April Monthly Meeting of The

The State of Workforce Training in Baltimore, 2004:

An Inventory of Resources, Activities, Needs, and Gaps

A Report from the

Workforce System Effectiveness Committee (WSEC)

of the

Baltimore Workforce Investment Board (BWIB)

Prepared by:

Chris Thompson, Ph.D. ([email protected]) Institute for Policy Studies Johns Hopkins University

David Bosser ([email protected]) Job Opportunities Task Force Baltimore (December 9, 2004)

2 The ‘business case’ for workforce training…

Workforce training has proven benefits for employers:

• shorter time to performance and increased retention rates • reduced scrap rates • increased productivity and rate of productivity growth • complement other investments in new physical capital • increased total shareholder return • increased profit margins • increased company income per employee • increased price-to-book ratios

Workforce training also has benefits for employees:

 increased earnings 9  reduced time spent unemployed 10

Workforce training has benefits for cities and communities:

 a positive return on public investment from the increased taxes received from earnings, and reduced public assistance paid out 11

And we need to do more workforce training because…

 U.S. employers spend only 2.2% of their payroll or less, on average, on workplace training, compared to over double that -- 4.8% -- in China 12  the state of Maryland spent $3.31 of public funds per employee in its employer-focused customized labor training programs, compared to the $5.29 national average, Pennsylvania’s $5.91, and New Jersey’s $8.67, in 1999 13  federal sources are flat or drying up; the President’s budget request for FY05 calls for:  U.S. Dept. of Labor training programs to receive 10% less than in FY02  Perkins vocational/technical education programs to receive 24% less than in FY04  a $100 million rescission in the H1B Technical Skills Training program  re-programming of $1 billion in Perkins funds away from adult vocational education at community colleges. 14

The economy is increasingly knowledge- and skills-based. Workforce training is not just an “expenditure” – it’s an “investment”!

i Sources: listed over

ii Sources for previous page

Isbell, Kellie, John Trutko, Burt S. Barnow, Demetra Nightingale, and Nancy Pindus (1996a) Involving Employers in Training: Best Practices, U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Washington, DC, and (1996b) Involving Employers in Training: Case Studies, U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Washington, DC.

2 “Are training subsidies for firms effective? The Michigan Experience”, by Holzer H, Block R, Cheatham M, and Knott J, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, v46(4), July 1993, pp625-635.

3 “Productivity Gains from the Implementation of Employee Training Programs”, by Bartel A, Industrial Relations, v33(4), October 1994, pp411-425; “Human Capital Investments and Productivity”, by Black S and Lynch L, AEA Papers and Proceedings, v86(2), May 1996, pp263-267.

4 “Beyond the Incidence of Employer-Provided Training”, by Lynch L and Black S, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, v52(1), Oct. 1998, pp64-79.

5 Profiting from learning: do firms’ investment in education and training payoff? Research White Paper by Lauri Bassi, Jens Ludwig, Dan McMurrer, and Mark Van Buren, for ASTD and SABA, Alexandria, VA, Sep. 2000.

9 Bloom, Howard S., Larry L. Orr, Stephen H. Bell, George Cave, Fred Doolittle, Winston Lin, and Johannes M. Bos (1994) The National JTPA Study Overview: Impacts, Benefits, and Costs of Title II-A, Abt Associates, Bethesda, MD, and (1997) “The Benefits and Costs of JTPA Title II-A Programs,” The Journal of Human Resources, Fall; Orr, Larry L, Howard S. Bloom, Stephen H. Bell, Fred Doolittle, and Winston Lin (1996) Does Training for the Disadvantaged Work? Evidence from the National JTPA Study, Urban Institute Press, Washington, DC.; and “Earnings by Educational Attainment and Sex, 1979 and 2002”, MLR Editor’s Desk, Bureau of Labor Statistics, October 23, 2003, http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2003/oct/wk3/art04.htm

10 Barnow B and Gubits D (2002) “Review of Recent Pilot, Demonstration, Research, and Evaluation Initiatives to Assist in the Implementation of Programs under the Workforce Investment Act”, Chapter 5 of the Strategic Plan for Pilots, Demonstrations, Research, and Evaluations, 2002—2007, prepared for the U.S. Dept. of Labor Employment and Training Administration, Washington DC, October (draft).

11 Baltimore’s Workforce System at Work, BWIB Workforce System Effectiveness Committee, March 2004.

12 State of the Industry 2003, American Society for Training and Development, Alexandria, VA.

13 A Comprehensive Look at State-Funded, Employer-Focused Job Training Programs, Employment and Social Services Policy Studies Division, Center for Best Practices, National Governors' Association, Wash DC, 1999.

14 President Releases FY05 Budget”, The Workforce Alliance, Washington Update, February 2004, http://www.workforcealliance.org/news/updates/Feb2004.shtm

iii The State of Workforce Training in Baltimore, 2004 BWIB-WSEC ______

Executive Summary

This background paper presents available information about the “state of workforce training” in the City of Baltimore. Some data have come directly from government agencies and training providers, while other numbers have been estimated from national relationships and statewide totals. The training information is organized around the following questions:

1. How much workforce training do Baltimore employers provide? (p2) 2. How much workforce training does the public sector provide? (pp3-15) 3. Which kinds of employees receive training? (p16) 4. What kinds of training do employees receive? (p16) 5. How do organizations deliver training to their employees? (p17) 6. How do organizations assess the benefits of training their employees? (p17) 7. In which industries are trainees from the WIA sample placed? (p18) 8. In which occupations are trainees from the WIA sample placed? (p20) 9. Where are the hiring employers of the WIA sample trainees located? (p21) 10. Bringing it all together: how do we identify the need for training in Baltimore, and close any gaps between supply and demand? (pp21-32)

Summary findings about the supply of workforce training in Baltimore:

 U.S. employers spend about $846 per employee per year on workforce training -- a sum roughly equivalent to 2% of their total payroll. On average nationally, employees receive about 27 hours of training a year each: however, employers spend, on average, only 1% of their total training budget on “basic skills” training.

 In Baltimore, this would mean employers spend an estimated total of about $89.4 million a year on training; $19.9 million of this total is spent on outside training providers.

 Available data support rough total estimates of about 7,000 adults qualifying for their high school diploma/GED, and almost 9,000 adults earning a post-secondary or vocational qualification, each year in Baltimore, through the efforts of multiple city and state agencies. For the small sample of these total adults passing through the WIA Career Center Network, and who were in the prior WSEC ROI study, and about whom there is the greatest degree of detailed information available:

 the largest single industry destination for trainees is “healthcare,” which accounted for one in four of all placements in the trainee sample; “professional, scientific, and technical services”, and “administrative and support services” were the next two most frequent industry destinations; two-thirds of all placements were into the city’s designated “target industries,” and almost half were into industries expected to have high future growth;

iv The State of Workforce Training in Baltimore, 2004 BWIB-WSEC ______

- the largest single occupational destination for trainees in the WIA sample is “registered nurse”; almost one-third of trainee placements were into occupations expected to have the highest number of future openings;

- almost 80% of placements for the WIA-funded sample of trainees were with employers located in the City of Baltimore; over half of these placements in the City were to employers inside three zip codes.

Summary findings about the need for workforce training in Baltimore:

 Bringing Baltimore’s educational attainment figures up to the national averages would require some 52,000 people be moved up into the High School graduate/GED level, and some 34,000 people currently without an Associates or Bachelor’s degree would need to be able to earn a post-secondary qualification. If the City had the goal of closing these two gaps then, it would require greatly increasing the present training efforts and numbers of graduates. If the present levels of effort were to be doubled, the HS/GED gap could be closed in 7 years, and the post-secondary gap in 4 years.

 Looking within the total distribution at the different levels of training required for projected job openings in different occupations in Baltimore, shows that over one-third of 67,790 projected openings between 2000 and 2010 (i.e. 38.4%, or 26,050) will require only “short-term on-the-job training”. Wages in the occupations in this category are low, and the other projected openings will not be available to these job seekers because they are in occupations requiring a qualification. “General Office Clerks” and “Nursing aides/orderlies” occupations seem to offer the best combination of relatively higher wages and a large number of openings, at this level. Over one-quarter of the 67,790 projected job openings (26.2%, or 17,810 jobs) will require a two-year or four-year degree. Healthcare occupations, such as “Registered Nurse” and “Radiological technician,” offer the highest wage for occupations requiring just an Associate’s degree.

Balancing supply with demand:

• The ratio of all Career Center Network job seekers to projected job openings in the City is estimated to be about 2.1:1. However, the ratio at each of the four different levels of training requirements identified by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for occupations, differs greatly by level within the total distribution:

- One-third of projected job openings will be in “Level I” occupations, where they are accessible to job seekers lacking a high school diploma and there are only 1.1 job seekers for every opening. However, many of the jobs here will not pay a self- sufficiency wage.

- A high school diploma and work experience are key for advancing to Level II occupations where wages are higher, yet here the competition for jobs is also greater

v The State of Workforce Training in Baltimore, 2004 BWIB-WSEC ______

(with 4.5 job seekers for every job opening). These job-seekers cannot move up to Level III occupations without a post-secondary qualification, so the competition likely rebounds many high school grads downwards into the Level I occupations, where they can out-compete unqualified job seekers for the only level of jobs accessible to them. This leaves employers with Level I job openings with little incentive to provide training for over-qualified applicants.

- Meanwhile, very few job seekers (0.2 for every job opening) are qualified for the highest-paying jobs requiring a post-secondary qualification in Levels III and IV. Most of these opportunities are likely filled by employees residing outside the City.

 There thus appears to be a competitive “crunch” at Level I (the jobs requiring only short- term on-the-job training), while job openings go begging at Level IV (the jobs requiring some college). This mis-match may benefit some employers with Level I jobs open, and also some qualified job seekers going for jobs in Level IV, but as long as there is restricted mobility between categories because of qualification barriers, it will not produce an efficient allocation of human capital resources overall.

Recommendations

Recommendation #1: The Baltimore Workforce Investment Board (BWIB) should recognize education and training of our workforce as one of its prime areas of strategic interest, and take the lead in immediate and significant efforts to increase the public and private financial resources devoted to that.

The gaps between City educational attainment and equivalent state and national figures are large and occur at every level of preparedness, and need to be closed. Workforce learning needs to be recognized at the highest level as a problem worth attention and -- as proven in previous WSEC studies -- an investment on behalf of employers, the taxpayer, and the trainee, rather than as an expenditure.

Board action steps: (1) The WSEC should review and report on (a) where additional financial resources for training could come from, and (b) where publicly funded training programs in other cities and states obtain their funds. (2) Private employer Board members should report on and promote initiatives used in the private sector to encourage workplace learning (such as: workplace cultures that foster lifelong learning, pay-for-learning strategies, tuition assistance and savings plans, work release time, on- site training facilities, employment of career coaches, learning portfolios as part of personnel reviews, etc).

vi The State of Workforce Training in Baltimore, 2004 BWIB-WSEC ______

Recommendation #2: The BWIB should adopt workforce training goals as a “call to action”. It should set objectives and milestones to measure progress, report periodically on movement towards achieving goals, and make recommendations for continuous improvement of programs and processes.

The present fragmented collection of workforce training activities and resources provided through multiple programs, each working diligently towards its own mission and objectives, has not added up to a coherent “system” with optimal workforce-wide outcomes for the City. While each training program’s achievements in its own niche may be great, no single training provider, no matter how active, can address the whole pipeline in a way that is necessary for preparing a more productive workforce.

The BWIB is the statutory umbrella group with strategic planning and oversight responsibilities for the local public workforce system in the City, so an oversight function could be handled without the creation of a whole new bureaucracy. Yet there are also many real challenges involved for BWIB if it attempts this function. A single “city-wide training goal” would itself be complex to formulate, adopt, and track, and it might risk raising expectations that are difficult to satisfy. BWIB also wields no legislative, regulatory, or budget authority over any of the multiple training providers whose activities would move the city towards such a goal. Few of these providers are under any requirement to report consistent data for core measures, as the WIA-funded part of the system does. Shining the light on problems, and influencing others who do have the power and responsibility in their own realms, are BWIB’s only realistic avenues for working at the system-wide level.

Board action steps: (1) The BWIB should take responsibility for identifying the major training providers in the present distributed system, and for periodically tabulating their collective progress towards goals. (2) In lieu of a single Citywide workforce training goal, the BWIB should identify several smaller, but more specific, goals related to key strategic training areas. These areas should be chosen such that movement in them will contribute most to system-wide uplift. Examples of such strategic training areas are: (a) the share of adults having a high school diploma or GED; (b) the reduction of school dropout rates; (c) an increase in basic skills; and (d) an increase in training for those occupations in demand for the target industries. (3) The BWIB should continue to identify, review, and promote, best practices from elsewhere that demonstrate promise for these key strategic areas.

Recommendation #3: The BWIB should work to align training investments so as to create a better match between the demand for skills and the available supply of job seekers at the different levels of training requirements.

Our research supports the idea of a present dysfunctional dynamic where there is an excess of job seekers per job opening (over 4 to 1) in those jobs requiring only a high school diploma, forcing the unsuccessful applicants there to compete “downwards” for jobs at the lowest skill level where only short-term on-the-job training is required. This situation squeezes out those lacking a high school diploma from the only jobs for which

vii The State of Workforce Training in Baltimore, 2004 BWIB-WSEC ______

they would be qualified, while at the same time leaving employers at this level with no incentive to provide worker training because they face an applicant pool already over- qualified for the jobs on offer. Meanwhile, there appear to be more openings than there are job seekers at the other end of the spectrum where the jobs require a college level of preparedness.

Board action steps: The Board should promote the following barrier removal training strategies: (1) Assist job seekers without a HS diploma/GED to get into those jobs available to them at their skill level, to at least obtain work experience. Try and ensure these placements are in occupations such as “Nursing aides/orderlies”, which offer the best combination of relatively higher wages and a large number of openings in the City. (2) Assist job seekers without a HS diploma/GED to get into jobs that will provide some training towards a HS diploma/GED. Since such training opportunities are likely to be rare at this level because employers have little incentive to train workers for these occupations, public financial incentives for employer-provided training towards HS diploma/GED should be offered. (3) Assist those job seekers already having only a HS diploma/GED to gain additional vocational training, work experience, and a post- secondary qualification. In publicly provided training, emphasize training towards specific occupations with a relatively high wage and a large projected number of openings, such as “LPNs” and “legal secretaries”. In this way, they could “compete up” into the next level of occupations, instead of competing “down” where they presently make it even more difficult for those without a HS diploma to get a job. (4) Assist low- wage incumbent workers to advance within their workplace and free up entry-level slots for job seekers.

Recommendation #4: The BWIB should encourage all training providers receiving public workforce funds to report their activities and outcomes to BWIB on a common and consistent basis.

The federal Workforce Investment Act offered a vision of consumer-driven, performance- based, outcomes-focused training. The intended vehicle for achieving this vision in WIA is supposed to be the “eligible training provider list” system. This list is supposed to array all eligible training providers’ performance data so that individual consumers can make an intelligent choice of where to spend their WIA-funded “individual training account” dollars. In practice, the system does not provide enough performance information on the effectiveness of training providers to allow that to happen.

