1

The Three Spheres of Equity in 

Workforce Development Programs

An early analysis of equity within the Good Jobs Challenge programs

January 2024
2

AUTHORS:

Dr. Sarah Crane, Director of Research, Economic Growth Institute, sarahrcr@umich.edu

Emma Fenstermaker, Research Associate, Economic Growth Institute

CONTRIBUTORS:

Swati Ghosh, Vice President, Insights and Innovations, New Growth Innovation Network

Dr. Jack Baker, Qualitative Researcher, Economic Growth Institute

M. Yasmina McCarty, CEO and President, New Growth Innovation Network

J’Mauri Jackson, Research Associate, Economic Growth Institute

Steve Wilson, Executive Director, Economic Growth Institute

ABOUT ECONOMIC GROWTH INSTITUTE:

The Economic Growth Institute leverages the University of Michigan and other public/private resources, research, technologies, and 

expertise to foster innovation and equitable economic growth. EGI has provided innovative economic development programming and 

applied research for almost 40 years. 

ABOUT NEW GROWTH INNOVATION NETWORK:

The New Growth Innovation Network (NGIN) is a knowledge, insight, and innovation hub, supporting economic development practitioners 

to advance inclusive economic growth in their region. Established in 2018, NGIN is a nonprofit organization focused on closing structural 

opportunity gaps to ensure that economically disenfranchised people of color, women, and neglected geographies are a core part of 

regional economic growth and prosperity. NGIN works to drive systemic change through the NGIN community of practitioners, its platform 

of insights, and innovations.. 

SPECIAL THANKS:

The success of this study depended on the engagement and support of many people. The staff at the Economic Growth Institute would 

first like to thank the team at the Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration. Their support of this study and the 

research team was invaluable throughout the process. Additionally, this report would not be possible without the GJC program leaders who 

generously gave their time through the interviews. Finally, a special thanks to Dr. Raintry Salk, Deputy Director of Transformative Strategies 

and Learning at Government Alliance on Race and Equity (GARE), and Kathleen Lee, Senior Vice President of Regional Initiatives at Greater 

Phoenix Economic Council for their insight, participation, and feedback throughout the project. 

FUNDING DISCLOSURE:

This report was prepared by the University of Michigan Economic Growth Institute using Federal funds 

under agreement ED22HDQ3070128 from the Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce. The statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Economic Development Administration or the U.S. 

Department of Commerce.
3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4

INTRODUCTION 6

SPHERES OF EQUITY

 EQUITY IN LOCAL CONTEXTUALIZATION. 

 EQUITY IN THE LEADING ORGANIZATION.  

 EQUITY IN PROGRAM DELIVERY 14

CONCLUSION 24

BIBLIOGRAPHY 26
4

Executive Summary

In 2021, the American Rescue Plan Act laid a 

foundation for innovation in equitable workforce 

development programs. Through the Economic 

Development Administration’s (EDA) Good Jobs 

Challenge (GJC), regional leaders are developing 

sector-specific training programs aimed at 

addressing disparities and uplifting underserved 

communities by creating pipelines to good jobs. 

This report provides early insights into how the 

GJC programs are prioritizing equity through 

three interdependent spheres: Equity in Local 

Contextualization, Equity in the Leading Organization, 

and Equity in Program Delivery. 

Local Contextualization underscores how equity 

is evident in (1) the use of data in identifying 

community-specific challenges and opportunities, 

(2) acknowledging and addressing historical harms, 

and (3) rebuilding community trust. Key findings 

include: 

• GJC programs most commonly use unemployment 

and poverty data to describe regional landscapes, 

with limited analysis of disparities related to wages, 

opportunities, industry representation, etc. This risks 

oversimplifying the root causes of inequities needed 

to strategically inform programming from an equity 

lens.

• Recognition of historical policies, practices, and 

approaches that were exclusionary or harmful are 

part of a restorative justice approach. Nineteen 

percent of GJC programs acknowledge historical 

discriminatory policies and practices that caused 

harm, indicating an understanding of the roots of 

modern disparities.

• The need to rebuild trust with underserved 

communities is also a part of equity efforts and 

34% of GJC programs discuss the imperative of 

(re)building trust with marginalized communities, 

signaling intentions to rectify strained relationships.

Strong use of data, recognition of past harms, and trustbuilding are early signs of equity efforts that consider 

structural and systemic factors in regional programming.

The second sphere, equity within the Leading Organization, 

Equity in Local 

Contextualization

Equity in the Leading 

Organization

Equity in 

Program Delivery

Spheres 

of Equity

Equity in 

Program Delivery

 Promoting

 Industry

 Change

 Program

 Participant

 Feedback

Target 

Populations

Wraparound

Services

Equity in Local 

Contextualization

Data 

Use

Trust 

Building

Acknowledge

 Past Harm

Equity in the 

Leading 

Organization

Decision

Making

Equity

Frameworks

Background & 

Experience Reflection
5

addresses how equity efforts are impacted by (1) the 

background and experience of the organization, (2) its 

equity framework, and (3) its decision making processes. 

Specifically: 

• Almost half of the GJC programs self-reflected on 

how their own and their organization’s collective 

experience and background influenced their equity 

efforts. 

• Sixty-nine percent reference developing or 

already having formalized equity frameworks, 

though substantial variability exists in scope and 

comprehensiveness. Of those without formalized 

frameworks, 30% indicated that they are facing 

negative local sentiment towards equity efforts. 

• While three fourths of GJC leaders mention soliciting 

input from underserved community representatives, 

38% of GJC programs have formalized mechanisms 

of collaborative decision making. Interestingly, of 

those with formalized mechanisms, 78% also have 

equity frameworks. 

While many equity frameworks are still nascent, selfreflections and community input channels signify 

intentions to embed equity organizationally. Stronger 

formalization and power-sharing processes are needed to 

actualize equity goals. 

In the final sphere, Program Delivery, early findings 

highlight the plans and activities related to equitable 

implementation, including:

• The GJC program target populations are selfidentified by leaders and all programs mention 

reaching racial and/or ethnic minority groups 

and 97% also identify low-income communities. 

Following this, other target populations include youth 

(81%), women (78%), formerly incarcerated (69%), and 

veterans/military-related personnel (63%). Outreach 

strategies to engage the underserved underscore a 

collaborative approach, with a significant percentage 

of GJC programs leveraging the strengths of 

community-based organizations and/or caseworkers 

for outreach. 

• GJC program also elevates the importance of 

wraparound services to holistically support program 

participants. 

• Feedback from the program participants is planned 

by 69% of programs, though specifics are still 

developing. 

• Additionally, 91% envision promoting some degree 

of equity-oriented change within industry partners 

through employer training, hiring reforms, and job 

quality characteristics, indicating the potential for 

long-term systemic impacts. 

While still in early conceptual stages for most, the 

goals to engage with community, program participants, 

and employers denote strategic, holistic thinking on 

programmatic equity.

Examinations of early priorities and plans across these 

three spheres provide initial insights into GJC leaders’ 

multifaceted approaches to equity. As programs 

progress, subsequent analyses by this research team 

will track the maturation and refinement of equitable 

practices tied to measurable outputs and outcomes. 

While these findings are specific to GJC, implications 

span the broader workforce development landscape. 

By spotlighting the importance of equity in local 

contextualization, the leading organization, and program 

delivery, GJC programs can provide an important 

advancement in fostering inclusive employment 

pathways and economic resilience nationally.

Executive Summary
6

Introduction

To mitigate the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, 

the federal government launched several initiatives 

in 2021 to promote resiliency and spur economic 

growth. One of these was the American Rescue 

Plan Act (ARPA), which provides funding for 

several recovery investments, including enhanced 

flexible workforce investments like the Good Jobs 

Challenge (GJC). The Good Jobs Challenge 

creates or enhances job placement and training 

programs, with a specific focus on underserved 

and underrepresented populations, through 

the development of industry-specific sectoral 

partnerships that include employers and 

workforce development organizations, such as 

educational institutions, training organizations, 

organized labor, and more.1

Unlike more traditional workforce development 

investments, the Economic Development 

Administration (EDA) designed the GJC to be 

non-prescriptive and place-based, meaning 

that it did not have required demographic 

population targets or strict program approaches; 

instead, EDA looked to communities to define 

what was needed to create economic change 

related to jobs and job quality. Additionally, 

equity is embedded as a priority within the GJC 

investments, as all federal agencies have recently 

elevated it as a key priority.2 This research report 

provides a first look into how local GJC programs 

are integrating equity and the report is intended for 

workforce development program leaders as well 

as funders of programs like this. While the findings 

are specific to GJC, the implications for workforce 

development programs are broad. 

Analysis of equity is multifaceted, and GJC 

programs have the opportunity to embed equity 

within three different spheres: 

1. Equity in Local Contextualization: Assessing 

how GJC programs conceptualize and identify 

1 EDA defines sectoral partnerships as “a partnership of employers from the same industry who join with other strategic partners to train and place 

workers into high-quality jobs that employers need filled and intend to fill through the partnership. A sectoral partnership is focused on one specific 

industry or functional area (e.g., finance, customer service), and one or more specific roles within that industry. Sectoral partnerships are effective 

because: they are carefully built to include all necessary partners before workforce solutions are designed; they cut across traditional economic 

development, workforce, education, and social services system silos; they are targeted to in-demand sectors with high-quality jobs; and they consider the 

economic realities of a regional industry in assessing workforce demand and training needs. Sectoral partnerships heighten the chance of job placement 

after program completion given their connection to real-time employer demand.” For more information, please see the FAQs of the program here. 

2 President Joe Biden’s Executive Order On Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government in 2021 

as well as a list of all equity-related executive orders as documented by the Department of Commerce. 

the place-based gaps and opportunities; 

2. Equity in the Leading Organization: 

Understanding equity within the organization 

leading the program; and

3. Equity in Program Delivery: Identifying how 

equity is integrated into program delivery

These three spheres represent a multi-layered 

approach to equity. Additionally, the activities 

within each of these spheres influence one another. 

For example, how a community contextualizes 

its assets and opportunities also influences who 

leads the program. There is also influence from the 

organization on local contextualization because 

who is leading the program development process 

also influences which gaps or opportunities are 

prioritized. Finally, these two spheres directly affect 

how equity is incorporated into program delivery. 

These three spheres are unique to EDA investment 

Equity in Local 

Contextualization

Equity in the Leading 

Organization

Equity in 

Program Delivery

Spheres 

of Equity
7

Introduction

programs since the agency relies on the community 

to define its local needs (contextualization) and 

provides flexibility in qualifying leading organizations 

and leaders of sectoral partnerships. As evidenced by 

the current GJC program portfolio (more detail below), 

there is significant diversity in who is leading these 

programs and the local needs they seek to address. 

