Both sides now: Toward the dual customer approach under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act in the United States

Abstract

The U.S. Congress passed the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act in 2014. Some constituencies may view the new law as a radical departure from earlier approaches to human capital development at a national level. Yet the workforce investment system under Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act is premised upon a dual customer approach to serve labor demand (employers) and labor supply (job seekers) concurrently. With the rhetoric about the jobs and skills debate, it is easy to take for granted what is at stake behind supply- and demand-driven approaches within a workforce system. This paper’s review is intended to revisit the characteristics and clarify the roles of the two customers in workforce policy in the United States, identify potential concerns of one customer’s dominance, and suggest some ways to complement this balancing act. As a result of this analysis, one can potentially see both sides of the vision behind an integrated workforce development system.

Keywords

employment services labor market policy welfare reform welfare to work workforce development Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act

Introduction

In an era of increasing partisanship and division in Washington, the U.S. Congress passed the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) in 2014 with significant support from both Democrats and Republicans.¹ The law, signed by President Obama, on 22 July 2014² and with implementation just one year later, amends the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) in several key aspects. Significant changes under the new law include but are not limited to:

Inclusion of a new definition for individuals with a barrier to employment.

Revision of the requirements for state workforce investment system to prepare a three-year strategy rather than the five-year plan.

Modification of the use of funds and alters the requirements used for performance accountability at the state and local level.

Identification of the appropriations allocation from FY2014 to FY2020.

Repeal of the requirement that the state Governor designate the workforce investment area and transfers this responsibility to the state workforce board to establish the process to define these areas.

Changes in the local board composition to reflect a two-thirds majority of the board (a minimum of 51% is required under WIA) to represent local area businesses, while dropping the requirement that labor organization representatives be included. Further, the new law adds veteran’s service organizations as possible board members at the local level, while also changing composition to include on a discretionary basis (WIA required these partners) the involvement of community-based organizations, educational institutions (secondary or postsecondary), or entities providing adult education.

Identification and creation (and as yet undefined) of a performance metric that reflects the effectiveness of the state/local workforce system in serving employers.

Definition of career pathways broadly and makes development of career pathways strategies a permissible (fundable) activity.

Some constituencies may view differences between WIA and WIOA as a radical departure from earlier approaches to human capital development at a national level (National Association of Workforce Boards 2014). Despite changes in funding allocations for the target populations and limitations on programming, which are each critically important to service delivery, the functional perspective of the workforce investment system since 1998 remains intact as local workforce boards are identified with and contribute to policy making and planning functions (albeit in a shortened cycle) for the labor market in their respective communities. More importantly, the workforce investment system under WIOA is still premised upon a dual customer approach to serve labor demand (employers) and labor supply (job seekers) concurrently (Bird et al., 2014; Cappelli, 2015). The cornerstone of WIOA—to provide three funding formulas to support adult, youth, and unemployed workers—remains intact despite earlier proposals to consolidate appropriations into one allotment.

Regardless of how fragmented it is implemented within the United States, the dual customer approach under a national workforce policy under WIOA reflects the needs of constituencies—unemployed persons and business—that are critical to both political parties. Hence, with the current structure in place, this dualism generates bipartisan support for workforce funding, even during dwindling resources for other domestic federal spending. Even as earlier efforts to reauthorize WIA did not pass during the preceding Bush Administration, the proposed changes during those years, which also would have consolidated funding into one allotment, did not alter the central tenet of a two-pronged approach behind the public workforce system (Barnow and King, 2011; Carlson et al., 2011; Jobs for the Future, 2009; King and Heinrich, 2011; O’Leary et al., 2004; Wandner, 2010).

Yet too often, with the rhetoric about the jobs and skills debate at large, it is easy to take for granted what is at stake behind the supply- and demand-driven approaches within a workforce system. Some evidence-based work has been conducted at an international level to review some of the assumptions behind the demand-side approach (Devins and Hogarth, 2005; Didry, 2013; McCollum, 2012; McGurk, 2014; Martin, 2004; Spoonley, 2008). Accordingly, this paper's review is intended 1) to revisit the characteristics and clarify conceptually the separate roles of the two customers in workforce policy as designed and implemented in the United States, 2) to identify potential concerns of one customer's dominance, and 3) to suggest some ways to support and complement this balancing act. As a result of this analysis, one can potentially see both sides of the vision behind an integrated workforce development system.

The supply side

There is a virtual consensus along the political spectrum in the United States that the creation and sustainability of jobs in the macro-economy is a positive social goal. But if that is the desired “end” of macroeconomic policies, there is a narrower, but still viable political consensus that active labor market policies should be deployed as the “means” toward achieving this purpose of government. By active labor market policies, as understood here, the following programmatic components are identified:

Delivery of public employment services (to include, but not be limited to, disseminating information about job vacancies and provide resume writing assistance).

