ED 096 546

AUTHORTITLEINSTITUTION

SPONS AGENCYPUB DATEGRANTNOTEAVAILABLE FROM

DOCUMENT RESUME

95 CB 002 186

!Wrist* Andrew S.Manpower Training in Community Colleges.American Association of Community and JuniorColleges, Washington, D.C.Office of Education (DREW)* Washington* D.C.74OEG-0-71-4729(335)24p.American Association of Comblunity and JuniorColleges, 621 Duke Street, Alexandrai, Virginia 22314($1.50)

EARS PRICE MF-$0.75 HC-$1.50 PLUS POSTAGEDESCRIPTORS *Community Colleges; Educational Planning;

Educational Programs; *Job Training; *JuniorColleges; *Manpower Development; ManpowerUtilization; Planning; Post Secondary Education;Program Planning; Regional Planning; *Skill Centers;Statewide Planning

ABSTRACTThe pamphlet's eight chapters review the results of a

survey of community colleges, discuss some of the strengths ofcommunity colleges as they pertain to manpower training, and identifyproblems encountered in the operation of training programs. Inaddition, the development, organization, and operation ofcomprehensive manpower training skills centers in community collegesettings are analyzed. Also examined are examples of alternativeapproaches to skills center structure and the significance ofmanpower planning to manpower training programs in communitycolleges. Relationships between community college philosophy andrelevant legislation are discussed, and suggestions are offered forthe expansion of community college participation in manpowertraining. The author believes the publication viii prove useful tolegislators, Federal and State administrators of manpower programs,planners of economic development, manpower area planning councils,and to community college boards and administrators. (Author/NH)

MANPOWER TRAININGIN COMMUNITY COLLEGES

00

by Andrew S. Korim

U S DEPARTMENT OF NEAL'S.EDI:CATION a WELFARENATiOmAl. :NSTITUSE Of

EDUCATIONTHIS DOCUMENT HAS SEEN REPRODurED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGIN47 iNG ft POINTS Or vIEW uR OPINIONSSTATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OFEDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY

'PERMS-VON TO REPRODUCE THIS COPY.

RIGHTED MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED By

enzoord g,swivenhy/Aar-Liva._

TO ERIC AND ORGANIZATIONS OPERATING

UNDER AGREEMENTS WITH THE NATIONA, IN

STITUTE OF EDUCATION FURTHER REPRO.

DUCTION OUTSIDE THE ERIC SYSTEM RE

QUIRES PERMISSION OF THE coPN,RiGHT

OWNER

American Association of Community and Junior CollegusOne Dupont Circle, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20036

Copyright 1974

Funds for this project came from Office of Education, U.S.Department of Health, Education and Welfare, under Grant No.0EG0.71-4729 (335). Findings, opinions and conclusions, however,

are those of the author and do not represent official policy of theU.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

Foreword

Untrained and undertrained manpower serves tohandicap the stability and growth of the nation'seconomy, creates personal hardship on the individualand families concerned, and contributes to social disloca-tions. Manpower training programs as developed underthe Manpower Training Act of 1962, and the variousamendments to this legislation, have provided training tountrained and undertrained persons, and to personsneeding retraining, thereby reducing the negative eco-nomic and social effects. Community colleges, juniorcolleges, and technical institutes have served as trainingsites for such programs. Yet, the extent of the participa-tion, the advantages and disadvantages, and the issuesand concerns associated with the participation of thenation's more than 1,100 community colleges, juniorcolleges, and technical institutes in manpower trainingprograms have been generally unknown. This reportanswers some of these questions.

The chapters review the results of a survey ofcommunity colleges, discuss some of the strengths ofcommunity colleges as they pertain to manpower train-ing, and identify problems encountered in the operationof training programs. Additionally, the development,organization, and operation of comprehensive manpowertraining skills centers in community college settings areanalyzed. Examples of alternative approaches to skillscenter structure are examined. Furthermore, the signifi-cance of manpower planning to manpower trainingprograms in community colleges is discussed.

The consistency of the community college philos-ophy with the intent and methods of manpower trainingprograms, as specified in legislation and program guide-lines, is discussed. The interrelationships between thecommunity college commitment to open-admissions,diverse training anu education alternatives, individual-ized supportive services and the regularization of man-power training programs in community colleges arecited. Suggestions for the expansion of communitycollege participation in manpower training are offered.

if

Hopefully, this publication will prove useful tolegislators, to federal and state administrators of man-power programs, to planners of economic development,to manpower area planning councils, and to communitycollege boards and administrators. Further, in turn, it ishoped that improvements in services to persons partici-pating in manpower training programs will result.

The Association is grateful for the cooperation of the635 community colleges, junior colleges, technical insti-tutes, and other two-year institutions which returned thesurvey questionaire, thus providing the basis for much ofthe content in this publication. Martha Harris, HowardMatthews, Ann Donovan, William Bowers, and RonaldTar laian and other staff members of the Division ofManpower Development and Training, Bureau of Occu-pation and Adult Education, U.S. Office of Education,provided valuable direction to the study.

A number of persons served as consultants andreviewers for the project. Others provided detailedinformation on their programs. The Association isgrateful to these persons for their contributions. Specialnotice should be accorded Richard Byer ly who served aschairman of the team of consultants.

Important services were provided by a number ofstaff members of the Association. Data processing forthe study was conducted by Aikin Connor. WilliamHarper and his staff coordinated the publication details.Others who gave valuable assistance were Ann Maust,William Shannon, Kenneth Skaggs, and Richard Wilson.Mary Yenchick provided secretarial services. Deep grati-tude is due all of them for their fine cooperation.

Andrew S. KorimDirector of Manpower ProjectAmerican Association ofCommunity and Junior Colleges

Acknowledgements

William M. BoastDean, General StudiesRed Rocks CampusCommunity College of DenverGolden, Colorado 80401 .

James D. BramanDirectorChicago Skill CenterCity Colleges of ChicagoChicago, Illinois 60601

Richard L. Byer lyDirector of Research and DevelopmentDes Moines Area Community CollegeAnkeny, Iowa 50021

Anthony F. CalabroDirector, Special ProgramsCommunity College of DenverDenver, Colorado 80203

Robert DabneyDirectorEast Bay Skills CenterPeralta Community College DistrictOakland, California 94610

Amo DeBernardisPresidentPortland Community CollegePortland, Oregon 97219

Alfredo G. de los Santos Jr.PresidentEl Paso Community CollegeEl Paso, Texas 79998

Table of Contents

Gerald A. GartmanDirectorManpower Skills CenterMississippi Gulf Coast Junior CollegeGulfport, Mississippi 39501

George F. GenzAssistant DirectorSouthern Nevada Manpower Training CenterClark County Community CollegeLas Vegas, Nevada 89106

Charles A. GilmoreChief, Municipal Employees Training DivisionBureau of Local Government ServicesPennsylvania Department of Community AffairsHarrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120

John F. GredeVice ChancelorCareer and Manpower ProgramsCity Colleges of ChicagoChicago, Illinois 60601

Byron HamiltonDirectorDes Moines Skill CenterDes Moines Area Community CollegeAnkeny, Iowa 50021

Anthony F. MercurioAssistant to PresidentBristol Community CollegeFall River, Massachusetts 02720

John S. OwensDistrict Director of Occupational EducationDallas County Community College DistrictDallas, Texas 75202

John F. PrincePresidentMaricopa County Community College DistrictPhoenix, Arizona 85004

William L. RamseyDistrict DirectorMilwaukee Area Technical CollegeMilwaukee, Wisconsin 53203

Robert L RathfonState SupervisorManpower Development and TrainingDelaware Technical and Community CollegeDover, Delaware 19901

Walter L, SchwaarGeneral ManagerClearfield DivisionThiokol CorporationOgden, Utah 84403

Nancy SwadeshDirectorSan Francisco Skills CenterSan Francisco Community College DistrictSan Francisco, California 94103

Nash 0. ThompsonSkills Center DirectorSan Antonio Area MDTA Skills Training CenterSan Antonio Union Junior College DistrictSan Antonio, Texas 78205

Richard L YoungDirectorPortland Skills CenterPortland Community CollegePortland, Oregon 97219

Chapter I. Introduction

Page

Chapter II. Extent of Participation 3

Chapter I I I, Problems Encountered 5

Chapter IV. Expanding Participation 8

Chapter V. Manpower Planning 13

Chapter VI. Skills Centers Operated byCommunity Colleges 15

Chapter VII. Job Training Clusters andSupportive Services 18

Chapter VIII, Summary 20

I. Introduction

Manpower Training

The Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962marked the beginning of a national effort to trainunemployed and underemployed persons for entry orre-entry into the labor market. Prior to this act, theFederal government's involvement in unemploymentconcentrated on using fiscal and monetary policy in sucha way as to stimulate the economy sufficiently to createa demand for more labor which would, theoretically,reduce unemployment.

