1 construction pre- apprenticeship programs: results from a national survey working poor families...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Construction Pre-Apprenticeship Programs:Results from a National Survey
Working Poor Families Project MeetingChicago, IL
June 11, 2009
2
Survey Respondents• 260 ‘pre-apprenticeship’ programs responded• From 40 states, DC and PR• Most common org type among respondents was
non-profit/CBO followed by comm/tech/trade college
• 80% of respondents reported working with partners (biz/union reps, schools, gov’t agencies and other non-profits)
• Wide range in age and size of programs responding
3
Who Were We Trying to Reach?• Anyone preparing/connecting individuals not
currently working in construction to construction jobs– Many respondents did not seem well connected to
apprenticeship system– Penetration rate of apprenticeship programs unknown
(USDOL Office of Apprenticeship), but likely varies by market segment and geographically
• We use ‘pre-apprenticeship’ as short-hand term, but not all respondents would describe themselves as pre-apprenticeship programs
4
Opportunities Targeted
• Programs connect individuals to a wide variety of occupations—19+ occupations, carpenters, laborers, electricians most commonly mentioned by programs
• Target a range of market segments—~70% target commercial and 50+% target residential; less in industrial, heavy & hgwy, institutional
• Programs commonly report working with both union and non-union companies
• Relatively few programs seem to be connecting their participants to registered apprenticeships
5
Union, non-union, both Target of Placement Efforts
63%
27%
10%
Unions/union companies
Merit shops/non-unioncompanies
Both union and non-unioncompanies
6
Program Services• Programs report providing a range of
introductory information, training, support and placement services
• 88% of respondents reported providing training services--vocational components offered at a relatively high rate
• Support and placement services were offered at a much lower rate than training services
• Some indication that “traditional workforce” organizations more likely to provide supports than union, industry or education institutions
7
Who offers construction programs?Respondents by Organizational Type
44%
18%
7%
7%
6%
4%
4%
3%2%
2%2% 2%
1%
Nonprofit/CBO, incl. faith-based
Technical, trades, comm college or univ
WIB
Union
Joint apprentice training fund, council, or program
State govt agency
Industry association
Local govt agency, incl. TANF, etc.
School district, K-12 school
One-stop operator
Housing authority
Other
Construction business, contractor, developer
8
Participants Served• Respondents reported a wide range of program
sizes -- with a median of 54 and average of 122 participants served
• Roughly half of respondents reported designing services for individuals who might face barriers in the industry
• About 3/4 indicate screening for ability level, but only 1/3 indicate requiring a H.S. degree or GED
• Other screens used include drug use, drivers license, legal status, reliable transportation, physical aptitude, criminal records history
9
Populations Served/Designed for
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Immigrants,non-English speakers
Dislocated w orkers
Youth
Ex-offenders
Adults w ith limited or no w ork history
Women
Ethnic, racial minorities
Low -income individuals
Populations Served and Populations Targeted
% Programs serving pop. % Programs designing services for Pop.
10
Tailored Programs vs. Designed for a General Population
• Tailored offer more robust set of supports, although curriculum content areas similar
• Tailored less likely to connect to union or registered apprenticeship
• Tailored more likely to accept individuals with low skill levels
• Tailored more likely to report finance, industry, policy and operational challenges, for a variety of potential reasons
11
Targeted vs. Gen’l Pop Programs
Support Services Offered
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Case management
Child careChild support arrears
Driver license obtainment/driving record remediationDrug testing
Health insurance
HousingLegal assistance
Mental healthMentoring
TransportationTuition, training expenses
Work expenses, e.g., supplies, fees, testing, dues
% programs reporting
Programs Targeting Adults w / Ltd Work History Programs Serving Gen'l Pop
12
Green Program Elements• 120 respondents answered a question asking
about green program elements• Most common activity included in answer was
weatherization, cited by 42 respondents• 21 respondents noted that they have curriculum
in development• Renewable energy: 21 solar; 6 wind; 1
geothermal• Many noted ‘green’ is a long-standing aspect of
construction work -- from proper insulation to low-flow water to recycling building materials
13
Outcomes Reported• Programs report reasonably high training
completion rates• Job placement is a challenge• Placement in registered apprenticeship
programs is low; some programs do not work with registered apprenticeship
• Data regarding outcomes is likely of uneven quality across programs
• Post-program completion services are limited
14
Training CompletionTrainee Outcomes Reported
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
20% or less 21 - 50% 51 - 70% 71 - 90% 90+%
Proportion of trainees achieving outcome
% P
rogr
ams
repo
rtin
g
Training Complete
Apprentice
Job
Further Education
15
Percentage of Grads Reached
Percentage of Program Graduates Reached
16%
6%12%
12%
25%
26%
Less than 25%
25%-50%
50%-75%
75-90%
More than 90%
Don't know
16
Budgets• Respondents’ budgets ranged widely• Public money was most commonly used and also
most commonly mentioned as largest source of funding
• < 20% of respondents receive no public funds• > 70% report no student funds; ~50% report no biz
funds; nearly 60% report no philanthropic funds• In-kind sources used by nearly half of respondents• Consistent funding year to year and current
funding environment cited as challenges
17
Funding SourcesFunding Sources Used
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Industry: Business association funds
Industry: Fee-for-service revenue
Philanthropic: Regional foundations
Philanthropic: National foundations
Students: Federal student aid
Industry: Corporate foundations
Students: Tuition/fee payments from students
Students: Tuition/fee payments from 3rd party
Philanthropic: Individual contributions
Industry: Contributions from employers
Industry: Joint apprenticehsip programs
Philanthropic: Local foundations
Public: Local
Other: In-kind services
Public: Federal
Public: State
% respondents receiving funds from source
18
Conclusions• ‘Pre-apprenticeship’ programs widespread-
geographically, by market segment, occupationally– Programs well-positioned and eager to train for ‘green’ jobs
• Pre-apprenticeship programs serve populations that face barriers in construction, but access to supportive services uneven across programs
• Pre-apprenticeship challenged in connecting to industry, and even apprenticeship programs struggle in forecasting labor demand– However, programs report there is demand
• Picture of skill levels that vary widely, both upon entry, and likely upon exit– Data on program length difficult to interpret
• Public sector major funder of programs—and often major purchaser of services
19
Further Questions• Can public sector help improve forecasting
demand—through LMI resources or through role as buyer/investor?
• Should pre-apprenticeship programs develop more standards? What would that look like in light of industry variability?– What can we learn from “high performers” (e.g. those
with high job placement and targeted?; those with high apprenticeship connection & supports?)
• So few connections to apprenticeship, and yet it plays key skill development role for industry—how can that aspect be strengthened?
20
For More Information
Maureen Conway / Allison Gerber
Workforce Strategies Initiative
The Aspen Institute
202-736-5800
www.aspenwsi.org