Creating Partnerships for 

Workforce Investment: 

How Services Are Provided 

Under WIA 

Revised Final Report for "Understanding the 

Role of Intermediaries Under WIA" 

September 2003 

Submitted to: 

U.S. Department of Labor 

Employment and Training Administration 

Office of Policy and Research 

200 Constitution Avenue, NW, N-5637 

Washington, DC 20210

Submitted by: 

Berkeley Policy Associates 

440 Grand Avenue, Suite 500 

Oakland, California 94610 

BPA #678 
 

Creating Partnerships for 

Workforce Investment: 

How Services Are Provided 

Under WIA

Revised Final Report for "Understanding the 

Role of Intermediaries Under WIA" 

September 2003 

Authors: 

Bronwen Macro 

Sherry Almandsmith 

Megan Hague

Contributors: 

Hans Bos 

Will Fischer 

Mary P. Vencill

Submitted to: 

U.S. Department of Labor 

Employment and Training Administration

Office of Policy and Research 

200 Constitution Avenue, NW, N-5637 

Washington, DC 20210

Submitted by:

Berkeley Policy Associates 

440 Grand Avenue, Suite 500 

Oakland, California 94610 

BPA #678 

www.berkeleypolicyassoiates.com
Acknowledgements 

The BPA study team would like to acknowledge our appreciation for the assistance provided by the local 

workforce investment boards that participated in the study. Without the cooperation and gracious 

hospitality of board members, board staff, One-Stop operators and their partners, Employment Service 

staff, and staff from a range of intermediary service providers, this study would not have been possible. In 

particular, we are grateful for the help that Individual Training Accounts (ITA) data management staff 

provided in securing detailed information on the ITAs. 

Janet Javar, Steve Wandner, and Wayne Gordon at the Department of Labor’s Employment and Training 

Administration provided invaluable assistance with designing the study, securing the participation of 

study sites, and reviewing our reports and products. Their supportive involvement with all phases of the 

evaluation is much appreciated. 
Contents 

__________________________________________________________________________________ 

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................i 

Chapter 1: Introduction..................................................................................................... 1-1 

History of Intermediary Use ............................................................................................. 1-2 

WIA Provisions That Affect the Role of Intermediaries .................................................. 1-4 

Roadmap to This Report................................................................................................... 1-8 

Chapter 2: Study Goals, Hypotheses, and Research Methods............................... 2-1 

Introduction....................................................................................................................... 2-1 

Study Goals and Hypotheses ............................................................................................ 2-2 

Site Selection .................................................................................................................... 2-3 

Site Visit Design and Data Collection .............................................................................. 2-5 

Data Analysis.................................................................................................................... 2-7 

Chapter 3: Review of Existing Literature on Intermediaries..................................... 3-1 

Introduction....................................................................................................................... 3-1 

Privatization of Government Services .............................................................................. 3-1 

Use of Intermediaries under TANF .................................................................................. 3-6 

Use of Intermediaries in the Workforce Development System prior to WIA................. 3-11 

Intermediaries under WIA: Evidence to Date................................................................. 3-13 

Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 3-17 

Chapter 4: Factors That Influence the Local One-Stop Context and 

 Use of Intermediaries.................................................................................... 4-1 

Introduction....................................................................................................................... 4-1 

WIA Partners .................................................................................................................... 4-2 

State Policies..................................................................................................................... 4-4 

Funding Streams ............................................................................................................... 4-7 

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 4-8 

Chapter 5: One-Stop Operators ..................................................................................... 5-1 

Introduction....................................................................................................................... 5-1 

The Role of the One-Stop Operator.................................................................................. 5-2 

Selection of One-Stop Operators ...................................................................................... 5-3 

Contracting Processes....................................................................................................... 5-9

Number and Types of One-Stop Centers........................................................................ 5-11 

Types of One-Stop Operators ......................................................................................... 5-13 

Single Operators vs. Multiple Operators ........................................................................ 5-21 

Monitoring and Oversight............................................................................................... 5-22 

Trends and Issues from the Sites .................................................................................... 5-23 

Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 5-28 
Contents(continued) __________________________________________________________________________________ 

Chapter 6: Core Services Providers............................................................................... 6-1 

Introduction....................................................................................................................... 6-1 

Types of Core Service Providers ...................................................................................... 6-3 

Monitoring and Oversight................................................................................................. 6-7 

Trends and Issues from the Sites ...................................................................................... 6-7 

Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 6-12 

Chapter 7: Intensive Services Providers ....................................................................... 7-1 

Introduction....................................................................................................................... 7-1 

Selecting and Contracting with Intensive Service Providers ............................................ 7-2 

Types of Intensive Services Providers.............................................................................. 7-6 

Intensive Services for Dislocated Workers....................................................................... 7-8 

Monitoring and Oversight............................................................................................... 7-13 

Trends and Issues from the Sites .................................................................................... 7-14 

Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 7-15 

Chapter 8: Training Providers........................................................................................... 8-1 

Introduction....................................................................................................................... 8-1 

Development of the ETPL ................................................................................................ 8-2 

Contracting for Training Services..................................................................................... 8-6 

Types of Training Providers ............................................................................................. 8-8 

Monitoring and Oversight............................................................................................... 8-13 

Trends and Issues from the Sites .................................................................................... 8-14 

Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 8-20

Chapter 9: Youth Services Providers ............................................................................. 9-1 

Introduction....................................................................................................................... 9-1 

Youth Programs under WIA ............................................................................................. 9-2 

Structure of Youth Services.............................................................................................. 9-3 

Selection Processes........................................................................................................... 9-7 

Contracting Processes..................................................................................................... 9-10 

Types of Youth Service Providers .................................................................................. 9-11 

Monitoring and Oversight............................................................................................... 9-14 

Trends and Issues from the Sites .................................................................................... 9-16 

Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 9-19 

Chapter 10: Brokers and Consultants.......................................................................... 10-1 

Introduction..................................................................................................................... 10-1 

Brokers............................................................................................................................ 10-1 

Consultants ..................................................................................................................... 10-3 

Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 10-6 
Contents(continued) __________________________________________________________________________________ 

Chapter 11: Monitoring and Oversight....................................................................... 11-1 

Introduction..................................................................................................................... 11-1 

Monitoring and Oversight of Local Services.................................................................. 11-2 

Data................................................................................................................................. 11-4 

Intermediaries that Assist in Monitoring Activities........................................................ 11-8 

Trends and Issues from the Sites .................................................................................... 11-8 

Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 11-11 

Chapter 12: Study Findings ............................................................................................ 12-1 

Introduction..................................................................................................................... 12-1 

Key Findings................................................................................................................... 12-2 

Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 12-12 

Appendix A: Profiles of Study Sites 

Appendix B: Hypotheses and Research Questions 

 

Appendix C: Summary Tables on Intermediaries 

Appendix D: Summary of Top Ten Training Providers Used in Study Sites, by Type 

Appendix E: Faith-Based Training Providers Used in Study Sites, by Type 

Appendix F: Summary of All Individual Training Account Use by Study Sites 

Appendix G: Literature Review References 
Contents(continued) __________________________________________________________________________________ 

List of Exhibits 

E.1 Understanding the Role of Intermediaries under WIA: Study Sites .............................iii 

E.2 Summary of Type of Organization Used for WIA Services .......................................... iv 

2.1 Understanding the Role of Intermediaries under WIA: Study Sites ..........................2-5 

2.2 Understanding the Role of Intermediaries under WIA: Phase I and Phase II 

 Study Sites....................................................................................................................2-7 

4.1 Federally-Mandated One-Stop Partners .......................................................................4-2 

5.1 Selection Process, Contract Type, and Operations Funding by Site ............................5-3 

5.2 Number of Comprehensive and Satellite One-Stops and Operators ............................5-4 

 (July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002) 

5.3 Comprehensive One-Stop Operators by Type............................................................5-13 

 (July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002) 

6.1 Core Services Authorized by WIA...............................................................................6-1 

6.2 Typical Core Services Provided in One-Stop Centers by WIA Component................6-2 

6.3 Core Services: Type of Service Provider with Primary Responsibility in 

 Comprehensive One-Stops (July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002)...............................6-3 

7.1 Intensive Services Authorized by WIA .......................................................................7-1 

7.2 Intensive Services: Type of Service Provider Used in Each Site’s 

 Comprehensive One-Stops...........................................................................................7-3 

7.3 Intensive Services: Type of Organization with Primary Responsibility in 

 Comprehensive One-Stops (July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002)...............................7-7 

7.4 Dislocated Workers Services: Combined with WIA Adult Intensive Services, and 

 Availability in Comprehensive Centers by Local Areas 

 (July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002)...........................................................................7-9 

7.5 Dislocated Workers Services: Type of Organizations Used in Study Sites 

 (July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002).........................................................................7-13

8.1. WIA Mandated Training Provider Performance Measures 

 (with Specific Criteria for Texas and Pennsylvania)....................................................8-5 
Contents(continued) __________________________________________________________________________________ 

8.2 Training Services: Comparing Providers Used and Total ITAs by Type of Provider 

 Program Year 2001 (July 1, 2001 – June 30, 2002).....................................................8-8 

8.3 Training Services: Types of Educational Training Providers Used in Study Sites 

 Program Year 01 (July 1, 2001 – June 30, 2002).........................................................8-9 

8.4. total Number of Training Providers Used by Customers in Each Study Site and 

 Proportion of WIA Trainees Enrolled in Ten Most Frequently Used Providers 

 Program Year 2001 (July 1, 2001 – June 30, 2002)...................................................8-12 

9.1 Required Youth Services Under WIA..........................................................................9-2 

9.2 Youth Services: Type of Providers Used in the Study Sites 

 Program Year 2001 (July 1, 2001 – June 30, 2002)...................................................9-11 

9.3 Youth Services: Educational Youth Providers Used by Study Sites 

 Program Year 2001 (July 1, 2001 – June 30, 2002)...................................................9-13

10.1 Brokers and Consultants: Types of Service Provider Used in Each Study Site 

 Program Year 2001 (July 1, 2000 – June 30, 2002)...................................................10-3 

12.1 Summary of Type of Organization Used for WIA Services ......................................12-1
 

Executive Summary 

The vision articulated above has been expressed repeatedly over the past several decades in 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-76 and numerous other federal policy 

directives. Such statements show clearly that our elected officials value competition in the 

provision of publicly-funded services. Competition is believed to enhance the quality of 

services, the efficiency of service provision, and the productivity of the service system overall. 

By providing alternatives, a competitive marketplace also can promote customer choice. 

Thus, the use of intermediaries in the workforce 

development system, a practice that was 

widespread under the Job Training Partnership 

Act (JTPA), is now mandated by the Workforce 

Investment Act (WIA) as well as by policy at the 

highest level of the executive branch. This policy 

climate magnifies the importance of the following 

question: 

How can the workforce development system maximize the effectiveness of 

service delivery structures that feature intermediaries in key roles? 

To begin addressing this question, the U.S. Department of Labor contracted with Berkeley 

Policy Associates (BPA) to explore current practices related to the use of intermediaries under 

WIA. For the purposes of this study, an intermediary is defined as any public or private 

organization that performs WIA functions in service to local boards. Intermediaries may 

operate One-Stop Career Centers; provide core, intensive, direct training, and youth services; or 

provide other services for the local board such as monitoring, technical assistance, evaluation, 

or organizational development consultation. 

Government should be market-based—we should not be afraid of 

competition, innovation, and choice. I will open government to the discipline 

of competition. 

 - President George W. Bush’s Management Agenda, 2002 

What Are Intermediaries? 

____________________________________ 

Intermediaries are public or private 

organizations authorized by local boards 

to serve Workforce Investment Act 

customers or perform WIA-related 

functions.
ii Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA

 Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

Study Goals and Methods

The goals of this study included the following: 

1. Assess the role and functions of service providers; 

2. Determine the characteristics of intermediaries in the workforce development system; 

3. Describe the process by which local areas acquire intermediaries; 

4. Identify the contracting and monitoring mechanisms used by local areas; and 

5. Highlight the implications of using intermediaries for publicly-funded employment and 

training programs. 

As these goals suggest, this study is mostly descriptive in nature. It does not include a 

systematic evaluation of different implementation strategies and outcomes, however this study 

provides a first glimpse of how local boards with significant One-Stop or WIA experience have 

organized and secured services for their local areas. 

In preparation for this study, research staff reviewed existing literature related to the use of 

intermediaries in public programs, the privatization of public services, and WIA 

implementation to date, and developed a number of working hypotheses (which are included in 

Appendix B) to guide this study. 

The research project’s final report presents the findings from case studies of sixteen local 

boards across eight states for Program Year 2001 (July 1, 2001 to June 30, 2002). The study 

team selected the sites according to a number of characteristics: regional representation, 

variation in population density, early WIA or One-Stop experimentation, and recommendations 

from DOL regional contacts. Exhibit E.1 lists the sixteen local boards selected for the study, 

organized by location (state and city). Because the study focused on a purposive sample of only 

eight states and a total of sixteen sites, our findings are not necessarily representative of WIA 

implementation in the rest of the country. Nonetheless, the sixteen local areas studied offer 

insight into some of the challenges and advantages of using different One-Stop structures and 

providers. Additionally, the lessons learned in these sites may help other local boards as they 

develop their own local systems. 

 
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA iii 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

Exhibit E.1 

Understanding the Role of Intermediaries under WIA: Study Sites

 State. Jurisdiction or Largest City. Referred to in This Report as:

 

St. Petersburg Pinellas County Florida Tampa Hillsborough County 

Boston Boston Massachusetts 

Springfield Hampden County 

Las Vegas Southern Nevada Nevada 

Reno Northern Nevada 

Newark Area Essex County New Jersey Paterson Passaic County 

Eugene Area Lane County Oregon Portland Oregon Region 2 

Erie Northwest PA Pennsylvania Pittsburgh Three Rivers 

Ft. Worth Tarrant County Texas 

Houston Gulf Coast 

Green Bay Bay Area Wisconsin 

Milwaukee Milwaukee County 

WIA Provisions That Affect the Role of Intermediaries 

WIA altered many of the policies and program-design features that shape local operations in 

the workforce development system. The legislation affected state- and local-level governance, 

funding, performance measurement, systems for integrating and coordinating services, and the 

direct delivery of services. 

Several aspects of WIA have effects on workforce development intermediaries. Some 

provisions, such as those changing the roles of local boards and mandating the establishment of 

One-Stop Career Centers, expand the areas of potential intermediary involvement. Other 

provisions revise the terms that govern interactions between the workforce development system 

and intermediaries—for example, by requiring the use of vouchers to pay for most training 

services. Yet other changes influence the types of services provided through the workforce 

development system and the processes used to deliver them. 
iv Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA

 Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

How Local Boards in Our Study Used Intermediary 

Organizations

Exhibit E.2 shows how the sixteen local boards in our study used intermediary organizations to 

provide a range of different services under WIA. The exhibit shows that no single type of 

organization dominates any particular type of service, with the possible exception of 

consultants, which are almost exclusively for-profit entities. However, different types of 

organizations do specialize in the provision of certain types of WIA services. Non-profit 

organizations (both local community-based organizations and large national non-profits such as 

Goodwill and YWCA) often operate One-Stop centers and provide intensive services, which 

include case management and career counseling, and youth services. For-profit organizations 

are most active in the provision of training and consulting services. Government entities (most 

often the Employment Service) are most likely to operate core (walk-in) services such as job 

banks and referrals. Educational institutions such as community and technical colleges are the 

most frequent providers of training services. Subsequent chapters in this report describe in 

detail how services in each of these categories are provided and also discuss the considerable 

variation in service provision across the sixteen study sites. 

Exhibit E.2 

Summary of Type of Organization Used for WIA Services in 16 Local Workforce Areas 

(July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002)

* One-Stop operators, core, and intensive service providers in comprehensive career centers only (n = 84). Core and 

intensive providers only include those with primary responsibility for these services.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

One-Stop* Core* Intensive* Training Youth Consultants

Nonprofit For-Profit Govt Educ Consortia
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA v 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

Key Trends and Findings

In the remainder of this Executive Summary, we will describe a number of overarching trends 

and findings from our research that cut across the various WIA service areas and the different 

organizations that provide these services. Further discussion of these issues can be found in 

Chapter 12. 

● As anticipated, the Workforce Investment Act has changed the work of local 

workforce investment boards to focus on system design and monitoring, and 

oversight of service providers. 

WIA requires local boards to establish comprehensive One-Stop centers where WIA services 

are made available. The local boards themselves cannot operate these One-Stops, except with a 

waiver. This means that the local boards have design, selection, contracting, and oversight roles 

in the workforce system, rather than providing services themselves. Aside from the requirement 

to contract out for One-Stop operation and other services, local boards have a great deal of 

freedom to design service delivery systems that meet local needs. This freedom is reflected in 

the extensive variation we found in the types of organizations operating One-Stops and 

providing services, and in the ways in which organizations were selected, contracted, and 

monitored. Across the sites, the resulting One-Stop systems and service arrangements reflected 

local needs and resources, as well as specific policy goals of local boards. 

● Local workforce investment systems are perceived as collaborative and cohesive 

when local boards view monitoring and oversight responsibilities as a partnership 

between themselves and providers. 

The way in which local boards interact with the agencies they contract to operate One-Stop 

centers and provide other services affects the cohesiveness and working relationships in the 

local workforce system. In the sites that appeared to have the most supportive One-Stop 

systems, local boards emphasize technical assistance over traditional, numbers-based 

monitoring. This encourages communication between local board staff and the contracting 

agencies providing WIA services, which strengthens and helps to integrate the local workforce 

system. 

This finding brings into sharp relief the findings from three earlier studies on privatization. 

First, the GAO (1997) found that enhanced monitoring and oversight of performance plays an 

important role in making privatization work. Second, Pavetti et al. found that interagency 
vi Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA

 Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

communication was particularly important to establishing and maintaining effective working 

relationships between welfare agencies and their service intermediaries because the structure of 

the relationship necessarily involves shared responsibilities across organizations. Third, the 

National Association of Workforce Boards (NAWB, 2000) noted that because WIA funds are 

limited and local boards must accomplish their goals largely through organizations over which 

they do not have direct control, negotiation can be expected to replace management oversight 

as local boards’ main activity. Thus, a collaborative approach to performance monitoring may 

serve as a means of recognizing the “second hand” nature of the local board’s relationship with 

direct services, and of integrating negotiation into its monitoring processes. The resulting 

interagency communication may actually result in more effective oversight of intermediaries’ 

performance than traditional methods because of the increased levels of communication 

between board staff and service intermediaries. 

● Funding for One-Stop operations can enhance system services, but a lack of 

funding can hamper system development and improvement. 

One-Stops that receive dedicated funding for their operations—distinct from funds for service 

provision—function better and are more streamlined than One-Stops that have no such funding. 

In extreme cases, lack of funding for operations can hamper development of stand-alone WIA 

One-Stops altogether, as was the case in Milwaukee County, where TANF contractors, who are 

not accountable for WIA outcomes, operated One-Stop centers dominated by TANF clients and 

services. On the other end of the spectrum, the Massachusetts sites, which receive state OneStop funding, had some of the strongest and most highly integrated One-Stop systems in our 

study. 

Where One-Stop operating funds are limited, WIA partners assist with the operation of the 

One-Stops or pay “rent” to help finance the One-Stop through which they reach their clients. 

These arrangements can become a disincentive for a partner agency to co-locate at the OneStops, especially if the partner agency is small and financially strapped itself. Also, limited 

One-Stop operating funds make it difficult for local boards to replace an under-performing 

One-Stop operator, as start-up costs can be prohibitive. 
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA vii 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

● WIA services can be overshadowed when co-located partners have significantly 

more funding. 

When local boards partner with larger programs, WIA-funded workforce services may be 

subsumed in the larger service delivery structure operated by these organizations. In states like 

Florida, New Jersey, Texas, and Wisconsin, where the TANF program is a mandatory WIA 

partner or funding streams are merged, WIA services may lose their identity within a larger 

program and outreach to special WIA populations like displaced workers can suffer. 

In locations where TANF dominates, respondents report that the emphasis on one program and 

its customers can jeopardize WIA’s goal of universal access. 

● WIA brought new rules and roles for service providers, but most workforce 

development players remain the same. 

In most of the sites, pre-WIA contractors and service providers continue to play important roles 

in the local workforce investment systems, even though some of these service providers have 

taken on new responsibilities. These established partners have extensive workforce experience, 

highly developed organizational resources, and a competitive advantage to adapt to the 

changing needs of the workforce development system and remain a dominant force in local 

systems. This competitive advantage makes it difficult for other service providers to enter the 

workforce system, especially in smaller local areas. The strong competition from existing 

service providers, along with barriers such as the need for start-up funding and technical 

assistance, likely explains the relative lack of new entrants among WIA service providers. 

Veteran providers do assume new roles−such as One-Stop operator−and use new marketing 

methods under WIA. Especially in the provision of training, where many for-profit firms are 

active, new marketing strategies and custom-designed training courses have enabled providers 

to create a new niche for themselves. The provision of training is also where WIA has notably 

increased the number of new providers. 
viii Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA

 Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

● WIA places a premium on innovation and flexibility in the provision of workforce 

services. As a result, local boards experience a tension between seeking greater 

flexibility and assuring that One-Stop service delivery is consistent across 

different organizations and locations. 

The strategies local boards use to operate One-Stops have implications for the flexibility and 

consistency of services available. In several sites local boards sought to maximize diversity in 

the workforce investment systems and contracted with multiple One-Stop operators, each 

representing a segment of the community or offering specific services and resources. This has 

the advantage of creating a vibrant system with varied approaches to—and strengths in—

delivering workforce development services. In such a system, multiple operators experience 

some competitive pressure and may be able to learn from one another’s different approaches, 

which may foster better performance. However, using multiple One-Stop operators also creates 

a greater monitoring burden for the local board and a lack of consistency in service delivery 

across different groups of customers served in different One-Stops. 

Other local boards contract with a single One-Stop operator to provide uniform and consistent 

services across the centers. This may facilitate coordination across the system, reduce the need 

for technical assistance, limit administrative costs, streamline monitoring and contract 

management, and give the operator a real voice in developing the One-Stop system. It also 

helps the local workforce system to present a unified image to the public. However, such an 

approach does mean that the success of the system is dependent on the performance of a single 

operator, which magnifies the potential damage of performance issues and makes it very 

difficult for the local board to switch One-Stop operators. 

● Some−but not all−local players in the workforce development system perceive 

non-profit organizations as better providers of hands-on services and emotional 

support than for-profit companies. 

In the selection of One-Stop operators and intensive service providers, local boards and their 

constituencies,1

 often preferred non-profit organizations over other candidate organizations, 

especially for-profit firms. The latter were thought to lack sensitivity to the “human side” of the 

work because of their need to make an operating profit, which also affects the pay and 

qualifications of their frontline staff. These considerations, together with a lack of familiarity 

 

1 In this case “constituencies” refer to board staff, training providers, and other community partners and 

referring organizations. 
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA ix 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

with for-profit provision of case management and similar services caused most local boards to 

prefer contracting with well-established local non-profits for the operation of One-Stop centers. 

Such attitudes were not universal, however, and where for-profit firms provided One-Stop 

services, the differences between non-profit and for-profit service provision were not strongly 

felt. Indeed, non- and for-profit provider staff were often composed of a common cast of 

characters that often shifted back and forth between working for non-profit and for-profit 

service providers in the local area. Also, for-profit organizations appeared especially welladapted to provide flexible training services in response to local needs and opportunities. 

● A customer-driven system has the potential to substantially increase training 

choices for WIA customers, and appears to have done so in its early 

implementation. The requirements for subsequent eligibility and inclusion on the 

Eligible Training Provider List (ETPL), however, could have detrimental effects 

on the number of providers included on the list. 

Our site visits revealed that customer choice for training services has increased since WIA was 

implemented, as facilitated and intended by the Individual Training Account (ITA) system and 

the accompanying Eligible Training Provider List (ETPL). However, analysis of ITA usage 

shows that new training providers tend to serve relatively few WIA customers, which causes 

concern about their ability and commitment to implement performance monitoring, follow-up 

with trainees as required, and follow through with the application process for continued 

inclusion on the ETPL. The system has the potential of greatly enhancing the informed training 

choices for WIA customers, but the administrative burden for participating institutions may 

limit those choices in the future. 
x Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA

 Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

• Most study states have been unable to fully implement the data management systems 

needed for meaningful monitoring and oversight, and that meet both state and local 

needs.

Most of the states in the study, with the exception of Texas and Florida, have been unable to 

fully implement effective data management systems. As a result, local board staff often have to 

design and manage duplicative local tracking systems for their own purposes and for state 

reporting requirements. The cost of designing, developing, and implementing their own data 

management systems can present a significant burden on local boards’ staff and budgetary 

resources. A better-integrated system serving both local areas and the state is sorely needed 

where such a system does not yet exist. Such a system would need to address the different data 

management and reporting needs of intermediaries, case managers, local board staff, and state 

administrators. 
Chapter 1: 

Introduction 

The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998 was the first major overhaul of the nation’s 

workforce development system in more than 15 years. Among other things, the legislation 

expanded opportunity for public and private entities to deliver employment and training 

services through the public workforce investment system. Three key provisions in WIA opened 

the door to interagency collaboration and privatization in the new workforce investment 

system: 

• Local boards were required to establish at least one One-Stop center, a local focal point for 

the provision of all training and employment services and a new role under WIA; 

• Local boards were required to implement an Individual Training Account (ITA) system to 

allow customers to choose among a variety of approved training providers; and 

• Local boards were prohibited from providing direct services, including the newly-defined 

employment supports of core and intensive services, direct training through the ITA 

system, and One-Stop operation. 

Thus, the use of public and private agencies in the workforce development system, a practice 

already prevalent under previous national employment and training programs, was now 

mandated by federal legislation. This policy climate magnified the importance of one of the 

U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) top research priorities: How can the workforce development 

system maximize the effectiveness of service delivery structures that feature intermediaries in 

key roles? (DOL/ETA, 2001a). 

Government should be market-based—we should not be afraid of 

competition, innovation, and choice. I will open government to the 

discipline of competition. 

 - President George W. Bush’s Management Agenda, 2002 
1-2 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

To begin addressing this question, DOL contracted with Berkeley Policy Associates (BPA), a 

social policy research and consulting firm based in Oakland, California, to explore current 

practices related to the use of intermediaries under WIA. For the purposes of this study, an 

intermediary is defined as any public or private organization that performs WIA functions in 

service to local boards. Intermediaries may operate One-Stop centers, provide core and 

intensive services, provide direct training, or provide other services for the local board, such as 

monitoring, technical assistance, evaluation, or organizational development consultation. 

The goals of this study included the following: 

1. Assess the role and functions of service providers; 

2. Determine the characteristics of intermediaries in the workforce development system; 

3. Describe the process by which local areas engage the services of intermediaries; 

4. Identify the contracting and monitoring mechanisms used by local areas; and 

5. Highlight the implications of using intermediaries for publicly-funded employment and 

training programs. 

As these goals suggest, this study is mostly descriptive in nature, capturing characteristics and 

experiences of local workforce systems in their transition to WIA. The study was not designed 

to capture the impact of WIA on service provision, nor was it designed to assess what types of 

service delivery structures work best under what circumstances.

This report presents the findings from case studies of sixteen local boards across eight states. 

This first chapter reviews the pre-WIA use of intermediaries, examines WIA provisions that 

have influenced the roles played by intermediaries, and outlines the contents of the report’s 

remaining chapters. 

History of Intermediary Use 

Long before the implementation of WIA, contracting with intermediary organizations was a 

common way of delivering publicly-funded employment services. Functions performed by 

intermediaries have often included intake and eligibility determination as well as training, job 

placement, and other employment-related services. WIA’s predecessors—the Manpower 

Development and Training Act (MDTA), the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act 

(CETA), and the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA)—all called for the extensive use of 
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 1-3 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

contracting for service delivery. Youth employment initiatives, including the Youth 

Employment and Demonstration Projects Act (YEDPA) and the Job Corps, have also used 

service contracts. The Job Corps program is fully contracted. Its center operators are principally 

non-profit organizations; however for-profit companies and even federal agencies also serve in 

this capacity. Thus, a large portion of federally-funded employment and training services since 

the 1960s has been contracted to outside organizations by the administering public agencies. 

Despite this widespread use of intermediaries, only a few studies have looked closely at their 

role in providing employment-related services. These studies indicate that most intermediaries 

are non-profit or public entities, such as community colleges, public school districts, and 

vocational schools. Studies also document the roles of for-profit companies in providing 

services under publicly-funded contracts. Traditional examples are proprietary training 

institutions and schools, and for-profit companies operating job clubs or job placement 

services. More recently, several large for-profit companies have held contracts to provide 

welfare recipients with job placement services as well as more comprehensive services that 

include case management. A study of intermediaries’ role in linking Temporary Assistance for 

Needy Families (TANF) recipients with jobs (Pavetti et al., 2000) found that 90 percent of local 

areas transferred at least some responsibility for providing employment-related services to 

intermediaries. The tendency to do so was stronger in urban areas than in rural areas, and 

roughly two-thirds of the intermediaries used were non-profit organizations. This prior study 

also emphasized the importance of further research concerning: 

• Whether and to what extent some types of intermediaries (e.g., large organizations, 

those with strong histories of providing employment-related services and serving 

people classified as hard-to-serve, those with strong links to the business community) 

provide more effective services than others; and 

• Whether and to what extent some structures for managing the use of intermediaries 

(procedures for administering the contracts, payment mechanisms, payment amounts) 

are associated with better performance than others. 
1-4 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

In “Trends in Private Sector Involvement in the Delivery of Workforce Development Services 

in the United States,” Wandner and Javar (2000) pointed out that recent changes under WIA 

build on a tradition of using intermediaries to deliver DOL-funded services. Private 

organizations have performed administrative functions (not inherently governmental) 

associated with the Unemployment Insurance program. Non-government organizations have 

also provided labor exchange services parallel to or in cooperation with the Employment 

Service. 

WIA has increased centrality of the functions performed by workforce development 

intermediaries. Local boards have contracted out major functions formerly performed by local 

government, including the operation of One-Stop centers and the provision of many services 

(such as job search assistance, education, occupational training, and case management) 

provided within or in conjunction with One-Stops. We discuss specific WIA components that 

affect the use of intermediaries within the workforce development system in the next section. 

WIA Provisions That Affect the Role of Intermediaries 

WIA has altered many of the policies and program-design features that shape local operations 

in the workforce development system. The legislation has affected state- and local-level 

governance, funding, performance measurement, systems for integrating and coordinating 

services, and the direct delivery of services. 

As this section describes, several aspects of WIA have had notable effects on workforce 

development intermediaries. Some provisions, such as those limiting the roles of local boards 

and establishing One-Stop centers, have expanded the areas of potential intermediary 

involvement. Other provisions have revised the terms that govern interactions between the 

workforce development system and intermediaries—for example, by requiring the use of 

vouchers to pay for most training services. A third set of changes has influenced the processes 

used to deliver services through the workforce development system, as well as state and local 

planning and accountability. 
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 1-5 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

Redefinition of Local Board Roles 

Under JTPA, local Private Industry Councils (PICs), the entities that preceded the local boards 

created by WIA, were permitted to provide direct services and operate employment and 

training programs. In an effort to separate policy making from service delivery, WIA prohibits 

local boards from providing direct customer services unless they obtain a waiver of this 

prohibition from the Governor and the Chief Local Elected Official. Specifically, without a 

waiver, local boards cannot act as One-Stop operator, or provide core, intensive, or training 

services. These provisions have created an expanded role for intermediaries as local boards 

must rely on either One-Stop partner agencies or outside providers for the delivery of almost all 

WIA services. 

Establishment of One-Stop Centers 

One-Stop Career Centers were not a required feature of the workforce investment system under 

JTPA. During the 1990s, however, the federal One-Stop Initiative Grants (or One-Stop 

implementation grants) enabled many states to design and implement One-Stop systems. These 

grants could be used to create One-Stop centers, but did not require that One-Stops be 

established in all areas. 

One of WIA’s most significant provisions is the mandate that each local board establish at least 

one comprehensive One-Stop center, a single location where customers can access a range of 

employment and social services. WIA designates specific One-Stop partner agencies−or “WIAmandated partners”−that must provide services at the One-Stops, and allows states and 

localities to place other agencies there as well. Most mandated partner agencies provide 

services through the One-Stop system using their own program funding. In some areas, 

however, local boards have entered into contractual relationships with partner agencies to 

provide WIA services; these partners play integral roles in the local workforce development 

system. 

In many local areas, the implementation of One-Stop centers created new opportunities for the 

involvement of service providers in the workforce investment system. Local boards are 

required to select an entity to operate each One-Stop, and may do so through a sole-source 

selection process, a competitive process, or by grandfathering existing One-Stop operators. 
1-6 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

Postsecondary institutions, government agencies, non-profit organizations, and for-profit 

companies can all serve as One-Stop operators. 

One-Stops typically provide two specific categories of services: “core services,” such as 

eligibility determination, intake, and assessment; and “intensive services,” such as case 

management, development of individual employment plans, and counseling. In general, core 

services focus more on individually-accessed services, while intensive services usually imply 

staff assistance. Local areas vary considerably, however, in their definitions of the two 

categories of service. 

If customers need additional assistance to gain employment, One-Stop case managers may refer 

them to training, generally provided away from the center. Vouchers, or Individual Training 

Accounts (ITAs), are the primary method of accessing training and are issued for occupational 

skills training such as word processing or truck driving. Clients can also receive On-the-JobTraining (OJT) and customized training, which are provided in the workplace. 

Provisions Concerning Training Provider Eligibility, Performance Measurement, 

and Individual Training Accounts 

WIA substantially altered the terms under which training intermediaries interact with the 

workforce development system, with the goal of increasing the number of training providers 

available to customers. Under JTPA, most services delivered by outside agencies were 

provided under contract. WIA, however, requires local boards to use ITAs to fund providers of 

most types of training services. Individual customers receive funding through ITAs and use 

these funds to “purchase” training from the eligible training provider of their choice. Local 

service design and state-level restrictions may place limits on the cost, length, or types of 

training funded through ITAs. Because of these distinctions, training intermediaries have a 

different relationship to the workforce development system than do other types of 

intermediaries. 

WIA requires most training providers to apply for and obtain state approval to be considered 

eligible for reimbursement from WIA funds. Applications request data on past performance, 

both for all trainees and specifically for those funded through WIA. In collaboration with local 

boards, each state Workforce Investment Board compiles a list of all eligible training providers, 
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 1-7 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

usually referred to as the Eligible Training Provider List (ETPL), and makes this list available 

throughout the state. Customers may use the ETPL to make informed choices among training 

programs. 

To remain on the ETPL, providers must reapply annually. States have broad discretion in 

defining reapplication performance measures, so the impact of eligibility requirements on 

training providers can be expected to vary from state to state. The ETPL/ITA system was in 

place at all sites visited during this study, although a number of later implementation steps 

(subsequent provider eligibility, collection of performance data to provide for informed choices 

by customers) were not yet completed in many states. 

Other WIA Provisions 

Many WIA provisions affect intermediaries by changing the types of services the workforce 

development system provides and how it provides them. These provisions include: 

• Universal Access. WIA provides universal access to core services with no eligibility 

requirements. This represents a departure from programs delivered under JTPA, which 

targeted only populations meeting certain eligibility requirements. 

• Service Sequencing. WIA establishes three levels of services that are provided through 

One-Stop centers. Currently, only individuals who are unable to obtain employment 

through core services may receive intensive services, and only individuals who are 

eligible for intensive services but cannot find work through them may receive training 

services.

• State and Local Accountability. States and localities both are subject to performance 

measurement requirements. Performance is tied to incentive funds, technical assistance, 

and sanctions.

• Planning. States must submit—and receive federal approval of—comprehensive, 

coordinated five-year plans covering most major workforce development programs.
1-8 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

Roadmap to This Report 

The remainder of this report presents detailed findings with regard to the role and operations of 

WIA-funded intermediaries. 

As further background for the study, Chapter 2 provides a brief description of study methods 

and the characteristics of the sites visited. Chapter 3 reviews the relevant literature on the 

workforce development system, WIA provisions, and the use of intermediaries in the provision 

of government services. Chapter 4 discusses the factors that affect local One-Stop structure, 

organization, and use of intermediaries. 

Chapters 5 through 10 present case study observations about intermediary use in each of 

several major roles: One-Stop operator (Chapter 5), provider of core services (Chapter 6), 

provider of intensive services (Chapter 7), training provider (Chapter 8), provider of youth 

services (Chapter 9), and broker or other consultant role (Chapter 10). Chapter 11 describes 

the processes local boards use to oversee and monitor the intermediaries who provide services 

under their auspices. 

Chapter 12 summarizes study findings and develops conclusions. 

The report also includes several appendices. Appendix A profiles each of the sixteen study 

sites, while Appendix B discusses the study’s hypotheses and research questions, as well as our 

findings organized by hypothesis. Appendix C presents tables summarizing the number of 

intermediaries used by type of organization for providers of core, intensive, and training 

services. 

Appendices D through F summarize information about the training providers used in each site. 

Appendix D consists of a series of tables illustrating the top ten training providers used in the 

study sites, and Appendix E identifies the types of faith-based training providers used by each 

site’s customers. Appendix F presents the total number of ITAs issued in each site, by type of 

organization. 

Finally, Appendix G contains references cited in the literature review.
 

Chapter 2: 

Study Goals, Hypotheses, and Research Methods 

Introduction 

This study of the use of intermediaries under the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) analyzes 

the organization of employment and training services in sixteen communities across the U.S., 

and describes how local Workforce Investment Boards use partner agencies and local service 

providers to meet the needs of WIA customers. To achieve this objective, the study uses: indepth case studies of local program operations; interviews with key informants at the local 

level, representing a variety of perspectives; an analysis of common themes as well as 

differences in operations and policies across the sites; and an analysis of local board data on 

training providers selected by customers during Program Year 2001. 

Using data from site visits conducted between late 2001 and mid-2002, the study examines an 

evolving workforce development system at a particular “slice” in time. In our observation and 

analysis, we sought to understand how each community’s system was organized before this 

study’s window of observation, how local services were organized at the time this study was 

conducted, and what key issues will shape local workforce development services during the 

next phase of WIA implementation. 

In preparation for this study, BPA staff reviewed existing literature related to the use of 

intermediaries in public programs, the privatization of public services, and WIA 

implementation to date. Chapter 3 presents the resulting literature review, which identifies 

issues that are central to understanding the use of intermediaries. This literature review guided 

the study’s design and shaped its hypotheses. 

In the present chapter, we discuss study goals and hypotheses, and describe the site-selection 

process and the study methods. 
 2-2 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

Study Goals and Hypotheses 

This study of intermediaries under WIA has five primary goals: 

1. To assess the roles and functions of intermediaries under WIA; 

2. To describe the characteristics of intermediaries in the workforce development system; 

3. To describe the process by which local areas acquire intermediaries; 

4. To identify the contracting and monitoring mechanisms used by local areas; and 

5. To highlight the policy and program-design implications of using intermediaries for 

public employment and training programs. 

