Illinois workforce innovation and opportunity – 2016-2020

May 6, 2017 § Leave a comment

https://www.illinoisworknet.com/DownloadPrint/ILLINOIS%20UNIFIED%20STATE%20PLAN_FINAL.pdf

some info open link for getting ed monies?

ILLINOIS WIOA UNIFIED PLAN
STATE OF ILLINOIS WORKFORCE INNOVATION AND OPPORTUNITY ACT UNIFIED STATE PLAN FOR PROGRAM YEARS 2016-2020
(JULY 1, 2016-JUNE 30, 2020)

ILLINOIS WIOA UNIFIED PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
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
ILLINOIS WIOA UNIFIED PLAN
CHAPTER 1 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
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
1
ILLINOIS WIOA UNIFIED PLAN
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.
2
ILLINOIS WIOA UNIFIED PLAN
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.
3
ILLINOIS WIOA UNIFIED PLAN
CHAPTER 2 – ECONOMIC AND WORKFORCE ANALYSIS
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
4
ILLINOIS WIOA UNIFIED PLAN
Table 1: Illinois vs. Benchmark States vs. Nation:
Change in GDP, Employment and Earnings over Last 10 years
ILLINOIS
Great Lakes Region*
ILLINOIS
Great Lakes Region*
* Defined by the US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis to include: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin
Sources:
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
Employment
Earnings
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
US
13,772,746
14,329,566
15,773,516
147,379,583
154,188,500
155,899,000
5,417,439,000
6,244,497,000
7,469,374,000
Percent Change in Gross Domestic Product
Percent Change in Employment
Percent Change in Earnings
2004-2009
0.6%
-4.6%
2009-2014
6.0%
9.6%
2004-2014
6.7%
4.6%
2004-2009
0.0%
-4.0%
2009-2014
2.3%
3.4%
2004-2014
2.3%
-0.8%
2004-2009
11.7%
5.6%
2009-2014
16.3%
18.0%
2004-2014
29.9%
24.5%
US
4.0%
10.1%
14.5%
4.6%
1.1%
5.8%
15.3%
19.6%
37.9%
5
ILLINOIS WIOA UNIFIED PLAN
Table 2: Illinois Employment by Major Industry Sector
Base Year Employment 2012
6,166,236
Agricultural Production
Natural Resources and Mining
Utilities 23,809
Share of
Statewide Projected Base Year Year
Employment Employment 2012 2022
Net Change 2012-2022
Ten-Year
Percent Location Change Quotient
2012-2022 2012
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Title TOTAL, ALL INDUSTRIES
100.00%
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%
6,678,572
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%
1.00
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
Construction
Manufacturing
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
Government
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
6
ILLINOIS WIOA UNIFIED PLAN
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
7
ILLINOIS WIOA UNIFIED PLAN
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
9,978
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
8
ILLINOIS WIOA UNIFIED PLAN
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
LEADING INDUSTRIES NAICS Title
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
TOTAL, ALL INDUSTRIES
6,166,236
100%
6,678,572
512,336
8.3%
1.00
Professional and Business Services
860,924
14.0%
1,020,527
159,603
18.5%
1.13
Health Care and Social Assistance
733,693
11.9%
841,289
107,596
14.7%
1.02
Educational Services, Private and Public
568,857
9.2%
600,804
31,947
5.6%
1.24
Wholesale Trade
294,361
4.8%
324,652
30,291
10.3%
1.22
Financial Activities
365,716
5.9%
392,651
26,935
7.4%
1.48
Personal and Other Services
280,007
4.5%
300,240
20,233
7.2%
1.07
Transportation and Warehousing
273,535
4.4%
293,395
19,860
7.3%
1.46
Utilities
23,809
0.4%
24,322
513
2.2%
1.01
Sources: IL Department of Employment Security Statewide Long-Term Employment Projections, Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity
9
ILLINOIS WIOA UNIFIED PLAN
Table 5: EMERGING Major Industry Sectors Statewide
EMERGING INDUSTRIES NAICS Title
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
TOTAL, ALL INDUSTRIES
6,166,236
100%
6,678,572
512,336
8.3%
1.00
Leisure and Hospitality
535,716
8.7%
580,005
44,289
8.3%
0.92
Retail Trade
596,393
9.7%
632,132
35,739
6.0%
0.95
Construction
188,916
3.1%
215,181
26,265
13.9%
0.79
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
MATURING INDUSTRIES NAICS Title
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
TOTAL, ALL INDUSTRIES
6,166,236
100%
6,678,572
512,336
8.3%
1.00
Manufacturing
582,735
9.5%
581,655
(1,080)
-0.2%
1.15
2 North American Industry Classification System – http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/
10

ILLINOIS WIOA UNIFIED PLAN
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.
11
ILLINOIS WIOA UNIFIED PLAN
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%
Red
White
Green
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.
12
ILLINOIS WIOA UNIFIED PLAN
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.
13
ILLINOIS WIOA UNIFIED PLAN
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
14
ILLINOIS WIOA UNIFIED PLAN
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
15
ILLINOIS WIOA UNIFIED PLAN
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
16
ILLINOIS WIOA UNIFIED PLAN
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.
17
ILLINOIS WIOA UNIFIED PLAN
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
18
ILLINOIS WIOA UNIFIED PLAN
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).
Manufacturing
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.
http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/about/updates/policy/-/asset_publisher/U9jFxa68cnNA/content/searching-for- evidence-of-a-skills-gap-in-manufacturing
19

ILLINOIS WIOA UNIFIED PLAN
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 http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/documents/10180/69902/FULL Technical Report web.pdf/3243f710-f91d-4632- 934a-3682fc19fffc
5 https://www2.illinoisworknet.com/DownloadPrint/HCTF%20Final%20Report.pdf
20
ILLINOIS WIOA UNIFIED PLAN
• 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
6 https://www.jpmorganchase.com/corporate/Corporate-Responsibility/document/54841-jpmc-gap-chicago-aw3-
v2-accessible.pdf
21
ILLINOIS WIOA UNIFIED PLAN
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.
Veterans
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
22
ILLINOIS WIOA UNIFIED PLAN
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.
23
ILLINOIS WIOA UNIFIED PLAN
CHAPTER 3 – ILLINOIS WORKFORCE SYSTEM
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
24
ILLINOIS WIOA UNIFIED PLAN
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.
25
ILLINOIS WIOA UNIFIED PLAN
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
26
ILLINOIS WIOA UNIFIED PLAN
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.
7 http://www.illinois.gov/aging/AboutUs/Pages/rules-main.aspx
27

ILLINOIS WIOA UNIFIED PLAN
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.
YouthBuild
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
28
ILLINOIS WIOA UNIFIED PLAN
competitive contracting processes, and by other federal agencies through interagency agreements. For more information regarding the Job Corps Program in Illinois please visit: http://www.jobcorps.gov/centers/il.aspx
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.
8 http://www.vermilionadvantage.com/
29
ILLINOIS WIOA UNIFIED PLAN
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.
30
ILLINOIS WIOA UNIFIED PLAN
CHAPTER 4 – STATE VISION, PRINCIPLES, GOALS AND STRATEGIES
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.
Principles
• 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
31
ILLINOIS WIOA UNIFIED PLAN
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

http://www.library.unt.edu/gpo/acir/Reports/policy/A-60.pdf

http://webarchive.urban.org/publications/310991.html

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.

