- Email: [email protected]
The structure of training in the United States: Toward a new model
hr. 1. Educational Development, Printed in Great Britain
u736-0593/.98 s3.00+ .oo Pergamon Press plc
Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 227-235,19&l
THE STRUCTURE OF TRAINING IN THE UNITED STATES: TOWARD A NEW MODEL STEVE
DUSCHA
Employment Training Panel, Sacramento, CA Abstract-The paper looks at the relationship between traditional government training programmes at secondary and community high school level and the business-labor training system in the U.S.A. as it currently stands. It sees the vocational training thrust of State-funded programmes as aimed at social equity rather than skills needs. In the context of a defensive phase in the United States economy, the paper sees the need to be innovative in structuring the necessary partnership between business and government sector vocational and skills training.
The realities of international economic competition make effective job training an increasingly important factor in assuring national productivity and maintaining national standards of living. However, the American public and private systems of job training are poorly equipped to play the major roles that may be cast for them to improve worker and business productivity. More than slogans and wellmeaning but ineffectual reforms will be needed from the public sector to support, stimulate, and improve the much larger private sector, business-labor training system which must be at the heart of effective job training. The government leadership that is critically needed to strengthen and expand the business-labor training sector must be based on an understanding of the fundamental differences that exist in the political and economic structures of training as it is currently practised in the public sector and in the business-labor sector. Without a fuller understanding of these differences the public sector risks a growing irrelevance to the private sector training that is needed to improve worker skills and national productivity. Behind the prosperity of the mid-1980s is a fear that America is falling out of step with the economic leaders of the world. There is
*Steve Duscha is executive director of the California Employment Training Panel. The views expressed in this paper are his own and do not necessarily represent the views of the Panel.
disenchantment with the quality of American goods and the standing of the American work ethic as compared with imported goods and foreign workers. The growth in productivity in recent years has averaged 1% , only a third of the historical norms upon which the American prosperity is based. The real income of the average worker in America peaked a decade and a half ago and family incomes have risen slightly only because of the rise in two-income households. America’s penchant for importing has spread from Japanese VCRs and automobiles to imports of capital to finance and build the showrooms to display and sell the imported goods. In American economic and political philosophy the government’s role in coping with these problems is tightly circumscribed, but government is expected to play an active role in education and training. Universal public education has been a hallmark of the American democratic system at the primary and secondary levels, and the opportunity for a college education has more recently come to be expected. This basic education system should provide the underpinnings for a productive, internationally competitive workforce. A system of vocational education and job training should supplement such basic education with more specific skills training. As international economic challenges come more clearly into focus, it is likely that education and training will be asked to play an expanded role. Recent reforms in basic education have been justified in economic 227
228
STEVE DUSCHA Table 1. Structure and economics of training in the United States Traditional government training
Business-labor training
Purpose Trainees
Social equity
Economic efficiency
Unemployed
Employed
Delivery System
Public and private training institutions
Vendors and employees
Type of job
Entry level
Management and supervisors
Constituency
Training institutions
Mid-level management
Basis of budgeting
Enrollment
Business outlook and sales
Frequency of training
One-time
Sporadic
Level of flexibility
LOW
High
Political impact
Moderate
LOW
Economic impact
LOW
LOW
terms as states have appropriated funds to improve the competitiveness of their workers vis a vis other states. Even as government budgets come under increasing pressure, training investments are likely to grow. More money for training should mean better trained and more productive workers able to strengthen national competitiveness and maintain jobs in this country. Unfortunately, in general, the public and private sector job training systems in America are ill-equipped to accept expanded economic roles. The ability of the public sector to improve worker productivity and business competitiveness can be understood more clearly by contrasting the structure and economics of traditional public sector and business-labor training systems. Table 1 is a generalized assessment of the structural underpinnings of the two systems. There are exceptional firms, unions and training institutions whose experiences contravene these generalizations. But this outline provides a useful and accurate overall look at the two major job training systems in the United States. As used in this paper, public sector training includes vocational education at the secondary and community college level where the stated goals are job placement or skill improvement, and at proprietary and non-profit job training institutions, including those funded through the federal Job Training Partnership Act, the principal federal manpower program. Business-labor training includes training programs
operated directly by business and sometimes jointly with labor (for example, apprenticeship programs). Business-labor programs mean only those which train employees for the business or group of businesses providing the training. TRADITIONAL GOVERNMENT TRAINING The underlying purpose of traditional government training programs in the United States is social equity, providing all members of society with the opportunity to learn the skills that will enable them to be full participants in the American economic dream. It is a purpose based in the wants and needs of the individual. Course offerings generally are open to anyone with the interest to pursue them. As Munger has argued, such a purpose dove-tailed well with the American post-war economic expansion. Government revenues, private sector employment, and standards of living all were rising. The primary public concern, exemplified by the Great Society programs, was opportunity for all Americans. If social equity is the purpose of job training, then logically, in the traditional government training system the trainees will be persons without jobs. Those already in the labor force are viewed as on their way to ~l~lling the American dream. Training programs are geared primarily to those entering the labor force for the first time because they are young and seeking their first chance at a job, because
THE S’IllUCTURE OF TRAINING IN THE UNITED STATES
their skills limit them to a secondary labor market of low-paid, high turnover jobs, because they have suffered from discrimination in the past, or because they have been displaced from a job with little prospect of returning. Training the unemployed for new jobs, of course, means that the jobs after training will be relatively low-level entry jobs. The largest delivery system for government training is made up of public sector institutions at the secondary and post-secondary level. In California, regional occupational centers and programs, adult schools operated by secondary school districts and community colleges provide vocational training. A second public sector delivery system consists largely of community-based institutions. This system was established with funding from the federal manpower programs. Another system of forprofit job training schools is supported by tuition from individual students, often subsidized by federal grants or loans. These three roughly parallel, sometimes overlapping systems, are substantial enterprises. In California, community college vocational training expenses are estimated at $423 million. The regional occupational centers and programs are budgeted at $551 million. The federal Job Training Partnership program is budgeted at $268 million in California. Wilms estimates the budget for California’s for-profit training schools to be in excess of $600 million. Although the general purpose of all these programs is equity for the individual, it is the training institutions that have the greatest single financial stake in the outcome of the programs. Thus, it is the training institutions that are the most potent constituency for this sector. Budgeting, like the basic training system, is based on the individual, in this case on individual enrollments. The number of people enrolled on the annual ‘census day’ is multiplied by a fee to arrive at annual budgets for the following year. The federal manpower program is similar except that payments in the current year are based on enrollments in the current year and a bonus is often paid for retention of persons in training past the enrollment or census date and for placement in a job after training. Despite some movements to stimulate ‘lifelong learning,’ the public sector remains oriented toward training one time in the life of