Under the Employment Act of 1946, full employmenthad become a national goal. The emphasis on fiscal andmonetary tools was based on the rationale that if thedemand for labor were kept high, the human reservoirwould, on its own, develop the skills needed to fill thepositions. However, this approach did not directlyconfront the issue of structural unemployment; that is,unemployment which arises when the worker lacks therequisite skills. (This is unlike unemployment whichresults from a lack of jobs.) Although gross nationalproduct rose year after year, unemployment continuedto plague those who had not utilized the existingtraining and education opportunities offered by privateand public educational institutions.

MDTA broadened the government's focus to includenot only the demand side of the employment equationbut also the education, training and other aspects of thesupply side. The act provides for retraining those personswith obsolete skills in new skills which are or will be indemand.

The institutional training program funded underMDTA has been operated largely by public and privateschools and has played a major role in providingoccupational training and educational services.

Primary responsibility for institutional training is

placed by the act with the Secretary of Health,Education and Welfare. Other aspects of the programnotably the selection, payment and placement of train-eesare the respoasibility of the Secretary of Labor.Operation of the institutional manpower training pro-gram has been delegated by the Secretary of HEW to the

Office of Education, where it is the responsibility of theDivision of Manpower DevelopmPrf and Training in theBureau of Adult, Vocational, an nical Education.

The act states that individuals 1. be referred totraining in occupations determined ,e State Employ-ment Service to be in demand in the community, stateor nation. There must be a reavlable prospect ofemployment in such occupations. Training allowancesmay be paid to trainees who qualify for them, inamounts equivalent to average weekly unemploymentcompensation payments in the state where the trainingis offered.

Most enrollees are unemployed when they entertraining. Many others are in low-paying jobs and requiretraining or upgrading. (Usually enrollees need remedialtraining in communications and computational skills.)

MDTA training is provided in separate projects, eachoffering training in a specific skill or in multi-occupa-tions projects and in Skills Centers grouped to shareadministrative, supervisory, and service skills. It is alsoprovided in a cooperative work training setting or inconjunction with on-the-job training, where classroomwork is "coupled" to supplement and extend what thetrainees team at work. The Skills Centera center forcomprehensive manpower training and support serviceshas proven a natural link between the aims of MDTAand the abilities of community and junior colleges.

Mr

rfr"

' 'a* ' -

%rtptv,i,,

Students work on individual projects in Metal Fabrication,Manpower Skills Center, Mississippi Gulf Coast Junior College.

Comprehensive CommunityColleges

Concurrent with the changes nWated in the early 1960'sin the Federal approach came changes in the educationalinstitutions serving persons of post-high school age. Thisgroup included high school graduates, persons who didnot complete high school and persons without any highschool preparation. In order to better serve this constitu-ency, the concept of flexible, community-oriented.Rost-secondary institutions was developed. Importantingredients in the concept included:

1. An open admissions policy that reduces traditionalacademic and social barriers to entry:

2. Comprehensive educational and training opportuni-ties under a single administrative structure and easymobility from program to program within theinstitution;

3. Community outreach to channel into education andtraining previously unserved populationspoor peo-ple, unemployed adults, and ethnic minorities;

4. Developmental services tailored to the need ofindividuals;

5. Sensitivity to the manpower needs of local andnational employers;

6. A teaching and administrative staff oriented toserving the diverse needs of deprived and economi-cally vulnerable populations; and

7. A capacity to regularize manpower training servicesinto a training and educational environment con-ducive to continued individual growth.

A number of states developed master plans for suchrevamped institutions, designating them community andjunior colleges. A few states lagged and still have nocommitment to the development of a network ofcommunity institutions. Nevertheless, the number ofcommunity and junior colleges increased during the1960's at a rate of about fifty a year. As communitycolleges gained experience in offering occupationalpreparation, administrators of the manpower develop.ment and training programs and community collegeleaders saw the potential of the community college as avehicle for comprehensive manpower training servicesunder the Manpower Development and Training Act.

The MDTA -Community College Fit

Subsequently, two questions were asked: Could acommunity college be considered as a sponsor for theMDTA Skills Center, for multi-skill operations or forindividual referral and could the community collegedeliver the desired product if given the opportunity tooperate manpower training as specified under MDTA?The answers were affirmative.

The act does not preclude a Skills Center becomingpart of another orjoing educational program if theinstitution accepts the MDTA criteria for the Center.Since MDTA places strong emphasis on economy ofoperation, variety of training and education programs,adequate staffing, and effective learning materials andequipment, the community college has a built-in advan-tage.

Although many community and junior colleges havebeen actively involved in manpower training activities,the extent of their involvement in MDTA programs, theproblems encountered, and the degree of commitmentto MDTA purposes and approaches had not beenascertained. The purpose of the AACJC project, there-fore, was to answer such questions and to explore thepossibility of accelerated participation by communitycolleges in manpower development and training.

7.,1111..J111

Guidance by Mississippi State Employment Service provided atManpower Skills Center, Mississippi Gulf Coast Junior College.

II. Extent of Participation

Current Involvement

The project began with a survey of 1111 two yearcolleges. Out of the 635 respondents (57.2%). SkillsCenters were reported by 33. Since the Division ofManpower Development and Training has designated andfunded only 14 such Centers, it was decided that thediscrepancy could be attributed to two factors. One,colleges could be confused about the conditions to bemet if a Center is to meet official U.S.O.E. criteria, andsecond, some may offer manpower training withoutMDTA funds but still designate their operations as SkillsCenters.

Eighty-four respondents reported having multi-occu-pational programs and 221 reported having single occu-pational projects (many of which were probably "indi-vidual referrals"). Table 1 summarizes this data.

BEST COPYAVAILABLE

their interest in and information level about MINA.Table 2 indicates the number of colleges respondingpositively to each item.

Nearly 6% of the respondents indicated they wereabout to start an MDTA program soon, but six timesthat number (250 colleges out of 635) said they wereinsufficiently informed about MDTA programs. That

TABLE 2. Community College Interest inand Information about MDTA

NumberResponding*Ouestionnaire Item

"Until now we were un-aware that our collegewould be able to parti-cipate in MDTA programs"

"We know about MDTApossibilities, but don'tknow how to proceed." 158 24.9

% of TotalRespondents

92 14.5

"We plan to develop anMDTA project soon."These responses cannot beresponded to more than one item.

37 5.8summed because some colleges

The 635 responding institutions reported a total of579,033 students enrolled in job-entry level programs,

I Iincluding both MDTA and other occupation programs. Itwas not possible to determine the number of studentsexclusively enrolled in MDTA-funded programs.

TABLE 1. Community Colleges ReportingManpower Training Programs

Number of % of TotalSpecified Involvement Respondents Respondents

Skills Center Operation 33 5.2

Multi-OccupationalPrograms Offered 84 13.2

Single OccupationalPrograms Offered 221 34.8

These responses cannot be slimmed because some collegesresponded to more than one item.

Out of this number, 175.694 students completedjob-entry programs during the 1970.71 academic year.Teachers, full and part-time, involved in these programsnumbered about 23,500. Since not all of the institutionsreported figures for all categories, the enrollment andteaching statistics are approximations only (51 collegesdid not report enrollment, 73 did not report completion,and 64 did not report teaching staff., Additionally,proportions stated for enrollment, graduates and facultyseemed improbable in many instances.Extrapolating from these data to the national picture,

it would seem likely that about k_.ie million students and40,000 teachers in total are engaged in some kind ofjob-entry level training including MDTA and non-MDTAprograms in community and junior colleges.

Interest in andInformation about MDTA

Colleges not reporting current involvement in MDTAprograms were asked to respond to questions indicating

L.'

Student in biology class for Health Occupations, Denver SkillCenter, Community College of Denver.

nearly 40% of the colleges either did not know enoughabout MDTA or did not know anything about thepossibility of participation reflects a breakdown incommunications between MDTA agencies and thenation's network of community colleges.

Some of the difficulty may be attributable to thedivision in MDTA administrative authority between theU.S. Department of Labor and the U.S. Office ofEducation. This division is found also in the stateshaving a state education agency with authority oversome aspects of MINA and a state employment servicewith authority over others. Interviews with communitycollege administrators revealed that the delineationbetween the two agencies regarding MDTA is oftenunclear.

Availability of ServicesA team of manpower training consultants postulatedthirteen services, operating policies, or activities asrelevant to successful operation of manpower trainingprograms.

3

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Table 3 shows the avai-ability of the thirteen servicesin all the responding colleges (column I) and in collegeshaving manpower training programs. MDTA or otherwise(column II). Availability is much hi4ner in collegesalready offering manpower training programs. The datasuggest that, through such participation, colleges maybecome strengthened by developing an array of valuableservices.