Investment of public resources to train workers—regardless of employment status—through classes and/or apprenticeships.

Introduction of employment subsidies (such as unemployment insurance or individual training accounts) to provide cash and/or in-kind support to facilitate access or progress in employment (Auer et al., 2008; Martin, 2000).

It has been noted that workforce development encompasses more than “training and employment,” even as that is the commonplace shorthand definition of the field. Rather, workforce development is

actually a set of processes that govern the identification, recruitment, assessment and training of job seekers into employment as well as the maintenance and advancement of these persons in their careers that enhance self-sufficiency and revitalize the communities in which these individuals live. (Holland, 2015)

If workforce development is to be effective across multiple systems, writ large, then it follows that active labor markets policies are, ideally, not conducted in isolation but in partnership with other partners in a coordinated and holistic approach to build a competitive workforce. As a result, workforce boards must act as a facilitator with other key stakeholders in the workforce system, namely businesses and the K-16 educational system (Conway and Giloth, 2014; Kochan et al., 2012).

The beneficiaries of these active labor market are more often targeted to persons who are deemed “harder to serve” as these individuals face barriers to employment. Yet at present, there is no coercive imperative that these more “difficult” job seekers register with the workforce system and participate in work- and/or career-readiness activities, that the workforce system offers by itself and delivers under its own authority, prior to their making attempts to (re)attach and participate in the labor market. This is the case even as there are increasing numbers of colocations of One Stop Centers and public assistance offices to maximize the transition from welfare to work under a work-first directive of social policy (Bird et al., 2014).

The challenges job seekers face prior to employment might be grouped into 14 categories to reflect a broader range of needs that reflect direct and indirect barriers in accessing the labor market. Direct barriers, defined here, refer to those impediments that reflect the inability of a job seeker to perform the requisite tasks for a particular occupation. In contrast, indirect barriers are suggestive of those areas that hinder a job seeker that are external to the workplace or one’s performance in a given set of job duties. Table 1 identifies these categories, the 36 barriers within their respective groupings, and how they may affect an individual’s participation in the labor market.

Table 1.

Barriers to employment by broader classification.

Barrier	Components	Challenge for Job Seeker
Availability	Flexible Work Schedules Access and/or Possession of Work-Related Clothing and Tools	Job seeker demonstrates that they have wide availability for work Job seeker must be able to project and demonstrate they have the equipment ready to do the job on the first day (though some employers will supply uniforms upon hire, as applicable)
Basic Skills	Literacy English Proficiency Ability to Locate Information Math Skills	Job seeker must be able to read and write effectively Proficiency in English is pre-requisite for a job seeker to take employment in virtually all occupations Job seeker must have comfort level with identifying information needed to conduct their jobs Basic arithmetic skills are critical in virtually every job
Dependent Care	Lack of Child Care Family Responsibilities Parenting and Child Behavior	Limited or no care available (or is on waiting list) so that working hours are not flexible Large family size with insufficient income support Challenges with parenting can interfere with work life for the job seeker
Education and Training	Level of Formal Education Previous Skills Training Recognized Credential	Job seeker must demonstrate educational level that is requisite to the position Job seeker must be able to demonstrate ability to perform job related tasks Formal certification or industry credentials point to portable skills for the job seeker
Financial	High Debt Burden	Income may not be sufficient enough to meet living expenses
Health	Physical Conditions	Job seeker may not be receiving adequate medical care to address chronic and/or acute issues
Housing	Adequate Living Conditions Residence	Overcrowded, noisy or unaffordable rent can make living conditions a challenge for a job seeker’s ability to undertake training Residence might be at a temporary or transitional residence
Job Seeking	Application & Cover Letter Poor Prior References Goal Setting Knowledge of Labor Market Interviewing Skills	Job seeker must be able to prepare effective resume and cover letter References can attest to job seeker’s character and performance Job seeker must have realistic job goals or the ability to set career goals Job seeker must be able to know how to look for jobs Job seeker must be able to self-market and articulate the fit between their experience and/or qualifications meet what a company is looking for
Legal	Prior Conviction	Job seeker has conviction and/or arrest record
Marketability of Skills	Number of Demonstrated Skills Local Labor Market Demand Transferability	Job seeker must be able to demonstrate they have abilities Job seeker must have relevant skills that meet needs of employers in their community Job seeker may have skills that can be applied in different settings
Mental and Emotional State	Mental Health Substance Abuse/Alcohol Abuse	Job seeker must be able to function productively in a work environment Job seeker must have access to treatment options
Social Support	Family Support Social Support	Lack of stable environment Peer network is not conductive to employment activity or might be deterrent to job search activity
Tools to Access to Job Seeking Activities	Transportation Lack of Internet Access	Job seeker does not have access to a vehicle, a valid driver’s license or is not adequately served by public transportation Job seeker does not own a computer or has ready access to the internet
Workplace Skills	Recency of Employment Extent of Employment Experience Employment Stability Reasons for Previous Employment Termination Interpersonal Skills	Job seeker may not have held full- or part-time work Job seeker is unqualified for position without relevant experience Job seeker shows frequent job changes and/or unusually short stays at jobs Job seekers might have mix of dismissal, quitting or other reasons for cause Job seeker needs to demonstrate ability to work well with an employer’s customers and co-workers