Housing
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.

Medicaid
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.

Superwaiver
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.

Conclusion
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
Notes
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).

References
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. http://www.stateline.org/stateline/?pa=story&sa=showStoryInfo&id=316414.

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 publicaffairs@urban.org.

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

Killing our worlds children just for dollars ? who helps all these children?

May 6, 2017 § Leave a comment

http://aptnnews.ca/2017/05/06/ojibway-teen-sleeping-in-ottawa-mall-stairwell-after-aging-out-of-group-home/

Ojibway teen sleeping in Ottawa mall stairwell after aging out of group home

National News | May 6, 2017 by Kenneth Jackson Attributed to: | 21 Comments

Kenneth Jackson
APTN National News
An Ojibway teen is sleeping in the stairwell of the Rideau Centre parking garage in downtown Ottawa after aging out of his group home.

It’s better than the shelters says the 18-year-old.

He was dropped off at the Ottawa Mission shelter a few weeks after he turned 18 on March 1 by staff of the Ottawa group home he was living in operated by Mary Homes.

The teen said he didn’t stay at the Mission long before finding a little nook on the top floor of the Rideau Centre’s parking garage.

“Ever since then I have been coming here to sleep,” said the young man, who APTN National News can’t identify because he is on extended care with his child welfare agency. For this story APTN is calling him Jason.

When it gets too cold at night Jason might go to the Salvation Army shelter a few blocks away but prefers his perch in the stairwell that overlooks Nicholas Street.

“It’s a nice spot, overall,” he said.

During the day he hangs out in the Rideau Centre using the mall’s free WiFi to stay connected with friends as APTN learned the mall is a popular spot for kids living in group homes in Ottawa.

He knows them and they know him – not just because he was once one of them but because a couple months ago he saved the life of a 13-year-old girl who ran away from her group home.

That girl was Amy Owen who has been in the news recently for being one of three First Nations girls to die Ontario group homes in the last six months.

Amy Owen, 13, is suspected of dying from suicide at an Ottawa group home on April 17.
Amy Owen, 13, is suspected of dying from suicide at an Ottawa group home on April 17.
Owen was living in Mary Homes group home when she died in the east end of Ottawa.

It’s also the same home where a 16-year-old Ojibway girl had been living at when APTN spoke to her at Rideau Centre on Thurday.

“Amy and I were really close. We were like sisters,” said the girl who APTN can’t identify as she is ward of the state.

Owen’s room was right above hers.

Each morning she would knock on the ceiling and Owen would knock back to let her know she was awake. They’d come out of their rooms and meet at the stairs and hug.

The day after Owen is suspected of dying by suicide in the home the 16-year-old knocked on the ceiling like she always had.

She had forgotten Owen had died.

“I burst into tears,” she said, adding she ran away shortly after that.

This is the 16-year-old girl who says she ran away from the group home after Amy Owen is believed to have died by suicide.
This is the 16-year-old girl who says she ran away from the group home after Amy Owen is believed to have died by suicide.
APTN confirmed with Ottawa police a missing person’s report was filed in her name but she was located a day later.

She said she talked to her social worker and told her she is staying with a friend until they find a new group home.

She remembers when Jason saved Owen’s life.

Owen had ran away and Jason tracked her down on Montreal Road near St. Laurent Blvd. where she was running into traffic trying to commit suicide.

“It is true. He found her and took good care of her,” said the 16-year-old.

“I stopped her from jumping in front of a car,” said Jason. “I told her if she killed herself she would be hurting people around her rather than just herself.”

He said he saw Owen a couple weeks later and she thanked him for saving her.

It was the last time he saw her. She died April 17.

Owen, Jason and the 16-year-old are all from the Kenora area, near the Ontario/Manitoba border. Each were placed in Ottawa group homes by Indigenous child service agencies that operate under the Ontario government.

APTN spoke to Jason’s former child worker with the Weechi-it-te-win Family Services in the Kenora area.

Andrew Letander said he traveled to Ottawa about a month ago to see if Jason would return back to Kenora but he refused.

“I did go there and he did not want to go back with me,” he said. “He said he had it all planned out.”

Letander said he is aware that Mary Homes dropped Jason off at the Mission.

Letander said it was explained to Jason that the group home needed his bed for other children, as most kids in the home were much younger than Jason.

Letander said Jason is on what’s called “extended care maintenance,” which he will be on until he’s 21 unless he decides he doesn’t want to be, which he’d then need to follow steps to do.

Jason up on his perch in the Rideau Centre parking lot stairwell.
Jason up on his perch in the Rideau Centre parking lot stairwell.
When he turned 18 he got a new worker that specializes in youth transitioning out of group homes but that worker has been on sick leave for a month said Letander.

“I gave him a heads up about what was going to be happening when he turned 18 and Mary Homes gave him a heads up on that, (too),” he said.

Letander said Jason is supposed to receive food assistance funding every month but they don’t have an address to send the cheques.

Jason has no parents to go home to. Both his parents died when he was a young child – his mom from suicide and his dad form cancer.

“He’s been bounced around from group home to group home all his life,” said Letander. “I am worried about him.”

As for Jason he said he’d like to finish school, as he only has his Grade 9, and go to college.

But that seems like a million miles away from his perch in the Rideau Centre mall.

He went to go get a Social Insurance Number Friday so he could at least get a job but was told he needed his birth certificate.

Service Canada wouldn’t accept only his status card.

He’d also like to do something else.

“I’d like to shut group homes down,” he said.

Mary Homes didn’t respond to questions by the time this story was published.

kjackson@aptn.ca

Il gets 182 million on just one Title program how much goes to lisa medians office like IV -d program?

May 5, 2017 § Leave a comment

One state gets 182 million from elderly SS money. Title IV-E
No automatic alt text available.
Team IsaiahLike Page
January 8, 2015 ·
In 2014 the state of IL DCFS received $182 million dollars in federal funding for their foster care title IV-E funding. They seem to get bonuses or additional funding for out of state children with medical conditions and physical disabilities. They need to get the FBI in there to clean up this system and return Isaiah Rider and any other out of state adults/ children (Isaiah’s an adult now in his home state) that they continue to benefit financially from. As if that’s not bad enough but they are not providing safe care or homes and children are being abused in the name of “protection” and they claim they don’t have enough funding?? Where is the money going ? Is this human trafficking? There seems to be financial incentives here.

