means of improving the economy of a country. IALS has shown that a 1% (5-point) rise in literacy levels can result in a 1.5% increase in gross domestic product (GDP) and a 2.5 % improvement in labour productivity. In promoting a human capitalist approach, many industrial countries have focused greater efforts on literacy development for employment purposes. Many have also shown an increasing need for accountability and as a result have implemented national quality assurance mechanisms. These mechanisms are characterized as high or low prescription models. High prescription models are associated with highly developed systems of national regulation such as those that exist in United States, England and Australia. Higher prescription models are also associated with integration of literacy with broader vocational or occupational standards. Literacy, as a stand alone program, is often vulnerable to funding cuts. Some jurisdictions, therefore, view the integration of literacy in the broader education and training system as a means of ensuring sustainability.

Highly prescriptive approaches, however, run the risk of narrowing the focus of literacy provision. “Unbridled, unexamined” accountability through the National Reporting System in the United States is having a negative impact on literacy programs in America, according to David Rosen:

Some people would argue that accountability is good for our field, that it improves program quality and learner outcomes…I believe accountability has some positive effects, but increasingly, as the rope gets ratcheted tighter, I see more negative than positive effects. The problem is that there are no limits to accountability, and no one appears to be monitoring it to see where it has gone too far, where – in the name of improving quality – it sacrifices real education quality and service to proxies for quality such as scores on standardized test or percentages of those who meet federal goals (2007).

In England, the Skills for Life strategy sets out how the government will reach its national achievement targets between 2001 and 2010 to improve the literacy skill levels of adults. Lavender (2004) notes that the key criticisms aimed at the targets is that they narrow programs by favouring courses that result in a qualification, “The accusation is that providers taper their programmes to what will be funded and cut out the rest”.

In Australia, there has been action to “overhaul” the National Reporting System which was designed to report outcomes of students in the vocational, education and training system, in labour market programs and in the adult community education sector. This includes streamlining the system, taking into account new conceptual understandings of literacy and numeracy. Research has identified social outcomes that have been added to the more traditional outcomes of knowledge and skills as possible benefits of educational and training (Balatti, Black & Falk, 2006). Social capital outcomes relate to changes in learners’