Implementing the 

National Fund for 

Workforce 

Solutions

The Baseline Evaluation 

Report

Prepared by:

Barbara Baran, Stephen Michon, and 

Suzanne Teegarden, Workforce Learning 

Strategies

Leanne Giordono and Kendra Lodewick,

Program and Policy Insight, LLC

Chris Benner, University of California, Davis

Manuel Pastor, University of Southern 

California

December 2, 2009
Table of Contents 2

Table of Contents

Preface ........................................................................................................................................... 5

I. Executive Summary............................................................................................................ 10

A. Major Observations and Findings ............................................................................. 10

B. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 11

C. Characteristics, Goals, and Strategies ................................................................... 11

The Funding Collaboratives............................................................................................................... 12

The Workforce Partnerships .............................................................................................................. 13

D. Outputs and Outcomes for Individuals, Employers, and Systems .................. 13

Outputs and Outcomes for Individuals ........................................................................................... 14

Employer Outputs and Outcomes .................................................................................................... 14

System Change Outcomes.................................................................................................................. 14

E. Emerging Issues for the NFWS Initiative ............................................................. 15

The Changed Economic and Political Environment ...................................................................... 15

NFWS Theory of Change.................................................................................................................... 15

Supporting Career Advancement ..................................................................................................... 17

Defining and Measuring Success ...................................................................................................... 17

F. Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 17

II. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 19

III. Characteristics, Goals and Strategies ........................................................................... 23

A. The National Fund for Workforce Solutions ........................................................... 23

B. Funding Collaboratives ............................................................................................... 27

Key Observations................................................................................................................................. 27

Overview of the Funding Collaboratives......................................................................................... 28

Characteristics of the Collaboratives ................................................................................................ 33

Primary Goals and Strategies of the Funding Collaboratives....................................................... 37

C. Workforce Partnerships .............................................................................................. 41

Key Observations................................................................................................................................. 41

Workforce Partnership Goals and Strategies................................................................................... 42

Workforce Partnership Characteristics ............................................................................................ 42

Services Provided ................................................................................................................................ 47

IV. Outputs and Outcomes for Individuals, Employers, and Systems........................ 54

A. Outputs and Outcomes for Individuals ................................................................... 54

Key Observations and Findings ........................................................................................................ 54
Table of Contents 3

Participant Demographics and Background ................................................................................... 55

Participant Services and Achievements ........................................................................................... 64

Non-incumbent Participant Job Retention....................................................................................... 77

Incumbent Participant Job Retention................................................................................................ 79

Key Observations and Findings ........................................................................................................ 79

Employers Served................................................................................................................................ 79

Services Provided ................................................................................................................................ 81

C. System Change Outputs and Outcomes................................................................... 83

Key Observations and Findings ........................................................................................................ 83

System Change Outputs and Outcomes .......................................................................................... 84

V. Key Emerging Issues for the NFWS Initiative........................................................... 89

A. The Changed Economic and Political Environment............................................... 89

Fundraising Challenges ...................................................................................................................... 89

Engaging Employers ........................................................................................................................... 89

Targeting Sectors and Occupations .................................................................................................. 90

Opportunities ....................................................................................................................................... 90

Workforce Intermediaries, Funding Collaboratives, and Workforce Partnerships................... 91

Tensions in the Dual Customer Model............................................................................................. 91

Engaging Employers ........................................................................................................................... 92

Achieving Scale and Sustainability................................................................................................... 92

Workforce Partnerships ...................................................................................................................... 94

Capacity-Building Strategies.............................................................................................................. 94

Employer Engagement and Outcomes............................................................................................. 94

System Change Strategies .................................................................................................................. 94

Maintaining the Collaborative........................................................................................................... 95

VI. Conclusion......................................................................................................................... 96

Appendix A ................................................................................................................................ 98

Appendix B............................................................................................................................... 170
Table of Contents 4
Preface 5

Preface

Bringing Success to Scale: from the Investing in Workforce 

Intermediaries pilot project, to the National Fund for 

Workforce Solutions

In May of 2009, the national evaluation team completed the Baseline Evaluation Report 

on the initial implementation of the National Fund for Workforce Solutions (NFWS)—a 

multi-year initiative launched in 2007 by the Annie E. Casey, Ford, Hitachi, and Harry 

and Jeanette Weinberg Foundations and the U.S. Department of Labor to build 

workforce partnerships rooted in industry sectors, and to transform institutions to 

improve labor market outcomes for low-income individuals and employers. The 

evaluators found that the NFWS has built a strong foundation for meeting its goals, and 

the initial outcomes in the young initiative appear promising. The NFWS has raised 

approximately $22 million nationally and has leveraged $100 million in pledged local 

funding to expand workforce services for low-income workers and employers, to 

implement promising models of service delivery, and to drive reform in workforce 

institutions and employer practices. The evaluation reported that 21 funding 

collaboratives have been organized, and several more are expected to join the initiative, 

which puts the initiative on track to significantly increase the number of workforce 

partnerships created by the collaboratives. These current 37 workforce partnerships 

provided services to 6,306 individuals and 504 employers. This places NFWS on track to 

achieve its five-year goal of supporting 50,000 low-income workers and 1,000 employers 

improve their economic futures. On their own, these are remarkable achievements. 

While impressive, the data contained in the Baseline Report are drawn from just those 

workforce partnerships that were well-established enough to be able to report their 

outcomes to the NFWS data reporting system in January 2009. 

It should be recognized, however, that the work of the NFWS has been built on the 

shoulders of the pilot sites funded by an earlier group of investors—The Ford 

Foundation, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, and the Rockefeller Foundation—and 

owes much of its current achievement to the successes, failures and hard knocks 

experienced by a small group of pilot sites, whose workforce partnerships served 

thousands of individuals and large numbers of employers during the pilot phase. These 

sites trace their origins back to a 2003 American Assembly meeting on the role of 

workforce intermediaries, and through the pilot project, Investing in Workforce 

Intermediaries, that emerged from this meeting. 

In order to more fully appreciate the achievements documented in the Baseline Report, 

it is first necessary to understand the whole arc of the workforce 

intermediary/workforce partnership experiment. The NFWS’ various workforce 

funding collaboratives and the workforce partnerships that they support are the direct 
Preface 6

descendents of the initial pilot sites. By creating a dual-customer focus to their work, by 

targeting individual industry sectors, by creating public/private partnerships, by 

advocating for improved workforce systems, and by integrating career advancement 

strategies into their work—all functions of effective workforce partnerships—the 

Investing in Workforce Intermediaries pilot sites demonstrated how workforce 

development could be improved, for workers, for employers, and for local economies. 

This short preface is an attempt to place the information reported in the Baseline Report 

into their proper historical context by briefly describing the work of the pilot sites, and 

by noting some of their most significant outcomes. 

The Baltimore Workforce Collaborative/Workforce Intermediary Project, founded in 2005, is 

financed by seven regional and national foundations, the Baltimore Workforce 

Investment Board, and the Mayor’s Office of Employment Development. 

Approximately seventy organizations are collaborating to improve the economic health 

of Baltimore by creating a workforce system that prepares city residents for skilled 

positions with employers who are experiencing critical workforce shortages. The effort 

is focusing initially on health care and construction, with support for three workforce 

partnerships: the Baltimore Alliance for Careers in Healthcare (BACH), the BioTechnical 

Institute of Maryland, Inc., and Jumpstart, a construction pre-apprenticeship program. 

In its first two years of operation, Jumpstart graduated 70 participants, placing 51 of 

them in jobs paying $10-12 per hour. The BioTechnical Institute placed 80 percent—178 

low-income participants—of its graduates into occupations paying on average $25,000 

per year. BACH served over 400 low-income health care workers from 6 hospitals, and 

developed new internal career pathways in each hospital resulting in wage gains of 

approximately 17% within the first 9 months.

Investors continue to support the Baltimore Workforce Collaborative. They note the 

collaborative’s success in creating solid employer partnerships that drive design, 

operations and strategic decisions as a key reason for their continued support. At this 

stage, the three sector-based programs combined have served over a thousand 

Baltimore residents. 

The Bay Area Workforce Funding Collaborative (BAWFC), launched in 2004, is a 

public/private partnership that, during the pilot phase, included more than a dozen 

foundations and the California Employment Development Department. BAWFC seeks 

to strengthen the workforce development infrastructure supporting the San Francisco 

Bay Area economy. The collaborative initially focused on health care and life sciences, 

two of the region’s fastest-growing sectors; both have a large demand for new workers. 

BAWFC conducted two rounds of grant making between 2004 and the 2007 launch of 

NFWS, investing $5.15 million in 17 workforce partnership, policy advocacy, and 

capacity-building grants. The first cohort of workforce partnerships served over 1100 

“high-risk” low-skilled adults, of whom 82% completed their education and training, 
Preface 7

and over half obtained professional licensure or certification in nursing or x-ray

technology.

1 BAWFC supported five workforce partnerships in its last round of grants 

during the pilot phase—the Alameda County Healthcare Initiative; the City College of 

San Francisco Biotechnology Education Program; the Laney College Fast Track to 

Biotech; the Nursing Career Ladder Initiative; and the Regional Biotech Manufacturing 

Initiative—which, combined, are still providing services to an additional 472 low-skilled 

unemployed adults. 

On the advocacy side, the BAWFC supports the California EDGE (Education, Diversity,

and Growth in the Economy) Campaign. In addition, BAWFC has provided funding to 

the Insight Center for Community Economic Development to support a Food Stamp 

Employment and Training initiative.

Based on what they have learned from their experience, BAWFC is now focusing on 

bringing their efforts to a larger scale and serving more low-income workers by 

investing in workforce intermediary strategies based in community colleges.

The New York City Workforce Innovation Fund, created in 2005, is a joint effort of the New 

York City Workforce Development Funders Group—a consortium of foundations that 

meet regularly and have pooled resources to address workforce development issues—

and the city’s Department of Small Business Services. Its first project was the New York 

City Sectors Initiative, which has supported two workforce partnerships: Met 

Council/Medical Pathways and the New York Bioscience/Biotechnology Program. The 

Department of Small Business Services has used this experience to bolster support for 

the establishment of a number of additional sectoral partnerships, focusing primarily on 

the healthcare and biotechnology sectors. 

During its pilot phase, the lessons learned by the Workforce Innovation Fund exerted a 

strong influence over the direction and operation of the City’s Department of Small 

Business Services, which trained over 1,400 workers in these and other sectors during 

this period.

2 More than these impressive numeric outcomes, however, the Workforce 

Innovation Fund demonstrated that conscious investments in building the capacity of 

workforce development organizations could improve the way that the City’s One-Stop 

Career Centers and other workforce development providers operate, as well as improve 

the way that employers and workers receive services.

The Pennsylvania Industry Partnerships Project works to influence business strategies and 

organizational practices in the state’s key industries and to enhance the skills of the 

state’s workforce, resulting in increased worker earnings and business revenues 

through improvements in productivity and the quality of workforce services. Through 

 1 BTW Consultants and Abt Associates, 2007. The Bay Area Workforce Funding Collaborative: Outcomes 

and Early Lessons from the First Funding Cohort, p.15. BTW Consultants and Abt Associates. 

2 Woodruff-Bolte, Stacy and Shayne Spaulding, 2007. Collaborating to Innovate: Achievements and 

Challenges in the New York City Sectors Initiative Planning Phase, p.15. Public/Private Ventures.
Preface 8

the initiative, Pennsylvania creates Industry Partnerships linked with regional 

industries throughout the state. Since 2005, the state of Pennsylvania has allocated over 

$80 million to support these industry partnerships. By 2007, foundations were 

supporting this effort by providing incentives and technical assistance to support 

industry partnerships in implementing projects targeting low-income individuals. 

Industry Partnerships have also been successful in bringing together public/private 

partnerships in several regions to coordinate funding to serve low-income populations. 

Overall, Pennsylvania has established over eighty Industry Partnerships and has 

trained over 61,000 incumbent workers with these funds. 

NFWS funders continue to support the Pennsylvania initiative, in part because it 

represents one of the few attempts in the country to create workforce intermediaries on 

a statewide scale. Moreover, the Pennsylvania Industry Partnerships Project has used its 

involvement in the NFWS to more aggressively expand its efforts to serve low-income 

workers. This is reflected in the state’s commitment to setting aside additional Industry 

Partnership funds to train more workers in a pre-employment pipeline.

SkillWorks: Partners for a Productive Workforce, founded in 2003, is a collaboration of 

public and philanthropic funders concerned with seeking to strengthen the capacity of 

the Greater Boston workforce development system to meet the needs of job seekers, 

incumbent workers, and employers. In the first five years, the funders invested $6.15 

million in workforce partnerships, $2.8 million in capacity-building, and $1.5 million in 

public policy advocacy. In the pilot phase between 2003 – 2008, SkillWorks supported 

six workforce partnerships: the Boston Health Care and Research Training Center; the 

Building Services Industry Career Path Project; the Community Health Worker 

Initiative of Boston; the Hotel Career Center; Partners in Automotive Career Education; 

and Partners in Career and Workforce Development (a health care partnership). 

In the first four years of the initiative, the six workforce partnerships supported by the 

SkillWorks funder collaborative served 2,819 participants3—both unemployed and 

incumbent workers. Eighty-eight percent of the unemployed participants graduated 

from pre-employment training programs, and 70 percent were placed in jobs earning an 

average of almost $4 per hour more than pre-enrollment wages. Ninety-one percent of 

incumbent workers received a wage gain over the period of their participation, and 20% 

received promotions. SkillWorks has also helped many participants make progress 

along a career or education pathway: 24 have graduated from college, 133 have received 

industry-recognized credentials, and 80 have completed sector-specific training.

SkillWorks has also made significant changes in the way that employers interact with 

the workforce development system, which has influenced changes within the 

workplace. Some participating employers have refined their internal approach to 

training and staff development by increasing training investments in entry-level 

 3 Minzner, Amy; Beth Seigel, Devon Winey, Glenn Schneider, and Josh Cox. 2008. Skillworks Initiative 

Evaluation Report: Year 4, p.7 Abt Associates.
Preface 9

workers and adopting release-time policies for training. A major health care employer 

incorporated many of the service models developed through the SkillWorks-funded 

workforce partnership and is now using its corporate human resources budget to 

support these activities. In another partnership, a union secured a new joint labormanagement training fund to support future education and training opportunities for 

workers, based on the success of the SkillWorks-funded workforce partnership model. 

Providers benefitted as well, strengthening and expanding service options, improving 

their connections with and awareness of employers needs, and learning how to link 

adult education more intentionally with workforce development.

Perhaps SkillWorks’ single largest accomplishment has been its policy advocacy efforts 

that led to the 2006 legislation creating the Workforce Competitiveness Trust Fund, 

which has, to date, generated over $18 million in funding and supported the training of 

thousands of workers throughout the state of Massachusetts. 

The accomplishments of the pilot sites paved the way for the successes we are now 

witnessing in the first year of operation for the National Fund for Workforce Solutions. 

The pilot sites demonstrated that collaboration among a group of regional funders 

around a common set of workforce goals was not only possible, but potentially highly 

effective. They demonstrated that the capacity of local workforce partnerships could be 

developed in such a way that they could expand the scope of their functions at the same 

time that they expanded the number of workers and employers they served. And the 

pilot initiative demonstrated that a collection of national funders could effectively 

coordinate their activities around a common aim. 

In analyzing the findings from the Baseline Report, it is important that the recent 

accomplishments in the start-up phase of the NFWS initiative be considered within the 

context of what has gone before. The success achieved by the pilot sites—the thousands

of workers trained in skills needed by employers, the hundreds of employers actively 

engaged in improving their workforces, and the millions of dollars raised to strengthen 

regional workforce systems—suggests that the NFWS is building upon a solid 

foundation.

By Heath Prince, Jobs for the Future
I.  Executive Summary 10

I. Executive Summary

A. Major Observations and Findings

• The sweep of the National Fund for Workforce Solutions’ (National Fund or 

NFWS) accomplishments in the past year was impressive. Approximately $22 

million was raised nationally and $100 million pledged locally to expand services 

for low-income workers and employers, implement promising models of service 

delivery, and drive reform in workforce institutions and employer practices.

Over 21 funding collaboratives were organized with the expectation that several 

more will soon join the initiative. The number of workforce partnerships will 

therefore likely grow from the current 37, putting NFWS on track to achieve its 

goal of serving 50,000 low-income workers and 1,000 employers.

• In total, the 37 workforce partnerships served a total of 6,306 individuals. At least 

45 percent of participants had a high school diploma or less; almost half were 

African-American. The partnerships also served 504 employers, slightly over half 

the NFWS goal.

• Many participants were provided “intensive” training and non-training services 

consistent with career advancement strategies; partnerships reported providing 

7,739 training units to participants, though some participants received more than 

one type of training service.

• System change accomplishments for collaboratives included increased funding 

for training for low-income workers, new training programs and improved 

articulation agreements among educational institutions; and changes in 

employer practices, such as pre-payment of tuition for incumbent workers to 

return to school, employer funding for basic skills training, and greater flexibility 

in work schedules for incumbent workers attending classes.

• The first year of implementation highlighted a set of issues facing the NFWS. The 

severe recession and new political environment presented challenges and 

opportunities. Also, essential questions were raised as the collaboratives and 

partnerships put the NFWS principles into practice. These questions included 

how to understand the concept of “workforce intermediary”, the tension 

between serving an industry sector and serving low-income workers, how to 

engage employers, and the role of the public sector in achieving scale and 

sustainability. Finally, the scale and scope of the initiative are challenging. As 

NFWS brings on 100 or more workforce partnerships – many which lack the 

knowledge or experience in implementing career advancement strategies, the 

National Fund will likely need to intensify technical assistance efforts.
I.  Executive Summary 11

• Five of the NFWS collaboratives (Baltimore, the Bay Area, Boston, New York, 

and Pennsylvania) had previously participated in the Investing in Workforce 

Intermediaries project, a direct predecessor that tested the NFWS principles.

There are indicators that these collaboratives have become important regional 

players within their labor markets, creating a greater emphasis on sector 

approaches, career advancement strategies, and increased private and public 

investments in workforce development.

4

B. Introduction

In September 2007, the Annie E. Casey, Ford, Hitachi, and Harry and Jeanette Weinberg 

Foundations and the U.S. Department of Labor5 formally launched the National Fund.

A promising workforce intermediaries pilot initiative provided the early investors with 

the confidence to expand into an ambitious five-year national effort to leverage major 

new private and public investment in workforce development in regions across the 

nation. The purpose of the initiative was to build workforce partnerships rooted in 

industry sectors and to transform institutions to improve labor market outcomes for 

low-income individuals and employers. In this, NFWS built on three promising 

approaches: sector initiatives, career pathways programs, and workforce 

intermediaries. NFWS sought to provide a “proof of concept” for these approaches so as 

to influence public and private workforce policies and practices.

Unexpectedly, however, the political and economic context changed dramatically 

during the initial launch period of NFWS. Labor shortages were replaced by long lines 

of job seekers as unemployment rates sky-rocketed. At the same time, a new 

presidential administration brought renewed political will at the federal level for 

investment in workforce programs.

This report describes the National Fund in its first period of implementation, including 

how the changing environment has begun to shape its strategy and tactics. We intend 

for this report to act as a baseline for future evaluation reports; therefore, it describes 

the goals, strategies, characteristics, and initial outcomes of NFWS in its early stages.

C. Characteristics, Goals, and Strategies

The NFWS strategy for meeting its goals was to create a national investment platform to 

support and leverage resources from regional funding collaboratives composed of 

 4 For additional detail on the activities and achievements of the collaboratives that emerged from the 

Investing in Workforce Intermediaries project see Appendix A. This Appendix provides short profiles of 

each collaborative and is organized by the NFWS cohorts.

5 USDOL funds only supported the independent, third-party evaluation of NFWS.
I.  Executive Summary 12

private and public funders. In turn, these collaboratives would fund workforce 

partnerships, strengthen workforce development capacity, and advocate for 

improvements in public and private workforce systems. The partnerships funded by the 

collaboratives would respond to identified industry needs for skilled labor and create 

pathways for low-income workers to secure family-sustaining wages. NFWS would 

support the goals and outcomes of the collaboratives and partnerships with technical 

assistance, policy advocacy, and research and evaluation.

National Strategy and Implementation Effort 

Since its launch, the National Fund doubled the number of national investors from the 

initial fiveto ten, raising almost $22 million dollars. NFWS also set itself an ambitious 

goal of organizing, training, and supporting up to 30 regional and rural funding 

collaboratives by the end of the five-year initiative.

6 At the end of the first year, an 

intensive and complex capacity-building effort resulted in the funding of 21 sites, with a 

few more sites likely to join the following year.

The Funding Collaboratives

The NFWS funding collaboratives form three distinct cohorts. The first were pilot sites 

funded prior to the formal start of NFWS, the second cohort was funded in September 

2007, and the third was announced in December 2008. Sixteen of the 21 collaboratives 

reported a strong public-private partnership; all had both public and private funding.

Collaborative partners included foundations, public organizations, employers and 

employer organizations. In total, at the time of this report more than 120 funders had 

been engaged in the collaboratives. Together they had pledged roughly $100 million to 

fund workforce services for low-income individuals and employers.

Also at the time of this report, all but one of the newer collaboratives had identified 

targeted industry sectors. Of these, all included the health care industry as a target; 

nearly half identified the construction industry, and a third identified manufacturing. A 

third also identified “other sector”, which included “green” jobs in energy and 

construction. 

Collaboratives were mandated by their memoranda of understanding with NFWS to 

implement three principal types of strategies: strategies to serve low-income individuals 

and employers, capacity-building strategies, and system change strategies. In each case, 

variations in collaboratives’ approach were observed. Collaboratives differed in the 

 6 Within NFWS, rural collaboratives are different from regional collaboratives in three ways. First, they 

serve rural areas, defined as “locations outside places of 50,000 or more people and their associated 

urbanized areas.” Second, rural collaboratives received less funding from NFWS ($100,000 over three 

years). Third, rural collaboratives are allowed to count “in-kind” donations toward their local match for 

NFWS funds, whereas regional collaboratives may not.
I.  Executive Summary 13

sectors they targeted, how sharply and narrowly they focused on low-income workers, 

the depth of employer engagement and the extent to which employers were engaged in 

their own self-interest. System change strategies varied in the degree to which they 

targeted public sector institutions, their focus on the workforce partnership model, 

whether they worked at the state or the local level, and the role of the collaborative in 

implementing system change strategies. Only a relatively few collaboratives had 

strategies explicitly aimed at changing employers’ human resource practices. Most 

capacity-building strategies were aimed at supporting the funded workforce 

partnerships; a few had broader ambitions to more widely develop the capacity of 

service providers and other organizations in their community.

The Workforce Partnerships

Thirty-seven workforce partnerships had been funded and were reporting data to 

NFWS by the time of this report. More than half (19) of the reporting partnerships and 

most of the data were from thecollaboratives that had participated in the Workforce 

Intermediaries pilot and were continuing some of their workforce partnerships.

7 Most 

partnerships were led by community-based organizations or other non-profits, 

however, lead organizations also included community colleges, employer 

organizations, and workforce investment boards. Health care was the primary sector for 

over 40 percent of these partnerships. Partnerships offered an array of services to 

individuals, including “intensive” training and non-training services such as career 

coaching, case management, and support services. Seventy percent provided 

occupational skills training. The principal employer service provided by the 

partnerships was screening and referral of job applicants; 44 percent offered new 

entrant job training.

The character of the partnerships differed both within and across collaboratives. Some 

of the partnerships provided the wide range of functions envisioned in the workforce 

intermediary model.

8 Other partnerships provided a much more limited set of 

functions, usually focused on service delivery.

D. Outputs and Outcomes for Individuals, Employers, and 

Systems

 7 Not all of the workforce partnerships supported in the pilot project were continued. Additional 

information on the Workforce Intermediaries project can be found on the NFWS website, 

http://www.nfwsolutions.org. 8 These include providing or brokering labor market services, organizing funding streams so services for 

individuals and employers span a continuous “pipeline”, aggregating employer demand, researching 

labor markets and employer needs, and advocating for policies that support worker advancement.
I.  Executive Summary 14

Outputs and Outcomes for Individuals

In total, the NFWS partnerships reported serving a total of 6,306 individuals. The three 

largest partnerships were responsible for 64 percent of these participants; the single 

largest partnership was responsible for 44 percent. Seventy-eight percent of 

participants were in pre-employment (non-incumbent) programs; only 22 percent were 

in incumbent worker programs. Because of the dominance of the largest partnerships, 

46 percent of participants were in the logistics, transportation, and distribution sector.

Excluding the largest partnership, 62 percent of participants were in the health care 

sector. 

At least 45 percent of all participants had a high school diploma or less; almost half 

were African-American.

Overall, approximately 29 percent of all participants received occupational training.

Excluding the largest partnership, almost half the participants received occupational 

training. At the time of this report, 53 percent of participants who had entered 

occupational training had completed that training. A total of 679 degrees and 

credentials had been awarded, meaning that approximately one-in-ten participants had 

already received a degree or credential.

A large number of participants also received “intensive” non-training services, 

consistent with career advancement strategies. This included career coaching services 

(43 percent), case management services (42 percent), and supportive services (40 

percent).

A total of 887 placements were reported, over 85 percent of these placements were 

made in a targeted sector and in full-time positions.

Employer Outputs and Outcomes

Workforce partnerships served 504 employers, slightly over half the NFWS goal of 

serving 1,000 employers. New entrant occupational training was provided to almost 44 

percent of employers. The most frequent employer services provided were screening 

and referral of job applicants and assessment of employer needs.

System Change Outcomes

All but one of the older collaboratives reported having system change strategies in 

place; the newer collaboratives were still in the process of developing strategies but in 

some instances reported accomplishments from activities initiated prior to joining 

NFWS. Collaboratives supported system change activities through direct actions, 
I.  Executive Summary 15

support for their partnerships’ work, and by contracting with other organizations to 

carry out advocacy efforts.

The accomplishments reported by collaboratives included increased funding for 

training for low-income workers, improved articulation agreements among educational 

institutions; new training programs and certifications; and changes in employer 

practices such as pre-payment of tuition for incumbent workers to return to school, 

employer funding for basic skills training, and greater flexibility in work schedules for 

incumbent workers attending classes.

E. Emerging Issues for the NFWS Initiative

The experience of the first period of operation highlighted a set of issues for NFWS as it 

moves forward. These can be grouped into four major areas: the changed economic and 

political environment, the NFWS theory of change, supporting career advancement, 

and defining and measuring success.

The Changed Economic and Political Environment

The severe recession and new political environment have presented the collaboratives 

and workforce partnerships with challenges and opportunities. Fundraising has become 

tougher in the face of budget cutbacks in many states and the serious losses experienced 

by most foundations’ endowments. Employers previously motivated by labor and skill 

shortages are struggling to keep their companies afloat and avoid layoffs; they have less 

time and motivation to engage with the collaboratives and partnerships. Collaboratives 

have had to reexamine the sectors and occupations they are targeting; several are 

looking at industries targeted by the federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

(ARRA), hoping these are more likely to have jobs.

There are opportunities, as well. First and foremost, there is the possibility of access to 

more public monies. One result of the National Fund initiative is that the funding 

collaboratives and workforce partnerships appear well-positioned to work with their 

local Workforce Investment Boards (WIB) to develop programs in the sectors targeted 

by the ARRA. However, there are also dangers associated with the flood of new federal 

funds, including the pressure to spend the monies quickly which will make it difficult 

to build new partnerships; the danger that the focus will move off low-income workers; 

and the fact the funding is likely to be short-lived.

NFWS Theory of Change

In the real world of implementation, the funding collaboratives and workforce 

partnerships emphasized different aspects of the NFWS theory of change and raised 
I.  Executive Summary 16

concerns about the essential elements of that theory. These concerns include the 

following: 

• How to understand the concept of “workforce intermediary” and the roles of 

both the funding collaboratives and the workforce partnerships in 

implementing the functions of an intermediary; 

• The tension between a strategy that serves an industry sector and one focused 

on those living in poverty and the hardest-to-serve; 

• The extent to which an initiative like this can and should engage employers in 

their own self-interest as opposed to engaging them primarily in the interest 

of serving low-income individuals;

• To achieve scale and sustainability, how critical is it to engage and transform 

public sector institutions or, alternatively, to build local networks of robust 

workforce intermediaries. 

Workforce intermediaries: NFWS is committed to building sector-based workforce 

intermediaries that bring together employers, institutional partners, and funding 

streams to both implement pathways to education, training, and employment for lowincome individuals as well as address the human resource challenges of targeted 

industries. In practice, however, the funding collaboratives themselves have emerged as 

important players in their regional workforce systems, more intermediary-like in the 

roles they play, better able to support multiple sectoral interventions, and with greater 

staying power in some cases than the workforce partnerships they have funded.

Competing models are emerging that divide roles and responsibilities for the 

“intermediary” functions differently between the collaboratives and the partnerships.

Tensions in the intermediary model: The partnerships are also confronting the question of 

whether it is possible to build strong collaborations with employers and be narrowly 

focused on the most vulnerable population groups. The danger of broadening the focus 

beyond low-income and vulnerable populations is that they may not get served at all.

Nevertheless, in the context of the severe economic downturn, there is pressure to 

widen the focus to include other affected workers.

Serving employers: A closely related issue is the lens through which collaboratives and 

workforce partnerships view employer engagement. Most appear to view employer 

engagement tactically, as a means to the end of improving the economic outcomes of 

low-income workers. This raises the question of whether a sectoral workforce 

intermediary can be successful without also placing a high value on producing positive, 

measurable outcomes for employers.

Scale and sustainability: Finally, there appear to be emerging different – though not 

necessarily mutually-exclusive – visions of how to achieve scale and sustain the 

initiative’s achievements. Some of the collaboratives see changing public policy and 
I.  Executive Summary 17

public institutions as essential to achieving NFWS goals. This perspective suggests that 

to achieve scale and sustainability the workforce partnership model and other key 

NFWS principles will have to be embedded in public policy. The alternative vision 

emphasizes the creation and nurturing of robust workforce intermediaries in 

communities across America which will survive the National Fund and carry on the 

principles embedded in its work. 

Supporting Career Advancement

Promoting the career advancement of low-income workers is central to the NFWS 

vision and mission. While the data on indicators such as wages, promotions, and 

retention from the partnerships as a whole were too limited to assess for this first 

baseline evaluation, data from the first cohort of funding collaboratives suggested that 

they were funding partnerships that provided services designed to support career 

advancement; many also reported that participants had made significant progress in 

attaining new skills. At the same time, some of the partnerships being funded by the 

newer collaboratives lacked experience in implementing career advancement strategies.

These partnerships will likely need technical assistance, including peer exchange, to be 

able to put those practices into place quickly and effectively.

Defining and Measuring Success

How the National Fund defines and measures success is closely related to its theory of 

change. Currently, NFWS targets three kinds of outcomes: outcomes for individuals, 

outcomes for employers, and “system change” outcomes. There is, however, no goal 

directly related to institutionalizing the workforce partnerships and the challenge of 

how to measure system change is a tough one. The economic crisis also raises issues 

related to defining and measuring success; in an environment in which job placements 

are extremely difficult, it is even more important to find other indicators of workforce 

success.

F. Conclusion

The sheer sweep of what has been accomplished by the National Fund in the past year 

is impressive. Approximately $22 million has been raised nationally and $100 million 

pledged locally to expand services for low-income workers and employers, implement 

promising models of service delivery, and drive reform in workforce institutions and 

employer practices. Over 21 funding collaboratives were organized with the expectation 

that several more will soon join the initiative. The number of workforce partnerships 

will therefore likely grow from the current 37, putting NFWS on track to achieve its goal 

of supporting 50,000 low-income workers to achieve career advancement goalsand 

1,000 employers to meet their workforce needs. The older workforce collaboratives also 
I.  Executive Summary 18

can cite real achievements in policy reform and institutional change, and they are 

emerging as important players in their regional labor markets.

The challenges facing the National Fund are real, especially the impact of the worst 

economic recession in a half century, but at a time when federal workforce policy may 

be poised for major reform, the lessons – and infrastructure – of the NFWS initiative 

could make a meaningful contribution to changing both policy and practice. Ultimately, 

also, understanding the National Fund’s timeline may be critical for recognizing its 

accomplishments. The experience of the pilot sites suggests that the learning curve for 

implementing NFWS reforms is steep but has a substantial payoff in the reach and 

impact of the collaboratives’ activities, including the sophistication of the workforce 

partnerships they support. The NFWS offers not only a funding platform, but also a 

deep pool of experience that may be able to accelerate this learning curve across its 

stakeholders and into broader public and private practices and policies.
II.  Introduction 19

II. Introduction

In September 2007, the Annie E. Casey, Ford, 

Hitachi, and Harry and Jeanette Weinberg 

Foundations and the U.S. Department of Labor 

(DOL) formally launched the National Fund for 

Workforce Solutions (NFWS). Building on the 

encouraging results from an earlier pilot supported 

by some of these funders, this launch was the 

beginning of an ambitious five-year national effort 

to leverage major new private and public 

investment in workforce development in regions 

across the nation. The purpose of the funding was 

to build workforce intermediaries rooted in 

industry sectors and transform public and private 

institutions to improve employment, training, and 

labor market outcomes for low-income individuals 

and employers. The funding from DOL was 

restricted to supporting an independent evaluation 

of the NFWS initiative. 

NFWS was shaped by a contradiction: an economic 

environment that placed a premium on skills and 

education and a policy environment that 

inadequately supported the acquisition of those 

assets by large segments of the population. The 

steep decline in public funding for education and training over the previous eight years 

had eroded the prospects for a robust national workforce system responsive to the 

needs of workers and employers.

9 The problem had been compounded by policies that 

emphasized “work first” over investments in skills.

The emergence of NFWS was also shaped by a growing understanding of what works 

in practice to meet the skills demands of workers and employers. Over the previous two 

decades, foundations, DOL, and some states had invested in demonstration programs 

seeking to improve the practice of workforce development. In particular, NFWS built on 

three promising approaches:

• Sector initiatives are industry-specific workforce development approaches tailored to 

a particular industry within a defined region. These initiatives develop knowledge 

 9 The Workforce Alliance estimated that since FY 2001, federal funding for training and employment 

services had been cut by over $1.7 billion when adjusted for inflation.

NFWS Outcome Goals

Enable 50,000 or more individuals 

to get jobs and/or advance in their 

careers with a focus on career paths 

that enable low‐income individuals 

attain family‐supporting wages.

Provide services to 1,000 or more 

employers to help them recruit, 

retain, and advance employees. 

These services will help reduce 

turnover and increase productivity.

Support collaboratives in 30+ 

regions across the country to

expand resources and improve the 

effectiveness of workforce 

development systems, leading to 

better outcomes, improved funding 

and program sustainability.
II.  Introduction 20

of the targeted industry; create linkages to providers and stakeholders; and produce 

workforce outcomes that benefit employers, workers and job seekers. 

• Career pathways programs are longer-term advancement solutions to employment and 

skills shortages. They map occupational pathways within specific industry 

groupings to describe the skills needed to advance up occupational ladders. They 

also describe how workers can progress through postsecondary education or 

training that prepares them for these positions. Frequently, they include bridge

programs10 to provide entry points for the lowest-skilled workers.

• Workforce intermediaries are local partnerships that bring together employers and 

workers, private and public funding, and relevant partners to fashion and 

implement pathways to employment and career advancement for low-income 

individuals. Workforce intermediary strategies emphasize dual customer 

approaches, the brokering and integration of services, and support for 

entrepreneurship.

According to NFWS partners and stakeholders, these combined approaches had the 

advantage of better engagement of employers; an increased emphasis on the 

importance of training and education for low-income individuals, as well as a deeper 

understanding of the needed range of services to support success; and more sustainable 

partnerships better able to implement the kinds of long-term strategies required for real 

career advancement. However, the majority of sectoral projects had been pilots that 

reached limited numbers of workers and employers. A handful of states had developed 

workforce initiatives that built broader sector and career pathways projects but, for the 

most part, the lessons and results of these practices were not incorporated into 

mainstream public workforce programs. NFWS sought to provide a “proof of concept” 

so as to influence public and private workforce policies and practices.

Unexpectedly, however, the political and economic context changed dramatically 

during the initial launch period of NFWS. Labor shortages were replaced by long lines 

of job seekers as unemployment rates sky-rocketed. Industrial sectors that seemed 

strong in 2007 faltered while new growth opportunities emerged. States and local 

governments were forced to cut services as they struggled with deficits. At the same

time, there was new political will at the federal level for spending on recovery and 

longer-term investments to help build and sustain a strengthened economy. Some of 

these investments were in education and training programs as well as in sectors that 

will provide new sources of employment.

