An Institutional Analysis of American Job Centers (AJC): Resource Sharing Practices Among AJCs Brief

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

An Institutional Analysis of American Job Centers (AJC): Resource Sharing Practices Among AJCs Brief

deliverable icon

About the Brief

Download Brief

The brief describes how 40 comprehensive American Job Centers (AJCs) selected to participate in the Institutional Analysis of AJCs shared resources. It opens by reviewing resource sharing requirements under Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA) and Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), and then outlines the extent to which the study AJCs shared resources at the time of the study's data collection. For AJCs that entered into resource sharing agreements (RSAs), this brief analyzes resource sharing practices, including funding sources, participating partners, and the cost allocation methodologies used. The brief closes with potential challenges and promising practices for resource sharing to support AJC operations and service delivery under WIOA.

Key Takeaways

  • On average, about five partners per AJC shared resources in the form of cash contributions to support center operations. WIOA Adult and Dislocated Worker programs and Wagner-Peyser Employment Service were the most common contributors to resource sharing in the study AJCs.
  • Local board staff, One-Stop Operators, and AJC partners in the study sites overwhelmingly viewed the need to fill resource sharing obligations in relation to whether the partner had an on-site presence at the AJC, contrary to WIOA requirements.
  • Square footage utilized or number of staff located at the AJCs were the most common methods used to determine partner contribution amounts.

Citation

English, B., Obsorn, S. (2018). Mathematica. An Institutional Analysis of American Job Centers (AJC): Resource Sharing Practices Among AJCs. 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.