University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Workforce system collaboration

(USC Thesis Other)

Workforce system collaboration

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content WORKFORCE SYSEM COLLABORATION
by
Eva Denise Jennings
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
December 2023
Copyright 2023 Eva Denise Jennings

i
Dedication
To: Mom and Dad, Dave and Sarah Jennings, who continue to provide me with
unwavering love and support. Not only did they instill the importance of education, they
demonstrated its importance. Each of them worked several jobs when I was younger to ensure I
received the best education they could provide.
To: Marilyn Harryman, a friend, former colleague and consummate counselor, who
consistently and relentlessly encourages me, and everyone else she interacts with to pursue
higher levels of formal education, and life-long learning.
To: Krista Johns, my mentor, who recognized my potential before I did. She helped to
guide me out of self-doubt, and ultimately apply at USC, even though I did not think I would be
admitted.
To: Kristin Lima and Donna Milgram, who encouraged me to seek assistance when I
struggled. They are my friends and colleagues, who checked in and encouraged me so much that
sometimes they worked my nerves.
To: Marcus Roberts, for being brilliant, for being my friend, and for being my support
system for more than 30 years.

ii
Acknowledgements
Thank you to my dissertation chair, Dr. Kathy Stowe. The guidance you have provided
has been an invaluable asset to my personal and professional growth. I appreciate that you
challenged me…and kept the, “I told you so’s at a minimum.”
Thank you to my committee members, Dr. Courtney Malloy and Dr. Eric Canny. It was a
privilege to learn from your experiences, insights and to grow from your knowledge. Extra
thanks, Dr. Canny, for helping me through the “I.” (You know what I mean).
Thank you to OCL Cohort 15, especially the OCL Saturday morning crew! They are an
amazing group of people who inspired, encouraged, and listened to one another. Thank you for
sharing your experiences and knowledge, and your authentic selves.
There is no thanks to give, but I have to acknowledge a silver lining of the COVID 19
pandemic. During two years of self-quarantining there were limited social events and activities
tempting me away from my studies and classes. There were few distractions. I did not miss out
on any fun….except for salsa dancing (with a partner).
Lastly, I would like to acknowledge myself—something I never would have done before
participating in OCL. I am proud of myself for making it this far, and feeling comfortable and
confident enough to say so.

iii
Table of Contents
Dedication........................................................................................................................................ i
Acknowledgements......................................................................................................................... ii
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... vi
List of Figures................................................................................................................... vii
Chapter One: Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1
Context and Background of the Problem............................................................................ 3
Research Questions............................................................................................................. 4
Importance of Addressing the Problem .............................................................................. 5
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 6
Overview of the Theoretical Framework and Methodology............................................... 6
Definitions........................................................................................................................... 7
Workforce Development System............................................................................ 7
Cross-Sector Collaboration..................................................................................... 7
Organization of the Dissertation ......................................................................................... 7
Chapter Two: Literature Review .................................................................................................... 9
Policies................................................................................................................................ 9
Educational Requirements.................................................................................... 12
Impact on Economic Recovery............................................................................. 13
Cross-System Collaboration ................................................................................. 14
Conceptual Framework..................................................................................................... 18
Summary........................................................................................................................... 21
Chapter Three: Methodology............................................................................................ 22
Overview of Design .......................................................................................................... 22
Research Setting................................................................................................................ 23
The Researcher...................................................................................................... 25
Data Sources ..................................................................................................................... 26
Interviews.............................................................................................................. 26
Participants............................................................................................................ 27
Instrumentation ..................................................................................................... 28
Data Collection Procedures............................................................................................... 28
Data Analysis.................................................................................................................... 29
Interview Analysis............................................................................................................ 30
Credibility and Trustworthiness........................................................................................ 30
Ethics..................................................................................................................... 32
Chapter Four: Findings................................................................................................................. 34
Participant Stakeholders.................................................................................................... 35
Findings............................................................................................................................. 42

iv
Research Question 1: What Are the Perceptions of Workforce System Experts
Related to the Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Factors That Either
Facilitate or Inhibit Cross-Sector Collaboration? ................................................. 42
Knowledge Influence Findings......................................................................................... 44
Stakeholders’ Shared Knowledge and Understanding of Workforce Development
and Its Role in the Development of Communities, and Equity ............................ 44
Stakeholders’ Shared Knowledge and Understanding of Collaboration and the
Necessity of Goal Alignment to Successfully Meet Outcomes............................ 48
Stakeholders Utilize Similar Procedures for Implementing Collaboration .......... 51
Motivation Influence Findings.......................................................................................... 54
Stakeholders’ Shared Belief that Collaboration Increases the Capacity, Efficiency
and Quality of Cross-Sector Service Delivery...................................................... 54
Stakeholders’ Shared Commitment, and Attribution of the Highest Value to
Collaboration......................................................................................................... 57
Organization Influence Findings....................................................................................... 59
Mission and Goal Alignment................................................................................ 59
Resource Allocation.............................................................................................. 60
Performance Measures.......................................................................................... 62
Research Question 2: What Organizational Factors Would Help Facilitate More
Collaboration Between the Various Entities That Have a Stake in Workforce
Development? ....................................................................................................... 63
Summary of Findings........................................................................................................ 68
Chapter Five: Recommendations.................................................................................................. 71
Discussion of Findings...................................................................................................... 72
Knowledge Influence Findings............................................................................. 72
Motivation Influence Findings.............................................................................. 74
Organization Influence Findings....................................................................................... 75
Mission and Goal Alignment................................................................................ 75
Resource Allocation.............................................................................................. 76
Performance Measures.......................................................................................... 76
Organization Factors That Facilitate Collaboration.......................................................... 77
Support Staff with Project Management and Facilitation Skills........................... 77
Opportunities for Networking and Professional Development............................. 79
Data Sharing and Technology Solutions............................................................... 79
Supportive Leadership .......................................................................................... 80
Recommendations for Practice ......................................................................................... 81
Recommendation 1: Continue and Increase Opportunities for Professional
Development and Networking .............................................................................. 81
Recommendation 2: Develop or Adopt a Systematic Approach to Implementing
Collaborative Performance Measures................................................................... 82
Recommendation 3: Advocate for Policies that Resource Collaboration............. 84
Limitations and Delimitations........................................................................................... 86
Recommendations for Future Studies............................................................................... 87
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 88
References..................................................................................................................................... 90

v
APPENDIX A: Interview Protocol................................................................................. 110
APPENDIX B: Information sheet for exempt research.................................................. 115

vi
List of Tables
Table 1: Data Sources................................................................................................................... 23
Table 2: Participant Characteristics.............................................................................................. 36
Table 3: Alignment of Key KMO Influences to Overarching Themes and Key Findings........... 43
Table 4: Interview Quotes: Describing Participants’ Knowledge of Workforce Development ... 45
Table 5: Interview Quotes: Community Development, and Equity ............................................. 47
Table 6: Interview Quotes: Understanding of Collaboration and the Importance of Goal
Alignment ..................................................................................................................................... 49
Table 7: Interview Quotes: Procedural Knowledge...................................................................... 51
Table 8: Interview Quotes Describing Participants’ Better Together........................................... 55
Table 9: Interview Quotes Describing Participants’ Value .......................................................... 58
Table 10: Interview Quotes Describing Participants’ Resource Allocation ................................. 60
Table 11: Factors Facilitating Collaboration: Insights from the Second Research Question....... 64
Table 12: Interview Quotes: Organization Factors that Facilitate Collaboration......................... 64

vii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Clarke & Estes Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences Framework
(KMO)........................................................................................................................................... 21

1
Chapter One: Introduction
High unemployment rates in the United States, which are almost doubled in minoritized
communities and for people of color (Ajilore, 2020; Gould, 2020) and the demand for workers
with higher levels of education and training (Janeksela, 2014) highlights the need for
collaboration and integration of education and workforce training service delivery. Collaboration
and integration of workforce training and education is challenging. It affects the nation’s ability
to fill skills gaps (Sparks & Waits, 2011), and recover from economic recession (Bird et al.,
2014). Whether the economy is in recovery, or booming, Black, Indigenous, People of Color
(BIPOC) populations face higher levels of unemployment.
African-American and Latinx workers face higher unemployment rates than their white
non-Latinx counterparts. Unemployment rates for blacks and Latinx generally remain between
1.6 and 1.9 times higher than that of whites and it has never dropped below a ratio of 1.2
(Economic Policy Institute, 2020). This trend has held since 1976 when the U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics (BLS) first started tracking employment data by ethnicity (Zamarripa, 2020).
Lack of education has set racial and ethnic groups even further behind as the demand for highly
educated and high-skilled workers in the US currently outstrips supply (Mack & Dunham, 2021).
Educating workers, and helping them earn postsecondary credentials provides them with
economic mobility and strengthens state budgets and the U.S. economy (Bird et al., 2014).
By the end of this decade, an estimated 65% of jobs in the United States will require
some form of higher education or job training. The fast pace of technological change, shifts in
consumer demands for goods and services, and competition in the global market have increased
the need for a technically savvy, sophisticated workforce (Stephens & Scott, 2003). Between
1980 and 2015, the number of occupations that require average to above-average training,

2
education and experience increased by 68%, from 49 million to 83 million. This was more than
double the 31% increase in jobs requiring below-average training, education and experience
(Horowitz et al., 2020). Multiple stakeholders are involved in providing skills training, and only
through coordinated efforts can stakeholders meet the demand for education and training (van
Tulder & Keen, 2018). Coordination and integration of workforce system service delivery is
required to meet the high demand for education and training (van Tulder & Keen, 2018).
Education and training are integral to employing workers, which is necessary to facilitate
economic recovery. Economic recovery will take even longer for people of color who will make
up a majority of the U.S. population by 2043 (Foster, 2013). Here in California, given that its
economy is the 5th largest in the world (Economy, 2019), its economic status has important
implications on local, regional, state, national and global economies.
Creating a coherent education-to-workforce pipeline requires stakeholders to align
implementation efforts and coordinate cross-agency work (Cushing et al., 2019). Collaboration
and coordination amongst stakeholders within the workforce system, however, is challenging.
Multiple stakeholders often have overlapping responsibilities, making coordination difficult
(Larsson & Larsson, 2020). Stakeholders are workforce development boards, government
agencies, community colleges, and service and community-based organizations that play
important and complementary roles in providing education, technical training, and employability
skills needed for job seekers to be successful in finding employment. Strong collaboration among
government, employers and industry, workforce training providers, and educational institutions,
and service, and community-based organizations is needed to support and deliver effective
workforce services (Cordero-Guzman, 2014).

3
Context and Background of the Problem
Since the mid-1800s, the United States government has created education and workforce
statutes that emphasize the need for education and training to ensure a skill-ready workforce. The
most recent legislation, the Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act (WIOA), builds on more than
a century of public sector efforts to develop the U.S. workforce. Federal expenditures for adult
workforce education started with providing instruction in mathematics and military skills to
soldiers of the Continental Army in the mid-1800s. This effort marked the beginning of federal
attention and funding to educate people employed by the national government (Roumell et al.,
2018). Congress enacted The New Deal (1933-1938) and various programs designed to provide
employment assistance and create jobs for both urban and rural areas, and build the nation’s
infrastructure (Stubblefield & Keane, 1994). The first federal workforce act was the Manpower
Development and Training Act of 1962. Subsequent legislation has decentralized the
administrative structure of workforce system. In particular, the Job Training Partnership Act of
1982 expanded the role of the private sector while reducing the role of the public sector to create
employment opportunities. The 1998 Workforce Investment Act (WIA) established Workforce
Investment Boards (WIBs) at the state and local level as well as the local American Job Centers
(AJCs). WIBS and AJCs are meant to coordinate federally-funded programs in education,
workforce, and support for job seekers (Belzer, 2003).
The 2014 WIOA legislation raised the expectations for coordination, aligning programs,
avoiding duplication of services, and leveraging resources, connections and expertise among
programs. Under WIOA, certain partnerships are mandatory, and employment services must be
co-located with partner programs, which are legally required to be accessible through WIOA’s
American Job Centers. Partner programs include Career and Technical Education, Community

4
Services Block Grant, Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Employment and Training
Programs, Indian and Native American Programs, Job Corps, Local Veterans' Employment
Representatives and Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program, National Farmworker Jobs Program,
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Trade Adjustment Assistance Programs,
Unemployment Compensation Programs, Senior Community Service Employment Program, and
YouthBuild (Milana & McBain, 2015).
While current federal policy efforts center around integrated service delivery,
accountability, and support for economic recovery efforts, the public workforce development
system in the United States continues to face challenges in remedying the national skills gap, and
the disproportionate impact of unemployment in minoritized communities of color. It is
challenging to streamline a complex network of public assistance programs with multiple
constituencies. Hart et al. (2002) identify five primary barriers to improve workforce training
coordination: procedures and processes for information-sharing and shared service delivery are
uncoordinated; resource mapping at the state and local level is limited; there are gaps in delivery
service; it is rare for partnerships to be effective at both state and local levels; and student and
family-professional partnerships are lacking (Butterworth et al., 2017). Interagency collaboration
is an evidence based best practice that leads to successful outcomes (Test et al., 2009) but
defined collaborative models and roles are needed (Butterworth et al., 2017).
Research Questions
The following research questions align with the Clarke and Estes (2008) KMO influences
framework, and will be used to examine cross-sector collaboration of workforce training,
education, economic development and employment sectors that make up the workforce
development system in the San Francisco Bay Area.

5
1. What are the perceptions of workforce system experts related to the knowledge,
motivation and organizational factors that either facilitate or inhibit cross-sector
collaboration?
2. What organizational factors would help facilitate more collaboration between the various
entities that have a stake in workforce development?
Importance of Addressing the Problem
The U.S. department of Labor and Department of Education implemented jointly
administered activities and reforms to strengthen the public workforce system and make the
United States more competitive in the evolving 21st century labor market, by providing
increased economic opportunity (WIOA Joint Final Rule, 2016). Increased economic opportunity
is linked to education (Stephens & Scott, 2003) and historically, education and employment
opportunities for people of color have been lower than those of their white counterparts
(Zamarripa, 2020). If historical trends continue, it will have a significant impact on the U.S.
economy because people of color will make up the majority of the population by 2045. Among
the Black, Indigenous, People of Color (BIPOC) populations, the greatest growth through the
year 2060 is projected for multiracial populations (176%), Asians (93%), Hispanics (86%), and
Blacks (34%). The majority of the population will have limited economic opportunity.
People of color will be the source of all of the growth in the nation’s youth and
working age population, most of the growth in its voters, and much of the growth
in its consumers and tax base as far into the future as we can see. (Brookings
Institute, 2018, para. 10)
The senior population will be dependent on the contributions of BIPOC to the economy and to
government programs such as Medicare and Social Security.

6
Lower educational levels, and higher levels of unemployment for BIPOC communities
are historical and systemic problems this study cannot solve, but examining the workforce
education system and collaborative efforts to improve service delivery and access to education
and employment opportunities, can address aspects of the problem that we can solve.
Interagency collaboration is an evidence based best practice that leads to successful outcomes
(Test et al., 2009). Collaboration to develop streamlined delivery of services, will allow the
workforce system to provide more services to more people at a time when workforce services are
in great demand. Demand will continue to rise, as the majority of the U.S. population will need
higher levels of education and employment to ensure the economic prosperity of the nation.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to examine cross-sector collaborations of workforce
training, education, economic development and employment sectors of the workforce
development system in the San Francisco Bay Area of California, and learn from experts what
can be done to improve cross-sector collaboration.
Overview of the Theoretical Framework and Methodology
The theoretical framework used in this study to better understand workforce education
and employment collaboration between stakeholders in the San Francisco Bay Area workforce
system, is the Clarke and Estes knowledge, motivation and organizational influences framework
(KMO). Key concepts of KMO are knowledge, motivation, and organization factors, and how
each facilitates or impedes collaborative efforts to building a seamless workforce services
program. Clark and Estes (2008) provide a methodological approach to examine how these
influences impact cross-sector collaboration (Clark & Estes, 2008).

7
Definitions
Several key terms are important to understanding workforce development:
Workforce Development System
A workforce development system is a coordinated set of policies, programs, and activities
that aim to promote economic growth and enhance the competitiveness of businesses and
industries, while also improving the skills and employment opportunities of workers. The system
includes different sectors including training providers, workforce development agencies,
government entities, educational institutions, and community organizations. All working
collaboratively to address the workforce needs of a particular region or industry sector (Eyster et
al., 2016).
Cross-Sector Collaboration
Cross-sector collaboration refers to collaborative efforts of organizations from diverse
industries, including non-profit and government sectors. Collaboration can result in the creation
of a cross-sector partnership, where the partners agree to work together towards achieving shared
and measurable objectives (Babiak, 2009; Lyon & Henig, 2019).
Organization of the Dissertation
This study includes five chapters. Chapter one provides background information, key
concepts and terms commonly used in workforce development, and information about
stakeholder groups. Chapter two reviews the literature and provides empirical evidence related to
the scope of the study. It addresses barriers that workforce system partners face when making
efforts to collaborate, as well as funding sources, and metrics for the workforce system. Chapter
three reviews the knowledge, motivation and organizational (KMO) influences introduced in
chapter two, and the methodological approach to the study. Chapter four reviews the data

8
collected and its assessment and analysis. Chapter five provides recommendations based on
identified gaps in KMO, literature and data analysis.

