-
Chapter 11. Workforce Development as an Antipoverty Strategy:What Do We Know? What Should We Do?
- Russell Sage Foundation
- Chapter
- Additional Information
Chapter 11 Workforce Development as an Antipoverty Strategy: What Do We Know? What Should We Do? Harry J. Holzer O ver the past few decades, the gaps in earnings between more- and lesseducated American workers have widened. The number of adult workers in low-wage jobs has risen, partly because of the growing supply of these workers, associated with welfare reform and immigration (among other forces), and partly because of growing demand for these workers in low-paying jobs (Autor, Katz, and Kearney 2006). And at least among less-educated and minority men, the numbers with criminal records and other characteristics that make them “hard to employ” has risen dramatically as well. A consensus has developed among economists and policy analysts on the increasingly important role that workforce skills play in explaining the labor market problems of the disadvantaged. The lack of skills and educational credentials among disadvantaged groups, like racial and ethnic minorities and the poor, contributes to their low employment and earnings and inhibits their ability to advance in the labor market. As a result, many policymakers and researchers have suggested increased public investments in improving early education opportunities, reforming school practices in the K–12 years, and improving access to higher education (Heckman 2008; Jacob and Ludwig, this volume). In contrast, there is no such consensus about the ability of workforce development (or job training programs) to raise employment and earnings for disadvantaged youth and adults. Federal funding of these efforts has greatly diminished over time, both in real terms and especially relative to the size of the economy, even though the economic rewards to skills have grown. Why has support for workforce development policies fallen so far as an antipoverty strategy? What are the most recent developments in the field, and what is the state of knowledge about their success ? Is a resurgence of interest in workforce development for the poor merited? And for low-wage workers for whom workforce development is unlikely to be a successful option, what other policies might work? / 301 In this chapter, I address these questions by reviewing trends in federal funding , the evolution of major workforce development programs, and the evaluation evidence about their cost-effectiveness. I then describe promising new approaches before concluding with some thoughts on what a workforce development agenda might include and what is needed for such an agenda to succeed. TRENDS IN FEDERAL FUNDING AND THE EVOLUTION OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS What do we mean by workforce development or employment and training programs ? The latter might be defined as any kind of education or work experience that directly prepares workers for specific occupations or jobs. This definition potentially includes many types of activities, whether in the classroom or on the job, whether formal or informal, whether for workers currently employed or the unemployed .1 The broader concept of workforce development might also include a range of employment services, including pre-employment assessments and job placement assistance as well as post-employment supports such as assistance with child care or transportation. Training Programs at the Department of Labor Since the early 1960s, and especially since the declaration of the “War on Poverty” in 1964, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has funded employment and training services for the disadvantaged, along with other workers. Over the years these efforts have evolved through several major pieces of legislation: the Manpower Development Training Act (MDTA) of 1962 to 1973; the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) of 1974 to 1984; the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) of 1984 to 1999; and the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1999 to the present .2 These legislative developments reflect the changes in priorities and perspectives on employment and training for the disadvantaged held by Congress during various presidential administrations. For instance, MDTA provided direct federal grants to local service providers and in 1965 began funding the Job Corps, which provides a year of education and training to disadvantaged youth at residential centers around the country. With CETA, the federal government began to devolve responsibility for some employment and training to state and local advisory committees. Funding for employment and training increased dramatically in the late 1970s as employment levels among low-income and especially minority adults and youth deteriorated. Public-service employment was provided to 750,000 individuals in 1978 (Ellwood and Welty 2000), about 10 percent of all unemployed individuals, under the Changing Poverty, Changing Policies 302 / [3.82.58.213] Project MUSE (2024-03-29 11:15 GMT) view...