Employing Our Resources

A Policy Paper of the National Association of State Workforce Investment Policy Council Chairs

The National Association of State Workforce Investment Policy Council Chairs, formerly the National Association of State Job Training Coordinating Council Chairs/Human Resource Investment Councils, was originally organized in 1988 by the chairs of state job training coordinating councils authorized under the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA). These councils advise Governors on JTPA programs and related education, job training, and employment policies and programs. The association expanded its membership in 1993 to include the chairs of state human resource investment councils authorized under the 1992 amendments to JTPA and other similar state councils with broad oversight of state workforce development policy and programs. The association provides a unified voice for state councils on workforce investment policy issues; works to strengthen employment, training, and education programs; and coordinates with other national organizations engaged in areas of common interest. Staff support is provided by the Employment and Social Services Policy Studies Division of the National Governors’ Association Center for Best Practices.

Copyright 1996 by the National Association of State Workforce Investment Policy Council Chairs, 444 North Capitol Street, Washington, D.C. 20001-1512. All rights reserved.

This publication was prepared for the National Association of State Workforce Investment Policy Council Chairs by the National Governors’ Association. The responsibility for the accuracy of the analysis and for the judgments expressed lies with the author and the Chairs’ Association; the paper does not constitute policy positions of the National Governors’ Association or individual Governors.

Contents

• Foreword
• Acknowledgements
• Thinking "Out of the Box"
• Introduction

• Part I—A Journey to Lifelong Learning

• Our Pathways to a National Workforce Investment System
• Our Purpose
• Our Beliefs
• The Changing Landscape
• What We Need: A System for Lifelong Learning
• What It Will Cost: Implications for Our Resources
• The Fork in the Road

• Part II—A ROADMAP

• Recommendations
• Appendix
• Options for Financing and Encouraging Investment in Lifelong Learning
• Resources

Foreword

The notion of a rapidly changing and fiercely competitive global economy has become the subject of everyday conversation. Talk of how American businesses and industries can build and maintain a competitive edge in the world marketplace has permeated our popular press and shaped much of the ongoing national dialogue about the role of government, education reform, and welfare reform. Concern about economic competitiveness also has spurred keen interest in how our nation will prepare the skilled and educated workers it needs for the next century.

In our third policy paper, the National Association of State Workforce Investment Policy Council Chairs has sought to construct a framework for discussing the availability, allocation, and use of resources that our nation needs to create a world-class workforce investment system capable of preparing our workers to compete in the twenty-first century global economy. That such a system was necessary and viable was the message of the Chairs’ Association’s second policy paper, "Advancing America’s Workforce," which was published in December 1994. Now, more than a year later, we reaffirm our belief in the validity of that message and look for ways to make a national workforce investment system a reality.

The central concept in our approach is lifelong learning. We believe that lifelong learning is the core or foundation of workforce development and we use these terms interchangeably. This approach is critical because it opens the door to much greater possibilities in our pursuit of resources and investors.

By far, the most challenging issue before us is the issue of resources. Major reductions of federal funds coupled with the move to streamline and consolidate programs have triggered a crisis in traditional workforce development programs throughout the nation. In response to this crisis, we must be willing to tackle the hard questions of how to more effectively deploy the vast public and private resources currently dedicated to the development of our current and future workforce. This will require that we significantly reduce the investment needed in remedial activities when our programs or systems fail or when individuals fail to take full advantage of educational and training opportunities. We must also look beyond the public investments in traditional education and training programs and recognize that our nation’s capacity to prepare a skilled workforce for the future requires a significant investment of private sector resources. In 1995 American businesses spent more than $230 billion on formal and informal training for their workers and plan to increase spending by 4 percent to 5 percent in 1996. When we add this amount to the estimated $425 billion spent on elementary, secondary, and higher education in this country, the $20 billion for federal employment and training programs, although significant, is only a fraction of the investment and should not be the proverbial "tail wagging the dog."

Taking into account the considerable public and private resources, including the dollars, time, talent, facilities, and tools already invested in lifelong learning in this country, we believe that there are sufficient resources to develop a world-class workforce investment system capable of preparing a highly skilled, competitive workforce. The challenge we face is to make the hard decisions required to employ these resources effectively.

We titled this paper "Employing Our Resources" to take advantage of the richness of words and to underscore their utility in looking for solutions to the resource problem. In choosing these words, we are simply saying that the solution lies in putting our collective resources to work for us. The message is one of encouragement, direction, and hope for the future.

With deep conviction, we believe that each of us has a vested interest in the ability of our nation to produce a high-skill, high-wage workforce. To accomplish this, the dialogue about the ideas and issued presented in this paper must be inclusive. That means you and everyone who has a stake in the economic competitiveness of individuals, business enterprises, and the nation must become engaged in the dialogue.

On behalf of the Chairs’ Association, I invite you to join us on a journey to lifelong learning.

Gerald Brown, Chair
National Association of State Workforce Investment Policy Council Chairs
July 1996

^ Contents

Acknowledgements
This paper is testimony to the continuing commitment of the National Association of State Workforce Investment Policy Council chairs, their alternates, and their staff to be a positive force in shaping a national workforce development system. The ideas and recommendations presented are the result of genuine collaboration on the part of many individuals who gave generously of their time, energy, and ideas in crafting this document.

Special thanks and recognition are extended to Rodo Sofranac, immediate past chair of the association, for his contribution of a vision and the ideas and spirit to move it forward; to members of the Employing Our Resources Task Force, for their willingness to explore and be challenged by new ideas; and to Martin Simon, with the National Governors’ Association, for his support and good counsel.

Appreciation also is expressed to the staff of the National Governors’ Association’s Employment and Social Services Policy Studies Division and Office of Public Affairs for their assistance in preparing this paper for publication.

Thinking "Out of the Box"

As we work to advance our mission, we state emphatically that we want the dialogue and debate surrounding the issues articulated in this paper to be open and unrestrained by traditional, "in-the-box" kind of thinking. Now more than ever, we need to explore new and unmapped territory that can lead us to more creative and innovative relationships and uses of resources. We also believe it is vital that all interests be at the table. It is inevitable that there will be tensions and conflicts as individuals and organizations think through their issues and concerns and struggle with how these fit into the larger context. These tensions often can result in unconventional but workable solutions.

Introduction

Since its inception in 1988, the National Association of State Workforce Investment Policy Council Chairs (formerly called the National Association of State Job Training Coordinating Council/Human Resource Investment Council Chairs) has sought to help shape the debate about the development needs of America’s workforce and the response to those needs vis-à-vis national policy. In 1993 the Chairs’ Association published a position paper, titled "Bring Down the Barriers," which identified major barriers to an integrated, high-quality workforce investment system. The paper argued that the existing myriad of independent, overlapping programs and services undermined the nation’s efforts to build a globally competitive workforce.