9
Chapter Two: Literature Review
This chapter reviews the literature relevant to adult and workforce education, its history,
current applications, status, and how knowledge, motivation and organizational influences affect
the integration of workforce training service delivery. The review begins with an overview and
history of adult and workforce education policy, which explores its development and importance
in the long-term, ability of workforce service providers to collaborate. At the conclusion of this
review of the general literature, the Clarke and Estes’s knowledge, motivation and organizational
influences framework is presented as a model to identify the knowledge, motivation and
organization influences on stakeholders’ ability to implement integrated workforce training
service delivery.
Policies
Adult and workforce education in the United States have been aligned since the 1800’s
with the training of U.S. military personnel. Employment assistance and workforce education
continued through the New Deal in the 1930s and led to the first workforce act, the Manpower
Act of 1962. The Adult Education Act (AEA) of 1966 formally established Adult Education
(AE) in the United States (Roumell et al., 2018). The goal of the legislation was to help people
16 years and older to improve their educational attainment and to help them become more
economically independent. According to Section 302 of the 1969 AEA, its purpose it to expand
educational opportunity and establish adult public education programs that enable all adults to
complete of secondary school and secure training that will enable them to become more
employable, productive, and responsible citizens (Section 302 of the 1969 AEA). The Office of
Education Appropriation Act of 1971 which further funded the AE was amended in 1972 to
establish the Bureau of Occupational and Adult Education. The bureau was made responsible for

10
the administration of the Vocational Education Act of 1963, and all legislation relating to
vocational, technical, and occupational training in community and junior colleges. The act
established a Community College Unit responsible for coordinating all programs which affected
or could benefit community colleges (Eyre & Pawloski, 2013). This act brought AE
programming through Community Colleges under the federal educational umbrella (Eyre &
Pawloski, 2013). In the 1980s, the U.S. government recognized both an unemployment and a
literacy crisis (Belzer, 2003). According to a 1986 government study on literacy, approximately
one of every eight Americans could not read (Eyre & Pawloski, 2013), and as layoffs become
more common, the retraining of adult workers through education efforts gained national
attention. President Bush signed the National Literacy Act, AE programs were expanded, and the
National Institute for Literacy (NIFL) was established as an interagency agreement that included
the Department of Education (ED), Department of Labor (DOL), and the Department of Health
and Human Services (DHHS) (Federal Register). National Workforce Demonstration Programs
were created to support partnerships between education organizations, business and industry,
labor organizations, and private industry councils, to serve adults who needed to improve their
literacy skills to improve job performance. U.S. legislators, the ED, and workforce development
leaders recognized that adult education needed to be combined with job training and aligned with
postsecondary education. They acknowledged that adults needed not only improve literacy skills,
but also to obtain postsecondary education, work skills certification, and other industry
recognized credentials. In 1998, congress passed the Workforce Investment Act (Workforce
Investment Act, 1998). Its stated purposed was “To consolidate, coordinate, and improve
employment, training, literacy, and vocational rehabilitation programs in the United States”
(Workforce Investment Act, 1998). The integration of AE funding within WIA reflected an

11
emphasis on linking literacy, education, and employment services. The WIA initiative was
framed as providing workforce investment activities, through statewide and local workforce
investment systems, to improve the quality of the workforce, reduce dependency on welfare, and
enhance economic (Workforce Investment Act, 1998). Policies enacted in the 2000’s further
supported the development of workforce education. The 2006 Carl D. Perkins Career and
Technical Education Act (Perkins Act, 2006) was enacted with the goal of transforming Career
and Technical Education (CTE) (Perkins Act, 2006). The act authorized a competitive CTE
Innovation and Transformation Fund establishing competitive funding to increase the number of
high-quality career education programs across the country. The ED initiative incentivized
innovation at the local level and aimed to support system reform at the state level, and the
“Career Pathways” initiative was born. Continuing the systematic efforts at the federal level to
cultivate an infrastructure and better integrated systems for the delivery of AE programming. In
April 2012, a joint letter was issued by the U.S. ED, the DOL, and the DHHS that formed a
Federal partnership articulating a “Career Pathways” to assist youth and adults in acquiring
workforce skills and industry-recognized credentials through better alignment with employers of
education, training and employment, and human and social services (Department of Labor,
2016). The purpose of the initiative was to strengthen the U.S. workforce development system
through innovation in, and alignment and improvement of, employment, training, and education
programs, and to promote individual and national economic growth. The 2014, job training
programs under WIA were consolidated and WIA was replaced with the Workforce Innovation
Opportunity Act (WIOA), with the full title “To reform and strengthen the workforce investment
system of the Nation to put Americans back to work and make the United States more
competitive in the 21st century.” The act pushed those providing WIA services to collaborate

12
more closely with the Vocational Rehabilitation programs to improve services for people with
disabilities, merging them into a single funding stream. In 2016, a renewed Career Pathways
Joint Letter was issued, which was signed by 12 federal agencies (Department of Labor, 2016),
with the intent to cooperate, expand, and strengthen the partnership that was established in the
2012 Career Pathways Joint letter.
All of the aforementioned federal initiatives demonstrate how educational policy in the
United States, and especially AE policy, has been the result of converging national economic and
social interests in response to shifting economic and social circumstances. The very birth of AE
programs was in the effort to better prepare adults to participate in the changing economies of the
time, and to facilitate employment transitions so adults could find work and remain economically
productive. However, in today’s knowledge economy, remaining economically productive
requires higher levels of education than ever before.
Educational Requirements
Studies indicate that by 2027, 70% projected job growth will be concentrated in
occupations associated with higher education and skill levels (Blumenstyk, 2020). The fast pace
of technological change, shifts in consumer demands for goods and services, and competition in
the global market have increased the need for a technically savvy, sophisticated workforce
(Markow et al., 2017). Attaining a post-secondary credential has become increasingly important
for securing opportunities to get high-return jobs in the United States in the 21st century
(Furchtgott-Roth et al., 2009; Hendricks et al., 2021). Through economic booms and slumps,
rising and falling unemployment, and fluctuating job markets, workers with postsecondary
education earn 74 percent more than workers with a high school diploma or less. Among those
with full-time, year-around jobs, the premium rises to 82 percent (Carnevale et al., 2017).

13
More broadly, the future success of the U.S. economy depends at least partly on its ability
to raise educational attainment among disadvantaged populations. Higher levels of education are
required for higher paying jobs and stability especially during economic downturns. Economic
downturns often expose the systemic inequities within our society. Although many workers are
affected by these downturns, members of communities that have been historically marginalized
typically suffer at a higher rate and see a much slower recovery. These economic disparities
disproportionately harm communities of color, immigrants, and workers in jobs that pay low
incomes, among others (Oppel et al., 2020).
Impact on Economic Recovery
The unemployment rate among Blacks in the United States has been double that of
Whites for several decades. Over the past four decades, the average rate of unemployment was
11.7 percent for blacks versus 5.4 percent for Whites. The 2:1 ratio of Black-to-White
unemployment rates first emerged in the 1950s The 2:1 ratio of Black-to-White unemployment
rates first emerged in the 1950s (Couch & Fairlie, 2020; Fairlie & Sundstrom, 1997).
All workers of color have higher rates of unemployment than their White peers. Along
with workers of color, workers paid low wages often see some of the most severe impacts of an
economic downturn. Black and Latinx workers are overrepresented in low-wage industries
(Maye et al., 2020). They are often the first let go or furloughed and many lack workplace
protections and benefits.
Considering that people of color will make up a majority of the U.S. population by 2043
(Foster, 2013), effective collaborations among government, employers and industry, workforce
training providers, educational institutions, and service, and community-based organizations is
needed to support and deliver effective workforce services to the preponderance of the

14
population (Cordero-Guzman, 2014). Public and private organizations establish connections to
tackle societal problems and economic challenges that are beyond the capacity of individual
organizations to address (DeWulf & Elbers, 2019).
Cross-System Collaboration
Achieving successful collaboration across organizational boundaries is challenging due to
the complex nature of collaboration. These complexities include leadership and governance,
building relationships and trust, resources, capacity and competencies, and accountability and
outcomes (Lyon & Henig, 2019). Ideally, cross-sector partners collaborate to define the problem
and establish a common goal that benefits all organizations involved. To achieve this, the
organizations need to leverage their diverse interests, perspectives, identities, power positions,
sectors, and other relevant differences in order to define and achieve their joint goal (Gray &
Purdy, 2018).
Cross-sector collaboration involves multiple parties who are legally independent and
operate on different system levels. This includes individuals with their unique characteristics and
experiences, who represent their respective organizations with their own interests (de Montigny
et al., 2019). It involves a developmental process where relationships are formed, trust is built,
and a collaborative environment is jointly shaped. The process occurs without positional
authority, as the interorganizational system organizes itself as it progresses towards a commonly
defined goal. It governs itself, although roles partners may assume to serve the common purpose
(Chen, 2021).
Leadership and Governance
The governance of complex societal problems through collaboration among diverse
actors necessitates a leadership approach that recognizes the dynamic interdependencies among

15
those actors. Instead of focusing solely on individuals and positions, a relational approach to
leadership that emphasizes processes and practices is more suitable for this context. One key
feature of collaborative leadership, is that there is no hierarchical authority, no formal
subordination, and interaction is based on expertise, trust and legitimacy (Crosby & Bryson,
2018). Complexity leadership theory provides such a relational approach, focusing on the
dynamic and interconnected nature of leadership within organizations. Key principles of
complexity leadership theory assert that leadership is distributed among a network of actors. It is
not something that is possessed by a single individual. Leadership emerges from the interactions
between different actors. It is not something that can be planned or controlled. Lastly,
complexity leadership theory posits that Leadership is adaptive to change. It is about creating a
system that can learn and evolve. Complexity leadership theory is a relatively new approach to
leadership, but it is gaining popularity in the field of public administration. It offers a promising
way to address the challenges of cross-sector governance and complex societal problems (Craps,
et al., 2019). Partners in collaboratives predominantly wield informal authority with other
partners in their shared endeavors (Agranoff, 2012).
Nonetheless, collaborative partners can exert power over others. Dewulf and Elbers
(2018) posit two types of power in collaborative endeavors: direct power and indirect power.
Direct power can be exerted through the allocation or control of resources, and/or what the
researchers refer to as discursive legitimacy, a perceived credibility, validity, and acceptability of
ideas, arguments, or positions. Indirect power is exerted by setting the rules of engagement and
determining the extent to which partners can influence dynamics and collaborative outcomes.
However, In order for collaborations to thrive, they need ongoing sponsorship from people who
do have formal authority, and championing from people who primarily use informal authority to

16
engage partners in their mutual work (Agranoff, 2012). This concept emphasizes the importance
of the interpersonal and relational aspects of collaborative efforts (Fosler, 2002; Gazley, 2008).
Collaboratives are social systems, and social systems are based on relationships.
Building Trust and Relationships
It takes time to develop relationships and trust. Despite a shared motivation for
collaboration among stakeholders, the process can trigger both conscious and unconscious
relational, emotional and political processes that present a range of difficulties for the
collaborative effort (Hesse et al., 2019). The difficulties and complexities of cross-sector
collaboration require time to address. Complexities can include logistics. Partners are likely to be
based in locations that are physically distant from each other. Generally, it is not possible to
engage in spontaneous meetings to address matters when they arise. Everything must be planned
and coordinated. As is often the case, various participants in collaborative efforts come from
different professional groups, for example, when educational institutions, social service
organizations collaborate, they can use entirely different professional languages (Ahmadsimab &
Chowdhury, 2021; Hesse et al., 2019; Voltan & Fuentes, 2016). It takes time for partners to get
to know each other, and to learn about differences in partnering organizations’ cultures and
procedures. It takes additional time and effort to undertake a collaborative engagement and time
to build trust and capacity, while fostering a culture of collective learning (Vogel et al., 2022;
Watson et al., 2020). The cultivation of trust is contingent on the individual behaviors of
participants. Actions that foster trust encompass mutual support, transparency, and the exhibition
of 'competence, good intentions, and follow-through. As evidenced by research, collaboration is
inherently more time-consuming—and hence more resource-consuming than non-collaborative
activities (Grudinschi, 2014). Accessing, exchanging or combining partners’ key resources and

17
competencies emerge as a critical factors required for the success of cross-sector partnerships
(Bititci et al., 2004; Weidner et al., 2019).
Resources, Capacity, and Competencies
Cross-sector collaborative partners come together and pool their resources and skills to achieve
common benefits (Austin & Seitanidi, 2012; Selsky & Parker, 2005). Resources for cross-sector
collaboration can encompass a variety of elements including financial resources, human
resources, such as skilled individuals with relevant expertise and knowledge, and physical
resources, such as infrastructure, facilities, or equipment. Resources also include information
resources including data, research, or shared knowledge that informs decision-making and
collaborative problem-solving. Additionally, social resources, such as networks, relationships,
and partnerships, can provide access to diverse perspectives, stakeholders, and potential
collaborators. Overall, resources for cross-sector collaboration encompass a broad range of
tangible and intangible assets that contribute to the successful implementation and outcomes of
collaborative endeavors (Shumate et al., 2018; Weber et al., 2017). Collaborative capacity and
competencies refer to the attitudes, skills, and abilities that make individuals and organizations
more effective partners in collaborations (Crosby & Bryson, 2010; Getha-Taylor, 2008; Weber et
al., 2017). This highlights the importance of fostering and nurturing these attributes for effective
cross-sector collaboration. Effective cross-sector partnerships rely on the capacity and
competencies of individuals and organizations to work across boundaries, engage stakeholders,
engage in strategic planning, and effectively participate in teamwork. Past experience in
collaboration or working on similar issues can also contribute to the overall capacity and
competency (Shumate et al., 2018). Research suggests that specific attitudes, competencies, and
capacities such as time, funding, logistical and administrative assistance, and specialized

18
professional skills are essential for meeting desired results and outcomes (Babiak & Thibault,
2009; Emerson et al., 2012). However, measuring the outcomes of cross-sector collaborations
has been proven challenging to due to the complexity and diversity inherent in cross-sector
partnerships, and the dynamic and evolving nature of these partnerships. While recent research
has started addressing this issue, the lack of focus on outcome assessment in partnership research
can be attributed to various factors, including the diversity of cross-sector partnerships, limited
available resources, limited research interest, and the absence of suitable methodologies (Marek,
et al., 2015). A cross-sector collaborative that tracks its outcomes, and has a system for has a
system for managing those outcomes is a collaborative that is accountable. This system should
connect the data to specific actions and individuals, and provide important performance
information to stakeholders. The collaborative should use this information to improve its
operations over time (Kramer, 2011; Preskill et al., 2013). The more complex the issue being
addressed by the partnership, the more difficult it becomes to attribute impacts accurately.
Performance measures and evaluation are vital to improving cross-sector collaboration (Emerson
& Balogh 2012; Kania & Kramer, 2013).
Conceptual Framework
A conceptual framework offers a structure to logically connect concepts that help provide
a visual display of how ideas relate to one another within a theoretical framework (Grant &
Osanloo, 2014). A theoretical framework is the underlying structure that consists of concepts or
theories that inform a study (Maxwell, 2014). The theoretical framework is derived from the
orientation or stance that a researcher brings to a study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). A framework
for understanding what influences affect workforce system collaboration by analyzing a pilot
program that attempts to integrate workforce training, education and employment services has

19
been proposed by Clark and Estes (2008) and forms a framework for this study. Clark and Estes’
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences framework identifies what the authors call,
“the big three” factors that must be examined during the analysis process: knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences (KMO). The purpose of the analysis is to determine
whether all stakeholders have adequate knowledge, motivation, and organizational support to
achieve important key goals. All three of these factors must be in place and aligned with each
other for successful goal achievement. A focus on one or two of the systems will only capture
part of the cause and eventually, provide only part of the solution (Clarke & Estes, 2008). Clarke
and Estes (2008) also proffer a “people as cars” metaphor, with knowledge as the engine and
transmission, motivation as the fuel, and organization factors as the current road conditions
making it easier or more difficult to reach the destination. The destination/goal of stakeholders in
this study is to improve workforce training, education and employment services in the San
Francisco Bay Area workforce system. KMO is appropriate to understand and analyze the crosssector collaboration and identify the influences that facilitate or inhibit cross-sector collaboration
(Clarke & Estes, 2008).
Review of the literature identifies knowledge influences within the U.S. workforce
development system which include a long-standing connection between education and
employment (Roumell et al., 2018); a connection that is encouraged and/or mandated by
workforce policy and legislation (Milana & McBain, 2015). In addition, technological advances
require higher education and skill levels for higher-paying jobs (Stephens & Scott, 2003). It is
also known that education and employment levels of people of color are lower than that of
whites (Foster, 2013; Zamarripa, 2020), and communities of color are disproportionally impacted
by the lack of education and employment (Mack & Dunham, 2021).

20
Motivation influences each stakeholder that plays a role in helping to facilitate economic
stability and recovery (Bird et al., 2014; Sparks & Waits, 2011). However, some performance
measures can create incentives to offer services first to clients who are easier to serve and more
likely to be successful in obtaining and retaining a job (U.S. Government Accountability Office,
2008).
This incentive can disproportionately affect members of communities of color, many of
whom are more difficult to serve due to lower education and skill levels. Each stakeholder is
motivated to meet performance goals which affects funding levels, but the performance goals of
each stakeholder may differ, as may the value of participating in a collaborative effort.
Stakeholder organization influences include the mission and goals of each stakeholder,
how success is measured, and metrics are met at each agency (Jacobson, 2010), and the
willingness of leadership to allocate resources that support collaboration.
Figure 1 illustrates how knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that influence
each other and are interrelated. Stakeholders participate in a number of separate, yet interacting
systems, “but the knowledge and motivation systems are the most vital facilitators or inhibitors
of work performance. These internal systems must cooperate effectively to handle events that
occur in the organizational environment(s) (Clarke & Estes, 2008). The organizational
environments of each stakeholder will support and/or hinder knowledge and motivation systems.
A focus on all of the systems is necessary to fully understand and analyze a practice or process.

21
Figure 1
Clarke & Estes Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences Framework (KMO)
Summary
This chapter has provided a review of the literature in the area of adult and workforce
education, its history and connection to employment that requires higher-level skills, the
economic well-being of the country and its citizens, as well as its impact on communities of
color. A literature review of cross-sector collaboration was also included in this chapter.
Additionally, the Clark and Estes, knowledge motivation, and organizational framework was
presented and identified as the conceptual framework that guides this study to better understand
how to improve workforce system collaboration.

22
Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of this study was to examine what areas of knowledge, motivation, and
organizational factors would help facilitate more collaboration between the various entities that
have a stake in the workforce development system in the San Francisco Bay Area workforce
system. This chapter will explore the design of the research study that utilizes Clarke and Estes’s
(2008) knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences framework (KMO) to inform
research questions, data collection methods and sources, and data analysis. The chapter also
includes a review of ethical concerns, credibility and trustworthiness. A review of imitations and
delimitations of the study will close the chapter.
Overview of Design
Qualitative methods were used to conduct this study that examined the areas of
knowledge, motivation and organizational factors that would help facilitate more collaboration
between the various entities that have a stake in the workforce development system in the San
Francisco Bay Area workforce development system. The methodological design of this study
included qualitative interviews and document review, two of the most frequently used methods
in qualitative research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Qualitative interviews, also called, depth
interviews, were used to obtain in-depth information. The qualitative interviews consisted of
open-ended questions about a participant's thoughts, beliefs, knowledge, reasoning, motivations,
and feelings (Patton, 1987), addressing at least two influences in the KMO model. Document
analysis, the systematic procedure for reviewing or evaluating documents requires the
examination and interpretation of data in order to elicit meaning, gain understanding, and
develop empirical knowledge (Rapley, 2018). It is another process that lends itself to meeting the
goal of qualitative research which seeks to describe and understand meaning and process

23
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The purpose of this study was to examine and understand how
knowledge, motivation and organizational factors influence the meaning and process of
stakeholders in the workforce development system. This methodology closely aligns with the
conceptual framework.
Table 1
Data Sources
Research Questions Semi-Structured
Interviews
Document
Analysis
RQ1: What are the perceptions of workforce
system experts related to the knowledge,
motivation and organizational factors that
either facilitate or inhibit cross-sector
collaboration?
X X
RQ2: What organizational factors would help
facilitate more collaboration between the
various entities that have a stake in workforce
development?
X X
Research Setting
The setting for the study is the San Francisco Bay Area workforce system that includes a
statewide workforce association, a statewide employment agency, regional workforce
development boards, adult education providers, and community colleges. Some of the
organizations participating in the study were given pseudonyms. Others are part of a system and
individual organizations are not identifiable in this general description of the research setting.
The mission of the California Association for Workforce (CAW), a pseudonym, is to enhance
and inspire California’s local workforce development boards and their partners through strategic

24
advocacy, partnership convening, and capacity building (CAW website). The California
Association for Workforce is a non-profit member association, representing 45 of the Workforce
Development Boards in the State of California, and over 70 other affiliate members from labor,
education, industry, Chambers of Commerce, government and community-based organizations.
The Statewide Employment Agency (SEA), a pseudonym, offers a wide variety of services to
Californians. It assists employers with their labor needs, helps job seekers obtain employment,
and administers workforce investment programs for adults, dislocated workers, and youth.
Workforce Development Boards (WDB) work with the Chief Elected Official (typically a
Governor) to ensure local residents and businesses receive relevant workforce services.
Oversight of career centers is key to the work of local boards. These centers, in partnership with
education and economic development organizations and other local, state and federal agencies,
provide job training and business services that are vital to the economic well-being of their
communities. While each local WDB has a unique organizational context and organization, what
they share is a set of central roles. Each WDB provides oversight of the Workforce Investment
and Opportunity Act program with the goal of providing seamless services among various
workforce programs (Department of Labor, 2019). There are 116 California community colleges
(CCC) and the CCC system manages programs and grants that support career education job
development programs responsive to employers in regional priority sectors. CCCs work with
multiple partners in providing education and training programs to close employment gaps by
supplying skilled and trained talent needed to support local and regional economies. CCCs
oversee adult education (AE), a public education program for all adults. Adult schools offer free
to low-cost classes for adults 18 and older. Students can earn a high school diploma, high school
equivalency certificate, learn about jobs, learn to speak English, and learn how to become a U.S.

