A detailed look at the recommendations

Build an employer-defined picture of in-demand occupations, competencies, and credentials

Build a regularly updated, sector-by-sector demand picture — created once by the intermediary, shared with every institution — so the same signal reaches all system stakeholders and employers stop answering the same questions table by table.

Why this matters

Demand today is typically justified program by program, against labor market data that's often too broad to be meaningful at the individual program level, and against letters of support gathered from whichever employers happen to be in the room. That approach is expensive to run, uneven in quality, and produces signals that don't add up to anything coherent across a sector. Defining the picture once at the sector level makes the demand signal more rigorous and consistent — so individual programs aren't each building their own demand case from scratch. The picture captures emerging needs that historical projections miss, reflects real variation by region and employer size, and moves the conversation past occupations into the competencies and credentials institutions actually need to design against.

The change

Create a regularly updated, sector-by-sector picture of in-demand occupations, the competencies those jobs require, and the credentials that carry value — defined by employers through their sector intermediaries and shared with every relevant institution. The signal is captured once, centrally; educators everywhere work from the same picture and tailor it to their programs and regions. Where sector intermediaries aren't in place, structured aggregation mechanisms (regional roundtables, employer panels, surveys designed to reach a representative cross-section of the sector) can build the picture.

When to pursue this

• —When representative employer voice exists — through sector intermediaries or a structured aggregation mechanism the state builds.
• —When the state already maintains or could maintain an in-demand occupation list (most do).
• —When individual programs are spending disproportionate time re-proving demand that could be defined once at the sector level.

Key elements of a credible demand picture

• —Representative — comes from sector-level voice or from a structured process that aggregates employers, not from individual employers raising their hands.
• —Employer-initiated — generated from active employer participation, not from a survey asking employers to predict the future.
• —Grounded in hiring activity and replacement demand — drawn from vacancy rates, time-to-fill data, retirements, and turnover rather than labor market data alone.
• —Beyond occupations — defines the competencies and credentials each in-demand job requires, not just the occupation code.
• —Captures variation by region and employer size — demand and credential value differ across regions and between large, mid-size, and small employers.
• —Regularly refreshed — updated on a regular cycle so signals reflect current labor market conditions.

Regionalize advisory work for more representative input

Move strategic, sector-wide work up to sector and regional tables; consolidate program-level committees regionally where possible; refocus local committees on validating, hiring, and work-based learning.

Why this matters

In many states, thousands of CTE and post-secondary employer advisory committees exist across districts and colleges — each asking similar questions of local employers and producing input that rarely rises above the local level. Most were created to satisfy federal reporting requirements, not to generate strategic guidance. The employers who show up tend to have personal relationships to a school rather than represent a sector. The result is compliance activity that looks like engagement: fragmented, unrepresentative input, and a growing sense among employers that showing up doesn't change anything.

There's also an equity dimension. Whether the employer perspective reaches a program depends heavily on whether that program already has strong employer ties — so students at institutions with well-connected networks benefit, while students at programs without those networks don't. Right-leveling advisory work — a shared sector picture reaching every program, backed by regional structures that reach every institution — makes the employer perspective a consistent input across programs, not a function of which school happens to have the relationships.

Local employers still offer something genuinely valuable: they know their regional labor market, they can validate whether statewide guidance applies locally, and they ultimately hire students and host work-based learning. The answer is to right-level employer involvement so strategic input comes from representative sector- or regional-level voice, while local committees focus on what only local employers can do.

The change

Reorient the advisory committee system across three moves: (1) move sector-wide strategic work up to sector tables — with sector intermediaries filling that role where they exist; (2) consolidate program-level advisory committees regionally where possible, including shifting compliance functions off individual employers where federal, state, and accreditation requirements allow; and (3) refocus local committees on what only local employers can do — validating that sector or regional guidance fits the local labor market, hiring program graduates, and hosting work-based learning. Regionalization is encouraged, not prescribed. The state's role is to make regional coordination easier — including by reforming per-program approval processes that today force each program to keep its own committee — rather than mandating a single structure.

When to pursue this

• —When designating sector intermediaries for every priority sector isn't politically or practically feasible, and reoriented advisory committees offer a different route to representative input.
• —When intermediaries cover some sectors but not all, and reoriented committees can fill the gap.
• —When existing committees absorb employer time without producing strategic, representative guidance.

