wising up - eric · foundation, the moriah fund, the rockefeller foundation, the new directions...

Wising Up:How Government Can Partner with Business

to Increase Skills and Advance Low-Wage Workers

CENTER FOR LAW AND SOCIAL POLICY

Amy-Ellen Duke • Karin Martinson • Julie Strawn

April 2006

i

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................................ii

Executive Summary ..............................................................................................................................1

1. Partnerships 101: How Governments and Businesses are Working Together

to Advance Low-Wage Workers......................................................................................................3

Helping Low-Wage Workers Advance: Why Skills Matter .....................................................4

A Closer Look at Government-Business Partnerships for Training ........................................5

2. Applied Studies: Lessons for States and Localities from the Five Initiatives .............................9

Designing Partnerships to Advance Low-Wage Workers ........................................................9

Ensuring Effective and Sustainable Partnerships..................................................................19

3. Further Study: Profiles of Government-Business Partnerships for Training...............................27

Georgia: Statewide Certified Specialist Programs...............................................................28

Kentucky: Career Pathways Initiative ...................................................................................31

Louisiana: Incumbent Worker Training Program (IWTP) .....................................................35

Massachusetts: Extended Care Career Ladder Initiative (ECCLI) ........................................39

Massachusetts: Workforce Training Fund (WTF) .................................................................43

References...........................................................................................................................................47

ii

AcknowledgmentsThe authors would like to thankthe Charles Stewart MottFoundation whose financial sup-port made this report possible.The Annie E. Casey Foundation,The Ford Foundation, The JoyceFoundation, The Moriah Fund,The Rockefeller Foundation, TheNew Directions Foundation, TheNew Prospect Foundation, andan anonymous donor also provid-ed support for the project. Wewould also like to thank MarkGreenberg and Evelyn Ganzglassfrom the Center for Law andSocial Policy and Martin Simonof the National Governors’Association for reviewing draftsand providing helpful commentsand Jack Mills of the NationalEconomic Development and LawCenter for help with identifyingsites.

We are especially grateful to thestaff and the students at the siteswe visited for helping us learnabout their programs and theseissues. In particular, we wouldlike to thank the following indi-viduals: at the Office of theGovernor for the State ofLouisiana, Fredell Butler • at theLouisiana Department of Labor,Wendy Thibodeaux and DavidBowman • at Baton RougeCommunity College, DaleAndrews • at DelgadoCommunity College (NewOrleans), Sharon Talbert,Kathleen Mix, Leroy Kendrick,

Kirk Cowan, and MalayneDeMars • at the KentuckyCommunity and TechnicalCollege System, Shauna King-Simms, Keith Bird, Donna Davis,Brian Edwards, Diane Calhoun-French, Dan Kestrem, BethJefferson, Meg Burnley, MaryAnn Hyland-Murr, BruceFlorence, Joyce Flynn, DavidWiles, and Paul McInturff • atthe Kentucky Council onPostsecondary Education, AdultEducation unit, Cheryl King • atJefferson County (Louisville, KY)Adult Education, Julie Skoskieand Trish Schneider • at theGeorgia Department of Technicaland Adult Education, PamelaGriffin, and Debbie Dlugolenski• at the Georgia StudentFinancing Commission, Bill Flookand David Lee • at LanierTechnical College, RussellVandiver, Alton Story, Luis Pita,Margaret Cain, and the studentsin the English and SpanishCertified Manufacturing Specialistclasses • at KubotaManufacturing, Laura Vandiver •at the Massachusetts WorkforceTraining Fund (Division ofCareer Services), Vincent Lopesand Jane Kadlubkiewicz • at theCommonwealth Corporation(MA), Johan Uvin, CarolKapolka, and Cathryn Lea • atthe Boston PIC, RebekahLashman • at Holy TrinityNursing and RehabilitationCenter (Worcester, MA), DeanMessier • at Notre Dame Long

Term Care Center (Worcester,MA), Katherine Lemay • atWorkSource Partners, Inc.(Brookline, MA), Mary Culhane• at Creative Workplace Learning(Brighton, MA), Lloyd David •at the New Jersey Legislature,Office of Legislative Services,Gregory Williams • and at theWyoming Workforce Alliance,Kelly Shramm.

A Note RegardingLouisiana’s IncumbentWorker TrainingProgramWe conducted our interviews andsite visit to Louisiana beforeHurricanes Katrina and Rita hit.In late 2005, the state suspendedthe Incumbent Worker TrainingProgram because itsUnemployment Insurance taxfund is severely overburdenedwith post-hurricane claims. Inaddition, Delgado CommunityCollege in New Orleans sufferedsignificant infrastructure damageand many of its students havebeen displaced, unable to contin-ue their studies. We hope thestate can secure the resourcesnecessary to restore the trainingprogram and rebuild Delgado, inaddition to the other communityand technical colleges impactedby the hurricanes. Our thoughtsare with all Louisianans as theyrebuild their lives and their state.

A s many as one in fourAmericans earn poverty-level

wages, typically in jobs that offerfew or no benefits.1 In general,steady work alone is not enough tohelp these workers increase theirearnings significantly or advance tobetter jobs; some postsecondaryeducation or training, and supportstargeting advancement are oftennecessary.2 In addition, access toemployers that offer room forwage growth—particularly those inhigher-wage sectors of the econo-my, such as construction, manufac-turing, transportation, and healthservices—increases workers’chances of moving to better jobsover time.3

States can influence the quality oflocal jobs by targeting economicand workforce development effortstoward businesses providing “goodjobs”—those that offer wages thatcan support a family, health careand other benefits, and opportuni-ties for advancement. A key ques-tion for policymakers and programadministrators is: which skills-upgrading policies and programsmost effectively achieve the dual

goals of helping workers advanceand helping businesses create andkeep good jobs?

This report examines one promis-ing approach: state and local part-nerships with business and industryto train low-wage workers and helpthem advance. For this analysis, weexamined partnerships that:

Involve an investment of publicfunds and are managed by apublic sector institution (busi-ness and industry also typicallyinvest in these partnerships);

Give business a lead role inidentifying job training needsand paths to job advancement,often for their own employees;

Provide job training throughpublic, non-profit, and for-profitinstitutions, sometimes at theworksite.

Government-business training part-nerships can take many differentforms. For this report, we identifiedthe following three models thatappear to be the most common atthe state and local level.

Incumbent Worker andCustomized Training pro-grams provide businesses withgrants to partner with trainingproviders to offer job-specifictraining of incumbent workersand/or new hires.

Career Ladders or Pathwaysinitiatives map the range of jobsand linked educational opportu-nities, typically within a specificsector, and fill gaps in educationand training services.

State Skills Certificates andPanels convene employers with-in a particular business or indus-try sector to ascertain workforcedevelopment needs and/or togive individuals occupationalcredentials that are portablefrom one employer to another.

We examined five initiatives inGeorgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, andMassachusetts that illustrate thepotential of these models. Thesepartnerships use a variety of mech-anisms to encourage the inclusionof low-wage workers in their train-ing programs and support them ingaining a foothold on the careerladder—including tapping commu-

Executive Summary

1

1 Conlin, Michelle and Aaron Bernstein. 2004. “Working…and Poor.” Business Week. May 31, 2004.2 Poppe, Nan, Julie Strawn, and Karin Martinson. 2003. “Whose Job Is It: Creating Opportunities for Advancement.”

Workforce Intermediaries in the 21st Century. Robert P. Giloth (Ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Temple.3 Ibid.

nity colleges to provide trainingand credentialing to workers. For each partnership, we conduct-ed site visits to interview programmanagers and other staff; in somestates, we also met with other keypartners, such as training providersand businesses. It is important tonote that to date, few data areavailable on the outcomes forworkers and businesses in thesepartnerships; we offer the examplesin this report as illustrations of dif-ferent approaches rather than asproven models.

Our research suggests that thesetypes of training partnerships canbe an effective tool for advancinglow-wage workers. However, this isunlikely to happen automatically;partnerships must be carefullydesigned to achieve this goal.

Recommendations forEffective PartnershipsTo ensure that efforts advance low-wage workers, states and localitiesshould be selective in choosingbusiness partners—for example,selecting occupational pathwayswith the most opportunity foradvancement; targeting higher-wage sectors; and choosing firmswith historically lower turnover,larger firms with internal careerladders, and firms that offer on-the-job training and other supports(such as tuition assistance). Inaddition, we offer the followingrecommendations for states andlocalities interested in establishingpartnerships with businesses toadvance low-wage workers.

When using public funds fortraining partnerships, find cre-ative ways to ensure that thetraining benefits low-wageworkers—for example, by tar-geting training grants accordingto workers’ skills, job level,occupational cluster or sector,and/or geographic region.

Link the training provided to wage increases or job promotions.

Incorporate basic education andEnglish language instructioninto training so that it is accessi-ble to lower-skilled workers.

Wherever possible, require busi-ness partners to provide paidrelease time for training.

Offer on-site training, preferablyduring work hours, or flexiblescheduling at off-site locations.

Help workers earn college cer-tificates and degrees over timeby offering transferable collegecredit for partnership training.

Support workers’ participationin training with career and aca-demic counseling, tutoring,soft-skills training, opportunitiesfor peer networking, and othersupportive services, such aschild care.

Beyond “PartnershipProjects”We hope that our analysis willenable states and localities to buildon the lessons learned from theseefforts and bring their ownapproaches to scale, serving a high-er share of state businesses andlow-wage workers. The goalshould be to move beyond isolatedpartnership projects to efforts that

involve—and build the capacityof—the entire state workforce edu-cation system. Ultimately, a state’sworkforce education system shouldbe able to:

Fund statewide innovation and program improvement inworkforce education to bettermeet the needs of business andworkers.

Ensure state workforce educa-tion programs reflect the skillsthat low-wage workers need toadvance and that businessesneed to grow.

Support success for low-wageworkers in workforce educationprograms across the state.

Fix the “leaky” pipeline of low-income workers into postsec-ondary workforce education bysmoothing transitions fromadult education, English lan-guage services, and collegeremedial education into work-force programs.

Align state policies across rele-vant workforce, postsecondary,welfare, and economic develop-ment programs and accountabil-ity systems to support businessgrowth and low-wage workeradvancement.

The report that follows includesbackground on the use of thesepartnerships as a strategy foradvancing low-wage workers andoffers specific examples from thefive initiatives that we examined.The final section of the report pro-vides in-depth profiles of eachtraining partnership, and includescontact information for readersinterested in learning more.


2

Helping low-wage workersupgrade their skills is a critical

part of public policies to advanceworkers and to attract and retain“good jobs” that pay enough tosupport a family and offer healthcare, sick leave, and other key ben-efits. Less clear is which skills-upgrading policies and programscan most effectively achieve thedual goals of helping workersadvance and helping businesses tocreate and keep good jobs.

In this report, we share lessons onone promising strategy: state andlocal partnerships with businessand industry aimed at training low-wage workers and helping themadvance. If properly designed andimplemented, these training part-nerships can offer important bene-fits to business, workers, and thepublic—and promote key econom-ic and workforce goals.

We define government-businesspartnerships for training as thosethat:

Involve an investment of publicfunds and are managed by apublic sector institution (busi-ness and industry also typicallyinvest in these partnerships);

Give business a lead role inidentifying job training needsand paths to job advancement,often for their own employees;

Provide job training throughpublic, non-profit, and for-profitinstitutions, sometimes at theworksite.

We chose to profile only thosetraining partnerships that werefunded and managed at the statelevel and focused at least in part onadvancing low-wage workers. Insome cases, the programs were notspecifically designed to focus onlow-wage workers, but this popula-tion was served as part of a broad-er group.

To learn how training partnershipsmight promote job advancementamong low-wage workers, weselected five initiatives in fourstates—Georgia, Kentucky,Louisiana, and Massachusetts—thatillustrate the potential of three spe-cific models. Through interviewswith program staff, we attemptedto capture each state’s experiencewith the initiative in order to offersome lessons on designing andoperating programs that addressthe needs of low-wage workers andbusiness. The lessons presented inthis paper are designed to assist

Section 1

3

Partnerships 101: How Governments and Businesses Are Working Together to Advance Low-Wage Workers

Potential Benefits ofGovernment-BusinessPartnerships for Training

Benefits for business:• Meet skills shortages

• Increase productivity

• Retain workers

• Leverage public resources

Benefits for workers:• Hiring or promotion as a

result of training

• Training at worksite, providedduring work hours

• Pay for time spent in training

Benefits for public:• Increase state’s attractiveness

to business

• Increase worker incomes

• Increase business productivity

• Promote sectors that offerhigher-wage jobs with benefits

• Leverage private resources

✜

policymakers in developing new ini-tiatives, as well to inform programadministrators and managers ofexisting programs.

Helping Low-WageWorkers Advance: Why Skills MatterEarnings and employment arestrongly linked to educationalattainment. While earnings for col-lege graduates have recentlyplateaued, it is still the case thatthose with postsecondary creden-tials earn substantially more andwork more hours than those withjust a high school education orless.

Businesses pay about 10 percenthigher wages for each additionalyear of schooling beyond highschool (Barrow and Rouse,2005).

This “premium” paid by busi-ness for postsecondary educa-tion has increased substantiallyover the last three decades. In1973, business was willing topay $6.21 more an hour for acollege graduate than a highschool graduate; by 2003 busi-ness was willing to pay $9.87more (Mishel et al., 2005).

Between 2004 and 2014, 24 ofthe 30 fastest-growing occupa-tions are predicted to be filledby people with postsecondaryeducation or training (either avocational certificate or adegree). Total job openings overthis period are expected to bemore varied, with 45 percentgoing to those with a highschool diploma or less and 26percent filled by those withsome college but not aBachelor’s degree (Hecker,2005).

The lower-skilled openings gen-erally have correspondingly lowpay. Among the top 30 jobswith the most openings, thoseoffering high or very highwages—for example, administra-tive/clerical work, buildingmaintenance and repair, and car-pentry—typically will go toworkers with either a degree orsignificant on-the-job trainingthrough apprenticeships orcommunity colleges (Hecker,2005).

In recent years, many Americanshave found themselves working forlow wages, often without access toimportant job benefits. The major-ity of these workers appear to bestuck in low-wage jobs for longperiods of time (Meyer andCancian, 2000). One recent studyfound that while low earners expe-rience some earnings gains overtime, only about a fourth or fewerpermanently escaped their low-wage status (Andersson, Holzer,and Lane, 2005).

In general, steady work alone isnot enough for lower-skilled work-ers to advance. The wages of full-time workers remaining with thesame employer generally increaseby about 2 percent per year forhigh school graduates and about 1percent for those without a highschool diploma (Poppe et al.,2004). In other words, a highschool graduate working for $8 anhour could expect to see his or herwages increase by about 16 cents ayear.

While many factors affect whetherlow-wage workers move up to bet-


4

Hard at Work, but Still Poor• One in four American work-

ers earns poverty-levelwages—less than $9.04 anhour (Conlin and Bernstein,2004).

• 46 percent of working par-ents below the poverty levelhave no paid leave of anykind. In contrast, just 16percent of working parentsabove 200 percent of pover-ty do not receive any paidleave (Ross Phillips, 2004).

• In 2003, only one-quarter ofworkers in the bottom fifthof the wage distribution hadhealth insurance (Mishel etal., 2005).

• Lack of skills is just one factor preventing access tobetter paying jobs; in someareas there simply are notenough good jobs to goaround regardless of skills(Handel, 2005).

✜

ter jobs over time, the two observ-able categories that appear to mat-ter most are (1) the skills of theindividual and (2) the characteris-tics of the employer. Higher basicskills and postsecondary credentialsare linked to higher wages; theyalso improve the likelihood of find-ing a better job initially and ofwage growth over time (Poppe etal., 2004). Employers in higher-wage sectors of the economy—forexample, construction, manufac-turing, transportation, or healthservices—offer higher rates ofadvancement for lower earnersthan those in other sectors. Largefirms and those with low turnoverrates generally offer more on-the-job training and opportunities forpromotion, enhancing workers’advancement prospects. Jobchanges that move individualsfrom lower-wage to higher-wageemployers generate greater wagegrowth over time than long-termjob retention at low-wage firms(Andersson, Holzer, and Lane,2005).