But as Table 1 clearly delineates, some unemployed persons have multiple barriers, which contribute more comprehensively into one’s inability to work, including psycho-social impediments which are beyond the authorized scope and capacity of a workforce system to address on its own (Iversen and Armstrong, 2006; Stillman, 1999). More often than not, these individuals require the intervention and wraparound of supportive social services. This unmet need, then, necessitates that the One Stop Centers (the operational arm of a Workforce Investment Board) to leverage WIOA resources with other Federal government support in the United States drawn from Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Social Services Block Grant (SSBG), Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), and, occasionally, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) funding to address the range of the indirect barriers faced by (often lower income) job seekers. Table 2 identifies whether the barriers faced are directly related to employment and can be supported by the workforce system or, alternatively, enumerates those indirect barriers to accessing employment that are addressed by other identified partners.

Table 2.

Direct versus indirect barriers to employment.

Barriers	Sub-Category of Barrier	Potential Local/Regional Entity who Can Address/Support Job Seeker	Potential Funding Source
Direct Barriers
Availability	Flexible Work Schedules	One Stop Centers to provide support and case management	WIOA
	Access and/or Possession of Work-Related Clothing and Tools	One Stop Centers to provide support and case management	WIOA
Basic Skills	Literacy	Community College to deliver	WIOA
	English Proficiency	Community College to deliver	WIOA
	Ability to Locate Information	Community College to deliver	WIOA
	Math Skills	Community College to deliver	WIOA
Education and Training	Level of Formal Education	Community College to deliver GED	WIOA
	Previous Skills Training	Community College to deliver technical skills	WIOA
	Recognized Credentials	Community College to deliver	WIOA
Job Seeking	Application & Cover Letter	One Stop Centers to provide support and case management	WIOA
	Prior References	One Stop Centers to provide support and case management	WIOA
	Goal Setting	One Stop Centers to provide support and case management	WIOA
	Knowledge of Labor Market	One Stop Centers to provide support and case management	WIOA
	Interviewing Skills	One Stop Centers to provide support and case management	WIOA
Marketability of Skills	Number of Demonstrated Skills	One Stop Centers to provide support and case management	WIOA
	Local Labor Market Demand	Community College to deliver	WIOA
	Transferability	One Stop Centers to provide support and case management	WIOA
Tools for Accessing Job Seeking Activities	Lack of Internet Access	One Stop Center to provide computers	WIOA
Workplace Skills	Recency of Employment	One Stop Centers to provide support and case management	WIOA
	Extent of Employment Experience	One Stop Centers to provide support and case management	WIOA
	Employment Stability	One Stop Centers to provide support and case management	WIOA
	Reasons for Previous Termination	One Stop Centers to provide support and case management	WIOA
Indirect Barriers
Financial	High Debt Burden	TANF office to offer debt counseling	TANF
Health	Physical Conditions	County Department of Health	Affordable Care Act (ACA)
Legal	Prior Conviction	County Probation or Corrections Department	Office of Justice Programs (U.S. Department of Justice grants)
Mental and Emotional State	Mental Health	County Department of Health	SSBG
	Substance Abuse/Alcohol Abuse	County Department of Health	SSBG
Social Support	Family Support	TANF office for counseling	TANF
	Social Support	TANF office for counseling	TANF

GED: Alternative high school diploma or the General Educational Development (GED) diploma; SSBG: Social Services Block Grant; TANF: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; WIOA: Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act.

Effectively, then, workforce development’s shorthand definition could potentially be amended and summarized as, “it takes a village to ready a job seeker for the labor market beyond his/her skills and experience.” There is, then, a short sightedness about a work-first approach, if these other indirect barriers are not addressed, because one cannot presume that all job seekers are necessarily work ready, even if armed with full information available about vacancies (Carneiro and Heckman, 2003; Strawn, 1998). Rather than view the support services for addressing indirect barriers as discouraging work behavior or “blaming the victim” for enabling the unemployed job seeker to not take responsibility in addressing one’s own economic status, these support services, when effectively delivered and sustained, can offer the encouragement and guidance to a job seeker to develop an individualized professional development plan that actually promotes the reentry back into the labor market (Iversen and Armstrong, 2006).

Operationally, then, the supply-side approach to workforce development necessitates the use of significant resources and energy to identify, assess, and assist job seeker with guidance to tackle these barriers and move these individuals toward a more productive and engaged connection to the economic mainstream. One Stop Center staff, where the job listings are “housed” and are the point of entry for a job seeker to access core and/or intensive services to bring the individual to employability, will—under the supply-side model—be more dedicated to ensuring career and work readiness with a staff that is drawn from a social or human services background. Effective and integrative case management is, thus, a hallmark of a high-functioning supply-driven approach within the workforce system.

