|
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.Note that the range of estimates tends to be wide and issensitive to the definition of employer training and the sample: Ler-man, McKernan, and Riegg (2003, p.11) offer a lower-bound estimateof 26 percent from SIPP that asks most workers about most recenttraining of an hour or more, and an upper-bound estimate of 70 percentfrom the Survey of Employer-Provided Training (SEPT) that asksworkers in large establishments about the receipt of short (five minutesor more) formal training.Finally, the incidence of formal training tends to be higher in largerestablishments that have lower rates of employee turnover and offermore extensive employee benefit packages.The 1995 SEPT wasrestricted to private establishments with 50 or more employees.CitingU.S.Bureau of Labor Statistics figures, Lynch (1994a) states that only11 percent of workers in small establishments reported receiving train-ing, compared to 26 percent in large establishments.In addition, data Oleary training.book Page 60 Friday, September 17, 2004 8:56 AM60 Kingfrom the National Household Survey of Education indicate that youngworkers (aged 17 35 years) not currently enrolled in school have beenparticipating in part-time training at an increasing rate and are morelikely to do so the higher their level of formal education (Hight 1998).This is an important general phenomenon: compared with lower-skilled workers, higher-skilled workers tend to have greater access totraining and have higher rates of training participation than lower-skilled workers (see, for example., Carnevale and Desrochers 2000;Mangum 2000), as do workers with higher levels of general skills andeducation, white workers, and male workers (Lerman, McKernan, andRiegg 2003).The incidence of training in the United States is low com-pared to other developed countries (Lynch 1994b).RECENT TRENDS IN TRAINING EXPENDITURES,PRIVATE AND PUBLICDepending on which source we rely on, it appears that expendi-tures on training have been either rising or falling of late.On the onehand, Lerman, McKernan, and Riegg (2003) report that employershave been training an increasing share of employees in the past twodecades and are spending more than the one percent of payroll on train-ing that was recommended over a decade ago by the Commission onthe Skills of the American Workforce (1990).According to Lynch andBlack (1998), the majority (57 percent) of firms report increasing theamount of training offered in the early 1990s.In addition, the Ameri-can Society for Training and Development (ASTD) reports thatemployers have been expending increasing amounts on training(ASTD 2002) through the 1990s and into the early 2000s.Its 2002State of the Industry Report states that total training expendituresincreased both on a per-employee basis (to $704 in 2000) and as a per-centage of annual payroll (to 2.0 percent in 2000).Training expendi-tures were projected to increase in both 2001 and 2002.However,ASTD relies on member surveys for such data, and its membership iscomprised of larger employers that are more favorably disposed totraining than the universe of U.S.employers. Oleary training.book Page 61 Friday, September 17, 2004 8:56 AMThe Effectiveness of Publicly Financed Training in the United States 61On the other hand, other researchers report that aggregate realexpenditures on training by employers and government programs havebeen declining.King, McPherson, and Long (2000, pp.276 277) statethat [s]ince 1960, federal expenditures on all forms of workforcedevelopment have never exceeded 0.85 percent of gross domesticproduct or 2.4 percent of federal budget outlays. 1 Real federal trainingand employment expenditures peaked at more than $22 billion in 1980(including large sums for public service employment), but fell to justunder $8.2 billion by 1985 and have remained in the $7 $8.5 billionrange since, or about the same as 1970 s $7.3 billion figure (allexpressed in 2001 dollars).However, workforce spending per laborforce member peaked in the late 1970s and early 1980s at less than$250 and has hovered near $50 in the last few years, a level roughlyone-quarter of that two decades earlier in the face of an increasinglydynamic and uncertain labor market (King et al.2000).Some forms of public support for education and training haveincreased noticeably in recent years.Pell Grants and other student aid,especially in the form of loans to students and their families, have risensharply. Pell Grants and other student assistance from the federal andstate governments account for a growing share of the total resourcesdevoted to work-related education and training, as well as higher edu-cation (King 1999, p.64).Real federal expenditures on training andemployment programs and all forms of student aid (grants and loans)were approximately the same in 1970 at around $7.3 billion, and eachhad risen to more than $22 billion by 1980.But, by 1985, real studentaid expenditures had increased to three times those on training pro-grams ($24 billion versus $8 billion) and by 2000, real student aidexpenditures were more than five times federal workforce programspending (nearly $37 billion v.almost $7 billion).This is part of a largeand significant shift from place-based to people-based funding fortraining.TRAINING: A HOT-BUTTON POLICY ISSUEIn the past 10 years, training has become a hot-button policyissue at all levels.Early impact findings from welfare employment pro- Oleary training.book Page 62 Friday, September 17, 2004 8:56 AM62 Kinggrams in California (e.g., Riverside Greater Avenues for Independence,or GAIN) suggested that less costly strategies emphasizing work overtraining so-called work-first approaches stressing labor forceattachment (LFA) were more effective than those stressing more tra-ditional human capital development (HCD).The debate over whetherto stress LFA versus HCD spilled over from the welfare reform arenainto workforce development generally with the passage of WIA in1998.Some of the larger states, including Florida, Michigan, andTexas, had already begun reorienting their workforce developmentstrategies toward a work-first model well before the passage of WIA,some as early as 1995 (Grubb et al.1999).WIA mandates a sequence-of-services model in which training canbe viewed as the service-of-last-resort by states and localities.Adultsand dislocated workers participating in WIA generally are expected toproceed through core and intensive services before becoming eligibleto receive training [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ] |
Archiwum
|