Does Combined Planning Help States Align Workforce Initiatives? Survey Shows Mixed Results.

The federal government is home to more than three dozen employment and training programs, each addressing a slightly different challenge, but often with overlapping goals, strategies, and target populations. The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) and the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act (Perkins) govern the workforce development and career and technical education (CTE) systems, respectively. While administered by different federal agencies, they share the goal of helping young people succeed in the labor market. Both programs distribute federal funding to states that, in turn, direct those funds to local implementation entities—workforce development boards for WIOA and high schools and community colleges in the case of Perkins. Each law also requires states to develop detailed, multiyear plans explaining how they will use their federal funds to achieve the core goals of the legislation.

In 2014, Congress began allowing states to combine their WIOA and Perkins plans and submit them together to the Department of Labor (DOL). The goal of this change was to spur greater collaboration between state workforce development and education agencies with overlapping missions and shared challenges. Advocates hoped that a more integrated planning process between WIOA and Perkins would lay the foundation for a more comprehensive approach to helping young people succeed in the labor market through better coordination of each program’s services and resources.

Did it work? Did the process of developing combined plans foster greater cross-agency collaboration, particularly in relation to their shared goals of helping young people? Since 2014, nine states have submitted a combined WIOA-Perkins plan at least once. We examined each of those plans and spoke to many of the state workforce and education leaders responsible for developing them.

We found that, while state leaders who develop combined plans appreciate how the process enhances collaboration between workforce development and CTE stakeholders, the specific requirements of the combined plans leave few opportunities for true coordination of activities. That said, with some modifications and more support from the DOL and the Department of Education (ED), which administers Perkins, combined planning processes could yield more opportunities for creative and sustained collaborations between state agencies.

The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act is the broad and complex federal legislation that establishes the backbone of the American public workforce development system. Through its six core programs, WIOA supports a range of employment and training services to meet the workforce development needs of specific populations of unemployed or underemployed workers, including youth (ages 16–24).[1] The WIOA Youth Program, with an annual budget of approximately $900 million, focuses on “opportunity youth,” young people neither in school nor working. WIOA’s primary goal is to connect these young people with jobs, school, or both.

Perkins plays a similar foundational role for the nation’s CTE system, which helps young people in high school and students in community college develop academic, technical, and workforce skills. Federal CTE legislation has existed since 1917, and Perkins V, passed into law in 2018, is the current governing legislation. Like WIOA, Perkins-funded programs provide young people with career training and advising and opportunities to earn credentials of value. Perkins also connects youth with further (postsecondary) education—as securing a job is not the immediate goal of CTE programs—and generally serves in-school youth, rather than opportunity youth. Funded at approximately $1.4 billion per year, Perkins distributes dollars via a formula to states.

WIOA and Perkins both support systems that are crucial to preparing young people for career success. They share related goals and overlapping populations, like youth at risk of leaving school. But they operate largely independent of one another, despite their shared interests. This can cause headaches for youth, practitioners, and policymakers alike. Youth, for example, might struggle to receive recognition from one system for training completed under the other. And differing definitions, performance metrics, and eligibility requirements make it tricky to compare the effectiveness of a Perkins-funded program to a WIOA-funded one.

WIOA and Perkins both require states to submit four-year plans detailing how they will use their federal funds to advance each program’s goals. In most cases, these planning processes are entirely separate. The state workforce development agency creates the WIOA plan and submits it to DOL, while the CTE agency simultaneously develops the Perkins plan and submits it to ED.

During the Obama administration, federal policymakers recognized that reducing siloing between education and workforce development programs could better support youth participants and leverage federal investments more strategically. Signed into law in 2014, WIOA included a provision to encourage states to take a more holistic view of their workforce development ecosystems, identifying overlaps between WIOA’s target populations and those served by other federally funded education and training programs.

About Combined State Plans

The new provision was the combined state plan—an alternative to the unified state plan,[2] which is a holdover from the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), the previous workforce legislation. A combined state plan is a WIOA unified state plan that includes, in the same document, a similar strategic and operational plan from another federal program. Legislators thought that if states combined plans for these overlapping programs, they might be able to develop more cohesive and efficient strategies for delivering services across multiple systems, aligning goals, funding streams, and performance indicators to better support individuals navigating education-to-employment pathways.[3] WIOA allows 11 other federal education, training, and human services programs to be incorporated into a combined state plan. Perkins is one of them.[4] See Figure 1 for a full view of the federal programs that can be included in a combined state plan.