Nevertheless, a high percentage of all respondingcolleges offer such services as counseling and guidance.open-door admissions, comprehensive occupational pro-grams, and maintain contacts with local industry. Infact, these services could be considered commun to mostcommunity colleges. The least - available services, both incolleges with MOTA programs and the total group, arejob development and job coaching. Expansion of thesetwo services by community colleges would tend tostrengthen their manpower training capability signifi-cantly.

Although a high percentage of all colleges responding(81 %) reported maintaining contacts with local industry.the percentages having contacts with local manpoweragencies or organizations dropped sharply (to 54%), anindication, perhaps, that community colleges have re-ceived poor information on labor market needs fromlocal manpower agencies, and, therefore, prefer to dealdirectly with employers. The close linkage with industryreflects as well the extensive commitment of communitycolleges to using local industry leaders on advisorycommittees.

TABLE 3. Availability of Services

Services

Availability of Services

All RespondingResponding Colleges

Colleges Involved in

blOTA

1. Counseling and guidance 81% 89%2. Community outreach 50 563. Open door admissions 83 894. Comprehensive occupational

programs 70 855. Job development or job

engineering 26 36

6. Job placement 62 757. Flexible scheduling 59 668. Individualized instruction 63 789. Job coaching 28 38

10. Career ladder progression 40 4511. Followup 51 6412. Contacts with local industry 81 9213. Contacts with local manpower

organizations or agencies 54 77

Availability of Servicesby Regions

The ten U.S. Office of Education regions were used toaggregate the service availability data to see if services

4

varied according to particular geovaphic areas (table 4presents the results).

Except for the uniformly high percentage of collegesoffering counseling and guidance (service *1), there waswide variation in the available services. For example,only 9% in Region 11 reported offering job coaching(*9) but 40% offered job coaching in Region X.

. .

Electronics instructor helping a trainee set up an electrical circuitat Southern Nevada Manpower Training Centar, Clark CountyCommunity College.

Especially noteworthy is the fact that the highestpercentage of colleges reporting the availability ofservices occurred in Region X (which scored highest in 8out of 13 services) and the lowest percentages werereported in Region 1.

Although colleges in some regions tend to allocatemore resources for services than others, institutions in allregions tend to place relatively similar importance on thethirteen services. The responses may differ significantlyin degree of emphasis, but they differ little in terms ofrelative importance among services.

Speculation concerning the underlying causes of re-gional differences in the availability of services is risky,but regional variation in the extent of the commitmentto the community-oriented philosophy of a comprehensive community college is evident. This is reflected in theavailability of services essential to effective manpowertraining programs.

TABLE 4. Availability of Services by Region

US.O.E. Service Ip.oentageof respondents)Region 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 9 10 11 12 13

I 80 49 60 49 17 49 46 29 20 37 23 69 29II 70 33 72 50 13 52 57 48 9 39 24 67 33III 85 55 90 65 25 63 65 65 23 45 43 78 50IV 83 51 88 72 28 80 62 78 28 35 57 83 54V 82 53 88 79 30 68 82 61 27 45 62 82 55VI 78 52 78 65 20 61 59 70 28 37 65 80 59VII 76 51 76 63 29 69 55 55 27 31 71 73 53VHI 82 50 86 75 50 82 61 71 39 46 57 82 57IX 77 48 82 73 24 58 47 61 29 47 36 89 61X 93 50 93 93 27 70 70 77 40 33 60 97 87

Refer to Table 3 for swim oerreeponding to numbers 1.13.

Ill. Problems Encountered

Problems with MDTA

in order to determine what difficulties were or would beencountered by community and junior colleges offeringMDTA programs, three principle areas of concern orpotential problem categories were identified.

1, Possible conflicts between the mission and educa-tional policy or philosophy of the college. and thegals of MDTA.

2. POssible conflicts between the college and othercommunity institutions with regard to their respec-tive roles in manpower training; and

3. A possible deterrent effect of MDTA administrativeguidelines and regulations on the development ofmanpower training programs in colleges.

Subsequently, nine potential problems were articulatedand incorporated into a questionnaire (see Table 5).

Respondents were asked to rate the problem statementsin terms of the difficulty each item might present to theparticular college on a scale of 0 (no problem) to 3(problem too difficult to solve).

The data were analyzed in two ways. First a meanresponse was derived for, each problem (column I) andsecondly, responses were grouped to form two cate-gories; 0 and 1 combined to equal a category whichconsidered the problem as being of little concern, and 2and 3 to form a category indicating a serious problem.The combining of categories was done to account for thephenomenon of many respondents being reluctant toassess items at either extreme of a scale and, therefore,

,

-r-

1'

a.4,0.4444"",4.

Student learns how to wrap meat, Des Moines Skill Center, DesMoines Area Community College.

5 fST COPY AVAILABLE

tending to hedge. In other words, it is believed thatmany respondents may feel no problem exists yet theycheck item 1, saying in effect that if it did exist it wouldbe easy to solve. Coiumn II of Table 5 snows percentagesof the respondents perceiving little or no problem.

TABLE 5. Assessment of Problem. Total Group

Problem Statement

1. We lack the instructional staffnecessary to operate MDTA programs.

Column 1 Column 11Mean Littleor -No

Difficulty*

.96 67%

2. Our instructional and/or administra-tive staff are not oriented towardoccupational programs. .48 85

3. The aim of MDTA Ito respond tolocal manpower needs) is not inkeeping with the aims of our college. .40 86

4. Other institutions in our area arealready responding to area manpowerneeds. .71 76

5. Restrictions and constraints on in-struction and/or record-keepingcause too much difficulty. 1.04 63

6. We would need to hire specialteachers. but could not guaranteetheir salaries between grant periods. 1.72 33

7. Communications among institutionsregarding MDTA-type projects in ourarea are so inadequate we might beduplicating efforts of otherinstitutions. .90 71

8. The funding allowed for MDTAprotects is inadequate for us todevelop such projects. 1.20 56

9. Scheduling for MDTA projectswould conflict with normalschedul6a. .81 74

Response categories- 0 = no problem, 1 = problem easily .N.qtd.2 problem which might be solved. 3 = problem too difficultto solve.

Combined 0 and 1 responses

Philosophical Conflicts

Community colleges tend to perceive little or no conflictbetween their mission or educational philosophy andthat of MDTA. Using statements 1, 2. 3, and 9 as ameasure of goal congruence, 78% of the respondentsperceived no serious problems perhaps because commu-nity colleges are committed to offering comprehensiveeducational services and Mete is ar existing machineryfor offering programs ranging from short courses foreither occupational up-grading or cultural enrichment

5

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

and for associate degree occupational or liberal artspreparation. Generally speaking, the administrativestructure. operating procedures, and staffing of commu-nity colleges accommodate diverse offerings and flexiblescheduling of prime time -- consistent with MDTA goals.

Conflicts in Roles

In communities where there is no delineation of the roleof institutions, duplication of manpower training ser-vim could prove a problem. Yet such possible conflictsin roles of various institutions in the community andpossible duplication of services as represented in state-ments 4 and 7 were assessed as minor by 73% of theresponding colleges. The possibility of other institutionsalready responding to manpower needs was seen aspresenting no problem or as being easily solved by 76%.The possibility of duplicating efforts of other institu-tions was not considered a major concern by 71% of thecolleges. The general tendency of community colleges toutilize advisory committees consisting of representa.ivesof the employer community, manpower planning agen-cies, and community development groups would mini-mize the possibilities of duplication. Furthermore, com-munity colleges tend to serve population groups un-served or poorly served by other institutions in thecommunity.

Problems withAdministration

Often local agencies cite the regulations and guidelinesof state and federal agencies as deterrents to themobilization of local resources. Significantly, problemsrelating to MDTA administrative constraints and regula-tions (statements 5, 6, 8) were identified as the mostserious of the three general problem categories. For 50%of the respondents, this category of problem was serious.

Two of the problem.statements (6 and 8) related tofunding. Statement 6 (hiring special teachers but notbeing able to guarantee their salaries between grantperiods) was identified as a difficult problem by 77% ofthe respondents. The fact that this percentage is notlower undoubtedly is traceable to the short term natureof MDTA programs and the unpredictabie nature of thedemand for training services by MDTA agencies. Thelatter factor often reflects the availability of Federalfunds rather than a demand for graduates of specificoccupational programs. In the case of statement 8, only56% of the respondents considered adequate funding ofMDTA programs as no problem or a problem easilysolved.

It should be noted in interpreting these findings thatthe Information the respondents have regarding thesepotential problem areas follows exactly the same order.

