Chapter 7: Workforce
Catalog and Track
Adult Education and
Texas budgeted $51.8 million in state and federal funds for adult basic
education services in fiscal 2000. Programs that receive state or federal funds
are tracked and monitored by the Texas Education Agency (TEA). Those that are
funded locally, however, are not, which makes it difficult for citizens to
locate them or to determine which programs could best meet their needs. TEA
should catalog and track all adult education and literacy programs in the state
while simplifying its grant application process to allow more programs to apply
for state and federal funds.
Texas ranks 47th among the 50 states in literacy. Four million
Texans, about 25 percent of the adult population, cannot read basic signs or
maps, complete job applications or deposit slips, or carry out many of the other
tasks needed to function in today’s
People who cannot read well are more likely to work at low-wage jobs, be
unemployed, receive welfare payments, or be convicted of crimes. They also pose
special training costs for business and industry. Adult illiteracy costs US
businesses an estimated $225 billion a year in lost
productivity. If these Texans can be taught to
read, they have a chance to contribute to a thriving economy; if not, most will
remain in low-paying, dead-end jobs, if they can find jobs at all.
Types of Literacy Education
Adult literacy education can be defined as any education provided to an adult
who is functioning below the high school level. An adult, in turn, is defined as
any individual over the age of state-required compulsory school
attendance—16 years or older. The three most important components of an
adult literacy education program include adult basic education (ABE) for those
functioning below eighth-grade level; adult secondary education or GED
preparation, geared toward achieving the General Educational Development (GED)
certificate as an equivalent substitute for a high school diploma; and English
as a Second Language (ESL) education, for those seeking to acquire English
language proficiency. Each component is aimed at helping individuals acquire
further education or a better job.
Some literacy education programs address specific functional areas. These
include workplace literacy, which is provided in conjunction with an employer or
at a worksite, and often covers skills related to a particular job. Family
literacy focuses on educating the whole family, giving adults the knowledge and
skills they need to become full partners in their children’s education.
Health literacy allows an individual to better understand health and illness so
they can follow instructions or recognize symptoms. Financial literacy and life
skills literacy allow individuals to better manage their lives and provide life
coping skills. Each component has the goal of allowing the adult to function
better in some aspect of society.
The various forms of literacy education are provided by traditional and
nontraditional institutions. Providers include community-based organizations
(CBOs) such as churches and literacy groups, local schools, community colleges,
local businesses, prisons, and military installations.
Types of Funding Sources
Adult literacy programs are funded by all levels of government as well as by
nonprofit organizations and businesses. The largest sources of federal funding
are the US Department of Education’s Office of Vocational and Adult
Education and the US Department of Health and Human Services.
In Texas, TEA is the primary provider of adult education programs.
TEA’s fiscal 2001 budget includes $29.5 million from the federal Workforce
Investment Act (WIA), along with $6.9 million in state
funding. On the local level, school districts
and community colleges are most likely to house and fund such programs, while
cities and counties often provide funding through their library systems.
Charitable foundations, both private and corporate, provide a substantial
amount of funding for many CBOs. Corporations, businesses, unions, professional
organizations, and nonprofit organizations, including faith-based and literacy
volunteer organizations, are significant contributors to adult literacy
education as well.
Many funding organizations forge partnerships within the community.
Typically, the funding organization provides instruction and teaching materials
and the partners provide the site. Also, many organizations depend on volunteers
and operate with minimal staff and office space used mainly for program
oversight and the coordination and training of volunteers. If such in-kind
funding were not available, most providers either would be greatly limited or
unable to provide services.
Program Data Needed
Adult literacy programs funded in any part by the state or federal
governments are monitored carefully due to the reporting requirements imposed by
the Texas Legislature and the US Congress. Many services funded exclusively by
local governments and charities, by contrast, do not have to report to the state
on the services they provide or the persons to whom they provide them. As a
result, it is hard to measure the true extent of adult literacy services in
For example, the Literacy Council of Fort Bend County receives no state or
federal funding, even though it is the largest literacy training provider in
this suburban Houston county. It has 27 off-site training locations, and in 1999
relied on 283 volunteers to train 1,136 adults on a budget of
$263,000. Yet none of this was reported to
TEA. Therefore, state-level decision makers do not have the information they
need to identify unmet needs in Fort Bend County, determine appropriate funding
levels, and allocate scarce resources.
Though many basic education and literacy service providers are not required
to report their activities to TEA, they usually are known to other providers.
Literacy providers often consult with one another, share offices, refer clients
to one another, or share volunteers and paid staff. Thus the simplest way to
identify nonreporting providers is to tap into the provider network. Through use
of a “snowball sample”—beginning with a few, known providers
and expanding the sample through referrals—we can hope to obtain a more or
less comprehensive list of all providers within a given community.
Houston provides a good example of the difficulties that can be involved in
obtaining basic information on all the adult education providers in a region.
Houston Education and Literacy Provider Network
Houston, Texas’ largest metropolitan area, also has the greatest need
for basic education and literacy programs. More than 500,000 of Houston’s
4 million residents are adults with less than a high school education, and some
observers have estimated that as many as 1 million adults may be functionally
illiterate. And Houston is ethnically diverse, suggesting that a particularly
wide variety of outreach, referral, and educational methods might be found here.
