Job Location Development (JLD) Models by Daniel Newell, MPA, Career Vogue
- American Association for Employer Relations + (A+)
- Feb 9
- 9 min read
If your career center isn’t utilizing JLD funding, it’s an opportunity worth exploring. The Job Location and Development (JLD) program is a widely accessible resource for colleges and universities that receive Federal Work-Study (FWS) funding. Administered by the U.S. Department of Education (DOE), JLD provides up to $75,000 annually to support job development efforts (DOE, 2024).
Through my experience with various JLD programs, I’ve observed a wide range of institutional strategies. However, one consistent issue is the lack of standardization of its design and tracking. Many institutions are not fully leveraging the program as intended and may be misreporting key metrics, potentially putting both their career center and institution at risk in the event of a federal audit, program review, or fiscal monitoring. This article will explore JLD program expectations, best practices for design, and effective tracking methods.
Funder Expectations:
While JLD funding is automatically renewed annually, it functions like a workforce development grant and should be managed accordingly. Workforce development grants, especially those funded by the federal government almost always prioritize employment outcomes as the primary measure of success, followed by income earned. JLD is no exception. Career centers receiving JLD funds are required to track the number of students served (entered employment) and their annual earnings. These metrics demonstrate to the DOE that the program’s cost is justified because the collective earned income of students exceeds the federal program costs.
If you're wondering whether you actually need to track how many students secure employment through your JLD-funded efforts, the answer is an emphatic YES! Workforce and career programs exist to drive employment outcomes, and JLD is no different. Yet, many career centers attempt to sidestep this by relying on job posting counts, estimating hires based on First Destination Surveys (FDS), or using other indirect, made-up formulas rather than simply tracking how many students secured jobs as a direct result of their work. Career centers that do not track success through employment outcomes are not aligning with the program’s goals and will need to adjust their approach to avoid possible misreporting or a violation of meeting the program objectives. These are also known as “program findings” during a federal program review process.
The expectation is clear: students should engage with the career center, and through JLD funding, secure jobs, internships, apprenticeships, or other paid opportunities while in school. Since the DOE is investing in these resources, career centers must show that this investment translates into real employment outcomes and wages.
JLD is designed for job development, a standard workforce practice centered on employer relations and creating job opportunities. The program also prioritizes roles in community and public service. If you're unfamiliar with job development strategies for creating jobs, the Employer Relations Academy (ERA) offers two key approaches and tactics to explore. If your JLD funds are being used solely for career coaching activities, I strongly encourage rethinking your approach to ensure it is both employer- and student-focused. The most effective approach to developing jobs is through direct employer engagement.
Program Design
Now that we've established the need to track employment outcomes and actively engage with employers to develop job opportunities, career centers must determine the best approach to achieving the objectives of the JLD program.
I categorize these approaches into three levels: micro, meso, and macro. Career centers can implement any one of these strategies individually or combine them for a more comprehensive approach. What matters most is ensuring that your program design caters to your student-employer needs and allows for effective tracking, capturing the number of students served through employment outcomes and earnings.
Micro, Meso, & Macro Models
The micro model aligns with a case management approach, offering high-touch, 1:1 support between a job developer and a student. This method fosters meaningful relationships, between students, job developers, and employers, actively focusing on locating and securing job opportunities for each student served. This approach often incorporates an enrollment process where students apply for the program and are accepted. To maintain effectiveness, I recommend a caseload of 100–150 students per year per job developer, though this can be expanded by incorporating group or classroom-based sessions and activities. I’ve witnessed this approach successfully serve up to 250 students annually. Career centers can also tailor this model by focusing on specific student populations, such as veterans, students with disabilities, first-generation, or low-income students, to create targeted and impactful programs. Another consideration is to integrate JLD with already existing programs such as EOP, WorkAbility IV, Guardian Scholars, and more.
Meso Approach:
The meso model shifts from individual case management to working with student groups that share common characteristics, such as specific majors, academic departments, industries, or class levels. This approach allows for a broader reach while maintaining some level of personalized engagement. While a case management model can still be applied here, it becomes increasingly difficult for a single job developer to track and support students effectively once the caseload exceeds 200+ students per year.