Subsequent to this, a series of reports from the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) documented the proliferation, fragmentation, and inconsistency of workforce development programs. In March 1994, GAO testimony before Congress cited "154 programs administered by 14 federal departments and agencies [that] provide about $25 billion in employment training assistance." With congressional attention focused on this problem, the national dialogue turned to the need for consolidation and a comprehensive, integrated system of workforce development. Interest in restructuring and redirecting resources also was great at the state and local levels, as customers, providers, and policymakers reckoned with the costs of duplication and program inefficiencies amid the likelihood of fewer federal dollars.

Focus on the federal employment and training system also served to stimulate a new awareness and appreciation for the vast amount of total resources that the nation commits annually to workforce development. The resource pool is composed of varying amounts of public and private funds used for elementary and secondary education, higher education, employer-sponsored formal and informal training, federally funded employment and training programs, and military "school house" training. Of particular interest is the approximate $232 billion that is reportedly expended for employer-sponsored formal and informal employee training. These resources, most of which come from the private sector, represent an investment well over ten times the current funding level for federal employment and training programs and 55 percent of federal, state, and local funding for education (see figure).

In 1994 the Chairs’ Association published a second policy paper titled "Advancing America’s Workforce." In this document, which received considerable attention from Congress and other organizations, the Chairs asserted a national obligation to invest in a workforce development system. They based their proposal for the framework of that system on the belief that competitiveness and economic vitality—for the nation, businesses, and individual workers—depend on access to lifelong learning opportunities for all citizens and the availability of highly skilled workers for employers. Drawing on private sector values and concepts to construct the framework, the Chairs emphasized the importance of customers, outcomes, and accountability. In doing so, they underscored the message that a workforce development is not just a public policy issue and that a workforce development system is not solely the responsibility of government. Instead, workforce development must be a public-private partnership, responsibility for which belongs to each entity that has a stake in the successes of the marketplace––government, business and labor, the individual, and the family.

Recognizing the need to confront the problem of how to finance a comprehensive workforce development system, the Chairs’ Association has shifted its focus to the question of resources. Current congressional efforts on workforce development reform are expected to result in block grants that allocate federal funds to the states. Block grants have been welcomed by many as a way of ensuring greater flexibility and local and state control. They will present some unique opportunities to increase involvement of the private sector in the decisionmaking process. It has become widely recognized that private sector resources constitute a major contribution to workforce development and therefore must be counted in a true systems approach. Although our nation has not yet realized the full value of the public-private partnership for workforce development, such a partnership offers a new way for us to maximize limited financial resources, effectively use unlimited human resources, and be competitive in the global market. To address this issue, the Chairs have developed a recommendation for the use of public and private resources in a framework of shared goals and shared responsibility. "Employing Our Resources" is submitted as a starting point for a vigorous dialogue on how America can invest its wealth in preparing its workers to meet the challenges of today and tomorrow.

^ Contents

Part I—A Journey to Lifelong Learning
Our Pathways to a National Workforce Investment System

As Americans prepare to embark on the twenty-first century, we face many journeys into new territory for which there is no proven map. For the journey to lifelong learning, we propose that our nation has the necessary resources and the sense of responsibility to begin taking the next steps. However, our ability to negotiate a successful journey ultimately will depend on our willingness not just to understand but to accept, embrace, and respond positively to the changes in our world. Our challenge is to be bound not by traditions of the past but by our vision of the future as shaped by our purpose and beliefs.

Our Purpose

Our purpose is to bring about a national workforce investment system that will provide all youth and adults with the opportunity to continuously upgrade their knowledge and skills, and in turn, will provide employers with the skilled workforce necessary to be competitive in the twenty-first century global marketplace. This paper focuses on how we can achieve this purpose—what are the resources and what are the pathways that will lead us to our next-generation workforce investment system?

It also is our purpose to encourage and develop partnerships that will result in the collaboration needed to make a national workforce investment system a reality. This aspect of the Chairs’ mission reflects our belief that each of us has a vested interest in a high-skill, high-wage workforce and that the dialogue about the ideas and issues presented in this paper must be inclusive. To that end, the Chairs have a long list of individuals and groups that we want to engage with our ideas:

If you do not see yourself on this list, we invite you to sign on.

Our Beliefs

To move beyond the box of traditional thinking, we must first clarify and distill our beliefs and values into a set of core convictions. These convictions will serve as our guideposts as we realign the traditional roles, responsibilities, and resources of our current workforce investment system into a more dynamic and creative endeavor.

To this end, for ourselves as Chairs and for all Americans, we believe the following.

• We want to be economically self-sufficient. People want to be able to provide for themselves and their families. Depending on someone else to do what we believe we should do for ourselves takes away from our pride and our spirit.
• We are all connected. The interdependence of individuals, communities, nations, and marketplaces is a defining theme and serves to underscore the need to create solutions that serve us all. By understanding the threads that connect us, we can leverage our resources and better ensure sensible workforce investment strategies.
• We all are responsible. The driving force that ultimately will determine the success of our nation’s workforce investment system is the acceptance of responsibility by each individual partner. Accepting this responsibility entails commitment, wise use of resources, and bottom-line accountability—for individuals, employers, and public policymakers.
• We want to learn. Individuals of all ages and in all segments of our society will choose to learn and to grow when given the opportunity to participate in a learning process that is safe, respectful, and appropriate to their needs, interests, and aspirations. Businesses and organizations are learners, too, and like individuals, will evolve with new knowledge and skills, requiring the same of their owners, managers, and workers.
• We have reason to be hopeful and optimistic. We believe that the American people have the capability and the wisdom to embrace change and the many yet-unknown challenges of the twenty-first century. We also believe that the pioneering spirit that has characterized the history of this nation will lead us to new, creative, and adaptive solutions.
• We have ample resources. The abundance of wealth in our nation and the sum of resources now being invested in workforce development by education, business and labor, individuals, and the public sector is sufficient to meet our needs. The answer is not more resources, but a redefinition and refocusing of existing resources.

^ Contents

The Changing Landscape

As we near the end of the twentieth century, we are witnesses to a rapidly changing landscape in which our economic, labor, and education institutions have been radically transformed. Changes in our national economy and society have been driven in large part by the development of a postindustrial economy and the corresponding shift of production from goods to services. At the same time, advances in technology and the emergence of a complex and increasingly competitive world market have resulted in profound changes in the valuation and movement of capital, labor, and product. These changes have permanently altered the nature of work and the relationship between employer and employee.