In pursuit of these goals, and based on our extensive literature review, the research team 

developed nine hypotheses that would guide our research questions and form the basis of the 

data collection efforts undertaken during the site visits. These hypotheses are as follows:1

• A range of different types of intermediaries is being used nationwide (forprofit/non-profit/public; national/regional/local; long/short histories of serving 

clients in workforce development programs). 

• Different types of intermediaries can be expected to provide different services and 

to have different strengths and weaknesses. 

• The selection of a One-Stop center operator (either competitively or noncompetitively) will affect the management and coordination of One-Stop services. 

Intermediary service delivery will vary depending on who is operating the OneStop (i.e., a consortium of agencies or a single agency). 

• Local boards use a variety of mechanisms for selecting and contracting with 

intermediaries. 

 1

 Detailed research questions associated with each hypothesis are included in Appendix B.
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 2-3 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

• The use of intermediaries has increased under WIA as a result of the prohibition 

against local boards either providing services or operating One-Stops without a 

waiver. 

• The use of intermediaries has changed as the workforce development system has 

transitioned from JTPA to WIA. 

• When a local area has clear lines of responsibility and communication between the 

One-Stop operator(s) and other intermediaries, stakeholders will perceive the 

local workforce development system to be more coordinated. 

• One-Stops and intermediaries, particularly those that provide training, have had 

to create or revise their data systems, including ways of transferring information, 

in order to meet WIA data reporting requirements. Additionally, data reporting 

requirements may affect which intermediaries are willing or able to participate in 

the ITA system. 

• Client flow issues—specifically, inconsistent or extreme fluctuation in referrals—

will play a significant role in determining the willingness of intermediaries to 

participate (and continue participation) in the workforce development system. 

Site Selection 

The study team visited sixteen sites, two in each of eight states. This design allowed us to 

examine intrastate variation in implementation practices and to understand the relationship 

between state policies and the ways local boards interpret and implement these policies. The 

study team used the following site-selection criteria: 
 2-4 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

• Regional representation. To account for regional variation and assure that the study 

findings represented a wide range of local experiences from across the U.S., the 

research team chose sites in diverse locations. Additionally, site selection was made 

with an eye toward representing eight of the ten U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) 

regions. 

• Variation in population density. Because previous research2

 indicated that 

intermediaries are used more in urban areas than in rural areas, this study focused on 

urban areas. Both DOL and the study team nonetheless wanted to observe intermediary 

use in communities of different sizes. Thus, we identified a set of major metropolitan 

statistical areas (MSAs) that included large MSAs (population of one million of more), 

midsize MSAs (250,000 to one million), and small MSAs (100,000 to 250,000). 

• Early WIA or One-Stop experimentation. To understand the extent to which WIA 

has influenced the use of intermediaries, the study team selected states that had the 

most experience operating under the new legislation, and that would offer the richest 

data on the early challenges and opportunities local boards faced when using 

intermediaries to provide employment and training services. For the purposes of this 

study, early implementation states were defined as those that had submitted state plans 

to DOL at least four months in advance of the July 30, 2000 deadline. A few states that 

were not officially early implementers but did have extensive experience developing 

One-Stop systems through DOL One-Stop Implementation grants were also identified 

as potential sites for this study. 

Based on these criteria, the research team developed a list of 20 possible states to visit. To 

finalize site selection, BPA staff conducted interviews with DOL regional contacts to identify 

states with significant WIA implementation experience and/or intermediary use. While the 

sample as a whole represents variation across the U.S. on the characteristics listed above, it is 

by no means a representative sample of the country’s local workforce boards. 

Exhibit 2.1 lists the sixteen local boards selected for the study, organized by location (state and 

city). This exhibit also shows the abbreviated name for each site used in the remainder of this 

report. 

 2

See, for example, Nightingale and Pindus (1997). 
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 2-5 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

Exhibit 2.1 

Understanding the Role of Intermediaries under WIA: Study Sites

 State .

Jurisdiction or 

 Largest City . Local Board .

Referred to in 

This Report as:

 

Tampa Hillsborough Workforce Development Board Hillsborough County Florida 

St. Petersburg Pinellas Workforce Development Board Pinellas County 

Boston Boston Private Industry Council Boston 

Massachusetts 

Springfield Hampden County Regional Employment Bd. Hampden County 

Reno NevadaWorks Northern Nevada 

Nevada 

Las Vegas Southern Nevada Workforce Investment Bd. Southern Nevada 

Newark Workforce Investment Board of Essex County Essex County New Jersey Paterson Passaic County Workforce Investment Board Passaic County 

Eugene Lane Workforce Partnership Lane County Oregon Portland Worksystems, Inc. Oregon Region 2 

Erie Northwest Pennsylvania Workforce Investment 

Bd. Northwest PA 

Pennsylvania 

Pittsburgh Three Rivers Workforce Investment Board Three Rivers 

Houston Gulf Coast Workforce Development Board 

(The WorkSource) Gulf Coast 

Texas 

Ft. Worth Tarrant County Local Workforce Investment 

Board (Work Advantage) Tarrant County 

Green Bay Bay Area Workforce Development Board Bay Area 

Wisconsin 

Milwaukee Milwaukee Private Industry Council Milwaukee County 

Site Visit Design and Data Collection 

To design this study’s site-visit-based data collection strategy, the research team identified 

appropriate individuals to interview at each site and created topic guides customized for each 

type of interview respondent. 
 2-6 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

BPA staff created a site visit protocol that identified the types of organizations and staff to 

interview at each site. Working with site staff before the actual visit, the study team identified 

key intermediaries, local board staff, and One-Stop staff to interview while on site. During each 

visit, the site visitor conducted in-depth interviews with the chair of the local board, local board 

members, and local board staff. Study staff also interviewed the executive director of the 

organization(s) that operated local One-Stops, the director(s) of the One-Stop(s), and several 

One-Stop staff (including the One-Stop data coordinator). Site visitors also interviewed 

representatives from a variety of intermediaries and One-Stop partner agencies. Where relevant, 

the study team collected information on other service providers who assist the local board or 

One-Stop with operations, management, or information technology (IT) systems. 

The research team prepared topic guides for each type of respondent to ensure consistent and 

targeted data collection at all study sites. The interview guides addressed the following issues: 

• Selection of One-Stop operators; 

• Operation of One-Stops; 

• Selection of, and contractual relationships with, intermediaries; 

• Monitoring and oversight of intermediaries; 

• Data systems and reporting mechanisms; 

• Changes in customer flow over time; 

• Impact of the ITA system on intermediaries and service; and 

• Overall impact of WIA implementation on the use of intermediaries. 

Although the research team designed separate interview guides for each type of respondent, site 

visitors asked some questions of multiple respondents to analyze differences in perceptions 

among various WIA stakeholders. 

The study team conducted the site visits in two phases. Phase I visits took place in winter 2001-

02, and Phase II visits occurred during summer 2002. Exhibit 2.2 shows the geographic 

locations of all sixteen sites and indicates the study phase during which staff visited the sites. 
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 2-7 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

Exhibit 2.2 

Understanding the Role of Intermediaries under WIA: Phase I and Phase II Study Sites 

Each site visit took three days to complete. After each visit, the site visitor produced an inhouse document detailing the findings of that visit. These standardized site visit narratives were 

utilized to conduct cross-site analyses for the study’s reports. BPA’s Interim Report

summarized preliminary results based on the findings from the Phase I site visits.3

Data Analysis 

In preparing the Interim Report for this study, the research team developed a typology of 

intermediary organizations based on their funding sources and corporate status, following the 

model used by Mathematica Policy Research in their study of the use of intermediaries with 

Bay Area Boston

Gulf Coast

Region 2 

Three Rivers 

Pinellas County 

Northern Nevada

Southern Nevada

Essex County

Milwaukee 

County 

Northwest PA 

Tarrant 

Lane County 

Hampden 

County 

Passaic County

PHASE 1 SITES 

PHASE 2 SITES 

Hillsborough County
 2-8 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

TANF recipients (Pavetti et al., 2000). This same typology is used throughout this report to 

describe the types of organizations that provide workforce investment services under WIA. 

Intermediary organizations are grouped into four major categories: 

• Educational institutions, including public4

 community and vocational colleges, public 

four-year colleges and universities, and private academic colleges and universities; 

• Community-based non-profit organizations; 

• For-profit companies and training institutions, for example staffing firms and truck 

driving schools; and 

• Governmental agencies, including state Employment Service, and county departments 

of human services or employment and training. 

In addition to analyzing the organizational affiliations of intermediary organizations used in the 

study sites, BPA staff: 

• analyzed the information gathered across all sixteen study sites, broken down by 

detailed subtopics, such as the delivery of core services or the process of selecting the 

One-Stop operators; 

• examined the apparent effects of different types of state policies on WIA 

implementation and use of intermediaries; 

• summarized the different methods that local areas used for selecting intermediaries, 

with particular attention paid to operators of One-Stops; 

• described which types of organizations tended to take on different roles, and whether 

any local factors appeared to influence how roles were allocated; 

• summarized the types of agreements (e.g., Memorandum of Understanding, contract) 

used for each type of service (operator of One-Stop; provider of core, intensive, or 

training services); 

• highlighted differences in contract (or agreement) terms: their duration; whether they 

were performance-based or cost-reimbursement; and payment terms; and 

 3

Berkeley Policy Associates. Understanding the Role of Intermediaries Under WIA: Interim Report, June 

2002. 

4

 While public colleges and universities could be classified as governmental, this typology emphasizes 

the primary function of these institutions, i.e., education. 
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 2-9 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

• explored patterns in the use of intermediaries for provision of core, intensive, and 

training services. 

The culmination of these analyses is this Final Report. The following chapters, except for 

Chapter 3, detail our findings. Chapter 3 presents a review of existing literature on early WIA 

implementation and intermediary use within the workforce investment and other governmental 

service systems. 
Chapter 3: 

Review of Existing Literature on Intermediaries 

Introduction 

As was discussed in Chapter 1, intermediaries have long played an important role in the 

delivery of publicly-funded employment and training services in the United States. The term 

“intermediary” has been defined in a number of ways for use in various policy contexts. For 

this study, we defined intermediaries as “public or private entities that perform a variety of 

functions in service to the local Workforce Investment Board.” Thus, WIA intermediaries 

include (1) operators of One-Stop centers; (2) providers of various “core” and “intensive” 

services; (3) providers of direct training; and (4) various consultants that support the local 

board and brokers/coordinators that help develop relationships between customers and local 

boards or One-Stops. 

This chapter reviews the existing literature on intermediaries. As described in Chapter 2, this 

review helped to focus the study’s design and research questions. Specifically, the chapter 

examines the existing research on several key topics: 

• Privatization of government services; 

• Use of intermediaries under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) 

program; 

• Use of intermediaries to provide workforce development services prior to WIA 

implementation; and 

• Early evidence on the use of intermediaries under WIA. 

Privatization of Government Services 

WIA intermediaries can include not only public organizations—such as community colleges 

and local governments—but also for-profit and non-profit private entities. As a result, the 
 3-2 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

question of when delivering publicly-funded services through private sector entities is 

advantageous is a critical underlying issue in the use of WIA intermediaries. Several studies 

have examined trends in the private provision of publicly-funded services as well as the 

advantages and disadvantages of privatization of these services. 

Recent Trends in Privatization 

Throughout the history of the United States, all levels of government have provided some 

services through the private sector (Adler, 1999)1

. However, the nature of the programs 

contracted out and the types of private organizations that deliver services have changed in 

recent years. A review of the privatization of social services by Nightingale and Pindus (1997) 

found that the most pronounced change has been the increasingly common use of private 

companies to administer entire publicly-funded systems. For example, since the enactment of 

federal welfare reform legislation (which created the current TANF program), some states have 

hired private organizations to provide all state welfare services. 

Nightingale and Pindus also noted that the involvement of large private corporations in 

providing social services has increased substantially in recent years, often through performance 

contracting and competitive procurement processes. For example, the State of Texas awarded a 

contract to Electronic Data Systems, a large information technology services company, to 

reengineer aspects of the state’s health and human services systems. ACS—a former subsidiary 

of Lockheed Martin, the major defense contracting firm—has contracts in many states to 

provide child support , welfare, and workforce development services. This trend represents a 

departure from the traditional approach of contracting primarily with non-profit organizations 

and using “non-competitive, quasi-grant arrangements” (Nightingale and Pindus, 1997, citing 

Hatry and Durman, 1985). 

Recent policy recommendations may have further increased the likelihood that federal agencies 

will contract out for social services. For example, President George W. Bush has proposed 

opening the functions handled by many federal workers to competition from private 

contractors. The President has also indicated a general intention to base government on market 

principles such as competition, innovation, and choice (Bush, 2000). Finally, certain WIA 

provisions may encourage privatization in the workforce development system, such as those 

 

1

 Full citations for all references can be found in Appendix F. 
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 3-3 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

mandating the creation of One-Stop centers and allowing center operators to be selected 

competitively. 

Arguments For and Against Privatization 

The literature on privatization presents many arguments for and against the transfer of public 

services to private sector providers (Nightingale and Pindus, 1997; Hatry and Durman, 1985; 

Utt, 2001; Osborne and Gaebler, 1992; AFSCME, 2001). These arguments contend that 

privatization: 

• Reduces public costs through improved efficiency; 

• Enables governments to meet demands beyond their current in-house capacity; 

• Improves service quality through competition; 

• Provides customers with greater choice; 

• Empowers service intermediaries, such as community-based organizations; and 

• Reduces the role of government in society. 

The same sources also describe arguments against privatization of public services. Opponents 

of privatization claim that it: 

• Increases the potential for corruption and financial conflicts of interest; 

• Provides incentives to reduce service quality as a means of cutting costs; 

• Increases the chance of service interruption due to failures by providers; 

• Risks reduced access to service for the disadvantaged (through “creaming”); 

• Jeopardizes confidentiality of private information; 

• Results in job losses among public employees; and 

• Directs savings from increased efficiency to private profits rather than to taxpayers. 

Evaluating these competing arguments is difficult, in large part because personal values and 

ideology strongly influence one’s view of the relative costs or benefits of reducing the size of 

government or generating profits for private companies. Analyses focusing on criteria that do 

lend themselves to empirical evaluation, such as the effects of privatization on cost and 
 3-4 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

quality, have generally led to mixed conclusions. For example, a study comparing Texas 

prisons that had been privatized with those that remained in the public sector found that quality 

was somewhat higher in privately-run prisons, but that cost impacts were mixed (Nightingale 

and Pindus, 1997, citing Hatry, 1983). A second study comparing publicly- and privately-run 

child support services yielded similar results (General Accounting Office, 1996). 

The applicability of even these inconclusive studies to the workforce development system is 

limited, since the characteristics of privatization in child support services and prisons differ 

from those likely to occur under WIA. For example, child support services typically do not 

allow the type of individual customer choice that is envisioned under WIA’s Individual 

Training Account (ITA) system; the level of choice available to individuals in the prison 

system is, of course, even more limited. In both of these cases, privatization occurs primarily at 

the level of government selection of providers, who then deliver services for the entire 

population in a particular area. 

Using Privatization Effectively 

While the literature does little to resolve the debate between proponents and opponents of 

privatization, it does suggest that consensus exists around two key points: 

• The public, for-profit, and non-profit sectors are each well suited to carrying out 

particular types of activities. 

• Effective monitoring and structuring of competition is crucial in situations where 

policymakers opt to privatize services. 

Osborne and Gaebler (1993), for example, maintain that for-profit firms tend to execute many 

types of functions better than the public sector, including “performing complex tasks, 

replicating the successes of other organizations, delivering services that require rapid 

adjustment to change, delivering services to very diverse populations, and delivering services 

that become obsolete quickly.” They consider non-profit organizations to be better than the 

public sector at other tasks, including those that “generate little or no profit margin; require 

compassion and commitment to other humans; require a comprehensive, holistic approach; 

require extensive trust on the part of customers; and require hands on, personal attention.” 

While stressing many of the weaknesses of existing public sector organizations, however, 

Osborne and Gaebler do point out that government agencies are better suited than private 
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 3-5 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

entities to tasks that involve “policy management, regulation, ensuring equity, preventing 

discrimination or exploitation, ensuring continuity and stability of services, and ensuring social 

cohesion.” Proponents of privatization similarly place particular emphasis on maintaining 

government control over areas that are linked directly to public sovereignty over policy and 

regulation (Warner and Hefetz, 2000). 

When governments do opt to privatize services, the effectiveness of the effort depends in large 

part on the specific implementation steps taken. The literature suggests that two of the key 

factors in successful privatization are: (1) ensuring effective monitoring; and (2) maintaining 

true competition among providers. A 1997 U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) report on 

lessons learned from state and local privatization efforts found that results are mixed, but that 

enhanced monitoring and oversight of performance plays an important role in making 

privatization work. This monitoring could include both contract auditing and performance 

monitoring (General Accounting Office, 1997). Nightingale and Pindus (1997) similarly 

concluded that “to achieve the potential benefits of privatization, public agencies will need to 

clearly specify the roles of contractors, determine appropriate costs, and develop performance 

criteria tailored to the client population being addressed.” 

Several researchers noted that many of the benefits attributed to privatization are actually the 

result of competition. In situations where there is only one or a few possible private providers, 

monopolies can emerge, eliminating many of the potential advantages of privatization. Osborne 

and Gaebler, for example, cited the possibility of a private contractor developing a monopoly as 

one of the dangers of privatization. Nightingale and Pindus noted that “the real issue is not so 

much public vs. private—it is monopoly vs. competition.” 

To an extent, research on monitoring, competition, and the relative strengths of the public and 

private sectors is already reflected in the WIA rules now governing the workforce development 

system. Performance measurement requirements under WIA ensure monitoring of private 

sector service providers, and WIA allows local areas with few potential providers (and the 

resulting potential for private sector monopolies) to be exempted from the ITA system. 

Furthermore, WIA’s restrictions on the provision of direct services by local boards aims to 

separate governmental policymaking authority from functions that could be performed by other 

providers. 
 3-6 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

The literature on privatization also raises issues that will have continuing relevance to the use 

of intermediaries in WIA implementation. For example, the concept that public sector, forprofit, and non-profit organizations are each well suited to particular types of services has 

important implications for how local boards select intermediaries. As large corporations play an 

expanded service provision role in the workforce development system, assessing whether large 

for-profits in fact provide services more effectively than do local or regional public and nonprofit entities is an important step in the analysis of this study’s data. 

As training provision shifts to the ITA voucher system, and as services like One-Stop operation 

are contracted out competitively, determining whether intermediaries are involved in ways that 

maximize their effectiveness also will be important. For example, although the ITA system 

offers one mechanism for providing feedback on the effectiveness of training intermediaries, 

some local boards may choose to take additional steps to monitor service providers. 

Furthermore, the need to avoid monopolistic situations raises the question of whether local 

boards and individual customers have adequate choice among intermediaries, particularly in 

small communities and rural areas. 

Use of Intermediaries under TANF 

The most detailed findings on the use of intermediaries to provide employment-related services 

appear in a study on the role of intermediaries under TANF, the federal welfare program for 

families with children (Pavetti et al., 2000). These findings are relevant to efforts to use 

intermediaries under WIA because of several similarities between the welfare and workforce 

development systems. The two systems share goals and provide many of the same kinds of 

services. In many cases, TANF and WIA intermediaries are actually the same organizations. 

Perhaps most importantly, the welfare system, like the workforce development system, 

underwent a major redesign in recent years. In both cases, one effect of the redesign was an 

expanded role of outside organizations in service delivery. 

In 1996, federal welfare reform legislation—the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 

Reconciliation Act (PRWORA)—removed restrictions that had largely prevented states from 

contracting out initial welfare intake and eligibility functions (Nightingale and Pindus, 1997). 

In addition, PRWORA’s work requirements and its time limits on cash assistance greatly 
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 3-7 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

expanded the need for services to help participants move toward employment. Because many 

welfare agencies had only limited experience delivering employment and training services, they 

often chose to seek assistance from outside providers. These changes substantially altered the 

potential role of intermediaries in the welfare system. 

The study of the role of intermediaries under TANF cited above was funded by the U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services and used information gathered during visits to 

twenty sites in ten states around the country. It should be noted that Pavetti et al. used a 

somewhat different definition of intermediaries than BPA uses in the present study. Their 

definition included organizations that provide services to help link welfare recipients with jobs 

and have a formal relationship with the welfare system, but excluded entities that provide 

training without a job placement component or that only offer supportive services such as child 

care or transportation. This study’s definition of intermediary includes such organizations. The 

findings reported by Pavetti et al. are summarized below. 

Characteristics of Intermediaries 

Pavetti et al. found that the use of intermediaries in the TANF system was quite widespread. 

Eighteen of the twenty sites they visited transferred at least some services to intermediaries. 

Non-profit organizations, for-profit companies, educational institutions, and other public or 

quasi-public agencies all served as TANF intermediaries. 

The majority (67 percent) of TANF intermediaries were non-profits, including both 

independent local entities and affiliates of larger national organizations. National non-profits—

such as Catholic Charities, Goodwill Industries, Jewish Social Services, Lutheran Social 

Services, the Salvation Army, SER/Jobs for Progress, and the Urban League—served as 

intermediaries, in some cases in more than one of the study sites. TANF programs in Cleveland 

and Hartford used local non-profits with substantial social service experience as intermediaries. 

In several locations, small, specialized non-profits delivered services to specific populations, 

such as refugees or welfare recipients with disabilities. 

Pavetti et al. showed that for-profit entities also played a major role in serving TANF 

recipients. Whereas employers or small for-profit companies acted as intermediaries in a 

handful of sites, for-profit intermediaries were most frequently large national corporations, 

including Maximus, Curtis and Associates, and Lockheed Martin IMS. Curtis and 
 3-8 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

Associates and Maximus were described as having long histories of providing services to the 

welfare population, while Lockheed Martin IMS was relatively new to the field. These 

organizations tended to serve large numbers of TANF recipients. For example, Maximus 

expected to serve 4,000 recipients in Phoenix. As a result, the for-profits served 45 percent of 

all customers referred to intermediaries, even though they made up only 14 percent of the total 

number of intermediaries. 

Public sector service providers represented 19 percent of the intermediaries identified by 

Pavetti, et al. The most common public sector intermediaries were educational institutions, and 

overall, 11 percent of intermediaries were community colleges, adult education programs, or 

school districts. City governments, JTPA agencies, public housing authorities, or other public 

sector entities accounted for 8 percent of intermediaries. 

The study found major differences in intermediary use between urban and rural areas. Overall, 

rural areas used far fewer intermediaries, averaging less than two per site compared to ten per 

site in urban areas. Non-profits made up only 24 percent of intermediaries in rural areas, and 

large national for-profits had little involvement with rural welfare programs. Educational 

institutions and other public entities made up more than half of rural intermediaries. 

Roles of Intermediaries 

Pavetti et al. found that many of the welfare agencies that used intermediaries transferred 

responsibility not only for employment services, but also for the actual management of TANF 

cases. All eighteen of the TANF sites that used intermediaries transferred responsibility for job 

search and other employment services to the intermediary organizations. Twelve of these sites 

also transferred case management responsibilities. 

TANF intermediaries tended to provide a fairly standard set of employment services, including 

assessment, orientation, job search, skills development, and post-placement assistance. These 

service providers varied in the extent of their assessments, the amount of guidance they 

provided to TANF recipients in finding employment, the range of support services they offered, 

and the emphasis placed on job readiness, retention, and advancement. Case management 

intermediaries tended to have broad responsibilities, including assessing customer needs, 

working with customers to develop self-sufficiency plans, and linking customers with resources 
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 3-9 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

that could help them to pursue their self-sufficiency goals. When welfare agencies transferred 

case management responsibilities to intermediaries, the welfare agencies often retained 

responsibility only for eligibility determination. 

Processes for Working with Intermediaries 

The study by Pavetti et al. found that interagency communication was particularly important to 

an effective working relationship between the welfare agencies and intermediaries. Because 

working with intermediaries necessarily involved shared responsibilities across organizations, 

clear delineation of those responsibilities was essential. Effective referral and feedback systems 

were necessary to ensure that intermediary activities were coordinated with those of other 

entities. TANF data collection systems often had not been designed with intermediaries in 

mind, so detailed systems for transferring information had to be established. Because of the 

major data collection requirements imposed on training providers by WIA, this finding may be 

of particular significance to the operation of WIA intermediaries. 

Local TANF agencies generally signed contracts with intermediaries. Some intermediary 

contracts were performance-based, but most were cost reimbursement contracts. A few 

localities used a combination of the two methods, paying intermediaries part of their revenues 

through a cost reimbursement method and the remainder through performance-based 

incentives. In some sites, TANF administrators negotiated rates and maintained similar costs 

across providers, while administrators in others accepted bid prices and tended to end up with a 

wider range of costs. Little consistency existed in the level of payment that intermediaries 

received, even among intermediaries providing the same services, and even in the same city or 

county. 

Difficulty in anticipating client flow was one of the greatest implementation challenges 

experienced by TANF intermediaries. Referrals of customers were rarely steady or predictable. 

As a result, intermediaries sometimes had difficulty maintaining their program capacity at a 

level that was both adequate to meet customer needs and financially sustainable. Some 

intermediaries received more customers than anticipated, but, because of the rapid caseload 

reductions that followed TANF implementation, many more intermediaries received fewer 

clients than anticipated. Under WIA, the issue of customer flow can be expected to manifest 

itself differently among One-Stop operators, ITA-funded providers, and contracted providers, 
 3-10 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

yet customer flow is a potentially significant challenge for each of these three types of 

intermediaries. 

Comparing Different Approaches to the Use of Intermediaries 

Pavetti et al. found that various sites implemented very different systems for providing services 

to the TANF population, with great variation both in the characteristics of intermediaries and in 

local service delivery approaches. Because intermediaries operated in so many different ways, 

the study concluded that closer examination of intermediaries’ characteristics and approaches, 

as well as of their link to outcomes, would provide valuable information. Pavetti et al. noted 

several characteristics of intermediaries that might be related to their effectiveness: 

• Number of customers served; 

• Previous history of providing employment-related services; 

• Expertise serving hard-to-employ populations; 

• Payment mechanisms; 

• Payment amount; 

• Type of organization (i.e., non-profit, for-profit, public sector); 

• Links to the business community; and 

• Administrative structure in which the intermediary operated. 

The report also indicated that although most employment service intermediaries provided 

similar job search and placement services, the specific characteristics of the services varied 

along several dimensions. Service characteristics that could affect outcomes included: 

• Length of program; 

• Extent to which programs use structured activities, such as workshops, as opposed to 

unstructured job search; 

• Level of employer involvement; 

• Extent to which life skills were addressed; and 

• Length and extent of follow-up. 
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 3-11 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

Each of these characteristics could also be expected to affect service outcomes among WIA 

intermediaries. 

Use of Intermediaries in the Workforce Development System 

prior to WIA 

Private entities have played a role in the implementation of workforce development programs 

in the United States since these programs were first introduced in the 1930s. A review of the 

trends in private sector involvement with the workforce development system noted that the 

private sector has performed administrative functions associated with the Unemployment 

Insurance (UI) program and provided labor exchange services parallel to, or in cooperation 

with, the Employment Service (ES). However, federal law prevents many UI and ES functions 

from being contracted out. Public job training programs, by contrast, have traditionally 

provided greater opportunity for private sector involvement (Wandner and Javar, 2001). 

Past Involvement with Federal Employment and Training Programs 

Under the federal workforce development programs that preceded WIA—including those 

established by the 1962 Manpower Development and Training Act (MDTA), the 1973 

Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA), and the 1982 Job Training Partnership 

Act (JTPA)—most employment and training services were contracted out. Generally, 

contractors under these programs were non-profits, public educational institutions, or ES itself. 

Some for-profits, however, including proprietary schools and for-profit placement services, also 

received contracts under these systems (Wandner and Javar, 2001; Nightingale and Pindus, 

1997). 

Job Corps, a residential education and job training program for at-risk youth administered by 

the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), is the only major job training program that the federal 

government contracts out directly. Government agencies, non-profit organizations, and private 

companies all operate Job Corps centers around the country. For-profit Job Corps center 

operators have included large corporations such as Teledyne and ITT. Job Corps is considered 

to be one of the most effective federal training programs, and its success is attributed in part to 

its system for managing private contractors. Services are contracted out through a competitive 

process, but the government maintains direction, oversight, and management authority, 
 3-12 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

and measures contractor performance. Contractors are unable to “cream” participants because 

they do not have authority over the screening process (Nightingale and Pindus, 1997, citing 

Gurin, 1989 and Donahue, 1989). 

State and Federal Policy Changes during the 1990s 

During the 1990s, federal and state agencies began experimenting with new policies that 

affected the role of intermediaries in the workforce development system. Many of these 

policies anticipated changes that would be included in WIA. The federal One-Stop Initiative, 

implemented by DOL during the mid-1990s, provided grants to each of the 50 states to support 

the planning, development, and implementation of One-Stop employment and training centers. 

Privatization was not a goal of the initiative, but the grants did facilitate increased competition 

for One-Stop management and service delivery (Nightingale and Pindus, 1997). A study of the 

implementation of these grants found that private entities managed the new One-Stop centers in 

several sites. For example, in Baltimore, the Urban League, the AFL-CIO, and the JTPA 

administrative entity each administered one One-Stop (Kogan et al., 1997). 

Through both the One-Stop grants and their own initiatives, several states made particularly 

sweeping changes to their workforce development systems and redefined the role of 

intermediaries. For example, in 1993 Massachusetts implemented a competitive system for 

selecting One-Stop operators. Local boards were allowed to choose between competitive and 

collaborative approaches to service delivery. The state plan allowed private firms to compete 

with public agencies to manage One-Stops. The regional boards had authority to “charter” local 

One-Stop operators, and the charters were revocable if performance benchmarks were not met. 

Over the course of the 1990s, Texas implemented a system that established One-Stop centers. 

These centers handled intake, assessment, and other front-end services before referring 

recipients to service providers. Texas made an explicit split, like the one implemented later 

under WIA, between local boards and service providers. Providers, including private sector 

entities, bid competitively for contracts to operate One-Stops (Barnow and King, 2001). 

More recently, the Bush Administration has generated a renewed interest in the role that faithbased organizations (FBOs) play in the workforce delivery system. President Bush has 

indicated that broadening federal efforts to work with faith-based and community-based 

organizations is in the public’s interest, and has prioritized providing funding opportunities for 
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 3-13 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

these organizations. On January 29, 2001, President Bush issued Executive Order 13198, which 

directed the heads of the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services, Justice, Education, 

Labor, and Housing and Urban Development to establish within their respective departments a 

Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. The goal of these centers is to make their 

individual agencies as open and supportive as possible to faith-based and grassroots 

organizations (U.S. Department of Labor, April 2002). 

 

Although no single, generally-accepted definition for FBOs exists, faith-based intermediaries 

can be described as those organizations that hold religious or worship services, or are affiliated 

with a religious denomination or house of worship (Kramer et al., 2002). In October 2002, 

DOL awarded three sets of grants designed to link faith-based and grassroots community 

organizations to the national system of One-Stop centers. Totaling $17.5 million, these grants 

are a central aspect of President Bush’s effort to ensure that all qualified organizations are 

eligible to compete for government funds (U.S. Department of Labor, October 2002). At the 

time of this writing, little information is available about these organizations and the extent of 

their involvement in the formal public employment and training system. 

Intermediaries under WIA: Evidence to Date 

Little is known about the role that intermediaries have played under WIA so far. O’Shea and 

King (2001) examined early WIA implementation in three states. D’Amico et al. (2001) 

reported initial findings on WIA intermediaries from site visits and from a database compiled 

for the national evaluation of WIA implementation. Neither study focused specifically on 

intermediaries, and, because state and local boards were still at an early stage of 

implementation at the time research for these studies was conducted, many aspects of the roles 

of intermediaries remained undefined. Nonetheless, both studies generated background 

information that is useful for the present study. 

Overall Progress of WIA Implementation 

Early research indicates that WIA implementation has already resulted in major changes to the 

workforce development system. Both of the WIA implementation studies referenced above, 

however, indicated that states and localities varied significantly in the extent to which they had 

implemented WIA provisions. As O’Shea and King noted, “policymakers and program 
 3-14 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

administrators have considerable discretion concerning the intensity with which they embrace 

new WIA policies and practices.” In many cases, the status of WIA implementation varied with 

the degree to which states had implemented WIA-like reforms prior to 1998. 

Many of the WIA-mandated changes to the workforce development system require a great deal 

of effort at the state and local levels. Most states and localities have prioritized certain aspects 

of WIA implementation, and so progress in these areas has been more rapid than in others. For 

example, D’Amico et al. found that most local boards had gone further toward implementing 

core services than toward fully developing their procedures for providing intensive and training 

services. Because of the varying degrees of implementation across service categories, some of 

WIA’s implications for intermediary use may not have been apparent at the time the site visits 

were conducted for the current study. 

Role of Local Boards 

Research indicates that states and localities have made few exceptions to the WIA provisions 

that seek to establish a clear separation between local boards and the provision of services. The 

analysis of national tracking data by D’Amico et al. showed that by October 2000, only 3 

percent of local boards had been granted the state waiver needed to provide training services. 

Only 14 percent had received the necessary approval from their Chief Local Elected Official 

and Governor to provide core and intensive services, and 18 percent had been approved to 

serve as One-Stop operators. Most of the states examined in the D’Amico et al. study had 

established clear distinctions between local board staff and program operations staff, either by 

placing local board staff in a separate organization or by awarding contracts for service delivery 

to outside agencies. Whether or not local boards nationwide are less involved in service 

provision than the PICs had been under JTPA, WIA has limited the role of local boards such 

that most services will need to be delivered either by WIA partner agencies or by 

intermediaries. 

In addition to the separation between local boards and service delivery, broader changes in the 

role of local boards have also been reported. A report from the National Association of 

Workforce Boards (NAWB, 2000) noted that because WIA funds are limited and local boards 

must accomplish their goals largely through organizations over which they do not have direct 

control, negotiation can be expected to replace management oversight as local boards’ main 

activity. The NAWB report also indicated that many local board members and staff felt that 
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 3-15 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

they had only limited knowledge of many of the intermediaries and other organizations with 

whom they would need to work to implement WIA. In a survey of attendees at a conference of 

local boards, only 19 percent reported that their local boards had extensive knowledge of the 

budgets or operations of local education, employment, and training programs outside the old 

JTPA system (NAWB, 2000). 

Selection and Role of One-Stop Operators 

D’Amico et al. indicated that by October 2000, nearly 90 percent of local boards had 

designated a One-Stop operator. Their study sites used a variety of methods to select operators, 

and this variation had substantial implications for the role of intermediaries. About half of the 

local sites studied selected a consortium of partner agencies through a noncompetitive process 

to run their One-Stops, while the others used a competitive process to select an intermediary to 

operate the centers. 

D’Amico et al. also reported that, in addition to affecting the role of intermediaries in operating 

a One-Stop, the process of selecting an operator had an impact on the ongoing management and 

coordination of One-Stop services. In areas that selected a single operator through a 

competitive process, a representative from the operator became the One-Stop manager. In such 

cases, the lines of authority tended to be relatively clear, and these operators generally played a 

significant role in the direct delivery of core and intensive services. In areas where a 

consortium operated the One-Stop, the center was often located in the old ES building and 

managed by someone selected from that agency’s staff. These managers tended to be more 

responsible to their home agencies than to the One-Stop system as a whole. 

Implementation of Eligible Training Provider and ITA Systems 

D’Amico et al. indicated that ITAs were expected to be the dominant mechanism for providing 

training services under WIA in the study sites. D’Amico et al. also found that local boards had 

made substantial progress in implementing ITAs. While WIA allows several potentially 

significant exceptions to the ITA system, all of the sites included in D’Amico et al.’s study 

indicated that ITAs would be the primary vehicle for supporting customer training under WIA, 

and none had developed plans for alternative arrangements. Of fifty-four states and territories, 

forty-nine had developed a list of approved eligible training providers, and all of the local study 
 3-16 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

sites had developed procedures for administering ITAs. In several sites, however, the new ITAbased training delivery system was not operational at the time of the site visits. 

States and local sites varied greatly in the performance they required of providers. D’Amico et 

al. found, for example, that one state required only that providers attain a 20 percent program 

completion rate during their first year to remain eligible, while another imposed a much more 

stringent requirement that providers place 65 percent of participants in employment. Some local 

areas indicated that they planned to establish stricter eligibility criteria than their states 

required. 

In reports on WIA implementation, many of the concerns expressed about the ITA system 

pertained to the gathering and submission of performance data. Local and state staff 

interviewed during the D’Amico et al. study were somewhat concerned that requiring providers 

to supply data on all participants might cause some providers to drop out of the program. 

Respondents thought that providers who received relatively few referrals through WIA would 

be particularly likely to drop out. O’Shea and King indicated that community colleges in Texas, 

which served as a major provider of training and education services, initially refused to 

participate in the state’s provider certification process because they considered it to be too 

burdensome. Some DOL regional staff reported to D’Amico et al. that they were concerned 

that information from vendors would not be reliable, while other staff anticipated that 

confidentiality issues could arise from using UI records to calculate provider performance. 

Fifteen states and territories also expected problems in accessing UI data, and, perhaps because 

of these potential problems, twenty-one states were considering using supplemental data 

sources to identify long-term customer outcomes. 

DOL regional staff also expressed concerns that the number of training providers applying for 

the list would be insufficient to allow true customer choice under the ITA system. In only one 

of the sites studied by D’Amico et al., a largely rural state, did respondents report that not 

enough public and private sector providers were available to support a voucher system. As a 

result, this state was working with community colleges to create new vocational training 

centers. In addition, the authors believed that the use of vouchers would make maintaining 

direct feedback and reporting links between providers and One-Stops difficult; thus, additional 

monitoring efforts are particularly important. 
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 3-17 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

Provision of Core and Intensive Services 

Early evidence suggests that intermediaries will likely play very different roles in the provision 

of core and intensive services than they will in the provision of training services. For example, 

D’Amico et al. found that staff from the Employment Service labor exchange program tended 

to play a major role in the provision of core services. In seven of nine study sites, Employment 

Service staff were the dominant provider of core services. As a result, contracted service 

providers assume more limited roles in providing core services than they do in providing other 

services. 

Intensive services were provided either primarily by the One-Stop operator or by multiple 

agencies through a system of mutual referrals. Four of the nine sites in the D’Amico et al. study 

relied on the One-Stop operator as the main provider of intensive services. In the five sites 

where program staff made mutual referrals, the One-Stop manager was responsible for 

coordinating services. 

Types of Intermediaries 

Because neither of the major early reports focused specifically on intermediaries, little 

information was available to determine what types of intermediaries have been involved with 

WIA implementation to date. For example, whether the role played by large for-profit 

corporations under WIA has been comparable to that reported by Pavetti et al. on TANF 

implementation is impossible to determine with the previously available information. WIA 

clearly provides opportunities for for-profit firms to become involved, particularly with the 

management of One-Stops, and anecdotal evidence suggests that for-profits have played a role 

in WIA implementation. Still, the scale of their involvement has been unknown. 

