Workforce Investment Act: Innovative Collaborations between Workforce Boards and Employers Helped Meet Local Needs
Published: 2012-01-19T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: As the United States continues to face high unemployment in the wake of the recent recession, federally funded workforce programs can play an important role in bridging gaps between the skills present in the workforce and the skills needed for available jobs. The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA) sought to strengthen the connection between workforce programs and employers, but GAO's prior work has found that collaboration remains a challenge. With WIA currently awaiting reauthorization, GAO reviewed (1) factors that facilitated innovative collaborations among workforce boards, employers, and others; (2) major challenges to collaboration; and (3) actions the Department of Labor (Labor) has taken to support local collaborative efforts. GAO examined 14 local initiatives identified by experts as among the most promising or innovative efforts in which local workforce boards collaborated effectively with employers and other partners to achieve positive results. GAO interviewed representatives of the 14 initiatives and officials from five federal agencies. GAO also reviewed reports on the initiatives and relevant federal laws, regulations, and other documents.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Workforce board officials and their partners in the 14 initiatives cited a range of factors that facilitated building innovative collaborations. Almost all of the collaborations grew out of efforts to address urgent workforce needs of multiple employers in a specific sector, such as health care, manufacturing, or agriculture, rather than focusing on individual employers. Additionally, the partners in these initiatives made extra effort to understand and work with employers so they could tailor services such as jobseeker assessment, screening, and training to address specific employer needs. For example, in Greensboro, North Carolina, board staff provided expedited services for an aircraft company that just moved to the area by designing a web-based recruitment tool and customized assessment process within 48 hours and screening over 2,400 initial applicants. In all the initiatives, partners remained engaged in these collaborative efforts because they continued to produce a wide range of reported results, such as an increased supply of skilled labor, job placements, reduced employer recruitment and turnover costs, and averted layoffs. For example, in Cincinnati, Ohio, employers who participated in the health care initiative realized almost $5,000 in estimated cost savings per worker hired, mainly due to lower turnover and recruitment costs, according to an independent study.
While these boards were successful in their efforts, they cited some challenges to collaboration that they needed to overcome. Some boards were challenged to develop comprehensive strategies to address diverse employer needs with WIA funds. For example, some boards' staff said that while their initiatives sought to meet employer needs for higher-skilled workers through skill upgrades, WIA funds can be used to train current workers only in limited circumstances, and the boards used other funding sources to do so. Staff from most, but not all, boards also said that WIA performance measures do not reflect their efforts to engage employers. Many of these boards used their own measures to assess their services to employers, such as the number of new employers served each year or the hiring rate for jobseekers they refer to employers.
Labor has taken various steps to support local collaborations, such as conducting webinars and issuing guidance on pertinent topics, and contributing to a new $37 million grant program to facilitate innovative regional collaborations. Many of the boards we reviewed cited leveraging resources as a key to facilitating collaboration. However, while Labor has collected information on effective practices for leveraging resources, it has not compiled this information and made it easy to access.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: To better support the capacity of the local workforce investment system to collaborate with employers and other partners, Labor should compile information on workforce boards that effectively leverage WIA funds with other funding sources and disseminate this information in a readily accessible manner. Labor agreed with our findings and recommendation.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Over 2 years into the economic recovery, unemployment remains at 8.5  percent. Yet the nation continues to face challenges in closing the gap  between the skills present in the workforce and the skills needed for  available jobs. While federally funded workforce programs are designed  to cultivate a stronger workforce, there is growing recognition that these  programs need to better collaborate with employers to align services and  training with employers’ needs. In overhauling the nation’s fragmented  employment and training programs, the Workforce Investment Act of  1998 (WIA) envisioned such collaboration by focusing on employers as  well as jobseekers, establishing a “dual customer” approach. To create a  single, comprehensive workforce system, WIA required that four federal  agencies—the Departments of Labor, Education, Health and Human  Services, and Housing and Urban Development—provide access to 16 of  their programs through local one-stop centers across the country. To  align federally supported training and employment programs more closely  with local labor market needs, WIA established a system through which  local workforce investment boards develop policy and oversee service  delivery for local areas within a state, and required that local business  representatives constitute the majority membership on these boards.
Despite the vision of collaboration between local employers and the  workforce investment system, however, we and others have found that it  can be challenging. For example, in previous reports, we found that some  employers have limited interaction with or knowledge of this system—the  approximately 1,800 local one-stop centers that provide access to all  required programs and the local workforce boards that oversee these  centers—and that employers who do use the one-stop centers mainly do  so to fill their needs for low-skilled workers. Others have found that  collaboration is challenging because it requires staff time and resources  to build credibility with employers.
With WIA currently awaiting reauthorization, you requested that we  identify and describe promising practices for collaboration between  workforce investment boards, employers, education providers, and others  that have demonstrated positive results. Specifically, we examined (1) the  factors that facilitated innovative collaborations among workforce boards,  employers, and others; (2) the major challenges to collaboration; and (3)  what actions the Department of Labor (Labor) has taken to support local  workforce boards in their collaborative efforts.
To conduct this work, we asked officials from five federal agencies and  national experts on workforce and economic development issues  representing 20 organizations to nominate what they viewed as the most  promising or innovative initiatives in which local workforce boards  collaborated effectively with employers and other partners to achieve  positive results. In addition to the Departments of Labor, Education,  Health and Human Services, and Housing and Urban Development,  which administer one-stop programs, we also requested nominations  from the Department of Commerce (Commerce), which administers key  economic development programs. We selected the experts from the 20  organizations for their knowledge of workforce development or economic  development activities at the local level.
More than 89 initiatives or sponsoring organizations from 28 states were  nominated, and we selected 14 initiatives in 13 local areas for in-depth  review. The criteria for our selection included the number of nominations  for each initiative, diversity of federal funding sources, variety of local  unemployment rates, evidence of replicability, and geographical diversity,  among others. We conducted semi-structured interviews with local and  state workforce officials, representatives of educational institutions,  training providers, economic development officials, employers, and  others. We conducted in-person interviews in seven local areas and  conducted interviews in the other areas by phone or video  teleconference. In some cases, we also toured training facilities and  workplaces. Our findings regarding the 14 initiatives are not generalizable  to other local workforce boards. In addition, we conducted interviews with  officials of Labor and Commerce, as well as representatives of workforce  associations such as the National Association of Workforce Boards. We  also reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and other documents  pertaining to the key federal programs. See appendix I for more  information on our scope and methodology. We conducted our work  between November 2010 and January 2012 in accordance with generally  accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that  we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to  provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our  audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a  reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit  objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: Collaboration under WIA
paragraphs: WIA created a comprehensive workforce investment system that brought  together multiple federally funded employment and training programs into  a single system, called the one-stop system. Prior to the enactment of  WIA, services were often provided through a fragmented employment and  training system. One-stop centers serve two customers—job seekers and  employers—and WIA provided flexibility to states and local areas to  develop approaches that best meet local needs.
In its redesign of the system, WIA created three new programs—Adult,  Dislocated Workers, and Youth—that provide a broad range of services  including job search assistance, assessment, and training for eligible  individuals. The WIA programs provide for three levels of service for  adults and dislocated workers—core, intensive, and training. Core  services include basic services such as job search and labor market  information; intensive services include activities such as comprehensive  assessments and case management. Training is provided through  individual training accounts that participants can use to pay for training  they select from a list of eligible providers. In serving employers, one- stops have the flexibility under WIA to provide a variety of tailored  services, including customized screening and referral of qualified  participants in training to employers.
In addition to establishing the three new programs, WIA required that  services from these programs, along with those of a number of other  employment and training programs, be provided through the one-stop  system so that jobseekers, workers, and employers could find assistance  at a single location. Table 1 shows these mandatory programs and their  administering federal agencies. Labor is responsible for providing  guidance to states and localities on delivering services through the one- stop system, and states, through state workforce boards, have a number  of responsibilities for the workforce system statewide, such as developing  state plans.
WIA requires that each state have one or more local workforce  investment areas (designated by state governors), each governed by a  local workforce investment board. To help align employment and training  programs with the needs of employers, WIA requires that local boards  include representatives from one-stop partner programs, local educational  entities, labor organizations, community-based organizations, and  economic development agencies. It also requires that a majority of the  members be representatives of local businesses and that the local board  chairman be a representative of a local business. Through these  requirements, WIA gave business representatives a key role in deciding  how services should be provided and overseeing operations at one-stop  centers.
Local workforce boards are also responsible for coordinating workforce  investment activities with economic development strategies, and  developing relationships with employers. The local workforce boards  also select the entities to operate one-stop centers and conduct oversight  of the one-stop system. In addition to the mandatory programs, local  workforce boards have the flexibility to include other programs in the one- stop system. Labor suggests that these additional, or optional, programs  may help one-stop systems better meet specific state and local workforce  development needs.
section_title: Funding Streams and Sources
paragraphs: Over $40 billion in federal funding has been provided for Adult, Dislocated  Worker, and Youth programs since fiscal year 2000. In 2009, Congress  passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act),  which included a one-time addition of $3.15 billion for the three programs  through program year 2010. Compared to fiscal year 2000, annual WIA  funding declined in nominal terms by about 24 percent in fiscal year 2011.
While the federal funds for Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Youth programs  that flow to states and then to local areas through statutory formulas—WIA formula funds—are intended to support services and training for  individual jobseekers, WIA provides for certain set-asides for statewide  workforce activities, as well. Governors may reserve up to 15 percent of  these program funds for statewide activities, referred to in this report as  WIA Governor’s set-aside. WIA requires states to use the Governor’s  set-aside for activities such as statewide evaluations of workforce  programs and incentive grants for local areas, and allows them to fund a  wide array of activities, including innovative training programs for  incumbent workers, research and demonstration projects, and capacity  building and technical assistance. For program year 2011, Congress  reduced the 15 percent Governor’s set-aside to 5 percent. Additionally,  governors may reserve up to 25 percent of the Dislocated Worker  program funds for “rapid response” activities, to help serve employers and  workers facing layoffs and plant closings.
29 U.S.C. § 2916. program.three employment and training grant initiatives: the High Growth Job  Training Initiative beginning in 2001, the Community-Based Job Training  Initiative beginning in 2005, and the Workforce Innovation in Regional  Economic Development (WIRED) initiative beginning in 2006. These  grants were designed to identify the workforce and training needs of  growing, high-demand industries and engage workforce, industry, and  educational partners to develop innovative solutions to workforce  challenges.
