors and Occupations
Based on the information contained in Table 2 (and displayed in Figure 1), major industry sectors were categorized according to the following methodology:
• LEADING industries are identified as those which are expected to grow during the projection period, and which are important within the state (i.e., have a location quotient greater than 1.0). These industries are found in the upper right hand quadrant of Figure 1.
• EMERGING industries are identified as those that are not strongly represented in the current economy (i.e., have a location quotient that is less than 1.0), but are expected to grow during the projection period. These industries are found in the lower right hand quadrant of Figure 1.
• MATURING industries are identified as those that are important within the state, but are not expected to grow during the projection period. These industries are found in the upper left hand quadrant of Figure 1.
Each of these categories are significant for the economy, for job growth and availability, and are hence important for the planning of WIOA and partner programs during the period of this Unified State Plan. In summary, LEADING industries are those that will likely provide the largest numbers of job openings, due to their combination of size and growth; EMERGING industries are those that are currently small but are quickly gaining in economic importance and job creation; and MATURING industries are those which have slower job growth but still have hefty presences in the economy and will continue to create significant job openings, if only through attrition (e.g., accelerating retirements).
Tables 4, 5 and 6 display the results of categorizing (according to this methodology) the major industries from Table 3. Major industry categories that are not included in one of these categories are now dropped from the analysis.
Table 4: LEADING Major Industry Sectors Statewide
Base Year Employment 2012
Share of Statewide Base Year Employment 2012
Projected Year Employment 2022
Net Change 2012-2022
Ten-Year Percent Change 2012-2022
Location Quotient 2012
Professional and Business Services
Health Care and Social Assistance
Educational Services, Private and Public
Wholesale Trade
Financial Activities
Personal and Other Services
Transportation and Warehousing
Sources: IL Department of Employment Security Statewide Long-Term Employment Projections, Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity
Table 5: EMERGING Major Industry Sectors Statewide
Base Year Employment 2012
Share of Statewide Base Year Employment 2012
Projected Year Employment 2022
Net Change 2012-2022
Ten-Year Percent Change 2012-2022
Location Quotient 2012
Leisure and Hospitality
Retail Trade
Sources: IL Department of Employment Security Statewide Long-Term Employment Projections, Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity
Table 6: MATURING Major Industry Sectors Statewide
Sources: IL Department of Employment Security Statewide Long-Term Employment Projections, Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity
For those major industries that are included, we can drill down the analysis to each of the industry sectors (3-digit NAICS-level industries2) found within these major industry categories. The tables found in Attachment B display the LEADING, EMERGING and MATURING industry sectors within the major industry categories identified in the first step. The regional planning process will utilize the same analytic steps to assist regional teams in identifying LEADING, EMERGING and MATURING industry clusters within each region (see Chapter 7, Activity 1.3 and Attachment O).
Employer’s Employment Needs
Attachment B displays statewide employment projections, from 2012 to 2022, for occupational pathways within the nine STEM clusters and Illinois Pathways. These include:
• Agriculture, food & natural resources
• Architecture & construction
• Energy
• Finance
• Health science
• Information technology
• Manufacturing
• Research & development
• Transportation, distribution & logistics
Base Year Employment 2012
Share of Statewide Base Year Employment 2012
Projected Year Employment 2022
Net Change 2012-2022
Ten-Year Percent Change 2012-2022
Location Quotient 2012
2 North American Industry Classification System –

Prior to the selection of the nine focused STEM clusters, the ICCB adopted the original 16 national career cluster system. The additional clusters include:
• Arts, audiovisual technology & communications
• Business management & administration
• Education & training
• Government & public administration
• Hospitality & tourism
• Human services
• Law, public safety, corrections & security
• Marketing
The regional planning process (described in Chapter 7) will include the development of crosswalks between the detailed (3-digit) industry clusters and the occupational pathways listed above, for each region. The results of this crosswalk will identify occupations related to the detailed industry clusters identified statewide as LEADING, EMERGING and MATURING, which will be integrated into Illinois’ Unified State Plan going forward. At a regional level, the results of this crosswalk will be the starting point for conversations with employers regarding critical occupations within their industries during the complete regional planning process.
Workforce Analysis
Labor Force Size and Demographics
The Illinois labor force in the 25-54 age group has declined almost 200,000 (-4.4%) between 2009 and 2014, according the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey estimates. This is a result of the shrinking population in that age group. Smaller declines occurred in the 16-19 and 20-24 age groups. During that same period the labor force in the 55-64 age group increased over 135,000 (+12.6%). As the overall population gets older, the available labor force in Illinois will likely continue to decline.
Employment and Unemployment
Unemployment rates for the 16-19 age group are much higher than the rate for all ages, but especially high for African-Americans, Hispanics, and the “other” race category. Part of this discrepancy for racial/ethnic groups may be related to living in areas where few appropriate job matches are available. Unemployment rates are lowest among Caucasians for the 16-19, 20-24, and 70+ age groups, while Asians have the lowest rates for the 25-54, 55-64, and 65-69 groupings. Overall, unemployment rates have dropped between 2009 and 2014. This is in line with a stronger overall economy in 2014 relative to 2009.
While unemployment rates for youth (age 16-19) are high, the rates for older workers (65+) have remained low. This is likely a result of many older individuals leaving the labor force after separation from work (voluntarily or involuntarily). Other targeted populations include veterans, single parent families (headed by either a male or female), and the disabled. The unemployment rate for all veterans remains below the rates for the entire population. However, the rate for veterans in the 18-34 age group is significantly higher than the overall state average. This group of veterans is the most likely to have been recently discharged and thus the most likely to still be in transition to civilian employment. Rates for single parent families are high for both male and female heads of households, but especially high for females. Rates for the disabled are higher than any other group except for youth. Attachment C provides additional demographic details regarding the Illinois labor force, employment and unemployment during this period.
Labor Market Trends
Between 2004 and 2014, U.S. employment shifts occurred among industry sectors with a reduction in goods-producing industries in favor of service-producing industries. This shift is a continuation of a long term trend as manufacturing employment has declined due to both strong productivity gains in high- value added industries and offshoring of low-value added production to lower cost economies. Construction employment decreased as a share of total employment in 2014 relative to 2004, when the housing bubble was still in its nascent period. Among goods-producing industries in the U.S., mining and logging was the only sector to show marked improvement between 2004 and 2014 as oil production surged during the period with a greater number of oil-producing states with growth in the fracking industry.
As shown in Table 7, in the Midwest states (IL, IN, IA, KY, MI, MN, MO, OH and WI), none showed significant gains in its industry shares towards mining and logging. Only Kentucky experienced a reduction in employment activity as a share of its industry mix. On the construction front, Midwest states weakened as much as the United States or more, except for Iowa, which ticked up just a bit in its industry mix towards construction.
Table 7: Distribution of Industry Employment in the U.S. and Midwest: Regional Similarities and Differences
Mining and Logging Construction Manufacturing Wholesale Trade Retail Trade
Trans, Warehousing and Utilities Information
Financial Activities
Professional and Business Services Educational and Health Services Leisure and Hospitality
Other Services Government
Decline from 2004 No Change from 2004 Growth from 2004
0.6% 0.2% 4.4% 3.4% 8.8% 9.9%
0.2% 0.1%
4.1% 4.8% 17.0% 14.0%
0.9% 0.2% 0.3%
3.9% 3.4% 3.8% 12.6% 13.8% 11.1% 4.0% 4.0% 4.7% 11.1% 11.0% 10.3% 5.2% 3.1% 3.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.9% 4.8% 4.9% 6.3% 11.3% 14.8% 12.6% 14.0% 15.4% 17.7% 9.8% 9.7% 9.0% 3.4% 4.1% 4.0% 17.4% 14.3% 14.9%
0.1% 0.3% 0.1% 4.0% 3.0% 3.6% 9.4% 12.6% 16.3% 4.4% 4.4% 4.2% 11.1% 10.6% 10.6% 3.6% 3.7% 3.6% 2.1% 1.4% 1.7% 6.0% 5.4% 5.3% 12.9% 13.3% 10.8% 15.9% 16.7% 15.1%
10.4% 9.9% 9.3% 4.2% 3.9% 4.9% 15.8% 14.2% 14.5%
2014 Employment Distribution by Industry as a Share of Total NonFarm Payrolls US IL IN IA KY MI MN MO OH WI
4.2% 11.0% 3.7% 2.0% 5.7% 13.7% 15.4% 10.6% 0.4% 15.7%
5.1% 3.9% 4.5% 10.3% 10.7% 11.6% 4.6% 4.6% 4.2% 1.7% 1.2% 1.7% 6.3% 4.3% 6.7%
15.6% 10.8% 8.8% 15.1% 14.7% 14.4% 9.5% 9.8% 8.9% 4.3% 4.2% 3.8% 14.1% 14.3% 16.5%
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics Program 2004, 2009, 2014
In the Midwest, the real story lies in the manufacturing sector. Midwest manufacturing employment accounts for about one-third of national manufacturing employment. All of the states in the Midwest (as well as the national average) recorded a drop in their share of manufacturing employment as a share of the total industry sector mix. Illinois, Kentucky and Michigan saw roughly the same reduction in their manufacturing employment shares as the nation. Indiana, Ohio and Missouri saw a greater reduction in their manufacturing shares, while Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin saw a smaller reduction in their manufacturing employment share in the 10 years spanning 2004-2014.
It is no surprise that manufacturing employment has declined in the Midwest as well as the United States overall following long-term trends of improved productivity combined with offshoring to low-cost economies. Many people are surprised to learn that the demand for manufacturing employment remains strong due to replacement needs. As baby boomers retire in Illinois, the Midwest and across the nation, employers will need to backfill positions so that manufacturing occupations remain in demand locally and across Illinois. The share of manufacturing employment as a portion of total employment is highest in Indiana and Wisconsin. Iowa, Michigan, Ohio and Kentucky also have a high share of manufacturing employment.
While manufacturing is a key industry in all Midwest states, Illinois’ share is smaller than its neighbors; in fact, Illinois’ share of manufacturing employment is more closely aligned to the national average. However, Illinois is the largest state in the Midwest and, consequently, its actual level of manufacturing employment is larger than each of the other states in the region with the exception of Ohio (based on 2014 data). Demand for manufacturing occupations remains healthy in Illinois and will continue to compete with its neighbors for skilled workers.
Among trade, transportation and utilities, all states (including the national average) saw a reduction of the share of employment in the retail trade sector, and the majority also saw a reduction in wholesale trade (with the exception of Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin). The majority of states (as well as the national average) saw an increase of their share of employment in the transportation, warehousing and utilities sector. Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky and Iowa have a larger share of their employment in this industry sector than the nation.
Professional and business services grew across the region, although all states except Illinois have a smaller share of their employment in this industry sector. In contrast, Illinois’ share of employment in professional and business services is larger than the national average. Professional services include accounting, legal, architecture and engineering, computer design and management consulting as well as business headquarters. Business services include temporary help agencies (with a wide variety of occupational needs), waste management services, business support services and investigation and security services.
Educational and health services showed an increased share of employment in the United States and among Midwest states, including Illinois. Occupations related to health care industries as well as education will be in demand across the region as Midwest states may end up competing for workers in these occupational fields.
The leisure and hospitality sector drew a greater share of employment in the nation than in any of the Midwest states, although Illinois’ share of employment in this industry sector grew more than any other Midwest state. On the whole, Midwest states have a smaller share of employment in this industry sector than the nation.
The information sector saw a reduced share of employment in all states and the national average. Financial activities employment also was a smaller share of employment in all states (except Iowa and Kentucky, where it had a greater share from 2004 to 2014). Chart 1, based on Table 7, provides a graphic representation of this analysis.
Chart 1 – Current Distribution of Industry IL vs. U.S. and Average of Other Midwest States
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics Program 2014
Charts 2-4 show how the industry distribution has changed over the last decade, with data shown for 2004, 2009 and 2014.
Chart 2 – U.S. Employment Distribution Trend
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics Program 2004, 2009, 2014
Chart 3 – IL Employment Distribution Trend
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics Program 2004, 2009, 2014
Chart 4 – Midwest State Average (not including IL) Employment Distribution Trend
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics Program 2004, 2009, 2014
Education and Skill Levels of the Workforce
Occupational skill requirements are increasing across the workforce due to a myriad of factors, including the increasing pace of technological change and the increasingly global nature of the economy. In its most recent set of occupational employment projections, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (USBLS) shows the increasing need for advanced education and training to qualify for occupations with the highest growth rates.
Chart 5 – Projected U.S. Employment Growth by Educational Requirements: 2012-22
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Projections Program 2012-2022
Moreover, the education and skill requirements of occupations are directly related to the earning power of those occupations, as evidenced by Illinois data from the 2014 American Community Survey.
Chart 6 – Illinois Median Income by Educational Attainment: 2014
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2014
These data sets highlight the importance and the value of increased educational attainment and degrees. For Illinois to compete in this globalized, technology-charged economy, we must train our workforce to meet the challenges of these increasing education and skill requirements. Since the turn of the century, Illinois has made progress in increasing the overall educational attainment of its population. However, the number of individuals with low literacy skills has remained a significant concern in meeting the demand for an educated and skilled workforce.
Chart 7 – Percent of Illinois Population by Educational Attainment: 2000 to 2014
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census, American Community Survey 2014
The percentage of Illinois’ population (age 25+) with some type of post-secondary degree increased from 32% in 2000 to over 39% in 2014. However, this number is still too low. Illinois has committed to ensuring that 60% of the state’s population has a high quality degree or credential by 2025, an initiative referred to as 60 by 2025. As this data shows, the state is clearly moving towards that goal, but there is still a long way to go in the next decade. Illinois’ continued economic and income growth is dependent on reaching the 60 by 2025 goal.
Chart 8 – Target Population Characteristics
Source: 2015 Illinois Community College Board Index of Need Report
There are approximately 850,000 persons in Illinois that lack of English proficiency. Over 700,000 people have some high school education but do not have a diploma, and nearly 500,000 people have less than a 9th grade education. These individuals could benefit from a variety of workforce and adult education programs, especially bridge programs that incorporate English, reading and math skills contextualized for a targeted industry.
Skill Gap Analysis
During recent years, a number of projects and studies have been undertaken to examine the issue of “skill gaps” within major industry sectors in Illinois (or significant portions of Illinois). What follows is a brief synopsis of the findings of these studies within each of three major industry sectors: manufacturing, health care and transportation distribution and logistics (TDL).
The Chicago Metropolitan Agency on Planning (CMAP) released a policy update in March, 20153 that examined quantitative labor market data to determine the extent of the manufacturing skills gap in metropolitan Chicago.
3 “Searching for Evidence of a Skills Gap in Manufacturing,” CMAP Policy Update, March 4, 2015. evidence-of-a-skills-gap-in-manufacturing