In addition, the summary analysis in the present report has been hampered by the multiple ways that training providers define their trainees and outcomes. Most data provided for this report were about levels of program activity and enrolment per budget cycle or per annual report period. Few providers gave any indication of the outcomes and effectiveness of their service for their trainee customers. It took a lot of time and effort just to obtain the limited data the providers already have, much less put that into a coherent summary picture of where it was all leading for the whole City. Greater consistency of definitions and reporting would allow better analyses of training

viii The State of Workforce Training in Baltimore, 2004 BWIB-WSEC ______

effectiveness by program, and more targeted recommendations by the BWIB on directions of public investment towards City-wide workforce training goals.

Board action steps: (1) The WSEC should review other states’ eligible training provider list systems, and identify best features. (2) The BWIB should recommend to GWIB and DLLR that the identified best features be incorporated into Maryland’s version.

Recommendation #5: The BWIB should require a “State of Workforce Training in Baltimore” report once every three to five years.

Such a Report could synthesize data from training providers to show measures of progress in the key strategic areas, and hence be the basis for monitoring and suggestions for improvement by the BWIB. Data collected from providers receiving public workforce investment funds in between reports should be part of a regular review.

Board action steps: (1) The WSEC should construct and present the “State of Workforce Training in Baltimore” reports. (2) The BWIB should explore use of a “balanced scorecard” type of report for measuring such progress.

Recommendation #6: The BWIB should work to focus workforce training resources on the needs of the City’s existing chosen “target industries”.

While an increase in resources for workforce training at any level would probably have some result, the maximum impact for the City from any additional public resources can be obtained from working with the target industries. These industries were selected because of their promise for growth and the comparative advantages Baltimore holds for them. They offer the best chance that training will actually lead to a job in a demand occupation.

Board action steps: (1) To focus resources most effectively, a study analogous to this City-level report of the state of workforce training needs to be done for each individual target industry. The recommended studies should determine which occupations within the target industry will be in highest demand, what their training requirements will be, what existing training programs point towards them, what the current output of trainees by these programs is, and where any training gaps are. We recommend this examination begin with the “Healthcare,” “Bioscience,” and “Construction” target industries, since BWIB support efforts in these three target industries are already the most organized and the most able to take advantage of any findings. These should be followed by reports for the remaining “Computing/ Internet/Data Processing/Information Technology,” “Tourism/Hospitality,” and “Business Services” target industries, whenever progress with these industries has reached an appropriate stage, as recommended by the BWIB Industry Steering Committee. (2) In addition to these individual industry studies, a summary report should explore which kinds of training would offer results across multiple target industries at the same time, so as to achieve economies of scale in training service delivery and to diversify program risk from the ups and downs in any one

ix The State of Workforce Training in Baltimore, 2004 BWIB-WSEC ______

particular industry. Such “cross-cutting” training might include high school diploma/GED completion courses, adult literacy, ESL, job readiness training, computer literacy, customer service training, and supervisor training, for example.

Recommendation #7: The BWIB should host an annual awards competition and banquet recognizing and rewarding exemplary workplace learning efforts by employers.

This awards initiative would: (a) provide an added incentive for organizations to contribute their training data in comparable fashion, as required to measure progress; (b) showcase particular individual employers and best practices for others to emulate; and (c) throw the spotlight on the need for, and the value of, workforce learning in general. Awards could be given in categories such as: private employers, government agencies, non-profit organizations, small businesses, minority-owned businesses, work with targeted populations, and so on. As with Baldrige-type competitions, winners would be required to share their best practices with other entrants.

Board action steps. (1) The WSEC should devise the terms of the competitive awards and construct data collection instruments and processes. (2) The individual BWIB members themselves should be the reviewers and judging panel for awards. (3) The MOED should work with the Mayor to plan the event.

x The State of Workforce Training in Baltimore, 2004 BWIB-WSEC ______

Summary of suggested action steps and responsibilities

RECOMMENDATION ACTION LEAD PARTNERS

#1: Training as a key strategic interest (1) Review resources WSEC MOED (2) Private sector practices Board members WSEC

#2: Set specific goals (1) Identify providers WSEC (2) Specific goals (a) HS diploma BCPSS MOED/YO (b) Reduce dropout BCPSS MOED/YO (c) Increase basic skills MOED Employers (d) Increase target training MOED Employers

#3: Align resources to remove barriers at different levels (1) Assist job-seekers without HS MOED (2) Assist those with HS into job MOED (3) Assist those with HS into post-sec BCCC Employers (4) Advance low-wage incumbents MOED Employers

#4: Common training measures (1) Review other states’ systems WSEC MOED (2) Upgrade Maryland system BWIB WSEC

#5 “State of Workforce Training Report” (1) Prepare report WSEC BWIB (2) Balanced scorecard WSEC BWIB

#6: Training for target industries (1) Individual industry reports WSEC ISC (2) Identify cross-cutting training WSEC ISC

#7: Employer awards (1) Construct competition WSEC Employers (2) Adjudicate submissions Board WSEC (3) Host event Mayor MOED,WSEC

xi The State of Workforce Training in Baltimore, 2004 BWIB-WSEC ______

C O N T E N T S Page

Introduction: what counts as “training”? 1

1. How much workforce training do Baltimore employers provide? 2

2. How much workforce training does the public sector provide? 3 (a) Baltimore City Community College (BCCC) and the Maryland Community Colleges’ Business Training Network (MCCBTN) 3 (b) Perkins Career and Technology Education (CTE) funded training and Apprenticeship programs 5 (c) MOED’s Career Center Network (CCN) 6 (d) Empower Baltimore Management Corporation (EBMC) 7 (e) State-funded statewide programs working in Baltimore 8 (f) Other sources 12 Maryland Dept of Public Safety and Correctional Services 12 Baltimore City’s Youth Opportunity System 13 Maryland Apprenticeship and Training Program 14 Temporary Aid for Needy Families (TANF)/Temporary Cash Assistance (TCA) 15 Adult Education and Literacy Services 15 ` Skills-based Training for Employment Promotion program 16

3. Which kinds of employees receive training? 17

4. What kinds of training do employees receive? 17

5. How do organizations deliver training to their employees? 18

6. How do organizations assess the benefits of training their employees? 18

7. In which industries are trainees from the WIA sample placed? 19

8. In which occupations are trainees from the WIA sample placed? 21

9. Where are the hiring employers of the WIA sample trainees located? 22

10. Bringing it all together: how do we identify the need for training in Baltimore and close any gaps between supply and demand? 22 (a) Benchmarking Baltimore’s preparedness 23 (b) How much more training would it take to close the gaps? 25 (c) Which individual occupations will have the most job openings in the future, and what training will they require? 28

Appendix 35

xii The State of Workforce Training in Baltimore, 2004 BWIB-WSEC ______

The State of Workforce Training in Baltimore, 2004

Introduction: what counts as “training”?

This paper documents what we can find about the state of workforce training in the City of Baltimore. The training information is arranged around key questions to do with private and public provision, the types of training and trainees, the volume of trainees and dollars involved, and the types of industries and occupations in which publicly funded trainees are placed. We also attempt to make some comparisons between the supply of job seekers and their skill levels on the one hand, and the projected future demand for employees with different levels of education and training, on the other. This comparison is to identify any gaps where increased public and non-profit provision of workforce training might be needed.

By “workforce training” we ideally mean all kinds of “learning for workplace performance” activities. Although we have contacted numerous state and city agencies for data, we are very aware that we have almost certainly not accounted for every trainee and every single dollar spent on workforce training by all private employers and by all agencies at all levels of government: the nature of “training” is just too diverse, and is distributed across too many venues. In bringing together secondary data from many different sources and agencies, we have also accepted their data at face value, along with any definitions and statistical and reporting conventions, even thought these, too, undoubtedly vary. Nevertheless, we are confident we have identified the major blocks of training resources and activities currently underway in the City.

Even within these major blocks, though, we are limited to measuring only certain types of training. Our data focuses mostly on “formal” and “organized” training, for which individuals have been registered and dollars have been accounted. We miss completely the “informal” training that goes on through mentoring, coaching, work teams, quality circles, and so on, in the workplace itself. We also only count that training which is occupationally and vocationally focused: other training that may nevertheless still be indispensable to acceptable performance in the workplace, but which is not quite so directly tied to particular jobs (such as “soft skills training,” “people skills,” “English as a Second Language,” “basic work readiness,” general computer literacy training, and so on), is omitted unless the agency supplying the data has itself included it in the way it counts training. Nor do we include academic secondary and post- secondary programs, even though many higher education institutions’ offerings are increasingly marketed today as “career-focused” and “professional programs” for “working adults”. Finally, we omit individual, private “proprietary school” training (unless already included by others) and distance learning taken by individuals using their own funds.

For the types of training we do capture, our measures also focus mostly on the activities, expenditures, enrollees, and graduates involved. Such measures say little about the quality, appropriateness, and effectiveness of training content and delivery, and how well those aspects relate to the strategic learning objectives of the individual employee and employer – the ultimate yardsticks of the “value” of training. What we do show, therefore, is only the observable landscape of formal, accounted, workforce training, in the City of Baltimore.

1 The State of Workforce Training in Baltimore, 2004 BWIB-WSEC ______

1. How much workforce training do Baltimore employers provide?

There is no census or government survey question at either national or city level that asks employers directly about the cost and amount of workforce training they provide. Instead, the source of information most frequently used by workplace learning professionals is the American Society for Training and Development’s (ASTD) online Benchmarking Service database.1 However, it should be remembered that this source is based on only a sample of companies which, by definition, are (a) organized enough to be able to collect and input their training data, and (b) interested enough in training already to want to know how they compare with others in their industry.

The ASTD ‘key ratios’ of training generated by this survey are shown in Table 1. In 2002, U.S. firms provided, on average, 28 hours of training to each employee, at a cost of $826 per head. This level is equivalent to about 2.2% of their total payroll. We can use these ratios to estimate the analogous levels for just the city of Baltimore: if the same relationships hold for the city as for the U.S., then Baltimore employers would have spent a total of $89.4 million on training in 2002. Some $19.9 million of this $89.4 million would have been spent on outside trainers and providers, as opposed to employers using their own internal training staff. This is equivalent to $1,385 invested by each employer in the city on outside training providers.

Table 1. How much training do U.S. organizations do?

U S ORGANIZA- BALTIMORE TIONS (2002) 1 ESTIMATES 2

Total training expenditures per employee: $826 Total training expenditures as % of payroll: 2.2% $89,401,827 in total for city per year Percent of employees trained: 79.2% 208,806 employees in city per year Employees to trainer ratio: 280 Percent of training time via classroom: 72.1% Percent of training time via learning technologies: 15.4% Payments to outside companies as % of total training expenditures: 22.3% $19,936,607 total for city per year Total training hours per employee per year: 28 7,382,032 city total Total training days per employee per year (7.5 hrs per day) 3.7 984,271 city total Avge external training expenditures, per reporting unit (estimated ): $1,385 per unit

Sources: 1 2003 State of the Industry, American Society for T raining and Development , Alexandria, VA 2 US numbers applied to 2002 city totals from: http://www.dllr.state.md.us/lmi/laborforcewia/wiacity.htm and http://www.dllr.state.md.us/lmi/emppay/tab4bcit42002.htm City labor force: 287,687 City tot wages: $4,063,719,395 City tot employment: 263,644 City av. wk. wage: $840 City tot unemployment: 24,810 City reporting units: 14,392 3 Dec '02, http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_01102003.pdf US tot emp: 133,952,000 US av. wk. earnings: $517.72

2. How much workforce training does the public sector provide?

1 Training for the ‘Next Economy’: An ASTD State of the Industry Report on Employer-Provided Training in the United States, by Thompson C, Koon E, Woodwell W, and Beauvais J, November 2002, American Society for Training and Development, Alexandria, VA, and State of the Industry: ASTD’s Annual Review of International Trends in Workplace Learning and Performance, by Sugrue B, Alexandria, VA, December 2003.

A U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) survey in 2000 found 40 federal employment and training programs worth almost $12 billion and administered by seven different federal agencies.2 Most of this money is distributed to states, and then counties, cities, and workforce investment areas, to fund operation of programs. In many instances, the lower tiers of government supplement these funds with their own revenues.

In this section we also include workforce training provided by:

(a) Baltimore City Community College (BCCC) and the Maryland Community Colleges’ Business Training Network (MCCBTN) (b) Perkins Career and Technology Education (CTE) funded training (c) MOED’s Career Center Network (CCN) (d) Empower Baltimore Management Corporation (EBMC) (e) State-funded statewide programs working in Baltimore: Partnership for Workforce Quality (PWQ) Maryland Industrial Training Program (MITP) (f) Other sources: Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services Baltimore City’s Youth Opportunity System Maryland Apprenticeship and Training Program TANF/TCA Adult Education and Family Literacy

(a) Baltimore City Community College (BCCC) and the Maryland Community Colleges’ Business Training Network (MCCBTN)

BCCC offers both “credit” and “non-credit” training. Credit training includes degree and certificate programs. Non-credit training includes Adult Basic Education (ABE), General Education Development (GED), English as a Second Language (ESL), and continuing education. Continuing education includes short-term training programs for professional certification/ licensure and for specific occupations (e.g. childcare, fiber optic cabling, hospitality). BCCC also provides customized training that is developed with employers to meet their specific needs. Customized training can be either credit or non-credit. The following are the BCCC enrolment totals for Fall 2003 (more detailed breakdowns by age, gender, and race are given in the Appendix).

CREDIT/NON-CREDIT BREAKDOWN

Credit 10,833 students Degree programs (see appendix) Certificate programs (see appendix) Non-Credit 13,362 students

2 U.S. General Accounting Office (2000) Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Overlapping Programs Indicate Need for Closer Examination of Structure, U.S. GAO, Report #GAO-01-71, October.

Adult Basic Education (ABE) 6,537 students General Education Development (GED) 795 students English as a Second Language (ESL) 5,956 students Continuing Education 1,920 students Customized 8,948 students Non-Credit Enrollment by Curriculum ABE/GED/ESL 13,133 Mgmt./Supervision/Leader. 4,657 Health & Medical 2,484 Computer Tech. 2,367 Health & Wellness 2,131 Arts 11 All Other Combined 2,438

TRAINEE DEMOGRAPHICS Credit Degree and certificate programs (see appendix) Non-Credit Race African-American 54% Native American 1% Asian 5% Hispanic 6% White 23% Other 11% Unknown 1% Gender Women 59% Men 41% Age Serves persons of all ages: 71% of students are 30 or older, and the average age is 43.

BCCC had expenditures of $4 million for non-credit training in FY 2003.

In sum, BCCC has about 24,000 students enrolled a year, and some 83% are Baltimore City residents. Some 55% of all students are enrolled in “non-credit” status where most of the “training-related” curricula are concentrated. However, nearly half of these non-credit students are enrolled in the ABE/GED/ESL curricula, rather than in the directly vocational options.