Both the challenge of the economic downturn and the opportunities of a new policy 

environment changed the landscape for NFWS and the efforts it supported.

 10 Bridge programs provide individuals with weak English, math, and other foundational skills the 

remedial education they need to enter vocational and/or academic education and training programs. 
II.  Introduction 21

This report describes the initiative in its first implementation period and as such should 

act as a “baseline” for future reports. It describes the goals, strategies, and 

characteristics of the initiative in its early stages and begins to identify emerging trends.

The data for this report came from several sources. Unless otherwise noted, the 

quantitative data on both the funding collaboratives and the workforce partnerships is 

from reports they submitted to the NFWS evaluators in January-February 2009, using 

the NFWS web-based reporting system. In the case of the collaboratives, the report 

covered the period of time from the start of their contract with NFWS through 

December 31, 2008. The partnerships’ reports covered the period from the start of their 

contract with their funding collaborative through December 31, 2008. The quantitative 

data on the collaboratives and partnerships were supplemented by qualitative data 

from interviews the national evaluators conducted with the collaboratives and 

background and other materials the collaboratives or Jobs for the Future (JFF), the 

implementation partner, provided to the evaluators.

11

Information more broadly on NFWS’ background, implementation, national initiatives, 

and national context came from interviews with and materials provided by NFWS 

national investors, NFWS national partners (the Council on Foundations, National 

Center on Education and the Economy), national observers and stakeholders12, and JFF 

staff.

 11 Two interviews (July 2008 and February 2009) were conducted with collaboratives funded by NFWS 

before October 2008; one interview was conducted with collaboratives funded in October 2008.
II.  Introduction 22
III.  Characteristics, Goals and Strategies 23

III. Characteristics, Goals and Strategies

A. The National Fund for Workforce Solutions

The NFWS strategy was a national investment platform to support and leverage 

resources from regional funding collaboratives for regional workforce development.

NFWS defined a funding collaborative as a civic leadership and funding group that 

develops a shared strategic vision for workforce development in its region and that 

aligns resources from philanthropic, corporate, public, and other funders in an 

investment strategy to carry out its vision. It accomplished this by providing funding 

and technical assistance to initiate and/or expand local workforce partnerships.

In turn, these collaboratives funded workforce partnerships, strengthen workforce 

development capacity, and advocated for improvements in public and private 

workforce systems. The National Fund consideredworkforce partnerships as the critical 

intermediary for addressing the needs of employers and low-skilled workers. In the 

table below, the role of these partnerships was contrasted to traditional approaches:

Comparing Workforce Partnerships to Traditional Workforce Development Approaches

Traditional Approach Workforce Partnerships

Focuses on increasing worker skills and job placement Focuses on solving problems faced by workers and 

employers

Transactional Relational

Works within existing funding systems and business 

practices

Works to change funding systems and employer 

practices to enable a full array of solutions

Sharp boundaries around fixed organizational roles 

and practices

Catalyzes flexible partnerships to solve problems and 

enhance value

Short‐term focus Long‐term orientation

Source: NFWS website

The partnerships funded by the collaboratives were to respond to identified industry 

needs for skilled labor and create pathways for low-income workers to help them to 

secure jobs with family-sustaining wages.

NFWS supported its collaboratives and workforce partnerships through technical 

assistance, policy advocacy, research, and communications. The purpose of these efforts 
III.  Characteristics, Goals and Strategies 24

was both to strengthen existing workforce development partnerships and organizations

and to seed new collaboratives and partnerships. 

Implementation effort

Since its launch, NFWS doubled the number of national investors from the initial five to 

ten, raising almost $22 million dollars, and funded 21 regional and rural collaboratives 

that at the time of this report had invested in 37 workforce partnerships.

NFWS Structure: To facilitate implementation

and coordination at the national level, the 

NFWS investors organized themselves into an 

Investors Committee to oversee the initiative.

The Committee had responsibility for setting 

the overall vision, mission and objectives of the 

Fund; determining the site selection criteria and 

selecting collaboratives; leading the fundraising 

effort; and overseeing the development and 

implementation of a national communications 

campaign.

Jobs for the Future, Inc. (JFF) served as the 

NFWS implementation partner with 

responsibilities for managing the fiscal systems, 

site selection process, site support and peer 

learning, external consultant contracts, and 

research and evaluation. The Council on 

Foundations played a leadership role within 

the foundation community.

Seeding Funding Collaboratives: NFWS began by 

funding ten regional collaboratives; six had 

prior experience supporting workforce 

partnerships, including sites that had 

participated in the Workforce Intermediaries 

Project, the pilot preceding the launch of

NFWS.

13 Four of the sites were new and had no experience as a funding collaborative.14

During its first year, under guidance from the NFWS investors and working with the 

Council on Foundations and United Way of America (UWA), JFF staff undertook an 

intensive effort to identify and support the development of new funding collaboratives 

 13 The Bay Area, Baltimore, Boston, New York, and Pennsylvania participated in the Workforce 

Intermediaries pilot. Rhode Island had created a collaborative and workforce partnerships supported by 

the Annie E. Casey Foundation.

14 The new sites in the initial launch included Chicago, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Washington, D.C.

National Investors

Annie E. Casey Foundation

The California Endowment

Ford Foundation

The Hitachi Foundation

The John S. and James L. Knight 

Foundation

Microsoft Corporation

The Prudential Foundation

US Department of Labor

Wal‐Mart Foundation 

The Harry and Jeanette Weinberg 

Foundation, Inc.
III.  Characteristics, Goals and Strategies 25

across the country. The site identification work was facilitated when 14 affiliates of 

UWA expressed interest in becoming a collaborative and seven sites were identified by 

the Knight Foundation’s community development program as interested in workforce 

development. Additionally, several other sites identified themselves as interested in 

participating in the National Fund. Subsequently, a commissioned research paper 

helped to identify potential collaboratives in rural areas. 

In September 2008, 15 urban metro sites and nine rural sites were invited to apply to the 

Fund. During the proposal development phase, these sites were provided with 

technical assistance from national consultants as well as tools on the planning and 

implementation processes. Two rural and nine regional collaboratives were funded by 

NFWS in December 2008.

The NFWS awarded three-year grants of approximately $150,000 per year to regional

collaboratives and $100,000 a year to rural collaboratives with an option to renew for up 

to two additional years. Exact grant amounts were negotiated with each site. 

Collaboratives were asked to provide 80 percent of their total funding from local 

investments.

From its initial pilot stage through the most current selection of funding collaboratives, 

NFWS has significantly increased its reach (see Exhibit 1). At the time of this report, it 

included not only the three largest cities in the country, but also two small rural regions 

and smaller metropolitan areas such as Des Moines and Hartford. The initiative 

expanded from one primarily centered in the Northeast to one with a real presence in 

major metropolitan areas in the Northeast and Midwest and a greater presence in the 

West.
III.  Characteristics, Goals and Strategies 26

Exhibit 1: NFWS Funding Collaboratives by Region and Cohort

Cohort Northeast South Midwest West

1: Participated in 

Workforce 

Intermediaries 

pilot.

Baltimore

Boston

New York

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

Bay Area

2:  Joined NFWS 

October 2007.

Washington, DC Chicago Los Angeles

San Diego

3: Joined NFWS in 

October 2008.

Hartford

Philadelphia

Dan River, VA Central Wisconsin

Cincinnati

Denver

Des Moines

Milwaukee

Omaha

Wichita

Seattle

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System

Support to Collaboratives and Partnerships: During its intial period of implementation, 

through JFF the NFWS provided extensive technical assistance to the funding 

collaboratives and workforce partnerships, including three national peer learning

meetings15 in Chicago, Boston, and San Diego that brought together collaboratives and 

partners; support for three national organizations16 to provide technical assistance to 

funding collaboratives; the creation of sector communities-of-practice, beginning with 

the construction industry; the convening of a “Leadership Summit” with workforce 

partnership practitioners; a series of webinars on policy and practice; the organizing of 

affinity groups on community colleges and within rural regions; and work with sites on 

strategies to reduce the digital divide. Each site was assigned a site coach to act as the 

conduit for information to and from the site. The site coach was responsible for 

identifying technical assistance needs and determining the best method for meeting 

those needs.

NFWS national policy work included small grants to three collaboratives to launch pilot 

efforts aimed at finding new sources of funding for workforce partnerships. During the 

development of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) legislation, 

NFWS partners played an active role in providing federal policy makers with 

information on effective practices and policies and in keeping its sites informed about

ARRA. The National Center for Education and the Economy supported the policy work.

 15 The Center for the Study of Social Policy assisted in organizing and facilitating peer learning 

exchanges.

16 Corporation for a Skilled Workforce, Center for Adult and Experiential Learning, and National 

Network of Sector Partners.
III.  Characteristics, Goals and Strategies 27

The research agenda was being developed at the time of this report as the investors and 

JFF staff members identified the important topics emerging from the initiative. A report 

describing the system change efforts of the initial NFWS pilot sites was commissioned.

B. Funding Collaboratives

Key Observations

• Twenty-one regional and rural collaboratives had been funded by NFWS at 

the time of this report. Six preceded the formal initiative launch (cohort 1), 

four joined in 2007 at the time of the launch (cohort 2) and eleven joined 

NFWS in December 2008 (cohort 3).

• The fiscal leads of the collaboratives varied: nine were led by foundations, six 

by the United Way, two by a public agency, two by a chamber of commerce, 

and one by a research organization. 

• Sixteen collaboratives were based on strong public-private partnerships; all 

had some aligned public funds or public partners in advisory roles.

• Collaboratives’ funds for NFWS-related projects ranged from $400,000 to 

more than $11 million. 

• Collaboratives were required to implement three principal types of strategies: 

strategies to serve low-income individuals and employers, capacity-building 

strategies, and system change strategies. Not all collaboratives had 

implemented all three strategies at the time of this report.

• Strategies to serve individuals and employers differed according to the 

sectors targeted, how sharply and narrowly they focused on low-income 

workers and poverty, the depth of employer engagement and the extent to 

which employers were engaged in their own self-interest.

• All the collaboratives had a commitment to promoting individuals’ career 

advancement goals, although collaboratives varied in the sophistication of 

their career advancement strategies. Most collaboratives also were in the early 

stages of implementation.

• System change strategies varied in the degree to which they were focused on

embedding NFWS principles in public sector institutions, whether or not the 

purpose was to spread and strengthen the workforce partnership model 

itself, the extent to which they focused at the state versus local levels, and the 

role of the collaborative in implementing these strategies. Only a relatively 

few collaboratives had strategies explicitly aimed at changing employers’

human resource practices.
III.  Characteristics, Goals and Strategies 28

• Most capacity-building strategies were aimed at supporting the funded 

workforce partnerships; a few had broader ambitions to more widely develop 

the capacity of service providers and other organizations in their community.

Overview of the Funding Collaboratives

A brief description of each collaborative follows and longer profiles can be found in 

Appendix A.

Cohort 1 collaboratives: Pilot initiatives prior to the formal start of NFWS

Baltimore: The Baltimore Funders Collaborative is an informal network of funders 

supporting workforce partnerships and other initiatives in the city. The collaborative’s 

long-term goals include effecting change in the workforce system, including 

encouraging greater employer participation, and increasing wealth and family selfsufficiency among Baltimore residents. The funders include eight regional and national 

foundations as well as the Baltimore Workforce Investment Board and the Mayor’s 

Office of Employment Development. These funders have collaborated since 2003, and in 

some cases, before that. Some of these funders and other local stakeholders participate 

in annual strategic planning meetings through the regional grant makers association to 

identify priorities including selecting policy reform initiatives. The three workforce 

partnerships supported by the Baltimore collaborative are the Baltimore Health Care 

Alliance, the Biotech Institute of Maryland, and JumpStart, a pre-apprenticeship 

program in the construction trades targeting low-income residents and previously 

incarcerated men. Each partnership is a nonprofit with a board of directors and is 

responsible for its own fundraising.

Bay Area: The Bay Area Workforce Funding Collaborative (BAWFC) covers ten counties 

in the San Francisco Bay Area, a region of more than six million residents. BAWFC was 

launched in the spring of 2004, in response to what local and national foundations and 

the state of California’s Employment Development Department (EDD) perceived as an 

increasingly wide skills gap that left many jobseekers in poverty and employers unable 

to meet their workforce needs. The collaborative was based on three principles: publicprivate partnerships, a dual customer model, and economic sector targeting. The 

funders sought outcomes for individuals and employers as well as improved service 

delivery practices and system changes. The BAWFC is in its fifth year and third round 

of funding. It supported 12 partnerships and projects in its first round of funding and 10 

more in its second round. Each has focused on health care and life sciences. BAFWC 

structured these grants as either workforce partnership grants or “innovation grants.” 

The latter support research, planning, pilot projects, and innovative sector practices.

BAWFC is concluding investments among its second round grantees, and is now 

launching a new round of investments supporting community colleges, in partnership 

with other stakeholders, to build career pathways to good-paying jobs for low-skilled, 

low-income individuals. 
III.  Characteristics, Goals and Strategies 29

Boston: SkillWorks grew from a convening of local stakeholders by the Boston 

Foundation to discuss workforce issues and consider new approaches to tackle them. In 

2002, the group concluded that a local collaborative of public and private funders could 

lead to sustainable workforce development improvements, benefiting both employers 

and low-skilled adults. In 2003, SkillWorks, with the support of national foundations, 

local philanthropy, and city and state workforce agencies, began funding workforce 

partnerships. SkillWorks implemented its second five-year phase in January 2009. The 

collaborative has deepened its strategy but continues to support workforce 

partnerships, capacity-building, and public policy advocacy.

New York City: The New York City Workforce Innovations Fund (WIF) is a publicprivate partnership between the New York City Workforce Development Funders 

Group (WDFG), a consortium of New York foundations investing in workforce 

development, and the New York City Department of Small Business Services (SBS). 

This collaborative began in 2004 when the philanthropic entities that support workforce 

development in New York City formed a partnership with SBS. SBS took over 

responsibility for the city’s Workforce Investment Act (WIA) funding for adults and 

dislocated workers in 2003 as a result of a new mayoral administration seeking to create 

a stronger link between workforce services and economic development. The WIF was 

formed by these partners to share expertise and learning and provide an avenue to 

merge resources to support common goals. Public/Private Ventures (P/PV) was 

selected to oversee the project, provide technical assistance to the lead agencies and 

conduct an evaluation. The Collaborative has 11 funders, three workforce partnerships, 

one systems reform grantee and one organization providing capacity-building

assistance/management/evaluation: Public-Private Ventures (P/PV).

Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Fund for Workforce Solutions (PFWS) builds on the state’s 

Industry Partnerships (IP) program, an investment of approximately $20 million per 

year. IPs are employer/worker consortiums that bring together companies with similar 

products, markets and human resource needs. They are organized by industry sector 

based on an analysis of where Pennsylvania, and/or multi-county regions in 

Pennsylvania, appears to have a competitive advantage. The intent of the IP is to make

human capital investments that will lead to greater productivity and enlightened 

human resource practices and innovations, thereby helping these industries survive and 

grow. The state has created over 80 IPs since the program’s inception in 2004. PFWS’ 

funders seek to use their private and public investments to build access to IP programs 

and increase IP services for low-income, low-skilled adults statewide. PFWS does this in 

two ways. First, PFWS seeds funding collaboratives in key regions of the state that bring 

together public and private funding to expand the capacity of IPs to serve low-income 

workers. Second, the collaborative focuses on public policy advocacy.

Rhode Island: Skill Up is a statewide collaborative with a primary focus on the 

Providence metropolitan area. As a whole, Rhode Island has one of the highest 
III.  Characteristics, Goals and Strategies 30

unemployment rates in the country. The five collaborative investors began working 

together formally in early 2008, building off the United Way of Rhode Island’s previous 

planning and capacity-building work with workforce partnerships. The collaborative 

currently supports four workforce partnerships in construction, health, transportation, 

distribution and logistics; and marine trades. These last two partnerships have been hit 

hard by the recession. Skill Up’s system change goal is to support workforce alignment 

at the local, state and employer levels to better meet the needs of Rhode Island 

employers, workers, and job seekers.

Cohort 2 collaboratives: Announced September 2007

Chicago: Opportunity Chicago is a five-year, $23.6 million initiative to provide training 

for thousands of residents of the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA). Now in its fourth 

year, the initiative supports a larger city effort to transform Chicago’s public housing, 

called the Plan for Transformation. By expanding intensive social services and 

workforce development programs and focusing several major public systems on CHA 

residents, Opportunity Chicago aims to place 5,000 individuals in jobs by the end of 

2010. It is a strategic convener, aligner of many diverse housing and workforce efforts 

in the city, and a funding entity that can fill gaps and bring to bear new policies and 

initiatives to furtherits goals. It currently supports health and manufacturing sector 

workforce partnerships and hopes to launch others in hospitality and energy efficiency.

Los Angeles: The Los Angeles Workforce Funder Collaborative is a public-private 

partnership led by the United Way of Greater Los Angeles. It reaches across the vast 

Los Angeles metropolitan region. This collaborative has funded eight workforce 

partnerships in three sectors: health care, construction, and logistics/goods movement 

and plans to expand its scope to include green jobs and green technologies. Its system 

change strategy is focused on building the capacity of the workforce investment system 

and better coordinating the efforts of the region’s workforce investment boards and 

community colleges. 

San Diego: The San Diego Workforce Funders Collaborative (SDWFC) is focused on San 

Diego County and has 11 members led by the San Diego Workforce Partnership, the 

county’s workforce investment board. The collaborative has a goal to close the gap 

between the supply and demand for skilled workers in critical industry sectors and help 

prepare individuals for jobs in these sectors, providing them with livable wages and 

upward mobility. Its system change strategy is to improve the coordination of programs 

and policies in the workforce system. To date, the SDWFC had funded two workforce 

partnerships, one in biotech and one in health care. It has also funded two planning 

grants to potential workforce partnerships in the health care sector. 

Washington, D.C. Region: The Greater Washington Workforce Development 

Collaborative (GWWDC) covers the District of Columbia and eight counties in 

Maryland and Virginia. The collaborative grew out of an informal workforce learning 
III.  Characteristics, Goals and Strategies 31

group that was convened by the Community Foundation for the National Capital 

Region. GWWDC formed in the fall of 2007, partly to take advantage of the NFWS. 

GWWDC’s overall vision is to strengthen the regional education and skills training 

systems and nonprofit workforce providers through system change. It wants to meet 

employers’ needs in high-demand sectors and increase the opportunities for low-skilled 

residents to advance their skills, employment, and earnings in two-to-three industry 

sectors. To date, the collaborative has chosen to focus on the health care and 

construction sectors.

Cohort 3 collaboratives: Announced December 200817

Cincinnati Metro Region: The Greater Cincinnati Workforce Network (GCWN) is a multistate and multi-county effort, reaching from Southwest Ohio to Northern Kentucky to 

Southeast Indiana, encompassing eight counties in all. The emergence of GCWN in 2008 

was the result of two converging events: the development of the National Fund for 

Workforce Solutions and work being done in Cincinnati to develop a strategic economic 

development plan, called “GO Cincinnati.” The network includes over 300 workforce 

development stakeholders. A 20 organization Leadership Council within this broader 

group makes all major decisions related to the NFWS-connected initiative and advises 

the actual funders collaborative. GCWN’s goal is to align workforce resources and 

strategies across systems and states and close skill gaps in three priority industries by 

creating workforce partnerships, building capacity and improving the regional 

workforce system.

Dan River, Virginia: The Dan River Region Collaborative (DRR), a rural collaborative in 

Virginia, covers a multi-county area along the Virginia-North Carolina border. The core 

of the region includes a population of 150,000 in Virginia’s Pittsylvania County, Halifax 

County, and the region’s largest city: Danville. The current collaborative was initiated 

by the Danville Pittsylvania Chamber of Commerce, Community Foundation of the Dan 

River Region and Danville Regional Foundation in the summer of 2008. Still in its early 

stages of planning, the overall goal of the DRR Collaborative is to promote career 

advancement by raising the skill levels of the existing workforce and to address 

employment barriers for those who remain unemployed, particularly adults from lowincome backgrounds. 

Denver Metropolitan Region: The Front Range Workforce Funding Collaborative 

(FRWFC) is a new collaborative effort developed in 2008 to serve the foothill 

communities that comprise the Denver metropolitan area (i.e., the “Front Range” of the 

Rocky Mountains), which is comprised of multiple counties and includes about half the 

plains area of Colorado. The development of the FRWFC stems from related efforts to 

improve the way that workforce, education and employers in the area create and 

sustain a skilled workforce. The FRWFC’s goals include 1) career advancement 

 17 These grants were formally awarded in October 2008 but announced in December 2008.
III.  Characteristics, Goals and Strategies 32

opportunities for low-skilled workers, 2) improved capacity of employers in highdemand industries to identify and retain a qualified workforce, and 3) systemic changes 

of the workforce development system.

Des Moines Metro Region: Central Iowa Works (CIW) Funding Collaborative, covering 

the three most populous counties of the Des Moines Metropolitan Statistical Area, is 

part of a larger effort created by industry and public leaders to rebuild a workforce 

system that had been weakened by mismanagement. As part of its efforts, CIW has 

adopted a “Blueprint for Prosperity” that establishes sector boards identifying 

overarching goals and specific performance targets for five industries. Each board has 

defined the workforce needs and employee skills specific to its sector and tied those to a 

coordinated system of training and education leading to career pathways for 

employment.

Hartford Metro Region: The Workforce Solutions Collaborative of Metro Hartford

(WSCMH) targets the greater Hartford region in central Connecticut. The region’s core 

city, Hartford, has the second-highest poverty rate in the nation and the second-lowest 

literacy rate of any city over 100,000 people. The metro region also has the seventholdest working population and a relatively small, young talent pool. WSCMH’s overall 

goal is to increase financial stability and career advancement opportunities for 

incumbent and new workers as well as develop a talent pipeline to meet current 

employer needs. Its system change goal is to create a shared vision and coordinated 

investments within the region to build a long-term stable, educated and skilled 

workforce. A planning committee is developing the collaborative’s strategy with the 

goal of funding its first workforce partnerships in the spring of 2009. 

Milwaukee Region: The Milwaukee Area Workforce Funding Alliance (MAWFA) serves 

the greater Milwaukee, Wisconsin area. The Funding Alliance currently has 24 members 

on its Leadership Council, including public sector agencies, corporations, employers

and private foundation representatives. The collaborative will support workforce 

partnerships in construction and health and is also considering the auto industry. The 

current system change strategy is to build the infrastructure and relationships for policy 

change.

Omaha Metropolitan Region: The Omaha Workforce Development Funding Collaborative

(OWDFC) is a new collaborative effort to serve the greater Omaha metropolitan area.

The OWDFC’s primary goals are: 1) to address workforce shortages in targeted 

industries by building employer-driven workforce partnerships; and 2) to influence and 

support the alignment of the workforce development delivery system with the needs of 

employers and low-income, unemployed individuals. The OWDFC has formed one 

workforce partnership in financial services/customer service.

Philadelphia Region: The Job Opportunity Investment Network (JOIN) includes five 

private and public funders and covers the greater Philadelphia region, including 

Philadelphia, Montgomery, Chester, Bucks, and Delaware Counties. JOIN builds from a 
III.  Characteristics, Goals and Strategies 33

statewide effort to transform the workforce system by creating access to Industry 

Partnership (IP) programs for low-income, low-skilled adults. The collaborative’s 

workforce partnerships will be selected from the region’s 13 existing IPs. Two IPs in 

health care have just been selected for implementation grants. JOIN’s capacity-building 

efforts will support the regional IPs to build program components serving low-income 

individuals. Its policy change work will advocate for legislation institutionalizing the IP 

program.

Seattle Region: The King County Workforce Education Collaborative (KCWEC) was 

formed in 2008 as a regional collaborative that serves Seattle/King County. The 

collaborative grew from efforts related to 2nd Chance WA, a coalition convened in 2007 

to strengthen coordination and improve performance of workforce education programs 

serving low-income populations. The collaborative’s primary goal is to build a stronger 

economy that benefits local employers and working adult through the following longterm goals: 1) increased postsecondary attainment (1 year with a credential) for lowincome working adults; 2) increased advancement into family-supporting jobs that 

support long-term career plans among low-income working adults; and 3) increased 

employer access to a qualified workforce.

Wichita Metropolitan Region: Preparation for Aviation Careers Employment System 

(PACES) is located in South Central Kansas and covers the Wichita metropolitan area.

The current collaborative grew from a decade-long effort by community leaders to 

better support the entry-level skill needs of the aviation industry, the region’s dominant 

employer. It has formed one workforce partnership in aviation and is considering 

another in health. PACES’ capacity-building efforts will provide professional 

development opportunities to service providers participating in the partnerships. 

Wisconsin Central Region: Workforce Central (WC) is located in northern Adams County 

and Greater South Wood County of Wisconsin and also serves the Mid-State Technical 

College’s district. This effort builds on work accomplished over the past eight years to 

respond to the downturn in the paper industry and its impact on the regional economy.

The NFWS proposal was drafted by several “core partners” in this effort including the 

workforce investment board, the technical college, community foundation, and 

chamber of commerce. The development process included focus group discussions with 

funders, employer groups, and social service providers. WC is in the process of 

planning and implementing its workforce partnership, capacity-building, and system 

change strategies.

Characteristics of the Collaboratives

Collaborative Cohorts

Nineteen of the collaboratives are regional, and two are rural. Six of the collaboratives 

received support from the initial NFWS investors prior to the initiative’s launch (cohort 
III.  Characteristics, Goals and Strategies 34

1), four joined when the NFWS initiative was formally implemented (cohort 2), and 

eleven joined NFWS in October 2008 (cohort 3).

Exhibit 2: Location of Funding Collaboratives by Cohort

Cohort 1 Cohort 2 Cohort 3

Baltimore

Bay Area

Boston

New York

Rhode Island

Pennsylvania

Chicago

Los Angeles

San Diego

Washington, D.C.

Central Wisconsin

Cincinnati

Dan River, Virginia

Denver

Des Moines

Hartford

Milwaukee

Omaha

Philadelphia

Seattle

Wichita

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System

Age of collaborative

Almost half the collaboratives were less than a year old but nearly 10 percent had been 

operating for five years.

Composition and governance

The funding collaboratives varied in their organizational features. Some were relatively 

stand-alone operations but others were embedded in wider workforce or economic 

development initiatives underway in their region.

18 For the 20 collaboratives receiving 

funding from NFWS at the time of this report, the fiscal leads included foundations, 

United Way agencies, public sector agencies, employer associations, and a research

organization.

19 United Way was the fiscal lead in four of the 11 collaboratives in cohort 

3, partly reflecting the outreach and development role played by the United Way of 

America.

 18 With one exception each has a defined funding mechanism, decision-making process, method for 

identifying funding priorities and supporting the core functions of workforce partnerships, and a clearly 

defined membership. The exception operates as a long-term, informal collaboration among funders that 

cooperate in strategic planning, identifying priorities, and supporting workforce partnerships and public 

advocacy. 

19 Baltimore, a long-term collaborative that preceded NFWS, joined the initiative to take advantage of the 

peer learning. It is in the process of developing an MOU to also receive funding from the initiative.
III.  Characteristics, Goals and Strategies 35

Exhibit 3: Collaboratives’ Fiscal Lead20

Foundation

(9)

United Way

(6)

Public Agency

(2)

Chamber of 

Commerce

(2)

Research 

Organization

(1)

Bay Area

Boston

Central Wisconsin

Chicago

Cincinnati

Milwaukee

New York

Seattle

Washington, D.C.

Denver

Des Moines

Hartford

Los Angeles

Philadelphia

Rhode Island

San Diego

Wichita

Dan River

Omaha

Pennsylvania

Source: NFWS Qualitative Data Collection

Sixteen of the funding collaboratives reported a strong public-private partnership. All 

collaboratives had some aligned public funds or public partners participating in 

advisory roles. All the collaboratives also required employer engagement in their 

workforce partnerships. Some collaboratives allowed non-funders to participate in 

strategy discussions and many had broad advisory boards. For example, Cincinnati had 

a workforce network of 150 organizations, but also has a leadership council and 

executive committee. Four of the cohort 3 collaboratives (Cincinnati, Denver, and 

Wichita) grew out of previously established regional efforts which continued to 

function as either oversight or advisory bodies for the collaboratives. The types of 

funders varied widely (see Exhibit 4).

 20 Baltimore does not have a formal collaborative and therefore no fiscal agent.
III.  Characteristics, Goals and Strategies 36

Exhibit 4: Types of Funding Collaborative Investors

Example of Types of Investors

Foundations Public Employer/Employer Association

• National

• Community

• Corporate

• Family

• United Way

• Adult education

• WIA discretionary and 

dislocated worker funding

• City linkage funds

• Housing Authority funds

• Mayor’s anti‐poverty trust 

fund

• Tobacco settlement funding

• Community College 

discretionary funds

• State industry 

cluster/workforce training 

funds

• Fees

• Direct contributions to pooled 

funds

• Chamber of Commerce funds

Source: NFWS Qualitative Data Collection

Resources

Collaboratives’ total budgeted revenue ranged from $400,000 to $11,500,744 (see Exhibit 

5). Each budget included support from NFWS (up to $150,000 per year for regional 

collaboratives and $100,000 for rural collaboratives) as well as local contributions

required to represent at least 80 percent of the total budget.

21 Local contributions were 

either “pooled” or “aligned”. Pooled funds were those collected and held by one 

partner with investment decisions made by the overall funding collaborative. Public 

funds cannot be easily pooled and so often were aligned to support the collaborative’s 

workforce partnerships and other grantees.

22

 21 Baltimore did not receive funding directly from NFWS in the first year although it was an original pilot 

site and did receive funding from at least one of the NFWS investors. 

22 Collaborative partners also noted that the character of the public funds shaped how easily they could 

be used. In general, collaboratives have used somewhat more flexible sources of public funds. For 

instance the city’s contributions were from a “linkage” fund in Boston and the Mayor’s Innovation Fund 

in New York. The Dan River Region Collaborative received aligned training funds set aside from a state 

settlement with the tobacco industry. Even those sites with more traditional sources of public funds 

utilized the more discretionary components of those funds. State Workforce Investment Act (WIA) funds 

in California and Boston were from the governor’s discretionary fund and the Bay Area was able to tap a 

community college discretionary fund for its new efforts.
III.  Characteristics, Goals and Strategies 37

Exhibit 5: Collaborative Total Budgeted Revenue for the Current Contract Year (n=21)

Cohort 1 collaboratives tended to have greater total budgeted revenues than those of 

cohort 2 or cohort 3. Sixty-seven percent of cohort 1 collaboratives had budgeted 

revenues greater than $1 million, compared to 50 percent and nine percent for cohorts 2 

and 3, respectively.

Primary Goals and Strategies of the Funding Collaboratives

As previously described, collaboratives were mandated by their memoranda of 

understanding with NFWS to implement three principal types of strategies: strategies to 

serve low-income individuals and employers, strategies to effect change in institutional 

and employer behavior, and capacity-building strategies.

Strategies to serve low‐income individuals and employers

At the end of the first year, 80 percent of the funding collaboratives had established one 

or more workforce partnerships. Only a subset of the sites which joined NFWS in 

October 2008 had not yet funded partnerships. Of the collaboratives that had 

partnerships, almost 40 percent had funded more than four. In general, the older sites 

had funded greater numbers of workforce partnerships. In their efforts to serve lowincome individuals and employers, collaboratives differed in the industry sectors they 

targeted; in how sharply and narrowly they focused on those in poverty and the 

hardest-to-serve; in the depth of employer engagement and the extent to which 

employers were engaged in their own self-interest. However, all collaboratives 

appeared to have a fundamental commitment to career advancement for low-income 

individuals which was evident in their funding strategies. Funded workforce 

partnerships were required to provide the kind of intensive services that facilitate 

movement up the economic ladder.
III.  Characteristics, Goals and Strategies 38

Sectoral focus of the collaboratives: At the time of this report, all but one of the funding 

collaboratives had identified targeted sectors.

23 Of these, all included the health care 

industry as a target, nearly half identified the construction industry, and a third 

identified manufacturing (see Exhibit 6). A third also identified “other sector,” which 

included “green” jobs in energy and construction.

Exhibit 6: Collaborative Sector Focus (n=21)

24

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System

Focus on those in poverty and the hardest‐to‐serve: The goals of all the funding 

collaboratives included a commitment to improve the economic circumstances of lowincome, low-skilled workers. For some, however, low-income individuals were part of a 

wider focus on workers with barriers to labor market success and on economic 

development. Other collaboratives’ principal mission was to address poverty in their 

communities and to serve the hardest-to-serve. These differences in emphasis were 

expressed in the strategies the collaboratives chose and the kinds of partnerships they

funded. For example, regions that began with a focus on meeting the labor needs of 

critical industry sectors were compelled to address a broader range of an employer’s 

labor needs than simply its need for entry-level workers. Other collaboratives, in 

contrast, began with a target population. Several collaboratives, for instance, indicated 

that construction was selected because it had fewer barriers to entry for formerly 

incarcerated individuals. Similarly, some collaboratives indicated that they funded 

incumbent worker training in the health sector to better serve individuals with literacy 

and language barriers.

 23 One rural collaborative funded in cohort 3 is in the process of determining its sector focus.

24 Many collaboratives focus on more than one sector.

1  1  1 

4 

10 

6 

2 

20 

3  4  4 

7 

1 

7 

Number  of Collaboraeves  
III.  Characteristics, Goals and Strategies 39

Focus on employers: All funding collaboratives articulated a commitment to a dual 

customer model, that is, to serving both individuals and employers. Fifteen sites had 

employers or employer organizations as members of the collaborative. However, 

looking at the cohort 1 and 2 sites’ stated strategies and goals, only about 30 percent had 

a strong focus on employers both as targets of the initiative as well as essential partners 

in providing good jobs to low-skilled, low-income workers.

At the time of this report, it appeared that few collaboratives had set explicit goals for 

employer outcomes beyond general satisfaction with the program. All collaboratives 

engaged employers at the workforce partnership level. The level of this engagement 

ranged from soliciting input into the design of a training program to partnerships that 

were largely led by employers. Few collaboratives also appeared to have yet put in 

place metrics to evaluate the impact of the workforce partnerships on employer 

practices or employers’ desired outcomes.

Strategies to effect system change in institutional and employer practices

The second major strategy of the NFWS initiative was aimed at effecting system change 

in institutional and employer practices. At the time of this report, all but one of the 

cohort 1 and 2 collaboratives had implemented system change strategies; none of the 

cohort 3 collaboratives had. System change strategies were aimed both at affecting 

public policy and public systems and at changing employer practices.

Changing public policy and public systems

Among collaboratives with strategies aimed at public policy and public systems, there 

appeared to be two major divides. The first was the extent to which collaboratives saw 

changing public policy and public institutions as essential to achieving their goals. The 

second was the extent to which their system strategy was aimed at supporting, 

implementing, and bringing to scale the workforce partnership model. There were other 

patterns of similarity and difference as well. Some collaboratives had funded state level 

advocacy efforts; others were focused on the local or regional level; some collaboratives 

were actively engaged in advocacy while others had funded other organizations to 

carry out this work.

• Focus on the public sector: Collaboratives’ views of the public sector formed a 

continuum. At one end were those collaboratives who believed that 

embedding reform in the public sector is necessary in order to achieve 

meaningful scale in the numbers of individuals and employers affected, and 

to ensure that the goals of the initiative continued to be addressed after the 

funding collaborative was gone. The strategic targets of these collaboratives 

tended to be the WIA system, the community college system, or other state 

systems capable of supporting sector initiatives. At the other end of the 

spectrum were funding collaboratives that acknowledged the importance of 

public policy and institutional behavior but placed little emphasis on system 
III.  Characteristics, Goals and Strategies 40

change. Most funding collaboratives fell somewhere in the middle of this 

continuum.

• Institutionalizing the workforce partnership model: Only a minority 

(approximately 25 percent) of the collaboratives with system change 

strategies was using these to spread and strengthen the workforce 

partnership model. In general, collaboratives’ system change efforts 

supported NFWS goals (serving low-income individuals, building and 

promoting career ladders, facilitating alignment of systems and programs) 

but did not directly address the workforce partnership model itself.

• Other system change strategies: Over half the collaboratives with system 

change strategies were focused on state-level policies and practices; many 

had funded statewide advocacy coalitions. Alternatively, two of the sites 

operating in large cities had taken an exclusively city-wide and/or regional 

approach (although this was not true of all the largest city collaboratives).