The additional program(s) included in a state’s combined state plan are typically not woven together into the WIOA plan. Though state agencies do coordinate on select content across the various program plans (more on this below), the combined state plan does not integrate these different plans into a cohesive whole. Rather, it is a single document that includes distinct plans from WIOA and at least one other federal program.

States must submit either a unified state plan or a combined state plan to receive their WIOA funding. States that choose a combined plan can select which of the 11 federal workforce streams to include with their WIOA plan and which to submit separately. As illustrated by Figure 2, some combined plan states include multiple programs in their plan. Others opt for just one.

Alignment in Combined WIOA-Perkins Plans

In addition to meeting both WIOA and Perkins planning requirements, combined WIOA-Perkins plans must include the following two elements per statute, which mandate collaboration between WIOA and Perkins administrators and other stakeholders:

1. “A description of the methods used for joint planning and coordination” of WIOA and Perkins programs.[5]
2. An “assurance” that both WIOA and Perkins stakeholders had the ability to “review and comment on all portions of the combined plan.”

States have some latitude in how to implement these provisions, and a combined WIOA-Perkins plan does not require coordination beyond these two elements, though states can pursue those if they choose. For example, states might host joint listening and feedback sessions on their combined plan with both WIOA and Perkins stakeholders. States can also use the plan to align on common definitions, like what counts as a credential of value, allowing credentials that a participant receives while in a Perkins-funded program to be valued equally under WIOA. Similarly, states can establish a shared definition of in-demand industries in their combined WIOA-Perkins plan to ensure youth pathways in both programs focus on industries with high growth potential and strong wages. While nothing prevents states that do not use a combined WIOA-Perkins plan from taking similar measures, they are, in theory, easier to accomplish with a combined plan, since it already requires collaboration across WIOA and Perkins planning teams.

Uptake of Combined WIOA-Perkins Plans

Eight states submitted combined WIOA-Perkins plans in 2024, the most recent year in which WIOA and Perkins plans were due. Uptake of combined WIOA-Perkins plans has remained relatively low since the option was first introduced with WIOA’s 2014 passage. Initially, misaligned planning cycles made adopting a combined WIOA-Perkins plan difficult. When Congress reauthorized Perkins in 2018, lawmakers synced the Perkins planning cycle to align with WIOA’s. See Figure 2 for the breakdown of states submitting combined WIOA-Perkins plans, combined plans that did not include Perkins, and unified state plans in 2024. Interestingly, while only a handful of states submit combined WIOA-Perkins plans, a majority of states combine with at least one other (non-Perkins) program.

Building on research we conducted in 2024, we sought a deeper understanding of the motives, experiences, and outcomes of adopting a combined WIOA-Perkins plan. We developed a qualitative 32-question survey for state CTE and workforce leaders (respondents' profiles below), which we administered via SurveyMonkey and shared with them via email. We received responses from individuals across 37 U.S. states and territories. We interviewed nine state leaders from seven states to better understand state context and experience with WIOA and/or Perkins planning.

In addition to the survey and interviews, we reviewed select states’ WIOA plans (both combined WIOA-Perkins plans and WIOA plans that did not include Perkins), joint guidance from the federal government, and materials from Advance CTE and the Association of Career and Technical Education.

We found that while the combined WIOA-Perkins plan can help a state develop a shared strategy and coordinate implementation across WIOA and Perkins, it is not necessary to do so. Combined WIOA-Perkins plans ultimately lack efficacy as a tool to achieve the intended goal of holistic and strategic state planning.

Combined WIOA-Perkins plans have supported improved coordination between state agencies in some states. However, state leadership usually pursued combined planning because it could help support preexisting alignment efforts. Leaders did not see it as a catalyst for this work. And only a handful of states combine WIOA and Perkins in the first place. Other states have successfully enacted similar alignment initiatives without using a combined WIOA-Perkins plan. Some have even adopted their own strategic plans for CTE and workforce development outside the WIOA planning framework.

In other words, while the combined WIOA-Perkins plan can support alignment of a state’s CTE and public workforce systems, it is not a sufficient or necessary step to drive those efforts.

In our findings below, we outline the incidental benefits of combined WIOA-Perkins plans and where they have fallen short, both in terms of the planning process itself and the plans’ ability to serve as a true strategic tool for aligning state CTE and public workforce systems.

Finding 1: State leaders believe combined WIOA-Perkins plans can improve cross-agency collaboration but take more work.

Staff from WIOA-Perkins combined plan states cited improved collaboration and communication between state agencies as the main benefits of combined planning (see Figure 4). Combined planning helps workforce development and CTE agencies to develop productive cross-agency relationships.