6

They know most about their own colleges' policies andmission, almost as much about the traditional roles ofother institutions in their respective communities, andbut about MDTA. Those problems perceived by col-leges to be most difficult to solve are problems which aremost easily subject to solution by MDTA administration.The kinds of problems which MDTA administrationwould have little, if any, means of solving, such asproblems relating to educational policy, appear to bereasonably inconsequential. It would appear that thoseproblem areas within the control of the communitycolleges are not likely to be barriers to acceleratedparticipation of the colleges in MDTA programs if theproblem areas associated with MDTA administrationcould be reduced.

Counselor of Iowa State Employment Service consults withinstructors at Des Moines Skill Center, Des Moines AreaCommunity College,

Regional Assessment

Table 6 is a summary of the assessment of potentialproblems by region, showing percentages of collegesperceiving little or no difficulty with the problemstatements listed in Table 5.

Table 6 reveals substantial differences among the 10regions, For example, 25% of the respondents in RegionI but 64% in Region V perceived problem statement 8(funding) as presenting little or no difficulty. It may besignificant that the lowest percentages of colleges seeinglittle or no preolem in 5 of the 9 statements were inRegion I, vi.lale 5 of the 9 highest percentages were inRegion X. These are the same two regions reporting highand low extremes with regard to availability of servicesas noted previously.

Summary

Analysis of the data relating to potential barriers tocommunity college participation in MDTA programssuggests that, although variations exist among states withregard to the assessment of the severity of obstacles,these conclusions are in order:

1, Potential problems related to the development ofMDTA programs are viewed generally as easilysolved;

2. The most serious problems are those most easilyaddressed by the agencies administering MDTA: and

3. In the main, problems appear to be related toinstitutional and state-connected factors rather thanregional ones

TABLE 6. Comparison of ProblemAssessments by Region(percentage of respondents)

Problem Statements

Region 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

48 73 67 69 54 23 42 25 64I I 57 76 89 62 53 24 59 52 61III 69 82 84 70 66 22 57 43 76IV 68 87 89 79 68 35 81 60 80V 73 87 90 77 71 41 74 64 75VI 61 79 74 65 40 22 59 55 73VII 63 88 88 76 62 33 72 50 76VIII 82 89 93 78 56 37 70 56 74IX 63 89 84 82 67 35 77 61 70X 80 93 97 89 66 41 68 54 87

Total 67 85 86 76 63 33 71 56 74

See Table 5 for problem statements

Generally speaking, greater participation by commu-nity and junior colleges in MDTA programs is contingentupon a reduction of the barriers traceable to administra-tive guidelines or to the interpretation of these guide-lines by state MDTA officials. Problems traceable toindividual community college interest and commitmentin serving diverse populations are likely to continue toserve as barriers to the utilization of community collegesin particular communities as MDTA delivery vehicles.

Despite differences in actual assessments of the variousproblem-statements, the regions tended to be similar intheir rankings of those problems. In fact, all regionsranked statement 6 ( "We would neeri to hire specialteachers, but could not guarantee their salaries betweengrant periods") as the most serious problem. All but oneregion ranked statement 8 as the next most seriousproblem and all regions ranked statement 2 ("Ourinstructional and/or administrative staff are not orientedtoward occupational programs") as either the least orthe next-to-least serious problem.

MIIIIINIMI=1111111111M.

I.

instructor in in Production Machine Operator Program at Mil-waukee Area Technical College Skill Center (Wisconsin) super-vises student,

I

IV. Expanding Participation

The Rationale forAccelerated ParticipationWhat benefits are derived from comprehensive man-power training in a community college setting? Toanswer this question the team of consultants utilized inthis study identified a number of characteristics thatmake it desirable for community colleges to serve ascommunity centers for comprehensive manpower train-ing services as pr ribed in the Manpower Developmentand Training Act of 1962. The following are the existingcharacteristics considered by the consultants to be themost important:

1. Comprehensive Training and Eciu--.0,;on Programs.Most community colleges offer a range of education andtraining programs from short-term courses to associate-den. ee programs in various occupations and in the liberal

carts. As such, community colleges have demonstratedtheir willingness and ability to provide an educationaldelivery system which meets the needs of the people intheir communities. Frequently, cooperative work experi-ence programs combine work in business, industry, orgovernment agencies with continuing skill training andadditional education. Thus, it is possible for MDTAtrainees to enter into education and training beyond theMDTA beginning, but based on that approach and builtto serve the specific and special needs of individuals.Many community colleges gear the use of their resourcesto serve both special-group needs and individual learningapproaches. Emphasis is increasingly being placed onperformance objectives rather than on grades and timeexpended in class.

2. Extensive Support Services.Fiscal management and administration, outreach, coun-seling and guidance, job placement, follow-up eva:ua-tions, library and learning resources, and supervisory andstaff development services are required in offeringmanpower training. Most community colleges havestrength in these services and are capable of developingother services as needs become apparent. The addition ofmore intensive capacities in each is far less costly thanorganizing and operating a completely new and separateadministration to carry on these functions in an indepen-dent Skills Center. In addition, manpower trainingrequires support personnel with empathetic, insightfuland humane characteristics. Most community collegesare staffed with such persons.

3. Reduction of Duplication.Taxpayers are greatly concerned about the proliferationof services, agencies, and programs. The uncoordinatedgrowth of services and the wasteful duplication of effort,facilities, staffing, and equipment no ;longer go un-noticed and unprotested. Education and training isparticularly vulnerable because of the relatively highproportion of tax revenues being expended. The com-munity college has the basic administrative mechanism,

8

specialized facilities, and instructional staff to operate anMDTA Skills Center with a minimum of additionalpersonnel and equipment. On:y an expansion rather thanthe establishment of services is needed to accomodate aSkills Center operation in most cases. The flow ofMDTA funds through an existing community collegestructure would tend to reduce the possibility ofduplication of services.

4. Opportunities for Intellectual Growth.The community college environment, with its widevariety of courses, programs, and community eventsmakes it easy for the Skills Center student to achieve hisprimary goal of saleable skills, and couple this oppor-tunity with programs to clvelop intellectual growth andto reduce personality, cultural, or linguistic barriersthrough social interaction with a diversity of otherstudents. In such a setting, the constant stimulation andencouragement to explore, inquire, and learn aboutmankind is present. These opportunities are rarelypresent in a Skills Center operated independently of acommunity college.

5. Education Mobility.An important factor in preparing for a career is theopportunity for a person to modify or expand hisoccupational goals. When a Skills Center is an integralPart of a community college, its participants immedi-ately have access to the entire range of educational andcareer learning opportunities offered in that institutionwith a minimum of administrative obstacles. In contrast,a separate Skills Center establishment must, by neces-sity, put certain limitations on the student, since it canoffer only those areas of training and education forwhich it is organized and staffed, and for whichequipment and facilities are available. Persons attendingan independently operated Skills Center often findtransfer to a college difficult. The cumbersome negotia-tions that are required through Such a dual administra-tive process are generally too demanding for the typicalSkills Center enrollee. Mobility is enhanced when theSkills Center is an integral part of a community college.

6. A Dignified Setting.For disadvantaged persons to feel a part of the totalsociety, their training must be conducted in a settingthat produces a feeling of self-respect and personalworth. A Skills Center operated as an integral part of acommunity college makes it possible for its enrollees tobecome a part of the mainstream in the college, with theprivileges and respect afforded other students. Theenrollees in manpower training must have the oppor-tunity to participate in all of the college services whetherstudent government, support services, or leisure activi-ties. Disadvantaged persons especially want no part ofsegregated training and they are handicapped and embar-rassed by any action or procedure which forces theminto segregated and isolated programs. A communitycollege environment reduces the possibility of continuedsegregation and isolation.

Delivery Potential

Community college participation has been limited, butmany colleges have the potential for offering MDTAprograms or greatly expanding present offerings. Thesurvey results discussed in Part I indicated that part ofthe underlying problem was the colleges' unfamiliaritywith the process through which they could becomeinvolved in MDTA programs.

part of the analysis of problems associated withMDTA, the project staff derived an index of deliverypotential based on college responses to the problemstatements (see Table 71. This figure is helpful inidentifying specific colleges and states that could beconsidered to have a high probability of success indeveloping manpower training programs. Table 8 showsthe index scores by state, though the limited number ofrespondents in some states indicates that the scoresshould be used carefully. The index figure was computedfor each college by summing all responses to the nineproblem-statements and dividing by the number ofresponses. Thus a college that responded with assess-ments of 0, 1, 3, 0. 1, 2, 2, 3, 0, would have an indexscore of 12/9 or 1.33. State index scores were computedas the mean of all the colleges responding within thestate. The national index score of .91 is the mean of allindividual college index scores (not the mean of statescores).