Between 2001 and 2007, Labor spent almost $900 million on  Beyond the WIA programs, Commerce runs programs that can support  workforce training. For example, the department’s Hollings Manufacturing  Extension Partnership (MEP) provides technical assistance upon request  to manufacturers, including advice on workforce practices or skills training  in some cases. MEP clients reported having invested about $270 million  of their own funds in workforce training in 2009.
section_title: WIA Performance Measures
paragraphs: In order to receive their full funding allocations, states must report on the  performance of their three WIA programs. WIA requires performance  measures that gauge program results for jobseekers in the areas of job  placement, retention, earnings, and skill attainment. In addition, WIA  requires measures of customer satisfaction for jobseekers and for  employers, which may be collected through surveys. WIA holds states  accountable for achieving their performance levels by tying those levels to  financial sanctions and incentive funding.
section_title: Several Key Factors Supported Initial Collaboration and Sustained It over Time
paragraphs: While the 14 selected initiatives varied in terms of their purpose, sector,  and partners involved, the boards and their partners cited common  factors that facilitated and sustained collaboration (see fig. 1). For  example, virtually all of these collaborations grew out of efforts to address  critical workforce needs of multiple employers, typically in a specific  sector, rather than focusing on individual employers. Additionally, the  partners in these initiatives made extra effort to understand and work with  employers so they could tailor services such as jobseeker assessment,  screening, and training to address specific employer needs. In all cases,  the partnerships included workforce boards, employers, and education  and training providers, and in some cases, they also included local school  districts, regional organizations that promoted economic development,  state agencies, or labor unions. Partners remained engaged in these  collaborative efforts because they continued to produce a range of results  for employers, jobseekers and workers, and the workforce system and  other partners.
Workforce boards, employers, education and training providers, and other  partners in the 14 initiatives focused on urgent and commonly shared  employer needs that served as a catalyst for collaboration. Virtually all of the  initiatives focused on ways to supply workforce skills that were commonly  needed by multiple employers in a specific sector. The urgency of their  needs ranged from a shortage of critical skills in health care and  manufacturing to the threat of layoffs and business closures (see table 2). In  San Bernardino, California, for example, some companies were at risk of  layoffs and closures because of declining sales and other conditions, unless  they received services that included retraining for their workers. Also, in  Rochester, Minnesota, the turnover rates at long-term care facilities  threatened their ability to comply with state regulations and remain open. In  one case, in Gainesville, Florida, employers joined with the board and others  to tackle the need to create additional jobs by embarking on an initiative to  develop entrepreneurial skills. See appendix II for a profile of each initiative.
In most cases, workforce boards worked with employers and other  partners to determine the scope of the problem, which galvanized the  partners’ commitment to collaborate. In Northern Virginia, for example,  officials told us that, individually, local hospitals were experiencing  difficulties recruiting skilled workers and anticipated that their needs  would become more acute due to pending retirements among their  existing workers. However, until the initiative, there had been no attempt  to quantify the staffing needs overall among the hospitals. The partners  commissioned a study which projected a shortage of 17,000 nurses and  other health care workers in 23 occupations—a finding that reinforced the  partners’ commitment to collaborate on a common strategy, according to  local officials. In some initiatives, the partners obtained information about  employers’ needs through studies or a focus group. In a few cases,  boards used previously developed state models to engage employers in  specific industries and regions and identify information about their critical  workforce needs. For example, in both Seattle and southeast Michigan,  employers participated in models—known as “Skill Panels” or “Skills  Alliances”—that Washington State and Michigan had developed for this  purpose.
By focusing on common employer needs across a sector, the boards and  their partners also produced innovative labor force solutions that, in  several cases, had evaded employers who were trying to address their  needs individually, according to those we interviewed. In several cases,  employers cited the recruitment costs they incurred by competing against  each other for the same workers. By working together to develop the local  labor pool they needed, the employers were able to reduce recruitment  costs in some cases. Describing the competitive approach to labor supply  that had prevailed before collaboration, one employer said, “When we  steal staff , we don’t add people to the workforce, and it  increases the cost of doing business.”
In addition to finding common ground among employers, some initiatives  also forged greater collaboration among education and training providers.  As with the employers, the focus on common needs galvanized support,  leading the educational institutions in some cases to share curricula or  agree to recognize courses offered by other participating institutions. For  example, in southeast Michigan’s initiative in automotive manufacturing,  education partners agreed to grant credit for courses offered by other  participating institutions. In Seattle’s health care initiative, a community  college official said that area colleges had competed against each other  and worked with employers independently, but collaboration helped them  think more in terms of scale and as a system.
In several cases, the initiatives involved multiple workforce boards as  partners to address issues on a regional basis. For example, the health  care initiative in Cincinnati involved the efforts of four boards across three  states—Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana—because board officials recognized  that the local labor market includes communities in each state. In Wichita,  Kansas, the aircraft manufacturing initiative included two boards—one  serving the six counties around Wichita, and the other serving 63 rural  counties in the western half of the state. To address initial concerns that  the larger Wichita-based board might benefit disproportionately, both  boards took steps to ensure that they would each benefit from and have  access to resources. In doing so, according to board staff, they were able  to expand the recruitment pool and promote job openings in a wider area.  Their collaboration also fostered communications about new market  opportunities for companies.
subsections: section_title: Leadership Was Critical in Spurring Action and Building Partnerships
paragraphs: Officials from many boards emphasized the importance of securing  leaders who had the authority or the ability, or both, to persuade others of  the merits of a particular initiative. In some cases, workforce board or  one-stop staff took the lead. In San Bernardino, California, for example, a  leader from the one-stop’s Business Services unit used feedback from  local employers to persuade the board of the need for layoff aversion  services, such as training manufacturers’ incumbent workers in more  efficient production techniques. In Lancaster, Pennsylvania, workforce  staff helped public school teachers gain state approval for an agricultural  curriculum by obtaining the state’s designation of agricultural careers as  “high priority occupations,” and as a result, convinced previously wary  partners that collaborating with the workforce system would be beneficial.  In some cases, other partners led efforts to launch the initiative. For  example, to address a critical need for health care workers in Northern  Virginia, a community college president personally marshaled support  from area hospital chief executive officers and other local leaders to  address common needs for health care workers. Employers also provided  leadership that was instrumental in persuading other employers and  partners to join the initiatives. In Greensboro, North Carolina, officials  reported that many employers joined round-table discussions after their  competitors encouraged them to participate.
Many partners also emphasized the value of having a leader whose  perceived neutrality could help build trust among parties who were  otherwise competitors. Officials from several initiatives also said that  neutral leaders helped different partners understand how their mutual  interests could be served through collaboration. In Seattle, for example,  officials said that having such a neutral convener helped to both manage  partners’ relationships and focus on opportunities for systematic change,  and that without such leadership, their efforts would have likely produced  smaller, more isolated projects. The leaders who served as neutral  conveners varied among the initiatives. For several initiatives, including  Seattle, the local boards served this purpose. In southeast Michigan, the  state workforce agency was viewed as a neutral convener.
section_title: Leveraging Resources Supported Collaborative Efforts
paragraphs: All of the boards and their partners leveraged resources in addition to or  in lieu of WIA formula funds to launch or sustain their initiatives. In some  cases, partners were able to use initial support, such as discretionary  grants, to attract additional resources. For example, in Golden, Colorado,  the board leveraged a Labor WIRED grant of slightly more than $285,000  to generate an additional $441,000 from other partners. WIA formula  funds were typically used to support some training, as well as pre- employment assessment and screening. According to several workforce  board directors, however, WIA funds were not sufficient to meet the  training needs of employers and jobseekers in their areas. Various  partners contributed resources to meet these training needs and sustain  their collaboration. For example, projects that stemmed from Seattle’s  Health Care Sector Panel have had a wide variety of support, including  WIA formula funds, Governor’s set-aside funds, and federal H-1B monies  and state funds, among others.
In addition to public funds, in all cases that we reviewed, employers  demonstrated their support by contributing as well. For example, in  Northern Virginia, health care employers offered matching funds to help  persuade the state legislature to provide financial support, according to  local officials. In Cincinnati, Ohio, all participating employers committed  tuition reimbursement dollars for workers’ course costs, including  remedial education, and in Greensboro, North Carolina, employer  matching funds supported a sector-specific training center. In addition,  employers also provided in-kind support, such as equipment, use of  facilities, and providing training during working hours. Table 3 lists the  most frequently used resources to build and sustain initiatives.
In all cases, the initiatives of the boards and their partners provided  employer-responsive services to actively involve employers and keep  them engaged in the collaborative process. Some boards and their  partners employed staff with industry-specific knowledge to better  understand and communicate with employers. In Madison, Wisconsin, for  example, the board designated some one-stop staff as industry  specialists. According to officials, these specialists better served  employers because they understood what the available jobs entailed,  what training was required, and what to look for on a resume for specific  occupations when screening jobseekers. Similarly, in Chicago, to help  meet the needs of manufacturers, staff of a sector-based center  specialized in certain kinds of manufacturing, such as food processing,  plastics and paper, and metal. These examples are consistent with the  finding of a prior GAO report that one-stop staffs were better able to  respond to labor shortages when they had a strong understanding of the  employment and training needs in specific industries.
In other initiatives, boards and partners gained employers’ confidence in  the collaboration by tailoring services such as jobseeker assessment and  screening services to address specific employers’ needs. For example, in  Greensboro, North Carolina, the board staff provided expedited services  for an aircraft company by designing a web-based recruitment tool and  customized assessment process within 48 hours and quickly screening  over 2,400 initial applicants, according to a board official. Similarly, to  better match jobseekers with specific job openings, the sector-based  center in Chicago worked closely with employers to review and validate  employers’ own assessment tools, or develop new ones, and administer  them on behalf of the employers. Center staff said they could screen 50  candidates and winnow them to the top 5, which saved employers time in  the hiring process. One employer noted that without the center’s help,  they would have needed at least two human resource specialists to do  this job.
Boards and their partners also strengthened collaborative ties with  employers by making training services more relevant and useful to them.  In some cases, employers provided direct input into training curricula. For  example, in Wichita, employers from the aviation industry worked closely  with education partners to develop a training curriculum that met industry  needs and integrated new research findings on composite materials. In  southeast Michigan, education partners adjusted the course content— while the training was under way—in response to shifting industry needs.  Another way that some initiatives met employers’ training needs was to  provide instruction that led to industry-recognized credentials. For  example, in San Bernardino, a training provider integrated an industry- recognized credential in metalworking into training to make it more  relevant for employers. To address employers’ long-term training needs,  some initiatives incorporated career pathways, in which training is  sequenced and linked to additional training in a way that supports career  advancement. In Seattle, employers reported that this approach to  training could play an important role in reducing employer turnover costs  associated with certain workers such as medical assistants, who formerly  had few options for career advancement.
In addition, some boards engaged employers in collaborative efforts by  ensuring that certain jobseekers had adequate basic skills to meet  employers’ needs. In some cases, this entailed working closely with the  adult education system.boards adapted existing state approaches to help jobseekers improve  both basic and occupational skills simultaneously, by including a basic  skills instructor in training at least part of the time or by using curricula  that basic skills and occupational instructors had developed together. In  San Bernardino, where employers had been struggling to find skilled  machinists, the training provider incorporated basic math and basic  blueprint reading in the 630 hours of training that it provided to  jobseekers. To address employers’ need for a long-term supply of  workers, some boards and their partners also included youth in their  initiatives. For example, in Gainesville, Florida, the TechQuest initiative  enrolled WIA youth participants in 8 weeks of business-oriented learning  to introduce them to technology-oriented businesses while improving their  reading and writing skills.