Yet the criticism of supply-driven workforce systems includes a “drive to meet numbers” where job seekers are referred on for job postings by case managers who have paid little or no attention to the job description and sent candidates on without screening candidates for the “fit” more carefully (LaLonde, 1995; Lerman, 2008). Further, supply-driven workforce systems are blamed for enrolling job seekers for training programs that either hold no relevance to labor market needs and/or keeping the clients “busy” in a poorly measured set of work-ready activities with little accountability beyond attendance or course completion (Lafer, 2002). Supply-side approaches might also dilute WIOA resources for training as the funds may also be allocated to providing case management in the triage of how to address the barriers that job seekers face before becoming job ready. By default, then, an overemphasis on the supply-side approach to workforce issues has the potential of conflating employment policy with the negative perceptions and misunderstood purposes of social policy (Bloom et al., 1997; Giloth, 2000; Osterman, 2007).

The demand side

Before the creation of job aggregators, such as Monster or Indeed.com, locating and learning about job opportunities was often a matter of advertisement in local newspapers or was shared information among one’s network of friends, family, and/or current/former business associates. Yet even now, there are often reports of a hidden job market where listings are not posted in the public domain and job seekers do not know where or how to look for employment (Pugh, 1998). This is exacerbated for those entrapped in low-income communities with limited access to the internet, and for those who have limited informal networks with whom to engage in identifying job leads and learn from others on how to prepare for employment (let alone knowledge of interviewing techniques and skill in self-marketing) (Granovetter, 1995). This lack of resources, while still occurring in some instances due to spatial and economic inequality, has been supplanted by the creation of One Stop Centers and labor exchanges that serve to close this information gap.

The source for information about job postings requires that the One Stop Centers and labor exchanges engage with employers to solicit and identify these leads. Knowledge of “where the jobs are” does not exist in a vacuum; rather, it requires (continuous) contact and engagement with employers, so that One Stop Center staff can refer their constituents (or the constituents themselves can apply) for openings as these vacancies become available (Bartik, 2001; Clymer, 2003; Green and Galetto, 2005). This type of employer input is at the heart of integrating the demand side into the workforce development policy equation. It can, then, be inferred that the positive benefit of this connection between the One Stop Centers and employers is that supply- and demand-side approaches complement each other and, when both approaches are in alignment, that more effective deployment of public resources under active labor market policies can be attained. Operationally, the demand-driven approach suggests that One Stop Centers become employment specialists, rather than case managers, and have a stronger human resource (HR) background, often drawn from the ranks of the industries where jobs are being created.

Yet the demand-side approach that aligns employer needs with those of job seekers in public–private partnership is not limited to the identification and posting of job vacancies. I would suggest here three other roles of employers as a function of engaging in a demand-driven workforce system:

Guidance to job seekers in the pre-application process and assessment process;

Identification of skill competencies and qualifications; and

Placement and retention of job seekers

It is these elements of the demand-side approach that hold promise under the future implementation of the WIOA. But because these other components may draw upon some implied common understanding of the expectations placed on employers and since active labor market policies do not necessarily give a fuller interpretation of these functions, it is important to articulate how this plays out operationally in a high functioning, integrated workforce system.

Guidance to job seekers in the preapplication process and assessment process

Beyond the sharing of job postings, vacancies at One Stop Centers need to be standardized across some common occupational titles and, as such, to follow Standard Occupational Code classifications as all jobs with the same title should represent a generic set of shared tasks across all vacancies with the same title. By creating a jobs dictionary and/or utilizing O*NET, a database that lists information on hundreds of standardized and occupation-specific descriptors, or other shared tools, a job seeker can gain a more realistic knowledge of the work environment that s/he is considering entering and before applying. But employer input—the demand-side approach—is needed to articulate these shared tasks and the illustration of the work environment. Without this engagement with an employer, how else can a One Stop Center or a job seeker distinguish between two identical job titles but with different job requirements and, possibly, wider disparities in the salary ranges for these openings.

More strategically for the job seeker who is looking for employment, it is important that s/he knows what previous experience they offer fits the recruiting company's expectations and what the employer identifies as a pre-requisite skill set. In this light, the demand-side approach plays a vital role to support the vetting process prior to the posting of job vacancies at the One Stop Centers. This vetting process can single out unreasonable employer expectations at the One Stop Centers, so as to create an equal playing field for all job seekers in the same industry, while the employer has the opportunity to corroborate/disclaim what potential job responsibilities might entail and the justification for the requisite education and experience level for the occupation. This scrutiny³ has to be a checked within the public workforce system, as the One Stop Centers serve as job referral, not job placement agencies. In contrast, fee-based commissions drive private placement firms from employers upon temporary, temp-to-perm, or permanent recruitment of job applicants (Autor and Houseman, 2005; Doussard and Theodore, 2006).

