document resume ed 293 582 1c 880 184day, philip r., jr.; rajasekhara, koosappa keeping america...

ED 293 582

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTION

REPORT NOPUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

DOCUMENT RESUME

1C 880 184

Day, Philip R., Jr.; Rajasekhara, KoosappaKeeping America Working: Profiles in Partnership.Keeping American Working Series No. 4.American Association of Community and JuniorColleges, Washington, D.C.ISBN-0-87117-179-180107p.American. Association of Community and JuniorColleges, One Dupont Circle, NW, Suite 410,Washington, DC 20036 i$15.00).Reports - Research/Technical (143) --Tests /Evaluation Instruments (160)

MF01 Plus Postage. PC Not Available from EDRS.College Curriculum; College Transfer Students;Community Colleges; Cooperative Education; EconomicDevelopment; *Employment Programs; *EnrollmentTrends; Industry; *Job Training; Military Personnel;National Surveys; Questionnaires; *School BusinessRelationship; Two Year Colleges; *VocationalEducation; Work Experience

ABSTRACTA survey of 72 selected two-year colleges was

conducted to gather information on the extent and range of collegeefforts to improve the quality of the workforce and the efficiency ofpublic and private enterprises. Specifically, the survey requesteddata on credit and noncredit enrollments; occupational programs(e.g., degree programs and programs awarding credit for workexperience, including cooperative education, work study,apprenticeships, and military training); transfer programs; communityand corporate economic profiles; military contracts;business/industry/college collaboration; industry-driven courses andinstruction; and Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) fundedactivities. Study findings, based on a 75% response rate, includedthe following: (1) 47% of the responding institutions served urbanareas Lnd 40% served suburban districts; (2) 50% served over 10,000students; (3) 89.8% of the colleges had cooperative educationprograms, 34.9% had work study programs, 56.8% offered apprenticeshiptraining, and 56.8% offered nonapprenticeship industrial training;(4) 80% offered between 1 and 20 credits for work-related experience;(5) 31% of the colleges reported that between 1% and 10% of theirstudents transferred to a four-year college; (6) 42% provided formaleducational training for military personnel; and (7) 54.5% of therural colleyes used company equipment to provide technical training.Appendixes provide an executive summary of a national survey ofcollege partnerships, a list of respondents, the survey instrument, .'

and a course list. (EJV)

***********************************************************************Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made

from the original document.***********************************************************************

.

I

PHILIP R. DAY, JR.AND

KOOSAPPA RAJASEKHARA"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS

0 MATERIAL IN MICROFICHE ON:Y ,

HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

Je Gollattscheck

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

I

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESIC)

INFORMATIONCENTER (ER

XThis document has been reproduced asret erred from the person or organizationoriginating it.

O Minor changes have been made to improvereproduction quality

PO4ells ofvlewo opinions stated in thi.s douhinent do not necessanly represent officialOER I position or policy,

KEEPING AMERICAWORKING:

PROFILES IN PARTNERSHIP

PHILIP R. DAY, JR.KOOSAPPA RAJASEKHARA

o')

American Association of Community and Junior CollegesNational Center for Higher EducationSuite 410, One Dupont Circle, NW

Washington, D.C. 20036(202) 293-7050

Copyright © 1988Printed in the United States of America

ISBN 0-87117-179-1

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FOREWORDPREFACEEXECUTIVE SUMMARYINTRODUCTION

1. METHODOLOGYStudy PopulationSurvey InstrumentData Analysis

II. FINDINGSGeneralCredit Enrollment

HeadcountFull-Time Equivalent (FTE)Enrollment in Occupational/TechnicalEnrollment by RaceEnrollment by Full-Time and Part-TimeEmploymentEnrollment by GenderAge Distribution

HI. NONCREDIT ENROLLMENTNoncredit HeadcountNoncredit Enrollment in Occupational/Technical

Courses 11IV. OCCUPATIONAL PROGRAMS 13

Occupational Programs Leading to AA Degreeor Certificate 13

Industrial Advisory Committees 14Programs Enrolling Greatest Number of Employees from

Given Firms 15Awarding Credit for Work-Related Experience 16Cooperative Education 17Work-Study 17National Guide for Training Program 17Apprenticeship Training Program 17Nonapprenticeship Industry Training 18Military Training 18Maximum Credits for Work-Related Experience 18

V. TRANSFER PROGRAMS 21Transfer Rate to Four-Year Institutions 21Occupational Program Graduate Transfer 21Transferring Institutions 22

VI. COMMUNITY ECONOMIC 13-10FILE 23Heavy Industries 24Light Industries 25

PAGE

V

viiix

xiii

1

and Procedure 1

1

33334

Courses 778889

1111

CONTENTS

High Technology IndustriesService IndustriesRetail IndustriesOther Industries

VII. CORPORATE ORGANIZATIONAL PROFILEVIII. MILITARY CONTRACTS

Size of Military ContractIX. BUSINESS/INDUSTRY/COLLEGE COLLABORATION

Partnership TrainingTraining SupportWork-Release Time for Employees Taking CoursesCompany Recruiters on Campus

X. COURSE/INSTRUCTIONAL PROFILENumber of Courses Offered and Course LocationSource of Equipment and Instructional Material Used

for Training 39Use of Instructors 43Offering of College Credits and Their Applicability toward

AA DegreeCollege Credits Offered to Courses

XI. TRAINING INVOLVING JTPA FUNDINGJTPA Participating Colleges and Number of ProgramsTraining Involving JTPA and Other Funding

XII. INVENTORY ANALYSISXIII. CONCLUSIONSXIV. OBSERVATIONS

REFERENCESAPPENDICES

Executive Summary of In Search of Community CollegePartnerships Appendix A

Directory of Respondents Appendix BKeeping America Working Industry Train ng

Inventory Appendix CList of Unduplicated Courses Offered by

Participating Colleges to Business andIndustry Appendix D

2627282931333335353636373939

44444545454959616365

6

FOREWORD

rne of the most dynamic activities over the past decade within theIL/world of community, technical, and junior colleges has been thegrowth of collaborative arrangements between local employers and com-munity colleges. The vitality of this development is so rich that it couldbest be described as "a movable feast."

Only once before in the history of American higher education hasthere been such a strong linkage between the nation's employer communi-ty and a significant arm of higher education. The signing and implemen-tation of the Morrill Act ushered in the first landmark partnership betweenhigher education and the nation's economic needsin this case, the needof a nation to feed itself independently. The birth of the "land grant" col-leges and the extension agent concept is one of the great American suc-cess stories.

With much less fanfare and federal direction, a second momentouspartnership is being created between the nation's employer communityand an important segment of the higher education community. This part-nership ultimately will rival the land grant college initiative in terms ofeconomic impact and societal impact. The collaboration between com-munity, technical, and junior colleges and employers will do for adultworking Americans, in the information age, what land grant colleges didfor farmers in an agriculture-industrial age.

Pat Choate, assistant to the president, TRW , recently stated that thedriving force behind the future American economy will be trade,technology, and demography. The rule of the day will be massive andcontinuous changes in the work place and for the work force, he said,and the ease and success with which the American work force negotiatessuch changes will largely depend upon the accessibility and utilization ofemployee education and training.

Employers and community colleges are presently forging a substan-tial series of simple and complex partnerships aimed at creat..ag and main-taining a highly skilled and flexible labor force. The demographics tell usthat the present work force is essei%tially the same labor pool at the na-tion's disposal through the year 2020. Therefore., the development un-folding is largely an invention of necessity. Employers are urgently seek-ing consistent and qualitative education and training delivery systems inorder to maintain their competitive edge. Increasingly, as a reflection ofa community's desire for economic stability and growth, community,technical, and junior colleges are becoming the preferred educationresource for employers and employees alike.

FOREWORD

The difficulty with the rapid growth of these new relationships is thata description of the "state of the art" becomes a challenge. The problemis akin to attempting a picture of a moving trainthe result will be a pic-ture of where the train was. Nonetheless, a picture of the status of col-lege/employer partnerships remains an important objective.

This is not a thorough research of partnerships, but rather a selectedinventory of practices in institutions we chose as a result of a track recordof exemplary practices in this area. The results, therefore, should be usedas indicators and objects of research, not as data that can be applied tothe entire community college network.

This inventory is a necessary first step in a more systematic study ofthe texture of the phenomenon of partnerships. The exercise has beenvaluable in terms of information revealed and not revealed. Perhaps thegreatest service of the inventory has been alerting everyone involved init to the difficulty of greater research in this area. The colleges are simplyso busy responding and delivering services to employers that they havenot always documented their processes. Sometimes the documentationis present, but it is not organized under a single source. The inventoryhas highlighted this problem. The Department of Education has playeda key role in helping document the landscape and is stimulating proceduralimprovement.

Special thanks for this report go to Dr. Philip R. Day, Jr., presidentof Dundalk Community College, Dundalk, Aarylard, senior author of thismonograph. Thanks, too, go to Koosappa Zajasekhara, director of institu-tional research and grants at the college, who conducted the research andprepared the data.

vi 8

Dale ParnellPresidentAmerican Association of Community

and Junior Colleges

PREFACE

This report presents an analysis of a survey of selected community,technical, and junior colleges in the nation that are active in develop-

ing and marketing college/business partnerships. The purpose of the surveywas to broaden the knowledge base of the last business/industry survey,conducted during 1984. This extensive industry training study providesvaluable information for pursuing private sector, congressional, and federalagency support for the expansion of such training programs at two-yearinstitutions.

It is the fourth in a series of reports published by the American Associa-tion of Community and Junior Colleges on comparative ventures betweencommunity, technical, and junior colleges and the private sector. Earlierreports are Putting America Back to Work: The Kellogg Leadership In-itiative; In Search of Community College Partnerships; and Directory ofBusiness/Industry Coordinators.

The first publication outlined current and future roles for communi-ty colleges in economic and human resource development. The secondrevealed the extent to which the colleges participate ;n Private IndustryCouncils, offer employee training in both the public and private sectors,provide support to small businesses, and collaborate with economicdevelopment offices. The last lists 421 two-year colleges with business/in-dustry liaison offices.

As was the case in earlier reports, this project was undertaken incooperation with the American Association of Community and Junior Col-leges (AACJC) and the Association of Community College Trustees (ACCT)in conjunction with the Keeping America Working project. Associationstaff members James F. Gollattscheck, James Mahoney, James F. McKen-ney, Mary Ann Settlemire, Jeannie Hickman, and Valerie L. Brooks werespecifically helpful in the analysis and editing stage of the project. Specialthanks go to the staff of Dundalk Community College's Office of Institu-tional Research and Grants for assisting in the project. Thanks, too, goto James L. Smith, director of Data Processing at Essex Community Col-lege, who assisted in the initial analysis of this data.

Philip R. Day, Jr.Director of the Study and PresidentDundalk Community College

9 vii

a a st

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

a

An inventory of selected community, technical, and junior colleges,in cooperation with the American Association of Community and

Junior Colleges (AACJC) and the Association of Community CollegeTrustee (ACCT), was conducted to gain an in-depth knowledge ofbusiness/industry training programs provided by these colleges. The resultsof this study supplement earlier work completed by the senior author andprovide additional insights into the dimensions of community, technical,and junior college partnerships with local business and industry.

Survey results also help to quantify more specifically the extent andrange of efforts conducted by local two-year colleges that are designedto improve the quality of the work force and the efficiency of public andprivate enterprises. The highlights of the findings are presented below.

GENERAL NOTATIONS

The overall response rate was 75 percent, with 54 out of 72 selectedcolleges responding to the inventory.More than half of the responding institutions serve urban areas, and 35r trcent serve suburban districts. Half of the responding institutionsreportea that more than 50 percent of their students were enrolled inoccupational/technical curricula. Urban and suburban institutionsreported that 61 to 70 percent of the credit student population werepart-time and the same percentage range applied to students who wereemployed. Only one-third of all students in these institutions were underthe age of 21.Almost all institutions reported participation in work-related programsfor which students were awarded academic credit. The participation ratesvaried from 28 percent in the National Guide for Training Program to90 percent participation in cooperative education.Eight out of 10 institutions reported offering between 1 and 20 creditsfor work-related experience.

CORPORATE ORGANIZATIONAL PROFILE

More than half of the urban institutions, one-third of the suburban in-stitutions, and just over one-tenth of the rural institutions reported'thatthe industries located in their areas were international in scope. The sameproportional distribution was reported for national and regionally basedcorporations.

1Q0 ix

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

MILITARY CONTRACTS

Forty-two percent of all institutions reported that they offered educa-tional training programs for military personnel. Of these, 58 percent ofurban, 30 percent of suburban, and 17 percent of rural institutions en-gaged in such training acti"!ties. College charges for individual educa-tional training contracts for military personnel training programs variedfrom 52,000 to nearly $950,000.

BUSINESS/INDUSTRY/COLLEGE COLLABORATION

The average number of firms involved in industry/college partnershiptraining programs with individual colleges ranged annually from a lowof 40 for rural institutions to a high of 530 for urban institutions.Over 28,000 employees took job-related courses in one year in theresponding colleges. An overwhelming majority (21,562) of theseemployees were trained by urban institutions.Half of the urban and suburban institutions and two-thirds of rural in-stitutions reported that employees taking job-related courses were fullysubsidized by their employers.Fifty-eight percent of all instititutions reported that companies grantedwork-release time for their employees who took courses through thecolleges.

COURSE/INSTRUCTIONAL PROFILE

Over 650 different courses/programs were offered by tly.2 colleges toemployees of their area industries.Eighty-seven percent of the institutions reported offering thecourses/programs either at the plant or on the college campus. The ma-jority were offered off-campus.

TRAINING INVOLVING JTPA AND OTHER OUTSIDE FUNDING

Nearly 20,000 people participated in training programs supported bythe Job Training Partnership Act OTPA) and other outside funding pro-vided by the colleges.Ninety-six percent of the participants in these programs attended urbanand suburban institutions.Nearly $15 million was received by the colleges to support the trainingprogram. About three-fourths of this amount came from JTPA. Urbanand suburban institutions shared almost equally 96 percent of the JTPAfunds.

11x

TYPICAL COLLEGE PARTNERSHIP BY LOCATION

Below are sketches of typical urban, suburban, and rural colleges and their partnerships based upon data col-lected through this survey.

A. College DataUrban

CollegesSuburbanColleges

RuralColleges

1. Credit headcount 10,000 10,000 + 1,000-5,0002. % credit headcount in

occupational/technical 40 40 14

3. % ethnic minorities 30-40 10-20 10-204. % part-time students 30-40 30-40 50-605. % employed 30-40 30-40 50-606. % female 51-60 51-60 41-507. % students between 22-40

years old 43-70 33-60 33-608. Noncredit headcount/% in

technical education 5,000 + /20 1,000-5,000/40 1,000/209. Number of technical educa-

tion degree programs 40-60 30 30-4010. Technical education cur-

riculum advisory committees yes yes yes

B. College/Business Partnership Detail1. Most popular business-

selected courses office occupations office occupations office occupationselectronics electronics electronicsmanagement management management

Continued

12

TYPICAL COLLEGE PARTNERSHIP BY LOCATION (continued)

2. Most popular special programpartnerships

3. Average number ofpartnerships annually

4. Average number ofemployee-students yearly

5. Company funding forprograms/release time (rt)

6. Sources of training equip-ment and curriculum material

7. Sources of training faculty

8. Credit toward AA/certificatefor training prog.

9. Average number of JTPAprograms annually

10. Average number of students!JTPA program

11. Average size of JTPA grant/contact

UrbanColleges

accountingdata processingindustrial managementcooperative ed,,

nonapprenticeship

30

2,000

full funding/rtcollege for both

college faculty

yes

SuburbanColleges

accountingdata processing:ndustrial managementcooperative ed.,

apprenticeship,nonapprenticeship

15

270

full funding/rtcompany equip/

college materialnoncompany, part-

time facultyyes

RuralColleges

accountingdata processinglaw enforcementcooperative ed.,

apprenticeship,nonapprentice-ship, military

6-7

270

full funding/rcompany for

bothcollege faculty

no

7-8 4-5 3

530 105 75

S34,638 $77,360 57,500n fl ' 33

INTRODUCTION

In a recently published report by the Carnegie Foundation, HigherEducation and the American Resurgence, Frank Newman commented

that in "every region of the country, states are struggling to bolster theireconomies. More than 30 state commissions have reported their findings.The same themes run through these reports. The time has come, they say,

to:

Accelerate economic growth and job informationAttract advanced technology industryImprove elementary and secondary education in order to improvethe skills of the work forceInvest in the research universities in order to improve the researchbase and the numbers of technically trained graduatesCreate links between business and the colleges and business andthe schools." (Newman, 1985)

What has become obvious is that the educational system has becomea central focus of concern and a major element of a renewed strategy thatattempts to improve our competitive position in the internationalmarketplace. Each component within the national education system hasits important function and role to play. Dale Parnell, president of theAmerican Association of Community and Junior Colleges (AACJC), sug-gests that until recently one of the least recognized (and consequentlyundervalued) components in this system was the community, technical,and junior college network that exists nationwide. "The community,technical, and junior colleges have a special role to play in the economicvitalization of the United States. Their mission places them squarely in theservice of local communitiestheir businesses, their public agencies, theirschools, and their cultural and social groups and organizations. For yearsthey have provided education, technical assistance, and community ser-vice programs designed to meet the needs of the communities. In the lastfew years, when the central issue in the nation was the economy, the col-leges redoubled their efforts to work with local employers (both publicand private) to train employees to handle new machines, new processes,and new jobs; the colleges increased their education and training servicesfor government agencies and other public enterprises, they offered a vari-ety of technical assistance to the districts they serve; [and] they coordinatedtheir academic and training programs with those offeret by area highschools. In so doing, they established themselves as significant participantsin the economic development plans of local communities." (Day, 1985)

How significant this role has been and will potentially be had not beensystematically researched on a national level until the study entitled In

34

INTRODUCTION

Search of Community College Partnerships was completed. The resultsof this study confirmekl' that community colleges have been and are cur-rently playing a major role in economic development at the local, state,regional, and national levels. Over 770 institutions responded to this studyand provided specific information on programmatic, structural, andorganizational trends relating to businesses and high school partnerships.A copy of the executive summary of this study is included in the Appen-dix of this report (see Appendix A).