229
an individual. As previously noted, training is designed to help a person obtain his or her first job. Once that goal has been attained, the role of job training diminishes or ends. In the public sector training that is provided for people already in the work force tends to be avocational, not vocational. Level of flexibility is a measure of the adaptability of the training system to change. Flexibility is significant in terms of ability to change course offerings and curricula within courses, including the wholesale addition and subtraction of courses or programs and the adjustment of existing programs and courses to meet changing needs. These traditional government training programs are based in training institutions, and their level of flexibility is relatively low. Teachers and staff, some with tenure or other job protections, must be paid. The institutions also have substantial investments in facilities and equipment. The political impact of the government training sector is moderate. It does not have the high level of impact of tax policy, for example, but as part of the education system it has general support. Moreover, as a helping hand and a second chance for the disadvantaged, training has broad support from all parts of the political spectrum. In recent years, training has received widespread political support as a key solution to the problems of the disadvantaged, displaced workers, welfare recipients and, most recently, as a component of a program to improve the national balance of trade. Because the underlying purpose of the traditional government training sector is social equity, not economic efficiency, it is not surprising that there is little evidence of significant economic impact from this sector apart from any positive impact training may have as a general education or socialization tool. What evidence exists is largely inferential and relates to whether persons trained in this sector find employment in the jobs for which they were trained. If training is not related to future employment, it appears unlikely that economic benefits of such training can be inferred. One survey found that only 16% of respondents in a community college survey of vocational students reported working in the field for which they were trained. In 1987 the Employment Training Panel reviewed the
STEVE DUSCHA
230
record of one national non-profit training agency funded extensively under the Job Training Partnership Act. The Panel reviewed a sample of 428 reported job placements following training. Information in employment tax records was compared with the training agency’s placement information. The study found that 21% of those the training agency reported as placed did not work at all for the reported employer after training and that only 41% of the total worked for at least three months. BUSINESS-LABOR TRAINING SYSTEM The business-labor training system is quite different in structure and economics from the traditional government training system. The purpose of business-labor training is economic efficiency. The goal of labor is to sustain and increase wages and to save jobs from elimination. The goal of business is to increase productivity and thereby increase profits. This is not to say that business and labor have no concern for social equity. However, the reason they engage in training is not for social purposes, but for economic ones, and the impact of training is therefore measured in economic terms. Unlike the public sector, training in the business-labor sector is for people already employed. There is little interest in preemployment skills training except in rare occupations and labor markets in which true shortages of skilled labor exist. As Wilms has shown, employers seeks new employees with experience. Failing that, they seek workers with ‘good attitudes’ and an apparent work ethic. Specific skills acquired in vocational training are ranked low as prerequisites for hire. Most initial training in the business-labor sector consists of a brief orientation followed by informal, on-the-job training. Only after a new employee has been on the job for some time does significant training begin. The business-labor system makes some use of public sector training institutions, usually through tuition-assistance programs for college-level employees. But most of the training in this sector is provided by supervisors and inhouse training departments. All of the informal business training, estimated by the American Society for Training and Develop-
ment to cost $180 billion a year, is provided by company employees, as is most of the formal employee training estimated to cost $30 billion a year. In addition to company employees who operate corporate classrooms and occasionally entire schools, formal training in the businesslabor sector uses private training vendors, who sell one or more courses at a time to a variety of firms. The business-labor training system as a whole devotes more training to management and supervisory employees than to lower level workers. Training Magazine reports that executives, managers and supervisors are all more than twice as likely to receive any training as are production workers. The Bureau of Labor Statistics study ‘Where Workers Get Their Training’ also found that business training is heavily weighted in favor of professionals and higher level workers. The study found that executives, managers and professionals were six times as likely to receive skill improvement training after hire as were machine operators, assemblers or inspectors. Business-labor training generally is controlled by middle-level management, and trainers seek out this constituency. In most businesses training is a little-appreciated overhead cost, constantly under scrutiny by management. The training function itself generally is well down in the corporate hierarchy and trainers seek allies in middle management. Middle management is also responsible for releasing employees for training classes, so its interests must be respected. The basis of budgeting in the business-labor training system is more varied than the enrollment-based system in the public sector, but is based primarily upon the short term business economic outlook. According to Zemsky, ‘the incidence of training is a function of the business cycle itself.’ He cites reductions in training after the oil embargo recession of 1973-74, increases in the late 1970s and declines during the 1981-83 recession. The frequency of training in the businesslabor sector is generally sporadic, varying with the plans of companies and of divisions and departments within firms. Training sessions are usually scheduled on an ad hoc basis to introduce a new machine, indoctrinate new employees, train a line worker in the rudiments of supervision, a or inculcate a change in corporate philosophy. Only in a few firms is
THE STRUCTURE OF TRAINING IN THE UNITED STATES
training monitored and planned as a significant part of on-going corporate activity and strategy. The business-labor sector is relatively flexible. In most organizations investment in fixed training assets is limited. Only small staffs are devoted solely to training. Up-to-date equipment for training is generally available on the production line, although as a result much training is done in the course of production. Reliance on outside training vendors also leads to flexibility. A high level of flexibility is important in a system marked by little longterm planning because business-labor trainers often must respond quickly to ad hoc requests for training. Training has relatively low political impact within this sector. The former vice president for human resources of one of America’s largest corporations tells of his frustration with the delays and difficulties in getting consideration by the board of directors for any human resource issue. He contrasts his difficulties with the hours routinely spent by directors discussing individual capital expenditures. Training is generally viewed as an overhead cost with few measurable benefits. It cannot be eliminated entirely, but it tends to be among the first budgets to be cut when times are tough and costs must be reduced. Training Magazine’s survey showed a 15% drop in the number of hours of training delivered between 1985 and 1986. Although this was a period of relative prosperity, it was also a period of cost cutting for many companies concerned about heightened competitive pressure. The data on the economic impact of training in the business-labor sector is as sketchy as it is for the government sector. Impacts appear positive but sporadic. In a study of preemployment training at a large Southern California aerospace firm, Mattei compared records of new employees who were trained with those who went directly to work without formal training. The employees who were trained had 21% less absenteeism, lower levels of dissatisfaction and demerits and a 43% lower accident rate. Ward developed an economic framework for evaluating the costs of layng off workers as compared to retraining existing workers to perform new tasks and concludes that in many situations retraining is of significant economic value to the firm. The Work in America Institute has argued per-
231
suasively that an integrated program of employment security including retraining instead of layoffs as job duties change can be a significant positive economic force for a company and its workers. These studies show the promise of training, but they require a sustained commitment as part of company policy and practice that is lacking in most firms. Thus, the economic benefits of training are largely unrealized.
CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT TRAINING PANEL The California Employment Training Panel is a five-year-old government system of funding job training that is a hybrid of traditional government and business-labor training. .It was created in part to model government training on the business-labor sector. Table 2 is a generalized description of the California program side-by-side with the structure and economics of the traditional government and business-labor training systems as listed in Table 1. The Panel is a seven-member appointed council created in 1983 to administer funds transferred from the state unemployment insurance system for job training. The transfer marked the first time in the United States that unemployment insurance funds were dedicated to any use other than short term income support payments for persons laid off from their jobs. The Panel was conceived as an experiment to determine whether training funds could be used effectively to improve economic efficiency and thereby ease the trauma caused by an accelerating rate of economic change and dislocation. Because its funding comes from the unemployment insurance system, persons trained under the Panel program must be associated with that system. Panel trainees can be unemployed and either receiving unemployment insurance or have exhausted their unemployment insurance within the previous year. Or trainees can be employed but likely to be laid off without retraining because of the complete elimination of their current jobs or a substantial change in those jobs that requires significant retraining. The Panel performs no training directly, but is an agency that helps develop training plans
232
STEVE DUSCHA Table 2. Structure and economics of training in the United States including the Employment Training Panel Traditional government training
Business-labor training
Employment Training Panel
Purpose
Social equity
Economic efficiency
Economic efficiency
Trainees
Unemployed
Employed
Employed and unemployed
Delivery system
Public and private training institutions
Vendors and employees
Training institutions, vendors and employees
Type of job
Entry level
Management and supervisors Middle level
Constituency
Training institutions
Mid-level management
Elements of business and labor
Basis of budgeting
Enrollment
Business outlook
Retention on the job
Frequency of training
One-time
Sporadic
One-time
Level of flexibility
LOW
High
High
Political impact
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Economic impact
Low
Low
High
and then contracts with the delivery systems used both by the traditional government and the business-labor sectors. The Panel contracts with public and private schools as well as directly with employers who often subcontract with vendors. The selection of a delivery system is the choice of the employer for whom the trainees will work after training. If there is an existing collective bargaining agreement, the union that represents the workers also participates in the design of the training and in the selection of the trainers. Unlike either the traditional government or the business-labor sectors, Panel training is aimed at middle-level, middle income jobs. Consistent with its history as a part of the unemployment insurance system, the Panel’s primary constituencies are the business and labor lobbies which concern themselves with unemployment insurance. An emerging secondary constituency is made up of business and some labor trainers. These trainers have seized upon the availability of Panel funds to advance their own interests and the interests of training within their organizations. The basis of budgeting in the Panel system is distinct from either the traditional government or the business-labor system. All budgeting is on the basis of the number of people trained, hired and retained on the job for which they were trained for at least 90 days after the end of training. A fixed fee is negotiated for every person who is trained, hired, and retained. The
contractor receives the entire fee for every person who completes all three milestones and nothing for those who do not complete all three. Training generally is a one-time event under the Panel program. One-time training for those who are employed but likely to be laid-off, which is the largest group of Panel trainees, is assumed to be in response to a significant and discrete change in the operation of a firm or in the job requirements of an occupation. Training designed in response to such a change is assumed to result in stable employment with little or no need for further training, at least in the foreseeable future. The level of flexibility of Panel training is extremely high, due in large part to the performance contract system of budgeting. The contract cuts off funding and, presumably, training at the point where the demand for training as measured by jobs equals the supply, With such a funding system it is not possible to support high fixed costs for an extended period of time, and trainers must maintain a high degree of flexibility to be able to meet unexpected changes in the demand for training. The Panel’s political impact is moderate. Like other public sector programs, it shares in the public’s general good will toward training as a useful function of government. The poliiical impact of Panel training within the firm also is moderate. The state financial support for the
233
THE STRUCTURE OF TRAINING IN THE UNITED STATES
business and labor trainers can increase the stature of training as a whole within the firm or union. But training still seldom penetrates to the top levels of management and labor. The economic impact of Panel training is high. Using a multiple regression analysis Moore has measured the income and employment histories of almost 4000 trainees. He found that ‘new hires gained $5976 over dropouts in the first year following training, while retrainers gained $2003.’
IMPLICATIONS
FOR CHANGE
National productivity and competitiveness are dependent upon the decisions of tens of thousands of individual firms. If training is to play a significant role in stimulating productivity, it must be relevant to and focused on the the traditional public firm. Unfortunately, sector training system attuned to the needs of the individual is poorly suited to the task. Major changes in the structure and economic incentives of the public system would be necessary before the traditional government training sector could play a significant economic role in improving productivity and competitiveness. A system whose basic mission is social equity will be hard-pressed to improve economic ‘Business and education have efficiency. largely failed in their partnerships to improve the schools,’ the chairman of the Xerox Corporation said recently. ‘Business let education frame the problem and set the agenda. They hurt more than they help because they keep shoring up a system that needs deep structural changes.’ The Xerox chairman was referring to the basic education system in the United States, but he could have said the same about vocational education and job training. The ‘partnerships’ in job training fashioned between business and the traditional govemment sector will not succeed in having a significant impact on productivity and competitiveness because they are based on sharply divergent interests and structures. At best these partnerships result in small ‘model’ programs that relieve the pressure for more basic change. For example, one community college administrator pointed out that it is hopeless to expect community college job
trainers to concentrate on placing trainees in jobs as long as the schools’ budgets are based on enrollments, not placements. A system based on training the unemployed in training institutions with assets, programs and schedules that are fixed years in advance is unlikely to meet rapidly changing demands by business and labor for training for those who are already employed. However, an analysis of the structure of training should lead to caution as well on the part of those who would reshape the traditional government training sector to mimic the business-labor sector. This analysis has shown that the business-labor sector has low political and economic impact, is geared toward training for management and supervisory employees to the disadvantage of middle level workers, results in only sporadic training on an uncertain basis of budgeting, and fails to develop a constituency in upper level management. A NEW GOVERNMENT FOR TRAINING
MODEL
Training programs aimed at assuring an equitable opportunity for all in the labor market should be examined to insure that they are meeting the goals set for them, and those that meet this test should be strengthened and expanded. At the same time, international economic realities make more critical the need to improve the skills of the national work force. From the preceding analysis it is apparent that this can be attained most readily, by working through the existing business-labor training system. But the most effective programs will neither work at cross-purposes to the businesslabor sector, nor will they mimic it; they will seek to understand that system and improve upon it. Table 3 is a simple sketch of such a system based on the factors listed in the previous discussion. The purpose of such a model training system is economic efficiency tempered with a commitment to employment security for the employees of the firm. The Work in America Institute defines employment security as a continuum whose extent is measured ‘by the degree to which employees are assured that, regardless of internal or external changes, they will continue in employment as long as they
