Assessment and Recommendations

Mega-trends are putting pressures on the Italian adult learning system

Technological change, population ageing and low levels of basic skills among adults, are putting serious pressure on the Italian adult learning system. In Italy, 15.2% of jobs have a high risk of automation, and a further 35.5% may experience significant changes to how they are performed as a result of the introduction of new technologies. Italy also has an old and ageing population. Today there are 3.5 older persons (65+) for every ten working age adults (15-64) – the highest rate in the OECD after Japan – and this ratio is expected to increase to 6.6 by 2050. Finally, around 38% of Italian adults have low levels of literacy and/or numeracy proficiency, well above the OECD average of 26.3%. To cope with technological change, longer working lives and the increased skill demands of a knowledge-based economy, many adults will need training to keep skills up to date. In this context, the availability of high-quality adult learning options is crucial to support workers through these ongoing and deep changes.

Participation into adult learning has increased over the last decade but remains low

Adults’ participation in training has increased considerably in Italy over the past decade, rising by 133% over the period 2007-2016. Despite this progress, Italy continues to lag behind most OECD countries, and too many adults – including the most vulnerable – do not participate in adult learning opportunities. Today, only two in ten adults participate in job-related training (about half the OECD average) and, although the low-skilled are arguably those who are in most need of training, only 9.5% participate (OECD average is around 20%).

Training Funds can play an important role in upskilling the Italian workforce

The Italian Training Funds (i.e. fondi paritetici interprofessionali per la formazione continua, hereafter TFs) are associations run by social partners that finance workers’ training, using resources collected through a training levy imposed on employers. Since their introduction in 2004, they have been tasked to encourage firms to provide training to their workers, and have likely contributed to the significant increase in adult learning participation recorded since then. Covering almost 1 million firms and over 10 million workers, and managing over EUR 600 million a year, today Training Funds represent one of the most important sources of financing for workers’ continuous learning in Italy. If well used, Training Funds can help Italy address the challenges brought about by the mega-trends, and equip adults and workers with the skills needed to thrive in the labour market.

Changes in the legal framework have modified the way Training Funds operate and function

Since the establishment of Training Funds, there have been various debates regarding whether the funding they manage is public or private. The norms that originally regulated the activities of the Training Funds were opaque around this point, and this legal vacuum has led to the proliferation of different interpretations of the rules. To put an end to this long-lasting uncertainty, in 2016 the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs bound the Training Funds to the Law on State Aids and Public Procurement Legislation – effectively making Training Funds public entities. On the one hand, the new rules have improved accountability, and pushed Training Funds to rethink their strategies. On the other hand, however, they have put additional administrative burdens on Training Funds – possibly slowing down their activities, crowding out resources to finance training, and making Training Funds a much less flexible instrument overall.

Training Funds may need more resources to cope with rising pressure on the skills system

The training levy paid by Italian employers is low by international standards. In Italy, the levy amounts to 0.3% of payroll compared with 0.8% in Ireland, up to 1% in France, 1.5% in Hungary, up to 2% in the Netherlands, and up to 2.5% in the United Kingdom. This relatively low funding level puts into question the ability of Training Funds to cope with rising skill pressures. Further, in recent years the Italian government has diverted part of TF resources to uses other than training: in 2017, out of the EUR 735 million collected, only 58.9% were transferred to Training Funds, in practice reducing the funding available to Training Funds to only 0.19-0.2% of the payroll. While funds were initially diverted to finance welfare measures in response to the challenges brought about by the economic crisis, from 2015 onwards government withdrawals have become structural. In a context of high skill pressures, a reduction in resources available to invest in continuous learning is something that Italy can ill-afford. Besides reducing resources for training, budget cuts may also affect Training Funds’ credibility, undermine overall trust in the system, and ultimately discourage firms to join or remain enrolled in a Training Fund.