Many collaboratives appeared to be the principal drivers of their system 

change strategies while others oversaw, but “contracted out,” most of that 

activity to grantees; some pursued both approaches.

25

Changing employer practices

Strategies to change employer behavior were less well-developed and articulated by the 

collaboratives than strategies to affect public policy and public institutions. At the same 

time, approximately half the older sites appeared to recognize the importance of 

changes in employer practices and to have embedded that commitment in their 

development of workforce partnerships. A few collaboratives also were engaged in 

work that was likely to affect employers’ human resources practices. One example was 

work that at least two sites were doing creating or promoting first source hiring 

agreements, giving priority in hiring to local workers.

Capacity‐building strategies

Capacity-building strategies of the collaboratives were divided between those strategies 

that focused exclusively on the funded workforce partnerships and those that more 

broadly aimed at what might be called “field building.” Field-building in this context 

means developing leaders, building strong service delivery and other kinds of 

organizations, and embedding best practices in the local community or region that 

remain as a legacy of the initiative.

Of the ten older sites, three did not have a capacity-building strategy. Of the remaining 

seven, slightly more than half focused their technical assistance on their funded 

 25 Among the cohort 1 and 2 sites, two do not appear to have a public policy strategy; of the remaining 

eight, half do much of the advocacy themselves; two have largely (though not exclusively) turned that 

work over to one or more grantee; and two pursue both approaches about equally.
III.  Characteristics, Goals and Strategies 41

workforce partnerships.

26 At least two collaboratives had a field-building strategy. One 

primarily focused on community-based organizations; the other had a broader focus on 

a range of provider organizations. These collaboratives provided services including 

training academies and other kinds of learning experiences.

C. Workforce Partnerships

Key Observations

Thirty-seven workforce partnerships provided data for this report. Key observations are 

noted below, followed by brief descriptions.

• The character of the partnerships differed both within and across 

collaboratives. Some of the partnerships provided the wide range of functions 

envisioned in the workforce intermediary model. Other partnerships 

provided more limited functions focused on service delivery.

• Most workforce partnerships were new; almost 65 percent were formed in 

2007 or later. More than half (19) of the reporting partnerships and most of 

the data were from the first cohort of collaboratives.

• Seventy percent of partnerships had at least one employer partner and 27 

percent had an employer association as a partner.

• Health care was the primary sector for more than 40 percent of partnerships.

Biotechnology and construction were the next most frequently targeted

sectors, at approximately 16 percent and 14 percent, respectively.

• Over half the workforce partnerships reported having established a target 

wage goal; the average goal was $14.95 per hour. 

• Workforce partnerships provided a range of education and training services 

to participants. Seventy percent reported providing occupational skills 

training and nearly half provided workplace readiness or life skills training.

• Partnerships also provided non-training services, including intensive nontraining services that appeared to be designed to support career 

advancement. More than three-quarters provided job search or job placement 

and approximately 70 percent each provided case management, assessment, 

and career coaching services.

• Partnerships provided employers a multiplicity of services as well.

Assessment of employer needs and screening and referral of job applicants 

were both provided by approximately half the partnerships. Approximately a 

 26 In some cases, these collaboratives engaged in a broader technical assistance effort prior to initiating a 

funding cycle.
III.  Characteristics, Goals and Strategies 42

third each provided career ladder programs, occupational training for 

incumbent workers, and occupational skills training for new entrants. Almost 

a quarter provided some kind of basic skills training.

Workforce Partnership Goals and Strategies

Like the funding collaboratives, the broad goals, strategies, and character of the 

workforce partnerships differed in important ways. Some provided the wide range of 

functions envisioned in the workforce intermediary model. These include providing or 

brokering labor market services, including advancement services such as occupational 

and apprenticeship training; organizing funding streams so that services for individuals 

and employers span a continuous “pipeline”; aggregating employer demand; 

researching labor markets and employer needs; and advocating for policies that support 

worker advancement.

Other workforce partnerships provided a much more limited set of functions, usually 

focused on service delivery. In some of these cases, the intermediary functions were 

shared between the funding collaborative and the partnerships, which were largely 

sectoral training programs. One consequence of this model was that many of the 

collaboratives had moved beyond a simple investor role to become important actors in 

their own right. They were functioning as regional labor market intermediaries (as 

distinct from sectoral intermediaries). They conducted or commissioned economic 

studies; had formally or informally assessed the capacity of local workforce institutions; 

promoted the formation of sector partnerships in promising regional industries (and 

reassessed these investments over time as the economy changed); supported best 

practice models such as career pathways; and served as a repository for the lessons of 

the workforce partnerships they funded.

As suggested earlier, workforce partnerships differed in the sophistication of their 

career advancement strategies but most focused on the kinds of intensive services 

designed to support upward career mobility, such as skills training, case management, 

and supportive services.

Workforce Partnership Characteristics

Other characteristics of the workforce partnerships also varied, such as age, 

composition and governance, targeted sectors, the resources available to them, and the 

populations they served.

Age

Of the 37 reporting partnerships, 89 percent were funded by their NFWS-associated 

collaborative after 2007, and 54 percent were funded after 2008 (see Exhibit 7). Almost 
III.  Characteristics, Goals and Strategies 43

65 percent were formed in 2007 or later (see Exhibit 8). Their experience and longevity 

should be considered when interpreting the data on the partnerships.

Exhibit 7: Workforce Partnerships by Year of Initial NFWS Contract 27(n=37)

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System

On the other hand, some partnerships had been operating for years. The older 

partnerships represent a minority of the total but are important because some are 

sophisticated intermediaries that bring a depth of experience to the NFWS effort.

Among the 37 currently funded partnerships, 13 (36 percent) are at least three years old 

and five are at least five years old. The oldest has been in operation for 13 years.

 27 Six of the collaboratives were funded by NFWS investors prior to the initiative’s launch, as part of the 

preceding pilot project.

2005 (1) 

2006 (3) 

2008 (18)  2007 (13)  

2009 (2) 
III.  Characteristics, Goals and Strategies 44

Exhibit 8: Workforce Partnerships by Year of Formation (n=37)

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System

Composition

Thirteen of the workforce partnerships had community-based organizations as their 

lead organization and 12 were led by other non-profit organizations. Community 

colleges and other post-secondary institutions were the lead organization in five 

partnerships; employer organizations and workforce investment boards each were the 

lead in two (see Exhibit 9).

Exhibit 9: Workforce Partnerships by Type of Lead Organization (n=37)

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System

1996 (1) 

2004 (4) 

2005 (4) 

2006 (4) 

2007 (9) 

2008 (13) 

2009 (2) 

Community 

college (3) 

Community‐

based 

organizadon 

(13) 

WIB (2)  Employer (2) 

Other non‐

profit 

organizadon 

(12) 

Other post‐

secondary 

insdtudon (2) 

Other (3) 
III.  Characteristics, Goals and Strategies 45

The workforce partnerships were multi-stakeholder collaborations. Over half the 

partnerships reported participation by four different types of organizations or more (see 

Exhibit 10).

Exhibit 10: Workforce Partnerships by Number of Organization Types(n=37)

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System

Seventy percent of partnerships included an employer-partner, 27 percent included an 

employer association as a partner, 65 percent included community-based organizations

(CBOs), and more than half included community colleges (see Exhibit 11).

Exhibit 11: Workforce Partnerships by Participating Organization Type (n=37)

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System

1 to 3 

organizadon 

types reported 

(18) 

4 to 6 

organizadon 

types reported 

(14) 

7 or more 

organizadon 

types reported 

(5) 

19 

24 

10 

26 

6 

13 

4 

11 

16 

9 

3 

7 

9 

Number of Partnerships 
III.  Characteristics, Goals and Strategies 46

Target sector 

Over 40 percent (16) of all workforce partnerships were in the health care sector, six 

were in the biotechnology sector, and five were in the construction sector (see Exhibit

12).

28 The remaining partnerships were working in a variety of sectors including 

logistics, transportation, and distribution; manufacturing; marine trades, hospitality, 

and aerospace.

Exhibit 12: Workforce Partnerships by Primary Sector (n=37)

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System

Resources

Workforce partnerships varied in the funding available for NFWS-related services and 

activities. Thirty-six of the 37 workforce partnerships budgeted more than $50,000 for 

NFWS activities and 11 budgeted more than $500,000; only one partnership budgeted

less than $50,000.

Target population

Most workforce partnerships served multiple target populations. Almost 25 percent 

targeted five or more population groups, 35 percent targeted two-to-four population 

groups, 27 percent targeted only one population, and 14 percent reported no target 

population. The most frequently cited target population was young adults, reported by 

almost half the workforce partnerships. The next most frequently targeted populations 

were racial and ethnic minorities (38 percent), public housing residents (30 percent), 

and single parents (27 percent). (See Exhibit 13)

 28 Twelve percent of workforce partnerships initially reported serving more than one sector. In most 

cases, we used existing qualitative data to determine the primary sector for most of those workforce 

partnerships; one workforce partnership appears to be serving multiple sectors, as shown.

Health Care 

(16) 

Biotechnology 

(6) 

Construcdon (5)  Logisdcs/ 

Transportadon/ 

Distribudon (3) 

Manufacturing 

(2) 

Aerospace (1) 

Financial 

Services (1) 

Hospitality (1) 

Marine Trades 

Muld‐sector (1)  (1) 
III.  Characteristics, Goals and Strategies 47

Exhibit 13: Workforce Partnerships by Target Population (n=37)

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System

The target population varied by industry sector. For example, more than 70 percent of 

workforce partnerships targeting immigrant workers were in the health care sector and 

half the partnerships targeting formerly incarcerated individuals were in the 

construction sector. 

Target wage goal

Twenty workforce partnerships (over 50 percent) reported establishing a target wage 

goal. Among these, the goal ranged from a minimum target of $9.00/hour to a 

maximum target of $30.00/hour. The mean target wage goal was $14.95/hour, which 

translates into $31,096 annually for a full-year, 40 hour-per-week salary.

Services Provided

Type of program

Almost all (92 percent) workforce partnerships reported offering a pre-employment

(non-incumbent worker) program. In contrast, only nine partnerships (24 percent) 

offered an incumbent worker program. Seven partnerships offered both a nonincumbent and incumbent worker program. One new partnership had not yet 

determined its program offerings. Almost all (7 of the 9) incumbent worker programs 

were in the health care industry; five of these seven health care partnerships also 

offered a non-incumbent worker program.

5 

7  6  7 

4 

9 

4 

11 

10 

14 

7 

18 

8 

7 

Number of Partnerships 
III.  Characteristics, Goals and Strategies 48

Education and training services

Workforce partnerships provided a diverse range of education and training services. 

Over 70 percent reported providing occupational skills training, 49 percent provided 

workplace readiness or life skills training, 38 percent provided basic skills training and 

22 percent provided computer literacy training (see Exhibit 14).

Exhibit 14: Workforce Partnership Education/Training Service Provision by Service Type (n=37)

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System

Again, there were variations by industry sector (see Exhibit 15). The construction 

industry accounted for three of four partnerships that reported providing an 

apprenticeship program; 60 percent of construction sector partnerships offered 

apprenticeship services. Health care partnerships accounted for 57 percent of all basic 

skills training; half the health care partnerships reported providing basic skills services.

4 

14 

8 

26 

7 

18 

15 

Number of Partnerships 
III.  Characteristics, Goals and Strategies 49

Exhibit 15: Workforce Partnership Education/Training Service Provision by Selected Sectors and Service Type

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System

Non‐Training Services

Workforce partnerships also provided non-training services, including intensive nontraining services to individuals (see Exhibit 16). Twenty-eight partnerships (almost 75 

percent) provided job search or job placement services; approximately 70 percent 

provided assessment, career coaching, and case management services. An unusually 

high 68 percent of partnerships provided career coaching services and 62 percent 

provided supportive services, underscoring their commitment to provide low-income 

participants the support needed for career advancement.

0 

1  1 

4 

0 

2 

4 

3 

1  1 

3 

2 

3 

2 

0 

8 

3 

12 

2 

6 

8 

Number of Partnerships 

Biotechnology (n=6)  Construcdon (n=5)  Health Care (n=16) 
III.  Characteristics, Goals and Strategies 50

Exhibit 16: Workforce Partnership Non‐Training Service Provision by Service Type (n=37)

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System

Three of the five partnerships reporting asset development services were in the construction and 

health care sectors.

29 A relatively small share (two of six) of biotechnology partnerships provided 

supportive services, compared with workforce partnerships overall.

 29 “Asset development” in this context refers to efforts supporting low-income individuals and families to 

obtain and retain financial assets, such as savings accounts and home equity.

27 

5 

25  26 

28 

23 

9 

Number of Partnerships 
III.  Characteristics, Goals and Strategies 51

Exhibit 17: Workforce Partnership Non‐Training Service Provision by Selected Sectors and Service Types

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System

Employer Services

In line with the National Fund’s dual customer strategy, workforce partnerships 

provided a range of services to employers (see Exhibit 18). Nineteen partnerships 

(almost 50 percent) provided an assessment of employer needs, and the same share

provided screening and referral of job applicants. The development of career ladder 

programs, occupational training for incumbent workers, and new entrant occupational 

training were each provided by almost a third of partnerships. More than a quarter of 

partnerships brokered training for employers and almost the same share worked with 

employers to develop training plans. Approximately eight percent developed

incumbent worker basic skills programs and twice that share (16 percent) provided 

basic skills training for new entrants.

3 

0 

3 

4 

5 

2  2 

5 

1 

3 

4  4  4 

1 

13 

2 

11 

12 

11  11 

5 

Number of Partnerships 

Biotechnology (n=6)  Construcdon (n=5)  Health Care (n=16) 
III.  Characteristics, Goals and Strategies 52

Exhibit 18: Workforce Partnership Employer Service Provision by Service Type (n=37)

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System

Services to employers differed to some degree by industry (see Exhibit 19). Services to 

health care employers closely tracked the overall data (reflecting the dominance of the 

health care industry in these data). However, 80 percent of partnerships working with 

the construction industry reported providing screening and referral services, compared 

to 51 percent of partnerships overall. Fewer types of services were provided to 

employers in the construction industry than in the health care industry.

19 

10 

12 

9 

3 

12 

6 

12 

19 

3 

 Asessment of Employer Needs 

 Brokering Training 

 Development of Career Ladder Programs 

 Development of Training Plans 

 Incumbent Worker Basic Skills Training   

 Incumbent Worker Occupadonal Training   

 New Entrant Basic Skills Training   

 New Entrant Occupadonal Training   

 Screening and Referral of Job Applicants   

 Other Employer Services   

Number of Partnerships 
III.  Characteristics, Goals and Strategies 53

Exhibit 19: Workforce Partnership Employer Service Provision by Selected Sectors and Service Type

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System

2 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

1 

2 

1 

2 

4 

9 

6 

7 

5 

1 

6 

1 

5 

7 

1 

 Assessment of Employer Needs 

 Brokering Training 

 Development of Career Ladder Programs 

 Development of Training Plans 

 Incumbent Worker Basic Skills Training   

 Incumbent Worker Occupadonal Training   

 New Entrant Basic Skills Training   

 New Entrant Occupadonal Training   

 Screening and Referral of Job Applicants   

 Other Employer Services   

Number of Partnerships 

Biotechnology (n=6) 

Construcdon (n=5) 

Health Care (n=16) 
IV.  Outputs and Outcomes for Individuals, Employers and Systems 54

IV. Outputs and Outcomes for 

Individuals, Employers, and Systems

A. Outputs and Outcomes for Individuals

All workforce partnerships that had been funded before October 1, 2008 were required 

to report on participant outputs and outcomes in January 2009. They were asked to 

report aggregate data reflecting a reporting period from the start of their NFWS-related 

contract through December 31, 2008.

30 A total of 37 workforce partnerships reported 

participant data; one reported that it had not yet enrolled participants in programs and 

so has been excluded from the analysis.

In the case of some variables, a substantial amount of data was reported as 

unknown/missing; where appropriate, we have included that information and noted

implications for generalizing the findings to the overall population. Importantly also, 

because the data is aggregate it is possible that an individual received more than one 

“unit” of a particular service, for example, occupational skills training. If this were the 

case, the reporting of percentages of individuals receiving each service would be 

inaccurate. We report percentages in some instances nonetheless on the assumption that 

it is unlikely that there is substantial double-counting and to provide perspective on the 

absolute number, but, in fact, the services outcomes data are best viewed as units of 

service rather than as individuals.

Key Observations and Findings

As described earlier, workforce partnerships were at various stages of development and

most were quite new, making outcomes data particularly difficult to interpret. 

Nonetheless, there are some interesting observations from these early data:

• In total, workforce partnerships reported serving a total of 6,306 participants. The 

three largest partnerships were responsible for 64 percent of all participants; the 

largest partnership was responsible for 44 percent of all participants. Seventy-eight 

percent of participants were in non-incumbent programs; only 22 percent were in 

incumbent programs.

• Including the largest partnership, 46 percent of participants were in the logistics, 

transportation and distribution sector; 34 percent were in health care; nine percent 

 30 Their contract with the funding collaborative.
IV.  Outputs and Outcomes for Individuals, Employers and Systems 55

were in construction; and five percent were in biotechnology. Excluding the largest 

partnership, 62 percent of participants were in health care.

• At least 45 percent of participants had a high school degree or less; almost half were 

African-American.

• Excluding the largest partnership, it appears that almost half the participants (49 

percent) had received occupational training. Including the largest partnership, it 

appears that approximately 29 percent had received occupational training. The 

health care sector accounted for 62 percent of all occupational training participants.

At the time of the report, 53 percent of participants who had entered occupational 

training had completed that training.

• Partnerships reported that a total of 679 degrees and credentials of various kinds 

(ranging from GEDs to Bachelor degrees to occupational credentials) were awarded 

to participants. Occupational skills certificates and credentials represented the 

largest share (57 percent) of these awards.

• Eighty-five percent of placements occurred in the targeted sector; 87 percent were in 

jobs working 35 or more hours per week.

Participant Demographics and Background

Overview

In total, the NFWS workforce partnerships reported serving a total of 6,306 participants.

The total number of non-incumbent (pre-employment) and incumbent participants 

served by partnerships varied from a low of zero to a high of 2,799.

31 Most (72 percent) 

of workforce partnerships served 100 participants or fewer. Three partnerships 

provided services to more than 500 participants. (See Exhibit 20).

 31 Analysis was conducted for workforce partnerships that reported serving zero or more participants (as 

opposed to Unknown/Missing or Not Applicable) for non-incumbent and/or incumbent worker 

program(s).
IV.  Outputs and Outcomes for Individuals, Employers and Systems 56

Exhibit 20: Workforce Partnerships by Number of Participants Served (n=36) 

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System

The three largest partnerships were responsible for 64 percent of all participants (4,056 

participants) served. The single largest partnership accounted for 44 percent of the 

overall participant population. (See Exhibit 21).

The largest partnership (2,799 participants) was the New York City Transportation 

Center (NYCTC), a sectoral One-Stop Career Center that focuses on the transportation, 

logistics, and distribution sectors. NYCTC begin in 2008 and is supported by a special 

city fund established to pilot new solutions to poverty in New York City. The other two 

largest partnerships were both in the health care industry. Because NYCTC dominates

the participant data, data for selected variables have been presented both including and 

excluding that partnership’s participants.

Exhibit 21: Largest Workforce Partnerships as Share of Total Participants

Workforce Partnership Number of 

Participants

Share of Total 

Participants

New York City Transportation Center 2,799 44%

Baltimore Alliance for Careers in Healthcare 727 12%

Workforce Education and Resource Center (Health Sector, Los 

Angeles)

530 8%

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System

The participant data were also analyzed by the cohort of the collaborative funding 

them. Not surprisingly, the older collaboratives had a much larger share of participants 

than the newer ones. Eighty-one percent of participants were served by workforce 

partnerships associated with collaboratives from cohort 1, and only 3 percent were 

served by partnerships associated with collaboratives from cohort 3. (See Exhibit 22)

Zero 

pardcipants (5) 

1‐30 

pardcipants (4) 

31‐60 

pardcipants (9) 

61‐100 

pardcipants (8) 

101‐500 

pardcipants (7) 

More than 500 

pardcipants (3) 
IV.  Outputs and Outcomes for Individuals, Employers and Systems 57

Exhibit 22: All Participants by Cohort (n=6,306)

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System

Funding collaboratives were asked to report on two kinds of programs, preemployment (or non-incumbent worker) programs and incumbent worker programs.

The great majority of participants (78 percent) were in non-incumbent or preemployment programs; only 22 percent were in incumbent worker programs.

32

Collaboratives were also asked to report by industry sector. Forty-six percent of all 

participants were participating in the logistics, transportation and distribution sector 

(the majority of these participants were reported by the largest partnership); 34 percent 

in health care; nine percent in construction; and five percent in biotechnology. (See 

Exhibit 23).

 32 For the purposes of NFWS reporting, non-incumbent participant was defined as “a participant in a 

workforce partnership who is not employed or who is employed, but is seeking new employment.” An 

incumbent participant was defined as “an employed worker receiving services within the context of their 

current employment, often as a service to their employer.”

First Cohort 

(81%) 

Second Cohort 

(16%) 

Third Cohort 

(3%) 
IV.  Outputs and Outcomes for Individuals, Employers and Systems 58

Exhibit 23: All Participants by Primary Sector (n=6,306)

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System

Excluding the largest partnership from the total participant number, the share of total 

participants in the construction industry was roughly 17 percent and the share in 

logistics, transportation and distribution was roughly three percent. Alternatively, the 

share of participants in the health care sector was 62 percent, reflecting the fact that all 

but one of the funding collaboratives had targeted the health care sector.

Participants by Gender

Overall, 52 percent of participants were male and 44 percent were female, however, 

only 12 workforce partnerships reported that more than half of their participants were

male.

33 Excluding the largest workforce partnership, the gender distribution of 

participants was 63 percent female and 35 percent male (see Exhibit 24).

Exhibit 24: Gender of Participants with and without Largest Partnership

Share of Total

NFWS Participants

Share of 

Participants in

Largest Partnership, 

NYCTC

Share of 

Participants

in All Other 

Partnerships

Male 52% 74% 35%

Female 44% 21% 63%

Gender Missing/Unknown  3% 4% 2%

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System

There also was a difference between incumbent and non-incumbent programs in the 

shares of men and women served. The majority (63 percent) of non-incumbent program 

 33 In three percent of cases, gender was unreported.

Biotechnology 

(5%) 

Construcdon 

(9%) 

Financial 

Services 

(1%) 

Health Care 

(34%) 

Logisdcs/ 

Transportadon 

/Distribudon 

(46%) 

Manufacturing 

(2%) 

Marine Trades 

(0.2%) 

Muld‐sector 

(3%) 
IV.  Outputs and Outcomes for Individuals, Employers and Systems 59

participants were male, as compared with 16 percent of incumbent program 

participants. 

Similarly, the share of men and women served varied by sector. In health care and 

biotechnology, the majority of participants were female (81 percent and 59 percent 

respectively). In the construction sector, 82 percent of participants were male (see 

Exhibit 25).

Exhibit 25: All Participants by Sector and Gender

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System

Participants by Age

Findings related to participant age were inconclusive due to the substantial amount of 

missing data (60 percent of participants), however, the reported data indicated that 

participants between 30 and 54 years of age comprised at least 20 percent of the total 

participant population; at least 11 percent were between the ages of 22 and 29; and at 

least six percent were under the age of 21 (see Exhibit 26).

34

 34 A total of 19 workforce partnerships reported some amount of unknown/missing age data. However, 

one workforce partnership was responsible for the fact that the data is unknown/missing for 39 percent 

of the overall participant population.

59% 

14% 

81% 

0%  4%  3% 

0% 

10% 

20% 

30% 

40% 

50% 

60% 

70% 

80% 

90% 

100% 

Biotechnology 

(n=298) 

Construcdon 

(n=582) 

Health Care 

(n=2,170) 

Gender Unknown/Missing 

Female 

Male 
IV.  Outputs and Outcomes for Individuals, Employers and Systems 60

Exhibit 26: All Participants by Age at Enrollment (n=6,306)

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System

Participants by Educational Attainment

Educational attainment data were missing for 18 percent of participants, however the 

reported data suggested that at least 45 percent of participants had a high school 

diploma or less and at least 13 percent had a college degree (AA or BA).

35 For 

comparison, in the U.S. as a whole in 2006, 46 percent of the population over 25 years of 

age had a high school degree or less and 34 percent had a college degree (AA or BA).

36

From the reported data, it appeared that the partnerships were serving a smaller share 

of individuals without a high school degree than are represented in the U.S. adult 

population as whole and a higher share of those with a high school diploma. 37 Also, it 

appeared that participants with some college or above were concentrated in certain 

workforce partnerships; only six partnerships reported that the share of participants 

with some college or beyond exceeded 50 percent.

 35 A total of 18 workforce partnerships reported some amount of unknown/missing educational 

attainment data. No individual workforce partnership was responsible for the majority of the 

unknown/missing data. 36 U.S. Census, American FactFinder, United States, S1501 Educational Attainment, Data Set 2006 

American Survey 1 Year Estimates.

37 We do not know how the missing data would affect these comparisons.

14‐18 Years 

(2%) 

19‐21 Years 

(4%) 

22‐29 Years 

(11%) 

30‐54 Years 

(20%) 

55+ Years 

(3%) 

Age Unknown/ 

Missing 

(60%) 
IV.  Outputs and Outcomes for Individuals, Employers and Systems 61

Exhibit 27: Educational Attainment of Workforce Partnership Participants Compared to 2006 US Population, 

Age 25 and Above

Level of Educational Attainment United States 2005‐07 Workforce Partnerships

Less than High School 16% 6%

High School 30% 39%

Some College 20% 24%

AA Degree 7% 2%

BA or above 27% 11%

Missing/Unknown 0% 18%

TOTAL 100% 100%

Source for Workforce Partnership Data: NFWS Data Reporting System

Source for U.S. Data: American Community Survey, 2005‐2007, Table S‐1501

Educational attainment varied by industry sector (see Exhibit 28). Among the three 

most targeted sectors, participants in biotechnology were relatively well educated, with 

37 percent having earned a high school diploma, 42 percent having attended some 

college, and 19 percent having earned a BA or higher. In contrast, the majority of 

participants served by the construction sector were reported as having earned a high 

school diploma or equivalent as the highest level of education; almost one-fifth of 

participants had not earned a high school diploma. In health care, educational 

attainment data was missing for 28 percent of participants, but the majority of 

participants for whom the data were reported had some college or above.
IV.  Outputs and Outcomes for Individuals, Employers and Systems 62

Exhibit 28: All Participants by Sector and Educational Attainment

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System

Participants by Race

Race was reported as unknown/missing for 17 percent of the participant population.

38

The reported data indicated that African-Americans comprised almost half (at least 46 

percent) of the participant population, followed by whites (at least 16 percent), Asians 

(at least nine percent), and other (at least nine percent).

 38 A total of 17 workforce partnerships reported some amount of unknown/missing race data; however, 

unknown/missing data for 12 percent of the overall participant population is related to one workforce 

partnership. 

37% 

55% 

27% 

42% 

14% 

20% 

0% 

3% 

5% 

19%  3% 

11% 

0% 

6% 

28% 

0% 

10% 

20% 

30% 

40% 

50% 

60% 

70% 

80% 

90% 

100% 

Biotechnology 

(n=298) 

Construcdon 

(n=582) 

Health Care 

(n=2,170) 

Educadon Unknown/Missing 

 BA or higher  

 AA degree  

 Some college  

 H.S. diploma or equivalent  

12th grade or less (no h.s. diploma) 
IV.  Outputs and Outcomes for Individuals, Employers and Systems 63

Exhibit 29: All Participants by Race (n=6,306)

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System

Race of participants varied across industry sector (see Exhibit 30). The majority (58 

percent) of participants served by the construction sector were African-American; other 

racial groups comprised a relatively small share of those served (Asians were five 

percent and whites were nine percent). In contrast, the biotechnology sector served a 

relatively large proportion (25 percent) of Asians. Participants in the health care sector 

were 17 percent white and 11 percent Asian; however, African-Americans were still the 

largest group of participants (45 percent) in that sector.

 American 

Indian or Alaska 

Nadve  

(1%) 

 Asian  

(9%) 

 Black or 

African‐

American  

(46%) 

 Nadve 

Hawaiian or 

Pacific Islander  

(1%) 

 White  

(16%) 

 Other  

(9%)   Muldple  

(1%) 

Race Unknown/ 

Missing 

(17%) 
IV.  Outputs and Outcomes for Individuals, Employers and Systems 64

Exhibit 30: All Participants by Selected Sectors and Race

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System

Other Participant Characteristics

For most other participant characteristics, there is sufficient missing data to make many 

observations unreliable; however, the data do suggest the following:

• Overall, at least 21 percent of participants were of Spanish/Hispanic/Latino 

origin. Excluding the largest workforce partnership, the share of 

Spanish/Hispanic/Latino participants was 18 percent.

• The majority of biotechnology, construction and health care sector participants 

were English proficient at enrollment (71 percent, 74 percent and 54 percent,

respectively).

• Most participants in both the biotechnology and construction sectors were not 

employed at enrollment (70 percent and 67 percent, respectively). In the health 

care sector, only 30 percent were not employed at enrollment.

• The majority of construction sector participants (52 percent) were reported as 

having a criminal background.

Participant Services and Achievements

Education/Training Services

Although many of the workforce partnerships were quite new, they reported providing 

a substantial amount of training services (see Exhibit 31), consistent with the NFWS 

goal of career advancement. In total, 7,739 training units were provided to participants;

25% 

5% 

11% 

43% 

58%  45% 

16% 

9%  17% 

7% 

15% 

19% 

0%  7%  0% 

6%  4%  5% 

0% 

10% 

20% 

30% 

40% 

50% 

60% 

70% 

80% 

90% 

100% 

Biotechnology 

(n=298) 

Construcdon 

(n=582) 

Health Care 

(n=2,170) 

Race Unknown/Missing 

Muldple  

Other  

White  

Black or African‐American  

Asian  

American Indian, Alaska Nadve, 

Nadve Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 
IV.  Outputs and Outcomes for Individuals, Employers and Systems 65

some participants received more than one type of training service. Partnerships 

reported that 1,814 participants had received occupational training. Assuming minimal 

double counting of participants, approximately 29 percent of total participants received 

occupational training. Similarly, it appeared that 14 percent had received basic skills 

training, and seven percent had received computer literacy training. Over half (51

percent) had participated in workplace readiness life skills training. The smallest share 

(two percent) had participated in apprenticeship programs and on-the-job training (five

percent).

39

Exhibit 31: Service Participation by Education/Training Services

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System

A larger share (40 percent) of incumbent program participants received occupational 

skills training than non-incumbent program participants (26 percent).

40 Not surprisingly 

also, a much larger share of non-incumbent participants (60 percent) received 

workplace readiness/life skills training than incumbent participants (18 percent).

There were substantial differences between the largest workforce partnership (NYCTC) 

and all other partnerships (see Exhibit 32). Most strikingly, only four percent of 

participants in the largest partnership received occupational skills training compared to 

 39 The extent of unknown/missing data for these service categories is unknown and varies by service 

category. For each service category, at least one workforce partnership indicated that data was 

unknown/missing. 

40 See Exhibit 1 in Appendix B for data table.

150 

865 

459 

1,814 

328 

3,196 

927 

Number of Parecipants 
IV.  Outputs and Outcomes for Individuals, Employers and Systems 66

49 percent in the remaining partnerships. Inversely, 75 percent of participants in the 

largest partnership received workplace readiness and life skills training compared to 31 

percent of participants in the other partnerships.

41

Exhibit 32: Service Participation by Size of Program and Education/Training Services

Largest Workforce Partnership, 

NYCTC (n=2,799)

All Other Workforce Partnerships 

(n=3,507)

Number of 

Participants

Percent of 

Sub‐group 

Total

Number of 

Participants

Percent of 

Sub‐group 

Total

Apprenticeship Program 0 0% 150 4%

Basic Skills/ESL Training 417 15% 448 13%

Computer Literacy Training 0 0% 459 13%

Occupational Skills Training 107 4% 1,707 49%

On‐the‐Job Training 37 1% 291 8%

Workplace Readiness/

 Life Skills Training 2,101 75% 1,095 31%

Other Education Training 0 0% 927 26%

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System

There were important differences in the kind of training participants received by 

industry sector. The health care sector accounted for 62 percent of all occupational skills 

training participants; and more than half (51 percent) of all health care participants 

received occupational training. An even higher share (86 percent) of biotechnology 

participants received occupational skills training.

42

 41 At the time of reporting NYCTC had only recently begun operations and many of its training and nontraining services were still being developed.

42 See Exhibit 2 in Appendix B for data table.
IV.  Outputs and Outcomes for Individuals, Employers and Systems 67

Non‐training Services

Workforce partnerships reported providing more non-training services to individuals 

than education and training services (see Exhibit 33).

43 In total, 3,065 participants 

received assessment services, 3,150 received career coaching services, 3,032 received

case management services, and 2,851 received supportive services.

44

Exhibit 33: Service Participation by Non‐Training Services

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System

There was substantial variation by program type.

45 It appeared that a much higher 

share of incumbent program participants received career coaching (86 percent), case 

management (93 percent) and supportive services (81 percent), than non-incumbent 

participants (40 percent, 36 percent and 35 percent, respectively).

Again, the largest partnership differed from the rest (see Exhibit 34), providing case 

management to no participants. In comparison, the remainder of the partnerships 

provided case management to a high share of participants (86 percent). Participants in 

the largest partnership also received fewer career coaching services (28 percent 

compared to 68 percent in other partnerships) and supportive services (25 percent 

compared to 61 percent in other partnerships).

 43 The extent of unknown/missing data for these service categories is unknown and varies by service 

category. For most service categories, at least one workforce partnership indicated that data was 

Unknown/Missing or Not Applicable. 

44 We have evidence that for some workforce partnerships, some individuals reported as receiving 

assessment services may not have been included in the total “number receiving services”; as such, we 

have not presented these data in terms of the percent of program participants receiving services.

45 See Exhibit 3 in Appendix B for data table.

3,065 

211 

3,150  3,032 

1,929 

2,851 

633 

Number of Parecipants 
IV.  Outputs and Outcomes for Individuals, Employers and Systems 68

Exhibit 34: Service Participation by Size of Program and Non‐Training Services

Largest Workforce Partnership, 

NYCTC (n=2,799)

All Other Workforce Partnerships 

(n=3,507)

Number of 

Participants

Percent of 

Sub‐group Total

Number of 

Participants

Percent of 

Sub‐group Total

Assessment 1,059 38% 2,006 57%

Asset Development 0 0% 211 6%

Career Coaching 776 28% 2,374 68%

Case Management 0 0% 3,032 86%

Job Search/Job Placement 285 10% 1,644 47%

 Supportive Services 707 25% 2,144 61%

Other Non‐training Services  0 0% 633 18%

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System

Differences in non-training services received by sector included the following:

• Fully 95 percent of all health care participants received case management 

services and, in fact, health care participants represented 68 percent of all 

participants receiving case management services.

46

• A majority of participants in the biotechnology sector participated in career 

coaching, case management, and job search/job placement.

• All the construction partnerships provided assessment services to all 

participants. (All of these partnerships also provided apprenticeship training 

which requires assessment of participants’ skills.)

Participant completions

Because many of the partnerships were new, we might expect modest numbers of 

participants completing education, training, and other services. Nonetheless, a total of 

4,132 completions were reported (see Exhibit 35).

47 Most training completions (40 

percent) were in the category of workplace readiness and life skills training.

 46 See Exhibit 4 in Appendix B for data table.

47 The extent of unknown/missing data for completions is unknown and varies by service category. For 

the overall total and for all service categories, at least one workforce partnership indicated that data was 

unknown/missing. 
IV.  Outputs and Outcomes for Individuals, Employers and Systems 69

Exhibit 35: Participant Completions to Date by Education/Training Service Type

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System

Workplace readiness and life skills training also had the largest share (90 percent) of 

program completions as a percentage of reported participants in a type of training, 

followed by computer literacy training (87 percent), occupational skills training (53 

percent) and on-the-job training (41 percent). (See Exhibit 36) Only 31 percent of 

participants completed basic skills training and only 11 percent completed 

apprenticeship training. We assume that some of these differences are related to the 

amount of time required to complete each type of training.

17 

269 

401 

965 

136 

2,887 

Number of Parecipants 

622 
IV.  Outputs and Outcomes for Individuals, Employers and Systems 70

Exhibit 36: Percent of Completions to Date by Service Type

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System

As shown in Exhibit 37, incumbent program participants achieved higher rates of 

completion than non-incumbent program participants in multiple training categories, 

including basic skills/ESL training, computer literacy training, occupational skills 

training, and on-the-job training. Among incumbent worker programs, the percent of 

completions was over 50 percent in all categories. All of the incumbent worker 

programs were funded by Cohort 1 collaboratives.

