119 Pere Marquette Drive, Suite 1C 

Lansing, MI 48912-1231 

(517) 485-4477 

Fax: (517) 485-4488 

www.publicpolicy.com 

300 S. Westnedge Ave. 

Kalamazoo, MI 49007-4686 

(269) 343-5541 

Fax: (269) 343-3308 

www.upjohninstitute.org 

Nurturing America’s Growth in the 

Global Marketplace Through Talent 

Development

An Interim Report on the Evaluation of 

Generations II and III of WIRED 

Submitted to 

U.S. Department of Labor 

Employment and Training Administration 

November 23, 2009 

Submitted by 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated 

W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research 

Authors of this Report 

Primary Authors 

Nancy Hewat, Ph.D., Project Director 

Kevin Hollenbeck, Ph.D., Principal Investigator 

Contributing Authors 

Public Policy Associates, Inc. 

Nicholas Armit 

Colleen Graber 

Jeff Kaplow 

David McConnell 

Nancy McCrohan, Ph.D. 

Jeff Padden 

Lawrence Rosen, Ph.D. 

Nathalie Winans 

Scott Southard (Editor) 

W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research 

George Erickcek 

Brad Watts 

This project has been funded, either wholly or in part, with Federal funds from the Department 

of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, under Contract Number DOLJ071A20606. 

The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department 

of Labor, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply 

endorsement of same by the U.S. Government. 

Acknowledgments 

We would like to acknowledge the many people involved in the Workforce Innovation in 

Regional Economic Development Initiative for their commitment to engaging regional 

stakeholders in collaborative efforts to transform their regional economies and for their ongoing 

cooperation with the evaluation. Our deep appreciation goes to Eileen Pederson and Dan Ryan 

of the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration for their 

commitment to conducting a thorough and thoughtful evaluation. They have provided valuable 

input and insights about the Initiative and the key role of the evaluation in capturing the lessons 

learned throughout the implementation process. We would also like to thank the staff of 

Berkeley Policy Associates and the University of California, San Diego for their willingness to 

share information and insights gained through their work as evaluators of the Generation I 

regions participating in the Initiative. 

Of course, the evaluation of the Generations II and III regions would not be possible without the 

involvement of the many regional stakeholders that participated in the data collection process. 

Their willingness to provide feedback about their experiences in the early implementation of 

their efforts to transform their regions enriches the evaluation and enables a thorough 

examination of the Initiative from the perspective of participants. 

Finally, we would like to thank members of the evaluation team that have contributed their skills 

and energy to this project from both Public Policy Associates, Inc. (Nicholas Armit, Colleen 

Graber, Ferzana Havewala, Jeff Kaplow, David McConnell, Nancy McCrohan, Jeff Padden, 

Laurence Rosen, Scott Southard, and Nathalie Winans) and W.E. Upjohn Institute (Randy 

Eberts, George Erickcek, Sarah Klerk, Jason Preuss, and Brad Watts). 

Table of Contents 

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

Evaluation Design and Data Collection...................................................................................... ii 

Summary Findings.....................................................................................................................iii 

Context for Collaboration ......................................................................................................iii 

Governance ............................................................................................................................iii 

Effective Engagement............................................................................................................. v 

Planning .................................................................................................................................. v 

Communication...................................................................................................................... vi 

Use of Data ............................................................................................................................ vi 

Resources and Sustainability ................................................................................................ vii

Activities..............................................................................................................................viii 

Social Networking ................................................................................................................. ix 

Conclusions and Next Steps........................................................................................................ x 

I. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 

A. Background ............................................................................................................................ 1 

B. ETA’s Investment Strategy .................................................................................................... 4 

Three Generations................................................................................................................... 4 

Required Partners.................................................................................................................... 4 

Sector Focus............................................................................................................................ 5 

Allowable Activities ............................................................................................................... 7 

Promoting Regionalism .......................................................................................................... 8 

C. Evaluation of ETA’s Investment Strategy ............................................................................. 9 

D. Baseline Data ....................................................................................................................... 10 

E. Organization of this Report .................................................................................................. 11 

II. Theory of Change..................................................................................................................... 13 

III. Keys to Success: A Cross-Cutting Examination of the Early Implementation of Regional 

Transformation Efforts.................................................................................................................. 17 

A. Context for Collaboration .................................................................................................... 17 

Introduction........................................................................................................................... 17 

Analysis................................................................................................................................. 17 

Regional Characteristics ....................................................................................................... 19 

Regional Partners.................................................................................................................. 24 

Business and Industry ........................................................................................................... 26 

Education .............................................................................................................................. 27 

Economic Development........................................................................................................ 29 

Government........................................................................................................................... 30 

Other Partners ....................................................................................................................... 31 

Communications ................................................................................................................... 32 

Summary Observations......................................................................................................... 33
B. Governance and Decision-Making....................................................................................... 34 

Introduction........................................................................................................................... 34 

Analysis................................................................................................................................. 34 

Governance Structures.......................................................................................................... 35 

Leadership............................................................................................................................. 36 

Vision.................................................................................................................................... 39 

Integrity of the Decision-Making Process ............................................................................ 40 

Governance Supports............................................................................................................ 42 

Changes in Planned Governance Structures ......................................................................... 43 

Summary Observations......................................................................................................... 44

C. Effective Engagement among Collaborators........................................................................ 45 

Introduction........................................................................................................................... 45 

Analysis................................................................................................................................. 46 

Summary Observations......................................................................................................... 52

D. Planning ............................................................................................................................... 54 

Introduction........................................................................................................................... 54 

Planning Activities Conducted ............................................................................................. 54 

Proposals and Planning Partners........................................................................................... 54 

Asset Mapping and Planning ................................................................................................ 56 

Ongoing Planning Activities................................................................................................. 58 

Additional Themes and Illustrations..................................................................................... 58 

Summary Observations......................................................................................................... 60

E. Communication .................................................................................................................... 62 

Introduction........................................................................................................................... 62 

Communication Purposes ..................................................................................................... 62 

Communication Methods...................................................................................................... 64 

Measurement......................................................................................................................... 65 

Effectiveness......................................................................................................................... 66 

Summary Observations......................................................................................................... 66

F. Use of Data ........................................................................................................................... 67 

Introduction........................................................................................................................... 67 

Analyses................................................................................................................................ 67 

Use of Data to Identify Target Sectors ................................................................................. 67 

Asset Mapping ...................................................................................................................... 70 

Performance Monitoring and Sustainability ......................................................................... 71 

Tracking and Reporting Progress.......................................................................................... 73 

Summary Observations......................................................................................................... 73

G. Resources and Sustainability ............................................................................................... 75 

Introduction........................................................................................................................... 75 

Allocation of Initiative Funds ............................................................................................... 75

Expenditure Status ................................................................................................................ 80 

Leveraged Funds................................................................................................................... 83 

Sustainability......................................................................................................................... 86 

Demonstrating and Communicating Value........................................................................... 87 

Building on the Momentum of Increasing Regionalism....................................................... 88 

Venture Capital ..................................................................................................................... 88 
Summary Observations......................................................................................................... 88

H. Activities .............................................................................................................................. 91 

Activities as a Dimension of the Theory of Change............................................................. 91 

Analyses................................................................................................................................ 93 

Types of Activities................................................................................................................ 95 

*Data for this table came from available implementation plans submitted by the regions and 

site visit interviews. ............................................................................................................ 101 

Summary Observations....................................................................................................... 102 

I. Social Networking ............................................................................................................... 105 

Introduction......................................................................................................................... 105 

Social Networking Data...................................................................................................... 105

Results of the Social Networking Analysis ........................................................................ 106 

Network Structure............................................................................................................... 110 

Summary Observations....................................................................................................... 113 

IV. Summary and Next Steps...................................................................................................... 114 

A. Key Initial Findings ........................................................................................................... 114 

B. Issues for Further Research................................................................................................ 116 

Bibliography ............................................................................................................................... 118 

Overview of Generation II and III Regions ...................................................................Appendix A 

Social Network Graphs by Regions............................................................................... Appendix B 

List of Tables 

1. Generation II Regions and Sectors ..............................................................................................6 

2. Generation III Regions and Sectors .............................................................................................7 

3. Geographic Characteristics of Generation II Regions ...............................................................19 

4. Geographic Characteristics of Generation III Regions..............................................................20 

5. Number of States and Counties in Generation II Regions.........................................................21 

6. Number of States and Counties in Generation III Regions........................................................22 

7. Local WIB Involvement ............................................................................................................25 

8. Presence of Common Vision and Interlocking Leadership, 2008 .............................................39 

9. Groups Noted in Response to Question: “Are there organizations that are not included in your 

region’s activities?” .......................................................................................................................47 

10. One Region’s Metrics and Expected Outcomes ......................................................................72 

11. Grant Expenditure Status as of January 2009..........................................................................81 

12. Reasons for Delays in Expenditure of Grant Funds, Site Visit Feedback 2008 ......................83 

13. Leveraged Fund Sources, As Reported by ETA, as of April 3, 2008......................................85 

14. Activities Development by the Regions ..................................................................................94 

15. Broad Activity Areas ...............................................................................................................96 

16. Progress on Implementation Plan Activities at the Time of the Site Visits (May 15–October 

24, 2008) ................................................................................................................................100 

17. Connections Between Different Types of Organizations ......................................................107 

18. Role of Local Workforce Investment Boards ........................................................................109 

19. Density of Regions’ Networks...............................................................................................111 

20. Statistics for Example Region................................................................................................113 

List of Figures 

1. Previous to the ETA Investment Strategy..................................................................................18 

2. Organizational Chart Example...................................................................................................35 

3. Circles of Leadership Construct.................................................................................................36 

4. Interlocking Leadership .............................................................................................................38 

5. Selected Allocations for Entrepreneurial Investment in Implementation Plans ........................78 

6. Competitive Subgranting Described in Implementation Plans..................................................79 

7. Selected Allocations for Competitive Subgrants Described in Implementation Plans..............80 

8. Example of a Region’s Social Network...................................................................................112 

 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

i

Executive Summary 

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Workforce Innovation in Regional Economic Development 

Initiative seeks to foster economic transformation in regions facing challenges from global 

competition and changing economic conditions. When the Initiative began in late 2005, the 

economic conditions across the country were relatively good compared to those in the recent 

recession. Nonetheless there was a growing concern about the ability of the United States to 

remain competitive in the 21st Century economy. Major reports from the National 

Academies,1 the Council on Competitiveness,2 the Business Roundtable,3 the National 

Association of Manufacturers,4

 and others pointed out that growing competition from nations 

such as China and India, coupled with the long-term energy crisis, posed threats to our nation’s

continued prosperity and global economic leadership. To maintain our competitive edge in the 

global economy there was a need to promote innovation and commercialization, which would 

fuel economic growth and job creation. However, in order for the U.S. to thrive in this 

innovation economy it was essential to have a workforce with the knowledge, skills, and knowhow needed by U.S. companies. 

The U.S. Department of Labor recognized that this was a national challenge, but noted that the 

solution could not be achieved by government alone. Instead, it would require a concerted effort 

among the many different entities that constitute a regional economy, including educators, 

workforce and economic development organizations, non-profit and philanthropic organizations, 

entrepreneurs, companies, and workers. By working together, and harnessing their collective 

resources, economic growth and prosperity could be achieved for all. 

The global recession that has developed in the past two years has only increased the need for 

workforce innovation in economic development and the importance of bringing diverse 

organizations in communities together to collaborate for economic stability and workforce 

growth. 

In February 2006, the Department of Labor’s Employment and Training Administration (ETA) 

announced the 13 recipients of $15 million grants to promote regional engagement and 

transformation. These grantees are referred to as the Generation I regions. Thirteen additional 

regions (Generation II) received $100,000 planning grants and, after completion of their 

implementation plans, received $5 million grants from ETA in January 2007. An additional 13 

regions (Generation III) were announced in June 2007, with $5 million grants for each region. 

 

1

 National Academies, National Academies’ Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy, Committee on 

Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century, Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and 

Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2005). 2

 Council on Competitiveness, Innovate America: National Innovation Summit and Report: Thriving in a World of 

Challenge and Change (Washington, DC, 2004). 3

 Business Roundtable and 14 other Business Organizations, Tapping America’s Potential: 

The Education for Innovation Initiative, (2005. <http://www.businessroundtable.org> 4

 National Association of Manufacturers, Looming Workforce Crisis: Preparing American 

Workers for 21st Century Competition, (2005. <http://www.nam.org/s_nam/index.asp>
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

ii

Unlike previous grant recipients, Generation III sites were required to have a local workforce 

investment board (WIB) play a lead role in the grant-funded activities. 

Evaluation Design and Data Collection

The evaluation team for the Initiative includes four organizations. The evaluation of the 13 

Generation I grants is being done by Berkeley Policy Associates in partnership with the 

University of California at San Diego. The evaluation of the 26 Generation II and III grants is 

being conducted by Public Policy Associates, Inc. in partnership with W.E. Upjohn Institute for 

Employment Research. Both evaluations are multi-year studies that focus on strategies, 

implementation activities, collaborative experiences, and performance. 

The evaluation of Generations II and III of the Initiative focuses on three main areas: 

 The strategic goals and program strategy 

 The program design and implementation plan 

 The collaborative experiences of economic development, education and workforce 

development, and employer partners 

The data for the evaluation comes from a variety of sources, including stakeholder interviews, 

focus groups, round-table discussions, and observations during two rounds of site visits. The 

first round, which was conducted during the summer of 2008, included interviews with an array 

of regional partners representing the public workforce system, K-16 education, economic 

development organizations, employers, state and local government, and the philanthropic sector. 

A second round of site visits, to be conducted in late 2009 - early 2010, will focus more heavily 

on sustainability and effectiveness of activities. The evaluation also includes a stakeholder 

survey that will gauge collaboration, leadership structures, and partner engagement in Initiative 

activities. Administrative records from the regions—along with extant data from public 

economic, education, innovation, commercialization, and labor market sources—are being 

reviewed throughout the evaluation. 

The evaluation culminates with a Final Report. This document is the Interim Report, focusing 

on the initial findings of the first round of site visits and other data collection. Because of the 

early stage of implementation, at the time of the site visits many of the regions were focused on 

the development of partnerships, governance arrangements, and the design of decision-making 

processes, and had not yet implemented key components of their action plans. Future stages of 

the evaluation will seek to measure the effectiveness with which the regions implement their 

activities and regions’ success in achieving their regional outcomes.
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

iii

Summary Findings 

To achieve regional economic transformation, the regions each must put in practice a unique 

strategy to engage key stakeholders and marshal common resources toward a new way of doing 

business. Collaboration among these stakeholders may well determine the success of the 

Initiative. There are nine major dimensions of collaborative arrangements in the regions that will 

be considered through the evaluation. Summary findings according to each dimension are 

provided below. 

Context for Collaboration 

Each region entered the Initiative with its own historical, geographic, political and cultural 

characteristics which, together, have a substantial influence on how stakeholder organizations 

approach collaboration. For example, the geography of a region can effect how easy or difficult 

it is to hold face-to-face meetings among key stakeholders, the attitudes that stakeholders in rural 

and urban settings have about competition with one another, the manner in which organizations 

and individuals handle ongoing communications, and the ease of access to institutions of higher 

education. Understanding contextual factors is important for understanding the dynamics that led 

to each region’s strategy and approach to implementation. 

Seven of the 26 Generation II and III regions experienced extensive collaboration before joining 

the Initiative; site visits to these regions revealed multiple examples of pre-existing collaboration 

involving different partners. The partner groups that most often interacted were the community 

colleges, industry, and WIBs. Still, bridging across the many partner groups required for real 

collaboration presents a challenge for the regions in nearly every case. 

Geographic and cultural diversity within some regions limited prior collaboration. Disconnects 

between urban centers and outlying areas were some of the most serious obstacles to past 

collaboration. In 15 of the 26 regions, state government had played a central role in attempting 

to bridge these gaps and establish regionalism as a priority. At the local level, however, such 

investment in regionalism was rare, and may help to explain the minor role local government 

continued to play in efforts to transform regions and regional operating procedures. 

Regions that crossed multiple political jurisdictions faced special challenges. Four of the 26 

regions crossed two states, and one crossed three states. All regions spanned from three to 36 

counties. Competing economic interests may have limited collaboration across political 

boundaries, particularly competition to attract new companies, generate tax revenue, and create 

new jobs in a given location. 

Governance 

Leadership and joint decision-making are considered key elements for success of any broadbased initiative. To be effective, collaborative efforts require leadership from key individuals, an 

appropriate governance structure, and a decision-making process that is accepted by key 

stakeholders. 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

iv

A common vision and alignment of goals and activities among the region’s leadership facilitates 

effective action, and is associated with “interlocking leadership” structures. The six regions that 

were rated by the evaluation team as having both a high degree of connection within their 

leadership and a high degree of recognition of a common vision are expected to enjoy greater 

success in implementing their plans. 

Organizational structures varied across regions. Leadership groups highlighted in the regions’ 

organizational charts ranged from 15 to 70 partner representatives, with executive groups 

varying in size from 5 to 20 members. Most of the regions appear to have created collaborative 

governance structures, with shared leadership and decision-making integrity. However, several 

are challenged to create structures that may be necessary to achieve the desired collaboration. 

The decision-making structures emphasized the collaborative nature of these initiatives. Rather 

than being bureaucratized, there were multiple rings of leadership, with core leaders serving as 

the intellectual center and energy for the initiative. A second ring of leaders are actively engaged 

but do not have final authority for committing resources. A third ring includes individuals who 

lead particular aspects of the implementation plan, such as a sector-specific project. Oftentimes, 

these leaders are the chairs of the implementation work groups. 

The ways in which the leadership in the regions operated within and across these rings of 

leadership varied. In a few regions, the decision-making was concentrated with one or two core 

leaders, and thus the leadership rested heavily in the central circle. In other regions, the core 

leaders (staff and others) played more of a facilitator role and decisions tended to be made by 

consensus of the leadership group which, as stated above, might include dozens of members. In 

these cases, the core leaders saw their key contributions as keeping the initiative organized, 

bringing information to the leadership group, and administering the decisions of the group. 

Most of the regions developed working groups on specific topic areas, which allowed greater 

geographic representation and actively engaged representatives of partner organizations. 

In some cases, these groups are formed to operate largely independently of one another, while 

still reporting back to the overarching leadership group that handles the administrative and “big 

picture” issues. In other regions, the task teams are more interdependent. Depending on how 

these groups operate in practice, they can either provide an efficient means for conducting the 

work while allowing for enhanced stakeholder participation, or they can recreate silos present 

within the region and diminish the collaborative nature of the region. 

If every decision must be vetted with and approved by every stakeholder, few decisions can be 

made. On the other hand, if every decision is made by only a small core of leaders, the rest of 

the stakeholders feel alienated. Based on the site visit data, most regions have struck a functional 

balance between the imperative for action and the need for inclusion. 

Few states appear to provide strategic leadership to the regions. States could be helping the 

regions to align with state workforce strategies, leveraging resources, generating broader public 

support for the Initiative, and attracting more partners to the regions. In addition, informed 

decision-making has not yet been well-integrated into the regions. Even the most capable 

leaders are handicapped without information about what is working and what is not. 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

v

Effective Engagement 

Partner engagement may be essential to achieve successful outcomes. Engagement can be 

measured through the extent to which businesses in the region’s targeted industry or key 

decision-makers in partner organizations are knowledgeable and involved in collaborative 

efforts. 

Because the first round of site visits occurred early in the regions’ implementation of their 

strategic approaches, it is premature to gauge the strength of partner engagement in the regions. 

The second round of site visits will provide a much clearer indication of the extent of 

engagement of the key partners. 

At the time of the first round of site visits, partnerships with stakeholders in the region had begun 

and, in many cases, regions had made progress in accepting the paradigm of regionalism. The 

partnerships included important personnel from education and training organizations, as well as 

economic development bodies, but there was less evidence of strong collaborative ties with the 

private sector and local and state government. 

The entity housing the region’s activities appeared to be the most significantly engaged 

collaborator. In addition, community colleges were highly involved. In general, regions did not 

appear to be paying attention to the value proposition for participants; they tacitly assumed that if 

an organization is represented by a participant then that organization is fully committed to the 

goals of regional collaboration and that individual is fully committed to the collaboration. 

Those companies that have been involved in collaborative efforts in the Generations II and III 

regions have had a variety of opportunities to provide input and suggestions about how to 

transform the public workforce system in a way that will promote regional growth in the future. 

Whether working at a strategic or operational level, industry representatives have been involved 

in identifying opportunities for establishing and strengthening targeted sectors, establishing 

strategic and operational goals, creating and strengthening regional partnerships, and overseeing 

the transformation of the service delivery system. 

Planning 

The planning process—through which the regions develop goals and strategies for implementing 

collaborative approaches for promoting regional coordination—produces outcomes that have a 

positive impact on the ability of each region to successfully create and direct activities for 

regional transformation. Establishing goals and strategies that are reasonable in their fit with 

local resources and attainable in their scope is expected to be a necessary requirement for 

implementing regional innovations. 

For most regions, planning began before the Department of Labor initiated this demonstration; 

with at least half of the regions having already adopted at least some of the goals of pre-existing 

development plans. In most regions, planning was an ongoing process that revolved around 

regularly scheduled stakeholder meetings and the creation of planning sub-groups made up of 

local WIB directors, educators, or industry councils. 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

vi

 

The planning process was still the dominant activity at the time of the site visits in the summer of 

2008. Two regions did not appear to have moved beyond the planning stage although planning 

was still going on within the other 24 regions, which had launched or were planning to launch 

activities designed to accomplish their goals by the end of 2008. Thus, regions from both 

generations appeared to be at all stages of the planning process. 

Asset mapping, a structured process of identifying and cataloguing regional assets (human, 

financial, institutional, and natural) that can be incorporated into a development effort,5

 was 

conducted by most of the regions, but these exercises were not necessarily conducted in order to 

identify the most appropriate goals for their region. Asset mapping was conducted for a variety 

of reasons, predominantly to confirm target industries and goals that had already been chosen 

and, in some cases, to drive goals and strategies to be adopted by the regions. Most of the 

regions contracted with consultants or university research institutes to conduct asset mapping 

activities, and most of the asset maps were fairly straightforward analyses of workforce, industry, 

and demographic assets within the region. Only a few regions conducted surveys, performed gap 

analysis, or engaged in other kinds of data gathering. 

Communication 

Effective communication is presumed to be necessary for effective collaboration. Internal 

communication promotes a common vision of the goals and strategies of the collaboration. 

External communication can increase public awareness and support, and catalyze institutional 

changes that may involve individuals or entities outside of the collaboration. 

Collaborative partnerships engaged in implementing regional strategies communicate for several 

reasons. Of the implementation plans available for review, eight outlined processes to keep 

partners and stakeholders up-to-date on details of the initiative. Ten of the implementation plans 

available discussed the need to have a procedure in place to disseminate information about 

accomplishments and success stories to both internal and external audiences. Eight included 

specific plans to reach out to external audiences and educate them regarding the work of the 

partnerships in their regions, and eight implementation plans specifically mentioned outreach to 

the business community. A fairly wide range of communication methods was proposed, 

including the use of Web sites, meetings, e-mail, and conference calls. 

Across the sites, stakeholders indicated that they valued and expected clear, concise, and timely 

communications. In most cases, the regions delivered. Where such communications did not 

exist, interviewees tended to demonstrate a lack of knowledge, a lack of buy-in, or both. The use 

of paid staff members or consultants dedicated to communications appeared to improve the 

quality and timeliness of communication efforts. 

Use of Data 

Economic development outcomes may be affected by the extent to which appropriate data are 

used to understand the nature of the challenges and opportunities that face a region, to map 

economic development and talent development systems and to identify the key participants and 

5

 Council on Competitiveness, Asset Mapping Roadmap: A Guide to Assessing Regional Development Resources, 

U.S. Department of Labor, (2006). <http://www.doleta.gov/wired/files/Asset_mappingroadmap.pdf> 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

vii

institution in those systems, to identify and shape potential strategies, and to monitor the 

performance of the collaboration as it moves from planning to implementation. To be most 

useful, data must be current, presented succinctly, and incorporated into the decision-making 

process. 

An examination of the background documents, proposals, and implementation plans suggested 

that most of the regions targeted industries based on the partners’ common knowledge of the 

existing industrial structure in the region, and confirmed these selections with data. Only a small 

number of regions appeared to systematically analyze available data on employment or business 

formation in order to choose target industries. 

For the most part, regions seemed to take regional asset mapping seriously. Ten of the 26 

regions (split about equally between generations) had completed asset mapping and were using 

the results for planning activities. The asset mapping in most of the remaining regions was in 

process or being planned. In only two regions did there seem to be resistance to the activity as 

unnecessary or redundant. As the evaluation unfolds, monitoring of the extent to which regions 

consider their assets and resource challenges in strategic planning will continue. 

The regions listed expected outcomes and metrics for the activities in their implementation plans. 

A review of these metrics revealed considerable variation in their usefulness and measurability. 

As the evaluation progresses, attempts to identify any correlation between the specificity and 

measurability of the metrics and the region’s progress toward transformation will continue. 

 

Most regions indicated that they were just initiating their activities and had invested little effort 

to date in monitoring progress or outcomes. Nevertheless, the regions suggested that they intend 

to do that monitoring over time. 

Resources and Sustainability 

Sufficient resources and long-term strategic planning are relevant for regions to meet the goals of 

the Initiative and realize regional economic transformation. The adequacy of resources and the 

sustainability of those resources beyond the initial investment are important factors in regions’ 

long-term effectiveness. 

Although some regions’ budgets were not available or did not provide sufficient detail, there was 

a great deal of variability between regions in the proportion of grant resources allocated to 

innovation, subgranting, and entrepreneurial programming, with Generation II demonstrating 

slightly more emphasis on this area based on planned allocation. Moreover, ETA data from 

April 2008 indicates that Generation II regions had leveraged more additional funding from the 

original grant. 

The budget plans that were submitted by each region along with their implementation plan do 

not necessarily line up with the emphasis placed on entrepreneurship activities. One of the 

primary reasons for this is that some regions were more focused than others on leveraging 

resources from federal agencies (Economic Development Agency, Agriculture, and Small 

Business Administration), universities, and private investors (angel investors, corporate 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

viii

 

foundations) to supplement WIRED funds. As a result, the total level of investment in 

entrepreneurship programs is actually higher than the budget figures suggest. 

The regions are allocating between one-fourth and one-third of their grant funds towards startup 

and administration expenses, including funds for program executives, administrative staff, 

accounting, and, in some cases, administrative fees to state government. In several cases, all or 

most of the salary of key project managers are being paid with grant funds, which may make it 

more difficult to maintain these staff, and the energy they bring to the initiative, in the longer 

term. 

While three regions have not identified any particular means to sustain momentum, seven 

regions have identified three or four strategies. Strategies identified by regions have focused on 

financial, structural, and operational mechanisms. Examples include a) leveraging funds and 

using multiple funding streams (including in-kind contributions and program-specific funding 

sources, b) requiring subgrantees to obtain matching funds, and submit sustainability plans, c) 

establishing projects that could generate their own revenue, d) establishing non-profit status that 

would allow them to pursue grant funds, e) supporting or expanding existing activities, 

f) establishing a special committee to spearhead sustainability efforts, g) documenting success, 

and h) building capacity of existing staff to continue after grant funds ended. The effectiveness 

of these strategies will be better understood over time. 

Activities 

The regions are conducting a variety of activities intended to achieve the objectives laid out in 

their implementation plans. The success of the regions hinges to a considerable degree on the 

success of these activities: recruitment into the activities, effective administration of the 

activities, and outcomes of the activities. 

In most regions, the launch of the initiative took longer than anticipated. Often, completing the 

ETA process of approval of the implementation plans was cited as a contributing factor. Many 

grantee personnel and some of their ETA liaisons expressed considerable frustration regarding 

what they saw as a process fraught with bureaucracy and delay. Apart from ETA’s approval 

process, many regions took longer than expected to fully form their leadership groups and to 

staff up their projects. These delays had a cascading effect on the rollout of other activities. 

Effective collaboration may increase the potential for transformational results. Those receiving 

high scores for collaboration also tended to have a higher likelihood of activities being 

transformational. While the data are very preliminary, this pattern supports a central assertion of 

the Initiative’s multi-step conceptual framework6

 that emphasizes the importance of 

collaboration in achieving regional transformation. 

Within the broad framework, regions were given great flexibility in shaping their approaches. 

The regions documented their plans for these activities in their proposals, implementation plans, 

6

ETA’s multi-step conceptual framework for the Initiative maintains that regional transformation can be achieved 

through a systematic process of identifying the regional economy, forming a core leadership group, conducting a 

Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis, creating a shared identity and economic 

vision, devising strategies, and leveraging resources and implementing. 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

ix

and quarterly reports. Such activities were funded by the grant investment, other sources, or a 

combination thereof. 

A wide range of activities are being conducted, including developing sector-based workgroups 

and business councils, developing new or updating existing curriculum to meet current and 

future industry needs, delivering training primarily to incumbent workers in targeted industries, 

strengthening worker pipelines for targeted industries through post-secondary education, 

stimulating and supporting entrepreneurship, and creating administrative infrastructures to 

support collaboration and administration of grant activities. 

Providing training for high-growth industries, high school-to-career assistance, and 

entrepreneurial training are the predominate activities being planned by both Generation II and 

Generation III regions. Training programs that are designed for the needs of targeted industries 

and entrepreneurial training appear to be easier to initiate than other planned activities. This 

could be because most regions have post-secondary institutes or community college that offer 

technical training for business and small business assistance centers. 

There are differences in the planned activities between the Generation II and III regions. In 

particular, three of the Generation II regions plan to establish business incubators, research or 

manufacturing centers and/or infrastructure improvements, including site development, while 

none of the Generation III regions have such aspirations. These differences may reflect the 

longer planning process given to the Generation II regions and may also reflect the broader focus 

of the unsuccessful proposals these regions submitted for the initial round of funding. 

Leveraged funds, which varied from just a few thousand dollars to more than one million dollars, 

were used for a variety of purposes, including covering program-related costs that do not meet 

the allowable cost requirements for the Initiative’s H1-B funds, extending the reach of the 

program strategy to include students less than 15 years old, expanding a program strategy to 

cover a broader geographic area, supporting implementation of programs that were researched 

and developed through the Initiative, covering gaps in funding that arose for Generation II 

regions, and supporting greater participation in training programs by dislocated workers. 

While the evidence is preliminary, it appears that in many regions, activities are underway that 

would not have occurred without the ETA investment. In most regions, key stakeholders 

reported that new relationships had been formed that crossed the traditional boundaries of 

workforce, education, economic development, and business. 

Social Networking 

An underlying assumption of the Initiative is that by bringing the right parties to the regional 

economic development planning table, new relationships will develop. Social networks may 

help regions discover new opportunities for transformation, build support for action among key 

stakeholders, and identify and activate the region’s resources to take advantage of these new 

opportunities. Social networks also can provide a way to measure the progress regions have 

made in such areas as engagement, governance, and communication. The first phase of social 

network data collection allows for only a preliminary analysis of social networking information, 

but these data provide a useful baseline for future evaluation. 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

x

Many regions have successfully built new networks—or made use of pre-existing networks—

that cross organizational boundaries and that involve individuals at multiple levels in the 

organization. More than three-quarters of all connections in the regions were between 

organizations of different types. 

A region’s previous success in creating links between different types of organizations may be 

related to the perceived strength of its social network. If a pre-existing social network in a region 

is perceived as one of the region’s strengths it may reduce the urgency of efforts to bring new 

organizations into the fold, resulting in a network with fewer links that spanned different types of 

organizations. In contrast, a broader outreach effort—and the strong cross-organizational ties 

that resulted from it—may be driven in part by the perceived lack of a solid preexisting network. 

Different types of organizations play varied roles in the regions. Local WIBs tend to be more 

central to a region’s network than other types of organizations, and are slightly more important to 

Generation III regions, where their involvement was mandated. Individuals at businesses and 

educational institutions were less central to their region’s network. 

The structure of a regional network may be a key factor in how efficiently a region 

communicates and how well it responds to the loss of key individuals. Tightly woven, dense 

networks—those that make use of a higher proportion of their possible connections—facilitate 

rapid and efficient communication because each individual in the network has more ties with 

which to reach out to others in the network. Eight of the regions were considered dense or very 

dense, and some regions were dependent on only a small number of individuals for most of their 

ties to key stakeholders. As regions proceed with their funded activities and build more ties 

within their communities, the regional networks are likely to become somewhat less dense and 

somewhat more balanced. This growth may reduce the efficiency of the network, in favor of 

greater sustainability. 

Conclusions and Next Steps 

Several broad themes came to light during the first year of data collection and analysis. 

 Regions are generally succeeding in building broad-based collaboration, with positive 

implications for regional transformation. 

 The idea of regionalism seems to be taking hold within the regions, overcoming a history of 

intra-region competition. 

 Regions have conducted a good deal of research and planning, but this work has not always 

been well-integrated into economic development strategies and goals. 

 The lack of key individuals in leadership positions may be holding back progress in some 

regions. 

 Regions are taking only small steps toward innovation, at least at this early stage in the 

Initiative. 

 Several regions have focused on sustainability as a key concern, but it is too soon to tell how 

effective sustainability practices will prove to be. 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

xi

 Regions have shown the capacity to adapt to changing economic circumstances, an attribute 

that probably has become more important in the midst of the global recession. 

 Some regions are beginning activities that have the potential to be transformational, while 

others have been more cautious. 

 There appear to be only minor differences between generations of grantees in terms of the 

challenges faced and progress made. 

Transforming a regional economy is a challenging and potentially long-term endeavor. As the 

regions progress, and the evaluation continues, the research team will focus on identifying 

important changes over time, and, ultimately, on judging the overall effect of the Initiative. Key 

outstanding issues include the influence of collaboration on systems and institutions, the extent 

to which the workforce system has been transformed, the level of innovation brought about in 

regional economies, the effect on targeted industries, and the success of regions in reaching their 

planned outcomes.
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

1

I. Introduction 

A. Background 

Complacency is a disaster these days, but (it) is a relatively minor issue 

for us. Better execution of our innovation initiative is our challenge. 

 -from A Sense of Urgency, by John Kotter7

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Workforce Innovation in Regional Economic Development 

Initiative is an ambitious effort to fuel economic transformation in regions of the country that are 

in economic transition because of foreign competition, large-scale worker dislocations due to 

plant closings, and/or natural disasters. The Initiative was launched in late 2005 amidst growing 

concern about the ability of the United States to remain competitive in the 21st Century economy. 

Major reports from the National Academies,8 the Council on Competitiveness,9 the Business 

Roundtable,10 the National Association of Manufacturers,11 and others pointed out that growing 

competition from other nations, coupled with the long-term energy crisis, posed threats to our 

nation’s continued prosperity and global economic leadership.

The emergence of a new, global economy presented both opportunities and challenges. To 

prosper in this new economy, more and more companies were seeking ideas for new, innovative 

products and services that could be successfully marketed around the world.12 Yet, it also 

introduced a whole new level of competition that acted as a powerful incentive for companies to 

focus on increasing productivity and cutting costs.13 For example, companies that once used 

supplier networks located within the boundaries of a given state or region were finding that they 

could buy the necessary goods and services outside the country at a substantially reduced cost.14 

In addition, companies were under continuing pressure to invest in new technologies that could 

be used to enhance business processes and accelerate production. 

 

7

 Kotter, John, A Sense of Urgency, Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press, 2008. 8

 National Academies, National Academies’ Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy, Committee on 

Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century, Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and 

Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2005). 9

 Council on Competitiveness, Innovate America: National Innovation Summit and Report: Thriving in a World of 

Challenge and Change (Washington, DC, 2004). 10 Business Roundtable and 14 other Business Organizations, Tapping America’s Potential: 

The Education for Innovation Initiative, July 27, 2005. <http://www.businessroundtable.org> 11 National Association of Manufacturers, Looming Workforce Crisis: Preparing American 

Workers for 21st Century Competition, September 2005. <http://www.nam.org/s_nam/index.asp>. 

12 Feldman, Maryann P. and Albert N. Link, eds. Innovation Policy in the Knowledge-Based Economy. Norwell, 

MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2001. 

Llerena, Patrick and Mireille Matt. Innovation Policy in a Knowledge-Based Economy: Theory and Practice. 

Berlin: Springer, 2005.

13 Friedman, Thomas L. The World is Flat: A Brief History of the 21st Century. (New York: Farrar, Strauss, and 

Giroux, 2005).