While providing us with valued information, the study had somelimitations, given its scope and timetable. It did not give us specific infor-mation on the details of operationalizing the linkages, ways to make themwork effectively, and the impact (positive or negative) that they had onthe local colleges and the communities served by these institutions.

In an effort to broaden the knowledge gained by the community col-lege partnership study, an in-depth follow-up inventory of selected institu-tions was conducted by Dundalk Community College for AACJC/ACCTduring 1985. It was expected that this study would provide more "details"about these current trends. When coupled with the comprehensive viewof business/industry/college partnerships generated by the first study, itprovides invaluable information for current practitioners and assistsAACJC/ACCT in their pursuit of national, state, and local support for educa-tion/training and other funds. It also was expected that a thorough evalua-tion of this study would assist AACJC/ACCT to determine future direc-tions and requirements for technical assistance that could be provided bythese associations.

Specific areas addressed in this follow-up survey were:A. General and Demographic Information on Both Credit and Non-

credit StudentsB. Technical and Vocational ProgramsC. Transfer ProgramsD. Community Economic ProfileE. Corporate Organizational ProfileF. Military ContractsG. Business/Industry/College CollaborationH. Course/Instructional ProfileI. Training Involving Funding under the Job Training Partnership Act

(JTPA)

xiv 5*i

aMETHODOLOGY

a

STUDY POPULATIONThe study population consisted of 72 selected community, technical,and junior colleges across the United States. (For a listing of re-

spondents, see Appendix B.) The selection of the colleges was based ongeographic and racial distribution as well as the degree to which busi-ness/industry partnerships existed among the colleges. A concerted effortwas made to choose a sample of colleges with strong reputations inbusiness/industry collaborations. Most of the colleges had participated inthe previous AACJC/ACCT-sponsored national study (Day, 1984).

Additionally, several institutions were included in the study that hadnot participated in the earlier effort. In such cases, the inventory and coverletter were mailed directly to the college president. The president alsoreceived follow-up phone calls to reinforce the importance of the inven-tory. After a follow-up mailing and telephone call, usable returns werereceived from 54 of the 72 colleges. This gave a return rate of 75 percent.

SURVEY INSTRUMENT AND PROCEDURE

The inventory was developed by AACJC and the staff of Dundalk Com-munity College (see Appendix C). The inventory consisted of items con-cerning enrollment, demographic and programmatic areas, communityeconomic profiles, corporate profiles, and employment data. These itemswere not included in a previous survey (Day, 1984). The inventory wasmailed to the business/industry coordinators who had completed the 1984survey with a cover letter from the president of AACJC explaining the studyand asking their cooperation and assistance in completing the inventoryform.

DATA ANALYSIS

The data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for SocialSciences (SPSS) (Nie, Hull, Jenkins, Steinbrenner, and Brent, 1975, andNieand Hull, 1981). Responses were cross-tabulated with respect to theprimary location of the college: urban, suburban, and rural. Also, theoverall frequency of responses was obtained. A few cases in each analysishad to be discarded due to missing data.

lb

1

. a II

FINDINGS

u

GENERAL

Apart from the institutional identification and the name of the staff per-on completing the survey, the general informational category in-

cluded such areas as enrollment, sex, race, age, and employment for bothcredit and noncredit students. In terms of the original inventory pool thebreakdown was as follows:

Urban-51%Suburban -35 %

Rural-14%

The breakdown of responding colleges was as follows:

Urban-47%Suburban-40%

Rural-13%

The urban colleges responded at a lower rate than their composition inthe original pool, while suburban institutions responded at a 5 percenthigher rate than their representation in the original selection.

CREDIT ENROLLMENT

HeadcountOne-half of all responding institutions reported a headcount enroll-

ment of over 10,000 (Table 1). Nearly two-thirds of urban institutions, 43percent of the suburban institutions, and 14 percent of rural institutionsenrolled over 10,000 students. An overwhelming majority (86 percent)

TABLE ICREDIT HEADCOUNT ENROLLMENT BY LOCATION

(IN PERCENT)

HEADCOUNT URBAN SUBURBAN RURAL AVERAGE

501-1,000 4.8 1.9

1,001-5,000 24.0 28.6 85.7 32.7

5,001-10,000 12.0 23.8 15.4

Over 10,000 64.0 42.8 14.3 50.0

TOTAL 47.2 39.6 13.2 100.0

NO. OF RESPONDENTS 25 21 7 53

3 7 3


of rural institutions had headcount enrollments of between 1,000 and5,000. The disparity in these figures again points to the basic differencein the three communities. Urban and suburban institutions in this samplewere comparable in size of enrollment, both substantially higher thanenrollment in rural colleges.

Full-Time Equivalent (FTE)In terms of full-time equivalents (FTEs), over one-half (52 percent)

of all urban institutions, about a third (35 percent) of suburban, and lessthan a fifth (17 percent) of rural institutions reported credit FTEs of morethan 5,000 (Table 2). Less than half of the suburban institutions had lessthan 3,000 FTEs. As might be anticipated, only about one-fourth of theurban institutions registered less than 3,000 FTFs. Again, these figures rein-force the size differential among the three types of community colleges.Size and the composition of that size can be an important variable in termsof the symbiotic relationship that is possible between a college and its com-munity. The FTE range for urban institutions was between 1,500 and27,000; for suburban institutions, it was between 600 and 13,000; and forrural institutions the range was between 1,000 and 6,100 FTEs.

TABLE 2CREDIT FTE ENROLLMENT BY LOCATION

(IN PERCENT)

FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT URBAN SUBURBAN RURAL AVERAGE

1-1,999 9.5 30.0 33.3 21.32,000-2,999 14.3 15.0 33.3 17.03,000-4,999 24.0 20.0 16.7 21.3

')0-9,999 28.4 20.0 16.7 23.3: 100-14,999 14.3 15.0 - 13.01, )00-19,9990' r 20,000 9.5 4.1

TOTAL 44.5 42.5 13.0 100.0NO. OF RESPONDENTS 21 20 6 47FTE RANGE 1,526-27,142 614-12,758 1,038-6,086

4 18

OVER 10,000

(64.0%)

OVER 10,000(42.8%)

FIGURE 1CREDIT HEADCOUNT ENROLLMENT

URBAN INSTITUTIONS

1,001-5,000(24.0%)


SUBURBAN INSTITUTIONS

501-1,000 (4.8%)

3 9

5,001-10,000(12.0%)

1,001-5,000(28.6%)

5,001-10,000 (23.8%)


RURAL INSTITUTIONS

OVER 10,000 (14.3%)

5,001-10,000(0.0%)

501-1,000 (0.0%)

1,001-5,000 (85.7%)

FIGURE-4CREDIT HEADCOUNT ENROLLMENT

ALL INSTITUTIONS

501-1,000 (1.9%)

OVER 10,000(50.0%)

1

1,001-5,000(32.7%)

5,001-10,000 (15.4%)

FINDINGS

Enrollment in Occupational/Technical CoursesOver one-half of all responding institutions reported that mote than

51 percent of their student bodies had enrolled in occupational/technicalcourses (Table 3). According to the survey, more students in suburbanand rural institutions were taking occupational courses than those enrolledin urban institutions. It appeared that the students in the urban institu-tions were more liberal arts- and transfer-oriented than those in otherinstitutions.

TABLE 3PERCENT OF CREDIT STUDENTS TAKING OCCUPATIONAL

COURSES BY LOCATION(IN PERCENT)

PERCENT URBAN SUBURBAN RURAL TOTAL

1-20 5.0 14.3 3.921-30 16.7 5.0 9.831-40 12.5 5.0 14.3 9.841-50 29.2 20.0 14.2 23.5

51-60 16.6 25.0 28.6 21.6Over 60 25.0 40.0 28.6 31.4

TOTAL 47.1 39.2 13.7 100.0


Enrollment by RaceThe racial distribution among rural and suburban institutions was

somewhat similar. In these institutions, Caucasian students comprised be-tween 81 and 90 percent of total credit headcount; black and other racialgroups ranged from 1 to 10 percent each (Table 4). In urban institutions,between 61 and 70 percent were Caucasian, between 11 and 20 percentwere black, and the remaining were distributed among other racial groups.

TABLE 4CREDIT ENROLLMENT BY RACE BY I OCATION

(IN PERCENT)

RACE URBAN SUBURBAN RURAL TOTAL

Caucasian 61-70 81-90 81-90 71-80Black 11-20 1-10 1-10 1-10Hispanic 1-10 1-10 1-10 1-10Native American 1-10 1-10 1-10 1-10Asian American 1-10 1-10 1-10 1-10

TOTAL 47.1 39.2 13.7 100.0


21 7


Enrollment by Full-Time and Part-TimeAbout two-thirds of the enrollment at thc responding institutions were

part-time, according to the survey (Table 5). In rural institutions, part-timeenrollment was between 41 and 50 percent compared to between 61 and70 percent among urban and suburban institutions.

TABLE-5CREDIT ENROLLMENT BY STATUS BY LOCATION

(IN PERCENT)

STATUS URBAN SUBURBAN RURAL TOTAL

Part-time 61-70 61-70 41-50 66.9Full-time 31-40 31-40 51-60 33.1TOTAL 50.0 39.6 10.4 100.0NO. OF RESPONDENTS 24 19 5 48

EmploymentNearly two-thirds of the student bodies in the institutions reporting

(16 of 53) were employed (Table 6). Responding colleges reflected a stu-dent employment rate that was a mirror image cf full-time/part-erne status.The overall employment rate among the students in urban and suburbaninstitutions was between 61 and 70 percent, while among the studentsin rural institutions it was between 41 and 50 percent. Of those who wereemployed, more than half (56 percent) were employed part-time. A higherpercentage (61-70 percent) of students in urban institutions wereemployed full-time than those in suburban (41-50 percent) and rural(31-40 percent) institutions.

TABLE 6CREDIT STUDENT EMPLOYMENT BY LOCATION

(IN PERCENT)

EMPLOYED URBAN SUBURBAN RURAL TOTA'

Total employed 61-70 61-70 41-50 66.3Full-time 61-70 41-50 31-40 44.3Part-time 41-50 41-50 51-60 55.7TOTAL 50.0 37.5 12.5 100.0NO. OF RESPONDENTS 8 6 2 16

Enrollment by GenderThe overall enrollment of women in the responding institutions was

slightly higher than males. Nearly 51 percent of the student bodies wasfemale and 49 percent male (Table 7). Among rural institutions, the per-centage of male students was higher (51-60 percent) than female students

822

111

FINDINGS

(41-50 percent). Alternatively, the percentage of females was higher at ur-ban (51-60 percent) and suburban sites (51-60 percent).

TABLE 7CREDIT ENROLLMENT BY GENDER BY LOCATION

(IN PERCENT)

SEX URBAN SUBURBAN RURAL TOTAL

Male 41-60 41-50 51-60 49.2

Female 51-60 51-60 41-50 50.8

TOTAL 49.0 37.3 13.7 100.0


Age DistributionOnly one-third of all credit students were under 21 years of age (Table

8). Nearly 40 percent of the students attending the community collegeswere between the ages of 22 and 30 years. Students under 21 who wereenrolled in rural institutions constituted between 41 and 50 percent ofthe total enrollment of those colleges.

The average age of urban students was 29 compared to 28 years forsuburban and 27 for rural students. The larger percentage of students under21 in rural institutions tended to lower the overall average age of the stu-dent. Many students in urban and suburban areas often attend collegesto update skills or change careers, which might explain the age differences.On the other hand, one could anticipate a more traditional approach ina rural setting where college pre-work education/training would be general-ly considered the last stop in the educational ladder.

TABLE 8AGE DISTRIBUTION OF CREDIT STUDENTS

(IN PERCENT)

AGE INTERVAL URBAN SUBURBAN RURAL TOTAL

Under 21 21-30 21-30 41-50 31.0

22-25 21-30 11-20 11-20 24.0

26-30 11-20 11-20 11-20 15.0

31-40 11-20 11-20 11-20 15.0

41-50 1-10 1-10 1-10 5.0

51-6o 1-10 1-10 1-10 5.0

Over 60 1-10 1-10 1-10 5.0

TOTAL 54.5 36.4 9.1 100.0


AVERAGE AGE 29 28 27 28

23 9

III

NONCREDIT ENROLLMENT

Ilhere were six items pertaining to the noncredit area. For the most part,the information for these items was not furnished by the institutions.

Except for headcount enrollment and enrollment in occupational courses,the items were either left blank or noted "Not Available." It appears thatinstitutions did not document their noncredit activities with the same zealas their credit enrollments, probably because the funding mechanism ofpublic institutions places credit courses at a distinct advantage in termsof state funding. However, it is important to note that the enrollment futurelies in the noncredit area, especially for training.

NONCREDIT HEADCOUNT

More than half of all institutions reported a noncredit enrollment of5,000 or fewer ( Table 9). Three-fourths of rural institutions reported anenrollment of 1,000 or less. In contrast, more than half (57 percent) ofurban institutions had a noncredit enrollment of more than 5,000. One-quarter of all urban institutions had a noncredit enrollment over 15,000.

TABLE 9NONCREDIT HEADCOUNT ENROLLMENT BY LOCATION

(IN PERCENT)

INTERVAL URBAN SUBURBAN RURAL TOTAL

1-1,000 4.3 17.6 75.0 15.9

1,001-5,000 39.2 52.9 40.9

5,001-10,000 26.1 17.6 25.0 22.710,001-15,000 4.3 2.3

15,001 & Over 26.1 11.9 18.2

TOTAL 52.3 38.6 9.1 100.0


NONCREDIT ENROLLMENT IN OCCUPATIONAL/TECHNICALCOURSES

Just over one-third of all institutions reported that between 10 and20 percent of their noncredit student body had enrolled in occupa-tional/technical courses (Table 10). All rural institutions reported noncreditenrollment in this range (10-20 percent). Nearly 50 percent of the urbanand 25 percent of suburban institutions reported that noncredit regist;a-

24 11

a PROFILES IN PARTNERSHIP s

tion in vocational courses exceeded 41 percent. About 13 percent of boththe urban and suburban institutions reported that over 61 percent of theirnoncredit students had enrolled in technical/occupational courses. Therewas no figure for rural colleges in this area.

TABLE 10NONCREDIT ENROLLMENT IN OCCUPATIONAL COURSES

13Y LOCATION (IN PERCENT)

PERCENT RANGE URBAN SUBURBAN RURAL TOTAL

10-2021-3031-4041-5051-6061 & Over

33.36.7

13.3

26.76.7

13.3

25.012.5

37.5

12.5

12.5

100.0 36.08.0

20.016.0

8.012.0

TOTALNO. OF RESPONDENTS

61.515

30.88

7.72

100.025

a a ElOCCUPATIONAL PROGRAMS

Plihe institutions were asked to respond to five questions under the.i. occupational programs. The questions pertained to: numbers of pro-

grams offered, industrial advisory committee for degree programz, p.0-grams enrolling greatest numbers of employees from given firms, infor-mation on work-related experience, and the maximum number of creditsallowed for such work-related experiential learning.

OCCUPATIONAL PROGRAMS LEADING TO AA DEGREEOR CERTIFICATE

Fifty-one percent of all institutions reported offering up to 30 differentdegree programs. More than one-half of all responding ...than institutionsreported that they offered over 41 different degree programs, while onlyone-fifth of suburban and rural institutions offered this number (Table 11).In contrast, nearly 40 percent of suburban and rural institutions reportedoffering between 1 and 20 programs, and 13 percent of urban institutionsoffered programs between this range.

TABLE I IOCCUPATIONAL PROGRAMS LEADING TO AA DEGREE BY LOCATION

(IN PERCENT)

NUMBER OF PROGRAMS URBAN SUBURBAN RURAL TOTAL

1-20 13.0 38.1 40.0 26.5

21-30 21.7 33.3 24.5

31-40 13.0 9.5 40.0 14.3

41-50 13.0 4.8 20.0 10.2

51-60 39.1 14.3 24.5

TOTAL 46.9 42.9 10.2 100.0


Fifty-four percent of the responding institutions reported offering be-tween 1 and 20 certificate programs (Table 12). In contrast, only 27 per-cent of the institutions offered degree programs in this range. About 8 outof 10 of the suburban a.icl rural institutions reported offering between 1and 30 certificate programs, while 2 out of 3 of the suburban institutionsoffered programs in this range.

, ,

2613

1


TABLE 12OCCUPATIONAL PROGRAMS LEADING TO CERTIFICATE

BY LOCATION (IN PERCENT)

NUMBER OF PROGRAMS URBAN SUBURBAN RURAL TOTAL

1-20 41.7 68.4 20.0 54.221-30 12.5 10.5 60.0 12.531-40 12.5 5.3 8.341-50 12.5 10.5 20.0 12.551-60 20.8 5.3 12.5

TOTAL 50.0 39.6 10.4 100.0NO. OF RESPONDENTS 24 19 5 48

Again, the data support the notion that the urban institutions, in eitherdegree or certificate programs, are responding to their employer diver-sity with a program diversity to match. However, the important item inthis section is the institutional flexibility represented by all the respondentsin terms of certificate programs. These institutions are pr Dviding theshortest turn-around time possible for student and employer alike whenit comes to pre-service or on-the-job education. Institutions in the 1-20program range are offering certificates at almost double the rate for thesame range in degree programs. This may be one of the critical reasonswhy the number of students in the 22-40 age bracket is so high. Certificateprograms represent a "no frills" approach to education that appears tobe the desired option for the older student.