Ensuring that Training Funds receive adequate and sustainable funding. Governments’ withdrawal for purposes other than training should be minimised in the future. The levy rate could be increased at the national level, by law, or through collective agreements. The additional rate could be made refundable to contain labour costs.

SMEs face several barriers to providing training and using funding support available

While a large and growing number of firms are covered by Training Funds, certain firms (e.g. SMEs) still face substantial barriers in adhering to/using the schemes. Like in other OECD countries, SMEs in Italy are less likely to train their workers compared to larger firms. In 2016, only 57.1% of small firms (10-19 employees) provided training, compared to 93.3% of larger firms (250+ employees). Moreover, even those SMEs that supply training use available Training Funds funding much less than larger companies. Interestingly, only 6.2% of small training firms (10-19 employees) receive financial support from training funds, compared to 64.1% of larger firms (1000+ employees). High direct and indirect cost of training, lack of a learning culture among entrepreneurs of small businesses, poor awareness of the availability of Training Funds funding, as well as burdensome administrative procedures to apply for funding, are among the factors explaining the limited use of Training Funds funding by smaller firms.

Reducing the direct cost of training for SMEs. Several policy options are available, such as: (i) granting SMEs higher reimbursement rates; (ii) shortening/removing delays in reimbursements; (iii) exempting, or reducing, contributions paid by SMEs.
Decreasing the opportunity costs of training for SMEs, for example by (i) reimbursing firms for workers’ wages during training; (ii) introducing job rotation schemes (i.e. support firms to find a temporary replacement worker during the training period).
Fostering a learning culture among SMEs, for example by upskilling entrepreneurs through Training Funds. Training could be financed through entrepreneurs’ private contributions, and/or government funding.
Raising awareness among SMEs about Training Funds. The government could lead information awareness campaigns; social partners could disseminate information about Training Funds among their networks; Training Funds could build on existing networks (e.g. trade associations) to reach both member and non-member firms.
Easing administrative procedures and red tape. SMEs could benefit from a simplified funding application procedure, which would require them to describe training needs and expected outcomes, rather than to develop detailed training plans.

Vulnerable groups are sometimes excluded from training opportunities

In Italy, as in other countries, the most vulnerable adults – such as the low-skilled, low-wage workers or older people – are less likely to participate to training. There is an open debate on whether (and to what extent) the low participation of vulnerable groups should be addressed by Training Funds or via other instruments of public nature (e.g. European Social Fund; regional funds). Indeed, as training is funded through a levy paid by employers, there is resistance in excessively limiting or steering firms’ decisions on how to use the funds. As a result, firms typically have a great deal of autonomy in deciding who gets training, and often end up targeting training efforts to groups for which training yields the highest returns: the most skilled, those in high-skilled occupations, or younger workers with longer career prospects.

Whether Training Funds should explicitly target vulnerable groups who otherwise would receive little training remains an issue of open debate, which requires a reflection on the role that Training Funds should play in the labour market and society. For the time being, while some Training Funds have been taking steps to ensure that training reaches the most vulnerable workers, efforts have been far from systematic. Only few grants are exclusively dedicated to vulnerable workers or give them priority access. Similarly, individual training plans – Training Funds financing channels conceived to address the specific needs of individual workers – are the least frequently used type of training (representing only 1.6% of participants) and rarely serve the purpose of reaching the vulnerable. Moreover, for disadvantaged workers to use them, individual training plans need to be accompanied with skills assessments procedures, guidance services, and skills certification, which are not always provided. E-learning training represents another tool through which Training Funds could reach workers with specific barriers to learning, but its use is limited as it currently reaches only 11.8% of all participants.