Yet another compelling force of change can be witnessed in new and different attitudes and relationships among stakeholders in the marketplace. For many there is a heightened awareness that we are both customers and working partners, and that the roles and responsibilities of the individual, employer, and public policymaker are interrelated and interdependent. As one initiates or responds to change, so must the others.

Impact on the Individual
For too many American workers, anxiety about the future is not merely political rhetoric but a very real reflection of deep-seated questions and concerns about job and financial security. Despite the signals of a strengthening economy, many of the so-called good jobs either have disappeared or are no longer available to individuals with average skills and education. Even in those companies posting healthy profits, market pressures keep alive the threat of mergers, consolidations, relocations, and outsourcing. As a result, many Americans, having been subject to layoffs, downsizing, rightsizing, and reengineering, are left with a shaken faith in the cause-and-effect relationship between hard work and prosperity.

Changes in the job market have been further aggravated by a growing wage gap between low-skill jobs and high-skill jobs. Although many workers with advanced skills and education have the opportunity to earn high wages, the wages of the least-skilled workers are not even keeping pace with inflation. Furthermore, in those companies most intent on high performance, the new jobs require more skills and more education, even for entry-level workers. This situation is particularly prevalent in the service and nongoods-producing industries, many of which are characterized by intensive use of information and technology, and which, taken as a whole, constitute the largest sector of the economy.

In today’s economy, the single most significant indicator of potential earnings and employability is lifelong access to education and skills training. Those workers who fail to comprehend this are the most vulnerable to dislocation—both the threat and the reality of it—and the disruption and damage it can cause to family and self. Conversely, those who acknowledge and respond to the requirement to change, adapt, and upgrade with new knowledge and new skills are most likely to find continued employability and a greater degree of financial security.

Impact on the Employer
The driving forces in business and industry today are the demand for quality and stringent new standards of customer service that guarantee variety, customization, convenience, and timeliness. Employers recognize that, to compete in the global market, they must employ highly efficient production systems, advanced technology, and a skilled, flexible workforce. Today’s most competitive employers also use continuous improvement processes to eliminate or reduce rework, scrap, and other costly mistakes or inefficiencies that waste resources. These forces, combined with nagging productivity issues in the service sector, have led employers to understand that economic growth and competitiveness require continuous investment in worker training and development.

Impact on the Public Policymaker
In the public policy arena, nowhere is the turbulence of change more pronounced than in our schools. Throughout the nation, the norms of public education are being challenged, resulting in numerous initiatives to reform virtually all aspects of education, including financing, administration, teaching, curricula, assessment, and parent and student involvement. Many have come to recognize that the old model of schooling, which had its origins in preindustrial agrarian society, is no longer suitable to meet the demands of today’s workplace with its requirements for high technical skills, high levels of literacy, and higher order thinking skills.

Public policy also is being challenged from Washington, D.C., to statehouses around the nation as many citizens reexamine the role of government and revise their expectations of what government can and should do. Fueled by the perception that institutions and leaders need to be more accountable for results and that taxpayers (i.e., the customers of government) want their money’s worth, the movement to reduce and redefine government has brought into sharp focus issues of limited public funds, competing interests, and changing priorities. We also are seeing a shift away from a prescriptive system of government as provider at the federal level to a system that moves decisionmaking to the states and localities and puts greater emphasis on public-private partnerships.

The ripple effect of the federal government’s new role has yet to be fully understood, but undoubtedly it will be felt at the state and local levels, in the public and private sectors, and by organizations and individuals. Although much of the initial reaction to recent political events has emphasized the financial impact of budget cuts and the loss or consolidation of programs and services, other more important substantive issues also must be addressed.

^ Contents

What We Need: A System for Lifelong Learning

The question of how to develop and maintain a skilled workforce ultimately centers on the need for learning and requires us to view learning as a continuous, lifelong process by which individuals gain the knowledge, skills, and abilities needed to be competitive in the marketplace. In this framework, the word learning encompasses education and job training and development. This usage breaks down the barriers that have previously and artificially separated education in the schoolhouse from training in the workplace, academic skills from vocational skills, and learning from doing. In creating a system for lifelong learning, we can acknowledge the essential differences between "education" and "job training and development," even as we seek to build on the essential relationship between the two.

The work done by the Secretary of Labor’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS) is an important cornerstone of a lifelong learning system. The product of a partnership between educators and employers, SCANS defines workplace competencies and foundation skills for students in the elementary and secondary grades and provides a blueprint to link education to the real world. What we need now—as an equally essential part of the lifelong learning system—is a similar blueprint that will serve the needs of older youth and adults who are already in or are preparing to enter or reenter the workforce. This blueprint should identify education and training options, define job skills and competencies, and begin to solve the logistical problems of access to ongoing education and training opportunities.

As the nation develops a system for lifelong learning, we must embrace the following principles.
• The system must engage all Americans as both givers and receivers. Each of us must take on the dual role to pursue learning and to contribute to the learning process for others. This is as true for individuals and families as it is for communities, organizations, businesses, labor groups, and governments. • The system must be inclusive of all needs, interests, and abilities. Opportunity and access to resources must be guaranteed universally. However, this principle does not equate to entitlement but to an open door. • The system must be continuous and available at any point in one’s life. Individuals and employers must know that opportunities to learn will be available, accessible, and responsive to individual needs rather than the needs of institutions or the system. • The system must connect education, employment and training, and economic development in a comprehensive, holistic, and coherent framework. To respond to the diverse and interdependent needs of the nation, the system must ensure that learning and skills development are integrated with job creation, job expansion, and job retention. • The system must be flexible enough to respond to changes in the marketplace. As global competition, technology, and other forces of change buffet the national, state, and local economies, individuals and employers must be assured that learning and the opportunities to learn will keep pace with the demand for new knowledge and new skills.• The system must connect education and training opportunities with assistance and support to families. Individuals who are gaining new skills must have access to family support systems, particularly child care, so that they can move toward greater self-sufficiency while caring for their families. • The system must use emerging technologies. New and emerging technologies must be integrated into the structure of the system as primary mechanisms for service delivery and as essential tools for managing and enhancing program performance.