INDUSTRIAL ADVISORY COMMITTEES

An overwhelming majority (94 percent) of the institutions reportedthat they had established industrial advisory committees for their degreeprograms (Table 13). Among these, urban and suburban institutionsreported having a higher percentage (95-96 percent) of program advisorycommittees than institutions located in rural areas (83 percent).

TABLE 13DEGREE PROGRAMS HAVING ADVISORY COMMITTEES BY LOCATION

(IN PERCENT)

ADVISORY COMMITTEE URBAN SUBURBAN RURAL TOTAL

Yes 95.7 95.0 83.3 93.9No 4.3 5.0 16.7 6.1


14 27

OCCUPATIONAL PROGRAMS x

PROGRAMS ENROLLING GREATEST NUMBER OF EMPLOYEESFROM GIVEN FIRMS

The most popular courses reported by the colleges (based on highestenrollment levels) were electronics and data processing. In each case, sixinstitutions listed those as courses requested by the businesses and in-dustries they serve. Again, these data show that the colleges and thestudents react to the job trends in their communities. The overall attrac-tiveness of electronics and data processing is also a reflection of nationaltrends in these growth areas. The programs varied from the traditionalsecretarial/word processor training to agribusiness, micro-electronics,health sckaces, and a variety of industrial training programs. An analysis(by type of institution) to show the most common courses offered to localbusiness and industry revealed the following: (1) rural institutions offeredsecretarial science, electronics, data processing, law enforcement, etc.; (2)suburban institutions offered electronics, data processing, management,nursing, accounting, mechanical engineering technology, industrialmaintenance, etc.; (3) urban institutions offered office occupations, elec-tronics, management, accounting, fire technology, etc. It appears that themost common programs for all three types of institutions were electronics,office occupations (secretarial science), management, and accounting. Ap-pendix D includes a complete list of unduplicated courses offered by theparticipating institutions.

Question #21What occupational degree programs enroll the great-est numbers of employees from given firms? List fouror five.

Courses with Highest Employee Enrollments

URBAN

Office Occupations (4)*Electronics (3)Management (3)AccountingAgribusinessPublic Service InstituteIndustrial ElectricityBusiness AdministrationData ProcessingSemiconductor ProcessingWastewater ManagementAutomotive

SUBURBAN

Electronics (6)Data Processing (6)Management (5)Nursing (4)Accounting (3)Mechanical Engineering

Technology (3)Instrumentation (2)Industrial Maintenance (2)Computer Science (2)LogisticsMachine Processing


Courses with Highest Employee Enrollments (continued)

URBAN

BankingEnvironmental Health

TechnologyDiesel MechanicsAviation MaintenanceNursingFire TechnologyRespiratory TherapyDraftingMicrocomputer Training

SUBURBAN

AutomotiveLift Truck CertificationElectrical Engineering

TechnologyPoiice ServicesCriminal JusticeSecretarial ScienceMachinistWeldingTourism

RURAL

Electronics (3)Secretarial Science (2)Law Enforcement (2)Data Processing (2)AccountingMechanical TechnologyBusiness AdministrationNursingComputer ScienceIndustrial Management

*Numbers within parentheses indicate the frequency with which coursetitles were identified by responding colleges.

AWARDING CREDIT FOR WORK-RELATED EXPERIENCE

The institutions were asked to identify their participation in a numberof courses on work-related experiential learning. These were: cooperativeeducation, work-study, National Guide for Training Program, apprentice-ship program training, nonapprenticeship industry training, and militarytraining (Table 14). Almost ail responding institutions had participated inone, two, or all of the programs. The participation rates among the in-stitutions in these programs varied from as low as 28 percent in NationalGuide for Training Program to a high of nearly 90 percent in cooperativeeducation. It is interesting to note that apprenticeship programs, nonap-prenticeship industry training, and military training are awarded credit atabove the 50 percent level by colleges in all areas.

1 he area of credit for work-related experience is an important in-dicator of how well institutions are responding to the realities of the olderand more experienced student. Credit for work experience is an attempt

1629

OCCUPATIONAL PROGRAMS

by colleges to recognize and incorporate the students' knowledge basebrought to the first registration.

TABLE 14AWARDING CREDIT FOR WORK-RELATED EXPERIENCE


PROGRAMS URBAN SUBURBAN RURAL TOTAL

Coop Education 95.5 81.0 100.0 89.8

Work-Study 38.1 29.4 40.0 34.9National Guide for

Training Program 42.1 12.5 20.0 27.5

Apprenticeship ProgramTraining 47.6 62.5 80.0 56.8

NonapprenticeshipIndustry Training 52.4 64.7 80.0 56.8

Military Training 77.3 52.9 83.3 68.9

TOTAL 44.9 42.9 12.2 100.0


COOPERATIVE EDUCATION

Institutions located in rural areas reported 100 percent participa-tion in cooperative education. Suburban institutions had the lowestparticipation rate of 81 percent, while urban colleges had r L.arly96 percent participation.

WORK-STUDY

Just over one-third of all institutions reported participation in work-study programs. Of these, rural institutions had a 40 percent par-ticipation rate, urban colleges had a 38.1 percent participation rate,while suburban institutions had a 29 percent participation rate.

NATIONAL GUIDE FOR TRAINING PROGRAM

Urban institutions reported the highest participation rate (42 per-cent) in National Guide for Training Program. Only 13 percent ofthe suburban institutions reported participation in this program.

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING PROGRAM

Over half of all responding institutions reported participation in theapprenticeship training program. The highest participation rate (63

3017


percent) was among suburban institutions and the lowest (48 per-cent) was among urban institutions.

NONAPPRENTICESHIP INDUSTRY TRAINING

Nearly 57 percent of the institutions reported participation in thenonapprenticeship training program. Institutions located in ruralareas had a significantly higher participation rate (80 percent) thanthose located in urban and suburban areas.

MILITARY TRAINING

More than two-thirds (69 percent) of ar. institutions reported par-ticipation in training military personnel. Of these, rural institutionshad the highest percentage rate (83 percent). Urban colleges reporteda 77 percent rate and suburban colleges a 53 percent rate.

MAXIMUM CREDITS FOR WORK-RELATED EXPERIENCE

The institutions participating in work-related training programs wereasked to list the maximum number of credits they awarded to students.Eight out of 10 institutions reported offering between 1 and 20 creditsfor work-related experience (Table 15).

TABLE 15AWARDED CREDITS FOR WORK-RELATED EXPERIENCE


NUMBER OF CREDITS URBAN SUBURBAN RURAL TOTAL

1-10 35.7 50.0 40.0 42.911-20 35.7 37.5 40.0 37.121-3031-40 21.4 20.0 11.441-50 7.1 12.5 8.6

TOTAL 40.0 45.7 14.3 100.0NO. OF RESPONSES 14 16 5 35

One-half of suburban institutions reported offering between 1 and10 credits for work-related experiencethe highest level of the three sec-tors. Suburban institutions also led the field in the 41-50 credit categoryfor work experience at the 12.5 percent level (Table 15).

It is important to point out that most institutions did not have e;gnifi-cant experience with the issue of awarding credit for work-related ex-periential learning. In most cases, institutions did have a mechanism in

18 31

OCCUPATIONAL PROGRAMS

place to assess, measure, and award advanced standing credit for work-related or sponsored training. They did not have the capacity to measurethe competencies and/or learning that occurred as a result of individual(s)working at particular tasks and transferring that experience into a learn-ing/credit framework.

PERCENT

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

FIGURE 5CREDIT FOR WORK-RELATED EXPERIENCE

URBAN

COOP EDUCATION

SUBURBAN

WORK-STUDY

111111

NONAPPRENTICE TRAINING

RURAL

32

TOTAL

APPRENTICE TRAINING

1111111111

MILITARY

19

a v a

TRANSFER PROGRAMS

Ihree questions pertained to transfer programs. They were: transferrate of students to four-year colleges, transfer rate of degree graduates

in occupational programs, and the list of transferring institutions.

TRANSFER RATE TO FOUR-YEAR INSTITUTIONS

Nearly 8 out of 10 institutions responded to this item. Of these, overhalf (52 percent) were urban institutions. Nearly one-third of urban andsuburban institutions reported between 1 and 10 percent of their studentstransferring to four-year institutions, while 17 percent of the rural institu-tions had this figure (Table 16). One-third of the rural institutions reporteda transfer rate of over 50 percent.

TABLE 16TRANSFER RATE TO FOUR-YEAR COLLEGES BY LOCATION

(IN PERCENT)

PERCENT INTERVAL URBAN SUBURBAN RURAL TOTAL

1-10 31.8 35.7 16.7 31.011-20 18.2 35.7 50.0 28.621-30 13.6 14.3 11.9

31-40 9.1 14.3 9.541-50 13.6 7.1

Over 50 13.6 33.3 11.9


OCCUPATIONAL PROGRAM GRADUATE TRANSFER

The information on the occupational program graduate transfer ratewas scanty and unreliable. Only 22 institutions responded to this ques-tion. Of these, 13 were urban, 8 suburban, and 1 rural. The transfer rateslisted varied from a low of 1 percent to a high of 50 percent. A majority(two-thirds) fell between 1 and 10 percent (Table 17).

3 3 21


TABLE 17OCCUPATIONAL PROGRAM GRADUATE TRANSFER BY LOCATION

(IN PERCENT)

PERCENT INTERVAL URBAN SUBURBAN RURAL TOTAL

1-10 53.9 87.5 100.0 68.211-20 23.1 13.621-3031-40 7.7 4.641-50 15.3 12.5 13.6

TOTAL 59.1 36.4 4.5 100.0NO. OF RESPONDENTS 13 8 22

TRANSFERRING INSTITUTIONS

A majority of institutions listed the four-year colleges and universitiesto which their students had transferred. In general, they were in-state,public colleges and universities.

223 4 ,

VI

COMMUNITY ECONOMIC PROFILE

In an effort to develop a community economic profile, the institutionswere asked to describe the sizes, types, and numbers of industries la

which they operate. This data was generally impressionistic on the partof respondents as opposed to hard information. It was the rare collegethat had a realistic assessment of its economic community. Collegesreported unsuccessful attempts at obtaining this type of information fromlocal governments. It seems many local governments do not collect thisdata.

The types of industries listed in the survey were heavy and light in-dustries, high technology, service, retail, and others. Over three-fourthsof the institutions responded to this part of the survey. Of these, 51 per-cent represented urban institutions, 39 percent suburban, and 10 percentrural institutions (Table 18).

TABLE 18ECONOMIC/INDUSTRIAL COMMUNITY

IN WHICH THE COLLEGE OPERATES BY LOCATION(IN PERCENT)

CATEGORY URBAN SUBURBAN RURAL TOTAL

Heavy Industry 51.2 39.0 9.8 100.0Light Industry 52.4 35.7 11.9 100.0Hip Technology 52.5 35.0 12.5 100.0Retail 50.0 38.1 11.9 100.0Service 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0Other 50.0 38.1 11.9 100.0


Just over one-half of urban institutions, two-fifths of suburban, andone-tenth of rural institutions reported having heavy, retail, and other in-dustries in their service areas. Fifty-two percent of urban, 36 percent ofsuburban, and 12 percent of rural institutions reported having light in-dustry and high technology firms. Only urban institutions reported havingservice-related industries.

It appears that the service areas of urban institutions have a higherconcentration of all the above types of industries. In contrast, just overone-third of suburban and one-tenth of rural institutions reported havingall but service industries in the areas in which they are located. Regarding

23


the absence of service industries in suburban and rural settings, it is verytempting to speculate that this is a reflection of misunderstanding on thepart of the respondents. Intuitively, the expectation is to find some levelof service industry in all communities.

HEAVY INDUSTRIES

The institutions were asked to indicate the number of employeesengaged in heavy industries and the number of such industries. Nearly57 percent of all respondents reported that the heavy industries in theirareas employed over 3,000 workers (Table 19). Nearly one-third of ur-ban, one-half of suburban, and three-fourths of rural institutions reportedless than 3,000 employees in the heavy industries located in their areas.

TABLE 19NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES IN HEAVY INDUSTRIES BY LOCATION

(IN PERCENT)

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES URBAN SUBURBAN RURAL TOTAL

Over 3,000 64.7 56.3 25.0 56.8

2,000-3,000 11.8 12.5 10.8

1,000-1,999 5.9 50.0 8.1

500-999 11.8 25.0 16.2

100-499 5.9 2.7

Under 50 6.3 25.0 5.4

TOTAL 45.9 43.3 10.8 100.0


TABLE 20NUMBER OF HEAVY INDUSTRIES BY LOCATION

(IN PERCENT)

NUMBER URBAN SUBURBAN RURAL TOTAL

Over 20 50.0 37.5 33.3 44.4

10-19 12.5 66.7 11.2

5-9 12.5 7.4

None 25.0 50.0 29.6

Other 12.5 7.4

TOTAL 59.3 29.6 11.1 100.0

NO. OF RETONDENTS 16 8 3 27

24. . .

36

-COMMUNITY ECONOMIC PROFILE

In terms of the number of heavy industries, half of the urban institu-tions and one-third each of suburban and rural institutions reported over20 such industries in their service areas (Table 20). In short, the majorityof all respondents listed significant concentrations of heavy industrieswithin their service areas.

LIGHT INDUSTRIES

One-half of urban and suburban institutions and one-fifth of rural in-stitutions reported that the light industries located in their areas employeda total of over 3,000 workers (Table 21). Sixty percent of rural institutionshad light 3ndustries in their areas that employed fewer than 500. In con-trast, one-third of urban and one-fifth of suburban institutions reportedthat the total work force employed by light industries was fewer than 500.

TABLE 21NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES IN LIGHT INDUSTRIES BY LOCATION

(IN PERCENT)


Over 3,000 50.0 57.1 20.0 48.7

2,000-3,000 7.1 2.6

1,000-1,999 5.0 14.3 20.0 10.3

500-999 5.1 5.1

100-499 24.9 14.3 20.0 17.9

50-99 5.0 7.1 20.0 7.7

Under 50 10.0 20.0 7.7

TOTAL 51.3 35.9 12.8 100.0


TABLE 22NUMBER OF LIGHT INDUSTRIES BY LOCATION

(IN PERCENT)


Over 2010-195-91-4

None

62.525.0

6.36.3

100.0 50.0

50.0

70.414.87.43.73.7

TOTALNO. OF RESPONDENTS

59.316

25.97

14.84

100.027

37 25


All suburban, two thirds of urban, and one-half of rural institutionsreported having more than 20 tight industries in their service areas (Table22). As in the case of heavy industry, light industry was well representedin the districts of responding institutions from all geographic areas.

HIT,'H TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRIES

Nearly two-thirds of urban and one-third of suburban institutionsreported the presence of high technology industries employing more than3,000 (Table 23). All rural institutions reported that the high technologyindustries in their service districts employed fewer than 500 workers.

TABLE 23NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES IN HIGH TECH INDUSTRIES BY LOCATION

(IN PERCENT)


Over 3,0002,000-3,000

65.0 33.38.3

45.92.7

1,000-1,999 15.0 25.0 16.2500-999 16.7 5.4100-499 5.0 16.7 20.0 10.950-99 10.0 70.3 13.5

Under 50 5.0 7.7 5.4


TABLE 24NUMBER OF HIGH TECH INDUSTRIES BY LOCATION

(IN PERCENT)


Over 20 37.5 50.0 35.710-19 31.3 17.95-9 12.5 3.61-4 31.3 25.0 100.0 39.3

None 12.5 3.6


2638


One-third of all responding institutions reported having more than20 high tech ? stries in their areas (Table 24). All rural institutionsreported one to four high technology industries in their areas. One-halfof suburban and one-third of urban institutions had more than 20 highmet industries. The data, in this case, support information from othersources that high tech industries are not the nation's dominant economicforce.

SERVICE INDUSTRIES

Nearly two-thirds of urban and suburban institutions that respondedto the survey reported the existence of service industries that employeda total of over 3,000. A majority (61 percent) of rural institutions reportedthe existence of such industries with total employment under 100 people(Table 25).

TABLE 25NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES IN SERVICE INDUSTRIES BY LOCATION

(IN PERCENT)


Over 3,000 63.6 66.4 57.1

2,000-3,000 5.5 19.3 5.5

1,000-1099 5.0 7.1 5.1

500-999 5.0 - 2.6100-499 7.0 19.4 20.0 10.9

50-99 7.0 20.0 7.7

Under 50 7.0 7.1 40.7 11.1

TOTAL 51.3 35.9 12.8 100.0


Like high tech industries, service industries reflect the results of otherstudies. The nation is rapidly increasing the number of service industriesin urban, suburban, and rural settings. This study shows that the only ma-jor difference in setting is the size of the industry. Rural locations will havefewer service industries with fewer employees (Table 26).

27


TABLE 26NUMBER OF SERVICE INDUSTRIES BY LOCATION

(IN PERCENT)


Over 20 81.8 66.7 33.3 70.010-19 9.1 16.7 10.05-9 66.7 10.01-4 16.7 5.0

None 9.1 5.0


RETAIL INDUSTRIES

Retail industries with more than 3,000 employees were located neara majority (57 percent) of urban and suburban institutions that respond-ed to the survey (Table 27). Eighty percent of rural institutions reportedtheir area retail industries employed fewer than 500 workers.