89% 

69% 

13% 

47% 

59% 

10% 

33% 

0% 

10% 

20% 

30% 

40% 

50% 

60% 

70% 

80% 

90% 

100% 

Percent of Pardcipants Completed to Date  Percent of Pardcipants Not Completed to Date 
IV.  Outputs and Outcomes for Individuals, Employers and Systems 71

Exhibit 37: Percent Completions to Date by Program Type and Education/Training Services

Non‐incumbent Program Incumbent Program Number of  Participants Number of  Completions to  Date Percent  Completions to  Date Number of  Participants Number of  Completions to  Date Percent  Completions to 

Date

Apprenticeship Program 150 17 11% 0 0 N/A

Basic Skills/ESL Training 582 103 18% 283 166 59%

Computer Literacy Training 203 145 71% 256 256 100%

Occupational Skills Training 1263 591 47% 551 374 68%

On‐the‐Job Training 218 36 17% 110 100 91%

Workplace Readiness/ 

Life Skills Training 2954 2733 93% 242 154 64%

Other Education Training 600 408 68% 327 214 65%

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System

Participant credential and degree achievements

Workforce partnerships reported that a total of 679 degrees and credentials were 

awarded to participants since the NFWS contract start. Assuming minimal doublecounting, it appeared that approximately 11 percent of total participants received a 

degree or credential. Occupational skills certificates and credentials represented the 

largest group of credential achievements, with credentials awarded to 388 participants; 

occupational skills licensure was achieved by an additional 149 participants. A total of 

49 academic degrees, including high school degree/GED, AA/AS degree, and BA/BS

degree were reported as having been achieved by participants to date.
IV.  Outputs and Outcomes for Individuals, Employers and Systems 72

Exhibit 38: Participant Degree/Credential Achievements by Degree/Credential Type

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System

A greater share (15 percent) of all incumbent program participants achieved an 

occupational skills certificate or credential than non-incumbent program participants (7 

percent), reflecting the higher rate of participation in occupational skills training by 

incumbent program participants. Otherwise incumbent and non-incumbent program 

outcomes were similar in terms of degrees and credentials achieved.

48

Degree and credential completion varied by sector (see Exhibit 39). The health care 

sector accounted for 86 percent of all workplace readiness credentials, 87 percent of all 

occupational skills licensures, 50 percent of all other recognized certificates, and 55 

percent of occupational skills credentials and certificates. The construction industry 

accounted for 38 percent of occupational skills credentials and certificates, 36 percent of 

other recognized certificates, and 14 percent of GED/HS equivalency completions. The 

biotechnology sector accounted for 94 percent of BA and BS degrees.

 48 See Exhibit 5 in Appendix B for data table.

10  32 

7 

388 

149 

44  37 

12 

Number of Parecipants 
IV.  Outputs and Outcomes for Individuals, Employers and Systems 73

Exhibit 39: Industry Sector as Share of Degree Completions

Biotechnology Construction Health Care

AA or AS Degree 0% 0% 100%

BA or BS Degree 94% 0% 3%

GED/H.S. Equivalency 0% 14% 57%

Occupational Skills Certificate/Credential 2% 38% 55%

Occupational Skills Licensure 0% 0% 87%

Other Recognized Certificate 0% 36% 50%

Workplace Readiness Credential 0% 0% 86%

Other 83% 0% 0%

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System

Participant Job Placements

Number of job placements: Job placements were reported only for non-incumbent worker 

program participants; 893 placements were reported. Job placements were achieved by 

a majority of the workforce partnerships (24 out of 34) that offered non-incumbent 

program services, with the number of placements ranging from one to 285. Only three 

partnerships reported job placements for more than 51 participants.
IV.  Outputs and Outcomes for Individuals, Employers and Systems 74

Exhibit 40: Workforce Partnerships by Non‐Incumbent Participants Achieving Job Placements (n=34)

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System

Not surprisingly, the first cohort of funding collaboratives had the largest share of 

partnerships reporting positive job placement outcomes (15 out of 18 partnerships).

49

Overall, the first cohort was responsible for 75 percent of all job placements (see Exhibit 

41). Slightly more than half of second cohort partnerships (7 out of 13) reported having 

achieved positive job placement outcomes. Two of the three partnerships from the third 

cohort with data also reported achieving positive job placements.

Exhibit 41: Non‐incumbent Job Placements by Cohort (n=893)

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System

 49 See Exhibit 6 in Appendix B for data table.

Zero 

Pardcipants 

(7) 

1 to 25 

Pardcipants 

(13) 

26 to 50 

Pardcipants 

(8) 

More than 51 

Pardcipants 

(3) 

Unknown/ 

Missing or Not 

Applicable 

(3) 

First Cohort 

(75%) 

Second Cohort 

(20%) 

Third Cohort 

(5%) 
IV.  Outputs and Outcomes for Individuals, Employers and Systems 75

Among the three most frequently targeted sectors, construction achieved the highest 

number of job placements, followed by health care and biotechnology (251, 160 and 68 

job placements, respectively).

Definition of job placement: Because there are differences in the program models of the 

workforce partnerships, they were asked to report whether they recorded placements 

the first time a participant got a job or at some other benchmark, such as “final” or 

“career” placement. Most partnerships (59 percent) recorded first job placements; 

however, more than half (53 percent) of all job placements were achieved by 

partnerships that employed some other definition of job placement.

Placement into targeted sector: Workforce partnerships reported that the majority (85 

percent) of placements occurred in the targeted sector. The remaining 15 percent of 

participants were in a non-targeted sector. In health care, fully 97 percent of job 

placements were reported as occurring within the targeted sector.

50

Wage at job placement: Among participants that achieved job placement, wage at 

placement was distributed across a range of wage categories (see Exhibit 42). While 

these data were reported as unknown/missing for a large share of participants, at least 

31 percent of participants were placed at wages between $10.00 and $14.99 per hour. An 

additional 20 percent or more of participants received wages higher than $15.00/hour.

A slightly smaller group of participants (at least 17 percent) earned less than 

$10.00/hour.

Exhibit 42: Non‐Incumbent Participants by Wage at Job Placement (n=893)

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System

 50 See Exhibit 7 in Appendix B for data table.

Less than 

$10.00 

(17%) 

$10.00‐ 

$14.99 

(31%) 

$15.00‐ 

$19.99 

(10%) 

$20.00 or more 

(10%) 

Wage  

Unknown/ 

Missing 

(32%) 
IV.  Outputs and Outcomes for Individuals, Employers and Systems 76

Looking at wage at placement by the most frequently targeted sectors, the construction 

sector had a greater share of participants (20 percent) achieving wages higher than 

$20.00 than either the health care or biotechnology sectors.

51

Hours at job placement: Workforce partnerships reported that at least 87 percent of 

participants were placed in jobs of 35 or more hours per week (see Exhibit 43).

Exhibit 43: Non‐incumbent Job Placements by Hours Worked at Placement (n=893)

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System

The largest workforce partnership reported that all 285 placements were in the full-time 

category. Among the remaining partnerships, at least 81 percent of job placements were 

in the full-time category.

52 Analysis shows similar trends for biotechnology, 

construction and health care, with all three sectors placing over 70 percent of 

participants into full-time jobs.

53

Benefits eligibility at job placement: At least 37 percent of placed participants were 

reported as being eligible for benefits, while at least 11 percent were reported as not 

being eligible for benefits. However, findings about benefits eligibility were

inconclusive, as data was reported as unknown/missing for more than half (52 percent) 

of all placed non-incumbent participants. Results were inconclusive even when the 

largest workforce partnership is excluded, although we know that at least 54 percent of 

the remaining workforce partnerships’ participants were eligible for benefits.

54 Benefits 

eligibility data were more complete for the biotechnology and health care sectors and 

 51 See Exhibit 8 in Appendix B for data table.

52 See Exhibit 9 in Appendix B for data table.

53 See Exhibit 8 in Appendix B for data table.

54 See Exhibit 11 in Appendix B for data table.

Less than  

20 hours 

(2%) 

20‐29 hours 

(4%) 

30‐34 hours 

(1%) 

35 or more 

hours 

(87%) 

Hours 

Unknown/ 

Missing 

(6%) 
IV.  Outputs and Outcomes for Individuals, Employers and Systems 77

indicated that the majority (87 percent and 67 percent, respectively) of placed 

participants were eligible for benefits at job placement.

55

Non‐incumbent Participant Job Retention

In general, it was too early in the initiative for many workforce partnerships to have 

retention data. The data reported below are very preliminary. Some categories of 

retention data have not been included.

Number of participants achieving six‐month retention

A total of 155 non-incumbent program participants were reported as achieving sixmonth retention.

56 Eleven workforce partnerships reported achieving positive sixmonth retention outcomes. All reported six-month retention achievements for fewer 

than 48 participants; most achieved six-month retention for fewer than 21 participants 

(see Exhibit 44).

Exhibit 44: Workforce Partnershipsby Non‐Incumbent Participants Achieving Six‐month Retention (n=34)

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System

Workforce partnerships associated with the first cohort of funding collaboratives 

accounted for 97 percent of six-month retention outcomes. The remaining three percent 

were associated with the second cohort. Among the three most frequently targeted 

sectors, the largest group of participants achieving six-month retention was in the 

 55 See Exhibit 12 in Appendix B for data table.

56 The extent of unknown/missing data is unknown. While 22 workforce partnerships responded with 

either zero or a positive number, an additional 12 workforce partnerships that offer non-incumbent 

services indicated that the data were either unknown/missing or not applicable. 

Unknown/ 

Missing or Not 

Applicable 

(12) 

Zero 

Pardcipants 

(11) 

1 to 10 

Pardcipants (5) 

11 to 20 

Pardcipants (4) 

Over 20 

Pardcipants (2) 
IV.  Outputs and Outcomes for Individuals, Employers and Systems 78

construction sector (59 participants), followed by health care (39 participants) and 

biotechnology (31 participants).

57

Number of participants achieving 12‐month retention

Six workforce partnerships reported that 73 participants achieved 12-month retention.

58

None of the partnerships reported achieving 12-month retention outcomes for more 

than 31 participants; most achieved 12-month retention for fewer than 11 participants. 

All 12-month retention outcomes were achieved by six partnerships from the first 

cohort of collaboratives. Among the three most frequently targeted sectors, the largest 

group of participants (31 participants) achieving 12-month retention were in the 

biotechnology sector, followed by construction (29 participants) and health care (seven

participants).

59

Wage at 12‐month retention

Among the non-incumbent participants that achieved 12-month retention, the majority 

(68 percent) was receiving wages between $10.00 and $14.99 per hour (see Exhibit 45).

Eighteen percent of participants were receiving more than $15.00/hour and the 

remaining 14 percent were receiving less than $10.00/hour. Analysis by sector for the 

three most frequently targeted sectors yielded similar findings.

60

Exhibit 45: Non‐incumbent Participants by Wage at 12‐month Retention (n=73)

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System

 57 See Exhibit 13 in Appendix B for data table.

58 The extent of unknown/missing data is unknown. While 19 workforce partnerships responded with 

either zero or a positive number, an additional 15 workforce partnerships that offer non-incumbent 

services indicated that the data were either unknown/missing or not applicable.

59 See Exhibit 13 in Appendix B for data table.

60 See Exhibit 14 in Appendix B for data table.

Less than 

$10.00 

(14%) 

$10.00‐

$14.99 

(68%) 

$15.00‐

$19.99 

(15%) 

$20.00 or 

more 

(3%) 
IV.  Outputs and Outcomes for Individuals, Employers and Systems 79

Incumbent Participant Job Retention

Number of participants achieving six‐month retention

A total of 1,102 incumbent participants were reported as achieving six-month retention

by a total of five workforce partnerships (of the nine partnerships that reported offering 

an incumbent program).

61 Among those incumbent participants who achieved sixmonth retention, 53 percent were served by partnerships associated with the first cohort 

of collaboratives while 47 percent belonged to the second cohort.

Number of participants achieving 12‐month retention

A total of 392 incumbent participants achieved 12-month retention, all of whom 

received services from two partnerships belonging to the first cohort of collaboratives.

62

B. Employer Outputs and Outcomes

Key Observations and Findings

• The workforce partnerships served 504 employers, which represented slightly

over half the NFWS goal of serving 1,000 employers. One health care partnership 

served 98 employers, almost 20 percent of the total.

• The most frequent employer services reported were assessment of employer 

needs and screening and referral of job applicants. New entrant occupational 

training was provided to almost 44 percent of employers.

Employers Served

Workforce partnerships reported serving 504 employers since NFWS contract start.

63 A 

total of 25 workforce partnerships (out of 37) reported serving one or more employers 

with seven reporting serving no employers. Among those workforce partnerships, ten

served from one to nine employers, another ten served more than 20 employers, and the 

 61 The extent of unknown/missing data is unknown. While five workforce partnerships responded with 

either zero or a positive number, an additional four workforce partnerships indicated that the data were 

either unknown/missing or not applicable.

62 The extent of unknown/missing data is unknown. While seven workforce partnerships responded with 

either zero or a positive number, an additional two workforce partnerships indicated that the data were 

either unknown/missing or not applicable.

63 The extent of unknown/missing data for these service categories is unknown and varies by service 

category. For the number of employers served, while 32 workforce partnerships responded with either 

zero or a positive number, an additional five workforce partnerships indicated that the data were either 

unknown/missing or not applicable. For each service category, at least three workforce partnerships 

indicated that data was unknown/missing. 
IV.  Outputs and Outcomes for Individuals, Employers and Systems 80

remaining five served between ten and 19 employers. One workforce partnership, a 

health sector partnership, reported serving the largest number of employers (98), almost 

twice as many as the second largest employer number (51) reported.

Exhibit 46: Workforce Partnerships by Employers Served (n=37)

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System

The majority of employers were served by workforce partnerships associated with 

collaboratives from the first cohort (69 percent), followed by the second cohort (21 

percent). The third cohort served ten percent of all employers; however, one workforce 

partnership in that group was responsible for all employers served.

Exhibit 47: Employer Services by Cohort (n=504)

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System

While the workforce partnerships in the first cohort reported serving the most 

employers, one of those partnerships reported no services to employers (see Exhibit

Zero 

Employers 

(7) 

1 to 9 

Employers 

(10) 

10 to 19 

Employers 

(5) 

More than 20 

Employers 

(10) 

Missing 

(5) 

First Cohort 

(69%) 

Second Cohort 

(21%) 

Third Cohort 

(10%) 
IV.  Outputs and Outcomes for Individuals, Employers and Systems 81

48).

64 Six of the second cohort partnerships reported serving no employers. The two 

partnerships serving the largest numbers of employers (98 and 51) were in health and 

construction, respectively.

Exhibit 48: Employers Served by Cohort

Cohort 1

(n = 19)

Cohort 2

(n = 16)

Cohort 3

(n = 2)

# % # % # %

Employer Services 

unknown/missing or 

not applicable

3 15.8% 1 6.2% 0 0%

No Employers 1 5.3% 6 37.5% 1 50%

1 – 9 Employers 4 21.1% 6 37.5% 0 ‐

10 – 19 Employers 3 15.8% 2 12.5% 0 ‐

20+ Employers 8 42.1% 1 6.2% 1 50%

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System

Services Provided

The most frequent employer service provided was screening and referral of job 

applicants, which was provided to 407 employers. This was followed by assessment of 

employer needs, which was provided to 317 employers. New entrant occupational 

training was provided to almost 44 percent of employers. Incumbent worker basic skills 

training, which was provided to a total of 12 employers, was the least frequently 

provided employer service.

 64 One of these cohort 1 sites reported “unknown” for number of employers because this information is 

not being collected. This site did report providing employer services.
IV.  Outputs and Outcomes for Individuals, Employers and Systems 82

Exhibit 49: Employer Service Participation by Service Type (n=504)

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System

An analysis of employer services to the three most frequently targeted sectors suggests

that the employer services provided to employers in the construction sector closely 

tracked those provided to employers in all sectors, with most services concentrated in 

assessment of employer needs and screening and referral of job applicants. In contrast, 

the biotechnology and health partnerships reported providing a significant number of 

employers with incumbent worker and new entrant occupational training.

317 

56 

85 

38 

12 

82 

57 

220 

407 

7 

Number of Employers 
IV.  Outputs and Outcomes for Individuals, Employers and Systems 83

Exhibit 50: Employer Service Participation by Selected Sectors and Education/Training Services

Biotechnology (n=69) Construction (n=117) Health Care (n=176)

Number 

of 

Employers

Percent of 

Sub‐Group 

Total

Number 

of 

Employers

Percent of 

Sub‐Group 

Total

Number of 

Employers

Percent of 

Sub‐Group 

Total

Assessment of 

Employer Needs

65 37 N/A 111 N/A 87 N/A

Brokering Training 

Services  0 0% 0 0% 35 20%

Development of 

Career Ladder 

Programs

5 7% 0 0% 29 16%

Development of 

Training Plans 0 0% 0 0% 22 13%

Incumbent Worker 

Basic Skills Training  0 0% 0 0% 1 1%

Incumbent Worker 

Occupational Training  20 29% 0 0% 48 27%

New Entrant Basic 

Skills Training  9 13% 21 18% 19 11%

New Entrant 

Occupational Training  46 67% 26 22% 133 76%

Screening and 

Referral of Job 

Applicants 66

46 N/A 168 N/A 99 N/A

Other Employer 

Services  3 4% 0 0% 2 1%

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System

C. System Change Outputs and Outcomes

Whereas outputs and outcomes for individuals and employers were reported at the 

workforce partnership level, system change outputs and outcomes were reported by the 

funding collaboratives.

Key Observations and Findings

• Collaboratives supported system change activities through direct actions, 

support for their partnerships, and by contracting with other organizations. 

• Collaboratives reported changes in state-level policies, the practices of 

educational institutions, and employers’ human resource practices, as well as 

 65 We have selected not to present Assessment service participation as a percentage of the total 

population served out of concerns about the validity of that indicator for this service type.

66 We have selected not to present Assessment service participation as a percentage of the total 

population served out of concerns about the validity of that indicator for this service type.
IV.  Outputs and Outcomes for Individuals, Employers and Systems 84

changes in other institutions. Nearly 25 percent of the collaboratives reported 

increased state investment in workforce policy and nearly 20 percent reported 

improvements in public programs. Thirty-eight percent reported that 

educational institutions had made changes in curricula and program design.

Reported changes in employer human resources practices included 

improvements to employer recruitment processes, a willingness to consider 

candidates who may not meet their traditional hiring criteria, changes in 

employers’ perception of training for entry-level workers, and a general 

increase in awareness and collaboration with workforce development 

agencies.

System Change Outputs and Outcomes

As part of the January 2009 data reporting, collaboratives provided information on 

progress made in changes in state-level policy, educational institutions, employer 

human resource practices, and other key institutions. Information on system changes 

was also gathered through interviews and review of documents. All but one of the 

cohort 1 and 2 collaboratives reported having system change strategies in place and 

reported on outcomes related to the implementation of those efforts. The cohort 3 

collaboratives were still in the process of developing strategies, but in some instances 

reported accomplishments from activities initiated prior to joining NFWS.

Collaboratives primarily relied on three approaches for changing systems; through 

direct actions, support for their partnerships, and by contracting with other 

organizations. Six collaboratives contracted with one-to-three grantees and three 

contracted with four or more. These grantees conducted public policy advocacy 

campaigns as well as research and development on public programs such as the Food 

Stamp Employment and Training Program (FSET).

Changes in state level policies

As shown in Exhibit 51, nearly 25 percent of collaboratives reported increased state 

investment in workforce activity through policy changes, and nearly 20 percent 

reported improvements to public programs. One-third described other state policy 

changes, including the establishment of targeted coalitions or study groups, the 

development of liaisons with state policy makers, and communication related to specific 

policies or legislation.
IV.  Outputs and Outcomes for Individuals, Employers and Systems 85

Exhibit 51: Collaboratives Reporting Changes in State Policy and Type of Policy Change (n=21)

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System

Almost half the collaboratives (primarily from cohorts 1 and 2) reported state policy 

changes; all but 17 percent of cohort 1 collaboratives reported changes in policy.

Policy changes reported by the collaboratives included activities broadening resources 

and support for low-income populations as well as efforts to influence community 

college and other systems reform. Some examples include:

• Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania WIB increased the allocation of IP funding to 

support training of entry-level workers from 25 percent to 50 percent. The 

Industry Partnership funding had primarily been for incumbent worker training 

including the training of supervisors and managers.

• New York: The collaborative partnered with the New York State Office of 

Temporary and Disability Assistance and the New York State Department of 

Labor to develop a Career Pathways Initiative. As a result, ten New York City 

organizations received state grants ranging from $149,972 to $280,322. The 

collaborative will provide up to $200,000 in additional support to New York City 

grantees to provide needed services to the most disadvantaged. This alignment 

of resources around career advancement for people eligible for the Temporary 

Assistance for Needy Families program represented a significant change in New 

York City.

• Rhode Island: State funding for the Community College Legislative Commission 

staffing was secured. The collaborative lead will chair the Commission.

Changes in educational institutions

Thirty-eight percent of the collaboratives noted changes in curricula and program 

design, and nearly one-third cited implementation or redesign of programs to improve 

access for low-income and/or low-skilled students. 

11 

5 

1 

4 

3 

No State Policy 

Changes 

Increased State 

Investment 

New Legisladon  Improvements to 

Public Programs 

Improvements in 

Repordng Systems 

Number of Collaboraeves 
IV.  Outputs and Outcomes for Individuals, Employers and Systems 86

Exhibit 52. Collaboratives Reporting Changes to Practices of Educational Institutions (n=21)

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System

Forty-three percent of collaboratives cited no changes in the practices of educational 

institutions that support the goals of the initiative but these were primarily within the 

newest cohort. Only 17 percent of cohort 1 and 25 percent of cohort 2 collaboratives 

reported no changes. 

As with the state policy changes, the educational changes noted by collaboratives were 

ones that improved the access of low-skilled populations to education and training. In 

most cases, these changes were directly related to partnership activity. Some examples 

of reported changes in education practices included:

• Baltimore: Each of the three Baltimore workforce partnerships worked with local 

community colleges to improve articulation agreements allowing program 

graduates to receive college credit.

• Boston: In response to a SkillWorks partnership, two Boston community colleges 

launched new Community Health Work education program concentrations 

providing education and certifications for completion. One of these community 

colleges also finalized a Prior Learning Agreement Plan for community health 

workers.

• Chicago: City colleges in Chicago improved their recruitment strategies to 

increase the numbers of public housing residents attending orientations and 

enrolling in courses.

9 

8 

2  2 

7 

3 

5 

2 

3 

Number of Collaboraeves  
IV.  Outputs and Outcomes for Individuals, Employers and Systems 87

• Des Moines: Success Net Center was implemented at Des Moines Community 

College. The goal was to identify students with barriers to success and provide 

them the wraparound services they need.

• Rhode Island: The Building Futures construction partnership received approval 

from the state Apprenticeship Council to be the first pre-apprenticeship training 

program in the state.

Changes in employer human resources practices

The reported changes in employer human resources practices included improvements 

to employer recruitment processes, a willingness to consider candidates who may not 

meet their traditional hiring criteria, changes in employers’ perception of training for 

entry-level workers, and a general increase in awareness and collaboration with 

workforce development agencies (see Exhibit 53). 

Exhibit 53. Collaboratives Reporting Changes in Employer Human Resource Practices (n=21)

67

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System

Most changes in employer practices focused on increased training resources for lowskilled workers, improved opportunities for advancement, or strengthened work 

environment. Specific examples included:

• Baltimore: The Baltimore Biotechnical Institute was able to increase the number of 

bioscience employers hiring non-degreed employees.

• Boston: Automotive employers asked the workforce partnership to provide 

management training on diversity and working with a lower-income/nonEnglish speaking workforce. The employers paid a fee for this service.

• Cincinnati: Participating hospitals agreed to pre-pay tuition for their incumbent 

workers, rather than the more traditional tuition reimbursement model. The 

 67 Two collaboratives reported no change in employer practices.

10 

4 

3 

2 

No Employer HR Changes  Increased Employer 

Investment 

Career Ladder Development 

by Employers 

Trained Supervisors 

Number of Collaboraeves 
IV.  Outputs and Outcomes for Individuals, Employers and Systems 88

hospitals are now paying for basic education classes for their workers.

Previously, they refused to support these courses because they were not creditbearing. The hospitals also increased the flexibility of work schedules for those 

incumbent workers attending classes.

Changes in other key institutions

Most of the examples of changes in other key institutions related to philanthropy and 

local governments. Additionally, the dramatically changing economic and political 

environment in the fall of 2008 concentrated attention on federal policy. While activity 

related to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was not formally reported, the 

NFWS webinars and discussions indicated that the majority of collaboratives were 

playing one or more roles in advocacy, education, or organizing stakeholders to shape 

and support the implementation of this legislation. The presence of the collaboratives 

created an organized network of stakeholders able to more quickly respond and take 

advantage of a changing environment. Additional examples of changes in other key 

institutions included:

• Boston: Private funders with an environmental mission joined SkillWorks to 

develop a new green jobs career pathway initiative under the SkillWorks 

umbrella.

• Chicago: The collaborative ensured the inclusion of language in the city’s Request 

for Services hospitality contract directing the new contractor to be responsive to 

the needs of those in public housing.

• Los Angeles: The collaborative organized the seven Los Angeles WIBs to

coordinate the use of the new federal monies at the local level.

• New York: Given the job loss created by the recession, New York City has

allocated additional funding to support two additional centers focused on 

specific industry sectors.

• Rhode Island: The construction partnership received a sole-source contract from 

the City of Providence to provide services supporting a “First Source” hiring 

ordinance, which gave priority to local residents in hiring. The partnership had

already worked with one city-hired construction contractor to assist them 

comply with the “First Source” obligations and to secure placements for program 

participants.
V.  Key Emerging Issues for the NFWS Initiative 89

V. Key Emerging Issues for the NFWS 

Initiative 

 

The experience of the first period of operation of the National Fund initiative and the 

dramatic economic and political changes which have occurred highlight a set of 

questions which NFWS may want to address as it moves forward. These concerns 

include the changed economic and political context, questions for the National Fund’s 

theory of change, how the National Fund can ensure the implementation of strategies 

supporting career advancement, how the initiative defines and measures success, and 

additional challenges facing the funding collaboratives.

A. The Changed Economic and Political Environment

Fundraising Challenges

The current economic crisis and new political environment have fundamentally 

transformed the context within which the National Fund is operating, creating both 

challenges and new opportunities. Among key challenges, the economic downturn has 

made fundraising more difficult. At the national level, NFWS will have difficulty 

reaching its higher fundraising goal of $50 million. At the regional level, fundraising 

has become tougher in the face of budget cutbacks in many states and the serious losses 

experienced by most foundations’ endowments. Collaboratives are pursuing new 

fundraising strategies, such as making unexpected alliances (for example, with 

environmental organizations that are becoming interested in training for “green” jobs) 

and working more actively to form partnerships with the public sector. Some 

collaboratives have expressed concern about their ability to meet the NFWS match 

requirement. NFWS is already supporting the collaboratives in thinking about 

partnering related to federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds.

There may be a need for broader technical assistance, including peer learning, around 

the challenge of fundraising.

Engaging Employers

Employers previously motivated by labor and skill shortages are finding themselves in 

a very different kind of labor market. Many are struggling to keep their companies 

afloat and avoid major layoffs and have less time and motivation to engage with the 

collaboratives and partnerships. NFWS may want to consider technical assistance on 

helping sites respond to employers’ concerns.
V.  Key Emerging Issues for the NFWS Initiative 90

Targeting Sectors and Occupations

Collaboratives also are being forced to re-examine the sectors and occupations they are 

targeting. For example, one collaborative is escrowing funding for a partnership in an 

industry that now finds itself in crisis. Several collaboratives are looking at industries 

targeted by the ARRA – such as construction and energy – hoping that these are more 

likely to have jobs. NFWS is providing each site with an economic scan of up to six

counties in its region but the data on which the scan is based pre-date the current 

recession and do not take into account factors such as the new federal funds. 

Collaboratives will have to rely principally on local sources and expertise to help make 

their targeting decisions but this is another area in which some national technical 

assistance and cross-site discussion might be helpful.

Opportunities

At the same time, there are new opportunities. The ARRA included a significant 

investment of new monies in workforce programs, including funding in the Workforce 

Investment Act (WIA) for industry sector-focused programs and the reauthorized Trade 

Adjustment Assistance Act that also expands the number of workers eligible for trade 

readjustment assistance. Furthermore, the changed environment makes it more likely 

that the overdue reauthorization of WIA may include language authorizing and 

promoting industry-sector-based programs.

These changes at the national level encourage an increased emphasis on partnership

with the public workforce system and a greater focus on national advocacy. At both the 

national and regional levels, there is the possibility of access to more public monies.

Participation in the National Fund initiative may better position collaboratives and 

partnerships to work with their local WIBs to develop programs in the sectors targeted 

by ARRA. However, there are also dangers associated with the flood of new federal 

funds, including the pressure to spend the monies quickly which will make it difficult 

to build new partnerships; the danger that the focus will move off low-income workers; 

and the fact the funding is likely to be short-lived. It is also possible that the sheer 

volume and short-term availability of the federal dollars will give the collaboratives less 

leverage in shaping workforce spending and policy.

B. NFWS Theory of Change

In the real world of implementation, the funding collaboratives and workforce 

partnerships have emphasized different aspects of the NFWS theory of change and 

raised concerns about the essential elements of that theory. These concerns include: 
V.  Key Emerging Issues for the NFWS Initiative 91

• How to understand the concept of “workforce intermediary” and the roles of 

both the funding collaboratives and the workforce partnerships in 

implementing the functions of an intermediary; 

• The tension between a strategy that serves an industry sector and one focused 

on poverty levels and meeting the needs of the hardest-to-serve; 

• The extent to which an initiative like this can and should engage employers in 

their own self-interest as opposed to engaging them in the interest of serving 

low-income individuals; 

• To achieve scale and sustainability, the value of engaging and transforming 

public-sector institutions or, alternatively, building local networks of robust 

workforce intermediaries. 

Workforce Intermediaries, Funding Collaboratives, and Workforce 

Partnerships

NFWS is committed to building sector-based workforce intermediaries that bring 

together employers and workers, private and public funding streams, and relevant

partners to both implement pathways to education, training, and good employment for 

low-income individuals as well as address the human resource challenges of targeted 

industries. In practice, however, the funding collaboratives themselves have emerged as

important players in their regional workforce systems, more intermediary-like in the 

roles they play and with greater staying power in many cases than the workforce

partnerships they have funded. The collaboratives are labor market intermediaries rather 

than sectoral intermediaries, assuming some of the broad functions originally envisioned 

for the WIBs but with a more singular focus on low-income workers. Going forward, 

the evaluation will examine more closely the role of the funding collaboratives in 

ultimately sustaining and expanding the principles and practices of the initiative and 

the relationship between the funding collaboratives and the WIBs. Moreover, the 

evaluation will examine the competing models and visions of the partnerhips that are 

also emerging, as well as the implications of different choices.

Tensions in the Dual Customer Model

The partnerships are confronting the question of whether it is possible to build strong 

collaborations with employers while simultaneously focusing on the most vulnerable 

populations. The danger of broadening the focus beyond low-income populations is 

that they may not get served at all. Even in good economic times, this balancing act can 

be a difficult one; in hard economic times, the tension is likely to be even greater.

Some collaboratives appear to be considering broadening their target population while 

the economic crisis is motivating others to reaffirm their commitment to a very hard-to-
V.  Key Emerging Issues for the NFWS Initiative 92

serve population. NFWS may want to encourage a dialogue about the implications of 

different strategies here as well.

Engaging Employers

A closely related issue is the lens through which collaboratives and workforce 

partnerships view employer engagement. Most appear to view employer engagement 

tactically, as a means to the end of improving the economic outcomes of low-income 

workers. The question this raises is whether a sectoral-focused workforce intermediary 

can be successful without also placing a high value on producing positive measurable 

outcomes for employers.

There is also a concern about the intensity and quality of employer engagement. To 

date, over 500 employers have been engaged in one way or another by the existing 

partnerships but it is not clear in some cases how deep that engagement is or the quality 

of employer engagement.

Achieving Scale and Sustainability

Finally, there appear to be emerging different – though not mutually exclusive – visions 

of how to achieve scale and sustain the initiative’s achievements. Some of the 

collaboratives see changing public policy and public institutions as essential to 

achieving NFWS goals. This perspective suggests that, to achieve scale and 

sustainability, the workforce partnership model and other key NFWS principles will 

have to be embedded in public policy. The alternative vision emphasizes the creation 

and nurturing of robust workforce intermediaries in communities across America 

which will survive the National Fund and carry on its work. Both outcomes could be 

achieved simultaneously, but, doing so, presumably would require the NFWS and each 

of the funding collaboratives to be explicit about both goals.

C. Supporting Career Advancement

Promoting the career advancement of low-income workers is central to the NFWS 

vision and mission. While the data on indicators such as wages, promotions, and 

retention from the partnerships as a whole were too limited to assess for this first 

baseline evaluation, data from the first cohort of funding collaboratives suggested that 

they were funding partnerships that provided services designed to support career 

advancement; some also reported that participants had made significant progress in 

attaining new skills. For example, excluding the largest partnership, 74 percent of 

participants had enrolled in apprenticeship programs, on-the-job training, or 

occupational training. Similarly, excluding the largest partnership, 64 percent of all 

program completers finished their occupational or on-the-job training programs and 37 
V.  Key Emerging Issues for the NFWS Initiative 93

percent received a degree, credential, or certificate. Subsequent evaluation reports will 

have more extensive data from the partnerships on career advancement indicators such 

as numbers hired into targeted sectors, wages, promotions and retention.

One further observation: Some of the workforce partnerships being funded by the 

newer collaboratives are experienced in providing the array of services necessary for 

implementing career advancement strategies for low-income individuals. In other cases, 

however, the workforce partnerships are newly formed or have functioned as training 

providers or providers of another services but lack experience in implementing career 

advancement strategies. These partnerships may need technical assistance, including 

peer exchange, to be able to put those practices into place quickly and effectively.

D. Defining and Measuring Success

The National Fund defines and measures success according to three kinds of outcomes: 

outcomes for individuals, outcomes for employers, and system change outcomes. There 

is not a goal directly related to institutionalizing workforce partnerships and the 

challenge of how to measure system change is a tough one.

The economic crisis also raises a set of challenges for defining and measuring success. In 

an environment in which job placements are extremely difficult, it is even more 

important to define other indicators of career advancement. Collaboratives are 

increasingly confused about what kinds of measures they should use to judge the 

partnerships’ progress, given the economic crisis, and how the National Fund is likely 

to judge their own success.

E. Other Issues Confronting the Funding Collaboratives

The funding collaboratives confront several other challenges as well. These include:
V.  Key Emerging Issues for the NFWS Initiative 94

Workforce Partnerships

Many collaboratives are struggling both with what kinds of partnerships they should be 

funding and their subsequent relationship to those partnerships. To some degree, the 

question about what to fund flows from uncertainty about national NFWS expectations. 

However, many also are wrestling with the reality that there are few or no 

organizations or collaborations with the necessary capabilities to carry out the functions 

of a workforce partnership. In this regard, the first cohort of collaboratives has learned 

lessons that could be useful to the newer sites (see Appendix A for short profiles on the 

collaboratives). NFWS may want to draw on the lessons from the early collaboratives 

to help clarify expectations concerning workforce partnerships.

Capacity‐Building Strategies

Curiously, however, despite the concern about workforce partnership capacity 

relatively few of the collaboratives from any of the three cohorts have capacity-building 

efforts in place to support their partnerships.

Collaboratives also have different views of capacity-building. Some see it as principally 

or entirely auxiliary to and supportive of a collaborative’s grants-making process; the 

alternative view, being pursued by at least two collaboratives, is that capacity-building 

should have a wider “field-building” function. As NFWS implements its technical 

assistance to the sites, it may wish to reconcile these two perspectives.

Employer Engagement and Outcomes

For the most part, the collaboratives and their partnerships collect limited information 

on employers and generally have only created “satisfaction” measures to track progress 

towards employer outcomes. Given the importance of the NFWS’s “dual customer” 

principle, it will be important for NFWS as well as the local and national evaluations to 

support sites in developing methods and strategies for better assessing the participation 

and experience of employers in the initiative.

