Since
the passage of welfare reform and the Workforce Investment Act, state and
local agencies have helped many low-income individuals join the workforce.
Yet helping these and other low-wage workers achieve good outcomes in the
labor market¾promotions,
wage increases, and job retention¾has
been a struggle. There is growing interest in ways to combine work and
learning to promote employment success among low-wage workers. Training for
currently employed workers (i.e., incumbent worker training) is proving
worthwhile for workers, employers, and the public sector, but training
low-wage incumbent workers is challenging.
The
public sector can play a key role in supporting training for low-wage
incumbent workers, especially by working with employers to facilitate
greater investments in training this segment of the workforce. State and
local agencies can use various resources, including Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF) and Workforce Investment Act (WIA) funds, to help meet
the training needs of low-wage workers and their employers. States and
localities can also help low-wage workers access training on their own.
This
Issue Note provides guidance to states and localities on funding
incumbent worker training, improving access to training, working with
employers, and designing investments in this type of training. For more
information on workforce development for low-wage workers, visit The Finance
Project’s web page on Workforce
Development at
Should states and localities play a role in supporting training for
low-wage incumbent workers?
Training for employed workers does not only benefit employers and workers.
Incumbent worker training can help welfare, workforce, and economic
development agencies achieve policy and program goals. Welfare and workforce
development agencies are increasingly concerned about postemployment
outcomes for clients. Incumbent worker training can promote greater job
retention, facilitate more stability in the workforce, and heighten chances
for advancement, higher wages, and future employability. From an economic
development perspective, this type of training can promote employment
growth, help firms remain competitive, respond to worker shortages, and
encourage firms to remain or locate in a state. In addition, incumbent
worker training can generate revenue for governments through increased
employer taxes and can reduce costs for welfare, unemployment, and worker
dislocation programs.
To
reap these benefits, states and localities should encourage training for
low-wage incumbent workers. The private training market does not serve
higher-skilled and lower-skilled workers equitably. The public sector can
help level the playing field and subsequently benefit from the improved
employment outcomes for low-wage workers. In addition, government agencies
can seize the opportunity to become more deeply engaged with employers¾and
to leverage employer resources¾through
activities related to incumbent worker training. Engaging employers has been
a challenge for many workforce agencies and welfare-to-work programs, but
supporting incumbent worker training enables the public sector to focus on
employer needs and connect to the labor market. Moreover, supporting skill
upgrading can open the door to helping employers fill the vacated
entry-level positions. TANF agencies may find it helpful to reach out to
organizations such as economic development agencies, workforce investment
boards, community and technical colleges, and workforce intermediaries to
create opportunities for participation in incumbent worker training
initiatives.
Public-sector
employment and training programs often struggle to achieve longer-term
employment gains for low-income clients. Supporting training for low-wage
incumbent workers is a viable strategy for helping such workers move to
self-sufficiency if public investments are well designed.
What funding is available for training low-wage incumbent workers? Different sources of funding can support training for low-wage
incumbent workers, including TANF, WIA, Higher Education Act funds, state
funds, federal grants, and employer training dollars. Incumbent worker
training projects can integrate multiple funding sources to support
different elements of a project. States generally fund employed worker
training programs from two or more offices, including those responsible for
workforce development, economic development, and TANF education and training
funds; most of these offices coordinate their training efforts formally and
informally. For more information, see U.S. General Accounting Office, Workforce Training: Employed Worker Programs Focus on Business Needs,
but Revised Performance Measures Could Improve Access for Some Workers,
GAO-03-353 (Washington, D.C., February 2003) at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03353.pdf.
The
flexibility afforded states and localities under WIA and TANF enables them
to use these funds to support training for low-wage employed workers.
Localities can use WIA funds for customized and on-the-job training. At the
state level, the 15 percent set-aside is a flexible source of funding for
incumbent worker projects. TANF funds can support postemployment activities,
such as skills upgrading for low-income workers and work supports that help
low-income workers take advantage of training opportunities. The pending
reauthorizations of WIA and TANF could change how funds are directed to
training employed workers.