States can affect the quality of jobsby targeting economic develop-ment efforts—including trainingpartnerships—toward businessesthat can offer good wages, bene-fits, and opportunities for advance-ment. By offering a wide spectrumof effective, accessible, and con-nected workforce developmentservices that include basic educa-tion and English language services,job training, and postsecondarydegree opportunities, states canhelp workers upgrade their skills.The power of a strong trainingpartnership lies precisely in its abili-

ty to connect these two strategiesof growth and advancement.

There are potential pitfalls to thesepartnerships that must be acknowl-edged—for example, the use ofpublic funds to pay for trainingthat business would otherwisecover, to train only higher-levelworkers who often can upgradetheir skills without public help, orto train workers for jobs that donot improve their economic cir-cumstances. The partnerships inour study developed methods toaddress some of these issues; wediscuss their experiences in PartTwo of this report.

A Closer Look atGovernment-BusinessPartnerships for Training Training partnerships can take onmany different forms. For thisreport, we identified three differentmodels that cover a relativelybroad range of efforts. Theseappear to be the most commonlyused models at the state level.

Incumbent and CustomizedWorker Training. Typically,these state programs providebusinesses with grants to partnerwith training providers to offerjob-specific training for incum-bent workers and/or new hires.While they vary widely in sizeand scope, many of these pro-grams are funded throughemployer taxes. According toresearch by the GovernmentAccountability Office (GAO), 23states reported using employertax revenues in 2002—including

Unemployment Insurance (UI)tax offsets, UI penalty and inter-est funds, and separate employertaxes—to fund training pro-grams (GAO, 2004). Most donot focus specifically on low-wage workers.

Career Ladders or Pathways.These initiatives seek to makeboth the labor market and rele-vant educational programs moretransparent to workers and busi-nesses by mapping them and byfilling gaps in training if needed.Ideally, the ladder begins at thelowest literacy and English lan-guage levels and extends all theway through a four-year collegedegree, and includes compre-hensive services to support stu-dent success. Unlike incumbentand customized worker trainingprograms, career ladder effortsare generally not geared towarda specific employer, but insteadcover a certain sector or indus-try, such as health care. Severalstates—Arkansas, California,

Wising Up: How Government Can Partner with Business to Increase Skills and Advance Low-Wage Workers

5

Photo courtesy of Kentucky CareerPathways.

Kentucky, Massachusetts, Ohio,and Oregon—have recentlyembarked on statewide effortsto promote career ladders orpathways initiatives. Theseefforts are relatively new andjust beginning implementationin most areas.

State Skills Certificates andPanels. These initiatives con-vene employers within a partic-ular business or industry sectorto ascertain workforce develop-ment needs and to give workersoccupational credentials thatare portable from one employerto another. If developed inclose collaboration with busi-ness, these certificates fall with-in our notion of training part-nerships. State occupationalskills certificates provide amechanism for workers to doc-ument their mastery of a specif-ic set of job skills. Involvingbusinesses themselves in identi-fying the competenciesrequired for a certificate canestablish a uniform method ofcommunicating the skillsrequired for specific jobs andenable community colleges andother providers to standardizethe training they offer. A num-ber of states—includingGeorgia, Kentucky, Louisiana,North Carolina, Oregon,

Vermont, Washington, andWisconsin—have sought toincorporate industry-based orstate-developed occupationalcertifications into their publicworkforce and community andtechnical college offerings(National Skills StandardsBoard Institute, 2003).

To identify ways that these part-nerships might promote jobadvancement for low-wage work-ers, we chose to examine five pro-grams that represented this rangeof models. These five projects areeach funded and managed at the

state level and have a relativelystrong emphasis, either by designor in practice, on serving low-wage workers. We selected thesepartnerships after a careful reviewof the literature on job advance-ment programs for low-wageworkers and consultations withexperts in the field. To ensure thatthe partnerships had reached somelevel of maturity, we limited ourexamples—with the exception ofKentucky—to programs that wereoperating at a substantial scaleand for at least one year at thetime of selection.

Interestingly, three of the fiveworkforce development initiativeswe selected use a sectoralapproach, partnering withemployers to meet skills upgrad-ing needs within particular indus-tries. One of these, theMassachusetts Extended CareCareer Ladder Initiative, uses itssectoral focus to go beyond meet-ing workforce developmentneeds—it outlines an explicit goalof changing the long-term caresector by improving the qualityof care.1

We studied the five initiativesdescribed on the following page.


6

1 For more information on sectoral workforce development, see the Aspen Institute’s Measuring Up and Weighing In:Industry-Based Workforce Development Training Results in Strong Employment Outcomes, at http://www.aspenwsi.org/publicationdetailsdb.asp?pid=15.

7


Incumbent and Customized Worker TrainingLouisiana Incumbent Worker Training Program (IWTP). The state provides grants to partnerships of businessand training providers for customized training to incumbent workers. Established in 1998, the programreceives $50 million annually from a portion of the state UI tax and has provided training for over 100,000workers. The program is operated by the Louisiana Department of Labor.

Massachusetts Workforce Training Fund (WTF). The state provides grants to partnerships of business andtraining providers for customized training to incumbent and newly hired workers, with a strong emphasis onprivate sector investment in training. Enacted in 1999, the fund is financed through employer contributionsto the UI tax fund, with a funding level of approximately $22 million per year. The program, operated by theMassachusetts Department of Workforce Development, provides training to approximately 27,000 workersannually. Training can include basic skills and English for Speakers of Other Languages, and a pilot set asidefunds specifically for this type of training.

Career Ladders or PathwaysMassachusetts Extended Care Career Ladder Initiative (ECCLI). Enacted in 2000, this statewide project seeks toimprove the quality of nursing home care, in large part by increasing workers’ skills. ECCLI provides grants toconsortiums of nursing homes, community colleges, and others to create career ladders and to address stafftraining, work environment, and quality of care issues. Career ladders initially focused on lower-level jobs,from food service and patient care assistants through various levels of Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs).Recent grants build the upper part of the career ladder to help CNAs move into Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)positions. Operated by the Commonwealth Corporation, a quasi-public state agency, the program has received$15 million since its inception and has trained over 5,500 nursing home employees.

Kentucky Career Pathways. Begun in 2004, the Kentucky Community and Technical College System (KCTCS)provides funding to develop and implement career pathways that assist low-income individuals in entering oradvancing in occupations that meet business needs. Occupations vary, with health the most common, fol-lowed by manufacturing. Funding is provided to partnerships of community colleges, business, and otherstakeholders to design pathways, provide training, and supply employees for referrals. The program is fund-ed partially by the KCTCS workforce development trust fund (KY WINS) with the 16 participating collegesreceiving $3.3 million from the state and $3 million from business partners through cash and in-kind contri-butions. By fall 2005, nearly 1,000 students had been served through Career Pathways. These students par-ticipated in for-credit coursework at colleges or engaged in such non-credit coursework as workforce training,Adult Basic Education, and GED programs.

State Skills Certificates and PanelsGeorgia Statewide Certified Specialist Programs. For this initiative, the state convened groups of largeemployers to develop standardized statewide for-credit curricula and credentials in key sectors such as con-struction, manufacturing, warehousing and distribution, insurance, and customer service. The CertifiedSpecialist Programs are operated by the Georgia Department of Technical and Adult Education (DTAE).Funding for development is provided by DTAE, with staff assistance provided by the Department’s customizedtraining unit, Quick Start. Training is provided by technical colleges and universities and tuition, books, andfees are covered by HOPE Grants, the state-funded financial aid program. As of 2005, over 20,000 certificateshave been issued.

For each partnership, we conduct-ed site visits to interview programmanagers and other staff; in somestates, we also met with other key partners, such as trainingproviders and businesses. Weinterviewed the following staff ateach initiative site.

In Louisiana, we met withstaff from the Office of theGovernor and the Departmentof Labor, and faculty andadministrators at the BatonRouge Community College.We also

interviewed staff from Delgado(New Orleans) CommunityCollege.

In Massachusetts, we metwith staff from the WorkforceTraining Fund unit of the stateDepartment of WorkforceDevelopment, the Common-wealth Corporation, the BostonPrivate Industry Council, andCreative Workplace Learning, atraining provider for the Work-force Training Fund. We alsovisited Notre Dame Long-Term Care Center inWorcester, where we inter-viewed administrators from areanursing homes and serviceproviders.

In Kentucky, we metwith staff from the KentuckyCommunity and TechnicalCollege System, includingseveral community and

technical colleges, in additionto staff from the AdultEducation division of theCouncil on PostsecondaryEducation and JeffersonCounty (Louisville) AdultEducation.

In Georgia, we met with stafffrom the Department ofTechnical and Adult Education,including the Quick Start divi-sion, the Georgia StudentFinancing Commission, andlocal staff and students at LanierTechnical College. In addition,we met with management atKubota Manufacturing.

Part Three of this report profileseach partnership in depth, withinformation on its goals, funding,enrollment, design, and some les-sons drawn from the state’s expe-rience with the initiative. It isimportant to note that while thepartnerships we profile appearpromising, none has been inde-pendently evaluated and few dataare available on employment andearnings outcomes. We providethese case studies as illustrationsof particular approaches, not asproven programs, and believetheir experiences can offer lessonsabout the benefits and challengesof each strategy.


8

Images and photos courtesy of Louisiana Incumbent Worker Training Program(training with mannequins).

Designing Partnershipsto Advance Low-WageWorkers Many government-business part-nerships for training do not focusspecifically on the advancement oflow-wage workers. Incumbent andcustomized worker training pro-grams, for example, typically pro-vide training to workers at all wageand skill levels—including highlyskilled workers, such as engineers,electricians, and senior manage-ment—in part because this is whatemployers request and many ofthese programs are funded withemployer payroll taxes. In fact, twoof the strongest predictors ofwhether a worker will receiveemployer support for upgradinghis or her skills are higher initialeducation attainment and a house-hold income of at least $50,000(Kim et al., 2004). As a result,low-wage workers often lack work-place opportunities to increasetheir skills. The partnerships westudied use a variety of mecha-nisms to encourage the inclusionof low-wage workers in the train-ing programs and to ensure thatthe program design is a good fitfor low-wage workers. Withoutthese mechanisms, some programs—particularly incumbent and cus-

tomized worker training pro-grams—could easily lose sight oflow-wage workers’ needs.

Based on our analysis of the fiveinitiatives, we recommend thatstates and localities consider the following when designing and implementing training partnerships.

SERVE LOW-WAGE WORKERS IN WAYS THAT MAINTAIN CREDIBILITY WITH BUSINESS.

As noted above, it is importantthat training reach low-wage work-ers—but targeting training byincome might stigmatize a trainingpartnership as a program only forlow-income people and undercutsupport for it among the publicand employers. The programs weobserved tended to use indirectmeans of including low-wageworkers in training, and to servethis population as part of a widerspectrum of workers.

Georgia’s Certified Specialistprograms target lower-skilledindividuals by including entry-level positions and providingadult and remedial educationservices, where necessary. (SeeGeorgia graphic, page 10.)

The Massachusetts WorkforceTraining Fund does extra out-

reach to businesses in low-income areas to encourage themto apply for grants.

Louisiana’s Incumbent WorkerTraining Program provides extrapoints in the review process forgrant applications from employ-ers who have recently hiredpublic assistance recipients orex-offenders.

Massachusetts’ Extended CareCareer Ladder Initiative pro-gram initially targeted a low-wage occupation that suffersfrom turnover and quality prob-lems, Certified NursingAssistants (CNAs), for addition-al training and wage growth.Many grantees also developedCNA preparation programs forindividuals in even lower-paidjobs, such as food service andhousekeeping. Subsequentgrants are aimed at helpingCNAs move into LicensedPractical Nurse (LPN) andother higher-paid positions.

The Kentucky Career Pathwaysinitiative is similarly targeted toentry-level positions in healthcare, construction, and manu-facturing. In addition, sites areevaluated on how extensivelythey target participants fromadult education, college remedi-al education programs, and wel-

9

Section 2Applied Studies:

Lessons for States and Localities from the Five Initiatives

10


fare agencies (see A CloserLook: Kentucky, page 11).

An instructive example beyondthe scope of this report is NewJersey’s UnemploymentInsurance-funded $100 millionWorkforce DevelopmentPartnership Program, whichincludes a goal that 15 percent ofparticipants be former cash assis-tance recipients (New JerseyLegislature, 2004).

In addition, states and localitiescan ensure that partnershipsadvance low-wage workers bybeing selective in choosing busi-ness partners. They can focus, forexample, on occupational path-ways with the most opportunityfor advancement, target higher-wage sectors, and choose firmswith historically lower turnover,larger firms with internal careerladders, and those that offer on-the-job training and other sup-ports (such as tuition assistance)for workers to upgrade skills.

LINK TRAINING TO WAGEINCREASES OR JOB PROMOTIONS.

It is important for workers to seea direct payoff from training—inaddition to improving their eco-nomic well-being, this increasesworkers’ motivation, performance,and attendance. The incumbentand customized training programswe examined encourage employ-ers to give wage increases and/orpromotions to participants com-pleting training by including theexpected wage level or increaseamong the criteria for grantapproval. The career ladder pro-grams generally work with busi-nesses to map the steps in trainingand work experience that corre-spond to specific jobs, withexpected pay ranges included.

Massachusetts requires thathealth care workers who receivetraining through the ExtendedCare Career Ladder Initiativeearn a wage increase for everystep of education and trainingthey complete on the careerladder; the nursing home thatreceives the grant determinesthe level of the raise. Somenursing homes promote work-ers upon completion of train-ing—for instance, from CNA 1to CNA 2 or above.

Louisiana’s Incumbent WorkerTraining Program measuresperformance for each granteebased on wage increases forthose who went through thetraining—with a goal of a 10 to15 percent increase dependingupon the initial wage level.

Georgia Certified Manufacturing Specialist Program

11


Because Georgia’s CertifiedSpecialist Programs are struc-tured differently than those inMassachusetts and Louisiana(where businesses are givenstate funding for training), the

Georgia program does not havethe same leverage to requirebusinesses to increase wagesupon completion of training,but they do encourage it and asa result, some employers do so.

For example, KubotaManufacturing rewards allemployees who earn theCertified ManufacturingSpecialist Technical Certificateof Credit with a $1 per hourraise (the entry-level wage forthis job class is $11 to $13 perhour). Although Kubota doesnot provide release time for itsemployees seeking certifica-tion—employees complete 160hours of training on their owntime at Lanier TechnicalCollege—its employees notedthat the wage increase providesa strong incentive for them toenroll.

INCORPORATE BASIC EDUCATIONAND ENGLISH LANGUAGE TRAINING INTO PARTNERSHIPTRAINING.

Most training partnerships aredesigned to provide technicaltraining—but many low-wageworkers lack adequate reading,writing, and math skills to benefit

A Closer Look: Kentucky

Developing Career Pathways for Low-Wage WorkersThe Kentucky Community and Technical College System sought propos-als from community colleges to build career pathways programs in high-demand occupations with good pay and benefits. They did this by:

• Developing career maps, designed jointly by the college and busi-ness, focusing on job and educational advancement for low-wageworkers that meet business needs—these maps establish asequence of connected skills-upgrading and job opportunities, witheach step on the ladder leading to a job or further training;

• Involving regional employers, adult education providers, economicdevelopment organizations, Workforce Investment Boards (WIBs),one-stop partners, human service agencies and others in curriculumdevelopment, recruiting, and workplace learning opportunities;

• Aligning curriculum so that students do not fall through the cracks attransition points between adult and remedial education and for-creditoccupational training and jobs, or certificate and diploma completionand Associate’s and Bachelor’s degrees and jobs;

• Providing innovative instruction to meet the needs of low-wageworkers, such as contextual education (teaching basic skills withinthe context of job/college preparation and training), evening orweekend course schedules, and modular curricula;

• Developing bridge programs that teach basic proficiencies likemath, reading, and workplace skills within the context of job train-ing, and help move the student from one step to the next on thepathway;

• Offering support services such as child care, financial aid, tutoring,case management, career coaching, and job placement.

Not all industries are appropriate for this type of effort—those thatlack a logical internal ladder, are experiencing changes within theindustry (such as mergers or reorganization), or lack managerial sup-port are not well-suited to this approach. Others, such as allied-healthprofessions, offer well-developed career ladders such as from CNA toLPN to Registered Nurse (RN).