Ensuring that training reaches the most vulnerable. This could be done in several ways: (i) devoting part of the funding to vulnerable workers (e.g. by giving them priority or developing dedicated grants); (ii) using individual training plans more broadly; (iii) investing in support measures (e.g. skills assessment; guidance; certification) to facilitate training take-up by the most vulnerable.
Expanding e-learning opportunities. In order to ensure take-up of e-learning, adults need to be equipped with good basic skills (e.g. ICT); and Training Funds need to be adequately equipped to monitor and evaluate the successful delivery of e-learning programmes (e.g. through – ex-ante, in itinere and ex-post examinations to test the competences acquired; and/or through skills certification).

Training is not always aligned to the skills most demanded in the labour market

In order for Training Funds to fulfil their mandate, not only do they need to ensure a broad coverage of firms and workers, but they also need to provide training that is useful and aligned to labour market needs. While Training Funds have the potential to equip workers with the skills needed to adapt to the challenges arising from the mega-trends, a relatively large share of the training they provide does not support the development of in-demand skills. For example, compulsory Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) training represents over 30% of all TF-supported training activities, while ICT training accounts for just above 3%. Indeed, while it is forbidden to use collective accounts to finance OHS, it is still possible for firms to finance OHS training through their individual accounts. Using Training Funds to finance compulsory OHS training risks generating large deadweight losses (i.e. financing training that would have taken place even in the absence of the subsidy), on top of representing a missed opportunity to provide workers with the skills needed to adapt to future labour market challenges.

There are several explanations behind this suboptimal use of resources. Some firms are unable to understand their training needs and develop plans accordingly, and as a result they may turn to OHS training which is easier to plan. Firms also dispose of limited time to spend funding before resources feed back to the Training Funds, which may push them to exhaust unspent resources on OHS training. Moreover, Training Funds financing is often seen by firms as a mean to relieve the costs associated with compulsory training obligations, which, especially in a context of high labour costs, would be otherwise hard to cover solely through private resources. Finally, the high focus on OHS training also reflects the productive structure of the Italian economy, characterised by many small family-led businesses, which are often more concerned about complying with compulsory training obligations than developing skills (e.g. ICT) which may take time to pay off.

Equipping workers with ICT skills needed for the digital transformation. All Training Funds could develop a dedicated budget line for technological innovation; and/or give a higher score to training plans that include a technological innovation component (e.g. skills required under Industry 4.0).
Forbidding the use of Training Funds funding for compulsory training, such as occupational health and safety (OHS). This prohibition needs to be coupled with complementary policies to (i) monitor that firms continue to provide compulsory training; (ii) help firms perceive OHS as a civic obligation; (iii) lengthen the time available for firms to use funding in individual accounts so that they can develop thorough training plans.

Social dialogue around training could be improved

One way to ensure that training aligns to skills needs is to ensure that social partners’ views are reflected in the various phases of TF-supported training provision. In theory, legislation gives social partners the means to influence the TF training agenda at all stages: the management board of TFs must be composed by representatives of social partners; all training proposals must be agreed between social partner representatives; and no plan can be submitted for funding without approval from trade unions’ representatives. Moreover, some Training Funds have even set up a dedicated committee, where social partners meet on a regular basis to jointly identify the key skills priorities of the Training Fund and determine how to best use resources available.

In practice, however, social dialogue can be improved further. The fragmentation of the Italian social partners system (Italy has the 2nd highest number of employers’ organisations and trade unions in the OECD) means that coming to an agreement on training priorities can be challenging. Further, extensive use of individual accounts – accounts that firms can directly use to finance their own training, with little intermediation of Training Funds – risks weakening social dialogue and reducing Training Funds to a mere “cash dispenser”. Good stand-alone initiatives aside, involvement by trade unions has also proved difficult. Training plans are often developed by firms, employers’ organisations, or training providers, while the involvement of trade unions is at cases only formal. Sometimes ill-prepared to understand workers’ skills needs, struggling to make their voice heard by firms, and pressured to prioritise other non-learning related issues (e.g. job redundancy; job contracts) in the context of the economic crisis, trade unions have sometimes found it challenging to effectively influence training content.

