IWS Documented News DAILY POSTINGS

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

Legal Momentum

The Women's Legal Defense and Education Fund

WORST-OFF: SINGLE-PARENT FAMILIES IN THE UNITED STATES: A Cross-National Comparison of Single Parenthood in the U.S. and Sixteen Other High-Income Countries [20 December 2012]

http://www.legalmomentum.org/our-work/women-and-poverty/resources--publications/worst-off-single-parent.html

or

http://www.legalmomentum.org/our-work/women-and-poverty/resources--publications/worst-off-single-parent.pdf

[full-text, 38 pages]

“Worst Off – Single-Parent Families in the United States, A Cross-National Comparison of Single Parenthood in the U.S. and Sixteen Other High-Income Countries” is an exhaustive, critical analysis of data and information drawn from a broad range of sources including government agencies, social scientists, and academic researchers worldwide.  The scope of the report, with its impressive compilation of data and statistics, is a significant addition to the literature on social policies and an incisive analysis of the current circumstances and needs of single parents in the U.S. – the overwhelming majority of whom are single mothers.

Countries compared in the report include Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.  The report addresses the prevalence of single parents; employment and wage rates; poverty rates; and healthcare coverage.  It also examines public income supports such as child allowance, advanced maintenance, unemployment insurance, and social assistance as well as government support for combining jobholding and family caregiving through policies such as early childhood education and entitlements to paid parental leave, paid sick leave, and paid annual leave

Press Release 20 December 2012

LEGAL MOMENTUM RELEASES GROUNDBREAKING REPORT ON SINGLE-PARENT FAMILIES

Study Compares Economic Status of Single-Parent Families in U.S. and Other High-Income Countries

http://www.legalmomentum.org/news-room/legal-momentum-releases.html

CONTENTS

A. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1

B. SINGLE PARENTHOOD

1. Single Parenthood Is Common In High-Income Countries, And Is Especially Common In The U.S. .................................................................................................................................3

2. Who Are Single Parents? The Majority Are Married But Separated Or Have Been Previously Married. Most Are Single Mothers. ....................................................................4

C. EMPLOYMENT

1. U.S. Single Parents Have Above Average Employment Rates And An Exceptionally High Share Of Full-Time As Opposed To Part-Time Employment. ...............................................6

2. U.S. Single Parents Have High Rates Of Low-Wage Employment. .................................8

D. SUPPORT FOR COMBINING JOBHOLDING AND CAREGIVING

1. There Is An Entitlement To Paid Parental Leave In All Comparison Countries, But Not In The U.S. ..................................................................................................................................9

2. There Are Entitlements To Paid Annual Leave, Holidays, And Sick Leave In Comparison Countries, But Not In The U.S. .............................................................................................11

3. Early Childhood Education Starts Earlier In Comparison Countries Than In The U.S. ...13

E. HEALTH CARE

1. There Is Universal Health Care Coverage In All Comparison Countries, But Not In The U.S. ..........................................................................................................................................15

F. INCOME SUPPORT PROGRAMS

1. Parents Receive Child Allowance In All Comparison Countries, But Not In The U.S. ...15

2. Single Parents Receive Advance Maintenance In The Majority Of Comparison Countries, But Not In The U.S. ...............................................................................................................18

3. Unemployed U.S. Single Parents Have Low Rates Of Unemployment Insurance Receipt. ...................................................................................................................................19

4. Social Assistance For U.S. Single Parents Is Exceptionally Meager. ..............................22

G. POVERTY

1. U.S. Single-Parent Families Have Exceptionally High Poverty Rates. ............................24

2. “More Marriage” Is Not A Realistic Program For Reducing U.S. Child Poverty Rates. .27

3. “More Jobs” Is An Insufficient Response To U.S. Single Parent Poverty. ......................28

H. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................29

REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................................30

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

Congressional Research Service (CRS)

Value-Added Modeling for Teacher Effectiveness

Erin D. Lomax, Specialist in Education Policy

Jeffrey J. Kuenzi, Specialist in Education Policy

December 11, 2012

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41051.pdf

[full-text, 20 pages]

Summary

Two of the major goals of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by

the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-110; NCLB), are to improve the quality of K-12

teaching and raise the academic achievement of students who fail to meet grade-level proficiency

standards. In setting these goals, Congress recognized that reaching the second goal depends

greatly on meeting the first; that is, quality teaching is critical to student success. Thus, NCLB

established new standards for teacher qualifications and required that all courses in “core

academic subjects” be taught by a highly qualified teacher by the end of the 2005-2006 school

year.