Low-wage
workers looking to upgrade their skills through postsecondary education can
tap into federal and state student financial assistance programs, such as
Pell grants financed through the Higher Education Act. Although spending on
postsecondary education is significant¾billions
of dollars more than is spent on workforce development¾low-wage
workers face barriers to using these funds and accessing education programs.
Nearly
all states have state-funded incumbent worker programs. These programs
generally are financed through state general fund appropriations, funds tied
to the unemployment insurance program, the sale of bonds or other debt
instruments, or a combination of funds. Although designed primarily to help
employers address business needs, these programs can and are being used to
upgrade the skills of low-wage and entry-level workers.
Employers
spend billions of dollars on training each year¾1.9
percent of annual payroll in 2001 (see American Society for Training and
Development at http://www.astd.org/virtual_community/library/tfaq.html). Some of these dollars are directed to training lower-skilled workers.
The challenge for the public sector is to leverage further employer
investments in training low-wage workers. Public funds and public support
for employer-based training can help leverage these dollars.
Other
sources of funding for incumbent worker training include economic
development and community development funds and federal demonstration and
competitive grants. For example, H-1B Technical Skills Training grants
awarded by the U.S. Department of Labor can fund training for employed
workers that leads to employment in high-skill occupations.
What challenges exist to training low-wage incumbent workers? Low-wage workers and their employers face some significant barriers to
training despite the potential for improved employment outcomes. Low-wage
workers may pass up work-based training opportunities because they lack
basic skills or they cannot understand how training will benefit them or
advance their careers. Workers seeking to upgrade their skills outside of
work hours often must balance work, learning, and responsibility for
children or parents. Time and financial constraints, coupled with
transportation, child care, and other needs, make it hard to pursue
education or training.
Employers
are sometimes hesitant to provide training to their lower-wage workers. They
are concerned about job turnover among such workers, fear the newly trained
workers will take their skills to a new employer, and worry about the
opportunity costs of releasing workers from their job responsibilities so
they can attend training. Many employers, particularly small employers, have
limited capacity to provide training, are unfamiliar with training
providers, lack data on effectiveness and return on investment, and lack the
ability to implement training interventions that could enhance the skills of
their low-wage workers. The nature of low-wage work is also a constraining
factor. For example, workers are often physically needed at the job site.
Provisions
such as time limits, eligibility requirements, and performance measures in
some of the major public funding sources for training can impede assistance
to low-wage workers. For example, placing unemployed individuals in jobs
yields greater results for WIA performance measures than does serving
employed workers. The TANF program limits vocational training to 12 months.
Requirements in many student financial assistance programs make it difficult
for working students enrolled in training less than half time and students
enrolled in occupational programs to receive financial assistance.
The
education and training system may have limited capacity to serve employers
and working adults. Postsecondary programs may be designed for traditional
students rather than working adults seeking skill upgrading or work-related
credentials. Capacity may reflect institutional history rather than the
needs of employers and workers. Institutions may not be able to develop new
programs quickly enough to respond to changing customer needs. Training
providers may lack experience in delivering customized programs to meet
employer needs.
Notwithstanding
these service delivery challenges, state and local agencies¾working
with employers, providers, and intermediaries¾can
expand opportunities for training low-wage incumbent workers.
How can states and localities increase opportunities for low-wage
workers to access training?
State and local agencies can offer career counseling, case management, and
support services to help low-wage workers take advantage of training
opportunities. Federal legislation gives agencies the flexibility to make
supports such as transportation and child care assistance available to
working families if resources permit. To better serve working families,
agencies can review policies related to eligibility for work supports and
access to services and programs. For example, having evening and weekend
hours and simplified eligibility requirements benefit low-income workers.
For more information, see the Welfare Information Network Issue
Note “Work Supports for Low-Income Working Families” at http://www.financeprojectinfo.org/Publications/worksupportsIN.htm.