Strengthening the involvement of social partners in training decisions. There are several policy options, including: (i) training trade unionists to better understand workers’ skills needs; (ii) prioritising skills issues in the collective bargaining agenda; (iii) establishing new positions for trade union training specialists.

Training often reflects what providers are able to offer, rather than what firms and workers need

TF-supported training is still often supply-oriented, i.e. it reflects what training providers are able to offer, rather than what firms and workers actually need. This is partly due to the fact that Training Funds, firms and workers are themselves not well-aware of labour market training needs. In order to ensure that training is demand-driven and responds to the real needs of firms and workers, it is important that Training Funds make the best use of existing Skills Assessment and Anticipation (SAA) information, and help firms and workers identifying their needs. Despite many good efforts, more action is needed in this direction. In fact, although Italy produces a wealth of SAA information, results are sometimes not fit for purpose or not easily accessible by Training Funds. And while many Training Funds are guiding firms and workers in their training efforts, more needs to be done, as the vast majority (93.7%) of all TF-supported training programmes are still not integrated by any career guidance or skills assessment activity.

Making better use of existing skills assessment and anticipation (SAA) exercises to establish training priorities. Existing SAA information – already very rich and comprehensive in Italy – should be used systematically by all Training Funds to establish training priorities and orient their strategies.
Assisting firms and workers to understand their skills and training needs. ANPAL could, for example: (i) make it compulsory for all training plans to be based on the analysis of skills needs; (ii) encourage Training Funds to give a premium to training plans, based on the quality of the skills analysis; (iii) develop an app/online tool to help firms and workers assess their current and future skills needs. This app/online tool could also help ANPAL collect systematic information on skills needs across TF-member firms and workers.

Training Funds dispose of a wide range of tools to ensure training quality, but no strict quality standards exist

Ensuring that training is of good quality is essential to ensure it achieves its objectives and is useful. While Training Funds dispose of a wide range of tools to ensure quality, no strict training quality standards exist. For example, each Training Fund has its own accreditation strategy to ensure that funding goes to training providers that are of good quality, with some Training Funds relying on regional accreditation systems, and others developing their own accreditation criteria. Similarly, funding allocation procedures vary greatly across Training Funds, with some outsourcing assessment procedures to external committees, and others evaluating training plans internally. While this variety of practices gives Training Funds a great deal of autonomy and flexibility, it also risks generating large differences in the quality of training provided, create uncertainty around how quality should be defined and assessed, and ultimately undermine the transparency of the system.

Streamlining quality-monitoring procedures. For example, (i) regional accreditation systems could be harmonised, based on a set of similar quality standards; (ii) funding allocation procedures could be streamlined, e.g. by making it compulsory for all Training Funds to rely on an external, independent, committee to assess training plans.

An increasing share of training is being certified, but the system remains fragmented

Italy has devoted significant efforts to improve its skills certification system. The government developed a National Qualification Framework, which creates a national “taxonomy” to link regional qualification frameworks with one another; ANPAL, with its recently published guidelines, has set forth the rules to make skills certification of TF-supported training easy and possible at all times; Training Funds and social partners have promoted successful initiatives to encourage skills certification. Reflecting these good efforts, the share of participants to TF-supported training who receive a certification rose from 48.8% in 2014 to 61.8% in 2016. Despite the progress made, however, a large share of TF-supported training still remains uncertified, and the vast array of actors involved in skills certification practices means that the system is quite fragmented. One key challenge is the incompatibility between regional certification systems and TF-supported training. For example, some regional certification systems mainly relate to “low-skilled professions”, that are ill-suited for TF-supported training that also reaches workers in “high-skilled occupations”. As another example, regional certification is often issued upon completion of a formal, long-term, training programme – while much of TF-supported training is non-formal and of shorter duration. On top of this incompatibility, another key challenge in Italy is the perception that skills certification is a low-status practice reserved for the low-skilled, which may discourage workers to undertake certification procedures.

