Pioneer Institute Study Compares MA Workforce Development System to Those in Peer States

Calls for appointing workforce development “Czar,” using technology to better measure and disseminate program outcome data  

(Boston, Mass) –  Massachusetts has significantly increased investment in a myriad of workforce training programs to better compete for talent, a new Pioneer Institute report examines the Massachusetts workforce development system to determine what operational changes would better maximize results, and it compares the system to those in peer states. 

In “A Comparative Analysis of States’ Workforce Development Programs,” Eileen McAnneny, with contributions from Andrew Hunter, examines how Massachusetts and nine peer states (CT, NH, RI, ME, VT, FL, NY, TX, NC) approach workforce development.   

The state’s workforce development systems have taken on more significance as the nation’s population ages, baby boomers retire in increasing numbers, the pace of technological change quickens, and many new immigrants arrive lacking the skills needed for available jobs. McAnneny found that Massachusetts has one of the more extensive workforce development systems among the states examined, yet oversight and reporting requirements have not kept pace with the system’s expansion.   

“A talented workforce is the backbone of Massachusetts’ economic future,” said Jim Stergios, Executive Director of Pioneer. “In order to keep up with states nationwide that are shifting policies to attract talent—including poaching from Massachusetts— we need to get more value from the billions we invest in workforce development. The goals are clear: more skilled workers, better job placement, and training programs that align directly with employer needs.” 

To address these shortcomings and allow the Commonwealth to better measure its return on workforce development efforts, McAnneny makes several recommendations for improving the state workforce development system.  They include: 

• Appointing a workforce development Czar to streamline oversight of the many programs investing in modern and integrative data systems to collect and make public comprehensive outcome data on training programs; 

• Providing an inventory of all current programs; and

• Developing a comprehensive outcome-based review process that utilizes longitudinal data to track the median wages and employment of program graduates over time. 

The states used for comparison in the report were chosen due to the proximity to Massachusetts, the similarity of the characteristics of their workforce and the strength of their labor markets. The Appendix offers a state-by-state analysis of the landscape of each workforce including unemployment rate, median household income and employer establishments.  

Get Updates on our Economic Opportunity Research!