STEVE DUSCHA
234
Table 3. A model structure for training in the United States Purpose
Economic efficiency through employment security
Trainees
Employed and Unemployed
Delivery System
Training institutions, vendors and employees
Type of job
All levels
Constituency
Upper level management
Basis of budgeting
Long term business strategy and performance
Frequency of training
Continuous
Level of flexibility
High within specified standards of quality
Political impact
High
Economic impact
High
live up to the terms and conditions of Employment security has employment.’ obvious benefits for workers in a turbulent economy. For employers it helps assure the cooperation of employees who are able to welcome and implement change and productivity improvements without fear of losing their jobs. One of the tools of an employment security program within a firm is training that enables existing workers to stay employed even as change eliminates or reconfigures their jobs. Employment security leads to higher levels of economic efficiency, but it is listed as a twin goal to insure that the long-term needs of the individual are not overlooked in a short-term rush to improve profits. Training should be provided both to the employed and to the unemployed starting work in a firm for the first time. The biggest economic payoff for training will continue to lie with training existing workers who are entrusted with more complex, higher level tasks. However, efficiencies also can be gained in many firms by substituting organized preemployment training for haphazard on-the-job or ‘buddy-system’ training. To continue to view training as only of concern to the unemployed is to ensure future unemployment as jobs change and workers fail to attain the skills necessary to perform those new jobs. Training limited to the unemployed also will mean a missed opportunity to help business compete successfully for markets and for jobs as a full participant in the world economy. All types of delivery systems should be permitted. Based on past practice and the
and labor
failure of the public sector training system to develop a substantial constituency within the private sector, it is likely that business will choose to continue to rely mostly upon its own employees and the vendor system to provide training. Public and private schools should be permitted to provide services as well, but not to the exclusion of the sector’s traditional suppliers. Economic efficiency, not the support of particular institutions, is the purpose of this model training system. To dictate a delivery system is to miss opportunities for economic progress. The ‘consumers’ of training are business and labor, and the decisions on what delivery system to use in a particular situation should be left to them. Training should be extended from the traditional business--labor emphasis on management and supervisory training to all levels within organizations, including entry level positions. As the Japanese have demonstrated, quality and productivity come through continuous small improvements made by every employee not just a few inspectors, supervisors, or managers. Training to improve economic efficiency through employment security must be provided to all workers. For training to have significant and widespread effect, its constituency must extend to the highest levels of business and labor. Senior management and union officials must begin to pay as much attention to human resource issues as they pay to capital expenditures and finance. Investments in people will be increasingly the focus of international competitions as other nations follow the lead of the United
THE STRUCTURE OF TRAINING IN THE UNITED STATES
States in producing more sophisticated, higher value goods and services. Human resource decisions can no longer be relegated to lower levels of organizations. If training is made a part of an overall longterm corporate strategy, a change in constituency should lead to more stable and more rational budgeting. Care must be taken that budgets are managed to insure performance as measured in practical, job-specific terms. Institutionalizing training within the firm should not be an excuse for the creation of new institutions that stray from the essential flexibility and practicality that are the strengths of the business-labor system. Some form of performance contracting like that used by the Employment Training Panel appears to be the most effective way to ensure that training is directly related to the jobs that business needs filled. Today, rapid economic change clearly is a continuous part of the management of a business and of the working life of an employee. Therefore, training must become a constant. Employment security in the midst of rapid economic change requires retraining again and again. The Work in America Institute has found that in well-managed firms today change and the training to adjust to change are never viewed as discrete events but as continuous activities. A model training system should be highly flexible, but not so flexible as to bend with every changing fashion. A model system should borrow some of the quality checks and balances from more traditional academic settings and avoid training fads. Assuring the quality of training is essential to an effective system. Such a system will have both high political and economic effects. It will be clearly visible within the organization and will be a part of strategic thinking for both management and workers. As training gains visibility within the firm, it will move higher on the nation’s political agenda as well. Economic benefits will result from the higher productivity and competitiveness that come from a higher level of effective training coupled with the long-term economic strategies of the state, the firm and
235
the individual. This model is not exhaustive, but it is indicative of the practical steps this nation must take to survive economically in the face of accelerating change. Existing systems and institutions must be examined frankly and openly and reshaped on the basis of today’s economic imperatives. Only then can the United States hope to sustain the productivity of business and the living standard of its people. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor (1985) How workers get their training. Washington, DC. California Worksite Education and Training Act (1982) Annual Report. Sacramento, CA. Employment Development Department, State of California (1986) Employment and training programs in California. Sacramento, CA. Employment Training Panel (1986) Annual Report. Sacramento, CA. Employment Training Panel, Policy Review Committee (1987) Agenda Materials, 19 January. Sacramento, CA. Eurich, N. P. (1987) Corporate classrooms: the learning business. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Princeton, NJ. Mattei, J. P. (1986) Pre-employment training and employee job effectiveness _id a high-techiology environment. Unpublished dissertation, United States International University, San Diego, CA. Moore, R. W. (1987) ETP training: does it make a difference? Trainina Research Corooration, Santa Monica, CA. Munger, B. (1985) Unpublished remarks, California Policy Seminar, University of California, Los Angeles. National Governor’s Association (1987) Making America work: jobs, growth & competiveness. Washington, DC. National Governor’s Association Center for Policy Research (1987) State strategies to train a competitive workforce: the emerging role of state-funded job training programs. Center for Policy Research, Washington, DC. Training Magazine, Industry Report 1986. Reprinted in The Human Resources Yearbook (1987) Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Ward, D. L. (1986) Hiring Versus Training: A Cost Perspective. Work in America Institute, Scarsdale, NY. Work in America Institute (1984) Employment Securiry in a Free Economy. Pergamon Press, New York. Work in America Institute (1986) Training for New Technology: Employment
Part IV, The Continuous Learning1 Security Connections. Working in America
Insiituie, Scarsdale,~NY. Zemskv, R. and Meverson. M. (1985) Trainine’s oractices: education and training within the Am&&an firm. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
u736-0593/.98 s3.00+ .oo Pergamon Press plc
Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 227-235,19&l
THE STRUCTURE OF TRAINING IN THE UNITED STATES: TOWARD A NEW MODEL STEVE
DUSCHA
Employment Training Panel, Sacramento, CA Abstract-The paper looks at the relationship between traditional government training programmes at secondary and community high school level and the business-labor training system in the U.S.A. as it currently stands. It sees the vocational training thrust of State-funded programmes as aimed at social equity rather than skills needs. In the context of a defensive phase in the United States economy, the paper sees the need to be innovative in structuring the necessary partnership between business and government sector vocational and skills training.
