By

Taylor White

Local and state system leaders often point to federal funding as a major barrier to greater cooperation. Their money flows through federal departments that are siloed, compliance-oriented, and traditionally resistant to collaboration, which reinforces similar dynamics at state and local levels. Federal dollars to support postsecondary pathways for young people are also widely dispersed, with at least seven federal agencies overseeing relevant grant or formula funds. Most of these pots of money are small and narrowly targeted, which has contributed to a fragmented landscape of programs, rather than coherent pathways systems.

The U.S. federal government is aware of these challenges, but has few avenues for ameliorating them, short of passing legislation that dramatically rethinks this country's education and training infrastructure, an unlikely prospect in the near term. There are, however, a handful of targeted instances where Congress has taken steps to encourage greater alignment and to reduce funding-related barriers that impede the integration of education, training, and social services. Over the past few weeks, this blog series has explored three examples to understand if and how they work, how they might be improved or extended, and what lessons they might offer for future policy development.

In the series' first case study, Lancy Downs looked at the Performance Partnership Pilots for Disconnected Youth (P3), an innovative program that allows cross-sector partners to more combine multiple federal funding sources to support program and systems change efforts. Morgan Polk followed with an exploration of the Indian Employment, Training, and Related Services Demonstration Act ("477 Act''), which provides Tribes broad authority to blend federal funding sources to support comprehensive strategies for improved education, training, and workforce outcomes. For the series' third installment, we examined combined state plans under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act and Perkins V, the federal legislation that governs the nation's public workforce system and the career and technical education system, respectively.

These three cases varied considerably in terms of their mechanics and scope. P3, for example, focused mostly on local, place-based programs, whereas 477 Plans are used by Tribal Nations that can have footprints across a wide geographic area. But the strategies profiled in our series all seek to reduce barriers to cross-system cooperation, with the ultimate goal of improving service delivery and driving better education and workforce outcomes for learners and workers. Despite their differences, the programs examined in this series share several key features, namely:

• All three programs emphasize the importance of articulating a shared vision and priorities across multiple system actors. The process of establishing a common vision allows those actors to orient themselves--and their resources--towards the same goals, and to share accountability for improving outcomes for participants.
• Each initiative introduces flexibilities that allow federal funding to be used more effectively in service of shared goals. This was especially true in the cases of P3 and the 477 Plans, which enabled braiding and blending of funds from different sources and, in so doing, provided local and Tribal leaders with the latitude to implement more comprehensive and integrated strategies.
• The three programs went further than simply providing permission to braid and blend funds, however. They also sought to reduce administrative barriers that can make cross-system cooperation and resource alignment difficult. By refining applications, adjusting disbursement timelines, and aligning data and reporting requirements, the federal government created efficiencies that freed up limited staff capacity and encouraged cross-system cooperation.

However, our analysis also revealed that aspects of the initiatives prevented them from being as impactful as they might have been. Often, partners did not have sufficient time or resources to engage in deep, collaborative planning that might have led to greater alignment. Likewise, in some cases, program staff did not understand or trust the extent of the flexibility that had been provided. As a result, they did not take full advantage of it. There is some evidence this was true in the case of P3, but because the other two programs have not been rigorously evaluated, it's difficult to know the extent to which these challenges affected impact and uptake. And, therein lies a third challenge: limited research. While anecdotal evidence suggests that P3, the 477 Plans, and the Combined Perkins/WIOA Planning option all provide benefits, more research is needed to understand how they have (or have not) affected participant outcomes or driven long-term systems change.

Still, all three programs offer valuable lessons. As policymakers continue to explore opportunities to leverage existing federal funding sources to support more robust pathways systems, they should take steps to:

• Address administrative & bureaucratic barriers. Our research and interviews revealed several administrative and bureaucratic hurdles that make uptake of these programs challenging. Some may be possible to address without new legislation. Federal agencies should identify ''low hanging fruit'' and take steps to fix those issues.
• Provide financial incentives. Funding may be needed to support state and local capacity to participate in cross-agency collaboration and to sustain cooperation beyond the initial vision-setting phase. Incentive funding from the federal government could help.
• Offer technical assistance. Many program staff need support understanding how they can be creative with existing federal funds. They may also be unfamiliar with the requirements peer agencies must adhere to, making it difficult to collaborate across systems (for example, to braid resources from different agencies). Clear, substantive guidance and training can empower system leaders to implement innovative and integrated strategies effectively.
• Fund research & evaluation. A simple place to start would be to conduct a study similar to the 2019 GAO report that looks at the constellation of funding streams that can support pathways models for youth and young adults. This study should be inclusive of both college and career pathways, and include funding opportunities that support both in- and out-of-school youth. Evaluations and case studies of programs can help us understand what's working, and how effective programs are combining resources to support success. Investment in robust state longitudinal data systems that link education and employment outcomes would be a step forward, too.

To truly "bridge the divide" between the systems that serve young people on their journey to adulthood, our K-12 education, postsecondary education, public workforce, and human and social service systems must function like coordinated parts of a whole, rather than wholly distinct entities. To get there, they will need to share a common vision and have the flexibility to align their work and resources to achieve it. Federal funding shouldn't be an impediment to doing so.

This blog is the last in a five-part series from New America authors exploring how federal funding can support efforts to better align our systems of education and work in support of career pathways for young people. The other posts are linked in the text of this post.

This project is one of several publications from organizations that were convened by Bellwether to discuss challenges and opportunities in federal pathways policy in 2023 and 2024. You can read publications from other participating organizations here.