25
citizen. Adult schools are located in many cities and towns. CCCs also administer the California
Apprenticeship Initiative (CAI), Economic and Workforce Development (EWD), Strengthening
Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act (Perkins V), Nursing, Strong Workforce
Program (SWP), Strong Workforce Program K12 (SWP K12) (CCC, 2021). The researcher is an
employee of the California Community College system and serves as a Dean of Career and
Workforce Education at a community college in the San Francisco Bay Area of California.
The Researcher
I have worked as an educator in the field of Career Education and Workforce
Development for most of my adult working life, starting as a high school teacher in my local
public school system. I taught production and post-production at a television station that hired
students to work on the television crew, and saw first-hand how my students’ minimum-wage
jobs provided resources for their families. Their paychecks often went to support their parents
and siblings. My students’ meager earnings helped to pay the rent or pay bills to keep their
families afloat. Facilitating gainful employment, particularly for BIPOC students, is my life’s
work. My positionality as black woman (what I call myself) makes it important to me, and I have
a personal connection to ensuring employment outcomes for my community.
Growing up as a member of a marginalized and minoritized community has influenced
my level of sympathy and empathy for people who are in the minority. Sensitivity to the
disproportionate impact of workforce education to the economic success or failure of people of
color has the potential to bias interpretation of data collected. I am aware of potential bias and
will be cognizant of eliminating potential bias when developing research methodologies, survey
and interview questions, and when analyzing data. By identifying my reflexivity based on biases,

26
values, background, identity, socioeconomic status, I will critically shape interpretations formed
during the study (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007).
The worldview, the paradigm of inquiry to which I most closely align is constructivism.
The focus of constructivism is on the how and why of a situation, and it considers process and
meaning (Lindqvist & Forsberg, 2023).
I want to understand the processes, meaning, causal mechanisms and relationships of
collaboration as I study the pilot project that attempts to integrate workforce training, education
and employment services between stakeholders in the San Francisco Bay Area workforce
system.
Data Sources
This study examined factors that facilitate and inhibit collaborations of workforce
training, education, economic development and employment sectors of the workforce
development system in the San Francisco Bay Area of California, and what can be done to
improve cross-sector collaboration. The study utilized the two sources of data most frequently
used in qualitative inquiry: interviews, and document analysis (Glesne, 2016; Merriam & Tisdell,
2016).
Interviews
Semi-structured interviews that included 17 focused questions related to the knowledge,
motivation and organizational influences, were the primary sources of data collected. Semistructured interview questions were flexibly worded and guided by a list of questions that
garnered specific information desired from all the respondents, but also provided an opportunity
to explore new ideas on the topic as they emerge (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Probes were also
utilized during the semi-structured interviews. Probing came in the form of asking for more

27
details, clarification, and for examples, and ranged from a single word, to complete sentences,
silence, and sounds (Glesne, 2016).
Participants
Purposeful sampling was utilized for the selection of participants for qualitative
interviews. A researcher implements purposeful sampling to discover or gain insight and
therefore selects a sample from which the most can be learned (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Weiss
(1995) argued that many qualitative interview studies do not use samples at all, but panels of
people who are uniquely qualified to inform because they were privileged to witness an event
(Maxwell, 2014). The study involved ten stakeholders who met both definitions; they were the
most informed, informed by witnessing and participating in attempts to integrate workforce
training, education and employment services between stakeholders in the San Francisco Bay
Area workforce system. Two individuals represent workforce development boards, two are
workforce service providers, two are community college representatives, two are representatives
of an adult education program, and two individuals represent an employment agency in the San
Francisco Bay Area of California. The researcher interviewed each of the participants for a total
of 10 interviews. Rationale for their inclusion in the interview process was to gauge the
knowledge, motivation and influences of their respective organizations and the effects of those
influences on the failures or successes of collaborative efforts from their perspectives. Selecting
a representative sample based on demographics was not a consideration, as the intention was to
interview each participant. The participants included one black woman and one black man, two
white men and three white women, two Latinx women and one, Latinx man. Ages are unknown.

28
Instrumentation
The study collected data through Zoom interviews, employing an interview protocol with
open-ended questions and probes. In order to answer the research questions related to Clarke and
Estes (2008) knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences framework, ten participants
answered 13 semi-structured questions, followed by probes when appropriate, about factors
affecting their collaborative workforce service integration effort. Conducting semi-structured
qualitative interviews is the idyllic method for gathering data since it allows for flexibility in the
research, and stimulates responses to interview questions (Patton, 2002). Five questions in the
interview protocol were related to knowledge, five questions to motivation, and three questions
were related to organizational influences. The response to the final question that asked the
respondent if there was anything else they would like to mention, had the potential to relate to
any or all influences. The instrument used for transcription was an automatic feature enabled
through the online meeting platform, Zoom. Zoom simultaneously recorded and transcribed the
online interviews s and stored them securely on the cloud (Webwise, 2020).
Data Collection Procedures
This study utilized one of the data-gathering techniques used most frequently in
qualitative research, interviews (Glesne, 2016). In the initial phase, I conducted interviews via the
online meeting platform, Zoom. Zoom transcribes the interviews and backs up recordings and
transcripts to an online remote server network or local drive, which can then be securely stored
(Archibald et al., 2019).
During the initial phase of data collection, I asked participants if they were willing to be
interviewed. I emailed potential participants an information sheet for exempt studies. The
information sheet clearly communicated the purpose of the study and research objectives.

29
Participants were informed that their participation was voluntary, and that they could stop
participating at any time without negative consequence. I asked participants for verbal consent in
advance of the interview. Each of the ten stakeholder interviews were conducted, recorded and
transcribed via Zoom over a period of four weeks. Each interview took approximately 45
minutes although I had anticipated they would take an hour and a half to complete. I also
attempted to practice disciplined subjectivity (Erickson, 1973), by keeping detailed records,
including a research journal, reflexive notes and memos of subjective interactions with the
participants, and data, throughout the process of conducting the research.
Data Analysis
Qualitative data analysis is the process of making meaning—making sense out of data. It
involves interpreting what people have said, what the researcher has observed and read. It
involves consolidating, grouping, and reducing data (Merriam & Tisdale, 2016). One of the first
steps to conducting quality analysis of data involved intensive reading, the reading and rereading of text to become thoroughly familiar with the data (Gibbs, 2018). Intensive reading of
memos and notes and research diaries help to identify how biases might have shaped or created
the analysis.
After correcting transcription errors, and reading and re-reading the data, I imported clean
transcriptions into ATLAS.ti, a qualitative data analysis software for coding. Coding is the
process that makes notations next to bits of data relevant for answering research questions
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). It is a method that enables you to organize and group data that share
some characteristic into categories or “families” and reveal the beginning of a pattern (Saldana
2021). In the first phase of analysis, I applied a priori codes from the conceptual framework. A
priori codes are preexisting codes established before data collection and analysis, based on their

30
relevance to research questions (Johnson & Christensen, 2019). I also utilized open coding. Open
coding, conducted at the beginning of data analysis, is tagging units of data that a researcher
considers relevant to a study (Saldana, 2021). I conducted a second phase of analysis and
aggregated codes into axial codes. Axial coding refines a category scheme. It connects categories
and properties to each other (Saldana, 2021). In the third phase of data analysis, I identified
pattern codes and additional themes (other than a priori) related to the conceptual framework and
research questions. Theoretical coding progresses to discover the central/core category
(Charmaz, 2014). The central category, identifies the primary theme of the research. Gibbs
(2018) calls it, selective coding, where the 'core category', is identified. This central category ties
and relates all categories together into a story.
Interview Analysis
I reviewed transcriptions for any conversion errors; this process allowed for a closer
review of captured data. I conducted member checks to ensure the accurate interpretation and
perception of the participants (Creswell, 2018). Patton (2002) suggests the process strengthens a
study by using different methods to gain validity. In addition to member checks of the
transcriptions, I utilized reflexive field notes to gain validity (Patton, 2002; Schwandt, 2007).
Finally, I reported detailed findings from my research study in chapter four.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Several strategies can be used to enhance what Guba and Lincoln (1994) were the first to
call, credibility, consistency/dependability, and transferability of qualitative studies (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Merriam and Tisdell (2016) postulate there are specific concerns in constructivist
qualitative research with respect to internal validity, reliability, and external validity. The authors
recommend strategies that focus on methodological rigor to ensure credibility and

31
trustworthiness in a qualitative study. I am a researcher with a constructivist world view, and I
utilized some of their recommended strategies. I employ multiple methods of data collection by
conducting interviews, and reviewing documents (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Another strategy I
implemented to ensure credibility of this study was member checking, also called respondent
validation (Enosh & Buchbinder, 2005; Maxwell, 2014), soliciting feedback from participants
about their statements and actions. Maxwell (2014) indicates it is an important way for
researchers to identify their own biases and potential misinterpretation of what they observed.
Researchers should identify and explain their biases and assumptions related to the research
study (Probst & Berenson, 2014). I was diligent about self-monitoring, keeping a detailed
running record - an audit trail, by creating a research journal and memos of subjective
interactions with the data during the process of conducting the research. Ortlipp (2008) calls this
process, disciplined subjectivity, exposing all phases of the research to continual questioning and
reevaluation. I will also provide a detailed account of how the study was conducted and how the
data were analyzed, as recommended by Merriam and Tisdell (2016).
The credibility and trustworthiness of this study was addressed by using multiple sources
of data, checking interpretations with individuals interviewed and/or observed, and clarifying my
biases and assumptions. Reliability and consistency was enhanced by leaving an audit trail that
describes in detail how the study was conducted and how the findings were derived from the
data. Patton (2014) identifies the credibility of the researcher along with rigorous methods as
essential components to ensure the credibility and trustworthiness of qualitative research.
Additionally, he said, “To a large extent, the credibility of a study depends upon the ethics of the
investigator,” as discussed in the next section.

32
Ethics
The ethics of qualitative researchers are important because the researcher has power and
control over the research process (Patton, 2015). Power dynamics, the way power is negotiated
between individuals or groups (Wang, 2006), primarily favor the researcher. It is the researcher
who decides how to introduce and describe the research goals to potential participants, and how
much to disclose in order to enlist maximum cooperation (Glesne, 2016). The researcher also
controls and determines what questions are asked, how participants’ responses are interpreted,
and how participants are portrayed to other audiences (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This study
engaged several strategies to ensure research was conducted in an ethical manner and that
participant rights are protected.
A participant has the right to expect that when they give permission to be interviewed, the
researcher will protect their confidences and preserve their anonymity (Glesne, 2016).
The first step I took to ensure participants’ rights was to secure approval by the Institutional
Review Board (IRB) which is under the aegis of the Human Research Protection Program
(HRPP) prior to implementation of the study (University of Southern California, 2021). The IRB
conducted a cursory review and evaluated the interview protocol and supporting documents to
ensure the study did not violate participants’ rights. In order to maintain participant
confidentiality and anonymity, participants in the study were given pseudonyms, and
transcriptions were scrubbed of names and identifying information. All data related to the study
was safely secured, whether in an electronic or paper format.
In order to eliminate bias, another important ethical consideration, I was cognizant of
potential bias when developing research methodologies, survey and interview questions, and
when analyzing data. I was diligent about self-monitoring, keeping a detailed research journal

33
and memos during the process of conducting the research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This
ongoing that examined and reexamined influences on the participants and the community, helped
me decrease the risks and potentially increase the benefits to participants in the study (Von
Unger, 2021).
Researchers have power and control over the research process. It is the responsibility of
the investigator to conduct and disseminate a study in an ethical manner (Patton, 2015). Other
considerations and researcher responsibilities include understanding the limitations and
delimitations of a research study; what researchers can and cannot control.

34
Chapter Four: Findings
The purpose of this study was to examine what areas of knowledge, motivation, and
organizational factors would help facilitate more collaboration between the various entities that
have a stake in the workforce development system. Perceptions of experts in the workforce
development system in the SF Bay Area of California informed what can be done to improve
cross-sector collaboration utilizing the Clark and Estes knowledge, motivation and organization
influences (KMO) framework (Clark & Estes, 2008). The data, which is narrative in nature, are
organized by knowledge, motivation, and organizational influence type and broken down into
themes. As such, this chapter presents results and findings from the data analysis phase of this
study in order to find alignment between the assumed influences within the conceptual
framework and interview narratives.
Data were gathered from ten participant interviews of workforce development
professionals in the San Francisco Bay Area of California who engage in cross-system
collaboration. Representatives of state, county and local workforce development service
organizations agreed to participate in interviews to identify the knowledge, motivation and
organizational influences on their respective organization’s ability to collaborate.
The following research questions align with the Clarke and Estes framework (2008) and were
used to examine KMO influences on workforce system collaboration.
1. What are the perceptions of workforce system experts related to the knowledge,
motivation and organizational factors that either facilitate or inhibit cross-sector
collaboration?
2. What organizational factors would help facilitate more collaboration between the various
entities that have a stake in workforce development?

35
A qualitative methodology was used for this study. Two data sources, qualitative
interviews, and document analysis were used to validate assumed KMO influences. The primary
source of data collected for this study included semi-structured interviews with 13 focused
questions related to the knowledge, motivation and organizational influences on the participants’
ability to collaborate (Appendix A). Semi-structured interview questions were asked to garner
specific information related to factual, conceptual and procedural aspects of knowledge
(Krathwohl, 2002), task value (Pintrich, 2003), expectancy value theory (Rueda, 2011), and
attribution theory of motivation. It also examined the alignment of mission and goals, resource
allocation, and performance measures of organizations related to collaboration (Clark & Estes,
2008).
Participant Stakeholders
Purposeful sampling was used to identify ten participants for this study to learn their
perceptions of knowledge, motivation and organizational factors that facilitate or inhibit crosssector collaboration from the perspective of the role that each of their organizations play in the
workforce system. Participant descriptions align with the Clarke and Estes, people as cars
metaphor. Each participant has his or her own motivation. The fuel in the metaphor, and the road
conditions encountered by each participant-organizational influences affect the outcomes of their
collaborative efforts. All ten participants agreed to participate in a 60-minute interview, although
the average length of each interview was 45 minutes.

36
Table 2
Participant Characteristics
Name Position Role Race/Gender
Participant #1 Industry Liaison
Works with San
Francisco Bay Area
employers to
understand their
technology
workforce needs,
and with 28 Bay
Area community
colleges to evolve
instructional
programs so students
get jobs.
Caucasian
Male
Participant #2 Employment Center Director
Directs a career
center on a
community college
campus that is open
to county residents.
Also serves various
college departments
to connect students
to employment.
Black
Female
Participant #3 Workforce Development
Board Director
Oversees operations
of a workforce
development board
that provides
employment,
training and
education services
through service
providers, as well as
services to
businesses to help
them up-skill their
workforce.
Black
Female
Participant #4 Deputy Division Chief Oversees her
organization’s
technology system
Caucasian
Female

37
Participant #4 (cont’d) Deputy Division Chief
and all the data
within that system.
Reports data to the
Federal Government.
Provides training on
the technology
system, and as well
as statewide, general
programmatic
training.
Caucasian
Female
Participant #5 Workforce Association
Executive Director
Supports workforce
development boards
and partners through
strategic advocacy,
partnership
convening, and
capacity building.
Caucasian
Male
Participant #6 K-12 and Adult School
Director
Oversees GED and
diploma programs,
career, education,
and other services
for immigrants and
adults with
disabilities.
Caucasian
Female
Participant #7 Director of Community
College Association
Directs collaborative
efforts of career and
workforce education
programs for an
association of 28
colleges,
Caucasian
Male
Participant #8 Career Education Dean
Connect industry, K12 and her
community college
to design efficient
programs to for
students to become
quality employees
for industry partners.
Caucasian
Female
Participant #9 K-12 Superintendent
Transitioning into
retirement and
coaching new
administrators to
Caucasian
Female

38
implement and
oversee CTE grants.
Participant #10
Executive Director of
Statewide Employment
Agency
Directs a statewide
agency that offers a
wide variety of
employment
services.
LatinX
Male
The first participant interviewed serves as a tech industry liaison, connecting technology
companies and community colleges. Participant #1 is fueled by a desire to have things work. “I
come from industry; I’m all about product … and I want things to work out.” Participant #1 is a
retired e-commerce and rich media technology industry executive. He is currently on his second
career in post-secondary education where he has served as an adjunct professor, and as an
executive director, and associate vice president of workforce development and career education
at a California community college. Participant #1 believes in working collaboratively and
systemically to serve historically undereducated and low-income learners; in the application of
technology as leverage for human effort; and in a cycle of innovation that continuously improves
outcomes for those he serves. Although the tech industry and community colleges move at
different speeds, the road conditions – organizational influences for Participant #1 are favorable.
Participant #2 is fueled by a desire to “serve more people, those that are truly
disenfranchised, underserved and historically have gone without resources.” She also expressed a
desire to increase partnerships and employment outcomes for her clients. She is currently serving
as director of workforce systems at a community college in the East Bay of California.
Participant #2 started her career as a high school teacher in the East Bay of California. She has
also served as an assistant director, assistant Principal, and Principal of an Adult education

39
regional occupational program. The road conditions, organizational influences on her work are
variable, with the most difficult terrain to reach those who are most in need.
Participant #3 is fueled by the desire to incorporate different points of view.
“Collaboration is in my style…..it is in my DNA.” Participant #3 is currently the interim director
of a workforce development board in the San Francisco Bay Area of California. Prior to that, she
was the assistant director. Participant #3 also has experience working in a social services agency
in various capacities providing direct services to clients in public assistance and workforce
development programs. The road conditions to connect businesses to their talent pipeline are
favorable and fully supported by her organization.
Participant #4 is fueled by a desire to “serve more people and connect them in a cost
effective and efficient manner.” Honda has worked for a statewide economic agency for 13
years. Honda started her career working in a field office serving the public directly, and for the
last eight years, she has been working as Deputy Division Chief in the central office focusing on
the technology system. The roads are carefully maintained and cleared of debris by her
organization, providing smooth road conditions for collaboration.
Participant #5 is fueled by the desire to improve the public workforce system. “I began to
really become a student of the system…..working to improve the public workforce system in
ways that weren’t even imagined yet.” Participant #5 has served the association for about half of
his 29-year career. Participant #5 has worked at a variety of levels including work as a case
manager for youth, adult, dislocated workers, Executive Director for a workforce development
board, and as a Federal Project Officer for the Department of Labor. Participant #5 runs his own
workforce development consulting business setting up programs around the country. As the

40
leader of his organization who is committed to collaboration, he ensures that road conditions are
favorable for collaboration.
Participant #6 is fueled by the desire to fix a broken system. “For me, going into adult
education had a lot to do with recognizing that a lot of our system is broken and has been
broken.” Participant #6 began her career in education as a high school science teacher. She is
serving her third year as the director of an Adult School that is part of a K-12 school district,
where she has also served as a director, assistant director and assistant principal. Participant #6
has also been an assistant principal at high school and at an elementary school. It is important to
Participant #6 to be part of something that has an immediate impact on the people she feels
might benefit the most. The road conditions for her agency to collaborate are favorable, but there
are limited resources for maintenance.
Participant #7 has, “always been interested in how to create institutions which facilitate
community, a sense of community, belonging, efficacy, control, and of resources.” He became
interested in community development in his early twenties when he started a community gardens
program and served on a county parks commission. Participant #7 taught computer science at a
community college where was invited to be a Career Education Dean, and he had to look for
grants. Participant #7 indicated that the process helped him to understand the importance and the
value of trying to connect his college to workforce development stakeholders. Working as a
director of an association of 28 colleges, Participant #7 is fueled by a desire to get people into
work with livable wages and coordinating the efforts of the colleges to connect with industry.
Road conditions are most favorable as the primary goal of his organization is to facilitate
collaboration.