14 Dunning, John H. Regions, Globalization, and the Knowledge-Based Economy. (New York: Oxford University 

Press, 2002).
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

2

 

In this dynamic and competitive economic environment, having a globally-competitive 

workforce was of paramount importance.15 One of the immediate challenges facing the 

workforce system was helping existing and recently laid-off workers to upgrade their skills in 

order to make a successful career transition from the low-skill jobs that manufacturing 

companies were moving off-shore to reduce labor costs. There was a growing demand for 

workers that had the ability to integrate and apply academic, technical, and practical knowledge 

and skills,16 yet the education achievement data that was used to bolster the national calls for 

action revealed that the U.S. was falling behind other countries in terms of student proficiency in 

mathematics and science. Furthermore, there were insufficient numbers of graduates in 

engineering, computer science, and information technology17 to meet the needs of existing 

companies.

In response to these global trends, the Initiative was launched to support regional efforts “to 

transform those economies and enhance their global competitiveness through talent development.”18 

The transformational goal is captured in the following quote that envisions the development of: 

An integrated education, workforce and economic development system, 

supported by entrepreneurial attitudes and highly skilled people, which leads 

to a dynamic economic platform that offers greater prosperity to regional 

citizens.

19

Much has changed since then. The economic downturn that was underway in selected sectors 

and concentrated in some geographic areas of the U.S. in early 2007 has quickly become a 

recession of global proportions. The periodic layoffs that once were common practice in the auto 

industry have spread to other sectors and have grown into massive, long-term layoffs, and major 

plant and company closings and mergers. In several instances, these events have in turn caused 

smaller supplier firms to close.20 The disasters that hit the financial/ banking sector have made 

it difficult or impossible for companies to obtain traditional loans from financial institutions for 

new development projects, and, in some cases, for covering basic operating costs. Current and 

prospective angel investors have watched their financial resources evaporate as the stock market 

and/or real estate values have plunged.21 Even philanthropic organizations have suffered 

because their investment portfolio values are highly dependent upon the stock market.22 

15 National Research Council (U.S.) Committee on Workforce Needs in Information Technology. Building a 

Workforce for the Information Economy. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2001. 16 Porter, Michael. “Workforce Development in the Global Economy.” Presentation made at the InterAmerican 

Development Bank, Washington, D.C., November 2002. <www.gwit.us/global.asp#main>

17 National Academies, Rising Above the Gathering Storm, pg. 80. 18 U.S. Department of Labor, Solicitation for WIRED Generation III, SGA/DFA PY-06-09, February. 2007. 

19 Council on Competitiveness, “COMPETE: WIRED Regional Leadership Training Seminar – Transformation,”

Spring/Summer 2008, slide 28. <http://tinyurl.com/ybbl9r4> 20 Julianne Pepitome, Bloody Monday: Over 65,500 Jobs Lost, CNNMoney.com, January 30, 2009. 

21 See for example Tom Foremski, “Are Angel Investors in Trouble,” Silicon Valley Watcher, April, 2008. 22 See for example, Kristin Heim, “Recession squeezes even philanthropies of Gates, Allen” The Seattle Times, 

January 14, 2009. <http://tinyurl.com/8jax3x> 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

3

The fear and uncertainty that defines the current recession has had a considerable impact on 

communities across the country, as well as around the world. They have created a set of 

conditions that make it much more challenging, yet all the more important, to address workforce 

development issues and emerge from the recession quickly and convincingly. Thus, while the 

underlying economic conditions have changed since the Initiative was first announced, the need 

for and potential benefits of having an integrated education, workforce, and economic system 

remain substantial and may, in fact, be instrumental to economic recovery. 

It is in this context that the interim findings of the evaluation of local efforts to initiate regional 

transformation are presented. This Initiative melds together three strands of thought about 

effective workforce and economic development policy. First, it acknowledges the importance of 

workforce (i.e., talent) development in overall economic development. The skills, knowledge, 

and abilities of human resources are a key factor necessary for a dynamic economy. Second, it 

supports the role of collaboration and intermediaries in workforce and economic development, 

education, philanthropic and financial communities. The “old-fashioned” system of siloed 

programs based on eligibility criteria with very little coordinated planning or operation did not 

serve well the needs of jobseekers needing training, nor employers needing skilled workers, nor 

communities needing to provide a skilled talent pool to support area companies. Seamless 

systems effectively fashioned together by all stakeholders and facilitated by an intermediary can 

achieve better outcomes for both sides of the labor market, and thus the overall regional 

economy. Third, the Initiative recognizes the fact that the national economy is an aggregation of 

regional economies that vary in resources and other assets as well as economic performance. For 

regions that face particularly difficult challenges, the grant funds are intended as a catalyst for 

the development of regionally-appropriate collaborative activities. 

The allocation of grant funds to support comprehensive efforts to invigorate regional growth at 

the local level is an innovative approach in the U.S. Department of Labor Employment and 

Training Administration’s (ETA) full employment and training policy arsenal. The Job Training 

Partnership Act (JTPA) and its predecessors tended to be supply-side programs. Mainly targeted 

on nonemployed individuals, these programs tended to provide job search assistance or training 

that was thought to facilitate labor market entry or reemployment. In retrospect, JTPA was a 

step in the direction of collaboration as it ushered in significant private sector leadership at the 

local level. However, it operated in an environment of multiple programs with different 

emphases and clientele, and had varied and limited success in engaging the private sector or 

effectively serving the needs of jobseekers. 

The Workforce Investment Act (in concert with a work-first paradigm shift in TANF) brought 

about wide-scale program integration under the aegis of workforce investment boards (WIBs). 

The silos began to disappear. Furthermore, as Workforce Investment Act (WIA) programs have 

matured, incumbent worker support has become a key programmatic element to enhance the 

competitiveness and productivity of local economies. Policy makers have recognized the 

importance of developing the skills of incumbent workers in the overall area of economic 

development. 

This Initiative relies on a market-driven strategy; rather than dictating a specific process or 

approach, ETA has given local areas an incentive to work together to derive the best strategies to 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

4

 

develop a joint vision and coordinated efforts to promote workforce development that will 

translate into economic growth. 

B. ETA’s Investment Strategy 

These investments are seed funds intended to serve as a catalyst for regional collaboration among 

stakeholders in the public, private, and non-profit sector. These stakeholders or their 

intermediaries are expected to pursue innovative approaches for integrating and transforming the 

education, workforce, and economic development organizations into an effective system for 

talent development. 

Three Generations 

To date, three rounds (generations) have been funded with H1-B23 dollars. This funding stream 

is linked to fees paid by employers for work visas for non-U.S. citizens that have been hired for 

high-skill, high-demand occupations for which no qualified U.S. residents can be found. For the 

first round, referred to as the Generation I regions, more than 90 proposals were submitted, and 

13 were selected for funding. An additional 13 regions that were not selected in that first round 

were invited to participate as “virtual” regions, which included a small planning grant and an 

opportunity to participate in a national learning network developed by ETA to support the 

Initiative. In early 2007, these sites were designated as Generation II regions with additional 

funding that totaled $5 million over three years. These regions also had an opportunity to work 

closely with ETA staff to develop innovative approaches to linking education, workforce, 

economic development and others. The third generation of regions was selected via another 

competitive bidding process.24 Like the Generation II regions, these newly selected sites were 

slated to receive a total of $5 million from ETA. 

Certainly $5 million dollars is a substantial amount of money. However, it pales in comparison 

to the total amount of money that is at play in a regional economy. The intent of ETA was not to 

reduce the size and scope of the grants from the first round to the second and third rounds to 

limit their activities, but to encourage regions to leverage additional resources, financial and inkind, from a wide range of regional stakeholders. In order to achieve the long-term 

transformation that was envisioned, the active participation of regional stakeholders and the 

alignment of their combined resources would be essential. 

Required Partners 

The solicitations for grant applications emphasized the importance of regional collaboration and 

the need to make the group inclusive enough to drive economic transformation in the region, 

including stakeholders representing employers, state and local government agencies, economic 

development organizations, education and training providers, local WIBs, foundations, and any 

other organizations deemed to be critical to achieving the goals of transforming regions to 

23 H-1B fees are authorized under Sec. 414 (c) of the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act 

of 1998 (P.L. 105-277, title IV) as amended by P.L. 108-447 (codified at 29 U.S.C. 2916a). 24 U.S. Department of Labor, Solicitation for WIRED Generation I, SGA/DFA PY 05-04). November, 2005;and 

Generation III, SGA/DFA PY-06-09, February. 2007. 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

5

 

facilitate growth. Recommended partners were “change agents representing an array of key 

interests, including government, academia, business, community development, entrepreneurship, 

and the philanthropic community.”25 It is important to note that the involvement of local WIBs 

and One-Stops changed from being optional for Generation I regions to being a requirement for 

Generation II and III regions, at increasing levels of engagement and authority. Generation II 

regions were required to have representatives from the workforce system as key partners while 

for Generation III, workforce boards were required to play the lead role in each region. 

Sector Focus 

It was expected that these stakeholders would take an active role in developing and overseeing 

the implementation of a regional strategy and action plan, and could use the grant funds to target 

the needs of an industry or sector that was projected to experience significant growth. Tables 1 

and 2 provide a list of the regions in Generations II and III and the industry sectors that were 

selected. 

25 U.S. Department of Labor, Grant Solicitation for WIRED Generation I, p. 10. 

<http://www.workforceatm.org/sections/pdf/2005/WIRED%20Submission%20Guidelines.pdf> 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

6

Table 1: Generation II Regions and Sectors* 

Industry Sector

 Appalachian Ohio  Arkansas Delta  Central/Eastern Puerto Rico  Delaware Valley  Northern California  Northern New Jersey  Rio Grande Valley  Southeast Michigan  Southeastern Wisconsin  Southwestern Connecticut  Southwestern Indiana  Tennessee Valley  Wasatch Range/Utah  Total Regions /Sector 

Advanced manufacturing X X X X X X X X X X 10 

Aerospace/defense X 1 

Agribusiness X 1 

Nanotechnology X 1 

Chemicals and plastics X 1 

Creative arts/entertainment X 1 

Energy/alternative energy X X X X 4 

Financial services X X 2 

Health care X X X 3 

Homeland security X 1 

Information technology X X X X X 5 

Biotechnology/life sciences X X X X X X X X 8 

Logistics/transportation X X X X 4 

Retail X X 2 

Water Resources X 1 

Total Sectors per Region 1 3 4 2 4 5 3 4 3 6 5 4 1 

*Data for this table came from available implementation plans submitted by the regions. 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

7

Table 2: Generation III Regions and Sectors*

Industry Sector 

 Central Kentucky  Central New Jersey  Greater Albuquerque  Minnesota Triangle  North Oregon  Pacific Mountain Washington  South-Central and  Southwest Wisconsin  South-Central Idaho  South-Central Kansas  Southeast Missouri  Southeastern Mississippi  Southeastern Virginia  Southern Arizona  Total Regions/Sector 

Advanced manufacturing X X X X X X X X X 9 

Aerospace/defense X X 2 

Agriculture/agribusiness/food 

processing X X 2 

Biotechnology/life sciences X X X X X 5 

Composites/advanced 

materials science X 1 

Construction X X X 3 

Energy/alternative energy X X X X X 5 

Health care X X X 3 

Homeland security X 1 

Human resources X 1 

Information technology X 1 

Logistics/transportation/ 

warehousing X X X 3 

Modeling and simulation X 1 

Optics X 1 

Skilled trades X 1 

Tourism X 1 

Utilities X 1 

Total Sectors per Region 6 1 5 4 2 3 6 2 1 5 1 2 3 

*Data for this table came from available implementation plans submitted by the regions. 

Allowable Activities 

According to the Solicitation for Grant Applications (SGA), grant funds could be used to pay for 

a potentially wide range of activities, as long as they were directly related to the activities 

included in each region’s implementation plan. General categories of activities include: 

 talent development related to entrepreneurship and small business development; purchasing 

equipment to train job seekers and workers for high-growth occupations; development and 

implementation of model activities to build core competencies and train workers; 

 identifying and disseminating career and skill information; 

 developing or purchasing regional data tools or systems to deepen understanding of the 

regional economic landscape and labor market; and 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

8

 

 integrated regional planning such as increasing the integration of community and technical 

college activities with activities of businesses and the public workforce investment system to 

meet the training needs of business.26 

In other words, as long as the activities were directly related to the region’s targeted sector(s) and 

consistent with the implementation plan, the regions could reach out to and recruit employers to 

get involved in the Initiative, conduct market research related to the growth of targeted industry 

sectors, occupations, and training needs, procure equipment necessary for training purposes (with 

prior approval from ETA), cover the costs of curriculum development and training (instructors, 

space, supplies, but not actual time spent in training) for new and incumbent workers, provide 

information on project goals and activities to the public, and hire consultant services to provide 

technical and professional advice. 

Activities that could not be funded with the H1-B funds27 used for the Initiative included things 

related to general economic development, such as: 

 public infrastructure improvements 

 product research and development 

 inventory acquisition 

 general business capitalization or expansion 

 revolving loan accounts 

Promoting Regionalism 

One of the primary objectives of this Initiative is to promote regional approaches to addressing 

workforce and economic development issues. The Initiative was built on an assumption that the 

dynamics of the economy are best understood and addressed at the regional level. As a 

consequence, the solicitation was not prescriptive in terms of the configuration of the regions, 

other than to say that they were required to consist of contiguous counties and were permitted to 

cross state boundaries. The expectation was these regions would not necessarily conform with 

existing political jurisdictions or municipal boundaries.28 Similarly, there was an expectation 

that each region would focus its efforts on a limited number of industry sectors that were deemed 

to be important to the regional economy, but it was left to the proposers to create a rationale to 

support the sectors that were named as targets in each proposal. 

In the interest of seeing that each region maximized the opportunity afforded to them under the 

grant, ETA provided a range of supports that included a designated ETA staff person that would 

serve as a single point-of-contact for assistance in addressing any issues that might arise in the 

region. Furthermore, in addition to the national learning network mentioned earlier, ETA 

provided a limited amount of additional funds (maximum of $60,000 per region) for any 

additional technical assistance needs. 

26 SGA/DFA PY-06-09, p. 6. Additional information about the specific goals and activities of each region in 

Generation II and Generation III is included in Appendix A of this report. 

27 WIRED Initiative “Uses of H1-B Funding Revenue,” (2007. <http://www.bioone.org/content/Downloadables/WIRED%20Allowable%206!15!07.pdf> 

28 U.S. Department of Labor, SGA/DFA PY-06-09, Q&A, <http://tinyurl.com/cvdgyh> 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

9

 

One of the major activities associated with the Initiative was the requirement that all sites create 

a comprehensive, detailed implementation plan that would summarize the region’s goals, 

activities, and approach to measuring success. Regional leaders worked in conjunction with 

ETA leads to complete this document and submit it to ETA for final review and approval. 

C. Evaluation of ETA’s Investment Strategy 

The evaluation team for the Initiative includes four organizations. The evaluation of the 13 

Generation I grants is being done by Berkeley Policy Associates in partnership with the 

University of California at San Diego.29 The evaluation of the 26 Generation II and III grants is 

being conducted by Public Policy Associates, Inc. in partnership with W.E. Upjohn Institute for 

Employment Research. Both evaluations are multi-year studies that focus on strategies, 

implementation activities, collaborative experiences, and performance. 

The goal of the evaluation is to provide a comprehensive understanding of the implementation 

and cumulative effects of WIRED strategies on regions. This includes how these strategies 

facilitate transformation in regional economic and talent development systems. 

The evaluation of this Initiative is a multi-year study that includes the following general 

categories of investigation: 

 Strategic Approach, Implementation, and Institutionalization: These research questions 

focused on the strategies that were developed to address regional needs, the extent, nature, 

and impact of collaboration on regional partners, the extent to which funds from other 

sources were aligned and leveraged, and sustainability plans. 

 Innovation and Capacity Changes: These research questions focus on efforts to identify 

and address barriers to innovation and industry growth, and efforts to create a talent 

development system to that supports economic and business development, the effectiveness 

of the initiative in building training capacity in the region for the targeted sectors, and the 

measureable benefits for workers and job seekers. 

 Economic and Labor Market Effects: Here the research questions examine the ongoing 

changes in the regional economy and labor market, and the extent to which the regional 

initiatives contributed to job creation, education attainment, and business growth. 

29 The evaluators for Generations I, II, and III are working collaboratively. While there are some differences 

between the evaluations in terms of the analytical framework being used to organize the findings, the team has taken 

steps to ensure that there will be adequate data for cross-generation comparisons, such as aligning research 

questions, data collection methods, site visit protocols, etc. The evaluators are also planning to collaborate on 

portions of the final report for the Initiative. 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

10

 

 Cross-Generational Comparisons (Across Generations I, II, and III):30 The final set of 

research questions seek to understand whether key differences between the Generations, i.e., 

grant amounts ($15M v. $5M), role of Local WIBs (leader or partner), requirements for 

LWIB involvement, etc. contributed to different strategies, goals, and outcomes. 

Primary data sources include survey data and site visit data, each of which will be collected at 

two points in time for each region. The site visit data include key stakeholder interviews, focus 

groups, round-table discussions (facilitated group discussions), and observation. The surveys 

will collect participation information from regional stakeholders to gauge the extent of 

collaboration, leadership structure, effectiveness, and partner engagement in the regional 

partnership. The secondary data sources will include administrative data from the regions and 

numerous public economic, education, innovation, commercialization, and labor market data 

sources. 

For the Generation II and III evaluation, the first round of site visits, which was conducted 

during the summer of 2008, included interviews with an array of regional partners representing 

the public workforce system, K-16 education, economic development, employers, state and local 

government, and the philanthropic sector. A second round of site visits will be conducted in late 

2009 - early 2010 and will focus more heavily on sustainability and effectiveness of activities. 

This evaluation will follow the development and operation of the regions over the entire threeyear period of the Initiative. The evaluation includes three reports (the first interim report 

follows the first round of site visits, a second interim report will present the results of a baseline 

analysis of extant data and the findings of a stakeholder survey, and a final report). This 

document is the first Interim Report, which addresses early phases of planning and operation of 

the Generation II and III regions. The second interim report will be prepared in late 2009. The 

final, comprehensive evaluation report will be prepared in late 2010. 

D. Baseline Data 

This report presents important baseline information regarding the status of the regions. In most 

cases, the first round of site visits was conducted shortly after each region received ETA 

approval of their implementation plan. Because of the early stage of implementation, many of 

the regions were focused on the development of partnerships, governance arrangements, and the 

design of decision-making processes and had not yet implemented key components of their 

action plans. This report reflects the status of regional activities as of the summer of 2008. 

 

30 A complete list of research questions and detailed description of the evaluation methodology can be found in the 

Evaluation Design Report for the Evaluation of Generations II and III. 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

11

E. Organization of this Report 

This report consists of four main sections. 

 Section I: Introduction. This section described the context of the Initiative, the design of the 

Initiative, and the general approach for evaluating Generations II and III regions. 

 Section II: Theory of Change. This section describes the Theory of Change that is used in 

this report to examine key components of the Initiative. It describes the nine key dimensions, 

which are then used in Section III to organize the presentation of the findings. 

 Section III: Keys to Success. This section presents the findings of the first phase of the 

evaluation. It uses the Theory of Change as a starting point for discussing the experiences 

and lessons learned by stakeholders that participated in the first round of site visits. 

 Section IV: Summary and Next Steps. The primary findings of the evaluation are 

summarized here and the next steps in the evaluation are described. 

 Bibliography 

 Appendix A: This consists of a matrix that lists the regions that are involved in Generations 

II and III and the goals and main activities that have been planned by each region. 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

12
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

13

II. Theory of Change 

Evaluations are intended to assess the effectiveness of strategies designed to achieve stated goals. 

In the field of evaluation, the assessment examines the relationship between activities and 

outcomes, both intermediate and long-term. Typically, a Theory of Change (TOC)31 is used to 

articulate the main components of a strategy and how those components contribute to the overall 

success of a given program or initiative. 

The overall goal of the initiative is to position regions that are in economic transition due to 

foreign competition, large-scale worker dislocations due to plant closings, and/or natural 

disasters to take positive steps towards transformation in order to compete successfully in a 

global economy. To do so, regions must design and implement their own unique strategy for 

engaging regional stakeholders in the public, private, and philanthropic sectors in a collaborative 

effort to transform the workforce and economic development systems to make them more adept 

at responding to the dynamics of this new global economy. 

The success of the Initiative is dependent upon the ability to establish and maintain collaborative 

engagement among key stakeholders, involving them in leadership, sharing information on 

financial and other resources, assessing regional status, needs, and opportunities, and making the 

entire region the beneficiary of grant-funded activities.32 

Previous research conducted by Public Policy Associates, Incorporated33 and the W.E. Upjohn 

Institute for Employment Research34 has examined the formation and operation of workforce 

development initiatives that emphasize collaboration. The dimensions were originally identified 

in the course of a national evaluation of 50 U.S. Department of Labor demonstration projects that 

focused on skills shortages35 and builds off of previous research on collaboration conducted at 

the University of Wisconsin-Extension in Madison and Workforce Learning Strategies.36 This 

 

31 Weiss, Carol 1972. Evaluation Research: Methods for Assessing Program Effectiveness. Englewood Cliffs: 

Prentice Hall; Weiss, Carol 1995. "Nothing as Practical as Good Theory: Exploring Theory-Based Evaluation for 

Comprehensive Community Initiatives for Children and Families." In New Approaches to Evaluating Community 

Initiatives: Concepts, Methods, and Contexts, ed. James P. Connell et al. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute; Weiss, 

Carol, 1977, “Research for Policy’s Sake: The Enlightenment Function of Social Research.” Policy Analysis 3(4): 

531-545. 

32 DOLETA, “Six Steps of Economic and Workforce Transformation Through WIRED,” 

<,http://tinyurl.com/dmtjof> 

33 Padden, J., and Hewat, N. Public Policy Associates, Inc., Evaluation of the Skills Shortages Demonstration 

Programs: Final Report, U.S. Department of Labor, 2003. Hewat, Nancy, “Skills Partnership Self Assessment 

Tool.” U.S. Department of Labor, 2003. Evaluating Collaboratives, University of Wisconsin Cooperative 

Extension, 1998, Ellen Taylor-Powell, B. Rossing, and J. Geran, Evaluating Collaboratives, Reaching the Potential, 

University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension, 1998. Workforce Learning Strategies, Regional Skills 

Partnerships, Employment and Training Administration, Office of Adult Services, August 2000. 

34 Upjohn Institute, Evaluation of the Michigan Regional Skills Alliances, Mott Foundation, 2005. 35Public Policy Associates, Inc., Skills Shortages Demonstration Programs Evaluation, 2003. 

36See for example, Ellen Taylor-Powell, B. Rossing, and J. Geran, Evaluating Collaboratives, Reaching the 

Potential, University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension, (1998) and Employment and Training Administration, 

Office of Adult Services, Workforce Learning Strategies, Regional Skills Partnerships (August 2000). 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

14

research suggests that these efforts to transform regional operations can be evaluated on nine 

major dimensions that have been considered critical for the operation and success of 

collaborative arrangements: 

 

1. Context for collaboration 

2. Governance and decision-making 

3. Effective engagement among collaborators 

4. Planning 

5. Communication 

6. Use of data 

7. Resources and sustainability 

8. Activities 

9. Social networking 

A brief description of these participation dimensions follows. 

1. Context for Collaboration. An important element that may influence the effectiveness with 

which the regional strategies achieve their goals is the context or history of collaboration 

within the region. This includes the historical, geographic, political, and cultural 

characteristics which, together, have a substantial influence on how stakeholder organizations 

approach collaboration. Some regions may have had substantial success with precursor 

collaborative activities; other regions may have competitive boundaries which they need to 

break through. 

2. Governance and Decision-Making. The governance/decision-making structure of an 

initiative comprises the agencies that house the grant and initiative leadership, the location 

within the agencies, staffing structures and experience, partner roles and responsibilities, and 

mechanisms that are established for flexible, but sound, decision-making. 

3. Effective Engagement among Collaborators. Partner engagement may be a vital element for 

success. It can be gauged by measuring characteristics such as the percentage of the 

businesses in the targeted industry in the region that are involved (by number of firms and by 

employment), the extent to which key decision makers in the partner organizations are 

knowledgeable and involved, and the nature of the partner involvement. This involvement 

might range from having the funded activities be partner-driven to having partners in an 

advisory role to infrequent contacts. 

4. Planning. The outcomes of the planning activities at the local/regional level are goals and 

strategies. The processes that are used to arrive at those outcomes may vary along 

dimensions such as who is involved in the planning, the extent to which data are used to 

drive the planning process, the length of time available for data collection, and the degree to 

which the outcomes are measurable. Presumably, the planning process will identify 

strategies that will be used to meet goals, and it will assign responsibilities to individuals or 

agencies for spearheading the strategies. 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

15

5. Communication. Communication may be a key factor in determining the success of the 

regional initiatives. Each region will have multiple types of communication needs. Each one 

will need to create awareness among the business community and will need to recruit 

employers as active participants. Each will need to communicate ongoing business items 

such as meeting times, agendas, and background materials for consideration by staff and 

decision-makers. Finally, the partners will need to report their plans and accomplishments to 

the public, to program administrators, and to all other stakeholders. Additional elements to 

examine are the extent to which communications are clear, timely, and appropriately 

disseminated. 

6. Use of Data. The sixth dimension is the extent to which data are used to understand the 

nature of the challenges and opportunities that face a region, to identify economic 

development or talent development systems, to identify and shape potential strategies, and to 

monitor the performance of the collaboration as it moves from planning to implementation 

stages. To be most useful, data have to be current, must be presented in a succinct manner, 

and must be incorporated into decision-making processes. 

7. Resources and Sustainability. Resource adequacy may be an important determinant of the 

effectiveness of the funded activities. The grant funds will be a key catalyst, but they may 

need to be supplemented by in-kind and cash resources from other sources in order to be 

most effective. In addition, sustainability beyond the initial investment will depend on 

finding adequate resources from partners or other funders. 

8. Activities. Regions will develop implementation plans that explicitly state their objectives. 

The bulk of the work that regions conduct will then be through activities intended to achieve 

their objectives, whether directly funded by the grant or by leveraged funds. Thus the 

success of the region will hinge considerably on the success of the activities: recruitment into 

activities, effective administration of the activities, and outcomes of the activities. 

9. Social Networking. Related to communication, increased social networking among the 

stakeholders may be a key success factor of the initiatives. An underlying assumption of the 

Initiative is that by bringing the right parties to the regional economic development table, 

new networks of relationships will develop, and that these networks will allow the regions to 

identify opportunities that might previously have been invisible and to better align and 

leverage the regional resources that make it possible to take advantage of such opportunities. 

In summary, each region’s performance in these nine dimensions should correlate with their 

success in achieving their goals. The primary hypothesis of this evaluation is that success is 

dependent upon the ability to establish and maintain collaborative arrangements among key 

stakeholders in the regions. 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

16
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

17

III. Keys to Success: A Cross-Cutting 

Examination of the Early Implementation of 

Regional Transformation Efforts 

A. Context for Collaboration 

Introduction 

The contexts in which regions operate provide important background information to facilitate 

understanding of their initiatives. The overall approach followed by ETA is to allow regions to 

develop their own strategies and goals. The Theory of Change for this evaluation recognizes that 

historical, geographic, and political contexts will help to shape those strategies. For example, 

knowing whether regional partners have, at least in part, worked together on a prior effort or 

otherwise broken through organizational silos informs the analysis of the progress of regional 

collaboration. Other important contextual factors besides prior collaboration include the 

geographic boundaries of the region; demographic, economic, and political characteristics of the 

region; and the workforce development and economic development institutions in the region. 

 

This section will first use extant demographic and governmental data to examine the 

demographic and political boundary characteristics of the regions. Next, it relies on the regions’ 

proposals and implementation plans to enumerate the education, workforce development, and 

economic development institutions that exist in the regions. Finally, it relies on qualitative data 

gathered during site visits to discuss the extent to which regions had successful collaborations 

prior to the Initiative. 

Analysis 

Before examining the array of organizations, stakeholders, and partners involved in workforce 

and economic development activities prior to this region-wide opportunity, a brief summary of 

data on collaboration may be useful. Earlier collaboration activities were mentioned in the 

regions’ proposals and discussed during the site visits. The resulting information on this history 

was cross-referenced and coded to categorize the degree of collaboration. The results are shown 

in Figure 1 below. 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

Collaboration Prior to the ETA Investment Strategy

19

7

Extensive Some

Figure 1 *Data for this figure came from available implementation plans submitted by the regions 

Seven of the regions had multiple examples of collaboration, involving different partners. 

Nineteen regions had at least one instance of collaboration, but these usually involved a small 

group of partners. Most commonly, these partners were of the same group, such as multiple 

economic development organizations or multiple WIBs working together. 

A few examples of these early collaborations include: 

 The 20-year operation of an applied research grant partnership between the Arkansas Science 

and Technology Authority and area business. 

 Southwest Indiana’s effort to link Indianapolis and Evansville with an interstate highway 

expansion called Hoosier Voices for I-69. 

 Kansas’s Regional Economic Area Partnership, which began in the 1990s and brought 

together local governments to voice policy concerns affecting economic development and 

conduct joint actions of benefit to the region. 

 Cooperative efforts in Southeast Virginia to address rapid response situations, in which plant 

closings necessitate immediate action by designated state government and One-Stop staff to 

assist dislocated employees by providing the information and services needed to obtain 

reemployment. 

The results of the early collaboration, according to the regions’ WIRED proposals, included 

regional data reports, workforce training, layoff aversion, business attraction, regional needs 

consensus-building, and other joint initiatives. 

A confluence of closely interacting factors influences the ability of stakeholders and the 

organizations they represent to work together toward regional goals in the manner envisioned. 

The factors discussed in this section set the stage for collaboration and may help or hinder its 

progress. 

18
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

19

Regional Characteristics 

Geographic 

A region’s size or the level of isolation of its component parts may influence the quality and ease 

of collaboration within its borders. As shown in Tables 3 and 4, the regions vary considerably in 

terms of geographic size and population density. 

Table 3: Geographic Characteristics of Generation II Regions 

Name 

Approx. 

Square 

Miles* Population** 

Population 

Density Per 

Sq. Mile 

Major Cities 

(pop. 100,000-

250,000)† 

Major Cities 

(pop. 250,001-

500,000)† 

Major Cities 

(pop. 500,001 

and up)† 

Appalachian 

Ohio 14,320 1,632,468 114 0 0 0 

Arkansas Delta 12,004 432,151 36 0 0 0 

Puerto Rico 348 439,748 1,263 0 0 0 

Delaware Valley 7,843 7,301,521 931 0 0 1 

Northern 

California 40,007 1,920,315 48 0 0 0 

Northern New 

Jersey 2,044 4,076,974 1,995 0 1 0 

Rio South Texas 9,799 1,420,888 145 2 0 0 

Southeast 

Michigan 5,923 5,070,239 856 0 0 1 

Southeast 

Wisconsin 2,622 1,969,085 751 0 0 1 

Southwest 

Indiana 3,579 422,336 118 1 0 0 

Southwest 

Connecticut 1,290 1,950,398 1,512 1 0 0 

Tennessee Valley 15,547 1,445,897 93 1 0 0 

Wasatch Range 

Utah 9,152 1,821,268 199 1 0 0 

*U.S. Census Bureau, “State and County QuickFacts” (2009), <http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/>. 

**U.S. Census Bureau, “Population Estimates by County” (2006), <http://www.census.gov/popest/counties/COEST2006-01.html>. 

†U.S. Census Bureau, “Cities and Towns, Population Estimates” (2006), 

<http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/SUB-EST2006.html>. 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

20

Table 4: Geographic Characteristics of Generation III Regions

Name 

Approx. 

Square 

Miles* Population** 

Population 

Density Per 

Sq. Mile 

Major Cities 

(pop. 100,000-

250,000)† 

Major Cities 

(pop. 250,001-

500,000)† 

Major Cities 

(pop. 500,001 

and up)† 

Central Kentucky 8,703 1,539,219 177 0 0 1 

Central-Eastern 

New Jersey 1,772 2,244,830 1,267 0 0 0 

Greater 

Albuquerque 21,938 1,009,149 46 0 0 1 

Minnesota 

Triangle 25,131 703,677 28 0 0 0 

North Oregon 5,733 2,098,394 366 0 0 1 

Pacific Mountain 

Washington 6,932 457,528 66 0 0 0 

South Central & 

Southwest 

Wisconsin 9,176 1,064,360 116 1 0 0 

South Central 

Idaho 11,575 173,626 15 0 0 0 

South Central 

Kansas 10,092 746,830 74 0 1 0 

Southeast 

Missouri 7,437 401,599 54 0 0 0 

Southeast 

Mississippi 10,817 778,841 72 0 0 0 

Southeast 

Virginia 5,570 2,044,053 367 1 1 0 

Southern Arizona 22,114 1,304,754 59 0 0 1 

*U.S. Census Bureau, “State and County QuickFacts” (2009), <http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/>. 

**U.S. Census Bureau, “Population Estimates by County” (2006), <http://www.census.gov/popest/counties/COEST2006-01.html>. 

†U.S. Census Bureau, “Cities and Towns, Population Estimates” (2006), 

<http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/SUB-EST2006.html>. 

The geography of a region can effect how easy or difficult it is to hold face-to-face meetings 

among key stakeholders, the attitudes that stakeholders in rural and urban settings have about 

competition with one another, the manner in which organizations and individuals handle ongoing 

communications, and the ease of access to institutions of higher education. According to 

interviewees, sparse population density or a lack of significant urban areas tended to affect 

collaboration efforts. As shown in the tables above, four regions in Generation II and six regions 

in Generation III contain no urban centers with a population greater than 100,000. During the 

site visits, interviewees in some of these regions cited large geographical expanses or rural 

isolation as historical impediments to collaboration. Most of these regions comprised large, 

predominantly rural areas with low population densities. For example, Minnesota Triangle’s 

Renewable Energy Marketplace includes 36 counties covering a total of 25,131 square miles, 

with a total estimated population of 703,677.37 The sheer distance between the small towns that 

dot the region is viewed by regional stakeholders as a challenge to forming a regional identity 

 

37 U.S. Census Bureau. “Population Estimates by County” (2006), <http://www.census.gov/popest/counties/COEST2006-01.html>. 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

21

because they do not have a history of working together. The driving distance, coupled with the 

harsh winter climate, has made it difficult for them to get to know and trust one another. 

A somewhat different problem is present in regions with identifiable population centers that are 

separated by large expanses of land with limited rural settlements. For example, Tucson is the 

largest population center in the Southern Arizona region. There are large expanses of 

undeveloped land between Tucson and communities farther south (Nogales and Douglas) and 

southwest (Yuma). The Internet has made communications among the initiative partner 

organizations feasible; however, distance is still viewed as a challenge to collaboration and to 

creating a regional identity. Similarly, in Appalachian Ohio, the University of Ohio is located in 

a thriving college town and population center that is surrounded by rural, economicallydepressed areas of Appalachia where residents do not have access to broadband. The extensive 

back-road driving that is necessary to meet with stakeholders in other areas of the region creates 

a barrier to collaboration, particularly during the winter months. 

It should be noted that some of the individuals who mentioned their regions’ geographic 

challenges believed that these efforts to increase collaboration in the region have the potential to 

help overcome the barriers of distance and to catalyze a sense of connectivity in their regions. 

Political Boundaries 

As shown in Table 5 and Table 6, each of the regions encompasses multiple political 

jurisdictions, ranging from three to 36 counties. At the low end of the scale, Southwest 

Connecticut covers a three-county area that includes Putnam and Westchester counties 

adjacent to New York City and Fairfield County in Connecticut. At the other end of the 

scale, Minnesota Triangle includes 36 counties. 

Table 5: Number of States and Counties in Generation II Regions*

Name Number of States Number of Counties 

Appalachian Ohio 1 29 

Arkansas Delta 1 17 

Puerto Rico 1 8 

Delaware Valley 3 14 

Northern California 1 16 

Northern New Jersey 1 8 

Rio South Texas 1 7 

Southeast Michigan 1 9 

Southeast Wisconsin 1 7 

Southwest Indiana 1 9 

Southwest Connecticut 2 3 

Tennessee Valley 2 23 

Wasatch Range Utah 1 8 

*U.S. Department of Labor, “WIRED Regions” (2009), <http://www.doleta.gov/wired/regions/>.
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

22

Table 6: Number of States and Counties in Generation III Regions*

Name Number of States Number of Counties 

Central Kentucky 2 26 

Central-Eastern New Jersey 1 5 

Greater Albuquerque 1 8 

Minnesota Triangle 1 36 

North Oregon 2 7 

Pacific Mountain Washington 1 5 

South Central & Southwest Wisconsin 1 11 

South Central Idaho 1 8 

South Central Kansas 1 10 

Southeast Missouri 1 14 

Southeast Mississippi 1 18 

Southeast Virginia 1 24 

Southern Arizona 1 4 

*U.S. Department of Labor, “WIRED Regions” (2009), <http://www.doleta.gov/wired/regions/>.

