〈研究ノート〉 米国労働力開発専門職協会（NAWDP）における州レベルの活動 : 組織機構およびディレクターの現職の分析から〈研究ノート〉 米国労働力開発専門職協会（NAWDP）における州レベルの活動 : 組織機構およびディレクターの現職の分析からAA11961965 What NAWDP does at state level: an examination through analysis of its organizational structure and of the current jobs of its directors
This paper clarifies what NAWDP (National Association of Workforce Development Professionals, U.S.A.) does at state level, through analysis of its organizational structure and of the current jobs of its directors. Since NAWDP is an interesting organization there is no counterpart of whom in Japan, the author has been doing research of this organization step by step and have issued three descriptive papers so far. Analyzing its bylaw, the current jobs of its directors, and the discourse of Mr. Josh Davies, Director of Colorado State, this paper got three findings below. (1) the primary responsibility of its directors is the commitment to the activities based on the national committees. (2) the activity of NAWDP at state level is, lacking of a state chapter set up so far (by bylaw its members may establish a chapter), personal level advocacy through the commitment to policy-making and its execution at organizations such as state and local (semi-) governments and undertakers. This is compatible with the fact that over eighty percent of its directors are in positions of the above organizations. (3) the advocacy of NAWDP at state level is not easy both because of the fact that CWDP (Certified Workforce Development Professionals) is not a certificate by which its holders can exclude nonholders from the operation of workforce development, and because of the fact that there are similar kinds of (local) voluntary associations other than NAWDP. Since the organizational structure of NAWDP puts priority on matching the topdown policy structure from federal to state to local, the bottom-up advocacy based on the accumulation of know-hows at “streetlevel” (Lipsky 1980) has been left until later. The author thinks that it is difficult to solve the latter, for it is supposed that the politics among workforce development practitioners will exist. The author will conduct further research interview, which is suggestive to us, for it is problematic that many of workforce development practitioners are left unorganized and atomized in Japan.