TABLE 7. Problem Statements

1. We lack the instructional staff necessary tooperate MDTA programs.

2. Our instructional and/or administrative staffare not oriented toward occupational programs.

3. The aim of MDTA (to respond to local man-power needs) is not in keeping with the aims ofour college.

4. Other institutions in our area are alreadyresponding to area manpower needs.

5. Restrictions and constraints on instructionand/or record-keeping cause too much difficulty.

6. We would need to hire special teachers, butcould not guarantee their salaries betweengrant periods.

7. Communications among institutions regardingMDTA-type projects in our area are soinadequate we might be duplicating efforts ofother institutions.

8. The funding allowed for MDTA projects isinadequate for us to develop such projects.

9. Scheduling for MDTA projects would conflictwith normal schedules.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

The state mean index scores given in Table 8 help todelineate differences among the states, although distribu-tion of scores for the total United States displayshomogeneity. In a so-called normal distribution, 68% of31: scores fall within one standard deviation above andbolow the mean; in the distribution of scores in Table 8,wily one score was more than one standard deviationaway from the mean. Twenty six state scores are below,with California scoring exactly at the mean; this indi-cates a slight negative skew. This is confirmed by thelocation of the median score at .95 just slightly abovethe mean. In spite of the overall ho nogeneity describedabove, a fairly wide range of scores are indicated fromIdaho's .24 to Arkansas' 1.47.

On the basis of their responses to the nine problem-statements, 148 colleges were identified whose success-potential might be considered particularly good. Thecriteria used to identify the colleges were (1) that thecollege must have responded with either a "0" (noproblem) or is. "1" (problem easily solved) to at least sixof the nine statements and (2) that the index score forthe college not exceed .50.

Instructor and trainees checking engine block in Dies,:, Mechanics Program. Wilmington Manpower Skips Center, DelawareTechnical and Community College.

Although these criteria are, in fact, arbitrary they are

neither unrealistic nor without rationale. If the problemsPostulated and the scale used to assess their seriousness

are valid, (and an analysis of the data gives affirmative

support) it would seem reasonable that the highest

potential for success should be related to the lowest

index score the college's overall assessment of theproblems.

Of the 148 colleges, 49 are colleges having eitherSkills Centers or multi-occupational projects or both. Ofthe remaining 99 colleges identified as having highPotential but no current extensive involvement, thedegree of positive potential is probably quite high. Thisassessment is based on the fact that approximately 43%of the colleges currently operating extensive manpowertraining programs did not meet the criteria for "highpotential colleges" stated above. If these colleges (whichapparently have more difficulties than these .criteriaallow) have been able to operate manpower trainingprograms successfully, it would seem that the mark setfor "high potential" is indeed high.

9

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

TABLE 8. Index of Delivery PotentialBased on Mean Index Scores by State

State Mean Index Number

Alabama .77 14

Alaska .78 3

Arizona .75 9Arkansas 1.47 4California .91 75Colorado .94 11

Connecticut 1.45 12

Delaware 1.06 2Florida 1.13 22Georgia 1.04 9Hawaii .78 4

Idaho .24 2Illinois .72 39Indiana .59 8Iowa .85 14

Kansas 1.02 17

Kentucky .99 9

Louisiana 1.27 2

Maine 1.10 4Mary land .99 12

Massachusetts 1.17 15

Michigan .71 25Minnesota 1.15 18

Mississippi .69 14

Missouri 1.03 11

Montana .59 3

Nebraska 1.00 8

Nevada 1.06 2

New Jersey 1.06 9

New Mexico 1.06 6

New York 1.02 32North Carolina .64 36North Dakota .42 4

Ohio .97 17

Oklahoma .84 6Oregon .67 13

Pennsylvania .96 13

South Carolina .54 9Tennessee .87 13

Texas 1.12 26Utah .37 3

Vermont .78 2

Virginia .90 9

Washington .94 12

West Virginia 1.15 3Wisconsin .65 19

Wyoming 1.08 7

Puerto Rico 1.39 4

TOTAL U.S. Mean = .91 N = 611

New Hampshire, Rhode 'sland, and South Dakota didnot respond to the questionnaire and are, therefore, notinaided in this table.

10

Ma.

wit

Individual counselingcounseling of student at Denver Skills Center,Community College of Denver.

How to Start

Community colleges planning to enter into manpowerdevelopment and training should lay a sound founda-tion. Consultants to the study advised that the following

phase:

should be accomplished early in the planning

1. Study the ActBy studying the Manpower Development and TrainingAct of 1962, and subsequent amendments, the com-munity college administrative staff will become familiarwith the intent of Congress, the purpose of thelegislation, the specific provisions for programs underthe law, and the uses of funds.

2. Review Federal RegulationsNext, the college must become acquainted with theregulations covering the administration of the law.Specific guidelines are developed for state and regionaloffices of the U.S. Departments of Labor, and Health,Education and Welfare for use in administering theMDTA programs. The college should understand theseguidelines and be able to interpret their significance forthe college.

3. Review of.College PhilosophyThe philosophy of the college should be reviewed todetermine its consistency with the purposes of MDTAprograms. If a gap between the philosophy of the collegeand the purposes of MDTA does exist, it obviouslywould not be feasible for the college to participate inMDTA programs.. Early determination of such a criticalinconsistency is desirable so that needed changes can bemade.

4. Establish Contact with State MDTA AgenciesThe state agencies having responsibilities for MDTAadministration publish guidelines for institutional panic.ipation. This information will be useful in determiningthe feasibility of participation and in clarifying theoperating guidelines and application procedures that aninterested community college. must follow. A stateeducational agency, usually the state vocational educa-tion agency, has responsibility for processing the initialapplications, and monitoring the training programs, and

the state employment service handles the screening,referral, placement, and follow-up of enrollees, inaddition to the payment of stipends to enrollees.

5. Identify Prospective Buy-In AgenciesBy developing wor king relations with prospective "buy-in" agencies, the community college will build channelsof communication necessary to serving the manpowerneeds of the community. Among prospective buy-inagencies are Concentrated Employment Program (CEP),Model Cities, Office of Economic Opportunity (OEMDivision of Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR). WorkIncentive Program (WIN), Neighborhood Youth Corps(NYC), National Alliance of Businessmen (NAB), thestate employment service, and the state educatiragency. These agencies are in a position to assist thecollege in planning its MDTA involvement.

6. Establish an Advisory CommitteeAn essential element in preparing for involvement inMDTA programs is the establishment of an advisorycommittee. This committee should have broad represen-tation. Manpower agencies and employers should beincluded in its membership.

7. l_inkage with Manpower Area Planning CouncilThe Manpower Area Planning Council (MAPC), a part ofthe Cooperative Area Manpower Planning System(CAMPS), will be a valuable source of information onlocal manpower needs. MAPC must sign off and have inits yearly plan a statement of need for MDTA skilltraining programs. The college should become an activeparticipant in MAPC. As the community college involve-ment with local agencies progresses, an effort should beundertaken to have the college's interests written intothe MAPC plan. Information on the MAPC structure isusually available from the local offices of the stateemployment service.

Almombaummum......,

1

Student advisory group. Des Moines Skill Center, Des MoinesArea Community College.

AlternativeOrganizational Structures

A community college has several organizational optionsavailable as it establishes an MDTA Skills Center; theoption taken should reflect local circumstances asillustrated by the following examples of a center

BEST COPY MAILABLE

integrated into the campus, one situated off campus andone subcontracted to private industry.

1. The Denver Manpower Skills Center operates as anintegral part of the three campuses of the CommunityCollege of Denver (Colorado). This approach requiresboth administrators and instructors to be flexibleenough to provide the innovation and dedication neces-sary to successfully implement a truly trainee-orientedmanpower program. Innovative instructional methodsmust be developed to blend MDTA into the overalleffort of the college. The instructional program of eachcampus of the Community College of Denver is sub-divided into seven instructional divisions which operateunder the direction of two deans of instruction: thedean of general studies and the dean of occupationalstudies. In order for the Skills Center to be coordinatedwith all instructional divisions, it was essential that the

Skills Center operations on each campus be designated asa division with an assistant Skills Center director. Thedirector is stationed in central administration and isresponsible to the president of the multi-campus institu-tion. Other Skills Center personnel are assigned to thedivision appropriate to their assignments on each cam-pus. The Skills Center counselors are assigned to andquartered in the division of student services with othermembers of the college counseling staff. The basiceducation instructors and aides function in the divisionof communication and arts. One basic education instruc-tor serves as a liaison between basic education and thegeneral studies and occupational studies programs. Thisserves to place adult basic education with the regularcollege structure.