The main benefit of combined WIOA-Perkins plans comes from these improved cross-agency partnerships, not necessarily from the plan itself. When the workforce development staff know who to talk to at the CTE office (or vice versa), they can resolve problems collaboratively and work together on issues of interest to both agencies. This is useful even outside of the planning process. In one state that has submitted a combined WIOA-Perkins plan for many years, a staffer told us that “collaboration has become second nature. The combined plan is just one thing we do together.” Another state began hosting quarterly meetings with all the program administrators involved in the combined plan to foster consistent connection beyond the planning process.

While the combined WIOA-Perkins plan can support better cross-agency relationships—an important step in ensuring the two systems work well together—it is not a panacea. One staffer noted that though the combined plan “forces people together, it’s too early to say whether the plan itself leads to good outcomes.” The state leaders who participated in our survey and interviews were mixed on other benefits the plan provided beyond improved collaboration and communication.

And the enhanced collaboration comes at a cost: more work. Several of our survey respondents said they discussed and explored combining plans, but it seemed like more work, and they were not sure it would be worth it, even if they saw the potential for benefits. When we spoke to leaders in states that combined WOIA and Perkins plans, many confirmed it was indeed more work, especially the first time. However, in some states that have combined WIOA-Perkins plans for years, leaders said that combining felt easier. They knew who they needed to work with and the timeline they needed to complete the work by, and it was their normal way of operating, so it did not seem much different than the amount of work or coordination needed for a unified plan.

Finding 2: State leaders want simpler, more strategic plans and deeper alignment between WIOA and Perkins.

Many of the state leaders we spoke with felt that the combined WIOA-Perkins plans are combined in name only. One CTE leader told us the combined plan “isn’t integrated. It is just [a] WIOA [plan] with [a] Perkins [plan] slapped on.”

States that use a combined WIOA-Perkins plan coordinate across state agencies on planning process elements, like joint feedback sessions. However, the federal agencies do not require the plans to be woven together. States still have to meet DOL and ED’s requirements for WIOA and Perkins plans, respectively. So, certain portions relevant to both programs may be repeated in a combined WIOA-Perkins plan, once in the WIOA section and again in the Perkins section. State leaders would like to see a deeper alignment of plan content across the two programs rather than functionally separate plans included in the same document. “A set of joint questions rather than siloed questions would be helpful,” one state leader said.

Many state leaders, even in states that submit a combined WIOA-Perkins plan, do not see it as living up to its potential as a strategic tool. State leaders said that a combined plan, ideally, would be a short strategic document in which WIOA and Perkins are discussed as complementary and interconnected strategies for strengthening a state’s talent pipeline.

The WIOA plan itself stands in the way of this reality, state leaders told us. The first problem is the length: In order to answer all the required questions, WIOA plans are notoriously long. Kansas’s 2024 plan totals 308 pages, Ohio’s reaches 420 pages, and California’s tops out at 535 pages. State leaders told us that the compliance-oriented structure of WIOA plans contributes to their length and prevents them from being a true strategic tool.

In responses to our survey and in our interviews, state agency staff raised frustrations around WIOA’s heavy compliance requirements. “Although it's meant to be a strategic plan, the structure of WIOA questions and requirements [makes] this process [feel] more like a compliance exercise,” one person explained. Nearly all the workforce development staff members we interviewed or who participated in our survey—regardless of whether or not their state submits a combined WIOA-Perkins plan—echoed this sentiment.

In fact, some states keep statewide strategic planning outside of WIOA for these reasons. One state workforce development leader told us that though their state is committed to aligning its workforce development and CTE systems, they do not see the WIOA plan as the most effective way to do so. They have a separate strategic plan that outlines their vision for CTE and workforce development alignment, and do not think a combined WIOA-Perkins plan would add value.

A combined WIOA-Perkins plan is not the only way for state leaders to develop a shared strategy for the state’s CTE and public workforce system. Though it can be a helpful tool, states can, and do, pursue alignment efforts outside the WIOA and Perkins planning frameworks. And the feedback we heard from state leaders suggests that combined WIOA-Perkins plans are not necessarily the right vehicle for developing a shared strategic vision that serves both systems. A short, three- to four-page vision statement, separate from the compliance elements, might prove more effective.

Finding 3: State leaders believe aligned timelines would help combined planning efforts.

When we asked state agency staff who do not submit a combined WIOA-Perkins plan what prevents them from doing so, one answer resounded: The timelines do not make sense. See responses in Figure 5. Leaders from states that do use combined WIOA-Perkins plans concurred, saying that synced timelines would improve the planning process.