States
and localities can help steer the education and training system toward
programming that better accommodates workers. For example, because state
governments provide most of the institutional aid to colleges and
universities, they can influence the development of structural improvements
in education programs for working adults (Bosworth and Choitz 2002). Changes
to benefit working adults could include developing modular curricula,
offering more flexible scheduling, and creating credentials that incorporate
skills learned on the job. Modifications to financial assistance policies
can also influence the education and training system and improve access to
aid. The reauthorization of the Higher Education Act provides an opportunity
to revisit policies¾needs
analysis, enrollment status, and others¾that
limit working adults’ access to assistance. States can also review how
their policies affect access to funds for education and training, not only
in higher education but also in welfare and workforce development.
Workers
lacking basic skills can have a hard time taking advantage of occupational
skills training regardless of whether it is offered on or off the worksite.
Public investments in basic skills training are an important source of
funding for this type of skills training. In addition, state and local
agencies should work to create better linkages among adult basic education,
vocational education, and workforce development programs. Programs that
combine basic skills training with occupational skills training are a
promising way to improve the employability of working adults. Such programs
reinforce the connections between basic skills and work skills.
Even
with better access to education and training programs, it is still a
challenge to undertake training while also balancing work and family
responsibilities. For this reason, one critical strategy for advancing
training for low-wage workers is to work with employers to expand
opportunities for work-based training.
How can states and localities partner with employers to expand training
for low-wage incumbent workers?
States and localities can work with employers in several ways to expand
training opportunities for low-wage incumbent workers. Using public dollars
to help support the costs of training, as in customized training programs,
is one way to promote incumbent worker training. In the case of
lower-skilled workers, public funds can help reduce economic disincentives
to training. Yet public funds should not be used in place of employer
dollars. Instead states and localities should work with employers to bring
together public and private resources to support training initiatives.
Public resources can also be used effectively to help create the
infrastructure for incumbent worker training.
Besides
supporting the costs of training, states and localities can use these
strategies to expand training opportunities for low-wage incumbent workers.
·Help employers understand the benefits of training lower-skilled workers.
Employers may be unfamiliar with the benefits of training lower-skilled
workers, such as improved retention,
productivity, and job quality. In addition, employers may not recognize how
training relates to company performance. States and localities can develop
information for employers on the value of incumbent worker training as well
as support evaluation activities. They can also create and disseminate tools
such as skill needs assessments and return-on-investment measures.
·Help create the infrastructure for incumbent worker training.
States and localities can offer employer services at one-stop career centers
and ensure that information is readily available on training providers and
their performance records. They can also work with the education and
training system to develop the capacity to deliver customized training in
various settings. In addition, states and localities can invest in
intermediary organizations that connect employers with training providers.
They can also support the development of innovative learning technologies,
such as distance learning, that expand options for delivering training.
·Organize employer panels.
States and localities can help education and training providers better
understand industry and occupational skill needs by convening employer
panels that provide information on skill gaps and emerging demand for
training.
·Build the capacity of firms to train their low-wage workers.
States and localities can help employers learn to assess skill needs and
select training programs and providers that meet workforce needs. They can
also work with in-house training divisions to develop or tailor programs to
lower-skilled workers. In addition, they can help small businesses form
training collaboratives that aggregate training needs and reduce costs and
risks.
·Improve access to public resources.
Employers may be wary of partnering with state and local agencies because of
concerns that government means rigidity and red tape. States and localities
can provide a clear point of entry for employers and designate staff for
employer services. They can also improve coordination among key public
agencies¾workforce,
education, human services, and economic development. In addition, states and
localities can bring together federal, state, and local resources to support
more comprehensive incumbent worker training initiatives. They can also
simplify the process by which training funds are made available.
·Expand eligibility requirements.
Employers will be more likely to partner if they are able to train those who
need it rather than those who meet narrow eligibility requirements.
·Foster partnerships with employers, providers, and intermediaries.