✜

“We all started because

of the money, but now

we’re here because we

realize we need to get

ahead and learning is

the key.”

—Kubota factory worker in theSpanish-language CertifiedManufacturing Specialist

course at Lanier TechnicalCollege in Georgia

✜


12

from technical training, or havelimited proficiency in English. Asa result, most programs we visitedfound that their initial assump-tions about low-wage workers’readiness for training were unreal-istic; they were forced to revisetheir training programs to build inmore time to bolster basic aca-demic and English skills. This typeof training can be tied to theoccupational training by incorpo-rating job-specific tasks andvocabulary into reading, writing,math, and English instruction.Remediation and English lan-guage services tailored to prepare

individuals to succeed in trainingfor specific jobs are sometimescalled “bridge” programs, andoften also cover other areasviewed as essential for workplaceand/or college success, such asproblem-solving, working inteams, and study habits. (These“soft skills” are discussed ingreater detail below.)

Massachusetts’ WorkforceTraining Fund initially did notencourage funding for basiceducation and English languageservices as part of the grants,but revised this policy when

businesses stressed that theseservices would increase the pro-ductivity of their companies.State staff prefer that granteesprovide at least four hours ofbasic skills training per week,and have provided additionalfunding so that grantees can doso. In addition, a 2005 pilot setaside funding specifically forbasic skills and English lan-guage training, while alsoencouraging general traininggrants to include basic skills andEnglish language instruction.

Massachusetts Extended Care Career Ladder Initiative: Ladder 1

✜

GED ESOL

13


More recent phases ofMassachusetts’ Extended CareCareer Ladder Initiative havefocused on funding bridge pro-grams that consist of pre-col-lege reading, math, science,and English language instruc-tion, when necessary, to helpprepare CNAs to pass the LPNentrance exam (see A CloserLook: Massachusetts, page 15).

In planning its Career Pathwaysinitiative, the KentuckyCommunity and TechnicalCollege System identified basicand English language skills, aswell as college remediation, as

integral components to meet-ing business’ needs for skilledemployees. Louisville’sJefferson Community andTechnical College—whichfocuses on advancing entry-level health workers to LPNstatus—found that many of theemployees needed basic educa-tion classes to prepare for high-er-level health classes. Inresponse, the college linkedwith Jefferson County PublicSchools Adult EducationProgram and also designed acustomized General Education101 class that integrates med-ical texts and materials, and

provides reading instructionwithin the context of anatomyand physiology. Similarly, theremedial math classes usehealth-related materials. Thecollege expects that exposure tosuch concepts early in the col-lege career will better preparestudents to integrate thisknowledge as they advance inthe program.

For Georgia’s CertifiedSpecialist Programs, materialsare written at the eighth gradelevel in recognition of thelower skills of some studentsseeking training. Students can

Massachusetts Extended Care Career Ladder Initiative: Ladder 2

✜

14


also use HOPE Grants for col-lege remedial courses. The statehas translated the CertifiedManufacturing Specialist pro-gram into Spanish, whichopened up the certification tothe Spanish-speaking workers atKubota Manufacturing, whorepresent more than 50 percent

of the employer’s workforce. Inaddition, the company donated$100,000 to the local commu-nity college to ensure thatimmigrant workers could accessthe certification program evenif they did not meet residencyrequirements for HOPE Grantsor other financial support.2

Another example comes fromNew Jersey’s WorkforceDevelopment PartnershipProgram, the state’s training fund,which devotes a fifth of its budg-et—over $20 million annually—tothe Supplemental Workforce Fundfor Basic Skills. Under the supple-mental fund, employed andunemployed workers receive basicskills training in reading compre-hension, basic math, basic com-puter literacy, English proficiency,work readiness, and other areas.The state’s Customized Trainingprogram receives over one-thirdof the supplemental fund’s dollarsto provide basic skills and literacytraining.

WHERE POSSIBLE, REQUIREBUSINESS PARTNERS TO PRO-VIDE PAID RELEASE TIME FORPARTNERSHIP TRAINING.

Many low-wage workers holdmultiple jobs and/or have chil-dren, making it difficult to pursuetraining that occurs outside ofwork hours. Several of the pro-grams we examined found thatpartial or full release time toattend training was critical to reg-ular attendance and programcompletion. Our discussions withprogram administrators made itclear that some jobs accommodatepaid release time more than oth-ers. For instance, employers withjobs that required high levels ofcustomer interaction—CNA posi-tions, for example—had more dif-

2 Immigrants must have been U.S. citizens or Permanent Resident Aliens for at least 12 months to be eligible for the HOPEGrant or Scholarship.

A Closer Look: Massachusetts

Bridge Programs in the Extended Care Career LadderInitiative (ECCLI)The Holy Trinity Nursing and Rehabilitation Center and Notre DameLong Term Care Center in Massachusetts, working together with otherarea nursing homes via the Intercare Alliance, have a well-developedcareer ladder, funded by multiple ECCLI grants. The nursing homes offerfour training modules – Death and Dying, Alzheimer’s CompassionateCare, Restorative Nursing Care, and Mentoring/Leadership. CertifiedNursing Assistants (CNA) receive a 20 to 30 cent per hour wageincrease for each module they complete (for a total of 80 cents to$1.20 per hour). In addition, Quinsigmond College, a local communitycollege, set aside 24 slots in their Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) pro-gram for the nursing homes’ CNA students. The biology and psychologycomponents of the LPN program for these students are provided on-site at the nursing home by the college.

ECCLI funds “bridge” basic skills training (English language, pre-collegereading, writing, and math, and GED preparation), also provided byQuinsigmond College, that students will need to pass the LPN programentrance exam as well as career coaching and mentoring, which areviewed as critical to these students’ success. Workers receive 50 per-cent release time for attending class so that half of their time in classis paid. The participating nursing homes provide full scholarships fortheir workers to attend the LPN program in exchange for a two-yearcommitment to work at the nursing home once they graduate, andcompetition is tight to gain a slot in the program. Participants workpart-time while in the program, but continue to receive their fullemployee benefits. Notre Dame also renovated part of the nursinghome to develop an educational center where classes are held for theiremployees as well as those from other Intercare Alliance facilities par-ticipating in ECCLI.

✜


15

ficulty arranging training and cov-ering the responsibilities ofemployees who were in training.

In Massachusetts, the ExtendedCare Career Ladder Initiativerequires employers to pay awage for at least half of thetime workers spend in class(known as “50 percent paidrelease time”), but most of thenursing homes receivingECCLI grants paid workers forall of their class time. ECCLIgrantees faced some initial chal-lenges in getting supervisorsupport for releasing employeesand rearranging schedules toensure continuous care topatients. Program managersworked closely with supervisorsin rearranging schedules, andthe reluctance of these stafflargely dissipated as the pro-gram progressed and the bene-fits of the training becameapparent.

Massachusetts’ WorkforceTraining Fund requires employ-ers to match grants dollar-for-dollar, and most grantees meetthis requirement by providingpaid release time for training.

In the Louisiana IncumbentWorker Training program,paid release time is stronglyencouraged, although notrequired. Staff report thatwithout paid release time, thetraining is less successfulbecause it is harder for workersto make the necessary commit-ment. One company, Exxon,served shift workers by hold-ing training on non-work days,but paying workers overtimefor the time spent in class.

OFFER ON-SITE TRAINING,PREFERABLY DURING WORKHOURS, OR FLEXIBLE SCHEDUL-ING AT OFF-SITE LOCATIONS.

Training that is provided at theworksite increases access for work-ers, particularly for low-wageworkers who may not have reli-able transportation and who aretypically juggling work and train-ing with family responsibilities.Worksite training also provides afamiliar location; this may be par-ticularly important for workerswho are intimidated by the formaleducation system or have beenaway from schooling for severalyears. Although no states in thisstudy required on-site training, allstrongly encouraged it as a com-ponent for success.

Grantees in the LouisianaIncumbent Worker TrainingProgram and in Massachusetts’Workforce Training Fund pri-marily provide training at theworksite. This is one of the fac-tors given weight when grantapplications are reviewed.

In order to better facilitatetraining opportunities for itshealth workers, some sites inthe Extended Care CareerLadder Initiative in Worcester,Massachusetts, renovated partof a nursing home to developan educational center whereclasses could be held.

The Kentucky Career Pathwaysprogram requires grantees toreport to the state on theinstructional innovations intheir programs, includingevening or weekend course

schedules. SomersetCommunity College inKentucky offers its LPN andRN pathways courses on week-day evenings and Saturdays,with completion after one andtwo years, respectively.

Georgia’s Lanier TechnicalCollege offers the CertifiedManufacturing SpecialistProgram at three differenttimes of the day, enablingworkers on each factory shiftto take the classes. In addi-tion, new sections of the pro-gram can be started ondemand if an employer pro-vides enough workers to fill aclass, rather than having towait until the start of the nextcollege quarter.

“We want to allow

people to not have to

quit their jobs to get

training to move up

the ladder. The

community college is

trying to change, but

it’s tough to be more

flexible on timing,

scheduling, and

modularization.”

— Dr. Paul McInturff, VicePresident of Institutional andEconomic Development, West

Kentucky Community andTechnical College

✜

16


HELP WORKERS EARN COLLEGE CERTIFICATES AND DEGREESOVER TIME BY OFFERINGTRANSFERABLE COLLEGE CREDITFOR TRAINING. Current training partnerships—particularly incumbent and cus-tomized worker training pro-grams—do not appear to offermuch of their training for collegecredit. In part, this is because theprocess for approving new for-credit programs can be slow, mak-ing it difficult for colleges torespond to the rapidly changingneeds of business. Instead, col-leges may opt to create trainingon the more nimble non-creditside of their institutions. In addi-tion, for-credit certificate anddegree programs often requirethat students have a high schooldiploma or GED as well as specificminimum scores on college readi-ness tests, which can be a barrierfor some workers.

We found that training partner-ships can find ways to overcomethese obstacles and design theirtraining programs to help low-wage workers work toward certifi-cates or college degrees—whichhas obvious advantages to thelow-wage workforce. For busi-nesses, particularly those in stateswithout incumbent worker or cus-tomized training programs, for-credit programs can tap intosources of revenue that non-creditprograms cannot. These includestudent aid, such as Pell grants,and state institutional support forcolleges, generally allocatedaccording to for-credit studentenrollments. One promising

approach is to break longer for-credit programs into shorter mod-ules that are easier for workers tofind time to complete. As long asthe module is part of a longerapproved program, it can general-ly be offered for college credit.

Georgia’s statewide CertifiedSpecialist Programs and theother 500 technical certificatesoffered by the technical col-leges are all for-credit and mostarticulate with two-yeardegrees. The state intends forall credits earned at DTAEinstitutions to transfer seamless-ly within the system.

The majority of Kentucky’sCareer Pathways training willbe provided for credit, in partbecause most of the regionshave chosen to develop healthcareer pathways and manyhealth careers require for-creditcredentials. Kentucky alsorequires grantees to documentthe alignment of their curricu-lum (both basic skills and cer-tificate/diploma programs)with career path and jobrequirements.

Kentucky received approval torun new Pathway programs asone-year pilots, thereby bypass-ing the typical approval processfor new for-credit programsand allowing for quicker imple-mentation. Initially, curriculumcommittees were hesitant toapprove the Pathways’ remedialeducation modules, so curricu-lum revision has been slowerthan the state originally hoped.

Several Kentucky communitycolleges are modularizing theirfor-credit certificate programsas part of the Career PathwaysProgram. For example,Owensboro Community andTechnical College is modulariz-ing its Manufacturing IndustrialTechnology certificate. Areamanufacturing partners haveworked with college faculty toidentify the technical compe-tencies required for manufac-turing workers. Students whocomplete classes and labs inApplied Math, ElectricalPrinciples, and MaintenanceIndustrial Equipment areawarded an IndustrialMaintenance TraineeCertificate, which fulfillsapproximately one-third of therequirements for a degree inIndustrial Maintenance andone-fourth of those in GeneralOccupational/TechnicalStudies.

Louisiana’s Incumbent WorkerTraining Program is also shift-ing toward more for-credittraining because of a growingemphasis on health careers inthe program (see A Closer Look:New Orleans, page 18).

“Employers want

the full package,

including basic skills

and soft skills.”

—Wendy Thibodeaux,Program Manager,

Louisiana Incumbent WorkerTraining Program

✜

17


Owensboro Community and Technical College’s Manufacturing PathwayParticipants are required to take Work Keys assessments in Applied Mathematics, Reading for Information, andLocating Information in Phase I of the pathway. Participants scoring below the level required for a SilverKentucky Employability Certificate (KEC) can work with the college’s adult learning center, SkillTrain, to raisetheir scores with targeted one-on-one instruction. Those scoring a Silver KEC or above can begin coursework.(For more information on the KEC, see http://www.kctcs.net/kec.)

Establish WK Profilestandard for basicmanufacturing entry

OrientationManufacturing

SILVER/GOLDKentucky Employability

Certificate

Transfer to 4-Year College

PostsecondaryEnrollment

Adult EdEnrollment

BS Applied Technology

ProcessOperation

Assoc. Applied Sciences GOTS Degree

Industrial Maintenance Certificate

Modular Academic Credit

Complete/Analyze ACT-E Discover Profile

Placement

Entry Position

Manufacturing

Phase III

Phase II

Phase I

YES KEC NO

Referrals

Adult Ed High School Recent H.S. CourtsGrads

Walk-In WORK KEYS ASSESSMENT

Industrial Maintenance Diploma

KentuckyEmployment Network

(KEN)

AssemblyOperation

18


SUPPORT WORKERS’ PARTICIPA-TION IN TRAINING WITH CAREERAND ACADEMIC COUNSELING,TUTORING, SOFT-SKILLS TRAINING, OPPORTUNITIES FORPEER SUPPORT, AND OTHERSUPPORTIVE SERVICES, SUCHAS CHILD CARE.

In order to succeed in training,many low-wage workers need avariety of services that addresscareer, academic, and personalissues that may interfere with suc-cessful participation. Many ofthese workers have been out ofschool for some time and may nothave had positive experiencesthere; they may be intimidated byan academic environment andneed support from program staffand their peers to gain confidencein their ability to succeed. Somestudents may need additionaltutoring to succeed academicallyin class. Others may need trainingin “soft skills” that help themunderstand workplace skills suchas conflict resolution, teamwork,and customer relations.

In Massachusetts, ExtendedCare Career Ladder Initiativefunds can be used for mentor-ing and soft skills training inareas such as communicationskills, time management, self-esteem, and team building.ECCLI grantees also arerequired to provide case man-agement and career counselingservices so that each employeeunderstands how the careerladder works and designs a planto accomplish goals. Some sitesutilized care facility staff forthese tasks, while others con-

tracted with community-based organizations.

Georgia’s Certified SpecialistPrograms cover a wide varietyof work skills. In addition totypical manufacturing skills,such as statistical process con-trol and blueprint reading,Georgia’s Certified Manufac-turing Specialist curriculumoffers a module on workplacesuccess skills. Topics coveredinclude team interactions/working together, communica-tion style profiles, listeningskills, stress management, per-sonal wellness, decision-mak-ing, job interview skills, andcreating a positive image.

The Kentucky Community andTechnical College System

required colleges to developsupportive services and describethem in Career Pathways appli-cations. Maysville Communityand Technical College devel-oped a comprehensive packageof services to help promoteretention in its health careCareer Pathways program. Theprogram coordinator will helpstudents schedule and registerfor classes, locate additionalfinancial aid, arrange child care,and get academic help.Specialized advisors help stu-dents navigate the pathway byproviding intensive academicadvising and career counseling,and nurses from a partner hos-pital will serve as mentors. Incollaboration with the AdultBasic Education director, the

A Closer Look: New Orleans’ Delgado Community College

Connecting Incumbent Workers to EducationDelgado Community College in New Orleans has received over $22 mil-lion in grants from the state’s Incumbent Worker Training Program toprovide services for over 42 companies. In carrying out these grants,Delgado has found that local companies are very interested in indus-try-based certifications; thus, the college is creating more for-creditofferings directed at incumbent workers in diverse industries such asinsurance, film, telecommunications, and allied health. The college’sWorkforce Development and Education Unit hired a staff person fromthe credit side of the college to conduct assessments of programs anddetermine credits for them.