Conclusion 

The literature review presented in this chapter raised a number of important issues that shaped 

our study of the use of intermediaries under WIA. These included the following: 

• Challenges of meeting new data collection requirements. The WIA provisions 

designed to increase accountability of providers, local boards, and states also 
 3-18 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

impose substantial data collection and processing requirements on these entities. The 

experience of TANF intermediaries and the early evidence from WIA implementation 

both suggest that data collection may present significant challenges for intermediaries, 

particularly as they adjust to a new and unfamiliar workforce development system. 

• Need for effective communication between intermediaries and other 

organizations. Whenever services are provided by multiple organizations, 

communication across organizations becomes important to program success. 

Maintaining effective systems for referrals as well as for information exchange posed 

significant challenges to TANF intermediaries, and can be expected to be equally 

significant to the workforce development system. 

• Importance of monitoring intermediary performance. The literature on 

privatization heavily emphasizes the importance of closely monitoring services 

provided by private organizations. Researchers examining early WIA implementation 

believed that additional monitoring of organizations providing services through ITAs 

might be necessary. The level and extent of monitoring undertaken by local boards is 

likely to have an impact on the quality of services provided by intermediaries. 

• Varying roles played by different types of intermediary organizations. Existing 

evidence suggests that WIA intermediaries include a great variety of organizations, 

from small local non-profits to community colleges to local governments to major 

multinational corporations. These different types of organizations can be expected to 

provide different services and to have different strengths and weaknesses. 

• Differences in intermediaries across program functions. The workforce 

development system offers opportunities for intermediaries to perform a wide range of 

functions, such as One-Stop operation, delivery of training services, case management, 

job search assistance, and many others. Since different functions are often governed by 

different program rules, examining the involvement of intermediaries across different 

program functions will provide valuable information on intermediaries’ roles in the 

workforce development system. 
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 3-19 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

• Significance of competition and choice in ensuring intermediary effectiveness.

Many of the recent changes in the roles of workforce development intermediaries, such 

as the creation of the ITA system and the contracting out of One-Stop operation in 

some locations, are based on the idea that competition can improve the effectiveness of 

service delivery. The literature on privatization notes, however, that the benefits of 

competition depend on maintaining real choice among competing providers. The 

finding that, on average, rural TANF programs each use fewer than two intermediary 

organizations suggests that rural workforce investment areas may face challenges in 

implementing systems for managing intermediaries through competition. 

This literature review illustrates that much about the role of WIA intermediaries has, until this 

study, remained unknown. None of the previously existing studies provided detailed 

information about the number and type of intermediaries that local boards use under WIA, the 

roles that intermediaries play, the mechanisms that govern their interactions with the workforce 

development system, differences in their involvement under WIA as compared to JTPA, or a 

series of other topics that have major implications for the effectiveness of WIA 

implementation. The present study will contribute to filling these important gaps. 
Chapter 4: 

Factors That Influence the Local One-Stop Context and 

Use of Intermediaries 

Introduction 

Local geographic, demographic, economic, and political factors all affect the design and 

operation of local workforce development systems. Although all sixteen of the study sites 

encompass at least one metropolitan area, the sites differ substantially in their geographic reach, 

demographic characteristics, and total populations. For example, Milwaukee County, 

Wisconsin, which covers a relatively small geographic area, has one and a half times the 

population of the Northern Nevada site, which covers an area larger than most U.S. states. 

Essex County, New Jersey, a twenty-minute train ride from New York City, is a dense 

commercial and industrial county with low-income suburbs and industrial towns with large 

welfare populations. In contrast, 90 percent of Lane County, Oregon, is covered by forest, and 

service needs in this county are driven largely by recent dislocations in the technology and 

lumber industries. Such widely varying local area characteristics often dictate the priority of 

workforce development services, the predominant intermediaries, and the network of One-Stop 

centers. 

Beyond the local contexts, state factors can also influence the development of local areas’ 

service delivery and organization. The organization of Workforce Investment Act (WIA) 

partners on the state level, state workforce development policies, and state funding mechanisms 

and funding streams all influence local WIA implementation as well as the local use of 

intermediaries. This chapter discusses all of these contextual issues in further detail. 
4-2 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September2003 

 

WIA Partners 

One of the most critical elements of the One-Stop concept is the co-location of myriad 

interrelated workforce development resources. To ensure that customers truly have seamless 

access to integrated programs and services, WIA requires collaboration with eighteen partner 

programs. These mandated partner programs are expected to: make their core services available 

in the One-Stop; support delivery of their core services throughout the local area’s One-Stop 

system; enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the local board delineating 

the role the partner will play in the One-Stop system; and participate in workforce development 

planning as a member of the local board. Exhibit 4.1 presents a list of the federally-mandated 

partner programs. 

Most of the organizations that serve as mandated partners in the One-Stops are state- or locallevel government agencies. For example, Employment Service (ES) is always a state-level 

program, and so most of the staff providing ES services in the One-Stop are state employees. 

At the local level, Adult Education services are most often provided through local educational 

institutions. 

Exhibit 4.1 

Federally-mandated One-Stop Partners

• WIA Title I Services: Adult, Dislocated Worker; Youth; Job Corps; Indian and Native 

American; Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker; Veterans Employment and Training Services 

• Wagner-Peyser (Employment Service) 

• Adult Education 

• Vocational Rehabilitation 

• Welfare-to-Work 

• Older Americans 

• Perkins Act Programs 

• Trade Adjustment Assistance & NAFTA TAA 

• Disabled Veterans Outreach Programs 

• Community Services Block Grant 

• U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

• Unemployment Insurance 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Source: Workforce Investment of Act of 1998, Public Law 105-220 
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 4-3 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

Although WIA prescribes a minimum standard of partner participation in One-Stop systems, 

states and local areas have the discretion to include additional programs that may provide 

workforce development services. Indeed, six of the eight study states (Florida, Nevada, New 

Jersey, Oregon, Texas, and Wisconsin) mandate that TANF programs partner in the One-Stop 

system. Texas mandates a number of additional One-Stop partners: subsidized child care 

services, National Literacy Act services, noncertificate postsecondary career and technology 

training, apprenticeship training, National and Community Services Act, and ex-offender 

programs. 

State and local administrative structures can affect how closely local workforce development 

systems collaborate with the various partner programs. The scope of state-level agencies’ 

administrative responsibility for WIA implementation varies across states. In some cases, the 

state labor department serves as an umbrella agency for other federally-mandated WIA 

partners. For example, Oregon’s workforce development services are housed in the Department 

of Community Colleges and Workforce Development, which also has jurisdiction over the 

Adult Education program and directly collaborates with the Perkins Act programs. This 

alignment of federal programs at the state level results in strong collaboration between these 

programs in the local areas and also explains, in part, the frequent use of community colleges as 

One-Stop operators in Oregon. 

Local relationships and partner acceptance of the cooperative philosophy underlying WIA also 

contributes to local collaboration. Where personal and professional relationships are good, 

partners usually are willing to work through the challenges associated with merging the cultures 

and policies of various agencies to establish collaboration. Where agencies, management, and 

staff are resistant to “giving up turf” to collaborate, One-Stops often are rigid in funneling 

customers into the other programs for which they are eligible to receive intensive services. 

Mandated partners serve various roles within the One-Stop system. In some local areas, being a 

mandated partner may simply mean that the One-Stop displays the program’s brochures. In 

other areas, mandated partners share the responsibilities of “triaging” customers and making 

cross-referrals to meet the individual service needs of each customer. Where WIA and 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) systems are most integrated (Florida and 

Texas), funding for both programs is combined at the state level, and local workforce boards 

administer both programs jointly, often with the same service providers assisting both types of 
4-4 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September2003 

 

customers. Further, some local areas require One-Stop partners to contribute to the financial 

support of the One-Stop facility through cost-allocation agreements. 

Partners also serve as WIA intermediaries in some areas. For example, the local board in 

Wisconsin’s Bay Area requires consortia of three or more federally-mandated partners to 

operate the local area’s ten comprehensive One-Stops. In the vast majority of study sites, ES is 

the primary provider of core services. In some local areas, partner programs provide intensive 

services, often in the form of case management. Local area community and vocational/technical 

colleges are often major providers of training while also being mandated partners. Chapters 5 

through 9 of this report describe in more detail the various intermediary roles that partner 

programs play in the sixteen study sites. 

State Policies

Under WIA, states have a great deal of flexibility in deciding how they will administer their 

workforce development programs and in the policy guidance they provide to local areas. States 

determine the composition and leadership of the State Workforce Investment Board, designate 

local areas, allocate formula funds, develop performance indicators, apply for federal waivers 

(if necessary), and develop statewide data collection systems. States can also set the tone for 

WIA implementation through policy development and guidance: states may develop guidelines 

concerning service design, vendor certification, the Individual Training Account (ITA) system, 

service priorities, and program improvement (D’Amico et al., 2001). States have also enacted 

their own legislation to govern workforce development services. Taken together, these various 

state-level actions significantly influence the shape of local workforce development systems. In 

this section, we discuss the influence that state policies have on the designation of local areas, 

the role of Local Elected Officials (LEOs), the selection and evaluation of One-Stop operators, 

and the selection and evaluation of approved training programs. 

Designation of Local Workforce Investment Areas 

D’Amico et al. (2001) reported that just under half of the states and territories took advantage 

of WIA implementation as an opportunity to reconfigure the boundaries of JTPA Service 

Delivery Areas (SDAs) into WIA local workforce investment areas (LWIAs). These changes 
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 4-5 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

impacted use of intermediaries in these localities, as former PICs and their staff assumed 

different roles within the reconfigured workforce development systems. 

Four of the study sites forged new local areas at approximately the same time they were 

developing their One-Stop systems. In Wisconsin’s Bay Area, Northwest Pennsylvania, and 

both Texas sites, the merging of previously separate local areas affected the resulting OneStops systems. For example, two JTPA SDAs merged in the Bay Area, as part of the state’s 

WIA implementation. The two PICs had operated very differently under JTPA, and rather than 

merging into a single WIB, they chose to remain separate entities under WIA. One PIC had 

contracted out for all program services; this board evolved into the new local workforce board. 

The other PIC operated almost all programs directly; this organization subsequently became a 

One-Stop consortium member and WIA intensive service provider. The consolidation of local 

areas in the Texas sites also led to new roles for the overflow of board staff. Indeed, in our 

study sites, when states fused two local areas, the PICs chose to maintain their separate identity. 

Thus, the merger of two or more SDAs meant that at least one of the existing PICs would have 

to take on a new role if it were to remain involved in the workforce development system. Most 

often this role was intensive service provision—a central role of PIC staff under JTPA—and 

One-Stop operations. Site visit respondents indicated that local boards were often eager to 

capitalize on the expertise of the former PIC staff because of their institutional knowledge of 

public employment and training programs, their experience in workforce development, and 

their established reputation within the community. 

The Three Rivers area of Pennsylvania chose a unique method of altering its structure from 

JTPA to WIA. Under JTPA , Pittsburgh and the surrounding Allegheny County each had 

operated its own SDA. The two PICs discussed merging under WIA, but decided that the 

metropolitan area was likely to receive more funds if they did not merge. Instead, they forged a 

partnership in which the two local workforce areas share one board. The board is devoted to 

policy-making and overseeing policy implementation, and technically has final approval over 

contracting decisions for both local areas. In practice, this local board does not play as 

prominent a role in the local workforce development system as in the other local areas visited 

for the study. The agencies that had staffed the two PICs—the Pittsburgh Partnership for the 

city and the Department of Human Services for Allegheny County—each act as fiscal agent for 

their respective local areas. As fiscal agents, they select and contract with all service providers, 
4-6 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September2003 

 

and pay contractor invoices. They are also partners in the consortium that operates a 

comprehensive One-Stop in each local area. 

The Role of Local Elected Officials 

The role that states delegate to LEOs within the local workforce development system can have 

a significant influence on local boards’ decision-making capacity and processes. In many states, 

LEOs appoint members to the local board and have no further involvement in decision-making 

for the local area. In these states, local boards are empowered to make most decisions, 

including the selection of intermediaries. In contrast, other states grant LEOs an integral role in 

making workforce development decisions for the local area, including final approval of all 

contracts. Because LEOs hold political positions, local workforce development policies in these 

states can be politically charged. For example, respondents at one study site reported that 

because approval of intermediary contracts must go through the county governing board and 

the LEO, contracts can be delayed because local politicians can use them for negotiation 

purposes to achieve other legislative objectives. 

 

Selection and Evaluation of One-Stop Operators 

States have used legislation, pilot programs, and technical assistance memoranda to influence 

the process by which local boards designate One-Stop operators. These policies reflect certain 

values that legislatures and other decision-makers want their state workforce development 

systems to reflect, such as inter-agency collaboration or development of a competitive market. 

For example, Pennsylvania issued guidance that strongly encouraged local boards to designate 

consortia of mandated partners as One-Stop operators. Massachusetts and Texas, on the other 

hand, encouraged competition among service providers using several mechanisms (see Chapter 

5). 

States set performance requirements for local areas, and these requirements usually fall on the 

One-Stop operators to meet. As described in more detail in Chapter 11, several states have 

developed on-line systems through which local areas report their performance on a range of 

measures. The state then generates reports that compare performance with established 

standards. The study’s two Florida sites, for example, withhold a portion of One-Stop 

operators’ payment until the state performance report confirms that the local board met its 

performance standards. 
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 4-7 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

Selection and Evaluation of Training Providers 

Under WIA, states are responsible for developing overall procedures and criteria for inclusion 

on the state-managed Eligible Training Provider List (ETPL). States are also in charge of 

determining provider eligibility to remain in the system (called “subsequent eligibility,” 

discussed in Chapter 8) based on a program’s ability to, among other things, assist trainees to 

find and keep employment. The WIA legislation also allows for local boards to develop 

training provider selection criteria in addition to those established by the state. 

Many states have instituted spending caps on training vouchers, placed limits on the duration of 

training supported through ITAs, and created other guidance as part of their role in establishing 

eligibility criteria for the Eligible Training Provider List (ETPL). In Oregon, for example, 

training programs included on the ETPL may be no longer than nine months in duration, and 

WIA participants may not use an ITA to complete a college degree program. Similarly, New 

Jersey has set a maximum ITA budget of $4,000.

Every study state has implemented an ITA system, and local area respondents believe that 

customers have been able to exercise choice in selecting training providers. Thus far, however, 

the majority of the study sites, and the customers they serve, do not have access to standardized 

data about provider performance as envisioned in the WIA legislation. Respondents reported 

that only two states—Texas and Pennsylvania—have completed subsequent eligibility 

determination of training providers. At least five of the study states have been granted federal 

waivers related to the determination of subsequent eligibility for the ETPL. Waivers have been 

granted to extend the initial eligibility period for the ETPL, and to exempt training providers 

already approved by one state’s higher education board. 

Funding Streams 

Under the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA), funding for employment and training services 

for youth, dislocated workers, and disadvantaged adults was provided under separate titles of 

the JTPA legislation, and service delivery areas (SDAs) offered separate programs for each of 

these three target groups. Although the WIA legislation maintains the separate funding streams 

(within one title of the legislation), it combines general services for adults and services 
4-8 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September2003 

 

specifically for dislocated workers into a single program model. In response to WIA’s emphasis 

on universal access to services, many states and local areas have integrated dislocated worker 

and adult funding streams and programs. At the same time, some states and local areas continue 

to distinguish between the services delivered to the two adult populations. State and local area 

policies regarding the delivery of these services have significant implications for intermediary 

use, particularly for the types of organizations engaged to provide intensive services. For 

example, six sites contract separately for dislocated workers and WIA adults, and most of these 

intermediaries are organizations focused solely on serving this population. Additionally, while 

many local boards draw a clear distinction between adult and youth services, youth services in 

some local areas are provided by One-Stop operators, which are simultaneously organizing and 

providing services to adult customers. 

Perhaps more importantly, a local board’s service delivery system is dictated in large part by 

whether WIA funding streams are integrated with funding from other—potentially much 

larger—federal programs. As O’Shea and King (2001) noted, WIA funds account for a very 

small share of total federal funds available for workforce development, yet local workforce 

boards are expected to provide leadership over partner agencies over which they have little or 

no authority. This challenge is especially apparent in study sites in Texas, Florida and New 

Jersey, where state policy combines TANF and WIA funding and services. Although this 

strategy increases the resources available to support One-Stop operations, the One-Stop 

systems in these states largely focus on serving TANF recipients because WIA funds represent 

such a small proportion of their overall funding. Respondents in Texas and Florida noted that 

these One-Stops are often perceived as welfare offices and that the stigma associated with this 

perception serves as a disincentive for dislocated workers to use WIA services. 

Conclusion

Ultimately, local area One-Stop systems develop according to a broad range of federal, state, 

and local factors, including those discussed above. By extension, local use of intermediary 

organizations for the delivery of workforce development services reflects these peculiarities. 

The next five chapters describe in more detail the use of intermediaries in the study sites and 

the policies that dictate their engagement.
Chapter 5: 

One-Stop Operators 

Introduction

The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) instructs local boards to establish in their local 

workforce areas at least one comprehensive One-Stop center, a single location at which all 

mandated partners make their services available. Local boards are also charged with selecting 

an entity or entities, other than themselves, to operate the One-Stops. As the name suggests, 

One-Stops are meant to serve as both employer and jobseeker customers’ main point of entry 

for workforce development and other support services. 

Apart from the above requirements, the WIA legislation affords local boards a great deal of 

latitude in creating local service delivery systems. For example, local boards are free to develop 

One-Stops that offer a more comprehensive set of services than those provided by the mandated 

partners, to establish more than one comprehensive One-Stop, and to provide services in 

satellite or specialty locations to supplement One-Stop services. Additionally, local boards may 

select a consortium of operators or a single operator, for-profit or non-profit operators, and 

different operators for each One-Stop or one operator for many locations. Even the role and 

responsibilities of the One-Stop operator are at the local board’s discretion. Armed with the 

flexibility to develop services tailored to meet the local area’s particular workforce 

development needs, the sixteen local boards in this study have developed unique service 

delivery systems centered around the One-Stop centers. 

This chapter focuses on local boards’ organization of their local One-Stop systems and the use 

of intermediaries to operate the One-Stops. The chapter first describes the role of One-Stop 

operators, then discusses the processes local boards have used to select and contract with them. 

The chapter then turns to the types of organizations operating One-Stops and satellite career 

centers in the sixteen sites. Lastly, the chapter highlights trends related to One-Stop operator 

intermediaries across the sites. 
5-2 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA

Revised Final Report, September 2003

 

The Role of the One-Stop Operator 

Before selecting a One-Stop operator, the local board must first determine the role the OneStop operator will play in the local area’s service delivery system. By definition, the One-Stop 

center is the focal point of the area’s workforce development system, where core and intensive 

services, training referrals, and many employer services are delivered. Identifying the role the 

operator will play in that system is therefore central to developing the character and tone of the 

local One-Stop system. 

Local boards consider many factors when delineating the role of the One-Stop operator and 

organizing the local workforce development system. Factors such as state policies, funding 

authority, availability of qualified service providers, past relationships with partner programs 

under the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA, see below), and the local political, economic, 

geographic, and demographic context all shape local policy decisions (see Chapter 4). 

One-Stop operators in the sixteen sites hold differing levels of responsibility for One-Stop 

service delivery and coordination. Operating responsibilities range from directly employing all 

on-site staff and providing the bulk of on-site services, to simply coordinating the work of 

partner providers, to providing targeted services as part of the One-Stop, with little interaction 

with or influence on the partner programs. Whether the local board authorizes the operator to 

play a strong management role or a largely nominal role has a substantial effect on the level of 

service coordination in the One-Stop. Respondents in every site report that local boards and 

operators continue to work together to refine the operator role. In the next section, we discuss 

the selection and contracting processes used by the local boards in the study sites. 
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 5-3 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

Selection of One-Stop Operators 

Local boards may use one of four methods to designate a One-Stop operator. The local board 

may select an operator through: a competitive process; a sole-source agreement between the 

local board and the entity or entities; by “grandfathering” an existing organization or group of 

organizations that performed a similar function prior to WIA; or by securing a waiver from the 

Local Elected Official (LEO) and the state’s Governor allowing the local board to serve as the 

One-Stop operator. As Exhibit 5.1 illustrates, the study sites use each of these selection 

processes. 

Exhibit 5.1 

Selection Process, Contract Type, and Operations Funding by Site for PY 2001

State Site . Selection Process . __Contract Type .

Receives 

Funds for 

Operations

 

FL Hillsborough County Competitive Pay-for-Performance No 

 Pinellas County Sole-Source Pay-for-Performance Yes 

MA Boston Competitive Cost Reimbursement Yes 

 Hampden County Competitive Cost Reimbursement Yes 

NV Northern Nevada Grandfather MOU No 

 Southern Nevada Sole-Source MOU No 

NJ Essex County Sole-Source MOU No 

 Passaic County Grandfather MOU No 

OR Lane County Waiver Cost Reimbursement No 

 Region 2 Competitive Cost Reimbursement Yes 

PA Northwest PA Competitive MOU No 

 Three Rivers Grandfather MOU No 

TX Gulf Coast Competitive Cost Reimbursement Yes 

 Tarrant County Competitive Cost Reimbursement Yes 

WI Bay Area Sole-Source Cost Reimbursement No 

 Milwaukee County Grandfather MOU No 
5-4 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA

Revised Final Report, September 2003

 

Competitive Selection 

Local boards in seven of the study sites engaged in very similar competitive Request for 

Proposal (RFP) processes to select One-Stop operators. Local boards commonly placed 

advertisements in community publications and on listservs and websites, in addition to sending 

the RFP solicitations to past contractors. Board staff also took steps to educate prospective 

operators. For example, in the Gulf Coast (Texas) and Oregon Region 2, local board staff held a 

number of community meetings, or bidders conferences, to educate applicants about the 

process and proposal expectations. Submitted proposals underwent rigorous review by local 

board staff and board members, and often included a round of “best and final” presentations to 

the local board. 

Legislation in both Florida and 

Texas requires local boards to 

award One-Stop operating contracts 

through a competitive process. 

Respondents note that state laws 

requiring competition ensure that 

contracting choices are impartial 

and fair. The two Massachusetts 

study sites also use a competitive selection process that was first introduced as a matter of state 

policy. In 1995, when the State was awarded a One-Stop implementation grant, Massachusetts 

used the grant to develop a “competitive model” that dictated service delivery at all levels. Both 

Hampden County and Boston, the two study sites in Massachusetts, were selected to implement 

this three-tiered competitive model. Respondents note that the State wanted to move away from 

being the presumptive provider of direct services and, by using competition to revitalize the 

system, aimed to improve performance and spawn innovation. Since the competitive process 

was pilot tested, however, the State has become less eager to privatize due to concerns from 

labor and other community organizations. 

Hillsborough County (Florida), Northwest Pennsylvania, and Oregon Region 2 also hold 

competitions for One-Stop operator contracts. These sites report that compliance with WIA, 

specifically the role shift for local boards from service provision to program administration, 

was an important reason they chose to competitively select the contracts. Using a competitive 

selection process to select One-Stop operators is a very public statement that a local board is no 

“Pros” of Competitive Selection 

+ Ensure that contracting choices are impartial and fair 

+ Secure the best services for customers 

+ Further emphasizes WIA concepts of privatization, 

accountability, and continuous improvement

+ Possibility of re-competition helps “keep contractors 

honest” and performing well 
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 5-5 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

longer involved in providing workforce development services directly. The separation of policy 

and oversight functions from service delivery, moreover, provides a structure for the local 

board to hold One-Stop operators accountable to meeting performance standards. Additionally, 

respondents at these sites indicate that a competitive process is perceived as a fair process that 

results in securing the best services for customers. Respondents in Oregon’s Region 2, for 

example, noted that its One-Stop operators know that they will be competing for the One-Stop 

contract, and this knowledge motivates them to do their best. 

Local boards that solicited competitive bids for One-Stop operations outlined the role they 

wanted the operator to play and their expectations in their RFPs. Oregon’s Region 2 local 

board, in preparation for the RFP process, 

conducted a community planning process 

to get feedback about how well the 

workforce development system worked. 

Board staff used this feedback in defining 

the One-Stop operator role for the RFP. 

Gulf Coast is the only study site that had re-competed the One-Stop operator contracts at the 

time of our site visits. As the operators’ three-year contracts expired, the local board used the 

RFP process to eliminate underperforming operators and streamline administration of the OneStop system. This decision was intended to facilitated consistency across One-Stops and reduce 

administrative costs. The RFP stressed the need for standardized services and protocols across 

One-Stops and required bidders to describe in their proposals how they would implement the 

standards outlined by the board. In addition, because the Gulf Coast local area encompasses a 

vast thirteen-county area that includes three metropolitan areas (Brazoria, Galveston-Texas 

City, and Houston), respondents note that the local board must constantly adapt to the area’s 

ever-changing workforce development needs. One-Stops in this area had merged, closed, and 

reopened over the course of the three-year contract period, and the re-competition of the 

contracts allowed the board to confirm the number and location of functioning One-Stops. 

 Two other sites—Oregon’s Region 2 and Tarrant County (Texas)—indicate that they had 

imminent plans to re-compete the operating contracts for the next cycle. Tarrant County’s 

operator contract is for a period of three years, at the end of which state law requires recompetition. Staff from the other four sites with competitive contracts suggest that they might 

Wanted: “Imaginative, Even Bold” Proposals 

Hampden County’s One-Stop operator RFP specifically 

called for proposals that demonstrate new strategies 

for service delivery, organizational arrangements, and 

staffing structures.
5-6 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA

Revised Final Report, September 2003

 

also engage in re-competition in the future, and that the possibility of re-competition helps 

“keep contractors honest” and performing well. Some respondents also suggest, however, that 

selecting new operators may be disruptive to the workforce development systems they have 

worked hard to establish. Designating new operators would require extensive staff training, and 

the transition costs associated with changing operators may be prohibitive. While awarding the 

contract to another organization in these 

areas is always a possibility, this action 

would most likely occur only under 

extreme circumstances, such as gross 

misconduct or malfeasance on the part of 

the One-Stop operator. 

Sole-Source Selection 

Five study sites designated One-Stop operators through a sole-source process: Bay Area 

(Wisconsin), Southern Nevada, Lane County (Oregon), Pinellas County (Florida), and Essex 

County (New Jersey). In the Bay Area and Southern Nevada, consortium partners had 

developed relationships with each other and with the incipient local board prior to 

implementation of WIA, so the local board’s selection of the consortium to run the One-Stops 

was seen as a logical choice. In the Bay Area, the local board designated Management Teams 

consisting of two or more partner organizations as the operators of the One-Stop. The 

Management Teams must submit a proposal—including a budget, Management Team roster, 

fiscal agent, and service delivery 

plans—every two years to renew the 

sole-source contracts. In Southern 

Nevada, the State approved the Southern 

Nevada One-Stop Consortium, 

consisting of four agencies with nine 

additional partners, as the One-Stop 

operator. 

Essex County chose to designate as One-Stop operator the entity that had traditionally provided 

workforce development services. The Department of Economic Development and Training and 

Employment (DEDTE) operates the county’s comprehensive One-Stop and also oversees the 

“Cons” of Competitive Selection 

– Change in One-Stop operator is disruptive, 

especially if center changes location

 – New operator requires intensive technical assistance

– Transition costs are high

“Pros” of Sole-Source Selection 

+ Process is fast and relatively inexpensive 

+ Board staff can spend time on building relationship 

instead of managing RFP process 

+ Contributes to “partnership” feeling between local 

board and One-Stop operator 

+ Useful in emergency situations & where few 

competitors exist
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 5-7 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

local board staff. Designation of the One-Stop operator coincided with the County’s creation of 

this combined economic development and employment and training agency. As the two 

departments physically moved to a common space, the LEO appointed DEDTE as the OneStop operator. Respondents in this site noted that because New Jersey has a strong union 

presence, a competitive award process—that might risk the loss of union jobs—would not be 

popular with the community. 

 In 2001, Pinellas County’s local board 

awarded a sole-source contract to operate 

its One-Stops on a six-month interim 

basis when the original operator quit 

abruptly. This emergency operating 

agreement was signed with a local 

community college, St. Petersburg College (SPC), which had a long history of collaboration 

with the workforce development system. The college president serves as a member of the local 

board, and the school was already training WIA customers and providing case management for 

welfare clients. Indeed, this contracting arrangement came to fruition when the college 

president learned of the crisis at a board meeting and offered to take over the contract simply to 

keep the local area’s One-Stops operating. The sole-source contract was extended for another 

two months while the local board staff developed a competitive RFP process to select a 

permanent operator. In spite of competition from six other agencies, SPC won the one-year 

contract, which has since been extended through December 2003. 

“Grandfather” Selection 

Four study sites extended One-Stop 

operating agreements to entities already 

running the centers prior to WIA 

implementation. Under WIA, Passaic 

County (New Jersey), Northern Nevada, 

and Three Rivers (Pennsylvania) each 

maintained the operating structure 

established during their early One-Stop 

implementation efforts. Because these arrangements were relatively new and functioning 

 “Cons” of Sole-Source Selection 

– May limit innovation 

– Limits opportunity for other providers to participate in 

system 

– Process may be perceived as lacking accountability

“Pros” & “Cons” of Grandfathering 

+ Process is fast and relatively inexpensive 

+ Utilizes existing expertise 

+ Minimizes the need for technical assistance due to 

change in provider 

― May limit innovation 

― Limits opportunity for other providers to participate in 

system
5-8 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA

Revised Final Report, September 2003

 

adequately, the local boards decided to appoint the existing operators to run the One-Stops. 

In Milwaukee County (Wisconsin), the agencies that run the One-Stops historically provided 

welfare-to-work services through centralized centers. When WIA funding was not delivered to 

the State in block grants as had been originally anticipated, the local area lacked funding to 

develop separate, stand-alone One-Stops. To capitalize on the existing TANF service 

structures, the local board designated the welfare-to-work center operators as One-Stop 

operators. 

State-Approved Waiver 

In Lane County, the Lane Workforce Partnership, Inc. (LWP) staffs the local board and 

operates the local area’s only comprehensive One-Stop. LWP is a non-profit group with strong 

ties to the county’s employment and training department, which provides the bulk of LWP’s 

staff. Lane County’s local board applied for a waiver from the Governor to operate the OneStop because LWP had been the predominant provider in the area for many years and had a 

proven track record. One respondent indicated that choosing LWP as operator was a “no 

brainer.” Lane County also uses sole-source contracting with Lane Community College (LCC) 

to run a satellite One-Stop that provides basic skills training and serves dislocated workers. 

LCC is the only community college in the local area and had previously been the sole 

dislocated-worker contractor in the county under JTPA. 

A Hybrid Process of Selection 

Northwest Pennsylvania used a unique selection process that combined elements of both the 

competitive and sole-source processes. The five comprehensive One-Stops in the local area are 

all operated by a consortium of four standard partners: the state Employment Service (ES) and 

Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) Departments, one non-profit organization, and one for-profit 

training provider. The two non-governmental organizations were selected through a 

competitive RFP process and also provide core and intensive services in each of the One-Stops. 

ES and VR also provide services in each location; these governmental entities, however, were 

selected noncompetitively as consortium partners. 
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 5-9 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

Contracting Processes

Local boards formalize their relationships with One-Stop operators using either contract or 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) agreements. Exhibit 5.1, above, indicates the types of 

agreements local boards hold with comprehensive and satellite One-Stop operators. 

Seven of the sites use MOUs to secure the services of a One-Stop operator. Local boards most 

often use this mechanism when no funds are being transferred to support center operations. In 

most of these sites, One-Stop operation agreements include the provision of direct services to 

customers, most often intensive services (see Chapter 7). Thus, One-Stop operations are 

subsidized by intensive service funds, in addition to other sources (see “Trends and Issues from 

the Sites,” below). 

One-Stop operator consortia also used MOUs to cement their partnerships. These agreements 

usually spelled out the responsibilities of each partner and their contributions to running the 

centers. 

Both MOUs and contracts may grant 

local boards specific authority over 

operators and formalize communication 

procedures. Respondents in two sites, 

however, note that MOUs with 

operators can lack the necessary “teeth” 

to ensure compliance with local board 

policies, particularly where the local 

board has limited funds or limited 

power. In Three Rivers, for example, the 

local board’s two fiscal agents are also 

part of the One-Stop operator consortium (see Chapter 4). These agencies make all funding and 

oversight decisions, leaving the local board with little direct contact with intermediaries and 

more of a figurehead role than in most other study sites. In Milwaukee County, the local board 

established an MOU with TANF service providers to operate its One-Stops. Center operations 

MOUs vs. Contracts 

• MOUs are the “agreement of choice” between 

government agencies. 

• Without financial incentives, MOUs may lack authority 

to enforce terms of agreement, including 

performance standards 

• Most contracts are cost-reimbursement, which 

requires providers to fund services before they can 

invoice. 

• Performance-based contracts reinforce performance 

goals, but require “real-time” data systems to be 

useful.
5-10 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA

Revised Final Report, September 2003

 

are an unfunded add-on to the providers’ existing services, and without a financial incentive, 

operators may have little reason to recognize the local board’s authority.1

Mirroring Pavetti et al.’s finding that in most TANF intermediary contracts, payment was made 

on a cost-reimbursement basis, all but two of the study sites that use contracts to secure OneStop operators use cost-reimbursement contracts. The two exceptions are the study sites in 

Florida, where local boards use pay-for-performance contracts. Operators in Pinellas and 

Hillsborough Counties are paid monthly according to State-developed performance criteria for 

Florida’s combined WIA and TANF programs. Performance measures include employment and 

wage rates for WIA adults and dislocated workers, WIA youth positive-outcome and goalattainment rates, customer satisfaction, and TANF performance goals. The local board enters 

operator performance data into the state’s data collection system, and the state board, in turn, 

produces monthly performance reports for each local area. The local board in Pinellas County 

withholds ten percent of the One-Stop operator’s monthly invoices, which is reimbursed 

quarterly once the state data system documents that the operator has met its performance 

criteria. The operator, St. Petersburg College, has met its performance goals and has never had 

a problem with receiving full reimbursement. If the Hillsborough County One-Stop operator 

does not perform adequately, the local board withholds a penalty of two percent for each 

specific unmet goal. The contractor may recover the amount withheld if performance goals are 

met the next month. Because the performance criteria are not overly stringent (i.e., remain in 

the top 75% of local areas in terms of achieving performance criteria) and because the contract 

amount is small and the One-Stop operator cannot afford to be penalized, the operator has 

always met its performance goals. 

Oregon Region 2’s local board recently pilot-tested a contract model through which 75 percent 

of costs were directly reimbursed, and 25 percent were linked to performance. With the State’s 

customer data collection system not fully functional, however, the local areas had difficulty 

linking performance to payments. Because of the delay in receiving customer outcome data, the 

local board has returned to using cost-reimbursement contracts. 

 

1

 The TANF providers had already created a “one-stop” environment in which to serve welfare 

recipients. Milwaukee County’s local board contracts with non-profit agencies to provide WIA intensive 

services within the TANF centers, thus WIA services were “piggy-backed” onto this existing structure. 
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 5-11 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

Number and Types of One-Stop Centers

As noted above, local boards have devised various strategies to deliver workforce development 

services based on local needs. Exhibit 5.2 illustrates the number of comprehensive One-Stop 

and satellite or specialty centers study sites have chosen to employ. The study sites operated a 

total of 84 comprehensive One-Stops and 70 satellite centers. Local boards engaged 78 

intermediaries to run the 154 One-Stops. 

Exhibit 5.2 

Number of Comprehensive and Satellite One-Stops and Operators 

(July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002)

FL MA NV NJ OR PA TX WI 

Type of Center 

Hillsborough County  Pinellas County  Boston  Hampden County  Northern Nevada  Southern Nevada  Essex County  Passaic County  Lane County 

Region 2 

 Northwest PA  Three Rivers b

 Gulf Coast  Tarrant County  Bay Area  Milwaukee County 

TOTAL 

Comprehensive 

• One-Stops 4 3 3 2 1 1 1 2 1 7 5 2 29 6 10 7 84 

• Operators 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 5 1 10 4 39 

Satellite 

• One-Stops 1 3 3 0 7 3 19 17 1 2 0 7 3 1 1 2 70 

• Operators 1 1 2 0 1 1 19 16 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 51 

TOTAL 

• One-Stops 5 6 6 2 8 4 20 19 2 9 5 9 32 7 11 9 154 

• Operatorsa 1 1 3 2 1 1 20 17 1 5 1 2 5 1 11 6 78 

a Because some One-Stop operators run both comprehensive and satellite centers, the total number of operators does not always equal the 

number of comprehensive operators plus the number of satellite operators. 

b A consortium of five organizations operates both One-Stops in Three Rivers, however, a different organization serves as the sixth consortium 

partner at each One-Stop.
5-12 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA

Revised Final Report, September 2003

 

Each of the two local areas in Nevada 

covers a larger geographic area than do 

any of the other sites, but each local 

board created a single comprehensive 

One-Stop to serve its local area. To 

effectively serve Nevada’s far-flung 

population, both local boards have 

employed two strategies. First, the 

boards have asked the State’s Department of Employment, Training, and Rehabilitation 

(DETR) to house mandated partners who deliver WIA core and intensive services in a total of 

ten JobLink offices, thus creating satellite One-Stops. In addition, self-service electronic sites 

offer on-line core services in over fifty public locations across this predominantly rural state. 

The two New Jersey sites structure their systems similarly, using a limited number of 

comprehensive One-Stops and many satellite locations, the majority of which consist of access 

to on-line information at community locations such as libraries, community colleges, and high 

schools.

Hampden County, on the other hand, relies solely on two comprehensive One-Stops to deliver 

employment and training services. The county’s two significant metropolitan areas, Springfield 

and Holyoke, each house a One-Stop that provides a complete menu of services to job seekers 

and employers alike. Similarly, Northwest Pennsylvania relies solely on comprehensive OneStops located in each of the local area’s five counties. 

As Exhibit 5.2 illustrates, virtually all of the study sites—the exceptions are Hampden County 

and Northwest Pennsylvania—offer services through a combination of comprehensive OneStops and specialty or satellite One-Stops. Often, services at the ancillary locations are 

designed to address specific needs of local populations. For example, Tarrant County and 

Milwaukee County use specialty One-Stops to target services to dislocated workers. The Bay 

Area site includes a specialty site to serve tribal populations, and the local board in Oregon’s 

Region 2 funds a satellite located within a Housing Authority development. 

Welcome to the Virtual One-Stop

Study sites in Nevada and New Jersey supplement OneStop services with self-serve computer sites located in 

public locations throughout each state. Customers can 

access a number of core services on-line, such as job 

search and exploration, résumé writing, academic and 

soft-skills tutorials, career assessments, and labor market 

and supportive service information.
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 5-13 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

Types of One-Stop Operators 

One-Stops may be operated by: consortia of partner agencies; non-profit organizations; 

educational institutions; government agencies; and for-profit companies. Local boards may 

only operate One-Stops if they are granted a waiver from their Governor to do so. As shown in 

Exhibit 5.3, the study sites use all of these entities to operate their comprehensive One-Stops. 

