During the 1990s, employers—including small businesses—reported increasing difficulty finding, hiring, training, and retaining employees with the appropriate sets of skills. This problem is due in part to that decade’s unprecedented economic growth and the resulting record low unemployment levels and has been compounded by the widespread and increasing use of advanced technologies in nearly all sectors of the U.S. economy. The U.S. Department of Labor reported that employment increased by nearly 21 million in the 1990s, with the service sector— which includes skilled jobs in health and legal services—showing the greatest growth. Significant growth also occurred in high-skill occupations, such as some types of manufacturing and automobile repair, that now use computer technology in their work processes. Additionally, employers report that many new job market entrants, especially youth, are not equipped with the basic skills and job experience they need to succeed in the present environment. Many have deficits in important employment readiness knowledge and skills such as self-reliance, work ethics, teamwork, and communications. Labor projects that the number of young adults, ages 16 to 24, will increase to 25.2 million, or 16.3 percent, of the civilian labor force by 2008. While all businesses face current and future workforce development challenges, small businesses confront additional barriers—both economic and informational—to meeting their workforce needs. Small business employers typically have fewer economic resources and staff to devote to identifying, hiring, training, and retaining employees. The employers may be discouraged from participation in some federal or state workforce development programs because they do not have the staff capacity to manage administrative procedures. Additionally, because they may not be able to dedicate staff to training and personnel matters, small businesses often have more difficulty than larger employers obtaining information to help them identify and address their workforce development needs. Finally, both large and small businesses may hesitate to invest resources in training an employee who could use the newly acquired skills to secure a better paying job elsewhere. However, the impact of this “free riding” might be greater on a small business. According to the Small Business Administration, the approximately 25 million small businesses in the United States provide 67 percent of workers with their first job or initial on-the-job training in basic skills and hire a larger proportion of younger workers. Meeting the nation’s workforce needs—including those of small business and youth—has been the focus of study and activity by a variety of organizations at both the national and local levels. In many communities, programs and services linking businesses to potential employees or offering training to incumbent workers are available through entities such as job centers and community colleges. However, these services may be fragmented among several organizations, making it difficult for small businesses to identify and obtain the range of services they need to solve their workforce problems. Federal legislation, such as the School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994 (STWOA) and the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA), has encouraged communities to create systems that address the education and training of young adults and the workforce needs of business in a modern, competitive work economy. WIA calls for a strong role for the private sector, with local business-lead boards focusing on planning, policy development, and oversight of the local workforce investment system. Recent studies and reports have also pointed to cooperation and coordination among public and private organizations as a promising way to address community workforce needs. A report by the National Center on Education and the Economy notes that recent global and national economic trends point to the need for local workforce systems that will provide employers and workers with the support they need for economic success. Additionally, a report by the Center on Wisconsin Strategy (COWS) at the University of Wisconsin states that workforce development strategies increasingly depend on partnerships between businesses and workers, among firms in specific industries, and between the public and private sector. Finally, a policy statement by the Committee for Economic Development suggests that an intermediary organization can play an important role in helping establish and maintain community partnerships.An intermediary is an entity established by community organizations to act as a focal point, linking businesses with educational institutions, community-based organizations, and other local associations in a network—or consortium—to address mutual goals. Intermediaries broker or provide workforce development services and manage ongoing relations among consortium members. Businesses may access consortium services and activities directly through the intermediary or through their association with another consortium organization. A community workforce consortium with an intermediary organization could include many of the organizations shown in figure 1, such as chambers of commerce, community colleges, school districts, community-based organizations, business and trade associations, and unions. In the four communities we reviewed—Austin, Texas; Cedar Rapids, Iowa; Charlotte, North Carolina; and Milwaukee, Wisconsin—workforce development consortia had been established in response to local businesses’ needs and spearheaded by key community organizations, such as the chamber of commerce or local community college. In some cases, these needs had been identified and examined as part of a formal study of local workforce conditions