In Seattle and Madison, for example, the  Another way that boards and their partners facilitated collaboration with  employers was by reaching beyond WIA’s primary mission of serving the  unemployed and including employed workers or jobseekers not receiving   Several officials described this broad approach as services under WIA. driven by the employer’s need for certain skills, irrespective of a  jobseeker’s status under WIA. In Northern Virginia, for example, the  partners first identified employers’ needs—in this case, a projected local  shortage of health care workers—and then developed a broad,  responsive strategy that incorporated WIA as a key but not the sole  element. As a result, the partners’ efforts to increase the supply of skilled  workers extended beyond WIA to the general population, while including  some workers who had individual training accounts under WIA. Similarly,  staff of the sector-based center in Chicago explained that their practice of  screening and referring qualified jobseekers—both those who received  services under WIA and those who did not—was responsive to  manufacturers’ need for specific skills. In other cases, boards and their  partners focused largely on employers’ current workers to meet specific  employer needs while also serving some workers receiving services  under WIA. The manufacturing initiatives in Golden, Colorado, and  southeast Michigan, for example, focused on upgrading the skills of  incumbent workers while at the same time retooling the skills of some  dislocated workers.
section_title: Minimizing Administrative Burden for All Partners Facilitated Collaboration
paragraphs: Boards also facilitated collaboration by minimizing administrative burden  for employers and other partners. Board staff with several initiatives said  that complex administrative processes would have discouraged  employers from collaborating in the initiatives. In some cases, boards and  their partners streamlined data collection or developed shared data  systems to enhance efficiency. For example, in Cincinnati, the partners  developed a shared data system to more efficiently track participants,  services received, and outcomes achieved across multiple workforce  providers in the region. Additionally, in southeast Michigan, an industry  official reported that the administrative burden would have been “almost  insurmountable” for employers if they had not collaborated with the  workforce system and received administrative support. For several  initiatives, one-stop staff or board members said they managed  administrative processes because the level of documentation could be  intimidating and discourage collaboration.
Another way many initiatives minimized administrative burden was by  designating a single point of contact or having a program manager to  streamline communication channels, which facilitated collaboration  among disparate partners. For example, in Golden, Colorado, a partner  reported that having a program manager who was focused and  responsive to employers’ concerns improved stakeholder relations and  helped employers understand the benefits of collaboration. In other  cases, some partners limited the frequency, length, and focus of meetings  to use partners’ time most effectively. For example, in Northern Virginia,  officials said they opted for biannual meetings focused on outcomes,  needs, and employer support to accommodate the busy schedules of  hospital executives and college presidents.
section_title: Demonstrating Results Helped Sustain Collaborations
paragraphs: For employers, the partnerships produced diverse results that generally  addressed their need for critical skills in various ways. In some cases,  employers cited an increased supply of skilled labor. In Northern Virginia,  for example, the partners said that the initiative produced an increased  supply of nurses and other health care workers. In other cases, employers  said the initiatives helped reduce their recruitment and retention costs. For  example, in Rochester, Minnesota, one employer, a long-term care facility,  reported a reduction in turnover from 60 percent to 6 percent in 1 year. In  Cincinnati, Ohio, according to an independent study, employers who  participated in the health care initiative realized about $4,900 in cost  savings per worker hired. Other employers cited less quantifiable benefits.  For example, in Gainesville, Florida, one employer said that participants in  the entrepreneurship training initiative had acquired the specialized skills  needed for new ventures that were otherwise difficult for them to find. In a  few cases, employers credited the initiative with helping to increase their  competitiveness. In the Wichita, Kansas, area and southeast Michigan,  where employers focused on upgrading skills to keep pace with changes in  technology, officials told us that the initiatives had helped them develop a  talent base that could help them compete internationally.
For jobseekers and workers, the partnerships produced results that mainly  reflected job placement and skill attainment. For example, in Wichita, of the  1,195 workers who were trained in the use of composite materials in  aircraft manufacturing, 1,008 had found jobs in this field. In some cases  where incumbent workers were promoted after having received services to  support their career progression, as in Seattle’s health care initiative, new  openings were created for entry-level jobseekers. In Gainesville, Florida,  some participants who had completed the initiative’s entrepreneurship  training had started seven new companies. Elsewhere, such as in San  Bernardino’s layoff aversion initiative, workers retained jobs when 426 jobs  were saved. In addition, some of those who attained new skills included  jobseekers with barriers to employment. For example, in San Bernardino,  officials reported that 32 percent of the trainees who had completed the  Technical Employment Training for machinists faced barriers to  employment, such as a disability or criminal record.
For the workforce system, the partnerships led to results such as  increased participation by employers in the workforce system, greater  efficiencies, and models of collaboration that could be replicated. Officials  with several initiatives said they had generated repeat employer business  or that the number and quality of employers’ job listings had increased,  allowing the workforce system to better serve jobseekers. In some cases,  officials also cited efficiency improvements. For example, in Cincinnati, an  education partner cited cost savings achieved when two colleges shared  a training program, splitting certain costs. Some partners also applied  their lessons learned through the partnership to new initiatives. For  example, the Rochester board’s pre-employment health care initiative has  been replicated in manufacturing, while officials in Golden, Colorado,  replicated elements of their manufacturing initiative in the energy sector.
section_title: Workforce Boards Overcame Some Challenges to Address Diverse Employer Needs and Developed Their Own Measures to Track Employer Engagement
paragraphs: Although all of the boards were successful in their collaborative efforts,  they identified some challenges they needed to overcome. For example,  some boards cited challenges related to using WIA formula funds to  address diverse employer needs. Staff from most, but not all, of the  boards also said that WIA performance measures do not directly reflect  their efforts to work with and engage employers. However, we found that  many of the boards developed a number of their own performance  measures to assess their services to employers.
subsections: section_title: Some Boards Were Challenged to Develop Comprehensive Strategies to Address Diverse Employer Needs with WIA Funds
paragraphs: Some boards identified challenges in using WIA funds to address  employers’ need for workers at various skill levels. For example, staff  from some boards said it was challenging to collaborate with employers  using WIA formula funds because they could generally only use these  funds to train eligible jobseekers. Furthermore, WIA prioritizes funding for  intensive services and training for low-income individuals when funding  for adult employment and training activities is limited. The director of  one board said that pursuing comprehensive strategies for an entire  economic sector can be challenging, because WIA funds are typically  used for lower-skilled workers, and employers in the region wanted to  attract a mix of lower- and higher-skilled workers. To address this  challenge, the director noted that the board used a combination of WIA  and other funds to address employers’ needs for a range of workers.
In at least five of the initiatives, board officials described services to  incumbent workers as a major part of their successful collaboration with  employers, yet some boards were challenged to piece together funds to  do this. WIA formula funds generally cannot be used to train incumbent  workers, with certain exceptions. For instance, employed workers who  need training to reach self-sufficiency may be served with WIA formula  funds. In addition, WIA Governor’s set-aside funds may be used for  innovative programs for incumbent workers. Among the initiatives that  served incumbent workers, the most common funding sources were  employer contributions and state funds. In addition, states may apply to  Labor for waivers to provide layoff aversion services to incumbent  workers with both WIA formula and reserve rapid response funds. One  board used WIA rapid response funds for layoff aversion services  because the state had a waiver for this purpose. Even in cases where  boards used some WIA funds to serve incumbent workers, most boards  had to find other funds to address this employer need.
Because WIA formula funds for training are primarily designed to pay for  services for individual jobseekers through individual training accounts,  some boards found it challenging to fund other training-related activities. For example, some board staff said they needed to use other funding to  develop new curriculum for their initiatives. Boards can use WIA funds to  develop curriculum as part of “customized” training for employers.  However, this type of training has some restrictions, such as requiring  employers to pay for 50 percent of the training, which could be a deterrent  for some employers. In other cases, board staff reported that they  wanted to provide training for an entire cohort, but boards usually cannot  use WIA funds to contract for training services.
WIA requires training to be provided through individual training accounts with limited  exceptions, such as when the services include on-the-job training provided by an  employer or when the local board determines there is an insufficient number of training  providers in the area. See 29 U.S.C. 2964(d)(4)(G)(ii).
section_title: WIA Performance Measures Focus Primarily on Outcomes for Jobseekers, but Local Boards Developed Their Own Measures of Employer Engagement
paragraphs: Staff from a majority, but not all, of the boards said that WIA performance  measures do not directly reflect their efforts to work with and engage  employers. The current WIA performance measures primarily focus on  local-level outcomes for jobseekers, except for a required measure of  employer satisfaction which may be measured by a survey of a sample of  employers for this purpose. While this survey provides a high-level  indicator of employer satisfaction with WIA-funded programs, the  statewide sample that is reported to Labor does not provide information  on each local area’s performance. Thus, board staff explained, the sole  employer measure does little to acknowledge or reward local boards that  successfully engage employers. For example, one board’s staff said that  although they prioritize working with employers, they do not get credit for  this under WIA. On the other hand, the executive director of one board  noted that their successful efforts to engage employers were reflected in  improved outcomes for jobseekers.
However, WIA does not preclude local efforts to develop measures of  employer engagement, and we found that many of the boards track a  variety of their own employer measures. In Chicago, staff track measures  such as the number of new employers served every year and the hiring  rate among jobseekers that they had referred to employers. In two  initiatives where the boards collaborated with Commerce’s MEP program,  the boards collected data on measures such as increased employer sales  and employers’ satisfaction with initiative services. Furthermore, one  board’s executive director expressed appreciation for the flexibility to adopt  measures of employer engagement that best align with local needs. Other  examples of the types of measures boards reported that they used to  gauge employer engagement or satisfaction include  interview-to-hire ratio from initiative jobseeker referrals,  retention rate of initiative-referred hires, number of businesses returning for services, number of new business contacts, employers’ willingness to invest time or funding in initiatives, employer satisfaction with initiative, and  increased or retained employer sales.
These examples are consistent with prior GAO work.  In a 2004 report, we  found that about 70 percent of local areas nationwide reported that they  required one-stop centers to track some type of employer measure, such  as the number of employers that use one-stop services, how many hire  one-stop customers, and the type of services that employers use.
section_title: Labor Has Taken Steps to Support Local Collaborative Efforts and Address Some Challenges but Has Not Made Information on Leveraging Resources Readily Available
paragraphs: To help boards form partnerships with employers, colleges, and other  partners, Labor has conducted webinars and shared information on the  uses of and opportunities for funding such collaborations. One webinar  explained how to work with Commerce’s MEP program to obtain  manufacturing expertise on behalf of local employers. Other webinars  hosted by Labor have suggested how boards can use various  discretionary grants, such as WIRED grants, to help support their  collaborative initiatives. In addition, Labor has featured the innovative  work of several local boards in forming partnerships, such as the  approach to career pathways used by the board in Madison, Wisconsin.  To help boards optimize their use of WIA funds without overstepping  program rules, Labor has issued guidance on such topics as  entrepreneurship training, working with economic development entities,  and training incumbent workers.
