WORKFORCE 

INVESTMENT ACT 

Innovative 

Collaborations 

between Workforce 

Boards and Employers 

Helped Meet Local 

Needs 

Report to Congressional Committees

January 2012 

GAO-12-97 

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO 
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-12-97, a report to

congressional committees 

January 2012 

WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT

Innovative Collaborations between Workforce 

Boards and Employers Helped Meet Local Needs

Why GAO Did This Study

As the United States continues to face 

high unemployment in the wake of the 

recent recession, federally funded 

workforce programs can play an 

important role in bridging gaps between 

the skills present in the workforce and 

the skills needed for available jobs. The 

Workforce Investment Act of 1998 

(WIA) sought to strengthen the 

connection between workforce 

programs and employers, but GAO’s 

prior work has found that collaboration 

remains a challenge. With WIA 

currently awaiting reauthorization, GAO 

reviewed (1) factors that facilitated 

innovative collaborations among 

workforce boards, employers, and 

others; (2) major challenges to 

collaboration; and (3) actions the 

Department of Labor (Labor) has taken 

to support local collaborative efforts. 

GAO examined 14 local initiatives 

identified by experts as among the most 

promising or innovative efforts in which 

local workforce boards collaborated 

effectively with employers and other 

partners to achieve positive results. 

GAO interviewed representatives of the 

14 initiatives and officials from five 

federal agencies. GAO also reviewed 

reports on the initiatives and relevant 

federal laws, regulations, and other 

documents. 

What GAO Recommends

To better support the capacity of the 

local workforce investment system to 

collaborate with employers and other 

partners, Labor should compile 

information on workforce boards that 

effectively leverage WIA funds with 

other funding sources and disseminate 

this information in a readily accessible 

manner. Labor agreed with our 

findings and recommendation.

What GAO Found

Workforce board officials and their partners in the 14 initiatives cited a range of 

factors that facilitated building innovative collaborations, as shown in the figure. 

Almost all of the collaborations grew out of efforts to address urgent workforce 

needs of multiple employers in a specific sector, such as health care, 

manufacturing, or agriculture, rather than focusing on individual employers. 

Additionally, the partners in these initiatives made extra effort to understand and 

work with employers so they could tailor services such as jobseeker assessment, 

screening, and training to address specific employer needs. For example, in 

Greensboro, North Carolina, board staff provided expedited services for an 

aircraft company that just moved to the area by designing a web-based 

recruitment tool and customized assessment process within 48 hours and 

screening over 2,400 initial applicants. In all the initiatives, partners remained 

engaged in these collaborative efforts because they continued to produce a wide 

range of reported results, such as an increased supply of skilled labor, job 

placements, reduced employer recruitment and turnover costs, and averted 

layoffs. For example, in Cincinnati, Ohio, employers who participated in the 

health care initiative realized almost $5,000 in estimated cost savings per worker 

hired, mainly due to lower turnover and recruitment costs, according to an 

independent study. 

Factors That Facilitated Collaboration in Selected Initiatives

While these boards were successful in their efforts, they cited some challenges 

to collaboration that they needed to overcome. Some boards were challenged to 

develop comprehensive strategies to address diverse employer needs with WIA 

funds. For example, some boards’ staff said that while their initiatives sought to 

meet employer needs for higher-skilled workers through skill upgrades, WIA 

funds can be used to train current workers only in limited circumstances, and the

boards used other funding sources to do so. Staff from most, but not all, boards 

also said that WIA performance measures do not reflect their efforts to engage 

employers. Many of these boards used their own measures to assess their 

services to employers, such as the number of new employers served each year 

or the hiring rate for jobseekers they refer to employers. 

Labor has taken various steps to support local collaborations, such as conducting 

webinars and issuing guidance on pertinent topics, and contributing to a new $37 

million grant program to facilitate innovative regional collaborations. Many of the 

boards we reviewed cited leveraging resources as a key to facilitating 

collaboration. However, while Labor has collected information on effective 

practices for leveraging resources, it has not compiled this information and made 

it easy to access.

View GAO-12-97 or key components.

For more information, contact Andrew Sherrill 

at (202)-512-7215 or sherrilla@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

Letter 1 

Background 3

Several Key Factors Supported Initial Collaboration and Sustained 

It over Time 9

Workforce Boards Overcame Some Challenges to Address Diverse 

Employer Needs and Developed Their Own Measures to Track 

Employer Engagement 23

Labor Has Taken Steps to Support Local Collaborative Efforts and 

Address Some Challenges but Has Not Made Information on 

Leveraging Resources Readily Available 26

Conclusion 28

Recommendation for Executive Action 29

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 29

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 31

Appendix II Profiles of Selected Local Workforce Boards’ Initiatives 35

Appendix III Comments from the Department of Labor 64

Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 66

Related GAO Products 67

Tables

Table 1: WIA Mandatory One-Stop Partner Programs and Related 

Federal Agencies 5

Table 2: Fourteen Initiatives Addressed a Range of Urgent 

Employer Needs 11

Table 3: Most Frequently Used Resources to Build and Sustain 

Initiatives 16

Contents
Page ii GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

Figure

Figure 1: Factors That Facilitated Collaboration 10

Abbreviations

Commerce Department of Commerce

CMTC California Manufacturing Technology Consulting

Labor Department of Labor

MAGMA Michigan Academy for Green Mobility Alliance

MEP Manufacturing Extension Partnership

Recovery Act American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

TANF Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

TET Technical Employment Training, Inc. 

WIA Workforce Investment Act of 1998

WIRED Workforce Innovation in Regional Economic 

Development

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

United States Government Accountability Office 

Washington, DC 20548

January 19, 2012

The Honorable Tom Harkin

Chairman

The Honorable Michael B. Enzi

Ranking Member

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

United States Senate

The Honorable Patty Murray

Chairman

The Honorable Johnny Isakson

Ranking Member

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety

United States Senate

Over 2 years into the economic recovery, unemployment remains at 8.5 

percent. Yet the nation continues to face challenges in closing the gap 

between the skills present in the workforce and the skills needed for 

available jobs. While federally funded workforce programs are designed 

to cultivate a stronger workforce, there is growing recognition that these 

programs need to better collaborate with employers to align services and 

training with employers’ needs. In overhauling the nation’s fragmented 

employment and training programs, the Workforce Investment Act of 

1998 (WIA) envisioned such collaboration by focusing on employers as 

well as jobseekers, establishing a “dual customer” approach. To create a 

single, comprehensive workforce system, WIA required that four federal 

agencies—the Departments of Labor, Education, Health and Human 

Services, and Housing and Urban Development—provide access to 16 of 

their programs through local one-stop centers across the country. To 

align federally supported training and employment programs more closely 

with local labor market needs, WIA established a system through which 

local workforce investment boards develop policy and oversee service 

delivery for local areas within a state, and required that local business 

representatives constitute the majority membership on these boards.

Despite the vision of collaboration between local employers and the 

workforce investment system, however, we and others have found that it 

can be challenging. For example, in previous reports, we found that some 

employers have limited interaction with or knowledge of this system—the 

approximately 1,800 local one-stop centers that provide access to all 

 
 

Page 2 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

required programs1 and the local workforce boards that oversee these 

centers—and that employers who do use the one-stop centers mainly do 

so to fill their needs for low-skilled workers.2 Others have found that 

collaboration is challenging because it requires staff time and resources 

to build credibility with employers.3

With WIA currently awaiting reauthorization, you requested that we 

identify and describe promising practices for collaboration between 

workforce investment boards, employers, education providers, and others 

that have demonstrated positive results. Specifically, we examined (1) the 

factors that facilitated innovative collaborations among workforce boards, 

employers, and others; (2) the major challenges to collaboration; and (3) 

what actions the Department of Labor (Labor) has taken to support local 

workforce boards in their collaborative efforts.

To conduct this work, we asked officials from five federal agencies and 

national experts on workforce and economic development issues 

representing 20 organizations to nominate what they viewed as the most 

promising or innovative initiatives in which local workforce boards 

collaborated effectively with employers and other partners to achieve 

positive results. In addition to the Departments of Labor, Education, 

Health and Human Services, and Housing and Urban Development, 

which administer one-stop programs, we also requested nominations 

from the Department of Commerce (Commerce), which administers key 

economic development programs. We selected the experts from the 20 

 

1 In addition to the one-stop centers that provide access to all programs, over 1,000 other 

one-stop centers, known as affiliate centers, provide limited employment and trainingrelated services to job seekers and employers.

2

See GAO, Workforce Investment Act: Employers Are Aware of, Using, and Satisfied with 

One-Stop Services, but More Data Could Help Labor Better Address Employers’ Needs, 

GAO-05-259 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 18, 2005). This report found that about half of 

employers were not aware of their local one-stops, and that this was more common 

among smaller companies. Also, see GAO, Workforce Investment Act: Employers Found 

One-Stop Centers Useful in Hiring Low-Skilled Workers; Performance Information Could 

Help Gauge Employer Involvement, GAO-07-167 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 22, 2006).

3

Our 2003 report provided information on promising practices at selected one-stops for 

streamlining services for job seekers, engaging the employer community, and building a 

solid one-stop infrastructure by strengthening partnerships across programs and raising 

additional funds. See GAO, Workforce Investment Act: One-Stop Centers Implemented 

Strategies to Strengthen Services and Partnerships, but More Research and Information 

Sharing Is Needed, GAO-03-725 (Washington, D.C.: June 18, 2003).
 

Page 3 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

organizations for their knowledge of workforce development or economic 

development activities at the local level.

More than 89 initiatives or sponsoring organizations from 28 states were 

nominated, and we selected 14 initiatives in 13 local areas for in-depth 

review. The criteria for our selection included the number of nominations 

for each initiative, diversity of federal funding sources, variety of local 

unemployment rates, evidence of replicability, and geographical diversity, 

among others. We conducted semi-structured interviews with local and 

state workforce officials, representatives of educational institutions, 

training providers, economic development officials, employers, and 

others. We conducted in-person interviews in seven local areas and 

conducted interviews in the other areas by phone or video 

teleconference. In some cases, we also toured training facilities and 

workplaces. Our findings regarding the 14 initiatives are not generalizable 

to other local workforce boards. In addition, we conducted interviews with 

officials of Labor and Commerce, as well as representatives of workforce 

associations such as the National Association of Workforce Boards. We 

also reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and other documents 

pertaining to the key federal programs. See appendix I for more 

information on our scope and methodology. We conducted our work 

between November 2010 and January 2012 in accordance with generally 

accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that 

we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to 

provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our 

audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a 

reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 

objectives.

WIA created a comprehensive workforce investment system that brought 

together multiple federally funded employment and training programs into 

a single system, called the one-stop system.4

 

4

Pub. L. No. 105-220, 112 Stat. 936 (codified at 29 U.S.C. § 2801 et seq.).

Prior to the enactment of 

WIA, services were often provided through a fragmented employment and 

training system. One-stop centers serve two customers—job seekers and 

Background

Collaboration under WIA
 

Page 4 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration 

employers—and WIA provided flexibility to states and local areas to 

develop approaches that best meet local needs. 

In its redesign of the system, WIA created three new programs—Adult, 

Dislocated Workers, and Youth—that provide a broad range of services 

including job search assistance, assessment, and training for eligible 

individuals. The WIA programs provide for three levels of service for 

adults and dislocated workers—core, intensive, and training. Core 

services include basic services such as job search and labor market 

information; intensive services include activities such as comprehensive 

assessments and case management. Training is provided through 

individual training accounts that participants can use to pay for training 

they select from a list of eligible providers. In serving employers, onestops have the flexibility under WIA to provide a variety of tailored 

services, including customized screening and referral of qualified 

participants in training to employers.5

In addition to establishing the three new programs, WIA required that 

services from these programs, along with those of a number of other 

employment and training programs, be provided through the one-stop 

system so that jobseekers, workers, and employers could find assistance 

at a single location. Table 1 shows these mandatory programs and their 

administering federal agencies. Labor is responsible for providing 

guidance to states and localities on delivering services through the onestop system, and states, through state workforce boards, have a number 

of responsibilities for the workforce system statewide, such as developing 

state plans. 

 

5

29 U.S.C. § 2864(e)(1). 
 

Page 5 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

Table 1: WIA Mandatory One-Stop Partner Programs and Related Federal Agencies

Federal agency Mandatory program

Department of Labor WIA Adult

WIA Youth

WIA Dislocated Worker

Employment Service (Wagner-Peyser) 

Trade adjustment assistance programs

Veterans’ employment and training 

programs

Unemployment Insurance

Job Corps

Native American workforce training 

program

Senior Community Service Employment 

Program

Employment and training for migrant and 

seasonal farm workers

Department of Education Vocational Rehabilitation

Adult Education and Literacy

Postsecondary Career and Technical 

Education (Perkins Act)

Department of Health and Human Services Community Services Block Grant

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD)

HUD-administered employment and 

training

Source: GAO, Workforce Development: Community Colleges and One-Stop Centers Collaborate to Meet 21st Century Workforce 

Needs, GAO-08-547 (Washington, D.C.: May 15, 2008).

Note: Although WIA required 17 programs to participate in the one-stop system, the Welfare-to-Work 

Program no longer exists, reducing the total to 16 mandatory programs. 

WIA requires that each state have one or more local workforce 

investment areas6 (designated by state governors), each governed by a 

local workforce investment board.7

 

6

29 U.S.C. § 2831(a) and (b). In designating local workforce investment areas, the 

governor is required to take into consideration geographic areas served by educational 

agencies and institutions, labor market areas, distances that individuals must travel to 

receive services, and the resources available from local areas to help carry out WIA 

services. Approximately 600 local workforce investment areas exist throughout the nation.

29 U.S.C. § 2831(a)(1)(B).

To help align employment and training 

7

29 U.S.C. § 2832(a).
 

Page 6 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

programs with the needs of employers, WIA requires that local boards 

include representatives from one-stop partner programs, local educational 

entities, labor organizations, community-based organizations, and 

economic development agencies. It also requires that a majority of the 

members be representatives of local businesses and that the local board 

chairman be a representative of a local business.8

Local workforce boards are also responsible for coordinating workforce 

investment activities with economic development strategies, and 

developing relationships with employers.

Through these 

requirements, WIA gave business representatives a key role in deciding 

how services should be provided and overseeing operations at one-stop 

centers.

9 The local workforce boards 

also select the entities to operate one-stop centers and conduct oversight 

of the one-stop system.10 In addition to the mandatory programs, local 

workforce boards have the flexibility to include other programs in the onestop system.11 Labor suggests that these additional, or optional, programs 

may help one-stop systems better meet specific state and local workforce 

development needs.

Over $40 billion in federal funding has been provided for Adult, Dislocated 

Worker, and Youth programs since fiscal year 2000. In 2009, Congress 

passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act), 

which included a one-time addition of $3.15 billion for the three programs 

through program year 2010.12

While the federal funds for Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Youth programs 

that flow to states and then to local areas through statutory formulas

Compared to fiscal year 2000, annual WIA 

funding declined in nominal terms by about 24 percent in fiscal year 2011.

13

 

8

29 U.S.C. § 2832(b)(2), (b)(4) and (b)(5).

—

9

29 U.S.C. § 2832(d)(7).

1029 U.S.C. § 2841(a).

1129 U.S.C. § 2841(b)(2). These programs can include other federal, state, local, or 

private human resource programs.

12Pub. L. No. 111-5. Div. A, Title VIII, 123 Stat. 115, 172-173. Recovery Act funds were 

permitted for all activities allowed under WIA.

1329 U.S.C. §§ 2852 and 2862.

Funding Streams and 

Sources
 

Page 7 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

WIA formula funds—are intended to support services and training for 

individual jobseekers, WIA provides for certain set-asides for statewide 

workforce activities, as well. Governors may reserve up to 15 percent of 

these program funds for statewide activities, referred to in this report as 

WIA Governor’s set-aside.14 WIA requires states to use the Governor’s 

set-aside for activities such as statewide evaluations of workforce 

programs and incentive grants for local areas, and allows them to fund a 

wide array of activities, including innovative training programs for 

incumbent workers,15 research and demonstration projects, and capacity 

building and technical assistance. For program year 2011, Congress 

reduced the 15 percent Governor’s set-aside to 5 percent.16 Additionally, 

governors may reserve up to 25 percent of the Dislocated Worker 

program funds for “rapid response” activities, to help serve employers and 

workers facing layoffs and plant closings.17

To further address local workforce needs, Labor has also provided some 

discretionary grants to the local workforce boards to help them bring 

together diverse partners, including employers. Generally, Labor’s 

discretionary grants are awarded under a provision of WIA that provides 

authority for demonstration, pilot, multiservice, research, and multistate 

projects,18 and a provision enacted as part of the American 

Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998,19

 

1429 U.S.C. §§ 2853(a) and 2863(a).

which 

provides authority for job training grants funded by the H-1B visa 

15Workers who already have a job may be considered “incumbent workers,” a term each 

state board defines. According to Labor, the primary mission of the workforce investment 

system is to serve unemployed workers, but services to incumbent workers, who may not 

otherwise be eligible for WIA’s Adult or Dislocated Worker programs, are permitted with 

Governor’s set-aside funds, and for the purpose of assisting employers and workers 

facing layoffs, with rapid response reserve funds and formula funds, under waivers 

granted by Labor. See Department of Labor, Training and Employment Guidance Letter 

No. 30-09 (Washington, D.C.: June 8, 2010).

16Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriation Act, 2011, Pub. L. No. 

112-10, § 1801(a)(3), 125 Stat. 38, 156. Program year 2011 began July 2011 and runs 

through June 2012. 

1729 U.S.C. §2863(a)(2).

1829 U.S.C. § 2916. 

19Pub. L. No. 105-277, Div. C, Title IV, § 414(c), 112 Stat. 2681-653, codified at 29 U.S.C. 

§ 2916a.
 

Page 8 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

program.20

Beyond the WIA programs, Commerce runs programs that can support 

workforce training. For example, the department’s Hollings Manufacturing 

Extension Partnership (MEP) provides technical assistance upon request 

to manufacturers, including advice on workforce practices or skills training 

in some cases. MEP clients reported having invested about $270 million 

of their own funds in workforce training in 2009.

Between 2001 and 2007, Labor spent almost $900 million on 

three employment and training grant initiatives: the High Growth Job 

Training Initiative beginning in 2001, the Community-Based Job Training 

Initiative beginning in 2005, and the Workforce Innovation in Regional 

Economic Development (WIRED) initiative beginning in 2006. These 

grants were designed to identify the workforce and training needs of 

growing, high-demand industries and engage workforce, industry, and 

educational partners to develop innovative solutions to workforce 

challenges.

In order to receive their full funding allocations, states must report on the 

performance of their three WIA programs.21 WIA requires performance 

measures that gauge program results for jobseekers in the areas of job 

placement, retention, earnings, and skill attainment.22 In addition, WIA 

requires measures of customer satisfaction for jobseekers and for 

employers, which may be collected through surveys.23 WIA holds states 

accountable for achieving their performance levels by tying those levels to 

financial sanctions and incentive funding.24

 

20This program imposes a fee on employers that hire foreign workers to fill positions in 

specialized professions such as computer technology.

2129 U.S.C. § 2871(g)(1)(B).

2229 U.S.C. § 2871.

2329 U.S.C. § 2871(b)(2)(B).

2429 U.S.C. § 2871(g) and 20 U.S.C. § 9273.

WIA Performance 

Measures
 

Page 9 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

While the 14 selected initiatives varied in terms of their purpose, sector, 

and partners involved, the boards and their partners cited common 

factors that facilitated and sustained collaboration (see fig. 1). For 

example, virtually all of these collaborations grew out of efforts to address 

critical workforce needs of multiple employers, typically in a specific 

sector, rather than focusing on individual employers. Additionally, the 

partners in these initiatives made extra effort to understand and work with 

employers so they could tailor services such as jobseeker assessment, 

screening, and training to address specific employer needs. In all cases, 

the partnerships included workforce boards, employers, and education 

and training providers, and in some cases, they also included local school 

districts, regional organizations that promoted economic development,25

 

25According to the National Association of Development Organizations, economic 

development organizations include councils of governments, local development districts, 

planning and development districts, regional councils, and regional development or 

planning commissions, among other entities.

state agencies, or labor unions. Partners remained engaged in these 

collaborative efforts because they continued to produce a range of results 

for employers, jobseekers and workers, and the workforce system and 

other partners.

Several Key Factors 

Supported Initial 

Collaboration and 

Sustained It over Time
 

Page 10 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

Figure 1: Factors That Facilitated Collaboration

Workforce boards, employers, education and training providers, and other 

partners in the 14 initiatives focused on urgent and commonly shared 

employer needs that served as a catalyst for collaboration. Virtually all of the 

initiatives focused on ways to supply workforce skills that were commonly 

needed by multiple employers in a specific sector. The urgency of their 

needs ranged from a shortage of critical skills in health care and 

manufacturing to the threat of layoffs and business closures (see table 2). In 

San Bernardino, California, for example, some companies were at risk of 

layoffs and closures because of declining sales and other conditions, unless 

they received services that included retraining for their workers.26

 

26According to Labor, averting layoffs is one of the functions of the workforce investment 

system, and worker training, such as training for workers in new processes or 

technologies, is one of several services that can help employers avoid layoffs. Labor has 

encouraged states to establish criteria to identify the employers and workers for whom 

layoff aversion services may be appropriate. States that seek to use WIA formula or 

reserve rapid response funds for incumbent worker training must obtain waivers from 

Labor. See Department of Labor, Training and Employment Guidance Letter No. 30-09. 

Also, in 

Workforce Boards and 

Their Partners Focused on 

Urgent, Common Needs 

That Provided a Catalyst 

for Collaboration
 

Page 11 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

Rochester, Minnesota, the turnover rates at long-term care facilities 

threatened their ability to comply with state regulations and remain open. In 

one case, in Gainesville, Florida, employers joined with the board and others 

to tackle the need to create additional jobs by embarking on an initiative to 

develop entrepreneurial skills. See appendix II for a profile of each initiative.

Table 2: Fourteen Initiatives Addressed a Range of Urgent Employer Needs

Initiative name Workforce board Sector focus a Needs addressed

1. ManufacturingWorks

b

Chicago, Illinois Manufacturing Critical skill needs

2. Health Careers Collaborative of 

Greater Cincinnati

Cincinnati, Ohio Health care Critical skill needs, turnover

3. Entrepreneurship Quests Gainesville, Florida No single sector Need for additional jobs

4. Advanced Manufacturing Training 

Initiative

c

Golden, Colorado Manufacturing Soft skills

5. Piedmont Triad Global Logistics 

Workforce Initiative

d

Greensboro, North 

Carolina 

Transportation, distribution, 

and logistics

Critical skill needs

6. Center of Excellence in Production 

Agriculture 

Lancaster, Pennsylvania Agriculture Critical skill needs

7. Career Pathways Madison, Wisconsin Multiple Critical skill needs

8. Pre-employment Healthcare 

Academy

Rochester, Minnesota Health care (long-term care) Turnover, soft skills

9. Technical Employment Training

d

San Bernardino, 

California

Manufacturing e Critical skill needs

10. Manufacturing Sector Layoff 

Aversion and Business Assistance 

Initiative

San Bernardino, 

California

Manufacturing e Imminent threat of layoffs

11. Health Care Sector Panel Seattle, Washington Health care Critical skill needs

12. Michigan Academy for Green 

Mobility Alliance

Taylor, Michigan 

(southeast Michigan)

Manufacturing Need for upgraded skills to keep 

pace with technological change

13. NoVaHealthForce Vienna, Virginia (Northern 

Virginia)

Health care Critical skill needs

14. Composites Kansas WIRED 

Initiative

Wichita, Kansas Manufacturing (aviation) Need for upgraded skills to keep 

pace with technological change

Source: GAO.

a

The boards are identified by the city in which they are located. For the initiatives that involved 

multiple workforce boards, the city shown is the location of the lead workforce board. For the boards’ 

complete names, see appendix II. 

b

A single initiative could address more than one common need. The needs shown represent the main 

needs identified by the partners. 

c

This initiative addressed the area’s need for new employment opportunities through a strategy of 

promoting self-employment. 

d

Soft skills are the nontechnical skills that workers need to function in a job, and include 

competencies related to problem-solving, oral communication, personal qualities, work ethic, and 

teamwork skills. e

Two initiatives of this board, both in manufacturing, were selected for this report. 
 

Page 12 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

In most cases, workforce boards worked with employers and other 

partners to determine the scope of the problem, which galvanized the 

partners’ commitment to collaborate. In Northern Virginia, for example, 

officials told us that, individually, local hospitals were experiencing 

difficulties recruiting skilled workers and anticipated that their needs 

would become more acute due to pending retirements among their 

existing workers. However, until the initiative, there had been no attempt 

to quantify the staffing needs overall among the hospitals. The partners 

commissioned a study which projected a shortage of 17,000 nurses and 

other health care workers in 23 occupations—a finding that reinforced the 

partners’ commitment to collaborate on a common strategy, according to 

local officials. In some initiatives, the partners obtained information about 

employers’ needs through studies or a focus group.27 In a few cases, 

boards used previously developed state models to engage employers in 

specific industries and regions and identify information about their critical 

workforce needs. For example, in both Seattle and southeast Michigan, 

employers participated in models—known as “Skill Panels” or “Skills 

Alliances”—that Washington State and Michigan had developed for this 

purpose.28

By focusing on common employer needs across a sector, the boards and 

their partners also produced innovative labor force solutions that, in 

several cases, had evaded employers who were trying to address their 

needs individually, according to those we interviewed. In several cases, 

employers cited the recruitment costs they incurred by competing against 

each other for the same workers. By working together to develop the local 

labor pool they needed, the employers were able to reduce recruitment 

costs in some cases. Describing the competitive approach to labor supply 

 

27See Seattle-King County Workforce Development Council and Washington State 

Hospital Association, Seattle-King County’s Hospital Staffing Crisis: Challenges and 

Solutions Identified by Seattle-King County Hospital, Education and Labor Leaders

(February 2003); PriceWaterhouseCoopers, The Health Care Workforce Shortage: An 

Analysis of the Scope and Impact on Northern Virginia (2004); and Center on Wisconsin 

Strategy, The Future of the Health Care Workforce in South Central/Southwest Wisconsin:

An Analysis of Employer and Employee Surveys in Key Locations (2008). In at least one 

case, employers provided information about their workforce needs through focus groups—

specifically, in Golden, Colorado, the board held a focus group with manufacturers.

28Washington State has used a collaborative approach, known as “Skill Panels,” to identify 

skill gaps and standards in targeted sectors, develop training, and share promising 

practices, and Michigan has developed a similar approach, known as “Skills Alliances.” 

These approaches have been used in various sectors, including manufacturing, energy, 

health care, construction, and services. 
 

Page 13 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

that had prevailed before collaboration, one employer said, “When we 

steal staff [from each other], we don’t add people to the workforce, and it 

increases the cost of doing business.” 

In addition to finding common ground among employers, some initiatives 

also forged greater collaboration among education and training providers.

As with the employers, the focus on common needs galvanized support, 

leading the educational institutions in some cases to share curricula or 

agree to recognize courses offered by other participating institutions. For 

example, in southeast Michigan’s initiative in automotive manufacturing, 

education partners agreed to grant credit for courses offered by other 

participating institutions. In Seattle’s health care initiative, a community 

college official said that area colleges had competed against each other 

and worked with employers independently, but collaboration helped them 

think more in terms of scale and as a system.

In several cases, the initiatives involved multiple workforce boards as 

partners to address issues on a regional basis. For example, the health 

care initiative in Cincinnati involved the efforts of four boards across three 

states—Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana—because board officials recognized 

that the local labor market includes communities in each state. In Wichita, 

Kansas, the aircraft manufacturing initiative included two boards—one 

serving the six counties around Wichita, and the other serving 63 rural 

counties in the western half of the state. To address initial concerns that 

the larger Wichita-based board might benefit disproportionately, both 

boards took steps to ensure that they would each benefit from and have 

access to resources. In doing so, according to board staff, they were able 

to expand the recruitment pool and promote job openings in a wider area. 

Their collaboration also fostered communications about new market 

opportunities for companies.
 

Page 14 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

Officials from many boards emphasized the importance of securing 

leaders who had the authority or the ability, or both, to persuade others of 

the merits of a particular initiative. In some cases, workforce board or 

one-stop staff took the lead. In San Bernardino, California, for example, a 

leader from the one-stop’s Business Services unit used feedback from 

local employers to persuade the board of the need for layoff aversion 

services, such as training manufacturers’ incumbent workers in more 

efficient production techniques.29

Many partners also emphasized the value of having a leader whose 

perceived neutrality could help build trust among parties who were 

otherwise competitors. Officials from several initiatives also said that 

neutral leaders helped different partners understand how their mutual 

In Lancaster, Pennsylvania, workforce 

staff helped public school teachers gain state approval for an agricultural 

curriculum by obtaining the state’s designation of agricultural careers as 

“high priority occupations,” and as a result, convinced previously wary 

partners that collaborating with the workforce system would be beneficial.

In some cases, other partners led efforts to launch the initiative. For 

example, to address a critical need for health care workers in Northern 

Virginia, a community college president personally marshaled support 

from area hospital chief executive officers and other local leaders to 

address common needs for health care workers. Employers also provided 

leadership that was instrumental in persuading other employers and 

partners to join the initiatives. In Greensboro, North Carolina, officials 

reported that many employers joined round-table discussions after their 

competitors encouraged them to participate.

 

29According to local officials, almost all of the participating employers in this layoff 

aversion initiative received services that included training for their workers. In addition, 

some also received other services to help them increase revenue and stabilize their 

operations, such as assistance with marketing.

Leadership Was Critical in 

Spurring Action and 

Building Partnerships
 

Page 15 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

interests could be served through collaboration. In Seattle, for example, 

officials said that having such a neutral convener helped to both manage 

partners’ relationships and focus on opportunities for systematic change, 

and that without such leadership, their efforts would have likely produced 

smaller, more isolated projects. The leaders who served as neutral 

conveners varied among the initiatives. For several initiatives, including 

Seattle, the local boards served this purpose. In southeast Michigan, the 

state workforce agency was viewed as a neutral convener.

All of the boards and their partners leveraged resources in addition to or 

in lieu of WIA formula funds to launch or sustain their initiatives.30

 

30According to Labor, leveraged resources are not defined in federal regulation or related 

administrative requirements. For the purposes of grant reporting, Labor defines leveraged 

resources as all resources used by a grantee to support grant activity and outcomes. See 

Department of Labor, “Fiscal Forums 2011: Leveraged Resources and Match 2,” webinar 

(August 24, 2011). For our purposes, we use the term to mean all resources used to 

support an initiative’s activities or outcomes.

In some 

cases, partners were able to use initial support, such as discretionary 

grants, to attract additional resources. For example, in Golden, Colorado, 

the board leveraged a Labor WIRED grant of slightly more than $285,000 

to generate an additional $441,000 from other partners. WIA formula 

funds were typically used to support some training, as well as preemployment assessment and screening. According to several workforce 

board directors, however, WIA funds were not sufficient to meet the 

training needs of employers and jobseekers in their areas. Various 

partners contributed resources to meet these training needs and sustain 

their collaboration. For example, projects that stemmed from Seattle’s 

Health Care Sector Panel have had a wide variety of support, including 

Leveraging Resources 

Supported Collaborative 

Efforts
 

Page 16 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

WIA formula funds, Governor’s set-aside funds, and federal H-1B monies 

and state funds, among others.

In addition to public funds, in all cases that we reviewed, employers 

demonstrated their support by contributing as well. For example, in 

Northern Virginia, health care employers offered matching funds to help 

persuade the state legislature to provide financial support, according to 

local officials. In Cincinnati, Ohio, all participating employers committed 

tuition reimbursement dollars for workers’ course costs, including 

remedial education, and in Greensboro, North Carolina, employer 

matching funds supported a sector-specific training center. In addition, 

employers also provided in-kind support, such as equipment, use of 

facilities, and providing training during working hours. Table 3 lists the 

most frequently used resources to build and sustain initiatives.

Table 3: Most Frequently Used Resources to Build and Sustain Initiatives

Resource

Number of initiatives 

using each resource

1. Employer cash or in-kind contributions 14

2. WIA formula funds 11

3. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act) 9 

4. Other federal grants or funds 8 

5. State grants or funds 8 

6. Local funds 6 

7. WIA Governor’s set-aside 6 

8. Foundation grants 5 

9. WIRED grant 4 

Source: Workforce officials from each of the 14 initiatives.
 