During implementation, the NCLB highly qualified teacher requirement came to be seen as

setting minimum qualifications for entry into the profession and was criticized by some for

establishing standards so low that nearly every teacher met the requirement. Meanwhile, policy

makers have grown increasingly interested in the output of teachers’ work; that is, their

performance in the classroom and the effectiveness of their instruction. Attempts to improve

teacher performance led to federal and state efforts to incentivize improved performance through

alternative compensation systems. For example, through P.L. 109-149, Congress authorized the

Federal Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) program, which provides grants to support teacher

performance pay efforts. In addition, there are various programs at all levels (national, state, and

local) aimed at reforming teacher compensation systems. The most recent congressional action in

this area came with the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

(ARRA, P.L. 111-5) and, in particular, enactment of the Race to the Top (RTTT) program.

In November 2009, the U.S. Department of Education released a final rule of priorities,

requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for the RTTT. The final rule established a

definition of an effective teacher as one “whose students achieve acceptable rates (e.g., at least

one grade level in an academic year) of student growth (as defined in this notice).” That is, to be

considered effective, teachers must raise their students’ learning to a level at or above what is

expected within a typical school year. States, LEAs, and schools must include additional

measures to evaluate teachers; however, these evaluations must be based, “in significant part, [on]

student growth.”

This report addresses issues associated with the evaluation of teacher effectiveness based on

student growth in achievement. It focuses specifically on a method of evaluation referred to as

value-added modeling (VAM). Although there are other methods for assessing teacher

effectiveness, in the last decade, VAM has garnered increasing attention in education research and

policy due to its promise as a more objective method of evaluation. The first section of this report

describes what constitutes a VAM approach and how it estimates the so-called “teacher effect.”

The second section identifies the components necessary to conduct VAM in education settings.

Third, the report discusses current applications of VAM at the state and school district levels and

what the research on these applications says about this method of evaluation. The fourth section

of the report explains some of the implications these applications have for large-scale

implementation of VAM. Finally, the report describes some of the federal policy options that

might arise as Congress considers legislative action around these or related issues.

Contents

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1

What is Value-Added Modeling? ..................................................................................................... 3

The “Teacher Effect” ................................................................................................................. 3

Components of Conducting a Value-Added Model ................................................................... 5

Database Requirements ....................................................................................................... 5

Estimating Teacher Effects .................................................................................................. 6

Practical Applications and Research Results of Value-Added Modeling ................................ 11

VAM in the Field ............................................................................................................... 11

Research Findings ............................................................................................................. 13

Implications of Large-Scale Implementation .......................................................................... 14

Data Requirements ............................................................................................................ 14

Capacity ............................................................................................................................. 15

Transparency ..................................................................................................................... 15

Federal Policy Options ............................................................................................................ 16

Contacts

Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 17

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

Congressional Research Service (CRS)

U.S. Wind Turbine Manufacturing: Federal Support for an Emerging Industry

Michaela D. Platzer, Specialist in Industrial Organization and Business

December 18, 2012

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42023.pdf

[full-text, 38 pages]

Summary

Increasing U.S. energy supply diversity has been the goal of many Presidents and Congresses.

This commitment has been prompted by concerns about national security, the environment, and

the U.S. balance of payments. Investments in new energy sources also have been seen as a way to

expand domestic manufacturing. For all of these reasons, the federal government has a variety of

policies to promote wind power.

Expanding the use of wind energy requires installation of wind turbines. These are complex

machines composed of some 8,000 components, created from basic industrial materials such as

steel, aluminum, concrete, and fiberglass. Major components in a wind turbine include the rotor

blades, a nacelle and controls (the heart and brain of a wind turbine), a tower, and other parts such

as large bearings, transformers, gearboxes, and generators. Turbine manufacturing involves an

extensive supply chain. Until recently, Europe has been the hub for turbine production, supported

by national renewable energy deployment policies in countries such as Denmark, Germany, and

Spain. However, support for renewable energy including wind power has begun to wane across

Europe as governments there reduce or remove some subsidies. Competitive wind turbine

manufacturing sectors are also located in India and Japan and are emerging in China and South

Korea.