The goal, says Sharon Talbert, Executive Director of Community andEconomic Development, is to “create a seamless system for theemployee to move from credits earned in incumbent worker training onto longer term educational goals.” She noted that the college tries to“touch every student” in their incumbent worker projects and offerthem continuing education opportunities. And while the college doesmuch of its incumbent worker training at the worksite, Talbert saysthat they also make an effort to have workers come to the campusbecause “we want to expose them to college and [to] think aboutcoming back on their own.”

✜

19


college has also developed afour-week “Get Ready forCollege” class that—in additionto math, writing, and readinginstruction—addresses thestudy skills necessary to suc-ceed. The college’s CareerPathways program also includesfunding for a nearby child carecenter to expand its hours.

Ensuring Effective and SustainablePartnerships Training partnerships—which typ-ically involve a range of organiza-tions with different missions andgoals—can be complex and diffi-cult to establish initially. In ourreview, we also discovered severalpotentially strong programs thatwere no longer operational. Whenstates face severe fiscal constraints,these programs are vulnerable tofunding cutbacks or even elimina-tion. The program partners in ourstudy identified several factors thatcan help partnerships get off to astrong start, and increase the like-lihood that these efforts will besustainable.

REQUIRE THAT BUSINESS ANDOTHER KEY PARTNERS BEINVOLVED FROM THE STARTAND SET GOALS FOR CONCRETECOMMITMENTS FROM EACHPARTNER.

The incumbent and customizedworker training programs studiedin this paper are designed toensure business involvement.Awards are made to individual

businesses or consortiums, andtraining providers cannot receivefunds through the program with-out an employer partner. Othertraining partnerships may not haveas direct a connection with indi-vidual employers. Regardless ofthe program design, beginningthe project with all partnersinvolved helps ensure commongoals, better coordination, and aclear understanding of expecta-tions, including financial or staffcommitments. Some state pro-grams achieve joint involvementby requiring the local trainingpartnership with business to beestablished in order to receivefunding, with approval of theapplication based in part on thedemonstrated commitment ofboth employers and trainingproviders to the project. By initial-ly emphasizing the partnershipaspect, states are better guaran-teed success and continued com-mitment in the long run.

The Massachusetts WorkforceTraining Fund strengthens theemployer commitment byrequiring businesses to matchthe grants received dollar-for-dollar, either using cash or in-kind resources (for example,employee release time). Thestate’s Extended Care CareerLadder Initiative requires theinvolvement of a nursing homeor home health care organiza-tion to receive funds, andrequires them to commit toproviding some paid releasetime for employees while theyreceive training (see A CloserLook: Massachusetts, page 15).

The Kentucky Community andTechnical College System’sRequest for Proposals for itsCareer Pathways initiativerequires that each partnershipinvolve business as well, withmost businesses contributingsubstantial financial resourcesand helping determine perti-nent skill sets for curriculumredesign. This central focus onup-front employer involvementis partly due to the fact that theCareer Pathways initiative isfunded through the state cus-tomized training programwhich has always mandated anemployer partner. KCTCS alsorequires partnerships with adulteducation providers, economicdevelopment organizations,Workforce Investment Boards(WIBs), one-stop partners, andhuman service agencies to har-

Training partnerships

can transform workers

into lifelong learners.

Almost all of the

Kubota plant workers

in the two Certified

Manufacturing

Specialist classes we

observed had never

taken a college class

before—and nearly all

said they planned to

come back for more. ✜

20


ness all of a community’sresources in increasing its work-ers’ skills.

Business involvement inGeorgia’s statewide CertifiedSpecialist Programs happensinitially at the state level. Staffof the Georgia Department ofTechnical and Adult Educationconvene groups of businesseswith similar workforce needs toidentify essential skills and cre-ate statewide credentials thatare portable across employersand are articulated with collegedegree programs. With businessinput, these are updated regu-larly. Business and industry thatparticipate in creating the cre-dentials agree to guarantee ajob interview to anyone whocompletes the credential andallow their logos to be used inadvertisements for the certifi-cates.

BUILD IN SUBSTANTIALPLANNING TIME—SUPPORTEDBY TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND FUNDS—TO ESTABLISHPARTNERSHIPS AND DEVELOPPROGRAM DESIGN.

In many of the efforts we studied,the process of bringing partnerstogether was time-consuming andchallenging, but initial invest-ments in time and funding led to

stronger projects. Typically, corepartners include business, trainingproviders (such as community-based organizations or communitycolleges), WIBs, and less often,social service agencies. Few of theorganizations had worked togeth-er in the past, which meant that arange of issues had to beaddressed during the initial designphase—including developing anunderstanding of the goals and

A Closer Look: Georgia

Partnering with Groups of Employers to Address CommonWorkforce NeedsGeorgia has worked with groups of employers at the state level to cre-ate standardized, statewide credentials and curricula in five highdemand occupational areas:

• Certified Manufacturing Specialist;

• Certified Warehousing and Distribution Specialist;

• Certified Life and Health Insurance Specialist;

• Certified Construction Worker;

• Certified Customer Service Specialist.

College credit is given for these programs and they are articulated withsome degree programs. While over 500 for-credit technical certificateprograms are offered at the 34 technical colleges and four universities inthe state, only five are created through this statewide process withemployers, who then help market the certificates with their companyendorsements. The state pays for the development of the credentialsand curricula—which includes teaching manuals, videos, and other mate-rials—so that the training can be a turnkey operation for the colleges.Tuition, books, and fees for those who enroll in the programs are paidby the Georgia HOPE Grant, the state’s student aid initiative for collegeprograms below the Associate’s degree level. Any Georgia resident cangenerally qualify for the lottery-funded HOPE Grants, as this aid is notbased on financial need or on academic merit. Local colleges often usethe availability of these certificates and the HOPE Grants to market theirservices to individuals and to business. According to one college VicePresident of Economic Development, the statewide certificates can openthe door for subsequent local partnerships between colleges and busi-ness to provide additional, more customized training services on a fee-for-service basis.

✜

“The training here –

such as problem

resolution – has helped

at work and home. My

work and private life

have improved.”

– Kubota factory worker inthe Certified ManufacturingSpecialist course at Lanier

Technical College in Georgia

✜

21


perspectives of each group, estab-lishing a training curriculum andschedule that met key partners’needs, and developing a high-quality application for grant funds.Some states developed specificmechanisms to encourage effec-tive collaboration.

Both Louisiana’s IncumbentWorker Training Program andMassachusetts’ WorkforceTraining Fund dedicate statestaff to working closely withprospective grantees as theydevelop their applications. Thisis at least in part to ensure thepartnership between key organ-izations is well-developed andthat training plans are reason-able and achieve business’desired results.

The Massachusetts ExtendedCare Career Ladder Initiativerequires individual projects toengage the local WIBs—whichhave experience working withboth businesses and trainingproviders—to participate in theplanning process and to helpforge strong partnershipsbetween these groups.

Massachusetts’ WorkforceTraining Fund has a separatepool of technical assistancefunds available to partnershipsprior to applying for traininggrants with the goal of encour-aging business to more thor-oughly assess their trainingneeds.

The Kentucky Community andTechnical College System pro-vides intensive technical assis-tance to colleges as they devel-op their applications for CareerPathways projects and doesn’t

mandate a firm deadline forproposals in order to give col-leges time to develop relation-ships with their business part-ners and clearly develop plans.KCTCS encourages its col-leges, in collaboration withemployers, to engage in severalsteps before applying for grantsincluding mapping jobadvancement opportunities anddefining the content of train-ing programs and the type ofsupport services required.

Program managers consistentlyreported that allowing for a suffi-cient planning period was criticalin order to fully develop a unifiedvision for the program. Most ofthese programs did not offer anyfunds to cover expenses associatedwith planning; some officialsthought the process would havebeen improved had planningfunds been available.

USE TRAINING PARTNERSHIPSTO HELP BUSINESSES IDENTIFYCOMMON TRAINING NEEDS.

One of the benefits of trainingpartnerships for workforce devel-opment is that the state can playan intermediary role among sever-al businesses to identify commontraining needs—something thatbusinesses are unlikely to do ontheir own (Simon, 1997). Usingstate dollars to support trainingprojects that benefit more thanone employer can help stretchstate funds and ensure that work-ers are gaining portable skills andcredentials. It can also reduce thecompetitive risks to companies ofinvesting in training if they andtheir competitors agree to makesimilar investments, such as paidrelease time for those in training.

While the state incumbent andcustomized worker training pro-grams profiled in this report did

Photo courtesy of Louisiana Incumbent Worker Training Program.

22


not fund training associated withbusinesses’ proprietary processes,we did not find a strong emphasison funding training for skills thatare portable across employers.Career Pathways initiatives andstate skills certificates and panelsappear to do a better job ofaggregating training needsbecause they typically focus on asector, rather than on an individ-ual firm.

Massachusetts’ Extended CareCareer Ladder Initiative wasestablished to improve thequality of care in nursinghomes across the state. Whilegrantees are given flexibility todetermine the exact content ofthe training, the state providesguidance regarding the contentof training including a careerladder component, case man-agement and career counseling,basic skills, “culture change”training to improve the envi-ronment in nursing homes, andsupervisory training.

DESIGNATE SPECIFIC STATE ANDLOCAL STAFF TO MANAGE STATEAND LOCAL PARTNERSHIPOPERATIONS.

Gaining funding for an initiative isonly the start—there must also besystems in place to address theprogrammatic issues that oftenemerge during the operationalphase. The programs we studiedfaced challenges such as develop-ing curriculum, setting appropri-ate schedules, arranging releasetime, and identifying an appropri-ate number of participants. Severalof the projects found they workedbest if they continued to involve

all partners throughout the tenureof the project—in particular,involving businesses in strategicways helped minimize the impactof unexpected problems. Most ofthe projects identified a lead per-son who was responsible for over-seeing both the planning andoperational phases of the effort.This person organized monthly orquarterly meetings to convenebusiness and training providers toensure that the program was pro-ceeding as desired and to addressany emerging issues or concerns.

In the Louisiana IncumbentWorker Training Program, statestaff designated to assist localpartnerships in applying forgrants continue to monitor per-formance and provide technicalassistance to each partnershipafter a grant is issued (see ACloser Look: Louisiana, below).

The Extended Care CareerLadder Initiative includes aprogram manager at the statelevel as well as individual proj-ect managers at each granteewho are closely involved inmonitoring the partnership andthe services provided.

Georgia Department ofTechnical and Adult Educationstaff manage the partnershipsthat develop the CertifiedSpecialist Programs. At the locallevel, each of Georgia’s techni-cal colleges has a Vice Presidentof Economic Development whoworks with businesses to under-stand their workforce needs andto market the statewide pro-grams and other college-deliv-ered services such as QuickStart (customized training fornew or expanding businesses)and contract training. There are

A Closer Look: Louisiana

Regional Staff Provide Technical Assistance and EnsureAccountabilityIn addition to central managerial and administrative staff at the statelevel, the Louisiana Department of Labor (LDOL) employs several staffat the regional level to oversee the Incumbent Worker TrainingProgram. Within each of eight regions, LDOL employs a RegionalManager who markets the program, an application specialist whoworks with the employer and the training provider to identify andresolve any issues with the application before it is formally submittedto LDOL, and a program advisor who monitors compliance and per-formance once a grant has been issued (including a site visit to pro-vide technical assistance within 30 days of the grant award). There aremonthly conference calls involving staff from all the regions to ensureconsistency across regions in the development of applications. Stafffrom all regions participate in a statewide review team to review appli-cations and provide feedback. LDOL also employs several regionalBusiness Service Representatives who market a range of LDOL pro-grams to employers including the incumbent worker program.

✜

23


also account managers who arefamiliar with the industry.

Kentucky Community andTechnical College System statestaff noted that curriculumdevelopment and approvalissues were a stumbling blockthat slowed implementation;had there been a state staff per-son hired to oversee thesefunctions, these challenges mayhave been overcome morequickly. The state recentlyhired a statewide curriculumand articulation specialist whowill offer technical assistance tolocal colleges and faculty and assess and facilitate imple-mentation.

CREATE MECHANISMS TOENSURE THAT THE REVIEW ANDAPPROVAL PROCESS FORCHOOSING GRANTEES ISTRANSPARENT, FAIR, ANDADDRESSES THE NEEDS OFSMALL BUSINESS.

Training partnerships can sufferwhen the grant applicationprocess for public funds is per-ceived as being biased—for exam-ple, that preference is given tocertain employers or trainingproviders based on political orother factors. Businesses maybecome resentful if grant awardsare viewed as unfair, especiallywhen the training is fundedthrough a tax levied on employers(as is the case in Louisiana,Massachusetts, and many otherstates). Small businesses, in partic-ular, may feel that they are lesslikely to be considered for and tobenefit from these programs thantheir larger counterparts.

Despite an obvious need formechanisms to facilitate trans-parency and accountability, theyare not always in place. The pro-grams we studied address theseissues by using grant applicationreview committees—which com-prise a range of organizations—todetermine which partnershipsreceived funding. Some have alsoestablished separate programs forsmall businesses.

Massachusetts’ WorkforceTraining Fund has a three-tierreview process that includesrecommendations from thelocal WIBs, review by stategovernment staff from a rangeof agencies, and final decisionsby an outside advisory panelconsisting of business and laborleaders.

The Extended Care CareerLadder Initiative has an adviso-ry board composed of key rep-resentatives from a range ofpublic and private sector insti-tutions to provide oversightand guidance to the program.The application approvalprocess relies on an interagencyteam of seven staff to evaluateproposals.

Louisiana’s Incumbent WorkerTraining Program gives extrapoints in the grant applicationprocess to small business applicants.

Both Louisiana andMassachusetts have separateincumbent worker training ini-tiatives for small businesses(those with fewer than 50employees) that provide aid toindividual workers to purchase

“off the shelf” (not cus-tomized) training available inthe community. Over half ofMassachusetts’ grants havebeen awarded to employerswith fewer than 100 workers.(See profiles in Part Three forfurther details.)

TRACK PARTNERSHIPS’ PER-FORMANCE—IN PARTICULAR,OUTCOMES FOR WORKERS,BUSINESSES, AND THE PUBLIC—TO DEMONSTRATE PROGRAMSUCCESS AND IDENTIFYPROBLEM AREAS.

Few of the initiatives we examinedfor this report collected data onlabor market outcomes, such aswhether the trained workers expe-rienced wage increases and/or jobadvancement, or whether the statebusiness environment wasenhanced through higher produc-tivity or job growth. It was alsodifficult to determine the extentto which initiatives actually servedlow-wage workers.

While it can be challenging toconduct evaluations of these pro-grams, it is critical to collect dataon (1) participant outcomes suchas retention and wage advance-ment, and (2) the business envi-ronment, including worker pro-ductivity, overall job quality, andthe influx and retention of compa-nies in the state. This informationcan be used to demonstrate theeffects of the program and raiseawareness of the benefits of theapproach among policy makers,program administrators, the busi-ness community, and the public.

Some programs also use this infor-mation to gauge the performanceof individual grantees.

Three of the incumbent and cus-tomized worker training programswe studied—Louisiana’sIncumbent Worker TrainingProgram and Massachusetts’Extended Care Career LadderInitiative and Workforce TrainingFund—used performance on pastawards as criteria in future grantawards.

For ECCLI, state staff estab-lished certain data items thatgrantees are required to collect,developed a data system forgrantees to use, and monitoredthe quality of the reported data.These data were incorporatedinto several policy briefs for thestate legislature. The programhas experienced some fundinguncertainties as a result of theannual appropriations process inthe state legislature. The factthat is it now in its fifth year ofoperation is due in part due tothese policy briefs.

The Kentucky Career Pathwaysprogram—still in its infancy atthe time of this report—notedin its Request for Proposals thatgrantees must submit outcomesdata on: partnerships estab-lished by community and tech-nical colleges; recruitment; cur-riculum and job alignment;instructional innovation; newhires from the pathway pro-gram; wage advancement in thepathway program; and duplica-tion of career pathway model inother sectors.