41
Participant #8 describes herself as someone who, “likes building relationships, and I like
being of service.” Participant #8 has an extensive background in career education and is
currently serving as a career education Dean at a community college. She also has experience as
a K-12 business teacher, and as a superintendent for a regional occupational program. She has 20
years teaching teachers how to integrate technology into the classroom. Another area of
Porsche’s expertise is securing and implementing technology and career education program
grants. Fueled by the desire to improve the delivery method for career education from the K-12
to the community college pathway. Road conditions are challenging for her college, not due to
lack of college support, but by the nature of collaboration and as she puts it, “being stuck in the
middle.”
Participant #9 is fueled by the purpose to educate young people to be productive
members of society. “My whole mindset is that is workforce development is the purpose of
education.” Participant #9 has twenty-eight years of experience in education, which began as a
Career Technical Education (CTE) teacher for Organization P (pseudonym), teaching,
entrepreneurship, and marketing. She has worked as an assessment coordinator, associate
principal, and high school principal. Road conditions for collaboration are accessible, but
difficult to drive due to the limited number of drivers at her institution.
Participant #10 said he, “grew up in like, let’s just say most of my friends, none of my
friends actually, went on to college. My neighborhood is Blue Collar, first generation.” Ford’s
work is professional and personal. He said the clients he serves remind him of someone’s mom
or a friend. Participant #10 is fueled by a desire to get involved and help people who are having a
rough go at it. He has worked in workforce development for more than 20 years. His experience
includes service as an executive director of a California Workforce Development Board, and he

42
directed the implementation of aspects of the Strong Workforce Program (SWP), adult
education, and Apprenticeship programs for the California Community Colleges Chancellors
Office. Road conditions for collaboration are favorable as his organization is supportive and
provides resources for collaboration.
Findings
This chapter is organized by the two research questions, and the data are broken down
into themes that emerged from analysis of the data.
Research Question 1: What Are the Perceptions of Workforce System Experts Related to
the Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Factors That Either Facilitate or Inhibit
Cross-Sector Collaboration?
Research question one produced the following five themes:
1. Stakeholders’ shared knowledge and understanding of workforce development and its
role in the development of communities, and equity.
2. Stakeholders’ shared knowledge, understanding of collaboration, and the necessity of
goal alignment to successfully meet outcomes.
3. Stakeholders utilize similar procedures for implementing collaboration.
4. Stakeholders’ shared belief that collaboration increases the capacity, efficiency and
quality of cross-sector service delivery.
5. Stakeholders’ shared commitment, and attribution of the highest value to collaboration.
Table 3 includes the overarching themes and key findings, and summarizes the alignment
of KMO influences to themes found in the data, illustrating a direct correlation.

43
Table 3
Alignment of Key KMO Influences to Overarching Themes and Key Findings
Finding 1: Finding1 by Influence Description
Stakeholders’ shared
knowledge and understanding
of workforce development
and its role in the
development of communities,
and equity.
Knowledge:
Factual (information, terminology)
Conceptual (theory)
Regardless of their role
and/or sector in the
workforce development
system, all participants
share the same
understanding of
workforce development
as community
development and equity
work.
Finding 2: Finding 2 by Influence Description
Stakeholders’ shared
knowledge and understanding
of collaboration and the
necessity of goal alignment to
successfully meet outcomes.
Knowledge: (factual)
Including knowledge of the
organization influence of goal
alignment.
Regardless of their role
and/or sector in the
workforce development
system, all participants
share the same belief
that their work is more
effective when they
collaborate, and goals
must be aligned to meet
collaborative outcomes.
Finding 3: Finding 3 by Influence Description
Stakeholders Utilize ation of
Similar Procedures for
Implementing Collaboration
Knowledge: (Procedural)

Regardless of their role
and/or sector in the
workforce development
system, participants’
processes vary, yet
follow a similar
framework.
Finding 4: Finding 4 by Influence Description
Stakeholders’ shared belief
that collaboration increases
the capacity, efficiency and
quality of cross-sector service
delivery.
Motivation: :

Intrinsic (interest),
Extrinsic (utility),
Regardless of their role
and/or sector in the
workforce development
system, all participants
share the belief that their
work is more effective
when they work

44
together and leverage
resources.
Finding 5: Finding 5 by Influence Description
Stakeholders’ shared
commitment, and attribution
of the highest value to
collaboration.
Motivation:
Attainment (importance)
Regardless of their role
and/or sector in the
workforce development
system, all participants
deeply value
collaboration.
Knowledge Influence Findings
Stakeholders’ Shared Knowledge and Understanding of Workforce Development and Its
Role in the Development of Communities, and Equity
This study looked at knowledge influences, and the responses to the first research
question found that all participants share the similar knowledge and understanding of workforce
development, regardless of their role in the workforce development system. Ten out of ten
participants conveyed a similar understanding of workforce development. Participants recognize
the need for social services to be part of the system, and the importance of serving job seekers as
well as employers.

45
Table 4
Interview Quotes: Describing Participants’ Knowledge of Workforce Development
Pseudonym Interview quotes
P1: Workforce development would be what we undertake to improve and,
and expand the capacity of workers to do the work that employers
are looking for them to do.
P2: Workforce development is taking out the mystery of how you go from
wanting a job to being prepared for the job, and then the confidence
to actually go after that job.
P3: I would describe it as being able to look at what the needs of the
community of employers, job seekers, young adults, and focusing it
on you know, whatever training is needed, education that's enabled
to bring the two together to train and skill up people to get to meet
the job needs and the hiring needs of an employer.
P4: I think it's working with employers to make sure that….. we can get
workers to them that are gonna’ meet their needs. And then I think
it's also working with those job seekers…whether they need
training, or they just need some general assistance. But also
including a lot of those like wrap around services and connecting
them with the community to make sure that they get the support that
they need, so that they can be successful.
P5: Putting together industry demand with job seeker supply, in order to
allow a community to thrive.
P6: I would consider any of the activities that have to do with creating jobs,
preparing the workforce for jobs that are in demand, educating people
about job and career opportunities and pathways, helping employers
with their, you know, employment needs.
P7: Preparing people for work. That is the education and services that enable
somebody to be qualified and ready to enter into employment and to be
on a pathway that leads to work that provides a livable, family-
supporting wage.
P8: I would define it is taking workers who are currently in place and moving
them to the next level. But also working with people who are looking
for a job.
P9: I think it's about making that match between the future employees are
your future workforce and labor market needs, right. And you know

46
and I say… find that match.
P10: Workforce [development] does not just include the WIOA programs…to
me workforce development includes…… the education system….the
California community colleges,….adult education. And I think of the
social services, you know, if we are going to address the needs of those
that are most in need.
The participants’ responses identified essential components of workforce development.
Several common themes emerged from their comments:
1. Alignment with employer needs: Workforce development involves understanding and
addressing the needs of employers to ensure that the workforce is equipped with the
necessary skills and knowledge to meet job and industry demands.
2. Preparation and support: Workforce development includes activities that prepare job
seekers for employment, including training, education, and support services.
3. Social needs: Workforce development acknowledges the importance of addressing social
barriers and providing services to support individuals seeking employment.
4. Career pathways and advancement: Workforce development creates pathways for
individuals to enter the job market, as well as to advance in their careers.
5. Collaboration and partnerships: Workforce development involves collaboration between
various stakeholders, including training providers, educational institutions, and social
service agencies. Bringing together these partners ensures a comprehensive and holistic
approach to address the needs of individuals and their communities.
In summary, participants similarly described workforce development as activities that
align the skills and capacities of job seekers with the needs of employers, prepare individuals for
employment, support career advancement, and address social needs. Participants also share the
same conceptual understanding that workforce development is community development.

47
Table 5
Interview Quotes: Community Development, and Equity
Pseudonym Interview quotes
P2: And what it's doing, is helping us meet our outcomes. And it's also
helping us serve our very own community.
P4: Ultimately, what we're doing is to benefit the greater community.
P5: You’re raising people out of poverty, you’re unlocking cycles of
inequity, you’re having economic [impact], you know, the local
economy is thriving because the industry is doing better, and
people are making money. So I describe workforce development as
really community development.
P6: For me personally, just knowing how important having living wages
for
families, being able to provide for their children, and how stability,
how important that is for entire communities.
P7: I’ve always been interested in how you create institutions which
facilitate
community…a sense of community, belonging, efficacy, control, and
of resources.
P8: It's for students and it's gonna be good for, you know the community.
P9: Well, come on. If the whole point is to prepare your students to be
productive members of society, then you know, you need to know
what’s going on [in their communities].
P10: If we are going to address the needs of those that are in most the need
in
which have traditionally been disadvantaged generation after
generation, which is the equity work, we have to you know, view
ourselves as that's part of our work making [pause] not that our
funding
takes care of that stuff, but we could create relationships in the
community.

48
Participants highlight the perspective that workforce development is inherently linked to
community development. The following key points are evident in these perspectives:
1. Community benefits: Participants view outcomes of workforce development efforts as
contributing to the well-being and growth of a local community. They highlight how
living wages and family stability positively impact an entire community.
2. Economic impact: Workforce development is considered a driver of economic
improvement within a community. Participants note that by raising people out of poverty,
addressing inequities, and fostering economic prosperity, workforce development
initiatives play a role in community development.
3. Addressing equity: Participants view workforce development as an avenue to address
long-standing disparities and disadvantages within a community. Collaborative efforts
that serve communities are seen as integral to achieving equity goals.
Stakeholders’ Shared Knowledge and Understanding of Collaboration and the Necessity of
Goal Alignment to Successfully Meet Outcomes
Ten out of ten participants similarly defined collaboration, and stressed the importance of
a shared goal as a requirement to successfully meet outcomes for all partners.

49
Table 6
Interview Quotes: Understanding of Collaboration and the Importance of Goal Alignment
Pseudonym Interview quotes
P1: People working together to get something done. Oh. I mean I think it's
really just that we're both kind of have like common goal right like the
common goal is ultimately to serve the client.
P2: People who want to work together which it sounds like it should be so
simple, (laughs) right?
P3: Collaboration is being able to bring different parties together that may
have diverse points of view, different priorities. But coming together
for a singular focus, whether it's to solve, or a challenge, or to develop
a program.
P4: So collaboration to me is really just like working together like the
basic level communication, leveraging resources and ensuring that
we're connected, so that we're not providing the same services
necessarily, that we can rely on another partner who
may be more experienced in this particular area.
P5: Different people or organizations working towards the same mission
and vision. Community colleges and workforce boards for example,
they want people to become economically self-sufficient, and they
want people to have well established career paths. Same goal, same
mission. Put those two together, you really can come up with some
phenomenal game plan to meet the goal.
P6: One or more agencies working toward a shared goal or outcome
where there's mutual contribution, and the parties are both….both
share in not just the responsibility, but their activities are essential to
meeting the goal, probably in a true collaboration, like you kind of
can't do it without the other agencies.
P7: [Collaboration required] persistence and a commitment to a shared
outcome. Over time it became clear to all of us, I think, is that we had
complimentary resources, and that we would benefit by collaborating.
Our missions are similar and there were ways in which, by
working together we could be more successful than we could apart.
P8: Collaboration is actually putting all the stakeholders in the room, and
it takes it takes some effort to do that. [You first need to] identify
whether there are opportunities for them to meet their mission more
effectively by partnering.

50
P9: I mean I collaboration is really about multiple entities or institutions
working together towards a common goal. You…it takes strong
relationships, right? You have to have that common goal and
relationships, and in the trust in the relationships that everybody's
gonna’ do their part.
P10: Collaboration. Basically, collaboration is when entities …. different
entities come together to achieve a shared goal.
The participants shared common themes in their understanding of collaboration.
1. Shared purpose: Collaboration requires a goal that unites the participating entities. The
alignment of purpose is crucial for successful collaboration.
2. Joint effort: Collaboration involves individuals or organizations coming together to work
collectively towards a common goal or objective.
3. Diversity: Collaboration includes bringing together diverse parties with different
viewpoints, priorities, and resources. It acknowledges the importance of leveraging the
strengths and expertise of each partner to achieve the shared goal effectively.
4. Relationship and trust: Collaboration requires developing relationships and trust.
Building and maintaining these relationships is vital for effective collaboration.
5. Mutual contribution and responsibility: All parties share responsibility for the outcome,
and success is dependent on the collective efforts. Each entity contributes to achieving
the shared goal.
In summary, participants described collaboration as a joint and coordinated effort among
diverse entities with a shared purpose to achieve a common goal. Participants emphasized the
importance of building relationships, trust, and each partner taking responsibility for successfully
meeting outcomes. Working together to reach a common goal was a theme that remained
consistent throughout.

51
When asked about how the processes they utilized to implemented collaborative efforts,
the nine participants that described a collaborative process involved common elements such as
getting the right people in the room, establishing a common goal, listening to partners’ ideas and
providing an opportunity for partners to determine if the collaboration would benefit their
respective institutions.
Stakeholders Utilize Similar Procedures for Implementing Collaboration
Table 7
Interview Quotes: Procedural Knowledge
Pseudonym Interview quotes
P1: My bias is to allow the work to define the process. A lot of people
have a process want to adopt a process before they start to work,
and it may or may not be the right process depending on how the
work goes. So I'm much more ad hoc on process. It's not that I
don't have them, but I don't enter the project with a… I have a
portfolio of processes that I’ve used over you know, over 40 years
of working and I don't, they don't all work on every project.
P2: So the first step is the initial meeting. My role in going to them is to
listen to them, to see what they want in a partnership. As I listen,
I'm not gonna do any talking about what I think it could look like
Just yet. I want to take the time to understand why they reached
out, what they need in a labor force, what all they're looking for.
P3: I think a lot of times. you just kinda have those steps in mind, like you
Know, identify the goal, make sure you have all the right parties at
the table, make sure we're defining the project. But we're the goal
and objectives. Make sure each person understands their role in
responsibilities. You know, have meetings, so it's you know have
meetings on a regular basis, you know. Assign and delegate work
for people to do towards whatever the project goal is. And you
know, check in with folks. so you kinda have like a process.
P4: So my role I feel like I’m a slightly removed. Sometime up in our
like, I said like a kind of a central office or headquarters. But for
me it’s when I’m collaborating it's kind of more at the state level as
opposed to
like out in the field, they're working more locally but at the state

52
level it's working with our sister agencies, to see what we can do to
bring things together…And so we often will have at the local level
will come to us with ideas on how they wanna collaborate locally.
And then from our technology, perspective, we’ll say okay, yeah,
we can facilitate that in our system by doing Xyz. Or let's maybe
make some changes and we can do it that way. So I feel like
role is a little bit more supporting collaboration. But we do some
collaboration as well at a state level.
P5: So be inclusive, set some good context at the beginning. You know,
why did we bring everybody together? What's the issue at hand?
What's the background on this issue? Give everybody a chance to talk
and meet each other. So, you know, everybody should be able to have
a chance to talk about the issue, chime in on the issue. And then let
folks have a space to actually contribute.
P6: I don't have a formal, you know. Set up a conversational meeting kind
of a brainstorming, you know. I could kind of run through some of the
ways that we've arrived at a collaboration in the past, but definitely
nothing formal.
P7: When I go to them, I know what I’m wanting, I know what I’m
asking. Here, here's what I’d like to do, and then listen to them of how
they could add to it or modify it to serve their needs as well. You have
to be willing to listen to them, and then we build it from there.
P8: We go through sometimes a three-step process, let me go through
them. That process, identifying interests, looking for the intersections,
and when there are intersections, inviting those people who saw that
intersections of interest think through the idea and determine if there
is a reason to continue to work together and setting pretty specific
objectives. Always asking at each step is this worthwhile? should we
continue? or should we disband? You don't wanna waste peoples’
time.
P9: What's happened is employers are seeking us out and saying, look,
can we design something with you to help meet our needs, our
workforce needs? And so it is really become very organic, of different
agencies, right…. So that's the step we're taking now, is really
working with different industry partners saying, okay, tell us what you
need. Let's figure out how we can design that curriculum together, and
recruit people into the programs.
P10: The entities/partners and start a discussion. Explain you know the
problem we're trying to solve, which you're willing to do as far as and
explain how you view how that we could work together to share that

53
goal. Now two things that occur that they see the same issue, the same
problem, and that they agree with me that they also have a role, and
that we could together optimize our resources to achieve that goal.
Participants offered insights about the collaborative process; the steps they take when
engaging in collaborative efforts. Key themes include:
1. Formal processes: Seven out of the nine participants who described their process for
collaboration outline a series of steps that guide collaboration. These include assembling
relevant stakeholders, identifying goals, defining project parameters, assigning roles,
holding regular meetings, and checking in with team members. While not all steps are
universally applicable, they provide a framework for effective collaboration.
2. Organic development: Two participants describe collaboration as an organic process that
emerges based on mutual interests and needs, creating a natural and mutually beneficial
progression.
3. Inclusivity and context setting: Participants emphasize the importance of establishing
clear context and providing background information when initiating a collaborative effort
to help participants understand the issue and determine if they would like to collaborate.
Listening to the stakeholders' ideas, and identifying common goals sets the foundation for
the collaborative opportunity.
4. Building relationships and trust: Effective collaboration involves the development of
relationships and trust, and listening to partners' perspectives and needs. Participants
stress the importance of gathering partners’ input, modifying proposed plans based on
that input, and collectively building the collaboration.
5. Value and worthwhileness: Throughout the comments, there is a recurrent consideration
of whether the collaboration is valuable and worthwhile to parties involved. Participants

54
emphasize periodic evaluations to determine if the collaboration is delivering expected
outcomes and if continued efforts are justified.
The commonality among these comments is a focus on effective communication,
inclusive involvement, and a willingness to adapt. Participants describe collaboration as a
dynamic process that requires active engagement, and a shared commitment to achieving goals.
The process is seen as a deliberate yet flexible endeavor that seeks to optimize resources,
leverage expertise, and successfully achieve goals and outcomes for collaborative partners and
their clients.
Motivation Influence Findings
Stakeholders’ Shared Belief that Collaboration Increases the Capacity, Efficiency and
Quality of Cross-Sector Service Delivery
Nine out of ten participants stated that the quality of services and service delivery are
enhanced when organizations work together.

55
Table 8
Interview Quotes Describing Participants’ Better Together
Pseudonym Interview quotes
P1: None of us have, none of us can solve it by ourselves. We don’t,
community colleges don’t have all the tools, workforce
development boards don’t have all the tools. Community based
organizations don’t have all the tools, Adult Ed doesn’t, policy
makers, administrators; nobody has everything that it takes to be
effective serving the people we’re here to serve.
P2: I can think that I know how this should work, but I may come across
that CBO (community-based organization) with more experience
serving the unhoused population than I've had in the last 4 years,
who have more success. So by collaborating, I'm able to pull on
their experience to say, okay, here's how we can modify our
program and really reach the unhoused population.
P3: You know, no man, no organization is the island, you know. So it's
really you know, I think from every level from an organization even
down to the team level, collaboration is key. If you want to have, if
you want to develop, if you want to have creativity, you want to have
innovation. If you want to have effective partnerships, if you want to
build effective partnerships, I think collaboration is key to that.
P4: How do we serve a larger number of people with better services? The
only way to do that is through collaborating and relying on partners,
and all various different funding and expertise that comes along with
them.
P5: Well usually [pause] they have an area of expertise that we don't have.
So they're bringing an affinity to the table that is needed to make
the project whole, right? So if you if you're thinking about it as the
partners being a bunch of ingredients to a really nice dinner,
without one of those ingredients, you're not gonna have just as nice
dinner, right? So the partners usually have something that my
organization doesn't have, and they complement each other. They
can't do without one another.