Labor has also engaged in collaborative efforts with other federal  agencies that could help support local collaboration. For example, Labor  is working with the Department of Education and other federal agencies  to identify existing industry-recognized credentials and relevant research  projects, and has issued guidance to help boards increase credential  attainment among workforce program participants. In addition, Labor  has recently worked with Commerce and the Small Business  Administration to fund a new discretionary $37 million grant program  called the Jobs and Innovation Accelerator Challenge to encourage  collaboration and leveraging funds. This program encourages the  development of industry clusters, which are networks of interconnected  firms and supporting institutions that can help a region create jobs. These  grants are also intended to help local boards and others leverage existing  federal resources by, for example, encouraging boards to develop  collaborative relationships with career and technical education providers  that receive federal funds. A total of 16 federal agencies will provide  technical resources to help leverage existing agency funding, including  the 3 funding agencies listed above. In September 2011, Labor  announced the 20 regions that will receive grant funds. Labor estimates  the grants will result in the creation of 4,800 jobs.
As discussed previously, board staff stressed the importance of  leveraging resources to facilitate collaboration, but Labor has not made  information it has collected on effective practices for doing so easily  accessible. For example, Labor maintains a website for sharing  innovative state and local workforce practices called Workforce3One,  which has some examples of leveraging funding at the local level.  However, the website does not group these examples together in an easy  to find location, as it does for other categories such as examples of  innovative employer services or sector-based strategies. In addition,  Labor funded evaluations of two of its grant programs and identified how  local grantees leveraged funding from educational institutions, businesses  and employers, and industry associations, among other sources, as well  as the levels of funding that grantees leveraged and planned to  leverage. Other research, such as reviews of boards’ coordination with  faith-based community organizations, has also addressed how local  workforce initiatives can leverage resources through outside  organizations to help jobseekers obtain and retain employment.  However, this information on leveraging resources has not been compiled  and disseminated in one location such as on the Workforce3One website,  so interested parties must search for and read through separate reports.
Regarding local measures of employer engagement, Labor  acknowledged the value of such a measure in 2006 and later developed a  method for local boards to track and report on employers that use the  one-stop system, but has postponed its implementation indefinitely. Labor  officials said they plan to defer changes to their performance reporting  system until WIA is reauthorized to avoid spending time and money on a  system that may not meet new requirements.
section_title: Conclusion
paragraphs: At a time when the nation continues to face high unemployment in the  wake of the recent recession, it is particularly important to consider ways  to better connect the workforce investment system with employers to  meet local labor market needs. Indeed, that connection is fundamental to  the vision of WIA, which created the one-stop system, in part, to help  meet employers’ needs and ensure that one-stop training and services  are aligned with those needs. The 14 local initiatives profiled in this report  illustrate how workforce boards collaborated with partners to develop  innovative and employer-driven services that helped address urgent local  workforce needs. The variety of ways in which they helped employers  meet their needs and yielded results may be testimony to the viability and  potential of WIA’s vision for local partnership: critical skill needs were met,  individuals obtained or upgraded their skills, and the local system of  workforce programs was reinvigorated by increased employer  participation. Furthermore, the common factors that facilitated these  collaborations, as well as the key challenges they encountered, can be  instructive for future collaborations and efforts to enhance the workforce  investment system.
Labor has taken several important steps that support local initiatives like  these through guidance and technical assistance, and its collaborative  efforts with other federal agencies such as the new grant program with  Commerce and the Small Business Administration. However, while Labor  has also collected relevant information on effective strategies that local  boards and partners have used to leverage resources, it has not compiled  this information or made it readily accessible. All the boards we profiled  emphasized the importance of leveraging resources to build innovative  new partnerships. Moreover, as the workforce system and its partners  face increasingly constrained resources, it will be important for local  boards to have at their disposal information on how boards have  effectively leveraged funding sources. Without such information, boards  seeking to emulate such strategies may lack the information they need to  benefit from lessons learned, augment their resources, and explore  innovative new ways to collaborate with partners.
section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: To better support the capacity of the local workforce investment system to  collaborate with employers and other partners, the Secretary of Labor  should compile information on workforce boards that effectively leverage  WIA funds with other funding sources and disseminate this information in  a readily accessible manner. This might involve compiling lessons  learned from prior research or evaluations of grant programs and new  grant initiatives such as the one with Commerce and the Small Business  Administration, and disseminating this information by creating a super  category for this topic on the Workforce3One website to group examples  in one place.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of the report to the Departments of Labor, Education,  and Commerce for review and comment. Labor provided a written  response (see app. III).  Labor and Education also provided technical  comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. Commerce did not  provide comments.  In addition, we provided workforce board officials  from each of the 14 initiatives with a draft of pertinent sections and  incorporated their technical comments as appropriate.
Labor agreed with our findings and recommendation. Specifically, Labor’s  response noted that our findings validate the department’s position that  stronger partnerships between employers and the workforce system lead  to improved employment and retention outcomes for workers. Labor also  noted efforts to serve both employers and workers more effectively, and  cited recent technical assistance it has provided to help the workforce  system engage employers. In addition, Labor cited efforts to work across  federal agencies to help align resources and programs to ensure effective  service delivery. Labor also noted states’ critical role in engaging  employers. Labor concurred with GAO’s recommendation, and added that  it is examining ways to improve the identification and dissemination of  promising practices.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the  Secretary of Labor, as well as the Secretaries of Education, Health and  Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, and Commerce,  appropriate congressional committees, and other interested parties. In  addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO’s website at  http://www.gao.gov. A list of related GAO products is included at the end  of this report.
If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-7215 or at sherrilla@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this  report are listed in appendix IV.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: Our review focused on (1) the factors that facilitated innovative  collaborations among workforce boards, employers, and others; (2) the  major challenges to collaboration; and (3) the actions Labor has taken to  support local workforce boards in their collaborative efforts.
To obtain background information, we interviewed experts on the  Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA), workforce development and  economic development; reviewed numerous studies, reports, and other  literature; and reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, guidance, and  other documentation. We interviewed officials from five key federal  agencies:  the Departments of Labor, Education, Health and Human  Services, and Housing and Urban Development, which administer the  programs required by WIA to participate in the one-stop system, as well  as officials from the Department of Commerce (Commerce), which  administers relevant economic development programs. We interviewed  officials from the National Governor’s Association, the National  Association of Workforce Boards, and the National Association of State  Workforce Agencies. To identify relevant studies, we searched for  literature in various bibliographic databases, including ProQuest, Social  SciSearch, Social Sciences Abstracts, NTIS, PAIS and EconLit. We also  asked the experts we interviewed to recommend additional studies.
To learn about what factors facilitated innovative collaborations among  workforce boards, employers, and other partners, as well as the  challenges, we interviewed officials from 14 local initiatives in which local  workforce boards achieved positive results by collaborating with  employers, educational partners, and others. To identify these selected  sites, we asked officials from the five key federal agencies and national  experts representing 20 organizations to identify what they viewed as the  most promising and innovative local initiatives in which local workforce  boards collaborated effectively with employers and other partners to  achieve positive results. We received nominations from the Departments  of Labor, Commerce, and Health and Human Services. Officials from the  Department of Housing and Urban Development told us that the agency  currently has no programs that it considers mandatory one-stop partners  and was not able to provide any nominations. Officials from the  Department of Education provided state-level information, but told us that  they were not able to provide local nominations. The nonfederal experts  we contacted consisted of representatives from the following  organizations, the majority of whom provided nominations:
American Association of Community Colleges
Aspen Institute: Workforce Strategies Initiative
Center for Law and Social Policy, Inc.
Corporation for a Skilled Workforce
Council for Community and Economic Research
Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation  Insight Center for Community Economic Development: National  Network of Sector Partners  John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development
National Association of Development Organizations
National Association of State Directors of Career Technical Education
National Association of State Workforce Agencies
National Association of Workforce Boards
National Coalition for Literacy
National Governor’s Association
Social Policy Research Associates
U.S. Chamber of Commerce: Institute for a Competitive Workforce  Experts were selected based on their knowledge of workforce  development or economic development activities at the local level.  Specifically, we identified them through a review of relevant studies, their  participation in conferences focused on workforce or economic  development issues at the local level, previous assistance to GAO on  other reports, and the recommendation of other experts. We asked the  experts and federal agency officials to identify promising local initiatives  that engaged the workforce board as a strategic partner and involved at  least one economic development partner, education partner, and major  Department of Labor (Labor) program required by WIA to provide  services through the one-stop system. We also specified that the  nominated initiatives be data-driven, involve collaborative strategic  planning, and demonstrate positive results. In order to ensure that our  nomination criteria were clear and appropriate for our objectives, we  solicited input from the Departments of Labor and Education, as well as  from associations with expert knowledge of workforce issues, specifically,  the National Governor’s Association and the Council for Community and  Economic Research.
More than 89 initiatives or sponsoring organizations from 28 states were  nominated and we selected 14 initiatives, corresponding to 13 boards, for  in-depth review. Two of the 14 initiatives were led by the same workforce  board. To assist our selection, we first used a data collection instrument  to gather additional information on 29 of the nominated initiatives, which  were chosen based on factors such as the number of nominations they  received, results reported by the nominators, and their geographic  diversity. From these, we then selected 14 initiatives for our review.  These 14 initiatives should be viewed as our selection of diverse,  promising efforts rather than a comprehensive list of initiatives that were  more innovative than the initiatives not selected. Our selections were  intended to represent initiatives that targeted different industries;  demonstrated evidence of replicability; and served a variety of WIA  populations. We also considered the characteristics of the workforce  areas, such as unemployment rates and geographic locations. In some  cases where workforce boards engaged with employers in more than one  sector, we asked board officials to identify the initiative that demonstrated  the most positive results. In one case, we selected the sector to achieve a  range of targeted industries.
At our selected sites, we conducted semi-structured interviews with local  and state workforce officials, representatives of educational institutions,  training providers, economic development officials and employers. We  conducted in-person interviews during seven site visits to Chicago,  Illinois; Golden, Colorado; Lancaster, Pennsylvania; Madison, Wisconsin;  San Bernardino, California; Seattle, Washington; and Vienna, Virginia. In  some cases, we also toured training facilities and workplaces. We  conducted interviews for the remaining sites via videoconference and by  telephone. We asked interviewees to tell us how the initiative started,  what funding sources were used to start and sustain it, and what it had  accomplished. To supplement the testimonial evidence employers and  officials provided regarding the results of these initiatives, we requested  and analyzed written documents such as performance reports, return on  investment analyses, external evaluations, and other information to  examine the results of the initiatives. However, we did not assess the  reliability of their data. We are using their reported results for illustrative  purposes only. We also asked them for their views on what had facilitated  collaboration, the challenges involved, and the implications for WIA  reauthorization. The information we obtained about the selected initiatives  is not generalizable to other local workforce boards.