^ Contents

What It Will Cost: Implications for Our Resources
The conviction that our nation has ample resources to invest in lifelong learning for all Americans is based on the idea that the word resources connotes much more than money. Resources also include the time, talent, knowledge, skills, tools, facilities, and space that are invested daily in the development of human resources by individuals and families, schools, business and labor, community organizations, and government throughout the nation. The sum of these resources defies precise calculation. Their value is enormous and a necessary part of any discussion of financing options. This conviction presumes that sharing the commitment to a skilled workforce will open the door to sharing the resources needed to achieve this goal

It also is important to recognize that our nation expends enormous amounts of its resources dealing with various social ills, such as poverty, crime, and ignorance. The magnitude of these expenditures is significant for what it reveals about the social and private costs incurred when individuals are not productive members of the workforce. Poverty, crime, and ignorance are complex issues requiring complex solutions that must incorporate education and skills training. A substantial investment in a system for lifelong learning could partially offset the high costs of massive intervention programs and could yield a positive return by creating a more productive citizenry.

The implications of investing our resources in a lifelong learning system that ensures the continuous development of America’s workforce cannot be overstated. Nor should the potential return on this investment be underestimated. This requires that we do the following.

• Support investment in workforce development as one vital component of economic productivity and competitiveness. We must acknowledge the cost of wasting human resources and promote the benefits of a knowledgeable, skilled workforce to the employee, the employer, and the economy.
• View investment in workforce development as a shared public, private, and personal responsibility. We are all partners and customers. The costs and the benefits belong to us all. Publicly funded workforce development programs form only a part of the much larger pool of resources that make up the education and training system. Historically, federal funding has been only a small piece of the pie. We must look at and use productively the major investments made in elementary and secondary education, publicly supported postsecondary institutions at the state and local levels, and the military, as well as the extensive education and training provided by the private sector, both business and labor.
• Be willing to explore options that will motivate individuals and businesses to invest and that will allow training expenditures to be treated as an investment not a cost.• Be committed to long-term solutions and preventive measures. Just as the health and vitality of the body depend on good nutrition and disease prevention, the health and vitality of the national economy depend on building and sustaining the skills, knowledge, and resourcefulness of the workforce. The challenge is to strike a healthful balance between the investment we make in "push-up" programs in which we treat the symptoms, typified by welfare and prisons, to "pull-up" programs in which we prevent the illness, such as education and training.• Be prepared to make hard decisions about reallocating resources. It is essential that as a nation we reckon with how and where our resources are being used. We cannot continue to support programs and policies that are not efficient or effective in building a national workforce investment system. We must demand the best and wisest use of resources even if this means challenging established norms and traditions.

^ Contents

The Fork in the Road

Ensuring that the system will perform is an inevitable and necessary concern. Moreover, this concern is not only for the taxpayer. The many employers, workers, unemployed workers, students, trainees, educators, and other users of and contributors to the system also have a vested interest in knowing that lifelong learning will indeed result in the opportunity for individual workers to advance socially and economically throughout their lifetimes.

This fact brings us to a critical juncture or the proverbial fork in the road. If we are truly to think "out of the box," we must recognize that this issue goes beyond accountability. The old standards of accountability do not work as promised and no amount of performance measurement, performance audits, or outcome measures will ensure that our system for lifelong learning is producing the skilled, knowledgeable workers America needs or guaranteeing them a better future. Furthermore, when we think only in terms of accountability, we automatically put the burden of ensuring system performance on someone other than ourselves. Our choice at this juncture is to continue to put our faith in standards and measurement tools that apply external controls and allow us to hold someone else accountable for how well the system performs, or to turn the performance question back onto ourselves.

The issues of accountability, responsibility, and interdependence are not just fodder for a Sunday sermon. These issues have real meaning and validity in the world of education, business, government, and human resource development. The signs of this are as widespread as they are diverse.

• The increasing cost of accountability can be seen in the proliferation of rules, regulations, reform measures, laws, and lawsuits amid decreasing public confidence in the economy and our government.• There is growing recognition that faulty, poorly constructed products—be it a defective lock on a seatbelt, misleading information in a prospectus, or an unskilled, uneducated school dropout—add to the cost of doing business for everyone. Both the partners and the customers pay.• There is growing evidence that employee training is a central component of productivity, and that on the margin, investment in employee training results in greater productivity gains than does an increase in employee wages.
• There is growing awareness on the part of employers that the investment needed to produce skilled, knowledgeable, and trained workers is best protected by a corresponding investment in employee benefits. The bundling effect of (typically) higher wages, health care, and retirement benefits results in a more stable workforce, the advantages of which are enjoyed by the employer, the worker, and the community.
• Business practices are emerging that require individual and group judgment, problemsolving, collaboration, and shared responsibility and accountability (e.g., the high-performance workplace, benchmarking, and continuous improvement processes).
  Our conviction that we all are responsible embraces the notion that ultimately only those who are actually a part of the system can truly ensure system performance. Our vested interest in the bottom-line results of the system means that we have to be willing to exercise personal judgment and make constructive choices for ourselves. Similarly, it becomes our responsibility to be ever mindful of the connections between ourselves and others, and to seek a balance between accountability as an external control process and responsibility as an internal motivation process. The choice is not an either/or proposition. We must take both roads, not just the one.

Part II—A Road Map

Recommendations

It is the Chairs’ desire to provide a roadmap for individuals and organizations to begin to address the issues and opportunities raised in this paper. It is not our intent to be prescriptive, but rather to point out some of the possible routes to a national workforce investment system.

Connecting the Nine Dots
The nine dots shown below represent a grid for the basic elements of a workforce development system. On the vertical axis are the primary groups that must be involved in workforce development as customers and working partners: individuals, employers, and public policymakers. On the horizontal axis are the primary functions of workforce development: job creation or economic development, job preparation or education, and job enrichment or job training, retraining, and skill upgrading. To create a comprehensive workforce investment system, each of these

Recommended Strategies and PoliciesThe possible strategies for addressing each of the nine dots and connecting them one to another are virtually limitless. The options presented in the appendix provide concrete examples of programs and policies to finance and encourage the investment in lifelong learning by individuals, employers, and public policymakers. To develop a truly market-driven system for lifelong learning, the roadmap must be flexible, responsive to a variety of needs, and locally determined.

As both a customer and working partner in workforce development, each of us must commit to a plan of action that enables us to fulfill our responsibilities to ourselves, our businesses, and our communities. To this end, the Chairs recommend the following.

Individuals
Accept primary responsibility for your employment and financial security.
• Request and take advantage of training provided by your employer, union, or professional or trade association.

• Invest personal resources in lifelong learning, setting aside time and money for education and training.• Be responsible parents by serving as teachers, role models, and investors in the education and training of your children.• Be a learner and a teacher through community service with neighborhood, religious, civic, and charitable organizations; local schools; and professional and labor associations.• Engage in a continuous assessment of your knowledge and skills.