BCCC also acts as part of Maryland Community Colleges’ Business Training Network (MCCBTN). This Network is a “one-stop shop” for employers/businesses interested in workforce training at any of Maryland’s 16 community colleges.3 It was established as an outgrowth of the state’s earlier investment in Advanced Technology Centers (ATCs) in the 1990s. The Network functions as a linking, referral, and communications conduit from potential customers to the colleges, and does not itself provide or record training.

3 Courses, locations, schedules, tuition and customized program info are available at: www.marylandtraining.com.

(b) Perkins Career and Technology Education (CTE) funded training

The federal Carl T. Perkins funds support the Career and Technology Education (CTE) program in Maryland. CTE provides leadership, coordination and technical assistance to community colleges such as the Baltimore City Community College (BCCC) for the development and improvement of CTE programs. In FY 2003, BCCC received approximately $1.1 million in Perkins funds. More than half of the funds were used for support services for students such as tutoring to assist students in being successful in the programs. Other funds went to professional development of faculty and instruction materials. Table 2 shows the number of students enrolled in degree or certificate programs supported with CTE funding in FY 2003, ranked by size of enrolment. (These trainees are also included in the BCCC training data).

Table 2. Students enrolled in degree or certificate programs supported with CTE funding, FY 2003

PROGRAM TOTAL Female Male African Nat. Asian Hisp. White Oth. Amer. Amer. (not Hisp)

Child Care and Guid. Workers and Mgrs. 491 472 19 467 1 0 10 4 9 Mgmt. Info. Sys. & Bus. Data 392 210 182 312 0 7 13 4 56 Business Admin. and Mgmt. 307 218 89 276 0 1 15 3 12 Law Enforce./Police Science 243 128 115 209 1 1 21 4 7 Social Work 179 150 29 167 1 0 3 1 7 Paralegal/Legal Asst. 158 129 29 123 1 1 21 4 8 Electrical, Electronic and Comm. Engin. 144 35 109 119 1 3 7 1 13 Fashion Design and Illustration 132 112 20 103 0 1 16 3 9 Nursing (R.N. Training) 117 106 11 106 0 0 4 0 7 Drafting, General 92 36 56 73 0 1 4 4 10 Emer. Medical Tech./Tech. 69 51 18 58 0 0 6 0 5 Psych./Mental Health Ser. Tech. 65 49 16 63 0 0 0 1 1 Bio. Tech./Tech. 59 39 20 50 0 0 4 0 5 Bus. Market. and Market. Mgmt. 58 32 26 51 0 0 4 1 2 Dental Hygienist 55 55 0 7 0 3 39 1 5 Med. Records Tech./Tech. 48 48 0 41 0 1 2 0 4 Hospitality/Admin. Mgmt. 39 23 16 33 0 0 1 0 5 Foods and Nutrition Studies, General 30 26 4 22 0 0 4 0 4 Apparel and Accessor. Market. 27 26 1 23 0 0 1 1 2 Special Educ., General 26 23 3 24 0 0 1 0 1 Mental Health Services 17 16 1 15 0 0 2 0 0 Physical Ther. Asst. 10 7 3 6 0 0 3 0 1 Surgical/Oper. Rm. Tech. 9 5 4 8 0 0 0 0 1 Respir. Ther. Tech. 8 5 3 5 0 1 1 0 1 TOTAL 2,775 2,001 774 2,361 5 20 182 32 175

Total enrolment with this funding was 2,775 students. The top five programs are all in business or social services, while the healthcare professions –some of them the identified “skill shortage areas” – occupy 7 of the 10 lowest enrolling programs. It is also worth noting that the President’s FY2005 Budget proposes a $300 million (24%) cut in Perkins vocational and technical education programs from their FY04 appropriated levels. In addition, it proposes consolidating Perkins programs (i.e., Vocational Education State Grants, Tech-Prep Education State Grants, Tech-Prep Demonstrations, National Programs, and Occupational and Employment Information) into a single new "Secondary and Technical Education" program to focus Perkins funding on preparing high school students for higher levels. According to workforce system advocates, this would, in effect, re-program the remaining $1 billion in Perkins funds away from adult vocational education at community colleges and other post-secondary institutions. 4

(c) MOED’s Career Center Network

MOED arranges training for customers of the one-stops in the Career Center Network. Customers receiving such training paid for with WIA funds must first pass through the “core” and “intensive” services tiers without gaining employment, before they can be considered for training. In the first 18 months of the WIA system, some 579 adult customers were provided with WIA-funded training.

Comparing some characteristics of a sample of the WIA-funded trainees with similar characteristics for the City’s population as a whole can help give some perspective to the question of “who is the local public workforce system serving with training?” (The Appendix shows a comparison between the City population’s characteristics from the Census’s American Community Survey 2002 and the same characteristics in the two samples of trainees analyzed for the ROI study).

Compared to the population as a whole, the trainee group is, on average, more likely to be female, slightly older than the general population, and have smaller family sizes. Three-quarters of the trainees are unemployed, compared to 8.9% of the City’s labor force as a whole. Comparing the highest levels of education attained by the Baltimore population and the trainees in Chart 1 below shows the trainees are more likely to be high school graduates (63.4% of trainees, compared to 28.6% of the population) and are slightly more likely to have had some college experience. Only 6.9% of the trainees are high school dropouts, compared to 22.8% of the City’s population.

It is worth noting that these results for Baltimore’s trainees are not out of line with what we know about participation in WIA programs elsewhere. A recent study of WIA customers in Massachusetts, 5 for example, found that “high school graduates were substantially over- represented in WIA Title 1 programs” (i.e. not just training), and high school dropouts were

4 See: The Workforce Alliance’s Washington Update, February 2004, at: http://www.workforcealliance.org/news/updates/Feb2004.shtm 5 “Who Gets Training?” Massachusetts Commonwealth Corporation, Research and Evaluation Brief, v1, #12, April 2004.

“under-represented.” Further, the “working poor are substantially under-represented in WIA programs while the jobless and dependent poor are over-represented,” in Massachusetts.

Chart 1. Educational attainment of adults in the City population and the training samples

75.0% 63.4% s e l p m a s

50.0% n o i t a l u p o

p 28.6%

t l 23.6% u 22.8%

d 25.0% a

18.6% 18.3% f o

h 8.4% 6.9% S 3.4% 3.7% 0.9% 1.4% 0.0%

gr ip ) . . r h d cy gr gr he 9t no en e de ig n ., al o d c. r h ha gr iv n so o s t th qu ll., s gr es 2 . e co A de L o 1 cl e h t (in m ac th d So B 9 ra S g H CITY TRAINEES Highest level attained

The MOED Career Center Network is also only one part of the larger “workforce system” in Baltimore. Its funding is $9.1 million, compared to a total of $90.3 million coming to the City annually through 15 different workforce-related federal funding streams. However, this grand total is itself, for 2004, down 21% from $114.6 million four years ago.

(d) Empower Baltimore Management Corporation

EBMC provides both customized training and occupational skills training. In customized training, EBMC partners with employers to meet their specific needs and the jobs must pay a minimum wage and offer benefits. Examples of jobs trained for through this route are “surgical technician,” “certified nursing assistant” (CNA), “geriatric nurse assistant” (GNA), and cable installer. In occupational skills training, EBMC contracts with training vendors (such as All-State Career School, Goodwill, etc) and trainees receive a stipend. Examples of jobs trained for through this route are “commercial truck driving,” “pre-apprentice construction,” and “clerical”.

In FY 2004, 716 residents obtained customized training, and 113 obtained occupational skills Empowerment Zone trainee training through EBMC. Expenditures for the demographics (FY 03) period August 1, 2003 – July 31, 2004 were $1,788,419 for customized training, and $464,411 Custom. Occ. Sk. for occupational skills training. The demographics Gender Women 60% 84% of the EBMC trainee residents are shown in the Men 40% 16% sidebar. Age Average 29 35 Education Some High Sch 16% 12% GED 16% 12% High School 46% 62% Some College 22% 12%

(e) State-funded workforce training programs in Baltimore

At the state level, the National Governor’s Association found some $572 million of state funds per year was being spent by 47 states on their own employer-focused labor training programs in 1998.6 A later GAO survey of just 23 states found such workforce training program budgets totaled over $1.5 billion in 2002.7 Some of these state programs were individually very large: training funds collected through employer taxes at the state level raised over $92 million in New Jersey and $148 million dollars in California, for example.8

Maryland’s flagship workforce training programs of this kind are the “Maryland Industrial Training Program” and the “Partnership for Workforce Quality”. Both are housed in Maryland’s Department of Business and Economic Development (DBED). Together, these programs received about $10.3 million in 2000, and trained almost 14,000 employees statewide, at a per trainee cost of $740.9 The individual program funding totals, and the total numbers of employees trained by each program in different years, are shown in Charts 2 and 3, respectively.

The Maryland Industrial Training Program (MITP) works with other state and local agencies to provide a seamless process for the recruitment, assessment, and placement of new employees with participating companies. This program works through local business expansion teams to assure that qualified workers are made available to new or expanding businesses. Workforce

6 A Comprehensive Look at State-Funded, Employer-Focused Job Training Programs, Employment and Social Services Policy Studies Division, Center for Best Practices, National Governors' Association, Wash DC, 1999.

7 Workforce Training, U.S. General Accounting Office, February 2004, #GAO-04-282, p3 and App. II.

8 Workforce Training, U.S. General Accounting Office, February 2004, #GAO-04-282, p3 and App. II.

9 From http://www.choosemaryland.org/business/workforce/training.asp, and: Maryland Department of Business and Economic Development (DBED), Division of Regional Development, Business Investment Programs — Strategic Investments in Maryland: An Earnings Impact Analysis of the Maryland Industrial Training Program and the Partnership for Workforce Quality, 2003.

8 The State of Workforce Training in Baltimore, 2004 BWIB-WSEC ______development and job placement programs participating in these efforts include those operated through DBED, the Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, local economic development agencies, Maryland community colleges and universities, and other post secondary education institutions. Through DBED, companies participating in MITP can also receive state and local assistance with site selection, financing, loan packages, licensing and permitting, infrastructure issues, technology needs, and other concerns specific to business expansion or relocation. MITP does not require any matching cash from employers for the state funds.

Chart 2. Funding for DBED's MITP and PWQ Training 1 9

Programs 5 5 4 , 0 , 0 8 7 2 7 , 3 , 0 0 1 4 5

$12,000,000 1 9 1 $ 3 4 5 1 $ 7 2 7 7 9 , , , 4 , 8 2 5 8 0 $10,000,000 8 g 6 4 8 2 2 7 1 , 8 , 0 n 6 5 6 5 4 5 , , 0 , i 2 0 , 3 , 0 6 6 3 6 5 $8,000,000 6 8 , d 5 5 5 , 2 $ $ $ 0 $ , 9 9 1 n , 4 9 8 5 5 1 5 9 4 9 5 1 4 9 , u , 4 1 , 2 $ 7 $ 5 f $6,000,000 , 2 2 3 0 2 4 9 ,

, , , 7 , 3 0 l 9 $ 3 0 8 7 9 5 $ 3 2 a $ 6 , , 7 6 1 5 t

$4,000,000 , 4 2 2 3 3 2 , o , , 2 , $ $ 1 1 1 4 1 T $ $ $ 8 $2,000,000 $ $ $0 MITP 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 PW Q BOTH Source: MD DBED, Business Investment Progra ms, 2003.

The Partnership for Workforce Quality (PWQ) provides matching skill training grants and support services targeted to improve the competitive position of small and mid-sized manufacturing and technology companies. PWQ grants are used to increase the skills of existing workers for new technologies and production processes, to improve employee productivity and to increase employment stability. PWQ grants are made directly to companies as well as to manufacturing, software industry and ISO 9000 consortia programs. Since the employers in PWQ are required to provide a 50:50 match, the true total of resources spent on training are double the state’s recorded contribution.

The Baltimore’s Workforce System at Work report reviewed Maryland’s state funding position compared to the rest of the nation in the 1998 NGA survey of such employer-focused labor training programs. Maryland at the time ranked 26th of the 47 states with such programs, in terms of state dollars (i.e. non-WIA and non-JTPA funds) invested per employee. At $3.31 of state funds per employee in the state, Maryland’s effort was 37.5% lower than the $5.29 per employee 47-state average, and below the levels of even states like West Virginia, New Mexico, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama.

Chart 3. Employees trained by the MITP and PWQ programs,

1995-2000 5

14,000 0 e

1 y 12,000 0 6 o 7 l 0 , 9 p 9 10,000 0 6 , 3 4 d m 8 2 7 e 7 , e 4

8,000 , 3 6 n f 2 1 9 6 i 9

2 6 , 8 o

, a 6 , 1

4 0 5 r r , 4 4 4 8

6,000 4 t 4

4 3 e 3 9 8 , , 9 6 5 2 , b 3 3 , 5

4,000 0 2 , 2 5 , m 2 6 1 u 2,000 7 6 N 0 MITP 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 PW Q Source: MD DBED, Business Investm ent Progra ms , 2003 BOTH

Maryland’s figure was also 44% lower than Pennsylvania’s $5.91 per employee, 37% lower than Virginia’s $5.28, and 61% lower than New Jersey’s $8.67 per employee – the three states that are Maryland’s closest industrial competitors. Moreover, New Jersey’s funds for workforce training per employee grew by 216% in the four years between the NGA survey in 1998 and the GAO survey in 2002. By contrast, the combined total budget for Maryland’s ‘Partnership for Workforce Quality’ (PWQ) and ‘Maryland Industrial Training Program’ (MITP) increased by only 19% (from $5.05 million to $6.0 million) over the same period. There was a temporary spike in this total Maryland funding up to $10.7 million in 1999, but this also means that the 1999-2003 change is actually a decline of 35% in the total budget for these two state training programs over those years.10

With regards to the geographical distribution of these state training dollars by local jurisdiction within Maryland, if the City had received money at the state average of $3.31 per employee per year in 1998, then a total of $873,000 would have been spent on Baltimore employees and firms by these two programs. (It is worth remembering, for perspective, that $3.31 of public funds per employee is in the context of $826 per employee, and $89.4 million in total, that was estimated earlier to be spent on workforce training annually by Baltimore employers themselves). DBED’s report does note that “PWQ and MITP are largely targeted to the economically distressed regions of the State with 35% of grants going to companies in Baltimore City, Western Maryland, and the Eastern Shore.” 11 DBED’s public relations office provided a list of Baltimore companies that had

10 Annual Report, Governor’s Workforce Investment Board, Maryland, 2002, and internal GWIB memoranda.

11 From http://www.choosemaryland.org/business/workforce/training.asp, and: Maryland Department of Business and Economic Development (DBED), Division of Regional Development, Business Investment Programs — Strategic Investments in Maryland: An Earnings Impact Analysis of the Maryland Industrial Training Program and the Partnership for Workforce Quality, 2003.