U.S. and foreign manufacturers have expanded their capacity in the United States to assemble and

produce wind turbines and components. About 470 U.S. manufacturing facilities produced wind

turbines and components in 2011, up from as few as 30 in 2004. An estimated 30,000 U.S.

workers were employed in the manufacturing of wind turbines in 2011. Because turbine blades,

towers, and certain other components are large and difficult to transport, manufacturing clusters

have developed in certain states, notably Colorado, Iowa, and Texas, which offer proximity to the

best locations for wind energy production. The U.S. wind turbine manufacturing industry also

depends on imports, with the majority coming from European countries, where the technical

ability to produce large wind turbines was developed. Although turbine manufacturers’ supply

chains are global, recent investments are estimated to have raised the share of parts manufactured

in the United States to 67% in 2011, up from 35% in 2005-2006.

The outlook for wind turbine manufacturing in the United States is more uncertain now than in

recent years. For the past two decades, a variety of federal laws and state policies have

encouraged both wind energy production and the use of U.S.-made equipment to generate that

energy. One apparent challenge for the industry is the scheduled expiration at year-end 2012 of

the production tax credit (PTC), which the industry claims could reduce domestic turbine sales to

zero in 2013. In anticipation, at least a dozen wind turbine manufacturers announced layoffs or

hiring freezes at their U.S. facilities in 2012, citing uncertainty around the renewal of the PTC as

one reason. Other factors affecting the health of the U.S. wind industry are intense price

competition from natural gas, an oversupply in wind turbines, and softening demand for

renewable electricity.

Contents

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1

Wind Turbine Manufacturing .......................................................................................................... 2

Historical Overview ................................................................................................................... 3

Demand for Wind Turbines and Components ........................................................................... 4

Wind Turbine Suppliers ............................................................................................................. 6

International Manufacturers Dominate Wind Turbine Manufacturing ................................ 6

U.S. Market Attracts More Foreign Wind Turbine Manufacturers ..................................... 7

Wind Turbine Components, Raw Materials, Global Supply Chain, and U.S.

Manufacturing Capacity ............................................................................................................... 8

Wind Turbine Components ........................................................................................................ 8

Global Wind Turbine Assembly Supply Chain ........................................................................ 11

Tier 1 and Tier 2 Wind Turbine Component Suppliers ..................................................... 12

Manufacturing Strategies .................................................................................................. 12

U.S. Wind Turbine Manufacturing Facilities ........................................................................... 14

Towers and Blades ............................................................................................................ 14

Turbine Nacelle Assembly ................................................................................................ 15

Other Wind Turbine Components...................................................................................... 15

Outlook .............................................................................................................................. 16

An Emerging U.S. Wind Manufacturing Corridor .................................................................. 16

U.S. Wind Turbine Manufacturing Employment ..................................................................... 17

Wind Turbine Equipment Trade ..................................................................................................... 19

U.S. Imports............................................................................................................................. 19

Domestic Content .................................................................................................................... 21

U.S. Exports............................................................................................................................. 22

Federal Support for the U.S. Wind Power Industry ....................................................................... 24

Production Tax Credit (PTC)/Investment Tax Credit (ITC) .................................................... 26

Advanced Energy Manufacturing Tax Credit (MTC) .............................................................. 27

Other Wind-Related Programs................................................................................................. 28

State Renewable Portfolio Standards ....................................................................................... 29

Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 29

Figures

Figure 1. Wind Turbine Overview ................................................................................................... 9

Figure 2. Wind Turbine Components ............................................................................................. 10

Figure 3. Wind Turbine Manufacturing Facilities in the United States ......................................... 17

Figure 4. Wind Energy Employment Trends ................................................................................. 18

Figure 5. U.S. Imports of Wind-Powered Generating Sets, Select Countries ................................ 20

Figure 6. U.S. Exports of Wind-Powered Generating Sets ............................................................ 23

Tables

Table 1. Largest U.S. Wind Power Projects ..................................................................................... 5

Table 2. Annual Wind Turbine Installations in the United States .................................................... 8

Table 3. Raw Materials Requirements for Wind Turbines ............................................................. 11

Table 4. Selected Wind Turbine Components ................................................................................ 13