The realities of international economic competition make effective job training an increasingly important factor in assuring national productivity and maintaining national standards of living. However, the American public and private systems of job training are poorly equipped to play the major roles that may be cast for them to improve worker and business productivity. More than slogans and wellmeaning but ineffectual reforms will be needed from the public sector to support, stimulate, and improve the much larger private sector, business-labor training system which must be at the heart of effective job training. The government leadership that is critically needed to strengthen and expand the business-labor training sector must be based on an understanding of the fundamental differences that exist in the political and economic structures of training as it is currently practised in the public sector and in the business-labor sector. Without a fuller understanding of these differences the public sector risks a growing irrelevance to the private sector training that is needed to improve worker skills and national productivity. Behind the prosperity of the mid-1980s is a fear that America is falling out of step with the economic leaders of the world. There is
*Steve Duscha is executive director of the California Employment Training Panel. The views expressed in this paper are his own and do not necessarily represent the views of the Panel.
disenchantment with the quality of American goods and the standing of the American work ethic as compared with imported goods and foreign workers. The growth in productivity in recent years has averaged 1% , only a third of the historical norms upon which the American prosperity is based. The real income of the average worker in America peaked a decade and a half ago and family incomes have risen slightly only because of the rise in two-income households. America’s penchant for importing has spread from Japanese VCRs and automobiles to imports of capital to finance and build the showrooms to display and sell the imported goods. In American economic and political philosophy the government’s role in coping with these problems is tightly circumscribed, but government is expected to play an active role in education and training. Universal public education has been a hallmark of the American democratic system at the primary and secondary levels, and the opportunity for a college education has more recently come to be expected. This basic education system should provide the underpinnings for a productive, internationally competitive workforce. A system of vocational education and job training should supplement such basic education with more specific skills training. As international economic challenges come more clearly into focus, it is likely that education and training will be asked to play an expanded role. Recent reforms in basic education have been justified in economic 227
228
STEVE DUSCHA Table 1. Structure and economics of training in the United States Traditional government training
Business-labor training
Purpose Trainees
Social equity
Economic efficiency
Unemployed
Employed
Delivery System
Public and private training institutions
Vendors and employees
Type of job
Entry level
Management and supervisors
Constituency
Training institutions
Mid-level management
Basis of budgeting
Enrollment
Business outlook and sales
Frequency of training
One-time
Sporadic
Level of flexibility
LOW
High
Political impact
Moderate
LOW
Economic impact
LOW
LOW
terms as states have appropriated funds to improve the competitiveness of their workers vis a vis other states. Even as government budgets come under increasing pressure, training investments are likely to grow. More money for training should mean better trained and more productive workers able to strengthen national competitiveness and maintain jobs in this country. Unfortunately, in general, the public and private sector job training systems in America are ill-equipped to accept expanded economic roles. The ability of the public sector to improve worker productivity and business competitiveness can be understood more clearly by contrasting the structure and economics of traditional public sector and business-labor training systems. Table 1 is a generalized assessment of the structural underpinnings of the two systems. There are exceptional firms, unions and training institutions whose experiences contravene these generalizations. But this outline provides a useful and accurate overall look at the two major job training systems in the United States. As used in this paper, public sector training includes vocational education at the secondary and community college level where the stated goals are job placement or skill improvement, and at proprietary and non-profit job training institutions, including those funded through the federal Job Training Partnership Act, the principal federal manpower program. Business-labor training includes training programs
operated directly by business and sometimes jointly with labor (for example, apprenticeship programs). Business-labor programs mean only those which train employees for the business or group of businesses providing the training. TRADITIONAL GOVERNMENT TRAINING The underlying purpose of traditional government training programs in the United States is social equity, providing all members of society with the opportunity to learn the skills that will enable them to be full participants in the American economic dream. It is a purpose based in the wants and needs of the individual. Course offerings generally are open to anyone with the interest to pursue them. As Munger has argued, such a purpose dove-tailed well with the American post-war economic expansion. Government revenues, private sector employment, and standards of living all were rising. The primary public concern, exemplified by the Great Society programs, was opportunity for all Americans. If social equity is the purpose of job training, then logically, in the traditional government training system the trainees will be persons without jobs. Those already in the labor force are viewed as on their way to ~l~lling the American dream. Training programs are geared primarily to those entering the labor force for the first time because they are young and seeking their first chance at a job, because
THE S’IllUCTURE OF TRAINING IN THE UNITED STATES
their skills limit them to a secondary labor market of low-paid, high turnover jobs, because they have suffered from discrimination in the past, or because they have been displaced from a job with little prospect of returning. Training the unemployed for new jobs, of course, means that the jobs after training will be relatively low-level entry jobs. The largest delivery system for government training is made up of public sector institutions at the secondary and post-secondary level. In California, regional occupational centers and programs, adult schools operated by secondary school districts and community colleges provide vocational training. A second public sector delivery system consists largely of community-based institutions. This system was established with funding from the federal manpower programs. Another system of forprofit job training schools is supported by tuition from individual students, often subsidized by federal grants or loans. These three roughly parallel, sometimes overlapping systems, are substantial enterprises. In California, community college vocational training expenses are estimated at $423 million. The regional occupational centers and programs are budgeted at $551 million. The federal Job Training Partnership program is budgeted at $268 million in California. Wilms estimates the budget for California’s for-profit training schools to be in excess of $600 million. Although the general purpose of all these programs is equity for the individual, it is the training institutions that have the greatest single financial stake in the outcome of the programs. Thus, it is the training institutions that are the most potent constituency for this sector. Budgeting, like the basic training system, is based on the individual, in this case on individual enrollments. The number of people enrolled on the annual ‘census day’ is multiplied by a fee to arrive at annual budgets for the following year. The federal manpower program is similar except that payments in the current year are based on enrollments in the current year and a bonus is often paid for retention of persons in training past the enrollment or census date and for placement in a job after training. Despite some movements to stimulate ‘lifelong learning,’ the public sector remains oriented toward training one time in the life of
229