10 The State of Workforce Training in Baltimore, 2004 BWIB-WSEC ______received PWQ and MITP funds in 2003,12 and the totals by program are shown in Table 3. Together, these programs granted almost $700,000 to cover 1,000 trainee slots within Baltimore companies in 2003. The PWQ program had 21 employer grantees, receiving between $875 and $51,777 each, and training between 1 and 180 employees. The MITP offered larger grants to fewer companies, than did the PWQ program: 5 employers received a total of $455,100, and trained between 7 and 84 workers, under MITP.

Table 3. PWQ and MITP grants to Baltimore City companies

GRANT EMPLOYER UNIQUE TRAINING COST TOTALS GRANTES TRAINEES SLOTS PER SLOT

PW Q $ 243,423.71 21 531 678 $359

MITP $ 455,190.00 5 136 386 $1,179

BOTH $ 698,613.71 26 667 1,064 $657

Source: DBED data, 2004.

The average dollar cost per “total training slot”13 across both programs in 2003 was $657. However, the cost per trainee varied greatly between employers, from a minimum of $16 per employee, to a maximum of $14,286. (The range across all 26 employers is shown in the Appendix). It should be noted that the missions of these two programs are slightly different, and both programs undertake a variety of other activities as well as just employee training.

Unfortunately, not much detail is available on the exact type and content of training provided with the MITP and PWQ grants. The state’s cataloging scheme uses only broad categories such as “workforce training and business development,” “support local/regional development,” “grant for training new and expanding business,” “workforce training and business competitiveness”, and “grant to upgrade training, increase productivity and competitiveness”, and these labels themselves change from year to year. For the two-year period 2002-2003, the number and value of MITP and PWQ grants by these categories is given in the Appendix, for both Baltimore and Maryland as a whole. Under this classification system, all but $79,000 out of a total of over $11 million was granted for “training”. During this period, Baltimore received 16 grants for a total of $1.845 million, compared to a statewide total of 125 grants totaling $11.460 million. As a share of total statewide value, therefore, Baltimore received 15.3% of all grant dollars in 2002, and 17.8% in 2003. Expressed another way – in terms of dollars per person in the civilian labor force --Baltimore received $2.22, compared to $1.24 per person statewide.

12 Provided by Brenda Townsend-Milton, 6/1/04. Data are for state fiscal year 2003 (7/1/02-6/30/03). Dollar numbers do not include employer’s 50:50 match for PWQ grants.

13 The same employee may be trained more than once.

(f) Other sources:

Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (DPSCS)

Maryland DPSCS controls, supervises, and provides services for, defendants and offenders in custody, and creates statewide correctional and rehabilitative initiatives. DPSCS is composed of ten agencies and eight boards and commissions distributed across the state, and has on-going responsibility for approximately 150,000 criminal cases and 28,000 incarcerated offenders in three correctional systems.14

The “State Use Industries” (SUI) program, run out of the DPSCS’s Dept. of Corrections, has the mission of providing structured employment and training activities for offenders in order to improve their employability upon release, to reduce prison idleness, to produce quality, saleable goods and services, and to be a financially self-supporting State agency. SUI is overseen by a “State Use Industries Management Council”, one of whose responsibilities is to “solicit ideas, proposals, and suggestions from business representatives, nonprofit organizations, government entities, and members of the public as to how SUI could enhance the work experience of inmates and increase the ability of inmates to obtain gainful employment after release.”15 In 2002, SUI had sales of over $41 million and employed over 1,400 inmate workers in 30 plants and service centers located in eight state prisons, with a net operating profit of $3 million. Maryland’s SUI is the ninth largest prison industry revenue program in the country.16

The training and employment of inmates is seen as reducing idleness, which is believed to be a leading cause of violence and disruptions in prisons. The prospect of obtaining employment with SUI also serves as a deterrent to disruptive behavior in the prisons, as the eligibility requirements for inmates include being infraction-free for the previous three months and possessing a high school diploma or GED.

The route for inmates to the necessary education and training is through the Correctional Education Program (CEP) in the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE), which has legal responsibility for the state prison education programs. The budget for correctional education is $11.7 million per year, and in 2001, the CEP recorded the awarding of 966 GED certificates (making a GED pass rate of 63%), the completion of 1,858 “Adult Literacy and Life Skills” programs and 968 occupational programs. There were also 506 post-secondary enrolments and 93 post-secondary completions. Altogether, 3,792 inmate students statewide completed some kind of educational program, and nearly 10,500 (about 20% of the Division’s total inmate population) participated. Another 2,000 inmates remained on waiting lists for academic or occupational training programs. 17

14 http://www.dpscs.state.md.us/about_dpscs.shtml 15 http://www.dpscs.state.md.us/sui/manage.htm

16 Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, Interim Report, 2003: Providing New Paths to Public Safety, at: http://www.dpscs.state.md.us/pio/pdfs/InterimReport2003.pdf 17 Laying the Foundation for the Future: Maryland Division of Correction Annual Report, 2001, at: http://www.dpscs.state.md.us/doc/pdfs/DOC_Annual_Report_2001.pdf

The SUI’s participant recidivism rate was also more than 50% lower than the DOC-wide rate.18 A longitudinal study of over 3,600 releasees in three states (including Maryland) found that “simply attending school behind bars reduces the likelihood of re-incarceration by 29%.” That study also went on to estimate that every dollar spent on inmate education returns more than two dollars to citizens, in terms of reduced prison costs.19

Unfortunately, little information is available on the shares of these state inmate totals receiving training that relate to Baltimore City residents. We do know that 34.6% of the total intakes of inmates for the whole state in 2001 were recorded in Baltimore City (3,887 males and 606 females, out of a state total of 12,337 intakes).20 We do not know if those taken in to the prison system in Baltimore are necessarily also city residents prior to intake, or if they will stay in the city once released. Nevertheless, if the City’s share of statewide intakes is the same as the City’s share of statewide inmate trainees, then in the City of Baltimore there could have been 3,824 inmate participants in educational programs, 677 Adult Life and Literacy Skills completions, 352 GEDs earned, and 353 occupational skill program completions, in 2001. There also could have been 650 City inmates on waiting lists for training.

Baltimore City’s Youth Opportunity System

In February 2000, Baltimore was awarded a major federal grant from the U.S. Department of Labor to address unemployment among out-of-school and at-risk youth. Some 36 communities were selected to receive portions of the five-year $1.375 billion Youth Opportunities Grant. 21 Baltimore’s $44 million proposal presented a blueprint for building a citywide circle of support that helps young people address the range of problems that keep them from succeeding. The goal of the resulting “Youth Opportunity System” (YO) is to increase the long term employability of young people by creating a systemic approach to youth services, offering a broad array of coordinated resources and activities, and helping each young person design and negotiate a career pathway to success. The plan emphasizes community partnerships, employer linkages, community work experience and college preparation.

Services are provided through Youth Opportunity Centers, such as the West Lafayette Avenue one-stop employment center. This Center serves out-of-school youths aged 16-24 who have either dropped out of school or who have graduated from high school but still have barriers to employment. An entering youth is first seen by an Employment Advocate, who screens the youth customer and outlines possible next steps, such as employment opportunities, training or remedial education. Youths lacking a HS diploma are linked to work and learning as they prepare for a GED and are provided with extra tutoring as needed to insure success. For those who already have their GED or obtain it at the Community Center, the connection is made to

18 http://www.dpscs.state.md.us/sui/history.htm. 19 Steurer S., Smith L., and Tracy A, The Three State Recidivism Study, (Maryland, Minnesota, and Ohio, undated). See: http://www2.dpscs.state.md.us/doc/pdfs/three-state-recidivism-study-summary.pdf 20 http://www.dpscs.state.md.us/doc/pdfs/DOC_Annual_Report_2001.pdf, p16. 21 Mayor’s Office of Employment Development, http://www.oedworks.com/youthserv/youth_opp.htm.

13 The State of Workforce Training in Baltimore, 2004 BWIB-WSEC ______help them to go on to college, often with the aid of a 29-partner network of professionals in training institutions, non-profit service agencies, and other public programs. Specific career skills training is also in areas such as: “A+” Computer Repair, Construction, Landscaping, Biotechnology Technician, and Multi-skilled Medical Technician (Nursing Assistant, EKG, Specimen Collection, CPR).

As of September 2004, the following youth outcomes had been achieved through the YO system22:

 3,800 youths became YO members  376 earned high school diplomas  136 earned GEDs  208 enrolled in college  1,444 have been placed in employment, college or skills training

Maryland Apprenticeship and Training Program

The Maryland Apprenticeship and Training Program is the administrative entity of the Maryland Apprenticeship and Training Council, which registers apprenticeship programs in the state. An apprenticeship is on-the-job training combined with related technical instruction in a specific occupation. Registered apprenticeship programs are tracked by jurisdiction but individual apprentices are not. There were 70 registered apprenticeship programs in Baltimore City and 64 programs in Baltimore County as of July 1, 2004. According to the Apprenticeship Program staff, about 50% of the apprentices in the City programs are City residents and about 25% of the apprentices in the County programs are City residents. Based on these percentages, approximately 150 City residents completed apprenticeships in FY04.

Below are the occupations and the number of apprentices in apprenticeship programs located in Baltimore City as of September 2004. (The number of apprentices by occupation is unavailable so some estimation was necessary.)

Occupation Apprentices Fire Medic 210 Electrician* 185 Telecom. Installer Tech.* 185 Housing Inspector 136 Construct. Craft Laborer 99 Sheet Metal Worker 82 Machinist* 12 Maintenance Electrician* 8 Insulation Worker 6 Plumber* 6 Cement Mason 5 Maintenance Mechanic* 4 Building Maint. Repairer 3

22 Data from Abbe Cutair, MOED, 9/13/04.

Elec. Instrument Repairer 3 HVAC/R Tech.* 3 Carpenter 2 Tool & Die Maker 2 Chemical Operator 1 Marble Polisher 1 Unable to determine occupation 73 * estimate

The median age of apprentices statewide at registration is between 25 and 29 years and almost 80% of them are 21-39 years old. Some 95% of apprentices statewide are male and 35% are minorities. Information about apprenticeship expenditures is unavailable.

Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF)/Temporary Cash Assistance (TCA)

The Family Investment Program (FIP) of the federal Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) provides employment and training assistance, as well as temporary cash assistance (TCA), to low-income families with dependent children and non-custodial parents. In FY04, 3,823 TCA customers received training and education. Most of these clients (3,262) participated in vocational and community college programs, while the rest were involved in on-the-job training (OJT), skills training and education directly related to employment. Among the types of training offered was training for “Certified Nursing Assistant,” “Geriatric Nursing Assistant,” and “Child Care Certification.” The FIP also provided subsidized employment, work experience, community service, and unsubsidized employment, in which customers learned job skills and gained work experience. Expenditures for direct employment and training services were $7,851,706 in FY 2004.

Adult Education and Literacy Services

This state program provides state and federal funding to local programs for adult education and literacy services to improve the education and basic skill level of adults. In Baltimore, 4,545 individuals were served in FY 2003, including 156 in workplace-based education. The city received $1.7 million in FY 2004.

There is evidence of a strong need for even more adult education services: there are over 2,000 individuals on the waiting list for adult education in Baltimore. However, the demand for adult education is likely even greater than this figure, because the program has not needed to conduct outreach or recruitment due to the length of the waiting list. The persons on the waiting list are requesting the following services:

Adult Basic Education (Beginning Literacy through 8th grade level) - 55%; GED - 25%; External Diploma - 11%. English as a Second Language (ESL) - 6%; Family Literacy - 3%;

The “Skills-based Training for Employment Promotion” (STEP) program23

Baltimore’s Skills-based Training for Employment Promotion (STEP) initiative is intended to address the needs of both employers and workers. The program, managed by the Mayor’s Office of Employment Development for the Baltimore Workforce Investment Board, is funded by three grants received from the Governor’s Workforce Investment Board (GWIB).

STEP assists businesses in training proven low-wage employees (all of them working parents) for difficult-to-fill, higher-wage, higher-skill positions. Specifically, the program supports Baltimore area hospitals in transitioning individuals (who may be working for them as housekeepers, security staff or dietary aides) into allied health positions for which there are often worker shortages (e.g., surgical technicians, pharmacy technicians, nursing extenders occupations). The program benefits workers by promoting skill and career development and wage progression. Participating employers provide 50% of the cost of training and allow workers to receive training during part of their paid workday. Baltimore City Community College conducts the training. As a part of STEP, the hospitals agree to promote participants to new positions within six months of completing training and to provide health benefits upon promotion.

Entering its third year, STEP has grown from four to six participating hospitals and has graduated 92 individuals. The program has been highly successful, with 98% of graduates working in the positions they trained for, and with graduates achieving an average annual salary increase of $6,000. Prior to STEP, many participants had to work two or more jobs to support their families. The average cost of training per person is $4,166, including costs related to administration and services. For those who have been promoted, Maryland should see approximately $27,000 in additional revenue from state taxes in the first year following program completion.

In addition to its benefits for workers and businesses, the program is noteworthy for its focus on wage progression and career development as a means to strengthen families and communities, and for bringing together competing hospitals to develop agreed-upon curricula and standards. For its achievements, STEP (the full statewide initiative) was selected as one of ten finalists (out of 270 entrants) in the national 2003 Career Advancement Strategy Competition. This competition was conducted by Jobs for the Future, with support from the U.S. Department of Labor, to accelerate the development and expansion of approaches that advance lower-skilled individuals into better paying jobs while at the same time meeting the needs of employers.

3. Which kinds of employees receive training?

The share of total training expenditures spent by U.S. organizations on different categories of employee in 2002 is given in Chart 4. The top four employee categories receiving the most funds were “customer service employees,” “other professionals,” “production employees,” and “first- line supervisors”. None of the other six categories received more than 10% of training expenditures.

23 Contributed by Diana Spencer of the Baltimore Mayor’s Office of Employment Development.

4. What kinds of training do employees receive?

The share of total training expenditures going to different types of learning content in U.S. organizations is shown in Chart 5.

Chart 4. Training expenditures by employee type, 2002

Custome r se rv. 17% Othe r profe ssionals 15% Production e mps 15% First-line supvsrs 12% IT sta ff 9% Se nior mana ge rs 9% Sale s e mploye e s 8% Admin. e mps. 6% Middle mana ge rs 5% Exe cutive s 4%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18%

Share of total

“Technical processes and procedures,” “information technology,” and “managerial/supervisory training,” are the three largest categories of training content expenditure. Interestingly, organization expenditures on the “basic skills training” category are tied for lowest priority – 1% of the total -- out of all 14 categories. So even though the complaint is frequently heard from employers that their applicants and entry level employees “lack basic skills”, employers themselves are clearly reluctant to invest their own funds, probably believing that to be a public education responsibility. Employers’ own training investment seems to be reserved for training specific to their particular products, services, or business processes.