For Louisiana’s IncumbentWorker Training Program, per-formance for each grantee ismeasured based on wageincreases for those who wentthrough the training, the totalnumber of people trained, andthe number of jobs created bythe grant (which occurs whenan individual receiving trainingis subsequently promoted andthe vacated position is filled).

WHERE POSSIBLE, ESTABLISH DEDICATED FUNDING MEANS—FOR EXAMPLE, UI TAX REVENUES—TO ENSURE GREATERGROWTH AND STABILITY.

Some programs experience opera-tional difficulties when fundinglevels change significantly overtime. In our study, programs withthe most stable funding were thosethat had a designated revenuesource rather than competing forstate general revenue funds.

The incumbent and customizedworker training programs westudied in Louisiana andMassachusetts are funded byemployer contributions to theUI tax. Because the taxes arepaid by business and funneledback into partnerships thatinclude employers, support formaintaining funding remainshigh. In fiscal year 2005,Massachusetts increased fundingfor its program from $18 to $21million per year. This is attrib-uted to increased state revenuesthrough the UI taxes and thepopularity of the program withbusiness.

In Massachusetts, ECCLI—which is appropriated funds by

the state legislature—has facedfunding uncertainties; the pro-gram has survived with fundingintact, albeit reduced.

Louisiana’s Incumbent WorkerTraining Program was one thelargest of its kind in the country,on a per capita basis, receiving$50 million annually from UIemployer taxes beforeHurricanes Rita and Katrina,which led the state to suspendthe program.

The state lottery funds theGeorgia HOPE Grant, whichcovers tuition, books, and feesfor Georgia residents enrolled inthe Certified Specialist Programsand other certificate and diplo-ma programs at technical andcommunity colleges in the state.

INSTITUTIONALIZE TRAININGDEVELOPED THROUGH THE PARTNERSHIP SO THAT OTHERWORKERS AND BUSINESSES—OUTSIDE OF THOSE INITIALLYINVOLVED—CAN BENEFIT FROMTHE STATE INVESTMENT.

Because training partnerships gen-erally fund training for a specificnumber of workers, it can be diffi-cult to develop programs thatbecome a permanent part of anemployer’s commitment to skilldevelopment for their workers.Some of the programs studied inthis report focused on developingmechanisms to sustain training inthe absence of continued publicresources.

One of Kentucky’s goals withthe Career Pathways start-upmoney is to institutionalize the


24

program at the local level sothat when the state grants end,the pathways will continue.Community college staff reportthey are confident that the cur-riculum additions, flexiblescheduling, and partnershipsbuilt with business will contin-ue, because these are systemicchanges that, once established,are not dependent on statemoney.

An advantage of Georgia’sCertified Specialist Programs isthat, unlike many customizedtraining projects, the offeringsare not limited to a set of work-ers at a particular workplace.Instead, they are easily transfer-able to other institutions andbusinesses. The curricula andcertificates are standardized,making it easy for every techni-cal college in the state to offerthem—which allows equalaccess across the state andensures continuation of the cer-tificates regardless of the avail-ability of HOPE Grants.

More than 20 other states haveexpressed interest in Georgia’sCertified Specialist Programs asa means to increase the skills oftheir residents. For example,Wyoming community collegesidentified a need for short-termtraining and found Georgia’scertificates met their needs.Wyoming’s community collegesand high schools have offeredthe certificates for several years,with over 800 certificates grant-ed. When Lowe’s opened awarehouse in Cheyenne,Wyoming, Laramie CountyCommunity College offered theCertified Warehousing and

Distribution Specialist curricu-lum for pre-employment train-ing. Lowe’s said it was theirquickest, easiest startup, primari-ly due to the well-trained work-ers.

To lower the costs of providingfuture training, both Louisiana’sIncumbent Worker TrainingProgram and Massachusetts’Workforce Training Fund lookfor opportunities to invest incurriculum and equipment thatcan be used in subsequent train-ing programs. In Louisiana,equipment purchased as a partof an IWTP training contractwith a particular employer con-tinues to be the property of thecommunity college after thatgrant ends, allowing other busi-nesses and students access to it.

Conclusion and Next StepsTraining partnerships can be effec-tive in helping advance the skillsand prospects of low-wage work-ers. Among the most effectivepartnerships are those that targetthe range of workers’ needs—forexample, providing basic educationand English language training aswell as job skills enhancement—and that offer training at accessibletimes and locations, address com-mon barriers to advancement and“soft skill” issues, involve business-es and key players from the start,and incorporate accountabilitymeasures. These, in turn, can helpstates and localities attract high-quality employers, and enable busi-nesses to advance the skills of their

workforce, boost retention rates,and improve productivity.

The five partnerships discussed inthis report represent several of thebest-developed strategies for statesand localities to work with businessto advance low-wage workers—doing so was part of their design,and government and business lead-ers were involved from the start.Building on what has been learnedfrom these efforts, states and local-ities can take training partnershipsto the next level.

To go to scale and serve a muchhigher share of businesses and low-wage workers in a state, states andlocalities must move beyond isolat-ed partnership projects and buildthe capacity of a state’s entireworkforce education system—which includes a wide range ofadult and postsecondary educationservices—to carry out this work.Specifically, the workforce educa-tion system should be able to per-form the following five tasks.

1. Fund statewide innovationand program improvement inworkforce education so thatthe system can better meetworker and business needs.Needed changes includeexpanding evening and weekendcollege offerings and putting inplace articulation agreements inhigh demand occupations sothat workforce education creditstransfer and lead to a degree.

2. Ensure workforce educationprograms statewide reflect theskills low-wage workers needto advance and businessesneed to grow. The partnerships


25

described in this report illustratethe ways in which mechanismssuch as career pathways andskills certificates can bringtogether employers with similarworkforce needs. States can veri-fy whether their workforce edu-cation programs are in factmeeting business and workerneeds by using UI wage data totrack employment and earningsoutcomes for workforce educa-tion graduates at all levels.

3. Support success for low-income adults in workforceeducation programs acrossthe state. States can do thisthrough flexible financial aidfor workforce education such asGeorgia’s HOPE Grants andIllinois’ Monetary AssistanceProgram (IMAP)3 grants,through a case managementapproach to college advisingthat give workers personalizedsupport, by expanding childcare access, and by helping

workers combine work andschool through work study jobsand internships.

4. Improve the pipeline of low-income adults into postsec-ondary workforce educationby increasing the speed andvolume of transitions betweenadult education and Englishlanguage services, job train-ing, and college workforceprograms. One promising wayfor states to do this is by com-bining adult education andEnglish language instructionwith workforce education, as inWashington state’s IntegratedBasic Education and SkillsTraining (I-BEST) pilots orcareer pathway “bridge” pro-grams in Illinois and Arkansas.

5. Align state policies acrossprograms and accountabilitysystems to support businessgrowth and low-wage workeradvancement. States will havemore success in achieving these

twin goals if various state poli-cies and programs are notworking at cross purposes. Astate can do a baseline assess-ment of its policies across rele-vant programs, such as welfare,job training, adulteducation/English as a SecondLanguage, college institutionalfunding, student aid, child care,and economic development toascertain where gaps and con-flicts lie and address them. Forexample, if state funding forcommunity and technical col-leges systematically gives institu-tions much less support foradult education and workforceprograms than it actually coststo operate them, the postsec-ondary system will have littleincentive to increase its offer-ings to meet business and low-wage worker needs.


26

3 The Illinois Monetary Assistance Program (IMAP) is a state-funded, need-based financial aid program that covers collegetuition and mandatory fees for undergraduate students enrolled for a minimum of three credit hours.

27

Further Study: Profiles of Government-Business Partnerships for Training

Section 3

This section provides furtherdetail on the five initiatives

profiled in this report. All fivegovernment-business partnershipsprovided training to low-wageworkers to help them advance.The types of approaches are asfollows.

Incumbent Worker andCustomized Training programsgive businesses grants to partnerwith training providers to offerjob-specific training of incumbentworkers and/or new hires.

Louisiana Incumbent WorkerTraining Program (IWTP)

Massachusetts WorkforceTraining Fund (WTF)

Career Ladders or Pathways ini-tiatives map the range of jobs andlinked educational opportunities,typically within a specific sector,and fill gaps in education andtraining services.

Kentucky Career Pathways

Massachusetts Extended CareCareer Ladder Initiative(ECCLI)

State Skills Certificates andPanels convene employers withina particular business or industrysector to ascertain workforcedevelopment needs and/or togive individuals occupational cre-dentials that are portable fromone employer to another.

Georgia Statewide CertifiedSpecialist Programs

The following pages detail theseinitiatives in alphabetical order by state.

Photo courtesy of Louisiana Incumbent Worker Training Program.


28

Goals and Program Context:To assist businesses in findingskilled workers by developing stan-dardized, statewide, for-credit cur-ricula and credentials in key occu-pational sectors. The state’s HOPEGrants, which pay for up to twoyears of college for any Georgiaresident, are essential to makingthese certificate programs widelyavailable to businesses and workers(see Funding Levels below).

Lead Agency/Organization andProgram Partners: Thestatewide Certified SpecialistPrograms are developed by theGeorgia Department of Technicaland Adult Education in partner-ship with groups of businesses.Specifically, staff from theDepartment’s customized trainingdivision—Quick Start—are closelyinvolved. The Georgia Depart-ment of Economic Developmentmarkets the training and creden-tials to other businesses. TheDepartment of Technical andAdult Education convenes groupsof businesses to identify the skillsets needed in a particular occupa-tional cluster and every year thesebusiness groups revisit the creden-tial to keep it current. These pro-grams are delivered by the state’s34 technical colleges and four uni-versity colleges with technical divi-sions, which together offer 76class locations across the state.

Target Population: Generally,the target population is highschool graduates or GED holders,regardless of their age or employ-ment status, with the fivestatewide certifications aimed atthose with lower skills.4 How-ever, colleges can waive the highschool diploma/GED require-ment on a case-by-case basis withpermission from the state’sDepartment of Technical andAdult Education. College eco-nomic development staff workwith employers to market theCertified Specialist Programs toincumbent workers and otherpotential employees. The busi-nesses that use the credentialsrange in size from 15 employeesto 1,500; most are under 250employees. The Department ofTechnical and Adult Educationsometimes creates classes for smallbusinesses that combine employ-ees from several workplaces.

Funding Levels and Sources:Funding for development of thecurricula and credentials for thestatewide Certified SpecialistPrograms came from theDepartment of Technical andAdult Education. HOPEGrants—Georgia’s financial aidprogram for public postsecondaryprograms at the diploma or cer-tificate level or less—cover thetuition and fees and provide a

book allowance(up to a total of95 quarter hours or 63 semesterhours with exceptions for pro-grams requiring more hours or forthose returning for an additionaldiploma or certificate). HOPEGrants can also pay for remedialeducation courses. To qualify for aHOPE Grant, one must havebeen a resident of Georgia for 12months, not have a Bachelor’sdegree, and not have prior drugcharges or defaults on studentloans. In addition, the studentmust be enrolled in a programleading toward a technical certifi-cate or diploma. Students enrolledless than half-time—taking, forexample, one course at a time—can receive HOPE Grants.Businesses also sometimes pay forclasses for their employees, astuition remains relatively low atthe Department’s colleges ($45-$46 per credit hour, with tuitioncapped at 12 credit hours even if astudent enrolls for more hours).

Enrollment Levels: The numberof certificates awarded throughthe Certified Specialist Programshas grown rapidly. The CustomerService Certificate is the credentialmost in demand (over 10,000awarded) followed by manufactur-ing (over 7,100 awarded), thenconstruction, and then warehous-ing. Warehousing is a relatively

4 The Department of Technical and Adult Education requires the following ASSET scores for entrance into the fiveCertificates: Reading 38, English 35, and Math 35.

Statewide Certified Specialist Programs

Georgia


29

new credential, and demand for itseems to be increasing substantial-ly each year. The credentials repre-sent only about 5 percent of allthe technical certificates awardedby the technical college system.

Program Design:

Employer-created, standard-ized statewide credentials andcurricula offered for collegecredit in five high-demandoccupational areas. While over500 for-credit technical certifi-cate programs are offered at the34 technical colleges and fouruniversities in the state, onlyfive are part of the CertifiedSpecialist Programs and createdby employers, in groups con-vened by the state, who thenlend their company endorse-ments to the certification.These five are:• Certified Manufacturing

Specialist; • Certified Warehousing and

Distribution Specialist;• Certified Construction

Worker;• Certified Customer Service

Specialist;• Certified Life and Health

Insurance Specialist.

Quarterly enrollment.Students can enroll each quar-ter in the programs, and col-leges can offer them moreoften if a business—or a groupof small businesses—hasenough workers to train to cre-ate a class.

Length. The programs are 15to 16 quarter credit hours. Forexample, incumbent workers

earning the CertifiedManufacturing Specialist certifi-cate at Lanier TechnicalCollege attend class two nightsa week, three hours a night, forabout five months, with 160hours of class time.

Cost. The Department ofTechnical and Adult Educationcharges $45-$46 per quartercredit hour for its TechnicalCertificates of Credit, includingthe Certified SpecialistPrograms. The cost to the student of the CertifiedManufacturing Specialist credential is approximately$1,050, almost all of which canusually be covered by theHOPE Grant.

For-credit classes. The fivestatewide Certified SpecialistPrograms, as well as the other500 technical certificates offeredby the technical colleges, arefor-credit so that students canbuild toward diplomas orAssociate’s and Bachelor’sdegrees. For example, theCertified ManufacturingSpecialist is articulated to anAssociate’s degree in manufac-turing technology, which connects to a Bachelor’s degreein applied sciences with amanufacturing major.

Marketing and outreach. Thefive statewide CertifiedSpecialist Programs are market-ed to potential students as away to advance in their careers,and branded with the logos ofbusinesses that helped to createthe credential. College VicePresidents for EconomicDevelopment and other col-lege-based Certified Economic

Development Trainers marketthe credentials to employers.For example, Kubota Manufac-turing wanted to find a way togive workers incentives toimprove their job performance.The local college, LanierTechnical College, told themabout the Certified Manufac-turing Specialist training pro-gram and Kubota agreed to payany of its workers who earnedthe credential $1 more an hour.

Flexible scheduling. TheDepartment of Technical andAdult Education makes aneffort to schedule classes attimes that workers can attendthem. For example, for theKubota workers, Lanier agreedto offer classes early in themorning before one factoryshift started and again in theevening after another shiftended. They also offer theCertified ManufacturingSpecialist course in Spanish, uti-lizing the state’s Spanish cur-riculum, as many of the work-ers are Hispanic immigrants.The Department sometimesalso compresses the classes forgroups of students who havenot yet started work (e.g.,offering eight hours a day oftraining for several weeks).

Staffing: Each college has a VicePresident for EconomicDevelopment who works witharea businesses to meet theirworkforce development needs.The college may partner withQuick Start on a project for anemployer and then continue towork with the employer to meetongoing training needs on a cost-


30

recovery (fee for service) basis. Atthe state level, there is an AssistantCommissioner for EconomicDevelopment Programs within theDepartment of Technical andAdult Education.

Program Outcomes: No data onprogram completion rates oremployment and earnings out-comes are available specifically forthe Certified Specialist Programs;however, there is information onthe numbers of each program spe-cialist certificate awarded. A 1999survey found that ten years afterprogram completion, 80 percentof graduates of Georgia’s technicaleducation programs wereemployed in their fields of training(Carl Vinson Institute, 1999).

Lessons:

Make replication easy. Startingnew, for-credit occupational pro-grams can be difficult for localcolleges. Colleges typically do nothave funding for the start-up costsof creating a new program; theyoften receive state aid (based onFull Time Equivalent enrollment)and tuition only after students areenrolled in it. With Georgia’sstatewide Certified SpecialistPrograms, the state takes on thetime-consuming task of bringingtogether businesses with commonworkforce needs and pays fordevelopment of the curricula andall the instructional materials. This

makes it easier for local colleges tooffer the training. Materials forthe statewide certifications areintended to include everything acollege needs to offer the pro-gram, right down to scripts forthe instructors to follow. Becauseof this turnkey nature of the pro-grams, over 20 states haveexpressed interest in them andthree—Illinois, Nebraska andWyoming—have adopted severalof them.