Employers
Treat your human resources as a valued asset, ensuring that your employees have the opportunity to learn, achieve, and prosper on the job.
• Institute workplace practices and policies that encourage and reward employees who pursue ongoing education and training.• Invest in your employees and your community with high-quality jobs.• Open your business to students and teachers to be a place of learning, teaching, and sharing of resources.

• Work with the education and training community to develop clear standards for what students and workers must know and be able to do to succeed in the workplace.• Assume a leadership role on state and local workforce investment policy boards for the planning and oversight of workforce development programs. Use your experience and vision as a businessperson to focus the board on the larger, global issues of workforce development in your state or community and expand the resource base mobilized to deal with these issues.

Public Policymakers
Use public resources to establish the foundation of a market-driven, lifelong learning system.
• Provide funding sufficient to establish and maintain a system to provide information and services to help workers, students, and employers make good choices relative to job training, job match, and job retention.

• Establish policies and programs to encourage and reward individuals who invest their resources in learning opportunities.Authorize individual training accounts (ITAs) to allow individual workers to realize a tax advantage for saving and investing personal funds in education and training.• Establish policies and programs to encourage and reward employers who invest in employee training.

• Ensure that training and education services are accessible to disadvantaged populations.

Similarly, those organizations engaged in the primary functions of workforce development must commit to a plan of action that will fulfill their organizational responsibilities for helping to create a national workforce investment system. To this end, the Chairs recommend the following.

Job Creation or Economic Development
Requires a responsible use of public and private resources and a meaningful commitment to the goals of workforce development.

• Commit to responsible economic development policies at the state and local levels.

• Promote and facilitate the creation of high-quality jobs by new and expanding employers. For those employers who receive the benefits of publicly funded economic development efforts, insist on a significant return on investment of the public dollar.

• Invest substantial economic development resources only in those companies that are willing to make a substantial, long-term commitment to the community.• Develop economic development policies that are strategically integrated with workforce development policies.

Job Preparation or Education
Requires structural changes in education to better reflect the needs of a post-industrial economy and to turn educational institutions into high-performance organizations.
• Restructure the schools.

• Restructure the classroom to integrate book learning with learning in context for all students as well as institute competency-based standards.

Develop age-appropriate curricula to make more vital, more meaningful, and more exciting the connections between school and work for all students in all grades. These connections would include but not be limited to school-to-work and other integrated academic and vocational programs as now exist in many secondary schools.• Restructure the curricula to emphasize the development of higher order thinking and problemsolving skills along with the mastery of new technology among all students.• Create new nontraditional learning settings to foster the development of a lifelong learning system and enhance access to all learners and teachers.

Job Enrichment or Job Training, Retraining, and Skill Upgrading
Requires the development of a system that promotes personal choice and market-based principles.
• Develop training programs to meet the demands of high-performance workplaces.• Institute strategies that will leverage limited public funding for workforce development with other public and private resources.

• Offer schedules, curricula, and workplace learning opportunities that encourage maximum participation by employers and adult students (e.g., open-entry and open-exit programs, customized instruction, evening and weekend classes, worksite classes, workplace-embedded learning, and competency-based goals).• Ensure continuous improvement of workforce development programs through an ongoing assessment of content, structure, and goals.

The process of drawing a roadmap for a journey to lifelong learning has begun. Our shared challenge is to look critically at the policies and programs we now have to determine which to support, which to modify, and which to abandon. We also need to call for new, innovative uses of our many resources.

Changes that challenge institutions and the historic way of doing business are never easy. As we push for change, we must respect and balance the needs, interests, and concerns of the individual, the employer, and the community.

^ Contents

Appendix

Options for Financing and Encouraging Investment in Lifelong Learning
The programs and policies discussed in this section are presented as options for financing and encouraging investment in lifelong learning by individuals, employers, and governments. Taken alone or in combination, these options represent possible strategies for identifying and investing in the broad mix of resources needed to support a comprehensive system of lifelong learning that will serve the needs and interests of all customers and partners of the system.

Some of the programs and policies listed below are in place now and are being used at the national level and in various states as part of the existing but evolving workforce development system. Others represent new ideas or concepts not widely known or implemented that are put forth for discussion, evaluation, and possible replication.

The Chairs have not attempted to evaluate or rank these options in any substantive way because, ultimately, the viability of any one of them depends on many variables unique to each state or locality. Readers, then, are encouraged to take the core ideas and adopt, adapt, or discard them as appropriate based on their needs, interests, and values.

Individual or Worker-Based Options
These options are designed to give individuals an incentive to pursue lifelong learning, not only as the means to competitive employment but as the key to self-sufficiency and personal fulfillment.

Training VouchersTraining vouchers are a mechanism for providing individuals with direct government or nongovernment subsidies that can be used to purchase education and skills training from public or private institutions. To the extent that vouchers do not cover the full cost of training, they leverage private investment from the individual, sponsoring employer, or some other source. Vouchers could be used by individuals to strengthen skills for current employment, prepare for changing job requirements, or pursue new employment or career options.

Many proposals focus on vouchers for incumbent workers as a means of addressing unmet needs. Vouchers could also be used for individuals already targeted to receive services (e.g., dislocated workers, unemployed workers, and welfare recipients).

Vouchers would be a useful tool by which to promote market-based principles and personal choice and responsibility in employment and training. The mechanism is equally adaptable to both public and private funding. To be most effective, however, a voucher system must be supported by a high-quality labor market information network, which provides individuals with the information they need to make good choices about jobs and careers as well as education and training institutions.

Individual Training AccountsIndividual training accounts are savings accounts or trust funds that allow individual workers to set aside funds to pay for education and training expenses. For employed people, the ITA could be capitalized with payroll deductions matched by the employer. Funds would accumulate during a worker’s career and could be used only for training or educational expenses.

Another model for the ITA is based on the individual retirement account (IRA) concept. Under this model, funds could be withdrawn for any reason, but the withdrawal would be penalty-free only if used for education and skills training.

In most proposals, contributions are capped (e.g., $2,000 per individual per year). Also, contributions either could be tax-free or could generate tax credits for the individual and the employer (if matching funds are contributed). Accounts would be personally controlled and available to the individual throughout his or her career.

ITAs would encourage and reward personal saving and investment for education and training. Of course, ITAs set up to be tax-free or to generate tax credits would necessarily affect revenues.

