BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    






Senate Committee on Industrial Relations          1995-1996  
Regular Session Hilda L. Solis, Chair             
                                        Fiscal:   Yes
                                        Urgency:  No
                                   
                              
              Bill No: SB 1682 Author: Hughes
                 Version: February 21, 1996


Subject:  

Employment Development Department:  Compton Office 

Purpose:

To prevent the closure of the Employment Development  
Department office in Compton. 

Analysis:

Existing law provides for the establishment of offices by  
the Employment Development Department (EDD).  EDD is  
mandated to perform many services, including the  
administration and operation of the following major  
programs: Unemployment Insurance (UI), Job Service (JS),  
the Job Training Partnership Act, Labor Market Information,  
Employment Tax Collection, and Disability Insurance.  EDDos  
Operation Branch administers the UI and JS programs.

 This Bill requires that the existing Compton EDD office  
shall not be closed until another is physically located  
within the Compton community.  Additionally,  after  
consultation with public and private agencies,  EDD will  
work to ensure the establishment of a oone stop career  
centero within the City of Compton.  

Comments:

1. Proponents argue that EDD should not close its Compton  
  locations because of its importance to the community,  
  suffering twice as much unemployment than that of the  
  state.  A potential closure would create hardship on  
  unemployed persons seeking UI and JS services.  A closure  
  would further the erosion of employment services existing  
  for the last several years.









  
  The City of Compton passed a resolution calling for the  
  retention of an EDD office in Compton.  As well, the City  
  of Lynwood has initiated legal action against the agency  
  moving an office outside of Compton.

































Hearing Date:  April 24, 1996                         SB  
1682
Consultant: Patrick W. Henning                               
                              Page 2                         
                              
Senate Committee on Industrial Relations 








2. EDD Operations.   With over 300 offices statewide  
  covering all of its programs, EDD has 127 UI offices, of  
  which 25 are located in Los Angeles County.  The Compton  
  EDD office serves the communities of Compton, Lynwood,  
  Paramount; it has 6 field offices serving Carson,  
  Norwalk, South Central Los Angeles, Torrance, Southgate,  
  and Long Beach.

3. EDD Strategic Plan.  EDDos ongoing Operations Branch  
  Strategic Plan for 1995-2000 (Plan) attempts to respond  
  to changing demands at the local, state and federal  
  levels;  one constant demand is the call for more  
  consolidation of services in light of diminishing federal  
  resources.  The Plan, operating as a vision statement,  
  provides definition and direction to branch staff.

  EDD is regionalizing the UI workload, as well as further  
  initiating its Telephone Claim Filing (TCF) system which  
  EDD claims to be highly successful.   The agency argues  
  that a UI transaction does not always require in-person  
  contact; its experiments in the San Diego are have met  
  high levels of satisfaction.  

  However, EDD states that its JS services are not  
  conducive to a telephone service program; local offices  
  will not necessarily be subject to closure, but may be  
  re-located to more central service locations.

  The current Compton facility is leased, operating on a  
  month-to-month tenancy.  In its February 1995 version of  
  the Plan, EDD stated its intent to re-locate its UI and  
  JS services to the Carson office.  It argued that the  
  Compton building is older, not availing itself to modern  
  wiring, etc., to facilitate its TCF program.

  Yet, in its recent 1996 Plan update, EDD added other  
  elements to be considered before a UI office left the  
  community.  A full service office would exist if the  
  locale had many workers who didnot have telephones, or  
  where TCF was not an accepted service option, due to,  
  among other things, language barriers.  Safety of EDD  
Hearing Date:  April 24, 1996                         SB  
1682
Consultant: Patrick W. Henning                               
                              Page 3                         
                              
Senate Committee on Industrial Relations 








  staff and the population served are also new  
  considerations before an office is to be closed or open.

4.  One Stop Centers.  EDD staff states that the federally  
  initiated oone stop centerso for employment services  
  require the decision for office locations be made by the  
  Governor and local officials.  Staff argues that, as  
  written, this measure would be contradictory to federal  
  legislation.

5. Similar Legislation.  AB 2211 (Tucker) requires that EDD  
  must keep an office with a city if its population has  
  more than 90,000 people and the unemployment rate is 5%  
  higher than the statewide average.  EDD staff indicates  
  that the department is currently meeting with legislators  
  to resolve the issue before Assembly budgetary  
  committees.





















Hearing Date:  April 24, 1996                         SB  
1682
Consultant: Patrick W. Henning                               
                              Page 4                         
                              
Senate Committee on Industrial Relations 









Support:

Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO

Opposition:

None registered as of April 22, 1996.
  





























Hearing Date:  April 24, 1996                         SB  
1682
Consultant: Patrick W. Henning                               
                              Page 5                         
                              
Senate Committee on Industrial Relations