56
P6: Not every agency has the same, you know mission, or sometimes maybe
the missions are aligned, but for whatever reason they're not all able to do
all of the things that are needed…. in a true collaboration, like you kind of
can't do it without the other agencies.
P7: It was just it was very clear to me all the participating entities that they
were more effective together than they were apart.
P9: So I can’t do it, you can’t do it without it. We can’t reach our mission
without working with other institutions or industry, right? I just we can’t
do it with just sitting here by ourselves, thinking we know best.
P10: Primarily there is no issue or cause out there that I could accomplish with
my portfolio or my programs. If we want to address any social need for
economic mobility or social mobility out there, we cannot do it all, you
know. And I would say that's true for everyone.
Nine out of ten participants expressed enhanced capacity and outcomes for collaborative
efforts due to the contributions and expertise of partnering organizations. The participants’
comments underscore their beliefs in the significance of collaboration to achieve better
workforce development outcomes. Participants collectively emphasized the following key points:
1. Increased effectiveness together: Participants recognize that they are more effective when
working together than when operating in isolation. No single entity possesses all the tools
needed to effectively serve job seekers and employers. No single organization can fully
address complex social issues on its own.
2. Leveraging experience and comprehensive expertise: Collaboration allows different
entities to pool their expertise and resources. Collaboration enables organizations to tap
into each other's experience and success in specific areas. This shared knowledge
enhances program services and outcomes.

57
3. Increasing numbers enhancing services: Collaborative efforts are essential for serving a
larger number of people with comprehensive services. Collaboration enhances the impact
of collective efforts.
4. Key to creativity and innovation: Collaboration is viewed as essential for fostering
creativity and innovation. It is seen as a means to develop and innovate solutions and
effective partnerships.
The common thread among these comments is the acknowledgment that collaboration is
essential for achieving comprehensive, effective, and impactful workforce development
outcomes. Data indicates that it is for these reasons that stakeholders in the workforce
development system attribute the highest value and importance to collaboration.
Stakeholders’ Shared Commitment, and Attribution of the Highest Value to Collaboration
Nine out of ten participants in this study attribute the highest value to collaboration.

58
Table 9
Interview Quotes Describing Participants’ Value
Pseudonym Interview quotes
P1: Collaboration is all we do. We've worked very hard to create the
systems and infrastructure and culture that values collaboration.
P2: Very vital. This work could not exist without collaboration.
There is a value in collaborating.
P3: It is very important. It's collaboration with the education providers,
industry. It's a big part of what we do. When you look at, you know,
the projects that we do, a lot of them are centered around
collaboration.
P4: It is very important. and I feel like, I mean, it's always been
important, but I feel like especially right now there's a big push for
collaboration because, like I said, we're just like one small piece of
the workforce development community, and so we need to be able
to leverage our partners to be successful with our programs,
because because we can't, like I said we're kind of limited in our
expertise our funding all of that. And so we're well aware that we
need to collaborate to be successful ultimately for the job seeker
and employers.
P5: It’s everything. Again, there's a lot of things we cannot do without
collaborating. A lot of initiatives and workforce development, take
many hands. In fact, there's rarely anything that we do that that is
not collaborative.
P6: Well for us it's very important. its very, very important, because it's also,
it's important, because….and I actually think this is super-duper
important….is that when we are referring between agencies, we need to
connect to people.
P8: I think it's very important to the organization, but I think that community
colleges in general are dysfunctional at it, at best. They operate so
much in their silos.
P9: Oh, my gosh! My whole world's collaboration, right?! It is everything I
know. I don't exist without collaboration.

59
P10: To my organization [pause] it's our future. Nobody's satisfied with my
organization; I'll say that. And that dissatisfaction will continue if we don't
figure out how we exist in a broader network, not only fulfill our role in
that network, but get…have those clean institutional handoffs that we
could measure and track and rely upon.
Participants collectively emphasized that collaboration is highly valued and consider it a
core component of their work. The benefit of pooling expertise and resources, leveraging
experience, enhancing creativity are consistent themes in participant’s perspectives. They
consider it essential for improving cross-sector service delivery. The common theme across all
the comments underscores participants’ beliefs in the indispensable nature of collaboration
within the workforce development system. The comments collectively highlight the idea that
collaboration is a vital ingredient in successfully addressing complex challenges to meet the
various needs of various constituents in the workforce development system. The high value
attributed to collaboration is a motivating factor for participants to invest their time and
organizational resources in the pursuit of collaboration.
Organization Influence Findings
Organization influence findings examined in this study include mission and goal
alignment, resource allocation and performance measures.
Mission and Goal Alignment
As evidenced by the data presented in the previous findings, participants universally
agreed that identifying a goal for the collaboration was an important organization factor to ensure
success. Data also indicates that once a partner agrees to collaborate in pursuit of a goal, they
should invest their organizations’ resources to achieve the goal.

60
Resource Allocation
Nine out of ten participants emphasized the importance of all collaborating entities to
invest resources to facilitate collaboration.
Table 10
Interview Quotes Describing Participants’ Resource Allocation
Pseudonym Interview quotes
P1: So that means you now have to have four colleges that are willing to
collaborate with each other that have signed up to that have signed up
to do work together and agreed to invest resources, people, money.
Time, talent, and treasure.
P2: The other thing is to collaborate, I would imagine that we're all
bringing our expertise and willingness to unpack whatever it is that
we're trying to figure out and then we repack it with….okay, I
could contribute the socks, and you can contribute the pants, and
you could contribute this. And now we can pack our suitcase, and
we know that we have what we need to really perform that service,
or whatever the outcome was supposed to be. So I, if we're coming,
to the table it's because we're there to really do the work.
P4: It's not just a partner coming to us and asking for us to take the burden
on that there's gonna be some kind of sharing of burden. but then also
benefit.
Relying on partners, and all various different funding and expertise
that comes along with them.
P5: An openness to bring resources to the table you know, so that you're
not keeping things in your back pocket. But you're willing to put them
on the table for the good of the goal.
P6: So I think being able to bring in resources from different agencies,
whether that's a resource in terms of having funding that's available
for a project or program, whether it's the knowledge of their staff so
you know, or their abilities.

61
P7: The industry said, yes, the K. 12 partner said yes, and they all had,
they all had invested in financing as well, because the K.12 had to pay
for their busing. and the college paid for all of the lunches and
logistics of that, and the end of she paid for like their time that really
the impact for the loss of production, which we don't always equate
that with money, but it is. It’s awesome money, and they were willing
to do that to be able to open their doors.
P8: You've got to have positions who are responsible for helping to
connect these institutions. If you're talking about it at a state or a
region, whatever domain you're trying to facilitate that collaboration
then, you have to resource people to be working on it.
P10: [Expectation of mutual contribution of resources]So from my own,
and from my partner it’s the same, a show of resources.
The participants in the study emphasized the significance of investing resources to
facilitate collaboration. Several key points emerged from their comments:
1. Mutual resource contribution: Collaboration involves a collective effort where each party
contributes specific elements, such as skills or funding, to achieve a common goal.
2. Openness to share resources: Participants emphasized the importance of openness in
sharing resources. Collaboration benefits from a culture where organizations are willing
to contribute their resources openly for the common goal, rather than hoarding or
withholding them.
3. Demonstrating commitment through resources: Participants stressed that a willingness to
contribute resources demonstrates commitment. This commitment extends to the
participants' own organizations and their collaborative partners.

62
4. Resource diversity: Collaboration provides opportunity to access diverse resources,
knowledge, skills and abilities of staff members from various organizations. The diversity
of resources contributes to the success of collaborative projects.
Overall, data indicates that collaboration thrives when there is a genuine commitment to
investing various types of resources, whether financial, knowledge, and/or skills-based, to
achieve shared goals and benefits.
Performance Measures
While all of the participants stated the importance of shared goals to successfully meet
outcomes, developing metrics to measure those outcomes was highlighted by only two
participants. Participant #10 stressed the importance of advocating for policy that provides
investments for collaboration, “Things don’t occur unless you incentivize it, or measure it.
Participant #4 asserts that policies have been put in place in an effort to create performance
metrics for collaboration. “With the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, one of the
things that the departments tried to do was align performance metrics. And I think that that has
also helped with collaboration.” Participant #10 also explained that in his experience, shared
performance metrics demonstrate an organizations’ dedication, “to create some metrics and
measures that are unique to what you and I are going to be doing (…) now what greater show of
commitment [is there] than doing that? We have our own measure stick.” The organization
influence findings suggest that aligned goals and resource allocation are crucial for successful
collaboration in workforce development systems. All participants emphasized the importance of
identifying a goal that is aligned with the project’s objectives. Resource allocation, including
human, financial, and organizational support, were also identified as necessary.

63
This study about the perceptions of workforce system experts related to the knowledge
motivation and organization influences that facilitate collaboration found that workforce system
experts, regardless of their individual roles in the system share a similar knowledge and
understanding of workforce development, its intrinsic connection to community development
and equity, and the necessary steps required to successfully collaborate. Participants expressed
great interest and value in collaboration, considering it a high priority, yielding increased
capacity and effectiveness that is worth investing the time and effort required. They emphasized
the importance of goal alignment and a mutual contribution of resources. However, only two
participants mentioned the importance of performance measures in tracking progress and
measuring collaborative success. Overall, the findings suggest that successful collaboration
requires communication and trust, a willingness to invest time and resources, and a clear
alignment of goals among collaborating entities. The themes support the KMO assumed
influences for this study.
Research Question 2: What Organizational Factors Would Help Facilitate More
Collaboration Between the Various Entities That Have a Stake in Workforce
Development?
The second research question examining organization influences produced the
identification of the four factors that participants believe will facilitate more collaboration.

64
Table 11
Factors Facilitating Collaboration: Insights from the Second Research Question
Finding Data Source
Finding 1:
Support Staff with Project Management and Facilitation
Skills
P5, P6, P8, P9
Finding 2:
Opportunities for Networking and Professional
Development
P2, P6, P7, P8
Finding 3:
Data Sharing and Technology Solutions
P1, P4, P8
Finding 4:
Supportive Leadership
P1, P4
Table 12
Interview Quotes: Organization Factors that Facilitate Collaboration
Pseudonym Interview quotes
Support Staff with Project Management and Facilitation Skills
P5: And the kind of support I provide, the biggest thing, I think is coaching.
Coaching around the value of collaboration. We do a fair amount of
training on facilitation. And facilitation skills are really important in a
collaborative effort. So it's a lot of coaching, patience, politics, and
facilitation.
P8: What we found early on is that need for project management, just as
you don't have somebody resourced within each institution to go
out and seek collaborations, when you do get that commitment to
working together there’s often nobody at any one institution that
has the time to sort of remind people what they committed to, so
that kind of project management is really critical, particularly to
getting through the initial stages.

65
P6: I feel like it's, it can be more time consuming. and so there's almost in
terms of personal time, time and workload you know, there's always a
competition for like, within your own day, about what you're gonna be
able to spend time on. And there is sometimes, I’ve had kind of thought
of like you know, this, do I have the bandwidth to work on this project?
So whatever that is, I mean just having, you know, support, you know,
staff, that are available to help with things.
P9: Okay, in my dream world? Right Then you should have somebody
who's really that their job is dedicated to that right? and I don't I think,
on the education side we don't value it enough, because it's not seen as
direct services to students, you know. And, and it's … you have to invest
right…on the back side to really develop programs that are going to
have that value and benefit for the students. But I think far too often it
gets you know added onto somebody's plate to magically make that stuff
happen.
P2: You know it'd be interesting to explore workforce development
collaborators and who within that are the point people that look for
the funding opportunities. Is there one grant writer for that
collaborative? So I just wonder how information moves through
the different workforce development partners. Who, who gets it?
Who puts it out? And then who's deciding to work with whom?
And then who gets left out of the conversation? You know I would
be interested in exploring that.
P7:
P6:
[It] all comes from that ability to network and engage with others who
are who are doing the same job. And the more that we can do that…it
becomes the collaboration.
I mean that honestly, I kind of feel like that would be a great area for
like ongoing professional training for people in our kinds of positions.
[training in managing and facilitation of collaboration].
P8: The more we can create sort of practices, models, ways, and replicable
institutions, the more effective we’ll be in that broader goal of
facilitating more collaboration. I think there are a lot of examples where
collaboration has worked across our region, but people don't know about
them and being able to expose people to that, and let them really see
what the outcomes are and then help them replicate. is one of the things
we would like to being doing more of and that’s part of our going to that
sub regional strategy is trying to resource that.
Data Sharing and Technology Solutions

66
P4: So we all have our own siloed systems that we have to use.
And that makes it hard to share information. There's also a lot of
rules around what can and cannot be shared. And so I think that
kind of is prohibitive to collaboration. It doesn't quite, I feel like a
good technology solution that was across partner, program,
whatever you want to call it, would really help with collaboration
that we're kind of missing that sort of thing.
P1: But now yesterday, we find out that data sharing agreement
everybody had agreed to, uh, [an organization] came back and said, no, no we
have to redo all of that because you know it’s a State system and you know
we have liability exposure if we share data with a local- and I said, well,
you're sharing data with [a local agency], and they have a paper system where
they literally copy information and send it over as an attachment and an
email, you know, basically a fax to share information. And we're, we would
like to automate that so that it's not quite as convoluted.
P8: Another element that we are continually working on is bringing data into
those [collaborative conversations]. We have found that bringing outcomes
data into those kinds of conversations often transforms the conversation.
Supportive Leadership
P1: I need air cover. I need somebody high enough in in the organization,
that'll take my call, and help if I need help. And that help is
sometimes helping somebody else understand that the work is
important. Sometimes that help is removing administrative barriers
to getting something done or changing a policy. Or finding another
partner that is in their world where they can ask it. They can call in
a favor to get somebody to help.
P4: You have to have the support of your institution so when you're when
you're working in collaboration with other people outside of your
Institution, you're not available at that moment to work. You know
if your boss wants to do something during that meeting it's like no,
I’m busy I’m doing this other thing, so they have to support it.
And that's, like I feel like that's critical when you the top down like top
has to be supportive of the collaboration to allow everyone else to
really support and thrive and participate in it.

67
The participants in the study highlighted several organizational factors that facilitate
collaboration:
1. Staff support: Participants acknowledged that collaboration adds complexity compared to
working alone and can be time-consuming. Collaborative efforts require the capacity or
“bandwidth” to work effectively with others and may compete with other demands on
personal time and workload. Having support staff available to assist with collaborative
tasks and dedicated roles responsible for fostering and managing collaborations can
alleviate this burden. Staff should possess project management and facilitation skills to
navigate the complexities of collaborative efforts.
2. Networking and professional development: The ability to network and engage with peers
in similar roles was highlighted as a foundational element of collaboration. Networking
fosters a collaborative environment and encourages shared efforts. There was an interest
in exploring the dynamics of collaboration within the context of workforce development
partners. This includes understanding how information flows, who initiates
collaborations, and how decisions are made regarding collaborative projects. Sharing
information about models of successful collaboration was also identified as an important
factor to facilitate collaboration. Additionally, training in the process of implementing
collaboration was identified as a facilitator of collaboration.
3. Data sharing and technology solutions: Participants identified the challenge of siloed
systems and restrictive data sharing rules as barriers to collaboration. They expressed the
need for technology solutions that could bridge these gaps and facilitate the sharing of
information across partner organizations.

68
4. Supportive leadership: Participants identified support from leadership as a factor to
facilitate collaboration. Participants indicate that collaborative efforts require support
from institutional leadership. When leaders endorse and accommodate collaborative
work, it enables individuals to engage in external collaborations without conflicts or
disruptions.
Qualitative data underscores the importance of leadership support, technological
solutions, the importance of facilitation and project management skills, and adequate staff
support, professional development, and training and networking opportunities as factors that
enabling effective collaboration.
Summary of Findings
This study focused on examining the influences of knowledge motivation and
organization influences on workforce system collaboration. The researcher used the Clarke and
Estes (2008) knowledge, motivation, and organization (KMO) framework to guide research
questions. The research questions were designed to garner responses that would help identify the
influences that either facilitate or inhibit cross-sector collaboration between entities involved in
workforce development. Findings in this chapter indicate. The key findings can be summarized
as follows:
Workforce development is consistently described as aligning job seekers' skills with
employers' needs, ensuring the workforce can meet industry demands. Participants recognize the
importance of preparing job seekers for employment through training, education, and support
services. Workforce development not only prepares individuals for employment, but also creates
pathways for career entry and progression. Addressing social barriers and providing support
services for individuals seeking employment were integral aspects of workforce development.

69
Participants see workforce development as contributing to the well-being and growth of
local communities, citing how living wages and family stability positively impact entire
populations. Workforce development was viewed as a driver of economic growth within
communities, lifting people out of poverty, addressing inequities, and fostering economic
prosperity. It is seen as essential for addressing long-standing disparities and disadvantages
within communities, aligning with equity goals.
All participants highly value collaboration and consider it a worthwhile endeavor.
Collaboration among diverse stakeholders, including training providers, educational institutions,
and social service agencies was emphasized to comprehensively address the needs of individuals
and communities. Effective collaboration necessitates a unifying goal that brings participating
entities together. Collaborations thrive when diverse parties with different viewpoints and
resources come together to leverage their strengths. The willingness to contribute resources
demonstrates a commitment to the collaboration's success. Building and maintaining
relationships and trust among collaborators was deemed vital and all participating entities share
responsibility for the collaboration's success and contribute to achieving the shared goal.
Some participants outline formal steps for collaboration, others view collaboration as an
organic process based on mutual interests and needs. Regardless of formal or informal processes,
all participants indicate their individual process of collaboration begins with clear context setting
and background information, which facilitates the identification of common goals and
collaborative opportunities. Collaboration involves a collective effort where each party
contributes specific elements, such as skills or funding, to achieve a common goal. An open
culture of sharing resources was stressed, promoting a willingness to contribute for the common
good.

70
While not widely discussed, two participants recognized the importance of performance
measures in tracking progress of collaborative efforts. The participants share a common
understanding of workforce development as a multifaceted concept that aligns the skills of job
seekers with employer needs, prepares individuals for employment, supports career growth, and
addresses social barriers. Collaboration was seen as vital to workforce development, promoting
community well-being and equity. The study revealed that effective collaboration requires
supportive leadership, clear communication, trust-building, and a commitment to shared goals.
Workforce development stakeholders identify professional development, staff support,
technology solutions and mutual investment of resources by collaborative partners as factors that
facilitate collaboration. While collaboration requires a considerable investment of time, the
benefits in terms of outcomes and impacts were evident to the participants, emphasizing its
crucial role in the workforce development system.
The following chapter will make recommendations about ways to facilitate more
collaboration based on the data and findings gleaned from participant interviews, and supporting
literature.

71
Chapter Five: Recommendations
This study sought to reveal what areas of knowledge, motivation and organizational
factors would help facilitate more collaboration between the various entities that have a stake in
the workforce development system. Perceptions of experts in the workforce development system
in the San Francisco Bay Area of California informed what can be done to improve cross-sector
collaboration utilizing the Clark and Estes knowledge, motivation and organization influences
(KMO) framework (Clark & Estes, 2008). Cross sector collaboration requires stakeholders to
align implementation efforts and coordinate cross-agency work in order to create a coherent
education-to-workforce pipeline (Cushing et al., 2019). Strong collaboration among government,
employers and industry, workforce training providers, and educational institutions, and service,
and community-based organizations is needed to support and deliver effective workforce
services (Cordero-Guzman, 2014). Qualitative data gleaned from responses to interview
questions by representatives from different sectors in the workforce development pipeline in the
San Francisco Bay Area of California informed recommendations for this study. This chapter
provides recommendations based on the results from this qualitative study, and literature, to
determine what would help facilitate more collaboration between the various entities that have a
stake in the workforce development system. The study used qualitative research methods to
answer the following questions:
1. What are the perceptions of workforce system experts related to the knowledge,
motivation and organizational factors that either facilitate or inhibit cross-sector
collaboration?
2. What organizational factors would help facilitate more collaboration between the various
entities that have a stake in workforce development?