The data informing these findings are from 

early interviews with program leaders, program 

applications, initial progress reports, and similar 

supplemental materials. Program leaders include 

executives, project directors, and program managers 

at state and local government, tribal organizations, 

CFDIs, higher education institutions such as 

universities and community colleges, communitybased organizations, industry intermediaries like 

Chamber of Commerce foundations and associations, 

among others. These leaders come from an array of 

backgrounds ranging from professional government 

staff, program managers of existing Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act-funded or locally 

managed workforce development programs, faculty 

researchers at universities, and non-profit staff. 

For this research, the team conducted semistructured interviews with 63 GJC leaders from the 

32 programs from April 2023 to June 20233 and 

used thematic qualitative analysis to identify the key 

findings. This report provides insight into on-theground activities but does not include program-level 

performance appraisals or evaluations. Forthcoming 

reports from this team will eventually dive deeper 

into approaches that lead to more equitable 

outcomes.4 However, with the limited research on the 

intersection of equity and policy and practice within 

workforce development programs,5 these findings 

should be viewed as preliminary due to the shorter 

duration of the analysis. For more information on the 

methodology, please see the appendix. 

3 One GJC program interview took place in October 2023 due to changes in leadership.

4 This is the first report in a series from this team on equity in GJC as well as the Build Back Better Regional Challenge (BBBRC). For more information on this 

research project and its scope, please see this post.

5 A 2021 report by the National Association of Workforce Boards provides an initial overview of attitudes towards racial equity in workforce development.

The research team acknowledges that any 

terminology, when applied to a broad segment 

of people, will always be flawed. The phrase 

“underserved” was the most common catch-all 

term used in the GJC program documentation 

when referring to populations or communities to 

target. It is important to note the context of this 

word, which places the action and agency on the 

one doing the serving and identifies the group 

being served as passive receivers of services. 

Thus, while this report utilizes this imperfect term 

of “underserved,” we acknowledge its significant 

limitations and the implied power imbalance 

between those serving and those being served. 

Terminology Limitations
8

As the nation’s only federal agency dedicated 

exclusively to economic development, the U.S. 

Economic Development Administration (EDA) 

stands at the intersection of multiple policy 

domains ranging from infrastructure and public 

works, disaster recovery efforts, revolving loan 

funds, innovation, and entrepreneurship, planning 

activities, and more. Originally conceived in the 

1965 Public Works and Economic Development Act, 

the agency leverages partnerships, authorities, and 

resources to address economic disruptions, longterm economic growth strategies, and accelerate 

capacity building for local, state, and federal 

stakeholders through grant-making and program 

management.

Today, the agency’s core mission is centered on 

three primary goals:6 (1) creating an ecosystem 

that promotes economic activity by improving and 

expanding public infrastructure; (2) promoting job 

creation through increased innovation, productivity, 

and entrepreneurship; and (3) empowering local 

and regional communities experiencing chronic 

high unemployment and low per capita income 

to develop private sector business and attract 

increased private-sector capital investment.

To fulfill these goals, EDA takes a unique placebased approach. EDA investments typically adhere 

to the following progression:7

1. Assess Local Conditions: Applicants for 

EDA investments are invited to articulate 

local economic conditions, the externalities 

impacting those conditions, and how 

investments from EDA will provide relief from 

those externalities and improve local economic 

conditions. In the spirit of place-based 

investments, grantees often have the flexibility 

to “define” a region, stakeholder groups, or 

similar constraints based on local conditions.

2. Identify Resources: Applicants must identify 

the types of resources, and what combinations 

of those resources, are needed to alleviate 

those conditions, such as programs, staffing, 

and infrastructure. In many instances, 

6 For more information, see EDA’s site. 

7 For more information about EDA’s theory of change, please reference their logic model here.

8 The historical background on EDA is available here as well as the Department of Commerce’s documentation of equity-related Executive Orders.

9 For more information on all ARPA investments:, please click here.

applicants are asked to identify local or 

existing resources that can be leveraged to 

complement the federal investment.

3. Identify Outputs: Applicants are generally 

invited to identify programmatic outputs (ex., 

placements of participants), capacity (ex., 

establish or increase tech transfer activities), or 

a combination of both to demonstrate progress 

towards achieving these. Because local 

conditions and resources are delegated to the 

applicant, this provides some variability.

4. Realized Outcomes: Applicants typically selfdefine the criteria above with some assistance 

from EDA to ensure alignment with broader 

agency goals, regulations, and best practices. 

Upon receiving investment, applicants commit 

to establishing the processes and procedures 

needed to achieve and report outcomes. Due to 

the highly localized nature of investments and 

economic conditions, these realized outcomes 

may vary greatly by project or program.

In 2021, with the transition to President Biden’s 

administration and subsequent passage of 

ARPA, EDA was tasked with implementing new 

programming to accelerate the nationwide 

economic recovery effort. Simultaneously, EDA 

was tasked with implementing these new priorities 

in alignment with new White House executive 

orders, such as Executive Orders 14035: Diversity, 

Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Federal 

Workforce and 13985: Advancing Racial Equity and 

Support for Underserved Communities Through the 

Federal Government.8

Under ARPA,9 EDA was charged with investing 

$3 billion of supplemental funding through 

a combination of infrastructure, workforce 

development, travel, tourism, and outdoor 

recreation programs, tribal investment, and 

traditional economic development programs, such 

as Economic Adjustment Assistance and planning 

and research programs. Of those, $500 million was 

dedicated to fund the Good Jobs Challenge.

Introduction

Background
9

Introduction

Historical Context

The federal government’s role in fostering industryled, community-aligned state and local workforce 

development has evolved significantly in the last 50 

years. While educational institutions are foundational 

in developing the future workforce,10 federal workforce 

development policies and programs provide additional 

opportunities for training and job placement. 

Additionally, workforce development is supported 

through ecosystem partners and researchers such as 

the Georgetown Center on Education & the Workforce, 

Harvard Project on Workforce, Drexel University 

Center for Labor Markets & Policy, Heldrich Center 

for Workforce Development at Rutgers University, the 

Business Higher Education Forum, Aspen Institute, 

Jobs for the Future, Workrise, and many more. 

In addition to programs such as the Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) within the 

Department of Labor (DOL), many federally-funded 

workforce programs exist,11 spanning numerous 

agencies including the Department of Defense, 

the Department of Energy, the Department of 

Transportation, National Science Foundation, 

and more. Furthermore, the number of workforce 

programs has continued to grow as the Biden 

administration has prioritized workforce within 

the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), Infrastructure 

Investment & Jobs Act, (IIJA), Creating Helpful 

Incentives to Produce Semiconductors (CHIPS), and 

the Science Act. Among past and current workforce 

development approaches, the GJC investment is 

unique both in monetary size (i.e., outside of DOL and 

higher education) and in its approach. 

About the GJC Program 

GJC, funded in March 2021 and launched publicly in 

Fall 2021, is one of the larger modern investments 

into place-based policy programs.12 Launched to 

mitigate the sustained economic impacts of the 

COVID-19 epidemic, GJC aligns key principles of high10 The expansive domain of workforce development, its myriad of stakeholders, and the trajectory of past and current federal programs and policies, exceeds 

the scope of this research project. However, a few of the pivotal legislative milestones which significantly shaped today’s workforce development landscape 

include: the Land Grant Act of 1862, National Vocational Education Act of 1917, the New Deal Legislation of the 1930s, National Apprenticeship Act of 1937, the 

GI Bill of Rights in 1944, the Vocational Education Act of 1963, The Higher Education Act in 1965, the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act in 1973, the 

Job Training Partnership Act in 1982, the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act in 1984, the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) in 1998, Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) which was enacted in 2014, and the Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act (Perkins V) 

in 2018. 

11 The most recent assessment by the federal government of employment and training programs is 2019, with data from 2017. In fiscal year 2017, 43 federallyfunded programs were identified. Since then, there has been significant growth in federally-supported programs such as APRA, CHIPS, and more. 

12 Mark Muro et al., ““Breaking down an $80 billion surge in place-based industrial policy.” Brookings Metro, December 15, 2022, https://www.brookings.edu/

articles/breaking-down-an-80-billion-surge-in-place-based-industrial-policy/.

13 Joseph Fuller et al., “Unlocking Economic Prosperity: Career Navigation in a Time of Rapid Change.” The Project on Workforce, Harvard Kennedy School, 

November 19 2023, https://www.pw.hks.harvard.edu/post/career-navigation. 

performing workforce development systems, effective 

strategies in local economic development, and the 

prioritization of crucial social outcomes like equity. 

While many policies and investment principles were 

applied, the following represent some of the high-level 

principles that influenced the structure of GJC:

• Place-based investments: As an agency, EDA 

prioritizes local context and capacity, and 

therefore seeks to accelerate local economic 

development through funding locally-identified 

priorities. 

• Sectoral Strategies: High-performing workforce 

development programs integrate employer 

commitments and inputs by centering the 

programs on specific industry sectors. This 

theory of change advances that “demand-based” 

programs will lead to more substantial outcomes 

for employers and workers. This research team 

will continue to investigate if demand-based 

approaches might lead to the prioritization of 

the needs of industry sectors over individual 

workers and their personal job aspirations. 

Recent research has shown that equity-based 

approaches protect the “economic agency” of 

workers as they navigate their careers.13

• Regional Training Systems: Effective and 

equitable workforce development programs 

are inherently local and should include crosssector collaborations of employers, training 

providers, wraparound service providers, and the 

incumbent/prospective workforce. 

• Good Jobs Principles: The Department of 

Commerce was one of the first federal agencies 

alongside the Department of Labor to codify key 

elements of equity, wages, and more. These were 

eventually outlined as the Good Jobs Principles, 

a jointly endorsed set of guiding principles by 

the U.S. Department of Commerce and U.S. 

Department of Labor.

GJC, alongside EDA’s sustained efforts in integrating 

workforce as a core competency, represents a new 

major addition to the federal workforce investment 
10

landscape. While other workforce development 

programs seek to address portions of the elements 

above, none fully anchor investments in economic 

development and competitiveness like EDA due to 

this unique mandate. 

In 2021, EDA invested $500 million into 32 industryled workforce training partnerships in 31 states and 

Puerto Rico through GJC. The local GJC programs 

are committed to placing over 50,000 American 

workers into quality jobs in 15 sectors. Pathways 

to “good jobs” in GJC are an explicit equity strategy 

of EDA’s investment that is embedded in the 

local programs with the goal of equitable career 

opportunities, economic mobility and security for 

all communities. The three 

spheres of equity in this report 

are rooted in these broadreaching goals.

GJC awards ranged from $1.8 

million to $24 million, with a 

median award of $15,859,759. 

The local programs’ duration 

ranges from two to four years 

and includes three potential 

phases: System Development, 

Program Design, or Program 

Implementation. GJC 

programs can choose to begin 

in any phase of the program, 

with the initial phases 

providing the lowest funding 

amount. As programs advance 

through the stages, available 

funding increases. 

