The authors analyze Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) plans (2024–2027) and eligible training provider lists across U.S. states and territories to assess how well state workforce development systems align WIOA-eligible training programs to meet labor market demand. State workforce and higher education agencies can use these findings to strengthen cross-agency planning when approving training pathways to meet workforce needs.

Gaps in State Workforce Priorities, Needs, and Training Programs

Findings from a National Scan of WIOA Plans and Eligible Training Provider Lists

Elaine W. Leigh, Alexis Gable, Sarah Haroon Sualehi

ResearchPublished Apr 30, 2026

In this report, the authors analyze the most recent Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) plans (Program Years 2024–2027) and eligible training provider lists (ETPLs) to assess how well state workforce development systems align WIOA-eligible training programs with labor market demand. The authors examine how U.S. states and territories define credentials of value and in-demand occupations in their WIOA plans, comparing those findings with projected state workforce needs. They also assess whether eligible training providers (ETPs) offer programs to meet those workforce needs, especially for in-demand, high-quality (IDHQ) occupations that WIOA is designed to target.

Key findings reveal that most WIOA plans define credentials of value imprecisely and overlook identifying some in-demand occupations that could be eligible for WIOA funding. The findings also reveal substantial misalignment between the occupations that ETP programs offer training for and projected IDHQ occupations in each state. These gaps underscore the need for stronger coordination between workforce planning and postsecondary education and training opportunities to ensure that WIOA investments target real labor market opportunities. State workforce and higher education agencies can use these findings to strengthen cross-agency planning when approving training pathways to meet workforce needs.

Key Findings

  • States and territories have not reached a common understanding of what defines a credential of value. Fifteen states and territories explicitly use and define credentials of value language in their WIOA plans. Yet, only eight plans provide measurable benchmarks of value by defining targeted wage increases.
  • Most states and territories underestimate the in-demand occupations that they could target in their WIOA plans. Commonly omitted occupations include computer and information systems managers, supervisors of office and administrative support workers, community health workers, veterinary technologists and technicians, and medical records specialists.
  • Only about one-third of WIOA-targeted occupations across states qualify as both in-demand and high-quality—and ETP programs often do not offer training exclusively for these jobs. On average, 47 percent of states’ ETP programs offer training for at least one IDHQ occupation, and 38 percent offer training exclusively for these types of occupations.
  • While ETPs cannot be expected to close all workforce gaps, training program completers fill about 14 percent of job openings in IDHQ occupations, on average. ETP programs produce fewer completers than job openings for 90 percent of IDHQ occupations—even in the most popular occupations, such as licensed practical and vocational nurses.
  • For a few IDHQ occupations, states’ ETP programs produce more completers than available job openings—sometimes by the thousands. Such occupations include phlebotomists, electro-mechanics, emergency medical technicians, computer programmers, network support specialists, and computer and information system managers.

Recommendations

  • Federal agencies and states should align on a shared definition of credentials of value and be more explicit about how to identify and measure credential outcomes. Federal postsecondary and workforce agencies should establish clear, flexible parameters for operationalizing value—offering concrete guidance to state workforce leaders.
  • State workforce agencies should narrow their focus to priority IDHQ occupations. If states develop an intentional, more limited list accurately reflecting all the IDHQ jobs that people could train for and aligned providers that meet a shared definition of value, they can coordinate limited WIOA dollars more effectively and look to other state or federal funding mechanisms for any remaining workforce needs.
  • Workforce boards should tighten ETP approval mechanisms and review program gaps more frequently. State workforce and education agencies may need closer coordination to identify ETPs that, with additional funding or policy incentives, can develop scalable programs serving higher volumes of participants in programs offering training for IDHQ occupations. They may also need to consider expanding capacity in existing training programs, certificates, apprenticeships, and aligned degree programs.
  • The U.S. Departments of Labor and Education should improve ETPL data collection to guide state education and workforce decisions. The Employment and Training Administration can assist states by supporting a more robust data infrastructure that helps states gather real-time data on how many people are enrolled in their state’s ETP programs and their outcomes.

Topics

Document Details

Citation

Chicago Manual of Style

Leigh, Elaine W., Alexis Gable, and Sarah Haroon Sualehi, Gaps in State Workforce Priorities, Needs, and Training Programs: Findings from a National Scan of WIOA Plans and Eligible Training Provider Lists. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2026. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA4766-1.html.
BibTeX RIS

Research conducted by

This work was funded by Strada Education Foundation and conducted in the Education and Employment Program of RAND Education, Employment, and Infrastructure.

This publication is part of the RAND research report series. Research reports present research findings and objective analysis that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND research reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.

RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.