Skill Standards

Organizations and industries sponsoring skill standards and certification systems believe that the time and resources devoted to developing and managing such systems represent wise investments in the future of their industry. However, sponsors have not systematically evaluated the impact of the systems on workers or employers. The most important element common to the systems GAO reviewed is industry ownership and control. Contrary to common belief, the process of identifying occupational skill standards was not seen by certification sponsors as a formidable obstacle to establishing certification systems, but they did see other factors as obstacles, such as high costs and difficulties in developing industry coalitions and getting them to agree on standards. GAO summarized this report in testimony before Congress; see: Occupational Skill Standards: Experience Shows Industry Involvement to be Key, by Linda G. Morra, Director of Education and Employment Issues, before the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources. GAO/T-HRD-93-23, May 14, 1993 (11 pages).

GAO found that: (1) common elements among existing certification systems include industry ownership and control, recertification requirements to keep certificate holders' skills current, national portability of credentials, and integration of industry standards with education providers through accreditation programs; (2) obstacles to the development and expanded use of skill standards and certification include the high costs of developing and maintaining certification systems, the time required for system acceptance, difficulties in developing industry coalitions and reaching agreement on standards, the lack of a structure for promoting standards industry-wide, a lack of uniform skill needs, and problems in bringing all stakeholders together to develop these systems; (3) most certification system representatives could not provide evidence that the systems facilitated the hiring and promotion of certified workers, led to wage premiums or additional training opportunities, or increased worker mobility; (4) system representatives had no data to demonstrate the benefit that employers gained by easily identifying qualified workers; (5) the Departments of Labor and Education have acted to support the skill standards and certification process; and (6) federal support and collaboration could foster the broad-based development of skill standards and certification systems.