Avoid duplicate efforts. Creatingthese skills certificates at the statelevel ensures that local colleges arenot duplicating each other’s cur-riculum development efforts.Local colleges can still customizetraining for local businesses whenthat is what is truly needed, but inmany instances a skills set is com-mon to a group of occupationsacross multiple employers in astate.

Make student aid available. Thefact that training is paid for by theHOPE Grant makes it possible forlarge numbers of businesses andworkers to use these certificates.States that offer statewide skillscertificate programs without suchstudent aid may find that they arenot as widely used.

Address the needs of lower-skilled workers. Generally work-ers must have high school diplo-mas or GEDs to enter these pro-

grams and they must score at acertain level on the ASSET test(see footnote #4 on page 28.)This prevents some lower-skilledworkers from entering the pro-grams. It is unclear whether thehigh school credentials andASSET scores required for entryinto the certificate programs trulyreflect the skills needed in thoseparticular jobs. If they do, oneway to address this issue would beto create bridge programs that arecustomized to the basic skills andEnglish language demands of thejob and that prepare individuals toenter the certificate programs.

Contact:

Pamela GriffinDirector Corporate/Customized ContractTraining OperationsGeorgia Department of Technicaland Adult Education75 Fifth Street, NW, Suite 400Atlanta, GA [email protected]

Jackie RohoskyAssistant Commissioner Economic Development ProgramsGeorgia Department of Technicaland Adult Education75 Fifth Street, NW, Suite 400Atlanta, GA [email protected]


31

Goals and Program Context:The Kentucky Career Pathwaysinitiative, spearheaded by theKentucky Community andTechnical College System(KCTCS), gives grants to localpartnerships of community col-leges and businesses to developand implement career maps thatfocus on job and educationaladvancement for low-income indi-viduals and meet business needs.Based on employer input, thesepathways lay out a sequence ofconnected skills upgrading andjob opportunities, with each edu-cation step on the pathway lead-ing to a job or further training.KCTCS expects the pathway ini-tiative to strengthen links betweenlocal employers and colleges, andpromote better coordinationbetween the remedial, workforce,and academic sides of the commu-nity colleges.

Kentucky received a FordFoundation “Bridges to Oppor-tunity” grant, which allowed thestate to embark upon a strategicplanning process, including stake-holders from the public and pri-vate sectors, to determine how tohelp Kentuckians gain the skillsand resources to advance in theworkplace and achieve economicself sufficiency. The CareerPathways initiative grew out ofthis planning process. Several localcollege officials said they had beenexploring the pathways conceptprior to the state initiative, but

that the KCTCS money providedthe impetus and ability to move toimplementation much morequickly. KCTCS perceives itsfunding as seed money to initiatepathways with hopes that the col-leges will permanently integratethem into their work.

Lead Agency/Organization andProgram Partners: KCTCS is thelead agency with implementationby the 16 community and techni-cal colleges, in partnership withbusiness. Business partners helpcolleges determine which coursesand material to include in the cur-riculum and provide referrals fortraining and employment oppor-tunities, as well as funding. Otherpartners may include adult educa-tion providers, local WorkforceInvestment Boards (WIBs), localOne-Stop Centers, economicdevelopment agencies, Chambersof Commerce, welfare agencies,high schools, and four-year colleges.

Target Population: Low-skilled,low-income individuals (employedand unemployed). The statehopes that employers will fill jobsvacated by incumbent workerswho move up the career ladderwith newly trained unemployedindividuals, such as hiring addi-tional Certified Nursing Assistants(CNAs) when former CNAsadvance to Licensed PracticalNurse (LPN) positions. There aremultiple entry points, depending

upon prioreducation. The pathways includeremedial bridges and the KCTCSopen admissions policy allows stu-dents to be enrolled without ahigh school diploma/GED as wellas the dual enrollment of studentsin KCTCS and adult basic educa-tion or GED programs. Some ofthe pathways have adult educationpartners that can provide remedia-tion as well.

Funding Levels and Sources:KCTCS is providing between$100,000 to $300,000 in two-year grants to the 16 participatingcolleges or districts. The fundingcomes primarily from theKentucky Workforce InvestmentNetwork System (KY WINS), thestate’s incumbent worker trainingfund. KCTCS does not requirebusiness partners in CareerPathways to provide a cash match,although several business partnersoffer financial support rangingfrom $31,000 to $120,000 for atotal of over $800,000. Businessesare making substantial in-kinddonations totaling nearly $3 mil-lion. For instance, inElizabethtown, the college negoti-ated the use of facilities andequipment with the hospital andthe hospital is subsidizing the costof the nursing professors (salaryand health benefits). Several busi-nesses are providing release timefor employees and some are pay-ing tuition. In some places, WIBsare providing financial support,

Career Pathways Initiative

Kentucky


32

such as $40,000 for a mobileclassroom. Some students, includ-ing those attending part time,receive state and federal financialaid, including TANF or WIAfunding.

Enrollment Levels: Sixteen col-leges have received CareerPathways grants. By January2006, 15 had started implementa-tion of their pathways. Over halfof those began working to imple-ment Career Pathways in the fallof 2004. In Fall 2005, over 400Career Pathways students wereenrolled at 11 of the colleges.Nearly 1,000 students have beenserved overall. These studentshave been, or are currently being,served through for-credit course-work at colleges, or engaged insuch non-credit coursework asworkforce training and AdultBasic Education and GED programs.

Program Design:

Application process. KCTCSreleased its request for propos-als in September 2003, andapproved its first pathway inthe summer of 2004. KCTCShas provided substantial techni-cal assistance to colleges inrefining their proposals so thatpathways are clearly articulatedwhen approved. Colleges thatsubmitted strong applicationsare mentoring colleges thatsubmitted less developed appli-cations.

Planning process. Beforeapplying, KCTCS encouragedinstitutions to engage in several

steps focused on mapping jobadvancement opportunities anddesigning programs to supportadvancement along pathways intargeted occupations. It askedthe colleges and their partnersto consider how to create artic-ulated educational pathways todegrees and careers, create acoordinated assessment andenrollment system, provide thesupports students need toadvance along career pathways,ensure adequate funding ofcareer pathway programs andservices at all levels, redesignprograms within partner insti-tutions, establish systems totrack student progress, andobtain buy-in from businesspartners. Colleges generallytook about a year for this plan-ning process.

Pathway design. Colleges hadgreat flexibility in designingtheir pathways, includingchoosing the sector, the struc-ture of the pathway, and howbest to use the KCTCS funds.Business is helping identifyskills and competencies neededfor modules, as well as assistingfaculty with strategic sequenc-ing of skill sets. • Thirteen of the KCTCS col

leges/districts are developing allied health career pathways.

• Two colleges are building manufacturing pathways.

• One college is specializing in construction.

Business partners. All of theinstitutions pursuing alliedhealth pathways include one ormore major medical centers aspartners to assist in designingthe pathway and providing

resources to the project, suchas clinical sites, clinical staff,and use of labs andtraining/classroom space.Businesses are also offeringtuition reimbursement, scholar-ships, employer funded or sub-sidized instructors, and flexiblework schedules to allow incum-bent workers to access training.

Role of adult education.Adult education providers areseen as potential entry pointsinto the pathway and in somecases, will deliver basic skillsinstruction customized to thecareer pathway. The role ofadult education varies by geo-graphical location according toeach college’s relationship withthe provider and the needs ofparticipants.

Bridge programs. Colleges areencouraged to develop bridgeprograms that teach basic skillslike math, reading, and work-place skills in the context oftraining for jobs and help movethe student from one step tothe next on the ladder.

For-credit/non-credit. Thepathways are primarily credit-based training which may beaugmented with non-creditcustomized training as neces-sary. KCTCS colleges have flex-ibility to pilot their career path-way curricula (and new coursesor certificate program) for oneyear with the permission of theChancellor without goingthrough the formal curriculumapproval process. KCTCSintends for the pathways at thetwo-year institutions to articu-late with certificates, diplomas,and Associate’s and Bachelor’s


33

degrees for those students whowish to pursue additional education.

Curricular innovation. TheCareer Pathways approach isencouraging KCTCS institu-tions to offer curriculums inmodularized formats, at alter-native times (such as eveningand weekends), and at alterna-tive sites, such as at the work-place. Modularization—break-ing longer programs down intorelatively small chunks with cre-dentials awarded for eachchunk—helps meet the needsof low-wage workers by allow-ing students to move through acertificate or degree program attheir own pace. KCTCS isencouraging its colleges tojointly develop curriculum so asto avoid duplicative efforts.

Support services. The collegesare utilizing an intensive casemanagement approach whichmay include providing accessand/or referral to child care,transportation assistance, finan-cial aid, tutoring, mentoring,academic advising, careercoaching, and job placement.

Building capacity. Collegesare using the state and businessfunds in a variety of ways.Some colleges are hiring dedi-cated staff to assist with coordi-nating support services, such ascareer counseling and casemanagement. One collegehired two nursing instructors.Other colleges are hiring coor-dinators who will oversee theimplementation of the pathway.KCTCS also hopes to providefaculty stipends for English,

reading, and math curriculumdesign.

Staffing: The state CareerPathways steering team comprisesseven KCTCS staff who reviewedand assisted with applications, andprovide technical assistance withdevelopment and implementation.Each KCTCS institution has aCareer Pathways team that hasguided local efforts. KCTCSfunds can be used by colleges tohire full-time coordinators orother staff.

Program Outcomes: The statehopes that the outcomes willdemonstrate that such strategiesare effective in advancing low-income adults and meeting busi-ness’ needs. At the time thisreport was published, KCTCS wasfinalizing outcome measures anddetermining how to collect datathat will meet the demands of theKY WINS, KCTCS, and the FordFoundation while not burdeninglocal colleges. The state wouldlike to track the number of stu-dents transitioning from AdultBasic Education, high schools,and vocational education to thecollege pathways. Colleges willalso collect information on thenumber of pathway studentsreceiving work experiencethrough the pathway program;and their employment status (fieldof employment, hours per weekemployed, income level) prior toentering the pathway, at separa-tion or completion of a program,and three quarters after separationor completion. The proposedprocess evaluation is collecting

information on a variety of vari-ables including, but not limitedto: number of partners, targetedrecruitment from different part-ners, specialized counseling forpathway entry and advancement,the variety of program funding,curriculum alignment, andinstructional innovation. Onetricky issue is how to define aPathways student—at what pointin the process of preparing toenter a pathway should someonebe counted as a participant?

Lessons:

Build relationships with busi-ness. The initiative requires thatcareer pathway efforts includebusiness from the start. Effortsmust also consider how their edu-cational programs interface withthe labor market. This was partial-ly due to using KY WINS, thestate’s incumbent worker trainingprogram, as a funding source,since KY WINS grants mustinclude business partners. Theinvolvement of college workforcedevelopment staff has also helpedkeep the focus on meeting busi-ness workforce needs.

Bridge the gap between adulteducation and postsecondaryeducation. These connections arecritical to making Career Pathwaysaccessible to those with lowerskills, but often different institu-tions are providing those services,making it more difficult for stu-dents to transition from one tothe other. Adult education recent-ly moved at the state level to theCouncil on Postsecondary


34

Education, putting it under thesame administrative roof as thecommunity colleges and making iteasier to collaborate at the locallevel. Local adult education servic-es, however, are still typicallydelivered by local school districts,not by the community colleges.

Anticipate that curricula devel-opment will be a major chal-lenge. The flexibility encouragedby the Career Pathways initiativedoes not fit easily with the morerigid structure of the for-creditdivisions of the local colleges. Forexample, some curriculum com-mittees were originally hesitant toapprove curriculum revisions,which slowed down implementa-tion. One KCTCS official notedthat the effort might have movedmore quickly had the system hireda state-level curriculum specialistat the start to guide collegesthrough the process. The staterecently hired a statewide curricu-lum and articulation specialistwho will offer technical assistanceto local colleges and faculty and

assess and facilitate the pathways’implementation. KCTCS also real-izes that curriculum design is achallenging task for professorsteaching at least 15 credit hours,and so will offer faculty stipendsto support such work.

Strike a balance between meet-ing the needs of business andworkers. An ongoing challengefor the initiative has been meetingthe demands of business for qual-ified individuals who are well-trained in a timely manner whileproviding students with portablecredentials tied to credit anddegrees. Translating non-credit,quick turnaround courses on theworkforce development side intofor-credit career pathways hasbeen a continual challenge.

Modularize courses to make iteasier for workers to partici-pate. In order to meet the needsof working adults, who may bejuggling family, job, and school,and the demands of business, it is necessary to pursue non-traditional delivery methods.

Although modularization is attrac-tive because it gives students theflexibility to pursue a certificate,diploma or degree in smallerchunks, it is challenging and timeconsuming to develop modulesthat meet the demands of curricu-lum committees and qualify forfinancial aid.

Contact:

Shauna King-SimmsDirector of Adult EducationPartnerships and TransitionsKentucky Community andTechnical College System300 North Main Street Versailles, KY [email protected]

Keith BirdChancellor Kentucky Community andTechnical College System300 North Main Street Versailles, KY [email protected]


35

Goals and Program Context:The Incumbent Worker TrainingProgram (IWTP) is designed tobenefit business and industry byhelping existing employeesimprove their job skills. TheIWTP aims to promote the careerand wage advancement of workersand to help companies grow.Grants are provided to partner-ships of employers and trainingproviders for the provision of cus-tomized training to incumbentworkers. The program was estab-lished in 1998, and began issuinggrants in 1999.5

Lead Agency/Organization andProgram Partners: The programis operated by the LouisianaDepartment of Labor (LDOL),with oversight provided by theGovernor’s Office of theWorkforce Commission.

Target Population: The pro-gram is designed only for individ-uals who are currently working.New hires are eligible but canreceive training only after theyhave been hired. It does not tar-get any population of workersspecifically, although some prefer-ence is given through the grantapproval process to employerswho have hired public assistancerecipients and ex-offenders recent-ly (but does not require that these

individuals be included in thetraining). The program focuses onthe provision of training for jobswith career ladders.

Funding Levels and Sources:The program is funded by a por-tion of the state UI tax dedicatedsolely to customized training. Theprogram started at a funding levelof $6 million in 1999, and subse-quently reached a funding level of$50 million per year. There is a$4.5 million cap on the level ofeach individual grant. Grants aver-age about $380,000, but there isa large range across the awards(from about $28,000 up to thecap amount). Up to 10 percent ofthe award can be spent on admin-

istrative costs. The IWTP encour-ages but does not require anemployer match. Employer contri-butions are factored into a ratingform used to evaluate all IWTPapplications and employers receivepoints based on the percentage ofcontributions. Most employerscontribute about 10-15 percent ofthe grant amount.

Enrollment Levels: Since 1999,the program has trained about90,000 workers for 870 compa-nies in more than 40 industries.Over this period, LDOL hasissued close to 600 grants andthey generally issue at least 100grants per year. Since 2004, theSmall Business Employee Training

5 Note: In September 2005, the state suspended the program in order to re-evaluate its funding commitments in light ofbudgetary demands resulting from Hurricanes Rita and Katrina.

IWTP training, courtesy of Louisiana Incumbent Worker Training Program.

Incumbent Worker Training Program (IWTP)

Louisiana


36

(SBET) program, a component ofIWTP, has trained about 400workers for 84 companies. Nearly250 awards have been issued.

Program Design:

Employer eligibility require-ments. To be eligible, anemployer must have been oper-ating in the state for threeyears, and contribute to thestate UI tax. Employers mustplan to train at least 15employees (smaller businessescan receive IWTP fundsthrough SBET, which isdescribed below).

Content and nature of thetraining. In the past, trainingcould last up to two years andemployers could only receiveone grant award within a two-year period. A recent rulechange now allows employersto apply for shorter trainingplans and reapply as often asthey like. Another recentchange was made to allow theSecretary of Labor to approvethree-year training plans. Thisnew provision is intended to beused only in cases where theselected curriculum for theemployer justifies a longertraining plan (e.g. LPN, RNand other Allied Heath trainingprograms). Most of the trainingis non-credit, although recentefforts to focus more on thehealth care industry will likelyresult in more for-credit cours-es being provided. Trainingcovers a wide range of indus-tries and occupations, with themajor grants recipients in

chemical, oil and gas, manufac-turing, and hospitality (hoteland motel). Training must beprovided in industries with pro-jected job growth and ingrowth occupations, and theprogram does cover someinstruction related to basicreading and math skills provid-ed it is job related.