Dear State of Illinois;
Release Isaiah Rider from your custody immediately. Enough is enough already. He is a Missiouri resident and always has been. He’s not even currently residing in your state. He’s living in Missiouri right now and is considered an adult in his home state . He never lived in your state except for the 5 months of forced foster care after taken from Lurie’s ICU because mom requested different care for him. He was then thrown to the wolves in a bad area, traumatized and crimes were committed against him that you are now trying to cover up as well and all conveniently done in the name of “protection”. How can an agency over 500 miles or 8-10 hours away possibly decide the welfare of an individual? How is it ever in the best interest for another state to decide whats best for another states resident ? This doesn’t make sense to any one. Who is benefiting from this, because it’s certainly not Isaiah ? You have caused him and his family enough harm . You are still receiving federal funding for Isaiah since you are not allowing him to go home (where he has requested over and over time and time and Missiouri also recommended) to live and so he is still classified in your IL “foster care” but yet in Mo? Again not making any sense here. He was abused and traumatized in your state care and custody sadly just like many of the other unfortunate children/ adults that are currently being brought to our countries attention. It seems your state needs to focus on your own issues instead of causing issues and harassing out of state residents who were only visitors seeking medical care and you are now torturing them and their family for months on end and benefiting from their suffering financially. Then on a whim decide to extradite him back to Chicago against his will as if he has committed a crime. Should he require medical care you insist on sending him to medical facilities who have said they can’t help and even most recently refused care and yet you deny him going to the facility who said they feel they can help his rare complication. Is this making any bit of sense to anyone ?? It’s actually completely asinine. This has gone on long enough. 9 months too long and you seem to have your hands full right now , so let Isaiah Rider go. Again, he’s not living in your state, he’s an adult in his own state and he’s not your resident to be trying to control and he wants nothing to do with you! . Stop bullying this young man and his family and trying to cover up the crimes that have been committed against him! The longer this goes on the more insane and obvious it becomes to EVERYONE. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. – signed, concerned tax paying and law abiding citizens.

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.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 4, 2017
Mr. Buchanan (for himself and Mr. Levin) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means
A BILL
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,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Family First Prevention Services Act of 2017”.
SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.
The table of contents for this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.
TITLE I—INVESTING IN PREVENTION AND FAMILY SERVICES
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.
TITLE II—ENSURING THE NECESSITY OF A PLACEMENT THAT IS NOT IN A FOSTER FAMILY HOME
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.
TITLE III—CONTINUING SUPPORT FOR CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES
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.
TITLE IV—CONTINUING INCENTIVES TO STATES TO PROMOTE ADOPTION AND LEGAL GUARDIANSHIP
Sec. 401. Reauthorizing adoption and legal guardianship incentive programs.
TITLE V—TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS
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.
TITLE VI—ENSURING STATES REINVEST SAVINGS RESULTING FROM INCREASE IN ADOPTION ASSISTANCE
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.
TITLE I—INVESTING IN PREVENTION AND FAMILY SERVICES
SEC. 101. PURPOSE.
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
SEC. 111. FOSTER CARE PREVENTION SERVICES AND PROGRAMS.
(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
CONGRESS.GOV