5. How do organizations deliver training to their employees?

Chart 5. Share of content expenditures by type, 2002

Tech. procs., 13% IT 11% Managerial/supervisor 11% Professional skills 10% Safety and compliance 10% Product knowledge 9% Customer relations 9% New employee orientn 7% Interpersonal comms 6% Business practices 5% Sales and dealer 4% Executive development 3% Basic skills 1% Other 1%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14%

Use of different training delivery methods by U.S. Chart 6. Learning delivery methods, organizations in 2002 is shown 72.1% 2002 in Chart 6. 80.0% 60.0% Traditional classroom learning 40.0% still dominates the picture and 15.4% 12.5% 20.0% accounts for 72% of all training hours (although this share has 0.0% fallen from 79.9% in 1999, as Classroom Learning Other technology has edged up). technologies

6. How do organizations assess the benefits of training their employees?

Strategies for evaluating training are usually arranged on the spectrum originally devised by Kirkpatrick and shown in Chart 7.24 Their complexity increases up the scale, and hence the frequency of use by organizations falls off the higher the level.

24 Data from ASTD’s Training for the Next Economy, by Thompson C et al, 2002.

The Level 1 “reaction” methods (“did you like the Chart 7. Share of organizations using course/instructor?”) are the different evaluation strategies most common evaluation strategies, and are used by " three-quarters of l LEVEL 1 75% e v e l companies. They are 41% k LEVEL 2 c i

simple to implement, but r t

a LEVEL 3 21% yield the least information. p k r The Level 2 “learning” i K

" LEVEL 4 11% methods (“did the trainee remember the material and 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% pass the final test?”) are used by 41% of organizations. Level 3, “behavior” methods (“did the training you received result in a change in the way you work?”) are used by 21%. Level 4, “business results” strategies (e.g. decreased set-up time, reduced error rates, increased sales and productivity, reduced customer complaints, increased repeat buyers, etc) are used by only 11%. These yield the most relevant information from a business perspective, but can be harder and more expensive to implement.

It should be noted that all these Kirkpatrick levels reflect the organization’s or the economy’s perspective on training. This is not necessarily the same as the individual’s perspective, where aspects such as increased earnings, greater opportunities, more mobility, independence, security, and wider choice of career, would be more the focus.

The WSEC’s own attempt at a “Level 4” evaluation of local public workforce system training was its return-on-investment study of 216 WIA-funded trainees who had been sent to either “customized training” or “ITA-funded training” and who exited the system between May 2000 and June 2002.25 We included the public costs (of their training) and the public benefits (from increased tax revenues and reduced public assistance payments) and modeled various scenarios with a variety of assumptions about job retention and earnings change. Under the most likely scenario we found the return to the taxpayer’s investment in this training sample is positive by the end of year two in the case of customized training and by the end of year three in the case of ITA-funded training.

7. In which industries are trainees from the WIA sample placed?

Some information on the industries in which trainees find their first jobs can be gleaned from the trainee dataset used for the earlier ROI study. That dataset contains information on 216 individual WIA trainee customers, including 201 with employer placement information. However, because it is only a small sample, some important qualifications must be noted when examining outcomes. These data are now two to four years old and relate to the May 2000 – July 2002 period when WIA was first being implemented. Client handling and training selection processes and protocols have been constantly modified since then, in the light of experience and evolving

25 See Baltimore’s Workforce System at Work, Section 2.7 and Appendix G, at: http://www.baltoworkforce.com/resources.htm

19 The State of Workforce Training in Baltimore, 2004 BWIB-WSEC ______strategic goals. This period was mostly before the designation of “target” industries, and thus cannot be read as a direct measure of performance in placing trainees in those target industries. The data also only show a trainee’s first job placement after training. Many trainees probably moved on to different occupations and/or industries after this first placement. Finally, the sample includes only those individuals whose training was paid for with WIA funds.

Table 4 shows the top five hiring industries of the Table 4. "Top Five" industry destinations of trainees employers, in terms of numbers of trainees placed. INDUSTRY PLACEMENTS Hospitals took fully one in (no.) (%) five of all trainees. If the fifth 1 Hospitals 40 20% industry “Nursing and 2 Profe ssional; Scie ntific; and Te chnical Se rvice s 29 14% Residential Care Facilities” is 3 Administrative and Support Se rvice s 15 7% grouped with “Hospitals”, 4 Educational Se rvice s 10 5% then “healthcare accounted 5 Nursing and Re side ntial Care Facilitie s 9 4% for one in four placements for this sample group. The 1 Includes only 201 trainees with employer placement information in second most popular previous ROI study sample of 216 individuals. destination was “professional, scientific, and technical services”. Trainees were placed in a total of 48 different industries. Only 8 industries took more than five trainees out of the 201 individuals with identifiable employer information, and 18 of the 48 industries took one trainee each. Overall, the pattern emphasizes the dominance of services, and especially healthcare, in Baltimore’s new economy. (A full list of the different industries receiving trainees is given in the Appendix).

As well as the actual distribution of trainee placements across industries, these data can be looked at from the point of view of whether trainees are being prepared for, and placed in, those industries expected to grow in the future -- a key goal of a demand-driven system. The tally of trainees with industry placement information against the list of Table 5. Target industry destinations of trainees industries expected to have high TARGET INDUSTRIES PLACEMENTS 1 growth (in terms of the absolute (no.) (%) number of jobs added by 2010), is given in the Appendix. Out of 201 He alth Ca re and Social Assista nce 60 30% trainees with industry placement Busine ss Se rvice s 51 25% Hospitality/Tourism 16 8% information in the study sample, Construction 5 2% 93 (or 46%) were placed in one of Bioscie nce 0 0% the 11 industries expected to add Compute r, Inte rne t and Data Se rvice s 0 0% more than 1,000 jobs each in Baltimore by 2010. TOTAL 132 66%

1 Includes only 201 trainees with employer placement information in Of particular interest is the share previous ROI study sample of 216 individuals. of trainees who are placed in the BWIB’s “target industries”. These are shown in Table 5. In total, two-thirds of all identifiable placements of trainees were into those target industries. Almost half (60) of the total trainees

20 The State of Workforce Training in Baltimore, 2004 BWIB-WSEC ______going into any target industry (132) went into “health care and social assistance”. “Business services” were the second most frequent destination, with 51 placements.

Also of interest in this table is the fact that there were no placements in the “Bioscience” and “Computer, Internet, and Data Services” industries. It would be interesting to find out more about the reasons for this outcome. It may be due to a lack of interest in what is a consumer- driven training system. It may also be simply a lack of information about such careers, pathways, and potential employers. It may be due to lack of industry-demanded qualifications on the part of trainees: the generally higher, and more technical and specialized, training requirements for occupations in industries like biotechnology are more difficult to meet with the kinds of limited term training that WIA can fund. Whatever the reason, this outcome of only this small sample, signals that it may be difficult to rely on training by the local public workforce system to supply the labor needs of some of these target industries. Conversely, the growth of some of these industries may not supply many opportunities for this trainee population.

8. In which occupations are trainees from the WIA sample placed?

The training sample dataset used for the ROI analysis also contains information on the occupations that trainees went into at their first placement. Table 6 shows the top five occupations in terms of the number of trainees placed in them. (A full list of the different occupations at placement is given in the Appendix).

Table 6. "Top Five" placement occupations of trainees

OCCUPATION PLACEMENTS 1 (no.) (%)

1 Re giste red nurse s 17 9% 2 Misce llaneous cle rical occupations 14 7% 3 Atte ndants, hospitals, morgue s, and related he alth se rvice s 13 7% 4 Inte rvie wing cle rks 12 6% 5 Occupations in administrative spe cializations nec 7 4%

1 Includes only those 196 trainees with employer placement information in the previous ROI study sample of 216 individuals.

The occupation with the most trainees was registered nurse (9%), followed by “misc. clerical occupations” (7%), “attendants, hospitals, morgues, and related health services” (7%), and “interviewing clerks” (6%). Altogether, trainees were placed in 85 different occupations, but only 9 occupations had 5 or more trainees.

The actual distribution of placements is thus wide across the different occupations, but also of interest to a demand-driven system is whether trainees are being prepared for, and placed in, those occupations for which there is expected to be high future demand. The placement occupations of trainees in the study sample are tallied in the Appendix against the 25 occupations

21 The State of Workforce Training in Baltimore, 2004 BWIB-WSEC ______for which there are predicted to be most openings in Baltimore by 2010. Out of the 196 trainees with placement occupation information, 59 (or 30%) were placed in one of these top 25 occupations forecast to have the most openings. The occupation projected to have the most -- “Registered Nurses” – actually also received the largest number of trainees (18). The second largest number of placements (13) was in another healthcare occupation -- “Nursing aides, orderlies, and attendants”. This occupation is expected to have the 18th largest number of openings out of the 25 listed.

9. Where are the hiring employers of the WIA sample trainees located?

The previous ROI study dataset also contains information on the location of the hiring employers, and a full listing by city is given in the Appendix. Out of the 204 trainees with employer location information, 97.5% (199 of the 204) were placed with a Maryland employer, and 78.4% (160 trainees) were placed in Baltimore. As would be expected, nearby Columbia, Towson, Pikesville, Owings Mills, Hunt Valley, and Linthicum, are the next most frequent locations, with between 2 and 5 placements each. Employers in 18 other Maryland cities receive one trainee each, and five trainees are placed with out-of-state employers.

Employer locations by zip code within the city of Baltimore are available for 139 of the 216 trainees in the ROI study sample. (A complete listing is given in the Appendix). Before examining this distribution by zip codes, it should be noted that zip code areas (their locations, boundaries, and sizes) are not designed on the basis of functional labor market areas. They reflect instead a number of other factors, such as area population (and hence expected volume of mail), locations of mail sorting facilities, and immovable physical boundaries such as rivers, freeways, and power lines. Their names are also devised by the USPS, and do not necessarily reflect local neighborhood usage.

The Baltimore employers of trainees with zip code information can be found in 26 different city zip codes, although the majority (53.9%, or 75 out of 139) are found in just three: “Greenmount- Inner Harbor” (with 41 or 29.5% of the identifiable total), “Downtown-Lexington Market” (22, or 15.8%), and “Highlandtown-O’Donnell Heights” (12, or 8.6%).

10. Bringing it all together: how do we identify the need for training in Baltimore, and close any gaps between supply and demand?

This question “what is the need for workforce training in Baltimore?” is not an easy one to answer, either conceptually or with data. Here we use three approaches:

(a) “benchmarking” the Baltimore population’s level of training preparedness with that of the state and of the nation, to reveal and quantify any gaps;

(b) comparing any gap revealed with the “output” of current training activities, to see how far we are from closing the gap;

(c) comparing the projected future job openings in the Baltimore economy (expressed at the level of different individual occupations and their necessary training requirements) with the spectrum of education and training levels existing in Baltimore’s job seekers, to identify gaps at different levels within the overall distribution.

(a) Benchmarking Baltimore’s training preparedness:

One approach to ascertaining the “need” for training would be to compare the educational attainment level of Baltimore’s adult population, with the analogous levels for the state and the nation. This still gives only an approximate picture of real “need”, because “education” is not the same as “training”. “Education” is the highest grade reached in, or highest qualification received from, a formal accredited educational institution, while “training” is professional and vocational preparation for performance in a job or occupation. Unlike education, training can occur in a much wider variety of settings, can be formal or informal, and does not necessarily result in a qualification; when it does, the certificate can be issued by the industry or particular vendors within it, rather than by an accredited educational institution. Summary measures of “training” are thus more difficult to come by, and “educational attainment” is commonly used as a proxy for “training” when describing the preparedness of the workforce.

Chart 8 contains the latest census data on the highest educational level attained for each of six conventional categories of educational attainment, in a spectrum from “less than 9th grade level” to “bachelor’s degree or higher”. The general pattern revealed is that Baltimore’s bars are longer

Chart 8. Educational attainment level of the adult population, 2000 % % % 35.0% 7 . 7 6 % . . 9 0 8 8 . 2 2 2 7 p 30.0% % 2 % o % % 8 8 4 . . p . 7

. 2 2 2 t % 1 l 2 2

25.0% % 2 6 2 3 u . . 8 d 8 1 1 a 20.0% %

l 1 % . a 7 t 3 . 1 o 15.0% 1 t % 1

f 4 % . % o 0 8 . % 1 %

10.0% . 7 2 e 7 % . 6 . r 4 5 4 . a 3

h 5.0% S 0.0% . . gr pl ) . . r h di cy gr gr he 9t o en e de ig n , n al d . h a r. iv no oc or th g u l., ss r. ss th eq ol A eg e 12 cl. c d L h- in e h. 9t ( om ac ad S B gr BALT CITY HS Highest level reached MD Source: ba sed on ra w da ta from C ynthia Ta euber, U.S. Bur. Of the C ensus USA

23 The State of Workforce Training in Baltimore, 2004 BWIB-WSEC ______than the state’s and the nation’s for the first three categories (the lower half of the attainment spectrum), and Baltimore’s bars are shorter for the right three categories (the higher half of the attainment spectrum). Baltimore thus has a higher proportion of its adult population at a low attainment level, and a smaller proportion of its population at a high attainment level, than both the state and the nation. In fact, the proportion of adults without a high school diploma or GED in Baltimore is almost double the level for the state as a whole (22.8% versus 11.7%), while the proportion of adults in Baltimore with an Associates degree is almost half the nationwide level (3.4% versus 6.1%).

From this, we could make one estimate of the “need” for training in Baltimore as being “the effort necessary to bring Baltimore’s attainment statistics up to the national average”. For example, 8.4% of the city’s adult population (or 39,461 people in 2000) has less than a 9th grade education, compared to 7.0% in the US as a whole. So to bring Baltimore’s level down to the 7.0% national level for this category would require reducing the 39,461 to 32,664 – a shift of 6,797 people to a higher level of educational attainment. There is not to suggest that this comparison with the national average be the “standard” or “ultimate” definition of “the need for training”. Such a concept is a normative, value-laden, choice, around which there has been no wide discussion to reach any single consensus measure out of several possibilities. It merely reflects a logical approach to putting Baltimore’s situation into some kind of perspective, and a desire to elicit the most useful signals from the limited data available. We would welcome other suggestions.

Table 7. Baltimore shifts necessary to match national average educational attainment distribution

CITY OF US AVGE IF CITY BODY BALTIMORE SHARE W ERE AT SHIFT ACTUAL US AVGE

Less than 9th gr. 39,461 7.0% 32,664 -6,797 9th-12th gr., no dipl. 106,740 13.1% 61,415 -45,325 HS grad (incl. equivalency) 134,132 28.7% 134,539 407 Some coll., no degr. 87,103 22.4% 104,811 17,708 Assoc. degr. 15,749 6.1% 28,725 12,976 Bach. degr. or higher 85,639 22.8% 106,669 21,030

TOTAL ADULT POPULATION 468,824 468,824

Using this indicator, the absolute numbers of adults it would be necessary to move between categories (either out of the lower, or into the higher levels) so as to bring the City’s distribution into alignment with the national averages, are shown in Table 7. Some 52,000 people (the 6,797 people currently at less than 9th grade level plus the 45,325 at 9th-12th grade level but with no diploma) would need to attain the High School graduate level (i.e. move out of the lowest two categories), and some 34,000 people currently without an Associates or Bachelor’s degree (12,976 plus 21,030) would need to earn a post-secondary qualification, just for the City’s educational attainment profile to match the national distribution.