an individual. As previously noted, training is designed to help a person obtain his or her first job. Once that goal has been attained, the role of job training diminishes or ends. In the public sector training that is provided for people already in the work force tends to be avocational, not vocational. Level of flexibility is a measure of the adaptability of the training system to change. Flexibility is significant in terms of ability to change course offerings and curricula within courses, including the wholesale addition and subtraction of courses or programs and the adjustment of existing programs and courses to meet changing needs. These traditional government training programs are based in training institutions, and their level of flexibility is relatively low. Teachers and staff, some with tenure or other job protections, must be paid. The institutions also have substantial investments in facilities and equipment. The political impact of the government training sector is moderate. It does not have the high level of impact of tax policy, for example, but as part of the education system it has general support. Moreover, as a helping hand and a second chance for the disadvantaged, training has broad support from all parts of the political spectrum. In recent years, training has received widespread political support as a key solution to the problems of the disadvantaged, displaced workers, welfare recipients and, most recently, as a component of a program to improve the national balance of trade. Because the underlying purpose of the traditional government training sector is social equity, not economic efficiency, it is not surprising that there is little evidence of significant economic impact from this sector apart from any positive impact training may have as a general education or socialization tool. What evidence exists is largely inferential and relates to whether persons trained in this sector find employment in the jobs for which they were trained. If training is not related to future employment, it appears unlikely that economic benefits of such training can be inferred. One survey found that only 16% of respondents in a community college survey of vocational students reported working in the field for which they were trained. In 1987 the Employment Training Panel reviewed the
STEVE DUSCHA
230
record of one national non-profit training agency funded extensively under the Job Training Partnership Act. The Panel reviewed a sample of 428 reported job placements following training. Information in employment tax records was compared with the training agency’s placement information. The study found that 21% of those the training agency reported as placed did not work at all for the reported employer after training and that only 41% of the total worked for at least three months. BUSINESS-LABOR TRAINING SYSTEM The business-labor training system is quite different in structure and economics from the traditional government training system. The purpose of business-labor training is economic efficiency. The goal of labor is to sustain and increase wages and to save jobs from elimination. The goal of business is to increase productivity and thereby increase profits. This is not to say that business and labor have no concern for social equity. However, the reason they engage in training is not for social purposes, but for economic ones, and the impact of training is therefore measured in economic terms. Unlike the public sector, training in the business-labor sector is for people already employed. There is little interest in preemployment skills training except in rare occupations and labor markets in which true shortages of skilled labor exist. As Wilms has shown, employers seeks new employees with experience. Failing that, they seek workers with ‘good attitudes’ and an apparent work ethic. Specific skills acquired in vocational training are ranked low as prerequisites for hire. Most initial training in the business-labor sector consists of a brief orientation followed by informal, on-the-job training. Only after a new employee has been on the job for some time does significant training begin. The business-labor system makes some use of public sector training institutions, usually through tuition-assistance programs for college-level employees. But most of the training in this sector is provided by supervisors and inhouse training departments. All of the informal business training, estimated by the American Society for Training and Develop-
ment to cost $180 billion a year, is provided by company employees, as is most of the formal employee training estimated to cost $30 billion a year. In addition to company employees who operate corporate classrooms and occasionally entire schools, formal training in the businesslabor sector uses private training vendors, who sell one or more courses at a time to a variety of firms. The business-labor training system as a whole devotes more training to management and supervisory employees than to lower level workers. Training Magazine reports that executives, managers and supervisors are all more than twice as likely to receive any training as are production workers. The Bureau of Labor Statistics study ‘Where Workers Get Their Training’ also found that business training is heavily weighted in favor of professionals and higher level workers. The study found that executives, managers and professionals were six times as likely to receive skill improvement training after hire as were machine operators, assemblers or inspectors. Business-labor training generally is controlled by middle-level management, and trainers seek out this constituency. In most businesses training is a little-appreciated overhead cost, constantly under scrutiny by management. The training function itself generally is well down in the corporate hierarchy and trainers seek allies in middle management. Middle management is also responsible for releasing employees for training classes, so its interests must be respected. The basis of budgeting in the business-labor training system is more varied than the enrollment-based system in the public sector, but is based primarily upon the short term business economic outlook. According to Zemsky, ‘the incidence of training is a function of the business cycle itself.’ He cites reductions in training after the oil embargo recession of 1973-74, increases in the late 1970s and declines during the 1981-83 recession. The frequency of training in the businesslabor sector is generally sporadic, varying with the plans of companies and of divisions and departments within firms. Training sessions are usually scheduled on an ad hoc basis to introduce a new machine, indoctrinate new employees, train a line worker in the rudiments of supervision, a or inculcate a change in corporate philosophy. Only in a few firms is
THE STRUCTURE OF TRAINING IN THE UNITED STATES
training monitored and planned as a significant part of on-going corporate activity and strategy. The business-labor sector is relatively flexible. In most organizations investment in fixed training assets is limited. Only small staffs are devoted solely to training. Up-to-date equipment for training is generally available on the production line, although as a result much training is done in the course of production. Reliance on outside training vendors also leads to flexibility. A high level of flexibility is important in a system marked by little longterm planning because business-labor trainers often must respond quickly to ad hoc requests for training. Training has relatively low political impact within this sector. The former vice president for human resources of one of America’s largest corporations tells of his frustration with the delays and difficulties in getting consideration by the board of directors for any human resource issue. He contrasts his difficulties with the hours routinely spent by directors discussing individual capital expenditures. Training is generally viewed as an overhead cost with few measurable benefits. It cannot be eliminated entirely, but it tends to be among the first budgets to be cut when times are tough and costs must be reduced. Training Magazine’s survey showed a 15% drop in the number of hours of training delivered between 1985 and 1986. Although this was a period of relative prosperity, it was also a period of cost cutting for many companies concerned about heightened competitive pressure. The data on the economic impact of training in the business-labor sector is as sketchy as it is for the government sector. Impacts appear positive but sporadic. In a study of preemployment training at a large Southern California aerospace firm, Mattei compared records of new employees who were trained with those who went directly to work without formal training. The employees who were trained had 21% less absenteeism, lower levels of dissatisfaction and demerits and a 43% lower accident rate. Ward developed an economic framework for evaluating the costs of layng off workers as compared to retraining existing workers to perform new tasks and concludes that in many situations retraining is of significant economic value to the firm. The Work in America Institute has argued per-
231
suasively that an integrated program of employment security including retraining instead of layoffs as job duties change can be a significant positive economic force for a company and its workers. These studies show the promise of training, but they require a sustained commitment as part of company policy and practice that is lacking in most firms. Thus, the economic benefits of training are largely unrealized.
CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT TRAINING PANEL The California Employment Training Panel is a five-year-old government system of funding job training that is a hybrid of traditional government and business-labor training. .It was created in part to model government training on the business-labor sector. Table 2 is a generalized description of the California program side-by-side with the structure and economics of the traditional government and business-labor training systems as listed in Table 1. The Panel is a seven-member appointed council created in 1983 to administer funds transferred from the state unemployment insurance system for job training. The transfer marked the first time in the United States that unemployment insurance funds were dedicated to any use other than short term income support payments for persons laid off from their jobs. The Panel was conceived as an experiment to determine whether training funds could be used effectively to improve economic efficiency and thereby ease the trauma caused by an accelerating rate of economic change and dislocation. Because its funding comes from the unemployment insurance system, persons trained under the Panel program must be associated with that system. Panel trainees can be unemployed and either receiving unemployment insurance or have exhausted their unemployment insurance within the previous year. Or trainees can be employed but likely to be laid off without retraining because of the complete elimination of their current jobs or a substantial change in those jobs that requires significant retraining. The Panel performs no training directly, but is an agency that helps develop training plans
232
STEVE DUSCHA Table 2. Structure and economics of training in the United States including the Employment Training Panel Traditional government training
Business-labor training
Employment Training Panel
Purpose
Social equity
Economic efficiency
Economic efficiency
Trainees
Unemployed
Employed
Employed and unemployed
Delivery system
Public and private training institutions
Vendors and employees
Training institutions, vendors and employees
Type of job
Entry level
Management and supervisors Middle level
Constituency
Training institutions
Mid-level management
Elements of business and labor
Basis of budgeting
Enrollment
Business outlook
Retention on the job
Frequency of training
One-time
Sporadic
One-time
Level of flexibility
LOW
High
High
Political impact
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Economic impact
Low
Low
High
and then contracts with the delivery systems used both by the traditional government and the business-labor sectors. The Panel contracts with public and private schools as well as directly with employers who often subcontract with vendors. The selection of a delivery system is the choice of the employer for whom the trainees will work after training. If there is an existing collective bargaining agreement, the union that represents the workers also participates in the design of the training and in the selection of the trainers. Unlike either the traditional government or the business-labor sectors, Panel training is aimed at middle-level, middle income jobs. Consistent with its history as a part of the unemployment insurance system, the Panel’s primary constituencies are the business and labor lobbies which concern themselves with unemployment insurance. An emerging secondary constituency is made up of business and some labor trainers. These trainers have seized upon the availability of Panel funds to advance their own interests and the interests of training within their organizations. The basis of budgeting in the Panel system is distinct from either the traditional government or the business-labor system. All budgeting is on the basis of the number of people trained, hired and retained on the job for which they were trained for at least 90 days after the end of training. A fixed fee is negotiated for every person who is trained, hired, and retained. The
contractor receives the entire fee for every person who completes all three milestones and nothing for those who do not complete all three. Training generally is a one-time event under the Panel program. One-time training for those who are employed but likely to be laid-off, which is the largest group of Panel trainees, is assumed to be in response to a significant and discrete change in the operation of a firm or in the job requirements of an occupation. Training designed in response to such a change is assumed to result in stable employment with little or no need for further training, at least in the foreseeable future. The level of flexibility of Panel training is extremely high, due in large part to the performance contract system of budgeting. The contract cuts off funding and, presumably, training at the point where the demand for training as measured by jobs equals the supply, With such a funding system it is not possible to support high fixed costs for an extended period of time, and trainers must maintain a high degree of flexibility to be able to meet unexpected changes in the demand for training. The Panel’s political impact is moderate. Like other public sector programs, it shares in the public’s general good will toward training as a useful function of government. The poliiical impact of Panel training within the firm also is moderate. The state financial support for the
233
THE STRUCTURE OF TRAINING IN THE UNITED STATES
business and labor trainers can increase the stature of training as a whole within the firm or union. But training still seldom penetrates to the top levels of management and labor. The economic impact of Panel training is high. Using a multiple regression analysis Moore has measured the income and employment histories of almost 4000 trainees. He found that ‘new hires gained $5976 over dropouts in the first year following training, while retrainers gained $2003.’
IMPLICATIONS
FOR CHANGE
National productivity and competitiveness are dependent upon the decisions of tens of thousands of individual firms. If training is to play a significant role in stimulating productivity, it must be relevant to and focused on the the traditional public firm. Unfortunately, sector training system attuned to the needs of the individual is poorly suited to the task. Major changes in the structure and economic incentives of the public system would be necessary before the traditional government training sector could play a significant economic role in improving productivity and competitiveness. A system whose basic mission is social equity will be hard-pressed to improve economic ‘Business and education have efficiency. largely failed in their partnerships to improve the schools,’ the chairman of the Xerox Corporation said recently. ‘Business let education frame the problem and set the agenda. They hurt more than they help because they keep shoring up a system that needs deep structural changes.’ The Xerox chairman was referring to the basic education system in the United States, but he could have said the same about vocational education and job training. The ‘partnerships’ in job training fashioned between business and the traditional govemment sector will not succeed in having a significant impact on productivity and competitiveness because they are based on sharply divergent interests and structures. At best these partnerships result in small ‘model’ programs that relieve the pressure for more basic change. For example, one community college administrator pointed out that it is hopeless to expect community college job
trainers to concentrate on placing trainees in jobs as long as the schools’ budgets are based on enrollments, not placements. A system based on training the unemployed in training institutions with assets, programs and schedules that are fixed years in advance is unlikely to meet rapidly changing demands by business and labor for training for those who are already employed. However, an analysis of the structure of training should lead to caution as well on the part of those who would reshape the traditional government training sector to mimic the business-labor sector. This analysis has shown that the business-labor sector has low political and economic impact, is geared toward training for management and supervisory employees to the disadvantage of middle level workers, results in only sporadic training on an uncertain basis of budgeting, and fails to develop a constituency in upper level management. A NEW GOVERNMENT FOR TRAINING
MODEL