Visa waiver program for certain visitors

May 5, 2017 § Leave a comment

8 U.S. Code § 1187 – Visa waiver program for certain visitors

Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
US Code
Notes
Authorities (CFR)
prev | next
(a) Establishment of programThe Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State are authorized to establish a program (hereinafter in this section referred to as the “program”) under which the requirement of paragraph (7)(B)(i)(II) of section 1182(a) of this title may be waived by the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and in accordance with this section, in the case of an alien who meets the following requirements:
(1) Seeking entry as tourist for 90 days or less
The alien is applying for admission during the program as a nonimmigrant visitor (described in section 1101(a)(15)(B) of this title) for a period not exceeding 90 days.
(2) National of program countryThe alien is a national of, and presents a passport issued by, a country which—
(A) extends (or agrees to extend), either on its own or in conjunction with one or more other countries that are described in subparagraph (B) and that have established with it a common area for immigration admissions, reciprocal privileges to citizens and nationals of the United States, and
(B) is designated as a pilot program country under subsection (c).
(3) Passport requirementsThe alien, at the time of application for admission, is in possession of a valid unexpired passport that satisfies the following:
(A) Machine readable
The passport is a machine-readable passport that is tamper-resistant, incorporates document authentication identifiers, and otherwise satisfies the internationally accepted standard for machine readability.
(B) Electronic
Beginning on April 1, 2016, the passport is an electronic passport that is fraud-resistant, contains relevant biographic and biometric information (as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security), and otherwise satisfies internationally accepted standards for electronic passports.
(4) Executes immigration forms
The alien before the time of such admission completes such immigration form as the Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish.
(5) Entry into the United States
If arriving by sea or air, the alien arrives at the port of entry into the United States on a carrier, including any carrier conducting operations under part 135 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, or a noncommercial aircraft that is owned or operated by a domestic corporation conducting operations under part 91 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations [1] which has entered into an agreement with the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to subsection (e). The Secretary of Homeland Security is authorized to require a carrier conducting operations under part 135 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, or a domestic corporation conducting operations under part 91 of that title, to give suitable and proper bond, in such reasonable amount and containing such conditions as the Secretary of Homeland Security may deem sufficient to ensure compliance with the indemnification requirements of this section, as a term of such an agreement.
(6) Not a safety threat
The alien has been determined not to represent a threat to the welfare, health, safety, or security of the United States.
(7) No previous violation
If the alien previously was admitted without a visa under this section, the alien must not have failed to comply with the conditions of any previous admission as such a nonimmigrant.
(8) Round-trip ticket
The alien is in possession of a round-trip transportation ticket (unless this requirement is waived by the Secretary of Homeland Security under regulations or the alien is arriving at the port of entry on an aircraft operated under part 135 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, or a noncommercial aircraft that is owned or operated by a domestic corporation conducting operations under part 91 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations).
(9) Automated system check
The identity of the alien has been checked using an automated electronic database containing information about the inadmissibility of aliens to uncover any grounds on which the alien may be inadmissible to the United States, and no such ground has been found.
(10) Electronic transmission of identification information
Operators of aircraft under part 135 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, or operators of noncommercial aircraft that are owned or operated by a domestic corporation conducting operations under part 91 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, carrying any alien passenger who will apply for admission under this section shall furnish such information as the Secretary of Homeland Security by regulation shall prescribe as necessary for the identification of any alien passenger being transported and for the enforcement of the immigration laws. Such information shall be electronically transmitted not less than one hour prior to arrival at the port of entry for purposes of checking for inadmissibility using the automated electronic database.
(11) Eligibility determination under the electronic system for travel authorization
Beginning on the date on which the electronic system for travel authorization developed under subsection (h)(3) is fully operational, each alien traveling under the program shall, before applying for admission to the United States, electronically provide to the system biographical information and such other information as the Secretary of Homeland Security shall determine necessary to determine the eligibility of, and whether there exists a law enforcement or security risk in permitting, the alien to travel to the United States. Upon review of such biographical information, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall determine whether the alien is eligible to travel to the United States under the program.
(12) Not present in Iraq, Syria, or any other country or area of concern
(A) In generalExcept as provided in subparagraphs (B) and (C)—
(i) the alien has not been present, at any time on or after March 1, 2011—
(I) in Iraq or Syria;
(II) in a country that is designated by the Secretary of State under section 4605(j) of title 50 (as continued in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)), section 2780 of title 22, section 2371 of title 22, or any other provision of law, as a country, the government of which has repeatedly provided support of acts of international terrorism; or
(III) in any other country or area of concern designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security under subparagraph (D); and
(ii) regardless of whether the alien is a national of a program country, the alien is not a national of—
(I) Iraq or Syria;
(II) a country that is designated, at the time the alien applies for admission, by the Secretary of State under section 4605(j) of title 50 (as continued in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)), section 2780 of title 22, section 2371 of title 22, or any other provision of law, as a country, the government of which has repeatedly provided support of acts of international terrorism; or
(III) any other country that is designated, at the time the alien applies for admission, by the Secretary of Homeland Security under subparagraph (D).
(B) Certain military personnel and government employeesSubparagraph (A)(i) shall not apply in the case of an alien if the Secretary of Homeland Security determines that the alien was present—
(i) in order to perform military service in the armed forces of a program country; or
(ii) in order to carry out official duties as a full time employee of the government of a program country.
(C) Waiver
The Secretary of Homeland Security may waive the application of subparagraph (A) to an alien if the Secretary determines that such a waiver is in the law enforcement or national security interests of the United States.
(D) Countries or areas of concern
(i) In general
Not later than 60 days after December 18, 2015, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall determine whether the requirement under subparagraph (A) shall apply to any other country or area.
(ii) CriteriaIn making a determination under clause (i), the Secretary shall consider—
(I) whether the presence of an alien in the country or area increases the likelihood that the alien is a credible threat to the national security of the United States;
(II) whether a foreign terrorist organization has a significant presence in the country or area; and
(III) whether the country or area is a safe haven for terrorists.
(iii) Annual review
The Secretary shall conduct a review, on an annual basis, of any determination made under clause (i).
(E) Report
Beginning not later than one year after December 18, 2015, and annually thereafter, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the Committee on Homeland Security, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Select Committee on Intelligence, and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate a report on each instance in which the Secretary exercised the waiver authority under subparagraph (C) during the previous year.
(b) Waiver of rightsAn alien may not be provided a waiver under the program unless the alien has waived any right—
(1) to review or appeal under this chapter of an immigration officer’s determination as to the admissibility of the alien at the port of entry into the United States, or
(2) to contest, other than on the basis of an application for asylum, any action for removal of the alien.
(c) Designation of program countries
(1) In general
The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, may designate any country as a program country if it meets the requirements of paragraph (2).
(2) QualificationsExcept as provided in subsection (f), a country may not be designated as a program country unless the following requirements are met:
(A) Low nonimmigrant visa refusal rateEither—
(i) the average number of refusals of nonimmigrant visitor visas for nationals of that country during—
(I) the two previous full fiscal years was less than 2.0 percent of the total number of nonimmigrant visitor visas for nationals of that country which were granted or refused during those years; and
(II) either of such two previous full fiscal years was less than 2.5 percent of the total number of nonimmigrant visitor visas for nationals of that country which were granted or refused during that year; or
(ii) such refusal rate for nationals of that country during the previous full fiscal year was less than 3.0 percent.
(B) Passport program
(i) Issuance of passports
The government of the country certifies that it issues to its citizens passports described in subparagraph (A) of subsection (a)(3), and on or after April 1, 2016, passports described in subparagraph (B) of subsection (a)(3).
(ii) Validation of passports