Page 17 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

In all cases, the initiatives of the boards and their partners provided 

employer-responsive services to actively involve employers and keep 

them engaged in the collaborative process. Some boards and their 

partners employed staff with industry-specific knowledge to better 

understand and communicate with employers. In Madison, Wisconsin, for 

example, the board designated some one-stop staff as industry 

specialists. According to officials, these specialists better served 

employers because they understood what the available jobs entailed, 

what training was required, and what to look for on a resume for specific 

occupations when screening jobseekers. Similarly, in Chicago, to help 

meet the needs of manufacturers, staff of a sector-based center 

specialized in certain kinds of manufacturing, such as food processing, 

plastics and paper, and metal. These examples are consistent with the 

finding of a prior GAO report that one-stop staffs were better able to 

respond to labor shortages when they had a strong understanding of the 

employment and training needs in specific industries.31

In other initiatives, boards and partners gained employers’ confidence in 

the collaboration by tailoring services such as jobseeker assessment and 

screening services to address specific employers’ needs. For example, in 

Greensboro, North Carolina, the board staff provided expedited services 

for an aircraft company by designing a web-based recruitment tool and 

customized assessment process within 48 hours and quickly screening 

over 2,400 initial applicants, according to a board official. Similarly, to 

better match jobseekers with specific job openings, the sector-based 

center in Chicago worked closely with employers to review and validate 

 

31GAO-03-725. 

Partners Provided 

Employer-Responsive 

Services to Enhance 

Collaboration
 

Page 18 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

employers’ own assessment tools, or develop new ones, and administer 

them on behalf of the employers. Center staff said they could screen 50 

candidates and winnow them to the top 5, which saved employers time in 

the hiring process. One employer noted that without the center’s help, 

they would have needed at least two human resource specialists to do 

this job.

Boards and their partners also strengthened collaborative ties with 

employers by making training services more relevant and useful to them.

In some cases, employers provided direct input into training curricula. For 

example, in Wichita, employers from the aviation industry worked closely 

with education partners to develop a training curriculum that met industry 

needs and integrated new research findings on composite materials. In 

southeast Michigan, education partners adjusted the course content—

while the training was under way—in response to shifting industry needs.

Another way that some initiatives met employers’ training needs was to 

provide instruction that led to industry-recognized credentials.32

In addition, some boards engaged employers in collaborative efforts by 

ensuring that certain jobseekers had adequate basic skills to meet 

employers’ needs. In some cases, this entailed working closely with the 

For 

example, in San Bernardino, a training provider integrated an industryrecognized credential in metalworking into training to make it more 

relevant for employers. To address employers’ long-term training needs, 

some initiatives incorporated career pathways, in which training is 

sequenced and linked to additional training in a way that supports career 

advancement. In Seattle, employers reported that this approach to 

training could play an important role in reducing employer turnover costs 

associated with certain workers such as medical assistants, who formerly 

had few options for career advancement.

 

32While there is no universally accepted definition of the term “industry-recognized 

credential,” Labor defined it in recent guidance as a credential that is either (1) developed 

and offered by, or endorsed by a nationally recognized industry association or an 

organization representing a sizeable portion of the industry sector, or (2) a credential that 

is sought or accepted by companies in an industry sector for the purposes of hiring or 

recruitment. See Department of Labor, Training and Employment Guidance Letter No. 15-

10 (Washington, D.C.: 2010).
 

Page 19 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

adult education system.33

Another way that boards and their partners facilitated collaboration with 

employers was by reaching beyond WIA’s primary mission of serving the 

unemployed and including employed workers or jobseekers not receiving 

services under WIA.

In Seattle and Madison, for example, the 

boards adapted existing state approaches to help jobseekers improve 

both basic and occupational skills simultaneously, by including a basic 

skills instructor in training at least part of the time or by using curricula 

that basic skills and occupational instructors had developed together. In 

San Bernardino, where employers had been struggling to find skilled 

machinists, the training provider incorporated basic math and basic 

blueprint reading in the 630 hours of training that it provided to 

jobseekers. To address employers’ need for a long-term supply of 

workers, some boards and their partners also included youth in their 

initiatives. For example, in Gainesville, Florida, the TechQuest initiative 

enrolled WIA youth participants in 8 weeks of business-oriented learning 

to introduce them to technology-oriented businesses while improving their 

reading and writing skills.

34

 

33The Adult Education State Grant Program, authorized by the Adult Education and 

Family Literacy Act, Title II of WIA (20 U.S.C. § 9201 et seq.) and administered by the 

Department of Education, supports activities to provide instruction for individuals age 16 or 

over who lack basic skills, a high school diploma or its equivalent, or English language 

proficiency. Entities that carry out such activities, including community colleges, public 

schools, and community-based organizations, are mandatory partners in the one-stop 

system. 

Several officials described this broad approach as 

driven by the employer’s need for certain skills, irrespective of a 

jobseeker’s status under WIA. In Northern Virginia, for example, the 

partners first identified employers’ needs—in this case, a projected local 

shortage of health care workers—and then developed a broad, 

responsive strategy that incorporated WIA as a key but not the sole 

element. As a result, the partners’ efforts to increase the supply of skilled 

workers extended beyond WIA to the general population, while including 

some workers who had individual training accounts under WIA. Similarly, 

staff of the sector-based center in Chicago explained that their practice of 

screening and referring qualified jobseekers—both those who received 

services under WIA and those who did not—was responsive to 

manufacturers’ need for specific skills. In other cases, boards and their 

34As discussed previously, all initiatives leveraged resources beyond WIA formula funding, 

such as WIRED grants or employer contributions. These non-WIA funds allowed initiatives 

to serve WIA-eligible and WIA-ineligible populations together.
 

Page 20 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

partners focused largely on employers’ current workers to meet specific 

employer needs while also serving some workers receiving services 

under WIA. The manufacturing initiatives in Golden, Colorado, and

southeast Michigan, for example, focused on upgrading the skills of 

incumbent workers while at the same time retooling the skills of some 

dislocated workers.

Boards also facilitated collaboration by minimizing administrative burden 

for employers and other partners. Board staff with several initiatives said 

that complex administrative processes would have discouraged 

employers from collaborating in the initiatives. In some cases, boards and 

their partners streamlined data collection or developed shared data 

systems to enhance efficiency. For example, in Cincinnati, the partners 

developed a shared data system to more efficiently track participants, 

services received, and outcomes achieved across multiple workforce 

providers in the region. Additionally, in southeast Michigan, an industry 

official reported that the administrative burden would have been “almost 

insurmountable” for employers if they had not collaborated with the 

workforce system and received administrative support. For several 

initiatives, one-stop staff or board members said they managed 

administrative processes because the level of documentation could be 

intimidating and discourage collaboration.

Another way many initiatives minimized administrative burden was by 

designating a single point of contact or having a program manager to 

streamline communication channels, which facilitated collaboration 

among disparate partners. For example, in Golden, Colorado, a partner 

reported that having a program manager who was focused and 

responsive to employers’ concerns improved stakeholder relations and 

helped employers understand the benefits of collaboration. In other 

cases, some partners limited the frequency, length, and focus of meetings 

Minimizing Administrative 

Burden for All Partners 

Facilitated Collaboration
 

Page 21 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

to use partners’ time most effectively. For example, in Northern Virginia, 

officials said they opted for biannual meetings focused on outcomes, 

needs, and employer support to accommodate the busy schedules of 

hospital executives and college presidents.

For employers, the partnerships produced diverse results that generally 

addressed their need for critical skills in various ways. In some cases, 

employers cited an increased supply of skilled labor. In Northern Virginia, 

for example, the partners said that the initiative produced an increased 

supply of nurses and other health care workers. In other cases, employers 

said the initiatives helped reduce their recruitment and retention costs. For

example, in Rochester, Minnesota, one employer, a long-term care facility, 

reported a reduction in turnover from 60 percent to 6 percent in 1 year. In 

Cincinnati, Ohio, according to an independent study, employers who 

participated in the health care initiative realized about $4,900 in cost 

savings per worker hired. Other employers cited less quantifiable benefits. 

For example, in Gainesville, Florida, one employer said that participants in 

the entrepreneurship training initiative had acquired the specialized skills 

needed for new ventures that were otherwise difficult for them to find. In a 

few cases, employers credited the initiative with helping to increase their 

competitiveness. In the Wichita, Kansas, area and southeast Michigan, 

where employers focused on upgrading skills to keep pace with changes in 

technology, officials told us that the initiatives had helped them develop a 

talent base that could help them compete internationally.

For jobseekers and workers, the partnerships produced results that mainly 

reflected job placement and skill attainment. For example, in Wichita, of the 

1,195 workers who were trained in the use of composite materials in 

aircraft manufacturing, 1,008 had found jobs in this field. In some cases 

where incumbent workers were promoted after having received services to 

Demonstrating Results 

Helped Sustain 

Collaborations
 

Page 22 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

support their career progression, as in Seattle’s health care initiative, new 

openings were created for entry-level jobseekers. In Gainesville, Florida, 

some participants who had completed the initiative’s entrepreneurship 

training had started seven new companies. Elsewhere, such as in San 

Bernardino’s layoff aversion initiative, workers retained jobs when 426 jobs 

were saved.35

For the workforce system, the partnerships led to results such as 

increased participation by employers in the workforce system, greater 

efficiencies, and models of collaboration that could be replicated. Officials 

with several initiatives said they had generated repeat employer business 

or that the number and quality of employers’ job listings had increased, 

allowing the workforce system to better serve jobseekers. In some cases, 

officials also cited efficiency improvements. For example, in Cincinnati, an 

education partner cited cost savings achieved when two colleges shared 

a training program, splitting certain costs. Some partners also applied 

their lessons learned through the partnership to new initiatives. For 

example, the Rochester board’s pre-employment health care initiative has 

been replicated in manufacturing, while officials in Golden, Colorado, 

replicated elements of their manufacturing initiative in the energy sector.

In addition, some of those who attained new skills included 

jobseekers with barriers to employment. For example, in San Bernardino, 

officials reported that 32 percent of the trainees who had completed the 

Technical Employment Training for machinists faced barriers to 

employment, such as a disability or criminal record.

 

35These data on jobs saved reflect one of several performance measures of Commerce’s 

MEP program. Participating employers report these data to a third party for submission to 

Commerce. We did not evaluate these data for reliability or accuracy, nor did we assess 

the data collection methods that were used. Therefore we cannot verify the extent to 

which these outcomes are the result of involvement with the MEP program. 
 

Page 23 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

Although all of the boards were successful in their collaborative efforts, 

they identified some challenges they needed to overcome. For example, 

some boards cited challenges related to using WIA formula funds to 

address diverse employer needs. Staff from most, but not all, of the 

boards also said that WIA performance measures do not directly reflect 

their efforts to work with and engage employers. However, we found that 

many of the boards developed a number of their own performance 

measures to assess their services to employers.

Some boards identified challenges in using WIA funds to address 

employers’ need for workers at various skill levels. For example, staff 

from some boards said it was challenging to collaborate with employers 

using WIA formula funds because they could generally only use these 

funds to train eligible jobseekers. Furthermore, WIA prioritizes funding for 

intensive services and training for low-income individuals when funding 

for adult employment and training activities is limited.36

In at least five of the initiatives, board officials described services to 

incumbent workers as a major part of their successful collaboration with 

employers, yet some boards were challenged to piece together funds to 

do this. WIA formula funds generally cannot be used to train incumbent 

workers, with certain exceptions. For instance, employed workers who 

need training to reach self-sufficiency may be served with WIA formula 

funds. In addition, WIA Governor’s set-aside funds may be used for 

innovative programs for incumbent workers. Among the initiatives that 

served incumbent workers, the most common funding sources were 

employer contributions and state funds. In addition, states may apply to 

The director of 

one board said that pursuing comprehensive strategies for an entire 

economic sector can be challenging, because WIA funds are typically 

used for lower-skilled workers, and employers in the region wanted to 

attract a mix of lower- and higher-skilled workers. To address this 

challenge, the director noted that the board used a combination of WIA 

and other funds to address employers’ needs for a range of workers.

 

3629 U.S.C. § 2864(d)(4)(E).

Workforce Boards 

Overcame Some 

Challenges to Address 

Diverse Employer 

Needs and Developed 

Their Own Measures 

to Track Employer 

Engagement

Some Boards Were 

Challenged to Develop 

Comprehensive Strategies 

to Address Diverse 

Employer Needs with WIA 

Funds
 

Page 24 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

Labor for waivers to provide layoff aversion services to incumbent 

workers with both WIA formula and reserve rapid response funds. One 

board used WIA rapid response funds for layoff aversion services 

because the state had a waiver for this purpose.37

Because WIA formula funds for training are primarily designed to pay for 

services for individual jobseekers through individual training accounts, 

some boards found it challenging to fund other training-related activities.

Even in cases where 

boards used some WIA funds to serve incumbent workers, most boards 

had to find other funds to address this employer need.

38

For example, some board staff said they needed to use other funding to 

develop new curriculum for their initiatives. Boards can use WIA funds to 

develop curriculum as part of “customized” training for employers.

However, this type of training has some restrictions, such as requiring 

employers to pay for 50 percent of the training, which could be a deterrent 

for some employers.39 In other cases, board staff reported that they 

wanted to provide training for an entire cohort, but boards usually cannot 

use WIA funds to contract for training services.40

 

37In the San Bernardino layoff aversion initiative, services were provided under a waiver 

that allowed the board to use rapid response funds for this purpose.

38WIA requires training to be provided through individual training accounts with limited 

exceptions, such as when the services include on-the-job training provided by an 

employer or when the local board determines there is an insufficient number of training 

providers in the area. See 29 U.S.C. 2964(d)(4)(G)(ii).

39Labor has issued a waiver of this requirement for certain states, so that smaller 

employers may contribute less than 50 percent.

4029 U.S.C. § 2864(d)(4)(G). However, the Recovery Act allowed local workforce boards 

to contract directly with institutions of higher education or other eligible training providers, 

if the local board determined that it would facilitate the training of multiple individuals and 

the contract did not limit customer choice. Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115, 173. The 

Appropriations Acts for fiscal years 2010 and 2011 also included this authority.

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-117, 123 Stat. 3034, 3226 and 

Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations, 2011, 125 Stat. 38, 102-

103.
 

Page 25 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

Staff from a majority, but not all, of the boards said that WIA performance 

measures do not directly reflect their efforts to work with and engage 

employers. The current WIA performance measures primarily focus on 

local-level outcomes for jobseekers, except for a required measure of 

employer satisfaction which may be measured by a survey of a sample of 

employers for this purpose.41 While this survey provides a high-level 

indicator of employer satisfaction with WIA-funded programs, the 

statewide sample that is reported to Labor does not provide information 

on each local area’s performance.42

However, WIA does not preclude local efforts to develop measures of 

employer engagement, and we found that many of the boards track a 

variety of their own employer measures. In Chicago, staff track measures 

such as the number of new employers served every year and the hiring 

rate among jobseekers that they had referred to employers. In two 

initiatives where the boards collaborated with Commerce’s MEP program, 

the boards collected data on measures such as increased employer sales 

and employers’ satisfaction with initiative services. Furthermore, one 

board’s executive director expressed appreciation for the flexibility to adopt 

measures of employer engagement that best align with local needs. Other 

examples of the types of measures boards reported that they used to 

gauge employer engagement or satisfaction include

Thus, board staff explained, the sole 

employer measure does little to acknowledge or reward local boards that 

successfully engage employers. For example, one board’s staff said that 

although they prioritize working with employers, they do not get credit for 

this under WIA. On the other hand, the executive director of one board 

noted that their successful efforts to engage employers were reflected in 

improved outcomes for jobseekers.

• interview-to-hire ratio from initiative jobseeker referrals,

• retention rate of initiative-referred hires,

• number of businesses returning for services,

• number of new business contacts,

 

4129 U.S.C. § 2871(b)(2)(B).

42GAO-04-657. 

WIA Performance 

Measures Focus Primarily 

on Outcomes for 

Jobseekers, but Local 

Boards Developed Their 

Own Measures of 

Employer Engagement
 

Page 26 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

• employers’ willingness to invest time or funding in initiatives,

• employer satisfaction with initiative, and

• increased or retained employer sales.

These examples are consistent with prior GAO work. In a 2004 report, we 

found that about 70 percent of local areas nationwide reported that they 

required one-stop centers to track some type of employer measure, such 

as the number of employers that use one-stop services, how many hire 

one-stop customers, and the type of services that employers use.43

To help boards form partnerships with employers, colleges, and other 

partners, Labor has conducted webinars and shared information on the 

uses of and opportunities for funding such collaborations. One webinar 

explained how to work with Commerce’s MEP program to obtain 

manufacturing expertise on behalf of local employers. Other webinars 

hosted by Labor have suggested how boards can use various 

discretionary grants, such as WIRED grants, to help support their 

collaborative initiatives. In addition, Labor has featured the innovative 

work of several local boards in forming partnerships, such as the 

approach to career pathways used by the board in Madison, Wisconsin. 