Table 5. Selected Energy Programs Affecting the U.S. Wind Industry ......................................... 26

Table A-1. Global Wind Turbine Manufacturers by Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) ................................................ 31

Table B-1. Examples: U.S. Turbine Production Facilities ............................................................. 32

Table C-1. Selected Wind Manufacturers Receiving Section 48C Manufacturing TaxCredit ..................................... 33

Appendixes

Appendix A. Global Wind Turbine Manufacturers ........................................................................ 31

Appendix B. Selected Examples of U.S. Wind Turbine Production Facilities .............................. 32

Appendix C. 48C Manufacturing Tax Credit ................................................................................. 33

Contacts

Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 34

Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 34

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

Congressional Research Service (CRS)

Unauthorized Aliens Residing in the United States: Estimates Since 1986

Ruth Ellen Wasem, Specialist in Immigration Policy

December 13, 2012

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33874.pdf

[full-text, 19 pages]

Summary

Estimates derived from the March Supplement of the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population

Survey (CPS) indicate that the unauthorized resident alien population (commonly referred to as

illegal aliens) rose from 3.2 million in 1986 to 12.4 million in 2007, before leveling off at 11.1

million in 2011. The estimated number of unauthorized aliens had dropped to 1.9 million in 1988

following passage of a 1986 law that legalized several million unauthorized aliens. Jeffrey Passel,

a demographer with the Pew Hispanic Research Center, has been involved in making these

estimations since he worked at the U.S. Bureau of the Census in the 1980s.

Similarly, the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Immigration Statistics (OIS) reported

an estimated 11.5 million unauthorized alien residents as of January 2011, up from 8.5 million in

January 2000. The OIS estimated that the unauthorized resident alien population in the United

States increased by 37% over the period 2000 to 2008, before leveling off since 2009. The OIS

estimated that 6.8 million of the unauthorized alien residents in 2011 were from Mexico. About

33% of unauthorized residents in 2011 were estimated to have entered the United States since

2000, but the rate of illegal entry appears to be slowing. The OIS based its estimates on data from

the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey.

Although increased border security, a record number of alien removals, and high unemployment,

among other factors, have depressed the levels of illegal migration in recent years, the number of

unauthorized aliens residing in the United States remains sizeable. Research suggests that various

factors have contributed to the ebb and flow of unauthorized resident aliens, and that the increase

is often attributed to the “push-pull” of prosperity-fueled job opportunities in the United States in

contrast to limited job opportunities in the sending countries. Accordingly, the economic

recession that began in December 2007 may have curbed the migration of unauthorized aliens,

particularly because sectors that traditionally rely on unauthorized aliens, such as construction,

services, and hospitality, have been especially hard hit.

Some researchers also suggest that the increased size of the unauthorized resident population

during the late 1990s and early 2000s is an inadvertent consequence of border enforcement and

immigration control policies. They posit that strengthened border security curbed the fluid

movement of seasonal workers. This interpretation, generally referred to as a caging effect, argues

that these policies raised the stakes in crossing the border illegally and created an incentive for

those who succeed in entering the United States to stay. More recently, some maintain that

strengthened border security measures, such as “enforcement with consequences,” coordinated

efforts with Mexico to reduce illegal migrant recidivism, and increased border patrol agents, may

be part of a constellation of factors holding down the flow.

The current system of legal immigration is cited as another factor contributing to unauthorized

migration. The statutory ceilings that limit the type and number of immigrant visas issued each

year create long waits for visas. According to this interpretation, many foreign nationals who have

family in the United States resort to illegal avenues in frustration over the delays. Some

researchers speculate that record number of alien removals (e.g., reaching almost 400,000

annually since FY2009) may cause a chilling effect on family members weighing unauthorized

residence. Some observers point to more elusive factors when assessing the ebb and flow of

unauthorized resident aliens—such as shifts in immigration enforcement priorities away from

illegal entry to removing suspected terrorists and criminal aliens, or well-publicized discussions

of possible “amnesty” legislation.