2. The Des Moines Sk ills Center, operated by Des MoinesArea Community College (Iowa), servm as an example ofa CeItter operated at a location separate from thecampus complex of the College. Basically, in the Center,skills training in eleven occupational areas is offered (bythe cluster concept). In order for the instructionaloperation to be coordinated with the community collegeprograms, the director of the center was placed directlyunder the assistant superintendent for Instruction of thecollege. The Skills Center is staffed to provide all servicesneeded to support the training program.

3. As an example of another approach, City Collegesof Chicago made the decision to involve private industryin the management of Chicago's MDTA Skills Center.Under a contractual arrangement, Thiokol ChemicalCorporation was given the responsibility of setting upand conducting training programs. Thiokol's obligationwas to: establish a temporary training location (while apermanent facility was being constructed); secure equip-ment, supplies, and training materials; and interview andselect the teachers and administrative staff. AlthoughThiokol initially operated the Skills Center, the Centerwas eventually staffed and directly administered bypersonnel of City Colleges of Chicago.

Other organizational variations in operating MDTASkills Centers exist. Table 9 gives a listing of MDTA

11

TABLE 9. MDTA SKILLS CENTERS AFFILIATEDWITH COMMUNITY AND JUNIOR COLLEGES'

USOEPlegicsn

Names of StiltsCenters

None

II None

III Wilmington ManpowerSkills Center

IV Gulfport ManpowerTraining Center

V Chicago Sk ills Center

East 'it t. olio% SY ills

Cr i ter

Milwaukee Li rim, alSlims Center

VI San Antonio SkillsCenter

Cianinunity & JuniorColleges

Delaware Technical andCommunity College

City. State

Wilmington.Delaware

Mississippi Gulf Coast GulfportJunior College Mississippi

City Cottages of Chrt-aO0 Chicago.Illinois

State Community College East St Louisuonns

mow,ttoiee T.. tun, ol Milwaukee.College Wiscnnisin

San Antonio College

VII Des Moines CenprohenSive Des Moines AreaV.icational F Community College

VIII Denver ManpowerTraining Center

IX Marit:OPri County SkinsCenter

San Francisco ManpowerTraining Sinus Center

Southern Nevada ManpowerSk cis Center

East Bay Skills Center

Hawaii ManpowerTraining Center

Community College ofDenver

Sant Antonio.Teaas

Ankeny_ Irma

DirrIXIr.Colorado

Mar it0Pri County College PhoenixDistrict AI 'lona

San Francisco Community San FtariciSCO

College District California

Clark County Community Las Vegas.College Nevada

Peralta Community Oakland.College District California

Community College System Honolulu.University of Hawaii Hawaii

Portland Community Portland Community Portland.College MOT Center College Oregon

;Based on information received from Division of Man-power Development and Training, BOAE, USOE.

Skills Centers operated by community and junior col-leges, It was obvious to the project staff that theoperation of an MDTA Skills Center must be tailored tothe circumstances peculiar to the particular communitycollege, the community, and the state structure.

12

Regardless of the organizational structure selected,timely labor market data are essential to every commu-nity college offering training programs under the Man-power Development and Training Act of 1962 and otherrelated legislation. Information on existing sources ofmanpower supply in particular occupations and themanpower demand is vital to the effective operation ofmanpower training programs. The establishment ofinstitutional priorities, the development of programobjectives, the guidance of prospective enrollees and theeffective placement of graduates all require meaningfuldata regarding short-term and long-range trends in thelabor market. $uch information must reflect the nationalas well as the local and regional dimensions of themarket for specific occupational categories. Conse-quently, an increasing number of community collegesfind it beneficial to become integrated with the Coopera-tive Area Manpower Planning System (CAMPS) and itslocal extensions the Manpower Area Planning Councils(MAPC).

Through the MAPC the mayor, or ether head of localgovernment, prepares a comprehensive area manpowerplan that includes recommendations for the implementa-tion of specific kinds and levels of programs. The plan isformulated within the overall planning constraints pro-vided by the Regional Manpower Coordinating Commit-tee agencies previously identified. The components ofthe plan consist of:

1) The assessment of needs for and present avail-ability of manpower services within the area;

2) A statement of priorities among types of ser-vices to meet these needs and populations to beserved; and

3) Recommendations for funding of manpowertraining programs.

In addition to this planning responsibility, the MAPCsupports the mayor by assuming the responsibility forreview of manpower program operations. Based on datadeveloped by the MAPC staff and other appropriateinformation sources the council continuously reviewsmanpower program operations to identify soft spots inprogram activities, especially under-utilized resources orprogram components which do not appear to be meetingsignificant needs. This review is intended to correspondto and support federal and state operational reviewactivities. The traditional CAMPS functions, especiallyinformation sharing and identification of linkages, arereinforced by the MAPC.

V. Manpower Planning

The Cooperative AreaManpower Planning System

The authority for CAMPS comes from an ExecutiveOrder signed by the President in August. 1968. stating-

1. Cooperative planning and execution of manpowertraining and supporting manpower service programsis hereby established as the policy of the federalgovernment. and

2. Each federal executive department or agencyadministering manpower service programs shall, tothe -extent consistent with law, carry out itsprograms and exercise its functions so as to furtherthe national manpower planning policy.

Federal agencies with manpower training and devel-opment interests participating in CAMPS include:Department. of Labor, Department of Health, Educationand Welfare; Department of Housing and Urban Devel-opment; Office of Economic Opportunity; Departmentof Agriculture; Department of Interior. Department ofCommerce: Civil Service Commission; and the Environ-mental Protection Agency.

In effect, CAMPS was established to prc . le anorganised system of information exchange among man-power and manpower-related agencies at the area andstate levels. Linkages among programs of various agen-cies are made possible through CAMPS.

CAMPS has a network of Manpower Area PlanningCouncils, operating in local communities, with theirtasks being:

1. To advise mayors (or other appropriate localofficials), governors, and regional manpower coor-dinating committees of the needs of their states orareas for manpower services and on the locallyconceived priorities and the kind of services re-quired to address these needs; and

2. to assist the governors in developing for their statesor areas comprehensive manpower plans that recog-nize these needs and priorities and make recom-mendations for appropriate program funding.

The role of the area councils is essentially to advisegovernors and mayors on manpower activities, not tooperate or administer programs.

The Manpower Area Planning Councils are critical toCAMPS, primarily because they reflect the conditions ofthe labor market at the local level. They are creations ofthe mayors of the principal cities or other heads of local

jurisdictions in designated areas. It is this local characterof MAPC that provides the basis for an effective linkagebetween it and the community college.

I!

-NOV.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

/

Upholstery student with instructor, Des Moines Skill Center, DesMoines Community College.

Community Colleges andManpower Planning

CAMPS and the local MAPC can be valuable resources inthe basic planning which must provide a sound founda-tion for education and training operations of thecommunity colleges. In turn, community colleges maybe of significance to the overall manpower planningsystem in the community, as well as the state andnational activities of CAMPS. The network of commu-nity colleges can give the system information such asanticipated graduates in various occupational categories.Furthermore, each college, because of its orientation tothe local labor market, has the potential of becoming akey unit in the delivery of manpower training andeducation services to the community.

Although, generally speaking, community collegeshave only participated in CAMPS at a superficial level,there are some notable examples of deep involvement.For instance, Des Moines Area Community College(Iowa) has made major contributions to the MAPCactivities in the Des Moines area. Staff members of DesMoines Area Community College have had active roles inpreparing local manpower planning studies. The opera-tion of an MDTA Skills Center by the College is linkedto the local MAPC. Similarly, representatives of DallasCounty Junior College District (Texas) are activelyinvolved in the local activities of MAPC in the Dallasarea.

The City Colleges of Chicago System (Illinois) is

represented in the Chicago MAPC. Through this affilia-tion the college serves as a delivery vehicle for manpower

13

training related to several programs under the directionof the Chicapp MAPC such as the Chicago MDTA SkillsCenter, Model Cities programs, day care center training,Public Service Careers programs, and G.E.D. programs in12 Urban Progress Centers.

El Paso Community College (Texas), a relatively newinstitution, participates in the Upper Rio Grande Man-power Area Planning Council. Furthermore, the collegehas been considered as a candidate for tr.e operation of aMDTA Skills Center for that area. This consideration isreflected in the following policy statement by the UpperRio Grande MAPC:

Acquisition of a Skills Center is of the highestpriority under present categorical programdesign. An operational center would provide avaluable resource easily assimilated underprime sponsorship by the city and in keepingwith whatever degree of decategorizationcomes from anticipated legislation. Presentplanning indicates that a Skills Center couldbe more effectively operated in conjunctionwith the new El Paso Community College,although other possible arrangements have notbeen ruled out. The most important objectiveis to consolidate, expand and improve thearray of services.