As of 2014, Economic Modeling Specialists International (EMSI) estimated that 28,000 unemployed individuals in the Chicago region were seeking work in the manufacturing sector. Despite this large pool of job seekers, manufacturing companies claim they are having trouble finding skilled workers to fill open positions, both in the region and nationwide. Data indicate that there may be shortages of industrial machinery mechanics, computer numerical control (CNC) machine operators and programmers and welders in the region.
The skills gap is a complex issue with few direct measures. Data about wages, job openings and work weeks must be woven together to understand the full conditions in the labor market. Even with all three measures, it can still be difficult to determine whether individual occupations face a shortage of skilled workers. Within the Chicago region, skills gaps are evident in several key manufacturing jobs, such as industrial machinery mechanics, computer numerical control (CNC) programmers and operators and welders. The severity of this recent manufacturing skills gap may have intensified when demand for workers spiked as the economy began to recover in 2009.
While much of the manufacturing skills gaps dialogue has focused on technical skills, the challenge of finding employees may extend beyond technical competencies. Manufacturing employees also must have so-called “essential/soft skills” such as literacy, numeracy, reliability, problem solving and the ability to work in teams. The “CMAP Manufacturing Drill-Down Report”4 indicates that firms throughout the region have reported being unable to find sufficient workers with these skills. Downstate manufacturers and those in more rural areas face similar and often greater challenges in filling their vacancies due to an aging workforce, outmigration of younger residents and smaller labor pools.
Health Care
In September 2014, the Illinois Workforce Innovation Board (IWIB) accepted a report5 developed by its Health Care Task Force, consisting of IWIB business leaders and health care educators and practitioners. This report examined the workforce implications of issues regarding the implementation of new public health and coordinated, community-based healthcare delivery models in Illinois. These new models are being implemented in response to changing population and patient needs, federal and state healthcare reforms, and innovations in delivery models, professional practices and technology. These new models place stronger emphasis on prevention and primary care and use professional and paraprofessional healthcare workers in new roles with different skill requirements.
The Healthcare Task Force determined that the shift to team-based delivery models and improved health information technologies will allow each primary care physician to efficiently and effectively manage a greater number of patients. Insofar as workforce staffing is concerned, the results of these changes will be the following associated shifts in demand:
• A reduction in growth rate for primary care physicians. While the demand for primary care services will grow chiefly because of policy and incentive (and demographic) changes, the provision of those services will be shared across all team members, not exclusively by primary care physicians. 

• An increased demand for advanced practice nurses (APNs) and physician assistants (PAs).
4 Technical Report web.pdf/3243f710-f91d-4632- 934a-3682fc19fffc
• A significantly increased demand for front-line occupations such as community health workers (CHWs), home health aides (HHAs) and medical assistants (MAs). 