Training providers. Theemployer selects the trainingprovider and can use public orprivate providers, althoughpreference is given to thoseusing public entities. Trainingproviders must demonstrate ahistory of successful trainingand collaboration with the tar-geted industry. About three-quarters of the awards go topublic institutions, primarilycommunity and technical colleges.

Application and approvalprocess. After proposal devel-opment and negotiation withregional LDOL staff (seestaffing section), IWTP applica-tions are submitted to the stateLDOL office and approved byLDOL management staff andthe Secretary of Labor. Theapproval process takes aboutthree months from the time ofsubmittal. Applications aregraded and can receive up to220 points, and must receiveover 100 points to be grantedan award. Points are givenbased on a number of criteria,including: • whether the business hasselected a public trainingprovider;

• whether it has received previ-ous IWTP awards; • whether it has listed jobopenings with LDOL;• whether it has donated mate-rials and equipment to a publictraining provider;• whether it has hired recentlyincarcerated individuals orthose receiving public assis-tance; • the level of projected wageincrease to result from training;• the availability of release timefor training; • the creation of new jobs; • the cost-effectiveness of theproposal;• the size of the business; and • the level of contributions thebusiness proposes to invest inthe training.

Marketing and outreach. Theprogram is marketed regionallyto employers by LDOL staff(see below) and RegionalBusiness Liaisons contractedout by LDOL through eightlocal Chambers of Commerce,often through face-to-facemeetings. They also meet withemployer groups/industryassociations and trainingproviders to inform them aboutoptions available under the pro-gram and have used some tele-vision and radio commercials.

Accountability. Performanceon each grant is measuredbased on wage increases forthose who went through thetraining (they prefer a goal ofabout a 10 percent increase),the total number of people


37

trained, and the number of newhires resulting from the grant(which occurs when an individ-ual receiving training is subse-quently promoted and thevacated position is filled). Themeasures of performance forthe small business grants aremore limited and are eitherbased on worker wage gains oron whether paid release time isprovided. Performance on pastawards is taken into account ifthe employer and/or trainingprovider apply for subsequentgrants.

Training for small businesses.In January 2004, Louisianaestablished the Small BusinessEmployee Training (SBET)program which reimbursesemployers for training receivedby individual incumbent work-ers through training programsavailable generally in the com-munity. Unlike other trainingfunded under IWTP, this train-ing is not customized to theindividual employer. SBET isdesigned for employers with 50or fewer employees.Approximately 2 percent ofIWTP funds are allocated tothe SBET program. The pro-gram covers the costs of tuitionand textbooks for up to $3,000per worker per year. Theemployer submits the applica-tion on behalf of the worker toLDOL and is reimburseddirectly upon completion of thetraining.

Staffing: In addition to centralmanagerial and administrative

staff, LDOL employs several staffat the regional level to oversee theprogram. Within each of eightregions, LDOL employs aRegional Manager who marketsthe program, an ApplicationSpecialist who works with theemployer and the trainingprovider to identify and resolveany issues with the applicationbefore it is formally submitted toLDOL, and a Program Advisorwho monitors compliance andperformance once a grant hasbeen issued (including a site visitto provide technical assistancewithin 30 days of the grantaward). There are monthly con-ference calls involving staff fromall the regions to ensure consis-tency across regions in the devel-opment of applications. In addi-tion, Application Specialistsstatewide review each other’sapplications. In order for an appli-cation to go forward, at leastthree of the seven ApplicationSpecialists must recommend it.LDOL also employs severalregional Business ServiceRepresentatives who market arange of LDOL programs toemployers, including the IWTPand the SBET.

Program Outcomes: There arestatewide performance objectivesfor the number of employees whocomplete training, the averagewage increase over 24 months andthe number of jobs to be created.For IWTP, those who completethe training have an average wageincrease of 13.9 percent.

Lessons:

Keep the application simple.The application process was ini-tially cumbersome, but the statehas streamlined it. The applicationused to be longer and required anarrative and more detailed costinformation; the state has elimi-nated the narrative and reducedthe cost categories from 23 to 6.The state recently implemented aWeb-based application system,after requests from employers andtraining providers, which will facilitate more systematic data collection for program evaluationpurposes.

Allow grants to be spent onequipment. Through the pro-gram, colleges receiving IWTPgrants have been able to invest invarious types of equipment need-ed for IWTP training and thenkeep that equipment to use insubsequent training programs.This increases colleges’ capacity asoutmoded equipment for trainingcan frequently be a problem inpublic training programs.

Personal contact is the mosteffective marketing. In market-ing IWTP, the state has foundthat face-to-face meetings withemployers, using trainingproviders to help make connec-tions with employers, and word-of-mouth have been the mosteffective methods.

Regional staff can play a valu-able role. The state has found theregional staffing arrangement—


38

which evolved over time—to becritical to allowing employers andcolleges to create high qualityapplications as regional staff helpthese local partnerships workthrough application issues aroundthe content and delivery of train-ing before formal submission. TheProgram Advisor position at theregional level was created toaddress past problems with per-formance so that in future grantsthose problems could beaddressed and resolved duringimplementation.

Business and workers findportable, industry-based certifi-cations valuable. Some companiesare interested in industry-basedcertifications and some trainingproviders, such as DelgadoCommunity College, are doingmore to offer for-credit training inareas such as insurance, health,and telecommunications. Staff atDelgado community collegereport that this provides anopportunity for students to thinkbeyond the employee trainingprogram and focus on longer-term education goals.

Contact Information:

Wendy ThibodeauxProgram ManagerIncumbent Worker TrainingProgramLouisiana Department of LaborPO Box 94094Baton Rouge, LA [email protected]

Fredell ButlerWorkforce IntermediaryCoordinator Office of the GovernorP. O. Box 94004Baton Rouge, LA [email protected]


39

Goals and Program Context:The Massachusetts Extended CareCareer Ladder Initiative (ECCLI)is part of a broader state initiativeto address the quality of care innursing homes.6 It was developedby the Massachusetts state legisla-ture to address high turnover andvacancies among CertifiedNursing Assistants (CNAs) inlong-term care. Enacted in 2000,the program aims to improve thequality of care through institutingcareer ladders and promoting skilldevelopment and other supportivepractices among nursing homestaff. ECCLI focuses primarily onCNAs who are generally responsi-ble for all aspects of direct resi-dent care in nursing homes. Someof the career ladders funded focuson lower-level jobs, such as foodservice and patient care assistantup through various levels ofCNAs, while more recent grantsfocus on building the upper partof the career ladder to help CNAsmove up to Licensed PracticalNurse (LPN) positions. The pro-gram provides grants to nursinghomes and home health agencieswho may partner with other long-term care facilities, communitycolleges, community-based organ-izations, regional WorkforceInvestment Boards (WIBs), andothers to create new career laddersfor direct care staff and to address

staff training, workenvironment, andquality of care issues.

Lead Agency/Organization andProgram Partners: The programis operated by the Common-wealth Corporation, a quasi-pub-lic state agency in Massachusettsresponsible for the developmentand oversight of many educationand training initiatives for adultsand youth. The ECCLI StateAdvisory Committee plays animportant role in providing over-all guidance on the project. Thiscommittee is composed of repre-sentatives of key partners in theprogram including the stateDepartment of Labor andWorkforce Development,Department of Education,Department of Public Health,Executive Office of CommunityColleges, AFL-CIO and otherunions, Workforce InvestmentBoard Association, theParaprofessional Health CareInstitute, and others. The leadagency for individual projects isgenerally a nursing home or occa-sionally a home health care organ-ization. The lead agency generallypartners with organizations toprovide training and other servic-es. Key training partners in theindividual projects vary butinclude community colleges, com-

munityorganiza-tions, andfor-profitorganizations. Regional WIBs are a required partner in the ini-tiatives and provide performancemanagement to the projects intheir local area.

Target Population: The targetpopulation for ECCLI is entry-level CNAs in nursing homes orother long-term care facilities.CNAs are not required to have ahigh school diploma, but arerequired to pass a state qualifyingexam. Average pay for entry-levelCNAs is in the range of $9.50 to$10.50 per hour. The majority ofCNAs are women (many are sin-gle parents) from diverse racialand ethnic backgrounds.

Funding Levels and Sources:From 2000 through 2003,ECCLI received funding totaling$7.2 million. The state legislaturehas appropriated an additional$8.2 million for 2004-2007. Sinceits inception in 2000, sevenrounds of grants have been issued.81 projects have been fundedoverall. The grant size for eachproject is typically around$150,000.

6 ECCLI is one of three initiatives under the Nursing Home Quality Initiative. Other components include a $10 million passthrough to increase wages for direct care workers by 10 percent and a $1 million scholarship program for entry-levelNurse/Home Health Aides.

Extended Care Career Ladder Initiative (ECCLI)

Massachusetts


40

Enrollment Levels: Over 4,000entry-level workers and 700 man-agers have participated in theECCLI project since 2000. About20 percent of the nursing homesin Massachusetts participate in theproject.

Program Design:

Career ladders. As specified inthe legislation, ECCLI projectsare required to build career lad-ders for CNAs. ECCLI fundsmay also be used to add careerladder steps to other entry-leveljobs such as food service orhousekeeping. Developingcareer ladders for CNAs hasbeen the focus of most of theinitiatives, with most projectsdeveloping ladders from CNA 1to CNA 2. Workers arerequired to receive a wageincrease when they progress astep on the career ladder, withthe amount determined by theindividual site (althoughECCLI funds cannot be usedto pay wages or increases inwages). Wage increases haveranged between $.20 and$1.20 per hour. A few sites alsohave developed career laddersfrom CNA 2 to CNA 3. Inaddition, some of the granteesthat had already successfullyimplemented CNA laddershave participated in later grantrounds to develop ladders,including bridge programs, forCNAs who wish to becomeLicensed Practical Nurses(LPNs).

Type of services provided.The services provided underthe grants vary across the proj-

ects but generally consist ofthose listed below. Site flexibili-ty and discretion are a hallmarkof the ECCLI project, so indi-vidual projects can differ signifi-cantly. Training services aretypically provided on-site at thelong-term care facility. • Technical training. Technicaltraining (non-credit) in a substantive area such asAlzheimer’s and dementia care,death and dying, restorativecare, palliative care, or psychi-atric care is generally requiredto move up the CNA careerladder. Typically, the comple-tion of approximately 25 hoursof training—often over a threeto four month period—arerequired in at least one of theseareas to move from CNA 1 toCNA 2. This training is typical-ly provided by a communitycollege, although other trainingorganizations were involved insome projects.• Soft skills. ECCLI projects canalso include “soft skills” such asmentoring, leadership, commu-nication skills, time manage-ment, self-esteem, and team-building. Most sites offered atotal of at least 12 hours oftraining on three or more ofthese topics.• Case management and careercounseling. Grantees arerequired to provide case man-agement and career counselingservices so that each employeeknows and understands howthe career ladder works andwhat is required of them. Somesites used their own staff toconduct this activity, while oth-ers contracted with other enti-ties. Most programs begin with

an assessment of individuals’needs and skills.• Basic skills. Some sites alsoprovide basic education andEnglish as a Second Languageto workers who are not readyto participate in the career lad-der. Some of these workerseventually move to the careerladder training. The mostrecent Request for Proposalsfor ECCLI grants requiresprojects to include English lan-guage training.• Culture change. ECCLI fundscan also be used to support“culture change” within thenursing home. This was doneas part of the career ladderproject in order to improve thenursing home environment forboth residents and staff, toreorient staff to better under-stand their mission, and toimprove communication at all levels.• Supervisory and managementtraining. Most of the sites pro-vided some training to man-agers and supervisors on topicssuch as leadership, supervision,time management, coaching,and counseling. These classeswere generally intended to sup-port the career ladder training,and were shorter and less inten-sive than the training for otherworkers. • College bridge programs. Oneof the later grant roundsfocused on funding projectsthat provided training forCNAs to prepare themselvesfor college-level work or toenter an LPN program. Thistraining generally consisted ofpre-college reading, math, andscience. These initiatives wereimplemented by sites who had


41

already successfully implement-ed the initial CNA career ladder.

Application process. ECCLIprojects begin with respondingto a Request for Proposals fromthe Commonwealth Corpora-tion. This competitive processrequires nursing homes tocomplete a needs assessmentand to outline their projectswith specific, clear work plans.Each grant round has a differ-ent focus—for example, somefocused on projects new toECCLI while others focusedon those who had receivedECCLI grants in the past. Oneround was designed exclusivelyfor home health care organiza-tions rather than nursinghomes. The CommonwealthCorporation uses an intera-gency team of seven internaland external staff to evaluatethe proposals. Applications aregraded based on a needs assess-ment, the level of employeeparticipation in the design andimplementation of the project,project design and implementa-tion, sustainability, demonstrat-ed past performance (if applica-ble), and budget. Approxi-mately 70 percent of the appli-cations are awarded ECCLIgrants. Some applicants whoare rejected reapply in a laterround.

Employer match. ECCLIrequires grantees to providepaid leave time to each workerwhile they are receivingECCLI-funded training.Workers must receive at least50 percent of their hourlywages for time spent in ECCLItraining, although sites were

encouraged to pay 100 percentof wages and also make in-kindcontributions when possible.

Marketing. Until recently,marketing has not been a majoraspect of this program. TheCommonwealth Corporationhas sponsored forums acrossthe state where currentgrantees discuss the benefits ofparticipating in the program.

Staffing: Staff from theCommonwealth Corporation arein the lead of the day-to-day man-agement of ECCLI; however,they work with an interagencygroup consisting of four staff fromthe Commonwealth Corporationas well as representatives fromMassachusetts’ Extended CareFederation, Workforce InvestmentBoard Association, ExecutiveOffice of Community Colleges,and Worksource Partners (a for-profit training and technical assis-tance organization involved inmany of the ECCLI sites). Twofull-time staff at the Common-wealth Corporation work onECCLI, and each individual sitehas a project coordinator.

Program Outcomes: Data collec-tion and evaluation are importantpieces of the ECCLI initiative.The Commonwealth Corporationdeveloped a mainframe system tocollect program and outcomedata. Key data that are collectedinclude the length and intensity oftraining, position changes, hiringand termination data, wageincreases, and credentials obtained.The Commonwealth Corporationis also conducting an evaluation of

the program (in part by contract-ing with outside researchers),including studies of both theimplementation of the program(which focused primarily onRound 2) as well as program out-comes. Outcomes data show thatseventy percent of trained workersreceived a wage increase, thatvacancy rates for CNAs declined inRounds 1-3 (the only rounds ana-lyzed at this point), and that reten-tion rates improved in Rounds 2-3(but not Round 1).

Lessons:

Anticipate the serious challengeof freeing up time for training.One of the most significant chal-lenges was scheduling training andother activities in the nursinghome, which were often short-staffed and facing funding con-straints. Generating buy-in amongcharge nurses (who must covershifts or arrange for cover duringtraining release time) was difficult.Program managers worked closelywith supervisors in rearrangingschedules, and the reluctance ofthese staff largely dissipated as theprogram progressed and the benefits of the training becameapparent.

Support services and remedialeducation are essential. CNAsalso face difficult barriers to steadyemployment, including child careissues and language barriers. Somework two jobs, many have youngchildren which made schedulingdifficult, and entry-level workersoften needed more educationalpreparation than expected by staff.


42

Most grantees included soft skillsinstruction, such as time manage-ment and budgeting, as well asbasic skills and ESL services toaddress these issues. Some alsoprovided individual counseling tohelp participants address child careand other needs.

Employee input is key to partic-ipation. Virtually all of the suc-cessful ECCLI facilities found thatidentifying and incorporatingemployee needs into planning anddelivery of training and educationwas the only way to ensure effec-tive employee participation.Grantees generally involvedemployee representatives in thegrant application and implementa-tion process.

Use independent staff, ratherthan the employer, to providecareer counseling. A key compo-nent of the career counseling com-ponent was the participation of aneutral party to help the employeeset goals, conduct an assessment,and create a career plan.