Figure 5.3 

Comprehensive One-Stop Operators by Type

(July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Nonprofit

For-Profit

Govt

Agency

Education

Consortium

Operators (n =39)

One-Stops (n = 84)

Type of Operator

The detailed data on which this chart is based can be found in Appendix C.

Nonprofit Operators 

Seven of the study sites (Hillsborough County, Boston, Hampden County, Passaic County, 

Oregon Region 2, Gulf Coast, and Milwaukee County) used non-profit organizations in the 

One-Stop operator role, and three of these sites selected only non-profits to operate their OneStops (see Appendix C). Across the seven sites, the organizations taking on this role included 
5-14 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA

Revised Final Report, September 2003

 

both long-standing non-profits, as well as those created specifically to operate One-Stops. The 

non-profit One-Stop operators include organizations that are national in scope, as well as small, 

local agencies. While most of the non-profit operators are independent, secular organizations, 

several are faith-based, and one is affiliated with a labor union. The variation across each of 

these dimensions is discussed in more detail below. 

Hampden, Hillsborough, and Passaic Counties all selected only non-profit organizations to 

operate their One-Stops. This criteria was not part of the selection process for Hampden and 

Hillsborough Counties, which selected 

their operators competitively. 

Nonetheless, the community in 

Hampden County, in particular, felt 

strongly that using for-profit 

companies to provide federally-funded 

employment services was 

inappropriate. 

Local groups in three sites established non-profit organizations for the express purpose of 

operating One-Stops. In each case, WIA partners and community-based organizations had 

formed consortia, and decided to go one step further and incorporate as 501(c)(3) corporations 

in order to enjoy the benefits of incorporation. At the Bay Area site, two consortia, each 

consisting of six to ten partner organizations, incorporated to facilitate administration of their 

existing One-Stop operator contracts.2

 In response to the local board’s solicitation for One-Stop 

operators, a group of community agencies in Hampden County, including the Greater Holyoke 

Chamber of Commerce, a community 

college, the local Department of 

Employment and Training, and the 

Department of Transitional Assistance, 

formed a new non-profit called 

“CareerPoint” to bid on the contract. 

 

2

 Consortium partners in the Marinette County Job Center include ES, Job Corps, Vocational 

Rehabilitation, the county Human Services Department, Goodwill, two regional non-profits, a state 

technical college, and two regional Cooperative Education Services Agencies. Consortium partners in 

Shawano County include ES, Vocational Rehabilitation, the county Departments of Human Services and 

Economic Support, a regional non-profit, a state technical college, and a school-to-work program. 

Negative Perception an Obstacle for For-Profit 

In 1996 Hampden County’s local board contracted with 

Futureworks, a New Jersey-based for-profit company 

experienced in providing dislocated worker services, to run 

one of its One-Stops. After successfully operating the center 

for more than five years as a for-profit affiliate, under 

intense community pressure, FutureWorks converted to a 

non-profit organization. The organization now has a local 

board of directors, and continues to operate One-Stops in 

Hampden County.

Benefits of 501(c)(3) Incorporation for 

Consortia

+ Legally empowered to hire staff 

+ Ability to set up bank accounts 

+ Ability to conduct business transactions without fiscal 

agent
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 5-15 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

Such fledgling organizations, specifically developed to fill the role of One-Stop operator, offer 

local boards the expertise of the consortium partners, but without any potential conflicts 

between their organizational missions and their responsibilities as operator to implement the 

WIA legislation. 

CBOs that existed prior to WIA implementation are also important One-Stop operators. Five 

study sites (Boston, Oregon Region 2, Gulf Coast, Milwaukee and Hillsborough Counties) use 

non-profit operators established independently before the implementation of WIA. One of the 

two CBOs that run One-Stops in Portland (Oregon Region 2) is a large local non-profit 

organization that has provided a number of social service programs to homeless individuals for 

over 30 years. 

Respondents in many sites suggest that One-Stops operated by long-established non-profits 

provide services that leverage the operator’s established expertise, sometimes even in 

programming areas not specific to workforce development. Local board staff that selected these 

types of organizations as One-Stop 

operators did so expressly to create 

One-Stop systems that offered a variety of 

approaches to service delivery. For 

example, Milwaukee County, Oregon 

Region 2, and the Gulf Coast use as OneStop operators organizations that specialize 

in serving Spanish-speaking populations. 

Local affiliates of large national organizations appear to offer an infrastructure well-suited to 

providing services under WIA. Some of these organizations have policy staff in their 

headquarters who analyze national legislation, as well as staff dedicated to identifying funding 

opportunities and writing grants. National non-profit organizations can sponsor listservs, 

newsletters, and conferences to share information and to develop strategies for gaining better 

access to funding. These organizations also usually have financial stability, which is especially 

important when local boards use cost-reimbursement contracts that necessitate a reliable line of 

credit. 

National Nonprofits Bring Diversity to 

One-Stop Operations 

Milwaukee County’s local board primarily employs 

local branches of national organizations as sole 

operators of One-Stops. Local affiliates of the Young 

Women’s Christian Association (YWCA), National 

Council of La Raza (NCLR), and Opportunities 

Industrialization Centers of America (OIC) each 

operate two centers in the county.
5-16 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA

Revised Final Report, September 2003

 

Goodwill Industries and Jewish Vocational Services (JVS), common intermediaries in the study 

sites, are good examples of large national organizations operating across various study sites. 

The One-Stop philosophy and the workforce development approach are attuned to the missions 

of these national organizations and their local affiliates. National organizations also benefit 

from their national networks, which often share information about best practices, local service 

delivery approaches, and funding strategies. Respondents in one site reported that a CBO was 

not able to survive as an operator precisely because of a lack of national support, as well as an 

organizational mission incompatible with One-Stop operation. 

In three local areas, One-Stops are operated by faith-based organizations (FBOs). As mentioned 

above, local affiliates of JVS and the YWCA, two large, national FBOs, operate One-Stops in 

Boston and Milwaukee County, respectively. Although these organizations are classified as 

FBOs, they are also recognized leaders in workforce development. Respondents associated 

these organizations more with their issue and 

service expertise than with their religious 

affiliations. Similarly, Interfaith of the Woodlands, 

a local FBO that was originally established to 

develop local congregations, has expanded over its 

30-year history to become a multifaceted human 

service agency. Interfaith operates nine One-Stops 

in the Gulf Coast region of Texas. 

For-Profit One-Stop Operators 

Milwaukee County and the Gulf Coast are the only two study sites that use for-profit 

companies as operators, and, as Nightingale and Pindus found in their study of TANF 

intermediaries (see Chapter 3), both sites used large private companies to fill this role. The Gulf 

Coast contracts with Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. (ACS), formerly a subsidiary of 

Lockheed-Martin IMS, to operate seven comprehensive One-Stops in the local area. ACS’ 

employees had substantial prior experience working in the workforce development field; some, 

in fact, had previously worked for the county employment and training department. In 

Milwaukee County, one comprehensive One-Stop is operated by Maximus, a company that 

provides a variety of services, including program management and information technology, to 

government agencies nationwide. Maximus was initially retained to provide TANF-funded 

Labor-Affiliated Nonprofit Operator 

An AFL-CIO nonprofit affiliate, the 

Community Service Program of Harris 

County, operates a One-Stop in Texas’ Gulf 

Coast region. While the center does not 

specifically target dislocated workers, the 

operator’s relationship with the labor union 

facilitates linkages to other dislocated 

worker services in the community. 
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 5-17 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

services for the welfare population, but was subsequently designated, along with other TANF 

providers, as a One-Stop operator. 

Pinellas County originally hired a for-profit company to operate all of its One-Stops and 

satellites, but this company abruptly terminated the contract. Respondents in this site report that 

this major U.S. company had problems meeting performance goals and was uncooperative with 

both the local board and its subcontractors. Unfortunately, national company managers did not 

make the underperformance of this local affiliate a company priority. As a result of these 

negative experiences, the local board has prohibited the use of subcontractors by One-Stop 

operators. Additionally, the company is now engaged in a lawsuit against the local board for 

lack of payment. 

Respondents in several sites express their reluctance to use for-profit companies as One-Stop 

operators, primarily for philosophical or ethical reasons. Specifically, these individuals note a 

general perception that it is wrong to make a profit on providing services to disadvantaged 

people. As one respondent stated, “They are in the business for a profit, not to help people find 

jobs.” In addition, in line with the research mentioned in Chapter 3, some contend that front 

line staff in such organizations tend to be so poorly paid that quality is undermined. 

Government Agencies as One-Stop Operators 

Government agencies—specifically, local employment and training agencies—operate OneStops in three local areas: Boston, Essex County, and Tarrant County. Although Essex County 

designated the employment and training agency through a sole-source process and Tarrant 

County and Boston held a competition for the role, respondents in these locations report that in 

each case, the agency was selected because of its experience operating employment and 

training programs under JTPA. 

Site visit respondents in each of these sites discussed the strengths and challenges of using 

government agencies in this role. For example, government agencies tend to have low rates of 

staff turnover, therefore such workers usually have years of valuable experience. In addition, 

the choice of a government agency—often one that was intimately involved in implementing 

JTPA—as One-Stop operator may be influenced by political considerations that would make 

other options appear to be complicated and messy in comparison. 
5-18 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA

Revised Final Report, September 2003

 

On the other hand, staff of local bureaucracies can be resistant to change. This may be the case 

in two sites that use government agencies to run One-Stops, as respondents there report that 

service delivery in these two local areas has changed little since WIA supplanted JTPA. The 

local board in the third site, in contrast, encouraged its governmental operator to develop 

unique and innovative services, such as case management targeted to Asian-speaking clients. 

Another challenge in using governmental operators is that they can be more expensive than 

non-profits, since county employees may be unionized and generally have better wages and 

benefits than other comparable workers. Furthermore, some respondents note that inefficient 

staffing arrangements in civil service positions are difficult to remedy. 

Respondents in at least two of these sites report that the government agency was chosen as 

One-Stop operator in part because board staff believed that no other entity in the local area was 

qualified to run the centers. In Essex County, for example, some respondents note that WIA 

regulations are so complicated that only a government agency that had worked with DOL 

before would be able to establish and operate One-Stops. 

The balance of strengths and challenges in using government One-Stop operators varies across 

sites. For example, respondents in one site explain that there was “political mileage” in having 

the city and state present in the One-Stop system. On the other hand, many individuals 

interviewed in another site describe the board staff’s frustration with the One-Stop operator’s 

slow adaptation to serving both TANF and WIA customers. 

Educational Institutions as One-Stop Operators 

Community colleges operate One-Stops in three sites, including both Oregon sites and Pinellas 

County, Florida. As noted below, community colleges are common participants in consortia 

operating One-Stops, and have traditionally been key providers of vocational training for 

minority, dislocated worker, and disadvantaged populations. Additionally, most community 

colleges have well-established administrative and billing departments, and may therefore be 

better equipped to operate a complex One-Stop structure than other providers, such as small 

CBOs. As described above, St. Petersburg College was able to assume responsibility for 

Pinellas County’s comprehensive and satellite One-Stops precisely because of these capacities, 

and because of its longstanding relationship with the local workforce development system. In 

Lane County, Oregon, the Lane County Community College (LCC) is an integral member of 
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 5-19 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

The Workforce Network, the county’s comprehensive One-Stop, providing basic skills and 

computer training to customers at that location. LCC also provides a second point of access for 

One-Stop services in Lane County, and historically has been the county’s primary service 

provider for dislocated workers. In Oregon Region 2, three community colleges operate five 

comprehensive One-Stops and one satellite center, and provide tailored services for dislocated 

workers. 

Consortium and Collaborative Operators3 

One indication of the extent to which our study sites are not representative of local workforce 

boards nationally is that a much smaller proportion of these sites used a non-competitive 

process to select consortia as One-Stop operators. Only one-quarter of BPA’s study sites met 

these criteria, compared to about half of all local boards, as D’Amico et. al. found in their WIA 

implementation survey of local boards. One reason for the difference between our study sites 

and those surveyed for the WIA implementation study may be the philosophical approach the 

study states took to developing local One-Stop systems. For example, respondents in the study 

sites that use consortia suggested that the state often encouraged the use of a group of provider 

agencies as operators. Similarly, where local boards chose not to use consortia, states had often 

encouraged alternate approaches for One-Stop operation. Indeed, because the study sites were 

early implementers of WIA and/or One-Stops, they may have been more eager to try innovative 

approaches to One-Stop operation. 

Five of the study sites (Northwest Pennsylvania, Three Rivers, Northern and Southern Nevada, 

and Bay Area) selected and contracted with consortia, each made up of three or more WIAmandated partners, to serve as the managerial body operating the One-Stops. Agencies in these 

consortia were already developing collaborative relationships prior to the passage of WIA, but 

these relationships were solidified when the consortia were selected as One-stop operators. 

The operators consortia in these five sites range in size from three to ten partner agencies. Each 

consortium is composed of different combinations of the mandated partners, though the ES is a 

consortium partner for each of the One-Stops using this structure. Consortia are typically 

 

3

 DOL’s definition of a consortium is an association of agencies joined together to operate One-Stops 

consisting of at least three WIA-mandated partners. Consortia may also include other types of 

organizations, in addition to the mandated partners. Collaboratives are similar in structure and function, 
5-20 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA

Revised Final Report, September 2003

 

dominated by public agencies providing mandated services. Non-profit organizations and 

technical and community colleges are also highly represented among the consortia because they 

have extensive experience delivering employment and training services in their localities, 

and/or because they had strong relationships with local workforce development systems prior to 

WIA. In addition, these organizations are sometimes contracted to provide One-Stop-mandated 

services, including WIA intensive services. 

Boston also uses multiple agency operators, but WIA-mandated partners were not required 

members of these collaboratives. Non-profit community-based organizations (CBOs) are the 

dominant agencies in these collaborative operator agreements, which consist of two or more 

entities with one agency taking a lead role. The lead organization is responsible for meeting 

fiscal, auditing, contractual, and reporting requirements, and has the authority and 

responsibility to act on behalf of the collaborative. Local affiliates of Goodwill Industries and 

JVS both lead Boston collaboratives. Goodwill partners with two other local non-profits, while 

JVS partners with Boston’s Office of Job and Community Services. The State Department of 

Employment and Training (DET) leads a collaboration with a CBO in operating the third 

Boston One-Stop. 

Local Boards as One-Stop Operators 

Local boards operate the comprehensive One-Stop in one local area and two specialty centers 

in another. In Lane County, the local board sought a waiver to operate the comprehensive OneStop and to provide direct services (see Chapter 6). The Lane Workforce Partnership, the local 

board, had provided employment and training services prior to implementation of WIA, and 

both the LEO and the Oregon Governor decided that no other provider in the county was as 

well-equipped as the local board agency to provide high-quality employment services. In 

Milwaukee County, the local board operates two specialty centers, one to serve dislocated 

workers and the other to provide youth services. No contract for operations is needed in these 

local areas, as the local board has taken on this responsibility. 

Although local boards operate One-Stops in only two sites, many respondents note the conflict 

of interest associated with local board operation of One-Stops. Because the prohibition against 

 

but include as partners entities that are not necessarily mandated partners, such as community-based nonprofit organizations or for-profit companies.
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 5-21 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

local boards providing services is new under WIA, many respondents were familiar with PICs’ 

provision of services under JTPA. One respondent reports that potential intermediaries used to 

wonder aloud about the local PIC, “They get to be in charge of the money AND give 

themselves money to spend?” Because local boards are now prohibited from awarding 

themselves contracts without an approved waiver, intermediary organizations in this local area 

no longer question decision-making about funding. Another respondent in this local area noted 

that using contractors to provide One-Stop services opened the door with several major 

employers who, prior to WIA implementation, had been reluctant to deal with the PIC as a 

government agency. In general, respondents also question how much the local boards that 

obtain waivers to operate One-Stops or deliver services have accepted or adapted to the WIA 

philosophy. 

Single Operators vs. Multiple Operators 

In addition to utilizing various types of organizations as One-Stop operators, local boards vary 

their service delivery approach even further by either choosing to use multiple operators for 

One-Stops or using one operator for many One-Stops (see Exhibit 5.2). Half of the study sites 

used one operator to run many—sometimes all—of the local area’s One-Stops. Respondents in 

these areas report that local boards often chose this arrangement in an effort to provide 

consistent services across the sites. Moreover, respondents note that using a single operator can 

reduce the need for technical assistance, facilitate coordination across the system, limit 

administrative costs, streamline monitoring, and give the operator a real voice in developing the 

One-Stop system. One site also indicated that the single-operator arrangement was necessary 

because the local area lacked qualified alternatives, even though the local board had used a 

competitive selection process. In one site using a single organization to operate One-Stops, 

however, a respondent notes that by using just one operator, the local board “puts all its eggs in 

one basket” and that making alterations to the system—such as changes in the One-Stop 

operator—is more difficult when one organization has so much responsibility. Most 

organizations replacing the single operator would need a significant start-up period to learn the 

intricacies of the role. In Tarrant County, for example, the local board replaced its sole operator 

of a specialty One-Stop for youth. The new contractor spent several months finding and 

updating customer records, while also attempting to find its customers who had disappeared 

during the transition. 
5-22 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA

Revised Final Report, September 2003

 

Alternatively, local boards that use multiple operators derive certain benefits from this 

structure. Respondents in the eight study sites that use multiple operators report that multiple 

operators create a vibrant system with varied approaches to—and strengths in—delivering 

workforce development services. Additionally, respondents note that having multiple operators 

inherently introduces a competitive tone to the system and thereby fosters better performance. 

Yet because providers have varied approaches to service delivery, some respondents note that 

services in these sites are not standardized across One-Stops. 

Monitoring and Oversight 

Communication between the One-Stop operator and the local board depends in large part on 

whether the operating agreement is contractual, with compensation attached, or simply an 

MOU. Additionally, the philosophy of the local board, the particular entity that serves as 

operator, and the size and scope of the local area all effect the nature of communication 

between the operator and local board. Generally, the exchange of information between 

operators and the local board occurs for technical assistance, monitoring and oversight, and 

billing purposes. 

The local boards vary in their philosophies toward communication with One-Stop operators and 

other intermediaries. Some local boards engage in traditional contractual relationships with 

One-Stop operators, meaning that communication revolves around service delivery goals and 

billing. For example, the Gulf Coast’s local board employs five grant managers who monitor 

the One-Stop contracts every other month, looking at spending compared to budget, staff 

turnover, risk assessment, and WorkSource funding as percent of revenues. All operator 

contracts are also audited annually. 
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 5-23 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

Five sites—Bay Area, Hampden County, Boston, 

Oregon Region 2, and Pinellas County—report that 

local board staff engage in more collaborative 

monitoring practices with One-Stop operators. 

These board staff have modified their role in part 

because WIA implementation requires the local 

board to train intermediaries on the new legislation 

and because of WIA’s emphasis on collaboration. 

These five sites have all developed monitoring 

procedures that combine traditional oversight with 

heavy doses of technical assistance. Local board 

staff in these areas report that they “don’t do classic monitoring,” but rather work in partnership 

with the operators. Respondents at these sites also explain that ensuring good performance is in 

the best interest of both the local board and the contractor, and that both parties benefit from a 

collaborative relationship. Monitoring in these areas starts with technical assistance, but 

switches gears to develop corrective action plans when performance is inadequate. 

Trends and Issues from the Sites 

In this section, we explore some of the most salient trends and organizational issues regarding 

early efforts of the One-Stop operators. This discussion aims to shed light on some of the key 

questions and challenges that local boards and operators have needed to address in 

implementing workforce development services under WIA. 

Use of One-Stop Operators With Previous Experience in the Workforce 

Development System 

Local boards’ use of intermediaries with histories of providing services in collaboration with 

the workforce development system is universal across the study sites. This finding holds 

regardless of the type of selection process used, the type of organization selected to run the 

One-Stops, or whether the operator runs comprehensive or satellite One-Stops. In Oregon 

Region 2, competitive awards were made to three community colleges and one CBO that had 

been providing training services in the area for years. Similarly, the local board in Essex 

“Kitchen Cabinet” Promotes 

Partnerships 

In Oregon’s Region 2, One-Stop managers 

attend regular monthly “kitchen cabinet” 

meetings, convened by local board staff, to 

discuss policies, problems, and strategies, and 

to exchange information. Local board staff 

see their role as a supportive one, keeping 

contractors effective by strengthening 

partnerships and providing technical 

assistance. In turn, One-Stop contractors are 

expected to work as a team, share ideas, 

and function as a collaborative unit.
5-24 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA

Revised Final Report, September 2003

 

County awarded DEDTE, the local entity that had administered and provided all JTPA services, 

a sole-source contract to operate the comprehensive One-Stop. In Passaic County, the One-Stop 

operator, the Passaic County Workforce Development Center, has gone through a number of 

iterations over the past few years, but nearly all the senior staff have been in place, according to 

one respondent, “since the early days of JTPA or longer.” 

Use of intermediaries that have previous experience with the workforce development system 

offers at least two major advantages. First, these organizations understand the manner in which 

federal programs tend to approach service delivery, including financial systems, data 

requirements, and other implementation policies. Thus, the learning curve of assuming new 

roles in the system is much smaller than for agencies that have never worked with the 

workforce development system. Second, experienced service providers have proven 

themselves; organizations that are not effective in assisting customers to enter employment 

usually do not remain in business. Experienced providers also have built a reputation which 

contributes to the One-Stop’s presence in the community. 

Standardization vs. Innovation 

As we have already described, local boards—sometimes driven by state policy—differ 

dramatically in their philosophies about standardizing services across the local area. The Texas 

Workforce Commission, for example, has developed “General Standards and Guidelines,” that 

outline the criteria each One-Stop must meet for certification as either a “Full Service Texas 

Workforce Center” or a “Texas Workforce Center,” depending on the comprehensiveness of 

partners/services. These standards fall under the following basic headings: internal and external 

communication, career center management, continuous improvement, program and contract 

performance, data systems, contract management, partner agreements, and vendor procurement. 

In addition to the state One-Stop standards, the Gulf Coast local board also developed local 

standards for One-Stop operation, including guidelines and standard job descriptions. 

Concerned about inconsistencies in services, even across One-Stops operated by the same 

operator, the local board established a regional training academy and certification for One-Stop 

employees. While other study sites also were concerned about consistency of services, most 

seek to achieve this by designating one operator to run many One-Stops. As we noted earlier in 

this chapter, more than half of the study sites use this approach. 
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 5-25 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

In contrast, other local boards chose One-Stop operators precisely for their different strengths, 

in the hopes that diverse customers would be better-served by different One-Stop operators. In 

Boston, each comprehensive One-Stop has developed unique services, and respondents agree 

that each center has its own distinct strengths and weaknesses. One center is located in a 

predominantly Asian area of the city and has hired a number of staff who speak a variety of 

Asian languages to serve this population. Another operator, which possesses expertise in health 

care, developed a program for customers with HIV. Meanwhile, the other Boston One-Stop has 

focused services on transitioning former prison inmates into the workforce. The varied 

approaches and services of the centers is encouraged and celebrated by the local board. 

Funding for Operations 

Local boards that have access to funds dedicated to the support of One-Stop operations—that 

is, distinct from funds for service provision—have developed more highly functioning and 

more streamlined One-Stop systems than have local boards without such dedicated funds. For 

example, in Massachusetts the study sites have access to extensive funds through the state’s 

initial One-Stop Implementation grant. In addition, these two sites and one other early 

implementing local area continue to share $2.75 million per year in state line-item funding for 

One-Stop services and administration. In Oregon Region 2, the local board passes through five 

percent of its WIA administrative funds to the One-Stops. Other sites—Tarrant County and 

Pinellas County—subsidize One-Stop operations by paying other direct costs (e.g., rent, 

telephone, computer) associated with running the centers. Thus, their One-Stop contract 

amounts can be devoted to covering staff labor. These local boards have been able to develop 

One-Stops with highly integrated services and yet with distinct identities for each One-Stop. 

Other sources of funding for One-Stop operations include cost-sharing agreements with center 

partners, grants, and leveraging resources across multiple funding sources. Of these, costsharing with One-Stop partners is most common, and all but a few of the study sites have 

developed agreements to share the costs of center operations with partners. These agreements 

use various methods of allocating costs, and may be enacted at different levels within the local 

workforce development system. In Lane County and Northwest Pennsylvania, for example, 

partner agencies pay the leaseholder “rent” based on the number of desks that staff of each 

agency occupy, while the Three Rivers One-Stops have a cost allocation agreement based on 

the number of full-time staff each partner agency assigns to the One-Stop. One of the operators 
5-26 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA

Revised Final Report, September 2003

 

in Oregon’s Region 2 collects rent from social service providers that choose to co-locate at the 

One-Stop, but not from employment-related partner agencies. 

One-Stop operations costs may also be allocated based on the proportion of center customers 

that each partner agency serves. This algorithm is used in two study sites, but by different 

players within the workforce development system. In Hillsborough County, the One-Stop 

management team within each center allocates its operation costs across partner agencies based 

on the proportion of customers that each serves. Across Tampa Bay in Pinellas County, the 

local board pays One-Stop costs directly, then board staff request reimbursement from each 

partner agency proportionately based on the number of customers that each serves. 

The lack of funding support for One-Stop operations has handicapped some local boards’ 

efforts to develop One-Stop systems in the way they were originally envisioned. As mentioned 

previously, Milwaukee County’s local board designated TANF contractors as One-Stop 

operators because the system lacked the funds to develop stand-alone One-Stops. The resulting 

One-Stops are thus dominated by TANF clients and services, and the MOU arrangements with 

these operators afford the local board little control over the centers. Another site hoped to share 

One-Stop operator costs across the mandated partners. After a year of pooling resources, 

however, agencies in this area refused to contribute to the system. In the end, the local board 

decided to use its own administrative funds to support the One-Stop coordination role. 

The lack of One-Stop operation funds also has implications for local boards’ ability to replace 

underperforming operators. Even those local boards with ready access to funds to support 

operations report that a change in One-Stop operators would only happen under extreme 

circumstances, since transition and start-up costs would be prohibitive. Such barriers to entry 

for new operators suggest that local boards would have a very difficult time attracting new 

providers to serve in the operator capacity. 

Relationship between TANF and the One-Stop System 

In a number of the study sites, the TANF program overshadows WIA and One-Stop efforts. As 

described in Chapter 4, six of the eight study states mandate that TANF partner in the One-Stop 

system. In Florida, Texas, and New Jersey the programs are even more intertwined because 

these states combine the funding streams at the state level and authorize the local boards to 
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 5-27 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

administer the programs within a single service system. One-Stop operators in these states are 

responsible for both WIA and TANF intensive services. Because TANF monies are 

substantially greater than WIA allocations, TANF programs and their customers dominate the 

One-Stops. In Essex County, where the welfare population is one of the largest in the country, 

welfare case workers number in the hundreds, while only four WIA case managers provide 

intensive services. WIA formula funds represent about 16% of the local board’s budget in 

Hillsborough County, Florida, while TANF funds total approximately 44% of the budget. The 

contrast is even more extreme across Tampa Bay in Pinellas County, where WIA contributes 

19% of the local board’s revenues, compared to 60% from TANF. 

In all of these locations, respondents report that the emphasis on the welfare program 

jeopardizes WIA’s goal of universal access. Where TANF predominates, One-Stops can 

become synonymous with welfare offices, and the stigma attached discourages some potential 

clients. On the other hand, some respondents also noted that in locations with large TANF 

populations, WIA funds are sometimes used to leverage Welfare-to-Work funds, therefore 

increasing the amount available to support a customer’s training. 

Operators and ITAs 

In all but two study sites, the local boards are ultimately responsible for ITA approval, 

payment, and tracking. In the Gulf Coast region of Texas and Oregon’s Region 2, however, 

responsibility for issuing ITAs is passed through to the One-Stop operators. Contracts with 

operators in these locations include funding to support the administration of the ITA program. 

To eliminate any potential conflict of interest, the Gulf Coast’s local board prohibits One-Stop 

operators from providing training, so that these organizations must choose whether they want to 

provide training or serve as One-Stop operators. 
5-28 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA

Revised Final Report, September 2003

 

Operator Turnover 

Four sites have experienced operator turnover since the development of the local area’s OneStops. Transition from one operator to another was most disruptive when it involved a physical 

move to a new location. In these situations, new operators had to rely on posters and postcard 

mailings to registered customers to inform them of the location shift. One site reported that 

after the One-Stop changed locations and operators, the new site was in operation for several 

months before it regained the volume of customers it had at the previous location. Further, the 

new space had to be reconfigured and staffing arrangements renegotiated under the new 

operator. Although the physical location 

did not change in another site, the 

previous operator had strong ties to the 

community that have been difficult to 

recreate. As mentioned previously, yet 

another site was forced to find a new 

contractor when the One-Stop operator 

abruptly stopped performing. A WIA 

partner assumed responsibility for the 

contract and has won the contract in 

subsequent competitive RFP solicitations. 

Most operator turnover was related to poor fiscal management on the part of the operator. 

Respondents throughout the study report that One-Stop operation is an onerous task for nonprofit and for-profit organizations alike. The entity needs to be able to carry lines of credit 

since most systems work on a cost-reimbursement model. For this reason, a small business or 

CBO would have difficulty in taking on the task of local center operation. 

Conclusion 

One-Stop centers are the nexus of the workforce development system under WIA. As 

envisioned by the national legislation, local boards have created diverse systems that use 

various combinations of entities to run the One-Stop operations, satellite and comprehensive 

One-Stops, and operating arrangements. The next five chapters present study findings regarding 

Creative Strategy for Building New 

Operator Capacity 

Oregon’s Region 2 developed a strategy that allowed 

the local board to contract with a new CBO, while also 

addressing concerns about the organization’s fiscal 

viability. The local board required the new CBO to use a 

fiscal agent for its first 18 months as One-Stop operator 

to ensure fiscal responsibility and solvency. At the end of 

this period, the CBO had sufficiently established itself to 

hire financial staff to fulfill these duties.
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 5-29 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

the use of intermediaries to provide core and intensive services, training, youth programs, and 

other brokering and consultant services. 
Chapter 6 

Core Services Providers 

Introduction

The Workforce Investment Act and related regulations state that core services shall be provided 

through the One-Stop system. The regulations anticipate variation in the ways core services are 

delivered: by the One-Stop operator, through One-Stop partners, or through other 

arrangements. This study documents that local areas do indeed vary in the manner of delivering 

core services, the roles played by different 

types of intermediaries, and the ways 

One-Stop partners work as part of a team 

to deliver core services. 

Core services include all of the initial 

interactions between a customer and the 

One-Stop system (see Exhibit 6.1).1

In 

practice, many of the core services at the 

sites visited for this study are delivered in 

a self-serve environment, often a resource 

room. One-Stop resource rooms usually 

feature a variety of “self-accessed” or 

“universal access” services (see Exhibit 

6.2). Other core services involve interactions with service staff. Such services 

are sometimes referred to as “staffassisted core,” also listed in Exhibit 6.2. 

 

1

 Worker profiling refers to the process of determining the extent to which an individual applying for 

unemployment insurance (UI) benefits is expected to need intensive and/or training services to become 

re-employed. Worker profiling relies on a statistical program that analyzes the individual’s 

characteristics and work history in light of nationwide experience with the duration of UI benefits for 

customers with different “profiles.” 

Exhibit 6.1 

Core Services Authorized by WIA

• Worker profiling1 for individuals applying for 

unemployment insurance 

• Outreach and intake 

• Orientation to the One-Stop system 

• Initial assessment of interests, aptitudes, training 

needs, and supportive service needs 

• Job search and placement assistance 

• Some career counseling 

• Provision of information tailored to the individual’s 

career interests and personal situation, such as: 

— demand occupations and employers with 

job openings 

— eligible training providers and their 

performance 

— how to file claims for Unemployment 

Insurance 

— how to access needed supportive services 

• Determination of eligibility for available services 

and benefits 

• Assistance in establishing eligibility for Welfare-toWork and financial aid assistance 

• Follow-up services 12 months after placement 

into unsubsidized employment
6-2 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September 2003

 

Exhibit 6.2 

Typical Core Services Provided in One-Stop Centers 

By WIA Component 

Self-Accessed Core Services

• “Hard copy” and on-line job listings 

• Posters or brochures providing general 

information such as 

— Announcements of upcoming job fairs, 

employer recruiting events, workshops, 

and other publicly-available assistance 

— How to use One-Stop center services 

— Specialized customer assistance, for 

instance, if they do not speak English 

— Legally-required notices, such as the 

rights and responsibilities of 

unemployment insurance claimants 

• Internet access, and computer software for 

assessments and resume writing 

• Information about high-demand occupations 

and specific employers 

• Information about available training 

programs and supportive services 

• Access to a fax machine, telephone, copy 

machine, and email service 

• Orientation to the One-Stop center and 

general assistance with questions, or 

operation of a computer, fax machine, etc. 

 “Staff-Assisted” Core Services

• Time-limited workshops on topics such as 

writing resumes, interviewing, or identifying 

initial job leads 

• Initial assessment of skills, aptitudes, 

interests, and supportive service needs 

• Determination of eligibility for various 

programs and funding sources that may be 

available 

• Help in contacting an employer to set up 

an interview 

• Provision of information about available 

training services 

Oregon designates services on the two lists above as “Core A” and “Core B” respectively; 

Texas, Florida, and sometimes other states make similar distinctions, sometimes using terms 

such as “assisted core” to refer to staff-assisted core services. One of the important distinctions 

between the two types of core services is that in many states (e.g., Oregon, Texas) staff must 

enroll as WIA participants those customers who receive Core B or assisted core services, and 

must subsequently conduct follow-up with these customers. 

This chapter describes the various methods by which the study sites deliver core services, then 

discusses trends and issues observed in the study sites, including increase in demand for these 

services, tracking services use, service sequencing, marketing and outreach, differentiation 

between core and intensive services, and universal access. 
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 6-3 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

Types of Core Service Providers 

Core services are designed and delivered in one of three ways: primarily by staff of the state 

Employment Service (ES); by staff of the organization operating the One-Stop center, usually 

in combination with ES staff; or as a shared function involving staff from multiple partners or 

consortium members. Exhibit 6.3 illustrates which type of organization has primary

responsibility for provision of core services in the study sites’ 84 comprehensive One-Stops. ES 

and non-profit organizations (e.g., One-Stop operators) predominate as managers of core 

services. Across all of the study’s One-Stops, however, ES and the One-Stop operator share 

provision of core services in some manner, often with assistance from other partners who may 

take over responsibility for a specific role (e.g., staffing the resource room) or act as “back-up” 

when assigned staff are not available. 

Exhibit 6.3 

Core Services: Type of Service Provider with Primary Responsibility in 

Comprehensive One-Stops (n = 84)

(July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002)

50%

13%

46%

5% 5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

% 

One-Stops

Nonprofit

For-Profit

Employ

Serv.

Other Govt.

Educational

Type of Provider 

The detailed data on which this chart is based can be found in Appendix C. 
6-4 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September 2003

 

Traditionally, ES has been the provider of core services in the local workforce development 

system. Funded and authorized by the Wagner-Peyser Act (W-P) since 1933, the Employment 

Service system is the traditional state-operated labor exchange service that provides 

information to job seekers and employers. With the passage of WIA, the Wagner-Peyser Act 

was amended; the Employment Service was included as a required One-Stop partner and given 

responsibility for providing core services. Thus, core services—particularly self-service or 

universal access core services—are a continuation of the services that ES has provided for 70 

years. In six of the eight states visited, ES retains W-P funding and does not pass through these 

monies to the local board or One-Stop operator. In these sites, ES provides core services in its 

role as a One-Stop partner. In Florida and Massachusetts, on the other hand, the W-P funds and 

ES roles are fully integrated into One-Stop operations. 

In all eight study states, Wagner-Peyser funds directly or indirectly support the provision of a 

variety of employment-related services, and those comprise a large portion of self-service or 

universal core services delivered in the local area. As partners of the One-Stop centers and 

through Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs), ES staff are the primary providers of core 

services, as prior research has documented. Yet, in many of these areas, other One-Stop 

partners supplement the work of ES by providing staff to greet customers at the front desk, 

perform intake, and staff the resource room. 

As discussed in Chapter 4, state policies influence how local boards structure One-Stop 

services, including core services. For example, TANF and WIA funding are combined at the 

state level in Texas. As a result, local service systems, including the provision of core services, 

are highly integrated. Except for counseling and case management, all WIA adult and TANF 

services are combined at the One-Stops. Similarly, Florida legislation has delegated supervision 

of Agency for Workforce Innovation staff (AWI is the state ES agency) to One-Stop operators 

through the local boards. AWI staff is accountable to the One-Stop operator, who has full 

supervisory authority for AWI staff, including writing performance reviews. This arrangement 

appears to increase integration in the One-Stops, but also places a burden on the One-Stop 

operator because no additional money is allocated to cover these responsibilities. 

Several of the sites visited have developed unique arrangements to facilitate provision of core 

services, often combining a variety of resources and organizations. Some examples are the 

following: 
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 6-5 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

• In Wisconsin’s Bay Area, ES is the provider of equipment—primarily computers and 

furnishings—for resource rooms in each of the ten comprehensive One-Stops. Core 

services are consistently staffed, however, by the partner that provides intensive 

services at that location. ES fills this role at five of the ten One-Stop locations. 

Different non-profit consortia partners 

staff core services in five other 

locations, and in one of these locations 

a tribal entity shares the responsibility 

with the county’s Department of Health 

and Human Services. 

• Milwaukee County’s local board operates the HIRE Center, a specialty One-Stop 

serving dislocated workers. Since this center long predates WIA, and since specialty 

and satellite centers do not have to meet the same requirements as do comprehensive 

One-Stops, ES is not a partner in this center. Consequently, the local board contracts 

with ES to provide core services. Milwaukee County also relies on the operator of 

another satellite office, which 

serves incarcerated customers, to 

deliver core services.

• The Massachusetts study sites do 

not utilize ES staff to provide 

core services. The state’s 1995 

One-Stop Implementation Grant 

allowed Massachusetts to use W-P funds free from the requirement that only meritbased, ES staff could provide these services. This exemption allowed the state’s early 

implementing sites to use the One-Stop operator’s staff to provide core services. 

Because the operating contracts in these areas consolidate funding from as many as 

twelve funding streams, the One-Stop operators require no separate contract agreement 

to provide the core services. One of the funding streams is a line item in the state 

budget that funds a majority of core and intensive services for One-Stops. The two 

Massachusetts sites have carried out their responsibility for providing core services in 

very different ways; the Hampden One-Stop leases ES employees, while in two Boston 

centers, employees of the lead consortium agency provide core services. 

Local Boards Cover Equipment Costs

In Tarrant and Pinellas Counties, the local boards 

support service provision by covering other direct 

cost budget line items directly. The boards own 

and maintain all of the One-Stop’s furniture and 

equipment, including that in the resource room.