To help boards optimize their use of WIA funds without overstepping 

program rules, Labor has issued guidance on such topics as 

entrepreneurship training, working with economic development entities, 

and training incumbent workers.44

Labor has also engaged in collaborative efforts with other federal 

agencies that could help support local collaboration. For example, Labor 

is working with the Department of Education and other federal agencies 

to identify existing industry-recognized credentials and relevant research 

 

43GAO, Workforce Investment Act: States and Local Areas Have Developed Strategies to 

Assess Performance, but Labor Could Do More to Help, GAO-04-657 (Washington, D.C.: 

June 1, 2004). 

44See Department of Labor, Training and Employment Guidance Letter No. 12-10

(Washington, D.C.: 2010); Department of Labor, Training and Employment Guidance 

Letter No. 13-07 (Washington, D.C.: 2007); and Department of Labor, Training and 

Employment Guidance Letter No. 30-09 (Washington, D.C.: 2010).

Labor Has Taken 

Steps to Support 

Local Collaborative 

Efforts and Address 

Some Challenges but 

Has Not Made 

Information on 

Leveraging Resources 

Readily Available
 

Page 27 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

projects,45 and has issued guidance to help boards increase credential 

attainment among workforce program participants.46

As discussed previously, board staff stressed the importance of 

leveraging resources to facilitate collaboration, but Labor has not made 

information it has collected on effective practices for doing so easily 

accessible. For example, Labor maintains a website for sharing 

innovative state and local workforce practices called Workforce3One, 

which has some examples of leveraging funding at the local level.

In addition, Labor 

has recently worked with Commerce and the Small Business 

Administration to fund a new discretionary $37 million grant program 

called the Jobs and Innovation Accelerator Challenge to encourage 

collaboration and leveraging funds. This program encourages the 

development of industry clusters, which are networks of interconnected 

firms and supporting institutions that can help a region create jobs. These 

grants are also intended to help local boards and others leverage existing 

federal resources by, for example, encouraging boards to develop 

collaborative relationships with career and technical education providers 

that receive federal funds. A total of 16 federal agencies will provide 

technical resources to help leverage existing agency funding, including 

the 3 funding agencies listed above. In September 2011, Labor 

announced the 20 regions that will receive grant funds. Labor estimates 

the grants will result in the creation of 4,800 jobs.

47

However, the website does not group these examples together in an easy 

to find location, as it does for other categories such as examples of 

innovative employer services or sector-based strategies.48

 

45According to the Department of Education, The National Center for Education Statistics 

has convened a federal interagency working group to develop better survey measures of 

the prevalence of industry-recognized certifications and licenses and educational 

certificates in the United States adult population. The group includes staff from Education, 

Labor, the Census Bureau, the Council of Economic Advisors, and the Office of 

Management and Budget. To date, according to Education, the group has completed a 

pilot study to evaluate the validity of proposed survey items and is preparing a technical 

report on the study for release in early 2012. 

In addition, 

Labor funded evaluations of two of its grant programs and identified how 

46See Department of Labor, Training and Employment Guidance Letter No 15-10

(Washington, D.C.: 2010).

47See www.workforce3one.org. 

48There are 14 “super categories,” on the site, such as apprenticeship, clusters, 

community colleges, entrepreneurship, disability, nonprofit, and youth services. 
 

Page 28 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

local grantees leveraged funding from educational institutions, businesses 

and employers, and industry associations, among other sources, as well 

as the levels of funding that grantees leveraged and planned to 

leverage.49 Other research, such as reviews of boards’ coordination with 

faith-based community organizations, has also addressed how local 

workforce initiatives can leverage resources through outside 

organizations to help jobseekers obtain and retain employment.50

Regarding local measures of employer engagement, Labor 

acknowledged the value of such a measure in 2006 and later developed a 

method for local boards to track and report on employers that use the 

one-stop system, but has postponed its implementation indefinitely. Labor 

officials said they plan to defer changes to their performance reporting 

system until WIA is reauthorized to avoid spending time and money on a 

system that may not meet new requirements.

However, this information on leveraging resources has not been compiled 

and disseminated in one location such as on the Workforce3One website, 

so interested parties must search for and read through separate reports.

At a time when the nation continues to face high unemployment in the 

wake of the recent recession, it is particularly important to consider ways 

to better connect the workforce investment system with employers to 

meet local labor market needs. Indeed, that connection is fundamental to 

the vision of WIA, which created the one-stop system, in part, to help 

meet employers’ needs and ensure that one-stop training and services 

are aligned with those needs. The 14 local initiatives profiled in this report 

illustrate how workforce boards collaborated with partners to develop 

innovative and employer-driven services that helped address urgent local 

workforce needs. The variety of ways in which they helped employers 

meet their needs and yielded results may be testimony to the viability and 

 

49For example, see The Urban Institute, Characteristics of the Community-Based Job 

Training Grant Program, prepared for the Department of Labor (Washington, D.C.: 2009).

Also see Public Policy Associates Incorporated, Nurturing America’s Growth in the Global 

Marketplace through Talent Development: An Interim Report on the Evaluation of 

Generations II and III of WIRED, prepared for the Department of Labor (Lansing, Mich.: 

2009).

50Social Policy Research Associates, Literature Review: Business/Faith-Based and 

Community Organization Partnerships, prepared for the Department of Labor 

(Washington, D.C.: 2006).

Conclusion
 

Page 29 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

potential of WIA’s vision for local partnership: critical skill needs were met, 

individuals obtained or upgraded their skills, and the local system of 

workforce programs was reinvigorated by increased employer 

participation. Furthermore, the common factors that facilitated these 

collaborations, as well as the key challenges they encountered, can be 

instructive for future collaborations and efforts to enhance the workforce 

investment system.

Labor has taken several important steps that support local initiatives like 

these through guidance and technical assistance, and its collaborative 

efforts with other federal agencies such as the new grant program with 

Commerce and the Small Business Administration. However, while Labor 

has also collected relevant information on effective strategies that local

boards and partners have used to leverage resources, it has not compiled 

this information or made it readily accessible. All the boards we profiled 

emphasized the importance of leveraging resources to build innovative 

new partnerships. Moreover, as the workforce system and its partners 

face increasingly constrained resources, it will be important for local 

boards to have at their disposal information on how boards have 

effectively leveraged funding sources. Without such information, boards 

seeking to emulate such strategies may lack the information they need to 

benefit from lessons learned, augment their resources, and explore 

innovative new ways to collaborate with partners.

To better support the capacity of the local workforce investment system to 

collaborate with employers and other partners, the Secretary of Labor 

should compile information on workforce boards that effectively leverage 

WIA funds with other funding sources and disseminate this information in 

a readily accessible manner. This might involve compiling lessons 

learned from prior research or evaluations of grant programs and new 

grant initiatives such as the one with Commerce and the Small Business 

Administration, and disseminating this information by creating a super 

category for this topic on the Workforce3One website to group examples 

in one place.

We provided a draft of the report to the Departments of Labor, Education, 

and Commerce for review and comment. Labor provided a written 

response (see app. III). Labor and Education also provided technical 

comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. Commerce did not 

provide comments. In addition, we provided workforce board officials 

Recommendation for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
 

Page 30 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

from each of the 14 initiatives with a draft of pertinent sections and 

incorporated their technical comments as appropriate.

Labor agreed with our findings and recommendation. Specifically, Labor’s 

response noted that our findings validate the department’s position that 

stronger partnerships between employers and the workforce system lead 

to improved employment and retention outcomes for workers. Labor also 

noted efforts to serve both employers and workers more effectively, and 

cited recent technical assistance it has provided to help the workforce 

system engage employers. In addition, Labor cited efforts to work across 

federal agencies to help align resources and programs to ensure effective 

service delivery. Labor also noted states’ critical role in engaging 

employers. Labor concurred with GAO’s recommendation, and added that 

it is examining ways to improve the identification and dissemination of 

promising practices.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the 

Secretary of Labor, as well as the Secretaries of Education, Health and 

Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, and Commerce, 

appropriate congressional committees, and other interested parties. In 

addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO’s website at 

http://www.gao.gov. A list of related GAO products is included at the end 

of this report.

If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-7215 or at sherrilla@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this 

report are listed in appendix IV.

Andrew Sherrill, Director

Education, Workforce, and

 Income Security Issues
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 31 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

Our review focused on (1) the factors that facilitated innovative 

collaborations among workforce boards, employers, and others; (2) the 

major challenges to collaboration; and (3) the actions Labor has taken to 

support local workforce boards in their collaborative efforts.

To obtain background information, we interviewed experts on the 

Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA), workforce development and 

economic development; reviewed numerous studies, reports, and other 

literature; and reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, guidance, and 

other documentation. We interviewed officials from five key federal 

agencies: the Departments of Labor, Education, Health and Human 

Services, and Housing and Urban Development, which administer the 

programs required by WIA to participate in the one-stop system, as well 

as officials from the Department of Commerce (Commerce), which 

administers relevant economic development programs. We interviewed 

officials from the National Governor’s Association, the National 

Association of Workforce Boards, and the National Association of State 

Workforce Agencies. To identify relevant studies, we searched for 

literature in various bibliographic databases, including ProQuest, Social 

SciSearch, Social Sciences Abstracts, NTIS, PAIS and EconLit. We also 

asked the experts we interviewed to recommend additional studies.

To learn about what factors facilitated innovative collaborations among 

workforce boards, employers, and other partners, as well as the 

challenges, we interviewed officials from 14 local initiatives in which local 

workforce boards achieved positive results by collaborating with 

employers, educational partners, and others. To identify these selected 

sites, we asked officials from the five key federal agencies and national 

experts representing 20 organizations to identify what they viewed as the 

most promising and innovative local initiatives in which local workforce 

boards collaborated effectively with employers and other partners to 

achieve positive results. We received nominations from the Departments 

of Labor, Commerce, and Health and Human Services. Officials from the 

Department of Housing and Urban Development told us that the agency 

currently has no programs that it considers mandatory one-stop partners 

and was not able to provide any nominations. Officials from the 

Department of Education provided state-level information, but told us that 

they were not able to provide local nominations. The nonfederal experts 

we contacted consisted of representatives from the following 

organizations, the majority of whom provided nominations:

• American Association of Community Colleges

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 32 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

• Aspen Institute: Workforce Strategies Initiative

• Center for Law and Social Policy, Inc.

• Corporation for a Skilled Workforce

• Council for Community and Economic Research

• Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation

• Council on Foundations

• Insight Center for Community Economic Development: National 

Network of Sector Partners

• Jobs for the Future

• John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development

• National Association of Development Organizations

• National Association of State Directors of Career Technical Education 

Consortium

• National Association of State Workforce Agencies

• National Association of Workforce Boards

• National Coalition for Literacy

• National Governor’s Association

• National Skills Coalition

• Social Policy Research Associates

• U.S. Chamber of Commerce: Institute for a Competitive Workforce

• Workforce Strategy Center

Experts were selected based on their knowledge of workforce 

development or economic development activities at the local level.

Specifically, we identified them through a review of relevant studies, their 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 33 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

participation in conferences focused on workforce or economic 

development issues at the local level, previous assistance to GAO on 

other reports, and the recommendation of other experts. We asked the 

experts and federal agency officials to identify promising local initiatives 

that engaged the workforce board as a strategic partner and involved at 

least one economic development partner, education partner, and major 

Department of Labor (Labor) program required by WIA to provide 

services through the one-stop system. We also specified that the 

nominated initiatives be data-driven, involve collaborative strategic 

planning, and demonstrate positive results. In order to ensure that our 

nomination criteria were clear and appropriate for our objectives, we 

solicited input from the Departments of Labor and Education, as well as 

from associations with expert knowledge of workforce issues, specifically, 

the National Governor’s Association and the Council for Community and 

Economic Research.

More than 89 initiatives or sponsoring organizations from 28 states were 

nominated and we selected 14 initiatives, corresponding to 13 boards, for 

in-depth review. Two of the 14 initiatives were led by the same workforce 

board. To assist our selection, we first used a data collection instrument 

to gather additional information on 29 of the nominated initiatives, which 

were chosen based on factors such as the number of nominations they 

received, results reported by the nominators, and their geographic 

diversity. From these, we then selected 14 initiatives for our review.

These 14 initiatives should be viewed as our selection of diverse, 

promising efforts rather than a comprehensive list of initiatives that were 

more innovative than the initiatives not selected. Our selections were 

intended to represent initiatives that targeted different industries; 

demonstrated evidence of replicability; and served a variety of WIA 

populations. We also considered the characteristics of the workforce 

areas, such as unemployment rates and geographic locations. In some 

cases where workforce boards engaged with employers in more than one 

sector, we asked board officials to identify the initiative that demonstrated 

the most positive results. In one case, we selected the sector to achieve a 

range of targeted industries.

At our selected sites, we conducted semi-structured interviews with local 

and state workforce officials, representatives of educational institutions, 

training providers, economic development officials and employers. We 

conducted in-person interviews during seven site visits to Chicago, 

Illinois; Golden, Colorado; Lancaster, Pennsylvania; Madison, Wisconsin; 

San Bernardino, California; Seattle, Washington; and Vienna, Virginia. In 

some cases, we also toured training facilities and workplaces. We 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 34 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

conducted interviews for the remaining sites via videoconference and by 

telephone. We asked interviewees to tell us how the initiative started, 

what funding sources were used to start and sustain it, and what it had 

accomplished. To supplement the testimonial evidence employers and 

officials provided regarding the results of these initiatives, we requested 

and analyzed written documents such as performance reports, return on 

investment analyses, external evaluations, and other information to 

examine the results of the initiatives. However, we did not assess the 

reliability of their data. We are using their reported results for illustrative 

purposes only. We also asked them for their views on what had facilitated 

collaboration, the challenges involved, and the implications for WIA 

reauthorization. The information we obtained about the selected initiatives 

is not generalizable to other local workforce boards.

To determine the actions Labor has taken to support local workforce 

boards in these types of collaborative efforts, we interviewed Labor, 

Education, and Commerce officials. We conducted our work between 

November 2010 and January 2012 in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan 

and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide 

a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 

objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable 

basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: Profiles of Selected Local 

Workforce Boards’ Initiatives 

Page 35 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

The following profiles provide snapshots of the 14 initiatives we reviewed.

We gathered data from a variety of sources, including initiative staff, 

board members, education and training providers, employers, state 

officials, relevant reports, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics.1 In each 

profile, we provide an overview of the initiative and describe some of the 

factors that facilitated collaboration. We also provide some background 

information, including the key partners, the workforce challenge, and the 

role of the board. While the profiles identify some common themes among 

the initiatives, they are not comprehensive descriptions of each initiative.

We also provide information on the funding sources used for each 

initiative and highlights of the results that partners reported. The reported 

results generally reflected the diverse goals of these initiatives, which 

often included the goals of WIA programs as well as other federal grants 

or programs. Officials from each initiative were given the opportunity to 

review the information for accuracy.

 

1

Labor force and unemployment rate information for each of the workforce investment 

areas was calculated using county-and-equivalent-level data from the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics as of March 2011, when the initiatives were selected for review. In the case of 

Chicago, the workforce investment area covers only the City of Chicago, but we were only 

able to provide county-level labor market information. In the case of Taylor, Michigan, the 

county-level data include Detroit, but the selected board does not serve that city. For the 

workforce area of Greensboro/High Point/Guilford County in North Carolina, we used only 

data from Guilford County, even though the city of High Point includes small portions of 

three other counties.

Appendix II: Profiles of Selected Local 

Workforce Boards’ Initiatives 
Page 36 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

Appendix II

Overview

In about 2000, the Workforce Boards of Metropolitan Chicago began to form 

strategic alliances with manufacturers and other partners to try to increase 

the supply of highly skilled workers needed in local manufacturing.

Stakeholders said the efforts culminated in the City of Chicago issuing a 

request for proposal for a manufacturing sector center. A community-based

organization, the Instituto del Progreso Latino, responded to the request for 

proposal and now runs ManufacturingWorks. The center provides a range of 

services to employers, including customized training development, 

jobseeker recruitment projects, comprehensive assessments of 

manufacturers’ needs, links with training providers to help employers find 

qualified candidates, and post-placement services to help employers retain 

newly placed workers, staff said. The center principally works with 

employers who meet certain standards for pay and working conditions. The 

center’s staff identified the following as key to its effectiveness:

• Industry-knowledgeable staff: Center staff specializes in subsectors, such as metal, plastic and paper, and food processing, 

which helps build credibility with manufacturers, staff said.

