This report provides information on the interventions and the third-party evaluations conducted under 43 Workforce Innovation Fund (WIF) grants. The grants were intended to test new and innovative approaches to workforce services and to expand use of evaluation research in the workforce system. Grantees were required to procure, fund and oversee an independent "third-party evaluation" (TPE) in one of three "tiers" of rigor. This approach, called the "tiered-evidence" model, resulted in 25 outcome, 11 quasi-experimental, and 7 experimental evaluations under the WIF initiative.

Innovations under the grants fell into seven broad categories, including, among others: work-based learning, entrepreneurship training, case management, technological innovations, and employer engagement activities. Target groups included: low income adults, youth, dislocated workers, veterans, and individuals with disabilities. Also, some projects were intended to make broad system changes that could potentially benefit all job seekers in a state. Most grantees were able to implement major parts of their projects, which involved multiple partners, including employers, training providers, community-based organizations, and social service agencies. However, among the 38 WIF interventions that enrolled participants, 15 projects struggled to meet their enrollment targets, despite efforts to adjust eligibility criteria, marketing strategies, and enrollment procedures. Regarding the third-party evaluations conducted on the interventions, some key findings were that:

• Many grantee organizations had no or minimal experience supporting program evaluations.
• Evaluators and grantees experienced challenges in evaluation execution, due to lower-than-expected enrollments, challenges in accessing data; and survey non-response.
• There were challenges regarding the time frame under the grants, which led to a relatively short follow-up period in which to assess outcomes and impacts, conduct analysis, and prepare final reports.
• While many final evaluation reports were logically organized, well-written and provided sufficient detail, some reports were inadequate in one or more of these areas.
• Some of the interventions were not yet appropriate for an outcomes evaluation (the least rigorous evaluation approach) but could have been subject to a formative approach that allows for refining the intervention while simultaneously conducting a study of it.

The report also includes suggestions for future initiatives that involve third-party evaluations to address some of the challenges observed under the WIF grants, regarding:

• Building capacity within grantee/project staff to ensure evaluation goals and methods are understood, and that the evaluation is independent,
• Ensuring there is an adequate timeline for all evaluation activities, i.e., for planning the intervention, engagement of the evaluator, evaluation design, data collection, analysis, and report preparation,
• Requiring implementation studies as a component of an outcome or impact evaluation, and
• Developing clear, consistent evaluation standards, clear lines of authority, and detailed guidance on final report requirements.

Brief descriptions of each WIF project and short reviews of the evaluations can be found in the appendices to the report. Individual WIF evaluation reports can be found in the Workforce Systems Strategies database.