ES and Nonprofit Jointly Manage 

Core Services 

In one Three Rivers career center, ES and Goodwill (the 

leaseholder partner) jointly manage the provision of core 

services, and handle all issues associated with work flow, 

client services, and reporting. All One-Stop staff, 

including all partner staff, take regular two-hour shifts 

covering staffing for core services and other needs. 
6-6 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September 2003

 

• Northwest Pennsylvania has developed a cost allocation agreement between the OneStop providers and the local board to cover core services. The infrastructure needed to 

deliver core services—computers and other equipment—is financed by ES, but the 

services themselves are staffed by the non-profit members of the One-Stop consortium.

• In Pinellas County, the One-Stop operator, a community college, has primary 

responsibility for providing core services. The community college employs customer 

information specialists who staff the front desk the majority of the time, and has two 

full-time workshop trainers who 

travel among the One-Stops on a 

regular basis. In addition, 

however, the ES staffs the 

resource room and some 

workshops in each One-Stop. 

• The Southern Nevada site provides 

core services primarily through the 

ES staff. However, all partners with representatives on site participate in the intake 

process using a standard form and making referrals to the other partners as necessary. 

One crucial core service is the provision of workshops to assist job seekers. All One-Stops 

feature at least some such workshops, and they vary between “no registration required, walkin” format and workshops for which customers enroll and pay a fee. (The fee is usually waived 

or reduced for students and unemployed customers.) The most prevalent workshop topics are 

how to prepare resumes and cover letters, how to find and follow up on job leads, and how to 

dress and behave during job interviews. In addition, many One-Stops offer workshops on topics 

such as career exploration, volunteering as a resume-building strategy, and financial 

management. Another category of workshops includes workplace essentials and more detailed 

topics related to job retention skills, such as interacting with supervisors, conflict resolution, 

dealing with difficult people, and other communication skills. 

One-Stop and Partner Staff Share Functional 

Responsibilities 

In the Pittsburgh CareerLink, all One-Stop and partner 

staff share responsibility for delivering core, intensive, 

business development, and youth services. In the case 

of core services, staff rotate on a monthly basis so that 

each employee delivers core services one day every 

two or three weeks.
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 6-7 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

A combination of ES staff and One-Stop operator staff typically conduct workshops. Other 

One-Stop partners participate less frequently. The designation of who delivers which 

workshops is often a result of history, staff experience, and available time. 

Monitoring and Oversight

Monitoring of core services is generally incorporated in oversight of the One-Stop operator (see 

Chapter 5), since in most cases, the operator is primarily responsible for providing these 

services. Core services are envisioned as serving the “universal customer” including those who 

have no intention of participating in other WIA programs. With this goal in mind, One-Stop 

operators have been reluctant to impose any data collection activities that might serve as a 

barrier to universal access to these services. 

As a result, documenting the use of core 

services is a challenge, particular in arriving 

at an unduplicated count of customers using 

core services. Respondents were concerned 

that a significant proportion of WIA funds 

are spent on providing these services, but 

that the impact often goes undocumented. 

Staff persons within One-Stop centers in Oregon and Texas expressed concern that they are 

required to enroll, collect follow-up data, and track and report outcomes for customers who 

receive “staff-assisted” core services. They perceive these steps as burdensome because of the 

small amount of money spent on behalf of those customers, especially when the customer does 

not always proceed to intensive services. 

Trends and Issues from the Sites 

Increase in the Demand for Core Services 

One of the most pervasive challenges across the study sites has been the increase in demand for 

core services in the months following September 11, 2001. In some areas, One-Stop centers 

Scanning the Universal Customer 

Oregon’s Region 2 issues “scanner cards” to 

everyone who registers at the One-Stop centers. Staff 

encourage customers to “swipe” the cards each time 

they come in to use computers or other core services, 

allowing the centers to gather information about the 

users of core services as well as the frequency of their 

visits to the centers.
6-8 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September 2003

 

added workshops or modified the content of workshops to meet the needs of a growing 

population of dislocated workers. For example, they developed workshops to bolster selfesteem, help individuals handle finances, or assess their own transferable skills. In some local 

areas, such as Houston, Texas and Oregon’s Region 2, One-Stop operators complained of a 

shortage of computers and space for their resource rooms. 

Tarrant County, Texas, was one of the areas especially affected by September 11, since the area 

is headquarters to several airlines. For a period of two months, the One-Stop system, which 

combines TANF and WIA-funded services, focused almost exclusively on registering and 

responding to the needs of dislocated workers. Afterwards, all case managers collaborated in 

addressing the backlog in the TANF caseload that developed during those two months. 

Service Sequencing 

WIA requires receipt of at least one core service to determine that a person needs intensive 

services to become employed. Several local boards have debated the question of whether 

customers should be required to receive more than one core service before receiving intensive 

services. On one hand, required participation in several core activities can ensure that potential 

intensive service customers avail themselves of appropriate core services which may either 

provide sufficient assistance for them to secure employment, or contribute to their “readiness” 

for intensive services. This policy can also serve as a screening mechanism in two ways: those 

individuals who are not able to find jobs with the assistance of core services most likely do 

need further assistance; and those individuals who are most committed to finding a job will 

complete the required core activities. On the other hand, required participation in multiple core 

activities can increase demands on the system, as One-Stops must provide sufficient staff and 

other resources to support these activities. This last issue is an important consideration, as 

respondents in many study sites described provision of core services as an “unfunded 

mandate.” 

A number of local boards and One-Stop 

operators have developed operational 

policies to encourage or require customers 

to use more than one core service before 

they proceed to intensive services. For 

Core Services as Eligibility Criteria for 

Intensive Services 

Essex County customers must participate in core 

activities for at least two weeks and complete an 

assessment of basic skills before they are referred to 

intensive services.
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 6-9 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

instance, several local boards (including Lane County) require completion of a series of 

workshops before customers are referred to intensive services. Other boards have 

recommended that customers participate in specific core services before moving on to intensive 

services. Customers in Pinellas County must complete a One-Stop orientation and a minisurvey about their skills, interests, and service needs before moving from core to intensive 

services. In contrast, Hillsborough County customers must simply state that they want training 

to be referred to intensive services. 

Marketing and Outreach 

Another challenge related to the provision of core services is marketing or outreach. Local 

boards face several challenges with respect to marketing: 

• Whether to market at all. This concern is especially relevant at a time when One-Stop 

centers may not have sufficient funding to respond to any additional demand for 

services that outreach or marketing might generate; and 

• How a One-Stop center should present itself or “target” its marketing efforts. This 

question is complex and incorporates other considerations, such as: 

— The overall “image” of the One-Stop, whether it is co-located with an office 

serving TANF clients, and whether it attempts to project an impression of 

being a “business services” facility; 

— The identity and pre-existing linkages of the One-Stop operator—in other 

words, the extent to which it is community-based, the types of services the 

agency delivered prior to becoming a One-Stop operator, and its connections to 

particular population subgroups; and 

— The marketing messages chosen—whether they are aimed at business, 

unemployed workers, new labor market entrants, or a mix of these. 

In many areas, the absence of any resolution to these questions means that proactive marketing 

and outreach efforts are minimal. Nonetheless, the sites visited do engage in at least two forms 

of outreach. First, all but one maintain an Internet presence, and second, they have built and 
6-10 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September 2003

 

sustained constructive relationships with community-based organizations and service agencies 

that serve as referral sources. 

Local boards in about half of the study sites have chosen to actively market One-Stop and 

related services to businesses. These efforts range from simple brochures to industry cluster 

advisory committees and employer-driven workforce initiatives. Examples include: 

• Lane County’s comprehensive One-Stop houses a business services department with a 

separate entrance to the building. The department’s employer-targeted brochures offer 

a range of services to local businesses, including: recruiting, screening and referring 

applicants; testing applicants for skills and aptitudes; upgrading employee skills; 

brokering customized skills training; providing employers with private interview space; 

and Rapid Response assistance during layoffs or closures. 

• The WorkSource, the Gulf Coast’s local 

board, hired a marketing consultant to 

develop “branding” materials for the 

workforce development system as a 

whole, and to promote a similar set of 

services to businesses in Texas. In 

addition, The WorkSource offers 

employers targeted labor market 

information, as well technical assistance on federal and state employment-related 

regulations. These services are available at The WorkSource’s centralized Employer 

Services department, on-line, and in each of its twenty-eight One-Stops. 

Tampa’s One-Stop Offers Complete 

Business Center Services 

Hillsborough County provides Business Center 

Services at its flagship One-Stop. In addition to 

the usual workforce-related services, the Business 

Center offers employers conference facilities, 

including teleconferencing and videoconferencing capabilities.
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 6-11 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

• Pinellas County calls its One-Stops “One-Stop Business Centers,” and has also used 

marketing consultants to develop a “brand identity” for the workforce development 

system. The local board created a marketing folder targeted at businesses that 

describes employer services 

available, including tax credits 

and other employer incentive 

programs. 

• Worksystems Inc., the local board 

in Oregon Region 2, interviewed 

major employers in the process of 

developing a stakeholder input 

report. Worksystems has an 

economic and workforce development department called “Skunkworks” which 

sponsors employer-driven initiatives and administers the board’s four employment 

sector initiative projects. 

Differentiation Between Core and Intensive Services 

Partners at the One-Stop often make no distinction between core and intensive services. From 

the partners’ point of view, the main question is, “Is the client getting from point A to point B?” 

For instance, published One-Stop activities schedules typically include resume writing 

workshops and workshops on basic computer skills, introduction to the Internet, and even a 

nine-session series of workshops on Microsoft Word. In Lane County, Oregon, Adult Basic 

Education and basic computer skills are considered core services, since the local board believes 

that every worker needs these skills to get a job in the current economy. In practice, the 

distinction that receives the greatest operational attention is not between core and intensive 

services, but between universal access services for which “no registration is required,” and 

those that involve follow-up data collection and accountability for outcomes. 

Universal Access 

Core services are, by definition, the vehicle by which the workforce development system 

provides universal access to anyone seeking employment-related services. A few respondents, 

Using Employers as Advisors to the 

Local Board 

The Three Rivers Workforce Investment Board has 

developed targeted marketing materials for businesses 

that advertise the meeting facilities at its Employer 

Resource Center and other business services. The local 

board also convenes industry cluster summits to engage 

leaders in workforce development efforts. As a result of 

these summits, many industry participants have 

assumed the continuing role of employer advisors to the 

local board.
6-12 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September 2003

 

however, note that the claim of “universal access” is somewhat optimistic. The persistent 

shortage of WIA funding means that One-Stop centers can not afford to provide core services 

to all who may want them, especially not if increasing core services requires purchasing 

additional equipment, adding staff for the resource room or front desk, adding workshops, or 

other efforts that require staff time. This inability to expand even relatively low-cost core 

services may be the reason that few One-Stop Centers are genuinely aggressive in their 

outreach, especially outreach to customers with limited English proficiency and other 

customers who would require assistance to access services. 

Conclusion

WIA has changed the ways local workforce development professionals provide core services to 

their individual customers. In particular, One-Stop partners and other intermediaries have often 

emphasized teamwork in delivering services more than clarity of roles. 

All partners involved in the operation of One-Stop centers acknowledge the importance of high 

quality and customer service in the delivery of core services. In the local areas that rely most on 

collaborative arrangements among partners, shared responsibility for provision of core services 

is often a clearly-observed manifestation of intermediaries’ ability to work together 

successfully to provide high-quality services. 
Chapter 7 

Intensive Services Providers 

Introduction

Intensive employment assistance is the intermediate step between core services and intensive 

training. In a One-Stop center, intensive services may be provided, and funded, by many of the 

co-located partner agencies. With funding 

from their respective legislative authorities, 

the Welfare-to-Work program, Vocational 

Rehabilitation, Older Americans Act 

programs, and TAA/NAFTA all offer at 

least some of the intensive services listed in 

Exhibit 7.1. This chapter, however, is 

concerned with intensive services funded 

through WIA, and focuses on intensive 

services for WIA adult and dislocated 

worker customers in particular. 

In addition to the types of assistance listed in the WIA legislation, some states or local boards 

choose to offer additional intensive services. Most often, the additional services are supportive 

in nature. For example, Florida’s state version of the WIA authorized funding for supportive 

services such as child care and transportation. Similarly, the Three Rivers local area offers 

support services, Southern Nevada offers community mentors, and Wisconsin provides driver’s 

license preparation. 

As mentioned in Chapter 6, states and local boards also vary in whether they consider certain 

services to be core, intensive, or training. Most often, the services in question are adult basic 

education (ABE), General Educational Diploma (GED) preparation, and English as a Second 

Language (ESL). For example, Lane County’s board considers these services, along with basic 

computer skills, to be “Assisted Core” because workers need these skills to be competitive in 

today’s economy. Other sites consider these services to be intensive, though the local board in 

Exhibit 7.1 

Intensive Services Authorized by WIA 

may include:

• Comprehensive assessment 

• Individual employment plan development 

• Case management 

• Individual & group counselling 

• Career planning 

• Job development and placement 

• Short-term prevocational services 

• Work experience & internships 

• Out-of-area job search & relocation assistance 

• Adult basic education for workforce readiness
7-2 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

the Gulf Coast area of Texas treats providers of these services like training providers and has 

created a local list of ABE trainers, computer skills classes, and GED preparation providers 

using a process which mirrors the state ETPL. 

These examples represent just two aspects of the range of WIA intensive service provision 

across the study sites. The rest of this chapter explores how local boards select and contract 

with intensive services providers, the types of providers delivering intensive services, how local 

areas structure and secure intensive services for dislocated workers, and how local boards 

measure the performance of these providers. The chapter concludes with a discussion of trends, 

issues, and successes in the delivery of intensive services across study sites. 

Selecting and Contracting with Intensive Service Providers

The study sites use three different methods of providing WIA intensive services: (1) local 

boards include intensive services in the One-Stop operator’s contract or MOU; (2) local boards 

hire organizations other than the One-Stop operator to deliver these services; and (3) local 

boards use both One-Stop operators and other contractors to provide intensive services. This 

section describes each of these approaches and the contracting mechanisms associated with 

them. 

One-Stop Operators as Intensive Services Providers 

In most of the sites that the study team visited, the One-Stop operations contract or MOU 

stipulates that the contractor will provide intensive services (see Exhibit 7.2). Thus, the process 

for selecting One-Stop operators and the terms of the One-Stop operations agreement (e.g., 

duration, type of payment) apply to the provision of intensive services as well as to other 

activities. This model offers local boards streamlined management and accountability for 

services, as well as the potential for cross-subsidy of One-Stop operations costs with intensive 

service costs. 
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 7-3 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

Exhibit 7.2 

Intensive Services: Type of Service Provider Used 

in Each Site’s Comprehensive One-Stops

FL MA NV NJ OR PA TX WI 

Type of Service 

Provider 

Hillsborough County

 Pinellas County  Boston  Hampden County  Northern Nevada  Southern Nevada

 Essex County  Passaic County  Lane County 

Region 2 

 Northwest PA  Three Rivers  Gulf Coast  Tarrant County  Bay Area  Milwaukee County 

TOTAL Ctrs by Type 

One-Stop Operator 3 3 1 1 2 1 7 5 2 29 6 10 5 75 

Employment 

Service* 

Other Partner 4 2 2 8 

Shared 1 1 

TOTAL 

Comprehensive 

Centers by Site 

4 3 3 2 1 1 1 2 1 7 5 2 29 6 10 7 84 

*None of the sites use ES exclusively to provide intensive services, however ES is a partner in each One-Stop 

operating consortium (see Chapter 5). 

Three of the five sites that use consortia to operate their One-Stops include intensive services in 

the One-Stop operator role. Because of the number of players involved in consortia, however, 

slightly more complex arrangements are involved than when a single organization serves as 

operator. Specific agencies within the One-Stop consortia provide intensive services. Each of 

these three sites—Bay Area, Boston, and Northwest Pennsylvania—employs a different 

method for determining which consortium members provide these services, and varying means 

of structuring the commitment to provide them. In Boston, the lead agency of each 

collaborative provides intensive services, and this commitment is included in the One-Stop 

operator contract. In Wisconsin’s Bay Area, the One-Stop management team decides 

collectively which of its member organizations will deliver intensive services, and subcontracts 

with these agencies separately from the management team consortium contract. In the last site, 

Northwest Pennsylvania, only non-governmental members of the collaboratives deliver 

intensive services. 
7-4 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

Intensive Services Provided by Entity Other Than One-Stop Operator 

Five sites select organizations other than the One-Stop operator as primary providers of 

intensive services: Hampden, Hillsborough, and Milwaukee Counties, and Northern and 

Southern Nevada. Within this group of sites, local boards selected intensive service providers 

both through sole source mechanisms, and through a competitive RFP process. The duration of 

most intensive services contracts is one year, though a few sites use one-year contracts with the 

option to extend the contract one or two years. 

In Hillsborough and Hampden Counties, the local board or its fiscal agent signed a sole source 

contract with the county agency that had previously provided most JTPA services. In both 

cases, staff of the intensive services provider are co-located in the One-Stops. 

• To retain the expertise of staff with years of workforce development experience, the 

Hillsborough County Workforce Investment Board retains the county employment and 

training department to provide WIA intensive services. The terms of this performance-based 

contract stipulated that the county’s outcomes on the Florida WIA performance criteria must 

remain above a certain point for this provider to be paid. 

• As fiscal agent for the local board, the Hampden County Employment and Training 

Consortium (HCETC) has authority for contracting on the local board’s behalf. HCETC 

awarded itself a contract to serve as primary provider of intensive services. In addition, 

HCETC subcontracts with the two One-Stop operators to provide additional intensive 

services. 

Three other sites use a competitive RFP process to award one-year contracts for intensive 

services to nonprofit community-based organizations that are not the One-Stop operators. 

Northern Nevada’s local board contracts with five nonprofit agencies for these services. Only 

one provider is co-located at the local area’s one comprehensive One-Stop; the others provide 

services in their own offices located in communities scattered across the local area’s 13 

counties. Southern Nevada provides intensive services in a similar way. The local board 

contracts with six organizations—five nonprofit and one for-profit—to provide intensive 

services. Two of these contracts were awarded to members of the One-Stop consortium, who 

provide intensive services on-site at the center. The other contractors provide services 

elsewhere in the local area. 
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 7-5 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

In Milwaukee County, the One-Stop operators are TANF contractors, though the MOUs with 

the local board that would formally establish this relationship had not been signed at the time of 

the site visit. To ensure that WIA services would be provided nonetheless, the local board 

signed separate sole source contracts with four community-based organizations to provide WIA 

intensive services in all comprehensive One-Stops and one specialty center. Coincidentally, two 

of the four intensive services provider organizations also operate comprehensive One-Stops. 

Milwaukee County pays intensive services providers half of their payment for services when a 

customer starts working, and the other half when the customer has retained a job paying more 

than $8 per hour for 30 days. 

Intensive Services Provided by Both One-Stop Operator and Other Partner 

Finally, several sites use intensive services 

providers in addition to the One-Stop 

operator, most often selected using a 

competitive bid process. Local boards 

usually opt to use additional providers to 

access specialized services or to serve 

special populations, generally individuals with multiple barriers to employment. Such services 

may or may not be provided within comprehensive One-Stop centers. For example, Essex 

County contracts with Jewish Vocational Service (JVS) to provide trained counselors who 

conduct comprehensive assessments in its comprehensive One-Stop. 

Tarrant County and Three Rivers, on the other hand, supplement the intensive services 

provided in their One-Stops with services provided in community locations outside of the 

comprehensive centers. These local 

boards signs vendor agreements with 

CBOs that target populations with 

specific barriers to secure these services. 

Three Rivers contracts with nine 

organizations (including a government 

agency, a for-profit company, and an 

educational institution) to deliver 

intensive services to dislocated workers, 

Intensive Services for Incarcerated 

Offenders 

Milwaukee County contracts with Wisconsin 

Correctional Services to provide intensive services onsite at the county jail to incarcerated customers who 

are transitioning out of the corrections system.

Serving Customers with Multiple Barriers 

to Employment 

Tarrant County used an RFP process to select 25 nonprofit Innovation Initiative service providers to provide 

vocational services to individuals with multiple 

employment barriers in community locations outside of 

the One-Stop. Although most of the customers served 

under these cost-reimbursement contracts−including 

victims of domestic violence, individuals with psychiatric 

disabilities, and people who are homeless−are TANF 

participants, a small number of WIA adult customers also 

use these services.
7-6 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

African American Vietnam veterans, female offenders, people with disabilities, and individuals 

who are homeless or incarcerated. A few of these nine organizations offer specialized services, 

including support services and pre-employment medical examinations. 

In sum, the type of selection process used to choose intensive service providers depends upon 

how the local board—and One-Stop operators, if they have a choice—organize the delivery of 

WIA services. In part, because WIA funds are limited, local boards often incorporate provision 

of intensive services into the One-Stop operations contract. Interestingly, slightly less than half 

of the respondents to D’Amico et al.’s national survey of workforce boards used this 

arrangement, compared to the majority of study sites that we visited. Where local boards and 

One-Stop operators use intensive services providers other than the One-Stop operator, they 

most often select them using a competitive RFP process and sign cost-reimbursement contracts. 

Of all WIA service components, intensive services are perhaps the most similar in organization 

and delivery to services under JTPA. As a result, while the level of funding for intensive 

services is not high, it was generally less of an issue among the One-Stop staff respondents than 

was the lack of specific funding available for One-Stop operations and core services.

Types of Intensive Services Providers

Intensive services were often the primary assistance that PIC staff provided JTPA customers. 

Additionally, PICs sometimes contracted these services out to community-based organizations 

to target specific populations. Figure 7.3 categorizes the intensive services providers used in 

each comprehensive One-Stop of the study sites by type—community-based non-profit agency, 

for-profit, employment service, other government agency, or educational institution. 

In over half of the eighty-four comprehensive centers, the providers of intensive services are 

non-profits, including both large national organizations and small local agencies. A number of 

sites—such as Boston, Essex County, Three Rivers, and Milwaukee County—employ national 

CBOs with a long history in employment and training services as intensive services providers. 

These organizations include Goodwill, JVS, United Cerebral Palsy, and AFL-CIO, many of the 

same service providers that Pavetti, et al. found in their research on TANF intermediaries. The 
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 7-7 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

majority of intensive services providers, however, are smaller non-profit organizations serving 

a single city or region. 

Exhibit 7.3 

Intensive Services: Type of Organization with Primary Responsibility 

 in Comprehensive One-Stops 

(July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

% One-Stops

Nonprofit

For-Profit

Employ Serv.

Other Govt.

Educational

Type of Provider

(n = 84)

The detailed data on which this chart is based can be found in Appendix C. 

Government agencies—such as county health and human service agencies, county employment 

and training departments, and tribal entities—provide intensive services in fourteen 

comprehensive centers. For-profit firms, all but one1

 of which are small local companies, 

provide these services in thirteen of the study sites’ comprehensive One-Stops. A total of four 

centers used educational institutions to provide intensive services; all were state community 

and vocational colleges. 

 

1

 ACS, formerly Lockheed Martin IM, provides intensive services in the One-Stops it operates in the 

Gulf Coast region of Texas. 
7-8 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

The study sites varied in the total number of intensive providers used, depending on how the 

local board structured WIA services. The Three Rivers local board contracts with thirteen 

intensive services providers, while several sites (including Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Passaic 

Counties) use only one intensive service provider (see Appendix C). 

Intensive Services for Dislocated Workers

Core services for dislocated workers are the same as for any other population served in a OneStop, and access to training services is generally similar to the process used for WIA Adult 

customers. In some local areas, however, intensive services for dislocated workers are very 

different from those offered to WIA adult customers. For these reasons, we include a more 

detailed discussion of dislocated worker services here. This section first describes the structure 

of dislocated worker services in the study sites, then discusses the impact of the integration of 

WIA and TANF on services to this population. 

Provision of Dislocated Worker Services in Study Sites 

DOL provides separate formula funds for dislocated workers because they have different 

characteristics and service needs than many WIA adult customers. Local boards may receive 

higher per capital funds for dislocated workers than for WIA adults, and may provide more and 

different services to dislocated workers than to adult customers. In addition to categorical 

funds, states and local boards can access National Emergency Grants, and most study sites did.2

Local board respondents noted that keeping the rules straight for various funding programs can 

sometimes be time-consuming, particularly for boards serving smaller local areas. 

Nonetheless, as Exhibit 7.4 indicates, most of the sites that the research team visited combine 

dislocated worker with WIA adult funds and services. Six local areas, however, secure 

provision of dislocated worker services separately from adult services. Three of these sites 

(Northwest Pennsylvania, Oregon Region 2, and Southern Nevada) hire an organization 

specifically to serve dislocated workers within the comprehensive One-Stops. In all three cases, 

these contractors also are involved in One-Stop operations. In Northwest Pennsylvania, a forprofit training provider that is part of the One-Stop operator consortium provides dislocated 

worker services. 

 

 

2

 Sites in Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Texas, and Wisconsin 
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 7-9 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

Exhibit 7.4 

Dislocated Worker Services: Combined with WIA Adult Intensive Services, 

and Availability in Comprehensive Centers by Local Area 

(July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002) 

FL* MA NV* NJ* OR* PA TX* WI* 

Providers 

Hillsborough County

 Pinellas County  Boston  Hampden County  Northern Nevada  Southern Nevada

 Essex County  Passaic County  Lane County 

Region 2 

 Northwest PA  Three Rivers  Gulf Coast  Tarrant County  Bay Area  Milwaukee County 

TOTAL Providers by Type 

TOTAL Number 

Comprehensive 

One-Stops 

4 3 3 2 1 1 1 2 1 7 5 2 29 6 10 7 84 

Dislocated Worker 

Services Included 

in WIA Adult 

Intensive Contract 

X X X X X X X X X X 

TOTAL Number 

Comprehensive 

Centers with 

Dislocated Worker 

Services 

4 3 3 2 1 1 1 2 0 3 5 2 29 6 10 0 72 

* State mandates TANF as WIA partner

Local boards in Oregon Region 2 and Southern Nevada conduct a separate competition for their 

dislocated worker contracts, which currently are held by One-Stop operators or consortium 

partners. Worksystems, Inc, the Oregon Region 2 local board, selected Portland Community 

College (PCC) to serve dislocated 

workers. PCC also operates three 

comprehensive One-Stops and one 

satellite center, and subcontracts with 

two other community college One-Stop 

operators to provide dislocated worker 

services in parts of the region PCC does 

not serve. In Southern Nevada, S.T. 

Gregg and Associates, a for-profit 

Consortium Uses RFP to Find Partner Agency 

Northwest Pennsylvania’s local board used a sole-source 

process to select a consortium to operate its One-Stops. 

This contract includes provision of intensive services, as 

well as dislocated worker and youth services. The public 

agency members of the consortium used an RFP process 

to select Northwest Regional Technology Institute, a forprofit training provider, to join the consortium and to 

provide dislocated worker services in the comprehensive 

centers. 
7-10 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

partner in the One-Stop consortium, serves dislocated workers both within and outside the 

region’s comprehensive One-Stop. 

Two local areas provide dislocated worker services primarily in specialty and/or satellite OneStop centers. Lane County’s board, the Lane Workforce Partnership, awarded a sole-source 

contract to Lane Community College to operate a satellite center and to serve dislocated 

workers within the satellite. The local board in Milwaukee operates the HIRE Center, a 

specialty center for dislocated workers. 

 Tarrant County also operates a specialty OneStop for dislocated workers; The Workforce 

Network, a county agency that is its One-Stop 

operator, runs this center as well as the local 

area’s comprehensive centers. Unlike the Lane 

and Milwaukee county workforce development 

systems, however, dislocated worker services 

are available in the county’s comprehensive 

One-Stops as well as in the specialty center. 

Finally, Three Rivers uses a competitive RFP process to select organizations to deliver 

intensive services to dislocated workers within their own facilities throughout the community. 

Currently, the consortium of One-Stop operators has cost-reimbursement contracts with five 

organizations to provide these services, including: three non-profit agencies—Goodwill, the 

Greater Pittsburgh Literacy Council, and the Career Development Center; one for-profit 

training provider—Educational Data Systems; and one governmental agency—the Port 

Authority. 

Overall, the contracting strategies used by the study sites emphasize integration of dislocated 

workers in the workforce development system in three ways. First, and most commonly, local 

boards fold dislocated worker services together with WIA adult services. Second, local boards 

hire organizations to provide intensive services to dislocated workers within the local area’s 

comprehensive One-Stops. These intermediaries are important partners in the One-Stop and 

may be involved in center operations. Third, local boards contract with organizations to operate 

specialized One-Stops dedicated to dislocated worker services. However, two sites (Southern 

Specialty Center for Dislocated Workers 

In 1986 , a collaboration of Milwaukee 

organizations− including a local labor union, stateaffiliated technical college, Employment Service, 

and the United Way− created the HIRE Center, a 

specialty center for dislocated workers. Under 

WIA, the local board operates the center under a 

waiver and subcontracts with the original 

organizations to provide intensive services in the 

specialty One-Stop. The HIRE Center is the only 

location in the local area at which dislocated 

workers can receive intensive services.
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 7-11 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

Nevada and Three Rivers) arrange for dislocated worker services to be provided outside of the 

One-Stop environment, in separate locations in the community. With few exceptions, the 

intermediaries that local boards use to serve dislocated workers have been an integral part of 

the workforce development system since before WIA was implemented. 

The Impact of Merging TANF and WIA Services on Dislocated Workers 

As mentioned in Chapter 4, six states (Florida, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Texas, and 

Wisconsin) include TANF as a mandated WIA partner. These states, and individual study sites 

within each state, each have a different slant on what collaborating with this mandated partner 

means. For example, the study’s Oregon sites co-locate only work-related TANF services at 

One-Stops, while some Florida sites are moving toward co-locating TANF eligibility services 

at One-Stops as well. Local boards in Florida, Texas, and New Jersey all administer both 

TANF and WIA services, and emphasize integration of services funded by both programs in 

their centers. 

A key factor that influences the degree to which the TANF/WIA relationship impacts 

dislocated worker services is whether the local board chooses to combine dislocated worker 

services with WIA adult services. As Exhibit 7.4, above, illustrates, eight of the twelve sites in 

states that mandate TANF as a One-Stop partner combine intensive services to the adult and 

dislocated worker populations. 

Respondents in some of these sites 

reported that TANF serves many more 

people and has more funding than does 

WIA, thus One-Stops in these localities 

have become dominated by TANF. For 

example, respondents in Texas and 

Florida noted that the general public 

identifies One-Stops as “welfare offices” 

because customers are predominantly 

TANF recipients. 

In contrast, the local boards in the Oregon study sites, Southern Nevada, and Milwaukee 

County, structured their workforce systems with separate providers for dislocated worker and 

Large TANF Program Can Dwarf WIA 

Customers, Staff, and Funding 

Essex County NJ is home to the sixth largest welfare 

population in the country. In New Jersey, local boards 

are responsible for administering both TANF and WIA 

funding. The local area’s single comprehensive One-Stop 

is the primary location where both TANF and WIA 

customers receive services, however the TANF program 

predominates. Of the One-Stop’s five floors, four are 

dedicated to TANF clients. 300 TANF case managers 

work with the TANF cases compared to four WIA case 

managers. In 2001 local TANF allocations were $27 

million, compared to less than $4 million for WIA.
7-12 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

WIA Adult services. Thus, WIA Adult customers may receive services from TANF providers 

(as in Milwaukee County) or other co-located providers, while a different set of providers serve 

dislocated workers. As discussed above, dislocated worker services may be provided within 

comprehensive and satellite One-Stops, in specialty centers, or in other community locations. 

This separation by service provider, and sometimes by location, decreases the probability that 

dislocated worker services will be subsumed within the larger TANF program, and that 

dislocated workers will react negatively to participating in WIA services because of an 

association with “welfare” recipients and services. Yet, some respondents in these sites noted 

that separate services and locations for WIA customers may challenge the WIA goal of 

universal access. 

Types of Organizations Providing Dislocated Worker Services 

As Exhibit 7.5 illustrates, across the sixteen study sites, the majority of providers of dislocated 

worker services are non-profit agencies. Given that two-thirds of the sites included services to 

dislocated workers with One-Stop operations and/or intensive service arrangements, both of 

which are primarily accomplished by non-profit organizations, this relationship is not 

surprising. Relatively small proportions of for-profit, educational, and other government 

agencies also provide dislocated worker services. More detail on the types of organizations and 

types of providers of these services is presented in Appendix C. 
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 7-13 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

Exhibit 7.5 

Dislocated Worker Services: Type of Organization Used in Study Sites 

(July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

% DW Providers

Nonprofit

For-Profit

Employ Serv.

Other Govt.

Educational

Type of Organization

(n = 44)

The detailed data on which this chart is based can be found in Appendix C. 

 

Monitoring and Oversight 

As discussed earlier in this chapter, One-Stop operators provide intensive services in most of 

the study sites. In these local areas, communications between board staff and intensive services 

providers is generally frequent and close, and performance monitoring is most often rolled into 

One-Stop monitoring. Performance measures for intensive services generally include the 

number of customers served, the number placed, the number entering training, and customer 

satisfaction with services received. Regular staff meetings also serve as a means for board staff 

to monitor the activities of intensive services providers. For example, in Milwaukee County, 

board staff hold regular meetings with WIA case managers (intensive services providers) to 

provide technical assistance, give information updates, and address any problems or concerns. 
7-14 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

Where local areas have functioning data systems, these measures are checked monthly via 

performance reports. In addition, board staff conduct formal reviews of contractors’ 

performance. Although the frequency with which local boards conduct such reviews may 

differ, activities during monitoring reviews generally include staff and client interviews, and 

fiscal and file reviews. 

Trends and Issues from the Sites

This section aims to shed light on some of the key questions and challenges that local boards 

have encountered in ensuring the provision of intensive services under WIA. This discussion 

explores some of the most salient trends and issues that emerged regarding intensive services 

during visits to the 16 study sites. 

Provision of Intensive Services 

Intensive services usually are provided within the One-Stop facility, particularly when the OneStop operator is the primary intensive services provider. This pattern also occurs in some sites 

where the local board contracts separately for intensive services, and these contracts often 

specify that the provider of intensive services be co-located at the One-Stop. Intensive services 

may also be provided at other locations in the local area. Local boards often use this approach 

when they select additional providers to serve individuals with multiple barriers to employment 

or when the local area is predominantly rural. 

Very few local boards use for-profit companies to provide intensive services in comprehensive 

One-Stops. Only four of the study sites use for-profit intensive service providers (Gulf Coast, 

Northern Nevada, Northwest Pennsylvania, and Three Rivers), and local boards in three of 

these sites hired the company specifically to provide intensive services to dislocated workers. 

Since for-profit firms generally target their services toward the general public rather than 

disadvantaged populations, this approach may be one means of addressing the differences in 

characteristics and service needs between dislocated workers and TANF recipients in states 

where WIA and TANF services are intertwined. 
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 7-15 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

Coordination and Consistency 

Consistency in services may become an issue when a local board uses multiple One-Stop 

operators. Gulf Coast is attempting to address this problem through a system of training and 

certifying One-Stop staff (see Chapter 5). 

Coordination also becomes more complex when the local board employs different intensive 

services providers other than the One-Stop operators. This model may offer a stronger system 

of services, however, because customers receive services that are a specialty of the provider or 

are targeted to their specific needs. Boston, Northern Nevada, Northwest Pennsylvania, Tarrant 

County, and Milwaukee County all hire intensive services providers skilled with specific 

services or target groups. 

Conclusion

As is the case with every other part of the WIA service system, local boards vary in the 

approaches they take in structuring and hiring intensive services providers. Some sites, 

especially those that are able to access state funds to support operation of the One-Stop, are 

able to offer intensive services that allow customers to investigate and plan for new careers. 

Other local areas limit intensive services to customers who have identified a training goal 

before they talk to a case manager. In both instances, however, customers may proceed to the 

next step in the service continuum—training. These services are discussed in the next chapter. 
 

Chapter 8 

Training Providers 

Introduction 

WIA requires local boards to implement a new training system that allows for increased 

customer choice through the use of vouchers. The Individual Training Account (ITA) system 

lets customers choose between vendors listed on a state-managed Eligible Training Provider 

List (ETPL). Intermediaries interested in providing training to WIA clients must meet certain 

performance standards developed by the state and refined by local boards. All sixteen study 

sites have implemented an ITA voucher system. 

Although dislocated workers accessed training in much the same way under JTPA, the system 

is a new one for adult disadvantaged job-seekers, who previously could only receive training 

from a limited number of providers under group contracts with the local PIC. Now, the ITA 

system is the primary means by which most individuals access training under WIA. 

The WIA legislation aims to infuse the consumer side of training with choice, leaving vendors 

to compete for customers and to do so by proving their performance. Local boards are to 

provide training services to customers for 

whom core and intensive services are 

insufficient to assist them in reaching 

their employment goals. Some local areas 

require customers to document that they 

have received these services before 

training can be granted. To make choices 

concerning training, customers work with their case managers and examine the ETPL, the 

listing of training programs that participate in the ITA system. 

WIA authorized training may include: 

• Vocational and/or occupational skills 

• Workplace training with job readiness training 

• Workplace training with adult basic education 

• Skills upgrading
8-2 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

This chapter discusses the use of intermediaries under WIA’s new ITA system. It first discusses 

the development of the ETPL, consumer reporting systems, and subsequent eligibility criteria. 

Next, it discusses how local boards develop agreements with training intermediaries. The 

chapter then looks at types and numbers of training programs available in each study site. 

Finally, the chapter discusses salient issues and trends observed in the study sites. 

Development of the ETPL 

WIA legislation outlines the specific 

requirements for creating the ETPL. 

While states are responsible for creating 

the basic framework of the list, local 

areas solicit and screen applications and 

forward them to the state. Applications 

for initial eligibility commonly require 

training providers to submit to the local 

board program-specific information for 

each training program they would like 

included on the ETPL. 

Determining Initial Eligibility 

As states were developing their initial ETPLs, programs could be excused from providing 

outcome information—such as training completion, entered employment, and job retention 

rates—for former trainees. To ensure their future eligibility for WIA funding, however, training 

intermediaries now must submit regular performance information to the state and meet local 

and state performance criteria. Two types of training providers are automatically eligible for the 

ETPL as long as they complete the local board’s required application process: postsecondary 

educational institutions that award a degree or certificate and are eligible to receive funds under 

the Higher Education Act; and programs operating under the National Apprenticeship Act. 

Responsibilities in Creating the ETPL 

States: 

• Develop overall ETPL procedures & criteria 

• Determine provider eligibility to remain in the 

system (subsequent eligibility) 

• Provide local boards with guidance & TA 

• Compile, maintain and distribute statewide list 

Local boards: 

• Create procedures for accepting provider 

applications 

• Develop systems for compiling & submitting list of 

providers to state 

• Consult with the state to terminate a provider’s 

eligibility 

• Create local performance criteria if desired 
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 8-3 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

Three general principles guide local boards in determining the initial eligibility of training 

providers. First, training must be directly linked to job opportunities in the local area, generally 

those included on the local demand occupations list.1

 Second, states and local areas may place 

restrictions on the cost and duration of training. Third, customers may use their ITA vouchers 

for approved training programs only. WIA legislation also allows for local boards to develop 

selection criteria in addition to those 

established by the state, and many of the 

study sites did so. For example, the Three 

Rivers local board’s ETPL application 

includes a five-page narrative consisting 

of nineteen open-ended questions 

focusing on customer needs and market 

demands. The application processes in 

Pinellas County and in Gulf Coast 

include a site visit from local board staff. 

