Presentation by Randall Eberts, Executive Director, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, United States. 9th Annual Meeting of the OECD LEED Forum on Partnerships and Local Governance (Dublin-Kilkenny, Ireland), 26/27 March 2013. http://www.oecd.org/cfe/leed/9thfplgmeeting.htm

1. 9th Annual Meeting
IMPLEMENTING CHANGE:
A NEW LOCAL AGENDA FOR
JOBS AND GROWTH
In co-operation with the EU Presidency, Irish Government and Pobal
26-27 March 2013, Dublin-Kilkenny, Ireland
PLENARY SESSION I: A NEW LOCAL AGENDA FOR JOBS AND GROWTH
Randall Eberts
President, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, United States

2. Forum on Partnerships and Local
Governance, Dublin & Kilkenny,
March 2013
“Implementing Change: A new local
agenda for jobs and growth”
INTEGRATING EMPLOYMENT AND
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,
LESSONS FROM THE UNITED
STATES AND AUSTRALIA
March 26th, 2013
Randall Eberts, President, W.E. Upjohn Institute for
Employment Research, United States

3. Skills Shortage and Mismatch
• Employers complain they can’t find
enough qualified workers
• Without qualified workers, employers
can’t fill job openings and employers can’t
create jobs
• Increasing skills and improving the match
between the supply of and demand for
skills is a critical challenge

4. Real Consequences of Skills Gap
Larger the skills gap, the lower the job creation
Each dot is a US metro area; data provided by Rothwell, 2012

5. Real Consequences of Skills Gap
Larger the skills gap, the higher the unemployment rate
Each dot is a US metro area; data provided by Rothwell, 2012

6. Integrating supply and demand
• OECD/LEED has studied models that
integrate workforce development and
economic development to increase skills,
improve skills utilization, and reduce the
skills gap
• Basic components of integration:
– Flexibility
– Partnerships
– Collaboration

7. Prerequisites for Effective Collaboration
• Vision
• Strategic planning
• Leadership
• Metrics
• Resource Alignment
• Trust
• Collaborative infrastructure

8. Models of Integration: US and Australia
• Similarities
– Contract out JSA to private providers
– Local providers
– Performance outcomes
– Initial screening and identification of needs
• JSCI for Australia; WPRS for US
– Reemployment Assessment Plans
– Strategic plans
– Local and state economic development efforts

9. Models: Differences
Australia United States
National agency contracts JSA Local WIBs contract JSA and training
Payment based mostly on performance Payment based mostly on formula, with
outcome financial incentives for making/missing
targets
National VocEd qualifications Local and/or industry qualifications
Demand-driven training: industry, unions, Demand-driven training: employers and
professional associations at national level local community colleges at local level
define outcomes required from training develop training curriculum
More national skills standards, national Few national skills standards; mostly state
training products and local standards
16 mandated programs co-located at One-
Stop Career Centers
Local Employment Coordinator: identifies Local WIBs offer opportunity to be catalyst
needs and match with employers, for integrating economic development and
education and training facilities workforce development at local level

10. U.S. WIBs: Partnership Catalyst
Partnership Arrangements
Vouchers
or training
accounts
Federal Administrative $$
Programs fee to WIB
Administrative
Businesses
accountability
$
State Non - financial
Agreements
$$ $$
County
WIB
Government Local organizations
Master
Inter - local Contract Sub -
Agreement contracts
Administrative
Agent
Memoranda of
County
Understanding
Government
Leadership role with
non - contractual
service organizations

11. Payoff to Partnerships
States with more local WIBs tend to have higher placement rates
WIA Adult Program, 2006Q3
88
% Participants who found employment
86 CA
84
82 MI
80
TX
78
76
74
72
70
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Number of WIBs within a state

12. Conclusion
• Narrowing the gap between demand for
and supply of skills is a critical challenge
for job creation
• Local flexibility and autonomy can foster
partnerships that connect workforce and
economic development
• The two models provide examples of local
areas that use their flexibility to form
effective partnerships to help create jobs