(b) How much more training would it take to close the gaps?

The comparison with state and national proportions made above gives us some quantitative estimates of how far Baltimore has to go to close the gap with elsewhere: 52,000 more HS grads, and 34,000 post-secondary qualified workers would be needed. We can now compare these totals with the “output” of graduates from all the major blocks of workforce training we inventoried in section 2. Again, though, some caveats must be borne in mind:

(1) Some agencies reported to us their “enrolments” (i.e. the number of trainees), while others gave only their “completions” (i.e. graduates). The former gives a snapshot of trainees as “work-in-progress”, while the latter measures education and training “output” over a period. Also, some agencies reported program-lifetime totals, and others their biennial, or annual, or fiscal year accomplishments. We have had to estimate the volume of training “output” by: (a) pro-rating the provided data to an annualized basis (thereby making assumptions about program cycles); and (b) dividing the total number of trainees in-process, by the presumed length of time of the program to graduation (thereby making assumptions about the share of enrollees who are scheduled to graduate in a given year, and the rate at which they do so successfully).

(2) The definitions of trainees and completions vary between training providers. These differences reflect the way different institutions parse their content material into courses, and then courses into programs and curricula.

(3) There is an unknown overlap between some sources of training: CCN clients, for example, could have obtained their training at BCCC and thus appear in both providers’ data, as could STEP participants.

(4) We do not know for certain that all the trainees reported by the City of Baltimore-based programs are City residents. Conversely, we do not know how many City residents obtain their workforce training at educational and training institutions or at employers outside the City.

For these reasons, we suggest the summary numbers in Table 8 below be taken only as “broad brush” estimates. Nevertheless, what they appear to show is still striking.

We estimated before that 52,000 adults over age 25 in Baltimore need a HS diploma/GED, just in order to bring Baltimore’s attainment level up to the national average. The total number of adults actually obtaining these qualifications (through other routes than the regular K-12 system) is estimated in Table 8 to be just under 7,000 a year. We also estimated before that 34,000 people would be in need of a post-secondary qualification, just in order to bring Baltimore’s attainment level up to the national average. The number of people actually obtaining such a qualification each year is just under 9,000.

The 52,000 and 34,000 numbers of people lacking these qualifications represent the totals left over after the City training sources have already put in their current level of training effort and

25 The State of Workforce Training in Baltimore, 2004 BWIB-WSEC ______achieved their current level of output. So if it were to be decided that the City had the goal of closing these two gaps, it would require increasing the present training efforts and numbers of graduates. If the present levels of effort reflected in Table 8 were to be doubled, the HS gap could be closed in 7 years, and the post-secondary gap closed in 4 years. If the present level of effort were to be tripled, then the gaps could be closed in 4 years at the high school/GED level, and in 2 years for post-secondary level. These projections assume the gap totals themselves stay “static” over these time periods, that is: (a) the number of individuals added to this total each year as youths age into adults is assumed to be balanced by the number of adults exiting through death, retirement, or migration, and (b) the degree of “accessibility” to the necessary education for these groups does not change over time for other reasons independent of an increase in the supply of training effort (e.g. reduced accessibility because of tuition fee increases, training program cutbacks, fluctuations in financial aid availability and eligibility, etc).

Table 8. How well is the need for training in Baltimore being met by current training activities?

ESTIMATED NEED FOR TRAINING "OUTPUT" OF TRAINING

(all adults over 25) DATA AS RECEIVED FROM AGENCIES ESTIMATED ESTIMATED NUMBER ANNUAL OF YEARS TO CLEAR COMPLE- " NEED", IF RAISE TIONS "OUTPUT" BY: DOUBLE TRIPLE

52,000 adults ne e d a 13,186 tota l of the line s be low: 6,998 7 4

High School dip/GED 7,300 e nrolle d in GED/ABE through 3,650 1 BCCC 4,345 a dults se rve d through Adult 2,173 1 Ed/Lite racy Se rvice s 677 Adult Life and Lite racy Skills 677 3 comple tions through DPSCS 376 HS dips e a rne d through YO 107 2 352 GEDs e a rne d through DPSCS 352 3 136 GEDs e a rne d through YO 39 2

34,000 adults ne e d a post- 17,181 tota l of the line s be low: 8,950 4 2

se condary qualification 10,800 stude nts e nrolle d for cre dit a t 5,400 1 (BCCC, inc. 2775 e nrolle d in Pe rkins CTE-funde d training) 3,262 TCA custome rs participa te d in 1,631 1 voc./community coll programs 1,000 traine d through MITP/PW Q 1,000 3 829 EZ re side nts in EBMC-suporte d training 579 Care e r Ce nte r Ne twork clie nts 386 4 e nrolle d in training se rvice s 353 occupational skills comple tions 353 3 through DPSCS 208 e nrolle d in colle ge through YO 30 5 150 comple te d appre ntice ships 150 3 through MATP

1 assumes two-year cycle 4 18-month data annualized 2 Feb 2000 through Sep 2004 total, annualized 5 18-month data annualized, with two-year cycle 3 data received are already 12-month basis

(c) Which individual occupations will have the most job openings in the future, and what level of training will they require?

The state’s Office of Labor Market Analysis and Information (OLMAI) provided the BWIB in March 2004 with detailed information on over 67,000 projected “job openings” across 76 different occupations in the City of Baltimore, for the period 2000 to 2010. This “job openings” measure is not merely the “net additional new jobs from growth” over those ten years, but also takes into account the demographics of the existing workforce in those occupations. Total openings is the sum of the employment change over the projection period and an estimate of the number of jobs that will arise from the need to replace existing workers who will die, retire, or permanently leave the occupation for other reasons over the projection period.26 The projected 67,790 job openings shown are in those occupations with the most openings, and constitute 69% of the 98,160 total projected number of job openings in the City from 2000 to 2010. The remaining 30,370, or 31%, are distributed across occupations with either few projected openings or where satisfactory statistical projections cannot be made.

The 76 occupations in which these 67,790 projected job openings will be found are also categorized according to the degree of training, and/or education, and/or work experience that each occupation requires. OLMAI uses four major levels of requirements (I through IV) and eight sub-categories, based on a Bureau of Labor Statistics classification, to group occupations by training requirement. The scheme is:

Level I: Short-term on-the-job training (OJT)

Level II: High School plus moderate-term OJT High School plus long-term OJT

Level III: Related work experience Vocational training Associate’s degree

Level IV: Bachelor’s degree Work experience plus degree

The total number of job openings projected for each occupation within each training requirement category27 for the whole decade in Baltimore has been integrated alongside the hourly wage, in the detailed Table 9 below. The summary statistics from this detailed Table 8 are shown afterwards in Table 10.

26 See http://www.dllr.state.md.us/lmi/iandoproj/aboutnum.htm. Occupations with declining employment will have positive job openings equal to replacement needs, since openings cannot have a negative value. Employment may not be found in all occupations in sufficient numbers to warrant the development of occupational projections, or they may not meet publication standards. Occupations covered by the projections use the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) system, which is the basis of the Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) survey used to gather occupational employment data in cooperation with the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

27 Taken from http://www.dllr.state.md.us/lmi/iandoproj/

28 Table 9. Occupational Demand by Training Requirement, for Baltimore City WIA, through 2010

I II III IV SHORT-TERM OJT ** HIGH SCHOOL PLUS - RELATED WORK EXPERIENCE BACHELOR'S DEGREE OR HIGHER, or - MODERATE-TERM OJT or VOCATIONAL TRAINING WORK EXPERIENCE PLUS DEGREE - LONG-TERM OJT or ASSOCIATES DEGREE

OCCUPATION * OPENINGS $ OCCUPATION * OPENINGS $ OCCUPATION * OPENINGS $ OCCUPATION * OPENINGS $

Short-term OJT High School plus moderate-term OJT Related work experience Bachelor's degree Cashiers 2,980 $8.25 Secretaries, exc. Legal, Supv. of Retail Workers 750 $14.75 Elem. Sch Teachers, General Office Clerks 2,060 $13.00 Medical & Executive 1,840 $12.50 Supv. of Office and exc. Special Ed. 1,010 $50,775 Food Preparation Wkrs 1,970 $9.75 Exec Secretaries and Administrative Workers 710 $20.25 Network Systems & Data Laborers and Material Administrative Assts. 1,720 $18.25 Supv. of Food Communications Analyst 920 $32.50 Movers 1,830 $10.00 Customer Service Reps. 1,530 $14.50 Preparation Workers 650 $14.25 Middle Sch. Teachers, Retail Salespersons 1,790 $8.25 Social and Human Supv. of Construction exc. Spec./Voc. Ed. 700 $48,125 Maids & Housekeeping Service Assistants 1,460 $13.75 Trades Workers 490 $24.00 Accountants & Auditors 670 $26.00 Cleaners 1,610 $11.00 Medical Assistants 1,040 $13.00 Supv. Of Production & Computer Systems Stock Clks/Order Fillers 1,590 $10.25 Sales Reps, WT/Manuf. Operating Workers 470 $21.00 Analysts 670 $28.00 Child Care Workers 1,520 $9.50 exc, Sc./Tech. Prod. 720 $28.00 Supv. Of Mechanics, Social/Community Security Guards 1,020 $10.00 Bookkeeping and Installers & Repairers 350 $22.50 Services Managers 570 $22.50 Janitors & Cleaners 1,420 $7.25 Accounting Clerks 650 $15.00 Food Service Managers 290 $20.50 Child, Family & School Nursing Aides/Orderlies 1,320 $12.75 Truck Drivers, Heavy & Self-Enrichment Educ. Social Workers 520 $21.00 Waiters & Waitresses 1,190 $6.50 Tractor Trailer 510 $16.00 Teachers 220 $11.75 Insurance Sales Agents 510 $17.25 Combined Food Prep Team Assemblers 450 $8.75 Property & Real Estate and Serving Workers 970 $7.50 Laundry/Dry Cln. Wkrs. 360 $9.25 Vocational training Managers 500 $22.25 Dishwashers 830 $6.75 Painters, Construction & Hairdressers 820 $8.25 Medical & Public Health Receptionists and Maintenance 220 $14.75 Licensed Practical Social Workers 420 $23.75 Information Clerks 690 $12.00 Roofers 220 $15.75 Nurses 480 $20.50 Network & Computer Light Truck Drivers 550 $13.75 Pharmacy Technicians 210 $13.50 Legal Secretaries 310 $20.00 Systems Admin. 390 $28.50 Teacher Assistants 520 $21,700 Construction Laborers 200 $11.25 Auto Service Techs & Hand Packagers 510 $8.50 Mechanics 260 $16.50 Work experience plus degree Ushers/Ticket Takers 440 $8.25 High School plus long-term OJT Gen'l & Operations Mgrs 1,910 $32.75 Counter Attendants, General Maintenance & Associates degree Admin Services Mgrs. 970 $22.25 Food Service 420 $7.50 Repair Workers 350 $14.00 Registered Nurses 3,240 $32.50 Medical & Health Svcs. Landscaping and Electricians 330 $21.50 Computer Support Managers 920 $36.00 Groundskeeping Wkrs 410 $10.00 Restaurant Cooks 270 $9.75 Specialists 1,220 $20.75 Computer & Info System Counter/Rental Clerks 410 $12.75 Compliance Officers 220 $19.50 Medical Records/Health Managers 640 $40.00 Cooks, Inst./Cafeteria 210 $10.50 Information Techs 500 $15.25 Financial Managers 640 $36.00 Carpenters 180 $16.50 Paralegals & Legal Management Analysts 410 $27.00 Assistants 260 $18.00 Radiologic Techs 220 $25.25

* Occupations ranked by total job openings projected through 2010; see: http://www.dllr.state.md.us/lmi/iandoproj/ ** OJT = on-the-job training

"$" = median hourly wage rates in Dec 2003 (but wages specific to school system occupations are expressed as annual wages)

Source: Pat Arnold, DLLR Office of Labor Market Analysis and Information, June 2004 The State of Workforce Training in Baltimore, 2004 BWIB-WSEC ______

The median hourly wage shown in Table 10 below is the lowest and highest median for all individual occupation medians in that training level category (not the median of all jobs in each occupation). The “average” shown in the last column is the average of all the occupational medians in that requirement category.

Table 10. Job openings by occupation and education/training requirement in Baltimore, 2000-2010

REQUIREMENT OCCUPA- OPENINGS MEDIAN HRLY W AGE TIONS (no.) (%) (low) (high) (avge)* Le ve l I: Short-te rm OJT 22 26,050 38.4% $6.50 $13.75 $9.69 Le ve l II: High School plus mode ra te -te rm OJT 14 11,130 16.4% $8.75 $28.00 $14.59 High School plus long-te rm OJT 6 1,560 2.3% $9.75 $21.50 $15.29 Le ve l III: Re late d work e xpe rie nce 8 3,930 5.8% $11.75 $24.00 $18.63 Vocational tra ining 4 7,310 10.8% $8.25 $20.50 $16.31 Associate s de gre e 5 5,440 8.0% $15.25 $32.50 $22.35 Le ve l IV: Ba che lor's de gre e 11 6,880 10.1% $17.25 $32.50 $24.64 W ork e xpe rie nce plus de gre e 6 5,490 8.1% $22.25 $40.00 $32.33

All ca te gorie s 76 67,790 100.0% $6.50 $40.00 $17.00

* excluding three education occupations for which only annual information is available.

The main findings from these two tables are:

 The projected job openings will not all be clustered in occupations “higher” up the spectrum of required education/training, as might be expected from the hype about three- quarters of all the jobs created in the “new economy” requiring a post-secondary qualification. In fact, according to OLMAI estimates, over one-third of the 67,790 projected job openings detailed between 2000 and 2010 (i.e. 38.4%, or 26,050) will require only short- term on-the-job training, and should therefore be available to those job seekers without a HS/GED. However, wages in the occupations in this category are low, and the other two- thirds of projected openings will not be available to these job seekers because they are in occupations requiring a HS/GED qualification. Within the “low requirement” group, “General Office Clerks” and “Nursing aides/orderlies” occupations seem to offer the best combination of relatively higher wages and a large number of openings.

 Over one-quarter of the 67,790 projected job openings (26.2%, or 17,810 in some of the Level III and all of the Level IV occupations) will require a two-year or four-year degree. Healthcare occupations, such as “Registered Nurse” and “Radiological technician,” offer the highest wage for occupations requiring just an Associate’s degree.

 Over two-thirds of the 67,790 projected job openings (71.0%, or 48,160) will require at least some form of OJT or work experience, highlighting the importance of getting into a job.

 Over one-third of the 67,790 projected job openings (37%, or 25,120) will require either a degree or vocational training.

 More learning means more earnings: the average of the median hourly wages of the occupations rises almost uniformly up the training requirements spectrum, from $9.69 for those occupations in the lowest (Level I) category requiring “only short-term OJT,” to $32.33 for the highest Level IV category of “work experience plus a degree”.