Macro Approach:
The macro model is designed for large-scale job development efforts that serve all students across all majors without a case management structure. This approach allows a single job developer to maximize their impact serving thousands of students, making it highly scalable. However, the trade-off is a reduction in 1:1 interaction and personalized support to meet the specific needs of student populations, especially those with barriers to employment. Instead, this model relies on broad employer engagement strategies such as generating registrations for career fairs, increasing employer job postings on platforms, and planning campus-wide networking events like employer mixers and industry info sessions. While this approach offers efficiency and reach, it sacrifices the deeper relationships and individualized support found in micro and meso models.
Regardless of which model (or combination) a career center adopts, the key is ensuring that you create a program that allows you to meet student and employer needs while accurately tracking employment outcomes and earnings to meet JLD program requirements effectively.
Tracking Outcomes
For JLD, there are three key outcomes that must be reported annually:
Cash-Match: The institution’s required financial contribution to the program.
Placements: The total number of students who successfully secured jobs.
Income: The total wages earned by students placed through JLD-supported efforts.
Ensuring accurate tracking of these metrics is critical for compliance and demonstrating the program’s impact.
Understanding the JLD Cash Match Requirement
JLD requires institutions to provide a 20% cash match as an investment in the program. However, a common misconception is that institutions must contribute 20% of their total federal allocation, which is incorrect.
Instead, the federal government funds 80% of the program’s total cost, and institutions must cover 20% of the total program expenses, not just 20% of the awarded amount.
How to Calculate the Cash Match:
Use the following formula:
X ÷ 80 × 20
X = Total JLD allotment received from Financial Aid
80 = The federal government's 80% contribution
20 = The institution's required contribution
Example Calculation:
If an institution receives the maximum $75,000 in JLD funding:
$75,000 ÷ 80 = $937.50
$937.50 × 20 = $18,750
In this case, the institution must contribute $18,750 to meet the cash match requirement.
Ways to Meet the Cash Match:
The institution can fulfill this requirement through existing operational costs, including:
Staff salaries for those involved in supporting the program
Administrative and management costs related to JLD efforts
Career services technology (e.g., Handshake or job posting platforms)
Marketing expenses promoting employer engagement opportunities
Career fair and networking event costs
And more
By properly tracking and allocating these expenses, institutions can easily meet the JLD cash match requirement while strengthening their job development efforts.
Tracking Students and Reporting Earnings
Institutions must accurately identify and track students who benefit from their JLD program and report their earnings. This can be done through different approaches depending on the program model.
Tracking Students
Micro & Meso Models: If students are required to apply and enroll in the program, tracking is straightforward. You can reach out via in-person, email, phone, DMs, or text to collect employment details. If a student is unresponsive, simply exclude them from the report; there’s no penalty for not counting students you cannot verify.
Macro Model: If JLD funds support institution-wide activities without a formal enrollment process, the best approach is to survey students. The survey should include a unique identifier (such as an email or student ID) and ask whether they used a JLD-supported career center service and secured employment. Students who used a JLD-funded service and entered the workforce should be counted, and their earnings should be reported.
Tracking students is critical. If an institution reports that JLD funds were used to support students in their career preparation, success must be measured by whether students secured paid employment. Collec
ting unique identifiers ensures institutions can verify and report actual student employment outcomes, which is a standard requirement for federal programs.
To demonstrate effectiveness, institutions must show that total earnings from employed students exceed the total JLD allocation. This means if an institution receives $75,000 in JLD funding, the combined income of all students who benefited from JLD activities must total at least $75,001 for that fiscal year.
Income can be reported based on the honor system (self-reported by students). However, institutions using a micro or meso model who have personal, 1:1 interactions with students may also choose to verify income through pay stubs or bank statements for additional accuracy.
Looking Ahead – What’s next for the JLD Program?