To determine the actions Labor has taken to support local workforce  boards in these types of collaborative efforts, we interviewed Labor,  Education, and Commerce officials. We conducted our work between  November 2010 and January 2012 in accordance with generally accepted  government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan  and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide  a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit  objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable  basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Profiles of Selected Local Workforce Boards’ Initiatives
paragraphs: The following profiles provide snapshots of the 14 initiatives we reviewed.  We gathered data from a variety of sources, including initiative staff,  board members, education and training providers, employers, state  officials, relevant reports, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In each  profile, we provide an overview of the initiative and describe some of the  factors that facilitated collaboration. We also provide some background  information, including the key partners, the workforce challenge, and the  role of the board. While the profiles identify some common themes among  the initiatives, they are not comprehensive descriptions of each initiative.  We also provide information on the funding sources used for each  initiative and highlights of the results that partners reported. The reported  results generally reflected the diverse goals of these initiatives, which  often included the goals of WIA programs as well as other federal grants  or programs. Officials from each initiative were given the opportunity to  review the information for accuracy.
Overview  In about 2000, the Workforce Boards of Metropolitan Chicago began to form  strategic alliances with manufacturers and other partners to try to increase  the supply of highly skilled workers needed in local manufacturing.  Stakeholders said the efforts culminated in the City of Chicago issuing a  request for proposal for a manufacturing sector center.  A community-based  organization, the Instituto del Progreso Latino, responded to the request for  proposal and now runs ManufacturingWorks. The center provides a range of  services to employers, including customized training development,  jobseeker recruitment projects, comprehensive assessments of  manufacturers’ needs, links with training providers to help employers find  qualified candidates, and post-placement services to help employers retain  newly placed workers, staff said. The center principally works with  employers who meet certain standards for pay and working conditions. The  center’s staff identified the following as key to its effectiveness:  Industry-knowledgeable staff: Center staff specializes in sub- sectors, such as metal, plastic and paper, and food processing,  which helps build credibility with manufacturers, staff said.
Workforce challenge  Manufacturing is an important  sector for the Chicago region;  however, employers reported that  they could not find enough skilled  workers, according to initiative  staff.  Additionally, jobs in  manufacturing require a higher skill  level than they did previously  according to local stakeholders.   Stakeholders in Chicago identified  a need for 10,000 new and  replacement manufacturing  workers in the Chicago area each  year.
Screening of potential candidates: Screening helps ensure  that employers get job candidates with the right skills, and that  they therefore succeed in their new positions, stakeholders said.
The workforce investment board’s role  The Chicago Workforce Investment Board began promoting the idea of a  manufacturing sector initiative in the late 1990s, a stakeholder said. At  the same time, the stakeholder explained, the board also began to  organize much of its other activity around specific sectors. The board  held workforce summits with representatives from employers, labor,  nonprofits, and educational partners to identify reasons for the shortage  of trained, skilled workers in manufacturing and other sectors.
Key federal and state  support  Federal WIA formula funds and  another federal grant funded some  of the program’s operations.   However, the business services  were funded with other, outside  funds, according to city staff.
Other federal grants or funds   Employer cash or in-kind  contributions  they have served hundreds of different employers since 2005,  including more than 100 different employers in 2006, 2007, 2008,  and 2009. On average, manufacturers hired 1 out of every 1.6  jobseekers referred to them by ManufacturingWorks in program  year 2010, a key indicator of success, according to initiative  partners.
Benefits for workforce system and other partners:  ManufacturingWorks staff reported that the center tracks a  number of “system relationship measures,” including the number  of job requests they share with the entire Chicago workforce  system and the jobseeker referrals ManufacturingWorks gets from  the rest of the system.
Workforce challenge  Local hospitals in Cincinnati were  competing against each other for  workers and experiencing high  turnover.  According to a local  official, they realized that was  raising the cost of doing business  overall. shared data system to track participants, services received, and  outcomes achieved across multiple workforce providers.
Program manager: The program manager administered the  grants and helped communication among partners.
The workforce investment boards’ role  The four participating boards assessed jobseekers’ skills and used  individual training accounts to pay for training in some cases.
Key federal and state  support  Labor provided funding for the  initiative through Recovery Act  funds for high-growth and  emerging industries and through a  discretionary grant for community  college-based job training.
Employer cash or in-kind  contributions  compared costs and benefits of participating in this initiative,  estimated benefits for one participating employer exceeded costs  by over $200,000 for an 8-year period. Additionally, that study  found that participating employers realized an estimated net  benefit of about $4,900 for every worker hired through the  initiative, with about half of these savings attributable to lower  turnover and recruitment costs. Additionally, collaboration among  the education partners ensured a consistent approach to training.
Benefits for workforce system and other partners: Education  partners said that graduation rates that generally exceeded 80  percent helped them achieve cost savings, because more  individuals continued to advanced courses, which have fixed  costs. In addition, they said they were able to reduce duplication  among their educational programs and streamline clinical  programs, thereby achieving additional cost savings and reducing  the time needed for credential completion by 1 year for certain  participants. The partners said they are considering expanding the  initiative to include employers in long-term care, and the board  said it has replicated elements of this initiative in other sectors,  such as manufacturing and construction.
FloridaWorks (Workforce Investment Board)
Overview  In 2009, a community partnership led by the Gainesville Area Chamber  of Commerce convened local leaders to discuss the area’s economic  growth strategy and agreed to make job creation a priority. To this end,  the local workforce board and other partners developed several  projects—called “quests”—to help impart entrepreneurial skills to three  populations: (1) unemployed, highly skilled jobseekers; (2) Temporary  Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) cash recipients and (3) WIA  Youth. All three projects were first piloted in 2011.
Startup Quest: The board partnered with the University of Florida’s  Office of Technology Licensing to provide entrepreneurship training to 83  unemployed or dislocated high-skilled professionals. These individuals  worked in 13 hand-selected teams, each with finance, marketing,  operations, and other management skills, under the direction of a  successful entrepreneur/mentor/chief executive officer for a total of 10  weeks.  The Office of Technology Licensing made available new  technologies to take to market. Working with this office, each mentor  selected a technology, such as a sinkhole sensor and an inner ear  implant, and the teams then developed market analyses.  At the end of  the project, participants pitched their analyses to venture capitalists.
Workforce challenge  A board official said that the  community had substantially more  unemployed individuals than  available jobs. The lack of  employment opportunities  impacted jobseekers across the  skill spectrum. Officials also  reported that the area’s economic  development was negatively  affected by the high-school dropout  rate and the difficulty local  entrepreneurs faced in finding  workers able to succeed in a  startup environment.
Opportunity Quest: The board provided 65 TANF cash recipients with  training to help them discern their talents, learn marketing techniques  and develop business concepts.  Topics included networking, marketing,  customer service, and finance.
TechQuest: In partnership with the local school board, staff selected 47  at-risk high school students and enrolled them in WIA Youth for 8 weeks  of business-oriented learning. The project’s goal was twofold: to  introduce students to technology-oriented businesses, and to improve  their reading and writing skills. A local entrepreneur taught the classes,  and students earned iPads for completing the training.  Students also  received support from a local community college, the Chamber of  Commerce, and multiple local business owners.
Some key factors of the projects were:
Program manager/single point of contact: A program manager  and a single point of contact for employers helped ensure  partners quickly adjusted to changing plans.
Screening of candidates: Startup Quest participants were  screened at multiple points to ensure that they could commit to  the training and had an appropriate educational background.
The workforce investment board’s role  The board applied for grants that funded training, and planned and  developed the quests. Also, officials said that the board's ongoing  contract for business services with the Chambers of Commerce made  the quests possible.
FloridaWorks (Workforce Investment Board)
Key federal and state  support  Each of the entrepreneurship  projects was funded through  separate grants, including  $175,500 for Startup Quest from a  Recovery Act state-level grant;  $101,000 for TechQuest from WIA  Governor’s set-aside; and  $300,000 from Recovery Act state- level funds for Opportunity Quest.    Officials told us that they could not  have established and implemented  the projects without this funding.  In  addition, the University of Florida’s  Office of Technology Licensing is  part of a Department of Commerce  program.
WIA Governor’s set-aside  Employer cash or in-kind  contributions  mentors for the Startup Quest project reported that a majority of  participants are now skilled in startup management. One  entrepreneur explained that working in a startup is much different  from working with an established employer, and that Startup  Quest participants understand the urgency and needs of such  businesses, a rare and valued skill set. Officials also reported that  the TechQuest project helped introduce employers to the  potential talent of WIA Youth, as evidenced by the fact that  several employers offered internships to students.
Benefits for workforce system and other partners: Startup  Quest provided market analyses for the technologies to the  University of Florida’s Office of Technology Licensing, which an  official said could be useful for future activities. As a result of the  Opportunity Quest project, a new business incubator service is  being established at the one-stop in a rural area. An official also  said that Opportunity Quest changed the one-stop’s management  processes: now entrepreneurship is considered another option for  jobseekers, particularly those with more independent  personalities.
Overview  Manufacturing is a key industry in Colorado, ranging from food  processing to chemicals to fabricated metals, according to local officials.   In 2007, the Jefferson County Workforce Center commissioned a focus  group study of local manufacturing employers to learn more about the  staffing and human resource needs of the manufacturing industry and  how the workforce system could better serve them. As a result of the  focus group and other communication with industry partners, the local  workforce system decided to provide training in “lean” (i.e., more  efficient) manufacturing to dislocated and incumbent workers of small to  mid-size manufacturing companies. They selected the Colorado  Association for Manufacturing and Technology, an affiliate of  Commerce’s Manufacturing Extension Partnership, as the training  provider.
Workforce challenge  An official said that the economic  downturn greatly increased the  number of local dislocated workers.   In addition, employers reported that  they needed to cut costs and  increase their workforce’s soft  skills, including the ability to take  initiative, work in teams, and  communicate effectively.
The initiative’s goals were to (1) help businesses become more  profitable; (2) provide individuals with training certifications that help them  upgrade their employment positions or salary ranges, and (3) provide  employer-defined critical foundational skills. The training emphasized  “lean” manufacturing, in which workers received training in more efficient  techniques and problem solving. An official explained that the principles  guiding such training are not new concepts, but they can be new to  individual manufacturers.
Some key factors of the initiative included:
Program manager: Partners reported that having a program  manager improved stakeholder relations. The program manager  helped employers understand the benefits of the initiative and  through various forms of outreach—including overview sessions  and e-mails—solidified the business community’s commitment to  the initiative.
Limited or action-oriented meetings: Holding a limited number  of meetings with employers was useful, according to partners.
Industry-recognized credentials: Credentials provided  independent verification of jobseekers’ abilities to employers.
The workforce investment board’s role  One-stops overseen by the board—Jefferson County Workforce Center  and Workforce Boulder County—focused on identifying funding sources  and clarifying the requirements related to federal funding.
Key federal and state  support  Of the approximately $725,000  project budget, slightly more than  $284,000 was provided through a  WIRED grant from the Department  of Labor. The balance was  achieved through leveraging the  WIRED grant to obtain other funds.