The program lead entities 

are from a variety of 

backgrounds. Thirty-one 

percent are nonprofits (other 

than institutions of higher 

education); 22% are institutions 

of higher education; 9% are city 

or township governments; 9% 

are state governments; 9% are 

local economic development 

agencies, 6% are chambers of 

commerce; 6% are workforce 

development boards; and 

2% self-identified as “other,” 

14 For more information on the GJC program structure, please visit the FAQs.

including various other types of nonprofits or 

regional organizations. 

In addition to the lead entities,14 each GJC program 

includes one or multiple organizations that lead 

the sectoral partnerships. In rare cases, the lead 

entity and sectoral partnership leaders are the 

same. The breakdown of organization type for 

sectoral partnership lead organizations is similar 

to the lead entities. Forty-one percent of the listed 

are nonprofits; 16% are other regional or nonprofit 

organizations; 17% are institutions of higher 

education; 12% are workforce development boards; 

9% are government (city, township, county, and 

state); and 5% are chambers of commerce. 

Introduction
11

Equity in Local Contextualization

EDA’s place-based investment strategy emphasizes 

aligning industry needs with local context 

and capacity. Thus, GJC requires that grant 

applicants define their local needs, opportunities, 

and priorities.15 The framing of these, including 

assets, challenges, and needs, provides insights 

into the values and perspectives of funded local 

GJC programs. Local contextualization, or how 

a community tells its story, is a key sphere of 

equity. As with all narratives, what story is told 

(and how) is indicative of the values and priorities 

of the community. Stated another way, the data 

content of the local context has implications for 

what is “normal” or “average”16 and this indicates 

community values. For example, unemployment 

data points to norms of employment and the value 

of utilizing one’s time towards earning money. In 

other cases, median wage income data by race, 

ethnicity, and/or gender underscores the localized 

values of equal opportunity. In researching the GJC 

programs, equity emerged in local contextualization 

through three areas: data use, acknowledgment of 

past harm, and recognition of broken community 

trust. 

Data Use

The GJC programs contextualize their local needs 

with a variety of data points and information. 

Specific to the local community, GJC leaders rely 

most heavily on unemployment and poverty rates 

to tell the story of the needs within their region, 

with 81% mentioning these rates. Discussion of 

unemployment skew between issues of job loss, 

more generally, and the issue of low workforce 

participation, though not all made this distinction. 

Seventy-two percent of GJC leaders highlight 

15 The Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) included review criteria for the “Identification of Regional Needs” which included an assessment of the 

region’s economic state, identification of employer needs, and a plan for how the project will provide quality jobs. Additionally, the NOFO also included 

definitions of potential populations to serve.

16 Equity work must consistently question if the “average” or “normal” individual experience is inclusive or exclusive. Inclusive and diverse cultures 

create space for each community and/or individual to define their own development and flourishing according to their values, within ethical boundaries to 

prevent undue harm (for more, see Sen (2001) and Nussbaum (2011)).

the demographics (including population size 

and racial and/or ethnic characteristics) of their 

region. After these two most common data 

trends, the storytelling diverges. The impacts 

of COVID-19 are part of some regional stories 

(47%), as is an acknowledgment that the effects 

of COVID-19 are not equally distributed and that 

those most impacted, by and large, were nonwhite and low-income populations. Additionally, 

Equity in Local 

Contextualization

Data 

Use

Trust 

Building

Acknowledge

 Past Harm

DATA USE BY GJC PROGRAMS %

Unemployment or Poverty Rates 81%

Demographics 72%

COVID-19 Impacts 47%

Wage or Income disparities 44%

Opportunity disparities 38%

Geographic disparities 28%

Industry representation disparities 25%

Educational attainment 13%

Digital access 6%
12

Equity in Local Contextualization

44% highlight wage and income (such as median 

household income) disparities for underserved and/

or underrepresented communities in their region. 

Opportunity disparities, defined as limited access 

to opportunities such as training due to income, 

transportation, or lack of childcare options, are 

included in regional descriptions by 38% of GJC 

programs. Geographic access disparities, such as 

limited access to roads or the differences in service 

provision for rural areas, are incorporated by 28% of 

GJC programs, while 25% mention lack of industry 

representation by race or gender. Finally, educational 

attainment disparities (13%) and challenges in digital 

access, such as internet/broadband (6%), are also 

part of regional descriptions. 

Acknowledgement of Past Harm

Recognition of historical policies, practices, and 

approaches (i.e., past harm) that were exclusionary 

and harmful is also part of an equitable approach to 

Local Contextualization. Restorative justice practices 

emphasize the need to acknowledge past harm 

and restore conditions to how they were before the 

harm occurred,17 while also identifying and uplifting 

the assets and strengths within the community. 

Transformative justice practices highlight the need 

to stop perpetuating harm and transform systems 

so that violence and harm no longer occur in the first 

place.18 Both frameworks are useful when considering 

rebuilding trust and fostering collaborative 

relationships with communities that have experienced 

harm from federal or state actors. Within the GJC 

programs, 19% identify and acknowledge harmful 

historical practices as a component of their equity 

work.19 As one GJC leader mentions, “There’s a lot, 

with historical trauma, with things that have happened 

in [state name].” The long timeline for this process 

also came up for leaders. One shared, “[We are] 

17 Suzuki, M., & Jenkins, T. (2023). Apology–forgiveness cycle in restorative justice, but how? International Review of Victimology, 29(2), 259-276. https://

doi-org/10.1177/02697580221079994; 

Vaandering, Dorothy (2014) Implementing restorative justice practice in schools: what pedagogy reveals, Journal of Peace Education, 11:1, 64-80, DOI: 

10.1080/17400201.2013.794335

18 Mia Mingus. “Transformative Justice,” The Digital Abolitionist, Accessed November 5, 2023. https://www.thedigitalabolitionist.com/transformative-justice.

19 There is an interesting intersection between those who use opportunity disparities as part of the data component of Local Contextualization and past harm. 

Sixty seven percent of those who mentioned past harm also mentioned opportunity disparities. 

acknowledging that breaking down 400 years of systemic 

racism and other forms of discrimination is very much a 

• As you are developing programs, dig deeper 

into the disparities between populations 

by going beyond the unemployment and 

poverty rates. Often, disparity indicators, 

such as wage and income, opportunity, 

geographic accessibility, industry-specific 

representation, and education, can provide 

more insight into the why behind the 

unemployment and poverty rates. This 

is critical information as programs are 

designed and developed to ensure the 

offerings are addressing the real-time needs 

of the community. Some GJC programs (9%) 

are already proactively internalizing the data 

from local contextualization by developing 

local success metrics beyond federal 

indicators of quality jobs for what equitable 

outcomes entail, such a “community 

prosperity wage” as a target, or specifically 

defining a range of equitable pay for the 

region. 

• These regional descriptions highlight that 

local programs rely heavily on readily 

available data points, such as unemployment 

and poverty rates. However, these macrolevel indicators will be difficult to noticeably 

impact during a short grant cycle. As 

programs can identify opportunity disparities 

through data, these will better highlight 

how the program is moving the needle for 

underserved communities. 

DATA USE

Key Takeaways for Local Practitioners

Key Takeaways for Funders
13

long-term effort that we’re all in to do what we can, but 

we’re going to hit some bumps along the way.” 

Trust Building

As GJC leaders contextualize their region, the level 

of community trust is also an important aspect 

of equity efforts. For many programs, advancing 

equity requires building trust between historically 

underserved communities and the leading 

organization. GJC leaders reference navigating 

distrust from communities and the need to rebuild 

this for their programs to be successful. As one 

leader shared, “I think the biggest challenge, as it 

relates to equity and inclusion, that we have faced so 

far, is figuring out how to get community trust. We 

had a difficult conversation with someone [who] is a 

stakeholder in this space, where basically we were 

so excited to be explaining this project, and all of the 

great things it was going to do. And after we talked for 

probably five to seven minutes, she said, ‘That’s great. 

I’ve heard all this before, and it’s never come to be. 

So why is this different, and how are you going to do 

this?’” Similarly, another leader shared that in many 

of their conversations, “everything that we keep 

hearing is about trust.” In interviews, 34% reference 

the need to rebuild trust with local communities, 

and some reference engaging with community 

leaders or community-based organizations in these 

efforts. 

Trust-building is a time-intensive process that 

necessitates work beyond the life cycle of this 

grant. However, the research team intends to 

continue investigating the practices related to trustbuilding within the local GJC programs over the 

next several years. 

Equity in Local Contextualization

• Engage with social workers and community 

leaders engaged in trauma-informed care 

and restorative justice practices as you seek 

to reconcile past harmful policies and/or 

practices (note: calling out past harm without 

a plan for restoration can be more harmful). 

• Building trust is a slow process and will 

extend beyond the boundaries of grants such 

as GJC. Efforts to build trust must be rooted 

in long-term collective regional growth 

and flourishing, not simply transactional 

relationships related to program outcomes 

(i.e., engaging with underserved communities 

solely to reach target population goals). As 

you engage with a wide range of communitybased organizations (CBOs), begin with small 

projects and continue to build from there. 

As decisions are made about the next steps, 

engage the community representatives in 

the actual decision-making, and not just in 

data collection or gaining access to target 

populations. 

• Finally, recognize that capacity building for 

leaders in underrepresented communities is 

a critical lever for continued success. 

• Recognize trust building as a strong and 

valued outcome

• Provide time and funding for these processes 

of addressing past harm and building 

community trust.

• Be patient with funding and outcomes. 

Historically, practices that prioritize speed 

and short-term outputs are the kinds of 

practices that have led to breaking the trust 

in the first place.

ACKNOWLEDGING PAST HARM AND 

TRUST BUILDING

Key Takeaways for Local Practitioners

Key Takeaways for Funders
14

Equity in the Leading Organization

The flexibility in the GJC funding opportunity 

led to significant diversity among the types of 

organizations leading local programs. While 

there were no specific requirements for equity 

practices within the leading organizations, 94% 

of GJC programs highlight equity within their 

own organization in at least one of the following 

areas: background and experience reflections, 

equity frameworks, and/or decision making. 

While equity is not solely a top-down initiative, it is 

necessary for equity to be embedded at all levels - 

programmatically and organizationally. This section 

provides more insight into how organizations 

leading the local GJC programs are embedding 

equity. 

Background & Experience Reflections 

The intersection of individual experiences, identities 

(gender, ethnicity, race, socioeconomic status, 

religion, etc.), and the value and associated power 

of each of these are important considerations at 

the individual and organizational levels. In other 

words, the “positionality” is the sum of one’s social 

identities, experiences, and background that 

influence how one perceives and interprets things. 

Positionalities are applicable both at the individual 

leadership level as well as the organizational level. 

For example, a leader’s positionality can impact 

how she interacts socially, and an organization’s 

positionality can also impact how staff internally 

operate and externally interact with the community. 