Contents

Background ...................................................................................................................................... 1

Trends in Estimates Since 1986 ....................................................................................................... 2

Updated Estimates Based Upon 2010 Census ........................................................................... 5

Analysis from the March Current Population Survey ...................................................................... 5

Analysis from the American Community Survey ............................................................................ 8

Analysis of the Monthly Current Population Survey ..................................................................... 12

Contributing Factors ...................................................................................................................... 13

Figures

Figure 1. Estimated Number of Unauthorized Resident Aliens, 1986-2011 .................................... 3

Figure 2. Unauthorized Resident Alien Population, by Place of Origin, 1986 and 2010 ................ 6

Figure 4. Unauthorized Resident Alien Population, by State .......................................................... 7

Figure 5. Top 10 States with Unauthorized Resident Aliens ........................................................... 9

Figure 6. Top 10 Source Countries of Unauthorized Resident Aliens ........................................... 10

Figure 7. Age Distribution of Unauthorized Resident Aliens in 2011, by Gender ........................ 11

Figure 8. Unauthorized Resident Aliens in 2011, by Reported Year of Arrival ............................. 12

Contacts

Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 16

Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 16

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

Congressional Research Service (CRS)

Trade Adjustment Assistance for Workers

Benjamin Collins, Analyst in Labor Policy

December 17, 2012

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42012.pdf

[full-text, 30 pages]

Summary

Trade Adjustment Assistance for Workers (TAA) provides federal assistance to workers who have

been adversely affected by foreign trade. It was most recently authorized by the Trade Adjustment

Assistance Extension Act of 2011 (TAAEA; Title II of P.L. 112-40).

To be eligible for TAA, a group of workers must establish that they were separated from their

employment either because their jobs moved outside the United States or because of an increase

in directly competitive imports. Workers at firms that are suppliers to or downstream producers of

TAA-certified firms may also be eligible for TAA benefits. Under current law, both production

and service workers are eligible for TAA.

After the Department of Labor verifies the role of foreign trade in the group’s job losses, workers

may apply for individual benefits. These benefits are funded by the federal government and, with

limited exception, administered by the states.

• Reemployment services are available to assist trade-affected workers in planning

for and returning to employment. Training is the largest reemployment service

expense. Eligible training programs include a variety of public and private

options and may not exceed 104 weeks. In lieu of or in addition to training,

workers may receive employment services such as case management, skills

assessment, and job search assistance. Workers may also receive allowances for

job searches outside their local commuting area and relocation expenses once a

new job has been secured. Under current law, annual expenditures on

reemployment services are capped at $575 million.

• Trade Readjustment Allowance (TRA) is an income support for TAA-certified

workers who have exhausted their unemployment insurance (UI) and are enrolled

in an eligible training program. TRA payments are equal to the workers’ final UI

benefit. Workers may receive UI and TRA for a combined total of 117 weeks and

130 weeks under certain circumstances.

• Reemployment Trade Adjustment Assistance (RTAA) is available to TAAcertified

workers age 50 and over. This program supplements the wages of

eligible workers who secure new employment at a lower wage.

• A Health Coverage Tax Credit (HCTC) is also available to TAA-certified

workers. This program offers a refundable tax credit equal to 72.5% of

expenditures on a qualified health plan. Unlike other TAA benefits, the HCTC is

administered through the federal tax code and not by state agencies.

Eligibility and benefits for TAA are scheduled to be reduced beginning on January 1, 2014. The

program will operate under these reduced provisions for one year before authorization for

appropriations expires on December 31, 2014.

This report provides background on the TAA program. After a brief introduction, it discusses

TAA eligibility and benefits as set by TAAEA. It then describes how the program is funded and

administered. The report concludes by presenting data on recent application activity and benefit

usage.

Contents

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1

Eligibility and Application Process .................................................................................................. 1

TAA Group Eligibility Criteria .................................................................................................. 1

TAA Group Petition and Certification Process .......................................................................... 2

TAA Individual Eligibility ......................................................................................................... 3

RTAA Eligibility ........................................................................................................................ 3

Benefits ............................................................................................................................................ 6

Reemployment Services ............................................................................................................ 6

Case Management and Employment Services .................................................................... 6

Training Assistance ............................................................................................................. 6

Job Search and Relocation Allowances ............................................................................... 8

Trade Readjustment Allowance ................................................................................................. 8

Health Coverage Tax Credit ...................................................................................................... 9

Reemployment Trade Adjustment Assistance ......................................................................... 10

Financing and Administration ........................................................................................................ 12

Participation and Program Data ..................................................................................................... 13

Applications and Certification Activity ................................................................................... 13

Reemployment Services .......................................................................................................... 14

