Regional workforce development collaborations have emerged as a notable approach to tackle complex problems within workforce development systems. While much of the existing research on workforce development documents the importance of promoting regional workforce development collaborations, little research exists that adequately identifies the specific barriers that organizations encounter in establishing and maintaining these collaborations. Through several sets of interviews over a 10-year period, this article examines the experiences of three detailed case studies of regions—Greater North Bay area, CA; Greater Fort Wayne/Northeastern IN; and Greater Pittsburgh/Southwestern PA—to identify the barriers and emerging strategies for creating regional workforce development systems. The authors identify three primary barriers: high initial upfront costs, competition, and fragmentation. They also find that an effective regional workforce development system is promoted primarily through an anchor organization that possesses programmatic and jurisdictional authority throughout a region.
AlmandsmithS.WalshockM.MagillK.BarkerL.SurkoP.VencillM.. . .ChochelesJ. (2007). Early implementation of generation I of the Workforce Innovation in Regional Economic Development (WIRED) Initiative: 2007 Interim evaluation report (Series No. ETAOP 2008-03). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor. Retrieved from http://wdr.doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents/Early%20Implementation%20Gen%20I%20WIRED%205-20-08.pdf
2.
AokiM. (1984). The co-operative game theory of the firm. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
BlakelyB.BradshawT. (2002). Planning local economic development. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
8.
BuckM. (2002). Charting new territory: Early implementation of the Workforce Investment Act. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures.
9.
ChappleK. (2005). Building institutions from the region up: Regional workforce development collaboratives in California (Working Paper No. 2005-01). Berkeley, CA: Institute of Urban and Regional Development.
10.
Cordero-GuzmánH. (2004). Interorganizational networks among community-based organizations. In MeléndezE. (Ed.), Communities and workforce development (pp. 411-438). Kalamazoo, MI: W. E. Upjohn Institute.
DeckerP. T.BerkJ. A. (2011). Ten years of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA): Interpreting the research on WIA and related programs. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30, 906-926.
13.
FeiockR.LeeI. W.ParkH. J.LeeK. H. (2010). Collaboration networks among local elected officials: Information, commitment and risk aversion. Urban Affairs Review, 20(10), 1-22.
14.
FitzgeraldJ. (2004). Beyond the first job: Career ladder initiatives in information technology industries. In MeléndezE. (Ed.), Communities and workforce development (pp. 357-407). Kalamazoo, MI: W. E. Upjohn Institute.
15.
FitzgeraldJ.PerryD.JaffeM. (2002). The new metropolitan alliances: Regional collaboration for economic development. Boston, MA: CEOs for Cities.
16.
FowlerD.ChernusK. (2005). The center of the web: Workforce development partnerships. Community College Journal, 75(6), 48-50.
17.
GarmiseS. (2009). Building a workforce development system as an economic development strategy: Lessons from US programs. Local Economy, 24, 211-223.
18.
GershwinM. (2000). From stakeholders to partners: Organizing community partnerships for workforce development (Workforce Innovation Series). Boston, MA: Jobs for the Future.
19.
GrellJ.GappertG. (1993). The new civic infrastructure: Intersectoral collaboration and the decision-making process. National Civic Review, 82, 140-148.
20.
HollenbeckK.HewatN. (2009). Nurturing America’s Growth in the Global Marketplace through Talent Development: An Interim Report on the Evaluation of Generations II and III of WIRED. U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, November. Retrieved from: http://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=reports
Indiana Business Research Center. (2000). Indiana recaptures manufacturing employment strength. In Context, 1(7), 8-9.
23.
JacobsonD. (2001). An agenda for education partnerships: Stakeholder learning collaboratives. Change, 33(5), 44-53.
24.
KingC. T. (1999). Federalism and workforce policy reform. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 29(2), 53-71.
25.
KoehnC. P. (2010). An analysis of the collaborative leadership process of a local workforce investment board (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Cardinal Stritch University, Milwaukee, WI.
26.
MarkusenA. (2004). Targeting occupations in regional and community economic development. Journal of the American Planning Association, 70, 253-268.
27.
MasonS. G. (2008). Policy design and regional cooperation under the WIA. State and Local Government Review, 40, 101-114.
28.
MattessichP.MonseyB. (1992). Collaboration: What makes it work: A review of research literature or factors influencing successful collaboration. St. Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation.
29.
MattessichP. W.Murray-CloseM.MonseyB. R. (2001). Collaboration: What makes it work (2nd ed.). St. Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation.
30.
MeléndezE. (1997). The potential impact of workforce development legislation on CBOs. New England Journal of Policy, 13, 175-186.
31.
MeléndezE. (2004). Workforce development in the era of devolution. In MeléndezE. (Ed.), Communities and workforce development (pp. 1-36). Kalamazoo, MI: UpJohn Institute.
32.
MooreR.ZellD.HamiltonV. (2009, July). Networking on the edge of chaos: The emergence of informal networks in the U.S. WIA program. Presented at the Journal of Vocational Education and Training Conference, Oxford, England.
33.
OlberdingJ. (2002). Does regionalism beget regionalism? The relationship between norms and regional partnerships for economic development. Public Administration Review, 62, 480-491.
34.
O’SheaD.KingC. T. (2001). The Workforce Investment Act of 1998: Restructuring workforce development initiatives in states and localities (Report No. 12). Albany, NY: Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government.
35.
PatelN.SavnerS. (2001). Implementation of individual training account policies: Under the Workforce Investment Act: Early information from local areas. Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy.
36.
PorterM. (2000). Location, competition, and economic development: Local clusters in a global economy. Economic Development Quarterly, 14(1), 15-34.
37.
PortzJ. (1990). The politics of plant closings. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
SaxenianA. (2006). Regional advantage: Culture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
40.
TreadoC. D. (2010). Pittsburgh’s evolving steel legacy and the steel technology cluster. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 3, 105-120.
Wolf-PowersL. (2004). Beyond the first job: Career ladder initiatives in information technology industries. In MeléndezE. (Ed.), Communities and workforce development (pp. 253-283). Kalamazoo, MI: W. E. Upjohn Institute.
43.
Wolf-PowersL.AndreasonS. (2012). Aligning secondary and post-secondary credentialization with economic development strategy, or If Low Educational Attainment = Poor Metropolitan Competitiveness, what can be done about it? In PernaL.WachterS. (Eds.), Preparing today’s students for tomorrow’s jobs in metropolitan America (pp. 231-258). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
