When you ask a workforce board analyst why employer-benefits data is important, their response is typically practical rather than theoretical. Companies determining compensation packages must be aware of what rivals provide in terms of retirement and health insurance. The same figures are required when Workforce Investment Boards plan training initiatives. The state labor market information offices also attempt to provide unbiased responses to both groups. The Benefits Consortium Reports kept in this library were created in response to that practical need, and it’s important to know where they came from before dismissing them as outdated documents.
The Nebraska Department of Labor oversaw the Benefits Consortium, which received funding from the Employment and Training Administration and technical support from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This combination—one state leading the way with federal support—tells you something about how this work is actually carried out. No one in Washington was going to independently standardize benefits surveys across fifty states. It required a state office that was prepared to experiment, record what worked, and share the results with others.
On paper, the Consortium’s output was rather modest: an Employee Benefits Survey Manual, currently in version 2.21, and a report outlining its own actions and recommendations. However, when you open the handbook, it reads more like a colleague’s notes that were shared to save the next analyst from having to learn everything the hard way than a bureaucratic deliverable. Benefit survey bibliographies, the questionnaire’s introduction, instructions for data collection software, sampling guidelines, and, almost as an afterthought, suggestions for marketing the survey’s results are all included. Clearly, someone realized that good data that no one reads doesn’t benefit anyone.
By Program Year 2004, at least thirteen state labor market information offices were using the techniques developed by the Consortium to conduct their own employer benefits surveys. Although it’s the kind of detail that’s simple to ignore, it’s the real indicator of how important this work was. A handbook used by thirteen states is not a document that can be stored on a shelf. It’s infrastructure, the unglamorous kind that ensures employers are asked the same questions in essentially the same manner across states.
Because of this track record, the Workforce Information Council eventually established the Benefits Survey Users’ Group to continue the work, tasking it with upholding the statistical techniques, data collection protocols, software tools, and training that the Consortium had initiated. Any state labor market information office was still able to join, which seems appropriate for something based on common issues rather than exclusive advantages. It seems that none of the participants were attempting to claim ownership of this work; instead, they merely wanted it to continue operating after the original Consortium ended.
It’s important to clarify what these reports are not. The term “benefits consortium” is used by many other organizations to refer to groups that pool purchasing power for health insurance for employees, as well as school districts and colleges that band together to bargain for lower rates. It’s not what’s described here, but it’s a completely different animal and useful in its own right. This library’s Benefits Consortium Reports focus on measurement rather than procurement, providing states with a uniform method to inquire about what employers truly provide. The questions they were designed to address—what benefits look like, who has them, and how that’s changing—have not become any less pertinent after 20 years.