TABLE 27NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES IN RETAIL INDUSTRIES BY LOCATION

(IN PERCENT)

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES URBAN SLBURB.AN RURAL TOTAL

Over ?,,000 57.1 57.1 20.0 52.52,00'j-2,9991,000-1,999 9.5 14.3 10.0

500-999 9.5 14.3 10.0100-499 9.5 . 60.0 12.550-99 - 7.1 2.5

Under 50 '4.3 7.1 20.0 12.5


Over three-fourths of all urban and suburban institutions reported thatmore than 20 retail industries were located in their service areas (Table28). Among the rural industries, 60 percent reported having over 2C retailindustries and the remaining (40 percent) reported between 5 and 9 suchindustries in their areas.

28


TABLE 28NUMBER OF RETAIL INDUSTRIES BY LOCATION

(IN PERCENT)


Over 20 75.0 77.8 60.0 73.3

10-19 6.3 3.3

5-9 12.5 11.1 40.0 16.7

1-4 6.3 11.1 6.7

TOTAL 53.3 30.0 16.7 100.0


OTHER INDUSTRIES

Over one-half of all urban and suburban institutions reported otherindustries in their service areas employing a total of over 3,000 people(Table 29). Eight out of 10 rural institutions reported the existence of otherindustries that employed a total of fewer than 500 persons.

TABLE 29NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES IN OTHER INDUSTRIES BY LOCATION

(IN PERCENT)


Over 3,000 60.0 50.0 20.0 51.3

2,000-3,000 7.1 2.61,000-1,999 5.0 7.1 5.1

500-999 5.0 2.6100-499 10.0 28.6 20.0 17.9

50-99 10.0 20.0 7.7Under 50 10.0 7.1 40.0 12.8

TOTAL 51.3 35.9 12.8 100.0


Nearly 90 percent of the urban and suburban institutions reportedthe presence of more than 20 other industries in their localities. Rural in-stitutions indicated that the rate of "other industry" incidence for theover-20 category was 60 percent (Table 30).

41 29

1.


TABLE 30NUMBER OF OTHER INDUSTRIES BY LOCATION

(IN PERCENT)


Over 20 88.2 90.0 60.0 84.410-:9 10.0 20.0 6.35-9 5.9 20.0 6.31-4 5.9 3.0


30 42

VII

CORPORATE On GANIZATIONAL PROFILE

More than half of all urban institutions that responded to the inven-tory reported that the industries located in their areas were interna-

tional in scope (Table 31). Just under one-third of the suburban institu-tions reported their service area industries were international. Only 13percent of the rural colleges said their local :_idustries were internationalin scope. The same proportional distribution holds true for national andregionally based corporations. Seventy-one percent of the urban institu-tions said their local industries were subsidiaries of national or regionalfirms, while 24 percent of the suburban and 6 percent of the rural institu-tions reported that their industries did business beyond their immediategeographical areas.

TABLE 31CORPORATE ORGANIZATIONAL PROFILE BY LOCATION

(IN PERCENT)

OWNERSHIP URBAN SUBURBAN RURAL TOTAL

International 56.3 31.3 12.5 100.0National 52.6 36.8 10.5 100.0Regionally Based Corp. 52.0 36.0 12.0 100.0Subsidiary 70.6 23.5 5.9 100.0Other 60.0 40.0 100 0


.43 31

VIII _

MILITARY CONTRACTS

Fewer than half (42 percent) of the institutions reported that they pro-vided formal educational training programs for military personnel

(Table 32). Fifty-eight percent of the responding urban institutions saidthey were engaged in formal educational training for service personnel.In contrast, 30 percent of suburban institutions and 17 percent of ruralinstitutions had engaged in such training activities.

TABLE 32FORMAL EDUCATION TRAINING FOR MILITARY SERVICE PERSONNEL


TRALNLNG URBAN SUBURBAN RURAL TOTAL

Yes 58.3 30.0 16.7 42.0No 41.7 70.0 83.3 88.0


SIZE OF MILITARY CONTRACT

The institutions participating in the educational training programs formilitary personnel were asked to indicate the dollar value of contracts withthe military. Only 11 urban and 2 suburban institutions responded to thisitem (Table 33). The contract amount of urban institutions varied from$2,000 to nearly $950,000, with an average award of V.52,000. Wishrespect to the suburban institutions, one received $10,000 .,n (a the: other,$696,290.

44 33


TABLE 33SIZE OF MILITARY CONTRACT BY LOCATION

(IN PERCENT)

AMOUNT URBAN SUBURBAN RURAL TOTAL

$ 1,000-9,999 27.3 23.1

10,000-19,999 - 50.0 7.720,000-49,999 18.1 15.4

50,000-99,999 27.3 23.1

100,000-199,000 9.1 7.7200,000-499,999 9.1 7.7500,000-999,999 9.1 50.0 15.4

TOTAL 84.6 15.4 100.0NO. OF RESPONDENTS 11 2 13

Nearly three-fourths of all urban institutions had military contractsranging from $10,000 to $1 million. One institution had received a con-tract from the military of nearly $1 million. The stated value of thesemilitary contracts indicates that viable training/education relationships doexist between the colleges and the military.

2 is IX 2 2

BUSINESS/INDUSTRY/COLLEGECOLLABORATION

The colleges were asked to furnish information on industries operatingwithin their service areas with which they had a collaborative arrange-

ment. Among the data requested were: name of firm, number ofemployees, employees enrolled in job-related courses, nature of trainingsupport, number of courses offered, source of equipment and instructionalmaterials used in the training program, instructors used in the courses,credits applicability, training involving JTPA, number of programs offered,and funding. The response to this section of the survey was uneven. Someinstitutions provided detailed information on the above items, while othersindicated that such information was unavailable. The ability of many in-stitutions to assess, critique, and promote their business/industry activitiesis critically handicapped by inadequate data collection at the local level.

PARTNERSHIP TRAINING

Thirty-four of the 58 institutions responded to the industry/collegepartnership training survey. This yielded a response rate of 62 percent.The number of firms involved in such training programs varied from 40(5 percent) for rural institutions to 530 (69 percent) for urban institutions(Table 34). A total of 737 companies had a collaborative arrangement withthe 36 colleges. These colleges were involved in the training of over 28,000employees who were taking job-related courses. Nearly 50 percent of theurban institutions trained 84 percent of the total number of trainedemployees reported by all institutions.

TABLE 34PARTNERSHIP TRAINING BY LOCATION

COLLEGES FIRMS EMPLOYEES IN JRC'

COLLEGE LOCATION NO. % NO. % NO.

Rural 4 16.67 40 5.08 1,805Suburban 11 30.56 167 25.69 2,939Urban 19 52.77 530 69.23 23,562

TOTAL 34 100.00 737 100.00 28,306

'Job - Related Courses.

46

%

6.3810.3883.24

100.00

35


TRAINING SUPPORT

Nearly one-half of the urban, half of the suburban institutions, andtwo-thirds of rural institutions reported that the employees of their com-panies were fully subsidized by firms when the employees registered injob-related courses (Table 35).

TABLE 35TRAINING SUPPORT BY COMPANIES BY LOCATION

(IN PERCENT)

COLLEGE LOCATION

FULL

FUNDING

PARTIAL

FUNDING

JTPA*

FUNDING

NO

SUBSIDY

TOTAL

NO. %

Rural 60.0 20.0 10.0 10.0 10 100.00Suburban 50.0 41.7 0.0 8.3 12 100.00Urban 46.0 37.5 9.4 6.2 32 100.00

TOTAL 50.0 35.2 5.6 9.2 100.0NO. OF RESPONDENTS 27 19 3 5 54

*Job Training Partnership Act.Three institutions (2 urban and 1 suburban) reported no subsidy provided for theemployees either by the companies or JTPA.

WORK-RELEASE TIME FOR EMPLOYEES TAKING COURSES

Over half of all institutions reported that students from collaboratingcompanies received work-release time (Table 36). Among rural institutions,67 percent said their students were granted work-release time. Sixty per-cent of the urban institutions and 45 percent of the suburban institutionsreported that employees/students received work-release time for theircoursework.

TABLE 36WORK-RELEASE TIME FOR EMPLOYEES TAKING COURSES


COLLEGE LOCATION

WORKRELEASE

TIME PROVIDEDWORKRELEASE

TIME NOT PROVIDED TOTAL

NUMBER % NUMBER % NUMBER %

Rural 6 66.7 3 33.3 9 100.0Suburban 4 44.5 5 55.5 9 100.0Urban 15 60.0 10 40.0 25 100.0

TOTAL 25 58.1 18 41.9 43 100.0

36 47

BUSINESS/INDUSTRY/COLLEGE COLLABORATION

COMPANY RECRUITERS ON CAMPUS

The institutions were asked if the company's recruiters had regularinterview schedules on their campuses. Among the 16 urban institutions,7 (44 percent) reported company recruiters having regular interviewschedules on their campuses (Table 37). Forty-four percent of rural and57 percent of suburban institutions reported having recruiters on theircampuses.

TABLE 37COMPANY RECRUITERS HOLDING INTERVIEWS ON CAMPUS

(IN PERCENT)

RECRUITERS HOLDING RECRUITLRS NOT HOLDING

REGULAR INTERVIEWS REGULAR INTERVIEWS

ON CAMPUS ON CAMPUS TOTAL

COLLEGE LOCATION NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER

Rural 4 44.4 5 55.6 9 100.0Suburban 4 57.1 3 42.9 7 100.0Urban 7 43.8 9 56.2 16 100.0

TOTAL 15 46.9 17 53.1 32 100.0

These data reflect a different aspect of the college/employer relation-ship. The information suggests that many employers look beyond theirimmediate customized training needs to the baseline education of newemployees. In this sense, the college is performing its traditional pre-employment educational role. One could anticipate that many two-yearcareer curricula are tailored to the local economy and that each curriculumwas built with the support of local business/industry advisory councils.The advantage of enhancing the collaboration at both pre- and post-employment levels is that instruction can be mutually reinforcing. Undersuch circumstances, pre-employment education can benefit from constantemployer feedback so that curricula remain current.

48

37

a le x


le

NUMBER OF COURSES OFFERED AND COURSE LOCATION

ver 1,000 different courses/programs were offered by the respondingV institutions to the employees of their area industries. The questionwas asked in such a way that it was clear from the responses that the courseofferings were industry driven. Urban institutions offered a majority (72percent) of these courses followed by suburban (22 percent) and rural in-stitutions (6 percent).

The institutions also were asked to indicate the location where thecourses were offered for the employees. A majority of courses were evenlyspread between the plant and the college campus. A small number ofcourses was offered at other locations. It appears that the classroom follovsthe student and, according to this data, the plant site is at parity with thecampus. Moreover, when in-plant is collapsed with other sites, the cam-pus comes in second (Table 38).

TABLE 38NUMBER OF COURSES OFFERED AND COURSE LOCATION

COLLEGE LOCATION

COURSE TITLES

LOCATIONTOTAL

PLANT

%

CAMPUS

%

OTHER

%NO. % NO. %

Ruial 60 6.1 46.1 46.1 7.8 13 100.0

Suburban 218 22.3 45.0 35.0 20.0 20 100.0

Urban 699 71.6 46.4 42.9 10.7 28 100.0

TOTAL 977 100.0 45.9 41.0 13.1 100.0

SOURCE OF EQUIPMENT AND INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALUSED FOR TRAINING

The institutions were asked to indicate the sources of equipment andinstructionzl materials used for technical programs. Over half of the ruralinstitutions reported using company equipment (Table 39). Companyequipment was used by 45 percent of suburban and 39 percent of urbaninstitutions. Data reveal that the "other" equipment source categorybecomes a factor in urban s !.ttings (15.4 percent) and suburban settings(11.11 percent). "Other" sources are in evidence at all settings for instruc-tional material, although to a lesser degree in rural settings.

39

49


FIGURE 6BUSINESS/INDUSTRY TRAINING

NUMBER OF DIFFERENT COURSES OFFERED

NUMBER OF COURSES(Thousands)

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

40

977

699

218

60

URBAN SUBURBAN RURAL

INSTITUTION TYPE

TOTAL


45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

FIGURE 7BUSINESS/INDUSTRY TRAININ(LOCATION OF COURSES OFFERED

URBAN

PLANT

SUBURBAN

INSTITUTION TYPE

CAMPUS

5-1

RURAL

OTHER

41

TABLE 39SOURCE OF EQUIPMENT AND INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS

USED FOR TRAINING BY LOCATION(IN PERCENT)

COLLEGE LOCATION

EQUIPMENT SOURCE

TOTAL

INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS SOURCE

TOTALCOMPANY

(%)

COLLEGE

(%)

OTHER

(%)

COMPANY

x

COLLEGE

x

OTHER

%NO. % NO. %

Rural 54.5 45.5 00.0 I I 100.0 41.7 50.0 8.3 12 100.0

Suburban 44.5 44.-) 11.0 18 100.0 35.0 40.0 25.0 20 100.0

Urban 38.5 46.1 15.4 26 100.0 26.1 60.9 13.0 23 100.0

TOTAL 43.6 45.5 10.9 - 100.0 32.7 50.9 16.4 - 100.0

NO. OF RESPONDENTS 24 25 6 55 18 28 9 55

Wm. 11.


With respect to the source of instructional materials used in the classes,61 percent of the urban institutions, 40 percent of suburban, and 50 per-cent of rural institutions used the materials developed at their campuses(Table 39).

These data continue to support the notion that rural colleges developa substantial symbiotic relationship with their local employers. Whetherwe are addressing equipment or materials, the rural company is more likelyto be a partner on equal footing in the education and training of the localwork force. Alternately, this relationship diminishes in suburban and thenurban sites.

What also is evident from the data is that in urban and suburban sitesthe shortfall in company contribution is donated by sources other thanthe college. Th... point is that the education/training being delivered is suf-ficiently expensive that colleges seek a third partner to defray costs ofequipment and/or materials. A future study might seek to find out theidentity of the third partner.

USE OF INSTRUCTORS

The institutions were asked if the college faculty or company person-nel were used to teach the courses. Nearly one-third of all the institutionsreported using their own faculty to teach the courses (Table 40). Just overone-fourth of each of the rural (27 percent) and suburban (27 percent) in-stitutions reported using company personnel. One-fifth of the urban in-stitutions reported using company personnel. Nearly one-third of all in-stitutions reported using part-time noncompany faculty to teach thecourses.

TABLE 40INSTRUCTORS USED IN COURSE BY LOCATION

(IN PERCENT)

COLLEGE LOCATION

REGULAR

FACULTY

COMeANY

PERSONNEL

PARTTIMENONCOMPANY

FACULTY OTHER

TOTAL'

NO. %

Rural 40.0 26.7 26.7 6.6 15 100.0Subu-ban 30.8 26.9 34.6 7.6 26 100.0Urban 31.4 20.0 34.3 14.3 35 100.0

TOTAL 32.9 23.7 32.9 10.5 - 100.0NO. OF RESPONDENTS 25 18 25 8 76

'Multiple responses.

Urban institutions lead the other types of institutional categories inproviding the requirements of education and training delivery. Urban in-stitutions apparently require less collaborative support from employers

53 43


as a requisite to providing services. This observation also applies to facul-ty. Alternately, rural and suburban institutions seek company personnelfor instructional purposes at about equal rates.

OFFERING OF COLLEGE CREDITS AND THEIRAPPLICABILITY TOWARD AA DEGREE

Over half of all the urban and suburban institutions reported offeringcollege credits for the courses taken by employees (Table 41). Forty-threepercent of the rural institutions reported offering college credits for thecourses taken by the students.

When the colleges were asked if the credits could be applied towardassociate of arts degrees or certificates, three-fourths of all urban and two-thirds of all suburban institutions reported accepting these credits towardeither an AA or a certificate. Fifty-five percent of the rural institutionsreported the applicability of credits to other than AA degree or a certificate.

TABLE 41OFFERING, OF COLLEGE CREDITS AND THEIR APPLICABIL

TOWARD AA DEGREE OR CERTIFICATE BY LOCATION(IN PERCENT)

COLLEGE

CREDITS

OFFERED TOTAL' CTLDITS APPLICABILITY TOTAL

YES NO NO. %

AADEGREE CERTIFICATE OTHER NO. %

Rural 42.9 57.1 7 100.0 22.2 22.2 55.6 9 100.0Suburban 57.1 42.9 14 100.0 4'..2 35.3 23.5 17 100.0Urban 51.9 48.1 27 I00.0 37.5 33.3 29 2 24 100 0TOTAL 52.1 47.9 - 100.0 38.0 32.0 30.0 - 100.0NO. OFRESPONDENTS 25 23 48 19 16 15 50

'Multiple rcsponscs.

COLLEGE CREDITS OFFERED TO COURSES

The study indicates that of the 875 courses (duplicate), 498 (57 per-cent) were checked Yes and 377 (43 percent) were checked No, whenasked if college credits were given to those courses.

A note of caution!The information is misleading. Most of the courses/programs are of-

fered under the Continuing Education Unit. This leads the researcher tothink that the students might have received CEUs rather than academiccredits.

44 54

XI

TRAINING INVOLVING JTFA FUNDING

JTPA PARTICIPATING COLLEGES AND NUMBER OF PROGRAMS

The colleges were asked to list the JTPA programs they had offered.Thirty-five of the 58 institutions responded to this item, yielding a

60 percent response rate. Among these colleges, 18 (52 percent) were ur-ban, 12 (34 percent) were suburban, and 5 (14 percent) were rural (Table42). These institutions reported offering a total of 232 JTPA-sponsoredprograms. In a breakdown of JTPA programs, nearly 61 percent of theinstruction resided in urban institutions, 25 percent in suburban institu-tions, and 14 percent in rural institutions. Clearly, JTPA-driven instruc-tion is attached to the population centers that are likely to have largenumbers of individuals in need of retraining services.