State and local agencies may be able to bring key stakeholders together on
incumbent worker training initiatives. They can organize forums that focus
on the lower-skilled and low-wage workforce. They can also help establish
training networks that coordinate training needs across employers or within
industries.
·Assist with support services.
To take advantage of training, low-wage workers may need career counseling,
work supports, basic skills training, or other services. Employers may have
limited ability or capacity to help workers with such needs. State and local
agencies are well positioned to help through direct services or information
and referral.
What steps can states and localities take to ensure investments in
training for low-wage incumbent workers support policy goals? Various strategies can help states and localities ensure public
investments in incumbent worker training support policy goals and improve
opportunities for low-wage workers. Particularly when funds are made
available to employers, measures are needed to prevent public funds from
merely supplanting employer dollars. When deciding what requirements to
attach to public support, states and localities must balance accountability
considerations and ease-of-use considerations so employers are not deterred
from working with the public sector.
·Require
employers to contribute matching funds or in-kind resources to training
initiatives. This requirement enables states and localities to leverage
employer resources and avoid just replacing employer training dollars. In
addition, a financial investment deepens an employer’s commitment to the
initiative.
·Incorporate
performance measures into grants or contracts. For example, payment could be
tied to achieving performance benchmarks, such as completion of training,
retention of workers, and job promotions.
·Support
training projects that not only develop job-specific skills, but also
general or portable skills. Target funding to incumbent worker training that
includes basic and general skills components and that results in recognized
credentials or certificates.
·Require
training partnerships. Consider requiring partnerships with organizations
such as labor unions, workforce intermediaries, and workforce investment
boards that can advance the needs of low-wage workers.
·Support
training in sectors that offer higher wages and in firms with career
ladders.
·Fund
multifirm training projects to stretch public resources and encourage the
formation of training networks across employers.
·Target
resources to training initiatives that are focused on industry sectors and
occupations that are in demand. In addition to addressing economic
development concerns, the sector-based workforce development approach has
shown promise in improving employment outcomes for low-wage workers.
·Encourage
ongoing training efforts by requiring firms to develop long-term training
plans for their workforce, including low-skill and low-wage workers.
·Support
entities such as employer associations and labor-management partnerships
that have the clout to combine incumbent worker training with changes in
companies’ human resource practices that increase opportunities for
advancement. These practices could include creating new jobs, providing
release time, developing apprenticeship programs, promoting staff across
operating units, or changing employers’ payment for training.
Research
Findings
The
research on training for low-wage employed workers is limited, but available
studies identify the benefits of this training for workers, employers, and
the public sector. The findings also suggest the importance of public policy
interventions to promote training. Finally, the literature contains useful
case studies and lessons from the field.
A
recent study from the W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research looks at
employers’ practices and decision-making processes with regard to
workplace education and training for lower-wage workers. The authors
conclude there is a role for public policy to play in promoting workforce
education and training for low-wage workers. This is because employers tend
to underinvest in training these workers and the workers themselves have few
resources available to invest in their own training. The study lays out
implications for public policy and highlights seven case studies of
employers with strong training programs for their low-wage workers. For more
information, see Amanda L. Ahlstrand, Laurie J. Bassi, and Daniel P.
McMurrer, Workplace Education for
Low-Wage Workers (Kalamazoo, Mich.: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment
Research, 2003) at http://www.upjohninst.org/publications/titles/we.html.
The
U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) surveyed state officials and local
workforce investment boards (WIBs) to better understand how the training
needs of employed workers are publicly supported. The 16 reporting states
funded training for employed workers, and two thirds of the 470 local WIBs
responding to the survey provided assistance to train employed workers. The
states and local areas funded training that addressed specific business and
economic needs and emphasized basic and occupational skills. The GAO also
describes approaches that state and local officials identified to address
challenges in training low-wage workers. For more information, see U.S.
General Accounting Office, Workforce Training: Employed Worker Programs Focus on Business Needs,
but Revised Performance Measures Could Improve Access for Some Workers,
GAO-03-353 (Washington, D.C., February 2003) at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03353.pdf.