Other federal grants or funds  Employer cash or in-kind  contributions  the initiative saved or created 81 jobs, though one employer  cautioned that the data on jobs created could be difficult to  attribute to the initiative, especially in large companies. As of  August 2011, at least 20 of the 63 dislocated workers were  reported to be employed (not all responded to a survey to  determine their employment status). Participants attributed a  variety of additional results to the training they received, including  receiving more interviews and obtaining a higher starting salary.
Benefits for employers: The employers served by this initiative  reported that the training resulted in approximately $2.7 million in  decreased costs and other savings, and slightly more than $9  million in increased sales. One employer reported that the  initiative helped workers become problem solvers, and that it  helped change the culture of his company. He said that formerly,  the company culture was one in which employees were given  direction. The training focused on developing a leaner culture in  which employees were encouraged to be proactive, and as a  result they developed a new product.
Benefits for workforce system and other partners: As part of  the initiative, the workforce centers developed what they termed a  “speed-dating” service, during which a variety of employers  conducted interviews with dislocated workers. According to an  official, this approach has been adapted for the workforce  system’s youth services, and for a state program. The partners  also formed a resource group for manufacturers, which included  representatives of the community colleges, the Colorado  Association for Manufacturing and Technology, the workforce  system, and other partners.  The group meets once a month to  review companies with challenges and identify opportunities for  growth. In addition, workforce system officials reported that they  are replicating elements of the initiative in a new energy-sector  initiative.
Overview  In response to mounting job losses in the area, the board identified  transportation, distribution, and logistics as a target sector for a WIRED  grant in 2006. The board chose this sector for its job creation potential,  according to a local official, and also took into account the region’s  existing assets, such as the presence of several aircraft and trucking  companies, proximity to major highways, and the airport’s potential to  become the center of a distribution network. According to a board official,  some trucking and transportation companies, such as Volvo Logistics  and Old Dominion Freight Line, have increased their staff in the area.   Furthermore, as this official explained, as more employers locate in the  region, they are likely to bring in companies in their supply chain, which  could spur additional growth in manufacturing. In addition, as one  employer explained, this sector was chosen because it is a component  that every industry needs to be successful. Although the initiative has  had as many as 100 industry partners, according to board staff, a recent  focus was helping Honda Aircraft Company recruit jobseekers, following  the firm’s 2007 decision to locate in the area. The board helped the  company identify qualified jobseekers, and a community college  designed a course of study, which met Federal Aviation Administration  standards, to train jobseekers to become airframe mechanics. While  immediate recruitment needs have been a recent focus, the initiative has  also featured career fairs for youth.  Partners said their collaboration  continued after Labor’s WIRED grant expired in 2010.  Some key  elements were:
Screening of candidates: For Honda Aircraft Company, the  board facilitated three rounds of assessments for over 2,400 initial  applicants, ensuring that those who passed had the necessary  skills for the positions.
Workforce challenge  According to local reports, the  region around Greensboro, North  Carolina, had experienced severe  job losses, in part stemming from  losses in manufacturing. The board  and other partners selected certain  sectors, including the  transportation, distribution, and  logistics sector, for their job  creation potential.
Industry-recognized credentials: According to a board official,  the primary relevant credentials include commercial drivers’  licenses and Federal Aviation Administration certification for the  training of aircraft mechanics, and most training programs assist  in preparing jobseekers for credential testing.
Employer input into curriculum: Employers developed the  curriculum for basic logistics training, now provided by several  local colleges and universities.
The workforce investment board’s role  According to board and company officials, board staff provided expedited  service for Honda Aircraft Company by designing and implementing a  web-based recruitment and assessment tool within 48 hours. Partners  said the board was key to collaboration, as it facilitated employers’  understanding of their common needs.
Key federal and state  support  Labor’s WIRED grant provided  critical support for the  collaboration, according to the  partners.  A foundation created by  the state legislature also supported  training as well as a survey of  industry needs.
Board staff and other partners provided information about the results of  the initiative for jobseekers and workers, employers, and for the  workforce system overall:
Benefits for jobseekers and workers: According to a board  official, individual jobseekers have found jobs in this sector,  although the board could not provide specific job placement data.  In addition, while production delays and economic conditions have  restrained hiring in some cases, new jobs are anticipated, in part  due to Honda Aircraft Company’s decisions to manufacture  aircraft in Guilford County and to locate a maintenance facility in  the area, according to a board official. In addition, according to  this official, other employers in the sector, such as TIMCO  Aviation Services and FedEx, have been hiring or expect to do so.
Employer cash or in-kind  contributions  initiative helped them reduce their recruitment costs, although  they did not quantify the amount. In addition, an employer board  member highlighted employers’ continued interest in collaboration  by noting that, since the WIRED grant expired, the initiative has  been sustained in part by continued employer contributions.
Benefits for workforce system and other partners: A board  official said they have developed similar web-based recruitment  tools for other companies. In addition, they said they have  developed a closer relationship with local economic development  agencies which helps them work together to serve employers.   Board officials said they have replicated elements of this initiative  in their efforts to serve employers in the manufacturing sector.   Additionally, partners said the initiative led to the formation of the  North Carolina Center for Global Logistics, to help meet the  training needs of employers in the transportation, distribution, and  logistics sector on an ongoing basis.
Overview  In early 2007, facing new challenges in a critical sector, a diverse group  of partners formed the Lancaster County Center of Excellence in  Production Agriculture. The center serves as a clearinghouse for  information, and also provides training through a variety of vendors on  topics such as dairy feeding, poultry flock management, and manure  hauling. To meet the needs of workers with limited English, the center  has contracted with other partners to develop workplace literacy  materials. The center also provides subsidies for farmers to attend  events such as the Pennsylvania Dairy Summit, training workshops, and  other events in the dairy and poultry industries that help keep farmers  abreast of best practices. Some key factors of the initiative are:
Program manager: A coordinator serves as a point of contact for  the center, and works with industry organizations to reach more  farmers.
Industry-knowledgeable staff: Employers and other partners  said that the one-stop staff members’ knowledge of both  government processes and industry needs was helpful.
Workforce challenge  Initiative partners explained that in  recent decades, local farmers have  increased the size and scope of  their operations in order to remain  economically viable.  However,  family labor is often no longer  sufficient to run these businesses,  and technological advances require  workers with new skills (see  photos).  Farmers hired jobseekers  with limited English skills for some  entry-level jobs, but struggled to  communicate with them.   Moreover, workers needed to be  trained for middle-management  positions that did not previously  exist, and farmers needed to  remain knowledgeable about best  practices in their industries in order  to remain competitive.
The workforce investment board’s role  Through partners, the board helps employers access incumbent worker  training, largely in the dairy and poultry industries. It also makes available  information about jobs in agriculture through the one-stop. An official also  said that the board serves as a neutral party that can forge connections,  perform evaluation, and approach problems systemically. The board has  reinforced connections to employers by serving as staff to the Agriculture  Council, a policy body that houses the Center of Excellence in Production  Agriculture. The board also supports four additional centers in areas such  as long-term care and packaging operations.
Key federal and state  support  The state’s Industry Partnership  grant provided substantial support  over the years.
Employer cash or in-kind  contributions  local agricultural businesses do not typically have many workers,  so the center is able to train more workers by focusing on the  overall sector’s needs instead of the needs of individual  employers. From project years 2005 to 2010, the initiative trained  approximately 3,000 individuals, 654 of whom received training in  2010.
Benefits for employers: In project year 2010, 400 employers  received services.  An official explained that it can be challenging  to quantify the benefits for employers, because some do not wish  to share information that they consider to be proprietary.   However, one employer noted that financial support provided by  employers is an indicator of satisfaction. In project years 2008- 2010, participating employers contributed approximately $134,000  in cash contributions and approximately $345,000 from in-kind  contributions.
Benefits for workforce system and other partners: Officials  explained that developments in the agriculture industry sparked  interest in the renewable energy sector. As farms increase the  quantity of livestock, manure removal presents a new challenge.   Methane digesters can remove the manure and provide farmers  with a new source of income. Therefore, the Center for Excellence  in Production Agriculture spun off its agriculture projects related to  renewable energy and created a new Center of Excellence in  Renewable Energy to ensure that area employers remain  competitive.
Overview  Starting in 1999, the Workforce Development Board of South Central  Wisconsin began to reassess its training approach after seeing low  training program completion rates among jobseekers, board officials said.  The board decided to adopt a career pathways approach throughout its  one-stop operation, and focus training on seven sectors. This approach  provides education and training progressively so that students can gain  skills and advance in an occupation or industry as they complete  successive training.
Workforce challenge  Companies, particularly in health  care and manufacturing sectors,  indicated they were having a hard  time finding new employees.  Additionally, the board wanted to  address low training program  completion rates among  jobseekers.
Industry-knowledgeable staff: The board directed the one-stop  to organize its operations around industry specialists. These  specialists develop knowledge of available jobs in their fields so  they can ensure jobseekers have the right training for these  openings.
Single point of contact: Board staff reported that there is a  partnership coordinator who collaborates with the board staff and  industry partners to help meet industry needs and assures that  the board is preparing workers for occupations that are in  demand.
The workforce investment board’s role  Instead of using the career pathways approach exclusively for training  programs, the board worked to use the model for all services provided by  the workforce system. In adopting the career pathways approach to its  one stop operation, the board funded the pathways training with WIA  funds. The board also convened the partners from selected industries to  discuss the needs of a given sector as a whole.
Key federal and state  support  The board uses WIA funding to  support individual training accounts  for jobseekers to pursue career  pathways training.  However, to  test this approach with prototypes,  the board first used other funds,  such as federal and state grants.
Benefits for jobseekers or workers: One of the major benefits  of the career pathways approach is that it has reduced student  drop out rates in training programs, board staff said.  According to  board staff, preliminary results indicate that students pursuing  “stackable” or cumulative credentials have an 85 percent rate of  completion compared to a 65 percent rate of completion for other  students.
Benefits for employers: Through informal feedback, board staff  have concluded that employers value getting the right jobseekers  with the training they need.
WIA Governor’s set-aside
Benefits for workforce system and other partners: Employers  have become more aware of the public resources available to  them through the one-stop, and are more likely to work with the  federally funded workforce system to find and train new and  incumbent employees, according to an evaluation of board efforts  by the University of Wisconsin-Madison Center on Wisconsin  Strategy.
Workforce Development, Inc. (Workforce Investment  Board)
Workforce challenge  Local employers in the health care  industry, particularly rural long-term  care providers, have had a difficult  time finding sufficient staff for their  operations and had identified high  turnover rates as a problem. jobseekers before they enter the healthcare academy and  through this process, some jobseekers realize that health care  careers are not a good personal choice for them. In those cases,  one-stop staff then help these jobseekers explore other possible  careers. This screening keeps health care employers engaged  because the jobseekers who complete the training and get hired  are more likely to succeed.
Single point of contact: Employers contact health care program  coordinators if they are seeking a new hire, which allows  employers to find recent health care academy graduates with  skills that meet their needs.