With a new presidential administration in place, many long-standing practices are being reexamined and reshaped. This process may involve eliminating programs and funding, restructuring or realigning initiatives, or relocating the program. Since the JLD program is administered by the U.S. Department of Education, here are some potential changes that could impact its future based on these three broad categories:
Elimination: As the DOE undergoes continued scrutiny, career centers should be prepared for the worst-case scenario: the complete elimination of the JLD program. A proactive approach is essential, developing a contingency plan to navigate the potential loss of funding. If JLD were to be eliminated, it would likely coincide with cuts to Federal Work-Study (FWS) funding, since JLD operates within the FWS framework. Preparing alternative strategies now can help institutions adapt if these changes occur.
Restructuring & Realignment: Rather than eliminating the JLD program, the administration may opt to restructure it, maintaining its core purpose while increasing flexibility. This could include removing the requirement to prioritize community and public service jobs, and giving institutions more control over student employment opportunities. Funding revisions may also be considered, such as adjusting the $75,000 cap or aligning JLD more closely with Federal Work-Study (FWS) and prioritizing external business placements over campus jobs. This shift could eliminate employer cost-sharing requirements, reducing financial barriers for businesses hiring students.
If such changes were implemented, institutions would need to rethink how they utilize FWS funding. One strategic approach would be to leverage these funds to support off-site unpaid internships, apprenticeships, and other work-based learning (WBL) opportunities, effectively transforming FWS into a WBL fund for employers. This shift could create new pathways for students to gain valuable real-world experience while ensuring that institutions continue to meet workforce development goals.
While there is no concrete indication that policy will move in these directions, these are just a few scenarios worth considering as career centers prepare for future shifts in funding and program requirements.
Relocation of Program: As the administration considers restructuring federal departments, it may borrow ideas from its earlier proposal that involves closer alignment and integration between the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) and the DOE. Programs like FWS and JLD could be relocated to other federal agencies, potentially the DOL.
In a scenario where DOE programming like JLD transitions to the DOL, it could likely align with existing workforce development initiatives, emphasizing employment outcomes, earnings, and skills attainment. There may also be a stronger push to integrate regional workforce priorities, collaborating with workforce development boards and high-demand industry sectors. Additionally, institutions could face new reporting requirements, potentially shifting toward a standardized tracking system, similar to those used in existing DOL workforce programs.
Closing Thoughts
JLD is fundamentally a workforce employment program, providing career centers with a scalable model for developing effective systems and processes. As states and federal agencies continue shifting toward accountability through employment outcomes, career centers must adapt.
If a career center is not currently measuring its success by how many students secure employment, it’s time to rethink priorities and success metrics. Proactively aligning with workforce-focused outcomes will not only meet future public funding expectations but also create new opportunities for funding that directly support student success.
At a minimum, institutions utilizing JLD funds must track program success based on actual employment outcomes and earned income. Doing so will help career centers evolve alongside workforce demands, ensuring they remain relevant and responsive to both students and stakeholders.
About the Author
Daniel Newell brings over 25 years of expertise in employment, workforce, and economic development. He currently serves as the Executive Director of Career Vogue, a consulting firm specializing in career center strategy and Employer Relations; the Executive Director of Career Services at San Diego State University; and the President & CEO of A+ | American Association for Employer Relations +.
Mr. Newell has secured millions of dollars in funding through diverse channels and earned recognition from the California State Senate for his significant regional impact. He was named to Silicon Valley’s Top 40 Under 40 list, by the Silicon Valley Business Journal where he stood out as the only honoree representing higher education and career services among the region’s most influential business leaders. His thought leadership has also been featured by Forbes, Entrepreneur, USA Today, FOX News, and numerous other media outlets.
Preceding the pandemic, Mr. Newell achieved a rare distinction, securing two federal designations through two subcontracts, serving as administrator for two federal, state, local, and privately funded centers: a U.S. Department of Labor-authorized career center and a U.S. Small Business Administration-authorized business/entrepreneurship center, both housed within a college career services department. His forward-thinking leadership aims to set new benchmarks in career services, workforce development, and employer relations.
References:
Comments