In each of these occupational categories, apparent skills gaps can be identified. The gaps range from the need for increased managerial skills on the part of primary care physicians to the up-skilling of APNs and PAs in order to meet more robust patient care responsibilities and to the need for new and updated certification protocols for CHWs, HHAs and MAs.
Transportation, Distribution & Logistics (TDL)
In June 2015, JP Morgan Chase and Jobs for the Future released a report called “Growing Skills for a Growing Chicago”6, which sought to develop “data-driven solutions to address the mismatch between employer needs and the skills of current job seekers”. In terms of TDL, the report found that there is a strong and ongoing demand for what it terms “middle-skill” jobs – jobs that require more than a high school credential but less than a bachelor’s degree, such as a diesel mechanic or supply chain specialist. The Chicago metro area creates more than 5,000 of these middle-skill jobs in TDL each year, but the need for an associate’s degree or credentialing is often the source of the skill gap. To close that gap, the report outlines a series of recommendations, including the widespread institution of TDL-specific talent pipeline solutions that will increase the feedback loop between employers and training providers. The IWIB also reconstituted the TDL Task Force in 2015 and charged it with developing recommendations and strategies for developing the needed TDL workforce in all areas of Illinois. In this sector, retention is as significant a challenge as talent pipeline management.
Targeted Populations
The concentration of growth in higher-skill occupations will require more targeted initiatives with populations requiring assistance to attain the credentials necessary to pursue opportunities in in- demand occupations in key sectors. Estimates of need for many of these targeted populations are included in Attachment D. Targeted populations in Illinois will include the following:
• Long-term unemployed
• Low-income adults
• Individuals with disabilities, including youth with disabilities
• Those receiving public assistance
• Out-of-school youth
• Veterans
• Migrant and seasonal farmworkers
• Re-entry individuals (ex-offenders)
• English Language Learners
• Older individuals
• Homeless individuals
• Single parents
• Youth in the foster system or who have aged out
• Displaced homemakers
• Veterans with disabilities
• Low literacy adults, including those without a high school diploma
• Low skilled adults
• Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians
Illinois has launched statewide initiatives to address the needs of specific populations facing barriers to employment, and the WIOA partners will identify effective practices and resources to address the employment needs of each of the targeted populations listed above. The following examples describe the types of approaches that will be used to meet the needs of these populations.
Long-Term Unemployed
Though the unemployment rate in Illinois has improved along with the rest of the country since the start of the economic recovery, long-term unemployment, defined as unemployment of a duration of 27 weeks or longer, remains a problem throughout the state. According to the USBLS, Illinois leads all six of its neighboring states in percentage, number and duration of long-term unemployed, with an average duration of 38.5 weeks for 2014, well in excess of the 26-week limit on individual unemployment insurance benefits. Such persistent unemployment can have ripple effects throughout local economic areas. To address these challenges, Commerce has leveraged multiple National Emergency Grants targeting long-term unemployed and piloted innovative strategies, such as Group Discovery, to address the unique needs of the population.
Individuals with Disabilities
Unemployment among individuals with disabilities is a national epidemic and Illinois is no exception. In a report from the USBLS, the unemployment rate in November 2015 for those with a disability, ages 16 and over, was 12.1 percent, almost three times that of individuals that do not have disabilities. The labor force participation rate that month for those with disabilities was 19.2 percent. Those without disabilities were recorded at 68.3 percent. Illinois works to address that disparity through better service alignment between the partner programs, in addition to Disability Employment Initiative projects in targeted geographies throughout the state that build the capacity of American Job Centers to address the needs of adults with disabilities. Illinois also prioritizes multilevel partnerships between the workforce, secondary and post-secondary systems to provide career pathway programs to youth with disabilities.
Out-of-School Youth
Approximately 184,000 youth age 18-24 in Illinois are considered “disconnected”, meaning they are not attending school and are not working. This number is approximately 15% of the 18-24 population statewide. Meanwhile, unemployment among this group stands at 22.1%, according to USBLS data, approximately five times that of the state as a whole. To address these issues, the IWIB created the Disadvantaged Youth Career Pathways Task Force to develop recommendations for building pilot projects that will seek to blend different sources of public funds, engage businesses for work-based learning and other initiatives and create sustainable career pathways for youth throughout the state. The “Report of the Illinois Disadvantaged Youth Task Force” was accepted by the IWIB in February 2016. Recommendations include: reinvigoration of cross-agency and cross-sector statewide supports for career pathway system development under the framework of Illinois pathways, creation of regional opportunity youth systems and the continuation of the work of the Youth Task Force as a function of the IWIB. The full report is available in Attachment E.
Serving Illinois’ 721,000 veterans is a high priority of the workforce system in Illinois. Veterans receive priority of service as required by WIOA. The Illinois workforce centers are committed to helping veterans find a job, training and other services. Employment Security employs veterans’ employment representatives, who are fellow veterans and specialists in providing employment services. Illinois
veterans have been served over the years though targeted initiatives administered by the workforce and education partners and the Illinois Department of Veterans Affairs.
English Language Learners
Approximately 2.73 million Illinois residents speak a language other than English as the primary language in their homes, and more than 331,368 immigrants are currently residing in Illinois. An English language learner is an individual who has limited ability in reading, writing, and speaking or comprehending the English language, and whose native language is a language other than English or who lives in a family or community environment where a language other than English is the dominant language.
Low Literacy Adults (including those without a high school diploma)
Employers increasingly require postsecondary credentials when hiring workers for good jobs that provide family-supporting wages and career advancement opportunities. Almost 1.2 million of Illinois’ 10.1 million adults have less than 12 grades of formal education. Included in this number are 470,138 people with less than a 9th grade education. Low Literate adults are individuals who are basic skills deficient with academic skill levels below the postsecondary level, and who do not have the ability to read, write, speak in English and perform mathematics or other activities of a secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalency.
Low Skilled Adults
With good jobs becoming harder to find for people with a high school diploma or less, it is critical to help low-skilled workers obtain the skills that are needed to be successful in postsecondary employment and training. According to a Report by the Office of Career, Technical and Adult Education (OCTAE formerly OVAE) Promoting College and Career Readiness: Bridge Programs for Low-Skilled Adults, defines Low- skill adults as individuals who lack the necessary skills and knowledge to succeed in postsecondary education and training, or meet the demands of the current labor market.
Governor Rauner’s administration is focused on delivering value for taxpayers, creating a pro-jobs economic climate, ensuring world-class schools and educational options for every Illinoisan and bringing greater accountability to state government. This chapter includes a brief summary of the workforce system and the capacity of state agencies and boards that are responsible for the administration of the workforce and education programs. Additional operational detail is provided in Chapter 8.
Interagency Coordination and Planning
The Governor’s Office and the IWIB provide the major mechanisms for promoting joint planning and coordination around the vision, principles, goals and strategies outlined in Illinois’ Unified State Plan (Chapter 4). Deputy Governor Trey Childress, Secretary of Education Beth Purvis and other cabinet members have been directly engaged in developing the vision and principles outlined in the Unified State Plan. The Governor’s Policy Advisor for Economic Development, Sean McCarthy, has a direct line of authority over Commerce and Employment Security and will work to ensure that the implementation of the strategies and activities outlined in this Unified State Plan align with the Governor’s workforce education and economic development policies and vision.
WIOA State Interagency Work Group
The state established an Interagency Work Group that meets regularly to identify and address the state- level issues associated with the implementation of WIOA. The intended outcomes are state-level policies that provide consistent direction to regional and local-level partners as they establish effective One-Stop Delivery Systems. In concert with these discussions, regional and local-level partners are examining issues that will influence the full implementation of WIOA and are making recommendations to the Interagency Work Group for consideration. Through the Interagency Work Group, the core partners are establishing a new mechanism to address operational and policy issues under WIOA implementation and those that are raised by local Comprehensive One-Stop Center partners. The group has committed to meet regularly on an ongoing basis.
State and Regional Planning Process
In August of 2015, Governor Rauner asked the National Governors Association to facilitate a “Policy Academy” among his key staff, business leaders, state administrators, agency directors and local partners to develop the vision and guiding principles for WIOA state and regional planning. The Education, Workforce and Economic Development Leadership Team (Leadership Team) (see Attachment F) emerged from the Policy Academy that includes high level state policymakers with the authority to make commitments on behalf of their respective agencies and other key public and private stakeholders whose involvement is critical to the development of the Unified State Plan. The Leadership Team is responsible for establishing the vision and principles and directing the implementation of strategies outlined in Chapter 4. The Leadership Team has also worked with the Interagency Work Group to oversee and direct the development of the regional planning process in Illinois. The planning process is underway in each of Illinois’ economic development regions including the review of data, establishment of goals, development of strategies and the integration of services.
State Agency Capacity
The following is a list of the state agencies and boards that are responsible for the administration of the workforce, education and economic development programs outlined in WIOA.
• Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity
o Youth,AdultandDislocatedWorkerPrograms
o Employment and Training under the Community Services Block Grant Program (authorized under Department of Housing and Urban Development)
o TradeActPrograms
o RegionalEconomicDevelopment
• Illinois Community College Board
o AdultEducationandFamilyLiteracyAct
o Career and Technical Education Programs at the postsecondary level authorized under the
Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act of 2006
• Illinois Department of Employment Security
o Wagner-PeyserEmploymentServicesincludingLaborMarketInformation o MigrantandSeasonalFarmworkersMonitorAdvocateSystem
o Veterans’EmploymentandTrainingServices
o UnemploymentInsuranceServices
o TradeAdjustmentAssistance
• Illinois Department of Human Services
o RehabilitationServicesforIndividualswithDisabilities
o TemporaryAssistanceforNeedyFamilies
• Illinois Department on Aging
o SeniorCommunityServiceEmploymentProgram
• Illinois Department of Corrections
o Section212oftheSecondChanceActof2007
Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity
Commerce is the state agency that leads economic development efforts for Illinois and is responsible for the WIOA Title IB activities. Key program activities include distributing WIOA Adult, Dislocated Worker and Youth formula funds, Trade Act funds and National Emergency Grants to 22 Local Workforce Innovation Areas (LWIAs), monitoring the local areas’ use of WIOA funds, and providing technical assistance to local areas. Commerce is responsible for the administration of the required and allowed Governor’s Statewide Workforce Activities as outlined in WIOA. Commerce issues formal guidance to the local areas through policy letters and notices designed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery. Commerce also provides staff support to the IWIB and its committees and ad hoc task forces. As part of the Bureau of Community Development, Commerce also oversees the employment and training programs under the Community Services Block Grant Program.
Illinois Community College Board
The ICCB has the responsibility of overseeing Title II activities under the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act. Services provided include, but are not limited to, assessment, basic skills instruction, English language acquisition instruction, high school equivalency instruction, career awareness, workforce preparation, online instruction, bridge programs as well as accelerated education and training programs. Currently, there are 86 providers of adult education and family literacy in Illinois that consist of community colleges, community based organizations, regional offices of education and other approved providers. The mission and vision of adult education is to provide every individual in Illinois access to adult education and literacy services. In Illinois, more than 1.7 million adults have less than 12 grades of formal education, approximately 2.6 million Illinois residents speak a language other than English in their home, and more than 552,000 immigrants reside in Illinois. ICCB seeks to prepare adult learners to compete for jobs of the present and the future. To accomplish this it is necessary to build a system that is education, training and workforce focused.
Illinois has seen continued growth and demand for postsecondary Career and Technical Education (CTE) in both higher completion rates and increased program offerings. Last year roughly two-thirds (66.9%) of all Illinois community college graduates earned a CTE degree or certificate and 615 new CTE programs were approved to meet workforce demands. In Illinois, federal Perkins Title I funds are divided 60/40 between the secondary and post-secondary career and technical education systems where administration is shared between the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) and ICCB. The 57 Education for Employment (EFE) regions receive funds from ISBE to support secondary CTE programs, and the 39 community college districts receive funds from ICCB to support post-secondary CTE programs.
The Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act of 2006 (Perkins IV) is the most important piece of legislation affecting career and technical education (CTE) in Illinois. Perkins IV focuses state and local efforts on continuously improving programs to facilitate the academic achievement of CTE students by: strengthening the connections between secondary and post- secondary education; restructuring the way stakeholders, high schools, community colleges, universities, business and parents work together; and increasing state and local accountability standards. The intent of Illinois post-secondary CTE is to provide students with the skills and knowledge necessary to excel in the global economy. Career and technical education equips students with the foundational knowledge to explore a cluster of occupations and careers. As a student evolves through their educational experience, their focus is narrowed to a particular program. This process allows students to transition seamlessly while providing them with hands-on exploration, rigorous academics and the support necessary to succeed.
Illinois Department of Employment Security
Employment Security is responsible for administering Title III activities for employment services under the Wagner-Peyser Act. The intent of Wagner-Peyser services is to sustain economic growth by meeting the needs of job seekers, increase awareness of resource providers and expand employment opportunities. Services offered include assessments for job placement, job search assistance and online job application processing. Employment Security is responsible for increasing community awareness about the services provided via job fairs, community collaborations, onsite recruitments, resource linkage and presentations. Additionally, Employment Security is responsible for labor market and career information in Illinois through cooperative agreements with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) to provide statewide and sub-state employment, unemployment, occupation, wage information and statewide and sub-state industry and occupational employment projections. These data products serve as the cornerstone for the Career Information System, a web-based tool for students and job seekers to identify Illinois’ in-demand jobs and make informed choices about future career pathways.
Illinois Department of Human Services Division of Vocational Rehabilitation
Vocational Rehabilitation administers Title IV activities and is the state’s lead agency serving individuals with disabilities. Vocational Rehabilitation works in partnership with individuals with disabilities and their families to assist them in making informed choices to achieve full community participation through employment, education and independent living opportunities. The primary focus of Vocational Rehabilitation is to assist individuals with significant disabilities in obtaining and retaining competitive integrated employment. Vocational Rehabilitation services are designed to prepare an individual for employment through an individualized planning process.
Career Pathways Model
The career pathways model is one that is fairly new to the Vocational Rehabilitation system. Vocational Rehabilitation is creating training opportunities for Vocational Rehabilitation counselors to improve their
understanding of career cluster concepts and in methods of incorporating those concepts in developing employment plans for people with disabilities. The initial focus of the training will be on transition age youth with disabilities, but also will be extended to individuals with disabilities of all ages. Coordination with the Employment and Economic Development for Persons with Disabilities Task Force created under Illinois’ Employment First initiative will be an important resource for increasing competitive integrated employment for citizens with disabilities. Members of the task force, who include people with disabilities, business representatives, and state agency officials, are focused on the same outcomes as those in the WIOA Unified State Plan: integrated service delivery, robust engagement with business, competitiveness and accessibility, cross-agency collaboration and alignment of results-driven practices.
The Illinois Department of Human Services’ Division of Family & Community Services is also the state administrator of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. DHS operates Family Community Resource Centers statewide serving TANF customers, linking them to time-limited cash assistance for basic needs, transitional services to help families become independent and screening for issues related to substance abuse, mental health and domestic violence, as well as referrals to address those issues. Employment and Training activities under TANF include assisting qualified individuals in applying for cash assistance, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits and medical assistance; evaluating and assessing eligibility for work and training programs; and evaluating eligibility for supportive services, such as transportation and child care. Each TANF and SNAP customer who is engaged in workforce development services receives such services according to a responsibility and services plan.
The Department of Human Services’ Division of Family & Community Services will have a strong presence in Comprehensive One-Stop Centers and is committed to increasing workforce engagement with collaborative partnerships to achieve employment opportunities for all adults served by DHS. Casework staff will develop a services plan for TANF and SNAP recipients connecting them to career pathways opportunities offered in each Comprehensive One-Stop Center. Casework staff will connect customers in need of barrier reductions services at the Comprehensive One-Stop Centers and connect them to services offered by DHS such as mental health, substance abuse and child care. Supportive services will be provided to participants as per policy guidelines.
Illinois Department on Aging
The mission of the Illinois Department on Aging (Aging) is to serve and advocate for older Illinoisans and their caregivers by administering quality and culturally appropriate programs that promote partnerships and encourage independence, dignity and quality of life. In accordance with the federal Older American’s Act7 regulations, Aging has divided Illinois into 13 Planning and Service Areas (PSAs). The 13 PSAs in Illinois are each managed and served by an Area Agency on Aging. Aging works in partnership with these agencies: 12 not-for-profit corporations and one unit of local government, the City of Chicago. Area Agencies on Aging (Area Agencies) have the primary task of planning and coordinating services and programs for older people in their respective areas. The Area Agencies receive funding from Aging based on a formula which takes into consideration the number of older citizens and minorities in that area, as well as the number living in poverty, in rural areas and alone. Like Aging, Area Agencies are not, as a rule, direct service providers. Area Agencies contract with local agencies which provide services to the older citizens who live in the same community.