Industry knowledgeable staff: The program coordinators are  also nurses, which helps build credibility with employers.
The workforce investment board’s role  The board determined that training additional workers for jobs in health  care was a key local need, and has supported the pre-employment  training with both WIA and non-WIA funds. The board’s health care  subcommittee provides industry input, and includes people who are not  on the full workforce board, according to board officials.
Workforce Development, Inc. (Workforce Investment  Board)
Key federal and state  support  The board has mostly funded the  academy with grants from the state  and federal government. For those  who are eligible, the board also  uses WIA formula funds to pay for  Pre-employment Healthcare  Academy classes.
Employer cash or in-kind  contributions  has used the pre-employment academy approach in the  manufacturing and energy sectors in the past, and other boards  have replicated the health care academy. Additionally, other  workforce boards have used the health care academy as a model  in other sectors such as manufacturing. The board has estimated  there has been a greater than 6-to-1 return on investment from  the health care academy, factoring in taxes paid and foregone  public assistance for newly employed graduates.
Overview  The Business Services unit overseen by the local workforce board  recognized that area manufacturers were closing or under stress. To  provide assistance, in 2009, Business Services provided workshops that  addressed a variety of business needs, according to board staff.  Following the feedback received at those workshops, however, staff  realized that more in-depth assistance was needed to help employers  prevent layoffs. At the direction of the local workforce board, Business  Services issued a request for proposal to provide employers with  services to improve the efficiency of their processes and reduce their  costs, and selected CMTC, an affiliate of Commerce’s Manufacturing  Extension Partnership, as the service provider.
Workforce challenge  One-stop staff reported that the  local economy struggled during the  recent economic downturn, with  high unemployment and numerous  foreclosures.  Local businesses  were increasingly unable to meet  their financial obligations.   Business closures were becoming  increasingly prevalent, primarily  due to decreasing sales. To avoid  further layoffs, businesses said  they needed to reduce operating  costs and increase sales.
CMTC provided intervention services to small and medium at-risk  manufacturers. Sometimes, these services included assistance with  marketing or helping an employer achieve specific industry certifications.   However, partners agreed that when an employer needed to improve  efficiency, there was also a training component for incumbent workers.   Almost all of the participating employers received services that  addressed workforce issues, according to officials. Workforce services  included training incumbent workers in more efficient techniques.
Some key factors of this collaborative were:
Streamlined data collection: Partners reported that the intake  form for employers interested in layoff aversion services was kept  short, but still addressed essential data needed for program  requirements and performance measures.
Single point of contact: Each employer was assigned a  consultant to provide personalized services.
Industry knowledgeable staff: CMTC was familiar with the  business community’s needs, according to an official.
The workforce investment board’s role  Officials told us that the board’s decision to fund the Business Services  unit (even in lean budget years) proved critical, as it established  relationships with employers that allowed for better communication with  the workforce system.
Key federal and state  support  The training was funded through  Recovery Act and WIA Dislocated  Worker Rapid Response funds.   The training was provided under a  waiver from Labor that allowed the  board to use Rapid Response  funds for layoff-aversion purposes.
Reported results  CMTC provided services to 15 businesses and training to incumbent  workers as needed. Using an economic impact tool, officials estimated  that this intervention added $5.7 million to the local economy.
Benefits for jobseekers or workers: According to the reported  MEP results, as of May 2011, the employers reported that 71 new  jobs were created as a result of this initiative, and 426 jobs were  saved.
Employer cash or in-kind  contributions
Benefits for employers: For individual employers reporting cost  savings over a 12-month period, benefits ranged from $50,000 to  $1,000,000.  Collectively, employers also reported that total sales  increased by more than $3.3 million during the same period. A  workforce official estimated that approximately 80 percent of the  businesses would have closed without intervention. A  representative from a business that received CMTC’s services  said that his company had been in a precarious financial position  that put the employees’ jobs at risk, but now the company is on a  growth trajectory.  On a scale of 1 to 10—with 10 as the highest  level of satisfaction—the participating employers reported an  average satisfaction score of 9.6.
Benefits for workforce system and other partners: An official  told us that the Business Services unit streamlined its operations  as a result of the partnership. For example, staff simplified intake  forms and kept the project organized in a way that reflected  business practices.  Another benefit identified by officials was an  increase in mutual understanding and awareness between  business and the workforce system. As evidence that the  partnership was strengthened, an official told us that a  representative of one of the employers that received services  wanted to join the board. Moreover, the partnership created new  opportunities for the workforce investment system. For example,  a representative of a small business told us that his company  expected to hire new workers by the end of 2011, and that he  would consider using the workforce system to hire them.
Technical Employment Training, Inc.
Workforce challenge  According to employers, local  companies have been struggling to  find skilled machinists, despite the  county’s high unemployment rate.   One company had recruited skilled  workers from Switzerland and  another had created an additional,  lower-ranking position for new hires  lacking the necessary entry-level  skills.
Screening of candidates: Applicants are screened prior to the  training, and before being referred to companies for interviews,  they are screened again by a placement specialist familiar with  the employers’ needs.
Industry-recognized credentials: Students earn National  Institute for Metalworking Skills certifications.
The workforce investment board’s role  The board approved the core contents of the training, offered technical  assistance and program development guidance, referred trainees to the  program, and required that the classes provide industry recognized  credentials upon completion. The board also funded the first TET class  with a Recovery Act-funded contract.
Technical Employment Training, Inc.
Key federal and state  support  The Recovery Act funded 30 of 36  trainees in the first TET class. The  San Bernardino City Employment  and Training Agency used  Recovery Act funds to fund the  second class. The California State  Department of Rehabilitation  funded part of the third class.
Reported results  The average completion rate for the three training classes is 90 percent.  Board officials noted that 32 percent of the trainees who completed  TET’s training faced a barrier to employment, such as a criminal record,  positive drug tests, or a physical disability. Some reported results of the  initiative include:
Benefits for jobseekers or workers: On average, nearly 75  percent of graduates are employed or full time students, which an  official said was particularly notable because of the area’s high  unemployment rate. Of those who graduated from the first class,  85 percent are now employed or full time students. Moreover,  officials told us that some workers who previously struggled to find  employment because of criminal records are now employed. In  addition, some employers told us that they hired TET graduates at  higher wages than other new hires.
Employer cash or in-kind  contributions  pleased by the quality of the employees graduating from TET.   They noted the importance of soft skills, such as work ethic, as  well as technical skills. Employers told us that TET trainees made  fewer mistakes, and they did not have to spend as much time  training TET graduates in order for them to reach proficiency.  Officials reported that employers consistently return to TET to  interview and hire recent graduates.
Benefits for workforce system and other partners: The board  reported that of the 30 trainees funded by the Recovery Act in the  first TET class, 28 completed the program. One official told us that  keeping dropout rates low is a more efficient use of the workforce  system’s funds.
Overview  In 2002, the Washington State Hospital Association and Seattle’s local  workforce board convened a collaborative panel of representatives from  hospitals, labor groups, local colleges, and other partners to address  worker shortages in the local health care industry. This group came to be  known as the Health Care Sector Panel, and their work subsequently  launched a collection of mutually reinforcing projects which share the  goal of maintaining both the short- and long-term pipelines of health care  workers. A few of these projects are discussed below.
Workforce challenge  According to a 2003 report that  Seattle’s local workforce board and  the Washington State Hospital  Association produced for the  Health Care Sector Panel, health  care facilities throughout the state  faced a critical lack of staff,  including registered nurses,  licensed practical nurses, and  radiology technicians, among  others. Patients were turned away  from 55 percent of the state’s  emergency departments because  of nursing shortages. The health  care workforce was retiring faster  than it could be replaced, colleges  throughout the state had long  waiting lists for courses in health  care fields, and up to 30 percent of  students in some health care  training programs were dropping  out before completing their training.
Officials said that it would have been difficult to increase the pipeline of  Seattle’s health care workers without providing additional training and  support to those already in health care jobs so that they could progress  to more advanced work. For example, one project positioned career  specialists on-site at hospitals and other facilities to provide career  counseling and subsequent training to incumbent staff. To add new  workers to the pipeline, WIA youth were enrolled in a college-level  Certified Nursing Assistant program with some wraparound services to  help them navigate the educational and employment systems. For  example, WIA case managers were paired with coordinators on college  campuses to help youths register for classes, apply for financial aid, and  utilize student services. Rather than seeking training only for individuals,  the board also used Recovery Act and state matching funds to purchase  blocks of training from seven local colleges in order to seat entire cohorts  of trainees in classrooms. Each trainee was paired with a board-funded  employment specialist, and in some cases the board worked with the  colleges to shape the curriculum. In addition, the board also found that  requiring certain students to complete basic skills education before  beginning vocational training impeded course completion, and therefore  worked with the colleges to integrate basic skills and vocational  instruction by placing a basic skills instructor in some vocational classes.
Work stemming from the Health Care Sector Panel continues, although  the panel itself is not active. A key factor of their collaboration was:
Limited or action-oriented meetings: Officials said that short,  focused meetings helped keep leaders involved. Professional  facilitators were brought in for the first few panel meetings to  ensure that time was well-spent.
The workforce investment board’s role  The board has been involved in sector work on an ongoing basis.   Employers who were already serving on the board also participated on  the Health Care Sector Panel and helped identify and attract additional  partners. For the individual health care projects, the board also served as  a neutral convener, planner, project manager, and as a data collector  and reporter. The board particularly focused on job placements that  allowed jobseekers to attain self-sufficiency, and adopted a tool called  the Self-Sufficiency Calculator to measure those results.
Key federal and state  support  From the beginning, projects that  stemmed from the Health Care  Sector Panel have had a wide  variety of funding support. For  example, career advancement  projects have been supported by  WIA formula funds, Governor’s set- aside funds, federal H-1B grant  monies, and state funds, among  others. A youth training project was  piloted with Governor’s set-aside  funds and has been sustained  through WIA Youth formula funds  and a state program that allows  high-school students to earn  college credit. Training for cohorts  of health care jobseekers was  purchased with Recovery Act and  state matching funds. In October  2010, the board was awarded a 5- year, $11 million grant from the  U.S. Department of Health and  Human Services to support work in  the health care sector.
WIA Governor’s set-aside  Other federal grants or funds   stemming from the Health Care Sector Panel’s work include the  replication of the sector panel approach in other industries, and  relationships with employers that generate knowledge and a  positive regard for the workforce system. An education official  also said that this type of collaboration changed the way hospitals  and colleges communicate and conduct business in the Seattle  area. Partners agreed that as a result of the initiative, hospitals  and colleges approach workforce problems in a more systematic  fashion, and colleges have stronger industry connections.