Employee Grants or Loans
Grants or loans could be offered to employees to encourage their personal commitment to lifelong learning. These could be nationally based or state-based grants or loans. In addition, loans could be low-interest or have interest fixed on a sliding scale depending on the individual’s income level.

Funding for employee grants or loans could come from general revenues or a payroll tax assessed against employers and employees. Funding also could come from existing sources, such as unemployment insurance or dislocated worker programs.

Employee grants or loans would offer a great deal of flexibility and personal choice to individuals. This option would be especially useful in combination with a voucher system.

Student Loans for Part-Time Training
Part-time student loans could be funded by states to create a low-interest loan pool for those students who, because of work and family commitments, are unable to qualify for regular student loans and who lack the resources to pay outright for the training. In some states, student loans are available only for students who enroll for a minimum number of hours (e.g., six credit hours) per semester.

Expanding the availability of student aid to working students who want or need to enroll for less than the minimum number of credit hours would be an important recognition of the changing needs of the labor force. This resource also would encourage students to pursue continuing education and skills training and not just look at learning as a one-time prospect.

States that issue tax-exempt bonds to capitalize the loan pool could capture the spread between the interest paid on the bonds and the interest received from the loans to fund administration of the loan program. Regardless of how the loans are capitalized, the fact that loans will be repaid with interest will represent a leveraging of private funds. As with any loan program, borrowers may default. The lending criteria would have to be carefully crafted to balance the needs of the student against the needs of the lender.

Tax Deduction for Interest on Student LoansTax deductions for interest on student loans could be applied at either the federal or state level. This allowance would encourage individuals to commit personal resources to lifelong learning. Applied in the same manner as the home mortgage interest deduction, the student loan interest deduction would promote investment in human capital. This tax deduction also would affect revenues from the personal income tax as applied at either the federal or state level.

Employee Tax DeductionsIndividual income tax deductions at the federal or state level could be applied for training-related expenditures.
Currently, employees can deduct the cost of training only if all of the following conditions are met:
• the training is related to work in which they are currently engaged;• they itemize deductions; and• they spend more than 2 percent of their income on work-related expenses.By broadening the scope of this tax deduction, employees will be encouraged to prepare for new jobs that are more advanced or more in demand. Proposals for change include:
• allowing any training-related expenditure to qualify for the deduction;• making the deduction available to individuals who do not itemize deductions; and• eliminating the 2 percent threshold.These changes would encourage workers to invest in training for future jobs and to enhance skills for current employment. They also would provide a mechanism for promoting maximum personal choice and flexibility, even for those employees at lower income levels. If, however, any training-related expenditure could qualify for the deduction, it would be essential for the individual to have access to quality labor market information to make a good investment decision. Revenues from the personal income tax would be reduced at the federal or state level depending on how the deduction is applied.

Unemployment Insurance — Additional Benefits
Unemployment insurance programs could be modified in a variety of ways to ease a dislocated worker’s transition to new employment, shorten the term and/or frequency of unemployment, and keep pace with the requirements of the twenty-first century workplace. The rationale for such changes is grounded in the premise that lifelong learning includes work-based as well as school-based learning and that getting an individual back to work quickly is advantageous to the employer as well as to the employee.

Some of the options for expanding UI include an early employment bonus, job sharing (part-time employment, part-time income support), a self-employment cash bonus for entrepreneurs, and additional weeks of benefits while enrolled in retraining programs. States can establish additional benefits programs and can determine the terms and conditions of these benefits.

The cost of additional benefits could be covered from existing reserves in those states in which UI is well-funded or from an increase in the UI tax. This latter option, though likely to be unpopular, could be presented as the cost of avoiding the greater costs associated with extended unemployment, which accrue to both the individual and the community.

Labor Market Information
One of the most important features of a lifelong learning system will be the availability of a quality information network that will help individuals make good choices for training and employment. A labor market information network should be readily accessible to all users at multiple sites and through electronic linkages. It should offer comprehensive, complete, accurate, and up-to-date information on a variety of subjects, including growth industries, industries in decline, growth jobs, jobs in decline, job requirements, wage rates, training program performance, and financial aid.

A quality LMI network represents a major, ongoing expense, but one that is absolutely vital to a system of lifelong learning. Although many LMI data sources are now supported by the federal government, states are recognizing that additional data and service needs will have to be covered with state and local tax dollars or other funds. The need for alternative sources of funding may stimulate the investment of private funds, such as those targeted for economic development and business expansion, and implementation of a fee-for-service requirement for certain data elements or certain data users.

EMPLOYER OR FIRM-BASED OPTIONS
These options are designed to encourage employers to invest in training to improve the skills of their employees, increase productivity, and prepare for a future transformation of the workplace

Grant Programs for Training
Training grants generally are government-funded grants given to firms to provide training for their employees. This type of program targets the training to meet specific needs and goals as determined by the government.

Typically, a grant program targets certain types of businesses to receive the funds (e.g., new and expanding companies, businesses in expanding sectors of the economy, small or medium-size businesses, or businesses in rural areas). Other examples of targeting include grants for training restricted to frontline workers, training focused on high-performance work systems and new technologies, and training designed to increase productivity.

The specifications for the grants and the review and approval of applications normally is handled by the government or by a public-private group appointed by the government. Generally, grants cover only a portion of the training costs and companies are required to contribute a share of the total cost. Grants from these programs are sometimes provided directly to the companies; at other times, they are provided to the training institutions (e.g., a community college or university).

State-funded training grant programs are found in nearly all fifty states. Funds are drawn from a variety of sources, including general revenues, UI, UI-associated taxes, and state lottery revenues.

As is demonstrated by the fact that state-funded grant programs are nearly universal throughout the fifty states, this option has allowed the states to target training resources for specific objectives and to leverage public with private resources. As many states reduce the role of state government, the long-term viability of these grant programs may depend on how well the need for this particular training resource can be documented and on evidence that the investment of state funds for this purpose offers a good return to the public.

Subsidized Loans for Training
Subsidized training loans are government-backed, low-interest loans that are offered through commercial lending institutions to firms that do not have the cash needed to invest in training. A dedicated training loan market is advantageous to business because it offers a source of capital for training that companies otherwise might not be able to access. Typically, the subsidy is in the form of an interest rate write-down on loan funds or reserve funds that banks may tap in the event of a loan default.

At the national level, the Student Loan Marketing Association (Sallie Mae) has developed a legislative proposal to expand its federal charter into the area of workforce training. The initial proposal was introduced in 1994; it was not passed, but it remains an option.

At the state level, several states have implemented subsidized training loan programs. Such programs are an attractive option to states because they offer high leverage and low administrative costs.