The role of Aging under WIOA is to ensure the needs of older workers and job seekers are considered so that these individuals remain employed for as long as they wish. Age is often a barrier to finding employment, and Aging’s resources can be leveraged to help older citizens find and retain employment. As a partner program, Aging has the role of administering the Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP) under Title V of the Older Americans Act. The SCSEP program provides on-the-job training and resources/referrals for all individuals 55+ years of age that will ultimately lead to unsubsidized employment.
Illinois Department of Corrections
The mission of the Illinois Department of Corrections (Corrections) is to serve justice in Illinois and increase public safety by promoting positive change in offender behavior, operating successful reentry programs and reducing victimization. Corrections administers the Second Chance Act Program, which allows governments and communities to coordinate reentry efforts, enhance existing housing and support services, engage in evidence-based practices and create innovative strategies that will serve the growing needs of this population, ultimately increasing public safety and reducing recidivism.
Nationally Directed/Locally Administered Programs
There are a number of nationally directed workforce programs that are administered in some of the regions and LWIAs in Illinois. These programs, where present, will be included in the regional and local workforce plans.
National Farmworker Jobs Program
The National Farmworker Jobs Program (NFJP) provides employment and training services that are targeted to migrant and seasonal farmworkers (MSFWs). The program partners with community organizations and state agencies to counter the chronic unemployment and underemployment experienced by farmworkers who depend primarily on jobs in agricultural labor performed across the country. NFJP partners with the state monitor advocate to provide outreach services to farmworkers and their families. NFJP provides career services and training to eligible farmworkers, and coordinates with the One-Stop Delivery System. The National Farmworker Jobs Program (NFJP) grant awards are determined by a formula that estimates, by state, the relative demand for NFJP services.
The US Department of Labor grants funds directly to the local YouthBuild program through an annual competitive process. YouthBuild is a community-based alternative education program that provides job training and educational opportunities for at-risk youth ages 16-24. Youth learn construction skills while constructing or rehabilitating affordable housing for low-income or homeless families in their own neighborhoods. Youth split their time between the construction site and the classroom, where they earn their GED or high school diploma, learn to be community leaders, and prepare for college and other post-secondary training opportunities. YouthBuild includes significant support systems, such as a mentoring, follow-up education, employment and personal counseling services; and participation in community service and civic engagement.
Job Corps
Job Corps is an education and vocational training program administered by the U.S. Department of Labor that helps young people ages 16 through 24 improve the quality of their lives through vocational and academic training. Job Corps’ mission is to attract eligible young people, teach them the skills they need to become employable and independent and place them in meaningful jobs or further education. Job Corps centers are operated for the U.S. Department of Labor by private companies through
competitive contracting processes, and by other federal agencies through interagency agreements. For more information regarding the Job Corps Program in Illinois please visit:
State Workforce Activities
Workforce development, education and training activities in Illinois have been transforming for some time. This transformation will accelerate as WIOA is fully implemented across partner programs at the local, state and regional levels. Illinois has strongly advocated and supported aligning efforts to demand industries, occupations and skills. The intent is to deliberately link education and training to the skills identified by businesses, ensuring that program completers have those skills when entering the workforce. Additionally, comprehensive career services that enable individuals to make informed decisions on education and training opportunities that maximize their potential for successful and rewarding careers are being promoted.
The state will work to develop policies and incentives to support the strategies and activities as outlined in Chapter 7. Based on experience with interagency initiatives such as the Accelerated Training for Illinois Manufacturing Program, bridge programs and other initiatives, Illinois is making a deliberate shift to increase the use of contextualized learning and work-based training while moving away from a one- size-fits-all mentality of service delivery.
Strengths and Challenges
While Chapter 2 provides data and analysis of Illinois’ workforce development, education and training activities, this section provides a snapshot of Illinois’ strengths and weaknesses of the workforce system. Core partners collaboratively identified the strengths and weaknesses as part of the unified planning process and as part of the ongoing efforts to better align and integrate service delivery consistent with the state’s vision, principles, goals and strategies, as discussed in Chapter 4.
The following summarizes key strengths of Illinois’ workforce system as identified by core partners.
• The state encourages innovation.
• Pockets of regional innovation are developing.
• State and local partners have recent experience in work-based learning due to National Emergency
Grants and Workforce Innovation Fund grants.
• State partners continue to work collaboratively and explore opportunities for service alignment.
• The state has provided technical assistance on employer engagement, sector strategies, work-based
learning, labor market information and best practice models on serving special target populations.
• The state is pursuing innovation in providing services to individuals with disabilities.
• The state is encouraging the use of lean principles in workforce development programs.
• There are examples of effective business-led regional sector partnerships that exist and that can be
leveraged as models for the rest of the state (i.e., Vermilion Advantage8).
• Illinois has been successful in administering innovative education and training initiatives, such as
Accelerating Opportunity Integrated Education and Training and Accelerated Training for Illinois Manufacturing.
The following summarizes challenges for the workforce system in Illinois as identified by core partners.
• Employers have difficulty finding skilled workers with essential workplace skills and technical skills.
• The quality of local career services varies.
• The level of regional and local cross-program collaboration varies.
• The willingness to pursue innovation at regional and local levels varies.
• The level and quality of regional and local public-private sector partnerships varies.
• The level and quality of employer engagement varies, but the areas with weak engagement
outnumber those with well-connected employers.
• The level and quality of co-located, in-person services has coverage gaps in the Comprehensive One-
Stop Center.
• There is an emphasis on a one-size-fits-all approach, with little effort to leverage job seekers’
existing knowledge and skills to accelerate training.
• The service delivery model in Illinois is characterized by a silo approach.
The strengths identified above have been incorporated into the strategies as assets to be leveraged, and
the challenges also addressed in the strategies as improvement opportunities.
Illinois is planning now for what the state will come to be during the 21st century. These are exciting times, marked by dramatic change, challenges and opportunities. Illinois is emboldened by a strong sense of mission and is encouraged by WIOA, which codifies into law many of the strategies that the state has worked on for years.
Vision Statement
Promote employer-driven talent solutions that integrate education, workforce and economic development resources across systems to provide businesses, individuals and communities with the opportunity to prosper and contribute to growing the state’s economy.
• Demand Driven Orientation – Through a sector strategy framework, the state should support the systemic assessment of business needs for talent across local, regional and state levels and ensure that strong partnerships with business drive decision-making across the talent pipeline.
• Strong Partnerships with Business at All Levels – Strong partnerships with business should focus on equipping employers with the support and tools they need to define in-demand skills and articulate those needs to education and training providers. Strong partnerships at the regional and local level should be recognized and inform the development of high-quality partnerships across the state.
• Career Pathways to Jobs of Today and Tomorrow – Partnerships with business should drive the development of career pathways that meet employers’ skills needs today, while offering individuals clear opportunities to build and upgrade their skills and advance their career over time. Those pathways should be integrated within the P-20 system, including adult education, to help students and young adults identify career pathway options and offer flexibility to build upon their skills to meet the evolving needs of the global economy.
• Cross-agency Collaboration and Alignment – Developing career pathways and stackable credentials will demand collaboration and alignment across agencies that contribute to Illinois’ overall talent pipeline. There should be a focus on improving the strategic connections across all components and levels of the education and workforce systems to ensure no “dead ends” exist.
• Integrated Service Delivery – Enhanced collaboration and alignment across state agencies at a strategic level should lead to better service delivery integration. Multiple state agencies and partners are positioned to support the success of individuals and businesses. Technology and integrated data systems can help illustrate those interrelationships and position the system to collaborate across agencies to deliver the right services at the right time.
• Access and Opportunity For All Populations – Coordinated and comprehensive services can help targeted populations (see Chapter 2) prepare for and advance along a career pathway. Connecting individuals with relevant supports, such as transportation, child care and transition services enables the systems to be responsive to the needs of individuals’ workforce readiness.
• Clear Metrics for Progress and Success – The Unified State Plan should include metrics for assessing progress and success. As the talent pipeline serves two customers – businesses and individuals – those metrics should reflect the strategic priorities of the state that relate to building a globally competitive workforce. Illinois will develop metrics or examine existing framework metrics that define successful career pathway programs (i.e., Alliance for Quality Career Pathways (AQCP)).
• Focus on Continuous Improvement and Innovation – The system should establish mechanisms for continual assessment of system performance and opportunities for improvement, as well as for encouraging innovation and disseminating best practices. This includes the continued enhancement of non-traditional methods for delivering education and training. Additionally, the growing role of
entrepreneurship and its contributions to employment and economic growth will be an outcome of continuous improvement and innovation.
State Goals
Illinois’ Vision and Principles establish a foundation for a new era of integration of Illinois’ workforce, education and economic development policy and programs. The partners will collectively use the following goals to support our vision to align and integrate education, workforce and economic development strategies at the state, regional and local levels to improve the economic growth and competiveness of Illinois employers and their workforce.
• Foster improvement and expansion of employer-driven regional sector partnerships to increase the focus on critical in-demand occupations in key sectors that are the engine of economic growth for the state and its regions.
• Expand career pathway opportunities through more accelerated and work-based training and align and integrate programs of study leading to industry-recognized credentials and improved employment and earnings.
• Expand career services and opportunities for populations facing multiple barriers to close the gap in educational attainment and economic advancement through career pathways and improved career services and expansion of bridge programs.
• Expand information for employers and job seekers to access services by improving the Illinois public- private data infrastructure to support the alignment and integration of economic development, workforce development and education initiatives for supporting sector partnerships and career pathways.
State Strategies
The vision and principles will be implemented through six policy strategies that together are necessary to reach the state plan goals. This section provides an overview and rationale of each strategy and how they fit together. Chapters 6-9 address how these strategies will be implemented and coordinated by the core programs and other partners. These strategies, and how they will be implemented as outlined in Chapter 7, reflect input from the Interagency Work Group which includes both core and required partners. Additionally, this group identified and addressed state-level issues with technical and programmatic details associated with new requirements under the law.