Definite advantages can be gained by both the MAPCand the community colleges by a more intensiveinvolvement of the colleges in local manpower planningactivities. The MAPC serves as a center in whichnumerous manpower interests in the community con-verge. Private and public employers, union leadership,social agencies, and training and education institutionsmay pool their resources through this mechanism.

14

Programs in community colleges may, therefore, beimproved by providing the colleges with a flow ofcomprehensive manpower information. Communityoutreach by the college is enhanced by such anaffiliation. Likewise, if a MAPC utilizes the resources ofthe local community college, a significant gap in thedelivery of manpower training and education services tothe community can be bridged.

By integrating a community college into MAPC plans,a linkage between the demand of the local and nationallabor market and a major source of manpower supplythe community college becomes a reality. Communitycolleges interested in participation in manpower plan-ning activities may obtain information on the localMAPC from the local offices of the state employmentservice.

A former Culinary trainee from Southern Nevada ManpowerTraining Center, Clan County Community College, working onhis first job with his supervisor observing in the background.

BEST COPY AIMIABLE.

VI. Skills Centers Operated byCommunity Colleges:Some Examples

Among the community colleges engaged in operatingprograms under the Manpower Development and Train-ing Act of 1962. a number have emerged as comprehen-sive manpower training skills centers. Earlier in thisreport, brief reference was made to the organizationalapproaches followed by colleges. The ensuing review ofselected cases illustrates in greater detail the range ofcircumstances underlying community college entry intoMDTA programs, the character of the response by thecotieqes, and their experiences in operating MDTA SkillsCenters. Furthermore, specific obstacles that had to beovercome in these selected cases are identified.

Portland CommunityCollege (Oregon)

In the summer of 1963. Portland Community Collegewas contacted by the Oregon Board of Education andasked to develop group projects in the fields ofclerk-stenographer and insurance specialist. These groupprojects were funded and in operation by September.1963. Early in 1964, the college was asked to developOregon's first MDTA multi-occupational training pro-ject. In responding, Portland Community College made acommitment to develop a service system that wouldprovide training for the disadvantaged referrals of allageni.ies in the community. Flom this beginning in1963. Portland Community College has served as themain delivery system of MDTA training services in thePortland metropolitan area.

The successful development of MDTA training pro-grams at Portland Community College may be traced toa number of factors:

1. The community college movement in Oregona recent one compared to some other stateshas a legislative mandate to provide a balancebetween tower-division transfer and skill train-ing programs for all members of the commu-nity;

2. The college, because it was a relatively newinstitution, was not tied down to a traditionalinstructor-oriented philosophy, but was able todevelop and operate a two-year institution witha student-centered philosophy and purpose;and

3. A rather large investment of public funds inOregon community colleges corresponded withthe first allocations of MDTA funds in Oregon.The state legislature made it clear that, wher-ever possible, emphasis should be placed uponthe provision of manpower development ser-vices by community colleges.

In late 1964, the college committed itself to devel-oping the capability to provide services to disadvantagedpersons of the community. MDTA became, and is still,the backbone of this service. The coordinator of MDTAat the college was given department chairman status. Thedeans and instructional department chairmen were tocooperate in curriculum and program development andto incorporate manpower group skill projects into theongoing programs of the college. Despite a period oferratic MDTA funding and increasing demands placedupon the Portland Community College resources, thecollege, nevertheless, developed a team of supportpersonnel, teachers, and supervisors specifically qualifiedto serve the needs of disadvantaged trainees. Soon afterthe initiation of the program, the local county welfareagency began negotiating for these services for theirclients. Since then, welfare clientsnow referred to as"buy-ins"have been integrated in the basic educationprogram along with clients from the Division of Voca-tional Rehabilitation.

During the early growth period at Portland CommunityCollege, the use of MDTA funds aided the developmentof training programs. Such training programs as those forfood service occupations, dental technicians, and dentalassistants might not have been possible if MDTA fundshad not been available. On the other hand, the PortlandCommunity College budget provided a cash contri-bution, in addition to the in-kind matching, through thecontribution of professional and non-professiunal stafftime plus the rental of non-public space, utilities andmaintenance of public facilities, development of imtrec-tional materials, and support services that aided thedevelopment of a basic education eel skill-trainingcapability for disadvantaged clients.

City Colleges ofChicago (Illinois)

In November. 1970 City Colleges of Chicago began atraining experiment involving 120 male and femaleunemployed adultsmostly Black. This operation was anon-residential, vocational, academic, GED tiaining, andjob-placement program conducted in a renovated sectionof the General Services Administration complex locatedon Chicago's Southside.

Although this new facilitylater named the ChicagoSkills Centerfollowed the federal agency's guidelinesfor planning and funding, from the beginning itsoperation was distinctly different from other metropoli-tan MDTA training centers. The key difference was inthe management and program monitoring of the Center.Thiokol Chemical Corporationa private firm heavilyinvolved in other federally funded training programswas selected through competitive bidding to 1) designthe Center's training programs, 2) hire and train thestaff, 3) maintain budgets and other controls, 4)maintain liaison with the industrial and commercialcommunity for the placement of the Center's graduates,and 5) operate programs.

15

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

The need for such a training center in Chicago had beenconsidered earlier. However, it did not gain momentumwithin the City until late in 1968, after several monthsof exploration and study by the Public Building Com-mission of Chicago and the City Colleges of Chicago, incooperation with the Mayor's Committee for Economicand Cultural Development. With the need for such acenter documented, these agencies submitted an applica-tion to the Economic Development Administration, U.S.Department of Commerce, for a direct grant to con-struct a new training facility in the Chicago Redevelop-ment Area as part of Chicago's mid-city economicdev.)lopment project. Later in the same year, theseagencies modified the original request and made applica-tion for a planning grant to establish a permanent skillscenter. The request was approved by the Department ofHealth, Education and Welfare in December 1968, andwork started immediately, under the coordination anddirection of the City Colleges of Chicago, to bring theconcept into reality.

Tien

Job placement counselor conferring with student. Chicago SkillCenter, City Colleges of Chicago.

The following chronology reviews briefly the eventsassociated with the establishment of the Chicago SkillsCenter:

1, A survey was conducted to determine the extentof possible community, business, and governmentinvolvement in the Skills Center;

2. Based in part on the above survey and endorse-ments, temporary facilities for an iterim centerwere leased and funds were allocated to renovateand equip the temporary operation;

3. With the cooperation of the Illinois State Employ-ment Service, and the Division of Vocational andTechnical Education of the Illinois State Board ofVocational Education and Rehabilitation, an

MOTA contact was developed.

4. A request for proposal to operate the facility wasissued and Thiokol Corporation was selected asthe contractor to staff and operate the temporarycenter;

16

5. The City Colleges of Chicago assigned a projectmanager to provide guidance and liaison betweenThiokol and all local agencies involved with thecenter; and

6. Renovations, purchases, installation of equipmentand supplies, and staff hiring proceeded under thejoint supervision of Thiokol and the projectmanager of City Colleges of Chicago.

In May, 1973, a newly constructed facility wasopened. Thirty-nine programs are now offered by theChicago Skills Center. Although initially City Colleges ofChicago contracted Thiokol Corporation to operate theCenter, it is now completely operated by City Collegesof Chicago.

Community College ofDenver (Colorado)

When the Community College of Denver opened inSeptember, 1968, the manpower section of the ColoradoState Board for Community Colleges and OccupationalEducation approached the college administration withprogram needs. The college was committed to anopen-door admission policy and had, as its purpose, themeeting of community needs. With this as its frame ofreference, the college agreed to accept the request of theManpower Section. Pilot operations began at the collegein October, 1968. A multi-occupational program wasprovided as an integral part of the college.

aft.

Drafting student at work, Denver Skill Center, CommunityCollege of Denver.

MDTA trainees were referred to an orientation, basiceducation and occupational exploration phase whichprovided counseling and an assessment of their remedialneeds and occupational interests. Once these needs andinterests were determined, the trainees were individuallyprogrammed toward specific occupation objectives, setatted from some fifty occupational offerings of thecommunity college. If training in the chosen occupation

was not available or offered, the program afforded theoption of referral to other public or private trainingagencies so that training requirements could be satisfiedimmediately. In either instance, the trainee was placed inoccupational courses attended by the regular students,and was never labeled as a disadvantaged MDTA trainee.His deficiencies in educational development were ad-dressed concurrently with occupational training. Reme-dial courses were directly related to that occupation forwhich the enrollee was being trained.

This concept presented some difficulties. The foremosttask of the project was the implementation of a programwith enough flexibility to permit the acceptance of atrainee into an on-going occupational class at any time.Curriculum had to be adapted to provide meaningfulexperiences for the midquarter enrollee; student-to-student tutoring situations had to be implemented; andsupportive staff development workshops had to beestablished. These were some of the innovations that hadto be developed to accommodate MDTA trainees.