Strengthening skills certification further. Continue implementing ANPAL Guidelines but also (i) set a minimum training duration, so as to ensure that the (short) length of training courses does not compromise certification; (ii) ensure that each training plan is designed to explicitly refer to a specific skills certification system (e.g. regional; TF certification).

Competition among Training Funds does not always translate into better quality services

Training Funds are in competition with one another, partly because firms are allowed to enrol in the Training Fund of their choosing and/or switch to a different Training Fund virtually at any time (regardless of their economic sector). While in theory a certain amount of competition is desirable as it may push Training Funds to improve the quality of their services, in practice this does not happen. Training Funds often try to attract firms by easing administrative procedures, or by giving firms more independence on how to use funding, rather than focussing on training quality. Further, until recently, Training Funds have operated in an uncertain legal framework, which has also contributed to shaping an unhealthy competitive environment. Steps in the right direction are already being implemented to address these challenges – for example ANPAL has recently developed guidelines to make all Training Funds play by a clear, and shared, set of rules.

Fostering a healthy competitive environment among Training Funds. Different policy options are available, such as: (i) reducing the number of Training Funds, for example by merging some of the smaller or less performing Training Funds; (ii) linking each Training Fund to an economic sector; (iii) setting minimum operational standards.

There is room to make the monitoring and evaluation system more thorough

Collecting information on the activities of Training Funds is fundamental to monitor who is benefiting from training, understand whether resources are being well invested, and keep track of progress. While an information system is in place to regularly collect data on the activities of the Training Funds, it has several limitations. For example, no information is collected at the individual and firm level, which generates double counting and limits data analysis. Moreover, information feeds into the information system in scattered ways, which can bias the results and ultimately undermine data elaboration. Some aspects of the activities of the Training Funds are currently overlooked (e.g. training quality), or not explored extensively enough (e.g. skills certification), which highlights the potential to make the information system more thorough. Finally, the information system is not linked to other adult learning databases (e.g. regional), making it difficult for policy makers to monitor whether adult learning efforts duplicate or complement each other. Another key challenge relates to the (lack of an) impact evaluation culture. While some Training Funds have taken laudable steps to measure the impact that training has on firms and workers, what is still missing in Italy is a systematic effort to measure the benefits of training.

Strengthening the information system. The existing information system could be improved with a view to (i) collect data at the individual (participant/firm) level; (ii) collect more information and at a higher level of disaggregation; (iii) better link to other adult learning databases.
Evaluating the impact of training. Evaluation efforts should be systematic, regular, and objective; they could be carried out by institutional bodies (ANPAL; INAPP); outsourced to independent evaluators; and/or conducted by Training Funds themselves. Evaluations could draw from subjective data (e.g. firms/participants’ satisfaction) or more objective measures.

Training Funds often work in silos and coordination efforts could be strengthened

Ensuring that each Training Fund coordinates with different actors involved in adult learning can bring several advantages. It could give Training Funds opportunities for dialogue, cooperation, and sharing of good practices; limit overlap/duplication of interventions and ensure that training reaches the most vulnerable; and help Training Funds participate in the policy dialogue and ensure that their concerns and priorities are reflected in the policy agenda. Yet, too often, Training Funds work in silos. Interactions across Training Funds remain most often ad-hoc, informal, and largely dependent on the goodwill of management board members, with limited institutional/formal opportunities to meet on a systematic basis. There are also few institutional linkages between Training Funds and Centri Provinciali per l'Istruzione degli Adulti or Public Employment Services, while dialogue between Training Funds and regions is mainly limited to the sharing of information and, in sporadic cases, co-programming of grants. Coordination with government institutions is also rather unsystematic. A National Observatory on Adult Learning was originally conceived in 2004 with the aim of improving coordination among different actors, but it was soon after abandoned and is currently not operational.