These experiences and backgrounds (i.e., 

“positionalities”) can impact the viability and 

sustainability of equity initiatives. Forty-seven 

percent of the GJC programs explicitly highlight 

their leader’s or their organization’s background 

and experience and how that might advance, or 

potentially hinder, their equity work. Some elevate 

their organization’s or personal connections with 

underserved communities. Others identify a 

need to hire or contract with community-based 

organizations (CBOs) or contractors from the 

populations they seek to reach. Reflecting on 

background and experience enables program 

leaders and organizations to understand how 

their positionality impacts their efforts and where 

partners or other leaders are needed to advance 

equity goals. Some examples of how grantee 

leaders reflect on their own or their organization’s 

background and experience include: 

• Our starting point is having mostly white men in 

leadership ... our work is to advance programs to 

get folks that represent the communities rather 

than just continue what’s been happening with the 

[industry] sector in [our state]”.

• “[This program] was important to me to end 

intergenerational poverty; I grew up with a 

very similar background where my father was 

incarcerated, and my mom was working multiple 

jobs. So it became more of a passion for me and 

the only thing that has consistently provided value 

is education.” 

• “I will admit I have a lot to learn, and I know that 

we have areas where we can do a lot of different 

things. So I’m excited to be a part of [equity in this 

GJC program], and to see how this grows and then 

how we can carry it into our other programs as we 

move forward.

Equity in the 

Leading 

Organization

Decision

Making

Equity

Frameworks

Background & 

Experience Reflection
15

Equity in the Leading Organization

Equity Frameworks

Equity frameworks, or the formalization of equity 

priorities into procedural norms, are high-level 

indicators of an organization’s prioritization of 

equity. At this early stage in GJC, leaders are 

discussing ways they are seeking to codify their 

priorities into action. Sixty-nine percent of GJC 

programs reference formalized plans or the process 

of formalizing an equity approach or framework. 

Interestingly, 80% of those who actively reflect on 

their own or their organization’s background and 

experience and its relationship to equity also have 

an equity framework. While a nationwide scan 

on equity frameworks in workforce development 

organizations has not been completed to this team’s 

knowledge, a recent study by McKinsey & Company 

(2023) notes that only 40% of Fortune 1000 

businesses made public statements of support for 

racial justice as of October 2022 and only 25% had 

made internal commitments to promote diversity 

and inclusion. Additionally, NGIN’s 2022 review of 

equity announcements, focused on larger financial 

institutions, found these commitments were only 

small steps to remedy historical harms, not catalytic 

changes in improving wealth for Black, Indigenous, 

and People of Color (BIPOC) communities. Instead, 

these equity announcements seem to have aided the 

companies in their profits, yet did not reach intended 

target populations because of a lack of systemic 

change. While nonprofits, educational institutions, 

local governments, or quasi-government agencies 

will often have a higher propensity to engage with 

social issues such as equity, early indicators point 

to GJC programs advancing equity priorities more 

substantially than their industry partners. However, 

all organizations face the challenge of catalyzing 

change through equity initiatives and not solely 

additive language or superficial metrics. 

In addition low corporate engagement, momentum 

may be waning and, if not, turning against equity 

efforts in some local GJC programs. Thirty-one 

percent of GJC programs do not have or are not 

developing an equity framework, and of these, 30% 

indicate they are navigating negative local sentiment 

toward diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts. In 

other words, as of the publication of this report (five 

months after initial interviews), GJC local leaders in 

some communities are now navigating resistance 

to the equity priorities GJC leaders committed to 

advance through their programs. 

Equity frameworks vary widely in their formation, 

scope, and application. While some organizations 

enlist external consultants to guide the development, 

others are revisiting their overarching strategic 

plans to integrate equity comprehensively into 

their GJC program. Subsequent reports from this 

team will delve further into the potential influence 

of these frameworks. Additionally, it is important 

to acknowledge that the GJC program applications 

in 2021 were written during a surge in the positive 

sentiment toward racial justice and equity. However, 

even with the amplified public and private backing for 

equity, these frameworks remain non-uniform, with 

several organizations still in the nascent stages of 

their development. This underscores the formidable 

challenge associated with substantive equity work 

that extends beyond mere proclamations. 

Overall, many program leaders are still in the early 

stages of equity frameworks, and below are some 

examples of how they discuss these: 

• “We’re taking a lot from another initiative, which 

originated with Harvard Business School. It’s 

called impact-weighted accounts, and that’s 

how they evaluate the workforce of participating 

businesses: is it reflective of the region’s diversity, 

and is that diversity reflected throughout the 

occupational ladders at the organization? So that’s 

our outcomes-focused ‘North Star’ approach 

in monitoring our businesses and our training 

programs.”

• “I think we’re attempting a new model, which means 

there’s not a playbook, right? We can’t just follow 

these instructions, and that’s where it ends. And 

there’s a lot at stake for a lot of different people. We 

want to do this, we want to get it right, and there’s 

also competing goals, objectives, and how do we 

make sure we’re all moving forward? So we’re kind 

of going through trial and error with it. However, 

the one thing is that there’s no trial and error about 

the importance of equity. There are things that 

are working, but there’s more that we could be 

doing, and how can we do it in a way that’s fully 

sustainable, where it doesn’t feel like this is just 

an initiative right now? We’re utilizing all of these 

components together, we want to be able to see 

how this can be a good model that sustains [after 

this project].”
16

• “We’re trying to do this Nash Equity Framework, 

and it’s a guideline for these 9 areas around equity 

- like how we think about equity, and it’s kind of a 

self-inventory of how your organization is doing 

these different areas.”

• “We have a working definition of equity and 

we’re also putting into place a lot of intentional 

strategies around building a culture of trust and 

belonging. But also doing some work with the 

[organization name] right now, with leadership. 

And we have equity committees and so we’re 

working through those committees to implement 

some intentional strategies to build that kind of 

culture.”

Decision Making

The local GJC programs, by design, are intentionally 

collaborative. The sectoral partnerships are 

governance structures that include economic 

development, workforce, education, social services 

partners and some level of leadership from area 

employers. From an equity lens, the research 

team specifically attuned to how underserved 

communities and/or their representatives were 

engaged in decision-making processes. While 

all GJC programs referenced connections to 

underserved communities in some way, the 

extent to which these communities and leaders 

are engaged and in what activities varied. The 

discussions by GJC programs in written materials 

or the interviews around program decision making 

are captured below. 

Many GJC leaders (75%) highlight receiving input 

from underserved community representatives 

(including CBOs or wraparound service providers) 

through open houses, roundtable discussions, 

town halls, workgroups, or committees. Those with 

formalized mechanisms of collaborative decision 

making, such as workgroups or committees, 

represent 38% of GJC programs. Of these 

collaborative decision-making programs, 78% also 

have formalized equity frameworks. This suggests 

a potential correlation between the formalization 

of equity priorities and the deliberate distribution 

of power, thus promoting a more balanced and 

inclusive decision-making process. As one grantee 

shares, “We want to elevate and give [communitybased organizations] a space to influence decisionmaking and strategy.” Another grantee describes a 

detailed training process on a distributed leadership 

Equity in the Leading Organization

Collaborative decision making embraces a multidimensional process of extensive collaboration, cooperation, 

and active participation from a variety of stakeholders. Moreover, it acknowledges the inherent power 

dynamics within a group and provides an avenue for its equitable distribution. Shared or consensus decision 

making (meaning all stakeholders agree) can be one example of collaborative decision making. Collaborative 

decision making can also include meaningful community engagement, which in itself also has multiple levels 

of engagement from input to the community making the decision for itself.

Community engagement is a spectrum of for, with, and by. “For” implies that decisions are made for an 

underserved community; thus the communities are passive receivers, which removes their action and agency, 

and does not meaningfully engage or empower a community. Decision making with communities allows for 

sharing power and resources while also building capacity within underserved communities for them to lead 

projects and programs by themselves. Note that capacity building within community organizations is also a 

key component of this, and some community-based organizations ask more traditional organizations (such as 

economic development organizations) to lead the grant or program so they can focus on providing services 

and not administrative burdens. This collaborative leadership model builds capacity within underserved 

populations while not becoming extractive or burdensome of others’ time and resources. Some of the GJC 

programs are actively seeking to model collaborative decision making by the community, which will be 

highlighted in more detail in future reports as more information on implementation practices is available. For 

more information on community engagement models, please see Facilitating Power by Rosa Gonzalez (2019).

COLLABORATIVE DECISION MAKING
17

Equity in the Leading Organization

model that provides community-led teams with 

data and areas of needed impact, allowing the 

organizations closest to these communities and 

populations to decide how to tackle the issues 

collectively. 

A key outcome of the System Development phase 

(72% of programs launched in this stage) is the 

formation of governance networks that help 

coalitions identify decision-making processes, 

formalize networks, and establish engagement and 

technical assistance plans. Therefore, as grantees 

advance through the Program Design and Program 

Implementation stages, the research team will 

continue to evaluate how approaches to decision 

making evolve, especially in relation to equity. 

• Reflect on your role within the ecosystem 

and evaluate which “seat at the table” makes 

the most sense for you or your organization 

based on your background and experience. At 

times, building capacity through training and 

administrative support with other organizations 

can be an effective tool in advancing equity.

• Evaluate who is not currently at the table, why 

they are not at the table, and/or what barriers 

are keeping them from being at the table. If a 

program’s target populations are not represented 

both at the decision-making table and in daily 

implementation, there is a critical gap. This 

is an important opportunity for a program to 

implement equitable processes in expanding 

access, inclusion, and formalizing processes. 

• Recognize that equity frameworks are difficult 

to develop but can lead to actionable steps in 

equity. See the Equity Resources section for 

helpful approaches (p. 27 ), or consider hiring a 

consultant to help facilitate the development of a 

broader equity framework. 

• Understand models of collaborative decisionmaking and formalize the inclusion and 

leadership of underserved communities in 

program decision-making. 

• Recognize that equity frameworks are still in 

the early stages, even for programs prioritizing 

equity. 

• There are early indicators of decreased interest 

and/or increased resistance to equity priorities 

in local ecosystems; support and co-learning 

opportunities are necessary to continue to uplift 

local leaders in these efforts. 

• Funding to support operational changes, 

especially in structure and decision-making, may 

provide long-term stability for equity-focused 

initiatives. 

LEADING ORGANIZATION 

Key Takeaways for Local Practitioners

Key Takeaways for Funders
18

Equity in Program Delivery

GJC leaders conceptualize equity in their program 

delivery through four areas: target populations, 

wraparound services, program participant 

feedback, and promoting industry change. Most 

GJC programs (72%) at the time of their interview 

were in the initial System Development phase, 

and the stages of Program Design and Program 

Implementation were still upcoming. Therefore, the 

findings in this section reflect early insights, which 

are expected to continue evolving as GJC programs 

move into the design and implementation stages.