Key functions of right-leveling

• —Move #1: Strategic sector-wide work moves up to sector tables — identifying priority occupations, validating credentials, and recommending pathways move to sector or regional bodies. Where sector intermediaries exist, they fill this role; where they don't, sector or regional bodies do the work once with aggregated representative input, rather than every advisory committee answering the same questions independently.
• —Move #2: Regional advisory structures replace program-by-program committees where possible — consolidated regional committees cover multiple districts, colleges, or programs in the same sector, so the same employer isn't asked to attend three versions of the same meeting. Related programs can share an umbrella committee (e.g., allied health) where the pathway is coherent. A mature regional structure can also coordinate work-based-learning requests across the region and, where federal, state, and accreditation requirements allow, take on compliance functions that today sit with individual employers (reviewing program documentation, approving curriculum updates, providing sign-offs for federal and state reporting). States have more flexibility here than they typically exercise; many requirements are state policy or institutional habit rather than federal law.
• —Move #3: Local committees focus on what local employers do best — validating whether sector or regional guidance fits the local labor market, connecting local employers to program graduates, and hosting work-based learning. Local employer time is redirected, not eliminated.
• —An enabling condition: reform per-program approval processes — today's approval requirements are written program by program, effectively forcing each program to maintain its own committee. Reforming those requirements is what allows consolidated regional structures to satisfy approval requirements for several programs at once. Programs under specialized accreditation (like nursing or engineering) still keep the committees their accreditors require — and a shared sector framework strengthens what those committees have to work with.

Create a formal channel for employers to bring priorities to the state

Open a clear front door for employer-initiated priorities and solutions — routed through sector intermediaries where they exist — with the system required to respond with documented decisions.

Why this matters

By default, workforce systems set the agenda — designing programs and then asking employers to validate them. They ask employers to solve system problems: fill advisory roles, provide projections, share hiring data. But employers also want systems to solve employer workforce problems: expand capacity of specific programs, build new pathways, address licensing barriers, expedite security clearances. When systems gather input but lack the channels to act on what employers say they need, trust erodes. When systems invert the agenda — asking "what do you need us to solve?" instead of "please validate what we built" — engagement becomes genuinely employer-centered. Employers bring their priorities and proposed solutions; the system responds visibly. Trust is rebuilt, engagement quality improves, and programs better align with what employers actually need.

The change

Build a formal channel for employers and/or employer-led sector intermediaries to bring priorities, problems, and proposed solutions to the system — not just respond to system-defined questions — and require the system to respond with documented decisions. Sector intermediaries are the channel where they exist; a statewide body serves coverage gaps. Closing the loop with documented decisions is the obligation that rebuilds trust.

When to pursue this

• —When employers face systemic, varying workforce challenges (licensing, credentialing, regulatory, sector-specific) that fall outside standard input-gathering processes.
• —When state leadership has the political will to act on employer requests.
• —When the state has the capacity to define a clear channel employers can actually use.

Key functions of employer-led agenda-setting

• —Clear intake channel for employer-initiated input — the state establishes a single, clear channel through which employers, employer coalitions, and/or sector intermediaries can bring priorities, proposed solutions, and systemic barriers directly to the system. Employers know where their asks go; the state knows where those requests arrive. The channel can take several forms: employer-led sector intermediaries as the channel, where the state engages employers through their sector intermediary; an employer-led council with statutory weight, a governor-appointed, all-industry body that sets state direction; or a single front door / consolidated business engagement function — one administrative office serves as the entry point across systems.
• —Scope of input — barriers and solutions, not just program critiques — employers bring occupational needs, sector-specific skill gaps, and systemic barriers (licensing, credential recognition, policy) — not just feedback on existing programs. The channel invites the broader question: "what's preventing you from getting the talent you need?" — and considers the full range of solutions, not just training pathways.
• —State response process and timeline — the state designates a clear process and timeline for receiving employer priorities, commits to genuine dialogue (not just acknowledgment), and documents decisions visibly.
• —Visible follow-through that rebuilds trust — where the system can act, it does. Where it can't, it explains why and identifies what it can do instead. Transparent follow-through, even when the answer is no, builds more credibility than silence.
• —Entry point for willing employers — a visible mechanism for businesses that want to engage to raise their hand, so the system can find new partners rather than re-tapping the same companies.