Block Grant // entitlement programs roll out for states / the inset destruction of ssi program.

May 6, 2017 § Leave a comment

Latest Research
>Browse by Author
Urban Institute > Publications
Block Grants
Historical Overview and Lessons Learned
Kenneth Finegold, Laura Wherry, Stephanie Schardin
Read complete document: PDF

PrintPrint this page
Document date: April 21, 2004
Released online: April 21, 2004
No. A-63 in Series, “New Federalism: Issues and Options for States”

The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.

Between President Bush’s FY 2005 budget and pending congressional legislation, at least 10 different block grant proposals are up for consideration by national policymakers. Block grants are fixed-sum federal grants to state and local governments that give them broad flexibility to design and implement designated programs. Federal oversight and requirements are light, and funds are allocated among recipient governments by formula. Most federal aid is currently distributed to state and local governments as categorical grants, which may also be allocated by formula but can only be used for rather narrowly defined purposes.

Block grants have been part of the American federal system since 1966, but their role in federal assistance to state and local governments would expand greatly if current proposals were enacted. These proposals, summarized in table 1, would have particularly dramatic effects on programs in health, where an optional block grant would replace both Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), and income security, where new block grants would replace Section 8 housing vouchers, restructure child welfare funding, and allow states to test an alternative to Food Stamps.1 Other block grant proposals address preschool education, job training, transportation, and justice. In addition, the administration’s proposal for reauthorizing the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program—already approved by the House—includes a “superwaiver” provision that could effectively transform certain programs into block grants upon application by a state and approval by the secretary of the administering department (Waller 2003; Greenstein, Fremstad, and Parrott 2002).