Respondents in several study sites noted that because customers can use any training provider 

on the state list (even those outside of the local workforce area), local boards may have a 

disincentive to developing training provider eligibility criteria that are more stringent than the 

state’s. Local boards are accountable for their customers’ performance outcomes, regardless of 

where customers access training. Therefore, some respondents noted that without a set of 

common standards across the state, local boards potentially can be accountable for customer 

outcomes for training providers approved under the less stringent eligibility criteria of an 

adjoining local board. Thus the state can attribute to a board a training provider’s poor trainee 

outcome, despite the fact that the training provider might not have met the board’s eligibility 

criteria. This factor, along with the costs associated with developing and implementing 

additional eligibility criteria, may serve to prevent local boards from exercising their option to 

expand training provider eligibility requirements. Most sites noted this potential inconsistency 

but few had developed a regional approach to coordinating ETPL screening criteria. Many local 

boards in Texas, however, have reciprocal approval agreements with neighboring boards and 

will accept a training provider if a neighboring local board has approved it. Since jobs and 

training are, by nature, extremely regional, using this type of regional approach to the ETPL 

 

1

 State and local boards determine the occupations in demand in the area. This is often performed through 

labor market surveys or through other research conducted by board staff. 

Boston PIC’s Additional Criteria for ETPL 

• Achieve 60% placement rate for first year of 

services 

• Increase placement rate to at least 70% in 

subsequent years 

• Demonstrate history of training & placing low 

income people 

• Demonstrate capacity to provide training & 

collect performance data 

• Demonstrate substantial employer involvement 

in program design & operations 
8-4 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

reduces the possibility that customers could be denied funding for the training program of their 

choice. 

In many of the sites, training providers 

reported that the initial ETPL application 

process is relatively straightforward and, 

as a result, many training providers 

applied and were accepted on the ETPL. 

Because the states were eager to develop 

substantial ETPLs, board staff in some 

local areas put considerable time and 

effort into educating providers about the 

ITA system, and providing technical 

assistance on completing the ETPL 

application. This investment paid off, as 

respondents throughout the study sites said that the number of training providers available to 

customers has increased significantly since WIA was implemented. For example, in Essex 

County, one respondent noted that under JTPA, the PIC had contracts with thirty vendors, 

while the ETPL had “hundreds of vendors” at the time of our site visit. 

Almost all states automated the ETPL application process, both to facilitate the application 

process for training providers, and to expedite the states’ and local areas’ roles in processing 

applications, entering data, and maintaining the electronic ETPL. Oregon’s local boards, 

however, process the applications by hand, which respondents indicated slowed the approval 

process considerably. 

Determining Subsequent Eligibility 

States are required to evaluate the eligibility of providers annually to remain on the ETPL, 

using procedures developed by the state with input from the public. DOL established seven 

criteria for determining subsequent eligibility. Exhibit 8.1 displays the seven types of 

information training providers must provide for all students enrolled in an ETPL program, and 

for WIA customers specifically. Each state must define the terms, data sources, and data quality 

measures for each of the seven performance measures. States may also require local boards to 

adjust the criteria to account for specific economic, geographic, and demographic factors of the 

Local Process for Approving ETPL Applications 

• Board staff review application package 

• Training providers are contacted to provide any 

missing information 

• Committee of the local board reviews application 

• Committee votes whether to recommend the 

program for ETPL

• Some local boards confirm recommendation with 

vote of full board

• Some local boards require site visit or presentation 

before the board

• Board staff forward approved application to the 

state
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 8-5 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

local area. Exhibit 8.1 also displays specific criteria for each performance measure of the 

subsequent eligibility requirements for Texas and Pennsylvania, the only two study states that 

had developed subsequent eligibility criteria. 

Exhibit 8.1 

WIA-Mandated Training Provider Performance Measures 

(with Specific Criteria for Texas and Pennsylvania)

Performance Measure Texas Standards Pennsylvania Standards

1. Completion Rate for All Students 60% 70% 

2. Entered Employment Rate for All Students 60% 74% 

3. Wage at Entered Employment for All Students $6.18 $7.88 

4. Completion Rate for WIA Students 65% 70% 

5. Retention Rate at 6 Months for WIA Students 70% 82% 

6. Wages at 6 Months for WIA Students $2,512 quarterly $5672 total for period 

7. Rates of Licensure, Degree Attainment or Certification 

for WIA Students 45% 50% 

Once a WIA trainee enters employment, training providers in Texas must provide the Texas 

Workforce Commission (TWC), the state’s workforce agency and WIB, with customer and 

employer information. TWC then utilizes unemployment insurance wage records and 

employer-based follow-up surveys to obtain information on the customer’s longer-term 

outcomes. 

In addition to program performance information, Pennsylvania’s criteria for subsequent 

eligibility includes the program costs. At the time of the site visit, the eligibility criteria had just 

been developed and had not been implemented. Respondents in Pennsylvania feared a drastic 

decline in the number of training providers on the list once the program performance criteria 

and data collection requirements were implemented. 

While other study sites were still developing subsequent eligibility criteria and processes at the 

time of the site visits, none had yet implemented them, and several were in violation of their 

state’s plan. Some states have asked for waivers from DOL allowing them to delay the 

subsequent eligibility process. For example, Wisconsin asked for a waiver on the grounds 
8-6 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

that the rural state did not yet have enough data on which to base its development of eligibility 

criteria. Oregon, Massachusetts, and New Jersey also asked for waivers to allow them more 

time to accumulate training provider performance information before determining subsequent 

eligibility. 

WIA requires that states include the information they collect on training provider outcomes in 

the ETPL to serve as a ‘Consumer Report Card’ that provides information “necessary for an 

adult or dislocated worker customer to fully understand the options available to him or her in 

choosing a program of training services” (Workforce Investment Act, 1998). This information 

should include supplemental information about each training program such as specific courses 

included in the program and, most importantly, program outcome data including the proportion 

of trainees who complete the program and who obtain and retain employment. 

At the time of the site visits, the information maintained in state ETPL databases reflected their 

progress in implementing a subsequent eligibility process. Most states provide information on 

the costs of training programs and their duration, but few had available data on training 

provider performance measures. Seven of the eight study states (Oregon, Pennsylvania, Florida, 

Texas, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Wisconsin) have developed searchable online databases 

for customers to access the ETPL. Five of the seven states also include program outcome data 

in their online databases, while Florida2

 and Massachusetts do not. Another study state 

(Nevada) does not have a searchable database, but has placed training provider information, as 

well as limited performance data, online in a PDF file. 

Contracting for Training Services

The study sites vary in the processes they use to contract with training provider intermediaries. 

In Boston, Pinellas County, and Three Rivers, local boards sign master agreements with all 

local providers listed on the ETPL to establish reimbursement amounts, payment terms, and 

data collection responsibilities. Any individual vouchers that are signed later refer to the terms 

of the master agreement. Rather than sign contracts with providers, other local boards—such as 

Lane, Essex, and Passaic Counties—include contracting details in the training voucher 

themselves. In this manner, the local boards have established written parameters for each ITA. 

 

2

 Since the site visit in August 2002, Florida has started including some information on training provider 

performance in its ETPL database. 
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 8-7 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

As described in Chapter 5, local boards in both the Gulf Coast region of Texas and Oregon 

Region 2 pass through funding and responsibility for issuing ITAs to their One-Stop operators. 

Oregon Region 2’s One-Stop contracts originally required the operators to set aside ten percent 

of their annual budgets for ITAs, however, the demand for training services was much lower 

than the local board anticipated, and board staff dropped this set-aside requirement, allowing 

the operators to reallocate the funds to other participant costs. 

Most training intermediaries are paid on a cost-reimbursement basis. Training providers 

typically submit invoices to the local board on a monthly basis for costs incurred over the 

invoice period. Two local boards—Milwaukee and Essex Counties—have developed fee-forperformance payment arrangements for training providers. The Milwaukee County board 

designed a phased payment schedule, which reimburses trainers at specified milestones. This 

local board also developed a “preferred provider” list for trainers who agree to more stringent 

performance criteria; these providers receive accelerated payment of their invoices. In Essex 

County, ten percent of the training costs are held back until the participant has retained 

placement for sixty days. 

Northwest Pennsylvania uses the most 

unique ITA payment strategy among the 

study sites: the local board contracts 

directly with the customer. When the 

customer has been approved for an ITA, 

the school invoices the WIA trainee, who 

is required to present his or her grades to 

the case manager. Only after the case 

manager approves the proof of 

participation will the local board’s 

finance staff pay the provider. Board 

staff said that they adopted this system to 

emphasize the customer’s role in the 

process, and hope to create a sense of independence and ownership among WIA customers who 

participate in training. 

 

Milwaukee County’s Preferred Provider List 

The Milwaukee PIC established three performance 

milestones for paying training providers: 

• 10% of total costs upon enrollment; 

• 40% upon successful completion of training; and 

• 50% within 60 days of completion when the trainee 

has worked for 30 days. 

Many community colleges and other established 

providers refused to take the risk involved in these 

performance-based reimbursements. To maintain their 

participation while also ensuring performance, the local 

board developed a policy which pays 100% of tuition to 

‘preferred providers’ upon customer enrollment. 

Preferred providers must have a 70% successful 

completion rate, and at least 70% of graduates must 

increase their annual earnings by 15% or attain posttraining average annual earnings of $20,000 or more.
8-8 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

Types of Training Providers

The ETPL is organized by individual training programs rather than by training providers, and is 

maintained as a state list. Consequently, local boards commonly do not track the number of 

local providers included on the list. Further, as training programs re-apply for the list 

throughout the year (often on their anniversary date of joining the list), the number of providers 

included in the ETPL fluctuates somewhat from month to month. For these reasons, this section 

describes only the training providers that customers used, rather than all ETPL training 

providers in each of the study sites. 

During Program Year 2001 (PY 01), the sixteen sites issued 11,390 ITAs that were used to pay 

for training at 591 training organizations. Exhibit 8.2 compares the type of providers used with 

the proportion of all ITAs that each type of provider received. Although for-profit providers 

Exhibit 8.2 

Training Services: Types of Educational Training Providers Used in Study Sites, and Total 

ITAs by Type of Provider 

Program Year 2001 (July 1, 2001 – June 30, 2002) 

7%

44%

0%

49%

9%

69%

0%

23%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

% of Providers

Nonprofit

For-Profit

Government

Educational

Who Provides (n = 591)

Share of Customers (n = 11389)

Type of Providers

The detailed data on which this chart is based can be found in Appendix C.
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 8-9 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

represented about 70 percent of the training providers used by customers during PY01, they 

received less than half of all ITAs issued during that period. Conversely, educational providers 

made up about one-quarter (23 percent) of the training providers customers selected, but these 

training institutions received about half of all ITAs. Nonprofit and governmental agencies are 

infrequently selected and account for only a small share of providers that received ITAs in the 

sixteen sites. 

Educational training providers are the most common providers of ITA training, and as Exhibit 

8.3 illustrates, public technical and community colleges are the largest subgroups in this 

category.3

 Respondents gave several reasons for the dominance of technical and community 

Exhibit 8.3 

Training Services: Types of Educational Training Providers Used in Study Sites 

Program Year 01 (July 1, 2001 – June 30, 2002) 

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

% Educational Providers

College/University

Community

College

Technical School

Private College

School District

Type of Provider

(n = 132)

The detailed data on which this chart is based can be found in Appendix C.

 

3

 Appendix F includes a table of the total number of ITAs issued to public community and/or technical 

colleges by study site. Community and technical colleges represented anywhere from 2 percent to 93 

percent of all ITAs, depending upon the site. 
8-10 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

colleges, including that they: 1) provide a 

large variety of programs, many of which 

are of short duration; 2) are typically 

flexible in developing specialized 

responses to large lay-offs or labor 

market disruptions; 3) offer strong track 

records for getting results in a cost-efficient system; 4) are automatically eligible for the ETPL 

because of their Higher Education Act authorization, and; 5) enable trainees to leverage their 

ITAs funds by accessing Pell Grants. In some cases, agreements between community and 

technical colleges and state university systems also allow for credit transfer, so that students 

may go on to pursue a four-year degree if they wish. 

State structures and policies may also encourage the use of public technical and community 

colleges, as is the case in Oregon and Florida. As discussed earlier in Chapter 4, the state 

agency, which administers Oregon’s workforce development system, is the Department of 

Community Colleges and Workforce Development. As a result, these two systems have strong 

collaborative relationships at the local 

level. In Florida, public technical and 

community colleges have an advantage 

over other training providers in the state 

because all WIA training provider are 

required to report students outcomes 

using the community college’s student 

outcome tracking database, the Florida 

Education and Training Placement 

Information Program (FETPIP) (see text 

box). 

For-profit organizations used in the study sites were predominantly small, locally-based 

businesses. Many types of companies were used across all of the sites, such as truck driving 

schools, cosmetology schools, business colleges, healthcare training institutes, and technical 

colleges offering courses in welding, computer skills, and computer-assisted design. Other 

types of training were more targeted to specific jobs in the local economy. For example, 

trainees in the Nevada sites attended bartending school and schools of gaming, while those in 

Florida enrolled in schools of marine repair, scuba diving, or diesel repair. 

Training Programs Tailored to ITA Criteria 

Portland Community College (PCC) is a multi-campus 

public two-year school in Oregon Region 2. Because the 

Oregon state board established a maximum duration for 

ITA training programs of nine months, PCC developed an 

accounting/bookkeeping program of 18 credits 

specifically to meet this criteria.

Florida Uses Community College Data System 

to Track WIA Trainee Outcomes 

Participation in the Florida Education and Training 

Placement Information Program (FETPIP) is a statemandated criteria for inclusion in the ETPL. This system 

initially covered all of the state’s votech schools and 

community colleges, but expanded as part of Florida’s 

WIA implementation. The FETPIP tracks outcomes for 

every enrolled student, including rates of program 

completion, placement, and employment retention over 

time. FETPIP also allows the state to assess the impact of 

specific training programs on worker earnings by linking 

to UI wage records. Local boards must download data 

and then break out WIA customers from other trainees.
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 8-11 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

Although few in number, national for-profit training providers also received a good portion of 

ITAs issued in the sixteen sites. For example, New Horizons Computer Learning Centers, an 

international chain with over 160 franchised training centers in the U.S., trained WIA 

customers in nine of the study sites, and was among the top ten providers in six sites. Similarly, 

customers in five study sites used Techskills, Inc., which has at least 30 training centers around 

the country. This company was among the top ten training providers in two sites. In addition, 

for-profit organizations accounted for 55 percent of the top ten most used training providers in 

the sixteen sites (see Appendix D). 

The non-profit organizations that received ITAs consisted of both organizations that specialized 

in training services only and those that provided training in addition to other community 

programs. For example, in Hampden County, the Massachusetts Career Development Institute 

has provided training services for over 30 years. This organization focuses on occupational 

skills training and educational enhancement to unemployed, underemployed, and economically 

disadvantaged populations. Similarly, the Western Massachusetts Precision Institute focuses on 

providing training in precision machining. However, other non-profit organizations in the 

county, such as such as Urban League, YMCA Youthbuild, Early Childhood Center, and 

American Red Cross provide training as just one component of their community programming.4

Only two governmental agency provided training across the sixteen study sites. JPS Health 

Network in Tarrant County is a county- and state-affiliated hospital, which provides training in 

medical professions. In Milwaukee, the State of Wisconsin provided a limited amount of 

training. 

ITAs Go to a Limited Number of Training Providers 

A successful consumer-driven training system depends on the availability of enough providers 

such that customers have true choices. Indeed, part of WIA’s attempt to ensure customer choice 

was to develop an ETPL that would include as many qualified providers as a state had to offer. 

However, although most of the sixteen sites have expanded the number of providers that 

receive federal training dollars, a significant proportion of the training in local areas is provided 

by a relatively small number of providers. 

 

4

 The Urban League and the American Red Cross were both used as training providers in other sites. The 

Urban League provided ITA training in three sites and the American Red Cross provided training in four. 
8-12 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

Exhibit 8.4 

Total Number of Training Providers Used by Customers in Each Study Site and 

Proportion of WIA Trainees Enrolled in Ten Most Frequently Used Providers 

Program Year 2001 (July 1, 2001 – June 30, 2002)

State Site

Total # 

Providers 

U d

% Served by 

Top 10 Providers

Hillsborough County 40 80% 

FL 

Pinellas County 12 100% 

Boston 38 70% 

MA 

Hampden County 25 84% 

Northern Nevada 24 86% 

NV 

Southern Nevada 32 81% 

Essex County 69 54% 

NJ 

Passaic County 69 50% 

Lane County 17 97% 

OR 

Region 2 9 100% 

Northwest PA 45 74% 

PA 

Three Rivers 38 76% 

Gulf Coast 52 60% 

TX 

Tarrant County 29 89% 

Bay Area 24 97% 

WI 

Milwaukee County 68 78% 

Total 591 77% 

Exhibit 8.4, above, displays the total number of training providers used in each local area and 

the proportion of ITAs issued to the ten most-utilized providers in each locality.5

 In none of the 

sites is the concentration of ITAs among the “top ten” providers less than 50 percent. Indeed, in 

eleven of the 16 sites, at least three-quarters of all ITAs were issued to the ten training 

providers most frequently used by WIA customers. In both Oregon Region 2 and Pinellas 

County, Florida, all of the ITAs were for training provided by the top ten providers, and 97 

percent of ITAs in Lane County, Oregon and Bay Area, Wisconsin were issued to the top ten 

providers. These findings illustrate that although many training providers are eligible to provide 

training through the ITA system, the majority of WIA training funds still appear to flow only to 

a limited number of intermediaries. 

 

5

 Appendix D contains more detailed information about the top ten most frequently used training 

providers in each site. 
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 8-13 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

Monitoring and Oversight 

Under WIA, states are primarily charged with ensuring training provider performance through 

the maintenance of the ETPL. As mentioned above, only two states in the study have developed 

subsequent eligibility criteria, and only Texas had determined providers’ subsequent eligibility 

at the time of the site visit. The remaining six states have yet to collect performance data from 

training providers who continue to apply for the ETPL, or to eliminate those providers who do 

not provide data. 

A few study sites have developed formal monitoring systems to compensate for their state’s 

lack of statewide monitoring. For example, in Essex County, local board staff perform a 

preliminary desk review of the WIA participants enrolled in each program and a fiscal review 

of the course offerings. These staff also conduct site visits to providers and monitor for 

appropriate filing systems, fiscal management, staffing/personnel policies, attendance, 

counseling, and programmatic areas. Classroom observation and student interviews are also 

part of the on-site evaluations. The first visit by the monitor is made by appointment; all other 

subsequent visits are completed on a surprise basis. The Gulf Coast’s local board staff also visit 

training providers as part of the local ETPL certification process. 

Many respondents across the study sites reported concern that training providers have not been 

adequately monitored. They also suggested, however, that the task would be too large for local 

board staff. Because the number of training providers has grown, in some cases dramatically, 

conducting substantive, meaningful monitoring would present a significant drain on staff 

resources. Additionally, a mainstay of monitoring under JTPA was the rapport local board staff 

developed with contract training providers. Respondents noted that ongoing relationships with 

training staff were helpful in resolving many issues, from billing to client attendance to 

program performance. Similarly, training providers under JTPA often communicated with one 

or two staff at the local board, but under WIA they communicate with a great number of case 

managers at local One-Stops. Because of these changes, some respondents indicated that 

professional relationships within the local workforce development system have suffered and 

thus affected some of the system’s cohesion. 

Local board staff in Boston have worked to develop relationships with training providers secure 

and buy-in from the provider community. In this site, the local board conducted a conference at 

which board staff explained how the implementation of WIA would affect training 
8-14 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

providers, and tried to assure providers that they could still earn government dollars by 

participating in the system. Training providers, One-Stop operators, and representatives from 

the fiscal agent and the local board continue to meet on a bi-monthly basis to discuss servicelevel policy details. Boston respondents reported that the regular meetings and solicitation of 

opinions from front-line practitioners make training providers and other workforce 

development practitioners more invested in the local system. 

Trends and Issues from the Sites 

This section aims to shed light on some of the key challenges and questions that local boards, 

customers, and training providers have had to address in implementing training services under 

WIA. Trends and issues in the provision of training services include customer autonomy in 

choosing training providers, the role of case managers in the selection of training options, the 

impact of WIA data requirements on training providers, limits on cost or duration of training, 

marketing challenges for providers, and non-ITA training opportunities. 

Customers Make Training Choices 

Many respondents report that the ITA system has produced a larger pool of potential training 

providers from which WIA customers can choose than were available under JTPA. Customer 

choices take many factors into account, including the length of the program, the price of the 

program, and the performance of the program. Other decision factors pertain to the individual’s 

daily life, such as the availability of transportation and child care options. 

Some local boards require customers to undergo a series of steps before they select a training 

vendor. In Three Rivers, Northwest Pennsylvania, Essex County, and Boston, customers must 

physically visit three training providers before they choose a training program. This process 

requires a customer to ‘shop around’ so that he or she will make an informed choice. Similarly, 

one One-Stop operator in Texas’ Gulf Coast region requires customers, after researching 

training intermediaries and attending workshops, to write an essay about why they should 

receive WIA training funding. Respondents in these local areas also indicated that customers 

feel more invested in the training if they are required to put effort into the decision. Others also 

suggested that requiring customers to take an active role in the process may serve as a 

screening tool for individuals who may not be serious about training. 
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 8-15 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

Case Managers Inform Customer Choice 

Respondents across the study sites reported that case managers play a central role in clients’ 

decision-making. Because so little information exists about provider performance, 

responsibility for presenting information about training quality to WIA customers often falls to 

case managers. One respondent observed that adult participants—and dislocated worker 

participants to a lesser extent—are not very well equipped to make deliberate decisions about 

the most appropriate training and career options available. In these circumstances, case 

managers are important advisors. Another respondent noted, “Some customers just want to be 

told. They don’t want to research options. They just want your best solution.” As a result, case 

managers continue to play a central role in customer selection of training providers. 

Respondents also explained that case managers may have a conflict of interest when advising 

customers about training. Case managers are often employed by organizations that also provide 

training through the ITA system. Indeed, in all but four study sites—Hillsborough County, 

Southern Nevada, Gulf Coast, and Three Rivers—at least one of the top most-utilized training 

providers was also either an intensive service provider or a One-Stop operator. Study sites have 

developed various strategies to address the perception that case managers are funneling 

customers to particular providers. Some local areas implement policies that require customers 

to visit a number of training schools before making their decision. The local board in the Gulf 

Coast addressed this concern more directly by establishing a policy that prohibits One-Stop 

operators from also providing training services. Similarly, Boston’s local board has set a 

maximum percentage of training referrals that case managers can make to their parent 

organization. 

Data Requirements for Training Providers 

As D’Amico, et al., O’Shea and King, and others anticipated, the effort needed to collect and 

report completion and placement rates, and earnings for all students for each course listed on 

the ETPL is too much for some training intermediaries. In every study site, respondents noted 

that collecting the information required to determine subsequent eligibility is burdensome. 

Many training providers served too few WIA-funded customers to make tracking these data 

worthwhile. Others, including community colleges, indicated that adding follow-up and 

placement activities to their services is not consistent with the mission of their organizations. 
8-16 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

Many of the traditional training providers had provided little directed job placement assistance 

prior to implementation of WIA, focusing instead on training. A few training providers are now 

hiring job developers and placement staff to ensure that their graduates find jobs, and that the 

facility remains eligible for the ETPL. One CBO in Hampden County added a both a job 

placement specialist and clerical staff to serve as an “insurance policy” for meeting ETPL 

performance criteria and for maintaining the customer follow-up data that documents their 

performance. Training facilities that invest in placement staff suggest that this strategy is in 

their own best interest, to ensure that they will continue to be eligible to receive ITA funds in 

the future. 

Some local board staff indicated that training providers have discontinued their relationships 

with the workforce development system because of the new data requirements. In Lane County, 

respondents reported that fewer training providers are now available for consumers to use. A 

number of the local area’s “tried and true” providers refused to go through the ETPL 

application process for each of their courses. For example, the University of Oregon and 

Oregon State University are not on the ETPL, in part because the application process and 

follow-up data collection is too much work for the number of WIA customers they would end 

up serving. Additionally, Oregon state law prohibits customers from using ITA funding to 

finish a college degree, something the state permitted under JTPA. Northern Nevada also has 

seen its already small pool of training providers diminish under WIA due to prohibitive data 

collection and reporting requirements. 

At least three states have turned to state data systems as an alternative means of securing 

trainee outcome data. Florida uses the FETPIP system, which records employment outcomes 

for students in the state’s community college system, for securing participant outcome data. 

Texas uses information from state Unemployment Insurance (UI) wage records to verify 

training provider reports of participant outcomes. Staff at one of the Oregon sites have also 

explored this approach, but encountered difficulty in securing UI wage data because of 

concerns about confidentiality. D’Amico et al. noted similar concerns among board staff in at 

least fifteen states that participated in the WIA implementation survey. As state and local 

boards move forward with determining the continuing eligibility of ETPL providers, the ability 

to access long-term information on customer outcomes will remain an issue, particularly if 

problems in accessing UI wage data remain. 

 
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 8-17 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

Training Spending and Time Limits 

WIA legislation allows local boards the flexibility to limit the duration of training and to set 

funding caps. The study sites established maximum ITA limits ranging from $1,500 to a high of 

$10,000. The maximum duration of training is generally set at two years. Respondents in 

several sites reported that savvy intermediaries have adapted their courses to cooperate with 

local board preferences. For example, in response to limits on the duration of training, 

respondents in one site noted that many training programs have introduced shorter two- to 

three- month modules instead of nine-month training sessions. Additionally, some providers do 

individual fund-raising to supplement ITA amounts. A local board respondent explained that 

the intermediaries that are succeeding as training providers are doing so because they have 

thought about how to succeed in the market. 

Despite the time and cost limits, board staff in all of the study sites noted that budgeting 

training funds across the entire fiscal year—and avoiding running out of funds—was a constant 

challenge. In some instances, the training dollars were all but spent by the middle of the 

program year. Training providers and 

WIA customers are similarly affected 

when local boards run short of funding: 

participants must forgo needed training, 

and providers must go without WIAfunded customers. At the time of the site 

visit to Pinellas County in August 2002, 

most training funds for Program Year 2002 already had been obligated by ITAs granted in 

previous years. Since Florida does not set limits on the duration of training covered by ITAs, 

training can overlap fiscal years, especially if the customer has chosen a long-term training 

program. As a result, board staff are working to discourage case managers from making longterm training commitments and One-Stop staff now refer customers to adjoining local areas for 

training services. 

Marketing Challenges for Vendors 

The intent of the WIA legislation is for a large number of training providers to make 

themselves available to the workforce development system, creating competition among 

training providers. Increased competition places pressure on training providers to fill their 

classrooms with customers, however. What was a ‘ready made’ business under JTPA now 

Budgeting ITA Funds Through the 

Program Year 

Boston is the only study site that staggers the release of 

training funds. The local board makes funding available 

in three increments: 40% is released at the start of the 

program year in July; 30% in November; and 30% in 

March.
8-18 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

requires outreach and recruitment. As a result, providers must develop methods of attracting 

customers under this new system. Some go to One-Stops to make presentations, leave 

pamphlets within the One-Stop concerning specific training programs, and lobby the One-Stop 

center staff to solicit referrals. 

Even training providers who market their services have reported that planning and anticipating 

programmatic needs has been challenging. Respondents repeatedly told us that the number of 

classes and the number of instructors, the supplies and general classroom preparation were 

nearly impossible to predict when contracts were not based on participant goals. In Hampden 

County and in Northern Nevada, this unpredictability—combined with the increased 

performance data requirements—has caused some training providers to opt out of the system. 

Non-ITA Training Opportunities 

WIA allows local boards to use group contracts under WIA, but only to provide On-the-Job 

Training (OJT), customized training, highly specialized courses, or to serve narrowly defined 

populations. Few local boards use customized training or OJT contracts as a major strategy for 

providing training services to WIA customers. About half of the sites, however, do offer some 

customized training. For example: 

• Gulf Coast, Texas offers customized training for both job seekers and incumbent 

workers in nursing, biotechnology, automotive technology, aerospace manufacturing, 

and teaching math and science. 

• Three Rivers, Pennsylvania provides customized training in call center positions, health 

care careers, and information technology (IT) literacy. 

• Tarrant County, Texas offers dislocated and incumbent workers customized training for 

aircraft manufacturing, machinist, and certified nursing assistant (CNA) jobs. 

• Lane County developed customized training for a high-tech employer. 

• Northern Nevada and Northwest Pennsylvania both provide customized training in 

nursing. 

Two local boards place more of an emphasis on non-ITA training than do the other study sites. 

In Milwaukee County, the local board budgets 10 percent of its annual training dollars to 

customized training, and 30 percent for OJT. The board accepts applications for customized 
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 8-19 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

training through a competitive RFP process. The employer must commit to hiring participants 

once the training has been delivered. Customized training is a pay-for-performance contract. 

Oregon’s Region 2 board staff includes a department with responsibilities that include 

developing customized training for employers in health care, high tech, education, and 

manufacturing industries. With federal grants and other sources, customized training activities 

bring in over $2 million per year, about 10 percent of the local board’s total budget. In addition, 

Oregon Region 2’s One-Stop operators also have developed “targeted training.” For example, 

Southeast Works, which runs a One-Stop located in an industrial neighborhood, helped develop 

several occupational training classes, which prepared customers to fill job openings in local 

businesses. The classes were supported jointly by employers and WIA grant funds. Graduates 

of one of these classes, a welding class, were hired by a railroad manufacturer. Similar efforts 

provided computer skills training and call center training, both of which focused on the specific 

skills trainees needed to be hired by the respective employers upon completion. This “targeted 

training” is different from the standard definition of customized training, but does refer to the 

delivery of training services outside the confines of the ITA voucher system. 

Many of these sites have obtained Sectoral Employment, H1-B, or Dislocated Workers and 

Skills Shortage grants from DOL to support training for specific employers, industries, or 

workers. The local board in Oregon Region 2 has received all of these types of grants over the 

last few years. Lane County and Three Rivers both received Sectoral Employment grants for 

projects aimed at increasing the supply of health care workers in their local areas, and 

Hampden County used its H1-B grant to the same end. Gulf Coast received a grant from the 

state of Texas to support its health care worker training efforts. These findings suggest that 

even though businesses usually subsidize customized training, local boards need sources of 

funding outside of WIA formula funds to support the development and implementation of this 

type of employer services, especially when the specific industries are in transition from one 

structure or emphasis to another. Further, local boards need staff with grant-writing skills to 

secure the additional financial support necessary to provide customized training services. 
8-20 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

Conclusion 

Local boards and states vary in the approaches they take in contracting and monitoring training 

providers. The development of the ETPL has enabled customers to choose their own training 

providers, however, the responsibility of the case manager continues to play an important role 

in training selection. States vary in the amount of program and outcome information and the 

level of detail they ask training providers to supply for the ETPL. Data requirements have 

caused concern among those training providers who assert that providing follow-up data is 

above and beyond their staffing and administrative capabilities. As states reach the point in 

implementing their state plan which requires them to determine the subsequent eligibility of 

training providers, many have asked for waivers as local boards are finding it difficult not only 

to develop their data and tracking systems, but also to train training providers to utilize the 

systems. 

As a group, the study sites are “early implementers” of many aspects of the WIA legislation. 

Not only did all have One-Stop implementation grants, but several (in Boston, Texas, and 

Florida) also received DOL ITA demonstration grants, which facilitated their implementation 

of systems similar to ETPL. Thus, the ability of Texas and Pennsylvania to implement 

subsequent eligibility processes was not an anomaly, but evidence of these states’ progress 

along the WIA implementation learning curve. The experiences of the study sites, then, 

represent lessons from which other states can learn as they move toward full realization of the 

legislation’s goals. 
Chapter 9 

Youth Services Providers 

Introduction 

The implementation of WIA had substantial implications for the workforce development 

system’s youth programming, both in terms of the actual services provided and in the use of 

intermediary organizations. Arguably the most important change for WIA youth services was 

the integration of separate summer and year-round programs into a single workforce 

development program for youth. This chapter discusses how this integration changes the way 

youth services are contracted, who provides these services, and how provider performance is 

assessed. 

JTPA, funded two separate youth programs: (1) summer employment and training; and (2) inschool and out-of-school youth services provided during the rest of the year. Although targeting 

the same population of economically disadvantaged young people, the two programs were 

authorized and funded separately. As reported by Westat (2000), a major difference between 

the programs was that the year-round program was subject to performance standards whereas 

the summer program was not. Dissatisfied with the lack of coordination between the two 

programs, legislators combined them programs under WIA. Another change that WIA 

instituted was that youth services providers now are compelled to supplement summer drop-out 

prevention and tutoring services for in-school youth with subsequent mentoring and other 

follow-up services during the school year. 

This chapter first discusses changes in DOL-funded youth programming from JTPA to WIA, 

and specific requirements of WIA that impact these services for youth. Next, we describe the 

selection and contracting processes that the study sites used to choose and hire youth service 

providers. The chapter also describes the types of providers that local boards have engaged, 

monitoring and oversight mechanisms, and trends and issues in the provision of youth services 

that emerged from the study sites. 
9-2 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

Youth Programs Under WIA 

Eligibility criteria for youth services funded by WIA did not change markedly from those used 

under JTPA. Eligible youth are low-income, between ages 14 and 21, who face at least one of 

the following challenges to successful workforce entry: (1) school dropout; (2) deficiency in 

basic literacy skills; (3) homeless, runaway, or part of the foster system; (4) pregnant or a 

parent; (5) an offender; or (6) need help completing their education or securing and holding a 

job. 

Under JTPA, the PICs could use their own discretion in distributing funds between programs 

serving in-school and out-of-school youth. WIA has a greater focus on out-of-school youth than 

did JTPA, and now local boards must spend at least 30 percent of their youth program funds on 

out-of-school youth. 

WIA prescribes specific program 

services and program features to be 

provided at all youth programs (see 

Exhibit 9.1). Compared to JTPA 

youth programs, WIA workforce 

development programs for youth 

require more extensive educational 

content (affecting, for example, the 

types of job opportunities provided 

under summer jobs programs), more 

extensive participant follow-up, and 

adult mentoring services as an 

integral part of the program 

experience. All of this serves to make 

WIA youth services more 

comprehensive—and possibly more 

expensive—than those provided 

under JTPA. 

Exhibit 9.1 

Required Youth Services Under WIA

• Tutoring, study skills training, & instruction leading to 

completion of high school, including dropout prevention 

strategies 

• Alternative secondary school services 

• Summer employment opportunities directly linked to 

academic & occupational learning 

• Paid & unpaid work experiences, including internships & 

job shadowing 

• Occupational skill training 

• Leadership development opportunities, including 

community service & peer-centered activities 

encouraging responsibility & other positive social 

behaviors during non-school hours 

• Supportive services, including linking youth to community 

& medical services, & assisting with work clothes & tools 

• Adult mentoring during & after period of participation, 

for a total of not less than 12 months 

• Follow-up services for at least 12 months after the 

completion of participation 

• Comprehensive guidance & counseling, including drug 

& alcohol abuse counseling & referral. 

(Workforce Investment Act, Section 129)
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 9-3 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

As with adult programs, WIA requirements for youth programs include a strong performance 

measurement component. WIA specifies different performance measures for in- and out-ofschool youth. The three performance measures for in-school youth are skill attainment, high 

school diploma/GED attainment, and school retention. WIA specifies four performance 

measures for out-of-school youth that are similar to those used in adult programs: entered 

employment rate, employment retention rate, earnings change rate, and credential rate. 

At the time of the site visits, all of the local boards had developed year-round youth programs 

designed to comply with the WIA requirements, and had entered into contracts with youth 

service providers. 

In addition to integrating the summer and school-year programs, WIA requires the local 

workforce investment boards to develop and convene youth councils. In all the sites, the local 

boards had developed a youth council or Youth Commission board.1

 These youth boards have 

played a significant role in the development 

of the local plan relating to youth, the 

recommendation and recruitment of youth 

service providers, and the coordination of 

local youth programs and initiatives. 

Structure of Youth Services 

As with One-Stop systems and WIA adult services, local boards design the provision of WIA 

youth services in a variety of ways. Local boards may choose to combine youth services with 

their One-Stop operator contracts, or to contract separately for these services. Most local boards 

use multiple youth service providers, but a few of the study sites used a single provider. 

Different contractors may provide services for in-school and out-of-school youth, or the same 

providers may serve both groups. Several study sites chose to contract with service providers 

 

1

Texas obtained a waiver from DOL which allows the local board to take over the functions of the youth 

council. Tarrant County had an existing youth council at the time WIA was implemented, and the Gulf 

Coast local board requires One-Stop operators to develop sub-regional youth councils in place of a single 

council for the thirteen-county area. 

Goals of Youth Councils 

• Engage a wide range of program resources & 

service partners 

• Increase quality and variety of services available 

• Prevent duplication of effort by different 

workforce & youth development players
9-4 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

that target a specific ethnic or cultural group. At least one local board used a single contractor 

to provide intake and eligibility determination for all youth service providers, while others 

include these services in each service provider’s contract. This section provides a snapshot of 

the variation across sites in each of these structural decisions. 

Youth Services Provided by One-Stop Operators 

Two of the study sites—Gulf Coast and Northwest Pennsylvania—include the provision of 

WIA youth services in their One-Stop operator contracts. The Worksource, the Gulf Coast’s 

board, includes all WIA-funded services 

in its One-Stop contracts. Northwest 

Pennsylvania uses a slightly different 

process than the Gulf Coast. There, the 

local board uses a competitive RFP 

process to select a youth service provider 

for the local area. The organization 

awarded this contract by default becomes 

a partner in the One-Stop operator 

consortium. 

Local boards in three areas—Essex, Tarrant, and Milwaukee Counties—fund specialty youth 

One-Stops with WIA formula funds. In Essex County, Essex County College operates the 

Youth Resource Center, which targets out-of-school youth. Located on a college campus, one 

of the goals of the program is to expose youth to on-campus life. Tarrant County’s local board 

currently contracts with the Boys and Girls Club to operate the youth specialty center, which is 

located in a mall. Milwaukee County’s board has a waiver to operate its youth One-Stop. 

Housed in the same facility that supports Milwaukee’s Youth Opportunity Grant,2

 the center 

provides a variety of career services including educational assessment, tutoring, and resumewriting. Staff in both the Tarrant and Milwaukee County specialty One-Stops provide core and 

case management services, and refer customers to intensive and training services provided by 

community-based vendors. 

 

2

 See page 9-21. 