System Change Strategies

Most of the older sites are engaged in system change activities, though not all could be 

described as well-developed. Most of the new sites has yet to determine a system 

change strategy. This report has raised several emerging issues related to the efforts 

already underway. These include:

• The centrality of system change to a collaborative’s theory of change;
V.  Key Emerging Issues for the NFWS Initiative 95

• The extent to which system change activities include an effort to 

institutionalize and sustain the workforce partnership model; and

• The role of the funding collaborative itself in implementing the system 

change strategy.

Since NFWS intends to work with sites this coming year on developing system change 

strategies, it may want to address these issues at that time.

Maintaining the Collaborative

Some of the older collaboratives have been in operation for several years, raising the 

specter of “donor fatigue” that could threaten their operation. Encouragingly, although 

there has been substantial donor turnover in some of the older collaboratives, the 

endeavor itself does not appear to be at risk. On the contrary, older collaboratives seem 

to be growing in their range of activities and ambitions. As part of its effort to clarify its 

vision of the possible longer-term role of funding collaboratives, NFWS may want to 

focus on the lessons learned so far in defining and maintaining funding.
VI. Conclusion 96

VI. Conclusion 

In ambitious efforts such as the National Fund, the seemingly prosaic achievements 

associated with building the foundation of the initiative are often overlooked. They 

shouldn’t be. This report documents only the tip of the iceberg in terms of the efforts 

both at the national and regional levels that went into organizing the collaboratives and 

workforce partnerships already in place and those poised to come on line. Stakeholders 

throughout the nation have come together around a common set of principles, 

determined to use them to reform existing employment and training policies and 

practice, both public and private. In the process, in many major and minor regional 

labor markets these stakeholders have created an important new voice and center of 

power in the workforce development arena that speaks for low-income workers and

tests and promotes best practices.

To date, over 120 public and private investors have pledged roughly $100 million in 

service to this shared vision. The early outcomes on the numbers participating, who is 

being served, how they are being served, and what happens as a result, hold promise.

Funders have come together before around other areas of concern, but workforce 

development has long been a step-child in both the public and philanthropic funding 

worlds. The National Fund has raised the issue’s profile at a very timely moment.

Arguably even more importantly, the National Fund has helped galvanize and bring 

together civic leaders in areas where they were still working in silos to reach common 

agreements and make common cause. In some cases, in fact, they are now struggling to 

radically re-invent the workforce development systems in their region.

68

The environment within which this experiment has been launched couldn’t be better 

and couldn’t be worse. The economic crisis raises tough practical challenges for an 

initiative focused on the most vulnerable workers and their employment. At the same 

time, there are powerful new opportunities in the new monies for workforce training at 

the federal level and, even more critical, the possibility that reauthorization of the 

Workforce Investment Act will open a national dialogue about our country’s approach 

to workforce development.

However, the challenges to the National Fund are not only external but internal as well.

Perhaps the biggest concern is that the size and complexity of the initiative does not

overwhelm its implementers. Here there are two dangers. On the one hand, the 

 68 For additional detail on the local system change activities and achievements of the collaboratives see 

Appendix A. This Appendix provides short profiles of each collaborative and is organized by the NFWS 

cohorts. Additional detail on system change efforts will be analyzed in future reports as the collaboratives 

further implement these strategies.
VI. Conclusion 97

National Fund could lose coherence and focus. As the number of new sites and new 

investors grows, so does the number of perspectives and approaches. On the other 

hand, in its effort to retain coherence, the initiative could undermine the strength and 

vibrancy that comes from diversity across sites and fail to note and capture its own best 

lessons. The balance may be to deepen an understanding of the fundamental principles 

of the initiative while still benefitting from the variation that can occur within that 

framework.

This report has highlighted some concrete issues the National Fund may want to 

address. These do not have one “right” answer and, in fact, one of the most important 

contributions the National Fund can make is to serve as a living laboratory where 

various approaches are tested and the results reported. The tension between the dual 

customer model and a commitment to low-income individuals is a good case in point. Is 

it more effective to serve low-income workers within the context of a wider focus on the 

overall human resources needs of an industry or by a sharper, narrower focus on the

special needs of the hardest-to-employ? Past demonstration projects provide evidence 

both ways.

More challenging for the NFWS is how it comes to terms with the intermediary role.

Both theoretically and in practice, more than one vision of how to build and sustain 

effective workforce intermediaries is in contention in the National Fund initiative.

Perhaps the most unexpected piece of this conversation is the role of the funding 

collaboratives themselves. In the context of WIA reauthorization, it would seem to be 

important to place this internal NFWS debate in the wider context of a national rethinking about the roles and composition of the WIBs and their relationship to other key 

institutions in the workforce development arena.

Finally, five years is a long time for investors of any kind but a short time to turn an 

ocean liner. It has understandably taken more than a year to put in place the 21 

collaboratives and 37 workforce partnerships currently operating and it will take at 

least that long to bring on the additional collaboratives and partnerships. Most of them 

are and will be new and inexperienced. The history of the pilot sites suggests that the 

learning curve for understanding and implementing the kind of reforms NFWS is 

promoting is steep but has a substantial payoff in the reach and impact of the 

collaboratives’ activities, including the sophistication of the workforce partnerships 

they support and their ability to support career advancement opportunities for lowincome workers. That history also points to the power and importance of their system 

change activities over the longer run.

Assuming that the Fund is indeed only a five-year effort, it has a relatively short 

timeframe within which to put in place strategies to sustain its principles and practices 

beyond its own life. The internal debate about workforce intermediaries is also a debate

about the best way to bring scale and sustainability to this initiative. As such, it could 

not be more important.
Appendix A 98

Appendix A

Cohort 1 Collaboratives: Initiatives formed prior to the formal 

start of NFWS

Baltimore Funding Collaborative

Overview

The Baltimore Funding Collaborative is an informal network of funders supporting 

workforce partnerships and other initiatives in the city. The collaborative’s long term 

goals include effecting change in the workforce system, encouraging greater employer 

participation, and increasing wealth and family self-sufficiency among Baltimore 

residents. The funders include eight regional and national foundations as well as the 

Baltimore Workforce Investment Board and the Mayor’s Office of Employment 

Development. These ten funders have collaborated since 2003, and in some cases before 

that. Some of these funders and other local stakeholders participate in annual strategic 

planning meetings through their regional grantmakers association to identify priorities 

including selecting policy reform initiatives. The three workforce partnerships 

supported by the Baltimore collaborative are the Baltimore Health Care Alliance, the 

BioTechnical Institute of Maryland, and Jump Start, a pre-apprenticeship program in 

the construction trades targeting low income residents and previously incarcerated 

men. Each partnership has a nonprofit with a board of directors and is responsible for 

its own fundraising.

Funding Collaborative composition, governance, and fundraising

The Baltimore collaborative includes the Aaron Straus & Lillie Straus Foundation, the 

Abell Foundation, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the Baltimore Community 

Foundation, the Goldseker Foundation, Open Society Institute-Baltimore, the Alvin and 

Fanny B. Thalheimer Foundation and the Harry and Jeanette Weinberg Foundation. 

Participants in the collaborative from the public sector are the Baltimore Workforce 

Investment Board and the Mayor’s Office of Employment Development. The funders 

seek to collaborate and align their funding on initiatives where some or all of them have 

overlapping interests. Additionally, a subset of the funders serves on the Workforce 

Investment Board and has participated in annual strategic planning sessions with city 

officials to identify challenges, opportunities and priorities. The executive director of 

the Jobs Opportunities Task Force (JOTF), the nonprofit that operates Jump Start, helps 

coordinate the three workforce partnerships. Also, JOTF has been responsible for state 

and local advocacy work and has emerged asa key voice in the State of Maryland’s

legislature on workforce policy.
Appendix A 99

Because of the more informal nature of the collaborative, the funding is aligned with the 

goal of supporting the three current workforce partnerships and some system change

activities. However, six funders have recently pooled funds that are being managed by 

the Association of Baltimore Area Grantmakers (ABAG). This pool of money was used 

to hire a consultant to develop plans and identify opportunities on the priorities

established as a part of a strategic planning effort that included ABAG and its key 

foundations interested in workforce, the Maryland Department of Labor, the state 

workforce investment board, and the Baltimore WIB. This consultant is now playing a 

critical advocacy role, on behalf of the funders, related to the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding opportunities in Baltimore City.

Goals and strategy

A key goal for the collaborative is to increase worker wages, job retention, and 

advancement and decrease worker turnover among employable populations in 

Baltimore. The collaborative also wants to strengthen the relationships in the workforce 

development system (between the Workforce Investment Board, community colleges, 

the K-12 system and providers) and increase employer participation in workforce 

development efforts. A longer term goal is to increase wealth and family self-sufficiency 

among Baltimore residents as well as decrease the city’s unemployment rate.

There are a number of assumptions that guide the collaborative’s strategy. The first is 

that there are growth sectors in Baltimore in which greater numbers of local residents 

can be employed and career advancement opportunities exist. These sectors are 

biotechnology, construction, healthcare, and emerging growth areas such as green jobs, 

hospitality, and airport services. Second, career advancement for workers can result 

from “bridge” programs and programs that remove barriers to employment and 

strengthen basic academic skills as well as specific industry knowledge. Third, a 

“deeper” pipeline to jobs is needed in Baltimore to address complex barriers to 

employment (very low literacy, criminal records, transportation, etc.) and sector-based 

training needs to be brought to scale. Finally, schools and employers are critical 

partners and need to be continually involved in the development of local workforce 

solutions.

The Baltimore funders have identified these strategies to meet their goals:

• Work collaboratively across a broad base of Baltimore stakeholders to implement 

a set of strategies targeting youth, various segments of the adult population, and 

local employers to improve key workforce development outcomes; and 

• Implement six strategies to produce a series of population- and strategy-specific 

outcomes, such as: 1) build out the workforce development pipeline; 2) 

implement sector-specific training, job placement, and advancement; 3) facilitate 

the transition from school to career; 4) integrate employer outreach, recruitment, 

and marketing; 5) advance policy change, advocacy, and influence; and 6) 

strengthen the workforce system.
Appendix A 100

Stakeholders have discussed the implications of data from the last year that show that 

the current efforts, especially the sector-based initiatives, are often effective, but are not 

able to reach the large numbers of people in need of them. Moreover, these data reveal 

that many of the populations—including ex-offenders, many low-skilled workers, and 

workers in need of extensive educational remediation—are ineligible for existing sectorfocused programs based on current skills or other barriers. These competing 

conclusions have led stakeholders to begin exploring strategies beyond, but including, 

sector-focused strategies to better meet the needs of their populations. Some of these 

broader strategies include building out the workforce development pipeline and sector 

training programs to include basic academic skills, financial education/asset-building, 

and barrier removal services for job-seekers who may not be job-ready, facilitating 

better transitions from school to career, and working on job creation and inclusion 

policies that seek out the target populations. 

Workforce partnership goals and strategy

The collaborative has three workforce partnerships, one in health care, a second in 

biotechnology and a third in construction. All are focused on low-skilled, 

underemployed or disadvantaged populations in Baltimore. 

Baltimore Alliance for Careers in Healthcare (BACH) is a workforce intermediary that 

provides career mapping, career coaching and a jobs-to-careers bridge program for lowincome individuals in Baltimore. BACH’s career mapping project works with five area 

hospitals to clarify how employees in lower-skilled positions can advance to higher 

skilled, higher-paying jobs. Its career coaching component works with seven area 

hospitals and one long-term care facility with an aim to reduce employee turnover and 

help more than 500 entry-level workers advance. A final component of BACH is the 

design and implementation of a pre-allied health bridge program to improve the 

pipeline of under-represented populations into entry-level health care jobs. One of these 

bridge programs is Jobs to Careers, an initiative of the Robert Wood Johnson and 

Hitachi foundations developed to advance incumbent workers from certified nursing 

assistants to nurse extenders via a work-based learning training model. Another project, 

BACH-brokered programming, permits coaches to enter high demand training 

programs like Surgery Technician as hospital demand for these jobs surface. In this role 

BACH coordinates with local instructional providers to make instruction available at 

times and locations most advantageous to coaches and employers.

The BioTechnical Institute of Maryland, Inc. (BTI) partners with more than 29 life sciences 

companies in the region to provide low-income adults with tuition-free lab training, 

college credit, and jobs with family-supporting wages and benefits. BTI offers 

BioSTART, a 12-week bridge program to increase basic academic skills, knowledge of 

the biotech industry, and remove barriers to employment. Following BioSTART is the 

more advanced, hands-on Laboratory Associates program. Lab Associates is a nine-
Appendix A 101

week training program that leads its graduates to both a 100-hour paid internship in the 

industry and then full-time placement in the field earning an average of $12 an hour. 

The JumpStart Pre‐Apprenticeship Program is a construction training program that prepares 

Baltimore residents to become licensed carpenters, plumbers or electricians. Students go 

to class two nights a week for about 13 weeks. They gain a better understanding of 

construction jobs, receive intense math instruction that will be needed on the job and 

develop hands-on skills that they will use at work. They also become CPR and OSHA 

certified. Students placed in construction jobs after graduation typically earn at least 

$9.50 an hour and sometimes much more than that. If they do well on the job, they will 

enter formal apprenticeship that will allow them to eventually obtain their license and 

much higher wages. 

Capacity‐building strategy

The collaborative does not have a formal capacity-building strategy, but there are

increasing efforts by funders to build the capacity of local providers in barrier removal 

strategies, performance management, cross referrals, and data sharing. The 

collaborative members also believe that participation in NFWS will provide capacitybuilding. For instance, Jump Start staff members have participated in the construction 

peer learning group organized by NFWS.

Policy/system change strategy

Each year JOTF works in collaboration with other local organizations on approximately 

ten policy initiatives; it generally takes the lead on two of the initiatives. Examples of 

current initiatives include reducing barriers in access to community colleges for parttime students and eliminating drivers’ license restrictions for adults (such as exoffenders) that prevent them from getting work. Additionally, a recently hired 

consultant is working to help the state figure out ways to create specific links to 

community colleges by breaking down technical barriers to enrollment and retention.

Employers say more flexibility among community colleges would help them get more 

workers with the skills that they need. For example, some workers are interested in 

careers that don’t need the math levels that the community colleges require for entry 

into post-secondary programs. 

The collaborative reports promising progress toward system change in a number of 

areas. For example, each of the three workforce providers strengthened its relationship 

with the local community college and improved articulation agreements allowing 

program graduates to receive credit. The community colleges and city schools 

completed articulation agreements for nursing assistant, surgery technician and 

biotechnology. The partnerships have also achieved some changes in employer 

behavior. The Biotech Institute has been able to increase the number of bioscience 

employers hiring non-degreed employees. BACH awarded its first Career Coach 

contract to a long-term health facility. The partners have also advanced some other 

promising policy changes. JOTF is the leading advocate on legislation that would make 
Appendix A 102

it easier for workers attending college to be eligible for financial aid. Additionally, 

Baltimore City legislation was passed this year that has created a Green Jobs Coalition. 

The coalition has come together to explore green jobs inclusionary language as well as 

specific training opportunities.

Participant Outcomes

Some early highlights among participant outcomes include:

• JumpStart has graduated 150 individuals to date, and it has placed more than 55 

percent of its graduates in the industry, with average wages of $12 an hour (a 41 

percent increase in wages since entering the program). 

• The BTI has placed more than 75 percent of its graduates, or 158 low-income 

adults, to date, at an average salary of $25,000 per year.

• BACH reports that 40 percent of its career coaching participants had 17 percent 

wage advancement.

Aggregate dashboard metrics for participant outcomes reported through December 31, 

2008 include:

Measure Job Seekers Incumbent Workers

# WPs providing service 3 1

# Participants served 351 648

# Completions 298 648

# Degrees/credentials earned 28 125

# Job placements 151 N/A

# Placement wage <$9.99 145 N/A

# Placement wage $10.00–$14.99 26 N/A

# Placement wage >$15.00 76 N/A

N/A: Data not applicable for program type or reported not applicable or unknown/missing by WP.

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System
Appendix A 103

Bay Area Workforce Funding Collaborative 

Overview

The Bay Area Workforce Funding Collaborative covers ten counties in the San Francisco 

Bay Area, a region of more than six million residents. BAWFC was launched in the 

spring of 2004 in response to what local and national foundations and the state of 

California’s Employment Development Department (EDD) perceived as an increasingly 

wide skills gap that left many jobseekers in poverty and employers unable to meet their 

workforce needs. The collaborative was based on three principles: public-private 

partnerships, a dual customer model, and economic sector targeting. The funders 

sought outcomes for individuals and employers as well as improved service delivery 

practices and system changes. The BAWFC is in its fifth year and third round of 

funding. It supported 12 partnerships and projects in its first round of funding and ten

in its second round. Each has focused on health care and life sciences. BAFWC 

structured these grants as either workforce partnerships grants or “innovation”grants. 

The latter set of grants supports research, planning, pilot projects, and innovative sector 

practices. BAWFC is concluding investments among second round grantees, and is now 

launching a new strategy of investments supporting community colleges, in partnership 

with other stakeholders, to build career pathways to good-paying jobs for low-skilled, 

low-income individuals. 

Funding Collaborative composition, governance, and fundraising

Since the inception of the BAWFC in 2004, the collaborative has included a total of 25

funders. Currently there are 15. Those still involved include the San Francisco 

Foundation, the California Endowment, Robert Wood Johnson, and Kaiser Permanente 

Foundation. BAFWC’s original vision called for a strong partnership with public 

investors. The California Department of Employment and Development (EDD) was part 

of the original funders group, and played a substantial role in launching and funding 

BAFWC’s initial rounds. It provided 44 percent of funding for BAFWC’s first two 

rounds. In 2007-2008, EDD withdrew from the collaborative, in part, because as a state 

agency it was difficult to fund one region over others. EDD also had increasingly 

limited resources for discretionary projects like BAFWC because of the decline in 

federal Workforce Investment Act funds and, at the state level, the budget crisis.

Alternatively, with the funding collaboratives’ new emphasis on creating career 

pathways through community colleges, it has added the Bay Area Community College 

Consortium (BACCC) as a new partner, though not a member of the collaborative. 

There are 26 community colleges in the Bay Area. The Chancellor’s office of the 

California Community College system has also invested $100,000 in BAWFC.

BAWFC is governed by a Steering Committee that meets at least monthly. There have 

also been evaluation and policy working committees in the past. The San Francisco 

Foundation serves as the administrator of the collaborative. BAWFC reviews and selects 
Appendix A 104

grantees together as a group. It originally had separate processes for grant selection 

when EDD was first involved.

Participating funders can either pool their funds through BAWFC’s Mutual Fund, 

managed by the San Francisco Foundation, or align them. Pooled funds are used to 

fund partnerships and innovation grants as well as for program evaluation and 

coordination. Most funders put their investments in the mutual fund.

BAWFC began its third funding cycle with $1.9 million, almost all of which is pooled 

funding. Prior commitments from participating foundations and carry-over funds have 

created stable funding for the next two years. Longer term funding prospects are less 

certain because of the economic downturn and a tightening of foundation budgets. 

Goals and strategy

BAWFC has a goal to address skills gaps in the region that have left many jobseekers in 

poverty and employers unable to meet their workforce needs. Its initial strategy, and 

the focus of its first two rounds of funding, was to develop workforce partnerships, use 

a dual customer approach, and target economic sectors to develop career pathways that 

would lead to good-paying jobs for low-skilled, low-income individuals. The departure 

of California EDD, its main public partner, led BAFWC to review its work to date. Prior 

projects, the group concluded, had affected fewer individuals than the BAFWC would 

have liked and had not produced sustainable systemic change. BAWFC concluded that 

the region’s community colleges, in partnership with other stakeholders such as the 

WIBs and community-based organizations, could best address many of the challenges 

to building career pathways including basic skills, student supports, and job placement 

and retention. BAFWC’s strategy for its third round of funding focused on community 

colleges as the lead institutions in organizing partnerships and building career 

pathways for low-skilled, low-income individuals.

Workforce partnership goals and strategy

BAWFC’s first grant guidelines required that a workforce investment board (WIB) be a 

member of any funded partnership and a lead partner in many cases. All funded 

projects were in health or life science, and included grants ranging from $50,000 to 

$683,250 for a total of $3,566,750. There were 11 grants in all that went to programs that 

developed career pathways with employers like Kaiser Permanente or supported 

initiatives like an “On-Ramp to Biotech” program. There were also grants that went to 

prepare individuals to become X-ray technicians and licensed vocational nurses. The 

grants took two principal forms, implementation grants and innovation grants.

Innovation grants supported research, planning, pilot projects, and innovative sector 

practices in health care and life sciences. These included efforts to improve employer

management and human resources practices related to the hiring, retention, and 

advancement of low-skilled workers. Some of the organizations initially awarded 

innovation grants were later provided implementation grants.
Appendix A 105

In the second round of funding, BAFWC awarded six workforce partnership grants and 

four innovation grants for a total $3,225,130. All were related to supporting 

partnerships or innovation in the health care and life sciences sectors. Funding for each 

grant was expected to conclude by the end of March 2009. 

BAWFC focused most of its third round of funding on its community college strategy to 

address the road blocks to basic skills acquisition, student services, and job placement 

and retention. At the time of this report, it had made two grants in the basic skills area. 

One grant was meant to elevate contextualized basic skills and career technical 

education as a priority within a larger $33 million basic skills initiative among the 

community colleges. The other grant funded an initiative that will develop a repository 

of resources and a hub for professional development around basic skills. Grants 

totaling $700,000 had been awarded to four Bay Area community colleges to support 

the development of innovative student services strategies. This grant aims to improve 

the rates of certificate and degree completion and job placement among low-income and 

non-traditional students enrolled in career technical education programs. BAWFC is 

also considering providing grants to encourage partnerships between community 

colleges, WIBs, and community-based organizations to improve job placement and 

retention.

Capacity‐building strategy

BAWFC did not have an explicit capacity-building strategy in its first two rounds of 

funding. During the first round of funding, BAFWC awarded the California Workforce 

Association $50,000 to establish a learning network among WIBs. BAWFC’s strategy in 

the third round of funding is largely capacity-building.

Policy/system change strategy

System change has been a central aspect of BAWFC’s vision and mission since its 

inception. BAWFC awarded two policy grants: 

• $135,000 in the first grant cycle and $100,000 in the second grant cycle to support 

the California’s EDGE Campaign, a statewide workforce advocacy coalition, in 

three main areas of work: 1) advocacy on behalf of its policy agenda; 2) building 

and mobilizing its stakeholders; and 3) media communications in support of 

advocacy goals. 

• $215,750 in the first and second grant cycles and $197,700 in the third grant cycle 

to the National Economic Development and Law Center to support technical 

assistance and advocacy to increase the use of Food Stamp Employment Training 

(FSET) funding directed toward sector initiatives. 

The EDGE activities included meetings with members of the legislature and their staff, 

promoting career pathways, contextualized basic skills instruction, and sector 

strategies; testimony at hearings; workshops and presentations at meetings of a wide 

range of organizations; working with the state Workforce Investment Board to host a 
Appendix A 106

training on sectoral approaches to workforce development; holding quarterly workforce 

“salons” for policy leaders in Sacramento, bringing together key stakeholders on critical 

topics; outreach meetings, which engaged approximately 300 regional workforce 

leaders in Los Angeles, San Diego, Silicon Valley, and Sacramento; a webinar on 

contextualized approaches to basic skills instruction; and work to engage stakeholders 

on how to make productive use of the federal recovery monies.

The FSET initiative funded by BAFWC worked with pilot sites at three Bay Area 

community colleges to develop and research FSET plans. Pilot sites developed 

methodologies and guidelines for state and federal approval and drafted and obtained 

state approval for standard FSET Program Description Instructions. The initiative also 

developed a one page outreach piece for community colleges and disseminated it to all 

Bay Area counties and developed and proposed an initial California Policy Agenda for 

third-party match incentives.

Participants Outcomes

An evaluation of BAFWC’s first round of funding found that a substantial share of 

BAWFC-funded jobseekers completed education and training programs (in programs 

that ran from ten to 45 weeks). Of those who completed education and training 

programs, 79 percent were placed in new jobs. In the second round of funding, 

outcomes reported through December 31, 2008 included: 

Measure Job Seekers Incumbent Workers

# WPs providing service 6 0

# Participants served 419 N/A

# Completions 32 N/A

# Degrees/credentials earned 31 N/A

# Job placements 32 N/A

# Placement wage <$9.99 0 N/A

# Placement wage $10.00–$14.99 0 N/A

# Placement wage >$15.00 0 N/A

N/A: Data not applicable for program type or reported not applicable or unknown/missing by WP.

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System
Appendix A 107

Boston SkillWorks

Overview

Boston SkillWorks grew from a convening by the Boston Foundation (TBF) of local 

stakeholders to discuss workforce issues and consider new approaches. In 2002, the 

group concluded that a local collaborative of public and private funders could lead to 

sustainable workforce development improvements, benefiting both employers and lowskilled adults. In 2003 SkillWorks, with support of national foundations, local 

philanthropy, and city and state workforce agencies, began funding workforce 

partnerships. SkillWorks implemented the second five year phase of the initiative in 

January 2009. The collaborative has deepened its strategy and continues to support 

workforce partnerships, capacity building, and policy advocacy.

Funding Collaborative composition, governance and funding

The Boston SkillWorks Funders Group for the first phase of the initiative included 18 

different private and public funders. There was some turnover in membership over the 

five years as funders left and others joined. The Funders Group for the second phase of 

SkillWorks includes the Boston Foundation, the Clowes Fund, the Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts, the National Fund for Workforce Solutions, the Garfield Foundation, the 

Hyams Foundation, the Mayor’s Office of Jobs and Community Services of the City of 

Boston, the Microsoft Corporation, the Nellie Mae Education Foundation, the State 

Street Foundation, and the United Way of Massachusetts Bay and Merrimack Valley.

Two funders are targeting their funding to the “green jobs” sector. The funding 

collaborative makes all decisions on funding, contract approval, the overall policy 

agenda, SkillWorks staffing, and communications.

Initially, Boston SkillWorks was staffed by consultants. However, the funders decided it 

was important to hire dedicated, full time staff. While TBF houses and payrolls the 

Project Director, she reports directly to the funding collaborative. The TBF Director of 

Programs, Economic Development and Community Health, and a representative from 

the City of Boston co-chair the funding collaborative.

The deep-rooted investor structure and long term relationships of the SkillWorks 

funding collaborative created new opportunities. For instance, two new environmental 

funders joined SkillWorks to leverage the collaborative’s expertise in workforce issues.

The first phase of SkillWorks was funded at $15 million. The goal for the second phase 

was $10 million as well as $700,000 targeted specifically to the “green” sector. Five

million had been raised at the time of this report. The annual budget for the current 

year is $902,833.

While fundraising is on target, it has also been challenging partly due to cutbacks in 

public funds. Another challenge is keeping philanthropic investors excited and 
Appendix A 108

engaged. A number of participating foundations have gone through a re-examination of 

their investments and are selecting other priorities. The reduced funding goal between 

phase 1 and 2 was partly a reflection of the changes in the environment and the 

problems of keeping the same funders at the table for such a long period of time.

All the funds for SkillWorks are pooled although some funders target their 

contributions. Initially there were some challenges in TBF accepting public funds, but 

they developed a contracting process that allowed them to do this. Both the city and the 

state are funding the initiative out of relatively flexible funds. The biggest challenge for

the public funding is making multi-year commitments.

The collaborative is looking forward to new public funds from the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act but is not advocating for this funding to come directly to 

SkillWorks. The major priority for both the state and SkillWorks will be to use any new 

discretionary money to help fund the Workforce Competitiveness Trust Fund. The 

collaborative’s advocacy work led to the creation of the Fund and all of their lead 

agencies in their current partnerships have received funding from it.

Goals and strategy

SkillWorks began its second five-year phase (January 2009 through December 2013.) 

Building on phase I (2003 -2008), SkillWorks intends to invest in up to five workforce 

partnerships and one public policy advocacy grantee. SkillWorks general strategies 

remain the same, however, there are some new emphases including:

• An even greater emphasis on sustainability. Each workforce partnership will be

expected to provide 50 percent in match to the SkillWorks investment. By 

requiring a match, the partnerships needed to work with the employers from the 

beginning to raise cash and in-kind contributions. The funders saw this match as 

helping the partnerships address sustainability from the beginning. SkillWorks 

will track matches in Phase II; the importance of doing this is a lesson learned 

from Phase I.

• Interest in models that test long term engagement and coordination of multiple 

programs and services. This has always been a part of SkillWorks, but was not 

previously emphasized. This strategy is supported by the requirement that 

partnerships report on outcomes from two to five years.

• More emphasis on post secondary education. The funders have recognized that since 

they are emphasizing middle skills jobs paying middle skill wages, it is 

important to help working adults to access post secondary education. 

Their strategy has also been shaped by the recession as the collaborative is taking a 

longer view on outcomes in their negotiations on performance goals.
Appendix A 109

Workforce Partnerships

The first round of Skill Works included the following workforce partnerships: The

Hotel Career Center; two health sector partnerships (Partners in Career and Workforce 

Development and Health Care and Research Training Institute); Building Services 

Career Path Project; the Partnership for Automotive Career Education (PACE); and

Community Health Worker Initiative of Boston (CHW Initiative).

The Community Health Work initiative was funded late in the initiative and will 

continue during the first year of phase II. This partnership is operated by Action for 

Boston Community Development (ABCD) which received a SkillWorks implementation 

grant in April 2007. The initiative is focused on helping incumbent community health 

workers advance along a career pathway. The initiative is also working on a public 

information and policy advocacy plan to tackle structural issues, such as third-party 

payer reimbursement issues that constrain the career advancement opportunities of 

community health workers. 

The workforce partnerships selected in December 2008 for phase II are:

The Healthcare Training Institute (HTI) led by Jewish Vocational Services. HTI will provide 

a continuum of career advancement services and allied health and nursing pathways 

with major healthcare employers. HTI plans to serve 895 participants over five years.

The partners include health sector employers, community colleges and community 

based organizations.

Hotel Training Center (HTC) led by the Boston Education, Skills & Training Corporation 

(BEST Corp), a training affiliate of UNITE HERE Local 26 provides skills training and 

job placement for under-employed and unemployed individuals seeking entry to the 

hospitality industry and incumbent workers seeking skills upgrades. HTC plans to 

serve 565 participants over five years. Participants who graduate from pre-employment 

training will start at positions paying at least $15.23 an hour. Incumbent workers will 

train for advancement in positions paying $40,000 to $70,000 annually. Key partners 

include UNITED HERE Local 26, the Greater Boston Hotel Employer Local 26 Trust 

Funds, major hotel chains, community based organizations, and the Boston PIC.

Emergency Medical Careers Partnership (EMCP) is led by Northeastern University, College 

of Professional Studies. EMCP seeks to address the employment needs of the 

emergency medical services industry in greater Boston while providing new 

opportunities for low-skilled individuals to move into medium-skilled, higher paying 

jobs. The EMCP seeks to meet current and projected vacancies for chair car drivers, 

EMTs, and paramedics. It plans to serve 536 participants over four years. Key partners 

include health sector employers, the Massachusetts Ambulance Association and the 

Boston PIC.
Appendix A 110

Year UP Financial Services Partnership (planning grant in 2009):This partnership is led by 

Year Up, an organization preparing young adults to enter livable wage careers and 

begin to acquire a post-secondary credential through a one-year, intensive preemployment program. The planning grant will support Year Up in developing its 

capacity to deepen and sharpen its post placement supports and services. It will focus 

on careers in the financial services industry. Key partners include Cambridge College 

and two financial institutions.

The criteria for selection of the partnerships included knowledge in the proposed sector, 

experience in leading complex partnerships, financial stability, contributions and 

commitments of employers, and other sources of funding. SkillWorks members also 

wanted to have some balance in the sectors, populations targeted, and part of the city 

served. They also looked at the strength of the education component.

Capacity‐Building

SkillWorks’ initial capacity-building component had two phases. The first phase 

provided five community-based organizations with financial, managerial, and technical 

service resources to strengthen their organizational structures and systems; reach 

higher levels of workforce development services; and improve outcomes for their 

constituents. As a result of these first-phase investments, four organizations 

successfully competed to become a partner in a workforce partnership.

The second phase of capacity-building focused on helping the workforce partnerships 

achieve two goals providing career advancement resources to job seekers and to low- to 

moderate-income workers and building career ladders for low-skilled workers with 

employers in specified industries. Activities included cross-site networking, technical 

assistance consulting and training workshops on topics that help the Partnerships and 

their service providers reach scale and sustainability. This year the capacity-building 

will continue to be focused on the partnerships. It is likely that the collaborative will 

continue to provide small technical assistance grants to partnerships that are tied to 

issues identified in evaluations and reports.

Policy/System Change

SkillWorks contracted with the Workforce Solutions Group (WSG) to develop a 

common advocacy agenda and raise the visibility of workforce development. It 

provided a $300,000 five year grant. WSG is a partnership led by The Crittenton 

Women’s Union (fiscal agent), the Massachusetts Workforce Board Association, the 

Organizing Leadership and Training Center, and the Massachusetts AFL-CIO. The 

WSG engaged in four major activities: statewide organizing around legislative 

opportunities; legislative advocacy; research to identify promising state policy 

strategies; and marketing.

In the first phase of SkillWorks, this advocacy helped lead to legislation that created a 

Workforce Competitiveness Trust Fund ($18 million in funding to date), a Workforce 
Appendix A 111

Accountability Task Force, and new funding for workforce development including links 

to higher education, adult basic education and training related to food stamps funding.

Other results of its system change work included:

• Service providers within SkillWorks partnerships increased their overall 

awareness of workforce issues and evolved service delivery to more intentionally 

link adult education and workforce development services. 

• The Building Trades project was successful securing commercial employers’

agreement to fund a joint union-management training fund supported by an 

hourly contribution that will provide ongoing support for educational activities 

of building services employees.

• The Community Health Works Initiative partnership seed-funded the 

development of a community health works education track at two community 

colleges in the Boston area.

In its second phase, SkillWorks plans to expand its policy-making work to include think 

tanks and researchers, with the collaborative acting as the convener. SkillWorks also 

plans to include the employer partners in the public policy/system change work. The 

major goals for the policy advocacy include increased funding for workforce 

development, especially for workforce partnerships; adopting the recommendations of 

the state WIB’s performance measures and accountability taskforce; advocating for the 

coordination of the adult basic education and community college systems.

Participant Outcomes

In phase 1, Boston SkillWorks served 2810 individuals over five years with 864 

participating in pre-employment and 1992 in incumbent worker activities.87.5 percent 

of participants were program completers; 68.9 percent of those in pre-employment 

training achieved a job within the targeted sector; 91.2 percent of incumbent workers

received a wage increase; 19.1 percent received a promotion. Outcomes for phase 2 

included the following results from the Community Health Workers partnership:
Appendix A 112

Measure Job Seekers Incumbent Workers

# WPs providing service 0 1

# Participants served N/A 93

# Completions N/A 29

# Degrees/credentials earned N/A 26

# Job placements N/A N/A

# Placement wage <$9.99 N/A N/A

# Placement wage $10.00–$14.99 N/A N/A

# Placement wage >$15.00 N/A N/A

N/A: Data not applicable for program type or reported not applicable or unknown/missing by WP.

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System
Appendix A 113

New York City Workforce Innovation Fund

Overview

The New York City Workforce Innovations Fund (WIF) is a public-private partnership 

between the New York City Workforce Development Funders Group (WDFG), a 

consortium of New York foundations investing in workforce development, and New 

York City Department of Small Business Services(SBS). This collaborative began in 2004, 

when the philanthropies that supported workforce development in New York City 

formed a partnership with SBS. SBS took over responsibility for the City’s adult and 

dislocated worker Workforce Investment Act (WIA) funding in 2003 to create a stronger 

link between workforce services and economic development. The Workforce Innovation 

Fund (WIF) was formed to share expertise and learning and provide an avenue to 

merge resources to support common goals. Public/Private Ventures (P/PV) was 

selected to oversee the project, provide technical assistance to the lead agencies and 

conduct an evaluation. The Collaborative has eleven funders, three workforce 

partnerships, one systems reform grantee and one capacitybuilding/management/evaluation organization (P/PV).

Funding Collaborative composition, governance, and fundraising

One of the WIF partners, WDFG, has a formal governance structure with a steering 

committee composed of four members of the WDFG including the representative of the 

New York Community Trust that acts as the fiscal agent. Participating funders 

volunteer to serve on the committee and must be a current investor to be in this role.

