How should we organize job training?

Under the headline, Federal Funds to Train the Jobless Are Drying Up, The New York Times reports:

The Labor Department announced on Friday that employers had added only 120,000 new jobs in March, a disappointing gain after three previous months of nearly twice that level. But with 12.7 million people still searching for jobs, the country is actually spending less on work force training than it did in good times.
Federal money for the primary training program for dislocated workers is 18 percent lower in today’s dollars than it was in 2006, even though there are six million more people looking for work now. Funds used to provide basic job search services, like guidance on resumes and coaching for interviews, have fallen by 13 percent.

Two thoughts:

1) The Times waits until the 24th paragraph to mention whether or not any of this taxpayer funded job training actually helps people find jobs:

It is not always easy to measure whether job training helps, or to what degree. … The Labor Department is paying for a study of training programs by the Workforce Investment Act at 28 locations across the country, but the research will not be complete until 2015.

What the Times fails to report is that Congress first mandated a study of Workforce Investment Act’s (WIA) effectiveness back in 1998. That study was supposed to be completed by 2005, but the Department of Labor failed to conduct that study, prompting the Government Accountability Office to write in 2009:

Labor has not made such research a priority and, consequently, is not well positioned to help workers or policymakers understand which employment and training approaches work best. Knowing what works and for whom is key to making the system work effectively and efficiently. Moreover, in failing to adequately evaluate its discretionary grant programs, Labor missed an opportunity to understand how the current structure of the workforce system could be modified to enhance services for growing sectors, to encourage strategic partnerships, and to encourage regional strategies.

2) The Times only reports on government spending on job training. No mention is ever made of money spent by individuals or the private sector. Cato‘s Tad DeHaven has noted that while the federal government spends about $18 billion on job training every year, other organizations spent about $126 billion a year.

The Times introduces their article by focusing on the plight of Atlas Van Lines and their search for qualified drivers. Why should the federal government be training and placing workers for Atlas Van Lines? Can’t they do that on their own? How does the federal government know how many workers should be trained to meet Atlas Van Lines’ needs versus dome other firm?

Who do you think does a better job assessing the effectiveness of their job training programs? The federal government, which spends other people’s money and is accountable to no one, or the private sector, which has to spend their own money and is accountable to the market?

Who do you think knows which skills our labor force needs, the federal government, or the private sector?

Maybe the decline in federal job training isn’t the tragedy The New York Times makes it out to be.

Related Content