Studies
of state-funded incumbent worker training programs provide valuable lessons
on designing and implementing programs for employed workers. The National
Governors Association (NGA) Center for Best Practices conducted a two-year
project on incumbent worker training. Products from this project, including
case studies and guidance materials, can be found on NGA’s web site at http://www.nga.org/center/topics/1,1188,D_409,00.html.
The project’s findings suggest that public investments are best used to
leverage private investments and to build the infrastructure that can
address the needs of multiple firms in a collaborative environment. The
state-funded customized training programs in California and New Jersey have
been evaluated. The research on these programs identifies benefits that
accrue to workers, employers, and the state, but it also suggests the need
for carefully investing in employer-based training programs to maximize
impacts for economic and human capital development. For more information,
see Richard W. Moore, Daniel R. Blake, G. Michael Phillips, and Daniel
McConaughy, Training That Works:
Lessons from California’s Employment Training Panel Program
(Kalamazoo, Mich.: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, 2003) at http://www.upjohninst.org/publications/titles/ttw.html;
and Carl E. Van Horn and Aaron R. Fichtner, “An Evaluation of
State-Subsidized, Firm-Based Training: The Workforce Development Partnership
Program,” International Journal of
Manpower, vol. 24, no. 1 (2003): 97-110.
The
research can help state and local agencies convince employers of the
importance of incumbent worker training. In addition, organizations that
work closely with employers and employer organizations have produced
studies, guides, and tools that highlight the benefits of employer
involvement in workforce development partnerships and activities such as
training. See, for example, Jobs for the Future at http://www.jff.org/jff/
and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Center for Workforce Preparation at http://www.uschamber.com/cwp/default.
For more resources, see The Finance Project’s web page on Business
Involvement in Workforce Development at http://www.financeprojectinfo.org/Workforce/workforce_business.asp.
The American Society for Training and Development is a good resource on
training-related return-on-investment issues, though it does not
specifically focus on low-wage workers (see http://www.astd.org/index_IE.html). The Aspen Institute is launching the Documenting Demand Side Outcomes
project that will build knowledge on the benefits of training from the
perspective of employers. For more information, visit http://www.aspenwsi.org/DDSO.htm.
Innovative
Practices
California’s
Employment Training Panel (ETP) is the nation’s largest state-funded
customized training program. The state legislature created ETP in 1982 as a
cooperative business-labor program designed to fund training to meet the
needs of employers for skilled workers and the need of workers for good,
long-term jobs. An eight-member panel governs ETP; the governor and
legislative leaders appoint seven members, and the trade and commerce agency
designates the eighth member. ETP training is funded from the Employment
Training Fund (ETF). Each private, for-profit employer in the state and some
nonprofit employers are required to contribute one tenth of 1 percent of the
first $7,000 of wages of each employed worker subject to unemployment
insurance (UI) taxation to the ETF. Employer contributions to the state’s
UI fund are reduced by the same amount paid to the ETF. Up to 10 percent of
training funds may be allocated to special employment training projects
that, for example, can fund training for workers with multiple barriers to
employment. ETP uses a unique pay-for-performance strategy that helps hold
employers, workers, and training providers responsible for positive
outcomes. Payment is earned only upon successful completion of training and
a 90-day employment retention period. For more information on the California
Employment Training Panel, visit http://www.etp.ca.gov/.
The
Better Jobs/Better Wages Council of Workforce Florida,
Inc., the state’s workforce investment board, helps families making the
transition from welfare to work and incumbent workers with limited skills
and earnings move toward self-sufficiency through retention and advancement
strategies. The council’s Career Advancement and Retention Challenge
initiative makes grants to regional workforce boards for innovative employed
worker training programs that target current and former TANF recipients and
TANF-eligible families at risk of welfare dependency. This initiative is
funded with state-level TANF funds.