Though due in the same year, WIOA and Perkins plans still have different submission dates, so states need to meet whichever deadline is earlier for the combined plan. State leaders also said that DOL and ED issue planning guidance too late in the planning cycle and do so at different times. “States need to issue our own guidance before we hear from DOL or ED,” said one state workforce development leader from a combined WIOA-Perkins plan state. Late guidance creates a compressed planning window that leaves agency staff scrambling.

State timelines can also present barriers. For example, one interviewee from a large state told us that their state is interested in submitting a combined WIOA-Perkins plan, as it would complement efforts to align CTE and workforce development systems. But ingrained internal timelines at the different agencies have prevented the change so far.

Some states have made it work despite the challenges. We spoke with staff from one combined WIOA-Perkins plan state in which both planning processes abide by whichever deadline is earlier. Though this approach means staff can be up against tight timelines, it is not, according to one interviewee, “insurmountable.” Once they implemented structures to support this approach, it has been relatively “easy” to replicate for each planning cycle, this person said.

Finding 4: State leaders need more robust and coordinated support from the federal government on combined planning.

Regardless of whether their state submits a combined WIOA-Perkins plan, state leaders said that they need more planning-related technical assistance, support, and guidance from DOL and ED.

Leaders from states that do not submit a combined WOIA-Perkins plan noted they needed more information from the federal agencies about the benefits of combining. Often, state agency staff recognize potential upsides of combining WIOA-Perkins plans, but they need to persuade decision-makers and stakeholders in their state that it is worth pursuing. To do this effectively, they said, they need more information and resources from ED and DOL about how combining would benefit their state.

A workforce development leader from a small state told us they were exploring the possibility of moving to a combined WIOA-Perkins plan, but when they turned to the federal government for more information, “there were no available resources or time” from their federal partners. The state has not adopted a combined WIOA-Perkins plan.

It is worth noting that the Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education (OCTAE), the team within ED that oversees Perkins, has promoted the inclusion of Perkins in combined state plans. In 2019, for example, OCTAE released a video (see section 10, “Submitting a Perkins-WIOA Combined Plan”) and hosted a webinar (see "October 17, 2019”) with examples of how states have used combined WIOA-Perkins plans to create alignment. In 2023, OCTAE published a program memo outlining strategies for aligning WIOA and Perkins state plans, whether states combine them or not. State leaders told us that these technical assistance efforts have not been released early enough in the planning cycle or been robust enough to be actionable.

Staff in states that do submit a combined WIOA-Perkins plan emphasized the importance of aligned guidance from the federal agencies. One leader suggested that ED and DOL jointly issue guidance with examples and innovative ways CTE and workforce development teams can collaborate at the state level to maximize the benefits of combined planning. Joint ED-DOL guidance is especially valuable to state government staff who deal with programs that span state education and workforce development agencies, as combined planning requires.

Interviewees expressed frustration that while the combined plan necessitates close collaboration across state education and workforce development agencies, the same is not required of the federal agencies implementing these programs. For example, we heard from multiple state staffers that they are required to submit their combined plan to each agency separately, even though it is one document. States submit the full combined plan via DOL’s WIOA portal and then submit the Perkins-only portion via ED’s Perkins portal. State leaders also told us that they have received conflicting feedback from DOL and ED on their combined WIOA-Perkins plans. And timeline coordination is tricky because DOL and ED impose different plan submission deadlines and often issue their planning guidance months apart.

There are steps the federal government can take to make combined planning easier for states that have found it a useful tool, and to improve the strategic value of the combined WIOA-Perkins plan. State staff members seem to see value in combining WIOA plans with other federal education and training programs. While only a handful submit combined WIOA-Perkins plans, a majority of states do combine with at least one other (non-Perkins) program. Our recommendations might not inspire prodigious change, but they would be relatively straightforward for DOL and ED to implement.

Driving meaningful alignment of state CTE and workforce development systems will likely mean an overhaul of the WIOA state plan requirements or the creation of a new planning vehicle, one that is short and focused on developing a shared strategic vision, not compliance. But this would necessitate legislative fixes, not just implementation adjustments from DOL and ED. There would also need to be consensus on what new policy would best support states’ CTE and workforce development alignment efforts.

Our four recommendations below cover both avenues, though we focus more on changes that can be made right now to enhance the combined WIOA-Perkins plan as a tool for alignment. We want to recognize that the work to align and improve systems collaboratively does not require a combined plan.

Streamline plan submission and feedback.

State leaders feel that improved coordination and alignment between DOL and ED is paramount. They need coordinated, robust guidance from DOL and ED on combined WIOA-Perkins plans. It must also come earlier in the planning process. They also would like to see the agencies work together to provide synced submission deadlines, clear submission processes, and consistent plan feedback and edits.