Subsidized training loan programs can be used alone or as a complement to government training grant programs. According to the National Alliance of Business (NAB), an investment of this type can yield a 10-to-1 increase in training.

This option is valued because these are market-driven programs that use public funds to leverage a much larger private sector investment. Criticism about the programs is most likely to occur when the administration of subsidized training loans is not privatized, but rather housed within the government bureaucracy.

Company Training Networks
Company training networks could be established according to certain criteria to teach skills to current workers. Members of the network would pool resources and work together to identify and meet their training needs by sharing in-house training services and/or hiring outside trainers

The companies within the networks would be recruited on the basis of industry, geography, or customer-supplier lines, building on existing employer consortia. For example, industry-based networks could use trade associations; geographically based networks could use general purpose business organizations such as the national and state chambers of commerce and NAB; and customer-supplier networks could be patterned after those created by leading companies such as Motorola and Xerox, which already are providing training assistance to their suppliers.

Companies that participate in a training network or consortia agreement and share in the development of high-quality training programs can save resources and reduce duplication of effort. In addition, because employees in other (competing) firms also will be trained, any one company will have less fear that the investment in training made for its employees will be "stolen" by another company. Yet another advantage is that this approach keeps training costs reasonable for small and medium-size companies.

Participation in a training network or consortia agreement requires a high level of trust among members and a commitment to collaboration. In addition, if the network is large or the training program is extensive, its coordination and oversight will require some resources. Company training networks could operate with or without government support.

Customized TrainingIn many instances, employers require training that is tailored to their needs. Usually, out of necessity, they take an active role in the design and management of the resources used to deliver the training.

The customized training option is valued because it signals a major commitment to employee training by employers. It also can generate a large investment of private resources and can significantly leverage public resources. However, one risk inherent in customized training that has been institutionalized in a public postsecondary school or community college is that the training program may become less fluid, flexible, and responsive to business needs and more bogged down in institutional bureaucracy.

Training Funds Capitalized by Unemployment Insurance
At least twenty states have earmarked a portion of their state-collected UI funds for training and related initiatives. When UI is well-funded, it can be used to finance workforce development without compromising the actuarial integrity of the fund. States can obtain significant leverage with UI funds and thereby meet some of their training needs without a net tax increase. UI-associated taxes can be assessed against employers and employees.

This option is often promoted as a way to expand the application and benefits of the UI tax to address needs related to unemployment, namely the need to retrain dislocated workers so they can be reemployed in growth industries. Arguments against this option usually emphasize the need to protect the actuarial integrity of the trust fund and reflect a concern that UI taxes will be raised to fund training and other future uses not required by law.

Tax Incentives for Employer-Provided Training
Tax incentives are a means of encouraging private sector businesses to provide training by offsetting the expense of training with tax credits, tax deductions, or tax deferral for expenses related to employee training. Because many states that have corporate income taxes have statutes that parallel the federal code, this option is applicable at both the federal and state levels.
A major consideration regarding tax incentives is the overall financial effect they have on tax revenues. This effect varies with the type of incentive offered (e.g., tax credit, tax deduction, or tax deferral; the type of training costs that are eligible; the percentage of costs that are used in the computation; and the specific tax to which the incentive is applied, such as the corporate income tax, sales tax, or property tax).

One obvious limitation of corporate income tax incentives is that they would apply only to those firms with a tax liability, which would automatically exclude all nonprofit firms, such as many health care and community-based organizations. This type of incentive might also exclude for-profit firms that did not expect to have a taxable profit in a given year unless the incentive (e.g., a tax credit) could be carried forward to subsequent years.

The tax incentive option is extremely flexible and can be structured and targeted in various ways. Some of the key issues central to developing a tax incentive for training include the following.

What types of training should qualify for the incentive?
• All types of employee training• Specific types (e.g., basic skills, job-specific skills, and skill upgrades) • General conferences and workshops• Training that leads to a degree or certificate
What types of employer costs should qualify for the incentive?
• All employer costs related to the development and delivery of training• Costs related only to the delivery of training (e.g., instructors, materials, and equipment)
Should training be targeted to certain types of employees?
• Frontline employees• Technicians• New employees• Employees who are at risk of dislocation
Should training be targeted to certain types of businesses?
• New businesses• Expanding businesses• Businesses in certain economic sectors• Businesses in certain geographic areas• Small and medium-size businesses
Most proposals recommend that for maximum effectiveness, tax incentives should be structured to:
• stimulate an increase in the amount of training over what would have been provided without the credit;• encourage training associated with the adoption of high-performance work strategies and new technologies; • encourage training for frontline rather than managerial workers; and• require that the costs of training be shared by the company and the government (i.e., the program would reimburse the company for only a percentage of the total training expense).
Tax Credits for Employee Training
As one type of tax incentive, various models of tax credits have been recommended over time.

Mississippi and Georgia offer a literacy tax credit of 25 percent to employers who provide basic skills training (e.g. reading, writing, or math skills up to the twelfth-grade level) to employees who, because of deficiencies in these areas, are unable to function effectively on the job or are subject to dislocation because they are unable to handle new technology.

Iowa offers employers a credit on the state income tax for a portion of their expenses related to training employees at community colleges.

Tax credits as well as other tax incentives can be highly flexible and strategic tools for encouraging private sector investment in employee education and skills training. This option would have important implications for revenues and would generate additional reporting requirements for employers and monitoring requirements for government.

Tax Incentives for Business Donations
Tax credits or deductions could be provided for the value of business donations to schools, colleges, and other training institutions, both nonprofit and for-profit. This incentive could apply to the donation of equipment, other material goods, and cash contributions.

This use of tax incentives for business could stimulate generous and needed donations of industry-specific machinery, equipment, and other resources for use in student training programs that seek to reinforce the connections between the classroom and the workplace. As with other tax-related strategies, this option would have revenue implications and would result in additional reporting and monitoring requirements.

Tax Levy for Employee Training
This option would establish an employment-based tax to produce a stream of revenues dedicated for workforce development. An employment-based tax could be assessed on the employer, the employee, or both.

Tax levy proposals usually take one of two forms: a tax on payroll or a tax on the hours of employment. How the tax levy option is structured greatly affects the cost of its implementation and its effectiveness in achieving the desired results, normally defined as improved worker productivity. Some of the critical issues include the following.

