Too many learners graduate underemployed, and too many essential sectors can't find the workers they need. These aren't separate problems. They are two sides of the same systemic failure – a workforce development ecosystem that cannot translate learner willingness to train and employer willingness to hire into the skilled workforce the country needs.
03 – Today's reality
Why employers aren't a meaningful part of the system today
Many would argue employers are a meaningful part of workforce development systems – they sit on tens of thousands of local advisory committees across the country, providing the sign-off required for funding compliance. They're asked at a similar scale to participate in thousands of disparate workforce programs and efforts. The result is a model of employer engagement that is compliance-oriented and focused on filling "slots" – one that does not produce a system where employers truly shape what gets designed and built.
A system can only produce the talent employers need – and the jobs learners need – when employers have a true seat at the table, with a real role in recommendations and decisions. Today, employer engagement across the U.S. largely lives at the lowest, least consequential level on the spectrum of possible employer roles. The framework below describes that spectrum, from the smallest role in decisions to the largest. The further right on the spectrum, the more directly employer voice translates into actual change in what the system funds, approves, and builds.
The spectrum of possible employer roles in the workforce development ecosystem
01
Participate
"We sign off and show up."
Employers validate programs through required compliance and sign-off processes, and participate in programs the system has already designed.
Examples
- Serving on CTE and community college program advisory boards
- Serving on local workforce boards under WIOA
- Hosting work-based learning for school- or nonprofit-built programs
This is the dominant U.S. model. Employers validate and participate only after decisions are made – engagement stays fragmented and often ends in disengagement.
02
Advise
"We give strategic input when asked."
The system brings strategic questions to employers; employers provide expert input that informs the system's decisions.
Examples
- Advising on sector-wide implications of strategic priorities (e.g., Workforce Pell)
- Advising on how to implement system priorities (e.g., expanding work-based learning)
Engagement is strategic, not compliance-oriented – but employers respond to questions the system shapes; they don't set the agenda themselves.
03
Recommend
"Our input is formalized."
Employer bodies are charged with making structured, official recommendations that states must consider.
Examples
- Recommending priorities for program and pathway development
- Recommending policy or regulatory changes that affect workforce pathways
- Recommending training plans for the on-the-job components of programs
Employer input has weight and is embedded into decision-making processes – but the state retains final authority.
04
Decide
"We make defined decisions."
Sector-aligned employer bodies have formal decision-making power over specific system elements.
Examples
- Determining which occupations are in demand
- Defining the skills and competencies those jobs require
- Identifying which credentials carry genuine labor market value
- Deciding where training takes place (e.g., on the job or in a classroom)
This mirrors high-performing global systems. Decisions are collective, transparent, and accountable.
Today's reality
Most employer engagement within U.S. workforce development ecosystems falls within the Participate model – the lowest level on the spectrum. It happens through compliance and sign-off committees that produce little strategic input and have little influence over what the system funds, approves, or builds.
What "compliance-oriented" looks like at scale
A landscape analysis conducted in Washington state by Partnership for Learning illustrates the scale of the engagement system that has emerged from layered federal and state requirements: in Washington alone, an estimated 2,900 standing employer advisory committees generate roughly 9,000 meetings per year across more than 300 public institutions – most of which exist primarily to satisfy reporting requirements. The touchpoint map below documents more than 75 distinct types of requests Washington's public workforce system makes of employers. Hover any dot to see what it is, or open the full landscape analysis using the link below.
Dot color shows what drives each touchpoint
Perkins
WIOA
State statute
Institutional policy
Institutional practice
Variable / funding-driven