Not later than October 1, 2016, the government of the country certifies that it has in place mechanisms to validate passports described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of subsection (a)(3) at each key port of entry into that country. This requirement shall not apply to travel between countries which fall within the Schengen Zone.
(C) Law enforcement and security interestsThe Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State—
(i) evaluates the effect that the country’s designation would have on the law enforcement and security interests of the United States (including the interest in enforcement of the immigration laws of the United States and the existence and effectiveness of its agreements and procedures for extraditing to the United States individuals, including its own nationals, who commit crimes that violate United States law);
(ii) determines that such interests would not be compromised by the designation of the country; and
(iii) submits a written report to the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on Foreign Relations, and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate regarding the country’s qualification for designation that includes an explanation of such determination.
(D) Reporting lost and stolen passports
The government of the country enters into an agreement with the United States to report, or make available through Interpol or other means as designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security, to the United States Government information about the theft or loss of passports not later than 24 hours after becoming aware of the theft or loss and in a manner specified in the agreement.
(E) Repatriation of aliens
The government of the country accepts for repatriation any citizen, former citizen, or national of the country against whom a final executable order of removal is issued not later than three weeks after the issuance of the final order of removal. Nothing in this subparagraph creates any duty for the United States or any right for any alien with respect to removal or release. Nothing in this subparagraph gives rise to any cause of action or claim under this paragraph or any other law against any official of the United States or of any State to compel the release, removal, or consideration for release or removal of any alien.
(F) Passenger information exchange
The government of the country enters into an agreement with the United States to share information regarding whether citizens and nationals of that country traveling to the United States represent a threat to the security or welfare of the United States or its citizens, and fully implements such agreement.
(G) Interpol screening
Not later than 270 days after December 18, 2015, except in the case of a country in which there is not an international airport, the government of the country certifies to the Secretary of Homeland Security that, to the maximum extent allowed under the laws of the country, it is screening, for unlawful activity, each person who is not a citizen or national of that country who is admitted to or departs that country, by using relevant databases and notices maintained by Interpol, or other means designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security. This requirement shall not apply to travel between countries which fall within the Schengen Zone.
(3) Continuing and subsequent qualificationsFor each fiscal year after the initial period—
(A) Continuing qualificationIn the case of a country which was a program country in the previous fiscal year, a country may not be designated as a program country unless the sum of—
(i) the total of the number of nationals of that country who were denied admission at the time of arrival or withdrew their application for admission during such previous fiscal year as a nonimmigrant visitor, and
(ii) the total number of nationals of that country who were admitted as nonimmigrant visitors during such previous fiscal year and who violated the terms of such admission,
was less than 2 percent of the total number of nationals of that country who applied for admission as nonimmigrant visitors during such previous fiscal year.
(B) New countriesIn the case of another country, the country may not be designated as a program country unless the following requirements are met:
(i) Low nonimmigrant visa refusal rate in previous 2-year period
The average number of refusals of nonimmigrant visitor visas for nationals of that country during the two previous full fiscal years was less than 2 percent of the total number of nonimmigrant visitor visas for nationals of that country which were granted or refused during those years.
(ii) Low nonimmigrant visa refusal rate in each of the 2 previous years
The average number of refusals of nonimmigrant visitor visas for nationals of that country during either of such two previous full fiscal years was less than 2.5 percent of the total number of nonimmigrant visitor visas for nationals of that country which were granted or refused during that year.
(4) Initial period
For purposes of paragraphs (2) and (3), the term “initial period” means the period beginning at the end of the 30-day period described in subsection (b)(1) and ending on the last day of the first fiscal year which begins after such 30-day period.
(5) Written reports on continuing qualification; designation terminations
(A) Periodic evaluations
(i) In generalThe Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, periodically (but not less than once every 2 years)—
(I) shall evaluate the effect of each program country’s continued designation on the law enforcement and security interests of the United States (including the interest in enforcement of the immigration laws of the United States and the existence and effectiveness of its agreements and procedures for extraditing to the United States individuals, including its own nationals, who commit crimes that violate United States law);
(II) shall determine, based upon the evaluation in subclause (I), whether any such designation ought to be continued or terminated under subsection (d);
(III) shall submit a written report to the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and the Committee on Homeland Security, of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Select Committee on Intelligence and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate regarding the continuation or termination of the country’s designation that includes an explanation of such determination and the effects described in subclause (I);
(IV) shall submit to Congress a report regarding the implementation of the electronic system for travel authorization under subsection (h)(3) and the participation of new countries in the program through a waiver under paragraph (8); and
(V) shall submit to the committees described in subclause (III), a report that includes an assessment of the threat to the national security of the United States of the designation of each country designated as a program country, including the compliance of the government of each such country with the requirements under subparagraphs (D) and (F) of paragraph (2), as well as each such government’s capacity to comply with such requirements.
(ii) Effective date
A termination of the designation of a country under this subparagraph shall take effect on the date determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State.
(iii) Redesignation
In the case of a termination under this subparagraph, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall redesignate the country as a program country, without regard to subsection (f) or paragraph (2) or (3), when the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, determines that all causes of the termination have been eliminated.
(B) Emergency termination
(i) In general
In the case of a program country in which an emergency occurs that the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, determines threatens the law enforcement or security interests of the United States (including the interest in enforcement of the immigration laws of the United States), the Secretary of Homeland Security shall immediately terminate the designation of the country as a program country.
(ii) DefinitionFor purposes of clause (i), the term “emergency” means—
(I) the overthrow of a democratically elected government;
(II) war (including undeclared war, civil war, or other military activity) on the territory of the program country;
(III) a severe breakdown in law and order affecting a significant portion of the program country’s territory;
(IV) a severe economic collapse in the program country; or
(V) any other extraordinary event in the program country that threatens the law enforcement or security interests of the United States (including the interest in enforcement of the immigration laws of the United States) and where the country’s participation in the program could contribute to that threat.
(iii) RedesignationThe Secretary of Homeland Security may redesignate the country as a program country, without regard to subsection (f) or paragraph (2) or (3), when the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, determines that—
(I) at least 6 months have elapsed since the effective date of the termination;
(II) the emergency that caused the termination has ended; and
(III) the average number of refusals of nonimmigrant visitor visas for nationals of that country during the period of termination under this subparagraph was less than 3.0 percent of the total number of nonimmigrant visitor visas for nationals of that country which were granted or refused during such period.
(iv) Program suspension authorityThe Director of National Intelligence shall immediately inform the Secretary of Homeland Security of any current and credible threat which poses an imminent danger to the United States or its citizens and originates from a country participating in the visa waiver program. Upon receiving such notification, the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of State—
(I) may suspend a country from the visa waiver program without prior notice;
(II) shall notify any country suspended under subclause (I) and, to the extent practicable without disclosing sensitive intelligence sources and methods, provide justification for the suspension; and
(III) shall restore the suspended country’s participation in the visa waiver program upon a determination that the threat no longer poses an imminent danger to the United States or its citizens.
(C) Treatment of nationals after terminationFor purposes of this paragraph—
(i) nationals of a country whose designation is terminated under subparagraph (A) or (B) shall remain eligible for a waiver under subsection (a) until the effective date of such termination; and
(ii) a waiver under this section that is provided to such a national for a period described in subsection (a)(1) shall not, by such termination, be deemed to have been rescinded or otherwise rendered invalid, if the waiver is granted prior to such termination.
(6) Computation of visa refusal rates