Coordinate employer engagement across state agencies

Align asks, share what employers tell one agency with the others, and hold joint engagements instead of parallel ones — so the system behaves like one system from the employer's side of the table.

Why this matters

State engagement with employers is fragmented across agencies. CTE agencies, community colleges, workforce boards, apprenticeship offices, licensing boards, and economic development independently survey employers and collect input. Multiple agencies often ask the same employer overlapping questions; few agencies have visibility into what others are doing; and what one agency hears from employers rarely informs the work of another. The result is employer fatigue, lost signal, and missed opportunities for the state to act on patterns visible across agency touchpoints. Coordination addresses this — ensuring input gathered anywhere in state government is visible everywhere it could be useful, and that the state's asks of employers are aligned rather than duplicative. Reducing fatigue and acting on what employers share builds trust in state engagement.

The change

Coordinate engagement and information sharing across agencies that interact with employers. An initial audit of current touchpoints is a useful first step — mapping what each agency asks of employers and where requests duplicate — but the ongoing work is alignment: a coordinating function (formal or informal) that aligns asks across agencies, ensures employer input gathered by one agency is shared with others, and prevents the same employer from being approached repeatedly with similar questions. The arrangement should be refreshed periodically as agency activity evolves.

When to pursue this

• —When employers are signaling fatigue from fragmented and duplicative state asks.
• —When the state can mobilize cross-agency authority (typically through the governor's office) to commit to coordination.
• —When patterns visible across agency touchpoints — signals about sectors, occupations, or barriers — aren't being acted on because agencies don't share what they hear.

Key functions of cross-agency coordination

• —Audit of current touchpoints — inventory all state engagement with employers across agencies (surveys, advisory participation, sign-offs, data submissions, program reviews, information requests) to identify duplication and gaps. The audit produces the diagnostic foundation for coordination decisions and should be refreshed every 2–3 years as agency activity evolves.
• —Coordinated asks across agencies — once the picture is clear, agencies align their asks of employers so the same firm isn't approached by multiple offices for similar information. New asks route through a shared coordination function before reaching employers; existing surveys and advisory committees consolidate where they ask overlapping questions.
• —Information sharing across agencies — what employers tell one agency about hiring needs, skill gaps, or barriers is shared with other agencies that could use it. Patterns visible across touchpoints — a sector reporting the same issue to multiple agencies — become signals the state can act on collectively, not isolated complaints lost in each agency's inbox.
• —Clear roles and responsibilities — defined upfront for who convenes, who collects, and who responds. Unclear roles are the recurring failure point of statewide coordination.
• —One engagement, many uses — a single engagement process can feed federal and state planning requirements (Perkins, WIOA, apprenticeship, economic development plans) rather than each plan running its own.
• —Supporting structures — states can choose from several approaches to support coordination and information sharing: a functional cross-agency coordinating body — a board or working group with explicit authority to coordinate engagement across agencies; shared infrastructure across agencies — common surveys, shared scheduling, joint engagement calendars, and a shared database for tracking agency-employer interactions; or designated cross-agency liaisons — staff with explicit responsibility for coordinating engagement with specific sectors or major employer relationships.

Incentivize program approval and funding to align with the sector demand picture

Use incentives — in program approval, funding formulas, and grantmaking — to encourage education and training programs to align with the employer-defined demand picture. Aligned programs are rewarded and don't have to re-prove demand; programs built by employers have a genuine path into the formal system.

Why this matters

Many states already publish in-demand occupation lists, and federal programs like Workforce Pell and WIOA's Eligible Training Provider Lists tie funding to alignment with them. But publishing a list isn't the same as using it as a lever. Today, programs still often re-prove demand program by program, aligned programs don't receive differential rewards, and employer-built pathways struggle to find a foothold in a system designed around individual institutional applications. When the state uses its incentive levers — funding formulas, program approval, and grantmaking — to actively reward alignment with the demand picture, programs that connect to real employer demand get expanded, employer-built programs have a path in, and institutions have an ongoing reason to keep alignment current rather than treat it as a one-time hurdle.