Target Populations

Each program self-identified their target 

populations. The funding opportunity encouraged 

targeting historically underserved populations and 

areas, based on the needs of their local area.20

To understand who GJC programs are targeting, 

the research team organized the populations 

and communities identified in interviews and 

application materials into overarching categories.21

These categories are outlined in the table on 

page 19. There is great overlap between these 

categories, and this table does not represent the 

intersectionality of populations’ identities.22

All of the GJC programs mention servicing racial 

and ethnic minority groups and 97% also mention 

serving populations with lower socioeconomic 

status. Following these, GJC programs mention 

youth (81%), women (78%), formerly incarcerated 

(69%), and veterans/military association (63%).23

Significant overlap exists among the above 

categories, as most GJC programs highlight 

multiple underserved populations. Other target 

20 As part of the NOFO, EDA provided some direction for target populations, stating “Although not required, EDA encourages efforts to reach historically 

underserved populations and areas, communities of color, women, and other groups facing with labor market barriers such as persons with disabilities, 

disconnected youth, individuals in recovery, individuals with past criminal records including justice-impacted and reentry participants, serving trainees 

participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and Women, Infants and 

Children (WIC), and veterans and military spouses.”

21 The research team acknowledges that such groupings are simplistic, reductionary, and can be problematic as we are flattening identities into 

prescribed categories. The team sought to include diverse categorizations while also still reducing it to a manageable quantity for analysis. 

22 Intersectionality is a concept developed in 1989 by Kimberlé Crenshaw, a civil rights scholar, to highlight how race, gender, and other identities 

intersect. Intersectionality underscores the complex and interconnected nature of identities, particularly in the context of discrimination and oppression. 

It recognizes that individuals occupy multiple social positions and belong to various groups, and these intersecting identities can lead to unique and 

compounded experiences of privilege or disadvantage.

23 Several categories, particularly the racial and ethnic minority category included multiple populations under the umbrella of our broader categories, 

and we therefore simplified the counts to one mention per GJC project. The chart on page 18 shows the specific counts of groups mentioned within this 

category.

24 The category of incumbent workers refers to workers in need of occupational upskilling or reskilling.

populations mentioned once or twice, but 

not frequently enough to warrant a separate 

category, include: incumbent workers,24 people 

with low literacy rates, dislocated adult workers, 

career-changers, people without college degrees, 

domestic violence survivors, men in healthcare, 

human trafficking victims, single parents, lowskilled or uncredentialed workers.

Category names and community identities

While all GJC programs mention targeting 

minority racial and ethnic communities, 84% of 

these further identified which groups (see page 

19, “Minority Racial & Ethnic Group Detail” chart). 

A key question emerging from these data is 

whether specifically identifying populations and 

communities will impact programming, therefore 

leading to differences in equitable outcomes. The 

need for culturally relevant practices in many types 

Equity in 

Program Delivery

 Promoting

 Industry

 Change

 Program

 Participant

 Feedback

Target 

Populations

Wraparound

Services
19

100% Minority racial & ethnic groups

97%

81%

78%

69%

63%

56%

53%

50%

38%

13%

10% 30% 50% 70% 90%

Low socioeconomic status

Youth

Women

Formerly incarcerated populations

Veteran/military association

Persons with disabilities

Remote/Rural

Immigrant

Mental Health

LGBTQIA+

INITIAL TARGET POPULATIONS FOR GJC PROGRAMS

Equity in Program Delivery

MINORITY RACIAL & ETHNIC GROUPS DETAIL

Black – 69%

Latinx/Hispanic – 53%

Native/Pacific Islander – 41%

Asian – 28%

TARGET POPULATIONS WORDS INCLUDED IN CATEGORY

Minority racial & ethnic groups

BIPOC, communities of color, Black, Native, Indigenous, Pacific 

Islander, Latinx, Hispanic, Asian, ethnicities, Latino, races, racial, 

tribes, tribal, Native Hawaiian, Historically black colleges and 

universities (HBCU) students, marginalized, minority

Low socioeconomic status

poverty, low income, SNAP, TANF, unemployed, WIC, social 

assistance, cash assistance, homeless, public housing, precariously 

housed, economically challenged, food insecure, economically 

disadvantaged, Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed 

(ALICE)

Youth disconnected youth, opportunity youths, young, teens, foster 

system, high school students

Women women, females

Formerly incarcerated populations criminal history/records/background, justice-involved/impacted, 

formerly incarcerated, reentry, returning citizens, conviction history

Veteran/military association veteran, veterans, veterans’, military spouses, service members

Persons with disabilities disabilities, disabled, physically challenged, different abilities, 

neurodivergent

Remote/rural rural, remote villages, digital divide, economically underdeveloped 

area, Appalachian coal communities

Immigrant

English as a second language/English language learners/limited 

English proficient, immigrant, immigrants, New Americans, undocumented backgrounds, refugees

Mental health recovery, substance use disorder (SUD), mental health

LGBTQIA+ lgbtq, lgbtqia
20

of service provision is well documented,25 but 

there are still gaps in understanding implications 

for implementation, especially for workforce 

development programs. Potential differences in 

specific community needs, lived experiences, and 

more may be overlooked by program leaders if they 

have yet to do their due diligence to understand 

unique needs and assets within each community. 

Goals and metrics related to underserved populations

When initially identifying the outcomes for the 

program, only 53% of GJC programs specifically 

moved from identifying broad target population 

outreach plans into specific target population 

program participation goals at the time of the 

interviews. Additionally, only some of the goals 

connect the dots with the full range of the regional 

target populations they initially self-identify. 

Detailed target population program participation 

goals can indicate a program is making a direct 

connection between intent of equitable outcomes 

and movement towards the operationalization 

of equitable access. The lack of specific goals 

(and thus accountability structures) is concerning 

because solely identifying and outreaching to 

target populations will not be sufficient to ensure 

equitable outcomes. Equitable outcomes are the 

result of dedicated and meaningful actions, and 

this includes tracking outputs through metrics that 

provide specific insight into whether equity is being 

achieved.26

Nonetheless, the research team anticipates, and 

EDA program managers should expect, that during 

System Development and Program Design stages, 

GJC leaders will build in metrics as part of their 

internal program evaluation. Additionally, EDA 

currently has robust reporting requirements for 

GJC programs on workforce program participants, 

including information on gender, race, and ethnicity. 

Furthermore, EDA built in “backstops” through 

phase advancement and reporting, but both may 

25 Bryan Brown et al. “Moving Culturally Relevant Pedagogy From Theory to Practice: Exploring Teachers’ Application of Culturally Relevant Education in 

Science and Mathematics,” Urban Education 54, no. 6 (2019): 775-803, doi: 10.1177/0042085918794802

Anna Lau. “Making the Case for Selective and Directed Cultural Adaptations of Evidence-Based Treatments: Examples From Parent Training,” Clinical 

Psychology: Science and Practice 13, no. 4 (2006): 295–310. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2850.2006.00042

Le’Roy Reese and Elizabeth Vera. “Culturally Relevant Prevention: The Scientific and Practical Considerations of Community-Based Programs,” The 

Counseling Psychologist 35, no. 6 (2007): 763-778. doi: 10.1177/0011000007304588

Tina Kruse. “Making the Match: Culturally Relevant Coaching and Training for Early Childhood Caregivers,” Early Childhood Research & Practice 14, no. 2 

(2012). http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v14n2/kruse.html.

26 Greg Guibert et al. “Introduction to the Access, Process, and Outcome Framework for Equity in Economic Development.” National Economic Research 

and Resilience Center, Argonne National Laboratory, June 2023, https://www.eda.gov/sites/default/files/2023-06/NERRC_Quarterly_Equity_Research_

Brief_Final.pdf.

be limited by the organization’s mission and values 

to often serve as many as possible. It should be 

noted that networking and linking potential program 

participants with other local organizations serving 

a specific population may advance equity more 

sustainably than seeking to serve all populations 

within one organization or program. 

Outreach

Workforce development programs rely on various 

outreach methods to ensure their services 

engage targeted populations. The GJC programs 

plan to utilize various approaches to engage 

underserved populations. The findings in the 

following sections are preliminary, as only a few 

of the GJC coalitions were in Program Design or 

Program Implementation stages at the time of 

data collection. In its initial form, this analysis of 

outreach methods is based on the positionality 

of the organization leading the GJC programs. To 

reach new communities, many GJC programs are 

engaging CBOs that are in the communities they 

wish to serve. Fifty-eight percent of the GJC leaders 

identify utilizing CBOs for outreach. However, 

that number may increase as they progress into 

Program Design and Program Implementation 

in the grant’s lifecycle. Additionally, 38% of GJC 

programs are hiring caseworkers or navigators 

to reach workforce program participants and 

work alongside these participants throughout 

their engagement with the local GJC programs. 

The caseworkers are often individuals who more 

directly share identities and/or lived experiences of 

the underserved populations and communities. 

As for their mode of outreach, 31% of GJC 

programs mention multiple digital and mass 

media methods such as social media, TV, radio, 

pop-up ads, and more. Many are aware that the 

digital equity divide will make it difficult for certain 

recruitment methods to reach their targeted 

communities, particularly those in more remote 

areas. Twenty-five percent discuss utilizing 

Equity in Program Delivery
21

Equity in Program Delivery

methods like billboards, flyers, and other “word of 

mouth” strategies. Other key takeaways from the 

interviews and application documents include that 

nearly all GJC programs mention recruiting from 

job fairs, career centers, community colleges, and 

technical schools. Sixteen percent of GJC programs 

specifically mention that their outreach will be 

culturally specific and accessible to English Language 

Learner (ELL) participants. 

Wraparound services

One of the most prominent aspects of equity that 

surfaces among all GJC programs is the provision of 

wraparound services to ensure the ability to access 

career opportunities. The types of wraparound 

services that GJC programs are planning to offer, and 

their model of delivery are still in development for 

many. Still, the services will encompass aspects like 

childcare, transportation, general system navigation, 

and mental health services. GJC leaders report 

in the summer of 2023 that the most commonly 

provided wraparound services – some funded 

through other programs – to program participants 

are transportation, navigation, career services and 

learning materials, and life skills. As more programs 

reach implementation stages, this will continue to be 

an area of focus. 

The wraparound services are provided through 

several mechanisms: CBOs, contracted service 

providers, or the interlacing of these services from 

other grants and programs, especially as EDA 

funding cannot address all wraparound needs. 

For program participants to access wraparound 

services, 44% of GJC programs rely on CBOs and 

38% utilize some version of a benefits navigator, often 

the same person as the career navigators, career 

specialists, or case managers. Thirty-one percent of 

GJC leaders stress their commitment to providing 

individualized wraparound supports, meaning the 

supports are tailored to each participant’s needs 

rather than a “one size fits all” model. One grantee 

mentions using a “strength-based” model in which 

participants’ capacities, levels of self-determination, 

and community resources are the guiding factors 

in deciding which wrap-around supports will most 

support participant growth. 

27 This example comes from Viral Justice: How We Grow the World We Want by Ruha Benjamin, which dives deeply into the issues around loaded language, 

power dynamics, and reframing linguistic equity.