Training Assistance ........................................................................................................... 14

Case Management ............................................................................................................. 17

Job Search and Relocation Allowances ............................................................................. 17

Trade Readjustment Allowances ............................................................................................. 18

Health Coverage Tax Credit .................................................................................................... 19

Reemployment Trade Adjustment Assistance ......................................................................... 20

Post-TAA Performance Data for Program Exiters ................................................................... 21

Tables

Table 1. TAA Group Certification Requirements Under the Trade Adjustment Assistance Extension Act of 2011..................................... 5

Table 2. TAA Benefits Under the Trade Adjustment Assistance Extension Act of 2011 ............... 11

Table 3. Petitions and Certifications, FY2003-FY2011 ................................................................. 14

Table 4. Training and Benefit Data for TAA-Certified Workers, FY2003-FY2011 ...................... 15

Table 5. Ten Largest Recipients of TAA Reemployment Services Funding, FY2011 ................... 16

Table 6. Job Search and Relocation Allowance Participation, FY2003-2011 ............................... 18

Table 7. Trade Readjustment Allowance Participation and Costs, FY2003-FY2011 .................... 19

Table 8. Reemployment Trade Adjustment Assistance, FY2003-FY2011 ..................................... 21

Table 9. Employment Outcomes for TAA Exiters ......................................................................... 21

Table B-1. Trade Adjustment Assistance, Petition Activity and Benefit Usage, FY2003-

FY2011 ....................................................................................................................................... 25

Appendixes

Appendix A. Legislative History ................................................................................................... 23

Appendix B. Petition Activity and Benefit Usage, FY2003-FY2011 ............................................ 24

Contacts

Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 26

Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 26

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

Congressional Research Service (CRS)

Offshoring (or Offshore Outsourcing) and Job Loss Among U.S. Workers

Linda Levine, Specialist in Labor Economics

December 17, 2012

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32292.pdf

[full-text, 12 pages]

Summary

Offshoring, also known as offshore outsourcing, is the term that came into use more than a

decade ago to describe a practice among companies located in the United States of contracting

with businesses beyond U.S. borders to perform services that would otherwise have been

provided by in-house employees in white-collar occupations (e.g., computer programmers and

systems designers, accounting clerks and accountants). The term is equally applicable to U.S.

firms’ offshoring the jobs of blue-collar workers on textile and auto assembly lines, for example,

which has been taking place for many decades. The extension of offshoring from U.S.

manufacturers to service providers has heightened public policy concerns about the extent of job

loss and the adequacy of existing programs to help unemployed workers adjust to the changing

mix of jobs located in the United States so they can find new positions.

No comprehensive data exist on the number of production and services workers who have lost

their jobs as a result of the movement of work outside U.S. borders. The only regularly collected

statistics on jobs lost to the out-of-country relocation of work come from the U.S. Bureau of

Labor Statistics’ (BLS) series on extended mass layoffs. Since 2004, BLS has asked firms with at

least 50 employees that let go at least 50 workers in layoffs that lasted 31 or more days whether

the firms moved the laid-off workers’ jobs out of the United States. Given the series’ exclusion of

small companies and focus on large layoffs, it underestimates the number of jobs lost to

offshoring.

Researchers have tried to fill this gap by determining which occupations possess characteristics

that make them relatively vulnerable to being offshored (e.g., routine task content and able to be

performed at a distance from customers due to advances in communications technology) and the

number of persons employed in those occupations in a given year. Those studies usually have

focused on occupations that provide services. One analysis by the BLS estimated that in 2007, 30

million people were employed in service-providing occupations it found to be potentially

offshorable; they accounted for over one-fifth of total employment in that year. The serviceproviding

occupations that BLS deemed most vulnerable to being offshored had quite different

skill requirements: administrative support occupations (e.g., office clerks) typically have lower

education or training requirements than professional and related occupations (e.g., computer

programmers). One of the few studies that includes both production and services occupations

similarly concluded that, whether measured by education or wages, jobs with offshorable

characteristics run the gamut from less to more skilled. According to one of Blinder’s estimates,

about 29 million workers were employed in offshorable production and services occupations, or a

little over one-fifth of total U.S. employment in 2004.

