A study was made in England to determine whether practices in industry were (or were likely to be) consistent with the objectives of the Industrial Training Act of 1964. A case study of a medium-sized engineering firm near Manchester showed that the firm was concerned with avoiding potential training expenses but not with improving the efficiency of training or the supply of trained personnel, and thus was not entitled to Engineering Industry Training Board (EITB) training grants. Visits to other firms in the Manchester area revealed similar deficiencies. The EITB grant policy itself worked against the objectives of the Act by rewarding the quantity, not the quality, of trainees. Attitudes toward training has changed only marginally in a few firms and the penalty aspect of the levy-grant system reinforced the view of training as an expense rather than an investment. However, two firms had appointed full time training officers, another firm was seeking a training officer, apprentices in two others were receiving off the job training, and three firms had training instructors. (ly)