Review of the Book, Toward Order from Chaos: State Efforts to Reform Workforce Development "Systems". W. N. Grubb, N. Badway, D. Bell, B. Chi, C. King, J. Herr, H. Prince, R. Kazis, L. Hicks, and J. C. Taylor Berkeley, CA: National Center for Research in Vocational Education, (NCRVE), 1999 145 pages, $10.50, http://ncrve.berkeley.edu/

Workforce Development: A New Study

Workforce development has been, in recent years, at the forefront of discussions among federal policy makers and others, concerning the consolidation of training programs, the development of one-stop delivery centers, the implementation of "work first" initiatives under welfare reform, and the passage of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998. An important contribution to this debate is Toward Order from Chaos, an NCRVE study by Norton Grubb et. al., that identifies ten states—Florida, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, and Wisconsin (with some references to Arizona)—as national leaders in their reform of workforce development systems. The states in the study have initiated reforms either out of concern over economic issues, duplication of workforce development programs, or in anticipation of new federal legislation.

The ten states were chosen for inclusion by several national organizations: National Governors’ Association; Network, an affiliate of the American Association of Community College (AACC); the State Higher Education Executive Officers Organization (SHEEO); and the Education Commission of the States (ECS). Noticeably absent were the National Association of Workforce Development Boards (formally the National Association of Private Industry Councils/ NAPIC), and the National Employment and Training Association, training-focused organizations that oversee JTPA programs. The authors’ research methodology included extensive interviews with state-level officials responsible for JTPA, one-stop centers, welfare-to-work programs, adult education, economic development, and personnel from community college and technical institutes. In addition, two site visits to each of the states were conducted during which local heads of community colleges, adult education, JTPA, welfare offices, local coordination boards and one-stop centers were interviewed.

Implementing Reform

Based on their examination of workforce development, the researchers were able to describe overall state strategies for implementing reform. A state agency or office is created, some with only advisory responsibilities and others with administrative authority to allocate funds. Advisory councils are less powerful and influential than those with administrative authority. Also, local or regional counterparts are established to carry out policy, and most have created a single point of access to the state’s system through one-stop centers that attempt to coordinate training activities. This access usually involves a hierarchy of coordination from information sharing on the lower end, to referrals among agencies, and occasionally, joint service delivery at the highest level.

A notable finding of the research is the variety of mechanisms that states use to reform their workforce development systems. Grubb et al. grouped these approaches into two categories: Institutional-Building Mechanisms and Market-like Mechanisms. Institutional-Building Mechanisms are efforts to improve quality and connections in and among programs. Examples include establishing advisory councils, consolidating of agencies and/or programs, providing state technical assistance to locals, and impacting cultural change through "redesigning systems." Market-like Mechanisms attempt to mimic incentives to enhance competition and customer choice. These strategies include: 1) performance measures and standards that shift emphasis from inputs to outcomes; 2) performance-based budgeting; 3) competition among providers; 4) competition through subcontracting, where government becomes the brokers of services rather than direct providers; 5) voucher mechanisms; 6) consumer information to increase consumer choice; and, 7) tax incentives for businesses and regulatory relief. Most states in the study have utilized both types of mechanisms, but the research concludes that states are moving toward greater use of market-like strategies.

The ten states also varied in their levels of control over local programs. Some states were highly respectful of local autonomy and had a laissez-faire attitude (Arizona). Most, however, wanted to avoid local mandates and provided some state guidance, which is referred to as "Centrally Guided, Locally Directed" efforts (Oklahoma, Iowa, Oregon, and North Carolina). A few states, however, considered education and training state prerogatives and were much more directive in their state policies (Florida and Michigan).

Successful implementation of reform is closely tied to local response to state reform. If locals are not interested in cooperation and coordination, they are resistant. If they are ahead of the state in coordination, they resent state policy. One particular inconsistency in state policy—requiring local coordination, while encouraging fragmentation at the state level—has caused "near-universal resentment."

Other Key Issues

Other key issues addressed in the study include: 1) the complex role of employers, whether to "involve" or "engage" them; 2) the varied meanings of "system building" among states; 3) the conflict between "work first" policies of Welfare Reform and workforce development systems focusing on developing "higher-ordered skills"; 4) lack of coordinating economic development efforts promoting demand-side economic strategies to workforce development, supply-side, efforts; and 5) questioning the effectiveness of improving program quality through performance measures. In the search for quality, Grubb et al. asked state and local officials to nominate exemplary programs. Most could not respond to the question and were unable to define criteria for "exemplary" programs. Most officials interpret program success in terms of statistics collected.

Recently, the separation of employment training programs from education has been an underlying theme in the literature. Toward Order from Chaos refers to Norton Grubb’s belief that separating training and education has been counter-productive (Creating Coherent Workforce Preparation Systems from the Quagmire of Education and Job Training, 1996). The conclusion of the study addresses the future of workforce development systems by comparing its process to that of the education system. According to Grubb et al., the study does not mean to suggest that "there is anything inevitable about workforce development going the way of education." Yet, given the similarities in initial development, the education system with its long history is a logical model with which to compare the relatively new entity of workforce development.

Conclusion

Grubb et al. conclude that the direction of change in workforce development programs "is unmistakable." The structure of local/state efforts is moving toward greater coordination and coherence, even if, as in the development of the education system, it is uneven and varied from state to state. No single national vision, however, is emerging, and no state is completely consistent with its vision.

Grubb et al. demonstrate in this study a thorough understanding of workforce development and its complex sub-systems: JTPA, vocational education, community colleges, adult education, welfare-to-work, one-stop centers, etc. The implications for state and federal policy are timely and bold. They even recommend undoing the damaging aspect of "work first" under welfare reform. Though much of this research was conducted prior to the passage of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, many of its conclusions are integral to the new legislation: the state-local structure, coordination and cooperation through unified plans and one-stop centers, and implementation of Market-Like Mechanisms by requiring performance measures and vouchers.

In Toward Order from Chaos, Grubb et al. posed the fundamental question: What do we as citizens, employees, policymakers, and employers want in our workforce development system? This is an excellent and very timely question for anyone who is or will be involved in implementing the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) on either the state or local levels.