Bridging gaps in outcomes for D.C. residents through evidence-based workforce development

Good afternoon, Chairperson Mendelson and members of the Committee. My name is Yesim Sayin and I am the Executive Director of the D.C. Policy Center, an independent nonpartisan think tank advancing policies for a strong, vibrant and compelling District of Columbia.

The native–newcomer divide

There is a stark divide in life outcomes between young people who grew up in the District and those who moved here from elsewhere in the country. Among 25- to 34-year-olds, D.C. natives are three times less likely to hold a bachelor’s degree (24 percent versus 77 percent), earn less than half as much on average ($34,000 versus $70,800), and experience unemployment at much higher rates (23 percent versus 3 percent) compared to similarly aged residents who moved to D.C. from somewhere else in the country. [1]

These gaps are not marginal. They tell us that if the District wants a more equitable future, it must do more to invest in its own youth, starting from early ages and continuing through the transition to work.

The District’s workforce spending has modest results.

Adult workforce programs in D.C. are abundant and resource-intensive. Thise programs have a difficult task: they are in place to serve a population that have not been successfully served in other ways.  But they are not producing measurable results. The Workforce Investment Council (WIC) produces an annual report on workforce programs across District agencies, with valuable information on participation and outcomes.[2]

According to WIC’s Fiscal Year 2023 report, there were 402 workforce development activities spread across 85 programs and 24 agencies, with a combined budget of $204 million (including $68 million in local funds and excluding funding for adult public charter schools). WIC reports that about 67,000 D.C. residents participated in these programs, and roughly 47,000 completed them. Yet, based on the same report (and available data), only about 3,600 participants obtained a job. That translates to approximately $56,000 in public funding for each participant who ultimately secured employment. This is, of course, the average—there is a lot of variation across activities and providers.

Small, scattered programs with limited scale

A deeper examination of the reported data reveals other important trends. Some of the training activities do not have any meaningful scale and cannot report any outcome data. Of the 404 activities tracked by the WIC, 230 have total budgets under $50,000, and, of those, 130 activities (concentrated at CFSA and DDS) cannot even report the number of participants.

Accountability gaps across the system

These serious accountability gaps span multiple programs and agencies. Of the 402 activities—regardless of budget size—145 could not report how many participants they served. Among the 354 activities that did report participation, only 190 reported any data on completion.

Within that group, 24 programs, with a combined budget of $29 million, reported that none of their 2,600 participants completed the program. In total, 95 activities that together spent $45 million reported successful completion for participants but no employment outcomes.

Some of these programs may have had goals other than employment, but the report also shows that 34 activities across 8 agencies, with a combined budget of $33 million, were explicitly aimed at helping participants gain employment and still reported zero employment placements.

Fragmented strategy and oversight

Ordinarily, sunsetting or restructuring programs that cannot deliver results would be straightforward. But both the management and the oversight responsibilities for the 24 different agencies that offer workforce training programs are fragmented, as the agencies are split among multiple clusters in the Executive and multiple committees on the Council.

This structure makes it difficult to see the full picture of what we are spending, what is working, and what is not. As a result, the District risks spreading resources thinly across many small, low-impact activities instead of concentrating them in proven models that deliver better employment and earnings for D.C. residents.

Recommendations

• Focus on outcomes. Require WIC to specifically focus on reporting on agency, program, and activity improvements. Across the six years for which WIC has compiled this workforce report, coverage increased from 18 programs and 140 activities to 85 programs to 402 activities. This is tremendous progress. Further analysis on accountability can improve program performance.
  One example of well-established accountability is the adult public charter schools. My colleague Chelsea Coffin is testifying before this same Committee on the effectiveness of their centralized accountability framework. Other workforce programs can benefit from a such model.[3]
• Tie funding to performance. Direct agencies to use performance-based contracts for workforce activities, with clear, measurable employment and earnings targets. Programs that repeatedly fail to meet benchmarks should be restructured, consolidated, or sunset, and their funds redirected to higher-performing models.
• Rationalize small, low-impact activities. Ask the Executive to review small-dollar activities (for example, those under $50,000 or with no reported participants or outcomes) and present a consolidation plan in the next budget cycle. The goal should be fewer, larger, and better-designed programs rather than many small, opaque activities.
• Prioritize pathways for D.C.’s youth and young adults without a Bachelor’s degree. Target additional resources toward pathways that serve D.C. youth and young adults—especially those aged 16–24—by strengthening bridges from high school and adult education into sector-based training, apprenticeships, and community college programs with strong placement records.
• Hold joint oversight on workforce outcomes. Establish at least one annual joint oversight session across relevant committees focused solely on workforce outcomes, not just program descriptions. Require agencies to present comparable data and explain how they are coordinating efforts to reduce duplication and close the native–newcomer gap.

I encourage the Council to adopt a more holistic approach to workforce development—one that cuts across committee lines—and to support the Executive in directing workforce funds toward programs with demonstrable, lasting impact on employment and earnings for D.C. residents, especially those furthest from opportunity.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I welcome your questions.

[1] Coffin, Chelsea (2024). Strengthening work-based learning is necessary to improve early career outcomes. Testimony before the D.C. Council Committee of the Whole. Available at: https://www.dcpolicycenter.org/publications/strengthening-work-based-learning-is-necessary-to-improve-early-career-outcomes/

[2] See here: https://dcworks.dc.gov/publication/expenditure-guide

[3] Available at https://www.dcpolicycenter.org/publications/d-c-provides-many-opportunities-for-adult-learners-but-barriers-still-persist/