• Screening of potential candidates: Screening helps ensure 

that employers get job candidates with the right skills, and that 

they therefore succeed in their new positions, stakeholders said.

The workforce investment board’s role

The Chicago Workforce Investment Board began promoting the idea of a 

manufacturing sector initiative in the late 1990s, a stakeholder said. At 

the same time, the stakeholder explained, the board also began to 

organize much of its other activity around specific sectors. The board 

held workforce summits with representatives from employers, labor, 

nonprofits, and educational partners to identify reasons for the shortage 

of trained, skilled workers in manufacturing and other sectors.

Workforce investment area 

Total labor force: 2,572,926

Unemployment rate: 8.9% 

Source: GAO analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics Data from 

March 2011. 

Initiative characteristics

Key sector: Manufacturing

Additional partners:

• City Colleges of Chicago 

• Chicago Manufacturing 

Renaissance Council

• City of Chicago

• Illinois Manufacturing Extension 

Center

• Multiple nonprofit agencies

• Workforce Boards of 

Metropolitan Chicago 

Workforce challenge

Manufacturing is an important 

sector for the Chicago region; 

however, employers reported that 

they could not find enough skilled 

workers, according to initiative 

staff. Additionally, jobs in 

manufacturing require a higher skill 

level than they did previously 

according to local stakeholders. 

Stakeholders in Chicago identified 

a need for 10,000 new and 

replacement manufacturing

workers in the Chicago area each 

year.

Source: Analysis of GAO interviews. 

ManufacturingWorks: Chicago’s Manufacturing 

Sectoral Center for Business

Chicago Workforce Investment Board
Page 37 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

Appendix II 

Reported results

ManufacturingWorks staff reported the following results:

• Benefits for jobseekers or workers: In 2010, 

ManufacturingWorks reported placing 393 jobseekers in jobs with 

employers. Part of ManufacturingWorks’ strategy is to raise 

average wages for jobseekers. The average wage for placements 

for program year 2010 was over $13 per hour, up from less than 

$10 an hour in program year 2005, according to documents 

provided by staff. 

• Benefits for employers: ManufacturingWorks staff reported that 

they have served hundreds of different employers since 2005, 

including more than 100 different employers in 2006, 2007, 2008,

and 2009. On average, manufacturers hired 1 out of every 1.6 

jobseekers referred to them by ManufacturingWorks in program 

year 2010, a key indicator of success, according to initiative 

partners. 

• Benefits for workforce system and other partners:

ManufacturingWorks staff reported that the center tracks a 

number of “system relationship measures,” including the number 

of job requests they share with the entire Chicago workforce 

system and the jobseeker referrals ManufacturingWorks gets from 

the rest of the system.

Key federal and state 

support

Federal WIA formula funds and 

another federal grant funded some 

of the program’s operations. 

However, the business services 

were funded with other, outside 

funds, according to city staff.

Funding sources 

WIA formula funds

Recovery Act

Other federal grants or funds 

Employer cash or in-kind 

contributions

Local funds or grants

Source: Chicago Workforce Investment Board. 

ManufacturingWorks: Chicago’s Manufacturing 

Sectoral Center for Business

Chicago Workforce Investment Board
Page 38 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

Appendix II

Overview

In 2004, a partnership that included a hospital, the workforce board, a 

local community college, and an adult education provider focused on 

health care employers’ recruitment and turnover issues and ways to 

develop and expand the pool of trained workers in the area. The initiative 

focused on under-employed incumbent workers and low-skilled, entrylevel jobseekers, partners said. As part of the initiative, the partners have 

also developed training for high-school seniors to become nurse 

assistants. The initiative focuses on a career pathways approach, in 

which training is sequenced and linked to additional training in a way that 

supports career progression (see photo). In addition, the initiative uses 

standardized assessments and certifications to ensure that participants 

have the skills and abilities needed to succeed, including soft skills, such 

as decision-making skills. Participating employer partners pay for course 

costs, including remedial education, using tuition reimbursement plans. 

The collaborative grew to include other partners, including other 

employers, workforce boards in Ohio, Indiana, and Kentucky, as well as 

local nonprofits and a foundation. Some key characteristics of the 

initiative included:

• Screening of candidates: The partners said that one-stops’ 

screening of participants helped employers to retain entry-level 

workers. In addition, job coaches worked closely with employers 

and retention specialists helped workers after job placement.

• Streamlined data collection: The partners have developed a 

shared data system to track participants, services received, and 

outcomes achieved across multiple workforce providers.

• Program manager: The program manager administered the 

grants and helped communication among partners. 

The workforce investment boards’ role

The four participating boards assessed jobseekers’ skills and used 

individual training accounts to pay for training in some cases.

Workforce investment area 

Total labor force: 427,603

Unemployment rate: 8.3%

Source: GAO analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data from 

March 2011.

Initiative characteristics

Key sector: Health care

Other workforce boards involved: 

• Indiana Region 9 Workforce 

Investment Board

• Northern Kentucky Workforce 

Investment Board

• Workforce One of Southwest 

Ohio

Additional partners: 

• Adult education provider

• Cincinnati State Technical and 

Community College 

• Community-based organizations

• Local foundation

• Local universities

• Multiple health care employers

• United Way of Greater 

Cincinnati

Workforce challenge

Local hospitals in Cincinnati were 

competing against each other for 

workers and experiencing high 

turnover. According to a local 

official, they realized that was 

raising the cost of doing business 

overall. 

Source: Analysis of GAO interviews.

Health Careers Collaborative of Greater 

Cincinnati 

Southwest Ohio Region Workforce Investment Board
Page 39 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

Appendix II 

Reported results

Board staff and other partners identified a range of results for jobseekers 

and workers, employers, and for the workforce system overall:

• Benefits for jobseekers or workers: Since 2004, more than 

3,000 individuals have earned a credential through the initiative; of 

these, 23 have earned an associate’s degree. According to a 

recent report, incumbent workers who participated in the initiative 

had an 85 percent job retention rate, compared to 35 percent for 

non-participants. Of the entry-level workers who participated and 

earned certificates through the initiative, 82 percent were placed 

in jobs. 

• Benefits for employers: According to an independent study that 

compared costs and benefits of participating in this initiative, 

estimated benefits for one participating employer exceeded costs 

by over $200,000 for an 8-year period. Additionally, that study 

found that participating employers realized an estimated net 

benefit of about $4,900 for every worker hired through the 

initiative, with about half of these savings attributable to lower 

turnover and recruitment costs. Additionally, collaboration among 

the education partners ensured a consistent approach to training.

• Benefits for workforce system and other partners: Education 

partners said that graduation rates that generally exceeded 80 

percent helped them achieve cost savings, because more 

individuals continued to advanced courses, which have fixed 

costs. In addition, they said they were able to reduce duplication 

among their educational programs and streamline clinical 

programs, thereby achieving additional cost savings and reducing 

the time needed for credential completion by 1 year for certain 

participants. The partners said they are considering expanding the 

initiative to include employers in long-term care, and the board 

said it has replicated elements of this initiative in other sectors, 

such as manufacturing and construction.

Key federal and state 

support

Labor provided funding for the 

initiative through Recovery Act

funds for high-growth and 

emerging industries and through a 

discretionary grant for community 

college-based job training.

Funding sources 

WIA formula funds 

Recovery Act

Community-Based Job Training 

grant

Employer cash or in-kind 

contributions

Foundation grants 

Local funds 

Source: Southwest Ohio Region Workforce Investment Board. 

Health Careers Collaborative 

Southwest Ohio Region Workforce Investment Board
Page 40 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

Appendix II

Overview

In 2009, a community partnership led by the Gainesville Area Chamber 

of Commerce convened local leaders to discuss the area’s economic 

growth strategy and agreed to make job creation a priority. To this end, 

the local workforce board and other partners developed several 

projects—called “quests”—to help impart entrepreneurial skills to three 

populations: (1) unemployed, highly skilled jobseekers; (2) Temporary 

Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) cash recipients and (3) WIA 

Youth. All three projects were first piloted in 2011. 

Startup Quest: The board partnered with the University of Florida’s 

Office of Technology Licensing to provide entrepreneurship training to 83 

unemployed or dislocated high-skilled professionals. These individuals 

worked in 13 hand-selected teams, each with finance, marketing, 

operations, and other management skills, under the direction of a 

successful entrepreneur/mentor/chief executive officer for a total of 10 

weeks. The Office of Technology Licensing made available new 

technologies to take to market. Working with this office, each mentor 

selected a technology, such as a sinkhole sensor and an inner ear 

implant, and the teams then developed market analyses. At the end of

the project, participants pitched their analyses to venture capitalists.

Opportunity Quest: The board provided 65 TANF cash recipients with 

training to help them discern their talents, learn marketing techniques 

and develop business concepts. Topics included networking, marketing, 

customer service, and finance. 

TechQuest: In partnership with the local school board, staff selected 47

at-risk high school students and enrolled them in WIA Youth for 8 weeks 

of business-oriented learning. The project’s goal was twofold: to 

introduce students to technology-oriented businesses, and to improve 

their reading and writing skills. A local entrepreneur taught the classes, 

and students earned iPads for completing the training. Students also 

received support from a local community college, the Chamber of 

Commerce, and multiple local business owners.

Some key factors of the projects were:

• Program manager/single point of contact: A program manager 

and a single point of contact for employers helped ensure 

partners quickly adjusted to changing plans.

• Screening of candidates: Startup Quest participants were 

screened at multiple points to ensure that they could commit to 

the training and had an appropriate educational background.

The workforce investment board’s role

The board applied for grants that funded training, and planned and 

developed the quests. Also, officials said that the board's ongoing 

contract for business services with the Chambers of Commerce made 

the quests possible.

Workforce investment area 

Total labor force: 143,635

Unemployment rate: 7.5%

Source: GAO analysis Bureau of Labor Statistics data from 

March 2011. 

Initiative characteristics

Key sector: No single sector 

(entrepreneurship)

Additional partners:

• Gainesville Area Chamber of 

Commerce 

• Local school districts

• Multiple entrepreneurs and 

local business owners

• North Florida Regional Chamber 

of Commerce

• Santa Fe Community College

• University of Florida’s Office of 

Technology Licensing

Workforce challenge

A board official said that the 

community had substantially more 

unemployed individuals than 

available jobs. The lack of 

employment opportunities 

impacted jobseekers across the 

skill spectrum. Officials also 

reported that the area’s economic 

development was negatively 

affected by the high-school dropout 

rate and the difficulty local 

entrepreneurs faced in finding 

workers able to succeed in a 

startup environment. 

Source: Analysis of GAO interviews.

Entrepreneurship Quests

FloridaWorks (Workforce Investment Board)
Page 41 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

Appendix II 

Reported results

Local workforce officials noted that because all three projects are 

recently implemented pilots, they are still collecting data on participant 

outcomes. The results reported below are current as of October 2011. 

• Benefits for jobseekers or workers: As of October 2011, of the 

58 WIA-eligible Startup Quest participants, 35 had found 

employment. Twelve other Startup Quest participants have 

started seven new companies. The majority of Opportunity

Quest’s participants did not complete the training; however, more 

than 25 percent of the attrition was due to participants finding 

employment. Of the 47 TechQuest participants, 42 completed the 

program and 40 entered paid summer internships with local 

businesses and startups. Of the students who completed 

TechQuest, 90 percent have been retested in math and reading, 

and 74 percent improved their scores. Of the15 seniors in 

TechQuest, all graduated high school, and 13 will be attending 

postsecondary school. 

• Benefits for employers: Local entrepreneurs who served as 

mentors for the Startup Quest project reported that a majority of 

participants are now skilled in startup management. One 

entrepreneur explained that working in a startup is much different 

from working with an established employer, and that Startup 

Quest participants understand the urgency and needs of such 

businesses, a rare and valued skill set. Officials also reported that 

the TechQuest project helped introduce employers to the 

potential talent of WIA Youth, as evidenced by the fact that 

several employers offered internships to students.

• Benefits for workforce system and other partners: Startup 

Quest provided market analyses for the technologies to the 

University of Florida’s Office of Technology Licensing, which an 

official said could be useful for future activities. As a result of the 

Opportunity Quest project, a new business incubator service is 

being established at the one-stop in a rural area. An official also 

said that Opportunity Quest changed the one-stop’s management 

processes: now entrepreneurship is considered another option for 

jobseekers, particularly those with more independent 

personalities. 

Key federal and state 

support

Each of the entrepreneurship 

projects was funded through 

separate grants, including 

$175,500 for Startup Quest from a 

Recovery Act state-level grant; 

$101,000 for TechQuest from WIA 

Governor’s set-aside; and 

$300,000 from Recovery Act statelevel funds for Opportunity Quest. 

Officials told us that they could not 

have established and implemented 

the projects without this funding. In 

addition, the University of Florida’s 

Office of Technology Licensing is 

part of a Department of Commerce 

program.

Funding sources 

WIA Governor’s set-aside

Recovery Act

Employer cash or in-kind 

contributions

Source: FloridaWorks. 

Entrepreneurship Quests

FloridaWorks (Workforce Investment Board)
Page 42 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

Appendix II

Overview

Manufacturing is a key industry in Colorado, ranging from food 

processing to chemicals to fabricated metals, according to local officials. 

In 2007, the Jefferson County Workforce Center commissioned a focus 

group study of local manufacturing employers to learn more about the 

staffing and human resource needs of the manufacturing industry and 

how the workforce system could better serve them. As a result of the

focus group and other communication with industry partners, the local 

workforce system decided to provide training in “lean” (i.e., more 

efficient) manufacturing to dislocated and incumbent workers of small to 

mid-size manufacturing companies. They selected the Colorado 

Association for Manufacturing and Technology, an affiliate of 

Commerce’s Manufacturing Extension Partnership, as the training 

provider. 

The initiative’s goals were to (1) help businesses become more 

profitable; (2) provide individuals with training certifications that help them 

upgrade their employment positions or salary ranges, and (3) provide 

employer-defined critical foundational skills. The training emphasized 

“lean” manufacturing, in which workers received training in more efficient 

techniques and problem solving. An official explained that the principles 

guiding such training are not new concepts, but they can be new to 

individual manufacturers. 

Some key factors of the initiative included:

• Program manager: Partners reported that having a program 

manager improved stakeholder relations. The program manager 

helped employers understand the benefits of the initiative and 

through various forms of outreach—including overview sessions 

and e-mails—solidified the business community’s commitment to 

the initiative.

• Limited or action-oriented meetings: Holding a limited number 

of meetings with employers was useful, according to partners.

• Industry-recognized credentials: Credentials provided 

independent verification of jobseekers’ abilities to employers.

The workforce investment board’s role

One-stops overseen by the board—Jefferson County Workforce Center 

and Workforce Boulder County—focused on identifying funding sources 

and clarifying the requirements related to federal funding.

Workforce investment area 

Total labor force: 307,796

Unemployment rate: 8.7%

Source: GAO analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data from 

March 2011. 

Initiative characteristics

Key sector: Manufacturing

Additional partners:

• Colorado Association for 

Manufacturing and Technology 

• Multiple manufacturing 

employers

• Two local economic 

development agencies 

Workforce challenge

An official said that the economic 

downturn greatly increased the 

number of local dislocated workers. 

In addition, employers reported that 

they needed to cut costs and 

increase their workforce’s soft 

skills, including the ability to take 

initiative, work in teams, and 

communicate effectively. 

Source: Analysis of GAO interview.

Advanced Manufacturing Training Initiative

Tri-County Workforce Investment Board
Page 43 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

Appendix II 

Reported results

The initiative tracked results related to both WIRED grant goals, such as 

the number of people trained, and Manufacturing Extension Partnership 

measures, such as the number of jobs created or saved. Officials 

reported that over a 14-month period, 25 employers participated in the 

initiative and 301 workers received training, including 63 dislocated 

workers. Some of the trainees received multiple certifications. The 

partners informed participating employers at the outset that performance 

data would be required from them, and results were collected through 

surveys administered by a third party. 

• Benefits for jobseekers or workers: Employers reported that 

the initiative saved or created 81 jobs, though one employer 

cautioned that the data on jobs created could be difficult to 

attribute to the initiative, especially in large companies. As of 

August 2011, at least 20 of the 63 dislocated workers were 

reported to be employed (not all responded to a survey to 

determine their employment status). Participants attributed a 

variety of additional results to the training they received, including 

receiving more interviews and obtaining a higher starting salary.

• Benefits for employers: The employers served by this initiative 

reported that the training resulted in approximately $2.7 million in 

decreased costs and other savings, and slightly more than $9 

million in increased sales. One employer reported that the 

initiative helped workers become problem solvers, and that it 

helped change the culture of his company. He said that formerly, 

the company culture was one in which employees were given 

direction. The training focused on developing a leaner culture in 

which employees were encouraged to be proactive, and as a 

result they developed a new product.