It would be useful to be able to compare the shares of the total number of these projected job openings at the different training requirement levels (i.e. the “demand” for trained workers from employers, which is meant to drive the WIA system), with the actual distribution of educational/training attainment of job seekers (i.e. the “supply” of skilled labor, available through the MOED Career Center Network. In this way we could see what the balance is, and if there are any gaps, and if so, at which levels of training requirement the gaps are found.

Unfortunately, this cannot be a direct and straightforward comparison, because: (1) the job- seekers appearing at one-stops in the Career Center Network are a sub-set of all the unemployed; (2) the educational/training requirement categories used in the job opening projections data (the BLS Levels I through IV) are not exactly analogous to the categories used in the MOED customer data (see Table 10), which obtains “educational status” (from pre-registration), and “highest grade Table 11. CCN job-seekers completed” (obtained later, at registration, from a (no.) (%) different sub-set of job-seekers): “educational status” "Educational status" - Adults thus offers a coarser measure than “highest grade”, Drop-out 757 20.1 but is available on a larger number of clients; (3) the student 31 0.8 MOED data is “self-reported” and 38% of adults HS/GED 2,651 70.6 College 318 8.5 (1,428) are listed as “missing” this particular data ( Missing 4 ) item, which is only asked of job seeker customers moving into staff-assisted services: we need to "Highest grade completed" - Adults Less than 6th 11 0.5 assume these percentages also apply to core stage 6th to 7th 15 0.6 customers; and (4) the total numbers for the demand 8th to 11th 458 19.6 and supply sides are expressed differently: there are HS grad/GED 1,510 64.7 67,790 projected job openings in these 76 occupations Some college 267 11.4 over the ten years, or an annual average (assuming College degree 72 3.1 no business cycles) of 6,779 (on the demand side), ( Missing 1,428 ) compared to an intake of 21,361 Career Center Source: MOED data in Table 2.4.4 of 28 Network “pre-registrants” over an 18-month period Baltimore's Workforce System at Work, and a snapshot total of around 25,000 unemployed in data for 7/1/00-12/31/01. any one month29 (both on the supply side).

28 See Table 2.4.3 in Appendix E of Baltimore’s Workforce System at Work report.

29 Monthly unemployment data from: http://www.dllr.state.md.us/lmi/laborforcewia/wiacity.htm.

In sum, the total supply (of MOED job seeker customers) thus very likely exceeds the total demand (of projected job openings). However, putting the two distributions (training requirement categories and highest grade completed) alongside each other can only be done in a suggestive, rather than a conclusive, way. Nevertheless, when we do compare shares of total projected job openings at each training requirement level, with the shares of CCN job seeker customers at each educational attainment level, as in Table 12, the following findings are noticeable.

Table 12. Comparison of Projected Job Openings to Career Center Customers, at different levels

REQUIREMENT OCCUPA- PROJ ECTED J OB OPENINGS CCN JOB RATIO OF J OB TIONS 2000-2010 18-mnth a vge SEEKERS * SEEKERS TO (no.) (%) (no.) (%) (no.) (%) PROJECTED JOB OPENINGS Level I: Short-te rm O JT 22 26,050 38.4% 3,908 38.4% 4,422 20.7% 1.1 Level II: High School plus mode ra te -te rm OJT 14 11,130 16.4% 1,670 16.4% High School plus long-te rm OJ T 6 1,560 2.3% 234 2.3% Level III: 16,256 76.1% 4.5 Re la te d work e xpe rie nce 8 3,930 5.8% 590 5.8% Voca tiona l tra ining 4 7,310 10.8% 1,097 10.8% Associa te s de gre e 5 5,440 8.0% 816 8.0% Level IV: 662 3.1% 0.2 Ba che lor's de gre e 11 6,880 10.1% 1,032 10.1% W ork e xpe rie nce plus de gre e 6 5,490 8.1% 824 8.1%

All ca te gorie s 76 67,790 100.0% 10,169 100.0% 21,361 99.9% 2.1

* obtained by applying percentage share in each category of "highest grade completed", for those customers at or beyond staff-assisted stage, to all job seekers (including self-served).

The ratio of all job seekers to projected job openings (over an average comparable period of 18 months for both series) is about 2.1 job seekers for every opening. However, the analogous figures at each level within the total distribution differ greatly from this average, and give some indication of where the “gaps” are.

Over one-third of the total job openings will still be available to the 20.7% of the Career Center Network’s adult job seeker customers who do not have a HS diploma. At this level, competition appears easier, with only slightly more than one job seeker (1.1) per projected job opening. However, there are still three significant problems for job seekers at this level.

First, the wages received in the occupations found at this requirement level are low. The median hourly wage for the 21 occupations in the “short-term OJT” category of Level I ranges from only $6.50 up to $13.75, with an “average of the 21 medians” of $9.69. The organization ‘Wider Opportunities for Women,’ which advocates self-sufficiency strategies for low-income families, has suggested a “Self-Sufficiency Standard” for measuring how much income is needed to make

32 The State of Workforce Training in Baltimore, 2004 BWIB-WSEC ______ends meet for 70 different family-types in 34 states.30 Their standard for Baltimore31 in December 2001 was $9.13 an hour for a single adult. Of the 21 individual occupations with hourly wage information shown in the Level I “short-term OJT” category, twelve occupations had a median hourly wage surpassing this standard, but nine did not. It should be remembered that “median” means, by definition, half the earners with each occupation (even if its median was over $9.13) had a wage below that median. Also, the self-sufficiency standard itself is higher than $9.13 for the larger and more complicated family types. Thus, Level I occupations, by and large, do not appear to provide sufficient earnings for self-sufficiency for many job seekers, by this standard.

Second, advancement upwards from this “short-term OJT” level to the next rung of higher occupations in Level II, where jobs pay more, would, by definition, require further training or education. Whether these easily accessible Level I jobs provide any training opportunity for such advancement upwards or not is thus a key question. Our next point suggests that is unlikely to happen.

Third, these job seekers at Level I face competition from an excess of qualified people in the level above. The occupations at the next rung on the requirements ladder (Level II) do have higher median hourly wages ranging from $8.75 to $28.00 per hour, and they are still projected to account for almost one in five of total job openings (18.7%). However, those job seekers fitting Level II – the 64.7% share of CCN’s total job seeker customers who claim to have just a High School diploma -- may still have to settle for the “short-term OJT” Level I occupations paying less, because the number of individuals here greatly exceeds the number of job openings: job seekers at Level II outnumber projected openings by 4.5:1. About three-quarters of job seekers actually qualified for occupations at this level may therefore be forced “downwards” into competing for Level I jobs against other job seekers lacking a HS diploma, even though they may be qualified for Level II occupations. Employers with job openings at Level I then have little incentive to provide any training, as many of their job applicants will already be over-qualified for that level. This reinforces the second problem of lack of training opportunities in Level I occupations, mentioned above.

Above Levels I and II, where some college is required (i.e. within Levels III and IV), wages are higher still: the Associate’s and Bachelor’s degree-requiring occupations account for about a quarter of total projected job openings and pay median hourly wages ranging from $15.25 to $40.00. However, only 11.4% of the job seekers reportedly have “some college,” and only 3.1% have “a degree”.32 Job seekers who are poised to move up to this level – those with a HS diploma and OJT and work experience -- cannot do so without the post-secondary education or training required. Hence, occupations at this rung will be out of reach to over 96% of all CCN customers, and the ratio of qualified job seekers to projected job openings is only 0.2, meaning employers

30 Setting the Standard For American Working Families: A Report on the Impact of the Family Economic Self-Sufficiency Project Nationwide, Wider Opportunities for Women, Washington DC. In Maryland, WOW worked with the Center for Poverty Solutions and Advocates for Children and Youth; see: http://www.wowonline.org/docs/FINAL_FESS_report_072103.pdf 31 City and County together. 32 See MOED data on Adults, in Appendix E of Baltimore’s Workforce System at Work report. Attainment categories are not exactly the same, and job seeker data is self-reported.

33 The State of Workforce Training in Baltimore, 2004 BWIB-WSEC ______will have a hard time filling those openings without either raising wages or seeking qualified applicants from outside the City.

In sum, the above data suggest a picture where one-third of projected job openings will be in occupations of Level I and thus accessible to job seekers lacking a high school diploma. However, many of these jobs will be in occupations not paying a self-sufficiency wage. A high school diploma and work experience is key for advancing to Level II occupations where wages are higher. Yet here the competition for jobs is also greater, with more job seekers qualified for occupations at this level than there are job openings, and no opportunity for those job seekers to move up to Level III occupations without a post-secondary qualification. This likely rebounds many high school grads downwards into the lower Level I, where they can out-compete unqualified job seekers for the only level of jobs accessible to them. This also leaves employers with Level I job openings with little incentive to provide training. Meanwhile, very few job seekers are qualified for the highest-paying jobs requiring a post-secondary qualification in Levels III and IV. There thus appears to be a competitive “crunch” at Level I, and job openings going begging at Level IV.

This mis-match may benefit some employers with Level I jobs open, and some qualified job seekers going for jobs in Level IV, but as long as there is restricted mobility between categories because of qualification barriers, it will not produce an efficient allocation of human capital resources overall. The key to making a better match between the demand for skills and the available supply of job seekers at the different levels of training requirements, is thus to focus on removing the ceilings between Levels I and II, and between Levels II and III, that are created by job seekers not having enough training or qualifications.

34 The State of Workforce Training in Baltimore, 2004 Appendix ______

Appendix

Range of dollar cost* per "training slot" for City of Baltimore employer grantees in PWQ and MITP programs (FY 2003)

6 8 ,2 4 1 $15,000 4 $ 4 ,0 3 1 $

$12,500

$10,000

$7,500

$5,000

5 7 5 7 9 ,2 8 8 9 1 7 , 2 7 9 9 9 , 1 $ 5 4 2 7 7 3 , 1 $ $2,500 , $ 1 ,1 ,1 1 1 8 , $ 3 2 1 1 1 $ 1 9 7 6 8 5 5 7 9 9 $ $ $ 6 8 9 5 7 0 9 9 6 7 0 0 1 3 5 6 6 6 $ 8 1 8 9 5 5 5 $ 2 5 5 9 0 3 4 4 4 $ $ $ $ 6 2 2 2 $ $ 1 1 1 1 $ $ $ $ $ 1 $ $ $ $ $ $ $0

4 2 3 6 5 4 8 7 5 7 3 5 Q 2 4 6 0 1 H 0 9 3 1 8 P 9 2 6 1 # # # 1 1 2 # # # 1 # 1 2 2 2 1 1 # 1 T # 1 1 2 1 2 2 # # T # # # # # W # # # # # # # I # # # Q Q Q P Q Q Q Q P O Q Q P P P Q Q P Q Q Q Q Q Q Q M Q Q Q T T B T T T W W W I W W L W W I W W I I I P P P W W P P P W P W W W W W P W L P W W W P P L P P P N P P P P L P P P M M I M M M A A L L A

Grantee by program (* PWQ 's 50:50 em ployer dolla r ma tch requirement not included)

MITP and PWQ grants 2 to Baltimore City and MD companies, by stated "grant purpose," FY2002 and FY2003

STATED GRANT PURPOSE NUMBER OF GRANTS TOTAL VALUE OF GRANTS 2002 2003 2002 2003 BALT MD BALT MD BALT MD SHARE BALT MD SHARE (no.) (no.) (no.) (no.) ($) ($) (%) ($) ($) (%)

MITP "Workforce training and business development" 3 36 $386,638 $5,526,306 "Support local/regional economic development" 1 $39,492 $40,000 "Grant for training new and expanding businesses" 5 28 $455,190 $2,604,308 Sub-total for MITP 4 36 5 28 $426,130 $5,526,306 7.7% $455,190 $2,644,308 17.2% MITP grant dollars per person in civ. lab. force $1.48 $1.91 $1.58 $0.91

PWQ 1 "Workforce training/business competitiveness" 2 40 $778,004 $2,333,025 "Grant to upgrade training, increase productivity 5 22 $186,206 $956,286 and competitiveness" Sub-total for PWQ 2 40 5 22 $778,004 $2,333,025 33.3% $186,206 $956,286 19.5% PWQ grant dollars per person in civ. lab. force $2.70 $0.81 $0.65 $0.33

Total for both MITP and PWQ programs 6 76 10 50 $1,204,134 $7,859,331 15.3% $641,396 $3,600,594 17.8%

Total MITP and PWQ grant dollars per person in civ. lab. force $4.19 $2.71 $2.22 $1.24

Source: Office of Legislative Policy Analysis, State of Maryland, 2003

1 Of the 2002 PWQ total grants value, $742,000 was to the Maryland World Class Manufacturing Consortium. 2 Includes only grants valued over $25,000 each: statewide in FY 03, MITP distributed $222,776 and PWQ distributed $1,773,308 through other grants in the sub-$25,000 category. 3 Average of months, from: http://www.dllr.state.md.us/lmi/laborforcewia/wiacity.htm and http://www.dllr.state.md.us/lmi/laus/md19902003.htm: 2002 2003 BALT MD BALT MD 287,687 2,896,888 288,454 2,904,139

Some characteristics of trainees compared to the City of Baltimore population as a whole

CITY 1 TRAINEES 2

(no.) (%) (no.) (%)

TOTAL 612,656 100.0% 216 100.0%

Male 280,555 45.8% 75 34.7% Female 332,101 54.2% 145 67.1%

Median age 35.5 38.0

Average family size 3.19 1.90

Adult population with - 468,824 100.0% 216 100.0% Less than 9th gr 39,461 8.4% 2 0.9% 9th to 12th gr., no dip 106,740 22.8% 15 6.9% HS grad (incl. equivalency) 134,132 28.6% 137 63.4% Some coll., no degr. 87,103 18.6% 51 23.6% Assoc. degr. 15,749 3.4% 3 1.4% Bach degr or higher 85,639 18.3% 8 3.7%

Population 16 and over who are - 469,982 100.0% 216 100.0% Employed 259,079 55.1% 33 15.3% Unemployed 41,902 8.9% 162 75.0% Not in the labor force 168,789 35.9% 21 9.7%

Sources: 1 U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey, 2002, except for educational attainment data from Cynthia Taueber's special run with Census 2000 data. The 2002 American Community Survey universe is limited to the household population and excludes the population living in institutions, college dormitories, and other group quarters. Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. 2 Customized and ITA-funded trainee samples.