Training programs aimed at assuring an equitable opportunity for all in the labor market should be examined to insure that they are meeting the goals set for them, and those that meet this test should be strengthened and expanded. At the same time, international economic realities make more critical the need to improve the skills of the national work force. From the preceding analysis it is apparent that this can be attained most readily, by working through the existing business-labor training system. But the most effective programs will neither work at cross-purposes to the businesslabor sector, nor will they mimic it; they will seek to understand that system and improve upon it. Table 3 is a simple sketch of such a system based on the factors listed in the previous discussion. The purpose of such a model training system is economic efficiency tempered with a commitment to employment security for the employees of the firm. The Work in America Institute defines employment security as a continuum whose extent is measured ‘by the degree to which employees are assured that, regardless of internal or external changes, they will continue in employment as long as they
STEVE DUSCHA
234
Table 3. A model structure for training in the United States Purpose
Economic efficiency through employment security
Trainees
Employed and Unemployed
Delivery System
Training institutions, vendors and employees
Type of job
All levels
Constituency
Upper level management
Basis of budgeting
Long term business strategy and performance
Frequency of training
Continuous
Level of flexibility
High within specified standards of quality
Political impact
High
Economic impact
High
live up to the terms and conditions of Employment security has employment.’ obvious benefits for workers in a turbulent economy. For employers it helps assure the cooperation of employees who are able to welcome and implement change and productivity improvements without fear of losing their jobs. One of the tools of an employment security program within a firm is training that enables existing workers to stay employed even as change eliminates or reconfigures their jobs. Employment security leads to higher levels of economic efficiency, but it is listed as a twin goal to insure that the long-term needs of the individual are not overlooked in a short-term rush to improve profits. Training should be provided both to the employed and to the unemployed starting work in a firm for the first time. The biggest economic payoff for training will continue to lie with training existing workers who are entrusted with more complex, higher level tasks. However, efficiencies also can be gained in many firms by substituting organized preemployment training for haphazard on-the-job or ‘buddy-system’ training. To continue to view training as only of concern to the unemployed is to ensure future unemployment as jobs change and workers fail to attain the skills necessary to perform those new jobs. Training limited to the unemployed also will mean a missed opportunity to help business compete successfully for markets and for jobs as a full participant in the world economy. All types of delivery systems should be permitted. Based on past practice and the
and labor
failure of the public sector training system to develop a substantial constituency within the private sector, it is likely that business will choose to continue to rely mostly upon its own employees and the vendor system to provide training. Public and private schools should be permitted to provide services as well, but not to the exclusion of the sector’s traditional suppliers. Economic efficiency, not the support of particular institutions, is the purpose of this model training system. To dictate a delivery system is to miss opportunities for economic progress. The ‘consumers’ of training are business and labor, and the decisions on what delivery system to use in a particular situation should be left to them. Training should be extended from the traditional business--labor emphasis on management and supervisory training to all levels within organizations, including entry level positions. As the Japanese have demonstrated, quality and productivity come through continuous small improvements made by every employee not just a few inspectors, supervisors, or managers. Training to improve economic efficiency through employment security must be provided to all workers. For training to have significant and widespread effect, its constituency must extend to the highest levels of business and labor. Senior management and union officials must begin to pay as much attention to human resource issues as they pay to capital expenditures and finance. Investments in people will be increasingly the focus of international competitions as other nations follow the lead of the United
THE STRUCTURE OF TRAINING IN THE UNITED STATES
States in producing more sophisticated, higher value goods and services. Human resource decisions can no longer be relegated to lower levels of organizations. If training is made a part of an overall longterm corporate strategy, a change in constituency should lead to more stable and more rational budgeting. Care must be taken that budgets are managed to insure performance as measured in practical, job-specific terms. Institutionalizing training within the firm should not be an excuse for the creation of new institutions that stray from the essential flexibility and practicality that are the strengths of the business-labor system. Some form of performance contracting like that used by the Employment Training Panel appears to be the most effective way to ensure that training is directly related to the jobs that business needs filled. Today, rapid economic change clearly is a continuous part of the management of a business and of the working life of an employee. Therefore, training must become a constant. Employment security in the midst of rapid economic change requires retraining again and again. The Work in America Institute has found that in well-managed firms today change and the training to adjust to change are never viewed as discrete events but as continuous activities. A model training system should be highly flexible, but not so flexible as to bend with every changing fashion. A model system should borrow some of the quality checks and balances from more traditional academic settings and avoid training fads. Assuring the quality of training is essential to an effective system. Such a system will have both high political and economic effects. It will be clearly visible within the organization and will be a part of strategic thinking for both management and workers. As training gains visibility within the firm, it will move higher on the nation’s political agenda as well. Economic benefits will result from the higher productivity and competitiveness that come from a higher level of effective training coupled with the long-term economic strategies of the state, the firm and
235
the individual. This model is not exhaustive, but it is indicative of the practical steps this nation must take to survive economically in the face of accelerating change. Existing systems and institutions must be examined frankly and openly and reshaped on the basis of today’s economic imperatives. Only then can the United States hope to sustain the productivity of business and the living standard of its people. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor (1985) How workers get their training. Washington, DC. California Worksite Education and Training Act (1982) Annual Report. Sacramento, CA. Employment Development Department, State of California (1986) Employment and training programs in California. Sacramento, CA. Employment Training Panel (1986) Annual Report. Sacramento, CA. Employment Training Panel, Policy Review Committee (1987) Agenda Materials, 19 January. Sacramento, CA. Eurich, N. P. (1987) Corporate classrooms: the learning business. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Princeton, NJ. Mattei, J. P. (1986) Pre-employment training and employee job effectiveness _id a high-techiology environment. Unpublished dissertation, United States International University, San Diego, CA. Moore, R. W. (1987) ETP training: does it make a difference? Trainina Research Corooration, Santa Monica, CA. Munger, B. (1985) Unpublished remarks, California Policy Seminar, University of California, Los Angeles. National Governor’s Association (1987) Making America work: jobs, growth & competiveness. Washington, DC. National Governor’s Association Center for Policy Research (1987) State strategies to train a competitive workforce: the emerging role of state-funded job training programs. Center for Policy Research, Washington, DC. Training Magazine, Industry Report 1986. Reprinted in The Human Resources Yearbook (1987) Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Ward, D. L. (1986) Hiring Versus Training: A Cost Perspective. Work in America Institute, Scarsdale, NY. Work in America Institute (1984) Employment Securiry in a Free Economy. Pergamon Press, New York. Work in America Institute (1986) Training for New Technology: Employment
Part IV, The Continuous Learning1 Security Connections. Working in America
Insiituie, Scarsdale,~NY. Zemskv, R. and Meverson. M. (1985) Trainine’s oractices: education and training within the Am&&an firm. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.