Construction Pre-Apprenticeship Programs: Results from a National Survey

1. Construction Pre-Apprenticeship Programs:Results from a National Survey Working Poor Families Project Meeting Chicago, IL June 11, 2009

2. Survey Respondents • 260 ‘pre-apprenticeship’ programs responded • From 40 states, DC and PR • Most common org type among respondents was non-profit/CBO followed by comm/tech/trade college • 80% of respondents reported working with partners (biz/union reps, schools, gov’t agencies and other non-profits) • Wide range in age and size of programs responding

3. Who Were We Trying to Reach? • Anyone preparing/connecting individuals not currently working in construction to construction jobs • Many respondents did not seem well connected to apprenticeship system • Penetration rate of apprenticeship programs unknown (USDOL Office of Apprenticeship), but likely varies by market segment and geographically • We use ‘pre-apprenticeship’ as short-hand term, but not all respondents would describe themselves as pre-apprenticeship programs

4. Opportunities Targeted • Programs connect individuals to a wide variety of occupations—19+ occupations, carpenters, laborers, electricians most commonly mentioned by programs • Target a range of market segments—~70% target commercial and 50+% target residential; less in industrial, heavy & hgwy, institutional • Programs commonly report working with both union and non-union companies • Relatively few programs seem to be connecting their participants to registered apprenticeships

5. Union, non-union, both

6. Program Services • Programs report providing a range of introductory information, training, support and placement services • 88% of respondents reported providing training services--vocational components offered at a relatively high rate • Support and placement services were offered at a much lower rate than training services • Some indication that “traditional workforce” organizations more likely to provide supports than union, industry or education institutions

7. Who offers construction programs?

8. Participants Served • Respondents reported a wide range of program sizes -- with a median of 54 and average of 122 participants served • Roughly half of respondents reported designing services for individuals who might face barriers in the industry • About 3/4 indicate screening for ability level, but only 1/3 indicate requiring a H.S. degree or GED • Other screens used include drug use, drivers license, legal status, reliable transportation, physical aptitude, criminal records history

9. Populations Served/Designed for

10. Tailored Programs vs. Designed for a General Population • Tailored offer more robust set of supports, although curriculum content areas similar • Tailored less likely to connect to union or registered apprenticeship • Tailored more likely to accept individuals with low skill levels • Tailored more likely to report finance, industry, policy and operational challenges, for a variety of potential reasons

11. Targeted vs. Gen’l Pop Programs Programs Serving Gen'l Pop

12. Green Program Elements • 120 respondents answered a question asking about green program elements • Most common activity included in answer was weatherization, cited by 42 respondents • 21 respondents noted that they have curriculum in development • Renewable energy: 21 solar; 6 wind; 1 geothermal • Many noted ‘green’ is a long-standing aspect of construction work -- from proper insulation to low-flow water to recycling building materials

13. Outcomes Reported • Programs report reasonably high training completion rates • Job placement is a challenge • Placement in registered apprenticeship programs is low; some programs do not work with registered apprenticeship • Data regarding outcomes is likely of uneven quality across programs • Post-program completion services are limited

14. Training Completion

15. Percentage of Grads Reached

16. Budgets • Respondents’ budgets ranged widely • Public money was most commonly used and also most commonly mentioned as largest source of funding • < 20% of respondents receive no public funds • > 70% report no student funds; ~50% report no biz funds; nearly 60% report no philanthropic funds • In-kind sources used by nearly half of respondents • Consistent funding year to year and current funding environment cited as challenges

17. Funding Sources

18. Conclusions • ‘Pre-apprenticeship’ programs widespread-geographically, by market segment, occupationally • Programs well-positioned and eager to train for ‘green’ jobs • Pre-apprenticeship programs serve populations that face barriers in construction, but access to supportive services uneven across programs • Pre-apprenticeship challenged in connecting to industry, and even apprenticeship programs struggle in forecasting labor demand • However, programs report there is demand • Picture of skill levels that vary widely, both upon entry, and likely upon exit • Data on program length difficult to interpret • Public sector major funder of programs—and often major purchaser of services

19. Further Questions • Can public sector help improve forecasting demand—through LMI resources or through role as buyer/investor? • Should pre-apprenticeship programs develop more standards? What would that look like in light of industry variability? • What can we learn from “high performers” (e.g. those with high job placement and targeted?; those with high apprenticeship connection & supports?) • So few connections to apprenticeship, and yet it plays key skill development role for industry—how can that aspect be strengthened?

20. For More Information Maureen Conway / Allison Gerber Workforce Strategies Initiative The Aspen Institute 202-736-5800 wsi@aspeninst.org www.aspenwsi.org