The intent of the act was to have state and local authorities design a comprehensive education and training system that made sense based on local needs, leveraging dollars from the host of separate programs that now provide those services, Sattler said. The states should use the flexibility allowed them under the act to their advantage, he advises. Strong state leadership is essential in designing the system, starting at the level of the workforce board, Clagett said. The legislation directs states and localities to put together workforce investment boards that will create the plans for the workforce development system. Businesses should play an important role on the workforce boards, Clagett said.
States have to determine how to teach that.
Two of the main issues giving states difficulty are locating funds for the act's mandates and developing accountability standards for the workforce development system's performance. One solution to the shortage of funds is for local officials to seek out employers and create customized training programs based on their needs an option the legislation allows, Sattler said. Under these programs, employers pay 50 percent of the costs of training and make a commitment to hire successful graduates. Customized training probably allows states to get the most for their money because of the assurance that students will have a job when they graduate, he said. On the issue of accountability, the problem is that state one-stop centers will have to meet separate performance standards for education and training that were set by the departments of Education and Labor.