JobsOhio, Ohio's private economic development corporation, is dedicating $300 million over the next decade to a new Experiential Learning Initiative aimed at supporting on-the-job training for roles paying at least $20 an hour. This significant financial commitment, however, has brought into question the transparency and overall strategy behind Ohio's workforce development efforts, according to information provided by a source.
The initiative, announced with the governor and lieutenant governor, lacks a publicly available record of an RFP or competitive selection process on state procurement, grants management, or individual agency websites, the source indicates. Furthermore, an obtained copy of an RFP for a related initiative reportedly contained a confidential directive in red stating, "This document is to be kept confidential and only shared within direct recipient firms." This practice has led to concerns that Ohio is allowing JobsOhio to establish a "parallel workforce system," potentially overlooking other opportunities and established structures.
Ohio's existing workforce development ecosystem already faces challenges, reportedly struggling yearly to stretch limited resources across training, placement services, career coaching, and the essential supports individuals need to secure, maintain, and advance in quality jobs. The source raises a critical question: Could some of JobsOhio's substantial resources be more effective if the corporation were not solely deciding how all of them are spent?
JobsOhio previously launched the "Ohio to Work" initiative during the COVID-19 pandemic without a competitive request for proposals (RFP). Organizations were selected across Ohio to execute this initiative, with funding channeled through JobsOhio’s regional partners, and some organizations were reportedly recommended by individuals advising on its creation. While "significant outcomes" were reported for Ohio to Work, there has been no independent evaluation, making it difficult to differentiate these results from work that participating organizations might have undertaken independently.
The infrastructure and relationships developed through Ohio to Work did not cease with the pandemic but helped shape the subsequent "WorkOhio" program. This later program did include an RFP for regional hubs, though the turnaround time was short and the funding for the role was relatively limited.
The current situation with JobsOhio's Experiential Learning Initiative comes as other state agencies managing workforce-related programs are also under scrutiny. The Ohio Department of Development is reportedly facing examination for its handling of the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program. Additionally, the Office of Workforce Transformation’s TechCred program has documented incidents of fraud. Both of these programs utilize regional or intermediary structures to provide direct support to businesses.
A $300 million investment could be "transformational," yet major workforce decisions continue through relatively closed processes, embedded in initiatives without broad co-design, transparent accountability, stakeholder input, or independent evaluation, the source notes. This results in significant "opportunity costs." The source points to several underutilized strategies and examples. Ohio’s Benefit Bridge pilot, with just $8 million in state funds, projects significant taxpayer savings and state tax revenue from participants in one county, according to current data. Ohio House Bill 484 seeks $20 million for the child-care crisis, a widespread workforce challenge. Additionally, federal SNAP Employment and Training rules allow for 50% reimbursement for eligible nonfederal spending, potentially bringing more federal dollars for training, transportation, and childcare. Federal highway funds (23 U.S.C. §504(e)) can also support workforce development, including apprenticeships and community-college partnerships. These examples highlight the need for a comprehensive workforce strategy that maximizes every available dollar.
Instead, JobsOhio has developed its own strategy, reflecting an economic-development and employer perspective, according to the source. While announcements suggest input from workforce partners and state agencies, the source questions if a rapid process allows for meaningful engagement across the full workforce ecosystem. Workforce development, the source emphasizes, is distinct from economic development. Economic development focuses on company needs for investment and growth, while workforce development must also address what Ohio’s learners and workers require to enter, build skills, navigate transitions, advance wages, and build economic security. These goals overlap but are not identical.
To address these concerns, the source proposes that Ohio should mandate 50% of JobsOhio’s talent investments flow into a separate, independently governed workforce development fund. This fund would be accessible through competitive, transparent processes, allowing workforce boards, community colleges, and other local organizations to propose strategies based on specific community needs, rather than only participating in JobsOhio-designed programs. Such investments should leverage federal resources like SNAP E&T and transportation funding, aiming to meet the needs of all Ohioans, not just businesses. The fund should have transparent criteria, independent governance, and representation from workforce, education, human services, employers, community organizations, labor, and workers. Success would be measured by wage growth, advancement, portable credentials, access for underserved workers, and leveraged federal dollars. JobsOhio could continue using the other half of its talent resources for quick responses to employer needs. This structure, the source concludes, would provide Ohio with flexible workforce funding for ideas originating outside JobsOhio’s network, empowering the workforce system to act boldly for workers.