For purposes of determining the eligibility of a country to be designated as a program country, the calculation of visa refusal rates shall not include any visa refusals which incorporate any procedures based on, or are otherwise based on, race, sex, or disability, unless otherwise specifically authorized by law or regulation. No court shall have jurisdiction under this paragraph to review any visa refusal, the denial of admission to the United States of any alien by the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary’s computation of the visa refusal rate, or the designation or nondesignation of any country.
(7) Visa waiver information
(A) In general
In refusing the application of nationals of a program country for United States visas, or the applications of nationals of a country seeking entry into the visa waiver program, a consular officer shall not knowingly or intentionally classify the refusal of the visa under a category that is not included in the calculation of the visa refusal rate only so that the percentage of that country’s visa refusals is less than the percentage limitation applicable to qualification for participation in the visa waiver program.
(B) Reporting requirementOn May 1 of each year, for each country under consideration for inclusion in the visa waiver program, the Secretary of State shall provide to the appropriate congressional committees—
(i) the total number of nationals of that country that applied for United States visas in that country during the previous calendar year;
(ii) the total number of such nationals who received United States visas during the previous calendar year;
(iii) the total number of such nationals who were refused United States visas during the previous calendar year;
(iv) the total number of such nationals who were refused United States visas during the previous calendar year under each provision of this chapter under which the visas were refused; and
(v) the number of such nationals that were refused under section 1184(b) of this title as a percentage of the visas that were issued to such nationals.
(C) Certification
Not later than May 1 of each year, the United States chief of mission, acting or permanent, to each country under consideration for inclusion in the visa waiver program shall certify to the appropriate congressional committees that the information described in subparagraph (B) is accurate and provide a copy of that certification to those committees.
(D) Consideration of countries in the visa waiver program
Upon notification to the Secretary of Homeland Security that a country is under consideration for inclusion in the visa waiver program, the Secretary of State shall provide all of the information described in subparagraph (B) to the Secretary of Homeland Security.
(E) Definition
In this paragraph, the term “appropriate congressional committees” means the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on International Relations of the House of Representatives.
(8) Nonimmigrant visa refusal rate flexibility
(A) Certification
(i) In general
On the date on which an air exit system is in place that can verify the departure of not less than 97 percent of foreign nationals who exit through airports of the United States and the electronic system for travel authorization required under subsection (h)(3) is fully operational, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall certify to Congress that such air exit system and electronic system for travel authorization are in place.
(ii) Notification to Congress
The Secretary shall notify Congress in writing of the date on which the air exit system under clause (i) fully satisfies the biometric requirements specified in subsection (i).
(iii) Temporary suspension of waiver authority
Notwithstanding any certification made under clause (i), if the Secretary has not notified Congress in accordance with clause (ii) by June 30, 2009, the Secretary’s waiver authority under subparagraph (B) shall be suspended beginning on July 1, 2009, until such time as the Secretary makes such notification.
(iv) Rule of construction
Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as in any way abrogating the reporting requirements under subsection (i)(3).
(B) WaiverAfter certification by the Secretary under subparagraph (A), the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of State, may waive the application of paragraph (2)(A) for a country if—
(i) the country meets all security requirements of this section;
(ii) the Secretary of Homeland Security determines that the totality of the country’s security risk mitigation measures provide assurance that the country’s participation in the program would not compromise the law enforcement, security interests, or enforcement of the immigration laws of the United States;
(iii) there has been a sustained reduction in the rate of refusals for nonimmigrant visas for nationals of the country and conditions exist to continue such reduction;
(iv) the country cooperated with the Government of the United States on counterterrorism initiatives, information sharing, and preventing terrorist travel before the date of its designation as a program country, and the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State determine that such cooperation will continue; and
(v)
(I) the rate of refusals for nonimmigrant visitor visas for nationals of the country during the previous full fiscal year was not more than ten percent; or
(II) the visa overstay rate for the country for the previous full fiscal year does not exceed the maximum visa overstay rate, once such rate is established under subparagraph (C).
(C) Maximum visa overstay rate
(i) Requirement to establish
After certification by the Secretary under subparagraph (A), the Secretary and the Secretary of State jointly shall use information from the air exit system referred to in such subparagraph to establish a maximum visa overstay rate for countries participating in the program pursuant to a waiver under subparagraph (B). The Secretary of Homeland Security shall certify to Congress that such rate would not compromise the law enforcement, security interests, or enforcement of the immigration laws of the United States.
(ii) Visa overstay rate definedIn this paragraph the term “visa overstay rate” means, with respect to a country, the ratio of—
(I) the total number of nationals of that country who were admitted to the United States on the basis of a nonimmigrant visa whose periods of authorized stays ended during a fiscal year but who remained unlawfully in the United States beyond such periods; to
(II) the total number of nationals of that country who were admitted to the United States on the basis of a nonimmigrant visa during that fiscal year.
(iii) Report and publication
The Secretary of Homeland Security shall on the same date submit to Congress and publish in the Federal Register information relating to the maximum visa overstay rate established under clause (i). Not later than 60 days after such date, the Secretary shall issue a final maximum visa overstay rate above which a country may not participate in the program.
(9) Discretionary security-related considerationsIn determining whether to waive the application of paragraph (2)(A) for a country, pursuant to paragraph (8), the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall take into consideration other factors affecting the security of the United States, including—
(A) airport security standards in the country;
(B) whether the country assists in the operation of an effective air marshal program;
(C) the standards of passports and travel documents issued by the country; and
(D) other security-related factors, including the country’s cooperation with the United States’ initiatives toward combating terrorism and the country’s cooperation with the United States intelligence community in sharing information regarding terrorist threats.
(10) Technical assistance
The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall provide technical assistance to program countries to assist those countries in meeting the requirements under this section. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall ensure that the program office within the Department of Homeland Security is adequately staffed and has resources to be able to provide such technical assistance, in addition to its duties to effectively monitor compliance of the countries participating in the program with all the requirements of the program.
(11) Independent review
(A) In general
Prior to the admission of a new country into the program under this section, and in conjunction with the periodic evaluations required under subsection (c)(5)(A), the Director of National Intelligence shall conduct an independent intelligence assessment of a nominated country and member of the program.
(B) Reporting requirement
The Director shall provide to the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of State, and the Attorney General the independent intelligence assessment required under subparagraph (A).
(C) ContentsThe independent intelligence assessment conducted by the Director shall include—
(i) a review of all current, credible terrorist threats of the subject country;
(ii) an evaluation of the subject country’s counterterrorism efforts;
(iii) an evaluation as to the extent of the country’s sharing of information beneficial to suppressing terrorist movements, financing, or actions;
(iv) an assessment of the risks associated with including the subject country in the program; and
(v) recommendations to mitigate the risks identified in clause (iv).
(12) Designation of high risk program countries
(A) In general
The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of State, shall evaluate program countries on an annual basis based on the criteria described in subparagraph (B) and shall identify any program country, the admission of nationals from which under the visa waiver program under this section, the Secretary determines presents a high risk to the national security of the United States.
(B) CriteriaIn evaluating program countries under subparagraph (A), the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of State, shall consider the following criteria:
(i) The number of nationals of the country determined to be ineligible to travel to the United States under the program during the previous year.
(ii) The number of nationals of the country who were identified in United States Government databases related to the identities of known or suspected terrorists during the previous year.
(iii) The estimated number of nationals of the country who have traveled to Iraq or Syria at any time on or after March 1, 2011 to engage in terrorism.
(iv) The capacity of the country to combat passport fraud.
(v) The level of cooperation of the country with the counter-terrorism efforts of the United States.
(vi) The adequacy of the border and immigration control of the country.
(vii) Any other criteria the Secretary of Homeland Security determines to be appropriate.
(C) Suspension of designation
The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, may suspend the designation of a program country based on a determination that the country presents a high risk to the national security of the United States under subparagraph (A) until such time as the Secretary determines that the country no longer presents such a risk.
(D) Report