Wraparound supports within GJC operate within 

the limitations of federal funding, compounded 

by unique statutory limitations for EDA under its 

authorizing legislations, and thus cannot be utilized 

for direct cash assistance or stipends. Some of 

the most common supports mentioned were 

transportation and childcare (although some are 

not paid for through the GJC program), and 28% of 

GJC programs also emphasize including mental 

health wraparound services. Alongside the provision 

of wraparound supports, 13% of GJC leaders also 

highlight challenges in navigating the “benefits cliff” 

phenomenon, wherein program participants struggle 

to improve their wages while potentially losing their 

eligibility for public benefits. 

Finally, 9% of leaders highlight during their interviews 

a necessary change in terminology from “wraparound 

services,” preferring alternatives like “supplemental 

services” or “integrated services.” This ambivalence 

around language strikes at a deeper issue around 

the terminology of workforce development, such 

as speaking to a need to attract target populations 

who may have been attracted to these fields for 

years but have dealt with being actively repelled by 

the industries themselves.27 It is also important to 

note that no single wraparound service is sufficient 

to cover every participant’s need. As one GJC leader 

expresses, it is impossible to “silo” each wraparound service as they all bleed into each other to 

ideally create a supportive network to work towards 

continued program participant success. 

Program Participant Feedback

Another aspect of equity prioritization is feedback at 

all levels, including the incorporation and elevation of 

program participants’ perspectives and experiences 

within the GJC programs. Since 72% of GJC programs 

were in the System Development stage during data 

collection in mid-2023, conversations around worker 

participant engagement were in the early stages. 

Much of this will be further developed in the Program 

Design and Program Implementation stages. Thus, 

discussion of direct feedback mechanisms are 

somewhat limited at this point, though 69% percent 

of GJC programs mention some level of direct 
22

feedback mechanisms. Of these, 36% of programs 

rely on program participant surveys or interviews 

to gather feedback. Notably, this percentage does 

not distinguish between the depth of this feedback 

(e.g., simple surveys versus in-depth interviews28). 

While some GJC programs are providing structured 

surveys with pre-populated options for response, 

others are taking a more qualitative approach 

by collecting personal stories from participants 

or conducting “empathy interviews,” wherein 

the feelings and personal experiences of the 

participants will be at the forefront of the interview. 

Another popular feedback method mentioned is 

worker convenings, including roundtables, focus 

groups, and worker summits, with 36% of GJC 

leaders who mention feedback mechanisms 

identifying these as their primary method. Some 

GJC programs (27%) also plan to incorporate 

direct feedback mechanisms into their Program 

Implementation stage but are unsure what those 

mechanisms will look like. As with most of this 

report’s findings, mechanisms and implications of 

program participant feedback will continue to be 

studied as GJC programs evolve and advance. 

Promoting Industry-level Change

Program leaders also note the need for changes 

from industry employers to achieve equitable 

outcomes. Ninety-one percent of GJC programs 

describe some change they hope to promote in 

their sectoral partnerships to advance equity. The 

GJC leaders speak about activities to advance 

equity-related changes in the industry in the 

following ways: 

• Educational sessions such as training sessions 

for employers in the GJC programs described 

as “diversity,” “culturally responsive,” or “cultural 

competency” training. Alternatively, some 

GJC programs are planning on meetings with 

employers that feature equity-expert guest 

speakers;

• Implementing a selection of skills-based hiring 

practices such as recruitment strategies that 

prioritize a candidate’s skills, abilities, and 

28 Additionally, the research team did not include in this count any GJC programs that indicated they would be conducting a single post-placement 

survey for program participants, as this level of feedback is not an ongoing, iterative process. 

29 William Congdon et al. “Understanding Good Jobs: A Review of Definitions and Evidence.” Urban Institute, July 23, 2020, https://www.urban.org/

research/publication/understanding-good-jobs-review-definitions-and-evidence.

30 “Quality Jobs Framework.” Jobs for the Future, August 29, 2023, https://www.jff.org/idea/quality-jobs-framework/.

“Job Quality Toolkit.” NIST, U.S. Department of Commerce, 2023, https://www.commerce.gov/work-us/job-quality-toolkit.

competencies over traditional benchmarks 

such as formal education degrees or specific 

job experience. This approach often utilizes 

assessments, competency-based interviewing, 

and practical tasks within the hiring process 

to better gauge a candidate’s aptitude and 

proficiency related to the job requirements to 

foster equity in opportunities in the workforce;

• Advocating for job quality characteristics through 

connection of job elements and worker well 

being29 such as worker safety, flexibility, 

autonomy, job stability, and advancement 

opportunities.30

Many of these activities are just launching, and 

the effectiveness of these methods in advancing 

equity is still to be determined. Additionally, an 

essential question is emerging of whether the 

GJC workforce development systems are for the 

community or with the community. “For” creates a 

power imbalance where a privileged group is doing 

something “for” an underserved group, which is not 

a restorative process but a parental or authoritarian 

process. One potential concern of a “for” approach 

is that it can lead to viewing program participants 

as value units to slot into jobs that other, more 

privileged groups are leaving in droves. There 

are also the many challenges of creating jobs in 

industries that have been historically non-inclusive 

of specific populations or communities without 

changing the workplace culture. 

Broader System Changes

Several of the GJC grantees (23%) seek to 

implement changes not only in their local 

workforce development systems but also in 

broader changes in how people participate in the 

local economy. For example, GJC program leaders 

discuss aspirations to change how underserved 

populations engage with the industry sector (such 

as more community members seeking healthcare 

services), changing how program participants view 

their job opportunities, themselves, their long-term 

potential, and their rights as workers. Others also 

discuss creating new jobs in the local economy 

so more people can stay within the community 

as well as a desire to create affordable housing 

Equity in Program Delivery
23

Equity in Program Delivery

for the community. These broader system changes 

reflect how the GJC leaders see the equity priority 

interwoven with other local initiatives and priorities 

(i.e., as they incorporate equity in their program, 

impacts will ripple into the community in numerous 

ways). • As you identify target populations, conduct 

strengths-based evaluations to better 

understand the unique needs and assets of the 

populations. 

• EDA funding is constrained in its ability to 

support a wide breadth of wraparound supports, 

therefore it is important to engage with 

philanthropic or additional funding sources to 

braid services for your program participants.

• While your organization may inherently value 

equity, some partners may need to see 

more data on the competitive advantages of 

diversity and the changing (i.e., more diverse) 

demographics of the future workforce.1

• Look for and promote nontraditional indicators 

of program success when evaluating programs 

and/or funding opportunities. Slow and patient 

investments that support capacity building of 

the leaders and organizations doing the daily 

grunt work of equity are often not prioritized and 

lead to suboptimal outcomes in the long run or 

even unsustainable programs.

1 William Frey. “The US will become ‘minority white’ 

in 2045, Census projects.” Brookings Metro, March 

14, 2018, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/

the-us-will-become-minority-white-in-2045-census-projects/.

Oriane Georgiac and Aneeta Rattan. “Stop Making the 

Business Case for Diversity.” Inclusion and Belonging, Harvard 

Business Review, June 15, 2022, https://hbr.org/2022/06/

stop-making-the-business-case-for-diversity.

Joan Williams and Jamie Dolkas. “Data-Driven Diversity.” Inclusion and 

Belonging, Harvard Business Review, March-April 2022, https://hbr.

org/2022/03/data-driven-diversity.

PROGRAM DELIVERY

Key Takeaways for Local Practitioners

Key Takeaways for Funders
24

Conclusion

The American Rescue Plan Act laid a foundation 

for innovation in equitable workforce development 

programs. Through the Good Jobs Challenge, 

regional leaders are developing sector-specific 

training programs aimed at addressing disparities 

and uplifting underserved communities. 

This research unveils a layered approach to 

prioritizing equity in GJC, encapsulated by 

three interdependent domains: Equity in Local 

Contextualization, the Leading Organizations, and 

Program Delivery. 

Local Contextualization underscores the importance 

of data in identifying community-specific 

challenges and opportunities, acknowledging 

and addressing historical harms, and rebuilding 

community trust. While findings highlight the 

strong use of high-level data by GJC programs in 

local contextualization, we recommend a deeper 

analysis of racial, gender, or geographic disparities 

to better understand the needs of underserved 

communities, alongside reflections of historical 

context and harms. 

The second sphere, equity within the Leading 

Organization, addresses how equity work was 

impacted by the organization, its equity framework, 

and its decision making processes. While about 

half of the leaders recognize their organization’s 

positionality, nearly two-thirds were working 

on or had already developed formalized equity 

frameworks. Similarly, most (75%) actively 

discussed mechanisms for input from underserved 

communities, though only 38% of these had 

formalized these processes for collaborative 

decision making with the community. The journey 

to integrating a thoughtful and meaningful equity 

framework remains challenging, pointing to the 

need for continued support in this area.

Equity in Local 

Contextualization

Equity in the Leading 

Organization

Equity in 

Program Delivery

Spheres 

of Equity

Equity in Local 

Contextualization

Data 

Use

Trust 

Building

Acknowledge

 Past Harm

Equity in the 

Leading 

Organization

Decision

Making

Equity

Frameworks

Background & 

Experience Reflection
25

Conclusion

In the final sphere, Program Delivery, the targeted 

underserved populations initially identified by the GJC 

programs are minority racial and ethnic groups and 

those with low socioeconomic status. The outreach 

strategies to engage underserved communities 

revealed that a collaborative approach could yield 

positive results, with a significant percentage of 

GJC programs leveraging the strengths of CBOs 

for outreach. As programs mature into the design 

and implementation stages, the additional layer 

of wraparound services reveals a commitment to 

holistic support. Additionally, nearly all programs 

envision promoting some degree of equity-oriented 

change within industry partners through employer 

training, hiring reforms, and job quality characteristics, 

indicating the potential for long-term systemic 

impacts. 

Two of these spheres align with the recent work by 

the National Economic Research and Resilience 

Center in the Introduction to the Access, Process, 

and Outcome Framework for Equity in Economic 

Development (2023). That report’s “Process”, defined 

as the fair and intentional involvement and inclusion 

of all stakeholder groups in economic development 

decisions affecting their communities, are embedded 

with this report’s discussion of decision making in 

equity in the Leading Organization. Additionally, the 

concept of “Access,” which is the assurance that 

all community members, especially underserved 

populations, benefit from opportunities, broadly 

mirrors aspects in this report’s section on Program 

Delivery. 

Once again, it is important to note that the findings 

of this report represent early stages and practices 

in the GJC programs. As the programs evolve and 

mature, approaches are anticipated to evolve and 

alter, and new insights will emerge. It’s crucial to 

continue examining these programs while they grow, 

furthering our understanding of equitable practices 

in workforce development. Subsequent analyses will 

follow programs through their maturation, focusing 

more intently on the measurable output of practices 

fostering equity.

