1

Construction Pre-Apprenticeship Programs:Results from a National Survey

Working Poor Families Project MeetingChicago, IL

June 11, 2009

2

Survey Respondents• 260 ‘pre-apprenticeship’ programs responded• From 40 states, DC and PR• Most common org type among respondents was

non-profit/CBO followed by comm/tech/trade college

• 80% of respondents reported working with partners (biz/union reps, schools, gov’t agencies and other non-profits)

• Wide range in age and size of programs responding

3

Who Were We Trying to Reach?• Anyone preparing/connecting individuals not

currently working in construction to construction jobs– Many respondents did not seem well connected to

apprenticeship system– Penetration rate of apprenticeship programs unknown

(USDOL Office of Apprenticeship), but likely varies by market segment and geographically

• We use ‘pre-apprenticeship’ as short-hand term, but not all respondents would describe themselves as pre-apprenticeship programs

4

Opportunities Targeted

• Programs connect individuals to a wide variety of occupations—19+ occupations, carpenters, laborers, electricians most commonly mentioned by programs

• Target a range of market segments—~70% target commercial and 50+% target residential; less in industrial, heavy & hgwy, institutional

• Programs commonly report working with both union and non-union companies

• Relatively few programs seem to be connecting their participants to registered apprenticeships

5

Union, non-union, both Target of Placement Efforts

63%

27%

10%

Unions/union companies

Merit shops/non-unioncompanies

Both union and non-unioncompanies

6

Program Services• Programs report providing a range of

introductory information, training, support and placement services

• 88% of respondents reported providing training services--vocational components offered at a relatively high rate

• Support and placement services were offered at a much lower rate than training services

• Some indication that “traditional workforce” organizations more likely to provide supports than union, industry or education institutions

7

Who offers construction programs?Respondents by Organizational Type

44%

18%

7%

7%

6%

4%

4%

3%2%

2%2% 2%

1%

Nonprofit/CBO, incl. faith-based

Technical, trades, comm college or univ

WIB

Union

Joint apprentice training fund, council, or program

State govt agency

Industry association

Local govt agency, incl. TANF, etc.

School district, K-12 school

One-stop operator

Housing authority

Other

Construction business, contractor, developer

8

Participants Served• Respondents reported a wide range of program

sizes -- with a median of 54 and average of 122 participants served

• Roughly half of respondents reported designing services for individuals who might face barriers in the industry

• About 3/4 indicate screening for ability level, but only 1/3 indicate requiring a H.S. degree or GED

• Other screens used include drug use, drivers license, legal status, reliable transportation, physical aptitude, criminal records history

9

Populations Served/Designed for

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Immigrants,non-English speakers

Dislocated w orkers

Youth

Ex-offenders

Adults w ith limited or no w ork history

Women

Ethnic, racial minorities

Low -income individuals

Populations Served and Populations Targeted

% Programs serving pop. % Programs designing services for Pop.

10

Tailored Programs vs. Designed for a General Population

• Tailored offer more robust set of supports, although curriculum content areas similar

• Tailored less likely to connect to union or registered apprenticeship

• Tailored more likely to accept individuals with low skill levels

• Tailored more likely to report finance, industry, policy and operational challenges, for a variety of potential reasons

11

Targeted vs. Gen’l Pop Programs

Support Services Offered

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Case management

Child careChild support arrears

Driver license obtainment/driving record remediationDrug testing

Health insurance

HousingLegal assistance

Mental healthMentoring

TransportationTuition, training expenses

Work expenses, e.g., supplies, fees, testing, dues

% programs reporting

Programs Targeting Adults w / Ltd Work History Programs Serving Gen'l Pop

12

Green Program Elements• 120 respondents answered a question asking

about green program elements• Most common activity included in answer was

weatherization, cited by 42 respondents• 21 respondents noted that they have curriculum

in development• Renewable energy: 21 solar; 6 wind; 1

geothermal• Many noted ‘green’ is a long-standing aspect of

construction work -- from proper insulation to low-flow water to recycling building materials

13

Outcomes Reported• Programs report reasonably high training

completion rates• Job placement is a challenge• Placement in registered apprenticeship

programs is low; some programs do not work with registered apprenticeship

• Data regarding outcomes is likely of uneven quality across programs

• Post-program completion services are limited

14

Training CompletionTrainee Outcomes Reported

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

20% or less 21 - 50% 51 - 70% 71 - 90% 90+%

Proportion of trainees achieving outcome

% P

rogr

ams

repo

rtin

g

Training Complete

Apprentice

Job

Further Education

15

Percentage of Grads Reached

Percentage of Program Graduates Reached

16%

6%12%

12%

25%

26%

Less than 25%

25%-50%

50%-75%

75-90%

More than 90%

Don't know

16

Budgets• Respondents’ budgets ranged widely• Public money was most commonly used and also

most commonly mentioned as largest source of funding

• < 20% of respondents receive no public funds• > 70% report no student funds; ~50% report no biz

funds; nearly 60% report no philanthropic funds• In-kind sources used by nearly half of respondents• Consistent funding year to year and current

funding environment cited as challenges

17

Funding SourcesFunding Sources Used

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Industry: Business association funds

Industry: Fee-for-service revenue

Philanthropic: Regional foundations

Philanthropic: National foundations

Students: Federal student aid

Industry: Corporate foundations

Students: Tuition/fee payments from students

Students: Tuition/fee payments from 3rd party

Philanthropic: Individual contributions

Industry: Contributions from employers

Industry: Joint apprenticehsip programs

Philanthropic: Local foundations

Public: Local

Other: In-kind services

Public: Federal

Public: State

% respondents receiving funds from source

18

Conclusions• ‘Pre-apprenticeship’ programs widespread-

geographically, by market segment, occupationally– Programs well-positioned and eager to train for ‘green’ jobs

• Pre-apprenticeship programs serve populations that face barriers in construction, but access to supportive services uneven across programs

• Pre-apprenticeship challenged in connecting to industry, and even apprenticeship programs struggle in forecasting labor demand– However, programs report there is demand

• Picture of skill levels that vary widely, both upon entry, and likely upon exit– Data on program length difficult to interpret

• Public sector major funder of programs—and often major purchaser of services

19

Further Questions• Can public sector help improve forecasting

demand—through LMI resources or through role as buyer/investor?

• Should pre-apprenticeship programs develop more standards? What would that look like in light of industry variability?– What can we learn from “high performers” (e.g. those

with high job placement and targeted?; those with high apprenticeship connection & supports?)

• So few connections to apprenticeship, and yet it plays key skill development role for industry—how can that aspect be strengthened?

20

For More Information

Maureen Conway / Allison Gerber

Workforce Strategies Initiative

The Aspen Institute

202-736-5800

wsi@aspeninst.org

www.aspenwsi.org