Workforce Investment Act: Innovative Collaborations between Workforce Boards and Employers Helped Meet Urgent Local Workforce Needs
Released: 2012-02-16T00:00:00

Letter

Several Key Factors Supported Initial Collaboration and Sustained It over Time

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. These were (1) a focus on urgent, common needs; (2) leadership; (3) the use of leveraged resources; (4) employer-responsive services; (5) minimizing administrative burden; and (6) results that motivated the partners to continue their collaboration.

With regards to focusing on urgent, common needs, 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 (see table 1). The urgent needs ranged from a shortage of critical skills in health care and manufacturing to the threat of layoffs and business closures. 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. In one case, employers in Gainesville, Florida, joined with the board and others to tackle the need to create additional jobs by embarking on an initiative to develop entrepreneurial skills.

According to those we interviewed, by focusing on common employer needs across a sector, the boards and their partners produced innovative labor force solutions that, in several cases, had evaded employers who were trying to address their needs individually. 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.

Boards also facilitated collaboration by securing leaders who had the authority or the ability, or both, to persuade others of the merits of a particular initiative, as well as leaders whose perceived neutrality could help build trust. Officials from many initiatives emphasized the importance of having the right leadership to launch and sustain the initiative. For example, in Northern Virginia, a community college president personally marshaled support from area hospital chief executive officers and local leaders to address common needs for health care workers.

Another factor that facilitated collaboration was the use of leveraged resources. All of the boards and their partners we spoke with launched or sustained their initiatives by leveraging resources in addition to or in lieu of WIA funds. 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 discretionary grant of slightly more than $285,000 to generate an additional $441,000 from other partners. In addition to public funds, in all cases that we reviewed, employers demonstrated their support by contributing cash or in-kind contributions.

In all cases, 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 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, a sector-based center in Chicago, Illinois, worked closely with employers to review and validate employers’ own assessment tools, or develop new ones, and administer them on behalf of the employers, which saved employers time in the hiring process. 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, Kansas, 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. 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 its training program to make it more relevant for employers.

Boards also made efforts to minimize administrative burden for employers and other partners. In some cases, boards and their partners streamlined data collection or developed shared data systems to enhance efficiency. For example, in Cincinnati, Ohio, the partners developed a shared data system to more efficiently track participants, services received, and outcomes achieved across multiple workforce providers in the region.

Finally, 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, such as education and training providers. For employers, the partnerships produced diverse results that generally addressed their need for critical skills in various ways. In some cases, employers said the initiatives helped reduce their recruitment and retention costs. For example, in Cincinnati, according to an independent study, employers who participated in the health care initiative realized about $4,900 in cost savings per worker hired. 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. For the workforce system, the partnerships led to various results, such as increased participation by employers in the workforce system, greater efficiencies, and models of collaboration that could be replicated. Specifically, 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.

Workforce Boards Overcame Some Challenges to Address Diverse Employer Needs and Developed Their Own Measures to Track Employer Engagement

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. 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. Additionally, some boards’ staff said that while their initiatives sought to meet employer needs for skill upgrades among their existing workers, WIA funds can be used to train current workers only in limited circumstances, and the boards used other funding sources to do so. Among the initiatives that served such workers, the most common funding sources were employer contributions and state funds.

In addition, staff from most, but not all, boards also said that WIA performance measures do not directly 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, the hiring rate for jobseekers they refer to employers, the interview-to-hire ratio from initiative jobseeker referrals, the retention rate of initiative-referred hires, the number of businesses returning for services, and employer satisfaction.

Labor Has Taken Steps to Support Local Collaborative Efforts and Address Some Challenges but Has Not Made Information on Leveraging Resources Readily Available

In order to support local collaborations like these, Labor has conducted webinars and issued guidance on pertinent topics, and has also collaborated with other federal agencies in efforts 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. Specifically, this program encourages the development of industry clusters, which are networks of interconnected firms and supporting institutions that can help a region create jobs. A total of 16 federal agencies will provide technical resources to help leverage existing agency funding, including the 3 funding agencies listed above.

While Labor has taken some steps to support local collaborations, it has not made information it has collected on effective practices for leveraging resources easily accessible, even though many of the boards we reviewed cited leveraging resources as a key to facilitating collaboration. 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. Moreover, although certain evaluations and other research reports have included information on leveraging resources,disseminated in one location. this information has not been compiled and In conclusion, at a time when the nation continues to face high unemployment, it is particularly important to consider ways to better connect the workforce investment system with employers to meet local labor market needs. The 14 local initiatives that we reviewed illustrate how workforce boards collaborated with partners to help employers meet their needs and yielded results: critical skill needs were met, individuals obtained or upgraded their skills, and the local system of workforce programs was reinvigorated by increased employer participation. Labor has taken several important steps that support local initiatives like the ones we reviewed through guidance and technical assistance, and through collaborative efforts with other federal agencies. 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. 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. In our report, we recommended that Labor compile information on workforce boards that effectively leverage WIA funds with other funding sources and disseminate this information in a readily accessible manner. In its comments on our draft report, Labor agreed with our recommendation and noted its plans to implement it.

This concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to answer any questions that you or others members of the subcommittee may have.

GAO Contact and Acknowledgments

For further information regarding this testimony, please contact Andrew Sherrill (202-512-7215 or sherrilla@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement. Individuals who made key contributions to this testimony include Laura Heald (Assistant Director), Chris Morehouse, Jessica Botsford, Jean McSween, and David Chrisinger.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.