TABLE 42TRAINING INVOLVING JTPA-PARTICIPATING COLLEGES

AND NUMBER OF PROGRAMS BY LOCATION(IN PERCENT)

COLLEGE

LOCATION

COLLEGES JTPA PROGRAMS

NO. NO.

Rural 5 14.29 32 13.79Suburban 12 34.29 58 25.00Urban 18 51.42 142 61.21

TOTAL 35 100.00 232 100.00

TRA INING INVOLVING JTPA AND OTHER FUNDING

The institutions were asked to list the number of participants and theamount of JTPA and other funding received for the training programs. Ac-cording to the survey, a total of nearly 20,000 people participated in thetraining programs. An overwhelming majority (96 percent) of these par-ticipants attended urban and suburban institutions (Table .20).

Total support for the training programs was over $14 million. Aboutthree-fourths of this amount came from JTPA. Almost all of this was sharedby urban and suburban institutions. Rural institutions shared only 8 per-cent of the total funding for the training programs. Again, the number ofindividuals served and dollars involved parallel the data on programs of-fered. Essentially, urban and suburban institutions in this study are substan-tially involved with JTPA-funded training. (Note: 30 percent of therespondents did not answer this question. It cannot be determined if this

P 45

TABLE 43TRAINING INVOLVING JTPA AND OTHER FUNDING

(IN PERCENT)

COLLEGE LOCATION

PARTICIPANTS JTPA FUNDLNG OTHER FUNDING TOTAL

NO. % AMOUNT % AMOUNT % AMOUNT %

Rural 742 3.76 $154,597 1.48 $1,078,764 26.98 31,233,361 8.52

Suburban 5,999 30.41 4,487,327 42.85 1,922,069 48.08 6,409,396 44.29

Urban 12,989 65.83 5,830,072 55.67 997,278 24.94 6,827,350 47.19

TOTAL 19,730 100.00 S 10,471,996 100.00 53,998,111 100.00 314,470,107 100.00

PERCENT - 160.00 - 72.37 - 26.45 - 100.00

. TRAINING INVOLVING JTPA FUNDING

lack of response is indicative of an information gap or if it is indicativeof no JTPA involvement whatsoever.)

Another comparison in this area is the differential between urban andsuburban institutional program costs and individuals served. The data in-dicate suburban institutions are receiving more than twice as much "otherfunding" to serve approximately 7,000 fewer participants. The public con-tribution in this equation remains about equal. The "other" category con-sisted of a collapsing of state, local, company, and miscellaneous sources.

57

47

X I I

INVENTORY ANALYSIS

The data developed from this selected inventory of community,technical, and junior colleges reveal some interesting trends in urban,

suburban, and rural settings. In some cases, the comparisons within andamong settings are rather dramatic. However, the reader must constantlykeep in mind that the number of inventory respondents, as well as theoriginal target population, is quite small. Hence, generalizing from this datato the entire system of colleges is risky. On the other hand, many col-leges chosen to be in the inventory were from bellwether states andlocalities that have been very active traditionally in employee education/training. Thus, the trends should not be discounted.

Perhaps the most disturbing result of this inventory is the uneven-ness of data collection activities from the responding institutions. Clear-ly, the inventory itself was a difficult instrument in that the desired infor-mation had to come from a variety of institutional sources. Even so, thereply to many inventory questions was that the data was nonexistent ortoo difficult to obtain. For example, only 30 of the 54 institutions repliedto the category of questions on JTPA activities. These activities requireminimal accounting. In some cases, institutions stated they were too busydelivering services to be bothered with documentation. Alternately, someinstitutions went to great lengths to comply with inventory requests. Yeteven in some other cases, the data was unavailable. Several institutionswent the extra mile by trying to acquire community economic profilesfrom their local governments only to find that these data were notcollected.

The primary concern raised by this range of data collection perfor-mance is the inability of the colleges to dearly describe their achievementsin the area of employee training and education. The data are apparentlythere, not in a tangible form to project a global impact statement. Ofgreatest concern is the proposition that many colleges and, apparently,some local governments do not have a handle on the important com-ponents of the local economy. The lack of such data severely hamstringsany type of comprehensive local economic development activity.

Another case in point with respect to weak data is the informationcollected on part-time/full-time students, occupational course enrollment,and part-time employment. Only 16 institutions could retrieve employ-ment data on their student bodies. This is a critical gap as seen from thelittle data that are available. Approximately 66.9 percent cf the total enroll-ment is part-time and 33.1 percent of the total is full-time. Therefore, theemployment data on part-time students (full-time employees) should pro-vide fundamental information to college policymakers with respect to

49

58


future initiatives and the likely sources of community support. The resultsof this inventory suggest that many college officials have not placed anyimportance on the collection of such data.

This lack of data collection provides the reader with two observa-tions. First, this inventory has uncovered a significant problem in spiteof the small target population. The colleges are not routinely collectingdata on the employer community, on the occupational background ofstudents, or the specifics of college services delivered to the employercommunity. The uneven nature of the available data means that generaliza-ti-ms based on this inventory must be handled with great care. On theother hand, the available inventory data does have the impact of stimulatingthe need for further inquiry in certain areas. The following data analysisalso should encourage policymakers to investigate the status of their owninstitutions on some of these questions.

Urban and suburban institutions are comparable in number ofemployed students (61-70 percent), while the rural colleges enrollemployed students at the 41-50 percent rate. Urban and suburban part-time employment figures are roughly equal (41-50 percent), while the ruralfigure is 51-60 percent. Full-time employment reveals a figure of 31-40percent for rural colleges and 41-50 percent for suburban institutions,while urban figures jump to 61-70 percent. The importance of these figuresis that they indicate that one-half of the two-year college students in respon-dent institutions are dividing their attention between work and academics.

However, the figure that captures attention is dr: urban full-time workcategory (61-70 percent) that matches the urban part-time enrollment(61-70 percent). All of these figures, but particularly the urban percent-ages, may presage a major shift in the whole student culture for two-yearinstitutions. These data seem to indicate that two-year colleges are veryinvolved in the education and training (credit level) of working America.The time may b quickly passing when community colleges can be viewedas other postsecondary institutionsprimarily serving the traditional(18-20-year-old) student body. The data indicate that urban colleges have,indeed, passed that point and suburban institutions appear to be not farbehind. These data confirm information from a variety of sources that in-dicate that about 75 percent of all credit students are employed. In bothcases, two-year colleges are becoming an important pathway to careermobility.

Looking at the data from a different perspective lends 'trength to otherdata sources that suggest that two-year institutions are in the midst of ametamorphosis. Inventory information on student age distribution revealsthat only one-third of all credit students were under 21 years of age. Theaverage age was 29 urban, 28 suburban, and 27 rural. Over half of thesestudents were between the ages of 22 and 40 years.

The results of these data in urban and suburban settings have someimportant ramifications for policymakers in academia, corporate offices,and state and federal agencies. Increasingly, the two-year college is becom-

50 ;59

INVENTORY ANALYSIS

PercentageAge Interval Total for all settings

22-25 24.126-30 20.931-40 22.5

ing the educational institution of choice for the 22-40-year-oldthe agebracket that la most upwardly mobile in their occupations. These are notthe traditional 18-22-year-old college students of 15-20 years ago. Hence,the ongoing interdependency of work and education has become morepronounced at urban and suburban community colleges. That is, in thesesettings a clear linkage exists between education/training and career/humanresource development and the contributions of employees to enrollmentstability. Moreover, other data from this study indicate that colleges areincreasingly benefiting from the private sector through cash, equipment,and materials donations, and even from contributions to facultydevelopment.

If this trend were to hold true throughout the nation it would leavevery few areas in two-year colleges safe from alteration, for what the datareveal is the convergence of -wo very important trend lines into one thathas the likelihood of creating a new synthesis of major importance forthe whole nation. We are not just talking about basic changes in a certainstratum of postsecondary institutions to accommodate a new studentsubgroup. This new student is in the majority, and this student also hap-pens to be the backbone of the economy and the backbone of the taxbase. In short, the twin destinies of community colleges and Americanworkers appear to be intertwined in a symbiotic relationship of major pro-portions. Jn the words of Dale Parnell, president of the AACJC, "Com-munity colleges could well be on their way to becoming the modernequivalent of the public land grant universities and agricultural extensionagencies. They will do for the information age what the land grant univer-sities did for an agricultural and industrial age."

The latter development in American postsecondary education im-pacted a predominantly agrarian society in such a way as to make theagricultural system of the nation the most productive in the world. Thepresent challenge facing America is the transition from an industrialeconomythe challenge of maintaining industrial competitiveness andworker productivity in the face of an equally competitive world economy.The data indicated that community colleges are an increasingly critical com-ponent in educating Americans for entry-level occupations. The data alsoindicate that the colleges are a critical component in an ongoing processof education and training that is necessary for skill maintenance and/oroccupational mobility. In short, community colleges appear to be the keyeducational element in maintaining American economic competitiveness.

6051


Dr. W. Edwards Deming, world-renowned statistical consultant, whoafter World War II taught the Japanese how to produce high-quality, low-cost products, tells us:

The community colleges must do it. They are alive to theircustomers. They are learning how they can help industry in theircommunities. They must work together because there are a lotof problems that are common to all communities. I believe [thecommunity college] holds the key to teaching American industrywhat must take place.

Given the significance of such an alignment of destinies, community,technical, and junior colleges may find it useful to rethink the appropri-ateness of many of their structures for serving the "information age" needsof employees and employers. For example, the emergence of the olderstudent must raise large questions about the very life cycle and basic opera-tions of the college. Has the Carnegie unit of credit measurement becomeobsolete for a student body reflecting varying levels of advanced educa-tional and skills development? How and where do college administratorsschedule classes to meet the educational needs of the dominant studentgroup? More importantly, who pays for employee trainingthe student,the state, the employer, or some combination of the three? What is therole of financial aid in employee education/training? Does the federalgovernment have a stake in the overall competence ofa trained work force?If so, what are the appropriate roles from the Departments of Labor, Com-merce, and Education in facilitating national policy and programs? In short,there are significant emerging issues that will require close attention frompolicymakers.

As indicated earlier, community economic profile data were difficultto oL.ain. Many colleges had very little idea beyond rough estimates asto the texture of their economic community. It was the rare college thatwas able to identify the major employers of its community let aloneemployer education training needs. In this sense, many colleges do notappear to have appreciated the notion that they can play a key catalyticrole in the economic development of their communitiesa role that placesa priority on serving the needs of those already present in the economiccommunity. Such a strategy puts a premium on holding on to what youhave. Yet, such a strategy cannot be accomplished without a thoroughknowledge of what constitutes the local economic community, along withthe creation of a needs assessment profile. It was just such a data base thatthe inventory was attempting to tap. The usefulnessof such informationcan be implied from the results of the inventory.

The rough data submitted by colleges did construct a profile expectedin a comparison of rural, urban, and suburban communities. The mass ofindustry increases with the population. However, all areas seemed to havea mix of employers. It appeared that this mix of employers might be con-sidered a positive attribute in terms of an institutional service strategy. Col-

61

INVENTORY ANALYSIS

leges could use the shopping center approach by allowing large employersto anchor their programs. They could then meld together small employersinto various groups based upon common need. Such a strategy couldstimulate the needed critical mass for program delivery and it could alsomaximize the creation and use of faculty, space, materials, and equipment.

Reversing the strategy, a thorough knowledge of the local corporateprofile could be the building block for a community college consortia ap-proach to training/education for nationallintemational companies. Collegeswith similar programmatic strengths and objectives could market them-selves collectively as viable training networks to be used by a:, opriatenational and regional companies. The Mid-America Training Network (tenGreat Lakes community colleges) and the Gulf Coast Consortia (Texas) aregood examples of such a strategy. General Motors, Ford, Campbell's Soup,and Motorola are but a few of the increasing number of national companiesthat are eager to use community colleges in their training strategies. Ur-ban, suburban, and rural colleges reported the presence in their com-munities national/international employers at the 50 percent, 31 percent,and 13 pc cent levels, respectively. Clearly, the networking potential existsfor collaborative training on a large scale across these community-basedinstitutions.

In moving from the realm of potential collaboration to that of actuallevels of collaboration the inventory results again displayed a weakness.Only 31 of the 54 institutions responded to questions pertaining to college/industry partnership training. A higher response rate was desirable in orderto compare accurately the actual activity level against potential activitylevel. What the data reveal is a substantial amount of collaborati( amongall responding institutions. These 31 institutions reported working with650 firms covering 25,096 affected employees. However, the bulk of thework was being done in the urban setting (450 firms-20,804 employees).The surprise was that the suburban activity rate was not nearly as robust(167 firsts -2,934 employees). In contrast, the rural respondents onlyserved 33 firms, tat those firms accounted for 1,353 employees.

What is striking is the comparison of reported suburban activity levelwith the suburban economic profile. Notwithstanding the data flaws inthe community economic profile, the suburban institutions appear to beoperating much below the market capacity of their service areas. Collec-tively, suburban institutions reported the existence of economic activitythat was comparable to urban sites. For example, suburban/urban com-parisons on the number of employees for heavy and light industries tellan interesting story.

In terms of the presence of employees in the high tech, service, andretail industries, the suburban institutions, with one major exception,report the highest levels of employees within their service area. (The ex-ception is high tech industries with over 3,000 employees.) In short, thesuburban institutions appear to have substantial growth capacity in thearea of contracted employee education and training.

6253

PROFILES iN rAn MERSHIP

Employees in Heavy Industry Employees in Light Industry(Percentages) (Percentages)

Urban Suburban Urban SuburbanOver 3,000 64.7 56.3 Over 3,000 50.0 57.12,000-3,000 11.8 12.5 1,000-1,999 5.0 14.3500-999 11.8 25.0 100-499 20.0 14.3

The promise woven into such collaboration is apparent through thedata involving training support, work release time, instructional site, facul-ty, and equipment use. This information reflects a pattern of col-lege/employer relationships that are increasingly symbiotic. First, the im-portance of training and education to employers is unthrscored by theindicated financial commitments in the inventory. Full subsidization ofjob-related instruction by employers was reported at the following levels:urban 48.0 percent, suburban 50.0 percent, and rural 62.5 percent. Thesedata imply that training subsidization is well on its way to becoming a for-malized strategy to induce employee development. It is noteworthy thatthe rural colleges in the study benefited at a higher rate than other sites.This may indicate a greater employer reliance on two-year colleges in ruralareas.

Easily obscured in this particular data is what appears to be an emerg-ing new consensus on employee (post-service) training as the prime respon-sibility of the employer. It is in the employer's best interest to maintaina well-trained work force; therefore, it is the employer's responsibility topay the cost inherent in such an investment. However, this burden is con-siderably lessened when employers collaborate with public colleges. Thefull costs of subsidization are reduced with the contribution of publicdollars. Increasingly, employee education and training is demanding anemployer commitment to a "life-long learning" model in order to main-tain competitiveness. With the downturn in traditional student popula-tions, these changes seem to create an optimal climate for the mutualbenefit of two-year colleges and employers. The data suggest this scenariois already a strong trend across the natior

If a future national study substantiated this trend, the implications fordecisionmakers could be fundamental. For example, strong national sup-porting documentation would imply that America has made a de facto com-mitment to the concept of employee education and training equal to thehistorical commitment to education and training. For traditional students,given the population demographics and the technologically driven changesin the work force, there is good reason to predict that employee educa-tion and training could become the dominant force in two-year colleges.This would mean that, in addition to state dollars, educators and employersalike would have a mutual interest in the status of federal tax credits foremployee training. Furthermore, educators might want to give closer

54 63

INVENTORY ANALYSIS

scrutiny to their formal structures, which, for the most part, are still shapedto service traditional student populations.

For example, half of the 814 course titles reported in the survey weretaught at the plant site for rural, urban, and suburban institutions. Whenother off-campus sites for employee coursework are added, the campusbecomes the preferred site for about a third of the time. Rural collegesare slightly higher on main campus us 'ge. If such coursework representsthe wave of the future, then policymakers may want to rethink their cam-pus capital budget. There are ether issues and areas to ponder aspolicymakers begin to ft..11y apprecNte the scope of employer/collegecollaboration.

Again, the data may be a useful glimpse into the future. Over one-half of the employees in the inventory received work-release time. Thistrend was strongest in urban and rural settings. Acknowledging that weare only talking about five institutions, it is still intriguing to note that work-release time occurred at a 71.4 percent rate in the rural settings. Subsidiza-tion and work-release time are substantive comments from those fewemployee :garding the importance of human resource development totheir oper. lons.

Additional data reinforce this viewpoint. Respondents indicated thatemployers were a major source for instructional equipment and instruc-tional material. Again, the rural institutions appeared to reflect the highestdegree of collaboration.

Equipment Source(percent)

Company Other College

Institutional Material Source(percent)

Company Other College

Rural 55.6 00.0 44.4 45.5 9.0 45.5Suburban 44.5 11.1 44.5 35.0 25.0 40.0Urban 33.3 22.2 44.5 22.2 16.7 61.1

From the standpoint of equipment, the college contribution is con-stant through the different sites. However, urban and suburban institu-tions seem to be better able to find other sources for the provision of equip-ment. It is not clear what drives the decision to seek "other" equipmentsources. Regard, 1.6 instructional materials, "other sources" remain an important avenue for instructional support. Urban colleges appear to be ina much better position to provide their own instructional materials, butthey still seek significant additional support.