Proponents of block grants typically argue that programs will be more effective and better suited to each state’s needs when decisionmaking shifts to the states.2 Opponents usually respond that state flexibility will be misused, and that the block grant mechanism will provide an indirect means of reducing funding for key social programs. Rather than rely solely on conjecture to evaluate these claims, researchers can draw on nearly 40 years of experience with current and former block grants in a wide range of policy areas.

TABLE 1. Current Block Grant Proposals
Child Welfare
Gives states the option to receive Title IV-E Foster Care funding as flexible grant.

Food Stamps
Permits up to five states to receive State Food Assistance Block Grant instead of food stamps.

Head Start
Pilot program permits up to nine states to receive Head Start funding as flexible grant.

Replaces Section 8 vouchers with the Flexible Voucher Program, a block grant to public housing agencies.

Job Access and Reverse Commute
Replaces current project-based program for provision and development of employment transportation services for low-income workers and reverse commuters.

Job Training
Combines the Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Employment Services State grants to form a single block grant. Justice Assistance Grant
Consolidates the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant, Byrne Formula [Block] Grant, Byrne Discretionary Grants, and Community Oriented Policing Services Hiring Grants to form single block grant.

Gives states the option to consolidate Medicaid and SCHIP funding into state acute care and long-term care allotments.

New Freedom Program
Promotes access to alternative transportation methods for individuals with disabilities.

Expands authority for states to seek waivers of statutory or regulatory requirements attached to low-income programs, subject to approval of secretary of administering department.

Surface Transportation
Pilot program permits up to five states to manage formula highway program funds as a block grant.

This brief traces the development of block grants over time and by policy area. It then reviews the lessons learned from past and present block grants and how they may apply to the current proposals. A companion brief examines the details of the Bush proposals, which, if enacted, will be especially important in determining the effects of the new block grants (Finegold, Wherry, and Schardin 2004).

Historical Overview
The earliest block grants were enacted as Democratic initiatives. The first two block grants, the Partnership for Health program, approved in 1966, and the Safe Streets program, created under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, were enacted by a Democratic Congress during the Johnson administration. Taken together, these two programs accounted for less than 1 percent of all federal aid to state and local governments (figure 1).

Three subsequent surges in the use of block grants were each associated with Republican control. In 1971, President Nixon proposed consolidating 129 different programs into six block grants. A Democratic Congress rejected Nixon’s original consolidation proposal. Nonetheless, by the end of the Ford administration, Congress had created three large new block grants. Two of these—the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG)—are still in operation. Funding for the third, the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) program, ended in 1982, but other job training block grants have since been enacted.

As proposed by President Nixon and approved by Congress, the block grants of the 1970s provided more money than the programs they replaced. With the additional funding, even states and cities that received a smaller share of federal aid under the new formulas received more money than in the past.

In 1981, President Reagan proposed consolidating 85 existing grants into seven block grants. Congress, as part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, consolidated 77 categorical grants into nine block grants. With the new programs, block grants made up nearly 17 percent of federal aid. Unlike the Nixon block grants, the Reagan block grants provided about 25 percent less funding than the programs they replaced (Conlan 1998). Thus, with new distribution formulas, some governmental units were double losers, receiving smaller shares of a smaller total of federal support.

The most recent expansion of block grants occurred in 1996, when the Republican-controlled 104th Congress approved the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), the welfare reform legislation that replaced the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and related programs with the TANF block grant. Congress also increased block grant funding for child care and allowed states to transfer some TANF money to the child care or social services block grants.

The block grant initiatives of the 1990s and 2000s embody a shift in fiscal policy. The TANF block grant and the proposed Food Assistance, Medicaid, and Child Welfare block grants eliminate individual entitlements to services and replace them with fixed grants to each state. In contrast, the block grants of the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s either provided federal funding in new policy areas or replaced existing categorical grants to states or localities.

A block grant has different legal implications from an entitlement. Entitlements such as Food Stamps, Medicaid, and the former AFDC create individual rights to benefits. Litigation over these rights has resulted in court orders to provide benefits to whole categories of individuals denied assistance (Melnick 1994).3 Block grants do not create the same rights. The TANF statutory language gives this point special emphasis: the heading “No Individual Entitlement” is followed by the statement “This part shall not be interpreted to entitle any individual or family to assistance under any State program funded under this part” (PRWORA, Sect. 103). State and local officials thus enjoy more discretion in implementing block grants than in implementing entitlements. How much more discretion is unclear because constitutional protections against discrimination or arbitrary treatment still apply (Cimini 2002).

A block grant also has different budgetary implications from an entitlement. While both block grants and categorical grants are normally financed by fixed appropriations, entitlement funding is usually open-ended (King 2000; Posner and Wrightson 1996). Block grants give Congress more control over future spending; entitlements are more responsive to macroeconomic conditions.

Block Grant Patterns by Policy Area
Figure 1 shows block grant funding as a proportion of total federal aid within the broad functional categories used in the federal budget. Since 1966, block grants have been most important as a component of federal aid for community and regional development. The block grant share of funding in this category, however, peaked in the mid-1980s, the heyday of CDBG. None of the new block grant proposals is in this category.

The block grant share of federal aid for education, training, employment, and social services, which also peaked in the mid-1980s, has risen slightly in the past few years, with new block grants for educational technology, teacher quality, and English language acquisition. The current proposals for Head Start and Job Training would further increase the block grant share of federal aid in this category, from 11 to 16 percent.4

The proportion of transportation funding in block grant form, which rose above 30 percent in 1999, 2000, and 2001, has fallen under the Bush administration. Despite new block grant proposals in this area, the FY 2005 budget would continue the downward trend because of proposed spending reductions for existing transportation block grants.

Block grant funding for justice programs has been sporadic. The Safe Streets program, for example, accounted for more than three-quarters of federal aid in this category in FY 1976, but within a few years Congress discontinued funding. The proposed Justice Assistance grant would absorb the current Byrne and Local Law Enforcement block grants at lower levels of funding, reducing the block grant share of funding in this area.

The creation of TANF and the related increase in child care funding greatly expanded the role of block grants in income security between FY 1996 and 1997. With the proposed Housing Assistance and Child Welfare block grants, and the conversion of Food Stamps into a block grant in five states, 60 percent of federal aid for income security would be delivered through block grants.

Though health was the subject of the first block grant, funding has remained low relative to other federal programs in this area. Converting Medicaid into a block grant would dramatically alter the situation, increasing the block grant share of health programs from 2 to 97 percent.

Lessons from Past and Current Block Grants
Figure 1 shows how far the impact of the Bush proposals would exceed that of previous block grant legislation. If all the proposals became law, an unprecedented 63 percent of federal aid would be in block grant form.

What can we learn from past and present block grants that might relate to the Bush proposals? Some lessons seem clear, while evidence on other important questions is mixed.

Funding Gradually Declines

Initial funding for block grants has not been consistently higher or lower than funding for the programs they replaced. Four of the five block grants approved before 1980 provided increased funding; the fifth, the Safe Streets program, funded activities for which federal aid had not previously been available (Stenberg 1977). The block grants of the Reagan era, in contrast, generally cut funding (Conlan 1998). Initial state allocations for TANF were based on spending under AFDC. Performance bonuses and supplemental grants to states with low spending or high population growth provided some additional funding.

The real value of block grant funding tends to diminish over time. A study of five Reagan block grants (Peterson and Nightingale 1995) found that the real value of four of them decreased from 1986 to 1995, despite a 66 percent increase in total federal grants to state and local governments during this period. A more recent analysis of 11 block grants found that from their establishment to the present, real federal funding fell by an average of 11 percent (Sard and Fischer 2003).

Creeping Categorization Reduces Flexibility

Once in operation, block grants have been subject to “creeping categorization.” In this process, Congress erodes the flexibility of block grants by adding restrictions, requiring that a share of funds be set aside for particular purposes, or creating new categorical programs with the same or related objectives. A common explanation traces this phenomenon to members of Congress, who seem to reap greater electoral benefits from narrowly targeted categorical grants or set-asides than from wide-ranging block grants (Conlan 1998). Categorization can also be seen as Congress’s response to perceived misuse or misadministration of block grants by state or local governments (Conlan 1981).

The first two block grants illustrate distinct patterns of recategorization. The Partnership for Health Act retained its original flexibility but became irrelevant when concerns about state administrative performance led Congress to create more than 20 new categorical grants for health services outside the block grant (U.S. General Accounting Office [GAO] 1982). As for the Safe Streets program, Congress expressed its dissatisfaction with state administration by adding mandatory set-asides and other statutory requirements that reduced the block grant’s original flexibility, and ultimately terminated program funding (GAO 1982; Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations 1977).

Block Grants Work Best when State Administrative Capacities Already Exist

One common justification for block grant programs is the expected increase in administrative efficiency accompanying state flexibility. Following implementation of the Reagan block grants, most state officials reported management improvements, including better planning and budgeting methods, changes in administrative procedures and standardization across programs, and increased efficiency in the use of state personnel (Peterson et al. 1986; GAO 1985).

Whether projected administrative savings followed from the state management improvements is not as clear. Although relaxed federal requirements eased some administrative burdens, block grant programs brought new management responsibilities to the states. Net changes in spending are difficult to measure owing to the absence of uniform administrative data (GAO 1995). A GAO study found only a small reduction in overall administrative costs under the pre-1981 block grant programs, with administrative costs increasing in some cases (GAO 1982). Few state administrators claimed savings of more than 5 percent under the Reagan block grants (Peterson and Nightingale 1995).