Currently the New York Community Trust has banked over $5 million from the private 

funders for joint initiatives; $1.3 million of that is for sector initiatives with the 

remainder being used for other projects. WDFG started pooling funds as a group in 

2001.

The quarterly WDFG meetings, first held regularly in 2003 on issues in workforce 

development, have helped with networking and keeping funders informed about the 

field. The collaborative members believe that these discussions have helped to increase 

the amount that private philanthropy has given to workforce development from $18 

million in 2004 to $43.3 million in 2008. A budget for the activities of the WDFG is put 

together annually. The steering committee approves that budget; this budget includes 

projects supported through the WIF as well as other projects that don’t involve a 

partnership with the public sector.

The other WIF partner, SBS, needs to comply with city rules on procurement and 

regulation and, therefore, decisions related to aligned funds must be made within the 

public systems. Where possible, WIF decisions are made by consensus. For instance a 

team from SBS and the WDFG met to select the original two sector initiatives. The WIF 

formally meets several times a year and the individuals who are a part of this are in 

fairly frequent communications through common activities.
Appendix A 114

SBS had been trying to determine how to use WIA funds in a more demand-driven 

manner and, therefore, utilized WIA funds to help support the first two Sector Initiative 

WIF projects. The New York Community Trust provided funds from the WDFG to the 

City to complement the WIA funds for these initiatives. The private funds allowed more 

flexibility. For instance, at the time the project started, the City would only make sixmonth grants with WIA funds, but one of the trainings needed to be for two years. The 

private funds allowed the sector projects to operate over a longer period of time.

Much of the new WIF work supported by SBS is through a new program called Center 

for Economic Opportunity, supported entirely through City tax levy sources. These 

funds are much more flexible than WIA dollars with the only condition being that they 

be used to assist low income individuals. A priority of Mayor Bloomberg's second-term 

agenda has been to combat poverty in New York City. 

The New York City Workforce Investment Board (WIB) joined the WIF in 2007. The 

WIB is helping to support the WIF through its funding of a new New York City Labor 

Market Information Service operated by the Center for Urban Research at City 

University of New York. The hope is that over time the credibility and products 

produced will help to attract private funding.

The WIF is also looking to partner more with New York State in its sector and career 

pathways initiatives. For instance the New York State Department of Labor and Office 

of Temporary and Disability Assistance (NYSDOL and NYSOTDA) recently released a 

Careers Pathway RFP and ten of the 15 programs funded statewide were in New York 

City. The WDFG agreed to provide grants on a competitive basis to organizations 

receiving these grants to develop feeder programs serving individuals whose skills or 

educational levels were not sufficient for them to participate in the career pathways 

component. This has a system change aspect because the goal is to create good 

prototypes that can become a part of the system. The WDFG awarded grants to two 

organizations for this purpose in March 2009.

The $1.2 million WIF NFWS budget for July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009 has been 

raised. There have been no challenges in this so far, but there is some concern that there 

may be problems with fund-raising later in the year given the constriction in foundation 

budgets. However, SBS expects to receive additional WIA funding from the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act and may use some of those dollars for the new sectorbased centers.

Goals and Strategies:

The priorities established when the WIF was first formed included:

• Creating an opportunity to change the workforce system collaboratively;

• Facilitating a “smarter” or better informed grant-making process; and
Appendix A 115

• Leveraging investments in workforce development.

The WIF determined that the best approach to reaching these goals was to build the 

capacity of city organizations for sector work. To implement this, the WIF developed a 

two-phased approach—a planning phase and a demonstration phase. It was believed 

that this structure would allow for innovation and ultimately result in stronger 

proposals for demonstration grants. According to the WIF’s design, the planning phase 

was to consist of a multistage application process to award $30,000 planning grants that 

were to be used over a three-month period to allow the lead agencies to develop their 

proposals for the demonstration. In the end, both the planning phase and the 

contracting process took longer than anticipated.

A strategic planning session in the summer of 2008 sharpened the goals and strategies 

of the collaborative. The core concept for the initiative is a vision of a three-way 

partnership among a private funder collaborative, the public sector, and local 

employers to accomplish the mission. This approach assumes that a funder 

collaborative can have more influence and impact than individual private funders 

acting alone, that public agencies invest in and implement workforce development 

programs and policies at substantial scale, and that employers, as key sources of jobs, 

can benefit from and invest in workforce advancement. It also assumes that the three 

types of organizations can reinforce one another in their workforce development efforts.

Workforce Partnerships

There are three current workforce partnerships: one in health care operated by the 

Metropolitan Council for Jewish Poverty (Met Council); another in Biotechnology 

operated by the State University of New York Downstate Medical Center (SUNY 

Downstate); and a recently created Sector One Stop Career Center focused on the 

transportation, distribution and logistics sector operated by DB Grant Associates.

Met Council was selected to receive a demonstration grant in summer 2005 to provide 

assessment, wraparound services, and remediation and study-skills instruction in 

conjunction with enrollment in radiological technology (rad tech), emergency medical 

technician (EMT) and paramedic training tracks. This is a $1.56 million, three-year effort 

that will be continuing through 2009.

Met Council works closely with a group of hospitals through Employer Roundtable 

meetings. These meetings help decide what training should be provided. To date, Met 

Council has provided seven cycles of EMT training; three cycles of paramedic training; 

and two cycles of Rad Tech training. The Rad Tech training is a two year training 

program. There were initial issues with recruiting, but this has improved as have the 

wrap-around services that provide more pre-training remediation, in-training tutoring 

and social support. The project has a strong training completion and placement rate.
Appendix A 116

Met Council has been a part of the Sector Strategies Practicum (described more below) 

and recently presented their plans for sustainability. They recently received funding 

from the Robin Hood Foundation to provide wraparound services to individuals 

enrolled in EMT training and from the United Jewish Association to help foreign 

certified nurses obtain certification in the United States.

SUNY‐Downstate was approved for $857,742 in funding in Fall 2005 to expand the 

biotechnology workshop offered at Hunter College and create recruitment streams into 

the workshop from other City University of New York (CUNY) two-year and four-year 

campuses. Successful completion of the four week, intensive workshop—composed of 

lectures and laboratory work—provides access to full-time internship opportunities and 

subsequent assistance with job placement. This project will also continue through 2009.

They are applying for supplemental funding from the Helena Rubenstein Fund to 

strengthen their internship program.

The project is closely linked to SUNY Downstate’s Biotechnology Park and Biotech 

Incubator, and project staff has worked closely with the Park to attract more 

biotechnology firms to the city. As part of their outreach, they inform companies about 

their biotechnology workforce training.

Transportation and Logistics Sector Center: In 2007, SBS made an award to DB Grant 

Associates for a Sector-Based Career Center focused on the transportation sector. This 

vendor operates a One Stop Career Center in Queens, close to JFK International Airport, 

where the Transportation Sector-based Career Center is now co-located. The purpose of 

the Sector-based Career Center is to identify and meet the needs of employers within 

the transportation sector while providing low-income workers access to good jobs and 

advancement opportunities within the industry. The program serves the working poor 

citywide whose income is below 200% of the federal poverty level. The Sector Center 

provides workforce preparation grounded in both the employment needs of business, 

as well as the developmental needs of jobseekers and employees. In addition, the Center 

seeks to create clearly accessible career ladders that are supported by preparatory 

training to enable participants to plan career steps and goals accordingly. The initiative 

also seeks to increase the income of new and incumbent workers through increased 

wages and work hours, as well as increase the promotions and job upgrades through 

targeted training and development skills. In order for a job to qualify as a placement, it 

must pay at least $10.00 per hour.

Sector specific business services include ongoing business needs assessment, employee 

recruitment and placement for entry- and mid-level jobs, training or education for new 

or existing workers, and retention strategies to reduce employee turnover. Employers 

are also provided with non-workforce services such as marketing and strategic 

planning to facilitate business growth.
Appendix A 117

The City has allocated $570,000 in additional money this year for the New York City 

Transportation Center to account for the growing number of jobless New Yorkers.

SBB also released an RFP last fall seeking vendors for two additional Sector-Based 

Career Centers. This was an open competition open to anybody wanting to apply 

including vendors operating existing Centers. In the last RFP that resulted in the 

Transportation Career Center, the City provided a list of 5 sectors of interest, but 

allowed proposers to make the case for other sectors, if they desired.

Capacity‐Building

P/PV is responsible for capacity-building including offering a Sector Strategies 

Practicum as well as public workshops. This strategy was created because the pilot 

efforts revealed that few New York City organizations were able to design and manage 

a sector-based employment strategy.

Twelve partnerships applied to participate in the first Sector Strategies Practicum and 

ten were selected (one has since dropped out). Each partnership has two participants 

that attended all sessions and were encouraged to bring other colleagues to specific 

sessions. The types of organizations participating include community colleges, 

workforce development agencies, and economic development organizations. The 

Practicum was launched in July with an opening retreat. Monthly sessions have been 

held since September 2008 on topics such as working with unions, career advancement 

strategies, and affecting job quality. As a complement to the practicum, P/PV and SBS 

are working with the New York City Employment and Training Coalition to deliver a 

series of public workshops. There were 1 1⁄2 public workshops held in 2008 and one 

offered to date in 2009. The first was a “Sector 101” that educated the workforce 

community on this work. One hundred and forty people attended. A day long “Jobs 

Outlook and Trends Forum” was held in February 2009.

Another aspect of capacity-building is support from the New York City Labor Market 

Information Service. There was a workshop at a Practicum session on LMIS.

Additionally, the first product from the LMIS was a report on the transportation 

industry to support the work of the first Sector-based Career Center. Future reports 

may also be tied into the sector focus of new Career Centers. 

System Change/Advocacy

The WDFG believes that the mere existence of Sector Career Centers is a system change.

The SBS is also seeking to use the Sector Career Center One Stops to help internalize 

more of a sector approach into the seven existing WIA Career Centers. Additionally, 

they are considering how to maximize the system of Career Centers to better meet the 

needs of business. The Business Solutions Centers are co-located in the One Stops and 

provide a range of business services including start-up assistance and entrepreneurial 

training. They want to put a structure in place to foster coordination and transfers

among the Career Centers. One example is a recent large job order for the One Stops to 
Appendix A 118

provide placements for two new Whole Foods stores. The system ended up providing 

400 placements. One Center took the lead to connect interviews and time slots and 

distributed credit for the placements across the participating Centers. The SBS is 

looking to continue this model and find more ways of encouraging “system-like” 

behavior among the Career Centers. 

Another advocacy initiative supported by private funders is a new project managed by 

the New York Employment and Training Coalition to ensure that mayoral candidates 

focus on workforce development in the 2009 Mayoral election.

In addition, the WDFG awarded a grant to the New York State Association of Training 

and Employment Professionals to explore the utilization of the Food Stamp 

Employment and Training program for workforce and skills training programs. 

Participant Outcomes

Measure Job Seekers Incumbent Workers

# WPs providing service 3 0

# Participants served 3018 N/A

# Completions 2288 N/A

# Degrees/credentials earned 97 N/A

# Job placements 352 N/A

# Placement wage <$9.99 60 N/A

# Placement wage $10.00–$14.99 22 N/A

# Placement wage >$15.00 36 N/A

N/A: Data not applicable for program type or reported not applicable or unknown/missing by WP.

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System
Appendix A 119

Pennsylvania Fund for Workforce Solutions

Overview

The Pennsylvania Fund for Workforce Solutions (PFWS) builds on the state’s Industry 

Partnerships (IPs) program, an investment of approximately $20 million per year. IPs, 

are employer/worker consortiums that bring together companies with similar products, 

markets and human resource needs. They are organized by industry sector based on an 

analysis of where Pennsylvania, and/or multi-county regions, appears to have a 

competitive advantage. The intent of the IPs is to make human capital investments that 

will lead to greater productivity, enlightened human resource practices and innovation 

– thereby helping these industries to survive and grow. The state has created over 80 

Industry Partnerships (IP) since the program’s inception in 2004. PFWS’ funders seek to 

use their private and public investments to build access to Industry Partnership 

programs and increase IP services for low-income, low-skilled adults statewide. PFWS 

does this in two ways. First, PFWS seeds funding collaboratives in key regions of the 

state that bring together public and private funding to expand the capacity of IPs to 

serve low income workers. Second, the collaborative focuses on public policy advocacy.

Funding Collaborative composition, governance, and fundraising

The PFWS statewide collaborative has 11 funders. Five of these funders are on the 

Management Committee and include representatives from the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industries, Keystone Research Center, and 

representatives from Regional Funds. The Regional Funds include: the Erie Fund for 

Workforce Solutions (led by The Erie Community Foundation); Southeast Pennsylvania 

Fund for Workforce Solutions (led by United Way of Southeastern Pennsylvania); the 

South Central Pennsylvania Fund for Workforce Solutions (led by the Foundation for 

Enhancing Communities); and the Southwest Pennsylvania Fund for Workforce 

Solutions (led by the Pittsburgh Foundation).

The Management Committee considers and approves starter grants for local sites.

Regional representatives recue themselves from decisions on proposals from their own 

regions. The Keystone Research Center (KRC) is the fiscal agent for the collaborative, 

provides technical assistance to the regional funds, and leads the policy advocacy work 

for the collaborative.

PFWS projects its annual budget to be $1,842,000. Of the $722,500 funds raised through 

November 2008, $297,500 was committed as pooled funding and $425,000 was aligned. 

Goals and strategy

PFWS has three overriding goals. The first is to advocate for workforce reform 

strategies to better serve low wage workers. Investments by PFWS aim to reinforce the 
Appendix A 120

Commonwealth’s commitment to encourage IPs to launch initiatives that expand 

opportunity for low-income workers. 

A second goal is to provide an advocacy platform to build on and reinforce state led 

workforce reform strategies. The PFWS investments aim to create an external “push” to 

embed Pennsylvania workforce reforms in the current workforce systems and create a 

culture that lasts beyond the current administration. 

A third related goal is to develop a workforce reform stakeholder base for long term 

systems impact. The PFWS statewide collaborative will do this by building a critical 

mass of local and regional funders, as well as leaders, who understand and are invested 

in the IP strategy and workforce systems reform. 

Workforce partnership goals and strategy

PFWS has a dual strategy of supporting the development of regional funding 

collaboratives while creating “pilot” workforce partnerships. There have been four 

emerging regional funding collaboratives; three of those have had some form of 

workforce partnership “pilots” connected to Industry Partnerships. This has developed 

differently in each region.

• A group of funders in Greater Philadelphia, the Knight Foundation, United Way 

of Southeast Pennsylvania, William Penn Foundation, the Philadelphia 

Workforce Investment Board, and the city, became a NFWS funding 

collaborative in 2008. Its focus during 2007 was building its collaborative strategy 

and it did not have a workforce partnership pilot. The Keystone Research Center 

provided this group with assistance with strategy and organizational 

development such as assistance developing a theory of change and requests for 

proposals.

• In the Erie region, there is a workforce partnership organized in metals that is 

being funded by the Annie E. Casey Foundation. The region’s community 

foundation and the state are also current funders.

• In South Central Pennsylvania, a workforce partnership “pilot” focused on 

health created with funds from United Way. This pilot is managed by the South 

Central Pennsylvania Workforce Investment Board’s health IP.

• Southwestern Pennsylvania has a funding collaborative that includes the 

Pittsburgh Foundation, the Heinz Foundation, and American Eagle. It is 

currently running two pilot projects; one focused on lifelong learning accounts 

(LILAs) and the other seeking to build a labor-management clearinghouse 

focused on two broad industries: services (building services and hotels) and 

building construction.

Capacity‐building strategy

The sector academy capacity-building strategy for industry partnerships has been 

delayed due to state funding cuts. PFWS is conducting research documenting what IPs 
Appendix A 121

are doing to serve a low income population, which it will use as the cornerstone for its 

capacity building strategy.

Policy/system change strategy

One of PFWS’ priorities has been advancing legislation to make the Industry 

Partnership structure and funding permanent. There is new legislation being 

introduced that will formalize many of the current features of the IP strategy and bring 

to the table representatives from the state’s education and Temporary Aid to Need 

Families (TANF) communities. KRC has taken a lead organizing the advocacy effort 

across the emerging regional collaboratives. It has also received a financing grant from 

NFWS to research how the Pennsylvania Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund can be 

used as a mechanism to fund the Industry Partnerships.

In addition, PFWS reports that it has already made some promising movement toward 

system change by supporting the state to revise the guidelines for IP grants to 

strengthen the emphasis on career advancement for low-wage workers. For example, 

the state revised its monthly performance reports and the qualitative annual report 

required of IPs to make career advancement for low-skilled workers a clearer priority.

Another change has occurred in how the Pennsylvania Workforce Investment Board 

allocates its training and service dollars. It recently agreed to expand its allocation of 

funding for IPs from 25 percent to 50 percent to training and services focused on new 

hires. This policy will be reflected in the 2009-2010 Industry Partnership Guidelines. 

Participant Outcomes

Aggregate dashboard metrics for participant outcomes reported through December 31, 

2008 include the two pilot projects in Erie and Harrisburg. The results are as follows:

Measure Job Seekers Incumbent Workers

# WPs providing service 2 2

# Participants served 140 3

# Completions 87 2

# Degrees/credentials earned 41 2

# Job placements 49 N/A

# Placement wage <$9.99 6 N/A

# Placement wage $10.00–$14.99 32 N/A

# Placement wage >$15.00 9 N/A

N/A: Data not applicable for program type or reported not applicable or unknown/missing by WP.

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System
Appendix A 122

Skill Up Rhode Island

Overview

Skill Up Rhode Island is a collaborative of five investors that aligns funds to support 

workforce partnerships with a dual customer approach. The collaborative seeks to 

create a voice supporting system change at the local, state and employer levels that will 

meet the workforce needs of Rhode Island employers while also “skilling up” 

incumbent workers and low-income residents to acquire better industry jobs. The 

collaborative targets the Providence metro area, northern Rhode Island and Aquidneck 

Island (Newport) . Rhode Island has one of the highest unemployment rates in the 

country and was one of the first states to rise above ten percent during the current 

recession. 

The five investors that constitute the Skill Up Rhode Island collaborative began working 

together formally in early 2008, building off the United Way of Rhode Island’s (UWRI) 

previous planning and capacity building work with four dual customer focused 

partnerships. NFWS’s initial investment in Skill Up was made in March 2007, under a 

Workforce Intermediaries grant managed by the Annie E. Casey Foundation. While not 

every investor supports every project, the five investors have since been aligning their 

funds to support workforce partnerships and working together on capacity building 

and system change projects. The four workforce partnerships include: a pre-apprentice 

program for Providence residents in the building trades industry in cooperation with 

labor unions; a health care partnership providing workforce services to new hires and 

existing workers in two hospitals; a distribution and logistics partnership providing soft 

skills to pre-employment participants seeking placement in the industry; and a marine 

trades partnership that trains new and incumbent workers for boatbuilding. The latter 

two partnerships have been hit hard by the recession and have recently undergone 

“corrective action planning” for activity through 2009. 

Funding Collaborative composition, governance, and fundraising

The members of Skill Up Rhode Island funding collaborative include the United Way of 

Rhode Island, Rhode Island Foundation, Annie E. Casey Foundation, State of Rhode 

Island Office of Adult Education, and the Governor’s Workforce Board (GWB) which is 

managed by the State of Rhode Island Department of Labor and Training.

The funding collaborative has an informal structure that is used to identify mutual 

investments and discuss data, concerns, issues and common goals of these aligned 

investments

Each Skill Up funder is investing in projects where the other funders are present and 

has set aside targeted funds with specific expectations, definitions, metrics, and 

reporting requirements. However, at this stage the timeframes for awards are not fully 
Appendix A 123

aligned nor are the outcomes expectations. There is generally a lead funding entity with 

other funders following. To align their grant making, the Rhode Island Foundation and 

Office of Adult Education require that their workforce grants tie to Skill Up. The United 

Way will only fund projects that have leveraged participation from at least one of the 

other funders. 

In 2008 the investment of the five funders in the four partnerships and capacity building 

grants was approximately $1,275,000, well over the six to one match required by NFWS. 

Goals and strategy

Skill Up aims to provide solutions to two sets of problems. The first is a gap in meeting 

employer and employee needs. Employers have limited capacity and resources to invest 

in under-skilled workers that result in low productivity, high turnover, and unmet 

employer demands for labor. Also, changes in the labor market make it difficult for 

low-skilled workers and job-seekers to secure family-supporting jobs. Skill Up is 

addressing these gaps by developing a strategy of funding and supporting workforce 

partnerships that fill open entry-level jobs with trained, qualified, andlow-income 

workers. The assumption is that these workers will obtain and stay in jobs that lead to 

family supporting wages.

The second problem is related to challenges in current workforce policy and systems, 

especially as they relate to low-income, low-skilled adults. The collaborative members 

believe that large employers, training providers, and state officials, are not always 

strategically working together to solve common workforce problems, especailly as 

related to entry-level workers. There is also no single agenda that pushes workforce 

development into the public’s consciousness and funding for workforce development 

efforts is hanlded by many different organizations. Skill Up is addressing these 

problems by monitoring and sharing the results and practice of its workforce 

partnerships. Three of the funders in particular (United Way, Office of Adult Education, 

and the Governor’s Workforce Board) have a strategy to convene influential public and 

private parties to develop a public agenda for changes in the current workforce 

development and public education systems. The goal is to expand career ladders, 

incumbent worker training, and sector initiatives that meet both employer and lowskill, low-income worker needs through public and private system change.

Workforce partnership goals and strategy

Skill Up has funded four workforce partnerships in sectors that have career paths, pay 

decent wages, and are an important part of the Rhode Island economy. Part of the preplanning activities funded and supported by UWRI from 2005 to 2007 included 

searching out good employer partners with institutional capacity and interest in 

participating in a dual customer approach. The sectors targeted include health care, 

marine trades and construction. A fourth sector identified was the distribution and 

logistics industry. The partnerships began implementation activities at varying points in 
Appendix A 124

2007, with implementation grants ranging from $108,000 to $125,000 per year. The four 

workforce partnerships are:

Building Futures: Building Futures is a work readiness and construction skills preapprentice program linked to a pipeline of neighborhood workers. It has a particular 

focus on getting low-income youth into the trades and engages in extensive outreach 

through neighborhood-based organizations. So far it has found the barriers and 

challenges of the participating youth far more challenging than originally thought. The 

partnership is driven by the Rhode Island Building Trades Association, composed of 17 

member trade unions. A fair share of its funding comes from the Annie E. Casey 

Foundation. 

Stepping Up: Stepping Up is a career ladder training program in health care that began in 

September of 2007. It focuses on training incoming and incumbent entry level workers 

to fill and advance in employment opportunities at Women and Infants’ Hospital and 

Rhode Island Hospital. There is also union leadership from the United Allied Nursing 

Professionals (UNAP). As with Building Futures, a fair share of its funding comes from 

the Annie E. Casey Foundation.

Woonsocket Employment Network: WEN (now called Rhodes to Success) is a northern 

Rhode Island work readiness training program that started with placement of local 

residents in a CVS Distribution Center. The lead agent is the Family Resources 

Community Action Program, a multi-service nonprofit social service organization. 

There was hope that WEN would develop employer partnerships with a focus in the 

distribution and logistics sector in the Woonsocket area. One such potential employer 

partner, Owings Minor Distribution Center, never came to fruition and employer 

partners remain elusive in part because this region has been one of the most affected by 

the recession. As of April 1, 2009, this partnership will no longer focus its attention on 

distribution/logistics. For the remainder of 2009, a new alliance will be forged with a 

local nursing home facility where case management will be provided by the social 

service agency and training will be conducted by the health care center

Marine Trades Partnership: The Marine Trades partnership began November 2007, the last 

of the four to be funded for implementation activities. It has created a modular 

curriculum for boatbuilding skills for entry level and incumbent workers through the 

Rhode Island Marine Trades Association and the International Yacht Restoration 

School, which is the lead agency for the project. The training is linked to employment 

with two area employers. The recession has halted most hiring in the industry, and 

layoffs have begun among partner employers. The workforce partnership has reported 

that they are conscious of “overpromising and under-delivering” on employment 

prospects to individuals. Therefore, it has stopped recruitment and marketing the 

program until there are hiring opportunities once again. Skill Up RI has escrowed the 

remaining monies on this current project and will renew funding when the demand 

returns. Industry leaders believe that Marine Trades will come back.
Appendix A 125

Capacity‐building strategy

UWRI invested in significant capacity-building prior to giving implementation grants to 

the workforce partnerships. Each of the four partnerships applied and received a 

capacity-building grant of up to $50,000. The capacity-building stage occurred during 

late 2005 and into 2006 and preceded the application for implementation funding. This 

front end capacity-building strategy was an important step toward building the 

partnerships and set the tone and framework for what was expected from a dual 

customer, sector model. Capacity-building grants were also used to test whether each 

of the partnerships held the promise of delivering. Skill Up has continued its capacitybuilding activities with each partnership through 2008. This work undertaken with 

assistance from Abt Associates, Inc., the independent evaluators for Skill UP, included 

encouraging the creation of defined work plans, facilitating peer-learning between Skill 

Up grantees and other workforce development efforts, and advising individual 

partnerships on the creation and design of a management information system to track 

outcomes. 

Policy/system change strategy

Skill Up identified three overall policy and system change goals: advocate for system 

change efforts aligned with Skill Up workforce partnerships’ needs; change public 

workforce development and education to provide a stronger dual-customer approach; 

and align public and private funding and strategy. 

System change activities have included supporting legislation that directs funding or 

programs that enhance Skill Up goals. It has funded the RI Workforce Alliance to 

engage in legislation on its behalf, supported and participated in a legislative 

commission created to enhance the role of the Community College of Rhode Island in 

building a 21st century labor force, and supported the passage of new Food Stamp 

Employment and Training (FSET) legislation. 

Skill Up has also worked with the Office of Adult Education to support and shape new 

efforts to stabilize funding and build a new center for professional development which 

is based at Rhode Island College. It has funded several Industry Partnership retreats 

conducted by the Workforce Strategy Center for the Governor’s Workforce Board

grantees. It has also funded and supported parts of the Mayor of Providence’s 

Pathways to Opportunity Anti-Poverty initiative, with a particular emphasis on the 

industry pathways and sector components. 

A grant has also been given to the newly formed Welcome Back Foreign 

Recredentialing Center to assist those coming to the state who have health care related 

credentials. The Center is modeled after the Welcome Back Centers of San Francisco and 

Boston. Significant progress is being made to assist healthcare professionals in 

recertifying their skills.
Appendix A 126

A regional skills alliance has also been given a grant to explore a multi sectoral 

approach to labor force development for the Aquidneck Island region of the state with 

the focus on health care, hospitality/tourism, marine trades and financial services. 

Finally, Skill Up has addressed regulatory, employer and other practices that directly 

affect participants and employers of the partnerships, such as practices at some of the 

employer partners that block career pathways for participants. 

The collaborative has achieved some early signs of system change outcomes in its first 

year. For instance the hospitals have changed human resource, supervisory and training 

practice to provide for better career opportunities and skill acquisition for new and 

existing employees. The construction partnership has received approval from the state 

Apprenticeship Council to be the first pre-apprenticeship training program in the state.

It has also has become a “first source” hiring contractor for city of Providence 

construction projects. 

While it is still early, there are promising signs of change in policy that can be attributed 

in part to Skill Up. These include new, redesigned, or expanded public programs that 

support the goals of this initiative such as the Governor's Workforce Board/WIB 

Strategic Plan, funding for the Community College Legislative Commission and a 

sectoral jobs initiative embedded in the Providence Mayor’s Pathways to Opportunity 

Anti-Poverty Taskforce. 

Participant Outcomes

Two of the Skill Up Partnerships, Stepping Up in healthcare and Building Futures in 

construction, are on target for outcomes based on quarterly reports reviewed by the 

local evaluators (Abt Associates, Inc.) and United Way staff. However, two of the 

partnerships, Marine Trades and WEN, appear to be severely impacted by the state of 

Rhode Island's economy. The Marine Trades has experienced hiring freezes, and even 

layoffs. WEN’s lone employer, the CVS Distribution Center, also has a hiring freeze.

Aggregate dashboard metrics for Skill Up Rhode Island’s participant outcomes reported 

through December 31, 2008 include:
Appendix A 127

Measure Job Seekers Incumbent Workers

# WPs providing service 4 2

# Participants served 309 96

# Completions 155 42

# Degrees/credentials earned 44 32

# Job placements 94 N/A

# Placement wage <$9.99 14 N/A

# Placement wage $10.00–$14.99 63 N/A

# Placement wage >$15.00 17 N/A

N/A: Data not applicable for program type or reported not applicable or unknown/missing by WP.

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System
Appendix A 128

Cohort 2 Collaboratives: Begun September 2007

Opportunity Chicago

Overview

Opportunity Chicago is a five-year, $23.6 million initiative to provide training for 

thousands of residents of the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA). Now in its fourth 

year, the initiative supports a larger city effort to transform Chicago’s public housing, 

called the Plan for Transformation. By expanding intensive social service and workforce 

development programs and focusing several major public systems on CHA residents, 

Opportunity Chicago aims to place 5,000 individuals in jobs by the end of 2010. It is a 

strategic convener, aligner of many diverse housing and workforce efforts in the city, 

and funding entity that can fill gaps and bring to bear new policy and initiative to 

further its goals. Opportunity Chicago’s participation in the NFWS is focused on the 

creation of sector-based partnerships that train and connect CHA residents to jobs. It 

currently supports a hospitality and manufacturing sector workforce partnership and 

hopes to launch others in health care and energy efficiency. The City of Chicago has 2.8 

million residents and a base of 2.5 million jobs. 

Funding Collaborative composition, governance, and fundraising

Members of Opportunity Chicago include foundations, city and state agencies, and 

private and nonprofit organizations. The Partnership for New Communities (PNC) is a 

funder collaborative that pools funds from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur 

Foundation, the Chicago Community Trust, and other foundation and corporate 

supporters. It was created to support the Plan for Transformation and is a key partner 

in the effort. Public agency members of Opportunity Chicago include the Chicago 

Housing Authority, Department of Community Development, Department of Family 

and Support Services, Chicago Workforce Board, City Colleges of Chicago, City of 

Chicago Mayor’s Office, the State of Illinois, and the US Department of Labor. Private 

and nonprofit organizations include the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce and 

Women Employed.

Opportunity Chicago is guided by a Strategic Advisors group that meets quarterly to 

set general direction and strategy, oversee general operation and provide strategic 

advice on policy matters. A subgroup of this Strategic Advisors group, called the Public 

Agency Partners group, meets on a more regular basis and is more involved in day to 

day implementation. There are also three working groups formed to support 

implementation decision-making. These groups are the Employer Engagement Working 

Group, Service Delivery Working Group and Policy/Sustainability Working Group.

Opportunity Chicago has raised its total planned budget of $23.6 million in aligned 

funds. This effort began as a 3-year initiative, but now extends through 2010. 
Appendix A 129

Goals and strategy

Opportunity Chicago’s overall goals are to place 5,000 residents in employment; engage 

and satisfy the workforce needs of employers from selected industries; streamline and 

enhance services for CHA residents; document and share models that address the 

challenges of low-skilled, low-income job seekers; and develop resources through 

public-private partnerships to expand programming. Opportunity Chicago is using the 

National Fund’s investment to develop and expand sector-based workforce 

partnerships to improve resident self-sufficiency through employment, strengthen the 

capacity of the public workforce development system, enhance employer involvement 

in workforce partnerships, and increase the quality of resident employment outcomes 

and career advancement.

Workforce partnership goals and strategy

Opportunity Chicago’s original strategy was to implement pilot workforce initiatives in 

manufacturing, hospitality, healthcare, basic office and transportation, distribution and 

logistics. Each sector had an “industry specialist”, either an individual or an 

organization with industry knowledge and connections, responsible for developing 

relationships with employers and engaging them in developing training programs 

tailored to specific job opportunities.

Opportunity Chicago determined from the pilot stage that two existing sector-based 

workforce centers were promising platforms for employer engagement activities. For 

manufacturing, Opportunity Chicago’s investments will build on an existing 

institutional infrastructure with the city’s sector-based one-stop workforce center, called 

ManufacturingWorks. The initiative will continue to develop and embed practices that 

make it easier for public housing residents to get jobs with the industry through 

ManufacturingWorks, and advance in their careers in the sector. Similarly, for the 

hospitality sector, Opportunity Chicago has decided to build on existing institutional 

infrastructure by supporting ServiceWorks, a sector-focused one-stop. Support from 

Opportunity Chicago will enable ServiceWorks to better meet the needs of public 

housing residents, with the goal of expanding career pathways and integrating services 

for residents within the larger workforce development system.

Opportunity Chicago is also considering the development of a workforce partnership in 

the healthcare sector. Presently, Opportunity Chicago is reevaluating the best way to 

continue its work in this sector. In particular, it is exploring two new directions. T he 

first direction would be to build on the work of an organization funded by Opportunity 

Chicago to provide contextualized literacy training in the healthcare field. This 

organization has strong relationships with several major hospitals and could take on the 

role of a workforce intermediary by looking at career pathways for their graduates and 

working with employers to identify human resource practice and barriers to success.

The other direction would to become more formally involved in a new city-level 

partnership between one major hospital and a service provider.
Appendix A 130

Additionally, Opportunity Chicago is still exploring other opportunities that could 

emerge as a focus for future workforce partnerships. For example, the initiative hopes 

to leverage additional funding to develop new training opportunities in the energy 

efficiency sector, a new industry for Opportunity Chicago and an area of growing 

demand in the City of Chicago.

Capacity‐building strategy

Opportunity Chicago seeks to build the capacity of the CHA’s resident services system, 

called FamilyWorks, to better integrate a demand-side focus. Opportunity Chicago 

made a capacity-building grant to Women Employed to bring its Career Coach tool to 

FamilyWorks service providers and residents so that both could learn about career 

planning earlier in the case management process. In addition to this grant, Opportunity 

Chicago’s investments in the industry specialists and the work of the Employer 

Engagement working group continues to help instill a dual customer approach within

the FamilyWorks agencies. 

Policy/system change strategy

Opportunity Chicago’s system change strategy to date has been to test and implement a 

number of pilot projects that promote a dual-customer focus, long-term career planning 

and longer engagements with participants to promote advancement – and use the 

findings to advocate for better practices in the public workforce system and in the 

private funding community. To do this, Opportunity Chicago has purposely engaged 

existing public structures, such as CHA’s FamilyWorks, Chicago’s workforce board, 

and city departmental efforts, to find and create buy-in for new policies that are 

responsive to the dual-customer orientation and other promising approaches. 

In 2008, Opportunity Chicago also was scheduled to launch their policy/sustainability 

working group to plan and advance policy and system change strategies in the last two 

years of the effort (2009 and 2010). The working group was temporarily put on hold as 

the Chicago Jobs Council hired a new senior policy associate, but was launched in early 

2009.

One of Opportunity Chicago’s early stage accomplishments has been successful 

inclusion of Opportunity Chicago language into the Request for Services for the city’s 

new one-stop contractor targeting the hospitality sector, called ServiceWorks. The 

language makes sure the new contractor will need to be responsive to the needs of CHA 

residents and demonstrate how they will successfully engage this population.

Another accomplishment has been Opportunity Chicago’s influence of FamilyWorks 

practices to be more responsive to employer and CHA resident customer needs.

Opportunity Chicago’s investments in technical assistance have helped fill an 

information gap between resident needs and employers needs. The new FamilyWorks 

system, now institutionalized, is better able to let residents know about job 
Appendix A 131

opportunities, link residents to skill building programs, and understand employer 

needs for qualified employees. 

Participant Outcomes

Aggregate dashboard metrics for Chicago Opportunity’s participant outcomes (with 

only one partnership, ManufacturingWorks, fully reporting) reported through 

December 31, 2008 include:

Measure Job Seekers Incumbent Workers

# WPs providing service 2 1

# Participants served 98 N/A

# Completions 40 N/A

# Degrees/credentials earned 22 N/A

# Job placements 16 N/A

# Placement wage <$9.99 7 N/A

# Placement wage $10.00–$14.99 9 N/A

# Placement wage >$15.00 0 N/A

N/A: Data not applicable for program type or reported not applicable or unknown/missing by WP.

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System
Appendix A 132

Los Angeles Workforce Funders Collaborative

Overview

The Los Angeles Workforce Funder Collaborative is a public-private partnership led by 

the United Way of Greater Los Angeles. It reaches across the vast Los Angeles 

metropolitan region and includes seven workforce investment boards. This 

collaborative has funded seven workforce partnerships in three sectors - health care, 

construction, and logistics/goods movement – and plans to expand its scope to include 

green jobs and green technologies. Its system change strategy is focused on building the 

capacity of the workforce investment system and better coordinating the efforts of the 

region’s workforce investment boards and community colleges. 