Setting up a National Observatory on Adult Learning to facilitate coordination between Training Funds, the government, and other actors involved in adult learning. The Observatory could organise regular meetings to discuss important topics (results of SAA; skills certification) and/or steer the development of a national adult learning strategy.
Improving coordination between Training Funds. Training Funds could establish a coordination platform to share good practices, discuss common challenges, and collaborate on new projects.

Training Funds could play a central role in training the unemployed but they need to be supported

During the economic crisis, Training Funds played an important role in helping the unemployed/displaced workers to retrain and reintegrate the labour market. This meant expanding beyond their traditional beneficiaries (the employed) towards the unemployed – under a legal framework that was not conceived for this purpose. While Training Funds efforts during the crisis have been remarkable, today the bulk of Training Funds activities remains focussed on the employed population. Indeed, training for permanent and temporary workers absorbs over 87% of all TF-supported training programmes. Going forward, if Training Funds are called to play a more concerted role in the re-skilling of the unemployed, the legal framework will need updating and additional financial resources will need to be allocated to ensure that Training Funds can successfully take on the new responsibilities. The Jobs Act already takes step in this direction, but it remains to be seen how these measures will be implemented in practice.

Paving the way for Training Funds to support the training of the unemployed. Updating the legal framework and allocating adequate additional resources will be crucial for Training Funds to successfully undertake this new role.

Strengthening complementary policies for a more learning-friendly environment

There is only so much that Training Funds can do to ensure that adult learning opportunities are inclusive, of good quality, and well aligned to skills needs. On top of improving how Training Funds operate and function, complementary policies need to be implemented by the government. In the future, it will be important that the government implements policies to remove workers’ barriers to training (more generous paid education and training leave; financial incentives for workers to take-up training; link wages more closely to productivity), as well as industrial policies to raise firms’ demand for high-level skills. While these policies typically fall outside the responsibility of Training Funds, they are fundamental to ensure that Training Funds can work effectively.

Setting up complementary policies to develop a learning-friendly environment. Policy measures aimed at removing workers’ barriers to training (e.g. education/training leave; financial incentives for workers to take-up training; Individual Learning Accounts; individual rights to learning), and demand-side measures to increase firms’ demand for skills, should be explored.

Summary of key recommendations

Increasing training participation among SMEs and vulnerable workers

Reducing the direct cost of training for SMEs. Several policy options are available, such as: (i) granting SMEs higher reimbursement rates; (ii) shortening/removing delays in reimbursements; (iii) exempting, or reducing, contributions paid by SMEs.
Decreasing the opportunity costs of training for SMEs, for example by (i) reimbursing firms for workers’ wages during training; (ii) introducing job rotation schemes (i.e. support firms to find a temporary replacement worker during the training period).
Fostering a learning culture among SMEs, for example by upskilling entrepreneurs through Training Funds. Training could be financed through entrepreneurs’ private contributions, and/or government funding.
Raising awareness among SMEs about Training Funds. The government could lead information awareness campaigns; social partners could disseminate information about Training Funds among their networks; Training Funds could build on existing networks (e.g. trade associations) to reach both member and non-member firms.
Easing administrative procedures and red tape. SMEs could benefit from a simplified funding application procedure, which would require them to describe training needs and expected outcomes, rather than to develop detailed training plans.
Ensuring that training reaches the most vulnerable. This could be done in several ways: (i) devoting part of the funding to vulnerable workers (e.g. by giving them priority or developing dedicated grants); (ii) using individual training plans more broadly; (iii) investing in support measures (e.g. skills assessment; guidance; certification) to facilitate training take-up by the most vulnerable.
Expanding e-learning opportunities. In order to ensure take-up of e-learning, adults need to be equipped with good basic skills (e.g. ICT); and Training Funds need to be adequately equipped to monitor and evaluate the successful delivery of e-learning programmes (e.g. through – ex-ante, in itinere and ex-post examinations to test the competences acquired; and/or through skills certification).