Implementation of new block grants has been smoothest when and where states were responsible for administering the categorical programs they replaced. States that have already developed a capable administrative structure and established relationships with recipients and service providers can most easily incorporate new responsibilities under a block grant into existing management systems.

The 1981 block grants illustrate the contrast between block grants in policy areas with a history of state involvement and those in areas previously outside of the states’ responsibilities. States were able to use existing administrative organizations and service provider networks to implement the social services, education, and health block grants with few organizational changes (GAO 1995). The Community Services Block Grant, however, replaced a system of direct federal assistance to local organizations in which most states played little or no role. To implement the block grant, states had to establish administrative structures, hire new personnel, and develop relationships with service providers (GAO 1984; Bowsher 1982).

Do Block Grants Decentralize Authority within States?
Many arguments in favor of devolution from the national government to the states would seem to apply equally well within states. If state governments are closer to the people than the federal government, local governments are closer still, and just as programs that are right for one state may be wrong for another, programs that are effective in one city or county may not work elsewhere within a state. Have block grants, then, stimulated the devolution of policy decisions from state to local governments? The answer depends on whether the block grant was accompanied by a change in the level of government receiving federal funds and, if it was not, whether a particular state was already decentralized.

Several block grants of the 1980s centralized authority, sending funding that had gone directly to local governments to state governments instead. For example, the Job Training Partnership Act program, which provided funding through the states, replaced the CETA program, in which state governments had only a minor role (Farber 1989).

Under TANF, as with AFDC, the states are recipient governments. In a study of pre-TANF welfare reform efforts, Watson and Gold (1997) identified a devolutionary trend that was strongest in those states where welfare administration was already decentralized. Gainsborough (2003) similarly found that states with decentralized administration of welfare under AFDC were especially likely to decentralize further under TANF; she did not find any states in which welfare administration became more centralized under TANF. The new block grant may have encouraged states to devolve authority to their local governments, either by drawing attention to the arguments for decentralization, or by simplifying administrative tasks so they could more easily be carried out at lower levels.

Do Block Grants Redirect Program Targeting?
Block grant opponents have expressed concern that states will use increased flexibility to retarget benefits away from the individuals or communities with the greatest need (Peterson et al. 1986). Studies of past block grants do not provide consistent evidence of changes in program targeting. AGAO study of the pre-1981 block grants found the receipt of resources by target populations “about equal” under categorical and block grant programs (GAO 1982). Peterson et al. (1986) found no indications that states had used their flexibility under the Reagan block grants to directly shift resources from poor or low-income families to the middle class. Bennett and Perez (1986), however, found that state allocations to local districts under the education block grant were based more on enrollment, and less on need, than under the categorical programs it replaced.

Several Reagan block grants shifted funding from one low-income population to another. States responded to reduced federal funding under the SSBG (Peterson et al. 1986) and the Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant (Nathan and Doolittle 1983) by lowering income eligibility limits or increasing costsharing requirements for higher-income recipients. In these cases, the combination of reduced federal funding and increased state flexibility resulted in more exclusive targeting of programs to the poor. States responded to reduced funding for job training, community services, and alcohol, drug abuse, and mental health under the new block grants by moving away from services with long-term payoffs to concentrate on immediate and short-term solutions (Nathan and Doolittle 1983, 1987). Often this priority shift translated into a reduction in services for the neediest populations.

Many block grants operating today can be traced to three rounds of block grant expansion. Each expansion effort increased the proportion of federal aid delivered to state and local governments in block grant form, but was also followed by a gradual decline in block grant funding as Congress opted to fund categorical or entitlement programs instead. As a result, the block grant share of federal aid has never risen above 20 percent.

If enacted, the current proposals would create a fourth wave of block grants potentially larger than the first three combined. In one year, the proportion of federal aid to state and local governments delivered through block grants would more than quadruple. Health is currently the domestic policy category in which block grants are least important; under the Bush proposal, almost all federal aid for health would be included in the block grant replacing Medicaid and SCHIP.

The proposed block grants would have particularly significant effects on low-income families with children. Seven of the 10 proposals would affect existing social welfare programs that serve the nation’s most dependent populations. Replacing Medicaid and Food Stamps with block grants would eliminate two important means-tested entitlement programs.

Experience with block grants offers lessons involving program design and implementation. Researchers have found that over time, the real value of block grant funding gradually declines, and state flexibility erodes as Congress responds to patterns of state implementation. Given these patterns, the risks for future erosion in funding and flexibility are particularly high for the Justice Assistance block grant, which has initial funding below current funding, and for the Food Assistance block grant, which, as proposed, already bars assistance to certain legal immigrants.

Researchers have also found that block grant implementation is smoothest when states can draw upon administrative capacities already developed under the preceding program. Experience with the Title IV-E Foster Care program may equip states to administer a Child Welfare block grant. But a Head Start block grant might pose transitional problems because of the low level of state involvement under the current program (Prah 2003). And while states currently administer other programs that would be replaced by block grants, including Medicaid and Food Stamps, the proposed block grants may require planning, administrative, and analytical capacities beyond what most states have developed to date.

Figure 1
1. The Medicaid block grant proposal was introduced in the FY 2004 Executive Budget. While the full proposal does not appear in the FY 2005 budget, language does appear that indicates the administration’s continued interest in such a proposal. Analysis of the Medicaid block grant proposal in this brief is therefore based on those provisions specified by the administration in the FY 2004 budget.

2. Block grant funding may go to states, territories, local governments, or tribal governments, depending on the program. For simplicity, we refer to recipient governments as “states” throughout this brief.

3. See also Westside Mothers v. Haveman, 289 F.3d 852 (U.S. Court of Appeals 6th Cir. 2002).

4. The estimates in this section and the next were computed from Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2005: Historical Tables, Table 12.3 (228-72), and General Services Administration, Catalog of Domestic Federal Assistance, various years. Our estimates for the proposed optional block grants (see table 1) assume the maximum number of states choose to participate. For details, see Finegold, Wherry, and Schardin (2004).

Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. 1977. Block Grants: A Comparative Analysis. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Bennett, Maybelle Taylor, and Leticia Perez. 1986. Block Grants: Beyond the Rhetoric. An Assessment of the Last Four Years. Washington, DC: Coalition on Human Needs.

Bowsher, Charles A. 1982. Statement of Charles A. Bowsher, Comptroller General of United States, before the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations, Committee on Governmental Affairs, United States Senate on Block Grant Implementation. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office.

Cimini, Christine N. 2002. “Welfare Entitlements in the Era of Devolution.” Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law & Policy 9:89-134.

Conlan, Timothy J. 1981. “Back in Vogue: The Politics of Block Grant Legislation.” Intergovernmental Perspective 7(3): 8-15.

———. 1998. From New Federalism to Devolution: Twenty-Five Years of Intergovernmental Reform. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Farber, Stephen B. 1989. “Federalism and State-Local Relations.” In A Decade of Devolution: Perspectives on State-Local Relations, edited by E. Blaine Liner (27-50). Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.

Finegold, Kenneth, Laura Wherry, and Stephanie Schardin. 2004. “Block Grants: Details of the Bush Proposals.” Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Assessing the New Federalism Policy Brief A-64.

Gainsborough, Juliet F. 2003. “To Devolve or Not to Devolve? Welfare Reform in the States.” Policy Studies Journal 31(4): 603-23.

Greenstein, Robert, Shawn Fremstad, and Sharon Parrott. 2002. “Superwaiver” Would Grant Executive Branch and Governors Sweeping Authority to Override Federal Laws. Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

King, Ronald F. 2000. Budgeting Entitlements: The Politics of Food Stamps. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Melnick, R. Shep. 1994. Between the Lines: Interpreting Welfare Rights. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

Nathan, Richard P., and Fred C. Doolittle. 1983. The Consequences of Cuts: The Effects of the Reagan Domestic Program on State and Local Governments. Princeton: Princeton University Urban and Regional Research Center.

———. 1987. Reagan and the States. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Peterson, George E., Randall R. Bovbjerg, Barbara A. Davis, Walter G. Davis, Eugene C. Durman, and Theresa A. Gullo. 1986. The Reagan Block Grants: What Have We Learned? Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.

Peterson, George E., and Demetra Smith Nightingale. 1995. What Do We Know about Block Grants? Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Posner, Paul L., and Margaret T. Wrightson. 1996. “Block Grants: A Perennial, but Unstable, Tool of Government.” Publius 26(3): 87-108.

Prah, Pamela M. 2003. “States May Lack Expertise to Run Head Start.” Stateline.Org. July 18.

Sard, Barbara, and Will Fischer. 2003. Housing Voucher Block Grant Bills Would Jeopardize an Effective Program and Likely Lead to Cuts in Assistance for Low-Income Families. Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Stenberg, Carl W. 1977. “Block Grants: The Middlemen of the Federal Aid System.” Intergovernmental Perspective 3(2): 8-13.

U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). 1982. Lessons Learned from Past Block Grants: Implications for Congressional Oversight. GAO/IPE-82-8. Washington, DC: GAO.