72
Chapter 4 presented the data analysis of the qualitative participant interviews. This
chapter begins with a discussion of the findings that provides the foundation for the subsequent
recommendations to improve cross-sector collaboration. The chapter continues by elaborating on
the recommendations rooted in evidenced-based practices found in literature. Finally, the chapter
concludes with limitations, delimitations, and recommendations for future research not
encompassed in this study.
Discussion of Findings
Knowledge, motivation and organization influences play a critical role in shaping the
dynamics of collaboration and have implications for the overall effectiveness and outcomes of
collaborative efforts within the workforce development system. The following narrative provides
a detailed analysis of each influence, supported by relevant scholarly research, and offers
insights into the challenges and opportunities inherent in workforce system collaboration.
Knowledge Influence Findings
The data obtained from participants' responses highlight that stakeholders share the same
knowledge and understanding of workforce development and collaboration. Scholarly findings
suggest that shared knowledge can significantly improve the collaborative efforts of individuals
and organizations working towards a common goal. When collaborators operate from a shared
framework and vocabulary, it enhances their ability to effectively work together. It ensures that
everyone involved has a common understanding of the collaboration's purpose, strategies, and
the specific roles and responsibilities of each partner. This shared understanding fosters trust and
mutual respect among collaborators, which are crucial elements for successful collaboration
(Bryson et al., 2021).

73
Conceptually, all participants recognize that workforce development is community
development, and their collective descriptions align with literary references as well as
government agencies and community development practitioners. The Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) defines community development as activities that
“build stronger and more resilient communities through an ongoing process of identifying and
addressing needs, assets, and priority investments.” The National Association for Community
Development Extension Professionals (NACDEP) , endorsed a global definition of community
development presented by the International Association for Community Development (IACD) in
2016 as a: “practice-based profession and an academic discipline that, “promotes participative
democracy, sustainable development, rights, equality, economic opportunity and social justice,
through the organization, education and empowerment of people within their communities,
whether these be of locality, identity or interest, in urban and rural settings.” The NACDEP
committee included a statement clarifying what Extension community development
professionals do: “Community Resources & Economic Development (CRED) Extension
Professionals work WITH communities to support activities that encourage broad participation
and result in social, environmental, and/or economic improvement as defined by the
community.” Workforce and economic development is intertwined with many aspects of
community development.
Additionally, all participants similarly described procedural knowledge of collaborative
processes, the last knowledge influence investigated in this study. Procedural knowledge
examined in the context of this study is the understanding of the process of collaboration. Shared
understanding is regarded as a component of the collaborative learning process, as discussed by
Ansell and Gash (2008; 2018) and Kelman et al. (2013). This involves stakeholders engaging in

74
collaborative learning and sharing knowledge to enhance consensus on policy beliefs and public
service goals (Leach et al., 2014). Existing literature has explored the impact of sharing on
collaborative behaviors among partners (Choi & Robertson, 2014; 2019), the connection
between information sharing and enduring collaboration with shared identity, beliefs, and core
values (Conner et al., 2016; Thomson et al., 2006), and how partner interactions stimulate
information sharing, instill trust, internal legitimacy, shared commitment, and consequently,
foster shared motivation (Emerson et al., 2012).
All participants in the study similarly described workforce development, recognizing its
role in community development and the development of equity. All participants also value
collaboration and understand the necessity of goal alignment and investment of resources to
facilitate success. The analysis of qualitative interviews revealed no gaps in knowledge amongst
stakeholders in the workforce development system in SF Bay area. Therefore, no
recommendations for practice are related to gaps in factual, conceptual or procedural knowledge.
Motivation Influence Findings
Data indicates that 100% of the participants place high value and importance on
collaboration and they are committed to investing time and effort in collaboration to facilitate
cross-sector delivery of services. Nine out of ten participants also recognize that in order to be
more effective, workforce system service providers must collaborate. Literature purports that
organizations establish connections to tackle societal problems and economic challenges that are
beyond the capacity of individual organizations to address (Bryson, 2006; de Montigney et al.,
2019). All participants also share the same motivation and prioritization and commitment to
collaboration. In all areas of motivational influence, task value, expectancy and attribution, ten
out of ten participants recognize their work is better together and assign high value to

75
motivational influences. Empirical studies demonstrate that motivation, learning and
performance are enhanced if a person values the task (Clark & Estes, 2008; Pintrich, 2003). The
foundation of shared motivation, which is the result of principled engagement, is the
establishment of trust. This occurs gradually as parties collaborate, become familiar with one
another, and demonstrate that they are rational, reliable, and consistent. Trust is recognized as an
essential component of collaboration. Additionally scholars indicate people who are interested
tend to engage in more in-depth information processing, resulting in a better understanding of the
subject matter than those who lack interest (Ambose et al., 2010; Elliott et al., 2018). Analysis of
the data from this study indicates no gaps in motivation influences amongst stakeholders in the
workforce development system in SF Bay area. Therefore, no recommendations for practice are
related to gaps in motivation.
Organization Influence Findings
Mission and Goal Alignment
As referenced in the organization findings for research question one regarding influences
that facilitate or inhibit collaboration, participants universally agreed that identifying a common
goal for the collaboration was one of the most important organization influences. All of the
participants stated that goal alignment was a primary requirement for successful collaboration,
regardless of their role in the workforce development system. The understanding that goal
alignment is an important factor for successful collaboration is in alignment with scholarly
research. In an examination of success factors of cross-sector partnerships, Hartman and Dhanda
(2018) posit, to ensure success in a partnership, it is important for partners to agree on shared
goals. The more consensus and clarity there is on these goals, and the better they are conveyed
and understood by all parties, the higher the likelihood that the partnership will achieve its

76
objectives. Cloutier and Langley (2017) posit, the alignment and congruence of partner interests
and goals is a crucial factor for alliance success. Data related to the organization influence area
related to mission and goal alignment indicate no gaps that need to be addressed and therefore,
no recommendations.
Resource Allocation
Resource allocation is another organizational influence examined in this study.
Participants concluded that each organization in a collaborative partnership should contribute
resources to the collaboration and that contribution of resources demonstrates commitment. Their
understanding of resource allocation also aligns with scholarly research. When organizations
recognize that a collaborative initiative aligns closely with their core missions and goals, they are
more inclined to allocate resources to the endeavor and experience fewer incompatibilities in
their collaborative partnership goals (Fadda & Rotondo, 2020). Empirical research has also
shown that mutual investments by collaborators lead to alignment of stakeholder interests and
stronger alliances (Sapat et al., 2019). Data from this study related to resource allocation n
indicate that all partners contribute resources to collaborative projects. Mutual investments by
collaborative partners are evidenced in research as an effective practice that is not in need of
intervention and therefore there are no recommendations. However, participants did identify a
resource areas that is missing or in short supply for many of the collaborative efforts in which
they participate. That is the human resource of a facilitator/project manager to manage the
collaboration.
Performance Measures
This study also examined the organization influence of performance measures.
Performance measures play a critical role in ensuring accountability within cross-sector

77
collaborations. Implementing well-defined and transparent performance measures helps to
establish accountability structures, ensuring that each participating organization is held
responsible for its contributions and commitments. Additionally, performance measures provide
a means of assessing the progress and outcomes of the collaborative initiative. Scholars describe
structural and contextual factors that influence collaborative performance that include,
coordination and integration, external control, system stability, trust, and resource utilization
(Cristofoli & Markovic, 2016; Markovic, 2017) and how the various factors combine to affect
the different levels and dimensions of performance (Fadda & Rotondo, 2020).
Performance measures act as quantifiable metrics that enable stakeholders to gauge the
effectiveness and impact of the collaborative effort. They allow collaborators to assess whether
the initiative is meeting its intended outcomes and identify areas for improvement (Clarke &
MacDonald, 2019.) Overall, despite the fact that only two participants in the study identified
performance measures as a top priority, research indicates it is important to recommend the
implementation of robust performance measures to enhance accountability, track progress, foster
alignment, and improve communication within a collaborative initiative (Van Tulder & Keen,
2018). By doing so, stakeholders can gain valuable insights into the effectiveness of their
collaborative efforts, leading to more informed decision-making and, ultimately, better outcomes
for the workforce system as a whole.
Organization Factors That Facilitate Collaboration
Support Staff with Project Management and Facilitation Skills
Participants expressed the importance of having support staff available to assist with
collaborative tasks and dedicated roles responsible for fostering and managing collaborations.
Staff should possess project management and facilitation skills to navigate the complexities of

78
collaborative efforts. Collaboration often requires more time than working alone due to several
inherent complexities and processes involved in group interactions and joint decision-making.
These factors contribute to the time-intensive nature of collaborative endeavors. When multiple
individuals or organizations collaborate, discussions and negotiations are essential to reach a
consensus on various aspects of the project, such as goals, strategies, and resource allocation.
These deliberations necessitate time for information sharing, active listening, and
accommodating diverse perspectives, often requiring extensive planning. These processes may
involve iterative discussions, adjustments, and clarifications, further contributing to the timeintensive nature of collaboration (Opara et al., 2022). Allocating human resources to focus on
managing and facilitating the time-consuming collaborative process facilitates success. This
allocation of personnel is vital in enhancing the effectiveness of collaborative efforts within the
workforce development system and has been substantiated by scholarly research. In the public
sector, project management serves to enhance the efficient and effective allocation of resources,
foster better coordination among various stakeholders (including civil society, private
enterprises, service users, elected representatives, and others), and bolster adaptability
(Desjardins & Bredillet, 2022).
These findings underscore the need for a deliberate and intentional approach to address
staffing constraints that hinder workforce system collaboration. Stakeholders seeking to build
partnerships should set aside funds specifically to pay for individuals doing collaborative work,
which is critical for maintaining collaborations (Scott et al., 2018). Effective multi-agency
collaboration is a full-time job and should be resourced as such (Soliz & Mesa, 2023). The
importance of establishing positions within organizations that are solely devoted to fostering

79
collaboration cannot be overstated, as this dedicated staffing can enhance the overall
effectiveness and efficiency of collaborative endeavors within the workforce system.
Opportunities for Networking and Professional Development
Participants also identified the ability to network and engage with peers in similar roles as
important to facilitate collaboration, as well as professional development and training in the
process of implementing collaboration. Their beliefs align with scholarly research related to
skills required for coordinating successful collaborative efforts. The capability and skills of
individuals and organizations play a significant role in successful cross-sector collaborations.
Being able to work across boundaries, involve stakeholders, engage in strategic planning, and
work in teams are some of the important competencies required for effective collaboration (Page
et al., 2021; Quick & Feldman, 2014; Simo, 2009; Simo & Bies, 2007). Cultivating competency
in leading collaborative efforts is of critical importance (de Montigny & Bouchard, 2019).
Data Sharing and Technology Solutions
Participants identified the challenge of siloed systems and restrictive data sharing rules as
barriers to collaboration. They expressed the need for technology solutions that could bridge
these gaps and facilitate the sharing of information across partner organizations. Literature
indicates that data sharing is a top challenge to cross-sector collaboration (Erickson et al., 2017;
Spillman et al., 2017). One of the most frequently encountered barriers to service integration is
inconsistency in data collection and data management across programs (Allen, 2021).
Researchers have proposed data sharing as a key component of such cross-sector collaborations
to both improve the well-being of people and communities and to address inequities (Landers et
al. 2018). In addition to researchers, advocates, policymakers, and others have difficulty
accessing data that would help inform policy, continuous improvement, and efforts to close

80
equity gaps (California Data System, 2019). Recognizing the importance of shared data, in 2019
the California legislature authorized the creation of the California Cradle-to-Career Data System
(State of California, 2021). Development of the data system started in Fall of 2021. It was
intended to be operational by 2023, however the state faces challenges securing signed
agreements between the agencies that would share information. Because the state of California as
well as participants in this study are making efforts to share data that will benefit collaborative
efforts, there are no recommendations related to data sharing.
Supportive Leadership
Participants indicate that collaborative efforts require support from institutional
leadership. When leaders endorse and accommodate collaborative work, it enables individuals to
engage in external collaborations without conflicts or disruptions. Leadership has been removed
from the ‘process’ category, appearing as an element that supports the collaborative process and
not as an integral part of it. In collaborative arrangements, formal leaders are more inclined to
maintain neutrality, allowing participants to generate their own solutions without showing
preference for one perspective over another (de Montigny et al., 2019). Studies have indicated
that collaborative leadership has the capacity to establish networks, enable members, facilitate
communication and interaction, mitigate conflicts, align the interests of members, foster trust,
stimulate creativity, exemplify new roles, advocate for systematic thinking, and ultimately
enhance collaborative/network performance (Cepiku & Mastrodascio, 2021; Torfing & Ansell,
2017). All participants in this study indicated that they and their respective organizations
demonstrate that they value collaboration. They also indicated that leadership at each of their
organizations attributes high value to collaboration, and therefore, there are no recommendations
related to supportive leadership.

81
The organization influence findings of the study on workforce system collaboration
highlight several important factors, including mission and goal alignment, resource allocation,
and performance measures. Participants in the study emphasized the significance of goal
alignment for successful collaboration, as well as the need for resource allocation from all
participating organizations. Staffing shortages, particularly the lack of dedicated personnel
focused on developing and managing collaborations, were identified as a hindrance to effective
collaboration. Participants did not prioritize performance measures, but research indicates their
importance in ensuring accountability and assessing the progress of collaborative initiatives.
Recommendations for Practice
Cross-sector collaboration has been described as emerging from political, economic, and
social forces. The complexity of social problems requires cooperation and collaboration among
organizations in multiple sectors (Bryson & Stone et al., 2015; Clarke & Crane, 2018). The
findings from this study revealed thematic recommendations related to improving cross-sector
collaboration between stakeholders in the workforce development system. The first
recommendation is related to professional development to fosters skills of collaboration. The
second recommendation is to systematically implement performance measures in collaborative
efforts and the third is to advocate for policies that provide resources and support for
collaboration.
Recommendation 1: Continue and Increase Opportunities for Professional Development
and Networking
The participant perspectives conveyed a need for opportunities to network, and
professional development that includes training in project management. Literature substantiates
the benefits of networking, professional development and project management for collaborative

82
efforts. It is recommended that workforce development professionals actively pursue all three
options. Over time, networking builds a group of trusted colleagues who can assist with
challenging problems of practice, develop ideas for collaborative projects such as grants or
activities, and opportunities to share information, and make connections. Members of
professional networks learn from each other, and ideally utilize their networks to collaborate and
give back to the profession (Cooper & Flynn, 2019). Networking expands professional
awareness and challenges individuals to think critically and carefully about the work that they
do. Networking also provides support when needed, and the opportunity to mentor and be
mentored. In every career, networking is critical for professional growth and development
(Light, 2021). The purpose of professional development is to enhance an individuals’ career
competencies, enabling them to successfully perform in their professional roles (Nguyen, 2019).
Literature also supports the need for project management for collaborative efforts. Executing a
project in a single organization is complex and doing so with multiple partners is even more so;
rigorous project management is essential (Parker & Selsky, 2004). Project management enhances
the efficient and effective allocation of resources, fosters better coordination among various
stakeholders (Desjardins & Bredillet, 2022).
Recommendation 2: Develop or Adopt a Systematic Approach to Implementing
Collaborative Performance Measures
Two participants in this study expressed a need to increase the utilization of performance
measures. Findings did not highlight to the level of a theme, but research suggests the
implementation of robust performance measures to enhance accountability, track progress, foster
alignment, and improve communication within collaborative efforts. To effectively implement
performance measures within workforce system collaborations, the following recommendation

83
and plan can be considered. Workforce system collaborators should adopt a systematic approach
to implementing performance measures that align with the collaborative goals and objectives.
This entails establishing a comprehensive framework that encompasses the following key
elements:
1) Clearly defined objectives,
2) A set of relevant indicators that reflect the desired outcomes and progress towards the
collaborative objectives,
3) A systematic process for collecting and monitoring data related to the identified
performance indicators,
4) A structured approach for analyzing the collected data and generating regular
performance reports,
5) Regular review and evaluation of the performance measures and associated data to
identify areas where adjustments or enhancements may be needed.
This recommendation also corresponds with the concepts presented in the work of
Landers et al. (2018), who advocate for developmental evaluations. Developmental evaluations
are focused on monitoring organizational changes to enable self-analysis, thereby identifying
entrenched practices that might hinder the organization's ability to provide an adaptable solution
to intricate problems (Landers et al., 2018). This iterative and collaborative approach, involving
stakeholders, fosters evaluative thinking, and cultivates mutual understanding. This model assists
a stakeholder workgroup in documenting their activities, methods, and the rationale for their
significance. A set of procedures and benchmarks directs users towards making evidence-based
conclusions. Its deliberate design effectively fosters shared understanding within complex,
multicultural organizations (Bryson & Stone, 2015), promoting dynamic thinking and change.