and possible economic challenges. In others, consensus on community workforce needs was reached by consortia organization officials. The consortia were based primarily on cooperative relationships among community organizations rather than on formal agreements. Consortium membership varied by individual community but often included school districts, business and trade organizations, labor unions, and community-based service organizations, such as the YWCA and family services agencies. Consortia organization officials also served as members of the local workforce investment boards required under the Workforce Investment Act. Additionally, consortia in Austin, Cedar Rapids, and Milwaukee had created an intermediary organization to facilitate the coordination and cooperation of workforce development activities among consortium members and to act as a broker of information and services. Funding for the consortia organizations was typically a “patchwork” of public and private sources. However, all the consortia we visited received substantial financial support from private businesses and corporations or from private not-for-profit organizations. For example, the Capital Area Training Foundation (CATF) in Austin reported receiving fees from businesses participating on advisory councils, the City of Austin, and Travis County. The Workplace Learning Connection in Cedar Rapids reported receiving funding from area corporations, Kirkwood Community College, and service fees paid by participating school districts. Federal financial support also played an important role in the consortia we reviewed. Both CATF and The Workplace Learning Connection reported receiving federal School-to-Work funding and WRTP in Milwaukee received a grant from the U.S. Department of Labor to train low-income workers for jobs in higher paying fields such as construction, data networking, and manufacturing. See table 1. While consortia varied according to individual community needs and resources, Charlotte and Milwaukee were examples of the evolution and organization of community workforce efforts. Charlotte, North Carolina — In 1998, a group of Charlotte business leaders, working with the Charlotte Chamber of Commerce, initiated a study—Advantage Carolina. The goal of the study was to determine how Charlotte could capitalize on its economic advantages to ensure continued prosperity for the region. Additionally, it explored the strengths and weaknesses of the local economy and how to maximize what was viewed as the tradition of public and private teamwork. Local business, government, and nonprofit organization leaders helped guide the effort. The study—updated in 2000 and 2001—identified the area’s primary economic challenges and several initiatives to address them. One initiative—the workforce development continuum—specifically addressed the challenge of building a competitive, promotable, and sustainable workforce. Specific objectives of this initiative included conducting research on workforce needs and trends, building a Web site for job seekers and employers, and building collaboration between higher education institutions, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, and industry. To implement study initiatives, the Charlotte Chamber of Commerce and Central Piedmont Community College (CPCC) assumed important workforce development leadership roles that helped foster a community consortium. CPCC provided contract and custom training for local businesses, a variety of technical and trade curricula, and several initiatives aimed at training and employing the disadvantaged. As an outgrowth of the Advantage Carolina study, the community college conducted a survey of local employers to determine current and future workforce needs. The Chamber of Commerce has also conducted workshops to address the specific workforce hiring needs of small businesses and, according to a school official, has worked closely with the school district to identify businesses to participate in work-based learning activities, such as job shadowing and internships. Other consortium participants included the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, the Workforce Development Board, and business and trade organizations. According to officials, the Chamber of Commerce and its activities were funded through member dues and participation fees. Advantage Carolina initiatives were funded with a combination of public and private funds. Milwaukee, Wisconsin—In the early 1990s, business, government, and labor leaders in Milwaukee reached consensus about the need to preserve the area’s manufacturing industry and keep jobs in the area that pay enough to support families. The leaders determined that by working together they could help sustain industry and help ensure that existing workers could advance in a career track and young people could move into entry level jobs. The leaders convened a series of meetings with the Center on Wisconsin Strategy at the University of Wisconsin to discuss the idea and, in 1992, the center brokered an agreement between the parties to form a steering committee to guide the creation of the Wisconsin Regional Training Partnership (WRTP). The WRTP received funding in 1997 from a local nonprofit organization—the Milwaukee Jobs Initiative—to improve the economic prospects of central city families by linking them with training and jobs. WRTP worked with local community-based organizations that provided pools of potential employees for businesses with jobs to fill. WRTP recently expanded to provide workforce development services to additional business sectors, including construction, health care, hospitality, technology, and transportation. The Milwaukee Area Technical College worked under contract with WRTP to provide pre-employment and job training for program participants.