This blog post, co-authored by guest author Steve Voytek and DQC’s Ted Welsh, unpacks the contours of the public workforce system and is the second in a series of posts about the workforce data ecosystem. Guest author Steve Voytek is a Policy Advisor at Foresight Law and Policy. Ted Welsh is an Associate, Policy and Advocacy, at the Data Quality Campaign. To find the first post in this series, see this guest blog from Iris Palmer where she explores where labor market information comes from, its strengths and weaknesses, and how to apply it.
Students, workers, jobseekers, employers, and policymakers require access to quality public workforce data in order to make better decisions about what training and education programs to engage with or support, and to develop a better understanding of how individuals fare in the workforce after exiting these programs. The public workforce system, authorized by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), encompasses a wide variety of programs—ranging from training and education opportunities to wraparound and support services—all aimed at facilitating success for learners, workers, job seekers, and employers. Making access to quality public workforce data a reality requires meaningful improvements to the public workforce system.
The public workforce system is overseen by nearly 600 workforce development boards (WDBs) which help set the strategic direction for states and local workforce areas established under WIOA. Approximately 2,500 American Job Centers (AJCs) or “one-stops” provide a centralized point to deliver and access these and other critical services provided by the public workforce system. AJCs are a vital component of the broader workforce ecosystem and represent an important point of intersection with other federally funded education and workforce development programs. Specifically, AJCs coordinate and align with nearly 20 other federal programs, some authorized by WIOA directly and others not, including postsecondary programs funded by the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education (Perkins) Act and employment and training activities authorized by the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, among many others.
What is the state’s role in the public workforce system?
States also play a central role in the implementation of these programs and the wider publicly funded workforce system. States are responsible for developing a vision for serving learners, workers, and employers that thoughtfully leverages federal, state, and local resources to maximize impact. In partnership with other stakeholders—like WDBs, local elected officials, and many others—states work to make this vision a reality. Importantly, states are the primary entities that handle associated accountability and data reporting requirements—meaning states are typically the ones working with WDBs, training providers, employers, schools, districts, institutions, and others to collect the necessary data, safely match it with other records to make it useful, and share it back not only for federal accountability purposes but, in some instances, for other purposes like better informing the public about outcomes and related opportunities that may be available within the public workforce system.
What information is collected and how is it used?
Data is collected in the public workforce system for two main purposes. The first is to ensure that state leaders can use data to support and refine programs so that they lead to opportunity and not “dead ends.” Similarly, this information can be used to communicate to individuals, including employers, about where training opportunities may be available and which ones may provide the best outcomes or otherwise meet their unique needs.
Second, data is collected for accountability purposes to ensure that there is a return on investment for these efforts that are funded with public dollars. Data most often collected within the public workforce system typically includes information regarding individuals’ earnings, employment status, attainment of credentials, postsecondary credits, or other measurable skills gains. As in the education space, this data is aggregated and de-identified to avoid any disclosure of personally identifiable information. This data is accessible via a number of public-facing portals like Training Provider Results and the WIOA Workforce Performance Results Archive. The information, however, is often not available in a timely manner and tends to be more useful for policymakers than the general public, despite so much of it being available for public consumption.
When data is safely collected, securely matched, and shared, people can answer questions like:
- Do people land jobs after they finish education and workforce training programs?
- To what extent are individuals earning postsecondary credits, developing skills, or earning credentials that can help them find success in the labor market?
- Are earnings gains durable or are they short lived?
- How are different demographic groups benefiting from these programs and how can services be better tailored to meet their unique needs?
- What skills are most needed by employers and how well do existing programs align with these needs?
Some of these questions are easier to answer than others.
What are the limitations of this data, and are there solutions?
Because WIOA emphasizes the collection of data to hold all core workforce programs accountable to a set of common performance measures, a number of limitations arise when it comes to accessing and using public workforce systems data for purposes other than accountability. It is difficult to truly validate participant outcomes like skills development when the language used to define and describe skills, competencies, and even credentials vary considerably. The scope of this data is also often state-specific, meaning that people who live, work, or access education and training in different jurisdictions or across multiple state and metropolitan boundaries are sometimes not sufficiently represented in the data. Without meaningful improvements to the data infrastructure underlying the public workforce system, these challenges and more are likely to persist, making it difficult to determine the short- and long-term impacts of associated education and training programs.
There are a number of emerging solutions to these problems, some more developed than others. These include: multi-state data collaboratives, efforts to standardize the underlying workforce data and information that is collected (such as Credential Engine’s Credential Transparency Description Language and the US Chamber Foundation’s Jobs and Employment Data Exchange), and efforts to securely increase specific stakeholders’ access to some of the underlying data sources like Unemployment Insurance (UI) wage records. Recently, the US Department of Labor has also made new efforts to make training provider data and information more accessible to the public moving forward.
Congress also has a critical role to play in improving the workforce data landscape. Last year, federal lawmakers in a bipartisan, bicameral effort nearly reauthorized WIOA, which would have helped to streamline data access and reporting within the public workforce system, promote the use of linked, open, and interoperable data related to skills and credentials, improve access to sources of wage record data, and much more. As we collectively look ahead to the new 119th Congress and Trump-Vance administration, it is critical that policymakers revisit these proposals to take much-needed steps toward developing a public workforce system that works for everyone. The Data Quality Campaign and our partners stand ready to make our vision for improved public workforce data a reality in the years ahead.