The change

Use the state's funding, approval, and grantmaking levers to incentivize alignment with the employer-defined demand picture (see Recommendation 1). Programs that align with the picture receive enhanced funding, streamlined approval, and preferred position in grant competitions. Programs built and validated by employers have a resourced pathway into the formal system rather than working outside it. And the state identifies and removes the structural barriers — extra credentialing layers, and the absence of a formal route for employer-built programs to enter the state system (approval, articulation, credit, financial aid) — that keep employer-validated programs from entering in the first place.

When to pursue this

• —When a credible employer-defined demand picture exists or can be developed (see Recommendation 1).
• —When the state has authority over program approval and funding formulas.
• —When the state can direct grantmaking around cross-system collaboration rather than institutional competition.

Key functions of the incentive design

• —Funding formulas tied to alignment with the demand picture — bonus FTE funding for aligned programs, with the bonus underwriting the partnership capacity that keeps the program aligned. This creates a flywheel — funding sustains the alignment, which sustains funding — rather than a one-time reward that fades.
• —Streamlined program approval for aligned programs — programs that align with the demand picture demonstrate demand by pointing to it, not by gathering individual employer letters of support. Approval becomes a check on alignment with employer-defined standards, not a paperwork exercise repeated program by program.
• —Grantmaking designed to fund cross-system pathways around the demand picture — grants require partnership across CTE, community colleges, apprenticeship, and workforce boards to build the integrated pathways the sector demand picture calls for. Cross-system grants build the pathways individual institutional grants can't produce.
• —A resourced pathway for employer-built programs — when a sector has built and validated a turnkey program, the state has a defined process to map it into the formal system (credential recognition, funding integration, articulation), staffed on the state side to do the mapping work.
• —Audit and removal of structural barriers that keep employer-validated programs out — extra credentialing layers stacked on top of employer validation are removed, and the state builds the formal routes (approval, articulation, credit, financial aid) that let employer-built programs enter the system where those routes don't exist.

Tie program evaluation and renewed funding to outcomes that matter

Evaluate programs by what matters to employers and students — credential value, skill alignment, and career outcomes — and let those outcomes inform renewal and investment decisions.

Why this matters

Workforce systems today are largely evaluated on participation and outputs — committees seated, students enrolled, completions — which tell us little about whether graduates reached family-sustaining careers or whether employers hired them. When evaluation focuses on outcomes that matter to employers and students (placement, wages, retention, credential value, skill alignment), programs delivering real results get rewarded and expanded, while programs that consistently fail to place graduates can be restructured or sunset. Federal workforce policy is trending in the same direction — states that build outcomes-based accountability frameworks now will be positioned for the frameworks anticipated ahead.

The change

Shift the accountability lens from participation and outputs to outcomes: placement, wages, retention, longer-term career progression, credential value, and skill alignment. Build the data infrastructure that makes those outcomes measurable and comparable across programs. Use the outcomes to drive renewal, adjustment, and sunset decisions — with public transparency at the program level so students, families, and employers can compare options. Where Recommendation 5 uses incentives at the front end (approval and initial funding), this recommendation applies them at the back end (evaluation and renewal).

When to pursue this

• —When the state has authority to revise program evaluation and accountability frameworks.
• —When it has — or can build — the data infrastructure needed to track outcomes reliably across systems.
• —When federal or state policy is trending toward outcomes-based accountability, creating opportunities to align.

Key functions of outcomes-based evaluation

• —A common set of program outcome metrics across systems — placement in the field of training, wages, retention, credential value, and skill alignment on the employer side; further education, self-employment success, and credential portability on the student side. The same metrics apply across CTE, apprenticeship, community colleges, and workforce programs.
• —Longitudinal data infrastructure connecting program records to employment and wage data — program enrollment and completion records connect to wage records, retention measures, and existing reporting so graduates can be tracked beyond the first job, and career-track employment in the field can be distinguished from any employment at all. Administrative data carries most of the load; building this infrastructure is typically the hardest part of the work.
• —Program approval renewal conditional on demonstrated outcomes — programs that meet outcome thresholds are renewed and can expand; programs that consistently fail to place graduates lose funding or sunset. Renewal is not automatic.
• —A public scoreboard of program-level outcomes — students, families, and employers can compare programs on placement, wages, retention, and credential value before making enrollment or hiring decisions.
• —Qualitative signals from sector intermediaries — employer satisfaction with graduate skills, alignment with sector-signaled unmet needs, and the depth of employer engagement in program design feed into the evaluation alongside the quantitative metrics.