• Benefits for workforce system and other partners: As part of 

the initiative, the workforce centers developed what they termed a 

“speed-dating” service, during which a variety of employers 

conducted interviews with dislocated workers. According to an 

official, this approach has been adapted for the workforce 

system’s youth services, and for a state program. The partners 

also formed a resource group for manufacturers, which included 

representatives of the community colleges, the Colorado 

Association for Manufacturing and Technology, the workforce 

system, and other partners. The group meets once a month to 

review companies with challenges and identify opportunities for 

growth. In addition, workforce system officials reported that they 

are replicating elements of the initiative in a new energy-sector 

initiative. 

Key federal and state 

support

Of the approximately $725,000 

project budget, slightly more than 

$284,000 was provided through a 

WIRED grant from the Department 

of Labor. The balance was 

achieved through leveraging the 

WIRED grant to obtain other funds.

Funding sources 

WIRED

Other federal grants or funds

Employer cash or in-kind 

contributions

Source: Jefferson County Workforce Development, Business 

Services staff.

Advanced Manufacturing Training Initiative

Tri-County Workforce Investment Board
Page 44 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

Appendix II

Overview

In response to mounting job losses in the area, the board identified 

transportation, distribution, and logistics as a target sector for a WIRED 

grant in 2006. The board chose this sector for its job creation potential, 

according to a local official, and also took into account the region’s 

existing assets, such as the presence of several aircraft and trucking 

companies, proximity to major highways, and the airport’s potential to 

become the center of a distribution network. According to a board official, 

some trucking and transportation companies, such as Volvo Logistics 

and Old Dominion Freight Line, have increased their staff in the area. 

Furthermore, as this official explained, as more employers locate in the 

region, they are likely to bring in companies in their supply chain, which 

could spur additional growth in manufacturing. In addition, as one 

employer explained, this sector was chosen because it is a component 

that every industry needs to be successful. Although the initiative has 

had as many as 100 industry partners, according to board staff, a recent 

focus was helping Honda Aircraft Company recruit jobseekers, following 

the firm’s 2007 decision to locate in the area. The board helped the 

company identify qualified jobseekers, and a community college 

designed a course of study, which met Federal Aviation Administration 

standards, to train jobseekers to become airframe mechanics. While 

immediate recruitment needs have been a recent focus, the initiative has 

also featured career fairs for youth. Partners said their collaboration 

continued after Labor’s WIRED grant expired in 2010. Some key 

elements were: 

• Screening of candidates: For Honda Aircraft Company, the 

board facilitated three rounds of assessments for over 2,400 initial 

applicants, ensuring that those who passed had the necessary 

skills for the positions.

• Industry-recognized credentials: According to a board official, 

the primary relevant credentials include commercial drivers’ 

licenses and Federal Aviation Administration certification for the 

training of aircraft mechanics, and most training programs assist 

in preparing jobseekers for credential testing. 

• Employer input into curriculum: Employers developed the 

curriculum for basic logistics training, now provided by several 

local colleges and universities. 

The workforce investment board’s role

According to board and company officials, board staff provided expedited 

service for Honda Aircraft Company by designing and implementing a 

web-based recruitment and assessment tool within 48 hours. Partners 

said the board was key to collaboration, as it facilitated employers’

understanding of their common needs.

Workforce investment area 

Total labor force: 243,293

Unemployment rate: 9.9%

Source: GAO analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics from 

March 2011. 

Initiative characteristics

Key sector: Transportation, distribution, 

and logistics

Other Workforce Boards Involved:

• Davidson Works Workforce 

Development Board

• Kerr-Tar Workforce 

Development Board

• Northwest Piedmont Workforce 

Development Board

• Regional Consolidated 

Workforce Development Board

Additional Key Partners: 

• Community colleges and 

universities

• Golden LEAF Foundation

• Greensboro Economic 

Development Partnership

• Local school districts

• Multiple employers

Workforce challenge

According to local reports, the 

region around Greensboro, North 

Carolina, had experienced severe

job losses, in part stemming from 

losses in manufacturing. The board 

and other partners selected certain 

sectors, including the 

transportation, distribution, and 

logistics sector, for their job 

creation potential. 

Source: Analysis of GAO interviews and review of related 

reports.

Piedmont Triad Global Logistics Workforce 

Initiative 

Greensboro/High Point/Guilford County Workforce 

Development Board
Page 45 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

Appendix II 

Reported results

Board staff and other partners provided information about the results of 

the initiative for jobseekers and workers, employers, and for the 

workforce system overall:

• Benefits for jobseekers and workers: According to a board 

official, individual jobseekers have found jobs in this sector, 

although the board could not provide specific job placement data. 

In addition, while production delays and economic conditions have 

restrained hiring in some cases, new jobs are anticipated, in part 

due to Honda Aircraft Company’s decisions to manufacture 

aircraft in Guilford County and to locate a maintenance facility in 

the area, according to a board official. In addition, according to 

this official, other employers in the sector, such as TIMCO 

Aviation Services and FedEx, have been hiring or expect to do so. 

• Benefits for employers: Transportation employers said that the 

initiative helped them reduce their recruitment costs, although 

they did not quantify the amount. In addition, an employer board 

member highlighted employers’ continued interest in collaboration 

by noting that, since the WIRED grant expired, the initiative has 

been sustained in part by continued employer contributions.

• Benefits for workforce system and other partners: A board 

official said they have developed similar web-based recruitment 

tools for other companies. In addition, they said they have 

developed a closer relationship with local economic development 

agencies which helps them work together to serve employers. 

Board officials said they have replicated elements of this initiative 

in their efforts to serve employers in the manufacturing sector. 

Additionally, partners said the initiative led to the formation of the 

North Carolina Center for Global Logistics, to help meet the 

training needs of employers in the transportation, distribution, and 

logistics sector on an ongoing basis.

Key federal and state 

support

Labor’s WIRED grant provided 

critical support for the 

collaboration, according to the 

partners. A foundation created by 

the state legislature also supported 

training as well as a survey of 

industry needs.

Funding sources 

Recovery Act 

WIA formula funds 

WIA Governor’s set-aside 

WIRED

Employer cash or in-kind 

contributions

Foundation grants

Source: Greensboro/High Point/Guilford County Workforce 

Development Board.

Piedmont Triad Global Logistics Workforce 

Initiative 

Greensboro/High Point/Guilford County Workforce 

Development Board
Page 46 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

Appendix II

Overview

In early 2007, facing new challenges in a critical sector, a diverse group 

of partners formed the Lancaster County Center of Excellence in 

Production Agriculture. The center serves as a clearinghouse for 

information, and also provides training through a variety of vendors on 

topics such as dairy feeding, poultry flock management, and manure 

hauling. To meet the needs of workers with limited English, the center 

has contracted with other partners to develop workplace literacy 

materials. The center also provides subsidies for farmers to attend 

events such as the Pennsylvania Dairy Summit, training workshops, and 

other events in the dairy and poultry industries that help keep farmers 

abreast of best practices. Some key factors of the initiative are:

• Program manager: A coordinator serves as a point of contact for 

the center, and works with industry organizations to reach more 

farmers. 

• Industry-knowledgeable staff: Employers and other partners 

said that the one-stop staff members’ knowledge of both 

government processes and industry needs was helpful.

 

The workforce investment board’s role

Through partners, the board helps employers access incumbent worker 

training, largely in the dairy and poultry industries. It also makes available 

information about jobs in agriculture through the one-stop. An official also 

said that the board serves as a neutral party that can forge connections, 

perform evaluation, and approach problems systemically. The board has 

reinforced connections to employers by serving as staff to the Agriculture 

Council, a policy body that houses the Center of Excellence in Production 

Agriculture. The board also supports four additional centers in areas such 

as long-term care and packaging operations. 

Workforce investment area 

Total labor force: 266,305

Unemployment rate: 6.8%

Source: GAO analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data from 

March 2011. 

Initiative characteristics

Key sector: Agriculture

Additional partners:

• Agriculture-oriented groups 

such as 4-H and Future

Farmers of America

• Economic Development 

Company of Lancaster County

• Lancaster County Conservation 

District

• Library system 

• Local school district

• Multiple employers

• Pennsylvania Department of 

Agriculture 

• Pennsylvania Farm Bureau

• Pennsylvania State University 

Cooperative Extension

Workforce challenge

Initiative partners explained that in 

recent decades, local farmers have 

increased the size and scope of 

their operations in order to remain 

economically viable. However, 

family labor is often no longer 

sufficient to run these businesses, 

and technological advances require 

workers with new skills (see 

photos). Farmers hired jobseekers 

with limited English skills for some 

entry-level jobs, but struggled to 

communicate with them. 

Moreover, workers needed to be 

trained for middle-management 

positions that did not previously 

exist, and farmers needed to 

remain knowledgeable about best 

practices in their industries in order 

to remain competitive. 

Source: Analysis of GAO interviews.

Center of Excellence in Production 

Agriculture

Lancaster County Workforce Investment Board 
Page 47 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

Appendix II 

Reported results

A workforce official stated that the initiative built trust among partners in 

part because it delivered results. 

• Benefits for jobseekers or workers: An official explained that 

local agricultural businesses do not typically have many workers, 

so the center is able to train more workers by focusing on the 

overall sector’s needs instead of the needs of individual 

employers. From project years 2005 to 2010, the initiative trained 

approximately 3,000 individuals, 654 of whom received training in 

2010.

• Benefits for employers: In project year 2010, 400 employers 

received services. An official explained that it can be challenging 

to quantify the benefits for employers, because some do not wish 

to share information that they consider to be proprietary. 

However, one employer noted that financial support provided by 

employers is an indicator of satisfaction. In project years 2008-

2010, participating employers contributed approximately $134,000 

in cash contributions and approximately $345,000 from in-kind 

contributions. 

• Benefits for workforce system and other partners: Officials 

explained that developments in the agriculture industry sparked 

interest in the renewable energy sector. As farms increase the 

quantity of livestock, manure removal presents a new challenge. 

Methane digesters can remove the manure and provide farmers 

with a new source of income. Therefore, the Center for Excellence 

in Production Agriculture spun off its agriculture projects related to 

renewable energy and created a new Center of Excellence in 

Renewable Energy to ensure that area employers remain 

competitive. 

Key federal and state 

support

The state’s Industry Partnership 

grant provided substantial support 

over the years. 

Funding sources 

State grants or funds

Employer cash or in-kind 

contributions

Source: Lancaster County Workforce Investment Board staff.

Center of Excellence in Production 

Agriculture

Lancaster County Workforce Investment Board
Page 48 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

Appendix II

Overview

Starting in 1999, the Workforce Development Board of South Central 

Wisconsin began to reassess its training approach after seeing low 

training program completion rates among jobseekers, board officials said. 

The board decided to adopt a career pathways approach throughout its

one-stop operation, and focus training on seven sectors. This approach 

provides education and training progressively so that students can gain 

skills and advance in an occupation or industry as they complete 

successive training.

As part of their strategy, the local training providers embedded adult 

basic education with the regular coursework for those who need 

remediation. Adult basic education and content matter instructors 

developed the curriculum together. For example, math and reading are 

embedded into the curriculum at the earliest stage, and students can get 

extra help in basic skills at “skill centers” that provide tutoring services. 

Board staff identified the following as important to collaboration:

• Industry-knowledgeable staff: The board directed the one-stop 

to organize its operations around industry specialists. These 

specialists develop knowledge of available jobs in their fields so 

they can ensure jobseekers have the right training for these 

openings.

• Single point of contact: Board staff reported that there is a 

partnership coordinator who collaborates with the board staff and 

industry partners to help meet industry needs and assures that 

the board is preparing workers for occupations that are in 

demand.

The workforce investment board’s role

Instead of using the career pathways approach exclusively for training 

programs, the board worked to use the model for all services provided by 

the workforce system. In adopting the career pathways approach to its 

one stop operation, the board funded the pathways training with WIA 

funds. The board also convened the partners from selected industries to 

discuss the needs of a given sector as a whole.

Workforce investment area 

Total labor force: 457,962

Unemployment rate: 6.5%

Source: GAO analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics Data from 

March 2011

Initiative characteristics

Key sector: Seven sectors, including 

manufacturing, agriculture, health care, 

energy, biotechnology and information 

technology 

Additional partners:

• Madison Area Technical College

• Multiple employers

Workforce challenge

Companies, particularly in health 

care and manufacturing sectors, 

indicated they were having a hard 

time finding new employees. 

Additionally, the board wanted to 

address low training program 

completion rates among 

jobseekers. 

Source: Analysis of GAO interviews.

Career Pathways

Workforce Development Board of South Central Wisconsin
Page 49 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

Appendix II 

Reported results

• Benefits for jobseekers or workers: One of the major benefits 

of the career pathways approach is that it has reduced student 

drop out rates in training programs, board staff said. According to 

board staff, preliminary results indicate that students pursuing 

“stackable” or cumulative credentials have an 85 percent rate of 

completion compared to a 65 percent rate of completion for other 

students.

• Benefits for employers: Through informal feedback, board staff 

have concluded that employers value getting the right jobseekers 

with the training they need.

• Benefits for workforce system and other partners: Employers 

have become more aware of the public resources available to 

them through the one-stop, and are more likely to work with the 

federally funded workforce system to find and train new and 

incumbent employees, according to an evaluation of board efforts 

by the University of Wisconsin-Madison Center on Wisconsin 

Strategy. 

Key federal and state 

support

The board uses WIA funding to 

support individual training accounts 

for jobseekers to pursue career

pathways training. However, to 

test this approach with prototypes, 

the board first used other funds, 

such as federal and state grants.

Funding sources 

WIA formula funds

WIA Governor’s set-aside 

WIRED

Community-Based Job Training 

grant

State grants 

Foundation grants

Employer cash or in-kind 

contributions

Source: Workforce Development Board of South Central 

Wisconsin. 

Career Pathways

Workforce Development Board of South Central Wisconsin
Page 50 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

Appendix II

Overview

In consultation with employers and community colleges, the board 

designed pre-employment training for jobseekers, according to board 

staff. The purpose of this training, which they named the Pre-employment 

Healthcare Academy, is to develop jobseekers’ “soft skills,” and also to 

help them more fully understand what entry-level careers in health care 

would be like and the opportunities available (see photo). The academy 

has served lower-skilled candidates, dislocated workers, and TANF 

clients. According to board staff, the following key elements help the 

academy match employers with jobseekers:

• Screening of potential candidates: One-stop staff screen 

jobseekers before they enter the healthcare academy and 

through this process, some jobseekers realize that health care 

careers are not a good personal choice for them. In those cases, 

one-stop staff then help these jobseekers explore other possible 

careers. This screening keeps health care employers engaged 

because the jobseekers who complete the training and get hired 

are more likely to succeed.

• Single point of contact: Employers contact health care program 

coordinators if they are seeking a new hire, which allows 

employers to find recent health care academy graduates with 

skills that meet their needs.

• Industry knowledgeable staff: The program coordinators are 

also nurses, which helps build credibility with employers.

The workforce investment board’s role

The board determined that training additional workers for jobs in health 

care was a key local need, and has supported the pre-employment 

training with both WIA and non-WIA funds. The board’s health care 

subcommittee provides industry input, and includes people who are not

on the full workforce board, according to board officials. 

Workforce investment area 

Total labor force: 245,313

Unemployment rate: 6.9%

Source: GAO analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics Data from 

March 2011

Initiative characteristics

Key sector: Health care

Additional partners:

• Adult basic education centers

• Local community colleges

• Multiple local health care 

employers

Workforce challenge

Local employers in the health care 

industry, particularly rural long-term 

care providers, have had a difficult 

time finding sufficient staff for their 

operations and had identified high 

turnover rates as a problem.

Source: Analysis of GAO interviews.

Pre-employment Healthcare Academy 

Workforce Development, Inc. (Workforce Investment 

Board)
Page 51 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

Appendix II 

Reported results

Board staff said the most important benefit of the health care academy 

was helping health care employers—particularly rural long-term care 

facilities—find the right people for their vacancies. According to board 

staff, this initiative has also produced the following results:

• Benefits for jobseekers or workers: Through the health care 

academy, 205 jobseekers have been placed in jobs at an average 

wage of almost $10 per hour.

• Benefits for employers: Although data are incomplete because 

not all participating employers provided detailed information,

board officials said employers have reported much higher 

retention with new hires from the health care academy than with 

other hires. This increase in retention has reportedly reduced 

employer costs and has particularly helped long-term care 

facilities maintain adequate staffing levels.