Should all companies be assessed?
• Small companies (e.g., those with less than fifty employees) generally have fewer resources to invest in employee training, but often need it more.Should training be targeted to certain workers? • Frontline workers• Technical workers• All workers on an equitable basis (e.g., as defined by an equal number of training sessions, equal dollars per worker, or equal percentage of payroll spent per worker)

What type of training should be counted?
• All types of training• Specific types (e.g., basic skills, job-specific skills, and skill upgrades)• General conferences and workshops• Programs leading to a degree or certificate
How and to whom should the funds be distributed?
• Allocated to state programs• Distributed in the form of grants or loans to local private or public organizations (e.g., employers, community-based organizations, unions, schools, and colleges)

In several other countries, this option has been used for some time.

There is a long tradition of publicly funded workforce development in this nation. Many welcome the reforms now under consideration, though there also is a concern that special populations, such as the disadvantaged and disabled, may not fare well in a block grant system that offers no targeting of resources at the federal level. The changes emerging in workforce development will challenge individuals, employers, and public policymakers to accept a high degree of responsibility for creating a system for lifelong learning.

Fiscal Policy
Another aspect of government involvement is found in fiscal policies that dictate the federal, state, and local tax codes and the accounting practices used by organizations and individuals for collecting and investing funds for education, training, and development.

These policies offer enormous potential to encourage and reward employer and individual investment in lifelong learning. They also pose important implications for the collection of revenues and trigger debate about how private interests should benefit from public resources.

Accounting Policy — Allowance for Training Costs as an Investment
At present, company expenditures related to training are treated as an expense in the current year rather than as an investment to be amortized over a period of years. This treatment discourages companies from spending more money on employee training and development.

A rule change by the Financial Accounting Standards Board would allow companies a choice: treat training expenditures as an expense in a single year or amortize training costs with the investment in added skills treated as company assets. The latter would be an advantage to a company when it makes an especially large investment in training, such as when it opens a new plant, purchases new equipment, or transforms the work organization. It could take the benefits of amortizing those training costs over a number of years.

If training is an investment from which benefits accrue over time, a change in this accounting rule would encourage firms to invest in training strategies that are more aligned with the training’s true value to the company. This proposal would encourage employers to take a long-term perspective and view the need for employee training as an ongoing condition that requires sustained investment. It would have implications for company finances as well as for revenues based on corporate income tax, and it may well be a catalyst for other related changes in fiscal and accounting policies.

Special Levy Authority for Community and Technical Colleges
Community and technical colleges could be given special levy authority to raise funds for capital or equipment. In many states, community and technical colleges are the primary vocational and adult learning centers for job-related and basic skills training. These institutions are particularly important to the marketplace for entry-level and technician-level jobs. Some states allow the community and technical colleges to float bond issues for capital or equipment, but others limit funding to state general revenues and federal funds.

By expanding the funding base to include locally driven, voter-approved levies, the community and technical colleges would gain an important new resource to support a vital component of the community’s lifelong learning system. In some communities, however, there are likely to be concerns that community colleges and publicly funded technical schools are inefficient and bloated at taxpayer expense. Where these concerns are the greatest, there will be a need to document thoroughly the need for and benefits of the training provided by these institutions.

Year-Round Schools
The school year for children in kindergarten through twelfth grade in the public schools could be extended to twelve months with allowances for short-term, periodic breaks. Although the majority of public schools in this nation still adhere to the agrarian model of nine months in school and three months of summer vacation, year-round schooling offers a variety of advantages, including better learning retention by students and more efficient use of school facilities. A year-round school calendar also facilitates improved linkages with business, such as can be effected through internships, cooperatives, and other school-to-work programs.

A shift to year-round schools would have a profound ripple effect on other policies and institutions throughout the community, such as the structure of teacher pay and continuing education requirements for teachers. Successful resolution of these issues would require collaboration among educators, parents, students, and employers and would be a positive step forward in the education reform movement.

School-to-Work Transition Assistance Programs
School-to-work programs offer a comprehensive approach to facilitating entry into the job market for young adult students and school dropouts. These programs typically provide school-based instruction, work-based instruction, and connecting activities. Linkages with employers are essential to building a curriculum that integrates academics and vocational instruction.

School-to-work transition assistance is a recent federal initiative, but it incorporates many individual programs and policies that have been in place and working successfully in many locales. The primary thrust of the federal initiative is to create a cohesive and coherent school-to-work plan for each state and to ensure that school-to-work opportunities are available to all young adults.

School-to-work programs can be a tremendous opportunity for employers, educators, and students to forge a future workforce competitive with the knowledge and skills needed in a global economy. These win-win opportunities, however, will require strong commitment by all parties to collaborate on shared goals and not get bogged down by competing interests and the inevitable bureaucracy.

Responsible Economic Development Policies
Local governments—states, counties, cities, and towns—are faced with many difficult choices in developing policies and strategies to expand the local economy. Responsible economic development policies will strengthen the linkages with workforce development and reflect a prudent investment of public and private funds. Guidelines for responsible economic development include:

• enhancing job expansion and job retention efforts with existing businesses;• avoiding bidding wars in which vast amounts of public resources are used to lure companies from one locale to another, often at great expense and with little or no benefit to the community or the taxpayer;• avoiding the game of just "moving the pieces around the board," which occurs when businesses and jobs relocate from one community to another without any net gain to the community (e.g., without creating new jobs, higher quality jobs, or an increase in payroll); and• evaluating the effectiveness of economic development policies not just by the number of jobs created, but by the wages, benefits, and other value-added factors of significance to the community.

At its best, economic development is a true collaboration between public and private interests that values and respects the participation of all parties. Whenever this equation is unbalanced, the results are likely to be either short-lived or detrimental to one group or another. Communities that have put together dynamic economic development efforts have recognized the need for a sustained commitment to good communication, a high level of personal and organizational responsibility and accountability, and a shared long-term vision for community prosperity.

^ Contents

Resources

The data used to prepare "Employing Our Resources" come from a variety of sources.

Incentives to Encourage Investment in Worker Training
An exploratory report submitted to the Research Review Panel
by James D. Laughlin, Development Analytics, Inc.
Indianapolis, Indiana
March 1995

"A Discussion of Market-Based Approaches to Workforce Training in Indiana"
A working paper prepared for the Indiana Unemployment Insurance Board
by James D. Laughlin, Senior Research Fellow
Indiana Economic Development Council, Inc.
July 1993

"New Research Options for Workforce Training"
Prepared for the Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board
Washington State

Others:
American Society for Training and Development
Anthony P. Carnevale, vice president, Educational Testing Service
Council on Competitiveness
Corrections Compendium
National Alliance of Business
National Center on the Educational Quality of the Workforce
National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education
National Center for Workforce Preparation, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
The Urban Institute
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
U.S. Department of Labor
U.S. General Accounting Office