This approach may overstate the number of jobs that actually have been or will be lost to

offshoring because it does not consider other factors that may affect employers’ decisions about

the location in which work is performed. Some observers note cases of firms bringing jobs back

to the United States for such reasons as dissatisfaction with the quality of service being provided,

narrowing of the wage gap between U.S. and some nations’ workers, and increases in the cost of

shipping goods to the United States. Others point to strategies that offshore outsourcers have used

to work around some obstacles.

Contents

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1

The Development of Domestic and Offshore Outsourcing in Production and Services Activities .................................. 3

Job Losses and Offshore Outsourcing ............................................................................................. 4

Tables

Table 1. Occupational Categories by Degree of Offshorability ....................................................... 7

Contacts

Author Contact Information............................................................................................................. 9

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

STATE PERSONAL INCOME: THIRD QUARTER 2012 [19 December 2012]

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/spi/2012/spi1212.htm

or

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/spi/2012/pdf/spi1212.pdf

[full-text, 12 pages]

or

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/spi/2012/xls/spi1212.xls

[spreadsheet]

and

Highlights

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/spi/2012/pdf/spi1212_fax.pdf

WASHINGTON DC, December 19, 2012 – State personal income growth slowed to 0.5 percent in the third quarter of 2012, from 0.7 percent in the second quarter, according to estimates released today by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Growth slowed in 34 states, accelerated in 11, and was unchanged in 5. Growth across states ranged from 1.4 percent in North Dakota to -1.6 percent in South Dakota. Inflation, as measured by the national price index for personal consumption expenditures, accelerated to 0.4 percent in the third quarter from 0.2 percent in the second quarter.

AND MUCH MORE...including TABLES....

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS OF HOURLY COMPENSATION COSTS IN MANUFACTURING, 2011 [19 December 2012]

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ichcc.nr0.htm

or

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ichcc.pdf

[full-text, 10 pages]

and

Supplemental Files Table of Contents

http://www.bls.gov/web/ichcc.supp.toc.htm

In comparison with 33 foreign countries covered, U.S. manufacturing hourly

compensation costs in 2011 ranked approximately in the middle at $35.53, the

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today (see chart 1). In addition to

Australia, Canada, Italy, and Japan, countries with higher hourly compensation

costs were primarily in northern and western Europe. Countries with lower

hourly compensation costs were primarily in southern and eastern Europe, Asia,

and Latin America.

Between 1997 and 2011, compensation costs in manufacturing as a percent of

U.S. costs (see table 1) increased or remained the same in all economies

compared except Taiwan, improving U.S. cost competitiveness.

AND MUCH MORE...including TABLES....

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

RESOURCES FOR BUSINESS LEADERS

http://www.bls.gov/audience/business.htm

Whether your company is looking to negotiate long-term contracts, assess employment costs, identify new markets for your products, or compare your business with others in your industry, we provide you with the detailed statistics you need to make informed decisions.

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

WORK EXPERIENCE OF THE POPULATION -- 2011 [18 December 2012]

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/work.nr0.htm

or

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/work.pdf

[full-text, 9 pages]

A total of 153.5 million persons worked at some point during 2011, the U.S.

Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. The proportion of the civilian

noninstitutional population age 16 and over who worked at some time during

2011 was 63.3 percent, down from 63.7 percent in 2010. The number of persons

who experienced some unemployment during 2011 was 23.7 million, down by 1.5

million from 2010.

These data are based on information collected in the Annual Social and

Economic Supplement (ASEC) to the Current Population Survey (CPS). The CPS

is a monthly survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau for the U.S. Bureau

of Labor Statistics. The ASEC collects information on employment and

unemployment experienced during the prior calendar year. Additional

information about the CPS and the ASEC, including concepts and definitions,

is provided in the Technical Note.

Highlights from the 2011 data:

   --The proportion of workers who worked full time, year round in 2011 was

     65.8 percent, up from 64.7 percent in 2010. (See table 1.)

   --The "work-experience unemployment rate"--defined as the number of

     persons unemployed at some time during the year as a proportion of the

     number of persons who worked or looked for work during the year--was

     14.9 percent in 2011, down from 15.9 percent in 2010. (See table 3.)

   --The number of individuals who looked for a job but did not work at all

     during 2011 declined by 348,000 over the year to 6.2 million. (See

     table 3.)