The federal government should provide one submission location for combined state plan states (and make it abundantly clear that states only need to submit their plans one time in one place) and a process to ensure that feedback from ED and DOL does not contradict itself.

Provide more joint guidance.

For states to write combined WIOA-Perkins plans and align workforce development and education systems strategically, meaningful coordination between ED and DOL is essential. Joint DOL and ED guidance is important because both the workforce development and the education sides of state government would receive the information and have the federal support needed to plan and implement effectively, and it would be clear to recipients that both agencies agree with the guidance.

Such guidance should include best practices from states doing particular elements of combined planning well, as shown in the 2019 video and 2023 memo. It should also feature technical assistance on implementing those combined plan elements, like how to make program delivery seamless with braiding of federal funds. State leaders told us that more support like this from the federal government would help them make the case to their stakeholders and help get all the necessary state leaders on board, in addition to making it more feasible to combine WIOA and Perkins plans and to do it well.

Incentivize combined planning.

If leaders in the federal government want more states to combine WIOA-Perkins plans, they should devise an incentive structure. Our conversations with state leaders revealed three elements that will set states up for combined planning and for developing plans that go beyond the collaboration and alignment requirements outlined in WIOA:

• Time. Giving states longer to submit a combined WIOA-Perkins plan might help state leaders make it happen. More than one state leader we spoke to mentioned they would combine if they had a longer on-ramp for submission.
• Money. Providing additional funds that states can use to hire grant writers or other experts to assist with the combined WIOA-Perkins planning process could make it more feasible for states than doing it alone. State leaders might be hesitant to try something new when the way they have done things so far works fine.
• Flexibility. Allowing the combined WIOA-Perkins plan states additional flexibility in submitting an abbreviated two-year update might create some breathing room for plan writers. State leaders (from states that submit a combined WIOA-Perkins plan and states that do not) mentioned the fact that the two-year plan updates required by WIOA do not seem to be checked, though they take up valuable time and resources to write and submit.

Shorten plan length and focus on strategy.

DOL should review WIOA plan requirements, focusing on eliminating redundancies and other areas that could be cut. It should also consider making some of the formatting less prescribed. This would allow states to include some of their priorities and strategies and demonstrate how they are leveraging WIOA to help prepare their workforce. This simplification would benefit states whether they submit combined or unified plans. For combined WIOA-Perkins plans, joint questions would allow the state’s workforce and CTE offices to collaborate on a shared vision.

A question for Congress to consider in a future WIOA reauthorization is whether to focus on strategy through combined planning or a different template altogether. For example, more open-ended questions focusing on the big picture, like (1) What are the shared priorities? and (2) How will you implement them? could be used.

We thank the Gates Foundation for its generous support of this research. The findings and recommendations contained within are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect positions or policies of the foundation.

We are immensely grateful to the workforce and CTE leaders across 37 states and territories who answered our survey, as well as the nine individuals who participated in interviews with us and shared their experiences and ideas around WIOA and Perkins planning and combined planning. Their reflections and insights were essential to the analysis in this brief.

Thanks are also due to Luke Rhine, Steve Voytek and Advance CTE, Ben Mays at the National Association of State Workforce Agencies (NASWA), Mala Thakur at National Association of Workforce Boards (NAWB), and Jack Porter at National Governors Association (NGA) for their feedback on the survey questions and general advice as we began this project.

We are grateful to our many wonderful New America colleagues for their support. Thank you to Taylor White and Braden Goetz for their thought partnership, Mary Alice McCarthy for astute editing and feedback, Sabrina Detlef for her skilled copyediting, Katie Portnoy and Mandy Dean for their communications support, and Natalya Brill for the accompanying graphics.

[1] In addition to youth, WIOA addresses the workforce development needs of adults, “dislocated workers” (individuals who were recently laid off), and people in need of adult basic education or vocational rehabilitation services.

[2] A unified state plan only includes the strategic and operational priorities for the federal workforce development dollars in WIOA. It is not combined with other federal programs.

[3] The combined state plan is not required, but to receive WIOA funding, states must submit either a combined state plan or a unified state plan.

[4] In 1998, WIA authorized states to submit the postsecondary portion of Perkins state plans with their WIA unified state plan and, with state legislature's approval, the secondary portion, too. WIOA’s 2014 passage allowed states to incorporate the 11 federal programs listed in Figure 1, including Perkins as a whole, into a combined state plan.

[5] All WIOA state plans—whether unified, combined with Perkins, or combined with non-Perkins programs—must describe how the state’s WIOA programs coordinate with CTE programs, and with community colleges and CTE schools.