Create the bottom rungs of thecareer ladder first. Over time asinitial challenges have been over-come, focus has shifted to sustain-ability and extending career lad-ders. Grantees in later roundsinclude sustainability as a criteriain obtaining an award. As theproject has continued, they haveadded additional rungs to thecareer ladder, such as movingfrom CNA to LPN.

Share career ladder lessonsamong all businesses in theindustry. To improve informationsharing about useful programstrategies, the CommonwealthCorporation worked with individ-ual grantees to develop their ownpromising practices. These find-ings are available in the report,“In Their Own Voices,” online athttp://www.commcorp.org/about/spotlight.html.

Contact:

Carol KapolkaECCLI Project DirectorThe Commonwealth Corporation529 Main Street, Suite 110 Boston, MA [email protected] x2230

43


Goals and Program Context:The purpose of the WorkforceTraining Fund (WTF) is to pro-vide businesses and labor organi-zations with resources to trainworkers and to maintain and pro-mote the economic strength ofMassachusetts’ employers.Through the grants, the stateintends to create a well-trainedworkforce and hopes to foster jobgrowth, job retention, and wageincreases. The state encouragesprivate investment in training byprioritizing projects whereemployers have committed toinvest significantly in training dur-ing and after the grant. The pro-gram was established by the statelegislature in 1998.

Lead Agency/Organization andProgram Partners: TheDepartment of WorkforceDevelopment, Division of CareerServices, administers the program.The Massachusetts Office ofBusiness Development of theDepartment of EconomicDevelopment and the Common-wealth Corporation, a quasi-pub-lic organization, are partner agen-cies. The WTF has an AdvisoryBoard comprised of business andunion leaders who provide inputto the program.

Target Population: The programtargets newly hired or incumbentworkers in Massachusetts. TheWTF legislation states that the pro

gram must prioritize low-skilled,low-wage workers, but rather thanexplicitly target those groups, thestate seeks to meet the legislation’sgoals by funding grants to thosecommunities with larger propor-tions of low-wage, low-skilledworkers, when possible. One indi-cation of the population served isthat an estimated 10 to 15 percentof grant funds go toward basicskills training. In addition, in 2005,the state began a pilot initiative fortraining grants focusing primarilyon adult basic education and/orEnglish for Speakers of OtherLanguages (ESOL).

Funding Levels: WTF is financedthrough employer contributions tothe UI tax fund. Between 1999and 2005, WTF awarded $107million to 2, 258 companies. Stateappropriations for the programincreased from $18 million to $21million in fiscal year 2004-05, with$22.7 million in grants awarded in2005. The program was recentlyextended through 2008.

Training grants typically rangefrom $2,000 to $250,000 fortraining that does not exceed atwo-year period. The typical grantaverages between $60,000-70,000.Under new legislation effectiveJanuary 1, 2004, grants over$250,000 and up to $1 millioncould be awarded with preferencefor training that results in signifi-cant job creation and job retention.

Enrollment Levels: In fiscal year2005, 665 training grants wereawarded to train over 27,000 inthe WTF programs, with 157,000individuals trained between 1999and 2005.

Program Design:

Type of partnerships funded.Employers, labor organizations,training providers, and employ-er groups (trade associations,Chambers of Commerce, andRegional Employment Boards,as well as informal groups ofindividual employers) mayapply for training funds. Unlikelabor organizations or busi-ness/employer grantees, train-ing providers must partner withmore than one employer, anemployer group, or a labororganization in order to receivefunds. During fiscal year 2005,the most recent year for whichsuch technical data were pro-vided, the occupational break-down of grantees was as fol-lows: Production/Construction(40 percent), Professional/Sales/Clerical (48 percent),and Service (12 percent). Over40 percent of fiscal year 2005grantees employed fewer than100 workers.

Application process. The fol-lowing criteria are emphasizedwhen awarding grants: • consistency with WTF mission; • how the training will specifi-cally benefit the workers and

Workforce Training Fund (WTF)

Massachusetts

44


company as seen in measurableobjectives; • whether the training plan andgoals are realistic; • whether the training costs arereasonable; • whether there is a commit-ment on the employer’s part asshown by the proposed match;and,• whether the company is eco-nomically sound.

The state believes that the mostsuccessful training plans arethose that can be easily imple-mented, are clear and measura-ble in how the company willbenefit, have a sound budget,and include the support of sen-ior management, workers and,if relevant, the union. TheWTF staff and area WorkforceInvestment Boards (WIBs)have provided technical assis-tance to companies completingapplications (the WIBs receivedcompensation for this) and thestate recently began using theservices of the CommonwealthCorporation in providing helpwith applications. There is norequirement to increase thewages of employees after train-ing, though applications withsuch increases are viewed morefavorably during the applicationprocess.

Every grant application under-goes a three-tiered reviewprocess. In the first tier, thelocal WIBs provide recommen-dations on applications fromtheir area. These recommenda-tions are not binding, but aretaken into consideration in sub-sequent tiers. In the secondtier, applications undergo a

comprehensive evaluation bystate and/or local governmentstaff. Seven to eight reviewteams are led by a staff personfrom the Division of CareerServices or Division ofUnemployment Insurance andall include a financial reviewer.The rest of the team includesstaff from the other two agen-cies or other state/local gov-ernment agencies involved inworkforce development, includ-ing staff from the local WIBsand Labor, Education, orEconomic Developmentdepartments. Reviewersattempt to achieve consistencyacross teams during the reviewprocess by participating in anall-team debriefing prior to thereview, but different perspec-tives on teams can lead to somevariations in recommendations.The final decision regardinggrant requests is made by theWTF Advisory Panel, which iscomprised of nine business andlabor leaders. The grant deci-sion process takes about 60days. The Board directlyreviews and approves approxi-mately 55 percent of all applications.

Employer match. Grants mustbe matched dollar-to-dollar(either with cash or in-kind) bythe applicant and its partners, ifany. According to state staff, ifan employer with a large grant(over $100,000) attempts tomeet the match solely throughemployee wages for paid releasetime, the state may requireother forms of match, such asspace and equipment. WTFtakes into consideration the sizeof the company and whether it

is non-profit or for-profit whenevaluating the match.

Type of education and train-ing provided. The WTF allowsemployers to choose the train-ing provider, content and out-comes, but training must bejob specific and not already inprocess. Employers can fine-tune the training plan duringthe grant. A degree-grantingprogram or for-credit coursethat is specific, technical, andnecessary to the company’scontinued competitiveness iseligible for funding. Trainingmust be completed within twoyears and primarily occurs atthe worksite. The majority oftraining providers are for-profitinstitutions, followed by com-munity colleges, and then com-munity-based organizations.The employer contracts withthe training provider and thestate does not give preferenceto certain types of trainers.

According to state staff, theAdvisory Board was initiallyhesitant to fund basic skillsinstruction, such as ESOL andbasic math and reading,because they believed other sys-tems provided sufficient fund-ing for it. Eventually these serv-ices were funded by WTF asthey discovered the demand forbasic skills services actually out-paced supply in the state andmany employers promoted pro-viding ESOL and other basicskills as meeting a legitimatebusiness need, particularly inorder to promote from withinthe company. The majority ofbasic skills training is ESOL-related with some basic math

and reading. The state believesapplications that provide for atleast four hours of basic skillstraining per week are generallymore successful and haveoffered some employers fundingto provide more as needed. InFebruary 2005, the WTF start-ed a pilot project targeting basiceducation and ESOL training.

Training for small businesses.The WTF Express Programstarted in 2001 with the idea ofproviding quick turnaroundtraining to businesses with 50 orfewer employees. Employersapply online and select fromexisting courses from trainingproviders that apply to theDivision of Career Services. Theprogram requires a cash match(which cannot be met throughemployee wages) of 50 percentand will award up to $3,000 perperson per course, with a totalgrant request not to exceed$15,000 over the course of oneyear. The Express Program fundsmany of the same types of train-ing as the larger program,although there is a greateremphasis on computer courses.About 200 small employers havereceived funds each year. TheWTF Express Program receives$800,000 in funding annually.The skill levels of employeestrained under the ExpressProgram vary from basic ESOLto senior-level skills training. TheExpress Program also requires afinal evaluation from employers.

Technical assistance grants.Grants that fund technical assis-tance are available to help anemployer, or a group of employ-ers or employees, determine a

set of training needs. TechnicalAssistance grants are awarded toindustry associations, labororganizations, community col-leges, WIBs and other entitieswith expertise in providing tech-nical assistance to employers.These grants range from $5,000to $25,000 over six months.Grantees conduct needs assess-ments and develop curriculumfor employers to provide a step-ping stone to a larger traininggrant.

Outreach: The Executive Office ofEconomic Development marketsthe program through its BusinessResource Team, on which twoWTF staff members serve. FieldOperations staff also market theprogram by distributing informa-tional materials and providing mar-keting sessions at companies. Atthe local level, WIBs, Chambers ofCommerce, business organizations,and training providers also marketthe program on their own.

Evaluation of Grantees: WTFgrantees must complete a self-eval-uation at the conclusion of thegrant. The self-evaluation includesan examination of whether theemployer met their training goals,if the grant made an employermore productive or competitive,and documents wage increases,promotions, and retention ofemployees’ trained.

Staffing: Ten full-time and twopart-time staff administer theWTF. Staff include: Director,Deputy Director for ExternalRelations, Director of Operations,Express Program Director, Grants

Coordinator, Database Manager,and field staff for outreach andmonitoring grant recipients. Onceawards are granted, the field staffassist employers with documenta-tion and paperwork, as well asserving as grant reviewers. Thesestaff also conduct at least two sitevisits to all grant recipients.

Program Outcomes: According tothe WTF 2005 Annual Report (themost recent available), 90 percentof companies report that workforcetraining has increased their compa-ny’s productivity, and 50 percentof companies report that workforcetraining has led to employee payincreases.

Lessons:

Make grants easy for business toaccess. The WTF places a high pri-ority on keeping the program easyto understand for employers—itsimply asks what the employerneeds, how it will accomplish itstraining plan, and what the ration-ale is for this plan. The state doesnot want to make employers pro-vide unnecessary information thatis irrelevant in designing a work-able training program.

Ensure that grants serve busi-ness goals. The WTF maintains astrong focus on the fact that theprogram is funded by employersfor employers. This helps keep pro-gram staff and the Advisory Boardfocused on the goal of helpingcompanies train to increase workerproductivity, and helps companiesunderstand that their grant


45

requests should dovetail with theirbusiness plans.Have an open and competitiveaward process. The WTF doesnot pre-select companies in cer-tain industries, and the reviewprocess is based solely on theapplication information providedby the employer. Employers’ plansare funded on a case-by-case basis.

The Advisory Board shouldreflect the businesses and workers served. Officials believethe combination business-laborAdvisory Board adds credibilityamong employers and employees.The Board includes people whohave the appropriate knowledgeand expertise; typically they haverun businesses or have public andprivate sector experience.

Target low-wage workers inways that maintain credibilitywith business. Although theenabling legislation prioritizes the

needs of low-wage workers, theprogram does not explicitly mar-ket itself that way. The state meetsthis goal by funding applicationsthat serve these populations whenpossible, thus allowing for approx-imately one-third of grants to goto low-wage, high-unemploymentareas. In addition, business hasmade it clear that serving low-wage workers meets their needs,too.

The review process can be key tosuccessful performance.Shortening the review time in theprogram would allocate moneymore quickly, but officials believethe review process of including theteams and Board contributes to theFund’s success. A process is now inplace to award smaller grants (upto $50,000) more quickly.

Contact Information:

Vincent LopesDirector of OperationsWorkforce Training FundProgramDivision of Career ServicesCharles Hurley Building19 Staniford StreetBoston, MA [email protected]

Jane KadlubkiewiczDirectorWorkforce Training FundProgramDivision of Career ServicesCharles Hurley Building19 Staniford StreetBoston, MA [email protected]


46

Andersson, Fredrik, Harry Holzer,and Julia Lane. 2005. Moving Upor Moving On: Who Advances inthe Low-Wage Labor Market? NewYork: Russell Sage Foundation.

Aspen Institute. 2003. Grow FasterTogether. Or Grow Slowly Apart.How Will America Work in the 21stCentury? Washington, DC:Author.

Barrow, Lisa and Cecilia ElenaRouse. 2005. Do Returns toSchooling Differ by Race andEthnicity? Working Paper. FederalReserve Bank of Chicago andPrinceton University.

Carl Vinson Institute ofGovernment. 1999. 10 YearsLater: A Follow Up Study ofTechnical Institute Students.Athens, GA: University of Georgia.

Carnevale, Anthony and DonnaDesrochers. 1999. Getting Down toBusiness: Matching WelfareRecipients’ Skills to Jobs That Train.Princeton, NJ: EducationalTesting Services.

Carnevale, Anthony and DonnaDescrochers. 2002. The MissingMiddle: Aligning Education andthe Knowledge Economy.

Washington, DC: OVAE,Department of Education.

Conlin, Michelle and AaronBernstein. 2004. “Working…andPoor.” Business Week. May 31,2004.

Government Accountability Office.(GAO) 2004. Workforce Training:Almost Half of States FundEmployment Placement andTraining Through Employer Taxesand Most Coordinate with FederallyFunded Programs. GAO-04-282.Washington, DC: Author.

Handel, Michael J. 2005. WorkerSkills and Job Requirements: IsThere a Mismatch? Washington,DC: Economic Policy Institute.

Hecker, D.E. 2005. “OccupationalEmployment Projections to 2014.”Monthly Labor Review, 128 (11).

Holzer, Harry and KarinMartinson. 2005. Can We ImproveJob Retention and AdvancementAmong Low-Income WorkingParents? Washington, DC: TheUrban Institute.

Kim, K., M. Collins Hagedorn, J.Williamson, C. Chapman, 2004.Participation in Adult Education

and Lifelong Learning: 2000–01(NCES 2004–050). U.S.Department of Education,National Center for EducationStatistics. Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office.

Kimball, B. and E. O’Neil. 2002.Health Care’s Human Crisis: TheAmerican Nursing Shortage.Princeton, NJ: The Robert WoodJohnson Foundation.

Meyer, Dan and Maria Cancian.2000. “Ten Years Later:Economic Well-Being AmongThose Who Left Welfare.” TheJournal of Applied Social Sciences,25(1).

Mishel, Lawrence, Jared Bernstein,and Sylvia Allegretto. 2005. TheState of Working America,2004/2005. Ithaca, NY: CornellUniversity Press.

National Association ofManufacturers. 2001. The SkillsGap 2001: Manufacturers ConfrontPersistent Skills Shortages in anUncertain Economy. Washington,DC: Author.

National Association ofManufacturers. 2005. 2005 SkillsGap Report—A Survey of the

47

References

American ManufacturingWorkforce. Washington, DC:Author.

National Governor’s Association.2000. State Strategies for the NewEconomy. Washington, DC:Author.

National Skills Standards BoardInstitute. 2003. Proceedings of2003 National Skills StandardsConference.

New Jersey Legislature, Office ofLegislative Services. 2004.Analysis of the New Jersey Budgetfor the Dept. of Labor andWorkforce Development. Fiscal Year2004-05. Trenton, NJ: Author.

Poppe, Nan, Julie Strawn, andKarin Martinson. 2003. “WhoseJob Is It: Creating Opportunitiesfor Advancement.” WorkforceIntermediaries in the 21st Centuryby Robert P. Giloth (Ed.).Philadelphia, PA: Temple.Regional Technology Strategies,Inc. 1999. A Comprehensive Lookat State-Funded, Employer-FocusedJob Training Programs.Washington, DC: NationalGovernors’ Association.

Ross Phillips, Katherin. 2004.Getting Time Off: Access to LeaveAmong Working Parents. Series B,No. 57. Washington, DC: TheUrban Institute.

Simon, Martin. 1997. InvestingPublic Resources to SupportIncumbent Worker Training. IssueBrief. Washington, DC: NationalGovernors’ Association.

Women Employed with ChicagoJobs Council and UIC GreatCities Institute. 2005. Bridges toCareers for Low-Skilled Adults: A Program Development Guide.Chicago: Women EmployedInstitute.


48

wising up - eric · foundation, the moriah fund, the rockefeller foundation, the new directions...

Documents