The advent of New Hire Partnerships, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Labor to support the recruitment efforts of several Fortune 1000 companies in conjunction with One Stop Centers,⁴ represents a radical departure in the nature of the demand-driven approach to workforce development under WIA. In this programmatic option, New Hire Partnerships provide a means of offsetting the outward recruitment costs for an employer to the public sector, but can serve only to delineate what the labor needs are for specific types of openings and broadening the pool of applicants to enter work at different occupations. However, the New Hire Partnerships cannot be construed as a means to develop a “ready to fit” list of available applicants for job vacancies that an employer will forecast are in demand at their particular company, even as the assessment and screening of applicants is conducted by the public sector. Without this disclaimer in mind, employers might be frustrated that they are not getting the pool of readily available and qualified workers they seek under the partnership. The frustration, then, undermines confidence in the public workforce system because the employer has not recognized the significant attention and time commitment that go into conducting screening and assessment.

With a demand-side approach in the public workforce system, identification of skills competencies and qualifications must go beyond the preapplication stage but also should also offer a picture of the assessment tools, screening guides, and other recruitment guidance used in the hiring decision, so that the job seekers on the supply side can get guidance on the application process for a given organization. While the supply-side approach of workforce development suggests that the public workforce system provides support to job seeker with interviewing and job application skills, these efforts go for naught, when job seekers do not get any feedback as to why they were not hired. But integration of the qualifications requirements upfront from the demand approach can point to areas where a job seeker might need to reskill and/or where they will be tested in advance. Moreover, respecting the employer’s independent decision to hire, job seekers should have the opportunity to learn where to improve their chances for opportunities in a given industry. Effectively, then, under a demand-driven approach, the employer’s constructive input on why an applicant was not hired can serve as a useful feedback loop to the public workforce system to ensure that the referrals they make from the rolls of job seeker registrants are more attuned with labor market needs and assists the job seeker’s employment prospects to include demonstrable and/or transferable skills (Conway and Giloth, 2014; Van Horn, 1996).

Identification of skill competencies and qualifications

The public workforce system’s integration of demand-side approach suggests an idealization that the educational system is producing graduates (the labor supply) who are able to take on the multitude of occupations that the labor market generates. But the rhetoric of skill gaps and shortages of well-trained individuals in a variety of industry sector suggests that there are incomplete linkages between education and employers. A demand-driven public workforce system should be able to articulate a voice for the skill competencies and qualifications required for current incumbent workers and ready the pool of job applicants, not currently in the workforce, for present and future job vacancies.

Employers can play a critical role in articulating this voice. This voice is represented as the delineation of what courses, skills to be attained, or other replications of the work environment (similar types of machine and equipment) that are integral to job performance. Effectively, this means that employers in a demand-driven perspective must sit at the table with educational institutions and training providers during curriculum design stages of training to create the competency models for different occupations. This integration best often occurs at community colleges to develop courses and certifications that meet these skill gap challenges. But the partnership I suggest here requires engagement of a consortium model of local employers in the same industry to articulate this common core of skill standards as the job seeker will need portable and transferable qualifications, not just a litany of demonstrable and marketable skills, to remain competitive in the local labor market (Atkinson, 1998; Lowe et al., 2011).

Limiting the partnership to just a singular employer and an educational institution might result in “creaming” where a large employer is able to receive the benefit of training dollars to have a job-ready workforce, at the expense of other employers who might also require a similar talent pool, but cannot find them since the government resources are targeted for a private set of interests rather than holistically build the community’s competitive advantage in its labor supply. This articulation does not necessarily mean that individual employers are giving up proprietary information about trade secrets or that employers are collusive in identifying skill needs. Rather, the consortium approach facilitates the sharing of commonly used tools, the pooling of resources to identify and share costs for training (as well as possibly identify common trainers to deliver courses on industry-wide processes and systems), and contributions to a common performance metric system for trainees that benefit the local employers in the long run with a wider applicant pool from which to hire in the future. This more collective approach among employers and the education sector also facilitates the workforce development system’s marketability of the labor pool faced in business location decision-making. The effect of a demand-driven workforce development system can, therefore, evolve to support a broader alignment with the jurisdiction’s economic development goals that includes expansion of employment opportunities for all job seekers (Harper-Anderson, 2008).

Placement and retention of job seekers

An evolving trend in the design and implementation of active labor market policies are outcomes that address not only employment but the creation of career pathways. In other words, the directive behind these interventions is not solely placement of persons into work, but rather is to support the employment and training of individuals to maintain and progress in the labor market. But in a competitive labor market, and in instances where wages are stagnant and where the job seeker will “leapfrog” between employers to advance from entry-level work to better paying work (Kalleberg, 2013; Marshall, 2000; Osterman and Shulman, 2011; Sweet and Meiksins, 2012; Weil, 2014), career pathways might potentially offer a solution to addressing job turnover and employee retention that employers face, while also being “beneficial for vulnerable populations, whose educational and career success is more impeded by disconnects between systems and limited access to integrated services” (Center for Law and Social Policy, 2015: 4).