• Benefits for workforce system and other partners: The board 

has used the pre-employment academy approach in the 

manufacturing and energy sectors in the past, and other boards 

have replicated the health care academy. Additionally, other 

workforce boards have used the health care academy as a model 

in other sectors such as manufacturing. The board has estimated 

there has been a greater than 6-to-1 return on investment from 

the health care academy, factoring in taxes paid and foregone 

public assistance for newly employed graduates.

Key federal and state 

support

The board has mostly funded the 

academy with grants from the state 

and federal government. For those 

who are eligible, the board also 

uses WIA formula funds to pay for 

Pre-employment Healthcare 

Academy classes.

Funding sources 

WIA formula funds

Community-based Job Training 

grant

State funds or grants 

Local funds or grants

Employer cash or in-kind 

contributions

Source: Workforce Development, Inc.

Pre-employment Healthcare Academy

Workforce Development, Inc. (Workforce Investment 

Board)
Page 52 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

Appendix II

Overview

The Business Services unit overseen by the local workforce board 

recognized that area manufacturers were closing or under stress. To 

provide assistance, in 2009, Business Services provided workshops that 

addressed a variety of business needs, according to board staff. 

Following the feedback received at those workshops, however, staff 

realized that more in-depth assistance was needed to help employers 

prevent layoffs. At the direction of the local workforce board, Business 

Services issued a request for proposal to provide employers with 

services to improve the efficiency of their processes and reduce their 

costs, and selected CMTC, an affiliate of Commerce’s Manufacturing 

Extension Partnership, as the service provider. 

CMTC provided intervention services to small and medium at-risk 

manufacturers. Sometimes, these services included assistance with 

marketing or helping an employer achieve specific industry certifications. 

However, partners agreed that when an employer needed to improve 

efficiency, there was also a training component for incumbent workers. 

Almost all of the participating employers received services that 

addressed workforce issues, according to officials. Workforce services 

included training incumbent workers in more efficient techniques.

Some key factors of this collaborative were: 

• Streamlined data collection: Partners reported that the intake

form for employers interested in layoff aversion services was kept 

short, but still addressed essential data needed for program 

requirements and performance measures. 

• Single point of contact: Each employer was assigned a 

consultant to provide personalized services. 

• Industry knowledgeable staff: CMTC was familiar with the 

business community’s needs, according to an official.

The workforce investment board’s role

Officials told us that the board’s decision to fund the Business Services 

unit (even in lean budget years) proved critical, as it established 

relationships with employers that allowed for better communication with 

the workforce system. 

Workforce investment area 

Total labor force: 848,620 

Unemployment rate: 13.8%

Source: GAO analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data from 

March 2011. 

Initiative characteristics

Key sector: Manufacturing

Additional partners:

• California Manufacturing 

Technology Consulting (CMTC)

• Inland Empire Women’s 

Business Center

• Multiple manufacturing 

employers

Workforce challenge

One-stop staff reported that the 

local economy struggled during the 

recent economic downturn, with 

high unemployment and numerous 

foreclosures. Local businesses 

were increasingly unable to meet 

their financial obligations. 

Business closures were becoming 

increasingly prevalent, primarily 

due to decreasing sales. To avoid 

further layoffs, businesses said 

they needed to reduce operating 

costs and increase sales. 

Source: Analysis of GAO interviews. 

Manufacturing Layoff Aversion and Business 

Assistance Initiative

The County of San Bernardino Workforce Investment 

Board
Page 53 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

Appendix II 

Reported results

CMTC provided services to 15 businesses and training to incumbent 

workers as needed. Using an economic impact tool, officials estimated 

that this intervention added $5.7 million to the local economy. 

• Benefits for jobseekers or workers: According to the reported 

MEP results, as of May 2011, the employers reported that 71 new 

jobs were created as a result of this initiative, and 426 jobs were 

saved. 

• Benefits for employers: For individual employers reporting cost 

savings over a 12-month period, benefits ranged from $50,000 to 

$1,000,000. Collectively, employers also reported that total sales 

increased by more than $3.3 million during the same period. A 

workforce official estimated that approximately 80 percent of the 

businesses would have closed without intervention. A 

representative from a business that received CMTC’s services 

said that his company had been in a precarious financial position 

that put the employees’ jobs at risk, but now the company is on a 

growth trajectory. On a scale of 1 to 10—with 10 as the highest 

level of satisfaction—the participating employers reported an 

average satisfaction score of 9.6.

• Benefits for workforce system and other partners: An official 

told us that the Business Services unit streamlined its operations 

as a result of the partnership. For example, staff simplified intake 

forms and kept the project organized in a way that reflected 

business practices. Another benefit identified by officials was an 

increase in mutual understanding and awareness between 

business and the workforce system. As evidence that the 

partnership was strengthened, an official told us that a 

representative of one of the employers that received services 

wanted to join the board. Moreover, the partnership created new 

opportunities for the workforce investment system. For example, 

a representative of a small business told us that his company 

expected to hire new workers by the end of 2011, and that he 

would consider using the workforce system to hire them. 

Key federal and state 

support

The training was funded through 

Recovery Act and WIA Dislocated 

Worker Rapid Response funds. 

The training was provided under a 

waiver from Labor that allowed the 

board to use Rapid Response 

funds for layoff-aversion purposes.

Funding sources 

Recovery Act

WIA Rapid Response Funds

Employer cash or in-kind 

contributions

Source: The County of San Bernardino Business Services 

staff. 

Manufacturing Layoff Aversion and Business 

Assistance Initiative

The County of San Bernardino Workforce Investment 

Board
Page 54 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

Appendix II

Overview

The Technical Employment Training, Inc. (TET) initiative was designed to 

train local students in machining processes that use state-of-the-art 

computerized numerical control machinery. The initiative functions as 

both a training provider and an operational machine shop, according to 

local partners (see photos). It was developed following the closure of a 

local high school’s machining program, when local officials familiar with 

the community’s shortage of skilled machinists requested that education 

officials donate the school’s machines for training purposes instead of 

selling them. To introduce students to machining processes, TET 

provides training in basic math, basic blueprint reading, metrology, 

inspection, and hands-on instruction. Local employers place orders for 

trainees to complete, which helps develop students’ skills and can foster 

relationships with employers, leading to job opportunities. Employers can 

review student performance online prior to inviting students to interview. 

In addition to hands-on training, students learn through a computerbased program known as Tooling U. The entire training sequence takes 

630 hours. The program’s first students graduated in December 2010, 

and three additional classes have since graduated. Key elements of the 

initiative include:

• Screening of candidates: Applicants are screened prior to the 

training, and before being referred to companies for interviews, 

they are screened again by a placement specialist familiar with 

the employers’ needs.

• Industry-recognized credentials: Students earn National 

Institute for Metalworking Skills certifications.

The workforce investment board’s role

The board approved the core contents of the training, offered technical 

assistance and program development guidance, referred trainees to the 

program, and required that the classes provide industry recognized 

credentials upon completion. The board also funded the first TET class 

with a Recovery Act-funded contract.

Workforce investment area 

Total labor force: 848,620

Unemployment rate: 13.8%

Source: GAO analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data from 

March 2011. 

Initiative characteristics

Key sector: Manufacturing

Additional partners:

• Kelly Space and Technology 

and other manufacturing 

employers

• Local industrial council

• San Bernardino County 

Regional Occupation Program

• San Bernardino County School 

District

Workforce challenge

According to employers, local 

companies have been struggling to 

find skilled machinists, despite the 

county’s high unemployment rate. 

One company had recruited skilled 

workers from Switzerland and 

another had created an additional, 

lower-ranking position for new hires 

lacking the necessary entry-level 

skills. 

Source: Analyses of GAO interviews.

Technical Employment Training, Inc.

The County of San Bernardino Workforce Investment 

Board
Page 55 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

Appendix II 

Reported results

The average completion rate for the three training classes is 90 percent. 

Board officials noted that 32 percent of the trainees who completed 

TET’s training faced a barrier to employment, such as a criminal record, 

positive drug tests, or a physical disability. Some reported results of the 

initiative include:

• Benefits for jobseekers or workers: On average, nearly 75 

percent of graduates are employed or full time students, which an 

official said was particularly notable because of the area’s high 

unemployment rate. Of those who graduated from the first class, 

85 percent are now employed or full time students. Moreover, 

officials told us that some workers who previously struggled to find 

employment because of criminal records are now employed. In 

addition, some employers told us that they hired TET graduates at 

higher wages than other new hires.

• Benefits for employers: Employers told us that they were 

pleased by the quality of the employees graduating from TET. 

They noted the importance of soft skills, such as work ethic, as 

well as technical skills. Employers told us that TET trainees made 

fewer mistakes, and they did not have to spend as much time 

training TET graduates in order for them to reach proficiency.

Officials reported that employers consistently return to TET to 

interview and hire recent graduates.

• Benefits for workforce system and other partners: The board 

reported that of the 30 trainees funded by the Recovery Act in the

first TET class, 28 completed the program. One official told us that 

keeping dropout rates low is a more efficient use of the workforce 

system’s funds.

Key federal and state 

support

The Recovery Act funded 30 of 36 

trainees in the first TET class. The 

San Bernardino City Employment 

and Training Agency used 

Recovery Act funds to fund the 

second class. The California State 

Department of Rehabilitation 

funded part of the third class. 

Funding sources 

WIA formula funds

Recovery Act 

Other federal grants or funds 

State grants or funds

Employer cash or in-kind 

contributions

Local funds 

Source: The County of San Bernardino Workforce Investment 

Board staff.

Technical Employment Training, Inc. 

The County of San Bernardino Workforce Investment 

Board 
Page 56 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

Appendix II

Overview

In 2002, the Washington State Hospital Association and Seattle’s local 

workforce board convened a collaborative panel of representatives from 

hospitals, labor groups, local colleges, and other partners to address 

worker shortages in the local health care industry. This group came to be 

known as the Health Care Sector Panel, and their work subsequently 

launched a collection of mutually reinforcing projects which share the 

goal of maintaining both the short- and long-term pipelines of health care 

workers. A few of these projects are discussed below.

Officials said that it would have been difficult to increase the pipeline of 

Seattle’s health care workers without providing additional training and 

support to those already in health care jobs so that they could progress 

to more advanced work. For example, one project positioned career 

specialists on-site at hospitals and other facilities to provide career 

counseling and subsequent training to incumbent staff. To add new 

workers to the pipeline, WIA youth were enrolled in a college-level 

Certified Nursing Assistant program with some wraparound services to 

help them navigate the educational and employment systems. For 

example, WIA case managers were paired with coordinators on college 

campuses to help youths register for classes, apply for financial aid, and 

utilize student services. Rather than seeking training only for individuals, 

the board also used Recovery Act and state matching funds to purchase

blocks of training from seven local colleges in order to seat entire cohorts 

of trainees in classrooms. Each trainee was paired with a board-funded 

employment specialist, and in some cases the board worked with the 

colleges to shape the curriculum. In addition, the board also found that 

requiring certain students to complete basic skills education before 

beginning vocational training impeded course completion, and therefore 

worked with the colleges to integrate basic skills and vocational 

instruction by placing a basic skills instructor in some vocational classes. 

Work stemming from the Health Care Sector Panel continues, although 

the panel itself is not active. A key factor of their collaboration was:

• Limited or action-oriented meetings: Officials said that short, 

focused meetings helped keep leaders involved. Professional 

facilitators were brought in for the first few panel meetings to 

ensure that time was well-spent.

The workforce investment board’s role

The board has been involved in sector work on an ongoing basis. 

Employers who were already serving on the board also participated on 

the Health Care Sector Panel and helped identify and attract additional 

partners. For the individual health care projects, the board also served as 

a neutral convener, planner, project manager, and as a data collector 

and reporter. The board particularly focused on job placements that 

allowed jobseekers to attain self-sufficiency, and adopted a tool called 

the Self-Sufficiency Calculator to measure those results. 

Workforce investment area 

Total labor force: 1,105,017

Unemployment rate: 8.5%

Source: GAO analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data from 

March 2011. 

Initiative characteristics

Key sector: Health care

Other workforce boards involved: 

• Varied by project

Additional partners: 

• Varied by project, but included 

multiple health care employers

Workforce challenge

According to a 2003 report that 

Seattle’s local workforce board and 

the Washington State Hospital 

Association produced for the 

Health Care Sector Panel, health 

care facilities throughout the state 

faced a critical lack of staff, 

including registered nurses, 

licensed practical nurses, and 

radiology technicians, among 

others. Patients were turned away 

from 55 percent of the state’s 

emergency departments because 

of nursing shortages. The health 

care workforce was retiring faster 

than it could be replaced, colleges 

throughout the state had long 

waiting lists for courses in health 

care fields, and up to 30 percent of 

students in some health care 

training programs were dropping 

out before completing their training.

Source: In Critical Condition: Seattle-King County’s Hospital 

Staffing Crisis (February 2003). 

Health Care Sector Panel

Workforce Development Council of Seattle-King County 
Page 57 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

Appendix II 

Reported results

Officials told us that there are lessons learned with each project, but 

developing a continuous improvement and evaluation process is difficult. 

Nevertheless, officials reported results from some of these projects:

• Benefits for jobseekers or workers: Since 2003, more than 

4,600 hospital employees have received services to support their 

career advancement, more than 1,000 of whom participated in

health care training. An official noted that providing career 

progression services to incumbent workers can create new 

openings for entry-level jobseekers when the incumbent workers 

advance. Furthermore, officials also reported that students in the 

Recovery Act-funded training cohorts said the group experience 

gave them a network of support that helped them complete their 

training. The reported retention rate for the Recovery Act-funded 

health care cohorts was 87 percent, compared to 51 percent for a 

comparable student group. 

• Benefits for employers: Hospital needs for skilled staff are being

better met, according to officials. In addition, the availability of 

new career pathways has reduced employer turnover costs 

associated with workers such as medical assistants, who formerly 

had few options for career advancement. Many projects included 

a financial contribution from industry, which may indicate the 

projects’ value to employers. For example, hospitals pay 50 

percent of cost of the career progression services. 

• Benefits for workforce system and other partners: Benefits 

stemming from the Health Care Sector Panel’s work include the 

replication of the sector panel approach in other industries, and 

relationships with employers that generate knowledge and a 

positive regard for the workforce system. An education official 

also said that this type of collaboration changed the way hospitals 

and colleges communicate and conduct business in the Seattle 

area. Partners agreed that as a result of the initiative, hospitals 

and colleges approach workforce problems in a more systematic 

fashion, and colleges have stronger industry connections.

Key federal and state 

support

From the beginning, projects that 

stemmed from the Health Care 

Sector Panel have had a wide 

variety of funding support. For 

example, career advancement 

projects have been supported by 

WIA formula funds, Governor’s setaside funds, federal H-1B grant 

monies, and state funds, among 

others. A youth training project was 

piloted with Governor’s set-aside 

funds and has been sustained 

through WIA Youth formula funds 

and a state program that allows 

high-school students to earn 

college credit. Training for cohorts 

of health care jobseekers was 

purchased with Recovery Act and 

state matching funds. In October 

2010, the board was awarded a 5-

year, $11 million grant from the 

U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services to support work in 

the health care sector.

Funding sources 

WIA formula funds

WIA Governor’s set-aside

Recovery Act 

Other federal grants or funds 

State grants or funds

Employer cash or in-kind 

contributions 

Foundation grants

Source: Workforce Development Council of Seattle-King 

County. 

Health Care Sector Panel

Workforce Development Council of Seattle-King County
Page 58 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

Appendix II

Overview

In response to employer-defined needs, the state workforce agency 

created the Michigan Academy for Green Mobility Alliance (MAGMA).

The academy’s mission is to develop courses to help provide rapid skill 

growth in emerging green technologies in vehicle design. MAGMA 

Advisory Group members reported that collaboration helped the “Big 3”—

Ford, Chrysler, and General Motors—work together and see the benefits 

of cooperating with competitors to train new workers. The academy 

classes are offered to incumbent and displaced engineers and 

technicians (see photo). 

Initiative staff identified the following as integral to collaboration:

• Industry-knowledgeable staff: Initiative staff became 

knowledgeable about the engineering competencies needed in the 

automotive industry, to help build credibility with employers.

• Employer input into curriculum: Employers have suggested 

changes to the courses and can provide information about their

current and future workforce needs, initiative staff said. 

The workforce investment board’s role

MAGMA board members reported that the workforce board helped 

administer grants and managed the administration of MAGMA. 