Funding Collaborative composition, governance, and fundraising

There are ten funders that make up the LAWFC, including the United Way of Great Los 

Angeles, California Community Foundation, The California Endowment, Chancellor’s 

Office of the California Community Colleges, the California Employment Development 

Department (EDD), and Kaiser Permanente. A number of corporate foundations are 

also part of the collaborative. The United Way is the LAWFC’s lead agency. It provides 

administrative, research, and evaluation support, and manages the pooled funds. Each 

member of the collaborative participates in both the Steering Committee and the 

Funding Committee. The Steering Committee meets bi-monthly and is responsible for 

making strategic decisions, setting grant-making priorities, and developing 

relationships with target partners. The Funding Committee designs the funding process 

and makes the funding decisions. All decisions are made by consensus. The LAWFC 

also convenes a Stakeholder Consultation Group twice a year to receive input from key 

local stakeholders, including community colleges, labor, business, local government 

and Los Angeles County’s seven workforce investment boards.

The LAWFC total budget in 2008 was $2,095,188. Some of these funds are pooled and 

some aligned. Prior to the downturn in the economy and the state’s budget crisis, 

LAWFC had been able to meet – and even exceed – its funding goals without outreach 

to additional funders. LAWFC reports that now it will likely face new fundraising 

challenges. The collaborative will be looking at new “hot” sectors, like green jobs, and 

will be courting new funders to meet this challenge. 

Goals and strategy

LAWFC is guided by the following three overarching goals. The first is building 

financial stability for underrepresented populations. LAWFC will achieve this goal by 

supporting education, training, career counseling, job placement, and support services. 

The second goal is improving business vitality through solid employment and business 

practices. To do this, LAWFC will engage employers in the design and implementation 

of workforce partnerships, and will work to increase employer participation in 

workforce development. The third goal is to build a regional workforce system that is 
Appendix A 133

aligned and efficient, and able to meet the needs of employers and community 

residents. LAWFC will support the development of regional workforce partnerships 

and introduce opportunities for regional focus and collaboration.

Workforce partnership goals and strategy

LAWFC is funding workforce partnerships in three sectors – health care, construction, 

and logistics/goods movement. It also is considering “green” as a separate sector. 

LAWFC’s partnerships targets vulnerable and underrepresented populations.

LAWFC announced its first round of grants in August 2008, eight grants for a total of 

$1.3 million. The grants included four in health care, three in construction, and one in 

logistics/goods movement. The grantees include community-based organizations, 

workforce investment boards, and unions. All have had some experience running 

training programs. In some cases, community colleges are providing the training. 

The health care projects include both those with a focus on entry level workers and at 

least one that targets incumbent workers. There is a major emphasis on training for 

Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) positions and programs that help CNAs move into 

Licensed Vocational Nursing (LVN) jobs. One program includes a broader focus on 

allied health. One of the funded construction programs provides training and 

placement in a range of construction skills. It includes a non-traditional and a “green” 

component, and targets a re-entry population. The logistics grantee is the Teamsters 

union associated with the Port of Los Angeles. It is providing training in long-haul 

trucking.

The health care grantees are:

• Goodwill: This program provides CNA and LVN training. The targeted 

populations are low-income adults and at risk older youth.

• Jewish Vocational Services: JVS provides training for positions as home 

attendants/personal care attendants, and CNAs/home health aides.

• Southeast Lost Angeles County Workforce Investment Board: This WIB provides 

CNA/LVN training. It is mostly targets entry-level workers but also will identify 

four CNA incumbent workers to move up to LVN.

• Worker Education Resource Center: The program is a labor-management 

partnership between the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services and 

the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) that supports education and 

training for low wage incumbent workers.

The construction grantees are:
Appendix A 134

• Pacific Asian Consortium for Employment (PACE): PACE targets green jobs, including 

photo-voltaic installation, and energy efficiency retrofitting installer. PACE offers 

on-the-job training and supportive services.

• Playa Vista Job Opportunity and Business Services: This program will work as an 

intermediary in the construction industry and help develop the capacity of other 

organizations doing work in this field. It will also provide services to low-income 

adults and older youth.

• Venice Community Housing Corporation: The program is an intensive 12 to 18 month 

secondary education and job training program that provides academic 

instruction, life skills, construction vocational training, paid on-the-job work 

experience, and job placement to at-risk youth.

The logistics grantee is the Teamsters Joint Council #42 Training Academy, a four week 

intensive drivers training and employment program. The Teamsters union associated 

with the port of Los Angeles is providing training in long-haul trucking.

Capacity‐building strategy

LAWFC’s capacity-building strategy is to help grantees gain better access to and 

dialogue with community colleges and business. The collaborative has held several 

capacity-building events since its inception, including two meetings on the logistics 

sector which involved employers and the education community. As part of this effort, 

LAWFC worked with several area community colleges on a redesign of their 

curriculum. LAWFC also hired a contractor, America Learns, to build and provide 

technical assistance for a workforce partnership database. 

Policy/system change strategy

LAWFC is engaged in two related system changes efforts: one at the city level and one 

at the county level. At the county level, the United Way and California Economic 

Development Department (EDD) have convened a regular meeting of the region’s seven 

Workforce Investment Boards to explore ways they can better coordinate and integrate 

their efforts. As a first project, the group has decided to jointly promote the county-wide 

adoption of a workforce readiness credential developed by a group that included both 

the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce and the United Way. LAWFC is also meeting 

with each workforce investment board to gain deeper insight into common priorities.

The seven workforce investment boards put together a joint advocacy effort aimed at 

federal policymakers scheduled for March 2009.

At the city level, the Los Angeles Workforce Systems Collaborative – convened by the 

United Way, Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, and the Los Angeles Mayor’s office -

has been meeting for about a year to move the city’s workforce development 

organizations toward greater alignment of goals, objectives, and programs. This group 

includes the Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO, the adult education system 

(including the adult schools), the community colleges, EDD, and the Los Angeles

Economic Development Corporation. High level staff from each organization meets 
Appendix A 135

monthly to develop shared priorities. LAWFC has contracted with the Long Angeles 

Chamber of Commerce to support this system change work. 

LAWFC reports progress on several system change efforts. The first increased regional 

collaboration among the seven workforce investment boards including convening 

regular meetings among the seven boards and joint promotion of a workforce readiness 

credential, focus on green jobs, and federal advocacy. The second are those related to 

city-wide collaboration with the mayor’s office and other stakeholders. LAWFC has 

convened the Los Angeles Workforce Systems Collaborative and developed a strategic 

plan. City collaboration has led to a co-location project with one of the workforce 

investment boards and the community college as well as major commitments of jobs for 

the city’s summer youth program. 

Participant Outcomes

Participant outcomes reported for the eight workforce partnerships through December 

31, 2008 include:

Measure Job Seekers Incumbent Workers

# WPs providing service 7 1

# Participants served 1405 530

# Completions 96 380

# Degrees/credentials earned 75 33

# Job placements 154 N/A

# Placement wage <$9.99 25 N/A

# Placement wage $10.00–$14.99 55 N/A

# Placement wage >$15.00 74 N/A

N/A: Data not applicable for program type or reported not applicable or unknown/missing by WP.

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System
Appendix A 136

San Diego Workforce Funders Collaborative

Overview

The San Diego Workforce Funders Collaborative (SDWFC) covers San Diego County 

and has 11 members led by the San Diego Workforce Partnership, the county’s 

Workforce Investment Board. The collaborative has a goal to close the gap between the 

supply and demand for skilled workers in critical industry sectors and help prepare 

individuals for jobs in these sectors, providing them with livable wages and upward 

mobility. The collaborative also has a goal to improve access to career preparation and 

development services, particularly for populations that have been under-represented in 

targeted careers and improve the coordination of programs and policies in the 

workforce system. To date the SDWFC had funded two workforce partnerships, one in 

biotechnology and one in health care. It has also funded two planning grants to 

potential workforce partnerships in the health care sector. 

Funding Collaborative composition, governance, and fundraising

The San Diego Workforce Funders Collaborative (SDWFC) has 11 participating 

members. However, not all members are funders and not all funders are members. For 

example, San Diego Grantmakers is participating in an outreach and networking role

but not a funding role. Alternatively, the California Employment Development 

Department (EDD), which played a critical role in the collaborative’s development, has 

pledged funding but is not a member of the collaborative. The United Way is a 

collaborative member.

Collaborative members meet monthly as a committee and decisions are made by 

consensus. It has an informal Shareholder Consultation Group, including business, 

labor, community colleges, and other stakeholders that have supported the 

collaborative in various ways. San Diego’s Workforce Investment Board, the San Diego 

Workforce Partnership (SDWP), is the collaborative’s administrator.

SDWFC’s current budget is $786,767, of which roughly 45 percent is pooled funding 

inclusive of NFWS’ contribution. The rest of the budget is aligned funding. The 

collaborative is on target for raising its total budget for next year, and may even slightly 

exceed the target. So far fundraising has not been affected by the economic downturn. 

Goals and strategy

SDWFC’s stated goals for its initiative are:

• To close the gap between the supply and demand for skilled workers in industry 

sectors critical to the economic success of San Diego,

• To help prepare individuals for jobs that offer livable wages and upward 

mobility. 
Appendix A 137

• To improve access to career preparation and development services, particularly 

for populations that have been under-represented in the targeted careers.

• To promote greater coherence and coordination in programs and policies 

addressing education and workforce development needs.

Its strategy to achieve these goals is to first focus on one or two industry sectors, 

identify key needs, gaps or obstacles from both the employer and worker perspectives, 

prioritize funding opportunities, and create Requests for Proposals to address the issues 

identified. It will fund projects through pooled funding and aligned grant-making 

among its members and build a balanced portfolio of programs with both short-term 

and long-term goals. The collaborative will evaluate program performance to inform 

future funding strategy.

Workforce partnership goals and strategy

SDWFC is targeting workforce partnerships in two sectors: health care and 

biotechnology/life sciences. The collaborative has awarded four grants, two 

implementation grants and two planning grants, in these sectors. The awarded grants 

are the following:

• San Diego City College STEP UP Biotech Program: This life 

sciences/biotechnology program received an implementation grant to create a 

workforce pipeline from high school through industry. The program will 

develop a community college course series that results in an industry certificate 

and a path to further post-secondary education in biotechnology. The grant will 

also support the development of a pipeline from two high schools into the course 

series.

• North County Partnership for Healthcare Workforce Development: This 

program links educational institutions and community clinics to support 

students interested in pursuing careers in nursing and provides career 

advancement opportunities for incumbent workers in the community clinics.

Three community clinics in the North San Diego area are partners in the project.

There are also several educational partners.

• Southeastern San Diego Comprehensive Community Health and Life Initiative:

This is a six month planning grant to bring together a diverse set of community 

partners to design a community-based collaborative effort to connect 

southeastern San Diego residents to health care careers.

• MAAC Project Health Careers Initiative: SDWFC awarded a one year planning 

grant to develop a comprehensive health careers program to create a system of 

supports that allows low-income residents to enter health care careers.

Capacity‐building strategy

SDWFV has convened a committee to develop its capacity-building strategy. 
Appendix A 138

Policy/system change strategy

SDWFC does not have an explicit system change strategy and has no plans to do 

advocacy. However, according to SDWFC, an emphasis on system change is embedded 

in their grant making and is one criterion for awarding grants. The collaborative has 

reported some progress in system changes through the very early work of their 

grantees. For example, North County Health Services, a community clinic, has made 

changes in their policies related to education of incumbent workers. Similarly, San 

Diego City College has redesigned their biotechnology program to join with high 

schools to develop a pipeline that reaches back into the high school and allows seniors 

to enroll and begin working toward an industry certificate. 

Participant Outcomes

The workforce partnerships are still in the development stage and do not have any 

participant outcomes to report through December 31, 2008. 
Appendix A 139

Greater Washington Workforce Development Collaborative

Overview

The Greater Washington Workforce Development Collaborative covers the District of 

Columbia and eight counties in Maryland and Virginia. The collaborative grew out of 

an informal workforce learning group that was convened by the Community 

Foundation for the National Capital Region. GWWDC formed in the fall of 2007, partly 

to take advantage of the NFWS. GWWDC’s overall vision is to strengthen the regional 

education and skills training systems and nonprofit workforce providers through 

system change. It wants to meet employers’ needs in high demand sectors and increase 

the opportunities for low-skilled residents to advance their skills, employment, and 

earnings in two to three industry sectors. To date, the collaborative has chosen to focus 

on the health care and construction sectors.

Funding Collaborative composition, governance, and fundraising

GWWDC is composed of ten foundations, including the Annie E. Casey Foundation 

and Community Foundation of the National Capital Region. It also includes the DC 

Department of Employment Services, Carefirst BlueCross BlueShield, Fannie Mae, and 

Microsoft. The Community Foundation serves as the lead institution. GWWDC also 

includes several subcommittees, which come and go on an as-needed basis. The core 

work groups have been construction, health care, and policy/system change. 

The funders form a steering committee that oversees grant making and strategic 

direction. The collaborative is set up as a “pay for play” system, with each member 

committing a minimum of $15,000 to a pooled fund and only those who pay are able to 

make decisions on the steering committee. GWWDC is now debating whether to relax 

its “pay to play” rule so that it can include particularly public sector members who 

might align rather than pool their funding.

GWWDC has a three year budget of $1.3 million, and surpassed its first year budget 

goal of $430,000 in committed pooled funds by July 2008; it has also secured most of its 

commitments to fully fund its second year budget. Recently, the fundraising outlook 

has become more challenging. Due to the recession some members of the collaborative 

may not be able to increase their original commitments as they had hoped. The 

collaborative is now exploring new partners, such as environmental groups that may 

want to fund green jobs projects. It is also investigating the possibility of accessing 

federal funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Program.

Goals and strategy

The collaborative wants to enhance the capacity of the region’s workforce system by 

investing in system change efforts that create or change policies, enhance funding 

streams, develop or grow institutions, and build linkages between public, private, and 
Appendix A 140

non-profit programs. It also wants to meet employers’ needs in high demand sectors 

and increase the opportunities for low-skilled residents in the region. GWWDC has 

identified four strategies to meet these goals. The first is to expand low-income 

individuals’ ability to gain additional training and credentials. The second is to expand 

the capacity of existing efforts to connect qualified low-income DC residents to jobs and 

careers aligned with employer demand in targeted sectors. As part of this strategy, the 

collaborative will launch or expand two workforce development programs geared to 

both support low-income workers and employers. A third strategy is to strengthen the 

capacity of the broader workforce development service provider system and promote 

regional collaboration and partnerships through convening and investment. A fourth 

strategy is to build and coordinate a grassroots movement for improving communitybased support for workforce issues and programs.

GWWDC has also outlined a set of core principles guiding its work. They are 

regionalism and systems thinking; demand-driven, dual-customer focus; employer 

engagement; partnerships; sector-based approaches; career pathways; family selfsufficiency; shared prosperity; comprehensive services for individuals; responsive 

public policies; data-driven decision-making; and accountability.

Workforce partnership goals and strategy

GWWDC has targeted construction and health care as its target sectors. Workforce 

partnerships in these sectors will meet employer demand for jobs and provide lowincome residents with opportunities for job advancement and family-supporting wages.

In December 2008, GWWDC awarded two $150,000 grants in construction. Both focus 

on pre-apprenticeship and are in the planning stages, emphasize employer partnerships 

and build off the DC’s first source hiring agreement for all publicly-supported 

construction projects. The downturn in the economy may shape the pace and scale of 

these investments. One such publicly-supported project originally targeted is 

redevelopment of the Districts’ Anacostia Waterfront area. GWWDC is also a convening 

a health care subcommittee and has set aside $150,000 for each of the next two years to 

invest in and develop a regional workforce intermediary for the sector.

Capacity‐building strategy

GWWDC is focusing its capacity-building on professional development for DC’s large 

network of community based organizations. GWWDC conducted a survey of DC-based 

organizations and on this basis is planning three tiers of investment. The first is to 

provide monies for community-based organization staff to attend national learning 

activities. It recently sent staff to a national meeting on green jobs. The second is to 

develop a Leadership Academy for up to 10 teams of leaders of community-based 

organizations. This would be intensive learning and training for frontline staff. Third, a 

professional development series will provide frontline workforce professionals with an 

opportunity to upgrade their skills and learn how to effectively work with employers.
Appendix A 141

Policy/system change strategy

In the policy and system change area, GWWDC is supporting efforts to develop a 

community college for DC. GWWDC has invested $50,000 in a feasibility study that 

builds off a prior study by the Brookings Institution and DC Appleseed that called for a 

community college for DC. The initiative has strong support from the District Council 

and the acting president of the University of DC. In another policy initiative, GWWDC 

has hired a consultant to scan what other advocacy work is underway in DC. The 

collaborative will turn this into a short report to help inform other organizations and to 

direct its own funding. GWWDC plans to select three to four organizations to bring 

together to do advocacy work on a range of issues, including the development of the 

community college for DC. In addition to these efforts, GWWDC convened local 

workforce grant makers in December 2008 to discuss the impact of the economic 

downturn on workforce grant making. 

Participant Outcomes

GWWDC focused its first year of activity on planning and research. There are no 

participant outcomes to describe at this point.
Appendix A 142

Cohort 3 Collaboratives: Begun October 2008

Greater Cincinnati Workforce Network

Overview

The Greater Cincinnati Workforce Network (GCWN) is a multi-state and multi-county 

effort, reaching from Southwest Ohio to Northern Kentucky to Southeast Indiana –

encompassing eight counties in all. The emergence of GCWN in 2008 was the result of 

two converging events: the development of the NFWS and work being done in 

Cincinnati to develop a strategic economic development plan, called “GO Cincinnati.” 

The network includes over 300 workforce development stakeholders. A 20 organization 

Leadership Council within this broader group makes all major decisions related to the 

NFWS-connected initiative and advises the actual funders collaborative. GCWN goal is 

to align workforce resources and strategies across systems and states and close skill 

gaps in three priority industries by creating workforce partnerships, building capacity 

and improving the regional workforce system. 

Funding Collaborative composition, governance, and fundraising

The initiative has four components: the Workforce Network, a Leadership Council, 

Funders Collaborative, and a lead organization that acts as fiscal agent and overall 

convener. The Workforce Network serves as a regional coordinator for the workforce 

development system. It meets quarterly to review progress and conduct strategic 

discussions. The Leadership Council serves as an “executive committee” of the larger 

Workforce Network. It meets monthly and includes stakeholders from the WIBs, 

philanthropic funders, state government, employers, chambers of commerce, 

postsecondary educational institutions, and service providers. The Funders 

Collaborative includes ten philanthropic funders that make funding decisions based on 

the advice of the Leadership Council. The funding collaborative also includes four

Workforce Investment Boards. It is hoped that the WIBs will eventually contribute or 

align funds. The Greater Cincinnati Foundation is the fiscal agent, and chair of the 

Leadership Council.

GCWN has raised $1.3 million of the required $1.8 million NFWS match from local 

foundations and corporations. All monies to date are pooled, but this may change as the 

collaborative and the public agencies begin to align investments. There have been 

competing notions about the procedures for making funding decisions. These views 

were ultimately reconciled and articulated in an Operating Guidelines document.

Goals and strategy

GCWN describes its overall strategy as a regional, sector-based, and data driven 

approach to career pathways for incumbent workers, low-skill workers, and entry-level 

workers graduating from technical high schools. It has developed a three-year strategic 

plan which includes goals to align workforce resources and strategies across systems 

and states. It also aims to close employer-worker skill gaps in the health care, advanced 
Appendix A 143

manufacturing, and construction industries. Part of this goal is to partner with youthfocused career pathways developed by two local initiatives, the Strive Student Success 

Networks and the Greater Cincinnati Tech Prep Consortium. GCWN also wants to 

build the capacity of the regional workforce system, with a particular emphasis on 

supporting the Hard-2-Hire Network that focuses on ex-offenders. 

Workforce partnership goals and strategy

GCWN’s workforce partnership strategy first includes expanding an existing health 

care collaboration. It will then launch two new sector initiatives, one in advanced 

manufacturing and one in construction. GCWN’s initial work includes convening, 

planning, and capacity-building to build partnerships that act like intermediaries.

The health care partnership began five years ago as an alliance between the area’s two 

biggest hospitals, Children’s Hospital and the Health Alliance, and the Great Oaks 

Institute of Technology and Career Development and the Cincinnati State Technical and 

Community College. The effort has produced promising outcomes for new entrants and 

incumbent workers. GCWN plans to grow this partnership to include other area 

hospitals and educational institutions. The plan is also to expand to include radiology 

technicians, registered nurses, respiratory therapists, surgical technicians, patient care 

assistants, and health unit coordinators. Work in manufacturing and construction will 

begin this year. 

Capacity‐building strategy

GCWN is concentrating its capacity building strategy in three areas: career pathways 

coaching, improvement in adult workforce networks, and a common data system.

GCWN has hired a career pathways coach to provide technical assistance to the sector 

projects as they are launched. It has also invested in the region’s Hard-2-Hire Network 

that convenes over 50 organizations that serve ex-offenders. GCWN will fund a Six 

Sigma facilitator to work with the network to examine what’s working and what’s not, 

identify gaps and barriers, and develop a strategy for improving service delivery.

GCWN has also developed a pilot to explore developing a common data collection 

system with common metrics across the workforce development system.

Policy/system change strategy

GCWN has formed a group to lead the public advocacy effort and begun outreach to 

local elected officials. GCWN has a range of interests, from addressing barriers to hire 

individuals with criminal records to increasing workforce funding. Other strategies 

being considered include working with leaders across sectors to build capacity and 

aligning regional workforce efforts with state initiatives in Ohio, Kentucky, and 

Indiana.

Participant Outcomes

GCWN was selected as a NFWS Funding Collaborative in October 2008. There are no 

participant outcomes to describe at this point.
Appendix A 144

Dan River Region Collaborative 

Overview

The rural Dan River Region (DRR) Collaborative in Virginia covers a multi-county area 

along the Virginia-North Carolina border. The core of the region includes a population

of 150,000 in Virginia’s Pittsylvania County, Halifax County, and the region’s largest 

city Danville. The current collaborative was initiated by the Danville Pittslyvania 

Chamber of Commerce, Community Foundation of the Dan River Region and Danville 

Regional Foundation in the summer of 2008. Still in its early planning stages, the overall 

goal of the DRR Collaborative is to promote career advancement by raising the skill 

levels of the existing workforce and to address employment barriers for those who 

remain unemployed, particularly those citizens from low-income backgrounds. 

Funding Collaborative composition, governance, and fundraising

The DRR Collaborative governance structure is still in the process of being defined.

Right now a steering committee of key people from the Danville Community College, 

Patrick Henry Community College, area Chambers, and Danville and Dan River Region 

community foundations has been established. Its role is to plan next steps including 

creating the organizational structure, attracting additional funders, and establishing the 

initiative’s theory of change. There will likely be a larger advisory group that guides 

program development. 

The collaborative has commitments of $865,000 toward its three-year match goal of 

$1,200,000. These commitments are from the Danville Regional Foundation Harvest 

Foundation, Community Foundation of the Dan River Region, and the state’s Tobacco 

Indemnification Committee (TIC). While the TIC’s funding commitment is for one-year, 

it may extend its funding commitment to cover two more years. If that happens, it 

makes the collaborative’s funding gap of $85,000 over the three-year period very 

manageable. Most of the funds are pooled. The funders will be the final deciders

regarding how to disperse pooled funds of the DRR Collaborative.

Goals and strategy

The DRR Collaborative is still in the strategy development process. The partners have 

taken a very deliberative approach to start-up, with a focus on building key 

partnerships and facilitating discussion on strategic vision and goals. The initial 

investors have brainstormed potential directions with care not to implement a strategy 

prior to enlisting key constituents. One of the early identified goals is to change the 

conversation in the region around workforce development. They want to tighten the 

connection between workforce and the business community and are beginning to 

formulate a strategy for that. One of the challenges will be to balance immediate 

demands in the region for workforce training while also planning and changing 

systems for the long term. For example, one business has asked for some very specific 

soft skill training. This might not fit since their initial discussions have focused on 
Appendix A 145

developing longer term mid-level to higher-level skill and educational acquisition to be 

able to reposition the region economically. 

The DRR Collaborative also sees its role as enhancing and maximizing current 

initiatives and resources; they don’t want to duplicate what is already part of the 

workforce system. This will allow them to fill gaps and bring new people to the table.

Workforce partnership goals and strategy

The DRR Collaborative will be leveraging analysis conducted as part of the region’s US 

DOL Regional Innovation Grant to help it target sectors for workforce partnerships. The 

current co-chair of the RIG process is also a core member of the collaborative’s steering 

committee, so the two processes are working hand-in-glove. Once the steering 

committee integrates this analysis into its theory of change, it will begin to identify 

workforce partnerships and the corresponding strategy.

Capacity‐building strategy

The steering committee has not determined its capacity-building strategy. As part of a 

rural region, the number of training providers is limited. 

Policy/system change strategy

The DRR Collaborative has already identified this initiative as a way to tighten the 

workforce development system to better connect to business and industry. The steering 

committee is in the process of developing the full policy and system change strategy. 

Participant Outcomes

The DRR Collaborative was selected as a NFWS Funding Collaborative in October 2008 

and is in the process of finalizing its strategies. There are no participant outcomes to 

describe at this point. 
Appendix A 146

Denver Metro Region: Front Range Workforce Funding Collaborative

Overview

The Front Range Workforce Funding Collaborative (FRWFC) is a new collaborative 

effort, developed in 2008 to serve the foothills communities that comprise the Denver 

metropolitan area (i.e., the “Front Range” of the Rocky Mountains), which is comprised 

of multiple counties and includes about half of the plains area of Colorado. The 

development of the FRWFC stems from related efforts to improve the way that 

workforce, education and employers in the area create and sustain a skilled workforce.

The FRWFC’s goals include 1) career advancement opportunities for low-skilled 

workers; 2) improved capacity of employers in high-demand industries to identify and 

retain a qualified workforce, and 3) systemic changes of the workforce development 

system.

Funding Collaborative composition, governance, and fundraising

The FRWFC currently includes 12 funding partners, including representatives from 

public/government agencies, industry, philanthropy, community-based organizations 

and other workforce development initiatives. The composition is somewhat different 

from previous efforts because in similar past efforts philanthropic organizations have 

not been actively recruited and included. The Mile High United Way functions as the 

lead organization and fiscal agent for the collaborative.

The FRWFC as a whole is structured as a voting partnership, requiring a commitment 

of $10,000 per year from voting organizations (i.e., those organizations that commit 

pooled or aligned funds). Observer and prospective organizations are also invited to 

selectively participate/observe. Multiple committees have been developed, including 

the Steering Committee, Funding/Grant Making Committee, Observer Group, 

Stakeholder Advisory Group, and Operations Team.

The FRWFC is on target to meeting its fundraising goals – it has already met its 

fundraising goal of $600,000 for the first year and has made significant progress toward 

the second year’s goal.

Goals and strategy

In order to meet its goals of improving career advancement opportunities for lowskilled workers, improving the capacity of employers to identify and retain workers, 

and supporting changes to the workforce development system, the FRWFC plans to 

focus investments in the following areas: workforce partnership implementation, 

capacity-building, policy advocacy/system change, evaluation, and management and 

administration.
Appendix A 147

Workforce partnership goals and strategy

The FRWFC is still in the process of developing its strategies for workforce partnership 

development and implementation. However, based on recent analysis of sector-based 

data, the FRWFC plans to target the health care, construction and skilled trades, and 

energy sectors. Due to similarities between the construction/skilled trades and energy 

sectors, those two sector foci may be combined during implementation.

The target population for the construction/skilled trades sector is apprentice-ready 

jobseekers. Target populations for the health care and energy sectors have not yet been 

identified.

Capacity‐building strategy

The FRWFC is in the process of identifying an explicit capacity-building strategy.

However, FRWFC stakeholders foresee multiple potential opportunities, including 

increasing the ability of staff within career centers to understand opportunities within 

various targeted sectors, especially the energy field.

Policy/system change strategy

Similarly, the FRWFC has not yet developed a systems-change strategy. However, 

potential opportunities in the area of system change include:

• Developing a public policy agenda, especially with respect to supporting 

workforce development within the construction/skilled trades sector.

• Contributing to upcoming efforts to examine and change public K-12 

requirements and school standards, in order to meet industry needs for a skilled 

workforce.

• Creating more efficient/effective strategies for outreach and recruitment into 

diverse target populations.

Participant Outcomes

The FRWFC was selected as a NFWS Funding Collaborative in 2008 and has not yet 

funded any Workforce Partnership; as such, there are no participant outcomes to 

describe at this point.
Appendix A 148

Des Moines Metro Region: Central Iowa Works Funding Collaborative

Overview

The Central Iowa Works (CIW) Funding Collaborative covers the three most populous 

counties of the Des Moines Metropolitan Statistical Area. This collaborative is part of a 

larger effort created by industry and public leaders to rebuild the prior workforce 

system that had collapsed amid scandal and lack of confidence. As part of its efforts, 

CIW has adopted a “Blueprint for Prosperity” that establishes goals and specific 

performance targets for five sectors. Sector Boards created by the initiative have defined 

the workforce needs and skills specific to its industry and tied those to a coordinated 

system of training and education leading to career pathways.

Funding Collaborative composition, governance, and fundraising

CIWFC includes the United Way of Central Iowa, which serves as the lead organization; 

Greater Des Moines Community Foundation; Greater Des Moines Partnership; Des 

Moines Area Community College; State Workforce Investment Board; Central Iowa 

Works Strategic Board; the Iowa Association of Business and Industry; and Iowa 

Workforce Development. A Strategic Board leads the overall CIW effort. There is a 

Technical Team within CIW that provides operational support and direction. It has 

taken on the task of developing a focus on low-income workers and finding funds to 

support this effort.

CIWFC’s total budgeted revenue for the current year is $955,700. Flexible, pooled funds 

come from the United Way of Central Iowa ($200,000), Greater Des Moines Partnership 

($60,000), and Greater Des Moines Community Foundation ($25,000). The remainder of 

the funding is aligned and includes $40,000 in dislocated worker WIA monies; $100,000 

in TANF funds; $400,000 from the Des Moines Area Community College; and $100,000 

from the state workforce agency, Iowa Workforce Development.

Goals and strategy

“Pathway to Prosperity,” a blueprint developed by the Greater Des Moines Partnership 

and adopted by CIW, guides the overall strategic effort of the collaborative. The 

document evaluated what was needed to build a competitive workforce system in Des 

Moines; outlined a vision for that system; and detailed the roles and responsibilities of 

key institutional players. It also established overarching goals and specific performance 

targets. The goals included: inclusion; alignment with economic development; career 

pathways; dual customer orientation; result-orientation; data driven; innovation; and 

strategic integration of institutions and resources.

Workforce partnership goals and strategy

CIW formed Sector Boards that have been meeting on a monthly basis since September 

2007. The Boards include representatives from community-based organizations, unions, 

K-12, and higher education, but are dominated by industry. The Boards are defining the 
Appendix A 149

workforce needs and skill sets needed over the next five to 10 years. Additionally, they 

seek to design and support a coordinated system of training, education, and services for 

pipelines and career pathways that lead to employment. There are currently five Sector 

Boards in construction, financial services, health care, information technology, and 

manufacturing. CIW may add three more in bioscience, service/retail, and education.

The Sector Boards have been a forum for employer input, discussing the dynamics in 

their industry, current pipelines, and how CIW can begin to address their workforce 

needs. One of the early strategies has been piloting a Career Readiness Certificate. The 

certificates assess worker readiness skills and give certified workers special hiring 

consideration among participating employers. The CIW’s Technical Team wants the 

Boards to adopt more of the characteristics of a workforce intermediary. 

Capacity‐building strategy

CIW has not yet developed a capacity-building strategy.

Policy/system change strategy

CIW has not yet developed a system change strategy. However, its entire effort is 

directed at building a new workforce development system within the framework of the 

shared vision outlined in “Pathway to Prosperity.”

A few of the early changes reported by the collaborative include:

• The development of the career pathways maps for each sector which give 

stakeholders in the system an understanding of ways to focus resources.

• The adoption of a Career Readiness Certificate strategy which both assesses 

workers and then works with employers to give special consideration to hiring 

certificate holders. Participating employers: (a) list the desirability of having a 

certificate in their job announcements; (b) refer potential hires to assessment 

sites; (c) allow the initiative to include their company logo among those 

supporting the Certificate. The plan is to assess 1,000 workers by June 2009. 

• A remedial program is a companion to the Certificate. It is a self-paced, on-line 

tutorial and is cross-walked to the Certificate. 

Participant Outcomes

CIWFC was selected as a NFWS Funding Collaborative in October 2008 and is just 

beginning to implement its strategies. It has reported serving 166 job seekers, 4 training 

completions, and 42 job placements. Twelve individuals have been placed into jobs 

within the $7.26 - $9.99 range, 19 in the $10.00 to $14.99 range, and 7 in the $15.00 to 

$19.99 range.
Appendix A 150

Measure Job Seekers Incumbent Workers

# WPs providing service 1 0

# Participants served 166 N/A

# Completions 4 N/A

# Degrees/credentials earned N/A N/A

# Job placements 42 N/A

# Placement wage <$9.99 12 N/A

# Placement wage $10.00–$14.99 19 N/A

# Placement wage >$15.00 9 N/A

N/A: Data not applicable for program type or reported not applicable or unknown/missing by WP.

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System
Appendix A 151

Workforce Solutions Collaborative of MetroHartford

Overview

The Workforce Solutions Collaborative of MetroHartford (WSCMH) targets the greater 

Hartford region in central Connecticut. The region’s core city, Hartford, has the second 

highest poverty rate in the nation and the second lowest literacy rate of any city over 

100,000 people. The metro region has the seventh oldest working population and a 

relatively small, young talent pool. WSCMH’s overall goal is to increase the financial 

stability and career advancement opportunities for incumbent and new workers as well 

as develop a talent pipeline to meet current employer needs. Its system change goal is to 

create a shared vision and coordinated investments within the region to build a longterm stable, educated and skilled workforce. The Steering Committee is developing the 

collaborative’s strategy with the goal of funding its first workforce partnerships in the 

summer of 2009. 

Funding Collaborative composition, governance, and fundraising

The members of the collaborative include both investors and non-investors. Investors 

include the United Way of Central and Northeastern Connecticut, Hartford Foundation 

for Public Giving, Capital Workforce Partners, the regional WIB, and the Nutmeg 

Foundation. The Northeast Utilities Fund (the region’s utility) originally expressed 

interest in being an investor, but this commitment has been put on hold due to the 

recession. These investors are joined by state agencies, educational institutions and 

advocacy organizations such as the State of Connecticut’s Office for Workforce 

Competitiveness and the ConnecticutWomen’s Educational and Legal Fund. Another 

group of non-investors includes business, industry and other groups, such as the 

Connecticut Business and Industry Association and Connecticut Center for Advanced 

Technololgy, Inc. As mentioned previously, Capital Workforce Partners is an investor,

key partner and has been a core convener for the collaborative along with the United

Way of Central and Northeastern Connecticut. 

The United Way of Central and Northeastern Connecticut is chairing the first year of 

the collaborative. The Steering Committee is finalizing governance, the workforce 

partnership model, and provides leadership and guidance for the collaborative.

The amount committed to date by WSCMH investors is $1,060,000, or roughly $740,000 

short of its three year $1.8 million NFWS match requirement. These funds are pooled. 

The collaborative anticipates aligned public funding to supplement its pooled funding.

For example, the State of Connecticut’s Office for Workforce Competitiveness is 

expected to align some funds to the effort. 

Goals and strategy

WSCMH’s general goal is to increase the financial stability and career advancement 

opportunities for incumbent and new workers. It also wants to develop a talent pipeline 
Appendix A 152

for key industries in the region and thereby enhance the region’s economic 

competitiveness. The goal of increasing the opportunities for incumbent workers allows 

for natural new worker pipelines. Consequently this, along with the current lessened 

demand for new hires in the targeted sectors, has made the development of incumbent 

workers the top priority.

WSCMH also wants to create a shared vision in the region for a long-term stable, 

educated and skilled workforce. At the same time, it wants to counter the perception 

that this initiative is just another revenue stream for programs. Instead it wants to create 

a coordinated system of investments that encourages the integration of services and a 

transformation from “programs” to “partnerships” with all stakeholders, including 

business and industry.