Local
projects involve partnerships among employers, training providers, and
regional workforce boards. They aim to meet the needs of workers and
employers as well as open job opportunities as workers advance. Projects
must include outreach to employed workers, employer engagement, retention
services, coordination of postemployment services such as mentoring and work
supports, and training provider outreach and engagement. Projects are
strongly encouraged to leverage other funds, such as employer, education,
and workforce development funds, to promote buy-in and sustainability. For
more information, visit http://www.workforceflorida.com/wages/wfi/about/index.html.
Maryland’s
Skills-Based Training for Employment Promotion (STEP) program seeks to
increase the skills of low-income working parents so they can advance into
jobs that can sustain a family and to ease the state’s critical worker
shortages in areas such as technology and health care. STEP is a four-year
competitive grant program established during the 2001 legislative session
and financed by state general funds. The Governor’s Workforce Investment
Board develops the program’s policies, conducts the request for proposals
process, and evaluates the program’s effectiveness. The Maryland
Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation administers the funds and
monitors the program for compliance.
The
STEP program creates a partnership with the private sector. STEP grantees¾local
workforce offices¾work
with Maryland businesses to help workers upgrade their skills. The program
requires financial and institutional support from employers. Employers pay
50 percent of the training costs, which can include costs such as wages
during training. Employers must also agree to allow participants to train
and draw their salaries and to work with training providers to help set
curricula. In addition, STEP grantees have worked directly with individuals
to determine career goals, obtain training, and provide wraparound support
services. For more information, visit the Governor’s Workforce Investment
Board’s web site at http://www.mdworkforce.com/menu.cfm?p_menu=239&cm=66|238|239.
The
Building Essential Skills through Training (BEST) Initiative in Massachusetts is a two-year project designed to integrate adult
basic education and job training for frontline workers while reducing
persistent job vacancies. BEST is a partnership of the Governor’s Office,
Commonwealth Corporation, Department of Labor and Workforce Development,
Department of Education, Division of Employment and Training, and Department
of Transitional Assistance. State funds and WIA Title I and Title II funds
support the initiative. A small contribution of TANF funds was made for
evaluation activities. BEST funds six regional industry teams (RITs) that
were selected through a competitive process in February 2002. RITs bring
together employers, education and training providers, local workforce
investment boards, and workers from firms or organized labor to develop and
implement industry-driven education and training programs that promote
career advancement and address skill needs. Each local partnership is
required to contribute a local cash or in-kind match to ensure joint
ownership and sustainability.
The
BEST Initiative also aims to promote reform of the workforce development
system by improving collaboration and building capacity. One key
accomplishment has been engaging employers that were not previously
participating in the workforce development system. The initiative is helping
local WIBs be more responsive to employer needs. For more information and
for the baseline evaluation report, visit http://www.commcorp.org/wss/best/default.htm.
The
Minnesota Job Skills Partnership funds training for new and
incumbent workers through grant and loan programs. This initiative is housed
in the recently created Department of Employment and Economic Development
that resulted from a merger of the state’s economic and workforce
development agencies. Partnership programs are used to further state
economic development needs. A board that includes representatives from
business, labor, education, and economic and workforce development oversees
the partnership. The programs are currently financed through an
appropriation of state general funds. All four grant programs require that
projects have at least one education institution and one business working
together and that businesses match funds with cash or in-kind contributions.
The goal of requiring education institutions to partner with businesses is
to get the postsecondary education system to be responsive to employers’
training needs. Funds can be used for education infrastructure improvements
such as program and curricula development.
Two
of the grant programs focus on low-wage workers¾the
Minnesota Pathways Program and the Health Care and Human Services Worker
Training and Retention Program. The Job Skills Partnership received TANF
funds in the past for these programs, but TANF funds are not currently
available. The Pathways Program supports projects that provide training,
employment, and career paths for individuals at or below 200 percent of
federal poverty guidelines or who are making the transition from welfare to
work. The Health Care and Human Services Program aims to address worker
shortages and increase opportunities for direct care employees to qualify
for advanced employment. Trainees must be recipients of TANF or eligible for
TANF. The Job Skills Partnership strongly encourages grantees to work with
TANF agencies and community-based organizations to help serve trainees. For
more information on the Job Skills Partnership, visit http://www.dted.state.mn.us/06x02f.asp.