A large number of counties may impede collaboration, but it is also important to understand the 

nature of the counties. For example, the agricultural producers across the 36 counties comprising 

Minnesota Triangle stand to benefit from the long-term success of the regional initiative. These 

producers can benefit directly from the expansion of the renewable energy sector in their areas 

and the growth and diversification of the regional economy through development of a cluster of 

renewable energy-related companies throughout the region. In this situation, the counties have a 

clear economic incentive for participating in a collaborative endeavor. Like the Renewable 

Energy Marketplace in Minnesota Triangle, South Central Kansas has one dominant industry 

cluster (aerospace manufacturing); however, most of its industrial facilities are concentrated in 

Sedgwick County, with additional facilities scattered in the surrounding counties. As a result, 

this region faces the challenge of convincing its outlying counties that a regional collaborative 

would not simply benefit Sedgwick County at their expense. 

Political boundaries can take other forms as well. The Island of Puerto Rico is divided into 78 

municipalities. Eight municipalities, each of which has its own mayor and local governance 

structure, were combined into a non-profit economic development consortium called INTECO 

through an executive order of the Governor of Puerto Rico in 2003. Working through the 

complexities of the relationships among these entities to form a regional identity and regional 

economic development strategy is part of this region’s challenge. 

Regions that encompass more than one state face additional challenges that are independent of 

the number of counties involved. For instance, Southwest Connecticut is one of several regions 

that involve more than one state. As shown in Tables 5 and 6, four of the 26 regions incorporate 

parts of two states, and one includes three states. On the west coast, the states of Oregon and 

Washington created a region that encompasses seven counties in northern Oregon and three 

counties in Washington, all of which comprise the labor shed for the North Oregon region. On 

the east coast, the Delaware Valley region, which encompasses 14 counties in the states of 

Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania and has a concentration of pharmaceutical and life 

sciences-related industries, is another example. 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

23

Working across state boundaries can be an inherent challenge, particularly in densely-populated 

regions. These challenges may be due to economic interests, particularly competition to attract 

new companies, generate tax revenue, and create new jobs in a given location. In the case of 

Southwest Connecticut, for example, the county-level economic development organizations that 

are part of the initiative have competed vigorously for years to attract Fortune 500 corporate 

headquarters to their respective communities. 

As will be discussed later in this report, regions have dealt with these multijurisdictional 

challenges in several different ways. 

Cultural Differences 

Characteristics that can best be described as cultural exist within every region. A region’s 

demographics, geography, economic bases, and other influences shape a region’s culture over 

time. The extent to which a region represents a cohesive culture or crosses cultural boundaries 

can be a factor in its ability to pursue and attain its goals. 

Primary among the cultural boundaries is the presence within at least seven regions of a ruralurban cultural divide. An urban area is often distinguished from surrounding rural areas by 

greater ethnic diversity, higher educational attainment, and lower unemployment. The central 

city is also often given more economic development attention, which causes some resentment 

among outlying communities. In the context of regional collaboration, concerns about equity 

arise. A history of this sort of discord can present a hurdle for all initiatives that seek to bring all 

of the areas together. For example, one region has over ten counties and is predominantly rural 

with the exception of two key cities. The core of the region (one of these cities) is heavily 

concentrated in state government and university employment, and contains most of the region’s 

technology, professional services, and health care employers. In contrast, most rural counties in 

this area of the state are involved in farming and light manufacturing. While this region did have 

some collaboration prior to WIRED, the interaction remains tenuous and sensitive. 

In another region with a similar cultural context, stakeholders in the area had been trying to link 

the urban center to the surrounding communities before this effort, to little effect. Their goal of 

improving the image of the region, in order to keep and attract more young workers and highskill jobs, has not been entirely agreed upon. The city has dominated economic concerns for so 

long that the partners are having difficulty seeing commonalities across the region. These 

regions, and others with this dynamic, face a significant hurdle in order to build collaboration for 

joint activity. 

Cultural boundaries are a factor for many of the regions. Finding unifiers across areas with 

sometimes very distinct interests and values can be a challenge, but some of the regions did 

manage to hold a common regional identity prior to this project, based in part on a shared 

culture. 

Commuting Patterns 

The prevailing commuting patterns of workers in targeted industries can be instrumental in 

convincing stakeholders that their interests are regional in nature. Indeed, worker mobility was 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

24

mentioned by some regions as a factor that contributed to their regional identities, although this 

defining characteristic for regions was mentioned infrequently. Only one Generation II region 

stated explicitly in its proposal that commuting patterns were a key part of its regional definition. 

For Generation III regions, it was mentioned more often, by 7 of the 13. These numbers are 

lower than might be expected, and it may be that regions did not include existing commuting 

linkages in their proposals. However, the absence of this may also indicate that many of the 

regions did not perceive these patterns as key to their regional identities. 

For those who did mention commuting sheds, such as North Oregon —where a high level of 

worker migration existed within a region across county and state borders in both directions—

partners readily recognized the importance of their shared workforce. As one interviewee noted 

during the site visit, “It is not uncommon to have to commute to earn a living.” An 

acknowledgement of this common resource previously helped to motivate the cooperation of this 

region’s partners on workforce and economic development issues. The overlap of workplace 

and living place, therefore, appears to have been an important, but less-acknowledged, factor for 

most of the regions as they began their initiatives. 

Regional Partners 

One of the hallmarks of this Initiative is the focus on engaging stakeholders from various 

organizations that have a stake in the transformation of their region, its economy, and its 

workforce. Partners come from the public and private sectors and from philanthropic 

organizations. They may be representatives of state and local government, education and 

training providers, workforce development agencies, companies that are currently doing business 

in the region, economic development organizations seeking to attract new companies to the area 

and to retain existing businesses, or a variety of other interested groups. Because of the diverse 

goals, needs, opinions, and history of prior interaction among these partners, establishing a set of 

common goals and levering their combined resources can be a challenging undertaking. 

However, this diversity is an important dimension of each region’s context for collaboration. 

WIBs/One-Stop Centers 

One purpose of the Initiative is to transform the talent development systems in regions, and an 

important institution within those systems is the local workforce investment board and One-Stop 

system. The local WIBs and One-Stops within the region, then, are important contextual 

elements that influence the regional collaboration. Virtually all of the regions have at least some 

involvement with local WIBs and One-Stops. 

In Generation II, involvement by the workforce system as a key partner in the collaboration was 

required and active engagement was encouraged, whereas in Generation III, local WIBs were 

required to play a lead role in each region. In three instances, the regional initiative was located 

in a state that had a single statewide WIB (Idaho, Indiana, and Utah). The remaining regions had 

at least one local WIB within the geographic area, and in many cases, more than one, although a 

region’s initiative did not necessarily involve all existing WIBs in an active role. Table 7 shows 

the number of WIBs located within the regions and the extent to which they were active partners 

in the initiative. 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

25

Table 7: Local WIB Involvement 

State Number of WIBs in Region

Number of Active WIBs in 

Region 

Ohio 9 2 

Arkansas 5 3 

Puerto Rico 3 2 

New Jersey, Central 4 4 

New Jersey, Northern 8 8 

Delaware 16 13 

Texas 3 3 

Michigan 7 1 

California 4 3 

Wisconsin, Southeast 3 3 

Wisconsin, SC/SW 2 2 

Indiana - - 

Connecticut 3 3 

New Mexico 4 0 

Kentucky 2 2 

Tennessee 5 3 

Utah - - 

Minnesota 5 5 

Oregon 6 5 

Washington 1 1 

Idaho - - 

Kansas 2 2 

Missouri 2 1 

Mississippi 1 1 

Virginia 3 3 

Arizona 4 4 

* Data for this table came from available implementation plans and site visit interviews. 

** The type and intensity of activity varied considerably among the local WIBs. 

As shown in Table 7, at the time of the site visit, 13 regions had the full participation of all local 

WIBs located within the region. Having more than one local WIB in a region may present 

challenges if these entities had little or no prior history of collaboration. In at least one region, 

however, prior collaboration was the norm, not the exception. The Southeastern Wisconsin 

region formed a regional collaboration of local WIBs under a grant from the State of Wisconsin 

in 2003. 

The local WIBs and One-Stops are not always active partners in this Initiative. For example, in 

instances where the targeted industry and occupations require relatively high skills (e.g., 

biosciences, computer animation, engineering), some evidence suggests that there is less 

involvement of the local WIBs/One-Stops. Some individuals who were interviewed opined that 

the target populations were vastly different from the lower-skilled workers typically served by 

the local One-Stop. In two regions (Utah and New Mexico), the unemployment rates are so low 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

26

that the One-Stops were simply not in a position to provide any referrals or trainees for the 

targeted high-skill, high-demand occupations. 

There is also a geographic mismatch between some of the regions and the local WIB/One-Stop 

service areas. For example, one region encompasses 17 counties and overlaps with five local 

WIBs, yet only one of the five local WIBs is totally within the region. In this and other regions 

with a similar mismatch, the local WIBs that are only partially included have sometimes opted to 

align themselves with different regional economic development areas instead. 

In summary, the evaluation of activities funded and supported under the Initiative must recognize 

that the regions overlay a system of local WIBs and One-Stops that are often central to the 

workforce training system but not necessarily aligned with the region. 

Business and Industry 

Just as the regions have been established within a grid of local WIB service areas, they are also 

located in a local economy comprised of extant business and industry. Employers operate in a 

diverse and dynamic environment. Because of the demands on their time, employers are not 

always eager to get involved in outside activities. Previously, the options for employer 

participation in workforce and economic development across the regions tended to be limited to 

membership in local chambers of commerce, membership in sector-focused employer 

associations, involvement in local and/or state WIBs, and participation in employer advisory 

groups associated with technical education programs offered by local community colleges. 

The majority of individual companies that are directly involved in these regional efforts are 

represented by company executives who either had an established reputation for being involved 

in workforce and economic development issues at the state and/or local level, or have had limited 

previous involvement in workforce development initiatives and little or no prior involvement 

with regional collaboratives. For example, in South Central Idaho, one of the leading company 

executives in the region had a longstanding reputation for being a major contributor to the 

regional economy, as well as being a member of the state WIB. In contrast, in South Central 

Kansas, many of the involved individuals came from smaller aircraft manufacturing companies 

that were encountering workforce shortages, which served as their impetus for engagement. 

In the more expansive regions (see Tables 3 and 4), geography and industry characteristics 

previously led employers to narrow their focus and work with individual community colleges to 

obtain the requisite training. For example, in Southeastern Mississippi, where manufacturing 

companies are sprinkled throughout the rural, seven-county region, employers tended to have 

relationships with one of the three community colleges serving the region and, in some cases, did 

business with only a single trainer that met the company’s skill standards. Geography also 

presented a challenge for the wind-turbine companies involved in the Minnesota Triangle. 

Because the turbines are dispersed across the entire region (25,131 square miles), employers 

have had limited connections to education and training providers and no previous experience 

collaborating with other companies in their sector. 

Employers also have concerns that sharing information might jeopardize their company’s 

competitive position. For instance, in Puerto Rico, it was reported that many large and small 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

27

pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers are in competition—competing for contracts, 

for the right to get patents for innovative techniques, and for the engineering graduates of local 

community college and university programs. Similar concerns are shared by employers in other 

industry sectors. 

Overall, the employers that were recruited to participate in regional initiatives came with a 

variety of prior experiences with and assumptions about their role and the opportunities and 

limitations of collaboration. For employers that sought to be involved in earlier workforce 

development discussions, opportunities were available, although most of those opportunities 

were at a much smaller scale than was contemplated for this Initiative. 

Education 

Educational institutions at all levels are part of creating the workforce pipeline. Their role in any 

workforce development efforts prior to this Initiative and their relationships with other partners 

are key to understanding how a region might function in working together to transform the 

economic and workforce systems within its boundaries. 

Community Colleges 

In most regions, community colleges have long been involved in workforce development 

activities, often in collaboration with one or more of their future partners. However, the degree 

to which community colleges cooperated with each other varied. In at least three regions, 

community college collaboratives were present before this; these focused on sharing curricula 

and addressing workforce education needs without redundancies. For example, in the Arkansas 

Delta region, four community colleges came together to provide training for automotive and 

advanced manufacturing companies under a federal grant. In the Southeast Michigan region, 

nine community colleges had already formed a consortium to share best practices. In other 

regions, community colleges had not worked together regularly. A key reason for this is the 

adherence to separate service areas (defined by geographic boundaries). In the past this had 

resulted in unnecessary duplication of services. In other instances, it led to competitive behavior 

when determining which college would serve the needs of a company with a home office in one 

college service area and multiple operating sites spread across the region. 

Aside from relationships with one another, community colleges traditionally have some 

interaction with industry. The colleges build employer input into their systems through sectorbased advisory boards that help to inform their programs. However, the relationships between 

community colleges and their business communities are sometimes strained. Some business 

representatives interviewed during the site visits mentioned past difficulties in working with the 

community colleges on workforce development needs because customized training and 

curriculum changes could not move through the community college’s process quickly enough to 

suit employers. 

Universities 

As a general rule, universities, unlike community colleges, have not historically been closely 

involved with workforce development, preferring to view themselves as providing liberal 

academic training. In addition, the universities have not tended to have strong relationships with 

two-year colleges or with their four-year college peers. As one university representative noted, 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

28

 

“Two-year schools are working more closely together and toward a central purpose. They have 

an academic side and a workforce development side.” 

In a few regions, prior engagement by universities in workforce issues existed. In one of these 

cases, collaboration is known to have been motivated by the chancellor’s interest in addressing 

adult-learner needs and building the economy of the region. In recent years, universities have 

taken a growing role in promoting technology transfer, as demonstrated by an industry-university 

consortium, the focus of which has been on commercialization of research. 

Within universities, silos also frequently exist. According to those interviewed during the site 

visits, the communication channels within a university tend to be narrow and have prevented 

departments from sharing information and building collaborative opportunities. In the case of 

one university that has become a partner in this initiative, for example, two representatives noted 

that they each had recognized the need for students in the sciences and those in the business 

school to be linked, but it was several years before they were able to make this happen within the 

university. 

K-12 Schools38

As is the case with most universities, K-12 schools tend not to be involved in workforce 

development discussions. The accountability focus of No Child Left Behind has also drawn 

schools more deeply into academic concerns. Few would argue that K-12 students are irrelevant 

to the workforce pipeline, but there remains little emphasis on employability and career 

development within the schools. 

Relationships between K-12 and business are rare. As reported during the site visits, it is 

common for business to view education negatively, and business is not engaged in solutions to 

pipeline concerns at this level. However, the lack of familiarity and understanding apparently go 

in both directions. According to one insightful interviewee, “Business and education lack a 

common language to speak about workforce development.” An education representative from 

another region seemed to retort, “I’ve heard it said that educators live in a bubble, but industry 

has bubbles too.” In yet another region, one education representative noted that “[Many in the 

region’s school districts had] not even spoken to the business community before.” 

National policy makers and educational leaders have been concerned for a number of years about 

student preparation in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) areas. Some 

programs—Project Lead the Way, for example—existed in a few regions beforehand and reflect 

concerns at the K-12 level about STEM education and career skills.39 Career and technical 

education (CTE) centers, connected to school districts, have been another opportunity for 

interaction with postsecondary institutions and business. South Central Kansas was particularly 

active in this regard. Thanks in large part to its significant aerospace-manufacturing presence, 

the region boasts mutually beneficial connections between K-12, technical schools, and industry. 

38 Due to the H-1B Visa funding, only students aged 16 and over can be served under the grant. With this in mind, 

K-12 references here and throughout this report are really focused on high schools with grades 10-12, the district 

level, or the intermediate school level.

39 Project Lead the Way helps to inform high school students about engineering through hands-on projects and 

involves K-12 with the universities. 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

29

For example, the Wichita Area Technical College, which offers programs in aviation, 

manufacturing, and the skilled trades that directly qualify students for employment at companies 

in the region, allowed promising high school students to register for its courses. Additionally, 

the Wichita State University College of Engineering offered Project Lead the Way training for 

middle and high school teachers. The Wasatch Range of Utah had also done considerable 

outreach to middle schools, emphasizing the need to build the pipeline of workers. Overall, 

however, previous collaboration involving K-12 and other stakeholders seems to have been 

minimal across the regions. 

Economic Development 

Economic development agencies typically operate within discrete geographic service areas 

which, by their very nature, often work at cross purposes with agencies serving a similar function 

for nearby jurisdictions. In seven Generation II regions and six Generation III regions, local 

economic development agencies had rarely engaged in collaboration or data sharing and, in some 

cases, had worked in vigorous competition with one another. For example, in Southwest 

Connecticut, economic development organizations had competed vigorously for years with 

agencies in suburban New York to attract Fortune 500 corporate headquarters to their respective 

communities. South Central Kansas also exemplified this tendency. Throughout the region, 

counties and cities had invested in separate economic development programs, all of which were 

competing with one another to attract investment. In this region, the Initiative was perceived to 

be facilitating a transition toward a more cooperative approach to economic development in 

which all parties—urban, suburban, and rural—recognize the inefficiency of parochial economic 

development models and the benefits of communication, collaboration, and data-sharing among 

economic development agencies. 

Historically, in marketing their areas, economic developers often have had close relationships 

with industry partners. However, economic development agencies have not typically had much 

interaction with workforce development agencies. In one region, stakeholders reported that 

economic developers previously focused their efforts on land development, sites, buildings, and 

tax subsidies. Since then, the initiative has fostered a shift in perspective that now sees 

workforce development as integral to regional economic development. In another region from 

Generation III, this historic disconnect manifested itself when economic development agencies 

felt left out of the initiative’s leadership process before it was made clear that WIB leadership 

was a requirement for that round of grants. Even after this requirement was understood, some 

stakeholders felt that education and economic development should have been given key 

leadership roles in the region as well. 

In six Generation II regions and seven Generation III regions, economic development agencies 

had previously formed multicounty partnerships with neighboring economic development 

organizations in the pursuit of a common agenda. In Rio South Texas, the McAllen Economic 

Development Corporation—itself representing five economic development agencies—joined 

forces with other economic development stakeholders in the region to form the Rio South Texas 

Economic Council to address common needs, especially the attraction of a new automotive 

assembly plant to the region. In Central Kentucky, significant collaborative work had occurred 

for years between Jefferson County and southern Indiana; however, the structure of Kentucky’s 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

30

 

economic development process, organized into Area Development Boards, had explicitly favored 

individual counties over regional interests. 

In summary, while economic development agencies in one-half of the regions previously had 

demonstrated parochial behavior, the other half had transcended local agendas to participate in 

regional collaborative efforts. Even among regions whose economic development agencies 

demonstrated a history of explicit competition, stakeholders indicated that progress was being 

made toward a regional mindset as a result of the initiative. This indicates that regionalism may 

be taking hold more readily among economic development agencies, perhaps as a result of 

growing awareness regarding the need for local economic developers to band together with their 

neighbors to foster competitiveness in a global economy. 

Government 

State 

In at least seven Generation II regions and eight Generation III regions, state government 

previously played an important role in setting an agenda for regionalism through investments and 

initiatives to identify target industry sectors, foster collaboration, and stimulate workforce and 

economic development. 

In several cases, the state governor or lieutenant governor was a driving force for this change. In 

Central New Jersey, for example, Governor Jon Corzine’s economic development strategy 

became a rallying point behind which the state’s education and workforce development agencies 

developed the Life Sciences Innovation Partnerships Institute (IPI), a regional life science 

consortium. IPI was initiated with state funding and, ultimately, provided the model for what 

would become Bio-1. In Greater Albuquerque, the state lieutenant governor joined industry and 

education entities on an executive advisory board that would form the basis of the region’s 

leadership under the Initiative. In the Minnesota Triangle, state-level efforts to stimulate the 

growth of the renewable energy sector date back at least eight years to a previous administration. 

During this time, the sector has flourished in the region, which, according to interviewees, 

contains 85 percent of the renewable energy projects in the state. Minnesota’s Governor Tim 

Pawlenty is also a strong renewable energy advocate. In 2006, Governor Pawlenty unveiled his 

Next Generation Energy Initiative, a set of specific goals for increasing renewable energy 

production, fostering energy conservation, and reducing carbon emissions.40 

Another state-led effort helped to lay the groundwork for two regions in southern Wisconsin. 

Growing Regional Opportunities in Wisconsin (GROW) was launched in 2003 by the Governor 

of Wisconsin. It was designed to encourage the development of regional partnerships that would 

work together to foster education, workforce, and economic development. In the same state, the 

Regional Workforce Alliance—a collaboration of WIBs in the Milwaukee region—received a 

grant from the state in 2006 to create a regional workforce development plan, assemble a 

regional business services team, and analyze sources of public, private, and philanthropic 

funding for workforce development. 

40 Office of the Governor, “Governor Pawlenty Introduces Next Generation Energy Initiative,” December 12, 2006. 

< http://www.governor.state.mn.us/mediacenter/pressreleases/2006/december/PROD007863.html> 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

31

Thus, several state government agencies had already worked to set agendas for regionalism. 

While term limits and changing administrations make it difficult to predict the future support of 

regionalism among these states, those which have had a head start in fostering collaboration may 

have an advantage over those whose state governments were less engaged in regionalism. 

Local 

In most cases, the site visits have indicated modest previous participation by local government 

agencies in regional efforts. At least five regions demonstrated some evidence of substantive 

participation by local government officials in a regional collaborative effort. In Southwest 

Indiana, the “Vision 2000” economic development effort brought city and county government 

officials together with private industry to set a common course for economic development in a 

four-county area that is located within the borders of the current region. In Southeastern 

Wisconsin, local elected officials have a critical role in the board of the regional Milwaukee 7 

organization. The board consists of the seven highest elected officials in the region, along with 

14 representatives of area business and industry. In Central-Eastern Puerto Rico, the mayor of 

Caguas was identified by several stakeholders as a powerful unifying force for his region prior to 

involvement in this initiative. 

Regardless of the previous level of regional collaboration among local government agencies, 

several regions emphasized during the site visits that connecting with local elected officials was 

an important goal, particularly with regard to the sustainability of their efforts. For example, 

South Central Kansas has worked hard to build trust and ownership among officials in the 

communities surrounding Sedgwick County. This effort is especially important given the 

region’s history of competition for industrial investment, as noted in the Economic Development 

section above. 

In summary, the concept of multijurisdictional collaboration seems relatively new to most local 

government agencies in the regions. It appears that, in most cases, no forum existed for them to 

come together prior to WIRED. As noted in the Political Boundaries section above, the limited 

history of collaboration among local communities may denote the challenge of transcending 

differences in local regulations and approval processes in pursuit of a common agenda. It may 

also reflect the difficulty of adopting a regional perspective at a time when local communities are 

competing with neighboring cities and counties for jobs and investment. The lack of 

participation by local officials in earlier initiatives is not necessarily an indicator of their 

participation now or in the near future. While it is likely that regions with a history of local 

cooperation and buy-in will have a head start, even local communities without a history of 

regionalism may step up to embrace common agendas. Regardless of their histories, regions that 

work with local officials to sell the benefits of regionalism, build strong communications 

networks, and cultivate trust are likely to be the most successful at winning long-term local 

involvement. 

Other Partners 

Aside from WIBs, business and industry, educational institutions, and economic development 

agencies, some regions have taken advantage of additional institutions located in their areas. 

Many regions had major governmental or nonprofit research facilities. For example, the Greater 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

32

Albuquerque region houses Los Alamos National Laboratory and Sandia Laboratories. 

Huntsville, Alabama, home of the Tennessee Valley region, houses the Hudson Alpha Institute 

for Biosciences. Other regions housed foundations that invested in the region. An example is 

the Southeast Michigan region, home to the Hudson Weber Foundation, which invests heavily in 

workforce development initiatives in that area. 

These experiences with collaboration facilitated early communication among partners and 

probably helped the regions to move forward with conceiving and implementing their plans. 

Communications 

Current data sources make it difficult to assess what communication methods were most 

prevalent among these regions before the initiative got underway; however, comments from site 

visit interviewees indicate that formal and informal communication methods operated together in 

varying combinations to set the stage for collaboration. For example, stakeholders in Rio South 

Texas reported having benefited from a blend of previous formal organizational partnerships and 

informal collaboration. They attributed the strength of these intertwining relationships to the fact 

that the regions had once had so few resources that existing organizations had to partner and 

collaborate to simply survive. In South Central Idaho, much of the business that occurs in the 

region is done through informal networks that have been in place for years. When there is a 

need, the network can be tapped to find a solution, access a service, etc. Stakeholders attribute 

the recent economic success of the area to these networks and believe that these relationships are 

getting stronger because of this collaborative effort. On the other hand, this region was lacking 

in formal communication channels among the workforce development, education, and economic 

development communities. There was a great need for these groups to get together around 

workforce needs, but no forum existed to discuss those needs. According to stakeholders, this 

initiative with the new partnerships is now helping to provide that forum. 

On the other hand, even regions with few geographic barriers and greater technology access 

reported communication gaps prior to WIRED. In these regions, interviewees reported that their 

communications—both formal and informal—tended to occur within well-defined silos. For 

example, Northern New Jersey, one of the most densely populated regions, reported that its 

WIBs and One-Stops had rarely communicated with one another prior to the initiative. This was 

also the case in Delaware Valley, whose WIBs had never communicated or collaborated across 

state lines before and are now meeting regularly. This initiative was explicitly credited with 

facilitating this communication. 

In summary, while some of the regions previously had laid a more solid communications 

groundwork than others, few appear to have taken a coordinated approach to communication. 

Given that many regions have either retained communications consultants or added 

communications specialists to their staff, this approach should result in stronger and more 

effective communication. 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

33

Summary Observations 

 The diversity of the regions in terms of population, number of counties, and other similar 

geographic characteristics indicates that the regions will likely face challenges with pulling 

together partners for collaboration. The disconnections between the urban centers and the 

outlying areas were some of the most serious barriers to past collaboration. 

 The geography of a region can effect how easy or difficult it is to hold face-to-face meetings 

among key stakeholders, the attitudes that stakeholders in rural and urban settings have about 

competition with one another, the manner in which organizations and individuals handle 

ongoing communication, and the ease of access to institutions of higher education. 

 In most cases the regions had not reached across geographic boundaries to the extent 

expected or anticipated. As also shown by the finding that only seven regions had extensive 

previous collaboration, the regions were required to put energy into building their 

connections early on. 

 The partner groups that most often previously interacted were the community colleges, 

industry, and WIBs. However, there were also some examples of collaboration within 

groups, such as higher education, economic development, and K-12. As a result, bridging 

across the many partner groups envisioned for real regional collaboration presents a 

challenge for the regions in nearly every case. 

 In 15 of the 26 regions, state governments had played a central role in establishing 

regionalism as a priority. This encouragement for regional efforts is likely to have been a 

valuable asset for the regions with state support. At the local level, such investment in 

regionalism was rare, and may help to explain the minor role local government continues to 

play. 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

34

 

B. Governance and Decision-Making 

Introduction 

This section addresses key ingredients for the success of any broad-based initiative: how the 

initiative is led and how decisions are made. To be effective, collaborative efforts require 

leadership from key individuals, an appropriate governance structure, and a decision-making 

process that is accepted by key stakeholders. 

The Theory of Change guiding this evaluation states that: 

The governance/decision-making structure of a region-wide initiative comprises 

the agencies that house the grant, the location within the agencies, staffing 

structures and experience, partner roles and responsibilities, and mechanisms 

that are established for flexible, but sound, decision-making. 

Successful regional collaboration requires leaders who are attuned to the interests and needs of 

the initiative’s stakeholders. It is not uncommon in a large-scale initiative for competing views 

to result in tension between various approaches to governance and decision-making processes. 

Some leaders push for simple, expeditious processes that may involve only a few stakeholders, 

and some prefer fully-inclusive, but sometimes slower, processes. The leaders of an initiative 

must find a balance that is responsive to stakeholders and results in progress for the initiative. 

As described in the prior section, many of the regions are building on prior collaborative efforts. 

These initiatives are involving new stakeholders and addressing new transformative issues. As a 

result, the regions are juggling a variety of perspectives and priorities represented among the 

business, workforce, education, and economic development partners who come to the table. 

They also, in some cases, come from different cultures with different experiences about initiative 

organization and leadership. Finding common ground among these interests is one of the central 

challenges facing the regions, particularly given the scope of the new partnerships and goals. 

Analysis 

Several key areas of the regions’ governance and decision-making structures were examined to 

identify patterns and lessons on structural configurations, leadership, regional vision, the 

integrity of the decision-making processes, governance supports, and changes that were made to 

the structures or approaches as the regions began their implementation stage. What follows is 

the summary of the analysis of the data for each of these. The data sources for this section 

include the regions’ approved implementation plans and data and observations from the 26 site 

visits.41

41 As of February 2009, 23 of the regions’ implementation plans had been approved. Of these 23 implementation 

plans, the final two became available too late to be incorporated into all of the analysis conducted for this interim 

report. 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

Governance Structures 

For the 26 regions, an organizational chart is available within the regions’ implementation plans. 

For those few that did not have approved plans in time for this report, one was created by the site 

visit team to reflect the current configurations of responsibility levels and linkages. In reviewing 

the charts, commonalities were found in the basic structures devised, the numbers of members of 

groups at different levels, and the responsibilities of the levels. A typical organizational chart 

included the fiscal and administrative agents (and sometimes a state office) at the top of the 

hierarchy, followed by a leadership group, an executive group, and multiple implementation 

groups.

42 All regions also had one or more staff. The organizational chart, below, is from the 

Tennessee Valley region (Generation II) and shows this standard organization.43 

The sizes of the various groups in Organizational Chart Example 

these structures varied.44 The 

leadership groups ranged in size 

from 15 to 70 partner 

representatives. The executive 

groups ranged in size from five to 

20. The number of members of 

either of these groups seemed, to 

the site visit teams, to depend on 

the number of regional partners 

engaged. Some regions were also 

conscious of including 

representation from all counties in 

the region, resulting in larger 

groups. 

Figure 2 

Source: Tennessee Valley region 

The staff committed by partner 

organizations or hired specifically 

to carry out the plans developed 

under the initiative also ranged in 

number; some regions only had 

one central staff person, while 

others had six or more. Typically, 

there is a project director and a 

project manager, with some 

administrative support. 

 

42 States were required to serve as the official grantees. The administrative and fiscal agents are sometimes a state 

office, but can also be one of many types of organizations (workforce investment board, college, etc.), depending on 

the leadership of the region. 

43The chart shows that external advisors are acting as evaluators. The region’s original plan was to have external 

evaluators specific to the region. At the time of the site visit, this aspect of the chart had not been implemented, not 

did it appear that it would be. 

44 The names for these groups also varied. There was considerable overlap of titling across regions, but sometimes 

the same name is used for different types of groups. For instance, the “steering committee” in one region might be 

the leadership group, but in another region, the executive group is called the “steering committee.” 

35
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

The lines of authority in the organizational charts indicate that the project staff report to the 

leadership group or directly to the fiscal/administrative agent. The staff members across the 

regions are expected to lead directly or indirectly by coordinating efforts and enacting day-to-day 

oversight. The implementation groups work somewhat independently usually, but are overseen 

by a higher level, as represented in the figure above. In general, most decisions are made in a 

collaborative fashion by either the executive or leadership groups, with approval of decisions 

vetted with the other. The project staff were also found to make decisions, but to varying 

degrees in terms of scale or impact. More on the leadership of the regions follows later in this 

section. 

On paper, these structures appear static and linear, but in reality, the fact that they are populated 

by individuals means that there is more complexity inherent in them, particularly given the 

collaborative, regional requirement of this initiative. As found in a study of Collaborative 

Regional Initiatives (CRIs) in California, the structures must pull together many stakeholders in a 

way that is sensitive to the regional context, and the “relative degree of success depended in 

considerable part on the fit between their overall strategy and agenda, the region’s needs, and its 

political culture.”45 Thus, the similarities among the regions’ organizational charts are 

misleading. In practice, the leadership approach, individual actions, decision-making process, 

and supports of a given region occur in ways that are not captured on these charts. 

Leadership 

Circles of Leadership Construct 

Core decision-makers and 

leaders

Leaders of 

implementation groups 

Leaders who contribute 

to decision-making 

Because leadership forms such an essential part of how a region—or any other group—will 

function, it was examined closely for this report. Also, because of the limitations of the 

information in the organizational charts, the site visit data was used to construct another way of 

looking at the leadership of the regions. The illustration below aims to represent the multiple 

rings of possible leaders in a region, or its “circles of leadership.” 46 The core leaders, located at 

the center of the region’s work, 

are those individuals who are the 

intellectual centers of and energy 

sources for the initiative, and 

whose opinions carry the most 

weight. The next ring out are 

those individuals who participate 

actively in the region’s 

leadership, but are not the final 

decision-makers. In the third 

ring are those individuals who 

play leadership roles in the 

region by spear-heading a 

particular element of its plan, 

 

45 Judith Innes and Jane Rongerude, “Colla gional Initiatives: Civic Entrepreneurs Work to Fill the 

Governance Gap,” Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California, Berkley, (November 

2005): iv. 

Figure 3 borative Re

46 The construct in Figure 3 presents a common leadership structure that was observed during the site visits and 

documented in site visit summary notes. 

36
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

37

such as a sector-based project. Oftentimes, these leaders are the chairs of the implementation 

groups. Beyond these rings lay the members of the regions’ implementation groups who help to 

carry out focused activities and other interested (but peripherally involved) partners. Some of 

the regions had distribution lists that included hundreds of individuals, and the majority of these 

would fall outside these circles. 

The ways in which the leadership in the regions operated within and across these circles varied. 

In a few regions, the decision-making was concentrated with one or two core leaders, and thus 

the leadership rested heavily in the central circle. For instance, one region’s leadership group 

chairperson was the main decision-maker, and this centralized control was found to exclude 

others’ ideas about how the region should function and resulted in some discontentment with the 

progress being made. In another region, two individuals had a clear vision about what they 

wanted to accomplish, and they had the organizational clout to achieve it. They wanted to avoid 

the political wrangling and group indecisiveness that they foresaw with collaboration. 

In another region, a small ad hoc group, composed of four-to-five individuals from a contractor 

and partner organizations, with the support of a project manager, ended up carrying out most of 

the duties and decision-making required. Here, the leadership was slightly more collaborative, 

but still was controlled by a small number of partners and staff. 

In other regions, the core leaders (staff and others) played more of a facilitator role and decisions 

tended to be made by consensus of the leadership group which, as stated above, might include 

dozens of members. In these cases, the core leaders saw their key contributions as keeping the 

initiative organized, bringing information to the leadership group, and administering the 

decisions of the group. By helping to guide the leadership group in decision-making, they were 

the drivers of implementation without directing it. This approach seems more in keeping with a 

collaborative structure. 

A common governance feature of many of the regions is sector-based or issue-oriented groups 

focused on the regions’ goals (third circle of leadership). In some cases, these groups are formed 

to operate largely independently of one another, while still reporting back to the overarching 

leadership group that handles the administrative and “big picture” issues. In other regions, the 

task teams are more interdependent. Depending on how these groups operate in practice, they 

can either provide an efficient means for conducting the work while allowing for enhanced 

stakeholder participation, or they can recreate silos present within the region and diminish the 

collaborative nature of the region. For example, one region had established two larger task 

teams divided by “supply-side” and “demand-side” partners. Soon, the leadership of the region 

found that this approach resulted in ineffective communication among partners; so the region 

decided to restructure the teams by project (issue-focus), which allowed partners to communicate 

more readily. 

In reviewing the structures created by the regions, the site visit teams also found that by having 

some membership overlap across the groups many of them had strategically embedded 

opportunities for leaders in the various circles to interact and share in the decision-making 

process. As determined by the site visit teams, eight of the regions had such “interlocking 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

leadership” linkages throughout their structures.47 An additional 17 had at least some 

interlocking leadership in their structures; one region could not be classified. Figure 4 illustrates 

the general concept of this interlocking leadership strategy. 

38

 

Figure 4 

Southwest Indiana is one of the regions with full interlocking leadership. Several members of its 

leadership group also served on the regional workforce board (Indiana’s version of a workforce 

investment board), and each of the region’s workgroups were led by members of the leadership 

group. The chairpersons of the leadership group also worked closely with the region’s key staff. 