Significant private sector contributions also are being felt in the facultypersonnel area. Company personnel are used as faculty 25 percent of thetime by rural and suburban colleges. Even the urban colleges use privatesector instructors for 14.8 percent of their company courses. On the other

6 455


hand, all institutions reported using part-time noncompany faculty almostequally. This would seem to support a nationwide trend in college staff-ing to deliver substantial amounts of instruction through part-time faculty.Questions regarding this group remain. For example: Is this populationbiased in the direction of occupational/vocational education and trainingas opposed to traditional transfer curricula? If so, how many of these in-structors come from the private sector?

There is another area of observation regarding the growth inemployer/college collaboration. The respondents indicated significant will-ingness co fashion degree-generating credits for employee courses.However, the data in this area revealed a significant difference in the wayurban and suburban colleges apply credit as contrasted to the rural col-leges. The former seem more amenable to granting credit for employeeeducation/training and more amenable to applying that credit to bothassociate degrees and certificates. This means that the urban and subur-ban institutions appear to be more active in applying the traditional col-legiate legitimi-'ng function to employee instruction. By extension, it alsomeans that urban and suburban institutions, and to a lesser extent ruralinstitutions, are playing a significant role in moving the associatedegree/certificate into the work place as requirements for keeping jobsand advancing in them.

The last item to be considered is the collei.e collaboration generatedby the JTPA. The overarching impression given by these data is that theresponding community colleges (70 percent) are involved in such activi-ty. Clearly, the active institutions in this category are the colleges in thesuburban and urban population centers. This is not surprising, but the dif-ferential between urban and suburban "institutional program costs" and"individuals served" is intriguing. Suburban institutions received twiceas much "other funding" ($1.9 million vs. $997,278) to serve approximate-ly 2,500 fewer participants than their urban counterparts. "Other funding"consisted of collapsing together state, local, company, and miscellaneouscategories. Federal dollars received among the institutions in different loca-tions were more in line with one another, but even there the suburbansites received $227,000 more than urban institutions. It would be usefulto tra these findings in a national study, with thought toward sifting outthe "other funding sources" category.

In conclusion, the results of this inventory indicate that respondingtwo-year colleges reflect extremely rich and varied experiences withrespect to employee education and training. In that sense, the very strengthof these institutions, their community orientation, makes them very dif-ficult to categorize and assess. More importantly, this particular sampleof colleges is far too small to risk generalizations for the breadth of thecommunity college field. However, this sample is large enough and con-tains enough significant institutions to draw attention to some trends anddevelopments. The greatest concern generated from this study is the dif-

56 65

INVENTORY ANALYSIS

ficulty in obtaining consistent and qualitative data in this area acrossinstitutions. This raises serious questions with respect to a national follow-up. However, the results of this inventory leave no doubt that a follow-up study would be an essential addition to the growing body of literatureon coliege/employer collaborations.

xrnCONCLUSIONS

The present study examined in detail selected community college part-nerships with business/industry. No attempt was made to select a

representative collection of two-year colleges. The survey confirms thefindings of the previous study (Day, 1985) that the nation's community,technical, and junior colleges are working cooperatively with areabusiness/industries to provide general and specialized training programsfor their employees. The training needs of a vast majority of area industriesare being met through these colleges. For these institutions, an averageof 21 companies in colleges service districts had collaborative arrangementswith an institution in one year. The extent of this collaboration is con-firmed by the fact that almost all institutions had established industrial ad-visory committees for their degree programs. Also, the institutions workclosely with the industries by providing academic credit to employees var-ticipating in work-related courses. The companies, in turn, strengthen thiscooperation by providing subsidies for their empLyees and offering planttraining sites, instructors, equipment, and instructional materials to theinstitutions to provide training programs.

59

OBSERVATIONS

I/ccording to the study, successful collaborations between communitycolleges and business/industry exist today. But there are some con-

cerns with respect to the completion of the inventory. At some institu-tions, there is a lack of accurate data on noncredit students. The collegesneed to refine their methodologies for collecting and maintaining infor-mation pertaining to business /industry collaboration.

Aside from the above, there are a number of programmatic recom-mendations related to community college/business/industry collaborations:

1. Data suggest that a large percentage of institutions work with anumber of industries that provide work-release time in order to enhanceemployee participation in college-sponsored programs. It is recommend-ed that colleges that participated in this type of program should developclose working relationships with local industries.

2. The benefits of using company equipment and materials need tobe explored further. In urban and subLr ban institutions, a higher percent-age use their own equipment and materials rather than the compahy's.It appears that rural community colleges are successful in this regard. Ahigher level of competition from four-year colleges and universities in oz..ban and suburban areas presents an obstacle for equipment donation fromthe companies. A well-coordinated effort should be put forth to convincecompanies to share their equipment.

3. Most institutions reported awarding credit for studies completedin work-study, cooperative education, apprenticeship training, anu militarytraining programs. In addition to continuing to award credit for these ac-tivities, community colleges need to develop a comprehensive plan tomainstream working adults who bring with them a vast portfolio of work-relzted learning experiences that could be documented and awarded ap-propriate college credit.

4. The study revealed that a majority of the institutions had establishedindustrial advisory committees for each program. These efforts should becontinued and maintained for planning, refining, and accountabilitypurposes.

5. It appears that the heyday of new capital construction for labora-tories and instructional classrooms Is over. Due to declining enrollmentsand the resultant availability of laboratories and classrooms, the communitycolleges should give serious consideration to bringing in employees fromindustrial sites and providing them appropriate learning experiences.

6. Community colleges need to place strong emphasis on customiz-ing courses ,nd programs for the market rather than simply repackagingexisting curricula.

F8 61


7. Emphasis should be placed on offering courses/programs for bothcredit and noncredit.

8. The office of business/industry coordinator should be independentof the continuing education unit. In most cases, economic developmentprograms are successful when the coordinator is in direct contact withthe college president and when industries recognize that there is a clearand direct institutional contact to accommodate their needs.

9. An integrated student services system should be developed to ef-fectively serve this new emerging population. The services, among otherthings, should include assessment, advising, counseling, tutoring, familyservices, and child care.

10. The results show that the female population is emergingas a newwork force in business and industry. The woradn are entering nontradi-tional career areas. College staff need to reflect this trend in their services.Further, colleges should develop programs and services appropriate to thepopulation. Colleges should, at the same time, work closely with theiremployer community to prepare them for entering all phases of the jobmarket.

11. Faculty-industrial exchanoe programs should be developed toenhance and facilitate program development and faculty developmentopportunities.

62 1r9

REFERENCES

Action in the States Progress Towards Educational Renewal. A Reportby the Task Force on Education for Economic Growth. Education Com-mission of the States, Denver, 1984.

America's Competitive ChallengeThe Need for a National Response: TheReport in Brief. A Report to the President of the United States from theBusiness-Higher Education Forum, April 1983.

Beder H., and Darkenwald, G., Occupational Education for Adults: AnAnalysis of Institutional Roles and Relationships. New Brunswick:Center for Adult Development, Rutgers University, 1979.

Bushnell, D., Cooperation in Vocational Education. American Associa-tion of Community and Junior Colleges and American VocationalAssociation, Washington, D.C., 1978.

Campbell, D.F., and Faircloth, D.M., "State Models for Economic Develop-ment." Community and Junior College Journal, 52(7): 18-19, 1982.

Day, P.R., "Developing Customized Programs for Steel and Other HeavyIndustries." Customized Job Training for Business and Industry, NewDirections for Community Colleges, Vol. 48, December 1984.

Day, P.R., In Search oi Community College Partnerships. AmericanAssociation of Community and Junior Colleges, Washington, D.C., 1985.

Eskow, Seymour, "Putting America Back to Work: Phase II." Communi-ty and Junior College Journal, 54(3): 12-14, 1983.

Goldstein, H., Training and Education by Industry. National Institute forWork and Learning, Washington, D.C., 1980.

Jackman, M.J.G., and Mahoney, J.R., Shoulders to the Wheel: Energy-Related College/Business Cooperative Agreements. American Associa-tion of Community and Junior Colleges, Energy Communications Center,Washington, D.C., 1982.

Mahoney, J.R., Community College Centers for Contracted Programs: ASequel to Shoulders to the Wheel. American Association of Communityand Junior Colleges, Energy Communications Center, Washington, D.C.,1982.

Mahoney, J.R., Putting America Back to Work: The Kellogg LeadershipInitiativeA Report and Guidebook. American Association of Com-munity and Junior Colleges, Washington, D.C., 1984.

Newman, Frank, Higher Education and the American Resurgence. TheCarnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Princeton, NewJersey, 1985.

Nie, N.H., Hull, C.H., Jenkins, J.G., Steinbrenner, K., and Brent, D.H.,Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. (2nd ed.) McGraw-Hill, NewYork, 1975.

.7063


Nie, N.H., and Hull, C.H. SPSS Update 7-9. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1981."Putting America Back to Work: A Concept Paper." American Associa-

tion of Community and Junior Colleges, Washington, D.C., pp. 7-8,1982.

Warmbrod, C.P., "From Fishing Travelers to Power Plants." Communityand Junior College Journal, 52(7): 12-14, 1982.

64

APPENDIX A

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF IN SEARCH OF COMMUNITYCOLLEGE PARTNERSHIPS

Anational survey of community, technical, and junior colleges, con-ducted for the American Association of Community and Junior Col-

leges (AACJC) and the Association of Community College Trustees (ACCT),reveals the nature and extent of partnerships that exist between collegesand two sig Ant community entities: business/industry and highschools. The . Its of this study provide valuable information that canhelp determine future program needs and requirements for technicalassistance to these organizations.

Out of the 1,219 colleges surveyed, 770 responded, an overallresponse rate of 63.2 percent. The highlights of the results are given below.

College CharacteristicsAmong the respondents, 78 percent represent community/juniorcolleges; 14 percent technical colleges; and the remaining repre-sent other types of institutions.55 percent of the respondents are located in urban and suburbanareas while 45 percent are located in rural areas.56 percent of the colleges reported they are governed by appointedboard members and the remaining 47 percent are governed by local-ly elected members.

Business, Industry, Labor Council (BIC)41 percent of the respondents have established Business, Industry,Labor Councils on their campuses.76 percent of those who said they have established BICs have doneso on a formal basis.Nearly one-fourth of the colleges house the BICs on their campuses.about one-third of the BICs are funded publiciy; one-tenth receiveboth public and private funding, and over one-half have no fund-ing to support their councils.About one-half of all the respondents who reported receiving sup-port receive it from federal and state funding sources; corporationssupport nearly 17 percent of the councils.

65

72

APPENDIX A

Private Industry Council (PIC)Two-thirds of all respondLAts indicated that they participate in thearea Pente Industry Council.

Business/Industry CoordinationTwo-thirds of the respondents have appointed business/industrycoordinators on their campuses.

Large Private Sector Employer TrainingNearly three-fourths of all respondents said they offer employeetraining programs for large private sector employers.Nearly 41 percent of all respondents offer customized training; 28percent provide i 6-specific training; 14 percent offer generic train-ing; and 9 perct :.t provide all three types of training.30 percent of all respondents provide employee training programsfor major, local labor unions.78 percent of the respondents reported offering training atplant/business sites.35 percent of the respondents reported contract training as the mainsource of funding for their cooperative efforts with local business;31 percent reported income from tuition; 23 percent indicated stategrants as a method of supporting these activities; 10 percent of therespondents listed federal grants as a source of support.68 percent of the respondents reported that their training is sub-sidized by state and/or local funding.26 percent of the respondents provided contract training for thearea employment security system.

Public Sector EmployersThree-fourths of all respondents reported that they offer trainingfor public sector employees. More urban and suburban colleges (80percent) engage in such training than do institutions located in ruralareas (70 percent).Nearly one-half of all the public employee training provided by therespondents is for the employees of city and county governments.Training employee of school districts is second (23 percent); 11percent of the respondents train state government employees.

Small Business Support83 percent of the respondents reported providing small businesssupport beyond traditional credit coursework.

667°0

APPENDIX A

One-third of all respondents who provide support to small businessoffer it in the form of short-term workshops/seminars; 23 percentof the respondents offer short courses; 19 percent of therespondents offer technical assistance.Nearly two-thirds of all respondents reported offering small businesssupport services in credit form.

High School/College PartnershipsNearly nine out of ten respondents said they have collaborative ar-rangements with the high schools in their areas.More than two-thirds of the colleges reported offering credit coursesto local high school students; one-tenth offer noncredit courses;and over one-fin reported offering both. credit and noncreditcourses to high school students.30 percent of the respondents reported having advanced placementprograms; 29 percent have articulated some c their courses withthe schools; 13 percent share faculties; 11 percent indicated thatthey have cooperative program enrollments; and 11 percentreported that they share facilities with local schools.

Economic Development Offices80 percent of the colleges reported involvemen, with local and stateeconomic development offices.52 percent of all respondents reported cooperative programs withboth local and state economic development offices; 34 percentreported such relationships with only local offices; and 14 percentreported involvement with state economic development officesonly.Nearly one-half of all respondents reported prtivid:ng technicalassistance to economic development offices.

74

67

APPENDIX B

DIRECTORY OF RESPONDENTS

COLLEGE NAME

RURAL

Bay De Noc Community CollegeEscanaba, MI 49829(906) 786-5802

College of Southern IdahoP.O. Box 1238Twin Falls, ID 83303-1238(208) 733-9554

Illinois Central CollegeEast Peoria, IL 61635(309) 694-5436

Jamestown Community College525 Falconer StreetJamestown, NY 14701(716) 655-5220

North Dakota State SchoolWahpeton, ND 58075(701) 671-2249

Northern Essex CommunityCollege

100 Elliott StreetHaverhill, MA 01830(617) 374-0721

Williamsport Area CommunityCollege

1005 W. Third StreetWilliamsport, PA 17701-9981(717) 326-3761

RESPONDENT & TITLE

James PetersonDean of Student Service:.

N. Robert Wright, Jr.Director of Admissions & Records

Dr. Gerald HolzhauerDirector of Academic Support

Services

Rose M. ScottDirector of Development Center

for Business

Alvin C. EckreDirector of Admission Services

Dr. Ann Marie DelaneyResearch Director

Kathryn Marcel loDirector of Institutional Research

75

/.11,+flNwm. .7? Ini

69

APPENDIX B

COLLEGE NAME

SUBURBAN

Asnuntuk Community CollegeP.O. Box 68Enfield, CT 06820(203) 745-1603

Catonsville Community College800 South Rolling RoadCatonsville, MD 21228(301) 455-4777

College of Du Page22nd Street and Lambert RoadGlen Ellyn, IL 60137(312) 858-2800

Community College of RhodeIsland

400 East AvenueWarwick, RI 02886(401) 825-1000

De Kalb Community College495 N. Indian Creek DriveClarkston, GA 30021(404) 299-4093

Delaware Technical &Community College

P.O. Box 897Dover, DE 19903(302) 736-3732

Dundalk Community College7200 Sollers Point RoadBaltimore, MD 21222(301) 522-5709

Ft. Steilacoom CommunityCollege

9404 112th Street EastPuyallup, WA 98373(206) 848-9331

707

RESPONDENT

Brian RivardRegistrar

P. Michael CareyAssociate Dean-Continuing

Education, Career Programs &Community Services

Gary RiceDirector of Research and Planning

Richard AndersonCoordinator of Business/Industry

Programs

Berman E. JohnsonDirector of Research & Planning

Anthony DigenakisAssistant to President for

Specialized Training

Dr. K. RajasekharaDirector of Research & Grants

Martin LindCoordinator of Special Projects

APPENDIX B

COLLEGE NAME

Hagerstown Junior College751 Robinwood DriveHagerstown, MD 21740(301) 790-2800

Henry Ford Community College5101 EvergreenDearborn, MI 48128(313) 271-2750

Mt. Hood Community College26000 SE StarkGresham, OR 97030(503) 667-7312

Macomb Community College44575 Garfield RoadMount Clemens, MI 48044(313) 285-2052

Middlesex County CollegeWoodbridge AvenueEdison, NJ 08818(201) 548-6000

Northern Virginia CommunityCollege

4001 Wakefield Chapel RoadAnnandale, VA 22003(703) 323-3129

Northampton County AreaCommunity College

3835 Green Pond RoadBethlehem, PA 18017(215) 861-5456

Orange County CommunityCollege

115 South StreetMiddletown, NY 10940(914) 343-1121 x1050

RESPONDENT

M. ParsonsDean of Instruction

J. Michael Meade

Barbara Updegraff

Edward F. BreenDirector of Research

Dr. Madan CapoorDirector of Research & Planning

Office of Institutional Research

James G. KennedyDirector of Research & Planning

Gail MeeDirector of Institutional Research

7771

APPENDIX B

COLLEGE NAME

Pima Community College1225 North 10th AvenueTucson, AZ 85705(601) 884-6666

Pitt Community CollegeP.O. Box Drawer 7007Greenville, NC 27834(919) 756-3130

Pueblo Community College900 W. Orman AvenuePueblo, CO 81004(303) 549-3331

State Technical Institute atMemphis

5983 Macon CoveMemphis, TN 38134(901) 377-4235

Westark Community CollegeP.O. Box 3649Fort Smith, AR 72903(501) 785-4241

COLLEGE NAME

1:"RAN

Anchorage Community College2533 Providence AvenueAnchorage, AK 99508(907) 786-1654

City College of San Francisco50 Phelan AvenueSan Francisco, CA 94112(415) 239-3000