84
Recommendations from this study support similar strategies to facilitate collaboration that have
been developed by workforce development practitioners. The National Governors’ Association
Center for Best Practices has outlined a set of recommendations for states to coordinate
economic development, education, workforce, and human services, including the institutions
within these systems (e.g. one-stop career centers, community colleges, and local Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) agencies, as well as accountability for policymakers.
Their recommendations include tracking performance outcomes (National Governor’s
Association, 2013). By implementing this recommendation, workforce system collaborators can
establish a robust performance measurement framework that promotes accountability, supports
evidence-based decision-making, and drives continuous improvement of collaborative efforts.
Recommendation 3: Advocate for Policies that Resource Collaboration
The National Council of Nonprofits defines advocacy as any activity that expresses
support for, suggests, presents arguments for a cause, upholds or defends, or entreats on behalf of
others. This encompasses a wide range of activities, including engagement with regulators, legal
actions, and involvement with administrative agencies (Rees et al., 2023).
Stakeholders within the workforce development system can advocate for policy changes
that support and incentivize collaboration. This could involve engaging with policymakers and
advocating for the inclusion of collaborative initiatives in funding opportunities, performance
metrics, and evaluation criteria. Additionally, advocating for the creation of financial incentives
specifically designed to promote collaborative efforts can encourage organizations to prioritize
collaboration and overcome resource constraints including human resources. Ten out of ten
participants expressed the importance of hiring someone whose primary focus is to identify,
facilitate and manage collaborative efforts. To enhance collaboration, organizations should

85
advocate for funding dedicated staffing positions explicitly focused on fostering and managing
collaborative efforts. These designated personnel can serve as collaboration facilitators, ensuring
effective communication, coordination, and alignment among participating entities. Having a
designated individual responsible for collaboration fosters a sense of continuity and commitment
to the collaborative agenda. This person plays a central role in guiding the collaborative process,
ensuring that goals are well-defined, tasks are coordinated, and communication is facilitated
among the collaborating entities. The presence of such a facilitator promotes a structured and
organized approach to collaboration, mitigating potential confusion or misunderstandings that
might arise when multiple parties are involved. Academic literature emphasizes the importance
of investing in human resources for collaboration, as it has a significant impact on the overall
success and sustainability of collaborative efforts. Consequently, the presence of a dedicated
collaborator is instrumental in elevating the potential for successful collaborative outcomes
within the context of the workforce development system.
Participants in the workforce development system can implement strategies for advocacy
by forming collaborative committees or task forces that focus on addressing time and staffing
challenges. These groups can work together to develop integrated advocacy agendas for policy
changes. Additionally, they can seek external funding or resources to support the implementation
of collaborative staffing roles and capacity-building initiatives. Stakeholders can engage in
policy advocacy by forming coalitions and partnerships with other organizations that they
collaborate with and that share similar goals. They can leverage their collective voice to
influence policymakers and demonstrate the benefits of collaboration in achieving workforce
development objectives. Utilizing research-based evidence and data from successful
collaborative initiatives, stakeholders can make a compelling case for the importance of

86
addressing time constraints and staffing issues to improve the overall effectiveness and impact of
the workforce development system.
Recommendations from this study align with strategies that have been developed by
workforce development practitioners. The Alliance for Quality Career Pathways (AQCP)
engaged ten states, including California, to define a framework for aligning career pathway
systems at the state and local levels. The criteria included implementing supportive policies, and
utilizing shared data and measures (Center for Law and Social Policy, 2014).
Limitations and Delimitations
There are limitations to the study that must be taken into consideration. Due to the small
sample size of only ten participants, this study was confined to the limited number of people who
could participate and be interviewed. However, the data collected from a specific study
population with semi-structured interview questions, and the use of probes, can still be
potentially useful (Patton, 2002) for educators, practitioners, researchers and policymakers given
its research approach. Limitations can also restrict the generalizability of the study. While the
results of this study are not generalizable, Guba and Lincoln (1985) argue, the more important
question for qualitative research is not about generalizability or transferability, or if the results
will be found again, but whether the results make sense and are consistent with the data
collected.
Delimitations address how the researcher narrows the scope of the study to make it more
focused or manageable (Kornuta & Germaine, 2019). In order to maintain focus, this study was
confined to interviewing ten participants/stakeholders. Each interview included semi-structured
questions to elicit responses and increase understanding of the Knowledge, Motivation and

87
Organization influences, and how those influences affect collaborative efforts between workforce
system stakeholders in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Recommendations for Future Studies
The complexities associated with studying cross-sector collaborations and the
need to offer evidence-based guidance to policy makers in designing and implementing
such collaborations are significant. However, these challenges must be overcome to
effectively address the pressing public issues that we currently face (Bryson & Stone,
2015).
Studies of cross-sector collaboration have produced rich material for those who seek to
understand the relationships among the initial conditions, processes, structures, facilitators and
constraints, outcomes, and accountabilities of collaborations. What I have found is little research
on the policy changes required to facilitate more collaboration. I also found that other researchers
agree. According to Bryson and Stone (2015), “Few, if any, research studies have gathered data
on all of these in a way that could easily guide research or help policy makers.” Future studies
should focus on examining policy frameworks and regulations that facilitate and sustain effective
cross- sector collaboration. Additionally, the field would benefit from research on a larger scale
to address the limitations of this study that included only ten participants. Researchers Parker and
Selsky (2005) and Kourala and Laasonen’s (2010) call for large-scale empirical research
defining and operationalizing key concepts like capacity to better understand the impact of crosssector collaboration. This research can provide valuable guidance for policymakers and
practitioners seeking to promote and enhance collaboration within the workforce development
system.

88
Conclusion
The importance and timeliness of this study on workforce system collaboration lies in its
contribution to addressing the challenges and complexities associated with collaborative efforts
within the workforce development system. Successful cross-sector collaboration requires a
deliberate investment in time, resources, and dedicated personnel who can facilitate the
collaborative process. Cross-sector collaboration also involves intricate human interactions,
consensus-building, and mutual adjustments, all of which require time to establish and nurture.
While collaboration offers numerous benefits, its time-intensive nature must be acknowledged
and appropriately managed to harness its full potential for achieving collective goals. It is
necessary to set aside space and time to engage in meaningful discussions, joint planning, and
decision-making. Along with the significance of setting aside structured time for collaboration,
hiring a facilitator or project manager and implementing performance measures are other key
strategies to optimize collaborative outcomes. The project managers serve as a central point of
contact, facilitating the exchange of information, data, and resources. This streamlined
communication helps to reduce inefficiencies, conflicts, and redundancies that may otherwise
hinder the collaborative process. The facilitator or project manager also keeps track of
deliverables, outcomes and performance measures. The performance measures foster alignment
and coherence among collaborating organizations. When each participant is aware of the specific
performance expectations and targets, it becomes easier to coordinate efforts and pool resources
effectively. This alignment is particularly crucial when dealing with fragmented funding from
multiple sources, as performance measures can guide the allocation and utilization of resources
in a way that maximizes the overall impact of the collaboration. In order to facilitate
opportunities to set aside more structured time for collaboration, acquire appropriate staffing, and

89
implement performance measures, stakeholders in the workforce development system would
benefit from collective advocacy to ensure they receive the required support needed for effective
collaboration. The implementation of these recommendations will enhance communication,
coordination, and accountability among collaborating entities. By adopting these practices,
stakeholders in the workforce development system can navigate the complexities of
collaboration more effectively and drive positive change in addressing the workforce
development needs of the San Francisco Bay region.

90
References
Agranoff, R. (2012). Collaborating to manage: A primer for the public sector. Georgetown
University Press.
Ahmadsimab, A., & Chowdhury, I. (2019). Managing tensions and divergent institutional logics
in firm–npo partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics, 168(3), 651–670.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04265-x
Ajilore, O. (2020, February 24). On the persistence of the Black-White unemployment gap.
Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/persistenceblack-white-unemployment-gap/
Allen, C., Coleman, K., Mettert, K., Lewis, C., Westbrook, E., & Lozano, P. (2021). A roadmap
to operationalize and evaluate impact in a learning health system. Learning Health
Systems, 5(4). https://doi.org/10.1002/lrh2.10258
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How
learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. Jossey-Bass.
Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032
Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2018). Collaborative platforms as a governance strategy. Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(1), 16–32.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mux030
Archibald, M. M., Ambagtsheer, R. C., Casey, M. G., & Lawless, M. (2019). Using Zoom
videoconferencing for qualitative data collection: Perceptions and experiences of

91
researchers and participants. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18(1), 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919874596
art, D., Zimbrich, K., & Whelley, T. (2002). Challenges in coordinating and managing services
and supports in secondary and postsecondary options. National Center on Secondary
Education and Transition, 1(6), 1–9.
Austin, J. E., & Seitanidi, M. M. (2012). Collaborative value creation: A review of partnering
between nonprofits and businesses: Part I. value creation spectrum and collaboration
stages. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(5), 726–758.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764012450777
Babiak, K., & Thibault, L. (2009). Challenges in multiple cross-sector partnerships. Nonprofit
and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(1), 117–143.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764008316054
Belzer, A. (2003, January 1). Living with it: Federal policy implementation in adult basic
education: The cases of the Workforce Investment Act and welfare reform: NCSALL
reports #24. NCSALL. https://doi.org/10.1037/e371972004-001
Bird , K., & Foster, M. (2013, November 7). From PIAAC to policy solutions: Promoting
postsecondary and economic success for low-skilled workers. CLASP.
https://www.clasp.org/publications/report/brief/piaac-policy-solutions-promotingpostsecondary-and-economic-success-low/
Bird, K., Foster, M., & Ganzglass, E. (2014, September). Key provisions of the Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA). CLASP.
https://www.clasp.org/sites/default/files/public/resources-and-publications/publication1/KeyProvisionsofWIOA-Final.pdf

92
Bititci, U. S., Martinez, V., Albores, P., & Parung, J. (2004). Creating and managing value in
collaborative networks. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, 34(3/4), 251–268. https://doi.org/10.1108/09600030410533574
Blumenstyk, G. (2020, January 22). By 2020, they said, 2 out of 3 jobs would need more than a
high-school diploma. Were they right? Chronicle.
https://www.chronicle.com/newsletter/the-edge/2020-01-22
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theory and methods (5th ed.). Pearson.
Bryson, J. M., Barberg, B., Crosby, B. C., & Patton, M. Q. (2021). Leading social
transformations: Creating public value and advancing the common good. Journal of
Change Management, 21(2), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2021.1917492
Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2006). The design and implementation of crosssector collaborations: Propositions from the literature. Public Administration Review,
66(s1), 44–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00665.x
Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2015). Designing and implementing cross-sector
collaborations: Needed and challenging. Public Administration Review, 75(5), 647–663.
https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12432
California Data System. (2019). Cradle-to-Career data system: Final report to the legislature.
https://cadatasystem.wested.org/
Campbell, C., & Love, I. (2016, December 1). Leveraging community colleges in the workforce
innovation and opportunity act: A blueprint for state policymakers. Education
Commission of the States. https://www.ecs.org/wpcontent/uploads/ECS_FundingReports_WIOA_F.pdf

93
Carnevale, A., Strohl, J., & Ridley, N. (2017). Good jobs that pay without a BA. Georgetown
University. https://cew.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/CEW-Good-Jobs-wo-BAfinal.pdf
Center For Continuing Study of the California Economy. (2023). Numbers in the news.
https://www.ccsce.com/Numbersnews.php
Center for Law and Social Policy. (2014, June). Shared vision, strong systems: The alliance for
quality career pathways framework version 1.0. https://www.clasp.org/alliance-qualitycareer-pathways/
Cepiku, D., & Mastrodascio, M. (2019). Leadership behaviours in local government networks:
An empirical replication study. Public Management Review, 23(3), 354–375.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1679233
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative
analysis (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
Chen, J. (2020). Governing collaborations: The case of a pioneering settlement services
partnership in Australia. Public Management Review, 23(9), 1295–1316.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1743345
Choi, T., & Robertson, P. J. (2014). Deliberation and decision in collaborative governance: A
simulation of approaches to mitigate power imbalance. Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory, 24(2), 495–518. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mut003
Choi, T., & Robertson, P. J. (2019). Contributors and free-riders in collaborative governance: A
computational exploration of social motivation and its effects. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 29(3), 394–413.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muy068

94
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Publishing Inc.
Clarke, A., & Crane, A. (2018). Cross-Sector partnerships for systemic change: Systematized
literature review and agenda for further research. Journal of Business Ethics, 150(2),
303–313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3922-2
Clarke, A., & MacDonald, A. (2019). Outcomes to partners in multi-stakeholder cross-sector
partnerships: A resource-based view. Business & Society, 58(2), 298–332.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650316660534
Cloutier, C., & Langley, A. (2017). Negotiating the moral aspects of purpose in single and crosssectoral collaborations. Journal of Business Ethics, 141(1), 103–131.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2680-7
Congressional Research Service. (2016, June 20). Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical
Education Act of 2006: An overview.
https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R44542.html
Conner, T. W., Nowlin, M. C., Rabovsky, T., & Ripberger, J. T. (2016). Cultural theory and
managerial values: Examining trust as a motivation for collaboration. Public
Administration, 94(4), 915-932. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12200
Cooper Cary, A., & Flynn, R. P. (2019). The importance of professional networks. Journal of
Archival Organization, 16(2-3), 144–150.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15332748.2019.1680123
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452230153

95
Cordero-Guzman, H. (2014). Community-Based organizations, immigrant low-wage workers,
and the workforce development system in the United States. Baruch College at the City
University of New York.
Couch, K. A., & Fairlie, R. (2010). Last hired, first fired? Black-White unemployment and the
business cycle. Demography, 47(1), 227–247. https://doi.org/10.1353/dem.0.0086
Craps, M., Vermeesch, I., Dewulf, A., Sips, K., Termeer, K., & Bouwen, R. (2019). A relational
approach to leadership for multi-actor governance. Administrative Sciences, 9(1).
https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci9010012
Creswell, J. W. & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage Publications.
Cristofoli, D., & Markovic, J. (2016). How to make public networks really work: A qualitative
comparative analysis. Public Administration, 94(1), 89–110.
https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12192
Crosby, B. C., & Bryson, J. M. (2010). Integrative leadership and the creation and maintenance
of cross-sector collaborations. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(2), 211–230.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.01.003
Crosby, B. C., & Bryson, J. M. (2018). Why leadership of public leadership research matters:
And what to do about it. Public Management Review, 20(9), 1265–1286.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1348731
Cushing, E., English, D., Therriault, S., & Lavinson, R. (2019, March 28). Developing a collegeand career-ready workforce: An analysis of ESSA, Perkins V, IDEA, and WIOA.
American Youth Policy Forum. https://www.aypf.org/resource/publication-developing-accr-workforce/

96
de Montigny, J. G., Desjardins, S., & Bouchard, L. (2019). The fundamentals of cross-sector
collaboration for social change to promote population health. Global Health Promotion,
26(2), 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1757975917714036
Department of Labor. (2016). Career pathways joint letter 2016.
https://careerpathways.workforcegps.org/resources/2016/04/27/12/12/Career_Pathways_J
oint_Letter_2016
Department of Labor. (2019). A call to action for workforce development boards: Drivers of
change, technical assistance & reference guide https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/wioa
Desjardins, F., Jean, É., & Bredillet, C. (2022). Opening the black box of project team members’
competencies improvement in a public sector organization for a successful transition to
the project society. Project Leadership and Society, 3(5).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plas.2022.100074
Dewulf, A., & Elbers, W. (2018). Power in and over cross-sector partnerships: Actor strategies
for shaping collective decisions. Administrative Sciences, 8(3).
https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci8030043
Elliot, A. J., Dweck, C. S., & Yeager, D. S. (2018). Handbook of competence and motivation.
Guilford Press.
Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S. (2012). An integrative framework for collaborative
governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 1–29.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur011
Enosh, G., & Buchbinder, E. (2005). The interactive construction of narrative styles in sensitive
interviews: The case of domestic violence research. Qualitative Inquiry, 11(4), 588–617.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405275054

97
Erickson, F. (1984). What makes school ethnography “ethnographic”? Anthropology &
Education Quarterly, 15(1), 51–66. https://doi.org/10.1525/aeq.1984.15.1.05x1472p
Erickson, J., Milstein, B., Schafer, L., Pritchard, K., Levitz, C., Miller, C., & Cheadle, A. (2017).
Progress along the pathway for transforming regional health: A pulse check on multisector partnerships progress along the pathway for transforming regional health: A pulse
check on multi-sector partnerships. Rethink Health. https://rethinkhealth.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/03/2016-Pulse-Check-Narrative-Final.pdf
Eyre, G. A., & Pawloski, R. (2013). An American heritage: A federal adult education legislative
history 1964-2013. LINCS. https://lincs.ed.gov/professional-development/resourcecollections/profile-719
Eyster, L., Durham, C., Noy, M., & Damron, N. (2016). Understanding local workforce systems.
Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/78496/2000648-
understanding-local-workforce-systems_0.pdf
Fadda, N., & Rotondo, F. (2022). What combinations of conditions lead to high performance of
governance networks? A fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis of 12 Sardinian
tourist networks. International Public Management Journal, 25(4), 517–543.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2020.1755400
Fairlie, R. W., & Sundstrom, W. A. (1997). The racial unemployment gap in long-run
perspective. The American Economic Review, 87(2), 306–310.
Federal Register. (2016, August 19). Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act; joint rule for
unified and combined state plans, performance accountability, and the one-stop system
joint provisions; final rule. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/08/19/2016-

98
15977/workforce-innovation-and-opportunity-act-joint-rule-for-unified-and-combinedstate-plans-performance
Fosler, R. S. (2002). Working better together: How government, business, and nonprofit
organizations can achieve public purposes through cross-sector collaboration, alliances,
and partnerships. Independent Sector.
Foster, M., & Bird, K. (2013). From PIAAC to policy solutions: Promoting postsecondary and
economic success for low-skilled workers. Center for Law and Social Policy.
https://www.clasp.org/sites/default/files/public/resources-and-publications/publication1/From-PIAAC-to-Policy-Solutions-11.7.13.pdf
Frey, W. H. (2018, March 14). The US will become “minority white” in 2045, census projects.
Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-us-will-become-minority-white-in2045-census-projects/
Fry, R., Parker, K., & Kochhar, R. (2016, October 6). The State of American jobs. Pew Research
Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2016/10/06/the-state-of-americanjobs/
Furchtgott-Roth, D., Jacobson, L., & Mokher, C. (2009). Strengthening community colleges’
influence on economic mobility. Pew Project on Economic Mobility.
http://economicmobility.org/assets/pdfs/PEW_EMP_COMMUNITY_COLLEGES.pdf
Furchtgott-Roth, D., Jacobson, L., & Mokher, C. G. (2009, October 1). Strengthening community
colleges’ influence on economic mobility. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.
https://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/Jacobson.pdf

99
Gazley, B. (2008). Beyond the contract: The scope and nature of informal government-nonprofit
partnerships. Public Administration Review, 68(1), 141–154.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00844.x
Getha-Taylor, H. (2008). Identifying collaborative competencies. Review of Public Personnel
Administration, 28(2), 103–119. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371x08315434
Gibbs, G. R. (2018). Analyzing qualitative data. SAGE.
Glesne, C. (2016). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Pearson.
Gould, E. (2020, February 20). State of working America wages 2019: A story of slow, uneven,
and unequal wage growth over the last 40 years. Economic Policy Institute.
https://www.epi.org/publication/swa-wages-2019/
Gould, E., Perez, D., & Wilson, V. (2020, August 20). Latinx workers—particularly women—
face devastating job losses in the COVID-19 recession. Economic Policy Institute.
https://www.epi.org/publication/latinx-workers-covid/
Grant, C., & Osanloo, A. (2014). Understanding, selecting, and integrating a theoretical
framework in dissertation research: Creating the blueprint for your “house.”
Administrative Issues Journal Education Practice and Research, 4(2), 12–26.
https://doi.org/10.5929/2014.4.2.9
Gray, B., & Purdy, J. (2018). Collaborating for our future: Multistakeholder partnerships for
solving complex problems. Oxford University Press.
Grudinschi, D., Kaljunen, L., Hokkanen, T., Hallikas, J., Sintonen, S., & Puustinen, A. (2013).
Management challenges in cross-sector collaboration: Elderly care case study. The
Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 18(2).

100
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K,
Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp.105–117). Sage
Publications.
Hartman, L. P., & Dhanda, K. K. (2018). Cross-Sector partnerships: An examination of success
factors. Business and Society Review, 123(1), 181–214.
https://doi.org/10.1111/basr.12139
Hendricks, A., Myran, S., Owings, W. A., Katsioloudis, P., & Kaplan, L. S. (2021). Rethinking
the U.S. post-secondary education model: The relationship between earning career and
technical industry credentials and the Virginia economy. Journal of Education Finance,
47(2), 111–129.
Hesse, A., Kreutzer, K., & Diehl, M.-R. (2019). Dynamics of institutional logics in a cross-sector
social partnership: The case of refugee integration in Germany. Journal of Business
Ethics, 159(3), 679–704. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3775-0
Horowitz, J., Igielnik, R., & Kochhar, R. (2020, January 9). Trends in U.S. income and wealth
inequality. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/socialtrends/2020/01/09/trends-in-income-and-wealth-inequality/
Jacobson, W. S. (2010). Preparing for tomorrow: A case study of workforce planning in North
Carolina Municipal Governments. Public Personnel Management, 39(4), 353–377.
https://doi.org/10.1177/009102601003900404
Janeksela, G. M. (2014). US workforce and educational challenges in the global economy.
International Journal of Sociology Study, 2, 105–114.
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. (2019). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches. Sage.