The advantage of such interlocking leadership is the ability to communicate through individuals 

across groups, or levels of the structure. This includes communication about the regional vision, 

approaches to decision-making, and the decisions that are ultimately made at the various levels. 

In the case of Southwest Indiana, for example, the workgroup chairs could bring issues back to 

the leadership group and the leadership group could hear first-hand accounts of the work 

underway in the workgroups. The potential danger of interlocking leadership is that the 

membership may overlap too much, excluding others from participating in the decision-making 

process at their appropriate level. Some regions with interlocking leadership experience this 

issue. However, overall, it seems that this strategy lends itself to collaborative work, as also 

discussed in Ferren and Stanton.48 

47 Terminology drawn from: John B. Miner, Organizational Behavior 1: Essential Theories of Motivation and 

Leadership. M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 2005. 48 Ann S. Ferren and Wilbur W. Stanton, Leadership Through Collaboration. (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 

2004), 30. 

Leadership Group 

Member A 

Member B 

Member C 

Member D 

Member E 

Member F 

Implementation Group 1

Member A 

Member G 

Member H

Implementation Group 2

Member B 

Member I 

Member J

Executive Group

Member C 

Member D 

Member E 

Interlocking Leadership 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

39

Vision 

A common vision is another key element of the governance of a region. Through the proposal 

process, a general vision for what a region wanted to accomplish, and why, was constructed. As 

the regions came together after receiving grant funds, they then had to create an implementation 

plan, which required further consideration of their goals and desired outcomes. As noted by one 

interviewee from the Southeastern Wisconsin region, the initiative has helped the regional 

partners to construct an “encompassing vision” that leads them to “think of other communities 

[in the region] when you do your work.” The regions went about gathering input to their visions 

differently, with some relying on only a few individuals and others going through a multistep 

input-gathering process. By the time of the site visits in the summer-to-fall of 2008, the regions 

had, in one way or another, defined their visions. However, the site visit teams determined 

through the interviews and the implementation plans that some stakeholders had greater common 

understanding of their region’s vision than others, even within the same region. This is of 

concern since the lack of a common vision could result in difficulties as a region attempts to 

reach its goals; if not everyone involved sees the same end goals, the activities conducted may 

not be focused in a coordinated direction. The site visit teams considered whether a common 

vision existed in each of the regions and to what extent. Of the 26 regions, ten were found to 

have a common vision across their partners, 12 shared a common vision across most of the 

partners, and three were found to be lacking a clear common vision. One of the region’s vision 

understanding could not be categorized. Thus, the majority of the regions have at least a good 

start on buy-in to a common vision. 

When the extent of interlocking leadership and common vision were cross-referenced, interesting 

findings emerged. Table 8, below, displays these results. 

Table 8: Presence of Common Vision and Interlocking Leadership, 2008*

Interlocking 

leadership across 

levels 

Some 

interlocking 

leadership 

Extent of 

interlocking 

leadership unclear Total 

Common vision 

across partners 6 3 1** 10 

Common vision 

across most 

partners 2 10 0 12 

Vision not shared 0 3 0 3 

Extent of shared 

vision unclear 0 1 0 1 

Total 8 17 1 26 

* Data for this table came from available implementation plans and site visit interviews. 

**This region was experiencing extensive changes at the time of the site visits, and so, the site visit team did not feel 

comfortable categorizing them at this point. 

Most significantly, six of the eight regions with full interlocking leadership also had a common 

vision shared among the staff and the partners. The other two such regions had common visions 

across most partners. For the ten regions with a common vision across partners, six had full 

interlocking leadership and three had some interlocking leadership. This suggests that the two 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

40

 

are correlated. This finding also suggests that there is an important emerging lesson here for the 

regions: where interlocking leadership can be established, the vision for the region appears to be 

shared more readily across the leaders, staff, and eventually by those on the periphery of the 

governance structure. With a common vision and shared leadership, the regions may be 

positioned to affect change more successfully. 

Of course, collaborative efforts are complicated endeavors, and as such, there is more to 

successful governance than just a common vision and shared leadership. The integrity of the 

decision-making process is also key. 

Integrity of the Decision-Making Process 

The elements examined here that contribute to the integrity of this process are transparency, 

inclusiveness, and openness. In this context, transparency means that “the rules, priorities, and 

values on which you based the decision-making process are readily transparent to others.”49 

Inclusiveness refers to the involvement of stakeholders in the process. As Thomas states, “The 

additional time spent decision-making can save time later . . . The various actors, by virtue of 

being involved in the early decisions, are more likely to support and even expedite 

implementation.”50 Openness is another part of a successful decision-making process and here 

means “confronting and dealing jointly with issues.”51 Below, each of these elements is 

explored in the context of findings from the visits to the regions. 

Decision-Making Transparency 

Having a clear, organized approach for making decisions, changes to work plans, and other steps 

requiring strategic decisions that are communicated and understood by others with the project is 

important to regional collaboration. The process of deciding on and making subgrants highlights 

this issue well as some regions had more transparency in their subgranting decisions than others. 

In the Central New Jersey region, decisions about subgrant funding were made in a pre-planned, 

structured process. In this region, the call for proposals was issued to a comprehensive list of 

organizations, and an application form and review plan was created in advance. During the 

review stage, the emphasis was on those projects that supported the first-priority goals of the 

region, reinforcing the region’s vision. Here, clear communication across the governance 

structure helped to support understanding. 

In at least two regions, such decisions were not clear to many of the stakeholders in terms of 

process and the reasons for the decisions. In one of these regions, it seemed that decisions were 

made by individual leaders early on; the region created a review subcommittee of its main 

leadership group only soon before the site visit. This grantmaking process was called “one of the 

mysteries” by a site visit interviewee in this region, demonstrating the confusion still remaining 

after the change was made; others in the region who felt left out of the process conveyed their 

resentment of the process during the interviews. In another region, the amount of WIRED funds 

and the rollout plan for the funds were not clear to some stakeholders interviewed. In this case, 

this lack of clarity led to expectations which were out-of-line with reality. 

49 J. Edward Russo and Paul J.H. Schoemaker, Winning Decisions. (New York: Random House, 2002), Pg. 153. 50 John Clayton Thomas, Public Participation in Public Decisions (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1995), Pg. 32. 51 Graeme Salaman, ed., Decision Making for Business. (London: SAGE Publications, 2002), Pg. 206. 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

41

 

 

Overall, however, the regions seemed to have accomplished transparency in their decisionmaking. As each region continues to move forward, key decisions about WIRED projects, 

operations, and other major topics are yet to be made; early observations suggest that 

transparency may be essential to collaborative governance. 

Decision-Making Inclusiveness 

The governance of a large, complex regional initiative involves many individuals, and finding 

the right roles for each of them to play can be challenging. If every decision must be vetted with 

and approved by every stakeholder, few decisions can be made. On the other hand, if every 

decision is made by only a small core of leaders, the rest of the stakeholders feel alienated. 

Based on the site visit data, most regions have struck a functional balance between the 

imperative for action and the need for inclusion. For instance, in the South Central Kansas 

region, it was reported that all of the needed stakeholders from education, workforce 

development, and economic development were represented on its leadership group, and that they 

were pleased with the degree of inclusion. Here, the leaders were exercising authority consistent 

with their positions and within the agreed-upon decision-making process. Effective inclusion 

meant that all key stakeholders were involved in appropriate ways and at appropriate times in 

decisions that are relevant to them. 

Openness of the Decision-Making Process 

A region’s openness to input from its partners regarding its operations and decisions is another 

indication of its process integrity. Those structures that can welcome and respond to criticisms 

and concerns from its members (even those outside the leadership circles) are more likely to 

overcome barriers to progress and constructively deal with disagreement or misunderstanding.52 

One region, for example, was able to cope with collaboration difficulties among its WIBs by 

acknowledging the issues and addressing them. All three WIBs continue to be actively involved 

in the region’s efforts by participating in the leadership and executive groups. Another region’s 

central partners noted that they did not always agree on their projects—coming as they do from 

academia, government, and industry—but they talked about their viewpoints before making a 

decision. As a result, this region reported having a high level of partner satisfaction. Several 

other regions also dealt well with criticisms of their structures or operations. 

For this to work, the communication must flow in two directions—from the center of the 

region’s structure’s core outward and vice-versa. The Pacific Mountain Washington region has 

addressed this need by hiring sector “coordinators” that are charged with building industry 

membership and input for the region. These individuals are positioned to share information from 

the core leadership to the partners, and from the partners to the core leadership. 

In general, the regions have taken steps toward, or achieved, decision-making integrity. This 

achievement, however, has not occurred without some hard work on the part of partners and 

52 The benefit of conflict management to collaboration is discussed in “Want Collaboration? Accept—and Actively 

Manage—Conflict” by J. Weiss and J. Hughes in the Harvard Business Review, March 2005, pp. 93-101. 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

42

staff. As the regions move forward, they will need to continue to be conscious of the importance 

of building transparency, inclusiveness, and openness into their processes. 

Governance Supports 

Through the site visits, several governance supports emerged that are of key interest to the 

evaluation. First, the issue of balance arose when examining the interaction and leadership roles 

of the staff in comparison to the partners in the regions. Second, the leadership role played by 

the states was a focus of analysis because of the requirement that the states have at least an 

administrative connection to the regions, although some went much farther. Third, the means the 

regions used to monitor progress and make informed decisions were examined to determine how 

the tools and procedures supported governance. Each of these is explored in more detail below. 

Staff-Partner Balance in Leadership 

The site visit teams observed quite different approaches to striking a balance between the roles of 

the staff and partners. These approaches fell into three categories: staff-dominant, partnerdominant, and partner-leadership with staff support. Of the 25 regions that could be categorized, 

most fell into either the staff-dominant model or partner-leadership/staff support model. 

 In the staff-dominant model, the staff of a WIRED region is the main decision-maker, with 

input coming from the other regional leadership infrequently or to a limited extent. An 

example of this sort of situation is a region that had heavy staff support from the workforce 

system. The partners engaged in this region did have some influence, but staff tended to set 

initiative direction and control communications. Overall, 12 regions appeared to fit this 

model. 

 

 In the partner-dominant model, partner representatives are the main decision-makers, with 

limited staff contribution. A region with this situation had a partner chairperson that drove 

the initiative heavily. Two regions appeared to fit this model. 

 In the partner-leadership/staff support model, the staff identifies emerging issues, develops 

options, and briefs and prepares partner leaders, but the partners make the decisions. Once 

decisions are made, the staff executes them. The staff also helps to build and maintain 

momentum. For example, one region has staff that supports the leadership team of partners 

by monitoring progress, making suggestions, and organizing next steps. The partners in this 

region take ownership of the initiative, however, and are heavily involved in setting 

direction, decision-making, and problem-solving. Ten regions appeared to fit this model. 

As discussed above, the ability of the regions’ governance structures to accommodate multiple 

leaders and effectively execute their plans are important considerations in a collaborative effort 

such as this one. Over time, there may be changes to the regions’ placement in these models, but 

for now it seems that they are leaning heavily on staff for leadership. This may be partly because 

the regions are in the early phases of their startup and implementation. During the next round of 

site visits, this balance will be examined again. 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

43

State Leadership Role 

The states, as the official recipients of the grant investments, are also potential supports to the 

governance of the regions. Overall, two patterns have emerged as to state involvement. One is 

that a state is quite involved in the operations of and the direction-setting for the region, and the 

other is that a state has only peripheral involvement in the region, mainly for grant administration 

purposes—the minimum connection required. The site visit teams assessed the degree of the 

states’ roles in the regions. Approximately half of the regions had state involvement that was 

both administrative and strategic (14), with the remainder being administrative only (12). In the 

instances where states played the former role, state representatives from the Governor’s Office, 

workforce development, or economic development agencies are engaged on a regular basis in the 

leadership of the region. In addition, the state may support the region by providing labor market 

data and complementing grant funds with state initiative funds. Some states are also helping to 

facilitate collaboration among regional partners. 

In the administrative-only capacity, states are largely disconnected from the region, other than 

acting as a pass-through for the grant funds, and to provide some review of reports (e.g., the 

implementation plans) due to ETA. 

The reasons one state may opt to be a leader for a region, while another chooses not to, are 

unclear at this time. The degree of centralization at the state level does not necessarily indicate 

the type of role that the state will play in the WIRED region. 

Informed Decision-Making 

The tools and methods a region implements to track and report progress also support its 

governance. As the Central/Eastern Puerto Rico region has done, this might include having task 

teams monitor and report on outcome measures on a quarterly basis. In this region, this 

information is reported to the leadership team as well, which is responsible for assessing 

program effectiveness. Another region, Northern New Jersey, has created a thorough financial 

management process. In this region, a financial manager reports quarterly to the leadership 

team, providing updates on the status of each of the region’s project efforts. The report is colorcoded so reviewers can easily identify issues. This level of detail is made possible by the use of 

a subreport form across projects. Such processes and expectations are needed to permit detailed 

tracking of progress over time and let leadership know where intervention might be needed. This 

supports integrity within the structure by assigning indicators of actual progress of the 

implementation. 

To date, unfortunately, the above regional examples are not common. Most regions are 

monitoring expenditures and general project implementation status, but the site visit teams saw 

little evidence that this information was being widely shared outside the leadership circles. 

Changes in Planned Governance Structures 

As might be expected, not all of the regions have found their initial plans for governance to be 

appropriate in practice. Some regions have experienced dramatic reorganizations at either the 

top or lower levels of their structures. In one region, a planned steering committee, located 

structurally above the executive director, met only once. Instead, there is now a program 

management team, which works on a daily basis with the director. Thus, the scope of the central 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

44

leadership has shrunk. In several other regions, the number of staff to support the initiative has 

been expanded to go beyond the planned project manager position. In one case, a WIB 

coordinator and four site coordinators (assigned by sector) were added. 

The lower levels of the structures have been more problematic for the regions. Fairly commonly, 

regions have not been able to establish some of the sector-specific or issue-specific groups as 

planned. This was usually due to delays in implementation or shifts in regional priorities that 

occurred in all regions. Most regions still plan to form these groups, and are not permanently 

derailed, however, and one has extensively reorganized at this level. This region originally 

divided its partner participants into either supply-side or demand-side groups, but found this 

approach prevented the needed communication across partners, so the region created instead 

“task teams” that allowed partners to work together on key issues. 

In addition to these changes, the governance structures of the regions have seen less participation 

than anticipated. In regards to governance, this absence of partners can impede the building of a 

common vision that will guide collaborative action. The broader implications of reduced 

participation will be addressed in the next section of the report. 

Summary Observations 

 The correlation between full interlocking leadership and a broad understanding of a regional 

vision is significant for understanding future success of the regions in achieving their goals. 

The six regions that were rated as having both a high degree of connection within their 

leadership and a high degree of recognition of a common vision are expected to enjoy greater 

success in implementing their plans. 

 Many states appear to be missing an opportunity to provide strategic leadership to the 

regions. States could be helping the regions to align with state workforce strategies, 

leveraging resources, generating broader public support for regional transformation, and 

attracting more partners to the regions. 

 Informed decision-making is not well-integrated in nearly all of the regions. Even the most 

capable leaders are handicapped without information about what is working and what is not. 

 Most of the regions appear to have created collaborative governance structures, with shared 

leadership and decision-making integrity. However, there are several that could improve 

substantially on this front. 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

45

 

C. Effective Engagement among Collaborators 

Introduction 

Collaborations are well-defined relationships entered into by two or more organizations 

committing to a structure with shared responsibilities and shared resources and rewards. 

Collaborative activities are undertaken in order to achieve mutually-beneficial, common goals.53 

Pisano and Verganti54 categorize collaborations intended to achieve innovation into four types 

differentiated by governance and openness of participation. The collaborations observed in the 

regions generally have a flat governance structure and are closed (participants are selected). 

Pisano and Verganti refer to these collaborations as consortia. 

The Theory of Change suggests that the success of the regional transformations envisioned for 

this Initiative is likely to be correlated with how effectively collaborators are engaged. Measures 

of effective engagement include: 

 The extent to which the collaboration is representative of the key organizations in the region 

and is geographically representative. 

 The extent to which participants are decision-makers in their organizations. 

 The extent to which the collaboration has participants who can and will invest significant 

time and effort into activities and meetings (doers). 

 The extent to which the participants commit to a common purpose. 

 The extent to which partners/collaborators bring resources, especially fungible, monetary 

contributions, to the table. 

 Attendance at meetings or other functions where collaborators meet. 

Representation 

Representativeness is important in a collaboration for several reasons. First, the power of 

collaboration to achieve its goals comes from the energies and commitments of the participants, 

and having key constituencies missing will mean a lower energy and commitment level. Second, 

collaborations benefit from having the input and perspectives of a diverse set of individuals, and 

if an important group or subregion is missing, then the collaboration loses the benefit of the 

thinking of that area or group. Third, a missing entity may interpret its absence as deliberate and 

may sabotage or disparage the collaboration’s efforts. Resources may be necessary to undo the 

damage or right the bad publicity. 

Decision-Makers and “Doers” 

Mattesich55 indicates that a factor related to the success of a collaboration is having multiple 

layers of participation. He states, “Every level (upper management, middle management, 

operations) within each partner organization has at least some representation and ongoing 

involvement.” The upper management of organizations is necessary in order to commit 

53 Mattessich, Paul W. September 2005 presentation based on Collaboration: What Makes It Work? Paul W. 

Mattessich, Marta Murray-Close, and Barbara R. Monsey. Saint Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation, 2004. 54 Pisano, Gary P. and Roberto Verganti. “Which Kind of Collaboration Is Right for You?” Harvard Business 

Review, (December 2008). 55 Mattessich 2005. 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

46

resources to the effort and to bring their political and community influence. However, 

individuals in these roles may not have the time to invest in meetings or activities. Therefore, it 

is necessary to include middle management or other levels of staff as “doers.” 

Common Purpose 

Collaborations form in order to bring organizations together to achieve goals thought to be 

unachievable without joint commitment. The goal(s) set by the group are more likely to be met 

if all the partners have explicitly agreed upon a common purpose. With this effort, each area is 

working toward a common purpose of regional transformation. For the most part, the regions 

have accepted the paradigm of regionalism. Regionalism is defined to mean the belief that 

resources need to be shared throughout a region in order to maximize the chance of 

success/transformation and that any success in a region is a “win” for everybody. 

Resource Investment 

The regions have funds from ETA, and they are leveraging those funds in many creative ways. 

A measure of engagement is signaled if a partner brings resources (other than their own time) to 

the effort to leverage the grant funds. 

Attendance 

A final indicator of engagement is the attendance rate of the partners. Given how busy decisionmakers may be, and given the ability to receive information electronically, attendance may not 

be a vital indicator. Exemplary attendance in the early stages of the initiatives may indicate 

excitement over the availability of grant funds and the opportunity to influence the development 

of regional goals and how funds will be allocated to achieve them. As the initiatives continue, 

exemplary attendance by the partners may reflect a sense of accomplishment, particularly if the 

investments made through the initiative are demonstrating evidence of success. In making a 

decision about attendance, it is assumed that decision-makers weigh costs and benefits. If 

meetings were not interesting or not achieving outcomes, these individuals would likely not 

attend. The next few paragraphs will address the extent to which these measures of engagement 

were observed during the site visits. A few summary observations follow these analyses. 

Analysis 

In general, the types of organizations that would be expected to participate in the collaborative 

activities within the regions are postsecondary education (public or private), K-12 education 

(public or private), economic development, state government, local government, public 

workforce system (WIB, welfare-to-work, vocational rehabilitation, Job Service), employers, 

employer organizations, foundations, and research organizations. Gauging the effectiveness of 

the collaborations requires dissecting the organizational participation along several dimensions. 

 Are all of the key organizations in the region involved? 

 How many individuals from an organization actively participate in activities designed to 

transform the region? 

 Who from the organization participates? 

 Are they decision makers? 

 Can they command resources? 

 Have they brought resources (cash or in-kind) to the table? 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

47

 Do(es) the individual(s) seem committed to regional transformation; i.e., is their attendance 

regular? 

 Are the collaborators involved in the governance structure or activities of WIRED or both? 

Representativeness 

Regions have a general feeling that the collaborations that have been developed are quite 

representative. In fact, many regions felt that one of their successes or transformations was the 

convening of all of the key constituents of the workforce development, talent development and 

economic development systems in the region. Out of the 26 regions, interviewees in 24 lauded 

the success of the collaboration in getting all of the key individuals involved. The following 

statements were typical of those made to site visitors: 

[The Initiative] really brought key players together to focus on a purpose. Before 

we had pockets . . . through this, everyone has come together to achieve group 

expertise. 

Bringing the economic development and workforce development organizations 

together has been transformative. Before WIRED, only in a couple of instances 

would you see ED [economic development] and WD [workforce development] 

collaborate and that is only because one had money. 

Although it was clear that regions had formed effective collaborations, for the most part, it 

appears that work remains in terms of achieving full representativeness. During the site visits, 

interviewees were asked to name any groups that they felt were not represented adequately in 

their regions’ collaborative relationships. 

Table 9: Groups Noted in Response to Question: 

“Are there organizations that are not included in your region’s 

activities?”

Underrepresented Group Total # of Mentions* 

# of Regions 

with Responses 

Business/Employer 48 18 

K-12 29 13 

Local/State Government 11 7 

Other 10 9 

WIBs/Workforce System 10 6 

Four-Year Universities 6 6 

Economic Developers 6 5 

Postsecondary/Higher Education** 6 4 

Technical/Community Colleges 5 4 

Foundations/Philanthropy 5 3 

Angel Investors/Venture Capitalists 4 3 

* Table entries come from post-interview analyses of site visitor notes and there were variations in the responses. 

Consequently, statistical analysis was not possible. 

**Group descriptions came from the interviewees so in some cases Community Colleges and Universities could not 

be broken out separately. 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

48

The responses suggest a clear perceived need for greater representation from the business 

community and/or employers. Twice as many individuals (48) in all regions stated that there 

needed to be some or increased representation from this group in the regional collaborations than 

from any other group. In addition, the need for increased representation of the 

business/employer community was voiced in 18 of the 25 regions where data was available. The 

comments made by interviewees were not necessarily targeted at any specific employer group, 

but referred in some instances to a specific sector or size of business (i.e., large/small). Some 

respondents felt that the lack of representation of the business/employer community may hamper 

efforts to collaborate region-wide. 

It is not clear to what extent the apparent underrepresentation of employers is an issue. In all but 

three of the regions, employers from targeted industry sectors are represented on a regional 

governing board, which typically also includes representatives from all of the other major 

stakeholder groups (i.e., education, workforce, government officials, etc.). 

Despite efforts to actively engage large companies, most of the regions had difficulty doing so. 

Notable exceptions are Southeastern Virginia where an executive of a large corporation co-chairs 

the initiative; Southeast Michigan, where the Detroit Regional Chamber is the convener; and 

Southwestern Connecticut, where a separate regional executive council has been formed 

explicitly to provide a forum for corporate leaders to discuss common workforce and economic 

development issues. 

Competition among companies in a common industry sector does not seem to be a barrier to 

collaboration for the regions. One possible reason for this is that corporate interests were often 

represented by leaders of relevant employer and industry associations. For example, in addition 

to having employer representation on its governing board, the Southeast Missouri strategy 

involves employers in sector-focused working committees, employer/community college 

learning networks, and industry-specific summits. 

Another possible reason for the limited conflict among employers is that this Initiative is 

fundamentally different from typical workforce development grant projects that provide 

customized training. Instead, it has a broader emphasis on developing and improving workforce 

and economic development programs and service delivery systems. For example, in Pacific 

Mountain Washington, employers have substantial representation on the board and also 

participate in four industry panels that have been formed to improve communications between 

employers and community colleges. 

The group that received the second highest number of references to a need for greater 

organizational involvement or representation was the K-12 community. In total, 29 individuals 

referred to this group in 13 of the regions. This group was closely followed by local/state 

government (11 references, 7 regions), and a catch-all “other” category (10 references, 9 

regions). 

Somewhat surprisingly, mention was made in six regions of the need for greater WIB/workforcesystem representation despite the fact that all but two regions reported having meaningful 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

49

involvement of at least one WIB. In at least some of the regions where multiple WIBs were 

involved, steps had been taken to promote collaboration and partnerships among them. In the 

Northern New Jersey region, a regional consortium of WIBs and One-Stop operators was formed 

to integrate workforce delivery and to discuss policy and operational issues related to their roles 

and activities in WIRED. In Southwestern Connecticut, a full-time coordinator was assigned to 

work with the WIBs, and a WIB Collaborative was established as a separate entity within the 

organizational chart. Nevertheless, some comments made by individuals during the site visits 

regarding the WIBs and other groups clearly illustrate the need for more involvement, at least in 

some regions.

It therefore appears that there is still a need and a desire to bring underrepresented partners into 

the process. However, these comments should be set against the large number of individuals 

who stated that representation from the groups that should be at the table was sufficient and who 

praised the regions’ program managers for the work they had done in bringing partners together. 

Regionalism as a Common Purpose 

The literature suggests that effective collaborations require explicit acceptance of a common 

purpose. For these regions, that purpose is an acceptance of regionalism. Respondents to site 

visit interviews in 21 of the 26 regions noted an adaptation towards regionalism. They made 

comments such as the following: 

[This initiative] has transformed the willingness of the region to work together . . . 

[There is a] potential for it to be really regional; to break away from the mindset of “this 

is mine” . . . In this region in the past, we have usually worked locally. 

To be clear, some regions admitted that it was difficult to achieve full consensus on regionalism. 

Comments such as the following indicate the struggle: 

[Progress on regionalism comes] in fits and starts. Some things we work well 

together on, and some we don’t. Hard to get over the territorialization that each 

segment brings to this. 

Challenges to operating like a region? Geographically, it is a challenge. 

Everyone has their own idea about what their region is, so there will be a 

challenge getting past that. 

The regions are generally working toward a common commitment to regionalism, but 

stakeholder organizations did not necessarily share a common understanding of the nature of the 

workforce challenges facing the region. For instance, in one region, employers in the 

manufacturing sector were very dissatisfied with the quality of the students who, following 

graduation from high school, were coming to their companies seeking employment. Employers 

complained that these individuals had bad work habits, did not come to work on time, did not 

attend work on a regular basis, had a poor work ethic, and had limited problem-solving skills. 

Local school district leaders responded by pointing out the recent increases in academic 

achievement scores in their district. School leaders also pointed out that the students seeking 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

50

 

employment at local manufacturing companies were not necessarily representative of all students 

in the district. 

Differences in individual goals and objectives among stakeholders can also present challenges to 

collaboration, as in the case of Southeastern Mississippi’s Momentum. Individual employers in 

the manufacturing sector reported that they desperately needed worker-training programs and 

were frustrated by the long delays in implementation. However, the designated chairperson of 

the Momentum activities was focused on having a sound and rigorous planning process that 

would ensure that the grant investment funds were used wisely. To that end, the chairperson 

mandated a planning process requiring community colleges to submit detailed business plans that 

must be reviewed and approved by the Chairperson prior to the release of grant funds for any 

purpose. It is possible that a sound and rigorous planning process will lead to better results in the 

longer term. In the short-term, however, the needs of employers had not been met. 

In general, even in regions that are struggling with vestiges of competitiveness, it appears as 

though this undertaking has successfully inculcated the idea of regionalism. 

Number and Distribution of Participants 

In the discussion above, it is suggested that having multiple layers of participants from 

collaborative organizations is an indicator of effective engagement. This nuance seems not to 

have registered with the regional project directors. No comments were gathered by site visitors 

about the number of individuals from an organization or the collaborators’ positions in their 

organization. The general impression was that if someone from an organization was present, 

then it was presumed that the entire organization was committed to the effort. The following 

paragraphs provide a picture of the regional partners. 

Of the ETA-approved implementation plans available at the time of our analysis, 20 indicated 

that the region had a four-year university or college actively involved in the collaboration.56 In 

only one region, however, was a central administrator of one of these institutions involved. In 

most other cases, departments or individual faculty were conducting a funded activity. All of 

these regions had two-year colleges involved (in fact, four of the Generation II regions were 

housed at a community college facility).57 In seven of the regions, at least one community 

college president was actively involved in the governance structure as well as having grantfunded formal training taking place on campus. 

In all regions, K-12 education was involved to some extent. Rarely, however, were central 

administrators involved at all in the governance structures. Across all of the site visits, we 

interviewed only three school superintendents, and in one case, neither that individual nor any 

students were directly involved in a grant-funded activity. Most of the involvement of K-12 

occurred in the area of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) projects. Project 

Lead the Way (PLTW) was the primary activity in four of the regions. Another program that 

was being promoted in three regions was “Dream It Do It,” which is a pre-manufacturing 

curriculum. 

56 One region’s implementation plan seemed to indicate that there was at best a minimal linkage to a four-year 

university. This region was counted in the 20. 

57 Again, one of the regions seemed to have minor linkage to its two-year colleges. 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

51

Economic development organizations at both the state and local level are typically lean in terms 

of the number of staff persons. The regions usually had an individual from the state’s economic 

development office as a partner, but the individual was often a regional representative and had 

few, if any, resources to add to the activity. The regions were typically quite successful in 

attracting local economic developers. Seventeen of the regions with an available implementation 

plan had a local economic developer in a governance role. These individuals brought a demandside perspective and often were able to use the region’s strategic, collaborative approach and 

related activities as part of the sales pitch to new employers. 

The ETA grants were set up to have a department of state government as the fiscal agency and 

grant monitor. But in many of the regions, individuals from the agency with fiscal 

responsibilities or from other state departments also were active participants in the governance 

structures. Sixteen regions out of 19 for which the information was available had at least one 

employee from a state agency (and often more than one) on the governance board. In many of 

these regions, the state government participant(s) was an agency director. 

The key partners in regions seemed to be of two minds about the involvement of local 

government officials as collaborators. Some regions had such individuals involved; but other 

regions had no involvement by local politicians. In seven regions, the governance structure 

included a mayor or county official; but local public officials were not primary in any of the 

regions. 

In the Generation III regions, staff members from the public workforce system were the drivers 

and most engaged collaborators. (Note that in two of the regions, the state workforce board was 

the administrator of the grant.) Typically, the governance structure included several individuals 

from the Workforce boards and agencies, and in six out of seven of the Generation III regions for 

whom we had rosters, these individuals included the agency director(s). As might be expected, 

since the SGA did not require specific leadership or co-leadership from the workforce system, 

the public workforce system was not as effectively engaged in collaboration in the Generation II 

regions. 

Representatives of employers who were involved in partnerships tended to be CEO/executives if 

the company was small, and tended to be a training officer or HR officer if the company was a 

larger company. Often, the employers who were engaged were also on the WIB. In general, 

these private sector individuals were solidly engaged in the collaborations but were not dominant 

in the process. Most of the regions involved employer associations (16) in addition to having 

some individual employers. For these associations, it was generally the executive directors who 

were “around the table.” 

Foundations or research organizations were also partners in some of the regions. In the five 

regions that had these types of organizations, a single individual from the organization is in the 

leadership structure. In general, these organizations are important to the collaborative efforts 

because they often have invested supplemental funds. 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

52

 

Additional Resources as a Signal of Engagement 

Grant funding has often been used to leverage other funding, and this section of the report 

focuses on resources contributed by collaborators. The evaluation team hypothesizes that 

regions will be able to accomplish more and be more successful in achieving transformation if 

their collaboratives include some partners who have become so engaged in the process that they 

invest their own resources. Bringing supplemental resources to the effort should be seen as a 

sufficient, but not necessary, signal of partner engagement. 

Perhaps not surprisingly, we found only a few instances where a partner brought additional 

resources to the regional efforts, other than their own time commitments.58 Some examples 

include a region where corporate partners donated $19,000 for sponsorship of a competitive 

activity and an additional $25,000 for prize money. In another region, a member of the region’s 

Executive Team is president of a foundation, and this individual arranged for funding of $60,000 

per year for a Web site and other innovative technological tools. 

Attendance 

The regions have adopted several different governance structures. For example, some regions 

had leadership councils; others had executive boards. Attendance at meetings of these groups 

may denote collaborators’ level of engagement. A hypothesis of the evaluation is that poor 

attendance probably signals low levels of engagement, whereas regular attendance may or may 

not be associated with high levels of engagement. Many WIBs have rules about poor attendance; 

however, we encountered only two regions where attendance was even considered. The by-laws 

of one organization indicated that members of the leadership team who missed three consecutive 

meetings would be asked to step down. The bylaws of the other organization had a similar 

clause except that the limit was only two meetings: however, members of the governance body 

were allowed to designate alternate attendees. For the most part, regions were just beginning to 

traverse their learning curves, and they apparently did not want to discourage individuals from 

attending and contributing to the group. 

Summary Observations 

The first round of site visits occurred early in the regions’ implementation phase, and this made 

it difficult to gauge the solidity of the engagement of partners in the regional collaboration. The 

second round of site visits in 2010 will provide a much clearer indication of the extent of 

engagement of partners in the regional collaborations. 

However, virtually all regions had begun at least an initial implementation of their projects. 

Partnerships with stakeholders in the region had begun and, in most cases, the paradigm of 

regionalism had taken hold. Furthermore, the partnerships included key personnel from talent 

development organizations (education and workforce development) as well as economic 

development bodies. There was less evidence of strong collaborative ties with the private sector 

and local and state government. 

58 This is not to discount the importance of the investment of individuals’ time. In fact, in some of the 26 regions, 

we heard concerns about the time demands the Initiative was placing on some of its volunteer partners. 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

53

It appeared that the entities that housed the regions’ activities were the most significantly 

engaged collaborators (staff-dominated model). In addition, community colleges, if they were 

not the location of the region’s activities, remained highly involved. In general, regions did not 

seem to be paying attention to the value proposition for participants; it is tacitly assumed that if 

an organization is represented by a participant, then that organization is fully committed to the 

goals of regional transformation and that individual is fully committed to the collaboration. 

The companies that have been involved thus far have had a variety of opportunities to provide 

input and suggestions about how to transform the public workforce system in a way that will 

promote industry growth in the future. Whether working at a strategic or operational level, 

employers and their representatives have been involved in identifying opportunities for 

establishing and strengthening targeted sectors, establishing strategic and operational goals, 

creating and strengthening regional partnerships, and overseeing the transformation of the 

service delivery system. 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

54

D. Planning 

Introduction 

Planning is the process by which the regions develop the goals and strategies for implementing 

successful workforce development innovations. The planning process is expected to produce 

outcomes that have a positive impact on the ability of each region to successfully create and 

direct activities for regional transformation. The establishment of goals and strategies that are 

both reasonable in terms of their fit with local education, workforce, and other resources, and 

attainable in terms of their scope, are expected to be key attributes necessary for implementing 

regional workforce innovations. 

Every region has engaged in a number of planning activities. Some of these processes were 

required by ETA, such as the planning necessary to fulfill the original proposal requirements, 

creating an implementation plan to guide regional workforce development activities, and 

engaging in asset mapping to provide data on resources available that, in combination, could be 

used to move the regions’ goals and strategies forward. WIRED regions also typically engage in 

other forms of planning that fit their own unique structures, such as long-term strategic planning 

or sub-group activity planning. 

This section examines four major aspects of the overall planning process: 

 Description of the major planning activities conducted within the regions 

 Identification of regional partners involved in the planning process 

 The use of asset mapping and other tools used in the planning process 

 Ongoing planning activities and their relation to other activities in the region 

In addition, based on our analysis of primary and secondary data, this section concludes with a 

number of general observations about planning as it has been employed by the 26 regions. 

Planning Activities Conducted 

Each of the regions has been engaged in at least two planning activities as part of their 

participation in this initiative: (1) preparation of the grant proposal that was submitted to ETA 

and (2) preparation of an implementation plan following the selection as a region. While these 

are the principal planning activities that have helped to shape the direction and character of the 

regions, some regions have conducted other planning activities and, in some cases, region-wide 

planning has continued as an ongoing activity. Asset mapping and the activities associated with 

the presentation and use of data have been important components of planning for some regions, 

and some of the regions have established ongoing planning activities by creating workgroups 

that represent an industry (such as an industry council) or workforce development interests 

within the region. 

Proposals and Planning Partners 

Planning activities during the proposal development phase typically involved an array of local 

stakeholders and partners along with representatives of state and local governmental agencies. 

As previously noted, all but one of the regions reported that stakeholders had engaged in 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

55

collaboration at some level prior to their selection as regions and, in some cases, even prior to 

their grant proposal efforts. Some of these experiences were built around responses to specific 

economic events such as the growth or decline of an important local industry. 

 In Southern Arizona, for example, a consortium led by the workforce system has been 

operating in the region since the 1980s. It was formed in response to large-scale layoffs in 

the mining industry. 