Industry destinations of trainees

INDUSTRY PLACEMENTS (no.) (%)

Hospitals 40 20% Professional; Scientific; and Technical Services 29 14% Administrative and Support Services 15 7% Educational Services 10 5% Nursing and Residential Care Facilities 9 4% Credit Intermediation and Related Activities 8 4% Ambulatory Health Care Services 7 3% Truck Transportation 7 3% Executive, Legislative, and Other General Government Support 4 2% Food and Beverage Stores 4 2% Food Services and Drinking Places 4 2% Social Assistance 4 2% Specialty Trade Contractors 4 2% Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing 3 1% Merchant Wholesalers; Durable Goods 3 1% Personal and Laundry Services 3 1% Real Estate 3 1% Telecommunications 3 1% Amusement; Gambling; and Recreation Industries 2 1% Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores 2 1% Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing 2 1% Food Manufacturing 2 1% Insurance Carriers and Related Activities 2 1% Merchant Wholesalers; Nondurable Goods 2 1% Miscellaneous Store Retailers 2 1% Performing Arts; Spectator Sports; and Related Industries 2 1% Primary Metal Manufacturing 2 1% Repair and Maintenance 2 1% Transit and Ground Passenger Transportation 2 1% Administration of Economic Programs 1 1% Administration of Environmental Quality Programs 1 1% Administration of Housing Programs; Urban Plan.; and Comm. Dev. 1 1% Administration of Human Resource Programs 1 1% Air Transportation 1 1% Apparel Manufacturing 1 1% Beverage and Tobacco Product Manufacturing 1 1% Broadcasting (except Internet) 1 1% Building Material and Garden Equipment and Supplies Dealers 1 1% Construction of Buildings 1 1% Couriers and Messengers 1 1% Furniture and Related Product Manufacturing 1 1% General Merchandise Stores 1 1% Machinery Manufacturing 1 1% Management of Companies and Enterprises 1 1% Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing 1 1% Printing and Related Support Activities 1 1% Textile Mills 1 1% Wood Product Manufacturing 1 1%

TOTAL 201 100%

1 Includes only 201 trainees with employer placement information in previous ROI study sample of 216 individuals.

Distribution of trainee sample placements across industries with the most expected absolute growth in Baltimore City, 2000-2010

Rank Industry 1 Employment Placements 2 2000 2010 Change no. %

1 Personnel Supply Services 10865 14600 3735 14 7% 2 Offices & Clinics Of Medical Doctors 6331 8332 2001 2 1% 3 Residential Care 3373 5180 1807 2 1% 4 Self-Employed Workers 3 11923 13568 1645 NA NA 5 Miscellaneous Business Services 3 5946 7554 1608 NA NA 6 Hospitals 34723 36245 1522 40 20% 7 Colleges and Universities 23373 24725 1352 4 2% 8 Nursing and Personal Care Facilities 5205 6542 1337 7 3% 9 Computer and Data Processing Services 2681 3966 1285 0 0% 10 Legal Services 6095 7339 1244 0 0% 11 Management & Public Relations 4396 5622 1226 24 12% 12 Health and Allied Services, n.e.c. 2596 3590 994 0 0%

TOTAL 93 46%

1 5-digit SIC 2 Includes only 201 trainees with information on occupation of their placement out of the 216 trainees in the training investment study 3 Unable to convert SIC code to NAICS code

Placement occupations of trainees

OCCUPATION PLACEMENTS 1 (no.) (%)

REGISTERED NURSES 17 9% MISCELLANEOUS CLERICALPlacement OCCUPATIONS, occupations N.E.C. of trainees (continued) 14 7% ATTENDANTS, HOSPITALS, MORGUES, AND REL. HEALTH SER. 13 7% OCCUPATION PLACEMENTS 1 INTERVIEWING CLERKS (no.)12 (%)6% OCCUPATIONS IN ADMINISTRATIVE SPECIALIZATIONS, N.E.C. 7 4% ARC WELDERS AND CUTTERS 1 1% MISCELLANEOUS SALES OCCUPATIONS, N.E.C. 6 3% ATTENDANTS AND SERVICE., PARK. LOTS AND AUTO. SERV. FACIL. 1 1% TRUCKATTENDANTS, DRIVERS, GOLF HEAVY COURSE, TENNIS CT., SKAT. RINK, AND REL. 16 1%3% HOUSEHOLDBOOKKEEPERS AND AND RELATED RELATED WORK OCCUPATIONS 15 1%3% PASSENGERBUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION COMMERCIAL MACHINE OCCUPATIONS, REPAIRERS N.E.C. 15 1%3% COMPUTINGCHEFS AND COOKS, AND ACCOUNT-RECORDING HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS OCCUP., N.E.C. 14 1%2% TRAILER-TRUCKCOMPUTER-RELATED DRIVERS OCCUPATIONS, N.E.C. 14 1%2% DARKROOM OCCUPATIONS, N.E.C. 1 1% BILLING AND RATE CLERKS 3 2% EXCAVATING, GRADING, PAVING, AND RELATED OCCUP., N.E.C. 1 1% MEDICAL SERVICE CLERKS, N.E.C. 3 2% FABRICATING MACHINE OCCUPATIONS 1 1% OCCUPATIONSGENERAL INDUSTRY IN PSYCHOLOGY MECHANICS AND REPAIRERS 13 1%2% ACCOUNTINGHAIRDRESSERS AND AND STATISTICAL COSMETOLOGISTS CLERKS 12 1%1% CASHIERSHOISTING ANDAND TELLERSCONVEYING OCCUPATIONS 12 1%1% COMPUTERHOME ECONOMISTS AND PERIPHERAL AND FARM EQUIPMENT ADVISERS OPERATORS 12 1%1% INFORMATION AND MESSAGE DISTRIBUTION OCCUP., N.E.C. 1 1% DOMESTIC SERVICE OCCUPATIONS, N.E.C. 2 1% INVESTIGATORS, ADJUSTERS, AND RELATED OCCUPATIONS 1 1% FOOD AND BEVERAGE PREP. AND SERV. OCCUP., N.E.C. 2 1% MACHINISTS AND RELATED OCCUPATIONS 1 1% HOUSEKEEPERS,MEATCUTTERS, EXCEPT HOTELS IN AND SLAUGHTER. INSTITUTIONS AND PACKING HOUSES 12 1%1% JANITORSMECHANICAL ENGINEERING OCCUPATIONS 12 1%1% MANICURISTSMETALLURGY AND METALLURGICAL ENGINEERING OCCUPATIONS 12 1%1% MISCELLANEOUSMISCELLANEOUS MANAGERSCOOKS, EXCEPT AND DOMESTIC OFFICIALS, N.E.C. 12 1%1% OCCUPATIONSMISCELLANEOUS IN FOODCOMPUTER AND BEVERAGE SYSTEMS TECH. PREPARATION SUPPORT OCCUP. 12 1%1% MISCELLANEOUS METALWORKING OCCUPATIONS, N.E.C. 1 1% OCCUPATIONS IN EDUCATION, N.E.C. 2 1% MISC. OCCUP. IN FAB., ASSEM., AND REPAIR OF METAL PROD. N.E.C. 1 1% OCCUPATIONS IN GRAPHIC ART WORK, N.E.C. 2 1% MISCELLANEOUS OCCUP. IN MACHINE INSTALLATION AND REPAIR 1 1% OCCUPATIONSMISCELLANEOUS IN PERSONALMEDICINE ANDSERVICE HEALTH, OCCUPATIONS, N.E.C. N.E.C. 12 1%1% OCCUP.MISCELLANEOUS IN MOVING STRUCTURAL AND STORING WORK MATERIALS OCCUPATIONS, AND PROD., N.E.C. N.E.C. 12 1%1% PROTECTIVEOCC. IN ASSEM. SERVICE AND REPAIROCCUPATIONS, OF ELEC. N.E.C. COMPON. AND ACCESS. N.E.C. 12 1%1% SECRETARIESOCCUP. IN ASSEM., INSTALL., AND REPAIR OF TRANSMIS. & DISTRIB. LINES 12 1%1% SERVICEOCCUPATIONS INDUSTRY IN COMPUTER MANAGERS SYSTEM AND OFFICIALS USER SUPPORT 12 1%1% OCCUP. IN INSTALLATION AND REPAIR OF ELECTRICAL PRODUCTS, N.E.C. 1 1% SHIPPING, RECEIVING, STOCK, AND RELATED CLERICAL OCCUP. 2 1% OCCUPATIONS IN LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE, N.E.C. 1 1% STENOGRAPHY, TYPING, FILING, AND RELATED OCCUP., N.E.C. 2 1% OCCUPATIONS IN MATHEMATICS 1 1% TRUCKOCCUP. DRIVERS, IN PROCESS. LIGHT OF FOOD, TOBACCO, AND REL. PRODUCTS, N.E.C. 12 1%1% TYPISTSOCCUPATIONS AND TYPEWRITING-MACHINE IN PROCESSING OF METAL, OPERATORS N.E.C. 12 1%1% WAITERS/WAITRESSES,OCCUPATIONS IN SOCIAL AND AND RELATED WELFARE FOOD WORK SERVICE OCCUP. 12 1%1% WELDERS,OCCUPATIONS CUTTERS, IN SYSTEMS AND RELATED ANALYSIS OCCUPATIONS, AND PROGRAMMING N.E.C. 12 1%1% PACKAGING OCCUPATIONS 1 1% ACCOUNTANTS, AUDITORS, AND RELATED OCCUPATIONS 1 1% PRODUCTION CLERKS 1 1% ROOFERS AND RELATED OCCUPATIONS 1 1% ROUTE SALES AND DELIVERY OCCUPATIONS 1 (continued)1% SALES AND DISTRIBUTION MANAGEMENT OCCUPATIONS 1 1% SALES OCCUPATIONS, MISCELLANEOUS COMMODITIES, N.E.C. 1 1% SALES OCCUPATIONS, SERVICES, N.E.C. 1 1% SECUR. GUARDS AND CORRECT. OFFICE., EXCEPT CROSSING TENDERS 1 1% TELEPHONE OPERATORS 1 1% TRANSPORT., COMMUNICATION, AND UTILITIES INDUSTRY41 MANAGERS 1 1% TOTAL 196 100%

1 Includes only those 196 trainees out of 216 with information on occupation of their placement. The State of Workforce Training in Baltimore, 2004 BWIB-WSEC ______

Distribution of trainee sample placements across the 25 occupations with the most expected openings in Baltimore City, 2000-2010

Rank Occupation 1 Employment Openings Trainee placements 2 2000 2010 Change Replace- Total no. % ment

1 Registered Nurses 8,640 10,060 1,420 1,820 3,240 18 9% 2 Cashiers 6,560 6,050 -510 2,980 2,980 0 0% 3 Office Clerks, General 10,690 10,670 -20 2,060 2,060 5 3% 4 Food Preparation Workers 4,420 4,690 260 1,710 1,970 2 1% 5 General and Operations Managers 11,140 11,100 -40 1,910 1,910 0 0% 6 Secretaries, Except Legal, Medical, and Executive 10,720 9,550 -1,170 1,840 1,840 2 1% 7 Laborers and Freight, Stock, and Material Movers, Hand 5,460 4,960 -500 1,830 1,830 0 0% 8 Retail Salespersons 4,610 3,630 -990 1,790 1,790 2 1% 9 Graduate Teaching Assistants 4,170 4,790 620 1,150 1,770 0 0% 10 Executive Secretaries and Administrative Assistants 9,360 9,470 110 1,610 1,720 6 3% 11 Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners 4,650 5,220 570 1,040 1,610 0 0% 12 Stock Clerks and Order Fillers 4,450 3,750 -710 1,590 1,590 3 2% 13 Customer Service Representatives 8,910 9,690 770 760 1,530 0 0% 14 Child Care Workers 2,140 2,720 590 930 1,520 0 0% 15 Social and Human Service Assistants 4,000 4,860 860 600 1,460 0 0% 16 Security Guards 3,730 4,150 420 1,020 1,440 1 1% 17 Janitors and Cleaners, Except Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners 7,290 7,360 70 1,340 1,420 2 1% 18 Nursing Aides, Orderlies, and Attendants 4,280 5,040 760 560 1,320 13 7% 19 Computer Support Specialists 1,820 2,960 1,140 80 1,220 2 1% 20 Waiters and Waitresses 2,090 2,110 20 1,180 1,190 1 1% 21 Medical Assistants 1,620 2,230 610 430 1,040 1 1% 22 Elementary School Teachers, Except Special Education 3,850 3,980 130 880 1,010 0 0% 23 Administrative Services Managers 5,940 5,940 0 970 970 1 1% 24 Combined Food Preparation and MedicalServing Workers,and Health Including Services Fast Food 1,360 1,500 140 830 970 0 0% 25 Managers 2,520 2,980 470 450 920 0 0%

TOTAL 59 30%

1 6-digit SOC 2 Includes only the 196 trainees with placement information out of 216 trainees in the training investment study.

Locations of employers of the trainee sample

PLACEMENTS (no.) (%)

In Maryland: 199 97.5% BALTIMORE 160 78.4% COLUMBIA 5 2.5% TOWSON 5 2.5% PIKESVILLE 4 2.0% OWINGS MILLS 3 1.5% HUNT VALLEY 2 1.0% LINTHICUM 2 1.0% ANDREWS AFB 1 0.5% ANNAPOLIS 1 0.5% ARBUTUS 1 0.5% ARNOLD 1 0.5% CARNEY 1 0.5% ESSEX 1 0.5% GLEN BURNIE 1 0.5% HANOVER 1 0.5% JESSUP 1 0.5% LUTHERVILLE 1 0.5% ODENTON 1 0.5% PARKVILLE 1 0.5% PRINCE ANNE 1 0.5% RICHMOND 1 0.5% TIMONIUM 1 0.5% UPPER MARLBORO 1 0.5% WESTMINSTER 1 0.5% WILLIAMSPORT 1 0.5%

Elsewhere: 5 2.5% WASHINGTON DC 2 1.0% FL LAUDERDALE FL 1 0.5% SAINT LOUIS MO 1 0.5% CAMP HILL PA 1 0.5%

TOTAL (with info) 204 100.0%

City of Baltimore Zip Codes for Employers of Trainees

ZIP TITLE

21202 Greenmount - Inner Harbor 41 29.5% 21201 Downtown - Lexington Market 22 15.8% 21224 Highlandtown - O'Donnell Heights 12 8.6% 21215 Arlington - Pimlico 8 5.8% 21230 Westport - Locust Point 8 5.8% 21218 Waverly 6 4.3% 21205 Broadway - Monument Street 5 3.6% 21208 Cross Country 5 3.6% 21287 Johns Hopkins Hospital 4 2.9% 21225 Brooklyn - Cherry Hill 3 2.2% 21234 Harford - Woodring - Parkville 3 2.2% 21207 Howard Park - Gwynn Oak 3 2.2% 21216 Walbrook - Forest Park 3 2.2% 21223 Carroll - Union Square - Franklin 2 1.4% 21236 Overlea - Nottingham 2 1.4% 21237 Rosedale - Hollander Ridge 2 1.4% 21213 Belair - Edison 1 0.7% 21217 Druid Hill Park - Bolton Hill 1 0.7% 21231 Fells Point 1 0.7% 21206 Frankford - Raspeburg 1 0.7% 21226 Hawkins Point - Curtis Bay 1 0.7% 21229 Irvington - Ten Hills 1 0.7% 21251 Morgan State University 1 0.7% 21239 Northwood - Loch Raven 1 0.7% 21211 Remington - Hampden 1 0.7% 21227 Violetville 1 0.7%

TOTAL (with zip info for employers) 139 100.0%