Not later than 60 days after December 18, 2015, and annually thereafter, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of State, shall submit to the Committee on Homeland Security, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Select Committee on Intelligence, and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate a report, which includes an evaluation and threat assessment of each country determined to present a high risk to the national security of the United States under subparagraph (A).
(d) Authority
Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, may for any reason (including national security) refrain from waiving the visa requirement in respect to nationals of any country which may otherwise qualify for designation or may, at any time, rescind any waiver or designation previously granted under this section. The Secretary of Homeland Security may not waive any eligibility requirement under this section unless the Secretary notifies, with respect to the House of Representatives, the Committee on Homeland Security, the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the Committee on Appropriations, and with respect to the Senate, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on Foreign Relations, and the Committee on Appropriations not later than 30 days before the effective date of such waiver.
(e) Carrier agreements
(1) In generalThe agreement referred to in subsection (a)(4) is an agreement between a carrier (including any carrier conducting operations under part 135 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations) or a domestic corporation conducting operations under part 91 of that title and the Secretary of Homeland Security under which the carrier (including any carrier conducting operations under part 135 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations) or a domestic corporation conducting operations under part 91 of that title agrees, in consideration of the waiver of the visa requirement with respect to a nonimmigrant visitor under the program—
(A) to indemnify the United States against any costs for the transportation of the alien from the United States if the visitor is refused admission to the United States or remains in the United States unlawfully after the 90-day period described in subsection (a)(1)(A),
(B) to submit daily to immigration officers any immigration forms received with respect to nonimmigrant visitors provided a waiver under the program,
(C) to be subject to the imposition of fines resulting from the transporting into the United States of a national of a designated country without a passport pursuant to regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Homeland Security, and
(D) to collect, provide, and share passenger data as required under subsection (h)(1)(B).
(2) Termination of agreements
The Secretary of Homeland Security may terminate an agreement under paragraph (1) with five days’ notice to the carrier (including any carrier conducting operations under part 135 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations) or a domestic corporation conducting operations under part 91 of that title for the failure by a carrier (including any carrier conducting operations under part 135 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations) or a domestic corporation conducting operations under part 91 of that title to meet the terms of such agreement.
(3) Business aircraft requirements
(A) In general
For purposes of this section, a domestic corporation conducting operations under part 91 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations [2] that owns or operates a noncommercial aircraft is a corporation that is organized under the laws of any of the States of the United States or the District of Columbia and is accredited by or a member of a national organization that sets business aviation standards. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall prescribe by regulation the provision of such information as the Secretary of Homeland Security deems necessary to identify the domestic corporation, its officers, employees, shareholders, its place of business, and its business activities.
(B) Collections
In addition to any other fee authorized by law, the Secretary of Homeland Security is authorized to charge and collect, on a periodic basis, an amount from each domestic corporation conducting operations under part 91 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, for nonimmigrant visa waiver admissions on noncommercial aircraft owned or operated by such domestic corporation equal to the total amount of fees assessed for issuance of nonimmigrant visa waiver arrival/departure forms at land border ports of entry. All fees collected under this paragraph shall be deposited into the Immigration User Fee Account established under section 1356(h) of this title.
(f) Duration and termination of designation
(1) In general
(A) Determination and notification of disqualification rate
Upon determination by the Secretary of Homeland Security that a program country’s disqualification rate is 2 percent or more, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall notify the Secretary of State.
(B) Probationary status
If the program country’s disqualification rate is greater than 2 percent but less than 3.5 percent, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall place the program country in probationary status for a period not to exceed 2 full fiscal years following the year in which the determination under subparagraph (A) is made.
(C) Termination of designation
Subject to paragraph (3), if the program country’s disqualification rate is 3.5 percent or more, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall terminate the country’s designation as a program country effective at the beginning of the second fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the determination under subparagraph (A) is made.
(2) Termination of probationary status
(A) In general
If the Secretary of Homeland Security determines at the end of the probationary period described in paragraph (1)(B) that the program country placed in probationary status under such paragraph has failed to develop a machine-readable passport program as required by section [3] (c)(2)(C), or has a disqualification rate of 2 percent or more, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall terminate the designation of the country as a program country. If the Secretary of Homeland Security determines that the program country has developed a machine-readable passport program and has a disqualification rate of less than 2 percent, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall redesignate the country as a program country.
(B) Effective date
A termination of the designation of a country under subparagraph (A) shall take effect on the first day of the first fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the determination under such subparagraph is made. Until such date, nationals of the country shall remain eligible for a waiver under subsection (a).
(3) Nonapplicability of certain provisions
Paragraph (1)(C) shall not apply unless the total number of nationals of a program country described in paragraph (4)(A) exceeds 100.
(4) “Disqualification rate” definedFor purposes of this subsection, the term “disqualification rate” means the percentage which—
(A) the total number of nationals of the program country who were—
(i) denied admission at the time of arrival or withdrew their application for admission during the most recent fiscal year for which data are available; and
(ii) admitted as nonimmigrant visitors during such fiscal year and who violated the terms of such admission; bears to
(B) the total number of nationals of such country who applied for admission as nonimmigrant visitors during such fiscal year.
(5) Failure to report passport thefts
If the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State jointly determine that the program country is not reporting the theft or loss of passports, as required by subsection (c)(2)(D), the Secretary of Homeland Security shall terminate the designation of the country as a program country.
(6) Failure to share information
(A) In general
If the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State jointly determine that the program country is not sharing information, as required by subsection (c)(2)(F), the Secretary of Homeland Security shall terminate the designation of the country as a program country.
(B) Redesignation
In the case of a termination under this paragraph, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall redesignate the country as a program country, without regard to paragraph (2) or (3) of subsection (c) or paragraphs (1) through (4), when the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, determines that the country is sharing information, as required by subsection (c)(2)(F).
(7) Failure to screen
(A) In general
Beginning on the date that is 270 days after December 18, 2015, if the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State jointly determine that the program country is not conducting the screening required by subsection (c)(2)(G), the Secretary of Homeland Security shall terminate the designation of the country as a program country.
(B) Redesignation
In the case of a termination under this paragraph, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall redesignate the country as a program country, without regard to paragraph (2) or (3) of subsection (c) or paragraphs (1) through (4), when the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, determines that the country is conducting the screening required by subsection (c)(2)(G).
(g) Visa application sole method to dispute denial of waiver based on a ground of inadmissibility
In the case of an alien denied a waiver under the program by reason of a ground of inadmissibility described in section 1182(a) of this title that is discovered at the time of the alien’s application for the waiver or through the use of an automated electronic database required under subsection (a)(9), the alien may apply for a visa at an appropriate consular office outside the United States. There shall be no other means of administrative or judicial review of such a denial, and no court or person otherwise shall have jurisdiction to consider any claim attacking the validity of such a denial.
(h) Use of information technology systems
(1) Automated entry-exit control system
(A) System
Not later than October 1, 2001, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall develop and implement a fully automated entry and exit control system that will collect a record of arrival and departure for every alien who arrives and departs by sea or air at a port of entry into the United States and is provided a waiver under the program.
(B) RequirementsThe system under subparagraph (A) shall satisfy the following requirements:
(i) Data collection by carriers
Not later than October 1, 2001, the records of arrival and departure described in subparagraph (A) shall be based, to the maximum extent practicable, on passenger data collected and electronically transmitted to the automated entry and exit control system by each carrier that has an agreement under subsection (a)(4).