Persons with Employment

Overall, 63.3 percent of the population worked in 2011. The proportion of

men who worked during the year was 68.8 percent, down from 69.3 percent in

2010. The proportion of women who worked at some point during 2011 was 58.1

percent, little changed from the prior year. (See table 1.)

The proportion of whites (64.1 percent) who worked at some time during 2011

declined from 2010, while the share of blacks (58.2 percent), Asians (62.8

percent), and Hispanics (63.4 percent) showed little or no change. (See

table 2.)

Of those employed at some time during 2011, 78.6 percent usually worked full

time, up from 78.2 percent a year earlier. The proportion of employed men

working full time rose, while the proportion of women changed little. Men

continued to be more likely than women to work full time during the year,

84.8 versus 71.7 percent.

Of the total who worked during 2011, 77.0 percent were employed year round

(working 50 to 52 weeks, either full or part time), an increase from 75.9

percent in 2010. The share of men employed year round rose by 1.7 percentage

points to 78.4 percent in 2011, while the percentage of women working year

round was little changed at 75.5 percent. (See table 1.)

Persons with Unemployment

About 159.7 million persons worked or looked for work at some time in 2011.

Of those, 23.7 million experienced some unemployment during the year, 1.5

million fewer than in 2010.

At 14.9 percent in 2011, the work-experience unemployment rate (those looking

for work during the year as a percent of those who worked or looked for work

during the year) was 1.0 percentage point lower than in 2010. The rate for 2009

(16.4 percent) was the highest since 1985. The work-experience unemployment

rate for men has also fallen since a recent peak in 2009, but the rate for

women was about unchanged. Men continued to have higher work-experience

unemployment rates in 2011 than women, 15.8 versus 13.8 percent. (See

table 3.)

The work-experience unemployment rates for whites (13.7 percent) and Hispanics

(18.3 percent) declined from 2010 to 2011, while the rates for blacks (22.2

percent) and Asians (12.2 percent) were little changed. Among whites, blacks,

and Hispanics, the rates for men were higher than the rates for women. Among

Asians, the rates for men and women were little different from each other.

(See table 4.)

Among those who experienced unemployment in 2011, the median number of weeks

spent looking for work was 19.8, about unchanged from 2009 and 2010. The number

of persons who looked for a job but did not work at all in 2011 declined by

348,000 over the year to 6.2 million. Of the 17.5 million individuals who worked

during 2011 and also experienced unemployment, 1 in 5 had two or more spells of

joblessness, about the same as in the prior 2 years. (See table 3.)

AND MORE...including TABLES....

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

Asian Development Bank (ADB)

Regioan Economic Integration Working Paper 103

JAPAN'S EDUCATION SERVICES IMPORTS: BRANCH CAMPUS OR SUBSIDIARY CAMPUS? [18 December 2012]

by Shintaro Hamanaka

http://www.adb.org/publications/japan-s-education-services-imports-branch-campus-or-subsidiary-campus

or
http://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/pub/2012/wp103-japan-education-services-imports.pdf
[full-text, 40 pages]

Description

On one hand, trade in tertiary education is highly regulated; on the other hand, it is a considerably liberalized area of services. This is especially true in the case of Mode 3 of international services trade, namely oversea campuses. In the case of Japan, foreign universities are/were free to open campuses in Japan to supply tertiary education services, but those were regarded informal education that was not recognized by the Japanese government until 2004. For campuses in Japan established by foreign universities to supply formal education services in Japan, they are required to satisfy the criteria set by the government to be examined by the University Council and the Minister; but no foreign university campus in Japan actually obtained a formal school status. Moreover, program at the campuses in Japan were not regarded as an equivalent to the program provided at the home campuses abroad. It was only in 2004 when the Japanese government introduced a new scheme called “Japanese Branches of Foreign Universities”, under which they can receive the treatment similar to formal Japanese universities except taxation, though only four campuses obtained this status so far.

This paper reviews the development of regulatory status of services trade in tertiary education services, especially education through oversea campuses, and considers the policy implications on two critical issues regarding the regulation of services industry: (i) who between the government and the University Council the regulator is; and (ii) who between the home country and host country has the jurisdiction over the oversea branches of universities.

Contents

•Abstract

•Introduction

•Background and Recent Developments in Tertiary Education in Japan

•Restrictions and Regulations on Trade in Education Services

•Policy Implications

•Conclusion

•References

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

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.