Workforce partnership goals and strategy

WSCMH plans to fund workforce partnerships sometime in the spring of 2009. It has 

identified health care, energy, and advanced manufacturing as its target sectors. The 

planning group held a strategy meeting in December of 2008 at which it identified the 

potential stakeholders and opportunities for partnership within each of these identified 

sectors. It set three general criteria to select the workforce partnerships: 1) identifies

existing linkages in the sector, 2) demonstrates a “value add” to employers and 

community stakeholders; and 3) maps skill sets to the industry of focus. The overall 

target is to focus 70 percent of its effort on low-wage, lower-skilled, incumbent and 

under-employed workers and 30 percent on unemployed individuals who are seeking 

to obtain a career in one of the three sectors. The exact breakdown by sector will be 

determined.

Capacity‐building strategy

Although most of the efforts to build capacity will be industry sector focused, the 

Steering Committee’s subcommittee on Policy and Advocacy is working with Capital 

Workforce Partners and other partners to assit with local needs around the ARRA.

Policy/system change strategy

WSCMH plans to work with two organizations, the Connecticut Women’s Education 

and Legal Fund (CWELF) and the Connecticut Association for Human Services (CAHS), 

as partners to carry out its system change strategy. The latter organization, CAHS, 

already has a policy strategy associated with the Family Economic Success agenda 

linked to the Annie E. Casey Foundation’s national effort. Many of the FES priorities 

will dovetail with WSCMH’s work. The exact roles and system change strategies will be 

determined later. 

Participant Outcomes

WSCMH was selected as a NFWS Funding Collaborative in the fall of 2008. There are 

no participant outcomes to describe at this point. 
Appendix A 153

The Milwaukee Area Workforce Funding Alliance (MAWFA)

Overview

The Milwaukee Area Workforce Funding Alliance (MAWFA) serves the greater 

Milwaukee, Wisconsin area. The Funding Alliance currently has 24 members on its 

Leadership Council, including public sector agencies, corporations, employers, and 

private foundation representatives. The collaborative will support workforce 

partnerships in construction and health and is considering the auto industry. The 

current system change strategy is to build infrastructure and relationships for policy 

change.

Funding Collaborative composition, governance, and fundraising 

The Milwaukee Area Workforce Funding Alliance Leadership Council currently has 24 

members including 12 funders and 8 employers. The public sector partners, including 

the City of Milwaukee, the Milwaukee WIB, and the Metropolitan Milwaukee Sewerage 

District have committed to providing aligned funding for the initiative. The Alliance 

operates as an affinity group of the Donors Forum of Wisconsin, the state association of 

grantmakers. Each funder member commits to aligning some of their funding with 

Funding Alliance goals, and each funder member has an equal vote in policy and 

planning decisions. The Leadership Council of the Funding Alliance meets bi-monthly, 

and maintains most business in the large group rather than developing several 

subcommittees. The Alliance has established a policy and research committee to work 

on the policy agenda, and workgroups to address the construction and healthcare 

sectors. The Funding Alliance is devising a communication strategy, including a 

monthly e-newsletter, and a website for posting and blogging, to minimize meetings 

but maximize communication. Pooled funds are used for technical assistance, seed 

grants, local evaluation, and management. Partnership funding is all aligned funds.

Goals and strategy

The Workforce Funding Alliance views itself as a coordinator of services through 

communication, collaboration, and partnership. 

The primary goals of MAWFA are to: 

• Fund agencies, programs, and projects that provide career advancement support 

to low-income and low skilled people; 

• Develop a better coordinated workforce development system of public and 

private collaboration that enhances regional competitiveness. 
Appendix A 154

MAWFA describes the components of its vision as: 

• A formalized structure of coordinated advocacy and funding for maximum 

effectiveness; 

• Elimination of duplication of services, especially in case management and data 

collection; 

• Use of workforce intermediaries to provide efficient coordination of services to 

employers, community-based organizations, and workers alike; 

• Filling the gaps in the recruitment, training, and support services for low-income 

workers; 

• Reducing barriers to successful employment; 

• Bringing the clout and resources of MAWFA to align the public workforce 

system and the private sector to better meet needs. 

Workforce partnership goals and strategy

MAWFA will provide direct support to workforce partnerships that provide career 

advancement services to lower skilled adults and assist in meeting employers’ need for 

mid-level workers.

Currently, MAWFA is supporting the Wisconsin Regional Training Partnership (WRTP)

with aligned funds for work with the construction sector. Pooled funds are being used 

to provide organizational assessment and capacity-building to WRTP for developing a 

pipeline program for construction. Assessment results are being shared with funders to 

solicit capacity-building funds to support WRTP’s expansion.

Two healthcare intermediaries, one working on the development of a pipeline of 

services and one refining more traditional employment and training services, received 

aligned funds for a planning grant and pooled funds for capacity-building. Members of 

the Funding Alliance encouraged collaboration across grantees. More specifically, the 

Milwaukee Area WIB and several foundations aligned funding toward a workforce 

partnership in healthcare being developed by the Milwaukee Area Health Education 

Center (AHEC) and YWCA of Greater Milwaukee. The Funding Alliance convened the 

partners and is supporting an application to the State of Wisconsin for funds from a 

newly created program with the National Governors Association.

MAWFA also recently met with the Foundation of Wisconsin Auto and Truck Dealers 

Association (WATDA), which has implemented "intermediary-like work" related to 

training, internships, and scholarships in the auto industry, to discuss potential 

participation in the collaborative. MAWFA is also considering manufacturing, financial 

services, and hospitality as potential sector opportunities.
Appendix A 155

Capacity‐building strategy

Capacity-building services are geared towards improving the ability of the workforce 

development system to provide high quality career advancement services to employers 

and workers. Anticipated activities include: 

• Development, in partnership with the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

Center for Workforce Development, of a non-credit certificate workforce 

development program focused on local job seeker and employer needs. 

• Contracting with experts for facilitation of peer to peer support to share best 

practices and strategies and increase functionality at the intermediary level. 

• Development of a more detailed technical assistance plan to build the capacity of 

the local workforce development system. 

MAWFA is conducting phase 2 of a nonprofit funding and service mapping project by 

surveying public and private funders as well as 100 nonprofits (identified in phase 1) 

that provide “workforce development” services. Members of the Funding Alliance are 

also working collaboratively with the Milwaukee WIB and other public entities to 

insure organizations receiving new federal recovery funds receive capacity building 

investments. 

Policy/system change strategy

MAWFA policy and systems’ change efforts have focused initially on educating and 

learning from policy makers about workforce development policies and opportunities.

Together with the Workforce Central collaborative, MAWFA will be meeting with the 

state cabinet secretaries to describe the alliance and suggest future methods for 

communication. The current system change model is building infrastructure and 

relationships to support policy change. 

The workforce development policy barriers MAWFA seeks to address include: drivers’ 

education, licensing and license revocation assistance for low-income individuals; 

workforce re-entry for ex-offenders, including transitional jobs as pilot; and equitable 

distribution of state workforce development dollars. 

Bolstered by support from the Workforce Funding Alliance and meetings with the 

Wisconsin Department of Transportation, the Governor’s budget included funding for 

drivers’ education classes and changes in the drivers license recovery process.

Participant Outcomes

MAWFA initiated its activities in September 2008 and does not have participant 

outcomes to report at this stage.
Appendix A 156

Omaha Workforce Development Funding Collaborative

Overview

The Omaha Workforce Development Funding Collaborative (OWDFC) is a new 

collaborative effort, which was formed in 2008 to serve the greater Omaha metropolitan 

area. The OWDFC’s primary goals are: 1) to address workforce shortages in targeted 

industries by building employer-driven workforce partnerships; and 2) to influence and 

support the alignment of the workforce development delivery system with the needs of 

employers and low-income, unemployed individuals. The OWDFC has formed one 

workforce partnership in financial services/customer service.

Funding Collaborative composition, governance, and fundraising

The OWDFC currently includes four funders: Greater Omaha Chamber of Commerce, 

United Way, Metropolitan Community College, and Workforce Investment Board. All 

of the funding partners have representatives on the Workforce Investment Board. The 

Greater Omaha Chamber of Commerce, the economic development agency for a fourcounty area, functions as the lead agency for the OWDFC and has formally committed 

staff to its activities. All of the four funding partners are considered equal partners in 

the OWDFC. 

The OWDFC is currently developing a formal Steering/Executive Committee. The 

Steering Committee includes the four main funding partners, plus two foundations, and 

the collaborative is in the process of inviting other foundations to participate. The 

Steering Committee will be expected to provide direction, but the four funding partners 

will be the primary decision-making partners.

Among the four partners, a total of $600,000 in funds has been committed. The OWDFC 

has not faced substantial challenges to fundraising, although it remains unclear whether 

all commitments will be fulfilled.

Goals and strategy

The primary goals of the OWDFC are: 1) to address workforce shortages in targeted 

industries by building employer-driven workforce partnerships; and 2) to influence and 

support the alignment of the workforce development delivery system with the needs of 

employers and low-income, unemployed individuals.

The strategies by which the OWDFC expects to accomplish its goals include: build 

sector-based, employer-led workforce partnerships; provide coaching and support 

within workforce partnership efforts; build the capacity of community-based 

organizations, service providers and employers to develop the maintain workforce 

partnerships.
Appendix A 157

Workforce partnership goals and strategy

The OWDFC has identified the following sectors as offering potential for workforce 

partnership opportunities: financial services/customer service; health care; information 

technology; transport/logistics/warehousing; and manufacturing/trade. The

collaborative has not identified any specific target populations beyond hardest-to-serve 

low-income workers.

The OWDFC has funded one financial services/customer service workforce 

partnership, which was managed by a local community-based organization under the 

direction of the OWDFC and two local employers. The workforce partnership 

developed a short-term, cohort-based program in which unemployed individuals 

received skills training, soft skills training, coaching and other support, all as part of a 

simulated workday. The employers selected the participants and committed jobs for 

successful participants. Thus far, two classes have been conducted.

Capacity‐building strategy

The OWDFC expects that its activities will build the capacity of stakeholders. For

example, the development of employer-driven workforce partnerships provides 

capacity-building within the education system by requiring instructors to work directly 

with employers on curriculum and instructional exercises, thereby increasing the 

alignment of industry need with content. The OWDFC also expects that the 

implementation of workforce partnerships will provide participating employers with 

opportunities to identify ways to address the needs of new employees and program 

participants.

Policy/system change strategy

System change goals and strategies are still in the development stage. However, the 

OWDFC has identified a few potential avenues for system change, including:

• The success of the first pilot and buy-in from partners will pave the way for 

systemic changes, because it built support and consensus.

• The OWDFC expects that the development and promotion of demand-driven 

workforce partnerships will yield opportunities to restructure both the WIB and 

community- college systems.

• The OWDFC is promoting discussions around the provision of basic skills 

assessment and services, which may result in multiple-agency efforts to develop 

strategies around identifying and addressing basic skill needs among potential 

program participants.
Appendix A 158

Participant Outcomes

Participant outcomes to date include: 

Measure Job Seekers Incumbent Workers

# WPs providing service 1 0

# Participants served 41 N/A

# Completions N/A N/A

# Degrees/credentials earned N/A N/A

# Job placements 3 N/A

# Placement wage <$9.99 1 N/A

# Placement wage $10.00–$14.99 2 N/A

# Placement wage >$15.00 0 N/A

N/A: Data not applicable for program type or reported not applicable or unknown/missing by WP.

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System
Appendix A 159

Job Opportunity Investment Network (Greater Philadelphia)

Overview

The Job Opportunity Investment Network (JOIN) includes five private and public 

funders and covers the Greater Philadelphia region including Philadelphia, 

Montgomery, Chester, Bucks, and Delaware Counties. JOIN builds on a statewide effort 

to transform the workforce system by creating access to Industry Partnership (IP) 

programs for low-income, low-skilled adults. The collaborative workforce partnerships 

will be selected from the region’s 18 existing Industry Partnerships. Two Industry 

Partnerships in health care have just been selected for implementation grants. JOIN’s 

capacity-building efforts will support the regional Industry Partnerships to build

program components serving low-income individuals. Its policy change work will 

advocate for legislation institutionalizing the Industry Partnership program.

Funding Collaborative composition, governance, and fundraising

The JOIN collaborative partners include the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and 

Industry, Knight Foundation, Philadelphia Workforce Investment Board, United Way 

of Southeastern Pennsylvania, and the William Penn Foundation. The City of 

Philadelphia Department of Commerce and the CEO Council for Growth, an affiliate of 

the Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce, were nonfinancial partners in 

planning the NFWS proposal and may become active again as the initiative is 

implemented. JOIN has hired an interim director sited at the United Way to manage 

this effort.

JOIN is projecting a three-year, $2.7 million budget, based on pledges from each of its 

philanthropic partners and the Philadelphia WIB and state Department of Labor 

Industry. All of its funding is pooled except for $100,000 the state targeted for the health 

sector. 

Goals and strategy

JOIN’s strategy is to invest in existing Industry Partnerships in southeastern 

Pennsylvania, assisting the IPs to extend their work to new populations. In particular, 

JOIN will focus on efforts to advance lower-skilled incumbent workers along career 

ladders, as well as on projects that build pipelines into new career ladder opportunities 

for unemployed and marginally employed workers. The overarching goal is to address 

the critical hiring needs of employers, while moving lower-skilled workers into jobs 

that have the potential to pay family-sustaining wages. 

Workforce partnership goals and strategy

JOIN is targeting its workforce partnership grants to IPs in the Greater Philadelphia 

region. Philadelphia has 18 Industry Partnerships funded by the state to bring together 

industry employers to address common workforce needs. Many of the IPs received

substantial funding from non-state sources, and all have engaged training and 
Appendix A 160

education partners to align their offerings with industry needs. Several partnerships 

want to extend their work to lower-skilled adults. 

JOIN issued a request for proposal in the winter of 2008 and recently announced the 

selection of two health Industry Partnerships for implementation. Over the next three 

years JOIN will award both organizational grants that build the capacity of existing 

Industry Partnerships to serve lower-skilled adults, and program grants for 

implementation. The collaborative anticipates investing in up to four organizational 

capacity projects, with grants averaging $50,000 each, and up to three program 

initiatives, with grants averaging $300,000 per partnership. 

Capacity‐building strategy

JOIN’s capacity-building plan includes:

• Developing expertise on low-skilled populations within existing IPs. Many 

Industry Partnerships in Philadelphia are not experienced in engaging lowerskilled workers. JOIN expects to offer organizational development grants that 

allow existing IPs to extend work to this cohort.

• Cultivating an IP network within Greater Philadelphia. JOIN plans to gather the 

regional IPs twice annually for professional development activities related to 

serving lower-skilled workers.

• Encouraging and supporting the development of new IPs. JOIN plans to 

encourage and advocate for the creation of new partnerships in industries with 

advancement opportunities for low-skilled workers.

Policy/system change strategy

JOIN’s system change and advocacy strategies include efforts to:

• Institutionalize the Commonwealth’s Industry Partnership Program through 

state legislation, and raise the visibility of Industry Partnerships within the 

Greater Philadelphia business community.

• Build on the Philadelphia WIB’s participation in JOIN to institutionalize practices 

from pilot projects in the public workforce system.

• Use its initiative as a laboratory for sector-based, employer-driven workforce 

initiatives, and collaborate with key-decision makers within the City’s Commerce 

Department as a new mayoral administration reshapes business and workforce 

services.

• Educate the regional philanthropic community on how to engage in addressing 

Philadelphia’s workforce crisis.
Appendix A 161

• Call attention to the large population of marginally attached workers in the 

region, and advocate for changes in public policy and business practices to 

facilitate their advancement.

Participant Outcomes

JOIN was announced as a NFWS Funding Collaborative in December 2008. There are no 

participant outcomes to describe at this point.
Appendix A 162

King County Workforce Education Collaborative

Overview

The King County Workforce Education Collaborative (KCWEC) was formed in 2008 as 

a regional collaborative that serves Seattle/King County. The Collaborative stems from 

efforts related to 2nd Chance WA, a coalition convened in 2007 to strengthen 

coordination and improve performance of workforce education programs serving lowincome populations. The collaborative’s primary goal is to build a stronger economy 

that benefits local employers and working adults, via the following long-term goals: 1) 

increased postsecondary attainment (1 year, with a credential) for low-income working 

adults; 2) increased advancement into family-supporting jobs that support long-term 

career plans among low-income working adults; and 3) increased employer access to 

qualified workforce.

Funding Collaborative composition, governance, and fundraising

KCWEC is governed by an Investors’ Council, which includes its original founding 

members. Ten investors currently sit on the Investors’ Council, including five 

foundations, one major employer, one major community-based organization, two 

county-level government agencies, and two state-level government agencies. Other 

contributing partners include county-level government agencies, community colleges, 

local labor unions, and local workforce development initiatives. Throughout the initial 

stages of development, a City of Seattle staff member has served as interim Executive 

Director. 

The KCWEC expects to raise $3 million during the course of the NFWS initiative, and 

has raised sufficient funds thus far to proceed with the 2009 work plan. The 

Collaborative does not currently face any specific challenges to fundraising.

Goals and strategy

In order to achieve its long-term goals related to increasing postsecondary attainment, 

advancement into family-supporting jobs, and employer access to qualified workforce, 

the KCWEC has articulated the following strategies: 1) invest in organizations, 

programs and systems that serve low-income working adults; 2) build partnerships that

support postsecondary attainment by low-income working adults; and 3) promote

policies that support postsecondary attainment for low-income working adults.

These strategies translate into the following five short-term strategies for its 2009 work:

• On‐Ramps: Design and test new approaches and programs to increase entry into 

postsecondary education 

• Postsecondary Completion: Design and test new programs to increase 

postsecondary attainment of low-income working adults via delivery models 
Appendix A 163

that are more conducive to successful learning (e.g. on site teaching, week-end 

and evening courses, wrap-around services)

• Employer Partnerships: Increase industry investment in the education and training 

of entry-level and incumbent workers.

• Alignment: Build the financial and organizational foundation to sustain the work 

of the collaborative in 2009 and beyond. 

• Policy Development and Advocacy: Establish a policy council.

Workforce partnership goals and strategy

Goals and strategies for funding workforce partnerships are still under development.

However, the KCWEC recently conducted sector analyses and an examination of the 

economic environment, and has made plans to target the health care and “green” 

energy sectors. The primary target population for workforce partnership development 

will be low-income working adults. The KCWEC expects to fund at least two workforce 

partnerships during the current program year. The collaborative has recently awarded a 

strategic planning grant to a partnership of labor and hospitals to complete design of a 

career pathway that links home health and nursing home workers with four highdemand healthcare careers in hospitals.

Capacity‐building strategy

The KCWEC’s expects that the planned strategies and activities will build the capacity 

of system stakeholders to support postsecondary entry and attainment. For example, 

the KCWEC recently awarded $650,000 to local community colleges to design and test 

models to increase postsecondary attainment of low-income working adults in high 

demand, high growth occupations. These colleges have strong connections with 

employers and community-based organizations. Similarly, the On-Ramps activities will 

involve the development of an employment and career advancement plan for lowincome parents and caregivers, and efforts to test the feasibility and effectiveness of 

new on-ramp programs.

Policy/system change strategy

The KCWEC’s expects that the planned strategies and activities will result in the 

following system reforms:

• Identification of strategies that industry will own, adopt and carry into the future 

without an outside entity administering them on their behalf.

• Identification and implementation of new systems that increase postsecondary 

entry and attainment for low-income workers.

• Alignment of the community college, human service agency and workforce 

development systems, so that they are all held accountable for advancing 

individuals all the way to post-secondary degrees. 
Appendix A 164

Participant Outcomes

The KCWEC was selected as a NFWS Funding Collaborative in October 2008; as such, 

no participant outcomes were reported in January 2009.
Appendix A 165

Wichita Region: Preparation for Aviation Career Employment System

(PACES)

Overview

PACES is located in South Central Kansas and covers the Wichita metropolitan area.

The collaborative grew from a decade-long effort by community leaders to better 

support the entry-level skill needs of the aviation industry, the region’s dominant 

employer. It has formed one workforce partnership in aviation and is considering 

another in health. PACES capacity-building will provide professional development to 

participating service providers. Its major system change strategy is systems alignment.

Funding Collaborative composition, governance, and fundraising

The PACES partnership includes both investors and non-investors with the funders 

serving as a Leadership Committee and non-investors acting in an advisory role. Its 

Leadership Committee includes Aviation industry employers, foundations, the United 

Way, and the Workforce Alliance of South Central Kansas, the local Workforce 

Investment Board. The Knight Foundation leads the funding collaborative and the 

Workforce Alliance serves as the fiscal agent.

PACES had a goal of raising $750,000 a year for three years and had reached over onehalf of that goal for this year through February 2009. It had been anticipated that more 

aviation industry employers would financially support the collaborative, but recent 

layoffs have reduced their ability to contribute at this time. Additionally, local 

foundations are juggling multiple priorities in a hard-hit local economy. The Workforce 

Alliance is considering aligning some of its additional Workforce Investment Act (WIA) 

funds through the American Recovery and Reinvestment plan to help meet the 

fundraising goal.

Goals and strategy

PACES investment strategy seeks to create a more accessible and flexible regional 

employment and training system targeting low skilled and underemployed individuals 

for high skilled high demand careers. Collaborative leadership expects that this system 

will support the needs of industry and lead to a stronger regional economy. PACES 

selected the aviation industry because of its importance in the regional economy and 

the quality of the jobs it offered. The collaborative is considering modifying its strategy 

to respond to recent layoffs in the industry. These modifications may include more of 

an emphasis on longer-term training to prepare a workforce for the anticipated industry 

rebound and an acceleration of its plan to create a health sector partnership.

Workforce partnership goals and strategy

PACES workforce partnerships will be networks that build upon, but also expand, 

align, and coordinate existing relationships among community-based organizations, 

educational institutions, and industry. The goal of the networks will be to create an 
Appendix A 166

identifiable, sustainable system for meeting employer demand while also supporting 

low-skilled individuals with needed supports, education and training. The WIB houses 

the PACES staff person who will manage the provider network.

The first step in creating these networks will be to identify the gaps in the current 

workforce system to effectively engage low-wage and low-skill individuals seeking 

employment in the aviation industry. PACES will partner with United Way of the 

Plains to inventory the existing resources available to low-income adults and youth and 

conduct focus groups to identify barriers to training. These results will be incorporated

into developing outreach strategies and realigning community resources to better 

match job seekers with existing opportunities in the targeted industry sectors. 

The partnership network will utilize existing services and resources. Additionally 

grants will be provided to expand or strengthen their current capacity. Memorandums 

of Understanding will be established as the partnerships are formalized. These will 

include outcome and performance requirements including expectations on following 

individual participants through the network of services and supports until they achieve 

their employment goal including post-employment retention.

Aviation employers have played a direct role in creating and participating in the 

regional collaborative, providing it with financial support and defining the entry-level 

skills needs of the industry. The role of employers in the workforce partnership 

networks is still being determined.

Capacity‐building strategy

PACES capacity-building strategy will be to support the collaboration and professional 

development of partner organizations including professionally facilitated meetings with 

partners to identify and implement partnership models and professional development 

opportunities resulting in national certificates.

Policy/system change strategy

PACES system change strategy is the creation of a more coordinated, aligned workforce 

system focused on key regional industries.

Outcomes

PACES was recently selected as a NFWS Funding Collaborative and is just beginning to 

implement its strategies. While there were no outcomes reported in the recent data 

collection, since that time 47 individuals have been recruited; 11 of these participants 

are in training and 36 are preparing for training.
Appendix A 167

Wisconsin Central: Workforce Central (WC)

Overview

Workforce Central’s (WC) primary service area is northern Adams County and Greater 

South Wood County of Wisconsin; it also covers the Mid-State Technical College’s 

district. This effort builds on work accomplished over the past eight years to respond to 

the downturn in the paper industry and its impact on the regional economy. The NFWS 

proposal was drafted by several “core partners” in this effort including the Workforce 

Investment Board, the technical college, community foundation, and chamber of 

commerce. The development process included focus group discussion with funders, 

employer groups, and social service providers. WC is in the process of planning and 

implementing its workforce partnership, capacity-building, and system change

strategies.

Funding Collaborative composition, governance, and fundraising

WC’s governance structure includes a Funders Collaborative, a Community Solutions 

Advisory Council, and Solution-Focused Workgroups. Employers are part of the 

Funders Collaborative and will participate in industry/occupational specific solutionfocused workgroups. 

The Funders Collaborative currently includes representatives from local foundations and 

employers making cash donations to WC. The Funders Collaborative is active in 

implementation and is the decision-making authority for grant making.

The Community Solutions Advisory Council includes up to twenty individuals with 

expertise in adult education and training, social services, career development, and 

community economic development, along with representatives of labor, faith-based 

organizations, elected officials and under-represented communities in the region. The 

Council will lead the development of solution-focused workgroups and offer 

recommendations to the Funders Collaborative on strategy, implementation and 

funding proposals. 

The Solution‐Focused Workgroups will focus initial work in four areas: barriers to 

employment; career advancement; employer needs and policy advocacy. Priorities will 

be determined by the members of each group with input from the entire Community 

Solutions Advisory Council and Funders Collaborative. The Solution-Focused 

Workgroups will be made up of members of the Community Solutions Advisory 

Council and the Funders Collaborative. In addition, additional community stakeholders 

such as employers, workers, job-seekers and others will be invited to participate. The 

Solution-Focused Workgroups will meet at least monthly.
Appendix A 168

WC received a $100,000 grant from NWFS, and has raised an additional $315,000 in 

pooled funds, and an additional $786,000 in in-kind or aligned funding. The pooled 

resources are dedicated funds to be used as determined by the Council. WC’s goal is to 

raise $500,000 in pooled resources available for grant making. 

Goals and strategy

WC intends to create a sustainable funders collaborative that will operate with a longterm orientation and invest in transforming workforce development in the region.

Additional collaborative goals and strategies include: connect employers and funders to 

provide a lasting solution to the challenges employers face in hiring and retaining 

skilled workers; and develop pathways for advancement within their companies in 

concert with realistic compensation plans.

Workforce partnership goals and strategy

WC plans to implement two core workforce partnership strategies:

• Articulate career pathways in four industry sectors that are vital to the region 

(healthcare, manufacturing, technology and skilled trades); and

• Develop the skills and competencies of new, incumbent, returning and 

dislocated workers through targeted training and networks of support.

 In additional to traditional employment outcomes, WC will also encourage 

entrepreneurship that may lead to sustained employment and new business in the 

region. WC will also pursue targeted investments to address barriers that impact 

individual’s ability to achieve employment and advancement.

WC is conducting a systems scan that will map existing workforce partnerships to 

identify strengths and challenges. This scan will inform the criteria used to select 

partnerships for funding. WC plans to release an RFP for partnerships by June 2009 and 

determine grants by September 2009.

Capacity‐building strategy

The industry scan will inform WC’s capacity-building plan: WC will identify 

components of the workforce development system in need of capacity-building efforts 

and will provide or facilitate related technical assistance and coaching. In addition to 

other identified sectors, the Funder’s Council will also receive capacity building 

assisting to help it grow into a sustainable entity with long-term vision and strategy.

Policy/system change strategy

WC and the Milwaukee Area Workforce Funders Alliance (MAWFA) have been 

meeting with state policy makers to discuss the initiative, workforce development 

resources, and areas for greater collaboration and communication across the public and 

philanthropic sectors. WC plans to conduct a policy scan to identify groups within the 
Appendix A 169

region and across the state who are already working to transform workforce 

development and create opportunity for low-wage workers. After this scan is 

completed, WC intends to develop a more targeted system change agenda. 

Participant Outcomes

WC was recently selected as a NFWS funding collaborative and is just beginning to 

implement its strategies. Because of their stage in the process, they do not have 

participant outcomes to report. 
Appendix B 170

Appendix B

Exhibit 1: Service Participation by Program Type and Education/Training Services

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System

Exhibit 2: Service Participation by Selected Sectors and Education/Training Services

Biotechnology (n=298) Construction (n=582) Health Care (n=2,170)

Number of 

Participants

Percent of 

Sub‐Group 

Total

Number of 

Participants

Percent of 

Sub‐Group 

Total

Number of 

Participants

Percent of 

Sub‐Group 

Total

Apprenticeship 

Program 0 0% 133 23% 0 0%

Basic Skills/ESL 

Training 2 1% 26 4% 402 19%

Computer Literacy 

Training 22 7% 26 4% 290 13%

Occupational Skills 

Training 255 86% 226 39% 1,116 51%

On‐the‐Job Training 0 0% 136 23% 141 6%

Workplace 

Readiness/ Life 

Skills Training

139 47% 264 45% 527 24%

Other Education 

Training 197 66% 78 13% 649 30%

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System

Non‐incumbent Program 

(n=4,936)

Incumbent Program 

(n=1,370)

Number of 

Participants

Percent of 

Sub‐group 

Total

Number of 

Participants

Percent of 

Sub‐group 

Total

Apprenticeship Program 150 3% 0 0%

Basic Skills/ESL Training 582 12% 283 21%

Computer Literacy Training 203 4% 256 19%

Occupational Skills Training 1,263 26% 551 40%

On‐the‐Job Training 218 4% 110 8%

Workplace Readiness/Life Skills Training 2,954 60% 242 18%

Other Education Training 600 12% 327 24%
Appendix B 171

Exhibit 3: Service Participation by Program Type and Non‐Training Services

Non‐incumbent Program 

(n=4,936)

Incumbent Program (n=1,370)

Number of 

Participants

Percent of 

Sub‐group 

Total

Number of 

Participants

Percent of 

Sub‐group 

Total

Assessment

69 2,786 N/A 279 N/A

Asset Development 178 4% 33 2%

Career Coaching 1,966 40% 1,184 86%

Case Management 1,763 36% 1,269 93%

Job Search/Job Placement 1,419 29% 510 37%

Supportive Services 1,738 35% 1,113 81%

Other Non‐training Services  499 10% 134 10%

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System

Exhibit 4: Service Participation by Selected Sectors and Non‐Training Services

Biotechnology (n=298) Construction (n=582) Health Care (n=2,170)

Number of 

Participants

Percent 

of Sub‐

Group 

Total

Number of 

Participants

Percent 

of Sub‐

Group 

Total

Number of 

Participants

Percent of 

Sub‐Group 

Total

Assessment

70 182 N/A 618 N/A 1,014 N/A

Asset Development 0 0% 30 5% 144 7%

Career Coaching 181 61% 200 34% 1,700 78%

Case Management 219 73% 474 81% 2,064 95%

Job Search/Job Placement 223 75% 321 55% 879 41%

Supportive Services 104 35% 369 63% 1,533 71%

Other Non‐training Services  83 28% 110 19% 436 20%

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System

 69 We have selected not to present Assessment service participation as a percentage of the total 

populations served out of concerns about the validity of that indicator for this service type.

70 We have selected not to present Assessment service participation as a percentage of the total 

populations served out of concerns about the validity of that indicator for this service type.
Appendix B 172

Exhibit 5: Degree/ Credential Completion by Program Type and Non‐Training Services

Non‐incumbent Program (n=3,031) Incumbent Program (n=1,101)

Number of 

Participants

Percent of Sub‐

Group Total

Number of 

Participants

Percent of Sub‐

Group Total

AA or AS Degree 0 0% 10 1%

BA or BS Degree 31 1% 1 0%

GED/H.S. Equivalency 3 0% 4 0%

Occupational Skills 

Certificate/Credential 218 7% 170 15%

Occupational Skills Licensure 118 4% 31 3%

Other Recognized Certificate 42 1% 2 0%

Workplace Readiness 

Credential 37 1% 0 0%

Other 12 0% 0 0%

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System

Exhibit 6: Workforce Partnerships by Cohort and Non‐incumbent Job Placements

First Cohort 

(n=18)

Second Cohort 

(n=13) 

Third Cohort 

(n=3)

0 Job Placements 1 6 0

1 to 25 Job Placements 6 6 1

26 to 50 Job Placements 7 0 1

More than 51 Job Placements 2 1 0

Job Placements Unknown/Missing 2 0 1

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System

Exhibit 7: Non‐incumbent Participants by Selected Sectors and Placement in Targeted Sector

Biotechnology (n=68) Construction (n=251) Health Care (n=160)

Number of 

Participants

Percent of 

Sector Total

Number of 

Participants

Percent of 

Sector Total

Number of 

Participants

Percent of 

Sector Total

Job Placements in 

Targeted Sector 59 87% 216 86% 155 97%

Job Placements Not in 

Targeted Sector 9 13% 35 14% 5 3%

Sector 

Unknown/Missing 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Appendix B 173

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System

Exhibit 8: Non‐incumbent Participants by Selected Sectors and Wage at Placement

Biotechnology (n=68) Construction (n=251) Health Care (n=160)

Number of 

Participants

Percent of 

Sub‐Group 

Total

Number of 

Participants

Percent of 

Sub‐Group 

Total

Number of 

Participants

Percent of 

Sub‐Group 

Total

Less than $10.00 5 7% 26 10% 30 19%

$10.00‐$14.99 29 43% 107 43% 73 46%

$15.00‐$19.99 17 25% 50 20% 4 3%

$20.00 or more 5 7% 53 21% 22 14%

Wage Unknown/

Missing 12 18% 15 6% 31 19%

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System

Exhibit 9: Non‐incumbent Participants by Size of Workforce Partnership and Hours Worked at Placement

Largest Workforce Partnership, NYCTC 

(n=285)

All Other WPs (n=608)

Number of 

Participants

Percent of 

Sub‐group Total

Number of 

Participants

Percent of 

Sub‐group Total

Less than 20 hours 0 0% 20 3%

20‐29 hours 0 0% 31 5%

30‐34 hours 0 0% 10 2%

35+ hours 285 100% 495 81%

Hours Unknown/Missing  0 0% 52 9%

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System
Appendix B 174

Exhibit 10: Non‐incumbent Participants by Selected Sectors and Hours Worked at Placement

Biotechnology (n=68) Construction (n=251) Health Care (n=160)

Number of 

Participants

Percent of 

Sub‐Group 

Total

Number of 

Participants

Percent of 

Sub‐Group 

Total

Number of 

Participants

Percent of 

Sub‐Group 

Total

Less than 20 hours 2 3% 10 4% 6 4%

20‐29 hours 4 6% 2 1% 16 10%

30‐34 hours 0 0% 1 0% 7 4%

35+ hours 61 90% 221 88% 116 73%

Hours 

Unknown/Missing  1 1% 17 7% 15 9%

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System

Exhibit 11: Non‐incumbent Participants by Size of Workforce Partnership and Benefits Eligibility at Placement

Largest Workforce Partnership, 

NYCTC (n=285)

All Other WPs (n=608)

Number of 

Participants

Percent of 

Sub‐group 

Total

Number of 

Participants

Percent of 

Sub‐group 

Total

Eligible for Benefits 0 0% 329 54%

Not Eligible for Benefits 0 0% 96 16%

Benefits at Placement Unknown/Missing 285 100% 183 30%

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System

Exhibit 12: Non‐incumbent Participants by Selected Sectors and Benefits Eligibility at Placement

Biotechnology (n=68) Construction (n=251) Health Care (n=160)

Number of 

Participants

Percent of 

Sub‐Group 

Total

Number of 

Participants

Percent of 

Sub‐Group 

Total

Number of 

Participants

Percent of 

Sub‐Group 

Total

Eligible for Benefits 59 87% 104 41% 107 67%

Not Eligible for 

Benefits 8 12% 10 4% 40 25%

Benefits at Placement 

Unknown/Missing 1 1% 137 55% 13 8%

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System
Appendix B 175

Exhibit 13: Non‐incumbent Participants by Selected Sectors and Retention Achievements

Biotechnology (n=68) Construction (n=251) Health Care (n=160)

Number of 

Participants

Percent of 

Sub‐

Group 

Total

Number of 

Participants

Percent of 

Sub‐

Group 

Total

Number of 

Participants

Percent of 

Sub‐

Group 

Total

Number Achieved 6‐

month Retention 31 46% 59 20% 39 24%

Number Achieved 12‐

month Retention 31 46% 29 12% 7 4%

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System

Exhibit 14: Non‐incumbent Participants by Selected Sectors and Wage at 12‐month Retention

Biotechnology (n=31) Construction (n=29) Health Care (n=7)

Number of 

Participants

Percent of 

Sub‐

Group 

Total

Number of 

Participants

Percent of 

Sub‐

Group 

Total

Number of 

Participants

Percent of 

Sub‐

Group 

Total

Less than $10.00 4 13% 6 21% 0 N/A

$10.00‐$14.99 22 71% 15 52% 7 100%

$15.00‐$19.99 5 16% 6 21% 0 N/A

$20.00 or more 0 N/A 2 7% 0 N/A

Wage Unknown/

Missing 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A

Source: NFWS Data Reporting System