Upon meeting the basic criteria at the college, anapplication for designation as an MDTA Skills Centerwas submitted. The designation was received in 1970.

IL

Air

4111?

OM"' ile6. 4

:;211g_a_

4'

Welding instructor and trainee in Combination Welding Program,Wilmington Manpower Skills Center, Delaware Technical andCommunity College.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Maricopa CountyCommunity CollegeDistrict (Arizona)

The Maricopa County Skills Center was establishedunder the direction of the Phoenix Union High SchoolDistrict in 1963 immediately following the enactment ofthe Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962.The high school district operated the program directly asan auxiliary of the Phoenix Union High School Adminis-trative Office until the summer of 1968. In July of1968, the high school district requested the ArizonaState Department of Vocational Education to release itfrom this responsibility because of a change in policyconcerning the administration of post-high school educa-tional programs. At this time, the State Department ofVocational Education requested that the MaricopaCounty Community College District assume the adminis-trative responsibility for the operation of the SkillsCenter and its related manpower programs in thecounty. The Maricopa County Community CollegeDistrict agreed.

Th9 Maricopa County Community College Districtoperated most of the skill training in the county for thevarious manpower programs involving the disadvantaged,minorities, he unemployed and the under-employedcitizens of the community. The three largest contractshave been with the State Department of VocationalEducation, the Arizona State Employment Service WorkIncentive Program, and the Concentrated EmploymentProgram. The programs are 90-percent federally funded,and the training funds come from the U.S. Departmentof Health, Education and Welfare, through the StateDepartment of Vocational Education. The allowances,or stipends, for the trainees come from the U.S.Department of Labor through the Unemployment Com-pensation Division of the Employment Security Com-mission.

Advisory committees exist in most of the skilltraining areas. In addition, the college has organized anumbrella-type advisory committee for the total program.Fifteen of the largest community-oriented organizationsand agencies were requested to designate a representativeto serve on the committee.

Summary

This review of specific experiences of community andjunior colleges presently operating MDTA Skills Centersindicates the wide variation in local restrictive andpermissive conditions underiying the establishment andoperation of MDTA Skills Centers.

17

VII. Job Training Clusters andSupportive Services

The training offered in MDTA Skills Centers operatedby community colleges varies from college to college.The basis for training program development is thecharacter of the demand for manpower in the labormarket served by the college. Occupational clusters arestructured to reflect this demand.

r

\5'

Students ;n Licensed Practical Nurse Program at ChicagoSkill Center, City College of Chicago, receive closely supervisedexperience in cooperating hospitals as part of their training.

For example, the San Antonio Skills Training Center,San Antonio Junior College District, offers the followingoccupational clusters, among other programs:

Clerical Cluster:File ClerkClerk-TypistClerk, General OfficeStenographer

Automobile Mechanics Cluster:Service Station AttendantService Station MechanicCar-Care Center Serviceman

Electrical Appliance Serviceman Cluster:Air Conditioning MechanicRefrigeration MechanicHeavy Household AppliancesSmall Household AppliancesBasic Electrical Systems

Automobile Body Repair Cluster:Basic Body and MetalBody Rebuild and AlignmentSpots and FendersPreparation, Washing, Sanding, Plugging

Painting, Grinding, and Polishing

18

Occupational clusters at Southern Nevada ManpowerTraining Center, Clark County Community College,consist of:

Clerical Cluster:Clerk-General OfficeClerk-TypistBookkeeperClerk-StenoLegal-StenoMedical Transcriber

Hotel-Restaurant Cluster:Set-up & Dish-upPantryCook's HelperBusboy/girlWaiter-WaitressCoffeegirlFood Checker-CashierPosting ClerkFront-Desk Cashier

Electrical-Mechanical Cluster: aep.Installer-TV COneElectronics TechnicianField Service TechnicianBench Service TechnicianInstaller-ApplianceAppliance Red manRefrigeration Appliance Repairman

Automotive Cluster:Light-Line MechanicTune-up SpecialistBrakemanFront-End Alignment

Other occupational clusters offered at skills centers inother community colleges include:

Metal TradesHealth OccupationsBuilding MaintenanceSocial ServiceChild CareCarpentryHeavy EquipmentMeat Cutting

ft;14ik AStudent being tutored for High School Equivalency Certificateexamination at Des Moines Skill Center, Des Moines AreaCommunity College.

In addition to training in specific job skills, acomprehensive array of supportive services are providedto the enrollees. The following services offered by theWilmington Manpower Skills Center, Delaware Technicaland Community College, are typical of the supportiveservices offered by community college training centers:

Basic EducationCommunication SkillsEmployment and Educational Counseling,and Testir gPersonal CounselingA Job Development and Placement OfficeFollow-up of Graduates by Job DeveloperA Pre-Vocational and Job Orientation ProgramA Child Care Program for Trainees' ChildrenOther Supportive Services as Needed.

By combining opportunities for training in specificjob skills and a wide array of supportive services (asdescribed above) with the possibility of continuing withfurther education and training in other programs of thecommunity college, enrollees are provided avenues forcomprehensive development, thus increasing the likeli-hood of employability and advancement in the labormarket.

-

"1"

:sr

ft.i.yfir,..46.046.-"Nat t .4*-..11)

;., ay"; ...4.6".5**; *vN

..41.). belleti Via" **:, .

Student and instructor checking out earthmover in HeavyEquipment Operator/Repair Program, Wilmington ManpowerSkills Center, Delaware Technical and Community College.

so to o'"''5`'

19

VIII. SummaryThe following findings can be summarized from theAACJC study of MDTA programs in community col-leges:

1. The philosophy and operating practices of commu-nity and junior colleges tend to be consistent withthe intent and purposes of the Manpower Develop-ment and Training Act of 1962;

2. A large number of community and junior collegeshave been operating MDTA programs but there areonly a few officially designated MDTA SkillsCenters;

3. Advartages offered by community and juniorcollege participation in MDTA programs include:he availability of comprehensive training andeducation programs under a single administrativestructure, extensive support services, economiesachieved through the reduction of duplication oftraining and education efforts, easy access forenrollees to opportunities for intellectual growthbeyond the scope of MDTA activities, opportu-nities for lateral and vertical educational mobilityfor MDTA enrollees, and the provision of trainingopportunities for disadvantaged persons in a digni-fied social environment;

4. Community and junior college organizationalapproaches to the operation of MDTA range fromoff-campus operations to the incorporation ofMDTA programs as an integral part of the collegeenvironment;

5. Of the services necessary for successful operation ofMDTA programs, a high percentage of the collegessurveyed showed strength in most services with theexceptions being in job development or job engi-neering activities and in job coaching activities;

6. Among the problems experienced by communityand junior colleges in operating programs underMDTA, inadequate funding and difficulty of pro-viding salaries for instructors between grant periodswere frequently cited;

7. Program guides and administrative procedures pre-scribed by MDTA rules and regulations createdoperational difficulties for some community andjunior colleges;

8. To insure inclusion in local manpower planningactivities, a number of community and juniorcolleges participate in the activities of the Man-power Area Planning Councils the local exten-sions of the Cooperative Area Manpower PlanningSystem; and

9. A large number of community and junior colleges,almost 40 percent, either were unaware that they

20

could apply for institutional participation in MDTAactivities or were uncertain regarding the proce-dural prerequisites for such invcivcm:n!..

On the basis of this study, the project staff preparedrecommendations which are summarized tAlow. Theprimary recommendation is that community collegespresently not participating in MDTA programs explorethe feasibility of serving as centers for manpowertraining.

The additional recommendations are as follows:

1. 7h,:t colleges currently offering MDTA programsbut not officially designated as MDTA SkillsCenters initiate discussions with the MDTA agen-cies to acquire such a designation;

2. That community colleges, either independently orthrough state community college agencies, workwith the state MDTA agencies the state employ-ment service and the state education agency todevelop state procedures in their respective statesto facilitate greater utilization of community col-lege resources in conducting MDTA programs;

3. That community colleges improve their informa-tion base for planning purposes by affiliating withlocal manpower planning councils;

4. That federal agencies, particularly the Departmentof Health. Education and Welfare, involved inmanpower development and training, examine theapplicability of their training rules and regulationsto community colleges;

5. That federal agencies responsible for manpowerdevelopment and training (Department of Health,Education and Welfare and Department of Labor)explore ways of providing continuity of funding formanpower development and training programs; and

6. That efforts be continued to improve the channelsof communications between Federal and Stateagencies and the community and junior colleges tomaximize the utilization of community and juniorcolleges as a resource in manpower training efforts.

f

Clerical Skills students work in audiovisual laboratory atMilwaukee Area Technical College (Wisconsin).

stsi tort otrOst,t,