Youth Services Integrated with One-Stop 

The Gulf Coast local board includes provision of all WIA 

services in its One-Stop operator contracts. All One-Stops 

offer year-round services for youth−including education, 

training, and employment services−and Gulf Coast youth 

receive most of their core services and case 

management in the One-Stops. In addition, the local 

board signs vendor agreements with about 50 

community-based providers for specific and specialty 

services. One-Stop staff refer youth to these vendors for 

basic skills training, translation, skills training, or mentoring.
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 9-5 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

Further, the Tarrant County Boys and Girls Club serves as lead among the local area’s other 

WIA youth service providers. This role includes serving as liaison between the other youth 

service providers and the local board, determining eligibility and compiling WIASRD data for 

youth served by all WIA youth contractors, and convening monthly youth contractor meetings 

at the youth One-Stop. This role is very similar to, but less structured than, that assumed by the 

primary youth contractor in Northwest Pennsylvania (see next section). 

Finally, in addition to Gulf Coast, Northwest Pennsylvania, and Tarrant County, several sites 

have youth service provider staff conduct initial screening and eligibility determination within 

the context of the One-Stop. These sites include Passaic County, Oregon Region 2, Three 

Rivers, and both Northern and Southern 

Nevada. Passaic County, for example, 

recently developed a youth resource 

room within its comprehensive OneStop. In the Nevada sites, the One-Stop 

operator consortium contracted with 

youth service providers to station staff 

within the comprehensive One-Stops to 

determine eligibility and perform 

assessments. 

Number of Youth Service Providers 

Only Hillsborough County and Northwest Pennsylvania3

 selected a single youth services 

provider to serve youth services throughout their local areas. The rest of the study sites used 

multiple youth service providers. The Hillsborough County Workforce Board (HCWB) in 

Florida contracts with a non-profit organization that provides in-school services as well as OneStop-based services for out-of-school youth. 

While Northwest Pennsylvania selected a single youth contractor, this agency, the Greater Erie 

Community Action Committee (GECAC), created a tiered system of youth service 

subcontractors. Three agencies provide regional coordination of local youth service providers. 

The three regional coordinating organizations in turn subcontract with the local providers. The 

 

3

 See Exhibit 9.2 

“Typical” Structure of Youth Services 

While youth services in the study sites vary across several 

dimensions, many local systems share these common 

features: 

• Youth service staff stationed in One-Stops conduct 

eligibility determination 

• Multiple community-based vendors provide a range 

of “intensive” services on referral 

• One-Stops serve as point of contact for out of school 

youth 

• In-school youth participate in school-based program
9-6 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

resulting structure offers flexibility in that the local board is able to use a wide range of service 

providers operating in many different locations without having to centrally manage large 

numbers of relatively small contracts. Respondents at this site noted, however, that 

communication between the youth contractor and the providers of direct services has been 

poor, and information moves slowly through the many layers of oversight. At the time of our 

visit, GECAC was recruiting a youth services coordinator in the hopes that this would 

streamline communications between front-line service providers, GECAC, and the local board.

Services for In-School vs. Out-of-School Youth 

The study sites also vary in how they serve in-school vs. out-of-school youth. Several local 

boards—including Essex, Lane, Pinellas, and Tarrant Counties, Boston, and Oregon Region 

2—used service providers that specialize in serving one or the other population of youth. For 

example, Boston’s RFP for WIA youth services requested providers with three distinct types of 

services tailored to in- vs. out-of-school youth: (1) occupational skills training; (2) alternative 

education (including GED preparation); and (3) school-based programs that include a summer 

employment component. In these sites, public community or technical schools often serve outof-school youth, while CBOs and local school districts serve in-school youth. 

Other study sites—such as Hampden and Hillsborough Counties—prefer that providers serve 

both groups of youth. In its youth services RFP, the local board in Hampden County 

recommended that local service providers form collaboratives or consortia in order to be able to 

effectively serve both in-school and out-of-school youth. 

About half of the study sites use a combination of providers targeting a specific group of youth 

and those who serve both in- and out-of-school youth. Often, this variation is a result of the 

capabilities of specific youth services providers available in local communities, and the services 

that they offer. 

Services for Specialized Population Groups 

Because of WIA’s eligibility criteria for youth services, all contractors for youth services must 

be prepared to effectively serve disadvantaged youth. In order to meet the particular needs of 

their local communities, at least eight of the study sites selected youth services providers with 
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 9-7 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

experience working with specific populations.4 For example, Work Advantage in Tarrant 

County, Texas contracted for youth services with the Near Northside Partnership Council, 

which historically has supported and 

advocated for the Latino residents of this 

Fort Worth neighborhood. Similarly, 

Boston, Gulf Coast, Oregon Region 2, 

and Hampden, Lane, and Milwaukee 

Counties all selected youth service 

providers that target Hispanic and Latino 

communities. In order to provide 

African-American youth with 

construction experience, the Three 

Rivers local board selected the Black Contractors Association as a youth service provider, 

while Milwaukee selected the National Association of Minority Contractors. 

Centralized Intake 

Only one study site opted to use a centralized intake process for WIA youth services. In 2001, 

Pinellas County contracted with a CBO to provide recruitment, eligibility determination, and 

intake services for its three other youth service contractors. This contractor also was contracted 

to provide TANF case management services, but was unable to effectively complete both tasks. 

Three months before contracts were due to expire, the board revised all youth service contracts, 

delegating responsibility for recruiting, determining eligibility, and conducting intake back to 

the three primary youth service providers.

Selection Processes 

WIA seeks to increase service provision to out-of-school youth and to particular groups of 

disadvantaged youth, such as those who are pregnant, parents, or in the foster care system. WIA 

also aims to provide local boards with the option of developing a centralized intake process 

where possible. The local response to these larger WIA policy questions is interpreted through 

 

4

 The information that sites provided on youth service providers was limited. The study team was able to 

identify only those providers whose organizational names clearly identified them as targeting minority 

populations. 

Multilingual Youth Services Provided in 

Portland One-Stop 

Southeast Works, a One-Stop operator and youth 

services provider in Oregon Region 2, is located in a 

neighborhood that has experienced an influx of 

immigrants. Many of the twenty-one staff are bilingual in 

either Spanish or Russian. WIA youth services are 

available at the center for both in- and out-of-school 

youth, including Russian youth support groups for both 

boys and girls, career plan development, GED instruction 

and testing, substance abuse services for youth, support 

groups for college bound students, and job placement.
9-8 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

the vision and policies of the local boards and their youth councils, which in turn are represented in the structure of youth services designed for the local area. The variations in structure 

described in the last section all influence the selection of youth services providers. This section 

discusses the selection processes that local boards use to choose youth service providers, as 

well as site staff perspectives on changes in youth service systems from JTPA to WIA. 

Role of the Youth Council 

 

Under WIA, youth councils are charged with review of proposals and selection of contractors. 

In the sites we visited, however, the youth councils usually reviewed proposals and 

recommended that the local board contract with selected providers. In Wisconsin’s Bay Area, 

youth service applicants made presentations on their proposals to the youth council before the 

council recommended their provider selection to the local board. In most cases, the final award 

was made by the full local board, not by the youth council. 

Youth councils play important roles in designing youth services in their local areas. In most 

sites, the councils are responsible for making policy decisions about the youth services system. 

The councils may be called upon to collect information that helps shape the structure of youth 

services. For example, in the Gulf Coast region of Texas, each One-Stop’s youth committee5

 is 

responsible for collecting information about community resources for youth, and collaborating 

with local high schools in mapping this data as a preliminary step in preparing the youth 

services RFP. Similarly, the youth council in Oregon Region 2 sponsors regular stakeholder 

input studies. In many sites, youth council members give board staff feedback on draft versions 

of the youth services RFP. 

Selecting Youth Service Providers 

In all of the study sites, local boards select service providers for both in- and out-of-school 

youth using a competitive bid process. In all but one site, the selection process is implemented 

by board staff. In Three Rivers, Pennsylvania, however, YouthWorks, Inc.—a non-profit 

organization devoted to job placement, career education, and counseling for at-risk youth—

takes co-leadership in the selection and contracting process on a volunteer basis. The City of 

 

5

 The Worksource obtained a waiver that allows the board to serve as the youth council for the local area. 

The terms of this waiver require that local board develop youth committees for each One-Stop, to 

provide local input to board decision-making. 
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 9-9 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

Pittsburgh, the Allegheny County Department of Human Services, YouthWorks, and the youth 

council join together to write and disseminate the youth services RFP and to coordinate an 

independent proposal review. Based on the independent review, the City, County, and 

YouthWorks together select contractors and make funding decisions. 

Site visit respondents generally reported that the RFP process for youth programs is 

competitive and fair. In Milwaukee County, for instance, respondents estimated that fully half 

of the applications were turned down. In this and other sites where competition was substantial, 

local board members acknowledged that the competition provided them with opportunities to 

choose those contractors who offered the highest quality services. In some places, the 

competitive process even benefited applicants who were not selected as service providers; 

members of the Milwaukee’s local board often provide unsuccessful applicants with technical 

assistance and constructive feedback on their proposals. 

Impact of Changes from JTPA to WIA 

Most respondents believed that competitively bidding the youth contracts has incorporated 

many new organizations into the workforce system that had not participated under JTPA. Staff 

in many sites valued how expansion in the number of youth service providers has allowed more 

flexibility in responding to the changing needs of the youth in their local areas. Some 

respondents, however, noted that the implementation of WIA has reduced competition among 

youth service providers. Compared to JTPA youth contractors, current youth service providers 

are asked to provide additional data and serve youth more intensely and for a longer period of 

time. These added responsibilities have increased the amount of work for youth service 

providers under WIA without necessarily providing more money. Some providers may drop out 

of the system altogether, thereby possibly reducing competition in certain local areas. 

The manager of one specialty youth One-Stop also noted that because of the overall reduction 

in youth funding that has come with WIA implementation, staff have more difficulty providing 

youth with individualized services. This respondent felt that the separate allotment of funds for 

summer youth services allowed staff to provide intensive services to children who would not 

have participated in WIA otherwise. By consolidating the two youth programs, staff can no 

longer or serve the same numbers of customers, which reduces the impact of the program 

overall. 
9-10 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

Despite these concerns, local board staff in most study sites believed that the number of 

applications for youth service contracts had increased from the first to the second year of WIA 

implementation. This likely reflects the fact that youth service providers are becoming 

accustomed to WIA regulations and are adapting to the needs of local boards. Local board 

members lauded the increase in the number of potential contractors. Over time, local boards are 

more easily identifying vendors who can meet the demands of WIA programming or, 

conversely, finding existing vendors who are willing to adapt to the new systems. 

 

Contracting Processes

Across the study sites, different agencies and organizations awarded and managed youth 

service contracts, regardless of the process local boards and youth councils used to select 

providers.

6

 While many local boards manage the youth services contracts directly, in Boston, a 

City office officially awards the youth contracts. Although the youth council signs off on this 

arrangement, the City remains in charge of the contracts because it has a long history of 

monitoring and managing youth contracts. In Three Rivers, the City of Pittsburgh and the 

Allegheny County Department of Human Services serve as fiscal agents, and, after contract 

award, the City and the County co-manage the contracts and monitor contractor performance. 

Most of the youth contracts, both for in-school and out-of-school youth services, are costreimbursement contracts; very few of the youth contracts are performance-based. In all but 

three sites, youth service provider contracts are one year in length. 

Boston, Gulf Coast, and Pinellas County provide the exceptions to these generalizations. The 

Boston local board bids its youth service contracts every other year. The Gulf Coast board 

includes youth services in the One-Stop operator contracts, bid every two years. Pinellas 

County uses a three-year cycle for awarding youth contracts, with a base year and two option 

years. Pinellas also uses a mixed contracting model in which contractors are given costreimbursement contracts, but are also required to meet local and state performance standards on 

a quarterly basis. If the standards are not met quarterly, ten percent of the contractor’s invoiced 

 

6

 For more detail on the various contracting structures, see Appendix A. 
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 9-11 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

amount is held back but may be recovered if the contractor’s performance improves in the next 

quarter. 

Types of Youth Service Providers

As Exhibit 9.2 illustrates, two-thirds of the primary providers of youth services in the study 

sites are community-based non-profit organizations (see Exhibit 9.2). Fourteen out of sixteen 

sites used at least one non-profit as a service provider, and the two sites that did not use nonprofits directly contracted with a collaborative (Hampden County) and a consortium (Southern 

Nevada) that included non-profit organizations as members. Educational institutions provide 

WIA youth services in eleven of the sixteen study sites, and overall, represent 24 percent of 

primary youth service providers. 

Exhibit 9.2 

Youth Services: Type of Providers Used in the Study Sites 

Program Year 2001 (July 1, 2001 – June 30, 2002)

The detailed data on which this chart is based can be found in Appendix C. 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

% of Providers

Nonprofit

For-Profit

 Government

Educational

Consortium

Type of Provider

(N = 155)
9-12 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

Three of the study sites—Passaic County, Three Rivers, and Gulf Coast—use for-profit 

organizations to provide WIA youth services. Of the four for-profit youth service providers, 

two are national companies, including Sylvan Learning Centers (Passaic) and ACS (Gulf 

Coast). 

Government agencies are used rarely among the sites as providers of youth services. County 

departments of youth corrections have contracts to serve WIA youth in two sites—Northern 

Nevada and Passaic County, New Jersey. 

Four study sites—Hampden County, Southern Nevada, Bay Area, and Milwaukee County—

contract with collaboratives or consortia for youth services. As mentioned above, Hampden 

County specifically wanted a contractor that could provide a comprehensive range of services 

to both in-school and out-of-school youth, and recommended that bidders form collaboratives

to meet this criteria. Southern Nevada contracts with a collaborative headed by the University 

of Nevada Cooperative Extension (UNCE). This Youth Services Consortium is a statewide 

organization which, in addition to providing youth services, acts as a major referral source to 

other community agencies. Wisconsin’s Bay Area contracts with two consortia headed by local 

job centers. Finally, Milwaukee County’s local board contracts with two collaboratives headed 

by different campuses of the University of Wisconsin. 

While educational institutions are not the most prevalent provider of WIA youth services, they 

do represent approximately one-quarter of youth providers, and are an important part of the 

system of youth services, particularly for in-school youth. Exhibit 9.3 provides more detailed 

information on the types on educational institutions that provide WIA youth services in the 

sixteen study sites. 
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 9-13 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

Exhibit 9.3 

Youth Services: Educational Youth Providers Used by Study Sites 

Program Year 2001 (July 1, 2001 – June 30, 2002)

The detailed data on which this chart is based can be found in Appendix C. 

Over half of the thirty-three educational institutions that are youth contractors are local school 

districts or their facilities. School districts may run WIA-funded youth programs through their 

alternative education facilities, and may target low-income youth, teen parents, in-school youth 

at risk of dropping out, and youth who have already left school. WIA provides an opportunity 

for local school districts to provide supplemental services to students who have special needs or 

who are at risk of dropping out, as well as to re-engage with youth who have dropped out of 

school. 

In seven study sites, post-secondary institutions have contracts to link youth with alternative, 

vocational, and higher education resources. These post-secondary contractors include public 

and private colleges and universities, community colleges, and technical colleges. While public 

community and technical colleges are less heavily used for WIA youth services than for adult 

training services, these two types of educational institutions still represent almost one-quarter of 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

% Education Providers

College/

University

Community

College

Techl

School

Private

High

School

School

District

Type of Provider

(n = 33)
9-14 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

the educational youth providers in the study sites. In Oregon Region 2, for example, Mt. Hood 

Community College provides out-of-school youth with case management, leadership 

development, GED/basic skills instruction, work readiness training, work experience, job 

placement, and occupational skills training. 

In summary, the transition to WIA did not dramatically change the types of organizations that 

provide employment and training services to youth. Even with greater competition for 

contracts, most youth intermediaries continued to be experienced, locally-based non-profit 

organizations that have a long history of serving clients in workforce development programs. 

Among newer service providers are school districts, organizations that have long served youth 

but have not always provided employment training services. When asked about the continued 

dominance of small local non-profits in the youth employment field, respondents reported that 

these organizations have a clear edge in their ability to communicate with young people in the 

communities they serve. These organizations also have a greater understanding of the local 

conditions affecting youth, including the labor market, social and economic problems, and the 

availability of support services and alternative service providers. 

Monitoring and Oversight

Youth service providers face different performance measures for younger and older youth. For 

younger youth (aged 14-18), performance measures focus on education, dropout prevention, 

and attainment of educational credentials. For older youth (aged 19-21), measures focus on 

employment and are similar to those mandated in WIA for adults. The contractual monitoring 

of performance measures varies greatly across the sites the study team visited. Because almost 

all contracts used in the sites were simple cost-reimbursement contracts, systematic 

performance monitoring was rare. In part, this is due to the fact that WIA encourages a longerterm program plan of service for youth, and the majority of WIA youth performance measures 

are post-program measures. Since performance usually cannot be measured until long after 

most services are provided, causing any performance-based payments to be delayed, this type 

of contracting is not practical for WIA youth services. 

The local boards and youth councils nonetheless collect and report some performance data on 

youth services using a variety of methods. Some sites ask their intermediaries to use databases 

that have been developed either by the state or by local boards under WIA. Other sites require 
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 9-15 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

youth training providers to submit monthly reports to local board offices. Some of these reports 

are generated by hand—staff at the local One-Stops and staff at the youth service providers are 

responsible for accurate updates. Presumably, providers who serve out-of-school youth record 

different data than those who serve in-school youth; however, the study team was unable to 

confirm this during the site visits. Youth contractors are required to submit monthly reports in 

most of the sites that do not use a central customer database. 

 

Some sites focus their monitoring efforts by providing ongoing technical assistance. In sites 

like Bay Area and Northern Nevada, respondents reported that the local board does very 

effective monitoring in part because of the extensive amount of technical assistance they offer. 

As a result, local board staff encounter few “surprises” and youth service providers have a very 

clear understanding of what is expected of them. Communication between the local boards and 

the youth providers revolves around monitoring and technical assistance. In some cases, due to 

the structure of the board, the relationship between youth intermediaries and the local board is 

very close and youth service providers can sit on the local board’s youth council. This allows 

information about monitoring that needs to be shared with the youth service providers to be 

communicated almost immediately. For example, in Oregon Region 2, youth service providers 

attend monthly youth steering committee meetings to discuss policies, problems, and strategies. 

The youth council works with these service providers to communicate information to the 

remaining vendors. In other sites (for example, in Northern Nevada) communication consists 

primarily of a board staff member working with youth service providers to provide them with 

technical assistance. In these situations, youth intermediaries may view the board staff as an 

information resource rather than as a monitoring agency.

Local areas—like Three Rivers and Northwest Pennsylvania—that use a youth services 

coordinator agency as an intermediary between the local board/youth council and local service 

providers, need to make additional efforts to assure effective communication between the local 

board staff and the youth providers. In those places, youth councils and local boards developed 

systematic ways of communicating information from the local board, through the WIA youth 

coordinator to the service providers. In Northwest Pennsylvania in particular, this process 

quickly grew complicated due to the large number of organizations involved. In addition to 

communication problems, the lead youth service providers found the task of managing two 

levels of subcontractors to be overwhelming. 
9-16 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

The local board in Tarrant County delegated similar responsibilities to the Boys and Girls Club, 

its primary WIA youth services contractor. In addition to operating a specialty One-Stop 

targeting youth, the non-profit serves as a 'hub' organization for eleven other youth contractors. 

This role includes approving participant eligibility for services provided by the other 

contractors, collecting monitoring data from the other contractors, and convening regular 

monthly meetings of the youth service contractors. 

Trends and Issues from the Sites 

In this section, we explore some of the most significant trends and organizational issues 

surrounding youth intermediaries. The discussion aims to shed light on some of the key issues 

and challenges that local youth councils, youth, and youth intermediaries address in 

implementing the workforce development services under WIA. 

The Shift to Year-Round Services 

 

From the perspective of many respondents, the biggest WIA-induced change in their services to 

youth is the need to provide services throughout the calendar year. School districts now need to 

implement a summer component, and summer-only programs must provide follow-up services 

during the school year. This is a very significant and potentially disruptive change for the 

organizations involved as well as for the customers of these programs. 

While the WIA requirements do not appear to have forced a great number of agencies to leave 

the youth workforce development area, they have proven especially challenging for programs 

that were accustomed to providing youth services only during the summer. The major concerns 

are programmatic; program staff now need to anticipate the program’s needs for the entire year 

and spread out their resources accordingly. Respondents in Three Rivers who also provided 

youth services under JTPA asserted that the youth intermediaries receive less funding under 

WIA than under JTPA but are required to do more work since programming has to be 

continuous. Respondents also talked about the challenge of raising awareness in the 

community. Community members—and in some cases, locally elected officials—were 

surprised that the summer programs had changed so dramatically. Youth service providers bore 

much of the responsibility for explaining program changes to politicians, parents, and youth. 
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 9-17 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

Altogether, these changes in the legislation have greatly reduced the resources available for 

youth services, which in turn greatly reduces the number of students enrolled in WIA services. 

Service providers who previously ran summer youth programs for many youth now serve a 

much smaller number of youth year-round. The result is that many programs receive 

significantly less funding under WIA than they did under JTPA, which compelled them to pool 

resources with other agencies to develop comprehensive youth services and continually 

improve them. As D’Amico et al. (2000) mentions, identifying funding sources becomes a 

major challenge when local areas are required to provide year-round youth services. A second 

reason for pooling resources among a number of different service providers is that a wide range 

of services must be provided, including educational services and follow-up case management. 

To fund and provide these services, new partners and funding streams are being brought into 

the youth services under WIA, including school-to-work grant partners and funds, Youth 

Opportunity grants, Job Corps programs, and foundation funds (D’Amico et al, 2000). Thus, in 

addition to providing an expanded set of mandated services, WIA youth programs now must 

increase their fund-raising efforts, as well as their coordination efforts with other community 

youth programs. 

Difficulty in Recruiting Youth 

Across several study sites, respondents spoke of difficulty in recruiting youth to participate in 

WIA services. Some respondents linked this problem to the transition from summer and 

school-year programs to a year-round program. Despite creative efforts in a number of study 

sites, youth centers are having difficulty attracting eligible students to a year-long program. The 

combination of relatively narrow eligibility criteria and intensive year-long programs makes 

finding enough young people who will apply to the program difficult. Many potential 

customers are motivated primarily by the opportunity for summer work and are not interested 

in a year-long program. 

To recruit enough participants for the program, staff members are sometimes diverted from 

their regular tasks to conduct community outreach activities. For example, Northwest 

Pennsylvania’s WIA youth program has focused its resources on marketing services to youth. 

The coordinator of marketing and planning makes presentations in local schools to educate the 

students about the opportunities available to them. They also help youth service contractors 

develop youth field trips to continue to motivate the youth already involved in the program. 
9-18 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

In Hillsborough County, a One-Stop case manager reported spending a lot of time recruiting 

youth which takes time away from individual case management activities. Similarly, Pinellas 

County board staff found that using one youth contractor for recruitment, eligibility 

determination, and referral to other youth service providers resulted in too few youth enrolling 

in WIA services. Staff of the recruiting organization could not perform outreach duties and 

provide adequate case management services to their caseload of TANF youth. The local board 

modified all of the youth contracts so that all contractors are now responsible for recruiting 

their own participants and enrolling them in WIA. One respondent from a different study site 

reported that the local area has recommended that the youth providers schedule their 

internship/work experience programs at the end of the program year so that students are 

motivated to stay the course in the program. 

Youth Service Delivery 

The various ways in which youth access WIA services depend largely on the approach of the 

youth councils. WIA legislation does not mandate that youth service providers provide services 

through the One-Stops, therefore, states and local areas must determine the most effective ways 

to reach in-school and out-of-school youth. The study sites have developed varied ways of 

reaching youth customers. As described earlier under “Structure of Youth Services,” eight local 

boards have designed youth services such that young customers access core services at the 

One-Stops. 

In other sites, such as Boston, contracted service providers are the point of entry into the 

workforce system. Contracted service providers establish eligibility and perform assessments. 

Customers whose needs might be best met through other providers are referred to the One-Stop 

for referral and follow up. Still other study sites contract out to service providers to provide 

recruitment and application distribution. In Essex County, the responsibility for disseminating 

applications and outreach is contracted out to the school districts; the County then reviews 

applications and assesses eligibility. 

Six of the sites visited by the research team have established youth One-Stop centers or 

specialty youth centers, four of which are funded by Youth Opportunity Grants as described at 

the end of this chapter. These specialty youth centers represent the opposite end of a continuum 

from youth services integrated within the comprehensive One-Stops. 
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 9-19 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

These various approaches to delivery of WIA youth services suggest two trends: (1) toward 

integration of youth services within the One-Stop setting; and (2) toward establishing specialty 

One-Stops targeting youth. Both strategies offer the possibility of cost-sharing with other 

programs and funding sources, but are based on very different assumptions about the best way 

to serve young WIA program participants.

Conclusion

Under WIA, youth service goals and priorities have shifted, creating a different service 

environment for participating youth and their communities. The most profound change has 

been the shift from summer programs to year-round programs. This shift, which was intended 

to improve the continuity and effectiveness of workforce programs for youth, also caused 

limited resources to be targeted at fewer individual students. Where large groups of low-income 

teenagers were served in summer programs in the past, a smaller number of youth now receive 

more intensive services. This shift in resource allocation is problematic for the communities 

involved and changes the way in which intermediaries recruit and serve their customers. 

A promising approach to increasing the resources available to youth programs under WIA is to 

seek greater integration and cooperation with other organizations and collaboratives, thereby 

pooling scarce resources to provide more effective services. In several of the sites visited by the 

research team, the Youth Opportunity program provided key additional resources that 

facilitated the transition from traditional JTPA youth programs to the more comprehensive and 

intensive interventions sought by WIA. Establishing youth One-Stops is another way to pool 

scarce resources and increase program visibility and efficiency of operations. 
9-20 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

About Youth Opportunity Grants 

The Department of Labor’s Youth Opportunity (YO) Grants aim to increase the long-term 

employment of youth who live in empowerment zones, enterprise communities, and high 

poverty areas. YO grants concentrate extensive resources in high-poverty areas in order to bring 

about community-wide impact on employment, high school completion, and college 

enrollment. These grants are not Title 1 WIA formula funds. In practice, YO grants are often spent 

to establish “Youth One” centers, a kind of One-Stop center for youth. Four of the study sites 

visited by the research team have received (YO) grants— Hillsborough County, Oregon’s Region 

2, Milwaukee County, and the Gulf Coast. 

In Hillsborough County, the YO Movement offers a variety of work opportunities, GED 

preparation, college counseling, and career development training to in-school and out-ofschool youth. YO collaborates with private businesses and community organizations to provide 

life-enrichment services to youth 14-21 years old through designated youth centers. To be eligible 

for YO services and programs, youth must reside in specific Enterprise Communities. a

In Oregon’s Region 2, the Youth Opportunity grant has helped to establish a youth One-Stop. The 

vision for this “Youth Opportunity Center” is to partner with youth living in the Enterprise 

Community, employers, and other members of the community to develop young people's 

personal attributes, knowledge, skills, abilities, and experiences that prepare them for successful 

careers and lives.b

In Milwaukee County, the Youth Opportunity grant was used to develop REACH-Milwaukee 

center. REACH-Milwaukee provides family services, college introductory classes, youth-driven 

entrepreneurial opportunities, and guaranteed jobs for participants who finish select skills training 

programs. REACH-Milwaukee has two interdependent tracks. Dropout prevention programs are 

aimed primarily at youth 14-18 years old, and intervention services are offered for out-of-school 

youth ages 17-21. c 

The Gulf Coast’s grant, called YO! Houston, addresses barriers to employment such as lack of 

affordable child care, transportation, and lack of a social support system. An array of services 

and resources is used to engage youth through a holistic program design. Services are designed 

to involve the whole community to support and train young people. The goal is to reach out to 

youth by providing them with the opportunity and guidance needed to obtain productive jobs 

and to build meaningful futures. YO! Houston has four key components: youth centers, in-school 

services, community involvement, and partnerships. d 

________________________________ 

a www.workforcetampa.com/youthpage.html

b www.yozone.org/ 

c www.milwjobs.com/youth_services/reach.html 

d www.theworksource.org/2customer/youthcenters.html 
Chapter 10: 

Brokers and Consultants 

Introduction

Two types of intermediaries are not directly involved in service delivery, and yet are involved 

in local workforce development operations: brokers and consultants. During a time of 

relatively rapid systemwide change, consultants can carry out a wide variety of functions 

efficiently. On the other hand, the roles and activities of brokers are not yet fully evolved. 

Brokers

Brokers are generally defined as organizations or individuals that connect customers with 

services or provide information that facilitates service connections. During visits to 16 local 

workforce areas, the study team sought examples of intermediaries that act primarily as 

brokers. None of the respondents identified brokering functions or roles in discussing their 

responsibilities as intermediaries. 

On the other hand, intermediaries could be interpreted as performing brokering functions 

precisely in their capacity of providing core or intensive services. In other words, intensive 

service providers may advise customers about the process of selecting a training provider, 

thereby connecting them with additional services. Providers of core or intensive services may 

help customers identify available and suitable supportive services, whether through on-line or 

printed materials in the resource room or during counseling sessions. In fact, the entities most 

often cited as brokers in the WIA literature are One-Stop operators and partners. 

The brokering function traditionally played by neighborhood-based and community-based 

organizations—encouraging individuals to make contact with the workforce development 
10-2 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

 Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

system for the first time—was discussed by one individual commenting on the WIA 

Proposed Final Rule.1

 As reported by the Department: 

“One commenter recommended that the provision of ‘brokering 

services,’ as presently performed by CBOs under JTPA be expressly 

permitted under Part 663. These services include facilitating and 

brokering relationships between low-income community residents, local 

businesses, and specialized groups, as well as referrals to groups to 

provide training and placement. 

Response: While we agree that these brokering services are valuable 

activities, decisions about program design, including the selection of 

outreach, recruitment and referral activities, are within the purview of 

the Local Board, operating within State policies. We expect that Local 

Boards will consider a wide variety of services in designing their WIA 

programs. We expect CBOs, as well as other stakeholders, will be an 

integral part of program planning and design decisions through their 

membership on the Local Board, their provision of input through the 

public review process, and in many cases as customer service providers. 

Accordingly, no change has been made to the Final Rule.” 

In other words, the expectation continues under WIA, as under JTPA, that community-based 

organizations will play an important role in referring individuals to One-Stop centers where 

they may receive services they need. The expectation also continues that CBOs will play this 

brokering role in their capacity as advocates for the best interests of the people they serve and 

represent, and that this role is not funded under WIA. 

Staff of several local boards noted that the partnership with a CBO, either as a One-Stop 

operator or a co-located partner, is of particular value because of the access it provides to the 

community that the CBO represents. Part of that value is the referral of individual customers 

who need assistance. 

The other context in which “brokering” was mentioned during the site visits was in reference 

to the state Employment Service (ES) role. ES, some respondents said, has upgraded its 

image in the transition to WIA from “unemployment office” to “broker of career 

development assistance.” 

 1 http://www.doleta.gov/usworkforce/finalrule.htm July 1, 2002 
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 10-3 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

Overall, brokering did not emerge as a separate service within any of the study sites. By 

comparison, a relatively large number of the local boards use consultants to assist them in 

managing their workforce development systems. 

Consultants

As Exhibit 10.1 indicates, ten of the sixteen study sites reported working with consultants. 

The majority of the tasks undertaken by consultants can be characterized as management 

services. Consultants consist primarily of for-profit firms, with one educational firm also 

contracting with a local board. 

Exhibit 10.1 

Brokers and Consultants: Type of Service Provider Used in Each Study Site 

 Program Year 01 (July 1, 2000 – June 30, 2002)

 * Includes “consultation” provided by staff from departments of county government. 

 The detailed data on which this chart is based can be found in Appendix C. 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

% Providers

Nonprofit For-Profit Government* Educational

Type of Provider

(n = 22)
10-4 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

 Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

Multiple or Broadly-Defined Management Support Roles 

Local board staff use outside consultants for management support functions, often giving 

them broadly-defined or widely-varying responsibilities. For example, consultants have 

assisted with strategic planning, staff training, monitoring, collecting and analyzing data, and 

developing or improving information systems. 

In the New Jersey sites, local boards have each contracted with a single consultant to perform 

many roles. In Essex County, the local board hired a local consulting firm through several 

different competitive RFP processes. The purposes and activities of these contracts have been 

diverse planning and policy writing tasks, including preparing the local plan; developing 

client flow policies and procedures; writing a Welfare-to-Work competitive grant; and 

mediating or resolving frictions between civil servants and non-civil servant employees. 

Similarly, Passaic County has capitalized on the expertise of a local WIA consultant. 

 

Some local boards have used multiple 

consultants in a variety of ways. For instance, 

in Pinellas County, consultants performed 

several important functions related to the 

establishment of the new board, including 

team-building, start-up activities related to 

instituting employer services, and writing a 

strategic plan. Other consulting services have 

included training for the board, as well as for 

One-Stop staff. The local board has used 

consultants for grant-writing and to review 

the legal aspects of their RFP process. 

Hillsborough County, Florida has also made extensive use of consultants. In addition to 

providing “customer care” training, consultants have conducted performance audits, 

developed a management report that includes “process mapping” of the local board and OneStop operations, and a return-on-investment analysis. The board selected consultants through 

an RFP process. 

Consultant Provides Local Board and 

Training Providers with WIA Expertise 

Passiac County contracts with Employment and 

Training Institute, (ETI), a local consulting firm 

that specializes in WIA technical assistance to 

One-Stop operators, local boards and 

administrators, and policymakers. To 

supplement the desk audits performed by local 

board staff, ETI performs on-site monitoring of 

training providers and delivers technical 

assistance when monitoring reveals poor 

performance. ETI also gives support to local 

board and One-Stop staff by training them on 

WIA performance measures, follow-up data 

collection methods for clients, and long-term 

job retention strategies.
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 10-5 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

Board and Staff Training 

In addition to Pinellas County, other local boards have retained consultants to provide 

training to board members, board staff, and One-Stop staff. For instance, Tarrant County 

retained a consultant to provide team-building and training in appropriate board functions and 

roles. The Gulf Coast board issued RFPs in the Fall of 2002 for consultants to train One-Stop 

staff in customer service and in family violence prevention. 

Information Systems Development 

Some local boards, such as those in the two Oregon sites and in Tarrant County, have 

employed consultants to develop a management information system (MIS) with which to 

track customer characteristics, service use, and outcomes. All three of these sites require that 

any WIA intermediary in the local area must participate in the local board’s MIS, all of which 

allow contractors to enter customer data via a website. While the costs of a detailed and 

customized system can be high, local 

board staff noted that such systems 

provide invaluable information for both 

One-Stop management and contractor 

monitoring purposes. In particular, the 

Oregon staff are pleased that their 

information systems have provided them 

with preliminary information about 

customer employment outcomes while 

they are waiting for ETPL performance 

data from the state. 

Research 

Both Oregon sites and Hampden County 

have used consultants to assess unmet 

service needs and to collect customer 

satisfaction information about One-Stop 

services. These consultants perform data 

collection and analysis, and summarize 

their findings in reports submitted to the 

local board and One-Stop operators. 

County-Wide Database Supports 

Service Coordination 

The Tarrant County board, Work Advantage, hired a 

consultant to develop and maintain “The Safety Net,” 

a web-accessed database network that links all of the 

human services providers in the county. All of Work 

Advantage’s service providers must use Safety Net, 

and the board encourages other service providers to 

use the system because it allows sharing of data across 

programs, streamlining eligibility and coordination 

between programs. Clients sign informed consent to 

allow sharing of information.

Consultant Conducts Survey to Help Inform 

Local Plan Development 

The local board in Lane County hired a survey research 

firm to conduct a phone survey of local employers and 

workers. The survey asked 3,000 respondents about 

workplace skills and training needs. The local board 

used this research to craft a planning document to 

address the needs of the community accurately.
10-6 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

 Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

Monitoring 

Some local boards include monitoring as one of several consultant functions. The Three 

Rivers board uses a consultant for several monitoring-related tasks. These include overseeing 

the board’s own monitoring functions, directly monitoring One-Stop Centers, and providing 

technical assistance to address deficiencies in performance. Both Florida sites have used 

KPMG to help develop their monitoring systems, and to oversee board monitoring functions. 

These consultants were selected competitively. 

Marketing and Public Relations 

Several local boards have engaged consultants to help develop marketing materials and 

outreach plans publicizing the workforce development system. In sites where the local board 

stresses consistency across One-Stops, these consultants generally create brochures, business 

cards, and other materials that promote the various One-Stop operators and partners as 

members of a single entity. The Gulf Coast is one example of a board that uses marketing 

consultants; its outreach plan includes radio public service announcements. 

Conclusion

Overall, local boards are using consultants in many different capacities, and they appear to be 

making sensible choices about consultant roles. The most prevalent roles are of two types. 

The first type is capacity-building: maximizing management’s effectiveness (e.g., assisting 

with strategic planning) or increasing the skills and knowledge of board staff, the One-Stop, 

and service provider organizations. In other words, the consultant is hired to build staff skills. 

In the second type of role, the consultant’s efforts supplement—or substitute for—those of 

board staff. For instance, consultants perform tasks that staff may not have the skills to 

accomplish, such as marketing or software or information systems design. Where staff and 

vendors have ongoing collaborative relationships, consultants may also bring objectivity to 

on-site monitoring. 

 

In retaining consultants to perform both categories of functions, local boards often achieve 

efficiencies, as many consultants have highly specialized skills. The local boards also 

recognize that they increase their effectiveness when consultants assist them in continuous 

improvement efforts. 
Chapter 11: 

Monitoring and Oversight 

Introduction

The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) aims to ensure, among other things, system performance 

through increased accountability at the state, local, and provider levels. Additionally, WIA 

explicitly shifts local board responsibilities from service delivery to oversight of services 

provided by intermediaries. This chapter outlines how local boards approach their oversight and 

monitoring responsibilities and describes some of the major challenges they face. 

WIA established performance indicators for states and local areas for all adult, dislocated 

worker, and youth programs. Performance levels are negotiated through a tiered structure: state 

levels are negotiated between the U.S. Department of Labor and the state, and then local 

performance standards are negotiated between the state and local areas. Core indicators for 

adults, dislocated workers, and youth include job placement, job retention, earnings, and skill 

attainment. Customer satisfaction and continuous improvement are other key elements of the 

new system. 

WIA also requires training intermediaries to meet eligibility requirements and submit annual 

performance information for student outcomes. Eligibility to receive WIA funding is dependent 

on these training intermediaries meeting or exceeding minimum performance levels dictated by 

the state and local boards, something not previously required under JTPA. Training 

intermediaries must report completion rates, placement, and earnings. These data will be used 

to determine subsequent eligibility to provide WIA-funded services. 

Local boards engage in varying monitoring and oversight activities; however, most collect 

service data, measure performance, ensure fiscal responsibility, convene regular meetings with 

intermediaries and other system partners, and provide technical assistance. Additionally, local 

board staff usually conduct on-site observation and evaluation, interviews with front-line 

service delivery staff, and facilitate focus groups or surveys of customer satisfaction. 
11-2 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

Integral to meaningful monitoring is access to accurate, real-time client data. As local boards 

develop their workforce development systems under WIA, all study states—except Oregon— 

have simultaneously devised new data collection systems. Of the seven states with new data 

systems, only Florida and Texas have developed systems that effectively allow public access to 

performance data collected at the local level. In six of the eight study states, respondents 

reported serious dissatisfaction with the state reporting systems. 

