Skip to main content

The New York Times runs an editorial today that makes a very important argument: government programs that aim to funnel people into jobs need to include training that will actually make people employable, and hopefully employable in the long term.

Sounds simple. Jobs programs should train people for jobs. Better still: jobs programs should train people for jobs that are in demand.

But somewhere along the way this straightforward logic is abandoned.

"Too often," the editorialsays, "the government treats such [job training programs] like arbitrary hoops for the unemployed to jump through if they expect to receive unemployment benefits." What results is a cyclical trap, people going through job programs without gaining any new training, and thus unable to land the jobs that will allow them to leave poverty and unemployment benefits behind. Instead, these people are left jumping through hoops.

This editorial pays particular attention to hooking laid-off workers up with the new skills they need in order to reflect the changing needs of industries. But workers looking to shift their skill set are hardly the only ones in need of a jobs program that actually has a little meat on its bones.

Interestingly, the editorial points to hollow rhetoric on the part of politicians: "American politicians give lip service to the idea that retraining can give laid-off workers a second, better chance in a globalizing economy."  The problem is that they stop there, too often failing to add training to jobs programs. This reminds me of some other hollow rhetoric: 'People on welfare need to get into a job - any job, regardless of pay or benefits - as quickly as possible.' Never mind the facts that most quick-fix jobs have a shelf life of six months or less, pay poverty wages, lack health coverage, and lead right back to the cyclical trap of public assistance faced by those going through jobs programs that lack training.

This editorial profiles something that is working: Per Scholas, "which trains low-income residents to be computer-repair technicians. What makes the program so successful is consulting closely with area businesses when it puts together its curriculum, to ensure that its graduates have the skills they need to get hired. That can mean something as simple as asking employers what kind of certification they require or as immediate as letting a company train one of its instructors." So not only is Per Scholas training people, but training them for jobs that are in demand, and that will lead to financial security and self-sufficiency.  Jackpot.  

80% of Per Scholas graduates have been placed into jobs. This success rate reminds me of another statistic: 88%of women on welfare who graduate from college move permanently out of poverty and into financial security.  Not only that, but their children have a much higher instance of economic wellbeing as well.

Just as Per Scholas has built its success on training people for jobs that pay well and need to be filled, welfare to work programs stand to be greatly improved if they allow recipients to access the training and education that will prepare them for good, in-demand jobs--not just lead back to quick fix programs that shuffle them into any job, however short-term or poorly paying.

According to the US Department of Labor, 90%of the fastest growing jobs in the United States require some level of post-secondary education or training.  Welfare to work programs, just like jobs programs, will be much more successful if they actually prepare workers to fill the jobs our economy needs.

Cross-Posted from DMIBlog.com.

Originally posted to SarahDMI on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 10:13 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  bad jobs programs (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tryptamine, cville townie, MKinTN

    The fact that some of these slipshod jobs placement programs that dont actually land people long term jobs still qualify for government money is a travesty. Why are the bad problems getting funded if they fail? I'd be curious to know if those are no-bid contracts or what!

    www.DMIBlog.com Politics, Policy and the American Dream

    by DMIer on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 10:15:31 AM PDT

  •  I grew up in Burlington, Iowa, which is in (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tryptamine, DMIer, cville townie, MKinTN

    Southeastern Iowa on the Mississippi River.  Population of about 30,000 makes it the fifth largest city in the state.  GE and Sylvania both shut down.  Article in the LA Times showed all the newly unemployed people sitting in class at the community college training to be radiology technicians.  I asked my step-mother, who still lives in Burlington, if there was a need in the area for so many radiology technicians.  She said no.  

  •  In my case, it was an Affordable Housing program (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MarketTrustee

    Sometimes, a U Haul is an effective Jobs Program.

  •  very timely diary. thanks. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DMIer

    i've been looking at HUD funding for public housing authority "rehabs"-- espec. energy efficient or "green" grants.

    the relocation practices are troubling enough in light of "mixed financing" driving the value of the "mixed-income" project design. so is the burden placed upon displaced residents to qualify for subsidy or mortgage of housing in the rehab'd localities. the "training" programs created by municipal HA's to support such burdens seem to leave a lot to be desired in terms of occupational skills, generally, and more specifically skills that sustain a "green" local community.

    Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

    by MarketTrustee on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 11:36:53 AM PDT

  •  Re-training common in Sweden (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dar Nirron

    Re-training makes so much sense, it´s not only a great opportunity for the individual, the entire economy benefits. Here´s how it works in Sweden.

    The Swedish employment agency´s first and foremost task isn´t to get people a job, it´s to supply employers with qualified employees. That includes keeping track of in-demand jobs and skills, and if need be, re-train unemployed people to fill critical gaps in the job market. The system isn´t perfect, but it works.

    And this partly explains why Sweden´s economy is doing so well right now. Re-training makes for a flexible work force, and that´s exactly what companies need in today´s economy - increasingly based on knowledge and change.

    But then again, maybe this works for us simply because we don´t have that many jobs that are being outsourced to India. (I´m so grateful we have such strong labor unions. But that´s a topic for another day and another diary.)

  •  I would hazard to say that (0+ / 0-)

    it's partly because the government too often wants to LOOK like they're doing something. Actually DOING something effective is secondary.

    It's very easy to create a job training program. Very difficult to create an effective job training program which works.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site