101
Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2011). Collective impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 9(1), 36–
41.
Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2013). Embracing emergence: How collective impact addresses
complexity. SSIR.
https://ssir.org/articles/entry/social_progress_through_collective_impact
Kelman, S., Hong, S., & Turbitt, I. (2013). Are there managerial practices associated with the
outcomes of an interagency service delivery collaboration? Evidence from British crime
and disorder reduction partnerships. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, 23(3), 609–630. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mus038
Kornuta, H. M., & Germaine, R. W. (2019). A concise guide to writing a thesis or dissertation:
Educational research and beyond (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Kourula, A., & Laasonen, S. (2010). Nongovernmental organizations in business and society,
management, and international business research. Business & Society, 49(1), 35–67.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650309345282
Landers, G., Price, K., & Minyard, K. (2018). Developmental evaluation of a collective impact
initiative: Insights for foundations. The Foundation Review, 10(2), 80–92.
https://doi.org/10.9707/1944-5660.1417
Larsson, J., & Larsson, L. (2020). Integration, application and importance of collaboration in
sustainable project management. Sustainability, 12(2).
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020585
Leach, W. D., Weible, C. M., Vince, S. R., Siddiki, S. N., & Calanni, J. C. (2013). Fostering
learning through collaboration: Knowledge acquisition and belief change in marine

102
aquaculture partnerships. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(3),
591–622. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mut011
Light, C. (2021). Professional networking. Rosen Publishing Group.
Lindqvist, H., & Forsberg, C. (2023). Constructivist grounded theory and educational research:
Constructing theories about teachers’ work when analysing relationships between codes.
International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 46(2), 200–210.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2022.2095998
Lyon, M. A., & Henig, J. R. (2019). Blurring lines? How locally based collaborations handle the
redistribution/development tradeoff. Urban Affairs Review, 55(4), 1100–1124.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087417740704
Mack, M., & Dunham, K. (2021, June 30). A scan of key trends in the labor market and
workforce development system. Mathematica.
https://www.mathematica.org/publications/a-scan-of-key-trends-in-the-labor-market-andworkforce-development-system
Marek, L. I., Brock, D.-J. P., & Savla, J. (2015). Evaluating collaboration for effectiveness.
American Journal of Evaluation, 36(1), 67–85.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214014531068
Markovic, J. (2017). Contingencies and organizing principles in public networks. Public
Management Review, 19(3), 361–380. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2016.1209237
Mason, J. (2004). Qualitative researching (2nd. ed.). Sage.
Maye, A., Banerjee, A., & Johnson, C. (2020, December 6). The dual crisis: How the COVID-19
recession deepens racial and economic inequality among communities of color. CLASP.

103
https://www.clasp.org/publications/report/brief/dual-crisis-how-covid-19-recessiondeepens-racial-and-economic-inequality/
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
Milana, M., & McBain, L. (2015). Adult and continuing education policy in the USA. In M.
Milana & T. Nesbit (Eds.), Global perspectives on adult and continuing learning policy
(pp. 44-59). Palgrave Macmillan.
MMaxwell, J., & Chmiel, M. (2014). Notes toward a theory of qualitative data analysis. In The
SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis (pp. 21–34). SAGE Publications Ltd,
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446282243
Mourshed, M., Farrell, D., & Barton, D. (2012). Education to employment: Designing a system
that works. McKinsey Center for Government.
National Governor’s Association. (2013, January 16). State sector strategies coming of age:
Implications for state workforce policymakers. https://www.nga.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/02/Sector-Strategies-for-Policymakers-NGA-Report.pdf
Nguyen, H. C. (2019). An investigation of professional development among educational policymakers, institutional leaders and teachers. Management in Education, 33(1), 32–36.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0892020618781678
Opara, M., Okafor, O. N., & Ufodike, A. (2022). Invisible actors: Understanding the microactivities of public sector employees in the development of public-private partnerships in
the United States. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 81(2), 237–278.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12502

104
Oppel, R. A., Gebeloff, R., Lai, R., Wright, W., & Smith, M. (2020, July 5). The fullest look yet
at the racial inequity of Coronavirus. New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/07/05/us/coronavirus-latinos-africanamericans-cdc-data.html.
Ortlipp, M. (2008). Keeping and using reflective journals in the qualitative research process. The
Qualitative Report, 13(4). https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2008.1579
Page, S. B., Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., Seo, D., & Stone, M. M. (2021). Ambidexterity in
cross-sector collaborations involving public organizations. Public Performance &
Management Review, 44(6), 1161–1190. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2021.1937243
Parker, B., & Selsky, J. W. (2004). Interface dynamics in cause-based partnerships: An
exploration of emergent culture. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(3), 458–
488. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764004266016
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Social
Work: Research and Practice, 1(3), 261–283.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325002001003636
Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and
practice. Sage publications.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667
Preskill, H., Parkhurst, M., & Juster, J. S. (2014, May 1). Guide to evaluating collective impact.
FSG. https://www.fsg.org/resource/guide-evaluating-collective-impact/

105
Probst, B., & Berenson, L. (2014). The double arrow: How qualitative social work researchers
use reflexivity. Qualitative Social Work: Research and Practice, 13(6), 813–827.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325013506248
Quick, K. S., & Feldman, M. S. (2014). Boundaries as junctures: Collaborative boundary work
for building efficient resilience. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,
24(3), 673–695. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mut085
Rapley, T., & Rees, G. (2018). Collecting documents as data. In The SAGE handbook of
qualitative data collection (pp. 378-391). SAGE Publications Ltd,
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526416070
Rees, K., Early, J., Hampton, C. (Eds.) (2023). Be the change: Putting health advocacy, policy,
and community organization into practice in public health education. Oxford University
Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197570890.001.0001
Roumell, E. A., Salajan, F. D., & Todoran, C. (2018). A survey of U.S. education policy
regarding the education of adults. Educational Policy, 34(5), 785–815.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904818802416
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. Teachers College Press.
Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (4th ed.). Sage.
Sapat, A., Esnard, A.-M., & Kolpakov, A. (2019). Understanding collaboration in disaster
assistance networks: Organizational homophily or resource dependency? The American
Review of Public Administration, 49(8), 957–972.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074019861347

106
Schwandt, T. A., Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2007). Judging interpretations: But is it
rigorous? trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New Directions for
Evaluation, 2007(114), 11–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.223
Scott, M., Eyster, L., Su, Y., Blount, D., Trutko, A., Smith, A., & Gardiner, K. (2018). The
employer perspectives study: Insights on how to build and maintain strong employercollege partnerships. U.S. Department of Labor.
https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/OASP/legacy/files/Employer-Perspectives-StudyReport-Round-Final.pdf
Selsky, J. W. (2005). Cross-Sector partnerships to address social issues: Challenges to theory and
practice. Journal of Management, 31(6), 849–873.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279601
Shumate, M., Fu, J. S., & Cooper, K. R. (2018). Does cross-sector collaboration lead to higher
nonprofit capacity? Journal of Business Ethics, 150(2), 385–399.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3856-8
Simo, G. (2009). Sustaining cross-sector collaborations: Lessons from New Orleans. Public
Organization Review, 9(4), 367–384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-009-0091-x
Simo, G., & Bies, A. L. (2007). The role of nonprofits in disaster response: An expanded model
of cross-sector collaboration. Public Administration Review, 67(1), 125–142.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00821.x
Soliz, A., DeLoach, C., & Mesa, H. (2023). How do community and technical colleges build
cross-sector collaborations? The Journal of Higher Education, 94(6), 1–29.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2023.2171212

107
Sparks, E., & Waits, M. J. (2011). Degrees for what jobs? Raising expectations for universities
and colleges in a global economy. NGA Center for Best Practices.
Spillman, B. C., Leopold, J., Allen, E. H., & Blumenthal, P. (2017, April 12). Developing
housing and health collaborations: Opportunities and challenges. Urban Institute.
https://www.urban.org/research/publication/developing-housing-and-healthcollaborations-opportunities-and-challenges
State of California. (2019). Cradle-to-Career data system public data definitions.
https://c2c.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Cradle-to-Career-Data-PointDefinitions.pdf
Stephens, R. S., & Scott, E. (2003, July 14–17). Ensuring aerospace skills of the future - The
birth to work pipeline [Conference presentation]. AIAA International Air and Space
Symposium and Exposition: The next 100 Years, Dayton, Ohio, United States.
https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2003-2890
Stubblefield, H. W., & Keane, P. (1994). Adult education in the American experience: From the
colonial period to the present. Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Test, D. W., Mazzotti, V. L., Mustian, A. L., Fowler, C. H., Kortering, L., & Kohler, P. (2009).
Evidence-based secondary transition predictors for improving postschool outcomes for
students with disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32(3), 160–
181. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885728809346960
Thomson, A. M., Perry, J. L., & Miller, T. K. (2009). Conceptualizing and measuring
collaboration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(1), 23–56.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum036

108
Torfing, J., & Ansell, C. (2017). Strengthening political leadership and policy innovation through
the expansion of collaborative forms of governance. Public Management Review, 19(1),
37–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2016.1200662
U.S. Department of Education. (2013). An American heritage: A federal adult education
legislative history. LINCS. https://lincs.ed.gov/professional-development/resourcecollections/profile-719
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2008). https://www.gao.gov/
University of Southern California. (2021). Human research protection program.
https://hrpp.usc.edu/
van Tulder, R., & Keen, N. (2018). Capturing collaborative challenges: Designing complexitysensitive theories of change for cross-sector partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics,
150(2), 315–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3857-7
Vogel, R., Göbel, M., Grewe‐Salfeld, M., Herbert, B., Matsuo, Y., & Weber, C. (2022). Cross‐
sector partnerships: Mapping the field and advancing an institutional approach.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 24(3), 394–414.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12283
Voltan, A., & De Fuentes, C. (2016). Managing multiple logics in partnerships for scaling social
innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 19(4), 446–467.
https://doi.org/10.1108/ejim-01-2016-0010
von Unger, H., Huber, A., Kühner, A., Odukoya, D., & Reiter, H. (2022). Reflection labs: A
space for researcher reflexivity in participatory collaborations. International Journal of
Qualitative Methods, 21(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069221142460

109
Wang, J. (2006). Questions and the exercise of power. Discourse & Society, 17(4), 529–548.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926506063127
Watson, R., Wilson, H. N., & Macdonald, E. K. (2020). Business-nonprofit engagement in
sustainability-oriented innovation: What works for whom and why? Journal of Business
Research, 119, 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.11.023
Weber, C., Weidner, K., Kroeger, A., & Wallace, J. (2017). Social value creation in inter‐
organizational collaborations in the not‐for‐profit sector – Give and take from a dyadic
perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 54(6), 929–956.
https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12272
Webwise. (2020, January 9). Explained: What is Zoom?
https://www.webwise.ie/parents/explainers/explained-what-iszoom/#:~:text=Zoom%20is%20a%20video%20conferencing
Weidner, K., Weber, C., & Göbel, M. (2016). You scratch my back and I scratch yours:
Investigating inter-partner legitimacy in relationships between social enterprises and their
key partners. Business & Society, 58(3), 493–532.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650316675617
Weiss, R. S. (1995). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. Simon and Schuster.
Workforce Investment Act of 198, 29 U.S.C. §2801 et seq. (1998).
Zamarripa, R. (2020, October 21). Closing Latino labor market gap requires targeted policies to
end discrimination. Center for American Progress.
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/closing-latino-labor-market-gap-requirestargeted-policies-end-discrimination/

110
APPENDIX A: Interview Protocol
Research Questions:
RQ1. What are the perceptions of workforce system experts related to the
knowledge, motivation and organizational factors that either
facilitate or inhibit cross-sector collaboration?
RQ2. What areas of knowledge, motivation and organizational factors
would help facilitate more collaboration between the various
entities that have a stake in workforce development?
Respondent Type:
Representatives of workforce development boards, workforce service
providers, economic development, community colleges, adult schools and
high schools in the San Francisco Bay Area of California.
Introduction to the Interview:
Thank you for agreeing to participate in my study. I appreciate the time that you have set aside to
answer my questions. As I mentioned when we last spoke, the interview should take about an
hour and a half, does that still work for you?
Before we get started, I want to remind you the purpose of this study is to learn from experts in
the workforce development system what can be done to improve cross-sector collaboration.
As stated in the Information Sheet I emailed you, this interview is confidential. What that means
is that your real name will not be shared with anyone. I will use a pseudonym to protect your
confidentiality and you will remain anonymous. None of the information used will be
attributable to you. I will keep the data in a password protected computer and all data will be
destroyed after 3 years.
As a reminder, I am the only person who will hear the recording, and after I transcribe it, I will
destroy it. I would like to ask you one last time; may I have your permission to record our
conversation? As
Although this is a study for my dissertation, I plan to use the findings from the study to inform
my own college about what we can do to improve workforce collaboration on our campus. I will
be happy to share a copy of my study with you if you are interested.
Do you have any questions for me before we begin?
I really appreciate you taking the time to talk with me today about your thoughts and
perspectives on workforce system collaboration.
Introductory Questions:
1) Tell me briefly about your experience and role in your organization.

111
2) How did you become interested in the field of workforce development?

112
Key Concept: Knowledge
Interview Questions
Potential Probes RQ
Addressed
Category: Factual
1. How do you define workforce
development?
What is workforce
development?
RQ1
Category: Factual
2. How do you define collaboration?

What does
collaboration mean to
you?
RQ1
Category: Factual
3. What is your role within collaboration,
and tell me what your other partners roles
are?
What do you know
about your partners’
roles?
RQ1
Category: Conceptual
4. What does it take to collaborate?
What has to happen for
collaboration to work?
RQ1 & RQ2
Category: Procedural
5. Tell me about the steps you take when
collaborating and describe the processes you
followed for collaboration?
What are the processes
for collaboration you
followed in this
initiative?
RQ1 & RQ2
Key Concept: Motivation
Interview Questions
Potential Probes RQ
Addressed
Category: Task Value
6. Tell me about some of your reasons for
participating in collaborative efforts.
What motivated you to
participate? What
value do you see?
RQ1 & RQ2
Category: Expectancy
7. What are your expectations when you
collaborate?
Did you think it would
be successful, or that it
would fail?
RQ1
Category: Expectancy
8. What do you see as the result of collaboration? Do you think the effort
was successful? Why
or why not?
RQ1 & RQ2
Category: Attribution
9. What do you believe are the reasons for
the outcome?
What worked for you?
What were the
challenges?
RQ1 & RQ2
Category: Organization
10. How important is collaboration to your
organization?
Why do you think so?
RQ1 & RQ2

113
Conclusion to the Interview:
I can’t tell you how much I appreciate you taking the time to talk with me. Sharing what you
know is not only going to help me, but others like me who want to improve our collaborative
efforts and outcomes for the people we serve. Thank you for sharing your knowledge with me
and others in the field.
If I find myself with a follow-up question, can I contact you? And if so, is email is ok? Again,
thank you for participating in my study.
Key Concept: Organization
Interview Questions
Potential Probes RQ
Addressed
Category: Organization
11. How does your organization demonstrate
that it values (or does not value) collab-
oration?
How can you tell if
your organization
values (or does not
value) collaboration?
RQ1 & RQ2
Category: Organization
12. What do we need from an organizational
perspective to make collaboration
successful?
Describe what is
needed to support
collaboration?
RQ2
13. Is there anything I did not ask you
about that you might want to mention?
RQ1 & RQ2

114

115
APPENDIX B:
INFORMATION SHEET FOR EXEMPT RESEARCH
STUDY TITLE: Workforce System Collaboration
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Eva Denise Jennings
FACULTY ADVISOR: Dr. Kathy Stowe
You are invited to participate in a research study. Your participation is voluntary. Should you
decide to stop participating, you can do so at any time without consequence. This document
explains information about this study. You should ask questions about anything that is unclear to
you.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to learn from experts in the workforce development system what can
be done to improve cross-sector collaboration. It will also examine the alignment of mission and
goals, resource allocation, and performance measures of organizations related to collaboration.
You are invited as a possible participant because of your involvement in workforce system
collaborative efforts.
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you decide to take part, you will be asked to interview via Zoom, and answer questions about
factors that affected your ability to collaborate with other workforce partners to deliver
workforce services. The interview will take approximately 60 minutes. With your permission,
the interview will be recorded.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
There is no compensation for participation.
CONFIDENTIALITY

116
The members of the research team, and the University of Southern California Institutional
Review Board (IRB) may access the data. The IRB reviews and monitors research studies to
protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
To protect participant privacy and confidentiality, personal identifying information will not be
collected as part of the study, and a pseudonym and random number will be assigned to
interviewees for data tracking purposes. Transcriptions will be scrubbed of names and
identifying information. All data related to the study will be safely secured, whether in an
electronic or paper format. Additionally, data obtained in the study will be destroyed after the
study is complete.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used. Findings and results will be documented in my doctoral dissertation. A
short summary of findings will be provided to the interview participants after the final defense
and submission of my dissertation to USC.
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about this study, please contact: Eva Denise Jennings, Principal
Investigator @ edjennin@usc.edu and/or 510-967-9111. Additionally, you can contact faculty
advisor, Dr. Kathy Stowe @ kstowe@rossier.usc.edu.
IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or email
irb@usc.edu.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to examine cross-sector collaborations of workforce training, education, economic development and employment sectors of the workforce development system in the San Francisco Bay Area of California, and learn from experts what can be done to improve cross-sector collaboration. Key concepts of the Clarke and Estes knowledge, motivation and organizational influences framework (KMO) were utilized to determine how each influence facilitates or impedes collaborative efforts to building a seamless workforce services program. Clark and Estes (2008) provide a methodological approach to examine how these influences impact cross-sector collaboration (Clark & Estes, 2008).

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Integrating the industry sector in STEM learning ecosystems: a multicase study

PDF

All hands on deck! Collective impact for systemic change

PDF

Professional development in generating managerial high-quality feedback

PDF

Underrepresentation of African Americans in master’s engineering programs

PDF

Transgender experience in the U.S. military: opportunities for effective inclusion

PDF

Power-sharing in co-constructed community-school partnerships: examining values, opportunities, and barriers around community engagement in New York City school leadership teams

PDF

The failure to attract and hire Millennials and Gen Zs within the U.S. aerospace & defense industry creates workforce scarcity

PDF

Evaluating the effectiveness of global residence in improving resident cultural intelligence

PDF

Interrupting inequitable systems: evaluating a teacher leadership development program

PDF

An exploratory study of women's advancement in the construction industry

PDF

Transforming the leadership table: a critical narrative study of the underrepresentation of Chicana/os in higher education leadership

PDF

Educational technology integration: a search for best practices

PDF

Preparing Asian American leaders in higher education: an exploration study using Bronfenbrenner's ecological model

PDF

Faculty’s influence on underrepresented minority (URM) undergraduate retention

PDF

The impact of advanced technologies on the workplace and the workforce: an evaluation study

PDF

Implementation of dual language immersion to improve academic achievement of Latinx English learners

PDF

Organizational design for embedding corporate social responsibility

PDF

Ageism and ingrained stereotypes: a qualitative study of systemic injustices in hiring practices

PDF

Developing partnerships between education providers and Fortune 500 companies to increase the utilization of tuition assistance and quality digital education: an innovation study

PDF

The importance of teacher motivation in professional development: implementing culturally relevant pedagogy

Asset Metadata

Creator Jennings, Eva Denise (author)

Core Title Workforce system collaboration

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2023-12

Publication Date 11/17/2023

Defense Date 11/17/2023

Publisher Los Angeles, California (original), University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag collaboration,cross-sector collaboration,OAI-PMH Harvest,workforce development

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Canny, Eric (committee member), Malloy, Courtney (committee member), Stowe, Kathy (committee member)

Creator Email edjennin@usc.edu,evadenisejennings@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113774571

Unique identifier UC113774571

Identifier etd-JenningsEv-12481.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-JenningsEv-12481

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Jennings, Eva Denise

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20231120-usctheses-batch-1107 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu