Even if career guidance is regarded as a public good, there are arguments for funding models which include a role for the market and for encouragement to be given to services paid for by the immediate beneficiaries – i.e. individuals and employers. This would allow those who can afford to pay to make a contribution to the costs of the services they need, and enable government funds to be concentrated mainly on the needs of those least able to pay. Similar principles are commonly used in relation to other public services.

The roles of public policy in relation to such mixed funding models are three-fold.

• The first is to stimulate the market. This can be done by contracting-out of services (see above). It can also be done by making spending on career guidance services allowable against individual learning accounts or training levies (as in Canada (Quebec) and the Netherlands, for example – see OECD, 2004, chps. 4 and 8).
• The second role for public policy is to regulate the market and to assure the quality of services, both to protect the public interest and to build consumer confidence. In most countries, however, standards have either not been developed or have only a voluntary status (except, possibly, in relation to publicly-purchased services) (OECD, 2004, chp. 9). An exception is Canada (Quebec), where the titles of career counsellor and of guidance counsellor are protected by law (see OECD, 2004, chp. 7).
• The third role is to compensate for market failure where this is considered appropriate in the public interest. Many of the individuals who most need career guidance are least able to afford it, and least likely to be willing to do so. There is accordingly a case for government funding to be disproportionately targeted to such groups.