Monitoring and Oversight of Local Services

One-Stop Services 

Most local boards combine monitoring and oversight activities for One-Stop operations and 

core and intensive services. In part this is because, as noted in previous chapters, only four of 

the sixteen sites separate the One-Stop operator and the intensive service provider roles. These 

four locations engage in similar monitoring procedures as those that monitor operator 

performance, however, intensive services are the primary focus of performance evaluation 

efforts. The rest of the sites engage in very similar practices to confirm and support high quality 

programming throughout the One-Stop system. 

As described in Chapter 5, the monitoring of One-Stop operations and services are often 

characterized as collaborative processes that emphasize technical assistance over traditional, 

mostly numbers-based monitoring. 

Although each local area requires a 

combination of monthly, quarterly, and 

annual reports on performance indicators, 

local boards focus on working as a team 

with intermediaries, spending the bulk of 

their time offering technical assistance on 

WIA policy questions, effective 

collaboration strategies, best practices in 

service delivery, and billing inquiries. 

Local board staff are in regular 

communication with One-Stops through 

Collaborative Monitoring Reinforces 

One-Stop Operator Leadership 

Worknet Pinellas, the local board in Pinellas County, FL, 

maintains a close working relationship with its One-Stop 

operator, St. Petersburg College (SPC). SPC’s One-Stop 

Director is at the local board office at least once per 

day, and project staff use the board’s office for 

meetings. Worknet Pinellas staff believe that 

empowerment of the One-Stop operator reinforces the 

quality of its leadership; thus, SPC has been involved in 

establishing most management controls for the Onestop system, including the local area’s ETPL system. 

Feedback from this collaborative monitoring led 

Worknet Pinellas and SPC to develop on-line staff 

training, which over half of One-Stop staff have 

completed. 
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 11-3 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

periodic system or operator meetings, site visits, and e-mail and phone calls. Respondents in 

one local area reported that intermediaries even have access to a local board staff’s home phone 

number and e-mail address in case questions or concerns arise after working hours. Services 

provided in these local areas are typically highly integrated, with One-Stop partners and 

intermediaries well-informed about local board policies and WIA regulations. 

Although they often work collaboratively with intermediaries, local boards also develop 

corrective action plans when performance falls short. Typically, intermediaries put on 

corrective action have un- or under-developed policies or systems, leadership crises, failure to 

meet performance measures, and other service-related issues. For example, Tarrant County, 

Texas put its One-Stop operator “on probation” for not meeting TANF-related performance 

measures. Local boards usually develop a written report or memorandum explaining the reason 

for the sanction, identify a time period in which the problem needs to be remedied, and work 

with the intermediary to develop an action plan. 

Intermediaries are often integral members of the local board, especially those that are mandated 

partner agencies, and through this relationship have inherent access to and technical support 

from the local board. Additionally, respondents in at least two sites also noted that local board 

meetings are open to the public, and that intermediary organizations are commonly in 

attendance. One respondent reported that the regular presence of intermediaries—especially 

those not represented on the board—at the meetings is an indication of the high degree of 

communication and collaboration in the local area. 

On-going monitoring is most often coupled with more formal activities that are linked with 

contractual milestones, such as monthly or quarterly invoicing and contract or “charter” 

renewals. In Milwaukee County, for example, data reporting is “piggy-backed” onto the 

invoicing process. Intermediaries are required to report the number of placements and 30-day 

retentions with their invoices. Additionally, board staff in most sites make at least a yearly OneStop site visit that includes interviews with staff and partner organizations, and focus groups or 

individual interviews with customers. 

Local boards that have separate fiscal agents (sites in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania) develop 

collaborative oversight procedures. In the Massachusetts sites, fiscal agents are responsible for 

ensuring that One-Stop operators and other intermediaries are using funds appropriately, that 
11-4 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

costs match expenditures, and that the contracts are spending according to schedule. Local 

board staff in these two sites are primarily responsible for policy review and performance on 

WIA measures. In Northwest Pennsylvania, although the fiscal agent works closely with the 

local board, the local board staff take the lead role in monitoring by conducting site visits, 

developing corrective action plans, and summarizing performance in reports on each 

intermediary. In Three Rivers, the City of Pittsburgh and Allegheny County each serve as fiscal 

agents for their own local area, while sharing one WIB. Here, the two fiscal agents have 

developed comprehensive monitoring strategies, the results of which are reported to the local 

board. 

Monitoring Other Local Area Services 

As discussed in Chapters 8-10, the monitoring and oversight of youth, training provider, and 

other consultant intermediaries are usually done through other, discrete monitoring processes. 

Monitoring youth contracts, however, usually mirrors the systems established by the local 

board for One-Stop services, including at least annual site visits and monthly data reporting. 

Consultant contracts tend to be more ad hoc, depending on the local board’s specific needs at a 

particular point in time. Monitoring these arrangements usually depends on the individual 

contract, but is typically a less formal process than is used for One-Stop operators and other 

WIA service providers. 

Data 

Information about customer characteristics, services they use, and the employment outcomes 

they achieve are critical for measuring a local area’s achievement of state performance goals. 

Similarly, such information is needed to evaluate the performance of the intermediaries that 

local boards use to meet their performance goals. Training providers are a particular focus of 

data collection for WIA, and the legislation requires that information about training provider 

performance be available to customers through the Customer Reporting System. 

As mentioned previously, all but one of the study states have recently developed statewide data 

management systems almost simultaneously with the implementation of WIA. The Texas and 
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 11-5 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

Florida state systems have been able to link local area and state data collection efforts 

effectively and expedite performance monitoring. More commonly, however, states have been 

unable to fully implement their new systems, and local board staff reported that they have 

developed local, and often duplicative, tracking systems for monitoring and state reporting 

requirements. Respondents in these states indicate that local boards’ efforts to manage data and 

monitor performance have been severely hampered by the lack of an integrated system serving 

both local areas and the state. 

Local boards in Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Wisconsin, and some intermediaries, are 

entering data directly into their state systems. Both study sites in New Jersey have been able to 

implement the One-Stop Operating System (OSOS) in the comprehensive One-Stops in their 

local areas. Although the data systems are functional and accessed by case managers, one 

respondent noted that the server is often down, entering data for one client takes 25 to 30 

minutes, and the system has yet to develop the capacity to print reports. Indeed, because OSOS 

cannot generate reports, each local area in the state was forced to purchase an additional 

software program to be able to print reports for planning and monitoring purposes. 

In Massachusetts and Wisconsin, local boards have varied in how they implement their 

respective state data systems. In Wisconsin’s Bay Area, the local board and all intermediaries 

have access to G*STARS, the state system, yet no one can generate reports. Local board staff 

in Milwaukee County receive hard copy forms from One-Stop case managers and enter these 

data into the state system. Staff have chosen this arrangement to reduce the risk of data entry 

errors. Some board staff, however, worry that the data still may be inaccurate because case 

managers may sometimes forget to forward their client forms to the local board for input into 

the system. Respondents in both Wisconsin sites reported that the local board has difficulty 

planning and determining performance because G*STARS is unable to generate reports. 

Respondents in Massachusetts reported similar complaints that their state system, the 

Massachusetts One-Stop Employment System (MOSES), is unable to reliably report 

information on client volume, demographics, and customer outcomes. 

Nevada’s two local areas have a different set of issues with the state data management system. 

One local board has not yet agreed to adopt the OSOS system, although respondents expect this 

to occur in the coming year. Respondents in the other local area reported that, while the 

consortium operator of the One-Stop enters data into the state system, the local board cannot 
11-6 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

access it themselves because of confidentiality issues. As a result, this local board has 

developed a parallel system into which One-Stop partners must also enter data. One respondent 

in this site noted that “the chances for error greatly increase each time you are required to enter 

the data.” Eventually, respondents hope, the two systems will be able to interface. 

Pennsylvania sites do not yet have access to a state system and have developed temporary data 

collection efforts. For example, in Northwest Pennsylvania, all client data is collected and 

analyzed using pen and paper. Hand tallies are compiled by each partner organization in the 

One-Stop and added up at the end of the day. At the end of each month, the One-Stop site 

manager sends the data to a the regional consortium of operators. These data are then finally 

forwarded to the board. Respondents noted that the whole process is extremely time consuming 

and prone to errors. In Three Rivers, One-Stop operators are required to submit data to the two 

fiscal agents, and the local board. Each entity requires the data in a different format and thus 

operators have to compile their data in three different ways. 

In addition to the Texas state system, 

TWIST, Tarrant County uses a local case 

management, client tracking database. 

The local board contracts with a nonprofit organization to administer 

SafetyNet, a web-based system. All of 

the community agencies that receive 

funds from the board must use the 

system. Because SafetyNet allows each intermediary to see basic identifying information on 

customers served by all other providers using the database, customers sign a waiver so that 

confidentiality considerations are not a hindrance to data sharing. SafetyNet’s utility for 

coordinating services for individual customers and its case management software component 

have attracted local service providers that do not work for the local board, and a number of 

these agencies also use SafetyNet. 

In Florida, the state’s workforce development data system has been in operation for about a 

year, since 2001. Like Texas, the state produces regular summary reports on each of the state’s 

performance measurement indicators for each local board. Although Florida’s statewide system 

appears to work well for state workforce development purposes, it does not consolidate data 

Texas’ TWIST Database Used by Multiple 

Partner Programs 

The Workforce Information System of Texas, or TWIST, was 

developed in the mid-1990’s in response to the state’s 

consolidation of twenty-eight employment and training 

programs under the Texas Workforce Commission. TWIST 

collects client level data for the state’s WIA, Welfare-toWork, TANF, and food stamps programs. Partners and 

contractors who provide intensive services, and training 

providers on the ETPL, enter data into the system.
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 11-7 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

systems across all of the various partner agencies (e.g., Wagner-Peyser, Food Stamps, Child 

Care, etc.). One-Stop staff sometimes have to input data into as many as five different computer 

systems for one customer. Some respondents indicate that, in addition to different systems, a 

number of the partner agencies use technology that is either more than 20 years old, or brand 

new, and thus unreliable. Because the state’s MIS does not include the level of detail that local 

board staff need to monitor intermediary performance effectively, the two Florida study sites 

also use ChanTran, a locally-developed database that provides more in-depth reports than the 

state software. ChanTran is generally not considered to be user-friendly, and data entered in 

this system is available only to local board staff. 

Oregon is the only state that has not developed a statewide system for collecting and managing 

data across the state. The two study sites in Oregon, however, each have developed their own, 

highly sophisticated systems to collect and manage data, report to the state, and determine 

performance. In Oregon Region 2, the local board uses I-TRAC, a tailored, web-based, Oracle 

database. At the time of the site visit, Lane County, Oregon was in the process of implementing 

G*STARS, a web-based system for participant tracking and case management that is being 

used in several other states, including, Wisconsin. All intermediaries in the local area will be 

able to access G*STARS via the Internet and 

will be required to enter data on their clients 

into the system. Respondents expect that 

G*STARS will be a strong administrative 

tool, providing managers with real time 

statistics on what case managers are doing on 

a daily basis, where customers are in the 

system, and aggregate numbers as needed. It 

also allows the local board to monitor 

subcontractor performance. 

In summary, the perfect MIS that operates effectively for users at all levels of the workforce 

development system—state, local board, and intermediary—does not yet exist. Thus, agencies 

at each level generally develop their own data systems tailored to their particular needs. Until 

the software used by each agency can “talk” to that of other agencies, line staff are likely to be 

responsible for duplicative data entry into various management information systems. 

Oregon’s Region 2 Develops MIS Tailored 

to Local Needs 

In Oregon Region 2, any organization that receives 

WIA funding, either through the local board or 

through a subcontract with an operator (including 

partner agencies), is required to connect with ITRAC, a web-based database, and enter WIA 

participant data into it. Local board staff manage 

contracts management using I-TRAC and can 

access performance data on almost a real-time 

basis.
11-8 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

Intermediaries that Assist in Monitoring Activities

As described in Chapter 10, local boards contract with various consultant intermediaries to 

assist the local board in performing various tasks. Six local boards contract with consultants to 

assist with monitoring and oversight. In addition to their technical expertise, respondents 

appreciate the objective viewpoint that outside monitors bring to their work. 

• Two independent monitors were hired by the local board in Three Rivers to assess the 

newly-implemented monitoring process. 

• Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties, the two Florida sites, employed the international 

consulting firm KPMG to help establish local level monitoring and internal 

accountability systems. Because the state of Florida recently hired KPMG as a statelevel monitor, both local areas were required to discontinue this intermediary 

relationship. 

• A local non-profit in Tarrant County, Texas is contracted by the local board to train 

intermediary organizations in using data systems, and also maintains the software and 

server for the system. 

• Computer consulting firms in Oregon Region 2 assisted the local board in developing 

the I-TRAC data system. 

• Hampden County used a local research institute to survey One-Stop customers about 

their satisfaction with the services they received. 

Many of these relationships are long-term, with contracts renewed or re-competed annually. 

Trends and Issues from the Sites

This section explores some of the most salient trends and organizational issues regarding 

monitoring and oversight. This discussion aims to shed light on some of the key questions and 

challenges that local boards and operators have needed to address in implementing workforce 

development services under WIA. 
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 11-9 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

Tracking the Use of Core Services 

Respondents in many study sites reported that they have not developed effective methods to 

track the receipt and delivery of core services. Most One-Stops visited for this study use basic 

sign-in sheets that are tallied on a periodic basis. This method, however, does not account for 

multiple client visits, nor does it track how often and which services are accessed. Some 

respondents argue that this most basic data on core service utilization could answer some of the 

most interesting questions of WIA implementation. For example, WIA performance measures 

do not capture how many customers are “served” by WIA funding, or whether the customers 

who use core services are significantly aided in their job search so as not to need additional 

services. Additionally, because One-Stops are not systematically tracking these data, they are 

not keeping track of their overall client flow in a reliable way. In this respect, the JTPA data 

collection may have been more accurate. Referring to the JTPA data system, one respondent 

says, "Just give us the SPIR data and tell us what you spent." 

To address this issue, three study sites—Oregon Region 2, Lane County, and Hampden 

County—have instituted the use of swipe cards that are quickly and easily issued to customers. 

Swipe cards enable One-Stops and local boards to track unduplicated counts of customers’ use 

of core services, how often, and the particular type. None of the respondents in these three sites 

noted any particular problems with using the cards. 

Disconnect Between Policy and Service Needs 

Various respondents across the study sites reported that front-line case managers, 

intermediaries, local board staff, and state practitioners all have different data management 

needs. For example, case managers and other intermediaries often need to track their customers 

by case manager, as well as case management activities, services provided, specific barriers to 

employment, referrals, and contact information. Local board staff are more interested in 

aggregate utilization numbers and performance broken down by intermediary. Finally, states 

require even less-detailed data, as they are simply interested in the overall performance of 

services in the local area. Because of this inherent conflict, many respondents argued that the 

resolution is not a single master database, but rather systems that interface with a minimum of 

duplicative data entry. 
11-10 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

Comprehensive, System-Wide Performance Monitoring 

Established data management systems that allow all intermediaries to access and enter data 

facilitate continuous monitoring of performance and client flow. These data systems allow local 

board staff immediate access to information and promote early intervention when problems 

occur, instead of waiting for formal review periods. For example, respondents in the Bay Area 

said that local board staff are often aware of problems before the intermediary is and can act 

quickly to address the issue, before it becomes unwieldy. In Oregon Region 2, I-TRAC allows 

local board staff to track performance of each case manager. This information serves as an 

internal management tool for monitoring productivity. 

Staff training in these locations is of primary importance, as all intermediaries must enter data 

accurately for the MIS to work well. Respondents noted that inaccurate data can lead to a 

collapse of the entire system. Practitioners can lose trust in the MIS and be discouraged from 

diligently maintaining the database. To forestall system collapse, local boards use three 

strategies: making use of the MIS is a contract requirement; 2) stressing that monitoring is 

based on the data entered into the system; and training intermediary staff in system use. The 

local board in Oregon Region 2 has a particularly well-developed training program. The local 

board holds training classes every other Friday. Users are not issued passwords to the MIS until 

they can prove that they can enter data correctly and navigate the system. Not only does this 

process improve data quality, but respondents also noted that when partners are adequately 

trained, they have more “buy-in” and comfort with the data system. 

Training Providers 

Much like their difficulty in establishing operational state One-Stop performance data 

collection systems, as reported in Chapter 8, most study states have been unsuccessful in 

developing electronic data systems that have the capacity to collect and report training provider 

performance to educate customers and determine subsequent eligibility of training providers. 

Only two study states, Pennsylvania and Texas, had established subsequent eligibility criteria at 

the time of the site visits. The other sites had yet to refine their ETPLs, primarily because they 

had not determined how to collect and manage the requisite data. 
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 11-11 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

Conclusion

In all the sites, WIA implementation has been accompanied by meaningful efforts to increase 

accountability, oversight, and performance monitoring. These efforts are reflected in greater 

interaction between local boards and local intermediaries, both through increased contract and 

performance monitoring, and through increases in training and technical assistance. 

WIA’s goal to increase accountability, however, requires significant investments in data entry, 

data management, and data processing. Many of the states visited in this study have not 

completed these investments or have not been able to take full advantage of them. Data systems 

are often not properly interconnected, data must often be entered multiple times, and significant 

amounts of WIA-funded services, including most core services, are not tracked or measured at 

all. Some sites demonstrate that appropriate data systems—combined with adequate staff 

training—can greatly enhance program operation and coordination. The design and 

implementation of such systems, however, is not a one-size-fits-all proposition and software 

and hardware decisions, as well as staff training and monitoring needs and resources, should be 

considered carefully. 
Chapter 12: 

Study Findings 

Introduction 

The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) empowered local boards to create workforce 

development systems that make optimal use of local partners and providers. By encouraging 

local boards to engage a range of workforce partners and by mandating the creation of Eligible 

Training Provider Lists (ETPLs), the legislation sought to leverage the resources of qualified 

service providers while also increasing individual choice for WIA customers. Indeed, the 16 

local boards in our study have developed unique service delivery systems centered around 

intermediaries in various roles. Exhibit 12.1 illustrates this variation by summarizing the types 

of organizations that the study sites used to provide various WIA service components. 

Exhibit 12.1 

Summary of Type of Organization Used for WIA Services in 16 Local Workforce Areas 

(July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002)

* One-Stop operators, core, and intensive service providers in comprehensive career centers only (n = 84). Core and 

intensive providers only include those with primary responsibility for these services.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

One-Stop* Core* Intensive* Training Youth Consultants

Nonprofit For-Profit Govt Educ Consortia
12-2 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

As discussed in the preceding chapters, non-profit organizations were the type of organization 

that local boards most often selected to operate One-Stop centers, and to provide intensive and 

youth services. This perspective reflects Osborne and Gaebler’s evaluation of the types of tasks 

for which non-profit organizations are best suited (see Chapter 3), including tasks that require 

compassion and commitment to others, a holistic approach, personal attention, and trust on the 

part of customers. For-profit companies were most often used as organizational consultants and 

as training providers. Again, this fits with the characterization of these organizations as being 

better than the public sector at performing complex tasks and delivering services that require 

rapid adjustment to change. Local boards engaged government agencies, usually the 

Employment Service, most frequently to provide core services, which is their mandate under 

the Wagner-Peyser Act. Educational institutions are the most frequent provider of training 

services, while consortia or collaboratives played significant roles in both One-Stop operations 

and providing youth services. 

Key Findings

The rest of this chapter describes study findings about the issues related to developing and 

managing workforce development systems that arose across the study sites. These include: 

1. As anticipated, WIA has changed the work of local workforce development boards to 

focus on system design, and monitoring and oversight of service providers. 

2. Local workforce development systems are perceived as collaborative and cohesive when 

local boards view monitoring and oversight responsibilities as a partnership between 

themselves and providers. 

3. Funding for One-Stop operations can enhance system services, but a lack of funding can 

hamper system development and improvement. 

4. WIA services can be overshadowed when co-located partners have significantly more 

funding than do WIA programs. 

5. WIA brought new rules and roles for service providers, but most workforce development 

players remain the same.
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 12-3 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

6. WIA places a premium on innovation and flexibility in the provision of workforce 

services. As a result, local boards experience a tension between seeking greater flexibility 

and assuring that service delivery is consistent across different organizations and locations. 

7. Some, but not all, local players in the workforce development system perceive that nonprofit organizations are better than for-profits at providing hands-on services and 

emotional support. 

8. A customer-driven system has the potential to substantially increase training choices for 

WIA customers, and appears to have done so in its early implementation. The 

requirements for subsequent eligibility and inclusion on the Eligible Training Provider List 

(ETPL), however, could have detrimental effects on the number of providers included on 

the list. 

9. Most states in the study have been unable to fully implement the data management 

systems needed for meaningful monitoring and oversight, and that meet both state and 

local needs. 

Because of the range of service designs the study team encountered, not every issue applies to 

every site, nonetheless, the topics are likely to be of concern to other local areas continuing to 

develop and refine their workforce investment services. Each of the findings listed above are 

discussed in more detail below. 

1. As anticipated, the Workforce Investment Act has changed the work of 

local workforce development boards to focus on system design, and 

monitoring and oversight of service providers. 

The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) instructs local boards to establish in their local 

workforce areas at least one comprehensive One-Stop center, a single location at which all 

mandated partners make their services available. Local boards are also charged with selecting 

an entity or entities, other than themselves, to operate the One-Stops. Beyond these 

requirements, local boards are free to create local service delivery systems comprising one or 

more comprehensive One-Stops and satellite and specialty locations, and to determine how and 

which providers will deliver services through these structures. Indeed the 16 local boards in this 

study have tailored their service delivery systems to meet the unique needs of their local areas. 
12-4 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

In this study’s site visits, the research team observed a great deal of variation in: the types of 

organizations operating One-Stops and providing services; the ways in which organizations 

were selected; and the types of contracting and monitoring arrangements that were used. Across 

the sites, the resulting One-Stop systems and service arrangements reflected local needs and 

resources, as well as the specific policy goals of local boards. 

The study sites have also taken to heart the separation of policy and service functions dictated 

by WIA. Only one local board in the study obtained a waiver to operate a comprehensive OneStop and provide direct adult services on an ongoing basis. All other local boards use outside 

organizations to operate One-Stops, provide core and intensive services, and deliver direct 

training to WIA customers. Our findings thus confirm those of D’Amico et al., which reported 

that the local boards in their WIA implementation study had shifted their focus away from 

service delivery to policy development, monitoring, and oversight of the workforce investment 

system. 

2. Local workforce development systems are perceived as collaborative and 

cohesive when local boards view monitoring and oversight responsibilities 

as a partnership between themselves and providers. 

In local areas where contract monitoring is characterized as collaborative, respondents report 

that One-Stop systems are strong, supportive networks of workforce development 

professionals. In these sites, technical assistance is emphasized over traditional, mostly 

numbers-based monitoring. Local board staff spend a majority of their time offering technical 

assistance on WIA policy questions, effective collaboration strategies, best practices in service 

delivery, and billing inquiries. Staff are in regular communication with One-Stops, through 

periodic system or operator meetings, site visits, and e-mail and phone calls. Services provided 

in these local areas are typically highly integrated, with One-Stop partners and intermediaries 

well-informed about local board policies and WIA regulations. 

The study sites using collaborative monitoring practices also require providers to submit 

monthly, quarterly, and annual reports on performance indicators. In addition to their proactive 

efforts to ensure provider success, these local boards also develop corrective action plans when 

performance falls short. Respondents note that this combined model of collaboration and 

compliance monitoring supports the achievement of performance goals, which is in the best 

interest of both the local board and the contractor. 
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 12-5 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

This finding brings into sharp relief the findings from three earlier studies on privatization as 

described earlier in Chapter 3. First, the GAO (1997) found that enhanced monitoring and 

oversight of performance plays an important role in making privatization work. Second, Pavetti 

et al. found that interagency communication was particularly important to establishing and 

maintaining effective working relationships between welfare agencies and their service 

intermediaries because the structure of the relationship necessarily involves shared 

responsibilities across organizations. Third, the National Association of Workforce Boards 

(NAWB, 2000) noted that because WIA funds are limited and local boards must accomplish 

their goals largely through organizations over which they do not have direct control, 

negotiation can be expected to replace management oversight as local boards’ main activity. 

Local boards may adopt a collaborative approach to performance monitoring as a means of 1) 

recognizing the “second hand” nature of their relationship with direct services, and 2) 

integrating the “negotiation” that NAWB mentioned into their monitoring processes. Further, 

such an approach to monitoring fosters interagency communication, and may actually achieve 

more effective oversight of intermediaries’ performance because of the increased levels of 

communication between board staff and service intermediaries. 

3. Funding for One-Stop operations can enhance system services, but a lack 

of funding can hamper system development. 

Local boards that provide funding to support One-Stop operations—distinct from funds for 

service provision—appear to have more highly-functioning and more streamlined One-Stop 

systems than local areas where no One-Stop operation funds are available. The most extreme 

example of this issue emerged in Milwaukee County, where the local board designated TANF 

contractors as One-Stop operators because the system lacked the funds to develop stand-alone 

One-Stops. The resulting One-Stops are thus dominated by TANF clients and services, and the 

MOU arrangements with these operators require little accountability for WIA outcomes from 

the operator organizations. The Massachusetts sites represent the other end of this spectrum, as 

the state contributes One-Stop operation funds to local boards. The availability of these funds 

has enabled both the Boston and Hampden County local boards to develop One-Stop systems 

with highly integrated services. 
12-6 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

Other sources of funding for One-Stop operations are cost-sharing agreements with center 

partners, grants, and leveraging resources across multiple funding sources. Where funds are 

limited, local boards also tend to rely on partner agencies to provide services instead of 

contracting with other service provider organizations in the community. In addition, local 

boards in some study sites have asked partners—and sometimes intermediaries—to share in the 

cost of operating One-Stops through cost-allocation agreements. While intermediaries are 

attracted to the idea of co-location in the One-Stop, respondents in one site indicated that the 

cost-allocation “rent” can be a disincentive for some service providers to bid on WIA contracts. 

Finally, the lack of One-Stop operation funds has implications for local boards’ ability to 

replace under-performing operators. Even local boards with ready access to funds to support 

operations reported that a change in One-Stop operators would only happen under extreme 

circumstances, since transition and start-up costs would be prohibitive. 

4. WIA services can be overshadowed when co-located partners have 

significantly more funding. 

When local boards partner with larger programs, WIA-funded workforce services may be 

subsumed in the much larger service delivery structure operated by these organizations. For 

example, where states and sites significantly integrate provision of WIA and TANF services, 

WIA services are generally integrated with larger employment and training centers primarily 

serving TANF recipients. Although this service integration can promote more efficient use of 

resources, WIA services and outreach to special WIA populations like dislocated workers can 

suffer in such a context. Study respondents indicate that their communities assume that OneStops are welfare offices, and attach a stigma to the centers. Further, WIA customers may not 

identify with institutions that primarily serve welfare recipients, and those institutions may not 

actively reach out to them. Some respondents have noted, however, that the availability of 

TANF funds to support the operation of their local One-Stops has been the reason that some 

One-Stops exist at all. 

In locations where TANF dominates, respondents report that the emphasis on one program and 

its customers can jeopardize WIA’s goal of universal access. However, local boards have 

developed few alternatives other than offering targeted services outside of the comprehensive 

One-Stop location; the most frequent examples of which are separate service providers or 

specialty centers for dislocated workers. Given the realities of funding priorities and budget 
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 12-7 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

cuts at both state and federal levels, this problem is likely to persist. Future research should 

continue to explore service models and structures that combine both target populations in a 

balanced way, or allow workforce investment services to be implemented independently.

5. WIA brought new rules and roles for service providers, but most workforce 

development players remain the same. 

In most of the sites, existing contractors and service providers continue to play important roles 

in the local workforce investment systems. Many of the local providers under JTPA play 

comparable roles under WIA, while others have taken on new responsibilities. Study 

respondents indicate that established partners have extensive workforce experience, the 

necessary organizational resources, and a competitive advantage to adapt to the changing needs 

of the workforce development system and remain a dominant force in local systems. Our 

experience suggests that even in larger cities the number of workforce investment service 

providers, and of experienced workforce development staff, is fairly small. In smaller or more 

sparsely populated local areas, the existing supply of training providers and potential One-Stop 

operators may not be large enough to allow for effective competition for service and training 

provision. In these small professional communities, provider organizations and their staff are 

well known, by reputation if not in person. This factor, along with barriers such as the need for 

substantial start-up funding and technical assistance, could explain the relative lack of new 

entrants among service partners in several of the areas we visited. 

Veteran providers are also taking advantage of new opportunities, assuming new roles, such as 

One-Stop operator, and sometimes using new marketing methods. In a number of sites, 

respondents noted that for-profit training providers now market themselves to One-Stop 

intensive service staff in the hopes that case managers will recommend them to customers 

interested in training. Savvy training providers have also designed new courses to fit state 

limitations on the length and cost of ITA-funded training, and focused this development on jobs 

on the local demand occupation list. 

Despite the dominance of veteran service providers in the system, respondents report that some 

new intermediaries are being used, primarily as training providers. 

6. WIA places a premium on innovation and flexibility in the provision of 

workforce services. As a result, local boards experience a tension 
12-8 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

between seeking greater flexibility and assuring that One-Stop service 

delivery is consistent across different organizations and locations. 

WIA encourages local boards to use their contracting partnerships to create workforce systems 

that are tailored to specific local needs and that reward innovation and community involvement. 

Indeed, respondents indicated that the strategies local boards use to operate the One-Stops have 

implications for the types and consistency of services available. For example, in several sites 

we visited, local boards sought to maximize diversity in the workforce investment systems they 

designed, and thus contracted with multiple One-Stop operators, each representing a segment of 

the community or offering specific services and resources. Respondents in many of these sites 

suggested that multiple operators create a vibrant system with varied approaches to, and 

strengths in, delivering workforce development services. They also noted that having multiple 

operators inherently introduces a competitive tone to the system, which may foster better 

performance. 

In at least one site that used multiple One-Stop operators, however, some board members and 

staff were concerned about the lack of consistency in service delivery across One-Stops even 

though centers in these local areas provided services that were well-adapted to the specific 

employment opportunities and available resources in the community. Local board staff found 

that they needed to be much more prescriptive in how the centers should be organized and 

managed than they had anticipated. Staff from one of the One-Stop operator organizations 

noted that, early on, the local board and its staff were not aggressive enough in defining basic 

performance criteria, and in providing instruction and guidance to the One-Stop operators. At 

the time of our visits, board staff were establishing policy and practice guidance, and creating a 

One-Stop staff certification process to encourage consistency in center operations. 

Other local boards chose to contract with a single One-Stop operator to achieve the goal of 

uniform and consistent services across the centers. Respondents in these local areas noted that 

using a single operator can reduce the need for technical assistance, facilitate coordination 

across the system, limit administrative costs, streamline monitoring and contract management, 

and give the operator a real voice in developing the One-Stop system. In another site using a 

single One-Stop operator, however, a respondent noted that by using just one operator, the local 

board “puts all its eggs in one basket” and that changing the One-Stop operator would be 

difficult when one organization has so much responsibility. Most organizations replacing the 

single operator would need a significant start-up period to learn the intricacies of the role. 
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 12-9 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

The trade-off between standardization and flexibility in local workforce systems is likely to be 

a continuing issue for local boards as their workforce development systems mature. As 

outcome data becomes available over time, future research will be able to assess the 

effectiveness of various approaches to balancing these competing objectives. 

7. Some, but not all, local players in the workforce development system 

perceive non-profit organizations as better providers of hands-on services 

and emotional support than for-profit companies. 

Respondents from several sites noted that their communities had expressed reluctance about the 

board hiring for-profit firms as One-Stop operators, for several reasons. One concern is that forprofit employees will not be sensitive to the “human side” of the work because of their need to 

operate within parameters that ensure their employer’s profitability. This perspective reflects 

Osborne and Gaebler’s evaluation of the types of tasks for which nonprofit organizations (both 

community-based and faith-based) are best suited−including those that require compassion and 

commitment to others, a holistic approach, personal attention, and trust on the part of 

customers. Another issue raised is that front-line staff in for-profit companies providing social 

services tend to be poorly paid and as a result the quality of service suffers. In addition to the 

relatively low profit margin for operating One-Stops, such attitudes may contribute to the study 

sites using few for-profit companies as One-Stop operators. 

Local community-based (CBOs) and faith-based (FBOs) nonprofit organizations have been a 

mainstay of human services, and often have a track record of providing employment and 

training services in local communities. In contrast, for-profit providers of case management and 

similar services are a relatively new development. A lack of familiarity with for-profit 

providers may be another factor in shaping the negative attitudes toward for-profits that the 

study team encountered during site visits. 

Such attitudes were not universal, however, and we visited several local areas that had used forprofit One-Stop operators. In these sites, the study team found that the line between non-profit 

and for-profit organizations is not so impermeable as some respondents seem to imagine. In 

Massachusetts, for instance, a for-profit firm converted into a non-profit organization, in part 

because of pressure from the local community. In Florida and in Texas, the study team 

interviewed local board staff who had worked for a prior for-profit One-Stop operator, and for-
12-10 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

profit operator staff who had previously worked for the PIC. As discussed above, the relatively 

small number of workforce development intensive service providers and staff limits the number 

of candidates for open positions in the system—particularly for agencies or professionals with 

solid experience in the field. Thus, the pool of experienced workforce development staff may 

be fairly fluid, moving between for-profit, non-profit, and governmental employers as new 

policies and programs are implemented, or as personal circumstances change. 

In addition, for-profit companies offer services that appear to be well-suited to provide directtraining to WIA customers. Along with educational institutions, study respondents indicate that 

for-profit training providers are usually flexible in developing specialized responses to large 

lay-offs or labor market disruptions, and are responsive to new opportunities in local labor 

markets. 

8. A customer-driven system has the potential to substantially increase 

training choices for WIA customers, and appears to have done so in its 

early implementation. The requirements for subsequent eligibility and 

inclusion on the ETPL, however, could have detrimental effects on the 

number of providers included on the list. 

The study’s site visits revealed evidence that customer choice for training services has indeed 

increased since WIA was implemented, particularly in the period just after each state developed 

its ETPL. Respondents in most local areas noted that the number of training providers available 

increased over those available under JTPA, and a wider range of training choices is available. 

Many new training providers serve relatively few WIA customers, however, and these 

providers historically have not conducted the same levels of performance monitoring and 

follow-up with trainees as they are now required to do for WIA customers. Because WIA 

requires training providers to track outcomes for all trainees, not just WIA customers, 

collection of trainee follow-up data can create a barrier for continued inclusion on the ETPL. 

The small number of WIA customers that many trainers serve presents another barrier to 

reapplying for the ETPL, since the number of WIA trainees they serve may not be large enough 

to justify the level of effort needed to collect long-term employment and job retention data. 

Over time, these factors may lead to a drop-off in the number and variety of available training 

providers as they need to reapply for the ETPL. Few of the study states had established their 

subsequent eligibility processes at the time of the site visits, and further research will be needed 

to document whether such a drop-off in training provider numbers indeed occurs. 
Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 12-11 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

Overall, ITA-related data systems have been somewhat of a challenge for both state and local 

boards to implement, and thus, monitoring of training intermediaries has not been as thorough 

and effective as local board monitoring of other WIA service providers. Local board staff have 

expressed some frustration that the ETPL system has been slow to be implemented, and that 

both they and customers have not had access to the performance data needed to ensure that 

customers can make informed choices when selecting training providers. 

9. Most study states have been unable to fully implement the data 

management systems needed for meaningful monitoring and oversight, 

and that meet both state and local needs. 

WIA’s goal to increase accountability requires significant investments in data entry, data 

management, and data processing. Many of the states visited in this study have not yet 

completed these investments or have not been able to take full advantage of them. Most of the 

states in the study, with the exception of Texas and Florida, have been unable to fully implement effective data management systems. As a result, local board staff report that they have had 

to develop local, and often duplicative, tracking systems for monitoring and state reporting 

requirements. Respondents in these states indicated that local boards’ efforts to manage data 

and monitor performance have been severely hampered by the lack of an integrated system 

serving both local areas and the state. Even where local board staff can easily upload training 

provider performance data into their state data systems, they often are unable to retrieve data 

from the state system in a format that is useful for planning and monitoring purposes, or in 

formats that satisfy the reporting requirements of various funding sources. In at least one state, 

local board staff cannot access the state database because of confidentiality issues. 

Furthermore, respondents across the study sites reported that front-line case managers, 

intermediaries, local board staff, and state practitioners have different data management needs. 

For example, case managers and other intermediaries often need to track their customers by 

case manager, as well as case management activities, services provided, specific barriers to 

employment, referrals, and contact information. Local board staff are more interested in 

aggregate utilization numbers and performance broken down by intermediary. Finally, states 

require even less-detailed data, as they are simply interested in the overall performance of 

services in the local area. The perfect MIS that operates effectively for users at all levels of the 

workforce development system—state, local board, intermediary—does not yet exist. Thus, 
12-12 Creating Partnerships for Workforce Investment: How Services Are Provided Under WIA 

Revised Final Report, September 2003 

 

agencies at each level generally develop their own data systems tailored to their particular 

needs. Data systems are often not properly interconnected, and data must often be entered 

multiple times. Until the software used by each agency can “talk” to that of other agencies, line 

staff are likely to be responsible for duplicative data entry into various management 

information systems. 

Another issue is that significant amounts of WIA-funded services, including most core services, 

are not tracked or measured at all. Some respondents argue that basic data on core service 

utilization could answer some of the most interesting questions of WIA implementation. For 

example, WIA performance measures do not capture how many customers are “served” by 

WIA funding, or whether the customers who use core services are significantly aided in their 

job search so as not to need additional services. 

Some sites demonstrate that appropriate data systems—combined with adequate staff 

training—can greatly enhance program operation and coordination. Respondents report that, 

where data management systems that allow all intermediaries to access and enter data exist, 

local boards are able to continuously monitor performance and client flow. These data systems 

allow local board staff immediate access to information and promote early intervention when 

problems occur, instead of waiting for formal review periods. The design and implementation 

of such systems, however, is not a one-size-fits-all proposition, and require significant 

investments in software and hardware, as well as staff training and monitoring resources. 

Conclusion 

The findings of this research offer a glimpse of the myriad structures that local areas use to 

provide WIA services and the uses of intermediaries within local workforce development 

systems. Although the sample selected for this study can not be considered representative of 

WIA implementation in all local areas across the country, the sixteen local areas studied offer 

insight into some of the early challenges and advantages of using different One-Stop structures 

and providers. Because intermediaries will continue to play key roles within the workforce 

investment system, local boards must continue to develop strong and successful relationships 

with these organizations that provide the services to local customers. This report represents a 

first step in helping local boards structure their local systems, secure services, and build 

partnerships with local intermediaries.