Aligning training to the skills needed in the labour market

Strengthening the involvement of social partners in training decisions. There are several policy options, including: (i) training trade unionists to better understand workers’ skills needs; (ii) prioritising skills issues in the collective bargaining agenda; (iii) establishing new positions for trade union training specialists.
Making better use of existing skills assessment and anticipation (SAA) exercises to establish training priorities. Existing SAA information – already very rich and comprehensive in Italy – should be used systematically by all Training Funds to establish training priorities and orient their strategies.
Assisting firms and workers to understand their skills and training needs. ANPAL could, for example: (i) make it compulsory for all training plans to be based on the analysis of skills needs; (ii) encourage Training Funds to give a premium to training plans, based on the quality of the skills analysis; (iii) develop an app/online tool to help firms and workers assess their current and future skills needs. This app/online tool could also help ANPAL collect systematic information on skills needs across TF-member firms and workers.
Equipping workers with ICT skills needed for the digital transformation. All Training Funds could develop a dedicated budget line for technological innovation; and/or give a higher score to training plans that include a technological innovation component (e.g. skills required under Industry 4.0).
Forbidding the use of Training Funds funding for compulsory training, such as occupational health and safety (OHS). This prohibition needs to be coupled with complementary policies to (i) monitor that firms continue to provide compulsory training; (ii) help firms perceive OHS as a civic obligation; (iii) lengthen the time available for firms to use funding in individual accounts so that they can develop thorough training plans.

Ensuring that training is of good quality

Streamlining quality-monitoring procedures. For example, (i) regional accreditation systems could be harmonised, based on a set of similar quality standards; (ii) funding allocation procedures could be streamlined, e.g. by making it compulsory for all Training Funds to rely on an external, independent, committee to assess training plans.
Strengthening skills certification further. Continue implementing ANPAL Guidelines but also (i) set a minimum training duration, so as to ensure that the (short) length of training courses does not compromise certification; (ii) ensure that each training plan is designed to explicitly refer to a specific skills certification system (e.g. regional; TF certification).
Fostering a healthy competitive environment among Training Funds. Different policy options are available, such as: (i) reducing the number of Training Funds, for example by merging some of the smaller or less performing Training Funds; (ii) linking each Training Fund to an economic sector; (iii) setting minimum operational standards.
Strengthening the information system. The existing information system could be improved with a view to (i) collect data at the individual (participant/firm) level; (ii) collect more information and at a higher level of disaggregation; (iii) better link to other adult learning databases.
Evaluating the impact of training. Evaluation efforts should be systematic, regular, and objective; they could be carried out by institutional bodies (ANPAL; INAPP); outsourced to independent evaluators; and/or conducted by Training Funds themselves. Evaluations could draw from subjective data (e.g. firms/participants’ satisfaction) or more objective measures.

Enhancing coordination among different actors

Setting up a National Observatory on Adult Learning to facilitate coordination between Training Funds, the government, and other actors involved in adult learning. The Observatory could organise regular meetings to discuss important topics (results of SAA; skills certification) and/or steer the development of a national adult learning strategy.
Improving coordination between Training Funds. Training Funds could establish a coordination platform to share good practices, discuss common challenges, and collaborate on new projects.
Paving the way for Training Funds to support the training of the unemployed. Updating the legal framework and allocating adequate additional resources will be crucial for Training Funds to successfully undertake this new role.
Setting up complementary policies to develop a learning-friendly environment. Policy measures aimed at removing workers’ barriers to training (e.g. education/training leave; financial incentives for workers to take-up training; Individual Learning Accounts; individual rights to learning), and demand-side measures to increase firms’ demand for skills, should be explored.
Ensuring that Training Funds receive adequate and sustainable funding. Governments’ withdrawal for purposes other than training should be minimised in the future. The levy rate could be increased at the national level, by law, or through collective agreements. The additional rate could be made refundable to contain labour costs.

End of the section – Back to iLibrary publication page