Evaluation and Performance Measurement of Sector Strategies Colorado SECTORS Academy February 19, 2009

First, can we fairly compare outcomes?  Consider... Over 1,000 healthcare service workers trained every year by a metropolitan sector partnership About 130 students per year trained and placed in employment by a solar installation sector partnership 3 Journeyman apprentices supplied to Grand Coulee Dam as a result of a Power Generation partnership 2

Second, do we assume training outcomes?  Consider a small manufacturers sector partnership that focuses on career awareness  Or an energy partnership that develops skills standards that can be used to develop training but that first was valuable to align titles and HR selection criteria across employers 3

4  Shared costs and risks associated with developing skill training programs across an industry and within a region  Increased availability of skills training that responds to the actual and shared workforce needs of regional industries  Guidance on ways to improve human resource practices, including the application of technology and other productivity-enhancing measures, to improve quality, efficiency, and output  Reduced turnover as a result of improved working conditions or expanded opportunities for career advancement

5  Increased availability of jobs offering decent wages, benefits, and/or opportunities for advancement  Improved working conditions for entry-level and low-skilled workers  Expanded supply, accessibility, and coordination of work supports for low-income workers that lead to better job retention  Increased opportunities for education and training for high-demand occupations, including literacy, language, and job-skills development programs.

6  Decreased skill and labor gaps  Increased attraction and retention of higher-wage employers  Reduction of poverty and unemployment  Increased community cooperation and collaboration  More efficient and effective use of public resources

Effectiveness of the Partnership  Evidence of appropriate partners convening, and identifying industry challenges and solutions.  Self-identified short and long term outcomes measures.  Evidence of a plan of action, or a roadmap with direct line of sight to goals and outcomes.  All partners agreeing that the Skill Panel will collectively address a wide range of workforce & talent development challenges in the region.  New and leveraged funding (sources and $ amounts). 7

Impact on Systems Change  New, re-structured education and training  Changes in how education, workforce, economic development and employers work together  New social and business supports  Changes in public policy  Changes in employer practices 8

Phases of Performance  Evidence of Progress (e.g. an Action Plan) (e.g. Employer support)  Outputs, Products, Outcomes (e.g. Skills Standards) (e.g. Awareness Campaigns) (e.g. Training Programs)  Longer Term Impact (e.g. Reduced vacancy rates) (e.g. Increased rates of advancement)

Current efforts to measure the value of sector partnerships  Here are some examples: Massachusetts Outcomes Table Minnesota M-Powered Scorecard Aspen Institute Business Value Assessment NGA Sector Strategies Project Performance Framework Washington State Skill Panel Dashboard Others 10

Questions for you to Consider...  How will you know where you’re going and when you’re there?  How will you share your success?  If you had to sit down now and outline benchmarks for your sector partnership, what would they look like?  What’s the short wish-list for actions the State can take to assist in capturing and messaging your success? 11