———. 1984. Community Services Block Grant: New State Role Brings Program and Administrative Changes. GAO/HRD-84-76. Washington, DC: GAO.

———. 1985. State rather than Federal Policies Provided the Framework for Managing Block Grants. GAO/HRD-85-36. Washington, DC: GAO.

———. 1995. Block Grants: Characteristics, Experience, and Lessons Learned. GAO/HEHS-95-74. Washington, DC: GAO.

Waller, Margy. 2003. “The History of Block Grants and Current Proposals.” Remarks made at the National League of Cities Roundtable, “Is the Federal-State-Local Partnership Being Dismantled?” Washington, D.C., September 2.

Watson, Keith, and Steven D. Gold. 1997. The Other Side of Devolution: Shifting Relationships between State and Local Governments. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Assessing the New Federalism Occasional Paper No. 2.

About the Authors
Kenneth Finegold is a senior research associate with the Urban Institute’s Assessing the New Federalism project. He and Alan Weil are the editors of Welfare Reform: The Next Act (Urban Institute Press, 2002). His current research interests include the U.S. federal system, food stamps, race and ethnicity, and faith-based organizations.

Laura Wherry is a research assistant with the Urban Institute’s Assessing the New Federalism project. Her recent work focuses on the U.S. federal system and national trends in race and ethnicity.

Stephanie Schardin was a research assistant with the Urban Institute’s Assessing the New Federalism project. She is currently an economist for the New Mexico Department of Finance and Administration in Santa Fe.

About the Series
This series is a product of Assessing the New Federalism, a multiyear project to monitor and assess the devolution of social programs from the federal to the state and local levels. Alan Weil is the project director. The project analyzes changes in income support, social services, and health programs. In collaboration with Child Trends, the project studies child and family well-being.

The Assessing the New Federalism project is currently supported by The Annie E. Casey Foundation, The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the W. K. Kellogg Foundation, The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and The Ford Foundation.

This series is dedicated to the memory of Steven D. Gold, who was codirector of Assessing the New Federalism until his death in August 1996.

The authors thank Randy Desonia and Alan Weil for helpful comments and suggestions.

Topics/Tags: | Economy/Taxes | Governing

Related Publications
Governing with Tight Budgets
Five Ways to Improve the Distribution of Government Pension Benefits
Could a Cash Balance Plan Benefit Illinois Public School Teachers?
Other Publications by the Authors
Kenneth Finegold
Laura Wherry
Stephanie Schardin
Usage and reprints: Most publications may be downloaded free of charge from the web site and may be used and copies made for research, academic, policy or other non-commercial purposes. Proper attribution is required. Posting UI research papers on other websites is permitted subject to prior approval from the Urban Institute—contact

If you are unable to access or print the PDF document please contact us or call the Publications Office at (202) 261-5687.

Disclaimer: The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. Copyright of the written materials contained within the Urban Institute website is owned or controlled by the Urban Institute.

Email this Page

Here is the main cause why CPS is a racketeering , profiteering business by various states NGOs . For those of you fighting to spend time with your children

May 5, 2017 § Leave a comment

Here is the main cause why CPS is a racketeering , profiteering business by various states NGOs . For those of you fighting to spend time with your children . Then you must vote these type of people out of office . If not then these same type of people and their supported NGOs will continue to kidnap your children . And continue to jail people for being poor .
H. R. 253
To amend parts B and E of title IV of the Social Security Act to invest in funding prevention and family services to help keep children safe and supported at home, to ensure that children in foster care are placed in the least restrictive, most family-like, and appropriate settings, and for other purposes.
January 4, 2017
Mr. Buchanan (for himself and Mr. Levin) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means
To amend parts B and E of title IV of the Social Security Act to invest in funding prevention and family services to help keep children safe and supported at home, to ensure that children in foster care are placed in the least restrictive, most family-like, and appropriate settings, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
This Act may be cited as the “Family First Prevention Services Act of 2017”.
The table of contents for this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.
Sec. 101. Purpose.
Subtitle A—Prevention Activities Under Title IV–E
Sec. 111. Foster care prevention services and programs.
Sec. 112. Foster care maintenance payments for children with parents in a licensed residential family-based treatment facility for substance abuse.
Sec. 113. Title IV–E payments for evidence-based kinship navigator programs.
Subtitle B—Enhanced Support Under Title IV–B
Sec. 121. Elimination of time limit for family reunification services while in foster care and permitting time-limited family reunification services when a child returns home from foster care.
Sec. 122. Reducing bureaucracy and unnecessary delays when placing children in homes across State lines.
Sec. 123. Enhancements to grants to improve well-being of families affected by substance abuse.
Subtitle C—Miscellaneous
Sec. 131. Reviewing and improving licensing standards for placement in a relative foster family home.
Sec. 132. Development of a statewide plan to prevent child abuse and neglect fatalities.
Sec. 133. Modernizing the title and purpose of title IV–E.
Sec. 134. Effective dates.
Sec. 201. Limitation on Federal financial participation for placements that are not in foster family homes.
Sec. 202. Assessment and documentation of the need for placement in a qualified residential treatment program.
Sec. 203. Protocols to prevent inappropriate diagnoses.
Sec. 204. Additional data and reports regarding children placed in a setting that is not a foster family home.
Sec. 205. Effective dates; application to waivers.
Sec. 301. Supporting and retaining foster families for children.
Sec. 302. Extension of child and family services programs.
Sec. 303. Improvements to the John H. Chafee foster care independence program and related provisions.
Sec. 401. Reauthorizing adoption and legal guardianship incentive programs.
Sec. 501. Technical corrections to data exchange standards to improve program coordination.
Sec. 502. Technical corrections to State requirement to address the developmental needs of young children.
Sec. 601. Delay of adoption assistance phase-in.
Sec. 602. GAO study and report on State reinvestment of savings resulting from increase in adoption assistance.
The purpose of this title is to enable States to use Federal funds available under parts B and E of title IV of the Social Security Act to provide enhanced support to children and families and prevent foster care placements through the provision of mental health and substance abuse prevention and treatment services, in-home parent skill-based programs, and kinship navigator services.
Subtitle A—Prevention Activities Under Title IV–E
(a) State Option.—Section 471 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 671) is amended—
(1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking “and” and all that follows through the semicolon and inserting “, adoption assistance in accordance with section 473, and, at the option of the State, services or programs specified in subsection (e)(1) of this section for children who are candidates for foster care or who are pregnant or parenting foster youth and the parents or kin caregivers of the children, in accordance with the requirements of that subsection;”; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
“(e) Prevention And Family Services And Programs.—
“(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of this subsection, the Secretary may make a payment to a State for providing the following services or programs for a child described in paragraph (2) and the parents or kin caregivers of the child when the need of the child, such a parent, or such a caregiver for the services or programs are directly related to the safety, permanence, or well-being of the child or to preventing the child from entering foster care:
“(A) MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE PREVENTION AND TREATMENT SERVICES.—Mental health and substance abuse prevention and treatment services provided by a qualified clinician for not more than a 12-month period that begins on any date described in paragraph (3) with respect to the child.
“(B) IN-HOME PARENT SKILL-BASED PROGRAMS.—In-home parent skill-based programs for not more than a 12-month period that begins on any date described in paragraph (3) with respect to the child and that include parenting skills training, parent education, and individual and family counseling.
“(2) CHILD DESCRIBED.—For purposes of paragraph (1), a child described in this paragraph is the following:
“(A) A child who is a candidate for foster care (as defined in section 475(13)) but can remain safely at home or in a kinship placement with receipt of services or programs specified in paragraph (1).
“(B) A child in foster care who is a pregnant or parenting foster youth.
“(3) DATE DESCRIBED.—For purposes of paragraph (1), the dates described in this paragraph are the following:
“(A) The date on which a child is identified in a prevention plan maintained under paragraph (4) as a child who is a candidate for foster care (as defined in section 475(13)).
“(B) The date on which a child is identified in a prevention plan maintained under paragraph (4) as a pregnant or parenting foster youth in need of services or programs specified in paragraph (1).
“(4) REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO PROVIDING SERVICES AND PROGRAMS.—Services and programs specified in paragraph (1) may be provided under this subsection only if specified in advance in the child’s prevention plan described in subparagraph (A) and the requirements in subparagraphs (B) through (E) are met:
“(A) PREVENTION PLAN.—The State maintains a written prevention plan for the child that meets the following requirements (as applicable):
“(i) CANDIDATES.—In the case of a child who is a candidate for foster care described in paragraph (2)(A), the prevention plan shall—
“(I) identify the foster care prevention strategy for the child so that the child may remain safely at home, live temporarily with a kin caregiver until reunification can be safely achieved, or live permanently with a kin caregiver;
“(II) list the services or programs to be provided to or on behalf of the child to ensure the success of that prevention strategy; and
“(III) comply with such other requirements as the Secretary shall establish.
“(ii) PREGNANT OR PARENTING FOSTER YOUTH.—In the case of a child who is a pregnant or parenting foster youth described in paragraph (2)(B), the prevention plan shall—

Text – H.R.253 – 115th Congress (2017-2018): Family First Prevention Services Act of 2017
Text for H.R.253 – 115th Congress (2017-2018): Family First Prevention Services Act of 2017

Where Am I?

You are currently browsing the chicago and collar county machines category at Will County Pro-se.