Overall, the GJC has significantly contributed to 

progressing the workforce development field. It 

has not only elevated the importance of equity 

considerations but also spotlighted a model that 

tailors interventions to specific community assets, 

challenges, and needs. Through equity in local 

contextualization, the leading organization, and program 

delivery, GJC marks a critical step forward in fostering 

employment opportunities and economic resilience in 

a diverse and equitable manner. While there is much 

to learn from these early stages, the potential impact 

of these programs in creating holistic, equitable, and 

sustainable workforce development outcomes is 

promising.

Equity in 

Program Delivery

 Promoting

 Industry

 Change

 Program

 Participant

 Feedback

Target 

Populations

Wraparound

Services
26

Methodology

The data informing this report are from early interviews with GJC program leaders, program applications, initial 

progress reports, and similar supplemental materials. Program leaders include executives, project directors, and 

program managers at state and local government, tribal organizations, CFDIs, higher education institutions such 

as universities and community colleges, community-based organizations, industry intermediaries like chamber of 

commerce foundations and associations, among others. These leaders come from an array of backgrounds ranging 

from professional government staff, program managers of existing WIOA-funded or locally managed workforce 

development programs, faculty researchers at universities, and non-profit staff. For this research, the team conducted 

semi-structured interviews with 63 GJC leaders from the 32 programs from April 2023 to June 2023.1

Using thematic analysis, the research team identified findings within the three spheres - local contextualization, 

organizational leadership, and program delivery. Thematic analysis began by identifying (or “coding”) all explicit 

mentions of equity. These codes were then analyzed to identify associated phenomena, while accounting for a range 

within each phenomenon. For example, the team coded all mentions of “community-based organizations’’ and then 

evaluated the engagement continuum from informing these groups, engaging these groups as subawardees, etc. The 

research team used these phenomena to identify thematic categories for a second coding phase. Once completed, the 

codes were counted and cross-tabulated with other codes to identify broad categories of findings.

This methodology intentionally centers the experiences of the GJC leaders. Part of the internal work of equity and 

inclusion within our research team is undoing elitism through decolonizing our methodologies (Thambinathan and 

Kinsella 2021) and elevating the knowledge and learnings from many sources. The role of this research team is to use 

social science methodologies to aggregate and synthesize the knowledge into digestible and data-based findings. 

We are not gatekeepers of this knowledge but instead part of the broader community of information gatherers, 

storytellers, and meaning makers. Our goal is for this research to help leaders and community members recognize 

their experiences within a broader data context - both quantitative numbers and qualitative theories and narratives. As 

social scientists, we are effective aggregators of data, but we are not the owners of each person’s unique knowledge 

or experiences. These findings are informed directly by the experiences of the GJC leaders prioritizing equity as well as 

the local and national equity and justice advocates. Our team acknowledges that our work is only possible because of 

theirs.

The research team is a mixture of practitioners and scholars who recognize their privilege in educational 

background, organizational affiliation, and their ability to attain financial support for this research. The team is 

deeply grateful to all the GJC leaders for sharing their time and stories to support this work. Additionally, the team 

acknowledges how this work is informed by scholarship in indigenous theory, feminist theory, economic theory, 

Critical Race Theory, intersectional theory, queer theory, Tribal Critical Systems Theory, standpoint theory, and more.

Finally, the research team recognizes that equity work is not confined to grant program borders and should also 

include considerations of economic mobility, health equity, environmental equity, homeownership, wealth building, 

and more. Moreover, economic equity is only one piece of the broader puzzle. To truly move the needle, political and 

cultural change are equally necessary to level a fundamentally unequal economic playing field. This report provides 

insight into on-the-ground activities but does not include program-level performance appraisals or evaluation. 

Forthcoming reports from this team will eventually dive deeper into approaches that lead to more equitable outcomes. 

However, with the limited research and scholarship on workforce development programs, these findings should be 

viewed as preliminary due to the shorter duration of the analysis.

1 One GJC program interview took place in October 2023 due to changes in leadership.

Appendix
27

These are a few of the many resources available to 

support equity in workforce development programs. Each 

resource is linked below and includes the abstract or 

executive summary for reference. If you have additional 

resources to share, please email Dr. Sarah Crane at 

sarahrcr@umich.edu. 

 

Anti-Racist Workforce Development System Framework

Clair Minson

Chicago Jobs Council, 2023

Chicago Jobs Council (CJC) recognizes that systemic, 

institutional, and individual racism creates disparities in 

the way People of Color fare in the labor market. We are 

continuously working to revise and update our practices, 

policies, and procedures using a racial equity lens in order 

to achieve more equitable outcomes for all. In keeping 

with our commitment to racial equity, we developed three 

strategic priorities grounded in racial equity and focused 

on achieving equitable outcomes in our field: (1) Strengthen 

CJC’s ability to advance racial equity from within. Included 

in this strategic priority is a commitment to exploring what 

anti-racist workforce development systems, policies and 

practices could look like. (2) Advocate for policy changes that 

reduce racial disparities to improve economic outcomes for 

job seekers marginalized by systemic barriers. Included in this 

strategy is utilizing advocacy tools to secure support for antiracist policies and systems. (3) Strengthen the capacity of 

service providers and build equitable systems for job seekers 

marginalized by racism. Included in this strategy is supporting 

organizations in prioritizing and advancing racial equity in 

their delivery of workforce services.

Elevating Equity in Economic Development: An Inclusive 

Recovery Toolkit

Jessica L. Gonzalez Martinez, Betsey Suchanic, Deirdre 

Shaw, M. Yasmina McCarty

New Growth Innovation Network, 2023

This toolkit is intended to support regional economic 

development leaders in elevating equity within their 

organization, planning and CEDS development, and strategy 

and implementation as they approach recovery from the 

COVID-19 pandemic. Economic Development Districts (EDDs) 

and similar regional entities have a unique role to play in 

planning for and achieving inclusive economic development 

for their regions. This toolkit is based on insights from the 

Inclusive Recovery Initiative.

Equitable Change: An Intermediary’s Guide to Measuring 

for Equity

Sarah Bennett and Caroline D’Andrea

Jobs for the Future, 2023

Intermediaries work to improve, vertically align, and 

systematize the components of career pathways. They are 

also crucial actors in centering racial equity within pathways 

work—as advocates, designers, and accountability partners. 

In these roles intermediaries analyze data within a given 

program as well as across secondary, postsecondary, and 

work systems to reveal trends and areas for greatest impact. 

In this brief, intermediaries participating in the Building 

Equitable Pathways community of practice share metrics they 

prioritize when determining if and how their pathways work 

successfully, resulting in more equitable outcomes.

Equitable Community Planning Toolkit 

Fourth Economy, 2023

The Fourth Economy Equitable Community Planning Toolkit 

is the result of ongoing research, and contains resources 

developed to help leaders progress through their equitable 

planning goals and actions. It includes information on how 

communities across the United States are rising to meet 

the equity imperative, as well as tools to apply promising 

practices and systems change processes in your community. 

There is a growing interest and momentum in equitable 

community planning. The toolkit is designed for communities 

who may be at the beginning stages of equity planning as well 

as those where equity coalitions, groups, plans, and actions 

are well underway.

Equity Language Guide

National Recreation and Park Association, 2021

Developed by the National Recreation and Park Association 

(NRPA), this guide includes content from leading language 

guides, as well as resources from multiple organizations, 

associations, researchers and more. It is meant to reflect 

terminology most applicable to parks and recreation and 

related professions; however, it is not an all-encompassing 

equity glossary.

Equity Toolkit

Beloved Community Mind Trust, 2023

This Racial Equity toolkit is brought to you by Beloved 

Community, a racial equity and economic equity consulting 

firm focused on supporting organizations, schools, and 

workplaces in developing sustainable plans and strategies 

for operationalizing diversity, equity and inclusion. We believe 

that Change requires social impact + economic impact. What 

would it look like if we – as people and the organizations 

we lead – all made a commitment to an equitable life for 

everyone? If we understood the root causes of inequity 

and could identify the ways that we – schools, non-profits, 

businesses, and government could play a role in building a 

more equitable community?

Equity Resources
28

Equity vs. Equality: What’s the Difference?

Milken Institute School of Public Health, George 

Washington University, 2020

While the terms equity and equality may sound similar, 

the implementation of one versus the other can lead to 

dramatically different outcomes for marginalized people.

Exploring Racial Economic Equity in Workforce 

Development

Prosperity Now, 2020

In our Exploring Racial Economic Equity in the Workforce 

Development report, the Racial Wealth Divide Initiative (RWDI) 

provides tools and approaches to help practitioners achieve 

racial economic equity goals that enable underserved, 

marginalized and excluded community members of color 

to earn living wages, accumulate assets and build wealth. 

By retooling programs to shift power and leverage privilege 

to change the institutions, systems and structures we are 

in, RWDI has distilled emerging promising practices that 

address interlocking social, economic and political barriers by 

considering the contributing factors, naming the problem and 

designing programs, policy and advocacy for equity.

Good Jobs, Good Business

Pacific Community Ventures, 2019

Almost one-in-four American workers has a job that pays 

less than a living wage. Conventional wisdom says providing 

jobs with low wages, minimal benefits, little training, and 

chaotic schedules are the only way companies can keep 

costs down and prices low. MIT Sloan Associate Professor 

Zeynep Ton makes the compelling case that the presumed 

trade-off between investment in employees and low prices 

can be broken. Drawing on more than 15 years of research, 

Ton’s Good Jobs Strategy shows how operational excellence 

enables companies to offer low prices to customers while 

ensuring good jobs for their employees and superior results 

for their investors or owners. The Good Jobs Strategy creates 

superior value for employees, customers, and investor/owners 

by combining investment in employees with four operational 

choices that increase employee productivity, contribution, 

and motivation. The four operational choices—Focus and 

Simplify, Standardize and Empower, Cross-Train and Operate 

With Slack—drive performance and continuous improvement. 

In this way, the Good Jobs Strategy creates a virtuous cycle 

where investment in people and operational excellence 

reinforce each other to drive value. At the same time, these 

operational choices work best with a trained and motivated 

workforce and hence require investment in people.

Job Quality Toolkit 

National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 2023

An outgrowth of a three-year partnership with the U.S. 

Department of Commerce (DOC) and U.S. Department of 

Labor to support various workforce excellence initiatives, 

the Baldrige Performance Excellence Program (BPEP) led 

the effort to develop a Job Quality Toolkit, a menu of vetted 

strategies and actions for leaders and their workforces to 

collaboratively choose from to increase the quality of jobs 

offered. The Baldrige Excellence Framework® served as a 

foundation for the easy-to-use toolkit that is intended for 

organizations of all kinds—but especially for those that are 

small and medium sized.

Inclusive Community and Economic Development in Small 

& Midsized Communities

Swati Gosh

New Growth Innovation Network, 2021

Uplifting racial equity in small and midsize cities (defined as 

population 50,000 – 500,000) cannot be an endeavor of just a 

few individuals or organizations. Undoing decades of systemic 

racism and embedding new policies and structures that 

prevent harm in the future requires cross-sector collaboration 

between development professionals, city and community 

leaders, businesses, and myriad other stakeholders. Through 

generous funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, 

NGIN built a practitioner-led exploration of why the fields of 

community development and economic development struggle 

to collaborate and whether uniting these two practices might 

elevate community voice and uplift racial equity in small and 

midsize cities.