In the United States, recommendations for a career pathways approach have been advanced over the past 15 years (Alssid et al., 2002; Benner et al., 2007; Bird et al., 2014; Bragg, 2014; Clagett and Uhalde, 2011; Strawn, 2011). The Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) launched the Alliance for Quality Career Pathways—an alliance of 10 states that have adopted career pathways in their respective workforce policies aimed at adults or out of school youth (Center for Law and Social Policy, 2013). In its initial work, the Alliance identified three core features of a career pathway program to include:

Well-connected, quality education and training programs that result in credentials with labor market value and include support services, work experiences, and employment services.

Multiple entry points (in the career ladder) for targeted populations starting from initial levels of education and connecting to higher levels.

Multiple exit points leading to progressively higher levels of employment within a career path (CLASP, 2015: 4).

Lessons learned from the Alliance have informed the incorporation of the career pathways approach into WIOA by offering a definition of career pathways and supports the design and implementation of the pathway approach as a fundable activity within state/local workforce investment systems.

Beyond that, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Employment and Training Administration issued operating guidance to highlight seven elements for quality job-driven training that include the following elements that support a pathways approach:

Working with employers to determine hiring needs and design training programs;

Offering work-based learning opportunities with employers;

Making better use of data for accountability and consumer choice;

Measuring and evaluating employment and earnings outcomes;

Promoting a seamless progression from one education step to another;

Breaking down barriers to accessing training and providing support services and guidance;

Creating regional collaborations between workforce development, education, labor, and nonprofit organizations (U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, 2014).

Clearly, then, the career pathway approach represents the direction toward a demand-side approach in workforce development that calls upon employer engagement to address training and employment challenges faced by traditionally underserved populations with the integration of sector strategy principles and the commitment of a shared vision toward identifying goals and regional economic priorities.

This integration is represented in WIOA by not only allowing career pathways strategies a permissible and fundable activity, but also makes the development of these plans a function of the state and local workforce boards. Further, WIOA requires that individual employment plans identify “career pathways to attain career objectives” among the persons served by the workforce system and requires local workforce areas to use funds allotted to youth employment activity to conduct an assessment “for the purpose of identifying appropriate services and career pathways for participants” and that state allotments fund the alignment of adult education activities with other core programs, including the development of career pathways (WIOA, 2014). With a supply-side focus alone, there is no commitment from employers to see their role in establishing a ladder to advance the opportunities of underserved and traditionally disadvantaged populations. The trigger of WIOA presents itself as a challenge to find catalysts that are able to bring the demand and supply side of workforce development into alignment, so it is likely that the movement toward increased engagement with employers to connect social policies and HR policies to meet the needs of vulnerable groups will accelerate in the United States.

Conclusion

The public workforce system in the United States is a double helix of demand-side and supply-side approaches to reflect the needs of employers and job seekers. This paper identified the characteristics of the orientations of each customer base and I have highlighted some inherent dangers if either the demand- or supply-side focus in the workforce system is overemphasized. Thus, the two approaches must be balanced and work in complementary fashion, as the yin and yang for a highly functional and public workforce system. Table 3 highlights three programmatic options that could be rapidly adopted locally to further support this integration.

Table 3.

Options for increased collaboration using WIOA funds.

Option	Beneficiary	Potential collaboration fostered by proposed intervention
Foster dialog and workforce planning with mini-grants	Employers and educational institutions	Awarded to community colleges, create competitive cycle of mini-grants ($25,000 and below) to foster dialog between consortium of employers and local educational partners to identify common skill gaps and suggest transferable career ladders and lattices across different industry sectors
Fund competitive regional skill alliances	Employers and educational institutions	Administered by One Stop Centers, develop larger grant awards ($250,000 and above) of WIOA funds for regional skill alliances that design and implement training programs for commonly identified skill competencies across a consortium of employers for growing economic sectors and reskill incumbent and dislocated workers to enter these sectors. Grant awarded to employer association in the jurisdiction from the local workforce board
Implement temp to hire program for long-term unemployed	Employers	Administered by One Stop Centers, unemployed workers are trained at local community college with WIOA funds and are paid training wages (50% from WIOA, 50% from employer) for first 90 days of employment for those positions where employer identifies that candidates are insufficiently qualified but are trainable in identified key occupations. After 90 days and/or probation period, employer pays 100% of wages for the newly recruited, work-ready employee

WIOA: Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act.