(ii) Data provision by carriers
Not later than October 1, 2002, no waiver may be provided under this section to an alien arriving by sea or air at a port of entry into the United States on a carrier unless the carrier is electronically transmitting to the automated entry and exit control system passenger data determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security to be sufficient to permit the Secretary of Homeland Security to carry out this paragraph.
(iii) Calculation
The system shall contain sufficient data to permit the Secretary of Homeland Security to calculate, for each program country and each fiscal year, the portion of nationals of that country who are described in subparagraph (A) and for whom no record of departure exists, expressed as a percentage of the total number of such nationals who are so described.
(C) Reporting
(i) Percentage of nationals lacking departure record
As part of the annual report required to be submitted under section 1365a(e)(1) of this title, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall include a section containing the calculation described in subparagraph (B)(iii) for each program country for the previous fiscal year, together with an analysis of that information.
(ii) System effectivenessNot later than December 31, 2004, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit a written report to the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States House of Representatives and of the Senate containing the following:
(I) The conclusions of the Secretary of Homeland Security regarding the effectiveness of the automated entry and exit control system to be developed and implemented under this paragraph.
(II) The recommendations of the Secretary of Homeland Security regarding the use of the calculation described in subparagraph (B)(iii) as a basis for evaluating whether to terminate or continue the designation of a country as a program country.
 The report required by this clause may be combined with the annual report required to be submitted on that date under section 1365a(e)(1) of this title.
(2) Automated data sharing system
(A) System
The Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State shall develop and implement an automated data sharing system that will permit them to share data in electronic form from their respective records systems regarding the admissibility of aliens who are nationals of a program country.
(B) RequirementsThe system under subparagraph (A) shall satisfy the following requirements:
(i) Supplying information to immigration officers conducting inspections at ports of entryNot later than October 1, 2002, the system shall enable immigration officers conducting inspections at ports of entry under section 1225 of this title to obtain from the system, with respect to aliens seeking a waiver under the program—
(I) any photograph of the alien that may be contained in the records of the Department of State or the Service; and
(II) information on whether the alien has ever been determined to be ineligible to receive a visa or ineligible to be admitted to the United States.
(ii) Supplying photographs of inadmissible aliens
The system shall permit the Secretary of Homeland Security electronically to obtain any photograph contained in the records of the Secretary of State pertaining to an alien who is a national of a program country and has been determined to be ineligible to receive a visa.
(iii) Maintaining records on applications for admissionThe system shall maintain, for a minimum of 10 years, information about each application for admission made by an alien seeking a waiver under the program, including the following:
(I) The name or Service identification number of each immigration officer conducting the inspection of the alien at the port of entry.
(II) Any information described in clause (i) that is obtained from the system by any such officer.
(III) The results of the application.
(3) Electronic system for travel authorization
(A) System
The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall develop and implement a fully automated electronic system for travel authorization (referred to in this paragraph as the “System”) to collect such biographical and other information as the Secretary of Homeland Security determines necessary to determine, in advance of travel, the eligibility of, and whether there exists a law enforcement or security risk in permitting, the [4] alien to travel to the United States.
(B) Fees
(i) In generalNo later than 6 months after March 4, 2010, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish a fee for the use of the System and begin assessment and collection of that fee. The initial fee shall be the sum of—
(I) $10 per travel authorization; and
(II) an amount that will at least ensure recovery of the full costs of providing and administering the System, as determined by the Secretary.
(ii) Disposition of amounts collected
Amounts collected under clause (i)(I) shall be credited to the Travel Promotion Fund established by subsection (d) of section 2131 of title 22. Amounts collected under clause (i)(II) shall be transferred to the general fund of the Treasury and made available to pay the costs incurred to administer the System.
(iii) Sunset of Travel Promotion Fund fee
The Secretary may not collect the fee authorized by clause (i)(I) for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 2020.
(C) Validity
(i) Period
The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall prescribe regulations that provide for a period, not to exceed three years, during which a determination of eligibility to travel under the program will be valid. Notwithstanding any other provision under this section, the Secretary of Homeland Security may revoke any such determination or shorten the period of eligibility under any such determination at any time and for any reason.
(ii) Limitation
A determination by the Secretary of Homeland Security that an alien is eligible to travel to the United States under the program is not a determination that the alien is admissible to the United States.
(iii) Not a determination of visa eligibility
A determination by the Secretary of Homeland Security that an alien who applied for authorization to travel to the United States through the System is not eligible to travel under the program is not a determination of eligibility for a visa to travel to the United States and shall not preclude the alien from applying for a visa.
(iv) Judicial review
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court shall have jurisdiction to review an eligibility determination under the System.
(D) Fraud detection
The Secretary of Homeland Security shall research opportunities to incorporate into the System technology that will detect and prevent fraud and deception in the System.
(E) Additional and previous countries of citizenship
The Secretary of Homeland Security shall collect from an applicant for admission pursuant to this section information on any additional or previous countries of citizenship of that applicant. The Secretary shall take any information so collected into account when making determinations as to the eligibility of the alien for admission pursuant to this section.
(F) Report on certain limitations on travel
Not later than 30 days after December 18, 2015, and annually thereafter, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the Committee on Homeland Security, the Committee on the Judiciary, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the Committee on the Judiciary, and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate a report on the number of individuals who were denied eligibility to travel under the program, or whose eligibility for such travel was revoked during the previous year, and the number of such individuals determined, in accordance with subsection (a)(6), to represent a threat to the national security of the United States, and shall include the country or countries of citizenship of each such individual.
(i) Exit system
(1) In general
Not later than one year after August 3, 2007, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish an exit system that records the departure on a flight leaving the United States of every alien participating in the visa waiver program established under this section.
(2) System requirementsThe system established under paragraph (1) shall—
(A) match biometric information of the alien against relevant watch lists and immigration information; and
(B) compare such biometric information against manifest information collected by air carriers on passengers departing the United States to confirm such aliens have departed the United States.
(3) ReportNot later than 180 days after August 3, 2007, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report that describes—
(A) the progress made in developing and deploying the exit system established under this subsection; and
(B) the procedures by which the Secretary shall improve the method of calculating the rates of nonimmigrants who overstay their authorized period of stay in the United States.
(June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title II, ch. 2, § 217, as added Pub. L. 99–603, title III, § 313(a), Nov. 6, 1986, 100 Stat. 3435; amended Pub. L. 100–525, § 2(p)(1), (2), Oct. 24, 1988, 102 Stat. 2613; Pub. L. 101–649, title II, § 201(a), Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 5012; Pub. L. 102–232, title III, §§ 303(a)(1), (2), 307(l)(3), Dec. 12, 1991, 105 Stat. 1746, 1756; Pub. L. 103–415, § 1(m), Oct. 25, 1994, 108 Stat. 4301; Pub. L. 103–416, title II, §§ 210, 211, Oct. 25, 1994, 108 Stat. 4312, 4313; Pub. L. 104–208, div. C, title III, § 308(d)(4)(F), (e)(9), title VI, § 635(a)–(c)(1), (3), Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–618, 3009–620, 3009–702, 3009–703; Pub. L. 105–119, title I, § 125, Nov. 26, 1997, 111 Stat. 2471; Pub. L. 105–173, §§ 1, 3, Apr. 27, 1998, 112 Stat. 56; Pub. L. 106–396, title I, § 101(a), title II, §§ 201–207, title IV, § 403(a)–(d), Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1637–1644, 1647, 1648; Pub. L. 107–56, title IV, § 417(c), (d), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 355; Pub. L. 107–173, title III, § 307(a), May 14, 2002, 116 Stat. 556; Pub. L. 110–53, title VII, § 711(c), (d)(1), Aug. 3, 2007, 121 Stat. 339, 341; Pub. L. 111–145, § 9(h), formerly § 9(e), Mar. 4, 2010, 124 Stat. 62, renumbered Pub. L. 113–235, div. B, title VI, § 606(1), Dec. 16, 2014, 128 Stat. 2219; Pub. L. 111–198, § 5(a), July 2, 2010, 124 Stat. 1357; Pub. L. 113–235, div. B, title VI, § 605(b), Dec. 16, 2014, 128 Stat. 2219; Pub. L. 114–113, div. O, title II, §§ 202(a), (b), 203–205(a), 206, 207(a), 209, Dec. 18, 2015, 129 Stat. 2989–2995.)

[1]  So in original. Probably should be followed by a comma.

[2]  So in original. Probably should be followed by a comma.

[3]  So in original. Probably should be “subsection”.

[4]  So in original. Probably should be “an”.

LII has no control over and does not endorse any external Internet site that contains links to or references LII.