Southeast Michigan Community Alliance Michigan Works!  (Workforce Investment Board)
Overview  In response to employer-defined needs, the state workforce agency  created the Michigan Academy for Green Mobility Alliance (MAGMA).  The academy’s mission is to develop courses to help provide rapid skill  growth in emerging green technologies in vehicle design. MAGMA  Advisory Group members reported that collaboration helped the “Big 3”— Ford, Chrysler, and General Motors—work together and see the benefits  of cooperating with competitors to train new workers. The academy  classes are offered to incumbent and displaced engineers and  technicians (see photo).
Initiative staff identified the following as integral to collaboration:  Industry-knowledgeable staff: Initiative staff became  knowledgeable about the engineering competencies needed in the  automotive industry, to help build credibility with employers.
Employer input into curriculum: Employers have suggested  changes to the courses and can provide information about their  current and future workforce needs, initiative staff said.
Workforce challenge  In 2007, according to a state  official, an automotive employer  projected a need for about 500  electrical engineers with skills in  designing hybrid vehicles. Unable  to find such electrical engineers  locally, the company reported that  they would need to either recruit  them from overseas or send their  workers abroad for training. More  generally, the state recognized that  growth in production of “green”  mobility products such as electric  cars created an increased need for  workers trained to work on the new  technology.
The workforce investment board’s role  MAGMA board members reported that the workforce board helped  administer grants and managed the administration of MAGMA.  Additionally, Southeast Michigan Community Alliance Michigan Works! is  the lead board for the six other workforce boards in the initiative, initiative  staff reported.
Southeast Michigan Community Alliance Michigan Works!  (Workforce Investment Board)
Key federal and state  support  To fund the initiative, the Southeast  Michigan Community Alliance  Michigan Works! applied for  statewide grants, which came from  WIA Governor’s set-aside funds,  according to initiative staff. Staff  said they also used WIA formula  dollars from several boards,  employer contributions, and  another state grant for incumbent  worker training.
Reported results  Initiative staff reported the following benefits from the initiative:
Benefits for jobseekers or workers: According to initiative staff,  312 people completed the training from the fall of 2009 through  January 2011, including 30 dislocated workers, and 281 additional  students had enrolled for 2011 summer/fall academy classes.
Benefits for employers: According to initiative staff, MAGMA will  serve 15 companies in the summer and fall of 2011, including  Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors. Initiative staff said they  believe that, because employers continue to encourage their  workers to participate in training, this is evidence that the process  is meeting their needs. Furthermore, employers continue to  provide information on their training needs.
WIA Governor’s set-aside   Employer cash or in-kind  contributions
Benefits for workforce system and other partners: According  to board staff, employers have now embraced the local workforce  system, which they had not done in a sustained way in the past.   Also, according to board staff, the initiative has helped the  workforce system better align its resources with employers’  information about their workforce needs in a way that is more  directly associated with employment opportunities. In addition, a  state official noted that the effort spurred other similar initiatives,  such as convening employers to discuss their skill needs in the  area of battery storage technology.
Overview  The goal of this initiative, known as NoVaHealthFORCE, is to establish a  long-term, sustainable, business-driven strategy to address the area’s  shortage of nurses and allied health professionals. The initiative’s  partners—the board, local hospitals, and educational institutions— commissioned a report to study the problem and developed an action  plan to address it in different ways. They sought to increase capacity  within the health care training and education system, develop and sustain  an ongoing supply of persons interested in entering health care careers,  and nurture innovation, such as by developing a forum for best practices.
Workforce challenge  Northern Virginia’s health care  employers faced a workforce  shortage of nurses and 23 other  health occupations, including  therapists and technicians in a  variety of fields. Vacancy rates of 5  percent or higher are significant in  the health care industry, and the  area’s vacancy rate had reached  10 percent for nonmanagerial  registered nurses, for example. As  a result, employers faced an  increasing cost of labor as they  tried to hire the limited number of  workers away from one another.   Moreover, officials noted that some  hospital units might be forced to  close in the event of a staffing  shortage.
Officials cautioned that merely providing subsidies for additional students  to receive training would have been an insufficient response to the  workforce shortage: they needed to address the lack of available faculty  for training, increase the availability of clinical training sites, and improve  the preparedness of youth interested in health care careers. Since 2006,  the Virginia General Assembly and six regional health care providers  have provided financial support to increase the number of nursing faculty.   The initiative’s participating employers contributed other forms of support  as well.  For example, employers provided subsidies to develop new  radiation oncology and sonography programs. Education officials said  these programs could not have been developed without those subsidies.
Initiative partners said they had integrated new partners, such as local  elected officials and the Chamber of Commerce, by citing the business  costs incurred with increased health care costs. Meanwhile, they  identified the following areas as some of the elements that supported  their collaboration:
Limited or action-oriented meetings: Biannual, roundtable  meetings provide chief executive officers, educational leaders,  and other partners the opportunity to talk about results and about  the next stages of implementation without over-burdening their  schedules.
Program manager: Partners said that having a full-time program  manager for the initiative was important to the initiative.
Streamlined data collection: The initiative’s quarterly data  collection and reporting system focuses on key metrics to  generate discussions about partners’ needs.
The workforce investment board’s role  The board helped the other partners prepare an action plan, and a  nonprofit arm of the board served as the initiative’s fiscal agent. Partners  said that the board was perceived as a neutral arbiter that could bring  people together to solve regional problems. Officials said that the board’s  neutrality was critical to ensuring the participation of competitors within  the business and education communities.
Key federal and state  support  Hospitals pledged money to  support new programs at local  colleges if the state would match  the funds, which it did. Labor’s  Community-Based Job Training  grant supported efforts to expose  secondary students to careers in  health care, among other activities.
Employer cash or in-kind  contributions  supply of skilled workers, as reflected by education partners’  expansion of their capacity to train nurses by approximately 35  percent.  In addition, to help meet employers’ needs, two  institutions developed an accelerated program of study in nursing.   Generally, the partners agreed that the urgency of employers’  needs had abated, although they anticipated future needs as  retirements of existing workers begin to accelerate.
Benefits for workforce system and other partners: The  workforce system benefited from strengthened relationships with  employers, as indicated by one former hospital executive’s  appreciation for the role the board had played in helping to identify  qualified workers. Also, partners reported that the strategies they  had developed could be applied to other sectors.
Workforce Alliance of South Central Kansas (Workforce  Investment Board)
Workforce challenge  Local companies, including Boeing,  Raytheon, Cessna, and  Bombardier, identified an  impending shortage of skilled  workers, driven both by imminent  retirements and by the need to  upgrade workers’ skills and  maintain competitiveness as a  result of the increasing use of  composite materials in aircraft  manufacturing, according to local  stakeholders.
Single point of contact: Partners said that establishing a single  point of contact for employers was key to facilitating collaboration.
Employer input into curriculum: Employers had direct input into  the curriculum, and aimed to accelerate the integration of  research findings into training and production.
The workforce boards’ role  The boards provided case management and career guidance, screening  and placement in training, and convened community partnerships.
Workforce Alliance of South Central Kansas (Workforce  Investment Board)
Key federal and state  support  Labor’s WIRED grant supported  training, equipment, and curriculum  costs. The U.S. Departments of  Commerce and Housing and Urban  Development, and the Small  Business Administration provided  funds for the facility. The state also  provided funding for construction.
Other federal grants or funds  Employer cash or in-kind  contributions  said that employers now see the workforce system as more  valuable than before, and that one-stop staff provide better advice  to individuals on careers in aviation. Additionally, according to the  partners, the experience gained during the initiative was applied to  other activities, such as the establishment of a center for  advanced manufacturing and an effort to leverage the new skills in  composites to grow a new medical device industry cluster, based  on the use of composite materials in orthopedic devices, such as  knee and hip replacements.
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Labor
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, Laura Heald (Assistant  Director) and Chris Morehouse (Analyst-in-Charge) led the engagement.  Aron Szapiro and Alison Hoenk also made significant contributions to this  report in all facets of the work. In addition, Jean McSween assisted with  methodology, Rhiannon Patterson lent subject matter expertise, Jessica  Botsford provided legal support, Susan Bernstein and James Bennett  provided assistance with writing and graphics, and Charles J. Ford and  Kathy Leslie also made significant contributions to this report.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Factors for Evaluating the Cost Share of Manufacturing Extension  Partnership Program to Assist Small and Medium-Sized Manufacturers.  GAO-11-437R. Washington, D.C.: April 4, 2011.
Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Providing Information on  Colocating Services and Consolidating Administrative Structures Could  Promote Efficiencies. GAO-11-92. Washington, D.C.: January 13, 2011.
English Language Learning: Diverse Federal and State Efforts to Support  Adult English Language Learning Could Benefit from More Coordination.  GAO-09-575. Washington, D.C.: July 29, 2009.
Workforce Investment Act: Labor Has Made Progress in Addressing  Areas of Concern, but More Focus Needed on Understanding What  Works and What Doesn’t. GAO-09-396T. Washington, D.C.: February 26,  2009.
Employment and Training Program Grants: Labor Has Outlined Steps for  Additional Documentation and Monitoring but Assessing Impact Still  Remains an Issue. GAO-08-1140T. Washington, D.C.: September 23,  2008.
Workforce Development: Community Colleges and One-Stop Centers  Collaborate to Meet 21st Century Workforce Needs. GAO-08-547.  Washington, D.C.: May 15, 2008.
Workforce Investment Act: One-Stop System Infrastructure Continues to  Evolve, but Labor Should Take Action to Require That All Employment  Service Offices Are Part of the System. GAO-07-1096. Washington, D.C.:  September 4, 2007.
Workforce Investment Act: Additional Actions Would Further Improve the  Workforce System. GAO-07-1051T. Washington, D.C.: June 28, 2007.
Workforce Investment Act: Employers Found One-Stop Centers Useful in  Hiring Low-Skilled Workers; Performance Information Could Help Gauge  Employer Involvement. GAO-07-167. Washington, D.C.: December 22,  2006.
Workforce Investment Act: Labor and States Have Taken Actions to  Improve Data Quality, but Additional Steps Are Needed. GAO-06-82.  Washington, D.C.: November 14, 2005.
Workforce Investment Act: Substantial Funds Are Used for Training, but  Little Is Known Nationally about Training Outcomes. GAO-05-650.  Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2005.
Workforce Investment Act: Labor Should Consider Alternative  Approaches to Implement New Performance and Reporting  Requirements. GAO-05-539. Washington, D.C.: May 27, 2005.
Workforce Investment Act: Employers Are Aware of, Using, and Satisfied  with One-Stop Services, but More Data Could Help Labor Better Address  Employers’ Needs. GAO-05-259. Washington, D.C.: February 18, 2005.
Workforce Investment Act: States and Local Areas Have Developed  Strategies to Assess Performance, but Labor Could Do More to Help.  GAO-04-657. Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2004.
Workforce Training: Almost Half of States Fund Worker Training and  Employment through Employer Taxes and Most Coordinate with  Federally Funded Programs. GAO-04-282. Washington, D.C.: February  13, 2004.
Workforce Investment Act: Exemplary One-Stops Devised Strategies to  Strengthen Services, but Challenges Remain for Reauthorization.  GAO-03-884T. Washington, D.C.: June 18, 2003.