Yet the implementation of WIOA does not currently provide sufficient federal resources to support the collaboration and integration of supply- and demand-side approaches. This need for collaboration can be engendered by One Stop Center staff reorganization and/or expansion to include case managers and industry-specific experts as employment specialists at the local level. But at a national workforce policy level, the changes in workforce board composition to expand private sector participation (to a two-thirds majority, up from 51% under WIA), while removing the mandate that community-based organizations, educational institutions, or labor unions from the table (even as they do remain discretionary) suggest that there is little counterbalance toward the trend of increased reliance on a demand-side approach on the federal side. From an implementation perspective, the U.S. Department of Labor has not yet implemented programming to catalyze a workforce development planning model (Holland, 2014; Schrock, 2014), despite the new law’s requirement that strategic planning be conducted every three (rather than five) years, or allocated funding to disseminate models of collaboration from prior research (U.S. GAO, 2012).

Without these adjustments, the vision of a coordinated and holistic public workforce development system will be blurry, even with the implantation of the bifocal lens to reflect the larger public interest in increasing employment opportunities and promoting labor productivity.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to express thanks for the guidance and comments received from Julian Alssid, Anthony Carnevale, and Evelyn Ganzglass on earlier versions of this paper. Any errors in intepretation or facts as well as the opinions expressed in this paper rest soley with the author.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Alssid

Gruber

Jenkins

(2002) Building a Career Pathways System: Promising Practices for Community College-Centered Workforce Development, New York, NY: Workforce Strategy Center.

Atkinson

(1998) Building New Skills for the New Economy: Regional Skills Alliances, Washington, DC: Progressive Policy Institute.

Auer

Efendioglu

Leschke

(2008) Active Labour Market Policies Around the World, Geneva: International Labour Office.

Autor

Houseman

(2005) Temporary Agency Employment as a Way out of Poverty?, Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper # 11742.

Barnow

King

(2011) The use of market mechanisms in U.S. workforce programs: Lessons for WIA reauthorization and the European Social Fund. In: Besharov

Cottingham

(eds) The Workforce Investment Act: Implementation Experiences and Evaluation Findings, Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute.

Bartik

(2001) Jobs for the Poor: Can Labor Demand Policies Help?, New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Benner

Leete

Pastor

(2007) Staircases or Treadmills?: Labor Market Intermediaries and Economic Opportunity in a Changing Economy, New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Bird

Foster

Ganzglass

(2014) New Opportunities to Improve Economic and Career Success for Low-Income Youth and Adults: Key Provisions of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy.

Bloom

Orr

Bell

(1997) The benefits and costs of JTPA Title II-A programs. Journal of Human Resources 32(3): 549–576.

10.

Bragg DD (2014) Career pathways in disparate industry sectors to serve underserved populations. Symposium presentation for the American Educational Research Association conference, Philadelphia, PA.

11.

Cappelli

(2015) Skill gaps, skill shortages and skill mismatches: evidence and arguments for the United States. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 68(2): 251–290.

12.

Carlson

Holm

Uhalde

(2011) Building Regional Partnerships for Economic Growth and Opportunity, Boston, MA: Jobs for the Future.

13.

Carneiro

Heckman

(2003) Human capital policy. In: Friedman

(ed.) Inequality in America: What Role for Human Capital Policies?, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 77–239.

14.

Center for Law and Social Policy (2013) The alliance for quality career pathways approach: Developing criteria and metrics for quality career pathways-A working paper. Available at: http://www.clasp.org/resources-and-publications/files/CLASP-The-AQCP-Approach-Feb-2013.pdf (accessed 17 March 2016).

15.

Center for Law and Social Policy (2015) Funding Career Pathways: A Federal Funding Toolkit for State and Local/Regional Career Pathway Partnerships, Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy.

16.

Clagett

Uhalde

(2011) The Promise of Career Pathways Systems Change: What Role Should Workforce Investment Systems Play? What Benefits Will Result?, Boston, MA: Jobs for the Future.

17.

Clymer

(2003) By Design: Engaging Employers in Workforce Development Organizations, Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures.

18.

Conway

Giloth

(2014) Connecting People to Work: Workforce Intermediaries and Sector Strategies, New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

19.

Devins

Hogarth

(2005) Employing the unemployed: Some case study evidence on the role and practice of employers. Urban Studies 42(2): 245–256.

20.

Didry

(2013) Corporate social responsibility and employment: A plurality of configurations. In: Rogowski

Salais

Whiteside

(eds) Labour Market Transitions and the Promotion of Capability, Cheltenham, UK: Elgar.

21.

Doussard

Theodore

(2006) The temporary staffing industry and workforce development. Local Economy 21(3): 264–278.

22.

Giloth

(2000) Learning from the field: Economic growth and workforce development in the 1990s. Economic Development Quarterly 14(4): 340–359.

23.

Granovetter

(1995) Getting a Good Job, 2nd ed. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

24.

