An Institutional Analysis of American Job Centers (AJC): Key Institutional Features of AJCs Brief

< Back to Search Results
Release Date: November 01, 2018

An Institutional Analysis of American Job Centers (AJC): Key Institutional Features of AJCs Brief

deliverable icon

About the Brief

Download Brief

The brief presents an overview of key institutional features of the AJC service delivery system across the country that shape day-to-day operations and customer experiences. To do this, researchers identify common patterns and variations in (1) administrative One-Stop Operator structure and AJC management, (2) AJC partner programs and staffing, (3) funding and resource sharing, (4) data systems and sharing, and (5) AJC services. Given the long standing goal to align the workforce system and the increased emphasis under WIOA to promote collaboration and seamless service delivery, the examination of these topics focuses on ways in which collaboration and coordination occurs, and challenges. This paper concludes with implications for Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) implementation.

Key Takeaways

  • Among 40 AJCs, most AJCs sought to foster coordination of service delivery through techniques and mechanisms that could be implemented without requiring changes in federal or state policy, funding requirements, administrative structures, data systems and reporting requirements, or other factors beyond their control. These strategies included at least part-time co-location of a variety of partners at the AJC, center-wide staff meetings, cross-training of staff, coordinated outreach efforts, and a common intake process for customers entering the AJC.

Citation

Brown, E., Holcomb, P. (2018). Mathematica Policy Research. An Institutional Analysis of American Job Centers: Key Institutional Features of American Job Centers. Chief Evaluation Office, U.S. Department of Labor.

Download Brief

This study was sponsored by the Employment and Training Administration, Office of Policy Development and Research, Division of Research and Evaluation, and was produced outside of CEO’s standard research development process.