 Collaboration between workforce development and economic development agencies in 

Southeast Virginia’s Tidewater Area evolved in 2005 to address Ford Motor Company’s 

decision to close a local assembly plant. 

 Organizations located in the Minnesota Triangle area collaborated in 2005 to recruit a wind 

power company from India to their region. 

There are many other examples of pre-existing cross-sector planning groups, reflecting the 

unique history and connections within each region. 

Implementation Plans and Planning Partners 

Collaboration among regional organizations in developing the implementation plans involved as 

many as 100 organizations in one region, 70 members of a leadership group in a second, 47 

partners in a third, and 21 regional leaders in a fourth. Most of the other regions indicated that 

their planning activities had involved one or more partners representing industry councils or 

trade associations, education leaders, economic development directors, community college and 

university representatives, local government officials, and officials from local WIBs. There was 

no pattern of participation among stakeholders and partners that appears to be related to the grant 

requirements, targeted industries, or section of the nation in which these regions are located. 

There do, however, appear to be some relationships—albeit not very strong relationships—

between an emphasis on regional partner/stakeholder participation in formulating 

implementation plans and (1) the approach towards the use of asset maps and other data 

resources in driving goals and strategies, and (2) the relationships that regional goals and 

strategies have with previously-developed regional or statewide economic development 

strategies. 

In the first case, regions in which asset mapping and other data collection activities were 

specifically undertaken in order to identify potential goals and strategies were also regions where 

these data were presented to groups of diverse partners and stakeholders (or potential 

stakeholders) in order to build initial support and solicit input for the region. For example, one 

region delayed its commitment to specific strategies until the completion of asset mapping and 

other data collection activities because of a desire to build consensus and support among a broad 

base of constituent organizations before moving to the activities phase. As one WIB director in 

that region noted regarding the pressure from partner organizations to move forward with an 

implementation plan, strategies, and funded activities, his goal was to implement the “right way” 

by collecting data, presenting it to regional partners and stakeholders, and then letting the data 

point toward the solutions. This observation, however, should not be taken to imply that other 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

56

regions ignored the input of their partners and stakeholders or that they ignored data resources 

available to them. Rather, leadership in most of the other regions tended to place less emphasis 

on asset mapping and, in several cases, had already staked out their target industries and 

activities from existing statewide and regional strategies and through discussion with their 

partners and stakeholders. 

In at least half of the regions there was a direct relationship between the goals and strategies that 

were being incorporated within the regions’ implementation plans and with either statewide or 

regional strategies that were already in existence. In many of these cases, partners and 

stakeholders were already familiar with the broad goals being pursued by their regions, and they 

did not necessarily need to be involved in the development of the implementation plan. In 

several of these cases, the data-gathering part of the planning process was conducted mainly to 

confirm already held positions, and partners were mostly involved in a later stage of the planning 

process where they were asked to provide details about the specific activities in which they 

would be engaged as they strove to meet the region’s goals. 

Planning Tools 

Almost all of the regions had conducted some sort of asset mapping or regional data collection 

activity, or were currently engaged in data collection to profile the principal workforce, industry, 

and demographic characteristics of the region. Other activities conducted as part of the planning 

process in some of the regions include: 

 Human capital analysis among young adults who were former or current residents of the 

Louisville, Kentucky, area (Central Kentucky region) to determine why they left, why they 

stayed, and what would bring them back to the region. Comparisons between the two 

measures provide insight into how well the community provides what younger residents 

value most. 

 Employer surveys to determine current and anticipated labor force needs in three regions: 

South Central Kansas, Greater Albuquerque, and Southeastern Mississippi. 

 A gap analysis to determine how well current and future workforce needs were being met by 

workforce development activities within the Delaware Valley region. 

 SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) analysis for the Southeastern 

Connecticut region. 

 Analysis of STEM-related education and occupational training programs in a few regions. 

 Presentations to industry councils, educators, WIBs, and other partners/stakeholders to solicit 

input in almost all of the regions. 

Asset Mapping and Planning 

Most of the regions indicated that their asset mapping activities were conducted by organizations 

hired to do this research and to prepare reports based upon them. In a few cases the identity of 

the vendors was not shared with the site visitors, but in most cases they were well known 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

57

 

workforce organizations or consultants, including organizations on ETA’s Technical Assistance 

Team for WIRED or staff from nearby universities. Some contributions to asset mapping 

activities were also provided by state labor market information agencies. In only a few cases 

asset mapping was conducted by WIRED region staff themselves or by their strategic partners. 

For the most part, asset mapping has not been problematic. 

Discussions with local leaders and stakeholders about the use of asset mapping pointed to four 

reasons for it: 

 To identify regional assets, strengths, and potential. For example, in one region the asset 

map was viewed as a pivotal piece of information for identifying regional needs and gaps. 

This region put such a strong emphasis on the asset map that none of the funds available 

through the initiative were allowed to be used until the mapping process had been completed 

and the results were reviewed and discussed. 

 To confirm applicability of strategies to address regional growth that have been adopted 

during the early stages of the region’s collaborative effort. For example, in some regions the 

targeted sector(s) and program strategy were based on discussions among a limited number 

of stakeholders that were involved in the process of preparing the proposal for the Initiative. 

Consequently, these decisions did not necessarily reflect regional conditions, gaps, and 

needs. The systematic review of regional assets provided a more objective perspective on 

regional needs. 

 To identify potential stakeholders and partners. For instance, as part of the asset mapping 

process, one region sought to learn more about the needs of a targeted sector by conducting 

an employer survey as part of the asset mapping and planning process. Another region 

assigned teams of local stakeholders to conduct face-to-face surveys of individual employers 

in their area. In addition to collecting useful information about employer needs, these 

activities were used to engage employers in the initiative and to identify employers that 

might be interested in becoming actively involved. 

 To meet ETA’s requirement. Each of the regions was required to conduct an asset mapping 

process to inform strategic planning. ETA provided information and support for this process 

by distributing a booklet on the topic that was prepared by the Council on Competitiveness.59 

Additional technical assistance was available for regions that sought help.

There was not a consensus among the regions in terms of the usefulness of asset mapping. In 

most cases, the reasons offered for doing it cut across these categories. 

Among the regions, the emphasis placed on asset mapping varied considerably, with some 

regions assigning a special line item in their budget for this activity while others hardly 

mentioned the mapping component. While hiring a special consultant to prepare the asset map 

seemed to increase the likelihood that the resulting document would contain a considerable 

59 Council on Competitiveness, Asset Mapping Roadmap: A Guide to Assessing Regional Development Resources, 

Prepared for US Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, October 2006. 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

58

 

amount of detailed data, it did not necessarily guarantee that the resource maps would be 

comprehensive in terms of including: stakeholder perspectives on the value of regional assets to 

the regional initiative, the linkages between regional assets, the underlying business culture in 

the region, and/or regional attitudes about risk and entrepreneurship.60 Since the majority of the 

asset maps were not completed at the time of the first site visit it is not clear how many of the 

regions took this comprehensive approach. 

Ongoing Planning Activities 

The collaborative nature of the Initiative and the importance of data-driven decisions have 

contributed towards a moderately expanded interest in and capacity for planning among the 26 

regions and their partners. Examples of specific ongoing planning activities include: 

 Creating an extranet for the planning phase that will be continued and transitioned to a 

website to serve both partners and external audiences. 

 Collaborating with the state labor market information system to purchase a subscription to an 

online economic modeling service to inform their planning. 

 Engaging K-12 leaders in planning and implementation, and conducting outreach to 

businesses as pilot projects are implemented. 

 Using training funds as a pilot for future planning and resource allocation at a regional level. 

 Continuing the Regional Workforce Council that was established during the planning phase 

as a regional planning body. 

Some of the regions have maintained planning groups that were established during the planning 

phase or have established new planning groups to help implement the activities that were 

developed earlier. Some regions established WIB consortia (also known as workgroups or issue 

groups in some regions) that are continuing to meet in order to share ideas and plan future 

activities together. The Northern North Jersey region, for example, includes representatives of 

all five local WIBs in the region, One-Stop operators from four counties and the City of Newark, 

plus representation from the Newark Alliance and the New Jersey Economic Development 

Authority. This consortium serves as one of the region’s eight strategy teams. Other regions 

have established and are maintaining Industry Councils that focus on specific sectors. These are 

important organizations, especially for those regions in which multiple industry clusters are 

targeted in their implementation plans, as they bring employers, educators, and workforce 

developers together to narrow their focus and apply their resources collaboratively to a single 

industry or sub-sector in a single location. 

Additional Themes and Illustrations 

Several additional cross-cutting themes emerged during the analysis and are discussed in greater 

detail below. 

Generation II Versus Generation III 

Designation of Generation II WIRED regions as “virtual” regions and the provision of $100,000 

for planning purposes appears to have made little difference between these regions and their 

60 Ibid., p. 5. 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

59

Generation III counterparts in terms of their planning activities and, in particular, their 

compilation and use of asset maps or other data-gathering activities to help drive their planning 

activities. Delays in planning and asset mapping are evident among regions that received 

funding during both rounds of grant investment. 

Planning and Existing Regional Strategies 

At least half of the regions have planned goals, strategies, and activities that are extensions of or 

variations on existing statewide or regional initiatives that were initiated prior to this initiative. 

In New Jersey, for example, several industries targeted for economic development had 

previously been identified by the Governor and an additional $500,000 Regional Economic 

Development Initiative grant was provided to each New Jersey region to support their efforts. In 

Wisconsin, state government had already identified strategies for growing the state’s economy, 

which framed the focus for both of Wisconsin’s regions. 

A major challenge for several of the regions that operate within an existing economic 

development framework is finding the industry sector that can be used as the basis for 

transforming their regional economies. Southeastern Wisconsin, for example, identified an 

emerging industry around the application of technology for water purification and fresh water 

resources as one of their targets. In Central New Jersey, a statewide focus on the biotechnology 

industry prompted that region to focus on small, emerging biotechnology firms as the structure 

of the pharmaceutical industry has changed in recent years from highly-structured vertical 

integration to greater dependence on startup firms that are focusing on biologicals rather than 

pharmaceuticals. The Southwestern Connecticut region, which is strongly engaged with the 

financial services industry, is exploring service industries, such as health care, as part of their 

planning to provide employment for other segments of their labor force. It remains to be seen if 

these new targets, developing industries, or alternatives will develop as foci for regional 

economic transformation over the next few years. 

In contrast, other regions, especially those that are already the homes of potentially 

transformational industries—regardless of whether or not an existing regional or statewide 

development strategy was in place—have had the opportunity to take a different tack in 

planning. The Greater Albuquerque region is mainly focused on technology-driven industries 

that are already established in their area, and the major challenge for this region is to work with 

educators and industry to train enough technicians to meet the current and anticipated workforce 

needs of these industries. The South Central Kansas region contains a cluster of aircraft 

manufacturers and related employers; the regional partners have focused much of their attention 

on training current and future workers to work with new, more sophisticated material (e.g., 

composites) that will become the standard in this industry in the future. Regions like these are 

not as focused on what industries will potentially transform their economies as they are on how 

they will prepare the regional workforce to participate in this transformation. 

Planning for Proposals and Planning for Implementation 

Although not all of the regions’ implementation plans were available at the time of the 

evaluation visits, those that were examined and discussed with partners and stakeholders within 

the region revealed that the focus of activity among approximately half of the WIRED regions 

was reasonably consistent over time. For those where there were changes from proposal to 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

60

implementation, factors driving these modifications included reassessment of original plans and 

priorities through their strategic planning activities and concerns about limitations on the use of 

H-1B funds. There were also a few instances in which specific goals were eliminated or 

modified over time to reflect changing regional conditions, changes in the geographic area to be 

served by the region, and/or changes in the participation by key partners or stakeholders. For 

example, in the Central Kentucky region, after the original proposal was approved the region’s 

geography grew to include Fort Knox, where a major base realignment was underway. 

In some cases, the focus was modified as a result of expanded data about specific targeted 

industries. One example is the narrowing focus on biotechnology within the Central New Jersey 

region. The region’s leadership became more aware of changes occurring within that industry—

specifically a shift from vertically-integrated companies which traditionally relied on their own 

internal resources to create new pharmaceutical products to a growing industry-wide reliance on 

small, independent bio-science companies to do new, creative work. 

Planning and Defining Regions 

One important planning activity for several of the regions was the identification of the 

geographic area to be served. Based on metropolitan areas established by the Census Bureau, 

state planning areas, economic development districts, or workforce development districts, most 

regions had to think through their boundaries as one of their first planning activities. In several 

cases, the regions that were defined for proposals submitted in response to the original SGA, 

were redesigned as part of proposals submitted during the second grant competition, often 

expanding across state boundaries and/or incorporating additional areas within the original states. 

North Oregon and Southwestern Connecticut are two examples of regions that expanded to 

adjacent states when they were selected. 

Some of the changes in regional boundaries have resulted in more innovative plans being 

proposed. Once the Southwestern Connecticut region was established across a state boundary, a 

policy was established requiring that all planned activities involve partners from both states. 

This resulted in some creative new relationships between local WIBs, educational institutions, 

and employers that would not have occurred otherwise. Similarly, Central Kentucky and North 

Oregon both expanded across a state line to include several adjacent counties that were part of 

their normal labor shed, thus preventing the plans developed for those regions from artificially 

restricting participation by employers, organizations, and individuals. 

Summary Observations 

 For most of the regions, planning started before the grants were awarded and has been 

ongoing throughout the process. At least half of the regions have adopted at least some of 

the goals of pre-existing development plans established within their regions and/or states. 

 The planning process was still the dominant activity at the time of the initial site visits. Most 

of the regions had not moved much beyond planning at the time. 

 Regions from both generations appear to be at all stages of the planning process—some have 

moved further along than others regardless of their generation. 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

61

 Asset mapping was conducted by most of the regions, but these exercises were not 

necessarily conducted in order to identify the most appropriate goals for their region. Asset 

mapping was conducted for a variety of reasons, predominantly to confirm target industries 

and goals that had already been chosen and, in some cases, to drive goals and strategies for 

adoption by the regions. 

 Most of the regions contracted with consultants and/or university research institutes to 

conduct asset mapping activities on their behalf. 

 Most of asset mapping activities were fairly straight-forward analyses of workforce, industry, 

and demographic assets within the regions. Only a few of the regions conducted surveys, 

performed gap analysis, or engaged in other data-gathering activities. 

 For most of the regions, planning is an ongoing process revolving around regularlyscheduled partner/stakeholder meetings and the creation of planning subgroups of local WIB 

directors, educators, or industry councils. 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

62

 

E. Communication 

Introduction 

As a dimension in the evaluation’s Theory of Change, effective communication is a necessary, 

although not in itself sufficient, condition for an effective collaboration. Internal 

communications among the participants in a collaboration are necessary for administrative 

reasons such as notifications of meeting arrangements or distribution of minutes. But perhaps 

more importantly, internal communications are also necessary in order to promote a common 

vision or commitment to the goals and strategy of the collaboration. External communication is 

necessary for the collaborative effort if its intent is to increase public awareness and support 

and/or to effectuate institutional changes that may impinge on individuals or entities outside of 

the collaboration. Communication must be considered in regard to fluidity. Current research 

conceptualizes communication as a fluid continuum between formal (scheduled, directed, 

designed) and informal (unscheduled, interactive, spontaneous) interactions.61 This evaluation 

will examine the extent to which communications are clear, timely, and appropriately 

disseminated, and the manner (formal and informal) in which that communication tends to take 

place within regions. 

Communication Purposes 

Regional partners communicate in order to disseminate administrative information. The regions 

report to the public their plans and accomplishments, and they attempt to inform the public about 

WIRED and the region’s plan to transform the workforce development and economic 

development systems. Finally, the regions reach out to the business community to gain 

awareness of WIRED. 

Communicate Ongoing Administrative Items 

The communication of ongoing administrative items to internal stakeholders is vital to ensure 

that partners are kept informed of the initiative’s progress and to encourage their full 

participation. Of the implementation plans available for review, eight discussed processes to 

keep partners and other stakeholders up to date on the details of the operations of the initiative. 

They also sought to communicate ongoing administrative issues to stakeholders, particularly 

internal stakeholders who are part of the process of implementation of regional activities. 

Processes in place included emails sent from project management with details of previous and 

upcoming meetings (minutes, agendas, discussion items etc.); Web sites which included sections 

that were updated periodically with information on the progress of the initiative; and one-to-one 

discussions, whether by phone or in person. 

As discussed previously, communication about decision-making is as important as the decisionmaking process itself. Communicating the regional vision is partly achieved by the 

establishment of “interlocking leadership” structures that ensure a flow of information to and 

61 Robert E. Kraut, Robert S. Fish, Robert W. Root, and Barbara L. Chalfonte, “Informal Communication in 

Organizations: Form, Function, and Technology.” I. S. Oskamp & S. Spacapan (Eds.). Human Reactions to 

Technology: The Claremont Symposium on Applies Social Psychology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. 1990. 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

63

from stakeholder groups. Having this structure in place was seen to improve and enhance the 

communication process and furthered the articulation of the regional vision. 

On the whole, those interviewed during the site visits felt that the staff and management of the 

regions were effectively informing stakeholders of the progress of their efforts. Many 

respondents acknowledged that project staff was working hard at maintaining solid 

communications, and they appreciated the effort. Comments at numerous sites made it obvious 

that stakeholders felt they were “kept in the loop.” One individual from a college indicated that 

communication within the regional partnership was better than within the college itself. 

Reporting Plans and Accomplishments to Program Administrators, the Public, and Other 

Stakeholders 

Ten of the 26 implementation plans discussed the need to have a process in place to disseminate 

accomplishments and success stories to both internal and external audiences. The processes 

discussed included the use of newsletters, Web pages with specific stories highlighting 

successes, video vignettes embedded in e-mails that provided personal stories, and flyers 

distributed to generate Web site traffic. The audiences for these communications included 

stakeholders in the business community, partners in the economic development community, 

students and potential training participants, the media, and many others. 

Local stakeholders interviewed during the site visits affirmed that disseminating success stories 

is a vital component of a successful communication strategy. However, external communication 

was still in its infancy in many regions. Formal communication plans were still being completed 

at the time of the site visits, and a number of other sites had yet to fully implement the 

communication strategies they had devised. Consequently, it is not possible to measure the 

effectiveness of the strategies that the regions have used to disseminate plans and 

accomplishments to external audiences. The second round of site visits should paint a much 

clearer picture regarding the potential success of the regions’ communication strategies. 

Use of Communication to Broaden Understanding of Regional Transformation 

Effective communication may be an essential component of the effort to foster regional 

collaboration and broaden its understanding across a wide audience. Eight of the implementation 

plans included specific plans to reach out to external audiences and educate them regarding the 

partnerships’ work in their regions. Regular meetings were seen as one way to educate regional 

leaders and to pass on critical information regarding the collaboration. For example, in SouthCentral Kansas, the project director holds monthly meetings with the region’s leadership and 

implementation teams to ensure that all parties are aware of the status of implementation and can 

address any issues as they arise. The project director also provides electronic communiqués at 

midmonth to keep partners updated. Southwest Connecticut has formed a Regional 

Communicators Council consisting of communications professionals affiliated with partners of 

the initiative. The council works together to coordinate outreach to its respective constituencies 

and the media, thus ensuring a consistent message. Other specific strategies that regions have 

undertaken or plan to undertake include hosting conferences where regional staff would present 

information on its activities; including external stakeholders (such as the business community) in 

the process of drafting communication; and holding forums in which specific target groups—

such as entrepreneurs—would be the focus of discussion. 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

64

As previously noted, geographic barriers exist among some of the regions, particularly those 

which encompass large rural areas and/or multiple, competing political jurisdictions. Holding 

meetings at different locations within the region was an additional strategy employed by at least 

seven regions to address this challenge. The rotation of meetings helped ensure that ownership 

for the region’s implementation was felt more keenly by stakeholders who were located in 

outlying areas of the region as they became part of the process. This is true of Northern 

California, which rotates meetings across the region; shares reports from previous meetings; and 

makes heavy use of telecommunications such as webcasts and teleconferencing to keep 

stakeholders informed and cultivate ownership. In another region that did not rotate its meetings, 

several interviewees demonstrated a lack of knowledge regarding that region’s efforts, and two 

stated explicitly that they would participate more often—and would feel more connected to the 

initiative—if meetings were held at different times and/or alternating locations. 

In two regions in particular, the rotation of meetings has also allowed for the mitigation of 

historical differences between core cities and outlying rural areas through increased partnerships 

and points of contact among constituencies. For example, the project director in South-Central 

Kansas, mindful of the rural-urban disconnect, has made specific efforts to bring representatives 

of outlying rural counties to the table, solicit their input, and keep them engaged—an effort that 

was not lost on those representatives, as indicated during the site visit. 

Creating Awareness in the Business Community 

Many regions have recognized the importance of aligning their efforts closely with the needs of 

the business community. Eight of the available implementation plans specifically mention 

reaching out to the business community through education, awareness-building, and inclusion. 

One of the implementation plans discussed providing the business community with a voice on 

the communications team so that they were integral to the communications messages that were 

being distributed. During the site visits, however, interviewees in several regions pointed out 

that it was too soon to reach out to the business community before they had some successes to 

communicate. For example, in one region that had delayed its asset mapping activity and had 

not yet rolled out the bulk of its grant programs, stakeholders believed it was premature to 

engage businesses and preferred to wait until concrete outcomes could be unveiled. 

Communication Methods 

Staff members are the main facilitators of communication strategies, with consultants being used 

in different capacities at several of the sites. For instance, Central New Jersey has a full-time 

paid staff member dedicated exclusively to communication; Southwest Indiana has a 

communication staff person who is employed for both the region and for the convening WIB 

organization; and Central Kentucky uses a consulting firm to help with communication issues. 

The use of personnel dedicated to communication issues appeared to be beneficial to the regions, 

as they provided additional resources and expertise. In addition, two of the implementation plans 

discussed the need for, and their request for, additional technical assistance dollars to facilitate 

the implementation of communications strategies. 

At least five of the regions were making use of innovative Web-based communication tools. In 

some cases, these tools were employed in response to geographic limitations. For example, 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

65

Appalachian Ohio has limited broadband connectivity, which is likely a function of its large rural 

area, hilly terrain, and lack of major population centers. In response, this region has 

experimented with new communication approaches, such as purchasing a virtual “island” on the 

Second Life Web site which is used for instructional purposes related to the region’s focus on the 

digital animation sector. Similarly, Southwest Indiana is working to deploy community-wide 

broadband access in order to overcome the communication barriers presented by the isolation of 

its rural areas. Southern Arizona, another largely rural region, plans to use the Web to help 

foster a regional identity by linking WIRED partners from participating organizations across the 

region. In other regions, Web-based communication tools provide a means for reaching across 

densely-populated areas encompassing multiple political boundaries. For instance, South Central 

and Southwest Wisconsin is implementing a new Web-based communication tool called 

“Basecamp” to facilitate online collaboration and communication among partners. The 

Delaware Valley Innovation Network has created a Web site intended to bridge the gap between 

industry, academia, economic development, and workforce development, providing reports and 

customized data searches with a regional scope. The Web site also boasts an interactive mapping 

tool, “DVIN Tri-State Region at a Click,” which shows where life science companies and 

training institutions are located in the region. 

Interviewees in some of the regions noted that well-organized, formal channels of 

communication (e.g., scheduled meetings, regular email updates, etc.) had facilitated the 

development of informal channels of communication—fortuitous contacts that sometimes led to 

unforeseen positive outcomes. In Central-Eastern Puerto Rico, for example, faculty from the 

University of Puerto Rico had a history of working independently and without dialogue with 

companies in the manufacturing sector and did not view themselves as playing a role in the 

economic development of the region. Through this initiative, faculty members participated in a 

series of work team meetings with manufacturing employers to discuss skill needs and gaps. 

During these meetings, the faculty members learned that their students needed more training in 

Applied Physics in order to address industry needs for quality control experts. To circumvent the 

cumbersome process of curriculum revision, they developed capstone courses that could be 

provided for those finishing an Associates’ Degree in Electronics and also those pursuing a 

Bachelor’s program in Applied Electronics. Because these courses would not be required for a 

degree, they could be created quickly and did not have to go through regular approval channels 

at the University. 

Some interviewees mentioned that they had taken advantage of opportunities for learning and 

communication among regions at the Academies, peer-to-peer national training conferences 

sponsored by ETA. The consensus was that the Academies were an excellent place to meet with 

other grantee representatives and their regional partners, learn from them, and hear their stories. 

In addition, communications between the regions and the relevant state fiscal agent 

representatives appeared mostly smooth, albeit restricted to grant-administration issues. During 

site visits, several of the regions’ administrative staff members spoke of the valuable and helpful 

relationships they had built with the ETA staff assigned to their regions. 

Measurement 

Although the implementation plans included specific tools and strategies for implementing 

communication strategies, there was very little discussion of measurements for communication 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

66

either in the implementation plans or during the site visits. In one of the implementation plans, 

the region discussed the use of Google Analytics to review the number of hits that its Web site 

received and to see whether there were any spikes in activity at the time of specific regional 

events. Since some of the regions were still in the process of developing their communication 

plans and strategies, more details may emerge in the coming months regarding whether and how 

the WIRED regions will assess the effectiveness of their communication efforts. 

Effectiveness 

Given the size and diversity of many of the WIRED regions, it was clear from the outset that 

communication among a wide array of partners and sectors could be very challenging. At the 

time of the site visits, many regions were taking positive steps towards inclusion of all relevant 

stakeholders, but distance often proved problematic to ensuring regular, in-person meetings. As 

previously noted, seven regions had demonstrated extensive collaboration prior to these regional 

efforts. These early interactions established a level of trust, commitment, and common identity 

that made face-to-face communication less of an issue. In regions with limited prior 

collaboration experience, well-articulated communication strategies employing multiple 

communication channels, ranging from in-person to more technologically-advanced tools, helped 

to break down historic barriers to collaboration. Even in the most connected of regions, 

interviewees indicated that WIRED had opened new paths of communication across boundaries 

that had seemed insurmountable only a few years before. 

Summary Observations 

Stakeholders across the regions indicated that they valued and expected clear, concise, and 

timely communication. In most cases, the regions delivered, using a wide variety of tools—

whether formal or informal, traditional or highly innovative—to convey administrative 

information, foster common understanding, raise awareness, and build support among regional 

stakeholders and the public. Where such communications were lacking, interviewees tended to 

demonstrate a lack of knowledge, a lack of buy-in, or both. 

 Surprisingly, in regions with effective and well-established formal communication channels, 

informal communication seemed more prevalent as well. 

 Regions with a history of collaboration may have an advantage over those with limited 

collaboration experience, but the deployment of strategic communication plans—especially 

those which include paid staff members or consultants—may be just as effective for 

improving the quality, timeliness, and productivity of communication efforts. 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

67

F. Use of Data 

Introduction 

Collaborative efforts attempting to achieve transformation should rely on data in their decisionmaking processes. To analyze how data informs decisions, it is useful to think of collaborations 

in terms of a life cycle: the collaborations are formed; they traverse a learning curve as they 

begin to function; they mature into effective organizations; and they, ultimately, cease to 

function. The formation of a collaborative occurs because organizations and individuals have a 

perspective about the status quo context of their environment. These organizations and 

individuals are often working together to introduce a change or improvement to that 

environment. The initial participants in the collaboration may share perceptions about the 

context of their environment, but as the effort begins formally, data are needed to drive decisions 

about specific goals, activities, and the utilization of resources. To obtain funding, for example, 

individuals or institutions that invest in a collaboration usually want data about how the 

resources will be used. 

As a collaborative effort begins to provide services or other value-added activities, its need for 

data becomes one of monitoring performance. Information is needed to monitor and track the 

activities to measure characteristics such as participation, growth, and change. To be useful, the 

performance monitoring data needs to be presented to decision makers in a timely and 

understandable manner, and decision makers need to know how to use the data. As 

organizations mature, data become useful for evaluation. That is, the decision makers need to 

gain a sense of the value of their activities so that they can make rational decisions about 

continuing on their course of action or making changes. 

As the regions attempt to transform their economic development and workforce systems, they 

will make a number of strategic and tactical decisions. The question is the extent to which the 

partners rely on data in making those decisions. There are several key points during the life 

cycle of a region when the leadership could rely on (or could have relied on) data: (1) during the 

formation stages; when organizations and individuals were identifying sectoral targets and 

approaches that would transform their region and thus be reasonable projects for funding under 

the initiative; (2) when developing the implementation plan that established the region’s specific 

goals and strategies; (3) when establishing metrics for activities; (4) in mapping regional assets; 

(5) for monitoring project activities; and (6) when undertaking strategies aimed at sustainability. 

Analyses 

The analysis of the use of data was done at three points in the regions’ collaboration life cycle. 

First, it examined the extent to which data was used in the proposal and implementation plans to 

inform decisions about sectors and activities. Second, the analysis focused on the asset mapping 

that was done in several of the regions. Finally, it looked at the ongoing use of data in 

monitoring activities and in establishing strategies for sustainability. 

Use of Data to Identify Target Sectors 

The methodology used by regional stakeholders in selecting their target industries is an 

important issue because most regions’ plans call for the formation of educational partnerships 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

68

 

and the redirection of regional resources to transform the region’s workforce. The proper 

selection of these targets will enhance the potential success of the regions’ efforts. 

The feasibility for future success of a region’s targeted industries depends on the region’s 

economic suitability to those industries. Data to measure that suitability is as follows: 

 A comparison of industries’ labor force requirements to the region’s workforce skills and 

abilities. 

 Where gaps exist, the capacity of educational/training institutions to provide training for the 

appropriate occupations. 

 Existence of a solid supplier base for the industries or a good market location for the 

industries. 

 Presence of the industries in the region in order to “cluster” and share common resources. 

Other factors that may be used to identify the promise of a sector include: 

 Accessibility of the region’s current workforce to the required skills. 

 The rate of growth of national and international markets. 

 Rates of pay that are average or better-than-average for the region. 

To understand the importance of accessibility to skills, consider the following example. The jobs 

offered by a new manufacturer of wind turbines will likely be accessible to many regional 

workers if it locates in a region that already has numerous auto parts manufacturers. On the 

other hand, many jobs in bioscience laboratories may require more advanced education than is 

available in the workforce in an area that has relatively poor educational attainment unless there 

is a substantial investment in education, which would also require a long training period. 

Potential international competition is important also because sectors with relatively standardized 

skill requirements will likely face bleak futures as a result.62

Most regions have selected target industries that were already successful in the region. 

Seventeen of the 26 regions identified “advanced manufacturing” and six regions selected health 

care because of the strong presence these sectors already held in the region. The Arkansas Delta, 

Northern New Jersey, and Southwest Indiana regions sought to take advantage of their 

geographic locations and transportation infrastructures by focusing on the transportation, 

distribution, and logistics (TDL) sector. The Central New Jersey region responded to a 

restructuring in its pharmaceutical sector, changing from large companies to small and mediumsized firms. In addition, several regions selected targeted industries that could take advantage of 

the region’s unique resources, e.g., major federal and commercial research centers or shipping 

ports. 

From an economic development perspective, this strategy has several advantages and a 

disadvantage. The strategy allows the regions’ partners to work with existing companies in their 

industries to tailor the workforce system. The presence of the targeted industries in the region 

62 David H. Autor, Frank Levy, and Richard J. Murnane. The Skill Content of Recent Technological Change: An 

Empirical Exploration. Quarterly Journal of Economics. Vol. 118 No. 4. (November 2003): Pages 1279-1333. 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

69

 

suggests that the region already holds a comparative advantage over other regions. Moreover, it 

is generally easier to assist existing industries to grow than trying to attract new industries into 

the region. The one possible disadvantage of this strategy is that the region’s current major 

industries may be facing severe national or international conditions that limit their growth 

potential regardless of regional efforts. 

Only three regions have selected target industries that currently have little or no presence in their 

region. Their plans call for either the development of training programs or entrepreneurial 

development programs specifically focused on these industries. The advantage of this approach 

is that it allows the region to select industries, such as computer technologies, nanotechnologies, 

and/or biotechnology, all of which are facing promising futures. However, without any unique 

resources, these regions face a difficult challenge in attracting industry activity into the region. 

How was data used to make these choices? Most regions picked their target industries based on 

the region’s economic stakeholders’ knowledge of the region’s past and current economic 

structure. However, 11 of the 26 regions indicated that they consulted previous economic 

development assessment studies for their region in the selection of their targeted industries. 

Three adopted target industries identified by their state’s economic development organization or 

governor’s office. For example, the Wasatch Valley region effort involves a staff person from its 

governor’s economic development agency who is responsible for promoting workforce 

development initiatives that will strengthen and support the many biological-science-related 

industries in the region. 

A few regions conducted their own economic analyses to identify their targeted industries. 

Three performed some type of cluster analysis to identify industries that had a strong supplier 

base in the region or more than one competing company in the region, and/or examined whether 

those companies shared a common workforce. Two used location quotients to identify which 

industries were the most concentrated in the region.63 One region used employment multipliers 

to estimate the industry’s impact on the region. Unfortunately, neither location quotients nor 

employment multipliers provide any information regarding the potential growth of the industry. 

In fact, outside of health care, only one region cited national growth projections as a 

consideration in their target industry selection. 

In short, only a few regions used data extensively by carrying out detailed economic analyses in 

selecting their targeted industries. Instead, they counted on the regional knowledge of their 

economic development stakeholders and the potential economic impact of their unique research 

and education assets. It may be that regions understood the uncertainty associated with targeting 

industries; it is very difficult for anyone to pick “winners.” This uncertainty led many regions to 

identify broad targets such as “advanced manufacturing” and “entrepreneurship,” rather than 

venturing to name specific sectors, such as fabricated metals or plastics. 

 

63 An industry’s location quotient is derived by dividing its percent share of the region’s workforce by its percentage 

of the nation’s employment. A location quotient of greater than 1.5 suggests that the region is highly concentrated 

in that industry. 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

70

Asset Mapping 

One major use of data by regions, required as part of participation in this initiative, is asset 

mapping. During the first round of site visits to all 26 regions, local leaders and stakeholders 

were queried about the status, use, and general perceptions of the asset mapping process. Many 

regions were relying on the asset maps for what might be considered their primary purpose: 

identifying partners or regional resources that might be tapped for initiative-supported activities. 

In addition to that purpose, however, respondents indicated that the data derived from the asset 

mapping were used for other purposes, such as when conceptualizing the project for the original 

proposal, selecting target industries and occupations to focus on in the implementation plan, 

directing activities, and promoting the concept of regional collaboration. 

Despite the fact that the site visits occurred relatively early in the initiative’s timeline, a 

significant number—ten regions in all—reported that their asset maps had already been 

completed and were currently being used. In some cases, the asset mapping had even been done 

prior to receiving the grant funding, which these regions reported as being highly beneficial for 

the development of the original proposal and implementation plan. For example, the Delaware 

Valley region utilized a pre-existing asset map that had identified five target industries as the 

basis for their focus on life science activities. The amount of data provided by this asset map 

was substantial, which provided information for the region’s application, as well as direction for 

its decision regarding focus sectors.

Interviewees from half of the 26 regions visited reported that asset map data had helped them to 

identify a program, service provider, or firm with a specific occupational need that could be 

involved in the initiative. Other popular uses of asset map data were the identification and 

selection of target industries and occupations (four regions) or to guide who was selected as a 

primary partner for the project (two regions). However, it is also worth noting that interviewees 

in the remaining regions were unsure of how the asset map data would be used, even if they also 

expressed positive hopes regarding its potential for guiding future decisions. In at least one 

region, there was a plan to hire consultants to conduct a workshop for those who were interested 

in learning more about the asset mapping process and use of resulting data. For example, in one 

region, interviewees indicated that data from the asset mapping process has been driving multiple 

aspects of their initiative. Area partners were engaged in asset mapping prior to forming a 

region, which has allowed the project to be data-driven from the very beginning—even 

influencing the initial application. According to one local partner: 

Every time we make a strategic decision or recommendation, we look at our asset 

mapping. [We] have used it a lot...where we may think there is a need for certain 

skills [or] knowledge that we may want to include [in the initiative]...companies 

we want to reach out to...[to find] students for graduate [training], we use [asset 

mapping data]. 

Of the regions that did not have completed asset maps at the time of the site visits, five reported 

that asset mapping was currently in progress, while the remaining eleven regions were still in 

various stages of planning and were not yet engaged in asset mapping. Regions that were in the 

process of completing the asset map typically reported that they were already making use of 

initial data to bring partners together or to identify firms or training organizations to invite into 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

71

 

the collaborative. For instance, in Northern New Jersey in-house asset mapping was underway at 

the time of the team’s site visit. The region found that the energy industry kept popping up in 

their early analysis. Although energy was not included as one of the region’s original target 

clusters, the group made a decision to add curriculum for the energy industry to its planned 

activities, based on these data.