Additionally, Southeast Michigan Community Alliance Michigan Works! is 

the lead board for the six other workforce boards in the initiative, initiative 

staff reported.

Workforce investment area 

Total labor force: 902,172

Unemployment rate: 12.5%

Source: GAO Analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics Data from 

March, 2011.

Initiative characteristics

Key sector: Auto manufacturing

Other workforce boards involved: 

• Detroit Workforce Development 

Department, a Michigan Works! 

Agency

• Genesee/Shiawassee Michigan 

Works! Career Alliance, Inc.

• Livingston County Michigan 

Works! 

• Macomb/St. Clair Workforce 

Development Board

• Oakland County Michigan 

Works! Workforce Development 

Division

• Washtenaw County Michigan 

Works!/Employment Training 

and Community Services Group

Additional partners:

• Multiple automotive 

manufacturers and suppliers

• Multiple education providers

• The State of Michigan

Workforce challenge

In 2007, according to a state 

official, an automotive employer 

projected a need for about 500 

electrical engineers with skills in 

designing hybrid vehicles. Unable 

to find such electrical engineers 

locally, the company reported that 

they would need to either recruit 

them from overseas or send their 

workers abroad for training. More 

generally, the state recognized that

growth in production of “green” 

mobility products such as electric 

cars created an increased need for 

workers trained to work on the new 

technology.

Source: Analysis of GAO interviews.

Michigan Academy for Green Mobility Alliance

Southeast Michigan Community Alliance Michigan Works!

(Workforce Investment Board)
Page 59 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

Appendix II 

Reported results

Initiative staff reported the following benefits from the initiative:

• Benefits for jobseekers or workers: According to initiative staff, 

312 people completed the training from the fall of 2009 through 

January 2011, including 30 dislocated workers, and 281 additional 

students had enrolled for 2011 summer/fall academy classes.

• Benefits for employers: According to initiative staff, MAGMA will 

serve 15 companies in the summer and fall of 2011, including 

Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors. Initiative staff said they 

believe that, because employers continue to encourage their 

workers to participate in training, this is evidence that the process 

is meeting their needs. Furthermore, employers continue to 

provide information on their training needs. 

• Benefits for workforce system and other partners: According 

to board staff, employers have now embraced the local workforce 

system, which they had not done in a sustained way in the past. 

Also, according to board staff, the initiative has helped the 

workforce system better align its resources with employers’ 

information about their workforce needs in a way that is more 

directly associated with employment opportunities. In addition, a 

state official noted that the effort spurred other similar initiatives, 

such as convening employers to discuss their skill needs in the 

area of battery storage technology.

Key federal and state 

support

To fund the initiative, the Southeast 

Michigan Community Alliance 

Michigan Works! applied for 

statewide grants, which came from 

WIA Governor’s set-aside funds, 

according to initiative staff. Staff 

said they also used WIA formula 

dollars from several boards, 

employer contributions, and 

another state grant for incumbent 

worker training.

Funding sources 

WIA formula funds

WIA Governor’s set-aside 

Recovery Act

State grants or funds

Employer cash or in-kind 

contributions

Source: Southeast Michigan Community Alliance Michigan 

Works! staff.

Michigan Academy for Green Mobility Alliance

Southeast Michigan Community Alliance Michigan Works!

(Workforce Investment Board)
Page 60 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

Appendix II

Overview

The goal of this initiative, known as NoVaHealthFORCE, is to establish a 

long-term, sustainable, business-driven strategy to address the area’s 

shortage of nurses and allied health professionals. The initiative’s 

partners—the board, local hospitals, and educational institutions—

commissioned a report to study the problem and developed an action 

plan to address it in different ways. They sought to increase capacity 

within the health care training and education system, develop and sustain 

an ongoing supply of persons interested in entering health care careers, 

and nurture innovation, such as by developing a forum for best practices. 

Officials cautioned that merely providing subsidies for additional students 

to receive training would have been an insufficient response to the 

workforce shortage: they needed to address the lack of available faculty 

for training, increase the availability of clinical training sites, and improve 

the preparedness of youth interested in health care careers. Since 2006, 

the Virginia General Assembly and six regional health care providers 

have provided financial support to increase the number of nursing faculty. 

The initiative’s participating employers contributed other forms of support 

as well. For example, employers provided subsidies to develop new 

radiation oncology and sonography programs. Education officials said 

these programs could not have been developed without those subsidies. 

Initiative partners said they had integrated new partners, such as local 

elected officials and the Chamber of Commerce, by citing the business 

costs incurred with increased health care costs. Meanwhile, they 

identified the following areas as some of the elements that supported 

their collaboration:

• Limited or action-oriented meetings: Biannual, roundtable 

meetings provide chief executive officers, educational leaders, 

and other partners the opportunity to talk about results and about 

the next stages of implementation without over-burdening their 

schedules.

• Program manager: Partners said that having a full-time program 

manager for the initiative was important to the initiative. 

• Streamlined data collection: The initiative’s quarterly data 

collection and reporting system focuses on key metrics to 

generate discussions about partners’ needs.

The workforce investment board’s role

The board helped the other partners prepare an action plan, and a 

nonprofit arm of the board served as the initiative’s fiscal agent. Partners 

said that the board was perceived as a neutral arbiter that could bring 

people together to solve regional problems. Officials said that the board’s 

neutrality was critical to ensuring the participation of competitors within 

the business and education communities. 

Workforce investment area 

Total labor force: 998,815

Unemployment rate: 4.6%

Source: GAO analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data from 

March 2011.

Initiative characteristics

Key sector: Health care

Additional partners:

• Chambers of Commerce

• Local school districts

• Multiple local health care

employers

• Regional colleges and 

universities 

• The Commonwealth of Virginia

Workforce challenge

Northern Virginia’s health care 

employers faced a workforce 

shortage of nurses and 23 other 

health occupations, including 

therapists and technicians in a 

variety of fields. Vacancy rates of 5 

percent or higher are significant in 

the health care industry, and the 

area’s vacancy rate had reached 

10 percent for nonmanagerial 

registered nurses, for example. As 

a result, employers faced an 

increasing cost of labor as they

tried to hire the limited number of 

workers away from one another. 

Moreover, officials noted that some 

hospital units might be forced to 

close in the event of a staffing 

shortage. 

Sources: GAO analyses of interviews and 

PriceWaterhouseCoopers, The Health Care Workforce 

Shortage: An Analysis of the Scope and Impact on Northern 

Virginia (2004). 

NoVaHealthFORCE

Northern Virginia Workforce Investment Board
Page 61 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

Appendix II 

Reported results

The initiative partners have been able to collect basic quarterly data from 

participating institutions of higher education, such as enrollment and 

graduation rates in health care training programs. Specifically, each 

institution provides the program manager with a financial report, a 

narrative, and a data report with admissions, enrollment, and graduation 

information. The partners also collect data on participants who obtained 

training subsidies through the one-stop. 

• Benefits for jobseekers or workers: While the partners did not 

track job placements for participants, they reported that, between 

2006 and 2011, the number of registered nursing graduates 

across all participating institutions increased from 586 to a 

projected 743, and that 180 individuals received training in the 

newly created program for sonography, radiation oncology, and 

related occupations. Also, jobseekers had increased opportunities 

for training, as a result of the newly created programs of study.

• Benefits for employers: Employers benefited from an expanded 

supply of skilled workers, as reflected by education partners’ 

expansion of their capacity to train nurses by approximately 35 

percent. In addition, to help meet employers’ needs, two 

institutions developed an accelerated program of study in nursing. 

Generally, the partners agreed that the urgency of employers’ 

needs had abated, although they anticipated future needs as 

retirements of existing workers begin to accelerate. 

• Benefits for workforce system and other partners: The 

workforce system benefited from strengthened relationships with 

employers, as indicated by one former hospital executive’s 

appreciation for the role the board had played in helping to identify 

qualified workers. Also, partners reported that the strategies they 

had developed could be applied to other sectors.

Key federal and state 

support

Hospitals pledged money to 

support new programs at local 

colleges if the state would match 

the funds, which it did. Labor’s 

Community-Based Job Training 

grant supported efforts to expose 

secondary students to careers in 

health care, among other activities. 

Funding sources 

Community-Based Job Training 

grant

WIA formula funds

State grants or funds

Employer cash or in-kind 

contributions

Local funds

Source: Northern Virginia Workforce Investment Board.

NoVaHealthFORCE

Northern Virginia Workforce Investment Board
Page 62 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

Appendix II

Overview

According to a local official, the region around Wichita, Kansas, is one of

five global aviation centers. As early as 1999, however, local aviation 

companies anticipated a critical need for workers to help them keep pace 

with the industry’s transition to composite materials; the companies 

worked with local government, eventually culminating in the opening of 

the National Center for Aviation Training in 2010, according to local 

stakeholders. While planning was under way, the board applied for and 

Labor awarded a WIRED grant in 2007, which supported training, 

curriculum development, and supplies and equipment. The initiative 

involved a career pathways approach, in which training is broken down 

and sequenced so that workers can acquire skills and advance in an 

occupation as they complete successive levels of training. Participants 

received hands-on training in specialized equipment (see photo). The 

initiative targeted incumbent workers, while also serving some low-skilled 

adults and dislocated workers. In addition, certain components targeted 

limited-English workers and youth: local adult education providers 

developed vocabulary for key terms and concepts for participants with 

limited English, and over 200 youth participated in career exploration 

activities. Some key factors that facilitated collaboration included:

• Single point of contact: Partners said that establishing a single 

point of contact for employers was key to facilitating collaboration. 

• Employer input into curriculum: Employers had direct input into 

the curriculum, and aimed to accelerate the integration of 

research findings into training and production. 

The workforce boards’ role

The boards provided case management and career guidance, screening 

and placement in training, and convened community partnerships.

Workforce investment area 

Total labor force: 323,133

Unemployment rate: 8.3%

Source: GAO analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics from 

March 2011.

Initiative characteristics

Key sector: Manufacturing

Other workforce boards involved: 

• Kansas WorkforceONE

Additional partners: 

• Adult education providers

• Local school districts

• Multiple manufacturing 

employers

• Wichita Area Technical College

• Wichita State University

Workforce challenge

Local companies, including Boeing, 

Raytheon, Cessna, and 

Bombardier, identified an 

impending shortage of skilled 

workers, driven both by imminent 

retirements and by the need to 

upgrade workers’ skills and 

maintain competitiveness as a 

result of the increasing use of 

composite materials in aircraft 

manufacturing, according to local 

stakeholders.

Source: Analysis of GAO interviews. 

Composites Kansas WIRED Initiative

Workforce Alliance of South Central Kansas (Workforce 

Investment Board)
Page 63 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

Appendix II 

Reported results

Board staff and other partners provided information about the results of 

the initiative for jobseekers and workers, employers, and for the 

workforce system overall:

• Benefits for jobseekers or workers: Of the 1,195 individuals 

who participated in WIRED-funded training, 1,180 completed it, 

and 1,008 were placed in jobs. In addition, of those who 

completed the training, 146 earned a degree, certificate, or 

industry credential. Additionally, an official said that, during the 

economic downturn, hiring of workers with skills in composite 

materials had increased by 7 percent.

• Benefits for employers: Partners said that the initiative had 

significantly increased the skill set of entry-level workers in 

aviation. Also, an official said that the initiative had helped identify 

the best candidates for additional training.

• Benefits for workforce system and other partners: Partners 

said that employers now see the workforce system as more 

valuable than before, and that one-stop staff provide better advice 

to individuals on careers in aviation. Additionally, according to the 

partners, the experience gained during the initiative was applied to 

other activities, such as the establishment of a center for 

advanced manufacturing and an effort to leverage the new skills in 

composites to grow a new medical device industry cluster, based 

on the use of composite materials in orthopedic devices, such as 

knee and hip replacements. 

Key federal and state 

support

Labor’s WIRED grant supported 

training, equipment, and curriculum 

costs. The U.S. Departments of 

Commerce and Housing and Urban 

Development, and the Small 

Business Administration provided 

funds for the facility. The state also 

provided funding for construction.

Funding sources 

WIA formula funds 

WIA Governor’s set-aside

Recovery Act

WIRED

Other federal grants or funds

State grants or funds

Employer cash or in-kind 

contributions

Foundation grants

Local funds

Source: Workforce Alliance of South Central Kansas.

Composites Kansas WIRED Initiative 

Workforce Alliance of South Central Kansas (Workforce 

Investment Board)
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Labor

Page 64 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

Appendix III: Comments from the 

Department of Labor
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Labor

Page 65 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 66 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

Andrew Sherrill (202) 512-7252 or sherrilla@gao.gov

In addition to the individual named above, Laura Heald (Assistant 

Director) and Chris Morehouse (Analyst-in-Charge) led the engagement. 

Aron Szapiro and Alison Hoenk also made significant contributions to this 

report in all facets of the work. In addition, Jean McSween assisted with 

methodology, Rhiannon Patterson lent subject matter expertise, Jessica 

Botsford provided legal support, Susan Bernstein and James Bennett 

provided assistance with writing and graphics, and Charles J. Ford and 

Kathy Leslie also made significant contributions to this report.

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments
Related GAO Products

Page 67 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

Factors for Evaluating the Cost Share of Manufacturing Extension 

Partnership Program to Assist Small and Medium-Sized Manufacturers. 

GAO-11-437R. Washington, D.C.: April 4, 2011.

Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Providing Information on 

Colocating Services and Consolidating Administrative Structures Could 

Promote Efficiencies. GAO-11-92. Washington, D.C.: January 13, 2011.

English Language Learning: Diverse Federal and State Efforts to Support 

Adult English Language Learning Could Benefit from More Coordination.

GAO-09-575. Washington, D.C.: July 29, 2009.

Workforce Investment Act: Labor Has Made Progress in Addressing 

Areas of Concern, but More Focus Needed on Understanding What 

Works and What Doesn’t. GAO-09-396T. Washington, D.C.: February 26, 

2009.

Employment and Training Program Grants: Labor Has Outlined Steps for 

Additional Documentation and Monitoring but Assessing Impact Still 

Remains an Issue. GAO-08-1140T. Washington, D.C.: September 23, 

2008.

Workforce Development: Community Colleges and One-Stop Centers 

Collaborate to Meet 21st Century Workforce Needs. GAO-08-547. 

Washington, D.C.: May 15, 2008. 

Workforce Investment Act: One-Stop System Infrastructure Continues to 

Evolve, but Labor Should Take Action to Require That All Employment 

Service Offices Are Part of the System. GAO-07-1096. Washington, D.C.: 

September 4, 2007.

Workforce Investment Act: Additional Actions Would Further Improve the 

Workforce System. GAO-07-1051T. Washington, D.C.: June 28, 2007.

Workforce Investment Act: Employers Found One-Stop Centers Useful in 

Hiring Low-Skilled Workers; Performance Information Could Help Gauge 

Employer Involvement. GAO-07-167. Washington, D.C.: December 22, 

2006.

Workforce Investment Act: Labor and States Have Taken Actions to 

Improve Data Quality, but Additional Steps Are Needed. GAO-06-82. 

Washington, D.C.: November 14, 2005.

Related GAO Products
Related GAO Products

Page 68 GAO-12-97 Workforce Collaboration

Workforce Investment Act: Substantial Funds Are Used for Training, but 

Little Is Known Nationally about Training Outcomes. GAO-05-650. 

Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2005.

Workforce Investment Act: Labor Should Consider Alternative 

Approaches to Implement New Performance and Reporting 

Requirements. GAO-05-539. Washington, D.C.: May 27, 2005.

Workforce Investment Act: Employers Are Aware of, Using, and Satisfied 

with One-Stop Services, but More Data Could Help Labor Better Address 

Employers’ Needs. GAO-05-259. Washington, D.C.: February 18, 2005.

Workforce Investment Act: States and Local Areas Have Developed 

Strategies to Assess Performance, but Labor Could Do More to Help.

GAO-04-657. Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2004.

Workforce Training: Almost Half of States Fund Worker Training and 

Employment through Employer Taxes and Most Coordinate with 

Federally Funded Programs. GAO-04-282. Washington, D.C.: February 

13, 2004.

Workforce Investment Act: Exemplary One-Stops Devised Strategies to 

Strengthen Services, but Challenges Remain for Reauthorization.

GAO-03-884T. Washington, D.C.: June 18, 2003.

Workforce Investment Act: One-Stop Centers Implemented Strategies to 

Strengthen Services and Partnerships, but More Research and 

Information Sharing is Needed. GAO-03-725. Washington, D.C.: June 18, 

2003

(131042)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, 

GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, 

(202) 512-4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street 

NW, Room 7125 Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.