Green

Galetto

(2005) Employer participation in workforce development networks. Economic Development Quarterly 19(3): 225–231.

25.

Harper-Anderson

(2008) Measuring the connection between workforce development and economic development. Economic Development Quarterly 22(2): 119–135.

26.

Holland

(2014) A toolkit for the workforce development planner. Practicing Planner 12(4): online.

27.

Holland

(2015) A workforce development systems model for unemployed job seekers. Journal of Adult and Continuing Education 21(2): 55–76.

28.

Iversen

Armstrong

(2006) Jobs Aren’t Enough: Toward a New Economic Mobility for Low-Income Families, Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

29.

Jobs for the Future (2009) Reauthorizing the Workforce Investment Act: A Down Payment on a Workforce Development System for the 21^st Century, Boston, MA: Jobs for the Future.

30.

Kalleberg

(2013) Good Jobs, Bad Jobs, New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

31.

King CT and Heinrich CJ (2011) How effective are workforce development programs? Implications for US workforce policies beyond the Great Recession. Working Paper, University of Texas at Austin.

32.

Kochan

Finegold

Osterman

(2012) Who can fix the “middle-skills” gap? Harvard Business Review 90(12): 83–90.

33.

Lafer

(2002) The Job Training Charade, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

34.

LaLonde

(1995) The promise of public sector-sponsored training programs. Journal of Economic Perspectives 9(2): 249–268.

35.

Lerman

(2008) Are skills the problem? Reforming the education and training system in the United States. In: Bartik

Houseman

(eds) A Future of Good Jobs: America’s Challenge in the Global Economy, Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute, pp. 17–80.

36.

Lowe

Goldstein

Donegan

(2011) Patchwork intermediation: Challenges and opportunities for regionally coordinated workforce development. Economic Development Quarterly 25(2): 158–171.

37.

McCollum

(2012) The sustainable employment policy agenda: What role for employers? Local Economy 27(5): 529–540.

38.

McGurk

(2014) Employer Engagement: A Human Resource Management Perspective, University of Greenwich Business School, Working Paper WERU7. London: University of Greenwich.

39.

Marshall

(2000) Back to Shared Prosperity: The Growing Inequality of Wealth and Income in America, Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

40.

Martin

(2004) Reinventing welfare regimes: Employers and the implementation of active social policy. World Politics 57(1): 39–69.

41.

Martin

(2000) What Works Among Active Labour Market Policies: Evidence from OECD Countries’ Experiences, Paris: OECD Economic Studies, # 30, pp. 79–113.

42.

National Association of Workforce Boards (2014) The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA): Driving Innovation, Collaboration and Performance. Briefing Paper. Washington, DC: National Association of Workforce Boards.

43.

O’Leary

Straits

Wandner

(2004) Job Training Policy in the United States, Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute.

44.

Osterman

(2007) Employment and training policies: New directions for less-skilled adults. In: Holzer

Nightingale

(eds) Reshaping the American Workforce in a Changing Economy, Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press, pp. 119–154.

45.

Osterman

Shulman

(2011) Good Jobs America: Making Work Better for Everyone, New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

46.

Pugh

(1998) Barriers to Work: The Spatial Divide Between Jobs and Welfare Recipients in Metropolitan Areas, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy.

47.

Schrock

(2014) Connecting people and place prosperity: Workforce development and urban planning in scholarship and practice. Journal of Planning Literature 29(3): 257–271.

48.

Spoonley

(2008) Utilising a demand-led approach in a local labour market. Local Economy 23(1): 19–30.

49.

Stillman

(1999) Working to Learn: Skills Development Under Work First, Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures.

50.

Strawn

(1998) Welfare-to-Work Programs: The Critical Role of Skills, Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy.

51.

Strawn

(2011) Farther, Faster: Six Promising Programs Show How Career Pathway Bridges Help Basic Skills Students Earn Credentials That Matter, Center for Postsecondary and Economic Success, Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy.

52.

Sweet

Meiksins

(2012) Changing Contours of Work: Jobs and Opportunities in the New Economy, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

53.

U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration (2014) Implementing a Job-Driven Workforce System. Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) 3–14, 30 July. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

54.

U.S. General Accountability Office

U.S

(2012) Workforce Investment Act: Innovative Collaborations Between Workforce Boards and Employers Helped Meet Local Needs, Washington, DC: Report to Congressional Committees, GAO-12-97.

55.

Van Horn

(1996) No One Left Behind: The Report of the Twentieth Century Fund Task Force on Retraining America’s Workforce, New York, NY: Twentieth Century Fund.

56.

Wandner

(2010) Solving the Reemployment Puzzle: From Research to Policy, Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute.

57.

Weil

(2014) The Fissured Workplace, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

58.

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, Public Law No. 113-128, 113th Congress, 2nd Session. (22 July 2014). Available at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-113publ128/pdf/PLAW-113publ128.pdf (accessed 17 March 2016).