In only two regions did interviewees express a strong negative view of asset mapping; 

interviewees from these areas felt that they already knew their region’s assets and that the data 

would not be used. In sharp contrast, most regions held an expectation that the asset map data 

would be used, and four regions demonstrated that pre-existing asset map data had been used 

extensively in the development of their goals and strategies from the beginning. 

Of course, being data-driven can mean extending the use of knowledge beyond the obvious or 

intended purposes to strengthen other areas of a region. For example, a regional leader 

expressed some amazement in regards to how the asset mapping data helped her to find new 

collaborators for the initiative. Additionally, having data on the region’s resources was found to 

be “useful in outreach” such as promoting collaboration, as well as “very instrumental in 

breaking down silos” and getting partners to think in broader terms. 

Performance Monitoring and Sustainability 

According to documents and discussions with administrators, ETA placed considerable emphasis 

on the development of usable, measurable metrics for activities in each region’s implementation 

plan. Indeed, for the most part, those metrics are clearly specified in the plans. Of those that 

were examined, 20 listed outcomes/metrics.64 There was considerable variation across regions, 

and even across activities within a region, in the specificity and measurability of these 

outcomes/metrics, however. In many cases, the plans note very general outcomes such as “a 

plan will be developed,” “a formative evaluation will occur,” or “data will be compiled.” In 

other cases, very specific numeric targets are given. The following table is an example from one 

of the implementation plans that has quite specific metrics. 

64 Counted among the 20 was a region that had prepared a document titled, “Accountability Plan,” totally separate 

from the implementation plan. 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

72

Table 10: One Region’s Metrics and Expected Outcomes 

Measures Expected Outcomes 

Business Impact/Entrepreneurship

Number of Business Startups 150

Number of Business Expansions 75

Number of Businesses Utilizing Incubators 15

Amount of Business (“Risk”) Loans** $5,000,000

Training/Education-Related Activities

Number Began Education/Training Activities 1,500

Number Completed Education/Training Activities 1,200

Number Attained Degree or Certification 750

Number Placed in Target Industry Employment 1,000

Number Placed in Post-Secondary Education or Certificate Program 50

Average Wage at Placement $12/Hour

Capacity-Building

Number of New/Expanded Industry Courses Available 50

Job Creation

Number of New Jobs Created in Target Industries 450

*This table was drawn from one region’s implementation plan. 

**The term “Risk” Loans was used in the implementation plan to refer to loans to entrepreneurs having difficulty 

accessing conventional financing.

Whereas regions were diligent in terms of identifying outcomes and metrics, they were less far 

along in actually monitoring activities against the desired outcomes or metrics at the time of the 

site visits. Here are some related comments from individuals during site visits: 

We discuss metrics at the leadership team meeting but at a higher level. When we 

give money out, we write an accountability piece with the measure embedded. 

[Note: In this region, the leadership team had met only once.]

We know what we want to measure – in the implementation plan. However, our 

metrics committee is still in development, and we are not sure where to get the 

data. 

On the other hand, a couple of regions have achieved quite a level of sophistication in 

monitoring their activities. One region indicated that projects are discussed at board meetings. 

An individual from that region noted, “I have been impressed by the board’s desire to gather data 

and make informed decisions. Data are important. Some of it has been really interesting and has 

even changed the perspective of some of the board members.” Another region was in the 

process of finalizing a document explaining the details of the metrics process that they had 

established. Staff members indicated that they were going to “roll out the baseline metrics” at 

the next leadership meeting, and then they planned to calculate and publicize them on a quarterly 

basis. 

Interestingly, none of the implementation plans mention summary evaluations of the extent to 

which workforce or economic development systems have been transformed in the region, or to 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

73

track regional (macro) economic indicators such as employment or incomes. The approach of 

the regions to date is uniformly to fund or promote activities that regional stakeholders believe to 

be transformative or innovative and to measure the takeup of those activities. No region purports 

to measure overall regional economic activity nor the extent to which transformation has been 

achieved. 

Tracking and Reporting Progress 

The tools and methods a region devises to track and report progress also support its decisionmaking. As one region has done, this might include having task teams monitor and report on 

outcome measures on a quarterly basis. In this region, this information is reported to the 

leadership team as well, which is responsible for assessing program effectiveness. Another 

region has created a thorough financial management process. In this region, a financial manager 

reports quarterly to the leadership team, providing updates on the status of each of the region’s 

project efforts 

To date, the above examples are not common. Most regions are monitoring expenditures and 

general project implementation status, but this information is not widely shared within their 

structures. Specific outcome measures are not being compiled and tracked in nearly all cases.

Summary Observations 

 An examination of the background documents, proposals, and implementation plans 

suggested that most of the regions selected targets based on the partners’ common knowledge 

of the existing industrial structure in the region. They confirmed these choices with data. It 

appears as though only a small number of regions systematically analyzed available data on 

employment or business formation in order to choose targets. 

 For the most part, regions seemed to have taken seriously regional asset mapping. Ten of the 

26 regions (split about equally between generations) had completed the mapping and were 

using the results. The asset mapping in most of the rest of the regions was in process or 

planning. In only two regions did there seem to be resistance to the activity. As the 

evaluation unfolds, monitoring of the extent to which regions use their asset maps will 

continue. The study team will try to determine whether there is any relationship between the 

seriousness with which regions conducted the asset mapping and their progress toward 

regional transformation of the workforce and economic development systems in the region. 

 With considerable prodding from ETA, the regions explicitly listed expected outcomes and 

metrics for the activities in their implementation plans. A review of these revealed 

considerable variation in the usefulness and measurability of these metrics. As the evaluation 

progresses over the next couple of years, it will be interesting to observe and try to tease out 

any correlation between the specificity and measurability of the metrics and the region’s 

progress toward transformation. 

 

 In terms of monitoring performance of activities, most regions indicated that they were just 

initiating their activities and had invested little effort to date in monitoring outcomes. 

Nevertheless, the regions suggested that they intend to do that monitoring over time. This 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

74

will be evaluated to determine the extent to which they do so, and the approaches they take to 

using the data to support future decision-making. 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

75

G. Resources and Sustainability 

Introduction 

In the evaluation’s Theory of Change, the dimension related to resources and sustainability is 

relevant to the ability of regions to meet the goals of the initiative, and to move toward 

realization of regional innovative economic transformation. The adequacy of resources is an 

important factor in the effectiveness of initiative activity. 

The leveraging of other funds was one required component for the regions. For regions to meet 

their transformation goals, it is anticipated that grant funds will need to be enhanced with in-kind 

and cash resources from other sources. Achieving regional economic transformation may also 

result from leveraging grant funds and activities to help sustain or expand existing efforts to 

provide training for new technologies, and to support entrepreneurship and other similar 

programs. 

Allocation of Initiative Funds 

The budgets that are integral parts of the region’s implementation plans are extremely important 

indicators of how the regions perceive their roles within the initiative as well as what goals they 

believe are most valuable to their overall mission to transform (or at least begin the 

transformation of) the economy in their respective regions. Two broad categories of 

expenditures are evident from the plans, budgets, and discussion with region leaders. One 

category includes the administrative and organizational funding that was needed to startup, hire, 

or contract out new organizational structures for the staff to manage the initiative activity. Funds 

designed to implement or sustain collaborative efforts among disparate partners and 

stakeholders—such as WIB directors’ consortia, industry councils, education-industry 

partnerships, and other similar efforts—are also part of this broad category. The second broad 

category of expenditures is for programmatic activities. These are the funds that regions use to 

specify how they plan to transform their regions and, as discussed below, these funds may also 

be further placed within several broad sub-categories which illustrate the mechanisms through 

which the regions intend to transform their economies. These include funds allocated to training 

workers, creating new curricula, promoting STEM activities, informing workers about workforce 

opportunities, matching workers to these new opportunities, promoting entrepreneurship, and 

promoting further economic and workforce innovation in the region. Several regions have carved 

out a portion of their expenditures to promote innovation through competitive subgranting of 

grant investment funds. 

Most regions organized their implementation plan budgets according to strategy or by goal area, 

since ETA required that budgets be mapped to prioritized goals for the first year. This 

formatting created a difficulty in neatly categorizing line items. Another difficulty in 

categorizing this type of allocation is that six regions either did not have budgets or did not have 

sufficiently detailed budgets to determine the allocation categories of interest. Therefore the 

following discussion about the allocations is a rough approximation of planned expenditures. 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

76

Administrative, Organizational, and Operational Expenses to Support a Collaborative 

Process 

The regions are allocating between one-fourth and one-third of their grant investment funds 

towards startup and administration expenses, including funds for program executives, 

administrative staff, accounting, and, in some cases, administrative fees to state government. 

Additional funds in this category are for purchased services and equipment, computer hardware 

and software, rent, publications, data resources, and consultants (most often conducting asset 

mapping). As previously noted, most of the regions have contracted with commercial vendors or 

university institutes to compile regional profiles or other related data gathering activities. The 

Heldrich Center at Rutgers University, for example, has provided regional asset data for both the 

Northern New Jersey and the Central New Jersey regions. Central Kentucky has contracted with 

two vendors: one to provide a comprehensive profile of the economy and population of the 

region; and another to determine what draws young adults away from the region, what keeps 

others in the region, and what may entice those who have left to return. Other operational 

expenses include communication expenses, hosted meetings and conferences, and travel. 

Programmatic Expenses 

Almost all of the remaining funds in each region’s budget are devoted to programmatic activities 

that are intended to begin the economic and workforce transformation of these regions. Among 

the 26 regions are dozens of programs and activities designed to meet the regional goals, such as 

through education and training programs, workforce system redesign, industry council 

development, minority recruitment for technical careers, entrepreneurship, and the like. Almost 

all of the regions are devoting some portion of their budgets to education and training activities. 

For example, the Greater Albuquerque region has budgeted funding for developing a community 

college “green” building” curriculum, including environmentally sensitive techniques for 

landscaping, construction, heating and cooling, water conservation, and solar power. All three of 

New Jersey’s regions (i.e., DVIN, Bio-1, and New Jersey Partners) are funding laboratory 

technician training that targets minority youth. The North Oregon region devoted funds to 

recruit rural youth to a High Tech University program designed to expose them to science and 

engineering careers. 

Eight regions (evenly divided between Generations II and III) heavily targeted an emerging 

industry with their goals and activities. No regions expected to attract industries entirely new to 

their economies. Of those that focused on emerging industries, the targets included life sciences, 

information technology/interactive digital technology, logistics/transportation/distribution, 

composites, nanotechnology, and green technology/renewable energy. In examining the budgets 

presented with the implementation plans for these regions, it appears that the grant funds were 

intended to support activities to bolster collaboration and communication in the region, expand 

the numbers of workers in the industry pipeline, and encourage entrepreneurship. The grant 

funds were used largely as seed money to build added capacity and spur new programs. In most 

cases, the regions also had leveraged funds to compliment the grant funds, and were working off 

existing ideas or models. For instance, the Tennessee Valley region budgeted funds for new 

curriculum modules created by the Hudson Alpha Institute for Biotechnology (HAIB) and to 

expand the Alabama APPLE AP lab support program, among other activities, stating “We do not 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

77

 

view the $5 million from DOL-ETA as an end point but rather a jump-start to a larger value 

proposition for the long-term benefit.”65

Several of the regions have allocated grant investment funds to redesign or reconfigure aspects of 

the workforce system in their areas. One example is the Southwest Connecticut region, who’s 

goal to “create an integrated, regionally-based talent development system linking education, 

workforce, and economic development . . .”66 Another is the planned establishment of a “Bio-1 

Stop” (Central New Jersey) that will combine workforce development, training, 

entrepreneurship, and economic development activities into a “seamless . . . portal into the direct 

activities of workforce development . . . [and] . . . also as a connection into New Jersey’s 

economic development.”67 This activity ties in specifically with the region’s goal of reversing 

losses it was seeing in its share of the pharmaceutical market. 

Another common activity included in the regions’ budgets is industry councils that link 

employers, educational organizations, and workforce agencies together. For example, the 

Northern New Jersey region has brought representatives of the Port Authority of New York and 

New Jersey (employer) together with community college educators, data resources from the 

Heldrich Center at Rutgers University, and workforce agencies to help bring a mix of training, 

education, workforce resources, and information to support the growing transportation, 

warehousing, and distribution (TWD) industry along the Hudson River. 

Funds designated for entrepreneurship and funds for competitive proposals to develop and 

implement innovative workforce and training programs were singled out for additional focus as 

important examples of innovative activity, and are discussed in more depth below. These are 

highlighted because of their crucial role in promoting creativity and input from multiple sectors, 

and the significant window of opportunity they create in stimulating new ways of approaching 

transformation and thinking outside the box. 

Allocations to Stimulate Innovation 

Descriptions of allocations are at best rough approximations of the happenings at the regional 

level, since most regions ordered their budgets by goal area, and there is some subjectivity in 

how to categorize activity. Nevertheless, a number of regions specifically allocated funds to 

stimulate innovation through subgrants either through allocations specifically for 

entrepreneurship activities or a variety of other activities. 

Entrepreneurship. Budgets for ten of the 26 regions contained some funding for the support of 

entrepreneurial activity as specific aspects of those region’s plans. The amount of funding varied 

from a low of $22,500 (about 0.5 percent of its total grant budget) for technology transfer in one 

region to a high of $1.2 million (23.5 percent) in another region, for expansion of entrepreneurial 

training, coordination between workforce development and entrepreneurial training, business 

65 Valley Innovation Alliance, “Implementation Plan,” January 2008, page 5. 

66 The Workplace, Inc. “Talent for Growth WIRED Implementation Plan.” Revised November 2007. Bridgeport, 

CT: 2007, page 13. 

67 Bio-1. “Central New Jersey WIRED Implementation Plan.” Revised March 19, 2007. New Brunswick, NJ: 2007, 

pages pages 34-35. 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

incubators, angel investor forums for startup businesses, and small business development 

activities. 

The budget plans that were submitted by each region along with their implementation plan do 

not necessarily line up with the emphasis placed on entrepreneurship activities. One of the 

primary reasons for this is that some regions were more focused than others on leveraging 

resources from federal agencies (Economic Development Agency, Agriculture, and Small 

Business Administration), universities, and private investors (angel investors, corporate 

foundations) to supplement WIRED funds. As a result, the total level of investment in 

entrepreneurship programs is actually higher than what is shown in Figure 5. 

Selected Allocations for Entrepreneurial Investment

In Implementation Plans ($1,000's)

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

Tennessee Valley

Central-Eastern Puerto Rico

Southwest Indiana

Southeastern Virginia

South-Central Idaho

Northern New Jersey

Arkansas Delta

Southern Arizona

South-Central Kansas

Northern California

Southeast Michigan

Figure 5 

Competitive Grants 

Although all of the regions are focused on developing innovative solutions to the workforce 

system challenges they face, about one-third (nine of 26) are looking for these solutions through 

a competitive reinvestment process and have explicitly allocated funds for this purpose. It is 

possible that other regions may also be employing this approach, but that is not discernable from 

the budget detail of the implementation plans. Figure 6 describes the distribution of regions 

according to allocations for a competitive subgranting process. 

78
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

Competitive Subgranting Described in Implementation Plans

No

42%

Yes

35%

Not enough detail

23%

Figure 6 

Budget items that were intended for subgranting activity were identified in the budgets as 

“innovative stimulus fund,” “grant opportunities,” or “opportunity trust fund,” or simply 

“innovation funds” and were all assumed to represent attempts to stimulate an entrepreneurial 

and a competitive approach in proposing and implementing worker training, curriculum 

development, entrepreneurship, collaboration, and the like. The amount of funding varied from a 

low of $40,000 (less than one percent of its total budget) for “Business and Workforce 

Performance Improvement to coordinate planning with Contract Education and Flexibility 

grants” to a high of $3.1 million (63 percent) in another region, for development of curriculum 

and support of regional workforce programs to meet industry needs, for youth and adult STEM 

programs, and for E-SHIP and SME programs. As implied in Figure 7, there was great variation 

in the range of amounts set aside for competitive subgrants. 

79
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

Selected Allocations for Competitive Subgrants 

Described In Implementation Plans ($1,000's)

$-

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

Northern California

Appalachian Ohio

Southwest Indiana

Central New Jersey

Northern New Jersey

Tennessee Valley

Delaware Valley

Southeastern Wisconsin

Central-Eastern Puerto Rico

Figure 7 

One important task in following the progress of these budget allocations during the life of the 

initiative will be to determine whether different levels of subgranting will influence the impact of 

the initiative overall. 

Expenditure Status 

The spend-down status of each of the regions was assessed using data from ETA as of January 9, 

2009. The range of expenditures at that time is shown in Table 11. To put these expenditures in 

context, Generation II regions were selected in February of 2007, and Generation III regions in 

June 2007. Most Generation II regions had their implementation plans approved by ETA in 

2007. Most Generation III regions had their implementation plans approved by ETA in 2008. 

Regions in Generation II had spent from about nine percent to 39 percent of their grant funds, 

and in the aggregate had spent about 25 percent of the funds invested in them. More specifically, 

in Generation II, four regions had spent less than 20 percent of their funds by January 2009; three 

had spend about one-quarter of their funds; and six had spent at least 30 percent of their funds. 

Regions in Generation III had a wider range of funds expended, from about one percent to about 

52 percent, and in the aggregate had spent about 19 percent of their grant funds. Three 

Generation III regions had spent less than 10 percent of their funds by January 2009; five had 

spend less than 20 percent; two had spent about one-quarter of their funds; and three had spent at 

least 30 percent of their funds. 

80
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

81

Table 11: Grant Expenditure Status as of January 2009

Site Grant Amount 

Maximum 

Amount 

Expended or 

Drawn* 

Proportion 

Spent As Of 

January 2009 

Generation II

Wasatch Range Utah $4,160,000 $361,563 8.7

Delaware Valley $4,160,000 $392,648 9.4

Northern New Jersey $4,160,000 $564,340 13.6

Appalachian Ohio $4,060,000 $715,228 17.6

Southeast Michigan $4,144,000 $959,854 23.2

Tennessee Valley $4,160,000 $991,947 23.8

Southeastern Wisconsin $4,160,000 $1,055,220 25.4

Southwest Indiana $4,160,000 $1,235,000 29.7

Arkansas Delta $4,160,000 $1,275,945 30.7

Rio South Texas $4,060,000 $1,261,213 31.1

Southwestern Connecticut $4,160,000 $1,342,787 32.3

Northern California $4,160,000 $1,410,359 33.9

Central-Eastern Puerto Rico $4,100,000 $1,591,607 38.8

Totals $53,804,000 $13,157,711 24.5

Generation III 

Central New Jersey $2,559,999 $33,416 1.3

So Cen and So West Wisconsin $2,499,999 $124,150 5.0

Greater Albuquerque $2,559,999 $203,972 8.0

Southcentral and Western MN $2,559,999 $264,500 10.3

South Central Kansas $2,559,999 $281,428 11.0

Southeastern Mississippi $2,559,999 $300,695 11.7

Southern Arizona $2,499,999 $323,383 12.9

Southeast Missouri $2,559,999 $418,098 16.3

Central Kentucky $2,559,999 $599,332 23.4

North Oregon $2,559,999 $685,662 26.8

South Central Idaho $2,559,999 $745,321 29.1

Southeastern Virginia $2,559,999 $845,961 33.0

Pacific Mountain Washington $2,559,999 $1,332,734 52.1

Totals $33,159,987 $6,158,652 18.6

Data for this table came from expenditure reports submitted by the regions and a summary report prepared by ETA. 

*Note: Based on costs reported or cash draws to date (1/08/09), whichever is greater. 

During the course of the site visits, staff in some of the regions explained why their spending had 

not been more extensive. There is, however, no single explanation as to why these expenditures 

were so limited, as shown in Table 12. A few of the regions reported that their delay in using 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

82

their funds to establish or support programs was related to confusion around Federal regulations 

as to what they were legitimately allowed to support. In addition, at least two sites had 

deliberately held off spending until certain activities were completed (i.e., asset map completed, 

business plans submitted) in an effort to make more data-driven decisions about expenditures. 

Three Generation III regions reported that spending had been delayed due to their lack of having 

their implementation plans approved. A few of the regions also had reorganized due to changes 

in the geographic composition of the region and/or its leadership, and these factors also slowed 

down the planning, implementation, and funding process. 

Due to the slow pace of expenditures so far, a few of the regions expressed concern about being 

able to expend all of their grant investment funds before the end of the period of performance of 

their Federal grant. Table 12 below outlines some of the circumstances that accounted for 

delays in spending down the grant funds, as described during the site visits in 2008. Staff in one 

region characterized their situation as being “in a race to spend the entire grant amount.” 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

83

Table 12: Reasons for Delays in Expenditure of Grant Funds 

Site Visit Feedback 2008 

Confusion Around Federal Regulations 

Allowable cost guidelines were perceived to change over time, leading to temporary paralysis 

within some of the regions. Several regions indicated initial lack of familiarity with ETA 

guidelines, for example, the prohibition against using grant funds for training those below age 

16. 

There was a lack of direction from ETA on funds expenditures. 

Confusion about Federal requirements, such as whether the region had to wait for ETA approval 

of the implementation plan before the planning funds could be expended, contributed to the 

delays. 

The grant budget process was burdensome and complex, and caused delays in disbursing the 

funds for projects. 

Due to the lack of clarity about expenditures, at least one region first spent other leveraged funds 

that had fewer restrictions than grant funds. 

Implementation Plans Had Not Been Approved or Funds Were Just Recently Available 

The region’s implementation plan had not yet been approved at the time of the site visit, and was 

at the beginning point of activities. 

The region did not have an approved implementation plan at the time of the site visit. It took a 

methodical approach that would not tolerate spending until an approved plan was in hand. 

Funding had just become available from ETA in the spring of 2008, and expenditures as of late 

summer were few. 

Early Research Took Up Valuable Time 

Extensive research conducted at the startup of the initiative left little time to implement the plan 

of action. 

Awaiting completion of asset mapping; leadership insisted on minimizing project spending until 

asset mapping was completed and an implementation plan based on research findings was 

approved. 

Changes in Regional Organization, and State-Level Bureaucracy Also Interfered With Timely 

Expenditure of Funds 

Regional reorganization appeared to be a factor in the slow pace of spending grant funds. 

Delays were in part the result of expansion of the region to include areas within an adjacent state 

(and the official recognition of the new regional organization by the second state) as well as 

expansion of the areas included within the original state. 

Changeover to a new project manager contributed to the delay. 

State government officials applied state expenditure vetting rules to the grant funds instead of 

implementing expenditure decisions made by the initiative’s project manager. Some partners 

were willing and able to take on some of the costs with the expectation of being reimbursed later, 

but others were not able to do so; all the partners were concerned about receiving reimbursement 

in a suitable timeframe. 

Leveraged Funds 

ETA required grantees to submit quarterly updates of leveraged funds, and provided a specific 

format for this reporting. Leveraged funds are not defined in regulation or administrative 

requirements, but apparently have a common usage definition in most Federal agencies. Within 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

84

 

ETA programs, leveraged funds are considered as “all resources used by the grantee to support 

the grant activity and outcomes, whether or not those resources meet the standards required for 

match.”68 These leveraged funds must be expended on costs that are allowable under OMB 

circulars, and can include both Federal and non-Federal dollars. 

There was a good deal of variability between regions in how much attention the topic of 

leveraged funds has received. Although ETA had not provided an explicit definition of 

leveraged funds, it appears that in-kind resources have not been considered leveraged funds. For 

example, New Economy Initiative funds for Southeast Michigan (a large scale [$100 million] 

foundation-funded initiative to transform Detroit) were not included as leveraged funds by ETA. 

In site visits it appeared that regions were more flexible than ETA in what they perceived to be 

leveraged funds, and, even if they could not be quantified, sometimes referenced in-kind 

resources as leveraged. During site visits, regions also sometimes cited funds that pre-existed 

WIRED as leveraged funds. Given the above scenarios, analyses of leveraged funds must be 

viewed with the possibility that they are inflated or underreported. 

A review of the regions’ proposals and implementation plans revealed that all but three identified 

separate sources of leveraged funds, ranging from one to 41, with three regions not listing any. 

In the proposals, seven of the 26 regions indicated that they had specific plans for additional 

leveraging of resources. Of the implementation plans available, eight did not list specific 

separate sources of non-grant leveraged funds. At the other extreme, one region was able to 

specify as many as 41 sources of leveraged funds. 

Moving forward to 2008, the scope of leveraged funds among regions is captured by ETA’s data 

report from April 3, 2008. The data were gathered by ETA and represent to-date funds. 

Leveraged fund reports should be considered preliminary or approximations of leveraging, due 

to the apparent inconsistent definitions applied, and because some data are missing. About 12 

regions had not provided a report for April 2008. Table 13 summarizes the available data, 

showing each type of leveraged fund source, and, for each type of source, the number of sources, 

the amount of funds, and the percent of total leveraged funds. 

68 Regional Workforce Alliance, Southeastern Wisconsin, “A Discussion of Match and Leveraged Resources, “ 

(2008). <www.milwaukee7-rwa.org/files/a-discussion-of-match-and-leveraged-resources-document.pdf> , 1.
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

Table 13: Leveraged Fund Sources 

As Reported by ETA, As of April 3, 2008

Type of Source Number of Sources 

Amount of 

Leveraged Funds 

Percent of 

Leveraged 

Funds 

Generation II 

Education 1 $1,500 <1

Industry 2 $26,000 <1

Local 2 $181,704 <1

Foundation 9 $5,101,000 1.7

Federal 28 $50,373,264 17.0

State 28 $98,400,095 33.2

Multiple 4 $142,465,000 48.0

Total 74 $296,548,563 100.0

Generation III 

Federal 4 $6,097 <1

Multiple 4 $16,891 <1

Foundation 1 $60,000 1.0

Industry 12 $163,330 2.8

Education 18 $182,829 3.2

Local 4 $450,630 7.8

State 12 $4,871,784 84.7

Total 55 $5,751,561 100.0

As Table 13 shows, the amount of funds leveraged by Generation II regions collectively was an 

impressive $296 million. Generation III, at the same point in time, had amassed about $5.7 

million. For Generation II regions, the greatest number of sources was found in the Federal and 

state category (28 for each). Generation III regions, on the other hand, had netted the greatest 

number of sources from industry, education, and state sources (12, 18, and 12, respectively). In 

contrast, in Generation II, the industry category yielded just two sources that, together, accounted 

for less than one percent of the total leveraged funds for that Generation. In all, Generation II 

regions had leveraged funds from 74 separate sources, and Generation II regions, leveraged from 

55 sources. 

The Federal and state sources also comprised about half of the total dollars leveraged in 

Generation II, and “multiple sources” made up about half as well. At this same point in time, 

however, the vast majority of leveraged funds for Generation III was from state sources (85 

percent). 

Because Generation II and III initiatives began at different times, it might be expected that 

Generation II regions would be further ahead in leveraging funds. Thus, it is somewhat 

surprising that Generation III had engendered more than twice the amount of local funding as 

Generation II, and many more separate sources of funds from industry and education. Given the 

variations in how leveraged funds have been defined and reported, it is premature to draw any 

firm conclusions about this disparity. 

85
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

86

Several Generation II regions reported during site visits that they were able to find some positive 

outcomes from the disappointment of not being approved as Generation I regions; they were able 

to use their time and energy to leverage other resources to begin addressing their goals. 

Leveraged funds have been used for several different purposes, including: 

 Covering program-related costs that do not meet the allowable cost requirements for the 

Initiative’s H1-B funds (e.g., angel investors) 

 Extending the reach of the program strategy to include students less than 15 years old 

 Expanding a program strategy to cover a broader geographic (e.g., statewide) region 

 Supporting implementation programs that were researched, designed, and developed through 

the Initiative 

 Covering the cost of a key program that had been included in the region’s original (Gen I) 

proposal 

 Supporting greater participation in training programs by dislocated workers 

Sustainability 

None of the 26 regions included a developed plan for sustainability within their proposals. 

However, ten of the regions either anticipated in some fashion the mechanisms by which 

programs or the initiative could be sustained, structures or conditions that would be needed, and 

types of funding required, or recognized explicitly the need to create a plan and/or timeline for 

sustainability. 

Fifteen implementation plans explained how the regions would ensure sustainability, four 

regions made no mention of this issue, two did not provide any specific strategy, and another 

indicated it was under discussion. As observed during the site visits, the degree to which regions 

were addressing sustainability varied; from no attention to integration of sustainability efforts 

within their plans or activities. Site visit observations revealed that 11 regions were taking steps 

to address sustainability; seven were making plans to address it; and at least five regions had not 

begun to plan or strategize in any organized fashion the issue of initiative sustainability. At least 

three regions indicated that sustainability was one of their top goals for the initiative. Most of 

the other regions folded sustainability as a sub-activity within one or more of their goals. 

Focus on Building Revenue Streams 

Regions are addressing sustainability through both financial and structural approaches, including 

the following: 

 Leveraging funds and using multiple funding streams: Projects are including in-kind 

contributions and program-specific funding sources, such as Northern California’s creation 

of an angel network venture capital fund. The possibility of gap funding to fill the gap 

between the end of grant funds and the establishment of stable continuation funding is also 

under consideration. 

 Requiring subgrantees to obtain matching funds, and submit sustainability plans: At least 

two regions mentioned that they would require subgrantees from within the region to submit 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

87

sustainability plans as part of their proposals, and some planned to require one-to-one 

matching funds. For example, in Delaware Valley, applicants for Innovation Investment 

funds, the name given to the initiative’s subgranting program, must demonstrate funding 

sources in addition to the Delaware Valley grant funding for activities extending beyond the 

Innovation Investment funding period. A one-to-one match for all funds provided through 

these innovation investment grants was also being planned. 

 Establishing self-sustaining activities/projects: At least five regions planned to establish 

activities or projects that could generate their own revenues, such as fee-for-service 

endeavors, or membership dues. For example, North Oregon required employer 

contributions to the cost of training, both for new and incumbent workers, as both a model 

for making the training financially sustainable and as a test of value of the training to 

employers. They implemented a cost-sharing system in which employers pay 30 to 50 

percent of the total cost of training. 

 Establishing non-profit status: At least two regions indicated an expectation that 

transforming their collaborative into a nonprofit entity would provide insurance for 

sustainability by allowing them to pursue grant funds from government, private, and 

foundation sources. 

 Supporting or expanding existing activities: Doing so set the stage for transition of financial 

responsibility back to the original program funders. For example, Northern New Jersey 

envisioned a scenario where the work of the site coordinators, who organize the activities of 

the One-Stops, employers, and educators within clusters, would continue working beyond the 

end of grant funding. These positions would be absorbed within and funded by the New 

Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development. 

Overall, grant investment funds were seen as a valuable source from which to build workforce 

and training infrastructure. 

Demonstrating and Communicating Value 

Other sustainability efforts were focused on structural, organizational, or operational measures as 

means to this end. These strategies included the following: 

 Designated Responsibility. Designating a committee or similar body to specifically attend to 

and enact measures of success that would then be used to promote the sustainability of the 

regional collaborative. At least seven regions mentioned this tactic, with most of those 

designating a panel rather than an individual. 

 Documenting Success. At least 11 regions indicated that positive outcomes from their efforts 

would be the foundation of sustainability; if they provided value and if they documented and 

shared their successes, then the efforts would become sustained by those industries or 

employers who found value in the results. Others believed that if the site coordinators are 

recognized as providing real value to the employers within their respective clusters, 

employers could be asked to fund these positions, possibly using funds that would otherwise 

be paid to commercial employment agencies to recruit workers. 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

88

 Capacity-Building. As noted above, while many focused on outputs—the valued results of 

efforts—at least one region viewed the inputs as extremely valuable in propelling regional 

efforts into the future. Part of their sustainability approach was to build upon existing 

resources and initiatives. For example, in one region, it was anticipated that “building 

capacity at the leadership level” would enable the initiative to continue to press forward. 

Building on the Momentum of Increasing Regionalism Another expectation mentioned by at least seven regions was that the collaborative process and 

partnerships that they had built under the Initiative would ensure sustainability. It was suggested 

that if the region created a valued network of partners around their regional vision, then the 

leaders would work to continue the partnerships. The initiative was viewed as the “nurturing 

source” that would permit the region to become more cohesive and successful. The collaborative 

work was seen as a foundation and a model for continued work in the future. The importance of 

shared vision was highlighted because a lack of buy-in could threaten the sustainability of the 

change being implemented. Some stakeholders expressed the view that if the level of 

partnership is supported, it would lead to new and innovative ideas which would keep the 

momentum of the initiative. 

Venture Capital 

Venture capital is an important tool for supporting entrepreneurs who need to commercialize a 

product, service, or process. Development of angel investment or venture capital sources, 

however, has not yet been a prominent activity for the regions. 

At least three regions that plan significant efforts in entrepreneurship programs have integrated 

angel investing as part of their programming: 

 Northern California established an angel investment fund, had raised $19,000, and, at the 

time of the site visit, reported that it planned to raise as much as $3 million in private funds to 

be available for investment in innovative startup companies. In this case, the recipients will 

be entrepreneurs who are developing products or services that are unique and have the 

potential to achieve substantial growth. 

 Southeast Michigan launched an innovative program where potential investors who may be 

considering the idea of becoming an angel investor have been invited to attend selected class 

sessions to learn more about available investment opportunities. 

 Another region has several representatives of the region’s banking industry who have 

expressed a desire to be involved in the initiative, which could translate into a possible source 

of investment capital. 

Summary Observations 

 An examination of the budget allocation of grant resources showed that overall there was a 

great amount of variability between regions in the proportion allocated to innovation, 

subgranting, and entrepreneurial programming, ranging from two percent to 76 percent of 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

89

region funds. Compared to Generation III, Generation II regions demonstrated slightly more 

emphasis on innovation, subgranting, and entrepreneurial programming as avenues to reach 

regional goals, based on planned allocation. Caution should be used in interpreting this 

observation, however, because some regions’ budgets were not available, not detailed 

sufficiently, or not formatted in a fashion that would permit a clear view of these planned 

expenditures. 

 Leveraged funds, which varied from just a few thousand dollars to more than one million 

dollars, were used for a variety of purposes, including covering program-related costs that do 

not meet the allowable cost requirements for the Initiative’s H1-B funds, extending the reach 

of the program strategy to include students less than 15 years old, expanding a program 

strategy to cover a broader geographic area, supporting implementation programs that were 

researched and developed through the Initiative, covering gaps in funding that arose for 

Generation II regions, and supporting greater participation in training programs by dislocated 

workers. 

 Using ETA data from April 2008, the regions had leveraged more than $300 million dollars. 

The vast majority of these leveraged funds were for Generation II regions. At that time, 

Generation II regions could claim 74 separate leveraged fund sources, and Generation III, 55. 

 Grant fund expenditures have proceeded slowly, and the reasons reflect barriers to startup 

activity, such as gathering research data, reorganization, state-level bureaucracy 

impediments, confusion around Federal regulations, and recent availability of Federal funds 

or approval of implementation plans. 

 Regions reacted differently to obstacles to spending, and, wisely or unwisely, either often 

took risks, or refused to take risks. Some regions, such as Southeastern Virginia, permitted 

partners to expend their own funds with the understanding that it would be reimbursed once 

the Federal funds were available. Other regions were firmly against spending until 

guidelines were clarified, and others would not complete planning, and hence spending, 

without asset mapping or similar data. 

 Attention has increased dramatically on the importance of sustaining new partnerships, 

activities and approaches for continued collaboration across the regions. Many regions are at 

the point where much of the initial surge of visioning, planning, and developing relationships 

has been accomplished, and programming, on-going communications, and collaboration are 

underway. The inevitable pressure to develop plans for sustaining operations is just making 

itself apparent across most regions. 

 While three regions have not identified any particular means to sustain momentum, seven 

regions have identified three or four strategies. Strategies identified by regions have focused 

on both financial and structural or operational means to achieve this end. The degree to 

which each of these financial and structural mechanisms serves regions well will be better 

understood over time. 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

90

 A limited amount of attention has been directed toward the development of venture capital, 

but when addressed, this was part of a larger or integrated effort to promote or develop 

entrepreneurial opportunity within a region. One possible scenario to look for in the future is 

whether the recent severe downturn in the economy seems to have an impact on the 

availability of venture capital to the extent that it reduces or severely limits plans for 

promoting entrepreneurial activity through the initiative. 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

91

 

H. Activities 

In addition to planning for how collaborative relationships among partners could be fostered, 

each region proposed to carry out a specific set of activities to advance the region toward its 

goals. In this section, these activities are examined in the context of the evaluation’s Theory of 

Change and relative to what the regions had planned to do. 