72

78

RESPONDENT

Carl WebbBusiness/Industry Coordinator

Jack RobinsonCoordinator of Cooperative Skills

Dr. Larry MoormanDean of Adult & Continuing

Education

Cheryl A. BinghamManager of Special Projects

Sandi SandersDirector of Continuing Education

RESPONDENT

Dr. Loretta SeppanenDirector of Institutional Research

Larry BroussalDean, Admissions & Records

Shirley KellyDean of Instruction

APPENDIX B

COLLEGE NAM RESPONDENT

Community College of Diana L. SmyrlAllegheny County Director of Training & Economic

800 Allegheny Avenue DevelopmentPittsburgh, PA 15233(412) 323-2323

Community College ofPhiladelphia

1700 Spring Garden StreetPhiladelphia, PA 19130(215) 751-8029

Community College of SpokaneN. 1810 Greene StreetSpokane, WA 99203(509) 659-3779

Thomas R. HowksAssistant to President

F. Leigh HalesAssistant Dean, Business /' .dustry

Central Piedmont Community Otto A. 7.ockeeCollege Vice President of Corporate

P.O. Box 35009 ServicesCharlotte, NC 28235(704) 373-6633

Sandra FosterChicago City-Wide College Executive Director,420 N. Wabash Avenue Business/IndustrySuite 703Chicago, IL 60611(312) 670-0436

Cuyahoga Community College700 Carnegie AvenueCleveland, OH 44115(216) 348-4776

Institutional Planning & Research

Dallas County Community John W. PruittCollege District Career & Continuing Education

701 Elm, Suite 200 AssistanceDallas, TX 75202(214) 746-2449

7J 73

APPENDIX B

COLLEGE NAME

Eastern Iowa CommunityCollege

2804 Eastern AvenueDavenport, IA 52803(319) 322-5015

El Paso Community CollegeP.O. Box 20500El Paso, TX 79998(915) 534-4038

Fashion Institute of Technology227 West 27th StreetNew York, NY 10001(212) 760-7672

Florida Junior College101 West State Street

Jacksonville, FL 32202(904) 633-8284

Honolulu Community College874 Dillingham Blvd.Honolulu, Hi 96817(808) 845-9122

Kansas City Kansas CommunityCollege

7250 State AvenueKansas City, KS 66212(913) 334-1100 x165

Maricopa County CommunityCollege

3910 E. Van BurenPhoenix, AZ 85034(602) 267-4473

Metropolitnn CommunityCollege

3822 Summit RoadKansas City, MO 64111(816) 756-0220

74 80

RESPONDENT

Gary MohrEastern Iowa Business/Industry

Center

Dr. Josefina VelozDirector of Institutional Evaluation

Dr. G. AppignaniVice President for Development

Dr. James R. MeyersDean of Occupational Education

Walter P.S. ChunDirector of Special Programs

G.F. DietrichDirector of Community Education

John LewisCoordinator, Business/Industry

Training Service

Charles F. HenryDirector, High Technology

Training Resource Center

APPENDIX B1

COLLEGE NAME

Metropolitan TechnicalCommunity College

P.O. Box 3777Omaha, NE 68103(402) 449-8417

Miami-Dade Community College950 N.W. 20th StreetMiami, FL 33127(304) 347-4133

Minneapolis Community College1501 Hennepin AvenueMinneapolis, MN 55409((2) 341-7022

2eralta Colnmunity CollegeDistrict

333 E. Eighth StreetOakland, CA 94606(415) 466-7314

Portland Community College12000 S.W. 49th Ave.Portland, OR 97219(503) 244-6111

Rancho Santiago CommunityCollege

17th & Bristol StreetsSanta Ana, CA 92706(714) 667-3497

Sinclair Community College444 W. Third StreetDayton, OH 45402(513) 226-2854

State Technical Institute atKnoxville

P.O. Box 196025908 Lyons View DriveKnoxville, TN 37939-2802(615) 584-6103

RESPONDENT

Henry Wm. Pliske'irector of CC.:. Planning &

Development

William SuccopDean, Occupational Education

C.M. Heelan"Associate Dean of Instruction

McKinley WilliamsDirector of Research Planning &

Development

Chris MeyersCoordinator of Program Marketing

Paul AmorinoCoordinator of Occupational

Education, Spec.

Elizabeth KlaukDirector of Institutional Research

& Information Systems

Lonnie ButlerDirector of Institutional Research

81.75

APPENDIX B

COLLEGE NAME

Valencia Community CollegeP.O. Box 3028Orlando, FL 32802(305) 299-5000

7682.

REP1,1017 !NT

Dr. The alas J. Rib leyAssistant Vice President for

Insti° tional Services

APPENDIX C

KEEPING AMERICA WORKING INDUSTRY TRAINING INVENTORY

Please contact James McKenney (202) 293-7050 with any questions regard-ing the survey.

(Please print.)

I. GENERAL1. Name of college:2. FICE Code No3. Name of staff completing this survey.

Title.Address.

Phone: ( )

IL CREDIT ENROLLMENT (Fall 1984)5. Number FTE Total headcount6. Percentage (%) of that headcount taking occupational/technical

courses7. Enrolled: % Total _ % Part-time % Full-time8. Employed: % Total % Part -time _ % Full-time9. Sex: ____ % Male _ % Female

10. Ethnic: _____ % Caucasian ____ % Black% Hispanic _ % Native American

_ % Asian _ % Other11. Age: % under 21 _ % 22 to 25

____ % 26 to 30 ____ % 31 to 40____ % 41 to 50 _ % 51 to 60_____ % over 60

12. The average age isIII. NONCREDIT ENROLLMENTS (Fall 1984)

13. Number14. Percent registered in occupational /technical courses %15. Employed: _____ % Total ____ % Part-time ____ % Full-time16. Sex: ..._ % Male ____ % Female17. Ethnic: _ % Caucasian ____ % Black_ % Hispar', _ % Native American_ % Asian _ % Other

R3:77

APPENDIX C

18. Age: % under 21 _ % 22 to 25% 26 to 30 % 31 to 40% 41 to 50 % 51 to 6o

____ 9 over 6019. The average age is

IV. TECHNICAL AND VOCATIONAL PROGRAMS20. Number of occupational programs leading to an associate

degreeNumber of occupational programs leading to a certificate:_Does each degree program have an Advisory Committee fromindustry? _ yes _ no

21. What occupational degree programs enroll the greatest num-bers of employees from given firms? List four or Eve.

Program Firma. ab.c.d. d.e.

22. What formal arrangements does the college make for award-ing credit for work-related experience?A) Cooperative Education yes _ no _B) Work-Study yes. no _C) National Guide for Training Program yes _ no

(American Council on Education)D) Apprenticeship Program Training yes _ no _E) Nonapprenticeship Industry Training yes _ noF) Military Training yes _ noG) Other yes _ no

Identify:

If the college does offer credit for work-related experience, whatis the maximum number of credits that may be obtained?

V. TRANSFER PROGRAMS23. List the four inset utions to which most of the st dents who

are pursuing baccalaureate degrees transfer:abc.d

24. Approximately percent of students transferred to 4-yearinstitutions in 1983?

25. Of the total accepted for transfer by 4-year institutions, whatnumber were degree graduates in occupational/technicalfields?

R 478

APPENDIX C

26. What was the total number of your students transferring to 4-yearinstitutions in 1983, regardless cf whether they completed a degreeor certificate program with your college?

27. Of your current (1984) total student population, how many havecompleted degree programs already? (If 1984 data are not available,please substitute 1983 numbers.)

Degree Year__Associate Degree

Bachelor's Degree__Master's Degree

PhD Degree

VI. COMMUNITY ECONOMIC PROFILECheck the characteristics in each column that best describe theeconomic/industrial community in which your college operates:

_Heavy Industry _ Over 3,000 Employees _ Over 20_ 2,000-3,000 Employees 10-19_ 1,000-1,999 Employees 5-9500-999 Employees 1-4_ 100-499 Employees None_ 50-99 Employees_ Under 50 Employees_ Light Industry __ _ Over 3,000 Employees _ Over 20_ 2,000-3,000 Employees _ 10-19_ 1,000-1,999 Employees 3-9500-999 Employees _ 1-4_ 100-499 Employees _None50-99 Employees_ Under 50 Employees_ High Technology _ Over 3,000 Employees Over 20

_2,00(1-3,000 Employees _10-19_ 1,000-1,999 Employees 5-9500-999 Employees _ 1-4_ 100-499 Employees _ None50-99 Employees_ Under j0 Employees_ Service Over 3,000 Employees Over 20_ 2,000-3,000 Employees _ 10-19_ 1,000-1,999 Employees 5-9_ 500-999 Employees 1-4_ 100-499 Employees None50 -9.' Employees_ Under 50 Employees

79

85

APPENDIX C

Retail ___ Over 3,000 Employees Over 20___ 2,000-3,000 Employees ___ 10-19

1,000-1,999 Employees 5-9500-999 Employees ___ 1-4

___ 100-499 Employees None50-99 EmployeesUnder 50 Employees

Other Over 3.000 Employees Over 20_ _ 2,000-3,000 Employees 10-19

1,000-1,999 Employees 5-9500-999 Employees 1-4lCu-499 Employees None50-99 EmployeesUnder 50 Employees

B. ORGANIZATIONAL PROFILE1. Independent local ownership

Regional-based corporate____ Subsidiary

NationalInternationalEtc.

2. Please list at least 3 of the private companies with which you haveongoing training programs:

Name of Company / Average No. of Trainees/Year

C. MILITARY CONTRACTS1. Does your college conduct formal educational training for ser-

vice personnel at any military base(s) located in your servicearea? yes no , If yes, list base(s):

2. The largest military contract for 1984 was valued atS

Thank you for your assistance. Please return the form to: Dr. K. Ra-jasekhara, Director of Institutional Research and Grants, DundalkCommunity College, 7200 Sollers Point Road, Dun Salk, /.1) 21222

80 .3 6

VII. %CAW EMPLOYMENT DATA SURVEY

COMPANY: (If company is national or multi-national, give data only for plants and/oroperations within your college district. Pleasegive company's full name and the name andtitles of both its principal officer (CEO) inyour district and the senior executive incharge of training. If you are a multi-campusdistrict, please provide composite data for allyour colleges.)

g-.--.2.

..F.

'7)4 t;L. >.o'§E.cEzu

....0,...uE r,0 t....o7z.. Tm.oEF. 4!

g4 ,..; a 7

-9. i'l a0, U 7; _Y.E3-.uu)0

Cj"o' -0 -r. 6.

" 0 g 0St .E0 N... Eot oza54.1

.00 ...41 ; g>.-- ..-21320. = w5EUU...4,.. 5 c0 ,.. 8" -.E c -0 too

t, 2,. -i=c --z8V.8

CC 1.A ,..0.% = vv...a. u .... 4. ,,..uu-0,u. 7,4 '.. 6' 4 t-) g.9. 0 e, ...t:,ci,....w . c Uc-c.:..--.-u u 7.4 c..i.:u re -o. E t'.

'S P. ...,1 8 2i,-un.:C° 8 f. 5.

Uu .,'0 ... Ug ..9. f... u -C4 1 LI>.-;,-... cgu e s..ES: Cii8 2 -.1_.;

;14,.11!0 0 E .0a a u .2.

..c-a 0= .

.- Lo -51' c3. u ,.

....e W5E.c.g.8 41sEu 2 I: r;

IS t !...0 u - 80 L' -5. >-

Firm Fully Yes _YesNoCEO

_Partially

_____ No

Training Executive_

No subsidy_

Phone Number__JTPA

Firm Fully Yes Yes

CEO

_Partially

_No

_No

Training Executive__No subsidy_JTPA

_ _Phone Number

Firm Fully ___ YesNo

_YesCEO

_Partially

Training Executive_

No subsidy_JTPA

___ _No

Phone Number

Firm _FullyPartially

Yes Yes

CEO No No

Training Executive No subsidy_ _

Phone Number_

JTPA_(a) Duplicate this sheet as many times as necessary to give your complete list of major employers, per instructions.(b) For each firm you list, please complete the "course list" which is the second page of the survey instrument.

VIII. COURSE LISTFrom preceding page: Firm Number (#) Firm NameList for each firm up to ten courses in which the company's employees are most heavily or most frequentlyenrolled. List them in descending rank of enrollment and provide current estimates of company's employeesenrolled in the course, if such estimates are available. Check more than one response if appropriate.Course Title Course location Source of equipment Source of instruction Instructors used College credit Credit applies(company plant,

campus)(company, college) materials in course given toward two-year

degree or certificate1. 13/ant _ Company _Company _ Regular faculty _ Yes _ Degree_Campus _ College _College _Co. Personnel _No _ Certificate_ Other _ Other Other _ PT non-Co. fac. _Other_ Other2. _ Plant _ Company _Company _Regular faculty _Yes _ Degree_ Campus _ College _ College _Co. Personnel _No _ Certificate._ Other ._ Other ._.._ Other _ PT non-Co. fac. _Other_Other3. _Plant Company _ Company _Regular faculty _ Yes _ Degree_ Campus _ College _College _ Co. Personnel No _ Certificate_ Other _Other _Other _ PT non-Co. fac. _Other

__Other4. _Plant _ Company _Compazil, __Regular faculty _Yes _Degree_Campus _ College _Collegr: _ Co. Personnel _No _ Certificate._ Other _Other Other _ PT non-Co. fac. _Other

__Other5. _Plant _ Company _Company _ Regular faculty _ Yes Degree_Campus _ College _ College _ Co. Personnel __No _ Certificate_ Other _ Other _Other _PT non-Co. lac.* _ Other_ Other6. _Plant _ Company Compan} _ Regular faculty _Yes _ Degree_Campus _ College College _Co. Personnel _ No _ Certificate_ Other _ Other _Other _ PT non-Co. fac. Other_ Other7. _Plant _ Company Company _ Regular faculty _Yes _ Degree_Campus _ College Coliege _ Co. Personnel _ No _ CertificateOtt.;.r _ Other _ Other _ PT non-Co. fac. _Other

.._ OtherPart-time noncompa.L; faculty

(a) Duplicate this sheet as many times as necessary to make your COURSE LIST for each campus.r;) r?c-, 6

IX. TRAINING INVOLVING JTPA FUNDING:

JTPAProgram Title Description Dates

BudgetTotal JTPA u

tiin

B'

g0

..t.ci

a-.ea§0

t=o

Number of AdministrativeParticipants Entity/Unit

1. $ $

R9

aAPPENDIX D

LIST OF UNDUPLICATED COURSES OFFEREDBY PARTICIPATING COLLEGES TO BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY

LOCATION COLLEGE NAME COURSE TITLE

RURAL Bay De Noc Community CollegeEscanaba, MI 49829(906) 786-5802

College of Southern IdahoP.O. Box 1238Twin Falls, ID 83303-1238(208) 733-9554

Jamestown Community College525 Falconer StreetJamestown, NY 14701(716) 665-5220

North Dakota State SchoolWahpeton, ND 58075(701) 671-2249

90

1. Basic Industrial Hydraulics2. Blueprint Reading3. Electrical4. Interaction Mgmt. Training5. Shop Math6. Welding

1. Accounting2. Computer-related courses3. Economics4. Marketing5. Supervision

1. Electric Trouble Shooting2. First-Line Managers3. Genesis 2000 Training4. Mig Welding5. Production Manager

Workshop6. Quality Training7. Special Woven Workshop8. Statistical Process Control9. Supervisory Training

Program10. Three-Phase Sewing Project

1. Computer Programming-BASIC

2. Computer Training3. Geometric Tolerance4. Introduction to Computers5. Plant Maintenance

Mechanics6. Quality Control7. Welding

85

APPENDIX D a


Northern Essex CommunityCollege100 Elliott StreetHaverhill, MA 01820(617) 374-0721 X199

Williamsport Area CommunityCollege

1005 W. Third StreetWilliamsport, PA 17701-9981(717) 326-3761

TOTAL RURAL

SUBUR- College of Du PageBAN 22nd Street & Lambert Road

Glen Ellyn, IL 60137(312) 858.2800

86 91

1. Cardiovascular System2. Children's Literature3. Computer Literacy4. Creative Experience5. Gastrointestinal System6. Personal Computers7. Principles of Materials

Mgmt.8. Problems of Early Child Ed.9. Respiratory System

10. Speech & Language11. Statistical Quality Control12. Tech Writing for

Professional

1. A.C. Theory & Applications2. Arc & Heliarc Welding3. Auto Air Conditioning4. Basic Motor Control5. Basic Sheet Metal Fabrication6. D.C. heory & Applications7. Electric Fundamentals8. Electric Motor Control9. Electronics Troubleshooting

10. First-Line Supervision11. Intro. to Microcomputers12. Intro. to Word Star13. Lotus 1-2-314. Motor Control -215. Statistical Process Control16. Technical Math17. Technical Phyr,ics I18. Technical Physics II

58

1. Accounting for Managers2. Air Conditioning3. Allied Health Courses4. Basic Die Theory5. Basic Ind. Hydraulics6. Basic Investment7. Blueprint Reading8. Child Care Development9. Comm. Skills for Managers

10. Computer Basics forManagers

APPENDIX D


11. Computer Literacy12. Conventienal Printing13. Corp. Gat zsmanship for

Women14. Effective Leadership15. Effective Listening fo: Bus.16. Electronics Technology17. English Courses18. Financial Planning for

Women19. How to Write Winning

Reports20. Increase Your Supervisory

Knowhow21. Industrial Physics22. Industrial Pipe Fitting23. Intro. to Data Processing24. Jig and Fixtures25. Management by Objectives26. Manufacturing Tech.27. Mathematics2R. Medical Radiography29. Medical Terminology30. Memory Skills31. Metals Industry32. Microcomputers33. Multimedia First Aid34. Nurses Aid-Training35. Patient Ed. Workshop for

Nurses36. Pediatric CardioPulmon.