The city’s basic education and literacy provider network is
exceptionally well-developed (Exhibit 1). In 1984, then-Mayor Kathy Whitmire
created the Houston READ Commission (HRC), a coalition of literacy service
providers that coordinate services among themselves and share teaching
materials, training, and technical assistance. In fiscal 2000, the 135 HRC
literacy partners served an estimated 90,000 adult learners with more than 5,000
volunteers. This strong urban coalition is a good indicator of the need and
types of literacy services provided in the Houston area; only two major literacy
consortia in the area, Literacy Advance of Houston and the Harris County
Department of Education, are not members of HRC.
Selected Literacy Providers in the Houston Area
Source of Funding
Houston READ Commission (135 partners)
$2.4 million state/federal/local$1.6 million other
Select HRC Partners:
Houston Community College System (consortium of 11 CBOs)
Association for the Advancement of Mexican-Americans
Chinese Community Center (5 sites)
$50,000 state/federal$20,000 other
Houston International University
$60,000 state/federal$25,000 other
Literacy Council of Fort Bend County (27 sites)
Other Houston Providers:
Harris County Department of Education
state/federal plus $1 million “in kind”
Literacy Advance of Houston (80 centers)
Source: Houston Read Commission, various
HRC provides literacy training at six learning centers with a focus on
workforce training and family literacy. During fiscal 2000, HRC received $4.2
million in revenues. Of this, $2.4 million came from state, federal, and local
grants; $1.6 million came from 85 major contributors including corporations and
foundations; and more than $100,000 was generated by special events and
fundraisers. In addition, HRC received in-kind donations from about 50 area
Houston adult education providers, especially the 135 HRC partners, have done
a good job in cataloging available programs and services. Many of their partners
receive no state or federal dollars, such as the Literacy Council of Fort Bend
County, but information on their location, size, and adult education program
offerings is maintained and distributed to the local workforce board and other
social service agencies that might be a source for students.
Unfortunately, other regions in the state do not have the capacity to provide
this cataloging service. In fact, even in Houston, some programs may not be
included in HRC’s list or other area lists that could offer services to
area residents. Without this information, the providers that are listed receive
most of the referrals, adding to the problem of backlogs and waiting lists.
HRC’s work has spurred some coordination among providers in its area.
Other areas would benefit from similar coordination. Some statewide literacy
institutions such as the Texas Center for Adult Literacy and Learning (TCALL) at
Texas A&M University and the Texas Family Literacy Center at the University
of Texas maintain lists of providers, as do TEA and (to a lesser extent) the
Texas Workforce Commission. TCALL already receives $400,000 per year in WIA
funds through TEA to provide state leadership and staff training
No one, however, maintains an updated and comprehensive list of literacy and
adult education providers that can be made readily available to prospective
students, policymakers, grantors and other providers. Such a list would serve as
a basis for understanding the extent of literacy services in the state. The list
could be expanded to include data on services offered, funding, numbers of
adults served, retention rates, and assessment results, as that information is
collected by providers.
TEA Funding Application is Too Complicated
TEA distributes both federal and state adult education funds through a
competitive process. Many providers, even if they have a proven track record of
effective delivery, choose not to seek funding from TEA. TEA’s requests
for applications are more than 100 pages long, the process is rigid, and the
requirements are beyond the capability of most CBOs. The application for adult
education program grants for the 1999-2000 school year had some 25 distinct
subsections, while the Even Start Family Literacy program grant application for
the 2000-01 school year has 23, requiring 62 pages of instructions for a grant
amount of only $75,000 to $200,000.
A. The Texas Education Agency (TEA) should direct
the Texas Center for Adult Literacy and Learning (TCALL) at Texas A&M
University to expand its list of providers into a statewide catalog.
TEA should target existing federal funds for TCALL to expand and regularly
update its surveys of all adult education providers in the state. While TCALL
already plans to make its current listings available on the Internet, the
expanded list should include all adult literacy projects, and should be
distributed to all local workforce boards and other social service agencies that
provide literacy referrals.
- TEA should streamline its grant application
TEA should simplify its grant application requirements, and make it easier
for organizations with a proven track record to apply for and receive funding to
provide adult basic education services.
Expansion of the TCALL literacy provider catalog can be accomplished with
existing federal funds and should require no additional funding. TEA’s
review and revision of the grant application process should not require
additional funds since this is part of the process of administering the grants
[1 ] Literacy Council of Fort
Bend County, “Facts about Literacy,” Sugarland, Texas, June 30,
[2 ] Sally Reese,
“Illiteracy at work,” American Demographics (April 1996)
(http://www.americandemographics.com). (Internet document.)
 Texas Education Agency,
“Overview of Texas Education Agency Adult Education and Literacy
Programs,” provided by Dr. Paul Lindsey, coordinator, Department of
Continuing Education, Texas Education Agency, July 5, 2000, p. 9.
[4 ] Interview with Lucia
Street, executive director, Literacy Council of Fort Bend County, Sugarland,
Texas, July 12, 2000.
 Interview with John
Stevenson, program director, Houston READ Commission, Houston, Texas, July 12
and 13, 2000.
 Interview with Deborah
Stedman, manager, Division of Adult and Community Education, Texas Education
Agency, Austin, Texas, July 11, 2000. Texas Education Agency, “Overview of
Texas Education Agency Adult Education and Literacy Programs,” provided by
Dr. Paul Lindsey, coordinator, Department of Continuing Education, Texas
Education Agency, July 5, 2000, p. 9.
 Texas Education Agency,
Request for Application, Adult Education Programs (Austin, Texas, July