Activities as a Dimension of the Theory of Change 

The Theory of Change for this evaluation notes that: 

Regions will develop implementation plans that explicitly state their objectives. 

The bulk of the work that regions conduct will then be through activities intended 

to achieve their objectives, whether directly funded by WIRED or by leveraged 

funds. Thus, the success of the region will hinge considerably on the success of 

the activities: recruitment into the activities, effective administration of the 

activities, and outcomes of the activities. 

The evaluation team reviewed proposals, implementation plans, and quarterly reports submitted 

to ETA, and gathered data during the site visits. Together, these sources yielded a fairly 

complete picture of the activities being carried out in each region. For this analysis, the 

evaluation team looked at how activities were selected and which ones were being carried out in 

the regions. 

How Activities were Selected 

Some activities were required by ETA as a condition of the grant investment. While generally 

broad, they include important core processes that define the regional transformation model. The 

six steps of the conceptual framework for regional transformation are:69 

 Identify the regional economy 

 Form a core leadership group 

 Conduct a SWOT analysis 

 Create a shared identity and economic vision 

 Devise strategies 

 Leverage resources and implement 

The evaluation team expected that each region would have acted on these prescribed steps, 

although not necessarily in a linear manner. This section focuses on devising strategies and 

activities, while the other steps are addressed elsewhere in this report. 70 In examining this step, 

the team tried to answer the following questions: 

69 Six Steps of Economic and Workforce Transformation through WIRED, U.S. Department of Labor, Employment 

and Training Administration, Washington, DC, http://www.doleta.gov/wired/tools/6steps.cfm, June 1, 2007, updated 

January 13, 2009. 

70 Across the regions, the terms “strategies” and “activities” were generally used interchangeably. Here, those terms 

are intended to mean the actions taken by the regions to advance toward their goals. 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

92

 

 How broad was the collaboration for developing transformational strategies and activities? 

 Was the process genuinely collaborative or did stakeholders simply ratify proposals prepared 

by a small group? 

 Do the activities appear to be transformational in scale and scope? Are the activites aligned 

with the regions’ goals? 

Activities Being Carried Out by the Regions 

In examining the activities underway or planned in the regions, the evaluation team looked at the 

types and levels of activities. 

Types of Activities. Within the broad framework, regions were given great flexibility in shaping 

their approaches. The regions documented their plans for these activities in their proposals, 

implementation plans, and quarterly reports. Such activities were funded by the grant 

investment, other sources, or a combination thereof. These activities typically included: 

 Development of sectoral or industry-based groups to identify workforce challenges 

 Curriculum development or identification of training programs to address the challenges 

 Delivery of training, which might include incumbent workers, job seekers, and the emerging 

workforce 

 Strengthening the worker pipeline for targeted industries by working with the K-12 and 

higher education systems 

 Stimulation and support of entrepreneurship and economic innovation 

 Creation of an administrative infrastructure to provide staff support to the leadership team 

and workgroups, subgrants processing, office management, grant administration and 

reporting, and related functions 

These activities might be new or built on precursors. It is important to observe that, in addition 

to those listed above, other activities might be carried out that fit ETA’s six-step process.71

1. Level of Activity. An important consideration of each activity is the level at which it is, or 

will be, carried out. The evaluation team considered the relationship of each activity to the 

region’s approved implementation plan, its intensity, and its breadth. These characteristics 

are defined below. 

2. Relationship to approved plans. The implementation plan for each region was reviewed and 

approved by ETA. These plans were generally quite specific about the resources to be 

invested in each activity and the timeline for implementation. The evaluation team examined 

the site visit data to determine the degree to which the level of activity in reality 

corresponded to that proposed. 

3. Intensity. The evaluation team examined indicators of intensity, including personnel 

assigned, dollars invested, and continuity. Intensity is an important factor in whether 

activities will make a meaningful difference for regional workforce and economic 

transformation. This included an examination of the allocation of resources between 

71 A detailed matrix that shows all focal sectors for each region is presented in the Introduction section beginning on 

page 1. 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

93

administrative and programmatic activity, which is addressed in the Resources and 

Sustainability section, beginning on page 73. 

4. Breadth. An important element of the model is that it is regional in breadth. As a result, the 

evaluation team looked at the geographic reach of the activities to determine whether they 

were typically regional or subregional in nature. Similarly, the team looked for indications of 

what fraction of the target population was reached or expected to be reached. This review 

was conducted with an eye toward the goals for economic transformation and collaboration. 

Analyses 

Analyses of the data from the regions touches each of the elements of the type and level of 

activity described above. While the data are preliminary, they do provide at least an indication 

of the progress in each region. 

How Activities were Determined 

Across most regions, the process of selecting activities started with some preparation by 

initiative staff. That preparation often included consulting with stakeholders to develop ideas, 

examining regional data, or reviewing activities of others. Materials were then put in front of a 

group or groups of stakeholders for input or decision-making, with a final draft completed by 

staff. That draft would usually be vetted by regional leadership or other stakeholders. How well 

that process worked depends on a variety of factors, but the goal was to identify a set of activities 

that have a reasonable prospect of contributing to transformation within the region. 

For each question, below, the evaluation site visit teams determined a rating for each region, on a 

scale of one to four, with four representing the highest degree of alignment with the Initiative’s 

goals of broad collaboration and transformational action. 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

94

Table 14: Activities Development by the Regions 

How broad was 

the collaboration? 

Was the process of 

selecting activities 

collaborative? 

How likely are the 

activities to be 

transformational? 

WIRED Regions 

Very Broad=4 

Somewhat Broad=3 

 Somewhat Narrow=2 

 Very Narrow=1 

Very collaborative=4 

Somewhat collaborative=3 

Not very collaborative=2 

Not at all collaborative=1 

Very likely=4 

Somewhat=3 

Not very=2 

Not at all=1

Generation II 

Range of Ratings 2-4 2-4 2-4 

4 6 4 2 

3 4 5** 5** 

2 3 4* 6* 

Distribution 

of Ratings 

1 0 0 0 

Mean Rating 3.2 3.1 2.8 

Generation III

Range of Ratings 1-4 2-4 1-4 

4 6 6 1 

3 3 4 7** 

2 3 3 4 

Distribution 

of Ratings 

1 1 0 1 

Mean Rating 3.1 3.2 2.7 

* Includes ratings of 2.0 and 2.5. 

** Includes ratings of 3.0 and 3.5. 

***This table is based on information gathered from interviews conducted during site visits.

 There was surprisingly little difference between the generations in the overall patterns of 

results for the three questions. The range of assessments regarding transformation was wider 

for Generation III than for Generation II, but otherwise distributions were very similar. The 

collaborative processes were—at this early stage—seen to be more positive thus far than the 

results in terms of the likelihood of the activities leading to transformative results. 

 Three Generation II and four Generation III regions scored at “4” for both measures of 

collaboration. Six of the seven (86 percent) also scored at “3” or above for likelihood of their 

activities being transformational. For those regions that did not receive “4” for both 

collaboration measures, only 9 of 19 (47 percent) were scored at that same level on 

transformation potential. This provides some evidence that effective collaborations may 

increase the potential for transformational results. 

 For Generation III, the scores for the genuineness of collaboration were much more strongly 

related to high scores for likelihood of activities being transformational than were scores for 

the breadth of collaboration. For Generation II, no such relationships were evident. 

This can also be illustrated by specific site observation notes from the teams. Many regions 

enjoyed positive experiences as they shaped their activities. For those receiving the highest 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

95

scores for the likelihood of activities being transformational, site visitors made the following 

observations: 

● Central New Jersey: “WIB director was the fiduciary. Dean at Rutgers was a lead. 

Executive director was the third in the triumverate. Lots of enthusiastic collaboration. 

Included venture capital.” 

● Central-Eastern Puerto Rico: “Workgroups created ideas. Leaders set the agendas for 

the subgroups in a general sense.” 

● Minnesota Triangle: “Brought employers together to set the agenda.” 

● Southeast Michigan: “The region has used data to inform decision-making. Also, the 

inclusive approach taken by Board leaders has been instrumental in creating a sense of 

trust among the members and has promoted a culture of openness.” 

In some regions, the collaborative process for selecting activities encountered barriers. For 

those receiving the lowest scores on the likelihood of activities being transformational, site 

visitors made the following observations: 

● “Not clear that members of the WIRED committee had bought in to the WIRED vision or 

strategy, much less the activities.” 

● “The process was not very harmonious.” 

● “Mainly, a small core group shapes direction. In some cases, an individual was pushing a 

particular activity with little connection to others.” 

● “Some collaboration, but the WIBs did not feel that their interests were being 

represented. One person was purporting to represent higher education, but higher 

education was not unanimous.” 

● “The activities selected were creative but not likely to be transformational.” 

Types of Activities 

The regions’ planned activities were grouped into 11 broad activity areas as shown on the Table 

15, below. The table details the number of regions having one or more program activities in 

each of these groupings. 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

96

Table 15: Broad Activity Areas* 

Number of Regions 

Planned Activities Generation II Generation III Total 

1. Regional workforce assessment 

planning 7 8 15 

2. Infrastructure improvements 

and site development 3 - 3 

3. Business councils for targeted 

industries 10 3 13 

4. Training programs for K-12 

students 8 10 18 

5. K-12 teacher/counselor training 7 5 12 

6. Training for incumbent workers 

in target industries 9 7 16 

7. Internships 5 5 10 

8. Training for new jobs in 

targeted industries 11 11 22 

9. Entrepreneurial training 9 7 16 

10. Business centers for research 

and development 3 - 3 

11. Business incubators 3 - 3 

*Data for this table came from available implementation plans submitted by the regions 

**Note: All activities complied with H-1B fund regulations and grantees did not propose to use grant funds for 

activities with students under 16 years of age. 

 Eleven of the 13 regions plan to establish training programs for new jobs in their target 

industries. These selected industries range from logistics to green manufacturing 

technologies. For example, the Southeastern Virginia region is aiming to fill the short-term 

critical training needs of it’s transportation, warehousing and distribution (TWD) sectors as 

well as its Modeling and Simulation (M&S) industry. The Greater Albuquerque region is 

developing training programs in green manufacturing technology, green building 

technologies, and renewable energy. 

 The majority of regions are also focusing their attention on providing training for incumbent 

workers in their targeted industries. Southwest Connecticut is developing a program that will 

enable incumbent, low-wage, and low-skilled health care workers to advance to more skilled 

positions. In the Rio South Texas region, the South Texas College and Texas State Technical 

College opened their Advanced Manufacturing Institutes and had enrolled 243 new and 

incumbent workers in skills training as of September 2008. 

 Eighteen of the regions are focusing their efforts on easing the transition from high school to 

careers either through direct employment in their targeted industries or, more often, through 

post-secondary education pathways. For example, the Minnesota Triangle and the South 

Central Idaho regions are aiming to make the connection between the high schools and the 

immediate needs of area employers. Another approach taken by most of the regions is to 

establish post-secondary programs at the regions’ community colleges or technical institutes. 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

97

For example, the Central New Jersey region is introducing students to a possible career 

pathway in biology and the life sciences through its New Jersey Biotechnology Educators 

Consortium. In Wasatch Range, local colleges are creating academic programs designed to 

prepare graduates to enter fields in the biosciences. 

 Twelve of the regions plan to provide training to high school teachers and counselors to 

enable them to better understand the skills needs and career opportunities available in the 

region’s target industries. The Southeast Missouri region is planning to host an annual 

symposium for area high school guidance counselors and career advisors in an effort to 

promote career development knowledge and opportunities for the region’s students. 

 Sixteen regions plan to offer entrepreneurial development programs. One of the most 

innovative efforts is Northern California’s Venture Island program. On the surface, this 

initiative appears to be no more than a competition between would-be entrepreneurs for 

startup monies; however, in fact, it is an innovative way to have entrepreneurs develop peer 

groups and be able to articulate their business plans. It has also proven to be a good vehicle 

to introduce entrepreneurs to the venture and angel capital community. At the University of 

Southern Indiana (a Southwest Indiana partner), the business school and engineering 

department are collaborating to create deep, structural connections between their disciplines, 

including the construction of a $32 million joint educational building to link the two groups 

together to generate new businesses. While the connections between this effort and this 

initiative had not yet emerged, there is obvious potential for synergy between this 

development and the angel funding network also being created by the region. 

 Half of the regions plan to pull together business councils for their targeted industries. For 

example, the Northern New Jersey region plans to form Advisory Councils for their three 

target sectors: transportation, logistics and distribution; health care and life sciences; and 

entertainment arts, retail and services. In the Arkansas Delta region, educators and business 

representatives are being pulled together to explore alternative fuel industry and renewable 

energy technology. In the North Oregon region, “skills panels” for the bioscience and metals 

manufacturing industries are being organized, with the bioscience panel led by the Oregon 

Bioscience Association. 

As shown in Table 15, above, there are differences in the planned activities between the 

Generation II and III regions. These differences may reflect the longer planning process given to 

the Generation II regions and may also reflect the broader focus of the unsuccessful proposals 

these regions submitted for the initial round of funding. In particular, three of the Generation II 

regions plan to establish business incubators, research or manufacturing centers and/or 

infrastructure improvements, including site development, while none of the Generation III 

regions have such aspirations. For example, the Rio South Texas region announced the opening 

of the Center for Rapid Response Manufacturing, which provides a center for the region’s 

manufacturers to develop new products. With product cycles becoming shorter, and the region 

being located less than ten miles from the low-wage manufacturing operations in Mexico, it is 

assisting manufacturers to grow by introducing new high-value products. In the Wasatch Range 

region, plans call for the development of laboratories that support life science research and 

biomanufacturing. Finally, in the Appalachian Ohio region, “Cyber Centers” are planned that 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

98

will promote the training of students interested in interactive digital technology. 

In addition to the delivery of specific services, some regions’ activities have involved innovation 

among WIBs and One-Stops, according to interview respondents. For example, for the 

Southwestern Connecticut region mentioned earlier, innovation has meant bringing together 

three WIBs that are organized differently and operate differently to pursue a common purpose. 

Local stakeholders feel this collaboration carries with it the potential to transform workforce 

development strategy in the region. In Puerto Rico, innovation means reducing the number of 

WIBs on the island from 18 to five or six and engaging the two local WIBs that are located 

entirely within the region in strategic discussions that have the potential to transform the WIBs 

from highly-localized service providers to strategic partners with an important role to play in 

regional economic development. 

Innovation goals are far more modest in regions that were previously unaccustomed to using a 

sector-based approach to identifying and addressing workforce development needs. Business 

respondents in several regions with a strong WIB presence reported that their participation in 

these new partnership efforts has led them to become customers of the One-Stops for the first 

time. 

Levels of Activity 

Table 16, below, provides a status report of the level of implementation of stated plans at the 

time of the evaluation site visits (May 15 to October 24, 2008). The table provides a general 

sense of the status of implementation; however it is important to note the many factors that 

affected the ability of the regions to proceed, such as: 

 Differences in project strategy. Sites differed in the types of activities that were included in 

their regional strategy. 

 Changes in project strategy. In some cases, significant changes in overall project strategy 

were necessary due to confusion over the age-limitations when using H1-B funds for project 

activities involving students in the K-12 system. 

 Leadership challenges. In some cases, conflicts among regional stakeholders posed a 

challenge to building a regional partnership. This required intervention by external 

consultants to stimulate constructive dialogue. 

 Differences in management approach. Some site leaders placed a high premium on the 

development of complete and detailed action plans prior to expending any funds for program 

activities. 

 Changes in governance structure. After settling on an approach to governing the initiative, 

some regions soon discovered that the approach was not feasible and had to reorganize 

before moving forward with key elements of the initiative. 

 Staffing changes. In some cases, there was turnover among key staff (e.g., project managers) 

that set the implementation process back. 

 Contracting Difficulties. In some cases, regions had to expend significant time developing 

and conducting a competitive bidding process to select key partners after it was determined 

by ETA that the partners named in the original proposal did not meet the criteria necessary to 

be treated as partners in the proposal. 
 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

99

 Delays in Approval Process. Several regions experienced significant Delays in receiving 

final approval of implementation plans. 

 Limited understanding of purchasing requirements. In several instances, regional activities 

were delayed because of the lengthy review and approval process for acquiring and installing 

equipment necessary for project activities. There were also delays at some sites due to 

confusion about what constituted an allowable cost if using H1-B funds for non-training 

activities. 

Still, the implementation status information provides an important baseline for future evaluation. 

As the initiatives progress, successful regions are likely to implement their planned activities 

and/or to modify their project strategy and activities as necessary. 

 
Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute f

100 

Table 16: Progress on Implementation Plan Activities at the Time of the Site Visits (May 15–

Regional 

Workforce 

Assessment 

Planning 

Infrastructure 

Improvements & 

Site Development 

Business 

Councils for 

Targeted 

Industries 

Training 

Program for 

High School 

Students 

K-12 

Teacher/ 

Counselor 

Training 

Training for 

Incumbent 

Workers in 

Targeted 

Industries 

Internships 

Training 

for New 

Jobs in 

Targeted 

Industries 

Entreprene

Trainin

WIRED Regions 

Planned 

Initiated 

Planned 

Initiated 

Planned 

Initiated 

Planned 

Initiated 

Planned 

Initiated 

Planned 

Initiated 

Planned 

Initiated 

Planned 

Initiated 

Planned 

Generation Two Southwest Connecticut x x x x x x x x Arkansas Delta x x x x x x x Rio South Texas x x x x x x x Northern New Jersey x x x x x x x Northern California x x Delaware Valley x x x x x x x x Puerto Rico x x x x x x x Tennessee Valley x x x x x x x x Southeast Michigan x x x x x x x Southwest Indiana x x x x x x x x x x Appalachian Ohio x x x x Southeast Wisconsin x x x x x x Wasatch Range Utah x x x x x x x Total 7 3 3 0 10 4 8 1 7 2 9 2 5 2 11 5 9 
Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute f

101 

Table 16: Progress on Implementation Plan Activities at the Time of the Site Visits (May 15–

Regional 

Workforce 

Assessment 

Planning 

Infrastructure 

Improvements & 

Site Development 

Business 

Councils for 

Targeted 

Industries 

Training 

Program for 

High School 

Students 

K-12 

Teacher/ 

Counselor 

Training 

Training for 

Incumbent 

Workers in 

Targeted 

Industries 

Internships 

Training 

for New 

Jobs in 

Targeted 

Industries 

Entreprene

Trainin

WIRED Regions 

Planned 

Initiated 

Planned 

Initiated 

Planned 

Initiated 

Planned 

Initiated 

Planned 

Initiated 

Planned 

Initiated 

Planned 

Initiated 

Planned 

Initiated 

Planned 

Generation Three Central Kentucky x x x x Southeast Mississippi x x x Greater Albuquerque x x x x x x x Southeast Virginia x x x x x x x x Central New Jersey x x x x x x x Pacific Mountain Washington x x x x x x x Southern Arizona x x South Central Idaho x x x x SC & SW Wisconsin x x x x x Southeast Missouri x X x x North Oregon x x x x x x South Central Kansas x x x X x x x x Minnesota Triangle x x x x x x x Total 9 3 0 0 3 2 10 3 5 1 8 0 5 0 12 3 8 

*Data for this table came from available implementation plans submitted by the regions and site visit interviews.
Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research 102

Given the longer planning time, it is not surprising to observe that the Generation II regions have 

initiated a greater number of their planned activities. The activities where the most progress has 

been reported are in establishing business councils and training programs for targeted industries. 

In addition, entrepreneurial training programs have been initiated in four of the Generation II 

regions. It is interesting to note that the regions seem to be making better progress in creating 

entry-level or specialized training programs for their targeted industries than providing training 

programs for incumbent workers. 

Although all regions had developed strategies or activities and had articulated them in 

implementation plans, the process of gaining approval of those plans was reported by many 

regional leaders and by some ETA leads as slower and much more difficult than anticipated. As 

a result, many of the regions reported slower-than-expected implementation of their activities. 

There was some confusion about allowable costs—most common among Generation II 

regions—and this was also cited as a reason for implementation slowdowns. Despite the fact 

that the definitions for allowable costs were available, decisions about what constituted an 

allowable expense were not always clear cut and required consultation with the ETA leads that 

were assigned to each regional initiative. For example, some of the regions had intended to 

establish a pipeline of workers for current and emerging industry sectors. Doing so included 

encouraging a greater focus on science and mathematics among elementary and middle school 

students. Eventually, it was announced by ETA that H1-B funds could not be used for activities 

involving students under 16 years of age. As a result, regions had the choice of either abandoning 

their original plan of action or seeking other sources of funds to cover those costs. Either way, it 

required further discussion, outreach, revisions, and delays before formal approval of the 

implementation plan was granted. If one of the partners decided to proceed with implementation 

before approval was granted, there was a risk that the cost of the activities would not be 

reimbursed. 

There was also confusion about the conditions under which competitive bidding was required. In 

at least one region there was confusion and disagreement about whether an organization that was 

named in the original proposal to ETA was a partner or not. After considerable discussion it was 

determined that the organization was not actually a partner because it did not meet a certain 

standard for the level of participation in the development of the proposal. The region’s project 

manager was then required to create a written request for proposals and post the notice for 

several weeks before selecting a winning bidder. 

By the time the Generation III regions were ready for implementation, most of the issues around 

allowable costs had been identified and further instructions and clarifications had been issued by 

ETA. As a result, the Generation III sites were able to get prompt and accurate responses to their 

cost-related questions. 

Summary Observations 

 Effective collaborations may increase the potential for transformational results. The team 

observed a pattern of those receiving high scores for both measures of collaboration also 

scoring high for likelihood of their activities being transformational. While the data are very 
Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

103

preliminary, this pattern supports a central assertion of the regional transformation model. 

For Generation III, there is a very strong relationship between the scores for the genuineness 

of collaboration and the apparent likelihood of activities being transformational. While this 

relationship was not evident for Generation II, it does suggest that the quality of collaborative 

processes may be more important than their breadth in terms of the numbers and kinds of 

stakeholders involved. 

 Providing training for target industries, high school-to-career assistance, and 

entrepreneurial training are the predominate activities being planned by all regions.

 In general, the implementation plans are similar in terms of the planned strategies. The 

major exception is that only in Generation II regions are there plans for the physical 

construction of business incubators, business/development centers and industrial site 

development. 

 The Initiative is supporting new activity. While the evidence is preliminary, it appears that in 

many regions, activities are underway that would not have occurred without the grant 

investment. In most regions, key stakeholders reported that new relationships had been 

formed that crossed the traditional boundaries of workforce, education, economic 

development, and business. As a result, skill needs for targeted occupations in growth 

industries have been identified and used to guide curriculum development, new curriculum 

has been shared across the jurisdictional boundaries of community colleges, new articulation 

agreements have been established that allow students a more seamless transition from high 

school to associate’s and bachelor’s degree programs, and schools in rural areas are now 

tapping into STEM-related knowledge and instructional resources that previously had only 

been available in urban and suburban districts. 

 Training programs that are designed for the needs of targeted industries and entrepreneurial 

training appear to be easier to initiate than other planned activities. This could be because 

most regions have post-secondary institutes or community colleges that offer technical 

training for business and small business assistance centers. 

 Training is preparing workers for jobs in targeted industries. Dislocated workers in some 

regions are learning how to adapt their knowledge and skills for new jobs in the biomanufacturing and alternative energy sectors. Employees in other regions are learning how 

to apply the concepts of lean manufacturing to improve the efficiency of health care service 

administration. 

 Few surprises. Virtually all activities discussed with the evaluation teams during the site 

visits are included in the implementation plans; very little was seen that had not been 

approved. Where divergences occurred, requests for grant and implementation plan 

modifications were generally under consideration. 

 Slower than intended pace. In most regions, the launch period took longer than anticipated. 

Often, completing the ETA process of approval of the implementation plans was cited as a 

contributing factor. Many regional personnel and some ETA leads expressed considerable 
Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

104

frustration regarding what they saw as a process fraught with bureaucracy and delay. Apart 

from the ETA approval process, many regions took longer than expected to fully form their 

leadership groups and to staff the initiative. These delays had a cascading effect on the 

rollout of other activities. Lack of clarity on allowable costs was also seen as a factor in the 

pace of implementation. This was more common among the Generation II regions, but also 

was mentioned in several of the Generation III regions. 
Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

105

 

I. Social Networking 

Introduction 

An underlying assumption of the Initiative is that by bringing the right parties to the regional 

economic development planning table, new relationships will develop. These connections—

these social networks—may help regions discover new opportunities for transformation; build 

support for action among key stakeholders; and find, leverage, and align the regions’ resources to 

take advantage of these new opportunities. 

While networks themselves may play an important role in the success of a region’s initiative, 

social networks also can provide another way to measure the progress regions have made in 

other areas. Social networking is closely related to other dimensions of the Theory of Change, 

including engagement (see page 43), governance (see page 32), and communication (see page 

60), and may offer insight into the success of regions in all these areas. 

Social Networking Data 

Unlike other kinds of survey results, social network information does not attempt to reveal the 

preferences of an individual, or even the multiple views of many individuals. Instead, social 

network data examine the connections between people and groups that allow for information 

sharing, collaboration, and engagement. The way groups are structured, from the density of their 

connections to the position of key links within the network, may have an impact on the 

effectiveness of the network for communicating and building the capacity for transformation.72

Social networking data for this evaluation was collected by asking region participants who were 

interviewed by the site visit team to name the five individuals outside of their own organization 

with whom they had had the most significant contact in the context of the initiative. 

Respondents provided the individuals’ names, organizations, and job titles, along with an 

estimate of how frequently they were in contact. During the interviews, respondents also were 

asked to identify the type of organization that they and their contacts were part of, and their roles 

in those organizations.73 

These data give us some sense of the connections among key figures in each region’s WIRED 

initiative, but the information we collected is best thought of only as a baseline or preliminary 

look at the regional networks. There are several reasons for this: 

 The data include only the list of contacts provided by participants in the region’s site visit 

that opted to provide the information. A more complete picture of the regional network 

72 See, for example, Mark Granovetter. “The Impact of Social Structure on Economic Outcomes.” Journal of 

Economic Perspectives (Winter 2004). Volume 19, Number 1. Pg. 33-50. Reprinted at <http://www.leadervalues.com/Content/detail.asp?ContentDetailID=990>

73 Respondents could choose among 17 different types of organizations—including businesses, state workforce 

agencies, local workforce investment boards, and educational institutions—when identifying organizational 

affiliations for themselves and their contacts. During our data analysis process, we created an 18th category for 

individuals clearly identified as working for the region’s Initiative, and we adjusted other responses for consistency 

within and across regions. 
Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

106

 

would require asking everyone on that list of contacts for a corresponding list of their 

contacts. This additional data collection activity will be incorporated into the survey phase 

of the evaluation. 

 The number of individual names generated by the social network survey varied significantly 

across the regions. Respondents in one region did not mention enough individual names for 

even a preliminary analysis of the region’s network. The number of individual names 

generated by the remaining regions ranged from 17 to 88, with an average of 48 individuals 

referenced per region. The analysis of these data take into account the fact that different 

regions provided networks of different sizes, but the variation in network size between 

regions means that we can only make preliminary comparisons between those regions. 

 This analysis may suggest less interconnection among the members of the regional networks 

than actually exists. This is a result of obtaining the information only from participants in the 

region’s site visit, as well as the fact that responses were limited to five contacts per 

respondent. That is, these baseline results probably show gaps among individuals and groups 

that, with a second round of data collection, would be filled in with additional ties. 

As previously discussed (see page 15), key individuals in the regions often had strong 

professional networks even before the initiative began. Although the site visit interviews can be 

of some help, the social network data do not distinguish between networks that previously 

existed and networks that were created under the initiative. Still, social network information 

provides an important baseline for future evaluation. As the initiative progresses, successful 

regions are likely to expand and strengthen their networks. The social network data that have 

been collected already, combined with future data collection, will provide an opportunity for 

noting and drawing insight from these changes. 

Results of the Social Networking Analysis 

Social networking analysis can help to identify groups that are successfully working across 

organizational boundaries and connecting with stakeholders at all levels of those organizations. 

The ties among individuals also can illuminate the different roles played by particular types of 

organizations within the network, and the relationship between the structure of the network and 

communication within the WIRED regions. Healthy networks bring together organizations of 

different types to tackle complex challenges. A diverse set of social network connections may 

help regions build broader support for regional economic transformation. 

Working Across Organizations 

Regional networks generally have been successful in crossing organizational boundaries.74 

Across all the regions, about 82 percent of the connections listed by respondents were between 

organizations of different types, for example, education, industry, finance, etc.75 This is about 

what would be expected from networks of this size, with this number of partner organizations. 

74 Social network analysis was conducted using Ucinet software from Analytic Technologies. Borgatti, S.P., 

Everett, M.G. and Freeman, L.C. 2002. Ucinet for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis. Harvard, MA: 

Analytic Technologies. 

75 The percentage of cross-organizational connections is the number of ties between organizations of different types 

in the network divided by the total number of connections in the network. 
Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

107

In all but one of the regions, more than 70 percent of contacts crossed organizational boundaries, 

and three regions had cross-organizational connection rates of over 90 percent. At the other 

extreme, in one region, just 54 percent of ties were between different types of organizations. 

Table 17 shows the number of regions that exceeded, met, or fell short of the percentage of 

cross-organizational connections we would expect to see for that particular region, given its size 

and its number of organizations.76

Table 17: Connections Between Different Types of Organizations 

Networks Spanning 

Organization Types 

Difference From 

Expected Result 

Generation II 

Regions 

Generation III 

Regions Total 

Strong 

6 to 9 percentage points 

greater than expected 2 2 4 

Moderate 

5 percentage points greater 

than expected to 5 

percentage points less than 

expected 7 9 16 

Weak 

6 to 19 percentage points 

less than expected 3 2 5 

*This table is based on the responses offered by regional stakeholders during on-site interviews. 

A region’s strength or weakness in crossing organizational boundaries may be related to the 

extent of the region’s outreach as a result of the initiative. For example, during the site visit for 

the region with the lowest rate of cross-organizational ties, participants stressed their long history 

of partnership and collaboration, especially among the higher education and economic 

development communities, and explained that this core network gave the region a solid 

foundation for collaboration. The pre-existing social network in this region, perceived as one of 

the region’s strengths, may have reduced the urgency of efforts to bring new organizations into 

the fold, resulting in a network with fewer links that spanned different types of organizations. 

In contrast, the cross-organizational network in South Central Kansas was very strong, with 

about 90 percent of its connections linking different types of organizations. While key players in 

the region had known each other previously, through various boards or community development 

activities, participants in the site visit pointed to the region’s success in pulling together all of 

these individuals as one of the principal accomplishments of the initiative so far. As a result of 

the initiative, the region worked to connect workforce development, economic development, 

business, and education agencies. This broader outreach effort—and the strong crossorganizational ties that resulted from it—may have been driven in part by the perceived lack of a 

solid preexisting network. 

 

76 The percentage of cross-organizational ties may be affected by the size and make-up of the network (i.e., if a 

network were made up of only educational institutions, it could not possibly have links to the private sector). To 

calculate the percentage of cross-organizational connections that we would expect to see in a network with a 

particular size and number of organizations, we simulated the creation of 5,000 networks of the same size and 

organizational make-up as the subject region. For each simulated network, we randomly assigned ties between 

individuals in the network. We then compared the resulting sampling distribution to the observed values for each 

region. 
Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

108

 

To some extent, regional differences in the strength of cross-organizational networks may reflect 

regions’ differing progress in putting their implementation plans into action. In most cases, we 

would expect regions to build stronger links among organizations of different types as work on 

activities proceeds. 

Working Across Levels in an Organization 

A network heavy with ties among different types of organizations probably is better able to build 

the wide stakeholder support that is necessary for regional transformation. It is less clear, 

however, whether connections among individuals at different levels of the organization are 

important to the success of the initiative. Social networking data can provide a snapshot of the 

organizational level of individuals involved within the region that may help in determining what 

mix of active participants leads to successful outcomes. 

Site visit respondents placed themselves and their contacts in one of three categories: strategists 

and visionaries, described as leaders or decision-makers; implementers and managers, described 

as individuals with the authority to make things happen; and general staff and doers, described as 

those who conduct the day-to-day business of their organizations.77 While the majority of 

participants in our interviews were strategists, most regions had networks that successfully 

crossed organizational levels. Among all the regions, about half of the connections listed by 

respondents were between individuals at different organizational levels. 

In six regions, more than 60 percent of network ties were between different organizational 

levels.78 At the other end of the spectrum, three regions had a rate of cross-level ties of less than 

40 percent, with a low of 26 percent. Participants in three regions did not list any general staff 

among their most significant network contacts. In future stages of the evaluation, we will 

attempt to identify whether there is a correlation between a particular mix of stakeholders and 

regional transformation outcomes. 

Roles Played by Different Organizations 

One measure of an individual’s importance to a social network is the number of other individuals 

to which he or she is directly connected.79 Individuals who directly communicate with a 

relatively large proportion of the network—those who are more central—may play several 

important roles, from serving as key sources of information to coordinating group action or tying 

in parts of the network that might otherwise be disconnected. By looking across regions at the 

organizations to which these key individuals belong, we can develop a better sense of the role 

77 During our data analysis process, we adjusted responses for consistency within and across regions to ensure, for 

example, that the same individual or job title was placed in the same category in every case. 

78 Like the percentage of cross-organizational ties discussed earlier, the percentage of cross-level ties is the number 

of connections among individuals at different organizational levels divided by the total number of ties in the 

network. 

79 The number of individuals with whom a person is in direct contact is one of several means of measuring the 

centrality of individuals and groups within a network. Other measures of centrality include how directly the 

individual or group is connected to others in the network, how quickly the individual or group can communicate 

with the rest of the network, and whether the individual or group is part of the network’s key lines of 

communication. 
Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

109

different types of organizations play in facilitating communication, engagement, and 

collaboration. 

Local WIBs, for example, played varied roles in the regions. Across all regions, individuals 

associated with local WIBs—including both WIB staff and board members—were slightly more 

central to their regions’ networks than were others. The average individual was directly 

connected to about eight percent of their respective region, but the average person associated 

with a WIB linked to more than 10 percent of his or her colleagues.80 Some WIBs were very 

central to their region’s networks; in Central Kentucky, for example, WIBs were connected to 

almost 40 percent of the network’s members. In other regions, local WIBs only directly reached 

about two percent of the network. Respondents from four regions did not identify any contacts 

from a local WIB. 

Table 18: Role of Local Workforce Investment Boards 

Role of Local Workforce 

Investment Boards 

Individuals Directly 

Connected to a WIB 

Generation 

II Regions 

Generation 

III Regions 

Total 

Regions 

Very Central 13 percent to 39 percent 3 3 6 

Central 8 percent to 10 percent 1 5 6 

Peripheral 6 percent 2 2 4 

Very Peripheral 2 percent to 4 percent 5 0 5 

Not Present 0 percent 1 3 4 

*This table is based on the responses offered by regional stakeholders during on-site interviews. 

These findings are echoed in our site visit interviews. In a region where local WIBs were tied to 

only about two percent of the network, interviews revealed little WIB involvement and 

participants told us that the individual who directs the WIB was considered difficult to work 

with. In contrast, the WIBs in North Oregon were connected to a much higher proportion of the 

network—reaching about 15 percent of individuals—probably due to the leadership role that has 

been taken by the local WIB. Several staff members of the local WIB were heavily involved in 

the region’s initiative, including the director, a senior project manager (who leads the initiative), 

and another key employee. 

Generation III regions were required to have a WIB take a lead role in the initiative. The social 

network data show a corresponding, but small, difference in the centrality of WIBs between 

Generation II and Generation III. Individuals associated with local WIBs were linked to about 

eight percent of the network in Generation II regions, and about 12 percent of the network in 

Generation III regions. This difference in the role of WIBs between generations is smaller than 

we might have anticipated, and there are several possible reasons that the difference between 

generations is not more pronounced. 

 Some Generation II regions may have sought the close involvement of WIBs, despite not 

being required to do so. There is some support for this view; of the five regions in which 

 

80 The centrality of an individual or group, as used here, is the number of people in the network who are directly 

connected to the individual or group, divided by the number of other people in the network. 
Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

110

 

local WIBs were tied to at least 15 percent of their networks, three were Generation II 

regions. 