Assess.37. Physical Assess. of Older

Adults38. Plastic Technology39. Principles of Marketing40. Sales Skills Seminar41. Select Software42. Shop Math43. Strength Quality Assurance44. Success Through Assertive

Mgmt.45. Telemarketing46. Tool Making Theory47. Welding48. Writing for Mgmt. Success49. Writing for Management

92 87

I

APPENDIX D


Dundalk Community College7200 Sollers Point RoadBaltimore, MD 21222(301) 522-5709

Ft. Steilacoom Community College9404 112th Street EastPuyaliup, WA 98373(206) 848.9331

Mt. Hood Community College26000 SE StarkGresham, OR 97030(503) 667.7312

88

1. Computer Literacy2. Confined Space Rescue

Training3. Electronics4. Human Relations5. Industrial Bearing & Seals6. Industrial Measurements7. Inspector Planner8. Intro. Data Processing9. Labor Relations

10. Leadership Skills11. Mathematics12. Mechanical Drive

Components13. Pipe Fitting14. Pump Packing15. Stress Management16. Supervisor Practices17. Time Management18. Welding19. Writing Skills

1. Active2. Calculus I3. Computer Architecture4. Digital Systems5. Engine Repair Principles

1. Basic Arrhythmia2. Blueprint Reading &

Sketching3. COBOL4. Communications for

Supervisors5. Computer Numerical

Control6. Customer Relations7. Drug & Alcohol Abuse8. Elements of Supervision9. FORTRAN

10. Fire Science Courses11. Fundamentals of Speech12. Hardware Overview13. Intro. to Business14. Introduction to Computers15. Lotus 1-2-316. Management Courses17. Physical Assessment18. Police Science Courses

I' APPENDIX D


Northampton Cot ity AreaCommunity College

3835 Green Pond RoadBethlehem, PA 18017(215) 861-5456

Orange County CommunityCollege

115 'youth StreetMiddletown, NY 10940(914) 343-1121 x1050

Pima Community College1225 North 10th Ave.Tucson, AZ 85705(602) 884.6666

94

19. Presentation Skills20. Software Overview21. Stop Smoking22. Stress Management23. Written Communication

1. Budgeting2. Comm. Skills for Managers3. Effective Supervision4. Fundamentals of Marketing5. Planning & Control6. Principles of Finance7. Secretarial Effectiveness8. Telephone Techniques9. Time Management

10. What Managers Do11. Word Processin;.;

1. Blueprint Reading2. Computer Literacy3. Computer Training4. Manufacturing Operator

Training5. Math. Appn. Blueprint

Reading6. Supervisory Training7. Technical Writing

1. Accounting2. Administration of Justice3. Astronomy4. Automotive Technology5. Business6. Computer Science7. Drafting8. Electronics9. Engineering Construction

Tech.10. Human Development11. Management12. Mathematics13. Microelectronics14. Psychology15. Quality Control

Certification16. Solder Training17. Speech18. Tire Science19. Woodshop20. Writing

89

s APPENDIX D is


90

State Technical Institute atMemphis

5983 Macon CoveMemphis, TN 38134(901) 377.4235

Westark Community CollegeP.O. Box 3649Fort Smith, AR 72903(501) 785.4241

1. A.C. drcuits2. Air Conditioning3. BASIC Programming for

Tec 7,1.

4. Basic Math5. Blueprint Reading6. Computer Systems7. D.C. Circuits8. Electrical Machines &

Control9. Frontline Supervision

10. Human Relations11. Industrial Electricity12. Intro. to Electronic Tech.13. Mechanical Tech Refresher14. Microcomputer Applications15. Minicomputer Applications16. Oral Communications17. Participative Management18. Quality Control19. Solid State Devices

1. Advance Electric Circuits2. Basic Machine Shop3. COBOL Programming4. Digital Circuits5. Electrical Circuits &

Components6. Fundamentals of Electricity7. Gen. Welding Appin. &

Practice8. Industrial Electricity9. Industrial Electricity 11

10. Machine Setup & Opera-tions I

11. Machine Setup & Opera-tions II

12. Solid State Components &Circuits

13. Systems DesignImplementation

14. Teleprocessing Applications

TOTAL SUBURBAN 167

95

APPENDIX D


URBAN Anchorage Community College 1. Business English Review2533 Providence Ave. 2. Interpersonal Skills in OfficeAnchorage, AK 99508 3. Stress ' .iagement(907) 786-1654 4. Women in Business &

Management

Community College of Allegheny 1. A.C. CircuitsCounty 2. Advance Comp.

800 Allegheny Avc. ProgrammingPittsburgh, PA 15233 3. Apprenticeship Training(412) 323-2323 4. Basic Electronics

5. Basic Welding6. Combustion Technology7. Communication Strategies8. Construction Graphics9. D.C. Circuits

10. Defining Goals & Objectives11. Electric Instruzientation12. Electrical Code13. Electronics14. Estimating Construction

Charges15. FCC License16. Heating & Air Conditioning17. Hospital Cost Accounting18. Hydraulics19. Inservice Training for

Mechanic20. Interviewing Skills21. Intro. to Computers22. Keyboard Mastery23. Management Training24. Microcomputers25. M1croproccssing26. Millwright27. Mine Safety28. Motivation29. Motor Winding30. Multimedia First Aid31. Organizational Conflicts32. Personal Investment33. Programmable Controller!34. Refrigeration & Air

Conditioning35. Scientific Programming I36. Scientific Programming II37. Soldering

9691

APPENDIX D


Community College ofPhiladelphia

1700 Spring Garden StreetPhiladelphia, PA 19130(215) 751-8029

Community College of SpokaneN. 1810 Greene StreetSpokane, WA 99203(509) 459-3779

47

38. Statistics for QualityControl

39. Strategic Planning40. Stress Management41. Team Building42. Technical Writing43. Time Management44. Upgrad Heating, A.C. &

Elec.45. Upgrad Skills of Prod.

Workers46. Welding

1. Accounting Seminars2. American Sign Language3. Assertiveness for Managers4. Expository Writing5. Business Communications6. Comm. Skills for Ward

Clerks7. Communication Skills8. Customer Relations9. Data Entry Tech.

10. Driver/Passenger Skills11. Management Training12. Medical Terminology13. Overview of Gerontology14. Secretarial Development15. Security Training16. Word Processing

1. Basic Electronics2. Blueprint Reading3. Business Correspondence4. Conducting Effective

Meetings5. Hydraulics6. Interpersonal Relations7. Keyboarding8. Library Tech.9. Production Inventory &

Control10. Statistics for Engineers11. Stress Management12. Supervisory Training13. Teamwork in

Organizations14 Technical Writing

APPENDIX D


Central Piedmont CommunityCollege

P.O. Box 35009Charlotte, NC 28235(704) 373-6633

Cuyahoga Community College700 Carnegie AvenueCleveland, OH 44115(216) 348.4776

Eastern Iowa Community College2804 Eastern AvenueDavenport, IA 52803(319) 322-5015

El Paso Community CollegeP.O. Box 20500El Paso, TX 79998(915) 534.4038

15. Television Prod. Tech.16. Visual Media Tech.17. Welding18. Written Communications

1. Blueprint Reading2. Bread & Roll Cook3. Communication Skills4. Food Preparation Training5. Housekeeper6. Individual Referral7. Machine Operator8. Material Handling9. Packaging/Crating

10. Quality Control11. Secretarial Training12. Shop Math

1. Career Skills Development2. Clerical Training for Dis.

Work3. Job Search Workshops4. Placement Counseling5. Training in Office

Procedures

1. Accounting2. Action Skills for Product;3. Air Con. & Refrigeration4. Assembler I5. BASIC6. Comm. Skills for Supervisors7. Effect. Mgmt. Practices 1,2,38. Electronics9. IBM-PC Orientation

10. Intro. to Business11. Intro. to Small Bus.

Computers12. Lotus 1-2-313. Management & Supervision14. Welding

1. Advanced Maintenance2. Advanced Management3. Basic Maintenance4. Basic Pipe Fitting5. Basic Tude Math6. Blueprint Reading7. Business Law

:Y

9893

APPENDIX D


Fashion Institute of Technology227 West 27th StreetNew York, NY 10001(212) 760-7672

94

8. Business Math9. Consumer Math

10. ESL Literacy11. ESL Oral Language12. ESL Writing13. Intro. to Data Processing14. Intro. to Psychology15. Paint Tech.16. Personal Discovery17. Personal Finance18. Plastic Mold Injection19. Precision Instrument

Measurement20. Principles of Management21. Quality Assurance

Technician22. Sub-Assembling &

Deburning23. Tool & Die

1. Apparel Manufacturing2. Apparel Specification3. BASIC4. Buyer Training Workshop5. Fashion Basic Workshop6. Grooming Workshop7. Imports Workshop8. Knit Sweaters Workshop9. Leather Goods Workshop

10. Management Institute11. Merchandise Trends

Workshop12. Motion & Time Study

Seminar13. Orientation to Textiles14. Pattern Making Concept15. Production Manager

Workshop16. Retail Marketing17. Retail Math Workshop18. Special Woven Workshop19. Textile Apparel Workshop20. The ABC's of Advertising21. Visual Merchandising

Workshop

APPENDIX D


Florida Junior College101 West State StreetJacksonville, FL 32202(904) 633.8284

Metropolitan Community College3822 Summit ReadKansas City, MO 64111(816) 756.0220

1. Auto Machine Shop2. Blueprint Reading3. Carpentry4. Industrial Electronics5. Industrial Supervision6. Industrial Safety7. Machine Shop8. Millwright9. Pipe Fitting

10. Pre-employment Training11. Supervision12. Welding

1. Advanced Blueprint Reading2. Advanced Sign Language3. Allied Health Training4. Assembler5. Auditor Training6. Automated Office Skills7. Bankruptcy8. Basic Telecommunications9. Beauty & Skin Care

10. Blueprint Reading11. Business Law12. Business Writing13. Certified Hotel

Administration14. Certified Medication Tech.15. Clerical Office Training16. Climate Control17. Communication18. Computer Applications in

Bus.19. Computer Familiarization20. Computer Literacy21. Computer Operator's

Training22. Computer Systems Training23. Computerized Bookkeeping24. Cost Analysis/Bidding25. Customer Relations26. Customized Training27. Data Entry.28. Dealer Management29. Dental Assistant Training30. Distribution Techniques31. Effective Business Writing

VO 95

APPENDIX D


96 -101

32. Emergency MedicationTech.

33. Employee Development34. Employee Mgmt. Training35. Employee Upgtade Program36. Entrepreneurship Seminar37. Fast Food Service Training38. Fire Prevention39. GM Automotive

Familiarization40. GM Computer Control

Systems41. IBM PC Training42. Insulin Training43. Intergraphic Systems44. International Trade45. Investing in Oil Seminar46. Keyboarding47. Lead Cook Training48. Letter Writing49. Litigation, Estate, Probate

Law50. Lotus 1-2-351. Machinist Training52. Management Internship53. Management Supervision54. Management Training55. Manufacturing Process

Overview56. Marketing and Salesmanship57. Medical Transcriptionist58. Medical Terminology59. Mgmt. LPN Nurses Training60. Microcomputer

Programming61. Northland Leadership62. Operating & Profitable Bank63. Paramedic Workshop64. Problem Solving65. Processing Fee for State

Fund66. Production Skills67. Proofreading68. Report Writing69. Retraining of Personnel70. Robotic Training71. Sales Relations

APPENDIX D


72. Salesmaliship73. Secretarial Training74. Shorthand75. Sign Language76. Social Service Designee77. Stress Management78. Supervision79. Supervisory Training80. Supervisory Warehouse

Mgmt.81. Systems Design82. Telephone System Training83. Telephone Usage Training84. Time Management85. Train the Trainer86. Training Consultation87. Training in Thin File88. Training in Wafer Prep.89. Venture Capital90. Waitress Training91. Wang Glossary92. Wan3 Word Processing

Training93. Women Re-Entry94. Word Processing95. Word Star96. Writing and Speech

Metropolitan Technical 1. Arc, Oxy, & AcetyleneCommunity College Welding

P.O. Box 3777 2. Automatic TransmissionOmaha, NE 68103 3. Basic Interior Decoration(402) 449-8417 4. Basic Supervision

5. Boiler Operation6. Blueprint Reading &

Schematics7. Computer Literacy8. Computers for Data Entry

Instrn.9. Electrical Maintenance

10. Elements of Mechanics &Lubri.

11. Environmental Contrcis12. Equip. Instill. & Sheet

Metal Layer13. Heavy Equipment

Maintenance14. House Keeping Tech.

97

102

APPENDIX D


Miami-Dade Community College950 N.W. 20th StreetMiami, FL 33127(304) 347-4133

1 1.'398

15. Industrial Hydraulics16. Machine Shop17. Nuclear Plant Welding

Training18. Oral Communication19. Piping Systems and Pumps20. Plumbing Maintenance21. Technical Math &

Measurement22. Welding23. Welding Safety24. written Communication

1. Accounting Principles2. Analyzing Financial

Statement. Banking & Business

Courses4. Business Writing5. 3usiness/Professional

Speaking6. Comp. Asst. Design Draft-

ing Workshop7. Computer Literacy8. Computerized Accounting9. Condor Programming

10. Conversation11. Counseling Skills for

Managers12. Credit Administration13. Cultural Anthropology14. D-Base II Programming15. Emergency Medical

Technician16. Financial Services17. Funeral Services Courses18. Humanities19. Improving Employee

Performances20. Improving Managerial Skills21. Intro. to Elevator Electronics22. Introduction to Data

Processing23. Introduction to Electronics24. Introduction to Engineering25. Introduction to

Microcomputers

APPENDIX D


26. Lotus 1-2-327. Lotus 1-2-3 Advanced28. Lotus 1-2-3 Intermediate29. Leadership & Management

Skills30. Management31. Management Development

Program32. Management Supervision33. Managing Your Time34. Marketing/Bankers35. Medical Terminology36. Multiplan Processing37. Nat. Inst. of Food

Certification38. Nursery Principles &

Practices39. Optimum Performance40. Paramedic Training41. Pensions & Retirement42. Perform. Appraisal &

Discpl. Action13. Principles & Practices of

Market44. Principles of Economics45. Public Speaking Skills for

Executives46. Statistics for Behavioral

Soc. Sci.47. Stress Management48. Survey of Management49. Symphony Processing50. Team Building51. Technical Math52. The Living Computer53. Understanding Motivation

& Work54. Water Treatment Plant

Operator55. Writing Development

1 4 99

APPENDIX D


Minneapolis Community College1501 Hennepin Ave.Minneapolis, MN 55409(612) 341-7022

Portland Comm. Coll.12000 S.W. 49th Ave.Portland, OR 97219(503) 244.6111

Rancho Santiago CommunityCollege

17th and Bristol StreetsSanta Ana, CA 92706(714) 667-3497

Sinclair Community College444 West Third StreetDayton, OH 45402(513) 226.2854

105100

1. Business Courses

1. Business Letter Writing2. CPR3. Computer Drafting4. Coding Medical Records5. Correction Case Worker6. Customer Relations7. Electronics8. Emergency Medical Tech.9. Fire Arson Investigation

10. Management11. Phlebotomy12. Refrigeration13. Technical Report Writing14. Weld 1n3

1. Automated Stock ControlCierk

2. Comm. Skills for Engineers3. Computer-Aided Drafting4. Computerized Machine

Operator5. Coordinated Design

Decision6. Diesel Mechanic/Technician7. Materials Requirements

Planning Optr.8. Senior Test Technician

1. Accounting2. Business Law3. Computer-Assisted Design

I, II4. Computer Concepts5. Computer Literacy6. Electronic Workshop7. Geometric Tolerancing8. Industrial Management9. Marketing

10. Management Principles11. Portfolio Development12. Rapid Editing13. Stress Management

APPENDIX D


State Technical Institute atKnoxville

P.O. Box 198025908 Lyons View DriveKnoxville, TN 37939-2802(615) 584-6103

Valencia Community CollegeP.O. Box 3028Orlando, FL 32802(305) 299-5000

1. Accounting2. Basic Electricity3. Blueprint Reading4. D-Base Programming5. Digital Electronics6. Electrical Maintenance7. Electronics8. Financial Management9. Gearing Maintenance

10. Hydraulics I, II, III11. Introduction to

Microcomputers12. Mechanical Maintenance13. Shaft Alignment

1. Accounting2. Accounting 1 & 23. Business Math4. Communications5. Comp. Prog. for Severely

Disabled6. Computer Literacy7. Congestive Heart8. Credit Union Operations9. Critical Care Nursing

10. Data Processing11. Dealing with Angry

Customers12. Death/Dying13. EKG Monitoring/

Interpretation14. Elected Officials Instruction15. I.V. Therapy16. Infection Control17. Interviewing &

Docuthcrting18. Keyboard Mastery19. Keyboarding20. Mastery Teaching21. Management

Communications22. Performance Appraisals23. Principles of Economics24. Report Writing25. Salesmanship26. Stress Management27. Supervision

In6 101

APPENDIX D


102

28. Supervisory Skills forGov't Employees

29. Time Management30. Typing Skills31. Word Processing

TOTAL URBAN 426

TOTAL ALL COLLEGES 651

107

,1

1

44+141+1.440144.444140414444410044-101444140+1444001

ERIC Clearinghouse forJunior Colleges 'JUN 0 3 1988

444.1440041.114(4444+0444t+.1041+1.1440004144+1444441004

document resume ed 293 582 1c 880 184day, philip r., jr.; rajasekhara, koosappa keeping america...

Documents