For
More Information…
Resource
Contacts
·American
Society for Training and Development, 703-683-8100 or
·Manpower
Development Research Corporation, 212-532-3200 or http://www.mdrc.org/.
Several MDRC projects target low-wage workers, including a project on
community college participation. For more information on these projects,
visit
Ahlstrand,
Amanda L., Laurie J. Bassi, and Daniel P. McMurrer. Workplace
Education for Low-Wage Workers. Kalamazoo, Mich.: W.E. Upjohn Institute
for Employment Research, 2003. To order and view the first chapter, visit http://www.upjohninst.org/publications/titles/we.html.
Bloom,
Michael R., and Brenda Lafleur. Turning
Skills into Profit: Economic Benefits of Workplace Education Programs.
New York, N.Y.: The Conference Board, July 1999. Available at http://wdr.doleta.gov/conference/pdf/bloom.pdf.
Golonka,
Susan, and Lisa Matus-Grossman. Opening
Doors: Expanding Educational Opportunities for Low-Income Workers. New
York, N.Y., and Washington, D.C.: Manpower Development Research Corporation
and National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, May 2001.
Available at
Lerman,
Robert I., Signe-Mary McKernan, and Stephanie Riegg. Employer-Provided
Training and Public Policy. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute,
December 1999. Available at http://wdr.doleta.gov/conference/pdf/mckernan1.pdf.
Mills,
Jack, and Claudia Green. Opportunity
in Tough Times: Promoting Advancement for Low-Wage Workers in a Difficult
Economic Environment. Boston, Mass.: Jobs for the Future, September
2003. Available at http://www.jff.org/jff.
Moore,
Richard W., Daniel R. Blake, G. Michael Phillips, and Daniel McConaughy. Training That Works: Lessons from California’s Employment Training
Panel Program. Kalamazoo, Mich.: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment
Research, 2003. To order and view the first chapter, visit http://www.upjohninst.org/publications/titles/ttw.html.
National
Governors Association. Investing
Public Resources to Support Incumbent Worker Training. Washington, D.C.:
National Governors Association, December 1997. Available at http://www.nga.org/cda/files/120897PUBLICRELATIONS.pdf.
Regional
Technology Strategies, Inc. A
Comprehensive Look at State-Funded, Employer-Focused Job Training Programs.
Washington, D.C.: National Governors Association, 1999. Available at http://www.nga.org/cda/files/FULLREPORT.pdf.
U.S.
General Accounting Office. Workforce
Training: Employed Worker Programs Focus on Business Needs, but Revised
Performance Measures Could Improve Access for Some Workers. GAO-03-353.
Washington, D.C., February 2003. Available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03353.pdf.
Van
Buren, Mark E. What Works in Workforce
Development: An ASTD/AJLMEP Study of Joint Labor-Management Educational
Programs. Alexandria, Va.: American Society for Training and
Development, November 2002. Available at http://www.workplacelearning.org/pdfs/ASTD_Final.pdf.
Van
Horn, Carl E., and Aaron R. Fichtner. “An Evaluation of State-Subsidized,
Firm-Based Training: The Workforce Development Partnership Program.” International
Journal of Manpower, vol. 24, no. 1 (2003): 97-110.
Working
for America Institute. Ensuring
Workers Get the Training They Need Under the Workforce Investment Act.
Washington, D.C.: Working for America Institute, AFL-CIO, April 2001.
Available at http://documents.workingforamerica.org/PDF/ActionBrief2.pdf.
The
Welfare Information Network is supported by grants form the Annie E. Casey
Foundation, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, the David and Lucile
Packard Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the Ford
Foundation
For
more Resources and Information on
Workforce
Development for Low-Income Working Families,