 Some Generation III regions appear not to have successfully woven local WIBs into the 

social networks of key WIRED partners because participants in site visits for three of the 

regions in Generation III did not list any significant contacts affiliated with local WIBs. In 

order to interpret the significance of this finding it is important to consider the original goals, 

plans, and implementation status of each region. For example, in one case the partnership 

included two local WIBs and the State’s workforce development agency. The plan showed 

the State as a member of the executive advisory board, but was completely silent on the role 

of the local WIBs. In another case, the State had discontinued the local WIB structure due to 

budget constraints. In the third, the region proposed to involve the local WIBs across the 

region but had just recently launched their geographically dispersed, predominantly rural, 

regional initiative and had not yet established those contacts. 

 Finally, the data collection approach may be understating the role of local WIBs. 

Respondents were asked to pick just one type of organization for each contact, but in some 

regions, those affiliated with WIBs—especially board members—may also be identified as 

part of workforce agencies, economic development agencies, training organizations, nonprofits, businesses, or the initiative itself. Respondents may have chosen other appropriate 

labels for contacts who should have been counted as part of a WIB. Future data collection 

efforts will seek to address this issue. 

Local WIBs tended to be more central to their regions than most other types of organizations. 

Not surprisingly, contacts affiliated with regional initiatives—in those regions where they were 

explicitly identified by respondents—played the most central role, reaching an average of 16 

percent of their regions. Individuals associated with businesses and educational institutions 

(including K-12 and colleges) directly connect to, on average, about seven percent of network 

members.81 Both businesses and educational institutions were slightly less central to networks in 

Generation II regions than they were to networks in Generation III. 

Network Structure 

The overall structure of a network has implications for how efficiently a region can 

communicate, how quickly it can mobilize for action, and how successfully it can respond to the 

loss of key individuals or groups. 

Tightly woven, dense networks—those that make use of a higher proportion of their possible 

connections—facilitate rapid and efficient communication because each individual in the 

network has more ties with which to reach out to others in the network. Most networks have a 

tightly connected central core, with a more sparsely linked periphery (see Figure 8, at the end of 

this section, for an example). The densest portions of the network are likely to grow as the 

network develops, adding new, sparsely connected links to the edge of the network. Table 19 

summarizes the density of regional social networks. 

81 Respondents were not asked to distinguish between contacts affiliated with K-12 and those associated with 

community colleges. Future data collection will make this distinction. 
Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

111

Table 19: Density of the Regions’ Networks 

Network Density 

Percentage of Possible 

Connections82

Generation II 

Regions 

Generation III 

Regions Total 

Very Dense 15 percent to 17 percent 1 2 3 

Dense 10 percent 2 3 5 

Sparse 5 percent to 9 percent 7 5 12 

Very Sparse 3 percent to 4 percent 2 3 5 

**This table is based on the responses offered by regional stakeholders during on-site interviews. 

While most networks have a tightly linked central core, the degree of interconnectedness varies 

across regions. Some networks rely on a few key participants for most of the network’s 

information sharing, while others spread links more evenly across the network. A network’s 

reliance on a few key individuals may indicate a very active leadership, possibly a good sign for 

the success of the region’s WIRED initiative, but it also means that the network may be 

challenged to collaborate successfully without those individuals’ involvement. 

The site visit interviews echo this trade-off between strong leadership and a balanced network. 

Southeastern Virginia (Generation III), for example, had the most even distribution of ties among 

individuals in the network. Interviews revealed that the region’s communications were thought 

to be thorough and effective. One person commented that there was almost “too much 

opportunity to participate,” and participants saw themselves as being in the loop even if they did 

not see themselves as key leaders of the initiative. This was not the case in a region with one of 

the highest disparities between the most-connected and least-connected individuals in the 

network. During this region’s site visit, participants gave relatively high marks for 

communication, but raised the concern that the region’s leadership might be overly-dependent 

upon one or two key, energetic individuals. 

Network density is a tradeoff between the efficiency of communication within the network and 

the sustainability of the network over time. As the regions proceed with their initiatives, the 

networks may grow, becoming more balanced and distributing connections among a larger group 

of individuals. While this may result in networks that are less dense overall and less able to 

facilitate rapid communications, these networks would be less dependent on a small group and 

more sustainable over the long-term. 

Example of WIRED Network Structure 

Figure 8 illustrates a network structure of one WIRED network.83 Individuals are identified by 

their type of organization and level within the organization (Circles are strategists, squares are 

implementers, and triangles represent general staff). Lines show which individuals are directly 

connected with thicker lines indicating more frequent contact. 

 

82 Density is the number of connections among individuals in the network, divided by the number of ties that the 

network would have if all of the individuals in the network were directly connected. 

83 Figure 8 was created using NetDraw software from Analytic Technologies. Borgatti, S.P,. 2002. NetDraw: 

Graph Visualization Software. Harvard: Analytic Technologies. 
Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

Example of a Region’s Social Network 

Figure 8 *This table is based on the responses offered by regional stakeholders during on-site interviews. 

Table 20 presents the statistics that were discussed earlier in this section, as applied to the 

WIRED region above. 

Table 20: Statistics for Example Region 

Percentage Density 

Spanning different 

organization types 

4 percentage points less than 

expected Moderate 

Spanning different 

organizational levels 

14 percentage points less than 

expected Weak 

Role of local Workforce 

Investment Boards 

15 percent of individuals directly 

connected to a WIB Very Central 

Network density 

9 percent of possible connections 

present Sparse 

*This table is based on the responses offered by regional stakeholders during on-site interviews. 

.

112
Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

113

This region, like most of the regions, has a more tightly connected network core with a more 

sparsely connected periphery. While the links among individuals in the region are relatively 

well-balanced, there are still several key players who are quite central to the operation of the 

network, depicted here close to the center of the chart. These well-connected individuals 

primarily are affiliated with local WIBs and educational institutions, and the local WIBs in this 

network also seem to serve as gateways for the participation of businesses in the region’s 

initiative. Several members of this network are dependent on a single individual for their 

initiative-related communication. If those key individuals become less involved in efforts to 

transform the regions, it could have an impact on the region’s ability to facilitate collaboration 

and engagement. As the region’s initiative progresses, we would expect this network to grow, 

expanding the dense network core and adding new links to the periphery. 

Summary Observations 

 Social networking can help to create the capacity for successful economic transformation in 

WIRED regions, and network data can provide insight into progress on engagement, 

collaboration, and communication. The first phase of data collection allows for only a 

preliminary analysis of social networking information, but these data provide a useful 

baseline for future evaluation. 

 Many regions have successfully built new networks—or made use of pre-existing 

networks—that cross organizational boundaries and that involve individuals at multiple 

levels in the organization. A region’s success in creating links among different types of 

organizations quickly may be related to the perceived strength of its previously-existing 

social network. 

 Different types of organization play varied roles in the regions. Local WIBs tend to be more 

central to a region’s network than other types of organizations and are slightly more 

important to Generation III regions, where WIB involvement was mandated. 

 The structure of a regional network may be a key factor in how efficiently a region 

communicates and how well it responds to the loss of key individuals. As regions build more 

ties within their communities, the regional networks may become somewhat less dense and 

somewhat more balanced. While less dense networks may not communicate as efficiently, 

they are likely to be less dependent on a small number of individuals and thus more 

sustainable over time. 
Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

114

IV. Summary and Next Steps 

A. Key Initial Findings 

Over the course of site visits to each of the 26 regions, and through examination of additional 

data such as the regions’ implementation plans and asset maps, the research team has developed 

preliminary findings about the process of launching the region’s initiatives and their early efforts 

to use grant funds and leveraged resources to transform regional workforces and economies. The 

Theory of Change has provided the framework for organizing the information collected and for 

thinking systematically about what has occurred to date. The data collected is baseline 

information, and the initial findings presented in this report will be revisited and are likely to be 

expanded and refined as analysis of the regions’ future work and accomplishments take place 

over the next two years of the evaluation. 

For now, there are several broad themes that have come to light through this first year of data 

collection and analysis. 

 Building broad-based collaboration. A wide array of organizations is represented in every 

region, and these organizations are becoming important partners in these efforts. While 

several regions boasted extensive collaborative relationships before the Initiative began, the 

Federal investment appears to be making a difference; the regions generally are experiencing 

greater collaboration among their stakeholder groups than had been the case previously. 

Several regions recognized the importance of broad collaboration by planning for 

communications that are designed to involve key stakeholders in funding decisions and 

activities. Successful collaboration also seemed to be reflected in the success of activities in 

the region; regions with high marks for collaboration also had high scores on the likelihood 

of their activities being transformational. A preliminary social network analysis of the 

regions showed that more than three quarters of links between network partners crossed 

organizational boundaries, an indication of the diverse coalitions being established to support 

economic transformation. 

 Seeking a regional identity. The regional level of engagement for economic and workforce 

development seems to make sense for these regions. Although the identities of some are 

loosely-defined, the awareness of the interplay between the development of a workforce with 

in-demand skills and attention to emerging and established industry are being recognized as 

having broader contexts than that contained within city, county, or even state boundaries. 

Despite the fact that many regions span several political boundaries and must bridge 

urban/rural and other cultural divides, the Initiative appears to have overcome most 

competitive habits and successfully inculcated the idea of regionalism. 

 Research and planning, but with mixed effect. Building on work done before the Initiative 

began, the regions have engaged in extensive planning and research—from developing 

implementation plans and asset maps, to communication plans and sustainability strategies. 

This work has not always been successful. Most regions were still engaged in planning 
Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

115

activity at the time of the site visits in summer and fall of 2008, and the asset mapping was 

conducted in most cases merely to confirm the target industries and goals that had already 

been chosen. The outcomes and performance metrics selected by regions were sometimes 

lacking in usefulness and measurability. Still, it is too soon to judge the effectiveness of 

research and planning. 

 Absentee stakeholders present barriers to progress. Despite general success in building 

broad coalitions, the lack of involvement of a few key individual stakeholders in the regions 

may be holding back progress. State governments appear to be missing an opportunity to 

provide strategic leadership to the regions in 12 of the 26 regions, and private sector 

stakeholders seem less connected to regional decision-making and activities than their 

education and economic development organization counterparts. Regions may also need to 

pay more attention to the extent of an organization’s involvement—the mere presence of a 

participant does not necessarily indicate an organization is fully committed to the effort. 

 Halting progress toward innovation. At this stage in the Initiative, few regions have taken 

bold steps toward realizing their innovation goals. Some regional innovations involved 

changing the structure of WIBs, and several regions have attempted to spur innovative 

projects through competitive subgranting of Federal funds. The focus by some regions on 

entrepreneurship development is another potential area for innovation, but it is too soon to 

tell how influential this will be, particularly given current economic conditions. The limited 

movement toward innovation may yet accelerate as regions begin implementing their 

strategies for economic transformation. 

 Sustainability practices underway. The regions’ focus on sustainability of their efforts was 

still evolving at the time of the site visits. However, the regions have generally identified a 

substantial amount of leveraged funds and in-kind support to further their goals. Beyond the 

funding considerations, there has been some focus on sustainability in terms of maintaining 

momentum and activities long-term. As the regions implement their plans, it is anticipated 

that further discussion and formalized planning will occur. 

 Maintaining flexibility amidst changing circumstances. The global economic outlook has 

darkened substantially since the Initiative was launched, and regions are working to adapt 

their transformation efforts to the new economic reality. About half the regions have made 

changes to their initial implementation plans, for reasons that go beyond shifting economic 

circumstances. These modifications were caused by limitations on the use of funds, 

changing priorities exposed by new strategic planning initiatives, and even an expansion of 

the geographical areas covered by particular regions. In some cases, the focus of 

implementation plans was modified to reflect new data about targeted industries. Overall, 

the regions have not hesitated to rewrite their economic development script as they encounter 

new circumstances and challenges—a promising sign for the Initiative’s future progress. 

 Initial progress toward transformation. Several regions have taken first steps in 

implementing activities that are of sufficient intensity to make a meaningful difference in 

achieving the economic and workforce transformation goals of the region. The likelihood of 

a region’s activities being transformational seemed to be linked to the extent of effective 
Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

116

collaboration. While it is too early to judge the effect of these activities, as the evaluation 

proceeds the research team will highlight the efforts. 

 Minor differences between Generation II and Generation III. The few differences between 

WIRED generations may have been the result of additional planning time and new 

requirements. Generation II regions made use of their extra time to leverage more funding 

using the initial Federal grant and to initiate a greater number of their planned activities. 

With additional requirements from the Department of Labor, Generation III regions made 

local WIBs more central to decision-making and operations. Overall, however, regions in 

Generation II and III faced similar hurdles and had made similar progress at the time of the 

first site visits. 

B. Issues for Further Research 

This first year of data collection has provided baseline information about the actions of the 

regions. Transforming a regional economy is a challenging and potentially long-term endeavor. 

As the regions progress and the evaluation continues, further exploration of these issues and 

those that emerge from new and ongoing analysis of key data sources will occur. Additional 

data collection is planned in the form of a survey of regional stakeholders, examination of extant 

data on economic indicators for each region, and an additional round of site visits to the regions 

in 2010. Central among the research questions yet to be explored are: 

 Did the regional collaboration have an influence on systems and institutions? 

 What improvements were made to support an environment for lifelong learning 

opportunities? 

 To what extent has the workforce system been transformed? 

 Were the collaborative partnerships able to develop talent such that the workforce will serve 

as a leading driver of regional economic growth? 

 Were local, regional, or state regulations altered to promote and enhance innovation systems? 

 Do business startups resulting from this grant investment succeed? 

 How did businesses’ ability to access the necessary talent to grow change as a result of this 

Initiative? 

 What affect has the Initiative had on targeted industries? 

 To what extent have research and development and commercialization processes been 

improved? 

 Has venture capital investment improved as a result of these activities? If so, how? 

 What changes in economic indicators in the region occurred during the grant performance 

period? 

 How many and what types of jobs were created as a result of these efforts to transform the 

role of the workforce system in economic development planning? 

 What were the changes in K-12 educational indicators targeted by the regions? For higher 

education? 

 What elements of regional social networks are most closely associated with successful 

regional outcomes? 
Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

117

This interim report has presented preliminary insights on how the Initiative has unfolded in the 

Generation II and Generation III regions. The research team will continue to seek out the lessons 

of this Initiative for policy-making and regional economic transformation. 
Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

118

Bibliography 

Autor, David H., Frank Levy, and Richard J. Murnane. The Skill Content of Recent 

Technological Change: An Empirical Exploration. Quarterly Journal of Economics. Vol. 

118 No. 4. (November 2003): 1279-1333. 

Breschi, Stephano and Franco Malerba, eds. Clusters, Networks and Innovation. Oxford: 

Oxford University Press, 2005. 

Business Roundtable and 14 other Business Organizations, Tapping America’s Potential: The 

Education for Innovation Initiative, (July 27, 2005). <http://www.businessroundtable.org> 

Council on Competitiveness, Asset Mapping Roadmap: A Guide to Assessing Regional 

Development Resources, U.S. Department of Labor, (October 2006). 

<http://www.doleta.gov/wired/files/Asset_mappingroadmap.pdf> 

Council on Competitiveness. Innovate America: Thriving in a World of Challenge and Change. 

National Innovation Initiative Interim Report, 2004. 

Dunning, John H. Regions, Globalization, and the Knowledge-Based Economy. New York: 

Oxford University Press, 2002. 

Feldman, Maryann P. and Albert N. Link, eds. Innovation Policy in the Knowledge-Based 

Economy. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2001. 

Ferren, Ann S. and Wilbur W. Stanton. Leadership Through Collaboration. Westport, CT: 

Praeger Publishers, 2004. 

Foremski, Tom. “Are Angel Investors in Trouble?” Silicon Valley Watcher, April 2008. 

Friedman, Thomas L. The World is Flat: A Brief History of the 21st Century. New York: Farrar, 

Strauss, and Giroux, 2005. 

Granovetter, Mark. "The Impact of Social Structure on Economic Outcomes." Journal of 

Economic Perspectives. Winter 2004. Volume 19, Number 1, <http://www.leadervalues.com/Content/detail.asp?ContentDetailID=990>

Heijke, Hans and Joy Muysken. Education and Training in A Knowledge Based Economy

(Applied Econometrics Association Series). New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2000. 

Heim, Kristin. “Recession Squeezes Even Philanthropies of Gates, Allen.” The Seattle Times, 

January 14, 2009. <http://tinyurl.com/8jax3x> 
Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

119

Innes, Judith and Jane Rongerude. “Collaborative Regional Initiatives: Civic Entrepreneurs 

Work to Fill the Governance Gap.” Institute of Urban and Regional Development, 

University of California, Berkley, November 2005. 

Kao, John. Innovation Nation: How America Is Losing Its Innovation Edge, Why It Matters, and 

What We Can Do to Get It Back. New York: Free Press, 2007. 

Kotter, John. A Sense of Urgency. Boston: Harvard Business Press, 2008. 

Kraut, Robert E. et al. “Informal Communication in Organizations: Form, Function, and 

Technology.” Human Reactions to Technology: The Claremont Symposium on Applies 

Social Psychology. I.S. Oskamp and S. Spacapan, eds. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage 

Publications, 1990. 

Llerena, Patrick and Mireille Matt. Innovation Policy in a Knowledge-Based Economy: Theory 

and Practice. Berlin: Springer, 2005. 

Mattessich, Paul W. September 2005 presentation based on Collaboration: What Makes It 

Work? Paul W. Mattessich, Marta Murray-Close, and Barbara R. Monsey. Saint Paul, MN: 

Amherst H. Wilder Foundation, 2004. 

Miner, John B. Organizational Behavior 1: Essential Theories of Motivation and Leadership. 

Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 2005. 

National Academies, National Academies’ Committee on Science, Engineering and Public 

Policy, Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century, Rising Above 

the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future

Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2005. 

National Association of Manufacturers, Looming Workforce Crisis: Preparing American 

Workers for 21st Century Competition, (September 2005). <http://www.nam.org/ 

s_nam/index.asp> 

National Research Council (U.S.) Committee on Workforce Needs in Information Technology. 

Building a Workforce for the Information Economy. Washington, D.C.: National Academies 

Press, 2001. 

Pepitome, Julianne. “Bloody Monday: Over 65,500 Jobs Lost.” January 30, 2009. 

<http://money.cnn.com> 

Pisano, Gary P. and Roberto Verganti. “Which Kind of Collaboration Is Right for You?” 

Harvard Business Review, December 2008. 

Porter, Michael. “Workforce Development in the Global Economy.” Presentation made at the 

InterAmerican Development Bank, Washington, D.C., November 2002. 

<www.gwit.us/global.asp#main> 
Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

120

Public Policy Associates, Inc. “Evaluation of the Skills Shortages Demonstration Programs 

Final Report.” U.S. Department of Labor, 2003. 

Public Policy Associates, Inc. “Skills Partnership Self Assessment Tool.” U.S. Department of 

Labor, 2003. 

Russo, J. Edward and Paul J.H. Schoemaker. Winning Decisions. New York: Random House, 

2002. 

Rutten, Roel, ed. The Learning Region: Foundations, State of the Art, Future. Northampton, 

MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2007. 

Salaman, Graeme, ed. Decision Making for Business. London: SAGE Publications, 2002. 

Taylor-Powell, Ellen, B. Rossing, and J. Geran. Evaluating Collaboratives. University of 

Wisconsin Cooperative Extension, 1998. 

Thomas, John Clayton. Public Participation in Public Decisions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 

1995. 

Weiss, Carol. Evaluation Research: Methods for Assessing Program Effectiveness. Englewood 

Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1972. 

Weiss, Carol “Nothing as Practical as Good Theory: Exploring Theory-Based Evaluation for 

Comprehensive Community Initiatives for Children and Families.” New Approaches to 

Evaluating Community Initiatives: Concepts, Methods, and Contexts, James P. Connell et al., 

eds. Washington, D.C.: Aspen Institute, 1995. 

Weiss, Carol. “Research for Policy’s Sake: The Enlightenment Function of Social Research.” 

Policy Analysis 3 (4) (1977): 531-545. 

Weiss, J. and J. Hughes. “Want Collaboration? Accept—and Actively Manage—Conflict.” 

Harvard Business Review, March 2005. 

W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, “Evaluation of the Michigan Regional Skills 

Alliances.” C.S. Mott Foundation, 2005. 

WIRED Initiative, “Uses of H1-B Funding Revenue,” (June 2007). <http://www.bioone.org/content/Downloadables/WIRED%20Allowable%206!15!07.pdf> 
Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

121
Appendix A. Overview of Generation II and 

III Regions 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute f

A-1

Table A-1: Overview of Generation II WIRED Regions

Region 

Administrative and 

Fiscal Agent(s) Targeted Industries Goals and Strategie

Arkansas Delta 

 Mid-South 

Community College 

 Arkansas Department 

of Workforce Services 

 Transportation, 

Distribution, and Logistics 

 Biofuels  Advanced 

Manufacturing 

 Create an ADWIRED Academy  Expand through partnerships with industry, 

philanthropic organizations, and education, alternative fuel training and education capaexcellence for transportation, distribution, aexpansion of the advance manufacturing su

 Expand education infrastructure to support 

foster economic development. 

 Establish an entrepreneurship development  Expand the workforce system. 

Northern California 

 The Northern Rural 

Training and Employment Consortium (NRTEC) 

 State of California and 

NRTEC 

 Entrepreneurship  Agritech/ 

Agribusiness 

 Advanced 

Manufacturing 

 Information 

Technology 

 Create sustainable employment opportuniti

strong entrepreneurial environment. 

 Link potential entrepreneurs to regional res

development of successful business and ma

 Foster business development in its identifie

cluster and offer its services to all entreprenentrepreneurs. 

 Encouraged innovation and entrepreneurial 

firms as well as new business startups. 

 Provide job training resources for business 

activities. 

Southwest Connecticut 

 The WorkPlace, Inc.  Health Care Services 

 Retail  Hospitality  Advanced 

Manufacturing 

 Financial Services  Information 

Technology 

 Biomedical 

 Create an integrated, regionally based talen

linking education, workforce, and economi

 Prepare a pipeline of skilled workers to sup

innovation-intensive industry sectors in the 

 Establish a world-class regional communic

region. 

 Develop a culture of innovation and entrepr

partners and throughout the region. 
Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute f

A-2

Table A-1: Overview of Generation II WIRED Regions

Region 

Administrative and 

Fiscal Agent(s) Targeted Industries Goals and Strategie

Delaware Valley 

 Innovation 

Philadelphia 

 Life Sciences  Conduct a GAP analysis (i.e., asset map) of 

weaknesses in the DVIN region’s life scienCouncil on Adult and Experiential Learning Consultants were retained to conduct the G

 Develop and support an education and outr

address the needs of the life sciences industfuture. This goal seeks to develop a pipelinand provide resources to educators. 

 Support human capital development by pro

individuals in the region. This will be accoInnovation Investment Grants (regional comto regional life sciences initiatives that meeGAP analysis) and through outreach to infocommunity about these funds. 

 Foster regional collaboration and knowledg

meetings to educate regional leaders on the collaboration for the growth of the region’s 

Southwest Indiana 

 Grow Southwest 

Indiana Workforce Board, Inc. 

 Advanced 

Manufacturing 

 Biomed/Biotech 

(health care) 

 Chemical and Plastics  Energy  Transportation, 

Distribution, and Logistics 

 Increase workforce capacity; build career a

technology, engineering, and math (STEM)preparation; and foster incumbent workforc

 Better inform and align economic developm To encourage the growth of entrepreneurial  To support the research and collaboration n

intermodal transportation, distribution, and its counties. 

 Due to its largely rural landscape, the regio

community-wide broadband access. This gsuch as assessing the benefits of adding capaccess, assisting local areas with implemenpossibilities for connecting. 
Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute f

A-3

Table A-1: Overview of Generation II WIRED Regions

Region 

Administrative and 

Fiscal Agent(s) Targeted Industries Goals and Strategie

Southeast Michigan 

 Detroit Regional 

Chamber 

 Advanced 

Manufacturing 

 Life Sciences  Homeland Security  Alternative Energy 

 Create a pipeline to meet workforce deman

emerging industries. 

 Realign assets and programs to promote en Foster a diversified economy through innov

Northern New Jersey 

 Newark Alliance  New Jersey 

Department of Labor and Workforce Development 



 Transportation, 

Logistics, and Distribution 

 Life Sciences and 

Health Care 

 Entertainment, Arts, 

and Retail 

 Entrepreneurship and 

Small Business Development 

 Information 

Technology (in education and training delivery) 

 Create and foster an environment where sta

region collaborate to proactively leverage phuman capital assets that help sustain and geconomy. 

 Build a regional coalition of economic deve

workforce systems and industry to align prounemployed and underemployed residents iin industry sectors with existing shortages abridge the regional economic divide. 

 Accelerate regional economic revitalization 

small business development and entreprenepartnerships among industry, academic, and 

Appalachian Ohio 

 Information 

Technology Alliance of Appalachian Ohio, Inc. (ITAAO) 

 Community Action 

Organization of Scioto County (WDA#1 – WIB) 

 Interactive Design 

Technology (IDT) 

 Information 

Technology 

 Capitalize on the unique IDT educational p

high-tech workforce that can attract new buencourage new business development by enregion. 

 Raise awareness at the secondary education

educational benefits and the opportunities apaths in IDT and with technology in genera

 At the college-level, utilize WIRED resourc

hands-on experience, and entrepreneurial sklocal students into IDT programs and retain Appalachian Ohio region after graduation. 
Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute f

A-4

Table A-1: Overview of Generation II WIRED Regions

Region 

Administrative and 

Fiscal Agent(s) Targeted Industries Goals and Strategie

Puerto Rico 

 Iniciativa Tecnológica 

Centro-Oriental (INTECO) 

 Human Resources and 

Occupational Development Council (HRODC) 

 Life Sciences 

(pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical devices) 

 Manufacturing  Healthcare  Emerging Technology  Entrepreneurship 

 Retain and up-skill incumbent workers in s Strengthen the talent pipeline by educating 

STEM-related fields that impact the strateg

 Create an entrepreneurial ecosystem by stre

development of small and medium enterpri

Tennessee Valley 

 Calhoun Community 

College 

 Alabama Department 

of Economic and Community Affairs (ADECA) 

 Biotechnology  Nanotechnology  Information 

Technology 

 Advanced 

Manufacturing 

 Establish a regional identity.  Support STEM activities in both the K-12 a

education systems. 

 Facilitate entrepreneurial activities in the ta

Rio South Texas 

 The North America 

Advanced Manufacturing Research and Education Initiative (NAAMREI) 

 South Texas College 

 Aerospace  Automotive  Communications  Consumer electronics  Defense  Industrial  Logistics  Medical 

 Strengthen the region’s advanced manufact

establishing a center for Rapid Response Mgrowing the size of the region’s engineering the region’s manufacturers to turn ideas intand effectively as possible. 

 Establish a skills-credentialing customized 

meets the business needs for a world-class wthis goal, four regional Advanced Manufachave been created and are operating on the Community College, South Texas College, College and the University of Texas at BrowSouthernmost College. 

 Develop a strong network among high scho

education, and economic development activeducational support by creating and conductechnology, math, and engineering; providicounselors, and administrators; and creating with K-12 school districts. 
Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute f

A-5

Table A-1: Overview of Generation II WIRED Regions

Region 

Administrative and 

Fiscal Agent(s) Targeted Industries Goals and Strategie

Wasatch Range Utah 

 Utah Governor's 

Office of Economic Development (GOED) 

 Biotechnology  Create outreach programs to help recruit an

workers in the life sciences sector. 

 Expand successful training programs includ

for students and educators. 

 Partner with research entities including univ

development laboratories to meet the needs companies. 

 Create a “bio-incubator” to provide access 

undertake small, entrepreneurial life-scienc

Southeast Wisconsin 

 Regional Workforce 

Alliance (RWA) 

 State of Wisconsin; 

Waukesha-OzaukeeWashington Workforce Development Inc. 

 Manufacturing  Financial Services  Water Resources 

 Grow workforce talent in a manner that sup

economic strategic framework including a $Education Innovation Fund, establishing caregion, strengthening links between secondeducation, and providing opportunities for l

 Deliver demand-driven talent development 

Milwaukee 7 efforts to grow, expand, and aindustries and emerging business clusters. 

 Catalyze systems integration to support tale

Southeastern Wisconsin. 
Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute f

A-6

Table A-2: Overview of Generation III WIRED Regions

Region 

Administrative and 

Fiscal Agents Targeted Industries Goals and Strategi

Southern Arizona 

 Pima County 

Workforce Investment Board 

 Pima County 

 Information Technology  Logistics/Transportation/  Coordination  Border Patrol 

 Become a national Center of Excellence f

and advanced technology. 

 Create a home-grown talent pipeline for e

high-technology industries. 

 Cultivate entrepreneurial culture, infrastru

foster innovation and diversify the regionopportunities. 

 Support regional knowledge exchange, m

assets, and transformation capacity across 

South Central Idaho 

 Region IV 

Development Association 

 Idaho Department of 

Labor 

 Manufacturing  Construction  Entrepreneurship 

 Immediate talent development requireme

positions in manufacturing, construction, occupational areas that have experienced worker shortages. 

 Focus mid-term talent development need

of several industry sectors, including bio-food processing, and cluster-based manuf

 Transform the region’s talent developmen

South Central Kansas 

 Housed at: Workforce 

Alliance of South Central Kansas (Local Area IV) 

 Kansas 

WorkforceONE (Local Area I) 

 Kansas Department of 

Commerce (KDOC) 

 Composites and 

Advanced Materials (aerospace and other sectors) 

 Leverage the education, training, and wor

resources in the region as a way to develoworkforce that will support the sustainablrequired in a global economy (education 

 Catalyze the research and development, i

application of composite and advance mathat will strengthen the economy of the reopportunity expansion). 

 Cultivate an emerging global cluster to st

economy (regional economic developmen
Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute f

A-7

Table A-2: Overview of Generation III WIRED Regions

Region 

Administrative and 

Fiscal Agents Targeted Industries Goals and Strategi

Central Kentucky 

 Lincoln Trail 

Workforce Investment Board 

 Transportation and 

Logistics 

 Life Sciences  Health Care Services  Human Resources (Ft. 

Knox BRAC) 

 Energy Technology  Advanced 

Manufacturing 

 Build an effective structure to govern and  Develop a regional culture that values an

economic development, entrepreneurshipvisionary leadership. 

 Enhance growth and competitiveness in h Stimulate creative enterprise.  Align education and workforce training to 

throughout the region. 

Minnesota Triangle 

 Renewable Energy 

Marketplace, an Alliance for Talent Development 

 Minnesota Department 

of Employment and Economic Development 

 Southwest Minnesota 

Workforce Council 

 Renewable Energy 

(wind turbines, biomass) 

 Agriculture  Manufacturing  Biosciences 

 Build a skilled workforce.  Build stronger communities.  Build a stronger regional economy throug Stop the outflow of talent and younger w

these communities to find work in more m

 Address the needs of existing companies 

with the renewable energy sector. 

 Show people that there are real opportuni

region, in both renewable energy and adv

Southeast Mississippi 

 Mississippi 

Department of Employment Security 

 Advanced 

Manufacturing 

 Metal Industries  Construction 

 Develop a business model for transformin

ultimately, the State’s workforce develop

 Link all stages of workforce developmen

secondary education and skills training, a

 Create a replicable model workforce syst

sectors. 

 Provide accessible skills training to work

emphasizing adult workers who seek skilto better jobs. 
Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute f

A-8

Table A-2: Overview of Generation III WIRED Regions

Region 

Administrative and 

Fiscal Agents Targeted Industries Goals and Strategi

Southeast Missouri 

 Workforce Investment 

Board of Southeast Missouri 

 Renewable energy  Tourism  Logistics  Health care  Advanced manufacturing  Entrepreneurship 

 Develop a strong entrepreneurial support  Build the targeted sectors  Create a more responsive workforce syste

the WIB, educators, and industry to share improvement. 

Central Eastern New Jersey 

 Middlesex County 

Workforce Investment Board 

 Rutgers University 

 Biotechnology  Life sciences 

 Excite young people about the bioscience

underrepresented groups. 

 Lay smooth education and career pathwa

biotechnology educators’ consortium devagreements. 

 Transform graduate education to create a 

master’s degrees tailored to the needs of b

 Develop professional science master’s de

integrating science and business. 

 Increase bioscience workforce system.  Enhance linkages between education and 

establishing a “one-stop” bioscience care

 Facilitate global competitiveness to attrac

partnerships and to attract international bthe region. 

New Mexico 

 New Mexico Technet  New Mexico 

Department of Workforce Solutions 

 Optics  Green-Building 

Construction 

 Aerospace and Aviation  Renewable Energy  Microelectronics  Advanced 

Manufacturing 

 Entrepreneurship 

 Train central New Mexico’s future advan

workforce at all levels from high school t

 Stimulate entrepreneurship and promote t

federal laboratories to private sector start

 Assess the region’s workforce needs and 

information on “Jobs for the Future.” 
Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute f

A-9

Table A-2: Overview of Generation III WIRED Regions

Region 

Administrative and 

Fiscal Agents Targeted Industries Goals and Strategi

North Oregon 

 Worksystems, Inc.  Advanced 

Manufacturing (bioscience, metals) 

 Support leadership for regional economic 

mapping of the region’s resources, improits workforce system, researching its worglobal context assessment. 

 Grow the talent pipeline through four pro

regional workforce readiness soft skills acertification, improving WorkSources’ inadvanced manufacturing sector, and develearning experiences [CRLEs] system). 

 Align curriculum to reduce skills gaps by 

manufacturing jobs and modifying or creimprove training. 

 Increase opportunities for training by esta

for advanced manufacturing at the local W

Southeast Virginia 

 Hampton Roads 

Workforce Development Board (Opportunity Inc.) 

 Transportation, 

Warehousing, and Distribution 

 Modeling and 

Simulation 

 Foster economic development by support

of the TWD and M&S industries. 

 Mitigate the impact of base realignment a

industry downsizing by strengthening the development to fast growing occupations 

 Enhance relationships between existing p

the collaborative as needed. 

Pacific Mountain Washington 

 Pacific Mountain 

Alliance for Innovation 

 Thurston County 

Board of Commissioners 

 Traditional and 

Renewable Energy 

 Manufacturing  Construction 

 Develop a globally competitive, dynamic

savvy talent pool. 

 Grow and support innovation and entrepr

of the regional economy. 

 Leverage the resources of partners to esta

regional identity. 

South Central and Southwest Wisconsin 

 Workforce 

Development Board of South Central Wisconsin 

 Advanced 

Manufacturing 

 Agriculture  Biotechnology  Health Care  Skilled Trades  Utilities 

 Develop a career pathway infrastructure t

industry groups. 

 Expand training capacity, mostly through 

improvement of training programs at area 
Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute f

A-10
Appendix B. Social Network Graphs by 

Regions 

Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report

Appalachian Ohio Social Network 

Figure B-1

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

B-1
Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report

Arkansas Delta Social Network 

Figure B-2 

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

B-2
Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report

Central-Eastern Puerto Rico Social Network 

Figure B-3

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

B-3
Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report

Delaware Valley Social Network 

Figure B-4

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

B-4
Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report

Northern California Social Network 

Figure B-5

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

B-5
Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report

Northern New Jersey Social Network 

Figure B-6

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

B-6
Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report

Rio South Texas Social Network 

Figure B-7

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

B-7
Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report

Southeast Michigan Social Network 

Figure B-8

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

B-8
Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report

Southeastern Wisconsin Social Network 

Figure B-9

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

B-9
Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report

Southwest Indiana Social Network 

Figure B-10

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

B-10
Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report

Southwestern Connecticut Social Network 

Figure B-11

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

B-11
Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report

Tennessee Valley Social Network 

Figure B-12

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

B-12
Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report

Wasatch Range Social Network 

Figure B-13

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

B-13
Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report

Central Kentucky Social Network 

Figure B-14

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

B-14
Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report

Central New Jersey Social Network 

Figure B-15

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

B-15
Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report

Greater Albuquerque (NM) Social Network 

Figure B-16

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

B-16
Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report

Minnesota Triangle Social Network 

Figure B-17

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

B-17
Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report

North Oregon Social Network 

Figure B-18

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

B-18
Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report

Pacific Mountain Washington Social Network 

Figure B-19

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

B-19
Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report

South Central & South West Wisconsin Social Network 

Figure B-20

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

B-20
Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report

South-Central Idaho Social Network 

Figure B-21

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

B-21
Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report

South-Central Kansas Social Network 

Figure B-22

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

B-22
Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report

Southeast Missouri Social Network 

Figure B-23

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

B-23
Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report

Southeastern Mississippi Social Network 

Figure B-24

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

B-24
Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report

Southeastern Virginia Social Network 

Figure B-25

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

B-25
Nurturing America’s Growth Through Talent Development Evaluation Interim Report

Southern Arizona Social Network 

Figure B-26

Public Policy Associates, Incorporated W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research

B-26