Introduction to the Access, Process, and Outcome 

Framework for Equity in Economic Development

National Economic Research & Resilience Center at 

Argonne National Laboratory, 2023. 

This research brief introduces the Access, Process, and 

Outcome (APO) framework, which provides a common 

understanding for practitioners across the diverse field of 

economic development. This framework elucidates the 

underlying drivers that can influence outcomes, either 

positively through intentional investment and action, or 

negatively through neglect, oversight, or exclusion. By 

employing the APO framework, users can collectively 

work towards achieving equitable outcomes in economic 

development, ensuring that all individuals and communities 

have fair and equal access to opportunities, that the 

processes are inclusive and just, and that the outcomes are 

equitable for all stakeholders.

Quality Jobs Framework

Jobs for the Future, 2023

Jobs for the Future’s Quality Jobs Framework provides a 

comprehensive definition of a quality job. It highlights what 

all workers deserve in addition to good pay and benefits—the 

flexibility, autonomy, stability, and advancement opportunities 

that are essential for people to thrive. This framework focuses 

on what employers, industry leaders, policymakers, and 

government agencies can do to improve job quality. It also 

serves as a starting point for identifying actions everyone 

throughout the learn-and-work ecosystem can take to help 

millions more people move into quality jobs and advance 

economically.

Equity Resources
29

Race Equity in Workforce Development: A Survey of 

Attitudes 

National Association of Workforce Boards, 2021

NAWB convened a taskforce of workforce visionaries to 

reveal disconnects in practitioner-led dialogues and to 

unmask barriers to centering racial equity in the workforce 

development ecosystem. This report reflects the earnest 

efforts of workforce stakeholders and the expertise of national 

experts aiming to build an inclusive workforce development 

system. 

Sparking Creativity: Workplace Applications of Restorative 

Practices

Linda Kligman

International Institute for Restorative Practices, 2019

Businesses that embrace restorative practices have the 

advantage of creating intentional workplaces where it is safe 

to innovate. Studies have shown that diverse perspectives, 

shared learning, and experimentation are factors that spur 

innovation. In a restorative work environment, high support is 

provided to learn and grow, raise concern, and try new things. 

With high levels of inclusion and energy, restorative practices 

can help establish group norms, manage expectations, and 

develop essential interpersonal skills for collaboration. The 

author draws on Keith Sawyer’s research in group creativity 

and Sunnie Giles’s studies that scaffold leadership skills 

to support global innovation, and shares stories that help 

translate theory into practice. Examples from the International 

Institute for Restorative Practices depict principles, habits, 

and team builders that illustrate how restorative practices can 

spark creativity. The power of connections, conversations, 

and collaboration explicitly creates an innovative participatory 

work culture. 

The Language of Racial Economic Equity

Jobs for the Future, 2023

The words we use every day can perpetuate and exacerbate 

inequality, but they can also educate, empower, and drive 

positive change. That’s why we’ve been examining our use 

of language and reevaluating how to describe the people 

our work centers on. Our latest thinking appears in JFF’s 

Language Matters Guide. JFF’s Center for Racial Economic 

Equity—whose mission is to disrupt occupational segregation 

and eradicate the Black-white wealth gap—has developed 

this companion guide to dig deeper into language about race 

and Black people. It offers a foundation for understanding the 

impact that words and phrases pertaining to race can have 

on Black people and on efforts to promote racial economic 

equity.

The Spectrum of Community Engagement to Ownership 

Rosa González of Facilitating Power, 2019.

The Spectrum of Community Engagement to Ownership 

charts a pathway to strengthen and transform our local 

democracies. Thriving, diverse, equitable communities 

are possible through deep participation, particularly by 

communities commonly excluded from democratic voice & 

power. The stronger our local democracies, the more capacity 

we can unleash to address our toughest challenges, and 

the more capable we are of surviving and thriving through 

economic, ecological, and social crises. It is going to take 

all of us to adequately address the complex challenges our 

cities and regions are facing. It is time for a new wave of 

community-driven civic leadership. Leaders across multiple 

sectors, such as community-based organizations, local 

governments, philanthropic partners, and facilitative leaders 

trusted by communities, can use this spectrum to assess 

and revolutionize community engagement efforts to advance 

community-driven solutions.

Understanding Good Jobs: A Review of Definitions and 

Evidence

William J. Congdon, Molly M. Scott, Batia Katz, Pamela 

Loprest, Demetra Nightingale, and Jessica Shakesprere

Urban Institute, 2020

Now more than ever, many Americans find their employment 

and financial status precarious and their prospects for upward 

mobility limited. This paper aims to add to the discussion 

on how to promote workers’ economic mobility through 

improving job quality. Definitions of what constitutes a 

“good job” vary—including adequate wages, benefits, stable 

schedules, worker protections, positive work environments, 

potential for advancement, and other features. In this report, 

we examine definitions and evidence on good jobs, with a 

focus on elements of jobs that might support economic 

mobility. We develop a framework for defining good jobs, 

drawing from different definitions of job quality in the 

literature. Then we use this framework to organize a review 

of the evidence on links between elements of good jobs 

and worker well-being, focusing on elements of jobs that 

might support worker mobility. We find that job quality 

definitions vary significantly in their complexity. There is 

evidence indicating relationships between job elements and 

worker well-being (variously defined), though the depth and 

conclusiveness of research vary in important ways. Research 

connecting job elements to economic mobility is more limited. 

This report is part of a larger effort to examine the ways 

additional research and data can support understanding of 

the role of job quality in worker mobility.

Equity Resources
30

Armstrong, Megan, Eathyn Edwards, and Duwain Pinder. “Corporate Commitments to Racial Justice: An Update.” McKinsey Institute 

for Black Economic Mobility, February 21, 2022, https://www.mckinsey.com/bem/our-insights/corporate-commitments-to-racialjustice-an-update#/

Benjamin, Ruha. Viral Justice. Book. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2022. 

Brown, Bryan, Phillip Boda, Catherine Lemmi, and Xavier Monroe. “Moving Culturally Relevant Pedagogy From Theory to Practice: 

Exploring Teachers’ Application of Culturally Relevant Education in Science and Mathematics.” Urban Education 54, no. 6 (2019): 

775-803. doi: 10.1177/0042085918794802

Congdon, William, Molly Scott, Batia Katz, Pamela Loprest, Demetra Nightingale, Jessica Shakesprere. “Understanding Good Jobs: 

A Review of Definitions and Evidence.” Urban Institute, July 23, 2020, https://www.urban.org/research/publication/understandinggood-jobs-review-definitions-and-evidence.

Crenshaw, Kimberlẻ, “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, 

Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics,” University of Chicago Legal Forum: Issue 1, 139-67 (1989); reprinted in The Politics of Law: A 

Progressive Critique 195-217 (2nd ed., edited by David Kairys, New York: Pantheon Books, 1990), Feminist Legal Theory (Bartlett & 

Kennedy, ed., 1992), Critical Race Feminism, (edited by Adrien Wing, NYU Press, 2003), and Framing Intersectionality (edited by Helma 

Lutz, Maria Teresa Herrera Vivar, and Linda Supik, Ashgate Publishing, 2011).

Frey, William. “The US will become ‘minority white’ in 2045, Census projects.” Brookings Metro, March 14, 2018, https://www.

brookings.edu/articles/the-us-will-become-minority-white-in-2045-census-projects/.

Fuller, Joseph, Kerry McKittrick, Ali Epstein, Cole Wilson, Sherry Seibel, and Vasundhara Dash. “Unlocking Economic Prosperity: 

Career Navigation in a Time of Rapid Change.” The Project on Workforce, Harvard Kennedy School, November 19, 2023, https://

www.pw.hks.harvard.edu/post/career-navigation. 

Georgiac, Oriane and Aneeta Rattan. “Stop Making the Business Case for Diversity.” Inclusion and Belonging, Harvard Business 

Review, June 15, 2022, https://hbr.org/2022/06/stop-making-the-business-case-for-diversity.

González, Rosa. “The Spectrum of Community Engagement to Ownership.” Facilitating Power, 2020, https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.

cloudfront.net/facilitatingpower/pages/53/attachments/original/1596746165/CE2O_SPECTRUM_2020.pdf?1596746165

Guibert, Greg, Charles Doktycz, Lesley Edgemon, Amanda Savitt, Alison Turner, Jocelyn Lewandowski, and Iain Hyde. “Introduction 

to the Access, Process, and Outcome Framework for Equity in Economic Development.” National Economic Research and Resilience 

Center, Argonne National Laboratory, June 2023, https://www.eda.gov/sites/default/files/2023-06/NERRC_Quarterly_Equity_

Research_Brief_Final.pdf.

“Job Quality Toolkit.” National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce, 2023, https://www.commerce.

gov/work-us/job-quality-toolkit.

Kruse, Tina. “Making the Match: Culturally Relevant Coaching and Training for Early Childhood Caregivers.” Early Childhood Research 

& Practice 14, no. 2 (2012). http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v14n2/kruse.html. 

Lau, Anna. “Making the Case for Selective and Directed Cultural Adaptations of Evidence-Based Treatments: Examples From 

Parent Training.” Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice 13, no. 4 (2006): 295–310. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2850.2006.00042.x

Mingus, Mia. “Transformative Justice.” The Digital Abolitionist. Accessed November 5, 2023. https://www.thedigitalabolitionist.

com/transformative-justice.

Muro, Mark, Robert Maxim, Joseph Parilla, and Xavier de Souza Briggs. “Breaking down an $80 billion surge in place-based 

industrial policy.” Brookings Metro, December 15 2022, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/breaking-down-an-80-billion-surge-inplace-based-industrial-policy/. 

Nussbaum, Martha C. “Creating Capabilities : The Human Development Approach.” Book. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of 

Harvard University Press, 2011.

“Quality Jobs Framework.” Jobs for the Future, August 29, 2023, https://www.jff.org/idea/quality-jobs-framework/.

Reese, Le’Roy and Elizabeth Vera. “Culturally Relevant Prevention: The Scientific and Practical Considerations of Community-Based 

Programs.” The Counseling Psychologist 35, no. 6 (2007): 763-778. doi: 10.1177/0011000007304588

Sen, Amartya. “Development as Freedom.” Book. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Thambinathan, V., & Kinsella, E. A. “Decolonizing Methodologies in Qualitative Research: Creating Spaces for Transformative 

Praxis” International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211014766

Williams, Joan and Jamie Dolkas. “Data-Driven Diversity.” Inclusion and Belonging, Harvard Business Review, March-April 2022, 

https://hbr.org/2022/03/data-driven-diversity.

Bibliography
31

Economic Growth Institute

506 E. Liberty St. 

Ann Arbor, MI 48104

economicgrowth.umich.edu