A comprehensive critique showing that training has been a near-total failure. Examines the economic assumptions and track record of training policy, and provides a political analysis of why job training has remained so popular despite widespread evidence of its failure. [book jacket].

An important first step in addressing the issue of obtaining a better fit between unemployment insurance (UI) and retraining was taken in 1970 when the federal government enacted a provision permitting workers to enroll in training without denial of benefits due to application of the work test. Little was done, however, to pursue state compliance with the new provision or to encourage states to view facilitating training as a mission of UI. Even before 1970, Hawaii, West Virginia, and Massachusetts had provisions designed to make it easier for clients to avail themselves of retraining opportunities. Since the 1970 amendments, an additional six states have either revised or expanded their efforts in this area. One problem that persists is a lack of familiarity with the 1970 provisions. Only 23 of the states contacted in a survey of 30 UI officials in the states and the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands were aware of the 1970 legislation. Although some strategies for improving current retraining provisions would require substantial legislative changes, a good beginning could be made if states would only reassess their programs in light of the 1970 retraining provisions. Then, after individual states decide how far they want to support retraining initiatives, they can begin developing a screening process, undertake labor market assessment procedures to identify dislocated workers early in the UI claims process, and make appropriate referrals. (MN)